@@michaeljameson6468 So, do you think that straw man arguments, ad hominems, ridicule, and outright lying make atheism and evolutionism and less absurd?
@@michaeljameson6468 I am once again asking you: So, do you think that straw man arguments, ad hominems, ridicule, and outright lying make atheism and evolutionism and less absurd?
@@alantasman8273 Since the account to which I was replying seems to be gone, no answer is possible. You are inserting yourself into something that does not concern you. I will say, however, that evolution has been propped up by bad science, lies, and fraud. Consider fraudulent and retracted peer-reviewed papers.
@@PiltdownSuperman PiltdownSuperman? You do understand that the Piltdown Man incident was an excellent example of the self-correcting nature of science in action, right?
My dad was a creation biologist scientist … and member ICR 1960s. I have been in healthcare 40 yrs. One simple truth : nothing is evolving but everything is deteriorating including this earth and every human. Even if I didn’t believe in God.. it would be much harder to believe this earth is billions year old since it is deteriorating. Appreciate!
Have you observed or seen our bodies degeneration over the years, or even over our 6000 years? Im not questioning simply curious about it because I've heard this before.
The Y chromosome certainly is. If the human race were 200,000 years old, we'd have been extinct long ago, at least Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson says from Answers in Genesis.
@@jamesedington9126 The mutation load chronicled in the Mitochondrial DNA of genomes clearly details that species are deteriorating over generations as mutations destroy information previously passed on to new generations. A good practical example is why close relatives are prohibited from marrying as it is likely genetic defects would be expressed because of the similar genetic traits/mutations that would be observed between close relatives.
Late to the party, but just wanted to say that evolution is literally the foundation of modern biology and genetics. The 'degradation', and 'genetic entropy' arguments do not work. Evolution is defined as any change in the inherited traits or characteristics of a population of organisms through successive generations. That's biological evolution, and that's how life works. This is demonstrable, of course, otherwise evolution would not be the core principle in biology and genetics and all the life sciences. The National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Biotechnology Information, the National Science Academies, the International Science Academies, and every other science organization on Earth, plus every single accredited college and university on planet Earth will all tell you the same thing concerning biological evolution. People have been trying to fight against science for centuries, armed only with their personal beliefs, and it just doesn't work. Evolutionary biology is applied science, in areas such as agriculture and more importantly medicine, as much of modern medicine is based directly upon evolutionary theory. Also, there is no such thing as de- evolution, which I hear a lot of young Earth creationists mention. Remember, any change in the inherited traits.. any change. Evolution is not about getting better or worse, it's about change. Survival of the fittest.. does not mean bigger, stronger, faster. It means reproductively fit.
Thank you for this testimony. Dr. Henry Morris' book The Genesis Flood was my entry way into the scientific study of creation in 1981. Although my academic specialization is music, missions, worship, theology, and foreign languages, creation science has been my 'hobby reading' since then and has been a great support to my faith and to my communication of the gospel. I look forward to these podcasts and plan to attend the January 22nd meeting.
@@robertsommers3540 no but you can use science to investigate claims such as the universe has a beginning and a cause, a global flood, Jesus rising from death, etc... you don't have to believe these things from the onset to investigate the premises... however if you dismiss that these things are even possibly true then you would actually be the one working from a predetermined conclusion wouldn't you?
@@patrickambler749 Well I don't think anything that is supernatural is true until I am shown the supernatural even exists. Is it a predetermined conclusion that I don't think Mohammad split the moon in half? Or do I just have no good reason to accept that as true. How is science going to investigate a resurrection?
@@robertsommers3540 Materialists presuppose evolution and resort to selective citing, ignoring pertinent data, and even tampering with the evidence. They do indeed work backwards to confirm their biases.
@@PiltdownSupermanYou don't know what presuppose means. No one claimed evolution must be true and went looking for it. What pertinent *data* gets ignored? What evidence do you have of of said tampering with evidence?
Excited that the podcast is back! I truly appreciate how thoughtful and thorough ICR’s research is. I love listening to these discussions, especially in the podcast format!
Thanks so much! A friend introduced me to Acts and Facts several years ago, and the many scientific proofs that support Scripture have encouraged and strengthened my walk with the Lord just as it did for Dr. Thomas. Now I want everyone to know this! Bless you for all you're doing!
Our pleasure, Ann! We're so glad your friend shared Acts & Facts with you, and that you are blessed by the content we publish in the magazine and here on UA-cam. Bless you for the encouragement! Hope you continue to enjoy The Creation Podcast.
I always believed in God. However, over the course of my spiritual journey I didn't quite have my arms around certain aspects of the bible. In the 80's I read the Genesis Flood and found it to be powerful. Within the last few years I purchased the 50 year anniversary edition because I misplaced my original book. Then I became exposed to ICR and then I read a number or books of interest. The information contained therein confirmed much of my belief system but more importantly fine tuned those things that I couldn't quite nail down. It has come to my mind that you will know the truth and the truth will set you free. I am 70 years old.
Thank you both so much for this interview and lesson in Creation Science apologetics. I am so happy for Dr. Thomas that he was able to take action through prayer and now serves God's Truth, sharing it with other Christians who are struggling through compromise to incorporate secular creation science. That tactic leads to a life of "quiet desperation" as one watches the children steadily, through the years, being pulled away from Jesus by evolution myths. Thank you for choosing to be a warrior for Christ instead. ICR has helped turn me from a Creative Intelligence/Evolutionist to a Young Earth Creationist. This change makes life much more exciting and hopeful. (I'm 74 years old.) MSM and government agencies during the past few years have made it perfectly clear to the observant person that truth can be quite malleable and even disappear entirely with manipulation by powerful forces. God''s Word is our eternal way.
My initiation into creation science started back about 1990 or so in a Wednesday evening class at our church. Not exactly sure when ICR came into the picture for me, but it was probably early on near that same time. I remember them being in El Cajon, CA and Ken Ham was with them at the time. I highly value my old Acts & Facts magazines and set out to categorize the articles into an excel spreadsheet. Just about the time I'm nearly complete, going back to 2009, I realized that the ICR website has an archive of past issues and also an available search tool. Just as Brian mentioned that he was encouraged by the witness of creation science confirming Scripture, I too was strengthened in my faith. We are taught and exposed to so much "garbage" in school, in books, magazines and movies about millions of years and "goo to you" evolution, that though I believed in God, I never really tried to reconcile God's Word and "science", it was just there, in my head. But once you start studying creation science, it really solidifies faith because we can then have our eyes open to the truth and it exposes the lies (evolution/Big Bang, etc.) for what they are. It's almost like my eyes were opened and the truth was there all along, I just didn't recognize it. Dr. Henry Morris, the founder, is one of my heroes. As a 34 year Gideon, I can appreciate his contributions to the Kingdom even more than most probably do. I had the opportunity to attend a Christian Teachers Training at the Discovery Center (Well done) last summer with Mike Riddle and am teaching Genesis based classes at my church. The direction ICR is headed now, with the CET model, is exciting. It should be one more nail in the evolutionist's coffin, but it won't be. Brian nailed it when he talked about the secular scientist even for a moment considering the possibility of a God creator would lead to a catastrophic upheaval in his own educational foundation, his conclusions, his friends, and his colleagues, with the end result being ostracized and ridiculed for being so "foolish" in the eyes of the scoffers. Great podcast. I hope other secular scientists view it and take the same challenge Brian took. But we keep pressing on, knowing that God does not wish any should perish. We don't win people to Christ, the Holy Spirit works through us and He's working mightily through ICR's dedicated team of biblical worldview scientists and writers. God Bless you all.
