Why is Ken Ham ATTACKING Fellow Creationists?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 มี.ค. 2023
- In this episode, I'm joined by Dr. Marcus Ross to discuss the recent attacks on Young Earth Creationists by Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis.
Dr. Ross' website: cornerstone-edsupply.com/page...
FREE STUFF -------------
"The Rationality of Christian Theism" & "The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners" E-Books (completely free): tinyurl.com/CCFREESTUFF
GIVING -------------------
Patreon (monthly giving): / capturingchristianity
Become a CC Member on TH-cam: / @capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/capturing-christ...
Special thanks to all our supporters for your continued support! You don't have to give anything, yet you do. THANK YOU!
SOCIAL -------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
Website: capturingchristianity.com
MY GEAR -----------------
I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).
Camera (Nikon Z6): amzn.to/364M1QE
Lens (Nikon 35mm f/1.4G): amzn.to/35WdyDQ
HDMI Adapter (Cam Link 4K): amzn.to/340mUwu
Microphone (Shure SM7B): amzn.to/2VC4rpg
Audio Interface (midiplus Studio 2): amzn.to/33U5u4G
Lights (Neewer 660's with softboxes): amzn.to/2W87tjk
Color Back Lighting (Hue Smart Lights): amzn.to/2MH2L8W
Recording/Interview Software: bit.ly/3E3CGsI
CONTACT ----------------
Email: capturingchristianity.com/cont...
#Apologetics #CapturingChristianity #ExistenceofGod
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.76[1/2] โจโฉเปิดป่าโหดรับโอ๊ต-ป๊อบ รอบนี้พี่เอาจริง!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pNg5O7Pf-a0/mqdefault.jpg)
I like it when Cam platforms people who I disagree with who are intellectually virtuous. Really humanizes the other side for me. Based and whitepilled
Cam himself is a person I often disagree with who is intellectually virtuous. I agree - based.
All a pretense. He wouldn't have brought him if he didn't dislike ham. He just used him for a purpose
I see why Jacob and Sigma would say what they say and have no interest engaging them👍
I'm not YEC but Dr. Ross is easily one of the best reps of that position, so Cam made a good choice bringing him on.
Thanks for having Ross on. Not a YEC myself but have always had a lot of respect for Marcus Ross his "young-earth evolutionist" friends. They make far better apologists and spokespersons for the young-earth position than does Ken Ham. It's sad to see that Ken Ham can't seem to see past his own very narrow view. The gate to being a true Christian in his mind seems to go solely through the rainbow bridge leading to his Ark Encounter park.
This is excellent! Thanks Cameron for getting Dr. Ross on for this!
Having met Ham over 30 years ago, I was very interested in following what "Answers in Genesis" was doing. Over the years however, I have seen Ken launch into vitriolic conversations with Christians who don't fall in line with exactly what he has to say about his view on the subject of God's creation. Even going so far as to call another believer hell bound because he didn't see things Ken's way. Being a young earth creationist IS NOT a requirement in entering the Lord's kingdom, and certainly one's salvation does not hinge on Ken Ham's view. Confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord, believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED.
He doesn't believe old earth creationists are hell bound. He thinks they are mistaken. And that their teachings are causing young people to believe the Bible is not really true. Also, that it really tinkers with the Gospel since death Preceded sin and there wasn't really an Adam and Eve. I am 60 now, but I never heard that the earth was billions of years old until I was in college. But kids hear that at a young age now. Years ago, we were going to Idlewild Baptist church. And my husband at the time did not believe in a young earth. So I said, "Oh that's okay... lots of Christians dont. Here, lets get this book by Hugh Ross and read it." God did not honor that. He completely quit going to church. Our marriage ended a few years later.
Answers in genesis, I used to be on their side til I saw how incredibly prideful and rude they are, and how little answers they actually possess.
It’s people like them, with their weak arguments that put me into a false sense of security that dismounted my faith in a way as a thinking person that was hard to recover from
Ross I respect because he is not patronizing if you don’t agree with him, which honestly is very important and shows that he’s thinking with his brain not his emotions.
Science is about interpreting facts in the most responsible unbiased way possible not interposing your emotional connections and biases directly into it to skew the results.
Beautifully said 💯♨️
I think Ken hams problem is he believes his interpretation is infallible.also his entire ministry is built on 24 hour days and a global flood ,and he’s not about to have that dismantled
Sadly that's how I felt when I tried to get to know the eastern orthodox church. Maybe Answers in Genesis work for the pope in secret too
Thanks for having on Dr. Ross. This was informative. I look forward to hearing more from him.
Great discussion, love the calm and reasoned demeanor. Would love to see Dr. Ross here again
Reasoned demeanor, while defending irrational assertions
Scientific discoveries corrected the early church using scripture to hold to a geocentric view . It took the church almost 100 years to admit the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth. We are in another era of science correcting skewed interpretations, and this one may take longer for YEC to get over.
The elevator question at the end was the most interesting. We only got to hear about the dinosaur bones. I’d love to hear him discuss more of those topics. Best 5 proofs for a young earth? How could radiometric dating be wrong? Great job on this one Cameron.
@NurdletheTurdle you sound like someone who loves the scientism fairytale.
@NurdletheTurdle I’m just pointing out your desire to paint a picture black and white that is clearly many shades of grey.
Let's go over once more.
"...we CANNOT escape the CONCLUSION that sedimentation was at times VERY RAPID indeed and that at other times there were long breaks in the sedimentation, though it LOOKS UNIFORM AND CONTINUOUS."- Derek Ager, president British Geological association, New Catastrophism.
"The geologic record is CONSTANTLY LYING to us. It pretends to tell us the whole truth, when it is only telling us a very small part of it."- Derek Ager, same.
Again the EARTH IS LYING, because it doesn't fit the imaginary drawings. This totally falsifies evolution.
"It may seem PARADOXICAL, but to ke thr GAPS probably cover most of earth history..."-Derek Ager.
