Dr. Joshua Swamidass Explains Why He Changed His Mind on Evolution
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 เม.ย. 2020
- Dr. Joshua Swamidass was raised a Young Earth Creationist, was drawn to Intelligent Design, but then came to affirm evolutionary science. How did he change his mind?
Links:
henrycenter.tiu.edu/2017/06/a...
peacefulscience.org/swamidass...
peacefulscience.org/is-jesus-...
------------------------------- GIVING -------------------------------
Patreon (monthly giving): / capturingchristianity
Become a CC Member on TH-cam: / @capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/capturing-christ...
Special thanks to all of my supporters for your continued support as I transition into full-time ministry with Capturing Christianity! You guys and gals have no idea how much you mean to me.
--------------------------------- LINKS ---------------------------------
Website: capturingchristianity.com
Free Christian Apologetics Resources: capturingchristianity.com/fre...
The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners (with explanations): capturingchristianity.com/ult...
--------------------------------- SOCIAL ---------------------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
-------------------------------- 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
-------------------------------- CONTACT --------------------------------
Email: capturingchristianity.com/cont...
#Evolution #Evidence #Science
Cameron, I like the way you do these interviews. You rarely butt in and you give the interviewees a lot of time to respond. About Dr. Josh, learned something through the interview but not entirely convinced by some of the arguments being made. But will definitely read more from his website.
Josh's journey is very similar to my own which I find very encouraging. Quite often scientifically oriented christians are left to struggle through all this on their own as many in the ministry are not schooled in it.
Josh is a gift to the church & should be regarded as such...
Amen!
@Alessandro Palestra Ok well you have an opinion and that is fine. I don't have an issue with anyone who thought it through and thinks differently. I only have issues with those who never truly think it through😁
Thank you Cameron for this interview!
Great conversation about Dr. S’s journey!
Oh yes, please get Dr. James Tour on!
Looks like it might happen :)
Look up james tour and Joshua swamidas tomorrow at 5:00pm podcast
Look up "elucidating the agenda of James Tour."
I doubt that considering Tour had to apologise to another scientist recently for lying about his work.
His stage show "James Tour mystery of life" is full of lies and deliberate misrepresentation.
For example:
Tour says that nucleic acids have not been made. That's a lie.
Tour says that carbon sugars have not been made. That's a lie.
Tour says that carbohydrates have not been made. That's a lie.
Tour says that a cell has not been made. That's a lie.
Tour says that scientists have no clue. That's a lie.
Photoreceptic cells with minimal genome and artificial life from man-made nucleotide bases, capable of metabolism and self-replication has already been made. Several times.
This is life being created in the laboratory by any metric you care to use. The only thing that hasn't been done yet is a single experiment in multi-stage, building amino acids, then nucleic acids, carbohydrates, carbon sugars, lipids, and putting it all together to create cells, which would then self-replicate.
The technology to do so doesn't exist yet. But to claim that scientists have no clue is absolute nonsense. The only reason why Tour says it is because he's a devout Christian and wants you to believe that it can only happen if God does it.
Remember that while Tour is a respected synthetic chemist he doesn't work in the origins of life field and by his own admission has only been studying abiogenesis for the last couple of years.
PS who is Stadler? Another overtly religious freak I'm guessing. I'll stick with Szostak thanks.
Tour's done no such thing. He's working with the Discovery Institute, a creationist organisation, to spread as much disinformation as possible.
I would love to see Josh interact with Stephen Meyer; especially about genetic information.
Me too. Meyer is a convincing genius.
Joshua will be completely blown away. I suspect that’s the reason he will not agree to a showdown
@@kacang2 Steven Meyer (according to wiki) doesn't have degrees in genetics and has never been a scientist. If the topic is about genetic information then Meyer will be out of his depth.
But they both agree on intelligent design so what is the problem?
אֶזְרָחוּתֵנוּ בַּשָּׁמַיִם excellent point!
Just got the audiobook. I'm excited to go though it!
So glad I’ve been introduced to Joshua. I enjoy his personality and his enthusiasm. Thank you 🙏🏼
I deconverted from Christianity to atheism as a teenager due to discovering the error and dishonesty of the young earth creationist movement (Ken ham etc), and I thought that was foundational to the Christian faith. The Holy Spirit did not give up on me though, and brought me back through delivering messages in my life and convicting my heart of my sin.
May I know what deceptions by ken ham et al?
The title of this podcast - “Dr. Swamidass Explains Why He Changed His Mind on Evolution” - is effective clickbait that regrettably led to misunderstanding of Dr. Swamidass’s actual stated positions. Even the title term “evolution” is misleading - he rejects the “evolution” that most commenters here assumed he meant. Let’s consider what Dr. S actually said (time stamps in parentheses rounded to earlier minute).
(1) Dr. S affirms his Christian belief based largely upon the fact of the Resurrection.
(2) He started as a young earth creationist (YEC).
(3) He heard secular science programs describing the old Earth / old Universe view.
(4) He sought ways to reconcile the Genesis creation account with the secular science.
(5-6) He was put off by the “unblinking certainty” of “scientific creationism” [citing no example].
(7) He shares he felt loneliness and isolation in school.
(8) He read Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box and Johnson’s Darwin on Trial in the late 1990s - thought the arguments there were “intuitively strong.”
(10 He saw “the evidence around young earth creationism just was falling apart” [citing no example].
(11) He then believed and “still believe[s] in creation.”
(12) He disconnected himself from Intelligent Design (ID) because “science actually isn’t intuitive” and “finding out biology actually doesn’t work the way they say” [citing not one person, book, or example]
(12) Behe’s affirmation in “Black Box” that he believed in “common descent” between humans and apes, chimps, gorillas, and bonobos “completely threw [Dr. S] for a loop.”
(13) Dr. S highly regards biblical scripture.
(14) He decided to follow Behe on “common descent” [no scientific explanation why].
(15) He cites Gen 1:24 to say God caused the Earth to create life from non-life.
(17-18) He is “certainly not an evolutionary creationist” [formerly known as theistic evolutionist] of the Biologos model.
(18) He left “creationism” because he “felt” he “had been lied to” [citing not one lie]
(20, 24) He concedes “maybe common descent didn’t happen but it really looks that way.”
(21) He left ID “because I couldn’t see the theological reason why proving things scientifically was important” and Behe’s “common descent” view made the whole discussion moot.
(23) He prefers confidence in God’s word and actions, rather than trusting “some human fallible argument against evolution which isn’t even a theological problem.”
(24) He says YEC proponents “are famously intolerant of other views” [citing not one example].
(25) He admits “a lot of Young Earth Christians are very honest, the people, actually I would say even admit most of them … and I'm not even talking about all professional young earth creationists [as dishonest]”
(25-26) He points to the practice of “quote mining” as a form of lying, which is rejected in academia, but employed by [some] YEC scientists that he saw “over and over” [citing not one example].
(28) He was offended by “aggressive responses” from YEC people, but admits “many [YEC people] didn’t do that but I’m talking about the ones that really cared about this…”
(33) He declares: “if you're young earth creationist reading this, I want you to be clear here my problem isn't really with young earth creation per se it's with that vary aggressive toxic strain of it.If you're going to be young earth creationist great just be a better type of young earth creationist.”
(34-35) He rejects neo-Darwinian evolution [contrary to the podcast title’s implication]: “I'm not talking about Darwinism here Darwinism is positive selection dominating change.”
(35) He believes in “neutral evolution,” even though “it doesn’t tell us how novelty arises” [note: modern neo-Darwinists claim evolution theory does explain novelty].
(35-43) [discussion of comparing genomes and body plans omitted here for detailed comment later]
(43) He rejects neo-Darwinian evolution wholesale: “this is also *how Darwinism came to an end in biology* because this isn't what Darwinism would have predicted and so you know I mean that's another thing too you know *if the issue is Darwinism, well we already moved on from them.”* [emphasis added]
(60, 72) He criticizes ID for lack of philosophy: “when I came to ID especially as I learn biology I think what they're suffering from and I think they'd really benefit from looking at some philosophy” AND “[ID] should “engage more deeply with theology and philosophy” [Ironic, since most critics of ID say it is all philosophy and is driven by theology]
(60-61) He agrees God “was involved” in the creation of all things, including all living things, possibly inspiring mutations and directing evolution. He thus rejects the pure materialist worldview of origins of Universe and life.
(61-62) He concedes “evolution isn’t a complete story” and contends “evolutionary science is incomplete - it doesn't tell us the whole story …it's an incomplete theory [and] that's not a controversial claim.” [Dr. S apparently has not read the thousands of posts on blogs and TH-cams screaming “evolution is science that proves how all life evolved by neo-Darwinian means.” Dr. S, a scientist, would reject all of those thousands of posts and claims.]
(62-63) He contends “the specific [ID] arguments … turn out to [be] not valid arguments. [Not one example is cited]
(63) He says he hasn’t “observed that intelligent design really focuses on getting the argument straight in the same way most scientists I know do so.” [Citing not one example]
(65-67) [Omitted his discussion of claims about “transitional” forms for later forum.]
(69-71) He contends “theistic evolution” under a common definition is “ridiculous” and people “shouldn’t believe it”; he contends BioLogos as “been horribly wrong on the science and have made some pretty large errors.”
BOTTOM LINE: Criticizing creationism, creation science, ID, theistic evolution (evolutionary creationism), and neo-Darwinism - Dr. S offered scarcely any scientific evidence nor cited examples to support his opinions. Dr. S made what I consider a weak presentation of neutral evolution theory that is subject to numerous critiques that were not raised in the interview.
Nevertheless, it is notable that this biology professor rejects the neo-Darwinian view of materialist origins of life and species -- which rather disproves the oft-heard claim that "all scientists believe in Darwinian evolution." And Dr. S confesses a saving knowledge and trust in Christ Jesus, for which I rejoice.
Very well typed out, I appreciate it!
Thanks!
You are right that I did not present much evidence about many of my claims in this talk, but that's just because this isn't the right forum for it. I have in fact explained much of it in detail here: discourse.peacefulscience.org.
I have some good news for you. MOST biologist reject neo-Darwinian evolution, they certainly do if they are informed, since at least the early 70s. Darwinism (as in positive selection dominated change) has been dead since 1968. Ever heard of Motoo Kimura? I am no outlier.
As for the critiques of Neutral Theory, I have actually answered them too, on the forum. I'd love to see your response. No one has offered a meaningful critique of the evidence for common descent that I laid out here.
I affirm common descent, which does not deny God's action in evolution, nor does affirm any ID arguments for God's action. This does put me in some what of a space between the camps.
And yes, I do confess that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead. I rejoice with you. Peace.
Also, BL has begun a process of clarifying where they went wrong on the science. This is not the full story, to be clear: biologos.org/articles/truth-seeking-in-science
@@PeacefulscienceOrg Dr. S, I very much appreciate your gentlemanly tone and I always intend the same, so you and I are united there :-) Certainly you and I could discuss a number of topics, but I wanted to focus on just one statement: "MOST biologists reject neo-Darwinian evolution, they certainly do if they are informed, since at least the early 70s." Dr. S, you are the only scientist (including people who write about science) who has EVER said that. I've been watching the debate since 1968. Nobody on the Neo-D side has ever said most biologists reject Neo-D -- that I have ever read. Five minutes of Internet searches reveals hundreds of atheists and skeptics and TE people who contend Neo-D is utterly proven and beyond allowing even a question. Responses here below to this TH-cam say that. Every sort of profanity and insult is heaped upon people challenging Neo-D. Apparently, very few people got the memo that Neo-D is rejected. I'm guessing Eugenie Scott and all the "new atheists" like Dawkins and Harris disagree with your statement. I find ID highly persuasive -- so I see attacks on ID all the time by Neo-D advocates. Truly - I ask this with all humility - on what basis do you make that contention (quoted above)?
@@nunca789 yes there is a lot of ignorance out there. Just turns out the public debate is way out of touch with the actual science.
Here is an excellent article giving some of the history of how neo-darwinism met its demise: inference-review.com/article/the-neutral-theory-of-evolution
This article might explain why the term is so sticky. Even though it is not current scientific theory "darwinism" functions as a garden path: peacefulscience.org/garden-path/
I've discussed it here and elsewhere: peacefulscience.org/agree-behe/
And see a conversation here at PS where essentially all the biologists (including atheists) agree that Darwinism is dead: discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/retire-darwin-day/4466
Here to learn and revisit
I think want to read Swamidass' book at some point, but I'm wondering if there's anything I should read for general background on genetics first. In listening to him I have to wonder if it's written in the manner that he speaks- namely, without stopping to set the stage for a reader/listener who doesn't understand the genetic nuts and bolts to start with (and that's not really a criticism, as you can only get so much in in a limited period of time. I just know that there are certain aspects that I can't track with). In other words, does his book presume the reader has some baseline understanding of genetics?
I don't know what platforms it is available on digitally but some may allow a free sample text from the book.