Nice to get some background on Dr. Thomas. I've appreciated his writing and video lectures for a long time, and shared them on FB over at The Question Evolution Project. In fact, I'm getting ready to schedule this one, too. Looking forward to more material. Obviously, this first one in the relaunch is a bit hesitant, but you'll get your footing soon. -Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Loved this episode! As a father to 3 kids, I can attest to hardly being able to turn on a kids' show without hearing about millions of years. When we watch one of our favorite shows, "Brain Games," we will pause it at any time the host or guests mention how things evolved to discuss how horribly non-biblical the view of the show is. It is fascinating to see how our brains work to collect information and skip other information. Also, many times, some sin or bad behavior/attitude is attributed to evolution so mankind could be "better adapted" to survive, when in fact, they are artifacts of a fallen world, and I'm making sure my kids understand the difference.
I've been telling people about the history of how the old age thinking came into being for a while now. No one wants to believe it happened that way. It's not that they've done such a good job of pushing it out, it's that we did a horrible job of pushing back on it and making them provide evidence before it was accepeted.
Thank your for this episode. Enjoyed it very much. One thing I thing needs commenting: It's wonderful to have science confirming what we already knew- the Bible is reliable from cover to cover. However; it's not essential to have such scientific evidence. Think of the Believers that lived at the time of Darwin and the years after that. They didn’t have the creationist movement or the archaeological discoveries also confirming the Bible, yet they stood firm in believing the Bible because they had proven it's divine power to give them spiritual life. I love this type of Bible apologetics very much, and also love scientific research and knowledge knowledge. However, the Bible itself says it's sufficient for salvation and instruction in righteousness, etc. Thank you so much ICR for these excellent resources and I hope it can be understood that my comment is done with the best of intentions. Every blessing.
In retrospect, the culture of Darwin's time was not readily as bent on undermining the gospels as our post modern culture is today. Generations since Darwin have been fed the lies that evolution is a fact making it imperative that the church defend the scriptures against foundational attacks. 1st Peter 3:15 speaks to always being prepared to defend the scriptures. For far too long churches have remained quiet on these matters ceding ground to skeptics who have used the theory of evolution to undermine the foundations of the gospel found in Genesis.
Wonderful channel. After being a cognitively dissonant, theistic, Christian for a few years, I suddenly had to admit that the Bible and evolution could not be reconciled. I remember thinking that I couldn’t see how evolution was not true. After reading my first creation, science book, I literally fell off the couch, laughing at how absurd evolution was. Then I started checking out the Bible in terms of archaeology and history. I was amazed to find how, at every turn, the Bible was being supported. I still am awed by the fact that the Creator of the universe actually left us little critters the amazing Bible. And at how even a lifetime of study cannot plum its riches fully.
You don't realize this, but you weren't laughing at how silly or stupid evolution is, you were laughing at the gross misrepresentation of biological evolution you learned from your creation books. I guarantee you whatever 'creation science' (which isn't even a thing) book or books you were reading did not teach you properly concerning biological evolution. Guaranteed.
@@loricalass4068 No. No fallacy committed. I was specifically referring to, and only referring to, your 'first creation, science book'. Since there's no such thing as creation science, and every 'creation book' that mentions biological evolution always misrepresents it, my statement is accurate. I'm not trying to debunk creation. I think there could be a god, but I have no idea. No, I have no faith in biological evolution and could not care less if it is fact or not. Biological evolution is any change in the inherited traits or characteristics of a population of organisms over successive generations. if you take just a few moments to fact check me, you'll learn that evolution is actually literally the foundation of modern biology and genetics. It's the core principle running through all the life sciences. I would be arguing with you in the same way if you were saying the Earth were flat. I have no dogmatic attachments of any kind to biological evolution. Couldn't care less, like I said. See, that's the difference between people like you and people like me. I don't follow a statement of faith. I don't need the Earth and universe to be a certain age. I don't need evolution to be false. Since I have no dogmatic attachments or belief systems, I am free to follow scientific data and evidence wherever it leads. Evolutionary biology is applied science. evolutionary theory is the most important theory in all of biology, and it leads to practical applications in the real world, in areas such as medicine, and agriculture. Much of modern medicine is based to directly upon evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory. Please look up the definition of scientific theory if you're not sure what it means. Not, theory.. 'scientific theory'. You have a good one 👍 Edit: if you're getting your information from apologetics organizations, such as Answers in Genesis and icr, you're definitely going to be misled when it comes to things like biological evolution. See, they have a statement of faith on their websites which says that they deny and ignore any and all data and evidence from any area or field of science if it conflicts with their literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. It is *impossible* to conduct science properly while adhering to a statement of faith. Impossible. This is part of their statement of faith: *By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record* 'No claimed evidence in any field' That's science denial, right there, right in your face, blatant and loud.
@@Mark-h2s You believe, along with evolutionists, that life can come from inorganic matter. There we see their constant use of the presuming omniscience fallacy along with the hand waving fallacy. They are using presuming omniscience because no one has ever seen life come from nonlife, though we have inorganic matter all over the place. They hand wave away the fact that 100% of the time life comes from life and life of the same kind. Richard Dawkins says you come from bacteria. Bacteria have been observed since 1670 around the clock. No matter how much they change, they stay bacteria. Hand waving. Science shows that the only thing that ever comes from nothing is nothing. But Richard Dawkins hand waves that away. There is a video of him showing how he thinks you came from things like anemones and sponges and sea worms. It’s not just Richard Dawkins, but evolutionists in general are making such claims. We have billions of examples of fossilized evidence for those things. Guess what? Every single time they are fully, and only, sea worms, anemones and sponges. Darwin said he was showing evolution because there were some minor changes in finches and turtles. Guess what? They stay finches and turtles! Just like you can see, and even create, changes in dogs and cows and apple trees. But they stay dogs and cows and apple trees. Every time. I could give more, endless, examples of how evolution is pure pseudo science based on logical fallacies. But real science has to be real logical. I suggest you actually watch videos, like from this channel, which go into creation science. Get in front of your laptop and type out where you can actually refute what they are saying with observable scientific data.
@@Mark-h2s I tried to reply to you, but the post is not showing up. Maybe the moderators thought it was too long, though yours was long. Whatever, I give up. But I prayed for you to see through the logical fallacies of evolution. But first, you have to learn what they are and learn how to spot them.