So NOT THE ROCKS. The IMAGINATION. This is not science but a false religion that believes 97 percent of earth is MISSING.
"Don't BELIEVE THE ROCKS, THEY ARE LYING TO YOU"- EVOLUTIONISTS.
Then we see dating methods. Keep in mind the rocks don't exist for evolution to begin with.
"Two important ASSUMPTIONS are implicit in this equation: First, that we are dealing with a CLOSED system. And, second, that no atoms of the daughter in the system were present when it formed. These assumptions furnish the most SERIOUS LIMITATIONS on the accumulation clock."- Henry Faul, Ages of ROCKS, Planets and Stars.
"Rigorously CLOSED SYSTEMS probably DO NOT EXIST IN NATURE, but SURPRISINGLY, many minerals and rocks satisfy the requirement well enough to be useful for nuclear age determination. The PROBLEM is one of JUDICIOUS geological SELECTION."- Henry Faul.
"...ground water percolating can LEACH AWAY a proportion of the uranium present in the rock crystals. The MOBILITY of the uranium is such that as ONE part of a rock formation is being impoverished ANOTHER PART can become ABBORMALLY ENRICHED...at relatively LOW temperatures. "- J.D. MacDougall, Scientific American.
So it STARTS false before any dates taken.
"IN general, dates in the 'correct ball park' are ASSUMED to be correct and are published, but those in DISAGREEMENT with other data are SELDOM published NOR ARE THE DISCREPANCIES FULLY EXPLAINED. "- R.L. MAUGER, East Carolina University, Contributions to Geology.
"...41 seperate age determinations...which varied between 223 million and 0.91 million...after the first determination they NEVER AGAIN obtained 2.61 from their experiments."-Roger Lewin, Ed. Research News, Bones of Contention.
They pick and CHOOSE dates. They know they are lying.
"It should be NO surprise that fully HALF the dates ARE REJECTED. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come out to be accepted. There are GROSS DISCREPANCIES, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepteddatesareACTUALLY SELECTED DATES. "- Robert E Lee, Anthropological Journal of Canada.
"It is OBVIOUS that radiometric technique may NOT be the absolute dating methods that they are CLAIMED TO BE. "- W.D. STANSFIELD, Anti-creationist, professor of biological science, C.P.S.U, The science of evolution.
"There is NO ABSOLUTELY RELIABLE long-term radiological clock."- W.D. STANSFIELD, Anti-creationist.
See
th-cam.com/video/8sL21aSWDMY/w-d-xo.htmlsi=NG54sovwQlDDXdOy
And,
th-cam.com/video/-GcsEU_aIjc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=eyN4Ke7l3cKKLhhe
Surprising topic for Cameron to cover.
He should bring on Gideon Lazar for a Catholic YEC perspective.
I really enjoyed Dr. Ross' debate with Michael (IP). 😊
I hate to throw a wrench in Dr. Ross argument, but I've seen Pikachu evolve into Raichu.
In all seriousness though, this is the most thoughtful YEC I've ever seen. I've just never encountered a good argument before. Ken Ham et al seem to function on conspiracy theories.
One more thing, I used to live down the street from this guy! Small world. :)
Lol Pokémon 😂
I'd like to watch the discussion between Dr. Ross and Inspiring Philosophy. Is that video posted somewhere?
Here th-cam.com/users/liveK-dPOh4VN14?feature=share
TH-cam just suggested the debate between Dr. Ross and Inspiring Philosophy in my feed, so here's a link to it!
th-cam.com/users/liveK-dPOh4VN14
This guy teaches right down the road from me. Less than a 1/2 mile away. Small world.
Very interesting
@@frogtheprincediaz510 it is to me. Usually my YouTubing and my local existence don't intersect.
Really loved Kurt Wise devotional biology series, would love to see him on the show.
Thank you soooo much for having Dr. Ross on. years ago I did post a comment on one of your videos to have the best YEC on like Marcus Ross and Jason Lisle. It is great to see you come through. Ken Ham is proving to be a poor example of Christian wisdom and kindness as he expresses himself lately. I don't know if it is due to his age, but he is acting like a theological tyrant rather than a Champion of Biblical truth. I think Marcus and others must call him out to a public dialogue rather then talk about his inappropriate behavior. This has to be done first in private, and if that is not possible, it has to be done publicly.
By the way, my name is Danzil Monk Sr. and I am a Young Earth Creationists. A fan of AiG and of Marcus Ross whom I interviewed some years ago. Love you Marcus, you are such a good example.
Great. More!
Ken Ham was a guest speaker at my church not too long ago. I found him politically divisive with poor reasoning behind his beliefs. He asserted YEC, which I found odd since my church worked to stay neutral or at least silent on the debate.
He did my church a disservice by pushing the congregation towards an unsupportable belief which could legitimately destroy their faith.
If that “destroys” their faith then they probably weren’t Christians in the first place
So he shouldn't preach the truth because it might cause some to stop believing in the Bible? Should we also stop preaching that homosexuality is a sin so they won't leave? You should never be afraid of preaching the truth.
@@johnroemeeks_apologetics Your argument would make a lot of sense, if it weren’t for the fact that YEC is not true, nor is it a correct interpretation of Genesis. There are many factors which go into it, of which I will happily explain to you if you’d like.
@wormius7350 For some reason I was assuming you were a YEC, and you thought it might cause others to stumble teaching others that the Bible only supports that
I think Dr. Marcus Ross is nr.1 YEC
I really enjoyed the Marcus Ross vs Hugh Ross debate
btw, I'm not YEC
Crazy how 'passion' interferes with the brain's ability to reason, with or without a doctorate in ignorance.
an interview with hugh ross would be really interesting to see
And thoughts on another Dr. Ross, Hugh Ross?
Ken Ham is a great resource for those who are in the process of "deconstructing".
How about a debate / discussion between one of the Let’s Talk Creation guys and a theistic evolutionist?