I really appreciate this discussion and think it's important for the church. I'm only about 1/2 way through and looking forward to the 2nd half another day. The one thing I wasn't sure about was why Augustine's view was assumed to be a literal view. My understanding was that Augustine at least early in his faith was probably influenced by the allegorical approach to the OT of other Church leaders of his time. But this could just be a gap in what I know.
www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1988/PSCF3-88Young.html. the tile of his book: "On the Literal Meaning of Genesis"
Matthew G We must also understand that Augustine had views we clearly see as contrary to Scripture. He didn’t have access to the full canon, and he knew very little greek. He also was not the only bishop/elder of the church. The final and proper authority are the Holy Scriptures themselves.
@@KIEFFNERCLAN You are missing the point. Augustine was not right about everything. He is only human. Rather his literal reading of Genesis is totaly different than YECism. That shows that their rigid appraoch to Scripture is not nearly as traditional or literal as they claim. Augustine was not right about everything, but he would also more readily admit this than many YECs.
@@PeacefulscienceOrg thanks that addresses that question pretty specifically
@@PeacefulscienceOrg Why should we as Christian's have such a high regard for Augustine with what we know about him?
Augustine taught variants of these five points of Augustinian-Calvinism the last eighteen years of his life. Previously he had taught traditional Christian views defending humanity's free choice to believe against the deterministic Manichaeans, to which he had belonged for a decade before converting to Christianity. In this pagan group, a non-relational God unilaterally chose the elect for salvation and the non-elect for damnation based upon his own desires. Early church fathers prior to Augustine refuted non-choice predeterminism as being pagan. Out of the fifty early Christian authors who wrote on the debate between free will and determinism, all fifty supported Christian free will against Stoic, Gnostic, and Manichaean determinism and even Augustine taught traditional Christian theology against this determinism for twenty-six years prior to 412 CE.
When Augustine started fighting the Pelagians he converted to the Gnostic and Manichaean view and taught that humankind has no free will to believe until God infuses grace, which in turn results in saving faith.
Look up Dr Ken Wilson and watch his rebuttal to James White here:
th-cam.com/video/LatpdNAnH4g/w-d-xo.html
I'd say that just because Augustine may have not understood Genesis as a YEC that it doesn't follow that YEC folks are wrong. For most of church history they did believe in a young earth and a literal reading of Genesis that most Christian's believe and hold to today. A reason why some are believing and reading Genesis differently today than in the past is not necessarily because of evidence, but because if you don't then you will be ridiculed and may lose your job. I believe you even said that yourself in the interview with Cameron. It's not a popular position to hold and therefor because of pressures it almost invariably forces the person to change there view. That's not really following after Christ though. That's following after what the world says and believes. Having an understanding of Genesis as a YEC in my opinion does not conflict with science whatsoever and I never felt like it did as a Christian. We have the same evidence, but we are interpreting it differently. The real issue is what does the Bible say and what's the evidence?
I predict that as time goes on that YEC will be supported with more and more evidence and it will be the popular view. I believe that because I truly believe it's the correct view. I also don't think dinosaurs are millions of years old and I believe there is very good evidence for that.
I may be wrong, but we will see. I just usually have a good gut feeling about these sort of things that I feel like God has given me.
Thank you Cameron and Dr. Swamidass for a very sound dialogue on these topics!!! God Bless you and your work.
I tried to find where he talks about where Adam and Eve came from - can anyone give me the timestamp? Thanks
My eyes glaze over with charts. I would’ve SO much enjoyed other points of view from other scientists. All I can do is nod my head and say “yep - the scientist says, so it must be so.” I would like to hear others at the same level either agree or disagree.
In that case, you would simply be basing your beliefs on what people _say,_ rather than on fact and logic. Logic is the only faculty humans have for determining truth. You have to exercise that faculty yourself or you can never know for certain whether you beliefs are correct.
Check out Dr. Micheal Behe and Dr. Josh Swamidass or Dr. Günter Bechly and Josh Swamidass (both on Unbelievable?) to see how ID proponents engage with him.
If you're interested in this topic, the youtube channel Standing for Truth hosts debates on it.
When I converted from a secular background 10 years ago this issue - young earth creationism - was presented as some sort of 'essential' of the faith. I was told that a) without a literal interpretation of Genesis the foundation is 'like sand' b) that if I didn't believe in a 'literal' interpretation I didn't take the bible seriously. Those types of comments were incredibly alienating. I don't think Christians understand that when they are dogmatic on this factor (and some others) that they built a very high wall for people to enter. Much of the 'creationism' literature also didn't impress me, it had such a rude 'gotcha' tone that just didn't fit the God I had encountered.
One of these days, they might just remember, Jesus is greater than YEC, ID, evolution, and all the millstones they put on your neck.
Peaceful Science We can pray for this but I doubt it. Christians have been trying to add to the gospel since the first century
At 2pm CT I'll be having a livestream to discuss the improbabilities of proteins and how the quaternary problem makes abiogenesis/evolution completely implausible. Hope you'll join! th-cam.com/video/wU0koQz394I/w-d-xo.html
In my opinion, that just illustrates the necessity following the Bible -- and of following truth in general -- rather than following only the words of others. I believe that's one of the dangers of organized religion and priestcraft: setting up priests as the arbiters of truth.
@@Papasquatch73 *"Christians have been trying to add to the gospel since the first century"*
I believe you mean the Catholic Church?
Eve is called the mother of all the living, and Paul says in Acts 17 that God made every nation of mankind "of one blood" (v.26). Cain's wife is not a mystery. The mystery is Christians who are so confused and controlled by atheistic philosophies as to be unable to see through their many false assumptions. The theory of evolution is an ancient Greek idea, present in Anaximander, Democritus and many others. It's sad to see that Christians are still allowing the "wisdom of the world" to enchant them.
Agreed.
Agreed. Is how all this is consistent with evolutionary science. Isn't that great? www.ivpress.com/the-genealogical-adam-and-eve
You don't understand evolution
@@derekmizer6293 Have you met Mr. Dunning and Mr Kruger yet?
@@PeacefulscienceOrg have u read a science book on the theory of evolution?
If u can understand how languages evolve, u can understand how the theory of evolution by natural Selection works.
Enjoyed this quite a lot. It is nececcary to listen through several times and look UP som moren information. His book I already have.
I did subscribed cuz a lot info out there
"I'm exposing you to the intellectual side of Christian belief" is both amusing, sad and good all in the same sentence. That Christendom is often rife with lack of intellectualism is sad, but that it can be well married up it is good and it is nice to see engagement with it on such a public platform.
It’s not “sad”. It’s required. Mankind isn’t full of scientists.
Hi Cameron, have you ever had a young earth creationist on your show? I've not seen one.
Try *Michael Behe.* He's the prominent _young earth creationist_ who stated _in court_ that _creationism_ was as scientific as astrology - fortune-telling using birth-dates and the constellations decided on by people.
@@philaypeephilippotter6532 You're simply factually incorrect. How is your falsehood even relevant to my question?
@@marclaclear6628
The court record is here.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day10am.html
Check it out yourself - if you dare.
@@philaypeephilippotter6532 Behe isn't YEC. How does your falsehood address my question?
@@marclaclear6628
I apologise for saying *Behe* is a _YEC_ - he is just associated with many. The rest is a matter of court record.
I couldn’t find the interview he referenced on Sean McDowell’s channel anyone have a link?
1:11:33 who else wants to see a debate with Stephen Meyer?
YES!
Andrew Wells yeah! Meyer and Swamidass would have a great dialogue I would think especially when you consider their characters and positions in their viewpoints.
I like that
Stephen Meyer doesn’t know much ab evolution... his arguments arnt greaaat
@@is44ct37 what's wrong with them?
Congrats for this interesting interview. As an atheist, I have no problem at all with Dr. Swamidass' worldview, as far as he keeps doing his amazing work and doesn't force others to believe what he believes. Nevertheless, I'd ask him why does he believe that Jesus rose from the dead literally, why not metaphorically, as he believes about the Genesis.
Excellent and reasonable question.
The claims of the gospel authors and the New Testament writers that claimed to have witnessed the event is that Jesus did really come back to life and they concluded that God raised him from the dead. The claims of the gospels and New Testament are presented as historical claims about actual events. Ergo, we as Christians find the evidence and data presented as convincing.
However, I tend to think that real issue is whether or not God exists. If God exists the resurrection is a trivial matter since it’s easy to see how being such as God that created life and reality could bring someone back to life. So I tend to think the real question is whether or not we have good reasons and evidence to conclude that God exists.
All the best to you. 🙂👍🏿
@@gfujigo I approach it the opposite way. It seems like the philosophical arguments for God go impossibly deep imo. However, a plethora of well documented NDEs and miracles present a strong empirical case against Naturalism, and once Naturalism is less than certain the resurrection seems virtually undeniable to me. Then if there really was a resurrection, and there really are miracles today, it seems that God exists
The Gospels were written as historical accounts. Genesis 1-11 is "Mythohistory" or something like that. Pretty much like Revelation.
The literal ressurection of Jesus from the dead is clearly stated in scripture as the foundation of the faith. Our salvation depends on Jesus dying from us and raising from the dead. The foundation of everything we believe is structured around that. Furthermore, Christians believe in the eventual ressurection of the dead of us. That is dependent on Jesus's ressurection. As Paul put it to people who rejected the ressurection of the dead in 1st corinthians 15
"Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope[b] in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied." 1st corinthians 15:12-19 esv
@@MatthewMurraycogswoth Yeah, but the reason of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was the original sin committed by Adam and Eve. If he believes in the Genesis metaphorically, then he believes metaphorically in Adam and Eve and in their original sin. Given that, either Jesus died because of a metaphor, or his death and resurrection are metaphorical too.
I’m uncertain how consistent mutation rates across parts of the genome confirm common descent. Couldn’t this just be a result of basic chemistry? I’m not opposed to common descent, I’m just wondering how this is a proof and not simply a correlation that we would expect in any sufficiently similar genome.
Can anyone explain this for me?
@MSONA The question I would ask is this: Is what we see out of line with, or not what we would expect to see, if humans and chimpanzees were separately designed from the same building blocks? Is this homology a refuting or undercutting defeater of the de novo creation of man, or is it simply strong support for common descent?
If the same language is being used to describe two very similar beings, the words and sentences are going to repeat.
@MSONA That is just avoiding the question, not answering it. You basically just said “It doesn’t matter if homology refutes design or not, because design can’t be observed and therefore we should not believe it.” I’m not saying I have some insight on the subject, I am asking for an explanation of how homology or consistent mutation rates refute or do not align with the idea of the de novo creation of man. Both of the men in the video you’re commenting on believe a great many things that cannot be observed or proven via the scientific method, so that argument seems a bit odd here.
I’m not YEC, nor do I think I know which interpretation of human ancestry is correct, I’m just asking a question concerning the claims made in the video above so I can understand the particular argument.
@MSONA Hahaha! There it is, I was waiting for it 😂
I may check out that debate by the way, in my experience most of these kinds of debates are embarrassing for both sides and rarely illuminate anyone at all, but if that data was represented I am definitely interested in that. I also clearly don’t care as much about Kent Hovind as you do.
So tell me, do you also not believe in morality? Free will? That life has value? Those are all, of course, the hyperdimensional hybernation dream state of Slippy-Sloppy.
@MSONA That’s interesting, what do you think the material mechanism that creates free will is then? If our minds are purely a phenomenon of matter then wouldn’t they be entirely deterministic? Wouldn’t thinking, as a material process, be as mathematically predictable as any other material process? There are no computations that possess free will, after all.
(I was waiting for you to get mad and invoke the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Magical Sky Daddy, btw, but i don’t want that to derail the conversation. I actually am finding this very interesting.)
@MSONA Every single known physical and biological process is deterministic, (outside of possibly quantum mechanics, which some argue is probabilistic, others argue is deterministic) including every single physical and chemical process that occurs in our brain.
Putting different thought processes in different environments and getting different results is exactly what you’d expect to see if human thought was deterministic. Same computation, different parameters.
Without some sort of concrete physical process or external stimulus that is non-deterministic effecting the process, wouldn’t the only possibility be determinism? Without some named, or even conceivable mechanism that can be tested, isn’t your belief in free will unfalsifiable?
(Slippy-Sloppy as a diarrhea stain would be digested food expelled from the ass of another being, and therefore would not possess any of the attributes necessary to be “God.” And yahweh doesn’t live in the sky.)
When Dr. Josh is talking about the similarities in the DNA Genome, he talks about it very generally, and I am curious if he takes into account the differences between specific Genomic patterns within the DNA code? Somewhat recently, scientists have found that there are major genomic differences between different DNA Gene sequences. For instance, Cytochrome C and Cytochrome B. When comparing the 2 sequences, they show completely different ancestral tree that seem to contradict one another. How can that fact be reconciled? Does that still support the evidence Dr. Josh is explaining for evolution over time due to DNA sequencing? It seems like it kind of throws out the entire argument. I would be super curious to hear his thoughts on these finds.
