Yup! Science and Christianity are two things interwoven together which can never be separated. Afterall, Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind.
@GDDM sam oooh , you read the bible , makes you an expert . i bet you have a black friend too , and marched in a womans march , checked all the boxes to be a youtube warrior .
I've been a science teacher for 35 years. When I started I was an atheist. I became a Christian (a Presbyterian - sorry) and found that, far from having to deny science, science and faith live in creative harmony. Thanks for this video.
@@damienasmodeus928 Then let me be more exact. I graduated in Chemistry in 1985 back in the day when only 8% of my country's population went to university. In my country only university graduates can teach. I have taught Science to 12-14 year olds and Chemistry to 14-18 year olds for the last 36 years. Does that help?
@Hunter Marsh You may need to look into the difference between myth and fairy tale. I think you're also overlooking the three centuries of Christianity before the idea of original sin was developed. You do also know, don't you, that the official Catholic position on evolution (and, while I'm not one, Catholics make up the largest body of Christians in the world) is that it is the best current explanation for the development of life on Earth. As for whether I can call myself a Christian or not, I'm pretty sure that acceptance of Genesis 2 as literal truth is not definitive of Christianity. Still - maybe you have a better grasp of what Ibelieve than I do.
@Hunter Marsh No. That's almost certainly not how the story came about. There's no evidence people of that time were interested in explaining where humans came from in the sense you suggest. The story we have in Genesis is almost certainly a reworking of an earlier story which expressed a sense of longing for simpler, pre-agricultural times. The story we have isn't about explaining the existence of human beings either. It's a curtain-opener to an Old Testament which is concerned with Israel's repeated falling away from obedience to God and consequent disasters.
@@andrewmorton7482 You wrote " the three centuries of Christianity before the idea of original sin was developed" - Can you elaborate on that? I'm interested:)
@@whoamI-xi3ln The doctrine of Original Sin was largely developed by St. Augustine of Hippo in the early years of the 5th Century. It was opposed at the time by the likes of Pelagius who took the view that guilt was incurred by sin during one's life. It is only after Augustine that infant baptism became normal in response to his idea that sinfulness was inherited at birth.
Dawkins’ “Best Evidence for Evolution” disappears before his eyes . Famous Evangelical atheist Richard Dawkins used to teach that the “best evidence for evolution” was that organisms; which were similar to each other have similar DNA. This is pure supposition and absolute speculation driven by a passion to obliterate God from the equation of life. Richard Dawkins claimed that genetic research proved Darwin’s tree of life; nothing could be further from the truth. These claims were made before we learned more about DNA and RNA and in 2009 he got his book published: “The Greatest Show on Earth” in which he taught that Darwin’s Tree of Life was supported by the pattern of resemblances, that you see when you compare genes. The fossil record does not support Darwin’s Tree of Life, because there is no evidence of transitional fossils in the actual earth’s geology demonstrating evolution. There is no evidence that plants and animals diversified from a Common Ancestor over millions of years, being due to imaginary evolution. In 2009, the same year, New Scientist magazine ran an article with the title: “Why Darwin was wrong about the Tree of Life.” In it, scientists stated that the Tree of Life was “mis-leading” because Darwin’s theory limits and even obscures the study of organisms and their ancestries end of quote. The “best evidence for creation” is the fossil record, finding only fully formed organisms in Cambrian rocks. Our technology has advanced to such a stage that we can now “read” the genes of many different species and it is even clearer now that Dawkins’ “Best Evidence for Evolution” does not exist. Now scientists have sequenced a great number of genomes belonging to different organisms. Casey Luskin, Associated Director of the Center for Science and Culture, wrote for Evolution News, that Dawkins was wrong! Every gene does not deliver approximately the same Tree of Life end of quote. DNA research does not show a Tree of Life. But what is described as “bushes of life” meaning no branching as in Darwin’s Tree of Life, but organisms that reflect the fossil record throughout time with minor variations, these are attributed to kinds within species due to genetic variety until they went extinct. “Genes are dissimilar in their development and unique as they form into the embryos of different organisms. Ernest Haeckel German scientist tried it on; by drawing fraudulent embryos making them look alike, because he loved Darwin’s theory of evolution. At the University of Jena he was convicted of fraud in 1875. When asked why he had lied, he said it is necessary for us to believe in spontaneous generation: that everything made itself by random chance, because the alternative is Creation and that is unthinkable! A lot of people have a similar mind-set today, this is why evolution will not go away as a theory and be buried. It should be disqualified by the “scientific method” today, but there is wide spread indoctrination through the education system with the theory of evolution which should be abandoned, because there is no evidence to support such a theory which has outlived its usefulness. The indoctrination of evolution through the education system is a “back door” to promoting immoral behaviour within the populace. This is the aim and plan of the globalists to bring about chaos, anarchy and confusion, in short lawlessness, whereby they have a legitimate reason to use modern technology to mark and control the masses. It is simple, if you teach students there is no God to answer too, then why bother to behave! Create fear among the populace and they will be happy to except electronic monitoring by those in authority, but first they must create the environment and the people will look to those in authority for a solution: it is called Cause and Effect. The general public need to waken up and smell the coffee as there is a lot of corrupt manipulation going on by the elite billionaires, who are now controlling bank accounts, politics and the education system, where people are taught what to think, not how to think critically. There is a desire to take away your freedom of speech in relation to telling the truth.
To be frank, they wouldn't be wrong. Catholicm in general has been more of a force for evil than good. The latest pope is an blatant heretical Ahab of a priest who thinks that all religions can be true at the same time and that Muslims worship the same God as Christians. Rewind a few decades and he'd have been officially declared a blasphemer. If the Vatican wasn't reprobate before it certainly is now. They're delving into New Age territory. However, that doesn't men that everything a particular Catholic says is wrong.
Check out Inspiring Philosophy, Sentinel Apologetics, Dr. Michael Heiser, Dr. John Walton, and Biologos. Those are all Protestant channels that believe pretty much the same thing regarding evolution. Your fundamental friends might be more willing to listen to them.
@@michaelturnage3395 Have to agree with you on that one. I’m not an expert on religion so I might be wrong but aren’t Islam and Christianity just different interpretations of the word of the original Hebrew God, YHWH (Yahweh) from Judaism? I could be wrong though.
it is just common sense. Those who deny empirical evidence, proven science, are denying god's plan for creation. Pure arrogance, they just don't want to go through the effort it would take to understand it properly cause they think they know better than everyone else, even God. This is a strawman of course, but there are unfortunately people who would rather believe the whole world has gone mad than believe that maybe they themselves are just wrong about something and should humble themselves before God. Patience, grace and prayer is the only cure for these people.
@@FreedomsNurse Are miracles possible? An example of a miracle might be: a universe from nothing; a complex and finely tuned universe from a random explosion; matter and energy organising itself to create the first cell. I guess then miracles are possible!
It's nice to see/hear a non-literal take on the Bible in regards to evolution. Most of what I've seen from the evolution vs. Bible debate has been between atheists and and people who take every word of the Bible as literal without metaphors and myths. Thank you for this video. It's refreshing.
This is a great explanation of how Christianity and evolution can coincide. I am a Christian and a biology major and I will not reject my faith but I can't ignore scientific evidence either. I share this view that God is always creating, tinkering, adapting things in our world, evolution is a result of God's work. God blessed us with a soul and that is why we are the only species that has religion.
So you accept the scientific evidence that 3.1 billion nucleotide bases that are the instructions for creating a human being from a zygote must have come from the mind of a genius. You accept the scientific evidence that it is impossible for random changes in the nucleotide base sequence in the genome of an animal to slowly transform that animal into a new and different animal. You accept the scientific evidence that evolution is impossible.
the devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve .nmbn
@@aliciavivi2147 How can you see that Satan if behind this facet or intellectualism trying to sound smart when we making the believers crumble to his satanic ideas
your comment remind me of my preschool year. I saw a spider on a plant and wonder why it hadn't move at all. when I ask my teacher, she just said "Oh, it's praying". since then I always thought that every animal also pray to God. That is of course until I grew up. Or maybe they ARE praying?
This is a very accurate explanation. I am a molecular biologist, and this is, surprisingly, one of the best explanations I have seen outside of specialized literature.
@MinwooKim-di5sz Oh, no, it totally does, I suppose. I meant that the explanation of the mechanism of evolution the author provided is accurate. Interpretation of the Bible is beyond my level of expertise.
THANK YOU. As a scholar of anthropology, I cannot stress enough how misunderstood the scientific and abstract cultural dimensions of human origins truly are in modern society. Fortunately, it seems that a better consensus is slowly being understood among religious and scientific circles alike.
Yeah, thats fair enough, but problem is: 'Logic' (seperated from Science, kinda) does totally oppose many God-Stuff. This Video makes it all seem like Science and Religion dont have to oppose each other, AND YES, that is FAR BETTER of an Idea than 'We have to be at WAAAAAR', obviously... Obviously... BUT: Logic kinda bites Religion and thats the Issue here. Atheist-Channels need to be watched to get what i mean, as i obviously cant just put it into 1 comment, duh. I mean, have you seen the valid Questions asked by 'Believe it or not' and 'Viced Rhino'? Or Forrest Valkai? All 3 very good UA-camrs who really studied the Bible hard and now discuss it. But the problem becomes obvious: The Bible just has no historical or other worth and is clearly a giga-logic-error... shouldnt we face that? What do you think?
Dawkins’ “Best Evidence for Evolution” disappears before his eyes. Famous Evangelical atheist Richard Dawkins used to teach that the “best evidence for evolution” was that organisms; which were similar to each other have similar DNA. This is pure supposition and absolute speculation driven by a passion to obliterate God from the equation of life. Richard Dawkins claimed that genetic research proved Darwin’s tree of life; nothing could be further from the truth. These claims were made before we learned more about DNA and RNA and in 2009 he got his book published: “The Greatest Show on Earth” in which he taught that Darwin’s Tree of Life was supported by the pattern of resemblances, that you see when you compare genes. The fossil record does not support Darwin’s Tree of Life, because there is no evidence of transitional fossils in the actual earth’s geology demonstrating evolution. There is no evidence that plants and animals diversified from a Common Ancestor over millions of years, being due to imaginary evolution. In 2009, the same year, New Scientist magazine ran an article with the title: “Why Darwin was wrong about the Tree of Life.” In it, scientists stated that the Tree of Life was “mis-leading” because Darwin’s theory limits and even obscures the study of organisms and their ancestries end of quote. The “best evidence for creation” is the fossil record, finding only fully formed organisms in Cambrian rocks. Our technology has advanced to such a stage that we can now “read” the genes of many different species and it is even clearer now that Dawkins’ “Best Evidence for Evolution” does not exist. Now scientists have sequenced a great number of genomes belonging to different organisms. Casey Luskin, Associated Director of the Center for Science and Culture, wrote for Evolution News, that Dawkins was wrong! Every gene does not deliver approximately the same Tree of Life end of quote. DNA research does not show a Tree of Life. But what is described as “bushes of life” meaning no branching as in Darwin’s Tree of Life, but organisms that reflect the fossil record throughout time with minor variations, these are attributed to kinds within species due to genetic variety until they went extinct. “Genes are dissimilar in their development and unique as they form into the embryos of different organisms. Ernest Haeckel German scientist tried it on; by drawing fraudulent embryos making them look alike, because he loved Darwin’s theory of evolution. At the University of Jena he was convicted of fraud in 1875. When asked why he had lied, he said it is necessary for us to believe in spontaneous generation: that everything made itself by random chance, because the alternative is Creation and that is unthinkable! A lot of people have a similar mind-set today, this is why evolution will not go away as a theory and be buried. It should be disqualified by the “scientific method” today, but there is wide spread indoctrination through the education system with the theory of evolution which should be abandoned, because there is no evidence to support such a theory which has outlived its usefulness. The indoctrination of evolution through the education system is a “back door” to promoting immoral behaviour within the populace. This is the aim and plan of the globalists to bring about chaos, anarchy and confusion, in short lawlessness, whereby they have a legitimate reason to use modern technology to mark and control the masses. It is simple, if you teach students there is no God to answer too, then why bother to behave! Create fear among the populace and they will be happy to except electronic monitoring by those in authority, but first they must create the environment and the people will look to those in authority for a solution: it is called Cause and Effect. The general public need to waken up and smell the coffee as there is a lot of corrupt manipulation going on by the elite billionaires, who are now controlling bank accounts, politics and the education system, where people are taught what to think, not how to think critically. There is a desire to take away your freedom of speech in relation to telling the truth.
I have zero problem with the earth being billions of years old and i don't have problems with evolution and I consider myself a Christian and I'm about to get baptized soon 💙💙💙
Great! But...Respectfully, if you are TRULY a Christian you must believe what the Bible says. And the Bible says that God created Adam and Eve to reproduce and basically increase the Earth's population. The Bible does not mention the evolution of monkeys, but just Adam and Eve, therefore the evolution is false, and you cannot believe in both.
I am so grateful for my high school Religion teacher, Mr Shafton -who taught me that Religion & Science are interconnected. Arguably, we won't know all the answers...but both Religion and Science can help make sense of the unexplainable.
the bible was humans' best guess on how we got here....they were like all other holy books horribly wrong.......i get it people are afraid of death and want some comfort....the trouble is religion comes at a price...... it cost millions of people they live.....worst invention by far.....and its not even close
As an older American and raised Roman Catholic, I was never aware of any faith-conflict over scientific learning or theories of how humanity came into being. Learning, or the Intellect, was a Godly-gift. We were also taught to believe that, in whatever way it scientifically occurred, God was the Creator of the Universe (as beautifully presented in Genesis 1 and 2). I have personally found it interesting that Genesis 1 has a sequence of how things came to be [some might say developed] which compliments scientific theories... A cheer for these gifts of human knowledge could be: "Divine time and cosmic time, unite!" But all that, as they say, is history. I was taught to be a co-creator with God today, living in the Spirit to make the kingdom of God visible in our midst (Matthew 5 & 25). Living out my baptismal promises with other people of good will, together God will work through our hands (cf. Mother Teresa) that the world will continue to be "very good" (Genesis 1:31), as restored in the resurrection of the Christ (Romans 8). God, send out your Spirit, and renew the face of the earth (Psalm 104).
SOOOO MANY Christians have meanwhile accepted Evolution because of all the Prove. But you just dont wanna see it. "Mommy, i dont wanna see it! I dont wanna see it" you cry, and your mommy kent accepts that and lets you watch a baby-cartoon instead of the 'big scary Science-Channel!!!!'. EPIC FAIL I repeat one last time before blocking you: More and more and more Christians and Pastors say Evolution is fact. Go figure...
@@splashpont Science may not Bite Religion per se, but Logic sure does. It sure does - hence why Atheist-Channel have more and more very-valid Criticism for Christianity and Religion overall. I implore you all, dear comment-readers, to inform yourself a lot, even though it’s admittedly time-consuming, but Religion and Atheism are Big Chunks of this World, so they deserve your time, I’d argue. Valid Questions are asked all the time by people like ‚Genetically Modified Sceptic’ and ‚Believe it or not’ and the harshest aka most direct of them all: ‚Viced Rhino’. And Forrest Valkai literally asks Religious Scientists directly in his longest-yet Video: Why do you ‚suspend your Disbelieve’ and make ‚Exceptions’ for Religion like you do for literally Nothing else? Why do you accept things you wouldnt accept elsewhere, he asks with great arguments. I’m no speech-maker, but i hope i convinced you to inform yourself and really check said Channels ‚throughoutly’, so to see where all the Criticism is coming from.
@@loturzelrestaurant All people have a right to their beliefs as we work together to make the world a better place. My point is that believers and scientists should be friends and never antagonists.
We didn't come from monkeys, we came from the same common ancestor. My mum and dad are evolution excepting Christians. Some people try to be clever by announcing that scientists can't find the missing link between man and monkey and they can't, because like I said we come from the SAME ancestor. And many different species of that era will share a common ancestor and so on to the dawn of life on earth.
Whilst you have the right idea, our ancestors were in fact monkeys Assuming the term monkey is a monophyletic clade (a group of organisms containing only and all of its descendants without exclusions) and you can’t outgrow a clade, if your ancestors were part of that clade, then so are you and so will your descendants be. There are 2 main groups of monkeys: Catarrhini (the group containing the old world monkeys and the apes) and Platyrrhini (the new world monkeys). The Catarrhini are also sometimes referred to as old world monkeys too, a reason they aren’t always is that apes are part of this group and then you definitely can’t say “humans aren’t monkeys” as that is still a bit of a weird thing to say in some peoples eyes. Now, the parent group of those 2 clades is “Simiiform” or “Anthropoidea”. If two of the daughter clades are separate and can both be called monkeys and if we want a singular consistent definition of the word monkey, it follows that the ancestors of both new world and old world monkeys MUST also be a monkey. That means that simians = monkeys. Now, since Apes are a subset of Simians, and if we are sticking to our idea that a monkey is a Clade as defined above, then it follows that Apes are in fact monkeys, regardless of whether we agree on calling us old world monkeys or that’s just a sister clade. If you don’t agree, then it follows that there’s no such thing as a pure monkey, there are only old world monkeys and new world monkeys, but no OG monkey that is their ancestor. And if you do think that the ancestor of both OWM and NWM is a monkey, then it follows that our ancestors is also a monkey and therefore we are too:) you can’t outgrow your ancestry! It’s the same reasoning why everything with a backbone is technically a fish, if we want a consistent definition of the word but that’s another conversation🤣 I hope that makes sense
I was studying GCSE biology at a Catholic school during John-Paul's papacy and my teachers were required to present opposing arguments to evolution in class. A couple of years later I studied for my Alevel biology and the teacher was no longer required to present contradictory arguments (other than to explain that they existed and essentially shoot them down) and made one of the only positive statements about pope benidict I heard in my entire time in school... Or since.
@@sophiasilva5866 Yeah, thats fair enough, but problem is: 'Logic' (seperated from Science, kinda) does totally oppose many God-Stuff. This Video makes it all seem like Science and Religion dont have to oppose each other, AND YES, that is FAR BETTER of an Idea than 'We have to be at WAAAAAR', obviously... Obviously... BUT: Logic kinda bites Religion and thats the Issue here. Atheist-Channels need to be watched to get what i mean, as i obviously cant just put it into 1 comment, duh. I mean, have you seen the valid Questions asked by 'Believe it or not' and 'Viced Rhino'? Or Forrest Valkai? All 3 very good UA-camrs who really studied the Bible hard and now discuss it. But the problem becomes obvious: The Bible just has no historical or other worth and is clearly a giga-logic-error... shouldnt we face that? What do you think? I mean, even 'just' the '10 Questions for Christians'-Video Rhino recently made; though just a small Part of his channel (duh) really makes me wonder. It makes me wonder if Religion isnt something for Earth to 'overcome' and grow out of.
I studied in a Catholic school, they do teach evolution there, and my teacher in Christian Religion subject personally believes in evolution too. So I honestly do not get the 'conflict', maybe because Protestants aren't really numerous in my country probably helps.
