Lesson 10/16: Special Creation and Evolution

[seraph595]

Evolution is the creation of the desperate atheist to understand the world around him. If your an evolutionist stop believing lies, its not too late. Weird theories like this will not save you from death.

[bailesie]

@seraph595 LMAO! that's some good stuff, mate. Make sure you put on your tin-foil hat, too.

[hugesinker]

@seraph595 Most people who accept evolution are Christian, and most Christians accept evolution. Let that fact sink in a bit.

[Majoofi]

I can't get over how someone who thinks as systematically and logically as you can still assert that a god exists without any evidence for it. Surely as anything but a comforter you can see how a god is reduced to a logical triviality

[carlsagandisciple]

@Majoofi just another example of how fear blinds the great muscle that is the mind

[richardaberdeen]

Much of the confusion today is because of the term "evoution" itself, which is a very poor descriptive word of what is actually going on in the real life reality and should have been discarded long ago. It is misleading to pretend that species "evolve" from other species. Rather, ALL OF LIFE is created to be able to adapt and change to changing environments in order to survive. This is fairly described as "life in transition", rather than evolution. Life is created to adapt so it can survive

[richardaberdeen]

The so-called "universal family tree" of evolution represents a gross assumption on the part of evolutionists. For all science knows, life sprang up from all over the earth, died out and sprang up again several times, rather than from a singular origin, as some modern biologists are beginning to suspect. Anyone worthy of the title "skeptic" would seriously challenge a theory based on such a gross assumption; even evidence for micro-organisms is less than 1/2 of the earth's actual age.

[Dchellberg]

@richardaberdeen Life may have sprung up several times but the evidence shows that all current and all extinct life is related. Evolution is the study of how life diversified once it began and Abiogenesis is the study of life's origin. There is evidence of simple life from about 4/5th of Earth's existance not 1/2. We are usually called scientists or Biologists only creotards resort to "evolutionists"-there is not a scientific alternate so a general scientist will do.

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg Various secular biologists have publicly stated on PBS that life may be able to appear on land, in caves, in plain dirt, under the earth, in fresh water, in ocean water and "where ever there is a little wetness"; some even believe it arrived on space rocks. Some viruses contain only RNA and no DNA and thus, how, when, where and why life first appeared on our planet remains one of the greatest mysteries of science; this according to many practicing scientists in various fields.

[Dchellberg]

@richardaberdeen All scientists are secular when they are doing science. Anything else would be adding a bias into the process. As to your main point here "so what"? Science is all about exploring mysteries

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg Because either life or "pre-life" may have arrived on space rocks and may be able to appear almost anywhere, IT REMAINS ENTIRELY UNKNOWN WHETHER LIFE ALL POINTS BACK TO A SINGULAR ORIGINATION POINT AS DARWINIST "TREE THEORY" HAS LONG ASSUMED OR, THAT LIFE CAME FROM "ZILLIONS" OF TINY FORMS. Even Darwin knew enough to include "forms" in the plural in his final version of On The Origin of Species. Science knows very little about life, this again according to several scientists.

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg And finally, I'm not trying to "fit my theories" into the Bible. I'm a lifetime student of history which includes the history of science. The history of science very clearly demonstrates that science is playing "catch-up" to what the Bible long ago claimed is true. God does not bow to science but rather, science eventually bows to God. A great many things believed by modern science found in the Bible were unknown prior to the 2nd half of the 20th Century.

[Dchellberg]

@richardaberdeen Science is trying to catch up to the Bible! You are trying to fit scientific findings into a Biblical framework. That won't work because the people who compiled the oral traditions into the Bible had a faulty understanding of reality. Garbage in garbage out....no matter how poetically the garbage is written. Evidence for your science Bible is where? Pi =3 Talking serpents, woman created from dirt or a man's rib etc

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg Bullshit. According to the Bible there are multiple heavens, the sky will one day roll back like a scroll, all of the people on earth will be able to view the same image at the same time which will both move and speak, the sun, moon and stars will not give their light for a time due to a significant volcanic eruption, the earth will lose a substantial amount of green plant life, all grasses will be burned up, great famines will result and the earth will lose significant fresh water.

[Dchellberg]

@richardaberdeen You must have a different Bible than I do . Mine does not even use the term volcano anywhere. It does say that bats are birds....maybe that is why you have become bat shit crazy.

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg These are only a very few of the many things unknown to science prior to the 20th Century that are all predicted in the Bible. For your information, the U.S. and several European militaries have already conceded that global warming will go past the tipping point of 2 degrees Centigrade higher and global warming models and other science predict everything on the previous list will in fact, happen, just as the Bible long ago predicted.

