Epic Debate on Genesis & Evolution
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 лют 2020
- Michael Jones and Dr. Joe Boot met at Redeemer University to debate if the Bible is compatible with the theory of evolution.
Don't forget to help us create more videos! We need your support:
/ inspiringphilosophy
/ @inspiringphilosophy
For more from the Ezra Institute, check out: www.ezrainstitute.ca
To give everyone a heads up, the wide shot camera was having technical difficulties for the first 30 minutes, so we only have a close up at first. So you won't see me during the introduction, but rest assured I will be on camera once I start my opening statements after the moderator introduces us both.
It is 22:28, in my country so i will not be able to watch premium
I have to sleep early
Minecraft Legends of the Heroes no worries, I understand. I’ll be doing a live Q&A for donors on March 21 early in the morning in my time zone so supporters on the other side of the world can participate.
@@deleteduser1877 ah the former dutch first lady
Great job as always IP.
Dang, why isn’t your story about Jesus. I don’t care about the “camera technical difficulties”. Get behind me satan. This is not the Gospel.
I honestly think that the most important issue or idea or concept in the entire debate is revealed in the closing statements. Michael Jones states that many of the atheists he works with admit that coming to the conclusion that evolution did occur was the primary reason they first moved away from Christianity. Following this, in his closing statements, Dr. Boot admits that a person can be a Christian and believe in evolution at the same time. The salvation of such a person is not in question. To me this highlights the importance of what Michael Jones is trying to do in his ministry. Even if evolution turns out to be incorrect in the end the worst thing a theistic evolutionist has to worry about is finding out that he was wrong when he enters the Kingdom of God. On the other hand, the person who leaves behind Christianity because he believes evolution and Christianity are not compatible will miss salvation entirely. Because of this, I think it is wise to support Michael Jones even if you are not an evolutionist because he is helping bring more people to salvation who otherwise would not come to Christ because, in their experience, evolution is so convincing that they simply cannot deny it.
I am glad to see you understand why I do this.
Sin is also convincing and man too can't deny it. Adhering to theistic evolution begins, slowly but surely, to chip away at all other aspects of the bible. Indeed, if God didn't create all life, the flood was merely a local thing, then did water actually turn into wine? Oh yeah, the disciples just broke off little pieces of bread to distribute amongst the crowd. Did Christ actually raise Lazarus from the dead or was he just in deep sleep? Did Christ actually die? Indeed this leads right back to Christ and his miracles and most importantly the resurrection.
A simple inquiry into the evolution and the current literature and discoveries made after Darwin as well as the arguments for God's existence show one has to pick one over the other.
All you said was nothing more than a logical fallacy known as a slippery slope. Good to YECs have to resort to logical fallacies now
@@InspiringPhilosophy You try and reconcile observations from a fallen world with how God intended it to be. And yes the SS is true. If we see it happen constantly with theists adopting evolution and quickly becoming agnostic or atheists then I'm sure the SS is true. The very fact the Christian is in between YEC and evolution and think he needs to drop one or the other is indicative of the fact that both positions can't truly be reconciled.
Adopting evolution and maintain creationism is to invite the potential for further doubt down the line of other biblical events, obviously. Anyone with an understanding of the fallen nature of man and the noetic effects of sin can see this.
I do find it somewhat commendable, for what it's worth, that you try and reconcile both positions for the sake of not having the believer drop Christianity and indeed salvation because of their intellectual inclinations.
Again that doesn’t follow it all, which is why it is a logical fallacy, not a cogent argument
"Some people, in order to discover God, read books. But there is a great book: the very appearance of created things. Look above you! Look below you! Read it. God, whom you want to discover, never wrote that book with ink. Instead, He set before your eyes the things that He had made. Can you ask for a louder voice than that?" ~ Saint Augustine
God wrote two books, and they do not contradict one another
Joe Keenan - Brilliant!
@@gavinhurlimann2910 I really like that. Thanks for the quote, dude
@@gavinhurlimann2910
Thank you, I stole it from a North African (couldn't find the rest of the quote)
@@joekeenan6435: ha ha! No worries Joe. Most of my stuff is unoriginal. Here's a cool one from St Francis of Assisi (1181 - 1226)
"Always be spreading the Gospel, and only when absolutely necessary - use words".
God bless.
Hence, we use science to read what God has written.
Seems like Dr. Boot was trying to conflate the scientific theory of evolution with a worldview built upon that theory. He clearly wasn’t familiar with Michael’s work and positions, which is sad.
It's hard for me to believe family tree evolution in both scientific and scriptural probability. Scientifically we have never observed or demonstrated family tree evolution. Even if you point to interesting Fossils, a field where plenty of fraudsters been involved, you don't know that they even reproduced or were products of major mutations.
@@nealswanson8684 true...true
...it seems he isn't even familiar what science, evolution, maybe othe subjects he talked about even really are. some statements and the quotes from "atheists" are clearly following the same (lame) argument and structure like f.e. the publications of the s.c. "creation research inst."
Does this guy think Jesus had descendants? And that you had to be one of his descendants in order to be in Christ? I’m pretty sure a major part of the gospel is that you don’t have to come from a certain family in order to be saved. If this is true...how is he a theologian?
Wut
Statement makes no sense.
Did he just really hit us with the "it's a theory, not a fact"
I'm curious about why that's an issue. I'm also curious about why that got a heart from IP.
There is a mountain of evidence to prove that evolution is false. Why is saying, "It's only an unproven theory" an issue? How much evidence would we need to prove that it's false?
@@JP-rf8rr, Um, not gonna open that link. Thanks though.
@@Kahless_the_Unforgettable
Then why ask a question if you don't want to see the answer?
@@JP-rf8rr, I don't want to click random links from random people. Not quite the same thing.
@@Kahless_the_Unforgettable i'm curious, what evidence are you talking about?
As an atheist, this was a very interesting debate to witness. I really love how you attempt to use analytical and observational processes in order to make your points, even if I don't explicitly agree with them. Keep up the good work in promoting this free thought!!
Caden Taylor
Look up vaticancatholic.com to see true Christianity.
Gil Friends you have to be joking, Roman Catholicism refutes itself by its very name, let alone the plethora of factual history that proves it is the chief bastardization of Christianity as Christ taught and intended
In your opinion, are Catholics going to hell?
@@mariofedele1244 In your opinion, does Catholic doctrine such Mary being referred to as a co- redemptrix align with biblical doctrine? Or Mary as a mediatrix?
@@mariofedele1244 If they believe there are other ways than Christ. I've met some radicle Catholics who think Mary had more power than Jesus because Mary is the mother of God and is the one who saves. Not saying this is Catholic doctrine just saying there are some who have been truly deceived
IP did great but "I have a video on that" is an unsatisfactory reply, although I do understand that going into great detail eats up a lot of time.
