Good to see. I’m trying to understand if theological evolution can happen by trying to know both sides of the story and see which one is correct. Not only will this help me understand the Bible better, it can help me become a strong Christian. Remember, Satan can deceive Christians as well, that’s why to make sure that if these claims are true, we need to view different resources instead of focusing on our own understandings. “Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5 KJV).
This is very interesting, as a Christian how believes in evolution I deal with a lot of people claiming I can't believe in both. I know though that my faith in Christ isn't going anywhere.
How do you justify your belief in God and evolution? How do you explain the six-day creation, and the accompanying verse of "and the evening and the morning were the next day"? You can argue "Yom" all you want, but God takes effort to outline the 24 hour period on each day of creation. How do you justify your belief in God and evolution?
XBB T the Bible is not a science text book, whether you believe the creation story is a metaphor or a literal truth, the Bible is here to guide our lives. As marvelous as science is, is tells us nothing about how to manage or even what to do with our lives on a basic sense. This is where Christ comes in for me. Where the literal and metaphysical truth meets can’t be known and all attempts to fill in those wholes will be left as their theories or people’s extension of faith.
ReZuR3KT Even in our 'intellectually enlightened' modern age, there are still whole realms of science we still don't fully understand - so, whilst it would be amazing to have, I don't think a scientific textbook from God would be all that helpful to us. Also, the bible is here to show us, first and foremost, how to receive eternal life. True, there's no end of wisdom regarding the conduct of your earthly life within the bible, but most important of all is your eternal estate. But you haven't answered my question (unless the part of "Can't be known" was the answer). How do you justify your belief in God and evolution? Or if the "Can't be known" was your answer, how do you justify belief in a 'god' who promises he is honest, yet gives you an indecipherable book which leaves you unclear whether you're divinely created or evolved from apes?
The Almighty could not have used evoltuion since evoltuion is a pseudoscience series of myths and nothing more. Let's look at what some scientists, who have worked in the secular realm, have had to say that disagrees with evolutionism. We are told that beneficial mutations are an essential mechanism for evolution to occur, but H. J. Mueller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on mutations, said.... "It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing -- good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad." H.J. Mueller, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11:331. . Now I hasten to add that in the next sentence he says "Nevertheless we can infer...." that evolution is true. This is ultra typical of evolutionary thinking. If the actual, hard fought for, data conflicts with the theory (which it always does if you look at all the data) then you just ignore it and go for "inferences" instead. You have to give a nod to evolution in the fiercely self protective, politically correct, highly lucrative world of Neo Darwinism if you want to get ahead in secular science dealing with origins. . Anyway, mutations are isolated, random, events that do not build on one another like Legos, and certainly have no ability to create totally new DNA as, for ex., would be needed to turn a leg into a wing. . As for natural selection, it does not lead to evolution, either. What does NS select from? What is already in the genome. It shuffles pre existing information or may cause a loss of information, not the new info you would need to turn a fin into, say, a foot. That is why no matter what it selects from in a fish or bird or lizard or bacteria or monkey or tree or flower you will still have a fish, bird, lizard, bacteria, etc. . But, if you can, give data - not just theories presented as facts in the conveniently invisible past - that a Life Form A turned into Life Form B as the result of NS. In other words show that a species went to the next level in the Animal Kingdom (ditto for plants) a new genus. There are trillions of life forms on this planet. We're told it happened in the unverifiable past. Why don't we see any species transitioning to a new family today? . Let's see what some other secular scientists have to say about evolution. . Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169. "We cannot identify ancestors or 'missing links,' and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions." . "There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Nobel Prize winner Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100) . "The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do." (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.) . "Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest." (Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin) . On this webpage you can see Nobel Prize winning scientists, other secular scientists - including some world famous evolutionists - admitting there is no evidence for evolution. You can see them calling evolution a kind of religion, something that leads to "anti knowledge", etc. Notice how many of these secular scientists acknowledge evidence for a Creator. freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1435562/posts . Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed shows the politics of Neo Darwinism which harasses and expels those in academia and the media who even hint that there MIGHT be evidence for a Creator. ua-cam.com/video/4HErmp5Pzqw/v-deo.html . Anyone reading this: You are not an ape update. You were created in the very image and likeness of the Creator. He is your Father and loves you and wants you to know Him, and love Him too. Why trade in that fantastic truth for a bunch of mumbo jumbo pseudo science that even secular scientists can't get consensus on? Rhetorical Q.
You were never alone. As a matter of fact, there are more Christians who believe in evolution than those who don't. It just that those who don't are more entrenched and have bigger mouths. Stop giving tithes to those who attack science and you will see their numbers dwindle.
Actually, you are not understanding your bible correctly. It says the everything was created in 6 literal days with a morning and an evening. What you are doing is adapting your religious beliefs to conform to scientific discoveries.
@@thomasaskew1985 Christians who believe in evolution are obviously not to sure about their faith (otherwise they would not believe the theory) whereas those who don't believe in evolution (like myself) understand why the 2 can't go together and are willing to speak up about it
@@Master13346 If you read the last chapter of 'From nothing to nature' by Edward Andrews, (it is a Christian book, not pro-evolution) he has some interesting ideas on the 6 days
For religious beliefs to survive they must adapt to new scientific discoveries. Today most Christians accept evolution and that the universe is billions of years old.
@@stevengarthune9802 Evolution isn't the only scientific discipline to dispel the Adam and Eve myth. So does Astronomy, genetics, paleontology and every other scientific discipline.
Any luke warm Christian's jesus is going to spit u out! Be on fire for the lord ,read the bible know the word,praise the father in jesus name ....jesus has risen and he is lord ..turn to him to save you from this world of sin .god bless anyone who reads this in jesus mighty name
My problem isn't with the scripture supporting evolution... The problem I see is the lack of evidence for evolution. Now I know these terms aren't helpful at a more deeper genetic level, but hopefully it explains the point I am trying to make: There is a huge difference between the observable 'micro' evolution and the non observable 'macro' evolution. The later comes out of philosohpy When we are dealing with origins before humankind, we are dealing with philosophy. Not Science, which is observable. Also, 'micro' evolution which we observe (adaptation etc.), does not equal 'macro' evolution as commonly assumed- they are two huge leaps with very little scientific evidence of the need to take such a leap.
Fossil & DNA evidence show evolution made man. Historical & behavioral studies show man made Adam & Eve, Zeus, Romulus, Osiris, Yahweh, parting the Red Sea, The God Of The Bible, Messiah, walking on water, resurrection, Allah, prophet, splitting the moon, holy books, prophecies, heaven & hell, angles, Santa Clause, tooth fairy, etc.
Evolution process is extremely slow - addition of minute DNA changes over 100s of thousands of generations. Asking the question "Who was the first human?" is as absurd as asking "How old were you when you were growing up?", or "Who was the first person to fully speak French?". A theory explains a process based on evidence at hand. Theories can be modified, updated, or rejected based on new evidence. Fossil & DNA evidence prove evolution to be a fact & the evolution theory explains how it works.
Asking who was the first human is indeed a difficult, perhaps meaningless question in a purely materialistic sense; however, the Bible is dealing in theological, spiritual, and philosophical matters. Taking John Walton's cosmic temple view of Genesis 1, homo-somethingus became "human" when God placed upon our hominid ancestors the _status_ of being His image-bearers in the terrestrial realm--in our modern parlance, all of physical reality. Taking Genesis 2 seriously suggests that this occurrence involved two special human beings, a man and a woman, "Adam and Eve." An analogy might be thus: suppose you graduated with a doctorate in particle physics. At what point did you understand particle physics? Well, no one particular point, really...in fact, you are still learning every day. However, when you graduated, you received a piece of paper enshrining your credentials; and afterward, hopefully, you got a job as a particle physicist at a research institute or someplace. I don't know if you're an atheist or a Christian asking the question, but either way, I hope this helps clear up some of the thoughts going through the heads of some of us theistic evolution types. The main takeaway is that we accept biological evolution scientifically, but we are not materialists philosophically, and are in fact religious in our ontology--a fact our YEC friends cannot seem to wrap their heads around.
@@MissingTrails Reading the Bible is not enough; you have to read the Bible and actually think about it to realize the fact that it was written by the early folks who were intellectually comparable to the today's Taliban. *Deuteronomy 20:* *-* When you approach a city to fight against it, you are to make an offer of peace. *-* If they accept your offer of peace & open their gates, all the people there will become forced laborers to serve you. *-* But if they refuse to make peace & wage war against you, lay siege to that city. *-* When the LORD has delivered it into your hand, you must put every male to the sword. *-* But the women, children, livestock, & whatever else is in the city - all its spoil - you may take as plunder, & you shall use the spoil of your enemies that the LORD gives you. *-* This is how to treat cities that are far away & do not belong to the nations nearby. *Numbers **31:17**:* *-* Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
@@connerdozier6689 Jesus & authors of the Bible (OT & NT) believed slavery is moral & even suggested how to buy, sell & beat the slaves. No Bible verse explicitly says slavery is immoral & call for its abolishment. Modern Western laws are NOT based on Biblical values, otherwise slavery would still be a moral practice. Secular thinking ended slavery after about 1800 years of Biblical values failure to do so.
The Oblivious incorrect, the Bible was written by people in history who were influenced by the Holy Spirit and Jesus. Not everything in the Bible should be taken literally, and should be taken metaphorically. Hardcore Christians cannot coexist with evolution, those who are more flexible with Christianity can. Literally everyone I know who is Christian accepts evolution as a fact. It is taught at school.
@@Howlingburd19 agree you should not read Genesis literally because what about the ark. I could be possibly because he did t have to take insects and sea life. But he did have to take mammals and lizards and bird but he could definitely fit two of each if there where baby’s but full grown I don’t know about that. I think you should read some parts of the Bible literary and some more in a Symbolic way
Or maybe things just die because cells are organic machines and they can break. It's all just chemistry, and eventually every reaction must reach equilibrium.
Scott Jackson Well the bible says Adam was created 6 days after the earth was created.The bible says the earth was created on day one. Dry land was created on day 3.
Howling Burd Hello, The bible(God's word) says God created the universe,and everything in it, in 6 days, then rested on the 7th day. The bible says Jonah was in the belly of a whale for 3 days.The bible says that Joshua marched around Jericho for 7 days.
Actually the complexity shows us that it has evolved. If you would create the "human" you could make it much better and efficient, we are super complex, but many of it could be more efficient and easier.
@@mjazzguitar You forget that organisms use energy to keep entropy in check. But beside that I dont see any problem with this anyway, in what way does it defy the principle of entropy?
@@kolliwanne964 The law of increasing entropy is a universal law of decreasing complexity, whereas evolution is supposed to be a universal law of increasing complexity.
@@mjazzguitar Thats a misconseption. Entropy and how it works in chemistry describes chaos. The thermodynamic law you are talking about is about energy, since energy always drives towards a state of greater chaos. But here is the thing, you have to look at the greater picture since we arent an isolated system. We can use energy to overcome the drive towards entropy of a certain compound by using the energy of another system. That is how we keep our body working, otherwise if the chaos would just balance itself out, life couldnt persist. So its not about complexity, as complexity itself is rather a vague concept. Its about chaos and the state of order.
