Origins - Millions of Years: Where did the idea come from?

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ธ.ค. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 53

  • @probeanalysis5740
    @probeanalysis5740 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    GREAT INTERVIEW THANKS SO MUCH

  • @canadiankewldude
    @canadiankewldude 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Western Christianity is much like a frog in a pot of water, slowly rising to a boil.
    We knew it was all coming, yet so many have fallen away.
    It breaks my heart seeing so many thinking themselves wise.
    May the Lord bless you and your work.

  • @thewhole_picture1743
    @thewhole_picture1743 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Only it's not a theory of creation. It's the truth.

    • @stevepierce6467
      @stevepierce6467 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I am superman, and that's the truth!

    • @spamm0145
      @spamm0145 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@stevepierce6467 You are the most complex creation in the entire cosmos, so you actually are a super man, unless you believe the narrative that you are insignificant and a product of natural processes, except observation tells us complexly purposeful information always emanates from an intelligent agent.

    • @stevepierce6467
      @stevepierce6467 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@spamm0145 I am no more or less complex than many organisms in the universe. The big difference between us humans and most other living beings is that we are self-aware, and as a consequence have developed a strong sense of self identity, and with that a strong sense of self-worth and privilege. "Pro-life" means pro human life, but let's destroy the trees and fish and everything else. In terms of my positive contribution to the world, I am far less significant than the oak tree behind my house. Observation tells us nothing more than that we are somewhat complex organisms, but with no apparent purpose other than to exist and reproduce, and for each of us create our own personal purpose. There is no sign anywhere of an intelligent agent.

    • @us3rG
      @us3rG 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      You have a brain way more complex than the known universe ​@@stevepierce6467

    • @davidgardner863
      @davidgardner863 3 วันที่ผ่านมา

      A theory is based on scientific evidence. Creation is based on belief, nothing more, therefore, not a theory, not truth. 18:50

  • @stevenrogers4906
    @stevenrogers4906 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Believe what you will. Either those if us who believe in God are right, or we are wrong. There is no middle ground. When we reach the end we shall see who is right. Just keep in mind once you have reached the end, and the truth is made known you can't then go back. You will have to suffer the consequences of your actions. If you can't see God everywhere you look then you are choosing to be blind.

    • @roydodds3693
      @roydodds3693 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I agree, there is either a god or not. What is the evidence for magic, the supernatural and the like? I haven't seen any evidence of any of this, but have seen lots and lots of evidence for a 13.8bn year universe and an Earth formed around a young star 4.55bn years ago. The universe is an amazing place, no magic required.

    • @roydodds3693
      @roydodds3693 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Keggek Im all eyes and ears for your evidence of magic. As for billions of years, well for one you're standing on a 4.5 billion year old rock, you can see layers of sediment in places like the Grand Canyon if you're lucky enough to visit it. If you take some time to learn some astrophysics (I have, honestly its more fun than it sounds) you'll get to understand how the mass of the sun and its current temperature give a big clue to its age. Similar theme, if you live in the northern hemisphere (I do) you can go out at look for the Andromeda Galaxy, its 3 million (not billion) light years away, but its still pretty cool to have photons hit your retina that set off from their star around the same time "Lucy" was walking in Africa, super cool in fact......can;t wait to here your evidence of magic

    • @roydodds3693
      @roydodds3693 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Keggek Any sign of this supposed evidence?

    • @spamm0145
      @spamm0145 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@roydodds3693 Everything from nothing and complexity beyond human capabilities is not magic? When in your life have you witnessed complex purposeful ordered information that did not require an intelligent mind? Your DNA can be read in multiple directions, has encryption, and strangely for a mutational process, a sophisticated error correction system, clearly a super intellect was required to write this code that is beyond human capabilities. Your body processes more instructions per second than every computer on Earth combined and does this using a measly 20 watts of electricity. Clearly a product of intelligent design. The billions of years you quote requires assumptions to be plugged into the calculations and that means they are not science, many academics refute the billions/millions of years which would not be possible if it were fact and not an interpretation of data. So indeed, you do need magic to invoke a fantasy that goes against all known observation, that the higher the level of complexity, the higher the level of intelligence required.

    • @spamm0145
      @spamm0145 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@roydodds3693 You really don't understand science that requires assumptions is not science, hence many academics have issue with the interpretation of data, how would this happen if it were a fact? Also there is no such thing as a 'photon' and light does not travel, as the great Tesla stated “Light cannot be anything else but a longitudinal disturbance in the ether, involving alternate compressions and rarefactions. In other words, light can be nothing else than a sound wave in the ether. Every type of motion in the universe is pressure mediation, so why would light be anything different. Light is already here, it just needs a source of energy to excite it and you will perceive it as visible light, just like all the other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum are present without direct sunlight. Do you really subscribe to the notion that the complex DNA code within all living things, even basic lifeforms, that is way beyond the capabilities of mankind, just popped into existence and started a process of incremental improvements that goes from single cell to human in billions of years - without intelligent design, and you really don't think that is magic when your lifelong observation as always been complexity necessitates an intelligent agent, especially information? When was the last time you witnessed information not require intelligent input? If you saw '2+2=4' formed by rocks on the ground, you would assume it came about by millions of years of the elements blowing around?

