I feel that man has always tried to separate science from religion like they can't both be true at once. I have always believed that what man calls "science" is actually "universal law". I believe that God uses Universal Law in everything He does. For instance when Moroni appeared in Joseph Smith's bedroom it was not paranormal like some say...I believe there is a Universal Law pertaining to that occurrence, the principal of which we just don't understand.... Yet! It seems like more and more we are learning about new "scientific" discoveries that are in line with the scriptures. ❤
The closest thing to what science speculates on that is a wormhole. Theoretically, it’s possible, so why not allow space to believe that something “wormhole-esque” allows for heavenly visitations?
Moroni, a ressurected being, appeared in Joseph's room in accordance with the same laws that Jesus, as a ressurected being, appeared in that closed upper chamber to his disciples. They work by higher principles without violating true eternal laws.
God's Words and his Works are both from his hands, and shouldn't contradict. If there seems to be one, either his words are being misinterpreted, his works are, or we're just missing information from either.
As a retired Biology & Chemistry teacher, I am in total agreement with you. Science is trying to understand the laws that God knows and how He operates.
I love the 1% faith discussion and the response with the scripture from Alma about the particle of faith. I have watched every single episode on the Come Back channel (highly recommend!!!) on UA-cam and every single one of them start to gain belief in God and Christ by just exercising that 1% of faith and then you can hear all their stories as God turns that into a full belief. Great stuff guys, sharing with friends and family!!
Interesting thoughts. My degree is in biochem and I think I've always been someone who likes to have the logical aspect to make things gel as well. That being said, you always have to remember that science is incomplete. Every generation likes to think they have a solid scientific understanding of the universe, and if we only explain the gospel in terms of the current scientific understanding, it may not make sense later. For example, the age of the universe is already falling apart with new data from Webb ST. Still, I find it enriching to explore the gospel in scientific terms. Just don't lose your testimony over it if science decides something completely different down the road. Faith is always necessary.
Just a quick correction, but the findings of JWSP are blown out of proportion by the media and public understanding. There is very little we need to correct about our current understanding, namely that galaxies can form a bit earlier than we thought. Thats one tiny part about one small portion of the timescale explained by the big bang theory, which we now learned something new about. Nothing else changes, really. No other model even comes close to the predictive power of the big bang theory, especially in the very early stages of the universes expansion. People like to see a hairline crack in a scientific theory and act as if the whole thing is gonna fall apart, while in fact the majority of the model and its explanatory power stay unchanged.
@@Yamyatos Thanks for clearing that up for me Yamyatos. NASA calls it a crisis on their website so I thought it was kinda big, but that they think it will be resolved with better data. I'm not hanging my hat on our current understanding. I think it's a good model, but I got jaded the more classes I took and the more research papers (unassociated- biology) that I had to review. The science is often good and sound, but the conclusions in many cases, IMO are reaching beyond what we can really say with confidence. Just wish scientists would go more slowly and build more before publishing conclusions because the public often takes what they say at face value.
@@RUTired Actual scientists are usually very, very careful on what they say. Just like with new discoveries, i think most of the confusion of "thinking the model makes statements about something it really doesnt" comes from the public (mis)understanding, and not actually the scientists statements. A scientific model is, after all, only an explanation of all the evidence which provides testable predictions and stood the test of time. So all it really says should be a direct derivative of the evidence it's based on. That said, im not a physicist myself. I just looked into the actual scientific consensus on the topic, and while JWSP made huge discoveries (as we expected it to, really), the actual atmosphere in the scientific community is rather closer to excitement and curiosity about learning new things, rather than seeing their models break down. Im very exited to see where this is going. Whenever we find out we were wrong on some parts of our models, we can improve our understanding. New or better data is never a bad thing :)
Thank you for this channel! I've followed Fulltime Filmmaker for years and was so excited when YT recommended these videos. Thank you for sharing your testimony and these amazing stories. ❤
7:45 Great conversation! I love it! Just a clarification as I understand it. There's a difference between knowing / believing and knowing without a shadow of doubt (or having a perfect knowledge). It sounds like the meaning "to know" in this conversation is being used as having a perfect knowledge or knowing without the need of faith (i.e. Moses, Paul, Peter, etc.).
Yes correct, I felt to clarify that as well but he moved to other topics. We CAN have spiritual knowledge or a witness from the Holy Ghost. It is not a perfect knowledge of all things but it is spiritual knowledge, thus why we use the word “know”. As John points out, some struggling members can misunderstand this for a perfect knowledge of all things and get discouraged. Alma 32 teaches that we actually CAN have a perfect knowledge that the “seed is good”. We can KNOW that the church is good and true. But a perfect knowledge of everlasting life (the tree of life) requires a lifetime of diligently nourishing that seed that we KNOW is good. Thanks for pointing that I I though the same thing as he was saying it.
Alternate (better?) interpretation of the scientific consistency of Genesis 1: Day 1: "Let there be light": Our sun ignites Day 2: Liquid water condenses upon the earth Day 3: Dry land; plant life appears Day 4: Sun and moon appear: Plants have cleared the atmosphere (with transparent oxygen) Day 5: Fish appear in the seas Day 6: Animals appear on land Finally, Man appears. This is a decent, though rough outline of the scientific history of the Earth.
Hi TM. This guest appears to misunderstand atheism: there is no requirement to believe in the so-called 'Big Bang' in order to be an atheist. Atheism is not believing in a deity... that's it; there are no other qualifications or requiremnts. For example, there is no requirement to accept any scientific finding whatsoever. There is no requirement to be able to explain anything. It does not help things to misunderstand this basic point. Cheers.
Being an atheist takes zero faith. Literally, by definition. Atheism is nothing other than the rejection of a positive claim. Everything else is something else. Even if we knew nothing about the universe and had no better explanations, which we do, rejecting someone elses claim for literal magic requires *zero faith,* by definition.
