I started off as a young earth creationist, then moved to intelligent design, now I am closer to the biologos position. During that same time I have become even more convinced that God - of Christian theism - not only exists, but is the best and only explanation of reality that takes into account all of reality that we observe and know through rational reflection.
@@gfujigo LOL. You are 100% correct. I also have zero evidence that there are no leprechaun, unicorns or Santa claus. You normally believe things when there is evidence, and don't believe things UNTIL there is evidence. I think you have it backwards my delusional friend.
@@bosco008 I totally agree with you. We should only accept things based on evidence and/or rational justification. We have no evidence that Santa, leprechauns, etc are real. Evidence for God is all of reality that we observe. By God I mean the ultimate reality that is the ontological foundation for everything in existence. We can infer the ultimate explanation for reality from the effects we observe in reality. I infer you are a human who thinks I am delusional 😉 from what you typed. I don’t see you but I can make that inference. I also don’t see your mind, but I infer you do have one. In fact we cannot see the perceptual content of human minds. We just infer people have them. I could be wrong in making those inferences but they are rational. Reality doesn’t escape rational inferences and deductions. When we examine reality and ask questions about what explains it, God is the best answer. Nothing else is even close. Consider even the simple matter of being - existence. For anything to exist at all, there needs to be something that doesn’t depend on anything else for its existence. Some think that is the universe or a multiverse. Yet these things are contingent and therefore are not good candidates. We need something totally not dependent on anything else for its existence. That’s a simple rational inference. When we do that with all of reality, we arrive at an explanation that adds up to God. God is not a scientific explanation however. Nor does God compete with science as an explanation. When I cook food, one can explain the process by appealing to physics and chemistry of heat. Or you could say I want some Mac and cheese. The scientific explanation doesn’t compete with my intention and desires to explain my cooking.
If Adam and Eve did not exist then what sin are we being saved from? Who committed the original sin that we inherited? What's the point of Jesus dying for us if there was no Adam?
Adam and Eve are also metaphors for the strong and weak force. God created the forces, the weak force fell, so earth came into being. That is why there is the metaphor of Eve tempting Adam. Nothing happens that God does not allow so after the angels rebelled the next thing to happen was the weak force fell and earth came into being. A planet where we can work out our spiritual evolution, until, hopefully, we are redeemed. We have to bear our crosses as Christ bore his to win heaven back. Christ did not need redemption but He inspires us to bear our crosses as he bore his.
I am an ardent supporter and adherent of theistic evolution but MAN does Dr. Applegate need to work on her delivery! She undoubtedly alienated many non-theistic evolutionists @1:05:16 when she starts saying "Did God really?...Did God really?...Did God really?" What do you think the non-theistic evolutionists think when they hear this?: "'Did God really say that you must not eat from any tree in the garden?'" Genesis 3:1
What language did God speak? Did he ever curse? Did he know any science -- that plagues were caused by germs, or that you can't "let there be light" before you create the sun? He knew all this, right? Right?
I thought her delivery was very good. She could have gotten very technical and lost the entire audience but she spoke in a way that average lay person could understand.
Haven’t finished watching the entire video, and when I do I’ll start watching it again. This has been one of the most constructive and civil discussions I’ve seen on this issue, and I’ve watched A LOT of them over the past 2 years. Well worth the time to watch and re-watch.
I think this was a fantastic overall discussion. Long enough to get great thoughts in but too short at the same time. I sort of wish we got more science related push back on Randy Guliuzza and more Biblical push back to Dr. Applegate. I sit on the young earth side of things but more than happy to learn. From what I have heard from the Theistgic Evolution side, and I am still learning here about TE as it is relatively new to me, most of what I have learned is from Michael Jones and his talking points are very similar to Dr. Applegate. From an outsiders perspective, there is not much different from how a TE defends darwinian evolution to how an atheist or agnostic would. Similar to an atheist, TE side would look to question if things really happened the way Scripture describes them, like Genesis 1 and 2 and the worldwide flood. They would typically take shots at the early accounts like Dr Applegate did when she asked who did Cain marry and who was Cain scared of like the Bible does not clearly answer these two questions. They make fun of a talking serpent when clearly the Bible discusses who the serpent represents. Biblically, I have many questions to the TE point of view but the biggest one would be them not believing in a literal Adam and Eve. Their answer that death did not enter the world through a literal Adam is IMO the biggest Biblical question mark when the Bible is clear on a literal Adam, death both physical and spiritual entered through Adam.
Just with regard to the question about poor design - just because we think something is poor design doesn't necessarily mean it was not designed, an old BMW will not be as advanced as a new BMW but doesn't therefore mean the old BMW was not designed, that's my thought on the matter
@@SeanMcDowell I'll have to say I thought this was a brilliant event and the questions asked were on point too, I'll be referring other Christian scientists to this video, only came across it last night. Many blessings to you all, all the way from New Zealand :)
The difference is human designers are finite and are limited to the technology they have at hand. God has no such limitations. I don't think this analogy applies.
What a dumb@ss argument. The points is that God (according to Christianity) is supposed to be perfect and infinitely intelligent, so if that's the case, why would he create organisms that have flaws?
This became a subject so divisive, so toxic and so hateful among christians, that it honestly made me wish that first chapters of Genesis did not exist at all. I lean towards the young earth position, because it's the only one that is truely consistent, simple and free of any basic problems. It just reads it as it says, and makes a lot of reasonable and scientific claims to back it up just like the other positions. Discovering some of the so called "index fossils" still alive was a major victory for young earth. It just plainly shows how much of what science claims to "know" can be simply false, based on wrong assumptions or even falsified on purpose. I know from experience how much the inner scientific circle protects its theories to believe in the dates they are giving us. The truth is, all scientists who made ground breaking discoveries that were about to disjoint evolution, were silenced and threatened out of the scene in silence. Evolutionists are not looking for the truth. They are looking for proof for their theory. And yet, both evolution and old earth accounts have enormous problems with their theories precisely because they claim to be able to see so far back, and there are a lot of problems the further you claim to see. Young earth has little to no problems. It's almost entirely based on the fact that God's work was miraculous. And that seems to be, indeed the way God does things. Jesus was not risen with a natural process. Neither he was conceived by such. Moses did not scare king of Egypt to death with natural processes. Neither did natural processes bring Israel victory under the Jerycho. God loves to do miracles, and Scripture even says in 1st Corynthians, that he made specific things silly, and works through simple, silly things to make wise men miss his whole point. On purpose. I have and itch, that some of the stuff we see in nature resembles long periods precisely so that God would remain a mystery to Spirit-less humanity. That's totally in His character. He wants to be truly understood and known only by simple folk. Carpenters, fishmen, sheperds... like He always did.
You are mistaken, brother! I have studied all this more than 30 years...from all sides... Jesus was relatively simple with simple people...,but that is not a license for stupidity. God gave us all abilities to discern His Works and Will. Do not confuse them, though they are interdependent! Who can say to Him HOW should he create or teach His kids??? Better adapt yourself to new revelations than irritate Him with stubborn questions why it must not be literal:)))) I can also make all kinds of stupid questions like: Why it took God so long to create all things (7 days???) Whaaat??? Not one micro second??? And alike:))) God has used simple people to write the Bible and though they are far from perfect..., He is the one who can help to interpret us today all those passages where people failed to discern all things at the time they wrote the texts, etc. God gives clarity one step at the time and each generation sees it better and better! If you are honest seeker, please, find Nicolas Berdyaev " On the destiny of man"!!!
It is scary how religious people can be indoctrinated to ignore reality for fables. Young earth has the problems, it goes against all science and history. We can literally see the universe's age through the expansion of the universe. Absolutely 0 evidence of miracles or suspension of natural law being plausible just unconvincing claims without evidence.
Creationism is consistent? How can we see the stars? The stars are millions, even billions of light years away. 6,000 years is nowhere near close enough for us to actually be able to see such far objects.
@Adam Adamowicz "He wants to be truly understood and known only by simple folk." - This would contradict other passages in the Bible that say that God is love. Why would love mislead anyone?
Shalom, As an ex atheist I found this a very cordiaal debate, chapeau to the host and debaters. I was a YEC going in and came in more convinced of this truth, BUT I appreciate the other positions more!! Yah bless
Man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Dr G spoke repeatedly from scripture using scripture as the basis for his position. God bless his word!
1:14:37 to 1:19:50 I would love to see an entire 3+ hour debate between Reasons to Believe and BioLogos on *_this_* one argument. Focus right in, and address just this piece of evidence, with plenty of cross examination getting right into the nitty-gritty of it all.
Randy....top work mate. The Bible says God created everything in 7 days, it tells us there was a worldwide flood that covered the whole face of the earth even to the highest mountain and it it tells us that each creature produces after its own kind. Abraham believed God. He was his friend. And through him the world was blessed.
So many of the questions around this conversation could be solved by a clear understanding of what "The Bible" really is. People think of it as a single, cohesive book... even when they KNOW it's not. They demand "clarity" even when the writers were not concerned with details.
Dr. Randy Guliuzza states the obvious! "CLARITY" is paramount! SCIENCE and SCRIPTURE are hand in glove compatible. Hearing the other speakers twisting Scripture to fit the evolutionary paradigm is so, so sad. Light dispels darkness. This was the effect of Dr. Guliuzza's excellent defense of the God who created, ordered, and sustained the universe for His glory (Romans 1:20). Creation is ENGINEERED to be innately problem-solving. God is the Engineer. God is the Problem-Solver. Soli Deo Gloria!
While we can spend endless hours debating the interpretation of ‘day’ in Genesis 1, there are 2 oft overlooked verses in that same chapter that, I think, may drive us to one conclusion. These are verses 29 and 30 (below). Consider carefully what they say: Every single creature on earth and sky ate plants - without exception. One could argue there may have been some omnivores (that would be a much weaker argument from silence), but we certainly cannot argue that there were any carnivores - this is explicitly ruled out. In reality, I think we can strongly argue that all were herbivores. That is the force of these verses from their clear reading. I think we can therefore argue that these verses strongly point to total harmony in nature, no harm, no animal death, but then a catastrophic change that turned nature in to one marred by death and suffering. Out of the 3 propositions before us in this video, only one fits that bill. I confess I like Intelligent Design a lot, but I’m going to keep an open mind on creation science. I’d like to see if they can provide a credible case. From the scriptural point of view, to me, it is the most consistent. Here are the verses: “Then God said, ‘I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground - everything that has the breath of life in it - I give every green plant for food.’ AND IT WAS SO.” [My emphasis].
I agree 100% with the straight forward and plain reading of God's Word: all animals and Adam and Eve were vegetarians. For almost 6 thousand years it was held to the clear Biblical dating of around 6000 years and only said since Lyell and Darwin the millions and billions crept in. Millions and billions of years is ONLY needed to keep the dead horse of evolution (evil-ution) going, even though the 14 billion years is still not enough to make random, mindless, unguided chemical and biological evolution going. I have noticed that the old earth and theistic evolution position never, or almost NEVER, discuss the verses about strict vegetarianism and all creation being VERY GOOD. I wonder why? Millions of years of animal death and various diseases like cancer don't seem to align well with what God said about everything being Very Good!!! They battle various possible definitions of Yom (day) in Hebrew, yet gloss over the plain words of God to support their position. I can't bring myself to believe the old earth or theistic evolution position because it has to distort the simplicity of Scripture. Paul warned about it in th following passage: For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 2 Corinthians 11:2-3 KJV For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin. But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. 2 Corinthians 11:2-3 NASB
A very godly brother from Uzbekistan (an Islamic nation), Sergey Nechitailo (Сергей Нечитайло) as a leader of the greatly persecuted church of that nation, stated so wisely and correctly regarding right teaching: A follower of Jesus Christ must exhibit the following 1. A very high reverence toward God 2. Honor the Scripture as one's absolute authority From 1 & 2 follows right teaching and overcoming life. Many have abandoned the first two and instead relied on fallible man's interpretation of the Book of nature, which forced them to reinterpret the Scripture, instead of allowing the Scripture to guide their interpretation.
@@DysonRecon196 I don't think it's talking about danger or predators. I think it becomes clear when we look at the context. Have a look at Gen 1:26-30 again and see if you agree. The context in which "subdue" is used is that mankind has been given the incredible privilege of ruling over over all of God's earthly creation (vs 26, 28). There was no need to worry about predators, because God had already made sure that there is sufficient food - plants and seeds - for all (vs 29, 30).
The first guy begins with the bible and then gets to science the second guy (fuzz) begins with science and then gets to the bible. The gal ( katherin) bless her heart she is pretty to look at and has cute kids and reads books to her kids... what you begin with makes all the difference!
2:11:00 She said they could come to different conclusions but then she described an atheist and a christian coming to the same conclusion. They come to the conclusion that there was the same thing happening the same time ago. An example is her saying there are never less than thousands of any one species. So there was never a literal Eve (A literal Eve is the first female human when there were no others.) according to her.
I AM CURIOUS AS TO WHY RANDY GULIUZZA WAS SELECTED AS THE REPRESENTITIVE FOR YEC IN STEAD OF DR. JASON LISLE OR DR. JOHNATHAN SARFATI. There always seems to be a careful avoidance of YEC Best debaters when these events are set up. PS. Dr. Guliuzza did a fine job.
first time I heard Dr. Guliuzza and liked what he said (really like listening to Dr. Lisle and have heard Dr. Sarfati once). I hadn't heard the blind cave fish, moths etc. from a young earth side before and ironically my youngest son just studied these 'mutations' in school so going to show him. Also I loved what he said about Psalm 19:1 and Romans (God's handiwork) and relating it to when man creates. How much greater is our mighty God? He most certainly can make creatures able to function, heal, adapt, reverse adapt etc .... I just marvel when I look at Creation's intricate details.
With all due respect, there's a very specific and important reason many people avoid and dismiss certain creationist debaters, and I know you're not going to like it, but I hope you read this and keep an eye out for what I'm about to explain. In most cases, the strength of either side in a debate is based on the structure of their arguments, how prepared and educated they are on the topic as well as any important related factors, and how decent they are at public speaking in a charismatic, engaging manner. With creationism and Christian apologetics, however, the "best" debaters are the ones who have silver tongues, and a deep understanding of how to use deceptive and dishonest tactics to diminish the value and integrity of every good argument against creation, while also being capable of treating their supporters like they're intelligent children without any shame or regret. The really good ones are also able to convince the creation supporters that the opposing side is the one who looks down on or dismisses them. So it's not that they're afraid or intimidated by the skill level of any creationist, because there isn't any honest, valid evidence for any part of creationism, there are only debaters who are callous, indifferent, and shameless enough to lie and disrespect logic, reason, and the truth in order to hold and gain as much influence and control over those who were conditioned to lack confidence in themselves and reject critical thinking in favor of warm fuzzy feelings.
Stephen Meyer's Intelligent Design movement has been around for more than two decades and is not going anywhere. It is the old teleological argument from design. It is not a scientific theory.
雨Jacob雨 I don't think Meyer is a joke even though I disagree with him. He is pretty knowledgeable about biology for a philosopher of science. Probably the best ID apologist.
Even though I don't accept the long age of the universe or evolution, I do realize that God in His Providence allowed various views to be entertained. Humans are very complex creatures with all sorts of views and persuasions. I think God works with us within our particular worldview and helps us come to Jesus as our only hope for salvation. I believed that Adam and Eve were a myth when I came to know Jesus. After a few months of prayer to believe that Scripture is the true Word of God, I was granted this amazing gift to accept the Scripture as God's Word. A young earth position to me is the clearest and most reasonable. Modern science, if interpreted in this way, doesn't contradict Scripture at all, although there are still unexplained things. But, doesn't every side have paradoxes and mysteries and unexplained things? Yet, some people will simply reject Jesus if they have to reject darwinian evolution. Theistic evolution position helps such people accept Jesus and be transformed by repentance and faith in Christ Jesus. The historical resurrection of Jesus Christ is a powerful testimony in itself. But they need to know that God used evolution somehow. Some people need to know that the Bible doesn't contradict modern science and the old age of the universe. The old earth position helps them see the Bible and modern science as compatible. Thus, they accept the Scripture and Jesus for their salvation. Romans 10 does say "if you confess Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" So, I acknowledge this reality and don't condem my brothers and sisters who hold to different views than mine, although I personally think they need to enter into a particular compromise with the world to interpret the Scripture to agree with the "so called" modern science. Nevertheless, I want to join Paul in saying as long as Jesus is preached I'm happy :))) God bless you richly.
