Does evolutionary history match the story of Genesis? Niamh Middleton & Andrew Parker
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ต.ค. 2019
- Christian theologian Niamh Middleton and agnostic scientist Andrew Parker both claim there is a remarkable overlap between the Genesis account and evolutionary history.
For more faith debates subscribe to the weekly podcast www.premierchristianradio.com/...
For updates and bonus content sign up www.premier.org.uk/unbelievabl...
Niamh probably spoke twice as much as Andrew in this conversation. While I appreciate her perspective, I felt bad for Justin trying to keep her on topic and from interrupting Andrew.
100% agree with this. I have been listening to Unbelievable? since about 6 months after Justin started radio show and this is the first time I've actually felt so frustrated and someone dominating the conversation.
Niamh,not a personal attack just a word of advice....let people talk and show some humility,otherwise good job.
30:30
The big flaw in Niamh's argument about natural evil is that she very rapidly dismisses as irrelevant the suffering of the non-human animals.
Just because other animals, arguably, don't suffer the same way or as much as humans do, doesn't mean that their suffering can be ignored. We can even argue that some animals suffer even more, because, unlike the humans, they don't have the abillity to comprehend, explaind, have a larger perspective, integrate, intelectually manage the unpleasant experiences they are going through. Like the animals in farm factories and slaughter houses. Enslaved animals losing their lives and their babies like nowhere in the wild, unable to fight and run for their life, because they think of humans as their family or part of their social group. There's a lot of suffering there, the hell on earth for the innocents, actually, that humans made for the pleasures in their plates.
Not including the animals, when humans are doing so much harm to them and to the environment, is not the proper way to live in the truth and into a better world.
You sir,are a vegan,aren't you?
@@galoobigboi vegan or not its a valid point. Study animals enough, factory farmed or wild animals, you can certaintly tell they feel some sort of suffering and even grief for close members of their group at least for social animals that is
@@theyeticlutch3486 What you "tell they feel" has no value at all.Animals cannot think in an abstract way.
Do they experience pain?Certainly.
That does not make them sentient beings.
We dominate them,so we eat them.Simple as that.
@@galoobigboi wow. I disagree and frankly your assumption that you are the one who can put judgment and value on all other living things is frightening
@@theyeticlutch3486 Why can't I.I mean what specifically stops me frop doing so?
Humans have eaten some animals,valued some others more for millenia.We're still here.Animals are still here.
So what's the problem?
everytime i start thinking "man, idk if i even believe in this god shit anymore" i come across something like this!!! PRAISE GOD!!!!!
THIS GIRL IS GREAT!!! but, one thing i disagree with tho, it sounds like the girl is saying that the "fall of man" or "the curse" from the garden of eden story was prior to modern humans, i always assumed "the fall of man" was describing the transition of hunter gatherers into the agrocultural revolution... and honestly i don't see how anyone that knows about both the widely excepted anthropological evidence and theories about the transition into the agricultural revolution AND the garden of eden could come to any other conclusion..
I'm not necessarily opposed to the theory of evolution, but the way that he describes evolution sounds as if creatures can evolve at will. "Oh! There's a predator with eyes! Better get some color!" which just seem ridiculous to me.
It is described better in the science books that were written to explain it.
Yes. I also would point out plants that have no eyes - and therefore can they have even the slightest notion of sight?- and yet, they bring forth the most amazingly intricate and colourful blooms.....what is the explanation for that?
It's not that the organism decided to get color. It's that it was naturally selected based on it's color.
@@kbeetles Natural selection by pollinators and fruit eating animals who have eyes.
Aaron Dunlap - "naturally selected for its colour" - does this explain at all why to have colours in the first place? Selection comes after colour. What is the explanation for colour? I am not trying to be difficult here, I am genuinely curious. How can plants "know" about colour? Do Iremember correctly that bees actually see in black-and-white?
Im an agnostic but I have to admit that this is interesting. I think many atheist just take a full materialistic view at science and in result it denies our humanity. Theology may not be for everyone but its core philosophy does make sense in our evolutionary psychology. I hope to see more of this in future, its new and refreshing. Im a bit bored of atheist objections with no evidence of objective standards.
Justin,
I’ve been watching your excellent programs for some time. I like your wise way of moderating the discussions.
Sooooooo many assumptions based off of such slim and speculative evidence.
@Captain 7 All you need to know is in the Bible. When you let it be your guide, everything else falls into place as it was designed.
No assumptions. Arguments based on striking correspondences between evolutionary biology and theology. In my case reason informed by faith.
@@reeb9016 "All you need to know is in the Bible. When you let it be your guide, everything else falls into place as it was designed."
Said every Pope, Bishop and Priest to inspire their flock to Crusade, Inquisition, witch hunts, sectarian persecution, division and derision.
@@notwhatiwasraised2b The point is "what is in the Bible". The Pope et al weren't getting their inspiration from Christ. If a Catholic can show me where Christ taught to convert by force, I'd be glad to listen but, honestly, it's not there. I'd argue quite the opposite being is the influence there. So to use the crusades and such is a weak argument when you break it down.
Donald Nadeau, I don’t think it’s a claim on ‘needing’ faith at all.
Rather, its a claim that her faith (i.e. the story of her faith) correlates with what science (reason) observes and so together might articulate a unified narrative (thus, ‘informing’).
There's certainly overlap, i'd be surprised if ancient humans didn't notice there was a gradient of capabilities between non-life, plants, fish, land animals, and mankind. It's human-centric but non the less, It seems an intuitive way to order things. But clearly based on intuition, for example sea creatures as a single category doesn't match the evolutionary timeline, as sea mammals and reptiles came after land animals. In addition plants before the sun also doesn't match.
Yes, it is said that Anaximander discovered evolution nearly 2,500 years before Darwin.
This may be a bit harsh, but there was so much talking from someone who doesn't seem to have a great deal to say, and it was incredibly inarticulate. It would have been great to hear more from Andrew. I enjoyed hearing from his perspective as he provides a refreshing take on things and a humility to explore earnestly what's out there. Thanks, Justin, you've done a great job as always.
I hope you got a lemon toddy after this Justin! Well done for battling through a cold. This was a fascinating discussion.
I have my own theory, where the seven days of creation in the first creation narrative, are actually seven stellar generations, or generations of stars in the universe, which shows an increasing level of complexity. This model meets that of Big History, a recent historical model, and where stellar generations can last from millions to billions of Earth years.
Day 1: Darkness (vacuum energy), spirit over waters (quantum fluctuations), light (plasma in big bang up to 380,000 years later), light separates into darkness and light (universe becomes transparent and first stars form from fusion).
Day 2: Firmament (gases, atmosphere, so early gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn, made mostly from hydrogen, the most abundant element), leaving water below (the core of Jupiter and Saturn are liquid hydrogen, even liquid metallic hydrogen) and water above (hydrogen can cool away from core to create liquid and fall as rain, which happens in Jupiter and Saturn as well).
Day 3: Seas (liquids, like liquid water, made from oxygen made inside cores of stars which spreads when stars explode as supernovae), land (solids, rocks, also made of complex chemicals made from elements fused inside stars and from supernovae), so stuff found in comets (Pluto was thought to be a massive comet, one of many in the Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt), which may have early forms of life (plants, photosynthetic life, blue-green algae/cyanobacteria, earliest form of life), and life was suggested to be spread by comets and asteroids, which is called panspermia.