@@blairansellfraser Well said then I was not sure exactly what you meant because theistic evolutionist use so much double talk I could not be sure. You however keep on promoting the word of God. God bless my friend.
@@OberonStudios Well you should go first you started this. However, I will give you evidence of a designer of life, as that is what this type of site requires. The dna in a cell has complex information this can only come about through an intelligent mind.
It's very simple. Historically the Roman Apostolic Catholic Church worked against science out of ignorance. (Just as it criminalized the Jewish people). The Bible presents the event, science tries to explain how the event happened.
+Alton Johnson It depends on how one reads and interprets scripture. Why assume (for example) a materialistic ontology instead of a functional one for the creation account in Genesis 1? Why assume Adam and Eve were meant to by understood in our modern ways of understanding (more mechanistic) instead of as allegorical or metaphorical (or even if they were real people, why assume they were meant to be considered the first humans)? We can read the passages and come to various conclusions on what they mean. I think it is a mistake to assume they meant what we would assume in terms of our modern ways of communicating and understanding. The writers of the creation account were not writing to us (21st century Western society) but to early Hebrew cultures. It is from their perspectives we should try to understand the texts, not necessary our own.
Alton Johnson I believe they existed but not necessarily the first of the human race (physical beings), but they may have been the 1st of the human race to be given their souls by God. Adam is imply 1st man and Even is spirit filled, so it could be more of a direct reference to them as people instead of them as individuals.
Alton Johnson Yes, in fact it is (quite a bit). 1st, why assume everything about Adam should even be supported in the Bible? I do not follow the modernist version of Sola Scriptura so I feel no need to stop with the Bible when I take a view of Christ as Lord (we all have traditions and experiences that shape our view of Holy Writ, even those who believe they do not). So, why assume ones view of Adam and Eve is only known via Holy Text? We can see how Genesis 1, in the creation account, day 1 parallels day 4, 2 to 5 and 3 to 6. We are not meant to look at the days of creation as a literalistic account but in a more generalized poetic way (poetic shaping of the text). Also, why are we to assume the days of the creation account are meant to be understood as a material days instead of a functional one? Adam and Eve (I assume they existed) but had a special purpose which is spoken of in Genesis as well as other books in the Bible. So while I do not assume Sola Scriptura (as the modernists would describe it), yes the Bible is where I get my theology.
On the topic of death before the fall. If we take a view that consciousness (*perhaps* the emergnce of) has some relation with sin, then death would follow because we're aware of it in a profound sense, much more than other animals.
yes! Genesis is all about awareness. "God saw that it was good" means that God was aware of Creation. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit they became aware of good and evil. They covered themselves because they became aware that they were naked. And indeed, they became aware of death and their inability to stop it. Awareness is what gives us power over animals but is also the root of our existential crises as humans
At 0:52, the video makes the argument that no core doctrine is threatened. However, the doctrine of “original sin” is threatened if Macro-Evolution happens. Bring on your rebuttal comments, I’m ready!
@@nobelpeaceprizeloser3242 Tell me why you think sin is threatened by evolution. My stance is that both are true, therefor they can't possibly be in contradiction.
Original sin is not biblical. If Adam and Eve were solely responsible for everything we do then how come God judges us? Obviously because we're responsible for our own actions.
If original sin were true then why did Jesus tell the adulterous woman to sin no more? Simply put, because God expects us to NOT LIVE IN SIN. Are you accusing God of expecting something of us that's impossible? Are you denying God's ability to prevent people from sinning if they abide in him? Original sin is a Satanic doctrine that tells people that it's okay to keep sinning. It's outright blame shifting. The Bible teaches personal responsibility.
"Mitochondrial" eve, and "Y chromosome" Adam did not even originate from the same part of Africa and I believe we're separated by thousands of years. The human genome project showed this. how can you construe that into the genesis account of the garden of eden? Just because with enough creative thinking and metaphorical concepts you can make anything relate to anything doesn't mean you should!
@@Angle98411 Which is precisely _not_ what rational people think. Because they do _not_ make the same classical mistake strict religious believers make to give an arbitrary "answer" when they don't actually know neither the answer nor anything about the topic they are talking about. The only rational answer one can give in such a situation simply is: "we do not know". No one claims "the universe create itself from nothing". No one knows what "nothing" actually is (no, think before laughing, then answer is _not_ as obvious as you think) No one claims that "chance" by itself is what drives evolution (which is what you try to imply) All those are just _classical_ straw man arguments used by religious believers when trying to sound smart to sell arbitrary _claims_ they cannot reason for.
You just exemplified how foolish you're, they didn't claim that the y chromosome Adam & mitochondrial Eve were the original couple if that's what you got it's quite telling of how your minds generate strawman whenever you faced with different perspectives
Francis Collins was the head of the human genome project, it makes no sense to accuse him of denying his on finding work, this is what happens when you're filled with prejudice
another issue is that some don't realize that the writers of the old and new testament did not think about the world like we do today, so it's unfair to presuppose our culture and thoughts into the text. the authors of the old testament specifically did not have the concept of science like we do today. and also Genesis 1 is not speaking about how God created the world out of nothing, but it's saying that Yahweh is the one who formed the universe and gave each part it's functions. to insert what many Christians call creationism (which is really a more modern view of explaining genesis 1 in opposition against evolution) is not fair to the text. i would argue that Genesis 1 is not explaining how Yahweh did it, but merely that He did. so that leaves room for us to discover this wonderfully huge universe we live in and learn the processes in which it operates. more Christians should be open to science rather than fear it or feel like it's an enemy. science is a tool and method in which we are able to learn more.
@@SwordTune Dude, I'm the one who always believed that the "lake of fire." was hiding in Evolution. I mean, dying tomorrow for believing lies- sounds like something that Nemesis herself would do.
@@SwordTune You know what Darwin said: “Only the fittest will survive.” Psalm 18:26: With the pure, you will show yourself pure. With the crooked you will show yourself shrewd.
They say there's a great divide in the spectrum between science and Christianity. But, I think its ironic how the scientific method , empirical analysis and peer review, they all have similarities with the wisdom 'concepts' found in proverbs
Is the Bible the sole authority for my worldview? Is it possible that the same natural evidence could be interpreted completely differently by two different groups? What foundational assumptions am I making when I determine whether or not some evidence supports evolution?
@@jameswest8280 simple. Separate science and theology as 2 principles explaining 2 different realities. The problem arouse when 2 principle were mixed or switched making science explain immaterial realities and theology explain material realities. That shouldn't be the case.
@@kselka1 I think it was the awareness of death that entered. Genesis is all about awareness. "God saw that it was good." That's awareness. "knowledge of good and evil" that's awareness. We are like gods compared to animals and yet became aware that we are powerless against this thing called death that we are now aware of. That's our existential crisis as humans. There is nothing I know of that says that physical death did not exist prior to this, and God threatened death without having to define it which implies that it was already a thing. Also, there is nothing in the Bible that would suggest that we are free to ignore inconvenient facts. Evolution happened - the fact that life slowly changed over time to become what we see today is firmly and consistently written in the fossil record, now verified and corroborated by genetic data. How/why that happened is what is actually being debated. But a lot of people will deny the actual evidence itself in their attempts to "defend" Christianity. I prefer to never deny truth because all truth including the fossil record comes from God. Attempting to claim that the fossil record could have been formed by the flood is totally inconsistent with the way that fossils are actually distributed, and with every different dating method. Evolution has been used to try to discredit Christianity but it is actually an investigation into the mechanical details of Creation. And so when you look at evolution that way it actually magnifies the glory of God and does not conflict with the Bible itself, it only conflicts with certain interpretations of the Bible. I can quote verses that "prove" that the earth is flat, but because this is at odds with known facts I can discern that it is not a valid interpretation to hold.
Why try to "save face" with science? We do believe in a man born of a virgin, who turned water into wine, who came back from death and ascended into heaven... aren't these things un-scientific as well??? There are several passages in the Bible where God does in a moment what usually takes a long time, like that plant that gives shade to Jonah, or like when Aaron's rod flourishes, or like when Jesus heals people in an instant (as opposed to the natural process of healing) or when Jesus curses the fig tree and it withers within a day... So if God can make those things that usually take a long time in a heartbeat, why not believe God can create a world, a universe that seemingly took gzillion years in a few days??? We already believe illogical things (to the non-believer) don't we? I say embrace the whole thing, why not??? I certainly wouldn't mind being accused of believing too much... like a child would... why not?
Some professing Christians have accepted man's theory of origin over God's word. They don't want to hear that God created the world in six days; they much prefer man's version, and they maybe even think it'll help them blend in with the world and get more [false] converts. Unfortunately for the Theistic Evolutionist, their evolution-god Frankenstein only makes them look ridiculous to both Godly and ungodly; because not only do they illogically ignore the entire creation account, they also put birds and fish on the same evolutionary timeline, as two-billion years old.
You won't, but if you would actually read, this will pretty much destroy your belief that any of the supposed events actually happened. ...and talk to a real orthodox Jew and have them explain your damn book to you re: prophecies like virgin birth because they'll pretty much destroy that idea as well. amzn.to/2DVAhVX The Gospels and Homer: Imitations of Greek Epic in Mark and Luke-Acts amzn.to/2DWWP8Q Luke and Vergil: Imitations of Classical Greek Literature amzn.to/2zzYVb1 The Dionysian Gospel: The Fourth Gospel and Euripides
Why would God create my brain to survive and reproduce with priority on what works for me to achieve those results and then expect me to use rationality and a system of logic when my brain wants to survive not find truth?
the video says that there is a conversation but it sounds more like evolutionary theory talking and bible interpretation listening to it. What does science learn here, what mistakes does modern science make that can be helped by the Bible?
Evolution is totally possible and can coexist with the Bible, all things are possible through god, you can see adaptations over time it’s a fact, early man could have been what God created and slowly changed them over time
Fossil & DNA evidence show evolution made man. Historical & behavioral studies show man made Adam & Eve, Zeus, Romulus, Osiris, Yahweh, parting the Red Sea, The God Of The Bible, Messiah, walking on water, resurrection, Allah, prophet, splitting the moon, holy books, prophecies, heaven & hell, angles, Santa Clause, tooth fairy, etc.
- God rarely acts swiftly: is multiple days (which dont have to be literally days) swiftly? Wasn't the life of Jesus and his victory over sin swiftly? I would say God acts very swiftly there! - God partners with creation: great! but how does god partner with us in redeeming us, other than us receiving? I don't see the point there. We rule over the earth, and thus partner with God. God placed us on earth, God placed us in Christ. We partner with him from there on. I'm searching for truth, open for other perspectives. I don't know about evolution. But this video just doesn't make sense. It just states a standpoint with a funny tune behind it.