@Ayos Mukha if you believe in evolution you say that death came before sin and God ordered death before the first couple and called it good. That is not what the Bible teaches
If God didn't create a man, Adam, then the entire Bible is a lie. Perhaps the virgin birth is also written in the style of MYTH? Perhaps the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is also a myth? You're well on your way to being an athiest.
I suggest you find a story of the "Don Camilo" series written by Giovanni Guareschi. In that tales you find a priest, Don Camilo, that talks with Jesus in the altar of his parrish. Once he asked Jesus about truth but Jesus asked back what he, Don Camilo, believed it was the truth. And he answered that in his opinion of a mere priest in a small town, truth was a candle lighted in the dark of man ignorance. And Jesus told him he wasn't far form the truth. And started to speak: "There were 40 men in a dark big room. They all had an oil lamp. One lighted his lamp, and they could see their faces. Another lighted one more lamp and they could see the nearest things. When all the lamps were on, they could see everything in the room, which was full of nice and good things. But they believed that everything that God had created for them, was seen because of their lamp. So they started to wander each one following the light of the own lamp. The big light of the lamps altoghether parted in forty little flames uncapable of iluminating all the room. Understand me, the light is only one, the truth is only one, but man goes alone in the world following the limited light of his lamp, fearing from darkness and shadows. It is necessary that all the lamps get back to the center of the room, and then manking will see the real nature of things." Guareschi also uses an image of a statue broken in 40 pieces that men are trying to but toghether again but are not able to put the pieces in the correct place, like a puzzle. He says that we'll get many mishappen statues till we get to put all the pieces in the correct place.
“The little world of Don Camillo” is brilliantly written, full of humour and humanity, in an understated and economical style and it’s a pure joy to read.
@@Rick-ve5lx There are several books in the "Mondo Piccolo" of Guareschi. It was originally a weekly text in a small newspaper. There is a special book called "Tutto Don Camilo" which has all the chapters. In the books many of the chapters where taken out. These eliminated chapters were too related to facts of the moment or about political facts of that time. It's believed that Guareschi texts and ideas had an important part in the defeat of Comunism in Italy. The books are at least four: "Don Camilo", "Don Camilo e il suo gregge" (in Spanish "La Vuelta de Don Camilo"), "Don Camilo e i giovani d'oggi" and "Il Compagno Don Camilo" (in which Don Camilo manages to be in a trip to Russia for comrades of "sure faith" and shows the real life in communism).
Arturo Luis Alfredo Lisdero Molina Thanks very much for that. I only have “The little world” but it’s one of my favourite books and I still read it occasionally. It was on TV years ago in the UK. Peppone was played by Brian Blessed. I forget who played Don Camillo but he was also very good.
@@Rick-ve5lx I you search in UA-cam you may find something. "Don Camilo English" game a result of Terence Hill and also some of the older ones of Fernandell.
Arturo Luis Alfredo Lisdero Molina Terrence Hill player Don Matteo, a later serie much more pop/trash. The original Don Camillo was played by a French actor. I come from that part of Italy (po valley) and I grown up with Don Camillo. The context was so similar to my town that I though that all the world was divided between Communists and Catholics... very funny and intelligent films; all of them. The good thing is that Peppone (the communist) was not portrayed as an evil man, but as a good man, playing in the “wrong team”
Yeah, thats fair enough, but problem is: 'Logic' (seperated from Science, kinda) does totally oppose many God-Stuff. I mean, have you seen the valid Questions asked by 'Believe it or not' and 'Viced Rhino'? Or Forrest Valkai? All 3 very good UA-camrs who really studied the Bible hard and now discuss them. But the problem becomes obvious: The Bible just has no historical or other worth and is clearly a logic-error... shouldnt we face that? What do you think? I mean, even 'just' the '10 Questions for Christians'-Video Rhino recently made; though just a small Part of his channel (duh) really makes me wonder.
@@paulrichards6894 I’m open to talk about this with you I’m not gonna try to convert you or nothing but I feel like it would be a cool topic (I have studied a lot of things biblical and Science but I don’t know everything to heart so if I get anything wrong that’s on me)
@@marylinramos4300 The Problem is, the Try to make Religion and Science co-exist is a Wrong Idea in itself. Think about it: Isnt this all because Science-Denial has not worked out for Religion, so Isnt it curious how Religion now trys to claim it was co-existing all along and both are true? Even though religion and science (or better said, religion and Logic) totally do bite each other? Sorry, but face the harsh truth here: This resembles more a marketing ploy. Think about it for real: Has ‚open’ Science-Denial not failed and people realized that Science is a ‚positive word’? Isnt this perceived positivness now something to be ‚stolen’, for a lack of a better word? Good People like ‚Sci Man Dan’ and countless others have even made a Living from debunking all the PSEUDO-Science and Fake-Science (pretending to be science but having no science behind it, as religious people love to do nowadays) so that alone is a thing to consider; hard. Sci Man Dan and all the others totally debunk everything they say. Religion has now entered a new marketing-strategy, which is ‚Co-existing with Science is Possible!!’ and they even funny-enough add ‚I knew it all along; just so ya know!’ I mean, ok? I'm not here to throw shade on all the scientists and teachers in this c-section who say they are religious and educated: But i have to stress that your going into the wrong direction here. The 'idea' that religion and science are kinda the same and everyone should just leave it at that and hold hands 'sounds' nice but is in the end very, very wrong and also does have a multitude of negative effects, tbf. ‚Forrest Valkai’ even directly adresses you, my dear Scientists/Teachers/Such who go in this c-section here and say ‚Right! I always knew they dont bite each other!’
@@loturzelrestaurant so what? Besides, Catholics don't deny evolution, nor do the nonreligious Jews and a fair share of protestants. Moreover, evolution denial is more a thing in the united states. If you grew up in western Europe or in many countries of latin america you'll find out that evolution does not find much opposition.
@@loturzelrestaurant why not accept both? If God can create the universe than can’t he also grow life in the way we see today? For example, the Bible talks about creating the fish of the sea from out of nothing, but the theory of abiogenesis postulates that life came from inorganic matter and from there basic life forms evolved. Granted, the genesis story speaks about the creation in six days and the creation isn’t concise to our modern understanding of the earth, but this could be chocked up to how the creation story was written in a certain poetic way. (Also, something that occurred to me is that the air we breath, which contains water molecules, could also be how God split the waters into the waters above and the waters below.)
@@acrazyweeb7225 Yeah, accepting both is better than rejecting Evolution, thats for sure BUT that still leaves out the Issues with Religion and the God-Claim, let alone the specific Issues with current, modern Religion (like Greg Locke, as covered by UA-camr 'Telltale').
Dawkins’ “Best Evidence for Evolution” disappears before his eyes. Famous Evangelical atheist Richard Dawkins used to teach that the “best evidence for evolution” was that organisms; which were similar to each other have similar DNA. This is pure supposition and absolute speculation driven by a passion to obliterate God from the equation of life. Richard Dawkins claimed that genetic research proved Darwin’s tree of life; nothing could be further from the truth. These claims were made before we learned more about DNA and RNA and in 2009 he got his book published: “The Greatest Show on Earth” in which he taught that Darwin’s Tree of Life was supported by the pattern of resemblances, that you see when you compare genes. The fossil record does not support Darwin’s Tree of Life, because there is no evidence of transitional fossils in the actual earth’s geology demonstrating evolution. There is no evidence that plants and animals diversified from a Common Ancestor over millions of years, being due to imaginary evolution. In 2009, the same year, New Scientist magazine ran an article with the title: “Why Darwin was wrong about the Tree of Life.” In it, scientists stated that the Tree of Life was “mis-leading” because Darwin’s theory limits and even obscures the study of organisms and their ancestries end of quote. The “best evidence for creation” is the fossil record, finding only fully formed organisms in Cambrian rocks. Our technology has advanced to such a stage that we can now “read” the genes of many different species and it is even clearer now that Dawkins’ “Best Evidence for Evolution” does not exist. Now scientists have sequenced a great number of genomes belonging to different organisms. Casey Luskin, Associated Director of the Center for Science and Culture, wrote for Evolution News, that Dawkins was wrong! Every gene does not deliver approximately the same Tree of Life end of quote. DNA research does not show a Tree of Life. But what is described as “bushes of life” meaning no branching as in Darwin’s Tree of Life, but organisms that reflect the fossil record throughout time with minor variations, these are attributed to kinds within species due to genetic variety until they went extinct. “Genes are dissimilar in their development and unique as they form into the embryos of different organisms. Ernest Haeckel German scientist tried it on; by drawing fraudulent embryos making them look alike, because he loved Darwin’s theory of evolution. At the University of Jena he was convicted of fraud in 1875. When asked why he had lied, he said it is necessary for us to believe in spontaneous generation: that everything made itself by random chance, because the alternative is Creation and that is unthinkable! A lot of people have a similar mind-set today, this is why evolution will not go away as a theory and be buried. It should be disqualified by the “scientific method” today, but there is wide spread indoctrination through the education system with the theory of evolution which should be abandoned, because there is no evidence to support such a theory which has outlived its usefulness. The indoctrination of evolution through the education system is a “back door” to promoting immoral behaviour within the populace. This is the aim and plan of the globalists to bring about chaos, anarchy and confusion, in short lawlessness, whereby they have a legitimate reason to use modern technology to mark and control the masses. It is simple, if you teach students there is no God to answer too, then why bother to behave! Create fear among the populace and they will be happy to except electronic monitoring by those in authority, but first they must create the environment and the people will look to those in authority for a solution: it is called Cause and Effect. The general public need to waken up and smell the coffee as there is a lot of corrupt manipulation going on by the elite billionaires, who are now controlling bank accounts, politics and the education system, where people are taught what to think, not how to think critically. There is a desire to take away your freedom of speech in relation to telling the truth.
Unfortunately, while Science may not Bite Religion per se, Logic sure does. HENCE why Atheist-Channels have a massive amount of valid criticism, valid questions, valid much.
@@nenmaster5218 I'm not sure that's the case. There's plenty of logic on the side of religion as well. There's a reason why the intellectual debate on religion is still going on, because both bring up legitimate concerns. The debate is probably as old as religion itself! It's best to just do your research and keep an open mind to both sides of the aisle. Have a good day.
Fantastic video. Before I went into seminary, I decided to take Biological Anthropology because I felt it was important to know about The Theory of Evolution and how it conflicted with my faith. To my great surprise, it did not and made this world even more beautiful and God's creation beyond magnificent. Thank you, My Brother In Christ.
You better take some life lessons and start reading the protocols of zion and catholic history. You are as prophesied, the elect will be deceived and lose the faith.
@@chadwoods2364 Really?? If it is a fact, It must be no problem for you to give an example where you observed an evolutionairy transition by natural selection?
I can't remember where I originally heard it, but I remember a statement that I thought was interesting. "To use evolution to argue against theism is like using the existence of a painting to argue against the existence of painters."
@@nenmaster5218 Well, friendly reminders don't normally require redacted vowels. Secondly their seeming issue has nothing to do with what I said. Assuming that they aren't claiming that I actually remember where I heard it or actually didn't find it interesting, they could think that using evolution to argue against theism is a good philosophical argument, personally, I think it's a rather weak one. They seem to be . . . upset with flat-eartherism, in which case they should probably argue with someone espousing it.
I am Catholic and I feel a bond with our ape relatives. God's creation can be wonderful. So I don't believe in a literal interpretation of portions of the old testament.
I take the Genesis creation story as metaphorical. The human body is so horribly designed to be of divine creation or even in God's image. Teeth with nerves, allergies, food allergies, you name it. The human body and experience as a human is horrendous. Let's say God actually did create us in His image, his image would be terrible then. Man needs God, but science will forever be far superior to faith. As it can explain things the Bible can't, and it's based off of fact. Hebrews 11:1, faith is the evidence of things HOPED FOR, the evidence of things NOT SEEN. Faith is evidence for things we cannot see, God, angels, transubstantiation,. Science is evidence of things we can see.
Danny Allen, neither can God lie. In the Sabbath commandment, in Exodus 20:11, God says very clearly that He created everything in SIX DAYS! So how can anyone who calls himself "Christian" DARE to call God a LIAR and commit such a BLASPHEMY??! Well, if you are part of a religious system or a cult that has fallen away from God long, long, long time ago and became His foremost and most effective enemy, then you certainly can call God a liar and also invent other blasphemies. Claiming that the theory of evolution is a valid scientific theory that we should accept, means contradicting the Word of God (the Bible) in yet another point: the introduction of DEATH. According to the Bible, death came as a direct CONSEQUENCE of Adam and Eve's SIN. While evolution DEMANDS the existence of death BEFORE the first human sin!!! Furthermore, the theory of evolution contradicts the biblical statement that God created a world that was "very good" (perfect, really)--a world without DEATH, or struggle, or bloodshed, or illness/disease or cruelty. What kind of "god" would create like that? Is out Heavenly Father sadistic?! What on earth is Catholic "Church's" "Magisterium" trying to do with such blasphemous teachings? But, sadly, that is not all. For the Roman Catholic "Church" also claims that the Old Testament book of the prophet Daniel has NO prophetic significance for us today, and that it does not deal with the "end time" issues. of the end"--the end of this world. But this AGAIN is just ASTOUNDING bold-faced and easily detected LIE--and Blasphemy!!! For this AGAIN is a direct contradiction of what God says! Just look up Daniel 8:17, or Daniel 2:44, 45, or Daniel 8: 26, or Daniel, Chapter 12. Astounding claim by RCC scholars! Nothing to do with us today, or with end time prophecies???! As one of the proofs of Catholic LIES, I quote the following statement from commentary on the book of Daniel as found in the Catholic Edition of the "New Community Bible"
Sorry, I accidentally pressed the "send" arrow, so I am continuing my post here. So the comment I referred to in the Catholic "New Community Bible" (page 1508) says the following: "Some people read in apocalyptic literature predictions about the end of the world. This is a misinterpretation. The author is writing for the people of his time in their miseries--at most, he is writing about the end of 'their world'". (End of quote) This "New Community Bible" that has its origin in India and carries a 2008 copyright of Saint Paul Society, Bombay. It has an Imprimatur of 5 of Catholic "Most Reverends": Most Rev Albert D'Souza and Most Rev Joseph Kallarangat, Most Rev George Punnakottil, Most Rev Abraham Mar Julios and Most Rev Thomas Dabre . The second person listed is the Chairman of the Commission for Doctrine and the last 3 are listed as Bishops. Anyway, all this is just shocking, for this is a direct contradiction of Daniel 2:44, 45, Daniel 8:17, Daniel, Chapter 12, etc., from which we clearly see that the book of Daniel is a major prophetic book that is VERY relevant to US today. And it DOES talk about the end times. And notice that they say "the author"? Do you know why they do NOT say "Daniel the prophet" bur "the author"? That is because they claim that the actual prophet Daniel DID NOT write the Old Testament Book of Daniel in the time of exile in Babylon, but that it was written by some anonymous writer who (allegedly) "assumed" the name of Daniel the prophet and intended his writings to be (and I quote from p. 1507) "a sort of PROPAGANDA TOOL tool to get the people to rise up and support the Maccabees." ASTOUNDING LIE!!! So, the Catholic commentators effectively call the Book of Daniel a fraud, a "propaganda tool" intended for local purposes, relevant only for the Jews living in second century BC!!! SPEECHLESS! They actually put the book of Daniel "after the events" and therefore DESTROY its prophetic nature!!! They put it in the second centuryBC (between 167 & 164 BC, in the time of Maccabeean revolt against the Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes). later (i.e. after the events) in the second century BC. They put it between 167 & 164 BC, i.e. the time of the Seleucid king of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Maccabean revolt. But this not true. This is yet another Romish DECEPTION that greatly diminishes the IMPORTANCE of the Book of Daniel. In fact, it UNDERMINES it. And no wonder, because both apocalyptic books, the book of Daniel AND the New Testament book of Revelation Testify AGAINST the Roman Catholic "Church" as the Number One ANTI-God, ANTI-Truth system. Therefore, God unmasks the Roman "church" in Revelation, Chapters 17 and 18, and also the first 9 verses of Chap. 13). Just look at at the symbolic names and description God gives of the Roman "church" in those texts. Revelation 17 (and also Revelation, Chap. 18). And notice what God says in Revelation 18:4. Anyway, they claim (and I quite from page 1507 of the above-mentioned Catholic Bible):
SORY, it happened again, I accidentally pressed "send" while manipulating (changing/deleting) my writings and consequently made a real mess (I'm really upset about it). I am usually much more careful. It seems as the evil one had something to do with it. He wants to stop publication of Truth. And I have much more to say about other Romish blasphemous teachings in which they blaspheme God--and even make Him a sadistic monster!!! But in fact, it is their fake "church" that is a real monster. Anyway, I will finish now.
In 1996, Pope John Paul II declared that the theory of evolution was "more than a hypothesis." Pope Francis sees "no conflict between evolution and creation".
when I was in middle school I realized that. How the theory of evolution is exactly the creation in Genesis, but explained in a more scientifically way and what would be "days" for God were actually millions of years for us.
@@FreedomsNurse genesis and other books in the Bible are stories told by the earlier generations to try to explain and understand difficult things outside our understanding, other books are poems, other books are prayers and other books are historical facts. That information is part of the Bible study that is teached at least by the Catholic Church. And by the way.... The big bang theory was proposed by a scientist priest called Georges Lemaitre and approved and defended by the pope Pius XI while most scientist at the scientific community rejected. The idea that religion is against science is a big stupid lie. At least the catholic church (and probably other Protestant Christian denomination) have many priests scientists that have done many important contributions to Science along history. The Church gives a great importance to science since is considered a way to praise and value all the Creation, that's why the first universities in the world were created by the Catholic Church. I suggest you to search for the truth.
@Bert Clayton Yes, actually the Church consider time that way: the time for Man is called Chronos and the time for God is called Kayros because on God's time the past, present and future could be happening at the same time. About Galileus, there are some documents that shows the trial against him word by word and is about the disapproval of his theories partly because he didn't use the correct scientific method therefore he couldn't prove he was right and partly (and sadly) because many priests that time were stuck on taking the Bible on a very literal way. But really Galileo was friends with many priests and bishops and his punishment was to stay at his summer house. Of course I understand that it doesn't mean it was right but it was a matter of prides from Galileo and from the judges.
Its funny how it seems to only be à problem in america You can correct me if i'm wrong, but I am not avare of that ever being an issue in Europe, I have never seen any controversy over this subject, people have à lot more of misunderstanding over which to attack the church though
This was great! I myself dont believe but this is the most logical way to explain evolution through a christian mind. I find it hard listening to people who deny evolution even though all evidence point in that direction. But this is a logical well explained christian view of it and it all makes sense through and can co exist with the facts of today. Great work!
Finally a creationist person who isn't purposefully twisting the words of evolution. This video is brilliant and I intend to show it to a lot of people.
Believing is the wrong term for evolution we accept science like I don't believe in gravity I accept it as a law but that said I believe in God and still accept evolution by natural selection.
