Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that humans didn't die before the fall. But why couldn't animals? Tigers and wolves have sharp teeth and claws for a reason. Also, its possible physical death always existed, just not spiritual death.
@@loganmanderfield1162 none of the fathers say “death always existed” that’s modern nonsense people say. Many animals have claws and aren’t carnivorous like koalas. The fathers and scriptures teach animals ate plants before man fell and were punished with man.
I usually don't get hung up on this. The Bible says that God spoke, and it happened. It doesn't describe the mechanisms that God used, with the exception of man, and even then, it is still vague from a scientific perspective. What scientists say happened doesn't change that God did it.
The events & details we do get from genesis goes against the evolution story we are taught in school. So yes we can conclude that there are 2 different stories
I think looking at this through the lens of literary context is important. Why was Genesis written? Well, I certainly don’t have all the answers but I don’t think it was written as a science book.
Believing in evolution was a big reason I deconstructed as a teen. I am now an LCMS Lutheran and we believe that genesis is a historical account. When I was an atheist I remember thinking that my family members were incredibly stupid because they went to see the Ark in Kentucky. And here I am a few years later and I absolutely love reading the creation account. Reading it almost takes my breath away. People will call you stupid, a science denier, a conspiracy theorist, etc. but God told us how He created the earth. Who are we to say He was mistaken?
I too was an atheist for almost 22 years of my life and the theory of evolution and the common scientific view of reality is what was keeping me away from God. But after many events in my life, I sought God once with all my heart, strenght and mind, and He came to me and made Himself known through signs and miracles. And that is when I knew that God exists, He saved my life and He is good. This "attack on Genesis" is exactly one of the great walls that prevent the youth from knowing God. Genesis, the book I once thought was allegory, is now my most favourite book in the Bible.
@@maylingng4107 And science is a methodology that can test the veracity of NATURALIST IDEAS about reality. All it cna do is test naturalist ideas. If the metaphysical exists, then any attempt to find the truth through the lens of science is risky, for the metaphysical may have taken part. And since man`s need for purpose in order to live, that is, a metaphysical need, then that means man could not have come from a natural occurance, as evolution states.
It starts to degrade the absolute power of God. Placing credit for certain creations on the process of evolution rather than Him purposely creating everything.
@BigChurch-c4k would not the counter argument to that be that through His absolute power, he created a world in which it's inhabitants possessed the ability to adapt and change over time as necessary? Especially if he gave domain of the planet to mankind. Our actions over the course of our history on the planet change entire ecosystems (war, agriculture, civilizations, trade, migration, etc.). I see what you're saying, but be careful not to stifle God's creativity by trying to pigeonhole the possibilities of His actions.
@ I think we agree more than disagree. From Adam and Eve came all the different types of people running around today. Shaped and adapted to their different regions, cultures and technological gains. But that’s not evolution. Just like the different types of dogs aren’t evolved from wolves. Anyways, God bless you and thank you for a thoughtful and respectful response.
I believe God had his hand in all creation, evolution or not. I don't understand how evolution alone can do anything. It can't. God is the great creator. I dont even care how he did it, I just care and know he did it. Thank you Jesus for your beautiful creation🙏🙏🙏🙌🙌🙌❤️
You’re precisely right. Evolution is the process. Not the cause. The atheist will say “God of the gaps” so you think “God did it”. Yes and no. It’s doesn’t have to be an active action. An automated mechanism coined “evolution” of course is within the realm of something an omniscient entity, God, can do. 😂
@@nuanceatnoon Also Biblicaly evolution can't happen because evolution says through millions of years creatures existed and died then the first humans came and they weren't intelligent But the Bible says there was no death sickness before Adam and eve there are dinosaur bones found with sicknesses like cancer So no I don't believe in evolution I believe God we can find evidence for the Biblical account though I recommend the channel answers in Genesis
@@nuanceatnoonEvolution is a random process with no end goal. Any scientist will tell you this. Could we have been intelligent crabs “made in the image of God” and worship a crab messiah? Think about it
@@austinbruce6917 Evolution is not random actually, it's selection and survival of the fittest. That means that over given time only the most useful mutations will survive. But genetic mutations sometimes come through degeneration of unused features (f.e. Musculus palmaris longus, the longer palmar muscle) is not present in some humans today because it degenerated/deactivated in the genome due to lack of usage in some humans and then doesn't get passed on anymore (you could reactivate it though and the people affected would grow the muscle again). That means not only random processes bring about evolution.
As a theologian, an active engineer and at the same time, a radical, hardcore Young Earth Creationist doing public debates with Evolutionists for over a decade, I'd say: NO. Of course it's not a sin, that's silly. It's just stupid. It's stupid to believe God would mix up his perfect creation, his own children, into whom he literally breathed a soul, with animals that were made specifically to serve men from the start. But that doesn't get you to Heaven. Jesus gets you to Heaven. Get Jesus. Getting rid of stupid secondary beliefs the world imposed on you may come later, or may never come, that is not the key though.
@@anchitbose4151 Evolution is based on the belief of naturalism. Evidence can be interpreted by the viewer`s viewpoint. But man is a creature that needs purpose in order to live, so therefore there must be purpose to man, therefore he must have been planned, which requires a mind, a creator. Therefore man could not have come from the result of natural processes, he must have been willed into existence by the creator.
@@juanranger4214the Word......created. Study the vibratory effects of sound on everything. Like sound and mass. Spacetime was created in the beginning. So the Heaven and the earth. When was the beginning? How long did it take? The Bible does not inform us. All we can deduce is that it happened in the distant past. Our biblical translations can be misleading. So beware.
@@lenawagner6405 The best way for us to know how it would have truly happened and interpret the word correctly is if God Himself comes to man and reads it for us, as He is the author of His word and only He knows the true meaning. I stand with YEC because it makes the most sense, as any other kin of interpretation opens doors to heretical teachings, although it would be better if I had a deep revelation of God about Genesis.
Is it also stupid to believe in any other scientific process that results in the formation of new molecules? For example the formation of heavier elements inside stars.
All the scientists have access to the same data, but it is how the data should be interpreted is what is debated. As Frank Turek says, "Science doesn't say anything, scientists do."
@Orthosaur7532 it's not as much of a consensus as is advertised. There are a number of scientists who disagree with evolution and hold to the idea of Intelligent Design. In the history of science, there have been accepted paradigms that have been difficult for scientists that held a different views to overcome. Some examples of previously held paradigms are, the heliocentric model of the solar system, and the big bang theory was not accepted at one time either.
@@factorc5058 What exactly do you mean by "Intelligent Design"? That God evolved us with purpose, or full-on YECism? If the latter one, you could also say that there are Flat Earther scientists. But everyone would laugh, wouldn't they?
@@factorc5058 What exactly do you mean by "Intelligent Design"? That God evolved us with purpose, or full-on YECism? If the latter one, you could also say that there are Flat Earther scientists. But everyone would laugh, wouldn't they?
@Orthosaur7532 at this point, I don't see point of continuing the conversation if you're simply going to throw out every position you disagree with without considering the evidence. So of course all the scientists will say the same thing, if you disregard the ones who disagree with you. When you're not allowed to disagree with a certain position, then it stops being science, and becomes a religion.
That's not true. Humans are becoming less intelligent as a species as time goes on. Just wait till AI does everyones thinking and remembering for them.
There is so much gray area in the first chapters of Genesis that all Christians should hold their views of God's creative method and timing with humility. What matters? God is the source of creation. Human beings have been created in the image of God with distinct capabilities and responsibilities on this planet. Humanity, however, is broken and each person must choose who is Lord: the Creator or one's self.
Theistic evolution is......well, problematic. The major question for me is at what point do we go from whatever pre-human ancestor to being fully human and this in the image of God. The creation account in Genesis describes humanity as being fully created on the "sixth day"......not that we are the genetic descendants of an ancestor shared with apes.
The image of God is not biological, so your concern isn’t really relevant. Imagine God is a calling or election, not something we biologically developed.
@@Lynnimodno, death occurred, Adam would obey and sacrifice to God. Spiritual death is what entered when Adam disobeyed. The 6 day argument falls flat because that is how they enumerated yet the actual figure would be wildly different to how we count days.
What is a “day”? The same word is used 3 different ways in the Genesis account alone. Multiple “days” passed before the entities were created that we use to track our relatively modern adoption of the 24-hour “day.” That alone defies our comprehension and forces us to embrace the mystery of the text. Not to mention that the Jewish people throughout history counted “days” completely differently and followed the Evening>Morning pattern of the text for when days began/ended. Even to this day the Sabbath starts on Friday at sundown and ends on Saturday at sundown.
@@tking2199there was nothing to sacrifice because there was no sin. God said everything was good. There is no evidence of death before the Adam. Creation was affected after the fall
Christian who is also an evolutionary biologist here. The evidence is truly overwhelming, believe me when I say that denying evolution wholesale is as preposterous as believing in a flat earth. Many of the arguments levied against it are on the same level of Reddit-tier arguments against Christianity.
Thank You. Someone with Logic. I really hate when they make false claims out of pure ignorance. It's very embarrassing for us Christians who understand the evidence of Evolution. Glad I'm Catholic though cause we don't have this issue
@@bruhmingo do you see evidence of creatures essentially turning into other creatures as evolution teaches? Or are you perhaps confusing the incredible capacity for various creatures to adapt and yet remain as that creature? I study human genomics as part of my work and see no evidence for the former but constant evidence is being published on the latter
Just because you're a biologist doesn't mean we should take your word. But it does mean we get to press you on certain key questions. Like, how does the new genetic information come about? Why do we not see fossils or remnants of the supposed transitional species? If fossils take such a long time to be made, explain the unusual fossils. For example, a jellyfish.
@@JiraiyaSama86you’re absolutely right on your first point, but I do have a level of expertise in the field. We do see transitional fossils. And new genetic information comes about via mutation. Changes in genetic sequences are in fact new information. I am also a process structuralist, which holds that evolutionary processes are essentially “guided” by certain natural laws. It’s more complicated that most who aren’t familiar assume.
@@raevethevolution does not teach that creatures “turn into other creatures”. Again you’ve levied an argument that to those informed, only shows ignorance. Look into the principles of cladistics for more accurate information.
Props to you, Ruslan, for bringing in people and creating a space to discuss subjects that you don't necessarily dive in. I think this shows humility to discuss things that help us all grow in faith.
With all the stuff he talks about I’m surprised he doesn’t get into this subject more. I think this subject is important because it can be the deciding factor for someone becoming an atheist or Christian
Ruslan, who is Jesus Christ? Is He your savior? What does He save you from? Is it death? Does the Bible say that millions and billions of years of death through evolution brought man into existence? Or does it say that man’s sin brought death into existence? The ideas are mutually exclusive. It’s either one or the other, it cannot be both.
My view is that God made creation so science is in service to God not the other way around. God could use any method he wants to. And if its evolution so what? Maybe we need to change our interpretations
This is such a non issue... if you believe that we as humans have souls and were created in the image of God then you can believe or not believe in evolution. I personally believe in evolution, and as a Catholic, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.
@@mattb4249 From my understanding, Death has always been a part of life on earth.The Tree of Eternal Life is how humanity gained immortality, and God removing humanity's access to it is how we remained mortal.
Death entered the world through Adam and Eve, before their sin there was no death. If you say there was, then the wages if sin is not death as death already existed. And if death already existed, why did then Jesus have to come down and sacrifice himself to defeat death.
Humans lived on this earth for the past 7 million years. Modern humans (homo sapiens) lived for the past 250,000 years. Adam and Eve are fairy tales for children.
@RandyCandelario-gq6kt through Adam, all mankind is under sin's influence. Hence the need for God, Jesus to pay the price with blood for all mankind. You have sinned as well and hidden from God for it feeling naked and ashamed. I bet money on that. Meaning you are no different then Adam. And as the comment below, any kind of evolution theory takes away Adam and the original sin, which in turn takes away, Gods redemptive sorry, taking away Jesus, diminishing the power of the cross. Evolution over creation is dragging the precious name of Jesus through the mud. And the only proof of evolution is apigenetics, aka environmental adaptation. And it can be seen in mankind. One example, and a hot topic these days, skin colour. Mankind is still mankind, no different them our neighbore, yet through environmental adaptation over the millennia has given us all a variety of skin tones to help with whatever temperature and uv exposure our forefathers experienced.
i cant believe you dont think its a salvation issue !!!!! just toss Genesis out the window and pretend its ok! i cant believe this. If anyone denies that God formed man from the dust then dont even pretend to be a believer, that is a disgrace to say you believe but deny his creation account, picking and choosing their own gospel of destruction.
Literally no one‘s denying Genesis were denying your specific interpretation And remember by the same measure you used to judge others will be used to judge you if you think that this is a salvation issue then good luck on judgment day My friend.
Michael Behe’s book Darwin Devolves is really fascinating for this. His research points to evidence that, while evolution occurs, macro is basically impossible because mutations are protein chains breaking off the DNA strand, not being added to. Further to that though, I’ve heard very compelling arguments that because each mutation is passed on in the genome to each generation, our bodies are compounding more and more mutations, meaning more and more breakdowns of our DNA. TL,DR, our genome can’t survive another thousand years at the rate we’re mutating. We’ll be extinct. Hence why cancers and the like are growing so rapidly. That was my understanding of what these super smart people were saying and it makes sense to me. This points to the whole Earth, including us, breaking down and groaning for its Savior physically as well as Spiritually.
