Pure Talk | Answering Atheists with Dr. Jason Lisle
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ส.ค. 2024
- Is there proof that God created man and the universe at large?
Dr. Jason Lisle is an astrophysicist, author, and speaker for Answers in Genesis. In this special episode of Answering Atheists, watch as host Billy Hallowell and Lisle discuss the ultimate roof of creation, the "secret code of creation" and the Word of God.
#PureTalk #PureFlix #Christianity
-------------------
Connect:
/ pureflix
/ pureflix
/ pureflix
-------------------
Pure Flix is a Christian entertainment platform working to provide a safe place for all ages to stream content. Our content is pure, wholesome, and family-friendly!
The Pure Flix team is full of people just like you who are dedicated to wholesome entertainment! We believe that, when given the choice, people want to be able to stream wholesome, family-friendly titles that carry a great message!
Join our community FREE! Try a 1-Week trial at pureflix.com/yt/
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to email us (support@pureflix.com) or comment below! - บันเทิง
![[TH] VALORANT Champions Seoul - Group Stage Day 6 - EDG vs G2](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vS-fmO6SAjY/mqdefault.jpg)
Jason Lisle is gifted with an easy going, yet very direct, uncompromising but approachable persona, and has a knack for delivering profound Godly truths in simple terms.
Thank you Doc. Lisle for your dedication to dismantling the false narrative of conflict between God and "so called" science and the Bible and sharing the gospel of Christ.
A wise a brilliant true real Christian, very humble human being following the true teachings of Jesus Christ peace be upon him, the brother we love him, but GOD loves him most, no arrogancy, bride, lust from these great teacher, keep going sir,
He's a fool and a liar.
Lying is not a "gift".
@@cygnusustus Tell everyone what he’s lying about? Go ahead, back up your claim, we’re waiting.
@@alexmoreland7938
"Science is based on Biblical principles."
It most certainly is not.
"Darwinian Evolution is not science."
It absolutely is science. It is some of the best attested science we have.
"It [Evolution] is not testable and not repeatable in the present."
It is absolutely testable and repeatable in the present.
"[The Big Bang] is a myth. It is not something that is testable and repeatable in laboratory."
It absolutely is testable and repeatable. The theory of the Big Bang makes predictions that are testable and repeatable in the laboratory.
"The idea that bacteria eventually evolve into people is a myth. It is not something that is repeatable in a laboratory."
It is also not something biologist claim ever happened. Bacteria are prokaryotes. We evolved from eukaryotes. In fact, we still are eukaryotes.
There. All those lies were from just the first three minutes of the video.
Can't really use words to sum up this guy! I was in my field listening to downloads on sermon app, not knowing him i downloaded 1 of his sermons based on topic. The brother is beyond brilliant, beyond. So thankful God blesses those like him to defend our faith. I pray God protects and keeps His ministry through him.
Yup keeping up the BS that is cult nonsence!
Yes, and amen… I pray protection over and around Dr. Lisle…
@@jefflyle12 🤣🤪🤪✝️🚮
@@deeschoe1245 ??
@@JesusIsGodAlmighty736 this is just standard death rhetoric. "Magic sky fairy does this, does that, cares what you think,do,say!" Yet theres zero evidence that A god exists from any of the varieng cults on this earth, and no moral superiority in their beliefs of this imaginary being.
Alot of the time these cults prove the opposite!
God has truly anointed you, Dr. Lisle!
What a well-spoken fellow! God bless him!
Wow luv it. Just learned about him and his teachings / discoveries and can’t get enough. So smart.
If by smart you mean dumbass then sure Mack.
Jason, your inspiring. Ty.
I love Jason Lisle. He is so nice and pleasant to listen to and learn much. God bless him!
Now class, the word of the day is Make-believe.
Dr. Lisle is a favorite of mine to listen to. He has a gift for breaking down the most complex topics down for the laymen to understand without talking down to anyone. I thank God for people like him & their ability to reach others. It's not easy for me to communicate my faith to some people because of their higher intellect so I have often just referred them to Dr. Lisle's videos or books. I will pray for his ministry.
The thing is ... he isn't reaching anyone who doesn't already believe. He isn't actually answering any atheists' questions, and no one is there to challenge his alleged answers anyway. That's like standing in the ring and locking the doors to keep the challenger out, then saying you won an actual match ... which just seems rather dishonest and cowardly to me. Why doesn't he get some atheist like Aron Ra to come on the show, then respond to his questions?
@@NealeBaxter I can agree with your points about this particular video. My comment was an in-general one. I have watched some of his videos with friends of mind - some who believe and some I'm not sure about. I think what he does is give a person something to think about. Sharing your faith with people isn't always a through a challenge or debate; sometimes it's speaking your piece and leaving it at that. I for one, don't like being "convinced" of anything in conversations. I prefer being able to go away and think through things.
The late Dr. Walter Martin was someone who was able to debate without being a "convincer".
@@TrudyConway
I find it rather odd that anybody would find it necessary to try to invalidate the perceived position of another, to affirm one's own belief. I don't understand why anybody's confidence that God exists would alter should all of the claims of science be right. Is any true believer's faith reliant upon science being wrong? Personally I think much more productive conversations can be had between non-believers and believers, than squabbling over science.
@@NealeBaxter I'm not sure I understand your point (honestly & not being snide :-) )
I myself never try to invalidate anyone's personal beliefs. I do try (not very articulately most times) to share why I believe what I do. I heard a story once. Not sure if it's legit but... Either Penn or Teller remarked to a Christian that if we believe what we do, we would be wrong not to share it. I don't know what Penn or Teller believes, by the way. I don't think they are Christians (?). But his point was that if we truly believe that the result of not believing is such a terrible and eternal fate, we should share. I am not as bold and confident as I would like to be about sharing my beliefs. I don't rant or finger-wag. I simply share my story.
And I agree that, if one has a strong belief (faith, for me) in something, it cannot be shaken. It should not be shaken.
By the way, I do like discussing things with people, no matter what they believe. I don't want to live a life of hearing only those who always agree with me. I do NOT like conflict but I do like conversation. (Did any of this make sense? Hard to convey thought as well via text.)
@@NealeBaxter Don't atheists do the same thing all the time? I know I encounter many on forums like this. There is a thread below discussing just that. People positing illogical, straw men in lieu of debate.
I am a cradle Catholic, and what Dr. Lisle said is exactly what I have always been taught, that the Christian faith has nothing to fear from science, and that there can be no real conflict between the two. I have a microbiologist friend who shares many of Dr. Lisle's viewpoints. He says that that the more science "drills down," the more mysterious creation becomes, and that any "scientist" who doesn't believe in God in light of that is either a vain liar or a hopeless fool, neither of which is to be trusted. Thank you, Dr. Lisle! God bless!
well said
Now you just need to break the Catholic Leadership false teachings:P Mike Winger has some great videos on the topics.
Your friend is a fool. The majority of scientists reject your bronze age mythology, and the more accomplished they are the less likely they are to believe such silly nonsense.
Science demonstrates that the Bible is false.
@@DX48H9WM and, what SPECIFIC false teachings would these be?
any doctrine not in scripture and made up by the Catholic Church: purgatory, Marian dogmas, pope and priests being “another Christ”, that the elements change substance in the Eucharist, the Invisible Container of grace and merit from Mary the other dead Saints that can be applied to you, that Mary or other saints will talk to Jesus for you, and those are just off the top of my head but there are so many more…. None of those doctrines are in the Bible. Not one.
You just take away the false teaching of purgatory and the control of the Catholic Church crumbles. Nothing to work for, which is the actually gospel. The good news is way better than Catholics know.
God bless you abundantly Dr Jason Lisle.
Thanks Jason, I've been watching lots of your videos, really enjoying your commentary.
same
Dr Lisle was instrumental in helping me back in 2008 trust scripture as written. I was saved but had trouble believing the history in Genesis.
You should have trouble. No proof of genesis at all
@@omniscent3576
Catastrophism was not taught at LSU.
They were all brainwashed into uniformitarianism.
@@omniscent3576
Not sure if you have considered the uniformitarianism versus Catastrophism theories?
But if you look at catastrophism with an open mind your only question will be how many global catastrophies?
One or six
The main megasequences are a fact both secular and creation scientists agree on.
Did they happen over billions of years or within a year?
Yes, the history in Genesis is far more scientifically compatible than any evolutionary myth in the light of ie laminated (study water dynamics), intercontinental rock layers (study geology) with little erosion (certainly not millions, let alone billions, of years worth); scientific observation that life does not come from non-life (study any ology you like); DNA's protein building irreducible complexity dependent on...proteins (study information technology); etc etc ad infinitum........................praise God!
Try explaining the blood clotting cascade using evolutionary speil. Or the knee. Or a chrysalis. Or sonar. Or...or...or...
There are tiny-minded people out there who study very little of anything worth knowing yet consider themselves qualified to name call.
@@knightclan4 I love that brother! I bring it up with evolutionists, 'supposedly' 5 mass extinction events in the 600 million years plus the last ice age 12k years (younger dryas) so the whole process had to happen at least 5 times over 🤣 God bless!