Thank you, Brother Casey, for this excellent, well-thought-out video. I see a point of ignorance among people writing comments here, about the stories of creation in Genesis 1 and 2, that I’d like to clarify. I’m not a theologist, but a Theology student in a graduate program. I’m also Catholic. I’m taking an Old Testament class at a well-known Catholic university, and we studied Genesis last week (I know that sounds pretty lame, but let me continue:). The professor recommended the New Oxford Annotated Bible, New Revised Standard Version, as the preferred bible as one of our textbooks for the class. A Jesuit friend of mine said this bible has a very accurate translation from the ancient Hebrew that Genesis was written in. The professor has studied ancient Hebrew, and he has this in part of our class material: “ Day"/Period/Phase (1:5). Hebrew yôm means "a given time period." It can mean a literal 24 hour day in some contexts and a longer or much longer period of time in others. Usually has a fairly clear beginning and ending, no matter what the length. Here in the creation story, it means a period whose length we do not know. (Other biblical examples: several in Isa 19:16-25; note how context helps.) Because there are seven of these periods, and humanity is still living in the seventh one today, each one would seem to be a stage or phase or era of creation. The Hebrew phrase yôm 'ehad is better translated "phase one" or "day one" rather than "the first day," etc. Also, there are 2 slightly different versions, one from the “Priestly” source, and one from the “Non-Priestly” source, of the creation of the world. So it really helps to know what the ancient Hebrew writers of Genesis meant when they wrote what they wrote. Also, the professor pointed out to me that I was taking the writing too literally, which is easy to do, as the ancient Hebrews had a very different culture and knowledge base from ours. (I was asking about Adam naming the different kinds of cattle. What is translated into modern English as “cattle” actually meant large livestock animals, such as cattle, camels, donkeys, and oxen.). I know my comment here will probably cause some people more confusion or controversy, and for other people, clarify their thinking about God creating the world. Oh well. May God bless all y’all!
Wow that is amazing. I know a UA-camr who is making lots of videos to help young people (e.g. answering common questions). Seeing as evolution+Adam and Eve is a massive stumbling block for new Christians, I was wondering whether I could recommend you to him, or any other biblical scholar to perhaps do an interview with him. I think such an in-depth, reasoned and biblical answer will help many people. Just reply to my comment specifically and I’ll be able to get a notification. Regardless of your answer, thank you so much for an intellectual answer in an area where so many people misinterpret. An area which has caused lots of suffering. God Bless!💫🕊
Leonardo Bozza Hi, you’re welcome! And thanks for the invite, but I’m no expert. I was taking a very basic (undergrad) Old Testament class, as I said, at a well-known Catholic university. (I took it as a background for my graduate program, spiritual direction.) You might want to find a Theology professor for your friend to interview about this. A UA-cam channel I’ve enjoyed for thoughtful analysis is “Religion For Breakfast”. One of the problems we Catholics have (and I think Protestants too) is that they don’t take into account the cultural differences and expectations between ancient Hebrews/Israelites/Jews, and modern people, including that we moderns take what’s written in the Bible according to our modern culture and assumptions. It’s very easy to misinterpret what’s written in the Bible. That’s why, 50 years ago, Catholics were actually discouraged from reading the Bible. They didn’t have the Theology training that priests did and do.
Thank you for translating the Hebrew here, I'm a bio major and I love animals, but this has always been my one contention. I just resolved that God will give me wisdom when he deems it right. I believe he sent me to your comment to see that. God Bless to you too! Keep up the God work sharing the good news!
@@sp2817 the millions of years simply do not fit into the creation account in genesis, whichever way we interpret it. Also in genesis, first came the earth, then the sun. and we r taught just the opposite. Also first came the birds then the animals (dinosaurs). And we r taught just the opposite. First we doubt the length of days, now we doubt the order too?? So the order written by God in genesis is wrong? Ok or maybe there's another interpretation. Fine. What is that interpretation may I ask.
As a molecular biologist, this is the first religious video on evolution that hasn't made me irrationally angry. I appreciate you articulating your stance on this and it was fascinating to understand your perspective.
@@2l84me8 Short answer: he created hell because he is good, loving, and also just. Being good by definition must hate evil. Long answer: Hell is a just punishment for unrepentant unbelievers of the Lord Jesus' death and resurrection. Hell is locked from the inside. This means that people in hell will literally prefer hell than confessing their sins, they prefer heaven but they deny the only thing that will get them to heaven and that is by repenting of their sins and believing in the death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We are all undeserving hopeless sinners, the only difference is that we believe in God. I highly suggest you to read the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus in the bible, just search it up and read it. Edit: I forgot to say that people don't stop sinning in hell for eternity, they will keep blaspheming to God and hating each other for eternity so it is just to punish them for eternity.
@@sagittariusa581 So the simple act of not being convinced of an outrageous and ridiculous story is eternal torture by someone who is supposed to be all loving? I don’t think you understand what just, love, nor merciful means. You honestly believe all of humanity is automatically bad just because a clone woman supposedly ate a piece of magic fruit after being convinced by a talking snake? First demonstrate your god even exists in the first place and then we’ll talk.
Evolution wasn't discovered then so did Augustine know that the creation story was an allegory. If he did know then where did he get the concept of original sin from
The problem you eventually run into it that the whole purpose of the Bible is that the world was created perfect and mankind came along and sinned against God. Being death and suffering. To believe in evolution is to believe the world was created with death, suffering and horror much before and Adam or eve comes along. The Bible doesn’t make sense if evolution is true.
Please listen to what this man is saying. I'm an atheist, but mad respect to you mate. Remember, evolution doesn't disprove the possibility of a God existing, you can believe in whatever religion you want without turning your head to facts. Again, mad respect man
Science may not Bite Religion per se, but Logic sure does. It sure does - hence why Atheist-Channel have more and more very-valid Criticism for Christianity and Religion overall. I implore you all, dear comment-readers, to inform yourself a lot, even though it’s admittedly time-consuming, but Religion and Atheism are Big Chunks of this World, so they deserve your time, I’d argue. Valid Questions are asked all the time by people like ‚Genetically Modified Sceptic’ and ‚Believe it or not’ and the harshest aka most direct of them all: ‚Viced Rhino’. And Forrest Valkai literally asks Religious Scientists directly in his longest-yet Video: Why do you ‚suspend your Disbelieve’ and make ‚Exceptions’ for Religion like you do for literally Nothing else? Why do you accept things you wouldnt accept elsewhere, he asks with great arguments.
9 years of Catholic education actually has me a bit more well versed in natural science than my friends that grew up in public school in evangelical homes. :), we got taught evolution and nobody argued.
Biologist here, just to let you know that your quick summary of evolution, although of course incomplete, was not incorrect. A good job for a ‘lay’ person! And the video itself is very, very well done. You are indeed doing God’s work on Earth, young man.
I believe science explains how stuff happens. How does it rain? Water cycle. God explains the why of everything Why does it rain? God is the why for rain and science is the how for rain and for a how there needs to be a why
As A physician, scientist, and, catholic; I can say you have reconciled these 2 issues without begging the question. It’s logical Like Aquinas would approve of. I get a lot of invitations to become Protestant because I wasn’t properly baptized, in the literal way
Science may not Bite Religion per se, but Logic sure does. It sure does - hence why Atheist-Channel have more and more very-valid Criticism for Christianity and Religion overall. I implore you all, dear comment-readers, to inform yourself a lot, even though it’s admittedly time-consuming, but Religion and Atheism are Big Chunks of this World, so they deserve your time, I’d argue. Valid Questions are asked all the time by people like ‚Genetically Modified Sceptic’ and ‚Believe it or not’ and the harshest aka most direct of them all: ‚Viced Rhino’. And Forrest Valkai literally asks Religious Scientists directly in his longest-yet Video: Why do you ‚suspend your Disbelieve’ and make ‚Exceptions’ for Religion like you do for literally Nothing else? Why do you accept things you wouldnt accept elsewhere, he asks with great arguments.
@@loturzelrestaurant the devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve .nm
Science may not Bite Religion per se, but Logic sure does. It sure does - hence why Atheist-Channel have more and more very-valid Criticism for Christianity and Religion overall. I implore you all, dear comment-readers, to inform yourself a lot, even though it’s admittedly time-consuming, but Religion and Atheism are Big Chunks of this World, so they deserve your time, I’d argue. Valid Questions are asked all the time by people like ‚Genetically Modified Sceptic’ and ‚Believe it or not’ and the harshest aka most direct of them all: ‚Viced Rhino’. And Forrest Valkai literally asks Religious Scientists directly in his longest-yet Video: Why do you ‚suspend your Disbelieve’ and make ‚Exceptions’ for Religion like you do for literally Nothing else? ?
@@loturzelrestaurant the devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve .nmaq
@@Otaku155 I would agree with you if you said it requires experiment AND belief. Remember, all pieces of evidence have to be interpreted and sometimes there are multiple interpretations. I would agree that there comes a time where the evidence mounts up so high that there isn't any other choice but to call it fact and at that point, one might argue that it is no longer a belief, but that doesn't happen that often and so there is always some belief in every interpretation. This is inescapable and I would consider you irrational if you denied it.
As both a science teacher and Catholic, my lesson on this evolution is remarkably similar to your explanation. More fulsome understanding is more important than stubborn ignorance.
@@nenmaster5218 - New Testament, paragraph 1 line 1: In the first principle there was Logos (Reason). Logos was unto God. Logos was God. Through it everything was created and without it (without logos i.e. reason) nothing was ever created. It is a formula borrowed from the Stoic philosophers c. 3rd C BC - 2nd C AD, who considered reason to be the only god and the cause of everything. It is the standard mainstream view of Orthodox Christians, at least those who can read Greek. After all it says what it says. You can check Wikipedia about the Stoic philosophers and consult a Greek - English dictionary on the meaning of λόγος. It is the root of logic, logical, etc. Not everyone bothers to open up a dictionary, regardless of whether atheist or religious. The problem with some/many people of religion, especially in America, is that they want a God who has nothing to do with reason.
@@nikolaosaggelopoulos8113 Interesting. I didnt know there were Christians who tell themselves theyre not Opposed to Logic, despite ofcourse being that 24/7; like that
@@nenmaster5218 - You do not understand. that we Believe in Logos, it is not the we are not opposed to it. That is the Christian faith, at the least the mainstream Orthodox Christian faith from a theological standpoint. Christianity, however, is for all, even for lunatics. Half of humanity has an IQ below 100. They can also be Christians and have access to the internet.
As much as I disliked your last video I love this one. Fundamentalist Christians were a roadblock to my belief because I knew they were wrong about so much. The Catholic Church's stance that god does not contradict himself and both the material and spiritual must be logically consistent was a huge part in my conversion story. Thank you Br. Casey!
Heres the thing. They get something right. Earth age. Genesis apologetics is a good page for young earth biblical creationism. That doesnt mean evolution doesnt exist...but it wasnt millions of years.
Hi! I would agree with you that the material and spiritual must be logically consistent!! But how is it consistent to say that Humans came to be from Apes when the Bible literally tells us differently that God created Man from the ground and Woman from his side? I'm in no way saying that any kind of animal development is necessarily wrong, and I am not even convinced that the Creation Story necessarily needs to be 7 literal days in order to be logical. But once the storyline changes, I don't get it. Do you get what I'm saying? The days might be a thousand years, whatever, God's timing is probably more complicated than what fits in our little brains. But how does the Fall of Man, creating Sin, make sense if the storyline of the Creation Story wasn't true? :)
@@whoamI-xi3ln the story IS true, it's just not a little kid's story. It is the most advanced story ever told, and so the more science we learn the more maturity we need to approach Genesis with. In Chapter 1, we see man ('adam') being created in God's image as BOTH male and female. This is NOT Adam and Eve. This is lowercase adam, which means humankind. This is a population of humans, coming after animals and plants, just like science has confirmed. All humans and animals and plants, including the ones living today, are made of the dust of the ground. Chapter 2 is a continuation of the story, not a recap of Chapter 1. In Chapter 2, we have the creation of a single human spirit, named Adam, so that we have a single human spirit for the entire population. Thus we fulfill being made in God's image. God in chapter 1 is 'Elohim' which is a plural noun used in the singular. "And God said, let US make man in OUR image." And so Adam being a single spirit for the population adam of males and females, fulfills this paradoxical image of God which is both singular and plural. The separation of Eve is a spiritual one, thus we have Man and Woman. Animals have males and females, but only humans have a Man and Woman, Husband and Wife. This relationship of a plural population and a single spirit is made explicitly clear in Genesis 5:1-2 KJV "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man [adam], in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." Called their (plural) name Adam (singular). Get it? As a population of humans, Adam would not have died. Even as individual bodies came and went, humanity as a whole thrived and flourished. When they ate the fruit of knowledge, they fell into into individual bodies and got stuck. As a self aware individual we have full control over our bodies, giving us godlike powers. But the price we pay is having to die because bodies are temporal. And we are also faced with the temptation to indulge the sensual desires of the flesh, which can manifest in really horrible ways. Jesus Christ is saving us from this by bringing us once more into a collective human spirit. When we identify with the spirit and not an individual body, we are freed from the bondage to death and decay. Not because our body doesn't rot, but because we realize that we are not our body.
You wonder what authority I am appealing to? I read the Bible and I see that it says nothing about God using evolution. Yet I see some Christians try to squeeze it in there anyways. If your church doesn't view something like this as a heresy then get out of that church. Come on, this is common sense! God wouldn't use evolution (which is a process that requires death) to create life. Especially when he said he spoke it into existence. It's not in his nature. I think he actually did what he is saying he did and spoke it into existence. Why is that hard to believe if he is all powerful like the Bible claims? He doesn't need a natural process to create life because he is not limited. His word is enough.
I believe that you are using a fairly narrow perspective of the Bible to advocate your cause, one in which all truth is contained within its pages and if it doesn't explicitly say something it can't be true. This is not a very good way to approach scripture. Are you to say, then, that the Trinity doesn't exist? It doesn't say so in the Bible. And I guess that makes abortion okay. There's no prohibition against it in the Bible. And what about the internet? I assume that you've gotten a flu shot before, yes? The reason that one has to get a different shot every year is not because the vaccine wears off but because the actual flue virus mutates every year and changes. The shot takes a while to come out because researchers have to wait to find it, test it, see how it's changed, and then come up with a new vaccine. That... is evolution, easy to see. I recommend that you watch this video as it will give you help you to understand the perspective that most Christians come from. While it speaks specifically to the Catholic worldview, the process of reading and approaching Scripture also applies to Anglicans, mainline Protestants, and Orthodox Christians. ua-cam.com/video/5PCOA6imZhc/v-deo.html
The “Scopes Monkey Trial” successfully argued that evolution and creation were not necessarily incompatible. But that evolution may well have been the process by which creation was accomplished. It makes much more sense than a hocus-pocus creation theory
@@vunknownvictory the devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve .nmabn
If we were only species of animals that were given souls or special characteristics separating us from animals, why is there a story about Adam and Eve in the Bible and the whole genealogy from Adam to Jesus? If we were species like other animals, why there are only 2 people that were given special traits? Eve had to be created for Adam so he was not lonely, so there was no one like him. Also, if Adam and Eve sinned, that means only their descendants should be born in sin, and not all descendants of human species. I think that many other things in Bible, that we have to take literally as they are written (genealogy) contradict the theory you are explaining in this video. You presented the explanation of only one thing in the Bible, that excludes evolution, ok, but what about the others? Bible and evolution (as you explained it) doesn't complement to me at all.
Scientist don't have - to this day- a shred of data, not a single data of point that proves mutations are random. Nick Lane's theory of how simple organisms became complex makes so difficult for a rational person to accept randomized evolution. For anyone interested, the book is called the Vital Question or you can download Radiolab's cellmates episode. Is fascinating.
I think the theories of most Christians are an insult to their own god. If your god has to keep coming back and using "magic" to add, take away and change things, it means he either didn't know everything or he made mistakes in his creation that he had to run back and fix. Wouldn't an all-powerful and all-knowing being create a system just like evolution, which would unfold over time according to his design?
Unfortunately, while Science may not Bite Religion per se, Logic sure does. HENCE why Atheist-Channels have a massive amount of valid criticism, valid questions, valid much.
Saint Augustin was ahead of his time and more enlightened than many who cling to the literal interpretation of Genesis to this day. The wonders of God's creation never cease.
Yeah, thats fair enough, but problem is: 'Logic' (seperated from Science, kinda) does totally oppose many God-Stuff. This Video makes it all seem like Science and Religion dont have to oppose each other, AND YES, that is FAR BETTER of an Idea than 'We have to be at WAAAAAR', obviously... Obviously... BUT: Logic kinda bites Religion and thats the Issue here. Atheist-Channels need to be watched to get what i mean, as i obviously cant just put it into 1 comment, duh. I mean, have you seen the valid Questions asked by 'Believe it or not' and 'Viced Rhino'? Or Forrest Valkai? All 3 very good UA-camrs who really studied the Bible hard and now discuss it. But the problem becomes obvious: The Bible just has no historical or other worth and is clearly a giga-logic-error... shouldnt we face that? What do you think? I mean, even 'just' the '10 Questions for Christians'-Video Rhino recently made; though just a small Part of his channel (duh) really makes me wonder. It makes me wonder if Religion isnt something for Earth to 'overcome' and grow out of.
So GOD is outside our space time given that theres no problem with 7 day creation and make a space of time holy sabbath rest. The fact that there are some things that we. Will never understand is biblical as it states." The secret things are for GOD the revealed thins are for man. Like your post keep the faith.
I as a student of pharmacy and believer in our lord Jesus Christ, think that evolution was part of God’s plan to create us. Every mutation and process of natural selection is for me the method that He chose to create us. But of course the generations of the Bible were not as scientifically advanced as we are today so His plan had to be interpreted in an oversimplified and somewhat storytelling type for them to understand the meaning of the Creation!
There is only one bone in the world that can completely grow back, and only happens in one species. The bone is a rib, and the species are humans. Genesis 2 21-22: "So the LORD God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. The LORD God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man. When he brought her to the man, the man said: "This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called 'woman,' for out of 'her man' this one has been taken."
This video will definitely enrage the people from '''Answers in Genesis''. I'm so happy to see priests and many Christians coming to an understanding that science and the theory of evolution are ways to explain and research God's creation. I myself don't think that there should be Creationism vs Evolution, when in reality evolution itself can be part of creation.
Christans, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and pagans have been writing about evolution long before Charles Drawin and many people don't know this but Drawin was a life long Christian, he didn't convert on his death bed, like some doubious sources claim
You had me worried when you showed (a portion of) "The March of Progress" in your introduction, but, to my limited knowledge at least, you seem to have a pretty good grasp of evolution. I do cringe slightly, however, when anyone talks about believing in evolution (or any scientific theory). I don't believe in evolution like an adherent believes in a religious doctrine, however I do accept that evolution is the best explanation we have on how we got to the variety of life we observe on this planet.
Science may not Bite Religion per se, but Logic sure does. It sure does - hence why Atheist-Channel have more and more very-valid Criticism for Christianity and Religion overall. I implore you all, dear comment-readers, to inform yourself a lot, even though it’s admittedly time-consuming, but Religion and Atheism are Big Chunks of this World, so they deserve your time, I’d argue.