Behe and his arguments were refuted decades ago in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. Even the evangelical Christian Judge presiding over the case determined that Behe and the other ID proponents hadn't enough evidence supporting their claims. Go read the transcripts of the trial. In short, there are many well documented mechanisms for adding genetic information that creationists ignore. So genetic entropy isn't really a thing.
Genome size can be increased by transposable elements or crossover events (errors in replication of DNA). Evolution by nature will select against individual mutations which aren't beneficial to individuals. It only selects for mutations which increase an individuals/populations evolutionary fitness.
Catholic church accepts the evolution and merges it in a way with the faith , but even if you don't accept evolution you should still explain how the ethnic diveristy among humans came to be from 2 people adam & eve , Indians , White Europeans , Asians , Black Africans , Native Americans , Polynesians , Middleasterns , so at the very least you need to believe in Ethnic evolution , so then what stops you from accepting biological evolution if life forms can change physical traits ?
When Ruslan says the world looks old, I think he's forgetting that the global flood dramatically changed the topology of the earth. What we see in structures like the grand canyon is evidence of a global flood, not of an old earth.
That's false. If that was the case there would be Grand Canyons everywhere. There are over 40 various dating methods from independent fields that independent corroborate each other. We know for a fact that Earth, and the universe is billions of years old, and that there was no global flood. If you read the Bible closely, you'll see that a global flood interpretation isn't even necessary.
@@munashemanamike4217incorrect, firstly yes a global flood would dramatically change the typology of the earth. Another mini grand canyon formed overnight basically in just 6 days (Burlingame canyon). Second, what tells you the age of layers without assuming what's in question?
@@TommyGunzzz Rock aging, paleomagnetism, the fossil record, and half a dozen other lines of evidence would suggest the age of the canyon itself. Also, there's no physical, rapid process that can explain the formation of the Grand Canyon in a few days. A miniscule "canyon" being formed in a few days is small fries compared to the absolute enormity of the Grand Canyon. YEC Christians would be better off just arguing the Grand Canyon was created by God instantaneously alongside all the other animals that were made in that way.
I think that since God created the heavens and the earth and said it was good then every aspect of creation would reflect an aspect of its creator. Everything is fair game in appreciating God. Evolution, astronomy, paleontology, geology, biology, every single piece of science discovers an aspect of an intelligent and creative God.
God is eternal, so debating about the age of the universe only limits God. We know that in the beginning, God created all of it. Nothing exists without him.
Since there are so many totally valid and faithful interpretations of the creation account, (and the Word of God in general) that are compatible with different theories of evolution, I do not find any good reason to deny evolution.
The question is: why do you believe this or that? Do you not trust the Bible? Do you want to be accepted by the secular world? If you’re going with the common modern mainstream scientific view of the age of the Earth, make sure to study both sides; I choose the God’s word: it is hard to think that a genealogy that is that detailed is not a literal account.
*MACRO-MICRO Evolution* Macro and micro evolution are not scientific terms, they are creationist invention. The origin of these terms is traced back to Russian entomologist Yuri Filipchenko first coined the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" in 1927. Filipchenko had something entire different in mind (trying to group evolution of life forms by time period and scale), but creationists jumped aboard what appeared to be a "lifeline" and an escape from the corner they backed themselves into. By the 1960's creationist realized that their claim of Noah's ark with all the animals would hold no water and in the view of 9 million living and 5 billion historically existing organisms, the Ark story was patently absurd. So they were stuck! Henry Morris, Ken Ham and company switched tactics and all of the sudden the millions of life forms were redefined as a few thousand “kinds”. Well, a few thousand animals would certainly fit? Perhaps, but how do they explains the 9 million living species today? All appearing in the past 4,400 years (the time of the biblical flood). Kicking and screaming, creationist had to admit that a few thousand to 9 million can occur only by evolution. So they pull the ultimate con game, “micro evolution is redefined as variations within a kind” ---- and that would fit the creationist agenda. The deceit is obvious; according to creationists the kitty cat and the jaguar are the same kind, so are all the fish and the mouse, rat, gerbil, and hamster are the same kind. But with a tiny bit of education in biology, we understand that: In science there is only evolution, there is no micro and macro. But colloquially we do use macro/micro to denote the time and the scale of the process (just like Filipchenko intended); macro being micro over long period of time. Although the timing of speciation depends on the individual organism and the natural challenges facing it: could be many thousands of years, a few years, and even days. Saying that there is no macro, is an absolute guarantee that the speaker has no clue what evolution really is. You trying to debate evolution, first you need to understand what you are debating. So what is the process of evolution? A major process of evolution is the process of mutation of the DNA in successive generations. When there are changes in the natural environment, a living organism attempts to survive by adjusting the DNA in the next generation. Organism, unable to adjust and adapt to the new condition will become extinct. There is no difference in the process of evolution whether you call it micro or macro; they are the same process: DNA mutation. Mutation takes long time (it is very gradual at the molecular level over many years), and it may take millions of generations where the descendent no longer resembles the progenitor (except when the organism has a very short life span, like the mutation of the AIDS virus). As mutation starts, (and what creationist call micro evolution begins), there is no magic barrier that stops the mutation from becoming a new species. Do you know of such a biological barrier, where the DNA would just stop mutating? What would stop the process? Or do you think that the process is different for micro from the process of macro? Evolution is a continuous process. It does not start, stop and restart; and it does not leave gaps. Every life form is in some stage of evolution. In time of Darwin, we had hardly any fossils; today we have found over 1 million. Creationists willfully say “there are no transitional fossils” Since evolution is continuous, by definition, there are no “transitional fossils”. Fossilization is a rare process, and fossils are hard to find. Just because you did not find a certain type of fossil, it only means that you did not find one as of YET; no more. The fossil record is gradually getting filled in with the missing items. It is by no means complete, but the record clearly shows the patterns of evolution. No, dogs do not stay dogs or bird do not stay birds. Life forms evolve, but they follow the branches (lineage) of the tree (actually, more of a bush) of life
If scientist were around a day after Creation they would have probably looked at the newly created earth and said it's million of years old because it is made like that. They would have also identified Adam clearly as a maybe a 30 year old man and not a toddler even though he was just created. Then they would have turned around and explained to everyone how everything came from nothing and evolved over millions of years into this and why God is not needed.
I would argue the Earth could be billions of years old. The universe could be billions of years old. Evolution could be true in the same way that Domino's falling down are guided by the one who set them up. And Christianity is certainly true and completely compatible with all I have previously mentioned. The best way to think about it is why make this a divisive issue because there have been so many people who leave the faith after learning about biology and evolution and then hearing people claim you can only have science or religion and they choose science. God is the Truth. Therefore, supposing science is true in this instance then rejecting. It is therefore rejecting God and making it more likely others reject Christ by making Christians look foolish.
In terms of the age of the earth, I call it active earth theory. When Adam was made, he was made a man. If he had died, scientists would have said he lived an infant and adolescent life and into adulthood. Yet he was born as an adult. As a human, scientists would have said, "oh, there must be parents and grandparents." They would say that even if Adam only lived 3 minutes. It's possible God made earth already in a cycle where there were already trees that were fully grown that require hundreds or thousands of years to grow. Same for types of rocks. We also don't know if the dating systems are correct since we can only verify the dates of a few things. There is possibly that at a certain age, there is a decomposition rate increase where things appear to be older. There is also the question of things like floods and heavy weight compression that could possibly manipulate the samples. We don't know. We can guess the age, but we just don't know. What I do know is that Jesus is who He says He is!
Evolution is based on the belief of naturalism. Evidence can be interpreted by the viewer`s viewpoint. But man is a creature that needs purpose in order to live, so therefore there must be purpose to man, therefore he must have been planned, which requires a mind, a creator. Therefore man could not have come from the result of natural processes, he must have been willed into existence by the creator.
We can measure and confirm micro-evolutionary adaptations, but there’s no concrete evidence that full on macro-level, species changing evolution is an actual thing. It seems odd to imply we come from monkeys and then find only monkeys, then the “much more evolved” human, but no inbetween monkey-human versions. Would not more human-type monkeys be more fit to live than just a monkey? This could be said about every species. The strong distinctions and interdependence upon those distinctions for biodiversity and ecological balance are far too pronounced to support a macro evolutionary framework.
Nope. We've observed it. That argument was stupid and wrong on it's face, before we had, but it's especially stupid now, so dispose of it. The Church has never held to the needed for a literal interpretation of Genesis, and in fact has frowned on it for over a millennia.
@ when have we ever observed a species become an entirely different species? And where do we see that mid-species transition in any living organism? There’s nothing more stupid than our modern day scientists and authorities proving to be untrustworthy and the masses just believing everything they say. There’s no proof of half of the things they pretend are 100% truth.
Funny, there are monkeys and other mo keys and yet more types of monkeys and even tailless gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and even long nosed baboons! If not evolution then creation....so what difference does it make. They are all kind of belonging to one family, same traits and all are mammals like us mankind.😮
God said 6 days homies. God is that big, that powerful, that awesome. He made all the animals as well, some are extinct or going extinct, some are similar to others. Maybe God likes variety, or to flex. Edit: I’ll add, how does “all of science” age things? Carbon dating and silly guesses at things. A whole lot of assumptions point against what the Bible says.
I’d recommend William lane Craig’s going through genesis videos. To me it clearly shows that genesis 1 isn’t meant to be literal. It’s not the genre of the text. He better explains than I could.
@ I prefer to trust in the Lord rather than the words/wisdom of men. He said 6 days, He meant 6 days. God is big enough and powerful enough to go further than our little brains can imagine.
@@BigChurch-c4k so in psalms when the literature is clearly poetry do you read it as literal when it is clearly using metaphors? Or when Jesus uses parables? God gave us reason and logic to be able to discern.
"From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands." You can trust in God, or in man, but you can't do both. ;)
It's not about trusting God or man, it's about interpretation and what is meant by terms and phrases, especially when a lot of the text is poetic and shaped by ancient cultures, ideas, knowledge and beliefs. The way we write today is very different than the way we wrote thousands of years ago. We see the world differently in every way than they did thousands of years ago. To read a text that is thousands of years old as if it was written in modern language in the modern day by people who think and perceive about the world the same way we do, is a failure to understand context.
@droe2570 There's a Holy Spirit that confirms interpretation among the saints. Cowards are thrown outside the city. They used to circumcize themselves to avoid persecution. "If anyone is ashamed of my words, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him at his coming."
@@fatalheart7382 The problem with your thought here is that all who are in Christ have the Holy Spirit, yet we still interpret some things differently. What is called for is humility, not arrogance.
I don't believe Jesus's parables are literal, because they aren't. Why would I place the same standard on Genesis when it's clearly allegorical (and rather accurate viewed that way)?
@juandeleon1665 Not always. And there are significant style differences in biblical texts between literal and allegorical sections. Guess what Genesis largely looks like. Yeah it's allegory man.
To answer the Title of the video, it depends on which kind of "evolution" you're talking about. For example, Micro-Evolution is both absolutely borne out by Science and (despite what some atheists and some misinformed Christians will tell you) borne out by the Bible. It still has every creature bearing after it's own kind, so it's no issue. Plus, almost all proofs for evolution given by atheists fall into this category, so it's a win-win. On the other side we have Macro-Evolution. There's very little "proof," if any, of that. And the proof they have is largely fabricated fossils composed of entirely different beasts and a lot of plastic and wire (coupled with a lot of good artistic pictures, like in a sci-fi novel). Bottom Line: Micro Evolution is proven and Bible-friendly Macro-Evolution is Sci-fi fairy-tale material and operates largely on fabrication. The only problem is that Atheists have learned to switch the two mid-conversation to confuse and decieve people. It's a shell game.
You guys are simple minded. If you beleive in Micro Evolution you already beleive in Macro Evolution. Micro Evolution over large periods of time leads to speciation. Let's be logical here. 🤦🏾♂️
I don't think it is a sin. But The Word warns us about false teachings, false prophets and so forth (2 Tim 4:3-4), and I completely believe that evolution is a teaching from the devil himself. This came at the age of enlightening and we have to ask the question what was the purpose of this? It destroyed purpose in us as people, it destroys creation, it creates us in our own image and not that of purpose attacking our identity in Christ, our created identity. We also only ever hear one side of the 'science" and that is of evolution and yet so many unanswered questions. Lastly something I found interesting and it is HOW God created the earth, and as example I would say it like this. When God created Adam he was a fully formed man around age 28-30 years old in stature. However technically Adam was only 1 day old. Same thing with the rocks and the plants and so forth, God could have created it to look much older than it really is.
God gave us eyes to see and does not like to us. Evolution is a means of creation. Nothing counter to the Bible even (what's really wild is that things basically appear on the order they evolved, except for birds but that could easily be an accidental classification error of early very large insects by the author). If you allow for allegory it's correct, and it's the only creation story that is. That's a very very powerful argument. Don't discount it.