Day 4: Suns, stars, moons (asteroids and comets can collide around stars, as gas giants and comets can form due just to gravity and material, leading to planetoids and moons, which lead to stable axis tilt allowing for seasons, and stars and moons and sun being visible suggests an atmosphere, which will lead to oceans and life).
Day 5: Fishes (early life began in the oceans), monsters of the deep (dinosaurs, which evolved from reptiles, which evolved from amphibians, which evolved from fish) and birds (birds evolved from dinosaurs), basically the ruling life up to 65 million years ago on Earth, before the asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs.
Day 6: Beasts of the field (mammals), slithers and crawls (insects, reptiles, amphibians, which survived the dinosaur asteroid, along with fish and birds and other forms of life), and man (evolving from mammals), which is life up until about 500,000 to 50,000 years ago.
Day 7: God is worshipped by humans (homo sapiens and also Neanderthals and Homo Denisovan) which is beginning of mythology, religion, philosophy and science. (Everything up to the present day).
I can go into the second version of creation, Adam and Eve, The Fall and Cain and Abel and The Flood if you'd like.
I think that defines post hoc rationalisation
"A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve"
D. E. Nilsson and S. Pelge(Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 1994, v.. 256, pp. 53-58).
LOL Why is this even a debate?? Of course evolutionary history does not match Genesis
There is no such thing as "evolutionary history"... at least, not in the Darwinian sense...
@@jessebryant9233
Sorry, but yes there is and your wilful ignorance is not (and will never be) an argument. The theory of Evolution is scientific fact, try reading more than one book and you might learn something ;)
@@HughJaxident67
Okay, prove it. Give me 3 examples of whatever it is that you believe demonstrates your claim. _Can you do that for me?_
@@HughJaxident67
[elevator music]
@@jessebryant9233
You got far more than 3 examples in the link I provided, of course, you could find numerous other sources on the internet if you were bothered to get off your lazy ass. You obviously have no interesting in learning or education, you'd much prefer wallowing in your own wilful ignorance.
Keep holding your hands over your ears, keep being intellectually dishonest, in fact, do anything to protect your baseless religious beliefs from being challenged. Rest assured, the fact of evolution will remain so whether or not you personally believe it.
Really wanted to hear the comparisons between Genesis and Evolution but they never sorted through the verses. For example, plants created before the sun and how Genesis never says God created the water.
Thats asking too much, gotta keep it vague bro lol
Or how the plants were created before the sun! There was light, but he specifically made the sun and moon after the plants do I dont know where the light was coming from
Justin Thillens He also put the sun, moon, and stars underneath the top layer of water. The firmament. Heaven wasn’t made till the second day.
@@Patmosentertainment go back and read. In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth. Light was on the first day. Day 4 describes the speration of day, night and atmospheric changes. (Moon, sun, stars in the sky.
I appreciate what this guy is doing here having these debates, he himself is a Christian, and having science and religion face off and have a discussion. I appreciate that. But in the end it really proves nothing whatsoever when it comes to affirming the god of the Bible or what Genesis is talkin about or Jesus and his identity as the Son of God dying for the world sins. None of that can be proven by science and evidence because the Bible and religion ultimately has to do with meaning and not historical and scientific facts. It's like climbing a tree in search of a fish. Science and evidence will never give the Bible or the Christian faith, or for that matter the Muslim faith or the Hindu traditions of divinity any kind of ultimate validation because that validation has to do with meaning and not with facts. A water molecule does not preach the gospel nor is it a Hari Krishna.
@grosbeak
I see what you're getting at. Only thing I don't agree with is, if you want historical evidence, Jesus Christ is a very real person and he was crucified to death, factually and historically. This disproves Islam at least. Other scientific inaccuracies disprove Hinduism and Bhuddism.
This discussion is exploring how new ideas about human evolution might map onto the Biblical account. It isn't trying to "prove" anything and shouldn't be taken as such. If you are a nonbeliever and looking for arguments for a God's existence, this video isn't the place to start. There are plenty of videos on this very channel with that purpose but this is not one.
"None of that can be proven by science and evidence because the Bible and religion ultimately has to do with meaning and not historical and scientific facts." I get your general point and agree: the Bible isn't primarily meant to be history or science textbook. But parts of the Bible do contain significant historical details. That is why non-believing scholars are able to place such narrow date ranges on event's like Christ's death. There are specific references to rulers, nations/civilizations, geographic locations, etc...
Thank you for your responses to my comment here. Let me cap this off by summarizing it in this way: science and evidence i.e. facts and data will not ultimately avail one of what Christ says in Matthew chapter 16 verse 17. Here Christ is referring to what theologians would call revelation . Revelation is the ultimate source of religion or spirituality. And so when it comes to Christianity the only thing that's truly spiritual is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is spirituality and the ultimate source of the Christian faith. And so one could say with another spiritual or religious Traditions such as Hinduism and the Hari krishnas i.e. it is Krishna himself that is the ultimate source and evidence of Krishna for the Hari Krishna. And so it goes on and on with Allah and the Quran and the Jewish faith and Jehovah.
@grosbeak
I actually don't agree with you there honeslty, with all due respect. I don't see any historical evidence for Krishna or Allah. I do know Jesus is a real historical person though. God did not leave us with anything vague. If you want to know him, he provided a way. Written ancient history? Check. Spirituality? Check. Time tested? Check. Archeology? Check.
The Jews believe in the God of the Old Testament, which is the Father of the trinity, but they deny the Holy Spirit and the Son both also being God. To clarify, SOME Jews say that.
Brando I understand what you're saying about your personal Christian faith and historical evidence about Jesus. But even there my main point was referenced in the gospel of Matthew chapter 16 verse 17. Please read that. Science and data i.e. that there was a man named Jesus 2000 years ago is not in and of itself going to prove that he was the son of God who takes away the sins of the world. It's not going to prove anything about him being the Messiah. As Christ says to Peter it only comes through a revelation by God. Another way to put this is, science and evidence gives you a description not a perscription. A historical Jesus only gives you data not a revelation.
Justin, any news on the evo 2.0 $10M OOL prize yet? Did your two-times guest Dr Lee Cronin get the prize yet? Is Perry Marshal still looking for better ideas? Did Dr Tour make Dr Cronin humble?
Are Dr Denis Noble and Dr George Church reviewing more entries for the OOL prize?
Do you plan an update program on that topic?
Can anyone explain to me the context in which the early bible stories were written? Seriously i keep asking and no one seems to answer it. How do you reconcile genesis with the older near eastern stories ???
Moses has to have been aware of the legends of old in Mediterranean and Asiatic religions. And that they contain truth. However, more and more these religions started to tribalize and find gods with obvious flaws. The Iliad(though of younger age and more elaborate) being for instance an attempt to use the authority of immoral, quarreling gods to justify the contemporary political powers, and to create a Hellenic identity. And obviously Moses could have done the same. He could have sided with the oppressor and contributed to the prowess of the Egyptian gods over the God of Israel, simply by virtue of the dominance of Egypt over the Israelites. And yet he wrote about a God that sided with the oppressed; at first hand this is a negative message for the Israelites, instead of God favouring them with strength He gave them weakness. But ultimately this view of God completely resonates with our own view of justice for the oppressed, and our constant denial of actual darwinism in our world view.