I believe he's saying, that one can gain more info, in what he's saying.
Year late, but debates usually don’t change the debaters minds, they’re used to change the viewers mind, so I see it as he was using it as a resource for the viewer to look at for deeper research
@@tylerwaymire7709 true, it’s kinda sad tho that debates almost never end with either person having their mind changed, but still I see how they can be important
Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it.
So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that.
So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned.
The reason why blood must be spilled for forgiveness of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough to temporarily cover some sins. (it did not allow forgiveness of sins, Unlike Jesus's, it only temporarily covered them). Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. Jesus was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV.
ua-cam.com/video/lbb4xwYj19g/v-deo.html
Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument.
Regarding Christianity watch InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus reliability of NT. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true.
J
Hey IP you’ve helped strengthen my faith, thank you man! 😎
I haven't even gotten through a min or two of IP's opening and i'm already blown away by how persuasive he is, you've really gotten better at your presentation! Would love to see you discuss you Beliefs on Genesis 1 with Dr.WLC
gottem
His new interpretation is so wrong it seems misleading.
Why does the second verse start with ‘and’?
@@bennywolfe4357 it doesn’t. “And” is not in the Hebraic text. That’s an adaptation to instill coherence
@@sidtom2741 Genesis 1:2 begins with the word: 'והארץ' with the prefixed conjunction 'ו', meaning 'and-'.
@@cornelswinfen8025 how does this play out with the actual text? I.e. where does the “and” go?
Snappy suit, IP
You’re snappy!
@@InspiringPhilosophy I think he meant snazzy! But I am Scottish, so.....
@@bporrelli the only true Scotsman who's not a fallacy!
@@kneo12 lol!
Oh sure for thousands of years the Jews and Christians couldn’t understand genesis until the prophet Charles Darwin came along lol so ridiculous
Thy Kingdom Come exactly
Who is to say they didn’t understand this? Or that they must have had a view of creation perfectly in line with what we believe now? I’m hesitant to believe there has been an uninterrupted line of understanding about this topic for the last few thousand years, across various languages and cultures
Dualist why wouldn’t there be an uninterrupted understanding? If you study the early church you would see that they were very careful about preserving what they learned from the apostles and passing it down. Even Paul told Timothy to find faithful men to pass down his teachings to. Jude said the faith was passed down to the saints. Why do you think your generation is so special to know more than the last thousands of years? That’s pure arrogance, but I think it’s just the way this generation in western civilization was raised and babied.
Dr. Boot brings up a lot of important points to consider and good questions that should be given time to think about.
But the dude seemed more like an inquisitor than a co-debater.
While I do not believe that theistic evolution is compatible with Scripture, IP, you did an amazing job and maintained
a level head. I love the work you do bro.
I argue that Genesis is theological messaging and not about the "how or when" or even really the "what" of Creation, but about the Creator. "How and when" are questions that would not have occured to the bronze age, and "what" to the Hebrews meant "what purpose does it have", not it's composition.
The intent is to reveal the Creator and distinguish him from the created order and it's elements (which is what bronze agers were worshipping).
You will have big problems in life if you believe someone because of their charisma!
@The wanderer You would rather use lies and mans wisdom in an effort to get people to be "christians" but remember that someone who becomes a Christian through lies will leave when they find out they've been lied to.
For that very reason I do not tell kids santa is real, It is better to tell the truth from the beginning, even though others will not like it.
By the way, what have veins got to do with it?
I’m surprised Dr. Boot didn’t do the requisite research; in the cross examination he seemed to have little familiarity with IP’s views, if any at all. Moreover, the mentioning of tropes like the theory/fact distinction was a bit surprising. I would think that someone of Dr. Boot’s acumen would avoid such rudimentary misunderstanding.
Nope. Dr. Boot did very well addressing all of Jones’ claims including the theory/fact response. Yes, I said response because t he reason Dr. Boot mentioned that Evolution was a theory and not a fact was because Michael Jones called it a fact. Good on Dr. Boot for keeping on target with his opponents claims.
@@matthewmanucci
Dr. Boot is completly mistaken and should stick to his Theology rather than getting into science because every scientist agrees it is a fact
and he didnt address any of Michael jones claims periode
This comment told me to read a dictionary
@@dmx7329 "every scientist" plz. Not one time has family tree evolution been observed or demonstrated. Dr. Tour does a great job in explaining how improbable family tree evolution is as well. Peace and Gob Bless 🙏
God* 🙂
I was struggling years with researching about evolution and compatibility with the Bible. After prayer and lots of ups and downs i found myself very happy when i realized that half of your arguments are what i have concluded too. God is great! Thank you brother.
Does it bother anyone else how the good Dr. Wanted "in Christ" to mean something different entirely than "in Adam", then implies that Michael somehow is eliminating or changing the meaning when it comes to "in Adam"?
The two concepts HAVE to be equivocal or they make no sense when Paul is comparing them. They are both conditions of relationship to God by way of the priest who mediates. That was Paul's entire point. He made no mention of biology in his handling of the matter.
Martial Apologist I caught that too, it seemed a little funky and I thought I might have been missing something
Martial Apologist
I did as well, I think he knew he couldn’t get out of that one. I thought he would of gone into adoption or something.
@Martial Apologist
In that respect would you also agree that all people who are dying in Adam shall also be living in Christ. In other words do you believe everyone will be saved?
Mugen El I don’t think that’s what Mike Jones was saying, I think he was saying the extent of atonement and the vastness of the offer
It bothers me that ip promotes death before sin, humans existing before Adam and Eve, no global flood, contradiction of creation event, saying that God needs our help to subdue the earth etc
There needs to be much more discussion, one-on-one with all of these theological/philosophy subjects; not so much debate, per say, but extended conversations. The Q & A part of this particular presentation could have gone for two hours by itself.
As soon as Mike mentioned John McArthur, I instantly thought, "it would be awesome to have them both debate each other."
John mac is just another human being that has been deceive by calvinism. There is nothing to learn from him except that you can take the mark of the beast and still be saved.
Lol. These anticalvanist are like news paper cartoon characters.
Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it.
So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that.
So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned.
The reason why blood must be spilled for forgiveness of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough to temporarily cover some sins. (it did not allow forgiveness of sins, Unlike Jesus's, it only temporarily covered them). Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. Jesus was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV.
ua-cam.com/video/lbb4xwYj19g/v-deo.html
Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument.
Regarding Christianity watch InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus reliability of NT. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true.
U
@@Ivann1005 what?
@@rikardotsamsiyu what do you mean WHAT?
🤗I think you did a really great job👏👏
Thank you, and thanks for being a UA-cam member!
55:21
"So a lot of the diseases we suffer from today came about from human civilization constantly trying to build Babel."
Oddly prophetic in light of coronavirus and globalization.