@@userJohnSmith If you interpret Genesis like this, many problems arise, like death existing before sin, homosexuality aswell, which means that God created death and suffering, which is not true. Evolution is based on the belief of naturalism. Evidence can be interpreted by the viewer`s viewpoint. But man is a creature that needs purpose in order to live, so therefore there must be purpose to man, therefore he must have been planned, which requires a mind, a creator. Therefore man could not have come from the result of natural processes, he must have been willed into existence by the creator.
It’s not that science is wrong, it’s that evolution (as in Darwinian) isn’t science. It’s interpretation/religion. There’s 6 different meanings that can be narrowed down to the word “evolution” 1) cosmic evolution - big bang 2) stellar evolution - formation of stars 3) chemical evolution - you get all the elements 4) organic evolution - non living material becoming living 5) macro evolution - one animal turning into a different animal over long period of time 6) micro evolution - variations within the same kind of animal of small amount of time Now the only one that’s actually science is micro evolution. The other 5 are purely religious. Now going from the Bible side, evolution completely contradicts the Bible. Christians who haven’t looked into this subject try to fit evolution in the scriptures but it doesn’t make sense & doesn’t work
There is no micro and macro evolution --- there is just evolution. Micro and macro are the identical same process. In time all micro becomes macro. *Can you list a single process difference where micro is different from macro?*
@@juanranger4214 Hypothetical changes.... like what? I asked you how is the process is different for a micro from that of a macro? Have you completed 10th grade biology?
I dont know enough either way to say im convinced either way, but, and i cannot emphasize this enough... It IS NOT a salvific issue. Stop making it into one. From my personal experience ive been told many times that i am going to hell because i dont necessarily believe the universe is 6000 years old. Its not that serious people. Things like that are why people leave Christianity, YEC's make it way more difficult than it needs to be to reconcile what people are taught in school and what they read in Genesis.
Genesis 2:7 says, he formed him from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. The name "Adam" comes from the Hebrew word meaning "ground/earth". It seems pretty straightforward. A lot of Jesus's teachings were straightforward and easy to understand. But they're difficult for people to accept, for one reason or another... And Jesus turned water into wine, fermentation takes time, but Jesus makes it happen in an instant.
I believe that our genes can change, but we can't get kids with other types of animals, obviously. So we can change a lot from one another, but we are still the same type of animal, and nothing can change that. The same goes for every type of animal, too. A giraffe can't gain a hippo's head.
I mean that's a total misunderstanding of speciation. We even see some of this in humans with things like down syndrome. Chromosome duplication, or other errors could create strong survival advantages as they build up over time. We've seen insects speciate in the wild in a single lifetime too so this view is just completely wrong.
The thing is that, as Christians, you're to believe the whole of scripture is God-breathed, so when Moses was allowed to write that the earth was literally created in a week and that they were allowed, throughout the Bible, to treat that beginning of genesis as real history in the face of God, who doesn't allow error to go unrebuked, speaks volumes. So then we need to look at the different perspectives or paradigms/systems that people have, such as old earth vs young earth, and we must look to see where the evidence is more sound. When you look at it purely evidence-wise, then the old earth paradigm seems undefendable, so many of its assumptions and beliefs are not supported by the facts, it's truly something, whereas, in a young earth paradigm, everything makes sense with believing all of scripture to be true(in its respective contexts) The Bible has people treating the creation process in Genesis as a literal historical record and as real events that happened in that amount of time, nowhere is it hinted at having been more or less than what it was written. Earth is young, we were created, evolution is wrong, adaptation is right, God bless and good day/night
There are so many different dating methods; radiocarbon dating, luminescence dating, dendrochronology, varve chronology, electron spin resonance dating, cosmogenic radionuclide dating et cetera. All which have produced results that are problematic for a young earth creation hypothesis.
The thing that we can’t measure scientifically is a world that was unmarred by the curse of sin. A pre sin earth would not have aged and deteriorated so I don’t believe the argument of pointing to non literal days before the fall representing millions of years holds up because that was before God cursed the ground. I do think that God cursing the ground may have had an instantaneous effect on the earth’s appearance and operation to where the earth could actually be young but appear old because of it.
You're being too metaphysical and literal with specific verbage. The universe had entropy before we showed up, we can observe that. Our sin didn't cause things to change outside a very limited perspective.
@Descriptor_ There's some weird quantum mechanical behavior that actually goes with this (and would allow for your argument that the decay was caused by sin) but essentially yes. We see stars at the beginning of the universe and they behave like they do now. I kind of don't get a choice in the matter because I'm a physicist. There was entropy some ten+ billion years ago and I don't argue with God because I want to have a neat little philosophy of biblical interpretation. When he's showing me what's going on, I believe Him.
I saw a video on a (generally) Medieval history channel that there was a pre-humanity that God created in the act of creation, and later took and modified 'ensouled' the literal Adam and Eve. It was an interesting concept, bit not one I find compelling. Dr. Obannon (animal biology) whom I met a Lee University, shared with me some things he'd collected over the years of his study when I met before attending. He introduced me to the 'Gap Theory ' as one if the possibilities. One of the things within the collection of studies and theories that included the assumptions mentioned around 12:30 about the pre-flood conditions being different enough to make the carbon dating assumptions incorrect. (As well as partially explaining some of the lifespans mentioned in Genesis. I fully agree that is not a salvation issue. I wish more studies as mentioned could be done. It's a fascinating discussion either way.
The problem is that if you believe God used evolution then death came before sin when the Bible clearly teaches death came into the world because of Sin.
Where do we draw the line in not caring about issues that “keep someone from coming to Christ”? For some it’s not being able to accept that Jesus is God, do we drop that?
We are saved through Christ, not our opinions about the mechanics of the world or life. None of us know all these things, so having differing opinions on the subject is certainly not a sin.
i've recently converted from young earth view to theistic evolution, after studying the view of magisterium/catholic church and the church of england.. it just doesn't make sense that dinosaurs such as the mosasaur and the megalodon ate sea grass before the fall, or the t rex and the lion led down together eating watermelons.. also i have had ET contact, and thus a young earth doesn't work there for me..the creation account is clearly symbolic and alot of these old stories were passed down by other cultures such as egypt and sumeria..i will say that the catholic church has a view that there was a literal adam and eve and that where original sin comes from..
If you believe that evolution is true you also have to believe that God created death. Therefore the definition and impact of original sin is changed. It affects many things theologically.
There is a very simple way to convince anyone including me about a divine Jesus (crucifixion and resurrection). All you have to do is to name a single eyewitness (other than the lies in the bible), an eyewitness, a writer or a historian who mentions one word about Jesus. It is alleged that thousands of people including writers and historians witnessed Jesus. So name one eyewitness, and we will all believe you!
@@maylingng4107 pascal wager. do u prefer to believe in God or not in God. Atheists are taking risks with their after life by not believing in God. supposing, Atheists are right, both Christian and Atheists will be part of mother nature and turn into fertilizer after death. Supposing, Christians are correct that Jesus is God. Atheists will face the judgement of God. Really, between 2 choices, it is better to believe in God rather than be an Atheist.
@@igregmart Evolution is not in the bible, perhaps metaphorically through the Adam and Eve story if you take it that way? But generally I think evolution is possible regardless because God can make the world look and behave however he wants, it does not prove or disprove anything in the bible to me?
I don’t think it’s a sin. But, and this is kinda subjective, I think the full denial of the creation account without even considering the science in light of that can lead to an eagerness to deny other parts of scripture. The only people I see falling into progressive Christianity are those who hold to a non-young earth creationism stance. Not everyone who does hold it is a progressive Christian, but I’ve yet to meet a progressive Christian who isn’t an old earth or outright creation denialist.
If macroevolution is real, then jesus did absolutely nothing when he died on the cross. The Bible states that death came into the world through mans sin. If there was millions of years of death before man then the Bibles theology falls apart. Then dying for mans sin would not defeat death. Because death would have been here not because of mans sin. But from just a natural reason. Also you would have to conclude that God loves death. Because when you made the world he said it was very good. So i guess millions of years of death and suffering is good. macroevolution does not work with the Bible.
Ding!!! Buying into macro-evolution theory denies aspects of the Bible through and through. We have an archeological evidence of NOAHS ARK we can see the old ship remnant on the mountain. We have evidence of the Exodus as well. God shows us his presence in the world so much if you just look.
@@robbiestones9447 Both Hovind and Ross are creationists; the first is a young earth creationist, the second an old earth creationists. Other than that there is no difference between the two liars.
We lack understanding about how God utilizes time. Just like if we found Adam's bones we would assume he had a childhood, so do we look at a universe and assume all stars were made the same. God made Adam a full grown up, not a fetus or a child. Apply that same logic to the universe. Just because we see stars exploding today, it doesnt mean thats how they were all made. Our science is so flawed that it is mind blowing how many people are willing to put faith aside for science when in reality they work in tandem. My hot take is: If you dont have faith that the first book of the Bible is true, you cant be a Christian. The resurrection and creation are God's greatest miracles. Pray harder, pray often.
🎉now what do you call the different stages of a human or animal within the womb from conception until birth??? Really!!!! That to me is evolution over a period of time!!! Even a butterfly or a fly undergoes a metamorphosis through its lifetime. Why cant God not allow evolution. He was, is, and forever will be in control of what he wants to control. He gave free will to humans and animals. Yet He is always there for us should we turn to Him.
@@vanessakarsa3220 Thank You. It's not that I think it's a salvation issue or that we should be fighting about it but that the discussion on these platforms should include more YEC for them to explain their view
I find it hard to believe that those who claim to be Christians and believe in miracles such as the virgin birth or the resurrection, have a hard time accepting God's account in Genisis. How is that miracle too far? Also, I will use a form of C.S. Lewis' argument: either God is telling the truth (Genesis),or lying (Genie is isn't the truth) or a psychopath because he called the creation "good" when their was death and suffering. In other words he called death and suffering "good"? I don't think so.
Read or listen to Craig's work before misrepresenting him. Mythohistory doesn't at mean he doesn't believe it is actual history. He defines it in his work and lectures. It is similar to John Walton and several other OT scholars who see the clear allusion to ANE literature and the genre that Gen 1-11 is written in. Hyperbolic language, exalted prose, and other features of literature were being used. You guys should read the Genelogical Adam by Josh Swamadias. He completely destroyed scientifically the view that there could not be a literal Adam. BTW William Lane Craig's last book was actually a "case for a historical adam".
8:45 Exactly. Everyone has presuppositions, even conclusions that have been agreed upon universally are built on assumptions and theories that would best explain and account for every presently known situation. Science has been refined through the years by hitting walls that couldn't be explained by the theories they had and thinking through, experimenting, and coming up with better suited explanations that through trial holds up in every case we're aware of. There's a lot of abduction and deduction based on solid (as solid as can be) presuppositions that no one questions since we believe those who came to those conclusions before us. Half of what we're told isn't verifiable by the average person, so it actually takes a lotta faith to believe in science 😂, so I don't find it shocking that there's people who don't believe something just because it's a scientific "fact". I don't even think flat earthers are being dumb. I think they're just being skeptical. At times, I've even worried that one day I might hear something that'd affect my faith in God. But funnily enough, I've actually experienced more supernatural power of God that can't be explained without calling me and my family and anyone else involved liars or brushing them off as 0.001% chance coincidences than I have experienced scientific concepts that I learn, believe, and make sense to me.
Yes it is a sin. Because Romans 14:23 (NIV) says: “and everything that does not come from faith is sin.” And Hebrews 11 explains a big part of biblical faith is believing God created everything as Genesis teaches: Hebrews 11:1-3 (NLT): Faith shows the reality of what we hope for; it is the evidence of things we cannot see. 2 Through their faith, the people in days of old earned a good reputation. 3 By faith we understand that the entire universe was formed at God’s command, that what we now see did not come from anything that can be seen. Darwinism/evolution is contrary to biblical faith therefore to believe in it is sinful.
Ruslan said he feels like we're starting with a conclusion, then trying to make everything fit into that presupposed box and that's not how science works. Actually, that's exactly how science works. People have been trying to make things fit into their scientific presuppositions for years. The whole point is that we as Christians must start with the Word of God, not science. Not because we need to be intellectually lazy, or hold to some idea. It's because you can't pick and choose what you want to believe and what you don't want to believe from the Word. Either you believe it's the word of God, or you believe it's the fallible words of man. There is no allowance for science to tell us what we should believe in the Word and what we should not. God transcends science and every earthbound law that science has to adhere to. This is why there are miracles all through the bible. If we were to base everything on what is scientifically possible, there would be no faith. The hundreds of miracles in the Bible could not have happened. Science can illuminate the Word, not disprove it. The Word does not come under the authority od science. Science comes under the authority of God's Word!
This is well said. You’re right. I think the Genesis account is so clear, whether in Hebrew, the Septuagint or a modern English translation. It’s just the idea of going against the pseudo-science of our day (i.e., Darwinian evolution) is counterintuitive.
Your understanding of science is not correct. The idea of the scientific method is to prove things incorrect. It can never exactly prove something correct. What science does is eliminate incorrect ideas. The ideas that survive this winnowing process and cannot be proven incorrect may have some element of truth.
