This is ironically the most satisfying answer I’ve found today on the topic of God and evolution dispute all its uncertainties. Love that the pastor is viewing what is possible from the lens of theory, scripture, and intuition rather than making bold and unsubstantiated claims about a particular view. Thank you Pastor John!
Thank you for affirming that through one man sin entered the world, and through sin, death. Now let's take the next step and start taking God at his word and thus start supporting the discovery of God's truth in the world. Remember, the heavens proclaim HIS handiwork.
Death doesn't exist because of the actions of a man, it has existed as long as life has. Life and death always go together, just like night and day, or summer and winter, or positive and negative electric charges.
@Gnostic Calvinism is a Doctrine from Hell I was raised a Christian and never left the religion. You don't speak for Christianity, you are a fundamentalist-- that is an extremist sect that barely resembles genuine Christianity and appeals only to neurotic contrarians.
@Gnostic Calvinism is a Doctrine from Hell Thanks for reminding us that no one is as anti-Christian as a religious fanatic who takes it upon himself to declare who is and who is not a "real" Christian
At the end he expresses his belief that it is theoretically possible (theistic evolution), but then adds that, exegetically (and it is important to consider here that his analysis is based on a literal interpretation of the text), he finds problems to accept evolution. Which is quite interesting because we can see in his answer a struggle between what, on the one hand, faith and reason in harmony are telling him (theistic evolution), and on the other, the parameters with which he has embraced his faith for a long time (young earth creationism based on a literal interpretation of the text).
As a Christ follower one of the things that has convinced me of macro evolution is how ecosystems work. Every animal, plant, and fungus has their specific niche in the environment. If one is taken out or introduced there are drastic consequences to the ecosystem. Take for example wolves in the northern United States. When their population is decrease deer and elk herds grow innumerable and eat all the plants that they cause the ecosystem to collapse. In Australia the removal of the Thylacine or Tasmanian Tiger has cause other mammals to get mange. The removal of mammoths from the arctic regions of the world has caused, believe it or not, the release of carbon in the atmosphere that has caused a rise in temperature. Now imagine for a moment introducing a Tyrannosaur into America in Yellowstone now this animal is competing with wolves and bears and will eventually outcompete them so much they would die out. Every animal has its time and place that God has wisely chosen and guided over long periods of time to bring about his plans for the present and times to come. Animal death is not disallowed from Genesis and even Genesis says that it was the tree of life that kept Adam and Eve immortal. Do a close reading and see for yourself. Another convincing fact is you don’t find dinosaurs or even several million year old mammals mixing with what is alive today. You won’t find a boar or a human in the belly of Tyrannosaurus Rex.
As a Christian, I do somewhat believe in evolution. We were not created from apes, and our ancestors were not apes. But I do believe in evolution as a way beings on this earth adapt.
Oliver, how do you think sickness and death came into the world? Original sin. How could have successive stages of humanoids evolved into Adam and Eve without natural selection, which involves sickness and death? And id species were struggling and competing to survive prior to Adam and Eve, then that wouldn't have been the perfect beautiful Garden of Eden, would it?
Ape/human kinship has been proven conclusively by DNA. We share over 95% of our DNA with the Great Apes, and we share copies of identical DNA sequences with other mammals, reptiles, amphibians and fish. DNA can only be acquired by organisms through inheritance, it proves that all living things on earth descend fron common ancestors.
Human beings are a variety of ape, sorry if that offends you, but it is simply a fact. We did not evolve from any modern species of ape, but we do share common ancestors with them all. This evolutionary divergence occurred most recently with bonobos and chimpanzees. As would be expected, we have the greatest level of genetic similarity with these species.
@@codycurnutte7084 Living organisms only acquire genetic codes by inheritance, and DNA structure shows which species are most directly related to other species and which are more distantly related. The pattern is not random, it shows how each group branched off from which parent population just as surely as you and your cousin can be traced to the same grandfather. You can always believe that your favorite god is ultimately behind evolution, if that is your only concern.
As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.
I'd say to look into Inspiringphilosophy's youtube channel about the subject or even Biologos. I am a Christian who loves and believes in the bible, and currently accepts evolution.
@@mikepennino0801 we need more people exactly like yourself. To fight against the widespread science denial that is killing the faith in modern 1st world countries.
Something to consider is this. If a woodsman makes toys for a living you may find that the toys look fairly similar. You would not say that, 'surely these toys come from the same tree! For they look and play just like eachother!' But you would say, 'ah, the toymaker is very skilled to have made these toys so familiar even with using different wood! He must have used the same tools!' 'What a worthy toymaker he is!' Some more clear questions for you if you have jumped into the deep end on this topic: At what point did all the necessary components for the first cell come together? How did they work? How did that one cell even survive, let alone know how to reproduce? Where does sin come into this? Did man evolve from some ape then disobey God? At what point does the ability to disobey come since the bible only discusses mankind? Is God a liar when he says that he formed man of the dust of the earth? Do adaptations truly come from mutation or from genes switching on or off? I ask because from what I understand most mutations result in death or impaired life, not the other way around. How many attempts at mutation did it take for fish to breathe on land? Did the flood happen? what about the sedimentary rock that covers most of the earth? Do the current rates of science match up with how the world has always been or are we operating on a false asumption? Just some food for thought. God is powerful enough, worthy enough, and smart enough to do as he sees fit. answersingenesis.org/the-flood/flood-cataclysm-deposit-uniform-rock-layers/
@@justsomeplantwithinterneta7391 "Something to consider is this" Ok, let's consider human creations. All human creations arose through evolution. All of them. Without exception. We see a wooden wagon evolve into a Ferrari. We see a giant beeping telegraph machine evolve into a smartphone. We see micro- and macro-evolution of technology, happening with a rhythm of punctuated equilibrium. "Where does sin come into this?" The Bible tells us our sin comes from our flesh, and the devil has us in bondage through our fear of death. Evolution explains why this is, because we inherited powerful survival instincts, and the fact that these were cemented into place over the course of billions of years of fierce evolutionary struggle shows us just how powerless we are to overcome it on our own. "Did man evolve from some ape then disobey God? " Obviously. "At what point does the ability to disobey come" The exact point is difficult, if not impossible, to pinpoint scientifically. That's why the story of the Garden of Eden is still valid today, because it gives a simple contextual framework to talk about and ponder the RAMIFICATIONS of that transitionary point. "Is God a liar" No, Ken Ham is a liar. "when he says that he formed man of the dust of the earth" This verse is a perfect description of molecules-to-man evolution, expressing the spiritual reality that it was God doing it. What did you think, that a corporeal God actually gave cpr to some mud? "Do adaptations truly come from mutation" No, and this idea has been criticized in the sciences for over 40 years. " what about the sedimentary rock that covers most of the earth?" yeah what about it? A single flood CANNOT POSSIBLY ACCOUNT FOR IT. Period. "Did the flood happen?" Yes, and the REAL evidence for it, like a forest of trees under 60 feet of sea water off the coast of Alabama, requires that the rock strata was already there. " God is powerful enough, worthy enough, and smart enough to do as he sees fit." According to you though, making a single cell first is asking waaaaay too much of God.
Most ordinary people assume that when Atheists reject the notion of there being a deity/god in our existence, they are saying that our reality came about by the process of evolution, and nothing else, this does seem to be a logical, and rational, way of coming to terms with why we are here? However if, such a rational is true then why, if things came about by a mindless biological process, did evolution deem it necessary equip its creations with the means by which it was able to understand such logic? For instance, humanity is able to develop the many skills necessary to build all the wonderful things that we do, yet we never expect our creations to understand why we created them? So why did nature, if that is evolution, give us ‘red-shift/Doppler effect’ understanding EM radiation and all the other scientific skills to make sense of the world we find ourselves in? Does it make sense to say - that they just came about - without asking why did they come about, and for what purpose? And who, or what, would have a vested interested in us having the curiosity to seek such understanding, and meaning????
2:25 how do you make sense of the death that seems to have occurred before man in the evolutionary timeline? I understand Piper's point about the flow of scripture, but I need to hear him grapple with the death that's in the Earth's journal of history long before 6000 years ago.
@@georgepenton808 First of all, macroevolution is a theory, not a hypothesis. A theory in scientific terms is a proposed idea that is supported by a wide range of scientific observations and evidence. As to how can it be compatible with the original sin doctrine, well it really does not contradict it. If we're saying that all humans are naturally evil that may well be true yes, we are naturally selfish human beings who only care for our own survival or the survival of those we love dearly, but this is a result of evolution. Now that we have evolved to a higher consciousness compared to other animals on earth, we can define morality and be civil human beings who can sort things out with logic and reason and don't have to resort to killing other clans of prehistoric humans for food. Your question should really be more detailed and better constructed for me to give a good answer. The two ideas you bring up don't exactly contradict each other.
I don't really feel the need to reconcile them. The Israelites interpreted their contact with God under the science they had at the time. So He held the earth in place and hung the firmament rather than setting the planets in motion. Likewise, he created 2 individuals a few millennia ago rather than setting this process in order. Either way, humans are clearly chosen, God is clearly King, and they recall a time before vanity and disobedience They identified childbirth (which is painful for women because we walk upright) and toiling in the fields (agriculture is initially more difficult, but without it you can't have civilisation)
I don't know much about Evolution but the one thing that I have trouble accepting is that everything Men do is only for the benefit of survival, since we're just another "species". It makes me think that if we believe this, we can't love one another and merely take social decisions for our own benefit and survival. Which is sad in my eyes. But according to God, we are all sons of Him and should love one another and that's the reason why we like being with people because we're all connected and love helping each other because otherwise we would be egoistical.
And god's word includes, 'Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.' Numbers 31 17-18.
But keep in mind, we purely exist as the top apex predator of the world because of our love and connection to each other. Humanity stayed together, built connections with one another in groups and cared for each other which allowed us to surivive and dominate the world. People who went alone and did not care or love for others rarely survived.
Nothing needs to be "reconciled"-- the illusion of reconciliation is just a psychological hangup you have. Nature is completely compatible throughout, an problems or contradictions you think there are exist only in your mind.
@@stephenpeppin5537 You aren't going to live forever-- wanting to is a selfish desire. Don't let charlatans use vain promises to bait you into doing their bidding, that only lowers religion to the level of a transaction , as with a life insurance policy-- buy into it now and reap a personal benefit later. Death-- real death-- is not so scary. Grow up and deal with it.
@@jeromehorwitz2460 Apparently you're suggesting that you've never committed a sin! Those who don't need to be reconciled are those whom never sinned....which is absolutely Nobody on earth let alone you!!
I thumbed this down the moment he said people claim evolution is the origin of life (around 30 to 40 seconds). No one who understands evolution claims that. If you don't understand evolution, don't try to discredit it.
What a silly distinction you make. He obviously knows that origin of life is different from progression of life (evolution). I think your view displays a clear bias not to give the other side a little leniency for small, normal, understandable, inaccuracies that we all have in discussion. You were simply looking for a reason to discredit his view IMO
It is not "Divine selection" because no person is making a conscious choice or decision about what traits are passed on to the next generation. Some traits promote higher rates of reproduction and they are the ones that are passed on most frequently. Since traits change slightly whenever they are reproduced, there is always a variety of traits that allow populations to continually adapt to changing environments.
@@luvdomus I strongly disagree. There is nothing about natural selection that rules out a designer. Consider the evolution of technology, such as a telephone. They started out as giant beeping telegraph machines and slowly, through the course of time, small changes eventually added up to smart phones. Not every new feature that was added to phones was kept - each and every new phone was subject to the natural selection of the marketplace. The "fittest" models were the ones that sold the most and these models became the basis for the next generation. All of this is perfectly consistent with evolution. And yet, we know for a fact that the entire process *_ALSO_* involved intelligent designers overseeing the whole thing. Without a designer it doesn't function. You can just randomly replace parts on a phone for 5000 years and all you'll ever get is a broken phone.