I am also a young earth creationist, but first and foremost, I am a deeply devoted loving follower of Jesus, our Lord. I just wanted to say that I arrived at much the same conclusion as you, acknowledging that God is able to sovereignly move in people's hearts and lives, revealing His incredible love to each one, wherever they may be in relation to their position on origins - some He will change over time, others He will not. I only came to realise this a couple of weeks ago, after reading a great book called, "The Signature of Jesus" by Brennan Manning (a former Franciscan priest) who has since married, but in his book, he encourages Christians to live out the same love as Jesus, regardless of the cost, and regardless of our sinful nature of always needing to prove we are right. Loving God and genuinely loving people is what we are called to do. I really sensed this was where you may have been coming from in your comment. I would be so grateful to hear from you more on this, if you have time - your perspective is unfortunately so rare. God bless you always.
Thanks Paul for your kind comment. I agree with your statement about loving God and people. Jesus did tell us the secret to winning others in Jn 13:34-35, Jn 17:21,23! Our love and unity is a powerful tool for putting Jesus Christ on display. I just saw your reply. For some reason I didn't get the notification of your reply. Yet, strangely I felt like watching the video again yesterday, and, decided to browse through the comments. I surely would be glad to share my view further. Please let me know how I can be of help.
@@ambassador_in_training Yes, please share more of your views on this theme of love and on your creation/evolution journey. Please do not be concerned if your comments are long. I value the opportunity to give glory to God through reading people's life experiences.
At least there was one guy on the panel who starts with scripture and let's Gods word inform and shape his worldview. Then interprets the evidence based on that biblical worldview. Good job Dr G! Good thing it was friendly because he was clearly out numberd.
I agree with you. The others were kind of "watered down" perspectives, that had to explain and rationalize their 'love' of evolution more than their submission to God's special and accurate revelation of history and creation.
@ghostl1124 Randy's argument makes evolution even more plausible lol, it shows that adaptations can occur extremely fast, therefore it follows that adaptations that cause cross-speciazation can occur given even more time
There are lots of problems with Applegate's position. There is a 60% genetic similarity between humans and bananas. There is an 86% similarity between humans and dogs. There is 98% genetic similarity between humans and pigs. There is a 96% genetic similarity between humans and lemurs. There is a 98 genetic similarity between humans and chimps and 96% with the gorilla. Yet with all of these genetic similarities there are vast...VAST differences between humans and any other creature ever created. See? The bio-logos position is wildly dishonest. Humans are 99.9% the same. The 0.1% is sooo powerful that it accounts for ethnic differences. Skin and eye color, hair texture, height, and vast genetic variability. Moreover, there is Jesus, who is The TRUTH, that validate Genesis is true. There is prophecy in the Garden about Jesus' coming and to deny Genesis is deny Jesus quite honestly.
A young earth model was universally believed until atheistic and agnostic scientists began espousing a universe that was billions of years old a few hundred years ago. You have to read into Genesis what is not there in order to get an old earth model
I had a professor in college that stated in response to the age of the earth, "If God made Adam and Eve fully grown, why could he not create a full grown earth?" This makes sense in so many arguments. For example the DNA common ancestor argument could easily explain that God created us with the common mutations, it does not prove that we must have had common ancestor. Realistically I can see the possibility of pre-Adamite race and some form of gap theory, but I also see the possibility of young earth creationism, I can also see the day age as a possibility. I cannot however come to the conclusion that macro evolution occurred.
Indeed. Your last point was a very powerful way to conclude a great post. The irony is that there are so many leaps of faith in the evolution way of thinking that I cannot understand why so many people have locked and loaded evolutionary theory as irrefutable fact.
Interesting humble discussion! I love this! Unfortunately this is such divisive topic among Christians, and in my opinion, a good case can be made from Scripture for all the 3 positions presented.
Okay, we'll go with each day being 2 billion years. On the fifth day of creation (ten billion years according to you), God created the sea creatures and birds (which doesn't fit with evolution theory). If 1 day = 2 billion years, birds are 2 billion years old. Evolutionists claim them 150 million years old. What do you say about this?
Also it's quite sad to see how some of the comments here are cheerleaders for Dr. Guliuzza... it shows a lack of thinking and disregard for what was said at the beginning of this video... That we shouldn't just cheer on who we agree with to win and discount the others... These cheerleading comments are indicative of the main reason this is so divisive, because there's a difference of honest intellectualism, and tribalistic thinking. The latter is more prone to fall for fallacious arguments because they agree with them. A lack of thinking makes one much more vulnerable to confirmation bias and therefore blinds them from understanding the opposing viewpoint, and only through simplistic strawmans.
@@IIrandhandleII What would the situation look like if there really was a global flood that destroyed all but a few people. If those people survived such a flood, what would they have told their descendants? What would have happened in the retelling of the events when their children and grandchildren moved farther away from each other? After such an event, and so many retellings of the story over hundreds of years, would we expect to find differing tales that trace their origins back to the actual event? If a universal flood occurred, we would expect to find differing stories with (certain similarities) that date hundreds or thousands of years apart, and that arise from various geographical locations and ethnic groups across the globe. Interestingly, that is exactly what we find. There are over 200 flood legends in different cultures all over the world. The fact that one of these stories (such as Gilgamesh or various others) was preserved or written down first cannot be used to argue that it is the correct and accurate description of what happened, or the basis for the text of any narrative that was recorded at a later date. To illustrate, suppose that a certain battle occurred in the American Civil War. One soldier who was not there, but heard about it, told his friend. His friend embellished the story as he retold it to many others. One of those to whom he told the story decided to write it down just a few years after the battle occurred. Decades later, however, a young officer who took part in the battle decided to write a history of it. His memory was exceptional and he related the events much more accurately than the story that was being passed around by the soldier who was not even at the battle. If such events are possible, even probable, then we can show that simply because one telling of a historical event predates another does not make it more accurate, and does not mean the later story copied from it in anyway. If anything, Epic Of Gilgamesh further proofs a worldwide flood and the account of Genesis. The events of the flood of Noah and tower of Babel happened before Genesis was written, and were recorded by various people of different ethnic groups. It was just a retelling of the flood and kept changing with each retelling of the event from person to person. God revealed to Moses what really happened later on. As a prophet of God, Moses wrote under divine inspiration, guaranteeing the complete accuracy and absolute authority of his writings. If you want to insist that it was plagiarized, how do you account for the various and serious differences between Genesis and Epic Of Gilgamesh?
41:18 As I understand it, proper biblical hermeneutics stipulates that the first time a word appears in scripture, that meaning becomes the basis for the core understanding of that word from that point forward (with any deviant definition being considered abnormal). [forgive me if my terminology is a little off]. Is Dr Rana of the opinion that the base meaning for the Hebrew word “yom” is an abnormally long period of time? And that “yom” as a 24 hour day is just a secondary definition? Because I would definitely disagree with such an assertion.
Jarrod Young blood please tell me your experience. There are many debate videos I cannot get into a conclusion.i feel confused.are these creationists make everything look good and not true.how sure are you about the evolution.atleast answer in few words. Hoping you would reply
Sorry it took so long to respond brother. It only hurts and it’s hard to except Evolution and not God creating the Earth in 6 literal Days because of our cultural upbringing. I was very reluctant to change my mind to embrace science basically completely but I take comfort in knowing that I can do that only because of an accurate understanding in its ANE context. It’s liberating and terrifying that you now know the truth and more educated people are wrong. The Bible is not a science Book. Israelites only has 3000 words in there language to describe things and God didn’t change there world view only there theology. Only with in the last 100 years do we know that the Universe has a beginning like the Bible said but Athiest didn’t all become Christians, ppl saw the risen Jesus and still doubted. There will always be people trying to get to you and you will doubt sometimes in life Just like JOHN the Baptist, lol. So you are in good company if sometimes you don’t know what’s going on or afraid. People who help me... PHD Michael Heiser, Cheif editor of Logos Software. That what all the pastors use when looking at translation of Hebrew/Greek to English. Dive into everything he said and his pod cast. I have easily listen to over 200 hours of his stuff and Read a few of his books. Dr John Walton Lecture and Book “Lost world of Genesis “ Book “ In the beginning we miss understood “ Brother look, when Christians want to add up genealogies that are meant for theological meaning to get the age of the Earth you are stepping outside the intention of Scripture. Ps no one thought that the genealogies should be added up to get a age of the Earth Pf 6,000yrs till 1600AD. So no Christian till that point thought they should do that. Kind of show us that the genealogies where not meant to be added up doesn’t it. Relax and God peace and maybe watch Dr NT Write or William L Craig talk about the historic Jesus if you get worried the Bible is not true, lol. No one debates that. So if Jesus is true and Science is write then that means humans are wrong on our modern interpretation of Gen 1:1 Jesus saves, go with God and don’t let YEC scare you :)
@@derhafi Whilst I respect your opinion of "ignorant mumbo jumbo", I am curious where specifically this occurred in the presentations given by any of these three very intelligent and highly qualified individuals? Of course there will be differences of opinion, but that is not necessarily borne out of ignorance, but merely different interpretations of the available data. Is it not true that out of diversity of opinion, fresh revelations and new discoveries are made?
@@paulsmith8321 Those three supposingly “very intelligent and highly qualified individuals” forfeited their scientific integrity, as soon as they propose ID/creationism as an alternative to literally any naturalistic explanation. Any integer person who bothers to study ID and its evolution from earlier and more overtly religious forms of creationism will find it an unscientific, faith-based theory ultimately resting on the doctrines of fundamentalist Christianity. This conclusion is based primarily on ID leaders’ and their supporters’ views of it as stated in their own words. It is also based upon their total rejection of naturalism. Anti-naturalism is an integral part of ID. Its proponents reject not only philosophical naturalism (the metaphysical view that nothing exists beyond the natural world) but also the naturalistic methodology of science (the scientific procedural protocol of seeking only natural explanations of natural phenomena). ID’s rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief. In addition, ID is not science to begin with, it does not allow any testable/observable predictions and is therefore useless in expanding our knowledge about nature. In other words: Creationism is nothing but "ignorant mumbo jumbo" for those who are desperate to justify their atavistic faith based belief with something substantial and are simultaneously scientific illiterate, so that they don’t realise what nonsense they fell for, in that attempt. I Don’t know what is worse, that they think their audience is so gullible and stupid that he can get away with this, or that they are right in thinking so.
@@derhafi Thank you so much for your detailed and prompt reply. Am I correct that your basic objection to ID/creationism is their denial or rejection of naturalism as the established scientific process for what we observe around us today? If that assessment is true, where would you put Richard Dawkins - has he also forfeited his scientific integrity? The reason for asking that is when Richard Dawkins suggests that aliens may have seeded life on planet earth, I interpret that as not being significantly different to ID (and borrowing from you, that it is based on "an unscientific and faith-based theory"). Rather than providing a naturalistic explanation that is scientifically verifiable, Richard Dawkins is appealing to the supernatural. Just interested in your thoughts.
I’ve watched a lot of debates on YEC vs OEC, and while I have respect for the OEC scientists, they have never convinced me that their view doesn’t require a manipulation of scripture. Aside from that, I’m surprised so many creationists make this claim that there’s all this evidence for an old earth, but I’m also not convinced of that either. I’ve never heard good explanations for the problems that OEC faces, like the recession of the moon, comets, the Earth’s magnetism, etc. I’m convinced yom means a literal day in Genesis, and I’m convinced natural theology can back up that claim.
I think if you go to talkorigins you'll find OEC answers. But it still begs the question about a presupposition and worldview which interprets the evidence.
1:06:50 Exodus 20:4 is just talking about the Ocean, which is lower in altitude than the land, which is in turn lower than the heavens. It's not talking about an underground ocean. That being said, there is vast "oceans" of water beneath the earth, albeit most of that water is trapped inside rocks.
Regarding statements about how evolutionist "prove" evolution 1:17:00 - so, basically, my opinion is, this thought process is wrong. Why? In programming, most ideally what you want to achieve is to have base building blocks, which are used all over your code to build different parts that do different things, reusing these base building blocks where possible, and adding few extra information aside the base building block you are using. Now, why does this mean two different modules in your system does not have common origins? Because you might have two of the same base blocks of code in your Invoicing Module and your Project Module. The two modules have absolutely nothing in common except these two base blocks of code, which are used everywhere in the system. So, if your base blocks of code are A,B,C,D you might build your Invoice Module using ABCD and your Project Module using ABC, because D is not needed. That does not mean Project Module came out of Invoice Module, just because it has some features from it, that just means that base blocks of code were used to create both Modules. We need to accept that evolution the way its presented to us just makes ZERO sense.
@@jasonbaker7284 I think I know which part you're talking about, it's around 1:56:12 where it cuts out but I would have liked to hear what he had to say on the matter of salvation too.
@@chrisp7336 I watched it, thanks for that. I remember now. I took a deep dive into the question of origins a few years ago. To my dismay I found many young Earth creationist would make statements which effectively said, "if you do not believe in a young earth, you do not believe the Bible, therefore your salvation is in question." I was just hoping he would not say that. People lose credibility with me when they shove people into a false dilemma. I generally believe in a young earth, but admit there are issues, as with all creation theories proposed. I do not believe how one interprets that portion of Scripture has any bearing on salvation. I learned long ago not to major in the minors. That being said, day age theory is as far as I am willing to allow the text to take me. I do not think the Scripture describes the evolution of man from animal. Man is created, not evolved, in the image of God. Animals are not created in the image of God. That is explicit.
@@jasonbaker7284 I couldn't agree more, the science is far to patchy and inconsistent when it comes to evolution, we just had a discussion today about pastors here in NZ doing the same thing to science students that believe in evolution, it is a discussion that I think needs to be taken to the churches, on the other extreme in another discussion though, I've been having issues here with our group, they are Christians but hold tight to evolution, so tight that they suggest it should be part of our core faith, they are not even practicing scientists either (undergraduate studies), I had to disagree strongly with them about that but they just shut the conversation off. Anyway, I don't think evolution stands in the way of salvation, I don't even believe in evolution, wondering if it actually happened, maybe Jesus would have made a comment about it?. Anyway great chatting mate all very interesting and helpful :)
wonderful job by Dr. Kathryn Applegate. I agree with everything she said. And I was (happily) surprised (but i had hints) that she comes from a PCA background.
i wonder about the mustard seed critique...Jesus said it is among the smallerst of all SOWN seeds. I take this as meaning that among the seeds used for cropping, the mustard seed is smallest. I doubt very much that people in those days were planting orchid seeds of 0.5mm in order to grow food for survival!
Just had to make a note about your other debate video about homosexuality as the comments have been turned off. I understand why but wanted to clarify something. My daughters therapist knew personally those involved with exodus international. The original founder wasn't the one who apologized to the LGBT community. The organization was passed on to the gentleman who by the way did NOT go through the training but claimed to have been delivered of homosexuality. He joined the group after he claimed deliverance. They became close and as the founder aged and wanted to pass leadership off to someone...this "trusted friend" was given the leadership role. He then claimed he was no longer delivered and shut the organization down and apologized. My daughters therapist knew the ppl involved and hinted that he had joined the organization for nefarious purposes. A plant. The therapist has an 85% success rate in treating christian women who have a desire to leave the lifestyle. My daughter no longer identifies as trans and is married to a wonderful young man. I hate when the LGBT community lies about statistics. I was told by her therapist (an ex-gay woman) that there are more ex-gay identifying ppl out there than there are actively in the lifestyle. Why have such an important conversation on video and then block ppl from commenting?!
That’s a fair question. Since comments are often so vitriolic on this topic, Matthew agreed to have the discussion posted if I would agree to block comments.
Kathryn while i respect your point of view for me I will always rad God's word as if it IS written not only for me but too me. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise but I suspect it's because you academic types give so much importance to other people and what they have to say that God only get's a seat in the back corner. Really I think some of what BioLogos teaches is heretical. But that's my opinion.
It's not written only to you, it's written for an original audience as well. Thus you can't interpret it solely in light of your own worldview, likewise you cannot assume that everything is literal
A very godly brother from Uzbekistan (an Islamic nation), Sergey Nechitailo (Сергей Нечитайло) as a leader of the greatly persecuted church of that nation, stated so wisely and correctly regarding right teaching: A follower of Jesus Christ must exhibit the following 1. A very high reverence toward God 2. Honor the Scripture as one's absolute authority From 1 & 2 follows right teaching and overcoming life. Many have abandoned the first two and instead relied on fallible man's interpretation of the Book of nature, which forced them to reinterpret the Scripture, instead of allowing the Scripture to guide their interpretation.
