Wait until he learns that you can place sugar cane on sand blocks.

@Swiftninjatrev

Жыл бұрын

That pained me fr.

@AwesomeKid-hb1ew

Жыл бұрын

I NOTICED 😂😂😂

@mariaconcepcionrodriguezhe2850

11 ай бұрын

Used to be only on sand

@xbadover2993

2 ай бұрын

He plants it at the end

@poweepiureq3700

19 күн бұрын

@@mariaconcepcionrodriguezhe2850 No, I've been playing since 2010, and I remember you couldn't place them on sand before. They've changed it much later in the development. It used to be only on dirt/grass. I'm 100% sure of this.

Can I just say, that your idea (which I just discovered) to play minecraft, and discuss the church and all this stuff...is basically the most brilliant thing ever.

@annoyingorangefanclub

Жыл бұрын

It would be more brilliant if the gameplay was actually interesting and not toal bullcrap

@acethemain7776

Жыл бұрын

@@annoyingorangefanclubi just have the video on the background and i play another game. so i get good theology and good gameplay

@ItIsBlank.

Жыл бұрын

Yes playing Minecraft and discussing Christian stuff like this is very based

@GenZRemnant9748

11 ай бұрын

Not even a full 1 minute in and he gave up the high ground. Edit the fact that it killed him is proof of punishment for believing in evolution

@dystopia72

10 ай бұрын

@@acethemain7776 Same, sometimes!

Hey, just some constructive criticism regarding the Kingdom Craft videos: the music is often too loud to fully understand what you’re saying and it makes it a bit hard to follow all of your arguments. I don’t know if it’s still the case in the newer episodes because I’m watching everything chronologically - anyway I really enjoy the videos so I would appreciate if the sound quality improved further :)

@scrible1073

5 ай бұрын

I kinda get what you mean, but the background music is not that loud so that you can't hesr what Redeem is saying, but ye i do get your point.

As a Christian and somebody who is interested in Marine Biology, I must steadfastly disagree with the principle of being against evolution as a Christian being 'embarrassing'. While I do agree that it is beneficial for us to be well versed in scientific matters, and that we need common ground in light of us all living on earth, that common ground I believe can only be found in Christ. I believe it is inadequate to take 'scientific method' (Which is really just mainstream official science) over the Word of God. The account of creation is not some sort of 'Achilles heel' of the Bible, and it is made sense of in a very logical reasoning when applied to God. For instance, we believe God created all things that are honourable, tangible such as birds, insects, whales and people, and intangible such as time. If we take time for instance, how can our eternal God be confined by the concept He created? He created all things natural so He by definition must be supernatural and able to break the confides we are limited by, this includes our perception of time. It follows then that God could easily create objects thousands of years ago during the creation of our world which already had apparent age, like layers of rock millions of years old, this is also pointed out in the Bible where it is evident that Adam was a man already when made by God, and not just a baby, thus he also had apparent age. Some may take this to mean 'God is a deciever' but I believe this to be absolutely the opposite, it is a poor reflection only on Christians nowadays who have not striven to understand God's creation, and allowed malicious actors such as the main stream 'official science' movement to stake their own claims on the creation and make misrepresentations of Christianity's relationship to it. I am aware not all are interested in science but Godwilling those who are like me may be given the knowledge and wisdom to reform the status quo which is a misrepresentation in the world. With regards to evolution, if we take it at it's word. It's principle is survival of the fittest and constant adaptation for survival. How would so many defenceless creatures have survived? such as the famous kiwi for example, there is no way a bird that cannot fly, only lays one egg a year, and is almost blind, cannot even run could survive all that time. Other famous examples would include Capybaras who have no defence mechanisms, and Sloths which a simply too slow to defend themselves. We should also ask the question why don't animals considered prey of other animals develop mechanisms to protect themselves from predators? for instance stingrays often hide themselves in the sand to protect themselves from Hammerhead sharks, one of their predators, yet we see this doesn't stop the Hammerhead using electro reception to catch them. We must ask how the Stingray has not and is not developing a defence mechanism to fight back against this? this is all the more puzzling but also fascinating considering how stingrays also use electro detection to catch their own prey. However as previously this is not to pretend that Science and Christianity aren't compatible, I simply believe science and as you put it 'general revelation' honours God. We can see this in animal behaviour, and in Marine Biology I see this in Whales and even Manta rays which breech, that is to say, jump out of the water. Official science has no factual reason only suggestions and theories why they do this, some suggest to remove parasites, some as a social display of strength, whales are very intelligent creatures, humpbacks even more so and have been observed to play with objects in the water for their amusement so this could be for that too but as a Christian I think many creations in some way worship God and maybe this is their way of giving glory to him. Their ultimate expression of joy may be to leap free of the water which otherwise confides them all their lives. Science (not even counting the plethora of secular historical accounts) also honours Bible events too and finds much evidence to corroborate these events such as: the flood: educateforlife.org/marine-fossils-mountains-flood-evidence-1/ the earthquake when Jesus was crucified: www.researchgate.net/publication/229810999_An_early_first-century_earthquake_in_the_Dead_Sea The effect of Christian prayer on pain or mobility restrictions: www.academia.edu/43109000/Study_of_the_Effects_of_Christian_Prayer Genetics Discovery in Snakes Adds Legs to the Case for Creation: www.cell.com/developmental-cell/fulltext/S1534-5807(15)00583-3?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS1534580715005833%3Fshowall%3Dtrue Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah: www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-97778-3 I think Stephen Meyer encapsulates the congruence of science and God most eloquently: "The scientific evidence actually supports theistic belief. In fact, across a wide range of the sciences, evidence has come to light in the last fifty years which, taken together, provides a robust case for theism. Only theism can provide an intellectually satisfying casual explanation for all of this evidence. For instance, if it's true there is a beginning to the universe, as modern cosmologists now agree, then this implies a cause that transcends the universe. If the laws of physics are fine-tuned to permit life, as contemporary physicists are discovering, then perhaps there's a designer who fine-tuned them. If there's information in the cell, as molecular biology shows, then this suggests intelligent design. To get life going in the first place would have required biological information; the implications point beyond the material realm to a prior intelligent cause. Those are just three examples, and that's just the beginning" Aside from the fact many of the world's greatest scientists were devout Christians (Isaac Newton, Florence Nightingale, Charles Babbage, Nikola Tesla,...) There is also a philosophical argument to be made for God too. For example we all know and believe that the 'truth' exists, a fact of the matter, a reality, whatever you may call it. The 'truth' has a very interesting relationship with people however, being unacknowledged or navigated around whenever inconvenient, a comfortable lie is almost always more welcome than the truth. The concept of 'God' is treated in much the same way; incovenient and only necessary when we have exhausted our other options for the most part, however it is the simultaneous treatment and reaction from us towards 'God' and 'truth' that in a real sense render the two as inseperable from each other, and just as truth always exists, so does God. Furthermore, our negative reaction proves that we are at odds with God and need to be reconciled. I know that none of that can make somebody believe because there is no Jesus, who is the truth, but Godwilling I hope whoever reads this realises that God is out there and we must seek Him through Christ because Christ counters and defeats this world in it's hypocrisy and provides redemption for us through His death and resurrection.

@jonorcutt3304

Жыл бұрын

Thanks brother. These are some great sources to look into! I will check them out.

@AquaTomMovies

Жыл бұрын

@@jonorcutt3304 My pleasure, more where that came from too brother 😁

@bryzoblade9545

Жыл бұрын

Yo God bless you 🙏 I feel the holy spirit on this how you eloquently presented your argument! Should definitely make a video with your knowledge Amen

@AquaTomMovies

Жыл бұрын

@@bryzoblade9545 Thank you for such high compliments, God bless you too 🙏

@brazil3207

Жыл бұрын

When i found out that human mitochrnrial dna has LESS than 150 mutations, molecules to man evolution became physically impossible for me to sincerely believe. If it was real, there should be at least 3x the amount.

I think the Bible teaches more science than people think.

@Commandosoap777

Жыл бұрын

amen

@Meninx87

Жыл бұрын

You couldn't be more wrong.

@tylerhawley4012

Жыл бұрын

There’s not a single equation or repeatable experiment in the Bible, so there’s no science in the Bible.

@dswag8495

Жыл бұрын

​@VP Editz that's true for experiments and some things until science makes stuff up to lie and 'disprove' God. Science these days have embraced nihilism; the belief that nothing matters, everything is random, and there is no reason to anything.

@balala4641

Жыл бұрын

@@Meninx87 ...You can make dozens of sermons, based off of just one verse. With 31102 verses, most of which relate to each other, you could make more sermons using those verses and their relations to other verses than there are atoms in this part of the universe. (about 5 x 10 ^ 139733 sermons, compared to about 10 ^ 81 atoms) With effectively infinite possible sermons to choose from, you can explain the knowns and unknowns of science using the Bible. It might not be visible on the surface level, but it's there.

as someone who has had such a hard time figuring out evolution vs creation and was actually questioning my faith over it, thank you so much. i cried during this video. this helped me so much.

I used to be a theistic evolutionist and didn't really think much of the issue, but got into YEC because one of the elders at the church I went to while I was finishing my degree was also a contributor in Creation Ministries International (he's a doctor in Biology). After reading their resources, I found that their arguments why scientific facts actually support a young-earth theory more than old earth the are pretty logically sound, and not the pseudo-science a lot of secularists claim it is. My current field is in analytical chemistry, and while my studies don't directly deal with the issues of origins, I can say that a lot of the arguments used for old earth age, such as geological timescale relies on a lot of assumption and circular reasoning (e.g. massive extrapolations and throwing out data that don't fit their preconceived results) that would not have been accepted in other fields of science. There's also a lot of politics involved in the scientific communities when it comes to what can or can't be published in journals, so claiming "most scientists agree" on the currently accepted evolutionistic theories is not a good gauge for scientific truth. Also, I don't think it's fair to compare young earth believes with heliocentrism or flat-earthers. The Bible never state that the Earth is flat or is the center of the universe except in clearly symbolic/poetic references such as the Psalms. The seven days of creation, however, is taught elsewhere outside of the creation account itself. Most explicitly in Exodus 20:11 on the law of Sabbath: "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." God is definitely not speaking in poetry or metaphors when dictating the ten commandments, and the arguments people use to claim that the creation accounts don't deal with literal 24 hour days rings quite hollow.

@KevvoLightswift

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, the biggest dealbreaker is the fact death only occurred after sin. So what caused all those fossils to be killed all at once? A worldwide flood would do that, but that only happened after the Fall, so that doesn't work. Why would there be death before the Fall? Or is the creation story nonliteral? And if it is, why take anything else the Bible says as literal if it doesn't say so? His reasoning still has a lot of holes in it. He's not a heretic, but this opens the door for him to ignore things he doesn't like in the Bible just because it doesn't fit "human understanding". Very arrogant, human-centered position.

@Linuck

Жыл бұрын

Hi, can you provide a link to the scientific arguments for a young earth? I am currently an old earth creationist but am ready to follow the truth wherever it leads.

@Samura1313

Жыл бұрын

How do you deal with uranium dating?

@Samura1313

Жыл бұрын

Also, I'm pretty sure that that Genesis 1 is poetic. Such as God resting for a day, or God creating humans out of clay (clay and pottery in general are used in many analogies throughout the bible), etc.

@snoopfan6934

Жыл бұрын

@@Samura1313 I'm not sure though about the "keep the Sabbath holy" because it sounds like it is referring to Sunday and not 50,000 BC or whatever

I’m personally a young earth creationist, but we need to have more charity for old earth creationists and Christian evolutionists. I don’t like the idea of branding them off as heretics. This is a secondary issue I believe.