@@loricalass4068 yeah, I know what you mean, I have problems with posting too sometimes. It is a fact that evolution is the core principle and the foundation of modern biology and genetics. That's not my opinion, and I don't care one way or the other, but any scientific source will tell you that. Evolutionary biology is applied science. It works in the real world. Much of modern medicine, like I think I said earlier, is based on evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory is also utilized to make predictions which later come to fruition in the real world. In other words, it works, which is why it is the core principle in all of biology and the life sciences. Also, this is not an issue of scientists shutting people like you out because of your beliefs. Creationism is not science and cannot be tested, cannot be used to make predictions, etc, so it is not useful in any way scientifically. Same goes for scientology, mormonism, Hinduism, or any other belief system or philosophy. I'm just saying this because I notice that Christian creationists seem to think that conventional scientists are opposed to them because they hate their beliefs or something. No, it only seems that way to you because Christian creationists are the only ones trying to get their beliefs taught as fact in public schools. Mormons, muslims, and other groups are not trying to do that. That's why it seems as if Christian creationists are the only ones being targeted. Trust me, if Muslims tried to get legislation passed to have their beliefs taught in public schools, they would receive the same backlash that Christian creationists are receiving. Do you think biologists in switzerland, germany, france, South korea, norway, egypt, Venezuela, etc., are even familiar with young Earth creationism? Do you think they have young Earth creationism on their minds when they're conducting their work as scientists? Of course not. In other words, please don't take it personally. We can't simply 'remove' evolution from biology and genetics. That would be like removing words from Shakespearean literature, or integers from mathematics.
Thank you for this great podcast. It was inspiring to hear Dr Carter's background and also the summary of the evolutionary story. Most notable was this - it's all a made-up history!
Another example from the 1970's video presentation: Millions and Millions of years of Plants , Animals and Humans dying, the Earth's Atmosphere would have been filled with an so overwelming amout of the Nitrogen released because of, and during organic decay, that today we humans, could not be able to Breath. Well,Thank God for a Younger Earth than Evolutionists wants us to believe in.
I have read the book, Scientific Creationism by Henry Morris and still have the book in my library. I would think that it would be very difficult to be a Creation scientist and to get funding for projects. Do you know of any Creation scientists who have had problems with funding?
Dr. Andrew A. Snelling ...a geologist ..seeking to research strata deformations and folds found at the Grand Canyon was denied permits to take samples from the Park System because he was a creationist. He had to threaten legal action and only got the permit when President Trump came into office. While not a funding issue...it is an issue of denied/delayed scientific research because of the evolution mindset in corridors of power.,
13:30 So, Darwin wrote his famous book in response to a letter by Lyell? Do you have any evidence to prove that, historically? That's a big claim; Hope you have some details to prove it!
Thanks for the question. The letter mentioned was written by Hume, but the quote was from Lyell. In the podcast, the text of the letter by Hume was never specified. The quote was from Lyell, indicating a mindset for a historic sketch. There was no letter from Lyell to Darwin here - Darwin read Lyell's book. I hope that helps!
@@icrscience Darwin had been working on his book for years and it looked like it would take him years more to finish, if he ever did. Lyell constantly encouraged him to hurry up and publish before someone else beat him to it and scooped him. And this happened with Wallace.
To me creation science in the form it is promoted by ICR makes little sence. The more fascinating it is to see that a number of real scientists, whom I can nothing but respect for their sincerity and intergrity, being attracted to this kind of science. And yes, it is healthy for science to have its basic axioms and theories challenged. Only what is based on observations is true science, we must never forget that, and to have the dominating interpretations challenged, when done in honesty, only helps science foreward.
Creation Science is important in light of what is Biblical Truth. If, for example The Genesis account is somehow Symbolic and not Historical, as I believe it is, Then Sin is Symbolic, and not factual, then Christ's death and resurection do not have the same meaning and value, that they Do have. Without a literal Creation, everything else falls appart, kind of.
@gerardmoloney433 Exodus 20:11 makes it clear that God created the universe and all therein in six literal 24 hr days (Yom is the word used) each having a stated morning and evening. God states that he rested on day seven as an example for man to rest one day out of seven on the sabbath. God did not rest for millions or billions of years on day seven but for a literal 24 hr. day. The Bible also clearly presents the genealogy of Adam to Jesus the Christ without gaps in the chronological lineage. From this information we derive that the Earth was created some 6000 yrs ago. Christians trying to shoehorn deep time and death (when death first occurred after original sin) into the creation is non-bliblical.
Polystrate fossils? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil Why is it that fossils are found in layers that do not cross? Why don;t we find fosisl cows and rabbits mixed in with t-rexes and velociraptors?
Creationism is not a science. Never has been and never will be. It seems some Christians like to pick and chose what is allegorical and what is not, what is metaphorical and what is not out of the Tanakh. In Jewish religious thought Genesis is not regarded as meant for a literal reading, and Jewish tradition has not usually read it so. This is the writers of the Tanakh saying this. I will take their word over a Christian Apologetic any day.
'Is creation science really that important?' Okay, look, this is not an insult, but I'm telling you, there really, really is no such thing as creation science. There is no field or area of science called, creation, or creationism. Absolutely nothing in science deals with Divine creation. Nothing. Science is not a tool that can be used for that.
@@Mark-h2s ok look this is not an insult but I am telling you, you really really are not related to monkeys and chimps. Oh heck whatever! In your case let’s all accept the exception
@HS-zk5nn do you know why your words here mean absolutely nothing? It's because you have already been outed.. a long time ago, remember? You lied and said you graduated Yale University. Physics major. Emphasis on evolutionary biology. *You're the one who said scientific theories can become facts* Any time somebody points out your errors you just come back with some stupid snarky remark. You aren't taken seriously because you have already demonstrated you are a chronic liar.. and you don't even care, which makes it even more screwed up.
The originals aren;t human footprints, the stride, weight distribution and size are all wrong. The later ones were of course fakes carved by Christians. Just like in Britain, where ammonite fossils were deemed snakes turned to stone by Christian saints. Ah, but why wasn;t there a single one with a head? Well they fixed that by carving heads on them.
Ignorance is bliss, that is a fact. The meaning of the word "science" is knowledge. When a "scientist" finds, observes and studies fossils, for example, he or she makes observations and conclusions. That individual will have presuppositions because of their worldview, which will be exuded from the authority of "man's ideas" of historical origins or from the authority of the Bible (God's Word breathed out and penned by inspired men") and Its history of origins. Nothing from the study of those fossils confronts or contradicts the Biblical account of creation and the worldwide flood of Noah in Genesis. In fact, the observations of creation scientists actually confirm the biblical account. There are not only a lot of "holes" in the secular science conclusions, but they are forever changing. But alas, I probably am incorrect in my assessment of ignorance, because the "signature of God" is all around you, everywhere you look you can see His creative genius. The fantasy of Big Bang and evolution is so far fetched and preposterous that it is incredulous that anyone can actually intellectually believe it (in my opinion). However, God's Word explains that you suppress the truth and that His moral laws are written on your heart. Acknowledging creation is to acknowledge a creator. And that being so, it follows that we then would owe an accountability to that Creator. It means we would need to obey His rules, assuming we could know what they were. And we can know, because He wrote the 10 Commandments with His own finger on a tablet of stone. But no one can never sin, we all sin. That is why our Creator came from heaven in the form of a man while still being God, living a life as we do tempted by sin, but never sinning He took the punishment we deserved and hung on a cross to die in our place (each one of us) only to be raised to life 3 days later and then showing himself to many witnesses before ascending back to heaven 40 days later. He loved us even as we were yet sinners, but love doesn't demand, it is a choice. You also have that choice. I challenge you that you suppress the truth because you would rather live in "your man-made morality", by your rules, not by someone else's rules. That's the nature of sinful mankind.
@@thomasdreyer2389 "The meaning of the word "science" is knowledge." That was in Roman times. Today, it has a much more specific meaning, the search for natural explanations of natural phenomena. This idea was adopted after including God in science had only led to savage religious wars that decimated much of Europe, because disputes could not be settled rationally. You can't put God in a test tube.