No! Romans 5:12 is speaking of eternal death, human death thru sin All humans are destined to die but not all are destined for eternal death=hell Find life thru Jesus Christ ONLY =Heaven John 3:16
"God is the author of the Word and also the author of the natural world. And ultimately these two can't contradict each other." I respectfully submit that those are three assertions rather than three axiomatic truths. One of the fundamental problems of setting the three as axiomatically true is that evolution being true contradicts, in a very severe way, three core theologies: First, the original sin narrative cannot remain coherent (of course it was imposed onto the Eden narrative by 1st century Jewish scholars, Paul of Tarsus and Christian scholars yet is not actually in the text all--go read it for yourself, because it is simply _not there_! The issue that _is_ there is humans becoming like gods. I have that on good authority, by the way, since God said that was the issue in so many words in the text. It helps to read the passage for what it says, and then to stick to what the passage actually says...). Second, the death narrative must give way as well, for death precedes sin in fact. If you view the video's three statements as assertions rather than necessary statements of belief, then evolution being true clearly pushes theology into a corner regarding the truthfulness of scripture, the truthfulness of the sin narrative, the truthfulness of the death narrative, and various other related narratives. One must bring considerable doubt to the table about the truth value of "God is the author of the Word" and "God is the author of the natural world" and "Those two statements cannot contradict each other." Anything else is wieseling try to preserve the supremacy of the authority of the scriptures at all cost when that is clearly at issue, not a given. Unfortunately, I think that where we end up is this: Evolution being true results in the following counter assertions: That A. God has indeed contradicted himself (reversing "these two cannot contadict each other"); or B. God did not author the scriptures; or C. God did not author the natural world; or D. two of three are the case; or E. all three original assertions are false. Take your pick. But you cannot by fiat declare the three orginal assertions to all be true because clearly at least one must fail if evolution and an old earth is true. The bigger issue is the question of how a discussion can take place without clearly laying out arguments and examining them, including our fundamental assumptions. If Christianity is to survive into the 22nd Century, these issues, as well as several others like them, must be successfully addressed. Original Sin in its form passed on by Saul of Tarsus, Augustine of Hippo, Martin Luther, John Calvin and even 20th century protestant scholarship is no longer even remotely defensible. How, under that kind of pressure, is Christian faith to survive? The options are: Rewrite the sin narrative and the death narrative, or adopt a deliberately dualistic worldview, or revert to fundamentalistic blindness by denying the scientific evidence for an old earth and evolution. I would rather attempt the rewriting of the sin and death narratives.
When Jesus came to earth over two thousand years ago, his Mission was to enlighten the minds of people who had taken on and into themselves, a religion part pagan - part mystical. The people, who had so imbued themselves, were arrogant and convinced they were the chosen people of God - Jehovah - whom they ardently believed in but who does not exist. Their Prophets spoke of their mystical perception of some transcendent spiritual consciousness. Their Prophets used imaginative language to describe this GOD. Their Prophets created mental images of greatness and grandeur. Their Prophets also produced the desired effect of controlling the people by fear of reprisals from Heaven in the shape of personal loss, disease, deprivation, pests and climatic disasters. The purpose behind Jesus' life was to teach the Jews that their perception of the CREATOR was entirely wrong. But their fanatical adherence to their treasured religious beliefs were impenetrable, so instead of Jesus achieving his purpose on earth, he was crucified because of them.
A comparison of evolution and creationism?! Apples and oranges, right off the bat. Creationism offers an explanation for literally everything--where the planets and stars and seahorses and granites and dandelions came from, plus it offers an explanation even for the origin of intangible phenomena like happiness and souls. It also contains an justification for religion and faith. Creationism is also, as a religious dogma, not subject to questioning, revision, or falsification, those all being technically heretical if not outright blasphemous. Darwin's theory of evolution is different in every way: it offers a tentative explanation of ONE observed phenomenon--speciation. That's it. That's all it does. It says nothing about where anything came from. It also says nothing at all about God or religion. It's also by definition as a scientific theory tentative, meaning that it can be falsified. And as a theory, it's subject to all the testing anybody cares to do. I am baffled as to why creationists continually conflate these two kinds of statements. Creationism is about everything, and is based in religious dogma; scientific theories are about one thing at a time and are based on empirical evidence. Creationism is by definition immune to inquiry; scientific theories must be tested. Two different kinds of statements, incompatible in every way: why do creationists keep trying to compare them? I really wonder about that.
I would disagree on something, where you say "Creation is by definition immune to inquiry." No, through irreducible complexity we see there had to be an intelligent designer. Now some parse words and want to say, in effect, "Well, yeal we see intelligent design, but that doesn't mean there was a Creator who did the designing." I have to sigh at such a statement. Also there is observable data to show the Bible is true about creation. For example the Bible says creation was all at once and that's what we see in the fossil record. There really are no "transitional forms." Those are just fairy tales based on the ever present use in evolutionism of the Presuming Omniscience and Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacies, which flow from wild speculations about what happened in the conveniently invisible and unverifiable past.. We also know there are no "transitions" above the level of a new species. Yes, new species occur, but beetles stay beetles, germs stay germs, trees stay trees, bees stay bees and peas stay peas. Contrary to what the so called Tree of Life shows, and evolutionary peer reviews propose, no transitions are ever seen above the species level, as with any new families, orders, phylum or kingdoms. There are no new DNA strands being created ever, thus also showing creation has halted. All DNA is just a copy of a copy of a copy. We know that DNA instructions are needed for things like legs and wings. We also know that, for example, fish do not have DNA instructions for legs and tetrapods don't have DNA instructions for wings and feathers. Again, no DNA is ever created so we know they ain't gonna get any such DNA instructions. If you are curious about irreducible complexity, I will give my fave example of one.
@@davidolivares247 I will give you what you asked for, and more: The evidences for the Bible are too numerous to mention and include areas such as archaeology, history, fulfilled prophecies and, yes, science. Let's start with DNA. All DNA is always just a copy of a copy of a copy and so on which replicates what has already been seen in nature. Yes, it can be altered to a limited extent, but no original, novel, strands of DNA are ever created and, further, no one has any data to show how any DNA got here. This matches the Bible which says creation has halted. And btw, fish don't have DNA instructions for legs, and lizards don't have DNA instructions for feathers, wings etc. Since no new DNA is ever created, only altered to a very limited extent, where would they get it from? Oh, wait, I'm sure evolutionism has lots of...theories....on that. But the Bible says things were created fully formed and fully functional, so there ya go with DNA fulfilling an expected prediction. Another example of how creation has been halted is seen when you look at the taxonomic groupings of animals and plants, ascending from species to family, to class, to order, to phylum, to kingdom. No plants or animals ever go higher than the creation of a new species, no matter what Darwin, or evolutionary peer reviews, claim happened in the invisible and unverifiable past. Hundreds of thousands of species of beetles stay beetles, thousands and thousands of species of trees, bees, bacteria, fish, lizards, whatever, stay trees, bees, bacteria, fish, lizards, whatever. That stasis matches what the Bible says, also, about creation having been halted. Plants and animals stay in their "kinds" i.e. families. This is what the Bible would predict, life forms sticking to their own "kind" i.e. taxonomic family. The Bible talks about a Great Flood. So we could predict the following: There are countless billions of fossils all over the planet. Now, fossils are created when life forms are suddenly buried with water, then rapidly covered with sediment. To give you an idea of their vast numbers, consider that there are billions of fossils of just one kind of ocean dwelling nautiloid, alone, in the Grand Canyon alone. And, speaking of ocean dwelling creatures, 98% of all fossils on land are marine. Now how did all that ocean water get everywhere? Hmmmm.... Bible predictions would leave no room for a Geologic Colulmn. Guess what? There never was any Geologic Column, or any Cambrian, Jurassic, Triassic etc. periods. Those are all fictional. Real science uses real data. The real data shows the fossils are jumbled or, you could say, awash. For just one of countless examples, you can find giant sharks next to dino bones in America. So called lowest level Cambrian, deep sea, fossils are found at every level on the planet from Canada to New Zealand. When I say every level, that includes the hills of mid America, for instance, and most mountain tops in the world. If you think there is a Geologic Column, go on a search for photos of one showing the lowest level Cambrian fossils at the bottom, and asecending layers of fossils matching the GC charts. Close ups now, not some distant photos of mountains ranges or rock piles they CLAIM have GCs in them. If we demonstrate there is no GC, we are then are told "plate tectonics" moved the fossils around. Plate tectonics are used to create theories piled on hypotheses that are heaped on speculation to fit the evolutionary narrative. But we have some real data! Common sense and universal experience, and scientific research, let us know what erosion does. Now some of those deep sea life creatures' fossils, like trilobites, are supposed to have gone extinct two hundred MILLION years ago. Yet, around the planet, we see that their fossils are not uncommonly found in mint condition. Google "Trilobites on mountains." The real scientific data, and common sense, tell us those fossils would be nothing but dust and rubble in all that time. But the Bible would predict they could still often be intact because the Flood was only several thousand years ago. And we're also supposed to buy it that dino bones lasted 75 million or so years? That narrative is still promoted even though they keep finding more and more soft tissues, including flesh with liquid blood in it, in dinosaur bones all the time. There always is some unverifiable, never supported by actual data, "reason" given for why such things lasted, of course. The actual data from forensic science - which makes it clear those materials could not survive more than a few thousand years - and common sense are ignored. Art works, and historical accounts, around the world, which show dinos, sometimes with people, are also ignored or else the false claim is made, with no justification at all, that they must be fake. www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/ Yes, Noah would have taken dinos on the Ark. Juveniles, no doubt. They all started out in eggs about the size of a football. The Bible says people lived for hundreds of years in Old Testament times. We cannot prove that. But we can prove that in the ancient past dinos did! Again, they started out small, but got to be gigantic. Now lizards keep growing as long as they live. Obviously there was a different eco system back then that allowed the dinos, unlike modern day lizards, to keep on growing for hundreds of years. (And giant-ism, of course, was no way confined to just dinos. There used to be rhinos as big as houses, for example.) Would not that more favorable, pre Flood, eco system have allowed for longer lives in humans, too? And btw, I have sometimes had evolution believers to demand that they be shown bunny bones with dino bones. This vid goes over the Ashley Phosphate fossil beds which show a vast, 18 inch deep, jumble of fossils including those from dinos, people, rabbits, horses, rhinos, whales and on and on. ua-cam.com/video/nY7jlSJ2xZ4/v-deo.html Extinction also demonstrates the Biblical truth that creation has stopped. If evolution were true the fossil record would show more different kinds of animals in the present than in the past. Instead we see the opposite, that there are far less different kinds of animals seen today than in the past. Irreducible complexity is also evidence of the truth of the Bible which claims instant creation of all life forms. I will give you my favorite example, though all life is irreducibly complex. Google a picture of the bacterial flagellum and its motor and whip. www.google.com/search?q=picture+of+bacterial+flagellum&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS773US773&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=dC7YTCeV1YNfdM%253A%252C4O_9N-ONtL9L6M%252C_&usg=AI4_-kQpHDtdqhZWJOCaDPU9Hh3WS7-nQw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwie2pPWhvLeAhXGT98KHf3NCxQQ9QEwAnoECAQQCA&biw=1366&bih=626#imgrc=dC7YTCeV1YNfdM: Now if the b.f doesn't move, it doesn't do its job and is useless. It isn't going to move anywhere until both the motor, and whip on the motor, are completely formed and attached together. So, while those 2 parts are just "evolving" nubs and stubs, what good are they? What "co option" purposes could they serve? If you can't even imagine the answers, how is mindless "evolution" going to make it happen? Why and how would evolution keep those two, partial and incomplete, parts in limbo for eons until they are complete and connected and ready to work together? Well, it's not going to happen. There is zero evidence it ever happened, too, of course. In fact, there is zero evidence the b.f. has ever been anything but exactly what it is right now. Some claim a simpler life form evolved into the b.f., by something they call "co option" but as usual there is zero data to support any such claim. In evolutionism you ignore, or spin, the actual data and present data-free, evidence-free, scenarios which defy the real data in order to support an evolutionary narrative. Again, irreducible complexity, which indicates incredible intelligence, not to mention unimaginable power, is seen at every level in life forms. The Bible presents a picture of life forms created instantly, fully complete and fully functional. That's what irreducible complexity in living examples, and the fossil record, reveal. If the Creator went to all that "trouble" to create that little, high tech, irreducibly complex nano machine called a bacterial flagellum, how much more does He care about you, in whom He placed it?