I'm gonna remain a centrist here, but this interview is literally "the philosophies of men intermingled with scripture," and if you know the significance of that phrase, massive yikes. And this is that. He doesn't go more specific into the verse by verse order of creation. Why not? If all the meaning is truly to be found in the scriptures, why can't the deep dive be there? Earth predates sun, different kinds evolve at different times. Before we knew what we've discovered about the solar system, the other metaphorical claims had not been debunked yet; ergo until very recently the perspective would be flipped: what he would believe in are the inaccuracies because those would have been explained to him whereas the anatomy of gas giants would not be known and he would not believe. This also reminds me of how Wormwood in Revelation is treated as a prophecy of Chernobyl, a similar tier of argument the way I see it. Apparently, Chornobyl is the same word as Wormwood in a different language (though I have also heard that that is mistaken and Chornobyl means mugwort instead). But until very recently in the eternal scheme of the Plan of Salvation, Wormwood was a story of a star falling to Earth during a dream that John of Patmos had while he was thinking about how Nero had been persecuting Christians. Nuclear devastation, star falling ,seems a perfect match in the hindsight (after just under 2000 years of it an imprecise vision). That's where the argument usually stops. Except for the finer detail in the account where Wormwood corrupts the nearby water. From what I know that is not a major part of Chernobyl's story. Interestingly, it is for Fukushima, but that's a different disaster. (Even if water contamination occurred with Chernobyl, the fact remains that a bigger deal was made about the water contamination off the coast of Fukushima, so God would have picked the wrong one to prophesy with that description.) If Fukushima meant Wormwood, the line of reasoning would be more valid, but, as is, there is no doctrinal basis for thinking Wormwood was Chernobyl, and it is merely wishful thinking on the believer's part to make things make more sense, a degree of faith in man's own ideas (not scripture) meant only to sooth them that can be dangerous if exacerbated. Same as this man assuming that conscious intent and forethought must exist, and that's how he saves his testimony. That's a fair bit hypocritical, if the answers were really in the scriptures the whole time As an admitted nuanced Mormon, I don't want this man representing me or my skeptical processes. The Mothman Prophecies of all books shows better skepticism in its first chapter than this man has demonstrated in this interview.
@@josephgibson5902 It's good to see some critical thinking from the other side! While i know people like you exist, sadly such thoughts appear to drown in a crowd of gullible yay-sayers. What you said about weird interpretations in hindsight reminds me of something i used to write a lot too: "once we eventually discover the solution to cancer or faster than light travel, someone is gonna claim it was in their holy scripture all along. So by all means, go ahead and offer that solution now please. If you cant, it's not in there." Obviously this is not directed at you. I had the hopes that this would get some of the "it's all in the bible" crowd thinking. Interpreting something in hindsight, based on otherwise aquired background knowledge, does not mean people get to claim the knowledge was there from the beginning. If it truly was there, in an accessible way, now that would be some good evidence and a step in the right direction of convincing atheists like me. But they only ever claim the wildest things..
I had a similar challenge to my faith when I first got back from my mission in the Philippines and went to just another college. I wrote an argumentative essay about how science can be a faith based religion. I got a C, however none of the markings in it actually went against my argument process, more they just didn’t like my conclusions. I pointed to how in people who believe solely in what science can provide, they put their faith or belief in only empirical evidence that exist and are not open to putting their faith in other sources other than that. They subscribe to a philosophy of empiricism. I also pointed to the fact that science also discovery occurs like building a pyramids from the top first without a base. We can guess what the base is, but we really won’t know. It continues to expand as we get close to the base. We really don’t know what we don’t know. That goes for both religion and science, hence the ties. ❤
So you fail to understand the difference between putting faith in literal magic, and putting faith in empirical evidence? No, really, im not sure how you can not see the difference here. You dont have faith a plane stays in the air. You have empirical evidence, models, data, science, pilots and engineers to confirm that it will stay in the air for a well known percentage of the time, which would be 100% if nothing goes wrong. On the other hand we have a claim about magic which is backed up by nothing other than an old book. You got to realise that there is a certain.. discrepancy here. I do absolutely agree that we do not know what we dont know. Science is pretty oben about that, actually. Models are always only the best explanation for the known data. Religion on the other hand oftentimes claims to have all the answers. What happens after death? We dont know. What happened "before" the big bang? We dont know. Science is open about that, religion likes to assume the answer based on no evidence whatsoever.
Especially when the big bang has lost almost all scientific underpinning with all of the discoveries of the past 40 years. The electric/plasma universe theory matches so many scientific observations and does align with scriptural principles.
The Big Bang happened. The science is Non Disputable . However, It didn't happen the way Einstein said. What Einstein said would break every law of nature and then require MAGIC to complete the process. Some people call that Magic, God. You have a perfect knowledge, you tell me and we will both know.
@@madogg152 Okay true believer. Just like dark matter and dark energy which were theorized because of so called missing mass which with the untenable after untenable hypothesis to uphold the house of cards. No such fantasy material has been found for 40 years. However, the latest telescopes have found a copious amount of normal condensed matter in a variety of wavelengths making fantasy material unnecessary.
@@davidjanbaz7728 No joke. The origin of the Big Bang theory was to postulate a way to have science mesh with Aristotle's creation from nothing theory by the One of Plato as the prime mover where nothing existed besides that essence of mind in the realm of ideas, both of which crept into Christianity once the original apostles were no longer present to stop such nonsense. The One of Plato became the backbone of the Nicene Trinity while Aristotle's creation also replaced that which was scriptural. The words translated without form and void in Genesis actually mean "a formless waste" which fits with the ancient Jewish belief in organization from chaos which also fits Joseph Smith's version of the organizing of unorganized matter, just not Aristotle's theory. The Big Bang theory over the years have added infinitesimally tiny and unlikely additions on additions to keep the farce going. The last has been the billions of dollars over 40 years not finding any of the fictional dark matter and energy. The James Webb telescope thus far shows galaxies large and formed way too early for the Big Bang theory to account for, among others. I am not sure what nonsense they will invent to try to keep that dead horse going, but I am sure they will. Another problem with the Big Bang theory is the reliance of only explosions, gravity, and collisions for creating anything. The theory ignores the observed presence of electromagnetism and electromagnetic fields which are measured in planets, stars, galaxies and large scale Birkland currents connecting all of these things. They have been observed and measured but denied because they do not fit the outdated paradigm of a failed model. Try researching the electric/plasma universe for theorizing that actually matches in most cases with observed data. It is an eye opener. Dr. Robataille has an interesting series on the anisotropy map of the nonsensical adding and subtracting of data in each band of the so called microwave background radiation of the Big Bang. You might be pleasantly surprised to find a paradigm that matches with observed reality.
@@davidjanbaz7728 You are just too cute. I guess you could try to read Aristotle's creation from nothing into that scripture, until you realize the Jews that wrote the Biblical scripture had no metaphysics like Greek philosophy. The word create to the Jews meant to form, fashion, organize, not magically make everything from nothing. Yes. Lot's of people try to reason the Big Bang into scripture, but wishing something that is not there doesn't make it so. I really hope you will educate yourself by actually reading the scriptures and early Christian history and finding what is actually there. I did. That study took me from Roman Catholicism to Evangelical Christianity, to the Church of Jesus Christ.