I met Marcus at CCv2. Great guy. I don't agree with him, but he is the model of a Christian thinker.
I think that ken ham is threatened by the popularity of some of these other creation scientists and he does not have control over them. He may also be intimidated by them.
Does Ken Ham not expose the major flaw of YEC in general?
Not being able to adjust your views when receiving new data is the foundation of Young Earth Creationism.
YEC (including AiG) has adjusted massively over the past few decades. Acceptance of genuine speciation, plate tectonics, stratomorphic series (in certain situations - e.g, "horse evolution"). Scientifically-speaking, YEC has always been a-changing. It is true that YEC relies on Biblical axioms, but so does any materialist scientist. There are always going to be bedrock assumptions that every researcher takes on some measure of faith. The YEC, at least, is upfront about theirs.
Not is Ross case
Here's the problem with Young Earth Creationists - They are stoping the global spread of the Good News of Jesus Christ's divinity, death and resurrection. As Dr Hugh Ross says - there's 2 great books God has provided us with 1) Book of nature / science & 2) The Bible ... if you look hard enough and think long enough - you'll find both books perfectly agree with each other.
Look for 100years they will not be compatible.
Are you joking? People are running around thinking they are related to a monkey and a tangerine and you blame Ham??
@@MichaelAChristian1 you are a ape , try to learn something about evolution and then we can talk .your done,
@@MichaelAChristian1 Ham is not to blame for the existence of such views. But I think we can blame for swallowing the propaganda of the other side hook line and sinker. He seems to fully accept that there is dogmatic interpretation of an ancient book on one side and science on the other.
13:31 _"There are facts that can change the way that we look at things"_
That should be true of any intellectually honest person, right?
@@20july1944 Ken Ham writes : _"Christians need to recognize that models, even those based on Scripture, are subject to change (Scripture itself, however, is not subject to change)."_
@@MrGustavier Yes, I'm familiar with that specific quote.
We both know Ham is a publicity-hungry fool and he's not relevant to an educated discussion
@@20july1944 We also know that Jesus condemns hateful speech, which is equivalent to murder in the heart. Examine yourself to keep the 6th commandment.
@@vinniebasile9404 Are you a Ken Ham fan?
I think he does a sickening amount of harm.
Schisms are the problem of basing anything on beliefs. It always happens and is the reason why we have so many religions and denominations of religions. Science is not based on beliefs but on testable evidence. That is what I recommend.
Ken Ham is sanctimonious . Strawman arguments are his m.o. Anyone who disagreeswith his wooden take on Genesis is lumped in with secular Darwinists. He cannot fellowship with them.
I get the perspective and fear of compromising sacred scripture, but attacking Christians over having a different perspective from him (while still taking the appropriate parts of the Bible literally) seems disturbing and wasted when we have progressive Christians out there today who are far more unashamedly heretical
It is not possible to properly divine the Word of God if you do not understand that the first chapter of Genesis teaches the universe was created in six days. The Darwinian old Earth theory is 100% contrary to God's Word. We must not compromise the truth or give credit to falsehood, or put it aside as not important. "For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” (1Cor.14.8)
I like it when Cam platforms people who I disagree with who are intellectually virtuous. Really humanizes the other side for me. Based and whitepilled. Hope he invites Tom Jump on
I think the assumption about "feathered dinosaurs" is not that it would not be a feather, but that it would not be a dinosaur if it has feathers. It is a response to another assumption that these feathered creatures are dinosaurs and not a bird based on evolutionary assumptions or concessions to the timeline or geologic table.
Fascinating to hear Cameron say around 39:00 that he would prefer atheists say not that "there is no god" but rather that they are simply not convinced. Lots of theists make literally the exact opposite complaint and insist that "lacktheism" is a "dishonest" position.
It's dishonest if it doesn't reflect their rhetoric... hence why he doesn't want them to use the rhetoric.
Makes perfect sense. Be what you say you are. If you say you (merely) lack faith, then don't verbalize claims about God. It's that simple.
@@Devious_Dave Fair enough. I emphatically disagree with the position he asserts (obviously). I am perfectly comfortable not only saying that there is no evidence for a god, I positively assert that functionally every god that has ever been defined to me is logically incoherent and demonstrably incompatible with observable reality.
@@ravissary79 Okay. I do not simply "lack faith." I positively assert that no gods that have been defined to me exist and the evidence clearly shows that. It may be that there is something called "a god" that is different from what everyone has described to me using that word, but I doubt it.
@@adamredwine774 I'm not saying you or aren't. I don't know you and don't claim to make personal demands of you.
It's okay bro. We can relax.
@@adamredwine774 Read the Proslogion, short text, and tell me if that God you can conceive
Oh my. Sure don’t need this Circular Firing Squad!
I guess I would be considered a YE creationist, as I have always found that there have been, what I consider to be, good answers to all of the questions I have sought out about creation. However, of late I have been confused in the area of archeology and early civilizations. This is one area I am intending to do some study into, does anyone have any good clear evidence for or against the ages of our earliest known and recorded histories? I don't mind being wrong, I just want to know what is right.
Articles or topics in this area that I could search out would be immensely helpful to me.
Take a look at the Associates for Biblical Research. They are a solid Biblical archeology group and at least one of their researchers (Henry Smith Jr) is very interested in pre-Abrahamic archeology. There's a lot of questions about that time period. There will also be some discussion about how to connect the geologic and archeological records in a Biblical context, at this year's International Conference on Creationism (to be held at Cedarville University).
Potholer54 on TH-cam is an excellent resource. He can be somewhat condescending sometimes but his knowledge is impeccable, and he sources his work maticulously.
@@KillmanPit agreed potholer can be cutting if you lean to YEC. However he explains his position clearly and it’s all based in studies.
@Zachary Klein ABR is not a reputable source.
@@DarrenGedye That might depend on your definition of reputable. 😉 ABR is a solid source for evangelical scholarship in the field of archeology.
