What is the name of soundtrack at the beginning?

13. Scripture isn't supposed to give us more scientific knowledge than the bare minimum, it's a book of the divine, not the earthly. And it was written from and for people thousands of years ago who still thought mythologically, didn't even know the shape of the earth and have never used a number from milion above in their lives, if they heard the literal description of the beginning of the Universe and life they wouldn't understand or believe it.

1. The smartphone analogy shows that there's a Designer, not how He designs. And the smartphone itself isn't the best way to think about evolution, but rather the idea/pure design of the smartphone - it clearly shows how evolution works. First you face a problem - long range communication between people. At first you struggle with the problem, but after series of unpredictable new thoughts (you can't predict what new thought/idea will come to your mind, you know something will come but you don’t know what exactly, which makes it practically random even if it isn't), most of which don’t do much and some of which are unsuccessful, but you still try them and eventually some actually work and you invent cave paintings, written language with better and better mediators from sand and pergament to paper, and so on. With trial and error you sellect the beneficial ideas which survive and get passed down to the next generations, which take and keep developing them, and forgets the unsuccessful ones. Nothing completely new dets created as it's still more or less based on experience accumulated through many generations. After the unrelated discovery of radio waves the invention of the first phone became possible. And you know the rest of the story...so yes, smartphones come from cave paintings! If creation of new things with reason, which is a gift from God and is one of the things that make us in His image and separates us from animals, is based on natural processes of accumulation of unpredictable (for us) new information and selection of the most beneficial at the moment through a process of trial and error, then why couldn't God create life through the same natural processes? Plus, the story of Job is him asking about his personal life struggles and God telling him that He knows what He's doing and that he should trust Him. It's a story about moral and trust, not science. Job didn't ask why the sky isn't pink or why there's so much water on earth that people cannot live on if man should rule over the earth, he asks why his life went so down. Now we could apply this story in science...when we talk about moral in it, and how we should trust God of knowing what should and shouldn't be. It was never about pure science vs God, it's about personal opinion vs God's perfect understanding.

@DRYeisleysCreations

21 күн бұрын

We know how God created life. He told us in Genesis 1.

@danielignatov45

21 күн бұрын

@@DRYeisleysCreations Read comments number 13 and 15.

I don’t think the biggest problem Christianity has with theistic evolution is the creation of the cosmos. Genesis has very little to say on this actually. The main problem with theistic evolution is the impact on Christology. Christ is recorded as confirming the Genesis narrative of Adam and Eve and the redemption from sin. If theistic evolution is true, the Christian must now jump through hoops to make the NT reconcilable. Hence modern day apologetics retrospectively reading into scripture animal death and its presence prior to the fall of man. If evolution is true, Christ’s narrative on who he was and his entire mission now comes into question.

@davidpritchard4064

4 жыл бұрын

Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν - “Before Abraham was, I Am” Either way you see it, what point is Jesus making here? As Alpha and Omega, God initiates from the void of an infinite past, the singularity of Creation as an expression of his Divine Triune Love. As it expands outwardly, freely and openly, to facilitate its cosmological fruition at ‘The Cross’ and paradigmatically, its ontological inversion to demonstrate the true beauty of that self-sacrificial Triune Love; in ‘The Resurrection’! It is a necessary and painful Christological journey through time and space that ultimately, only God himself can make self-sacrificially. Divine Triune Love requires a biological freedom of expression with in the universe itself to eventually allow us all (as morphologically created emergent beings) into the joy of The Circle Dance; It cannot be any other way. An 'emergent nephesh' that freely consents to God entering into his Creation himself, in order to paradoxically redeem it from the very Death that bound it, in order to expand and invite everyone one us and even the creation itself, into The Circle Dance of his Triune Love. ‘Behold I saw a new Heavens and a New Earth…..An Apocatastasis of Divine permeation where God himself dwells among men from the subatomic to the macrocosmic. What Jesus did and achieved, and continues to do so in the present continuous sense, is efficacious for all suffering, for all time, for all people everywhere and in every epoch of history on this planet. Every bacterium, prokaryotic cell or semi-hominid that crawled or ever walked upright, will be restored and renewed into a beautiful psychoplasmic confluence of life, love and eternal greatness.

@Actuary1776

4 жыл бұрын

David Pritchard I have no idea what the fuck you’re trying to say, you totally glossed over everything I said, but thanks.

@alexandergyr4563

3 жыл бұрын

@@Actuary1776 This got me cracked up! xD

@ketsune23

3 жыл бұрын

You're absolutely right about the problem with Christianity. However, there are Christian positions like Pelagianism which was considered heresy, and the main rival of Augustinianism that argued that men are not fallen and that Jesus did not come to save anyone from their sins. I think Pelagianism to be more correct. Jesus never claimed he came to die for sins nor he claimed we are corrupted because of Adam's fall. Christianity was standardized by the Roman bishops in the 4th century when they also made the NT. p.s I am not Christian. I think a Deistic evolution position is better for those who want to conciliate God and evolution theory.

@ketsune23

3 жыл бұрын

@Herry Gerry Agnosticism is not a position of belief, it's a position of knowledge. There are 3 positions of belief: Atheism Deism and Theism and 2 positions of knowledge: Gnostic and Agnostic. I agree Deism is often forgotten. I am a follower of a deistic religion and it satisfies my intellectual and spiritual life. greetings

@Crossway Production note ....... The background music was not far enough into the background and was interfering and distracting.

What is the C.S. Lewis book mentioned at 4:40?

@markp1845

Жыл бұрын

The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature pg. 223

@davidcooper1680

Жыл бұрын

@@markp1845 thank you!

I'm here because I've always believed in God and always believed in everlution. I'm glad to know other people do also and I don't believe that Christians want to jump on the everlution band wagon but some just believe in both. Like me I have always had to been able to explain things to myself so they make sence and this just does

@rocketscientisttoo

Жыл бұрын

So, do you believe in evolution or adaption? Evolution teaches that all things came from nothing, a scientific impossibility. The real debate is about origins. If God created us then we are accountable to Him, but if we created ourselves... Evolution die-hards despise anyone who even believes in the existence of God because they see them as lesser beings then themselves who just haven't evolved enough, similar to the way evolutionist Adolph Hitler believed.

4:40 This is a long-winded and philosophical way of simply saying: "Design is a scientifically observable cause."

14. Theistic evolution doesn't undermine the authority of scripture. Do Jesus's poverbs have less authority because they shouldn't be taken literally? And it doesn't take the core of theology either the fact life survived 5 mass extractions and still managed to trive seems pretty discernible way of maintaining it. And science works with facts of the natural world, denying them in favor of your doctrine isn't something good. We used to believe that the earth is flat, reanimation after the stop of the heartbeat is impossible, mentall ilnesses are caused by demonic possessions, that we can't produce organic molecules outside of living organisms, that the sun isn't a star and so on. Yes, theology changes, as well as our understanding of the Bible and God, but that's not something bad - our understanding of them should grow together with scientific knowledge. People didn't stop believing in God after we proved that there are organic molecules in space or when we introduced in vitro pregnancies, why stop now?

I think part of the general drive behind theistic evolution is that if science points towards a certain cause of life, then we know that if science is right it must align with the Bible, I don't think that evidence for evolution is substantiative enough to evidence its factuality, but if it were to becoem so I believe that it woul dbe the duty of Christians to take that scientific evidence and decide how that fits into the Bible, just like they did with the organization of the solar system so long ago.

8. It's not a question of authority and it never was. Science deals with the natural world, theology - with questions of God and the divine, philosophy - of other questions and so on. They may have points of overlapping but they study/work with different things. You don't ask a chemist to solve Einstein field equations or priest to perform brain surgery or a philosopher to study ancient Hebrew to understand the Torah. Everyone might be good in their respected field, but they don’t have authority or understanding in other fields. And that's totally fine. You don't use your reason to understand your emotions because they're irrational. That doesn't mean any of both are wrong or bad or lack authority, they just don't work like that. And in science no one relies on authority - they rely on hard facts and evidence. One may be the smartest person in their field or the worst, but it doesn't matter : if they make a model and it explains observed phenomenon successfully, evidence supports it and it makes correct predictions (and is falsifiable of course) then the theory is correct.