What's babel
@@prem9185 the tower God destroyed in Genesis
Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it.
So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that.
So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned.
The reason why blood must be spilled for forgiveness of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough to temporarily cover some sins. (it did not allow forgiveness of sins, Unlike Jesus's, it only temporarily covered them). Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. Jesus was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV.
ua-cam.com/video/lbb4xwYj19g/v-deo.html
Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument.
Regarding Christianity watch InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus reliability of NT. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true.
U
@InspiringPhilosophy I can see you've been taking advice from David Wood with your eyecatching new thumbnails
@Blake B The Dizzle rocks!
@buymebluepills and that's why i love the guy
Great video. I’ve watched your Genesis videos and they’ve helped me a lot in talking to atheists so I thank you for that.
I like this video bc during the questions phase there were times where you’re argument seemed insufficient. Both of y’all made good points and had moments where you looked good and moments you looked inadequate. I consider this to be good bc of all you did was post debates where you’re a rockstar I’d consider you a glory hound. Thanks for post this video and I can’t wait for more.
yeah i dont think he cares much for being a glory hound. theres glory but for sure God allows him to face Challenges to humility as much as I do and anyone else.
I like the fact that I read these comments and have found different ideas on creationism and evolution when it comes to genesis and everyone being civil. At least we can all agree that Jesus is our lord and savior and God sent His one and only son to die for us. God bless you all.
*evolutionism
Here is a quick view that opposes evolution.
ua-cam.com/video/-1UekVpEuws/v-deo.html
Joe Boot for his argument of "evolution vs. the bible", makes good points to think about to me. Good job guy
Very satisfying debate! Joe Boot said all the things I’d hope he’d say, holding closely and consistently to scripture. I didn’t realize that Michael doesn’t agree with the English Bibles of our day, in Genesis 1. Even the Geneva Bible (1587) translates the Hebrew, as “In the beginning.”
Really enjoy your videos, and loved the debate! Super interesting, as usual.
IP I've been watching your vids on quantum physics etc and my takeaway is that quantum physics seems to actually affirm YEC ex-nihilo creation at any interval of time at any moment. Would love to see more vids on why an old earth evolutionary interpretation is more compatible with quantum physics.
Quantum fluctuations don't come from nothing but from quantum void which is radically different, in poor words think about it as a field filled with pure potential energy
@@alphamf0 I'm a field of pure potential energy :D
Seriously, can a single YEC argue their case without a bulverism?
"You're just using science to reinterpret Scripture!"
Even though none of IP's analysis of Genesis made use of modern science, I suppose that Joe can 1) Read IP's mind, and 2) discredit IP's argument on those grounds (even though that's a fallacy).
Exactly
Read 2 Peter chapter 3. The only verse people use to try push "old earth" lie is in SAME CHAPTER that warns you IN ADVANCE about scoffers denying the worldwide flood and pushing "uniforitarianism" lies. It's not "coincidence". It's the perfect WORD OF GOD! Pray on it in Jesus Christ name!
@@MichaelAChristian1ua-cam.com/video/Q07gxxbggJs/v-deo.htmlsi=jpmFBc2vk_Mg3k5e
IP, is the fact you observe about the Genesis 5 genealogies being multiples of 5 with a few exceptions that special? Given any integer, we can write it as a multiple of 5 plus or minus at most 2 multiples of 7. Is there something special about the exceptions using the "minus" option, while none use the "plus" option?
It's special because it's too unlikely that it is a coincidence. That means the genealogy was intentionally restricted to certain types numbers which means it can't be a literal genealogy.
@@Returnality If it was all multiples of 5s or all multiples of 5 plus or minus a 7, sure. But when it's a mixture, and in the case of Methuselah, we have to remove 2 multiples of 7, it doesn't seem as special.
@@smilingarcher5093 Disregarding your personal feelings about what makes something special, the facts are still that, even regarding Methuselah, the numbers we see are too unlikely to be coincidental.
Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it.
So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that.
So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned.
The reason why blood must be spilled for forgiveness of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough to temporarily cover some sins. (it did not allow forgiveness of sins, Unlike Jesus's, it only temporarily covered them). Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. Jesus was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV.
ua-cam.com/video/lbb4xwYj19g/v-deo.html
Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument.
Regarding Christianity watch InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus reliability of NT. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true.
U
I am truly surprised with comments regarding “it is not a fact, it’s a theory” - which supposed to discredit representative of YEC , whereas actually only show a disrespect and bias of people making those comments. It is just plainly dishonest to take these words out of context, shame on you.
In his opening statement dr. Boot says: “Evolution actually is not a scientific theory unlike theories like gravity or thermodynamics or quantum mechanics. General evolution cannot be studied in any direct way, it can't be replicated in laboratory and their experimental conditions. It's a hot historical story of how particles became people. One of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, Karl Popper called darwin's basic idea “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research project he argued that it was unfalsifiable”. The Nobel laureate in physics Robert Laughlin agreed and he argues that general evolution is anti-science and involves explanations that have no implications and cannot be tested” [22:01]
In light of that, only moron could make a suggestion that Dr.Boot does not understand what the word “theory” means in scientific sense. Would you really imply that he considers mentioned gravity, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics as not facts? No, because he didn’t suggest anything not even close to idea “if it’s a theory, that is not a fact then!”. And the very sentence before midcrop, Boot said: “evolution is a worldview, quantum mechanics is a falliable idea” because he recognizes MJ’s category error - to compare historical narrative with falsifiable scientific theory.
The mic-drop gesture and sentence “it is not a fact, it’s a theory” was about MJ finally calling evolution a theory (remember, Boot said it is incorrect in light of qualifications of what scientific theory is), after numerous, repeatedly calling it as scientific fact (which is pure lunacy) earlier: “holding to the scientific fact that humans evolved from a common ancestor that we share with the great apes” (MJ opening statement 03:13). Boot was pointing that out [around 57:00] - absurdity of calling evolution “scientific fact” while holding different perspective on whole that process than the majority of the theistic-evolutionists scientists. And in the last words of cross-examination MJ just contradict his previous rhetoric, using word theory (scientific theory can be false. Scientific fact -nope).
Earth is spherical - that can be called now scientific fact as we know it from empirical data, which verified the theory. Statements like “Earth is flat” or “Earth is cube” are scientific theories as well, but they got falsified. Geocentric model is also. If something is scientific theory, it does not mean it corresponds with reality or not. It means: this is explanatory idea which describes something observable, testable, repeatable, and above all falsifiable. Statement “humans evolved from a common ancestor” fits any of the requirements above. Nothing but mythological, wishful thinking. In the next 50 years there would be any atheist believing that nonsense, I presume. Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, James Tour and others - their influence is unstoppable. All unbelievers would change positions to some variation of intelligent design hypothesis with aliens constructing forms of life on earth, and only theistic evolutionist would stick to Darwinism. Disappointing.