God bless you for standing up for scientific truth. Not surprised since I know how the Catholic church stands on evolution but the world still needs more people willing to say "no evolution is true" who also believe in God. Ive also seen biologists and science educators (after all your work is centrally on the Lord as it should be) who aren't as good as articulating the actual theory. Well done.
It would be nice to have someone like this for us Muslims. Really tired of the "If you question this 1 thing, it's the same as not fully believing, which is disbelief, which means you are a heretic, so a disbeliever, so not a Muslim, so an evil enemy of God!" totalitarian approach to thought.
Evolution is true. & Genesis 1:20 (kjv) claims that GOD commanded "The Waters" to spring forth abundant life of creatures that live & move...& expands this to include the fowl. For Christians that don't believe in evolution, read this through to the end: The Book of Genesis claims that GOD commanded "The Waters" to bring forth in abundance the moving creature that hath life *AND the fowl that may fly above The Earth* -This implies that GOD brought about the creation of "Living Creatures that move" by commanding *The Waters* to spring them forth abundantly. There was a time on Earth called, "The Great Dying" aka "The Siberian Traps". During this time Asia was being created. & a lot of volcanic activity was sustained relentlessly for a very long time. This constant & greatly sustained volcanic activity, almost caused every multi-cellular species on Earth to go exinct......except for Marine life! And as a result, almost every multi-cellular organism on Earth today, sprang forth from that remnant of Marine life that survived The Great Dying. So, what does all this mean? It means that the fowl of the air, and animals on land _can_ spring forth from Marine life.....which comes from "The Waters". Well, don't you think its interesting that Genesis links the creation of Living, moving Creatures in abundance to The Waters *AND* expands that link to also include the fowl that may fly above the Earth?? Ever notice, that both fish *AND* Birds lay eggs? The method of laying eggs to bring about offspring is 100% based on the DNA of a species. It takes genetic instructions for a mother to carry out the process of laying eggs. -This, alone, shows that fish *AND* birds share some of the same DNA. Which means that somehow, genetic information was preserved & passed between Living, moving creatures of The Waters, and the fowl that may fly above the Earth. The mechanism for preserving & sharing that genetic information between fish & birds _IS_ what Evolution is! So you see, I have shown you in Genesis where it gives an evolutionary link between the living, moving creatures that The Waters bring forth in abundance, and birds. ________________________________ Genesis 1:20 (kjv) "20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." ________________________________
Wow, it absolutely blew my mind to think about the perspective that macroevolution is simply God's way of continuing his creative genius so things do not remain static. You're making me see more than just the creationism I was taught.
Yeah, thats fair enough, but problem is: 'Logic' (seperated from Science, kinda) does totally oppose many God-Stuff. I mean, have you seen the valid Questions asked by 'Believe it or not' and 'Viced Rhino'? Or Forrest Valkai? All 3 very good UA-camrs who really studied the Bible hard and now discuss them. But the problem becomes obvious: The Bible just has no historical or other worth and is clearly a logic-error... shouldnt we face that? What do you think? I mean, even 'just' the '10 Questions for Christians'-Video Rhino recently made; though just a small Part of his channel (duh) really makes me wonder.
@@loturzelrestaurant Yeah, thats actually a really good point, and those videos are very informative. I think it's important as Christians to ultimately realize that the Bible is not the be-all end-all of faith, God is. Although scripture is God-breathed, it is written by man. There are obvious flaws such as the idea that the earth is flat, or the geocentric view of the universe that the Bible clearly states are true. So I think we just need to realize that the Bible is simply the many authors' interpretations of God using the historical and cultural contexts of their time. The letters of someone like C.S. Lewis are potentially just as viable as the letters of Paul. Just a thought.
@@aidanpatman-clark7131 Science may not Bite Religion per se, but Logic sure does. It sure does - hence why Atheist-Channel have more and more very-valid Criticism for Christianity and Religion overall. I implore you all, dear comment-readers, to inform yourself a lot, even though it’s admittedly time-consuming, but Religion and Atheism are Big Chunks of this World, so they deserve your time, I’d argue. Valid Questions are asked all the time by people like ‚Genetically Modified Sceptic’ and ‚Believe it or not’ and the harshest aka most direct of them all: ‚Viced Rhino’.
While I’m an atheist I found this to be an excellent video. It’s obvious he has a very good understanding of evolution. I came from a fundamentalist Protestant denomination and was taught the Bible was literal history without any error. Once I learned that wasn’t the case my faith dissolved. ☮️ & ❤ to anyone that reads this.
That's one of the possibilities I also think that might be true but I also like to think that since God created an already matured Adam, he could just create an already billions of years old universe
The major problem is that for the macro scale evolution described is that sin would have been around before Adam and Eve. If genesis creation is myth, then it is not true and the whole thing is false.
Nice try, you do clarify a few misconceptions but stating that any conflict here just arises from misconceptions is simply too simplistic. There ARE real problems with evolution, and perhaps even more scientific than theological...
4 роки тому+3
That's the issue with modernists. They embrace any scientific narrative blindly. I've worked with evolution for 10yrs and this Friar is doing a disservice to the catholic church
@@wishyouthebest9222 the only empirical evidence we have is of "evolution" destroying or moving genes around. Destruction can occasionally leads to local "adaptation", but in the process you lose information. I think within the family level, "evolution" could work, because all variations among types seem accidental (in the aristotelian sense). For example, coyotes, wolves and foxes, could in principle, descend from an original "dog-like" stock. A coyote is just a small wolf, and they can even hybridize in the zones they co-exist. Microbe to man evolution is pure wishful thinking though. At this stage, after a lot of research and exploring all the possible alternatives (theistic evolution, creationism, intelligent design, etc), I defend that God created types (species in Genesis 1 and 2) ex nihilo, and there's been some diversification within the types (like the coyote-wolf example). God bless.
@ thanks for clarification. In short: "microevolution" = yes, "makroevolution" = no. God bless and keep you aswell.
4 роки тому+4
@@wishyouthebest9222 brother, I don't like this micro vs macro differentiation. The metaphysical concept of species I used above, is not equal to species concepts biologists use. Biologists will claim that populations of finches that are spread out through many islands, but descent from an original finch stock, are different species. So for biologists, this diversification of finches (changes in beak size, color, behavior, etc) constitutes macro-evolution. So if a creationist says he accepts the finch example, he will be stating that he is believes in macro-evolution according to the biologist definition. I think we have to be very clear with these things, because definitions in evolution are always equivocal and relativistic. Therefore, I would not use the terms micro vs macro, but something on the lines of "I accept variations within the kind". Regardless what we do, we must always state the terms of the discussion when debating a darwinist.
With someone with baseline agnostic views, but started to attend a protestant church for the last 2-3 years, I've always felt that I had to secretly fall back on Unitarian principles on not taking everything in the bible literally. This was obviously so things don't get awkward when I'd come into contact whose faith appears to completely depend on the literal word of the bible. It's funny to see that this video works really well with my current working theology where God, the truth, and the universe are practically interchangeably concepts. It's also nice to see that St. Augustine quote used sensibly in the Catholic church. Side note is that I'm currently doing a thought experiment surrounding how truth and God can be interchangeable. Not as much about that "God is truth," but that "truth is God." Whenever something scientific happens in a lab, that is truth and it's therefore God. Dinosaur bones existing in the earth in truth, therefore is God. The mountains of empirical evidence behind evolution is truth, and is therefore God. To me, denying properly processed science is in a way denying God.
Except the scriptures affirm the 7 day cycle in multiple places, and Jesus affirmed those scriptures. Also, how do you deal with the teaching that God rested form creation?
It's important to remember that the Bible is not a history textbook or newspaper. Just because it said something does not make it literal truth. All throughout the Bible, numbers take on symbolic value. ua-cam.com/video/1ZH4LfQCQWU/v-deo.html
@@BreakingInTheHabit aahhhh, now here goes the Galileo saga all over again, the scripture is infallible and that's what Galileo rejected. Tell us where the Bible say something that is not believable
I agree with everything you've said, and it's all presented very logically and sounds practical, but I believe for some, if you can start pointing to parts of the Bible claiming it is merely allegorical isn't factual, they start wondering where does it end?
I went to a *fairly* conservative Catholic high school in which anti-evolution material was required reading. I wish I had the temperament and argumentative ability as a teenager to say "There is strong evidence for evolutionary theory in our world, and Pope (and now Saint) John Paul II has said that belief in evolution is licit for Catholics. We really shouldn't allow Protestant-influenced science denial to distract us from actual matters of morality." Sadly, I thought more like a teenager and spent my time trying (and failing) to get a date with whoever the prettiest girl on campus was..
I'm a Dutch reformed Christian, my catacheses covered this topic in the same way as its presented here. We have our science deniers and you gotta take the bible literal in whole here too... Even in the Catholic Church here.
4 роки тому
can you tell me a few of these "strong evidences"?
I love the sheer amount of Copium Chrisitans nowadays need. I mean, it's obviously so hard to grow up in the Internet-Age and blending-out every Squaremeter of Reality yelling 'HEY, DIDCHA KNOW SCIENCE DEBUNKED THE BIBLE?' People cope differently with the objective fact that it's objectively proven that countless different Things in the Bible literally never happened, but dont worry, that's what Copium is for.
@@rurushu8094 Can we have an actual, civil talk about the fact that objective fact is objectively and factual that Evolution exists? Or is that too high for you?
@@loturzelrestaurant I dont see myself as wrong, my own faith was borough about by studies in science, and God willing he will help me get through my course. Edit: Studying cladistics and the genetics behind evolution is what brought me closer to God, I don’t recall ever saying evolution is false or Fr Casey saying something like that in this video. But I won’t reply to this untill the discussion becomes more civil because it’s clear you have quite a strong resentment towards God and his church. He died for all of us and he loves all of us. I’ll keep praying for you homie.
@@Schampu4000it’s true , the physical constants in the universe are so precisely made so that the universe has order and design in it (which made Einstein to believe) and so that there are necessary conditions for life to exist that that demands a creator
@@Sky1637-e3r They're not precise at all. They're arbitrary as can be. There is not intelligent designer behind life, or the universe, or what have you.
@@Schampu4000 if gravity were slightly more powerful the universe would turn into a giant ball ,and if it were slightly less powerfull the universe would fly apart.If the ratio of the electromagnetic force to the strong force wasn’t 1% there would be no life on earth . The earth is at the EXACT distance it needs to be from the sun in order for life to exist. There’s a book called “The six numbers” talking about how life on earth is dependent on 6 VERY precisely made variables . And so is the life of the universe . The universe and life itself are sitting on the edge of a razor and that ISN’T a coincidence.
I didn't know there was a controversy. I reckon there are a few christian wanna be's who do not understand that the bible is full of similes and metaphors. But I suspect a lot of them are not Christian and are trying to appear Christian for brownie points I think it is called taking the lord's name in vain. Kind of like the people who put Ukraine stickers on their car but don't give a rip about the civilians in ukraine.
Eileen D luckily, unlike opinions, science is based on empirical evidence that can be tested and verified. If you have some doubts, you are welcome to do research and provide competing data, but the current data is very strongly supported.
@@BreakingInTheHabit I'm not a fundamentalist, I'm a Catholic, so I am open to all empirical data. It is still a theory and there hasn't been a change of species. I appreciate your comment 😊. You have great content! Thank you for what you do!
I think it's important that we understand that word "theory" though. While it is often used synonymously with "guess" or "hypothesis" in common language, in the scientific world it denotes that an idea has sufficient evidence to support its claims and that it has stood up to peer review. To call evolution a theory is not to suggest that it is disputed or that it could some day be elevated to some other status, but rather that it is incomplete in its analysis (which it will always be). Further evidence will add to it, but at this stage, further evidence will not outright deny it.
@@BreakingInTheHabit I'm honestly not trying to be a contrarian but I'm not in agreement with that assertion. Certain in 5 million years if there's no changes, it could be disproven. I need to understand the subject better, admittedly. You understand it better than I. I love defending Christianity to the "Spaghetti Monster" ppl but they refuse to see how God is not of the universe but its Creator. Certainly something from nothing is the truest form of "magical thinking". I recommend Dr. Edward Feser and Ross Douthat books for defending Christianity in a somewhat apologetic manner. Cheers!
What you present, I think, is a separate issues, namely, how these scientific claims are used by others to answer ultimate questions. When people look to evolution to prove that there is no God, they have misread and misappropriated the evidence. Science, or the theory of evolution, says nothing to this. People will use (incorrectly) science to support what they want to support. But that doesn't negate what the actual science tells us. It is our role, not to fight the science, but to understand it as best we can, integrate it with our theology, and refute those who misappropriate it.
You never get scientists telling us evolution didn't happen. So many well-funded creationists, and still they can't find a flaw in evolution that can be solved by creationism.
Scientific theories are purely explanations for all observable evidence. Denying evolution is denying all observable evidence, so of course creationists can't find a flaw in the theory, that's literally asking to try and find a flaw in reality. Now, if new evidence that contradicted the current evidence were to be eventually observed, it'd be taken into account and the theory of evolution would be revised to account for the new evidence. Because that's the scientific process.
Honestly curious, could you answer a few questions for me? 1)why did it take God so long to create us? 2) why did God lie about the great flood and the age of the earth? 3) why did God show himself to other ancient hominods? As Neanderthals are believed to have had gods.
The father of modern genetics, Mandel was a father, a catholic priest.
There have been scientific contributions from all ridiculous religions.
@@IIrandhandleII Name a few.
@@IIrandhandleII wdym ridiculous religions and for example?
so...what? there is no connection with evolution idea whatsoever.
@@jemperdiller Yes, so what?
It was a Belgian priest who studied and descovered the Big Bang Theory!
Don't forget Friedmann, Robertson and Walker.
Was it? I always thought it was Edwin Hubble who discovered it.
You forgot mendel and bruno
It was Fr. George Lemaitre
I learned about him in Geology class in college.
I believe that God created us through evolution.
Me too. I believe he set up the process.
Same I think that’s what gods plan is
I don't Think so
I believe that stuff like God Satan and heaven exist but I still believe in evolution in glad this video was created
@@MrFossil367ab45gfyth Of course
I’m a Catholic and studied Archeology and anthropology in college , and never wavered in my faith , I actually saw the scripture and science match up
Can you tell me where
Yup! Science and Christianity are two things interwoven together which can never be separated. Afterall, Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind.
@GDDM sam yes , you are showing your ignorance . criticizing things you don't know about .
@GDDM sam oooh , you read the bible , makes you an expert . i bet you have a black friend too , and marched in a womans march , checked all the boxes to be a youtube warrior .
@GDDM sam typical keyboard expert , study on your own time .i have ,
Great topic, great video! Thks a lot
smdani ¡Saludos!
Thanks!
Padre Daniell!!!! SALUDOS👼
Yo vine porque lo recomendaste.. but I don't undertend Inglés: )
No sabemos inglés :@
I’m Pentecostal and decided to take a look at some Catholic channels. I’m very glad I did. This video was very eye opening.
@Ameya Harris I mean considering he doesn't have to say "schooby dooby hooby booby" during church, I think that's rather easy
I've been a science teacher for 35 years. When I started I was an atheist. I became a Christian (a Presbyterian - sorry) and found that, far from having to deny science, science and faith live in creative harmony. Thanks for this video.
@@damienasmodeus928 Then let me be more exact. I graduated in Chemistry in 1985 back in the day when only 8% of my country's population went to university. In my country only university graduates can teach. I have taught Science to 12-14 year olds and Chemistry to 14-18 year olds for the last 36 years. Does that help?
@Hunter Marsh You may need to look into the difference between myth and fairy tale. I think you're also overlooking the three centuries of Christianity before the idea of original sin was developed. You do also know, don't you, that the official Catholic position on evolution (and, while I'm not one, Catholics make up the largest body of Christians in the world) is that it is the best current explanation for the development of life on Earth. As for whether I can call myself a Christian or not, I'm pretty sure that acceptance of Genesis 2 as literal truth is not definitive of Christianity. Still - maybe you have a better grasp of what Ibelieve than I do.
@Hunter Marsh No. That's almost certainly not how the story came about. There's no evidence people of that time were interested in explaining where humans came from in the sense you suggest. The story we have in Genesis is almost certainly a reworking of an earlier story which expressed a sense of longing for simpler, pre-agricultural times. The story we have isn't about explaining the existence of human beings either. It's a curtain-opener to an Old Testament which is concerned with Israel's repeated falling away from obedience to God and consequent disasters.
@@andrewmorton7482 You wrote " the three centuries of Christianity before the idea of original sin was developed" - Can you elaborate on that? I'm interested:)
@@whoamI-xi3ln The doctrine of Original Sin was largely developed by St. Augustine of Hippo in the early years of the 5th Century. It was opposed at the time by the likes of Pelagius who took the view that guilt was incurred by sin during one's life. It is only after Augustine that infant baptism became normal in response to his idea that sinfulness was inherited at birth.
honestly this is very possibly the simplest, clearest, most accurate brief explanation of evolution I've ever seen presented. mad respect.
Dawkins’ “Best Evidence for Evolution” disappears before his eyes
.
Famous Evangelical atheist Richard Dawkins used to teach that the “best evidence for evolution” was that organisms; which were similar to each other have similar DNA. This is pure supposition and absolute speculation driven by a passion to obliterate God from the equation of life. Richard Dawkins claimed that genetic research proved Darwin’s tree of life; nothing could be further from the truth. These claims were made before we learned more about DNA and RNA and in 2009 he got his book published: “The Greatest Show on Earth” in which he taught that Darwin’s Tree of Life was supported by the pattern of resemblances, that you see when you compare genes. The fossil record does not support Darwin’s Tree of Life, because there is no evidence of transitional fossils in the actual earth’s geology demonstrating evolution. There is no evidence that plants and animals diversified from a Common Ancestor over millions of years, being due to imaginary evolution. In 2009, the same year, New Scientist magazine ran an article with the title: “Why Darwin was wrong about the Tree of Life.” In it, scientists stated that the Tree of Life was “mis-leading” because Darwin’s theory limits and even obscures the study of organisms and their ancestries end of quote. The “best evidence for creation” is the fossil record, finding only fully formed organisms in Cambrian rocks. Our technology has advanced to such a stage that we can now “read” the genes of many different species and it is even clearer now that Dawkins’ “Best Evidence for Evolution” does not exist. Now scientists have sequenced a great number of genomes belonging to different organisms. Casey Luskin, Associated Director of the Center for Science and Culture, wrote for Evolution News, that Dawkins was wrong! Every gene does not deliver approximately the same Tree of Life end of quote. DNA research does not show a Tree of Life. But what is described as “bushes of life” meaning no branching as in Darwin’s Tree of Life, but organisms that reflect the fossil record throughout time with minor variations, these are attributed to kinds within species due to genetic variety until they went extinct. “Genes are dissimilar in their development and unique as they form into the embryos of different organisms. Ernest Haeckel German scientist tried it on; by drawing fraudulent embryos making them look alike, because he loved Darwin’s theory of evolution. At the University of Jena he was convicted of fraud in 1875. When asked why he had lied, he said it is necessary for us to believe in spontaneous generation: that everything made itself by random chance, because the alternative is Creation and that is unthinkable! A lot of people have a similar mind-set today, this is why evolution will not go away as a theory and be buried. It should be disqualified by the “scientific method” today, but there is wide spread indoctrination through the education system with the theory of evolution which should be abandoned, because there is no evidence to support such a theory which has outlived its usefulness. The indoctrination of evolution through the education system is a “back door” to promoting immoral behaviour within the populace. This is the aim and plan of the globalists to bring about chaos, anarchy and confusion, in short lawlessness, whereby they have a legitimate reason to use modern technology to mark and control the masses. It is simple, if you teach students there is no God to answer too, then why bother to behave! Create fear among the populace and they will be happy to except electronic monitoring by those in authority, but first they must create the environment and the people will look to those in authority for a solution: it is called Cause and Effect. The general public need to waken up and smell the coffee as there is a lot of corrupt manipulation going on by the elite billionaires, who are now controlling bank accounts, politics and the education system, where people are taught what to think, not how to think critically. There is a desire to take away your freedom of speech in relation to telling the truth.