@@drlindberg1 Who said anything about a "test tube", wasn't me nor did I infer that. Many words can have multiple meanings and science is no different. One of its meanings is "knowledge". The only reason you want to search for "natural" explanations is because you won't accept the supernatural God, the one who has always been, the one who is outside of time because He created time, space and matter. You see, my authority for this statement is the Bible, a document claiming itself as the very Word of God and which is quite remarkable in its historical accuracy and claims. Empirical science can be tested and repeated. Historical science, for those who don't hold Scripture as their authority, is a wild guess scenario and constantly changing and really a huge stretch when trying to piece together reality. The Bible's teachings are reliable, logical and believable. Without that being true, science could not even function because if we did live in a randomly chance universe, then we couldn't even be sure our brains are functioning logically, we couldn't rely of the laws of the universe to be consistent and probably saddest of all is that without the hope of God's promise if we accept His free gift, no one has any hope at all. Our lives would be useless and the only morals would be decided by randomly chanced ideas prevailing amongst those in power at the time (pretty much like the Nazi's in Germany who, "for the betterment of their society", chose to eliminate certain people groups, political ideologies and those of certain sexual orientations.) Without absolute morals, who's going to decide what is moral? You? If there is a creation, then it follows there is a creator. If there is a creator, then we would owe an accountability to Him, which we do. But though God's laws are written on all our hearts and though his signature of creation is all around us so that we are without excuse, many suppress the truth and deny God so that they are the ones making up their own rules and morality. There will come a day when ALL will acknowledge Jesus as Lord and God. If you've waited until then, then you yourself have condemned yourself to an eternity in hell. God loves us so much that He gave free will to us so that we can choose to love, trust and have faith in Him, or not. Choose wisely. Matt 17:13,14: “Enter at the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who are going through it, because small is the gate and narrow is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."
When i wasn’t a believer, going through science courses in college, man there was so much intricacy in organisms, so much order in the periodic table of elements and in cosmology, it made me wonder if maybe there actually was somebody who designed all of this. Now i’m a believer, and i recognize that science STARTS with the presupposition that there’s no God.
@@richardgregory3684No one designed the designer. God is eternal and has existed before space, time, and matter. God did not create evil either, Adam and Eve had the free will to eat from the tree that gave them knowledge of good and evil which also caused death and disease.
@@seabass124 _No one designed the designer._ So you've now admitted that complexity does NOT require a designer. _God is eternal and has existed before space, time, and matter_ Try looking up "special pleading" _God did not create evil either_ The bible says that the power of creation is exclusive to god. Where, then , did evil come from if not from him? The bible admits it *I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things* _Adam and Eve had the free will to eat from the tree that gave them knowledge of good and evil which also caused death and disease_ If Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil how could they have free will? How could they be held responsible as total innocents? Why did all-knowing and all-powerful god create Satan when he always knew what would happen? Why did he not prevent Satan from interfering? Why did god want to keep Adam and Eve in ignorance? How does knowing what good and evil are create death and disease? God knew that Adam and Eve would be tempted, so why did he not sim[pyl place the Tree beyond their reach? If he's all knowing why did he not know what they had done, and why was he surprised? If everything is "Gods plan" then either it all happened as intended, or his "plan" can be wrecked by a single human and a talkign snake. To quote the hulk: "PUNY GOD!" None of this makes any sense at all. That;s "religion".
@@richardgregory3684 “So you’ve now admitted that complexity does NOT require a designer.” As I said, God is OUTSIDE of space, time, and matter. The rules of the cosmos don’t apply outside of the cosmos. That’s the best way I can answer and I admit that this is beyond my comprehension but that doesn’t mean, “because God is not designed and that’s beyond human comprehension, that means he is a false God.” That’s a personal incredulity fallacy on your part. “Where then did evil come from if not from him? The Bible admits it.” You read this verse out of context. The verse’s actual meaning is that he brings blessings and prosperity to those who are right with Him and follow Him, and to those who disobey him, He brings disaster. The reason is he does is because He needs to be fair and bring justice. Read this article on the meaning: www.str.org/w/does-isaiah-45-7-teach-that-god-created-evil- “If Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil how could they have free will?” They had the choice to obey God or disobey God by not eating from the forbidden tree, or eating from the forbidden tree. That’s free will. “How could they be held responsible as total innocents?” Again, They weren’t innocent because they disobeyed God by eating from the tree. They could’ve not eaten from it but they ate from it because they believed the serpent. God clearly told them not to eat from it. “Why did he not prevent Satan from interfering?” God wanted to test if they would obey to God when he told them to not eat from it so he allowed the serpent to come in. So in a sense, the plan was for humans to get free will. “Why did God want to keep Adam and Eve in ignorance?” Elaborate a bit more on this. “How does knowing what Good and evil are create death and disease?” I admit, I am not sure about disease but I know that death did not come from the tree but God said in Genesis 2:17 “In the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.” It was the disobedience to God that caused death. “God knew that Adam and Eve would be tempted, so why did he not simply place the Tree beyond their reach?” Again, God wanted to test if they would disobey or obey Him. Based off of this, I think God wanted a world with free will. Do you think you can have actual love in a world without free will? Think about it, if everything was perfect, we would be like robots being programmed by God on what he wants us to do but he gave us a choice and we disobeyed. “If he’s all knowing why did he not know what they had done, and why was he surprised?” He did know what they would do. In Genesis 2:17 he said, “In the day you eat from it,”. So he did know, However, I’m not sure why he acted surprised. “If everything is God’s plan then either it all happened as intended, or his plan can be wrecked by a single human and a talking snake.” That’s the thing, this WAS intended. By the way, Keep the debate civil alright?
Thank you guys so much for making this content. Love it!
I'm so happy to see more creation science channels on UA-cam. Keep spreading truth.
@@michaeljameson6468 So, do you think that straw man arguments, ad hominems, ridicule, and outright lying make atheism and evolutionism and less absurd?
@@michaeljameson6468 I am once again asking you: So, do you think that straw man arguments, ad hominems, ridicule, and outright lying make atheism and evolutionism and less absurd?
@@alantasman8273 Since the account to which I was replying seems to be gone, no answer is possible. You are inserting yourself into something that does not concern you. I will say, however, that evolution has been propped up by bad science, lies, and fraud. Consider fraudulent and retracted peer-reviewed papers.
@@alantasman8273speaking of 'absurd'..
Evolutionism???
@@PiltdownSuperman PiltdownSuperman?
You do understand that the Piltdown Man incident was an excellent example of the self-correcting nature of science in action, right?
My dad was a creation biologist scientist … and member ICR 1960s. I have been in healthcare 40 yrs. One simple truth : nothing is evolving but everything is deteriorating including this earth and every human. Even if I didn’t believe in God.. it would be much harder to believe this earth is billions year old since it is deteriorating. Appreciate!
Have you observed or seen our bodies degeneration over the years, or even over our 6000 years? Im not questioning simply curious about it because I've heard this before.
The Y chromosome certainly is. If the human race were 200,000 years old, we'd have been extinct long ago, at least Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson says from Answers in Genesis.
@@jamesedington9126 The mutation load chronicled in the Mitochondrial DNA of genomes clearly details that species are deteriorating over generations as mutations destroy information previously passed on to new generations. A good practical example is why close relatives are prohibited from marrying as it is likely genetic defects would be expressed because of the similar genetic traits/mutations that would be observed between close relatives.
