42:00 You’re very right that it is career suicide. I have had many theologians who are well respected in mainstream theology tell me in private that they either agree with YEC or are sympathetic to it. I recently had one of the top theologians in the world thank me for publicly defending YEC (but he asked me to keep his name confidential). I think one way to say these things in an academic context is to just not be polemical on it. I’ve found a lot of people haven’t listened to the YEC side because they met someone who defended it in a very mean spirited way.
My guess: academia rests upon academicians’ acceptance of the expertise of other academicians. For a Biblicist/THL to reject evolution is to reject the expertise of the scientists, so they would reject him.
No honest Christian defends young earth creationism. It is an embarassment for the Christian faith, a terrible achievement of the Inquisition, which was the worst enemy of Christianity, worse than Communism or Islam.
I'll reply to you here because this website doesn't let me reply to your comment under my statement. You said "The Catholic Church’s apparent teaching of evolution as doctrine (which I later discovered it does not teach) was a HUGE stumbling block to my own journey to Catholicism. A large number of Protestants and Orthodox reject evolution. Treating evolution as Church doctrine pushes them away. Atheists aren’t the only people who might convert." I am not saying you must believe in evolution, I would say that if the church taught that, I'm saying that you should. Reasons: 1-you must believe it is compatible with the faith. The church does teach this much 2-to reject it is to reject the authorithy of the scientific community. This is not a prudentially wise thing to do, because science is a legitimate way to know the world, to reject it is to deprive you of an important way to know how God ordered the world and how we can use it to our advantage. 3-to reject the authorithy of the scientific community is a highly repulsive to reasonable secular people. That is the point I was making. Before saying "yes I'd rather take my personal interpretation of Genesis than the explicit evidence that builds the theories that enabled modern scientific advances" you should consider how unhumble you are being. Rejecting the results of science itself, which as I've said is a true method for knowing true things. I'll make you some other examples: you can't say "I don't believe embryos are humans, science is wrong, so abortion is fine". Going too far in ignoring science leads to these kinds of absurdities. Another opinion that is compatible with the faith but that is highly repulsive to reasonable people would be "the whole New Testament was originally written in hebrew and it was later translated into greek". You should not believe this, it is an opinion that discredits authorative sources like textual critics but also early witnesses to the Gospels like the church fathers. You'd sound unreasonable. And protestants and orthodox that believe YEC should be shown that their approach to the Deposit of Faith is flawed, beginning with the evidence for evolution is not a bad evangelization strategy. Believe the truth because it's true, be humble before those whose profession is discovering it.
⬆️ "to reject it is to reject the authority of the scientific community" Lol, no biggie, I can't believe this is seriously a argument, literally appeal to authority, most people of the "scientific" community are bought for money to promote the liberal agenda
@guyaboveme It won’t let me reply to you without automatically deleting my comment. Lol science doesn’t prove abortion is wrong. It’s not even equipped to do so. The “scientific community” is just an institutional center of power, and its consensus is the last reason you should believe anything. It’s also a power center that is occupied overwhelmingly by people hostile to the church’s values, and those institutions are integrated with a secular United States empire which is definitely hostile toward those values. Your entire argument effectively boils down to, “this is what people who appear to be intelligent believe, so you should believe it to appear to be intelligent.” I’m good, dawg
@@nathanielus5296 Why would chinese, middle eastern and african scientists play along? I agree that in the US and in Northern Europe there is an interest in pushing for false narratives about transing people, but the fact that it is a false narratice can be learned by seeing chinese, middle eastern and aftican scientists vehemently rejecting those notions. You're being stupidly and blindly unreasonable. Acting stupid is fine if you are stupid, since I suspect you are not, don't act stupidly.
@@martyfromnebraska1045 Science tells us what is and isn't true about the physical world. It is a genuine and reliable tool to know the world. Depriving yourself from it because some people wave around the word "science" too much is as stupid as saying "I don't believe the Catholic Church gives genuine and truthful statements about faith and morals because the german bishops claim to be catholic".
Thank you for covering this topic. I wouldn't be Christian nor Catholic today if it wasn't for YEC, that's what made me take the second Adam seriously, to know the first Adam could be taken seriously. I am forever grateful to YEC for this. I was desperate, spiritually broken and dabbling in witchcraft, knowing God really did create our first parents made everything fall in place and I feared God. Christ then made me love God.
YEC was very important for my own spiritual life too. I get there are some people who find YEC troubling for their faith, but many others have had the opposite experience.
@@thebyzantinescotist7081 Exactly. They find it troubling because in a certain sense they are more convinced of evolution *theory* than God's Word. Some would rather try to fit the two even if it is a massive stretch.
@@VirginMostPowerfull No one's "not convinced" by God's word, rather they would object to the assertion that YEC is warranted by and that it must dogmatically be taken as truth. Plus, the empirical evidence they would argue contradicts such interpretation! Plus, no one argues the Bible teaches evolution, but that as a natural phenomenon, it is real and it isn't contradictory to what the message of Genesis states! Each are their own category with one dealing with a natural process and the other doesn't deal with such things! Plus, I would point out that YEC's do this with passages in the Bible such as flat earth and geocentrism
@@danlopez.3592 Don't compare gravity which is present, with evolution theory which is historical conjecture. I have no issue with any present theory only historical theories that are arguably false.
Macro evolution has never been observed. Darwin had no idea about the complexity of the cell and he said himself that if any piece of biology that can’t be explained through gradual mutation, would put a damper on his theory. Now look up the flagellar mortor and irreducible complexity. There are incredibly complex systems at a cellular level that require dozens of other components to operate and in this worldview all of the pieces would have had to evolved simultaneously and gradually while serving purpose in an adaptive sense during that process. The idea that it was mere random mutation and the chance of the weakest dying first, (survival of the fittest is false, it’s survival of the lucky/death of the least fit, for example, usually only the smallest impalas will fall to be preyed upon by lions, while the majority of the pack will survive) cannot be justified and is frankly absurd. Darwin had doubts about his own theory at the end of his life, and had he known about the complexity of the cell he most likely would have abandoned the theory entirely.
@@therealkingbaldwin The only difference between micro and macro evolution is time. The small mutations and changes in populations we have observed are evolution. There is no irreducible complexity. Evolution predominantly works by taking bodily features that are already present and tweaking them slightly, gradually inclining organisms towards different sorts of lives. ex. to become aquatic, whales needed flippers, but they never needed a flipper to pop into existence fully formed. Instead, arms gradually changed, each stage being beneficial for the organism, since it increasingly adapted it to an increasingly aquatic lifestyle.
Great interview Suan, While I disagree with many of Seraphims conclusions I appreciate these conversations and willingness to hear from others in the body of Christ. Might I recommended conversing with Dr. Matthew Ramage, his newest book on evolution and Catholic faith is fantastic.
Evolution mathematically doesn't work. There isn't enough time for the amount of fixed genetic mutations to occur to get from the common ancestor of chimps and humans, to modern humans in the time span given by 'scientists'. The rate of mutation would have to be so high that the egyptian mummies dug up from about 1,000-500BC would be genetically different to modern humans which isn't the case. And the maths is so far off, you'd need about a billion years to get from common ancestor to modern human. There is simply no way to get evolution to work. It sounds like a nice idea on paper, but you can't shoehorn it in and make it fit, it just doesn't.
@@authorityfigure1630 Irreducible complexity was originally an evolutionary concept about how evolution creates structures that over time will lose the original function or capability for original function that they once had, much like a bird's wing is an evolved forelimb that no longer has the ability to perform the functions it once did, but now has a new one. Michael Behe coopted the term to suggest that such things are examples of spontaneous creation, only he forgets that these are still evolved structures. Even his flagellum has been shown to have arisen from a secretory system.
@@JohnSmith-wo2fz The problem with that argument is that it deliberately ignores population sizes in the animal world to make the argument. It's not just ONE lineage of animals that carry these mutations, it's millions upon billions of mutations happening all throughout populations and leading to fixation of traits that carry forward. Plenty of time for those to occur. All it has to do is happen once or with some regularity in a population, since even most beneficial mutations have happened more than once in a group. Don't waste your time on creationist websites or books for your arguments.
26:30 What seraphim fails to mention here is that the Hindu flood story is also derived from the Gilgamesh epic narrative and of course is why you have those stories all coming out of the same general region of the world.
The global flood angle could be why the rainbow is attacked today. If the rainbow represents Noah surviving a real global flood, and modernity rejects this, then they would do so symbolically by the rainbow flag. It is also possible that the times of Noah that sin was predominant, so the rainbow represents a defeat of that sin, with modern day using it as a mockery of God since God promised not to punish that sin with a flood.
@@tafazzi-on-discordthat's silly, I think he just means to say that the symbol is being mocked just like the case for pentagram or cross of St Peter. There's a pattern in which all symbols associated with good are often used by the enemy for the inversion.
There was a never a global flood for several reasons: - All the different formations found throughout the earth would have been impossible to be formed like limestone/karst topography which is a very slow process. -You would have animals of all types found throughout the different "levels" (there wouldn't be none under a global flood) instead of the separation in accordance with the principle of faunal succession. The exceptions like invertebrates found on top of mountains can be explained by conventional geology via because they are at the meeting point of two tectonic plates. As those plates collide into each other, they gradually move the earth above them, shifting the landscape, forming mountains and valleys. - Common table salt, sodium chloride, is often found bedded in sedimentary strata. Under flood conditions, dissolved salt would be carried away and dispersed in the waters, not deposited with other sediments. -Take fossil desserts like in Southern Utah where 2,000+ feet strata exist. The contact between the sand and the underlying strata is often sharp and clear-cut. This is especially true where layers of mud are found underneath wind-blown sandstones. If the sand had been deposited by water, you would expect the mud and sand to be mixed together. It is not. Clearly the sand was blown onto the mud, deposited by wind rather than water. - Furthermore, the strongest possible proof is the fact If the geologic record was deposited in a year, then the events it records must also have occurred within a year. Some of these events release significant amounts of heat. The heat sources of radioactive decay (some Creationists claim that radioactive decay rates were much higher during the Flood to account for consistently old radiometric dates) biological decay (think of the heat released in compost piles) and compression of sediments are proof of this. Aside from losing its atmosphere, Earth can only get rid of heat by radiating it to space, and it can't radiate significantly more heat than it gets from the sun unless it is a great deal hotter than it is now. (It is very nearly at thermal equilibrium now.) If there weren't many millions of years to radiate the heat from the above processes, the earth would still be unlivably hot. - Limestone! There are roughly 5 x 10^23 grams of limestone in the earth's sediments , and the formation of calcite releases about 11,290 joules/gram. If only 10% of the limestone were formed during the Flood, the 5.6 x 10^26 joules of heat released would be enough to boil the flood waters. Noah and his family would have been toasted, and thus if they were the only human beings at the time (they weren't, but for hypothetical sake,) wouldn't have been able to procreate.
There's literally more evidence which contradicts flood geology models. Several (although not limited to) facts are the following: The Grand Canyon contains fossil desert dunes and other sediments that to all appearances were deposited on dry land. The Permian Coconino Sandstones in the upper walls of the Grand Canyon have the frosted well-sorted, well-rounded sand grains found only in land-deposited sand dunes The Canyon's Supai and Hermit Shales, found today beneath the Coconino Sandstones, look exactly like river deltas that formed above sea level. Back in Permian times, many quadrupeds (probably reptiles) left their footprints in the soft delta mud. As the mud baked hard in the sun, it formed cracks. The hardness of the baked mud preserved the footprints and mudcracks until the flooded rivers of the rainy season buried them in fresh mud. These fossil prints and mudcracks are found today, as well as iron oxides that form in the open air, showing that these shales formed above sea level. Take the Old Red Sandstone. Redbeds were formed in these and wouldn't have under flood geology mode. The Old Red Sandstones also contain typical playas, complete with their characteristic cubic salt crystal deposits. These are desert salt-pan deposits formed after the rainy-season lakes evaporate. Today, in the Mojave Desert, playas can become lakes for a couple of weeks, only to dry out again, leaving a crust of salt deposits like those found in the Red Sandstone. Although a few freshwater ponds did exist on this ancient semi-arid continent, they dried up from time to time. So, we find fossil mud cracks in the shales that came from the dried-up pond bottoms, and we find fossil lungfish, a type of fish that can survive drought by building a mud cocoon in the pond bottom and breathing air. Hundreds of square miles of fossil sand dunes in these deposits contain cross-bedding and sand-blasted pebbles (ventifacts) of the sort found in modern desert sand dunes, and in no other kind of modern sediment. These different independent lines of evidence converge to show that the Old Red Sandstones almost certainly formed over thousands of years in a dry climate, not in any kind of flood catastrophe. Also take volcanic ash bed. Geologists can distinguish between ash layers that settled in ocean basins (marine tephra) and those that fell over dry land (air fall deposits). When volcanic ash is deposited in flowing water, it produces yet different features identifiable in outcrops, such as grain sorting and lamination. Therefore, not a few volcanic ashes in sedimentary strata contradict the Flood geology scenario, especially because these ash falls take time to accumulate from the air and harden to the point that water-lain sediments can be deposited on top without compromising the structure of the soft ash.
The Coconino sandstone has actually been extensively studied by creationists. You’re only presenting one interpretation of the data here. Did you at least engage with the creationist studies on the coconino sandstone to come to the conclusion they were wrong before making this comment?
@@thebyzantinescotist7081 Yes, I have! I'm more specifically familiar with the work of Steve Austin who is a geologist on this exact issue! I disagree with their conclusion that the Coconino sandstone was ultimately deposited by Noah's global flood instead of wind deposits! Specifically the granitic rocks! Quartz make up roughly 10% of granitic rocks, so for every 100-ft thickness of a sandstone layer, 1,000-ft of granite must be deposited into this layer! There are no granitic rocks in the Grand Canyon area from which the quartz can be their source! The quartz have had to come from higher mountain areas in the eastern coast regions of the U.S. During the transport of the clay and quartz grains from these areas across 3,000 miles, the streams winnowed out the clay from the quartz so that the quartz in the transported sediment became nearly pure quartz in sand sediment. Note that the rush of Noah’s flood waters in one year could not have sorted (winnowed) the quartz grains from the clay minerals. In such a rush of water in Noah’s flood, the quartz and clay grains would be in a chaotic mix and completely unsorted from each other.