So even though some stories have been written down before the Torah was, there is no way of knowing whether the Torah contained stories that were previously passed down. Because unlike our instinct to trust older texts more, the Hebrew tradition has always favoured the newer texts and newer copies. And it makes sense that instead of using the separate accounts of earlier history, the Torah as a compilation was much more useful. Same mechanism was used during the bible canonisation in the 300s. Too many texts were in circulation, so the church fathers made a final compilation that would provide a lot more clarity.
@@764Kareltje im sorry but werent the Israelites a tribe as well? They tribalized like anyone else. You said there is no way of knowing whether or not the torahs stories were passed down before, that is simply false. It is pretty much universally accepted that ancient near east epics directly influenced the writers of the earliest stories of torah. Anyone who studies them in depth together can clearly see they who wrote it knew those stories and changed and modified it to a new monotheistic worldview
Epic of gilgamesh, enuma elish, epic of atrahasis
Justin could play a young Clint Barton in a Hawkeye prequel
There was no death before sin. Read Paul, he's very clear about this. He demolishes the microbe-to-man story in one fell swoop.
Where? How?
Psalm 94
:9 He who planted the ear, shall He not hear? He who formed the eye, shall He not see?
God is light, you don't need the Sun.
Revelation 22
:5 And there will be no night there. And they need no lamp, or light of the sun; for the Lord God gives them light. And they will reign forever and ever.
That true , I am giving you some advice be careful about the words of man it contains venoms it's given to them by the serpent
Interesting Debate Thank you
This is a hard NO in reality. You have to introduce much fallible knowledge of man in order to even have a semblance of something that works. Never add to the Bible. You can only make it work if you twist enough verses to say what you want it to.
100%
Andrew never said without a doubt that the bible corroborates the accounts of evolution. Simply that the similarities are curious and there is no evidence we should have evolved to be geared towards spirituality of some.
The bible is very vague about the beginning the earth and the person writing about it did not have an understanding of what he was writing, rather was just writing the revelation he received. Much like scientists in the past have written about theories that were not proven until significantly later
If you are talking about what she is saying I'll be honest I had a difficult time listening to her after she decided to get on a soapbox and not allow the scientist to express his opinions.
He was very eloquent and respectful. I have a lot of respect for his patience and listening though cause I certainly zoned out
@S. Earl
"the person writing about it did not have an understanding of what he was writing, rather was just writing the revelation he received."
There was a point in time I would have agreed with this, before getting deep into the word. I now would not agree, there's a constant thread through the Bible that God gives us understanding and understanding being key. So to say they didn't understand what they were writing seems to go against the very words that are written. A scientist postulating a theory cannot possibly be equal to a revelation from God.
Other then that, good points.
@@brando3342 I agree. I do however find it interesting how every advancement we make in science takes us closer to God. I don't agree with evolution but I do find it interesting that if you look at their theory it starts to relate to what was in the bible. What I think will eventually happen is in 100 or 1000 years we will think we are soooo smart and we will find out that the earth and stars and universe was made all at once a long with people and animals shortly after... and then someone will be like wait a minute... there was this book a long time ago that said something like this. Hopefully by then atheists haven't had them all burned. (Thats not a shot at all atheists btw. There are some great people who are atheists... but there are some out there that just HATE the idea of God and want to destroy it.)
Such a sweet accent and would have been quite the looker 20 years ago.
The lady wasn't so bad either:)
Except how can you have fruit-bearing trees before basic animals when trees evolved more recently than animals. The date he say's for the evolution of the eye started was before the evolution of trees so Genesis can't be scientifically accurate
whatever the reasons genisis is part of the big fairy tale, why we have these debates befuddles me. i feel like i've been sent back to the stone age.
@@HarryNicNicholas What is the space-age answer to the origin of the universe?
Niamh doesn't respect the other speakers time and seems to be mainly interested in using this platform to monologue.
This time the guests seem off target or shallow or both, at best.
Does anybody know what consciousness is, how it works, where it comes from?
They seem to know. At least that’s the impression I get from listening to their talk.
Also they talk about evolution as it it were a proven fact. Does anybody know OOL could have happened? Does anybody know how the eukaryote could have arisen? The vertebrates? The human beings?
Does anybody know how cats and dogs came up from their common ancestor?
Did they notice that most biology research papers conclude with new questions raised while trying to answer outstanding questions?
I'm a regular atheist listener. This episode is just too silly and tedious to get through. As a former catholic, the Irish catholic lass is just painful to listen to. Gives me ptsd hearing all that catholic nonsense.
How did you conclude there is no Creator God?
@@20july1944 for me, reading the Bible (which we catholics don't do) at age 40 started me questioning the whole thing. Eventually I just became convinced it was all man made fiction.
@@doug196 So you don't think the Bible is God's word? I don't either, actually.
That's not evidence there is no Creator God.
God's existence is best evaluated by science and logic.
Would you like to discuss God's existence based on science and logic?
@@20july1944 No, I certainly don't think the bible is a god's word. Clearly it's man-made fiction in my humble opinion. Would I like to discuss a god's existence based on science and logic? Not really. I've heard ALL the arguments and I remain unconvinced, to say the least. I doubt you have any argument that I haven't heard before many times.
@@20july1944 I became convinced that the yahweh god of the bible, that I was raised to believe, was a man-made fiction. And no other god story convinces me of a particular god's existences. It's that simple.
It’s too bad Andrew isn’t named Adam, particularly in the context of this discussion lol.
Good ol' Adam 'n' Eve. They're different linguistic routes, but Adam (Hebrew) means "Man" and Andrew (Greek) means "Manly", so...
Was Niamh drunk?
Does evolutionary history match the story of Genesis? No.
The fruit of knowledge of good and evil represents especially psilocybin mushrooms use. Not understanding this leaves one with little to go on.
To describe the entire evolution in a very short almost impossibly concise means of explaining what matters to God and therefore for us the human beings He has chosen to study. It is not therefore so much a question of our believing or not in Him as far it is the other way round.
*"Just because science hasn't provided the answer yet, doesn't mean that it's not going to in the future."* (43:15) _Nature of the gaps? Is that just 'faith' that science somehow has all the answers - and so the appeal to anything unexplainable through science will always be an appeal to more time?_
I have had the same thought! I think it is important to realise that no matter what world view we adopt..... trust in it, and faith is always a part of it.
No it isn't faith because this has been demonstrated to occur countless times in the past. There is reliability in science...proven reliability isn't faith...at least not in the context that religions use it.
It's true though, do you think we are at the epitome of our knowledge and understanding of everything right now? Have we ever encountered a problem which science didn't eventually provide and demonstrate a solution for? I'm unaware of one...
But still...if we have a gap in our knowledge I hope you'd agree that at best we can say that we don't know and we don't currently have an explanation. Surely you wouldn't assert that God is the answer before you demonstrate that this claim is true would you? Especially after at least attempting to admonish this person for making a fallacious argument of "nature of the gaps" (I think that's how you put it)
It would be hypocritical and ironic for you to then make a clear God of the gaps argument so I would hope that you wouldn't make this assertion.