Summary. The Young Earth Creationists made the most convincing presentation. I have more respect for Reasons to (dis)Believe than before. The (A)Theistic Evolutionist didn't make a persuasive case at all.
2:04:00 "...can convince an atheist.". So what? If an atheist isn't thinking or willing to accept truth, that doesn't change the truth. That doesn't change what is good evidence.
God created the universe mentally outside of time, it manifests physically in time. This is hard to understand because we are physical beings experiencing the unfoldment
It's not just hard to understand, it's incoherent. The verb "creating" implies time already. You can't "create" without already having time, to say that something got "created outside of time" is a nonsensical phrase. It's like saying "This sound tastes weird". It's a proper English sentence, but the words use make the sentence nonsensical, because the concepts the words convey dont' make sense. For a creation event, there must be a "before" and an "after". Anything else is incoherent.
In 1967, Derek Kidner published _Genesis_, holding, as I recall, to the "federal" view that God had brought a number of beings to a certain stage of development and then chose Adam and Eve to receive the spiritual "breath of life" and become human beings, with greater privileges and higher accountability. That "humanness" was applied to the other beings who had been brought to that level. Kidner stated, "He [Jesus] is the lifting of the curse, the undoing of the Fall." I've been a member of the American Scientific Affiliation for decades. One of our members published an article arguing that the Flood was regional--in the vicinity of the Black Sea, but seemed to the locals to be worldwide. The ASA doesn't take stands on some issues, but provides a forum. Jesus is our "Ark."
They are both half correct. One is right that the Bible teaches creationism the other is right that we've proven beyond any reasonable doubt that creationism is false.
I'm curious to know the reason that the comments section has been disabled on a least one of your other video debates IE the one discussing what the Bible says about homosexuality ?
@@SeanMcDowell What about your opinion on "eternal hell"??? This is abhorrent to many good Christians that in 21 st century some people still preach that rubbish... We have enough information in this century to understand better how the Bible was built and how it works. The Holy Spirit can open our eyes on the whole truth that we would not slander our great God of love!
I don't get the objection about time. Why would it take anytime for an all-powerful, all-wise and internal and infinite God any time to create this universe. Is BioLogos saying cannot create a universe in 6 days? The God who in habits eternity and is not subject of time cannot do i t in 6 days???
The major difference between the earth dust man and your star dust man is that your star dust man lacks the intelligent factor, much like your comment.
if you're reading the OT with western eyes, you're going to be missing a lot of theological points. silly of us to assume ancient people wrote stories the way we would today. "I take my plain reading, but when someone explains an Ancient Near Eastern plain reading, that's ruining the perspicuity of scripture"
I would agree with you in general. I would ask, what plain reading of the Ancient Near Eastern style is vastly different than how you and I might read it today? We obviously should study Hebrew and Greek to understand Scripture more fully, but what have we missed you think that we have completely wrong today?
@@danielkim672 one example would be honor-shame paradigms which are pretty much non-existent in Western theology with the exception of people involved in mission work. There are also things like Leviathan, uncover the nakedness of your father, sacred-profane space, 3 tiered cosmology, cosmic geography, etc. I could go on and on
@@jaaaaysselam3372 Thanks for the response. I will look more into these topics. I am relatively new to TE and the arguments that folks like Dr Applegate and Biologos. My intro to TE is from Michael Jones and even there, I have only watched a handful of videos so I would describe myself as a western, modern reader of the Biblical text. Let's use Leviathan and the Uncover the Nakedness of your father as topics here as I am more familiar with these topics than the others you cited. Can you provide the verses you are referring to and how modern western theology gets this wrong due to their view and how ANE reading or view is different. I am curious as to your descriptions of these to get a better perspective on how modern and really at least maybe 500 or more years of understandings of these topics are wrong.
@@jonathanw1106 Can you please extrapolate on that? Are you implying that the entire YEC gets the Old testament wrong because people of modern day does not take into account ANE or dismisses it entirely?
Dr Applegate killed it. Am I the only one that thought the arguments and points made got more intelligent from the first speaker to the last? Dr Guliuzza had such elementary arguments that were contradictory, and logical fallacies. And my favorite part - lol “we don’t need to be told how to interpret the Bible, everyone can interpret the Bible”...... 40,000+ denominations later
"40,000+ denominations later" - There are not just many denominations in the Young-Earth-Creationism sector, but in the other sectors of Christianity, too. I think that an omniscient, omnipotent, and all-loving god could have caused a scripture that everybody would understand correctly (maybe coming directly from god in a translation for each language).
My biggest problem with Dr Applegate came at the 1:10:00 mark where she says “we don’t need to know the origin of sin”. That right there is enough to say she should not be talking theology. The Bible is super clear that sin entered the world because of Adam. The first human. You lose that, you lose the whole point of why Jesus died on the cross. Everything that has happened in science since this video came out should make more people look into why YEC makes the most sense or both the past and the present.
59:15 No, Dr Rana, the Bible doesn’t teach that animal death is a part of God’s initial creation. That is just your interpretation of those passages, based upon your worldview. It can easily also be interpreted at teaching that death became a part of creation after the Fall. Since Dr Rana didn’t cite what particular verses he was referring to, I had to take liberty and assume the verses he had in mind were Job 38:39, Job 38:41, and Psalm 104:21, where it talks about certain animals hunting for their prey. Those are simply statements that reflects the current state of affairs when those scriptures were written (which was after the Fall and sin, through which death then entered into God’s creation).
So all animals were immortal? An ant couldn't be squished? The millions of species of fungus, plankton, fish, bacteria, crustaceans etc that exist solely to recycle dead material aren't God's original design to create a self perpetuating system? Humans aren't unique from the animals in that they began with an immortal soul as well as the ability to have a personal relationship with their creator? Got it
In regard to this Moody university way of reading the Bible "normally,".... Normal to who?? Like what does that even mean? I've always seen this "just read what the scripture says plainly" as a dismissal and disservice to the complexity and ancient nature of the Bible. It's quite an ignorant reading actually. Dr. Walton has said "what they actually mean by a literal reading is an intuitive reading." Pointing out how our intuitions are modern and even foreign to those of an ancient nearestern audience. So, saying 'oh just read it normally' is a significant deviation from a robust understanding of Scripture.
My understanding in reading the Bible normally in areas where things are difficult to understand, other parts of Scripture will help us understand what is being said. What are the examples of our modern English understanding of these ancient Scripture different than if we had the original Hebrew text? I do agree there is slight variations in text from the versions we have compared to the original, but what is different than how we understand the BIble that was written during the time of an ancient audience, not for just the ancient audience but for that totality of humanity? Asking to learn the perspective.
@@danielkim672 the biggest example would be our paradigmatic understanding of what it even means for something to "exist." To our modern, post-enlightenment ears, we consider something to exist by virtue of it's physical properties (hard/soft color, material, etc), while an ancient nearestern mind would've understood it more to be by virtue of it's purpose or role. So, to us, a table exists by being wooden/hard/4-legs, while an ANE would've thought it would exist by its purpose of holding things on top of it, or to eat on. So, by extension, to "create" something, or to bring it into existence, would mean different things to our ears vs an ancient person's. For them, to create something would've been more like to give it purpose, while to us, it's more like physical manufacturing. You could see how this would be a big difference between a presuppositional understanding that we take for granted (the nature of existence itself). Hope this helps and makes sense!
@@Joelthinker yes, i have heard this before from the TE side like Michael Jones and to me to makes sense in the way it is argues. I guess I am still in the camp that believes in the beginning the universe was created out of nothing, that there was a literal Adam and Eve and there was the flood. Outside of these really ancient events in the Bible, what other areas specifically do we have a poor understanding of. Can you provide me with just one example on how we modern people interprets it today and how it is vastly different. Does this apply to the New Testament as well?
@@danielkim672 Yes well believing Genesis is literally about material manufacturing is a modern understanding of creation though. It's a foreign perspective to the text. And no it doesn't necessarily apply to the NT, only where applied when the Bible is using more mythological language (like how other creation accounts used similar tropes). I believe Adam and Eve were real people as well. And I believe God did create the universe, but I don't believe Genesis is necessarily like a shot for shot account of Him doing it, as it reads much easier, and makes more sense when read with God giving purpose to things, rather than physically creating them. As for another example, consider day 7 when God rested. To our ears, that might seem odd as we think of it as God needing to take a break after a long week's worth of work, which makes no sense for an all-powerful Being. However, when you understand it in an ANE context, they would understand it to mean that "resting" is when a King finally takes an active position on the throne, not a passive position to chill out. It's an active term, and makes more sense in this way then what we would think it means today.
@@Joelthinker I don't believe Genesis 1-2 is supposed to provide us all the answers of creation things, how can it. It provides a framework of what God did in creating and IMO God created with a purpose. Did God give things purpose? That is an interesting concept I will have to think about more and learn. Right now, I think we have a purposeful God that created the universe to work the way He wanted things to work. When I was a kid, I agree that I thought God rested like humans would physically and mentally rest from work. That is obviously not what God did. He does not get tired and He did not stop doing the work God does being God, but learning more as an adult, the Hebrew word used here clearly means 'ceased' from doing the work He was doing that was described in Genesis, which is creating. God stopped creating new things. No new things were created after day 6. I never heard the thought that God rested and took an active seat on the throne. So far, my view from the Bible is God was always technically on the throne and never left. That is why Jesus came to Earth, the Jesus that created the universe.
It has been posited that God did not design the universe, he dreamed it into existence. That is likely as it makes sense. The universe is God’s dream and we have to wake up from the dream and liberate ourselves from it..
I am not well versed in evolution and haven't researched it to take a stance on this. I will say something is going on evolutionary wise in the world. I'd like to think in the original Adam and Eve, so am curious if there is another stance that says yes to a section of evolution (I know there are a lot of branches) that also supports the original Adam and Eve besides the OEC stance. I'll have to look into OEC more to see if I like it.
I came from atheism and paganism, to evolutionism, to old earth and theistic evolutionism, to now young earth creation, and I am a doctor of pharmacy. My question for atheist: if I can’t find Richard Dawkins in “The God Delusion”, does it prove he doesn’t exist (atheism)? If I can’t find engineers inside the computers, does it prove, with atheistic “logic”, that engineers don’t exist? My question for theistic evolutionists: 1) Do you write a book using typing errors (mutations) and then use “billions of years” of selective process by selecting those typing errors (mutations) out, to write up a book? Does even a retarded person need “billions of years” to accomplish something? Is the God theistic evolutionists believe in retarded? Do you think an Omniscient and Omnipotent God would take “billions of years” of using trials and errors (mutations) to create biodiversity? 2) Plants were created in Day 3, and sun moon and stars were created on Day 4. If each creation day were “billions of years” instead of a literal 24-hour day, how did those plants survive for “billions of years” without the sun giving them solar energy for photosynthesis? I mean, our plants can go without the sun for a day, but for “billions of years”? How did they survive those deep time, unbiblical days? Check out “Is Genesis History”, “Answers in Genesis” and “Creation Ministries International”, and hear PhD scientists expose the false science of evolution and even theistic evolution. Any scientific discussions are welcome, but please no name calling, insults or swearing or quoting “majority of scientists believe in evolution”. Thank you.
I'm a theistic evolutionist. I will answer your questions. 1) You made a terrible assumption that mutations are errors. Why do you think so? You said that God doesn't need billions of years to create things. Apparently, whoever needs billion if years to do something is retarded, including God. So if it is that easy for God to create world, why would He need 6 days? Why didn't He create it in 6 seconds? A person who needs 6 days to write a word is retarded anyway. Now seriously, God is an engineer, but He's also an artist. He can use as much time as He wants in order to express His greatness any way He wants. 2) 6 days are literal, but not material creation. My viewpoint is that 6 days are the time of functional creation, not material. Edit: if God is all powerful, He could easily keep plants alive without the sun.
Why don't you just stop believing in things if you don't have evidence for them? It's not like you _must_ believe in some sort of religion - nobody is forcing you to. If, despite the overwhelming consensus and evidence from the vast scientific community, you still don't find their general narrative convincing, just don't believe it. That doesn't mean you _must_ therefore be a pagan or a theistic evolutionist or an old or young earth creationist or anything else. It's not like there's any evidence for any of that stuff anyway, and if you think you don't know something about the world, you just don't know... and leave it at that. Just accept that we don't know a lot of things in life and leave it at that. Don't go around affirming things though just because you want some explanation. If you don't find the scientific models satisfying, for whatever reason, then don't use that as some kind of intellectual justification for affirming mythology as truth, because it's not like there's any serious scientific evidence that the universe or Earth is young, nor is it the case that religions can give us any serious knowledge about the nature of the world we live in. Just be content to not know, and if you want to discover reliable information, use scientific methodology and skepticism.
@@petarvasiljevic8764 Your reply is just the canned response that apologist schools and people like Frank Turek tell "believers" they should ask when someone is forced to articulate basic, first-line principles of reasoning. It's just a hucksterish attempt to shift the whole conversation away from whatever substantive scientific point is being discussed (which religion never can actually deal with coherently against secular scientific thinking) into vague areas of epistemic philosophy, where most people aren't comfortable. This is done as if it could somehow even be relevant, much less win, the actual point of substance. You don't need to analyze and study epistemics to any serious degree to carry out natural science. People who study and advance science aren't required to take philosophy courses because it *literally* isn't necessary to do science. You don't need to spend four years asking over and over again "Do I even exist?" to carry out scientific experiments, determine the best-guess age of the Earth, or engineer nuclear power. The philosophers are welcome to do that all they want, even though they are literally still asking the same questions people asked thousands of years ago and failed to come up with any coherent answer to. But if the philosopher wishes to opine on matters of scientific knowledge, they need to stop wasting time asking questions like "What is truth?" and instead start practicing science, which is based on nothing but common sense reasoning and knowledge of statistics, mathematics, experimental protocol and the observations our forbearers wrote down in good faith, but which we test vigorously all the time. The same goes for theologians, or actually goes ten times more so for them, considering that theology is tantamount to studying mythology. An interesting and honorable profession in its own right, but one which grants not the slightest advantage in learning about the natural world. All my prior bloviating aside, I am _not_ uncomfortable facing epistemic challenges because whether you're talking about natural science or philosophical metaphysics skeptical secularism still wins hands down, and it can be shown via dialogue to the satisfaction of honest, open-minded, objective interlocutors, that this is the case. To your point, which appears to be some kind of attempt at a challenge, no, there is no "evidence" to establish the principle as a "truth" statement. To even ask such a question just reveals a total failure to grasp the nature of much of human reasoning. First of all, statements that are "should" statements, i.e. you "should" brush your teeth, do not have "truth" value in the same way that matters of _fact_ do (i.e. the sun has hydrogen). If I say you _should_ brush your teeth that's just me expressing a preference, which simply cannot be _true_ in the same way that the presence of hydrogen in the sun can be said to be true. There's no "proof" to show that it's some kind of absolute fact about the world, but anybody can go out and confirm for themselves, using normal canons of knowledge acquisition, that the sun has hydrogen. There can be evidence for the truth of the sun's containing hydrogen. There cannot be evidence for statements that are "should" and thus to even _ask_ that question just betrays a failure to grasp the self-evident truth that it's simply not _appropriate_ to ask such a question, because there is no _sense_ in asking for evidence for a statement that is not subject to evidentiary support. The principle I articulated - that you shouldn't believe things without evidence - is just that: a _first principle_ of reasoning, epistemology, and ethics. It is amenable to _discussion_ and _analysis_ but it is not, in its most basic naked form, subject to _evidentiary_ support. You either ultimately agree with it as a first principle, or you don't. More, obviously, much more, could be said about it, but it would require a great deal of writing that may not be needed at this moment. There are areas of deductive logic in abstract thought, for example, that are supported using logical inference itself, but not subject to evidence-based refutation (since they are matters of abstract logic and self-evidently true). These still are "true" but they obviously aren't "true" in the same way that other things are "true." And then there are moral and ethical statements which also cannot be "true" in the same way as other truth statements. The real question here, though, to start, is if you _really_ disagree with the principle I articulated in the first place: that you shouldn't believe things without evidence. Do you agree? Or do you disagree? If so, why? I maintain that this is simply a principle of reasoning we all take for granted in human thought and it stands on its own as self-evidently "acceptable" or "true." You can accept it or reject it, and it's obviously not meant to be taken as some absolutist statement that applies in the exact same way all the time, but as a general overriding principle of thinking, it is self-evidently _true_ - but if you disagree, WHY do you disagree?