First address the problems and skepticals in old philosophy of evolution of 18th century.

3. Yes, it can go near deism, but if He does something not-natural to "leave a trace" would we really consider it a sign of God or "glitch in the system" (from scientific viewpoint we can't say be sure really as science stops applying on things beyond the natural) And even if there's no interference in nature does it really matter if there's direct interference with us that shows not only that there's God, but also what He is like?

The example of the smart phone is a perfect measure of our ability to accurately asses our universe through applied discovery, and the enourmous changes which can occur in a (geologically) short period of time.

5:52 this to me seems to be the real motivation for people bellyaching over theistic evolution. It's all about "undermining scripture". Well in my view, you can't blame evolution for that. People have been arguing over what scripture really says for centuries.

@AceofDlamonds

3 жыл бұрын

Yes. And there is a fatal error in Biblical inerrantism so I attack that first before I try to introduce them to the science. Because as you say the root of this protest is not about science, or rather it is but it's about defending the infallibility of scripture first and foremost, a futile exercise. My favorite part of the Bible to bring up is the glaring archaic ancient Near East cosmology of Genesis 1, chapter from which ID proponents attack evolution in the first place. Seems they are okay with a spherical Earth and heliocentric solar system :)

@blorkpovud1576

3 жыл бұрын

@@AceofDlamonds it's so obvious the writers of genesis were completely unaware of a spherical earth it's not even funny.

@RS54321

Жыл бұрын

@@blorkpovud1576 Why would they need to be 'aware' of the shape of the Earth?

@blorkpovud1576

Жыл бұрын

@@RS54321 they don't "need" to be, but it shows scientific accuracy isn't what Genesis is about.

@RS54321

Жыл бұрын

@@blorkpovud1576 Fair enough

Okay so if theistic evolution means god made the first matter and then it all evolved by accident without his involvement, then what is the term for Christians who believe God was directly involved in evolution? That god created man and all of nature directly, and evolution is simply what that process looked like from our perspective? Would you criticize that idea?

@lucidlocomotive2014

2 жыл бұрын

@Janaina Ribeiro neither. I mean kind of the second one but not really because that’s not how evolution works as horses don’t turn into whales lol. The other way around is sort of the case though as horses and other land mammals are descended from sea animals

@lucidlocomotive2014

2 жыл бұрын

@Janaina Ribeiro yeah I believe those thinfs

@rocketscientisttoo

Жыл бұрын

Neither creation NOR evolution has ever been observed, both require faith. There is no evidence, whatsoever, of any animal or vegetable, for that matter, changing into something else spontaneously. They are what they are and they stay that way until they die.

2. I understand that people don't like the idea they the world is just a machine set in motion that works without the need of God, but even if He intervenes, why would He break His own laws? They're how He "told" nature to operate, so going against them is God going against His own words, and God doesn't contradict Himself. So even if He intervenes He would do it in a "natural" way (as much it's possible for interference from outside of the Universe) without breaking any law of nature, so it makes sense for creation to be through natural processes.

thank for nice explanation

I’m a structuralist and they just attack Darwinism and even strawman it. Also I believe God is involved in the entire processs

@stevedoetsch

3 жыл бұрын

The Christian God is the God of nature: he does not engage in supernatural acts to maintain his creation. The "laws of nature" are patterns we observe in nature which have no explanation. That is God.

@michaelturnage3395

2 жыл бұрын

How do you know? You don't have the Spirit. I used to be deceived too but God snapped me out of it, it's part of an agenda. They want to mix human and animal DNA and create abominations.

@lukasbeier8338

2 жыл бұрын

@@michaelturnage3395 huh? Then why are there scientists like Dr. Collins or Dr. Swamidas who are devout Christians?

@michaelturnage3395

2 жыл бұрын

@@lukasbeier8338 Just because you're religious doesn't mean you're born again.

@michaelturnage3395

2 жыл бұрын

@@lukasbeier8338 There are plenty of devout Christians that fall into deception and heresies, who err in the scriptures. That doesn't guarantee anything.

Science IS the best method of understanding the PHYSICAL world. Theology and philosophy are here for the METAphysical questions.

@justinolmstead8086

5 жыл бұрын

I know you mention method, but there is ambiguity. Is your point about methodology or epistemology? Metaphysics studies the structure of reality. If science and metaphysics are not organically related, the universe is incoherent.

@SuperRunner1993

5 жыл бұрын

@@justinolmstead8086 You seem to have introduced a few terms that I am familiar with, but your lack of defining them leaves me confused to what your response means or what you're trying to get at. To extrapolate, my perspective is that, under the theistic worldview, there are two types or causal entities: natural and supernatural. The methodology of examining natural phenomenon, answering questions about natural reality, and explaining how they behaves/work is what science prizes itself with, and we give this the fancy name of methodological naturalism to describe all this. There is, however, another means of describing reality in the sense of answering METAphysical questions, which is the role of theology and philosophy. Does God exist? Is there life after death? Does objective morality/human rights exist? Science can inform some of these questions to various degrees, but it is up to the disciplines of theology and philosophy to guide us to the correct answer.

@dolsonit

5 жыл бұрын

SuperRunner1993 You are right on mark. Science, which is methodological naturalism, is simply inquiry as to how the gears work and are connected. It is a method only, that uses naturalism (seeing the universe as a box of gears) as its tool. This differentiates it from ontological naturalism, which is the incorrect statement that such a tool as this then means the universe must entirely naturalistic. This is called scientism, and it is incorrect. Scientism is similar in error made by the other side when they interfere with the method and try to add supernaturalism in as an explanation for and gears we don't yet understand. Both are thus categorical errors. What makes it so infuriating is that both sides use incoherence and historical revisionism in an attempt to deceive and rewrite science as being something other than methodological naturalism. We see this with those practising Scientism confusing methodological naturalism with ontological naturalism, and the religionists trying to say that science is not about naturalism.

@irishchocolate3872

4 жыл бұрын

Vandyy123 No! If you don’t have a literal Genesis, you don’t have Christianity. Jesus refuted Evolution when He said in Mathew 19 that God made them male and female at the beginning of Creation. Not millions of years later. If it were not the case it would either make Jesus Christ a liar or self-deceived. This statement also confirms a literal Adam & Eve. We did not evolve from pond scum into primates and then into humans. It is not just a theological issue but a historical issue as well.

@quackingpanda8466

4 жыл бұрын

You just made a philosophical comment

I think Theistic Evolution should be an optional belief like it is in Roman Catholicism.

@ReapingTheHarvest

4 ай бұрын

As a Catholic, I wish we were more firm against evolution. We used to be until St PJP II.

7. The first cells weren't the same as today's. The protocells didn't use DNA, it replaced RNA as more stable molecule later on. Both RNA and simple proteins can get produced by abiogenetic processes (yes, we achieved it in a lab) and we know RNA can catalize important processes without the need of enzymes or other proteins.

The music is too loud. It's distracting to the content.

12. How does theistic evolution limit the potential hypotheses? Evolution is a proven fact. Creationism says that it isn't. Therefore it can't be philosophy of science as it denies science. Theistic evolution explains science through the lenses of theology - what philosophy of science should do. It provides more hypotheses than Creationism, which doesn't go beyond any already established ones.

Theistic evolution isn’t real because life couldn’t be an accident... but that’s why they insert the word theistic.. creative design... do they not see that?

@smitty121981

2 жыл бұрын

That literally makes zero sense. Evolution IS creation. The desire to deny/reject evolution comes from pride, not truth.