In normal transport by streams, clay minerals are transported farther than sand grains, and the lagging behind sand grains are deposited in water in stream channels, but in times of little rainfall, wind can pick up the transported sand grains and transport them to form large deposits of dune sands. This is what has happened in the Sahara Desert in Africa and what happened during the Permian Period when the Coconino Sandstone was formed. The great length of time that is required to produce quartz grains in the sandstones by the weathering of granitic rocks. They also ignore the great length of time that is required to produce the calcium in the calcite (calcium carbonate) crystals in limestone that comes from the weathering of granitic rocks and basalt to produce the Redwall and Kaibab Limestone layers in the Grand Canyon. That amount of weathering in both examples cannot happen in 6,000 years that young-Earth creationists claim is the age of the earth. As was said above in an earlier paragraph of mine, there was not an already magically produced source of these quartz grains and calcite crystals that Noah’s flood could wash into the Grand Canyon area. Millions of years of time are required, not only for the weathering of the igneous rocks, but also for the emplacement and crystallization of the igneous rocks in the first place.
@@thebyzantinescotist7081 I'm familiar with various YEC's on different subtopics pertinent to geology (my area of expertise) and the rest of the natural sciences! P.S. I appreciate your work as well!
16:42 _"the difference is the pace of narrative"_ Excellent analysis. Genesis 1 may be what Moses received on Sinai. Genesis 2 to 11 certainly was passed orally on to Abraham before getting to Moses. Genesis 12 to 50 was probably written down close to real time and is therefore much more detailed.
Does Tom believe the geologic column / fossile record was laid down in a one year long Noahs flood so the dinosuars in the fossil record must have been contemporaneous with humans ? if so how come we never find a human next to a dinosuar in the fossil record or a dinosuar with a leather saddle on it ?
@@xxxfairyyxxx But there are billions of tons of dinosaur fossils in the record that must have been laid down in Noahs flood given youngearth global flood geology so they must have been on Noahs Ark right ? surely we would find a few Dinos with leather saddles on their backs at least near the surface of the column right ? at least one example of any other animal of the other millions of species of animals next to Dinos in the geologic column right ? Yet we never find even one animal next to dinos like one rabbit , one squirell , one Horse , one lion , one cow , one duck no where on earth ? only Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous Period animals only next to each other and only at the lower ends of the column ? thats got to get suspicious to young earth global flood geology advocates right ?
This dude is a nut... I would expect him to hold consistent or clear understandings of such concepts if he just believes the Bible is purely historical in any sense beyond light historical fiction.
I think there's lots of ways in which YEC conflicts with simple geological observations we can all make. One that I'm surprised I don't see more people talk about is the fact that different forms of life appear in different sedimentary layers. If the layers were due to the flood, we'd expect all the dead to be dispersed together. But instead there's multiple layers, and many forms of life are only present on particular layers. I don't think there'd be a reason for this on YEC, but it's expected given an old earth.
take a glass full of dirt and water shake in and you'll see layers form due to mass and weight interacting with the water. animals are no different. they have different mass weight that would behave different in water and end up in different layers as they wouldn't sink or float to end up in the same layers the same way dirt and sentiment would. be like expecting a rock and wood to sink at the same time when mixed in water and dirt it just doesn't work that way. also you have a sever lack of missing links also most fossils are like 7 bones found in a mile radius and then scientist use their imagination to tell us what it looked like
@@mike16apha16 This is not something explainable by density. ex. many dinosaurs were small with hollow bones, and they appear with sauropods. That explanation does not work. Also what specific missing links are we missing that are important to have?
They have an explanation for that, different ecosystems. First the coastal areas would be flooded then higher areas, so different types of animals and vegetation are in different zones and end up in different layers because they are from different ecosystems.
@@xxxfairyyxxx This wouldn't make sense either. One issue is that we see the same stratification with marine animals. Additionally, animals that share the same niches in the same environments and same locations but separated by time are found in different layers.
@@finn7083perhaps you are referring to the layers seraphim talked about. Only two layers seem to be uniform across the planet and other layers came later ( probably explained by the flooding from continental pools emptying after the flood)
My biggest reservation on YEC is archaeological rather than geological. Too much would be happening too recently, and too close together. Differences in millions of animals occurring, hominids of varous kinds doing things, all going on while megalithic structures and agriculture were being developed.
Archaeology is trash. They make up dates. Written history only fits Genesis. Generics only fits Genesis. Population numbers only fit Genesis..civilization only fits Genesis. Jesus Christ loves you!
Perhaps you are conflating the conventional scientific model with observable fossils and history. Millions of animals don’t have to have differences, there are not hominids of different kinds, and the small amount of variations of animals is not incompatible with human agriculture and structures, in fact it depends on it.
@@authorityfigure1630 Many animals and animal groups will show many common features, to be sure. Humans are just 'one' primate species out there for example, and there are thousands of species of crocodilians that have existed over time. The trick is, they didn't coexist at the same time. We see things in nature like species/area curves where a particular habitat only supports a finite number of species at once. This is also true of humans and hominid relatives. While many species are capable of rare interbreeding, many do not, so this usually indicates separation/isolation on some level, even if not purely geographical. There are certainly not enough similarities in these groups to ever remotely suggest that they all coexisted, or we'd still see most all of them today in the same places their fossils were found.
28:40 this guy can't be for real. He's now to the point that simple basic factors of human mythmaking somehow affirm the Babel story. I like how he also just asserts constantly that "you can find this in other stories around the world' as if his hand waving is enough to affirm his primitive ideas.
39:40 I absolutely love it how he just totally dispenses with the 'human capital' of geologic research over the last 250 years from tens of thousands of people with millions of man hours of work with the 'progress' he claims a mere couple of creationist lunatics have presumably made in the last 30 years, most of which just involves them cherry-picking other people's work and making false claims about it.
Just saying there is a Jewish tradition that the angels fixed the earth after the flood. Should this not make all science a tad dubious. (If true, what if they messed in the layers)
I watched this episode earlier today, and appreciate the gracious manner with which the host interviewed Seraphim Hamilton, even though he has a different position. I went to graduate school for ecology and evolution and took a class that specialized in Darwin's research - one thing that always stood out to me, and I was an atheist at that time, was that Darwin's entire premise of change over millions of years rested on uniformitarianism, and that prior to Darwin's time the majority of geologists interpreted the fossil record as being due to the flood. Lyell, re interpreted the sedimentary layers as being deposited over millions of years through uniformitarianism, ie lack of a catastrophic flood. in other words, if you can explain the sediment by being deposited over millions of years, then you "dont need a global flood" to explain it. That gave Darwin his millions of years that would be "needed" to explain slow changes over millions of years. Darwin said that uniformitarianism, "freed man from the law of moses" this is not an objective opinion, this is a desire to come up with an explanation and remove the God of the Bible. Theistic evolution is not logical, because you can't take a theory that was designed to explain life Without God and then in turn say that God used this method. All life did not come from one common ancestor, but creatures do within the confines of their own genetic constraints and code, change over time, such as seen in the canid family, but we don't see dogs changing into cats, there are constraints within each genetic code. I would just saw a couple of other things here to theistic evolutionist christians, which is to examine how the early church viewed creation, and consider interpreting the evidence through the lens of the Church and not the other way around. The argument rests on philosophical presuppositions. Thank you and may God Bless everyone here on this channel!!!
If animals did not evolve why do so many animals have correlatively similar genes within certain linages? Also we have seen evidence of speciation the transition of birds to dinosaurs is heavily documented in both genes and fossils (for example emus have vestigial thumb claws in the exact same place that their ancestors do). Creationists also typically base what scientists refer to as genus or taxa of animal with the phrase kinds which are based only on external visual similarities to categorize their “kinds” which isn’t even biblical since kinds can interbreed.
Well, no it didn't rest on uniformitarianism, this was just an idea about geologic events over time, and there was no particular pre-Darwin consensus on the fossil record as there wasn't much known about it prior to Darwin, rather, the flood was just assumed and the few fossils found up til that point were just assumed to be one-off species that weren't very numerous or widespread. Uniformitarianism was a very brief concept about layering essentially...you are thinking more about 'Gradualism' in which the change in species takes place incrementally over time and is not influenced in any other way. Darwin even suspected and mused in his book that this was not possibly true, as he correctly predicted that rates of change would/could be influenced by all sorts of factors. You are also confusing what Lyell said for something Darwin didn't say. Today we understand that 'uniformitarianism' is actually something called 'actualism'...wherein the laws of physics don't change, but rates of geologic change can occur at different paces, even though the former word is still widely employed, it no longer means what the old interpretation did.
☦️♥️ Dear Brother Seraphim, I apologize for being off topic, but I need your attention, I have also already addressed Brother Jay Deyer, as I understand, at the moment our highly respected and valuable apologist Sam Chamoun is in a state of choice between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic , please talk to him about this and help him make the right choice, I ask you for the sake of the Lord☦️♥️
My dear brother in Christ. I write this with all love. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church must reunite. The prayer of Christ in John 17 commands it. The means of visible unity in the Church is and always has been the Roman Pontiff. Come home. We need your help.
@@authorityfigure1630 Rome being the visible sign of unity in the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is ironically a point that seraphim actually holds. The answer is in unity, not in convincing someone to join one group or another. Thanks for your reply!
@@Krehfish534 I admit I’m not well versed in the orthodox answers to scrutiny about unity. How can Catholics and Orthodox be “united” in the sense that Paul demands if both sides say the other is in schism?
@@authorityfigure1630 The theological divide is so utterly vast, I don't know that they are the same religion\God anymore. The Catholics would have to accept Orthodoxy. It's not even a matter of humility, it's a matter of returning from a departure. Scholasticism ruined Western Christianity. It's why Protestantism has become the atheist factory that it is.
I'm curious to know how those traditional Catholics and Orthodox who hold to theistic evolution reconcile that position with the Church's theology on death being introduced into the cosmos at the fall of mankind in the Garden of Eden. If death is a natural feature of existence and not a bug, then how are we to understand the meaning of death which Christ defeats? Is it supposed to be just an allegory about spiritual death?
If global population is 8 billion, and each couple only has 2 children, the average lifespan being 70 years, 35 years per generation; how long regressing in the past will it take for there to only be 1 couple? And they calculated a 2% growth rate, 1105 generations, or 38,675 years... So it is not far-fetched to put Noah at less than 10,000 years, or even 5,000 (if people lived longer, generations shorter and they had more children). The 300,000-year homo sapien theory would result in a population of hundreds of billions, if not trillions, by now.
Well, population growth hasn't historically been 2%. Disease and lack of medicine, famine etc... meant that population growth was closer to 0%, so you can't backwards extrapolate.
It's not really a great argument either way it just means YEC is feasible. Old earth can easily explain it with mass die offs. A more interesting question is genetic mutations and mutation rates
Honestly I have to lean more yec because of tradition from the fathers and the Catholic Church. Sts. Aquinas and Bellarmine likewise held to literal views of Genesis. Plus Pope St Pius X said that reinterpretation of tradition to fit science was modernist heresy.
What about atemporal fall? I think it could be strongly argued that the Garden of Eden is located on a different plain of existence. It allows for 'no death before the fall' and doesn't need to presume the conventional view of Earth's history is wrong. It does however pose the question of how did God plant Adam in our realm of existence, considering that he's a historical figure.
For the first half hour I get the impression that there was no YEC argument given, only "Early Church believed that Genesis 1-11 was historical" -- yes they did, and yes those are historical, but none of that means the Earth is 6000 Years old, just because some people back then interpreted the numbers that way (which was not a universal position). The argument about sediment layers that can be found around the whole world implying a global flood is getting more interesting, but it doesn't account for the possibly of a multitude of local floods happening globally around the same time (as can very well happen after long icy cold periods come to an end).
Also even a hypothethical global flood would not disprove evolution. The evidence for evolution is not based on paleontology, it's mostly based on observation of living species. There is much better evidence for evolution than for the resurrection of Jesus, and I believe both!
He is orthodox Christian so the opinion of church fathers, especially if there is a consensus, carries a lot more weight than for a protestant like you (I'm guessing?)
I appreciate that the title does not say "This is what EO believe about YEC". I love Hamilton, but we don't have specific doctrine or dogma on the issue. As far as what I believe..........? Anyway, in college my Geology professor, a PhD from a reputable university was a YEC - albeit a Protestant. He, always wearing a giant gold cross necklace (giant), didn't say it outright. He would just say "If you want to know what I really believe about the age of the earth ask me after class". He had literally written the textbook we were using and it was old earth perspective. I'm not going to say who he was (reposed long ago) because his material is still in print, but I wish I had asked him some of those questions. I was an atheist at the time so it put me off. I did ask him plenty of after class questions as he was a brilliant man, a long after-class discussion involving feldspars comes to mind, but I regrettably never broached that subject. This was turn of the millennia era.
IMHO that guy sounds like a moron. The age of the Earth and how we know it to be so is based on principles that see wide application in industries where they 'cannot be wrong' to do what they do...and if they were, we'd all be in big trouble from runaway nuclear reactors to self-detonating nuclear weapons. So when some Geology Prof claims or hints that he believes something else, he's simply either pulling your chain or he probably got his PHD from a diploma mill. While there are some creationists who have secular credentials, they don't publish these beliefs in the same academic journals from which they attained their educations and their dissertations might be subject to citation in, so assuredly something is up with that guy as to his integrity or the nature of their claim. I'd instead consult a few of them at the same time and ask them in a group if you want a better idea about what Geologists really think so that each can hold the other's feet to the fire just in case they want to say something personal that's complete bullshit like YECism.
The title is very misleading, the title shouldn't be an eastern orthodox case for YEC, the title should "Seraphim Hamilton's Case for YEC", Because the eastern orthodox churches do not teach or hold to YEC officially, it's open and many not just lay or low ranking priests but eastern orthodox Metropolitan's, Archbishops and Bishops hold to Old earth and evolution like for example Metropolitan Kallistos Ware of blessed memory, Archbishop Lazar puhalo or father lawerance Farley and I got a list of other prominent figures. I'll be listening in though because I myself am a YEC.
