Christianity vs. Evolution?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 พ.ค. 2024
- To help support this ministry click here: / inspiringphilosophy
Should Christians reject evolution and old earth creationism? Does the Bible say the earth is 6000 years old? Is Genesis clear on the age of the earth? These questions and more are answered in this video.
Check out some other great videos on this subject:
• Video
• Video
• Video
Francis Collins defends Evolution:
• The Veritas Forum: The...
CS Lewis on evolution:
www.apologeticalliance.com/blo...
More questions answered at the BioLogos:
biologos.org/questions
*If you are caught excessively commenting, insulting, or derailing then your comments are subject to be removed. If you do not like it you can watch this video:
• For the Censorship Whi...
"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."
"believing in evolution doesn't change your belief in God, but believing in God will certainly change the way you choose to see evolution." That is a very interesting point and very true. I never thought about it like that.
Evolution and the special place of the human being as the only creature that is moral and has got a spiritual dimension and eternal soul doesn't go well together, since would place humans on the same level with animals. Biologically it may seem plausible, but whe it comes to the spiritual dimension, evolution can't explain this.
How could God create the first single-cell organism from which all life would evolve and man as well and separate man from animals? Where is man's privileged position in creation, then? Especially as a being that has got a spiritual dimension to it, unlike animals.
@@cyberp0et We are separated from animals due to our cognitive abilities which only we possess. This would be the Image of God referred to in Genesis. Human beings do not need necessarily to be uniquely created apart from animals to be set apart. God can simply set us apart after the fact.
@@cyberp0et perhaps He creates the world as we know it then eventually places souls in humans? There is no reason we can’t believe evolution contains truth as well as the Bible and our creation. We’ll probably know for sure after we are done here. What’s more important is to follow Gods law, love Him and love all our neighbors.
Can I do a review of this entire video?
@@cyberp0et the devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve .
With all the stuff on the internet this channel keeps me somewhat sane.
the devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve .1
You don't know how much peace this gave me. Since the 8th grade when I had an evolution project I was so curious about the age of the Earth and it angered me bc all I wanted was confirmation that evolution and God as a real personal being can fit together. Thank you and God bless!
The Bible says the earth is 6000 years old and evolution is impossible
I’m the same way and God definitely led me to this channel. It makes sense in both ways and this does give me peace as well. I’ve gone through all somewhat major religions and none of them made sense besides Christianity and I was into the new age movement where we create our reality and that led me with more questions than answers. I’m glad you’re at peace!
@@Mystical.Dyl88 you know why they didn't make sense, they didn't make sense because they are religions. Christianity is not a religion it is relationship with the true Living God
@@quantom1827 I understand that lol, it definitely makes way more sense! God bless you
@@quantom1827 NOpe.
Genesis Chapter 1; Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. (12) The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
So, from Genesis we learn that it was the land (or the Earth) that did the producing of the plants. God set the land to work and the result was the plants.
Likewise, in verse 20 of Genesis chapter 1, we see it was the waters that brought forth the creatures of the sea; (20) And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
The same is seen in the production of the land animals; (24) And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
While the bible was written from a cultural background we might have difficult in understanding, ‘producing’ and to ‘bring forth’ both sound like processes to me. Perhaps evolutionary theory has provided a mechanism for these processed describe in antiquity.
Emanuel Swedenborg, who spent almost 30 years living within the spirit world, wrote that the first 11 chapters of the Bible are allegorical and the remaining chapters are historical.
@@laurelharris1081 the devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve ...,
@@laurelharris1081 swedenborg is a heretic lmao
This is so wrong, evolution can't go with the Bible, for one simple reason. Death only started to appear after Adams sin, and evolution requires death to function. So evolution can't exist
@@a.39886 You are serving the devil by turning people away from the faith with your ignorance
InspiringPhilosophy doesn't lack for adversaries, I see. Not just atheists, but also American evangelists and bibliolaters. I applaud your courage and steadfastness. You seem not motivated by tribalism, but by principle.
the devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve .,.,
I want to thank you. I've struggled with my faith a LOT over the past few years. your videos have really helped me. I now have a much stronger faith in Jesus, the literally true bible, and the reality of God.
A very much sincere thank you.
That is great to hear, thank you for sharing. It makes the work all worth while. God Bless.
***** You really think all knowing god would communicate unclear vague metaphors and subjective commandments, while already knowing that controversy would start over this in the future?
Dylan Ost human free will and misunderstanding is not a reflection on God's character. We are not meant to be mindless zombies but seek to understand as much as we can.
***** Yeah but I mean wouldn't a god be as clear is possible as possible on the morality bits?
Honestly you are just giving a poor excuse, I've heard it a billion times.
"God works in mysterious ways"
"Your interpreting it wrong"
Along with what you just said.
All are excuses you can give to anything that doesn't conform to your ideology.
Every religion makes this claim when they hit a dead end, it is an excuse.
Dylan Ost I don't think God is not clear.
As a young christian, I didn't really see any reason why the theory of evolution could not be reconciled with scripture, even though I was basing myself on the very little I knew about the Bible and intuition, basically. After a while I realized I couldn't really be making those claims if I was so ignorant about scripture, so I took a step back on that belief and started to just force myself into believing everything about creation literally. Now I realize this is not what the lord wants, as I think he wants us to be dedicated and to engage with his word ever more profoundly. This video is of great help to understand the word of God just a little bit better.
I agree that parts are metaphorical and parts are literal. It is about the message and explaining there was a fall. Other than that I am open to possibilities.
.,the devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve .
🧐😂
What about death?
Context is everything. I go one the context of Genesis 1 over and over in this video. That is why we can take this passage as poetically, and it doesn't entail other passages must be poetic.
Wowww! This video is absolutely amazing and so well thought out! I've believed in God all my life but when people bring up the theory of evolution, I'd really start to question everything and would worry myself. This video has actually helped me so much and provided me with even more faith! Thank you so much for this! This really helped so so much! I can't even express it into words. God Bless You!! :)
I'm a YEC, hello fellow bretherin
the devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve
I enjoy your perspective on this topic.
May I ask: Have you had any special education regarding religion or anything of the sort?
Just a question for curiosity's sake...
Thanks for the upload, it gives a person much to think about.
Keep it up Brother!
..the devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve .
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein
Hana
Science is how we advance
Religion is how we live
He didn't say this quote. He was an agnostic.
Probably one of multiple fake religious quotes attributed to Einstien via random emails.
Albert einstein did say that. I googled it
@@zimbabwe-wz5iw www.theguardian.com/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion
Thank you, I am planning some argument from digital physics for the fall, like the simulation argument. I am very excited about the 3 I am planning.
I like the idea of a metaphor for Genesis 1 and not a strict historical account. Especially since in judges there's one historical account of a battle and then a poem about the Battle. I think this shows how God wants to explain it to us but not that we understand every detail.
Hey these videos are dope. And I appreciate the work you put in to dig up all this information. I have a question though. In this video genesis ch1 was presented as a possible poem or has a poetic theme to it and that there's a chance that it may not be a historical account. If this is so how do you explain genesis ch 2 verse 4. Not trying to debate or argue just a question and wanted to know what you or anybody believes with that scripture.
I'll be doing videos on that in 2019.
I guess so, but I do find myself agreeing with the Orthodox Church on several things.
Of course, man is the same exact being we were 30,000 to 50,000 years ago. Evolution takes place when a species need to adjust to a new environment. Well, we do not do that anymore, we force environments to fit us. Furthermore, our spirits our made in God's image, since God is Spirit (John 4:24).