Interesting video! Just a nitpick I have with the title though (or more like responding to the question), I don't think that beliefs can be sinful. Can a belief lead to sinful behaviours/thoughts/desires? Yes. Is the belief itself sinful? No. Of course, this doesn't mean you can believe/disbelieve what you want and be saved, you still have to believe in Jesus, but belief or unbelief in Jesus doesn't have moral weight, I reckon, as you are not saved by the good you do (belief in Jesus, in the case that that is a moral good), but rather by God's grace _in spite_ of the bad you do.
@@Mc-ln3gr Certainly an interesting question... I'm not sure actually. You _certainly_ won't be saved, and such a belief will almost certainly lead to sin, but is the belief itself sinful? Possibly. I should go do some study on this...
@ John 3:18. The disbelief in The Son of God. Which is a belief, condemns you. You are saved on belief. By believing the wrong thing, you commit the greatest sin of all.
@@Mc-ln3gr I read that verse first in the 2020 Afrikaans translation, and then in the Good News Translation to double check, but I don't think I agree with you. It says (GNB) "Those who believe in the Son are not judged; but those who do not believe have already been judged, because they have not believed in God's only Son." Paired with the surrounding verses, I read this as _judgement being withheld_ based on belief, rather than _sin being committed:_ We have *all* sinned, regardless of if we believe in Jesus or not, but if we believe we are not judged, if we disbelieved we have been judged. Nothing about the disbelief being sin itself, but rather _caused_ by sin (as indicated by vs. 19-21) and leading to judgement (though I'd rather say that belief in Jesus absolves one of judgement, rather than disbelief leading you to judgement, as you have already been judged - it is the default state - and it is the action of believing which saves, ie. which causes you to not be judged) If you disagree with my interpretation, I'd be very interested in seeing your interpretation, and why you believe it to be correct!
But for "science" to say the earth is billions of years old assumes that carbon dating is correct. The people that are saying carbon dating is correct are saying that it's correct based on their apriori atheist assumptions. There are a bunch of other things that are assumed prior to whether or not carbon dating is correct, one of these things would be the uniformity of nature.
Old earth Christians at least what I looked into it they believe the world is older than 7000 years old but not necessarily evolution the way it's taught. Some do but the majority just think the world is really really old but God did create everything
we believe everything before day 6 is repurposing the use of the universe, not from scratch. Example, in science the universe was chaotic, and violent. Earth's atmosphere was too thinck for life and blocked out the sun In Genesis, God thins out the atmosphere letting in light, calms the early solar system, making it stable and appoints the different celestial bodies with a task for Earth and the future inhabitants, etc.
I don’t understand how all life has common ancestry. At what point during the evolutionary process did man become “in the image of God” and at what point did we begin to have a soul. I believe the Bible teaches man and animals were created separately.
Have you ever flown over Utah and Arizona? The Grand Canyon shows evidence of a a rapid creation. In my humble opinion. I’m not trying to start a back and forth dialogue. Just my observation. Plus, no one here wants to get into hydro geology.
Let me pose a question, adam was made by God a fully grown man, why couldn't he do the same thing when he created earth? Day 1 of earth could be a "fully grown" billion year old earth, just like adam on his first day would have lookd "fully grown", science would say adam was 20 or so or however old he was made, but he would have only existed for one day.
Because he doesn't lie to us. If he had, he wouldn't have included millions of fossils or mineral relics that demonstrate, rather conclusively, a greater story of life and creation far more vast, complex, and impressive than poof. No, it's a bad argument necessitating an evil gnostic god.
@userJohnSmith in what way would it be a lie? Is their no other explanation for fossils, and mineral layers? A world wide flood maybe 🤔? You really didn't contend with the argument. If God made a rock, and he made the rock to be 1000 years old, wouldn't science tell you the rock is 1000 years old even if you with your own eyes saw it pop into existence a few minutes ago?
@devinotero4886 He'd be lying by making it look that old when it wasn't. The argument doesn't hold, at all. Also, none of the geological evidence suggests a world wide flood, a world wide freeze yes, but not a flood.
@@userJohnSmith your the one being dishonest, and bad faith here, you still didn't contend with the argument. You are assuming the only reason he would make it old is to trick you, what if that was required for all the natural laws to work so we have a planet to support life? I expect you will still not contend with what I'm actually saying.
@devinotero4886 There is no utility in that. Why make fossils? They serve no physical or mineral purpose in the crust. It's planting false evidence of age. Why make zircons contain lead when we know they don't, in fact can't, form with it naturally. Why later them in such a way, and with fossils that are the same, as to suggest age and progression of time. The amount of evidence for age is so overwhelming, and so utterly disconnected from the laws of physics, that your argument is nonsensical immediately. Truthfully, these discussions are difficult if you're speaking with people who aren't well educated on this stuff (not trying to be mean, I count my in laws in that camp and they have to minister to a STEM school, this stuff is hard to understand). My professional background is physics with a lifelong interest in paleontology and geology. If there's something specific you have a question about I can address it but right now you're coming at me with stuff that is so wrong it's tough to know where to start so I'm being very broad.
Adam and Eva were not the first humans -- far from it. But they were either the first behaviorally modern humans (circa 75,000 BC) or the individuals who jumpstarted the Neolithic Revolution some 14 thousand years ago. One or the other
Then you are denying all the creation passages in the Bible including Genesis. When you openly deny any portion of the Bible, aren't you denying THE WHOLE BIBLE?
The creation narratives were mostly polemic against the Babylonian and Egyptian models. There's far more to the Bible than you know -- what you just said is a nonsequitur
Nowhere does it say in the Bible that they were the first. But they were the first to bear God's image. Tell me, who was Cain afraid of when he received the mark of death?
If it becomes an issue where you're saying that you have a problem with believing in Jesus because you believe in noitulove, then you need to reevaluate why you believe in noitulove. What do you really know about it? AIG Canada has explained a few times why noitulove really is a barrier. I will say this. If your problem is that if it comes out that you choose Jesus over noitulove and you have a problem with people seeing you as cray cray, consider that there already are a lot of people who already think so. Not just of you, but all of Jesus's followers. That's a you problem. We have to be careful not to be so bothered by people thinking we're cray cray and such.
When God created Adam, he wasn't a baby he was an aged man, so maybe when God created the world he created it with an appearance of it having age or appearing aged. Just a theory
I demonstrate genetically superior creatures that have been obscured by electrical processies in my video 'Sound reason ' and I give Scriptural references consistent with this in my video 'Begining of understanding '
Isn’t sin that which leads to death? I admit having a fickle belief that evolution may of happened can cause alarm with believers but there’s some believers that believe in evolution and God even going so far as to elaborate using scripture. I don’t think it’s sin why think everything is sin in a country that promotes freedom of religion. I think Christians shouldn’t be so damn touchy and get to know and have stimulating conversations. Why study if you can’t stand on your assurance in the word of God. Edited: oh sin in this context that is drawing one away from God.
No. Denial of evolution and the evidence in the world is hubristic vanity, and requires denial of reality and an incredible amount of pride to say "I know more than these millions of people who've spent their lives studying something" so it may well be sinful, but belief in evolution would in no way be sinful.
It depends on what people mean by evolution and what evolution entails. Living things evolve and adapt, this is observable. Evolution however isn't the origin of life, it is one of the processes of life, and humans didn't descend from apes. Humans began life as humans, and apes as apes and evolved successfully on planet Earth, exactly why both aren't extinct.
Humans most certainly descended from apes. This fact offers no commentary on the nature of sin, a literal Adam and Eve, or the validity of Genesis. Move on.
@userJohnSmith yes indeed, move on to the Truth of Scripture and what was clearly written about the creation of Adam, and accept or reject it. There's no middle ground on this matter. Scripture has completely negated that by the precise and concise description of human creation by the only Living God, with absolutely zero apes involved.
@@userJohnSmith indeed it is, in black and white. Formed from the dust of the ground and the only Living God breathing into Adam and him becoming a living soul. Eve formed from his side, no apes involved whatsoever. There's nothing to get over, only acceptance or rejection of Scripture. Your choice, my choice, it's that simple.
@Ike-un6mc The existence of a literal Adam and Eve is not precluded by the provable facts of humanity's evolution. We have evidence of lineage from other species in different populations on Earth, this isn't disputable. If you'd like a little help with that reread Genesis. You'll notice a rather rapid growth in population after the garden. But that's neither here nor there, a literal Adam and Eve still aren't required for the entire early account to be internally or externally consistent. Denying evolution it's a mark of pride. Declaring you know the details of man's ensoulment or the nature of original sin, in detail, is also pride. Again, this hard literal interpretation is a new thing. Imagined a few hundred years ago. Early Christians strongly cautioned against such interpretation for the same reason I am.
i think when God made the earth he didnt make it start from the beginning, he didnt make trees start as seeds, he created the trees as already grown trees and the same with rock formations and planets
🎟:Get Tickets to the Bless God Summit Here: www.itickets.com/events/479802
You know what is the REAL evolution?... To an atheist to Christian, that's what happened to me, I evoluted! :D
Facts
You evoluted 😂😂😂. I find the way you said it so funny
@@jesusesaluzdomundo amen
Congratulations ❤
Evolution introduces death before sin, but sin is the cause of death. Think about that.
There is no such things as a sin. Sin was invented by religion to control the ignorant and gullible.
@maylingng4107 uhm, so like, are you lost or something? What are you doing here then?
@maylingng4107 not that you're not welcome, don't get me wrong
Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that humans didn't die before the fall. But why couldn't animals? Tigers and wolves have sharp teeth and claws for a reason. Also, its possible physical death always existed, just not spiritual death.
@@loganmanderfield1162 none of the fathers say “death always existed” that’s modern nonsense people say. Many animals have claws and aren’t carnivorous like koalas. The fathers and scriptures teach animals ate plants before man fell and were punished with man.
I usually don't get hung up on this. The Bible says that God spoke, and it happened. It doesn't describe the mechanisms that God used, with the exception of man, and even then, it is still vague from a scientific perspective. What scientists say happened doesn't change that God did it.
The events & details we do get from genesis goes against the evolution story we are taught in school. So yes we can conclude that there are 2 different stories
I think looking at this through the lens of literary context is important. Why was Genesis written? Well, I certainly don’t have all the answers but I don’t think it was written as a science book.
@@mikeramos91 did u just call evolution, a process of change by which life runs by, a story?
Believing in evolution was a big reason I deconstructed as a teen. I am now an LCMS Lutheran and we believe that genesis is a historical account.
When I was an atheist I remember thinking that my family members were incredibly stupid because they went to see the Ark in Kentucky. And here I am a few years later and I absolutely love reading the creation account. Reading it almost takes my breath away.
People will call you stupid, a science denier, a conspiracy theorist, etc. but God told us how He created the earth. Who are we to say He was mistaken?
Creation is a hoax. The Ark in Kentucky was built by Ken Ham, a total and complete snake oil salesman.
And you fell for it.
@@lyssadobbins7209 spot on!
I too was an atheist for almost 22 years of my life and the theory of evolution and the common scientific view of reality is what was keeping me away from God.
But after many events in my life, I sought God once with all my heart, strenght and mind, and He came to me and made Himself known through signs and miracles.
And that is when I knew that God exists, He saved my life and He is good.
This "attack on Genesis" is exactly one of the great walls that prevent the youth from knowing God.
Genesis, the book I once thought was allegory, is now my most favourite book in the Bible.
@@juanranger4214
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with god. Evolution is science and a fact supported by a warehouse full of evidence.
@@maylingng4107 And science is a methodology that can test the veracity of NATURALIST IDEAS about reality.
All it cna do is test naturalist ideas.
If the metaphysical exists, then any attempt to find the truth through the lens of science is risky, for the metaphysical may have taken part.
And since man`s need for purpose in order to live, that is, a metaphysical need, then that means man could not have come from a natural occurance, as evolution states.
Believing in evolution doesn't mean there wasn't a God who caused the evolution. So no I don't think it's a sin
I think it’s a deception but not a sin, and definitely has nothing to do with salvation
It starts to degrade the absolute power of God. Placing credit for certain creations on the process of evolution rather than Him purposely creating everything.
@BigChurch-c4k would not the counter argument to that be that through His absolute power, he created a world in which it's inhabitants possessed the ability to adapt and change over time as necessary? Especially if he gave domain of the planet to mankind. Our actions over the course of our history on the planet change entire ecosystems (war, agriculture, civilizations, trade, migration, etc.). I see what you're saying, but be careful not to stifle God's creativity by trying to pigeonhole the possibilities of His actions.
@ I think we agree more than disagree. From Adam and Eve came all the different types of people running around today. Shaped and adapted to their different regions, cultures and technological gains. But that’s not evolution. Just like the different types of dogs aren’t evolved from wolves. Anyways, God bless you and thank you for a thoughtful and respectful response.
Not only is it sin. It’s a damnable sin.
I believe God had his hand in all creation, evolution or not. I don't understand how evolution alone can do anything. It can't. God is the great creator. I dont even care how he did it, I just care and know he did it. Thank you Jesus for your beautiful creation🙏🙏🙏🙌🙌🙌❤️
You’re precisely right. Evolution is the process. Not the cause. The atheist will say “God of the gaps” so you think “God did it”.