@@jackdaniels9179
*P1:* Just because natural processes can be explained naturalistically, doesn't mean that nature caused itself. Also, you're smuggling in assumptions you are likely completely ignorant of! Additionally, NOBODY, least of all the biblical theist, is saying that there isn't reliability in science.
*P2:* Yes. Origins of the universe and life in all its forms, a rational basis for morality, etc.
*P3:* So maybe you can tell me what the biblical theists argument is? Or are you speaking about something you know nothing about? What is the basis of the biblical theists argument for God's existence?
Surely you wouldn't assert that "nature did it somehow" before you demonstrate that this claim is or at least could be true, would you? And of course, the question isn't: Does nature exist? But rather: Could nature of begun to exist uncaused or have caused itself? _What have we learned from the evidence? You appealed to science and its reliability earlier..._
*P4:* I have not made anything that could be considered a "god of the gaps argument" on any of the threads you've commented on. _But what is YOUR argument?_ We've got two options regarding possible causes of the universe: Supernatural or natural or... What?
@@jessebryant9233 p1 I'm making a distinction between biblical faith and trust in scientific process. It isn't "science of the gaps" because science has proven itself to work so it isn't a faith based position.
P2 science has proposed several working theories on the origins of the universe though it's true we have not been able to prove one YET. We lack information to jump to a conclusion. This doesn't mean your idea of God wins by default you know? You must demonstrate this. And yes...in fact I believe that I've already explained to you a secular explanation for our sense of morality.
P3 the basis of the argument of theism by definition is that an intelligent creator who exists beyond our spacetime created us and "moves" the world. This being will one day judge us for our actions on earth. I can't believe you've never taken the time to think about what you are actually proposing before...maybe that's why you support it so strongly?
P4 your argument is literally an argument from ignorance...you're saying if I cannot prove the origin of the universe then God did it. This is a God of the gaps because instead of providing evidence to back up your claim you're just seeking out the nearest gap in our knowledge and shoving God in it.
@@jessebryant9233 this is another example in case you wanted to learn from your mistakes.
Niamh is Irish so it's no surprise she's Catholic which proves religion (mainly)depends
on geography,
And 'evil' is a religious term.
''We wouldn't have any problems in society (if humans acted better)'' what about natural disasters ,diseases . and other god given stuff,extreme cruelty in nature etc, etc,
always blame humans,for everything.
@frank whelan
Why would you put a human term like "cruelty" onto natural events?
@@brando3342 Well if were going to call them natural we wouldn't, nature is not mind,
but if you believe in a god
who made this nature (and everything,) who else would you blame for the cruelty?
Is that so? Mmmh I wonder how it is then that the Christian movement started off in Israel and exponentially grew spreading to all corners of the globe within the first few centuries. From Europe to India and Africa. And how is it then that Christianity is still growing particularly in non-western regions where it is not the religion of the ancestors?
I do agree however that evil is a religious term. Because there conceptually should be no such thing for those that don't affirm a standard for morality beyond mankind(and his existence). The fact that atheist use terms like that and injustice, bad, wrong, better/worse however, speaks volumes to the subconscious acceptance of it being self-evident.
Shanevan Duinkerk nicely said 👌
Really low quality discussion here. One can be a Christian and try and practice good science ,an Anthropologist /Neurologist would pull Middleton up on more than a few points.I think her quoting of Chomsky is quiet selective re language and Harari's book Sapiens ,whilst good ,is not unproblematic in some of it's conclusions.
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
That's what the Bible has to say about evolution, as far as I can tell.
Brando agree its as viable as bringing indulgences in the church. You just need God at his Word. Having any modern ideology that doesn't surrender to Christ is having the indulgence of you first.
This passage is about pagan idol worship. It has nothing to do with evolution at all. Nice try.
@Martin Zarathustra
In this case the idol being worshiped goes by the name of Charlie Darwin. Or a process of man's vain imagination. Maybe you should quickly research what the Bible says about idols 😉
@Martin Zarathustra
I also find it VERY interesting that how they claim evolution progressed is PRECISELY as this verse is listed, just read it backwards.
Creeping things - four-footed beasts - birds - humans. Exactly as suggested by scientists, no? 🤔
Thank you for your input. You seemed to know a lot about the lack of evidence of evolution and stand for a more literal take on the book of Genesis. I'm interested in knowing more on that subject, do you mind if I ask where you get your information because I am interested in learning the facts and science to back up the book of Genesis and I hope evolution is not the only direction that everything is pointing to. Thanks!
Easily the least rewarding of these debates. "We also need grace," says Niamh at the beginning, arrogantly imposing her idea of the good life on all humanity. As for whether or not Genesis and evolution are compatible: they are not. Bit of a waste of time, this one.
The moderator is very exemplary.
What's unbelievable is that in 2019 we're still subjected to this bible crap.
Your not, your free to choose idiot.
To answer the question in the title- simply stated no, it does not. The Bible isn’t a science book!
Middleton is speaking absolute rubbish and Parker is not doing enough to combat her unwarranted assertions
Jack McLaren
They should’ve brought you on.
Da Koos They should have had a philosopher on to point out her fallible reasoning
Jack McLaren
No need, we have you.
Jack McLaren
You should maybe be more critical of Parker, since his book is probably more damning to your view.
Da Koos They're both bad
Hearing "animals have evolved" and not "God created" is very telling.
Either we evolved, or a god created us and the universe around us to appear as though we evolved. Why would a God make a universe that appears to be approximately billion years old, and a earth that dates back to over 4 billion with a plethora of evidence of life evolving from simple to complex over long periods of time if it didn't happen? There is no question that we evolved unless you assume a God exists, _and_ assume that it wanted to deceive us as well.
I don't think if I god exists that it would intentionally deceive us. What purpose would it serve? It is quite clear that if I god exists it would have created the universe to either include evolution intentionally, or by accident. Perhaps if a God exists it isn't even aware of our existence. When it comes to assumptions _no one_ can hold candle to the religious.
@Science Matters
It isn't "God" decieving us. It's us thinking we are wiser then God. There is micro evolution, but macro evolution is clearly against science, where mathematical probability is science.
@@brando3342 Why skip over the evidence rather than refute it? You didn't reply to my detailed points, and rather just essentially said "God isn't deceiving us we just think we're wise"...
The evidence for evolution exists so I'm guessing what you're getting at is that we're misrepresenting it. Please explain yourself because you conveniently gave a vague response.
Also, there is no mathematical improbability pertaining to "macro" evolution. Evolution includes what you call "macro" and "micro" evolution, and it certainly isn't against science. It is one of the strongest scientific theories.
@Science Matters
I didn't "skip over" those things. I encapsulated them in my statement. The fact that you don't know the probability problem with macro evolution is telling and is why I didn't bother writing more. You should do some research into it first, then come back.
@Science Matters
Also, I really don't believe evolution is a strong scientific theory at all, certainly not "one of the strongest". That's only if you believe many many lies and assumptions.
THIS IS BY FAR THE BEST "UNBELIEVABLE" EPISODE SO FAR!!!! LOVE IT!!!!! First time hearing of "Niamh Middleton" and she is already my new favorite christian thinker!!! She's right up there with Frank Tipler IMO!!!
Lol
So determinism rules out loving god then.