@@psalm1tree466 hey do you have instagram or an email or something , id really like to talk to you i’m a believer with some questions and it seems you’ve done your research. 🙏
@@thealex5838 I responded to you twice with lots of information and resources. Both times The posts were deleted. I hope you get this one, but I doubt it. The information is out there, if you seek you’ll find. They deleted my posts because they are threatened by the truth.
Doesn't conflict with core Christian doctrines? ... BioLogos publishes articles denying that Jesus died to save us from our sins, namely denying substitutionary atonement.
The bible says that adam was created by the dirt I believe in the bible but not that God: Then all the bible would be a lie, youre saying im lying then!
Idk something also essential to my faith is that the Bible is true...so like Genesis would have to be true, throwing a wrench into this idea of evolution and God being linked, since the Bible gives the account of creation
You don't have to be a deep theologian to recognise the error that is Theistic Evolution (that is, believing that God used evolution in creation). If you subscribe to this belief, aren't you calling God a liar? God clearly says six days, and emphasises the fact by stating "and the evening and morning were the next day." What excuse have you, before God, on the judgement? How can you justify nullifying his word and favoring the theories of man? How can you explain Adam being formed separately? And lets look at your position in the world with which you're agreeing: By advocating Theistic Evolution, you are unwittingly placing birds and fish on the same evolutionary timeline, and claiming them to be two billion years old. So you're considered a fool by both Christians and atheists, and you're preventing your own salvation. What exactly are you gaining?
How can a person lend her voice to such a stupid text? Doesn't she realize the huge difference between rational explanations on the one hand in what she is given to read out and pure claims without any for of reasoning behind them? If one starts out with such a set of preassumptions, never questioning them, just taking unfounded claims for granted, then what _sense_ is there is any question after that? You gave up. Took the easy way out.
From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. Acts 17:26. I am open to science and Genesis coexisting, but this aint it chief.
A conversation with other scientists is easy. A conversation with a evolutionist or cosmologist is difficult cause they’re set n the ways. They don’t understand different level of Energy output and since God exist as always he can create anything at his level of speed with his own power output. In return we can perceive it differently. Example of this could be you digging up a hole with the Depth of a foot that took you no more than a few minutes, then suddenly two ants walk by and see it and they begin to measure it by their standards, coming to the conclusion that this hole must have taken months to create. In the same way we are ants trying to measure God’s work with our standards. This doesn’t work out with us because of our incapacity to measure that type of power output. Hope this helps.
Amen God uses growth not creation for existence. Life emerged out of the universe in the same way and apple emerges from a tree. The apple wasn't placed there from the outside. It has a fundamental connection with the rest of the tree
@@carntheblues8679 i on the other hand Believe that it is ignorant of you both you question over somebody´s Believe but relax i wont blow you guys apart lol. stay safe
How can you have a healthy conversation when you insist on imposing the presumption of a divine designer? If you want to meet halfway in the discussion, you have to be prepared to set your god aside.
If the ToE is true, it shows that death is simply a natural phenomenon. The original sin or sinness nature of mankind wouldn't change anything about it, and we wouldn't need any savior to save us from any hell or whatever.
+physnoct We know that from the Adam and Eve story that Satan, that old serpent, was already a fallen angle of some type. I would call that original sin, Pride, or wanting to be God. That is the comprehensive reason for his , Satan's, reason for taking out mankind.
We know that from the Adam and Eve story that Satan, that old serpent, was already a fallen angle of some type. I would call that original sin, Pride, or wanting to be God. That is the comprehensive reason for his , Satan's, reason for taking out mankind.
I thought, maybe the devils fall wasn't prior to ours but his fall WAS in tempting humanity to sin. Maybe that was his great sin. I don't know. Just a thought.
I believe in God, I believe in an old Earth...but theistic evolution is cringe worthy mental gymnastics. Show me evidence of common ancestry beyond homologus structures.
Fossil and DNA evidence overwhelmingly point in that direction. You might like to check out _Finding Darwin's God,_ by Kenneth Miller, an American evolutionary biologist and devout Christian, who makes a pretty good case for how the theory of evolution can be harmonized with Christian theology. Another book I have found helpful is _The Language of God,_ by Francis Collins, another Christian who is both an M.D. and a trained physicist, and who was the director of the Human Genome Project. He also happens to be the founder of BioLogos, the organization that runs this channel.
@@bigbenhebdomadarius6252 I strongly disagree with you about what the fossil record shows, I believe that the fossil record supports the flood that God sent on the earth and that the forming of it took place over the course of the flood, not millions of years
Fossil & DNA evidence show evolution made man. Historical & behavioral studies show man made Adam & Eve, Zeus, Romulus, Osiris, Yahweh, parting the Red Sea, The God Of The Bible, Messiah, walking on water, resurrection, Allah, prophet, splitting the moon, holy books, prophecies, heaven & hell, angles, Santa Clause, tooth fairy, etc.
Agreed. These videos can help people combine their faith with science. It has helped me understand that science and religion can work together. It also opened me up to how God works and the wonders of his Creation.
Genesis 1:20 (kjv) claims that GOD commanded the waters to spring forth moving creatures that have life, *AND* the fowl that may fly above the Earth. Well, the waters spring forth sea creatures for sure. However, its interesting that this scripture claims that the waters were commanded by GOD to abundantly spring forth "moving creatures that have life". So did the waters spring forth sea creatures, land creatures, & the fowl?? Genesis 1:20 implies that it did. But there is definitely a direct relationship between the creation of sea creatures & the fowl in Genesis 1:20. & for Genesis 1:20 to claim that GOD commanded the waters to bring forth fowl as well??... ...In my opinion, that's evolution. At least evolution between sea creatures & fowl that fly above the Earth. Does it claim that Humans came from Chimps?.....no. But it _is_ implying that the waters spring forth both sea creatures & the fowl that fly above the Earth.....& that is evolution. Genesis 1:20 (kjv) 20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Why not look at the Bible stories as allegories. The Fall represents the emergence of consciousness - or rather self-consciousness - in our early ancestors. we used to be jungle dwelling primates but suddenly we learned that our true nature can be evil as well as good. From self-consciousness also arose death awareness. Kinda like God banishing Adam and Eve and condemning them to die. Christ's life represents the way of atonement with our conscience through true speach and an honorable way of life.
Good to see. I’m trying to understand if theological evolution can happen by trying to know both sides of the story and see which one is correct. Not only will this help me understand the Bible better, it can help me become a strong Christian.
Remember, Satan can deceive Christians as well, that’s why to make sure that if these claims are true, we need to view different resources instead of focusing on our own understandings.
“Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5 KJV).
This is very interesting, as a Christian how believes in evolution I deal with a lot of people claiming I can't believe in both. I know though that my faith in Christ isn't going anywhere.
The same with me.Glad to know i m not the only one.
Facts brother
How do you justify your belief in God and evolution?
How do you explain the six-day creation, and the accompanying verse of "and the evening and the morning were the next day"? You can argue "Yom" all you want, but God takes effort to outline the 24 hour period on each day of creation. How do you justify your belief in God and evolution?
XBB T the Bible is not a science text book, whether you believe the creation story is a metaphor or a literal truth, the Bible is here to guide our lives. As marvelous as science is, is tells us nothing about how to manage or even what to do with our lives on a basic sense. This is where Christ comes in for me. Where the literal and metaphysical truth meets can’t be known and all attempts to fill in those wholes will be left as their theories or people’s extension of faith.
ReZuR3KT Even in our 'intellectually enlightened' modern age, there are still whole realms of science we still don't fully understand - so, whilst it would be amazing to have, I don't think a scientific textbook from God would be all that helpful to us.
Also, the bible is here to show us, first and foremost, how to receive eternal life. True, there's no end of wisdom regarding the conduct of your earthly life within the bible, but most important of all is your eternal estate.
But you haven't answered my question (unless the part of "Can't be known" was the answer). How do you justify your belief in God and evolution? Or if the "Can't be known" was your answer, how do you justify belief in a 'god' who promises he is honest, yet gives you an indecipherable book which leaves you unclear whether you're divinely created or evolved from apes?
I’m so glad I’m not the only one who thinks that evolution is a way God created us. For awhile I thought that I was alone
The Almighty could not have used evoltuion since evoltuion is a pseudoscience series of myths and nothing more.
Let's look at what some scientists, who have worked in the secular realm, have had to say that disagrees with evolutionism.
We are told that beneficial mutations are an essential mechanism for evolution to occur, but H. J. Mueller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on mutations, said....
"It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing -- good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad." H.J. Mueller, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11:331.
.
Now I hasten to add that in the next sentence he says "Nevertheless we can infer...." that evolution is true. This is ultra typical of evolutionary thinking. If the actual, hard fought for, data conflicts with the theory (which it always does if you look at all the data) then you just ignore it and go for "inferences" instead. You have to give a nod to evolution in the fiercely self protective, politically correct, highly lucrative world of Neo Darwinism if you want to get ahead in secular science dealing with origins.
.
Anyway, mutations are isolated, random, events that do not build on one another like Legos, and certainly have no ability to create totally new DNA as, for ex., would be needed to turn a leg into a wing.
.
As for natural selection, it does not lead to evolution, either. What does NS select from? What is already in the genome. It shuffles pre existing information or may cause a loss of information, not the new info you would need to turn a fin into, say, a foot. That is why no matter what it selects from in a fish or bird or lizard or bacteria or monkey or tree or flower you will still have a fish, bird, lizard, bacteria, etc.
.
But, if you can, give data - not just theories presented as facts in the conveniently invisible past - that a Life Form A turned into Life Form B as the result of NS. In other words show that a species went to the next level in the Animal Kingdom (ditto for plants) a new genus. There are trillions of life forms on this planet. We're told it happened in the unverifiable past. Why don't we see any species transitioning to a new family today?
