God is omnipotent, Pastor John would agree. I wont risk being someone who limits Gods power. If He said He did it in 6 days. I with child like faith will believe it. If at the end of times God tells me He did it in other ways I will stand in awe and praise. #becauseHesaidso
Imperial Commander Yue Fei 岳飛 why would you believe that when we don't know what happens outside of time? Seriously dude, there's no evidence that god created anything or even exists.
Why would God make it then seem as if it is six 24 hour days, knowing that we will interpret it that way, when it actually means some arbitrary large amount of time? Why even mention time at all? Yes God is outside time, but He knows that He is speaking to people that work in a framework of 24 hour days and people that are not outside time.
Hi Dan, the atheist scientist Stephen Hawking said that the universe, and even time, had a beginning, but he didn't say how. God or something else did it.
*"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day: therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."* EXODUS 20:11
Thank you. I have lived my life with God's Love, Truth and Peace in my heart and soul for over 20 years and I am blessed. Thank you again for sharing your beliefs.
God is written in every heart and soul. You already know what Love is, what Truth is and what Peace is.You also have free will to do, say and believe as you choose, but there are real consequences to those choices. I choose to follow those concepts and consequently am blessed.I am not perfect and I do not know all. I take responsibility for my actions and try to live a loving, respectful, self-disciplined, productive and joyful life. I encourage parents to pass those values on to their children.
Consider this: in order for a human baby to be born, you need a male sperm with 22+Y chromosomes to fertilise a female egg with 22+X chromosomes. If a non human male had sperms that mutated from the original type, he had to mate with another non-human female whose egg was mutated exactly to be biologically compatible to allow his mutated sperms to fertilise it. Both mutations had to occur to produce human gametes at the same time and at the same place and the same maturity. Or the fertilised egg somehow mutated to be that belonging to humans, so the first human was born. Male or female, this baby still had to survive long enough, and be able to reproduce with another human of the opposite sex for the next generation, but there were no humans yet. He/She was the only one. Now evolutionists would like us to believe that this had happened for every sexually reproducing life forms, ignoring the fact that all have their unique number of chromosomes with male gametes which can only fertilise female gametes from the same species. ‘Christian evolutionists’ are a real oxymoron. Well said, John Piper.
That's the most hilariously idiotic non-comprehension of how reproduction works that I have ever seen. People don't need to be identical to reproduce. A large man can have sex with a small woman and they'll have smaller kids than he would have had with a larger woman. Differences don't mean incompatibility.
I went into my college science courses knowing that I would find holes in the evolutionary view of life. It turns out the evidence is pretty compelling, especially when you still down into the likes of the genome and the segments of our human DNA that are inserts from ancient viruses that infected our ancestors and then notice that where the same viruses infected other non-human primates and inserted the exact same viral genetic sequences into the exact same spot on the exact same chromosome of those other primates on multiple occasions. Obviously, I am not going to convince anyone here in a CZcams comment, but my views were changed. I have to read the Bible as consistent with that, because I can't deny the evidence. If it was just one thing, like viral genetic sequences in our genome, I could believe the scientists are lying (not merely mistaken, that evidence would have to have been utterly falsified to be incorrect), but that is just one line of the evidence, and I can't believe they have all been the product of lies.
@@JohnDoe-kz4gy Not exactly as Darwin laid it out, as we have learned a lot since the 18th century, but the evidence has led me to believe that habitats often change over time and that natural selection plays a role in adapting species to new habitats, with the result being that old species cease to exist (i.e. are extinct) and new species descended from those older forms arise that are better suited to the changes conditions.
@@JosiahFickinger But you can still see the genome of creatures evolve and change. I'm sure you don't believe that, or want to make some argument about variation within the same species vs variations leading to new species, but all that is just four or five decades out of date with the scientific literature. Also, genetic evidence (along with geological, cosmological and other evidence) clearly supports an old Earth, so it's not even that God created species 6,000 years and additional speciation started after that. I fought hard to hold onto belief in young-Earth Creationism myself (unreasonably hard, truth be told). But having gone through it at the undergraduate and graduate levels and beyond, the evidence is too strong to deny with anything except an unreasoning or an uninformed belief. You're free to think otherwise and to follow your particular reading of the bible where that leads you, but then I'm also free to follow the evidence where it leads me.
@@Pandaemoni Very compelling. If I could ask God one question, it would be "How was the universe created?" I think I'll have to educate myself in the sciences more and THEN try to old earth.
I don't know when or how the earth was made I was not there but I do believe in God, I can't except that we appeared from no where and exist by accident, I believe in Jesus Christ also I believe he died for our sins.
Age of earth issues can be solved by determining if Noah’s flood was global or local. Type folded mountains in Google images World wide evidence of bent sedimentary rock layers to the extent that are impossible unless all the layers were soft at the same time when they were folded. Catastrophic global flood sounds more logical to me.
You seem to be using the meaning of the Dunning-Kruger effect wrongly, it affects even the smartest of us, definitely not how you would describe a fool. Moreover, instead of just sounding mean, maybe you can explain which part of his comment you disagree with, and to provide evidence contrary to what he had mentioned? That would be much more helpful that just namecalling a person that have a different opinion from you.
Layers of mud do not hold their shape well especially during a catastrophic flood. They tend to erode if they were folded into peaks. Rock layers soften and bend due immense pressure, heat, and tectonic forces. The evidence suggests that all of the folded rock layers were not formed all at the same time in a single event, but separately over eons. openpress.usask.ca/geolmanual/chapter/overview-of-folds-faults-and-unconformities/
I once heard a quote from a theologian (forgot who) who said “the pursuit of science is how we come to know the mind of God.” I think this makes perfect sense. This was actually the basis of science as many of the fathers of science were Catholic monks. Science, math, physics, etc. are compatible with Christianity. They have to be. Those disciplines are the methods to explain how God ordered the universe. I think too often Christians come up with ideas that are fundamentally anti-science (i.e. young earth) which drives the public away from the faith.
Hi there! I think you are right when you say that science math and physics (etc.) are compatible with Christianity. We worship a God of order who has a plan and created an orderly universe. However the quote from your theologian has some problems. Pursuing something God made that he regularly breaks cannot unveil the mind of God. Since God is the creator of everything he is Sovereign and has the right to do whatever He wants whenever He wants and however He wants. The Bible is full of amazing examples of this like creation or the flood or stopping the sun in the sky to allow the Israelites to win a battle. All of these things go against any scientific explanations. Someone will never be able to scientifically explain how God created the universe in one week using words because it's supernatural. All to often I hear Christians attempting to reign God in and explain him with science but in reality He does what He wants. And the biggest and most glorious example of that is raising Christ from the dead. Never will anyone be able to scientifically explain a full human being (and full God) resurrecting with math or biology. Only God can do this and it would be a detrimental disservice to Him and ourselves to attempt to explain His sovereignty with science. I think we can pursue something to know more about God and that would be Jesus through God's Word. Everything is about Jesus and the more we focus on Him the more joyful we will be and the more honored God will be. That doesn't mean at all to disregard science; on the contrary it is a worthy pursuit. God made a wonderful sandbox of a world to get into but it's so important to remember He made it and does what he pleases with it. Sorry for the long comment I just felt led to say something about it and I'm know that changing someone's mind through CZcams comments is next to impossible so I just wanted to throw an idea out for you to think about and I'd love to talk more if you're interested.
You either believe what the Bible says or you don't. I am a believer. We all have questions we would like answered and we will know ALL things when we meet up with God / Jesus, there will be no more questions. We can only think with our VERY limited minds as to how the mind of God works. On that day when the blinds are lifted from our eyes and our minds and heart are opened as well, we are going to be beyond stunned / amazed.
I'm a hermit, and my PC is my entertainment center. After upgrading to a graphics capability that is enough for any game out there at full-tilt eye-candy, I turned to the very crappy sound from the sound card. So I found a remarkably competent Sony 7.1ch dig. receiver, and a Fiio DAC/headphone amp. But when I found these KEFs and plugged them in, I was astounded! I'm listening near-field, and when I close my eyes, the speakers disappear. I'd heard of that happening, but never experienced it.
While I appreciate John Piper in some ways, I also am weary of this series, its in danger of making us all clones of him and his interpretation of scripture and understanding of God. I almost fell into this trap some years and I had to shake myself out of it, I had to affirm that God gave me the ability to think for myself and love Him for myself, without the necessary intervention of any great preacher.
I know this comment was a year ago. We should never cling on to any one mans view of anything because we are all fallen. Listening to preachers and ministers should only be for edification and we are all the same none any better then the other because we all have the Bible. That’s where the truth is.
Thank you very much for taking your time to explain your belief system. Naturally it is different in many ways from my own, but I see some good sense in parts of it and I hope it works out well for you. I will read through all your words again to understand better. Thank you again! Namaste
The way I see it, sure, science can give us quite exact figures on many things but I can’t imagine life just haphazardly bouncing around until it forms you and me. God is God over nature and science and I leave it up to Him about how He did it. We can only study the how, when and where - and be amazed just as we have to remind ourselves of the why.
Just reading all the comments here and it made me think. I was led to read 'Job' (Bible) first and got real made at 'them' playing games with our lives. It wasn't until i grapled with that and realised that God is sovereign and that he is the potter and we are the clay that i was easily repentant and born again. Before that i had known that God does what he wants due to experience but all the sudden i knew he also loves us and is trying to do something with us.
To those who are His God created all in six literal days, God was not wasteful for He made all and saw that it was Good, death came by sin so was after man was made, there was no death before sin, so there was no evolution of man, as to make it that there was death before sin. that why we need our Lord Jesus because death came by sin, if there was death before sin than that makes the need of the cross nul and the deceivers know this Our Lord said there's a testing at the end times that will come on the whole earth, make sure your right with God you either believe God or get deceived by men, ask your self who was there when the heavens and the earth were created. Do you believe God tells the truth or do you believe men tell the truth, Satan is the father of all lies, so hold fast to the faith that was delivered to you.
+Mick G Lucifer brought sin into the world long before man was even created. God destroyed and flooded the whole earth and sealed up the sky before mankind was made. God told Adam to subdue the earth being the demonic, satan, demons and fallen angels that were around. The list goes on and on. God was restoring during the days not creating. Let is a word of permission not creation.
WaterspoutsOfTheDeep I'm afraid that isn't biblical at all. you are taking quotes from the Bible out of context to fit what you believe. the earth was created in 6 24 hour days, it wasn't created before hand and then destroyed and then remade.
Hey, I'm getting a pair of gently-used B&W bookshelf speakers tomorrow! I'm planning on pairing them with my newly-purchased, vintage KEF C-40 mini-towers; they have dual 8" drivers, both active rather than one as passive radiator, and the well-made crossover alters the output for lower base in the bottom driver. They're phenomenal, and have a better sound stage than my NHT towers, with matched with my 12" powered sub. Which do you think make better mains; the KEFs or the B&Ws?
I agree with you that our basic human nature drives us to WANT. The question of whether we will be able to become civilized enough to survive as a species is up in the air. Society can make moral standards and rules, but God has given us all free will to do, say and believe as we choose. I am a Deist, who has lived with God's Love,Truth and Peace as my guide for over 20 years and I am blessed and at peace. I try to educate and be an example for a more loving and respectful way of existence.
You can't invoke a creation account of an old universe then inject Genesis as the subset of accounts of 24 hrs. Periods. The text never mentions two accounts for one. So you have to use an assumption to prove an assertion that is not in evidence. If you do take that stance please make it clear. You're using that assumption from someone else invoked.