Did God make a clay man and woman as stated in Genesis 1;27 or take the woman out of his side. If we add God anything is possible . Which is more unbelievable is the real question. People don't know how to read the bible that is the problem.
Did Jesus turn water into wine? Then God can turn dust to flesh. Did Jesus rise the dead to life? Then God can call Adam and Eve to life. Did Jesus physically heal? Then God can heal Adam and Eve. How can you suggest that anything is impossible for an all powerful God? Are you the mocker and false teacher the Bible tells us will come in the last day who deny the creation and the flood?
I grew up with strong beliefs and teachings from church and other Christians that the Bible actually taught a young earth. The fact are the Bible doesn’t teach it at all. Also for every one who believe in YE, (especially after studying Greek and Hebrew) that YE is a theory based on a few massive assumptions. There isn’t a way around it in scripture. I’ve come to learn to humble myself with reading ancient texts. Be humble and give into humility with certain things that were not the authors intentions. Sad thing is that a lot of Christian’s force this belief and will condemn you as rejecting Gods word. Such pride and lack of study.
What is your view? I thought this was so interesting because as a Christian, I never even thought there were these views from other Christians. I’m going to have to rewatch this just to absorb it all to help me support my views. Wow. Very cool talk.
Views on the Age of the Earth go all the way back even to the early church fathers (their views varied) so this isn't something brand new to the Church and it wasn't a test for orthodoxy then either.
Have you ever looked at the Hebrew calendar??? Some have done calculations to discover the day of the week, according to our present calendar, Adam was created... The Hebrew calendar it is year 5778... The point is that pagans had an old earth view as well as an evolutionary view... Young earth has been the orthodox view of Israel and than the early church... Ancient Greek religion taught old earth and evolution and Greek religion is traced back to Babylonian "Mystery Religion"... I suggest you watch "The Fuel Project" video series "Know Your Enemy"...
Sonya Lee The view of the Church of England is that, when God was describing creation in the Genesis account, all of the language used was symbolic. One day is equal to a billion years. I never got an answer for why God would use "And the evening and the morning were the second day"; instead I was told "It doesn't matter how you interpret the bible as long as you believe in Christ." Clearly, the Church of England believes in a different God - one that is the author of billions of years of death, suffering and natural disasters; not one who made all creation in six days and said that it was good.
Those calculations are demonstrably false. Scripture does not contain enough information to make such a calculation. Gaps in genealogies are demonstrable.
Both YEC and New Athiests have the same message....God OR evolution. Both ask the world to choose. Unnecessary and unfair. Some anti-theists and all YECers are suffering under the same fallacies and therefore come to the same conclusion. False Dichotomy: A biological process that creates things (such as evolution) is mutually exclusive with God's providence. In other words, it has to be either evolution or God. Fallacy of composition: That a biological process somehow dictates the philosophy by which you view the world. Or that a biological process that created you dictates your purpose in life or value as a human being. Lots of YECs make the case that it's God or evolution. When Christians begin to see the evidence for evolution, they begin to doubt God. You could say that YECs are indirectly pushing some Christians towards atheism.
what if it is a true dichotomy? what if a model of "biological process" does dictate your philosophy and purpose? what if even atheists can see the bible plainly and explicitly makes statements that are irreconcilable with evolution? what if lying down and allowing Satan to dictate our view of the world and the bible is the reason why thousands have left the faith and thousands (millions?) more reject it before even giving Christ a chance. what if supporting evolution is a denial of God?
A physical creation....you mean creation of the physical? The bible speaks a great deal about that. Or do you mean creation through a physical process (which is impossible)?
*If we can't trust God's word in Genesis, then why can/would we trust ANY other words in the Bible?* I once considered Genesis an allegory....until it became quite clear that God states (and restates in Exodus 20:11) that God created everything in 6 days. Jesus Himself affirms Genesis and all of the "Law and the Prophets" (Old Testament) numerous times. Science/Scientific methods are giving us more and more evidence that the earth is indeed "young" (approx 6,000 years old). Can we ever PROVE "young" earth vs. "old" earth ? Sadly, I do not expect we can/will, as there will always be different interpretations of the same evidence. Ultimately, this becomes a matter of trusting God's Word as HE speaks it...not as we want to tell Him what He meant.
Actually, with every year the idea that the earth is only 6000 years old becomes more and more absurd. If the varacity of the bible depends on Genesis being literal, then I can say with absolut confidence, that the bible is wrong. And yes, we can prove that the earth is old. We have multiple independent lines of evidence that shows it to be old. If god had created the earth 6000 years ago, then he deliberately is trying to fool us into thinking that it's older. *...as there will always be different interpretations of the same evidence.* The problem is that creationists don't actually look at the same evidence as the scientificly minded crowd. Creationists ignore most of the evidence, if it doesn't suit them. But your last sentence makes the situation clear: You start with the assumption that there is a god, that he tells you that the earth is young, and that he won't tell you a lie about it. There is literally no evidence anybody can ever provide, if you START with this assumption. Which is your right. But then why not be honest? Instead of pretending that the evidence is inconclusive, just be honest and say that the evidence doesn't matter?
I have no problem with theistic evolution and I find those who call it heresy to be causing unnecessary division. I see most of these positions are movements and they have there ardent supporters. I love anyone who has a differing view on this, much like I have love for those who have a differing view on eschatology. I don't think the text of scripture actually is meant to be taken as it has been taken. I honestly think the framework view is the most consistent with proper biblical exegesis. Most people who argue otherwise often appeal to authority or simply try to drive home a point that is not really true. Such as saying yom being a literal day, when in fact it can and has been defined differently in the Bible. Every book of the Bible has an audience in view, a culture and setting, and a context that must be taken into account. This does not damage the doctrine of the clarity of scripture at all. In fact most people who hold to that doctrine, will go at great lengths to set up discussion about context, language, and setting for other passages. So I find it extremely inconsistent when they say the Bible is so clear that we can ignore historical context Genesis has been written in, while using it for other books of the Bible. Lastly as to the issue of death, I do find this the most troubling part. But there really is no way around it. Even in a literalist reading, plants have to die. So why is animal death so much worse? It is part of how things work. Besides, I always found it troubling as to why God would make Lions and Wolves who are natural predators with teeth for ripping flesh. Was he setting them up for failure? I think the best view is that death is talking about human death and spiritual death.
If those people would ask neutral scientists, the discussion would be obsolete. :) If you wanna know how the earth was "made", ask the people, that work in that field. The thousands of professionals around the world. If I wanna know how elecricity works, I ask an electrician. It would be stupid and dangerous, trying to find answers in a religious book. So, ask the scientists. And if you find a problem, that cannot be solved, wait a few years.
While I appreciate the three different views on creation here, I have to say Dr. Guliuzza appeared to be the most uninformed. The Cambrian explosion happened during Noah's flood?!!! Seriously?
A useless discussion. Creationism is evidently wrong and theistic evolution is a meaningless concept as there is no way to discriminate it from plain evolution.
Sean has made it from creationism to theistic evolution. Still a ways to go before he reaches autonomy. Autonomy: Freedom from external control or influence; independence.
I saw your original comment, but for some reason it is not showing up on here. I would definitely be open to hearing about it. This is the first time I have listened to Dr Guliuzza but he does cite many of the same things as like Answers in Genesis. A lot I agree with, some I have questions on and others that just go over my head.
@@danielkim672 yeah sorry I deleted it because I saw you were open minded in your other comments. I a tally live near AiG and have followed a lot of their arguments, and, very unfortunately, a lot of their arguments are very fallacious and even intellectually dishonest. There's so much cherry-picking and strawmanning that they do, and then a lot of the same sayings that it really turn into its own echo-chamber of cognitive dissonance that ends up denying and dismissing evidence flat out that disagrees with their worldview.
@@danielkim672 I'd be happy to give you specific examples from Dr. G later. But I strongly urge you to continue your curiosity and research away from the more creationist perspective, as it can be very limiting and has even adversely affected many people's faith because of its divisive nature.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and is as established a fact as the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun. The only response for an honest Christian is to regard the Adam & eve story as an allegory which points to a deeper meaning. It's the only way out for a Christian who values their integrity. Even if you take the Theistic Evolution side of things you still have a huge amount of work to do to explain why God choose such a long process involving hundreds of millions of years and massive amounts of death and cruelty. It's a sobering fact that 99.5% of all species who have ever lived have gone extinct. God may work in mysterious ways, but really?
Which version of evolution? There is more than one. If you mean for modern materialist neo-Darwinism, the evidence for that is absolutely not overwhelming, not when you read past the headlines and look deep into the studies themselves. There is a tremendous amount of storytelling and imagination that masquerades as science, hence why modern academics despise questioning the theory so much and will look to discredit and ruin the career of any colleague who decides that he does not agree.
Many thanks for your reply. Yes, I do mean Neo Darwinism. I am sure you are aware the Theory of Evolution has moved on from simple “Darwinism” a long time. The Theory is now well founded on many other disciplines which, while they confirm Darwin’s key insights, they also offer many other new proofs that the Theory of Evolution is the best, most well founded, explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. Evolution is proven by hard evidence from many fields of science, including Botany, Agronomy, Zoology, Molecular Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience, Physiology, Anthropology, Palaeontology and above all Genetics generally. In other words, the scientific consensus is that evolution by natural selection is a fact, and it is supported by a vast and diverse body of evidence and to doubt it is simply not credible, nor would I argue is it an honest position to take. Someone once said . . . “It takes good people to do good things, but it takes religion to get good people to do bad things”. In the case of evolution denial I’d paraphrase this and say . . . “It takes honest people to believe true things, but it takes religion to get honest people deny true things”. I was pleased that you seem not to be a conspiracy theorist. You don’t seem to be saying that there is a global conspiracy amongst scientists to supress the evidence against evolution. Instead, you seem to suggest that scientists are somehow afraid to put their heads above the parapet to question evolution, that they are in some way influenced by the consensus and dare not speak out against the theory. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don’t know if you know much about scientists generally; but they are the most competitive people imaginable, each new theory or test result is pounced on, analysed and dissected in an attempt to prove it or disprove it. Any scientist who came up with credible evidence to disprove evolution wouldn’t hesitate to put it forward - and would certainly win a Nobel prize. The fact that scientists aren’t afraid to question evolution is proved by the fact that there is a huge debate within the scientific community about various aspects of evolution. For example, there are debates about phyletic gradualism, evolutionary development biologists (evo-devo) argue against large scale morphological change due to small changes in developmental genes, there are debates about group selection versus the selfish gene, also many biologists argue for epigenetics being a major factor in evolution, etc. Despite these debates no credible scientist doubts the central truth that evolution is the best, most attested, and proven explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. There is as huge amount of dissent that is not being suppressed by the “deep biological state”. Scientists follow the data. The data says evolution is proven and to deny this is on the same level of dishonesty and madness as believing the earth is flat, or young earth creationism. For me it all comes down to honesty A refusal to accept the overwhelming and growing evidence for evolution is simply not a credible or honest position to take. As I said in my first post, the only thing for any decent Christian to do is to accept evolution and then work out what that means for their faith. Sadly, doing so can be devastating - at least for a literal view of the Bible. Interestingly, William Lane Craig, perhaps the leading American Christian apologist, has in the last two years accepted the overwhelming evidence that evolution is true after years of denying it. One final thought. As long as some Christians refuse to believe in evolution this will have very significant consequences for the faith. The evidence that evolution is true can easily be accessed by anyone, and when decent people (especially young people) see Christians deny this it makes them doubt many other aspects of Christian faith - and ultimately the truth of Christianity itself. In other words, denial of evolution could play a major role in undermining Christianity. Equally, acceptance of evolution will almost certainly play a major role in undermining Christianity. If I were a Christian, I’d be very worried about this. @@BabyBugBug
@Sarah Dilley Which natural event were you thinking of? In science a' theory ' has a different meaning to that of the everyday 'I have a theory of say, why it seems to rain on Sundays. For example 'germ theory' can be explained by biological evidence and the scientific method of undersrandinf how germs work and affects immune systems. Likewise we have biological, chemical, geological, fossil evidence for evolution by natural selection. Just Google ' why evolution is true' . If you believe the earth and living things were created instantly, then how long ago did this happen ? An approx date/time is ok.
Once we understand that the universe is probably 13.8 billion years old, and the earth is probably 4 billion years, you would have to ask what was happening during a significant part of those 4 billion years if not evolution?
I started off as a young earth creationist, then moved to intelligent design, now I am closer to the biologos position. During that same time I have become even more convinced that God - of Christian theism - not only exists, but is the best and only explanation of reality that takes into account all of reality that we observe and know through rational reflection.
Arthur Peacocke is great on those issues! Let us keep going ,brother:)
There is zero evidence of god. None.
@@bosco008 😂😂😂
There is zero evidence for atheism. None. Not one iota. God = facts = truth.
@@gfujigo LOL. You are 100% correct. I also have zero evidence that there are no leprechaun, unicorns or Santa claus.
You normally believe things when there is evidence, and don't believe things UNTIL there is evidence. I think you have it backwards my delusional friend.
@@bosco008 I totally agree with you. We should only accept things based on evidence and/or rational justification. We have no evidence that Santa, leprechauns, etc are real.
Evidence for God is all of reality that we observe. By God I mean the ultimate reality that is the ontological foundation for everything in existence. We can infer the ultimate explanation for reality from the effects we observe in reality. I infer you are a human who thinks I am delusional 😉 from what you typed. I don’t see you but I can make that inference. I also don’t see your mind, but I infer you do have one. In fact we cannot see the perceptual content of human minds. We just infer people have them. I could be wrong in making those inferences but they are rational.
Reality doesn’t escape rational inferences and deductions. When we examine reality and ask questions about what explains it, God is the best answer. Nothing else is even close. Consider even the simple matter of being - existence. For anything to exist at all, there needs to be something that doesn’t depend on anything else for its existence. Some think that is the universe or a multiverse. Yet these things are contingent and therefore are not good candidates. We need something totally not dependent on anything else for its existence. That’s a simple rational inference. When we do that with all of reality, we arrive at an explanation that adds up to God.
God is not a scientific explanation however. Nor does God compete with science as an explanation. When I cook food, one can explain the process by appealing to physics and chemistry of heat. Or you could say I want some Mac and cheese. The scientific explanation doesn’t compete with my intention and desires to explain my cooking.
If Adam and Eve did not exist then what sin are we being saved from? Who committed the original sin that we inherited? What's the point of Jesus dying for us if there was no Adam?
We’re all guilty, personally of sin.
I believe Adam and Eve existed - I’m just saying we are saved from our own sin.
Adam and Eve are also metaphors for the strong and weak force. God created the forces, the weak force fell, so earth came into being. That is why there is the metaphor of Eve tempting Adam. Nothing happens that God does not allow so after the angels rebelled the next thing to happen was the weak force fell and earth came into being. A planet where we can work out our spiritual evolution, until, hopefully, we are redeemed. We have to bear our crosses as Christ bore his to win heaven back. Christ did not need redemption but He inspires us to bear our crosses as he bore his.
I am an ardent supporter and adherent of theistic evolution but MAN does Dr. Applegate need to work on her delivery! She undoubtedly alienated many non-theistic evolutionists @1:05:16 when she starts saying "Did God really?...Did God really?...Did God really?" What do you think the non-theistic evolutionists think when they hear this?: "'Did God really say that you must not eat from any tree in the garden?'" Genesis 3:1
Some would say: Why would I care what ancient myth have to say about the 21th century scientific consensus?
What language did God speak? Did he ever curse? Did he know any science -- that plagues were caused by germs, or that you can't "let there be light" before you create the sun? He knew all this, right? Right?
I thought her delivery was very good. She could have gotten very technical and lost the entire audience but she spoke in a way that average lay person could understand.
I was listening to this on my earbuds. When the cameraman coughed it scared the crap out of me.
Funniest comment here and thanks for the heads up
12:37 for anyone who has not yet heard it. 😂
Haven’t finished watching the entire video, and when I do I’ll start watching it again. This has been one of the most constructive and civil discussions I’ve seen on this issue, and I’ve watched A LOT of them over the past 2 years. Well worth the time to watch and re-watch.
How about listening to actual scientists instead?
@@derhafi These are actual scientists lol.
@@wesleycolemanmusic People who pretend that ID is science, are called pseudoscientists.
ID can't predict or explein anything.
@@derhafi Uhhh we are
@@derhafijust because they dont agree with your worldview doesnt mean that they aren't scientists.