@iishadowii7477

Жыл бұрын

There's deeper harmful effects of believing in evolution that go beyond a secondary issue in my opinion.

@Swiftninjatrev

Жыл бұрын

@@iishadowii7477 Such as? 🤔

@iishadowii7477

Жыл бұрын

@@Swiftninjatrev 1) The disregard of authority from the Bible 2) The disregard of differences between humans and animals.

@Swiftninjatrev

Жыл бұрын

@@iishadowii7477 1st one i think is iffy, but I get the second one 100%

@STRLNKparad0x

Жыл бұрын

@@Swiftninjatrev well, thinking that there is even one thing in the bible that isn't 100% true completely defeats the purpose of the rest of the bible, especially when it's genesis

“We share 98% DNA with apes” We also share 60% DNA with a banana, does this make us half a fruit too?

@cryptophoenix2023

10 ай бұрын

Naw, but some people are definitely nuts ;)

@Timo0469

10 ай бұрын

​@@cryptophoenix2023smile

@kriegjaeger

9 ай бұрын

And IIRC the real number is around 70%, they fudged the study. And further, even a few percentage points are irreconcilably different in even that tiny amount.

@GiygasREAL

9 ай бұрын

@@cryptophoenix2023 absolutely bananas

@mikkonlaitinen

9 ай бұрын

A side note: 80% of proteins are between humans and chimpanzees

As a fellow zoomer, this slaps so hard. God bless you, and god speed. And your contemporary understanding is very important. As a human who grew up in the circular world, i was awful and evil. And god is working thru me. God speed to you. Work in you way, that’s what Christ wants.

@Spartan322

Жыл бұрын

Ignoring the Biblical text when it rejects a capability for these claims does not help you, its a submission to man. Those who believe science is not foremost Christian don't understand what science nor Christianity is, and foremost Jesus rejected these claims in John 5:45-47, if you cannot believe as Moses wrote, then you can't believe in Jesus.

@piginablanket8177

11 ай бұрын

Let’s be clear here, the only way to be saved is by believing in the sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross and putting your faith in the sacrifice to save you. Through grace through faith alone. Let’s not get that confused with whether you believe in evolution or not, because if you believe in evolution or not it doesn’t truly matter. What matters is if you put your faith and Jesus Christ and that’s what saves you, not whether you believe in how old the earth is.

@Spartan322

11 ай бұрын

@@piginablanket8177 The problem is that, unless you deal with this problem, it will very likely disrupt or undermine your faith, or you'll be constantly struggling with in keeping with the faith that's full of doubts. You'll either go to completely reject science or completely reject Christ, (God's people should do neither, science is in fact God's Creation co-opted by the enemies of God, science does not demonstrate evolution, its presumed that things were not made according to their kind, your presuppositions determine your theology) there isn't a single person that I've known that doesn't suffer this if they are an evolutionist, if they aren't willing to abandon evolution for Christ, they will never be for Christ. (and many are like that) And if you pass it on to your children, will ensure they leave the faith, as we've seen happen in the western world because you didn't teach them the foundation for their faith, which is Genesis 1-10, there is a reason why Paul taught out of Genesis and the rest of the Old Testament first to the Gentiles, without that foundation, you can't know much of anything about Jesus, as He says in John 5. This aside, if evolution is true, that means survival of the fittest must exist, survival requires death and strife. If those are required, and evolution must underpin Genesis, then that means that death is part of Creation, not the Fall,which means sin didn't spawn death and thus God lies when the wages of sin is death, because for things to be their own kind means they must die and strive to survive to develop into different kinds of beings. That also means that when Jesus paid the wages of sin, He didn't overcome death, making Him a liar again. It also means that in the New Earth we will still die because it still has a flesh and is still Creation, and death is intrinsic to the Created Order. Death and suffering would thus be good to God because in Genesis God declared it good. Faith saves, faith can be disrupted and undermined if you don't practice and dedicate yourself to God and His teachings. And it only takes one generation to lose God's blessing. Evolution also claims that humans evolved from monkey which means monkeys can evolve to have the Imago Dei in them, which logically concludes we evolve to become more like God as time goes on. So are we better then the Apostles? Was Jesus an accident? Or how about David or Moses? Abraham? Where does this line of thinking stop? And these are issues that all evolutionists suffer from and cannot answer claiming Christians. Why do you believe that man is neutral to God? Is man not inherently an enemy to God thanks to his flesh? Are we not inherently biased against God and thus naturally at war with Him? Why then would you trust people who hate God not to lie and try to destroy those who He loves much like their father Satan would do? What was the first deception? Did God really say? And what do evolutionists do? Its the same question. Even more Darwin outright said, as his many contemporaries too said, that he absolutely can't believe in a God with his theory, and even more he preached at infiltrating the church to destroy their faith. So why do you act as if its neutral? Neutrality is a myth. And this is not me saying you can have faith in your deception, but if you hear these things according to the Scriptures, according to God, so saith God even, and do not even consider that you may be wrong, you lack the humility necessary to be consistent with God's calling, your faith would already be rattled and is likely to shatter apart. You may be of the elect, but until you follow God, you will never mature, you will always be blind to all the truth God is ready to give you because you reject the capabilities to know the Truth He made and declared for the sake of mankind. I do not call such people heretics inherently, they are more apostates who can be in salvation and merely deceived. But if you are willingly deceived and unwilling to correct yourself in humility, then it will lead you into heresy or abandonment, this is warning out of love for you from both me and He who had made you speaking through me in the Holy Spirit.

@matnic_6623

10 ай бұрын

@@Spartan322we do believe what Moses wrote…

@Spartan322

10 ай бұрын

@@matnic_6623 Moses wrote Genesis as a historical account.

It’s really something I had to quantify and express in my faith too as I had picked a biochemistry major in college. For me it was always a matter of “if God creating the universe is an example of his power then he is easily powerful enough to instead lay in place the universe’s laws that would eventually lead to a planet called earth and would give rise to a species on it called humanity” to me that is equally if not more amazing to the traditional in 7 days belief.

@deus1014

Жыл бұрын

The same view i picked up and it only reinforced how powerful and wise god is

@kidus_1010

11 ай бұрын

Dude that’s called Deism.

@ERBanmech

11 ай бұрын

@@kidus_1010 I don’t know if I would call it that, if deism is believing in a god that doesn’t interact with creation at all. My belief still involves interaction, he created the laws that govern the whole of his creation and enacted them once the whole universe was started, which he started and knew exactly what would be made out of it. But because I didn’t say that he literally popped down all of creation pre-fabricated; fully developed already, it’s apparently not enough interaction. Besides, this view only counts for creation. There are plenty of other instances where God does interact with creation, Jesus being chief among them.

@kidus_1010

11 ай бұрын

@@ERBanmech compared to the view that the Logos has always and currently, actively sustains the very fabric of creation including the “laws” that govern it, what you said sounded a lot like Deism. Essentially a God popping the universe into existence, setting laws to govern it, and just leaving it even if he checks in from time to time. And even Deists believe in some Divine purpose of Jesus even if they reject Him as God. I’m not saying that’s what you believe but you’re line of thinking just seems dangerously close to that to me at least.

@ERBanmech

11 ай бұрын

@@kidus_1010 ah gotcha, no offense taken. I do know that it does straddle that line but I am careful with that. I agree with God sustaining the laws and therefore the universe through himself which now you point it out is a point of constant interaction. I’m glad we could come to an understanding, apologies if I was a little ornery in my first comment.

“When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Hesli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Heber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.” ‭‭Luke‬ ‭3‬:‭23‬-‭38‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬ bible.com/bible/100/luk.3.25-37.NASB1995

@oscarfabi_

Жыл бұрын

Boom, sola scriptura indeed brother!

@sxntomanu

Жыл бұрын

@@oscarfabi_ Facts, and macro evolution must mean a change of species that cannot produce offspring with the latter. But if Jesus is related to Adam, there can be no change of species in human lineage, so there is no evolution at all according to the bible.

@georgegreen711

Жыл бұрын

Amen.

@iamishin7675

Жыл бұрын

Genuinely asking, how do you reconcile the fact that the genealogy of Jesus Christ used in the Gospel according to Matthew uses a completely different set of names?

@georgegreen711

Жыл бұрын

@@iamishin7675 It's just the 17th Century spelling from the King James Version. The names are the same.

I'm not a Christian but I love KingdomCraft. There's something so comfy and wholesome about it. I'm sitting in my armchair with the heat on and some Coco and man I feel like I'm already in Heaven.

@anon5075

Жыл бұрын

There's a real heaven and that's not it. There's also a real hell and this world is not it either. Repent.

@niclasschulz1536

Жыл бұрын

Way to go! Watching Minecraft is always relaxing! May the Lord bless you

@falsum2701

Жыл бұрын

I'm in a similar boat. He's weirdly compelling, and all the theological divisions he talks about are interesting. ...and then he starts talking about gay marriage and things get a lot less comfortable.

@universome511

Жыл бұрын

@@anon5075 I think what's referred to as hell in the New Testament was the Garbage Dump outside of Jerusalem. I forget the name but that is the word used in the original text. And honestly It's been a while since I've read it but I'm not even sure if it's implied your consciousness shifts to another realm of existence to await the Messianic world or you just reanimate at that time.

@universome511

Жыл бұрын

@@niclasschulz1536 thank you

I used to firmly believe in young earth creationism due to my upbringing, but recently I've started questioning those beliefs. It's been a difficult journey, feeling guilt and shame for having a different opinion from my parents. This video has been a breakthrough for me, and I now understand that evolution doesn't have to contradict the Bible. At 14:46, I had a eureka moment and felt immense joy. Thank you for this valuable video. I feel like I've discovered a treasure and I'll definitely be coming back. God bless you.

I am Baptist and grew up in Texas. I have never made this a line in the sand. Irreducible complexity, Levinthal's paradox, rare earth hypothesis.. I believe in God BECAUSE I have been both curious about the world he created and skeptical of the knowledge of men which is often hubris driven.

@deltatheintp0263

Жыл бұрын

"Yahweh, our Lord how magnificent is Your name throughout the earth! You have covered the heavens with Your majesty. Because of Your adversaries, You have established a stronghold from the mouths of children and nursing infants to silence the enemy and the avenger. When I observe Your heavens the work of Your fingers the moon and the stars, which you set into place, what is man that You remember him the son of man that You look after him? You made him a little less than God and crowned him with glory and honor. You made him.lord over the works of Your hands; You put everything under his feet: all sheep and oxen, as well as animals in the wild, the birds of the sky, and the fish of the sea that pass through the currents of the seas. Yahweh, our Lord, how [how] magnificent is Your name throughout the earth!

I love how conservative theistic evolutionists get picked on by everyone and thus are the most savage people. 😂 I mean, that opening line… just wow

@Spartan322

Жыл бұрын

When you don't give God His due, and trust in man's ways, you shall always be led astray, if you cannot trust in what God says, then you make yourself the authority, not God.