@@theTavis01 You could always imagine that an intelligent entity of some sort is influencing natural phenomena in some mysterious way, like the aliens influencing the apes in 2001, but it isn't useful to stick invisible characters into your explanation while you ignore any description of their methods. It may be convenient to invoke omnipotent spirits who can do anything but that only avoids the question of how the process actually works. Intelligence only develops through biology, it doesn't exist in disembodied form like an invisible ghost, so it is not an explanation for the origin of biology.
@@luvdomus "It may be convenient to invoke omnipotent spirits who can do anything but that only avoids the question of how the process actually works. " Not at all. I do not invoke God because of convenience but rather of necessity. God is the WHO, the Bible answers WHY, and the question of *_HOW_* is answered by science. Evolution is the mechanism of creation, nothing more nothing less. Evolution is *_HOW_* God created. You ignored the pivotal piece of my analogy, that phone technology would not have gone anywhere at all if left to pure random chance without a designer. Indeed, Darwin stated that random mutations were not capable of accounting for what we see in the fossil record, and modern scientists are finally starting to figure out how this functions (adaptive epigenetics, etc). You claim "Intelligence only develops through biology" but that is an invalid presupposition. Our brains do not create consciousness. They are a way in which consciousness tunes in. Just look at plants - they are clearly conscious of light and cycles of time, and even touch and sound, yet they have no nervous system! Consciousness is everything! Genesis repeatedly emphasizes the importance of God's conscious awareness with statements like "And God saw that it was good." Our own consciousness is a small piece of God's consciousness, a microcosm of the macrocosm. When God created Adam, he breathed life into the dirt. The Hebrew word for breath is ruach, which is the same word used for the Holy Spirit (Ruach Elohim). The Holy Scriptures are referred to as God-breathed, because they are written through a prophet by the Holy Spirit. When God breathed into the dirt, He gave us our own spirit in the image of the Holy Spirit. This microcosmic spirit (our individuated soul) then experiences reality from a fixed point in space time, using our brains to remain anchored to our bodies and perceiving through the 5 senses. Our brains are so powerful that we forget about our spiritual nature and become fully identified with our flesh, leading to disastrous outcomes that Christ came to save us from. Fun fact: the word in the Greek bible for (Holy) Spirit is pneuma (also means breath) czcams.com/video/5ClCaPmAA7s/video.html Here is what the peer-reviewed scientific literature says about consciousness: arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0007006 The abstract lays out that "an analogy naturally arises between the very early quantum computing universe, and our mind. " The pdf can be accessed for free, and I admit some of the technical bits are over my head, but it is also full of understandable language. You are describing a mechanical reductionist view, which this paper counters: "although the brain can actually support classical computation, there is an element of consciousness which is non-computable (in the classical sense), as it was shown by Penrose [2]. Moreover, the seminal paper by Stapp [3] clarified why classical mechanics cannot accommodate consciousness, but quantum mechanics can. Finally, reductionism cannot explain the "hard problem" of consciousness, which deals with our "inner life", as it was illustrated by Chalmers [4]." They go on to conclude that "In this paper, we described the early inflationary universe as an ensemble of quantum gravity registers in parallel. At the end of inflation, the superposed state self-reduces by reaching the quantum gravity threshold as in the Penrose’s Objective Reduction model. *_This self-reduction can be interpreted as a primordial conscious experience."_* Just as I described above with God breathing the Holy Spirit into us, giving us our own microcosmic spirit, this paper expresses the same idea scientifically stating that the universe "necessarily produces self-similar computing systems (our minds)."
@@theTavis01 Explain the physical method by which supernatural spirits cause speciation in cause and effect terms as evolution does and you might be taken seriously. Otherwise you're just saying "god did it" as if no further explanation is necessary or even possible.
I agree with his opening qualification that evolution in and of itself is an adequate explanation of origin. I would not however, argue that it's incompatible with scripture per se, but rather all manner of logical and philosophical reasoning as a whole! However, coming from an orthodox perspective, this modern day, hyper literal, western understanding of scripture is an altogether dizzying conundrum that reformed tradition has made for itself.
But the Jewish scholars of centuries past, even pre-Christ, unanimously believed that Genesis 1-3 were literally true. The literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is not a 'reformed tradition', it is a historic Jewish orthodox position.
@Gnostic Calvinism is a Doctrine from Hell Not sure what "orthodox" you're referring to, but it sure isn't Eastern Orthodox because we don't believe in "original sin".
Noah's ark was 300x50x30 cubits big. Cubit I guess is like 1.8 ft. He couldn't fit 2 or 7 of each animal and their subspecies. No way. I think he has the respective animals anscestor and then evolved into what we see now
Could not God not have made the arm bigger on the inside? Furthermore, could God not have made literally every animal on the earth appear nearby to enter the ark? Or created two new versions of each? And keep them all perfectly fed and behaved without food for the trip? When He is involved then nothing is impossible. My personal belief was the whole building an ark and everything was a test of Noah’s faith (it did take him a hundred years to build)
Even if Noah brought two of each ancestor of modern species, you still have the problem of all modern species evolving in an extremely short period of time.
I love Pastor John and have a lot of respect for him but I have to respectfully disagree with the four arguments he puts across here. The first, for example, seems to me to be an incorrect reading of Romans 8:12, in which God is quite clear that death came to all mankind through sin. Only men can sin and as a result only men died as a result of the Fall. The "god and science" page carries a very good article on this issue.
Nope... Sin came into the world (cosmos) and then death spread as a result of sin. Man is the focus here, but the death came to the world through man's sin. Your suggestion doesn't stand proper explanation. BTW, it Romans 5:12
Going by the bible - Can animals sin? - Of course not - SO - If death comes through sin and animals are incapable of sinning - Then - Why are animals not immortal? Is god punishing innocent animals for the sins of man? If so? Why?
The only death that really matters is spiritual death. Physical death is just the transition between this world and the next. Since animals don't have God-imaging spirits, they don't really die.
Death is most likely referring to physical and spiritual death. This can still fit in a theistic evolutionary framework, if God entered into a covenant with Adam and at that point gave him a potentially unlimited life span, which Adam then lost. When the Bible says God created each after their own kind, it may just be describing how God used evolution to create many different creatures, and man's creation could also be describing a long period of time. This creation could have happened over a long period of time and was only complete when God came to Adam, entered into covenant with him and changed him. Perhaps that adds some element of miraculous or special act of creation that goes beyond evolution but that's not a problem for me. I think that any of the 3 ideas, recent creation, old earth creation, and theistic evolution could possibly be true, but the one with the least physical evidence is recent creation, yet maybe I'm just lacking and missed something. I have faith to say that whatever the Bible says is true, but it often says things very hard to understand, Like Ezekiel, Revelation, some Psalms, etc.
Adam and Eve sinned. That is how sickness and death entered the world (original sin). Natural selection is only possible through certain species growing ill and dying off, with other stronger species taking their place. So either the original sin doctrine is wrong or the macroevolution hypothesis is wrong. If my reasoning here is wrong can someone show me where I'm wrong?
@@georgepenton808 Sickness and death existed among living things long before humans existed, we have inherirlted them from our ancestors-- that has nothing to do with anything that any individual humans ever did.
@@georgepenton808 the death described in that particular scripture could be talking about spiritual death, not physical. Physical death existed before humans existed. You don't even have to believe in evolution to believe that because God created animals before humans. And we know that each creationism event is over the course of thousands to millions of years. Well, because science.
Maybe people should leave religion to comment on the spiritual reality (if it exists) and science on the physical reality. Tried reading actual scientific, peer-reviewed papers and publications? National Geographic and other mainstream stuff is more commercial than scientific. Maybe go to BioLogos as well, that exists as bridge between science and those who practise Christianity?
It is bedrock Catholic doctrine, and doctrine in many Protestant denominations, that there was no suffering or death in the universe until Adam and Eve sinned ("original sin") (the speaker in the video rightly referenced Romans 5:12). But the believers in the macroevolution hypothesis say that homo sapien came about as the result of eons of suffering and death ("natural selection"). Therefore the macroevolution hypothesis cannot be true. Now microevolution---the phenomenon that species change over time---is obviously true. People are taller now than they were in the Middle Ages. Insects adapt to pesticides. But the macroevolution hypothesis that species evolved into other species---where is the evidence that this EVER happened, except for scientists manipulating amobe in the laboratory? The macroevolution hypothesis is believed readily enough by worldly people who want an excuse not to believe in God but there is zero evidence any species ever evolved into another species. The hypothesis is like the emperor's new clothes.
George Penton macro evolution is micro evolution overtime. When micro evolution is happening, it eventually (after time, usually thousands of years) turns that specific animal so unrecognizable from its original form that it is now classified as a new species. Just take a look a dogs and wolves. If you are willing to accept micro evolution, why not just accept the result? You constantly ignore all scientific evidence about evolution. Macro evolution is micro evolution over long periods of time.
there is no evolution....it requires information, to arise, by chance....the system is made, to be adaptable....ergo the information is already there...
The death of Romans 5:12 is spiritual death. Physical death is only the transition between our world and the next. Spiritual death is what matters - it is eternal.
You can always believe that your favorite god is ultimately behind evolution or any other natural process. Evolution makes no religious claims, it merely describes how a physical process operates.
@@raysalmon6566 Why can't evolution be the work of god? People used to think the weather and the changing seasons came from gods, but that doesnt mean that meterology and astronomy are saying that god is not needed.
@@jeromehorwitz2460 Everything had to exist fully developed first then start extinctions Millions of years evolve nothing instead species get selected out of existence
@@raysalmon6566Your brain is so pickled in the brine of fundamentalist mythology that there is no reasoning with you-- so don't get frustrated that normal people don't let you paticipate in decisions that effect society.
God created life and guided it forward according to his will. Into Adam God breathed his spirit, and since God is not physical, but spirit, before breathing his spirit into Adam, Adam may have been alive, but not yet human, that is, without a God-imaging soul.
*_Evolution_*_ or _*_revolution_*_ are not antonyms of _*_"creation"._* *_Evolution_*_ and _*_revolution_*_ are both _*_creation. Creation_*_ is the product of _*_intelligent design._*_ So _*_evolution_*_ or _*_revolution_*_ is the product of _*_intelligent design._* People who are not intelligent enough really need to read the Qur'an, so that they can have intelligence that is able to understand *_"The intelligent re-evolution design of the universe"._*
@@DarthJediMan No, thank you. Perhaps if you would study evolution, you would find how it is consistent with the facts, unlike a global flood or a talking snake.
@@thomasaskew1985 I don’t recall having said that I was under the impression that a talking snake is consistent with evolution. I’m afraid you’ve made a large assumption just now. You asked why John Piper believes in it so I told you where you can go to ask him.
@@DarthJediMan I love it when you duck the question. You assume god from the start. What larger assumption can one make? And, as I have said all along, I have no desire to visit your proselytizing website. If you cannot give me an answer to the question, get off the blog. I want an answer, not redirection to your religion.
@@thomasaskew1985 what are you talking about? I just told you where you can get an answer to your original question. You really should stop reading so deeply into everything people say. I’m not interested in any kind of religious debate or conflict. I’m not even part of a religion. Why are you so angry at me for just telling you where you can get your question answered? I already kind of answered the question but I’ll do it again more directly. I do not think that a talking snake is consistent with evolution and never said that I did. John Piper may or may not believe that it’s consistent, and if he does then I don’t know why he thinks so any more than you do which is why I directed you to a place where you can ask him and he can tell you why he thinks that way.
pity there aren't more intermediate fossil forks to undisputedly prove your theory , unfortunately there are far and few in between , many of which the analysis of , is highly contentious
This is a false dichotomy. God authored both the book of life (the Bible) and the book of nature (creation). They are both correct and do not contradict each other. The only contradiction comes from misinterpretation from either side.