I think this was a fantastic overall discussion. Long enough to get great thoughts in but too short at the same time. I sort of wish we got more science related push back on Randy Guliuzza and more Biblical push back to Dr. Applegate. I sit on the young earth side of things but more than happy to learn. From what I have heard from the Theistgic Evolution side, and I am still learning here about TE as it is relatively new to me, most of what I have learned is from Michael Jones and his talking points are very similar to Dr. Applegate. From an outsiders perspective, there is not much different from how a TE defends darwinian evolution to how an atheist or agnostic would. Similar to an atheist, TE side would look to question if things really happened the way Scripture describes them, like Genesis 1 and 2 and the worldwide flood. They would typically take shots at the early accounts like Dr Applegate did when she asked who did Cain marry and who was Cain scared of like the Bible does not clearly answer these two questions. They make fun of a talking serpent when clearly the Bible discusses who the serpent represents. Biblically, I have many questions to the TE point of view but the biggest one would be them not believing in a literal Adam and Eve. Their answer that death did not enter the world through a literal Adam is IMO the biggest Biblical question mark when the Bible is clear on a literal Adam, death both physical and spiritual entered through Adam.
Just with regard to the question about poor design - just because we think something is poor design doesn't necessarily mean it was not designed, an old BMW will not be as advanced as a new BMW but doesn't therefore mean the old BMW was not designed, that's my thought on the matter
Chris P fair point!
@@SeanMcDowell I'll have to say I thought this was a brilliant event and the questions asked were on point too, I'll be referring other Christian scientists to this video, only came across it last night. Many blessings to you all, all the way from New Zealand :)
Chris P wow, NZ. Love your country. Hope you’re well.
The difference is human designers are finite and are limited to the technology they have at hand. God has no such limitations. I don't think this analogy applies.
What a dumb@ss argument. The points is that God (according to Christianity) is supposed to be perfect and infinitely intelligent, so if that's the case, why would he create organisms that have flaws?
This became a subject so divisive, so toxic and so hateful among christians, that it honestly made me wish that first chapters of Genesis did not exist at all. I lean towards the young earth position, because it's the only one that is truely consistent, simple and free of any basic problems. It just reads it as it says, and makes a lot of reasonable and scientific claims to back it up just like the other positions. Discovering some of the so called "index fossils" still alive was a major victory for young earth. It just plainly shows how much of what science claims to "know" can be simply false, based on wrong assumptions or even falsified on purpose.
I know from experience how much the inner scientific circle protects its theories to believe in the dates they are giving us. The truth is, all scientists who made ground breaking discoveries that were about to disjoint evolution, were silenced and threatened out of the scene in silence. Evolutionists are not looking for the truth. They are looking for proof for their theory. And yet, both evolution and old earth accounts have enormous problems with their theories precisely because they claim to be able to see so far back, and there are a lot of problems the further you claim to see.
Young earth has little to no problems. It's almost entirely based on the fact that God's work was miraculous. And that seems to be, indeed the way God does things. Jesus was not risen with a natural process. Neither he was conceived by such. Moses did not scare king of Egypt to death with natural processes. Neither did natural processes bring Israel victory under the Jerycho. God loves to do miracles, and Scripture even says in 1st Corynthians, that he made specific things silly, and works through simple, silly things to make wise men miss his whole point. On purpose. I have and itch, that some of the stuff we see in nature resembles long periods precisely so that God would remain a mystery to Spirit-less humanity. That's totally in His character. He wants to be truly understood and known only by simple folk. Carpenters, fishmen, sheperds... like He always did.
You are mistaken, brother! I have studied all this more than 30 years...from all sides... Jesus was relatively simple with simple people...,but that is not a license for stupidity. God gave us all abilities to discern His Works and Will. Do not confuse them, though they are interdependent! Who can say to Him HOW should he create or teach His kids??? Better adapt yourself to new revelations than irritate Him with stubborn questions why it must not be literal:)))) I can also make all kinds of stupid questions like: Why it took God so long to create all things (7 days???) Whaaat??? Not one micro second??? And alike:))) God has used simple people to write the Bible and though they are far from perfect..., He is the one who can help to interpret us today all those passages where people failed to discern all things at the time they wrote the texts, etc. God gives clarity one step at the time and each generation sees it better and better! If you are honest seeker, please, find Nicolas Berdyaev " On the destiny of man"!!!
It is scary how religious people can be indoctrinated to ignore reality for fables.
Young earth has the problems, it goes against all science and history. We can literally see the universe's age through the expansion of the universe.
Absolutely 0 evidence of miracles or suspension of natural law being plausible just unconvincing claims without evidence.
I can't disagree with that. Thanks brother!
Creationism is consistent? How can we see the stars? The stars are millions, even billions of light years away. 6,000 years is nowhere near close enough for us to actually be able to see such far objects.
@Adam Adamowicz "He wants to be truly understood and known only by simple folk." - This would contradict other passages in the Bible that say that God is love. Why would love mislead anyone?
Shalom,
As an ex atheist I found this a very cordiaal debate, chapeau to the host and debaters.
I was a YEC going in and came in more convinced of this truth, BUT I appreciate the other positions more!!
Yah bless
Ex athiest? Was finding "faith" the result of a lobotomy?
@@ratbrat9978 hilarious man oh man, you must be the best comedian ever, just wow. Did you think of this yourself or pay for it?
@@ManfredYB Yup, I thought it up all by myself. I don't let buybull dogma poop rhetoric think for me like you religious nuts do. AMEN 🙏
Man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Dr G spoke repeatedly from scripture using scripture as the basis for his position. God bless his word!
1:14:37 to 1:19:50 I would love to see an entire 3+ hour debate between Reasons to Believe and BioLogos on *_this_* one argument. Focus right in, and address just this piece of evidence, with plenty of cross examination getting right into the nitty-gritty of it all.
Randy....top work mate. The Bible says God created everything in 7 days, it tells us there was a worldwide flood that covered the whole face of the earth even to the highest mountain and it it tells us that each creature produces after its own kind. Abraham believed God. He was his friend. And through him the world was blessed.
7 days?
Six days.
Did you know that in the 17th century, people wondered if God made it all in one day because why would he pace himself being so powerful?
So many of the questions around this conversation could be solved by a clear understanding of what "The Bible" really is. People think of it as a single, cohesive book... even when they KNOW it's not. They demand "clarity" even when the writers were not concerned with details.
Tryin' to Reason But it is a single cohesive book, inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Don't Forget the Mission It’s actually a compilation of books, hence the different books in the Bible.
BuT wE’rE 3-0 wOu You've missed the point entirely.
Don't Forget the Mission Ohhh yep, I see what you mean. My bad I’m an idiot😂. God bless
@@butwere3-0wou you are not an idiot, you made a wee mistake. Never talk about yourself like that ❤
The beginning of creation is simple, that's why not many details are given, instead focus on something better, like helping the poor and the needy.
Dr. Randy Guliuzza states the obvious! "CLARITY" is paramount! SCIENCE and SCRIPTURE are hand in glove compatible. Hearing the other speakers twisting Scripture to fit the evolutionary paradigm is so, so sad. Light dispels darkness. This was the effect of Dr. Guliuzza's excellent defense of the God who created, ordered, and sustained the universe for His glory (Romans 1:20). Creation is ENGINEERED to be innately problem-solving. God is the Engineer. God is the Problem-Solver. Soli Deo Gloria!
While we can spend endless hours debating the interpretation of ‘day’ in Genesis 1, there are 2 oft overlooked verses in that same chapter that, I think, may drive us to one conclusion. These are verses 29 and 30 (below).
Consider carefully what they say: Every single creature on earth and sky ate plants - without exception. One could argue there may have been some omnivores (that would be a much weaker argument from silence), but we certainly cannot argue that there were any carnivores - this is explicitly ruled out. In reality, I think we can strongly argue that all were herbivores. That is the force of these verses from their clear reading. I think we can therefore argue that these verses strongly point to total harmony in nature, no harm, no animal death, but then a catastrophic change that turned nature in to one marred by death and suffering. Out of the 3 propositions before us in this video, only one fits that bill.
I confess I like Intelligent Design a lot, but I’m going to keep an open mind on creation science. I’d like to see if they can provide a credible case. From the scriptural point of view, to me, it is the most consistent.
Here are the verses:
“Then God said, ‘I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground - everything that has the breath of life in it - I give every green plant for food.’ AND IT WAS SO.” [My emphasis].
What are you saying then?
I agree 100% with the straight forward and plain reading of God's Word: all animals and Adam and Eve were vegetarians.
For almost 6 thousand years it was held to the clear Biblical dating of around 6000 years and only said since Lyell and Darwin the millions and billions crept in.
Millions and billions of years is ONLY needed to keep the dead horse of evolution (evil-ution) going, even though the 14 billion years is still not enough to make random, mindless, unguided chemical and biological evolution going.
I have noticed that the old earth and theistic evolution position never, or almost NEVER, discuss the verses about strict vegetarianism and all creation being VERY GOOD.
I wonder why?
Millions of years of animal death and various diseases like cancer don't seem to align well with what God said about everything being Very Good!!!
They battle various possible definitions of Yom (day) in Hebrew, yet gloss over the plain words of God to support their position.
I can't bring myself to believe the old earth or theistic evolution position because it has to distort the simplicity of Scripture.
Paul warned about it in th following passage:
For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
2 Corinthians 11:2-3 KJV
For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin. But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.
2 Corinthians 11:2-3 NASB
A very godly brother from Uzbekistan (an Islamic nation), Sergey Nechitailo (Сергей Нечитайло) as a leader of the greatly persecuted church of that nation, stated so wisely and correctly regarding right teaching:
A follower of Jesus Christ must exhibit the following
1. A very high reverence toward God
2. Honor the Scripture as one's absolute authority
From 1 & 2 follows right teaching and overcoming life.
Many have abandoned the first two and instead relied on fallible man's interpretation of the Book of nature, which forced them to reinterpret the Scripture, instead of allowing the Scripture to guide their interpretation.
However, it is also commanded to “subdue” the earth. If there is no danger (predators), why is that specific word used?
@@DysonRecon196 I don't think it's talking about danger or predators. I think it becomes clear when we look at the context. Have a look at Gen 1:26-30 again and see if you agree. The context in which "subdue" is used is that mankind has been given the incredible privilege of ruling over over all of God's earthly creation (vs 26, 28). There was no need to worry about predators, because God had already made sure that there is sufficient food - plants and seeds - for all (vs 29, 30).
Whoever did the audio on this needs an audio class. Great video but the mic levels were way off.
Interesting point about there being no ocean under the earth at 1:07:10. The speaker might want to consider the vast amount of water in the mantle.
The first guy begins with the bible and then gets to science the second guy (fuzz) begins with science and then gets to the bible. The gal ( katherin) bless her heart she is pretty to look at and has cute kids and reads books to her kids... what you begin with makes all the difference!
Dr. Randy Guliuzza (ICR) obviously won this debate.
2:11:00 She said they could come to different conclusions but then she described an atheist and a christian coming to the same conclusion. They come to the conclusion that there was the same thing happening the same time ago. An example is her saying there are never less than thousands of any one species. So there was never a literal Eve (A literal Eve is the first female human when there were no others.) according to her.
I AM CURIOUS AS TO WHY RANDY GULIUZZA WAS SELECTED AS THE REPRESENTITIVE FOR YEC IN STEAD OF DR. JASON LISLE OR DR. JOHNATHAN SARFATI. There always seems to be a careful avoidance of YEC Best debaters when these events are set up. PS. Dr. Guliuzza did a fine job.
first time I heard Dr. Guliuzza and liked what he said (really like listening to Dr. Lisle and have heard Dr. Sarfati once). I hadn't heard the blind cave fish, moths etc. from a young earth side before and ironically my youngest son just studied these 'mutations' in school so going to show him. Also I loved what he said about Psalm 19:1 and Romans (God's handiwork) and relating it to when man creates. How much greater is our mighty God? He most certainly can make creatures able to function, heal, adapt, reverse adapt etc .... I just marvel when I look at Creation's intricate details.
because this wasn't a debate. We're not looking for rhetoric employers here but a dialogue
With all due respect, there's a very specific and important reason many people avoid and dismiss certain creationist debaters, and I know you're not going to like it, but I hope you read this and keep an eye out for what I'm about to explain.
In most cases, the strength of either side in a debate is based on the structure of their arguments, how prepared and educated they are on the topic as well as any important related factors, and how decent they are at public speaking in a charismatic, engaging manner.
With creationism and Christian apologetics, however, the "best" debaters are the ones who have silver tongues, and a deep understanding of how to use deceptive and dishonest tactics to diminish the value and integrity of every good argument against creation, while also being capable of treating their supporters like they're intelligent children without any shame or regret. The really good ones are also able to convince the creation supporters that the opposing side is the one who looks down on or dismisses them.
So it's not that they're afraid or intimidated by the skill level of any creationist, because there isn't any honest, valid evidence for any part of creationism, there are only debaters who are callous, indifferent, and shameless enough to lie and disrespect logic, reason, and the truth in order to hold and gain as much influence and control over those who were conditioned to lack confidence in themselves and reject critical thinking in favor of warm fuzzy feelings.
I would have loved to see Stephen C Meyer weigh in on this discussion!
Stephen Meyer's Intelligent Design movement has been around for more than two decades and is not going anywhere. It is the old teleological argument from design. It is not a scientific theory.
Hans Weichselbaum some arguments are solid and don’t need to “go anywhere.”
雨Jacob雨 ironically, the joke is on you pal.
雨Jacob雨 I don't think Meyer is a joke even though I disagree with him. He is pretty knowledgeable about biology for a philosopher of science. Probably the best ID apologist.
雨Jacob雨 ironically, if I was unintelligent would I be able use my intelligence to call type this message? Don’t be such an arrogant jerk.
Even though I don't accept the long age of the universe or evolution, I do realize that God in His Providence allowed various views to be entertained.
Humans are very complex creatures with all sorts of views and persuasions. I think God works with us within our particular worldview and helps us come to Jesus as our only hope for salvation.
I believed that Adam and Eve were a myth when I came to know Jesus. After a few months of prayer to believe that Scripture is the true Word of God, I was granted this amazing gift to accept the Scripture as God's Word. A young earth position to me is the clearest and most reasonable. Modern science, if interpreted in this way, doesn't contradict Scripture at all, although there are still unexplained things.
But, doesn't every side have paradoxes and mysteries and unexplained things?
Yet, some people will simply reject Jesus if they have to reject darwinian evolution. Theistic evolution position helps such people accept Jesus and be transformed by repentance and faith in Christ Jesus. The historical resurrection of Jesus Christ is a powerful testimony in itself. But they need to know that God used evolution somehow.
Some people need to know that the Bible doesn't contradict modern science and the old age of the universe. The old earth position helps them see the Bible and modern science as compatible. Thus, they accept the Scripture and Jesus for their salvation.
Romans 10 does say "if you confess Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved"
So, I acknowledge this reality and don't condem my brothers and sisters who hold to different views than mine, although I personally think they need to enter into a particular compromise with the world to interpret the Scripture to agree with the "so called" modern science.
Nevertheless, I want to join Paul in saying as long as Jesus is preached I'm happy :)))
God bless you richly.
Alexandru Lasco sf.
I am also a young earth creationist, but first and foremost, I am a deeply devoted loving follower of Jesus, our Lord.
I just wanted to say that I arrived at much the same conclusion as you, acknowledging that God is able to sovereignly move in people's hearts and lives, revealing His incredible love to each one, wherever they may be in relation to their position on origins - some He will change over time, others He will not.
I only came to realise this a couple of weeks ago, after reading a great book called, "The Signature of Jesus" by Brennan Manning (a former Franciscan priest) who has since married, but in his book, he encourages Christians to live out the same love as Jesus, regardless of the cost, and regardless of our sinful nature of always needing to prove we are right.
Loving God and genuinely loving people is what we are called to do.
I really sensed this was where you may have been coming from in your comment.
I would be so grateful to hear from you more on this, if you have time - your perspective is unfortunately so rare.
God bless you always.
Thanks Paul for your kind comment.
I agree with your statement about loving God and people. Jesus did tell us the secret to winning others in Jn 13:34-35, Jn 17:21,23!
Our love and unity is a powerful tool for putting Jesus Christ on display.
I just saw your reply. For some reason I didn't get the notification of your reply. Yet, strangely I felt like watching the video again yesterday, and, decided to browse through the comments.
I surely would be glad to share my view further. Please let me know how I can be of help.