"Evolution has never been observed while it is happening". That is a statement by Richard Dawkins, the acknowledged Chief head priest of the Church of Evolution. If anyone has observed Evolution happening, would they please inform Mr. Dawkins of this new development? I'm sure he would appreciate it.
Adam could not have existed. Humans evolved into being as a whole population from a whole population of a preexisting species, and did not evolve as an individual. Just as there was no first person to speak Spanish, there is not such thing as the first human.
@Fisher Man Ah yes, good ol' mind fear enslavement. The guaranteed way to get gullible individuals into your religion is to claim they will suffer for eternity.
@Fisher Man I cannot believe because I don't have evidence. I could say I am a believer all day long but it wouldn't make it true or get me into heaven. I'd be lying to myself. I am a rational thinker and that led me away from Christianity. I just don't have any proof for the claims the bible makes. There's thousands of religions (including many that predate the abrahamic religions which also feature a creation, flood and messianic story in them). So which do I put my blind trust in?
An understanding of what scripture is, how it came to be written by man and under the superintendence of God is key. Because once you understand that God, in his sovereignty and wisdom, choose to coauthor scripture with men, you realize that this has consequences in your understanding of how to interpret it; ie first in its historical and cultural context, then draw application. John Walton wisely says we must understand that scripture was written for us, but not to us. This opens up the possibility of understanding the creation accounts in Genesis as ancient epic-poetic literature that has parallelism and symbolism, and is primarily a polemic against false middle-Eastern ideas on the day. Once you understand this, the necessity of pressing a young Earth creationism on the text, and a rejection of evolution, on biblical grounds, evaporate.
CONT. "Even if you have no steady faith in God or in any particular Name or Form of that Immanent Power, start by controlling the vagaries of the mind, the pulls of the ego, and the attractions of sense-attachments. Be helpful to others; then your conscience itself will appreciate you and keep you happy and content, though others may not thank you." - Baba
Thought for the day as written at Prasanthi Nilayam today 15th May 2012
I don't know where you found that stat that most people are Creationists. Since 75% of the world's people do NOT follow the Bible and many that do still believe science over a storybook, I find that idea hard to believe. There is no need to fight. Truth, respect and kindness are the only weapons needed. I thank you for your suggestion on whose position I should support and who I should join to fight with. I think I will make my own choices.That has been working out really well for me. Peace
Now I have two Klipsch powered speaker systems to give away; a 2.1 system I purchased and didn't like, and a 4.1 setup that a friend gave me when I told him I had the 2.1 set. The Klipsch speakers, pushed by the Sony amp, sound great, but not nearly so much if powered by the Klipsch amp in the subwoofer unit. And of course, 6.5" subwoofers may be okay for gaming, but they're far too small for good musical reproduction in the sub range. The grandkids are looking forward to blasting them!
@@oddity4650The biblical narrative is all about how God doesn’t use the powerful, strong, or valuable, He loons to the meek, poor, the needy, He used the outcast for His purpose
@gleam7138 since 1 in 4 people have or will get a mental issue, it doss not shock me that most people believe in some type of diety, although luckily Islam and Christianity are decreasing, it is because people are getting therapy and education.
A 13.7billion year old universe, 4.5billion year old earth and evolution of life for billions of years are known to be true. The bible uses poetic language to describe creation, so I feel it’s COMPLETELY fine to reconcile our scientific findings with God - by that I mean the science is correct, and God is the great creator who set it in motion and steers life. The only possible conflict comes if you take biblical creation literally - I for one accept it metaphorically.
There is no way to prove how old the Earth or universe is scientifically. The scientific method cannot be applied to historical sciences. You cannot predict, test, and observe things that happened "millions" of years ago. I would encourage you and other people who believe in an old earth actually do some research on dating methods. Carbon dating has been proven to be completely unreliable. It works for things of unknown age but doesn't work for things of known age. When Mount St. Helens exploded back in the 70's, it should have wiped away all geological theories saying that it takes millions of years for layers of sediments to form or millions of years for huge canyons to form. Mt. St. Helens showed that all of this was possible in a matter or HOURS, not millions of years. They also tested rock that had been blown out of that volcano via carbon 14 dating methods. The rock, that was just made within years, showed to be over a million years old....yet, they knew this rock was created literally a handful of years ago. There are lots and lots of dating methods that actually show the Earth is young. I'd advise you do to some research on the R.A.T.E project done by creation scientists a couple years ago.
Fisher Man i have read quite a lot into creation from the creationist perspective - i am indeed a christian! I just think the literal interpretation and assumption that lineages given are meant to describe the fullness of the lifespan of the earth are madness. All of our studying of this planet conflicts with the young earth model.
It's in Piper's answer, but Christians generally need to better clarify that evolution is a related but distinct issue from the age of the earth. For example, while Darwinism directly opposes a young earth view, one can hold an old earth view but also deny Darwinism. By the way, for anyone interested, Hugh Ross is excellent on some of these topics.
i feel god and he talk in my heart i do not need prove, before judge me like ignorant, before i was atheist and in astrologic and science, yes amatorly but i search, i answear 1 question before i discover god, why ignore god if he love us say you the same
why ignore god? well you played yourself. you ignore the other gods. the thousands of them that humanity created. your god of choice isnt special by any mean
It's difficult to fit macro evolution into the Bible. It is easy to fit the six days of Creation and a "younger" Earth of about 6,000 years. I'm a highly educated and experienced man, was raised in a pagan, macro evolution believing family. I have been a Christian for over 51 years.
He's right in the sense that evolution and Christianity are incompatible. I find it hard to take Christians seriously who say they accept evolution. Either they don't understand evolution or they don't understand Christianity. On the other hand, I find it hard to take people seriously who reject evolution.
1. the fact that consequence follows cause is not time contingent, it is order contingent. Time is not necessary for effect to follow cause especially when the existence of time IS the effect. 2. Sure I have, I didn't include those for brevity's sake. There are a multitude of ways to be wrong but only one way to be right.
We have free will to do,say and believe as we choose, yes. The emotions you suggest like guilt,shame and being sorry are not felt equally by everybody. I would feel sorry for bumping into somebody. Other people do not care and some people kill many other people and go to prison and never change at all. I am glad you have a good heart and are succeeding in making yourself a better person. Life has challenges for us all, but I try to always be kind and respectful even if someone treats me badly.
You don't choose what you believe. Not even from a zoomed out perspective. By definition believing is something you can't help. Otherwise it's a pretense.
It did HAPPEN. Mabye, Kind of. As a muslim, we share similar creation story to christians and we believe Allah created Adam and Eve and that he created Adam from clay and sculpted him and breathed his spirit into him. BUT the Quran tells us he was made in heaven and when god kicked him out of heaven for eating the forbidden fruit, it did not specify whether his body and soul were taken or only his soul. We know that when someone dies, only their soul is taken so considering this maybe God sent down his soul and the Quran talks about man being the successor which means something came before Adam so Allah chose us to be the successors of the great apes and to be put into the body of Homo Sapiens. This would make sense for Islam but I'm not sure about verses in christianity mentioning this, I'll have to look it up.
Actually, most people who accept the fact of evolution are theists who believe in God, and believe that God uses evolution to create new species, so you are wrong about that. As it is, evolution has been observed in controlled and uncontrolled conditions in the lab and field, including speciation, and is therefore a fact. The theory, which explains the fact, is supported by all the evidence, observations, predictions, experiments, and relevant facts. You have to be deluded by a religion, ignorant of the subject, or profoundly stupid to reject the fact of evolution. It is no different than rejecting the fact that the Earth is not flat.
Christopher Johnson Most theists don’t believe what you claimed there in the beginning of your comment. I’m neither stupid nor am I uneducated, The actual fact is that evolution remains unproven. Do you remember the claims by evolutionary scientists and their staunch belief that the human genetic code was mostly junk DA left over from our so called ancestors, well the creation scientists proved them wrong and your scientists unwavering belief resulted in a stagnation of genetic research that probably set us back decades in this research. I really can't understand why educated people (assumption) like yourself can swallow such drivel, it's not based on solid scientific facts, just assumptions, interpretation, speculation and conjecture Here is my take on the subject, I like yourself and others once believed in evolution but on closer scrutiny it just doesn't stack up. THE THEORY OF SPECULATIVE EVOLUTION - HARD SCIENCE FICTION Evolution is a hypothesis that relies on one or all of the following speculative deceptions. Compare the Speculative Method below against the Scientific Method to see the difference:- SPECULATIVE METHOD SCIENTIFIC METHOD 1. Interpretations/Imagination 1. Observable 2. Assumptions 2. Measurable 3. Speculation and 3. Repeatable 4. Conjecture 4. Predictable Point to any of the so called scientific evidence for evolution and you will definitely find one if not all of the above speculative method criteria. You find this in all their so called peer reviewed papers, videos and documentaries. The evolution theory has its origins thousands of years before Charles Darwin proposed the idea, it was a philosophy proposed by ancient Greek philosophers. Charles Darwin just made the idea popular, he plagiarised the idea from his grandfather who plagiarised from the ancient philosophers. In many ways it is a process of deceit and one of self deception where they often deceive themselves because it then becomes easier to deceive others. The deception begins to explain the creation of the universe through a naturalistic and materialistic worldview, this is purely a secular strategy to defeat God and the Bible. It is broken down into 6 fundamental principles that requires deep time (billions of years) to achieve. 1. Cosmic evolution 2. Chemical Evolution 3. Stellar and Planetary evolution 4. Organic Evolution 5. Macro Evolution 6. Micro Evolution or what I would call adaptation. The first 5 fit within the categories of the speculative method and is only a belief which grows into a blind faith, a religion if you like where God is TIME, Evolution without time is a dead hypothesis. Micro evolution on the other hand is the only observed evidence that fits real science and complies with the Scientific Method. Evolutionists/Atheists will try and convince you that Micro Evolution with "deep time" is Macro Evolution even when they can't point to any real scientific evidence. They rely on the interpretations of fossils, assumptions of age through a geological column that doesn't exist, speculation through a vivid imagination of missing links and then conclude using pure conjecture their belief is right. The alternative evidence that may point to intelligent design cannot be considered by them and always leads to denial because it doesn't fit "their" definition of science. True religious people trust the bible without question on the other hand Atheists/Evolutionists trust scientists without question, do you see how atheism is a religion. The only difference between the two is that religious people admit to their faith while atheists do not admit to theirs. Ask yourself; Who has more faith than an evolutionist? Who believes in secret black box processes more than an evolutionist? Who takes the story as given without any critical analysis more than a evolutionist? Who believes in chance more than an evolutionist and who has a better imagination? Just one example, and there are numerous others, that suggest a creator/ID is involved. If we assume that the latest Intel chip had a few hundred inventor-engineers behind its development, how is it that an organ, your brain, which is literally trillions of times more complex could develop by chance, with no designer? A single human brain is still more powerful than all the computers ever invented-put together. The problem here is that the human brain could not possibly evolve from a single mutation, or from a dozen. It would literally take tens of thousands if not millions of little tiny steps, each of which would have to build on and integrate not only with the previous mutations on this journey, but with the previously existing brain. The problem is that these little intervening steps impart no evolutionary advantage for natural selection to select. Similarly, speculative biology is simultaneously a science and form of art in which one speculates on the possibilities of life and evolution. Speculative evolution is full of "possibilities, crazy ideas, speculations, and things you wish you knew but never will" where many of the speculations about animal evolution involve informative guesses and hypotheses. "Atheists will conclude that religion is for people who are afraid of the dark, but i like to say to them that atheism is for people who are afraid of the light" - John Lennox "Extrordinary claims requires Extrordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan - so where is the Extrordinary evidence for evolution Mr Sagan ? "......although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools" - Romans 1:20-22 And finally, could you tell me the ancestor of the giraffe and the pine tree and how these are related?