Will someone PLEASE give Niamh her Adderall! She is wildly knitting together absurd assumptions and interpretations to make 'a cumulative case for faith', which is presuppositional apologetics. Every philosopher and scientist she agrees with is 'absolutely the best'. "In our tradition we believe...." What of other traditions?
So long as Niamh is motivated to interpret scripture as aligning with science, she will find a way. If she wants to sell books, maybe talk less.
I didn't read Harari to suggest that we should adopt or endorse some kind of 'faith', but I'm not surprised Niamh did given that she images humans to be evolving toward some divine perfection.
Niamh here. I never said Harari was recommending faith, he’s an atheist! But spot on in his argument that to understand human nature and make the best use of technology going forward we need to understand how we evolved behaviourally. Re. “In my tradition” I was just pointing out that in RC there is a broad acceptance of evolution, largely because our main theologian Aquinas grounded his theology in Aristotle, who was a biologist as well as a philosopher. Aquinas was very biological in his approach, was actually condemned as a heretic in his day for saying we are animals like other animals, albeit rational animals. Rehabilitated back into the church only after his death.. However in the book I show that a combination of the theology of both Luther and Aquinas is needed to synthesise the Christian and scientific perspectives on human nature. Interestingly in an evolutionary context both their views on human nature are complementary, and both are necessary!
@@briemma2545 Harari is advocating for a HUMANist future as understood through an evolutionary lens, not an acceptance of our evolutionary lot nor a denial of its implications. He asks to us to think not in terms of what we want, an evolutionary outcome, but in terms of what we should want to want, as conscious creatures, once we put all the silly stories aside. Nowhere does Harari propose god(s) or faith as a foundation or chinking for the way forward, as you suggest!
If you're proposing to synthesize religion into science, why not do so via Hinduism? I understand it gets the age of the universe more or less right?
How do you propose to synthesize a thousand sects of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Scientology and how many other religions with science?
There is nothing 'complementary' or necessary about religion. Religion has been the bane of human existence since beginning of it - persecuting and sacrificing people and animals to imagined deities while advocating division and derision over god(s) and interpretations. So please stop promoting fantasies and get on board with Harari's humanist agenda. Why spin Harari's proposals as needing god(s) in the foundation or cracks and mislead people to believing things he never proposed?
@@notwhatiwasraised2b You clearly don't believe there is a God, but do you claim to know it?
@@20july1944
I don't claim to (K)now anything. There are conclusions I tentatively accept based on compelling evidence and/or persuasive argument, but I try to remain skeptical of everything, lest I be credulously misled.
I don't claim to know anything about god(s) one way or the other.
@@notwhatiwasraised2b OK.
What is the first thing in the history of reality that you would say you know?
The big bang?
The singularity that "banged"?
What?
Evolution is completely backwards to Genesis. Any intelectually honest person should be able to see at the outset that there is no possibility whatsoever of reconciliation between the Genesis account of origins and Evolution. "The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord has made them both." Proverbs 20:12. "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breathe of life and man became a living being." Genesis 2:7. "For He spoke and it was done, He commanded and it stood fast." Psalm 33:9. God created the universe in 6 literal 24hr days and rested on the 7th, hence our 7 day weekly cycle. "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them and rested the seventh day...." Exodus 20:11. Maybe people easily fall into this false beleif of evolution because they have forgotten the 4th commandment, the only one that starts with the word... remember! (Exodus 20:8-11) look it up. Stop measuring the Bible with 'science'. It is impossible for the Creator to lie. Evolution and millions of years have no place in the Bible. They are an invention of the adversary.
To many, scientific research has become a curse. God has permitted a flood of light to be poured upon the world in discoveries in science and art; but even the greatest minds, if not guided by the word of God in their research, become bewildered in their attempts to investigate the relations of science and revelation. Human knowledge of both material and spiritual things is partial and imperfect; therefore many are unable to harmonize their views of science with Scripture statements. Many accept mere theories and speculations as scientific facts, and they think that God's word is to be tested by the teachings of "science falsely so called." 1 Timothy 6:20. The Creator and His works are beyond their comprehension; and because they cannot explain these by natural laws, Bible history is regarded as unreliable. Those who doubt the reliability of the records of the Old and New Testaments too often go a step further and doubt the existence of God and attribute infinite power to nature. Having let go their anchor, they are left to beat about upon the rocks of infidelity. - EG White, The Great Controversy
well said!
Here is my take on it.. What is the best and most logical way to test the validity of scripture or ancient texts like the Torah? Line it up to modern day science and what do we see? Everything lines up.
The Scriptures in a time when everyone though the Universe was Eternal said that it had a beginning. What do we know now? I did have a start, and an infinite Universe falls into the infinite regress paradox.
The Scriptures mentions Pangea, when there was a single supercontinent in Genesis 1:9 & Genesis 10:25. And today we know this is true. Biblically it broke apart in the flood, you know the thing that secular uniformitarianism doesn't believe... You can watch my flood video which has never had a single good rebuttal as well on my channel.
I can prove Genesis in many ways. How about Genetics?
What are the odds that all humans came from 1 single female? (just like the Bible tells us) And this is well known and understood today. All humans can be traced back to this single female ancestor called mitochondrial Eve.
What are the odds that language cannot arise on its own now (Bible tells us God taught Adam) Evolution tells us man grunted it into existence. What did we find? Dr. Eric Lenneberg and Professor Susan Curtiss regarding the age and complexity constraints of language acquisition using all known Stochastic models and testing children since the 1600's proved that human language cannot arise on its own. My Document and video on the topic can be found on my channel.
How skin color can disprove the out of Africa theory and prove the Scriptures as well? Well, the Bible says man was created the Middle East, out of the Fertile Crescent is humanity's first home, well what do people who live their look like? They have brown skin. Yet Evolution says man arose in Africa which would have made them black skinned like all africans. What does science tell us about skin colors?
Well, Skin color is governed by multiple genes, and genes come in pairs of pairs. 2 from each parent are inherited. Just look at the letters “A” and “T” for right now, as genes code for large amounts of melanin-the brown-colored pigment in everyone’s skin. Lower case a and t will represent low melanin in the skin, so pale white people. While black skin races only carry capital AATT genes and can only ever produce more dark-skinned people. Here is why= Each "dominant" aka CAPITAL letter gene produces one unit of color, so the more capital letters will determine how dark the skin, depending on the number of "dominant" capital genes in the genotype. A genotype with all "recessive" aka lower case gene letters (aattcc) has the lowest amount of melanin and very light skin. In this case light-skinned individuals only carry lower case aatt genes and because of this, can only ever produce more light-skinned offspring. Thus the first humans could have ONLY been brown skin, which is the only skin color which contains 1 capital and 1 lower case gene for skin tone. Which disproves the evolution story of a black African and validates Genesis and man's origins.
I could not spell it out any more clearly than that for you. The Torahs Creation story is true and science proves it.