*The Origins of the Intelligent Design movement* "Our strategy has been to change the subject so that we can get the issue of intelligent design - which really means the reality of God's creation - before the academic world and into the schools. This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science or the truth. It's about winning at any cost, and affirming the reality of the God of The Christian Bible, by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the academic arena. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this which we call "The wedge". But remember, we must avoid debating the Bible and the Book of Genesis at all costs because we do not want to raise the obvious Bible-science dichotomy. Our goal is, "how to win". Phrase the pseudoscience argument in such a way that you can get it heard in secular academia and in a way that tends to unify other science illiterates religious fence-sitters. You must also avoid getting sidetracked onto other issues (like empirical evidence) which our intellectual superiors people are always trying to do." - Phillip E Johnson - the father of the ID/creation-science movement
You can always imagine that your favorite divinities are ultimately behind evolution in some mysterious way just as they supposedly are behind every other natural phenomenon like the weather or the orbits of the planets, you don't have to declare holy war against science in defense of your religion. Evolution makes no theological claims one way or another, it merely describes how a physical process works just like every other scientific theory.
Horseshit. If you think a fairy tale about a talking snake is something an omniscient god would inspire, then you need to raise your standards for deity.
@@thomasaskew1985 Who made those 'standards' of divinity to begin with? Why is a deity more aligned with our society's tendency towards naturalism more susceptible to being real than the God of the Bible?
@@kaleomariz1000 Because realism wins. A god that can't do what it says it can do isn't really god. It is a lie. Where is your man from dust? Where is your woman from a man's rib? Where is your talking snake? We have fossils for thousands of extinct species. We have nature that is consistent and reliable. It is also measurable. No one can deny that nature exists. Bod, on the other hand, can only be drilled into people from birth. If children were taught to scoff at religion from birth, religion would no longer be popular. Then we could see some real progress. And, no, one need not believe in some deity to be a moral and good person.
@@thomasaskew1985 "Where is your man from dust? " Are you kidding? Science has absolutely confirmed beyond any doubt whatsoever, that we truly are made of dust, and truly will return to dust. "We have fossils for thousands of extinct species." Cool! That's a grim reminder for you that God separates the wheat from the chaff in His divine judgment. " If children were taught to scoff at religion from birth, religion would no longer be popular." Sure, I mean you could choose any group of people and brainwash children to hate them..... it's been done many times in history.....
The devil is described in Genesis as being in Eden as a snake, and in Ezekiel as being in Eden as a Cherub. Eden is described as the paradise of God. It's not Earth as we know it. It's a different plane. The Garden of Eden is a parable. There probably wasn't a literal fruit or a talking snake. The choice of man's heart to usurp God is described in that parable in a way that is easy to understand.
In Hindu mythology 10 multiverse are mentioned and according to it, different gods and enlightened souls live in different universe and in 10th dimension, ultimate god- shiva and Vishnu lives. Physics is now finding various theories like string theory which point towards multidimensions and multiverse. These things are already explained in detail in Hindu mythology. Physics always tends to explain 'how' it happens. But when asked 'why' it happens? Why electron is of the particular mass not any different. Why is there gravity not some other force? Whys are not known to us. We only try to explain how is everything happening.
Does Hinduism explain in any physical detail why electrons have a particular mass? No, it just fantasizes in a vague way about how things might be, the same way hashish dreamers do. There may be value in that, but it's not science.
Jerome Horwitz if u are actually curious what it says about physics u can come to our country research and read our books. But I doubt it’s not your curiosity it’s the need of urs to prove that you are right. So it’s ok. U can think whatever u like 😊Curiosity needs open mindedness to new ideas and possibilities, ego doesn’t! Namaskar 🙏
@@aasthaagni8600 I don't have to come to India to read about Hinduism. I'm aware of its basic teachings and those of other religions it has influenced, and also aware that Hinduism inadvertently produces cult offshoots as do other religions. But there is a huge difference between any form of Hinduism and quantum physics or modern cosmology.
@@aasthaagni8600 I meant no insult toward Hinduism, I respect it as one of the great world religions and there are many leading physicists from India. But the Vedas don't address quantum physics. Hindu philosophy does discuss consciousness as the basis of reality and that sort of overlaps with some aspects of quantum theory.
An argument for the existence of God... If God created everything, where did God come from or who created God? This question is where logic stops being useful, for it attempts to understand infinity and limit and it just bounces between these two concepts as it rejects one and seems to only have the other as the only answer and they both do not seem to make sense. Let's try it: Take any theory that attempts to tackle the where did it all start at, you have our present, you have the past all the way up to but excluding the beginning point and then the beginning point. All the theories that attempt to explain it all start with some basic point who is not a super natural ineligient designer. So, where did that basic point come from? Who made that basic point? How do we account for the obvious intelligent design that is evident everywhere? Let's try God as that beginning point vs all other possible theories that attempt to explain it all: God created everything (the beginning point is a super natural intelligent designer who we do not completely understand ) we can ask who made him, to which the only answer is infinite regression, our mind rejects it, and sends us to limit (God as that limit; that beginning point), our mind bugs us again... but where did God come from? So, with God as the beginning point i have a limit that i do not understand how it came to be, but it answers who the designer is. With every other possible theory that does not have a supernatural intelligent designer as its beginning point we have a basic beginning point and design by chance/accident. Did a building just came to be, no designer? How about the car you drive, it just happened by chance? No designer?The various systems in the human body, no designer?
the days of creation I believe agree with evolution on day 5 God created sea creatures and after 2. flying creatures like pterosaur or mosquitoes (hebrew oph) 3. land animals like T-Rex 4. humans isn't this the sequence basically believed by science. in modern translations it says birds were created on day 5 but that wouldn't be a match, but the Hebrew uses the word "oph" for flying creatures. and birds we know now came a long during day. 6
When God blesses you with this amazing mechanism of adaptation to live and survive called evolution, but you don't like it because it excludes the part in your book where in it says God blows up my nose .
Maybe God blessed you with this amazing mechanism of adaptation to live and survive by speaking the world into existence and breathing life into man but you don't like it because it's not what your school professors tell you to believe.
@@lauraoliveira2639 I'm not really sure I know what you mean, but if you think I've ever been to collage or that higher education is conspiring against your religion you are incorrect. If any thing all of my teachers tried to ram religion down my throat from elementary threw high school but sins I have a mind of my own I was not indoctrinated. All I was trying to say is theism and science are not mutually exclusive, you can not substitute one for the other, but you can believe in both.
@@lionofjudahlambofgod9132... Lol are you talking for your self or that guy? You know scientists with logic do not actually believe in something from nothing, though it is what Christianity is proposing in a round about way. That's why Christian apologists will project that claim on to atheists, in an attempt to pass judgment from the flaws in their own logic.
Jesus Christ created all things (visible and invisible) for His glory (and our enjoyment and as something to be stewards of), and gave His Holy Spirit who would guide us into all truth. People are not excused of their sin, because God's power and divinity can be clearly seen in what He made, and had God not given us the Bible, we would still have a conscience bearing witness to God's moral laws... Oh how wicked the human race is! trading God for false gods, trading truth for lies... Fearing God is the beginning of wisdom, science does not make us wise. Philosophy does not make us wise. Without His Spirit actually coming inside of you (baptism, being born again), you will not see God's Kingdom... For we were dead in sins and transgressions... but to the praise of His mercy and grace, Jesus died for us, thus showing how much he cared. The Holy Spirit makes you alive, enables a life that pleases God, and is a "down-payment" for heaven to come! :D Cry out to His name today -- He WILL save you!
Belief in macro-evolution implies that the Bible's account of creation in Genesis is not accurate. Genesis 3:20 states that all living persons are descendants of Adam and Eve. Jesus referred to the Genesis account as historical fact. In Matthew 19:4, Jesus said: "Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female?" The apostle Paul also implied that Adam was a literal man. We inherit sin because we descend from Adam.
@@jollyrancher521 What do you understand by "macro evolution"? It has a precise definition in biology.....do you know it or are you going to peddle some nonsense about lizards giving birth to giraffes?
@@mcmanustony Macroevolution is when small changes (natural selection acting on random mutations) accumulate slowly over billions of years to produce the big changes needed to make, for example, fish into amphibians or ape-like creatures into men.
Ashkenazi Jews are named after Japheth's grandson. The reason Nazi's were called Nazi's because Germany is the region for AshkeNAZ 👈 Maps before present day nations names were named after the children of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Any historian knows Mizraim (Egypt) was Ham's son. Now that we have historical maps pointing to the accuracy of the Bible, why is it so hard to believe that the Bible is the true WORD OF GOD? We even have regions named today after the children of Noah. Let alone the fact that Israel and the temple can be seen to this day. Evolution has met its own demise through the naming of Noah's sons in the Bible. Now you have to believe in the Bible 6000 years creation over "billions of years ago"
What I'm thankful for is that they will never truly disappear. They are undoubtedly becoming the hated minority, but there will come a day when the whole world will witness and have to accept the fact that the so-called experts were liars and fools, and that the so-called crazy people were actually the few who knew and accepted the truth. It is a day that many refuse to believe will ever come, but it will come regardless of popular opinion about it, and every knee will bow to the One who some consider "an imaginary friend" or "a mythical sky daddy".
incredibly ignorant response. Most Christians around the world accept evolution without in any compromising their dogmatic beliefs - Catholics, Orthodox and most protestants alike. Why do they believe this? Because Christians believe and uphold truth. The problem isn't with evolution. The problem is with Piper's reading of Scripture.
brendos444 I wasnt talking to you, rather Tims statement "Personally, I think Piper's view of the Bible is on the boarder-line towards fundamentalism." - Piper would wear that label proudly, as would any born again Christian. Fundamentalists of any religion are the only true proponents of a religion (hence the word fundamental (ie essentials)) - be it catholics, protestants, Islam, Buddhists, Hindus - only those that take the writings as they plainly read have any merit to their profession of faith. Wahhabi Islam are the only true muslims imo - who take the Koran at face value. Fundamentalist evangelicals are the protestant example, Catholics are if they take the popes word as Gods decree etc. I'm a christian evangelical/fundamentalist. Take the text it as it stands.
A comparison of evolution and creationism?! Apples and oranges, right off the bat. Creationism offers an explanation for literally everything--where the planets and stars and seahorses and granites and dandelions came from, plus it offers an explanation even for the origin of intangible phenomena like happiness and souls. It also contains a justification for religion and faith. Creationism is also, as a religious dogma, not subject to questioning, revision, or falsification, those all being technically heretical if not outright blasphemous. Darwin's theory of evolution offers a tentative explanation of ONE observed phenomenon--biological diversity. That's it. That's all it does. It says nothing about where anything came from. It also says nothing at all about God or religion; as a scientific theory, it *cannot*. It's also by definition as a scientific theory tentative, meaning that it can be falsified. And as a theory, it's subject to all the testing anybody cares to do. I am baffled as to why creationists continually conflate these two kinds of statements. Creationism is about everything, and is based in religious dogma; scientific theories are about one thing at a time and are based on empirical data--evidence. Creationism is by definition immune to inquiry; scientific theories must be tested. Two different kinds of statements, incompatible in every way: why do creationists keep trying to compare them? I really wonder about that.