@QSAnimazione-hashtag-4236 No that's not the case, plenty of eastern orthodox hold to evolution, and some of thebiggest names in eo and most Most influential figures hold to Old earth and evolution like there's no bigger name in recent times than metropolitan Kallistos Ware who is a staunch Believer in evolution he believes God worked through evolution and at some point God created the human soul and he picked Adam and gave him a human rational soul. And he lived and died in very good standing with the eo churches, he is held in high regards. You may hear on the internet from newly converted eo in America from protestantism and they may be wrongly telling you that eo is opposed to evolution. You asked me on what grounds I hold to YEC, well on the grounds that Holy Mother Church has given me the green light or the ok to hold YEC if I wish to, I'm free to hold to it. (I hope I understood your question correctly and I answered your question adequately, if not let me know)
@telosbound Um, yes Archbishop Lazar Pahalo was a Bishop in the eastern orthodox churches before he retired. You might not like him and that's fair enough I won't force you to like him, but atleast admit he was an eastern orthodox bishop which is factual. Ok I'll table bishop Lazar Pahalo for a minute, what about one of the wisest eastern orthodox bishop in recent times and a character held in high regards a giant in the eastern orthodox world like Metropolitan Kallistos Ware he was a staunch old earther and evolution Believer. Yt search this "Metropolitan Kallistos Ware on evolution"
@@catholiccrusaderdeusvult9949 After your comment I asked my Eastern Orthodox friend and he said that the link he once gave me to prove evolution was anathema came from the so called "Russian True Orthodox Church", which is a schismatic movement, after doing more reasearch neither him nor me could find any binding document from the Eastern Orthodox church that anathemises evolution. Sorry for having spread misinfirmation, I'm glad your comment moved me to educate myself more on this topic As per the second question, I was more looking for a reason that makes you think YEC is more likely to be true than evolution, since I am a student of biology I am interested to hear the testimony of those that reject the standard narrative that I've learned in university. I've not yet found good reasons to doubt that narrative, that's why I'm asking
37:38 this is also absolutely false. He's of course referring to faunal succession and biogeography, but he's notably leaving out the KPG extinction event which defines the start of the Cenozoic, and he seems to think that the extinction of Dinosaurs and marine reptiles somehow marks a change to faunal succession, but this isn't true. We still find all the same faunal and biogeographical changes in the Cenozoic as we did for the other eras, even if the dominance of some groups changed fundamentally after the meteor impact event. He never says why, and then of course he once again asserts that the Paleozoic and Mesozoic were just different fundamentally as 'pre-flood' layers or something. He's really just making shit up and it's kinda sad.
27:40 now he's getting crazy. He's attributing entirely different flood stories by location and total mythology to just some sort of natural change in the narrative that was somehow taken from some original population instead of humans having the simple creativity to just have their own flood ideas which again, were told/happened at very different times in their histories, NOT consistent with some 4,000 years ago Gilgamesh narrative. I dunno where he's getting the idea that someone is arguing that Christian missionaries would have implanted these or some alternative stories. These missionaries didn't exist at the time these stories came about, such as they are.
35:48 Seraphim keeps somehow referring to these eras as if they are single layers of rock...they are not in the slightest. The Paleozoic era alone spans some 250 million years of geologic events, and it is primarily defined by the change in the fossil record where multicellular life emerged and flourished, NOT because of the rock characteristics because much the same patterns happening then were ALSO happening in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This was not some single sedimentary event layer or anything like that. He has no idea what he's talking about yet again and I suspect his reading on this topic was a 5 minute drive by on the AIG website.
38:10 again, there was nothing 'different' about these eras in the way he asserts. Was the Earth's climate different? Yes. Was animal life different? Yes, to a degree.. but you could have stood on the Earth 70 million years ago and things would not have looked particularly different to a human's eyes. Similar trees, even some of the animal life wouldn't be unrecognizable. Birds were already around, you'd likely see turtles and small reptiles pretty familiar to you as well, at least by general appearances. Small mammals, etc. But nothing particularly geologic would stand out at all, even if you dug for a while. You'd see the same sort of sediment deposits, you'd see rivers, rivers changing course, lakes, streams, oceans, maybe a 'tad' bit more volcanic activity. That's about it. There's nothing 'strange' or 'weird' about this, nor controversial, nor widely accepted or claimed by any geologists. He's just making this up presumably on the basis of a few creationists he follows.
30:13 It's very easy to explain if you don't invent your own version of history and how it was recorded or why. Seraphim isn't a serious person...he's done nothing to support his contentions, he's just spitballing and it's damnned funny to see a grown man say this stuff.
29:20 once again... I dunno where this idea comes from that anyone said that missionaries were spreading these stories... humans simply have a commonality in how they tell stories due to our psychology and things we find important, and when floods or disasters or other things happen, or we describe things we believe, they hold similar themes. Seraphim's unsupported notion that how we tell stories and human inventiveness is limited to one narrative is absolutely ludicrous. When floods happen, regionally or locally, people are always going to hold such a thing to be miraculous or attribute various things to that, and his silly Babel allusion is just weird... just because someone mentions a tree or a root or something like that does NOT speak to some deep connection to the Babel mythos as real/true at all, lol. I am also now fully unconvinced that 'this' is his actual basis for turning to YEC. To hold such a misunderstanding about information like this speaks to something deeply psychological rather than because reason has been employed.
I'm not a YEC, probably lean theistic evolution, but not really believe all the evolution narrative. More of G. K. Chesterton's view: "If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time."
@xxxfairyyxxx What about it? How is an ape-like being slowly turning into a human form reqire death? That's the "scientific" narrative of how things evolved and I don't buy in to it. Then this also begs the question, what is death? Are you only meaning human death? What about the food used for consumption in the Garden of Eden? It wasn't animals, but whatever plant, fruit, nut that was consumed that died.
Evolutionary science has a lot of difficulty in reconstructing the entire history of life on Earth. We can only look at large scale trends/patterns. Rest assured, humans evolved over time like all other life did, and it left enough evidence behind in our genetics and in the ground to tell us this. The simple reality is that Biblical writings from people who had 'no idea' about these discoveries is simply wrong on the origins of the Earth/humans, and that's easy enough to understand. Theirs was merely a conjecture based on very primitive and limited understandings. These are people who didn't know what the purpose of blood was, or why people had brains in their heads, or what a liver did, or what was necessarily going on when humans had sex or why. It's pretty easy to concoct some idea of humanity starting with just two people necessary for starting everything when that's the only awareness of sexual reproduction available to you. Today we just know better.
@@samueljennings4809 where does it say that in the canon when we affirm no death before the fall there’s no distinction between animal death and human death but if you want to argue that for your theistic evolution perspective go for it it’s just not convincing and never will be for me
24:30 This is just stupid thinking and I'm starting to think that Seraphim never had done much of any study on the sciences relevant here if he's so convinced by a foolhardy argument like flood stories. Most people live near water, the Earth itself is covered by water to the tune of about 70% of its surface, and, it rains a lot sometimes, along with massive storms like hurricanes, and there are tsunamis and other water events.Many areas experience regional/seasonal flooding, some of which are very rare but not over great timescales. And 'yes'... many humans who may write about these events (we have no chronologically connected tradition of these, unlike what Seraphim is hinting at...like the Australian aborigines have a flood story that presumably dates to about 40,000 years ago, but the Gilgamesh epic is only around 4,000 years old) and may have similar themes about floods washing away/drying up because that's what floods do.
even if we had perfect accuracy in all data and evidence there would be weirdos with novel interpretations with intent to deceive. I havnt research this topic much but wow this is complex.
it's not complex if you focus on biology, which is the field that discovered it. Astronomy clearly shows that light that is billions of years old is reaching Earth, and biology clearly shows that all genes in dolphins are closer to mouse genes than to shark genes. These prove an Old Earth and Evolution.
The Church Fathers were YECs as were Jesus and the Apostles. Augustin believed that the Genesis days were allegorical because God can create instantly. He believed that Adam and Eve were real persons who lived recently. The miracles and resurrection of Jesus Christ prove that God doesn't need millions of years of trial and error, predation, carnivory, disease, suffering and death to create life. God created and saw it was good, very good. Suffering and death are not good, they are bad. The LOGOS is a loving, powerful, rational and effective Creator. Death is the last enemy, a consequence of sin. If Adam and Eve were not real persons it makes no sense to say, as Catholics believe, that Mary is the New Eve and Jesus is the New Adam. The trillions of fossils around the world (signs of abrupt burial) are best interpreted as evidence of a recent global flood, not of evolution.
Um, fossils themselves are not indicative of a global flood. In fact, the fossil record itself precludes entirely a global deluge! The matching between phylogeny and strata is proof of that! If a global flood happened with all living organisms being created within 6 literal 24 hour days, then all different types of fossils would indiscriminately appear in all levels of strata! But yet that's not what the fossil record shows! Plus, there is plentitude of transitional fossils between various levels of taxa which show evolutionary change, not fiat creation! This isn't even going into the various geological formations/depositional environments that exist now which didn't and couldn't have happened under flood conditions.
That’s not even remotely true! As someone that studies paleoclimatology, there’s numerous climate events which are recorded in terrestrial records that go back much older than 6k years! The 8.2 ka event, the younger Dryas event, the Bolling-Allerod warming and the Lady glacial maximum are all older than 6k years old! Furthermore, none of those terrestrial records show any such concept of catastrophe or some global deluge!
@@Kylerusse64 your conclusions are totally dependent on your naturalistic uniformitarian assumptions. You are not even aware of that. You lack basic critical thinking skills. You don't notice that the color of your ideological lenses determines the color of everything you see.
It's really amazing to see two people having this discussion where not a single thought is given to the possibility that the Bible just isn't correct. And it's really weird how both of you are even avoiding that consideration with respect to the scientific/secular evidence.
With respect to scientific/secular evidence - Do you even know where modern 'science' comes from? The presuppositions for modern science are gnostic, you can read more about this in Eric Voegelin work's Order and History. The timescale that modern science uses comes from Charles Lyell. Who came up with it, not based on any evidence but because he hated the christian idea of a young earth. The whole edifice of 'secular evidence' is based on his presupposition, which is borne of hatred. But then again, you midwits are so blinded by your own hatred of Christ you'd far rather blindly follow 'science' with out ever questioning where it comes from. You're in a cult.
@@JohnSmith-wo2fzLol you have no idea what you’re talking about. Science and scientific methodology have spanned thousands of years and owe nothing to your belief set. As for timescales, Lyell was but one of many who understood that Earths geologic history necessarily involved immense spans of time, only he had no real idea how long. Radiometric dating would not be discovered until nearly 75 years after he died. Lyell’s concept of uniformitarianism was never fully accepted even in his lifetime but as a principal it had minimal levels of validity in concept since over great timescales there are background rates to be seen. Today we might still use the word in a general way but it means ’actualism’ in practice
@@alithea9510 I'm undecided between younger Earth creationism and older Earth creationism, however this issue does not seem so difficult. Even in the older Earth evolutionary model the first domestic dog species only appeared when the younger Earth creationists believe man first appeared. And the extreme diversity we see among domestic dog species had occurred mostly in the past few centuries. It is easy to see how pressures can cause diversity from a population like that, especially when we are only talking about the minor diversity we see among humans compared to dog species.
26:00 actually this just isn't true. We have no distinct or other similarities to the Noachian narrative flood story like this in any other tales of floods. No rainbows or other crap like that. He's just making this up. Also again, such tales that do exist hold no chronological connection. Remember, all human writing originated only within the last 6,000 years, and many flood tales have no similar dating to the Gilgamesh deluge. Oral traditions date even further back. I don't know where he's getting this idea from, but this is 'very' lightweight YEC reasoning here that isn't explained by any actually supported evidence from flood stories at all.
NOTICE: not taking a side with this comment ----- People are treating what Hamilton has to say here as though it is a semester's worth of thinking. Chill y'all. The video is under an hour.
It’s not even five minutes of study, lol I've been thinking about this guy over the last few days, and It appears to me that while he is still very young, he has been so utterly immeshed in religious studies and social interactions, that he's really just largely ignorant of anything else. It explains how he so easily runs to YEC web sources and just assumes that since they are religiously friendly arguments, they must hold water versus the scientific information that he CLEARLY has never 'EVER' read anything about, other than the names/terms he saw on YEC websites. The sheer flippancy with which he dispenses with a few centuries of scientific thought and discoveries in favor of 'a couple of guys he saw mentioned on a YEC site' tells all here I think. It's a really fascinating psychological study, this guy.