@@ambassador_in_training Yes, please share more of your views on this theme of love and on your creation/evolution journey.
Please do not be concerned if your comments are long. I value the opportunity to give glory to God through reading people's life experiences.
At least there was one guy on the panel who starts with scripture and let's Gods word inform and shape his worldview. Then interprets the evidence based on that biblical worldview. Good job Dr G! Good thing it was friendly because he was clearly out numberd.
Randy's opening was ON FIRE! What a champ
I agree with you. The others were kind of "watered down" perspectives, that had to explain and rationalize their 'love' of evolution more than their submission to God's special and accurate revelation of history and creation.
@ghostl1124 Randy's argument makes evolution even more plausible lol, it shows that adaptations can occur extremely fast, therefore it follows that adaptations that cause cross-speciazation can occur given even more time
There are lots of problems with Applegate's position. There is a 60% genetic similarity between humans and bananas. There is an 86% similarity between humans and dogs.
There is 98% genetic similarity between humans and pigs. There is a 96% genetic similarity between humans and lemurs.
There is a 98 genetic similarity between humans and chimps and 96% with the gorilla. Yet with all of these genetic similarities there are vast...VAST differences between humans and any other creature ever created. See? The bio-logos position is wildly dishonest.
Humans are 99.9% the same. The 0.1% is sooo powerful that it accounts for ethnic differences. Skin and eye color, hair texture, height, and vast genetic variability. Moreover, there is Jesus, who is The TRUTH, that validate Genesis is true. There is prophecy in the Garden about Jesus' coming and to deny Genesis is deny Jesus quite honestly.
A young earth model was universally believed until atheistic and agnostic scientists began espousing a universe that was billions of years old a few hundred years ago. You have to read into Genesis what is not there in order to get an old earth model
I had a professor in college that stated in response to the age of the earth, "If God made Adam and Eve fully grown, why could he not create a full grown earth?" This makes sense in so many arguments. For example the DNA common ancestor argument could easily explain that God created us with the common mutations, it does not prove that we must have had common ancestor. Realistically I can see the possibility of pre-Adamite race and some form of gap theory, but I also see the possibility of young earth creationism, I can also see the day age as a possibility. I cannot however come to the conclusion that macro evolution occurred.
Indeed. Your last point was a very powerful way to conclude a great post. The irony is that there are so many leaps of faith in the evolution way of thinking that I cannot understand why so many people have locked and loaded evolutionary theory as irrefutable fact.
Interesting humble discussion! I love this! Unfortunately this is such divisive topic among Christians, and in my opinion, a good case can be made from Scripture for all the 3 positions presented.
Stick man Sam
Oh please, please show me how six billion years fits into Genesis.
Okay, we'll go with each day being 2 billion years. On the fifth day of creation (ten billion years according to you), God created the sea creatures and birds (which doesn't fit with evolution theory). If 1 day = 2 billion years, birds are 2 billion years old. Evolutionists claim them 150 million years old.
What do you say about this?
@@xbbt7770 please explain why there needs to be 6 billion years accounted for in Scripture.
Also it's quite sad to see how some of the comments here are cheerleaders for Dr. Guliuzza... it shows a lack of thinking and disregard for what was said at the beginning of this video... That we shouldn't just cheer on who we agree with to win and discount the others...
These cheerleading comments are indicative of the main reason this is so divisive, because there's a difference of honest intellectualism, and tribalistic thinking. The latter is more prone to fall for fallacious arguments because they agree with them. A lack of thinking makes one much more vulnerable to confirmation bias and therefore blinds them from understanding the opposing viewpoint, and only through simplistic strawmans.
Uniformitarianism versus Catastrophism.
That is the question.
Noah's flood is the event we should focus on.
You mean the epic of gilgamesh?
@@IIrandhandleII What would the situation look like if there really was a global flood that destroyed all but a few people. If those people survived such a flood, what would they have told their descendants? What would have happened in the retelling of the events when their children and grandchildren moved farther away from each other? After such an event, and so many retellings of the story over hundreds of years, would we expect to find differing tales that trace their origins back to the actual event?
If a universal flood occurred, we would expect to find differing stories with (certain similarities) that date hundreds or thousands of years apart, and that arise from various geographical locations and ethnic groups across the globe. Interestingly, that is exactly what we find. There are over 200 flood legends in different cultures all over the world.
The fact that one of these stories (such as Gilgamesh or various others) was preserved or written down first cannot be used to argue that it is the correct and accurate description of what happened, or the basis for the text of any narrative that was recorded at a later date. To illustrate, suppose that a certain battle occurred in the American Civil War. One soldier who was not there, but heard about it, told his friend. His friend embellished the story as he retold it to many others. One of those to whom he told the story decided to write it down just a few years after the battle occurred. Decades later, however, a young officer who took part in the battle decided to write a history of it. His memory was exceptional and he related the events much more accurately than the story that was being passed around by the soldier who was not even at the battle. If such events are possible, even probable, then we can show that simply because one telling of a historical event predates another does not make it more accurate, and does not mean the later story copied from it in anyway.
If anything, Epic Of Gilgamesh further proofs a worldwide flood and the account of Genesis.
The events of the flood of Noah and tower of Babel happened before Genesis was written, and were recorded by various people of different ethnic groups. It was just a retelling of the flood and kept changing with each retelling of the event from person to person. God revealed to Moses what really happened later on. As a prophet of God, Moses wrote under divine inspiration, guaranteeing the complete accuracy and absolute authority of his writings.
If you want to insist that it was plagiarized, how do you account for the various and serious differences between Genesis and Epic Of Gilgamesh?
41:18
As I understand it, proper biblical hermeneutics stipulates that the first time a word appears in scripture, that meaning becomes the basis for the core understanding of that word from that point forward (with any deviant definition being considered abnormal).
[forgive me if my terminology is a little off].
Is Dr Rana of the opinion that the base meaning for the Hebrew word “yom” is an abnormally long period of time? And that “yom” as a 24 hour day is just a secondary definition?
Because I would definitely disagree with such an assertion.
And then there is the 4th commandment, which makes no sense at all unless those days of creation were literal.
I started watching with a completely open mind and thought the young earth representative was much more convincing.
Thanks for watching!
I LOVE THIS CHANNEL!!! GOD BLESS!!!
The best author on these subjects Arthur Peacocke!!! He is professional in both fields!!! Just find his books!
It took 2 years but now in my 30s I went from YEC to TE.
I wish I had this perspective when in college.
Jarrod Young blood please tell me your experience.
There are many debate videos I cannot get into a conclusion.i feel confused.are these creationists make everything look good and not true.how sure are you about the evolution.atleast answer in few words.
Hoping you would reply
Sorry it took so long to respond brother. It only hurts and it’s hard to except Evolution and not God creating the Earth in 6 literal Days because of our cultural upbringing. I was very reluctant to change my mind to embrace science basically completely but I take comfort in knowing that I can do that only because of an accurate understanding in its ANE context. It’s liberating and terrifying that you now know the truth and more educated people are wrong.
The Bible is not a science Book. Israelites only has 3000 words in there language to describe things and God didn’t change there world view only there theology. Only with in the last 100 years do we know that the Universe has a beginning like the Bible said but Athiest didn’t all become Christians, ppl saw the risen Jesus and still doubted. There will always be people trying to get to you and you will doubt sometimes in life Just like JOHN the Baptist, lol. So you are in good company if sometimes you don’t know what’s going on or afraid.
People who help me...
PHD Michael Heiser, Cheif editor of Logos Software. That what all the pastors use when looking at translation of Hebrew/Greek to English. Dive into everything he said and his pod cast. I have easily listen to over 200 hours of his stuff and Read a few of his books.
Dr John Walton Lecture and Book “Lost world of Genesis “
Book “ In the beginning we miss understood “
Brother look, when Christians want to add up genealogies that are meant for theological meaning to get the age of the Earth you are stepping outside the intention of Scripture. Ps no one thought that the genealogies should be added up to get a age of the Earth Pf 6,000yrs till 1600AD. So no Christian till that point thought they should do that. Kind of show us that the genealogies where not meant to be added up doesn’t it.
Relax and God peace and maybe watch Dr NT Write or William L Craig talk about the historic Jesus if you get worried the Bible is not true, lol. No one debates that.
So if Jesus is true and Science is write then that means humans are wrong on our modern interpretation of Gen 1:1
Jesus saves, go with God and don’t let YEC scare you :)
This is not an answer but this will get you started.
Good luck on your journey
m.ua-cam.com/video/P__8xQ1ZtUI/v-deo.html
What college was that?
Great debate. YEC for the win!
Standing For Truth Definitely!
There are no winners here. Except you consider ingnorant mumbo jumbo....ingnorant mumbo jumbo wins big time here!
@@derhafi Whilst I respect your opinion of "ignorant mumbo jumbo", I am curious where specifically this occurred in the presentations given by any of these three very intelligent and highly qualified individuals?
Of course there will be differences of opinion, but that is not necessarily borne out of ignorance, but merely different interpretations of the available data.
Is it not true that out of diversity of opinion, fresh revelations and new discoveries are made?
@@paulsmith8321 Those three supposingly “very intelligent and highly qualified individuals” forfeited their scientific integrity, as soon as they propose ID/creationism as an alternative to literally any naturalistic explanation.
Any integer person who bothers to study ID and its evolution from earlier and more overtly religious forms of creationism will find it an unscientific, faith-based theory ultimately resting on the doctrines of fundamentalist Christianity.
This conclusion is based primarily on ID leaders’ and their supporters’ views of it as stated in their own words. It is also based upon their total rejection of naturalism. Anti-naturalism is an integral part of ID. Its proponents reject not only philosophical naturalism (the metaphysical view that nothing exists beyond the natural world) but also the naturalistic methodology of science (the scientific procedural protocol of seeking only natural explanations of natural phenomena). ID’s rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for natural phenomena.
This makes ID a religious belief. In addition, ID is not science to begin with, it does not allow any testable/observable predictions and is therefore useless in expanding our knowledge about nature.
In other words: Creationism is nothing but "ignorant mumbo jumbo" for those who are desperate to justify their atavistic faith based belief with something substantial and are simultaneously scientific illiterate, so that they don’t realise what nonsense they fell for, in that attempt.
I Don’t know what is worse, that they think their audience is so gullible and stupid that he can get away with this, or that they are right in thinking so.
@@derhafi Thank you so much for your detailed and prompt reply.
Am I correct that your basic objection to ID/creationism is their denial or rejection of naturalism as the established scientific process for what we observe around us today?
If that assessment is true, where would you put Richard Dawkins - has he also forfeited his scientific integrity?
The reason for asking that is when Richard Dawkins suggests that aliens may have seeded life on planet earth, I interpret that as not being significantly different to ID (and borrowing from you, that it is based on "an unscientific and faith-based theory").
Rather than providing a naturalistic explanation that is scientifically verifiable, Richard Dawkins is appealing to the supernatural.
Just interested in your thoughts.
I’ve watched a lot of debates on YEC vs OEC, and while I have respect for the OEC scientists, they have never convinced me that their view doesn’t require a manipulation of scripture.
Aside from that, I’m surprised so many creationists make this claim that there’s all this evidence for an old earth, but I’m also not convinced of that either.
I’ve never heard good explanations for the problems that OEC faces, like the recession of the moon, comets, the Earth’s magnetism, etc. I’m convinced yom means a literal day in Genesis, and I’m convinced natural theology can back up that claim.
I think if you go to talkorigins you'll find OEC answers. But it still begs the question about a presupposition and worldview which interprets the evidence.
1:06:50 Exodus 20:4 is just talking about the Ocean, which is lower in altitude than the land, which is in turn lower than the heavens. It's not talking about an underground ocean. That being said, there is vast "oceans" of water beneath the earth, albeit most of that water is trapped inside rocks.
Regarding statements about how evolutionist "prove" evolution 1:17:00 - so, basically, my opinion is, this thought process is wrong. Why? In programming, most ideally what you want to achieve is to have base building blocks, which are used all over your code to build different parts that do different things, reusing these base building blocks where possible, and adding few extra information aside the base building block you are using. Now, why does this mean two different modules in your system does not have common origins? Because you might have two of the same base blocks of code in your Invoicing Module and your Project Module. The two modules have absolutely nothing in common except these two base blocks of code, which are used everywhere in the system. So, if your base blocks of code are A,B,C,D you might build your Invoice Module using ABCD and your Project Module using ABC, because D is not needed. That does not mean Project Module came out of Invoice Module, just because it has some features from it, that just means that base blocks of code were used to create both Modules. We need to accept that evolution the way its presented to us just makes ZERO sense.
I really would have liked to heard Dr. G's position on interpretation of Genesis and salvation. That portion was cut out.
What would be your concern/stance on genesis and salvation?
@@chrisp7336
I commented on this 2 years ago. I would have to go back and watch it again to remember the context of my question.
@@jasonbaker7284 I think I know which part you're talking about, it's around 1:56:12 where it cuts out but I would have liked to hear what he had to say on the matter of salvation too.
@@chrisp7336
I watched it, thanks for that. I remember now. I took a deep dive into the question of origins a few years ago. To my dismay I found many young Earth creationist would make statements which effectively said, "if you do not believe in a young earth, you do not believe the Bible, therefore your salvation is in question." I was just hoping he would not say that. People lose credibility with me when they shove people into a false dilemma. I generally believe in a young earth, but admit there are issues, as with all creation theories proposed. I do not believe how one interprets that portion of Scripture has any bearing on salvation. I learned long ago not to major in the minors. That being said, day age theory is as far as I am willing to allow the text to take me. I do not think the Scripture describes the evolution of man from animal. Man is created, not evolved, in the image of God. Animals are not created in the image of God. That is explicit.
@@jasonbaker7284 I couldn't agree more, the science is far to patchy and inconsistent when it comes to evolution, we just had a discussion today about pastors here in NZ doing the same thing to science students that believe in evolution, it is a discussion that I think needs to be taken to the churches, on the other extreme in another discussion though, I've been having issues here with our group, they are Christians but hold tight to evolution, so tight that they suggest it should be part of our core faith, they are not even practicing scientists either (undergraduate studies), I had to disagree strongly with them about that but they just shut the conversation off. Anyway, I don't think evolution stands in the way of salvation, I don't even believe in evolution, wondering if it actually happened, maybe Jesus would have made a comment about it?. Anyway great chatting mate all very interesting and helpful :)
wonderful job by Dr. Kathryn Applegate. I agree with everything she said. And I was (happily) surprised (but i had hints) that she comes from a PCA background.
I found it so unbelievably patronising :/
She was actually the worst.
i wonder about the mustard seed critique...Jesus said it is among the smallerst of all SOWN seeds. I take this as meaning that among the seeds used for cropping, the mustard seed is smallest. I doubt very much that people in those days were planting orchid seeds of 0.5mm in order to grow food for survival!
After ten plus years I went From a theistic evolutionist to young earth creationist
Ryan Welke Great!
Congrats. Could a share a brief summary of your journey?
So, you kept being ignorant of actual science.
Rob Davis no that would be you because evolution doesn’t have a shred of evidence to back it up. I was dumb when I was an evolutionist.
Bear what do you apologize about?
Just had to make a note about your other debate video about homosexuality as the comments have been turned off. I understand why but wanted to clarify something. My daughters therapist knew personally those involved with exodus international. The original founder wasn't the one who apologized to the LGBT community. The organization was passed on to the gentleman who by the way did NOT go through the training but claimed to have been delivered of homosexuality. He joined the group after he claimed deliverance. They became close and as the founder aged and wanted to pass leadership off to someone...this "trusted friend" was given the leadership role. He then claimed he was no longer delivered and shut the organization down and apologized. My daughters therapist knew the ppl involved and hinted that he had joined the organization for nefarious purposes. A plant. The therapist has an 85% success rate in treating christian women who have a desire to leave the lifestyle. My daughter no longer identifies as trans and is married to a wonderful young man. I hate when the LGBT community lies about statistics. I was told by her therapist (an ex-gay woman) that there are more ex-gay identifying ppl out there than there are actively in the lifestyle. Why have such an important conversation on video and then block ppl from commenting?!
That’s a fair question. Since comments are often so vitriolic on this topic, Matthew agreed to have the discussion posted if I would agree to block comments.
Why does it bother you that some people are gay? With the way this world is, THAT is what you focus on? I say this as a Christian myself.
God bless you Sean!