@excitting9941

Жыл бұрын

such an npc

@Spartan322

Жыл бұрын

@@Makaneek5060 "How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” - John 5:44-47 Do not think that it is me that says these things, it is my Lord Jesus who made the doctrine quite clear, if you don't see it as true, then you can't believe in Christ. Paul then iterated much the same just as that taught by Moses and spoken about in Job 38-40. "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." - Colossians 2:8 "And the Lord said to Job: “Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty? He who argues with God, let him answer it.” - Job 40:1-2 (I would suggest reading Job 38-39) If you don't have the Spirit of God first given to you, then you are already of the condemned, those who don't measure the Bible by God's Spirit can never understand it. You understand nothing of exegesis nor hermeneutics, if you don't understand these things, then it is what man says, your opinion versus my opinion, but what does God say? What did Jesus say? There is no value to what God says and neither can you trust in Christ if you do not measure it by what He has given you, not what you make Him say. What did God say? "You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you." - Deuteronomy 4:2 "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness," - 2 Timothy 3:16 So is this or is this not written by God? Tell me, who is God? Who is Jesus? Do you even know? "And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." - 2 Peter 1:19-21 "But now I am coming to you [the Father], and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth." - John 17:13-17 "When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. From morning till evening he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets. And some were convinced by what he said, but others disbelieved.And disagreeing among themselves, they departed after Paul had made one statement: “The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet: “‘Go to this people, and say, “You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.”

@potatoheadpokemario1931

11 ай бұрын

because they deserve to be picked on by everyone

@averagejoe2232

11 ай бұрын

@@potatoheadpokemario1931 why?

I have to say, this is probably the best theological explanation for evolution I have heard, however I still have some disagreements with it. I mostly agree with you in the first part of the video. Yes, we can learn about general revelation from nature, which we learn about through the scientific method. Yes, we shouldn't disagree with evolution because of just our religious views, we should be backed up with science. I think the biggest disagreement I have with you is that you think that science firmly supports evolution. I don't think it does. For one, there is a growing movement of scientists, not just Christians, who disagree with Darwinian evolution and support the idea of some sort of intelligent design. You also talk about knowing the earth is millions of years old. How do we know that? Carbon dating, mostly. I am a bit rusty on my apologetics, but carbon dating makes assumptions about the original radioactivity level and rate of decay. If you want I can go look up some problem with it. Moving on to the theological part of the video, I think you present a generally cohesive and consistent way creation could mesh with evolution. However, in my personal opinion at least, it seems a bit shaky, and it seems like a supernatural, six-day creation is the more simple, more logical, and straightforward explanation. To make sure I am understanding your explanation of Adam correctly: you think that humans developed via molecules-to-man evolution, but God selected a certain proto-human to be given a human soul, and that was Adam. Ok, but what about all the other proto-humans? Were they just as intelligent? What separated them from humans? Did they live in the Garden of Eden too? Do you believe in a literal Garden of Eden, or do you think it was figurative? You also say that the Bible says that God made us all our of dust, so it could be speaking figuratively when it said God made Adam out of dust. I don't know the exact verse you're referencing, but it seems like a good explanation would be that God created us all from dust when He created Adam from just, just as how in Adam's sin, we sinned all. And if you think God creating Adam from dust was figurative, what about God creating Eve from Adam's rib? Was that figurative too? Figurative for what? What about other proto-human women? Did God create a human soul in a random proto-human woman too, even though the Bible said God breathed life into just Adam? About the fall: You make an interesting point that darkness was there before the fall. However, I don't think that darkness is inherently evil like death is. I think we both agree that death is _fundamentally_ evil and is the punishment for sin. Darkness is not really described like that. Sure, darkness is used as a symbol for evil in the Bible, just like snakes and yeast are, but I don't think either of those are inherently evil. God created light, separated it from the darkness, and called it good, but that doesn't logically imply that darkness is bad. You also say that God is outside time, so the punishment for sin can be outside time as well. Maybe God is outside time, but humans aren't. Despite being outside time, I can't think of a single other instance where God punished people for sin they have yet to commit. Why would He act any differently here? About the tree of life, the Bible has no mention of Adam and Eve eating from the tree of life or needing to eat from it before the fall. I think we know way too little about the tree and what its purpose was to be able to draw any conclusions from it. So while I think you offer a good explanation about how you can accept both evolution and the Bible, I don't think it is as convincing as a literal creation. You said that you believe in miracles in the Bible, so why not believe in a miraculous creation? Just because scientists say it isn't true? Science totally rules out any possibility of miracles. If you can't believe in a literal creation, how can you believe in a literal flood or even the literal resurrection of Jesus, both of which are equally incompatible with science? You say that evolution is obviously scientifically true, but you spent the whole video talking about how to theologically reconcile the Bible and evolution. The only scientific evidence you mention for evolution is that the consensus of scientists believe in it. Evolution has some major scientific flaws, and I think it is amiss to not consider them and just automatically assume it is right because most scientists say so. I think the biggest pieces of evidence that support creationism is the discovery of dinosaur tissue (which could not have possibly survived millions of years, but could potentially have survived thousands), evidence of modern birds and dinosaurs fossilized in the same rock layer (which would upset the evolutionary claim that dinosaurs descended from birds), and the Mt. St. Helens eruption (which rapidly laid down rock layers that are identical to those that were supposedly developed over millions of years). Finally, you ask Christians who don't believe in evolution to be more agnostic about it. Why though? I completely agree that Christians ought to be people of truth, so it seems to me that the best way of pursuing truth is to energetically debate all the difficulties we have. We don't get to truth by shrugging out shoulders and accepting whatever the scientists say, we have to keep discussing and working at the issue until every last difficulty is ironed out. If you finished it, thank you for reading my long, disorganized essay :) I love debating about issues like these, so if I said something you disagree with or would like to hear more about, I'd be happy to talk about it some more!

@calebr7199

Жыл бұрын

The intelligent design movement is wholely christian in motivation. This was proved in court during the kitzmiller v dover case, so no it is religion based. Secondly, no carbon dating was not used to determine the age of the Earth, it is something called radiometric dating which uses other elements besides carbon. It's also false to say that radiometric dating rests on assumptions. We can know how to calculate much of the original elements were present in the original material depending on what dating methods are used.

@Lichcrafter

Жыл бұрын

@@calebr7199 I'm not familiar with Kitzmiller v Dover. What was it about? And I'm not sure what a legal case would have to do with the intelligent design movement. Even if a court rules it is a religious movement, my point is more so that there are non-Christians who still disagree with Darwinian Evolution. Ok, sure, there are other dating methods aside from carbon dating. But does radiometric dating really not assume anything? Does it assume the original level of radioactivity? Does it assume the decay rate was constant? Does it assume that there were no outside forces that affected the decay rate? I'm not the most up-to-date on geological dating methods, but I'm pretty sure there isn't a solid, 100% certain method of determining exactly how old the earth is.

@Lichcrafter

Жыл бұрын

@@calebr7199 Something is wrong with my KZread, so I cant reply to your second message, so I'm just replying here. About intelligent design being a religious movement: what does the opinion of the court have to do with anything? Sure, it has a bearing on whether or not it is legal to teach in schools, but so what if the court says intelligent design is religious? The court isn't infallible. How did they reach that conclusion? I'm just pointing out that there are a few agnostic scientists who accept intelligent design even if they reject God. Heck, I'll even cede the point. Let's say intelligent design is synonymous with creationism, and is wholly a religious movement. So what? Are you saying that just because it is religious, it can't be true? Why not argue about the theory of creationism itself rather than dismissing it simply because Christians support it? About the scientific consensus of Evolution: so what? Does just because the majority of scientists and scientific organizations believe in something mean that it is true? Is science a popularity contest or an opinion poll? Science is about being able to look at hard pieces of evidence and prove your theories. We know facts about the universe, like gravity exists or the earth is round, because they are observable and testable. When have you seen macroevolution taking place and recreated it in a lab? Radiometric dating: You said that radiometric dating is only used on rocks with a known starting amounts of radioactive isotopes, but how can you know the amount of radioactive isotopes present when the rock was formed at the start of the earth? You said that radiometric dating gave the age of the earth with only a 50 million year error, but how do you know how much the error is? Isn't the purpose to discover the age of the earth, or is there some predetermined age you're testing it against? Presumably, we can't really know much about the initial conditions of the rock, and external forces might alter the amount of relevant elements in the sample. And also, although the decay rate for a large sample size is constant, there appears to be ways to alter the rate of radioactive decay without breaking the laws of physics. I'm not a geological physicist or something, so I don't know the likelihood of those events happening in nature, but it appears that it would be possible for a sample of rock to be younger than radiometric dating suggests. One example of this is in the rock laid down in the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. Some newly-formed rock was tested with Potassium-Argon dating, which resulted in an age of 0.5-2.8 million years.

@calebr7199

Жыл бұрын

@@Lichcrafter You are also correct that science is not a popularity contest and just because something is widely accepted does not mean it’s true however if there was even a viable alternative to evolution don’t you think the scientific community would be more split? Evolution is so foundational to biology that if there were any serious doubts by serious scientists and not peddlers of pseudo science like the ID movement, we should be seeing problems all over biology, with things that evolution couldn’t explain or account for. We would expect at least some scientists who are the experts to maybe even come up with some alternative scientific models to evolution. If scientists are wrong about this, which they could possibly be even though it’s extremely unlikely, the only way to fix it would be with better science, not pseudo science witch is what the ID movement and creation “science” is. About macro evolution, we have actually seen that. If you define macro evolution as speciation then we have observed numerous speciation events. You need only google “observed speciation events” to find a plethora of examples. Just to give one example, often the quickest form of speciation occurs in some organisms that undergo polyploidy. Usually plants but also some insects have been observed to speciate this way. This kind of speciation is quick and can occur in a single generation. Now if you don’t think speciation is macro evolution I think it’s helpful to realize that micro and macro evolution are only semantic distinctions, the process of evolution works the same way for both, it’s just generally micro evolution is on a smaller time scale than macro evolution. Lots of micro evolution events build up to make macro evolutionary events. Lastly we can know how much radioactive isotope existed in the rocks from our knowledge of geology. There are three main types of rocks, igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic. Radiometric dating can not be done on sedemnetary rocks due to the nature of their formation. I’m no geologist(I’m a biologist by education), and geology and rocks and actually really really complicated with many different ways for them to form with known amounts of certain isotopes in them already that geologists have figured out, however I do know the basic principles behind it and can say that while there is always some error involved and we cannot know the exact age of rocks or the Earth down to the year, we can get pretty close and 4.54 billion years give or take 50 million years is pretty close. Also I don’t believe that there is a way for the decay rate to change, every source I’ve ever seen says it’s a constant rate of decay, so if you can a source for that, well youtube might delete your link so just dont hyperlink it. About your Mt St Helen rock dated to be millions of years old I believe you’re referencing the paper by Dr. Austin which as I have learned he used Potassium-Argon dating incorrectly as it can not be used as a dating method for things less than 10,000 years old because there simply isn’t enough time for the potassium to decay giving all sorts of funny numbers. I believe I said in my previous comment that basically every single time a creationist “proves” radiometric dating wrong what they actually did was use it wrong. I found this information here (skeptoid.com/episodes/4146) I put it in brackets to remove the link so youtube won't delete it.

@RobertOfLoxley

Жыл бұрын

I couldn't agree more with your points! I had the exact same questions, and you answered them all very well!

I don't believe in macroevolution at all personally, but it's nice for a theistic evolutionist to actually be open about their position.

I love the content. I can’t wait to see your channel grow and your quality increase each video!

Respectfully, I think Calvinists have many problems that stem from an inability to understand pre-knowledge of a thing vs causing that thing to occur.

@STRLNKparad0x

Жыл бұрын

im not gonna argue with you but saying that proves that you don't understand calvinism fully, also, this dude isn't really a christian as i have figured out from his past few videos

@Goingwithafakehandlehere

Жыл бұрын

@@STRLNKparad0x well, I can't speak to his faith, and I'm pretty familiar with the calvinist position on predestination. I think it all stems from a similar error Catholics make. Catholics dramatically overread Jesus telling Peter he's the rock upon which He will build His church and built a massive bureaucracy on that including massive swaths of new doctrine. Calvinist likewise overread "knew the end from the beginning" as far as I can tell. I also think forming doctrine by simply doing the opposite of the 5 points of Armenianism is a bad place to start.