I'm angry 😡. Angry that I'm just finding out about your channel. It is faith affirming, educatuonal, entertainment, smart content. I immediately suscribed after watching part two of this video. Keep the good work!
Thank you Parker and John for making this discussion to take place. From FTFM to CC360 to now serving for exactly what God has me here to do we are grateful for what you have done for humanity.
Correct. John is clearly influenced by Turek. Turek is a great Christian apologist and brilliant orator, but I would say he doesn't understand the church very well.
Being that all mormons are atheists, it takes the same amount of totally blind faith to be a mormon as it does to be an atheist. Mormonism is atheism in disguise.
@@davidjanbaz7728You again. I noticed that you avoided comment on the reality of Paul Gregersen debunking the arrogant Egyptologists. Joseph Smith was right, the Egyptologists were wrong. Is this the reason for avoiding comment on the reality of Paul Gregersen debunking the arrogant Egyptologists?
Truth, in all realms of reality, must remain consistent. Where there appears to be a conflict, we often learn it is a matter of erroneous perception. If there is actual conflict, there must be error in one or both realms.
For me, computer programming really heled me to understand the nature of reality. I began to see so many parallels with our own reality it became impossible to conceive of the idea that our universe just randomly happened without a guiding hand. I feel like God is simultaneously a master author, mechanic, gardener, programmer, etc. and the Bible speaks on so many levels, and our reality also operates on multiple levels. As he was saying with the allegory between Jupiter and Satan, I've often wondered if the celestial bodies represent key parts of an engine that we can see the mechanics of and/or the physical manifestations of major spiritual forces.
It is all "self-fulfilling prophecy." The only question is... "What direction are You going with Your 'self-fulfilling prophesy?'" Atheism is pretty depressing. Lehi shows how you can PROVE the existence of God... We see through a glass darkly... and so, Lehi gives us a "deep dive" (2 Nephi 2--pay careful attention to every detail and let deductive reasoning have its proper place)... and shows how the existence of God is self-evident... and he answers every question every thinker and philosopher ever asked. He lays out exactly how the Infinite Atonement of Jesus Christ is the Source of existence, agency, justice, mercy, life, death, opposition, sense... and so on. Without Christ and His Father--there is no existence beyond a compound-in-one, thing of naught, or vanishing away. Without the Atonement of Jesus Christ... justice does not exist because there can be no opposition. But suppose justice could exist--then the first time you made a mistake... justice would destroy you if mercy did not exist--and, of course, the Atonement of Jesus christ finishes the preparation of Christ unto the children of men by making mercy possible. Now existence and opposition and law and agency and obedience and happiness are possible--because the Creator... without whom was not anything made that was made... has fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the Father for all these things to BE--One Eternal Now--the Lamb slain from BEFORE the foundation of the earth.
My understanding which I can back with logic science and theology about the universe is that it has always existed, and actually what is described in the quote that God is spirit is universe which has dominion over all that exists. There is much more I can explain
No, no, no.... Genesis does not teach the sun was created on the 4th day. The sun, moon and stars are merely mentioned in the fourth stage of creation because that's when they could be seen from the earth after creation gases cleared enough for them to be seen. Genesis is told to the ancients as if there was a man standing upon the earth watching creation. :>)
@@judech.1pullingthemoutofth815 ... Or.. maybe you should learn how to understand your Bible better?? On the first day God said.... "let there be light". Where do you think that came from?? :>) Nowhere in Genesis does it say God created the Sun during the fourth stage of the creation of the earth. Good science knows it, good Bible readers know it so you have some catching up to do. No?? Unless you can produce even one sane theory that God created the earth before anything else in this solar system.... think I'll hold off on that repenting you're demanding. Thanks anyway. :>)
Interesting thoughts. Here's my take on knowing vs. just believing. We start by just believing, or even having a desire to believe, and then the Holy Ghost testifies to our hearts that what we believe is true. We don't need to be a Moses or a Joseph Smith to know. We don't have to see with our physical eyes to know either. The scriptures are filled with people who saw miracles or angles with their physical eyes, and yet still didn't "know" or even "believe". Science and logic will always back up religion, but we don't have to wait until we understand all science and reason with our mortal bodies until we can "know" in our hearts that Jesus is the Christ. That's why I can say that I "know" - I have trained my spiritual eyes to see what to others remains hidden.
Great stuff. However, regarding the percentage of belief, EVERYTHING we do takes faith. So, we are all actually 100% believers all of the time in all things. The only question is what do we put our faith in. First, none of us have perfect knowledge of one thing, let alone everything. Not even the most expert of experts in any topic has perfect knowledge in one single thing. Not one person on the planet can perfectly explain walking, for example, and all the mechanics and physics thereof. Hence, it is faith. Further, none of us know with absolute certainty what will happen next. None of us know for certain that this universe won’t just evaporate in the next second. That dark energy won’t surge and we will all be less than an afterthought.
And the Son (Sun) came to earth 2/3 of the way through the dispensations since Adam and Eve before the millennium and the change to a terrestrial state. 4000 years- Jesus Christ- 2000 roughly then millennium. 2/3 just like creation.
A quote from the stage play Axis of Beginning. “The only thing real about the Big Bang is that the theory acknowledges that the universe had a beginning. The Big Bang is based on data supported by probabilities, massive, burdensome lifesavers, full of what-ifs that need continuous maintenance, keeping the idea afloat. Such as the flatness problem, the horizon problem, and the mono-pole problem. All in all, that’s a lot of dark stuff to sweep under the cosmic rug and still call the universe clean. So, when did the Big Bang take place? Was it eons before or immediately after the spirit of God moved over the face of the waters? Or maybe it was on the fourth day? Or maybe there wasn't a Big Bang, only God speaking everything into existence just as it is written, one day at a time. To say that God needed millions or billions of years acknowledges a form of evolution and deception. God warns about adding to or taking away from His Word, and adding even one more hour to the six days of creation leads to deception. Is it written: “In the beginning, God?" However... . . . ?”
I know that the God lives and that Jesus Christ is His son by the power of the Holy ghost, and by this you can not just believe but you can KNOW as well.
