Origins: Creation not Confusion
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 вер 2024
- Join Origins host Ray Heiple as he welcomes, Gary Bates for, “Creation not Confusion.” Are the days in the Genesis account, millions of years? This question is raised very often by people seeking answers regarding the Bible. Many Christians reject the straightforward, historical reading of the Genesis creation account simply because they believe it cannot be verified by science. Our guest on this program says that ultimately, most of the answers for this question stems from the very first book!
#OR1812
Almost 40 years I spent believing in evolution and millions of years. No Christians had answers for me concerning the science. Understanding historical versus operational science led me to see the truth of a single catastrophic global flood as a logical cause for the sedimentary layers covering the earth. The fact that we only observe kinds bringing forth kinds. Thank you Jesus for being patient with my hard heart towards you in my younger years. I pray your love be shown to all who are seeking your truth. Thanks to this ministry and quality scientists that trust scripture as written.
" logical cause for the sedimentary layers covering the earth" *_NO._* While it is true that there is evidence of a massive flood several thousand years ago, this does *_NOT_* account for the fossils found in sedimentation layers. There are many different sedimentation layers, and the same types of fossils are found in the same layers no matter where they are found on the earth.
"The fact that we only observe kinds bringing forth kinds" That's not a fact, it's a bold face lie. You are mistakenly accepting the fallible words of prideful men who seek to steal Christ's glory.
"Thank you Jesus for being patient with my hard heart towards you in my younger years" An excellent prayer. Now you will need to pray for even more patience as you work yourself out of this extreme delusion. Evolution is a proven fact. It is not at all at odds with the bible, unless you insist on interpreting it with the literalness of a 5 year old. Oh, but wait, a 5 year old would be too innocent to have an illegitimate agenda against science.
@@theTavis01 What a tall tale fraudster you are!🤪
Your understanding has cone thru the Holy Spirit, Christ alone has opened your eyes/ears and given you understanding. Something ONLY Christ can do. Prior you were dead in spirit and unable to grasp what was told/shared with you. It was “pearls before swines!” But thank God for his mercy and LOVE!!
@@sportdutch feel free to be more specific, to make your criticism constructive rather than petty.
Edukate yourselfs and teach your children and then give answers to the lost . Its so much pain among the youth. This is a formidabel teacher. God bless you
very deep and proved evidence that you have presented. God bless you again and more with the gift of knowledge!
The best History Chronicle of all time the past, present and future.
Excellent thanks.
When God created everything and said it was good , I think that's exactly when he created consciousness.
Science and evidence confirms creation.
I love how God says to prove things, just don't accept what people say. Use reasoning and don't be afraid to think. Study hard, don't ignore details that lead to foolish conclusions.
God has nothing to hide. He boldly starts out in the bible in verse one of His supernatural creation! People can complain all they want about that but they'll also never come up with science proving a natural creation. They'll just say we don't know yet, when we DO know, or they'll offer science fiction.
Praise God!!!
Evolutionary science is just science fiction.
When fish die they float they don't sink to the bottom
Every Fish without a swimmbladder, like a Shark, sinks.
If you need the threat of hell to act like a good person, you probably aren't a good person
If there is no God, you don't really have a definition of good that works anyway.
Besides, "the fear of the Lord" merely puts you in play. It doesn't save you. It's the Love of the Lord which does that...
Wow. That makes no sense, Kyle
No-one is good. Why would you say "act"? God wants us to BE good. We can't. So He sent Jesus to not only save us from the just penalty for sin, but to change us!
@@GrahameGould my point was that if you don't murder lie or steal purely to avoid hell then you're not a good person
@@kyleboffa793 yet Christians don’t really claim to be good. We aim to do good works, but we are still sinners. And not committing murder/stealing ect., does not save us from the wrath of God.
there is an astounding amount of willful ignorance going on here... for shame!! God is glorified by *_truth_*
What "wilful ignorance" are you referring to? Some of the comments?
@@PJRayment I was talking about the video. At 16:00 he literally says that he was wearing "glasses" which led him to decide on a biased conclusion *_before_* he looked at the data. That's not honest behavior. Science is not a competing theology - science is the study of truth. If you make up your mind *_before_* you look at the data you are being willfully ignorant. And as a result he gets everything wrong..
@@theTavis01
You have not understood what he was saying. He says that _everyone_ is "wearing glasses", and that he is wearing different glasses to the mainstream scientists. At 15:52 he says "Creationists and evolutionists, we've got the same facts. We've got the same rocks, we have the same fossils. But how do we come to differing conclusions about how they arose? Well remember I told you about our worldviews? You're [i.e. both creationists and evolutionists] already wearing a set of glasses that are in place before you ever interpret this data. You've already made your minds up about it."