@STRLNKparad0x

Жыл бұрын

​@@Goingwithafakehandlehere i said im not tryna start an argument and im gonna hold to that, but i perfectly understand the difference between foreknowledge and predestination. you're probably thinking of hyper-calvinism, which is the belief that God completely makes everything happen. While normal calvinism believes that we have free will, but our free will isn't really free because that will is in bondage to sin, so we as humans can't do anything good of our own accord so all that we do by ourselves can only be evil and everything good, including our salvation, is completely preordained by God. Not to say that evil isn't *ordained* by God, but He does not cause *all* evil to occur. What I mean by that is the fact that God has caused certain sins to occur to fulfill His will, but technically those "sins" that He causes aren't sins to Him because God's laws that He made for us don't really apply to Him since He made us and the laws. So God could hypothetically punish us for no reason, and He would still be just because His will overrides all things, but He also can't do that because it goes against His character, so there was no point in me saying that. sorry lol whenever i try to explain this stuff i end up trying to explain everything at once my bad bro

@Goingwithafakehandlehere

Жыл бұрын

@@STRLNKparad0x I think that all makes sense and that's a good refresher but think I understand. I guess my problem is a philosophical one. I think that sounds fine but principly runs against many of the things in the Bible. What good is choosing God if the choice is not made freely. And why would God make such a big deal throughout the old and new testament about the importance of choosing Him if it was all predestined? There are so many backflips that have to be taken to make Calvinsims gel with the Bible to me when the more simple and obvious answer is to read the text plainly, faith like a child. You shouldn't need a PhD to understand the faith.

@STRLNKparad0x

Жыл бұрын

@@Goingwithafakehandlehere because it doesn't matter whether or not they're predestined to believe, God still has to use His word to get to the elect anyway, but just because someone wasn't chosen by God doesn't give them an excuse to ignore the gospel, that's why there is still punishment. Also, there are many called, but few chosen, some will almost get to the point of faith, but can't because they still hate God in their heart, that's why the bible talks about the importance of faithfulness and righteousness. To me it's clear that the acute details of salvation don't really matter too much as long as someone at least understands the means by which it was received. (saved by grace through faith in Christ alone) It's really a useless debate.

in 12 Rules for Life, JP gives an incredibly insightful, non-literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story as the rise of human self consciousness/intelligence. I think it's the second chapter. I would highly recommend it.

where do you get these instrumentals of these psalms? they all seem to have the same type of instruments

@redeemedzoomer6053

Жыл бұрын

I make them myself

@theebagmans

Жыл бұрын

@@redeemedzoomer6053 oh thats cool do you upload them anywhere?

14:26 is where the scripture gymnastics began to try and fit darwinian evolution into the Bible, it's rough..... Also Adam and Eve could die, but whose to say God couldn't make their food regenerative so that they stay healthy and not die, but once they are the fruit death entered the chat by setting a timer on their bodies to die at some point later on.

@LacerdaIsAWeeb

Жыл бұрын

small bombs

@lonlywolf223

Жыл бұрын

I think of the tree of life. Because it wasn't forbidden to eat from it, just the tree of knowledge was forbidden. So what if they kept to be immortal so long they ate from the tree of life and stopped being immortal because they couldn't ate from that tree?

@iishadowii7477

Жыл бұрын

@@lonlywolf223 makes sense, could be. Or it can be something that we will only underestand once we are in heaven.

@lonlywolf223

Жыл бұрын

@iiShadowii7 we will eventually know everything when we die, so our focus should be elsewhere in my opinion

@iishadowii7477

Жыл бұрын

@@lonlywolf223 true

I have a question what about eve she was made for Adams side right? Can you explain your thoughts for on eve? Please and thank you

Really appreciate your content, it’s been a great source of different perspectives and views than mine while still being Christian. I really find myself growing a lot by seeking to learn from those outside my typical Christian circles, you’re making great connections keep it up! I also appreciate your point about death before the fall, I’ll often hear people hear people saying something along the lines of, “God will restore things back to how they were in Eden.” My thought has always been, “The New Testament seems to clearly point to Jesus and His kingdom being better than anything that ever came before, why would I want to go back to Eden?” God bless!

I don't know if you'll read this, but, as for me, I think that the InspiringPhilosophy video on Genesis 1a (don't know if you've seen it or not) kind of supports my personal reasoning for believing in evolution. This is for the reason that the ancient cultures labeled existence as having a purpose and not exactly physical characteristics like color and the such, so the more accurate representation is "When god created (which is actually bara- to give function/purpose to), the world was unproductive and disordered." This makes me think that the universe existed prior to Adam, but nothing mattered until Adam was the first human to be given consciousness/a soul and able to know right from wrong, escaping the animalism of the ancestors before. Before He gave purpose to the world through Adam, evolution and expansion still occurred but it was just like balls floating through space with noneother than Him to actually have consciousness to experience it. Also, I agree with you on the death before the fall, as Eden can still be described as a paradise just like some vacations can nowadays be described as so, because it was rich in nutrients and fruit and soil. However, I slightly disagree with your dating for when Adam was around, because I don't think it is necessary to state he was the first of all human male ancestors but instead just satisfy the pastoralism and agricultural revolution of the neolithic as he was set "to work the ground" (Gen. 2:5) and ensure that "Abel kept flocks" (Gen. 4:2) which could have placed it approximately 10,000 BC but I can't find how accurate this actually is on whether it could have been before the younger dryas period (10,900-9,700 BC), which is what I think is the flood.

Man, I just need to say THANK YOU. Even if this video was uploaded 1 yr ago and im a bit late, this video has opened my eyes to god even more. Just thank you bro

How do you reconcile billions of years of death and original sin being the first cause of death by human disobedience? If you were to say that death existed before sin, wouldn't that be heresy? (Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:21a) Is all darkness bad, or was the darkness described in Genesis simply the void where God would make the universe? The fruit of the tree of life does not indicate that any death had occurred previously, what it does indicate is that it could occur (which God said would occur if they disobeyed Him) and that such could be fixed. Where does scripture say that Satan was permitted to sow death before man? Evolution from common descent is a historical view and thus has no base in science (science in contrast to ECD is surrounded in the repeatable and the falsifiable), you would be accepting a form of mythology. How do you think people know how old something is? How do you know that said measurements are reliable? How do we know something is more evolved than something else, how would we know that there is a LUCA and not a set of created kinds?

@lucaxavier

Жыл бұрын

hi

@TheKing-qz9wd

Жыл бұрын

Ah, truly a like minded fellow. Lord knows I find these radiation based measurements unreliable.

@Commandosoap777

Жыл бұрын

inspiring philosophy has made a series on these questions

@__-tn6hw

Жыл бұрын

@@Commandosoap777 Yes, and I would ask him the same questions.

@__-tn6hw

Жыл бұрын

@@Commandosoap777 The series he does (kzread.info/dash/bejne/hGZoubxteNnfpMY.html) does not actually answer the questions (the series I presume you are referring to), he mainly uses extra-biblical concepts throughout other cultures (including our own) and apply them to scripture.

Interesting take, I am a more liberal Christian and have strongly "believed in" evolution since I was young. I liked how you verbalized a lot of this stuff. I think science is how we discover the physical truth of God and that is something that he would want us to endeavor in. The separation of bible and science as different truths is very intriguing. I will say one thing of criticism though, and its largely inconsequential to the video, but I believe the description of God in the Quran as a deceiver is not accurate and something that is lost in translation from Arabic to English. I think the verse where God is described as a deceiver is a literal translation that does not take into the context of the phrase, which is very important in Arabic. What the context means more is that God is a planner and schemer, but not a schemer in a negative light. I am not super well versed on Islamic theology, but I do know a bit about this. I could be wrong though, I am not 100% sure. Great vid!

If you marry the science of today, you will be a widow tomorrow.

@kriegjaeger

9 ай бұрын

With a few more genders, probably.

Here's my analysis of the whole "we were made from dust" thing. Everything is created as a result of a star dying. An exploding star creates stardust, and stardust is the matter used to make everything in the universe. Maybe the "dust" the bible is talking about is stardust. It would also suggest that we do have a common ancestor, that being a star. Also, while I do believe in evolution, I am unsure to what extent it is true. I have a hard time believing in species-to-species evolution, but things like people developing different skin tones over generations due to harsh sunlight is something I 100% believe in. Maybe humans looked very different back then, as it is proven by old architecture that we used to be shorter. Maybe Adam and Eve looked more apelike, which may explain the skeletons found of ancient apelike species. I do have a hard time believing that we went from being chimpanzees to humans though. I think we were always human, just looked a little different.

@MitchJohnson0110

6 ай бұрын

Evolution does not say that humans were ever chimpanzees. Idk why people say that

A question I had in Genesis was where the other people came from in the Cain and Abel story, interestingly, apparently there is evidence for our brains doubling in size at some point in human history and in a very short period of time so I've been thinking, maybe that could be because of the original sin?

@potatoheadpokemario1931

11 ай бұрын

Cain and seth's wives was their sisters (and that wouldn't have caused inbreeding problem because there wasn't enough time for bad mutations to accumulate and since the danger isn't there God didn't need to forbid it at the time)

@littlefishbigmountain

10 ай бұрын

@@potatoheadpokemario1931 “And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.” ‭‭ ~Genesis‬ ‭3‬:‭20‬

@rrjt1011

9 ай бұрын

⁠@@potatoheadpokemario1931correct. Original sin hadn’t yet fully permeated human genetics and overall health. It’s also why most pre-Flood humans lived for hundreds of years

@keagaming9837

6 ай бұрын

Adam and Eve had a lot of kids. Alabama stuff had to be done since at the time there was only one human family on Earth.

Idea: If you build fountains from which the river things spring, it'll help you jump from the parapet easier AND look really beautiful to boot.

It's clear that the very beginning of things (in Genesis) and the very end of things (in Revelation) are not to be taken 100% literally as described in the Bible

What is the server address? I'd love to play on that server. And if it's not gonna be released yet is there like a date when it is?

Great video! I am so glad I found this channel!

Interesting video, what about the ark and Moses? Thanks I love the videos! The death part about before the fall was mind blowing

I would have to say that I do disagree with the belief of evolution I have discovered many contradictions in it but I do respect understand where you are coming from and I appreciate your perspective on these topics , God bless dude and I hope you will look at my perspective more thoroughly I would recommend answers in genesis very eye opening for so many questions answered there, either way great work in your videos and I believe God is doing great work in you

Very interesting takes! I respect how you justify your stance, and although I don't fully agree with all your assertions, I do find them enlightening and interesting.

Is no one going to talk about the beginning? Golden. This is what we need!

Another thing people need to keep in mind is that whether you're a young earth creationists or an old earth evolution believing Christian. Neither are required for salvation. No where in the NT does it say you need to believe in a young or old earth in Order to be saved. And one day God will confirm which one is true

Man, I came up with the exact same answer for how I felt about evolution! I'm also a presbytarian, but we never really talked about it in church. But due to belief in predestination I think there's already that idea of our perception of time is just different than God's. Like, the idea of genetic adam and eve being actual adam and eve and set apart due to their souls was my solution when I decided to make sure my beliefs are coherent in college. The idea that death wasn't present before the fall... I guess I always assumed Adam and Eve ate meat, so I assumed that was about human death, and if Adam and Eve were the first real humans with souls, then they would've had yet to die. And you make a good point about the fruit of the tree of life. Had they eaten that they might've lived forever without sin. I think I do disagree a little about the darkness being bad, or proof of evil, but besides that it's super cool to hear someone come to the same conclusion lol. To be fair, I think there are things that could be supernatural about evolution, and it's become something I don't care as much to argue about (since some people really can't wrap their heads about God being outside of time, and that's sort of the core for a lot of things).