I love his knowledge in the field and his love for the Lord at the same time 😊
Around 18:00, he says he didn't see discrepancies between the Genesis reading and Evolution, even that he can see how evolution fits that historical narrative. Well, it's interesting he didn't mention the creation of stars, sun and moon on the 4th day, after the creation of Earth and the plant kinds etc.
So what? "Creatures of sea" and "birds of the air" were created on the fifth day, "creatures of the land" on the sixth day...how does that contradict evolutionary theory?
@@joetech12 although I will grant that life did begin in the sea, the flying creatures definitely came after life adapted to land.
The creation narrative also supports geocentrism rather than heliocentrism as it is necessary for the sun to have emerged first within our solar system as well as the stars to have been there long before the earth began to form. Many of the elements present within the earth are only found to be the results of the extreme pressure from supernovas and stellar activity.
@@justinthillens2853 Good point, all though it seems the light of "day" and darkness of "night" were created on the first day. Either way it would seem to me that taking these passages as literal is mistake as it's not a science text book.
@@joetech12 I agree, which is why I'm keen on refuting attempts at trying to reconcile science with the literal interpretations
@S Gloobal maybe they are, maybe they arnt. I've read through twice on my own, once through a series of read along church sermons, and then sparatically amongst countless other sermons spanning multiple denominations.
I find that the most epistemically consistent teachings are those that believe God's method of creation to be consistent with the methods of naturalism. If you read the Bible literally, one is forced to grant too many supernatural accurances that directly contradict what we experience in reality. You would also have to grant that given what limited knowledge god has allowed us to know, what we can know explicitly defies the creation story. This implies that either god is a deceiver who purposely made the universe to appear older than it is, the entire story itself is a fabrication of human origins, or the messages in Genesis were to provide spiritual answers to our existential questions that we might otherwise be incapable of knowing (which may or may not be divinely inspired).
I'm now an agnostic atheist, so I would argue that Genesis follows the developmental patterns of most other religions, beginning as spiritual traditions that evolve over time to adapt to shifts in culture. However, after my time spent as a Christian and my many discussions/debates with Christian's as well as conversations with various church elders that were organized by my parents in futile attempts to reclaim my faith, I would conclude that the most consistent interpretations of various old testament texts are those that follow the idea of many old testament scriptures being divinely inspired to teach metaphorical truths to the Isrealites. These views are consistent, not just with science, but also the thousands of years of philosophical approaches to theology.
Atheist here, and I am very impressed. We had the same reaction to young earth. It started me on the path to atheism. Our differences are a thin line. I romanticize the beauty of nature and you place god above all.
Former atheist here and I can appreciate your position. At one time, my paradigm was based on a lot of YEC views. When I saw that fraying at the edges, it called into question the veracity of many other things. I abandoned the Christian worldview for a long time, but ultimately...when I essentially "emptied my cup", it allowed the Living God to come in and allow me to see with eyes unclouded by the false notions I once held. In the end, I don't think it's a revelation that anyone can compel another to. I'd heard a thousand arguments about a thousand issues, but it really came down to that whole "eyes to see, ears to hear" typa' thing Jesus always alluded to, I think. Not trying to be pretentious or condescending. Just encouraging you to not slam to door on anything...the not put the cart in front of the horse and get to the place where we force the data to serve our conclusions, rather than the converse (which is something both Christians and Atheists....people in general...are prone to do without diligent counter-efforts). God bless, mon ami.
I am not impressed by atheists who worship natural selection as a holy cow 🐮
@@adammeade1428 what convinced you god exists?
Before u give your answer, ask yourself if another person of another faith had the same evidence for their god. Would YOU believe their god is real?
@@derekmizer6293 I've asked that question many times over...along with many others. Examining other "gods" and other belief systems was certainly a critical part of ascertaining the fidelity of my beliefs. As a habit, I pick my beliefs to bits. I did it as an atheist and I do it as a Christian. I proceed with the philosophy that truth is not afraid of questions....but also...with the understanding that questions often carry with them tacit assumptions. We need to question our answers, but we also need to question our questions. Please forgive me for dodging the first question, but if I intend to give any substantive answer...it would lead to a very long discussion that I don't have the time for right now. I'm a full-time student, and not only are finals next week, but I've been inundated with extra work to substitute for all the clinical hours I've missed over the last two months. There's just no succinct answer I can offer that would express the gravitas with which the conviction met me. There are certainly philosophical and evidential facets to my paradigm, but there were also very personal and sometimes numinous circumstances that gave weight to particular episodes. That is to say...I believe some parts of my story were meant for ME...and would not, if relayed, convey their significance to another.
@@alexrogers777 No...or...not in the traditional sense. I believe that time is elastic, as elucidated in the theory of general relativity. This is to say...the passage of time has not proceeded at a constant rate throughout...erm...time. So, inquiring about the age of something insinuates a reference point. Similarly, any quandary about the motion of celestial bodies rests on some point of reference. Does the earth revolve around the sun? Well, yes...in a sense...but all motion is relative...and to the best of my knowledge, we have not been able to pin-point the original point in space from which the initial expansion began. Everything in the universe is moving away from everything else at an ever-increasing rate, so picking a reference point is sort of arbitrary. I say all that to say...as human beings looking out at the universe right now and measuring certain temporal qualities like the decay-rates of certain isotopes...it's perfectly reasonable to arrive at the generally agreed-upon figures. However, from the perspective of a sentient entity that transcends the time-space continuum, things would be very different. We can see this principle in the observer/subject conundrum surrounding the event horizon of a black-hole, but it's perhaps extrapolated more in the sense I'm discussing. Anyway, I've rambled enough. You might be interested in the notions of the late Gerald Schroeder, who's theory on time dilation shares the same principle.
Loved it!! Thank you for your humility Dr. Swamidass
Dogmatic Young Earth Creationism, along with hyper-Biblical literalism in terms of the (very true) belief in Biblical inerrancy, has created many an atheist. The frequent approach and dogmatism, has shattered too many people who have found *contra-evidence* to their interpretations shocking and impossible to answer based on their viewpoint.
Science indicating God is not idolatry. God can be found in His creation.
Yes Arjuna Prabhu
It was great to listen to Dr Swamidass. I appreciate his integrity. However, paradoxically, for me the death-nail for evolution was learning about genetic programming, in particular, chap 13 of "A Field Guide to Genetic Programming". It is abundantly clear that what is portrayed as evolution is really design with the appearance of evolution.
I, too, appreciate Dr Behe’s work, but it strikes me as odd to simultaneously argue for common descent and ‘Darwin Devolves’.
I’m wondering whether “rate x time = distance” works when it comes to the Cambrian explosion. Why was rate so accelerated, and why across so many branches simultaneously?
I think the notion that DNA controls all is way too simplistic. It’s known that there are at least 2 or 3 other very complex codes in our biological makeup besides DNA. These codes have to be explained as well, and they may be even more complex than DNA.
Evolution cannot explain consciousness. Whether it ever will without being bent out of recognition is anyone’s guess. For Christian, it most certainly cannot explain the immaterial soul, or spiritual regeneration. Clearly, a mere naturalistic explanation is already seriously in jeopardy.
I don’t think it’s correct simply to interpret the fall in Genesis as spiritual death - Romans 5 makes that interpretation very difficult. It seems clear that Paul is talking about Adam bringing about a physical death, as is Heb 9:27. The same reason why Christ had to suffer a physical death.
I grant that the current scientific understanding seems to point strongly to an old earth. Somehow, I think we underestimate God and overestimate ourselves. I have a huge suspicion that when we meet him, he’ll show us just how he did it - in 7 days, and he’ll ask, I told you, so why didn’t you believe me. After all, he did say that he’ll wrap up this universe, and in the twinkling of an eye all will be changed. Under no natural explanation do I think is that possible.
Sorry to sound negative. I really do appreciate Dr Swamidass openness. It was a great talk even if I have question marks on a number of points.
(Edited to remove unexpected line spacing)
iRlc -- Very nicely written. I think I agree with all your observations and think your questions are valid. You've likely read Thomas Nagel's Mind & Cosmos (2012) on the issue of consciousness - challenging read but excellent. Articles in Salvo Magazine have addressed the powerlessness of materialist views about consciousness and intelligence arising from unconscious / unintelligent matter and energy.
@@nunca789 Thanks for the pointers to Salvo Magazine. No, I’ve not read thomas Nagel’s book. I’ve only listened to what seems to be a very fair analysis of the book by Dr Fink: th-cam.com/video/jC9vVzTq_EQ/w-d-xo.html. I came to know about the consciousness problem more through listening to David Chalmers, and also listening and reading Raymond Tallis (author of Aping Mankind), who is very critical of scientism - both of whom, as far as I’m aware, are not theists.
Great questions.
RatexTime = Distance applies to genetic changes, not phenotypic. So the question of the cambrian explosion is not really relevant to this in the way you thik.
DNA does not control all, but it is the code that is inherited (with some very rare exceptions). Its role in inheritance is why the focus is on DNA.
You are right. Evolution does not have an account of an immaterial soul. Science is not the whole story.
I don't think the fall is just spiritual death either. I was just reporting Augustine's views. See my book, The Genealogical Adam and Eve.
You are not coming off to negative at all. These are great questions.
@@PeacefulscienceOrg Thanks for the engagement, Dr. Swamidass.
Thanks for the correction that Rate x Time applies to genetic and not phenotypical changes during the Cambrian explosion. It got me thinking though, would not a phenotypical change necessitate associated genetic changes? Suppose I ‘suddenly’ start developing an exoskeleton, or some other major body plan reconfiguration, say, 3 legs and 8 arms, would that not mandate a whole plethora of genetic changes for new proteins, connective tissues, muscles, vascular, …? In which case, Rate would still not be constant? However, if Rate were constant, then something else must have caused the changes, in which case, the picture of evolution would clearly be incomplete. Or if Rate really were constant and there are no other identifiable causes, other than we just happen to be lucky and mutated just the right genes, then why only during the Cambrian explosion, and why did it happen to so many branches simultaneously? That would be too much of a coincidence for me.
If I’m not mistaken, I think you accept physical death before the fall. That, for me, would be seriously problematic.
@@irlc1254 about physical death before the fall, my book shows how it might not have existed in the scope of scripture before the fall. So maybe there is not a problem.
regarding phenotypic vs genetic change you are hitting on the fundamental fact. Genetics tics like a clock, but phenotype depends on other things too. yes, the phenotypic changes are connected to genetic changes, but those genetic changes are quite rare compared to the neutral changes, maybe 1 to 1000 or even more. So when computing things like genome similarity, we can just neglect those that contribute to phenotype. Looking at just the neutral mutations gives you a very good estimate.
I am a Christian and I believe in evolution. Whenever this topic comes up my entire faith is questioned by young earthers. They accuse me of being a heretic, taking mans word over Gods, and some even say I’m not saved (since when is Young Earth Creationism a necessity for salvation?). It is very frustrating and those who attack my view point usually have very little knowledge about the word and an awful hermeneutic. Meanwhile I have a degree in Biblical Studies, and am wondering if our generation will ever step away from their insane tribal attitude towards this topic.
You're definitely saved brother but you do need to be careful.truth is always important no matter what but we know christ is the truth.and that is sufficient
We are created in Gods image God didnt form us that is the diference if he formed us that could be a process but creation is something else.
Darwins theory
We are evolved from apes so God looked like monkey and evolved with us if we are created on his image
Almighty Gods theory
Genesis2.7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being
Before that
1:26] Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
[1:27] So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
[1:28] God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."
So if we are formed through evolution why would God say what to do how to multiply etc..
@@zimritapia1361 also true but I dont believe scientist who are not trying to prove Gods existance but denying it. Big difference
@@propro693 Being created in God's image doesn't mean we "look" like God so your point about God evolving beside us is confusing and unnecessary. To be God's image means we are his representatives. This means the image of God is a vocation!, Not some physical characteristic. In ancient near East cultures, after their god/king built a temple, the first thing they did was install images or idols. Genesis tells us that this is our job, not some statue's.
@@HG-jy3bl there are so Many testimonies of people seeing Jesus and they saw his physical Body.. so you say we created Jesus? In old testament God tells Moses to build a statue in church describing how Angel looks like but you know Angels exsists before mankind? Just take yourself a minute and think about it
36:45 haha I love this guy. Seems very honest to me
Thank you brother Cameron and Josh for the valuable discussion.
Loved Josh's honesty to make sense of the data and attempting to reconcile the same with the Bible.
I'm saddened by rudeness and unethical behavior of some of the believers in my camp.
I personally think that we live in a relatively young earth and that Adam & Eve were made by God from the dust of the earth. I do take it from a straight forward reading of Scripture. I do find that there is science confirming the YEC hypothesis!
I am not willing to be dogmatic about it. I follow Jesus, not YEC, OEC, TE.
I agree with Josh that YEC brothers have not represented their position in the best light. Deception can never be the right path!!!!!!!
Too many categorical statements like "Hugh Ross is a heretic, Francis Collins is a compromiser etc".
I cannot fathom the evolution from amoeba to fish to apes to humans. It doesn't make sense to me.