What do you expect from YECs? You were surprised? I wasn't lol
Even the reply to this comment about how people misunderstood the "just a theory" comment misunderstood the explanatory comment.
You are an idiot. Evolution is true. True example of the Dunnung-Kruger effect. Why is it called a theory?
What video is Michael refering to when dr. Boot mentions Jesus's words about the Flood (50:47)? I can't find it
ua-cam.com/video/Q07gxxbggJs/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/lLSyiJ9KUCo/v-deo.html
The YEC guy asked why it's only recently that we're reinterpreting Genesis to be compatible with evolution. I would ask why it's only recently that we've reinterpreted the bible to allow for a spherical earth orbiting the sun.
Yes! I’m looking forward to this, super stoked!
You gotta quote star wars correctly.
"I've been looking forward to this"- Dooku
我喜欢耶稣JP haha! My bad, I thought I’d add a little ‘spin’ to it, you know... Definitely don’t want to do Star Wars injustice.
Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it.
So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that.
So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned.
The reason why blood must be spilled for forgiveness of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough to temporarily cover some sins. (it did not allow forgiveness of sins, Unlike Jesus's, it only temporarily covered them). Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. Jesus was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV.
ua-cam.com/video/lbb4xwYj19g/v-deo.html
Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument.
Regarding Christianity watch InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus reliability of NT. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true.
H
The Dr. sounds better than Kent Hovind I will give him that.
Edit: Lol don't take me out of context I am not a YEC lol YEC is far from the truth lol.
Unquestionably.
I really like that he didn't make this a question of orthodoxy, it really makes for a healthy but honest discussion
Kent hovimd is a beast at a debate. He hasnt lost yet.
That's what happens when truth is on your side
There's many more like this defender of YEC. on the UA-cam channel 'NorthWest Creation Network'. Many of them are PhD.'s in their own field or just very well studied. Ranging from astronomers to biologists and anthropology and archaeology.
@@remieres I don't really agree with YEC I go with theistic evolution.
IP, thanks so much for being a great and well-researched channel. I have a question. If you are familiar with it, what do you think of Michael Huemer's phenomenal conservatism? Or any of his work for that matter? His stuff seems very plausible, and I would like to know your opinion. Thanks!
Or, consider this:
ua-cam.com/video/-1UekVpEuws/v-deo.html
Just want to give a shoutout and thank you for your awesome videos especially the genesis 1-11 series
Your closing statement was pretty good man! Great debate overall as well.
Good closing statement, but it doesn't really serve his cause.
Here is only a five minute opposition to evolution.
ua-cam.com/video/-1UekVpEuws/v-deo.html
Dr Boot was great . He understands theology . I love you IP but your theistic evolution is dangerous .
The theistic evolutionary hypothesis has destroyed the faith of many. It is accusing God of lying and using evolution.
RE: Communication: Alan Greenspan - ‘ I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant’ The literal meaning of spoken or written words is best known only by the speaker or writer. Wherever possible Scripture should be considered as the first resource for understanding Scripture.
Great debate, I really enjoyed it.
At first I didn’t realize you were part of the debate! But you’re Micheal
Yep, that is me!
It's really disingenuous to the text of scripture to force evolution into a text that has nothing to do with it.
Or a young Earth
That's not I.P.'s position. He doesn't argue the Bible teaches evolution and never has. Virtually no theistic evolutionist argues scripture teaches evolution. The view of most is that scripture simply isnt interested in describing biological origins.
Daniel Lowry So Jesus didn’t believe sin entered into the world causing death via Adams transgression?
@@Actuary1776 you could actually watch I.P.s videos on the topic and see that your statement is ultimately a strawman
Daniel Lowry That’s wasn’t a statement that was a question. I’m not sure how a question can be a straw man, but I’m sure you will refuse to answer nonetheless. You are equivocating.
I like his closing statement, that we shouldn't rush to reinterpret scripture based on evolution. Because we interpret it based on good scholarship and the text :)
IP.
Do you have the debate between you and Matt D? I've watched many of his AXP videos and would love to see the debate.
I looked on the IP UA-cam channel, and nothing popped out.
Go to the playlist section and click on the playlist of my live debates
@@InspiringPhilosophy Thanks.
"It's a theory, not a fact!"
Oh boy, I told you so
*takes several gulps of USSR branded extra strength Vodka*
“When someone openly says something is a fact, when in fact it is a theory. The proper response is “it’s not a fact, it’s a theory.”
If you don’t want to hear someone say “it’s not a fact, it’s a theory then don’t call it a fact 🤗
Super simple.
@@matthewmanucci Evolution is both a fact and theory though. It's a fact that animals evolve and change over time. Natural selection is the theory part (explanation of the mechanism by which animals demonstrably evolve.) Evolution was an observable fact even before Darwin. Lamarkian Evolution proposed to explain why animals evolved before Darwin released his book, but Lamark's hypothesis was incorrect as an explanation. Darwin's proposal was the one that stuck because it was such a powerful and useful explanation.
@@ag-bf3ty Nothing can't be fact and theory
A theory is an explanation deemed correctly about a fact. For example, we don't have a "fact of relativity" or a "fact of gravity", these are deemed the correct interpretation of various facts.
In the same way evolution isn't a fact, it's deemed the correct interpretation.
@@Joleyn-Joy are a believer
Anyone check out James Tour's lectures explaining that evolution is a complete myth? He is a chemist who has been working with molecules for over 40 years. I'd recommend checking it out.
We know from historical fact evo was cooked up in modern times and repackaged by freemasonry and pushed into the education system through the Royal Society and UNESCO. Lookup "the pagan roots of evolution" video
Apostate Agreed. I don’t get the impression he believes evolution is a “myth”, he questions the explanatory power of evolution with respect to the diversity of life. I think he would agree with Stephen Meyer who often says “Evolution explains survival, not arrival.”
@@ttsnews8035 What have you been smoking?
@@jacobpilavin7056 Is there something you disagree with in the video or are you just a troll?
@@ttsnews8035 How do your crack pot ideas have any relevance to they accuracy of evolution.
Wow what an interesting debate! Both were strong with their argument & it was hard to decide which one is right.
We have no way to know, but the search for understanding is a worthy endeavor.
This was amazing. I’m not in the TE boat....... yet. Currently swimming in the framework (Kline) & OEC (Ross) pool. Any chance that you would debate Hugh Ross or Ken S. On TE vs OEC?
Who won the debate
Michael Jones is the director of the non profit organization of "InspiringPhilosophy"
lol dude just say hes a youtuber that has a channel called inspiring philosophy
He actually used the whole "it's a theory, not a fact" argument...... MASSIVE FACEPALM
There’s nothing wrong with that, because a scientific theory is a collection of scientific data and facts supporting the subject which is macro evolution. But supporting it isn’t proving it. And the evidence doesn’t really lead to macro evolution. So you can say it’s still a theory not a fact. To be a fact, it needs to be provable as if you’re proving that grass is green.