Great vid. I'm a Christian that 'believes in' evolution but haven't ever put the time in to properly reconcile these points of view, so thanks for sharing your understanding of the first chapters of the Bible. I'm still not sure on a few details yet though, especially the flood and the genealogies that wouldn't extend far enough to include 50,000 years of human history. Would really love to hear more about this!

@user-te4bf6ye7r

Жыл бұрын

God made man and woman in the first book it is irrefutable

@tylerhawley4012

Жыл бұрын

No need to call it a “belief” in evolution. You acknowledge what is observed and scientifically provable. Beliefs depend on believers, something like evolution exists regardless, just as 1+1=2 or that water can be split into hydrogen and oxygen, they are fundamental characteristics and processes of the world and universe.

@anon5075

Жыл бұрын

@@tylerhawley4012 "observed" We've never seen an animal move from one kind to the other. Even if we saw one there'd still be a problem because of Genesis 1:21,24 and 25 'brought forth after his kind'. A bacteria changing into a different bacteria cannot be extrapolated into bacteria turning into man.

@jonteet

Жыл бұрын

​@@anon5075 yes it can be extrapolated, you just don't understand how it works because your brain is too small

@anon5075

Жыл бұрын

@@jonteet I mean rationally. You can believe everything came from nothing, life came from non-life and intelligence came from non-intelligence. You may even have a model for it. Doesn't make your belief any less of a religion. Science is that which we can observe. Has life been formed even in lab conditions, and has any information been observed to be *gained*, rather than rearranged? It's telling that an evolutionist's best argument is invariably circular reasoning or a personal insult. Romans 1:21-22 "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools," God's diagnosis is correct. His cure is to repent.

14.00- in the Bible, in Genesis, at the end of every day it says: "And God saw that it was good." If there was death before the fallout, how could God say that it was good?

@Arander92

Жыл бұрын

What the hell does that have to do with there being death? Maybe death was part of God’s plan, so he saw that it was good?

@KevvoLightswift

Жыл бұрын

@Derek Ford "But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death." -1 Corinthians 15:21-26 "Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire." -Revelation 20:14 "He will swallow up death for all time, And the Lord God will wipe tears away from all faces, And He will remove the reproach of His people from all the earth; For the Lord has spoken." -Isaiah 25:8 "He has saved us and called us to a holy life-not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel." - 2 Timothy 1:9-10

@bbrainstormer2036

3 ай бұрын

@@Arander92 Romans 5:12 disagrees

@jacksonwillison7376

Ай бұрын

@@bbrainstormer2036 Redeemed Zoomer addresses that at 15:25

My whole life I have not believed in evolution, but God is capable creating the universe. He is capable of creating evolution, but the bible does not say “God created creatures that will become completely new species”

@kriegjaeger

9 ай бұрын

Amen. And God created Adam as a Man. If God can create the appearance of age and complete development, long ages are unnecessary nor are they anywhere defined. What we do have are genealogies and time periods like the exile.

@bbrainstormer2036

3 ай бұрын

I could go either way on that one, though I'm leaning towards a young earth, mostly because it seems like the theory of evolution changes every time a new skeleton is found. The bible doesn't give any specifics on how plants and animals were created, just that god said "let there be x" and then they were. However, the bible _very_ clearly states that god _created_ man in his image. That is very clearly different from taking a random hominid and giving it a soul.

As a Mainline Lutheran (ELCA), I frankly find you MUCH more theologically conservative than I am, bordering on “gatekeeping” Christianity at times when it comes to very specific issues like gay rights or modern demonic possession. With that said, overall I LOVE your basic message, and you are a true breath of fresh air for our religion!! We can at least agree on trying to reestablish Mainline Protestantism as the culturally quintessential American religious group! Keep up the well thought out and insightful videos, my man!

What do you think about Biologos who believe in evolutionary creation? (I mean it sounds like this is equivalent to your position) Or would you say intelligent design (id) is inferior to it?

@redeemedzoomer6053

Жыл бұрын

I agree with Biologos on evolution generally

“We should change our views based on what non-Christian liberals think” sounds like a terrible message to give

@TDPlusPT

Жыл бұрын

As a conservative and a theological mix between a YEC and an OEC, I think that's a bit of a strawman, I am not going to deny the sky is blue because a willfully Godless man says it is blue. I am going to try to understand why God made the sky appear blue to us and try to figure out if there is meaning in that or if I or the Godless man is simply mistaken about it being blue. God definitely created everything in systems and patterns so if something seems wrong its likely just that we don't have the context yet. It would be foolish to claim 'we know'. Just to be clear I definitely also have problems with the way this all is presented in the video I just also agree that core conservatives tend to blindly fall into distrust and often treat intellectual pursuits as corrupt beyond saving when God quite literally built us to study Him and his creation in Worship of Him.

@precariousworlds3029

Жыл бұрын

Branding evolutionary theory and the whole of scientific thought as "anti-Christian liberals" is not productive for healthy debate

@ThorsteinnMemeson

11 ай бұрын

Nah, you should ideally believe as many true things as possible Do you deny that a non christian can believe true things?

@FungIsSquish

11 ай бұрын

@@ThorsteinnMemeson What? I said abandoning ideas just because atheist will say you’re an idiot or call you mean, is cowardly and worthless. Not that muh liberals can’t believe anything that’s true.

If God explicitly stated that the world was made in 7 days, clarifying so by repeating morning and evening, but still made the world over millions of years, isn’t that what would make him a deceiver?

@fuzzycounsellor9147

9 ай бұрын

That sounds like way too much logical thinking to me, maybe you should throw in a ton of speculation like Redeemed Zoomer does & you might come to some more illogical conclusions. Just a thought.

Once you accept that the Bible is largely allegorical, a lot of this reconciliation between science and faith just sort of falls away. It can be true and also allegorical. Also, you have to remember that it was oral tradition for many generations before being written down, which then has gone thru multiple levels of translation. For example "formed from clay" could simply be meant to say "made of matter" and the story of Genesis follows an order which aligns with what science tells us. Light, matter, life, lower life to higher life.

You are the first I've met to share my idea of the Imago Dei being bestowed upon Adam.

It's mindblowing how so many Christians have difficulties grasping the idea that god used evolution as a creational tool. How/why is life "better" or " more precious" if it was "spawned" from scratch, than if it was made to change and develop towards the end-goal conscious human life? I never managed to understand how this is even an issue?

I read a book called "The Lost World of Genesis One" by John Walton, and he found that the Ancient Near-East believed in a functional ontology, which believed strongly that origins weren't so much what they were materially made of, but what function or role God gave them. In Genesis 1, you'll see that things are described not in material terms, but functional ones. What is the suns job? To provide light. That was its significance, its very existence for the ancient Israelites around at that time. To me, Adam and Eve were elected by God as part of His plan to reveal Himself and His love and glory to humanity. They were basically representatives of all people, and their sin basically started that whole plan in my opinion. God bless, love your vids as a fellow zoomer.

@khanburger3610

Жыл бұрын

I was gonna say, that everyone should read that book! There’s also some other good ones!

@_gracin

Жыл бұрын

@@khanburger3610 for sure! I've gotta read the entire series. The first one is all I've read tbh.

@kriegjaeger

9 ай бұрын

Put down the bible which is authored by God and taught to us by the holy spirit and read some guy's take on it. 🤔

I think it's easier to stick with God "instantly" creatin all life. I'm YEC to an extent, but I'm openish. Question, have you read Darwin's book? On the origin of the species? (full title is weird: by means of natural selection or the preservation of Favoured races in the struggle for life)

@thegameranch5935

Жыл бұрын

Darwin was wrong about a lot of thing. While it may be interesting to read his book you shouldn’t treat it as a science book.

@bigbomb3035

Жыл бұрын

@@thegameranch5935 he was also right about a lot of things

@thegameranch5935

Жыл бұрын

@@bigbomb3035 true

2:00 Geocentrism vs heliocentrism is really just a choice of which mathematical model is easier to apply, it's not a question of either of them being wrong (unless you stick to the view of earth being the central point of creation). By now heliocentrism simply has a more mature and simpler model, since we decided to switch our convention - but you could work to the exact same degree of precision with geocentric model. And who's to say, that the model that could've matured from geocentrism over that same time if we stuck to it and worked through the hurdles wouldn't be more useful at explaining more of our world? It could be that it simply had a steeper curve to reach a deeper absolute minimum of errors, compared to heliocentrism that had a shallow curve to settle in a seemingly correct (but ultimately wrong) local minimum of errors with our assumptions about the world.

You're very smart. Though I'm not a Christian, I'm a Baha'i. The idea you have that God's creation process can involve both natural and miracle process, very much aligns with my own belief.

Some numbers ARE symbolic, but the numbers of dates and numbers of people are clearly fairly accurate, backed up by archaeological evidence

@precariousworlds3029

Жыл бұрын

Which evidence may I ask? Sounds interesting

@flameguy3416

11 ай бұрын

The accurate dates are only after 960~ B.C, which can be backed up by other ancient texts.

That joke at the beginning 💀

0:07 Well I’m evangelical, But I’m not offended by evolution, Because I believe in it just like you.

Evolution has proof, and to get most of the people here to believe something that’s more than enough

0:50 that was natural selection

@Commandosoap777

Жыл бұрын

congrats on learning the first step of evolotuion

Maybe I missed this in the video but how was Eve created from Adam's rib if she was brought forth through evolution?

@_tsl

3 ай бұрын

he doesn't know.

@d.n.8919

7 күн бұрын

It’s metaphorical/allegorical.

@That1guyiknow

7 күн бұрын

@@d.n.8919 that's a pretty big stretch don't you think?

Georgia Purdom took me from being on the same page as you to a... mostly convinced young Earth creationist. She really challenged my perspective. I'd recommend starting with her presentation given in the video titles Genetics CONFIRM a Literal Adam & Eve. There's so much more down that rabbit hole after you start digging.

@TylerHartman

5 ай бұрын

I truly want to thank you! You have sincerely pushed me in a good direction! Inquisitive minds seek ultimate truth, for that, I am thankful.

@velatoget

5 ай бұрын

@@TylerHartman Glad to hear it, thanks!

I just found you today! Of course i subscribed. You explained that very well. Than you.

I enjoy your videos. I enjoyed listening to your perspective. However, I disagree with basically everything you said in a video. And yes, I believe your belief in evolution to be a liberal holdover from your past.

@billyrayphillips

Жыл бұрын

There are scientists who are Creationist. Perhaps you could look up Dr Jobe Martin. I had the great opportunity to listen to him speak at a college and he went over how he became a creationist from an evolutionist.

18:22 How the music just stops 😂

Is kingdomcraft a public server? Is there an application to join?

