Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
N.T. Wright: If Creation is Through Christ, Evolution is What You Would Expect
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 кві 2017
- From the 2017 BioLogos Conference: Christ and Creation, March 29-31, 2017. Full video: • N.T. Wright: "Christ &...
Learn more at: biologos.org
When Jesus saved me on 16 December 1979, it wasn't some slow, long, drawn out change - "What a wonderful change in my heart has been wrought, since Jesus came into my heart!" "My chains fell off, my heart was free, I arose went forth and followed thee!" After the "dungeon filled with light" And so it was for the early Church. He's coming 'quickly', is the gospel message. So nothing about the way God did things through Jesus implies to me that creation must not have happened in six days.
The early church understanding & notion of salvation was that it is a life long process that leads to unity with God, and not a momentary salvation & that supports what Wright is saying. A "momentary salvation" was never the faith of the church until after the Reformation.
John Edwards I don’t believe in evolution either, but I think your argument isn’t very good. Jesus’ idea of coming quickly is thousands of years lol but yea, This video sucks
Matthew What do you mean Depending on how old we are or some sort of accident it could be any moment. That is the reality ... There are a couple different words in Greek that were translated as coming or presents in the English translation. Check out the foot notes of a study to find which Greek the original word the translators used . Also in view of eternity couple thousands years is not very long. But many Jews expected the Return of the King General to reestablish a United Monarchy dedicated to Yahweh. Surging and conquering the Roman Power. But Lamb Power turned out to have a bigger world enemy and Jesus did conquer Him. As Jewish influence began to wain that idea became less and less prominent .
@@MonicaSLM1and not a momentary salvation If that is true then the thief on the cross must not have been saved. Have you ever heard of Zacchaeus?
@@matthewterry9413 You need to look up the Greek word that was translated quickly.
The creation reveals The Creator!
Everyone born is because of someone else’s Will
The spiritual birth is when God reveals by The Holy Spirit that we are dead to Him (sinners) only possible through Christ Jesus ✝️🕊
Born Again From Above reality.
The written word is also spiritual
NT Wright seems to want to reconcile belief in evolution with the Bible. In order to do this he applies his imagination, at the expense of the text. If we go to the Bible, we may have to sacrifice our dearly-held belief in evolution.
In 2 Peter 3 we are told that God will one day create a new heaven and earth; characterised by righteousness. This is in contrast to the present earth which is struggling under the effects of sin.
Revelation 21 describes the new creation as being free from tears, death, mourning, crying or pain.
The new creation is described as a restoration of the original creation. Clearly none of these things (tears, death, crying, pain) were present in the pre-Fall world. As God described it on Day 7, it was very good. This is very different to what an evolution driven world would be. The present earth groans under the curse and the effects of sin. Not so the coming new earth, nor the original.
In order to explain the presence of fossils, which by the way bear evidence of death, violence, cancer, arthritis, etc, we need to go no further than the global flood of Noah's time.
Mind blown
Can you provide a summary (please)? I didn’t quite understand his logic.
I see evolution as God's method to make life overtime. I believe he set it up all long ago.
Not according to God's Word.
Does it take millions of years to be born again?
BrWilson yes, we are made new every day.
@@LeviNormandeau Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day Renewed not made new you progressives like to misquote I've noticed.
A New Heaven and Earth to take Billions of Years!
I don't think so. God speaks and it happens.
Might we then expect dear sir right reverend noble honorable doctor vicar NT Wright that Almighty God will take billions of years to create the new heaven and new earth? Asking for a friend.
The existence of the fact that some representatives of science invent different "theories" that reject the word of God, clearly indicates only that for 2000 years there has been no Church of Christ and, accordingly, mankind does not see those miracles that should accompany the Church of Christ, as it is stated in the books of the New Testament.
If in the name of Christ the dead were raised from the dead, the blind were given back their sight, the armless and legless were restored to their limbs, the terminally ill were freed from disease, I do not think that scientists would dare to persist in promoting various hypotheses denying the existence of God.
The reason for the unbelief of most people is that they do not see the miracles that should accompany the Church of Christ as the books of the New Testament state, but they see in abundance the Churches that claim to be the Church of Christ but have no power to perform miracles, and this confuses many people.
These 2000 years was a period of unbelief and despite the efforts of the defenders of the Christian faith they failed because they tried to prove the truth of Christ's teachings by human efforts.