"Science is not a competing theology - science is the study of truth."
It should be, but when it comes to historical or origins science, most scientists are wearing naturalistic glasses, i.e. they _a priori_ rule out supernatural explanations. A creationist wearing glasses that allow for supernatural explanations can choose from the best explanation, natural or supernatural, but a naturalistic scientist wearing naturalistic glasses can only choose the natural explanation, even if the evidence favours the supernatural one.
"If you make up your mind *_before_* you look at the data you are being willfully ignorant. "
Which is why the naturalistic scientists get it wrong, because they make up their minds *_before_* looking at the data that the explanations *must* be natural ones.
"And as a result he gets everything wrong."
You've argued that he has the wrong approach, but you haven't shown that he actually gets it wrong.
@@PJRayment Yes, he admits to having made up his own mind before he began. Then he assumes that everyone does that. But actual science is very rigorous, and also encourages the challenging of assumptions. Having a rigid immovable assumption is *_NOT_* science. In science you make a hypothesis, which is an assumption that is put to the test. If the data doesn't fit the hypothesis, the hypothesis is *_changed_* and the process repeats. Scientists do not enjoy this man's luxury of ignoring what the data says. They are, in a way, slaves to the truth. Darwinian evolution is observable. It's not made up. It has been studied by countless scientists for over a hundred years and as more data comes in it continues to affirm it. Even now with modern super high tech gene sequencing, it completely affirmed everything that has been observed in the fossil records as far as new species diverging from common ancestors. Evolution is actually one of the strongest scientific theories there is. Life definitely changes over time. Definitely. And it's been going on for a really really long time. And that just amplifies God's eternal nature and power. It is true that science is used to push various political and social agendas... but so is religion! It cannot be judged for its misuse.
"they a priori rule out supernatural explanations." Yes. Absolutely. That is how science works. Science can only function in the "natural" world because it relies on measurements. Think of it this way: the bible says that no man has ever seen God. That means that God cannot be measured or observed. That's why science has nothing to say about God. If a scientist is talking about God, their opinion is not scientific. Science can only look at the creation and not the creator, get it? Some atheists try to hijack evolution to use as an attack on religion, but this doesn't make the science any less true. Evolution does not rule out God. It explains more of the splendor of creation. Creation is an ongoing process and we art part of it and that's amazing.
"you haven't shown that he actually gets it wrong." I don't have time to watch the whole video again. He got pretty much everything wrong. He thinks that some lava rock is going to magically explain the formation of the Grand Canyon?? I've been to the Grand Canyon. First of all, the rim of the canyon is not raised. It was not deposited. It is cut straight down through flat land. It's a giant plateau on the southwestern side of the rockies. Ok? So it was cut through layers of rock that were already there. Secondly, I hiked to the bottom. It's 4000 feet deep. There is a false bottom halfway with a wide river bed. Then a narrower canyon inside of the larger canyon cutting down very deep. It would take a minimum of two absolutely massive flood events to carve that through rock that was *_already_* there. And in those rock layers they have found embedded fossils that confirm the findings of scientists elsewhere, with consistent placing within the layers.
I would suggest that you look at horse evolution. They are very well studied, with a dense fossil record stretching back 55 millions years. You can see, for example gradual changes adding into larger ones over time. You can see where new species diverged, like zebras
@@theTavis01
"Then he assumes that everyone does that."
No, that is not an assumption, but well documented, and he didn't say that that came _after_ adopting his own glasses. You made that bit up.
"But actual science is very rigorous, and also encourages the challenging of assumptions."
But not the assumption of naturalism.
"Having a rigid immovable assumption is *_NOT_* science."
You have just declared evolution and other origins science to not be science, as that has the rigid immovable assumption of naturalism.
"Scientists do not enjoy this man's luxury of ignoring what the data says."
He doesn't ignore what the data says. As he says, he views the data through different lenses. The data is still there, and accepted.
"Darwinian evolution is observable."
Even Richard Dawkins has admitted that it has never been observed. Who observed dinosaurs evolving into birds, or amphibians into reptiles, or fish into amphibians? I'd like an answer please. Give me names of those who observed those things.
"It has been studied by countless scientists for over a hundred years and as more data comes in it continues to affirm it."
No, the data is interpreted through naturalistic glasses. Are you denying that naturalism in science exists?
"Even now with modern super high tech gene sequencing, it completely affirmed everything that has been observed in the fossil records as far as new species diverging from common ancestors."
Actually, genetic information has often contradicted earlier views of evolution, and no, it is, again, simply _interpreted_ through naturalistic glasses.
"Evolution is actually one of the strongest scientific theories there is."