[Dchellberg]

@richardaberdeen Again my Bible is missing the part about global warming. It does say Jesus existed, he rose from the dead and would return in glory during his followers lifetime. There was a prediction that was spelled out clearly that was wrong. I am unaware of a clear prediction that was made before an event that was improbable ever being fulfilled. The Late Great Planet Earth is still here all Biblical predictions to the contrary.

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg The Bible consistently uses terminology familiar to the authors. The Bible says a "something like a large burning mountain" will be cast into the sea causing great havoc on our planet--modern science predicts a volcano much larger than Krakatoa is set to blow any time. The Bible says a large "burning star" will strike the earth causing much havoc--modern science says the earth is overdue for a significant asteroid hit. Both scenarios will result exactly as described in the Bible.

[Dchellberg]

@richardaberdeen I am unaware of any super volcano that is set to blow anytime. One may in the next hundred thousand years or so-geologically imminent but bot Biblically imminent. I would like the Chapter & Verse of your "quotations" please. It reads like you have used the same verses for a volcano and a asteroid but neither are clearly defined. You are claiming that science has predicted that Earth will experience both a super volcano and a significant asteroid strike any time. Right!

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg Because you are not aware of something does not mean it is not true. A video on PBS last year spent an hour detailing why in the same place where Krakatoa exploded, a much larger explosion is going to go off and probably sooner rather than later. Science has been aware of this for several years, whether or not you are. And it will explode out into the ocean, just as predicted in the Bible.

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg And, I have never heard of an astronomer who does not believe the earth is overdue for a significant asteroid strike. It is virtually a scientific certainty that the earth will be hit by a large asteroid again, as it has been many times in the past. It is a matter of when, not if. Your several responses clearly demonstrate you haven't actually studied very much science or history.

[Dchellberg]

@richardaberdeen Overdue perhaps but imminent enough to fulfill Biblical predictions that were supposed to have been fulfilled two thousand years ago, no.

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg That's a complete lie. Jesus very clearly said that several kingdoms would rise and fall before the end times and the predictions in the Bible are very clearly future predictions. There is no precise dates given on purpose, as the Bible says in several places, as well as Jesus himself taught that nobody knows the dates and times of God's plan; noted also in a Paul Simon song, "God makes his plan, the information is unavailable to the moral man", which comes straight out of the NT.

[Dchellberg]

@richardaberdeen Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27-see this is how it is done.

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg You did not tell me which of my several responses you were referring to, thus I have no idea how to provide a reference. The majority of what I stated is found in Revelations. Several statements by Jesus in the four gospels agree with, enhance and augment what is found in Revelations. If you haven't read the Bible, studied science and history, that is your problem, not mine. This is my last response to you because apparently all you want to do is argue against well-known facts.

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg FACT: The vast majority of modern scientists believe that the earth is overdue for a large volcanic eruption and for a large asteroid hit. FACT: The U.S. military and various European militaries have already concluded that global warming will go past what is called the "tipping point" and will cause major loss of plant life and great famine--several articles have been published about this in the Washington Post, NY Times and by leading European British military author Gwynne Dyer.

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg FACT: Several things predicted by Jesus in both the gospels and Revelations agree precisely with the same scenario that modern global warming, earthquake, volcanic, cosmology and other science predicts. I'M NOT GOING TO WASTE ANY MORE OF MY TIME ARGUING WITH YOU ABOUT WELL KNOWN FACTS. You can research the information for yourself. So, go crawl back in your hole of lying-ass deceit and come back when you've actually studied a little Bible, science and history for yourself.

[Dchellberg]

@richardaberdeen This is where you would support your "facts" with evidence, in this case the Chapter and Verse that supports you. I do agree that this has been a waste of time for us but hopefully not for those who might have followed the posts. I think it is pretty evident who is the "lying-ass". It should also be clear who is a hypocrite claiming to follow Jesus while lying, insulting, & swearing. I would also recommend Richards channel for any of you Hee-Haw devotees.

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg The Bible says 1/3 of the earth's plant life will be burned up and all of the earth's grasses (including what we and cattle depend on to eat) will be burned up, causing great famine. Modern global warming models predict that a significant amount of the earth's plant life will be burned up, first to go will be the earth's grasses and, this will result in great famine and likely much war and human conflict, which is also what the Bible predicts. Who the hell are you trying to kid?

[Dchellberg]

@richardaberdeen Passage please

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg I don't what you are referring to as I have given several responses.

[Dchellberg]

@richardaberdeen Although I have frequently asked you refuse to give me the Biblical Chapter and Verse to support your ranting and raving. When you supply the information I will read what the Bible actually says without the apocalyptic lenses you are seeing through. You have made a bat shit crazy claims about the science proving Biblical claims now support your claims with Bible verses. I have already shown your interpretaion of the science is wrong now I will do the same for the Bible.