I really enjoyed this interview. The questions were clear, relevant with respect to what people perceive faith, God and science to be. Dr. Lisle's answers were on point regarding common misconceptions and why scientific myths are flat out wrong and unscientific. Good job gentlemen. God Bless!
but Jason always has a distinct lock of straight hair pointed in a different direction, no matter what!
Fraud!: th-cam.com/video/II3XnsYA3c4/w-d-xo.html
The greatest miracles in nature are the millions of transformed hearts of those who decided to follow Jesus.
He's among my favourite apologists around!
So you have admiration for out and out liars, con artists and swindlers. Is that some sort of reflection of the person you see yourself to be?
Neale Baxter you sir win the idiots award of the week.
@@JackSilver11
Ah, it would seem you also admire and approve of lying swindlers, so long as their lies support your make believe imaginary reality.
@@NealeBaxter What exactly makes Dr. Lisle a con artist/ swindler?
@@masonmaestro
By definition he is, after all he IS a religious apologist, isn't he? Ergo he's less honest than a lawyer, a politician or a used car salesman.
he did a great one hour and 10 minute video on answers to Genesis. it is one of those must to watch discussions
Dr. Jason Lisle! ✝️🙏🏼🙌🏼
Lmao Dr!
Love this guy; never have I heard a man like this expand his knowledge to the public to defendcthe Christian faith, and makes athiests looks like a fool in their own belief
'Ultimate proof' is itself an unscientific notion. These people have not grasped the very basics of the scientific method.
Jason Lisle is right on. I have had these same questions and atheist answers are unsatisfactory!
I would LOVE to see this guy debate someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson. Or any number of other folks in this field. He wouldn't stand a chance!
Dr Lisle is and actual working astrophysicist and not just a spokesperson like Tyson Degrassi. Dr Lisle developed the Parker Space Probe and remote pilots teh craft leading the mission. I have heard Niels best argument and it goes like this "You Christians are all idiot's and wrong" That is all he has. Insults and anger and no facts. He is known for storming off the stage when questioned with logic. Neil is an angry man for a reason.
@@paulmerritt2484 Uh, Jason Lisle has never held a job as an Astrophysicist. He did NOT develop or help develop the Parker Space Probe, and had nothing to do with anything about it. He did some research while in grad school using the SOHO probe, but that is a booking situation on observation time and that is it. Lisle immediately went into full time creationism advocacy after graduating with this PhD from Boulder.
I really enjoyed this interview
thank you!
The problem with creation is not science, it’s the idea that we have a creator to whom we must submit. People love sin and will remain willfully ignorant.
But the issue is that creation is science. The setting of the physical constants took a lot of knowledge and design. This is the whole point to this video. This is just one example.
Kenneth Gee I agree. To clarify my statement, lack of science is not the issue. There is an abundance of science to confirm creation. People don’t accept creation because they reject the God of creation.
Redefine Living yup, that’s biblical truth.
@@RedefineLiving
I don't think there's any science at all confirming creation. "Creation" is only a claim, not worthy even of being labelled an hypothesis. A valid hypothesis must be falsifiable, "creation" is not, it remains nothing more than bronze age mythology.
Neale Baxter if you did any research, you would not say that.
Thank you so much
Jason is one of the truly great Christian scientific minds of our day. We are lucky to have such a man out there speaking up for Christianity in a fallen world that is so smugly anti-God. and anti-Christian.
“Most people don’t know logic...” 😃
Who are you quoting?
Yes, Dr. Lisle is one of of them.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 Dr. Lisle is likely guilty of a logical fallacy or two. But probably less so than the average person (maybe even yourself).
@@edenicchristian335 The difference is: Dr. Lisle spreads his fallacies as true gospel.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 How so? God said logic was with him at the beginning. Atheists don't have that luxury.
Me and my family love the movies on PureFlix! Thank god for the pure talk that brings more and more peace to my mind.
I love Dr. Lisle. I read Ultimate Proof of Creation and it blew my mind! He is super intelligent!
Really? Did he actually present some objectively verifiable, positive evidence for creation did he? Now that would really _"blow my mind",_ considering that no creationist before him has ever managed it.
Agreed!
@@NealeBaxter You have done the same for your atheistic materialism have you?
@@edenicchristian335
LOL. Typical dishonest theist, always trying to evade meeting any burden of proof for their claims. I wonder why that is your first reaction, instead of doing something like presenting any actual objectively verifiable positive evidence to support your extraordinary claim? Could it be because you already KNOW that you have no evidence to present, as your claim is a totally bogus, being nothing more than a make-believe tribal fairy tale? .
@@NealeBaxter Fallacy of dismissal. Laughing at someone is not an argument, it's just rude. My first reaction was to prove you have nothing to stand on. Nothing more. Don't read too much into it and project your insecurities on me.
I just found out Jason is 69 years old!! I first came across his content in 2014 and I kid you not I thought he was in his 20's. You sir, are ageing well.
Jason Paul Lisle
(Creation scientist and author)
Jason Lisle.jpg
Born December 10, 1974
Cambridge, Guernsey County
Ohio
Resident of Dallas, Texas
Religion Christian
Jason Paul Lisle (born December 10, 1974)[1] is an astrophysicist who specializes in topics related to science and the defense of Christianity and creationism
Yeah that's bad information. He got his phd around 1996 so he's maybe in his early 50's.
Good genes and hair dye 😁
Such an intelligent man! Loved this video
Yeah, but whether he's honest, honourable or right about anything, are completely independent of that, aren't they?
@@NealeBaxter He seems to be all of those things, despite your raving to the contrary. And don't get me wrong, I think he is wrong on a number of things (i.e. Biblical infallibility), but in terms of there being a loving, creator, he is spot on.
@@edenicchristian335 How can you say "spot on" as some sort of statement of fact, when what you're referring to here is faith-based belief? And how can god be loving and, as Stephen Fry said, allow some children to die of bone cancer at age 3? If you had 5 kids and you had the option to give 1 of them bone cancer, would it be a "loving" thing to do and would you do it?
@@siim605 I don't think "God" did that/ We live in a fallen world. And why? Do we follow God's will? No! We destroy his creation, billions of animals, etc. to glut our appetites. We go to war, worship mammon/money over God, and all other kinds of ungodly acts. You don't think these would have consequences?
@@siim605 because God is there to suffer with you., not to make everyone immortal. He completely aknowledges the wrongs in the world as well
“For u have made all things
By weight, measure and number.”
Wis. 11:20
I never understood it until now
@@megaconstans2425 I am not a scientist.
But I heard that the whole universe has to be the way it is exactly for life on earth to exist.
That’s pretty crazy
How do you explain tge diversity if DNA if all animals descend from 2 individuals post flood?
Adaptation. We can always adapt within our own species. We can never evolve out of it. We mapped the gnome and know this now 100 percent. You can not add new information to our DNA. That means evolution is impossible. There is nothing left to argue. We are the same race according to our DNA also. Evolution is the only excuse and argument for racism. It is also the only reason to want to keep it going now we have observable evidence to prove evolution is impossible for man or animals. Some bacteria and such can sometimes evolve.
Where are the atheists they're supposedly answering? How do they think they know what questions atheists want to ask them?
Uhh because they have spoken or heard from atheist and have knowledge on what questions have asked prior to this recording.
@@rebeleazy9221
Or they are just gutlessly and dishonestly creating a false sterotype of an atheist position, because they really aren't interested in listening to others. Atheism requires nothing more than the rejection of god claims. If anyone is claiming that atheists as a group believe anything, then they are lying from word go.
@@NealeBaxter No rebel is right u can check out alot of debates were the same questions/arguments against god/creation etc re-occur .Most people have actually heard most of the questions/arguments it would be funny if they were answering questions that had never been brought up,constantly but thats not what there doing and i got a feeling you already know that. i will pray for you, Take care
@@thomascurtis9630
Nope, they're just dishonestly creating a strawman atheist, which they can easily knock down, especially with nobody there to defend their position.
My question is, what can you provide me with, which could be so compelling that I would accept such an extraordinary claim, that any God actually exists outside of myths invented from ignorance, fear and people's imaginations?
@@NealeBaxter dude its pretty obvious what your doing your not going to except any evidence you just dismiss everything there not creating a strawman. U heard the moral argument logically explained and just chose not to except it there is hours and hours and hours of arguments for Gods existence explained on you tube,some people ask questions because they really want the answer, u are not one of them and the sad thing is u think ur smart for playing this game, you can deny anything doesnt mean its not true or logical, u could spend your time actually learning if u wanted i hope 1 day u c it that way
I'm not a intellectual even though I'm above average IQ . I am a born again believer in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. My son is rebellious and rejects Christianity . He let me know in his defense he has read Stephen Hawking . I told him I read that book when he was 9yo . So now I'm sending him your stuff , Greig and Faulkner 😁
You're not allowed to say your son is "rejecting" Christianity, because for something to be "rejectable", it needs to first be indisputable or not be in dispute. Your belief system is entirely faith-based, which means what he's doing is DISMISSING your belief system based on it not meeting any burden of proof. You can have your private beliefs, but the arrogance and the way you talk about your son is just awful.
@@siim605 who are you to say what anyone can or cannot say?