Sean Carroll is great, I agree!
the missing on this debate is timing...god create the right timing...we see that on all bible prophecy
sound balance is horrible
Kathryn while i respect your point of view for me I will always rad God's word as if it IS written not only for me but too me. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise but I suspect it's because you academic types give so much importance to other people and what they have to say that God only get's a seat in the back corner. Really I think some of what BioLogos teaches is heretical. But that's my opinion.
I agree to the utmost.
It's not written only to you, it's written for an original audience as well. Thus you can't interpret it solely in light of your own worldview, likewise you cannot assume that everything is literal
3:32 [speaking at the right level] *am I coming through the microphone alright?! . OK then, I'LL JUST YELL FOR NO REASON ANYWAY*
I don’t see any debate here. Thanks though.
Why did you cut off the response at 1:56:13 and switched to another speaker? That seems very disingenuine.
A very godly brother from Uzbekistan (an Islamic nation), Sergey Nechitailo (Сергей Нечитайло) as a leader of the greatly persecuted church of that nation, stated so wisely and correctly regarding right teaching:
A follower of Jesus Christ must exhibit the following
1. A very high reverence toward God
2. Honor the Scripture as one's absolute authority
From 1 & 2 follows right teaching and overcoming life.
Many have abandoned the first two and instead relied on fallible man's interpretation of the Book of nature, which forced them to reinterpret the Scripture, instead of allowing the Scripture to guide their interpretation.
Summary. The Young Earth Creationists made the most convincing presentation. I have more respect for Reasons to (dis)Believe than before. The (A)Theistic Evolutionist didn't make a persuasive case at all.
2:04:00 "...can convince an atheist.". So what? If an atheist isn't thinking or willing to accept truth, that doesn't change the truth. That doesn't change what is good evidence.
God created the universe mentally outside of time, it manifests physically in time. This is hard to understand because we are physical beings experiencing the unfoldment
It's not just hard to understand, it's incoherent.
The verb "creating" implies time already. You can't "create" without already having time, to say that something got "created outside of time" is a nonsensical phrase. It's like saying "This sound tastes weird". It's a proper English sentence, but the words use make the sentence nonsensical, because the concepts the words convey dont' make sense. For a creation event, there must be a "before" and an "after". Anything else is incoherent.
Good video thanks
What's with the jumps just after 1:56:11 and 1:56:19?
I am a young earth evolutionist
In 1967, Derek Kidner published _Genesis_, holding, as I recall, to the "federal" view that God had brought a number of beings to a certain stage of development and then chose Adam and Eve to receive the spiritual "breath of life" and become human beings, with greater privileges and higher accountability. That "humanness" was applied to the other beings who had been brought to that level. Kidner stated, "He [Jesus] is the lifting of the curse, the undoing of the Fall." I've been a member of the American Scientific Affiliation for decades. One of our members published an article arguing that the Flood was regional--in the vicinity of the Black Sea, but seemed to the locals to be worldwide. The ASA doesn't take stands on some issues, but provides a forum. Jesus is our "Ark."
They are both half correct. One is right that the Bible teaches creationism the other is right that we've proven beyond any reasonable doubt that creationism is false.
“This is not a debate” is said by moderator in the first few minutes…
_"This is not a debate."_
Title: _"Origins Debate ..."_
Make sense.
Brom Ponie “Debate” is about the topic, not the event. There is debate about creation/evolution, but the format was a discussion.
I'm curious to know the reason that the comments section has been disabled on a least one of your other video debates IE the one discussing what the Bible says about homosexuality ?
@@SeanMcDowell What about your opinion on "eternal hell"??? This is abhorrent to many good Christians that in 21 st century some people still preach that rubbish... We have enough information in this century to understand better how the Bible was built and how it works. The Holy Spirit can open our eyes on the whole truth that we would not slander our great God of love!
@@SeanMcDowell Is your farther Josh McDowell:)? If yes, then I met him once in Ukraine:)
I don't get the objection about time. Why would it take anytime for an all-powerful, all-wise and internal and infinite God any time to create this universe. Is BioLogos saying cannot create a universe in 6 days? The God who in habits eternity and is not subject of time cannot do i t in 6 days???
As humans are animals...then I guess there was always human death as well.....how else would Adam have understood that if he ate, he would die?
The big question is ; Did god add water to the dust to make clay so the clay man wouldn't fall apart?
Dahek
Yes dust and water Read Genesis 2:6-7 verse 6 water
The major difference between the earth dust man and your star dust man is that your star dust man lacks the intelligent factor, much like your comment.
if you're reading the OT with western eyes, you're going to be missing a lot of theological points. silly of us to assume ancient people wrote stories the way we would today.
"I take my plain reading, but when someone explains an Ancient Near Eastern plain reading, that's ruining the perspicuity of scripture"
I would agree with you in general. I would ask, what plain reading of the Ancient Near Eastern style is vastly different than how you and I might read it today? We obviously should study Hebrew and Greek to understand Scripture more fully, but what have we missed you think that we have completely wrong today?
@@danielkim672 one example would be honor-shame paradigms which are pretty much non-existent in Western theology with the exception of people involved in mission work.
There are also things like Leviathan, uncover the nakedness of your father, sacred-profane space, 3 tiered cosmology, cosmic geography, etc. I could go on and on
@@jaaaaysselam3372 Thanks for the response. I will look more into these topics. I am relatively new to TE and the arguments that folks like Dr Applegate and Biologos. My intro to TE is from Michael Jones and even there, I have only watched a handful of videos so I would describe myself as a western, modern reader of the Biblical text. Let's use Leviathan and the Uncover the Nakedness of your father as topics here as I am more familiar with these topics than the others you cited. Can you provide the verses you are referring to and how modern western theology gets this wrong due to their view and how ANE reading or view is different. I am curious as to your descriptions of these to get a better perspective on how modern and really at least maybe 500 or more years of understandings of these topics are wrong.
@@danielkim672please see the entire YEC argument lol
@@jonathanw1106 Can you please extrapolate on that? Are you implying that the entire YEC gets the Old testament wrong because people of modern day does not take into account ANE or dismisses it entirely?
Dr Applegate killed it. Am I the only one that thought the arguments and points made got more intelligent from the first speaker to the last? Dr Guliuzza had such elementary arguments that were contradictory, and logical fallacies. And my favorite part - lol “we don’t need to be told how to interpret the Bible, everyone can interpret the Bible”...... 40,000+ denominations later
Yes. She killed it.
"40,000+ denominations later" - There are not just many denominations in the Young-Earth-Creationism sector, but in the other sectors of Christianity, too. I think that an omniscient, omnipotent, and all-loving god could have caused a scripture that everybody would understand correctly (maybe coming directly from god in a translation for each language).
My biggest problem with Dr Applegate came at the 1:10:00 mark where she says “we don’t need to know the origin of sin”.
That right there is enough to say she should not be talking theology. The Bible is super clear that sin entered the world because of Adam. The first human. You lose that, you lose the whole point of why Jesus died on the cross.
Everything that has happened in science since this video came out should make more people look into why YEC makes the most sense or both the past and the present.
59:15
No, Dr Rana, the Bible doesn’t teach that animal death is a part of God’s initial creation. That is just your interpretation of those passages, based upon your worldview. It can easily also be interpreted at teaching that death became a part of creation after the Fall.
Since Dr Rana didn’t cite what particular verses he was referring to, I had to take liberty and assume the verses he had in mind were Job 38:39, Job 38:41, and Psalm 104:21, where it talks about certain animals hunting for their prey. Those are simply statements that reflects the current state of affairs when those scriptures were written (which was after the Fall and sin, through which death then entered into God’s creation).
So all animals were immortal? An ant couldn't be squished? The millions of species of fungus, plankton, fish, bacteria, crustaceans etc that exist solely to recycle dead material aren't God's original design to create a self perpetuating system? Humans aren't unique from the animals in that they began with an immortal soul as well as the ability to have a personal relationship with their creator? Got it
In regard to this Moody university way of reading the Bible "normally,".... Normal to who?? Like what does that even mean? I've always seen this "just read what the scripture says plainly" as a dismissal and disservice to the complexity and ancient nature of the Bible. It's quite an ignorant reading actually.
Dr. Walton has said "what they actually mean by a literal reading is an intuitive reading." Pointing out how our intuitions are modern and even foreign to those of an ancient nearestern audience.
So, saying 'oh just read it normally' is a significant deviation from a robust understanding of Scripture.
My understanding in reading the Bible normally in areas where things are difficult to understand, other parts of Scripture will help us understand what is being said. What are the examples of our modern English understanding of these ancient Scripture different than if we had the original Hebrew text? I do agree there is slight variations in text from the versions we have compared to the original, but what is different than how we understand the BIble that was written during the time of an ancient audience, not for just the ancient audience but for that totality of humanity? Asking to learn the perspective.
@@danielkim672 the biggest example would be our paradigmatic understanding of what it even means for something to "exist."
To our modern, post-enlightenment ears, we consider something to exist by virtue of it's physical properties (hard/soft color, material, etc), while an ancient nearestern mind would've understood it more to be by virtue of it's purpose or role.
So, to us, a table exists by being wooden/hard/4-legs, while an ANE would've thought it would exist by its purpose of holding things on top of it, or to eat on.
So, by extension, to "create" something, or to bring it into existence, would mean different things to our ears vs an ancient person's. For them, to create something would've been more like to give it purpose, while to us, it's more like physical manufacturing. You could see how this would be a big difference between a presuppositional understanding that we take for granted (the nature of existence itself).
Hope this helps and makes sense!
@@Joelthinker yes, i have heard this before from the TE side like Michael Jones and to me to makes sense in the way it is argues. I guess I am still in the camp that believes in the beginning the universe was created out of nothing, that there was a literal Adam and Eve and there was the flood. Outside of these really ancient events in the Bible, what other areas specifically do we have a poor understanding of. Can you provide me with just one example on how we modern people interprets it today and how it is vastly different. Does this apply to the New Testament as well?
@@danielkim672 Yes well believing Genesis is literally about material manufacturing is a modern understanding of creation though. It's a foreign perspective to the text. And no it doesn't necessarily apply to the NT, only where applied when the Bible is using more mythological language (like how other creation accounts used similar tropes).
I believe Adam and Eve were real people as well. And I believe God did create the universe, but I don't believe Genesis is necessarily like a shot for shot account of Him doing it, as it reads much easier, and makes more sense when read with God giving purpose to things, rather than physically creating them.
As for another example, consider day 7 when God rested. To our ears, that might seem odd as we think of it as God needing to take a break after a long week's worth of work, which makes no sense for an all-powerful Being. However, when you understand it in an ANE context, they would understand it to mean that "resting" is when a King finally takes an active position on the throne, not a passive position to chill out. It's an active term, and makes more sense in this way then what we would think it means today.
@@Joelthinker I don't believe Genesis 1-2 is supposed to provide us all the answers of creation things, how can it. It provides a framework of what God did in creating and IMO God created with a purpose. Did God give things purpose? That is an interesting concept I will have to think about more and learn. Right now, I think we have a purposeful God that created the universe to work the way He wanted things to work. When I was a kid, I agree that I thought God rested like humans would physically and mentally rest from work. That is obviously not what God did. He does not get tired and He did not stop doing the work God does being God, but learning more as an adult, the Hebrew word used here clearly means 'ceased' from doing the work He was doing that was described in Genesis, which is creating. God stopped creating new things. No new things were created after day 6. I never heard the thought that God rested and took an active seat on the throne. So far, my view from the Bible is God was always technically on the throne and never left. That is why Jesus came to Earth, the Jesus that created the universe.
I think you should have had Dr. John Lennox on with his 7 days that divide the world….
It has been posited that God did not design the universe, he dreamed it into existence. That is likely as it makes sense. The universe is God’s dream and we have to wake up from the dream and liberate ourselves from it..
I am not well versed in evolution and haven't researched it to take a stance on this. I will say something is going on evolutionary wise in the world. I'd like to think in the original Adam and Eve, so am curious if there is another stance that says yes to a section of evolution (I know there are a lot of branches) that also supports the original Adam and Eve besides the OEC stance. I'll have to look into OEC more to see if I like it.
Some Theistic Evolutionists (like William Lance Craig or Joshua Swamidass) accept Adam and Eve.
I came from atheism and paganism, to evolutionism, to old earth and theistic evolutionism, to now young earth creation, and I am a doctor of pharmacy. My question for atheist: if I can’t find Richard Dawkins in “The God Delusion”, does it prove he doesn’t exist (atheism)? If I can’t find engineers inside the computers, does it prove, with atheistic “logic”, that engineers don’t exist?
My question for theistic evolutionists: 1) Do you write a book using typing errors (mutations) and then use “billions of years” of selective process by selecting those typing errors (mutations) out, to write up a book? Does even a retarded person need “billions of years” to accomplish something? Is the God theistic evolutionists believe in retarded? Do you think an Omniscient and Omnipotent God would take “billions of years” of using trials and errors (mutations) to create biodiversity?
2) Plants were created in Day 3, and sun moon and stars were created on Day 4. If each creation day were “billions of years” instead of a literal 24-hour day, how did those plants survive for “billions of years” without the sun giving them solar energy for photosynthesis? I mean, our plants can go without the sun for a day, but for “billions of years”? How did they survive those deep time, unbiblical days?
Check out “Is Genesis History”, “Answers in Genesis” and “Creation Ministries International”, and hear PhD scientists expose the false science of evolution and even theistic evolution.
Any scientific discussions are welcome, but please no name calling, insults or swearing or quoting “majority of scientists believe in evolution”. Thank you.
I'm a theistic evolutionist. I will answer your questions.
1) You made a terrible assumption that mutations are errors. Why do you think so? You said that God doesn't need billions of years to create things. Apparently, whoever needs billion if years to do something is retarded, including God. So if it is that easy for God to create world, why would He need 6 days? Why didn't He create it in 6 seconds? A person who needs 6 days to write a word is retarded anyway. Now seriously, God is an engineer, but He's also an artist. He can use as much time as He wants in order to express His greatness any way He wants.
2) 6 days are literal, but not material creation. My viewpoint is that 6 days are the time of functional creation, not material.
Edit: if God is all powerful, He could easily keep plants alive without the sun.
Why don't you just stop believing in things if you don't have evidence for them? It's not like you _must_ believe in some sort of religion - nobody is forcing you to. If, despite the overwhelming consensus and evidence from the vast scientific community, you still don't find their general narrative convincing, just don't believe it. That doesn't mean you _must_ therefore be a pagan or a theistic evolutionist or an old or young earth creationist or anything else. It's not like there's any evidence for any of that stuff anyway, and if you think you don't know something about the world, you just don't know... and leave it at that. Just accept that we don't know a lot of things in life and leave it at that. Don't go around affirming things though just because you want some explanation. If you don't find the scientific models satisfying, for whatever reason, then don't use that as some kind of intellectual justification for affirming mythology as truth, because it's not like there's any serious scientific evidence that the universe or Earth is young, nor is it the case that religions can give us any serious knowledge about the nature of the world we live in. Just be content to not know, and if you want to discover reliable information, use scientific methodology and skepticism.
@@superdog797 I just read your comment and don’t see your presence, so I declare, using the same atheistic “logic”, that you don’t exist (atheism).
@@superdog797 "Why don't you just stop believing in things if you don't have evidence for them?"
Is there any evidence this is a truth statement?
@@petarvasiljevic8764 Your reply is just the canned response that apologist schools and people like Frank Turek tell "believers" they should ask when someone is forced to articulate basic, first-line principles of reasoning. It's just a hucksterish attempt to shift the whole conversation away from whatever substantive scientific point is being discussed (which religion never can actually deal with coherently against secular scientific thinking) into vague areas of epistemic philosophy, where most people aren't comfortable. This is done as if it could somehow even be relevant, much less win, the actual point of substance. You don't need to analyze and study epistemics to any serious degree to carry out natural science. People who study and advance science aren't required to take philosophy courses because it *literally* isn't necessary to do science. You don't need to spend four years asking over and over again "Do I even exist?" to carry out scientific experiments, determine the best-guess age of the Earth, or engineer nuclear power. The philosophers are welcome to do that all they want, even though they are literally still asking the same questions people asked thousands of years ago and failed to come up with any coherent answer to. But if the philosopher wishes to opine on matters of scientific knowledge, they need to stop wasting time asking questions like "What is truth?" and instead start practicing science, which is based on nothing but common sense reasoning and knowledge of statistics, mathematics, experimental protocol and the observations our forbearers wrote down in good faith, but which we test vigorously all the time. The same goes for theologians, or actually goes ten times more so for them, considering that theology is tantamount to studying mythology. An interesting and honorable profession in its own right, but one which grants not the slightest advantage in learning about the natural world.