Incorrect, many animals change their environments, that does not pause evolution, evolution does not ever stop. It may slow down but never stops.
@Giovanni Balbosa-Mc Intosh he is likely saying that significant changes do not occur as often, though minor variations would
@@IIrandhandleII macroevolution does not exist.
@@MrJoebrooklyn1969 Then Microevolution does not exist
@@INFINITUMSPIRIT it's observed in dogs and other animals. Microevolution is just the rearranging of information that already exists.
and the evening and the morning were the first day.
I wouldn’t call my self a young earth creationist, but I don’t know about evolution (I mean sure I’m doing genetics and will soon be going to university) but idk. But it is good to know if evolution is true it doesn’t compromise genesis.
I agree. I dont think evolution is completely false. But I dont think evolution is as encompassing as microbes to man. The evidence we do have seems like there is change within fixed parameters.
@@anthonypolonkay2681
So far they haven't found any fixed parameters, outside of Bible study classes.
Going to a reliable scientific source and learning what the evidence is for common descent with modification would be a good chance to see why so many Christians are comfortable with evolution as a means of God's creation.
***** This is thus far the most compelling argument I've heard for theistic evolution. I'm still not convinced, but neither am I a young earth creationist. I'm still doing research. This was a valuable resource. Thank you very much for posting this.
I know you posted this years ago, but here's how I look at it.
Young Earth Creationism puts God into a tiny little box, and says all of His majesty and glory is self-contained to this little speck of ten thousand or so years. But the universe is so vast and beautiful, the geology of the earth so exquisite, the harmony of mathematics and physics so astonishing, then how can we possibly imagine God's glory to be so tiny and small? The universe is massive beyond imagination and older than our ability to comprehend (even if we can measure it, our minds cannot comprehend time scales of 14 billion+ years).
Isn't all that in keeping with a vast, unimaginably glorious God? Why is the universe so old? Why is it so grand and large? Because it pleases Him. "He saw that it was good."
I think some people cling to Young Earth Creationism because they fear science, and as scientific knowledge increases, they feel the mysteries of the universe that could only be explained by God disappear, too (the God of the Gaps). But what these people seem to forget is that God created physics, mathematics, biology, and all the natural laws that govern the universe Himself. He is the Architect. So for the academic Christian who has rigorously researched the material, there is nothing to fear from science. Indeed, science is something to marvel at, so that we can enjoy learning the language our Creator used to make all creation.
I was a lifelong atheist until I became a scientist in my 30s. It's quite a long story, but my love of science definitely helped me get to the right place.
evolution is deception.
@@Peekaboo-Kitty Believe in science and God don’t contradict all science is it just explaining was already there
@@kevinshrestha3623 How so? Many Christians believe in it, but have faith bigger than their heart can contain.
You can learn more from a evolution and a history book than you can from a religious book that's classified as mythology.
You are very patient and kind to answer so many questions. Each video has its own flame-war. Overall your videos are very informative. Keep it up and God bless.
Thanks :)
Anytime. I just think youtube comments can be very cruel and not a place for discussion. I've seen a lot of hate from all sides of the religious spectrum. It is nice to see that it doesn't spoil your videos or their quality. I hope you haven't gotten any that ruined you day.
Christian Anarchist Great! Let me know when and I can help promote them. God Bless!
Christian Anarchist I use final cut, because I am a mac user, but there are plenty of good software programs like Adobe Premiere and Sony Vegas.
Sure, we can talk about that possibility.
Christian Anarchist Yes, I know people that use that. I have never used it though.
True, we should cooperate, which makes a better society for all. The second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor.
Thank you so very much for this video! I've been thinking about this issue for some time now, and although I accept theistic evolution, I have had some trouble, particularly with the question of death. This is the best way I know of to reconcile science with Scripture. May God bless you as you endeavor to show how science declares His glory.
THE JESUS MYTH ======= th-cam.com/video/oR02ciandvg/w-d-xo.html
the devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve .1h
Evolution is disproven by the Bible many times
Hello! I have great interest in apologetics and find your points fascinating. I tend to be young earth, but I am open to an old earth. I simply wanted to ask about your comment on the Creation account being poetry: isn't it possible that poetry can be historical, much like the Psalms? I am curious about your thoughts today on the matter. Thanks for posting these, friend. You have a new subscriber.
+Augustus CB Thanks! Well, it depends on what the poetry says and what it is saying. We can't judge scripture, or any book, by a set standards, we should look at each passage and infer the best explanation.
+InspiringPhilosophy Ive got a book and the book is always right. Dogma. Why not rather than deciding how the world is by a book, we instead investigate the world? Then once we discover the book is wrong, lets reinterpret that. Classic Sophistry.
Why do you assume the book is wrong? The Bible claims to be truth, so I am in full agreement with you that investigating the world of truth that God has made makes perfect sense. All truth is God's truth. This is what apologetics and philosophy is all about.
+Augustus CB The bible's true because the bible says it true. You don't see a problem with that statement. Its called circular reasoning, this is what philosophy's all about. It may interest you that the majority of philosophers are atheists. If you are in the Seattle area I host various philosophy clubs in you'd may like too attend.
I agree that we should avoid as much circular reasoning as possible. Again, the Bible makes a big claim to how we should see reality. Apologetics comes in to give reasons as to why such a claim can be trusted. What makes studying the world around the Bible so useful and beautiful is that we find there to be no contradiction between the two. The Bible turns out to be as much, if not more, a source of understanding reality as our own eyes.
That is simply poetic. Also it doesn't have that for the 7th day.
Haha, I know i feel your pain. I feel like we are in the middle. On one side we are telling YEC's "look at the evidence in biology and geology, what is the best explanation?" Then on the other side we are saying to atheists "look at the evidence in physics and cosmology, what is the best explanation?" And they are both saying the evidence might be wrong, not proven so they would rather stick to their presuppositional beliefs. They are basically two sides of the same coin.
I think Craig had a whole series of his Defenders' Class on interpretations of Gen 1.
Well the thing to remember is what I say from 6:43 - 7:31. The Sun was not created on day four, but was appointed or made known. Hugh Ross says there was a time on earth when there was massive cloud cover and the Sun was not visible to the surface. This could indicate a time when it happened. However, my understanding of Genesis 1 is that the says are not metaphorical, the entire chapter is a poem. So it doesn't matter the order because it is just a poem, no parts are literal.
See also 7:57.
Thank god. I was torn between Christianity and evolution, and this saved my soul and sanity. Thank you so much. 🙏
It seems like Day in genesis does mean 24 hour days, because it says there is morning, then evening, then the day is done, just like our days.
Bru Master this whole not literal thing seems like a subtle way to discredit Gods word.... it’s definitely a literal day no doubt about it
andre jones There’s no way it can be literal, because if it is, it must for a fact be false.
Shea Martin I mean if you would take it literally, the sun would be created after the earth, waters, land and plants; we know that’s not the case.
Shea Martin Carbon dating is definetly one of them, this is a good explanation www.space.com/24854-how-old-is-earth.html , and if we’re talking about the universe, the expansion of the universe, and the fact that we’re able to observe events that occurred billions of years ago are enough for me to believe.
Shea Martin Your explanation is plausible, but then again, I don’t consider it a literal interpretation.
Hi IP. You mentioned the genealogies and that they can cover multiple generations without mentioning them, but what do you make of the instances where it is mentioned that a biblical character begets his son at a certain age?
Did you ever receive that link I sent you to the paper that re-evaluated/refuted the chromosomal evidence for fusion? it seems like there are a lot of things that do not add up in this theory. I believe it is a good read.