It is important to note that verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1 are not part of the six days of creation. 1 and 2 simply say that God created the heavens and the earth, and that it was done and complete. But it gives no time specification of how long it existed that way before verse three begins with the first DAY of the SIX days of creation.
Evolution is an old earth view. So what exactly is your question. The gap theory is false and unsupported scientifically. As for myself, young earth based on various scientific hard evidence.
Clearly, you have a primitive understanding of the Bible. In the Bible, there are things written by mere men inspired by the Holy Spirit and proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is in fact God inspired. Just a few things written about which proof it's divine author are the fact that the earth is round in Job (thousand of years before man knew). The perfect dimension (still used today) for an object to float (the Flood), the coming of the Messiah (Isaiah) and His exact death 700 years before the EVENT. Come on, how can you believe it was just written by primitive men? Makes no logical sense.
Because it also insists that hell is in the middle of the earth and that the sun revolves around the earth? Sure, you've named a few cases where the Bible was right about something. But why not address the full spectrum? It's also wrong about a lot of things we know today as false. So what now? Ignore those? A broken clock is right twice a day.
In fact, here is an entire Christian forum dedicated to discussing how it's true that the sun revolves around the earth: bibleforums.org/showthread.php/87698-The-sun-revolves-around-the-earth We can't ignore that some people will believe things in error. But how can they even get that far unless there's something to support it? Look at this verse: Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed..." Doesn't the sun ALWAYS stand still? The Bible implies it was moving and then stopped. But hey, I just read the words and comprehend them with my illogical ape brain.
This isn't even touching on the full claims of Geocentrism (which gets its fuel from the Old Testament) AND the flat earth theory. You know the one? The one where all indications in the Bible point to a flat earth? Wilbur Glenn Voliva offered a 5,000 dollar reward for anyone who could prove the earth was NOT flat. What an idiot, right? And these are God's devout followers. Blind to truth or science.
Dayron669 Are you familiar with the terms Sun Rise and Sun Set? I believe we still use that terminology today. Does that mean that those who use it believe the sun actually rises and sets?
The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy-also known as the second law of thermodynamics-stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.
I am looking forward to finding out why it took God so long to create the Universe. 6 days (24 hours each) seems like a long time for the God I have in my mind.
@@doctorwebman Not only that, the DNA clearly shows evidence we're over 95% the same as some primates alive today. Weird that your god would make chimps from nearly the same life code if evolution by natural selection wasn't true... hmmmm. Its almost like the bible is just a made up story to give goat herders of olden days a sense of purpose in life.
@Jim Anderson IF they don't believe in the Jesus according to the Scriptures, which is more than just His name or crucifixion then I don't believe they are. Evolution is against the faith, by Him and through Him were all things made - Colossians 1 and John 1
@Jim Anderson The gospel isn't that easy believeism nonsense, one has to believe more than He died for her sins on the cross. You even omit the blood atonement which was the payment for sin, it wasn't just His death. I imagine your false gospel omits repentance as well. If a person doesn't believe God is the Creator then they don't believe in God at all. It's easy to make a claim " If you are denying the dozens of verses " and never give the verses isn't it? Makes it easy to misuse the Bible out of context.
I agree with Piper when he said he leans towards old earth creation in Gen 1:1-2 and the days of creation were renovation. Psa 104:30 KJV Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou **renewest** the face of the earth. Read whole Psalm to see days of Genesis 1.
Psalms 33:6,8-9: "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. Let all the earth fear the LORD; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.” No evolution. Creation by fiat. Exodus 29:11- “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” - from the Ten Commandments, as dictated by the Creator God to Moses. This is part of the Fourth Commandment. Do you allegorize any of the other nine Commandments? Genesis chapter 1 speaks for itself. Even a small child can understand that God created in six days. Which part don't you believe?
+GreenSlugg how so? how can you say indefinitely that genesis must be taken to be literal chronological 24 hour earth days? Do you have evidence to prove the author of Genesis intended the text to be intereted in such a manor? you do know that the literal interpretation of Gensis didnt become mainstream in Christianity until the 18 and 19th century, many of the first church fathers even held an old earth view
dannyboy765ify Thank you for asking. With regards to the historical view, Christians have almost universally agreed that the world was created in 6 literal days until so-called Old-Earth "geology" came along. There were very few exceptions throughout the history of Christendom. (I object here, because the so-called scientific arguments for an Old Earth fall apart when looked at with any sort of scrutiny.) With regards to the days in Genesis, the word yom (the Hebrew word for day) CAN mean a long period of time, but whenever it is used in the context of evening, morning or with a number, it always means an ordinary day. In other words, we see it defined as an ordinary day, because it is used in conjunction with evening, and morning, and because they are connected with a number. Furthermore, world-class Hebrew experts universally agree that the days in Genesis, based on the text alone, refer to ordinary days. In other words, as far as the top experts are concerned, there is no debate, the days were indeed ordinary days.
What scrutiny do you know about that has fallen flat for an earth which is billions of years old? And do you do the same scrutiny when you look at other scientifically accepted theories? Mainly medical theories which use evolution as a base to treat people and create the right vaccines and medicines?
I'm a Catholic Christian and the other day I had a discussion with a atheist, and I noticed that all of his statements about evolution were against christianism, giving for granted that I, as a Christian, don't believe in evolution. This discussion doesn't exist in Catholic Christianism... The Catholics long time ago stopped being so fundamentalist due to mistakes that putted the christian faith in jeapardy.. We, since childrens are teached that the Bible is NOT a cientific book, and we can read it, respect it, but we need the guidance of a pastor of the church that has gone through previous studies on the bible, ranging from theology to linguistics and other fields.. Probably in the USA this has been a great discussion and I believe it's doing a lot of damage, due to the freedom that exists in protestastism that everybody can interpret the bible as they want to.. Every day new "self enlightened prophets" appear and create new churches considering the existing ones a heresy, they justify themselves in their own interpretations. Each cientific discovery is a path for the humanity to approach to god, to reveal the things that were not revealed by Jesus and the prophets, to discover that god is way more bigger than we can even imagine, that creation goes beyond earth and the boundries of our senses, that the mechanisms of life that he created actually are quite different as we imagined. I hope you come and discuss and don't condem me to hell because of what I just said..
Khalkara That we don't even discuss that. That we let science do those explorations and come up with answers. So, if science discovers that evolution is real then, it is real, if not, then it was a mistake, but definitely the book of genesis cannot be interpreted as a scientific fact.
A description of a lightning flash is completely independent of the outer system that created it. What you're talking about is the process by which flashes are created, and to describe that, you need to involve the weather system where they occur. I gave the example of evolution previously. It's the same thing. To make it clear: Yes, "having recourse to other systems": namely inner systems. Never outer systems.
The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason? - Francis Collins
But If believe that Adam was real and that everything that is written in the Bible is correct, then he should believe that the earth was flat and that the firmament separates from us the waters from above
The term "firmament" and its identity has been one of the greatest puzzles concerning the Creation account, mostly because of its Hebrew definition: רָקִיעַ raqiya` raw-kee'-ah from 7554; properly, an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:-firmament. He is saying about the heaven. Isaiah 40:22. Job 26:10. (God's View) These verses confirming that earth is round. source: answersingenesis.org/answers/books/taking-back-astronomy/the-universe-confirms-the-bible/
Jayne Reinert the firmament divides the waters above from the waters below, but there is not water above the sky. to me the bible should always be interpreted
Jayne Reinert the Bible definitely depicts a flat earth. reality also shows us that the earth is flat. i know this sounds crazy, when i first heard that people believed the earth is flat i thought it was crazy too, until i looked into it. let me know if you want to have a discussion on this.
What is a day? One rotation of the earth? Prior to Theia crashing into Earth and speeding up its rotation, can one say the earth was 24 hours as we know them?
I very much believe in the young Earth view, the Bible is Gods word and shows us the History of our world. The Bible starts from the beginning and leads into the different generations, all equaling about 6000 years. The Bible comes first, then you interpret the world through that Biblical lens. AnswersinGenesis is a very good website as far as explaining the way that the Earth could very probably be only 1000s of years old. Besides, why would God make the world go on for billions of years before introducing humans? I think it is important to get the idea of the age of the Earth from the Bible first, and historical science second.
leslie i've read everything exist from nothing,and man came from ape,i'd rather believe in the bible..GOD who is infinite created evrything and i was created in the image of GOD..to GOD be the glory!
leslie rose Let me try to get this in a nutshell. There are two kinds of evolution. Micro, and Macro. Thinking Christians (like John Piper) do not reject Microevolution. Microevolution of species is observable, and accounts for all the variations we see in nature within a species. Island bound birds and mainland birds having different shaped beaks because of differing food sources, etc. natural selection leading to similar birds with differing traits. That’s fine. Christians (if they aren’t morons) get this. But what ALL students of science should examine and question is MACROevolution. I am not just talking about the idea that we all came from the same microbes (there’s plenty to talk about there), but the idea that massive evolutionary changes come through incremental, coincidental mutations over the course of millions of years, or massive changes happening all at once. The problem with Macroevolution is that In order for major changes to happen, it would require “mother nature” to “plan” for future mutations. (notice the theistic vernacular often used by evolutionary scientists) Let’s say that the next step in human evolution is that we are going to develop a second heart. So if something goes wrong with the first one, that second heart has a chance at being able to shoulder the load, thus giving two hearted humans an advantage over one hearted humans, and eventually becoming the dominant trait. Think about this for a second. One of two things would have to happen: a) A person would have to, through genetic mutation, be born with a fully functional, helpful, second heart, and would have to produce offspring with the same viable trait (This is utterly impossible. Science can observe that this simply cannot happen). So the alternative is: b) A person is born with a tiny, non-functional, vestigial (non-functional) heart (which is a problem in and of itself, because by definition, “vestigial” organs are left over, no longer needed organs that were once functional). This tiny, non-working “beginning” of a second heart, would have to be un-harmful (and would therefore have to be highly complex right off the bat, wouldn't it?). It would have to avoid getting blended back in to the gene pool (which is what happens with all mutations because they are never beneficial). And it would have to be “built” upon “randomly” by hundreds, if not thousands of subsequent, "coincidental," incremental, non-harmful mutations over the next few million years to become functional. This does not work. If I am way off base here, please tell me how. I don’t care if you think “God” created the universe or not. You don’t have to be a theist to realize the problems with Macroevolution/random mutation as the basis for beneficial change within a species.