.
Let's see what some other secular scientists have to say about evolution.
.
Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
"We cannot identify ancestors or 'missing links,' and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions."
.
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Nobel Prize winner Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100)
.
"The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do." (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)
.
"Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."
(Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)
.
On this webpage you can see Nobel Prize winning scientists, other secular scientists - including some world famous evolutionists - admitting there is no evidence for evolution. You can see them calling evolution a kind of religion, something that leads to "anti knowledge", etc. Notice how many of these secular scientists acknowledge evidence for a Creator.
freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1435562/posts
.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed shows the politics of Neo Darwinism which harasses and expels those in academia and the media who even hint that there MIGHT be evidence for a Creator.
ua-cam.com/video/4HErmp5Pzqw/v-deo.html
.
Anyone reading this: You are not an ape update. You were created in the very image and likeness of the Creator. He is your Father and loves you and wants you to know Him, and love Him too. Why trade in that fantastic truth for a bunch of mumbo jumbo pseudo science that even secular scientists can't get consensus on? Rhetorical Q.
You were never alone. As a matter of fact, there are more Christians who believe in evolution than those who don't. It just that those who don't are more entrenched and have bigger mouths. Stop giving tithes to those who attack science and you will see their numbers dwindle.
Actually, you are not understanding your bible correctly. It says the everything was created in 6 literal days with a morning and an evening. What you are doing is adapting your religious beliefs to conform to scientific discoveries.
@@thomasaskew1985 Christians who believe in evolution are obviously not to sure about their faith (otherwise they would not believe the theory) whereas those who don't believe in evolution (like myself) understand why the 2 can't go together and are willing to speak up about it
@@Master13346 If you read the last chapter of 'From nothing to nature' by Edward Andrews, (it is a Christian book, not pro-evolution) he has some interesting ideas on the 6 days
For religious beliefs to survive they must adapt to new scientific discoveries. Today most Christians accept evolution and that the universe is billions of years old.
Evolution necessarily melts Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, the Virgin Birth, etc. So why the extra mental gymnastics? Just leave the false paradigm.
@@stevengarthune9802 Evolution isn't the only scientific discipline to dispel the Adam and Eve myth. So does Astronomy, genetics, paleontology and every other scientific discipline.
Any luke warm Christian's jesus is going to spit u out! Be on fire for the lord ,read the bible know the word,praise the father in jesus name ....jesus has risen and he is lord ..turn to him to save you from this world of sin .god bless anyone who reads this in jesus mighty name
@@yvettelaverick8878 spit me out? That's disgusting!
@@Master13346 are you Luke warm?
0:55 - 1:17
How the believers reconcile faith and science.
Amen.
My problem isn't with the scripture supporting evolution... The problem I see is the lack of evidence for evolution. Now I know these terms aren't helpful at a more deeper genetic level, but hopefully it explains the point I am trying to make: There is a huge difference between the observable 'micro' evolution and the non observable 'macro' evolution. The later comes out of philosohpy When we are dealing with origins before humankind, we are dealing with philosophy. Not Science, which is observable.
Also, 'micro' evolution which we observe (adaptation etc.), does not equal 'macro' evolution as commonly assumed- they are two huge leaps with very little scientific evidence of the need to take such a leap.
I feel the term adaptation better describes what you are talking about than micro-evolution. However, you made a good comment.
Fossil & DNA evidence show evolution made man. Historical & behavioral studies show man made Adam & Eve, Zeus, Romulus, Osiris, Yahweh, parting the Red Sea, The God Of The Bible, Messiah, walking on water, resurrection, Allah, prophet, splitting the moon, holy books, prophecies, heaven & hell, angles, Santa Clause, tooth fairy, etc.
Between Biologos, John Walton and Mochael Heiser I have converted from YEC for almost a year now
Praise God
What made you do over to YEC?
Evolution process is extremely slow - addition of minute DNA changes over 100s of thousands of generations. Asking the question "Who was the first human?" is as absurd as asking "How old were you when you were growing up?", or "Who was the first person to fully speak French?".
A theory explains a process based on evidence at hand. Theories can be modified, updated, or rejected based on new evidence. Fossil & DNA evidence prove evolution to be a fact & the evolution theory explains how it works.
Asking who was the first human is indeed a difficult, perhaps meaningless question in a purely materialistic sense; however, the Bible is dealing in theological, spiritual, and philosophical matters. Taking John Walton's cosmic temple view of Genesis 1, homo-somethingus became "human" when God placed upon our hominid ancestors the _status_ of being His image-bearers in the terrestrial realm--in our modern parlance, all of physical reality. Taking Genesis 2 seriously suggests that this occurrence involved two special human beings, a man and a woman, "Adam and Eve."
An analogy might be thus: suppose you graduated with a doctorate in particle physics. At what point did you understand particle physics? Well, no one particular point, really...in fact, you are still learning every day. However, when you graduated, you received a piece of paper enshrining your credentials; and afterward, hopefully, you got a job as a particle physicist at a research institute or someplace.
I don't know if you're an atheist or a Christian asking the question, but either way, I hope this helps clear up some of the thoughts going through the heads of some of us theistic evolution types. The main takeaway is that we accept biological evolution scientifically, but we are not materialists philosophically, and are in fact religious in our ontology--a fact our YEC friends cannot seem to wrap their heads around.
@@MissingTrails Reading the Bible is not enough; you have to read the Bible and actually think about it to realize the fact that it was written by the early folks who were intellectually comparable to the today's Taliban.
*Deuteronomy 20:*
*-* When you approach a city to fight against it, you are to make an offer of peace.
*-* If they accept your offer of peace & open their gates, all the people there will become forced laborers to serve you.
*-* But if they refuse to make peace & wage war against you, lay siege to that city.
*-* When the LORD has delivered it into your hand, you must put every male to the sword.
*-* But the women, children, livestock, & whatever else is in the city - all its spoil - you may take as plunder, & you shall use the spoil of your enemies that the LORD gives you.
*-* This is how to treat cities that are far away & do not belong to the nations nearby.
*Numbers **31:17**:*
*-* Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
@@AtamMardes you took those passages out of context.
@@connerdozier6689
Don't play dumb please; In what context is any of those moral?
@@connerdozier6689 Jesus & authors of the Bible (OT & NT) believed slavery is moral & even suggested how to buy, sell & beat the slaves. No Bible verse explicitly says slavery is immoral & call for its abolishment. Modern Western laws are NOT based on Biblical values, otherwise slavery would still be a moral practice. Secular thinking ended slavery after about 1800 years of Biblical values failure to do so.
When the Bible says something, it is (same as) when God says something, it goes
The Oblivious incorrect, the Bible was written by people in history who were influenced by the Holy Spirit and Jesus. Not everything in the Bible should be taken literally, and should be taken metaphorically. Hardcore Christians cannot coexist with evolution, those who are more flexible with Christianity can. Literally everyone I know who is Christian accepts evolution as a fact. It is taught at school.
The bible was changed over several centuries
@@Howlingburd19 agree you should not read Genesis literally because what about the ark. I could be possibly because he did t have to take insects and sea life. But he did have to take mammals and lizards and bird but he could definitely fit two of each if there where baby’s but full grown I don’t know about that. I think you should read some parts of the Bible literary and some more in a Symbolic way
"The best cure for Christianity is reading the Bible."
Mark Twain
Just a thought, perhaps Satan's fall had something to do with the death of animals. It's only an idea.
Or maybe things just die because cells are organic machines and they can break. It's all just chemistry, and eventually every reaction must reach equilibrium.
CS Lewis considered that a possibility in his book The Problem Of Pain.
But those who fail to find me harm themselves;
all who hate me love death.”
Jesus is sarcastic
Wow there's a lot of negative feedback in the comments here. I guess a lot of people cant reconcile the book of theology and the book of science..
Adam was created around 6000 years ago, not the earth.
Scott Jackson if you think the earth is only 6000 years old you're actually disabled
I did say not the earth.
Scott Jackson Well the bible says Adam was created 6 days after the earth was created.The bible says the earth was created on day one. Dry land was created on day 3.
Godzilla John and who knows how long one day is in God's eyes.
Howling Burd Hello,
The bible(God's word) says God created the universe,and everything in it, in 6 days, then rested on the 7th day.
The bible says Jonah was in the belly of a whale for 3 days.The bible says that Joshua marched around Jericho for 7 days.
Life is too complex to have evolved. How did the proto -pteranodon benefit from having a longer little finger?
Actually the complexity shows us that it has evolved. If you would create the "human" you could make it much better and efficient, we are super complex, but many of it could be more efficient and easier.
@@kolliwanne964 The law of entropy says otherwise.
@@mjazzguitar You forget that organisms use energy to keep entropy in check. But beside that I dont see any problem with this anyway, in what way does it defy the principle of entropy?
@@kolliwanne964 The law of increasing entropy is a universal law of decreasing complexity, whereas evolution is supposed to be a universal law of increasing complexity.
@@mjazzguitar Thats a misconseption. Entropy and how it works in chemistry describes chaos. The thermodynamic law you are talking about is about energy, since energy always drives towards a state of greater chaos.
But here is the thing, you have to look at the greater picture since we arent an isolated system.
We can use energy to overcome the drive towards entropy of a certain compound by using the energy of another system. That is how we keep our body working, otherwise if the chaos would just balance itself out, life couldnt persist.
So its not about complexity, as complexity itself is rather a vague concept. Its about chaos and the state of order.
Truth should be more important than trying to reconcile your faith.
What do you mean by that? Promoters of evolution fight court cases to stop school from showing it's flaws because it is failed hypotheses.
@@samuelstrain2721Exactly what I said my friend.
@@blairansellfraser Well said then I was not sure exactly what you meant because theistic evolutionist use so much double talk I could not be sure. You however keep on promoting the word of God. God bless my friend.
@@samuelstrain2721 Evidence of gods existence or anything supernatural?
@@OberonStudios Well you should go first you started this. However, I will give you evidence of a designer of life, as that is what this type of site requires. The dna in a cell has complex information this can only come about through an intelligent mind.
It's very simple. Historically the Roman Apostolic Catholic Church worked against science out of ignorance. (Just as it criminalized the Jewish people).
The Bible presents the event, science tries to explain how the event happened.
The Bible tells a story, science observes reality.
Where is any of this supported by scripture?
+Alton Johnson It depends on how one reads and interprets scripture. Why assume (for example) a materialistic ontology instead of a functional one for the creation account in Genesis 1? Why assume Adam and Eve were meant to by understood in our modern ways of understanding (more mechanistic) instead of as allegorical or metaphorical (or even if they were real people, why assume they were meant to be considered the first humans)?
We can read the passages and come to various conclusions on what they mean. I think it is a mistake to assume they meant what we would assume in terms of our modern ways of communicating and understanding. The writers of the creation account were not writing to us (21st century Western society) but to early Hebrew cultures. It is from their perspectives we should try to understand the texts, not necessary our own.
jfrontier1, so you don't believe Adam and eve were the first humans?