Thank you for this video. It should also be noted that even some of the earliest theologians challenged the completely literal interpretation of Genesis, long before the theory of evolution was thought of.
How do you interpret evening and morning were the 1st day ect...? Sounds pretty straight forward to me to be just as it says, a literal 6 day creation. If not then God must have lied to Moses when He said six days you shall do all your work but the 7th day you shall rest. God spoke and commanded and it stood fast. To imply thousands or even millions of years to the creation account would be to twist the scriptures beyond recognition. And that's just what the devil would like. Playing into the Babylonian scientist hands.
@@anahata3478, fortunately I don't live in the U.S with these bunch of lunatics.
@@anahata3478 I agree. Seven is divine completion/ perfection. I believe that's why God told Moses to write the Genesis account that way. It has something deeper than just a creation process. It emphasizes the age of the universe, 7000 years of earth age (that's a different topic to discuss). Also the 7 days of creation (representing a week) was the base for Jewish calendar and helps to interpret and understand the Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy. These are the reasons I believe God gave that kind of a creation account. Let's be real, God is an omnipotent being. So couldn't he have created the earth with the snap of His fingers? It could be understood that it isn't supposed to be taken literally when one reads the 2nd chapter of Genesis as it talks of a different creation order. The creation account is rather poetic.
Something similar is mentioned in Genesis 6:6. It says God regretted creating humans. How can a omniscient being regret something He does if He already knows the outcome of His particular action and decides to do it anyways? God inspired Moses to write it that way to emphasize how wicked the human behavior was. So, it's too isn't to be taken literally as the creation account :) Also there is an instance where Moses writes like he 'changed' God's mind.
@Giovanni Balbosa-Mc Intosh
Evolution is a theory, just like the theory of gravity, the the theory of propagation of light, the germ theory of disease, the heliocentric theory of the solar system and the theory of why toast lands butter side down.
It's a systematic explanation of observable and objectively confirmed facts.
All science is built on theories, and most aren't controversial.
@JOSHUA THOMAS
There is also a theory of gravity which consolidates the extensive observations and measurements to explain how gravity works. That's how science works.
First you have an observation, then you collect data, draw conclusions, test your conclusions and reject those that don't fit the data.
You don't reject the data that doesn't fit your hypothesis. Other scientists will laugh at you.
When you have enough conclusions that have been shown to be reliable, you can formulate a theory to explain the process, then test the theory to see if it's a robust explanation. Other scientists will attempt to tear down your theory and support their own competing theory. When one theory is robust enough that it offers strong explanatory power and can't be rejected based on new data, it's generally accepted and used as the framework of further research.
A theory is not the first supposition, it's the end result of years of research and argument.
In biology, the observation is that life is continually adapting and changing. Evolution is the most robust theory that explains how and why the changes happen.
After 150 years of trying to replace it, the theory of evolution has proven one of the most robust and useful theories in science.
Who said magic? I argue the quantum approach, this infers it is fundamental.
You do a great job. I love your videos and use them daily. I see in this video that you are making an argument for standing firm in your beliefs as the Bible does not contradict science. You hone in on the language and possible outs for those that believe science has confirmed billions of years. Yet, there are also scientific difficulties for an old universe and language arguments for Yom being a single day. Death before original sin is not something that we need to accept in order to be inline with science.
What program do you use to make your videos
As always thoroughly researched and intriguing videos. Like another commenter said still am not convinced. If Yom can stand for ages, why do none of the translators translate it so? Why is it translated as day in Genesis 1 always? Agree tgat the evidences for Evolution and a old universe are there. But still something is missing when you try to re-interpret scripture with evolution in mind.
During your wonderful debate at redeemer university, your opponent pointed out how evolution is not just a science, it is a world view. It is a view that does not require God.
ATHEISM is a worldview, not Evolution. Evolution is just a scientific theory that many use to justify an Atheistic worldview.
A year ago I would have not considered the possibility of theistic evolution but because I respect your research on all other subjects I'm inclined to believe that you're also right on this.
the devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve .m,
@@a.39886 Science simply claims we aren't too different from animals from a biological standpoint. It makes no claims about human consciousness and how that differs from other animals.
@@danielcreatd872 the devil is working in you I declare in the of Jesus out satan
In this video you address day being used in other context but you glossed over it saying evening and morning each day I would be interested to hear your response to that specific time frame given for each day?
I understand, but I do bring that verse up at the video.
I love this video. This cleared up so many questions I had regarding this subject.
just go to BioLogos they are a group of physicist pastors chemist astrononers biologist geneticist scholars ..they are christian evolutionist... i remain skecptical about evolution it doesnt give much evidence an also requiere faith.. the theory its very flawed and not every scientist agree with that theory
felizz happy, I'm already subscribed to them. Their stuff is pretty controversial.
Other interpretations of Genesis: exists
Ken Ham: and I took that personally.
Great video.
Lol
That guy is so judgmental, he’s like the Richard Dawkins of YEC.
Will you do a video on the second coming of Christ? Would love to see you make a video on it!
Thank you @inspiringphilosophy
Langer3anger 12 why? So he can call it a metaphor and say it isn’t true ?
Well done! I wonder if you could also address the phrases, "...there was evening and morning...' pretty much each day. Wouldn't that give some context to the meaning of "Yom"? [As some young earthers have argued]
I'm confused. How can we say that in these verses "Yom" doesn't mean "literal day" when the text literally says that there were evening and morning between each "Yom?"
The text defines each "Yom" as a literal day.
***** "The creation account is a theological poem."
Please show me where boqer and ereb are used figuratively in the rest of the Bible.
***** This is where I get confused Oscar. The statement "The creation account is a theological poem" sounds synonymous with "It was made up" which seems the same as "Is a lie" So how are we supposed to believe the Bible if we take the stance that the first chapter is made up and not true?
We need more people like you dear brother,more open like interpretations like this one...God bless you,and give you His Peace.
***** Ok lets see.Yes,Yes,Yes,Yes,Yes,Yes and Yes once more.The Spirit is the Third Hypostasis of the Most Holy Trinity-The One True God,the Maker of the Universe.
***** Well i believe in them,I know some things for fact ( like that Christ was a real person,along with Apostles,that Israel existed,etc) ,others I base on faith (that is to say,i dont know if it happened,but i believe it did)
***** Nope,i believe all,you said ,,How do you know''? I told you that i believe all but also *know* some things for facts from history,example-Jesus of Nazareth was a real person,no faith is needed there,its a fact.
I find your channel very informative , and appreciate the time and effort you put into them . I'm a believer in theistic evolution as well . We need more believers like you here .
xthe devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve .
Thank you for this video! I feel many Christians hold on to their presuppositions and impose them on scripture because that is what they were first taught. What do you think of Hugh Ross' teachings on this matter?
Well, I agree with him on the age of earth, but he rejects evolution so I disagree there.
InspiringPhilosophy Thank you for this. I want to add something. The very first verse of the Bible is "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." People confuse "heavens" and "heaven". "Heaven" is God's kingdom and "heavens" is another word for the vast universe. So "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is the same thing as "in the beginning God created the universe". And this verse was written before the 1st day of creativity. Meaning God already created the universe even before the 1st day. So there could be a billions of years gap between when god created the universe and when the first day began. And you're right about the 6 "days" not being literal. The 6 days are just 6 time periods or epochs that are divided into 6 parts based on the similarity of the created things and probably lasted for billions of yrs. An example of other days not being literal is in Gen 2:17,5:5 God told Adam he would die the same "day" as he ate from the tree yet he lived for 900 years. And if we take a look at how the Bible lists the orders of organisms, it goes first came plants(3rd day), then fish, then birds(5th day), then mammals, then humans(6th day). And if we compare that to how science orders it, it's the same thing: first plants, then fish, then birds, then mammals, then humans.