But, what the Scripture says about the origin of man and land animals is very interesting. It says that our physical bodies, both human and land animals, were taken from the same material, namely "the earth or the dust of the earth".
So, it's not a surprise that our bodies and physiology would have many similar features. God invented physiology, so it's no surprise we function similarly and are able to get our valves from pigs etc.
**** I have not heard anyone discuss this point ****
I tell my kids that people have bodies similar to the mammalian one, but humans aren't mammals. Humans are not mere physical creatures, but spiritual and mental too. We're something deep and mysterious!!!
God did say something unique about the race of man (male and female): "let Us make man in Our image and likeness". What does it mean? I believe God breathed into Adam His Spirit and man became a moral agent capable of moral/ethical, logical, abstract mathematical & philosophical reasoning, and speech and desire for understanding, and most importantly worship of God.
That's what makes the humans so different and valuable.
Jesus, after all, came to die for sinners, not animals. I'm so glad He came together save me from sin!!!
********
Here's an observation I've made. Evolution has been and currently being used to destroy many people's faith in the Bible and Jesus.
Richard Dawkins and the gang are taking great advantage of evolution to advance their agenda.
The culture, the media, the mainstream scientists use evolution to look down upon & mock believers in God.
Determinism is a philosophical position that rules out any free will choices. Atheist materialists tend to hold this position. Calvinists hold to a "similar" position of determinism. All events are foreknown & predestined by God to happen. Hence, no free will.
I wonder if evolution could be wrong as well as Calvinism because they both support the deterministic position!!!
I wonder why the atheists and my calvinist brothers agree on this issue :))
Just thoughts out loud.
God bless you richly!
Alexandru, you wrote: "it's not a surprise that our bodies and physiology would have many similar features. God invented physiology, so it's no surprise we function similarly and are able to get our valves from pigs etc.
** I have not heard anyone discuss this point **"
You make a good point, so let me assure you -- there is a lot written on the subject by scientists and thinkers at the Discovery Institute and elsewhere in the Intelligent Design literature. Visit Discovery dot org, go to the Intelligent Design page, search the site itself and “evolution news” (options on the search page) - search on “common design” - some of the good writers on the subject are Jonathan Witt and Casey Luskin, and there are others. Also you can visit evolutionnews dot org and search on "common design" -- there is also discoveryu dot org -- you will find a lot to support your observations!
Nice opinion, but be careful with everything you said. Many Christians are being carried along the flow without realizing it. Many Christians seems to try to solve the dispute between INTELLIGENT DESIGN and EVOLUTION by justifying some aspects of EVOLUTION.
You should read the Scripture carefully. God created man after He created animals. When He was about to create man, He said "Let Us... in OUR IMAGE ..". You said that human's composition is not different from animals' coz human was created of dust just like animals were, you must think about this.
The order:
Animals created.
God said "Let Us... OUR IMAGE"
God created man in HIS OWN IMAGE by making him from dust. In Genesis 2:6 YHWH God FORMED (yatsar) man... YATSAR actually means to mould into a form, like a potter.
If you're a believer, then based on what you said, did you say that the image of God is the same like the image of animal? Is God similar to animal? That's blasphemy, as a believer. The body of Jesus isn't like animals' bodies. Jesus is the Word of God becoming flesh. The flesh and blood of Jesus is holy, from above, uncreated. Transformed.
God didn't say "LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE" after He made the body of man. He said it first then He created man. So, the body, mind, and spirit of man are in the image of God. The "body", "mind", "spirit" of God are not like animals'.
Jesus' body is holy. That's why He was raised alive bodily. His body is from above, not from below. His body is precious. We humans died physically. But our spirit and soul will be raised. They copy the appearance of our physical body.
Jesus died physically to redeem humans, not animals. Because God knew that humans are precious, animals aren't. That's why God killed an animal for humans. Adam and Eve's cloth.
Good response, brother!
43:00 is easily refuted. We find the same thing in software. Programs with similar function have more code in common. Programs with extremely different functions still use much of the same code. Why would an intelligent designer not use the same DNA for mice and humans if it works?
Toyota put out many cars all using corolla engines for example.
The Toyota analogy doesn’t work if a Corolla and Camry have the exact same function. Maybe if Toyota put the same engine in a plane then you would have a sufficient analogy.
@@justdidit3933 the don't put the same engine in and neither does nature, but they might use the same upholstery fabric.
Theology Unleashed - His whole point with that slide is that when making a prediction of genome similarity based off of function alone, the evidence is counterintuitive.
Using your Toyota analogy, the function is more similar between a Corolla and a Camry than between a Corolla and a Boeing 747. So based off of function alone, one would expect to find greater similarity between the cars than between a car and a plane. But the case is actually the opposite. The Toyotas only share the same upholstery, whereas the Corolla and Boeing 747 share the same engines, braking system, etc.
His argument is that the theory of common descent has a way to quantifiably measure and predict genome similarity/dissimilarity. So if common descent isn’t true, the prediction ability becomes nearly inexplicable, given that the more intuitive method would be function which turns out to be wrong.
I don’t mean to come across here as arrogant, but if you find yourself disagreeing with what I’ve written, review his entire explanation of that particular slide. I promise you this is essentially his argument.
@@justdidit3933 genetic similarities are fully explicable intelligent design. Designers tend to reuse elements from elsewhere which will do the job. In software it's common to have a large portion of the code be copy and pasted from other software with modifications and additions to change the way it operates.
The genetic similarities are inconsistent too. When different parts of the genome are analysed for differences with a hypothesised cousin then different dates of divergence are inferred. They solve this by averaging the different dates, but when one date suggests 750k years ago and another 1.5 million you start to have reason to believe that your measures don't correlate with time. If they did then they should agree. It doesn't make sense that some proteins would morph at vastly different speeds. Even if they did morph at different speeds, it no longer can be seen as a viable indicator of time frame, and the argument that they morph at different speeds could very well be a tautology, a plug for a prediction which lacks consistency.
Theology Unleashed - You are either refusing to or simply incapable of engaging with the actual argument. The question is not, “Why is there genetic similarity?”
The question is, “Why is there greater genetic similarity between groups more distant in function, and why is it that when taking into consideration mutation rates and time, the theory of common descent has such strong explanatory and predictive power?”
If common descent is not true, as you claim, God literally went out of his way in creation to make it appear as if it was.
The mind is incredible just incredible.
It's eeally interesting that many people forget how sciences in fact evolved. Some clerics had the target that they wanted to find the genesis in a book that could not be faked by humans and after several steps they disproved Noah.
dont understand this equation: if evolution is real god isnt? why are humans so limited? how life came into existence has nothing to do with the existence of the creator! god is real guys- open your eyes, god loves everyone so very much- yes you ❤️
Kindly denonstrate god please dont just assert that god is real
@@jeromesavary7033 You know God exists.
Since God has told us how He created and Evolution contradicts that claim you cannot have God and Evolution.
@@alexrogers777 On the contrary, we all know God exists.
The Bible is wrong. Our evolution has already been demonstrated to be factual.
If you follow some of the Dr’s claims in this video you should see that some his claims are based on his evolutionary world view/beliefs and not repeatable and observable science or historical science, yet his claims are as if it is science. This is shown when he answers the question on lack of transitional kinds. Also, the way he or manner in which he speaks about the Lord Jesus is as if he doesn’t understand who Jesus Christ is as revealed in Scripture. Also, theistic evolutionists, when talking about the meaning of Genesis, rarely bring up how Moses and other biblical prophets and apostles see the Creation/The Beginning account...that is a more straightforward understanding.
Exactly what I was saying in my earliest comments!
What makes me angry tho is that he gives the impression (either implied or directly stated) that YEC are imposing their on view on Scripture, or that they are liars, or that they are proud by doing so. And yet, he himself is so proud as to count even Jesus's interpretation of Genesis as possibly wrong, or to impose his evolutionist read on the Genesis account, and so on so forth as you said.
At 2pm CT I'll be having a livestream to discuss the improbabilities of proteins and how the quaternary problem makes abiogenesis/evolution completely implausible. Hope you'll join! th-cam.com/video/wU0koQz394I/w-d-xo.html
The evidence of evolution is contained within the 30,000 plus scientific papers on the subject. They include hundreds of examples of observed microevolution, dozens of examples of observed macroevolution, thousands of different evolution experiments, thousands of different transitional fossils, hundreds of examples of beneficial mutations, examples of mutations adding new information to the genome, and enough evidence to satisfy even the most ardent of science deniers.
Here is my rebuttal
th-cam.com/video/P8LDsEjUxgU/w-d-xo.html
I love this guy, in my Hispanic community I can't even think of mentioning a different view whether if it's in genesis or even eschatology, many of them idolize the Jews or even old earth creationism.
Can you interview Dr. Stephen Meyer??
Christian conservation biologist here!!! evolution is true and Jesus is king!
😂
Darwin is your king
We are created on Gods image. If evolution is true then God looked like a monkey and evolved with us.
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
Three times God confirms it
So demonstrate Common Descent.
@@martinploughboy988 ask the almighty profesor. Our God. That does not prove theory of evolution
He says birds had 4 wings , the back wings turned to legs !!
My question is didnt the previous birds EVER LAND ? if they had no legs?
Fair question. In short, they had legs which were also wings. The hind legs were feathered and aerodynamic, just like the front. At the same time, all four limbs had functioning digits/claws.
Listen to 1:06:44 again. He said the back LEGS double as another set of wings. The LEGS included feathers
22:20 found his point on idolatry really powerful.
I should also add that the donation with the question about why we don't see more intermediate forms is more profound than the doctor gave it credit for. If a wolf like creature became a whale then why don't we see things like rats with weird paddle tails that are in the process of becoming swimming flukes? Why isn't every organism a grotesque Lovecraftian nightmare where it's body is a living experiment of different body parts that may or may not lead it to live in some other environment in the future? It isn't like the mutations have an end goal in mind so they have to constantly be tinkering with body plans in weird and exotic and random ways in order for the creature to be able to make a successful transition say from land to water. Yet everything is orderly and adapted to its environment to varying degrees and doesn't seem to have weird lumps and bumps and growths everywhere that are on their way to becoming some kind of unknown thing to help them swim in water or fly or borrow in the ground or whatever they aren't already doing.
I also have some issues with the chance of a protein mutation to convey a functional benefit. I've seen Swamidas share in a conversation with Douglas Axe on this question, and I have to admit that I found Swamidas' responses frustrating. IHe kept going off on tangents that didn't address Axe's arguments. I find the OOL (chemical evolution) problem, the missing transitional fossils, the cladistic vs. genome sequence departures, the DNA enigma, the RNA enigma, the sophistication of the cell (it's more sophisticated than any manufacturing plant that human beings have ever created), and the holistic nature of the human body (not just the irreducible complexity of specific body parts like the ear or the liver, but the irreducibly complex nature of how they correspond with one another as a whole, and the issue dealing with Dr. Axe's argument regarding protein evolution above don't have solid evolutionary answers to back them up.
My experience completely lines up with Dr. Swamidas with regards to young Earth creationists. Cameron is trying to be charitable but I don't think all of them deserve it.
Bro they are still our brothers. Lets not get bitter.
@@Isaac-hr8ug I think you might be reading to much into my statement. I don't mean to disparage them as brothers in Christ. But rather I'm pointing out that there are grifters and uncharitable people among them that I have encountered. I didn't treat anyone in anyway. I just stated a fact based on my own experiences.
@@MrTimotheousWard Ok bro sorry for the misunderstanding. Let's keep focused on the race ahead. God bless
8:33 If it really was clear in the evidence like they claimed there would have been a lot of other people who were young earth creationists
I don't think this is a good argument. This type of argument with a missing premise is known as an enthymeme. Another example would be something like "If smoking was really bad for you then people wouldn't smoke." If you can't already see the problem here it is:
Premise 1 - People smoke
Premise 2 (unstated) - People wouldn't do something bad for their health
Conclusion - Therefore, smoking is not bad for one's health
The second premise is obviously false and that's why an omitted premise gives more plausibility to enthymemes. Turning to Dr. Swamidass's argument
Premise 1 - People do not believe in young earth creationism
Premise 2 (unstated) - People form their beliefs based on evidence
Conclusion (implied) - Therefore, there is not evidence for young earth creationism
Again, the second premise is very weak. Generally speaking, most people are just not very rational; they are not good clear thinkers. Of course, that does not mean that people are unintelligent. But most of us are not as rigorously objective as we like to think. We often believe things for psychological reasons rather than logical reasons. If you are Christian you also have to deal with a Biblical anthropology (deadness in sin, rebellion against God, suppression of the truth) which makes premise 2 even less plausible.
@@Dan_1348 It's not a good point. I have heard the testimony of scientists who were convinced by Biblical and natural data. God does use evidence to change peoples minds. And scientist (most people really) often do base their beliefs on evidence, but when the evidence appears to conflict with something we hold dear one or the other has to give. But evidence in isolation is always ambiguous. Scientific observations are notoriously under-determined. If you don't have a good interpretive hermeneutic all the evidence in the world won't make a bit of difference.