“Why didn’t the disciples know that Jesus could feed the 4,000 after he had fed the 5,000 in the previous chapter?” Matt 15:33 (KJV) The so called “Christian” leaders of today teach that it is because they didn’t have faith. But the fact is that anyone involved in such a miracle and still skeptical would not only remember it but would be anxious for a similar situation to arise and prove it one way or the other. The discrepancy is put there to prod those with eyes to see (those sincere in search of truth) to investigate. The answer is given in the 16th chapter where Jesus speaks of the leaven of the Pharisees. Matt 16:6-12 (KJV). If that bread were literal then the disciples had every reason to believe that Jesus was being literal about the leaven and he therefore had no reason to chide them. But that bread being symbolic he chided them for not considering and taking to heart his teachings even after the third time of bringing up the subject. That teaching is what you are reading now. The bible (KJV) says that Jesus followed no will of his own but the will of God. John 6:38 (KJV) His life in the flesh is an ensample (representation) of God's laws. Jesus says that bread represents his flesh (his life) which in turn represents God's law (the bread of life). John 6:51 (KJV) Jesus’ death gave us the New Testament. Matt 26:28 (KJV) and Heb 9:16 (KJV) The New Testament brings meat to the scriptures, represented by the two fishes. The meat is the symbolic code and patterns that bring/bind all scripture in the bible (KJV) together. Heb 5:12-14 (KJV) It has been 2 thousand years since Jesus, so each fish represents 1 thousand years. In turn the five loaves of bread represent 5 thousand years that God gave his laws to man. 21 And they that had eaten were about FIVE THOUSAND men,…Matt 14:21 (KJV) This gives us a glimpse of Gods timeline. 7 thousand years ago Adam was kicked out of the garden. It also shows us that we are at the end of our time on this earth; 13 … and in the earthquake were slain of men SEVEN THOUSAND: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven. Rev 11:13 (KJV) What does all this prove? It proves that the stories in the bible (KJV) aren’t meant to be taken literally. Also different parts of the hidden truths and patterns are written by different authors hundreds and thousands of years apart show that the bible (KJV) is the preserved word of God orchestrated, compiled, and translated by him and the Holy Ghost. It tells us that the bible speaks of itself and that it is for OUR admonition. 4 Neither give heed to FABLES and ENDLESS GENEALOGIES…1 Tim 1:4 (KJV) It tells us its message is hidden in the fables, parables, and stories through symbolism. And above all it gives us a major key in unlocking the hidden timeline and agenda of God. It tells us that the following verse is meant to be taken as literal. 2 Peter 3:8 (KJV) So taking 2 Peter 3:8 (KJV) as literal tells us that each creation day is 1k years. 5 .... And the evening and the morning were the first day. Gen 1:5 (KJV) Another thing that shows the creation days are 1k yrs. is if you take the phrase “the evening and the morning” and do a search verbatim of the whole bible (KJV) the only verse that comes up other than the creation days is Dan 8:26 (KJV) There is no way the events of the vision it speaks of could happen in one 24 hour period. Okay now to get down to it. When you make the creation days 1k yrs. long you will notice there is a big problem. There is no way that plants (created on the third day) could live 1k yrs. without the sun (created on the fourth day). The only way for this to work is to switch the third day with the fourth day. And you can’t just switch verses at your leisure; you need to get permission first. That permission is in the book of Revelation with the seven seals, (a pattern of symbols that REVEAL the second week of Gods timeline, the time of man's dominion). Remember we are looking to move the 3rd day. So when you look at the 3rd seal we read; Rev 6:5-6 (KJV) Balances are symbolic of the weighing of two things (choices). It’s giving us a choice, “A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny;” And in that choice it warns us, “and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.” not to spoil the flow of things in your choice. So when we switch the 3rd and 4th days we see a definite pattern (a flow). On day 1 you have the one earth with no life created. On day 2 God splits the earth in two, still no life created. On day 3 God creates the sun and the moon and it is mentioned! that he also created the stars. Three cosmic entities, No life created. On day 4 God creates plants. One form of life created. On day 5 God creates fish and fowl. Two forms of life created. On day 6 God creates cattle, creeper, and beast. Three forms of life created. One would argue that man was also created on the 6th day making it four forms of life. But a cow is a beast, the redundancy put there again to prod those with eyes to see to investigate. When we go to Matt 25:31-46 (KJV), we see that sheep are used to represent the righteous and goats are used to represent the sinner. When we go to Ezek 34:17 we see God judging between cattle and cattle and between rams (the righteous) and goats (the sinners) making cattle represent the only ones left the innocent. Not because they didn’t do anything wrong but because at the creation they didn’t know of God’s laws. Therefore three forms of life created on the 6th day, man (cattle), creeper, and beast. And we can go further with this creation of man. In Gen 5:2 (KJV) God calls “their” name Adam, meaning more than one. When we go to Rev 17:15 (KJV) we see that waters are used to represent peoples, and when we go to Gen 2:11-14 (KJV) we see the creation of the four races of man represented by the four rivers. And this story of the creation of the four races is only given once, which means that the story of Noah’s flood is fable also. So when we go to 2 Peter 3:5-6 (KJV) when it speaks of the earth being overflowed with water it is speaking of the earth in the first day of creation. It also mentions that there was life on it before it was overflowed, similar to a vivarium, or a prep-station. Let's do a recap: God overflows the earth with water, then after 500 years of darkness (called the evening) God says (speaking to the heavenly host) “let there be light” or to paraphrase [lets go to work]. Then for 500 years (called the morning) God and the heavenly host start setting the foundations of the earth, such as putting the continents and their rich resources in strategic places. Then God lets the earth settle for 500 years, being the evening of the second day. Then the morning of the second day God splits the earth in two. Then 1k years later he creates the sun and the moon and like I said it is mentioned that he created the stars also, not necessarily in that 1k year day. Then 1k years later he creates plant life, 1k years later fish and fowl, 1k years later man (cattle), creeper, and beast. And God and the heavenly host rested from physical labor the last day of the first week of God’s timeline. An observation of note, water is an accelerant of decay, and the earth was overflowed with water for 3,500 years. And the calibrations of calibrations that need to be calibrated before an accurate reading can be given make carbon dating iffy at best. But no matter, just because you know the age of something doesn’t mean you know its history. Just because something is buried in 70,000-year-old mud doesn’t make that thing 70,000 years old. Just as it took 7 one-thousand-year days for the creation, God allotted 7 one-thousand-year days for man's dominion on this earth (the seven seals). All glory to God. Amen
A poorly supported hypothesis. An impact, even if it did occur, was literally not significant enough to cause the climate shift. But this still happened about twice as early as any YEC believes the Earth's actual age is, so this is really a conjecture for Old Earth theists or secular science.
5:40 so is your entire non-evolutionary thinking simply because you maintain that scripture must be correct in some way, rather than because some evolution or other related evidence is false?
Do not expect logic from the people who expressly reject it. In fact it is a paradox in itself that they use computers and the internet to attack science.
Nobody lacks humility more than soyentists. Soyentists just pushed the clot shot on you. We try to follow the science but all we can see is the money trail!
@@Giorginhopeople leave Christianity because they lose faith in Christianity. One singular issue like Evolution won’t likely tip the scale. Fr Seraphim rose in the 70s was able to make very coherent and congruent arguments against it and Abiogenesis (the competing Naturalist theory which imo requires as much faith as does God). Our modern anti Christian world (wokeism, CRT etc) is no less religion than what we as Christians espouse
Just so I’m clear. Are we using writings from bronze age humans with no scientific data ,that we currently have available , to argue the age of the earth?
@@danlopez.3592 Am I supposed to make a whole essay on why Christianity is true? This video isn't a scientific discussion about evolution but a theological one, mostly. I get that YEC is kind of insane for most people (me included) but your comment was kinda silly imo
@@Testimony_Of_JTF no such essay is possible. If you’re saying you believe a certain religion is true that is one thing. To claim that you have good evidence for it being true is different. I can prove to you with virtual certainty that gravity exist. You cannot do such a thing about a magical supernatural being.
What a shame. I love Seraphim on so many issues... But not this one ; ) YEC simply try to "fit" that which doesn't actually fit in order to honour an interpretation that is not actually unnecessary. Surely we can all see from Scripture that God, at times, accommodates our scientific ignorance within the flow of His revelation
@@andrefouche9682 I believe in the virgin birth as well in Christ turining water into wine on the basis that 1) there is no metaphysical problem when it comes to the aethiological pattern of such a divine action whatsoever, and 2) I consider the Gospels to be reliable historical accounts based on arguments that support such an attestation (see Blomberg, Baucham, Pitre, McGrew etc).... I don't see this as being in any way relevant to holding a ridiculous opinion like YECism
Where does Orthodoxy come into this? This is just an American creationist argument empty of any reference to Orthodoxy. Outside the USA, practically no Christian believes in young earth or creationism. Chapter 2 of Genesis begins with the creation of man followed by the creation of all the other things, whereas Chapter 1 has all the other things being created before man. How does an Old Testament literalist reading reconcile these two chapters?
Yes, finally. This also sounds very americanized to me. The other day I got called an "agnostic materialist" when asking the same question (Where does Orthodoxy come into this?) when another american orthodox was discussing a similar topic on Instagram. It appears to me that american orthodoxy is developing its own characteristics. Too many converts from protestant branches, maybe.
@@floridaman318 - American Orthodoxy is becoming another kind of Protestantism, it is very troubling. Because to outsiders it is still being referred to as Orthodoxy by American converts. The Old Testament is a collection of myths and stories. Few ever considered it a book of true history in the modern sense until the time of the Inquisition and after. In Genesis 2, God creates man before all other living beings: Genesis 2: 5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
This is true, a truly Orthodox discussion could have simply cited the (non-American) Saints Joseph the Hesychast, Paisios, Luke the Surgeon, John of Kronstadt, Theophan the Recluse and countless others, said it's our duty to humbly accept their consensus, and then the episode would have been about 5 minutes long. Their consensus is 100% against evolution and the associated (very non-Orthodox) intellectual status signaling btw.
@@Fakest-d5e - This is simply a perversion of a perversion of the sayings of these often obscure monks, most of whom were not very literate and had lived secluded monastic lives with nothing to read except the Scriptures and often little contact with the body of the Orthodox Church. They are venerated for their monastic lives not for their attacks on reason. Their sayings, often taken completely out of context, were gathered together and presented in the wrong light by the American priest Seraphim Rose who wanted to defend himself from an admonition by a Greek Orthodox priest that his American views on Creationism were not Orthodox doctrine. There are far more important Saints with much better learning, not least St Gregory of Nyssa one of the 3 Great hierarchs, who have spoken in favour of evolution. The Patriarch of Constantinople at the time of the publication of Darwin's Origin of the Species wrote to congratulate Darwin for his compelling theory. No educated Christian believes in the Creationist rubbish, it is an offense to reason, it harms and pollutes the Christian Church, some segments of which have been largely destroyed by such ideas, so the enemies of Christianity are now turning to the Orthodox Church to cause it as much harm as they have caused to the other Churches. Hardly anyone outside America is in favour of Creationism and no Orthodox writer outside America has written in favour of this ridiculous American Protestant idea justified by the same means the Inquisition was justifying its attacks on science and attacks against rationally thinking Christians like Copernicus and Galileo. You do not understand Orthodoxy, you cannot just change the title of what kind of Christian you say you are as if that would make you Orthodox.
Anyone who believes in Adam and Eve has to believe in evolution. If you have an original pair of people, and later on all of the diversity in humanity today, you have to have evolution. That's how you get a fair-skinned Dane who can drink milk every day vs a dark-skinned Australian Aboriginal who is lactose intolerant. Light skin allows one to intake more vitamin D in a lack of sunlight, while dark skin can protect someone from UV radiation when there's an excess of sunlight. Likewise, lactose tolerance allows one to drink milk, taking better advantage of agriculture.
That's disingenuous. No one who doubts the Darwinian mythos holds that species don't slowly change over time. If that was all that Darwinian "macro" evolution claimed, it wouldn't be opposed; it's empirically verifiable. What is usually being critiqued is abiogenesis and the evolution from one species to another over time. For example, a single-cell micro organism over billions of years becoming a sentient being that has the capability to ponder its own existence, via random mutation.
The claim YECs reject is speciation, despite the fact that we have observed speciation more than once in the natural world. Dogs from wolves, wild wheat from cultivated wheat, wine yeast strains and beer yeast strains, lab flies.
@@CosmicMystery7 abiogenesis is not relevant to this conversation, it's not been proven, evolution on the other hand has. We have observed speciation. "a single-cell micro organism over billions of years becoming a sentient being" is not what evolution claim: a far far descendant of a single celled micro organism is a sentient being. It's not the organism that changes, it's its offspring.
@@CosmicMystery7 Evolution doesn't make any comments about abiogenesis. It also doesn't say that one species produces another. th-cam.com/video/NDkDSTp-_7k/w-d-xo.html
Yeah, his whole stance of just going to YEC because he assumes the Bible must be historical is really really weird. Like he doesn't even consider for a moment that theistic evolutionism is even half-right because it accepts evolution, he's just all theism or nothing.
@@davidstaudinger1543Everyone has heard the YEC arguments and personally I watched all of this video and still wasn’t convinced since Seraphim gave no actual evidence for his claims and clearly also didn’t do any actual research or reading on these claims beyond what he’s repeating from YEC websites. He’s really just a very very isolated and insulated person who has entirely surrounded himself in religious studies and never much dealt with anyone outside of that bubble
@@newglof9558 any case that requires we lie and deny the empirical facts of zoology, geology, paleontology, dendrochronology, anthropology, heck even denying radiometric decay is absolutely absurd. I've spent my time in YEC and will not be going back, if you think the moral of a story about two creatures made from mud named "Human" and "Life" is to teach us the scientific intricacies of the origin of biological diversity... I don't know what else to say
@@martyfromnebraska1045 I'm not teaching a highschool science class in the TH-cam comment section. The point was the astronomical amount of empirical evidence one must deny to accept the lie of YEC, not an attempt to demonstrate said science.
@@wobblebobblebabyThere is literally ZERO evidence for evolution. No field in history has more FRAUDS and failed predictions while relying on ZERO observations. th-cam.com/video/Fflw5v6_Kfc/w-d-xo.html
42:00 You’re very right that it is career suicide. I have had many theologians who are well respected in mainstream theology tell me in private that they either agree with YEC or are sympathetic to it. I recently had one of the top theologians in the world thank me for publicly defending YEC (but he asked me to keep his name confidential).
I think one way to say these things in an academic context is to just not be polemical on it. I’ve found a lot of people haven’t listened to the YEC side because they met someone who defended it in a very mean spirited way.
My guess: academia rests upon academicians’ acceptance of the expertise of other academicians. For a Biblicist/THL to reject evolution is to reject the expertise of the scientists, so they would reject him.
@@claymcdermott718 rightfully so
Sometimes people may defend it in a mean way because we feel so pushed up against the wall with those gaslighting us.
Yes, but that's what signifies evolutionists. We should not be like them. @@paulr5246
No honest Christian defends young earth creationism. It is an embarassment for the Christian faith, a terrible achievement of the Inquisition, which was the worst enemy of Christianity, worse than Communism or Islam.
Seraphim was a huge influence in my own journey to YEC. Truly one of the best young Christian minds today.
I'll reply to you here because this website doesn't let me reply to your comment under my statement.
You said "The Catholic Church’s apparent teaching of evolution as doctrine (which I later discovered it does not teach) was a HUGE stumbling block to my own journey to Catholicism. A large number of Protestants and Orthodox reject evolution. Treating evolution as Church doctrine pushes them away. Atheists aren’t the only people who might convert."
I am not saying you must believe in evolution, I would say that if the church taught that, I'm saying that you should. Reasons:
1-you must believe it is compatible with the faith. The church does teach this much
2-to reject it is to reject the authorithy of the scientific community. This is not a prudentially wise thing to do, because science is a legitimate way to know the world, to reject it is to deprive you of an important way to know how God ordered the world and how we can use it to our advantage.
3-to reject the authorithy of the scientific community is a highly repulsive to reasonable secular people.
That is the point I was making. Before saying "yes I'd rather take my personal interpretation of Genesis than the explicit evidence that builds the theories that enabled modern scientific advances" you should consider how unhumble you are being. Rejecting the results of science itself, which as I've said is a true method for knowing true things.
I'll make you some other examples: you can't say "I don't believe embryos are humans, science is wrong, so abortion is fine". Going too far in ignoring science leads to these kinds of absurdities.
Another opinion that is compatible with the faith but that is highly repulsive to reasonable people would be "the whole New Testament was originally written in hebrew and it was later translated into greek". You should not believe this, it is an opinion that discredits authorative sources like textual critics but also early witnesses to the Gospels like the church fathers. You'd sound unreasonable.
And protestants and orthodox that believe YEC should be shown that their approach to the Deposit of Faith is flawed, beginning with the evidence for evolution is not a bad evangelization strategy. Believe the truth because it's true, be humble before those whose profession is discovering it.
⬆️ "to reject it is to reject the authority of the scientific community"
Lol, no biggie, I can't believe this is seriously a argument, literally appeal to authority, most people of the "scientific" community are bought for money to promote the liberal agenda
@guyaboveme
It won’t let me reply to you without automatically deleting my comment.