Late to the party, but just wanted to say that evolution is literally the foundation of modern biology and genetics.
The 'degradation', and 'genetic entropy' arguments do not work.
Evolution is defined as any change in the inherited traits or characteristics of a population of organisms through successive generations.
That's biological evolution, and that's how life works. This is demonstrable, of course, otherwise evolution would not be the core principle in biology and genetics and all the life sciences.
The National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Biotechnology Information, the National Science Academies, the International Science Academies, and every other science organization on Earth, plus every single accredited college and university on planet Earth will all tell you the same thing concerning biological evolution.
People have been trying to fight against science for centuries, armed only with their personal beliefs, and it just doesn't work. Evolutionary biology is applied science, in areas such as agriculture and more importantly medicine, as much of modern medicine is based directly upon evolutionary theory.
Also, there is no such thing as de- evolution, which I hear a lot of young Earth creationists mention. Remember, any change in the inherited traits.. any change. Evolution is not about getting better or worse, it's about change.
Survival of the fittest.. does not mean bigger, stronger, faster. It means reproductively fit.
What in the world is a 'creation biologist scientist'?
Bless you and thank you for this video. I am planning on showing this to my jr. high class at church Wednesday night.
One of my favorite ministries!!
Thank you for this testimony. Dr. Henry Morris' book The Genesis Flood was my entry way into the scientific study of creation in 1981. Although my academic specialization is music, missions, worship, theology, and foreign languages, creation science has been my 'hobby reading' since then and has been a great support to my faith and to my communication of the gospel. I look forward to these podcasts and plan to attend the January 22nd meeting.
No such thing as creation science.
You can't work from a predetermined conclusion and work backwards in science.
@@robertsommers3540 no but you can use science to investigate claims such as the universe has a beginning and a cause, a global flood, Jesus rising from death, etc... you don't have to believe these things from the onset to investigate the premises... however if you dismiss that these things are even possibly true then you would actually be the one working from a predetermined conclusion wouldn't you?
@@patrickambler749 Well I don't think anything that is supernatural is true until I am shown the supernatural even exists.
Is it a predetermined conclusion that I don't think Mohammad split the moon in half?
Or do I just have no good reason to accept that as true.
How is science going to investigate a resurrection?
@@robertsommers3540 Materialists presuppose evolution and resort to selective citing, ignoring pertinent data, and even tampering with the evidence. They do indeed work backwards to confirm their biases.
@@PiltdownSupermanYou don't know what presuppose means.
No one claimed evolution must be true and went looking for it.
What pertinent *data* gets ignored?
What evidence do you have of of said tampering with evidence?
"Enjoyed watching, thanks for posting." -Tom
Excited that the podcast is back! I truly appreciate how thoughtful and thorough ICR’s research is. I love listening to these discussions, especially in the podcast format!
Thanks so much! A friend introduced me to Acts and Facts several years ago, and the many scientific proofs that support Scripture have encouraged and strengthened my walk with the Lord just as it did for Dr. Thomas. Now I want everyone to know this! Bless you for all you're doing!
Our pleasure, Ann! We're so glad your friend shared Acts & Facts with you, and that you are blessed by the content we publish in the magazine and here on UA-cam. Bless you for the encouragement! Hope you continue to enjoy The Creation Podcast.
I always believed in God. However, over the course of my spiritual journey I didn't quite have my arms around certain aspects of the bible.
In the 80's I read the Genesis Flood and found it to be powerful. Within the last few years I purchased the 50 year anniversary edition because I misplaced my original book. Then I became exposed to ICR and then I read a number or books of interest. The information contained therein confirmed much of my belief system but more importantly fine tuned those things that I couldn't quite nail down. It has come to my mind that you will know the truth and the truth will set you free. I am 70 years old.
Thank you both so much for this interview and lesson in Creation Science apologetics. I am so happy for Dr. Thomas that he was able to take action through prayer and now serves God's Truth, sharing it with other Christians who are struggling through compromise to incorporate secular creation science. That tactic leads to a life of "quiet desperation" as one watches the children steadily, through the years, being pulled away from Jesus by evolution myths. Thank you for choosing to be a warrior for Christ instead. ICR has helped turn me from a Creative Intelligence/Evolutionist to a Young Earth Creationist. This change makes life much more exciting and hopeful. (I'm 74 years old.)
MSM and government agencies during the past few years have made it perfectly clear to the observant person that truth can be quite malleable and even disappear entirely with manipulation by powerful forces. God''s Word is our eternal way.
My initiation into creation science started back about 1990 or so in a Wednesday evening class at our church. Not exactly sure when ICR came into the picture for me, but it was probably early on near that same time. I remember them being in El Cajon, CA and Ken Ham was with them at the time. I highly value my old Acts & Facts magazines and set out to categorize the articles into an excel spreadsheet. Just about the time I'm nearly complete, going back to 2009, I realized that the ICR website has an archive of past issues and also an available search tool. Just as Brian mentioned that he was encouraged by the witness of creation science confirming Scripture, I too was strengthened in my faith. We are taught and exposed to so much "garbage" in school, in books, magazines and movies about millions of years and "goo to you" evolution, that though I believed in God, I never really tried to reconcile God's Word and "science", it was just there, in my head. But once you start studying creation science, it really solidifies faith because we can then have our eyes open to the truth and it exposes the lies (evolution/Big Bang, etc.) for what they are. It's almost like my eyes were opened and the truth was there all along, I just didn't recognize it. Dr. Henry Morris, the founder, is one of my heroes. As a 34 year Gideon, I can appreciate his contributions to the Kingdom even more than most probably do. I had the opportunity to attend a Christian Teachers Training at the Discovery Center (Well done) last summer with Mike Riddle and am teaching Genesis based classes at my church. The direction ICR is headed now, with the CET model, is exciting. It should be one more nail in the evolutionist's coffin, but it won't be. Brian nailed it when he talked about the secular scientist even for a moment considering the possibility of a God creator would lead to a catastrophic upheaval in his own educational foundation, his conclusions, his friends, and his colleagues, with the end result being ostracized and ridiculed for being so "foolish" in the eyes of the scoffers. Great podcast. I hope other secular scientists view it and take the same challenge Brian took. But we keep pressing on, knowing that God does not wish any should perish. We don't win people to Christ, the Holy Spirit works through us and He's working mightily through ICR's dedicated team of biblical worldview scientists and writers. God Bless you all.
I wish to thank you for sharing this informational ( The Creation Podcast 14 ) with me .
watching now, so far so good, subscribed, sharing.
Nice to get some background on Dr. Thomas. I've appreciated his writing and video lectures for a long time, and shared them on FB over at The Question Evolution Project. In fact, I'm getting ready to schedule this one, too. Looking forward to more material. Obviously, this first one in the relaunch is a bit hesitant, but you'll get your footing soon. -Cowboy Bob Sorensen
@@professorneturman2249 I guess you didn't start with the video, then.