God will not prove the truth of Christ's teachings through philosophical speculation, the discovery of ancient manuscripts, or archaeological findings. Not at all. That is not God's handwriting.
We know from the Bible how God works, God is a living God, and He will live testify to the truth of Christ's teachings. In the first century this is exactly what was happening. Miracles were the chief weapon of Christ's preachers to convince the skeptic of the truth of Christianity.
The following fragment is a good example of this: *"And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus: Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God.*
*But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand. Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord."* (Acts 13:6-12).
In our time we don't see this anymore, because the so-called Christians don't have such power, they are all fake.
In the end I want to say that God will be revealed to mankind as He was revealed in the first century, through the Church of Christ. So that there will be no shadow of doubt about the truth of Christ's Teachings. And then all religions and false Christian churches will be disgraced before the risen Church of Christ, through which the same miracles will be performed that we read about in the books of the New Testament.
Reading the books of the New Testament, we probably asked ourselves more than once: *"Why 2000 years we do not see those miracles that accompanied the Сhurch of Christ in the I century, as described in the New Testament?"* Why do the so-called preachers of Christ have to prove that Jesus really existed and atheists boldly deny the historicity or divine origin of Christ? Maybe because the Сhurch of Christ has not existed for 2000 years?
The Сhurch does not exist in the form in which it is presented in the books of the New Testament, but there are Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and other christian sects claiming to be the place of the Church, but they not have the only thing that distinguishes the divine from the human and is characteristic of just the Сhurch of Christ -the reinforcement of the word with signs, that is, miracles (Mark 16:15-20).
Therefore, some researchers doubt the historicity of Christ, and some of them are not opposed to declaring him a an ordinary philosopher, teacher. But even if Jesus were an ordinary philosopher, his disciples would be ordinary followers of Jesus. And they would not dare to write about the miracles that not only Jesus, but also his disciples, could perform.
If there were the Church in our time as described by the authors of the New Testament books, where miracles are performed, the sick are healed, where prophesied, and the dead are raised, no one would doubt the historicity of Christ. Then there would be the same controversy throughout the world as in the first century - Jesus the Son of God or the false prophet who seduces the world by miracles. As a result, we can say that the emergence and development of christian sects and atheism was the result of the fact that over the 2000 years the Сhurch of Christ did not exist.
Find *"The Mystery about the Church of Christ"* video on UA-cam. The video reveals the prophecy of the disappearance and reappearance of the Church of Christ before the End of the World. Watching this video will give hope to all who sincerely seek God and will interest those who are not too lazy to think freely. Click on my name to watch the video (The video is in Russian, but English subtitles are included).
I did not catch at what point he says exactly he believes God used / uses evolution
He seems to be rarely succint.
There’s a lot to unpack here, and a lot of errors if you believe the Bible is the word of God. I’m not sure what Wright means by “the kingdom that brought Jesus.” From the Trinity we know that Jesus IS God. The Gospel of John tells us that Jesus was the creator of the universe. When Wright say “a long slow process,” is he implying evolution? At any rate, evolution cannot be reconciled with the Bible. To attempt this requires so many concessions and explanations that you might as well leave the Bible on the shelf.
I am very sympathetic to Intelligent Design, but not from a Christian point of view. I find it impossible to square the narrative of aeons upon aeons of pre-human organic life daily struggling to survive through bloody predation and death (continuing to this very moment!) with Mr Wright's sentimental image of "utter, self-giving love."
I have watched quite a few of Mr Wright's presentations and his effort to undo the more baneful effects of Reformation soteriology, but frankly, when it comes down to What Do We Do Now?, it's really just Let's Make This World A Better Place. As Aesop said, "The mountain labored and brought forth a mouse."
And while I'm at it. Mr Wright's Brit snobbery about American Christianity falls flat when you consider that in his benighted homeland, secularists outnumber Christians, the Church of England is in self-induced free-fall and Mohammed is the most popular name for newborn boys.
polemeros keep searching
polemeros hahaha I’m a Christian, but I appreciated that. A lot lol
A better place to go to hell from.