Yes and no. It’s doesn’t have to be an active action. An automated mechanism coined “evolution” of course is within the realm of something an omniscient entity, God, can do. 😂
@@nuanceatnoon Also Biblicaly evolution can't happen because evolution says through millions of years creatures existed and died then the first humans came and they weren't intelligent
But the Bible says there was no death sickness before Adam and eve there are dinosaur bones found with sicknesses like cancer
So no I don't believe in evolution I believe God we can find evidence for the Biblical account though
I recommend the channel answers in Genesis
@@nuanceatnoonEvolution is a random process with no end goal. Any scientist will tell you this. Could we have been intelligent crabs “made in the image of God” and worship a crab messiah? Think about it
@@nuanceatnoon it's funny because their god is time, "oh well with enough time though!", thats their explanation loooooool
@@austinbruce6917 Evolution is not random actually, it's selection and survival of the fittest. That means that over given time only the most useful mutations will survive. But genetic mutations sometimes come through degeneration of unused features (f.e. Musculus palmaris longus, the longer palmar muscle) is not present in some humans today because it degenerated/deactivated in the genome due to lack of usage in some humans and then doesn't get passed on anymore (you could reactivate it though and the people affected would grow the muscle again). That means not only random processes bring about evolution.
As a theologian, an active engineer and at the same time, a radical, hardcore Young Earth Creationist doing public debates with Evolutionists for over a decade, I'd say:
NO. Of course it's not a sin, that's silly. It's just stupid. It's stupid to believe God would mix up his perfect creation, his own children, into whom he literally breathed a soul, with animals that were made specifically to serve men from the start. But that doesn't get you to Heaven. Jesus gets you to Heaven. Get Jesus. Getting rid of stupid secondary beliefs the world imposed on you may come later, or may never come, that is not the key though.
@@mitromney sir I would say let go of your faith for once and think clearly about all the evidence that we have about evolution.
@@anchitbose4151 Evolution is based on the belief of naturalism.
Evidence can be interpreted by the viewer`s viewpoint.
But man is a creature that needs purpose in order to live, so therefore there must be purpose to man, therefore he must have been planned, which requires a mind, a creator.
Therefore man could not have come from the result of natural processes, he must have been willed into existence by the creator.
@@juanranger4214the Word......created. Study the vibratory effects of sound on everything. Like sound and mass. Spacetime was created in the beginning. So the Heaven and the earth. When was the beginning? How long did it take? The Bible does not inform us. All we can deduce is that it happened in the distant past. Our biblical translations can be misleading. So beware.
@@lenawagner6405 The best way for us to know how it would have truly happened and interpret the word correctly is if God Himself comes to man and reads it for us, as He is the author of His word and only He knows the true meaning.
I stand with YEC because it makes the most sense, as any other kin of interpretation opens doors to heretical teachings, although it would be better if I had a deep revelation of God about Genesis.
Is it also stupid to believe in any other scientific process that results in the formation of new molecules? For example the formation of heavier elements inside stars.
Yes. Believing lies is sin. The Bible is clear about this.
The only truth in the bible is the page numbers.
All the scientists have access to the same data, but it is how the data should be interpreted is what is debated. As Frank Turek says, "Science doesn't say anything, scientists do."
Yet all come to the same conclusion?
@Orthosaur7532 it's not as much of a consensus as is advertised. There are a number of scientists who disagree with evolution and hold to the idea of Intelligent Design. In the history of science, there have been accepted paradigms that have been difficult for scientists that held a different views to overcome. Some examples of previously held paradigms are, the heliocentric model of the solar system, and the big bang theory was not accepted at one time either.
@@factorc5058 What exactly do you mean by "Intelligent Design"? That God evolved us with purpose, or full-on YECism? If the latter one, you could also say that there are Flat Earther scientists. But everyone would laugh, wouldn't they?
@@factorc5058 What exactly do you mean by "Intelligent Design"? That God evolved us with purpose, or full-on YECism? If the latter one, you could also say that there are Flat Earther scientists. But everyone would laugh, wouldn't they?
@Orthosaur7532 at this point, I don't see point of continuing the conversation if you're simply going to throw out every position you disagree with without considering the evidence. So of course all the scientists will say the same thing, if you disregard the ones who disagree with you. When you're not allowed to disagree with a certain position, then it stops being science, and becomes a religion.
We never evolved. We've always been human. Always been this smart.
@@tdmidas289 you saw it happen?
@@TimeTravlah23yes, yes i did.
@@tdmidas289 yes and no. Evolution doesn't suggest we come from apes more like apes and humans have a common ancestor...
That's not true. Humans are becoming less intelligent as a species as time goes on. Just wait till AI does everyones thinking and remembering for them.
@@jessemckenzie2374humans can't have "common" ancestor as any animal lol
Commone designer is more accurate
There is so much gray area in the first chapters of Genesis that all Christians should hold their views of God's creative method and timing with humility.
What matters? God is the source of creation. Human beings have been created in the image of God with distinct capabilities and responsibilities on this planet. Humanity, however, is broken and each person must choose who is Lord: the Creator or one's self.
Theistic evolution is......well, problematic. The major question for me is at what point do we go from whatever pre-human ancestor to being fully human and this in the image of God. The creation account in Genesis describes humanity as being fully created on the "sixth day"......not that we are the genetic descendants of an ancestor shared with apes.
The image of God is not biological, so your concern isn’t really relevant. Imagine God is a calling or election, not something we biologically developed.
And with theistic evolution there were many deaths that happened, but we are told in the bible that death only occurred when Adam disobeyed God
@@Lynnimodno, death occurred, Adam would obey and sacrifice to God. Spiritual death is what entered when Adam disobeyed. The 6 day argument falls flat because that is how they enumerated yet the actual figure would be wildly different to how we count days.
What is a “day”? The same word is used 3 different ways in the Genesis account alone. Multiple “days” passed before the entities were created that we use to track our relatively modern adoption of the 24-hour “day.” That alone defies our comprehension and forces us to embrace the mystery of the text.
Not to mention that the Jewish people throughout history counted “days” completely differently and followed the Evening>Morning pattern of the text for when days began/ended. Even to this day the Sabbath starts on Friday at sundown and ends on Saturday at sundown.
@@tking2199there was nothing to sacrifice because there was no sin. God said everything was good. There is no evidence of death before the Adam. Creation was affected after the fall
Christian who is also an evolutionary biologist here. The evidence is truly overwhelming, believe me when I say that denying evolution wholesale is as preposterous as believing in a flat earth. Many of the arguments levied against it are on the same level of Reddit-tier arguments against Christianity.
Thank You. Someone with Logic. I really hate when they make false claims out of pure ignorance. It's very embarrassing for us Christians who understand the evidence of Evolution. Glad I'm Catholic though cause we don't have this issue
@@bruhmingo do you see evidence of creatures essentially turning into other creatures as evolution teaches? Or are you perhaps confusing the incredible capacity for various creatures to adapt and yet remain as that creature? I study human genomics as part of my work and see no evidence for the former but constant evidence is being published on the latter
Just because you're a biologist doesn't mean we should take your word. But it does mean we get to press you on certain key questions. Like, how does the new genetic information come about? Why do we not see fossils or remnants of the supposed transitional species? If fossils take such a long time to be made, explain the unusual fossils. For example, a jellyfish.
@@JiraiyaSama86you’re absolutely right on your first point, but I do have a level of expertise in the field. We do see transitional fossils. And new genetic information comes about via mutation. Changes in genetic sequences are in fact new information. I am also a process structuralist, which holds that evolutionary processes are essentially “guided” by certain natural laws. It’s more complicated that most who aren’t familiar assume.
@@raevethevolution does not teach that creatures “turn into other creatures”. Again you’ve levied an argument that to those informed, only shows ignorance. Look into the principles of cladistics for more accurate information.
These ads mid vid kill me omg😭
That's evolution. The video was without ads. Then it evolved into a video with ads. 😂😂😂
very Christian indeed
God made a full grown Adam with years in him in 1 day, Why couldn’t God make a earth with millions or billions of years in it in 1 day he’s God? lol
Props to you, Ruslan, for bringing in people and creating a space to discuss subjects that you don't necessarily dive in. I think this shows humility to discuss things that help us all grow in faith.
With all the stuff he talks about I’m surprised he doesn’t get into this subject more. I think this subject is important because it can be the deciding factor for someone becoming an atheist or Christian
The Segway into the ads get me everytime...😂😂😂😂😂
I think just as God created a mature Adam (not a newborn) I think he created a mature earth.
Humans evolved from a common ancestor (humans and chimps) 7 million year ago. Adam and Eve are fairy tales for children.
Evolution is man's philosophy. God's Word is of God. You can't mix the two.
Ruslan, who is Jesus Christ? Is He your savior? What does He save you from? Is it death? Does the Bible say that millions and billions of years of death through evolution brought man into existence? Or does it say that man’s sin brought death into existence? The ideas are mutually exclusive. It’s either one or the other, it cannot be both.
My view is that God made creation so science is in service to God not the other way around. God could use any method he wants to. And if its evolution so what? Maybe we need to change our interpretations
You Prots drive me crazy with your personal conclusions man
@@Arvak777what does the Bible say?
@@munashemanamike4217as opposed to an impersonal conclusion?
This is such a non issue... if you believe that we as humans have souls and were created in the image of God then you can believe or not believe in evolution. I personally believe in evolution, and as a Catholic, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.
The issue is how death came into the world.
Everything in the Bible is an issue. Everything in the Bible is important.
Seems only Us Catholics can be logical about evolution without having to dumb ourselves down
@@mattb4249 From my understanding, Death has always been a part of life on earth.The Tree of Eternal Life is how humanity gained immortality, and God removing humanity's access to it is how we remained mortal.
At what point does the image of God enter into humans? When we were bacteria? Or at a later stage?
Death entered the world through Adam and Eve, before their sin there was no death. If you say there was, then the wages if sin is not death as death already existed. And if death already existed, why did then Jesus have to come down and sacrifice himself to defeat death.
Humans lived on this earth for the past 7 million years. Modern humans (homo sapiens) lived for the past 250,000 years. Adam and Eve are fairy tales for children.
The sin belongs to Adam.
@@RandyCandelario-gq6kt
There never was an Adam, unless you mean my grocer, Adam Samuels. He makes great hero sandwiches.
@RandyCandelario-gq6kt through Adam, all mankind is under sin's influence. Hence the need for God, Jesus to pay the price with blood for all mankind. You have sinned as well and hidden from God for it feeling naked and ashamed. I bet money on that. Meaning you are no different then Adam.
And as the comment below, any kind of evolution theory takes away Adam and the original sin, which in turn takes away, Gods redemptive sorry, taking away Jesus, diminishing the power of the cross. Evolution over creation is dragging the precious name of Jesus through the mud. And the only proof of evolution is apigenetics, aka environmental adaptation. And it can be seen in mankind. One example, and a hot topic these days, skin colour. Mankind is still mankind, no different them our neighbore, yet through environmental adaptation over the millennia has given us all a variety of skin tones to help with whatever temperature and uv exposure our forefathers experienced.
@@danielcarroll1816 There's a difference between physical and spiritual death.
i cant believe you dont think its a salvation issue !!!!! just toss Genesis out the window and pretend its ok! i cant believe this. If anyone denies that God formed man from the dust then dont even pretend to be a believer, that is a disgrace to say you believe but deny his creation account, picking and choosing their own gospel of destruction.
Folks who hold to old earth and theistic evolution hold to genesis.
Literally no one‘s denying Genesis were denying your specific interpretation
And remember by the same measure you used to judge others will be used to judge you if you think that this is a salvation issue then good luck on judgment day My friend.
Genesis is a fairy tale with no evidence backing it up. Can you list the scientific evidence that backs up Genesis?
Great video yall. There’s a lot of science on an old earth. Could you guys do a video about Neanderthals and like Lucy?
Lucy has a whole movie....
@@TommysBliss Lucy was bipedal as evident by her pelvic bones and the hole in her skull through which the spinal cord goes down.
Michael Behe’s book Darwin Devolves is really fascinating for this. His research points to evidence that, while evolution occurs, macro is basically impossible because mutations are protein chains breaking off the DNA strand, not being added to.
Further to that though, I’ve heard very compelling arguments that because each mutation is passed on in the genome to each generation, our bodies are compounding more and more mutations, meaning more and more breakdowns of our DNA.
TL,DR, our genome can’t survive another thousand years at the rate we’re mutating. We’ll be extinct. Hence why cancers and the like are growing so rapidly.
That was my understanding of what these super smart people were saying and it makes sense to me. This points to the whole Earth, including us, breaking down and groaning for its Savior physically as well as Spiritually.
Behe and his arguments were refuted decades ago in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. Even the evangelical Christian Judge presiding over the case determined that Behe and the other ID proponents hadn't enough evidence supporting their claims. Go read the transcripts of the trial.
In short, there are many well documented mechanisms for adding genetic information that creationists ignore. So genetic entropy isn't really a thing.
Thank you! Dr. James Tour also has some good analysis on the topic.
Genome size can be increased by transposable elements or crossover events (errors in replication of DNA). Evolution by nature will select against individual mutations which aren't beneficial to individuals. It only selects for mutations which increase an individuals/populations evolutionary fitness.