Can I ask where did you get the info for this? 15:06 " the tree of life makes it so that adam and even wont die if they eat from it"

@DrGero15

Жыл бұрын

The Bible? Genesis 3:22: And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

I am not on the same page on this one but not entirely opposite either. I do think Adam was created from scratch so to speak, not evolved and then given a soul although I do think there is very likely extreme variability in what we identify as human, what a human appears to be 10k years from now may be significantly different to the point of unrecognizability to us today. Otherwise I think it is entirely consistent to believe in evolutionary changes that we can provably witness in nature, the 'seedlike principles' of Augustine of Hippo being genetics, epigenetics and even more that we do not yet understand about God's creation. Relatedly I don't find the cambrian explosion entirely convincing due to the caveots of radiocarbon dating being our best method but I don't discount the discoveries and patterns we are seeing either, its the best we have even if its not 100% accurate. At one point we wrongly believed electrons to be 'inside' the nucleus of atoms as opposed to in the cloud around the nucleus- new theory will likely supplant old theory eventually. In the case of the genealogies I do think its a bit too hand-wavy to say 'well its symbolic' about everything which I am certainly not saying you are affirming, just that I wouldn't go so far as you in this one. I think there is most probably a more solid explanation and we have gaps in our knowledge that is part of our mandate to go out and study. As long as we are affirming God's sovereignty we can work together and disagree on the finer points and acquiesce when we are able to prove or disprove our theories about how the systems of His world actually work. Just to nitpick, I don't think that the world having 'an appearance of age' necessitates calling God a liar, that's extreme overreaction IMHO. I personally think our conception of time is likely to blame here and we over-attribute the translation of the hebrew 'YOM' to mean a literal 24 hour day. Certainly he did not 'hide the fossils to test our faith' that's laughable, but Him willing it to a maturity within a system He designed is not out of the question same as him deciding to snap all elements into position. What difference to us is it if He made the base element and exploded it out from there or formed it in place? Either way he is miraculously creating it out of nothing which is exactly what the proponents of the big bang believe minus the willful denial of the Creator.

@m.r.reeceabob8480

Жыл бұрын

I agree with you a lot and I can tell you've definitely looked into this. I would have to comment on yom tho and that it's appropriate to have it as 24 hours with context. As well with yom being used regularly thousands of times throughout the rest of the Old Testament to denote a 24 hour day, the Bible says that there was morning and evening. The addition and meaning of these verbs would be useless unless if the creation account was depicting a literal 7 day creation. A literal 7 day creation is the best interpretation of scripture. Also about the fossils, I would say the they are from Noah's flood. It would be logical, since bottom strata contains sea floor creatures and higher strata contains land and reptiles (Mesozoic and Cenozoic). We would expect this from a gradual, worldwide, ebb and flow flood. Its easy to mistake this for evolution occurring throughout millions of years. God bless you.

@Commandosoap777

Жыл бұрын

all life is made from scratch even in evolution non living things bring forth living things aka coming from scratch

@deltatheintp0263

Жыл бұрын

​@@m.r.reeceabob8480Thank you for your comment, God does not take His word lightly and when He says something He says it for a reason. And that is what is at stake, Are God's people going to contend from God's word or our own understanding (I am not advocated abandoning reason and logic) But when God says, "evening and morning" those three words of His are more valuable than anything and everything I will say in my whole life. Anyway I appreciate your comment and the original comment. For adding weightiness to God's word.

@m.r.reeceabob8480

Жыл бұрын

@@deltatheintp0263 Yes. (I just wanted to say I'm also an INTP haha). Where I would disagree a little bit is where you say evening and morning are more important than anything you'll ever say. First, this whole creation vs evolution isn't a salvific issue. Second, remember that God wants a relationship with you. I bet that God would consider you accepted Christ 1000% times more important than the words "evening and morning." I remember watching The Shack (very good, heavy movie), and the man and Jesus (an actor of course, not the real one, although very Biblically based) are sitting on the side of a lake at night, looking at the extremely beautiful mountains and stars. And Jesus says, "As beautiful as all of this is, it's nothing compared to how We see you."

@deltatheintp0263

Жыл бұрын

@@m.r.reeceabob8480 My brother in Christ: I very much appreciate the first point and would like to expound why I say "evening and morning" are important, when compared to the cross of Christ, I completely agree that creationism and evolutionism matter very little except for where the consequences pertain to the matter of Jesus work and ministry. But I primarily would like to address your second point. I do not disagree with your premise, I would personally have drawn from Song of Songs 2:14, and Matthew 6:26&30 among others. But the shack was not written by a man who understood the Gospel, especially in regards to God's justice. I do not say this lightly. I am not attacking you, but I am going to come after the shack quite strongly. I do not say this from a haughty position but the shack is compromised and the man who wrote it holds no esteem for the word of God. Without justice, the cross of Christ was meaningless and cruel. But when paired with God's justice, which is not something God has been forced to have, He is just, it is who He is and no one makes Him to punish sin, He does it because it is who He is and it is awesome in the full terrifying and beautiful meaning of the word. But to the same extent He is abounding in faithful love and compassion, remembering His covenant to the thousandth generation. (Exodus 34:6) To make known the richness of His mercy. When each and everyone of us had gone astray, it pleased Him to crush His son, and to do so severely (Isaiah 53:10), when He slew His own Son on the tree (Deuteronomy 21:23) "cursed is everyman who hangs from a tree." So that He could be righteous in His own eyes. He who is truth took the place of liars so God could be justified to justify them. He who gave everything, died for thieves. He who was obedient unto death was crucified so the rebel could walk free. He who gave life, died for murders. He who is faithful and pure, was crushed for His creations who had gone astray. He who was God, was forsaken for blasphemers of God. He who deserved the blessings of Deuteronomy 28 received the curses so God would be just in giving those who deserved, deserved, deserved everyone of the curses in Deuteronomy 28, so that they could not only be pardoned but receive everyone one of the blessings because Him who suffered the cup of God's wrath was infinitely more valuable than the rest of this sinful humanity which He came to save. He did not let go of His own Son so that He could let go of our sin. It is by grace and grace alone that we are saved, not because we are a people of faith, but faith is the vehicle of God's grace, there is only one way to heaven, as horrifying as the reality is, and many ways to hell. If I do not plead with you to know God and the richness of His mercy and study His word like each one is worth more than the rest of this sinful humanities. My salvation is precious and beautiful only because it flows from Calvary. Not because of any work I have done

It depends on what type of evolution your talking about? Cosmic? Stellar? Chemical? Origin of life? Macro? Micro?

I remember reading a story of a parrot who could say hundreds of words and answer all sorts of questions, and this was scientific as possible to reduce outside influences. The parrot was shown optical illusions, and gave responses consistent with humans. The word "banerry" was coined by them. They looked in a mirror and asked what color they were - making that parrot the only non-human to ask a question. That's starting to sound a bit like a soul to me.

My Grandma had to grapple with this subject, and she basically had the same ideas as you.

7:03 "God making the earth look old" doesn't make God a deciever any more than Him making strange sea creatures we will never see makes Him deceptive. Creation is for His own benefit. "Apparent age" has its worth. 8:51 Creation remains a miracle for we have no life in ourselves and cannot just pop into being whenever we want. If it is what God wanted, and it is started by Him, then it remains creation all the same, and if you dare to say God guides the evolutionary process, which runs counter to Him on any given day speaking and life coming from dirt, you run counter to the text. I will agree that you won't learn math from the bible, but we have no reason to impose analogs to the statements given plainly. 11:55 Us having parents doesn't change that decomposition turns us into dust and our bones are little shaped calcium deposits. Calcium being a mineral, minerals being like dust, you get the idea. We're still sentient dust given form divinely cuz once the providence shuts off you will never be able to tell us apart from the ground we stood on. Even just by living we leave little thin oily and dusty trails from our processes. Now if you want to really make arguenents about symbolic language of humans, you're better off arguing over verses using the metaphor "man is a worm". 13:34 Death is stated to be a punishment. You're absolutely insane to believe that death existed before the fall of man. Nothing suggested it. In fact if you read accutely you might notice a tiny detail that there wasn't any carnivores originally, and in the new earth there won't be either. If you check, that likely came about after the flood as a price for writing that we were to eat the animals. I grant that this includes the time when men nearly lived 1000 years, but suffice it to say that prior to this there was no mention of death. Such strange eisegesis indeed to insert so much rectroactively for one's faulty ideas. 13:58 There is darkness in caves and the ocean even now so darkness is a horrible way to start an explaination. Have you seen photos of some of these caves? I'd bloody live in em, or at least visit em often. Crystals, man. Too beautiful. And considering such briliant earthy materials such as translucent gold and pearl are used to describe the new Jerusalem, but these materials come from dark places, you're making a horrible, horrible stretch to attribute the absence of light outside of God's glory to the presence of sin's consequences. 14:56 It isn't our place to assume but considering that the only tree originally said "you shall not eat from" was the knowledge of good and evil, snacking on the tree of life was the intended way for us to live past those initial 1000 years. Or, like with many other things, God just had it there because He wanted it there. The earth is His and is to glorify Him, after all.

@ConvexFX

Жыл бұрын

Great counter-points to the video.

@georgegreen711

Жыл бұрын

Well said. - It is highly incongruous indeed to believe in death before the Fall.

@kriegjaeger

9 ай бұрын

Well said. I notice Zoomer likes and replies to whoever agrees with him and ignores who doesn't.

I think you make a lot of great points. While I don't think I can accept evolution still, I think I have became more open minded about it through your points and will no longer instantly dismiss it.

I am a creationist, but i completely and totally have no problem with your explanation. Its well thought out and does not damage the core of Christianity. You are right, all Christians need to be more open and stop rejecting every little thing. Pick your battles, evolution is not a primary issue.

I love this so much. I never thought I would find someone who I agreed with so strongly on theistic evolution.

@carterwoodrow4805

10 ай бұрын

Can you explain why God called his creation good before the fall then, if death was already there?

@kriegjaeger

9 ай бұрын

Have you seen the arguments for Young earth that aren't only "Jesus did it"? And even so, why would we have to vet everything God said, by what man says? Who are we worshipping in that case?

Thank you for sharing the "God wouldn't deceive us" argument about the age of the earth/universe. I also accept evolution as a process of creation - I feel even Genesis 1 alludes to the concept with "let the waters bring forth life" - God planned how life might proceed and then allowed the processes built into the universe take their course.

@redeemedzoomer6053

8 ай бұрын

exactly! That's exactly what I've always thought

@Najmille

3 ай бұрын

Humans making incorrect assumptions off of scientific methods through theories wouldn’t make God the deceiver ? It happens a lot in historical knowledge and through archeology that we are not truly sure of the official narratives (for example our understanding of European antiquity evolved long after we started teaching about it and contradicts some initial understandings)

@Dsingis

2 ай бұрын

@@NajmilleAn interesting thought. Humans making wrong assumptions, or not having the complete picture doesn't mean that god is a deceiver. Humans always thought they knew everything, and 500 years later people laughed at their ancestors. What is to say that we now know everything, and that in 500 years the Bible isn't proven right (as it happened so often in the past)? Besides, even if what we knew today was correct, it wouldn't make god a deceiver to say that he created everything the way it is, it would just imply that we don't know how he did it. I always like to give this example of a computer simulation. When running a simulation, every step is, well, simulated. It doesn't happen for real, but at the end of the simulation we have a certain state of something, that is as if all this time passed. I mean, this is entirely a theory, but it's very possible that god could have run the universe "in his mind", and when the simulation reached 13 billion years, (or whatever) he "screenshotted" the simulation and created it ex-nihilo, out of nothing. Again, just a wild theory, I'm not saying that's true :D Just a way to argue my point, that we simply don't know anything.

Very interesting. Ill have to put some thought in this.

You're teaching me things I didn't know about my own denomination haha. I had no idea the LCMS is anti-evolution and young earth. I grew up baptist and attend an LCMS service now and I've virtually always believed in evolution and old-earth creationism.

@keagaming9837

6 ай бұрын

Same! I was old earth creationist before. The 7 days in The Bible could've just been showing the 7 stages. Days don't have to be 24 hours. Although, I didn't exactly know how evolution itself fit into the picture until this video! I thought maybe a regression around Noah's ark time happened or only some aspects of evolution were right.