@@matthewterry9413 Keep searching
Hi Polemeros, I understand where you are coming from. Too often however we are presented with a false dichotomy. The Biblical view is not necessarily the Christian view. A while back I did a video in which we honestly explore the question of "Does the Bible support Evolution?" It might help to offer you another option. ua-cam.com/video/U1AxHBfTaM4/v-deo.html
So the use of death, violence and suffering, as is inherent in evolution, is how Jesus would do it???
Please just base your understanding on the text, not on some man-made naturalistic paradigm.
I agree with you here ..heard some good stuff from wright but this makes you go hmmm lol...there's just too much in macro evolution which tries to impersonalize creation.
And the core Intuitions we rely on for science itself belie evolution .
The Bible is man-made not evolution.
Bravo for pointing out the weak points on trying to reconcile Creation ( design, purpose, meaning ) with evolution ( voilence, , suffering, and death ). Theistic evolution unless it is true until reached, from Big Bang, unto the Creation of the earth in the beginning before any life formed, then to deduce life here on earth formed thru evolution contradicts the doctrine of Creation, Redemption, and Salvation. Beside that even science confirmed that the transition from micro to macro is impossible. In a word, evolution, as understood by Darwinian scientific community, is a hoax. Period.
@@patri1689 Science confirmed micro to macro impossible? Where do you get this made up crap? There is absolutely no difference in the processes of micro and macro evolution except time.
@@patri1689 How do you reconcile creation with the fact that over 90% of species that ever existed are now extinct. That's a whole lot of death and failed species... not the hallmark of an omnipotent God.
whoa -------- this is fascinating
If you are "fascinated" by theology that makes God into a sadist, you are a dipshit.
I would just take this as one perspective out of respect. I would argue though that just as much in Jesus "evolution" does fit well, so much in Jesus "creation" (no evolution) can well fit as well. I do agree with the fact that Jesus' Kingdom, His coming, and His ministry looked like sawing seeds, some going into waste and some bearing much fruit, but on the other hand His ministry also had to do with restoration, restoring health, bringing missing pieces back into place, bringing dead people back to life, and restoring the image of God back in us. In that sense Jesus' ministry to restore what was broken from the creation in Genesis makes more sense to me. It is only the abundance and unfathomable glory of Christ to which any worldly wisdom can not absolutely but temporarily fit.
The old "hath God said?" lie still wasting countless hours of our valuable time - It's plain to a child that when God said 6 days evening and morning that it is exactly what He meant, the very week is based on it. 6 days you shall work and do all your labour... Does NT Wrights working week go on for thousands of years or epochs?!
Repent and BELIEVE THE GOSPEL!
This is an overly simplistic way of looking at it
It is interesting that the sun and moon do not exist until the 4th day (Gen 1:14)...that has challenged my perspective on the first 6 days. I really do not know what to make of them now, given that the first three took place before the 24 hour day existed...
"When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways." 1 Cor 13:11
Very interesting and thought provoking! :) Good video.
He is a very good honest thinker.
To accept evolution you reject the doctrine of original sin and thus the imputation of Adam's sin to all men and thus you reject the imputed righteousness of received from Jesus on the cross. In short without imputed, original sin what is it that Jesus died for? This man is to be marked and avoided!
I've not watched NT Wright at any length before this. Is this rhetoric, using false dichotomy-either the "sower of seed" or the "oriental despot" described at 1:50, whose workers cower in fear before him-part of his standard argument?
NT Wright seems to be a genuine, humble, smart man, therefore I allow his words and thoughts to challenge my previously held opinions/beliefs, etc. I do not respond quickly to his thoughts, rather I take them gently and allow them time before I respond to them. I do not do this with everyone, but I do so with his words.
@@JayHelms I would sum up the things he has said here and in many other places as, did God really say?
@@JayHelms I would sum up the things he has said here and in many other places as, did God really say?
Exactly.
This video is confusing...yes, Creation is through Christ. However, Genesis says God made in 6 days..not sure how that jives very well with evolution. Check out creation.com for great resources.
It is not remotely confusing. It confuses you, and that is a different thing.