@@joeiiiful Do you have a substantive response to what I actually said, or is that it?
I loved that- I can sit for 3 hours and explain E=mc2 and if you still don't understand it, does not mean its not proven!
Creationist don't believe in science never have done.
@@peterbeaumont7619 you're not smart enough to know how dumb you really are by the way go learn English and grammar you can't even structure a simple sentence correctly
@@peterbeaumont7619 what
@@silentghost751 You know exactly what i mean.
@@John-jh5ks Evolution, fact or fiction.
Great Video 🔥🔥🔥
This answers so many questions
'Ultimate proof' is itself an unscientific notion. These people have not grasped the very basics of the scientific method.
Are there repeatable, testable patterns in the fossil record, and zoological and phylogenetic classification.
Isn't the fact that we never find a vertebrate with more than 4 limbs a repeatable observation? Or that all mammals are amniotes (with some that even lay eggs) a repeatable observation?
To generally answer your question, we can recognize observation in the physical world.
Let's step back for a second, though, and consider the framework of your questions, first. How do you know your observations of the physical world are accurate and leading to correct conclusions?
@@EddTheBiker How do we know that Satan didn't put the fossils in the ground to confuse scientists?
@@NeoDemocedes The question seems absurd. Said differently, why should one believe Satan did? Do you care to explain why you ask that question?
@@EddTheBiker At its core, my question is no different from yours. I can also ask differently, why should one believe that science can't reach reasonable conclusions about the past.
@@NeoDemocedes How do you know science can reach reasonable conclusions about the past?
The fact that all of these comments saying how they liked video fail to see how much this man suffers from double think is extremely troubling to me. I hope all of you realize that in order to get his degree, he either had to get it from a christian school or had to disregard his beliefs and study what was written in science textbooks to pass his exams. These christian scientists always reference the bible when trying to explain something scientific without realizing how ridiculously unaware they sound
Your fallacies and misrepresentation of things you obviously don't understand yet feel qualified to spout about are very troubling to me. You appear not to realise that as with all registered educational bodies, Christian colleges and universities abide by official guidance. Much of what is written in science textbooks is observable, testable, repeatable - not historical story telling - science: perfectly acceptable and reasonable forms of study You seem ridiculously unaware that many secular scientists turn to Christianity due to the implausibility of the evolutionary dogma during their studies; others find that 'most scientists believe..' phrasology in their papers does not require leaving Christian belief at the exam room door. You appear to expect Christian scientists (and please don't conflate with christian science, which is neither Christian nor science) to drop reference to their own handbook of life. Would you expect evolutionary scientists to drop reference to darwin? Hypocrasy in the extreme.
@@marciamcgrail5889 there are so many contradictory points in this passage i don't even know where to begin. The implausibility of the evolutionary dogma?? My friend, the aren't many things in the world with more evidence than evolution, your bias just will not allow you to understand that the evidence that exists is not "historical storytelling". Just because someone didn't take out their iphone and record 100 million years of timelapse footage doesn't mean the clues aren't there. What do you think forensic scientists due? How do you think people find evidence for crimes with no witnesses? The piece together the information this is provided and find repeatable and provable patterns. You can find tens of thousands of traceable pieces of evidence. These scientists don't turn to religion because of the objective implausibility, it's most likely because they struggle to find meaning in their lives and doing so is more comforting. Most of the time, these people were raised christian and then stopped believing and then began believing again. It's not like they were raised athiest and nonreligious all their lives and then all of the sudden at age 35 they became christian because evolution was too complicated for them to understand. Please don't be condescending, I can assure you I am more qualified in evolutionary biology than you are
He straight up attended a secular college to get his PhD. The irony of that is pretty thick.
We can't trust our own intellect, that's literally why we outsource it to the scientific method.
Dr. Lisle, I only recently discovered you... & over a short period of time (about 5 of your videos). Excellent! OUTSTANDING! Thank you!
Lol … outstanding? How so?
"Fantastic Beast, huh?" Yeah, I think you already know. Lmbo
You people believe in God, b/c if you didn't you wouldn't hate him so much. We're not as dumb as we think you are. You don't want to have this debate with me, believe me.
@@kickerpunter8414 ah yes, the old, “you must believe, because you can’t hate what you don’t believe,” argument. I call this projection. While I don’t believe in any god (let alone yours), it’s not the god I hate so much as it is the people who use this god as their shield from real consequences of the things they say. I find this projection is a means to protect your fragile ego, because you’re all so arrogant to think that no one could possibly hate a Christian. You’re all such good people by virtue of your beliefs, right? So it must be the god they hate, so therefore they believe in your god.
“We’re not as dumb as we think you are.”
- what makes you think I am dumb? The only thing I asked you is how you think Lisle is outstanding.
- or perhaps you meant to say, “We’re not as dumb as YOU think WE are”? In which case, you should probably proofread before you push send.
Something tells me I do wish to have this debate with you. Given I asked a question about why you think Lisle is outstanding, and you went into a diatribe of what you think I believe as a response. And with the typical canned replies virtually every armchair apologist gives. Doesn’t sound as though you have anything profoundly groundbreaking to offer, so try me.
@@kickerpunter8414 and here I was ready to be challenged…
@@fantasticbeast9962 It's coming. I live in New Orleans area & have been busy helping my folks in Mississippi, clear some land on their property, while I'm up here. Also I'm not so sure about how I should go about this one. Usually I know already, but I haven't figured out where you're coming from yet. I'm sure I'll find out after we begin. I'll probably ask a few questions to start, if you don't mind. Have a busy day tomorrow & will be back on the road by Tues. I'm looking forward to it, believe me. I've been thinking about it. You haven't given me much to go on as to who you are, & what you believe. I'll find out fast, as I usually do. This ain't my first time, you should know that. And I rarely lose, I don't mind telling you that, either. Patience, it's coming.
I will be humble/civil, & understanding, until I decide you are not. If you begin using insults to avoid the issue we're discussing, the discussion will end.
Get ready, it's coming. Without knowing you or your eperiences, I will be surprised if you endure this discussion well. I'm not being arrogant, rather, confident.
Will contact you soon. Take care!
People are motivated to not believe in the "Biblical God". .
Do you need motivation to _not_ believe in leprechauns? Do you need motivation to _not_ believe in pixies, and fairies, and goblins, and elves, and trolls too?
Motivation is not an issue, it is the complete lack of any independently verifiable, positive evidence to support the claim.
@@NealeBaxter
We do not owe you any scientific proof for the existence of God, we offer the Gospel of Jesus Christ based solely on Faith.
Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
What we owe you is a true witness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with our lives matching up with what we are preaching.
Faith is key, you cannot have Faith and Proof at the same time concerning the same things if I give you some Proof of God that you could and would except then I have just negated the Faith that you need to be able to come to God.
Faith only works in this life, when we die we enter the true eternal reality and knowledge that, God exists, Jesus exists, Heaven and Hell exist, and your destination is determined by what you did with Jesus by either accepting Him and doing those things that please the Father or rejecting Him.
This is not a convenience but simply the way coming to God through Christ works and that by Faith, those who are trying to prove God somehow with science are in fact trying to negate the faith that unbelievers need to come to Christ in the first place.
@@dennishagans6339
Why do theists always confuse the word _"proof"_ with the word _evidence? "Proof"_ is a concept in Mathematics, not science.
You are right though, you do not owe me indepently verifiable positive evidence of God ... only if you want me to believe you. Apart from that, why should I believe a magical fable written 2600 years ago is actually 'fair dinkum' (the real deal)?
@@dennishagans6339
As for _"faith"_ it is the excuse you give when you have no evidence. It requires you to disregard an absence of confirmational evidence and even the presence of conflicting evidence. There is no position which can't be argued to be true by appealing to _"faith",_ meaning it is the most useless and unreliable method in determining what is actually true.
@@NealeBaxter NO
if you know anything about Christianity you know that it is about Faith, I knew I knew you were gonna go there you people always do. except by Faith or reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ period.
When you die you will have all the "Evidence" you demand but it will be too late to change your mind, deny it all you want, but death comes for everyone and there are no atheist/agnostics in Hell, they are all not believers but knowers!
Dr. Lisle is my favorite among living presuppositional apologists.
He is your favorite because he tells you what you like to hear. The name for this confirmation bias. And besides he seems to be quite likable guy. Pity he tells such a lot of nonsense.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 nonsense is believing in a worldview that does not comports with reality. So are you arguing for the truth of the atheistic position, or are you only arguing against the theistic position? For it seems to my mind that there is no pretended neutrality in a discussion like this. Why? Because to even to argue against a position, is to advocate it's antithesis. Do you believe that atheism is a viability philosophical system of thought?
@@michaelreichwein3970 Starting with the last question: I indeed believe that atheism is a viable philosophical position. But so is theism at least in its form of ethical monotheism. The jury is still out and might be for a long time.