@@Dan_1348 Your missing my point. Personally, I don't think evidential arguments can be conclusive. Good evidence is not necessarily going to persuade everyone for a simple reason - persuasion is subjective. Sometimes people are not persuaded by very good evidence. Conversely, people are (unfortunately) often persuaded by very bad evidence.
If you are seeking truth what other people believe and how they came to their beliefs is completely irrelevant.
Jay Hu From an atheists’ point of view, they have no reason to reject a young earth view scientifically. Even if it was true, that would have nothing to do with Jesus’ claims and resurrection. Just like how atheists don’t believe just because Isaiah mentioned the correct name of Babylonian Kings, etc. The Bible having accurate facts means nothing for its theological claims if you’re an atheist, it’s just a neutral point. Thus this question remains - why are there ZERO young earth non-Christians???? It’s because the evidence supports an old earth. This is not a “suppression of the truth.” It’s just looking at the evidence.
@@Dan_1348 Truth is not determined by consensus. An overwhelming majority of experts can be wrong and have in fact been wrong before. Simply citing experts is a hybrid appeal to majority/expertise fallacy.
@@Dan_1348 There is a right way and a wrong way to build an argument For example:
1) A medical professional says I should take drug "X"
2) I will unquestioningly do whatever a medical professional tells me to do
3) Therefore, I will take drug "X"
This not a good argument. However,
1) I have illness "Y"
2) Drug "X" has been proven effective against illness "Y" and has been prescribed to me by my doctor
3) Therefore, I will take drug "X"
Both arguments have the same conclusion but the second argument is much better. In the same way, if you have a good argument for evolution that doesn't appeal to authority/majority that would also be preferable. Here' I'll get you started:
1) ??
2) ??
3) Therefore, evolution is true
Go ahead.
I really want to get behind this view but de novo Adam and Eve in a world of other evolved humans have narrative issues. Why be concerned about a mate not being found for Adam among the animals? Not to mention what was the spiritual status of those outside of the garden? Before and after the Fall?
Man... I wish I would've paid attention in school.
@QQminusS lol alrighty
Might share this with my students lol
As much as I love my YEC brethren, I have a hard time believing in their stance. I do believe in macro evolution though.
Macroevolution has been directly observed dozens of times.
@@chimpanzeethat3802 I meant do btw... haha.
Dozens of new species have evolved in our own lifetimes but what you've described (cat to dog, ape to human) is not a species change. Cats are not a species, there are species of cats. Dogs are not a species, there are species of dogs.
Dogs are a taxonomic Family. There are different genus and species of dogs. So when you asked for cats changing into dogs you're actually asking for something that is a family to family change. Which is impossible even for evolution, it would be a violation of the evolutionary Law of Monophyly, and it's not even close to how evolution operates.
Ape to man is a misnomer in terms because humans are already apes by definition. We're part of the Hominidae family of great apes.
Regarding your original point about new species, it doesn't work the way you seem to think. The most that can happen in a single speciation event is just a new species that is only a slightly modified version of the species before it. At no stage in the entire process does it involve one species producing or changing into a fundamentally different kind of organism. Evolution is only ever anatomical or biochemical variations building on or improving something that was already there.
It means that a cat, or an entire species of cats, turning into dogs is impossible. It wouldn't be evolution, it would be like Pokemon or shape shifters in a horror film. You can get new genus and species of cats. New genus and species of dogs. But it's a misunderstanding of the subject to expect cats and dogs to breed fertile offspring.
No. Evolution doesn't involve something changing into something completely different from itself in a single step. It's cumulative, builds as it goes.
Think of 100 species in a row. Each new species is only a slightly different version of the preceding species. There will be very little difference between the 1st and the 2nd, 2nd and 3rd, 3rd and 4th, and so on.
Each new species is increasingly more different from the species at number 1, but each new species is just a slightly modified version of the species before it.
There will even be little difference between the 1st and the 10th, or 1st and the 20th. But the 100th will be a lot different from the 1st.
That's exactly how it works. Small incremental changes piled atop one another, not huge changes at any one point in the process.
The species at number 100 will be a lot different from the species at number 1, but it will be only a tiny bit different from the species at number 99.
Evolution can't skip the species from 2 to 99. The species at number 1 cannot produce the species at number 100 in a single macroevolution event. It has to produce the species at number 2 first, 2 produces 3, and so on.
It's the accumulation of lots of little changes, each new species or genus that ever evolved was just a slightly modified version of its ancestors.
It's impossible for the earth to be anything other than billions of years old. Isotopes with half-lives in excess of a billion years can't exist in an environment that is only a few thousand years old.
I didn't think of it as wasting my time typing for no reason. You seem to understand that it is gradual change but at the same time thought it involved massive changes in higher taxa in a single step. Evolution has its own laws, just like every other scientific theory, if something like a species of feliforms produced a species of canines it would violate at least two laws of evolution.
This is brilliant. His reasoning for evolution from the mutation rates compared to models at 57:00 is convincing to me that evolution guided by God explains everything. Since "guided by God" is the key point, I don't have a problem with it, because origin of life remains a divine act with no naturalistic explanation.
It is actually guided by the "selection" part. That is NON RANDOM, but perfectly natural. It requires no supernatural intervention by means unknown by an entity whose substance, origins and location are all unknown.
@@Andre_XX Hmmm. How does organic life begin?
@@20july1944 By chance.
@@Andre_XX No, not by chance.
Do you understand how many molecules are in the simplest self-reproducing organism?
On the order of a trillion.
@@20july1944 Well the simplest life form today does not have to be the simplest there ever was.
Well are you saying that life can't begin by chance because the odds are too great?
a) I suspect the truth is neither you nor I know what those odds were or how many attempts were made.
b) I presume you are proposing that there had to be an intelligent entity that got it started? Have you attempted to calculate the chances that there could be such an entity? If you want to see which of two alternatives is the more likely, then you need to calculate TWO probabilities and then check out how many attempts there were for each. Only then can you make a sensible comparison. I put it to you that you have in reality calculated absolutely nothing.
You didn't say WHICH god.
PS. I must just point out the obvious, just in case you have overlooked it. Chance is a known phenomenon. Supernatural has never been demonstrated.
1:16:38
I like Josh. I think he is a great representative of the faith, and I'm glad we have him in the body. That said, I am still waiting for any interesting (new) evidence of common descent. The X/Y chromosome thing was perhaps promising. But almost everything else was outdated.
Thanks for the note. That is not out dated. Turns out there has yet to be any serious engagement with this by creationists.
@@PeacefulscienceOrg The presumed chromosomal merge, on chromosome 2, is refuted here: th-cam.com/video/MjwTO648804/w-d-xo.html
ERV's are pretty convincing. Endogenous Retrovirus. These are hard to explain without common descent.
@@marbanak I never discussed a chromosome 2 merge.
@@PeacefulscienceOrg But you own it, brother. It's looking right back at me in the chart at ca. 48:00. "2A/2B". Genesis records at least 4 events, which would alter the biology of the Human Race. Since posting my comment, I have been wondering if that merge is a result of any of those time-stamps. We will see. The interview is a success. It's got me thinking. I am surprised that one-and-only-one inference can be made. Once that 98% number is reduced to something more realistic, the physiological similarities between us and other primates would allow an expectation of similar genetic material, without resorting to a common descent. And I think you can generate a statement of genetic drift for any species, starting from any reference point. In an interview with Alisa Childers, Cameron Bertuzzi notes that everyone, who stakes a stand in a controversy, claims there's is the most honest position. That sticky 98% fallacy on your slides is a little hard to forgive. Kind shalom.
He says nothing for a long period of time, then at 6:30 he says that young earthers are only christian. That's not true. There are many orthodox jewish young earthers.
Question to all evos.
What experiment has shown that a material process may create a code such as the DNA?
What experiment has shown that a material process may generate a significant level of biological information?
What experiment has shown that a material process may evolve an irreducibly complex (IC) system?
What experiment validated evolution?
th-cam.com/play/PLcenjdeKFyBElLUvIH1EWSWHJtqHZdRwl.html
@@alexrogers777 www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed-ebook/dp/B000W9169S/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=there+is+a+no+god&qid=1588175731&sr=8-3
@@alexrogers777 What evidence would convince you?
@S Gloobal Nobody has ever seen matter give rise to code and nobody has ever seen matter give rise to information. This is why evolution is a fake science.
@@alexrogers777 Funny -- the author, Antony Flew, was for decades among the world's best known and influential intellectual atheists who wrote numerous books and articles advancing atheism and debating publicly countless times. Prof. Flew could hardly have been "an atheist for the wrong reason" -- the fellow was cutting-edge developing the reasons. So, the book recommendation is quite excellent.
BOOKS AGAINST EVOLUTION
1. Mere Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design, By Dembski.
2. The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, By Moreland.
3. Intelligent Design, By Dembski.
4. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, By Behe.
5. Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed, By Axe;
6. Genesis, Creation and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Vision, by Fr. Seraphim Rose;
7. THE DOCTRINES OF GENESIS 1-11: A Compendium and Defense of Traditional Catholic Theology on Origins, by Victor Warkulwiz.
This will help.
th-cam.com/video/P8LDsEjUxgU/w-d-xo.html
the dr. is wrong about RTB calling Neanderthals "BEASTS" and feathered hind legs on some early birds is not considered "transitional" .
How is he wrong? Did he just misquote them?
On 0:38 he happily says: "People change their mind all the time". Probably he'll change his mind again.
Or maybe not
The dr. doesnt seem to know what ID is and what it espouses
I think he means YECs and not IDs.
it also could man simply that they were similar but unique from the beginning a very short time ago. it still doesnt explain why we have different NUMBER of chromosomes..and if two chimp chromosones combined, why isnt at least one human chrom double length with double the markers?
Food for thought.
I loved his exhortation to remain honest.
It's not about winning. It's ok not to know everything and have unanswered questions. Following the evidence even when things get uncomfortable is one of life's greatest challenges. We see and understand in part, so it's totally logical that as we learn more -and yet still don't possess the full picture- that the world will remains confusing.
One thing is clear to me; it is literally madness to demand that the fullness of reality fit into a neat and tidy box that my tiny brain can completely understand.
But what I liked most was Joshua's reminder to focus our faith on Christ and nothing else. Everything is else is a distraction from the good news; thorns and thistles that choke the life out of us with the real danger of us becoming overwhelmed and unproductive.
Thank you both.
I used to be YEC but the videos by Michael Jones' from Inspiring Philosophy changed that and then on to Dr Michael Heiser's and Professor John H. Walton's works.
What evidence was presented to you that the earth was young?
I was content that theistic evolution was a reasonable position, that it wasn't inconsistent with scripture. Then I discovered that evolution science has always been fraught with uncritically scrutinised arguments and assumptions. Fraudulent data being accepted as fact for over 100 years in one case. Evolution has always been pushed because it serves a particular ideological agenda. Similarly, the 'science' & conversation surrounding gender theory isn't driven by impartial enquiry but an ideological agenda.
There are no valid scientific arguments against evolution. It is a demonstrable fact.
@@chimpanzeethat3802
Forgive me if my question is part of a category error, but if so, please kindly tell me, and engage anyway.
My question is, if there are no sound scientific objections to evolution, then why do they continue to find soft tissue in dinosaur bones after Mary Schweitzer first discovered soft tissue in a tyrannosaur bone fossil? Soft tissue, according to the laws of physics and the nature of chemistry, should not exist after 4 million years at the absolute maximum, regardless of what minerology the surrounding rocks have.
Would this not be a sound objection that raises doubt about our most basic claims about evolution?
@@davidjewell9796If soft tissue can be preserved then your objection is moot.
@@jacobhome4022 Okay. If soft tissue cannot be preserved then the argument is not moot.
I think we're back at the beginning. I'm going to assume that the preservation you are talking about is the hypothesis that soft tissue can be preserved in iron (from the blood of the dinosaur).
Just because they were able to preserve tissue in an iron solution, in a lab, for a few years, doesn't seem to me like that should or would be an explaination that holds true for 65 million to 140 million years.
Like, are you at all hesitant to believe that dinosaurs died off 10's or 100's of millions of years ago, with the discovery of soft tissue in several samples of fossilized remains?
Science changes with the discovery of new information, right?
Science has to show something is repeatable in every experiment in order to confidently base a theory about things in nature. If it is indeed a repeatble occurance that soft tissue has been found in more than one set of dinosaur fossils, coupled with what we already know about decay rates, then one of the theories is wrong. Either the theory of how long ago dinosaurs died, or the theories that about chemical/biological decomposition of organic material.
That is so false that it is difficult to understand how anyone could come to such a view. There have been a few examples of scientific fraud, but these were uncovered with science. There is an absolute mountain of evidence for evolution, and none at all for Christian beliefs.
I don't think you have to limit yourself to a strict interpretation of Genesis if you are a Christian. My doubts about evolution are based on scientific objections and the inconsistency of claims which are not supported by the evidence. The question I would put to a theist is when and how do you think that god intervened in the process.
What things do you think would require a miracle or direct intervention out of curiosity?