This has nothing to do with what he says it is how those who hear the gospel respond it has nothing to do with creation. Again he began to teach beside the sea. And a very large crowd gathered about him, so that he got into a boat and sat in it on the sea, and the whole crowd was beside the sea on the land. 2 And he was teaching them many things in parables, and in his teaching he said to them: 3 “Listen! Behold, a sower went out to sow. 4 And as he sowed, some seed fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured it. 5 Other seed fell on rocky ground, where it did not have much soil, and immediately it sprang up, since it had no depth of soil. 6 And when the sun rose, it was scorched, and since it had no root, it withered away. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it, and it yielded no grain. 8 And other seeds fell into good soil and produced grain, growing up and increasing and yielding thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold.” 9 And he said, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
The Purpose of the Parables
10 And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. 11 And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, 12 so that
“‘they may indeed see but not perceive,
and may indeed hear but not understand,
lest they should turn and be forgiven.’”
13 And he said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables? 14 The sower sows the word. 15 And these are the ones along the path, where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them. 16 And these are the ones sown on rocky ground: the ones who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy. 17 And they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away.[a] 18 And others are the ones sown among thorns. They are those who hear the word, 19 but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. 20 But those that were sown on the good soil are the ones who hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold
Does this man even believe in the Scriptures?
Yes.. more than you.
But the seed did not turn out to be anything other than the gospel. And if we want to look at Jesus as Creator-did he use the scientific process of fermentation to change the water into wine? Sounds like he did it right away-like the princely monarch that he is! When he stopped the wind and the waves, he commanded them to stop-right away! Praise God!!
I appreciate NT Wright’s works especially in regard to resurrection-reading his books made me understand the reality and literalness of Jesus’ humanness and resurrection more than anything else, but his thoughts on creation are very muddled.
Biologos’ defense of evolution and trying to fit it into Christianity is nothing new. It’s been done-by a Catholic priest named Teilhard de Chardin who was enamored with evolution, and this is what Wikipedia says about what biologists think of him:
Steven Rose (prof of biology and neurobiology) wrote[year needed] that "Teilhard is revered as a mystic of genius by some, but among most biologists is seen as little more than a charlatan."[48]
There is no real conflict between science and faith in the Biblical God. The problem arises when one develops a theology based on false/erroneous science. Darwinian evolution is almost certainly false and thus any theology (i.e. theistic evolution) founded upon it will turn out to be equally bogus. Don't be deceived!
well there is a solution to that and it lies in entanglement and evolution is not always the same as Darwinism and how can the internal dynamics (mutation) of a syntropy self-organized system be random. Randomness is counter 'cause and effect' and 'action to reaction', it's only a notion of our ignorance of the details of the process or evolution. There are mutation hotspots in most organisms genomes and they can evolve and become coldspots and new ones can form through various types of stress session such viruses endogenization; and this occurs through microbioelectrochemocymatics( quantum jazz).
". Darwinian evolution is almost certainly false and thus any theology "
Please provide a link that demonstrably shows that the theory that Darwin proposed is verbatim what modern biologists adhere to and continue to prove to this minute.
Worms prove Evolution is false.
he sounds like he tries too hard. Agree, evolution is not proven scientifically, so better keep it out of the Bible.
On Saturday I went to a new church and asked the leaders if she was evolved from monkeys or descended from Adam and Eve....she said evolved!
I am astonished at N.T.'s amount of eisegesis here. He is doing all the imagining he can do to fit evolution into the Bible. He should rather just take God's simple word in the Biblical account of creation.
... except, when we look at the world and peel apart its many layers, everything points to evolution. There's a reason why it's the overwhelming consensus among the relevant experts.
Perhaps, as Wright alludes, we need to go back to the text and re-read it in light of what we've discovered about the universe.
But the more I read it, the less 'simple' it is. I know plenty of well-meaning believers who want to flatten it down into a 1 dimensional message, but that does the text an injustice. After all, would you really expect God's word to be 'simple'? Should we not expect it to be multi-layered, multi-dimensional, challenging, complex, rich?
The Bible is not a science book
Agreed
I believe the Bible, and a real Bible not a modern translation. God did it in Six Days and rested on the Seventh, if you get this right you will not have trouble
on defining sexuality, women in ministry and the coming of Jesus Christ to get His Church, to Judge this fallen World & the future role of Israel. Blessings
All respect for N.T. Wright was lost after watching this. When you compare millions of years of death, suffering, and pointless random mutation with "sowing the seeds of the kingdom"...you have crossed the line. This guy isn't even a Christian in my book anymore. He is a naturalist who worships death and darkness as glorious light.