We’re all just so smart aren’t we? 🤦 God’s word not man’s.
AIG cannot admit the feather dinosaurs for a simple reason: they would have to update all their animatronic dinosaurs lol
There can be only one!
This is not the first time the Ken Ham has screwed up. Not long ago he totally mishandled Matt Walsh's public attack on YEC. Rather than use love and wisdom, Ken came off as abrasive and actually rude. I was embarrassed for him as I could see he would not get through to Matt using his rude methods. And he helped Matt Walsh make us look foolish because of Ken's reactions.
All too often, people like Ken Ham make this kind of discussion into a matter of salvation, which it is not. It is only a secondary or tertiary discussion.
I came from an old universe fraternity. It was only after looking at the data that came actual biological evolutionary experiments from atheist evolutionary biologists and geneticists. The data that was supposed to support a macro-evolutionary model or models did not appear to be supportive of those models. This lead me to look at the bigger picture.
There are a lots of things that we cannot determine about our universe - no possible experiment can be designed to determine these properties. So we assume what we can about these specific properties. What we assume about these properties will be based on what presuppositions we hold.
Two examples of such properties that cannot be measured (ever) are the one-way speed of light and the original decay product composition of samples used for radiometric dating. In regards to the first, all we can measure is the average speed of light over the [there and back] path. As long as the average is c (for the medium associated with the path), it matters not to our physics if the actual speeds are different (right up to the extreme of instantaneous in one direction and c/2 in the other). So it would not violate any physical laws if we were to be seeing all events in the outer universe in real time as long as any response we sent out took 26 billion years to get there.
We actually see this difference occur in the universe. This is one reason for using tensor mathematics when analysing certain physical situations. Properties that we normally expect to be the same in all directions actually change based on direction.
In terms of radiometric dating we cannot measure the original composition, so if there are any decay products there originally, this will skew the age estimate we have for the sample and this skewing could be enormous.
In reality, arguments for any perspective should be careful and not political. I think the Ken Ham situation has devolved into politics here and not in accord with the Spirit of God.
Are you aware of any place where Ken Ham has made the Age of the Earth a matter of salvation? I strenuously disagree with Ken's recent actions and I think he is not representing YEC well, but he (and AiG) has been consistent for decades in stating the the Age of the Earth is not a "salvation issue".
@@ZacharyKlein Yes, when he opposes other Christians for not believing as he believes. He does not make Jesus Christ the centre, he argues for the non-essential things. He has done this for years. I personally am a young universe proponent based on the available data. Yet, there are things that cannot be measured abut the universe and as such we do not know if the universe is old or young by any scientific methodology or testing regime.
We have to use circumstantial evidence to support our position. However, this is a secondary or tertiary discussion and the core of Christianity is Jesus Christ. From my personal position both Ken Ham and William Lane Craig are both extremists in their positions and both are unjustified in their positions.
Mankind (and many Christians) have forgotten that the Almighty Creator God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) does not have to abide by what we think has happened. As He asked Job the question of whether Job was there in the beginning and did Job understand the what, the how and the why, we should be taking note of what was said here and sincerely applying this to ourselves.
It is the Almighty Hol Glorious God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) who brought all things into existence and maintains all thing by His Rule and Authority. Who are we to dictate that He has to abide by our ideas of what it should be? Hmm.
I have too often, too often heard even Christians say that God would be a liar and a deceiver if He didn't do things the way we think they were done. This is especially in the Old Earth fraternity. But this is also seen in the Young Earth fraternity and Ken Ham essentially says this with his various stances.
All of us should remember that new data can overturn any of the beliefs we hold about the universe around us.
@NurdletheTurdle You ask [How would you explain things like concordant radiometric dates that verify one another?] and you would still have to demonstrate that these dating values are, in fact, conformant. I think you will find that these dates are only approximate. Now, as for your reference to a specific group of dating samples (K-T layer), it only takes the same starting presuppositions to have the analysis come out the same. In general, this is what happens with any data analysis that is undertaken in any field.
Have you done any serious data analysis in any field, whatsoever? I see many who do not have that background assume that the data analysis has been done correctly when it hasn't.
I have to laugh at you suggesting a [global conspiracy]. Really? A conspiracy requires something hidden and this is out in the open in the education system with the basic presupposition that the universe is old, old, old.
As for your question [Wouldnt such results be impossible if nobody knew how much parent material was present at the start?], that is correct. But you forget that if you have a presupposition as to what is there originally, then you will get an age that is often in accordance with your presuppositions.
This is the point I am making, we just do not know. Your presuppositions colour your interpretation of the data available to you.
thanks for your novel you wrote,very smart intellect you are,you made Carl Sagen look elementary.
@@tonyfrederickson6692 Your sarcasm is noted. However, nothing in your sarcasm says anything, let alone anything that might be relevant.
Great discussion! I'm not YEC but I find his perspective much more plausible and convincing than aig et al
9:15 creo que aquí comienza
AIGs methods are going to evolve them right out of existence
Now that I have watched the video produced by Marcus Ross in which Ken Ham is uniformly bashed by almost all the commenters, I would say that in the best light to Mr. Ross they are exactly the same.
They are very obviously different. Dr. Ross shows how to disagree in a Christlike way while AiG uses name-calling and scare tactics to manipulate their readers.
Genesis 7:20-21 ESV: The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And all flesh died that moved on the earth, BIRDS , livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind.
Finding evidence for feathers alongside dinosaur fossils doesn't automatically mean that birds evolved from dinosaurs. This passage in Genesis tells us that we should find bird remnants with everything else in these rock layers.
@NurdletheTurdle Source?
@NurdletheTurdle There’s no way to prove each rock layer’s true age. The best we can do is come to estimates based upon radiometric dating that operates off unprovable assumptions.
@NurdletheTurdle How can you prove superposition works here? How do you know these things about the rock layers definitively without relying on interpretation based upon faith? Burden of proof?
the title "question" is rather simple to frame:
the history of christianity is one of profound, constant and abject violence.
the most famous of which was against rivals. there was only one demographic that was more
persecuted by christians than non-christians: other christians.