Please get Stephen Meyer or Michael Behe on to discuss with him.
Both proven liars. Behe in a court of law and Meyer admitted to the Discovery Institute wedge strategy.
I think the YEC worldview makes the most sense.
Hey what's up fOrtitude?! I hope you're well during this pandemic. So, using Prov 18:17 the 1st to speak sounds correct until the 2nd speaks (paraphrase). So, make sure to examine the other side bro.
It can a very comforting fishbowl, can’t it?
S Joshua Swamidass when God created things he created them already aged just as he created Adam and Eve fully adults. God is powerful enough to do that without needing billions of years of death and suffering to get to where we currently are.
@@f0rtitude YEC interpretation doesn't take the the cultural and historical context in to account. It was never meant to be read literally through English words within a 21 century western culture.
@@f0rtitude God doesn't "need" anything strictly speaking. That isn't an argument.
This seems very emotive. I’m concerned about this channel and its view of scripture, especially after seeing the interview with a Roman Catholic apologist (forgive me I forget his name) that was very sympathetic to RCism.
Also, since Jesus is our cornerstone, it is imperative (but not salvific) to believe in a historical genesis, since Jesus is the Second Adam.
S Hickey a historical Genesis is no more required to believe that Jesus is the second Adam as it is to believe that Jesus is the second Jonah. The story of Jonah could well be a parable and yet the truth that Jesus would be in the grave for three days is easily understood by referencing Jonah. Just like how I could warn you not to eat too much candy with Hansel and Gretel. The warning is true and easily taught through that fable. Paul could be doing this with the second Adam teaching - he is using the poem of Genesis 1 to show that Jesus’ death restarts the human race as a new creation. The truth of new creation due to God’s redemption is taught and understood well regardless of if genesis is historical.
@@Iamwrongbut thank you for your polite response. I appreciate you upholding the Gospel, but I'm afraid my friend you're simply wrong about Adam and Genesis not being a historical account. The scriptures were written to be clearly understood. The genealogy of Jesus Himself mentioned in Luke 3 is proof that the Creation account was history and that Paul, and Jesus Himself from Matt 19, spoke of a literal Adam. The scriptures are clear my friend! Do you believe the scriptures to be authoritative? I appreciate your response.
The problem is that many YEC aren't being faithful to the text. The YEC interpretation isn't held by most biblical scholars, nor is it the only orthodox interpretation. When you read an English translation without investigating what the authors intended, you're reading your own interpretation into the text. Inspiringphilosophy has a great introductory series on this topic.
Carson Wall Can I encourage you to investigate Gen 2:4 which refers to the Creation account as “toldah” meaning history, a term used throughout Genesis, and also Exodus 20:11 and ask “what would be a faithful understanding of these passages?”
S Hickey many biblical scholars believe that Genesis 2:4 is where the second creation account starts. So if that is the case then the poem of Genesis 1 is not included in the “toldah” of Genesis 2 and on.
This quote pretty well summarises this topic
Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. As pointed out above, the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.
Theodosius Dobzhansky
@Noah Pinheiro - one has to read this quote many times to tease out what he was saying. We don't have the quote in context, alas. But when a person takes the position that the Creator has engaged in systematic deceitfulness, you can be certain that person has decided he/she is capable of judging the Creator to be a liar. For a person to meaningfully accuse you of being a liar, that person has to know what you said, everything that you knew on the subject of what you said, that you intended to deceive -- and that person has to know what is actually true so as to judge what you said to be false. Proving the Creator to be a liar requires knowing as much as the Creator (on the subject) and also knowing the Creator's mental state and intentions. Dr. Dobzhansky never reached that level -- by definition, no created human can, and certainly no merely evolved human would be able. So Dr. D's quote really amounts to saying that the Bible's information has no relation to physical sciences or the physical world. But then, he lacked the universal knowledge to make that extreme general pronouncement. Now, Dr. D may have been referring to other people, not himself, accusing the Creator -- that's fine. But those other people are also incapable of judging the Creator that way.
One of the meaning of Eretz eg Land of Israel. 7:10
Most of the time I could really care less about evolution. After what WLC has said in debates, contemporary sci. like Collins, Ayala, D'Souza...&, especially the forgotten &, or dismissed co-discoverer of evol. Alfred Russell Wallace who wrote "...we must therefore admit the possibility, that in the development of the human race, a Higher Intelligence has guided the same laws for nobler ends" (1869).
That being said, I do have skepticism of the neo darwinism modern synthesis (NDMS). I think Fuz Rana built that skepticism for me. He was an NDMS evolutionist until he kept finding how shakey & unstable it was. The big example i remember from him was a 2009 discovery of a tiny fish bone that threatened the entire evolutionary lineage of fish. "This happens all the time" he said. Moreover, a robust solid scientific theory would not be threatened by a tiny new discovery but rather further establish it. Quantum theory, relativity and kinematic-molecular theory are questioned all the time & each test/discovery has further validated & confirmed them.
Mark McFlounder what is NDMS? Thank you
@@kingdomkid7225 hey what's up Kingdom Kid?! Blessings!
NDMS. Crap! I should've put parenthesis after i 1st used the term. It's Neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis or, I've also heard the Modern Neo-Darwinian Synthesis (MNDS).
Mark McFlounder I will research more to understand. That’s a mouthful! 🙏🏼 thank you
@@kingdomkid7225 blessings girl!!!
For the intellectual christianity check out, i mean if you haven't already,Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig, John Lennox.
Big picture: evolution turns out to be like a toothless blind elderly attack dog compared to christianity.
RTB & Hugh Ross are amazing for science.
Blessings, enjoy this time & take care!
The funny thing is that I’m familiar with the people you mentioned. I must be watching irrelevant content to the evolution issue. 😅Thanks for all the info and your reasoning. Blessings 🙌🏼
I'm a young-earth creationist and proud of it. The Bible is clear in Genesis about the literal days of creation and death came through Adam and Eve's sin.
What's up GoldenWolf?! I wish you well, brother! I was too (a young earher) for a while but you gotta look at the other arguments. Here is what i mean Proverbs 18:17 the 1st to speak in court sounds right until the other speaks (paraphrase from memory). Take notes for the key points of each side & compare.
For example, what happens with the 7th day? Why does Adam say 'at long last' (happ'am in Hebrew) at the creation of Eve? How can there be 'evening & morning' with no sun? If God is the light why doesn't the text include that? Aren't you adding to the text then? What is the ancient Hebrew word for 'epoch' or 'long period of time? And, Adam knew Eve and they became one flesh: they did not become Siamese Twins.
Mark McFlounder
Adam and Eve became one flesh in the spiritual sense as when a husband and wife come together and become one flesh.
God spoke there to be light and it was. What’s the problem there ? He later created the sun and the rest to sustain the laws of physics how he wanted them to function. No issues there either.
@@f0rtitude thx brother for the response. Blessings!
The 1st part: 'the 1 flesh' Right! Exactly! I totally agree with u!...my point is that it's not literal. Their physical bodies are not combined with bone, muscle, sinew & blood. We usually see this as metaphor without thinking: just like the 'land full of milk & honey.'
The 2nd part: 'evening & morning' I will say this Nahmonides writing in about the 1100's & a Church Father (i forgot) wrote that without the sun there can be no 'evening or morning.' So, there must be something more to the text they figured. Moreover, without the sun how could be evening & morning? It's a good point about 'let there be light'! But, with this there would be permanent 'day' (a lil pun intended) as in daylight.
Blessings brother! I wish you well during this quarantine.
Mark McFlounder
Because God didn’t just create earth without already knowing everything that will ever happen, the Bible said that Christ already was going to die for the sinners before the foundations of the world. So to say that morning and day couldn’t have happened without the sun is to limits Gods power.
@@f0rtitude hey brother i think you're raising up strawmen. I'm not sure why.
Perhaps, you could expand & clarify what u mean.
God's omniscience & foreknowledge is an irrelevant point. There's nothing to say that 'He Cannot' and by NO means that's what I intend. It's what's in the text!
I am wondering if you are coming from the idea that any interpretation other than the YEC is compromise with the 'world'. None of the Church Fathers took a 24 hour interpretation & Augustine took the approach that the days needed be interpreted literally.
What about the dna of a human compared to the dna of an ape makes people think they must be from a common ancestor? Is it just be they are very similar? If a builder builds two buildings that look very similar would the odds of the buildings looking more alike you would be more likely use the same building materials? One house doesn't have to be the father of the other. The close relationship is because of the builder.
I couldn't watch beyond the first few minutes, maybe I'll try again in the future. My reason, It grieves me to see people of faith begin to lose their faith. His losing faith occured when he began to view the bible through the context of purely human context. God sees the beginning from the end and the end from the beginning, in other words the inspired writers could by the holy spirit write things they couldn't know but God would.
Did God not divide the tongues? Is he not capable of having implied meaning in the same way as the previous statement.
My prayers are for Dr Joshua...
Unbelievable, from your mythology camp of religion of gods …
You couldn’t watch ?
Because he’s being honest ?
Because you can’t take the truth ?
Because he’s actually thinking ?
It’s to difficult to hear that your god isn’t true ?
Wow you folks , please continue to dig deeper into the ground and firmly insert your head in the sand , please keep it there though , so the rest of us thinking people don’t interact with you and we can continue to move forward with reality and peace and love
The “Extended Synthesis” doesn’t explain large scale evolution either. Hence there is currently no explanation for large scale evolution. Evidence only shows limited small scale change.
What exactly is the difference between "large scale" and "small scale" in your view? That's something I can never really understand when somebody brings this up. It seems to me that "large scale" just means a multiple of "small scale", so I don't see where the problem is.
It explains it perfectly. Perhaps the problem is your own misunderstanding?
@@romanski5811
Of course you are right. The only difference between the two is that _creationists_ accept the one while rejecting the other.
@@romanski5811 Wrong. Two different sets of genes are involved with respect to small and large scale evolution.
@@chimpanzeethat3802 How does it explain it?
Fossil/DNA evidence proves evolution to be a fact whether people wants to change their minds or not.
Why the stupid countdown? Why not start it when the talking starts?
This was a live stream and it was planned to start at a specific time. It's pretty common and shouldn't be a problem. It gives everyone time to get settled in.
You should get him on with Stephen Meyer or Michael Behe.
Why?
@@philaypeephilippotter6532 because they'll show him the faults in his reasoning and evidence.
@@TheologyUnleashed
I sincerely doubt it. They're both proven disingenuous liars whose support of _creationism_ has caused them a vast amount of embarrassment.
@@philaypeephilippotter6532 I haven't seen any good criticisms of their work. Any arguments I've read in favour of evolution use weak arguments and bad evidence. For example, they think similarities among organisms if evidence for evolution as if the same phenomenon were not also found in designed things. Programmers reuse code for new software and car manufacturers reuse parts and design features for new cars. They take something which we would expect to find on both theories and pretend it is evidence for their theory.
@@TheologyUnleashed
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day10am.html
www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/doubting-darwins-doubt
This was great & deeply challenging! I love this little community! Moreover, I have some tense disagreements with Dr. Swamidass but the info. was awesome!
Evolution (Modern Evolutionary Synthesis) is totally subordinate to the extraordinary incomprehensible to fine-tuning of the universe. The idea that life can develop around any given conditions is archaic at best & absurd at worst in light of modern science: hence, the fact that life is absent on the moon, surface of the sun, &, or in the red dot of Jupiter. Carl Sagan was wrong at the release of Voyager I & II believing life would be abundant throughout the solar system.
I dismissed & was complacent over evolution for years. There's a book written about 1985 by David Livingstone called "Darwin's Forgotten Defender's" about theists that supported Darwin.
To me it's about the science itself.
Understandably, evolution is so central to the belief/religion of atheism that they have to fight tooth & nail for it. And, YEC i was briefly apart of that community & I dont really get their leaders.
Life originally developing is not evolution, that's abiogenesis.
And many theists around the world understand evolution to be the explanation for the diversity of life on earth. It's not an atheist vs. religion thing, it's a stupid people versus non-stupid people thing, like flat earth and vaccines. Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is the study that explains the fact.
What I heard in this discussion: “I read scripture through the lens of what I think science is.” Even though science constantly changes. Great way to honor and glorify God.
Yakup Korkmaz What I hear in your comment: the only way to honor God is to place scripture over science when they seem to conflict. However, one can only place their interpretation of scripture over science, since our view of scripture is seen through our theological lens. Thus, both him and you think they are honoring God through the way they read the Bible. Reading it “literally” is not a more faithful reading. It’s just one interpretation.
Yakup Korkmaz I suppose you will see what you want to see. Nothing could change your mind, could it?
Very clever fellow. Honest too. I wonder if he will ever explore the inplications of accepting the fact of evolution for his religious belief. The O E Creationists are quite right to observe that Evolution by Natural Selection is incompatible with traditional Christianity.
Which bit is incompatible?
Especially given that YEC is incompatible with the evidence that God has put in the universe.