We need to be careful about this topic and learn what the Church teaches about it before coming to our own conclusions. Here are some quotes from the Gospel Library (easily found through searching "evolution"): "It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was ‘the first man of all men’ (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; and whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our heavenly Father.” (First Presidency [Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund], in Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, 4:205.) "Of course, I think those people who hold to the view that man has come up through all these ages from the scum of the sea through billions of years do not believe in Adam. Honestly I do not know how they can, and I am going to show you that they do not. There are some who attempt to do it but they are inconsistent-absolutely inconsistent, because that doctrine is so incompatible, so utterly out of harmony, with the revelations of the Lord that a man just cannot believe in both. “… I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so. … “… Then Adam, and by that I mean the first man, was not capable of sin. He could not transgress, and by doing so bring death into the world; for, according to this theory, death had always been in the world. If, therefore, there was no fall, there was no need of an atonement, hence the coming into the world of the Son of God as the Savior of the world is a contradiction, a thing impossible. Are you prepared to believe such a thing as that?” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:141-42.) "There is no salvation in a system of religion that rejects the doctrine of the Fall or that assumes man is the end product of evolution and so was not subject to a fall. True believers know that this earth and man and all forms of life were created in an Edenic, or paradisiacal, state in which there was no mortality, no procreation, no death." (Bruce R. McConkie, The Caravan Moves On, October 1984 General Conference) "If you are troubled about so-called evolution, and have not learned that Adam was both the first man and the first mortal flesh, and that there was no death of any form of life until after the fall-withhold judgment and do not take a stand against the scriptures." (Bruce R. McConkie, Finding Answers to Gospel Questions) "Man, by searching, cannot find out God. Never, unaided, will he discover the truth about the beginning of human life. The Lord must reveal Himself or remain unrevealed; and the same is true of the facts relating to the origin of Adam’s race-God alone can reveal them. Some of these facts, however, are already known, and what has been made known it is our duty to receive and retain." (The Origin of Man; Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund; November 1909 [February 2002 Ensign]) "When, during the Millennium, the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon is translated, it will give an account of life in the premortal existence; of the creation of all things; of the Fall and the Atonement and the Second Coming; of temple ordinances, in their fulness; of the ministry and mission of translated beings; of life in the spirit world, in both paradise and hell; of the kingdoms of glory to be inhabited by resurrected beings; and many such like things. As of now, the world is not ready to receive these truths. For one thing, these added doctrines will completely destroy the whole theory of organic evolution as it is now almost universally taught in the halls of academia. For another, they will set forth an entirely different concept and time frame of the creation, both of this earth and all forms of life and of the sidereal heavens themselves, than is postulated in all the theories of men. And sadly, there are those who, if forced to make a choice at this time, would select Darwin over Deity." (The Bible, a Sealed Book, Bruce R. McConkie, Teaching Seminary) It seemed in the video that you were claiming that there is a way to believe both in the creation and in evolution--including in regards to Adam's creation--but the Church clearly teaches otherwise. I understand the point of trying to help others who don't believe in Christianity see some relations between evolution and creation, but I just think we need to research all the information before making claims. ♥️ Still love all your videos. I'm not an expert on things, just have researched a little bit about this topic prior to watching.
The Big Bang theory never made any sense to me. I always thought of it like if you put a bunch of oil paints and a canvas in a huge sack and shook it around you would NEVER get the Mona Lisa, Leonardo Davinci had to paint it. If you took some thread and a needle and put it in a giant sack and shook it up in millions of years the needle would not get threaded, you need someone to thread it. So how am I supposed to believe that a bang just suddenly happened that created something much more complex, the entire universe out of nothing especially when energy can’t be created or destroyed according to physics. It is much easier to believe that someone ie God created the universe. Also Science is constantly changing, remember the brontosaurus which turns out never existed it was two other dinosaurs combined. Remember how blood letting and leaches were like the standard of medical care for everything 100 years ago. I have an advanced degree and am in the medical field and the more I learn, the more I know I don’t know anything really in the grand scheme of things. I think to put faith solely in science is foolish, the only source of pure truth comes from the Spirit of God.
How can a spiritual force have an impact on the material force? The question goes as such: If an angel is made of spiritual matter and a needle is made of material matter and spiritual angels take up no space, how many angels can dance on the top of a needle? The God of the Bible is NOT affected with/by: Time, Space, or Matter. Time, space, and matter are continuums. All of them have to come into existence at the same instant… If there is matter and no space; WHERE would you put the matter? If there was matter and space, but no time; WHEN would you put the matter and space? You cannot have time, space, and matter independently. They all have to come into existence at the same instant. The Bible, if anyone would actually read it, gives the answer to science and spirituality. The Bible states, “In the beginning (there’s time), God created the Heaven (there’s space), and the Earth (there’s matter). “ Time. Space. Matter. The trinity of trinity’s? Time has past, present, future. Space has length, width, height. Matter has solid, liquid, gas. The trinity of trinity’s; created instantaneously. Which also means that the God that created them, would have to be outside of them; No? If your God is limited by time; it’s not God. Like how the dude that created my iPhone; Isn’t actually IN my iPhone running around collecting the data… God is outside the universe because he created it. He’s in it, above it, beyond it, throughout it, below it, and unaffected by it. The thought that a spiritual force cannot have an impact on a material body is a fucking joke. Wtf are emotions then? If the brain is just a random chance that formed over millions or billions of years, how can anyone trust their own reasoning/logic or the thoughts you think of? What is anger, jealousy, reason, rationalization, hope, stress, anxiety, love, fear, etc? That’s a fine example of how spirituality (non physical material) like thoughts and emotions, can have an affect on physical material (the body).
“To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world. To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.” (Doctrine and Covenants 46: 13 - 14)
The big bang theory has to be one of the most ridiculous theories ever postulated by men. To actually think that nothing exploded, yes, exploded, expand doesn’t make you sound any less insane. And this explosion created balls, magic Spaceballs, that all rotate and orbit in different directions AND these magic Spaceballs have the power to create EVERYTHING! 😂😂😂 Why is this not ridiculed and laughed out of every university?
I feel that man has always tried to separate science from religion like they can't both be true at once. I have always believed that what man calls "science" is actually "universal law". I believe that God uses Universal Law in everything He does. For instance when Moroni appeared in Joseph Smith's bedroom it was not paranormal like some say...I believe there is a Universal Law pertaining to that occurrence, the principal of which we just don't understand.... Yet! It seems like more and more we are learning about new "scientific" discoveries that are in line with the scriptures. ❤
The closest thing to what science speculates on that is a wormhole. Theoretically, it’s possible, so why not allow space to believe that something “wormhole-esque” allows for heavenly visitations?
Moroni, a ressurected being, appeared in Joseph's room in accordance with the same laws that Jesus, as a ressurected being, appeared in that closed upper chamber to his disciples. They work by higher principles without violating true eternal laws.
God's Words and his Works are both from his hands, and shouldn't contradict. If there seems to be one, either his words are being misinterpreted, his works are, or we're just missing information from either.
As a retired Biology & Chemistry teacher, I am in total agreement with you. Science is trying to understand the laws that God knows and how He operates.