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg The Bible predicts that the afore mentioned scenarios will cause the sun, moon and stars to not give their light, which is exactly what modern science says will happen if a large volcano goes off, dwarfing the recent problems by a much smaller one in Iceland. The Bible says the same image will be able to be seen by people all over the earth and the image will both move and speak.--this prediction was mocked for centuries and now it commonly occurs every day on people's cell phones.

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg The Bible says God has prepared a place for those who reject his free forgiveness, a bottomless pit located in outer darkness, from which no one can escape containing a lake of fire. Modern science recently discovered in the late 1990's there is a certain type of black hole located in dark voids in space where no visible stars reside, which contains an inner event horizon "sea of fire" that Britannica describes as a "bottomless pit". Again, who the hell are you trying to kid?

[Dchellberg]

@richardaberdeen late 1990's is recent science. An event horizon would have inadequate supply of free oxygen to rapidly combine with other elements to cause a sea of fire. You are stretching beyond any standard to try to get reality to fit your superstition.

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg According to Neil DeGrasse Tyson, there is a certain type of black hole that resides in dark voids in space where there are no visible stars (i.e., outer darkness); this was discovered only recently because it is not easy to detect. According to Tyson, it is theorized that inside of this type of black hole, there is a second event horizon "sea of fire" containing the remnants of "eaten" stars. Certain types of black holes are described in Britannica as a "bottomless pit".

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg And, neither you nor anyone else knows for certain what is inside a black hole, so you are like usual, only blowing smoke. Nothing can escape a black hole---there is no way to detect what is inside of one and thus, whatever is inside of black holes is theoretical and not proven science. Anybody who has actually studied the science of black holes already knows that, which apparently does not include you.

[Dchellberg]

@richardaberdeen Are you suggesting that a literal lake of fire exists at the event horizon and that this is what Tyson wrote. Again you misuse the term science, you are consistent anyway.

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg You don't read very carefully, which is one of the several problems of your responses. I did not say a lake of fire exists at the event horizon. According to Neil DeGrasse Tyson, this type of black hole has a SECOND inner event horizon that is like a "sea of fire". That is what he said on PBS, not what I said. This is theoretical, as no human being can prove what is actually inside a black hole, but there is no doubt that God knows.

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg You can Google info for yourself. Wikipedia places age for earth at 4.5 billion and earliest life at 3.8. Other sources give age as low as 4.3 and earliest life as low as 2.5 - some are inbetween these two extremes. As one can easily see, scientists themselves don't agree how, when, where or why life first appeared. Regardless of which figures are correct, there remains a significant gap with no evidence. Abiogenesis includes several conflicting ideas and is not "science".

[Dchellberg]

@richardaberdeen Conflicting hypothesis (ideas) make abiogenesis not science? Are you equating absolute knowledge as a requirement for something to be science? You get absolute knowledge (or the claim of it) from religion not science. Science is a method of inquiry not acclaim of absolute knowledge.

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg When there are many different often conflicting ideas, that is not "science" but rather, it demonstrates that science as a whole doesn't really know. Many scientists don't believe that abiogenesis is a legitimate field of science. It is mainly a modern ivory tower term for spontaneous generation and otherwise, embracing gross superstition for which there is not a shred of evidence. Antony Flew entirely shreds the very notion of abiogenesis in his most recent book.

[Dchellberg]

@richardaberdeen How are many conflicting ideas not science? That would be the exciting beginning of a new field of inquiry. Again science is not about knowing-religion is about knowing. Science is a method of provisionally accepting theories that account for the evidence we have while gathering more evidence in an attempt to falsify the theory. You continue to write like a religious creationist with Bible colored blinders on.

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg Science, by modern definition, represents a large majority common consensus opinion. For example, A2 + B2 = C2 is "science" and E-MC2 is science, even if not correct. In order for a theory to be considered science, it must have large general consensus support among the world's scientific community. Anything that does not have a large general consensus support is considered opinion and not "science". Abiogenesis has many conflicting opinions and no general consensus.

[Dchellberg]

@richardaberdeen wrong....where do you get your definitions from?

[Dchellberg]

@richardaberdeen Anthony Flew shortly before his death changed his long held acceptance of Atheism because he could not envision a naturalistic origin for DNA. He continued to reject Christianity and described himself as a Deist like your buddy Jefferson. Jefferson and Flew both rejected the Bible as divinely inspired. We do not currently understand how life on Earth originated though we do have hypothesis we are testing. How does this state of affairs confirm the Bible or Christianity?

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg I've read Flew's book and he entirely shreds any and every abiogenesis theory, as well as any and every other absurd position of Dawkins, Dennett and other militant atheists. He has very little to say about DNA, which is only one of a great many reasons why he changed his mind. Either you have not read his book "There Is a God" or, you are just deliberately misrepresenting Antony Flew, an honest philosopher and scientist trying to go by the evidence.