And for the nonsense part: Following to your own definition I would claim that Dr. Lisle indeed believes in nonsense. He distorts reality till it fits his needs. E. g. evolution being no science? 99 % of all biologists are wrong and the creationists are the only ones who got it right? Preposterous! Or take his excursus about the Mandelbrot set. This has nothing to do with the existince of a god at all, only with the properties of numbers. Nothing but a red herring.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 well... as far as Evolution goes. I have studied just about every bit of scientific information I can get my hands on. And I have yet to find any viable process to explain the necessary new genetic sequences needed for evolution.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 but I tell you what... I have an open mind. if you know of a process, I would be willing to listen.
Can you answer me what happens to innocent children when they are born into the wrong religion
There are three thoughts to this, that I am aware of. The simple truth is that we don't know.
Thought 1: Children that die before an age that they are mature enough to make their own decision are automatically saved
Thought 2: God is sovereign and he chooses whom he will save and if you were born under another religion and die that way then you were not chosen.
Thought 3: The judgment takes into account one's knowledge though one must still be seeking what is true and understand their own inability to reach a perfect standard.
I guess you could add in the universalists that believe everyone goes to heaven but those that are saved receive greater rewards.
Evolution is an broad term used to culminate the complex actions that lead to differences of everything we see past present and future. So in short evolution is a way to measure behaviors that work in any given environment even up to and until when some behaviors dont work, this contributes to extinctions but is not the only factor.
Evolution still didn't happen.
That studio would look really cool if the window was tinted and with a slight orangish hue. The ark background would stick out quite nice.
@Dan Delgado 😂😂😂 don't agree but hilarious response.
How did the olive branch (leaf in many translations) “adapt” to its environment, then? Can an olive tree survive for a year underwater? Don’t think so.
What I do know about an olive plant is that it is one of the toughest plant known to man and you can grow it from a the leaf, seed, bark, branch or any part of the actual olive plant.
@@ojaiallen8004 Why don't you take an olive tree (or plant, as you seem to insist on calling it) and submerge it in water for a year? Hardy on not, it will die - and sooner than you might imagine. Now mix that in with brine from all the salt in the oceans, and your precious tree will be dead even sooner. There's really no way around this. Just let logic prevail.
@@scrumpymanjack the waters had receded and Noah remained in the ark for awhile. He sent a dove out and it brought back an olive branch. Clearly, the olive tree had time to grow between the waters receding and Noah sending out the dove. Noah wasn’t getting off of the boat until he knew there was sustainable life on the ground again.
@@scrumpymanjack I’d also like to add that the ocean back then was likely not as salty as it is now as the ocean takes in more salt than evaporates annually. That fact actually contributes to the argument of a young earth described in Genesis.
@@jlettizard6465 Listen, you clearly place more importance on your current beliefs than you do on a genuine search for the truth. To that end, you can keep finding things that help your beliefs to stand up (and reject those that don't!). But if you're really going to try that hard to keep believing what you believe, I'm not going to waste my time talking with you. Just don't try to make them teach this crap in schools. Good luck.
Dr Lisle :" The only way you can disagree with Christianity is IF you AGREE with the Christian world view FIRST". Arguing with Dr Lisle is like wrestling with SMOKE. ☁
If Christianity were true would you become a Christian?
@@gubernational57 Yeah. Eternal Unconditional Love is COOL
Jesus rose from the dead. Start there.
Jason Lisle has a brilliant mind and speaks so quickly (and eloquently)... that I have to really concentrate. I appreciate his argument that the very existence of mind and knowledge presupposes an Intelligent Creator. About 10mins along he refers to a mentor who is "with the Lord now". That raised my eyebrows.
Does Jason believe the "Rapture" is history? Paul knew that anointed Christians had to await that "return" of the Lord and their subsequent resurrection in order to first be reunited with Jesus. 1Thess.4 ¹⁶,¹⁷
Paul made the same point in 1Cor.15 ²³
Absolutely not! Jesus said to the criminal at the cross that they’ll meet in paradise the same day .
Missed the part where he explained why the Ark Encounter ark - built to exact Biblical specifications -suffered $1 million in water damage in 2019 when it was dry docked. Guess not all the answers are in Genesis.
You missed lot more than just that. It was not built exaclty as Ark was, it is just an imitation of ship according to dimensions of the Ark, maybe in very different shape compared to original, and with LOT of various doors and entrances, it is actually a building NOT a real boat, which any part time thinking person under 5 can understand...
@@camberlubos3995 Got it. So when the website for the Ark says:
"Experience Bible history at the life-size Noah’s Ark! "
They are saying what again?
And the:
"Our commitment to historical accuracy and artistic excellence continues inside on three decks full of beautifully crafted teaching exhibits that will inspire you to think differently about the biblical account of Noah’s Ark."
is saying what again?????
Any part-time thinking person under five can see how you and they are just scammers, making up facts to suit an agenda. My post stands.
Awe man! How ironic is that? 🤣😅
@@LearnAboutFlow Your post did not stand in the first place let alone now. Your quotes show how blinded by your hatred you are. They never claim they made the same Ark and you know it. You somehow missed or just oversaw my point that they have a LOT OF DOORS AND WINDOWS there. Anyone with 95% brain removed understands that this makes ANY boat - whether historically accurate, or artistically depicted susceptible to flooding. Put your hatred and mockery away and be fair. You did not have a point for a second.
@@luboshcamber1992 Cool! Thanks for admitting you can never take what a Christian says at face vale. When they say, 'we have a commitment to historical accuracy' it really means we bear false witness in the pursuit of greed.
BTW, who said anything about flooding? Oh right, more lies on your part, or is it just willful ignorance?
And, yes, anyone with 95% of their brain removed knows that $100 million boats with lots of doors and windows IN DRY DOCK do not suffer $1 million in water damage in their first year. Ask Bill Gates or David Geffen.
Atheists just like leftist (quite often they are one and the same) are so tiresome.
Stop with the left/right paradigm you're showing your simple mindedness.
Jesus was a socialist, a right little pinko communist. Everyone that believes in Jesus are communists too!
@@NealeBaxter
Exactly, early Christians were pacifists and socialists.
They were very charitable and gave everything they owned to the poor.
@@ramigilneas9274 Just to be clear, they gave it DIRECTLY to the poor...not to the government first! They weren't socialists for sure...they didn't believe in big government as they were oppressed by government. And ask yourself why it is that totalitarianism of any type CANNOT coexist with Christianity.
@@NealeBaxter Hardly...Jesus said to render to Caesar what was his, and render unto God what was God's. Socialism and Communism CANNOT coexist with Christianity or belief in God as the government is hailed as the god.
What exactly is “beautiful” about mandel brot? Scientifically prove that mandelbrot is “beautiful”. How is this beauty a proof for any god?
It would be so great if Dr Jason Lisle and Jay Dyer had an interview
Dawkins don’t want none of Lisle.
He be real scared.
@@rubiks6
Sure, a biologist is certainly afraid of a layman like Lisle.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 - Do you think there is something special about Richard Dawkins because he has a title?
Jason Lisle is an astrophysicist.
@@rubiks6
Sure, Lisle is an astrophysicist who disagrees with pretty much all other astrophysicists on the planet and knows almost nothing about biology or evolution.😂
But it’s certainly much better than 90% of the other creationists who are mostly dentists.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 a creationist invented the MRI machine. Seriously you are trying to discount the intellegence of us that believe in God? Dawkins had human foot prints destroyed that were discovered at the bottom of a creek bed in Glenn Rose Texas because they were in the strata rock base beside an inside some dinasour tracks but not before creationist got pictures and cast from them. Why did he do it? Because it refutes evolution and Dinasours were suppose to be extinct 10 million years before man existed. When we find many carvings in caves , ancient buildings and ancient pottery of man with Dinasours. Most Dinasours were vegetarian. The strata was not layed down inch by inch over millions of years impossible because 1,000's of fully intact dinasour fossils found in mass graves and some still have soft tissue in those bones. Exposed to the elements and other animals these bones would have been carried by scavengers or simply turned to dust. Vertical 100 and 200 ft. Trees going through many layers of strata. Samething woukd have rotted to nothing waiting to be buried. Spirit lake at the base of Mt saint Helens has taught us a lot about how long it takes to petrify trees and how the bark was removed and laid down then underneath coal layers we find the fragments of tree bark that did not form in to coal. I find God's intellegence is beyond anything we can imagine. Marine fossils in the strata across every continent along side land dwelling animals. How do the experts date the fossils? By the layer of strata they are found in. How do they date the strata? By the type fossils found in it. That is called circular reasoning. You refer to believers as weak minded uneducated just because we know if you find a complex working piece of machinery in the jungle an intellegent being must of designed it and made it. You have be intellegent enough to understand the complexity of life and the universe to understand the odds we just came to be and a perfect order for us to exist came from a chaotic explosion are impossible without a creator. My prayers are that your eyes be opened and you find the purpose we were placed here for.
Minute forty in. Hard to believe he's a scientist.
Yeah he never has been employed as an Astrophysicist or scientist
He doesn't do science.
@@davidbutler1857 He holds a PhD in Astrophysics- you are absurd.