@thomaskarabomohlapo568

6 ай бұрын

Evolution is chance creation is certainty know the difference

When I read Theistic Evolution I think of how the god in the OT goes about 'eye for an eye' and the god in the NT is all about forgiving. The problem with Theistic Evolution is that it just gives you a divine plan, without any option for prayer, and where is the free choice, and how unfair if you're predestined to be an Atheist, by his divine plan, you would go to hell. There is a reality, there is conscience, there is life, … what are the options: - we assume it was created by an entity that then brings up all the other questions that we seem to have to answer like we do to a child: because I say so… because it's in a book … because so many believers can't all be wrong... pretty circular. - we accept that 'because I say so' is not really an answer and we stick with the observable facts. - there's a third one, it could just be the divine plan, deal with it, not because you think it's not fair that it's not in his almighty mind... It's more simple to say: 'there is intelligent life' than to say: 'intelligent life came about through some processed guided by other intelligent life'... If god wants a book he also has to create first a human being that prints the book for him... that's also how books are explained by evolution, they were printed by humans that evolved from a eukaryote that came into existence. why did it come into existence: because the conditions of temperature and pressure were right and the ingredients were there. The individual processes on the chemical level work without the need of an explanation outside of the explained scientific universe, so stating that it's impossible that if the setting is right, given millions of years of time, eventually it would be impossible for it not to get started up. If the conclusion is the same: we don't know why we are here, we probably won't understand it anyway…. Well, do you want life to have a purpose, here's mine: I want my grandchildren to hear positive stories of me, I want to be able to travel around in a world with peace and prosperity, I want the guy who grows my coffee-beans also to be able to send his kids to school, and have the weekends off. See, life on earth has a purpose. Life itself is divine enough, it doesn't need to be bigger than that.

@Willyk200921

2 жыл бұрын

We have no idea how a single cell creates complex human life… or how a complex world was created from nothing through a statistical anomaly that literally would never happen or happen again. Creating a world perfect for human life, where if we were 1% off our axis we would freeze or burn. Not to mention, I’ve never met a Godless person that’s happy. I’ve also met many “God lovers” that are just as wicked. The principles and truths of Christ resonate more true today than ever and only a person that submits their heart to Him could ever understand what this life is really about. We didn’t come from a monkey, and to believe so is so dangerous to your spiritual understanding. You then just believe you’re a monkey with a monkey mind, and all you can chalk this life up to is “be nice, be a good person, have the best time I possibly can.” And that’s why so many people are so unhappy. Happiness doesn’t come from finding the physical 3D answers of this world, but realizing the answer is in an infinite savior that is beyond human comprehension.

@RS54321

Жыл бұрын

The NT isn't all about forgiving, although forgiveness is pivotal in the narrative. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice...he fulfills the 'eye for an eye' in that he had to atone for our sins. He became the sacrifice to replace all the animal sacrifices that man had to make to atone for their sins. These sins weren't just brushed off like nothing happened. Further, He is coming back to judge the world and our actions have consequences, as we will all see eventually.

Is this from an ID perspective?

The so-called believers who believe in evolution and think it's compatible with the Word of God fulfill this proverb: *"Sinners interpret the law to suit themselves."*

@ozowen5961

Жыл бұрын

No Smart people respond to actual evidence.

@anothenymously7054

9 ай бұрын

Jesus interpretted the law for himself

@jeremiahcastro9700

9 ай бұрын

@@anothenymously7054 He did so to correct the false teachings and understandings of the people: He did not interpret the law to justify sin...big difference.

6. Mutations. They bring new information in the genetic code. We know pretty much about them.

15. God gave us metaphorical explanation of the creation through people who still believed in myths. Then we learned that it didn't happen like that. It turned out not to be literal - that doesn't neglect God's authority in any way. And again, science works with facts, not authority.

We don't recognize an iphone is designed because it's complex. We recognize it's designed because it's artificial.

@mattburgess5697

Жыл бұрын

We’ve seen iPhone factories. This argument is completely nonsense.

@drbkjv

Жыл бұрын

“We recognize it’s designed because it wasn’t made by nature ( artificial)”. Thats what you said basically. Thats the question at hand. You a priori assumed your argument. You assume life was made by nature without intelligence ( not artificial). Thats called CIRCULAR REASONING.

@drbkjv

Жыл бұрын

@@mattburgess5697 if we didn’t see iphone factories nor saw them made? I’ve not seen them made nor the factory 🤷🏻‍♂️. Then we can conclude reasonably that maybe nature made iphones?

@drbkjv

Жыл бұрын

Funny to see 18 likes on a circular argument. People need to study some basic logic.

@lizd2943

Жыл бұрын

@@drbkjv No, it is not circular reasoning. We know that iphones don't occur in nature. We know that they are designed by people and built in factories by people. We have no basis for believing that nature is artificial. If we had evidence that it was, THEN and only then could we reason that it was.

Someone gave me this video to watch and I responded to him in chat. It seemed potentially useful, so I will reproduce it here: Hmm. Rondom 2:40. Which scientists have a problem with neo-Darwinism, and what are they trying to replace it with? 6-day creation? Surely not. It's nonsense to imply that neo-Darwinism is being replaced with something more friendly to creationism. Darwinism is just natural selection, but couldn't explain how new traits could arise. Neo-Darwinism proposed mutation as the source of novel features. There is mounting evidence that more sources for novel information, apart from mutations, exist. Neo-neo-Darwinism, if you will. That doesn't mean evolution is being rejected, quite the opposite. 3:31 Lie by ommission. Darwinism indeed doesn't explain novel features, which is why nobody believes in Darwinism and it has long been succeeded by Neo-Darwinism Ca. 3:40 - this assumes that cellular life was preceded by nothing, which is an unwarranted assumption Biological evolution explains how life evolves given that life exists, abiogenesis is a separate field of study, so not really relevant in a discussion of evolution. If you want to God-of-the-gaps it, you can say God created the first cell if you like, but that's going to be overturned as we learn more about the precursors to life Ca, 4:20 - well yes, methodological naturalism is what gives you the complex cellphones you were raving about at the beginning. If you assume that your experiment failed because a mischievous spirit interfered with it, you will not get very far in science The problem is that a creationist model exists and gets repeatedly falsified. If science didn't matter, then why does creationism exist? Why do people try to come up with a quasi-scientific model of the Flood? Let's suppose that you assume that abiogenesis is impossible, which is unwarranted. Evolution still stands, the relationship between organisms is still established, the age of the earth is still established (roughly), etc. If abiogenesis is the only place for the creationist version of God to hide, then that's not a very big hiding place, and it's constantly shrinking. This seems like setting yourself up for disappointment Ca. 5:00 in die video - The problem is that if we assume the creationist model and compare it to the data, it gets repeatedly falsified. If we do the same with the conventional model, it holds up as far as we know, though of course it will change in future as more evidence comes in. This is not a bug, it's a feature. Changing the model as older versions or previous models are falsified is how science works. I fail to see what alternative you propose "True, but partial answers." Yes, that's what science does. The answer is true but partial, and stands to be falsified in future by a model which fits the evidence better. That doesn't mean that science will some day spontaneously reverse course and claim that the earth is 6 000 years old or whatever "Different assumptions give different answers." Yes, and the creationist answer doesn't work, that's exactly the problem. Extrapolate the predictions of the model, in the rare cases that there even is one, and you get false predictions. That's why most creationists concern themselves with trying to poke holes in evolution and implying that creationism is the only alternative, rather than proposing models The Flood is a pretty big deal for example, but there's no model for it Creationist A proposes "catastrophic plate tectonics," Creationist B proposes that dinosaur footprints in soft mud survived the Flood somehow, and never the twain shall meet Ca. 5:40 - OK, you can complain that your model is excluded a priori if you want, but that's irrelevant because you don't have a model 😂 Ca. 5:50 - On the contrary, what has the potential to undermine my confidence in the authority of Scripture is when you insist that I have to believe outright nonsense about science in order to believe the Bible at all! Ca. 6:45 - It's St. Paul who tells us in 1 Cor 15 that it is possible in principle to prove that the Gospel is false and that we are without hope. If you believe that the Bible can't withstand scrutiny, who are you to tell me that I have a low view of Scripture? You're the only one here who seems to fear that examining Scripture would falsify it. That's quite revealing, unfortunately. 6:56 - No, if you're confusing your interpretation of Scripture with God's authority then you have an ego problem and that's about it 7:30 There you go again, conflating the problems with Neo-Darwinism with the idea that evolution is about to collapse and be replaced with (presumably) creationism, which is nonsense The question about Neo-Darwinism is a question regarding mechanisms of generating novel features at the genetic level, it's got absolutely nothing to do with rejecting evolution as a whole. It's a very niche question of relevance to geneticists, but you're trying to make it sound as if the whole structure is about to come crashing down, which it's not

@kneo12

4 жыл бұрын

Great breakdown salute to u sir/maam

@adamboyen4727

Жыл бұрын

For the record your "neo-neo Darwinism" does exist, it's called the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology and describes many of the observed mechanisms of evolution and has been around for at least 40 years, though I've heard they want to add to it and rename it to neo modern synthesis of evolutionary biology, adding things such as horizontal gene transfer and other methods of evolution

"Lest we lose credibility" Product gives you credibility. Not talk.