[Dchellberg]

@richardaberdeen See letter to editor by Anthony Flew in Philosophy Now Aug/Sept, 2010 & Also see Letter to to the Editor New York Times from Roy Abraham Varghese regarding the authorship of "There Is A God". I am sure you were quite aware of the controversy surrounding this book before you brought it up yet you failed to mention it. Of note Stanford University just posted six new lectures on abiogenesis and exobiology you might enjoy. A bit of activity for non-scientific superstition.

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg I've read Flew's book, which is sitting in my library--in his book, he spends many pages explaining why he is no longer an atheist and very little of that explanation is in reference to DNA. The main reason he is no longer an atheist according to his book is because it is an irrational conclusion, based on the known evidence, which I have known since high school and I am now over 60 years old. Any moron knows atheism is an irrational conclusion.

[richardaberdeen]

One can just as easily Mr. Glover's providence description around and say that if we only teach our children physical science without addressing where the universal reality came from in public schools, then we will leave them with no morality. Which is plainly witnessed in the modern age, where students take what they learn in public schools and use it to build WMDs and create Wall Street fraud scams. What we get when we eliminate God from science is homeless veterans and mass global pollution

[Dchellberg]

@richardaberdeen Morality is picked up from parents and our surrounding community as we grow up. Science shows us how the Universe is, we can decide how we want to live in it. Basing a moral system on ancient holy texts does not work, as we have seen by studing History.

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg According to the Bible, as Jefferson later echoed, morality and legal laws are based on our shared human conscience. You are entirely confused regarding the known historical facts. Similar moral laws and a very similar "golden rule" appear throughout the historical record in a great many diverse and often non-connected cultures. The SAME morality taught by Jesus remains the basis of modern human rights.

[Dchellberg]

@richardaberdeen You keep referencing Jefferson for some reason. Jefferson removed all of Jesus supposed miracles in his New Testament The Jefferson Bible. What is a shared human conscience? Is it like ESP or some other made up phenomenon? The Golden Rule predates Jesus and is the byproduct of humans living in social groups. No mystery here.

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg I referenced Jefferson because Jefferson, unlike you, was very historically correct to state it is self-evident we are endowed with certain rights, because they are clearly historically written on a humanity's shared conscience. Francis Collins has likewise pointed this out, stating in a word of random evolution without intelligence behind the process, one would expect very different rather than similar laws in non-connected cultures. You are very wrong about this.

[Dchellberg]

@richardaberdeen What is humanity's shared conscience? Are you suggesting that all cultures currently and historically have the same values? Wrong! Evolution is not random and your stating that it is shows a total lack of understanding. it is not directed and does not show intelligent intervention. Mutations are directionally random but natural selection is the opposite of random.

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg Apparently you think you know more about evolutionary theory than Francis Collins, but I doubt it. Basic laws against murder, adultery, theft and false witness are abundantly spread throughout the history of human civilization and what is called the golden rule surfaces in at least 37 often non-connected cultures. Any moron who has picked up a history book or two knows this demonstrates a shared human conscience, which is what the Bible claimed thousands of years ago.

[richardaberdeen]

According to recent DNA global analysis, ALL current living human beings are descended from a common female ancestor no earlier than 12,000 years ago and possibly more recent. This is due to what science calls "cross-breeding" within a species, which weeds out weaker strains in lineage. Thus once again, modern science has managed to catch up with what the Bible long ago claimed is true, which claims in Luke that Jesus descended directly from Adam, which is accurate as far as anyone knows.

[Dchellberg]

@richardaberdeen Way off on the date for Mitrochondrial eve. You are trying very hard to fit science into your Biblical framework. It just does not fit. You need to be more honest in your interpretation, your dishonesty does not reflect well on your faith, whatever it is.

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg The earth is considered over 4 billion years old. Earliest evidence for microbes according to Britannica is about 2.5 billion. Earliest evidence for macro life is 700-800 million, less than 1 billion. That is current data, whether you like it or not. Recent discoveries indicate that very early macro life was much more complex than previously assumed. What is called evolution does not represent "advancement" but rather, change. A far more correct term is "life in transition". 

[Dchellberg]

@richardaberdeen I get Earth 4.5BYA and first evidence of life 3.7BYA. I do not recall using the term advancement in describing Evolution but if I did I stand corrected-better adapted to current environment would be better. What year was your encyclopedia published 1979?

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg You obviously didn't research very thoroughly because when I Google it, which I did for a recently article I wrote, I came up with several different figures, depending on which source. But it doesn't matter because it has nothing to do with what I stated whether the figure is 3.7 or 2.5. The fact is, there is a significant gap of at least 800 million years that remains completely unknown to science and likely always will. And the other fact is, many scientists do not agree.