God is soo good! Wow thank you for sharing ✨✝️❤️😍
Loved this episode! As a father to 3 kids, I can attest to hardly being able to turn on a kids' show without hearing about millions of years. When we watch one of our favorite shows, "Brain Games," we will pause it at any time the host or guests mention how things evolved to discuss how horribly non-biblical the view of the show is. It is fascinating to see how our brains work to collect information and skip other information. Also, many times, some sin or bad behavior/attitude is attributed to evolution so mankind could be "better adapted" to survive, when in fact, they are artifacts of a fallen world, and I'm making sure my kids understand the difference.
That was such a good overview and introduction! Woohoo!
Wow amazing 🤩.
damn what god created is so beautiful and perfect in a sense that I almost cried watching this. Thank you god for your eternal love
Swearing is counter productive to furthering the cause of Jesus.
I've been telling people about the history of how the old age thinking came into being for a while now. No one wants to believe it happened that way. It's not that they've done such a good job of pushing it out, it's that we did a horrible job of pushing back on it and making them provide evidence before it was accepeted.
Thank your for this episode. Enjoyed it very much.
One thing I thing needs commenting:
It's wonderful to have science confirming what we already knew- the Bible is reliable from cover to cover. However; it's not essential to have such scientific evidence.
Think of the Believers that lived at the time of Darwin and the years after that. They didn’t have the creationist movement or the archaeological discoveries also confirming the Bible, yet they stood firm in believing the Bible because they had proven it's divine power to give them spiritual life.
I love this type of Bible apologetics very much, and also love scientific research and knowledge knowledge. However, the Bible itself says it's sufficient for salvation and instruction in righteousness, etc.
Thank you so much ICR for these excellent resources and I hope it can be understood that my comment is done with the best of intentions.
Every blessing.
In retrospect, the culture of Darwin's time was not readily as bent on undermining the gospels as our post modern culture is today. Generations since Darwin have been fed the lies that evolution is a fact making it imperative that the church defend the scriptures against foundational attacks. 1st Peter 3:15 speaks to always being prepared to defend the scriptures. For far too long churches have remained quiet on these matters ceding ground to skeptics who have used the theory of evolution to undermine the foundations of the gospel found in Genesis.
AMEN!!!
Wonderful channel.
After being a cognitively dissonant, theistic, Christian for a few years, I suddenly had to admit that the Bible and evolution could not be reconciled.
I remember thinking that I couldn’t see how evolution was not true.
After reading my first creation, science book, I literally fell off the couch, laughing at how absurd evolution was.
Then I started checking out the Bible in terms of archaeology and history. I was amazed to find how, at every turn, the Bible was being supported.
I still am awed by the fact that the Creator of the universe actually left us little critters the amazing Bible. And at how even a lifetime of study cannot plum its riches fully.
You don't realize this, but you weren't laughing at how silly or stupid evolution is, you were laughing at the gross misrepresentation of biological evolution you learned from your creation books.
I guarantee you whatever 'creation science' (which isn't even a thing) book or books you were reading did not teach you properly concerning biological evolution. Guaranteed.
@@loricalass4068
No. No fallacy committed. I was specifically referring to, and only referring to, your 'first creation, science book'. Since there's no such thing as creation science, and every 'creation book' that mentions biological evolution always misrepresents it, my statement is accurate.
I'm not trying to debunk creation. I think there could be a god, but I have no idea.
No, I have no faith in biological evolution and could not care less if it is fact or not.
Biological evolution is any change in the inherited traits or characteristics of a population of organisms over successive generations. if you take just a few moments to fact check me, you'll learn that evolution is actually literally the foundation of modern biology and genetics. It's the core principle running through all the life sciences. I would be arguing with you in the same way if you were saying the Earth were flat. I have no dogmatic attachments of any kind to biological evolution. Couldn't care less, like I said.
See, that's the difference between people like you and people like me. I don't follow a statement of faith. I don't need the Earth and universe to be a certain age. I don't need evolution to be false. Since I have no dogmatic attachments or belief systems, I am free to follow scientific data and evidence wherever it leads.
Evolutionary biology is applied science. evolutionary theory is the most important theory in all of biology, and it leads to practical applications in the real world, in areas such as medicine, and agriculture. Much of modern medicine is based to directly upon evolutionary theory.
Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory. Please look up the definition of scientific theory if you're not sure what it means. Not, theory.. 'scientific theory'.
You have a good one 👍
Edit: if you're getting your information from apologetics organizations, such as Answers in Genesis and icr, you're definitely going to be misled when it comes to things like biological evolution. See, they have a statement of faith on their websites which says that they deny and ignore any and all data and evidence from any area or field of science if it conflicts with their literal interpretation of the book of Genesis.
It is *impossible* to conduct science properly while adhering to a statement of faith. Impossible.
This is part of their statement of faith:
*By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record*
'No claimed evidence in any field'
That's science denial, right there, right in your face, blatant and loud.
@@Mark-h2s You believe, along with evolutionists, that life can come from inorganic matter. There we see their constant use of the presuming omniscience fallacy along with the hand waving fallacy.
They are using presuming omniscience because no one has ever seen life come from nonlife, though we have inorganic matter all over the place. They hand wave away the fact that 100% of the time life comes from life and life of the same kind.
Richard Dawkins says you come from bacteria. Bacteria have been observed since 1670 around the clock. No matter how much they change, they stay bacteria. Hand waving.
Science shows that the only thing that ever comes from nothing is nothing. But Richard Dawkins hand waves that away.
There is a video of him showing how he thinks you came from things like anemones and sponges and sea worms. It’s not just Richard Dawkins, but evolutionists in general are making such claims.
We have billions of examples of fossilized evidence for those things. Guess what? Every single time they are fully, and only, sea worms, anemones and sponges.
Darwin said he was showing evolution because there were some minor changes in finches and turtles. Guess what? They stay finches and turtles! Just like you can see, and even create, changes in dogs and cows and apple trees. But they stay dogs and cows and apple trees.
Every time.
I could give more, endless, examples of how evolution is pure pseudo science based on logical fallacies.
But real science has to be real logical.
I suggest you actually watch videos, like from this channel, which go into creation science. Get in front of your laptop and type out where you can actually refute what they are saying with observable scientific data.
@@Mark-h2s I tried to reply to you, but the post is not showing up. Maybe the moderators thought it was too long, though yours was long.
Whatever, I give up. But I prayed for you to see through the logical fallacies of evolution. But first, you have to learn what they are and learn how to spot them.
@@loricalass4068 yeah, I know what you mean, I have problems with posting too sometimes.
It is a fact that evolution is the core principle and the foundation of modern biology and genetics. That's not my opinion, and I don't care one way or the other, but any scientific source will tell you that.
Evolutionary biology is applied science. It works in the real world. Much of modern medicine, like I think I said earlier, is based on evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory is also utilized to make predictions which later come to fruition in the real world.
In other words, it works, which is why it is the core principle in all of biology and the life sciences.
Also, this is not an issue of scientists shutting people like you out because of your beliefs. Creationism is not science and cannot be tested, cannot be used to make predictions, etc, so it is not useful in any way scientifically. Same goes for scientology, mormonism, Hinduism, or any other belief system or philosophy.
I'm just saying this because I notice that Christian creationists seem to think that conventional scientists are opposed to them because they hate their beliefs or something. No, it only seems that way to you because Christian creationists are the only ones trying to get their beliefs taught as fact in public schools. Mormons, muslims, and other groups are not trying to do that. That's why it seems as if Christian creationists are the only ones being targeted. Trust me, if Muslims tried to get legislation passed to have their beliefs taught in public schools, they would receive the same backlash that Christian creationists are receiving.