Catholic church accepts the evolution and merges it in a way with the faith , but even if you don't accept evolution you should still explain how the ethnic diveristy among humans came to be from 2 people adam & eve , Indians , White Europeans , Asians , Black Africans , Native Americans , Polynesians , Middleasterns , so at the very least you need to believe in Ethnic evolution , so then what stops you from accepting biological evolution if life forms can change physical traits ?
When Ruslan says the world looks old, I think he's forgetting that the global flood dramatically changed the topology of the earth. What we see in structures like the grand canyon is evidence of a global flood, not of an old earth.
Incorrect because the Grandcanyon has different sedimentary rock layers which would tell us the earth is old.
There is zero evidence for a global flood. The Grand Canyon looks nothing like what we would expect from such an event.
That's false. If that was the case there would be Grand Canyons everywhere. There are over 40 various dating methods from independent fields that independent corroborate each other. We know for a fact that Earth, and the universe is billions of years old, and that there was no global flood. If you read the Bible closely, you'll see that a global flood interpretation isn't even necessary.
@@munashemanamike4217incorrect, firstly yes a global flood would dramatically change the typology of the earth. Another mini grand canyon formed overnight basically in just 6 days (Burlingame canyon). Second, what tells you the age of layers without assuming what's in question?
@@TommyGunzzz Rock aging, paleomagnetism, the fossil record, and half a dozen other lines of evidence would suggest the age of the canyon itself. Also, there's no physical, rapid process that can explain the formation of the Grand Canyon in a few days. A miniscule "canyon" being formed in a few days is small fries compared to the absolute enormity of the Grand Canyon. YEC Christians would be better off just arguing the Grand Canyon was created by God instantaneously alongside all the other animals that were made in that way.
We as Christians can affirm evolution as a process but not evolution as an origin, as that is philosophy.
I think that since God created the heavens and the earth and said it was good then every aspect of creation would reflect an aspect of its creator. Everything is fair game in appreciating God. Evolution, astronomy, paleontology, geology, biology, every single piece of science discovers an aspect of an intelligent and creative God.
God is eternal, so debating about the age of the universe only limits God. We know that in the beginning, God created all of it. Nothing exists without him.
Since there are so many totally valid and faithful interpretations of the creation account, (and the Word of God in general) that are compatible with different theories of evolution, I do not find any good reason to deny evolution.
The question is: why do you believe this or that? Do you not trust the Bible? Do you want to be accepted by the secular world? If you’re going with the common modern mainstream scientific view of the age of the Earth, make sure to study both sides; I choose the God’s word: it is hard to think that a genealogy that is that detailed is not a literal account.
*MACRO-MICRO Evolution*
Macro and micro evolution are not scientific terms, they are creationist invention. The origin of these terms is traced back to Russian entomologist Yuri Filipchenko first coined the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" in 1927. Filipchenko had something entire different in mind (trying to group evolution of life forms by time period and scale), but creationists jumped aboard what appeared to be a "lifeline" and an escape from the corner they backed themselves into.
By the 1960's creationist realized that their claim of Noah's ark with all the animals would hold no water and in the view of 9 million living and 5 billion historically existing organisms, the Ark story was patently absurd. So they were stuck! Henry Morris, Ken Ham and company switched tactics and all of the sudden the millions of life forms were redefined as a few thousand “kinds”. Well, a few thousand animals would certainly fit? Perhaps, but how do they explains the 9 million living species today? All appearing in the past 4,400 years (the time of the biblical flood). Kicking and screaming, creationist had to admit that a few thousand to 9 million can occur only by evolution. So they pull the ultimate con game, “micro evolution is redefined as variations within a kind” ---- and that would fit the creationist agenda. The deceit is obvious; according to creationists the kitty cat and the jaguar are the same kind, so are all the fish and the mouse, rat, gerbil, and hamster are the same kind.
But with a tiny bit of education in biology, we understand that:
In science there is only evolution, there is no micro and macro. But colloquially we do use macro/micro to denote the time and the scale of the process (just like Filipchenko intended); macro being micro over long period of time. Although the timing of speciation depends on the individual organism and the natural challenges facing it: could be many thousands of years, a few years, and even days.
Saying that there is no macro, is an absolute guarantee that the speaker has no clue what evolution really is. You trying to debate evolution, first you need to understand what you are debating. So what is the process of evolution? A major process of evolution is the process of mutation of the DNA in successive generations. When there are changes in the natural environment, a living organism attempts to survive by adjusting the DNA in the next generation. Organism, unable to adjust and adapt to the new condition will become extinct.
There is no difference in the process of evolution whether you call it micro or macro; they are the same process: DNA mutation. Mutation takes long time (it is very gradual at the molecular level over many years), and it may take millions of generations where the descendent no longer resembles the progenitor (except when the organism has a very short life span, like the mutation of the AIDS virus).
As mutation starts, (and what creationist call micro evolution begins), there is no magic barrier that stops the mutation from becoming a new species. Do you know of such a biological barrier, where the DNA would just stop mutating? What would stop the process? Or do you think that the process is different for micro from the process of macro?
Evolution is a continuous process. It does not start, stop and restart; and it does not leave gaps. Every life form is in some stage of evolution. In time of Darwin, we had hardly any fossils; today we have found over 1 million. Creationists willfully say “there are no transitional fossils” Since evolution is continuous, by definition, there are no “transitional fossils”. Fossilization is a rare process, and fossils are hard to find. Just because you did not find a certain type of fossil, it only means that you did not find one as of YET; no more.
The fossil record is gradually getting filled in with the missing items. It is by no means complete, but the record clearly shows the patterns of evolution. No, dogs do not stay dogs or bird do not stay birds. Life forms evolve, but they follow the branches (lineage) of the tree (actually, more of a bush) of life
As a theistic evolutionist myself, your piece of writing was dead on accurate. Well said !
@@big_dawg777
Thank you! Happy Thanksgiving!
If scientist were around a day after Creation they would have probably looked at the newly created earth and said it's million of years old because it is made like that. They would have also identified Adam clearly as a maybe a 30 year old man and not a toddler even though he was just created.
Then they would have turned around and explained to everyone how everything came from nothing and evolved over millions of years into this and why God is not needed.
I would argue the Earth could be billions of years old. The universe could be billions of years old. Evolution could be true in the same way that Domino's falling down are guided by the one who set them up. And Christianity is certainly true and completely compatible with all I have previously mentioned.
The best way to think about it is why make this a divisive issue because there have been so many people who leave the faith after learning about biology and evolution and then hearing people claim you can only have science or religion and they choose science. God is the Truth. Therefore, supposing science is true in this instance then rejecting. It is therefore rejecting God and making it more likely others reject Christ by making Christians look foolish.
In terms of the age of the earth, I call it active earth theory. When Adam was made, he was made a man. If he had died, scientists would have said he lived an infant and adolescent life and into adulthood. Yet he was born as an adult. As a human, scientists would have said, "oh, there must be parents and grandparents."
They would say that even if Adam only lived 3 minutes. It's possible God made earth already in a cycle where there were already trees that were fully grown that require hundreds or thousands of years to grow. Same for types of rocks. We also don't know if the dating systems are correct since we can only verify the dates of a few things. There is possibly that at a certain age, there is a decomposition rate increase where things appear to be older. There is also the question of things like floods and heavy weight compression that could possibly manipulate the samples. We don't know. We can guess the age, but we just don't know. What I do know is that Jesus is who He says He is!
Evolution is based on the belief of naturalism.
Evidence can be interpreted by the viewer`s viewpoint.
But man is a creature that needs purpose in order to live, so therefore there must be purpose to man, therefore he must have been planned, which requires a mind, a creator.
Therefore man could not have come from the result of natural processes, he must have been willed into existence by the creator.
We can measure and confirm micro-evolutionary adaptations, but there’s no concrete evidence that full on macro-level, species changing evolution is an actual thing. It seems odd to imply we come from monkeys and then find only monkeys, then the “much more evolved” human, but no inbetween monkey-human versions.
Would not more human-type monkeys be more fit to live than just a monkey?
This could be said about every species. The strong distinctions and interdependence upon those distinctions for biodiversity and ecological balance are far too pronounced to support a macro evolutionary framework.
Nope. We've observed it. That argument was stupid and wrong on it's face, before we had, but it's especially stupid now, so dispose of it.
The Church has never held to the needed for a literal interpretation of Genesis, and in fact has frowned on it for over a millennia.
@ when have we ever observed a species become an entirely different species?
And where do we see that mid-species transition in any living organism?
There’s nothing more stupid than our modern day scientists and authorities proving to be untrustworthy and the masses just believing everything they say. There’s no proof of half of the things they pretend are 100% truth.
Funny, there are monkeys and other mo keys and yet more types of monkeys and even tailless gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and even long nosed baboons! If not evolution then creation....so what difference does it make. They are all kind of belonging to one family, same traits and all are mammals like us mankind.😮
God said 6 days homies. God is that big, that powerful, that awesome. He made all the animals as well, some are extinct or going extinct, some are similar to others. Maybe God likes variety, or to flex.
Edit: I’ll add, how does “all of science” age things? Carbon dating and silly guesses at things. A whole lot of assumptions point against what the Bible says.
I’d recommend William lane Craig’s going through genesis videos. To me it clearly shows that genesis 1 isn’t meant to be literal. It’s not the genre of the text. He better explains than I could.
the bible isn't a science book. The God didn't say 7 days, the author of Genesis did.
@ I prefer to trust in the Lord rather than the words/wisdom of men. He said 6 days, He meant 6 days. God is big enough and powerful enough to go further than our little brains can imagine.
@ God said 6 days, He rested on the 7th. He is the author. He is the Word.
@@BigChurch-c4k so in psalms when the literature is clearly poetry do you read it as literal when it is clearly using metaphors? Or when Jesus uses parables? God gave us reason and logic to be able to discern.
Ruslan, thank you for posting this we need this discussion.
“As an option” that’s madness. Can you imagine Paul writing an epistle as an option for those that reject the Messiah?
"From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands."
You can trust in God, or in man, but you can't do both. ;)
yes
It's not about trusting God or man, it's about interpretation and what is meant by terms and phrases, especially when a lot of the text is poetic and shaped by ancient cultures, ideas, knowledge and beliefs. The way we write today is very different than the way we wrote thousands of years ago. We see the world differently in every way than they did thousands of years ago. To read a text that is thousands of years old as if it was written in modern language in the modern day by people who think and perceive about the world the same way we do, is a failure to understand context.
If you read Genesis, it says days not thousands of years. There's no way that those terms changed from 4 thousand years ago @@droe2570
@droe2570 There's a Holy Spirit that confirms interpretation among the saints. Cowards are thrown outside the city. They used to circumcize themselves to avoid persecution. "If anyone is ashamed of my words, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him at his coming."
@@fatalheart7382 The problem with your thought here is that all who are in Christ have the Holy Spirit, yet we still interpret some things differently.
What is called for is humility, not arrogance.
As a Christian I believe the Bible as a whole,and if you don’t believe the beginning then why believe the end or the middle or any of it
We believe the whole Bible, just not your interpretation (presumably)
I don't believe Jesus's parables are literal, because they aren't. Why would I place the same standard on Genesis when it's clearly allegorical (and rather accurate viewed that way)?
When Jesus talked about a parable he mentioned it was a parable
@juandeleon1665 Not always. And there are significant style differences in biblical texts between literal and allegorical sections. Guess what Genesis largely looks like. Yeah it's allegory man.
@ god is not the author of confusion,can you name one allegory that Jesus said that was taken literally
To answer the Title of the video, it depends on which kind of "evolution" you're talking about.
For example, Micro-Evolution is both absolutely borne out by Science and (despite what some atheists and some misinformed Christians will tell you) borne out by the Bible. It still has every creature bearing after it's own kind, so it's no issue. Plus, almost all proofs for evolution given by atheists fall into this category, so it's a win-win.
On the other side we have Macro-Evolution. There's very little "proof," if any, of that. And the proof they have is largely fabricated fossils composed of entirely different beasts and a lot of plastic and wire (coupled with a lot of good artistic pictures, like in a sci-fi novel).
Bottom Line:
Micro Evolution is proven and Bible-friendly
Macro-Evolution is Sci-fi fairy-tale material and operates largely on fabrication.
The only problem is that Atheists have learned to switch the two mid-conversation to confuse and decieve people. It's a shell game.
You guys are simple minded. If you beleive in Micro Evolution you already beleive in Macro Evolution. Micro Evolution over large periods of time leads to speciation. Let's be logical here. 🤦🏾♂️
@@munashemanamike4217explain why no fish have been found with legs lol
@@raeveth you mean reptiles or amphibians?
@@raeveth this is an incredibly simple minded view of what evolution is man.
@@raeveth we do see fish with legs. They are called tetrapods, and you are one of them.
I don't think it is a sin. But The Word warns us about false teachings, false prophets and so forth (2 Tim 4:3-4), and I completely believe that evolution is a teaching from the devil himself. This came at the age of enlightening and we have to ask the question what was the purpose of this? It destroyed purpose in us as people, it destroys creation, it creates us in our own image and not that of purpose attacking our identity in Christ, our created identity.
We also only ever hear one side of the 'science" and that is of evolution and yet so many unanswered questions.