[Dchellberg]

@richardaberdeen Gap of 800million years.......the time that science lost? What are you trying to claim here? Earth formed in a molten state then some time passed....800,000,000 years or so and then there is evidence of life. OK so what. Or after there is evidence for life then there are no exposed rocks of the right age and location so there is a 8 million year gap between first and later life? So.... Many scientists do not agree about lots of things......so?

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg There is no existing geologic or fossil record for the first 800 million years of the earth's existence. This is a long held and well established belief of modern science and your ignorance of it demonstrates, as do some of your other responses, that you are poorly educated in both history and science in general.

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg And the third and much more significant fact is, nobody knows how, when or where first arose on our planet and several currently practicing scientists have publicly stated that science probably never will know. The real truth is, Richard Dawkins doesn't know any more than me, a motel maid, a conservative preacher or a truck driver or you, how, where or when life first arose on our planet.

[Dchellberg]

@richardaberdeen So?

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg My responses are refuting many of your claims here, which are neither historically or scientifically accurate, nor is there a shred of logic to or a shred of evidence for the silly superstitious notion that there is no God. That is the "so".

[Dchellberg]

@richardaberdeen You are so backwards here....wow.

[richardaberdeen]

The correct term is "life in transition". The term evolution causes all manner of misconceptions, including this video's assumption of universal common descent. There is no conclusive evidence that all of life "descended" from one common ancestor, something Darwin seriously questioned. For all science knows, life appeared from all over the earth several times, died out & reappeared. The truth is, NOBODY KNOWS, a concept foreign to many modern people, who feel compelled to pretend they know.

[allboxed]

Skeptoid.com



[Dchellberg]

I take offense at the showing of Nazi Death Camps as though this had anything to do with Evolution. Hitler was a Roman Catholic that based much of his hatred of Jews on the influence of Martin Luther and Christian principals. Hitler was unaware of Evolution through Natural Selection.

[glovergj]

@Dchellberg Relax. I agree with you. I'm showing the associations in context because they are frequently made by opponents of evolution.

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg One might also "take offense" at atheists who pretend there is no God, good or evil, who can't explain why Albert Schweitzer and Adolf Hitler would both arise in the same "advanced" species, which is supposedly morally evolving towards overall advantage. If modern people are so much more moral than ancient people of history, why did WWII and Vietnam happen, were more people died by far than in all ancient wars combined?

[Dchellberg]

@richardaberdeen Schweitzer and Hitler were both Christians-assuming you consider Roman Catholics Christians. How do you explain one arguably benefited humanity while the other was genocidal? I would have to pretend(delude myself) there is a God unless evidence were provided for her existence. Vietnam is a country not an event. Are you referring to the Vietnamese defeating colonial France, or the undeclared war USA fought there, or Vietnam invading Cambodia and stopping genocide.

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg There is no evidence that Hitler had any sincerity regarding either Catholicism or God, which are not remotely the same thing; religion does not equal either sincerity or God. You are trying to "pull a Daniel Dennett", who pretends because Catholics are wrong, therefore there is no God. You can't get away with that crap around me. Catholicism and Christianity are not God, they are ridiculous absurd religions having nothing in common with either Jesus or the authors of the Bible.

[Dchellberg]

@richardaberdeen Would Hitler's writings and speeches count as evidence? Or do you have personal access to Hitler and you asked him perhaps? Perhaps if you actually read Dennett and understood him you would stop raving so absurdly. I think "Breaking The Spell" would be most appropriate.

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg And, the roots of the Vietnam War trace back to WWI, where a young Ho Chi Minh, who at the the time was on the "side" of the European allies, was denied his request that Vietnam be allowed to have a democraticly elected government and choose her own destiny. Instead, the greedy USA allowed France to retain their colonial colony because the USA wanted a cheap steady supply of Vietnam's rubber and tin. I've actually studied the history, who are you trying to kid?

[Dchellberg]

@richardaberdeen You said when Vietnam happened. I said Vietnam is country not an event and asked what you meant and offered a few options. You then refused to explain yourself and offered insults and a "history lesson" instead. Answer the question.

[tgillspy]

The horror of eugenics became for adolf hitler,the main motivation and basis for the final solution.The evil acts that he attempted to carry out-selective breeding based on racial purity is proof of an evolutionary ideology.Now,anybody who knows and has biblical wisdom,understands this to be a wicked new age plan that of a masterfully cunning madman who gave himself over to the power of darkness,He being a shadow of him who is to come -Antichrist on the authority of a New World Order endgame

[richardaberdeen]

@Dchellberg It is literally impossible to discuss evolutionary theory in any kind of legitimate context in the amount of space allowed on YouTube. I have very clearly provided substantial evidence in Appendix C in my free online book, Fixing America in 500 Words or Less, which can be found at my website, my name and dot and then com. Thus, your comments about my lack of supporting evidence are like everything else atheists pretend, nothing but a big fucking lie.