I hear what you are saying. My observation was primarily geared towards naturalists who claim that such changes happen without the guidance of an intelligent designer. Macroevolution, from a nationalistically observable perspective is literally impossible to prove. It is an IDEA. It's a guess. And it is, ultimately an old and illogical one. You said "Macroevolution is no different than Microevolution: it is simply a genetic code change that has a larger effect." That is false. One is observable, the other is not. Microevolution is reactive. It is an existing species reacting, and adapting to it's environment. It can be observed and proven. Macroevolution is a forming of new systems out of nothing. 9 chemical processes have to happen at the same time for blood to clot. NINE. It is completely illogical for a naturalist to believe that these systems formed A) All at once, in one giant evolutionary super coincidence, or B) they formed through millions of years worth of coincidences. That all the chemical components of clotting blood just fell into place, one by one. (Whoops. We're not hemophiliacs.) You said: "Evolution does not "plan" to change a certain way; rather, it is reactionary." This statement is correct only based upon the assumption that there is something there already to react to. Again, Microevolution, is reactive, just as you said. You said: "Evolution does not add organs or functions arbitrarily, but it is genetically driven." Again, this is true of Microevolution. But in order for change to be "genetically driven," there must be a working system in place first. It is this already functioning system that can then adapt. The code has to be in place. That is how genetics work. Marcoevolution is intrinsically not reactive. In concept, it is creative. (One cannot even use the word "creative" without alluding to intelligence) In taking issue with my example of humans evolving a second heart, you said: "A slight change in heart size or function is sensible. If somehow a mutation caused a second heart and this was beneficial it might remain. However, it seems likely that the circulatory system would not be set up to run with a second heart, the extra heart would have some kind of duplicating defect that would incorporate other things and this would cause a major malfunction." You are absolutely correct. That was my point exactly. Small, reactive changes are believable and observable. But the idea of sweeping, massive, creative change that is beneficial is much harder to envision (without a designer). The 3rd grade science books say otherwise. So our children are taught an absurdity, and grow up believing it, not because they have thought through all its implications, but because they are young and a teacher told them so, and they grow up believing the impossible is rock hard science. Too many Christians are afraid. Many modern Christians have fallen for the silly lie that the concept of God is illogical. That you have to suck it up and ignore science to believe in God. You don't. Ironically, the only person to respond to me (you) responded with this point: There is a designer, and he could have used Evolution. My point is simpler: There is a designer. And on this point, I am very thankful we agree.
Extremely important topic. Gospel are built on Genesis. Yeshua referred to Adam and Eve. Unfortunately most of us have been lied to. Better do your research as Bereans. We can no longer allow the leadership to lead us into doubt or division. The early church were unified in all ways including this subject.
One solution is that incest was a sin once God said not to do it. It does raise the thorny question of whether some things are inherently sinful and why things would be okay at one point in history but not in another. For example, there are lots of things that are wrong for us today that were not forbidden to the children of Israel (or were even commanded for the children of Israel). God's sovereignty is mysterious and beyond our full comprehension. Hope that helps a bit.
2 peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. i dunno, could be young, could be old, we really aren't 100% sure, guess we will wait for God to give us the answer
It could have been 24 hour days, but at least for the first few probably wasn't because remember the Biblical calendar is observation based and therefore the length of the day is based on how fast the earth spins around its axis, and for the first few days earth was the only entity in the universe so the timescale was probably different (could have been faster or slower), but that does not justify an old earth model.
1 I am sorry you had a struggle in early life,but some life challenges can make us wiser in the end. I agree with your reply from God that it is irrelevant what you see going on in the lives of others people to know whether they are dead spiritually inside or if being rich will lead to early death for them. I have always helped others because it is my nature having God's love in me and never need thanks or rewards. The Bible has contradictory verses about paying for other peoples "sins". 2
I sincerely appreciate Mr. Piper for being honest and forthright. His remark that basically says, as do we atheists, that Adam HAS to be an actual, historical figure, because without him, no Original Sin, and no need for Redemption. Of course, setting Adam aside, we still would like an explanation for why an all-powerful entity would go to such convoluted and inexplicable lengths for something that the entity itself has decided is important. Why the twisted and violent path?
If there were higher powers who were controlling me and making me do things, why would I bother to get up in the morning to live my life and help others? If I decided to stay in bed and sleep or go rob a bank, it would make no difference because I could say the angels made me do it. How would a court judge know that I did something or an Angel CONTROLLED me and MADE me do something? Am I responsible for what Angels make me do?
When the bible said the earth is circular scientists didnt talk about that. but when they suspected that the bible contradicts science, they went crazy.
How do you know they don't? Not the end. I am a Spiritual Deist, not a Christian. I came to my beliefs after years of research and life experience. From your words, it may be that you have not had much life experience yet. I have no need to change anyone's beliefs. There is only free will within the limits of God's Will that I know of. Do you know of another kind of will or No will? Like robots? I do not know everything and I am capable of making mistakes too. Be kind to yourself. Peace
The important point brought forth by this very short discussion is the perhaps most important point in the creation story. The age of the Earth is not what is important about the creation story. Adam is what is important in the creation story. God and Adam. Either Adam was a real, historical person who was created perfectly by God, disobeyed God, and is the progenitor of humanity, or man was not created perfect, there was not an individual who disobeyed God, nor is there an individual who is the progenitor of humanity. Thank you, Pastor John. Christians, theistic evolutionists, and atheists have argued round and round for centuries and gotten nowhere, talking about stars and animals and ages. This universe was created for MAN by GOD. Man was created in God's image and God Himself became a man. It doesn't really matter how old the Earth is, it matters how old Man is. If Adam wasn't real, Jesus doesn't need to be real, either. If Adam was real then Jesus is real. Personally, since I believe Man is a special creation of God's, I have no trouble believing that the animals and stars were, as well.
Looking at Hebrew literature, dust usually indicates fleetingness and mortality. When God says that Adam is made from the dust of the earth it likens him to other living things: mortal. But the tree of life/Gods presence in man is that which gives him eternality. I think because the old testament writers (particularily in Genesis) were not scientists or astrologians, they spoke truth in cosmically poetic and beautiful terms. I understand literal/direct interpretation, but I think both can be seen as faithful attempts to interpret things as awesomely incredible as the creation of man and the universe. I dont think our judgement will render us damned solely for coming to honest conclusions that arent the same as each other or even arent totally aligned with reality. Its always been about our hearts and if we're seeking truth, this topic should serve as a facet for amplifying the beauty of the revelation of creation and through it, the majesty of God.
Do many of these posts even make sense after the 18th century publication of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason? The complete 21st century denial of major philosophical work is a wonder to behold.
I forgot to mention that Dr. Hugh Ross is another well-known OEC who certainly believes in Adam and Eve. In fact, those names appear in several of his titled including "Who was Adam?" [Or something like that.] A lot of Christians in the USA know of Dr. Ross because of his radio program and podcasts. ReasonsToBelieve + org is his website. {CZcams doesn't allow links} But I would love to learn more about why you thought "these are not compatible beliefs."
Red Herring! No one (I know) is saying the Nazis were intentionally seeking to "promote atheism" but that their policies were guided by their ideology which was Nietzschean which is atheistic. That is, their atheism made their policies (including the holocaust) possible.
There was no mochary in his voice. I think perhaps you were looking for/expecting that so thus you heard it. His laughter was directed to the "acceptance" phrase. Listen for the context he was using in reference to that word. There was nothing negative or mocking about it.
Some questions about being created in God`s image ( if we are to address the rather turgid biblical literalists idea that God looks like a giant space primate,rather than the more elegant theological idea that man has the power of the divine within him) Does God have an appendix? Why ? Does He have a willy? Does He ever watch TV and play with it ,like most blokes? Is that where Earthquakes come from ?
If you are treating other people kindly and with compassion. It does not matter you believe in creationism or evolution. If you are a good dude, no matter you believe in Buddism, Catholic, Protestant, Muslims, Judaism, Agnositc, Atheism, you live righteously according to the universe.
That there is no way to know how the earth was created without having someone physically be there. Thus there is two people man can have faith in, faith in man(science), or faith in God. If we where 100% correct on anything everyone would have to believe it, until then I will continue to follow in Jesus' footsteps. I hope you do too.
The title seems to be a little bit misrepresentation of the Old Earth Creationists position. The Old Earth people don't believe in evolution. I listen to John Piper a lot but it would be awesome if he would be able to conduct a cordial discussion with Dr. Hugh Ross.
It's an interesting considera perhaps the universe itself is very old and yet the material realm as we know it is fairly new. There are countless implications that would follow and perhaps create a world view for the origin of a number of elements of creation, spiritual, primordial, material, etc. With that said, who knows, honestly, though we do know God takes an active and direct role throughout history and all of creation in one form or another, enough to die for us, His created.
Y'all are very brave for not disabling the comments on this one!!! God bless!!
yeah only punks do that !!
why do they do that though?
@@WTG194 to avoid toxicity
@@josephsack4918 to avoid open discussion.
"There is no explanation" does not equal "incomprehensible".
All I would say is that so far, obviously, we don't know everything.
God is omnipotent, Pastor John would agree. I wont risk being someone who limits Gods power. If He said He did it in 6 days. I with child like faith will believe it. If at the end of times God tells me He did it in other ways I will stand in awe and praise. #becauseHesaidso
+Darren Feenstra youre a child, you got that right.
Bro, how do you know he said so?
Also, I would suggest you hear the other side of the story also once, then maybe you will have a different view
Imperial Commander Yue Fei 岳飛 why would you believe that when we don't know what happens outside of time? Seriously dude, there's no evidence that god created anything or even exists.
Why would God make it then seem as if it is six 24 hour days, knowing that we will interpret it that way, when it actually means some arbitrary large amount of time? Why even mention time at all? Yes God is outside time, but He knows that He is speaking to people that work in a framework of 24 hour days and people that are not outside time.
Hi Dan, the atheist scientist Stephen Hawking said that the universe, and even time, had a beginning, but he didn't say how. God or something else did it.
I will shout it aloud, will not hold back. I will raise my voice like a trumpet. Declare to you people that Jesus is LORD.
*"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day: therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."* EXODUS 20:11
Evolution and old earth are separate subjects.
Sure, but Evolution requires an old earth. An old earth does not require evolution.
Neither are true
Thank you. I have lived my life with God's Love, Truth and Peace in my heart and soul for over 20 years and I am blessed. Thank you again for sharing your beliefs.
And thank YOU for sharing
God is written in every heart and soul. You already know what Love is, what Truth is and what Peace is.You also have free will to do, say and believe as you choose, but there are real consequences to those choices. I choose to follow those concepts and consequently am blessed.I am not perfect and I do not know all. I take responsibility for my actions and try to live a loving, respectful, self-disciplined, productive and joyful life. I encourage parents to pass those values on to their children.
Consider this: in order for a human baby to be born, you need a male sperm with 22+Y chromosomes to fertilise a female egg with 22+X chromosomes. If a non human male had sperms that mutated from the original type, he had to mate with another non-human female whose egg was mutated exactly to be biologically compatible to allow his mutated sperms to fertilise it. Both mutations had to occur to produce human gametes at the same time and at the same place and the same maturity. Or the fertilised egg somehow mutated to be that belonging to humans, so the first human was born. Male or female, this baby still had to survive long enough, and be able to reproduce with another human of the opposite sex for the next generation, but there were no humans yet. He/She was the only one. Now evolutionists would like us to believe that this had happened for every sexually reproducing life forms, ignoring the fact that all have their unique number of chromosomes with male gametes which can only fertilise female gametes from the same species. ‘Christian evolutionists’ are a real oxymoron.
Well said, John Piper.
That's the most hilariously idiotic non-comprehension of how reproduction works that I have ever seen.
People don't need to be identical to reproduce.
A large man can have sex with a small woman and they'll have smaller kids than he would have had with a larger woman. Differences don't mean incompatibility.