If you take both Genesis 1 and 2 and interpret them literally, you'll get a contradiction because the order of events in the creation of living organisms is different, for example in chapter one plants, birds and sea animals are first while in the second chapter Adam is the first created creature. Also the 7 day period counts as 1 day according to Genesis 2 verse 4, which makes easily to understand that the days aren't made of 24 hours and the universe isn't 6000 years old. This wouldn't be a contradiction if we take both chapters as poetic, but literal in some ways, for example a gradual creation of living organisms. Depending on the genre, one could get lots of interpretations of the text, if you interpret them literally you'll end up having a problem with contradictory statements, but not when you take both chapters as a poetic way of describing the gradual creation on a relative period of time. The serpent in chapter 3 isn't a real one, it's refering to Satan according to Christians. It's very common to see some symbols and also some awesome historical facts as well, but don't get me wrong, Genesis 1:1 was on point! The universe had a beginning and that was what George Lemaitre (catholic priest) was trying to show using empirical evidence. The Bible has science, history, but also poetry, you should know that there are two books of God, one is the Word of God, the scripture, and the other one is the book of nature. Reality and the Bible can't contradict one another, theistic evolution, ID and christianity can be totally compatible, if not ask Francis Collins, William Lane Craig or Asa Grey. I think it's pretty offensive to say all Christians are dogmatic, because most of the great scientists, Kepler, Pasteur, Galileo, Da Vinci, Copernico, Gauss, Lejume, Newton, Lemaitre, Gregor Mendel, Pascal, Leibniz, Charleton, Collins, Boyle, etc were all Christians that didn't see any contradiction between the bible and the sciences, making great scientifical progress for humanity. Saint Augustin was one of the first christians to say the first chapters of Genesis were poetry being used to describe God's creation, and this was 1500 years before Darwin posted the origin of species in 1859.
@@philipbuckley759 Nope. The theory of evolution per Darwin offers an explanation for the diversity of life on planet Earth...and that's it. That's all it does. It says nothing at all about the earth sciences, or space, or physics or mathematics, or any of the less tangible aspects of reality like happiness, intentionality, or souls or "the whole of creation". ALL it does, all it has ever done, is explain why there are so many species of beetle. The creation of literally everything is not a subject that Darwin's theory or any scientific theory can explain. Creationists cry out that Darwin's theory can't explain ethics, morals etc, while never admitting that those phenomena are *beyond what science can explain*. It's like you're upset because the theory of gravity doesn't explain where babies come from, as if, somehow, the theory of gravity was meant to explain that particular matter. If you needed a recipe, would you pick up a Bible? Of course not--that book is not a cook book. If you wanted an explanation for "the whole, of creation", would you pick up a coloring book? Of course not. That book is a toy for kids. The supernatural aspectes of existence are far beyond the purview of science in general and Darwin's theory in particular. If you want to understand the supernatural, use the best tools: faith, metaphysics, religion, etc. I mean, you can't put God under a microscope, you know?
Religious fundamentalists could just say that evolution is the method by which God creates new species. But no they are just looking for someone to fight.
A Spider lives at the bottom of a pond and comes to the surface to get a bubble of air so it can breathe… Therefore, god exists and evolution is false. LOL LOL OL
Genesis says plants, fish, animals, then humans. What people don't like is the process and time. It's insulting to you that plants came first and existed for billions of years and then animals came and existed and evolved for a billion years. If it's true that it took that long then that makes it seems like humanity is not that important, because you're not. Billions of years of living things is not "carnage." WTF? Romans was written by Paul. If it's not the word of Jesus or a story about Jesus then it's NOT Christianity. Paul did not and does not make universal policy. Stop taking the whole book of the bible and treating it as if it's all Christianity. Jesus preaching AGAINST many of the things in the bible. Sin and death did not enter humanity through Adam but you only want primitive angry god ideas. I could explain how it all works but I won't because I really don't like you. You're just like Reverend Henry Kane.
Should you not just say what the Bible says and not try and say ummmmm wellll maybe it could be. You sound like the serpent and not like a man who is steadfast in the Word. Who cares what you opinion is of a god that may have done it--many people believe in a god...we are talking the one True God, who said he created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Can you imagine any of the apostles giving this answer, "well maybe but,....". Incredible!
If species can evolve a little in a few generations, what prevents them from evolving a lot over billions of generations? There is no fence around species categories, they are as imaginary as national borders. DNA in all living things proves they all descend from a common ancestor.
@@jeromehorwitz2460 I absolutely agree that it is true that (and I am simply using one random example) all dogs; foxes, wolves, coyotes, dingoes, etc came from a common ancestor. However, it is completely false to say that fish crawled out of the sea, became reptiles, which became mammals, yada yada yada, & here we humans are. No evolutionist can, on their own, explain what caused the first “self replicating” cell, which, in their world view, is where it all began.
@@patrickc3419 All mammals descend from common ancestors. Reptiles descended from amphibians which in turn descended from fish. We know this because of DNA relationships between these groups and the fossil record that preserves the history of anatomical development in chronological order. This is not controversial in science.
@@jeromehorwitz2460 What I don’t follow is this; So the oceans and lakes had fish. What was the cause that made fish (over time; I know your not saying it was overnight) become amphibians?
@@patrickc3419 Migration, competition for resources, gentic mutation and natural selection caused fish to evolve into amphibians. A group of individuals will find new environmental niches in their search for resources and those traits that best suit the new conditions are most likely to be passed on, becoming more prevalent in succeeding generations. Since all genetic traits mutate slightly with each reproduction, the traits that are most conducive to producing the most offspring are continually selected over those that produce fewer heirs so that the group becomes increasingly better adapted to the new environment and more different from the original population. Can you follow this? It is the essence of Darwin's theory. I've explained it many times but religious fundamentalists don't seem to be able to grasp it.
Fact: the doctrine of original sin is an infallible doctrine of the Catholic Church. Belief (based on conjecture only): homo sapiens got here only after eons of natural selection, a process that involves the suffering and death of millions of lower creatures before we finally get to homo sapiens. By all means let's take fact over unsubstantiated belief.
1969 cpm "When did The Grand Theory of Evolution become 'fact'?" Evolution, as proposed by Darwin in 1859, has become fact. This is because every time Evolutionary Biology is tested, it has never been falsified. Everything we know in biology ONLY makes sense in the light of evolution from common descent. Evolution is fact in the same way Gravity is fact. Cheers!
Bob Smith 😂...Ill give you that. At least Im dealing with someone with a sense of humour. Okay, so the Grand Theory of Evolution became a fact in 1859. This would have to include Lyell's uniformatarian position as well as some for of spontaneous generation aka abiogenesis?
Which God? If you believe that anything is true on the basis of a holy book why do you not believe in Hinduism, or shinto ism, Buddhism, the norse gods, the Greek pantheon, the aztec gods or any of the other thousands of other religions, each of which has its own doctrines and creation account/ myth that contradicts the biblical one. Why choose this story over those ones? The beauty about science, in this case evolution, is that it doesn't hold that "truth" comes from any divine source. In science truth is determined via observations of the world and evidence. A scientist doesn't have to explain why one holy book has greater legitimacy than another, because in science it is the evidence that is important. It doesn't matter where an explanation came from, it only matters if that explanation is supported by evidence. Evolution says absolutely nothing about the origins of life, or the existence of God. It simply explains the mechanisms by which life changes to adapt to its environment over time. It is only inconsistent with religious belief if a person takes a creation account literally. Surely most Christians accept that genesis and the majority of the old testament is simply a collection of myths?
@@UriyahYasharal Well, we are. We're genetically almost the same as chimpanzees. One of our chromosomes even shows the fusion of two smaller chromosomes found in chimps.
It's not a silly myth, it's a deeply mystical text that does not conflict with the theory of evolution. Evolution is the mechanism of creation. The bible says God cannot be seen by any man, that's why science cannot find Him. So, there's no conflict. The bible says that God is truth and that there is only one God and that God is unchanging. The only reason science works is under the assumption that there is only one truth and that it does not change. Again, no conflict. Evolution says that natural selection decides which species go on. The bible says that God uses judgement to separate the wheat from the chaff. No conflict.The divide between religion and science is a false dichotomy. I could quote an early scientist waxing poetic about God but I'd rather quote from Origen of Alexandria, one of the early church fathers, who wrote in 225 AD that "For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things *_figuratively indicate certain mysteries,_* the history having taken place in appearance and not literally"
@Zachary Stewart Oh, really? Then let's take that attitude with science. Either all of it is true or none of it is. Are you using a computer? If the answer is yes (and it is) then science is true. Since science is true and all science is therefore true, evolution must be true. Therefore, creationism must be false. Therefore the Bible must be false. Therefore, Jesus must be false. Is that how it works? At least, in your mind - if you can call it that.
This is ironically the most satisfying answer I’ve found today on the topic of God and evolution dispute all its uncertainties. Love that the pastor is viewing what is possible from the lens of theory, scripture, and intuition rather than making bold and unsubstantiated claims about a particular view. Thank you Pastor John!
Thanks Pastor John.
Thank you for affirming that through one man sin entered the world, and through sin, death. Now let's take the next step and start taking God at his word and thus start supporting the discovery of God's truth in the world. Remember, the heavens proclaim HIS handiwork.
Are you a YEC?
Death doesn't exist because of the actions of a man, it has existed as long as life has. Life and death always go together, just like night and day, or summer and winter, or positive and negative electric charges.
@@jeromehorwitz2460 these guys think that the world is 6,000 years old. Don't bother with them.
@Gnostic Calvinism is a Doctrine from Hell I was raised a Christian and never left the religion. You don't speak for Christianity, you are a fundamentalist-- that is an extremist sect that barely resembles genuine Christianity and appeals only to neurotic contrarians.
@Gnostic Calvinism is a Doctrine from Hell Thanks for reminding us that no one is as anti-Christian as a religious fanatic who takes it upon himself to declare who is and who is not a "real" Christian
Is he saying it is intuitively unlikely we evolved at the end? Not sure I followed the last bit.
At the end he expresses his belief that it is theoretically possible (theistic evolution), but then adds that, exegetically (and it is important to consider here that his analysis is based on a literal interpretation of the text), he finds problems to accept evolution. Which is quite interesting because we can see in his answer a struggle between what, on the one hand, faith and reason in harmony are telling him (theistic evolution), and on the other, the parameters with which he has embraced his faith for a long time (young earth creationism based on a literal interpretation of the text).
As a Christ follower one of the things that has convinced me of macro evolution is how ecosystems work. Every animal, plant, and fungus has their specific niche in the environment. If one is taken out or introduced there are drastic consequences to the ecosystem. Take for example wolves in the northern United States. When their population is decrease deer and elk herds grow innumerable and eat all the plants that they cause the ecosystem to collapse. In Australia the removal of the Thylacine or Tasmanian Tiger has cause other mammals to get mange. The removal of mammoths from the arctic regions of the world has caused, believe it or not, the release of carbon in the atmosphere that has caused a rise in temperature. Now imagine for a moment introducing a Tyrannosaur into America in Yellowstone now this animal is competing with wolves and bears and will eventually outcompete them so much they would die out.
Every animal has its time and place that God has wisely chosen and guided over long periods of time to bring about his plans for the present and times to come.
Animal death is not disallowed from Genesis and even Genesis says that it was the tree of life that kept Adam and Eve immortal. Do a close reading and see for yourself.
Another convincing fact is you don’t find dinosaurs or even several million year old mammals mixing with what is alive today. You won’t find a boar or a human in the belly of Tyrannosaurus Rex.
As a Christian, I do somewhat believe in evolution. We were not created from apes, and our ancestors were not apes. But I do believe in evolution as a way beings on this earth adapt.
Oliver, how do you think sickness and death came into the world? Original sin. How could have successive stages of humanoids evolved into Adam and Eve without natural selection, which involves sickness and death? And id species were struggling and competing to survive prior to Adam and Eve, then that wouldn't have been the perfect beautiful Garden of Eden, would it?
Ape/human kinship has been proven conclusively by DNA. We share over 95% of our DNA with the Great Apes, and we share copies of identical DNA sequences with other mammals, reptiles, amphibians and fish. DNA can only be acquired by organisms through inheritance, it proves that all living things on earth descend fron common ancestors.