The Bible does not give the Earth's age, but it's obvious that the Earth has been around a long time. The Christians dogma is the Gospel of Jesus Christ dying for our sins, then He was resurrected. Certain doctrine is essential for salvation, but creation beliefs is not Christian dogma.
We are commanded to search the Scriptures, and seek reasonable conclusions. Creation proclaims that we have a Creator, so we have excuse about God's existence. There is no doubt that some will go to any measure to deny God and Salvation, but our understanding of how God created everything does not determine our salvation.
@@SuperYGOD I agree!
I really enjoy your videos. Unfortunately in this one you equivocate between old earth and Evolution as though they are synonymous. By rejecting a young Earth view one is not therefor forced to believe in an evolutionary Paradigm as the mechanism that brought about life. So while one can believe in an old Earth and maintain a commitment to the inerrancy of scripture, I will point out that there is however an incompatibility between scripture and evolution. This is because Evolution (referring to macro evolution) has been, as admitted by even BioLogos the think tank for Theistic Evolution, unable to account for a literal Adam and Eve which the New Testament explicitly affirms in several places. So like John Lennox I agree that a young earth view is not necessary to be faithful to scripture but one does need to reject macro- evolution at least as an explanation for the origin of man to hold to Innerancy.
Why so? Couldn’t the NT writers simply be invoking a cultural trope?
Just because evolution is real doesnt mean Adam and eve are not real people.
It then follows how do we know what is literal and what is a metaphor? There's also the issue of the Earth's revolution and rotation altering slightly over time due to entropy.
To add onto the point introduced at 6:41 it seems to actually detail the creation of the atmosphere rather than the actual stars in moon. This would make sense as the earth’s originally molten/smokey surface likely had an extremely dark sky until the atmosphere allowed us to view the day an night cycles without fire-y clouds blocking the view
but what about the verse saying that on the 7th day god rested then blessed it and sanctified it....dont other passages relate this to being the sabbeth,wouldnt that be evidence of 7 literal days?
not to mention the fact that it specifies "evenings and mornings"
10:02
This is a such a powerful presentation! 🥳 My first testimony in 2021 is that I have come to peacefully and contently accept that evolution is how God made the universe. He willed it into being; He caused it, supervised it and sustains it.
the devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth
Evolution doesn't exist and is intact disproven by the Bible many times
I have not come to the same conclusion - THAT BEING SAID, If God did, I'm fine with it. We need to understand and accept that we will not understand some things.
Not sure if you got my last post with the video attached? I was wondering if you could locate it and respond? please let me know if you cannot find it!! One Love, brother.
please reduce the volume of background beat and Music....its too loud...ur videos are treasure for the truth seekers...all the best..
Thanks, I'm flattered.
Thank you, that would be CS Lewis's view, that Adam and Eve represented the first humans. However, the New Testament writers like Paul and Jude speak of Adam as a literal person. I don't see it as being a problem that Adam actually existed, just much more than 6000 years ago. God Bless!
but how much more than 6000 years? You have mentioned the church fathers but no one of them believed the earth is older than 10000 years, so that is quite contradictory to evolutionary thinking.... and I think the biggest problem in having billions of years is the fact that we must reduce Noah's flood to a local flood, yet there is plenty of evidence that proves otherwise be it from a perspective of human population, geology, fossils or diamonds with C14, dino bones with organic materials, or even ancient records telling about a flood from all over the world.... so it's really hard to ignore all that evidence just to believe that evolution theory is correct and compatible with scripture... I think it is not, especially if one accounts for the order in Genesis 1 and what science teaches... it doesn't fit the facts I guess... but I honestly enjoy watching your videos and am learning lots of things from you... however I cannot ignore all the evidence for a young earth, as well as origin of life problems as proposed by intelligent design movement or from a more secular perspective as James Tour explains. It's hard to believe that story.
Notice what I argue for in the video, not that the days are allegorical but the entire chapter is. None of the chapter is meant to give s any science. It is just a poem to explain that God is creator and teach us theological implications.
True, but consciousness was just an example i was giving. What separates man is essentially what Aristotle said, our rationality. Or as Swinburne says, our ability for higher order reasoning. We can not only feel emotions but we can know what it means to feel emotions.
Thank you so much. I am 17 and have been raised as a Christian my whole life. I have always believed, but recently started looking at evolution as a possibility. I know evolution is true, but was always finding it difficult to fit them together. this has helped me so much. Thank you for your work putting this information together in a coherent explanation.
I dont think animals were created over billions of years only a few a days. but i could believe in the earth being billions of years old its just that its depressing because were far away from meaning.
Evolution is not true and the Bible debunks it in the first couple of chapters
I hope you mean evolution on animals
In my opinion, you take a flying leap over what I think is the most harmonious view of scripture and science: old-earth creationism. If you haven't already, I'd check out the organization Reasons to Believe.
I have, I am more interested in the work of John Walton, an old testament scholar who has studied Genesis with ANE context in mind.
Okay. Thank you for the response. I'll look into him.
can you please explain, if the creation is not 24 hour days why there is a evening and a morning on each day, any thoughts are really appreciated
Well, the how chapter is a poem, so it just uses terms for poetic use.
+InspiringPhilosophy
hi is there any other reason please, because if I say that to a non- believer he will say that I am giving excuses.
Well, I gave several reasons in the video as to why it is a poem.
It depends on the type of the death deceived in Genesis. Early Church Father Clement of Alexandria taught that this as spiritual death. Then it was Christ that made up spiritually alive (Ephesians 2:5).
Thanks, God Bless!
interpretations work on everything, revolutionary!
First, I want to say great video. Well done, clearly explained and thought out. You answered many of my questions and I am also a fan of Lennox.
I have a few points to share. One a compliment to your research and two a challenge.
1.) Considering the poetry of Genesis 1:2 which begins with a "vav" In Hebrew. Usually translated as "and" or "but". This use of the word at the beginning of this verse can be used to indicate an indefinable span of time. As it does in Exodus 2:1 (8years), Deut. 10:5 (38years), 1 Chron. 10:14 (7years), Ezekiel 6:22 (58 years).
Translating the Hebrew of Genesis 1:2 it could read as;
"But ( after a time span?) the earth had become (Hayah), without its original form, confused (Tohu), an empty waste land, void (boho). and an unnatural darkness (chosek; as in Ex.10:21) was on the face of the deep (tehaum) the home of evil spirits."
- This is not the perfect world of Ken Ham. But to Mr. Ham's classic argument, the Creator can make the darkness clear again, He alone is able to make perfect what has been twisted.
2.) Just because you can make the case that Genesis one is poetic does not automatically diminish its potency or truthfulness as historical. The mind of the Spirit-inspired writer can still be poetic and truthful, maybe meta-truthful.
Caution should be used! It is a that fact Jesus referenced the creation in Genesis 1:27 as historical. He said, "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female" (mark 10). So from the beginning of all Bio's we were made to represent Him, His name and His image. The first institution created by God the marriage.
- I would conclude that the cosmos could be very old indeed, perhaps beyond imagining. This might make room for some unaccounted time in our history.
Thank you if you read this far and I pray you keep up the Inspiring Philosophy.
God bless
THE JESUS MYTH --- th-cam.com/video/oR02ciandvg/w-d-xo.html
Remember day 4 doesn't use the Hebrew word "bara" for create, but uses a word which means appoint or reveal. Plants could of survived with sunlight coming through a cloud covering which covered the planet hundreds of millions of years ago. However, remember my is that the entire chapter is a poem, not just parts and some words. None of it is literal, it is poem to illustrate that God created the world not by accident but with purpose & beauty. The literal way is happened is for science to find.