Lastly something I found interesting and it is HOW God created the earth, and as example I would say it like this. When God created Adam he was a fully formed man around age 28-30 years old in stature. However technically Adam was only 1 day old. Same thing with the rocks and the plants and so forth, God could have created it to look much older than it really is.
God gave us eyes to see and does not like to us. Evolution is a means of creation. Nothing counter to the Bible even (what's really wild is that things basically appear on the order they evolved, except for birds but that could easily be an accidental classification error of early very large insects by the author). If you allow for allegory it's correct, and it's the only creation story that is.
That's a very very powerful argument. Don't discount it.
@@userJohnSmith If you interpret Genesis like this, many problems arise, like death existing before sin, homosexuality aswell, which means that God created death and suffering, which is not true.
Evolution is based on the belief of naturalism.
Evidence can be interpreted by the viewer`s viewpoint.
But man is a creature that needs purpose in order to live, so therefore there must be purpose to man, therefore he must have been planned, which requires a mind, a creator.
Therefore man could not have come from the result of natural processes, he must have been willed into existence by the creator.
It’s not that science is wrong, it’s that evolution (as in Darwinian) isn’t science. It’s interpretation/religion. There’s 6 different meanings that can be narrowed down to the word “evolution”
1) cosmic evolution - big bang
2) stellar evolution - formation of stars
3) chemical evolution - you get all the elements
4) organic evolution - non living material becoming living
5) macro evolution - one animal turning into a different animal over long period of time
6) micro evolution - variations within the same kind of animal of small amount of time
Now the only one that’s actually science is micro evolution. The other 5 are purely religious.
Now going from the Bible side, evolution completely contradicts the Bible. Christians who haven’t looked into this subject try to fit evolution in the scriptures but it doesn’t make sense & doesn’t work
There is no micro and macro evolution --- there is just evolution. Micro and macro are the identical same process. In time all micro becomes macro. *Can you list a single process difference where micro is different from macro?*
@@maylingng4107 Macro involves completely hypothetical changes in a lifeform, changes that we do not know that genetic mutations can produce.
Exactly, and the christian who is not a young earth creationist will not be able to give a good answer for his faith...
@@juanranger4214
Hypothetical changes.... like what?
I asked you how is the process is different for a micro from that of a macro?
Have you completed 10th grade biology?
@@juanranger4214
Do you wish me to prove and explain that micro and macro evolution are the exact same process?
I dont know enough either way to say im convinced either way, but, and i cannot emphasize this enough... It IS NOT a salvific issue. Stop making it into one.
From my personal experience ive been told many times that i am going to hell because i dont necessarily believe the universe is 6000 years old. Its not that serious people. Things like that are why people leave Christianity, YEC's make it way more difficult than it needs to be to reconcile what people are taught in school and what they read in Genesis.
"Things like that are why people leave Christianity"
So what? You'd rather have insincere people?
What is Ruslan on in this video
let God be true and man a lier...
Genesis 2:7 says, he formed him from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. The name "Adam" comes from the Hebrew word meaning "ground/earth". It seems pretty straightforward. A lot of Jesus's teachings were straightforward and easy to understand. But they're difficult for people to accept, for one reason or another... And Jesus turned water into wine, fermentation takes time, but Jesus makes it happen in an instant.
I believe that our genes can change, but we can't get kids with other types of animals, obviously. So we can change a lot from one another, but we are still the same type of animal, and nothing can change that. The same goes for every type of animal, too. A giraffe can't gain a hippo's head.
🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️
This is exactly correct. Massive capacity for creatures to epigenetically adapt but they can’t become something else
@@raeveth adaptation implies change
Animals can change to other animals it just takes millions of years..this is what we are told..kent Hovind says its so slow it never happens LOL
I mean that's a total misunderstanding of speciation. We even see some of this in humans with things like down syndrome. Chromosome duplication, or other errors could create strong survival advantages as they build up over time. We've seen insects speciate in the wild in a single lifetime too so this view is just completely wrong.
You guys are awesome!
The thing is that, as Christians, you're to believe the whole of scripture is God-breathed, so when Moses was allowed to write that the earth was literally created in a week and that they were allowed, throughout the Bible, to treat that beginning of genesis as real history in the face of God, who doesn't allow error to go unrebuked, speaks volumes.
So then we need to look at the different perspectives or paradigms/systems that people have, such as old earth vs young earth, and we must look to see where the evidence is more sound.
When you look at it purely evidence-wise, then the old earth paradigm seems undefendable, so many of its assumptions and beliefs are not supported by the facts, it's truly something, whereas, in a young earth paradigm, everything makes sense with believing all of scripture to be true(in its respective contexts)
The Bible has people treating the creation process in Genesis as a literal historical record and as real events that happened in that amount of time, nowhere is it hinted at having been more or less than what it was written.
Earth is young, we were created, evolution is wrong, adaptation is right, God bless and good day/night
There are so many different dating methods; radiocarbon dating, luminescence dating, dendrochronology, varve chronology, electron spin resonance dating, cosmogenic radionuclide dating et cetera. All which have produced results that are problematic for a young earth creation hypothesis.
The thing that we can’t measure scientifically is a world that was unmarred by the curse of sin. A pre sin earth would not have aged and deteriorated so I don’t believe the argument of pointing to non literal days before the fall representing millions of years holds up because that was before God cursed the ground.
I do think that God cursing the ground may have had an instantaneous effect on the earth’s appearance and operation to where the earth could actually be young but appear old because of it.
You're being too metaphysical and literal with specific verbage. The universe had entropy before we showed up, we can observe that. Our sin didn't cause things to change outside a very limited perspective.
@ So you believe that God created a universe that originally would have decayed and eventually died?
@Descriptor_ There's some weird quantum mechanical behavior that actually goes with this (and would allow for your argument that the decay was caused by sin) but essentially yes. We see stars at the beginning of the universe and they behave like they do now. I kind of don't get a choice in the matter because I'm a physicist. There was entropy some ten+ billion years ago and I don't argue with God because I want to have a neat little philosophy of biblical interpretation. When he's showing me what's going on, I believe Him.
I saw a video on a (generally) Medieval history channel that there was a pre-humanity that God created in the act of creation, and later took and modified 'ensouled' the literal Adam and Eve.
It was an interesting concept, bit not one I find compelling.
Dr. Obannon (animal biology) whom I met a Lee University, shared with me some things he'd collected over the years of his study when I met before attending.
He introduced me to the 'Gap Theory ' as one if the possibilities.
One of the things within the collection of studies and theories that included the assumptions mentioned around 12:30 about the pre-flood conditions being different enough to make the carbon dating assumptions incorrect. (As well as partially explaining some of the lifespans mentioned in Genesis.
I fully agree that is not a salvation issue.
I wish more studies as mentioned could be done.
It's a fascinating discussion either way.
The problem is that if you believe God used evolution then death came before sin when the Bible clearly teaches death came into the world because of Sin.
Where do we draw the line in not caring about issues that “keep someone from coming to Christ”? For some it’s not being able to accept that Jesus is God, do we drop that?
Yes, you should drop the claims of things not confirmed by evidence.
Things not confirmed by evidence and claimed to be true are also called lies.
A lotta ignorant Christians in the comment section.
We are saved through Christ, not our opinions about the mechanics of the world or life. None of us know all these things, so having differing opinions on the subject is certainly not a sin.
i've recently converted from young earth view to theistic evolution, after studying the view of magisterium/catholic church and the church of england.. it just doesn't make sense that dinosaurs such as the mosasaur and the megalodon ate sea grass before the fall, or the t rex and the lion led down together eating watermelons.. also i have had ET contact, and thus a young earth doesn't work there for me..the creation account is clearly symbolic and alot of these old stories were passed down by other cultures such as egypt and sumeria..i will say that the catholic church has a view that there was a literal adam and eve and that where original sin comes from..
😂 Evolution = we come from a monkey and we evolve into Gods.
❤ Bible = we come from God and we evolve into monkeys.
If you believe that evolution is true you also have to believe that God created death. Therefore the definition and impact of original sin is changed. It affects many things theologically.
How did Even know what death is then? In the Garden?
@munashemanamike4217 I don't understand the question. Could you reformulate it please?
@@LouisStravinsky Gid warned of death to Adam And Eve. How could they understand such a Concept if it didn't exist
@munashemanamike4217 I don't know but it is a fact that traditional Christianity states that there was no death before the fall.
There is a very simple way to convince anyone including me about a divine Jesus (crucifixion and resurrection). All you have to do is to name a single eyewitness (other than the lies in the bible), an eyewitness, a writer or a historian who mentions one word about Jesus.
It is alleged that thousands of people including writers and historians witnessed Jesus.
So name one eyewitness, and we will all believe you!
@@maylingng4107
pascal wager.
do u prefer to believe in God or not in God.
Atheists are taking risks with their after life by not believing in God.
supposing, Atheists are right, both Christian and Atheists will be part of mother nature and turn into fertilizer after death.
Supposing, Christians are correct that Jesus is God. Atheists will face the judgement of God. Really, between 2 choices, it is better to believe in God rather than be an Atheist.
God could do and make anything look or be in any state he wants. To me it is irrelevant.
I do not think anything in the Bible is irrelevant.
@@igregmart Evolution is not in the bible, perhaps metaphorically through the Adam and Eve story if you take it that way?
But generally I think evolution is possible regardless because God can make the world look and behave however he wants, it does not prove or disprove anything in the bible to me?
I agree
What are your thoughts about women keeping silent in church ?
I don’t think it’s a sin. But, and this is kinda subjective, I think the full denial of the creation account without even considering the science in light of that can lead to an eagerness to deny other parts of scripture. The only people I see falling into progressive Christianity are those who hold to a non-young earth creationism stance. Not everyone who does hold it is a progressive Christian, but I’ve yet to meet a progressive Christian who isn’t an old earth or outright creation denialist.
I think its weak faith. But its better to have weak faith than no faith.
No, just like nothing can’t produce everything. Evolution and change happens yet doesn’t change the fact someone made everything.
If macroevolution is real, then jesus did absolutely nothing when he died on the cross. The Bible states that death came into the world through mans sin. If there was millions of years of death before man then the Bibles theology falls apart. Then dying for mans sin would not defeat death. Because death would have been here not because of mans sin. But from just a natural reason. Also you would have to conclude that God loves death. Because when you made the world he said it was very good. So i guess millions of years of death and suffering is good. macroevolution does not work with the Bible.
Ding!!! Buying into macro-evolution theory denies aspects of the Bible through and through. We have an archeological evidence of NOAHS ARK we can see the old ship remnant on the mountain. We have evidence of the Exodus as well. God shows us his presence in the world so much if you just look.
@@tbracerplays
There is no evidence of the Flood or Noah's ark. The rocks in the Durupinar region in Turkey is a natural rock formation.
I remember kent hovind having a debate with Hugh Ross on this issue about sin...it was a very good listen...
@@robbiestones9447
Both Hovind and Ross are creationists; the first is a young earth creationist, the second an old earth creationists. Other than that there is no difference between the two liars.
@@maylingng4107 yeah 2 positions as christians..this is a christian channel..not an atheist one...
It would be awesome to see Ruslan sit down with Hugh Ross on this topic.
We lack understanding about how God utilizes time. Just like if we found Adam's bones we would assume he had a childhood, so do we look at a universe and assume all stars were made the same. God made Adam a full grown up, not a fetus or a child. Apply that same logic to the universe. Just because we see stars exploding today, it doesnt mean thats how they were all made. Our science is so flawed that it is mind blowing how many people are willing to put faith aside for science when in reality they work in tandem.
My hot take is: If you dont have faith that the first book of the Bible is true, you cant be a Christian. The resurrection and creation are God's greatest miracles.
Pray harder, pray often.
There never was any Adam. Humans have evolved from an ancestor 7 million years ago.
Faith = belief with no evidence.
🎉now what do you call the different stages of a
human or animal within the womb from conception until birth??? Really!!!!
That to me is evolution over a period of time!!!
Even a butterfly or a fly undergoes a metamorphosis through its lifetime. Why cant God not allow evolution. He was, is, and forever will be in control of what he wants to control. He gave free will to humans and animals. Yet He is always there for us should we turn to Him.
When Ruskin talks about this, you can tell how little he knows about the topic on both sides.
Ruslan, why don't u have a YEC creationist on to hear their reasoning?
@@vanessakarsa3220 Thank You. It's not that I think it's a salvation issue or that we should be fighting about it but that the discussion on these platforms should include more YEC for them to explain their view
as if YECs haven't platformed themselves for the last 20 years as being the pervasive view.
He should get kent Hovind on...
Indeed! A christian who isn't a young earth creationist cannot give a good answer for his faith...
It is a sin to believe that it is a sin to believe in evolution
Adam was born an adult, the planet were "born" millions of years old.
I find it hard to believe that those who claim to be Christians and believe in miracles such as the virgin birth or the resurrection, have a hard time accepting God's account in Genisis. How is that miracle too far? Also, I will use a form of C.S. Lewis' argument: either God is telling the truth (Genesis),or lying (Genie is isn't the truth) or a psychopath because he called the creation "good" when their was death and suffering. In other words he called death and suffering "good"? I don't think so.