If I show this to my funtamentalist friends. He is just gonna say "Catholicism is evil"
I bet, you are right.
To be frank, they wouldn't be wrong. Catholicm in general has been more of a force for evil than good. The latest pope is an blatant heretical Ahab of a priest who thinks that all religions can be true at the same time and that Muslims worship the same God as Christians. Rewind a few decades and he'd have been officially declared a blasphemer. If the Vatican wasn't reprobate before it certainly is now. They're delving into New Age territory. However, that doesn't men that everything a particular Catholic says is wrong.
Check out Inspiring Philosophy, Sentinel Apologetics, Dr. Michael Heiser, Dr. John Walton, and Biologos. Those are all Protestant channels that believe pretty much the same thing regarding evolution. Your fundamental friends might be more willing to listen to them.
@@michaelturnage3395 Have to agree with you on that one. I’m not an expert on religion so I might be wrong but aren’t Islam and Christianity just different interpretations of the word of the original Hebrew God, YHWH (Yahweh) from Judaism? I could be wrong though.
@@kerajohnson1922 Not exactly. See Apostate Prophet's video on “YHWH Allah the same?”
I am not Catholic, rather Protestant, and I agree 100% with everything said here.
As a Baptist to Catholic convert, we have a lot to agree on! Shame we don’t recognize it more.
You must become Catholic in order to be saved. Checkout the VaticanCatholic UA-cam channel and website to learn information vital to your salvation.
@@jacksonreese17 No, you cannot put conditions on salvation! Only God can judge others' souls. Read the Catechism
it is just common sense. Those who deny empirical evidence, proven science, are denying god's plan for creation. Pure arrogance, they just don't want to go through the effort it would take to understand it properly cause they think they know better than everyone else, even God. This is a strawman of course, but there are unfortunately people who would rather believe the whole world has gone mad than believe that maybe they themselves are just wrong about something and should humble themselves before God. Patience, grace and prayer is the only cure for these people.
@@jacksonreese17 parable of the pharisee and the tax collector
My BA was Archaeology and evolutionary anthropology. It never was an issue for me. My conversion to Catholicism was actually during college.
If evolution is true, please explain the virgin birth of Jesus.
@@FreedomsNurse Are miracles possible? An example of a miracle might be: a universe from nothing; a complex and finely tuned universe from a random explosion; matter and energy organising itself to create the first cell. I guess then miracles are possible!
God Bless you! 🙏 Welcome to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church 🙂
@@FreedomsNurse what is to explain?
@tipseason Rex then says he created woman so man would not be alone.
It's nice to see/hear a non-literal take on the Bible in regards to evolution.
Most of what I've seen from the evolution vs. Bible debate has been between atheists and and people who take every word of the Bible as literal without metaphors and myths.
Thank you for this video. It's refreshing.
Millinta athesists usually come from the same background as the anti-evolution Christians and Muslims
Is the virgin birth of Jesus also a myth?
@@FreedomsNurse no
@@FreedomsNurse, yes.
@@FreedomsNurse yep
This is a great explanation of how Christianity and evolution can coincide. I am a Christian and a biology major and I will not reject my faith but I can't ignore scientific evidence either. I share this view that God is always creating, tinkering, adapting things in our world, evolution is a result of God's work. God blessed us with a soul and that is why we are the only species that has religion.
So you accept the scientific evidence that 3.1 billion nucleotide bases that are the instructions for creating a human being from a zygote must have come from the mind of a genius. You accept the scientific evidence that it is impossible for random changes in the nucleotide base sequence in the genome of an animal to slowly transform that animal into a new and different animal. You accept the scientific evidence that evolution is impossible.
the devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve .nmbn
The way I see it is that God created the first living cells and just directed their evolution to the animals we have today
@@aliciavivi2147 How can you see that Satan if behind this facet or intellectualism trying to sound smart when we making the believers crumble to his satanic ideas
your comment remind me of my preschool year. I saw a spider on a plant and wonder why it hadn't move at all. when I ask my teacher, she just said "Oh, it's praying". since then I always thought that every animal also pray to God. That is of course until I grew up. Or maybe they ARE praying?
This is a very accurate explanation. I am a molecular biologist, and this is, surprisingly, one of the best explanations I have seen outside of specialized literature.
How does evolution not contradict Adam and Eve, no matter how you try to spin it as a metaphor?
@MinwooKim-di5sz Oh, no, it totally does, I suppose. I meant that the explanation of the mechanism of evolution the author provided is accurate. Interpretation of the Bible is beyond my level of expertise.
THANK YOU. As a scholar of anthropology, I cannot stress enough how misunderstood the scientific and abstract cultural dimensions of human origins truly are in modern society. Fortunately, it seems that a better consensus is slowly being understood among religious and scientific circles alike.
Yeah,
thats fair enough,
but problem is: 'Logic' (seperated from Science, kinda) does
totally oppose many God-Stuff.
This Video makes it all seem like Science and Religion
dont have to oppose each other, AND YES, that is FAR BETTER
of an Idea than 'We have to be at WAAAAAR', obviously...
Obviously...
BUT: Logic kinda bites Religion and thats the Issue here.
Atheist-Channels need to be watched to get what i mean,
as i obviously cant just put it into 1 comment, duh.
I mean, have you seen the valid Questions asked by 'Believe it or not'
and 'Viced Rhino'?
Or Forrest Valkai?
All 3 very good UA-camrs who really studied the Bible hard
and now discuss it.
But the problem becomes obvious: The Bible just has no historical
or other worth and is clearly a giga-logic-error... shouldnt we face that?
What do you think?
Dawkins’ “Best Evidence for Evolution” disappears before his eyes.
Famous Evangelical atheist Richard Dawkins used to teach that the “best evidence for evolution” was that organisms; which were similar to each other have similar DNA. This is pure supposition and absolute speculation driven by a passion to obliterate God from the equation of life. Richard Dawkins claimed that genetic research proved Darwin’s tree of life; nothing could be further from the truth. These claims were made before we learned more about DNA and RNA and in 2009 he got his book published: “The Greatest Show on Earth” in which he taught that Darwin’s Tree of Life was supported by the pattern of resemblances, that you see when you compare genes. The fossil record does not support Darwin’s Tree of Life, because there is no evidence of transitional fossils in the actual earth’s geology demonstrating evolution. There is no evidence that plants and animals diversified from a Common Ancestor over millions of years, being due to imaginary evolution. In 2009, the same year, New Scientist magazine ran an article with the title: “Why Darwin was wrong about the Tree of Life.” In it, scientists stated that the Tree of Life was “mis-leading” because Darwin’s theory limits and even obscures the study of organisms and their ancestries end of quote. The “best evidence for creation” is the fossil record, finding only fully formed organisms in Cambrian rocks. Our technology has advanced to such a stage that we can now “read” the genes of many different species and it is even clearer now that Dawkins’ “Best Evidence for Evolution” does not exist. Now scientists have sequenced a great number of genomes belonging to different organisms. Casey Luskin, Associated Director of the Center for Science and Culture, wrote for Evolution News, that Dawkins was wrong! Every gene does not deliver approximately the same Tree of Life end of quote. DNA research does not show a Tree of Life. But what is described as “bushes of life” meaning no branching as in Darwin’s Tree of Life, but organisms that reflect the fossil record throughout time with minor variations, these are attributed to kinds within species due to genetic variety until they went extinct. “Genes are dissimilar in their development and unique as they form into the embryos of different organisms. Ernest Haeckel German scientist tried it on; by drawing fraudulent embryos making them look alike, because he loved Darwin’s theory of evolution. At the University of Jena he was convicted of fraud in 1875. When asked why he had lied, he said it is necessary for us to believe in spontaneous generation: that everything made itself by random chance, because the alternative is Creation and that is unthinkable! A lot of people have a similar mind-set today, this is why evolution will not go away as a theory and be buried. It should be disqualified by the “scientific method” today, but there is wide spread indoctrination through the education system with the theory of evolution which should be abandoned, because there is no evidence to support such a theory which has outlived its usefulness. The indoctrination of evolution through the education system is a “back door” to promoting immoral behaviour within the populace. This is the aim and plan of the globalists to bring about chaos, anarchy and confusion, in short lawlessness, whereby they have a legitimate reason to use modern technology to mark and control the masses. It is simple, if you teach students there is no God to answer too, then why bother to behave! Create fear among the populace and they will be happy to except electronic monitoring by those in authority, but first they must create the environment and the people will look to those in authority for a solution: it is called Cause and Effect. The general public need to waken up and smell the coffee as there is a lot of corrupt manipulation going on by the elite billionaires, who are now controlling bank accounts, politics and the education system, where people are taught what to think, not how to think critically. There is a desire to take away your freedom of speech in relation to telling the truth.
I have zero problem with the earth being billions of years old and i don't have problems with evolution and I consider myself a Christian and I'm about to get baptized soon 💙💙💙
Great! But...Respectfully, if you are TRULY a Christian you must believe what the Bible says. And the Bible says that God created Adam and Eve to reproduce and basically increase the Earth's population. The Bible does not mention the evolution of monkeys, but just Adam and Eve, therefore the evolution is false, and you cannot believe in both.
Can we all atheists in the comments section cheer for a theist actually understanding what evolution is?
Facts, this guy is knowledgeable
@@ring9089 Understanding enough to not take a hardline stance. If only more religious people like this
Yes! He understands it better than Answers in Genesis or several popular (and inefficient) christian apologists
I am so grateful for my high school Religion teacher, Mr Shafton -who taught me that Religion & Science are interconnected. Arguably, we won't know all the answers...but both Religion and Science can help make sense of the unexplainable.
They are not interconnected and religion has never helped us make sense of anything. Please supply an example of this?
the bible was humans' best guess on how we got here....they were like all other holy books horribly wrong.......i get it people are afraid of death and want some comfort....the trouble is religion comes at a price...... it cost millions of people they live.....worst invention by far.....and its not even close
@@blacksilus7419 lol fr
No Jesus can.
@@MrGreen-fi5sg you have to prove jesus existed first
As an older American and raised Roman Catholic, I was never aware of any faith-conflict over scientific learning or theories of how humanity came into being. Learning, or the Intellect, was a Godly-gift.
We were also taught to believe that, in whatever way it scientifically occurred, God was the Creator of the Universe (as beautifully presented in Genesis 1 and 2). I have personally found it interesting that Genesis 1 has a sequence of how things came to be [some might say developed] which compliments scientific theories... A cheer for these gifts of human knowledge could be: "Divine time and cosmic time, unite!"
But all that, as they say, is history. I was taught to be a co-creator with God today, living in the Spirit to make the kingdom of God visible in our midst (Matthew 5 & 25). Living out my baptismal promises with other people of good will, together God will work through our hands (cf. Mother Teresa) that the world will continue to be "very good" (Genesis 1:31), as restored in the resurrection of the Christ (Romans 8).
God, send out your Spirit, and renew the face of the earth (Psalm 104).
Beautifully written!
@Pipes Thank you. Peace+good!
SOOOO MANY Christians have meanwhile accepted Evolution because of all the Prove. But you just dont wanna see it. "Mommy, i dont wanna see it! I dont wanna see it" you cry, and your mommy kent accepts that and lets you watch a baby-cartoon instead of the 'big scary Science-Channel!!!!'. EPIC FAIL
I repeat one last time before blocking you: More and more and more Christians and Pastors say Evolution is fact. Go figure...
@@splashpont Science may not Bite Religion per se,
but Logic sure does.
It sure does - hence why Atheist-Channel have more and more very-valid Criticism for Christianity and Religion overall.
I implore you all, dear comment-readers,
to inform yourself a lot, even though it’s admittedly time-consuming,
but Religion and Atheism are Big Chunks of this World,
so they deserve your time, I’d argue.
Valid Questions are asked all the time by people like ‚Genetically Modified Sceptic’ and ‚Believe it or not’ and the harshest aka most direct of them all: ‚Viced Rhino’.
And Forrest Valkai literally asks Religious Scientists directly in his longest-yet Video: Why do you ‚suspend your Disbelieve’ and make ‚Exceptions’ for Religion like you do for literally Nothing else? Why do you accept things you wouldnt accept elsewhere, he asks with great arguments.
I’m no speech-maker, but i hope i convinced you to inform yourself and really check said Channels ‚throughoutly’, so to see where all the Criticism is coming from.
@@loturzelrestaurant All people have a right to their beliefs as we work together to make the world a better place. My point is that believers and scientists should be friends and never antagonists.
We didn't come from monkeys, we came from the same common ancestor. My mum and dad are evolution excepting Christians. Some people try to be clever by announcing that scientists can't find the missing link between man and monkey and they can't, because like I said we come from the SAME ancestor. And many different species of that era will share a common ancestor and so on to the dawn of life on earth.
Whilst you have the right idea, our ancestors were in fact monkeys
Assuming the term monkey is a monophyletic clade (a group of organisms containing only and all of its descendants without exclusions) and you can’t outgrow a clade, if your ancestors were part of that clade, then so are you and so will your descendants be.
There are 2 main groups of monkeys: Catarrhini (the group containing the old world monkeys and the apes) and
Platyrrhini (the new world monkeys). The Catarrhini are also sometimes referred to as old world monkeys too, a reason they aren’t always is that apes are part of this group and then you definitely can’t say “humans aren’t monkeys” as that is still a bit of a weird thing to say in some peoples eyes.
Now, the parent group of those 2 clades is “Simiiform” or “Anthropoidea”. If two of the daughter clades are separate and can both be called monkeys and if we want a singular consistent definition of the word monkey, it follows that the ancestors of both new world and old world monkeys MUST also be a monkey. That means that simians = monkeys. Now, since Apes are a subset of Simians, and if we are sticking to our idea that a monkey is a Clade as defined above, then it follows that Apes are in fact monkeys, regardless of whether we agree on calling us old world monkeys or that’s just a sister clade.
If you don’t agree, then it follows that there’s no such thing as a pure monkey, there are only old world monkeys and new world monkeys, but no OG monkey that is their ancestor. And if you do think that the ancestor of both OWM and NWM is a monkey, then it follows that our ancestors is also a monkey and therefore we are too:) you can’t outgrow your ancestry!
It’s the same reasoning why everything with a backbone is technically a fish, if we want a consistent definition of the word but that’s another conversation🤣
I hope that makes sense
This literally taught me more than my school
Literally 😂
School taught this you probably didn’t listen
I was studying GCSE biology at a Catholic school during John-Paul's papacy and my teachers were required to present opposing arguments to evolution in class. A couple of years later I studied for my Alevel biology and the teacher was no longer required to present contradictory arguments (other than to explain that they existed and essentially shoot them down) and made one of the only positive statements about pope benidict I heard in my entire time in school... Or since.
@@sophiasilva5866 Yeah,
thats fair enough,
but problem is: 'Logic' (seperated from Science, kinda) does
totally oppose many God-Stuff.
This Video makes it all seem like Science and Religion
dont have to oppose each other, AND YES, that is FAR BETTER
of an Idea than 'We have to be at WAAAAAR', obviously...
Obviously...
BUT: Logic kinda bites Religion and thats the Issue here.
Atheist-Channels need to be watched to get what i mean,
as i obviously cant just put it into 1 comment, duh.
I mean, have you seen the valid Questions asked by 'Believe it or not'
and 'Viced Rhino'?
Or Forrest Valkai?
All 3 very good UA-camrs who really studied the Bible hard
and now discuss it.
But the problem becomes obvious: The Bible just has no historical
or other worth and is clearly a giga-logic-error... shouldnt we face that?
What do you think?
I mean, even 'just' the '10 Questions for Christians'-Video Rhino recently
made; though just a small Part of his channel (duh) really makes me wonder.
It makes me wonder if Religion isnt something for Earth to 'overcome' and grow out of.
@@sophiasilva5866 That is literally your Fault and your Teachers.
I studied in a Catholic school, they do teach evolution there, and my teacher in Christian Religion subject personally believes in evolution too. So I honestly do not get the 'conflict', maybe because Protestants aren't really numerous in my country probably helps.
@Ayos Mukha if you believe in evolution you say that death came before sin and God ordered death before the first couple and called it good. That is not what the Bible teaches
@@amartinez589 dude.. i don't care about your head canon
@Ayos Mukha dude, I’m just talking about the word of God I don’t know what you worship
@@amartinez589then why bother comment in the first place?
If God didn't create a man, Adam, then the entire Bible is a lie. Perhaps the virgin birth is also written in the style of MYTH? Perhaps the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is also a myth? You're well on your way to being an athiest.
I suggest you find a story of the "Don Camilo" series written by Giovanni Guareschi. In that tales you find a priest, Don Camilo, that talks with Jesus in the altar of his parrish. Once he asked Jesus about truth but Jesus asked back what he, Don Camilo, believed it was the truth. And he answered that in his opinion of a mere priest in a small town, truth was a candle lighted in the dark of man ignorance. And Jesus told him he wasn't far form the truth. And started to speak:
"There were 40 men in a dark big room. They all had an oil lamp. One lighted his lamp, and they could see their faces. Another lighted one more lamp and they could see the nearest things. When all the lamps were on, they could see everything in the room, which was full of nice and good things. But they believed that everything that God had created for them, was seen because of their lamp. So they started to wander each one following the light of the own lamp. The big light of the lamps altoghether parted in forty little flames uncapable of iluminating all the room.
Understand me, the light is only one, the truth is only one, but man goes alone in the world following the limited light of his lamp, fearing from darkness and shadows. It is necessary that all the lamps get back to the center of the room, and then manking will see the real nature of things."
Guareschi also uses an image of a statue broken in 40 pieces that men are trying to but toghether again but are not able to put the pieces in the correct place, like a puzzle. He says that we'll get many mishappen statues till we get to put all the pieces in the correct place.
“The little world of Don Camillo” is brilliantly written, full of humour and humanity, in an understated and economical style and it’s a pure joy to read.