While I appreciate Dr Ross's work and his openness I'm in support of Ken and share his concerns of placing evolution in the mix.
My biggest problem is that it presupposes death pre-fall. That does not fit with the perfect world which was created.
@Connor Bennett why do you assume the created world was "perfect"?
@Darren Gedye Sure. So the main reason I say this is because I have always believed that the fall brought not only the condemnation of humanity but also sickness and decay into the world. This can be seen through the fact that all creatures were to eat plants before the fall, and afterward that's obviously not the case. God also says to Adam, "Cursed is the ground because of you. Through painful toil you will eat food from it. This all indicates a corrupted world due to sin. It is also important to remember that it seems clear that the New Earth will be as Eden was, and it will be without death and decay. These are why I can not hold to an evolutionary worldview.
@@DarrenGedye Also of note, God said that it was "good" at each step. Does God consider death, diseases, and cancers to be "good"? I don't mean this rhetorically either, because perhaps He does. But I reckon that factors into why Connor labeled it perfect.
@@amongthethorns8788 that a god designed suffering for all living things is pretty bad
Ross should be the face of yec, not kent ham or hovid.
Octopus 🐙 has a beak…. It’s not a 🦅 bird….
Why is Ken Ham attacking fellow creationists?
Because he can.
Because the perfect God of Truth you all believe in, and who wants all people to understand his vital message of salvation, never ever EVER drops in to clarify, correct, or answer a single misunderstanding or disagreement about himself, no matter how many people ask him for understanding, abandon their faith, lead others astray, or just come out and torture or murder each other over questions of what he wants.
Fortunately, people in some parts of the world eventually stepped in where God would not and stripped religion of its power to torture, behead, or burn people alive for not agreeing with it, so you are restricted to mostly harmless bickering. Carry on. When all of you finally get on the same page about what the rest of us are supposed to believe (as if), let us know.
All it comes down to is this "Hath God Said?"
Throughout biblical history, we have seen (read) the consequences of man placing their own tradition, their own understanding and their own intellectual philosophy over the word of God. It's why the Talmud exists and it's why the Pharisees could not see or understand who Jesus was.
This verses often comes to mind.
1 Corinthians 1:-
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
Proverbs3:5-6
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding;
6 In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He shall [a]direct your paths.
This isn't limited to the issue presented in the video.
There are many traditions that the modern church currently follows which have no biblical basses (like tithing for Christians, calling other people rabi (or in our case, teacher or pastor, etc). Churches being buildings instead of solely defined as the body of believers themselves, the hierarchal church system etc.
I used to be an avid supporter of many things that came from the world that I once thought was biblical. It was only until I genuinely had to humble myself and use the word of God as the bases for everything that I finally say man tradition for what it was. We make a grace mistake thinking that we can't fall for the same trap. I made this mistake.
Unfortunately, many professing Christians will find out that leaning on their own understanding will cause more harm than good.
Where's evidence of dinosaurs having feathers kept. Which museum? Id like to view them. We all know science requires "evidence" and the ability to "recreate it in a lab."
Are ostriches birds or lizards or dinosaurs?
42:00 and before and after... "there are some evidences better explained by evolutionism..." - like what?
Fundamentalist be hatin’
How can the God of the universe be bound by the time that HE created? God can be anywhere he wants at any time he wants. Exodus 20:11 is exactly right, GOD is the one that experienced six twenty four hour time periods. That doesn't mean the earth also experienced the creation through six 24 hour periods of time. God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let dry ground appear.” It was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” God saw that it was good. That can't happen in a day, unless you're God, He can make the command for the water to be gathered in one place. Step forward in time. To the earth it could be millions of years for that event to happen, To God forwarding through time, a few hours, stopping here and there to make corrections as needed.
The creation story is full of inaccurate claims that contradict evidence. But I must admit not too bad a story considering how long ago. They did the best they could.
Barbara, what inaccurate facts? I'd like to see them listed. I look forward to your reply.
@@BIBLE-UNBUTCHERED here’s my personal list.
*Radiometric dating can cross reference using other isotopes and get the exact same age (meaning the age is correct)
*genetic evidence pointing to divergences between races much longer ago than 6,000 years (YECs just say African rates sped up)
*millions of years worth of limestone formation needing to be crammed into a single year
(YECs say it sped up)
*Heat problems with cramming millions of years worth of activity into just a year (AIG flood models take a huge L with this one, as they claim Radiometric dating only works because the rate sped up [YECs needing to claim X thing sped up is a consistent trend of something they have to say] but then realize that they can’t speed up radiometric dating because Radiometric decay gives off heat, meaning that millions of years worth of decay being cramming into a single flood year would produce enough heat to vaporize the surface of the earth and boil away all the oceans.
*hominid fossils show bipedal apes developing larger and larger brains in rock layers dating younger and younger.
*Fossil record is not in chaos, no humans or other “kinds” (I.e; no dogs, no cats, no bears,) none of these distinct kinds are found in Cretaceous rock or lower as predicted by AIG a flood modes.
*YEC requires evolution to speed up to absurdly fast speeds to account for a flood wiping out all life 4,000 years ago, and then to account for all biodiversity today. (Things like Neanderthals showing up in just 30 generations!?)
*geology ends up making no sense, (claims Grand Canyon was created by the flood, and can’t explain anything about the Appalachian mountains)
*fossil record continuously backing up dates of rock layers.
In short, evolution makes sense of everything YEC makes sense of nothing. Not even itself.
It just goes on and on and on
I’m probably an old earth creationist at this point, but Dr. Ross is awesome. It sometimes seems like Ken Ham and AIG care more about their interpretation of Genesis than worshiping and serving Christ Jesus. They sometimes attack other Christians for not thinking the earth is 6000 years old, saying if you don’t you are compromising on the word of God. This is why biblical inerrancy becomes a slippery slope into my interpretation of the Bible is inerrant, not yours. I think the Bible is without error for Christian practice and conduct, it tells an accurate account of the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord and the teachings of the apostles. But Ham and co. treat it like a science textbook and try to make it what it is not, in my opinion.