Miracle is an event that goes against the laws of nature. There are no miracles, just liars like you who claim them.
Read or listen to Craig's work before misrepresenting him. Mythohistory doesn't at mean he doesn't believe it is actual history. He defines it in his work and lectures. It is similar to John Walton and several other OT scholars who see the clear allusion to ANE literature and the genre that Gen 1-11 is written in. Hyperbolic language, exalted prose, and other features of literature were being used. You guys should read the Genelogical Adam by Josh Swamadias. He completely destroyed scientifically the view that there could not be a literal Adam. BTW William Lane Craig's last book was actually a "case for a historical adam".
8:45 Exactly. Everyone has presuppositions, even conclusions that have been agreed upon universally are built on assumptions and theories that would best explain and account for every presently known situation. Science has been refined through the years by hitting walls that couldn't be explained by the theories they had and thinking through, experimenting, and coming up with better suited explanations that through trial holds up in every case we're aware of. There's a lot of abduction and deduction based on solid (as solid as can be) presuppositions that no one questions since we believe those who came to those conclusions before us. Half of what we're told isn't verifiable by the average person, so it actually takes a lotta faith to believe in science 😂, so I don't find it shocking that there's people who don't believe something just because it's a scientific "fact". I don't even think flat earthers are being dumb. I think they're just being skeptical. At times, I've even worried that one day I might hear something that'd affect my faith in God. But funnily enough, I've actually experienced more supernatural power of God that can't be explained without calling me and my family and anyone else involved liars or brushing them off as 0.001% chance coincidences than I have experienced scientific concepts that I learn, believe, and make sense to me.
Yes it is a sin. Because Romans 14:23 (NIV) says: “and everything that does not come from faith is sin.” And Hebrews 11 explains a big part of biblical faith is believing God created everything as Genesis teaches: Hebrews 11:1-3 (NLT): Faith shows the reality of what we hope for; it is the evidence of things we cannot see. 2 Through their faith, the people in days of old earned a good reputation. 3 By faith we understand that the entire universe was formed at God’s command, that what we now see did not come from anything that can be seen.
Darwinism/evolution is contrary to biblical faith therefore to believe in it is sinful.
Good point
What is so compelling about evolution?
Ruslan said he feels like we're starting with a conclusion, then trying to make everything fit into that presupposed box and that's not how science works. Actually, that's exactly how science works. People have been trying to make things fit into their scientific presuppositions for years.
The whole point is that we as Christians must start with the Word of God, not science. Not because we need to be intellectually lazy, or hold to some idea. It's because you can't pick and choose what you want to believe and what you don't want to believe from the Word. Either you believe it's the word of God, or you believe it's the fallible words of man. There is no allowance for science to tell us what we should believe in the Word and what we should not. God transcends science and every earthbound law that science has to adhere to. This is why there are miracles all through the bible. If we were to base everything on what is scientifically possible, there would be no faith. The hundreds of miracles in the Bible could not have happened.
Science can illuminate the Word, not disprove it. The Word does not come under the authority od science. Science comes under the authority of God's Word!
This is not true.
This is well said. You’re right. I think the Genesis account is so clear, whether in Hebrew, the Septuagint or a modern English translation. It’s just the idea of going against the pseudo-science of our day (i.e., Darwinian evolution) is counterintuitive.
Your understanding of science is not correct. The idea of the scientific method is to prove things incorrect. It can never exactly prove something correct. What science does is eliminate incorrect ideas. The ideas that survive this winnowing process and cannot be proven incorrect may have some element of truth.
Interesting video! Just a nitpick I have with the title though (or more like responding to the question), I don't think that beliefs can be sinful. Can a belief lead to sinful behaviours/thoughts/desires? Yes. Is the belief itself sinful? No. Of course, this doesn't mean you can believe/disbelieve what you want and be saved, you still have to believe in Jesus, but belief or unbelief in Jesus doesn't have moral weight, I reckon, as you are not saved by the good you do (belief in Jesus, in the case that that is a moral good), but rather by God's grace _in spite_ of the bad you do.
@@RuanPysoft so believing that Satan died for my sins, that is not sinful?
@@Mc-ln3gr Certainly an interesting question... I'm not sure actually. You _certainly_ won't be saved, and such a belief will almost certainly lead to sin, but is the belief itself sinful? Possibly. I should go do some study on this...
@ John 3:18. The disbelief in The Son of God. Which is a belief, condemns you. You are saved on belief. By believing the wrong thing, you commit the greatest sin of all.
@@Mc-ln3gr I read that verse first in the 2020 Afrikaans translation, and then in the Good News Translation to double check, but I don't think I agree with you.
It says (GNB) "Those who believe in the Son are not judged; but those who do not believe have already been judged, because they have not believed in God's only Son."
Paired with the surrounding verses, I read this as _judgement being withheld_ based on belief, rather than _sin being committed:_ We have *all* sinned, regardless of if we believe in Jesus or not, but if we believe we are not judged, if we disbelieved we have been judged. Nothing about the disbelief being sin itself, but rather _caused_ by sin (as indicated by vs. 19-21) and leading to judgement (though I'd rather say that belief in Jesus absolves one of judgement, rather than disbelief leading you to judgement, as you have already been judged - it is the default state - and it is the action of believing which saves, ie. which causes you to not be judged)
If you disagree with my interpretation, I'd be very interested in seeing your interpretation, and why you believe it to be correct!
Evolution is a Pagan religion.
no. dogmatic ideologues like you worship themselves.
Is it a sin? No. But to believe the Bible is wrong means you were never actually a Christian to begin with.
Is "Evolution " what rhe Bible teaches?
No.
The only truth in the bible is the page numbers.
But for "science" to say the earth is billions of years old assumes that carbon dating is correct. The people that are saying carbon dating is correct are saying that it's correct based on their apriori atheist assumptions. There are a bunch of other things that are assumed prior to whether or not carbon dating is correct, one of these things would be the uniformity of nature.
Old earth Christians at least what I looked into it they believe the world is older than 7000 years old but not necessarily evolution the way it's taught. Some do but the majority just think the world is really really old but God did create everything
Im an old earth creationist. We believe the Bible storys and doctrine but also agree with the scientific dating of the earth.
we believe everything before day 6 is repurposing the use of the universe, not from scratch.
Example, in science the universe was chaotic, and violent. Earth's atmosphere was too thinck for life and blocked out the sun
In Genesis, God thins out the atmosphere letting in light, calms the early solar system, making it stable and appoints the different celestial bodies with a task for Earth and the future inhabitants, etc.
@@KSATSpottingI believe that’s kind of what inspiring philosophy has said he believes
I don’t understand how all life has common ancestry. At what point during the evolutionary process did man become “in the image of God” and at what point did we begin to have a soul. I believe the Bible teaches man and animals were created separately.
Have you ever flown over Utah and Arizona? The Grand Canyon shows evidence of a a rapid creation. In my humble opinion. I’m not trying to start a back and forth dialogue. Just my observation. Plus, no one here wants to get into hydro geology.
Let me pose a question, adam was made by God a fully grown man, why couldn't he do the same thing when he created earth?
Day 1 of earth could be a "fully grown" billion year old earth, just like adam on his first day would have lookd "fully grown", science would say adam was 20 or so or however old he was made, but he would have only existed for one day.
Because he doesn't lie to us. If he had, he wouldn't have included millions of fossils or mineral relics that demonstrate, rather conclusively, a greater story of life and creation far more vast, complex, and impressive than poof.
No, it's a bad argument necessitating an evil gnostic god.
@userJohnSmith in what way would it be a lie?
Is their no other explanation for fossils, and mineral layers?
A world wide flood maybe 🤔?
You really didn't contend with the argument.
If God made a rock, and he made the rock to be 1000 years old, wouldn't science tell you the rock is 1000 years old even if you with your own eyes saw it pop into existence a few minutes ago?
@devinotero4886 He'd be lying by making it look that old when it wasn't. The argument doesn't hold, at all. Also, none of the geological evidence suggests a world wide flood, a world wide freeze yes, but not a flood.
@@userJohnSmith your the one being dishonest, and bad faith here, you still didn't contend with the argument. You are assuming the only reason he would make it old is to trick you, what if that was required for all the natural laws to work so we have a planet to support life? I expect you will still not contend with what I'm actually saying.
@devinotero4886 There is no utility in that. Why make fossils? They serve no physical or mineral purpose in the crust. It's planting false evidence of age. Why make zircons contain lead when we know they don't, in fact can't, form with it naturally. Why later them in such a way, and with fossils that are the same, as to suggest age and progression of time. The amount of evidence for age is so overwhelming, and so utterly disconnected from the laws of physics, that your argument is nonsensical immediately.
Truthfully, these discussions are difficult if you're speaking with people who aren't well educated on this stuff (not trying to be mean, I count my in laws in that camp and they have to minister to a STEM school, this stuff is hard to understand). My professional background is physics with a lifelong interest in paleontology and geology. If there's something specific you have a question about I can address it but right now you're coming at me with stuff that is so wrong it's tough to know where to start so I'm being very broad.
Adam and Eva were not the first humans -- far from it. But they were either the first behaviorally modern humans (circa 75,000 BC) or the individuals who jumpstarted the Neolithic Revolution some 14 thousand years ago. One or the other
Our understanding of early humans is constantly changing
Then you are denying all the creation passages in the Bible including Genesis. When you openly deny any portion of the Bible, aren't you denying THE WHOLE BIBLE?
If the Bible says they were then they were. Idc what flawed men have to say, I care what GOD says.
The creation narratives were mostly polemic against the Babylonian and Egyptian models. There's far more to the Bible than you know -- what you just said is a nonsequitur
Nowhere does it say in the Bible that they were the first. But they were the first to bear God's image. Tell me, who was Cain afraid of when he received the mark of death?
If it becomes an issue where you're saying that you have a problem with believing in Jesus because you believe in noitulove, then you need to reevaluate why you believe in noitulove. What do you really know about it?
AIG Canada has explained a few times why noitulove really is a barrier.
I will say this. If your problem is that if it comes out that you choose Jesus over noitulove and you have a problem with people seeing you as cray cray, consider that there already are a lot of people who already think so. Not just of you, but all of Jesus's followers. That's a you problem. We have to be careful not to be so bothered by people thinking we're cray cray and such.
When God created Adam, he wasn't a baby he was an aged man, so maybe when God created the world he created it with an appearance of it having age or appearing aged. Just a theory
I demonstrate genetically superior creatures that have been obscured by electrical processies in my video 'Sound reason ' and I give Scriptural references consistent with this in my video 'Begining of understanding '
Isn’t sin that which leads to death? I admit having a fickle belief that evolution may of happened can cause alarm with believers but there’s some believers that believe in evolution and God even going so far as to elaborate using scripture. I don’t think it’s sin why think everything is sin in a country that promotes freedom of religion. I think Christians shouldn’t be so damn touchy and get to know and have stimulating conversations. Why study if you can’t stand on your assurance in the word of God.
Edited: oh sin in this context that is drawing one away from God.
Well if the only way we worship God is in Spirit and Truth then it’s safe to say that it indeee is a Sin.
No. Denial of evolution and the evidence in the world is hubristic vanity, and requires denial of reality and an incredible amount of pride to say "I know more than these millions of people who've spent their lives studying something" so it may well be sinful, but belief in evolution would in no way be sinful.
It depends on what people mean by evolution and what evolution entails. Living things evolve and adapt, this is observable. Evolution however isn't the origin of life, it is one of the processes of life, and humans didn't descend from apes. Humans began life as humans, and apes as apes and evolved successfully on planet Earth, exactly why both aren't extinct.
Humans most certainly descended from apes. This fact offers no commentary on the nature of sin, a literal Adam and Eve, or the validity of Genesis. Move on.
@userJohnSmith yes indeed, move on to the Truth of Scripture and what was clearly written about the creation of Adam, and accept or reject it. There's no middle ground on this matter. Scripture has completely negated that by the precise and concise description of human creation by the only Living God, with absolutely zero apes involved.
@Ike-un6mc I mean you're obviously wrong in your interpretation of Scripture. The evidence is in the text and in the dirt. Get over it.
@@userJohnSmith indeed it is, in black and white. Formed from the dust of the ground and the only Living God breathing into Adam and him becoming a living soul. Eve formed from his side, no apes involved whatsoever. There's nothing to get over, only acceptance or rejection of Scripture. Your choice, my choice, it's that simple.
@Ike-un6mc The existence of a literal Adam and Eve is not precluded by the provable facts of humanity's evolution. We have evidence of lineage from other species in different populations on Earth, this isn't disputable.
If you'd like a little help with that reread Genesis. You'll notice a rather rapid growth in population after the garden.
But that's neither here nor there, a literal Adam and Eve still aren't required for the entire early account to be internally or externally consistent.
Denying evolution it's a mark of pride. Declaring you know the details of man's ensoulment or the nature of original sin, in detail, is also pride. Again, this hard literal interpretation is a new thing. Imagined a few hundred years ago. Early Christians strongly cautioned against such interpretation for the same reason I am.
i think when God made the earth he didnt make it start from the beginning, he didnt make trees start as seeds, he created the trees as already grown trees and the same with rock formations and planets
My loyalty is to god, not a scientist!