Are you saying you believe in macroevolution? Microevolution is undeniable but the evidence for macroevolution seems to be spotty and weak at best.

@Commandosoap777

Жыл бұрын

the evidence for macro is strong tbh

@Muhbelly

Жыл бұрын

@@Commandosoap777 Is there some evidence you can provide to back up your claim? All due respect, but just saying that the evidence for macroevolution is strong isn’t going to be enough to sway my opinion on the matter. Thanks and God bless.

@MichealJacksonsShoes

Жыл бұрын

​@@Commandosoap777 no it's not.... XD it's a lie to hide God's glory

@hailgiratinathetruegod7564

Жыл бұрын

you mean the fact, that there is not diffintion of "kind", that there are incounteble inbetween forms, both alive and extinct, that both gentics and anatomy follow exact tree paterns, with out a single exemple of a kind of barrier between the so called kinds. Kinds in the creationist sense are not even biblical, with the bible discribing "kinds" like the modern species concept.

I think it was Ptolemy who came up with geocentrism, and nothing in the bible indicates that the sun/stars, moon or planets center around the earth, and frankly given the bible's stance of self-centeredness, geocentrism was obviously a heresy or would have been if the authorities in the catholic church hadn't taken to the idea so clingingly, and Copernicus was actually asked by his Pope to publish his findings at the time, but Galileo, 50 years later confirming Copernicus's theories with telescopes was taken more strongly as this was happening in the wake of the reformation, and the catholic church stinging from their authority being questioned in any way post Luther.... additionally Science as we know it didn't quite get all it's pieces until later during the enlightenment period, and in the mid Renaissance Science was still in its infancy, truly. So while I think you say a lot of interesting things to think about in this video, I don't think your claim that people at the time of Copernicus and Galileo were really trying to 'use the bible to do science' rather because they believed in God, they were trying to discover more about Creation for the glory of God, outside of the bible, using their own observations, which slowly became/grew into Science.

@JohnVILXIII

Жыл бұрын

The two great lights set in the open firmament of the Heaven where the fowl flies, divinding the waters above and under it. God stretches the Heavens as a tent for people to dwell in. Joshua stopping the sun, The earth shall not be moved. God’s footstool. The stars falling unto the earth. etc.

@nicmagtaan1132

Жыл бұрын

It was the proof that it exist the church is really Madge about, considering they might be sorta sceptical of that things

Favoring denominations over individualism, choosing a Mainline church over an--ahem--offshoot, and now affirming evolution too... you've earned a sub from this MIllennial religionerd. Also, what's the delightful soundtrack from?

@redeemedzoomer6053

Жыл бұрын

I wrote the soundtrack lol (redeemed zoomer on soundcloud)

@auggieeasteregg2150

8 ай бұрын

As your typical non denom baptist, I wonder how it is that I'm subscribed, but I'm sure not leaving 😂

Wow! Your videos are amazing! I personally disagree about your ideas around evolution, but I do agree that people should have a more agnostic approach towards evolution. It really doesn’t make any difference whether one believes in it or not. I disagree with evolution because I think that scientific discoveries are being misinterpreted to support a confirmation bias. Many Christians not only reject evolution because it goes against what they believe, but because evolution in itself is often viewed as a religion. While sometimes this is true, it is not always true. An equally problematic issue is how many atheist evolutionists claim that there is no need for a God because evolution explains the reason for the universe existing. They sometimes claim that believing in God is just a divine fallacy. However, evolution could also be viewed as a sort of divine fallacy, so this logic does not work. I don’t think that the Tree of Life automatically approves of the idea that there was death before the Fall. While the tree is physical, it is also largely symbolic. When the Bible talks about death, it typically only refers to human death, so we really have no idea. This lack of information does not suggest that there was death before the Fall, it only suggests that we lack the information to know for sure. If we take a scientific approach, in the cycle of life animals are specifically designed to consume specific animals or plants. Why would animals be designed in these specific ways if they didn’t eat one another? Could death for animals exist before the Fall? I don’t know! Overall, I think your ideas are super open minded and enlightening.

This is the perspective we needed on this, thank you

Earth's gravity is slowly and constantly weakening. Therefore, it would to strong to support life past 12,000 years ago. Also anti-evolution doesn't mean anti-science.

@TheEGames

9 ай бұрын

That is just straight up and blatantly false. Earths gravity is NOT weakening, and even if it was it’s theorized that life could exist on a planet with TWICE the Earth’s mass! So more than half the Earth’s mass just magically disappeared? According to who? Nobody, lmfao.

@isaacpfeiffer4347

9 ай бұрын

@@TheEGames The earth loses 50,000 metric tons of mass every year. Look it up. In addition, the earth is also expanding, which lessens it's gravity.

@siyg

9 ай бұрын

How is the earth losing 50,000 metric tons of mass every year?

@isaacpfeiffer4347

9 ай бұрын

@@siyg Air and dust and water particles leaking into space.

@siyg

9 ай бұрын

@@isaacpfeiffer4347 Just did a quick google search and it seems that around 50,000 metric tons are lost per year. The Earth expanding (I’m not sure if it does but hypothetically) would not have near any noticeable decrease in gravity. The earth weighs 6 billion trillion metric tons so 50,000 per year would be nothing even in large time scales. Even if the gravity of the earth changed noticeably over these large timescales, life would certainly adapt

Just as a solid point of question. Have you read Dr. Jobe Martin's book, "The Evolution of a Creation: A Laymen's Guide to the Conflict Between the Bible and Evolutionary Theory?" You had stated over and over again that evolution is just scientifically true, but didn't state any sources. If you read Dr. Martin's book you will find more then enough, a truly abundant amount of, sources on the topic of evolution from both a scientific perspective, and theological one as well, that proves it, evolution, to be false and contradict with scripture.

18:28 Off topic but I love how the music in the background perfectly cuts when you say it. That is comedy 😂

What does the bible saying that God created man in his own image means under evolution?

@Commandosoap777

Жыл бұрын

soul

Hey bro I recently found your channel and have been watching many of your videos. I debate a lot of people on this subject in particular and would like to share my thoughts if you would care to listen. I am a young Earth creationists, but I'm positively sure you'll hear something new from me. So you've looked into evolution and the evidence absolutely supports it eh? Well here are some generally evidences you've probably heard: -The fossil record -Natural Selection -Genetic Drift and Gene flow -Speciation -Mutations -Vestigial Organs -Homologous and Analogous structures I'll debunk all of these briefly for you. The fossil record: The fossil record shows that over time (bottom to top, generally), there were sea creatures, then estuary creatures, then reptiles, then land animals, etc. This shows evolution occurring over millions of years right? Pause. Let's take off the evolutionary glasses and look at this for a second. I'll talk about radioisotope dating in a second, but let's put time aside right now. Noah's flood. A worldwide flood lasting for a year, the largest flooding event ever to occur. The waves in Noah's flood probably came in what scientists call megasequences. Basically, it was an ebb and flow, and would flood an area, deposit sediment (with creatures that would be fossilized), then recede a little, causing an unconformity. Now if your a flood, you start from bottom up. So there was a worldwide flood, we would expect sea floor creatures at the bottom, then sea creatures, then estuary creatures, then reptiles (dinosaurs). Now the top layers are fun. You talked about human fossils not being mixed in by the dinosaurs, there are 2 things I have to say. Number one is that humans are smart and if a flood is running, they'll run to high ground (we also see this will fossilized dinosaur footprints all generally going the same direction, which in the USA is North). And humans are very mobile and fast so this explains why they wouldn't be mixed in with dinosaurs. Also, there are things called out of place fossils. These are fossils that don't match the geological record (like human cups being found in mesozoic layers of rock). When the flood covered the land, the humans died (expect Noah) and their remains were likely crushed beyond recognition while the flood was receding completely. Anyways yeah, the fossil record actually supports YEC. Natural selection (or CET depending on who you talk to), genetic drift, gene flow, and speciation are all mechanisms of evolution that creationists believe are real. You could also add in horizontal gene transfer. Creationists believe that animals can evolve, but not beyond the family level (in taxonomy). This is consistent with when the Bible says that animals were created in their kinds. These mechanisms alone cannot evolve an animal outside of the family level, even over millions of years. Mutations. I would argue mutations strongly support creationism. This is because there has never been a mutation that created a protein that has been ultimately positive in the long term. We would need this event to happen (and likely many, many times) to get even close to the level of evolution that mainstream science proposes, and yet not one single example of this has ever been recorded. Mutations are almost always either neutral or negative. Think about it like your writing a paper (the genome). And you randomly insert a letter into the paper (mutation). This letter is most likely going to make your paper less legible, not make it better. The same thing applies for the genome and mutations. Vestigial organs- yeah so basically all of these have a function. There are no truly non functional organs. Some organs might not work very efficient, but this is better explained by creationism. As time went on from Adam, and since we live in a fallen world, mutations have been constantly degrading the human genome, and therefore the human body. Mutations don't make the genome better like evolution magically claims. Homologous and Analogous structures. This could go both ways. Would we not expect a designer to implement working designs he has already made in other things (homologous structures)? And wouldnt a designer also create variety (analogous structures)? These arguments are no more evidence for evolution than of a designer. Radioisotope dating- I know you've been waiting for this. Basically radioisotope dating, ice core dating, etc., it all uses assumptions. We assume the age of the Earth as old and use those assumptions in calculating the rate that the parent element decays into the daughter element, the amount of parent and daughter elements there are, etc. Also things are not often considered like what if sometime more daughter or parent element was added to the substance. You can probably learn more about this from Vernon Kupps than from me. Many ideas of an old age Earth came from the Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution, very secular movements, where scientists and research supporting an old age Earth was almost exclusively shown through mainstream papers and media back then. Similar to how liberal and progressive ideas are being pushed almost exclusively through mainstream media today. A deep look into the Hebrew of Genesis 1-11 will show that it is really meant to be a literal 6000 year creation, although I'll let you figure out about that with some of the sites I'll show you. You say that many of creationist ideas come from religious reasons, however this is really not true. There are places like the Discovery Institute, which promote intelligent design, but not any religion in particular. However for you I have some place for you to look. Look at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and check out Creation Ministries International. I would recommend Answers in Genesis too, but honestly I prefer the former over them. These are scientific research centers, that have many PhD scientists, some from Ivy League schools, that write technical papers, and support young Earth creationism for scientific (as well as biblical) reasons. Let's look at some other points in your video too. -Yes scientists have proposed solutions for abiogenesis and the big bang, but none are generally accepted in the scientific community, because they all have certain flaws. RNA World seems to be a pretty popular idea recently, but even it has its own flaws. -So humans don't actually have 98% similarity in genes with chimps. Its closer to 80-85%. This is because some fractions might be the same but in different places, or reversed, etc. It's an unfair comparison. -I agree that the breath of life is like the human rational soul that is one of many things that separates us from other animals. Now the death before fall conversation. -Darkness and light. I think that darkness refers to moral wrongs and evils in the world. Such as such concepts existed. So God separated the good concepts from the bad concepts. You could also say that God saw the literal light as good, not in a sense that the dark is bad, but rather that the light is good for his creation to live in or would make it easier. -I don't see anywhere in the Bible where it says if Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life they would become immortal. In fact God allowed Adam and Eve to eat from it, likely as sustenance. Only that eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil that then they would surely die. Also, the wages of sin is death. The Bible says this. If Adam and Eve sinned and we're dying before they ate from the tree, this would completely destroy the point of the story and what happened. You could ask then, why did God kick Adam and Eve out of the garden if they were already sinning and had been doing so their whole life? -What would be truly embarrassing to Christianity would to be to disregard teachings in the Bible for secular teachings today. -The ultimate fact is that evolution is not scientific and does not follow the scientific method. I hope that your search for truth in this is not over yet and you will considered what I have said. If your interested for more than check out some of the sites I listed. Also sorry if I didn't get to everything in the video I tried my best. If you have questions or concerns (this goes for anyone too), leave one and I'll reply. Also you can bully me for theologically disagreeing with you lol. I'll pray for you, and I hope this helps!