Alton Johnson I believe they existed but not necessarily the first of the human race (physical beings), but they may have been the 1st of the human race to be given their souls by God. Adam is imply 1st man and Even is spirit filled, so it could be more of a direct reference to them as people instead of them as individuals.
jfrontier1, is that speculation supported by scripture in the bible?
Alton Johnson Yes, in fact it is (quite a bit).
1st, why assume everything about Adam should even be supported in the Bible? I do not follow the modernist version of Sola Scriptura so I feel no need to stop with the Bible when I take a view of Christ as Lord (we all have traditions and experiences that shape our view of Holy Writ, even those who believe they do not). So, why assume ones view of Adam and Eve is only known via Holy Text?
We can see how Genesis 1, in the creation account, day 1 parallels day 4, 2 to 5 and 3 to 6. We are not meant to look at the days of creation as a literalistic account but in a more generalized poetic way (poetic shaping of the text). Also, why are we to assume the days of the creation account are meant to be understood as a material days instead of a functional one?
Adam and Eve (I assume they existed) but had a special purpose which is spoken of in Genesis as well as other books in the Bible.
So while I do not assume Sola Scriptura (as the modernists would describe it), yes the Bible is where I get my theology.
On the topic of death before the fall. If we take a view that consciousness (*perhaps* the emergnce of) has some relation with sin, then death would follow because we're aware of it in a profound sense, much more than other animals.
yes! Genesis is all about awareness. "God saw that it was good" means that God was aware of Creation. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit they became aware of good and evil. They covered themselves because they became aware that they were naked. And indeed, they became aware of death and their inability to stop it. Awareness is what gives us power over animals but is also the root of our existential crises as humans
As an evolutionist religion member, I'm an atheist. My religion of evolution prevents me from accepting jesus.
At 0:52, the video makes the argument that no core doctrine is threatened. However, the doctrine of “original sin” is threatened if Macro-Evolution happens. Bring on your rebuttal comments, I’m ready!
Well, macroevolution *_did_* happen, and sin *_does_* exist.
Bill Tavis do you believe Adam existed in a figurative sense? What’s your opinion on the doctrine of “Original Sin”?
@@nobelpeaceprizeloser3242 Tell me why you think sin is threatened by evolution. My stance is that both are true, therefor they can't possibly be in contradiction.
Original sin is not biblical. If Adam and Eve were solely responsible for everything we do then how come God judges us? Obviously because we're responsible for our own actions.
If original sin were true then why did Jesus tell the adulterous woman to sin no more? Simply put, because God expects us to NOT LIVE IN SIN. Are you accusing God of expecting something of us that's impossible? Are you denying God's ability to prevent people from sinning if they abide in him? Original sin is a Satanic doctrine that tells people that it's okay to keep sinning. It's outright blame shifting. The Bible teaches personal responsibility.
"The best cure for Christianity is reading the Bible."
Mark Twain
"Mitochondrial" eve, and "Y chromosome" Adam did not even originate from the same part of Africa and I believe we're separated by thousands of years. The human genome project showed this. how can you construe that into the genesis account of the garden of eden? Just because with enough creative thinking and metaphorical concepts you can make anything relate to anything doesn't mean you should!
Come on, you cannot suggest rational thinking to religious zealots!
@@nupsi6 Idk,about that now,so it's rational to believe the universe created itself from nothing then chance took on from there?No.
@@Angle98411 Which is precisely _not_ what rational people think. Because they do _not_ make the same classical mistake strict religious believers make to give an arbitrary "answer" when they don't actually know neither the answer nor anything about the topic they are talking about. The only rational answer one can give in such a situation simply is: "we do not know".
No one claims "the universe create itself from nothing".
No one knows what "nothing" actually is (no, think before laughing, then answer is _not_ as obvious as you think)
No one claims that "chance" by itself is what drives evolution (which is what you try to imply)
All those are just _classical_ straw man arguments used by religious believers when trying to sound smart to sell arbitrary _claims_ they cannot reason for.
You just exemplified how foolish you're, they didn't claim that the y chromosome Adam & mitochondrial Eve were the original couple if that's what you got it's quite telling of how your minds generate strawman whenever you faced with different perspectives
Francis Collins was the head of the human genome project, it makes no sense to accuse him of denying his on finding work, this is what happens when you're filled with prejudice
Scientists pursuing what's actually the case have a different view than people who insist their particular mythology is true. Surprise.
another issue is that some don't realize that the writers of the old and new testament did not think about the world like we do today, so it's unfair to presuppose our culture and thoughts into the text. the authors of the old testament specifically did not have the concept of science like we do today. and also Genesis 1 is not speaking about how God created the world out of nothing, but it's saying that Yahweh is the one who formed the universe and gave each part it's functions. to insert what many Christians call creationism (which is really a more modern view of explaining genesis 1 in opposition against evolution) is not fair to the text. i would argue that Genesis 1 is not explaining how Yahweh did it, but merely that He did. so that leaves room for us to discover this wonderfully huge universe we live in and learn the processes in which it operates. more Christians should be open to science rather than fear it or feel like it's an enemy. science is a tool and method in which we are able to learn more.
@@mikepennino Some early Christian gets brought into the future, sees the Bible, and just says "Y'all didn't write anything new?"
@@SwordTune Dude, I'm the one who always believed that the "lake of fire." was hiding in Evolution. I mean, dying tomorrow for believing lies- sounds like something that Nemesis herself would do.
@@Adven4U1 what do you mean hiding evolution?
@@SwordTune You know what Darwin said: “Only the fittest will survive.” Psalm 18:26: With the pure, you will show yourself pure. With the crooked you will show yourself shrewd.
I am not christian. but i enjoy these videos!
they are really good its rare to see stuff like this cus usually people group themselves into two camps
They say there's a great divide in the spectrum between science and Christianity. But, I think its ironic how the scientific method , empirical analysis and peer review, they all have similarities with the wisdom 'concepts' found in proverbs
Basically everything you say in nonsense. None of it is backed up by Scripture. Nor does it match Scripture.
That's fine.
Is the Bible the sole authority for my worldview?
Is it possible that the same natural evidence could be interpreted completely differently by two different groups?
What foundational assumptions am I making when I determine whether or not some evidence supports evolution?
How does one reconcile theology and evolution without causing cognitive dissonance.
So is a god.
@@jameswest8280 simple. Separate science and theology as 2 principles explaining 2 different realities. The problem arouse when 2 principle were mixed or switched making science explain immaterial realities and theology explain material realities. That shouldn't be the case.
It's incredibly simple and can be stated in one short phrase - *_evolution is the mechanism of creation_*
@@kselka1 I think it was the awareness of death that entered. Genesis is all about awareness. "God saw that it was good." That's awareness. "knowledge of good and evil" that's awareness. We are like gods compared to animals and yet became aware that we are powerless against this thing called death that we are now aware of. That's our existential crisis as humans. There is nothing I know of that says that physical death did not exist prior to this, and God threatened death without having to define it which implies that it was already a thing. Also, there is nothing in the Bible that would suggest that we are free to ignore inconvenient facts. Evolution happened - the fact that life slowly changed over time to become what we see today is firmly and consistently written in the fossil record, now verified and corroborated by genetic data. How/why that happened is what is actually being debated. But a lot of people will deny the actual evidence itself in their attempts to "defend" Christianity. I prefer to never deny truth because all truth including the fossil record comes from God. Attempting to claim that the fossil record could have been formed by the flood is totally inconsistent with the way that fossils are actually distributed, and with every different dating method. Evolution has been used to try to discredit Christianity but it is actually an investigation into the mechanical details of Creation. And so when you look at evolution that way it actually magnifies the glory of God and does not conflict with the Bible itself, it only conflicts with certain interpretations of the Bible. I can quote verses that "prove" that the earth is flat, but because this is at odds with known facts I can discern that it is not a valid interpretation to hold.
@@theTavis01 , I agree with that.
Why try to "save face" with science? We do believe in a man born of a virgin, who turned water into wine, who came back from death and ascended into heaven... aren't these things un-scientific as well???
There are several passages in the Bible where God does in a moment what usually takes a long time, like that plant that gives shade to Jonah, or like when Aaron's rod flourishes, or like when Jesus heals people in an instant (as opposed to the natural process of healing) or when Jesus curses the fig tree and it withers within a day...
So if God can make those things that usually take a long time in a heartbeat, why not believe God can create a world, a universe that seemingly took gzillion years in a few days??? We already believe illogical things (to the non-believer) don't we?
I say embrace the whole thing, why not??? I certainly wouldn't mind being accused of believing too much... like a child would... why not?
David Ovando finally, a person who states their opinion, and isn't a total jerk. I 100% believe in what everything you said. :D
Yes well said indeed
David Ovando I agree completely. God can break any law of the physical world because He created those laws
Some professing Christians have accepted man's theory of origin over God's word. They don't want to hear that God created the world in six days; they much prefer man's version, and they maybe even think it'll help them blend in with the world and get more [false] converts. Unfortunately for the Theistic Evolutionist, their evolution-god Frankenstein only makes them look ridiculous to both Godly and ungodly; because not only do they illogically ignore the entire creation account, they also put birds and fish on the same evolutionary timeline, as two-billion years old.
You won't, but if you would actually read, this will pretty much destroy your belief that any of the supposed events actually happened. ...and talk to a real orthodox Jew and have them explain your damn book to you re: prophecies like virgin birth because they'll pretty much destroy that idea as well.
amzn.to/2DVAhVX
The Gospels and Homer: Imitations of Greek Epic in Mark and Luke-Acts
amzn.to/2DWWP8Q
Luke and Vergil: Imitations of Classical Greek Literature
amzn.to/2zzYVb1
The Dionysian Gospel: The Fourth Gospel and Euripides
Don't confuse writings about God and God. Please.
Have to think this is false doctrine. Saying God acts slowly contradicts the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah
This is a super great message. ❤
Why would God create my brain to survive and reproduce with priority on what works for me to achieve those results and then expect me to use rationality and a system of logic when my brain wants to survive not find truth?
the video says that there is a conversation but it sounds more like evolutionary theory talking and bible interpretation listening to it. What does science learn here, what mistakes does modern science make that can be helped by the Bible?
Practical answer: nothing.
Yes, nothing happens. You can have ave both of them.
@@MrFossil367ab45gfyth Indeed because the theory of evolution is of no soteriological significance.
@@saintronin7633 , what does that mean?
@@MrFossil367ab45gfyth Its got nothing to do with salvation or core doctrine. 👌
@@saintronin7633 , yes I know.
"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." - Voltaire
You guys took the words right out of my mouth. This is exactly how I teach the subject in my classes
:)
Why not just drop crischaty why would you still hang onto it?
Cause it promises them eternital life. They don't want to die.