@wolfieinu

4 жыл бұрын

These guys seem very concerned with losing face and very worried that their model is being disallowed from science a priori due to not being naturalistic, so you'd think they'd prioritize actually coming up with a model. But it's been how many decades since modern creationism began? And they've delivered precisely nothing. Well, almost: Dr. Russell Humphreys predicted that the temperatures of gas giants would be higher than expected, and they were. But that's about it. Tragic.

@BibleResearchTools

3 жыл бұрын

Wolfie Inu, you wrote, "These guys seem very concerned with losing face and very worried that their model is being disallowed from science a priori due to not being naturalistic, so you'd think they'd prioritize actually coming up with a model. But it's been how many decades since modern creationism began? And they've delivered precisely nothing. Well, almost: Dr. Russell Humphreys predicted that the temperatures of gas giants would be higher than expected, and they were. But that's about it. Tragic." Are you kidding? The books by Darwin and Lyell have been around for about a century and a half, and there is still not a shred of evidence that either book is based on anything other than anti-Moses suppositions. In opposition there is observable evidence that Genesis is accurate in both the creation account and the flood. Dan

@wolfieinu

3 жыл бұрын

@@BibleResearchTools Ipse dixit. Flood geology is incompatible with geology, except if creationists can explain how animals would leave tracks halfway up the geologic column (i.e., midway through the Flood) or how river deltas could form underwater. Both on top of other layers also supposedly laid down by the Flood.

@BibleResearchTools

3 жыл бұрын

Wolfie Inu, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools Ipse dixit. Flood geology is incompatible with geology, except if creationists can explain how animals would leave tracks halfway up the geologic column (i.e., midway through the Flood) or how river deltas could form underwater. Both on top of other layers also supposedly laid down by the Flood." The moon and sun didn't disappear during the flood, Wolfie. There were still ebbs and tides. 20th-century geological research has revealed that the sedimentary layers were deposited in enormous sequences, called "megasequences," which means the water pouring out of the biblical "fountains of the great deep" was not continuous. This is a video segment by a Harvard-trained geologist explaining the megasequences: kzread.info/dash/bejne/amxmyM-uncfTaaQ.htmlm39s Now, perhaps you will explain to us why dinosaur footprints show up in layers below the layers where the dino bones are found. You can also explain the knife-edge boundary between the Kermit Formation and the Coconino Sandstone, as shown in this photo (e.g., why no erosion or bioturbation?): dl0.creation.com/articles/p128/c12857/Hermit-Shale-Coconino-Sandstone-lge.jpg You can also explain how these folded sedimentary rock layers ended up on mountain tops (and are still there): mjfimages.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/folded_mountain.jpg Dan

@wolfieinu

3 жыл бұрын

@@BibleResearchTools So the Earth flooded several times and somehow caused entirely distinct ecosystems to exist on top of each other several times, inside the course of a year? And they each had time to form a complete ecology, complete with fully developed ecosystems, and features such as chalk beds (which only form in calm depositional environments over long periods of time)? Permit me to doubt that story. Re: dinosaur footprints, why would you expect fossil bones to necessarily show up before fossil footprints? Doesn't seem to be a problem there. Rather seems like a problem for YEC that such things as index fossils exist at all. Re: "knife-edge" boundaries, when a plain forms on top of older strata, you get flat interfaces between strata. How would a worldwide and very violent Flood form such features? Floods usually form gullies and the like, especially if the underlying layers aren't solidified yet. Re: folded rock layers and other features on top of mountains, this happens because older layers are pushed upward by geological activity. Why would the Flood explain that better? What is the problem with the conventional explanation? The Flood can't explain such features, because if the layers were still soft when they were bent, why wouldn't they flow into one another and cease being distinct layers? The fact that rock layers maintain a consistent width while being bent indicates that they were already solid when that happened. When you try to bend mud or any other soft or fluid substance, it flows downwards, does it not? Since it's not solid, it wouldn't maintain a flat interface with the layers above or below it. It would get mixed in with them.

I hope I clarified everything.

@gybx4094

4 ай бұрын

Yes, well written. The Bible is not a science book, so we cannot apply scientific method to prove metaphysical stories. The more stubbornly literalist we are, the less credibility we have. When it comes to Theistic Evolution, I visit the Thomastic Institute Catholics here on KZread. They've been working on Scripture, Science, Philosophy, Theology compatibility theories since Aquinas himself.

Honestly the belief in a creator is just a belief because I’m a theistic evolutionist. I believe in God because we create everything there could be a chance that this world was created from a founder, but I definitely believe the scientific data in evolution

@edenrosest

4 жыл бұрын

Do you believe in the 'Tree of Life' Darwin initially sketched in his book? It was not by scientific data. Just by his imagination or his own belief. All theories of evolution are not by set up by using data. The biggest problem is there are no connected fossils evidence that shows macro evolution between specie and specie.

@adrianofficialmusick

4 жыл бұрын

williamrose there is actually a report of how a whole village naturally conditioned themselves to breathe under water and it was passed down to their offspring i think that evolution was from billions of years but from natural adaptations and by that means we got humans who have adapted and adapted from their ancestral ape like bodies

@adrianofficialmusick

4 жыл бұрын

williamrose There are theories of evolution and the definition of a “Scientific theory” is totally different

@edenrosest

4 жыл бұрын

​@@adrianofficialmusick I know this will be a stupid argument to both you and me. I just asked you about the tree of life Darwin scribbled. You know, we call 'Scientific theory' when a stupid scientist imagines something and call 'Delusion" or "fantacy fiction' when an ordinary person imagine anything.. That's it.

@adrianofficialmusick

4 жыл бұрын

williamrose wtf are you talking about though? There are many evidences of evolution

11. What causes - God? That's the whole point of theistic evolution? I don't understand what this person is talking about.

If there was strong scientific evidence that evolution did not occur...does not occur and never occurred, I think someone would get a Nobel prize and become famous by discovering it. The thing that would knock everyone's socks off would be actually demonstrable evidence of an intelligent designer...a god...God actually making something happen that absolutely could not happen naturally. When this can be demonstrated, that will put to rest all this quibbling and most would jump on board. That's the problem with most theologies, they depend on complex obscure arguments and abstractions and distractions, feelings and incredulity rather than depending on actual power...demonstrating actual tangible results that could not be explained any other way. Demonstrate a new species arising from an existing species as I am led to believe God must have done it. Demonstrate new life popping into existence from a gimish of natural elements. Or better yet, show life arising using materials totally unknown to man so it would be incontrovertible that it was done by some outside force/power/intelligence. I have no vested interest in evolution, no a particular reason to disbelieve God exists. My life would not change a bit if I woke up one day and became by observation that there was a 'creator' or an 'intelligent designer.' All would go on as before but frankly up 'til now, I've seen nothing that I can directly attribute to such an entity. It may actually be that there IS an intelligent designer, a god, a creator who made the natural world and it doesn't care at all about humans. Its interest may be totally unrelated to humans and it's sheer hubris that humans think god 'did it all' for us. God may care no more about humans than most humans care about bacteria on a remote island that is harmless.

@ifeanyichukwu3644

Жыл бұрын

No one sensible is opposed to simple evolution. The problem is darwinian evolution. It is too based on speculation

@rizdekd3912

Жыл бұрын

@@ifeanyichukwu3644 But I see no reason to artificially limit evolution and the effects it might have over extended time. I agree there is speculation...one is taking an observable process and extrapolating. What's the problem? I think it's kind of neat to think of it. Do you think God is mad if people think he was clever enough to create matter and energy just so such that it could self assemble and organize into life that is capable of evolving they think THAT is how God created life? It would take a much smarter God to do that then to stamp out life in 'cookie cutter' fashion because he didn't have the wit to do it the hard way.