[Dchellberg]

@richardaberdeen Again with the swearing! I already checked out your website, had a good laugh and then recommended you to Hee Haw fans. See I do my research. I again ask you for the Biblical chapter and verse to support your crazy apocalyptic predictions. Oh, wait a minute, you said you were not going to respond anymore. You lied again. Lying, swearing what a typical follower of Jesus.

[jesusfish305]

thank you so much for these videos, I am only an undergraduate in marine biology but already there were things that conflicted with my christian beliefs and that just didnt make sense, you have helped me realize that I do not have to choose between science and my relationship with my christian God of the Bible. Thank you.

[ByTor190]

The 'immaterial world' is equal in all discernible ways to the non existent.

[DoKtaTre]

WRONG!! You're SO wrong! Genesis does NOT even infer that God created every species distinctly. That's such a strawman argument that you OBVIOUSLY don't even believe YECs believe that; you can't. God created animals to bring forth AFTER THEIR KIND. (for those too ignorant to understand synonyms, this means "GENUS").

[glovergj]

That's funny. But it doesn't matter whether a biblical kind is a species or a genus. Creationism fails either way.

[DoKtaTre]

Please...enlighten me. Was it the light from distant stars argument? already responded to that one. Was it the geologic column? I think HYDROLOGIC SORTING much better explains the layers...animals running to higher ground explains why archeologist's discover "finds" in dig-sites...all collected together...

[glovergj]

You don't know what your talking about. Hydrologic doesn't explain trace fossils like burrows through limestone, nor can it explain alternating layers of sandstone and shale -- which both require extremely tranquil conditions to settle and can not be mixed together during sedimentation without contaminating each other. Also, plants are sorted from non vascular to vascular to seed-bearing, to flowering. Are you suggesting that plants can run to higher ground? Lol!

[glovergj]

Also, anybody who uses the "hydrologic sorting" argument doesn't even understand the geologic column. Things are not sorted like that. In other words, once a major taxanomic appears, it remains the geologic column unless it becomes extinct. So marine invertebrates, for examples, are found throughout, while mammals and flowering plants are only found in the upper layers. If you want to learn about geology, try reading some actual science and stay away from ICR and AiG.

[DoKtaTre]

"marine invertebrates, for examples, are found throughout, while mammals and flowering plants are only found in the upper layers"

Are they now? Duh. Is this not what you'd expect from the flood account? As the waters rose, some marine life would get buried early on, still continuing throughout of course, but the mammal -- who're already running to higher ground -- would be much later.

Just accept the FORGIVENESS He offers (freely) to you FOR YOUR OWN SAKE, Gordon.

[glovergj]

You make me laugh. Are you saying that there is not at least one ancient trilobite or jawless fish that could have stayed on the surface and get buried with the mamals? Are you saying that there is not at least one mammal, possibly a sick or crippled one, that could not keep up and fell and was burried at the bottom? Give it up -- face the facts!

[DoKtaTre]

..tell me to 'face the facts'. Facts like ANY && ALL reported finds are published by those who're BIASED!? Who says there never were finds like those..but BECAUSE they didn't fit with ATHEISTIC evolution..they were never published or even spoken of again? Don't you know Jesus Christ himself said "If you are not for me you are against me." What better way for the enemy to convince people to be against Christ than by DENYING the creation? The god of this world (Satan) has been at this a LONG time

[glovergj]

If I were satan, and I wanted to make people reject Christianity, I would simply convince them that being a Christian means turning off your brian and burying your head in the sand.

Hmmm.....

[DoKtaTre]

I'm suggesting that plants that were growing at the lower-ground were put under more pressure...OIL, any1? I'm suggesting that certain plants only grow under certain conditions. I'm suggesting that the PRE-FLOOD atmospheric & terrestrial conditions were VASTLY different than what we find today...face it, Gordon...you can only run from God to your own dismay...accept his FREE, LEGAL PARDON through Jesus Christ

[glovergj]

I am a Christian thank you very much. But one who accepts things the way they are. You live in a fantasy world where you ignore all evidence that doesn't fit the way things you think they should be.

[DoKtaTre]

No. I live in rationality, where one must realize THEY (one's own thoughts & t. processes) are not the ultimate standard. God's word is the Ultimate standard.

...I'm done

[Omnitrix12]

In the Redwall series, while there is certainly some variation among the books, may things remain constant. The good characters are threatened by some evil or other. Generally there are at least two key villains, such as Cluny the Scourge and Asmodeus, who do not necessarily cooperate and may in fact be enemies of one another as wel as the good. A hero emerges, often at the commissioning of Martin. And someone almost always ends up getting married. One book predicts another.