I love the 1% faith discussion and the response with the scripture from Alma about the particle of faith. I have watched every single episode on the Come Back channel (highly recommend!!!) on UA-cam and every single one of them start to gain belief in God and Christ by just exercising that 1% of faith and then you can hear all their stories as God turns that into a full belief. Great stuff guys, sharing with friends and family!!
Interesting thoughts. My degree is in biochem and I think I've always been someone who likes to have the logical aspect to make things gel as well. That being said, you always have to remember that science is incomplete. Every generation likes to think they have a solid scientific understanding of the universe, and if we only explain the gospel in terms of the current scientific understanding, it may not make sense later. For example, the age of the universe is already falling apart with new data from Webb ST. Still, I find it enriching to explore the gospel in scientific terms. Just don't lose your testimony over it if science decides something completely different down the road. Faith is always necessary.
Well said, gotta have the spiritual foundation 💪🏾
Just a quick correction, but the findings of JWSP are blown out of proportion by the media and public understanding. There is very little we need to correct about our current understanding, namely that galaxies can form a bit earlier than we thought. Thats one tiny part about one small portion of the timescale explained by the big bang theory, which we now learned something new about. Nothing else changes, really. No other model even comes close to the predictive power of the big bang theory, especially in the very early stages of the universes expansion. People like to see a hairline crack in a scientific theory and act as if the whole thing is gonna fall apart, while in fact the majority of the model and its explanatory power stay unchanged.
@@Yamyatos Thanks for clearing that up for me Yamyatos. NASA calls it a crisis on their website so I thought it was kinda big, but that they think it will be resolved with better data. I'm not hanging my hat on our current understanding. I think it's a good model, but I got jaded the more classes I took and the more research papers (unassociated- biology) that I had to review. The science is often good and sound, but the conclusions in many cases, IMO are reaching beyond what we can really say with confidence. Just wish scientists would go more slowly and build more before publishing conclusions because the public often takes what they say at face value.
@@RUTired Actual scientists are usually very, very careful on what they say. Just like with new discoveries, i think most of the confusion of "thinking the model makes statements about something it really doesnt" comes from the public (mis)understanding, and not actually the scientists statements. A scientific model is, after all, only an explanation of all the evidence which provides testable predictions and stood the test of time. So all it really says should be a direct derivative of the evidence it's based on.
That said, im not a physicist myself. I just looked into the actual scientific consensus on the topic, and while JWSP made huge discoveries (as we expected it to, really), the actual atmosphere in the scientific community is rather closer to excitement and curiosity about learning new things, rather than seeing their models break down. Im very exited to see where this is going. Whenever we find out we were wrong on some parts of our models, we can improve our understanding. New or better data is never a bad thing :)
@@RUTired Excellent comment! I agree
Thank you for this channel! I've followed Fulltime Filmmaker for years and was so excited when YT recommended these videos. Thank you for sharing your testimony and these amazing stories. ❤
7:45 Great conversation! I love it!
Just a clarification as I understand it. There's a difference between knowing / believing and knowing without a shadow of doubt (or having a perfect knowledge). It sounds like the meaning "to know" in this conversation is being used as having a perfect knowledge or knowing without the need of faith (i.e. Moses, Paul, Peter, etc.).
Yes correct, I felt to clarify that as well but he moved to other topics. We CAN have spiritual knowledge or a witness from the Holy Ghost. It is not a perfect knowledge of all things but it is spiritual knowledge, thus why we use the word “know”. As John points out, some struggling members can misunderstand this for a perfect knowledge of all things and get discouraged.
Alma 32 teaches that we actually CAN have a perfect knowledge that the “seed is good”. We can KNOW that the church is good and true. But a perfect knowledge of everlasting life (the tree of life) requires a lifetime of diligently nourishing that seed that we KNOW is good.
Thanks for pointing that I I though the same thing as he was saying it.
Alternate (better?) interpretation of the scientific consistency of Genesis 1:
Day 1: "Let there be light": Our sun ignites
Day 2: Liquid water condenses upon the earth
Day 3: Dry land; plant life appears
Day 4: Sun and moon appear: Plants have cleared the atmosphere (with transparent oxygen)
Day 5: Fish appear in the seas
Day 6: Animals appear on land
Finally, Man appears.
This is a decent, though rough outline of the scientific history of the Earth.
Hi TM. This guest appears to misunderstand atheism: there is no requirement to believe in the so-called 'Big Bang' in order to be an atheist. Atheism is not believing in a deity... that's it; there are no other qualifications or requiremnts. For example, there is no requirement to accept any scientific finding whatsoever. There is no requirement to be able to explain anything. It does not help things to misunderstand this basic point. Cheers.
Wow! I love this! We listened to this as a family while traveling this weekend. He says some very profound things!
Dude I LOVE Mr. Mormon! I've never seen his face but it's good to see such a strong man behind the book.
These arguments are... jaw dropping.
i have no words
Being an atheist takes zero faith. Literally, by definition. Atheism is nothing other than the rejection of a positive claim. Everything else is something else. Even if we knew nothing about the universe and had no better explanations, which we do, rejecting someone elses claim for literal magic requires *zero faith,* by definition.
Exactly. Well stated comment. Please keep posting. We all need to hear rational voices such as yours. Peace.
I'm gonna remain a centrist here, but this interview is literally "the philosophies of men intermingled with scripture," and if you know the significance of that phrase, massive yikes.
And this is that. He doesn't go more specific into the verse by verse order of creation. Why not? If all the meaning is truly to be found in the scriptures, why can't the deep dive be there? Earth predates sun, different kinds evolve at different times. Before we knew what we've discovered about the solar system, the other metaphorical claims had not been debunked yet; ergo until very recently the perspective would be flipped: what he would believe in are the inaccuracies because those would have been explained to him whereas the anatomy of gas giants would not be known and he would not believe. This also reminds me of how Wormwood in Revelation is treated as a prophecy of Chernobyl, a similar tier of argument the way I see it.