Lol science doesn’t prove abortion is wrong. It’s not even equipped to do so. The “scientific community” is just an institutional center of power, and its consensus is the last reason you should believe anything. It’s also a power center that is occupied overwhelmingly by people hostile to the church’s values, and those institutions are integrated with a secular United States empire which is definitely hostile toward those values.
Your entire argument effectively boils down to, “this is what people who appear to be intelligent believe, so you should believe it to appear to be intelligent.” I’m good, dawg
@@nathanielus5296 Why would chinese, middle eastern and african scientists play along? I agree that in the US and in Northern Europe there is an interest in pushing for false narratives about transing people, but the fact that it is a false narratice can be learned by seeing chinese, middle eastern and aftican scientists vehemently rejecting those notions.
You're being stupidly and blindly unreasonable. Acting stupid is fine if you are stupid, since I suspect you are not, don't act stupidly.
@@martyfromnebraska1045 Science tells us what is and isn't true about the physical world. It is a genuine and reliable tool to know the world. Depriving yourself from it because some people wave around the word "science" too much is as stupid as saying "I don't believe the Catholic Church gives genuine and truthful statements about faith and morals because the german bishops claim to be catholic".
Thank you for covering this topic. I wouldn't be Christian nor Catholic today if it wasn't for YEC, that's what made me take the second Adam seriously, to know the first Adam could be taken seriously.
I am forever grateful to YEC for this. I was desperate, spiritually broken and dabbling in witchcraft, knowing God really did create our first parents made everything fall in place and I feared God.
Christ then made me love God.
YEC was very important for my own spiritual life too. I get there are some people who find YEC troubling for their faith, but many others have had the opposite experience.
@@thebyzantinescotist7081
Exactly. They find it troubling because in a certain sense they are more convinced of evolution *theory* than God's Word.
Some would rather try to fit the two even if it is a massive stretch.
@@VirginMostPowerfull No one's "not convinced" by God's word, rather they would object to the assertion that YEC is warranted by and that it must dogmatically be taken as truth. Plus, the empirical evidence they would argue contradicts such interpretation!
Plus, no one argues the Bible teaches evolution, but that as a natural phenomenon, it is real and it isn't contradictory to what the message of Genesis states! Each are their own category with one dealing with a natural process and the other doesn't deal with such things!
Plus, I would point out that YEC's do this with passages in the Bible such as flat earth and geocentrism
@@VirginMostPowerfull does the theory of gravity also confuse you?
@@danlopez.3592 Don't compare gravity which is present, with evolution theory which is historical conjecture. I have no issue with any present theory only historical theories that are arguably false.
Excellent. YEC is the Truth from Scripture and Tradition
Seraphim has the muscleman haircut 💪
You know who *else* has the Muscleman haircut?
Its a motorcycle helmet.
Althought I'm a theistic evolutionist I really enjoyed this and would love to hear more from Seraphim on this topic. Thank you for this interview Suan
Same. Seraphim is sharp.
why do you believe in evolution?
@@novaxdjokovic9592 I just find the evidence for it convincing
Macro evolution has never been observed. Darwin had no idea about the complexity of the cell and he said himself that if any piece of biology that can’t be explained through gradual mutation, would put a damper on his theory. Now look up the flagellar mortor and irreducible complexity. There are incredibly complex systems at a cellular level that require dozens of other components to operate and in this worldview all of the pieces would have had to evolved simultaneously and gradually while serving purpose in an adaptive sense during that process. The idea that it was mere random mutation and the chance of the weakest dying first, (survival of the fittest is false, it’s survival of the lucky/death of the least fit, for example, usually only the smallest impalas will fall to be preyed upon by lions, while the majority of the pack will survive) cannot be justified and is frankly absurd. Darwin had doubts about his own theory at the end of his life, and had he known about the complexity of the cell he most likely would have abandoned the theory entirely.
@@therealkingbaldwin The only difference between micro and macro evolution is time. The small mutations and changes in populations we have observed are evolution. There is no irreducible complexity. Evolution predominantly works by taking bodily features that are already present and tweaking them slightly, gradually inclining organisms towards different sorts of lives. ex. to become aquatic, whales needed flippers, but they never needed a flipper to pop into existence fully formed. Instead, arms gradually changed, each stage being beneficial for the organism, since it increasingly adapted it to an increasingly aquatic lifestyle.
God bless you, Seraphim. Please never give up on fighting for the truth. It hurts my heart what has been allowed to happen to genesis 1-11.
Great interview Suan, While I disagree with many of Seraphims conclusions I appreciate these conversations and willingness to hear from others in the body of Christ. Might I recommended conversing with Dr. Matthew Ramage, his newest book on evolution and Catholic faith is fantastic.
Are you familiar with an irreducible complexity?
Evolution mathematically doesn't work. There isn't enough time for the amount of fixed genetic mutations to occur to get from the common ancestor of chimps and humans, to modern humans in the time span given by 'scientists'. The rate of mutation would have to be so high that the egyptian mummies dug up from about 1,000-500BC would be genetically different to modern humans which isn't the case. And the maths is so far off, you'd need about a billion years to get from common ancestor to modern human. There is simply no way to get evolution to work. It sounds like a nice idea on paper, but you can't shoehorn it in and make it fit, it just doesn't.
@@authorityfigure1630 Irreducible complexity was originally an evolutionary concept about how evolution creates structures that over time will lose the original function or capability for original function that they once had, much like a bird's wing is an evolved forelimb that no longer has the ability to perform the functions it once did, but now has a new one. Michael Behe coopted the term to suggest that such things are examples of spontaneous creation, only he forgets that these are still evolved structures. Even his flagellum has been shown to have arisen from a secretory system.
@@JohnSmith-wo2fz The problem with that argument is that it deliberately ignores population sizes in the animal world to make the argument. It's not just ONE lineage of animals that carry these mutations, it's millions upon billions of mutations happening all throughout populations and leading to fixation of traits that carry forward. Plenty of time for those to occur. All it has to do is happen once or with some regularity in a population, since even most beneficial mutations have happened more than once in a group.
Don't waste your time on creationist websites or books for your arguments.
26:30 What seraphim fails to mention here is that the Hindu flood story is also derived from the Gilgamesh epic narrative and of course is why you have those stories all coming out of the same general region of the world.
The global flood angle could be why the rainbow is attacked today. If the rainbow represents Noah surviving a real global flood, and modernity rejects this, then they would do so symbolically by the rainbow flag. It is also possible that the times of Noah that sin was predominant, so the rainbow represents a defeat of that sin, with modern day using it as a mockery of God since God promised not to punish that sin with a flood.
True
do attacks on the Cross prove that the crucifixion happened everywhere at once instead of just in one place?
@@tafazzi-on-discordthat's silly, I think he just means to say that the symbol is being mocked just like the case for pentagram or cross of St Peter. There's a pattern in which all symbols associated with good are often used by the enemy for the inversion.
@@tymon1928 He was trying to use that to imply that the flood was global rather than local.
I don’t think it’s the rainbow being attacked so much as the ideas behind it. I don’t hear anyone attacking the symbol itself
There was a never a global flood for several reasons:
- All the different formations found throughout the earth would have been impossible to be formed like limestone/karst topography which is a very slow process.
-You would have animals of all types found throughout the different "levels" (there wouldn't be none under a global flood) instead of the separation in accordance with the principle of faunal succession. The exceptions like invertebrates found on top of mountains can be explained by conventional geology via because they are at the meeting point of two tectonic plates. As those plates collide into each other, they gradually move the earth above them, shifting the landscape, forming mountains and valleys.
- Common table salt, sodium chloride, is often found bedded in sedimentary strata. Under flood conditions, dissolved salt would be carried away and dispersed in the waters, not deposited with other sediments.
-Take fossil desserts like in Southern Utah where 2,000+ feet strata exist. The contact between the sand and the underlying strata is often sharp and clear-cut. This is especially true where layers of mud are found underneath wind-blown sandstones. If the sand had been deposited by water, you would expect the mud and sand to be mixed together. It is not. Clearly the sand was blown onto the mud, deposited by wind rather than water.
- Furthermore, the strongest possible proof is the fact If the geologic record was deposited in a year, then the events it records must also have occurred within a year. Some of these events release significant amounts of heat. The heat sources of radioactive decay (some Creationists claim that radioactive decay rates were much higher during the Flood to account for consistently old radiometric dates) biological decay (think of the heat released in compost piles) and compression of sediments are proof of this. Aside from losing its atmosphere, Earth can only get rid of heat by radiating it to space, and it can't radiate significantly more heat than it gets from the sun unless it is a great deal hotter than it is now. (It is very nearly at thermal equilibrium now.) If there weren't many millions of years to radiate the heat from the above processes, the earth would still be unlivably hot.
- Limestone! There are roughly 5 x 10^23 grams of limestone in the earth's sediments , and the formation of calcite releases about 11,290 joules/gram. If only 10% of the limestone were formed during the Flood, the 5.6 x 10^26 joules of heat released would be enough to boil the flood waters. Noah and his family would have been toasted, and thus if they were the only human beings at the time (they weren't, but for hypothetical sake,) wouldn't have been able to procreate.
There's literally more evidence which contradicts flood geology models. Several (although not limited to) facts are the following:
The Grand Canyon contains fossil desert dunes and other sediments that to all appearances were deposited on dry land. The Permian Coconino Sandstones in the upper walls of the Grand Canyon have the frosted well-sorted, well-rounded sand grains found only in land-deposited sand dunes
The Canyon's Supai and Hermit Shales, found today beneath the Coconino Sandstones, look exactly like river deltas that formed above sea level. Back in Permian times, many quadrupeds (probably reptiles) left their footprints in the soft delta mud. As the mud baked hard in the sun, it formed cracks. The hardness of the baked mud preserved the footprints and mudcracks until the flooded rivers of the rainy season buried them in fresh mud. These fossil prints and mudcracks are found today, as well as iron oxides that form in the open air, showing that these shales formed above sea level.
Take the Old Red Sandstone. Redbeds were formed in these and wouldn't have under flood geology mode. The Old Red Sandstones also contain typical playas, complete with their characteristic cubic salt crystal deposits. These are desert salt-pan deposits formed after the rainy-season lakes evaporate. Today, in the Mojave Desert, playas can become lakes for a couple of weeks, only to dry out again, leaving a crust of salt deposits like those found in the Red Sandstone. Although a few freshwater ponds did exist on this ancient semi-arid continent, they dried up from time to time. So, we find fossil mud cracks in the shales that came from the dried-up pond bottoms, and we find fossil lungfish, a type of fish that can survive drought by building a mud cocoon in the pond bottom and breathing air. Hundreds of square miles of fossil sand dunes in these deposits contain cross-bedding and sand-blasted pebbles (ventifacts) of the sort found in modern desert sand dunes, and in no other kind of modern sediment. These different independent lines of evidence converge to show that the Old Red Sandstones almost certainly formed over thousands of years in a dry climate, not in any kind of flood catastrophe.
Also take volcanic ash bed. Geologists can distinguish between ash layers that settled in ocean basins (marine tephra) and those that fell over dry land (air fall deposits). When volcanic ash is deposited in flowing water, it produces yet different features identifiable in outcrops, such as grain sorting and lamination. Therefore, not a few volcanic ashes in sedimentary strata contradict the Flood geology scenario, especially because these ash falls take time to accumulate from the air and harden to the point that water-lain sediments can be deposited on top without compromising the structure of the soft ash.
The Coconino sandstone has actually been extensively studied by creationists. You’re only presenting one interpretation of the data here. Did you at least engage with the creationist studies on the coconino sandstone to come to the conclusion they were wrong before making this comment?
@@thebyzantinescotist7081 Yes, I have!
I'm more specifically familiar with the work of Steve Austin who is a geologist on this exact issue!
I disagree with their conclusion that the Coconino sandstone was ultimately deposited by Noah's global flood instead of wind deposits!
Specifically the granitic rocks! Quartz make up roughly 10% of granitic rocks, so for every 100-ft thickness of a sandstone layer, 1,000-ft of granite must be deposited into this layer! There are no granitic rocks in the Grand Canyon area from which the quartz can be their source!
The quartz have had to come from higher mountain areas in the eastern coast regions of the U.S.
During the transport of the clay and quartz grains from these areas across 3,000 miles, the streams winnowed out the clay from the quartz so that the quartz in the transported sediment became nearly pure quartz in sand sediment. Note that the rush of Noah’s flood waters in one year could not have sorted (winnowed) the quartz grains from the clay minerals. In
such a rush of water in Noah’s flood, the quartz and clay grains would be in a chaotic mix and completely unsorted from each other.
In normal transport by streams, clay minerals are transported farther than sand grains, and the lagging behind sand grains are deposited in water in stream channels, but in times of little rainfall, wind can pick up the transported sand grains and transport them to form large deposits of dune sands. This is what has happened in the Sahara Desert in Africa and what happened during the Permian Period when the Coconino Sandstone was formed.
The great length of time that is required to produce quartz grains in the sandstones by the weathering of granitic rocks. They also ignore the great length of time that is required to produce the calcium in the calcite (calcium carbonate) crystals in limestone that comes from the weathering of granitic rocks and basalt to produce the Redwall and Kaibab Limestone layers in the Grand Canyon. That amount of weathering in both examples cannot happen in 6,000 years that young-Earth creationists claim is the age of the earth. As was said above in an earlier paragraph of mine, there was not an already magically produced source of these quartz grains and calcite crystals that Noah’s flood could wash into the Grand Canyon area. Millions of years of time are required, not only for the weathering of the igneous rocks, but also for the emplacement and crystallization of the igneous rocks in the first place.
@@JohnJohnson-mt2mi Well if you’ve studied Steve Austin on this, fair enough.
@@thebyzantinescotist7081 I'm familiar with various YEC's on different subtopics pertinent to geology (my area of expertise) and the rest of the natural sciences!
P.S. I appreciate your work as well!
Respect to Seraphim
16:42 _"the difference is the pace of narrative"_
Excellent analysis.
Genesis 1 may be what Moses received on Sinai.
Genesis 2 to 11 certainly was passed orally on to Abraham before getting to Moses.
Genesis 12 to 50 was probably written down close to real time and is therefore much more detailed.
Does Tom believe the geologic column / fossile record was laid down in a one year long Noahs flood so the dinosuars in the fossil record must have been contemporaneous with humans ? if so how come we never find a human next to a dinosuar in the fossil record or a dinosuar with a leather saddle on it ?