Mr. Wright (or should I say WRONG?) ought to be ashamed of himself. Does he not realize that in comparing failed genetic mutations with "sowing seeds of the kingdom", he has reduced mankind itself to potentially being a failed genetic mutation who's extinction might be what is necessary for Christ to create what He intends? What in the sam HELL is going wrong with our leadership these days? They have gone totally NUTS!
Michael E agree... mostly lol he is still a Christian. Just one who doesn’t need to be teaching anybody, anything, or given a microphone
Michael E yes let's cuss while making spiritual points.
Michael E I'm not an evolutionist however salvation is not dependent upon one's view of creation ...just saying...
Michael E honest question. Do you believe in animal or plant death before the fall? Also not all mutation is “pointless”. Darker skin is good for sunnier climates and visa versa for light skin. “Stupid” mutations don’t survive, only useful ones. If I remember correctly, red hair is a mutation, not just an adaption from existing DNA. Don’t know how useful it is, but it’s there.
This man stumbles at THE TRUTH and there is no Light in him-->
John 11:10 KJV - But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him.
Well, that proof text settles it, doesn't it!
Maybe The Creation is still happening - and perhaps time is incomprehensible -being sheer miracle - like much else beyond the powers of understanding for mere mortals. Perhaps we know nothing. Except Faith…
Maybe Evolution is still in part happening according to God’s will AND ALSO all was created In the Beginning - at the very same “time”.
Maybe we should realize our place - and stay as we are - spellbound by the beauty of life… and praise with all we have. We need to pray for those who cannot see what is happening because their own will and jaded prejudices blind them from all the true majesty right NOW.
In my end is my beginning… All time is present now… in my Beginning is my End…
T S Eliot (paraphrased).
Maybe we should not be certain of anything but God (and Christ AND The Holy Spirit!) - and be open and free and follow the very few commandments of Christ with open heart and loving spirit.
Maybe no ink beyond the Gospel can describe the Joy of actually looking at a tree in Silence.
Make yourself in Christ’s image -
lol NT wright speaks nonsense but in an extremely eloquent way!
it's obvious Jesus truly believed in Genesis whether old earth or young earth I know not, but definitely he didn't affirm evolution lol.
ridiculous
Have you noticed the chronology of Jesus goes back to Adam.
Complete nonsense and Biblically illiterate.
I don't know why some Christians are stuck on the idea that death and sin only came into the world once Adam and Eve sinned. Paul's words about sin entering the world by one man are taken too narrowly. Sin was already in the world because of the fall from heaven of a third of the angels. Satan was already prowling around working against God and so there is no reason not to think that death was also in existence.
Hey Colin,
Just trying to understand you clearer: was sin in the universe or the world? or by "world" do you mean universe or earth?
Jerry Jacques - Jerry- here are my thoughts - if we define sin as an act of defiance against God that separates us from Him, then lucifer sinned and was cast out of heaven. I don't believe that heaven is a physical place, but rather a place of God's presence where His perfect will exists. For lucifer to be cast out, he had to go somewhere and although that may have meant other parts of the universe, it at least included earth. So before Adam sinned, sin ( defiance and separation from God) did exist on the earth in the form of lucifer and his angels. This appears to contradict Paul who says "by one man sin entered the world", but i believe Paul meant sin for mankind and the "death" he talked about was a spiritual death. That's all i meant when i wrote that you can get hung up on specific words and interpret scripture too narrowly ending up with a poor understanding of the text.
colin - When paul said sin entered the world, I don't think he meant earth, but humankind like you said. If that's true, then paul didn't make a linguistic mistake at all. He was actually quite precise and consistent in his use of the term "world" in reference to people and not location.
The word Adam in Aramaic and Hebrew actually means 'all of man' not one man and eve has a simular meaning too.
Colin Mackay I would say that Adam was given authority over the earth according to Scripture so indeed death did not enter humanity or earth until Adam and Eve sinned.. everything under their authority was affected by their choice to sin but before that moment everything was good as God had created it...no death...no sickness etc.
Satan was not in authority over mankind or the earth and could not cause death etc to impact mankind before the fall. All he could do was tempt them to willingly give up their place with God.
so I see no biblical reason why there would be any kind of death at all to anything under Adam's authority until the moment of willful sin on his part. Then the curse came upon Adam and everything under his authority. Adam took on the same nature as Satan and the world and humanity became corrupt...physical death was simply the natural result of spiritual death.