[Omnitrix12]

I like your reasoning. "Don't believe this because it is necessarily true, but for some other reason."

Believing that species, or at least "kinds" (a rather vague term in practice) were independently created is in no way contradictory to analyzing their similarities. If we look at God as a storyteller, and His creatures as individual sub-stories, then it's like looking at one of an author's books, and guessing how a similar scenario in another of his books might play out. Redwall, for instance.

[Omnitrix12]

"If we only teach our kids what a theory can't do or can't explain, or where the assumptions of a theory break down, they will be absolutely paralyzed scientifically."

An excellent point. So what if all we teach our kids is what a doctrine cannot cover; i.e. anything material (which anyone could plainly realize includes ourselves)?

The notion that material concepts and theories essentially cannot overlap the spiritual flies in the face of the Bible, which says that nature reflects God.

[rmcgov00leeuedu]

what about irreducible complexity? Like the single minimal cell?

[chaOsMastaGuru]

irreducible complexity doesn't mean anything unless you can prove that the components of the irreducibly complex object could not have developed independently, then lost original functions.

[zdennyfamily]

Did you know that Newton was Christian who was exploring the design of God in nature? How do you say this stuff with a straight face.

[glovergj]

You have no idea what you're talking about. All Christians who study biology or physics believe in design. Paul says all of creation shows the handiwork of God. And all Christian scientists should be motivated to explore God's handiwork in nature.

But just saying that something is designed isn't science! You have to study it. You have to break it down and determin what the material cause-and-effect relationships are. Get a clue.

[LogosApologia]

I am willing to listen with an open mind but I see some major problems with this video. Newton presupposed design when he discovered his laws of motion. In fact it was his belief in a rational creator God that prompted his faith that there were laws that were intelligible, discoverable, mathematically and representable. So your analogy is fundamentally flawed. The presupposition of design does not halt inquiry into the natural order it inspires it.

[glovergj]

Thanks for open, and honest. You'll see in a following video that when faced the problem of planetary instability, Newton's "design hypothesis" caused him to stop investigating the problem because he claimed that only the occasional intervention of the creator could keep the planets in their orbits. Many years later, LaPlace discovered the physics behind planetary stability using Newton's own calculus!

[LogosApologia]

Well you really didn't address the point. Science is basically a product of the faith of men like Newton and Copernicus. The fine tuning of the constants and the laws of physics themselves are evidence of design. Newton quitting working on the problem is his personal issue. The presupposition of materialism really offers no advantage. Materialists do the same thing by appealing to chance.

[glovergj]

I don't disagree with this. I say in another lesson that theism is more compatible with scientific inquiry than atheism because of the assumption of the uniformity of nature. But ID undermines this powerful argument by claiming that whenever we can't figure something out, it's proof of divine intervention. Watch the videos and decide for yourself.

[zdennyfamily]

Your video is full of ignorance.

Common characteristics is proof of a common designer.

You have to prove that information can be added to the Genome as well as life coming from non-life.

Science is simply suppose to describe reality; however, you seem to think that the Creation is omniscient. LOL

Without the Creator there would be no design and no science. All of science presupposes design. Christians love science because we are exploring the design of God.

[glovergj]

Give me a break. All of science presupposes material cause and effect and the uniformity of nature -- not design! Dessign is a teleological pressupposition based on Romans 1. I happen to agree with design, but design by itself doesn't tell you anything. Design needs a material mechanism by which it can be made manifest. When it comes to life, evolution is clearly the means by which God's deisgns become a reality.

[zdennyfamily]

In the video you stated that science does not need God; however, the fact is that without God science cannot be done. Design is inherent in the creation which makes science possible.

Science has already confirmed that the universe had a beginning and we already know that it is a contradiction to say that Nature created and designed itself.

[glovergj]

The practice of science doesn't need God. You just have to assume the uniformity of nature and the continuity of material cause and effect. I believe that if you presuppose God, then you have a rational basis for the uniformity of nature and material cause effect, whereas the athiest must have blind "faith" in these things. But the actual practice of science doesn't require theism, obviously since most scientists are atheists.

[glovergj]

I agree with you God designed the cosmos from the beginning. This is the "fine tuning" arguement. And I also believe that part of this fine tuning was for God to build into the universe all of the properties necessary for self-organization to occur. To say that stars, or galaxies or cells could not self-organize without divine intervention means that God does not have the ability to design a comos that has these properties. That might be true, but I believe God got it right the first time.

[glovergj]

If you disagree, then fine. But realize that if God build all of these structure by divine fiat, then He was unconstrained by any physical processess. However, if God created using natural laws via evolution, then was constrained by material cause-and-effect and the patterns and data we find in creation should match the predictions made by natural laws. And since that is what we find, you must believe that God is intentionally decieving us. See #11 and #12 for details.