@@gemguy6812 Please. This doesn’t make him a god. He got his PhD over 20 years ago and has never done anything with it, and it doesn’t make him an expert in much beyond a limited application of Astronomy. His area of focus was on stellar anatomy, ironically on stars like RR Lyrae types which are used as standard candles for calculating distances beyond several thousand light years. He has only ever published two papers as a contributor in his grad work and that was it. He quit. It doesn’t give him expertise in Biology, Geology or anything
@@davidbutler1857 never said he was a god. I see him doing the Lords work with his PhD. You hate him because you dont want a God to rule over your life- dont worry, a loving God would never force you into his presence for all eternity. Darwin never earned any degree in any sciences but you you love him dont you. Maybe Bill Nye the science guy as well? Jason Lisle is much smarter than you'll ever be, and it drives you nuts dont it.
Has this guy actually debated on u tube, or is he just interviewed by accommodating interviewers
Genuine question on why using ‘myth’ to replace ‘accepted scientific theories’ would be more convenient for Lisle to use? This is the perfect representation of why religious belief should not interfere with studying science nor the with the actual definition: the system of acquiring knowledge from reliable hypothesis and conformation. Personal bias is removed.
Because it is a logical term according to the definition of "myth." Just because a scientific theory is accepted doesn't make it true. The definition of science - observable, testable, and repeatable - is not about a religious belief; it's the scientific definition of science.
@@845karolewithak - well argued. Personal bias is never removed when applied to humans, whether scientist or not. Just consider the number of submitted papers that are rejected on grounds of bias/conflict of interest/undeclared payment etc. Phonies get through despite sifting: there was a study that purported to have a control but was discovered to have simply reversed the active sample numbers.
Atheists have a higher bias
Theory does not = fact. Science is always changing. Why accept something that probably will change down the road due to another new theory, another new discovery? It’s just people trying to predict the past with theories.
Are you guys familiar with the term "echo chamber"?
I would love to see Jason debate Aron Ra
Aron Ra would destroy him
@@Matthew_Holton hahahahahaha that's funny kid.
@@6.0hhh Well Jason is claiming the universe is 6000 years old, any school kid knows thats bunk and can explain why.
@@Matthew_Holton Then what would be a great topic for him and Ra to debate then wouldn't it? Not just "any school kid" could handle a cross examination. That's where the truth comes out. They need to debate.
@@6.0hhh LOL - 'they need to debate'. thats priceless. Lisle, as a scientist, knows the real age of the universe. the real'debate' would be why he is cashing in his PHD to make money pandering to creationists.
Hello. I am an atheist.
Will someone answer _me?_
Unfortunately I can't follow his reasoning. I want to believe in God and I do as much as I can but none of his arguments click with me. We exist and there are physical and mathematical laws. What does that have to do with the existence of god? How can these not exist without god?
Well the Bible says that you can't use rationality or *reason* to find God, it says foolishness is wisdom and wisdom is foolishness ... you need to be irrational, abandon reason and believe without good reason to.
Go read the Bible, all of it, in order, cover to cover (even the 'begats'), without the influence of others or doing guided 'Bible studies', just read the book. If the Bible is everything it's purported to be, then that alone should be convincing for you.
@@NealeBaxter Thank you. I read a chapter of the bible almost everyday. I've read the old testament once and I'm reading the new testament for the second time now.
My friend just look at the human body study it brain eyes ear mouth etc.blood veins/capillaries food/nutrition air we breathe in/out, oxygen in carbon dioxide out trees carbon dioxide in oxygen out. Look at the female body male goes in female babies born she has breasts produces milk. This can NEVER be coincidental, some one with intelligence created us. Where did the CREATOR come from?Obviously He is self existence no one created Him. We reject/accept it. We could never be here by chance every thing is Perfect.
And people claim that “That real scientist believe in evolution” nope this dude is legit and knows his stuff
Amen to that!
Unfortunately, no he is not 'legit'. As an 'Astrophysicist' he has never held a job. Promptly after obtaining his PhD, he quit the field. He's never even so much as worked in an observatory or even taught the subject as a professor. He also has no formal education of any kind in Biology or Geology.
@@davidbutler1857 thanks for your opinion?
@@Libertyfirst1776 It’s not an opinion that’s literally the facts about him
@@davidbutler1857 fascinating
He is brilliant wake up Richard Dawkins
Yes, it all seems to be about personalities and charisma when it comes to Christianity, not actually discovering truth.
Neale Baxter I say the same of you atheists you guys play the cult of personality game, Christians are God centered not man centered. You atheists like to name names, instead of providing proof for you own claims, your types are on a pleasure quest, not a truth quest.
@@justchilling704
Yeah sure, and they own vast amounts of property where atheists assemble weekly, and they fly around in private jets collected in the name of ... nothing? You guys are the biggest name droppers there is, and the name you drop is only a fantasy anyhow. I don't see athiests claim anything in the name "name" of anybody. Atheists don't appeal to imaginary entities.
I've found that creationists must use logical fallacies, like the _tu quoque_ (you too) fallacy you just tried. You have nothing but lies.
@@justchilling704
Christians aren’t god-centered or jesus-centered, you are book-centered because all you got are stories in a book.
You worship a book written by men.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 Nah that’s huge misrepresentation and straw-manning of Christian beliefs.
Was watching the understanding genieis, . I think I can maby answer the question of one and two way light, or maby price it.
When Jupiter got hit with the four asteroids, and it the time of impact was recorded from telescope vin space,, Hubble?, And telescopes on earth recorded the impact,, was there a difference in the time recordings of each telescope?, Maby the event was far enough to prove the light theory?
We can ascertain the speed of light, even the one-way speed, indirectly, the question of the one way speed is more of a quirk than anything else. We see nothing about the behavior of light or anything else to suggest that it is any different than the 'round trip' speed that we conventionally measure...the real problem is that the nature of light itself prevents us from taking the direct measurement we ordinarily could do with anything else. So it's just one of many small things that YECs like to invoke (similar to the fundamental assumptions involved in single tests of say, radiometric dating) as a bit of a cheat to assert that there's a god of the gaps argument for creationism because of this inability. We can rule out the fundamental assumptions of dating via multiple tests and statistical analysis, and with the speed of light, we can look at any movement of the source object to see if it has any influence on light's speed, and...there is none. So that's a way to ascertain the OWS without doing the direct measurement that is arguably impossible to do because of the nature of light. Sadly, no room for creationism or god of the gaps there. It's just a quirky aspect of physics.
Additionally, if you assert an 'instant' starlight argument, you run into a few problems. Either things that look old aren't actually old, and now you have to explain that, or they are old but there's something wonky about the way light travels in which there are very old things, but the Earth is somehow 'young' despite this, and I mean 6,000 years old 'young' instead of 4.5 billion years 'young'. Now you have to explain BOTH situations! Moreover, there is a potential 3rd option, in that these 'distant' objects are all actually very close to us!. So now because of the invocation of the OWS creationism argument, you have to explain three problems that you did not have before! And I suppose even a 4th problem is that you might have to explain how the light (in the first instance of thinking 'looking old') got here instantaneously to start with, but now is traveling at a different rate? Who knows. Invoking OWS as a gap argument for creationism creates a LOT of new problems.
Which is where the conventional measurement/understanding of light comes in... with a much simpler explanation and a much more observable one...in that the universe is simply old, and and the Sun is just a somewhat medium age star that formed about 4.5 billion years ago, and if we see distant objects, their light travel time is indicative of their actual distance/age...which synchs perfectly with near distances observations of objects, parallax measurements, and other things.
One thing I frequently bring up with respect to things looking old, is also certain structures we see in space, like emission jets coming from galactic centers and some stars. Many of these are quite long, and because we know the speed of light cannot be violated, a creationist would have to explain why there is a jet of material extending many thousands of light years (which would take tens of millions if not more years to reach that length since it is moving at much slower speeds than light) from an object that is supposedly 'young'. It's just not possible. The only reason those jets exist is because material was gravitationally brought into that central point and some of it is being ejected from a long time ago. But anyway....
I should note... this argument is really the brainchild of a handful of Young Earth Creationists, so take it for the grain of salt it is. It's a desperation ploy. They rely upon the general public not having a good awareness about the physics of light or relativity, etc, and because they make sure to be rather nonspecific about the intended implications of these claims (you will note that neither Lisle nor anyone else has or will ever bother to explain how light operates if their assertions are true with respect to anything else) and the way they just kinda lead you on about 'wink wink' (creationism must be true!) they also have no intention of going any further than that. It's all about making you believe there's 'something to it'. That's enough to woo a few willing dupes. It's a pretty frequent theme... they find some little quirk of a thing, claim that god must be the answer, and they have no further elaboration. It's all about making the sale and letting you fill in the gaps with your mind.
Lastly, as for your question about Jupiter and the shoemaker levy comet impacts, there is nothing about that beyond the timing of impacts that we could use to validate much about the speed of light that we can't do already with existing space probes floating around in our system. We have probes out there with highly accurate internal chronometers with almost zero deviation to them over a very long span of time, and we can reliably measure their light distance simply by virtue of when their signals are sent/received. This is why there's just a tiny delay in Apollo radio transmissions, but a several minute delay in transmissions from Mars probes (IIRC it's about 5 minutes). But this can only measure round-trip. To measure the OWS, you would have to have some way of moving in relation to the signal you sent and calibrating it against the target...this is what I was talking about earlier in how you can look at the source objects to see if the frequency of light changes in relation to its movement...if it doesn't, then the OWS is the same as the round-trip speed, or at least, there doesn't appear to be a difference.