Human beings are a variety of ape, sorry if that offends you, but it is simply a fact. We did not evolve from any modern species of ape, but we do share common ancestors with them all. This evolutionary divergence occurred most recently with bonobos and chimpanzees. As would be expected, we have the greatest level of genetic similarity with these species.
@@jeromehorwitz2460 Or that a creator created them both with genetic code that are similar.
@@codycurnutte7084 Living organisms only acquire genetic codes by inheritance, and DNA structure shows which species are most directly related to other species and which are more distantly related. The pattern is not random, it shows how each group branched off from which parent population just as surely as you and your cousin can be traced to the same grandfather. You can always believe that your favorite god is ultimately behind evolution, if that is your only concern.
As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.
I'd say to look into Inspiringphilosophy's youtube channel about the subject or even Biologos. I am a Christian who loves and believes in the bible, and currently accepts evolution.
@@mikepennino0801 we need more people exactly like yourself. To fight against the widespread science denial that is killing the faith in modern 1st world countries.
Something to consider is this. If a woodsman makes toys for a living you may find that the toys look fairly similar. You would not say that, 'surely these toys come from the same tree! For they look and play just like eachother!' But you would say, 'ah, the toymaker is very skilled to have made these toys so familiar even with using different wood! He must have used the same tools!' 'What a worthy toymaker he is!'
Some more clear questions for you if you have jumped into the deep end on this topic:
At what point did all the necessary components for the first cell come together? How did they work? How did that one cell even survive, let alone know how to reproduce?
Where does sin come into this? Did man evolve from some ape then disobey God? At what point does the ability to disobey come since the bible only discusses mankind? Is God a liar when he says that he formed man of the dust of the earth? Do adaptations truly come from mutation or from genes switching on or off? I ask because from what I understand most mutations result in death or impaired life, not the other way around. How many attempts at mutation did it take for fish to breathe on land? Did the flood happen? what about the sedimentary rock that covers most of the earth? Do the current rates of science match up with how the world has always been or are we operating on a false asumption? Just some food for thought. God is powerful enough, worthy enough, and smart enough to do as he sees fit.
answersingenesis.org/the-flood/flood-cataclysm-deposit-uniform-rock-layers/
@@justsomeplantwithinterneta7391 something to consider... if you are quoting answers in genesis your iq may be in the double digits.
@@justsomeplantwithinterneta7391 "Something to consider is this" Ok, let's consider human creations. All human creations arose through evolution. All of them. Without exception. We see a wooden wagon evolve into a Ferrari. We see a giant beeping telegraph machine evolve into a smartphone. We see micro- and macro-evolution of technology, happening with a rhythm of punctuated equilibrium.
"Where does sin come into this?" The Bible tells us our sin comes from our flesh, and the devil has us in bondage through our fear of death. Evolution explains why this is, because we inherited powerful survival instincts, and the fact that these were cemented into place over the course of billions of years of fierce evolutionary struggle shows us just how powerless we are to overcome it on our own.
"Did man evolve from some ape then disobey God? " Obviously.
"At what point does the ability to disobey come" The exact point is difficult, if not impossible, to pinpoint scientifically. That's why the story of the Garden of Eden is still valid today, because it gives a simple contextual framework to talk about and ponder the RAMIFICATIONS of that transitionary point.
"Is God a liar" No, Ken Ham is a liar.
"when he says that he formed man of the dust of the earth" This verse is a perfect description of molecules-to-man evolution, expressing the spiritual reality that it was God doing it. What did you think, that a corporeal God actually gave cpr to some mud?
"Do adaptations truly come from mutation" No, and this idea has been criticized in the sciences for over 40 years.
" what about the sedimentary rock that covers most of the earth?" yeah what about it? A single flood CANNOT POSSIBLY ACCOUNT FOR IT. Period.
"Did the flood happen?" Yes, and the REAL evidence for it, like a forest of trees under 60 feet of sea water off the coast of Alabama, requires that the rock strata was already there.
" God is powerful enough, worthy enough, and smart enough to do as he sees fit." According to you though, making a single cell first is asking waaaaay too much of God.
the catholic church officially accepts evolution.
Some of the comments are ridiculous. A lot of energy, by people who don’t believe the bible, working to misrepresent the bible. 🧐
If Jesus didn't die and was resurrected, then Christianity has no basis and is a fraud. Interestingly, Jesus never existed. Hmm....
examples? People who DO believe the bible cant agree on what it says.
Most ordinary people assume that when Atheists reject the notion of there being a deity/god in our existence, they are saying that our reality came about by the process of evolution, and nothing else, this does seem to be a logical, and rational, way of coming to terms with why we are here?
However if, such a rational is true then why, if things came about by a mindless biological process, did evolution deem it necessary equip its creations with the means by which it was able to understand such logic?
For instance, humanity is able to develop the many skills necessary to build all the wonderful things that we do, yet we never expect our creations to understand why we created them?
So why did nature, if that is evolution, give us ‘red-shift/Doppler effect’ understanding EM radiation and all the other scientific skills to make sense of the world we find ourselves in?
Does it make sense to say - that they just came about - without asking why did they come about, and for what purpose?
And who, or what, would have a vested interested in us having the curiosity to seek such understanding, and meaning????
This is incoherent drivel.
evolution is incapatable with God.....good point....
Y does an organism that could live for a thousand years decides itself to be a human that could only live for less than a hundred years? 🤔
2:25 how do you make sense of the death that seems to have occurred before man in the evolutionary timeline? I understand Piper's point about the flow of scripture, but I need to hear him grapple with the death that's in the Earth's journal of history long before 6000 years ago.
How can the macroevolution hypothesis be compatible with the original sin doctrine? Theistic evolutionists, can you answer that one?
@@georgepenton808 First of all, macroevolution is a theory, not a hypothesis. A theory in scientific terms is a proposed idea that is supported by a wide range of scientific observations and evidence. As to how can it be compatible with the original sin doctrine, well it really does not contradict it. If we're saying that all humans are naturally evil that may well be true yes, we are naturally selfish human beings who only care for our own survival or the survival of those we love dearly, but this is a result of evolution. Now that we have evolved to a higher consciousness compared to other animals on earth, we can define morality and be civil human beings who can sort things out with logic and reason and don't have to resort to killing other clans of prehistoric humans for food. Your question should really be more detailed and better constructed for me to give a good answer. The two ideas you bring up don't exactly contradict each other.
I don't really feel the need to reconcile them. The Israelites interpreted their contact with God under the science they had at the time. So He held the earth in place and hung the firmament rather than setting the planets in motion. Likewise, he created 2 individuals a few millennia ago rather than setting this process in order. Either way, humans are clearly chosen, God is clearly King, and they recall a time before vanity and disobedience
They identified childbirth (which is painful for women because we walk upright) and toiling in the fields (agriculture is initially more difficult, but without it you can't have civilisation)
I don't know much about Evolution but the one thing that I have trouble accepting is that everything Men do is only for the benefit of survival, since we're just another "species". It makes me think that if we believe this, we can't love one another and merely take social decisions for our own benefit and survival. Which is sad in my eyes.
But according to God, we are all sons of Him and should love one another and that's the reason why we like being with people because we're all connected and love helping each other because otherwise we would be egoistical.
And god's word includes, 'Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.' Numbers 31 17-18.
But keep in mind, we purely exist as the top apex predator of the world because of our love and connection to each other. Humanity stayed together, built connections with one another in groups and cared for each other which allowed us to surivive and dominate the world. People who went alone and did not care or love for others rarely survived.
@@DocReasonable : Just what is the above mean to explain?
Speak English. @@davidbanner6230
There's no reconciliation without God!!
Nothing needs to be "reconciled"-- the illusion of reconciliation is just a psychological hangup you have. Nature is completely compatible throughout, an problems or contradictions you think there are exist only in your mind.
@@jeromehorwitz2460 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23
@@stephenpeppin5537 You aren't going to live forever-- wanting to is a selfish desire. Don't let charlatans use vain promises to bait you into doing their bidding, that only lowers religion to the level of a transaction , as with a life insurance policy-- buy into it now and reap a personal benefit later. Death-- real death-- is not so scary. Grow up and deal with it.
You don't need "reconciliation"-- any problem you think you have is strictly in your own mind.
@@jeromehorwitz2460 Apparently you're suggesting that you've never committed a sin! Those who don't need to be reconciled are those whom never sinned....which is absolutely Nobody on earth let alone you!!
I thumbed this down the moment he said people claim evolution is the origin of life (around 30 to 40 seconds). No one who understands evolution claims that. If you don't understand evolution, don't try to discredit it.
What a silly distinction you make. He obviously knows that origin of life is different from progression of life (evolution). I think your view displays a clear bias not to give the other side a little leniency for small, normal, understandable, inaccuracies that we all have in discussion. You were simply looking for a reason to discredit his view IMO
yeah it all came about, by chance....
@@philipbuckley759 Classic strawman argument.
1:00 sooo true!
Instead of God... they point towards "mother nature" "nature" therefore they term it "Natural Selection"
Why not a "Divine selection"
It is not "Divine selection" because no person is making a conscious choice or decision about what traits are passed on to the next generation. Some traits promote higher rates of reproduction and they are the ones that are passed on most frequently. Since traits change slightly whenever they are reproduced, there is always a variety of traits that allow populations to continually adapt to changing environments.
@@luvdomus I strongly disagree. There is nothing about natural selection that rules out a designer. Consider the evolution of technology, such as a telephone. They started out as giant beeping telegraph machines and slowly, through the course of time, small changes eventually added up to smart phones. Not every new feature that was added to phones was kept - each and every new phone was subject to the natural selection of the marketplace. The "fittest" models were the ones that sold the most and these models became the basis for the next generation. All of this is perfectly consistent with evolution. And yet, we know for a fact that the entire process *_ALSO_* involved intelligent designers overseeing the whole thing. Without a designer it doesn't function. You can just randomly replace parts on a phone for 5000 years and all you'll ever get is a broken phone.
@@theTavis01 You could always imagine that an intelligent entity of some sort is influencing natural phenomena in some mysterious way, like the aliens influencing the apes in 2001, but it isn't useful to stick invisible characters into your explanation while you ignore any description of their methods. It may be convenient to invoke omnipotent spirits who can do anything but that only avoids the question of how the process actually works. Intelligence only develops through biology, it doesn't exist in disembodied form like an invisible ghost, so it is not an explanation for the origin of biology.