@@tan1591
Is gravitational theory not a fact? Is germ theory not a fact?
These specific theories can be revised based on additional data but you couldn't argue that there isn't gravitational force, nor that organisms could radically change in adaptation like presented in macro evolution
NR Ramirez it's wrong to dismiss something in science for being “just a theory”, gravity is just a theory, you can claim that a fact is an observation but in that case both evolution and gravity are theories supported by facts. Also: the evidence does lead to macro evolution heavily: fossils, genetic markers, embryological stages, anatomical homologies (as the wings of bats and the hands of humans) and much more. There is no proving in science, so if thats a problem for you, then don't believe in black holes, germs, genetics, gravity, etc.
我喜欢耶稣JP please tell me how evolution is observable as seeing an apple falling to the ground?
Agustin Vitti gravity is observable. Having the same function doesn’t prove that we evolve.
Fantastic exchange. Both speakerd did very well! Let's keep the conversation going. 😇
N.B: I like when it was said that God did not just give to the world the bible. He gave the Bible AND the Church. 👏🏻
I shall watch this evening.
Had I not been open to theistic evolution prior to this debate and not heard Michael's opening, Dr. Boots opening statement would have made me more open to theistic evolution.
Don't be more open to TE ... it has been condemned as a heresy more than a thousand years ago, and recently being warmed up again by Teilhard DeChardin. It is untenable.
@@annonum1103
Thanks but I'm more interested in knowing truth than I am being considered heretical.
Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it.
So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that.
So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned.
The reason why blood must be spilled for forgiveness of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough to temporarily cover some sins. (it did not allow forgiveness of sins, Unlike Jesus's, it only temporarily covered them). Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. Jesus was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV.
ua-cam.com/video/lbb4xwYj19g/v-deo.html
Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument.
Regarding Christianity watch InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus reliability of NT. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true.
H
Why?
@@Phill3v7 Unfortunately it is an untenable position to hold and not one you ought to commit to if the truth is your concern.
Did Joe just do the 'were you there'
W H O S J O E
Which book would you recommend for making a biblical case for theistic evolution? I’m not interested in proving it scientifically, as I’m getting ready to switch majors from industrial technology to biology so there’s no need. Also, this is Gabriel (the young guy holding his pitbull in his profile pic) from Christian Apologetics Alliance.
As a YEC myself im glad to see you debate a good one. I'll be the first to admit not all of us are. I'd love to see you debate Dr. Jason Lisle sometime. Though we disagree on this I still consider you my brother in christ. Thanks for all you do.
1:06:34 I think that's the proudest display of ignorance I've ever seen
William Gaylord As in the yellow guy in the suit wrong or IP?
@@Drp_br_ the yellow guy lol
lol yeah, I was amazed that the guy is a "Dr." but doesn't even know what a scientific theory means.
Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it.
So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that.
So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned.
The reason why blood must be spilled for forgiveness of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough to temporarily cover some sins. (it did not allow forgiveness of sins, Unlike Jesus's, it only temporarily covered them). Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. Jesus was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV.
ua-cam.com/video/lbb4xwYj19g/v-deo.html
Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument.
Regarding Christianity watch InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus reliability of NT. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true.
U
@@lovedeepthandi3154 that's a Dr. of theology.
This was actually one of the best debates I've seen. Both made several very good convincing points. I will say that Dr. Boot made a terrible mistake when he said that we shouldn't need a Hebrew/Greek scholar to explain the Bible to us. A theologian with a doctorate degree, he should be well versed with the reasons why studying these languages is so important. I will also say that Jones' line about knowing how theories are used was very wrong too. Theories are not scientific facts. It used to be that an untested (or lightly tested) scientific idea was called a "hypothesis". After a series of experiments (and years of documentation and continued experiments), a hypothesis would become a "theory". A theory was a highly probable idea of the truth of the universe, but because other alternative explanations exist, it is still "just a theory". Once any opposing explanation against the theory have been debunked, the theory becomes a "law". We see this in the "First/Second Law of Thermal Dynamics", the "Law of Mass Conversion", the "Law of Gravity", the "Law of Momentum", ect.. It is only in recent decades that scientists have been claiming that theory and law are interchangeable. Given that it is always evolutionists promoting this redefinition of the word "theory" to argue that evolution and the Big Bang are on the same level as gravity and momentum, it looks as though it's a propaganda redefining to promote an agenda (like the word gender no longer meaning the same thing as sex).
I'm a young earth-creationists, but your points about the Hebrew language at the beginning were especially convincing. However, I would say that even to accept a long age of the universe, the Theory of Evolution does run into a couple of Biblical problems. First that Genesis says that God "reached down into the earth to create man." Perhaps I could accept an evolution of the animals, but Adam seems to be specifically created raw by God, not appointed after existence. The evolution of the animals does have a conflict with the "kinds" idea. But the idea of God "appointing purpose" does make sense. The New Testament describes that "In Him were all things made, and apart from Him nothing has be made that has been made." The "seven day period" described in Genesis could be billions of years after God made the matter, when He began to "assign it" purpose, though, so I think I could at least accept an ancient earth hypothesis. It works in theory, but I'm not able to consider it law, though, as there are some good competing arguments against it.
Not a Christian, but I always wonder why people say the kinds idea does not coincide with evolution. Evolution is descent with inherent modification. Meaning every child is just a modified version of the parents before it.
So all children no matter how changed or removed by time will still be in the same family as it's parent and their parent's parent and so on and so forth.
Thus they are still the same kind.
Up until a certain ape species starts replacing their bodies with machines or something lol.
His interpretation of the first verse of genesis is ridiculous. It doesn’t only contradict all tradition, but it doesn’t make sense language wise.
How is it that the next verse starts with and?
@@bennywolfe4357 you didn't provide evidence to back any of your claims.
The fact that the Hebrew names for many predatory animals is based on their violent tendencies is what convinced me that there was death in the garden, and that it’s not what the earliest Jews actually believed, lest they thought Adam had failed to name the animals himself.
I never will understand why any Christian would bow to the Christ-rejecting world’s beliefs on the origin of man!
A nice, cordial discussion
The @ mic drop moment is very revealing, as it shows how we can not even agree on basic terms, such as "theory" and "fact." Why Dr. Boot changes the well-known definitions of such words to defend his presuppositionalism is really frustrating. But it just seems how these kind of debates roll these days. Aside from that, Dr. Boot's presentation was better than I expected. But it still fell short. I wanted to know if Dr. Boot has managed to persuade anyone to really consider the Gospel, by somehow "debunking" evolution first. I would really like to see such claims documented. I have never, ever met anyone who has met Christ that way. Normally, people become Christians first, then they somehow get persuaded to go the Young Earth Creationist route.... Great job, Michael. Keep up the great work!