@@Rick-ve5lx There are several books in the "Mondo Piccolo" of Guareschi. It was originally a weekly text in a small newspaper. There is a special book called "Tutto Don Camilo" which has all the chapters. In the books many of the chapters where taken out. These eliminated chapters were too related to facts of the moment or about political facts of that time. It's believed that Guareschi texts and ideas had an important part in the defeat of Comunism in Italy.
The books are at least four: "Don Camilo", "Don Camilo e il suo gregge" (in Spanish "La Vuelta de Don Camilo"), "Don Camilo e i giovani d'oggi" and "Il Compagno Don Camilo" (in which Don Camilo manages to be in a trip to Russia for comrades of "sure faith" and shows the real life in communism).
Arturo Luis Alfredo Lisdero Molina Thanks very much for that. I only have “The little world” but it’s one of my favourite books and I still read it occasionally. It was on TV years ago in the UK. Peppone was played by Brian Blessed. I forget who played Don Camillo but he was also very good.
@@Rick-ve5lx I you search in UA-cam you may find something. "Don Camilo English" game a result of Terence Hill and also some of the older ones of Fernandell.
Arturo Luis Alfredo Lisdero Molina Terrence Hill player Don Matteo, a later serie much more pop/trash. The original Don Camillo was played by a French actor. I come from that part of Italy (po valley) and I grown up with Don Camillo. The context was so similar to my town that I though that all the world was divided between Communists and Catholics... very funny and intelligent films; all of them. The good thing is that Peppone (the communist) was not portrayed as an evil man, but as a good man, playing in the “wrong team”
As a neuroscientist & a Catholic, I feel no conflict whatsoever.
Yeah,
thats fair enough,
but problem is: 'Logic' (seperated from Science, kinda) does
totally oppose many God-Stuff.
I mean, have you seen the valid Questions asked by 'Believe it or not'
and 'Viced Rhino'?
Or Forrest Valkai?
All 3 very good UA-camrs who really studied the Bible hard
and now discuss them.
But the problem becomes obvious: The Bible just has no historical
or other worth and is clearly a logic-error... shouldnt we face that?
What do you think?
I mean, even 'just' the '10 Questions for Christians'-Video Rhino recently
made; though just a small Part of his channel (duh) really makes me wonder.
no problem.....adam and eve no....noahs flood no....young earth no.....what has the bible got right to justify your confidence??
no adam and eve then no need for jesus...original sin
@@paulrichards6894 yeah you are correct with that without the original sin there is no need for Jesus
@@paulrichards6894 I’m open to talk about this with you I’m not gonna try to convert you or nothing but I feel like it would be a cool topic (I have studied a lot of things biblical and Science but I don’t know everything to heart so if I get anything wrong that’s on me)
I’m Muslim , and I agree with what this guy said
It is very interesting your channel could consider placing subtitles in Spanish.
Yes ! My mother needs to see this video .
@@marylinramos4300 The Problem is, the Try to make Religion and Science co-exist is a Wrong Idea in itself. Think about it:
Isnt this all because Science-Denial has not worked out for Religion, so
Isnt it curious how Religion now trys to claim it was co-existing all along and both are true?
Even though religion and science (or better said, religion and Logic) totally do bite each other?
Sorry, but face the harsh truth here: This resembles more a marketing ploy.
Think about it for real: Has ‚open’ Science-Denial not failed and people realized that Science is a ‚positive word’? Isnt this perceived positivness now something to be ‚stolen’, for a lack of a better word?
Good People like ‚Sci Man Dan’ and countless others have even made a Living from debunking all the PSEUDO-Science and Fake-Science (pretending to be science but having no science behind it, as religious people love to do nowadays) so that alone is a thing to consider; hard.
Sci Man Dan and all the others totally debunk everything they say.
Religion has now entered a new marketing-strategy, which is ‚Co-existing with Science is Possible!!’ and they even funny-enough add ‚I knew it all along; just so ya know!’ I mean, ok?
I'm not here to throw shade on all the scientists and teachers in this c-section who say they are religious and educated: But i have to stress that your going into the wrong direction here. The 'idea' that religion and science are kinda the same and everyone should just leave it at that and hold hands 'sounds' nice but is in the end very, very wrong and also does have a multitude of negative effects, tbf.
‚Forrest Valkai’ even directly adresses you, my dear Scientists/Teachers/Such who go in this c-section here and say ‚Right! I always knew they dont bite each other!’
As a biologist I must say: this was a pretty good explanation of the theory of evolution. Concise and clear.
Yeah, but the Main-Root, like THE MAIN ROOT, of Evolution-Denial is still... still... still Religion.
@@loturzelrestaurant so what? Besides, Catholics don't deny evolution, nor do the nonreligious Jews and a fair share of protestants. Moreover, evolution denial is more a thing in the united states. If you grew up in western Europe or in many countries of latin america you'll find out that evolution does not find much opposition.
@@loturzelrestaurant why not accept both? If God can create the universe than can’t he also grow life in the way we see today? For example, the Bible talks about creating the fish of the sea from out of nothing, but the theory of abiogenesis postulates that life came from inorganic matter and from there basic life forms evolved. Granted, the genesis story speaks about the creation in six days and the creation isn’t concise to our modern understanding of the earth, but this could be chocked up to how the creation story was written in a certain poetic way. (Also, something that occurred to me is that the air we breath, which contains water molecules, could also be how God split the waters into the waters above and the waters below.)
@@acrazyweeb7225
Yeah, accepting both is better than rejecting Evolution, thats for sure BUT that still leaves out the Issues with Religion and the God-Claim, let alone the specific Issues with current, modern Religion (like Greg Locke,
as covered by UA-camr 'Telltale').
Dawkins’ “Best Evidence for Evolution” disappears before his eyes.
Famous Evangelical atheist Richard Dawkins used to teach that the “best evidence for evolution” was that organisms; which were similar to each other have similar DNA. This is pure supposition and absolute speculation driven by a passion to obliterate God from the equation of life. Richard Dawkins claimed that genetic research proved Darwin’s tree of life; nothing could be further from the truth. These claims were made before we learned more about DNA and RNA and in 2009 he got his book published: “The Greatest Show on Earth” in which he taught that Darwin’s Tree of Life was supported by the pattern of resemblances, that you see when you compare genes. The fossil record does not support Darwin’s Tree of Life, because there is no evidence of transitional fossils in the actual earth’s geology demonstrating evolution. There is no evidence that plants and animals diversified from a Common Ancestor over millions of years, being due to imaginary evolution. In 2009, the same year, New Scientist magazine ran an article with the title: “Why Darwin was wrong about the Tree of Life.” In it, scientists stated that the Tree of Life was “mis-leading” because Darwin’s theory limits and even obscures the study of organisms and their ancestries end of quote. The “best evidence for creation” is the fossil record, finding only fully formed organisms in Cambrian rocks. Our technology has advanced to such a stage that we can now “read” the genes of many different species and it is even clearer now that Dawkins’ “Best Evidence for Evolution” does not exist. Now scientists have sequenced a great number of genomes belonging to different organisms. Casey Luskin, Associated Director of the Center for Science and Culture, wrote for Evolution News, that Dawkins was wrong! Every gene does not deliver approximately the same Tree of Life end of quote. DNA research does not show a Tree of Life. But what is described as “bushes of life” meaning no branching as in Darwin’s Tree of Life, but organisms that reflect the fossil record throughout time with minor variations, these are attributed to kinds within species due to genetic variety until they went extinct. “Genes are dissimilar in their development and unique as they form into the embryos of different organisms. Ernest Haeckel German scientist tried it on; by drawing fraudulent embryos making them look alike, because he loved Darwin’s theory of evolution. At the University of Jena he was convicted of fraud in 1875. When asked why he had lied, he said it is necessary for us to believe in spontaneous generation: that everything made itself by random chance, because the alternative is Creation and that is unthinkable! A lot of people have a similar mind-set today, this is why evolution will not go away as a theory and be buried. It should be disqualified by the “scientific method” today, but there is wide spread indoctrination through the education system with the theory of evolution which should be abandoned, because there is no evidence to support such a theory which has outlived its usefulness. The indoctrination of evolution through the education system is a “back door” to promoting immoral behaviour within the populace. This is the aim and plan of the globalists to bring about chaos, anarchy and confusion, in short lawlessness, whereby they have a legitimate reason to use modern technology to mark and control the masses. It is simple, if you teach students there is no God to answer too, then why bother to behave! Create fear among the populace and they will be happy to except electronic monitoring by those in authority, but first they must create the environment and the people will look to those in authority for a solution: it is called Cause and Effect. The general public need to waken up and smell the coffee as there is a lot of corrupt manipulation going on by the elite billionaires, who are now controlling bank accounts, politics and the education system, where people are taught what to think, not how to think critically. There is a desire to take away your freedom of speech in relation to telling the truth.
Though I am agnostic, this is a well made and well researched video. Good job
Agnostics are super chill. Thanks for respecting bro. Have a beautiful life, I wish you well
Unfortunately,
while Science may not Bite Religion per se,
Logic sure does.
HENCE why Atheist-Channels have a massive amount of
valid criticism,
valid questions,
valid much.
@@nenmaster5218 What's your definition of logic?
Fr Casey has to be thorough in his research. If he doesn't he'll make a donkey out of himself and the Catholic Christian faith.
@@nenmaster5218 I'm not sure that's the case. There's plenty of logic on the side of religion as well. There's a reason why the intellectual debate on religion is still going on, because both bring up legitimate concerns. The debate is probably as old as religion itself! It's best to just do your research and keep an open mind to both sides of the aisle. Have a good day.
Fantastic video. Before I went into seminary, I decided to take Biological Anthropology because I felt it was important to know about The Theory of Evolution and how it conflicted with my faith. To my great surprise, it did not and made this world even more beautiful and God's creation beyond magnificent.
Thank you, My Brother In Christ.
You better take some life lessons and start reading the protocols of zion and catholic history.
You are as prophesied, the elect will be deceived and lose the faith.
@@crucemsanctamsubiitallelui3664 Evolution is a defined fact of population genetics
@@chadwoods2364 Really?? If it is a fact, It must be no problem for you to give an example where you observed an evolutionairy transition by natural selection?
God spoke creation into existence and evolution its mechanism.
this has always be my saying in the matter!
I can't remember where I originally heard it, but I remember a statement that I thought was interesting. "To use evolution to argue against theism is like using the existence of a painting to argue against the existence of painters."
Friendly Reminder: The f-ing Earth isnt f-ing Flat. Deal with it.
@@loturzelrestaurant Fully aware of that. I think, in fact, flat-earthism is utter nonsense. Were you actually trying to yell at someone else?
@@pentalarclikesit822 He said 'Friendly reminder' and you said 'yell'? Are you drunk, sir?
@@nenmaster5218 Well, friendly reminders don't normally require redacted vowels. Secondly their seeming issue has nothing to do with what I said. Assuming that they aren't claiming that I actually remember where I heard it or actually didn't find it interesting, they could think that using evolution to argue against theism is a good philosophical argument, personally, I think it's a rather weak one. They seem to be . . . upset with flat-eartherism, in which case they should probably argue with someone espousing it.
@@pentalarclikesit822 Redacted?
????
??
?
I am Catholic and I feel a bond with our ape relatives. God's creation can be wonderful. So I don't believe in a literal interpretation of portions of the old testament.
I take the Genesis creation story as metaphorical. The human body is so horribly designed to be of divine creation or even in God's image. Teeth with nerves, allergies, food allergies, you name it. The human body and experience as a human is horrendous. Let's say God actually did create us in His image, his image would be terrible then. Man needs God, but science will forever be far superior to faith. As it can explain things the Bible can't, and it's based off of fact. Hebrews 11:1, faith is the evidence of things HOPED FOR, the evidence of things NOT SEEN. Faith is evidence for things we cannot see, God, angels, transubstantiation,. Science is evidence of things we can see.
So glad you used the exact phrase I was thinking: “truth cannot contradict truth”
Danny Allen, neither can God lie. In the Sabbath commandment, in Exodus 20:11, God says very clearly that He created everything in SIX DAYS! So how can anyone who calls himself "Christian" DARE to call God a LIAR and commit such a BLASPHEMY??!
Well, if you are part of a religious system or a cult that has fallen away from God long, long, long time ago and became His foremost and most effective enemy, then you certainly can call God a liar and also invent other blasphemies.
Claiming that the theory of evolution is a valid scientific theory that we should accept, means contradicting the Word of God (the Bible) in yet another point: the introduction of DEATH. According to the Bible, death came as a direct CONSEQUENCE of Adam and Eve's SIN. While evolution DEMANDS the existence of death BEFORE the first human sin!!! Furthermore, the theory of evolution contradicts the biblical statement that God created a world that was "very good" (perfect, really)--a world without DEATH, or struggle, or bloodshed, or illness/disease or cruelty. What kind of "god" would create like that? Is out Heavenly Father sadistic?! What on earth is Catholic "Church's" "Magisterium" trying to do with such blasphemous teachings? But, sadly, that is not all. For the Roman Catholic "Church" also claims that the Old Testament book of the prophet Daniel has NO prophetic significance for us today, and that it does not deal with the "end time" issues. of the end"--the end of this world. But this AGAIN is just ASTOUNDING bold-faced and easily detected LIE--and Blasphemy!!! For this AGAIN is a direct contradiction of what God says! Just look up Daniel 8:17, or Daniel 2:44, 45, or Daniel 8: 26, or Daniel, Chapter 12. Astounding claim by RCC scholars! Nothing to do with us today, or with end time prophecies???! As one of the proofs of Catholic LIES, I quote the following statement from commentary on the book of Daniel as found in the Catholic Edition of the "New Community Bible"
Sorry, I accidentally pressed the "send" arrow, so I am continuing my post here.
So the comment I referred to in the Catholic "New Community Bible" (page 1508) says the following: "Some people read in apocalyptic literature predictions about the end of the world. This is a misinterpretation. The author is writing for the people of his time in their miseries--at most, he is writing about the end of 'their world'". (End of quote)
This "New Community Bible" that has its origin in India and carries a 2008 copyright of Saint Paul Society, Bombay. It has an Imprimatur of 5 of Catholic "Most Reverends": Most Rev Albert D'Souza and Most Rev Joseph Kallarangat, Most Rev George Punnakottil, Most Rev Abraham Mar Julios and Most Rev Thomas Dabre . The second person listed is the Chairman of the Commission for Doctrine and the last 3 are listed as Bishops.
Anyway, all this is just shocking, for this is a direct contradiction of Daniel 2:44, 45, Daniel 8:17, Daniel, Chapter 12, etc., from which we clearly see that the book of Daniel is a major prophetic book that is VERY relevant to US today. And it DOES talk about the end times.
And notice that they say "the author"? Do you know why they do NOT say "Daniel the prophet" bur "the author"? That is because they claim that the actual prophet Daniel DID NOT write the Old Testament Book of Daniel in the time of exile in Babylon, but that it was written by some anonymous writer who (allegedly) "assumed" the name of Daniel the prophet and intended his writings to be (and I quote from p. 1507) "a sort of PROPAGANDA TOOL tool to get the people to rise up and support the Maccabees." ASTOUNDING LIE!!!
So, the Catholic commentators effectively call the Book of Daniel a fraud, a "propaganda tool" intended for local purposes, relevant only for the Jews living in second century BC!!!
SPEECHLESS! They actually put the book of Daniel "after the events" and therefore DESTROY its prophetic nature!!! They put it in the second centuryBC (between 167 & 164 BC, in the time of Maccabeean revolt against the Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes).
later (i.e. after the events) in the second century BC. They put it between 167 & 164 BC, i.e. the time of the Seleucid king of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Maccabean revolt. But this not true. This is yet another Romish DECEPTION that greatly diminishes the IMPORTANCE of the Book of Daniel. In fact, it UNDERMINES it. And no wonder, because both apocalyptic books, the book of Daniel AND the New Testament book of Revelation Testify AGAINST the Roman Catholic "Church" as the Number One ANTI-God, ANTI-Truth system. Therefore, God unmasks the Roman "church" in Revelation, Chapters 17 and 18, and also the first 9 verses of Chap. 13). Just look at
at the symbolic names and description God gives of the Roman "church" in those texts. Revelation 17 (and also Revelation, Chap. 18). And notice what God says in Revelation 18:4.
Anyway, they claim (and I quite from page 1507 of the above-mentioned Catholic Bible):
SORY, it happened again, I accidentally pressed "send" while manipulating (changing/deleting) my writings and consequently made a real mess (I'm really upset about it). I am usually much more
careful. It seems as the evil one had something to do with it. He wants to stop publication of Truth.
And I have much more to say about other Romish blasphemous teachings in which they blaspheme God--and even make Him a sadistic monster!!! But in fact, it is their fake "church" that is a real monster.
Anyway, I will finish now.
@@matozec9177 Talk about straw-manning.
In 1996, Pope John Paul II declared that the theory of evolution was "more than a hypothesis."
Pope Francis sees "no conflict between evolution and creation".
when I was in middle school I realized that. How the theory of evolution is exactly the creation in Genesis, but explained in a more scientifically way and what would be "days" for God were actually millions of years for us.
Evolution is not what Genesis teaches.
@@FreedomsNurse genesis and other books in the Bible are stories told by the earlier generations to try to explain and understand difficult things outside our understanding, other books are poems, other books are prayers and other books are historical facts. That information is part of the Bible study that is teached at least by the Catholic Church.
And by the way.... The big bang theory was proposed by a scientist priest called Georges Lemaitre and approved and defended by the pope Pius XI while most scientist at the scientific community rejected.
The idea that religion is against science is a big stupid lie. At least the catholic church (and probably other Protestant Christian denomination) have many priests scientists that have done many important contributions to Science along history. The Church gives a great importance to science since is considered a way to praise and value all the Creation, that's why the first universities in the world were created by the Catholic Church. I suggest you to search for the truth.
@Bert Clayton Yes, actually the Church consider time that way: the time for Man is called Chronos and the time for God is called Kayros because on God's time the past, present and future could be happening at the same time.
About Galileus, there are some documents that shows the trial against him word by word and is about the disapproval of his theories partly because he didn't use the correct scientific method therefore he couldn't prove he was right and partly (and sadly) because many priests that time were stuck on taking the Bible on a very literal way.
But really Galileo was friends with many priests and bishops and his punishment was to stay at his summer house. Of course I understand that it doesn't mean it was right but it was a matter of prides from Galileo and from the judges.
Should I read all this stuff?
Karina Mandarina your comment just blew my mind
Its funny how it seems to only be à problem in america
You can correct me if i'm wrong, but I am not avare of that ever being an issue in Europe, I have never seen any controversy over this subject, people have à lot more of misunderstanding over which to attack the church though
This was great! I myself dont believe but this is the most logical way to explain evolution through a christian mind. I find it hard listening to people who deny evolution even though all evidence point in that direction. But this is a logical well explained christian view of it and it all makes sense through and can co exist with the facts of today. Great work!
Finally a creationist person who isn't purposefully twisting the words of evolution. This video is brilliant and I intend to show it to a lot of people.
Believing is the wrong term for evolution we accept science like I don't believe in gravity I accept it as a law but that said I believe in God and still accept evolution by natural selection.