They usually just say that humans didn't live in the same areas dinosaurs mainly lived in.
@@xxxfairyyxxx
But there are billions of tons of dinosaur fossils in the record that must have been laid down in Noahs flood given youngearth global flood geology so they must have been on Noahs Ark right ? surely we would find a few Dinos with leather saddles on their backs at least near the surface of the column right ? at least one example of any other animal of the other millions of species of animals next to Dinos in the geologic column right ? Yet we never find even one animal next to dinos like one rabbit , one squirell , one Horse , one lion , one cow , one duck no where on earth ? only Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous Period animals only next to each other and only at the lower ends of the column ? thats got to get suspicious to young earth global flood geology advocates right ?
This dude is a nut... I would expect him to hold consistent or clear understandings of such concepts if he just believes the Bible is purely historical in any sense beyond light historical fiction.
46:29 Yeah I figured he was referencing RATE earlier, this affirms it.
I think there's lots of ways in which YEC conflicts with simple geological observations we can all make. One that I'm surprised I don't see more people talk about is the fact that different forms of life appear in different sedimentary layers. If the layers were due to the flood, we'd expect all the dead to be dispersed together. But instead there's multiple layers, and many forms of life are only present on particular layers. I don't think there'd be a reason for this on YEC, but it's expected given an old earth.
take a glass full of dirt and water shake in and you'll see layers form due to mass and weight interacting with the water. animals are no different. they have different mass weight that would behave different in water and end up in different layers as they wouldn't sink or float to end up in the same layers the same way dirt and sentiment would.
be like expecting a rock and wood to sink at the same time when mixed in water and dirt it just doesn't work that way.
also you have a sever lack of missing links also most fossils are like 7 bones found in a mile radius and then scientist use their imagination to tell us what it looked like
@@mike16apha16 This is not something explainable by density. ex. many dinosaurs were small with hollow bones, and they appear with sauropods. That explanation does not work. Also what specific missing links are we missing that are important to have?
They have an explanation for that, different ecosystems. First the coastal areas would be flooded then higher areas, so different types of animals and vegetation are in different zones and end up in different layers because they are from different ecosystems.
@@xxxfairyyxxx This wouldn't make sense either. One issue is that we see the same stratification with marine animals. Additionally, animals that share the same niches in the same environments and same locations but separated by time are found in different layers.
@@finn7083perhaps you are referring to the layers seraphim talked about. Only two layers seem to be uniform across the planet and other layers came later ( probably explained by the flooding from continental pools emptying after the flood)
My biggest reservation on YEC is archaeological rather than geological. Too much would be happening too recently, and too close together. Differences in millions of animals occurring, hominids of varous kinds doing things, all going on while megalithic structures and agriculture were being developed.
Archaeology is trash. They make up dates. Written history only fits Genesis. Generics only fits Genesis. Population numbers only fit Genesis..civilization only fits Genesis. Jesus Christ loves you!
@@MichaelAChristian1 Do you know what "dunning kruger effect" means?
Still, biology offers the most definitive proof that YEC is false.
Perhaps you are conflating the conventional scientific model with observable fossils and history. Millions of animals don’t have to have differences, there are not hominids of different kinds, and the small amount of variations of animals is not incompatible with human agriculture and structures, in fact it depends on it.
@@authorityfigure1630 Many animals and animal groups will show many common features, to be sure. Humans are just 'one' primate species out there for example, and there are thousands of species of crocodilians that have existed over time. The trick is, they didn't coexist at the same time. We see things in nature like species/area curves where a particular habitat only supports a finite number of species at once. This is also true of humans and hominid relatives. While many species are capable of rare interbreeding, many do not, so this usually indicates separation/isolation on some level, even if not purely geographical. There are certainly not enough similarities in these groups to ever remotely suggest that they all coexisted, or we'd still see most all of them today in the same places their fossils were found.
28:40 this guy can't be for real. He's now to the point that simple basic factors of human mythmaking somehow affirm the Babel story.
I like how he also just asserts constantly that "you can find this in other stories around the world' as if his hand waving is enough to affirm his primitive ideas.
39:40 I absolutely love it how he just totally dispenses with the 'human capital' of geologic research over the last 250 years from tens of thousands of people with millions of man hours of work with the 'progress' he claims a mere couple of creationist lunatics have presumably made in the last 30 years, most of which just involves them cherry-picking other people's work and making false claims about it.
Just saying there is a Jewish tradition that the angels fixed the earth after the flood. Should this not make all science a tad dubious. (If true, what if they messed in the layers)
I watched this episode earlier today, and appreciate the gracious manner with which the host interviewed Seraphim Hamilton, even though he has a different position. I went to graduate school for ecology and evolution and took a class that specialized in Darwin's research - one thing that always stood out to me, and I was an atheist at that time, was that Darwin's entire premise of change over millions of years rested on uniformitarianism, and that prior to Darwin's time the majority of geologists interpreted the fossil record as being due to the flood. Lyell, re interpreted the sedimentary layers as being deposited over millions of years through uniformitarianism, ie lack of a catastrophic flood. in other words, if you can explain the sediment by being deposited over millions of years, then you "dont need a global flood" to explain it. That gave Darwin his millions of years that would be "needed" to explain slow changes over millions of years. Darwin said that uniformitarianism, "freed man from the law of moses" this is not an objective opinion, this is a desire to come up with an explanation and remove the God of the Bible. Theistic evolution is not logical, because you can't take a theory that was designed to explain life Without God and then in turn say that God used this method. All life did not come from one common ancestor, but creatures do within the confines of their own genetic constraints and code, change over time, such as seen in the canid family, but we don't see dogs changing into cats, there are constraints within each genetic code. I would just saw a couple of other things here to theistic evolutionist christians, which is to examine how the early church viewed creation, and consider interpreting the evidence through the lens of the Church and not the other way around. The argument rests on philosophical presuppositions. Thank you and may God Bless everyone here on this channel!!!
If animals did not evolve why do so many animals have correlatively similar genes within certain linages? Also we have seen evidence of speciation the transition of birds to dinosaurs is heavily documented in both genes and fossils (for example emus have vestigial thumb claws in the exact same place that their ancestors do). Creationists also typically base what scientists refer to as genus or taxa of animal with the phrase kinds which are based only on external visual similarities to categorize their “kinds” which isn’t even biblical since kinds can interbreed.
Well, no it didn't rest on uniformitarianism, this was just an idea about geologic events over time, and there was no particular pre-Darwin consensus on the fossil record as there wasn't much known about it prior to Darwin, rather, the flood was just assumed and the few fossils found up til that point were just assumed to be one-off species that weren't very numerous or widespread. Uniformitarianism was a very brief concept about layering essentially...you are thinking more about 'Gradualism' in which the change in species takes place incrementally over time and is not influenced in any other way. Darwin even suspected and mused in his book that this was not possibly true, as he correctly predicted that rates of change would/could be influenced by all sorts of factors. You are also confusing what Lyell said for something Darwin didn't say.
Today we understand that 'uniformitarianism' is actually something called 'actualism'...wherein the laws of physics don't change, but rates of geologic change can occur at different paces, even though the former word is still widely employed, it no longer means what the old interpretation did.
☦️♥️ Dear Brother Seraphim, I apologize for being off topic, but I need your attention, I have also already addressed Brother Jay Deyer, as I understand, at the moment our highly respected and valuable apologist Sam Chamoun is in a state of choice between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic , please talk to him about this and help him make the right choice, I ask you for the sake of the Lord☦️♥️
My dear brother in Christ. I write this with all love. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church must reunite. The prayer of Christ in John 17 commands it. The means of visible unity in the Church is and always has been the Roman Pontiff. Come home. We need your help.
@@authorityfigure1630 Rome being the visible sign of unity in the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is ironically a point that seraphim actually holds. The answer is in unity, not in convincing someone to join one group or another. Thanks for your reply!
@@Krehfish534 I admit I’m not well versed in the orthodox answers to scrutiny about unity. How can Catholics and Orthodox be “united” in the sense that Paul demands if both sides say the other is in schism?
@@authorityfigure1630 The theological divide is so utterly vast, I don't know that they are the same religion\God anymore. The Catholics would have to accept Orthodoxy. It's not even a matter of humility, it's a matter of returning from a departure. Scholasticism ruined Western Christianity. It's why Protestantism has become the atheist factory that it is.
I'm curious to know how those traditional Catholics and Orthodox who hold to theistic evolution reconcile that position with the Church's theology on death being introduced into the cosmos at the fall of mankind in the Garden of Eden. If death is a natural feature of existence and not a bug, then how are we to understand the meaning of death which Christ defeats? Is it supposed to be just an allegory about spiritual death?
If global population is 8 billion, and each couple only has 2 children, the average lifespan being 70 years, 35 years per generation; how long regressing in the past will it take for there to only be 1 couple? And they calculated a 2% growth rate, 1105 generations, or 38,675 years... So it is not far-fetched to put Noah at less than 10,000 years, or even 5,000 (if people lived longer, generations shorter and they had more children).
The 300,000-year homo sapien theory would result in a population of hundreds of billions, if not trillions, by now.
Well, population growth hasn't historically been 2%. Disease and lack of medicine, famine etc... meant that population growth was closer to 0%, so you can't backwards extrapolate.
So you deny a global flood right? Because otherwise you must put Noah at 38,675 years ago, not Adam.
@@mdlamb2955So evolution can't use real world population growth rates nor can it use real world mutation rates nor explain written history.
@@MichaelAChristian1 it can do all those things
It's not really a great argument either way it just means YEC is feasible. Old earth can easily explain it with mass die offs. A more interesting question is genetic mutations and mutation rates
Honestly I have to lean more yec because of tradition from the fathers and the Catholic Church. Sts. Aquinas and Bellarmine likewise held to literal views of Genesis. Plus Pope St Pius X said that reinterpretation of tradition to fit science was modernist heresy.
What about atemporal fall? I think it could be strongly argued that the Garden of Eden is located on a different plain of existence. It allows for 'no death before the fall' and doesn't need to presume the conventional view of Earth's history is wrong. It does however pose the question of how did God plant Adam in our realm of existence, considering that he's a historical figure.
Creationists are anti-science and pro-Inquisition, you are arguing as a normal Christian.
For the first half hour I get the impression that there was no YEC argument given, only "Early Church believed that Genesis 1-11 was historical" -- yes they did, and yes those are historical, but none of that means the Earth is 6000 Years old, just because some people back then interpreted the numbers that way (which was not a universal position).
The argument about sediment layers that can be found around the whole world implying a global flood is getting more interesting, but it doesn't account for the possibly of a multitude of local floods happening globally around the same time (as can very well happen after long icy cold periods come to an end).
Also even a hypothethical global flood would not disprove evolution. The evidence for evolution is not based on paleontology, it's mostly based on observation of living species. There is much better evidence for evolution than for the resurrection of Jesus, and I believe both!
"There is much better evidence for evolution than for the resurrection of Jesus"
Reddit comment above
@@nathanielus5296he geologic column doesn't exist.
th-cam.com/video/8sL21aSWDMY/w-d-xo.html
@@MichaelAChristian1 wut?
He is orthodox Christian so the opinion of church fathers, especially if there is a consensus, carries a lot more weight than for a protestant like you (I'm guessing?)
Wanna know who else believes in Young Earth Creationism?
26:20 absolutely ludicrous.
I appreciate that the title does not say "This is what EO believe about YEC". I love Hamilton, but we don't have specific doctrine or dogma on the issue. As far as what I believe..........? Anyway, in college my Geology professor, a PhD from a reputable university was a YEC - albeit a Protestant. He, always wearing a giant gold cross necklace (giant), didn't say it outright. He would just say "If you want to know what I really believe about the age of the earth ask me after class". He had literally written the textbook we were using and it was old earth perspective. I'm not going to say who he was (reposed long ago) because his material is still in print, but I wish I had asked him some of those questions. I was an atheist at the time so it put me off. I did ask him plenty of after class questions as he was a brilliant man, a long after-class discussion involving feldspars comes to mind, but I regrettably never broached that subject. This was turn of the millennia era.
IMHO that guy sounds like a moron. The age of the Earth and how we know it to be so is based on principles that see wide application in industries where they 'cannot be wrong' to do what they do...and if they were, we'd all be in big trouble from runaway nuclear reactors to self-detonating nuclear weapons. So when some Geology Prof claims or hints that he believes something else, he's simply either pulling your chain or he probably got his PHD from a diploma mill. While there are some creationists who have secular credentials, they don't publish these beliefs in the same academic journals from which they attained their educations and their dissertations might be subject to citation in, so assuredly something is up with that guy as to his integrity or the nature of their claim. I'd instead consult a few of them at the same time and ask them in a group if you want a better idea about what Geologists really think so that each can hold the other's feet to the fire just in case they want to say something personal that's complete bullshit like YECism.
The title is very misleading, the title shouldn't be an eastern orthodox case for YEC, the title should "Seraphim Hamilton's Case for YEC", Because the eastern orthodox churches do not teach or hold to YEC officially, it's open and many not just lay or low ranking priests but eastern orthodox Metropolitan's, Archbishops and Bishops hold to Old earth and evolution like for example Metropolitan Kallistos Ware of blessed memory, Archbishop Lazar puhalo or father lawerance Farley and I got a list of other prominent figures.
I'll be listening in though because I myself am a YEC.
I thought orthodox churches have anathemised darwinism.
And I'd be curious to know on what grounds you hold to YEC
Lazar Puhalo is not a bishop in the Orthodox Church, and God forbid he speaks for us.
@QSAnimazione-hashtag-4236
No that's not the case, plenty of eastern orthodox hold to evolution, and some of thebiggest names in eo and most
Most influential figures hold to Old earth and evolution like there's no bigger name in recent times than metropolitan Kallistos Ware who is a staunch Believer in evolution he believes God worked through evolution and at some point God created the human soul and he picked Adam and gave him a human rational soul. And he lived and died in very good standing with the eo churches, he is held in high regards.
You may hear on the internet from newly converted eo in America from protestantism and they may be wrongly telling you that eo is opposed to evolution.
You asked me on what grounds I hold to YEC, well on the grounds that Holy Mother Church has given me the green light or the ok to hold YEC if I wish to, I'm free to hold to it. (I hope I understood your question correctly and I answered your question adequately, if not let me know)
@telosbound
Um, yes Archbishop Lazar Pahalo was a Bishop in the eastern orthodox churches before he retired.
You might not like him and that's fair enough I won't force you to like him, but atleast admit he was an eastern orthodox bishop which is factual.