I identify myself as a young-earth creationist, although I allow for other believers to interpret the Creation account differently without challenging their Christianity. I enjoy the InspiringPhilosophy videos on TH-cam, but I have sincere questions about anyone who promotes the non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1.
Most, if not all those who make the argument for the poetic, and not the literal interpretation of Genesis 1, make the case that it should not be taken literally, and that it is not intended to be an historical account of The Creation. To me, that just clouds the issue. If that is the case, then what *is* the meaning of Genesis 1? I have yet to hear anyone who promotes the poetic interpretation of Genesis 1 provide a valid explanation verse by verse (or segment by segment) of what it actually *does* mean.
Secondly, if Genesis 1 is not to be taken as an historical account, why did Josephus when beginning his Antiquities of the Jews (an historical account) begin with a Creation account that paraphrased Genesis 1? It seems to me that Josephus generally considered it to be an historical account even though he questioned why Moses assigned a “day” to each of the Creation activities. If one reads Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, the beginning reads very much like Genesis 1.
Lastly, it seems to me that those Christians on both sides of the debate (theistic evolutionists and young-earth creationists) overlook one significant aspect of Creation. They both try to use science to interpret, validate, or invalidate the Creation account. Hence, the theistic evolutionists argue that the Creation account taken literally is not supported by science, and the young-earth creationists try to articulate scientific facts to support their claims. Herein lies the problem for both sides of the debate. Since when does a miracle of God need to follow the natural laws of this universe? And therefore, can natural science test or validate the miracles of God?
As an example, let’s consider the miracle where Jesus changed the water into wine. If a scientist had taken a sample of the wine and tested it, he / she would have postulated based on the scientific method that it took weeks or more to create the wine in following a specific bio-chemical process. But Scripture says that it was changed in a much more brief period of time (i.e., minutes, seconds, or even instantaneously). When changing the water into wine, did Jesus go through the normal fermentation process chemically? Maybe not. The fact is that we must take the story of changing water into wine at face value without being to validate it scientifically.
All that is to ask this question: How much of the Creation account describes a miraculous action by God and how much did God use natural processes? It seems to me that the answer to that question determines which side of the debate a Christian embraces.
The problem with not taking literal days is that it undermines the Gospel. Atheists know that but too many Christians don't realise that if the days are not literal when did death come into the world? (Remember God said it was good) If Adam and Eve are not literal then how are you saved? Jesus went on the cross because by one man sin came into the world and by one man/God we can be saved. So when did sin enter if those two people are not real? I dont agree with Lennox on that but dont doubt his salvation.
@@dulls8475 If we take Genesis literally, Christianity is bunk - Evolution is a fact.
@@Grandmaster_Dragonborn It is a theory by the way and what evidence do you have after that zinger?
@@dulls8475 Considering evolution is accepted by the scientific consensus, the burden is on you to provide definitive evidence that it is not real, publish it online & revolutionise the way we view the world.
Go on - Prove Darwin wrong. 🌏
@@Grandmaster_Dragonborn It has already been done. I dont need to prove anything. You have provided no evidence other than what you think. It is the internet I say what I like. No burden on me.
This is the first video of yours that I've watched that I disagree where you were referring to the Genesis creation account. I've been an old earth creationist all my life but in light of all of the evidence that is pointing to a young earth, I seem to be drifting in that direction. Yom does have many different meanings just as the word, "day" does today, but I think it's pretty clear that God is telling us that the days were literal 24 hour days. Nowhere else in the bible do people question the meaning of the word, Yom, except when they interpret Scripture though the eyes of a scientific world-view that requires billions of years for their theory of evolution to work. Why couldn't the creator of the heavens and the earth create in 6 days?
There is a good scientific evidence for creationism and yound earth.
Kalkas777 I would absolutely love to hear your evidence for that
@@lukasa620
Here is a list of short-lived materials that have been found in dinosaur bones that couldn't last tens of thousands of years let alone millions of years.
14 Short-lived Dinosaur Body Materials:
1. Blood Vessels
2. Red Blood Cells
3. Hemoglobin Protein
4. Fresh Bone Cells
5. Ovalbumin Proteins
6. Chitin
7. Un-mineralized Bone
8. Collagen
9. DNA (limited)
10. Skin Pigments
11. PHEX (proteins)
12. Histone H4 (proteins)
13. Keratin (structural protein)
14. Elastin
There's very good evidence for a catastrophic flood when you examine the rock layers worldwide and how they were laid down. The same rock layers exist on every continent. If there were millions of years between the layers, we'd see major erosion between the layers of sedimentary rock but there isn't. They are laid down one upon another over a short period of time with no signs of erosion. One only needs to look at the stratification found in the Grand Canyon to see that.
The eruption of Mount St. Helens created a huge canyon in a matter of hours just from mud flows following the eruption. Imagine what kind of canyon could be formed from a catastrophic flood. The mud flows hardened into sedimentary rock that scientists sent to 6 different labs to be dated. They weren't informed as to where the rock originated and the dates that came back ranged from hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years. It only took 30 years to create it dispelling the myth that it takes hundreds of millions of years for sedimentary rock to form. Diamonds that are said to take millions of years to form can be made in a lab in 8 hours. It's not time that creates the diamond. It's the proper conditions.
We see fossils appearing in large numbers concentrated in small areas as though they were washed into low-lying areas where the bodies were quickly covered over by sediment. Fossils are only formed when something is covered immediately. These huge deposits of bones are of many different species being found in the same place.
Science now knows that fossils can form in hours under the right conditions. That's why we find fossils whose stomachs still contain fossilized remains of their last meal. We find fish fossils with the intricate details of their eyes or gills and scales perfectly preserved. Look up "flash fossilization".
How long do you think it takes a fish to rot when it dies? The process begins within hours of death. Dead fish float to the surface. Dead animals are eaten and their remains rot away and bones are carried off by predators. I live in south Texas and I see a lot of dead animals on our ranch. They are all but gone within a few weeks.
The scientific world view is a secular world view for the most part. It's filled with scientists who want to prove that life could begin and exist without a Creator. Man created the means by which they date the universe and/or earth. They also created the means by which they test their methods to see if they are true. The problem with that is it all came about by presuppositions about pre-existing conditions that nobody was around to witness. They don't really know if everything has always been constant.
These are just a few that come to mind but there are many more like the number of people on the earth or the number of mutations in the human genome. Don't just buy the science because they say it's true unless you just don't want there to be a God.
Rick Davis So your first statement isn’t true, it’s quite possible to preserve things like blood vessels and other complex structures in dinosaur fossils. newscenter.lbl.gov/2020/02/14/dinosaur-blood-vessels/
As for the Noah’s ark flood, we can see different layers of strata don’t really correspond with a global flood. The irregularity of layers of rock that need sunlight and drying periods would require a flood that flooded, deposited, flooded again, dried, and repeated over and over again, but that isn’t what the Noachian flood story recounts. ncse.ngo/yes-noahs-flood-may-have-happened-not-over-whole-earth
If you truly think the Grand Canyon was formed by this flood, you would have to look at the actual appearance of the canyon. If the rock layers were layed down in such a quick time period, we would expect to see a slumped canyon, not one that has cliffs. www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Nr38Reasons.pdf
I’m not sure what you mean by flash fossilization being something that would disprove evolution or anything like that. Just because something fossilized quickly doesn’t mean that it isn’t a certain age. We can tell using different dating methods. These methods are accurate, here’s an article if you’re interested. www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/reliability.php
Science isn’t just a ploy by the secular world to disprove god. Science is something that is reliable, because unlike religion, it’s something that is willing to change given a good amount of evidence. I don’t see creationists or young earthers willing to change their positions.