@KingPingviini

Жыл бұрын

It would surely knock everyone's socks off, but that's not going to happen, because people suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Design can be clearly seen by anyone, people just make up false philosophies (Naturalism) to themselves to explain the design and designer away. The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:18-24 “Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made” (Genesis 2:1-3). God has finished His creation job so no new animals appear. People who hold that side that life appeared naturally fail to demonstrate it. If life started spontaneously then why can't we see new life forms spontaneously arising. It is supposed to be natural phenomena. What's preventing it happen again? It's just one time "miraculous event", except without the miraclemaker. And I don't want to hear the excuse that "it just takes millions of years", because that is not happening. Earth is supposedly billions of years, when it is going to happen? It's appeal to time, supposedly everything is possible by given enough time.

@rizdekd3912

Жыл бұрын

@@KingPingviini "If life started spontaneously then why can't we see new life forms spontaneously arising. It is supposed to be natural phenomena. What's preventing it happen again?" Either because the environment now is totally different than then and the conditions that allowed new life to form no longer exist. Remember that the oxygen rich environment we now enjoy did not exist in early earth. So new life may only be able to form under anaerobic conditions and those are rare...unstudied and/or new life may always be forming but because it is weak, it is immediately devoured by the more advanced life forms that already exists around it And as to appeal to time...time is what there has been an abundance of. Why shouldn't we appeal to time as the explanation for many things from how planets and stars formed, to how mountains formed, to how canyons formed and as to how life formed. I see no problem except incredulity and superstition.

Micro evolution can occur but not macro evolution.

@haggismcbaggis9485

2 жыл бұрын

The Marble crayfish is an example of macroevolution.

@adamboyen4727

Жыл бұрын

Sorry bud but they are pretty much the same thing, just on a different scale, microevolution is diversification within a population, while macroevolution is diversification between populations, which includes speciation. Generally microevolution can be described as just being reproduction + mutations that produces increases in biodiversity, macroevolution is reproduction + mutations, that increase biodiversity, + natural selection, wherein traits that improve reproduction ability become dominant and traits that reduce reproduction ability either die off or become less visible, and you repeat these 3 stages to ad nauseam and eventually new species will start to appear in different populations, keep in mind that for sexually reproductive species due to genetic intermixing the entire population evolves in exactly the same direction at the exact same time

@rocketscientisttoo

Жыл бұрын

Isn't microevolution just adaption, or does the animal become a completely new animal?

@gospeljoy5713

Жыл бұрын

@@rocketscientisttoo micro is like a house cat tiger lion lynx. All our cat family. Not a monkey becomes a giraffe.

-"No one could pick up a smartphone and think it was an accident." Because we have a lifetime of familiarity with such products and what they are. We have mountains of evidence they are created by other people and no evidence that they are naturally occurring. But if we went to some alien world and discovered some kind of bizarre and unfamiliar phenomenon, would we be able to determine if it was natural or designed by an intelligence? What method would we use to go about answering that question? Complexity is not an inherent indicator of design. That's a logical fallacy. Many designed things are actually very simple. I could just as easily intuit that a round, smooth, solid-red ball was designed because that kind of simplicity is not regularly occurring in nature. We understand design by induction and contrast. And if everything was designed, then design itself would not be a salient quality to us. -"That doesn't happen with smartphones." Sure, because we have no evidence that it can happen and no mechanism by which it could happen. We do have evidence that life in fact did transition from simple organisms to more complex ones and we have discovered a robust mechanisms that explains how this happens. And it's all natural. -"We have no idea how a single cell produces an adult." NO idea? I don't value this kind of hyperbole and neither do most honest people. -"Scientifically the really odd thing about this debate is that..." That it's not happening among actual scientists and the debate is purely among credulous religious folks trying desperately to rehabilitate their beliefs in ancient mythology? -"...at just the point when leading evolutionary biologists and evolutionary theorists are acknowledging the main standard orthodox textbook theory of evolution known as neo-Darwinsim is in serious trouble." Yeah, all two of them. -"Natural selection explains the survival, but not the arrival of the fittest." Natural selection explains the diversity of life. "Survival of the fittest" is kind of a crude layman's framing of it. And it absolutely does explain where you get birds from. Do I really need to provide an evolutionary history of birds here? "To get the first cell, you need DNA, and you also need RNA, and you need protein... coming up with that out of a process of random mutation and natural selection is just not possible." Argument from personal incredulity. As Hitchens famously wrote, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". To say this is merely impossible is nothing more than an unsupported bald-faced assertion. Not only do we have no evidence that it is impossible, we have evidence that makes it plausible. We may not currently understand how all of these complex chemical processes work, but we understand them a hell of a lot better than we understand *divine magic* (which is not at all)! It's disgustingly disingenuous. -"Those who have adopted the strong form of theistic evolution that we're critiquing have pretty much embraced and even defended methodological naturalism." In other words, they understand that science is the best method by which we can currently make sense of reality. -"Methodological naturalism is a convention that says we must formulate theories about the world as if it were true that nature acting on its own can produce everything that we see." Wrong. It is the acknowledgement that when it comes to empirical scientific inquiry, we can only work with the natural because supernatural claims are not testable or verifiable. Existent or not, the supernatural doesn't offer any explanatory power. It gives us nothing to examine or falsify. You simply cannot use the scientific method to postulate supernatural causes because that's a dead end. It doesn't tell us anything and we learn nothing from it. But science does not assume philosophical naturalism or materialism. Perhaps there is "more" so to speak. But what alternative are you presenting? What methodology do you have that can reliably and accurately confirm the supernatural? -"Whereas if we take scripture to occupy a position of higher authority..." Why on earth would we do that? What justification is there to say the Bible has any authority? It's ultimately a circular argument. All this talk about epistemology and the philosophy of science is a dishonest and irrelevant red herring beyond making dogma and blind faith seem more palatable to the more rational among us. At the end of the day you take scripture at face value and you offer no justification for it. -"There is no consensus view." Please, lie some more. It will only help turn people away from your religion all the more quickly. As theologically silly as trying to reconcile modern science with the Bible is, it is keeping people in the pews more than lying to them does.

@nuclearmusic77

5 жыл бұрын

Samuel Stephens so... the world wasn’t created?

@watchin7029

4 жыл бұрын

*Highlighted Response

@deepthinker2070

4 жыл бұрын

How is it not a debate among actual scientists if "leading " biologists are the ones saying that the modern form of darwinism now fails to explain where new biological structures come from?

@stevedoetsch

3 жыл бұрын

" if we went to some alien world and discovered some kind of bizarre and unfamiliar phenomenon, would we be able to determine if it was natural or designed by an intelligence? What method would we use to go about answering that question?" Scientifically differentiating design from natural causes is EXACTLY what ID science is developing the tools to accomplish. This is precisely how ID is the cutting edge of scientific development and how atheistic ideologies like evolution hinder scientific progress.

@samuelstephens6904

3 жыл бұрын

@@stevedoetsch -"Scientifically differentiating design from natural causes is EXACTLY what ID science is developing the tools to accomplish." Please tell me what exactly those "tools" are and show me some of that "cutting edge" research from top scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals with the highest impact factor such as _Nature._

The problem with theistic evolution is if God did use evolution, is it the God of the bible? The God of the Bible made the world perfect and human sinned being tempted by the devil. This sin created death and chaos on the planet, the sinned filled the world with suffering. Also God created the Sun to help sustain his creations. The evolutionist point of view reverses the role. Instead of man created chaos into this world, it's chaos who created man in this world. Death brought man into this world and the Sun existed earlier to help create a scenario for life to be able to exist. So if you believe God used evolution, I am doubtful it's the God of the bible. Just like Islamic Jihadis and Mormons and Jehovah's witness believe in "God" so called, it's certainly NOT the God of the bible.

@tomdrinkwater6940

Жыл бұрын

Very well said. The narrative or literary story arc of Genesis is just as important as its literal interpretations. Theistic evolution (Darwinian) is just not compatible with either, though sadly some do try.

It is borderline heresy, much like cessationism.