@@luvdomus "It may be convenient to invoke omnipotent spirits who can do anything but that only avoids the question of how the process actually works. " Not at all. I do not invoke God because of convenience but rather of necessity. God is the WHO, the Bible answers WHY, and the question of *_HOW_* is answered by science. Evolution is the mechanism of creation, nothing more nothing less. Evolution is *_HOW_* God created. You ignored the pivotal piece of my analogy, that phone technology would not have gone anywhere at all if left to pure random chance without a designer. Indeed, Darwin stated that random mutations were not capable of accounting for what we see in the fossil record, and modern scientists are finally starting to figure out how this functions (adaptive epigenetics, etc). You claim "Intelligence only develops through biology" but that is an invalid presupposition. Our brains do not create consciousness. They are a way in which consciousness tunes in. Just look at plants - they are clearly conscious of light and cycles of time, and even touch and sound, yet they have no nervous system! Consciousness is everything! Genesis repeatedly emphasizes the importance of God's conscious awareness with statements like "And God saw that it was good." Our own consciousness is a small piece of God's consciousness, a microcosm of the macrocosm. When God created Adam, he breathed life into the dirt. The Hebrew word for breath is ruach, which is the same word used for the Holy Spirit (Ruach Elohim). The Holy Scriptures are referred to as God-breathed, because they are written through a prophet by the Holy Spirit. When God breathed into the dirt, He gave us our own spirit in the image of the Holy Spirit. This microcosmic spirit (our individuated soul) then experiences reality from a fixed point in space time, using our brains to remain anchored to our bodies and perceiving through the 5 senses. Our brains are so powerful that we forget about our spiritual nature and become fully identified with our flesh, leading to disastrous outcomes that Christ came to save us from. Fun fact: the word in the Greek bible for (Holy) Spirit is pneuma (also means breath) czcams.com/video/5ClCaPmAA7s/video.html
Here is what the peer-reviewed scientific literature says about consciousness:
arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0007006
The abstract lays out that "an analogy naturally arises between the very early quantum computing universe, and our mind. " The pdf can be accessed for free, and I admit some of the technical bits are over my head, but it is also full of understandable language. You are describing a mechanical reductionist view, which this paper counters: "although the brain can actually support classical computation, there is an element of consciousness which is non-computable (in the classical sense), as it was shown by Penrose [2]. Moreover, the seminal paper by Stapp [3] clarified why classical mechanics cannot accommodate consciousness, but quantum mechanics can. Finally, reductionism cannot explain the "hard problem" of consciousness, which deals with our "inner life", as it was illustrated by Chalmers [4]." They go on to conclude that "In this paper, we described the early inflationary universe as an ensemble of quantum gravity registers in parallel. At the end of inflation, the superposed state self-reduces by reaching the quantum gravity threshold as in the Penrose’s Objective Reduction model. *_This self-reduction can be interpreted as a primordial conscious experience."_* Just as I described above with God breathing the Holy Spirit into us, giving us our own microcosmic spirit, this paper expresses the same idea scientifically stating that the universe "necessarily produces self-similar computing systems (our minds)."
@@theTavis01 Explain the physical method by which supernatural spirits cause speciation in cause and effect terms as evolution does and you might be taken seriously. Otherwise you're just saying "god did it" as if no further explanation is necessary or even possible.
I agree with his opening qualification that evolution in and of itself is an adequate explanation of origin. I would not however, argue that it's incompatible with scripture per se, but rather all manner of logical and philosophical reasoning as a whole!
However, coming from an orthodox perspective, this modern day, hyper literal, western understanding of scripture is an altogether dizzying conundrum that reformed tradition has made for itself.
Couldn't agree more.
But the Jewish scholars of centuries past, even pre-Christ, unanimously believed that Genesis 1-3 were literally true. The literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is not a 'reformed tradition', it is a historic Jewish orthodox position.
@@miczim11 The orthodox Jewish position was that Jesus was a heretic too.
@@miczim11 So do you also reject a globe earth?
@Gnostic Calvinism is a Doctrine from Hell Not sure what "orthodox" you're referring to, but it sure isn't Eastern Orthodox because we don't believe in "original sin".
Noah's ark was 300x50x30 cubits big. Cubit I guess is like 1.8 ft. He couldn't fit 2 or 7 of each animal and their subspecies. No way. I think he has the respective animals anscestor and then evolved into what we see now
Could not God not have made the arm bigger on the inside? Furthermore, could God not have made literally every animal on the earth appear nearby to enter the ark? Or created two new versions of each? And keep them all perfectly fed and behaved without food for the trip? When He is involved then nothing is impossible. My personal belief was the whole building an ark and everything was a test of Noah’s faith (it did take him a hundred years to build)
it was from a ....kind....not all subspecies...
Even if Noah brought two of each ancestor of modern species, you still have the problem of all modern species evolving in an extremely short period of time.
I love Pastor John and have a lot of respect for him but I have to respectfully disagree with the four arguments he puts across here. The first, for example, seems to me to be an incorrect reading of Romans 8:12, in which God is quite clear that death came to all mankind through sin. Only men can sin and as a result only men died as a result of the Fall. The "god and science" page carries a very good article on this issue.
Nope... Sin came into the world (cosmos) and then death spread as a result of sin. Man is the focus here, but the death came to the world through man's sin. Your suggestion doesn't stand proper explanation. BTW, it Romans 5:12
Going by the bible - Can animals sin? - Of course not - SO -
If death comes through sin and animals are incapable of sinning -
Then - Why are animals not immortal?
Is god punishing innocent animals for the sins of man? If so? Why?
The only death that really matters is spiritual death. Physical death is just the transition between this world and the next. Since animals don't have God-imaging spirits, they don't really die.
Death is most likely referring to physical and spiritual death. This can still fit in a theistic evolutionary framework, if God entered into a covenant with Adam and at that point gave him a potentially unlimited life span, which Adam then lost. When the Bible says God created each after their own kind, it may just be describing how God used evolution to create many different creatures, and man's creation could also be describing a long period of time. This creation could have happened over a long period of time and was only complete when God came to Adam, entered into covenant with him and changed him. Perhaps that adds some element of miraculous or special act of creation that goes beyond evolution but that's not a problem for me. I think that any of the 3 ideas, recent creation, old earth creation, and theistic evolution could possibly be true, but the one with the least physical evidence is recent creation, yet maybe I'm just lacking and missed something. I have faith to say that whatever the Bible says is true, but it often says things very hard to understand, Like Ezekiel, Revelation, some Psalms, etc.
Adam and Eve sinned. That is how sickness and death entered the world (original sin). Natural selection is only possible through certain species growing ill and dying off, with other stronger species taking their place. So either the original sin doctrine is wrong or the macroevolution hypothesis is wrong. If my reasoning here is wrong can someone show me where I'm wrong?
Humans were never immortal. Death has always been part of life. Life is a cycle that repeats-- birth, reproduction, death, and so on.
@@georgepenton808 Sickness and death existed among living things long before humans existed, we have inherirlted them from our ancestors-- that has nothing to do with anything that any individual humans ever did.
@@georgepenton808 the death described in that particular scripture could be talking about spiritual death, not physical. Physical death existed before humans existed. You don't even have to believe in evolution to believe that because God created animals before humans. And we know that each creationism event is over the course of thousands to millions of years. Well, because science.
The animals don't have to be full grown. They could have been babies.
***THERE IS NOTHING TO RECONCILE, GOD CREATES EVERYTHING, EVOLUTION IS PART OF CREATION.***
Maybe people should leave religion to comment on the spiritual reality (if it exists) and science on the physical reality. Tried reading actual scientific, peer-reviewed papers and publications? National Geographic and other mainstream stuff is more commercial than scientific. Maybe go to BioLogos as well, that exists as bridge between science and those who practise Christianity?
Answers in Genesis is an amazing resource… look it up
If Jesus didn't die and was resurrected, then Christianity has no basis and is a fraud. Interestingly, Jesus never existed. Hmm....
It is bedrock Catholic doctrine, and doctrine in many Protestant denominations, that there was no suffering or death in the universe until Adam and Eve sinned ("original sin") (the speaker in the video rightly referenced Romans 5:12). But the believers in the macroevolution hypothesis say that homo sapien came about as the result of eons of suffering and death ("natural selection"). Therefore the macroevolution hypothesis cannot be true.
Now microevolution---the phenomenon that species change over time---is obviously true. People are taller now than they were in the Middle Ages. Insects adapt to pesticides. But the macroevolution hypothesis that species evolved into other species---where is the evidence that this EVER happened, except for scientists manipulating amobe in the laboratory?
The macroevolution hypothesis is believed readily enough by worldly people who want an excuse not to believe in God but there is zero evidence any species ever evolved into another species. The hypothesis is like the emperor's new clothes.
George Penton macro evolution is micro evolution overtime. When micro evolution is happening, it eventually (after time, usually thousands of years) turns that specific animal so unrecognizable from its original form that it is now classified as a new species. Just take a look a dogs and wolves. If you are willing to accept micro evolution, why not just accept the result? You constantly ignore all scientific evidence about evolution. Macro evolution is micro evolution over long periods of time.
there is no evolution....it requires information, to arise, by chance....the system is made, to be adaptable....ergo the information is already there...
The death of Romans 5:12 is spiritual death. Physical death is only the transition between our world and the next. Spiritual death is what matters - it is eternal.
You can always believe that your favorite god is ultimately behind evolution or any other natural process. Evolution makes no religious claims, it merely describes how a physical process operates.
Yes it does
Evolution is about God is not needed
Jesus refered to Adam and Eve as real people..
So that is final
@@raysalmon6566 Why can't evolution be the work of god? People used to think the weather and the changing seasons came from gods, but that doesnt mean that meterology and astronomy are saying that god is not needed.
@@jeromehorwitz2460
Everything had to exist fully developed first then start extinctions
Millions of years evolve nothing instead species get selected out of existence
@@raysalmon6566Your brain is so pickled in the brine of fundamentalist mythology that there is no reasoning with you-- so don't get frustrated that normal people don't let you paticipate in decisions that effect society.
God created life and guided it forward according to his will. Into Adam God breathed his spirit, and since God is not physical, but spirit, before breathing his spirit into Adam, Adam may have been alive, but not yet human, that is, without a God-imaging soul.
*_Evolution_*_ or _*_revolution_*_ are not antonyms of _*_"creation"._*
*_Evolution_*_ and _*_revolution_*_ are both _*_creation. Creation_*_ is the product of _*_intelligent design._*_ So _*_evolution_*_ or _*_revolution_*_ is the product of _*_intelligent design._*
People who are not intelligent enough really need to read the Qur'an, so that they can have intelligence that is able to understand *_"The intelligent re-evolution design of the universe"._*
Please give us something better than, "I don't buy it".
Did you want an early lunch
Did you miss the first 3 minutes where he gave his theological and exegetical problems with it?
He did
Seriously? Your 3 lb brain came up with that?
What makes Pastor John think that a talking snake is likely?
I don’t know. But you can post any question on the Desiring God website. Perhaps he will answer that question.
@@DarthJediMan No, thank you. Perhaps if you would study evolution, you would find how it is consistent with the facts, unlike a global flood or a talking snake.
@@thomasaskew1985 I don’t recall having said that I was under the impression that a talking snake is consistent with evolution. I’m afraid you’ve made a large assumption just now. You asked why John Piper believes in it so I told you where you can go to ask him.
@@DarthJediMan I love it when you duck the question. You assume god from the start. What larger assumption can one make? And, as I have said all along, I have no desire to visit your proselytizing website. If you cannot give me an answer to the question, get off the blog. I want an answer, not redirection to your religion.
@@thomasaskew1985 what are you talking about? I just told you where you can get an answer to your original question. You really should stop reading so deeply into everything people say. I’m not interested in any kind of religious debate or conflict. I’m not even part of a religion. Why are you so angry at me for just telling you where you can get your question answered?
I already kind of answered the question but I’ll do it again more directly. I do not think that a talking snake is consistent with evolution and never said that I did. John Piper may or may not believe that it’s consistent, and if he does then I don’t know why he thinks so any more than you do which is why I directed you to a place where you can ask him and he can tell you why he thinks that way.
God created us through evolution. He gave us an amazing tool called science. Thats it.
RaWstYle07 which god
So, when did death come into creation?
pity there aren't more intermediate fossil forks to undisputedly prove your theory , unfortunately there are far and few in between , many of which the analysis of , is highly contentious
Forms not forks
Sarah Sophia But there are intermediate forks. There's a spork which is a cross between a fork and a spoon :)
No they can't be reconciled. Its science or Bible. Time to choose. I choose the bible
*face palms*
Totally agree
This is a false dichotomy. God authored both the book of life (the Bible) and the book of nature (creation). They are both correct and do not contradict each other. The only contradiction comes from misinterpretation from either side.
*The Origins of the Intelligent Design movement*
"Our strategy has been to change the subject so that we can get the issue of intelligent design - which really means the reality of God's creation - before the academic world and into the schools. This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science or the truth. It's about winning at any cost, and affirming the reality of the God of The Christian Bible, by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the academic arena. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this which we call "The wedge". But remember, we must avoid debating the Bible and the Book of Genesis at all costs because we do not want to raise the obvious Bible-science dichotomy. Our goal is, "how to win". Phrase the pseudoscience argument in such a way that you can get it heard in secular academia and in a way that tends to unify other science illiterates religious fence-sitters. You must also avoid getting sidetracked onto other issues (like empirical evidence) which our intellectual superiors people are always trying to do."