Thank you, Brother Casey, for this excellent, well-thought-out video. I see a point of ignorance among people writing comments here, about the stories of creation in Genesis 1 and 2, that I’d like to clarify. I’m not a theologist, but a Theology student in a graduate program. I’m also Catholic. I’m taking an Old Testament class at a well-known Catholic university, and we studied Genesis last week (I know that sounds pretty lame, but let me continue:). The professor recommended the New Oxford Annotated Bible, New Revised Standard Version, as the preferred bible as one of our textbooks for the class. A Jesuit friend of mine said this bible has a very accurate translation from the ancient Hebrew that Genesis was written in. The professor has studied ancient Hebrew, and he has this in part of our class material:
“ Day"/Period/Phase (1:5). Hebrew yôm means "a given time period." It can mean a literal 24 hour day in some contexts and a longer or much longer period of time in others. Usually has a fairly clear beginning and ending, no matter what the length. Here in the creation story, it means a period whose length we do not know. (Other biblical examples: several in Isa 19:16-25; note how context helps.) Because there are seven of these periods, and humanity is still living in the seventh one today, each one would seem to be a stage or phase or era of creation. The Hebrew phrase yôm 'ehad is better translated "phase one" or "day one" rather than "the first day," etc.
Also, there are 2 slightly different versions, one from the “Priestly” source, and one from the “Non-Priestly” source, of the creation of the world. So it really helps to know what the ancient Hebrew writers of Genesis meant when they wrote what they wrote. Also, the professor pointed out to me that I was taking the writing too literally, which is easy to do, as the ancient Hebrews had a very different culture and knowledge base from ours. (I was asking about Adam naming the different kinds of cattle. What is translated into modern English as “cattle” actually meant large livestock animals, such as cattle, camels, donkeys, and oxen.). I know my comment here will probably cause some people more confusion or controversy, and for other people, clarify their thinking about God creating the world. Oh well. May God bless all y’all!
Wow that is amazing. I know a UA-camr who is making lots of videos to help young people (e.g. answering common questions). Seeing as evolution+Adam and Eve is a massive stumbling block for new Christians, I was wondering whether I could recommend you to him, or any other biblical scholar to perhaps do an interview with him. I think such an in-depth, reasoned and biblical answer will help many people. Just reply to my comment specifically and I’ll be able to get a notification.
Regardless of your answer, thank you so much for an intellectual answer in an area where so many people misinterpret. An area which has caused lots of suffering. God Bless!💫🕊
S P2 You’re welcome! 😄
Leonardo Bozza Hi, you’re welcome! And thanks for the invite, but I’m no expert. I was taking a very basic (undergrad) Old Testament class, as I said, at a well-known Catholic university. (I took it as a background for my graduate program, spiritual direction.) You might want to find a Theology professor for your friend to interview about this. A UA-cam channel I’ve enjoyed for thoughtful analysis is “Religion For Breakfast”. One of the problems we Catholics have (and I think Protestants too) is that they don’t take into account the cultural differences and expectations between ancient Hebrews/Israelites/Jews, and modern people, including that we moderns take what’s written in the Bible according to our modern culture and assumptions. It’s very easy to misinterpret what’s written in the Bible. That’s why, 50 years ago, Catholics were actually discouraged from reading the Bible. They didn’t have the Theology training that priests did and do.
Thank you for translating the Hebrew here, I'm a bio major and I love animals, but this has always been my one contention. I just resolved that God will give me wisdom when he deems it right. I believe he sent me to your comment to see that. God Bless to you too! Keep up the God work sharing the good news!
@@sp2817 the millions of years simply do not fit into the creation account in genesis, whichever way we interpret it. Also in genesis, first came the earth, then the sun. and we r taught just the opposite. Also first came the birds then the animals (dinosaurs). And we r taught just the opposite.
First we doubt the length of days, now we doubt the order too?? So the order written by God in genesis is wrong? Ok or maybe there's another interpretation. Fine. What is that interpretation may I ask.
As a molecular biologist, this is the first religious video on evolution that hasn't made me irrationally angry. I appreciate you articulating your stance on this and it was fascinating to understand your perspective.
Hello I’d like to say i’m atheist but the way you explained this I truly loved this. Thank you
Jesus luvs u
@@anarmiesworld2709 So why did he invent hell?
@@2l84me8
Short answer: he created hell because he is good, loving, and also just. Being good by definition must hate evil.
Long answer: Hell is a just punishment for unrepentant unbelievers of the Lord Jesus' death and resurrection. Hell is locked from the inside. This means that people in hell will literally prefer hell than confessing their sins, they prefer heaven but they deny the only thing that will get them to heaven and that is by repenting of their sins and believing in the death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We are all undeserving hopeless sinners, the only difference is that we believe in God. I highly suggest you to read the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus in the bible, just search it up and read it.
Edit: I forgot to say that people don't stop sinning in hell for eternity, they will keep blaspheming to God and hating each other for eternity so it is just to punish them for eternity.
@@sagittariusa581 So the simple act of not being convinced of an outrageous and ridiculous story is eternal torture by someone who is supposed to be all loving?
I don’t think you understand what just, love, nor merciful means.
You honestly believe all of humanity is automatically bad just because a clone woman supposedly ate a piece of magic fruit after being convinced by a talking snake?
First demonstrate your god even exists in the first place and then we’ll talk.
@@2l84me8 I'm going to leave you with one question. Does love require approval?
So if Adam and Eve story is just an allegory where did original sin come from ?
From the writings of Augustine of Hippo in the 4th century.
Evolution wasn't discovered then so did Augustine know that the creation story was an allegory. If he did know then where did he get the concept of original sin from
A key question. Without a satisfactory answer I’ve found.
The problem you eventually run into it that the whole purpose of the Bible is that the world was created perfect and mankind came along and sinned against God. Being death and suffering.
To believe in evolution is to believe the world was created with death, suffering and horror much before and Adam or eve comes along. The Bible doesn’t make sense if evolution is true.
Fun fact:evolution will always be real
Please listen to what this man is saying. I'm an atheist, but mad respect to you mate. Remember, evolution doesn't disprove the possibility of a God existing, you can believe in whatever religion you want without turning your head to facts.
Again, mad respect man
Science may not Bite Religion per se,
but Logic sure does.
It sure does - hence why Atheist-Channel have more and more very-valid Criticism for Christianity and Religion overall.
I implore you all, dear comment-readers,
to inform yourself a lot, even though it’s admittedly time-consuming,
but Religion and Atheism are Big Chunks of this World,
so they deserve your time, I’d argue.
Valid Questions are asked all the time by people like ‚Genetically Modified Sceptic’ and ‚Believe it or not’ and the harshest aka most direct of them all: ‚Viced Rhino’.
And Forrest Valkai literally asks Religious Scientists directly in his longest-yet Video: Why do you ‚suspend your Disbelieve’ and make ‚Exceptions’ for Religion like you do for literally Nothing else? Why do you accept things you wouldnt accept elsewhere, he asks with great arguments.
9 years of Catholic education actually has me a bit more well versed in natural science than my friends that grew up in public school in evangelical homes. :), we got taught evolution and nobody argued.
Biologist here, just to let you know that your quick summary of evolution, although of course incomplete, was not incorrect. A good job for a ‘lay’ person! And the video itself is very, very well done. You are indeed doing God’s work on Earth, young man.
I believe science explains how stuff happens. How does it rain? Water cycle.
God explains the why of everything
Why does it rain?
God is the why for rain and science is the how for rain and for a how there needs to be a why
As A physician, scientist, and, catholic; I can say you have reconciled these 2 issues without begging the question. It’s logical Like Aquinas would approve of.
I get a lot of invitations to become Protestant because I wasn’t properly baptized, in the literal way
Science may not Bite Religion per se,
but Logic sure does.
It sure does - hence why Atheist-Channel have more and more very-valid Criticism for Christianity and Religion overall.
I implore you all, dear comment-readers,
to inform yourself a lot, even though it’s admittedly time-consuming,
but Religion and Atheism are Big Chunks of this World,
so they deserve your time, I’d argue.
Valid Questions are asked all the time by people like ‚Genetically Modified Sceptic’ and ‚Believe it or not’ and the harshest aka most direct of them all: ‚Viced Rhino’.
And Forrest Valkai literally asks Religious Scientists directly in his longest-yet Video: Why do you ‚suspend your Disbelieve’ and make ‚Exceptions’ for Religion like you do for literally Nothing else? Why do you accept things you wouldnt accept elsewhere, he asks with great arguments.
@@loturzelrestaurant the devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve .nm
@@loturzelrestaurant Genetically modified skeptic? I don't mean to be rude but you could of chose a better athiest channel.
Very silly to refer to a book as being science, written by people a few thousends yers ago...
What if God created evolution 🧬
If he made the universe with the intention of making life and us, then yes he did.
Thank you for this man been questioning my beliefs for years.
Science may not Bite Religion per se,
but Logic sure does.
It sure does - hence why Atheist-Channel have more and more very-valid Criticism for Christianity and Religion overall.
I implore you all, dear comment-readers,
to inform yourself a lot, even though it’s admittedly time-consuming,
but Religion and Atheism are Big Chunks of this World,
so they deserve your time, I’d argue.
Valid Questions are asked all the time by people like ‚Genetically Modified Sceptic’ and ‚Believe it or not’ and the harshest aka most direct of them all: ‚Viced Rhino’.
And Forrest Valkai literally asks Religious Scientists directly in his longest-yet Video: Why do you ‚suspend your Disbelieve’ and make ‚Exceptions’ for Religion like you do for literally Nothing else?
?
@@loturzelrestaurant the devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve .nmaq
Yes I believe that God created us via Evolution and I don’t believe evolution was random!!
Evolution is a Scientific Theory, not a belief.
Islam is true religion?!!!!!!
Any unproven theory requires belief, in order to claim it.
@@HamdanHafeez-sm4wq Islam is a verifiably false religion that elevates a highly flawed man as a moral example.
@@blusheep2 It requires experiment, not belief.
@@Otaku155 I would agree with you if you said it requires experiment AND belief. Remember, all pieces of evidence have to be interpreted and sometimes there are multiple interpretations. I would agree that there comes a time where the evidence mounts up so high that there isn't any other choice but to call it fact and at that point, one might argue that it is no longer a belief, but that doesn't happen that often and so there is always some belief in every interpretation. This is inescapable and I would consider you irrational if you denied it.
As both a science teacher and Catholic, my lesson on this evolution is remarkably similar to your explanation. More fulsome understanding is more important than stubborn ignorance.
How can you see that Satan if behind this facet or intellectualism trying to sound smart when we making the believers crumble to his satanic ideas
@@nenmaster5218 - What is the difference between the Christian religion of a belief in Logos and a belief in logic?
@@nenmaster5218 - New Testament, paragraph 1 line 1: In the first principle there was Logos (Reason). Logos was unto God. Logos was God. Through it everything was created and without it (without logos i.e. reason) nothing was ever created. It is a formula borrowed from the Stoic philosophers c. 3rd C BC - 2nd C AD, who considered reason to be the only god and the cause of everything. It is the standard mainstream view of Orthodox Christians, at least those who can read Greek. After all it says what it says. You can check Wikipedia about the Stoic philosophers and consult a Greek - English dictionary on the meaning of λόγος. It is the root of logic, logical, etc. Not everyone bothers to open up a dictionary, regardless of whether atheist or religious. The problem with some/many people of religion, especially in America, is that they want a God who has nothing to do with reason.
@@nikolaosaggelopoulos8113 Interesting. I didnt know there were Christians who tell themselves theyre not Opposed to Logic, despite ofcourse being that 24/7; like that
@@nenmaster5218 - You do not understand. that we Believe in Logos, it is not the we are not opposed to it. That is the Christian faith, at the least the mainstream Orthodox Christian faith from a theological standpoint. Christianity, however, is for all, even for lunatics. Half of humanity has an IQ below 100. They can also be Christians and have access to the internet.
As much as I disliked your last video I love this one. Fundamentalist Christians were a roadblock to my belief because I knew they were wrong about so much. The Catholic Church's stance that god does not contradict himself and both the material and spiritual must be logically consistent was a huge part in my conversion story.
Thank you Br. Casey!
Guess what? You are wrong!
Heres the thing. They get something right. Earth age. Genesis apologetics is a good page for young earth biblical creationism.
That doesnt mean evolution doesnt exist...but it wasnt millions of years.
@@praaneshs2066 NO U
Hi! I would agree with you that the material and spiritual must be logically consistent!! But how is it consistent to say that Humans came to be from Apes when the Bible literally tells us differently that God created Man from the ground and Woman from his side? I'm in no way saying that any kind of animal development is necessarily wrong, and I am not even convinced that the Creation Story necessarily needs to be 7 literal days in order to be logical. But once the storyline changes, I don't get it. Do you get what I'm saying? The days might be a thousand years, whatever, God's timing is probably more complicated than what fits in our little brains. But how does the Fall of Man, creating Sin, make sense if the storyline of the Creation Story wasn't true? :)
@@whoamI-xi3ln the story IS true, it's just not a little kid's story. It is the most advanced story ever told, and so the more science we learn the more maturity we need to approach Genesis with. In Chapter 1, we see man ('adam') being created in God's image as BOTH male and female. This is NOT Adam and Eve. This is lowercase adam, which means humankind. This is a population of humans, coming after animals and plants, just like science has confirmed. All humans and animals and plants, including the ones living today, are made of the dust of the ground. Chapter 2 is a continuation of the story, not a recap of Chapter 1. In Chapter 2, we have the creation of a single human spirit, named Adam, so that we have a single human spirit for the entire population. Thus we fulfill being made in God's image. God in chapter 1 is 'Elohim' which is a plural noun used in the singular. "And God said, let US make man in OUR image." And so Adam being a single spirit for the population adam of males and females, fulfills this paradoxical image of God which is both singular and plural. The separation of Eve is a spiritual one, thus we have Man and Woman. Animals have males and females, but only humans have a Man and Woman, Husband and Wife.
This relationship of a plural population and a single spirit is made explicitly clear in Genesis 5:1-2 KJV "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man [adam], in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." Called their (plural) name Adam (singular). Get it?
As a population of humans, Adam would not have died. Even as individual bodies came and went, humanity as a whole thrived and flourished. When they ate the fruit of knowledge, they fell into into individual bodies and got stuck. As a self aware individual we have full control over our bodies, giving us godlike powers. But the price we pay is having to die because bodies are temporal. And we are also faced with the temptation to indulge the sensual desires of the flesh, which can manifest in really horrible ways. Jesus Christ is saving us from this by bringing us once more into a collective human spirit. When we identify with the spirit and not an individual body, we are freed from the bondage to death and decay. Not because our body doesn't rot, but because we realize that we are not our body.
You wonder what authority I am appealing to? I read the Bible and I see that it says nothing about God using evolution. Yet I see some Christians try to squeeze it in there anyways. If your church doesn't view something like this as a heresy then get out of that church. Come on, this is common sense! God wouldn't use evolution (which is a process that requires death) to create life. Especially when he said he spoke it into existence. It's not in his nature. I think he actually did what he is saying he did and spoke it into existence. Why is that hard to believe if he is all powerful like the Bible claims? He doesn't need a natural process to create life because he is not limited. His word is enough.
I believe that you are using a fairly narrow perspective of the Bible to advocate your cause, one in which all truth is contained within its pages and if it doesn't explicitly say something it can't be true. This is not a very good way to approach scripture. Are you to say, then, that the Trinity doesn't exist? It doesn't say so in the Bible. And I guess that makes abortion okay. There's no prohibition against it in the Bible. And what about the internet?
I assume that you've gotten a flu shot before, yes? The reason that one has to get a different shot every year is not because the vaccine wears off but because the actual flue virus mutates every year and changes. The shot takes a while to come out because researchers have to wait to find it, test it, see how it's changed, and then come up with a new vaccine. That... is evolution, easy to see.
I recommend that you watch this video as it will give you help you to understand the perspective that most Christians come from. While it speaks specifically to the Catholic worldview, the process of reading and approaching Scripture also applies to Anglicans, mainline Protestants, and Orthodox Christians.
ua-cam.com/video/5PCOA6imZhc/v-deo.html
You can't "believe" in evolution. You can either understand it, or not understand it.
The “Scopes Monkey Trial” successfully argued that evolution and creation were not necessarily incompatible. But that evolution may well have been the process by which creation was accomplished. It makes much more sense than a hocus-pocus creation theory
im a christian who believes in evolution
Noice me too
So Adam and eve are real right?
@@vunknownvictory the devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve .nmabn
Please find the truth. You've been lied to.
If we were only species of animals that were given souls or special characteristics separating us from animals, why is there a story about Adam and Eve in the Bible and the whole genealogy from Adam to Jesus? If we were species like other animals, why there are only 2 people that were given special traits? Eve had to be created for Adam so he was not lonely, so there was no one like him. Also, if Adam and Eve sinned, that means only their descendants should be born in sin, and not all descendants of human species.
I think that many other things in Bible, that we have to take literally as they are written (genealogy) contradict the theory you are explaining in this video. You presented the explanation of only one thing in the Bible, that excludes evolution, ok, but what about the others? Bible and evolution (as you explained it) doesn't complement to me at all.
Several years ago I asked religious leader about dinosaurs, he said God had never created anything before and saw that it was a mistake…….WHAT?
That makes no sense though… wouldn’t he be eternal, and thus have made infinite creations?
Scientist don't have - to this day- a shred of data, not a single data of point that proves mutations are random. Nick Lane's theory of how simple organisms became complex makes so difficult for a rational person to accept randomized evolution. For anyone interested, the book is called the Vital Question or you can download Radiolab's cellmates episode. Is fascinating.
I think the theories of most Christians are an insult to their own god. If your god has to keep coming back and using "magic" to add, take away and change things, it means he either didn't know everything or he made mistakes in his creation that he had to run back and fix. Wouldn't an all-powerful and all-knowing being create a system just like evolution, which would unfold over time according to his design?
Unfortunately,
while Science may not Bite Religion per se,
Logic sure does.
HENCE why Atheist-Channels have a massive amount of
valid criticism,
valid questions,
valid much.
Still waiting for evidence of God... Until then this is all moot
Your premise is false. But for argumentation for God,
1. Bible
2. Kalam cosmological argument
@@callofsuccess7960The Bible isn’t evidence, and God isn’t the only feasible uncaused cause.
Saint Augustin was ahead of his time and more enlightened than many who cling to the literal interpretation of Genesis to this day. The wonders of God's creation never cease.
Yeah,
thats fair enough,
but problem is: 'Logic' (seperated from Science, kinda) does
totally oppose many God-Stuff.
This Video makes it all seem like Science and Religion
dont have to oppose each other, AND YES, that is FAR BETTER
of an Idea than 'We have to be at WAAAAAR', obviously...
Obviously...
BUT: Logic kinda bites Religion and thats the Issue here.
Atheist-Channels need to be watched to get what i mean,
as i obviously cant just put it into 1 comment, duh.