Apparently, Chornobyl is the same word as Wormwood in a different language (though I have also heard that that is mistaken and Chornobyl means mugwort instead). But until very recently in the eternal scheme of the Plan of Salvation, Wormwood was a story of a star falling to Earth during a dream that John of Patmos had while he was thinking about how Nero had been persecuting Christians. Nuclear devastation, star falling ,seems a perfect match in the hindsight (after just under 2000 years of it an imprecise vision). That's where the argument usually stops. Except for the finer detail in the account where Wormwood corrupts the nearby water. From what I know that is not a major part of Chernobyl's story. Interestingly, it is for Fukushima, but that's a different disaster. (Even if water contamination occurred with Chernobyl, the fact remains that a bigger deal was made about the water contamination off the coast of Fukushima, so God would have picked the wrong one to prophesy with that description.) If Fukushima meant Wormwood, the line of reasoning would be more valid, but, as is, there is no doctrinal basis for thinking Wormwood was Chernobyl, and it is merely wishful thinking on the believer's part to make things make more sense, a degree of faith in man's own ideas (not scripture) meant only to sooth them that can be dangerous if exacerbated. Same as this man assuming that conscious intent and forethought must exist, and that's how he saves his testimony. That's a fair bit hypocritical, if the answers were really in the scriptures the whole time
As an admitted nuanced Mormon, I don't want this man representing me or my skeptical processes. The Mothman Prophecies of all books shows better skepticism in its first chapter than this man has demonstrated in this interview.
@@josephgibson5902 It's good to see some critical thinking from the other side! While i know people like you exist, sadly such thoughts appear to drown in a crowd of gullible yay-sayers. What you said about weird interpretations in hindsight reminds me of something i used to write a lot too: "once we eventually discover the solution to cancer or faster than light travel, someone is gonna claim it was in their holy scripture all along. So by all means, go ahead and offer that solution now please. If you cant, it's not in there."
Obviously this is not directed at you. I had the hopes that this would get some of the "it's all in the bible" crowd thinking. Interpreting something in hindsight, based on otherwise aquired background knowledge, does not mean people get to claim the knowledge was there from the beginning. If it truly was there, in an accessible way, now that would be some good evidence and a step in the right direction of convincing atheists like me. But they only ever claim the wildest things..
I had a similar challenge to my faith when I first got back from my mission in the Philippines and went to just another college. I wrote an argumentative essay about how science can be a faith based religion. I got a C, however none of the markings in it actually went against my argument process, more they just didn’t like my conclusions. I pointed to how in people who believe solely in what science can provide, they put their faith or belief in only empirical evidence that exist and are not open to putting their faith in other sources other than that. They subscribe to a philosophy of empiricism. I also pointed to the fact that science also discovery occurs like building a pyramids from the top first without a base. We can guess what the base is, but we really won’t know. It continues to expand as we get close to the base. We really don’t know what we don’t know. That goes for both religion and science, hence the ties. ❤
So you fail to understand the difference between putting faith in literal magic, and putting faith in empirical evidence? No, really, im not sure how you can not see the difference here. You dont have faith a plane stays in the air. You have empirical evidence, models, data, science, pilots and engineers to confirm that it will stay in the air for a well known percentage of the time, which would be 100% if nothing goes wrong. On the other hand we have a claim about magic which is backed up by nothing other than an old book. You got to realise that there is a certain.. discrepancy here.
I do absolutely agree that we do not know what we dont know. Science is pretty oben about that, actually. Models are always only the best explanation for the known data. Religion on the other hand oftentimes claims to have all the answers. What happens after death? We dont know. What happened "before" the big bang? We dont know. Science is open about that, religion likes to assume the answer based on no evidence whatsoever.
How have I not heard of John before? He is amazing.
Thank you for a fantastic interview!
I am both; 10%-15% faithful at the moment for sure, and rational by all means. Yes, a great podcast.
Love this! Thank you for posting.
Great interview! This guy gets it!
I loved when you said it literally takes more faith to believe in the big bang than it does to believe in God. So true
Especially when the big bang has lost almost all scientific underpinning with all of the discoveries of the past 40 years. The electric/plasma universe theory matches so many scientific observations and does align with scriptural principles.
The Big Bang happened. The science is Non Disputable . However, It didn't happen the way Einstein said. What Einstein said would break every law of nature and then require MAGIC to complete the process. Some people call that Magic, God. You have a perfect knowledge, you tell me and we will both know.
@@madogg152 Okay true believer. Just like dark matter and dark energy which were theorized because of so called missing mass which with the untenable after untenable hypothesis to uphold the house of cards. No such fantasy material has been found for 40 years. However, the latest telescopes have found a copious amount of normal condensed matter in a variety of wavelengths making fantasy material unnecessary.
@@davidjanbaz7728 No joke. The origin of the Big Bang theory was to postulate a way to have science mesh with Aristotle's creation from nothing theory by the One of Plato as the prime mover where nothing existed besides that essence of mind in the realm of ideas, both of which crept into Christianity once the original apostles were no longer present to stop such nonsense. The One of Plato became the backbone of the Nicene Trinity while Aristotle's creation also replaced that which was scriptural.
The words translated without form and void in Genesis actually mean "a formless waste" which fits with the ancient Jewish belief in organization from chaos which also fits Joseph Smith's version of the organizing of unorganized matter, just not Aristotle's theory.
The Big Bang theory over the years have added infinitesimally tiny and unlikely additions on additions to keep the farce going. The last has been the billions of dollars over 40 years not finding any of the fictional dark matter and energy. The James Webb telescope thus far shows galaxies large and formed way too early for the Big Bang theory to account for, among others. I am not sure what nonsense they will invent to try to keep that dead horse going, but I am sure they will.
Another problem with the Big Bang theory is the reliance of only explosions, gravity, and collisions for creating anything. The theory ignores the observed presence of electromagnetism and electromagnetic fields which are measured in planets, stars, galaxies and large scale Birkland currents connecting all of these things. They have been observed and measured but denied because they do not fit the outdated paradigm of a failed model.
Try researching the electric/plasma universe for theorizing that actually matches in most cases with observed data. It is an eye opener. Dr. Robataille has an interesting series on the anisotropy map of the nonsensical adding and subtracting of data in each band of the so called microwave background radiation of the Big Bang. You might be pleasantly surprised to find a paradigm that matches with observed reality.
@@davidjanbaz7728 You are just too cute. I guess you could try to read Aristotle's creation from nothing into that scripture, until you realize the Jews that wrote the Biblical scripture had no metaphysics like Greek philosophy. The word create to the Jews meant to form, fashion, organize, not magically make everything from nothing.
Yes. Lot's of people try to reason the Big Bang into scripture, but wishing something that is not there doesn't make it so.
I really hope you will educate yourself by actually reading the scriptures and early Christian history and finding what is actually there. I did. That study took me from Roman Catholicism to Evangelical Christianity, to the Church of Jesus Christ.
I have most of his audiobooks. It was shared with me while on my mission.
I'm angry 😡. Angry that I'm just finding out about your channel. It is faith affirming, educatuonal, entertainment, smart content. I immediately suscribed after watching part two of this video. Keep the good work!