Utter rubbish. Unlike chemistry, gravity, physics, etc. it occurred in the past where it could not be observed, measured, tested, nor repeated, yet they are all key parts of the scientific process.
"Life definitely changes over time. Definitely."
True. But that's not evolution. Evolution is the common ancestry of all living things. If evolution was merely change over time, all creationists are actually evolutionists. That is not the issue.
"And it's been going on for a really really long time."
Yes, 6000 years is a very long time.
"Yes. Absolutely. That is how science works."
So first you tell me that "Having a rigid immovable assumption is *_NOT_* science", then you try to justify science having that rigid immovable assumption! You've just contradicted yourself.
"Science can only function in the "natural" world because it relies on measurements."
You're confusing what it can _do_ with what explanations it can accept. Sure, it can't test the supernatural. But it can accept that a supernatural _explanation_ fits the data better. Except that most scientists won't agree to that.
"Science can only look at the creation and not the creator, get it?"
Yes, I get it. But think about this. If, hypothetically, God really did create man from the dust of the ground, should science...
1) Concede that this is outside it's scope and say nothing about the origin of man,
2) Agree that the evidence better fits that scenario (assuming it does), or
3) Falsely claim that man evolved from an ape-like creature?
Because science is doing neither 2 nor 3.
"Evolution does not rule out God. It explains more of the splendor of creation."
It doesn't rule out a god of your own imagination. It does, however, contradict what Yahweh said He did, which was create everything in six days.
"Creation is an ongoing process…"
Another case of contradicting the Bible, which says that God stopped creating.
"I don't have time to watch the whole video again. He got pretty much everything wrong."
Then it shouldn't be hard for you to find a few examples. I'm not asking for a list of everything he supposedly got wrong.
"He thinks that some lava rock is going to magically explain the formation of the Grand Canyon??"
No, he doesn't think that. He never said that.
"First of all, the rim of the canyon is not raised. It was not deposited."
I think you are misunderstanding the argument. The sediments that the canyon is cut through were _deposited._ And the naturalistic story is that they were deposited by encroaching seas, which means that they were once lower, which means that they were subsequently raised.
"It would take a minimum of two absolutely massive flood events to carve that through rock that was *_already_* there."
"Already" since when? The speaker is not arguing that the sediments didn't precede the carving. And no, it wouldn't take two flood events; it could be done by different stages of the one flood event.
"I would suggest that you look at horse evolution. They are very well studied, with a dense fossil record stretching back 55 millions years."
So the claims go. But the millions of years are based on anti-biblical presuppositions.
"You can see, for example gradual changes adding into larger ones over time. You can see where new species diverged, like zebras"
No, you can't see that. You have to imagine that. If I went out into the garden and collected a dozen sticks, I could line them up in a sequence of how one supposedly evolved into another, but it would be complete fiction. Fossil sequences are like that. Similarities do not equate to evolution, which nobody observed (despite your claims).
If you are open to a different perspective on horse evolution, see creation-dot-com/images/pdfs/tj/j23_2/j23_2_59-63.pdf
Science is, after all, supposed to be about exploring alternatives, so I hope you do.
Donn Chapman, I need for you to answer this question for me, please.
In your presentation of a young Earth, you seem to equate the words of Gen.1:1, that declare;........."In the BEGINNING
God created", ....as referring to the actual creation of the Heavens, ( Heb. "Shmim", plural ) and the Earth. ( some 6200 plus years ago )
Since this "Beginning", according to your beliefs and public presentation, refers to the six days of "Creative Acts" about 6200 years ago, my question to you is this; WHEN WAS LUCIFER CREATED ??? ( as Lucifer was already a fallen Angel,
when ADAM was "Created" )
Morgan Sorensen ( Biblical Theologian )
Firstly, "heavens" ("shamayim") is not necessarily plural.
It is a plural structural form (as is "elohim"), but "shamayim" never appears in the singular, just as its root "mayim" (water, interestingly) also does not appear in a singular form, yet can be, and often is, translated as "water" (singular).
Additionally, the scriptures do tell us that Lucifer was created on a certain "day" (according to Ezekiel 28), so we know that he was not created before the Universe was created, as time (and thus a "day") is a feature of the Universe. We also know Lucifer was in Eden (Eze.28), and there he tempted Eve.
Therefore, it is logically reasoned that Lucifer was created sometime after the Heavens & Earth were created, but before he tempted Eve in the Garden.
However, this is not stated directly by the scriptures; it is based solely on human reasoning (and thus susceptible to error).