I went into my college science courses knowing that I would find holes in the evolutionary view of life. It turns out the evidence is pretty compelling, especially when you still down into the likes of the genome and the segments of our human DNA that are inserts from ancient viruses that infected our ancestors and then notice that where the same viruses infected other non-human primates and inserted the exact same viral genetic sequences into the exact same spot on the exact same chromosome of those other primates on multiple occasions. Obviously, I am not going to convince anyone here in a CZcams comment, but my views were changed. I have to read the Bible as consistent with that, because I can't deny the evidence. If it was just one thing, like viral genetic sequences in our genome, I could believe the scientists are lying (not merely mistaken, that evidence would have to have been utterly falsified to be incorrect), but that is just one line of the evidence, and I can't believe they have all been the product of lies.
I read your answer but I'm curious to know what exactly your view is? Do you believe in evolution as in the Darwin theory?
@@JohnDoe-kz4gy Not exactly as Darwin laid it out, as we have learned a lot since the 18th century, but the evidence has led me to believe that habitats often change over time and that natural selection plays a role in adapting species to new habitats, with the result being that old species cease to exist (i.e. are extinct) and new species descended from those older forms arise that are better suited to the changes conditions.
@@Pandaemoni The only problem is death and diseases came AFTER sin, not before sin.
@@JosiahFickinger But you can still see the genome of creatures evolve and change. I'm sure you don't believe that, or want to make some argument about variation within the same species vs variations leading to new species, but all that is just four or five decades out of date with the scientific literature.
Also, genetic evidence (along with geological, cosmological and other evidence) clearly supports an old Earth, so it's not even that God created species 6,000 years and additional speciation started after that.
I fought hard to hold onto belief in young-Earth Creationism myself (unreasonably hard, truth be told). But having gone through it at the undergraduate and graduate levels and beyond, the evidence is too strong to deny with anything except an unreasoning or an uninformed belief.
You're free to think otherwise and to follow your particular reading of the bible where that leads you, but then I'm also free to follow the evidence where it leads me.
@@Pandaemoni Very compelling. If I could ask God one question, it would be "How was the universe created?" I think I'll have to educate myself in the sciences more and THEN try to old earth.
I don't know when or how the earth was made I was not there but I do believe in God, I can't except that we appeared from no where and exist by accident, I believe in Jesus Christ also I believe he died for our sins.
+datchet11 I agree but still has a hard time to believe the stories in the old testament. Please pray for me. I strongly believe in Jesus Christ.
+Alice Ng of corse I will pray for you what do you stumble with in the Old Testament?
+Alice Ng ^
I mean the earth is not exist by accident, is a God's creation.
datchet11 it doesn't matter what you want to be true. it matters what IS true. your feelings are not important for this question.
Age of earth issues can be solved by determining if Noah’s flood was global or local.
Type folded mountains in Google images
World wide evidence of bent sedimentary rock layers to the extent that are impossible unless all the layers were soft at the same time when they were folded. Catastrophic global flood sounds more logical to me.
Try reading a geology book sometime, so you won't look like an ignorant fool with the Dunning-Kruger effect.
You seem to be using the meaning of the Dunning-Kruger effect wrongly, it affects even the smartest of us, definitely not how you would describe a fool.
Moreover, instead of just sounding mean, maybe you can explain which part of his comment you disagree with, and to provide evidence contrary to what he had mentioned? That would be much more helpful that just namecalling a person that have a different opinion from you.
Layers of mud do not hold their shape well especially during a catastrophic flood. They tend to erode if they were folded into peaks. Rock layers soften and bend due immense pressure, heat, and tectonic forces. The evidence suggests that all of the folded rock layers were not formed all at the same time in a single event, but separately over eons.
openpress.usask.ca/geolmanual/chapter/overview-of-folds-faults-and-unconformities/
Well for a start the ark was not large enough to fit all them animal's, also I really dont think they had silicone sealant them days
@@doctorwebman Why do you need to be insulting?
I once heard a quote from a theologian (forgot who) who said “the pursuit of science is how we come to know the mind of God.” I think this makes perfect sense. This was actually the basis of science as many of the fathers of science were Catholic monks. Science, math, physics, etc. are compatible with Christianity. They have to be. Those disciplines are the methods to explain how God ordered the universe. I think too often Christians come up with ideas that are fundamentally anti-science (i.e. young earth) which drives the public away from the faith.
Hi there! I think you are right when you say that science math and physics (etc.) are compatible with Christianity. We worship a God of order who has a plan and created an orderly universe. However the quote from your theologian has some problems. Pursuing something God made that he regularly breaks cannot unveil the mind of God. Since God is the creator of everything he is Sovereign and has the right to do whatever He wants whenever He wants and however He wants. The Bible is full of amazing examples of this like creation or the flood or stopping the sun in the sky to allow the Israelites to win a battle. All of these things go against any scientific explanations. Someone will never be able to scientifically explain how God created the universe in one week using words because it's supernatural. All to often I hear Christians attempting to reign God in and explain him with science but in reality He does what He wants. And the biggest and most glorious example of that is raising Christ from the dead. Never will anyone be able to scientifically explain a full human being (and full God) resurrecting with math or biology. Only God can do this and it would be a detrimental disservice to Him and ourselves to attempt to explain His sovereignty with science. I think we can pursue something to know more about God and that would be Jesus through God's Word. Everything is about Jesus and the more we focus on Him the more joyful we will be and the more honored God will be. That doesn't mean at all to disregard science; on the contrary it is a worthy pursuit. God made a wonderful sandbox of a world to get into but it's so important to remember He made it and does what he pleases with it.
Sorry for the long comment I just felt led to say something about it and I'm know that changing someone's mind through CZcams comments is next to impossible so I just wanted to throw an idea out for you to think about and I'd love to talk more if you're interested.
I love how some people come here knowing what to expect JUST to start a fight in the comments section. Are you that bored?
You either believe what the Bible says or you don't. I am a believer. We all have questions we would like answered and we will know ALL things when we meet up with God / Jesus, there will be no more questions. We can only think with our VERY limited minds as to how the mind of God works. On that day when the blinds are lifted from our eyes and our minds and heart are opened as well, we are going to be beyond stunned / amazed.
I'm a hermit, and my PC is my entertainment center. After upgrading to a graphics capability that is enough for any game out there at full-tilt eye-candy, I turned to the very crappy sound from the sound card. So I found a remarkably competent Sony 7.1ch dig. receiver, and a Fiio DAC/headphone amp. But when I found these KEFs and plugged them in, I was astounded! I'm listening near-field, and when I close my eyes, the speakers disappear. I'd heard of that happening, but never experienced it.
While I appreciate John Piper in some ways, I also am weary of this series, its in danger of making us all clones of him and his interpretation of scripture and understanding of God. I almost fell into this trap some years and I had to shake myself out of it, I had to affirm that God gave me the ability to think for myself and love Him for myself, without the necessary intervention of any great preacher.
Well, it does vary a lot, doesn't it?
I know this comment was a year ago. We should never cling on to any one mans view of anything because we are all fallen. Listening to preachers and ministers should only be for edification and we are all the same none any better then the other because we all have the Bible. That’s where the truth is.
Thank you very much for taking your time to explain your belief system. Naturally it is different in many ways from my own, but I see some good sense in parts of it and I hope it works out well for you. I will read through all your words again to understand better. Thank you again! Namaste
The way I see it, sure, science can give us quite exact figures on many things but I can’t imagine life just haphazardly bouncing around until it forms you and me. God is God over nature and science and I leave it up to Him about how He did it. We can only study the how, when and where - and be amazed just as we have to remind ourselves of the why.
Just reading all the comments here and it made me think. I was led to read 'Job' (Bible) first and got real made at 'them' playing games with our lives. It wasn't until i grapled with that and realised that God is sovereign and that he is the potter and we are the clay that i was easily repentant and born again. Before that i had known that God does what he wants due to experience but all the sudden i knew he also loves us and is trying to do something with us.
You're a despicable coward, who will never defend the weak against injust and abusive authorities.
I respect this man is real!! Amen
To those who are His God created all in six literal days,
God was not wasteful for He made all and saw that it was Good,
death came by sin so was after man was made,
there was no death before sin, so there was no evolution of man, as to make it that there was death before sin.
that why we need our Lord Jesus because death came by sin, if there was death before sin than that makes the need of the cross nul and the deceivers know this
Our Lord said there's a testing at the end times that will come on the whole earth, make sure your right with God you either believe God or get deceived by men, ask your self who was there when the heavens and the earth were created. Do you believe God tells the truth or do you believe men tell the truth, Satan is the father of all lies, so hold fast to the faith that was delivered to you.
+Mick G Lucifer brought sin into the world long before man was even created. God destroyed and flooded the whole earth and sealed up the sky before mankind was made. God told Adam to subdue the earth being the demonic, satan, demons and fallen angels that were around. The list goes on and on. God was restoring during the days not creating. Let is a word of permission not creation.
WaterspoutsOfTheDeep I'm afraid that isn't biblical at all. you are taking quotes from the Bible out of context to fit what you believe.
the earth was created in 6 24 hour days, it wasn't created before hand and then destroyed and then remade.
God was very wistfull he made many planets a lot of wasted energy
It just seems you have copy and pasted from the bible with no actual evidence
Satan is just your god's buddy. Not sure wtf you're trying to say.
Hey, I'm getting a pair of gently-used B&W bookshelf speakers tomorrow! I'm planning on pairing them with my newly-purchased, vintage KEF C-40 mini-towers; they have dual 8" drivers, both active rather than one as passive radiator, and the well-made crossover alters the output for lower base in the bottom driver. They're phenomenal, and have a better sound stage than my NHT towers, with matched with my 12" powered sub.
Which do you think make better mains; the KEFs or the B&Ws?
I agree with you that our basic human nature drives us to WANT. The question of whether we will be able to become civilized enough to survive as a species is up in the air. Society can make moral standards and rules, but God has given us all free will to do, say and believe as we choose. I am a Deist, who has lived with God's Love,Truth and Peace as my guide for over 20 years and I am blessed and at peace. I try to educate and be an example for a more loving and respectful way of existence.
Peter Enns has some good work on this.
You can't invoke a creation account of an old universe then inject Genesis as the subset of accounts of 24 hrs. Periods.
The text never mentions two accounts for one. So you have to use an assumption to prove an assertion that is not in evidence. If you do take that stance please make it clear. You're using that assumption from someone else invoked.
Why do people who don’t believe in Evolution look really unevolved?
"Evolution has never been observed while it is happening".
That is a statement by Richard Dawkins, the acknowledged Chief head priest of the Church of Evolution.
If anyone has observed Evolution happening, would they please inform Mr. Dawkins of this new development? I'm sure he would appreciate it.
Mankind is young The earth is ancient its that simple. Earth was here long before Adam was created.
Adam could not have existed. Humans evolved into being as a whole population from a whole population of a preexisting species, and did not evolve as an individual. Just as there was no first person to speak Spanish, there is not such thing as the first human.
@Fisher Man Ah yes, good ol' mind fear enslavement. The guaranteed way to get gullible individuals into your religion is to claim they will suffer for eternity.
@Fisher Man I cannot believe because I don't have evidence. I could say I am a believer all day long but it wouldn't make it true or get me into heaven. I'd be lying to myself. I am a rational thinker and that led me away from Christianity. I just don't have any proof for the claims the bible makes.
There's thousands of religions (including many that predate the abrahamic religions which also feature a creation, flood and messianic story in them). So which do I put my blind trust in?
Wow, Now I even have less faith in this guy.
Why would you put faith in a person anyway?
An understanding of what scripture is, how it came to be written by man and under the superintendence of God is key. Because once you understand that God, in his sovereignty and wisdom, choose to coauthor scripture with men, you realize that this has consequences in your understanding of how to interpret it; ie first in its historical and cultural context, then draw application.