Dr. Lisle's calm and intentional demeanor is so refreshing. God is the author of mathematics and science and what a privilege that He has revealed so much of it to us!
I was hoping that Lisle would actually talk about his knowledge in the field of astrophysics. I've already heard the AIG philosophy of epistemology enough times.
He can't really, because that field of science necessarily contradicts most of his religious beliefs. For example, he specialized in his degree program anyway, on Stellar anatomy (stars). Like, for instance he studied stars like the RR Lyrae type, which interestingly are a standard candle type of star for measuring stellar distances well beyond parallax limits. These necessarily invoke huge distances of many tens of thousands of light years, which by default eliminate his position of claims that all stars are less than 6,000 years old and that light from them has taken less than 6,000 years to reach us, via his 'instant starlight' proposals from his blogs and stuff (he's notoriously never tried to publish that claim in an an academic capacity because he knows it would get shot down as nonsense).
That all aside, he quit the field of Astrophysics as soon as he obtained his PhD, and has never actually worked in the field since (2004).
@@davidbutler1857 The fact that the one-way speed of light is conventional was noted long ago by Einstein, but he hasn't published anything since way before 2004 so I guess his credentials aren't up to par.
Do you think the conventionality of simultaneity thesis is false? Can you propose an experiment or any way to empirically verify isotropic light speed? Cause if you can't, if isotropy is a convention we are free to adopt or reject, as it is currently held by the vast majority of physicists as far as I know, then your "necessary contradictions" and "necessary [deep time]" don't really seem so necessary...
@@hudjahulos There have been several attempts to measure it and you can look them up. Once again Lisle is only using this as a god of the gaps argument, hoping to lead people on about all this automatically implying a young universe
@@davidbutler1857 So your source for the one-way speed of light, a contentious question that the most brilliant minds in science have been trying to solve for over 100 years, is "look it up." Got it. That's almost as convincing as name calling.
@@hudjahulos It’s a fairly well known issue much as you state, and this is TH-cam, so I’m suggesting to you that because this issue is well known, you can easily find papers and articles about it to satisfy your demands, and you don’t have to rely on me for that.
I am not your local encyclopedia Britannica, and if your only argument is that I don’t provide a citation for something that is common knowledge (on this topic) then you’re simply telling me that you’re scared of any source
dr lisle, you are our next hope brother along with dr hovind.
keep up the great work.
and I think that you guys should unite forces just as the atheists are gathering, neglecting their differences only out of malice towards believers.
Please don’t associate the likes of Hovind with the amazing Dr Lisle!
Lol. The dynamic duo. Laurel and Hardy. Dumb and dumber.
Hovind is in a class all his own...unfortunately. Please don't put any reasonable, intelligent, analytical person in with Hovind.
If the earth were perfectly spherical, then any tendency for it to roll would be difficult to stop. The impact of quite a small asteroid would make it roll through a large angle, producing chaos on earth. The equatorial bulge of the earth, coupled with a large moon nearby, limits such a roll to only a few degrees. “Secular effects of Tidal Friction upon the Earth’s Rotation” Journal of Geophysical Research. 15 July 1963 vol 68, no 14 L. Slichter....
@demi- dogg
YES, I think you're incredibly stupid.
Good luck to Dr jason Lysle when real science prooves him wrong him wrong every day today and tomorrow and next year
Why have so many scientists came to the same conclusion as to how we got here..and why there is so much derision from christianity?you have no real proofs in the bible.
lot's of proof in the bible.
Bobsyoruncle Wilson,if there was never a shred of evidence for the credibility of the Bible I would probably join you in calling the Bible a bunch of fairy tales.The truth of the matter is that some aspects of the Bible have been proven to be true via historical and archeological digs.I did notice you made the classical mistake of underestimating the writers because they were sheep and goat herders.it seems that you equate their livelihood to intelligence.big mistake.additionally,not all writers of the Bible were herdsmen.luke was a medical doctor,Paul was a military man and tent maker etc.There will be people who will always attack the Bible for their own reasons without actually looking into the claims of the Bible in a serious way.all I can say at this point is that:THE BIBLE IS LIKE THE ANVIL THAT HAS WORN OUT MANY HAMMERS THROUGHOUT THE CENTURIES
@Bobsyouruncle Wilson you seem like a very intelligent chap,who seems to have an anti Christian world view.well sir I use to be exactly like you.once upon a time I could not stand christians.your attempt to school me in literature in comparing well known works to the Bible was weak at best.i have personally seeked to confirm archeological, historical and even scientific claims of the Bible.i came to the conclusion that the interpretation of the data was was seen very differently based on if you had a blibical world view or a humanist world view.The humanist world view has never made any sense to me.i choose to put my faith in a creator God rather than theory that says that we just came about by chance.you said something about faith,well Christian's don't follow blind faith,it is faith that is being cemented by world events (fulfilled prophecies), people lives changed and discoveries that confirms the bible.i usually don't bother to engage with atheists.it is my belief that atheism is in fact a form of religion albeit a relion with a lot of holes.God loves you sir.hope you find him.eternity is at stake
@Bobsyouruncle Wilson I am not going to go back and forth with you concerning my "imaginary friend".I see you think very highly of yourself in pointing out that I need a lot more IQ points to reach to your level.you probably have more degrees than a thermometer.i really know nothing about you but I do reiterate that I was once like you in the sense that I use to attack christians with the same exact arguments that you used in your comments.i am not going to go back and forth with you arguing the validity of the Bible or the existence of God.As I said,I don't know you, you don't know me.you seem to think that religious people have a stereotypical of thinking Wich tells me you do not know enough people of faith.i could easily stereotype people who are atheist or agnostic, but that would be wrong.listen if I came across as insulting to you in my last comment I am sorry.perhaps you are right, I'm probably not as smart as you.however, invite you to go on you tube and check out Dr Frank turek who is am apologist for the Christian faith.dr turek addresses and deals with the objection you have with christianity.god bless
Those scientists who "came to the conclusion" that evolution is true have a philosophical commitment to naturalism and will not allow for a supernatural Creator, to whom they are morally responsible.
right to God must be responsible for the order he imagines
@demi- dogg are you serious, the order in the universe with the planets, their orbits, the earth being exactly placed to support life. Not to mention that for the size of the earth and it's rotation, mountain peaks,oceans and all, the earth is an almost perfectly exact sphere. Not ordered you have to be kidding. Now people, governments etc. That's something out of order but it's mostly because of non belief in god
Can we get this guy to go through his graph depicting creationism's impression of magnetic field strength?
@@John-jh5ks does he explain what its like to have a negative magnetic field on earth ROFL!!!!!
@@John-jh5ks He is claiming a scientific approach which means he is bound to scientific responsibility. Showing a graph that depicts a negative gravitational force. IE a repulsive force requires some serious math. And I mean serious...like math that refutes Einstein's theory of relativity serious.
I love math I want to see his calculations for those moments they should change the way we look at physics.
@@John-jh5ks Um...so what you are saying is that we should just ignore the fact that what he said was obviously wrong and then move on to the idea that Christianity is right and everything else is evil?
@@John-jh5ks that obviously has nothing to do with a negative gravitational field, still I am happy to answer:
Sin is nothing more than a subjective human construct. The ever evolving concept of "sin" is a direct product of empathy. Empathy is also subjective, hence why sin is subjective.
@@John-jh5ks Thats fun never been asked about the relativistic nature of sin at a job interview b4 but ok.
I'll make this easy for you: tell me a sin any one should do.
Don't tell me one of your many sins obviously, just mention a sin we can use for discussion.
Good job Jason. I can tell the interviewer was not familiar with presuppositional apologetics. His is now!
This is completely irrelevant to the topic but I have to point out he looks a bit like Paul McCartney and now that you know you can't unsee it either.
I was thinking more along the lines of Howdy Doody.
The good doctor talks about logic? What a hypocrite.
Metaphorical Paradox - thank God Jason is a whole lot more intelligent that Paul.
Whoah. Already this video is wrong. At 0:14 it's asserted that Lisle is an Astrophysicist/Scientist.
He hasn't published a single thing in his field since he graduated, and he holds no position as such an expert. 1996 was his first/only scientific publication in which he was only a contributor and not the primary author of, as part of grad work.
David Butler so what! The man is helping educate and spread the word of God. If you don’t like it then don’t watch it!
@@rebeleazy9221 He is just so angry at God that he is blubbering utter nonsese.
@Dan Delgado questions just for fun. Why does it matter if it is false hope? What are some of the negatives personally or just in general/society of being a "believer" in the Christ and the Bible in your eyes?
@demi- dogg wait I never said what's the harm but even if I did, you didn't answer my question?
Dan Delgado -. Glad you listened. May The God Creator have mercy on your soul when God comes to sort the believers and non believers of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps you should read a 7 chapters of the Bible and if you want to continue with your non belief then go fishing or hunting. Just leave us believers alone. We leave you alone. You are on this channel spreading discontent.