I don't really have anything against young earth creationism, seeing as it is arguably the most sound interpretation of the creation accounts, but I think the fossil record makes more sense when seen as a record of post-flood ecological succession rather than being from the flood itself; the idea that doesn't make as much sense when taking into consideration fossils preserved by ash and methods other than the typical mud and water sediments. Also, if Pangaea moved apart gradually after the Flood, rather than being carved up by it, then it explains how animals were able to get to each continent.
If a global flood of catastrophic nature occurred, suggest evidence should you expect to see.
I tell people to go to Google images and type in folded mountains.
All the sedimentary layers are folded without being broken at the folds.
Logic says all the layers were soft when folded them hardened as we see today.
@@knightclan4 I have seen layers folded into an "Omega" pattern in Switzerland.
Young earth is *_NOT_* the most sound interpretation. It is the most *_naive_* interpretation. It's absurd to act like the entire bible is meant to be taken as cold literal fact. Unless you think Jesus was really a plant... "I am the true vine"
The early church father Origen said that Genesis is meant to be taken *_figuratively_* as a way to awaken deep mystical insights about our relationship with God. All these young earth creationists are bringing shame to the religion by making it easy to ridicule, because for anyone that has bothered to actually read the scientific literature, evolution is easily proven with a mountain of evidence.
@@theTavis01 "It's absurd to act like the entire bible is meant to be taken as cold literal fact. "
I agree. Allusions to Jesus being a vine were obviously NOT to be taken literally by His immediate audience and should not be taken as Him being vine by anyone today. That is a matter of historical context and actual bibliographical context being in harmony and showing His intent. But on the other hand, how do YOU interpret anything in the bible as being "literal" at all? Was Jesus Himself a "literal" figure or was He merely a figure of speech?
You throw the baby out with the bathwater in thinking a literal six day creation is not what was meant in the first chapter of Genesis. There is no historical context to deny it, Origen being a very, very distant commentator and having no context himself in the meaning of it. Even the formulation of "one day, one night" within the text itself supplies the understanding that a literal 24 hour period was intended, acknowledged by many who don't believe that the world was created in six literal days, yet bear witness to the intent of the language.
Have you ever stopped to consider what the capabilities of an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent might be in accomplishing such a thing? I'm guessing that "scientific incredulity" may be your problem. God couldn't do it because science says otherwise. That is indeed a naive assumption, particularly if you claim that God exists in the first place.
If instead you are an atheist, you would be ridiculous to criticize what God can or cannot do in reality just as much as it is ridiculous to think anyone who doesn't exist can or cannot do things in reality.
@@cdc3 God created life through the mechanism of evolution. Origen was not the only church father to say that Genesis was *_figurative._* St Augustine of Hippo said that it definitely was not 24 hour days and wrote a scathing criticism of Christians who bring shame and ridicule to the religion by promoting obvious falsehoods. Here's the thing that you avoided: The evidence *_overwhelmingly_* supports evolution. You've obvious spent some time with the bible, but have you ever read any scientific literature about evolution??? I doubt it. It's really very very simple: God is truth. The bible is God's word so must be true. So if science demonstrates something to be true, and you think the bible is in conflict, *_you're reading the bible wrong._* End of story. The bible *_CANNOT_* be in conflict with the truth. Therefor, given that science has *_ABSOLUTELY_* determined that the Earth is much older than millions of years and that plants and animals have undergone evolution, it is *_NOT_* reasonable to keep pretending like it's literal historical days as if God did not grant you imaginative faculty for a reason! The bible is your guide to a personal relationship with God, it's *_NOT_* a textbook. If you marvel at the splendor of God's creation, give glory to that by actually taking the time to learn about it, by studying science. The idea that there is a divide between the two is a false dichotomy used by Satan to deceive the whole world.
Deny Christ was here people say. So be it
U will be sorry u ever thought big bank
Not true creation was first God made it
@21:45 The bible NEVER refers to 24-hour days - creation was NOT across the span of six 24-hour days - we know this because hundreds of independent historic records tell us! Do the research instead of concocting lies to suit your delusion.
If you're not believing in Creationism you probably have a deceptive perspective.
As usual Evolution is misrepresented as being something it is not. Evolution does not say anything about the big bang or the existence of God. This whole video is a litany of such misrepresentations.
As usual, atheists have to misrepresent creationists and denying their own mythology just for the sake of disputing the truth and justifying their rebellion against God.
@@creationcowboy That it? that's all you have? No attempt to justify what you say, offer any argument or evidence?
@@Matthew_Holton I can't hear you over the sound of your double standard.
@@creationcowboy What double standard? All I said was that the Theory of Evolution says nothing about the big bang or the existence of God and it doesn't. This video misrepresents it as doing so and I was pointing out its error. Do you accept that point or do you dispute it?
@@Matthew_Holton How about you prove that God doesn't exist? I guarantee you can't.