We also have genealogies, and calendars. The Chinese said the year 2,000 was the year 4,700. They state they started their calendar with the Flood. Assyrian calendar is year 6768 from man’s creation, the Byzantine calendar Year 7526-7527 from Creation, Hindi Kali Yuga year 5118-5119 from Creation, Korean calendar year 4656 from the flood. The Mayan calendar began on 13 August 3114 B.C. The Year of creation to them. The Hebrew calendar said the year 2000 was actually year 5760 going back to Adam. The Saxons also have a genealogy going back to Adam. The Danes and Norwegians have a king list going back to Noah. See the work by Courville on that, in “The Evolution Cruncher”. And of course the Ushers chronologies to determine the age of all of Creation because I saw you mention the age of the Earth.
I could go on and on and on. But why beat a dead horse. Evolutionism is falsified by simple logic and multiple sciences like biology and genetics as stated above. But if you want more I have tons of videos fully edited to not be boring on my channel and over 5 books all published and you can find those free as well from links on my channel.
@@YoungEarthCreation Thanks for that I will check out your channel. You sure seem to know alot about the subject. Good to see other people standing up for the truth of the Bible.
I really love mathematics. Seems the math shows that Darwinism simply does not equate. Nothing to do with the Bible, just simple science?? Oh I guess...why are there still monkeys doesn't equate either. Oh and I guess the Cambrian explosion has not really explaned Andrew. They changed....seems they stayed kind for kind?? Yep
_"Seems the math shows that Darwinism simply does not equate."_
What a bizarre, unfounded, idiotic claim.
_"Nothing to do with the Bible, just simple science??"_
No, not science. Wishful thinking is more like it.
_"Oh I guess...why are there still monkeys doesn't equate either."_
Wholey crap, you're one of those! Why in the world would you think monkeys shouldn't exist anymore?
_"I guess the Cambrian explosion has not really explaned Andrew"_
I guess you're ignorant of the well understood explanation, David.
_"They changed....seems they stayed kind for kind?"_
Of course they are. Evolution predicts every life to ever exist on Earth, is/was/will be of the DNA 'kind'.
Dude, you really need to get a basic education on the topic, if you want to debate the topic.
@@AsixA6 You said *_"Evolution predicts every life to ever exist on Earth, is/was/will be of the DNA 'kind'."_*
What is the simplest life form that you posit?
How long is its DNA sequence?
@@20july1944 _"What is the simplest life form that you posit?"_
I don't.
OK mad people..”Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory but the basis of a worldview and an emerging religion for many troubled souls who need one” Dr. David Gelernter Atheists Professor of computer science at Yale.
Darwin wrote on small changes brought about by environmental conditions eg beak size, fur density and wing size but at the time could not hypothesize on large mutations that would bring about a new species. He could not show kind for new kind. In other words a rat into a dog.
DNA, complexity of a cel, protein and genes were not known about in the 19th century.
He knew of the Cambrian explosion, could not explain the lack of fossil evidence to show ancestry but thought future finds would happen. They have not, to date.
Population generations can be calculated now and they find the times necessary for Darwin mutation is not feasible. Molecular biology demonstrates mutation downgrades gene expression resulting in death of a cell. The cell Darwin thought was the building block of life. He was not aware of proteins and amino acids. A small protein with only 150 spots has a combination diversity of 1 X 10 to the 77th combinations. The combinationial inflation that is profound and extreme. Chance cannot be a factor from a scientific standpoint.
A functional protein is rare. If one looks at the number of living species at 10 to the 40th coupled with 10 to the 77th chance of functionality you calculate “failure”. A mutation that would create a new life form is impossible and according to Dr Steven Meyer. A thousand monkeys typing on 1000 typewriters would never end up composing Shakespeares works. This is just an opinion and not meant to change any minds. Simply some ideas to ponder
@@AsixA6 Then you can't say life arose without a designer -- you don't even know what you're claiming.
That is definitely interesting if true. I'll be interested to hear Parker's take on that.
"Crucial to understand how we evolved"
Sorry, but that's begging the question. Assuming we "evolved" at all.
You really got em there. 1 point for the science deniers
Creationist? Young earth?
@Justin Thillens
I definitely don't deny science. I don't agree with what some scientists assume, based on what we know.
@Captain 7
Well, that was literally a quote from the girl sooo, yeah I mean I listened to that part at least.
@@Daz19 God is the Brute Fact of my cosmology.
Does your cosmology have a brute fact?
God of the transition. Such a weak argument, we don't understand how something happened, so it just HAD to be a god
Christians create such fanciful Deist claptrap for validating a zombie dying because of a convincing talking snake.
What's the point of a moderator if you can't shut up the person who will only talk and doesn't listen? I would like to have heard more from Andrew and less of Neves ramblings.
“The most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature (Trilobite).”
Lisa J. Shawver, “Trilobite Eyes: An Impressive Feat of Early Evolution,” Science News, Vol. 105, p. 72,
I'll start by saying that I am female before adding this .....
Why do women so often have to overpower a conversation?
I'll start by saying,........ I don’t give a shite what you are, this doesn’t give you the presumptive right to speak for women-you ignorant cow.
@@gadams47 Get out of here. If you can't express an idea while remaining civil then return to the zoo. She's right. Women feel the need to meet a contemporary standard of being a woman. Not in achieving equality, but in further surpassing men, not for fulfilling a particular ambition which they hold, but merely for the sake of demonstrating it's possible.
SMH
Look into Prof David Gelertner's abandonment of evolution. He's a Jew atheist with a PhD in computer science or something similar at Yale. His rejection of evolution isn't based on the Bible or theism.
@@20july1944 Notice how he has no expertise in evolutionary biology nor anthropology or related studies. He is a computer scientist who, judging by his statements and reviews of his book, is simply parroting long debunked ID nonsense.
@@20july1944
What Ivars said
@@ivarslinis9273 DNA functions as a computer code, so Gelertner's specialty is very relevant.
I think DNA and the information it holds despite mutations is the best objective evidence for God.
"By information I mean the specification of the amino acid sequence of the protein." "Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or of amino acid residues in the protein." - Francis Crick (1958)
Here's a related quote from Bill Gates: “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” ― Bill Gates, The Road Ahead
So, inside every cell is a very special, highly advanced kind of information in the genome AND it is encoded in an unattainably excellent and efficient way and you have no way of explaining this without God's intelligent design.
omg...this was painful to watch. That woman is damn rude and annoying. The way she portrays Christianity is the reason for which I gave up on my belief. Makes me sick how patronising she is and how she swings her finger at Andrew.
Please give Andrew a drink of water! His mouth noise is driving me crazy.
Amazing how God shows up at knowledge black-spots. How could it be anything other than God of the gaps? Consciousness is an enigma. God must have done it. But it's interesting how science can be spun when profound bias requires profound confirmation. They can put their Gods where they like as long as science doesn't get involved.
@Captain 7 Is that a Metaphysical straw man? I didn't call these people dumb and you know nothing about me. I see no greater pathway to the furtherance of knowledge than the scientific method. Plugging supernatural notions into difficult questions is as unscientific as it is ambiguous. God did it does not meet its burden, and if science is to succeed it should steer clear, IMO. Solving mysteries with greater mysteries does not appear to generate genuine discovery, IMHO
@Phil Lane
Well, interestingly a lot, if not most new scientific discoveries come from scientists figuring out ways to break our current understanding. Therefore, your assertion that science should steer clear of metaphysics would actually cause a regression in knowledge.
@@darkblueman I'm all about the scientific method, and I'm a Christian.