John Walton wisely says we must understand that scripture was written for us, but not to us.
This opens up the possibility of understanding the creation accounts in Genesis as ancient epic-poetic literature that has parallelism and symbolism, and is primarily a polemic against false middle-Eastern ideas on the day. Once you understand this, the necessity of pressing a young Earth creationism on the text, and a rejection of evolution, on biblical grounds, evaporate.
I was thanking you jin advance for responding !!
The Earth is only 6000 years old
And flat with a solid dome that has stars in it.
no it isn't.
CONT. "Even if you have no steady faith in God or in any particular Name or Form of that Immanent Power, start by controlling the vagaries of the mind, the pulls of the ego, and the attractions of sense-attachments. Be helpful to others; then your conscience itself will appreciate you and keep you happy and content, though others may not thank you."
- Baba
Thought for the day as written at Prasanthi Nilayam today
15th May 2012
I don't know where you found that stat that most people are Creationists. Since 75% of the world's people do NOT follow the Bible and many that do still believe science over a storybook, I find that idea hard to believe. There is no need to fight. Truth, respect and kindness are the only weapons needed. I thank you for your suggestion on whose position I should support and who I should join to fight with. I think I will make my own choices.That has been working out really well for me. Peace
Now I have two Klipsch powered speaker systems to give away; a 2.1 system I purchased and didn't like, and a 4.1 setup that a friend gave me when I told him I had the 2.1 set. The Klipsch speakers, pushed by the Sony amp, sound great, but not nearly so much if powered by the Klipsch amp in the subwoofer unit. And of course, 6.5" subwoofers may be okay for gaming, but they're far too small for good musical reproduction in the sub range. The grandkids are looking forward to blasting them!
Seems that your letting man's views impact you. God is big enough to create it as it's written ;)
A god would write it himself also in a diamond etc not paper
@@oddity4650The biblical narrative is all about how God doesn’t use the powerful, strong, or valuable, He loons to the meek, poor, the needy, He used the outcast for His purpose
@gleam7138 yes religion uses the easily infullacned people, it is tragic.
@gleam7138 since 1 in 4 people have or will get a mental issue, it doss not shock me that most people believe in some type of diety, although luckily Islam and Christianity are decreasing, it is because people are getting therapy and education.
A 13.7billion year old universe, 4.5billion year old earth and evolution of life for billions of years are known to be true.
The bible uses poetic language to describe creation, so I feel it’s COMPLETELY fine to reconcile our scientific findings with God - by that I mean the science is correct, and God is the great creator who set it in motion and steers life.
The only possible conflict comes if you take biblical creation literally - I for one accept it metaphorically.
There is no way to prove how old the Earth or universe is scientifically. The scientific method cannot be applied to historical sciences. You cannot predict, test, and observe things that happened "millions" of years ago. I would encourage you and other people who believe in an old earth actually do some research on dating methods. Carbon dating has been proven to be completely unreliable. It works for things of unknown age but doesn't work for things of known age. When Mount St. Helens exploded back in the 70's, it should have wiped away all geological theories saying that it takes millions of years for layers of sediments to form or millions of years for huge canyons to form. Mt. St. Helens showed that all of this was possible in a matter or HOURS, not millions of years.
They also tested rock that had been blown out of that volcano via carbon 14 dating methods. The rock, that was just made within years, showed to be over a million years old....yet, they knew this rock was created literally a handful of years ago.
There are lots and lots of dating methods that actually show the Earth is young. I'd advise you do to some research on the R.A.T.E project done by creation scientists a couple years ago.
Fisher Man i have read quite a lot into creation from the creationist perspective - i am indeed a christian!
I just think the literal interpretation and assumption that lineages given are meant to describe the fullness of the lifespan of the earth are madness. All of our studying of this planet conflicts with the young earth model.
You've thrown out biblical creation entirely.
may we do our best to understand your world Lord as you made it
It's in Piper's answer, but Christians generally need to better clarify that evolution is a related but distinct issue from the age of the earth. For example, while Darwinism directly opposes a young earth view, one can hold an old earth view but also deny Darwinism. By the way, for anyone interested, Hugh Ross is excellent on some of these topics.
i feel god and he talk in my heart i do not need prove, before judge me like ignorant, before i was atheist and in astrologic and science, yes amatorly but i search, i answear 1 question before i discover god, why ignore god if he love us say you the same
czcams.com/video/dRbtradNmNI/video.html
why ignore god? well you played yourself. you ignore the other gods. the thousands of them that humanity created. your god of choice isnt special by any mean
_before i was atheist and in astrologic and science_
reading this was pure cringe.
@@TakeTheVeilESP Did you stop to consider that maybe English is not this persons first language?
It's difficult to fit macro evolution into the Bible. It is easy to fit the six days of Creation and a "younger" Earth of about 6,000 years. I'm a highly educated and experienced man, was raised in a pagan, macro evolution believing family. I have been a Christian for over 51 years.
Not difficult-utterly impossible. And not only so, but to fit it into reality itself.
He's right in the sense that evolution and Christianity are incompatible. I find it hard to take Christians seriously who say they accept evolution. Either they don't understand evolution or they don't understand Christianity. On the other hand, I find it hard to take people seriously who reject evolution.
1. the fact that consequence follows cause is not time contingent, it is order contingent. Time is not necessary for effect to follow cause especially when the existence of time IS the effect.
2. Sure I have, I didn't include those for brevity's sake.
There are a multitude of ways to be wrong but only one way to be right.
Evolution is a fact just deal with it
Evolutionists, I have but two words: Irreducible Complexity.
And a few words for you, think logically, and science
2 words for you; personal incredulity. If you were educated, you'd realise how poorly fallacious that argument is.
We have free will to do,say and believe as we choose, yes. The emotions you suggest like guilt,shame and being sorry are not felt equally by everybody. I would feel sorry for bumping into somebody. Other people do not care and some people kill many other people and go to prison and never change at all. I am glad you have a good heart and are succeeding in making yourself a better person. Life has challenges for us all, but I try to always be kind and respectful even if someone treats me badly.
You don't choose what you believe. Not even from a zoomed out perspective. By definition believing is something you can't help. Otherwise it's a pretense.
Even the 'great' John Piper now shys away from affirming Christ's words "Have you not read 'In the beginning He made them male and female'?"
yup darwinian evolution never happened, and is the main excuse given for not believing in God.
if evolution never happened then dogs and cats would never exist
Placoderm C-Strain that’s not true
It did HAPPEN. Mabye, Kind of. As a muslim, we share similar creation story to christians and we believe Allah created Adam and Eve and that he created Adam from clay and sculpted him and breathed his spirit into him. BUT the Quran tells us he was made in heaven and when god kicked him out of heaven for eating the forbidden fruit, it did not specify whether his body and soul were taken or only his soul. We know that when someone dies, only their soul is taken so considering this maybe God sent down his soul and the Quran talks about man being the successor which means something came before Adam so Allah chose us to be the successors of the great apes and to be put into the body of Homo Sapiens. This would make sense for Islam but I'm not sure about verses in christianity mentioning this, I'll have to look it up.
Actually, most people who accept the fact of evolution are theists who believe in God, and believe that God uses evolution to create new species, so you are wrong about that. As it is, evolution has been observed in controlled and uncontrolled conditions in the lab and field, including speciation, and is therefore a fact. The theory, which explains the fact, is supported by all the evidence, observations, predictions, experiments, and relevant facts. You have to be deluded by a religion, ignorant of the subject, or profoundly stupid to reject the fact of evolution. It is no different than rejecting the fact that the Earth is not flat.
Christopher Johnson Most theists don’t believe what you claimed there in the beginning of your comment. I’m neither stupid nor am I uneducated, The actual fact is that evolution remains unproven. Do you remember the claims by evolutionary scientists and their staunch belief that the human genetic code was mostly junk DA left over from our so called ancestors, well the creation scientists proved them wrong and your scientists unwavering belief resulted in a stagnation of genetic research that probably set us back decades in this research.
I really can't understand why educated people (assumption) like yourself can swallow such drivel, it's not based on solid scientific facts, just assumptions, interpretation, speculation and conjecture
Here is my take on the subject, I like yourself and others once believed in evolution but on closer scrutiny it just doesn't stack up.
THE THEORY OF SPECULATIVE EVOLUTION - HARD SCIENCE FICTION
Evolution is a hypothesis that relies on one or all of the following speculative deceptions. Compare the Speculative Method below against the Scientific Method to see the difference:-
SPECULATIVE METHOD SCIENTIFIC METHOD
1. Interpretations/Imagination 1. Observable
2. Assumptions 2. Measurable
3. Speculation and 3. Repeatable
4. Conjecture 4. Predictable
Point to any of the so called scientific evidence for evolution and you will definitely find one if not all of the above speculative method criteria. You find this in all their so called peer reviewed papers, videos and documentaries. The evolution theory has its origins thousands of years before Charles Darwin proposed the idea, it was a philosophy proposed by ancient Greek philosophers. Charles Darwin just made the idea popular, he plagiarised the idea from his grandfather who plagiarised from the ancient philosophers.
In many ways it is a process of deceit and one of self deception where they often deceive themselves because it then becomes easier to deceive others. The deception begins to explain the creation of the universe through a naturalistic and materialistic worldview, this is purely a secular strategy to defeat God and the Bible. It is broken down into 6 fundamental principles that requires deep time (billions of years) to achieve.
1. Cosmic evolution
2. Chemical Evolution
3. Stellar and Planetary evolution
4. Organic Evolution
5. Macro Evolution
6. Micro Evolution or what I would call adaptation.
The first 5 fit within the categories of the speculative method and is only a belief which grows into a blind faith, a religion if you like where God is TIME, Evolution without time is a dead hypothesis. Micro evolution on the other hand is the only observed evidence that fits real science and complies with the Scientific Method. Evolutionists/Atheists will try and convince you that Micro Evolution with "deep time" is Macro Evolution even when they can't point to any real scientific evidence. They rely on the interpretations of fossils, assumptions of age through a geological column that doesn't exist, speculation through a vivid imagination of missing links and then conclude using pure conjecture their belief is right. The alternative evidence that may point to intelligent design cannot be considered by them and always leads to denial because it doesn't fit "their" definition of science. True religious people trust the bible without question on the other hand Atheists/Evolutionists trust scientists without question, do you see how atheism is a religion. The only difference between the two is that religious people admit to their faith while atheists do not admit to theirs.
Ask yourself;
Who has more faith than an evolutionist?
Who believes in secret black box processes more than an evolutionist?
Who takes the story as given without any critical analysis more than a evolutionist?
Who believes in chance more than an evolutionist and who has a better imagination?
Just one example, and there are numerous others, that suggest a creator/ID is involved. If we assume that the latest Intel chip had a few hundred inventor-engineers behind its development, how is it that an organ, your brain, which is literally trillions of times more complex could develop by chance, with no designer? A single human brain is still more powerful than all the computers ever invented-put together.
The problem here is that the human brain could not possibly evolve from a single mutation, or from a dozen. It would literally take tens of thousands if not millions of little tiny steps, each of which would have to build on and integrate not only with the previous mutations on this journey, but with the previously existing brain. The problem is that these little intervening steps impart no evolutionary advantage for natural selection to select.
Similarly, speculative biology is simultaneously a science and form of art in which one speculates on the possibilities of life and evolution. Speculative evolution is full of "possibilities, crazy ideas, speculations, and things you wish you knew but never will" where many of the speculations about animal evolution involve informative guesses and hypotheses.