YEC are lunatics.
if ken ham says something, most likely the opposite is true
It’s axiomatic at this point
14:25
I’m a Catholic and young earther. Thanks for having Dr. Ross on. I’m a big fan of him. He shows one can be a creationist and still engage in serious scholarship. I wish Ken Ham would stop embarrassing creationists by being afraid of evidence that in no way contradicts creationism. Where does the Bible say dinosaurs didn’t have feathers?
He doesn't engage in serious scholarship.
Keep piling on Ken Ham, people. He’s simply staying true to what The Bible and God’s word says. Disagree, that’s fine. Attacking his character and personality because of your own insecurities in your beliefs is not useful at all.
Most comments cannot handle the truth! Gimme a break he is rude because he speaks facts and facts don’t care about your feelings! LOL
I myself was raised as.. well we never talked about origins of earth, later on I started to believe in young earth, because it just sounded so epic :D... later on there was a specific argument that had imo no other explanation, and thats that one pair of our chromosomes looks as if it merged together and the counterarguments seemed weak to me, right now Im in a place where I have no idea what to believe in, because both sides have decent arguments
Well if you’re ever interested in learning why very few scholars are YEC’s, I interview them often for my channel.
Well there are scientific facts which preclude YEC. I’ll hit three sciences
In Geology there is the YEC’s heat and radiation problem. Basically we observe daughter elements. To form these daughter elements decay occurs which releases both heat and radiation. If this decay occurred within 10k years the earth would melt and lethality radiated. The decay must have occurred over millions and billions of years.
In cosmology the problem goes beyond the speed of light. We observe processes that take billions of years. An example is galaxy mergers. Also the Milky Way has dwarf galaxies that have been pulled to form ribbons that incircle the galaxy. This process takes a billion years.
In biology we find endogenous retroviruses insertions. These are when viruses insert their DNA into the DNA of reproductive cells of the host. So these insertions are passed to future generations. Humans and chimps have many shared insertion points. The insertions are in the same location. So basically, our common ancestor had virus insertions and these exact sites where passed to both humans and chimps. Now, these insertion site are indeed exposed to mutations so functionality isn’t a good rebuttal. YEC must explain why we have shared injection sites.
There many many more examples. I just gave one example from three different sciences.
The question is what is the rock on which your beliefs stand. If it is Christ, beliefs revolve from there. If it is science, then this is sinking sand. Science, by it very nature, cannot claim anything as absolute fact. The claims of scientists will forever change as new and different information comes into play (assuming that the information is actually brought into play - such a dinosaur organic material, C14 in dino bones, etc.).
@@gusolsthoorn1002 the dino soft tissue argument is horribly out of date. Not only is that material microscopic but also needs to be dissolved in acid to be soft.
Worse yet, the scientist who actually discovered it back in 2005, was a Christian scientist named Mary Higby Schweitzer. In an interview she mentions her frustration with YECs misappropriating her findings.
Furthermore C14 found in Dino bones just has bad practice all over it.
For one, you can’t carbon date a fossil, as there’s no carbon 12 to even compare it to.
Furthermore the paper from which this claim originated mentions that they had to fight through huge root systems to get to the bone. TLDR; the samples were contaminated with C14.
Young earth creationism vs evolution isn’t even a debate, it’s just a slaughter.
Because creationism is stupid?
Summed it up without wasting an hour of anyone’s time.
You’re welcome.
???
Definition of bird:
Creature that flies (see genesis 1)
Absolutely no discrepancy with a dinosaur-like creature being able to fly or have feathers.
God created all creatures according to their kind.
Then what are flightless birds?
@@pellewredenborg9967 Yeah that doesn't make sence, but obviously you have landcreatures with feathers like the ostrich and emu
@@xXsakkelaoXx So, it seems to me, we either have to say that ostriches and penguins aren't birds, or we have to come up with some other definition of bird?
@@pellewredenborg9967 for me a bird can always fly x) Penguins have beaks, but they also have fins instead of wings.
@@xXsakkelaoXx Then we need a classification for things with feathers, beaks, bird-like feet, and bird-like arms (not used for flight). What shall we call them, and what else belongs in that category?
Good Lord... young earth creationism is SUCH an OBVIOUS fairytale that it makes Christianity seem even 10 times MORE unbelievable than it already is!
Depends on the version of of young universe you hold to. I find Ken Ham to be less than reasonable. The problem with determination of how old the universe is, is that there are two basic properties of the universe that we can never actually test. If we cannot test these properties then we can assign any age to the universe that we want, billions of years down to thousands of years.
@hillstrong715 sure, yes, differing views, but... space and time (space/time) are constructs of mind... and, by that I mean the One Mind, aka, Primal Consciousness (reality is non-dual). Christianity (and all Abrahamic-type religions) are dualistic and these are false.
@@monkkeygawd When you say [space and time (space/time) are constructs of mind... and, by that I mean the One Mind, aka, Primal Consciousness (reality is non-dual)], you have made claims here that you have to provide evidence for as well as being much more specific in your use of terms here. From what I can see of your very short comment, I take it that you hold to some form of pantheism - the universe itself is alive?
Not all Christians know about young earth creationists. I grew up Pentecostal and was never taught that the world was young, but now I question the old earth. Once you know that God is awesome as a Christian, the world(unbelievers)and the lies they enjoy believing in sound unbelievable to me because they rather believe in the lie than not to allow the truth and its consequences to manifest.
@hillstrong715 no, not even close to pantheism, but NONDUALISM. It's a form of Idealism. Are u familiar with Advaita Vedanta? All is ONE MIND, aka "God"... all is One with no second. Based upon the ancient Upanishads. In the modern world, one decent advocate of Nondualism is Dr Bernardo Kastrup (easily found on TH-cam, Amazon, etc.).