  • @ibperson7765
    @ibperson7765 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    23:05 I disagree. Even those starting assumptions (and a fuller knowledge beyond the current indoctrination) would lead one, purely on the science, to theism.

    • @stevepierce6467
      @stevepierce6467 ปีที่แล้ว

      Exactly, if you can provide that "fuller knowledge beyond the current indoctrination," then maybe we will have evidence for a god. If I can know stuff I presently don't know, then I will be better informed than I am now and that could change the way I see the world. Until then...................!!!

  • @ellaelliottcheung127
    @ellaelliottcheung127 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Could I Share the Origins the series of Speech relatively to Bible verification

  • @analieromero
    @analieromero 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Looking at a plastic chair and considering how's it came to be using TIME, CHANCE and LAWS OF NATURE... Without a craftsman, it would take millions of years. It would have decayed before it's even formed.
    God is truly an awesome God.

    • @roydodds3693
      @roydodds3693 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Comparing a manufactured object with the natural world is a classic of fallacious logic.

    • @benoitmetail8727
      @benoitmetail8727 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@roydodds3693 no it is not.

    • @roydodds3693
      @roydodds3693 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@benoitmetail8727 Can you explain your reasoning for this comment? I'll expound mine if you're up for the challenge

    • @stevepierce6467
      @stevepierce6467 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Exactly, it takes a human craftsman to build a human-designed artifact. But nature? You mention time but I doubt you have any real grasp of the lengths of time involved. As the Righteous Brothers once sang, "And time goes by so slowly, and time can do so much." On a scale that compares the whole life of our planet (4.5 billion years) to a football field, life appeared on their 16 yard line as they ran back our kick. Just under 84 yards later, at the 1 foot point, our ancestors the great apes appeared (15 million years) and in a testament to our defense, we tackled him when Homo sapiens appeared 200,000 years ago, 1/8 of an inch from the goal. Fourth and goal, and we stop him again at the beginning of human history, the thickness of a hair from the goal. Just look at how a house's paint job weathers in just 20 years, or your own face and joints and eyesight and.....I am 74 so these pop into my mind, although pop is perhaps a bit optimistic! You see how kids come out a bit different from their parents. Now add up those little changes over a million generations, or 100 million!

  • @stephenrobbins6353
    @stephenrobbins6353 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Both sides believe in a "super natural" creator, creationist believe in a God and personal relationship, evolutionists believe in an unknown, impersonal creator

  • @davidgardner863
    @davidgardner863 3 วันที่ผ่านมา

    Modern science doesn’t come to its conclusions by assuming anything. It is based on hard peer reviewed evidence. It’s young earth creationists that assume Genesis is meant literally.

  • @eckyhen
    @eckyhen 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Earth, millions, in fact billions of years old makes sense and fits all observations.
    An earth, only a few thousands of years old is not supported by any scientific evidence.
    The men who wrote the bible had no understanding of natural phenomena.

    • @canadiankewldude
      @canadiankewldude 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Scientists begin with Brahman beliefs giving us said billions, thanks to Pythagoras.

    • @benoitmetail8727
      @benoitmetail8727 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      haha, it doesnt fit All observations.... they put interpretation on what they observe. its a worldview, calling it science when its actually scientism.

    • @SpaceDad42
      @SpaceDad42 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      You have no idea what you are talking about. There are mountains of evidence of young earth. You may choose not to search for it.

    • @eckyhen
      @eckyhen 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      I know that there is absolutely no evidence that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.
      I also know that those who believe so base their beliefs on biblical scripture because they have ABSOLUTELY ZERO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

    • @davidgardner863
      @davidgardner863 3 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@SpaceDad42, Not only is there no evidence for a young earth, many fields of science show that the earth and universe are billions of years old.

  • @johnbrinsmead3316
    @johnbrinsmead3316 5 ปีที่แล้ว

    so atheistic scientists conclude that the universe is billions of years old because they don't start with the biblical position that universe is about 6 and half thousand years old?

    • @canadiankewldude
      @canadiankewldude 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Scientists begin with Brahman beliefs giving us said billions, thanks to Pythagoras.

    • @roydodds3693
      @roydodds3693 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      No, Astronomers, Atheist and Theist, use their brains to explain their observations - and this leads us to conclude that the universe is c13.8bn years old. The Biblical position is just made up, written by those attempting to explain their observations without the benefits of modern technology. They concluded the Earth was at the centre of the universe and stationary - at a time when the best Greek minds had concluded the Earth was in fact a sphere, and in motion around the sun - the Bible is a poor place to look for facts.

    • @ozowen5961
      @ozowen5961 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@canadiankewldude
      No, scientists began with evidence.
      Their own beliefs are irrelevant.
      The evidence is the only thing that matters.
      You are assuming >(falsely) that science is approached in the same way you approach your beliefs. It is not.
      Each scientist may well be Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, atheist or Rastafarian. Their published research is tested not on the merits of belief (because so many beliefs are brought into science) but on evidence. The evidence is argued, tested, challenged and accepted or rejected entirely on its own merits.
      Statements like yours are minus any merit.

  • @mouvementebr3575
    @mouvementebr3575 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    worst episode