Do you know enough cosmology and thermodynamics to discuss God's existence based only on science, logic, and thermodynamics?
I'd like that, because I think you think you're pretty clever.
@@20july1944 Do you have your own TH-cam channel with the proofs?
That would be a pretty clever thing to do.
@@fleetingblue4794 No, I choose to unfold them with individual atheists.
Are you an atheist?
No.
So we'll put you down as a "no", eh? So what?
I appreciate Middleton's attempt at articulating a Christian evolutionary account of life, this is really important for the Church to do. However, I struggle to accept her view on a 'sinless' pre-Cognitive Revolution state ("harmony with environment [and] other hominid species" 36:19).
The view that early hominids, or homo sapiens, lived in harmony and that 'sin' was not inevitable seems improbable from an evolutionary perspective. For example, something like 'lust' is deep within our psyche for good evolutionary reason, and, due to the equally useful emotion of jealously, has surely been causing intra-group havoc in hominid societies for millennia.
Also, inter-group conflict is most certainly a necessary part of our evolutionary past. When Middleton talks of "harmony with other hominid species", she seems to be pinning a lot (!) on what Harari refers to as 'The Interbreeding Theory' (Sapiens, p.15). I only assume this because she even quotes a line from the same page it's mentioned ("minding [our] own business in a corner in Africa"). But this theory simply argues that we interbred with the other hominid species (e.g. Neanderthals), as opposed to the theory that we wiped them out through war (i.e. 'The Replacement Theory'). Middleton is wrong to suggest that Harari argues for a state of innocence or harmony. Similarly, the idea that Neanderthals should be cast as a "peaceful and loving" species simply ignores the vast literature on evidence for Neanderthal violence.
I'd be interested to find out how Middleton understands our 'loving and kind' ancestors from an evolutionary point of view.
Relative harmony. Real violence only appears in the fossil/archaeological record in the Neolithic period, when we were the only hominid species left. You should read the book. As regards sex and jealousy, Darwin himself points out that before our rationality took full effect we would have been regulated by nature and there would have been no promiscuity or adultery. We had evolved to be pair bonded. The question is did patriarchy have to evolve as it did? I cite a lot of evidence in the book that it didn’t have to. Interestingly, leading primatologists like Franz de Wall are now saying the same thing! And remember we are the only hominid species to harm the environment, and it began very early on. Homo erectus was around for about 2 million years and did no harm. We’ve been here for a fraction of that time, and have done great harm, not to mention bringing ourselves to the brink of extinction through nuclear warfare and climate change.
You should read Darwin’s Descent! He said we would have been far gentler and more affectionate before natural selection took effect on our rationality. I have also studied primatology and paleoanthropology, which grace the evolution of empathy and compassion.
Trace!!
Briemma 2 thanks for your response. I can concede ‘relative’ harmony.
However, the idea that there wouldn’t have been promiscuity or adultery seems a little hard to believe. Especially as we always find it’s equivalent in other primates (think especially of chimps and bonobos). Personally, I think evolution necessarily challenges ideas of Christian theodicy starting from a place of human perfection. In my opinion, evolution demands that we concede a state of natural ‘sinfulness’ to the first Homo sapiens.
For me, the mystery of the Christian story is God intervening in the evolutionary story, acting upon an elected species chosen to image him on earth. Christ’s Law and Spirit being received by faith in order to act redemptively upon our ‘flesh’ and incrementally develop our culture toward Kingdom principles.
Maybe I should just read the book! God bless you for all you do.
Just want to add that a major difference between hominids and chimps/bonobos is that they evolved to pair bond, and families. Probably due to vulnerability and long childhoods of hominid infants. Darwin said their instincts would have kept them sexually continent. His description and those of evolutionary psychologists of how promiscuity, sexual violence etc. evolved once we got our rationality fascinating.
I am not the receptacle of all of the information to answer you questions, nor am I making an alternative claim about anything. That said, can you tell me why I should believe your imagined god even could exist?
We both agree that you exist, right? Let's start there by getting back to the ultimate cause of the events that led to you.
Maybe we don't need a Creator God, and my favorite apologetic argument will be eviscerated.
@@20july1944 "We both agree that you exist, right?" I won't speak for you, but as best I can tell from my experience, I exist; and the unique sequence of events that led to my existence is anyone's guess.
If you're claiming god(s) had something to do with, that's you guess/conjecture/claim, which is based on an unevidenced and unfounded presupposition that god(s) exist. My existence does not evidence or demonstrate your imagined god - to you, me or anyone else.
@@notwhatiwasraised2b Really? The events that led to you are "anyone's guess?"
Do they include a big bang at the beginning of our universe?
@@20july1944 troll it is then.....
There was never “1st” human , ,. as in the same way with language, there was never the first person speaking Spanish , what is this woman on , she talking utter nonsense.
Yes, lets all listen to the agnostic person teach biblical theology now shall we? 🤦♂️ The heck is going on....
Yes very puzzling.
What specific aspect of biblical theology would one need to believe in god in order to teach properly?
Chad Ellis one doesn’t need to believe in it but the comment was made to emphasize the lack of knowledge & understanding of biblical theology as far what the topic of debate was. make sense?
@@nfhur7ie8oskjduri3o2 Brado specified his agnosticism as the reason why he shouldn't be listened to. If both believers and non-believers alike can properly understand biblical theology then how does pointing out that somebody is a agnostic indicate or emphasize anything about whether that person lacks knowledge & understanding of biblical theology?
Chad Ellis sure, both believers and nonbelievers can understand biblical theology. But Brando is using an English idiom to emphasize the point that the agnostic is biblically illiterate on the topic that’s being debated & I wouldn’t disagree
I can't watch this based on the silliness of the title.
I agree it is a ridiculous side-issue.
God is the Brute Fact of my cosmology.
Does your cosmology have a brute fact?
20july1944 Something like, a moral framework not being hostage to facts.
@@kipling1957 I mean a scientific theory about something that has always existed.
Matter and energy can't have always existed, but maybe you think something can.
20july1944 Can you support your assertion that matter and energy can’t always have existed?
What a stupid question.
You're basically asking does a fairy tale map reality?
Crazy prayingmantis - what a stupid assumption that the Bible is like a fairy tale. You need to go deeper, man - if you can follow my drift......
@@kbeetles Fable/Fairy tale: a parable about extraordinary persons or incidents, which includes magical elements and fanciful characters like dragons, witches, giants, magic spells, enchanted objects like staffs and fruit, or animals who speak and act like human beings.
Aaron Dunlap - ....yes?? What are you saying?
All fairy tales map reality.
@@Loddfafnisodr
What reality are you living in then?
I've never seen a talking snake
No, The Genesis story is poetry, not a historical or scientific account.
It conveys the ultimate truth of human existence in many literary forms, especially narrative. Remember Christianity is the story of the life and ministry of a man who taught his message mainly via stories (parables). Scientific language can only convey one aspect of truth. Ultimate truth encompasses history, science, spirituality morality and more. The bible brings them all together to give the full picture of reality.
Of course it isn't a "scientific account"! And literally NOBODY claims it is. It is the historical account of the supernatural creation of the universe. Evolution is a fairy-tale for those who believe that mindless and blind "Nature" magically did everything by chance.