"Atheists will conclude that religion is for people who are afraid of the dark, but i like to say to them that atheism is for people who are afraid of the light" - John Lennox
"Extrordinary claims requires Extrordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan - so where is the Extrordinary evidence for evolution Mr Sagan ?
"......although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools" - Romans 1:20-22
And finally, could you tell me the ancestor of the giraffe and the pine tree and how these are related?
'Science promises us nothing and gives us everything.
Religion promises us everything and gives us nothing.'
@Younan Yaqoob Science explains the universe. Not your invisible magical sky fairy.
@@troig43
Science asks questions that might not yet have answers.
Religion has answers where you aren't allowed to ask questions.
@@TakeTheVeilESP That doesn't make sense...
SPOD FROM THE PLANET FTHIN don’t worry, mate, he’s on your side ❤️ (as am I)
@@troig43 How doesn't it make sense?
I agree it is sad. Usually they themselves don't quite understand the very thing they promote. Thanks for your words.
It is important to note that verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1 are not part of the six days of creation. 1 and 2 simply say that God created the heavens and the earth, and that it was done and complete. But it gives no time specification of how long it existed that way before verse three begins with the first DAY of the SIX days of creation.
Evolution is an old earth view.
So what exactly is your question.
The gap theory is false and unsupported scientifically.
As for myself, young earth based on various scientific hard evidence.
well said
Clearly, you have a primitive understanding of the Bible. In the Bible, there are things written by mere men inspired by the Holy Spirit and proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is in fact God inspired. Just a few things written about which proof it's divine author are the fact that the earth is round in Job (thousand of years before man knew). The perfect dimension (still used today) for an object to float (the Flood), the coming of the Messiah (Isaiah) and His exact death 700 years before the EVENT. Come on, how can you believe it was just written by primitive men? Makes no logical sense.
Because it also insists that hell is in the middle of the earth and that the sun revolves around the earth? Sure, you've named a few cases where the Bible was right about something. But why not address the full spectrum? It's also wrong about a lot of things we know today as false. So what now? Ignore those? A broken clock is right twice a day.
In fact, here is an entire Christian forum dedicated to discussing how it's true that the sun revolves around the earth: bibleforums.org/showthread.php/87698-The-sun-revolves-around-the-earth
We can't ignore that some people will believe things in error. But how can they even get that far unless there's something to support it? Look at this verse: Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed..."
Doesn't the sun ALWAYS stand still? The Bible implies it was moving and then stopped. But hey, I just read the words and comprehend them with my illogical ape brain.
This isn't even touching on the full claims of Geocentrism (which gets its fuel from the Old Testament) AND the flat earth theory. You know the one? The one where all indications in the Bible point to a flat earth? Wilbur Glenn Voliva offered a 5,000 dollar reward for anyone who could prove the earth was NOT flat. What an idiot, right? And these are God's devout followers. Blind to truth or science.
Dayron669
Are you familiar with the terms Sun Rise and Sun Set? I believe we still use that terminology today. Does that mean that those who use it believe the sun actually rises and sets?
The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy-also known as the second law of thermodynamics-stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.
I am looking forward to finding out why it took God so long to create the Universe. 6 days (24 hours each) seems like a long time for the God I have in my mind.
Because he wanted to. And remember this, the universe still hasn't stopped growing
You're still insane, I see.
People that believe in evolution are the least bit saved, they are foolish.
Man was created in the image of God, and God is nothing like an animal
Except he resembles an evolved ape from Earth.
@@doctorwebman Not only that, the DNA clearly shows evidence we're over 95% the same as some primates alive today. Weird that your god would make chimps from nearly the same life code if evolution by natural selection wasn't true... hmmmm. Its almost like the bible is just a made up story to give goat herders of olden days a sense of purpose in life.
@first last the evidence is called science
@Jim Anderson IF they don't believe in the Jesus according to the Scriptures, which is more than just His name or crucifixion then I don't believe they are. Evolution is against the faith, by Him and through Him were all things made - Colossians 1 and John 1
@Jim Anderson The gospel isn't that easy believeism nonsense, one has to believe more than He died for her sins on the cross.
You even omit the blood atonement which was the payment for sin, it wasn't just His death. I imagine your false gospel omits repentance as well.
If a person doesn't believe God is the Creator then they don't believe in God at all.
It's easy to make a claim " If you are denying the dozens of verses " and never give the verses isn't it? Makes it easy to misuse the Bible out of context.
Me before watching this: I have a hunch what he's gonna say.
Me After watching this: Did I expect anything more?
I agree with Piper when he said he leans towards old earth creation in Gen 1:1-2 and the days of creation were renovation.
Psa 104:30 KJV Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou **renewest** the face of the earth.
Read whole Psalm to see days of Genesis 1.
Psalms 33:6,8-9: "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.
Let all the earth fear the LORD; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.”
No evolution. Creation by fiat.
Exodus 29:11-
“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.”
- from the Ten Commandments, as dictated by the Creator God to Moses. This is part of the Fourth Commandment. Do you allegorize any of the other nine Commandments?
Genesis chapter 1 speaks for itself. Even a small child can understand that God created in six days. Which part don't you believe?
The second view he promotes doesn't fit with the Bible.
+GreenSlugg how so? how can you say indefinitely that genesis must be taken to be literal chronological 24 hour earth days? Do you have evidence to prove the author of Genesis intended the text to be intereted in such a manor? you do know that the literal interpretation of Gensis didnt become mainstream in Christianity until the 18 and 19th century, many of the first church fathers even held an old earth view
dannyboy765ify Thank you for asking. With regards to the historical view, Christians have almost universally agreed that the world was created in 6 literal days until so-called Old-Earth "geology" came along. There were very few exceptions throughout the history of Christendom.
(I object here, because the so-called scientific arguments for an Old Earth fall apart when looked at with any sort of scrutiny.)
With regards to the days in Genesis, the word yom (the Hebrew word for day) CAN mean a long period of time, but whenever it is used in the context of evening, morning or with a number, it always means an ordinary day.
In other words, we see it defined as an ordinary day, because it is used in conjunction with evening, and morning, and because they are connected with a number.
Furthermore, world-class Hebrew experts universally agree that the days in Genesis, based on the text alone, refer to ordinary days.
In other words, as far as the top experts are concerned, there is no debate, the days were indeed ordinary days.
What scrutiny do you know about that has fallen flat for an earth which is billions of years old?
And do you do the same scrutiny when you look at other scientifically accepted theories? Mainly medical theories which use evolution as a base to treat people and create the right vaccines and medicines?
+GreenSlugg actually some ancient philosophers or something, said that the days may have been metaphorical, but didn't know Tue age of The earth
DarkX Studios There were those who wanted the creation to be instantaneous, but the Hebrew is very clear.
I'm a Catholic Christian and the other day I had a discussion with a atheist, and I noticed that all of his statements about evolution were against christianism, giving for granted that I, as a Christian, don't believe in evolution. This discussion doesn't exist in Catholic Christianism... The Catholics long time ago stopped being so fundamentalist due to mistakes that putted the christian faith in jeapardy.. We, since childrens are teached that the Bible is NOT a cientific book, and we can read it, respect it, but we need the guidance of a pastor of the church that has gone through previous studies on the bible, ranging from theology to linguistics and other fields.. Probably in the USA this has been a great discussion and I believe it's doing a lot of damage, due to the freedom that exists in protestastism that everybody can interpret the bible as they want to.. Every day new "self enlightened prophets" appear and create new churches considering the existing ones a heresy, they justify themselves in their own interpretations. Each cientific discovery is a path for the humanity to approach to god, to reveal the things that were not revealed by Jesus and the prophets, to discover that god is way more bigger than we can even imagine, that creation goes beyond earth and the boundries of our senses, that the mechanisms of life that he created actually are quite different as we imagined. I hope you come and discuss and don't condem me to hell because of what I just said..
Edgar Contreras What are you getting at? That evolution isn't real or..?
Khalkara That we don't even discuss that. That we let science do those explorations and come up with answers. So, if science discovers that evolution is real then, it is real, if not, then it was a mistake, but definitely the book of genesis cannot be interpreted as a scientific fact.
Edgar Contreras Are you aware or am I the first one to tell you that the theory of evolution has been a confirmed fact for well over a decade now?
Khalkara Are you aware that I'm not discussing that?
Edgar Contreras I never implied that you did, I was asking if you were aware of this or not. What's the matter with you?
A description of a lightning flash is completely independent of the outer system that created it.
What you're talking about is the process by which flashes are created, and to describe that, you need to involve the weather system where they occur. I gave the example of evolution previously. It's the same thing.
To make it clear: Yes, "having recourse to other systems": namely inner systems. Never outer systems.
The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason? - Francis Collins
But If believe that Adam was real and that everything that is written in the Bible is correct, then he should believe that the earth was flat and that the firmament separates from us the waters from above
but then... The Bible says clearly its a round earth
Jayne Reinert i'm not entirely sure about this, but what about the waters above the firmament?
The term "firmament" and its identity has been one of the greatest puzzles concerning the Creation account, mostly because of its Hebrew definition:
רָקִיעַ raqiya` raw-kee'-ah
from 7554; properly, an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:-firmament.
He is saying about the heaven.
Isaiah 40:22.
Job 26:10. (God's View)
These verses confirming that earth is round.
source: answersingenesis.org/answers/books/taking-back-astronomy/the-universe-confirms-the-bible/
Jayne Reinert the firmament divides the waters above from the waters below, but there is not water above the sky. to me the bible should always be interpreted
Jayne Reinert the Bible definitely depicts a flat earth.
reality also shows us that the earth is flat.
i know this sounds crazy, when i first heard that people believed the earth is flat i thought it was crazy too, until i looked into it.
let me know if you want to have a discussion on this.
Is it also predestinated that he sits on this annoying chair?
No, it is foreordained :)
What is a day? One rotation of the earth?
Prior to Theia crashing into Earth and speeding up its rotation, can one say the earth was 24 hours as we know them?
God is omnipotent, he could of created everything in 1 day if he wanted to, but he choose 6 days .. God is not limited ..
I very much believe in the young Earth view, the Bible is Gods word and shows us the History of our world. The Bible starts from the beginning and leads into the different generations, all equaling about 6000 years. The Bible comes first, then you interpret the world through that Biblical lens. AnswersinGenesis is a very good website as far as explaining the way that the Earth could very probably be only 1000s of years old. Besides, why would God make the world go on for billions of years before introducing humans? I think it is important to get the idea of the age of the Earth from the Bible first, and historical science second.
I really don't care about what John Piper says.
Forrest Gump
I had to hear what he had to say before deciding I didn't care about what he is saying.
hunchbacked lol same here
hunchbacked
Moses Merete
I'm only here because I am doing a paper on Charles Darwin and how his theories affect us today.
Amen, Let God reveal himself through what he chooses.
… What? "God" making "choices" has nothing to do with the topic of "we don't care"
you got to be kidding you need some education, read something more than the bible
leslie i've read everything exist from nothing,and man came from ape,i'd rather believe in the bible..GOD who is infinite created evrything and i was created in the image of GOD..to GOD be the glory!
onelove he thinks he can decide on what the truth is hahaha. completely delusional.
get bake to me after you read Dr. Sam Harris's book.
leslie rose
Let me try to get this in a nutshell. There are two kinds of
evolution. Micro, and Macro. Thinking Christians (like John Piper) do not
reject Microevolution. Microevolution of species is observable, and accounts
for all the variations we see in nature within a species. Island bound birds
and mainland birds having different shaped beaks because of differing food
sources, etc. natural selection leading to similar birds with differing traits.