@@lukasa620
I don't have time to watch or read the links you provided. I know how science works and I know what it's capable of showing. I also know that for evolution to work, they need deep, deep time for everything in their theory to take place. Here's a scenario for you. There's also a link at the end of my reply that you might check out.
According to evolution, things developed gradually over many years and those lifeforms, which were most adept to the environment survived and those which weren’t died out. That means that natural selection evolution would prefer those lifeforms which would multiply or reproduce readily, early in life and with great security.
The Darwinian hypothesis has been pretty much redefined and to this day it refers to differential reproduction. Some lifeforms leave more progeny than other lifeforms and if you leave more progeny (children) that life-form is more aptly to last under the natural environment. If this is true, one has to wonder why anything would have evolved beyond bacterial stage because bacteria multiply readily, early in their lifespan, and with great protection-it’s not hard to get bacteria to grow. Children in elementary school can grow it in a petri dish. Why then do we have fish that swim upstream or why do we have advanced animals, reptiles and mammals, that mate in the most awkward ways? Why do we have any form of copulation as a form of reproduction at all? How did we (our common ancestors) go from simple cell division to multiply (procreate) to having to copulate and producing only one offspring per year on average and all by random chance over billions of years?
Let’s look at the amoeba. If life at this level reproduced by cell division, and over billions of years we have mutations that eventually turn into fish, mammals, birds, etc., at some point they have to develop genitalia. Why did genitalia develop when it wasn’t being used for reproduction? Not only that, the genitalia that evolved by chance, evolved into male and female genitalia. Why? How can copulation be better suited and more productive for survival as opposed to simple cell division? There is no advantage for the development of genitalia and the more complex a life-form becomes, the less progeny they leave behind. Why are there plants of which only one type of insect can pollinate it? The theory is at war with itself.
Debunking Evolution
www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
Perhaps you've handled this in other videos, but I think we always need to define Evolution when we talk about it--as Dr. Lennox did in his other, well-written book, "God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?" For some folks, evolution means adaptation--well, I can't argue with that 'fact'. But when folks assume Huxley's proclamation, "We can now explain design without a Designer", I must utterly reject that as a so-called 'fact'.
The genesis account doesn't even seem to be describing material creation out of nothing. It says "God moved over the face of the waters" and "let the waters be gathered into one place and let the dry land appear" suggesting the waters and the earth beneath them already existed before creation week.
I wish more sceptics could see this.
You don't have to wish, friend. Pray.
I say they go hand in hand. Thanks for looking at this objectively by the way.
I am interested to know what you feel about another structural element in the text which distinguishes, in the Hebrew phrase 'tohu wabohu' (usually translated as 'unformed and unfilled), between 'form' (plan or framework) and 'filling' (elements within the plan / framework). I have read a number of reliable commentators state there are two three 'day' periods in the text: three devoted to 'tohu' / the framework and three to 'wabohu' / filling the framework with elements. For example, an interpretive model might be: God created "time" on Day 1; "space" on Day 2; and "matter" on 'day' 3 and then "filled" or completed the framework or plan of 'time', 'space' and 'matter' with elements: sun, moon, stars on Day 4; atmosphere, sky, rivers / seas/ oceans and their attendant creatures on Day 5; land animals and humanity on Day 6. This would seem to agree with your case that this is a poetic, vague theological account of creation, not a literal, scientific textbook.
Check out Ernest Lucas "Interpreting Genesis in the 21st Century". The ages of the patriarchs likely had greater symbolic significance to the ancient times. The ages are all multiples of 5 with 7 or 14 added occasionally, suggesting a symbolic meaning.
Would this be considered Theistic Evolution?
Yes
Kai merlen yes
jaydee040 I don’t think his point was that evolution is true, but this type of structural evolution is compatible with theism. Basically that God created the natural laws to achieve evolution without God miraculous creating life every time. I see what you mean, but IP is making a series on the very thing you are talking about, look at his genesis 1-11 series.
jaydee040 um I think it does matter if it is true or not true that’s kinda way people discuss issues like this, and there are arguments on both sides, and for you to say we shouldn’t respect or hear people’s opinion on the issue just because you think your side is right is the exact reason why there is divide in so many people groups, because there unwilling to hear the other person. My point wasn’t that it’s true or not, but that it’s compatible with the theistic worldview and theist shouldn’t be scared to listen, but you seem to believe the exact opposite.
And IP’s video wasn’t to prove that God exist with this video, he has other videos to do that, and you can watch other TH-camrs that say the same or better arguments. And no one is arguing that they predicted millions of years or whatever your talking about so your point on that is irrelevant on both sides. However this God created the universe is literally for him to know and for us to find out. So for people to argue and dispute this is good for our race as a whole, because you can agree finding new discoveries is important even if it proves the last idea of the universe wrong.
jaydee040 Well to answer your first question most scientist would say “yes the evolution of man is real.”
You forget that the whole point of IP’s video was saying that God was everything to do with the evolution of species through natural laws that he created. And well, yes you’re right and that it would take millions of years to get to humanity, that’s what the evolutionary Community says too, and that species have gone extinct as well, but where is your evidence to say humanity would also go extinct along with other creatures? I think you’re so mean if evolution is true that would disapprove God somehow, or that it gives him no purpose, when in fact it’s the opposite, his whole being is the reason we have the natural laws to perform these things, either that be evolving to humanity through natural laws, or breaking the sound barrier to travel to the moon.
My friends are going to have to prove why evolution is false, or why it can’t be compatible with Theus him, unless you can do that I don’t see how you can argue against it saying that it’s not compatible with theism.
And the evening and the morning were the first day sounds pretty literal
Maybe, but it's still poetic in its contrast between evening and morning. In any case, it never says that all seven days happened at once. There could have been thousands, millions, or even billions of years separating one day of creation from the next.
@@hotwax9376 photosynthesis says otherwise, trees plants and all vegetation need sunlight to live, and were created on the third day. The sun was created on the fourth day... The intelligent design of the entire natural world is proven by the fact that it works, in all it's forms. God, the designer gave the trees what they needed the very next day not 1000+ years or some undetermined amount of time later. I encourage you to take a King James Bible and with an open, humble, heart asking for the Holy Spirit to give you wisdom simply read Gen 1 and 2 again, setting aside any preconceived ideas... With respect.
HotWax93 God commanded us to rest on the seventh day “JUST AS HE DID FROM ALL OF HIS WORKS”.... if there were thousands of years in between those days we could not possibly mimic that
Mr Dyntasy explain yourself ....
Mr Dyntasy yes .... do you read the Bible ?
by the way, I really like your videos. I was just wondering if you could respond to my last comment regarding evolution. Thank you brother!
I don't see it, can you repost.
i wonder what you make of genesis 5? also if the creation account was poetry was it inspired by god? if so why is the order wrong? god could have easily inspired metaphorical poetry that contained an accurate description of history or at least a sensible one (plants Before the sun? wtf). i am genuinely curious about how you reconcile these things.
You're fine, I list comment rules in the information section. As long as you do not break rules excessively, you will be fine. The problem is your entire argument is a red herring. I have a 4 part series on the ontological argument where I argue the only coherent definition of God. So your comments are unconvincing because the basic ontology refutes other possible gods. See my series for more on that topic.