Jesus said oh ye of little faith, what type of God do you believe in ?....Is your God not big enough, powerful enough to create everything out of nothing...well mine is, it's to God's glory to honor him as creator in six literal days as he described in his word.

1:44 no! God both created 2 life forms with completely different genomes snd means of copying DNA (look them up!) AND T(He)y added discrete stretches of code and non-coding DNA (operating system) for structures like pili, flagella, adhesins, and enabled metamorphosis of gill to jaw, nymph to dragonfly,, caterpillar to moth, moth wing to iridescent butterfly wing, tadpole to frog. The facts show intelligrnt intervention in subtle, then suddenly exploding onto the scene of life, throughout the history of life on Earth. God invented Evolution to winnow the weak, and allow adaptation to changing environments. Thinking Christians must show they know His Creative Superintelligence as the science clearly shows.

No one said god created matter…

@bobdobbs943

Жыл бұрын

i said he did.

This video is one of the best compilations of Young Earth Creationism philosophy that has been recently done. It lays things on the table quite plainly. Yet, it is wrong. It misunderstands how science works and misrepresents how disagreements in science work. It makes the same exact mistake as those who practice Scientism. And most importantly, it is deeply and profoundly unbiblical and has contributed to the rejection of Christianity in the West and its secularization by making it intellectually untenable. Christ was quite clear in his threat towards those placing stumbling blocks in front of people. And this is a huge stumbling block. The Bible is NOT a book of science. It contains the ancient understanding of the cosmos present at the time of its various writings.

@justinolmstead8086

5 жыл бұрын

These guys aren't young earthers. Do some fact-checking.

@navilsiripala1037

5 жыл бұрын

Is it the problem of science if it has contributed to the rejection of christianity and making it intellectualy untenable. I wud think it is the problem of christians when people reject the bible for whatever reason.

@rocketscientisttoo

Жыл бұрын

Please don't leave us hanging. Enlighten us as to just how science works, please.

Neo Darwinism failing says nothing about Jesus as God or the scripture as divine.

@JNich-yc6cc

3 жыл бұрын

Darwinian evolution and its many problems and gaps, say nothing for or against the reliability and historical accuracy of the New Testament. However the beginning of the universe the fine tuning argument and the origin of life do say something about theism once you understand god exists you can look for evidence and see for yourself if Christianity is true

@ketsune23

3 жыл бұрын

@@JNich-yc6cc Christianity is not the only religion that expresses the existence of God. The Bible is a book that tells the story of Israel and their god Yahweh\modern Jehovah. The Bible nor the Hebrews taught the existence of a Universal or interplanetary God. The god Yahweh is a tribal and a deity of the desert it has nothing to do with a Universal God since most religions are segregating people into their own and they slap each other to know who is superior or right about their holy book or god. I think Deism is a far superior intellectual explanation to the origin of the cosmos, the problem of evil, and so on. God doesn't interfere in the matter world. The Bible was influenced by Babylonian cosmology and science since it apparently teaches that the earth is a disk fluctuating in an aqueous universe. This is very clear when Satan took Jesus to a top of a high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of earth this is just possible on a flat earth. p.s I am not an advocate of flat earth but the Bible is. I follow a deistic religion

@JNich-yc6cc

3 жыл бұрын

@@ketsune23 your so incorrect in all of that you haven’t even read the first chapter of the Bible if you had you wouldn’t of just typed that god is the creator of the universe and all people who came to save all people

@ketsune23

3 жыл бұрын

@@JNich-yc6cc I know the Bible pretty well my friend i was a Bible believer for 12 years. How can your god came to save all people when he sent a bear to kill 42 children because they were mocking the prophet of israel? Seems very contraditory

@butterflypaint4332

3 жыл бұрын

@@ketsune23 I’m a fellow skeptic when it comes to the claims in the Bible but I just thought I’d let you know that I have heard other interpretations about that passage that seem to suggest it is just taken way out of context, though I’m not saying it’s right I just know that the controversy behind it could be more complicated than it looks. I agree that if it is what it looks like with the initial reading it’s horrid but I think we must always strive to be looking at it in its original context as well. kzread.info/dash/bejne/lo6j1Kd7abrUXaw.html Idk if you’ve heard of dr. michael s heiser or not but just thought I’d mention this video in case you haven’t heard about the other side of the controversy. He also has an alternative theory on the idea that Judaism evolved from polytheism by giving a view that would still support a monotheistic view of its origins. It’s detailed in his book The Unseen Realm (Not saying that’s necessarily true either just pointing it out in case you’d be interested? I haven’t even gotten around to finishing the book myself but it is incredibly interesting lol)

So "theistic evolution" is just normal evolution, which is believed by theists? Wtf?

@JWStheDRAGONVNQSHR

2 жыл бұрын

theistic evolution is basically when you believe that evolution did happen but that God "took part" in its process.

I m a muslim but this video is simply a masterpiece, unlike any other channel I have seen.

@vesselsoffire5900

2 жыл бұрын

Why does the Quaran say The gospel is true and contradict the gospel when we know Jesus died on the cross and that we have manuscripts of the new testament from the 1st century

@owaissheraz

2 жыл бұрын

@@vesselsoffire5900 *Quranic dilemma debunked*. *1)About torah* Do you ˹believers still˺ expect them to be true to you, though a group of them would hear the word of Allah then knowingly corrupt it after understanding it?When they meet the believers they say, “We believe.” But in private they say ˹to each other˺, “Will you disclose to the believers the knowledge Allah has revealed to you,1 so that they may use it against you before your Lord? Do you not understand?Do they not know that Allah is aware of what they conceal and what they reveal?And among them are the illiterate who know nothing about the Scripture except lies, and ˹so˺ they ˹wishfully˺ speculate.So woe1 to those who distort the Scripture with their own hands then say, “This is from Allah”-seeking a fleeting gain! So woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they have earned.2:75_79There are some among them who distort the Book with their tongues to make you think this ˹distortion˺ is from the Book-but it is not what the Book says. They say, “It is from Allah”-but it is not from Allah. And ˹so˺ they attribute lies to Allah knowingly.3:78. "And when a messenger from Allah came to them confirming that which was with them, a party of those who had been given the Scripture threw the Scripture of Allah behind their backs as if they did not know [what it contained]".2:101And [mention, O Muhammad], when Allah took a covenant from those who were given the Scripture, [saying], "You must make it clear to the people and not conceal it." But they threw it away behind their backs and exchanged it for a small price. And wretched is that which they purchased.3:187. *About injeel* And from those who say, "We are Christians" We took their covenant; but they forgot a portion of that of which they were reminded.1 So We caused among them2 animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do. 5:14 .O People of the Book! Now Our Messenger has come to you, revealing much of what you have hidden of the Scriptures and disregarding much. There certainly has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book 5:15. *Quranic dilemma debunked by the very first commentator czn of prophet* Sahih al-Bukhari 7363 Narrated Ubaidullah: Ibn 'Abbas said, "Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (Quran) which has been revealed to Allah's Apostle is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!" Now he would have been also in dilemma if quran would have been in . *Concept of injeel in Islam* it is a book given by God to jesus directly. So, mark, mathew, luke and john is definitely not what quran talking about and already depicting to its corruption. Did quran got it wrong?? Mark1:14 Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, Matthew 9:35 Verse Concepts Jesus was going through all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. THERE WAS NO GOSPEL OF MARK, MATHEW OR LUKE TO PREACH SO , DEFINITELY HE WAS PREACHING GOSPEL OF JESUS (INJEEL). *Quran's criteria of judgement* We have sent down to you the Book with truth, confirming the Book before it, and a supreme authority on them.. So, judge between them according to what Allah has sent down, and do not follow their desires against the truth that has come to you. 5:48 *Logical argument* if holy prophet copied quran from bible how could he not see mark,mathew, luke or concept of salvation in gospel. *because he didn't* plus Quran opposes fundamental beliefs of Christinan like "......and do not say, God is a trinity." Relinquish such a creed! That is better for you…” (4:171) &157And because of their saying (in boast), “We killed Messiah ‘Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah,” - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of ‘Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. ‘Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)]: 158But Allah raised him [‘Iesa (Jesus)] up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he is in the heavens). And Allah is Ever All-Powerful, All-Wise. (An-Nisa 4:157-158,..... So AUTHOR OF QURAN DEFINITELY HAD AN IDEA OF BOTH THESE BELIEVE ARE ABUNDANTLY FOUND IN GOSPELS OF THAT TIME BUT STILL HE DENOUNCE THEM .... THEN HOW CAN YOU RECONCILE IT EXCEPT SAYING THAT THIS IS THE CORRUPTED PART OF INJEEL. And also quran explicitly defines injeel as word of god given to jesus and not written by historians like Mark or mathew. BUT Quran calls suxh gospels CONJECTURE. We have concept of tahrif going back to prophet himself and hazrat ibn abbas, taking it from word in quran 'harf' to change.