Evolution is a fact.
bobgoran no
bobgoran wrong
bobgoran can you prove that assertion?
Yes
Sure. Things change over time. But if you think your great grandpa is soup ......?
He may be a great theologian, but not for me.
This is hilarious argumentation. I'd expect better.
It's a philosopher's point of view, not a scientist's.
Wow. NT Wright, the celebrated scholar, breaks the very first rule of Bible interpretation by ignoring the clear language of Genesis 1 and building a doctrine of origins on a made-up parallel between Jesus' language of the kingdom and Darwinism. It just goes to show that if you have a great accent and are appealing to people who are desperate to be part of the majority, you can sell them anything. Mark my words, NT Wright will give up on the resurrection once the pressure starts coming down on it.
I need to be careful. I know Wright has a very sincere faith and I really hope that last statement I made is not true. I’m just so disappointed that this is the man many people consider to be our new CS Lewis.
@Nathan Desta Biologos is only getting started in it's twisting of scripture the denial of the resurrection will come sooner or later.
He is the author of the monumental tome 'The Resurrection of the Son of God', which I have on my shelves. I wonder if you have read it. If your ominous prediction comes true, it will mean the abandonment by him of a major plank of his scholarship over many years, in which he differs profoundly from many liberals within his own church tradition. I see no basis for it in this video or anywhere else in his writings or public utterances.
Iam so glad to hear this . The six day creation is no longer valid . I used to believe i now I don’t but… Jesus is still the ONLY way… life and truth. Only the Blood
@@bartleysawatsky2423 except that Evolution is a proven fact , Science doesnt care about your feelings . Here is the evidence for Evolution
nope , not at all , Evolution is a proven fact
ANCIENT ORGANISM REMAINS
Darwin found many types of remains of ancient organisms. In addition to fossil layers, he saw other fossils, bones, insects in amber (hardened tree sap), and petrified wood. Another type of preserved organism, which Darwin did not find, is animals such as mammoths frozen and preserved in ice.
During his journey, Darwin found the bones of an extinct giant sloth, Megatherium. He realized that animals can become extinct and that life is not unchanging, and he also saw similarities between extinct and living animals. Darwin wondered how they could be related.
Darwin and scientists today have discovered that the ancient organisms whose remains they find look like organisms alive today because they are the living organisms' ancestors or evolved from a common ancestor. For example, megatherium was probably an ancient ancestor of tree sloths that exist today.
Today, fossils are still being studied to find out more about life in the past and its relation to life in the present. They provide valuable information about evolution and how life formed. Unlike in Darwin's time, now scientists can date these fossils and remains to get a more exact picture of when different organisms evolved. We are still learning new things from a valuable source that is literally millions of years old.
FOSSIL LAYERS
Fossil layers are fossils that formed in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is rock that is formed in layers by the depositing and pressing of sediments on top of each other. Sediments are any loose material that gets broken away and carried: pieces of rocks, pebbles, sand, clay, silt, boulders, dead organisms, animals, plants, shells, insects . . . . When sediments move and settle somewhere, they are being deposited. When, over a long time, layers and layers of sediments get deposited on top of each other, the weight of the top layers presses down on the bottom layers, forming them into rock called sedimentary rock. The oldest layers are on the bottom, and the youngest layers are on the top. Because sediments sometimes include once-living organisms, sedimentary rock often contains a lot of fossils. Fossils are once-living organisms that have been turned into rock, in which the shape or form of the organism can still be seen.
Once thing that Darwin noticed on his travels, and that people continue to notice today, is that fossils in the bottom layers are very different from the organisms alive today; Darwin didn't even recognize them. As one looks farther up, at younger and younger rock layers, the fossilized plants and animals become more and more familiar until they are a lot like organisms that are around now. The organisms also tend to become more and more complex.
From this, Darwin concluded that organisms have not remained the same since earth's beginning, and that they have changed a lot, gradually becoming more and more complex. He also realized that as new species arise, other ones become extinct.
People look at fossils to discover which life forms evolved first and which later on. Today scientists also have ways of dating the rocks, figuring out about how long ago each layer was deposited. This also helps us piece together the time scale of evolution and when certain events occurred
One type of evidence for evolution (evidence that organisms are related, descended from a few common ancestors, and change to adapt to their environments) is that organisms are similar to each other, but not exactly the same. Similar organisms have differences that help them adapt to their environments.