Evolution is totally possible and can coexist with the Bible, all things are possible through god, you can see adaptations over time it’s a fact, early man could have been what God created and slowly changed them over time
Fossil & DNA evidence show evolution made man. Historical & behavioral studies show man made Adam & Eve, Zeus, Romulus, Osiris, Yahweh, parting the Red Sea, The God Of The Bible, Messiah, walking on water, resurrection, Allah, prophet, splitting the moon, holy books, prophecies, heaven & hell, angles, Santa Clause, tooth fairy, etc.
- God rarely acts swiftly: is multiple days (which dont have to be literally days) swiftly? Wasn't the life of Jesus and his victory over sin swiftly? I would say God acts very swiftly there!
- God partners with creation: great! but how does god partner with us in redeeming us, other than us receiving? I don't see the point there. We rule over the earth, and thus partner with God. God placed us on earth, God placed us in Christ. We partner with him from there on.
I'm searching for truth, open for other perspectives. I don't know about evolution. But this video just doesn't make sense. It just states a standpoint with a funny tune behind it.
This is fantastic! Thank you BioLogos; we need more of this.
Loved this! thank you!
No! Romans 5:12 is speaking of eternal death, human death thru sin
All humans are destined to die but not all are destined for eternal death=hell
Find life thru Jesus Christ ONLY =Heaven John 3:16
"God is the author of the Word and also the author of the natural world. And ultimately these two can't contradict each other." I respectfully submit that those are three assertions rather than three axiomatic truths.
One of the fundamental problems of setting the three as axiomatically true is that evolution being true contradicts, in a very severe way, three core theologies: First, the original sin narrative cannot remain coherent (of course it was imposed onto the Eden narrative by 1st century Jewish scholars, Paul of Tarsus and Christian scholars yet is not actually in the text all--go read it for yourself, because it is simply _not there_! The issue that _is_ there is humans becoming like gods. I have that on good authority, by the way, since God said that was the issue in so many words in the text. It helps to read the passage for what it says, and then to stick to what the passage actually says...). Second, the death narrative must give way as well, for death precedes sin in fact. If you view the video's three statements as assertions rather than necessary statements of belief, then evolution being true clearly pushes theology into a corner regarding the truthfulness of scripture, the truthfulness of the sin narrative, the truthfulness of the death narrative, and various other related narratives.
One must bring considerable doubt to the table about the truth value of "God is the author of the Word" and "God is the author of the natural world" and "Those two statements cannot contradict each other." Anything else is wieseling try to preserve the supremacy of the authority of the scriptures at all cost when that is clearly at issue, not a given.
Unfortunately, I think that where we end up is this: Evolution being true results in the following counter assertions: That A. God has indeed contradicted himself (reversing "these two cannot contadict each other"); or B. God did not author the scriptures; or C. God did not author the natural world; or D. two of three are the case; or E. all three original assertions are false. Take your pick. But you cannot by fiat declare the three orginal assertions to all be true because clearly at least one must fail if evolution and an old earth is true.
The bigger issue is the question of how a discussion can take place without clearly laying out arguments and examining them, including our fundamental assumptions. If Christianity is to survive into the 22nd Century, these issues, as well as several others like them, must be successfully addressed. Original Sin in its form passed on by Saul of Tarsus, Augustine of Hippo, Martin Luther, John Calvin and even 20th century protestant scholarship is no longer even remotely defensible. How, under that kind of pressure, is Christian faith to survive? The options are: Rewrite the sin narrative and the death narrative, or adopt a deliberately dualistic worldview, or revert to fundamentalistic blindness by denying the scientific evidence for an old earth and evolution. I would rather attempt the rewriting of the sin and death narratives.
If evolution is truth which the overwhelming evidence points to
how are we created in the image of God!!!
Maybe you guys are wrong…
When Jesus came to earth over two thousand years ago, his Mission was to enlighten the minds of people who had taken on and into themselves, a religion part pagan - part mystical. The people, who had so imbued themselves, were arrogant and convinced they were the chosen people of God - Jehovah - whom they ardently believed in but who does not exist.
Their Prophets spoke of their mystical perception of some transcendent spiritual consciousness. Their Prophets used imaginative language to describe this GOD. Their Prophets created mental images of greatness and grandeur. Their Prophets also produced the desired effect of controlling the people by fear of reprisals from Heaven in the shape of personal loss, disease, deprivation, pests and climatic disasters.
The purpose behind Jesus' life was to teach the Jews that their perception of the CREATOR was entirely wrong. But their fanatical adherence to their treasured religious beliefs were impenetrable, so instead of Jesus achieving his purpose on earth, he was crucified because of them.
A comparison of evolution and creationism?!
Apples and oranges, right off the bat. Creationism offers an explanation for literally everything--where the planets and stars and seahorses and granites and dandelions came from, plus it offers an explanation even for the origin of intangible phenomena like happiness and souls. It also contains an justification for religion and faith. Creationism is also, as a religious dogma, not subject to questioning, revision, or falsification, those all being technically heretical if not outright blasphemous.
Darwin's theory of evolution is different in every way: it offers a tentative explanation of ONE observed phenomenon--speciation. That's it. That's all it does. It says nothing about where anything came from. It also says nothing at all about God or religion. It's also by definition as a scientific theory tentative, meaning that it can be falsified. And as a theory, it's subject to all the testing anybody cares to do.
I am baffled as to why creationists continually conflate these two kinds of statements. Creationism is about everything, and is based in religious dogma; scientific theories are about one thing at a time and are based on empirical evidence. Creationism is by definition immune to inquiry; scientific theories must be tested. Two different kinds of statements, incompatible in every way: why do creationists keep trying to compare them? I really wonder about that.
I would disagree on something, where you say "Creation is by definition immune to inquiry." No, through irreducible complexity we see there had to be an intelligent designer. Now some parse words and want to say, in effect, "Well, yeal we see intelligent design, but that doesn't mean there was a Creator who did the designing." I have to sigh at such a statement.
Also there is observable data to show the Bible is true about creation. For example the Bible says creation was all at once and that's what we see in the fossil record. There really are no "transitional forms." Those are just fairy tales based on the ever present use in evolutionism of the Presuming Omniscience and Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacies, which flow from wild speculations about what happened in the conveniently invisible and unverifiable past..
We also know there are no "transitions" above the level of a new species. Yes, new species occur, but beetles stay beetles, germs stay germs, trees stay trees, bees stay bees and peas stay peas. Contrary to what the so called Tree of Life shows, and evolutionary peer reviews propose, no transitions are ever seen above the species level, as with any new families, orders, phylum or kingdoms.
There are no new DNA strands being created ever, thus also showing creation has halted. All DNA is just a copy of a copy of a copy. We know that DNA instructions are needed for things like legs and wings. We also know that, for example, fish do not have DNA instructions for legs and tetrapods don't have DNA instructions for wings and feathers. Again, no DNA is ever created so we know they ain't gonna get any such DNA instructions.
If you are curious about irreducible complexity, I will give my fave example of one.
@@psalm1tree466 the example?
@@davidolivares247 I will give you what you asked for, and more:
The evidences for the Bible are too numerous to mention and include areas such as archaeology, history, fulfilled prophecies and, yes, science.
Let's start with DNA. All DNA is always just a copy of a copy of a copy and so on which replicates what has already been seen in nature. Yes, it can be altered to a limited extent, but no original, novel, strands of DNA are ever created and, further, no one has any data to show how any DNA got here. This matches the Bible which says creation has halted. And btw, fish don't have DNA instructions for legs, and lizards don't have DNA instructions for feathers, wings etc. Since no new DNA is ever created, only altered to a very limited extent, where would they get it from? Oh, wait, I'm sure evolutionism has lots of...theories....on that. But the Bible says things were created fully formed and fully functional, so there ya go with DNA fulfilling an expected prediction.
Another example of how creation has been halted is seen when you look at the taxonomic groupings of animals and plants, ascending from species to family, to class, to order, to phylum, to kingdom. No plants or animals ever go higher than the creation of a new species, no matter what Darwin, or evolutionary peer reviews, claim happened in the invisible and unverifiable past.
Hundreds of thousands of species of beetles stay beetles, thousands and thousands of species of trees, bees, bacteria, fish, lizards, whatever, stay trees, bees, bacteria, fish, lizards, whatever. That stasis matches what the Bible says, also, about creation having been halted. Plants and animals stay in their "kinds" i.e. families. This is what the Bible would predict, life forms sticking to their own "kind" i.e. taxonomic family.
The Bible talks about a Great Flood. So we could predict the following: There are countless billions of fossils all over the planet. Now, fossils are created when life forms are suddenly buried with water, then rapidly covered with sediment. To give you an idea of their vast numbers, consider that there are billions of fossils of just one kind of ocean dwelling nautiloid, alone, in the Grand Canyon alone. And, speaking of ocean dwelling creatures, 98% of all fossils on land are marine. Now how did all that ocean water get everywhere? Hmmmm....
Bible predictions would leave no room for a Geologic Colulmn. Guess what? There never was any Geologic Column, or any Cambrian, Jurassic, Triassic etc. periods. Those are all fictional. Real science uses real data. The real data shows the fossils are jumbled or, you could say, awash. For just one of countless examples, you can find giant sharks next to dino bones in America. So called lowest level Cambrian, deep sea, fossils are found at every level on the planet from Canada to New Zealand. When I say every level, that includes the hills of mid America, for instance, and most mountain tops in the world.
If you think there is a Geologic Column, go on a search for photos of one showing the lowest level Cambrian fossils at the bottom, and asecending layers of fossils matching the GC charts. Close ups now, not some distant photos of mountains ranges or rock piles they CLAIM have GCs in them.
If we demonstrate there is no GC, we are then are told "plate tectonics" moved the fossils around. Plate tectonics are used to create theories piled on hypotheses that are heaped on speculation to fit the evolutionary narrative.
But we have some real data! Common sense and universal experience, and scientific research, let us know what erosion does. Now some of those deep sea life creatures' fossils, like trilobites, are supposed to have gone extinct two hundred MILLION years ago. Yet, around the planet, we see that their fossils are not uncommonly found in mint condition. Google "Trilobites on mountains." The real scientific data, and common sense, tell us those fossils would be nothing but dust and rubble in all that time. But the Bible would predict they could still often be intact because the Flood was only several thousand years ago.
And we're also supposed to buy it that dino bones lasted 75 million or so years? That narrative is still promoted even though they keep finding more and more soft tissues, including flesh with liquid blood in it, in dinosaur bones all the time. There always is some unverifiable, never supported by actual data, "reason" given for why such things lasted, of course. The actual data from forensic science - which makes it clear those materials could not survive more than a few thousand years - and common sense are ignored.
Art works, and historical accounts, around the world, which show dinos, sometimes with people, are also ignored or else the false claim is made, with no justification at all, that they must be fake. www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/ Yes, Noah would have taken dinos on the Ark. Juveniles, no doubt. They all started out in eggs about the size of a football.
The Bible says people lived for hundreds of years in Old Testament times. We cannot prove that. But we can prove that in the ancient past dinos did! Again, they started out small, but got to be gigantic. Now lizards keep growing as long as they live. Obviously there was a different eco system back then that allowed the dinos, unlike modern day lizards, to keep on growing for hundreds of years. (And giant-ism, of course, was no way confined to just dinos. There used to be rhinos as big as houses, for example.) Would not that more favorable, pre Flood, eco system have allowed for longer lives in humans, too?