I had to be persuaded of young-Earth creationism first before becoming a Christian.
@@Xenosaurian Very interesting. So, you do have me curious: What type of advanced scientific research have you had that led you to the conclusion that the earth is young, as a non-believer? Was this through a masters or PhD program somewhere?
That’s exactly what happened to me I became a Christian because of the evidence for the resurrection then because YEC then became an OEC then a theistic evolutionist
Joe boot won, especially with the closing statements.
Abraham Girt
He didn’t have to.
Abraham Girt
Whether you say “in the beginning” or “when” it doesn’t get you evolution.
true
Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it.
So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that.
So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned.
The reason why blood must be spilled for forgiveness of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough to temporarily cover some sins. (it did not allow forgiveness of sins, Unlike Jesus's, it only temporarily covered them). Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. Jesus was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV.
ua-cam.com/video/lbb4xwYj19g/v-deo.html
Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument.
Regarding Christianity watch InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus reliability of NT. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true.
H
@@Toadzx Exactly! So many textual and continuing revelation teachings from Moses, the prophets, and the N.T. writings show clearly that the Bible teaches creation. The Bible never even suggests evolution. I like the scriptures that Boot referred to, as they confirm the plain teaching of Genesis 1-11.
Agreeing to disagree is important, unity should be OK w/o uniformity of thought. Keep up with the debates...they should go on and on in a spirit of love and the quest of understanding our texts better as long as we have breath.
Unity with the truth is good. Unity with untruth is NOT good.
I would like the dr to answer my question if you happen to meet him again, what does Cain meant in genesis 4:14 when he says to God "Since You expelled me today from the face of the ground and I must be hidden from Your presence, then I will be a restless wanderer on the earth-anyone who finds me will kill me!”
Genesis 4:14 TLV?
I read it in kjv and the wording is almost the same, still mentions other people.
Was he talking about future generations or other people?
А nice debate and a very interesting and productive one. I am neither a creationist nor a theistic evolutionist, I think I'm in the middle. I believe in the evolution of forms but not in the evolution of stages, that is I believe that God certainly created the material world (Cosmos), the Life and the first Human Pair from nothing. Now between these three direct interventions there could have been an evolutionary process, also guided and controlled by God. But this whole thing is just my guesswork really. What we see nowadays in terms of evolutionary processes is not what it really was before the Fall, for I am a believer in a universal Fall theory (or so I call it for lack of a better word), meaning that not only human pair but also the whole creation suffered the Fall. Therefore, we can't really know what it was before the Fall due to science, because even the basic laws of the material world may have been changed completely. Holding that view one can really say that there could have been a real 7-days creation of the material world by God, or there could have been a long 7 stage process - we don't know. All we know is the fallen world we live in and we even don't see the invisible barrier in the timeline, the barrier that makes all our modern science a product of guesswork when scientist touch the problems of origin of cosmos, life and humanity. And yes, not science only but also a biblical study. God clearly didn't want us to concentrate on 'how' He created Cosmos and life and Humans. He wanted us to know:
1. Everything was created by One triune God. There was nothing 'before' God.
2. God created the first human pair and the pair entered Eden. What Eden was in truth no one knows for sure (for it was not merely a simple garden), we know only that he was placed on this Earth.
3. The human pair disobeyed God and stole the fruit of knowledge instead of waiting for a time when God freely gives them the fruit. This sin separated us from God and made us mortal, prone to disease and suffering, mentally disorganized and limited in our free will (before the Fall we could freely choose between whether to let evil enter into our life or reject all evil utterly, after the Fall we're constantly struggling between doing good or evil acts, some denominations of Christians therefore even claim that our post-Fall freedom is not a freedom at all and in some sense it is not).
4. Jesus Christ in His infinite mercy and grace entered our plane of existence, lived among us, toiled among us, had thirst and hunger and could feel torture and pain and experienced everything (even death). But He rejected sin (what Adam was unable to do) and lived a sinless life and gave His life for us on the Cross to deliver us from our fallen state. Through His Life and Death and Resurrection we are saved and made possible to enter Heaven and not only regain what was lost in Eden but enter an unfallen state.
5. Whatever there is about specifics of origin of cosmos, life and humankind we now don't know. God will show us in eternity after we pass His test here on Earth. For as Adam and Eve had limited knowledge and had to learn to trust and love God so do we need the same trait of character. I will even go as far to say that even those in Hell will be granted full knowledge of these things (if they ask for it of course, which I personally doubt)
So I guess that makes me a theistic biblical pre-Fall agnostic, after all. But I don't think a person who is a creationist or a theistic evolutionist is a 'sinner' in the eyes of Christ. God doesn't care about the things we could not possible know and therefore would never blame us for imperfect guessing.
For in Your sight a thousand years are but a day that passes, or a watch of the night.
Psalm 90:4
Maybe the "day" in creation wasn't a day in human terms 🤷♂️🤷♂️
This one is more formal than the debate he had with Hovind, that one is just funny
Joe did terrific here. I appreciate Michael Jones coming out to debate although he seemed to misunderstand the proper use of his cross examination time. He was supposed to be asking questions, not replying to Joe’s answers and making statements whenever Joe’s answers gave him problems. He is suppose to ask, allow for an answer (or a question regarding clarification in pertaining to the question) and then move on to t he next question. This is why we seemed so rushed for time and concerned that he was running out.
Nice job Michael!
Thank you
@@InspiringPhilosophy Will you be releasing the q and a?
@@TheMasterfulMishaps That was not recorded
Hey Michael, will you ever do a debate with Bart Ehrman? He is one of the lead textual critics and seems to make really good points about the development of Christianity. I know you heard of him, I'm just wondering if you'll ever get a chance to debate him.
yarn rav On mostly everything but the resurrection Ehrman is pretty inconsistent with his debates he’s changed his view numerous times on topics it’s difficult to listen to at times
@@lebronbrady6638 What exactly has Ehrman changed his views on??? He believes in the existence of a historical Jesus like almost all scholars do. He doesn't believe that the gospels are historically accurate though. What I meant when I said debate was the consistency of the new testament. Most Christians believe that the new testament (the gospels in particular) have no contradictions. Bart Ehrman debates many fundamental Evangelical Christians on the idea that the gospels do have contradictions and they don't paint an accurate picture of the historical Jesus.
Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it.
So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that.
So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned.
The reason why blood must be spilled for forgiveness of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough to temporarily cover some sins. (it did not allow forgiveness of sins, Unlike Jesus's, it only temporarily covered them). Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. Jesus was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV.
ua-cam.com/video/lbb4xwYj19g/v-deo.html
Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument.