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
"Intelligent Design" was shown to be neither intelligent nor science in a public trial.
LOL
Newton along with many other of our greatest scientists believed in a young earth….
@@thomasmyers9128 Albert Einstein - the greatest mind of the 20th century - was a Jew.
Obvious conclusion: YOU. MUST CONVERT.
Say what ? Suddenly, you don't believe in the appeal to authority ??!!
LOL
@@sanjeevgig8918 …. He believed in God….
Not sure what your point is though…..
Have a great day…!!!!
@@thomasmyers9128 THANKS for outing yourself as a standard cherry-picking make-your-own-religion pick-and-choose cafeteria Xtian.
@@sanjeevgig8918 …. Still not sure what your talking about….
You need to redouble your efforts of turning your home into a third world hell 🕳 hole
Have a good day!!!!!
Yet more evidence that Christianity seems lost in the weeds. Just like there are perfect ratios that allow universes to exist and life to be possible, so is there a perfect amount of doctrine to hold in balance with how we live our lives.
This is not how we discern God's will, by trying to prove and explain absolutely everything. Way too much theology. Let's be salt and light, truly love our neighbor as we love ourselves, let's love God with everything in us.
A kingdom divided will not stand...
The Bible is either the inerrant word of God, or it is not! You can not be neutral on this position, full stop. Genesis was written as an account of creation. It is a historical record, full stop. It was not written as a psalm, a prayer, or a parable with metaphor.
As for a dinosaur bird, it could be a kind that was originally one of God's creations, but if the connotation is that a dinosaur evolved into a flying bird, sounds like BS. Zero signs of evolution anywhere, it is a theory. So the question is what is the position of evolution with the dinosaur bird? I do know secularists and there camel's nose under the tent. Still waiting to hear more on this topic. I remeber the claims scientest made about the age of the universe, the discuvery of Lucy and ect.
I almost turned this off about 5-10min in. Then another 3-4x from then on. And now at the end I can say I'm thoroughly disgusted by it. While there was some good, edifying, and informative information again, I HATE HYPOCRISY and even more than that I HATE when somebody professing to be a Christian twists God's Word to suit their own purposes. ESPECIALLY when it's done to support their idolatry. The things Ross says about Ham and imploring him to stop while talking abut the fruit of the Spirit is over the top. He's doing EXACTLY what Jesus RAILED on the Pharisees and Scribes for.
Here's the thing. Ross says Ham is guilty of doing things that are not part of the "fruit of the spirit". Let's test that shall we? Did Ham do anything that Jesus did do? Was Jesus ever not walking in complete union with the Holy Spirit? Was Jesus not in the Spirit and demonstrating the fruit of the Spirit when he called some Vipers, Serpents, sons of the Devil? Did Ross ever consider this fruit?
"Therefore do not be partners with them. For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of the Spirit is found in all goodness, righteousness, and truth). Carefully determine what is pleasing to the Lord. Do not participate in the unfruitful works of darkness, but expose them instead." (Eph 5:7-11 TCENT)
The answer seems obvious enough. Ken Ham and his ministry are all about money. The Arc Encounter cost over $100 million, and he's now building a Tower of Babel. Other YECs cut in on his turf, and he wants them to disappear so there is no competition for his home-school material, his books, DVDs and other nonsense. I have heard him speak a few times, and while I don't doubt the sincerity of his belief, he is in many ways a latter-day Jeremiah, brooking no contrary views, however slight the divergence, and recognizing no authority but his own, or more accurately, no authority but that of Scripture as interpreted by Ham.
IMHO if science doesn't become engineering, it's pretty much just someone's personal metaphysical beliefs dressed up as science. For example, several years ago 800,000 year old fossilized human footprints were found in England. The current Out of Africa hypothesis says humans came out of Africa approx. 250,000 years ago. Our options are three:
1. Geological dating is inaccurate.
2. Out of Africa is wrong
3. Both are wrong/in error.
How does a choice of either of the options offered above impact "real science/engineering?"
It doesn't.
@@dirtydevil Look it up genius
@@dirtydevil Bring it.
@@dirtydevil You're a liar, this is evident as a search, which you claimed to have done, would show the age I cited is accurate. Go away now child.
@@dirtydevil You did no such research. You're a liar. Identifying you as a liar is not an accusation, it's just a statement of fact.
@@Devious_Dave So, Out of Africa says we came out of Africa about 250,000 years ago except for this other group that came out earlier and settled in Norfolk hundreds of thousands of years before. If you can't see how inane that proposition is you're clueless. By your own admission/attempted restatement Out of Africa stands falsified, your attempt to immunize the Out of Africa hypothesis is itself a falsification of the theory. You're just too clueless to see that.
This is what a good faith inquiry into the truth looks like. Now if only evolutionists would be as charitable towards creationists, then we could have some real diversity of thought in academia
Being kind to someone who believes in “creationism” should always be the case…but that doesn’t translate into giving any credibility to this ideology
@@reality1958 if you can just acknowledge that some things are better explained on a creationist model, the same way dr. Ross acknowledges some things are better explained on an evolutionary model, that would be good. That's called intellectual honesty. I'm so tired of the absolutists that only care to poison the well against creationism, but don't have the intellectual honesty to admit the things that creationists get right.
@@truthmatters7573 it’s not a good explanation at all…in fact it contradicts evidence as we have no way to demonstrate it. Making up magic doesn’t explain how things work…it only does for people who aren’t able to explain how things work.
People once thought that lightning was from an angry god. I’m sure they thought that was a good explanation…lightning is loud and violent so it must be from an angry god.
We still to this day have Christians who believe that when a natural disaster strikes it is because god is angry. A flood, a hurricane, whatever.
We are constantly learning how things work and a god is never evidenced as an explanation.