I was blown away when I watched the video where Dr. Lisle talks about the Mandelbrot set, and how we can graph numbers that are said to be imaginary but are, in fact, very real. Man did not create these sets, or formulas, such as calculus. They were discovered by mathematicians to help solve increasingly complex problems down through history when the current known laws in mathematics could not solve a certain problem, or theory. When computers became powerful enough to be able to graph the numbers in the Mandelbrot set, we find that it can actually count and even add. Also, the shapes that are graphed are infinite and seen throughout nature in so many ways. Watch the 1-hour long video, which goes more in depth than the 38-minute older video. Show this video to loved ones who didn't realize that God created numbers and He uses them all throughout his creation in so many ways. Dr. Lisle does a great job of explaining this in a way that anyone can understand and the examples he shows in nature that are seen in the graph are amazing.
Absolutely
I love this video
Defiantly strengthened my faith good Sir! thank you and God bless
So creating stereotypes of those who reject your beliefs, helps you to maintain those beliefs? Interesting. I would expect that if there is actually a _good_ reason to believe a proposition to be true, then you wouldn't need to use such weak reasoning as _"my belief is true because those who reject my belief are wrong"_ to justify belief in that proposition.
Especially appreciates your debate with Dr Hugh Ross...in spite of his extensive knowledge and reason for believe i would only say I believe was totally bases on realizing God's greatest love ans sacrifice for me in spite of my sins, and no other logical reasoning nor evidence of God's existence matter.
I'm smiling...
I am going to pick a different fight. As a Christian, PureFlix ads look WHACK and A-biblical.
They're certainly interesting... I was turned off as soon as they started promoting AIG and the Biblical Science Institute. They take reading the bible literally to the extreme, and feed into all sorts of conspiracy theory nonsense about a "global atheist order" suppressing their reasearch.
BSI's supposed research can't even make it past the first step of the peer review process because they either haven't even set up the experiments properly, or they quite clearly fail to account for any other possible variables. They seem to do it on purpose so that they can then turn around and claim "those science athiests" are trying to silence them. They aren't in the business of trying to convert and convince people. They know if they tap into the fear of believers that their faith will be taken away, they can drum up support from them to pay their own salaries.
Even panels of entirely Christian scientists have rejected their research for peer review. It's a money grab, and it makes me sad they abuse the church like that.
This is intellectual savage Jr..... Senior is James Tour.
So god talk to us through "hint"?
Now ur gettin it. God thru hint. Satan thru tempt.
@Paul Morgan By man and their choices? Yes very much so.
@@John-pu5kz
You mean like people who choose to believe that magic fairy tales are so sacred it's worth killing each other over?
@@NealeBaxter Nah by the sinful nature of men they choose to do selfish and wicked things, with Satan tempting them aswell to do it. But Satan can't control a person, man chooses to accept that wicked way of living
@@John-pu5kz
Yeah, like I said ... magic fairy tales.
I listened to Dr Lisle's ultimate proof of creation video. Great video.
I never thought about the fact that when people start using the Bible to disprove God's existence or to dispute why they should believe in Him, usually the old testament and the passages where God says to detroy even the women and children, because they say "he's not a loving God if the Bible is true" they're standing on the Bible for their proof. It also reveals then that they do believe in Him, they just don't worship Him or care.
It's called an internal critique, child. It's perfectly valid to use the Bible to disprove claims within the Bible.
Learn some logic, please.
@@cygnusustus
I didn't say it wasn't.🤨
Maybe learn to comprehend what's commented before you decide what someone has said.
And I'm likely older than you are, child.
@@notadumbblond3
"I didn't say it wasn't."
You, in your post: " It also reveals then that they do believe in Him, they just don't worship Him or care."
Internal critiques do not require acceptance of a proposition.
Lying fool.
Solid reasoning, genius. Just yesterday a guy pointed out the inconsistency with Santa Clause stories, but he was using stories of Santa Clause as his evidence. That just proves Santa Clause is real. SMH
16 atheists couldn't handle the truth I see...ROFL!!!
In your world, truth does not equal facts, so yes... we have plenty of reasons to criticize this knob head. 🤷🏻♂️
Ha, ha, ha, that's precious coming from somedody who has done everything they can to evade responding to any truth I present to them.
Ah, as a Christian "probably" a baptist rather than being Christ-like and trying to win the lost atheists, you laugh at them in a mocking fashion further driving them away from Christ by your mocking attitude.
Pro 18:19 A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city: and their contentions are like the bars of a castle.
One of many "christians" that whatever comes up comes out. with no self-restraint at all.
the majority of christians in the US and the world accept evolution. this isnt a debate between christianity and atheism. never was.
Thank you Dr Jason Lisle. Praise to God Almightly the creator of the universe!
How does water freeze?
It forgot to put on it's gloves and scarf.
@@NealeBaxter Real talk mate you were pretty abrasive in the other comments. But this my man made me laugh out loud.
@@iancanaday7631
Yeah, I can get a bit touchy at times and unfortunately the sense of humour takes a back seat.
@@NealeBaxter But why get touchy? You have claimed there is no God. You have gone so far to insult him. If you're right that means 2.3 billion current people dont really have a relationship like they and myself claim with this incredible deity. So naturally I do get us being touchy. But I dont see why you would take offense to our relationship or beliefs.
I get that by us calling into question certain scientific propositions may annoy someone that believes it to be fueled by ignorance, and to be honest I dont care if you hate us or our God as long as it's your hate. When you see a Christian and you see how God believing Christians have wronged you then It's understandable. But if it's fueled by media, and colleagues, etc. Then I think you're doing yourself a disservice by allowing us to instill such negative feelings in you.
@@iancanaday7631
Well I don't specifically recall definitively claiming "there is no God", although I don't personally believe it to be true and find the likelihood of a god existing to be diminishingly infestisimal. It then wouldn't make sense that I would insult what I don't believe in. Perhaps you're confused that I insult the idea of believing in any god without a very good reason to. It isn't even the idea of people wanting to pretend that a god is real which makes me touchy, it's when those who feel they have to pretend reality is something other than what is demonstrable. It's when zealots arrogantly convince themselves because they've seen or read some apologist propaganda, that they are more knowledgeable about science and qualified to make assessments of it than the hundreds of thousands of research scientists who have made it their life's work. This is just arrogantly offensive and disrespectful of _real_ people, so why shouldn't people get touchy?
How would you describe your relationship with your 'savior'? Would you say that he is incapable of any wrong? Would you say that you are inherently flawed (original sin) and so not even worthy of his love? Would you say that because he loves you so much, he forgives your imperfections, even though he should punish you? Would you say that you're incapable of living your life correctly without his guidance?
If you answered "yes" then you have just described a domestic abuse scenario. I find any idea that tells you that you are intrinsically garbage is offensive. I think more of you than that, I don't think you're garbage and neither should you.
I'm fascinated by the magic of 9.
And I wonder how that number relates to God.
It is the number of toenails he has.
Here’s a summary of his proof of God.
1) Look at the trees
2) I can’t believe this happened without God
3) Math is pretty, therefore God
Let’s say his “proof” does get to a God. Well, which one???
Which God becomes quire simple once you understand the distinctives of the Christian God. No other God addresses the central issues and provides explanatory power regarding the co-reality of good and evil.
@@PaDutchRunner You’re so lucky/smart to have picked the correct religion. I’ll just go and give everyone else the bad news then.
@@KXSocialChannel This response is nullified once you adopt an accurate worldview. Here’s a brief overview:
As human beings, we are all considered to be sons of Adam. Adam, we all fell and as a result, we are all in sin, separated from God, and under His righteous condemnation. We are dead now - in a spiritual sense - and we will all eventually go in to experience physical death as well, and thjs is all due to sin. Now, God would have been perfectly just to immediately carry out the death sentence against Adam and Eve when they fell into sin, but instead He chose to have mercy upon them, allowing their race to continue. If Ge had not, neither you nor I would be having this conversation because neither of us would have had the opportunity to exist.
So, rather than putting the human race to death, God immediately put into place His plan of redemption, shaping history so that He gathered a people, the Jews, who understood who He was so that at the proper time, He could perform the only possible act that would allow Him to forgive His people while at the same time preserving His perfect justice. Thjs is what we call the incarnation, wherein God Himself took on a second nature - the fullness of human form - and lived a perfect human life, and fulfilled the “covenant of works” which Adam failed to fulfill. (This is why He is sometimes called the Second Adam.) He then fulfilled the purpose of the sacrificial system which He instituted through the Israelites by allowing Christ to die on the cross. In so doing, He who deserved no death suffered the death that His people deserved, taking upon Himself their sin, and in turn, His people receive His life and are thus made spiritually alive in Him.
@@PaDutchRunner Fantastic. I’ll encourage you to tell the world about your discovery. We wouldn’t want all those Muslims and Hindus believing in the wrong God now, would we? Go spread your message in the Middle East. God will protect your body.
@@KXSocialChannel Yes, that’s why Christians spread the Gospel. It is the power of God to be saved. The first step here is to have YOU believe. Why won’t you place your faith in Christ?
How to answer atheists:
Step 1 - STOP LYING
Step 2 - Repeat step 1 until you get it right.