Do you think biologists in switzerland, germany, france, South korea, norway, egypt, Venezuela, etc., are even familiar with young Earth creationism? Do you think they have young Earth creationism on their minds when they're conducting their work as scientists? Of course not.
In other words, please don't take it personally.
We can't simply 'remove' evolution from biology and genetics. That would be like removing words from Shakespearean literature, or integers from mathematics.
Anything that helps show the bible to be true is important
Thank you for this great podcast. It was inspiring to hear Dr Carter's background and also the summary of the evolutionary story. Most notable was this - it's all a made-up history!
Another example from the 1970's video presentation: Millions and Millions of years of Plants , Animals and Humans dying, the Earth's Atmosphere would have been filled with an so overwelming amout of the Nitrogen released because of, and during organic decay, that today we humans, could not be able to Breath. Well,Thank God for a Younger Earth than Evolutionists wants us to believe in.
Love this.
Thanks
I'm gonna find that book. Thanks guys
I still don't get how people don't see how denying the history of the Bible leads to denying the gospel itself.
I have read the book, Scientific Creationism by Henry Morris and still have the book in my library. I would think that it would be very difficult to be a Creation scientist and to get funding for projects. Do you know of any Creation scientists who have had problems with funding?
Dr. Andrew A. Snelling ...a geologist ..seeking to research strata deformations and folds found at the Grand Canyon was denied permits to take samples from the Park System because he was a creationist. He had to threaten legal action and only got the permit when President Trump came into office. While not a funding issue...it is an issue of denied/delayed scientific research because of the evolution mindset in corridors of power.,
Could you post the citations for the quotes from the "fiction = history" section? (From de Buffon, Hume, and Lyell).
When is the next episode?
13:30 So, Darwin wrote his famous book in response to a letter by Lyell? Do you have any evidence to prove that, historically? That's a big claim; Hope you have some details to prove it!
Thanks for the question. The letter mentioned was written by Hume, but the quote was from Lyell. In the podcast, the text of the letter by Hume was never specified. The quote was from Lyell, indicating a mindset for a historic sketch. There was no letter from Lyell to Darwin here - Darwin read Lyell's book. I hope that helps!
@@icrscience Darwin had been working on his book for years and it looked like it would take him years more to finish, if he ever did. Lyell constantly encouraged him to hurry up and publish before someone else beat him to it and scooped him. And this happened with Wallace.
To me creation science in the form it is promoted by ICR makes little sence. The more fascinating it is to see that a number of real scientists, whom I can nothing but respect for their sincerity and intergrity, being attracted to this kind of science. And yes, it is healthy for science to have its basic axioms and theories challenged. Only what is based on observations is true science, we must never forget that, and to have the dominating interpretations challenged, when done in honesty, only helps science foreward.
Creation Science is important in light of what is Biblical Truth. If, for example The Genesis account is somehow Symbolic and not Historical, as I believe it is, Then Sin is Symbolic, and not factual, then Christ's death and resurection do not have the same meaning and value, that they Do have. Without a literal Creation, everything else falls appart, kind of.
@gerardmoloney433 Exodus 20:11 makes it clear that God created the universe and all therein in six literal 24 hr days (Yom is the word used) each having a stated morning and evening. God states that he rested on day seven as an example for man to rest one day out of seven on the sabbath. God did not rest for millions or billions of years on day seven but for a literal 24 hr. day. The Bible also clearly presents the genealogy of Adam to Jesus the Christ without gaps in the chronological lineage. From this information we derive that the Earth was created some 6000 yrs ago. Christians trying to shoehorn deep time and death (when death first occurred after original sin) into the creation is non-bliblical.
Carbonised tree trunk going through sedimentary layers separated by millions of years. What's the evolutionists' rebuttal?
Polystrate fossils? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil
Why is it that fossils are found in layers that do not cross? Why don;t we find fosisl cows and rabbits mixed in with t-rexes and velociraptors?
😊😊
It happens to a lot of us. Every single evolutionist, who is honest, becomes a Christian.
What do you have for a young 9 year old scientist doubting Christianity?
Science is based on evidence, not on a book that is known to contain wrong statements.
I clicked on this hoping to hear some reasons why he concluded evolution was wrong… Didn’t really get any. 😢
We have many other episodes of our podcast that do just that!
Also The Quran gives the answer: who we are? Where we came from? What is purpuse of life? etc...
Creationism is not a science. Never has been and never will be. It seems some Christians like to pick and chose what is allegorical and what is not, what is metaphorical and what is not out of the Tanakh. In Jewish religious thought Genesis is not regarded as meant for a literal reading, and Jewish tradition has not usually read it so. This is the writers of the Tanakh saying this. I will take their word over a Christian Apologetic any day.
Science and scriptute oh musy be witch turn to angel podcast
'Is creation science really that important?'
Okay, look, this is not an insult, but I'm telling you, there really, really is no such thing as creation science. There is no field or area of science called, creation, or creationism. Absolutely nothing in science deals with Divine creation. Nothing. Science is not a tool that can be used for that.
@@Mark-h2s ok look this is not an insult but I am telling you, you really really are not related to monkeys and chimps. Oh heck whatever! In your case let’s all accept the exception
@HS-zk5nn do you know why your words here mean absolutely nothing?
It's because you have already been outed.. a long time ago, remember? You lied and said you graduated Yale University. Physics major. Emphasis on evolutionary biology.
*You're the one who said scientific theories can become facts*
Any time somebody points out your errors you just come back with some stupid snarky remark. You aren't taken seriously because you have already demonstrated you are a chronic liar.. and you don't even care, which makes it even more screwed up.
No… it’s really not
It's not important, it's just a nuisance.
Morris. Genesis Flood. Paluxy River basin. Human footprints, dinosaur footprints. Ignored (?) by creationists for decades. No?
The originals aren;t human footprints, the stride, weight distribution and size are all wrong. The later ones were of course fakes carved by Christians. Just like in Britain, where ammonite fossils were deemed snakes turned to stone by Christian saints. Ah, but why wasn;t there a single one with a head? Well they fixed that by carving heads on them.
Creation science is not really science.
Because atheism, bigotry and stuff.
Evolution is definitely not science. All the evidence points to the Bible being true but ultimately both viewpoints are faith based religions.
Ignorance is bliss, that is a fact. The meaning of the word "science" is knowledge. When a "scientist" finds, observes and studies fossils, for example, he or she makes observations and conclusions. That individual will have presuppositions because of their worldview, which will be exuded from the authority of "man's ideas" of historical origins or from the authority of the Bible (God's Word breathed out and penned by inspired men") and Its history of origins. Nothing from the study of those fossils confronts or contradicts the Biblical account of creation and the worldwide flood of Noah in Genesis. In fact, the observations of creation scientists actually confirm the biblical account. There are not only a lot of "holes" in the secular science conclusions, but they are forever changing. But alas, I probably am incorrect in my assessment of ignorance, because the "signature of God" is all around you, everywhere you look you can see His creative genius. The fantasy of Big Bang and evolution is so far fetched and preposterous that it is incredulous that anyone can actually intellectually believe it (in my opinion). However, God's Word explains that you suppress the truth and that His moral laws are written on your heart. Acknowledging creation is to acknowledge a creator. And that being so, it follows that we then would owe an accountability to that Creator. It means we would need to obey His rules, assuming we could know what they were. And we can know, because He wrote the 10 Commandments with His own finger on a tablet of stone. But no one can never sin, we all sin. That is why our Creator came from heaven in the form of a man while still being God, living a life as we do tempted by sin, but never sinning He took the punishment we deserved and hung on a cross to die in our place (each one of us) only to be raised to life 3 days later and then showing himself to many witnesses before ascending back to heaven 40 days later. He loved us even as we were yet sinners, but love doesn't demand, it is a choice. You also have that choice. I challenge you that you suppress the truth because you would rather live in "your man-made morality", by your rules, not by someone else's rules. That's the nature of sinful mankind.