@@reality1958 This is exactly the kind of attitude I'm condemning. Unfortunately, the so called intellectuals can't even come to a basic understanding of the scientific claims of creationists, and therefore have to resort to strawmanning the creationist position (in ways similar to what you are doing now). Like it's really not difficult to understand, and it makes you look dumb or malicious when you refuse to understand what the other side is saying.
Creationists do not appeal to God in their scientific research (though they obviously believe that their religious beliefs are consistent with their scientific findings, but so do theistic evolutionists). As dr. Ross explained, they are convinced that on balance the scientific evidence supports the idea that the earth is young, that there was a global flood that produced a large portion of the geological record, and that evolution is limited to speciation within a limited set of original kinds. These are all conclusions about the natural world that do not invoke any supernatural entities or activities. There is nothing stopping you from looking for materialistic/naturalistic explanations and mechanisms for a young earth, a global flood, and the origin of the original kinds that are limited by the natural limitations to the mechanisms of evolution, should we come to the conclusion that these are the most plausible conclusions we can draw about the natural world, as creationists argue. I understand that it requires a paradigm shift and that with less cosmological time the predominantly gradualistic theories of origins are not feasible, but that does not mean that no materialistic explanation for the natural state of a young earth, a global flood, and the origin of original kinds can be sought.
Certain findings like soft tissue in fossilized dinosaur bones that are 80m years old in the conventional dating scheme are clearly more easily explained on a young earth paradigm than on an old earth paradigm. If you can't see that, then you are blinded by bias. The fear of anything with possible favorable implications for religious beliefs is deeply seated within a lot of atheists and it melts their brains to the point where they can't think rationally and scientifically about creationism. It's embarrassing to be honest. Just goes to show how at the end of the day science is just a human enterprise and beset with the same irrational human flaws as any other institution. Behind the facade of objectivity there are irrational forces at play, like the political power plays that evolutionists pull off against creationists.
@@truthmatters7573 it’s not stawmaning. Creationism has no foothold in science. It isn’t science, and it’s never been offered as an explanation in science.
That people of the Christian belief have put together a philosophy that interprets science to be creationism is their prerogative…but it isn’t science.
I’m not saying there is no god, even though I don’t believe in such things, I’m simply saying that creationism is in no way a viable science. You won’t find a scientific paper/journal whose conclusion is that existence was “created”.
And that there are people who believe that the science supports creationism isn’t what I’m talking about either. They have the full right to interpret the science in such a fashion. I disagree with such an opinion but they have that right.
That the earth is quite old is established science, and there is no evidence of any singular global flood.
Now. That there are issues and unanswered problems in the scientific world that is true. And creationists are always going to try to take advantage of the gaps.
But over scientific history we have gained understanding in existing gaps…discovering how things actually work…and never has a god been the answer.
I highly suggest that you look into soft tissue explanations:
“Cross-linking and association with bone mineral surfaces furnish added protection to collagen fibers in a bone. These protective factors can result in soft-tissue preservation that lasts millions of years.” May 1, 2021
Frankly, I am happy this is happening. Let these fools go down in a "civil war" on each other.
Lowkey I’m with ken ham on this one. If you grant evolution then you grant evolution. It exists or or doesn’t.
Mmm, there is the Science of Evolution, and there is the Atheistic philosophy of evolution. I think you can grant the first without granting the second.
@@DarrenGedye what is the atheistic philosophy of evolution
@@Devious_Dave that's pretty easy. Atheistic evolution is 100% materialistic and has no telos... it didn't have us in mind.
Unless the church of England changed their position, they're theistic evolutionists, meaning there's telos, it's a process created by God with us in mind.
But I don't even think thays what the guest speaker is talking about. What's being conceded by the group Answers in Genesis is talking about isn't anything like this, but is small little points of concession: like some dinosaurs having feathers, or that the concept of unguided biological adaptation and models of such applied to population changes may align with secular models of evolution, without conceding that macro-evolution is indeed the factual and best explanation for the data when projected onto the past.
@@Devious_Dave you said "philosophy" before, but "science" now.
They're not the same thing.
Science is neither theistic nor atheistic. Philosophy very much can be theistic or not.
@@Devious_Dave no I didn't. I replied to you referencing this term and I tried to explain the difference between atheistic evolutionary philosophy vs theistic evolutionary philosophy.
Creation Order : NOT Science
Dirt into Adam: NOT Science.
Rib into Eve: NOT Science
Global Flood: NOT Science
Noah's Ark: NOT Science
This is just the FIRST chapter.
LOL
Is counting to one challengeing for you?
@@b3lev3rg0d4 SAYS the guy who thinks the earth is flat and 6000 years old because a bronze age book tells him so.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
@@sanjeevgig8918 I am not a YEC, so not only counting is challenging for you, but also basic deduction skills.
Sth. else you wanna show us? Cognitive dissonance maybe?
@@Devious_Dave My comment was not directed to you, but I will gladly answer your questions. No, he is just completely wrong in his assumptions. I am neither a Young Earth Creationist nor am I a Flat Earther. That may be partly because I am simply not American, but from Europe, country of the Reformation to be exact. In German Christianity, which can be criticized for a whole lot, Flath Earthism isn't a thing, not even in the most conservative of circles.
If you want my honest opinion, that has to do far more with kind of an American stupidity in general, not with Christianity. When I visited the US first in summer of 1998 with two of my friends, we were doing a trip from New York to down east coast to New Orleans an when we met some University students in Pennsylvania, we were asked, whether we knew what computers were and if we had electricity in Germany. We thought they were were joking for about ten seconds, but they actually thought we were living in the Middle Ages. And to even trump that - pun intended - when one of the girls asked us where we were headed and heard that New Orleans was our destination she said: "Oh, I love the West Coast."
She may well have been Christian, but Christianity was nor her problem, so to answer your question directly. No, Christian belief does not necessitate Flat Earthism and neither does it YEC.
If you care so much about disliking this religion why do you keep commenting? All you’re doing is helping them with the algorithm.