Thank you Parker and John for making this discussion to take place. From FTFM to CC360 to now serving for exactly what God has me here to do we are grateful for what you have done for humanity.
I think Frank Turek wrote a book called “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist”
Correct. John is clearly influenced by Turek. Turek is a great Christian apologist and brilliant orator, but I would say he doesn't understand the church very well.
Being that all mormons are atheists, it takes the same amount of totally blind faith to be a mormon as it does to be an atheist. Mormonism is atheism in disguise.
@@davidjanbaz7728You again. I noticed that you avoided comment on the reality of Paul Gregersen debunking the arrogant Egyptologists. Joseph Smith was right, the Egyptologists were wrong. Is this the reason for avoiding comment on the reality of Paul Gregersen debunking the arrogant Egyptologists?
Remember believing is also a gift of the spirit
I ordered my copy today..
Truth, in all realms of reality, must remain consistent. Where there appears to be a conflict, we often learn it is a matter of erroneous perception. If there is actual conflict, there must be error in one or both realms.
For me, computer programming really heled me to understand the nature of reality. I began to see so many parallels with our own reality it became impossible to conceive of the idea that our universe just randomly happened without a guiding hand. I feel like God is simultaneously a master author, mechanic, gardener, programmer, etc. and the Bible speaks on so many levels, and our reality also operates on multiple levels. As he was saying with the allegory between Jupiter and Satan, I've often wondered if the celestial bodies represent key parts of an engine that we can see the mechanics of and/or the physical manifestations of major spiritual forces.
I am sitting on the fence but this is absolutely delightful.
It is all "self-fulfilling prophecy." The only question is... "What direction are You going with Your 'self-fulfilling prophesy?'" Atheism is pretty depressing.
Lehi shows how you can PROVE the existence of God...
We see through a glass darkly... and so, Lehi gives us a "deep dive" (2 Nephi 2--pay careful attention to every detail and let deductive reasoning have its proper place)... and shows how the existence of God is self-evident... and he answers every question every thinker and philosopher ever asked. He lays out exactly how the Infinite Atonement of Jesus Christ is the Source of existence, agency, justice, mercy, life, death, opposition, sense... and so on.
Without Christ and His Father--there is no existence beyond a compound-in-one, thing of naught, or vanishing away. Without the Atonement of Jesus Christ... justice does not exist because there can be no opposition. But suppose justice could exist--then the first time you made a mistake... justice would destroy you if mercy did not exist--and, of course, the Atonement of Jesus christ finishes the preparation of Christ unto the children of men by making mercy possible. Now existence and opposition and law and agency and obedience and happiness are possible--because the Creator... without whom was not anything made that was made... has fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the Father for all these things to BE--One Eternal Now--the Lamb slain from BEFORE the foundation of the earth.
i wouldn't be here if I didn't know. I was happy living my life as I was prior to converting. I never would have joined a church without knowing.
Good work 😎
That ant hill analogy is the best version of Pascale's wager I've heard. 😊
I have always found it interesting that the big bang theory perfectly lines up with the story of the creation. The order is the exact same.
How so? Honest question, tho i think i disagree.
My understanding which I can back with logic science and theology about the universe is that it has always existed, and actually what is described in the quote that God is spirit is universe which has dominion over all that exists. There is much more I can explain
@@davidjanbaz7728 so where is the sign that says Dead End at the edge of the universe.?
No, no, no.... Genesis does not teach the sun was created on the 4th day. The sun, moon and stars are merely mentioned in the fourth stage of creation because that's when they could be seen from the earth after creation gases cleared enough for them to be seen. Genesis is told to the ancients as if there was a man standing upon the earth watching creation. :>)
You have spoken absolute unbiblical nonsense. Repent!
@@judech.1pullingthemoutofth815 ... Or.. maybe you should learn how to understand your Bible better??
On the first day God said.... "let there be light".
Where do you think that came from?? :>)
Nowhere in Genesis does it say God created the Sun during the fourth stage of the creation of the earth. Good science knows it, good Bible readers know it so you have some catching up to do. No??
Unless you can produce even one sane theory that God created the earth before anything else in this solar system.... think I'll hold off on that repenting you're demanding. Thanks anyway. :>)
🔥
Spiritual scientists find no dichotomy
Interesting thoughts. Here's my take on knowing vs. just believing. We start by just believing, or even having a desire to believe, and then the Holy Ghost testifies to our hearts that what we believe is true. We don't need to be a Moses or a Joseph Smith to know. We don't have to see with our physical eyes to know either. The scriptures are filled with people who saw miracles or angles with their physical eyes, and yet still didn't "know" or even "believe". Science and logic will always back up religion, but we don't have to wait until we understand all science and reason with our mortal bodies until we can "know" in our hearts that Jesus is the Christ. That's why I can say that I "know" - I have trained my spiritual eyes to see what to others remains hidden.
I always use the capacity of man's potential to prove a God exist, because history can be manipulated.
I am not a faith guy but more of a rational guy. Good podcast.
Correlating number sets is not evidence for god
Me the while time Im watching this:
“Wow wow wow woww”
I believe 100% the church is true I know.
Great stuff. However, regarding the percentage of belief, EVERYTHING we do takes faith. So, we are all actually 100% believers all of the time in all things. The only question is what do we put our faith in.
First, none of us have perfect knowledge of one thing, let alone everything. Not even the most expert of experts in any topic has perfect knowledge in one single thing. Not one person on the planet can perfectly explain walking, for example, and all the mechanics and physics thereof. Hence, it is faith.
Further, none of us know with absolute certainty what will happen next. None of us know for certain that this universe won’t just evaporate in the next second. That dark energy won’t surge and we will all be less than an afterthought.
And the Son (Sun) came to earth 2/3 of the way through the dispensations since Adam and Eve before the millennium and the change to a terrestrial state. 4000 years- Jesus Christ- 2000 roughly then millennium. 2/3 just like creation.
Woah!
A quote from the stage play Axis of Beginning. “The only thing real about the Big Bang is that the theory acknowledges that the universe had a beginning. The Big Bang is based on data supported by probabilities, massive, burdensome lifesavers, full of what-ifs that need continuous maintenance, keeping the idea afloat. Such as the flatness problem, the horizon problem, and the mono-pole problem. All in all, that’s a lot of dark stuff to sweep under the cosmic rug and still call the universe clean. So, when did the Big Bang take place? Was it eons before or immediately after the spirit of God moved over the face of the waters? Or maybe it was on the fourth day? Or maybe there wasn't a Big Bang, only God speaking everything into existence just as it is written, one day at a time. To say that God needed millions or billions of years acknowledges a form of evolution and deception. God warns about adding to or taking away from His Word, and adding even one more hour to the six days of creation leads to deception. Is it written: “In the beginning, God?" However... . . . ?”