@owaissheraz

2 жыл бұрын

We have a concept of corruption of GOSPELS back to ibn abbas czn of prpphet and prophet himself as I have shown in my comment. WE DO BELIEVE GOSPEL WAS TURE BUTOUR CONCEPT OF GOSPEL IS NOT MARK MATHEW OR LUKE... IT IS GOSPEL OF JESUS THAT IS LOST.......... We do believe that once they wete inspired but now they have been corrupted. That's it. Its so easy Concept

@ifeanyichukwu3644

Жыл бұрын

@@owaissheraz Gospels aren't corrupt

@owaissheraz

Жыл бұрын

@@ifeanyichukwu3644 ok But that's what NT scholars say U don't have actual manuscripts. Have differences in accounts of gospels & Gospel of john is considered unreliable when talking about passages of Jesus claiming himself to be God Plus why do i believe in Paul that he saw Jesus on jis way to Galilee.. ""What is the proof yhat Gospels where inspired by holy spirit.... "'' tell me any evidence so that i can believe

“Theistic evolution” is an oxymoron. There’s one fact that debunks the stupidity of Evo theory. And that is, the Bible is clear that death came into the world as a RESULT of sin. But Evo theory stipulates that there was lots of death prior to sin. Evo theory is CLEARLY incompatible with what the Bible clearly states.

@Bizxrre

Жыл бұрын

If you are taking a literal face value approach then yea, but the implication of Gen 3:22 is that there is physical death prior to sin. Why else would man have to eat from the tree of life if they are immortal? “The man has now become like one of us,(A) knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life(B) and eat, and live forever.” Though I’m not a proponent of Evo theory it does seem that perhaps the Genesis account was never meant to be taken literal.

@mareksumguy1887

Жыл бұрын

@@Bizxrre no, the scripture clearly states that death and suffering came only AFTER sin. Evo theory is antithetical to Gods word.

@Bizxrre

Жыл бұрын

@@mareksumguy1887 I believe that the death portrayed is a spiritual death rather than physical death

@mareksumguy1887

Жыл бұрын

@@Bizxrre you believe wrong. It is both.

@Bizxrre

Жыл бұрын

@@mareksumguy1887 Do you believe human life existed before Adam and Eve?

When science catches up with the Word of God, both will agree.

@theTavis01

2 жыл бұрын

They already agree. Evolution glorifies God. Romans 1:20

@chigozieagwuncha2166

2 жыл бұрын

The ego of Christians! Similar to thinking the USA is the only nation in the world. If evolution goes in line with creationism, the equilibrium won't point to the Christian God.

@theTavis01

2 жыл бұрын

@@chigozieagwuncha2166 Evolution shows many characteristics of the "Christian God" (there's only one God btw). The so-called mutations show God's creativity, the so-called selection shows God's judgment, the depth of time shows God's long suffering patience.

@chigozieagwuncha2166

2 жыл бұрын

@@theTavis01Simply stating there's God doesn't mean there's one. Even if there's one, you still have to show how this God is Yahweh. If Evolution is true (i.e Humans evolved from apes), it does not mean there's no GOD who set it in motion, but it would mean that that God isn't Yahweh (the Christian God), as we know Yahweh is said to have created man in one day in his image, not evolved them. Gosh! The self importance of Christians!!!

@theTavis01

2 жыл бұрын

​@@chigozieagwuncha2166 Let's focus on your claim that evolution "would mean that that God isn't Yahweh". You claim that because humans are made in God's image it somehow magically contradicts evolution which is totally absurd. A self portrait is a work of art made in the artist's image, correct? You do realize that the first human art was *_NOT_* realistic representation but had to *_EVOLVE_* to that point over several thousands of years, right? So being made in God's image fits perfectly with evolution. Humans are the pinnacle of evolution. You are merely a butthurt whiner looking for excuses to reject the Bible. Your arguments are as weak as the creationists who reject evolution.

GOD CREATED ALL BEAUTIFULY… and perfectly… living in a fallen world.. PRIDE OF MAN is the problem… plus morality and VALUE

The scientific evidence of after life made my believe in God More.

@AbandonedVoid

Жыл бұрын

Science has disproven the afterlife for over a century now. When we debunked mind-body dualism in early psychiatric and neuroscientific experiments, we disproved the soul and demonstrated that we call "us" is merely a product of our brain. Thus, "we" stop existing when the brain is destroyed, and an afterlife is basically impossible.

I believed that evolution undermined scripture too. …And then I saw the evidence for evolution. A while later, now I’m not a Christian

Always with the strawmen. Theistic evolutionists don't believe that God was not involved in a natural process called evolution. The clue is in the name. After that highlighting how RNA and proteins need each other to form at the same time is redundant wouldn't you say? I would label myself a theistic evolutionist and I don't even have one word to go and look up because I am challenged, let alone an argument.

All of these narrators sound pretty condescending.

@smitty121981

2 жыл бұрын

that's because they know they are living a lie

Why would the 'Creator of the Universe' require all life to eat each other to stay alive? I thought it was run by a magic wand.

Good Evening /Morning to Everyone God of the Bible both Transcendence and Immanence . God (self-existent and self-sufficient) is Transcendence means He Created the entire universe out of Nothing ,but not being part of it. He is outside of it. But God is Immanence ,He not only created Universe and sustaining it. In Creation account ,God rested on 7th day but again working from 8th day .Jesus told in JOHN 5:17-In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” Psalms 104 shows God’s working in Universe by the Scientific laws which he already laid. Every truth is God’s Truth only. Whether it is in Science ,Metaphysics ,History, Philosophy and Theology. Because God is Truth. Scientists are working very hard to inventing and discovering already existed laws and things. As Human being made in the image of God that’s why this is possible. Science and God does not opposite each other.By studying science we can appreciate the God the Creator.

have you check out "Exposing the Discovery Institute Part 1: Casey Luskin" and "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 44 Lucy" on youtube. they shows how ignorant .Casey Luskin and discovery institute are.

hehe we have a few of these kinds of people where I'm from but it's not like US big RIP u boyz gotta deal with Creationism gang XD

@dirtymikentheboys5817

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah Europe's downfall was the lack of falling God. I wish they would understand that racist and unfalsifiable evolution caused several war. Something america used to fight against.....sad.

@smitty121981

2 жыл бұрын

@@dirtymikentheboys5817 "evolution caused several war" So what? That's because it's TRUE. Who would fight over a lie??? Evolution is knowledge, knowledge is power, and power corrupts. There is absolutely no reason to think that the validity of science can be judged by it's ability to bring about some sort of material utopia. "For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief." Ecclesiastes 1:18

@dirtymikentheboys5817

2 жыл бұрын

@@smitty121981 lol......that verse is talking about ASSUMED truths..being promoted as knowledge.

@smitty121981

2 жыл бұрын

@@dirtymikentheboys5817 No, that's NOT what that verse was about AT ALL. And you ignored everything that I said. Evolution is a FACT. Deal with it.

@dirtymikentheboys5817

2 жыл бұрын

@@smitty121981 I'm sorry. The overall chapter.

One step forward, ten steps back. Young Earth creationism is the leading cause of why Christian leave the faith. We need to wake up to our ancient past to see that early Christians has a variety of interpretation of creation and that Christianity is compatible with evolutionary theory. The problem is not with evolution but with fundamentalist evangelicals who want to hold to their traditions and not actually go back to the scriptures and see what they actually say. The irony.