And btw, I have sometimes had evolution believers to demand that they be shown bunny bones with dino bones. This vid goes over the Ashley Phosphate fossil beds which show a vast, 18 inch deep, jumble of fossils including those from dinos, people, rabbits, horses, rhinos, whales and on and on.
ua-cam.com/video/nY7jlSJ2xZ4/v-deo.html
Extinction also demonstrates the Biblical truth that creation has stopped. If evolution were true the fossil record would show more different kinds of animals in the present than in the past. Instead we see the opposite, that there are far less different kinds of animals seen today than in the past.
Irreducible complexity is also evidence of the truth of the Bible which claims instant creation of all life forms. I will give you my favorite example, though all life is irreducibly complex.
Google a picture of the bacterial flagellum and its motor and whip. www.google.com/search?q=picture+of+bacterial+flagellum&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS773US773&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=dC7YTCeV1YNfdM%253A%252C4O_9N-ONtL9L6M%252C_&usg=AI4_-kQpHDtdqhZWJOCaDPU9Hh3WS7-nQw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwie2pPWhvLeAhXGT98KHf3NCxQQ9QEwAnoECAQQCA&biw=1366&bih=626#imgrc=dC7YTCeV1YNfdM: Now if the b.f doesn't move, it doesn't do its job and is useless. It isn't going to move anywhere until both the motor, and whip on the motor, are completely formed and attached together. So, while those 2 parts are just "evolving" nubs and stubs, what good are they? What "co option" purposes could they serve? If you can't even imagine the answers, how is mindless "evolution" going to make it happen?
Why and how would evolution keep those two, partial and incomplete, parts in limbo for eons until they are complete and connected and ready to work together? Well, it's not going to happen. There is zero evidence it ever happened, too, of course. In fact, there is zero evidence the b.f. has ever been anything but exactly what it is right now. Some claim a simpler life form evolved into the b.f., by something they call "co option" but as usual there is zero data to support any such claim. In evolutionism you ignore, or spin, the actual data and present data-free, evidence-free, scenarios which defy the real data in order to support an evolutionary narrative.
Again, irreducible complexity, which indicates incredible intelligence, not to mention unimaginable power, is seen at every level in life forms. The Bible presents a picture of life forms created instantly, fully complete and fully functional. That's what irreducible complexity in living examples, and the fossil record, reveal.
If the Creator went to all that "trouble" to create that little, high tech, irreducibly complex nano machine called a bacterial flagellum, how much more does He care about you, in whom He placed it?
@@psalm1tree466 hey do you have instagram or an email or something , id really like to talk to you i’m a believer with some questions and it seems you’ve done your research. 🙏
@@thealex5838 I responded to you twice with lots of information and resources. Both times The posts were deleted. I hope you get this one, but I doubt it. The information is out there, if you seek you’ll find. They deleted my posts because they are threatened by the truth.
Doesn't conflict with core Christian doctrines? ... BioLogos publishes articles denying that Jesus died to save us from our sins, namely denying substitutionary atonement.
Source ?
Watched all of it
The bible says that adam was created by the dirt
I believe in the bible but not that
God: Then all the bible would be a lie, youre saying im lying then!
Christians believe in christ, so they believe in the bible
But God didn't Wright the Bible. They where on the behalf of God
@@ChiroTheSkunk So you agree God supports slavery?
Fundamentalism is absolutely false, sorry to burst your bubble.
Idk something also essential to my faith is that the Bible is true...so like Genesis would have to be true, throwing a wrench into this idea of evolution and God being linked, since the Bible gives the account of creation
The bible isn't God. It can be wrong.
You don't have to be a deep theologian to recognise the error that is Theistic Evolution (that is, believing that God used evolution in creation). If you subscribe to this belief, aren't you calling God a liar? God clearly says six days, and emphasises the fact by stating "and the evening and morning were the next day." What excuse have you, before God, on the judgement? How can you justify nullifying his word and favoring the theories of man? How can you explain Adam being formed separately?
And lets look at your position in the world with which you're agreeing: By advocating Theistic Evolution, you are unwittingly placing birds and fish on the same evolutionary timeline, and claiming them to be two billion years old. So you're considered a fool by both Christians and atheists, and you're preventing your own salvation. What exactly are you gaining?
How can a person lend her voice to such a stupid text? Doesn't she realize the huge difference between rational explanations on the one hand in what she is given to read out and pure claims without any for of reasoning behind them?
If one starts out with such a set of preassumptions, never questioning them, just taking unfounded claims for granted, then what _sense_ is there is any question after that? You gave up. Took the easy way out.
From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. Acts 17:26. I am open to science and Genesis coexisting, but this aint it chief.
A conversation with other scientists is easy. A conversation with a evolutionist or cosmologist is difficult cause they’re set n the ways. They don’t understand different level of Energy output and since God exist as always he can create anything at his level of speed with his own power output. In return we can perceive it differently.
Example of this could be you digging up a hole with the Depth of a foot that took you no more than a few minutes, then suddenly two ants walk by and see it and they begin to measure it by their standards, coming to the conclusion that this hole must have taken months to create.
In the same way we are ants trying to measure God’s work with our standards. This doesn’t work out with us because of our incapacity to measure that type of power output.
Hope this helps.
Amen God uses growth not creation for existence. Life emerged out of the universe in the same way and apple emerges from a tree. The apple wasn't placed there from the outside. It has a fundamental connection with the rest of the tree
If it's not in the bible then it didn't happen.
Well, what do you know: a Christian who can actually think. It seems as if they are a dying breed.
Agreed, Christians who think the Bible is set in stone word for word are clearly ignorant and need to look at the different angles.
@@carntheblues8679 i on the other hand Believe that it is ignorant of you both you question over somebody´s Believe but relax i wont blow you guys apart lol. stay safe
Hi christians and atheists! The christian position ought to be that Jesus is alive and the rest is up for grabs. Just sayin'.
Interesting to think about how God 'made it' though
🤦 evolution is true. It’s only an if because you don’t understand it.
In short, science can prove the Bible wrong
Well a literal reading of Genesis Creation story.
if? LOLOLOLOL
How can you have a healthy conversation when you insist on imposing the presumption of a divine designer? If you want to meet halfway in the discussion, you have to be prepared to set your god aside.
I dont mind having a healthy discussion bossy boots lol
@@yvettelaverick8878 Dude I've always seen "Survival of the Fittest." as "Survival of the Righteous."
@@Adven4U1 that's a good point,that's how we get by ,and...do not fear x
@@yvettelaverick8878 To the pure you show yourself pure, but to the crooked you show yourself shrewd.
@@Adven4U1 yeah ,God sees everything! I will be made pure by the blood of jesus christ!
If the ToE is true, it shows that death is simply a natural phenomenon. The original sin or sinness nature of mankind wouldn't change anything about it, and we wouldn't need any savior to save us from any hell or whatever.
+physnoct We know that from the Adam and Eve story that Satan, that old serpent, was already a fallen angle of some type. I would call that original sin, Pride, or wanting to be God. That is the comprehensive reason for his , Satan's, reason for taking out mankind.
We know that from the Adam and Eve story that Satan, that old serpent, was already a fallen angle of some type. I would call that original sin, Pride, or wanting to be God. That is the comprehensive reason for his , Satan's, reason for taking out mankind.
I thought, maybe the devils fall wasn't prior to ours but his fall WAS in tempting humanity to sin. Maybe that was his great sin. I don't know. Just a thought.
It's all about the origin of free choice.
Adam and Eve could have been real people?...........what utter nonsense.
Soft sabotage of the Biblical revelation.
I believe in God, I believe in an old Earth...but theistic evolution is cringe worthy mental gymnastics. Show me evidence of common ancestry beyond homologus structures.
*****
I ask for evidence, it seems like ppl just believe in common ancestry because it's the consensus.
Fossil and DNA evidence overwhelmingly point in that direction. You might like to check out _Finding Darwin's God,_ by Kenneth Miller, an American evolutionary biologist and devout Christian, who makes a pretty good case for how the theory of evolution can be harmonized with Christian theology. Another book I have found helpful is _The Language of God,_ by Francis Collins, another Christian who is both an M.D. and a trained physicist, and who was the director of the Human Genome Project. He also happens to be the founder of BioLogos, the organization that runs this channel.
BigBen Hebdomadarius
Thanks for the references!!
@@bigbenhebdomadarius6252 I strongly disagree with you about what the fossil record shows, I believe that the fossil record supports the flood that God sent on the earth and that the forming of it took place over the course of the flood, not millions of years
Fossil & DNA evidence show evolution made man. Historical & behavioral studies show man made Adam & Eve, Zeus, Romulus, Osiris, Yahweh, parting the Red Sea, The God Of The Bible, Messiah, walking on water, resurrection, Allah, prophet, splitting the moon, holy books, prophecies, heaven & hell, angles, Santa Clause, tooth fairy, etc.
Or maybe you are too invested in the idea that your core doctrines are “not at stake here”
I wish these videos were promoted more than the pseudoscience that comes from UA-cam channels like Answers in Genesis
Agreed. These videos can help people combine their faith with science. It has helped me understand that science and religion can work together. It also opened me up to how God works and the wonders of his Creation.
I found this to be interesting. thank you.
Gods not real though..
lol
Genesis 1:20 (kjv) claims that GOD commanded the waters to spring forth moving creatures that have life, *AND* the fowl that may fly above the Earth.
Well, the waters spring forth sea creatures for sure.
However, its interesting that this scripture claims that the waters were commanded by GOD to abundantly spring forth "moving creatures that have life".
So did the waters spring forth sea creatures, land creatures, & the fowl??
Genesis 1:20 implies that it did.
But there is definitely a direct relationship between the creation of sea creatures & the fowl in Genesis 1:20.
& for Genesis 1:20 to claim that GOD commanded the waters to bring forth fowl as well??...
...In my opinion, that's evolution.
At least evolution between sea creatures & fowl that fly above the Earth.
Does it claim that Humans came from Chimps?.....no.
But it _is_ implying that the waters spring forth both sea creatures & the fowl that fly above the Earth.....& that is evolution.
Genesis 1:20 (kjv)
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
There were no such common ancestors
Lol. Idolatry
What idolatry? Who is idolatry?
Why not look at the Bible stories as allegories. The Fall represents the emergence of consciousness - or rather self-consciousness - in our early ancestors. we used to be jungle dwelling primates but suddenly we learned that our true nature can be evil as well as good. From self-consciousness also arose death awareness. Kinda like God banishing Adam and Eve and condemning them to die.
Christ's life represents the way of atonement with our conscience through true speach and an honorable way of life.
BIG NONSENSE!!!!!
all i can say is evolution could exist inside the forbidden fruit thus, dimensional value speaking it has more relevance to it
They both could exist in duplicity mult dimensional realities etc
???
@@danielmutten8066???
Watched all of it