That’s fine. Christians (if they aren’t morons) get this. But what ALL students
of science should examine and question is MACROevolution. I am not just talking
about the idea that we all came from the same microbes (there’s plenty to talk
about there), but the idea that massive evolutionary changes come through
incremental, coincidental mutations over the course of millions of years, or massive
changes happening all at once.
The problem with Macroevolution is that In order for major changes to happen,
it would require “mother nature” to “plan” for future mutations. (notice the theistic
vernacular often used by evolutionary scientists)
Let’s say that the next step in human evolution is that we are going to develop
a second heart. So if something goes wrong with the first one, that second heart
has a chance at being able to shoulder the load, thus giving two hearted humans
an advantage over one hearted humans, and eventually becoming the dominant
trait.
Think about this for a second. One of two things would have to happen:
a) A person would have to, through genetic mutation, be born with a fully
functional, helpful, second heart, and would have to produce offspring with the
same viable trait (This is utterly impossible. Science can observe that this
simply cannot happen).
So the alternative is:
b) A person is born with a tiny, non-functional, vestigial (non-functional)
heart (which is a problem in and of itself, because by definition, “vestigial”
organs are left over, no longer needed organs that were once functional). This
tiny, non-working “beginning” of a second heart, would have to be un-harmful (and would therefore have to be highly complex right off the bat, wouldn't it?).
It would have to avoid getting blended back in to the gene pool (which is what
happens with all mutations because they are never beneficial). And it would
have to be “built” upon “randomly” by hundreds, if not thousands of subsequent, "coincidental," incremental, non-harmful
mutations over the next few million years to become functional.
This does not work. If I am way off base here, please tell me how.
I don’t care if you think “God” created the universe or not. You don’t have to
be a theist to realize the problems with Macroevolution/random mutation as the
basis for beneficial change within a species.
I hear what you are saying. My observation was primarily geared towards naturalists who claim that such changes happen without the guidance of an intelligent designer.
Macroevolution, from a nationalistically observable perspective is literally impossible to prove. It is an IDEA. It's a guess. And it is, ultimately an old and illogical one.
You said "Macroevolution is no different than Microevolution: it is simply a genetic code change that has a larger effect." That is false. One is observable, the other is not. Microevolution is reactive. It is an existing species reacting, and adapting to it's environment. It can be observed and proven. Macroevolution is a forming of new systems out of nothing. 9 chemical processes have to happen at the same time for blood to clot. NINE. It is completely illogical for a naturalist to believe that these systems formed A) All at once, in one giant evolutionary super coincidence, or B) they formed through millions of years worth of coincidences. That all the chemical components of clotting blood just fell into place, one by one. (Whoops. We're not hemophiliacs.)
You said: "Evolution does not "plan" to change a certain way; rather, it is reactionary."
This statement is correct only based upon the assumption that there is something there already to react to.
Again, Microevolution, is reactive, just as you said.
You said: "Evolution does not add organs or functions arbitrarily, but it is genetically driven."
Again, this is true of Microevolution. But in order for change to be "genetically driven," there must be a working system in place first. It is this already functioning system that can then adapt. The code has to be in place. That is how genetics work.
Marcoevolution is intrinsically not reactive. In concept, it is creative. (One cannot even use the word "creative" without alluding to intelligence)
In taking issue with my example of humans evolving a second heart, you said: "A slight change in heart size or function is sensible. If somehow a mutation caused a second heart and this was beneficial it might remain. However, it seems likely that the circulatory system would not be set up to run with a second heart, the extra heart would have some kind of duplicating defect that would incorporate other things and this would cause a major malfunction."
You are absolutely correct. That was my point exactly. Small, reactive changes are believable and observable. But the idea of sweeping, massive, creative change that is beneficial is much harder to envision (without a designer).
The 3rd grade science books say otherwise. So our children are taught an absurdity, and grow up believing it, not because they have thought through all its implications, but because they are young and a teacher told them so, and they grow up believing the impossible is rock hard science.
Too many Christians are afraid. Many modern Christians have fallen for the silly lie that the concept of God is illogical. That you have to suck it up and ignore science to believe in God. You don't.
Ironically, the only person to respond to me (you) responded with this point: There is a designer, and he could have used Evolution.
My point is simpler: There is a designer.
And on this point, I am very thankful we agree.
Extremely important topic.
Gospel are built on Genesis.
Yeshua referred to Adam and Eve.
Unfortunately most of us have been lied to. Better do your research as Bereans. We can no longer allow the leadership to lead us into doubt or division. The early church were unified in all ways including this subject.
One solution is that incest was a sin once God said not to do it. It does raise the thorny question of whether some things are inherently sinful and why things would be okay at one point in history but not in another. For example, there are lots of things that are wrong for us today that were not forbidden to the children of Israel (or were even commanded for the children of Israel). God's sovereignty is mysterious and beyond our full comprehension. Hope that helps a bit.
2 peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. i dunno, could be young, could be old, we really aren't 100% sure, guess we will wait for God to give us the answer
I agree. Thanks Nickolaus
The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
It could have been 24 hour days, but at least for the first few probably wasn't because remember the Biblical calendar is observation based and therefore the length of the day is based on how fast the earth spins around its axis, and for the first few days earth was the only entity in the universe so the timescale was probably different (could have been faster or slower), but that does not justify an old earth model.
1 I am sorry you had a struggle in early life,but some life challenges can make us wiser in the end. I agree with your reply from God that it is irrelevant what you see going on in the lives of others people to know whether they are dead spiritually inside or if being rich will lead to early death for them. I have always helped others because it is my nature having God's love in me and never need thanks or rewards. The Bible has contradictory verses about paying for other peoples "sins". 2
I sincerely appreciate Mr. Piper for being honest and forthright. His remark that basically says, as do we atheists, that Adam HAS to be an actual, historical figure, because without him, no Original Sin, and no need for Redemption.
Of course, setting Adam aside, we still would like an explanation for why an all-powerful entity would go to such convoluted and inexplicable lengths for something that the entity itself has decided is important. Why the twisted and violent path?
If there were higher powers who were controlling me and making me do things, why would I bother to get up in the morning to live my life and help others? If I decided to stay in bed and sleep or go rob a bank, it would make no difference because I could say the angels made me do it. How would a court judge know that I did something or an Angel CONTROLLED me and MADE me do something? Am I responsible for what Angels make me do?
When the bible said the earth is circular scientists didnt talk about that. but when they suspected that the bible contradicts science, they went crazy.
How do you know they don't? Not the end. I am a Spiritual Deist, not a Christian. I came to my beliefs after years of research and life experience. From your words, it may be that you have not had much life experience yet. I have no need to change anyone's beliefs. There is only free will within the limits of God's Will that I know of. Do you know of another kind of will or No will? Like robots? I do not know everything and I am capable of making mistakes too. Be kind to yourself. Peace
The important point brought forth by this very short discussion is the perhaps most important point in the creation story.
The age of the Earth is not what is important about the creation story.
Adam is what is important in the creation story. God and Adam.
Either Adam was a real, historical person who was created perfectly by God, disobeyed God, and is the progenitor of humanity, or man was not created perfect, there was not an individual who disobeyed God, nor is there an individual who is the progenitor of humanity.
Thank you, Pastor John. Christians, theistic evolutionists, and atheists have argued round and round for centuries and gotten nowhere, talking about stars and animals and ages. This universe was created for MAN by GOD. Man was created in God's image and God Himself became a man. It doesn't really matter how old the Earth is, it matters how old Man is. If Adam wasn't real, Jesus doesn't need to be real, either. If Adam was real then Jesus is real.
Personally, since I believe Man is a special creation of God's, I have no trouble believing that the animals and stars were, as well.
The water boiled because I turned on the electric kettle. The water boiled because I wanted a cup of tea. Both phrases are correct.
Looking at Hebrew literature, dust usually indicates fleetingness and mortality. When God says that Adam is made from the dust of the earth it likens him to other living things: mortal. But the tree of life/Gods presence in man is that which gives him eternality. I think because the old testament writers (particularily in Genesis) were not scientists or astrologians, they spoke truth in cosmically poetic and beautiful terms. I understand literal/direct interpretation, but I think both can be seen as faithful attempts to interpret things as awesomely incredible as the creation of man and the universe. I dont think our judgement will render us damned solely for coming to honest conclusions that arent the same as each other or even arent totally aligned with reality. Its always been about our hearts and if we're seeking truth, this topic should serve as a facet for amplifying the beauty of the revelation of creation and through it, the majesty of God.
God didn't say anything.. people said things that they claim was Inspired by God..
No amount of demonstration can overcome your indignation to the thought that you ought to submit to your creator.
Do many of these posts even make sense after the 18th century publication of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason? The complete 21st century denial of major philosophical work is a wonder to behold.
I forgot to mention that Dr. Hugh Ross is another well-known OEC who certainly believes in Adam and Eve. In fact, those names appear in several of his titled including "Who was Adam?" [Or something like that.] A lot of Christians in the USA know of Dr. Ross because of his radio program and podcasts. ReasonsToBelieve + org is his website.
{CZcams doesn't allow links}
But I would love to learn more about why you thought "these are not compatible beliefs."
Red Herring! No one (I know) is saying the Nazis were intentionally seeking to "promote atheism" but that their policies were guided by their ideology which was Nietzschean which is atheistic. That is, their atheism made their policies (including the holocaust) possible.
There was no mochary in his voice. I think perhaps you were looking for/expecting that so thus you heard it. His laughter was directed to the "acceptance" phrase. Listen for the context he was using in reference to that word. There was nothing negative or mocking about it.
Some questions about being created in God`s image ( if we are to address the rather turgid biblical literalists idea that God looks like a giant space primate,rather than the more elegant theological idea that man has the power of the divine within him) Does God have an appendix? Why ? Does He have a willy? Does He ever watch TV and play with it ,like most blokes? Is that where Earthquakes come from ?
Had we evolved with paws, or hooves, rather than fingers, how much concern do you believe any of us would have about there being an "after-life?"
If you are treating other people kindly and with compassion. It does not matter you believe in creationism or evolution. If you are a good dude, no matter you believe in Buddism, Catholic, Protestant, Muslims, Judaism, Agnositc, Atheism, you live righteously according to the universe.
That there is no way to know how the earth was created without having someone physically be there. Thus there is two people man can have faith in, faith in man(science), or faith in God. If we where 100% correct on anything everyone would have to believe it, until then I will continue to follow in Jesus' footsteps. I hope you do too.
That part was flat out literal bro:P
This is common knowledge, by no means extraordinary.
Young earth with plenty of creation science to back it up for those who care to explore.
Amen, Creation is God's design.
rotten design all the way around ,the list is a mile long with all his screw ups, visit a children's hospital , nursing home or Africa for starters
The title seems to be a little bit misrepresentation of the Old Earth Creationists position. The Old Earth people don't believe in evolution. I listen to John Piper a lot but it would be awesome if he would be able to conduct a cordial discussion with Dr. Hugh Ross.
It's a matter of comprehension, rather than belief.
It's an interesting considera perhaps the universe itself is very old and yet the material realm as we know it is fairly new. There are countless implications that would follow and perhaps create a world view for the origin of a number of elements of creation, spiritual, primordial, material, etc. With that said, who knows, honestly, though we do know God takes an active and direct role throughout history and all of creation in one form or another, enough to die for us, His created.