I have a hard time making coherent sense of any side. On the one hand, there seem to be a number of pieces of evidence the universe and the earth are old, and I don't know a clearcut refutation of them all. On the other hand, natural processes cannot create information, so nature clearly requires intelligent intervention to produce what we have today. On the third hand, an old universe does not jive with the most clearcut reading of the Bible, nor does it jive with Jesus believing Adam and Eve were real people, nor the whole fall narrative, nor does it make sense for such an enormous amount of suffering to occur pre-fall. On the fourth hand, scientists are very defensive if anyone questions the ancient universe, evolution narrative, which makes me suspect they are not trying hard to give a balanced view. On the fifth hand, the evidence for evolution is pretty bad, there are numerous mathematical and statistical errors, and even outright frauds in the history of the science. On the sixth hand, evolution is not really a science, since no one can go back in time millions of years to see it happen, and nothing today supports it happening, not even microbiological adaptation. On the seventh hand, it's hard to consistently read the Bible as a science book, since a lot of it is clearly framed in terms of a flat earth with a dome over the top (and there's nothing that indicates a spherical earth), which even tripped up early church fathers like Augustine and others who thought the Bible might be describing a flat earth and should be taken literally, so it's hard to know what is meant to be read a literal facts in the Bible vs metaphorical of something else (are we really supposed to eat Jesus?). On the eighth hand, it is not clear what actually counts as evidence of age, since what might take one process an unimaginable long time, like evolving a silicon chip in the desert through forces of wind and rain, is achieved almost in no time, like creating a silicon chip in a lab, so we could be misinterpreting what appears to us to take a great deal of time when it might take no time at all for another process. Bottom line, it's all very confusing to me, and I don't know why anyone thinks the answer is obvious.
In law in the ancient Rome, they used to say: abusus non tollit usum (abuse does not nullify proper use). I.e. from the fact that X is abused it does not necessarily follow that X is bad.
Accepting evolutionary macro narration destroys gospel of substitutionary atonement of Christ's death on the cross. Because if evolution is true then death is not a penalty. If the death is not a penalty for sins death of Christ on the cross looses its meaning as bearing penalty for our sins. Thus the gospel itself is destroyed. Besides what kind of god would need hundreds of millions of years of bloodshed starvation and diseases to produce all of the variety of his planned creation. Thus YEC position is the only God honoring one.
Fine. If I can't believe in evolution and in Jesus, I will stop believing in Jesus. If persecuting Darwin is the best thing Jesus can inspire you to do, he wasn't worth the nails it took to crucify him. He can take that cross and shove it up his ass.
@@glaughlin2782 Of course Adam died as pronounced by God. The very same day he was *separated* from God - both with Eve they were kicked out of Eden. For ancient people death = separation. So in one dimension they died immediately and in the physical dimension their death was graciously postponed a few hundred years. Besides, do not underestimate pre-fallen mind. God might have explained them what death will mean. You are confusing fundamentalist reading (which is definitely not mine) with conservative one which I represent. I see less and less problems with my reading of Genesis and more and more problems for those who do not read it taking the text at face value (when there is not textual hints that we should depart from literal meaning).
@@Dan_1348 Sorry but penal substitution is what the Bible teaches clearly and it is most obvious in the culture to which it was spoken of. If someone is accepting different theory of the atonement I doubt he/she is a genuine Christian.
Its so pleasant to see a believer who is knowledgeable about evolution for a change.
A well-balanced, fair assessment of evolution (finally).
I have a hard time making coherent sense of any side. On the one hand, there seem to be a number of pieces of evidence the universe and the earth are old, and I don't know a clearcut refutation of them all. On the other hand, natural processes cannot create information, so nature clearly requires intelligent intervention to produce what we have today. On the third hand, an old universe does not jive with the most clearcut reading of the Bible, nor does it jive with Jesus believing Adam and Eve were real people, nor the whole fall narrative, nor does it make sense for such an enormous amount of suffering to occur pre-fall. On the fourth hand, scientists are very defensive if anyone questions the ancient universe, evolution narrative, which makes me suspect they are not trying hard to give a balanced view. On the fifth hand, the evidence for evolution is pretty bad, there are numerous mathematical and statistical errors, and even outright frauds in the history of the science. On the sixth hand, evolution is not really a science, since no one can go back in time millions of years to see it happen, and nothing today supports it happening, not even microbiological adaptation. On the seventh hand, it's hard to consistently read the Bible as a science book, since a lot of it is clearly framed in terms of a flat earth with a dome over the top (and there's nothing that indicates a spherical earth), which even tripped up early church fathers like Augustine and others who thought the Bible might be describing a flat earth and should be taken literally, so it's hard to know what is meant to be read a literal facts in the Bible vs metaphorical of something else (are we really supposed to eat Jesus?). On the eighth hand, it is not clear what actually counts as evidence of age, since what might take one process an unimaginable long time, like evolving a silicon chip in the desert through forces of wind and rain, is achieved almost in no time, like creating a silicon chip in a lab, so we could be misinterpreting what appears to us to take a great deal of time when it might take no time at all for another process. Bottom line, it's all very confusing to me, and I don't know why anyone thinks the answer is obvious.
Eric, the way out is consensus patrum.
Platinga is a Calvinist but most of his arguments are in favor of Catholicism.
In the end, it's not the idea of God but religion that is the problem.
In law in the ancient Rome, they used to say: abusus non tollit usum (abuse does not nullify proper use). I.e. from the fact that X is abused it does not necessarily follow that X is bad.
Honestly I just reccomend everyone to look into William Lane Craig’s research on the historical Adam.
Is this video made for children, lol?
?
Accepting evolutionary macro narration destroys gospel of substitutionary atonement of Christ's death on the cross. Because if evolution is true then death is not a penalty. If the death is not a penalty for sins death of Christ on the cross looses its meaning as bearing penalty for our sins. Thus the gospel itself is destroyed. Besides what kind of god would need hundreds of millions of years of bloodshed starvation and diseases to produce all of the variety of his planned creation. Thus YEC position is the only God honoring one.
Fine. If I can't believe in evolution and in Jesus, I will stop believing in Jesus. If persecuting Darwin is the best thing Jesus can inspire you to do, he wasn't worth the nails it took to crucify him. He can take that cross and shove it up his ass.
@@glaughlin2782 Of course Adam died as pronounced by God. The very same day he was *separated* from God - both with Eve they were kicked out of Eden. For ancient people death = separation. So in one dimension they died immediately and in the physical dimension their death was graciously postponed a few hundred years.
Besides, do not underestimate pre-fallen mind. God might have explained them what death will mean.
You are confusing fundamentalist reading (which is definitely not mine) with conservative one which I represent. I see less and less problems with my reading of Genesis and more and more problems for those who do not read it taking the text at face value (when there is not textual hints that we should depart from literal meaning).
@@Dan_1348 Sorry but penal substitution is what the Bible teaches clearly and it is most obvious in the culture to which it was spoken of. If someone is accepting different theory of the atonement I doubt he/she is a genuine Christian.
@@thomasaskew1985 You said >> If I can't believe in evolution and in Jesus, I will stop believing in Jesus.
@Eljot79 No i obnażyłeś się, że o to Ci chodziło cały czas. A przy okazji, jak Twoje ogłoszone nawrócenie wpłynęło na Twoją czystość seksualną?