@braydenshanley7435

4 жыл бұрын

But how do we know the interpretations are correct? Almost every single Christian has a different interpretation.

@BibleResearchTools

3 жыл бұрын

Micah Matthew, you wrote, "Young Earth creationism is the leading cause of why Christian leave the faith." Wrong. The leading cause is one-sided indoctrination with the pseudosciences of evolutionism and big-bangism. Dan

@braydenshanley7435

3 жыл бұрын

Bible Research Tools Pseudoscience?

@VierthalerStudios

3 жыл бұрын

Bible Research Tools Wrong. Most ex-Christians who are now atheists will tell you that they left their faith over YEC’s fundamentals telling them that the YEC interpretation is the only one. Go look up Genetically Modified Skeptic, Hugo and Jake, etc.

@gatolf2

3 жыл бұрын

EricVierthaler92 most atheists I’ve talked to left because God didn’t answer their prayers ot something of that nature. Most I’ve talked to never even dabbled in YEC. YEC is very unpopular in my experience even in the Christian community.

The solution is simple: the mutations in the fossil record are not random. They are deliberate.

@AtiShard16

2 жыл бұрын

There does not exist good evidence in the fossil record to support any kind of Darwinian theory.

@phillise1

2 жыл бұрын

@@AtiShard16 What do you mean "any kind"? There is plenty of evidence showing that apes are ancestral to humans, and reptiles are descended from amphibians and fish, etc., and that it happened over millions of years.

@AtiShard16

2 жыл бұрын

@@phillise1 there exists no good fossil evidence for Darwinian theory

@phillise1

2 жыл бұрын

@@AtiShard16 Yes there does

@phillise1

2 жыл бұрын

@@AtiShard16 I don't know what to tell you, that's just not true

If you feel that god gave us scientific theories maybe I will left that slide. If you feel that god has to interfere with the mechanics of evolution or any of the other theories to make it work is outrageous.

Its the catholic church that accepts evolution....

@stevedoetsch

3 жыл бұрын

Incorrect. Jesus Church, the Catholic Church, has with authority refrained from coming to conclusions on the scientific parts of the evolutionary theory, but has required that all Christians (it has authority over all baptized people) accept that 1) God created the universe 2)God created men and women and 3) God created them in his image.

@daddada2984

3 жыл бұрын

@@stevedoetsch nope.. Jesus.. never built a church to be called catholic.. its Christianity... And catholicism teaches different from Jesus teaches. Catholic scientific priest believes in evolution... not all but some... some from American & vatican.

@michaelturnage3395

3 жыл бұрын

@@daddada2984 Messianic Judaism actually.

@daddada2984

3 жыл бұрын

@@michaelturnage3395 nope... its catholic priest & some even from vatican.

@haggismcbaggis9485

2 жыл бұрын

They do teach it in Catholic schools and the last string of popes has supported and accepted it.

WARNING: video contains many logical fallacies.

@Dr-Curious

4 жыл бұрын

WARNING: Top post contains understatement.

Ah so this whole thing is lies by ideologues. Gotcha. Evolution is an observed fact of population genetics. Either accept it into your theology, or go the way of flat earth and geocentrism. The choice is yours

@RS54321

Жыл бұрын

No one has 'observed' evolution! Scientists have postulated what occurred based on the evidence that we have found.

We have to start with, what is truth? Answer: It’s God’s Word. The sufficiently of Christ. Shepard’s could understand it, why can’t the highly educated? It’s because they are fools.

@stevedoetsch

3 жыл бұрын

Shephard's didn't have the Bible. Nor did any Christian for 300 years after Christ. The Bible is a Protestant idol they worship in place of Jesus and the Church he founded in Peter. You need to follow Jesus and his Church, not your own understanding of the Bible.

These philosophers explaining evolution is stupid.

Evolution is real. It’s just not what Darwin theorized. Life didn’t emerge from the same point. It is converging on the same point

@perryplays8577

3 жыл бұрын

I feel like that would be devolution

@johncracker5217

3 жыл бұрын

The Platypus490 exactly we are descendants of a more advanced people not apes

@perryplays8577

3 жыл бұрын

John Cracker very interesting theory. Do you think more advanced genetically, or technologically?

@johncracker5217

3 жыл бұрын

The Platypus490 both I would say. Just a theory of course but yes we’re getting into some very spoopy stuff that nationalist Germany believed. Basically that god people bred with mortals and debased their genetics. It gels with modern science of the human genome tho. Evolution happens through mixing sub species and eugenics

@perryplays8577

3 жыл бұрын

John Cracker interesting. Here, I think you should watch this; kzread.info/dash/bejne/n4Jok69wY5Wvj6w.html

Genesis 1:24. - And God saith, ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth AFTER ITS KIND:’ and it is so.” This video is created by unbelieving beginners.

theistic evolution is real

@youwillknowthetruthtruthwi8568

2 жыл бұрын

Believing Theistic Evolution is Believing Deism

@smitty121981

2 жыл бұрын

@@youwillknowthetruthtruthwi8568 Is "theistic gestation" automatically deistic according to you?? I already know the answer, I'm just wondering why you have such a raging double standard.

Rubbish! Evolution does not undermine the Scriptures. Neither is the Bible "a factual book". It is a theological book.

@lowellmartin3135

3 жыл бұрын

When science catches up with the Word of God, both will agree.

@craigmoola7108

3 жыл бұрын

Bwahahahaha! Well Bwahahaha I guess that settles it bwahahaha! BTW, find any traditional English translation and I guarantee you it always says "word of God" and only in one place does it actually capitalise it to "Word of God". That one place is John 1: 1-4 when it refers to the Logos (Christ). It never takes a capital when it refers to the word of God. Not once. Ever. So the translators of Scripture themselves challenge your assumption of divinity.

@craigmoola7108

2 жыл бұрын

@CALEB ALVAREZ How does 2 timothy 3:16 beg to differ? 2 Timothy 3:16 says Scripture is "useful". No more. No less. It certainly says nothing about evolution. I suspect that it does not mean what you think it means. "Useful" is useful, like a broom. There are plenty other words the writer may have used to qualify the word "inspired", like "essential", "necessary", if he meant it in the sense you assume it does. Besides, the fallacy of your assumption is that 2 timothy 3: 16 implies literal truth. Jesus never saw truth as literal, which is why he told mostly parables as metaphors to teach spiritual truths. Jesus knew that spiritual truths are possibly best conveyed by story, "parables", myth, because the truth of it is found in the meaning of the story - not in its literalness. Or to put it another way, literalness does not make a spiritual truth true. And truth does not depend on literalness. Which is why Genesis 1 could be "true" without it being literal. It has zero to do with 2 timothy 3: 16 - which you brandish as if it settles something. Throwing verses as prooftexts around is as useful as cannon without cannonballs. So present a better scientific version than evolution, not myth, or more prooftexts.

@haggismcbaggis9485

2 жыл бұрын

I'm having a difficult time corroborating the book of Daniel. It seems as though it could likely be historical fiction.

@mareksumguy1887

Жыл бұрын

@@craigmoola7108 “factual” and “theological” are not mutually exclusive, smart guy! 🤦

The trouble with creationism is that it is inherently dishonest. That makes it inherently not Christian.

@smitty121981

2 жыл бұрын

AMEN!!!

@jlconwell1

Жыл бұрын

inherently honest and accurate and God Breathed by inspired men of God reading God's many different books of Holy Scripture stated this. A few chemicals under a rock in some water by evolution over millions of years made information and design or first life??????? You, my friend, are being very dishonest with yourself. The God of the Bible Created all life. DNA in every living cell is coded information that controls total design and function of that life form--- plant, animal, or human. DNA is the Creater's method of His control of Creation of all life.

@ozowen5961

Жыл бұрын

@@jlconwell1 I have not made comments regarding God, only the cult of creationism

Can't believe how misguided these people are to deny the natural world God created because their protestant belief is totally reliant on The Bible being the only source on God.

@smitty121981

2 жыл бұрын

@Janaina Ribeiro Are you SERIOUSLY going to claim with a straight face that the ENTIRE geologic column was laid down by a SINGLE flood???