- Phillip E Johnson - the father of the ID/creation-science movement
It would be better to take a hard and fast stand John. Even though you seem to reject theistic evolution, your waffling approach is not helpful.
I agree with JP. For more info watch Stephen meyer, discovery institute etc
You can always imagine that your favorite divinities are ultimately behind evolution in some mysterious way just as they supposedly are behind every other natural phenomenon like the weather or the orbits of the planets, you don't have to declare holy war against science in defense of your religion. Evolution makes no theological claims one way or another, it merely describes how a physical process works just like every other scientific theory.
If you put God's biblical truth, as it is written, and you supposed to read it, your children might just see His Greatness even in Darwin and Nitzche.
But Darwinism contradicts the original sin doctrine.
Horseshit. If you think a fairy tale about a talking snake is something an omniscient god would inspire, then you need to raise your standards for deity.
@@thomasaskew1985 Who made those 'standards' of divinity to begin with? Why is a deity more aligned with our society's tendency towards naturalism more susceptible to being real than the God of the Bible?
@@kaleomariz1000 Because realism wins. A god that can't do what it says it can do isn't really god. It is a lie. Where is your man from dust? Where is your woman from a man's rib? Where is your talking snake? We have fossils for thousands of extinct species. We have nature that is consistent and reliable. It is also measurable. No one can deny that nature exists. Bod, on the other hand, can only be drilled into people from birth. If children were taught to scoff at religion from birth, religion would no longer be popular. Then we could see some real progress. And, no, one need not believe in some deity to be a moral and good person.
@@thomasaskew1985 "Where is your man from dust? " Are you kidding? Science has absolutely confirmed beyond any doubt whatsoever, that we truly are made of dust, and truly will return to dust.
"We have fossils for thousands of extinct species." Cool! That's a grim reminder for you that God separates the wheat from the chaff in His divine judgment.
" If children were taught to scoff at religion from birth, religion would no longer be popular." Sure, I mean you could choose any group of people and brainwash children to hate them..... it's been done many times in history.....
The devil is described in Genesis as being in Eden as a snake, and in Ezekiel as being in Eden as a Cherub. Eden is described as the paradise of God. It's not Earth as we know it. It's a different plane.
The Garden of Eden is a parable. There probably wasn't a literal fruit or a talking snake. The choice of man's heart to usurp God is described in that parable in a way that is easy to understand.
In the beginning man made God.
No
no man disposed of God and came in with false gods...
@@philipbuckley759
The real fool is the one who believes the content of a book just because the book claims itself to be the holy truth.
If humans have been here for 200,000 years why haven’t we found millions upon millions of These prehistoric ape-man bones.
Considering how hard it is to fossilize bones, I am amazed that we have found so many as have already been found.
In Hindu mythology 10 multiverse are mentioned and according to it, different gods and enlightened souls live in different universe and in 10th dimension, ultimate god- shiva and Vishnu lives. Physics is now finding various theories like string theory which point towards multidimensions and multiverse. These things are already explained in detail in Hindu mythology. Physics always tends to explain 'how' it happens. But when asked 'why' it happens? Why electron is of the particular mass not any different. Why is there gravity not some other force? Whys are not known to us. We only try to explain how is everything happening.
Does Hinduism explain in any physical detail why electrons have a particular mass? No, it just fantasizes in a vague way about how things might be, the same way hashish dreamers do. There may be value in that, but it's not science.
Jerome Horwitz if u are actually curious what it says about physics u can come to our country research and read our books. But I doubt it’s not your curiosity it’s the need of urs to prove that you are right. So it’s ok. U can think whatever u like 😊Curiosity needs open mindedness to new ideas and possibilities, ego doesn’t! Namaskar 🙏
@@aasthaagni8600 I don't have to come to India to read about Hinduism. I'm aware of its basic teachings and those of other religions it has influenced, and also aware that Hinduism inadvertently produces cult offshoots as do other religions. But there is a huge difference between any form of Hinduism and quantum physics or modern cosmology.
@@aasthaagni8600 I meant no insult toward Hinduism, I respect it as one of the great world religions and there are many leading physicists from India. But the Vedas don't address quantum physics. Hindu philosophy does discuss consciousness as the basis of reality and that sort of overlaps with some aspects of quantum theory.
@@aasthaagni8600 Your ego is easily triggered I see. That is conducive neither to science or spirituality.
An argument for the existence of God...
If God created everything, where did God come from or who created God?
This question is where logic stops being useful, for it attempts to understand infinity and limit and it just bounces between these two concepts as it rejects one and seems to only have the other as the only answer and they both do not seem to make sense. Let's try it:
Take any theory that attempts to tackle the where did it all start at, you have our present, you have the past all the way up to but excluding the beginning point and then the beginning point. All the theories that attempt to explain it all start with some basic point who is not a super natural ineligient designer. So, where did that basic point come from? Who made that basic point? How do we account for the obvious intelligent design that is evident everywhere? Let's try God as that beginning point vs all other possible theories that attempt to explain it all:
God created everything (the beginning point is a super natural intelligent designer who we do not completely understand ) we can ask who made him, to which the only answer is infinite regression, our mind rejects it, and sends us to limit (God as that limit; that beginning point), our mind bugs us again... but where did God come from? So, with God as the beginning point i have a limit that i do not understand how it came to be, but it answers who the designer is. With every other possible theory that does not have a supernatural intelligent designer as its beginning point we have a basic beginning point and design by chance/accident. Did a building just came to be, no designer? How about the car you drive, it just happened by chance? No designer?The various systems in the human body, no designer?
whatusename1234 ***do you know the meaning of NOTHING and EVERYTHING ? for me nothing is where everything can be.***
This dude is well meaning...yet seriously hobbled by “surety”.
czcams.com/video/CFYswvGoaPU/video.html
the days of creation I believe agree with evolution on day 5 God created sea creatures and after 2. flying creatures like pterosaur or mosquitoes (hebrew oph) 3. land animals like T-Rex 4. humans isn't this the sequence basically believed by science. in modern translations it says birds were created on day 5 but that wouldn't be a match, but the Hebrew uses the word "oph" for flying creatures. and birds we know now came a long during day. 6
When God blesses you with this amazing mechanism of adaptation to live and survive called evolution, but you don't like it because it excludes the part in your book where in it says God blows up my nose .
Maybe God blessed you with this amazing mechanism of adaptation to live and survive by speaking the world into existence and breathing life into man but you don't like it because it's not what your school professors tell you to believe.
@@lauraoliveira2639 I'm not really sure I know what you mean, but if you think I've ever been to collage or that higher education is conspiring against your religion you are incorrect. If any thing all of my teachers tried to ram religion down my throat from elementary threw high school but sins I have a mind of my own I was not indoctrinated. All I was trying to say is theism and science are not mutually exclusive, you can not substitute one for the other, but you can believe in both.
@@fredmench4552 When you think youre big on science and logic but believe something created itself out of nothing...
@@lionofjudahlambofgod9132... Lol are you talking for your self or that guy? You know scientists with logic do not actually believe in something from nothing, though it is what Christianity is proposing in a round about way. That's why Christian apologists will project that claim on to atheists, in an attempt to pass judgment from the flaws in their own logic.
evolution requires new information, and new information does not arise, by chance...
Jesus Christ created all things (visible and invisible) for His glory (and our enjoyment and as something to be stewards of), and gave His Holy Spirit who would guide us into all truth.
People are not excused of their sin, because God's power and divinity can be clearly seen in what He made, and had God not given us the Bible, we would still have a conscience bearing witness to God's moral laws... Oh how wicked the human race is! trading God for false gods, trading truth for lies...
Fearing God is the beginning of wisdom, science does not make us wise. Philosophy does not make us wise. Without His Spirit actually coming inside of you (baptism, being born again), you will not see God's Kingdom... For we were dead in sins and transgressions... but to the praise of His mercy and grace, Jesus died for us, thus showing how much he cared. The Holy Spirit makes you alive, enables a life that pleases God, and is a "down-payment" for heaven to come! :D
Cry out to His name today -- He WILL save you!
😑😔😞😖😲😎😭😢😫🤓🤢😵🤤🤣🐔🧐😚👼😆😊😁😘😉
What does your post have to do with biological evolution? It reads like the rantings of some Medieval monk.
@@jeromehorwitz2460 what do you expect from crazy?
@@jeromehorwitz2460 bruh even medieval monks were more intelligent than this.
araphel2369 ***you put all pieces of your mind in a "blender" hit the on button and come out a miscellanea without sense, sorry!!!***
I still believe in evolution but not for humans. I also believe in a higher power & jesus.
Do you know how books work?
If Jesus didn't die and was resurrected, then Christianity has no basis and is a fraud. Interestingly, Jesus never existed. Hmm....
Belief in macro-evolution implies that the Bible's account of creation in Genesis is not accurate. Genesis 3:20 states that all living persons are descendants of Adam and Eve. Jesus referred to the Genesis account as historical fact. In Matthew 19:4, Jesus said: "Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female?" The apostle Paul also implied that Adam was a literal man. We inherit sin because we descend from Adam.
Macro evolution- having been observed- doesn't need to "believed".
@@mcmanustony Can you provide an example of macro evolution having been observed?
@@jollyrancher521Let's establish whether or not you can define the term. Then we'll move on.
@@jollyrancher521 What do you understand by "macro evolution"? It has a precise definition in biology.....do you know it or are you going to peddle some nonsense about lizards giving birth to giraffes?
@@mcmanustony Macroevolution is when small changes (natural selection acting on random mutations) accumulate slowly over billions of years to produce the big changes needed to make, for example, fish into amphibians or ape-like creatures into men.
Ashkenazi Jews are named after Japheth's grandson. The reason Nazi's were called Nazi's because Germany is the region for AshkeNAZ 👈 Maps before present day nations names were named after the children of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Any historian knows Mizraim (Egypt) was Ham's son. Now that we have historical maps pointing to the accuracy of the Bible, why is it so hard to believe that the Bible is the true WORD OF GOD? We even have regions named today after the children of Noah. Let alone the fact that Israel and the temple can be seen to this day. Evolution has met its own demise through the naming of Noah's sons in the Bible. Now you have to believe in the Bible 6000 years creation over "billions of years ago"
Yeah... it's no wonder that the number of people that follow this guy and take his positions is dwindling (thankfully!)
Yeah I know but there are still pockets of people who think what this guy says makes sense. It's crazy.
I’m pretty thankful for the guys that make these discoveries. I can’t even look at a rock for more than a second lol
Sorry, which discoveries? I didn't get your comment.
I still have no idea what you are trying to say, sorry.
What I'm thankful for is that they will never truly disappear. They are undoubtedly becoming the hated minority, but there will come a day when the whole world will witness and have to accept the fact that the so-called experts were liars and fools, and that the so-called crazy people were actually the few who knew and accepted the truth. It is a day that many refuse to believe will ever come, but it will come regardless of popular opinion about it, and every knee will bow to the One who some consider "an imaginary friend" or "a mythical sky daddy".
incredibly ignorant response. Most Christians around the world accept evolution without in any compromising their dogmatic beliefs - Catholics, Orthodox and most protestants alike. Why do they believe this? Because Christians believe and uphold truth. The problem isn't with evolution. The problem is with Piper's reading of Scripture.
Personally, I think Piper's view of the Bible is on the boarder-line towards fundamentalism.
Timothy Myton I would certainly agree here. I think the Reformed guys are on the borderline of what is considered classic, traditional Christianity
I love that you meant this as an insult...on the contrary, its a complement.