I know that the God lives and that Jesus Christ is His son by the power of the Holy ghost, and by this you can not just believe but you can KNOW as well.
We need to be careful about this topic and learn what the Church teaches about it before coming to our own conclusions. Here are some quotes from the Gospel Library (easily found through searching "evolution"):
"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was ‘the first man of all men’ (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; and whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our heavenly Father.” (First Presidency [Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund], in Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, 4:205.)
"Of course, I think those people who hold to the view that man has come up through all these ages from the scum of the sea through billions of years do not believe in Adam. Honestly I do not know how they can, and I am going to show you that they do not. There are some who attempt to do it but they are inconsistent-absolutely inconsistent, because that doctrine is so incompatible, so utterly out of harmony, with the revelations of the Lord that a man just cannot believe in both. “… I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so. … “… Then Adam, and by that I mean the first man, was not capable of sin. He could not transgress, and by doing so bring death into the world; for, according to this theory, death had always been in the world. If, therefore, there was no fall, there was no need of an atonement, hence the coming into the world of the Son of God as the Savior of the world is a contradiction, a thing impossible. Are you prepared to believe such a thing as that?” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:141-42.)
"There is no salvation in a system of religion that rejects the doctrine of the Fall or that assumes man is the end product of evolution and so was not subject to a fall. True believers know that this earth and man and all forms of life were created in an Edenic, or paradisiacal, state in which there was no mortality, no procreation, no death." (Bruce R. McConkie, The Caravan Moves On, October 1984 General Conference)
"If you are troubled about so-called evolution, and have not learned that Adam was both the first man and the first mortal flesh, and that there was no death of any form of life until after the fall-withhold judgment and do not take a stand against the scriptures." (Bruce R. McConkie, Finding Answers to Gospel Questions)
"Man, by searching, cannot find out God. Never, unaided, will he discover the truth about the beginning of human life. The Lord must reveal Himself or remain unrevealed; and the same is true of the facts relating to the origin of Adam’s race-God alone can reveal them. Some of these facts, however, are already known, and what has been made known it is our duty to receive and retain." (The Origin of Man; Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund; November 1909 [February 2002 Ensign])
"When, during the Millennium, the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon is translated, it will give an account of life in the premortal existence; of the creation of all things; of the Fall and the Atonement and the Second Coming; of temple ordinances, in their fulness; of the ministry and mission of translated beings; of life in the spirit world, in both paradise and hell; of the kingdoms of glory to be inhabited by resurrected beings; and many such like things. As of now, the world is not ready to receive these truths. For one thing, these added doctrines will completely destroy the whole theory of organic evolution as it is now almost universally taught in the halls of academia. For another, they will set forth an entirely different concept and time frame of the creation, both of this earth and all forms of life and of the sidereal heavens themselves, than is postulated in all the theories of men. And sadly, there are those who, if forced to make a choice at this time, would select Darwin over Deity." (The Bible, a Sealed Book, Bruce R. McConkie, Teaching Seminary)
It seemed in the video that you were claiming that there is a way to believe both in the creation and in evolution--including in regards to Adam's creation--but the Church clearly teaches otherwise.
I understand the point of trying to help others who don't believe in Christianity see some relations between evolution and creation, but I just think we need to research all the information before making claims. ♥️
Still love all your videos. I'm not an expert on things, just have researched a little bit about this topic prior to watching.
The Big Bang theory never made any sense to me. I always thought of it like if you put a bunch of oil paints and a canvas in a huge sack and shook it around you would NEVER get the Mona Lisa, Leonardo Davinci had to paint it. If you took some thread and a needle and put it in a giant sack and shook it up in millions of years the needle would not get threaded, you need someone to thread it. So how am I supposed to believe that a bang just suddenly happened that created something much more complex, the entire universe out of nothing especially when energy can’t be created or destroyed according to physics. It is much easier to believe that someone ie God created the universe. Also Science is constantly changing, remember the brontosaurus which turns out never existed it was two other dinosaurs combined. Remember how blood letting and leaches were like the standard of medical care for everything 100 years ago. I have an advanced degree and am in the medical field and the more I learn, the more I know I don’t know anything really in the grand scheme of things. I think to put faith solely in science is foolish, the only source of pure truth comes from the Spirit of God.
How can a spiritual force have an impact on the material force?
The question goes as such:
If an angel is made of spiritual matter and a needle is made of material matter and spiritual angels take up no space, how many angels can dance on the top of a needle?
The God of the Bible is NOT affected with/by: Time, Space, or Matter.
Time, space, and matter are continuums. All of them have to come into existence at the same instant…
If there is matter and no space; WHERE would you put the matter?
If there was matter and space, but no time; WHEN would you put the matter and space?
You cannot have time, space, and matter independently. They all have to come into existence at the same instant.
The Bible, if anyone would actually read it, gives the answer to science and spirituality. The Bible states, “In the beginning (there’s time), God created the Heaven (there’s space), and the Earth (there’s matter). “
Time. Space. Matter.
The trinity of trinity’s?
Time has past, present, future.
Space has length, width, height.
Matter has solid, liquid, gas.
The trinity of trinity’s; created instantaneously.
Which also means that the God that created them, would have to be outside of them; No? If your God is limited by time; it’s not God. Like how the dude that created my iPhone; Isn’t actually IN my iPhone running around collecting the data…
God is outside the universe because he created it. He’s in it, above it, beyond it, throughout it, below it, and unaffected by it.
The thought that a spiritual force cannot have an impact on a material body is a fucking joke. Wtf are emotions then? If the brain is just a random chance that formed over millions or billions of years, how can anyone trust their own reasoning/logic or the thoughts you think of? What is anger, jealousy, reason, rationalization, hope, stress, anxiety, love, fear, etc?
That’s a fine example of how spirituality (non physical material) like thoughts and emotions, can have an affect on physical material (the body).
“To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world. To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.” (Doctrine and Covenants 46: 13 - 14)
The big bang theory has to be one of the most ridiculous theories ever postulated by men. To actually think that nothing exploded, yes, exploded, expand doesn’t make you sound any less insane. And this explosion created balls, magic Spaceballs, that all rotate and orbit in different directions AND these magic Spaceballs have the power to create EVERYTHING! 😂😂😂 Why is this not ridiculed and laughed out of every university?
The Big Bang theory is actually an attempt by atheists to pervert the first line of thought on earth which was creationism. 😊