Nailed it.
Atheists should just be quiet about lying.
@@camberlubos3995 I'm not an atheist, I'm a Christian.
@@camberlubos3995 Why? You theists are so good at it, I am in awe.
The bible teaches us not be judgemental on others. That is not giving up your God but doing what he says. It does mean you you don't give truth to fools but you use your brains in every relationship. See the other as more experienced than yourself and give someone your patience. It is not about hammering ones head. It is about understanding reality of lifes
Jesus Commanded that we Judge righteously (John 7:24)
Those who have been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and filled with the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the sign of speaking in tongues) have the authority, power, and right to judge the world and Angels (1Corinthians 6:1-4)
Jude 1:14-15: And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, The Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, (15) To execute Judgement upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
The Bible begins in Genesis and ends in Revelations. If this is true, then it begins with Yehovah Tzebaot (Torah), passes through the prophets (Tanaj), and ends with Yeshua HaMessiah (Brid Hadasha), right?. Shalom to all of you.
But who wrote the Torah? It wasn't Moses - over a dozen verses tell us it wasn't Moses - so who wrote it? Since you don't know the answer while I do, you're in quite a predicament as you parade around here.
*"Jason Lisle approaches science from the perspective that God's Word is true"* so not a scientist then. That was meant to be praise from someone else who is not a scientist and also doesn't know how science works.
So apparently you don't know that all scientists start their job with philosophical presuppositions.
Vincenzo Russo have you not got to the end of the 'things to say to atheists' list yet? :)
Science doesn't need "philosophical presuppositions" in the way a priest/Christian has. You might say that it assumes that reality is real but it doesn't even do that. All theories are working theories until we find out differently. A theory is constantly tested for flaws and nothing is ever 100% certain.
That's quite different from your belief where you are told what you are going to think and then must look for reasons to support it.
And who made this rule? He is not a Scientist because he believes the Bible? Maybe Bible believers write different exams?
Panikos Of Grays that’s a presupposition right there lol
@@panikosofgrays1904 having no philosophical presuppositions is a philosophical presupposition
Dude, this man is 71 years old
EDIT: I goofed. I mistook him for someone else.
????
He was born in 1974.
@@seeker4trvth you're right. Thought he was someone else. My bad lol
No you're good, his bio somewhere mistakenly has his DOB wrong I think. Not the first time I've seen this.
Can we say: Universe is eternal, therefore can't be created
Jason would RIP Aron conman Ra a new one in a debate, in under 2min🤣🤣🤣🤣!!!!!!!!
@Voice of TRUTH! I don't think Aron Ra has the guts to debate Dr. Lisle.
@@tylerb9877 Even if Aron did have the guts, he doesn't have the knowledge. He's no scientist, no expert in ANYTHING. Just a pissed off miserable atheist mad at God and throwing tantrums. You can tell Aron is empty and miserable inside. Ever looked at his pictures? Never smiles in a single one and looks pissed all the time. No God no happiness. KNOW God...know happiness.
@Voice of TRUTH! I've never noticed that he never smiles. Now that I think of it, I haven't seen him smile a single time.
That is quite strange.
@@tylerb9877 //I've never noticed that he never smiles. Now that I think of it, I haven't seen him smile a single time. That is quite strange.//
Because he has no peace. No Jesus no peace. You can see it in his debates, how he completely loses it VERY easily and blows his stack. Full of bitterness, rage and hate.
@Voice of TRUTH! Exactly.
Already Lisle is lying here at 1:30 by arguing that Evolution and what we know about it isn't science and that it's not testable or repeatable, etc. Flatly wrong.
David Butler
Speciation, natural selection, and all other things that Christians also accept from evolution are testable, however common ancestry and animals evolving out of their kind is not testable.
@@classycactus8449 //however common ancestry and animals evolving out of their kind is not testable.///
Common ancestry is entirely testable. We do this literally every day by analyzing whole genomes of animal groups. It works not unlike a paternity test. We know quite clearly from seeing divergences in MtDNA how far apart certain species are. Also, you can easily google tests of common ancestry in the professional literature. Stating this is utter ignorance.
Additionally, 'evolving out of their kind' is macroevolution on a large scale (group transitions) and this is also proven with analysis of the same MtDNA and calibrations of the fossil record and biogeography.
You have NO idea what you are talking about.
@@davidbutler1857
Similarities in genomes do not reveal common ancestry. You have to assume that.
@@classycactus8449 ///Similarities in genomes do not reveal common ancestry. You have to assume that.///
Well, yes they do by warrant of their ability in many cases to interbreed (speciation does not require the inability to interbreed for example, it's just one old way to tell species apart), their shared biogeography both currently and in the fossil record, along with skeletal structures, shared genomes of parasites , a whole number of other things I could spend all day listing.
I 'get' what your argument is, but this is the old creationist trope of denial of reality so that you can accuse your opponent of being confused, while never allowing that same attack to be used against you. This is why creationists NEVER try to explain their side of things but will constantly stay on the attack against evolution. You can't explain anything you propose to be true with anything resembling facts.
@@davidbutler1857
Could you maybe clarify your statement. Did you say that similarities in genomes reveal common ancestry because they can interbreed?
Also, speciation does mean that they are unable to reproduce to make viable offspring. They can interbreed, but not for viable offspring.
Similar skeletal structures fall in the same boat as similar genetics.
In fact, I would argue that the similarities in skeletal structures and genetics is, at the very least, coherent with the Bible. Similar features can potentially indicate a common Designer. Now, of course, you will say why is it that similar features do not reveal a common ancestor, but they reveal a common Designer. So, we have to decide whether it is more reasonable for similarities to indicate a common natural origin, let's say, and a common mind.
Well, let's go with common ancestor for a bit. As time goes on, organisms become more diverse, and, therefore, less similar. Questions arise from this, however. One of the main ones I thought of just now is that there are likely counter examples of organisms that do not share a recent common ancestor, but have similar genomes and similar structures, etc. So it is possible that organisms with higher degrees of similarity are father apart in their ancestry. That point likely requires further research. Another problem is that evolution (and its mechanism natural selection) are based on probability. It is more likely for similar organisms to be more related, but you don't know whether that is caused by randomness. Take the animal farthest from humans at the moment. If they started getting mutations that let them get more 'human' features, that would not make them more related in ancestry. As a naturalist, you have to believe that some very, VERY improbable events occurred. Fine tuning of the universe, abiogenesis, etc. Why would it be safe to believe that natural selection didn't work. Animals were more likely to survive and evolve a certain way, but didn't. There are a lot of factors at play that would influenve that probability and skew everything. There is a lot of uncertainty in the common ancestry hypothesis; there are a lot of assumptions and conclusions. You can say that similarities make it look like two organisms are more related.
Let's give common designer a go.
God created a specific set of plants and animals. Whether you think that was thousands of years ago, or even whether you believe it was millions of years ago, is less important (timing is not as important as the actual event).
Animals evolve within those subsets. So, if you think about it, there is a similarity between the two propositions. The Bible says there is common ancestry between all organisms to God, but each kind of animal is directly evolved from the initial group of that kind.
Now, it is certainly fair to say that when a mind designs, it is inclined to have similar designs. All Cadillacs have their really nice, semi-boxy design -- they are made by the same company, likely with the same group of designers That, however is from the artistic and aesthetic and even practical side of things. The problem is that we see similarities in encoded information for organisms. From experience, I can tell you that whenever you write code, you always take elements from a previous program and implement it into the current one. So you have similar structure and information: that points to intentionality. The similarities are so consistent and strong, that it becomes uncanny. All organisms have similar genomes There is a common strand throughout all of them, in their semiotic and linguistic DNA, that point to the same author. If you read multiple books from the same author you will see a similar style. Same with DNA.
Also, if you want, I can go more into the linguistic characteristics of DNA. That is a very interesting piece of evidence for God.
Either way, to try to clean all of this up:
Similarities in structure and information seen consistently across all organisms are a common strand that pertain to intentionality and design more than the probabilistic mechanism that is natural selection, etc. Similarities can, at the very least, be applied at least as much in favor of God.
I will be more than happy to explain my side of things. I do appreciate that you ' ' got' ' my argument at least to a certain degree. And I certainly got more insight into the common ancestry logic. It is logical to assume that extremely similar organisms are more related, however there is no scientific limiting factor for this reasoning. There is no reason to believe that you can extend it indefinitely, until you reach a single ancestor.
When I was in biology class, though, I did find it very ironic that they were telling us we all had a common ancestor, but we didn't know who it was. Made me think God.
The problem that I noticed is that all of the actual evidence and facts for evolution also apply to full on Creationism. The Bible just doesn't make the same assumptions off of the actual facts. It doesn't extrapolate as much in the direction of naturalism.
Again, if you are interested, I would be happy to present my arguments for the existence of God.
by his logic then the Universe is eternal
It'll end after the tribulation
Toupee or not Toupee?
What's funny is he actually takes atheists comments like the ones on this video and uses them in his lectures to show how to deal with fallacious arguments lol.
Not very successfully since all he does is use presuppositional arguments against them. It's a logically fallacious way of saying "I'm right because I say I'm right".