@@thomasdreyer2389 "The meaning of the word "science" is knowledge."
That was in Roman times. Today, it has a much more specific meaning, the search for natural explanations of natural phenomena.
This idea was adopted after including God in science had only led to savage religious wars that decimated much of Europe, because disputes could not be settled rationally. You can't put God in a test tube.
@@drlindberg1 Who said anything about a "test tube", wasn't me nor did I infer that. Many words can have multiple meanings and science is no different. One of its meanings is "knowledge". The only reason you want to search for "natural" explanations is because you won't accept the supernatural God, the one who has always been, the one who is outside of time because He created time, space and matter. You see, my authority for this statement is the Bible, a document claiming itself as the very Word of God and which is quite remarkable in its historical accuracy and claims. Empirical science can be tested and repeated. Historical science, for those who don't hold Scripture as their authority, is a wild guess scenario and constantly changing and really a huge stretch when trying to piece together reality. The Bible's teachings are reliable, logical and believable. Without that being true, science could not even function because if we did live in a randomly chance universe, then we couldn't even be sure our brains are functioning logically, we couldn't rely of the laws of the universe to be consistent and probably saddest of all is that without the hope of God's promise if we accept His free gift, no one has any hope at all. Our lives would be useless and the only morals would be decided by randomly chanced ideas prevailing amongst those in power at the time (pretty much like the Nazi's in Germany who, "for the betterment of their society", chose to eliminate certain people groups, political ideologies and those of certain sexual orientations.) Without absolute morals, who's going to decide what is moral? You? If there is a creation, then it follows there is a creator. If there is a creator, then we would owe an accountability to Him, which we do. But though God's laws are written on all our hearts and though his signature of creation is all around us so that we are without excuse, many suppress the truth and deny God so that they are the ones making up their own rules and morality. There will come a day when ALL will acknowledge Jesus as Lord and God. If you've waited until then, then you yourself have condemned yourself to an eternity in hell. God loves us so much that He gave free will to us so that we can choose to love, trust and have faith in Him, or not. Choose wisely.
Matt 17:13,14: “Enter at the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who are going through it, because small is the gate and narrow is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."
"Creation science" is an oxymoron.
Evolution is NOT science, it’s a license to sin so enjoy your sin because your going to have eternity to regret it.
Evolution is NOT science, it’s a license to sin so enjoy your sin because your going to have eternity to regret it.
Evolution is NOT science, it’s a license to sin so enjoy your sin because your going to have eternity to regret it.
Evolution is NOT science, it’s a license to sin so enjoy your sin because your going to have eternity to regret it.
Profound argument there 😂😂😂
When i wasn’t a believer, going through science courses in college, man there was so much intricacy in organisms, so much order in the periodic table of elements and in cosmology, it made me wonder if maybe there actually was somebody who designed all of this.
Now i’m a believer, and i recognize that science STARTS with the presupposition that there’s no God.
Was the designer having a bad day when he came up with cancer, ebola, rabies, malaria and vertebrate eyes? Who designed the designer?
Science starts with natural explanations. Natural causes are the real gods
@@richardgregory3684No one designed the designer. God is eternal and has existed before space, time, and matter. God did not create evil either, Adam and Eve had the free will to eat from the tree that gave them knowledge of good and evil which also caused death and disease.
@@seabass124 _No one designed the designer._
So you've now admitted that complexity does NOT require a designer.
_God is eternal and has existed before space, time, and matter_
Try looking up "special pleading"
_God did not create evil either_
The bible says that the power of creation is exclusive to god. Where, then , did evil come from if not from him? The bible admits it
*I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things*
_Adam and Eve had the free will to eat from the tree that gave them knowledge of good and evil which also caused death and disease_
If Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil how could they have free will? How could they be held responsible as total innocents? Why did all-knowing and all-powerful god create Satan when he always knew what would happen? Why did he not prevent Satan from interfering? Why did god want to keep Adam and Eve in ignorance? How does knowing what good and evil are create death and disease? God knew that Adam and Eve would be tempted, so why did he not sim[pyl place the Tree beyond their reach? If he's all knowing why did he not know what they had done, and why was he surprised? If everything is "Gods plan" then either it all happened as intended, or his "plan" can be wrecked by a single human and a talkign snake. To quote the hulk: "PUNY GOD!"
None of this makes any sense at all. That;s "religion".
@@richardgregory3684 “So you’ve now admitted that complexity does NOT require a designer.” As I said, God is OUTSIDE of space, time, and matter. The rules of the cosmos don’t apply outside of the cosmos. That’s the best way I can answer and I admit that this is beyond my comprehension but that doesn’t mean, “because God is not designed and that’s beyond human comprehension, that means he is a false God.” That’s a personal incredulity fallacy on your part. “Where then did evil come from if not from him? The Bible admits it.” You read this verse out of context. The verse’s actual meaning is that he brings blessings and prosperity to those who are right with Him and follow Him, and to those who disobey him, He brings disaster. The reason is he does is because He needs to be fair and bring justice. Read this article on the meaning: www.str.org/w/does-isaiah-45-7-teach-that-god-created-evil- “If Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil how could they have free will?” They had the choice to obey God or disobey God by not eating from the forbidden tree, or eating from the forbidden tree. That’s free will. “How could they be held responsible as total innocents?” Again, They weren’t innocent because they disobeyed God by eating from the tree. They could’ve not eaten from it but they ate from it because they believed the serpent. God clearly told them not to eat from it. “Why did he not prevent Satan from interfering?” God wanted to test if they would obey to God when he told them to not eat from it so he allowed the serpent to come in. So in a sense, the plan was for humans to get free will. “Why did God want to keep Adam and Eve in ignorance?” Elaborate a bit more on this. “How does knowing what Good and evil are create death and disease?” I admit, I am not sure about disease but I know that death did not come from the tree but God said in Genesis 2:17 “In the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.” It was the disobedience to God that caused death. “God knew that Adam and Eve would be tempted, so why did he not simply place the Tree beyond their reach?” Again, God wanted to test if they would disobey or obey Him. Based off of this, I think God wanted a world with free will. Do you think you can have actual love in a world without free will? Think about it, if everything was perfect, we would be like robots being programmed by God on what he wants us to do but he gave us a choice and we disobeyed. “If he’s all knowing why did he not know what they had done, and why was he surprised?” He did know what they would do. In Genesis 2:17 he said, “In the day you eat from it,”. So he did know, However, I’m not sure why he acted surprised. “If everything is God’s plan then either it all happened as intended, or his plan can be wrecked by a single human and a talking snake.” That’s the thing, this WAS intended. By the way, Keep the debate civil alright?