WHAT AN EXCELLENT VIDEO, so professional, Congratulations
I wonder if the time for Jerusalem to be rebuilt and Ezra 7 was in 457 BC and the cross was in 33 ad if that does not mean that the 490 years of Daniel is complete and we don't need to have a tribulation? Of 7 years or 3 and 1/2 years?
That of course assumes that men were created immortal. The early church father Clement of Alexandria argued death in the garden only meant spiritual death, not physical. The Bible uses the word death in other places to only refer to spiritual death (Ephesians 2:1; Colossians 2:13). All that happened in the garden was spiritual death.
I agree, but this doesn't affect the core doctrines of Christianity, so it is hardly a division.
You have turned me from a religion hating person to a religion loving person. If only there were more people like you, we non religious people wouldn't be against the idea of God infact some of us may turn to religion. People interpreting the religious texts literally are doing more harm than good to themselves and the people around them.
So IP convinces you that the bible doesn't mean what it plainly states and you are now "a religion loving person"?
Do you also now love that Jesus repeatedly proclaimed Himself to be the divine Son of Man that the prophet Daniel saw come on the clouds, approach God's throne and take His seat next to God so as to judge all the nations?
Do you love that this same divine judge of the nations became a man, lived among us and was rejected, humiliated, beaten and crucified to rescue you from sin and death?
If not, then you have merely professed a love for paganism...which is what 'the lack of belief in a god' always was: the sensual worship of the created order rather than worshipping the Uncreated Creator.
@@MichaelWilliams-eq4kt I am a non believer in your words which suggests I believe in no god so paganism is out of the question. What I meant by religion loving person is I prefer a society where people actually follow their religion and go by the book and proper interpretation. I won't consider myself an atheist because even though I am yet not convinced fully on the existence of god (i really hope god is real to be honest but I am not convinced yet) I don't bother arguing with religious folks that their god doesn't exist because it's mostly you people who have kept the society sane till now.
@@anshul2145 Then I pray that my God and Father would have give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation of Jesus Christ, that you would know the great hope to which He is calling you and that you would experience His transformational power in yourself. I was a philosophical naturalist and a Marxist until I was in my 20s but Jesus changed me, completely and utterly. May you come to know His incredible love!
No, no compromise. It's either one or the other.
This is not a black and white issue.
The difference is, evolution says how our bodies came about and doesn't deal with the explanation of mental substances, like the mind or consciousness. Evolution doesn't deal a deathblow because it says nothing about the Spirit, just the physical body. Now, the philosophical position of physicalism rejects mental substances, but evolution (by itself) doesn't say anything on the topic. You can believe in evolution and reject physicalism, like Thomas Nagel.
YECs often claim that theistic evolution degrades God, but I've seen that it's all too often that the YECs are the ones that are putting Him in a straight jacket:
"God shouldn't have to wait 13.7 billion years to create man."
What's 13.7 billion years to a timeless God?
"My God doesn't have to recreate things over and over again to create man."
Again, they're imputing that God must have "had to" do things the way He did. There's no sense of freedom of how God wills to bring about humans.
"Christ referred to Genesis to defend lifelong marriage. How could He use just a metaphor to base marriage?"
Again, God apparently isn't allowed to inspire an allegory and refer to it when talking about marriage.
Common to fundamentalism, these objections often impute anthropomorphic attributes to an immaterial timeless God, to Whom applying these terms just doesn't make any sense. I think there should be a debate between a YEC and a theistic evolutionist like you who knows this stuff so we can see who's actually degrading God. I've never seen a debate between a YEC and a theistic evolutionist where these common objections to theistic evolution are dealt with, which is a shame because they are so easily refuted.
lol yess
"3:05"
(drops mic..)
Thanks :)
hey InspiringPhilosophy? You should compare the creation account to II Peter 3:5. It CLEARLY states there was prior activity on the Earth before the Earth became formless and void. That actually allows the Earth to be the 4.5 billion years old scientists claim and also allows OUR creation to be 6,000-10,000 years, give or take.
2Pet3:5 "But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water."
How does this confirm previous times? This verse actually inspired a very accurate theory planetary magnetic fields that lends to the younger age of the universe.
itssoEC It's simple. The watery abyss described here, it's the same one in Genesis 1:1-2.
Loo up "Biblical 3 earth ages".
Please share with me your view on: "and there was evening, and morning the first day". Morning and evening seem to me like pretty definitive time frames.
+JesseALwood Sure, but the whole chapter is poetry, so they are not representative of anything.
***** That is a slippery slope fallacy. By your logic because John 15:1 is a metaphor we can make the whole Bible a metaphor, right?
***** Yes, and because John 15:1 is a metaphor, I guess by your logic, that mean we should make the entire Bible a metaphor, right? Why don't you apply your reasoning to your own views? Do you take everything in the Bible literally? How about judges 5, Psalm 91, Revelation?
***** Who said I was making parts metaphorical? Are you forcing John 15:1 to be metaphorical? Your argument is it is clear John 15:1 is metaphorical... And I point out in this video, it is quite clear Genesis 1 is poetic.
You can force it to be literal to fit your view, but then why not just say the whole Bible is literal? Maybe Jesus really is a vine, since Genesis 1 has to be literal? This is how absurd your argument sounds.
***** No, it is clearly poetry, as I show in this video. You haven't challenged any of my points, and you only argument is, "It doesn't look poetic to me," which is a fallacy. It is an argument from incredulity and not a valid point.
Wait, half the time it looks like you're claiming the creation story is a metaphor, and the other half it looks like you're trying to finagle with the words and context to make it look like it is historical and in agreement with scientific conclusions. Which is it?
+FirstRisingSouI He said semi-poetic. Poetry about history. That doesn't mean its telling you EXACTLY what happened it means its a poem telling a flowery way of what happened because it sounds nice but is not to be taken as an actual historical account. see his psalm 5 and judges 4 example.
Oh. I am catholic, and i can say that you did an awesome job explaining the trinity in your videos. got to use this logic when explaining it to my non christian friends. :0
It is still visible on my end. it's in one of our first interactions. there is a video clip attached to it.
Great video.. But I have some questions.. 1st, how could God possibly use billions of years of natural selection (death and suffering) and then look at it and say it was "very good"? Would this not contradict His own good nature? How could a lion mauling a deer, natural disasters, etc, possibly be good?? This is very hard for me to understand..
Also, what about the other contradictions? God said the He created each creature to reproduce "according to it's kind".. How is this possible if everything evolved from something else? What about the contradictions between evolution and Genesis concerning the sequence of creation? Everything about common ancestry (including big bang cosmology) is *backwards* to the Genesis account! How do we reconcile all of this, and why should we, just to entertain and old age of the universe?
let me ask you this: we know it is wrong to murder, but do animals murder? When a lion kills a deer for food, it kills the dear, but it doesn't murder the deer. When a male shark forcibly copulates with a female shark is it rape, or nature? Nature is made well, but it's not moral like we are.
Animals do bring forth after their own kind. Reptiles did not produce birds one day. It took millions of year of a animal bringing forth it's own kind, and then time shows how kinds change. But each individual reproduction did not violate this.
Genesis 1 is just a poem, not nonliteral history. The entire chapter is metaphorical, not the days.
***** But I strongly disagree, and even Jesus referred to Genesis as history. I think that the interpretation of Genesis as a literal 6 day creation makes much more sense than trying to explain it in terms of billions of years of death and suffering.
And you avoided some of my most important questions. What about the contradictions between the sequence of creation between the Genesis account and the evolution model and big bang cosmology??? Everything is backwards to the Genesis account, so somebody must be wrong here! Evolution sys sea creatures came first, Genesis says land creatures were created first...so who is correct?