Regarding Christianity watch InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus reliability of NT. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true.
J
What is IP's denominational leanings?
I just watched his video with PineCreek and he said that he goes to a non-denominational church. He says Lifepoint Church in Tucson. I don't know where he is now, though, as that was 2018.
reshit is not a direct translation? I can see the difficulties faced by the monks. Could it mean he redid his works?
IP almost has 144,000 subscribers! Revelations 14 connection?
Maybe they’re the only ones that have it figured out. ;)
@18:40 "force us to reinterpret scripture"
That's just not true. OEC was espoused by people in the 300's AD.
Good point
Show me.
I don't believe it.
Prove it.
Jamie Russell In debating Christopher Hitchens, Dr. William Lane Craig said “Saint Augustine in the A.D. 300’s, in his commentary on Genesis, pointed out that the days don't need to be taken literally nor need the creation be a few thousand years ago. Indeed, he suggested that God made the world with certain special potencies that would gradually unfold over time and develop. This interpretation came 1,500 years before Darwin so that it is not a forced retreat in the face of modern science.”
Unbelievable UA-cam/Podcast will have James Tour on 2/28/20 to debate origin of life. Will be good!
At 24:37
"Dont forget it's on going................."
This is where the mic drop really is.
Imagine unironically using the 'it's just a theory' argument
Marek Kizer
Well common decent is an assumption based on a secular worldview
@@JohnBrown-of4pw Prove it.
Marek Kizer
Prove what
@@JohnBrown-of4pw Your assertion.
Marek Kizer
Charles Darwin, who is credited for the theory of evolution by common decent held to an agnostic secular worldview, and many of his disciples also held similar worldviews,
When he said that it's not really a theory, I think he was trying to show that compared to other well accepted theories it can't be directly studied or demonstrated. It relies on historical claims.
Evolution doesn't rely on historical claims though.
@Apostate what does a jury have to do with science? Its one thing to conclude who dunnit and another thing to do science
@@Thrawnmulus I am not saying that there is no evidence for evolution, there is. But it is not the sort that we have for gravity. We can not produce evolution in a lab or experiment on it. We look at fossils and DNA and make inferences on how all of it must be related. It's like looking at archaic artifacts and building a story around them. It is some evidence but not science in the ultimate sense. I could ofcourse be wrong in my understanding, so I'm open to discussing and learning. I admit I do not know much on evolution.
@Apostate history and humanities are not considered science disciplines because they do not rely on scientific method. Same goes for a jury in a court case. Keep in mind historical evidence is very real and worth accepting.
@@busyharbor75 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5918244/ We'Ve NeVeR sEeN eVoLuTiOn In A lAb.
IP, I believe basically the same thing as you, that Adam and Eve were simply elected to a covenant with god, but can you( or anyone else who holds your view)
answer why In Jesus’ genealogy to adam in both Matthew and Luke describe Adam as the son of god, in my opinion this means they were created. So do you think it’s plausible Adam and Eve were created while other humans evolved?
On that point if view, you can consider that what happens is that they became the first of their “royal lineage” as they were the first elected. And some Jews at Jesus time had a very literal view about genesis so you can go both ways i guess.
I love how respectful this debate was compared to Kent Hovind vs IP
Man I couldn't finish that one. Kent wouldn't even acknowledge the hebrew text and they were both incredibly rude to each other.
"Theory" in science refers to a well-supported idea based on evidence. He's confusing theory with hypothesis.
It has only advanced to theory because it's the only possible non theistic explanation for creation. The evidence is soundly against evolution. Any other theory would have been abandoned if this much negative evidence existed.
Evolution is a hypothesis. Desperate atheists pretending that it is a theory does not make it one. Evolution is like one of those animated dinosaur “documentaries.”
@@Kahless_the_Unforgettable no.
@@Austin1990 evolution is a theory. There is nothing inherently anti-theistic about it.
jordan cox
But the hypothesis can’t be tested
Jones is arguing that the concept of evolution is compatible with what's in the Bible, and it seems Boot is arguing against the whole idea of evolution based not just on what's in the Bible but also centuries of Christian tradition. Because of that I felt this debate was not a success because the debaters were having two different conversations with different objectives, unfortunately. I know that happens in a lot of debates though. Still enjoyed the video a lot, especially Jones' discourse and examination of the early Genesis chapters and really appreciate this channel!
Have you written any books?
Not yet
InspiringPhilosophy Man, keep us informed if you ever do. As a guy very active in studying scripture, Orthodox-Catholic tradition, and philosophy, and generally thinking in very similar directions as you - I would love to just devour all the wonder you could pen. You are by far one of the greatest teachers and most beneficial content creators I have come across on UA-cam. God bless.
Great job, love your stuff man - keep running the race!
A nice suit Michael. Plus your points are very well understood and not a bit convoluted as the other person. Thanks for your research and interest in helping us understand the Bible. I think when God created is a better translation than in the beginning God created and that makes a big difference.
You answered one of my main concerns to the idea that Adam and Eve were not the first humans. Thanks.
Felipe Forti
Why would you have that concern that Adam and Eve weren't first humans?
That's what the Bible says.
mike jones People who think that everything started with Adam and Eve in a literal sense. Then the questions arise how exactly did they expand humanity with such diversity especially with limited amount of offsprings. And people assume that Cain’s wife must of been his sister ect ect. Assumptions that not only don’t make sense but are also fallible.
Emanuel Botello
Everything did start with Adam and Eve.
How do we know? Because God said so.
God said it is not good for man to be alone. Then Eve comes out after the first surgery in the world takes place.
This should be enough evidence for you that Eve was the first woman and Adam the first man.
Bible says EVE is the mother of all living. As in human beings.
All you gotta do is read the Bible and not let yourself being fooled by false teachers and false doctrines.
Trust God.
@@114wildfire Well what do you think people are trying to do? Scholars study the culture and the original languages of the Israelites to get the right context. If you really think that they understood it through our modern sense then I don't know what to tell you. Get into biblical hermeneutics it really helps just know YEC is a dying view and scholars don't take it seriously there are better views than this you should check out Hugh Ross.
@305 Thief
I personally believe that Christian's/fake Christian's
Try to make evolution fit with bible because they're scared the world will ridicule them. Because they're still of the world.