Ok I'll table bishop Lazar Pahalo for a minute, what about one of the wisest eastern orthodox bishop in recent times and a character held in high regards a giant in the eastern orthodox world like Metropolitan Kallistos Ware he was a staunch old earther and evolution Believer.
Yt search this "Metropolitan Kallistos Ware on evolution"
@@catholiccrusaderdeusvult9949 After your comment I asked my Eastern Orthodox friend and he said that the link he once gave me to prove evolution was anathema came from the so called "Russian True Orthodox Church", which is a schismatic movement, after doing more reasearch neither him nor me could find any binding document from the Eastern Orthodox church that anathemises evolution.
Sorry for having spread misinfirmation, I'm glad your comment moved me to educate myself more on this topic
As per the second question, I was more looking for a reason that makes you think YEC is more likely to be true than evolution, since I am a student of biology I am interested to hear the testimony of those that reject the standard narrative that I've learned in university. I've not yet found good reasons to doubt that narrative, that's why I'm asking
37:38 this is also absolutely false. He's of course referring to faunal succession and biogeography, but he's notably leaving out the KPG extinction event which defines the start of the Cenozoic, and he seems to think that the extinction of Dinosaurs and marine reptiles somehow marks a change to faunal succession, but this isn't true. We still find all the same faunal and biogeographical changes in the Cenozoic as we did for the other eras, even if the dominance of some groups changed fundamentally after the meteor impact event.
He never says why, and then of course he once again asserts that the Paleozoic and Mesozoic were just different fundamentally as 'pre-flood' layers or something. He's really just making shit up and it's kinda sad.
Make Catholics YEC again! Much love to Seraphim.
27:40 now he's getting crazy. He's attributing entirely different flood stories by location and total mythology to just some sort of natural change in the narrative that was somehow taken from some original population instead of humans having the simple creativity to just have their own flood ideas which again, were told/happened at very different times in their histories, NOT consistent with some 4,000 years ago Gilgamesh narrative.
I dunno where he's getting the idea that someone is arguing that Christian missionaries would have implanted these or some alternative stories. These missionaries didn't exist at the time these stories came about, such as they are.
35:48 Seraphim keeps somehow referring to these eras as if they are single layers of rock...they are not in the slightest. The Paleozoic era alone spans some 250 million years of geologic events, and it is primarily defined by the change in the fossil record where multicellular life emerged and flourished, NOT because of the rock characteristics because much the same patterns happening then were ALSO happening in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This was not some single sedimentary event layer or anything like that. He has no idea what he's talking about yet again and I suspect his reading on this topic was a 5 minute drive by on the AIG website.
Blud saw YEC arguments and started crashing out 😭💀
@@womboyeckelsteinSome idiot on Twitler told me this was the most scholarly critique of it that he’d seen and I started watching it and rolling
@@davidbutler1857 YEC got bro geeking
41:00 you really should call him out here though, because giving him a pass is just wrong.
45:10 no he just has a long history dealing with creationists who lie about Evolution.
38:10 again, there was nothing 'different' about these eras in the way he asserts. Was the Earth's climate different? Yes. Was animal life different? Yes, to a degree.. but you could have stood on the Earth 70 million years ago and things would not have looked particularly different to a human's eyes. Similar trees, even some of the animal life wouldn't be unrecognizable. Birds were already around, you'd likely see turtles and small reptiles pretty familiar to you as well, at least by general appearances. Small mammals, etc. But nothing particularly geologic would stand out at all, even if you dug for a while. You'd see the same sort of sediment deposits, you'd see rivers, rivers changing course, lakes, streams, oceans, maybe a 'tad' bit more volcanic activity. That's about it.
There's nothing 'strange' or 'weird' about this, nor controversial, nor widely accepted or claimed by any geologists. He's just making this up presumably on the basis of a few creationists he follows.
30:13 It's very easy to explain if you don't invent your own version of history and how it was recorded or why. Seraphim isn't a serious person...he's done nothing to support his contentions, he's just spitballing and it's damnned funny to see a grown man say this stuff.
29:20 once again... I dunno where this idea comes from that anyone said that missionaries were spreading these stories... humans simply have a commonality in how they tell stories due to our psychology and things we find important, and when floods or disasters or other things happen, or we describe things we believe, they hold similar themes. Seraphim's unsupported notion that how we tell stories and human inventiveness is limited to one narrative is absolutely ludicrous. When floods happen, regionally or locally, people are always going to hold such a thing to be miraculous or attribute various things to that, and his silly Babel allusion is just weird... just because someone mentions a tree or a root or something like that does NOT speak to some deep connection to the Babel mythos as real/true at all, lol.
I am also now fully unconvinced that 'this' is his actual basis for turning to YEC. To hold such a misunderstanding about information like this speaks to something deeply psychological rather than because reason has been employed.
I'm not a YEC, probably lean theistic evolution, but not really believe all the evolution narrative. More of G. K. Chesterton's view: "If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time."
But pre fall death
@xxxfairyyxxx
What about it? How is an ape-like being slowly turning into a human form reqire death? That's the "scientific" narrative of how things evolved and I don't buy in to it.
Then this also begs the question, what is death? Are you only meaning human death? What about the food used for consumption in the Garden of Eden? It wasn't animals, but whatever plant, fruit, nut that was consumed that died.
@ xxxfairyyxxx Animal death and human death are different.
Evolutionary science has a lot of difficulty in reconstructing the entire history of life on Earth. We can only look at large scale trends/patterns. Rest assured, humans evolved over time like all other life did, and it left enough evidence behind in our genetics and in the ground to tell us this. The simple reality is that Biblical writings from people who had 'no idea' about these discoveries is simply wrong on the origins of the Earth/humans, and that's easy enough to understand. Theirs was merely a conjecture based on very primitive and limited understandings. These are people who didn't know what the purpose of blood was, or why people had brains in their heads, or what a liver did, or what was necessarily going on when humans had sex or why. It's pretty easy to concoct some idea of humanity starting with just two people necessary for starting everything when that's the only awareness of sexual reproduction available to you. Today we just know better.
@@samueljennings4809 where does it say that in the canon when we affirm no death before the fall there’s no distinction between animal death and human death but if you want to argue that for your theistic evolution perspective go for it it’s just not convincing and never will be for me
24:30 This is just stupid thinking and I'm starting to think that Seraphim never had done much of any study on the sciences relevant here if he's so convinced by a foolhardy argument like flood stories. Most people live near water, the Earth itself is covered by water to the tune of about 70% of its surface, and, it rains a lot sometimes, along with massive storms like hurricanes, and there are tsunamis and other water events.Many areas experience regional/seasonal flooding, some of which are very rare but not over great timescales.
And 'yes'... many humans who may write about these events (we have no chronologically connected tradition of these, unlike what Seraphim is hinting at...like the Australian aborigines have a flood story that presumably dates to about 40,000 years ago, but the Gilgamesh epic is only around 4,000 years old) and may have similar themes about floods washing away/drying up because that's what floods do.
even if we had perfect accuracy in all data and evidence there would be weirdos with novel interpretations with intent to deceive. I havnt research this topic much but wow this is complex.
it's not complex if you focus on biology, which is the field that discovered it.
Astronomy clearly shows that light that is billions of years old is reaching Earth, and biology clearly shows that all genes in dolphins are closer to mouse genes than to shark genes. These prove an Old Earth and Evolution.
It's simple. You today live in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ 2023 by a 7 day week. The jews didn't evangelize.
The Church Fathers were YECs as were Jesus and the Apostles. Augustin believed that the Genesis days were allegorical because God can create instantly. He believed that Adam and Eve were real persons who lived recently. The miracles and resurrection of Jesus Christ prove that God doesn't need millions of years of trial and error, predation, carnivory, disease, suffering and death to create life. God created and saw it was good, very good. Suffering and death are not good, they are bad. The LOGOS is a loving, powerful, rational and effective Creator. Death is the last enemy, a consequence of sin. If Adam and Eve were not real persons it makes no sense to say, as Catholics believe, that Mary is the New Eve and Jesus is the New Adam. The trillions of fossils around the world (signs of abrupt burial) are best interpreted as evidence of a recent global flood, not of evolution.
th-cam.com/video/UIGB0g2eSFM/w-d-xo.html
Um, fossils themselves are not indicative of a global flood. In fact, the fossil record itself precludes entirely a global deluge! The matching between phylogeny and strata is proof of that! If a global flood happened with all living organisms being created within 6 literal 24 hour days, then all different types of fossils would indiscriminately appear in all levels of strata! But yet that's not what the fossil record shows! Plus, there is plentitude of transitional fossils between various levels of taxa which show evolutionary change, not fiat creation! This isn't even going into the various geological formations/depositional environments that exist now which didn't and couldn't have happened under flood conditions.
@Horror Hawk there's no evidence that the Earth is old. The observable evidence corroborates that it went through a recent global catastrophe...
That’s not even remotely true! As someone that studies paleoclimatology, there’s numerous climate events which are recorded in terrestrial records that go back much older than 6k years! The 8.2 ka event, the younger Dryas event, the Bolling-Allerod warming and the Lady glacial maximum are all older than 6k years old! Furthermore, none of those terrestrial records show any such concept of catastrophe or some global deluge!
@@Kylerusse64 your conclusions are totally dependent on your naturalistic uniformitarian assumptions. You are not even aware of that. You lack basic critical thinking skills. You don't notice that the color of your ideological lenses determines the color of everything you see.
It's really amazing to see two people having this discussion where not a single thought is given to the possibility that the Bible just isn't correct. And it's really weird how both of you are even avoiding that consideration with respect to the scientific/secular evidence.
With respect to scientific/secular evidence - Do you even know where modern 'science' comes from? The presuppositions for modern science are gnostic, you can read more about this in Eric Voegelin work's Order and History. The timescale that modern science uses comes from Charles Lyell. Who came up with it, not based on any evidence but because he hated the christian idea of a young earth. The whole edifice of 'secular evidence' is based on his presupposition, which is borne of hatred. But then again, you midwits are so blinded by your own hatred of Christ you'd far rather blindly follow 'science' with out ever questioning where it comes from. You're in a cult.
@@JohnSmith-wo2fzLol you have no idea what you’re talking about. Science and scientific methodology have spanned thousands of years and owe nothing to your belief set.
As for timescales, Lyell was but one of many who understood that Earths geologic history necessarily involved immense spans of time, only he had no real idea how long. Radiometric dating would not be discovered until nearly 75 years after he died. Lyell’s concept of uniformitarianism was never fully accepted even in his lifetime but as a principal it had minimal levels of validity in concept since over great timescales there are background rates to be seen. Today we might still use the word in a general way but it means ’actualism’ in practice
Soyience worshippers coping in the comments
Idiot that lacks humility ridiculing himself in the comments
How do you think we got all this diversity in humanity adapted to specific areas from a single human pair? Name-calling won't help you.
@@alithea9510 I'm undecided between younger Earth creationism and older Earth creationism, however this issue does not seem so difficult. Even in the older Earth evolutionary model the first domestic dog species only appeared when the younger Earth creationists believe man first appeared. And the extreme diversity we see among domestic dog species had occurred mostly in the past few centuries. It is easy to see how pressures can cause diversity from a population like that, especially when we are only talking about the minor diversity we see among humans compared to dog species.
@Alithea Mutation and natural selection. All of the diversity we have today starting with Noah and his family, actually.
@@alithea9510 magic tricks
26:00 actually this just isn't true. We have no distinct or other similarities to the Noachian narrative flood story like this in any other tales of floods. No rainbows or other crap like that. He's just making this up.
Also again, such tales that do exist hold no chronological connection. Remember, all human writing originated only within the last 6,000 years, and many flood tales have no similar dating to the Gilgamesh deluge. Oral traditions date even further back. I don't know where he's getting this idea from, but this is 'very' lightweight YEC reasoning here that isn't explained by any actually supported evidence from flood stories at all.
NOTICE: not taking a side with this comment ----- People are treating what Hamilton has to say here as though it is a semester's worth of thinking. Chill y'all. The video is under an hour.
It’s not even five minutes of study, lol
I've been thinking about this guy over the last few days, and It appears to me that while he is still very young, he has been so utterly immeshed in religious studies and social interactions, that he's really just largely ignorant of anything else. It explains how he so easily runs to YEC web sources and just assumes that since they are religiously friendly arguments, they must hold water versus the scientific information that he CLEARLY has never 'EVER' read anything about, other than the names/terms he saw on YEC websites. The sheer flippancy with which he dispenses with a few centuries of scientific thought and discoveries in favor of 'a couple of guys he saw mentioned on a YEC site' tells all here I think. It's a really fascinating psychological study, this guy.
KABASED!
“Why didn’t the disciples know that Jesus could feed the 4,000 after he had fed the 5,000 in the previous chapter?” Matt 15:33 (KJV)
The so called “Christian” leaders of today teach that it is because they didn’t have faith. But the fact is that anyone involved in such a miracle and still skeptical would not only remember it but would be anxious for a similar situation to arise and prove it one way or the other. The discrepancy is put there to prod those with eyes to see (those sincere in search of truth) to investigate.
The answer is given in the 16th chapter where Jesus speaks of the leaven of the Pharisees.
Matt 16:6-12 (KJV).
If that bread were literal then the disciples had every reason to believe that Jesus was being literal about the leaven and he therefore had no reason to chide them. But that bread being symbolic he chided them for not considering and taking to heart his teachings even after the third time of bringing up the subject. That teaching is what you are reading now.
The bible (KJV) says that Jesus followed no will of his own but the will of God.
John 6:38 (KJV)
His life in the flesh is an ensample (representation) of God's laws. Jesus says that bread represents his flesh (his life) which in turn represents God's law (the bread of life).
John 6:51 (KJV)
Jesus’ death gave us the New Testament. Matt 26:28 (KJV) and Heb 9:16 (KJV)
The New Testament brings meat to the scriptures, represented by the two fishes.
The meat is the symbolic code and patterns that bring/bind all scripture in the bible (KJV) together. Heb 5:12-14 (KJV)
It has been 2 thousand years since Jesus, so each fish represents 1 thousand years. In turn the five loaves of bread represent 5 thousand years that God gave his laws to man.
21 And they that had eaten were about FIVE THOUSAND men,…Matt 14:21 (KJV)
This gives us a glimpse of Gods timeline. 7 thousand years ago Adam was kicked out of the garden. It also shows us that we are at the end of our time on this earth;
13 … and in the earthquake were slain of men SEVEN THOUSAND: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven. Rev 11:13 (KJV)
What does all this prove? It proves that the stories in the bible (KJV) aren’t meant to be taken literally. Also different parts of the hidden truths and patterns are written by different authors hundreds and thousands of years apart show that the bible (KJV) is the preserved word of God orchestrated, compiled, and translated by him and the Holy Ghost.