[JT898]

Glovergj, I think Steve Matheson once said something on his blog on this topic that always resonated with me. He said that creationists and IDers think that 'design' is the answer, but he as a biologist sees it as the question. How did this design come to be? He simply thinks that natural processes acount for what we see as biological design in the same way they account for embryological development.

[christo930]

@glovergj You must really want to kill the professional creationists. To be called ignorant by people who don't even have a high school level of knowledge in biology because some willfully ignorant person taught them to automatically reject biological science,must be endlessly frustrating.

[MomandEmily]

If creation is true, then there is a Creator to whom we are accountable. Evolution is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God. Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved. Evolution is the creation theory for the religion of atheism. According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased,scientific explanations of fools

[adamredwine]

"There is no single ultimate paradigm that describes all of reality." (5:25) - Not yet... string theory appears a pretty strong contender though. Also, general relativity would be perfectly fine for calculating the basketball trajectory; the answers would be even better than the Newtonian ones. It's just that the uncertainty in the initial conditions would negate any improvement in the calculation of the path of travel... and the math is a bit harder.

[glovergj]

True, the v/c factors for the basketball would be pretty tiny, so we use the classical description, which really is just a subset of the relativistic case.

And when a GUT is reached...now that will be a party for the ages!

[blackhawk089]

How do we justify this idea of an old earth with the detailed genealogies that the Bible list's that most creationists get the 6-8 thousand year old earth number from?

I believe that current evolution puts the first homo sapient on the earth around 250,000 years ago. Just a few problems that come to my mind....good video series though.

[glovergj]

Hi. The idea of an old earth doesn't come from Scripture. There really is no way to date the earth from scripture unless you use the geneaologies and start with Adam (day 6 of creation).

The idea of an old comes from several lines of physical evidence. Not only only do these lines of evidence converge on a 4.5 billion year-old earth, they also make it scientifically impossible for the earth be only several thousand years old.

If you just jumped in at #10, I recommend you watch 1-9 first.

[blackhawk089]

I have alot of problems with evolution....however, my interest lies in philosophy so I tend to study it on the surface and not in detail. One problem being, how do you justify an old earth evolutionist perspective with the genesis account? If species evolved slowly over time from a common ancestor then how does this fit into the genesis description?

[glovergj]

Fortunately for us, evolution is a hard emperical science and not a philosophy -- See lesson #4. Your questions are really good, and I believe that if you take the time to watch the entire series, I will answer them, or at least provide answers that will make you think more deeply about the relationship between science, faith and the Bible.

[mikebForJesus]

Medical schools also ignore evo's "usefulness".

W/R, my secular college biology instructor barely touched it. I don't see it's usefulness in biology - the study of current structure and function.

[glovergj]

True for the practice of medicine. But courses in anatomy and physiology heavily depend on common ancestry.

[glovergj]

Great comment Mikeb. I appreciate your openness to learn and explore. Science is indeed imperfect, but useful paradigms, such as old earth and common ancestry, will continue to be placed in the service of science until they are amended or replaced with new theories that work better. But I don't see how this can lead to a "folk theology" if we derive our knowledge of God and Christ from the Scriptures. But that is still an interesting thing to consider.

[mikebForJesus]

I formerly accepted the poss of theistic evo, but have rejected it & am currently a YEC. I'm willing to reconsider, but I keep getting conflicting evidence or interpretations.

I accept some of what you say in your 1st few vids, but is there a chance that you have used naturalism to create a "folk theology"? Since you admit that science is imperfect, needing to continually refine or live with conflicting models, is it poss that entire paradigms could be sometimes be mistaken?

[glovergj]

I'm also curious: did you reject the possibility of theistic evolution on the basis of scientific evidence or because of theological and hermeneutical problems? Thanks again for tuning in.

[mikebForJesus]

Ya, thanks for the reply. My response is in excess of the 500 character max, so I'm replying by message.

[mikebForJesus]

Oh btw, let me correct my former statement. I don't currently reject the possibility of theo evo, but its probability.

[jimmo42]

"is it poss that entire paradigms could be sometimes be mistaken?"

You mean like the geocentric world view?

[mikebForJesus]

"...like the geocentric world view?"

Exactly. Like the geocentric model.

Heliocentrism was suggested by Aristarchus long before, but he couldn't support it, so it got dropped.

With the geo model, Ptolemy could predict planet locations w/ fair accuracy. Seems he did not take this from the Bible, but used it as a pragmatic method.

Though he could get results with it, the entire view turned out to be incorrect.

I'm not pouncing on evo theory like a hound dog on a ham sandwich.