I think IP scares a lot of strict fundamentalists by trying to reconcile the old stories with modern scientific evidence. There is no evidence, for example, of a global flood at any time in earth's history. So IP accepts that scientific evidence, like any rational person does, and therefore has to interpret the flood story as being a local event - because there is at least some evidence for that. Or, since the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, IP does the rational thing and accepts this evidence for what it is. In which case, Genesis has to be interpreted as a metaphor, not a literal event. Uh oh, IP! Now you've done it! You're arguing that the Bible contains metaphors about things that fundamentalists have traditionally interpreted as actual events! So with that logic, anything in the Bible can be a metaphor, such as Jesus willingly dying on the cross to pay for mankind's sins. Maybe that's not an actual event; maybe that's a metaphor, as well! No, IP, don't do it! Don't do it! You're challenging my faith! (kidding)
Amino acids and proteins are a wrench in the evolutionary theory. The created order post-fall holds a different ontological status than creation pre-fall, thus any scientific observation of the universe must take into account Satan's rebellion, man's fallen and namely the noetic effects of sin and sins effects on the material universe.
Our starting point isn't the bible and scientific observations and now how do we reconcile these two but indeed our start point is our worldview before our reconciliation attempt. Our presuppositions do impact our inquiry.
Your comment perfectly describes a logical path one might take in holding to this view, in that it is great.
Wow, IP. You did *really* well in this debate, I just wish your interlocutor wasn't so hostile. He actively misunderstood and misrepresented your position, and that is a clear sign that he didn't care to have a rational discussion. I hope someday we'll be able to have a dialogue about our opposing views; I can promise to be much more charitable than Mr. Boot. Stay awesome, and keep up the good work.
Well a huge heresy and lie leading people to hell isnt exactly something to be passive about. (evolution helps a unbeliever further suppress the truths they already know, eventually leading to hell) evolution has no proof and is but a farce.
@ 1:06:34 Boot lost a lot of credibility in my opinion. I appreciate this video a lot to consider and to research into think about
I want Michael Jones to debate "Secular Talk."
Abraham Girt why do you think I want to see the debate?
3/6 Re age of the earth: (many Christians have missed it)
The wording in Genesis 1:1 "created" means in Hebrew "to fashion anew;restore". Note the "waters" were already here at the start....meaning....the account begins with the beginning of the "new restoration" - God was "restoring" what some kind of cataclysmic event had caused - the destruction of the previous "earth" which caused all the chaos, darkness, etc. So apparently there was already an existing earth/life forms that the Bible is silent about.
So that could explain many things that are older than the 6,000 yrs. or whatever.
Does IP believe Humans created before of Adam and Eve where made in the image of God?
Boot did an outstanding job.
Very convincing.
Great discussion.
Dr joe spent his entire opening to talk about why he thinks evolution is wrong and gave no facts to the contrary to lead us to sway to creation what I heard was Ip lay an amazing argument and dr joe come behind him and say “ he’s just wrong, thank you” dr joe talked for over 10 mins before quoting any scripture and gave arguments against things that Ip isn’t even saying
It’s funny because theistic evolutionist wanted to rely on scripture but the YEC didn’t rely on that much.
@@InspiringPhilosophy What's a rough ballpark estimate on how long ago you think Adam and Eve lived? Thanks
Smiling Archer
Didn’t he say a few thousand BC in the debate? This has been determined convincingly.with genetic analysis.
Great job 👍😄
Interesting debate! I am not inclined to embrace unguided single origin biological evolution as a natural process, but I don't think it is a salvation issue either. So much evidence to examine before I take a solid stance. I loved this debate. Thanks IP!
The entire argument in your opening statement concerning Genesis 1:1 was strained and inaccurate. First, the argument about the meaning of "bereshith" is very artificial and involves some rather ingenious verbal finagling. You rationale for changing the meaning of "bershith" to "when" (in spite of what Heiser says) is imaginative but inaccurate and vague. Second, the discussion of the word bara as not meaning "creating" and then using two scriptures from Hebrew poetry, where it is obviously using figurative language, and then using those scriptures to state that "bara" does not mean physical creation, even though it is not figurative language being used in a poetic passage is a tricky deception. It's true that God was not talking about creating a physical heart from scratch. That is obvious from the context. However, in Genesis 1:1 God is talking about physically creating heavens and earth. And that's just the first couple minutes of your argument. Your arguments to that point are improper.
@@justchilling704 I've never really heard atheists deal with Genesis other than to ridicule it. I don't think IP is ridiculing Genesis 1, but he is trying very hard to find a way to fit it into his evolutionary mold. He states that it is a "fact" that man descended from a "common ancestor" with apes. Sorry, but that is not a fact. It is a narrative. Narratives are not facts.
@@justchilling704 Makes you think, doesn't it? Once you compromise on one thing, it usually does not stop there. There is abundant scientific evidence that is against evolution. The fact that he doesn't investigate that evidence is suspicious to me.
dooglitas
His explanation of the Hebrew was fine for a while. It made perfect sense, even closed the option for a time gap between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. But, it still said the same thing from a simple reading, until he started forcing evolution into it.
@@Austin1990 Yes. He ignores the fact that the order of creation events is not consistent with the evolutionist order of events. Also, there is no way to logically say that evolution is consistent with the creation of a literal Adam and Eve, as he tries to claim. Also, he ignores the issue of the flood. If the flood of Noah happened, all fossil evidence before the flood would have been wiped out. He must deny a literal interpretation of creation AND a literal flood of Noah. He is hanging on the edge of falling into apostasy, whether he admits it or not. Compromise will eventually lead to apostasy. It has happened to thousands of Christians.
dooglitas
Technically, he is saying that Genesis is talking about appointment rather than creation. And, yeah, he had to reference someone he did not even agree with to explain the creation of Adam and Eve, bypassing the issue.
I have actually thought about IP and other Christians believing in evolution for a while. My conclusion is that changing their mind with facts and reason will not work.
Essentially, they have elevated what people say above the Bible. Instead of looking deeply into the actual science to question what people say, he reads philosophical texts and reinterprets what the Bible is actually saying. I am not saying that you cannot investigate Biblical interpretation. I am talking about the motive.
Since he put man’s word above God’s word in his heart, it would only be a matter of time before something else came up that would question God’s word.
I am not talking about blind faith. Christianity is a relationship with God and must be based upon the Holy Spirit.
Dr. Boot's response to the literal age question was pretty poor. In fact, all of his responses to your questions were very poor. Great job!
Yeah, I don’t want to sound arrogant but I wish he prepared more. I don’t think he knew much about me.
@@InspiringPhilosophy I agree. It seems that a lot of people you debate don't know a lot about you before hand, which is a mistake.
Does seem to me that you can believe in the literal age pretty easy if you believe the genealogy isn't complete. Adding in some additional people between Noah and Abraham would solve Abraham's view of how old people can be and still become a father.
@@SwingDancer61 but then you wouldn't be taking the bible literally, which would be the point.
@@thecrazyslopoke No, you would be taking the Bible literally. Adding in additional people to the genealogy doesn't mean that the information that is there is wrong.
very refreshing take on evolution thank you
@InspiringPhilosophy 25 minutes in: at any point does either party consider that maybe this isn’t a scientific text trying to describe the origins of the universe?