And I'm sorry, I have a very hard time believing that God could look at a lion ripping the guts out of a deer and say that it was "very good"! I just don't buy it. Morality is human, but I seriously doubt that a loving God would agree that it was "very good" to have death and suffering! The Bible says that death is an enemy. The Bible also says that plants "wither" or "fade", but they do not 'die" in the way that we die. Plants are nothing but a self-replicating food source. I think that we would all agree that there is a difference between hitting a possum with your car and pulling weeds out of your garden. Theconcpet of death concerning them is quite different!
And I also don't buy that when Genesis says that creatures will produce "after their kind", that this means that one kind will evolve into another, that is absurd! 10 times in Genesis it says "after it's kind"... I think that God was trying to make a clear point here...just my opinion.
And what about when God created the animals in the garden in front of Adam so that he could name them? Was Adam in the garden for billions of years as they evolved into different kinds, or did God literally create them in different kinds instantly in front of Adam?
I know that this has been a long debate between believers, but I think that you are wrong on this one. I have subscribed to your channel and I really enjoy your videos, and you've taught me a great deal, so please don't take offense brother. But I truly believe that the scientific evidence clearly supports the young earth that is described in Genesis. Also, if we can't take Genesis literally, then how can we take anything else in the Bible literally, especially in a historical context? Think about this..
But again, thank you for sharing your knowledge, keep up the good work. I am always open to hearing from you:) Happy New Year bro.
3theghost "and even Jesus referred to Genesis as history"
-When did Jesus say Genesis 1 is literal history?
" What about the contradictions between the sequence of creation between the Genesis account and the evolution model and big bang cosmology???"
-I said "Genesis 1 is just a poem, not nonliteral history. The entire chapter is metaphorical, not the days." Genesis is not an account of anything, but a poem for theological purposes.
"Genesis says land creatures were created first...so who is correct?"
-Land creatures are not mentioned until the 6th day, where as sea creatures are on the 5th day.
"And I also don't buy that when Genesis says that creatures will produce "after their kind""
-Does Evolution say crocodiles will produce birds? No, Crocodiles produce the same genetics they have and so and so. Evolution is so slow you would never know it is happening.
"Was Adam in the garden for billions of years as they evolved into different kinds, or did God literally create them in different kinds instantly in front of Adam?"
-It says God brought them forth. "...and brought them to the man to see what he would call them." - Genesis 2:19.
"so please don't take offense brother."
-I never do, :) Happy New Year.
***** My bad, I meant the land plants, not land creatures, before sea creatures. My mistake, but still it's a serious contradiction...is it not?
"1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 1:13 And the evening and the morning were *the third* day.." And then..
"1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven..1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day."
This is an obvious contradiction to the evolution theory, so which one got it wrong?
And no, I don't think the evolution theory says that crocs turned into birds, but it certainly says that *reptiles* turned into birds, which is also another clear contradiction to Genesis when it says that the fowl was created before the land creatures.. Which one is wrong here?
And dude, Genesis 2:19 *clearly* says ..And *out of the ground the Lord God formed* every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them" ... He doesn't just bring them unto Adam, He actually *formed* them out of the ground in front of Adam. I personally believe He did that so Adam would know that He was God..but nonetheless it clearly says that He formed them out of the ground in front of Adam...so where does this happen in the evolution story, and how could you possibly mistake this for just a metaphor, or just a poem? And most importantly, why shouldn't we take this literally? Why couldn't GOD have created everything in 6 days, just like Genesis says that He did? Is there any philosophical, or scientific reason to reject a literal interpretation of Genesis, honestly?
And didn't Jesus refer to Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 to establish that God made man male and female and intended marriage to be between a man and a woman for life?
Also, what about Genesis "2:21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."... Is this just a "poem" too, or was this not a literal event that happened as written?
Do you really believe evolution, and billions of years to be true, as well as compatible with scripture? How can these be explained? Perhaps you could make a video on young earth creation vs old earth creation.. I think this issue should get a little more attention, and help strengthen peoples faith in the accuracy of scripture.. and it doesn't hurt that your videos are always legit;)
3theghost I am not biologists, but I am pretty plants evolved long before fish did. Either way it doesn't matter. I do not argue the days represent long periods. It is not nonliteral history, but an entire poem. It is not meant to represent anything literal, just for theological purposes that God created the earth for good. It was written against pagan myths of chaos and the idea world was an accident.
The first few verse of Genesis 2 are a recap of what had already happened. God is not remaking animals. If that was the case, you've created contradicts with Genesis 1. for which came first Adam or animals? Verse 19 is just saying, all the animals God created/formed were then brought before Adam for taxonomy.
Perhaps you should read Philo of Alexandria or Early Church Fathers. Why didn't they take it as literal history? There are plenty of theological, scientific and philosophical reasons to reject a literal reading of Genesis 1, but as these early writers not it is not written as literal history. It is written as Hebrew poetry. Why would we take a poem to be literal?
Jesus taught philosophical and ethics implications. He never referred to literal creation of male and female. He refers entirely to the first marriage, not the creation. He says in the beginning (beginning of marriage) there was one man and one woman. This is not referring to creation in the full context.
I never said Genesis 2 was pee. Philosopher Peter Kreeft says it is non literal history. The man, woman and sin are sin, but the stories are representations of something that happened.
Yes, I really believe the earth is billions of years old. Hugh Ross says it is far more likely the earth is flat than 6000 years old. And most of the church throughout history rejected a literal reading of Genesis 1. t was only 1960 when Henry Morris stole teachings from the Seventh-Day Adventists in 1961 that it become popular to say Genesis 1 is literal. Here is the truth about the young earth movement:
Lecture 06: The Sectarian Origins of Young Earth Creationism
The author of this video is very uninformed. However, he has done a wonderful job, in the same way that atheists typically do, of learning many false things which he then believes form valid arguments. I suggest that he begins to learn the many reasons why scripture is always accurate when it touches upon science, and the many ways in which science has supported the scriptural account of a 6 day creation, and examines why he thinks there is a need to compromise his Christianity for the false science of the secular thinkers. He has so much to learn. I hope that he some day comes to see how he is arguing against God and reality.
We do not.
***** Do you know me? LOL NO.
You talk fallacy speaking on my behalf.
Also, nothing could be further from the truth when you say "The bible is completely unscientific." Even a scientist would not say such gibberish and would lose credibility by doing so. This now makes you a misrepresent-er of myself, my beliefs, AND the Holy Bible. They call that "lying" where I come from. I don't speak to those who have a propensity toward lying because they lose the debate early on, as you have here. Speak truth and you may win a debate sometime.
***** You just made my point Pedro. Three links like this, your inability to hold a mature discussion, and your pre-judgemental attitude just lost any chance of you dominating the discussion. Next...
***** I challenge you to debate evolution with me in a hangout later tonight.
***** Get a PC some day.
Nice Video:) I think the hardest thing for a lot of Christians to reconcile between Genesis and some form of evolution is the "death before sin" part. You rightly point out that plant death would have already existed and animal death is different from human. We could also note that the Bible makes clear distinctions between physical and spiritual death. Jesus says that those who believe in him "have already passed from death into life". Also notice what God says after man sins, "..and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever..", so God banishes them perhaps because being spiritually death and physically alive forever would be awful:)
Oh, that is not what I am saying. It relies on possible world semantics. Modal logic and possible worlds are a way for philosophers to find out what is possibly or necessarily true about the actual world.
evolution: a scientific belief. Evolution theory: accepted! the explanatory mechanisms: belief
Not a belief. A scientific theory doesn’t mean “just a theory” it means demonstrated and it makes sense beyond a reasonable doubt