Aaron Joseph It's a compliment that I said the problem is Piper's reading of scripture? ummm that is odd.
brendos444 I wasnt talking to you, rather Tims statement "Personally, I think Piper's view of the Bible is on the boarder-line towards fundamentalism." - Piper would wear that label proudly, as would any born again Christian.
Fundamentalists of any religion are the only true proponents of a religion (hence the word fundamental (ie essentials)) - be it catholics, protestants, Islam, Buddhists, Hindus - only those that take the writings as they plainly read have any merit to their profession of faith. Wahhabi Islam are the only true muslims imo - who take the Koran at face value. Fundamentalist evangelicals are the protestant example, Catholics are if they take the popes word as Gods decree etc.
I'm a christian evangelical/fundamentalist. Take the text it as it stands.
A comparison of evolution and creationism?!
Apples and oranges, right off the bat. Creationism offers an explanation for literally everything--where the planets and stars and seahorses and granites and dandelions came from, plus it offers an explanation even for the origin of intangible phenomena like happiness and souls. It also contains a justification for religion and faith. Creationism is also, as a religious dogma, not subject to questioning, revision, or falsification, those all being technically heretical if not outright blasphemous.
Darwin's theory of evolution offers a tentative explanation of ONE observed phenomenon--biological diversity. That's it. That's all it does. It says nothing about where anything came from. It also says nothing at all about God or religion; as a scientific theory, it *cannot*. It's also by definition as a scientific theory tentative, meaning that it can be falsified. And as a theory, it's subject to all the testing anybody cares to do.
I am baffled as to why creationists continually conflate these two kinds of statements. Creationism is about everything, and is based in religious dogma; scientific theories are about one thing at a time and are based on empirical data--evidence. Creationism is by definition immune to inquiry; scientific theories must be tested. Two different kinds of statements, incompatible in every way: why do creationists keep trying to compare them? I really wonder about that.
If you take both Genesis 1 and 2 and interpret them literally, you'll get a contradiction because the order of events in the creation of living organisms is different, for example in chapter one plants, birds and sea animals are first while in the second chapter Adam is the first created creature. Also the 7 day period counts as 1 day according to Genesis 2 verse 4, which makes easily to understand that the days aren't made of 24 hours and the universe isn't 6000 years old. This wouldn't be a contradiction if we take both chapters as poetic, but literal in some ways, for example a gradual creation of living organisms. Depending on the genre, one could get lots of interpretations of the text, if you interpret them literally you'll end up having a problem with contradictory statements, but not when you take both chapters as a poetic way of describing the gradual creation on a relative period of time. The serpent in chapter 3 isn't a real one, it's refering to Satan according to Christians. It's very common to see some symbols and also some awesome historical facts as well, but don't get me wrong, Genesis 1:1 was on point! The universe had a beginning and that was what George Lemaitre (catholic priest) was trying to show using empirical evidence. The Bible has science, history, but also poetry, you should know that there are two books of God, one is the Word of God, the scripture, and the other one is the book of nature. Reality and the Bible can't contradict one another, theistic evolution, ID and christianity can be totally compatible, if not ask Francis Collins, William Lane Craig or Asa Grey. I think it's pretty offensive to say all Christians are dogmatic, because most of the great scientists, Kepler, Pasteur, Galileo, Da Vinci, Copernico, Gauss, Lejume, Newton, Lemaitre, Gregor Mendel, Pascal, Leibniz, Charleton, Collins, Boyle, etc were all Christians that didn't see any contradiction between the bible and the sciences, making great scientifical progress for humanity. Saint Augustin was one of the first christians to say the first chapters of Genesis were poetry being used to describe God's creation, and this was 1500 years before Darwin posted the origin of species in 1859.
Darwin used the differences, in beaks, to extrapolate to the whole, of creation, that is quite a jump..
@@philipbuckley759 Nope. The theory of evolution per Darwin offers an explanation for the diversity of life on planet Earth...and that's it. That's all it does. It says nothing at all about the earth sciences, or space, or physics or mathematics, or any of the less tangible aspects of reality like happiness, intentionality, or souls or "the whole of creation". ALL it does, all it has ever done, is explain why there are so many species of beetle. The creation of literally everything is not a subject that Darwin's theory or any scientific theory can explain. Creationists cry out that Darwin's theory can't explain ethics, morals etc, while never admitting that those phenomena are *beyond what science can explain*. It's like you're upset because the theory of gravity doesn't explain where babies come from, as if, somehow, the theory of gravity was meant to explain that particular matter.
If you needed a recipe, would you pick up a Bible? Of course not--that book is not a cook book. If you wanted an explanation for "the whole, of creation", would you pick up a coloring book? Of course not. That book is a toy for kids.
The supernatural aspectes of existence are far beyond the purview of science in general and Darwin's theory in particular. If you want to understand the supernatural, use the best tools: faith, metaphysics, religion, etc. I mean, you can't put God under a microscope, you know?
Religious fundamentalists could just say that evolution is the method by which God creates new species. But no they are just looking for someone to fight.
Well said
@@nwachukwushekinah3797 it not only defies, the Bible, but science, as well....there is no way that this complicated system, arose, by chance...
*** I would call it "being proud of their ignorance" as knowledge is in competition with God.***
Is this a joke?
YES
A Spider lives at the bottom of a pond and comes to the surface to get a bubble of air so it can breathe… Therefore, god exists and evolution is false. LOL LOL OL
***very funny!?!'***
I don't buy the crap their selling either!!!
Were you having your hair done the day they covered grammar?
Genesis says plants, fish, animals, then humans. What people don't like is the process and time. It's insulting to you that plants came first and existed for billions of years and then animals came and existed and evolved for a billion years. If it's true that it took that long then that makes it seems like humanity is not that important, because you're not.
Billions of years of living things is not "carnage." WTF?
Romans was written by Paul. If it's not the word of Jesus or a story about Jesus then it's NOT Christianity. Paul did not and does not make universal policy. Stop taking the whole book of the bible and treating it as if it's all Christianity. Jesus preaching AGAINST many of the things in the bible.
Sin and death did not enter humanity through Adam but you only want primitive angry god ideas.
I could explain how it all works but I won't because I really don't like you. You're just like Reverend Henry Kane.
Should you not just say what the Bible says and not try and say ummmmm wellll maybe it could be. You sound like the serpent and not like a man who is steadfast in the Word. Who cares what you opinion is of a god that may have done it--many people believe in a god...we are talking the one True God, who said he created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Can you imagine any of the apostles giving this answer, "well maybe but,....". Incredible!
Micro evolution: Yes
Macro evolution: No
If species can evolve a little in a few generations, what prevents them from evolving a lot over billions of generations? There is no fence around species categories, they are as imaginary as national borders. DNA in all living things proves they all descend from a common ancestor.
@@jeromehorwitz2460 I absolutely agree that it is true that (and I am simply using one random example) all dogs; foxes, wolves, coyotes, dingoes, etc came from a common ancestor. However, it is completely false to say that fish crawled out of the sea, became reptiles, which became mammals, yada yada yada, & here we humans are.
No evolutionist can, on their own, explain what caused the first “self replicating” cell, which, in their world view, is where it all began.
@@patrickc3419 All mammals descend from common ancestors. Reptiles descended from amphibians which in turn descended from fish. We know this because of DNA relationships between these groups and the fossil record that preserves the history of anatomical development in chronological order. This is not controversial in science.
@@jeromehorwitz2460 What I don’t follow is this;
So the oceans and lakes had fish. What was the cause that made fish (over time; I know your not saying it was overnight) become amphibians?
@@patrickc3419 Migration, competition for resources, gentic mutation and natural selection caused fish to evolve into amphibians. A group of individuals will find new environmental niches in their search for resources and those traits that best suit the new conditions are most likely to be passed on, becoming more prevalent in succeeding generations. Since all genetic traits mutate slightly with each reproduction, the traits that are most conducive to producing the most offspring are continually selected over those that produce fewer heirs so that the group becomes increasingly better adapted to the new environment and more different from the original population. Can you follow this? It is the essence of Darwin's theory. I've explained it many times but religious fundamentalists don't seem to be able to grasp it.
What a stupid argument. Facts should alter your beliefs not the other way around.
That's right. The fact is God created and evolution, that is materialistic evolution is a deception.
Fact: the doctrine of original sin is an infallible doctrine of the Catholic Church. Belief (based on conjecture only): homo sapiens got here only after eons of natural selection, a process that involves the suffering and death of millions of lower creatures before we finally get to homo sapiens.
By all means let's take fact over unsubstantiated belief.
Can We Reconcile Creation and Evolution?
Sure we can! Creation is mythology; evolution is fact.
When did The Grand Theory of Evolution become 'fact'?
1969 cpm "When did The Grand Theory of Evolution become 'fact'?"
Evolution, as proposed by Darwin in 1859, has become fact. This is because every time Evolutionary Biology is tested, it has never been falsified. Everything we know in biology ONLY makes sense in the light of evolution from common descent. Evolution is fact in the same way Gravity is fact. Cheers!
Bob Smith So GTE, the Grand Theory of Evolution became a fact in 1859?
1969cmp
GTE Corporation, formerly General Telephone & Electronics Corporation was founded in 1955.
Bob Smith 😂...Ill give you that. At least Im dealing with someone with a sense of humour.
Okay, so the Grand Theory of Evolution became a fact in 1859.
This would have to include Lyell's uniformatarian position as well as some for of spontaneous generation aka abiogenesis?
That is a big NO. Evolution is a lie and God is true.
Which God? If you believe that anything is true on the basis of a holy book why do you not believe in Hinduism, or shinto ism, Buddhism, the norse gods, the Greek pantheon, the aztec gods or any of the other thousands of other religions, each of which has its own doctrines and creation account/ myth that contradicts the biblical one. Why choose this story over those ones?
The beauty about science, in this case evolution, is that it doesn't hold that "truth" comes from any divine source. In science truth is determined via observations of the world and evidence.
A scientist doesn't have to explain why one holy book has greater legitimacy than another, because in science it is the evidence that is important. It doesn't matter where an explanation came from, it only matters if that explanation is supported by evidence.
Evolution says absolutely nothing about the origins of life, or the existence of God. It simply explains the mechanisms by which life changes to adapt to its environment over time. It is only inconsistent with religious belief if a person takes a creation account literally.
Surely most Christians accept that genesis and the majority of the old testament is simply a collection of myths?
Do you seriously expect me to buy some silly myth about a talking snake?
Do you expect me to buy some silly myth that we are talking apes?
@@UriyahYasharal Well, we are. We're genetically almost the same as chimpanzees. One of our chromosomes even shows the fusion of two smaller chromosomes found in chimps.
It's not a silly myth, it's a deeply mystical text that does not conflict with the theory of evolution. Evolution is the mechanism of creation. The bible says God cannot be seen by any man, that's why science cannot find Him. So, there's no conflict. The bible says that God is truth and that there is only one God and that God is unchanging. The only reason science works is under the assumption that there is only one truth and that it does not change. Again, no conflict. Evolution says that natural selection decides which species go on. The bible says that God uses judgement to separate the wheat from the chaff. No conflict.The divide between religion and science is a false dichotomy. I could quote an early scientist waxing poetic about God but I'd rather quote from Origen of Alexandria, one of the early church fathers, who wrote in 225 AD that "For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things *_figuratively indicate certain mysteries,_* the history having taken place in appearance and not literally"
@@UriyahYasharal no the THEORY that we evolved along side apes.
@Zachary Stewart Oh, really? Then let's take that attitude with science. Either all of it is true or none of it is. Are you using a computer? If the answer is yes (and it is) then science is true. Since science is true and all science is therefore true, evolution must be true. Therefore, creationism must be false. Therefore the Bible must be false. Therefore, Jesus must be false. Is that how it works? At least, in your mind - if you can call it that.
Yes Satan did create the universe.