@ivocomum

Жыл бұрын

Thank you very much for all this info. I agree with most of your points already, but there is one that still bugs me... the young earth one. While i think the age of our universe and planet are a bit exagerated by sience, it seems to little for our planet to be only 6000 years old. Can you show me some arguments both sientific and biblical (witout geneologis) (Im not a native english speaker. Sorry for any bad written words)

@iishadowii7477

Жыл бұрын

I.... ain't reading all that... haha I'm joking I'll try my best . You for real typed your college final thesis in the comments lol

@randomguy1848

Жыл бұрын

@@ivocomum the simple answer to your question is that there is no way to find the amount of years the earth has been around. We believe that the Bible is 100% true and never lies. Because of this we can rely on the genealogies that God has put in his Word. If we cannot believe that God's word is true we cannot believe anything. If you need scientific evidence there are many fossils that are in the same layer of earth as the dinosaur fossils. I would recommend looking for speeches by Ken Ham concerning evolution as he does a much better job then I could of explaining things.

@ivocomum

Жыл бұрын

​@@randomguy1848 Thanks. I will search for him. One point we agree. The bible is 100% true. I don't doubt that. The thing is the way that the genealogy are written indicate a specific Jewish stile of writing (numerology? i think). If you check, there are 14 (7*2) generations from Abraham to David (using Matthew genealogy). In Luke's genealogy, there are 77 (7*11) generations from Jesus to Adam. In the Jewish tradition, 7 is a very important number (perfection), and Jewish writers tended to have those significant numbers. While i believe that those in the genealogy really existed, probably they are just the more important ones, and others were left out so that the number 14 and 77 could be accomplished. In the end, the word of God is not wrong (it can't be wrong, it is the word of God after all), it simply demonstrates the connection from Jesus to David, Abraham and Adam as a way to legitimize him as the Messiah to the Jews, using a Jewish stile of writing in a way that shows perfection. But it is not the way to show accurately the age of the earth. And there is still the problem that people in the beginning of creation lived much longer, "putting a wrench" in calculating the age of the earth accurately. Still, i might be wrong, but i can't believe that the earth is so young as some say (though i don't believe to be as old as evolutionist say either).

@zakaryloreto6526

Жыл бұрын

Not sure about the vestigial organ part though, appendix is pretty pointless in Humans more of a problem then anything.

I’m curious on your thoughts regarding Dr. Jason Lisle studies.

So anyways,What do you think of the curches in indonesia

You know that the father of evolutionary biology is Charles Darwin who married his own cousin

@bryzoblade9545

Жыл бұрын

No way 😂

@whosthis5471

Жыл бұрын

what does that have to do with anything?

@nicmagtaan1132

Жыл бұрын

So is Jacob

@FosterDuncan1

Жыл бұрын

@@whosthis5471 it means he married his cousin

@ThorsteinnMemeson

11 ай бұрын

So? What does any individual humans sinful acts have to do with the underlying truth of the universe? Are you saying that someone whos a sinner cant discover truth? (hint, we're all sinners)

The problem with evolution isn't Christianity, it's science.

@BishopLovesPingy

Жыл бұрын

?

@Goingwithafakehandlehere

Жыл бұрын

@@BishopLovesPingy it's a bit old at this point, but the fundamental science is sound, but check out The Creator Series by Chuck Missler for a scientific refutation of evolution. It's just statistically impossible

@Commandosoap777

Жыл бұрын

@@Goingwithafakehandlehere lol not it is not

@m.r.reeceabob8480

Жыл бұрын

@@Commandosoap777 where's that one example of a mutation that created a new protein that created a new ability, feature, or function that was positive in the long term? Nada. We would need such a mutation if we were to expect evolution above the family level. Microevolution is a common fact. However evolution above the family level requires more than gene flow, genetic drift, horizontal gene transfer, speciation, etc. It would require a mutation given above, which has never been documented in the history of science.

@Commandosoap777

Жыл бұрын

@@m.r.reeceabob8480 assumes just because we haven't physically seen a whale go from land to sea meaning it didn't happen is ironically the same flawed logic atheists use in the bible. We see "macroevolution" in whales for example because we have tons and tons of fossil records that show the phases of adaptation and change over time; the chances of this being a round occurrence is just as unlikely as Jesus fulfilling 30 + messianic prophecies. Evidence of evolution are also found in microbiology which I assume you believe in which you believe in "microevolution" which is what allows the development of antibiotics; science works in union with each other the evidence of evolution is overwhelming to the point even if darwin was completely wrong we would still have enough evidence to know evolution exists here is some useful resources ; proof of observed evolution of new species in real-time: kzread.info/dash/bejne/gHWmzrqzg6naYrw.html example of a reptile evolving to give birth and live young(reptiles only do one or the other): theconversation.com/this-lizard-lays-eggs-and-gives-live-birth-we-think-its-undergoing-a-major-evolutionary-transition-133630

I'm unsure about your assessment of why Galileo was targeted for heresy. My impression was it was a bad result of a good thing -- Aquinas' efforts to reconcile Aristotelian philosophy and cosmology with Scripture. Because of those efforts the church had accepted Aristotelian cosmology wholesale, which was geocentric. So while Scriptures may have been cited in the arguments, the main basis of the conflict was between Aristotle's views, which were accepted by the church, and Galileo's new views.

The things general relativity has to say about gravity and its effects on spacetime make it very possible-likely, even-that time flowed quicker during the earlier cosmos than it does now. In fact the chronology of the universe according to the Big Bang theory strikingly resembles the first four days of creation. Hence why I subscribe to both YEC and OEC in a way.

For everything about Christianity *not* related to creation and evolution, I like your videos. But when it comes to this topic, I'll stick with the position held by and taught by Answers In Genesis.

@floptaxie68

11 ай бұрын

Answers in Genesis is a fraud

Let tell you something brotha. We need more people like you. I feel like in this day and age most of our people in our age group are losing faith. They hear evoultuion, than loose their faith enterilying, most of our generation deosn't read the bible and do research on other denomation and harmful denomations. With people like you around educating people more on Christianity more and more people In our generation can be brought back to the faith. Keep It Up>

@metaldave08096

Жыл бұрын

I read the Bible cover to cover and it actually made me into an atheist.

@user-if8tg1or7m

Жыл бұрын

@@metaldave08096 same

@brazil3207

Жыл бұрын

​@@metaldave08096 yea cuz you too SCARED to accept the FACTS.... athiesm is the sand and people are the ostriches....

@brazil3207

Жыл бұрын

​@@metaldave08096 If the creation of anything thru molecule to man evolution were true, nothing should evolve because organisms have ORGANS. and evolution could never get even 1 of them to function right, LET ALONE 4 OR 5!! AND THE CIRCULATORY SYSTEM!! The sequence of DNA can be identical but produce different results based on the presence or absence of epigenetic markers. So if humans and chimps share a common ancestor and these chemical tags are heritable, they should have similar epigenetic markers, right? They should (if evolution were true), but they don’t. the bbt (bigbang theory) is a manmade construct. How insane the chances must be for mill's of plants and animals to magically mutate over ludicrous spans of time. We should find missing links. However we dont, we only find Fully Formed animals. If animals could evolve into totally new animals, there should be a chance we find missing links. ONLY THE SIMPLEST LIFE FORMS SHOULD BE ABLE TO EVOLVE INTO EXISTENCE. GENETIC ENTROPY WILL UNDO WHATEVER BENEFITS THE ORGANISM MUTATED, FASTER THAN THE ORGANISM WILL MUTATE BENEFICAL TRAITS. EVEN THEN, THE CHANCES OF ANY ORGANISM MUTATING A BENEFICIAL TRAIT ARE NEXT TO NONE. HOW MUCH MORE CRAZY IS EVOLUTION, WHEN APPLIED TO MILLIONS OF PLANTS N ANIMALS?? FOR THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE.... DEBUNKING BIGBANG: if the bigbang was real the 2nd planet's orbit would be normal and sat turns ring particles should've moved too fast for ANY gravity to pull them towards the planet. And thats not even taking into account the bigbangs hot temprature which shoulda vaporized anything. also there is too little antimatter in universe. if bigbang was real 99.999999999999999999999% of our universe should Not exist because antimatter destroys matter when it make contact with matter. the bang wouldve made much of it touch matter. so we see far less stars n stuff bc the so called bigbang wouldve destroyed nearly all of it. . READ THIS VERY CAREFULLY!! ----> this should prove that Jesus is Real: JESUS CHRIST will Not make you take any mark, and He will punish the tyrannical ANTI Christ. The ANTI Christ will get a terrible wound, but cure himself to reinforce his deception to decieve the non-Christians and the lukewarm Christians. (look up lukewarm Christians on Christian websites and/or the Bible.) the AC will be world famous and very popular. he will make people take a mark on r hand or forhead. there will be a severe punishment for not taking it. The ANTI-Christ is a control freak, the opposite of Jesus Christ. However, this AC will act all nice and cool for 3 years and 6 months, and then he will make a tyrannical dystopia. for another 3 years 6 months. Jesus uses His power for GOOD, NOT EVIL. This is BIBLE PROPHECY. Dont trust the false god, his goal is to get people into the lake of fire. he will go there too, despite all the FALSE MIRACLES HE WILL DO! Repent of your sins to Jesus Christ before its too late, you could die today!

@humantechnicianinvd8605

Жыл бұрын

Need what? More people who can't grasp the true depths of reality? Who need* their hand held by a parasite to avoid confronting the fact they're far from perfect?

What? Who said physical darkness is intrinsically evil? Spiritually darkness is but not physical or then when I turn off my bedroom light would I be experiencing evil?

6:55 THAT. I had this discussion multiple times, and it amazes me how there can be people who actively believe in God decieving us

@Colijgaming

2 ай бұрын

THE BIBLE LITERALLY SAID HE WOULD. 2 Thess 2:11: "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:"

@nickfaire

2 ай бұрын

@@Colijgaming 0. I'm not christian, I'm areligious theist. 1. You can't just take a paragraph of a book and try to understand it without context. Try doing that with any other book. Yes, you will look stupid. Cause it is. 2. That verse is talking about the end of the world, and it doesn't imply that God actively deceives through its creation (which actually leads to all short of theological and metaphysical problems), but that, when the end of the world arrives, and the lawless man arrives, they, not God, the lawless man, will deceive people with miracles; so that when that time arrives, God will not save them from that delusion, but will let it be, as those who embrace the lie and reject the truth should be condemned. 3. The main difference with God actively deceiving people through its creation is that, if God would do so, you couldn't believe anything your senses tell you (an enormous metaphysical problem) and They couldn't be consider perfect, as deceive and lie are not characteristics a perfect being would have (an important theological problem), though this last one would depend of what definition of perfection are you considering.

I met a flat earther in the comments. He told me to repent from my unbelieving falsehood and he said I wasn't a Christian. I told him I'd take him to orbit one day with Elon Musk,

@JohnVILXIII

Жыл бұрын

Repent and believe.

@Swiftninjatrev

Жыл бұрын

​@@JohnVILXIII 😂

@nikolatrbojevic253

Жыл бұрын

Research eric dubay