I mean, have you seen the valid Questions asked by 'Believe it or not'
and 'Viced Rhino'? Or Forrest Valkai?
All 3 very good UA-camrs who really studied the Bible hard
and now discuss it.
But the problem becomes obvious: The Bible just has no historical
or other worth and is clearly a giga-logic-error... shouldnt we face that?
What do you think?
I mean, even 'just' the '10 Questions for Christians'-Video Rhino recently
made; though just a small Part of his channel (duh) really makes me wonder.
It makes me wonder if Religion isnt something for Earth to 'overcome' and grow out of.
So GOD is outside our space time given that theres no problem with 7 day creation and make a space of time holy sabbath rest. The fact that there are some things that we. Will never understand is biblical as it states." The secret things are for GOD the revealed thins are for man. Like your post keep the faith.
I as a student of pharmacy and believer in our lord Jesus Christ, think that evolution was part of God’s plan to create us. Every mutation and process of natural selection is for me the method that He chose to create us. But of course the generations of the Bible were not as scientifically advanced as we are today so His plan had to be interpreted in an oversimplified and somewhat storytelling type for them to understand the meaning of the Creation!
as a Muslim I believe that aswell
@@raptorzilla0710 we believe in the same god my friend just in a different fashion!
There is only one bone in the world that can completely grow back, and only happens in one species. The bone is a rib, and the species are humans.
Genesis 2 21-22: "So the LORD God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
The LORD God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man. When he brought her to the man, the man said: "This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called 'woman,' for out of 'her man' this one has been taken."
This is some amazing information. I will keep this in mind, thanks!
yes a christian can accept reality, odd video
This video will definitely enrage the people from '''Answers in Genesis''. I'm so happy to see priests and many Christians coming to an understanding that science and the theory of evolution are ways to explain and research God's creation. I myself don't think that there should be Creationism vs Evolution, when in reality evolution itself can be part of creation.
NEVER! We are created directly by Jehova.
@@josipstaba6474 K, believe what you want to believe. That won't make or break your salvation.
The only problem I have with evolution is that why would god make animals suffer in a hard proses for millions and millions of years
If you say God is a different word for scientific laws, I can accept it.
If you say Easter Bunny is a different word for God, I can accept it.
@@luish1498 or maybe Playboy bunny, that would be acceptable too
Where can I find the writings of saint Augustine on the topic? That would be great!
@Oliver Flanagan Thank you!
He talks about it in his great work “The City of God.”
I think the work you actually want to look at is De Genesis ad Litteram (On the Literal Meaning of Genesis)
Christans, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and pagans have been writing about evolution long before Charles Drawin and many people don't know this but Drawin was a life long Christian, he didn't convert on his death bed, like some doubious sources claim
You had me worried when you showed (a portion of) "The March of Progress" in your introduction, but, to my limited knowledge at least, you seem to have a pretty good grasp of evolution. I do cringe slightly, however, when anyone talks about believing in evolution (or any scientific theory). I don't believe in evolution like an adherent believes in a religious doctrine, however I do accept that evolution is the best explanation we have on how we got to the variety of life we observe on this planet.
Science may not Bite Religion per se,
but Logic sure does.
It sure does - hence why Atheist-Channel have more and more very-valid Criticism for Christianity and Religion overall.
I implore you all, dear comment-readers,
to inform yourself a lot, even though it’s admittedly time-consuming,
but Religion and Atheism are Big Chunks of this World,
so they deserve your time, I’d argue.
God bless you for standing up for scientific truth. Not surprised since I know how the Catholic church stands on evolution but the world still needs more people willing to say "no evolution is true" who also believe in God. Ive also seen biologists and science educators (after all your work is centrally on the Lord as it should be) who aren't as good as articulating the actual theory. Well done.
It would be nice to have someone like this for us Muslims. Really tired of the "If you question this 1 thing, it's the same as not fully believing, which is disbelief, which means you are a heretic, so a disbeliever, so not a Muslim, so an evil enemy of God!" totalitarian approach to thought.
Evolution is true.
& Genesis 1:20 (kjv) claims that GOD commanded "The Waters" to spring forth abundant life of creatures that live & move...& expands this to include the fowl.
For Christians that don't believe in evolution, read this through to the end:
The Book of Genesis claims that GOD commanded "The Waters" to bring forth in abundance the moving creature that hath life *AND the fowl that may fly above The Earth*
-This implies that GOD brought about the creation of "Living Creatures that move" by commanding *The Waters* to spring them forth abundantly.
There was a time on Earth called, "The Great Dying" aka "The Siberian Traps".
During this time Asia was being created. & a lot of volcanic activity was sustained relentlessly for a very long time.
This constant & greatly sustained volcanic activity, almost caused every multi-cellular species on Earth to go exinct......except for Marine life!
And as a result, almost every multi-cellular organism on Earth today, sprang forth from that remnant of Marine life that survived The Great Dying.
So, what does all this mean?
It means that the fowl of the air, and animals on land _can_ spring forth from Marine life.....which comes from "The Waters".
Well, don't you think its interesting that Genesis links the creation of Living, moving Creatures in abundance to The Waters *AND* expands that link to also include the fowl that may fly above the Earth??
Ever notice, that both fish *AND* Birds lay eggs?
The method of laying eggs to bring about offspring is 100% based on the DNA of a species.
It takes genetic instructions for a mother to carry out the process of laying eggs.
-This, alone, shows that fish *AND* birds share some of the same DNA.
Which means that somehow, genetic information was preserved & passed between Living, moving creatures of The Waters, and the fowl that may fly above the Earth.
The mechanism for preserving & sharing that genetic information between fish & birds _IS_ what Evolution is!
So you see, I have shown you in Genesis where it gives an evolutionary link between the living, moving creatures that The Waters bring forth in abundance, and birds.
________________________________
Genesis 1:20 (kjv)
"20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."
________________________________
Wow, it absolutely blew my mind to think about the perspective that macroevolution is simply God's way of continuing his creative genius so things do not remain static. You're making me see more than just the creationism I was taught.
Yeah,
thats fair enough,
but problem is: 'Logic' (seperated from Science, kinda) does
totally oppose many God-Stuff.
I mean, have you seen the valid Questions asked by 'Believe it or not'
and 'Viced Rhino'?
Or Forrest Valkai?
All 3 very good UA-camrs who really studied the Bible hard
and now discuss them.
But the problem becomes obvious: The Bible just has no historical
or other worth and is clearly a logic-error... shouldnt we face that?
What do you think?
I mean, even 'just' the '10 Questions for Christians'-Video Rhino recently
made; though just a small Part of his channel (duh) really makes me wonder.
@@loturzelrestaurant Yeah, thats actually a really good point, and those videos are very informative. I think it's important as Christians to ultimately realize that the Bible is not the be-all end-all of faith, God is. Although scripture is God-breathed, it is written by man. There are obvious flaws such as the idea that the earth is flat, or the geocentric view of the universe that the Bible clearly states are true. So I think we just need to realize that the Bible is simply the many authors' interpretations of God using the historical and cultural contexts of their time. The letters of someone like C.S. Lewis are potentially just as viable as the letters of Paul. Just a thought.
@@aidanpatman-clark7131 Science may not Bite Religion per se,
but Logic sure does.
It sure does - hence why Atheist-Channel have more and more very-valid Criticism for Christianity and Religion overall.
I implore you all, dear comment-readers,
to inform yourself a lot, even though it’s admittedly time-consuming,
but Religion and Atheism are Big Chunks of this World,
so they deserve your time, I’d argue.
Valid Questions are asked all the time by people like ‚Genetically Modified Sceptic’ and ‚Believe it or not’ and the harshest aka most direct of them all: ‚Viced Rhino’.
While I’m an atheist I found this to be an excellent video. It’s obvious he has a very good understanding of evolution. I came from a fundamentalist Protestant denomination and was taught the Bible was literal history without any error. Once I learned that wasn’t the case my faith dissolved. ☮️ & ❤ to anyone that reads this.
@wonderboke Get a life.
So evolution has no flaws or errors what so ever?
Fyi, the bible is more believable and proof then whatever Atheists made up.
Free platform.
You too.
I always used to say that one day in God's eyes is a million years in Ours
@@jamesparson See those 2 words(used to)
That's one of the possibilities I also think that might be true but I also like to think that since God created an already matured Adam, he could just create an already billions of years old universe
@@jamesparson that's a possibility as well, but I personally believe that it is true as I'm a christian
@@jamesparson I'd like you to elaborate on how christianity is false
@@jamesparson I dunno, I just like, seen a whole lot of people getting healed so there's that. And no i don't have holy book detector😂
4:48 So you say that Moses chose the narrative language to symbolically describe God? Would you use poetry to write down a contract in these days?
The major problem is that for the macro scale evolution described is that sin would have been around before Adam and Eve. If genesis creation is myth, then it is not true and the whole thing is false.
Evolution - a wonderful story that cannot be shown to be true. It only leads to rejection of the Christian faith.
No, you are totally imagining that.
Christianity is the fairytale and story, not Evolution. Your just uneducated.
Nice try, you do clarify a few misconceptions but stating that any conflict here just arises from misconceptions is simply too simplistic. There ARE real problems with evolution, and perhaps even more scientific than theological...
That's the issue with modernists. They embrace any scientific narrative blindly. I've worked with evolution for 10yrs and this Friar is doing a disservice to the catholic church
@ what is your stance on evolution?
@@wishyouthebest9222 the only empirical evidence we have is of "evolution" destroying or moving genes around. Destruction can occasionally leads to local "adaptation", but in the process you lose information. I think within the family level, "evolution" could work, because all variations among types seem accidental (in the aristotelian sense). For example, coyotes, wolves and foxes, could in principle, descend from an original "dog-like" stock. A coyote is just a small wolf, and they can even hybridize in the zones they co-exist. Microbe to man evolution is pure wishful thinking though. At this stage, after a lot of research and exploring all the possible alternatives (theistic evolution, creationism, intelligent design, etc), I defend that God created types (species in Genesis 1 and 2) ex nihilo, and there's been some diversification within the types (like the coyote-wolf example). God bless.
@ thanks for clarification.
In short: "microevolution" = yes, "makroevolution" = no.
God bless and keep you aswell.
@@wishyouthebest9222 brother, I don't like this micro vs macro differentiation. The metaphysical concept of species I used above, is not equal to species concepts biologists use. Biologists will claim that populations of finches that are spread out through many islands, but descent from an original finch stock, are different species. So for biologists, this diversification of finches (changes in beak size, color, behavior, etc) constitutes macro-evolution. So if a creationist says he accepts the finch example, he will be stating that he is believes in macro-evolution according to the biologist definition.
I think we have to be very clear with these things, because definitions in evolution are always equivocal and relativistic. Therefore, I would not use the terms micro vs macro, but something on the lines of "I accept variations within the kind". Regardless what we do, we must always state the terms of the discussion when debating a darwinist.
Question is can a Christian believe in evolution? Simple answer is a resounding YES! why not.
Yes you can to save face. 🙂
So adam and eve are not real? so why the doctrine of original sin? 🙂 So you nitpick which part is allegorical and which are not? 🙂
With someone with baseline agnostic views, but started to attend a protestant church for the last 2-3 years, I've always felt that I had to secretly fall back on Unitarian principles on not taking everything in the bible literally. This was obviously so things don't get awkward when I'd come into contact whose faith appears to completely depend on the literal word of the bible. It's funny to see that this video works really well with my current working theology where God, the truth, and the universe are practically interchangeably concepts. It's also nice to see that St. Augustine quote used sensibly in the Catholic church.
Side note is that I'm currently doing a thought experiment surrounding how truth and God can be interchangeable. Not as much about that "God is truth," but that "truth is God." Whenever something scientific happens in a lab, that is truth and it's therefore God. Dinosaur bones existing in the earth in truth, therefore is God. The mountains of empirical evidence behind evolution is truth, and is therefore God. To me, denying properly processed science is in a way denying God.
Except the scriptures affirm the 7 day cycle in multiple places, and Jesus affirmed those scriptures. Also, how do you deal with the teaching that God rested form creation?
It's important to remember that the Bible is not a history textbook or newspaper. Just because it said something does not make it literal truth. All throughout the Bible, numbers take on symbolic value.
ua-cam.com/video/1ZH4LfQCQWU/v-deo.html
@@BreakingInTheHabit aahhhh, now here goes the Galileo saga all over again, the scripture is infallible and that's what Galileo rejected. Tell us where the Bible say something that is not believable
I agree with everything you've said, and it's all presented very logically and sounds practical, but I believe for some, if you can start pointing to parts of the Bible claiming it is merely allegorical isn't factual, they start wondering where does it end?
Yes ,and how can we know what these ancient people believed was true,or how much of it was true?
Actually it’s easy: The Old Testament (Torah) is an allegory; the New Testament (the Gospel) is a “diary” (aka not allegorical).
frank whelan most of that ancient people were not able to read; they believed what the community believed...
I went to a *fairly* conservative Catholic high school in which anti-evolution material was required reading. I wish I had the temperament and argumentative ability as a teenager to say "There is strong evidence for evolutionary theory in our world, and Pope (and now Saint) John Paul II has said that belief in evolution is licit for Catholics. We really shouldn't allow Protestant-influenced science denial to distract us from actual matters of morality." Sadly, I thought more like a teenager and spent my time trying (and failing) to get a date with whoever the prettiest girl on campus was..
The irony was that WE Catholics used to be fundamentalist, but it is now the Protestants that are more fundamentalist than the Catholics.
I'm a Dutch reformed Christian, my catacheses covered this topic in the same way as its presented here.
We have our science deniers and you gotta take the bible literal in whole here too... Even in the Catholic Church here.
can you tell me a few of these "strong evidences"?
I’m currently a bio undergrad and learning things from biochemistry to evolution has given me an appreciation for the beauty of God’s creation
I love the sheer amount of Copium Chrisitans nowadays need.
I mean, it's obviously so hard to grow up in the Internet-Age and blending-out every Squaremeter of Reality yelling 'HEY, DIDCHA KNOW SCIENCE DEBUNKED THE BIBLE?'
People cope differently with the objective fact that it's objectively proven that countless different Things in the Bible literally never happened, but dont worry, that's what Copium is for.
@@loturzelrestaurant i’ll pray for you man, hope you change your mind in future 🙏
@@rurushu8094 Can we have an actual, civil talk about the fact that objective fact is objectively and factual that Evolution exists?
Or is that too high for you?
@@rurushu8094You being objetively wrong is too much to handle for YOU, so YOU need to CHANGE your Mind.
@@loturzelrestaurant I dont see myself as wrong, my own faith was borough about by studies in science, and God willing he will help me get through my course.
Edit: Studying cladistics and the genetics behind evolution is what brought me closer to God, I don’t recall ever saying evolution is false or Fr Casey saying something like that in this video.
But I won’t reply to this untill the discussion becomes more civil because it’s clear you have quite a strong resentment towards God and his church. He died for all of us and he loves all of us. I’ll keep
praying for you homie.
Let me be 100% clear - the UNIVERSE CANNOT BE MADE WITHOUT AN EXTREMELY INTELLIGENT DESIGNER!!!!!!
Now that's just not true
Well, if all caps don't convince you, then nothing will!
@@Schampu4000it’s true , the physical constants in the universe are so precisely made so that the universe has order and design in it (which made Einstein to believe) and so that there are necessary conditions for life to exist that that demands a creator
@@Sky1637-e3r They're not precise at all. They're arbitrary as can be. There is not intelligent designer behind life, or the universe, or what have you.
@@Schampu4000 if gravity were slightly more powerful the universe would turn into a giant ball ,and if it were slightly less powerfull the universe would fly apart.If the ratio of the electromagnetic force to the strong force wasn’t 1% there would be no life on earth .
The earth is at the EXACT distance it needs to be from the sun in order for life to exist.
There’s a book called “The six numbers” talking about how life on earth is dependent on 6 VERY precisely made variables . And so is the life of the universe .
The universe and life itself are sitting on the edge of a razor and that ISN’T a coincidence.
I didn't know there was a controversy. I reckon there are a few christian wanna be's who do not understand that the bible is full of similes and metaphors. But I suspect a lot of them are not Christian and are trying to appear Christian for brownie points I think it is called taking the lord's name in vain. Kind of like the people who put Ukraine stickers on their car but don't give a rip about the civilians in ukraine.
Dare we say we must pick and choose what we hold to be allegory or parable vs what in the Bible is actually real. Pick and choose is the way of god.
The more I understand evolution, the less I'm convinced. Academics are down the rabbit hole with Groupthink.
Eileen D luckily, unlike opinions, science is based on empirical evidence that can be tested and verified. If you have some doubts, you are welcome to do research and provide competing data, but the current data is very strongly supported.
@@BreakingInTheHabit I'm not a fundamentalist, I'm a Catholic, so I am open to all empirical data. It is still a theory and there hasn't been a change of species. I appreciate your comment 😊. You have great content! Thank you for what you do!
I think it's important that we understand that word "theory" though. While it is often used synonymously with "guess" or "hypothesis" in common language, in the scientific world it denotes that an idea has sufficient evidence to support its claims and that it has stood up to peer review. To call evolution a theory is not to suggest that it is disputed or that it could some day be elevated to some other status, but rather that it is incomplete in its analysis (which it will always be). Further evidence will add to it, but at this stage, further evidence will not outright deny it.
@@BreakingInTheHabit I'm honestly not trying to be a contrarian but I'm not in agreement with that assertion. Certain in 5 million years if there's no changes, it could be disproven. I need to understand the subject better, admittedly. You understand it better than I. I love defending Christianity to the "Spaghetti Monster" ppl but they refuse to see how God is not of the universe but its Creator. Certainly something from nothing is the truest form of "magical thinking". I recommend Dr. Edward Feser and Ross Douthat books for defending Christianity in a somewhat apologetic manner. Cheers!
What you present, I think, is a separate issues, namely, how these scientific claims are used by others to answer ultimate questions. When people look to evolution to prove that there is no God, they have misread and misappropriated the evidence. Science, or the theory of evolution, says nothing to this. People will use (incorrectly) science to support what they want to support. But that doesn't negate what the actual science tells us. It is our role, not to fight the science, but to understand it as best we can, integrate it with our theology, and refute those who misappropriate it.
As a Science Professor I disagree
Ok
@@Poland69420 Ok ok
and i'm the king of England
You never get scientists telling us evolution didn't happen. So many well-funded creationists, and still they can't find a flaw in evolution that can be solved by creationism.
Scientific theories are purely explanations for all observable evidence. Denying evolution is denying all observable evidence, so of course creationists can't find a flaw in the theory, that's literally asking to try and find a flaw in reality. Now, if new evidence that contradicted the current evidence were to be eventually observed, it'd be taken into account and the theory of evolution would be revised to account for the new evidence. Because that's the scientific process.
Honestly curious, could you answer a few questions for me?
1)why did it take God so long to create us?
2) why did God lie about the great flood and the age of the earth?
3) why did God show himself to other ancient hominods? As Neanderthals are believed to have had gods.
I was unsure of what to believe. I’ve seen enough. I will continue to believe in evolution and Christian belief. Thank you.