Many organisms have similar body plans. Horses', donkeys', and zebras' bodies are set up in pretty much the same way, because they are descended from a common ancestor. As organisms adapt and evolve, not everything about them changes. The differences, such as the zebra's stripes, show that each species adapted to its own environment after branching off from the common ancestor.
The bodies of deer, moose, zebras, and horses are very similar, and these animals are very closely related. One major difference is that deer and moose have antlers and zebras and horses don't. Why is this? Deer and moose live alone or in small groups, while zebras and horses live in large herds. Living in a herd provides its own protection from enemies: it is easier to attack an individual than a huge herd. Therefore, herd-living animals do not need the antlers that their loner relatives need for protection. In addition, running or grazing with large antlers is hard to do in a herd, where it is easy to accidentally stab one's neighbor.
All insects have heads, abdomens, and thoraxes, antennae, six legs, and wings. However, each species is different, and while all insects have wings, some have small, useless wings, because their environments did not force them to evolve useful wings, or because their wings became harmful to survival.
All birds have feathers, beaks, and wings, but are different because they had to adapt to different environments, such as the webbed feet of water birds but not of land birds. On a more distant level, fish and zebras both have eyes, frogs and baboons both have spines. Generally, the longer ago the last common ancestor lived, the less the organisms have in common. Turtles and tortoises share a common ancestor, but began evolving separately a long time ago. The common ancestor of box and painted turtles lived more recently, so the box turtle has more in common with the painted turtle than it does with the tortoise. How similar two organisms are can help people figure out how closely they are related.
Similarities are often easy to see when one looks at two organisms that evolved from a common ancestor, and until recently, looking at physical features and behavior was the only way to determine how closely related two organisms are. However, now scientists can also analyze DNA to discover how closely organisms are related. Every living creature has DNA, which has a lot of inherited information about how the body builds itself. Scientists can compare the DNA of two organisms; the more similar the DNA, the more closely related the organisms. This method can also help when looks are deceptive. One example of looks being deceptive is: The bat and the crow both have wings, and the squirrel does not. From this, one may think that bats and crows are more closely related than bats and squirrels, while the opposite is indeed the case.
DNA testing is a tool that Darwin never had, but it has helped scientists after him to learn and discover a lot about evolution.
Stop embarrassing yourself pal 🤦🏻♂️
NTW, a purveyor of dangerous doctrine, perhaps?
The bible agrees with Evolution. Man came from (a) Dust. Maybe Space Dust ?
KJVB Only
**(b) First the Oceans brought forth life . Sea of chemical compounds
**(c) Then the Earth brought forth life **(c) Minerals and Carbon compounds from the sea as it began to dry up. ;
Genesis 2:7.And the LORD God formed man of the **(a) dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. As the dust settled.
Bada bing bada big bang bada you no bada me. Say it five times as fast as you can and you will here the voice of god. God said let there be light and bang there was light.
Genesis 1;20.And God said, Let the *(b) waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may **fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. So even the* water foul evolved out of the water.
Genesis 1:24.And God said, Let the *(c) earth bring forth the* living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. The creeping things were the amphibians. Why would birds come from the Ocean ? Could this be talking about the giant dinosaur birds. Sea Monsters .
The land produced vegetation before the sea had life and the Earth was there before the sun.
Sad
This is the video that made me a Theistic Evolutionist
If there was no real Adam then there was no fall. If there was no fall then there is no need for a redeemer. If there is no need for a redeemer then that makes resigns Jesus historical or other wise resigned to the ranks of the unemployed.
@@samuelstrain2721 There are many theistic evolutionists who believe in a historic Adam and Eve.
@@joshuaWEC No wonder so many young people reject the gospel when they hear such nonsense coming from a pulpit.
@@samuelstrain2721 he wasn't in a pulpit and it wasn't nonsense. You just failed to understand it.
@@samuelstrain2721 and tell me how many people of any age have rejected the gospel because of the dogmatic gun-to-the-head claims of young earth fundamentalists, insisting on the false dichotomy of creation or evolution - a logical fallacy that Dawkins et al have made capital from for decades, aided and abetted by naive (though largely well-meaning) believers?
He speaks as one who gives talks for a living.
No way! It’s almost as if he’s a bishop and professor... weird...