It tells us that the bible speaks of itself and that it is for OUR admonition.
4 Neither give heed to FABLES and ENDLESS GENEALOGIES…1 Tim 1:4 (KJV)
It tells us its message is hidden in the fables, parables, and stories through symbolism.
And above all it gives us a major key in unlocking the hidden timeline and agenda of God. It tells us that the following verse is meant to be taken as literal. 2 Peter 3:8 (KJV)
So taking 2 Peter 3:8 (KJV) as literal tells us that each creation day is 1k years.
5 .... And the evening and the morning were the first day. Gen 1:5 (KJV)
Another thing that shows the creation days are 1k yrs. is if you take the phrase “the evening and the morning” and do a search verbatim of the whole bible (KJV) the only verse that comes up other than the creation days is Dan 8:26 (KJV) There is no way the events of the vision it speaks of could happen in one 24 hour period.
Okay now to get down to it. When you make the creation days 1k yrs. long you will notice there is a big problem. There is no way that plants (created on the third day) could live 1k yrs. without the sun (created on the fourth day). The only way for this to work is to switch the third day with the fourth day. And you can’t just switch verses at your leisure; you need to get permission first. That permission is in the book of Revelation with the seven seals, (a pattern of symbols that REVEAL the second week of Gods timeline, the time of man's dominion). Remember we are looking to move the 3rd day. So when you look at the 3rd seal we read; Rev 6:5-6 (KJV)
Balances are symbolic of the weighing of two things (choices). It’s giving us a choice, “A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny;” And in that choice it warns us, “and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.” not to spoil the flow of things in your choice.
So when we switch the 3rd and 4th days we see a definite pattern (a flow).
On day 1 you have the one earth with no life created.
On day 2 God splits the earth in two, still no life created.
On day 3 God creates the sun and the moon and it is mentioned! that he also created the stars. Three cosmic entities, No life created.
On day 4 God creates plants. One form of life created.
On day 5 God creates fish and fowl. Two forms of life created.
On day 6 God creates cattle, creeper, and beast. Three forms of life created.
One would argue that man was also created on the 6th day making it four forms of life.
But a cow is a beast, the redundancy put there again to prod those with eyes to see to investigate. When we go to Matt 25:31-46 (KJV), we see that sheep are used to represent the righteous and goats are used to represent the sinner. When we go to Ezek 34:17 we see God judging between cattle and cattle and between rams (the righteous) and goats (the sinners) making cattle represent the only ones left the innocent. Not because they didn’t do anything wrong but because at the creation they didn’t know of God’s laws.
Therefore three forms of life created on the 6th day, man (cattle), creeper, and beast.
And we can go further with this creation of man. In Gen 5:2 (KJV) God calls “their” name Adam, meaning more than one. When we go to Rev 17:15 (KJV) we see that waters are used to represent peoples, and when we go to Gen 2:11-14 (KJV) we see the creation of the four races of man represented by the four rivers.
And this story of the creation of the four races is only given once, which means that the story of Noah’s flood is fable also. So when we go to 2 Peter 3:5-6 (KJV) when it speaks of the earth being overflowed with water it is speaking of the earth in the first day of creation. It also mentions that there was life on it before it was overflowed, similar to a vivarium, or a prep-station.
Let's do a recap:
God overflows the earth with water, then after 500 years of darkness (called the evening) God says (speaking to the heavenly host) “let there be light” or to paraphrase [lets go to work]. Then for 500 years (called the morning) God and the heavenly host start setting the foundations of the earth, such as putting the continents and their rich resources in strategic places. Then God lets the earth settle for 500 years, being the evening of the second day. Then the morning of the second day God splits the earth in two. Then 1k years later he creates the sun and the moon and like I said it is mentioned that he created the stars also, not necessarily in that 1k year day. Then 1k years later he creates plant life, 1k years later fish and fowl, 1k years later man (cattle), creeper, and beast. And God and the heavenly host rested from physical labor the last day of the first week of God’s timeline.
An observation of note, water is an accelerant of decay, and the earth was overflowed with water for 3,500 years. And the calibrations of calibrations that need to be calibrated before an accurate reading can be given make carbon dating iffy at best. But no matter, just because you know the age of something doesn’t mean you know its history. Just because something is buried in 70,000-year-old mud doesn’t make that thing 70,000 years old.
Just as it took 7 one-thousand-year days for the creation, God allotted 7 one-thousand-year days for man's dominion on this earth (the seven seals).
All glory to God. Amen
no king james version user ever has anything sensible to say
Not plausible: a common story in many places around the world
Plausible: fundamental physics took a holiday
Ok buddy!
What are you even getting at
Younger Dryas Impact, anyone?
A poorly supported hypothesis. An impact, even if it did occur, was literally not significant enough to cause the climate shift. But this still happened about twice as early as any YEC believes the Earth's actual age is, so this is really a conjecture for Old Earth theists or secular science.
bro be doing is hair like Anton Chigurh haha srsly good talk tho =)
David butler having an aneurysm in the comments
5:40 so is your entire non-evolutionary thinking simply because you maintain that scripture must be correct in some way, rather than because some evolution or other related evidence is false?
9:30 kinda ridiculous to just assert that the Bible is/must be true as your reasoning for rejecting evolution or theistic evolution.
Do not expect logic from the people who expressly reject it. In fact it is a paradox in itself that they use computers and the internet to attack science.
Denial of evolution is a huge stumbling block for potential converts, it shows a lack of humility in the face of science.
Denial of evolution is just basic logic and reasoning.
Nobody lacks humility more than soyentists. Soyentists just pushed the clot shot on you. We try to follow the science but all we can see is the money trail!
On the flip side blind acceptance of evolution is a huge stumbling block for potential Protestant/fundamentalist converts.
Evolution is the reason why people leave Christianity, what are you talking about
@@Giorginhopeople leave Christianity because they lose faith in Christianity. One singular issue like Evolution won’t likely tip the scale. Fr Seraphim rose in the 70s was able to make very coherent and congruent arguments against it and Abiogenesis (the competing Naturalist theory which imo requires as much faith as does God). Our modern anti Christian world (wokeism, CRT etc) is no less religion than what we as Christians espouse
Just so I’m clear. Are we using writings from bronze age humans with no scientific data ,that we currently have available , to argue the age of the earth?
No we're actually using the infalliable word of God
@@Testimony_Of_JTF and your evidence is….
@@danlopez.3592 Am I supposed to make a whole essay on why Christianity is true?
This video isn't a scientific discussion about evolution but a theological one, mostly. I get that YEC is kind of insane for most people (me included) but your comment was kinda silly imo
@@Testimony_Of_JTF no such essay is possible. If you’re saying you believe a certain religion is true that is one thing. To claim that you have good evidence for it being true is different. I can prove to you with virtual certainty that gravity exist. You cannot do such a thing about a magical supernatural being.
@@danlopez.3592 It is possible to do it, especially if the only claim in need of proof is theism.
What a shame. I love Seraphim on so many issues... But not this one ; )
YEC simply try to "fit" that which doesn't actually fit in order to honour an interpretation that is not actually unnecessary.
Surely we can all see from Scripture that God, at times, accommodates our scientific ignorance within the flow of His revelation
Isn't this channel called "intellectual catholicism", with an emphasis on "intellectual"?
Yes. That’s why he’s having Seraphim on.
lol
Intellectualism is about using the intellect, not about having an old boys club with unquestioned secular dogmas
Do you believe in the Virgin birth? Or water changing into wine?
@@andrefouche9682 I believe in the virgin birth as well in Christ turining water into wine on the basis that 1) there is no metaphysical problem when it comes to the aethiological pattern of such a divine action whatsoever, and 2) I consider the Gospels to be reliable historical accounts based on arguments that support such an attestation (see Blomberg, Baucham, Pitre, McGrew etc).... I don't see this as being in any way relevant to holding a ridiculous opinion like YECism
Where does Orthodoxy come into this? This is just an American creationist argument empty of any reference to Orthodoxy. Outside the USA, practically no Christian believes in young earth or creationism.
Chapter 2 of Genesis begins with the creation of man followed by the creation of all the other things, whereas Chapter 1 has all the other things being created before man. How does an Old Testament literalist reading reconcile these two chapters?
Yes, finally. This also sounds very americanized to me. The other day I got called an "agnostic materialist" when asking the same question (Where does Orthodoxy come into this?) when another american orthodox was discussing a similar topic on Instagram. It appears to me that american orthodoxy is developing its own characteristics. Too many converts from protestant branches, maybe.
Chapter 1 and 2 both have man being the last thing created. I think you're confusing Eden's specific creation as man's dwelling place.
@@floridaman318 - American Orthodoxy is becoming another kind of Protestantism, it is very troubling. Because to outsiders it is still being referred to as Orthodoxy by American converts. The Old Testament is a collection of myths and stories. Few ever considered it a book of true history in the modern sense until the time of the Inquisition and after. In Genesis 2, God creates man before all other living beings:
Genesis 2: 5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
This is true, a truly Orthodox discussion could have simply cited the (non-American) Saints Joseph the Hesychast, Paisios, Luke the Surgeon, John of Kronstadt, Theophan the Recluse and countless others, said it's our duty to humbly accept their consensus, and then the episode would have been about 5 minutes long.
Their consensus is 100% against evolution and the associated (very non-Orthodox) intellectual status signaling btw.
@@Fakest-d5e - This is simply a perversion of a perversion of the sayings of these often obscure monks, most of whom were not very literate and had lived secluded monastic lives with nothing to read except the Scriptures and often little contact with the body of the Orthodox Church. They are venerated for their monastic lives not for their attacks on reason. Their sayings, often taken completely out of context, were gathered together and presented in the wrong light by the American priest Seraphim Rose who wanted to defend himself from an admonition by a Greek Orthodox priest that his American views on Creationism were not Orthodox doctrine. There are far more important Saints with much better learning, not least St Gregory of Nyssa one of the 3 Great hierarchs, who have spoken in favour of evolution. The Patriarch of Constantinople at the time of the publication of Darwin's Origin of the Species wrote to congratulate Darwin for his compelling theory. No educated Christian believes in the Creationist rubbish, it is an offense to reason, it harms and pollutes the Christian Church, some segments of which have been largely destroyed by such ideas, so the enemies of Christianity are now turning to the Orthodox Church to cause it as much harm as they have caused to the other Churches. Hardly anyone outside America is in favour of Creationism and no Orthodox writer outside America has written in favour of this ridiculous American Protestant idea justified by the same means the Inquisition was justifying its attacks on science and attacks against rationally thinking Christians like Copernicus and Galileo. You do not understand Orthodoxy, you cannot just change the title of what kind of Christian you say you are as if that would make you Orthodox.
Anyone who believes in Adam and Eve has to believe in evolution. If you have an original pair of people, and later on all of the diversity in humanity today, you have to have evolution. That's how you get a fair-skinned Dane who can drink milk every day vs a dark-skinned Australian Aboriginal who is lactose intolerant. Light skin allows one to intake more vitamin D in a lack of sunlight, while dark skin can protect someone from UV radiation when there's an excess of sunlight. Likewise, lactose tolerance allows one to drink milk, taking better advantage of agriculture.
That's disingenuous. No one who doubts the Darwinian mythos holds that species don't slowly change over time. If that was all that Darwinian "macro" evolution claimed, it wouldn't be opposed; it's empirically verifiable. What is usually being critiqued is abiogenesis and the evolution from one species to another over time. For example, a single-cell micro organism over billions of years becoming a sentient being that has the capability to ponder its own existence, via random mutation.
The claim YECs reject is speciation, despite the fact that we have observed speciation more than once in the natural world. Dogs from wolves, wild wheat from cultivated wheat, wine yeast strains and beer yeast strains, lab flies.
@@CosmicMystery7 abiogenesis is not relevant to this conversation, it's not been proven, evolution on the other hand has. We have observed speciation.
"a single-cell micro organism over billions of years becoming a sentient being" is not what evolution claim: a far far descendant of a single celled micro organism is a sentient being. It's not the organism that changes, it's its offspring.
It's actually literally the opposite, most evolutionists don't believe in Adam and Eve
@@CosmicMystery7 Evolution doesn't make any comments about abiogenesis. It also doesn't say that one species produces another. th-cam.com/video/NDkDSTp-_7k/w-d-xo.html
If you hold to YEC you loose credibility in my eyes. This is very unhelpful for people trying to reconcile science with faith.
If you spell “lose” wrong you also lose credibility.
You cannot reconcile science with a version of faith that considers prehistoric mythology to be scientific facts.
Nothing intellectual about YEC
Yeah, his whole stance of just going to YEC because he assumes the Bible must be historical is really really weird. Like he doesn't even consider for a moment that theistic evolutionism is even half-right because it accepts evolution, he's just all theism or nothing.
Nothing intellectual about dismissing arguments out of hand without listening either.
@@davidstaudinger1543Everyone has heard the YEC arguments and personally I watched all of this video and still wasn’t convinced since Seraphim gave no actual evidence for his claims and clearly also didn’t do any actual research or reading on these claims beyond what he’s repeating from YEC websites.
He’s really just a very very isolated and insulated person who has entirely surrounded himself in religious studies and never much dealt with anyone outside of that bubble
There is nothing intellectual about pesudoscience
Seraphim Hamilton's case is far more intellectual than "trust le seance" atheists
@@newglof9558 any case that requires we lie and deny the empirical facts of zoology, geology, paleontology, dendrochronology, anthropology, heck even denying radiometric decay is absolutely absurd. I've spent my time in YEC and will not be going back, if you think the moral of a story about two creatures made from mud named "Human" and "Life" is to teach us the scientific intricacies of the origin of biological diversity... I don't know what else to say
@@wobblebobblebaby
Listening off a bunch of branches of study and “wow just wow”ing isn’t particularly intellectually impressive.
Not a YEC btw.
@@martyfromnebraska1045 I'm not teaching a highschool science class in the TH-cam comment section. The point was the astronomical amount of empirical evidence one must deny to accept the lie of YEC, not an attempt to demonstrate said science.
@@wobblebobblebabyThere is literally ZERO evidence for evolution. No field in history has more FRAUDS and failed predictions while relying on ZERO observations.
th-cam.com/video/Fflw5v6_Kfc/w-d-xo.html