@@jessebryant9233 Say the man that believes in fairy tales of a book. Your the one that actually believes in magic.
@@illithidhunter6177
And what fairy tales do you believe in and why? Big Bang cosmology? Abiogenesis? Darwinian mythology? Yes, you're the one that actually believes that nothing has magical powers!
Now, when you say 'magic' do you actually mean 'supernatural'? What I believe is consistent with what we experience - as there is a mind involved. You blindly believe in a mindless process that accidentally produced your brain... _Who has great faith?_
And finally, how do you _know_ that the Bible is nothing but fairy tales? How do you _know_ that whatever it is that you believe, is true? Why should I believe what you do? How about you tell me what your faith has to offer me, and in turn, I'll share with you what my faith has to offer you? _Fair enough?_
@@jessebryant9233 The one with the talking animals Like snake and Donkey.
I dont see that vision is the most powerful sense. I feel like this is in fact, touch.
She is extremely annoying to listen too... and I would have liked if it was more of his point of view.
The question is, which one is more factual?
We must test our current knowledge to make scientific progress.
Criticism is the backbone of science.
Another question. If you are completely wrong, are you willing to accept that you are wrong?
until you can look through a microscope and see "copyright god inc" stamped on a microbe i'll continue to think i'm right that there is no god in the first place and these discussions are a waste of perfectly good brains.
Harry Nicholas
Even DNA requires a designer sir.
@@HarryNicNicholas I wish you were man enough to discuss cosmology with me -- that's where I think the strongest evidence of God is.
"Can I just say one thing" over and over again... LOL!
At least no-one is suggesting Evolution is not true! That's progress. Now let's discuss about how a talking SNAKE fits into Evolution....
The bible is a flat earth book
How so? Where is your evidence? Why do you believe that?
@@jessebryant9233 Do you even read the bible?
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”
This is only a few of the many verses where the bible describes the world been flat.
@@illithidhunter6177
1. Does the earth move from its place in the universe? (Why are you cherry picking?)
2. Same deal...
3. Same deal...
4. Same deal... (While the Psalms are in fact poetic in nature.)
5. Same deal... (And what version are you reading?)
For sure, I could refer to the words of Jesus who said, "Hast thou not read?" And then refer you to other passages such as... Isaiah 40:22, Job 26:7, 10. Proper exegesis is essential! And recognizing the form of writing being employed is part of that process.
IT REQUIRES SOME SENSE OF DISONANCE AND DELUSION TO THINK THAT ONE CAN RATIONALIZE OR JUSTIFY MATCHING THE STORY / FABLE OF GENESIS WITH FACTS AND EVIDENCES OF EVOLUTION !
Sorry, but this is god of the gaps.
Evolutionists ALL appeal to a sort of *'nature' of the gaps argument.* Don't understand? _Nature did it!_ But that doesn't answer the origins question or explain why what we actually observe regarding mutations and information are the OPPOSITE of what evolutionists believe happens - or at least did happen in the unobservable past.
“Evolution a fairytale for adults”
The lady is possessed with Catholicism you need to learn listen more and talk less Niamh
You have to make your Number One priority in life to raise your children, just like it is God's number one priority to educate us.
Haha..religion...the power of 'pretend'....let's make everything fit our fairytale..
Why would genesis need to match the evolution lie?
Because unlike genesis, Science can explain how the world was created without resorting to magic.
THE SO CALLED " GOOD NEWS " OF THE BIBLE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH " GRACE " ! THE GOOD NEWS IS ABOUT THE COMING OF THE HEAVENLY CELESTIAL KINGDOM OF GOD TO EARTH AS PROMISED BY THIS JESUS IN THE GENERATION LIVING THEN 1900 + YEARS AGO ! REVELATION 22, TO THE LAST VERSES WHERE JESUS SAYS ", "YES, I AM COMING SOON / QUICKLY ! SINCE THIS PROMISE WAS NOT FULFILLED...THEN, IT CERTAINLY CASTS CONSIDERABLE DOUBT ON THIS COMING !
For me evolution is a nail in the coffin for Christianity. Christ himself affirmed that death entered into the world through the sin of Adam, and that his sacrifice was to atone for that sin. Instead we learn via cosmology that death isn’t the result of anything per se, but rather part of the intrinsic fabric of our universe. If it weren’t for death and decay in stars, as well as animal and plant life over billions of years we wouldn’t be here. Modern Christians to some extent recognize this, which is why you get these new interpretations of Genesis and creation. Science by and large contradicts the fabric of Christ and what he supposedly came to do. I’m not saying there isn’t a God, but the Judeo-Christian construct has clearly been proven wrong. I think we’d be better off moving on, instead of continually rewriting the musings of men from the Bronze Age in an attempt to prove them right.
So in the end it looks like we have Christians now claiming evolution supports the biblical account, the irony is almost too much.
How does a star 'die'? It was never alive in the first place.
Also, bronze age people were people just like you and me. It is rather depressing for us to forget where humanity has come from. Bronze age 'morons' finding out about human sacrifice being unnecessary were instead real revolutionaries. Does the Binding of Isaac ring a bell? Abram thought it no biggie to sacrifice his son, so it is obvious what kind of culture he lived in before his exile. Without this discovery we would still be throwing virgins in the swamp, or throwing babies in the fire. At least, for now we're just not letting some babies be born...
Everyone at this stage of scientific understanding of the universe today should know certain truths. One is that nothing is incapable of producing anything. FACT. Two is that everything that exists has a purpose. FACT. Three is that non living things cannot make anything. FACT. Four is that anything that has purpose has a designer who made it for the purpose that it has. FACT. Is this too simple an explanation to show there must be a creator? The bible is way ahead of science. In fact the bible's method of discovering truth is the scientific method! Put everything to the test and hold fast to that which is good! Straight from the bible. The universe had a beginning. FACT. It has fixed laws of physics. FACT. It is expanding. FACT. It is made from that which is undetectable. FACT. Science is only catching up on bible truths. FACT. QUANTUM PHYSICS PROVES GOD EXISTS. SOMEONE MUST BE OBSERVING FOR ANYTHING TO EXIST. IS THAT TOO SIMPLE TO EXPLAIN EVERYTHING ABOUT THE UNIVERSE?
FACT. Things doesn't have purpose simply by existing. This isn't a scientific FACT but a theological understanding.
Science already won, look how hard the religious juggles with interpretations and definitions trying to make scientific theories fit the religious dogma.
@elfootman
The knowledge of man doesn't compete with God. He'll be around after we're gone and you should think about accepting Jesus, because there will be a time when he'll be the one judging you and not the other way around.
@Captain 7
I didn't think I was pushing anyone away. Just speaking the truth, I didn't even really say it with any malice honeslty.
@@brando3342 "just speaking the truth"
No you pushed your believe not truth. Believes without supporting evidence can't really qualify as being truthful
Believe is not evidence - -- - faith is not fact.
@J BEST
You can assert there is no supporting evidence all you like, that doesn't make it true 😉
J BEST The existence of God is beyond obvious. It’s not God’s fault that humans like to make up fantastical stories about origins for the purpose of avoiding the issue. Man is a sinner, and man knows it in his heart, and the result is that man does everything in his power to run from God and escape accountability, including the concoction of bizarre tales about how the universe and life come to be.