All my prior bloviating aside, I am _not_ uncomfortable facing epistemic challenges because whether you're talking about natural science or philosophical metaphysics skeptical secularism still wins hands down, and it can be shown via dialogue to the satisfaction of honest, open-minded, objective interlocutors, that this is the case.
To your point, which appears to be some kind of attempt at a challenge, no, there is no "evidence" to establish the principle as a "truth" statement. To even ask such a question just reveals a total failure to grasp the nature of much of human reasoning.
First of all, statements that are "should" statements, i.e. you "should" brush your teeth, do not have "truth" value in the same way that matters of _fact_ do (i.e. the sun has hydrogen). If I say you _should_ brush your teeth that's just me expressing a preference, which simply cannot be _true_ in the same way that the presence of hydrogen in the sun can be said to be true. There's no "proof" to show that it's some kind of absolute fact about the world, but anybody can go out and confirm for themselves, using normal canons of knowledge acquisition, that the sun has hydrogen. There can be evidence for the truth of the sun's containing hydrogen. There cannot be evidence for statements that are "should" and thus to even _ask_ that question just betrays a failure to grasp the self-evident truth that it's simply not _appropriate_ to ask such a question, because there is no _sense_ in asking for evidence for a statement that is not subject to evidentiary support.
The principle I articulated - that you shouldn't believe things without evidence - is just that: a _first principle_ of reasoning, epistemology, and ethics. It is amenable to _discussion_ and _analysis_ but it is not, in its most basic naked form, subject to _evidentiary_ support. You either ultimately agree with it as a first principle, or you don't.
More, obviously, much more, could be said about it, but it would require a great deal of writing that may not be needed at this moment. There are areas of deductive logic in abstract thought, for example, that are supported using logical inference itself, but not subject to evidence-based refutation (since they are matters of abstract logic and self-evidently true). These still are "true" but they obviously aren't "true" in the same way that other things are "true." And then there are moral and ethical statements which also cannot be "true" in the same way as other truth statements. The real question here, though, to start, is if you _really_ disagree with the principle I articulated in the first place: that you shouldn't believe things without evidence. Do you agree? Or do you disagree? If so, why? I maintain that this is simply a principle of reasoning we all take for granted in human thought and it stands on its own as self-evidently "acceptable" or "true." You can accept it or reject it, and it's obviously not meant to be taken as some absolutist statement that applies in the exact same way all the time, but as a general overriding principle of thinking, it is self-evidently _true_ - but if you disagree, WHY do you disagree?
Audio is poor. Fix it
Did God make a clay man and woman as stated in Genesis 1;27 or take the woman out of his side. If we add God anything is possible . Which is more unbelievable is the real question. People don't know how to read the bible that is the problem.
People are ignorant of actual science and fall for this mumbo jumbo
instead, that is the real problem.
If something is unfalsifiable, it is also undistinguishable from non-existent.
Did Jesus turn water into wine? Then God can turn dust to flesh. Did Jesus rise the dead to life? Then God can call Adam and Eve to life. Did Jesus physically heal? Then God can heal Adam and Eve. How can you suggest that anything is impossible for an all powerful God? Are you the mocker and false teacher the Bible tells us will come in the last day who deny the creation and the flood?
Applegate!. Whooh
I grew up with strong beliefs and teachings from church and other Christians that the Bible actually taught a young earth. The fact are the Bible doesn’t teach it at all. Also for every one who believe in YE, (especially after studying Greek and Hebrew) that YE is a theory based on a few massive assumptions. There isn’t a way around it in scripture. I’ve come to learn to humble myself with reading ancient texts. Be humble and give into humility with certain things that were not the authors intentions. Sad thing is that a lot of Christian’s force this belief and will condemn you as rejecting Gods word. Such pride and lack of study.
Get Ken ham on ❤
The amount of absolute ignorance here is quite evident....
What is your view? I thought this was so interesting because as a Christian, I never even thought there were these views from other Christians. I’m going to have to rewatch this just to absorb it all to help me support my views. Wow. Very cool talk.
Views on the Age of the Earth go all the way back even to the early church fathers (their views varied) so this isn't something brand new to the Church and it wasn't a test for orthodoxy then either.
Have you ever looked at the Hebrew calendar??? Some have done calculations to discover the day of the week, according to our present calendar, Adam was created... The Hebrew calendar it is year 5778... The point is that pagans had an old earth view as well as an evolutionary view... Young earth has been the orthodox view of Israel and than the early church... Ancient Greek religion taught old earth and evolution and Greek religion is traced back to Babylonian "Mystery Religion"... I suggest you watch "The Fuel Project" video series "Know Your Enemy"...
Sonya Lee The view of the Church of England is that, when God was describing creation in the Genesis account, all of the language used was symbolic. One day is equal to a billion years.
I never got an answer for why God would use "And the evening and the morning were the second day"; instead I was told "It doesn't matter how you interpret the bible as long as you believe in Christ."
Clearly, the Church of England believes in a different God - one that is the author of billions of years of death, suffering and natural disasters; not one who made all creation in six days and said that it was good.
Those calculations are demonstrably false. Scripture does not contain enough information to make such a calculation. Gaps in genealogies are demonstrable.
I think I lean towards Biologos or the medium aged earth. Im not as close to young earth.
I believe that Sir Isaac Newton was opposite of your leaning.
Both YEC and New Athiests have the same message....God OR evolution. Both ask the world to choose. Unnecessary and unfair.
Some anti-theists and all YECers are suffering under the same fallacies and therefore come to the same conclusion.
False Dichotomy: A biological process that creates things (such as evolution) is mutually exclusive with God's providence. In other words, it has to be either evolution or God.
Fallacy of composition: That a biological process somehow dictates the philosophy by which you view the world. Or that a biological process that created you dictates your purpose in life or value as a human being.
Lots of YECs make the case that it's God or evolution. When Christians begin to see the evidence for evolution, they begin to doubt God. You could say that YECs are indirectly pushing some Christians towards atheism.
what if it is a true dichotomy? what if a model of "biological process" does dictate your philosophy and purpose? what if even atheists can see the bible plainly and explicitly makes statements that are irreconcilable with evolution? what if lying down and allowing Satan to dictate our view of the world and the bible is the reason why thousands have left the faith and thousands (millions?) more reject it before even giving Christ a chance. what if supporting evolution is a denial of God?
Well, since the Bible is absolutely silent about a material creation of the universe, we will have to go with what we know, hence evolution.
tesla121 a material creation...what is that?
A physical creation. The Bible is silent.
A physical creation....you mean creation of the physical? The bible speaks a great deal about that. Or do you mean creation through a physical process (which is impossible)?
*If we can't trust God's word in Genesis, then why can/would we trust ANY other words in the Bible?* I once considered Genesis an allegory....until it became quite clear that God states (and restates in Exodus 20:11) that God created everything in 6 days. Jesus Himself affirms Genesis and all of the "Law and the Prophets" (Old Testament) numerous times.
Science/Scientific methods are giving us more and more evidence that the earth is indeed "young" (approx 6,000 years old). Can we ever PROVE "young" earth vs. "old" earth ? Sadly, I do not expect we can/will, as there will always be different interpretations of the same evidence. Ultimately, this becomes a matter of trusting God's Word as HE speaks it...not as we want to tell Him what He meant.
Actually, with every year the idea that the earth is only 6000 years old becomes more and more absurd.
If the varacity of the bible depends on Genesis being literal, then I can say with absolut confidence, that the bible is wrong.
And yes, we can prove that the earth is old. We have multiple independent lines of evidence that shows it to be old. If god had created the earth 6000 years ago, then he deliberately is trying to fool us into thinking that it's older.
*...as there will always be different interpretations of the same evidence.*
The problem is that creationists don't actually look at the same evidence as the scientificly minded crowd. Creationists ignore most of the evidence, if it doesn't suit them.
But your last sentence makes the situation clear:
You start with the assumption that there is a god, that he tells you that the earth is young, and that he won't tell you a lie about it.
There is literally no evidence anybody can ever provide, if you START with this assumption.
Which is your right.
But then why not be honest? Instead of pretending that the evidence is inconclusive, just be honest and say that the evidence doesn't matter?
I have no problem with theistic evolution and I find those who call it heresy to be causing unnecessary division. I see most of these positions are movements and they have there ardent supporters. I love anyone who has a differing view on this, much like I have love for those who have a differing view on eschatology. I don't think the text of scripture actually is meant to be taken as it has been taken. I honestly think the framework view is the most consistent with proper biblical exegesis. Most people who argue otherwise often appeal to authority or simply try to drive home a point that is not really true. Such as saying yom being a literal day, when in fact it can and has been defined differently in the Bible. Every book of the Bible has an audience in view, a culture and setting, and a context that must be taken into account. This does not damage the doctrine of the clarity of scripture at all. In fact most people who hold to that doctrine, will go at great lengths to set up discussion about context, language, and setting for other passages. So I find it extremely inconsistent when they say the Bible is so clear that we can ignore historical context Genesis has been written in, while using it for other books of the Bible. Lastly as to the issue of death, I do find this the most troubling part. But there really is no way around it. Even in a literalist reading, plants have to die. So why is animal death so much worse? It is part of how things work. Besides, I always found it troubling as to why God would make Lions and Wolves who are natural predators with teeth for ripping flesh. Was he setting them up for failure? I think the best view is that death is talking about human death and spiritual death.
Plants have no nervous system and thus cannot suffer, contrary to most (or at least a lot of) animals (including human beings).
If those people would ask neutral scientists, the discussion would be obsolete. :) If you wanna know how the earth was "made", ask the people, that work in that field. The thousands of professionals around the world. If I wanna know how elecricity works, I ask an electrician. It would be stupid and dangerous, trying to find answers in a religious book. So, ask the scientists. And if you find a problem, that cannot be solved, wait a few years.
While I appreciate the three different views on creation here, I have to say Dr. Guliuzza appeared to be the most uninformed. The Cambrian explosion happened during Noah's flood?!!! Seriously?
She is so patronising it hurt my head.
She is trying to get Christians to think critically without offending their intelligence.
A useless discussion. Creationism is evidently wrong and theistic evolution is a meaningless concept as there is no way to discriminate it from plain evolution.
More people making enormous contortions in their thinking to try to square their religious dogma with scientific realities. So sad.
54:30
Sean has made it from creationism to theistic evolution. Still a ways to go before he reaches autonomy.
Autonomy: Freedom from external control or influence; independence.
The ungodly are not free. Those without God are in bondage to their own sinful nature.
I wouldn’t call it creationism or theistic evolution because theistic evolutionists believe in creationism just not in the young earth model.
With respect to Dr. G, he made SO many fallacious arguments....
Can you provide your thoughts on the top 3 and why they are wrong in your opinion?
I saw your original comment, but for some reason it is not showing up on here. I would definitely be open to hearing about it. This is the first time I have listened to Dr Guliuzza but he does cite many of the same things as like Answers in Genesis. A lot I agree with, some I have questions on and others that just go over my head.
@@danielkim672 yeah sorry I deleted it because I saw you were open minded in your other comments.
I a tally live near AiG and have followed a lot of their arguments, and, very unfortunately, a lot of their arguments are very fallacious and even intellectually dishonest. There's so much cherry-picking and strawmanning that they do, and then a lot of the same sayings that it really turn into its own echo-chamber of cognitive dissonance that ends up denying and dismissing evidence flat out that disagrees with their worldview.
@@danielkim672 I'd be happy to give you specific examples from Dr. G later. But I strongly urge you to continue your curiosity and research away from the more creationist perspective, as it can be very limiting and has even adversely affected many people's faith because of its divisive nature.
@@Joelthinker Thanks. BioLogos is a new one for me so will look at their stuff in more detail coming up.
"Professor of apologetics" = 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
lol
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and is as established a fact as the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun. The only response for an honest Christian is to regard the Adam & eve story as an allegory which points to a deeper meaning. It's the only way out for a Christian who values their integrity. Even if you take the Theistic Evolution side of things you still have a huge amount of work to do to explain why God choose such a long process involving hundreds of millions of years and massive amounts of death and cruelty. It's a sobering fact that 99.5% of all species who have ever lived have gone extinct. God may work in mysterious ways, but really?
Which version of evolution? There is more than one. If you mean for modern materialist neo-Darwinism, the evidence for that is absolutely not overwhelming, not when you read past the headlines and look deep into the studies themselves. There is a tremendous amount of storytelling and imagination that masquerades as science, hence why modern academics despise questioning the theory so much and will look to discredit and ruin the career of any colleague who decides that he does not agree.
Many thanks for your reply. Yes, I do mean Neo Darwinism.
I am sure you are aware the Theory of Evolution has moved on from simple “Darwinism” a long time. The Theory is now well founded on many other disciplines which, while they confirm Darwin’s key insights, they also offer many other new proofs that the Theory of Evolution is the best, most well founded, explanation for the diversity of life on the planet.
Evolution is proven by hard evidence from many fields of science, including Botany, Agronomy, Zoology, Molecular Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience, Physiology, Anthropology, Palaeontology and above all Genetics generally.
In other words, the scientific consensus is that evolution by natural selection is a fact, and it is supported by a vast and diverse body of evidence and to doubt it is simply not credible, nor would I argue is it an honest position to take.
Someone once said . . . “It takes good people to do good things, but it takes religion to get good people to do bad things”. In the case of evolution denial I’d paraphrase this and say . . . “It takes honest people to believe true things, but it takes religion to get honest people deny true things”.
I was pleased that you seem not to be a conspiracy theorist. You don’t seem to be saying that there is a global conspiracy amongst scientists to supress the evidence against evolution. Instead, you seem to suggest that scientists are somehow afraid to put their heads above the parapet to question evolution, that they are in some way influenced by the consensus and dare not speak out against the theory. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I don’t know if you know much about scientists generally; but they are the most competitive people imaginable, each new theory or test result is pounced on, analysed and dissected in an attempt to prove it or disprove it. Any scientist who came up with credible evidence to disprove evolution wouldn’t hesitate to put it forward - and would certainly win a Nobel prize.
The fact that scientists aren’t afraid to question evolution is proved by the fact that there is a huge debate within the scientific community about various aspects of evolution. For example, there are debates about phyletic gradualism, evolutionary development biologists (evo-devo) argue against large scale morphological change due to small changes in developmental genes, there are debates about group selection versus the selfish gene, also many biologists argue for epigenetics being a major factor in evolution, etc.
Despite these debates no credible scientist doubts the central truth that evolution is the best, most attested, and proven explanation for the diversity of life on the planet.
There is as huge amount of dissent that is not being suppressed by the “deep biological state”. Scientists follow the data.
The data says evolution is proven and to deny this is on the same level of dishonesty and madness as believing the earth is flat, or young earth creationism.
For me it all comes down to honesty A refusal to accept the overwhelming and growing evidence for evolution is simply not a credible or honest position to take.
As I said in my first post, the only thing for any decent Christian to do is to accept evolution and then work out what that means for their faith. Sadly, doing so can be devastating - at least for a literal view of the Bible.
Interestingly, William Lane Craig, perhaps the leading American Christian apologist, has in the last two years accepted the overwhelming evidence that evolution is true after years of denying it.
One final thought. As long as some Christians refuse to believe in evolution this will have very significant consequences for the faith. The evidence that evolution is true can easily be accessed by anyone, and when decent people (especially young people) see Christians deny this it makes them doubt many other aspects of Christian faith - and ultimately the truth of Christianity itself.
In other words, denial of evolution could play a major role in undermining Christianity. Equally, acceptance of evolution will almost certainly play a major role in undermining Christianity.
If I were a Christian, I’d be very worried about this.
@@BabyBugBug
Neither, no need to invoke the supernatural when it comes to natural events.
@Sarah Dilley
Which natural event were you thinking of?
In science a' theory ' has a different meaning to that of the everyday 'I have a theory of say, why it seems to rain on Sundays.
For example 'germ theory' can be explained by biological evidence and the scientific method of undersrandinf how germs work and affects immune systems.
Likewise we have biological, chemical, geological, fossil evidence for evolution by natural selection.
Just Google ' why evolution is true' .
If you believe the earth and living things were created instantly, then how long ago did this happen ?
An approx date/time is ok.
The creationist used many fallacy arguments.
Which Creationist? The YEC are not as great as interpreting the Bible as the think they are
Once we understand that the universe is probably 13.8 billion years old, and the earth is probably 4 billion years, you would have to ask what was happening during a significant part of those 4 billion years if not evolution?