@@ProfYaffle Incompatible because of the nature of the Christian God. Christianity tells the story of a once perfect creation corrupted by the Fall. The natural evidence presents us with animals suffering and dying for as far back as there are nervous systems. The first hominids had nervous systems much like our own; they suffered disease and killed each other, were predated upon and even ate each other long before our species arose. Why would a good God allow this immensity of suffering to occur when he could just magic people into existence as per the biblical account?
@@davethebrahman9870 ok. Good question and one I have only just been thinking about and wrestling with so I am offering my thoughts, not a former idea.
I'm thinking that at a point in evolutionary time, God breathed His Holy Spirit into 'man' and walked in the garden with ''him'. This may have been one couple, or more, I haven't fully thought that through, but could be one couple. Prior to that, living things existed. Being born. Eating reproducing. Dying. Maybe the suffering before then was not like it is now. Maybe it was more mechanistic, like a broken robot. Maybe suffering like we now know it, only happens because of our knowledge of good and evil, but before we had that knowledge, we did not have the spiritual capacity to know suffering.
That explanation works for me, though I will continue to think about it.
I think I've chatted to you before on this channel. Hi again. I'm happy to be challenged.
@@ProfYaffle Sorry to say, that sounds like special pleading to me. We have no evidence of a sudden change in our ancestral line; we have a fairly good succession of fossils and other indicators that our ancestors left the trees due to climate change, and had to develop fairly quickly a lot of intelligence and a lot of co-operation to survive. What would be the purpose of all those automata you propose, killing and dying with all the indicia of suffering but without the reality? In fact we know very well what suffering is, and how it originates. Wr know that it operates in the same way in animals, using the same systems, to such an extent that human painkillers work on dogs and human anti-depressants work on crayfish. What would be the purpose of a nervous system if it didn’t produce feelings of pain and pleasure? If you do, as you say, accept evolution via natural selection, how can you explain the present nervous sytems, so like our own, matching the fossil record in terms of development. I’d love to hear your ideas on this.
@@davethebrahman9870 I knew you wouldn't like it. But I am interested in what you say.
You say "what is the purpose" but what is the purpose of anything?
Why do people paint beautiful pictures? What is the purpose of life?
I'm suggesting tentatively that God created the universe and life and it ticked over, and at the point when He created man and walked in the garden, everything changed. (Like decorating the Christmas tree then switching on the lights. That's a rubbish example, but the switching stuff on is what I'm trying to express.) So perception of suffering and pleasure changed. Maybe the framework was there, but it did not operate to cause suffering before the fall.
We don't really know what a dog is feeling. I mean, we think we know. We see anxiety. We see learned behaviour. But what does it mean?
As I say I have literally only just started thinking about this over the last couple of days.
I have always just considered the whole Genesis metaphoric and left it at that up until now. The reason I'm digging in is because I am astonished to learn how many Christians take the whole thing literally, and I consider that discredits Christianity. But I realise I need to consider an alternative.
I am aware that nothing I will say will convince you, but there are unanswered questions about the process of evolution and creation, as there are about how to reconcile the Bible with creation and evolution.
So neither of us has all the answers
If Josh says he is a follower of Jesus then why doesn't he believe what the Bible says in Genesis? Jesus Christ not only gives God's Word to us humans; he is the Word. The Logos is God, begotten and therefore distinguishable from the Father, but, being God, of the same substance (essence). This was decreed at the First Council of Constantinople (381).
See the problem?
Well I do believe what Jesus says about Genesis. Next question. :)
@@PeacefulscienceOrg According to what you say in your new book the folks at Creation Ministries International have reviewed and pointed out many problems Josh. I as an ordinary Christian can not just overlook the many issues that arise from what you are saying.
I'll do a simple copy and paste so that others can see there are problems between what you are saying and what the Bible is saying.
How could God have said things any better or differently for Him to communicate what you are saying to us Josh? Also why is it that most people who read the Bible for the first time will not come to your ideas? If your opinion was valid wouldn't it seem that God would have done a better job communicating that to us straightforward in the Bible?
Death before the Fall:
The idea that there was no death before the Fall is not “a grand theological innovation” and it is not “in conflict by both Scripture and historical theology”, yet both claims are made (p. 182). He cites Osborn here, as if nobody would ever disagree with Osborn’s conclusions.He claims, “most of the Church before 1517 [the beginning of the Reformation] believed there was death outside the Garden, and there was also a good purpose for it” (p. 182), citing Garvey.
But what sort of ‘death’ before the Fall did most of the church countenance? It was not the ‘death before the Fall’ envisioned by modern old-earth compromisers that one finds in the fossil record, full of disease, carnivory, and suffering. Patristics scholar Benno Zuiddam documented a number of Church Fathers who explicitly affirmed Genesis 1:30 teaching that animal diets were non-carnivorous, and this was reflected in the Edenic allusion of Isaiah 11 and 65. And while ideas about ‘no animal death before the Fall’ may not have been universal among early Christian scholars, the same cannot be said about ‘no human death before the Fall’. Thomas Aquinas (in responding to an objection) is representative: “It would seem that death and other bodily defects are not the result of sin” with “On the contrary, The Apostle says (Romans 5:12), ‘By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death.’” And how does this square with the historical evidence that the church was nearly unanimous in believing the earth was not more than a few thousand years old in 1517?
“In the Beginning”:
In Matthew 19:4 and Mark 10:6, Jesus uses the phrase “in the beginning”. In Matthew, Jesus asks, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female?” Swamidass retorts, “To which beginning is Jesus referring? The beginning of which story?” (p. 146). Not only does Jesus specifically say “of creation”, but does he not realize that “in the beginning” (בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית bereshit) is the opening phrase of the Genesis scroll? In fact, this was the name of the scroll. Worse, in the Mark passage Jesus immediately follows this with a quote from Genesis 1: “‘God made them male and female’”, and then a quote from Genesis 2: “‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’” We include the single quotes because that is how it is set off in the ESV, as direct quotations from Genesis. Apparently, Jesus had a straightforward belief in the (single) creation account.
“Death in the Garden” vs “Death in the World”:
Joshua claims that Romans 5:12-14 teaches no death in the Garden before the Fall, not in the world at large. But Romans 8:19-22 clearly attributes the suffering of the entire universe (c.f. v. 22, κτίσις) to the Fall. Yet, he writes, “I understand that some will still object, insisting on universalizing the ‘no death’ doctrine across the earth. It is up to them, however, to demonstrate the grounding for such a grand theological innovation” (p. 182). No, it is he who is introducing unique readings, thus attempting to shift the burden of proof, who is unprofessional.
“In This Day”:
He also poorly handles the statement that Adam would die “in this day” in Genesis 2:16-17 (pp. 193-194). He failed to note that the word ‘death’ is used twice in the Hebrew, giving us a phrase that is difficult to translate into English, but could be rendered in dying you will dieor, understanding that repetition in Hebrew is often used for emphasis, you will certainly die. He does reference Walton saying something similar here. Thus, there is no contradiction between “in this day” and the lifespan of Adam given to us in Genesis 5. Yet, he still suggests that being exiled from the Garden was God’s ‘plan B’, an “ad hoc” and unexpected development, and that God showed mercy by exiling them instead of killing them (i.e. p. 194).
Other Concerns:
For example:
There is compelling evidence for ape-to-man evolution. See Rupe and Sanford’s book Contested Bones for a thorough refutation of this claim.
There must have been people outside the Garden. The biblical answer to this is trivial.
It was God’s intention for Adam and Eve to interbreed with the people outside the Garden (p. 204). But how could he know God’s intention here? If the Fall had not happened, there would be two competing, genetically indistinguishable human populations in existence.
Those outside the Garden (mortal) would have been brought in had Adam and Eve (immortal) remained faithful (p. 204). This is clearly speculative.
The Fall was not universal but applies only to Adam and Eve and their descendants.Thus, the imputation of sin would be genealogical (he spends a chapter on this), leaving open the question of the spiritual status of those outside the Garden. Saying, “Scripture and historical theology do not tell us one way or another” (p. 183) is unhelpful.
The ‘sons of God’ are the people outside the Garden and the ‘daughters of men’ are descendants of Adam and Eve (p. 136). There are no exegetical predecessors for his view. See the excerpt Who Were the Sons of God in Genesis 6? from the book Alien Intrusion.
There are “many” creation accounts in the Bible (p. 140, footnote 8). This has been dealt with many times already.
Genesis 1 is only discussing the creation of Eden (p. 140, footnote 9). Yet, Genesis 1:1 is clearly a merism, a combination of extremes (“heaven and earth”) to indicate a whole.
Paul’s phrase “from one” in Acts 17:26 does not mean “from Adam” (p. 146). Yet, this is in a creation passage (verse 24) and Paul specifically says that from this “one man” God made “every nation of mankind”. There is only one biblical candidate for this man: Adam.
There was wrongdoing in the world (e.g. Eve and Satan) before Adam’s transgression (p. 182). But death was not introduced until Adam sinned (Genesis 3:19).
There was a different sort of sin in the world before the Adamic law was given, and this sin was not held against anyone’s account (pp. 182-183). So, why did people die if somehow the wages of sin was something other than death (Romans 6:23)? See also Romans 1:18-32.
Abel was (necessarily) murdered without offspring(p. 198). Yet, Abel could have been a great-great-great-great-grandfather by then and any number of his (and Cain’s) descendants could have been in the family tree of Noah. See How old was Cain when he killed Abel?
The Fall unleashed great evil on the otherwise peaceful and loving population outside the Garden(e.g. pp. 183, 185, 204). Why on earth would an evolved population of people be somehow lessviolent than one descended from Adam? Also, the archaeological evidence suggest that ancient man was quite violent. Examples are not hard to find, including events that predate (in the evolutionary timeframe) the appearance of the supposedly wicked and violent descendants of the Garden of Eden.
creation.com/review-swamidass-the-genealogical-adam-and-eve
@@thehealthjourney drmsh.com/romans-512/
@@noahpinheiro5685 The gospel according to Michael Heiser. Well done you have proved me wrong, not!
@@thehealthjourney Genetic Fallacy much?
Btw Evolution is true
Regarding the soft tissue found in dinosaur fossils, it's not soft and gooey. Soft tissue is the name given to anything that isn't bone. In this case it was collagen, and a microscopic amount.
It was practically as hard as the rest of the fossil and needed to be soaked for weeks in a mild acidic solution before it could even be safely removed.
The soft tissue is preserved by protein cross-linking. The release of free radicals in the blood combined with iron acts as a kind of formaldehyde to aid in the process of preservation.
The fossil itself was dated using the C14 method and the results came back carbon dead because it is millions of years old.
This whole thing was resolved over 5 years ago.
Here are Dr Mary Schweitzer's scientific papers on the subject:
scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=mary+schweitzer&oq=mary+sc
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
All the most common misconceptions about evolution.
PS Creation websites are secondary sources of information and unreliable.
I like to see Christians unapologetically embracing science.
They can't.
10k years vs. Billions
Dust to tissue and bone vs. Abiogenesis research
@Ναζωραῖος Historically Christians have employed allegorical interpretations of Genesis
@Ναζωραῖος because most people were Christians back then. The science is irrelevant to their belief and most of the time the science contradicts the bible
Heaven (no evidence)
Great Flood (no evidence)
Exodus out of Egypt (no evidence)
@@derekmizer6293 You are wrong! Christians started the scientific revolution and it was because the christian world view gave a good grounding for science. They never thought of the two as conflicting each other.
They justified their quest for knowledge about the physical world around them in their belief in a God who sustains the universe in such a constant way that rationality was possible.
You need to take just a little closer look at just about any 'father of any branch of science' and see their motives behind their studies....
@@noahpinheiro5685 the allegorical sense is based on the literal sense.
Anything existing is a miracle, our observations have a basis upon this. Science is our exploration for understanding of our observations.
It can only ever lead to personal accepted fact. The point of consensus amongst a group displays successful persuasion at most.
To claim authority or correctness is well vanity, but joyfully explore. Trust in and on YHWH(God)/Yeshua(Jesus)/HolySpirit.
_"Anything existing is a miracle"_
I guess if it makes you feel good to believe that it's fine. Other than that you are at best defining miracles as that which is unlikely and then making assumptions about the likelihood of this universe.
_"The point of consensus amongst a group displays successful persuasion at most.
To claim authority or correctness is well vanity, but joyfully explore."_
When the consensus is among experts of the related field and a detailed model of what the theory claims and how it was validated then it's not just about persuasion. Using scientific consensus as one's one justification for accepting a proposition there is no issue.
@@BFizzi719 "I guess if it makes you feel good to believe that it's fine. Other than that you are at best defining miracles as that which is unlikely and then making assumptions about the likelihood of this universe." so are you when thinking God is bound by natural laws previous to creating them.
"When the consensus is among experts of the related field and a detailed model of what the theory claims and how it was validated then it's not just about persuasion. Using scientific consensus as one's one justification for accepting a proposition there is no issue." You may think consenseus on something is of import but please ubderstand that these positions change as new understanding comes. Science is a process of discovery.
I submit personal bias is most oft the driving force behind any claim out stretching the scientific method.
May I ask if you would accept proof of a God if it was found? Dare I say, no you would not because there is still more to learn and study.
As I would not accept proof there is no God for the same reason, there is still more to learn and study.
In the end, the reasons to hold to the choice will always balance out and it is accept, know, and love God or not.
@@maxiomburrows2099 *If I was given proof of a God, then it would mean it was a fact and no additional information would be needed. So of course I would accept it.*
_"You may think consensus on something is of important but please understand that these positions change as new understanding comes. Science is a process of discovery."_
I absolutely agree, science does not make claims of truth. Science gives us the best explanation given the current evidence, and is always open to revision given new information. So I accept these conclusions because of the evidence but I always allow my mind to be changed with new information.
@@BFizzi719 (social distance hug) lol
he isn't as sharp as ID proponents... not sure if he understands their arguments
There's overwhelming evidence that the earth is definitely not 6000 - 10 000 years old. Anyone who says otherwise should be thrown on the same camp as flat-earthers.
I'm just curious. Can you describe some of this overwhelming evidence you know of? I'm not arguing, I'm just curious as to what you know. Why are you so convinced?
@@goor1322 I have an Engineering background, I absolutely enjoyed studying optics and light. I learned a lot about relativity and quantum theory from those courses, and I understand light not only academically but practically as well. If you take a pair of binoculars and look at the clear night sky, you'll probably spot Andromeda galaxy, at....2.5 Million light-years away. There are too many pieces of practically testable evidence, even for non-scientists. Andromeda alone, without mentioning other galaxies and nearby stars nullify the remotest possibility of the earth being young.
Moses Matsepane The andromeda galaxy is very far away, therefore the universe is old?
@@goor1322 What do you think of this? discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lake-varves-volcanic-ash-and-the-great-isaiah-scroll/554 Be sure to click the link to learn about Varves.
@@hudjahulos Yes and, 1. refer to my original comment if you believe otherwise or 2.bring new compelling and world-changing evidence that will unquestionably win you a Nobel Prize.
he blows all scientific credibility when he says he changed his mind by starting with scripture rather than starting with science. Done. He searched for the answer that he wanted and he searched until he got it.
I think even if his starting point is different. I think the way he treats the evedince is just, becuase of the an opposing view review. Maybe maybe not.
Proverbs 26:12
Do you see a man wise in his own eyes?
There is more hope for a fool than for him.
I can sympathize with Josh. I too have struggled with the concept of common descent, the similarity of genome with great apes, etc...But where I part ways with Josh is I don't by the argument that Genesis says the land and the water made life. And in fact, it is becoming very obvious that life's origins do not support that idea in a pre-biotic world. Something happened that nature and science cannot account for and the more we learn about a single cell, the more we recognize something miraculous must have occurred - the origins of DNA itself and which all arguments of the where and the how must be based.
Many will argue that I am debating to different subjects, but I don't believe so. For this neutral evolution to explain what we witness, you have to go all the way back to the formations of the first cell.
In many ways, the more we learn the more questions are left unanswered. Perhaps that is way God intended it.
Evolution is true. An intelligently designed species wouldn't have all our physical and cognitive limitations.
This assumes that the purpose of creation was to give you an egotistical sense of your physical perfection, rather than be a symbolic illustration, a "shadow" of the substance (as the Scripture declares). This present world if fallen and suffers by the will of God as a consequence, and will be redeemed at Christ's return and not before (Romans 8:20-24).
@@TryHardCryHarder 😂 nonsense
Arori Newton this a really intriguing comment. I was wondering what you meant by our cognitive and physical limitations. Would care to expand on that?
@@markmcflounder15It's pretty obvious without further explanation... Just look at all the people born everyday with physical limitations and cognitive disorders and start there.
@@markmcflounder15 psychologists have demonstrated that most of our decisions aren't rational. That's because our brains are wired for a life on the African savannah, not the modern world. Take the problem of procrastination, for example. Or why we crave sweet and greasy foods even if they're unhealthy. These problems are easily explained by evolution. If we were intelligently designed, one would expect the human brain to be much better at decision making...
What do you think?
My, my, my, the comments in this video are atrocious. I'm glad I'm no longer evangelical and am now Orthodox. We avoid such ludicrous purity tests over the age of the world and human evolution. Individuals may disagree over this issue but we allow space for it and also understand that we have to have a particular interpretive lens when approaching the Bible.
Thank goodness for the Fathers and apostolic Christianity. The level of "not a true Christian!!" and "The bible is obvious!!!" in these comments is silly.
Anthony B -- the discussion is not silly for one key reason. The atheist argues "all life arose by mechanisms describable by science, and all species exist because of undirected mutation and natural selection. That means Genesis is just a fairy tale, and there is nothing for your god to do. Why believe in a god that didn't do anything and has no reason to be?" If your response is, "Yeah, you're right, it all happened by mechanics that didn't need God, but …" then you've sorta conceded the territory. Talking about the New Testament and Jesus's life, death, and resurrection will get little consideration from the atheist who just "proved" the Bible is a book of fairy tales starting on page 1. If you say "Jesus believed the Old Testament," you just weaken Jesus' credibility. I'm just being straight with you, Anthony. I was an atheist, but when I saw the utter weakness of neo-Darwinian evolution theory, I rejected the theory -- only later became a theist and then Christian. If Neo-Darwinism had been strong, I likely never would have made the move. World renowned atheist Prof. Antony Flew moved to theism when shown the evidence of intelligent design. These discussions do matter. Blessings.
@@nunca789 you argue against something I don't believe. A naturalist metaphysics certainly requires believing that evolution is unguided and undirected, but I don't believe that at all. You seem to present that the only answer to the atheistic objection that you've presented is to say either:
1. You're right, it's unguided and doesn't need God
or
2. No, evolution never happened.
If this is the case, you have inculcated within your mind a false dichotomy between the realms of nature and that of the supernatural - in other words you are tacitly supporting the God of the Gaps fallacy without realising it. You're effectively saying that if there is a natural process that means God didn't do it. That's absurd: God works through natural process in as much (if not more) than how he works through "supernatural" processes.
My response to the atheist is neither of the above options. It is instead that we can understand creation and the resultant diversity of biological life on earth by the process of evolution through natural selection, and that this process is guided by God. Furthermore, evolution is significantly less random than people typically propose, particularly when we consider the idea of evolutionary convergence - evolution conforms to a set series of solutions to varying problems in differing environments.
You're also proving my point in some sense - Genesis isn't automatically a "fairytale" if we don't think it to be literal history in the sense that we understand literal history. That would be an imposition of modern standards and ways of reading onto an ancient text.
Furthermore the Bible is not actually a single book but a large series of different books written at different times by different authors. It is incredibly misleading to say that not reading one section as literal history (as we understand it) is the same as not reading later sections as literal history (as we understand it). We need to read each section on its own terms, and there is a world of difference between the literary styles and prevailing contexts (literary, cultural, liturgical etc) of the Gospel accounts and Genesis. If one doubts Jesus because the first 11 chapters of Genesis seems somewhat mythical, they're simply doing hermeneutics and interpretation wrong.
You claim that these issues are important, but their apparent importance is based on a series of, frankly, false misunderstandings. Note here I haven't even argued against ID. I'm open to it for, but I'm not convinced of it. I'm also not interested n defending Neo-Darwinian evolution, as evolutionary biologists themselves are revising and moving beyond it.
On the note of Antony Flew, Flew became a theist for multiple reasons - admittedly ID being one of them - but there are more profound philosophical proofs which caused him to change his mind, as far as I am concerned. The move can be done without ID.
@@anthonybondarenkoadj2534 I appreciate your thoughtful response. We could discuss several things you mentioned, but let me just address briefly this one: "we can understand creation and the resultant diversity of biological life on earth by the process of evolution through natural selection, and that this process is guided by God. Furthermore, evolution is significantly less random than people typically propose, particularly when we consider the idea of evolutionary convergence - evolution conforms to a set series of solutions to varying problems in differing environments." It appears you view "evolution" as a guided process. If it is a guided process, then there is an intelligence behind it. In earthly experience, we are unaware of any guided process that lacks a guide, i.e., an intelligent actor.
If God intervenes by causing "evolutionary" changes in life forms, then we have an intelligent actor guiding a process. Relatedly, if there is "a set series of solutions to varying problems," then those pre-existing solutions are there and can be implemented because an intelligent actor foresaw the need for them. Following either line of thought, we must posit a pre-existing intelligent actor. That is all Intelligent Design proposes.
We find the atheist materialism opposing your line of reasoning for the same reason it opposes ID.
@@nunca789 as far as I can tell, however, ID doesn't simply posit a rationality behind natural processes, which therefore implies a designer, so much as posits that an intelligent designer is a part of the scientific hypothesis. I am wary of modes of scientific rationalisation that can place the divine within the realm of scientific investigation as Science's limit is the natural world.
All of the Church Fathers were young earth creationists
It is sad that many don't understand the difference between evidence for an event versus belief being taken as evidence for an event.
If anyone is interested in the nephilim, they should def read the book of Enoch. While it may not be entirely true, I do think it provides some much needed answers on the purpose of the flood, demons, and the angels in chains mentioned in the bible. This gives a clear reasoning of why demon's wish to possess someone, their body has passed (nephilim while alive) on, yet they are cursed to wonder the earth as evil spirits.
why would I want to see a person describe evolution when it's a fact?
It's not the fact of evolution, it's the "theory"
@@christopherfiorentino6552 A theory is supported by copious facts. Evolution is fiercely supportedby a large body of scientists
Haha gave me a good laugh, thanks
@@christopherfiorentino6552 If it were a scientific theory it would be demonstrable, no one has ever demonstrated it.
@@tonyrock5313 But not by observations.
Any god, even the stupidest one, would could make everything crystal clear, without the need to interpret.
God exists and made the Universe. What is so unclear about that?
@@39knights
Everything. First of all why you have to speak for that god? Is it shy or what?
Why should God choose to reveal everything in literalistic and scientific terms? I don't think it's necessary and frankly that's the beauty of theology, it's abstract and mysterious like a poetry
'Any god...could make everything crystal clear'...would that help? Are you really willing to follow the evidence where it leads? I mean if it were 'crystal clear' you would ask for forgiveness for your moral failings? I really, really am skeptical of atheists.
In contrast, if things are NOT clear &, or there is no evidence how do you explain the desperation of 21st atheism & its leaders (Dawkins, Hitchens, Krauss, Shermer,...)??? ie
the universe created itself, 'nothing' created it, it spontaneously burst into existence or it quantum tunneled from another universe. Then there is a multiverse 'out there' which is undetectable, invisible and explains all of our extraordinaty fine-tuning. So, not only do you have to explain our univ & its beginning but 10^500 or infinite univ.s. Is the multiverse finite with a beginning or is it eternal reaching for infinite? If it's finite then it has a beginning in which then exponentially compounds the problem. If it is infinite then you anything no matter how improbable has & will happen including like, a Boltzmann Brain, an all powerful being bursting into existence brimming with enthusiasm to create a universe (Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion").
Moreover, 'Who designed the designer' & Jesus never existed & is based on Horus, Dionysus, Adonis, Attis etc... "Our beliefs are not a belief" (Hitchens, God is Not Great,p5).
These are fringe ideas on the level of Ancient Aliens & flat earthers and yet are admonished by ppl with PhDs. And, yet they claim
This has been the nail in the coffin for me & valids & confirms the Christian position.
If there is no evidence why do atheists fight so desperately??? And, are you going to follow the truth???
@@st.mephisto8564 what's up Rahul? I am coming from theist belief. Blessings to you. I hope you can make the most out of this quarantine or / pandemic!!!
I somewhat or slightly disagree sorta...maybe i could expand
What i mean is i think God has revealed himself scientifically. The fine-tuning is sooooo overwhelming! The atheist response has been desperate to say the least. Frederick Hoyle (prolly in the 60s) after discovery of the finely tuned carbon resonance had his 'atheism' shaken. Later, he declared 'there are no blind forces to speak about' (paraphrase from memory).
The electromagnetic force to gravitational force is fine-tuned to 1:10^40. The analogy is taking one coin in a 1 billion piles of coins covering N.America all the way to the moon. That's only one constant among over 200.
Moreover, i think there are various revelations of God from science, morality, aesthetics, historical & personal/relationally and the opposite in the desperation & incessant obsession of 21st cent. Atheists.
Blessings brother! Thx for your response here & i wish you well.
I am not a young earth creationist neither an old earth creationist I think I am a middle Earth earth creationist ;)....
Wait.. how are Neanderthal’s transitional?? They went extinct and came around after anatomically modern man and were seemingly just as intelligent...
No, they actually weren't as intelligent. They had bigger brains but their frontal cortex was quite small and it's the part of the brain that controls important cognitive skills in humans such as emotional expression, problem solving, memory, language, and abstract reasoning. Their tools also remained the same over hundreds of thousands of years with little to no innovation( if you believe the earth is old). We at least see ritualistic burials and nursing, but us humans were way more sophisticated in our tool use, hunting, and behaviour variation.