Here we go with the "science keeps changing" nonsense. Yes, science gets it better and better. Like walking toward some moving thing in the background, as you get closer - you see its a person. Oh you changed your mind, first it was a "thing" now its a "person". As you get closer you see its a man. Oh now you changed your mind again - first a "thing" then a "person" and now a "man". And you get closer and you see it is Epydemic2020 - dang can't science ever get it right?
0:52 "For each of the days of creation, you have an evening and a morning..." At any particular point in time, it is simultaneously morning in some parts of the world and evening in others. In Genesis 1, the phrase "And there was evening, and there was morning" is repeated stylistically to mark the 'days' suggesting that God was physically located in a specific place on the surface, that the author lacked any awareness of the simultaneity issue, or that it was just meant as a poetic flourish.
Well evolution does not disprove god at all after all in the bible it says god created us from the earth and it also says that god created eve from adams rib sounds like evolution to me. I mean i really dont believe in evolution but it certainly does not disprove god
Mere "change over time" is accepted by everyone, on every side of the issue.
However, never in the history of the planet has one member of one species ever been observed producing a member of a different species. That fantasy is an unscientific myth and a biological impossibility, has never happened, and will never happen.
Postulating that it somehow happened violates scientific method because it has never been observed, and there is no evidence that it could have ever happened.
@1GodOnlyOne The theory of evolution by natural selection doesn't claim that a member of one species ever gave birth to a member of another. With each generation there are very minor differences as between you and your own parents. These small differences add up to big differences over very many generations, and this is exactly what we have observed in the breeding of domestic animals like dogs - every breed of which was breed from a wolf ancestor in very recent history.
The LAW of Gravity is what it's called. That is VERY different from a theory.
A law is backed by solid scientific evidence, but a theory falls short of the requirements for being called a law, in that there is no evidence to support it.
Hence, evo THEORY is not called a law, but is only a theory.
@1GodOnlyOne Scientists don't use the term 'theory' to mean an uncertain or unproven idea in the way that lay people use it. It simply means "an explanatory framework" and even after confirmed by evidence, a theory doesn't graduate to being a 'law'. A 'law' is a precise mathematical statement about a phenomenon and may or may not be correct. For example, Newton's laws of motion match observations very closely, but turn out to be slightly inaccurate at very large and small scales.
@1GodOnlyOne The germ theory of disease doesn't say anything about the beginning of the universe either because it's not a theory of that. Likewise, evolution isn't a theory of the beginning of the universe. That isn't a fault. It's just not what it's intended to explain.
Absolutely hilarious.I have never seen two Christians at such odds.I could feel the unmistakable tension from the Creationist towards Epydemic2020 and his views of his brand of Whitewashed Liberal Christianity.I come from the old school teachings of Christianity and have seen it's decline in its founding beliefs to adapt to humanity's intellectual progress.There is hope for humanity yet.
"whitewashed liberal Christianity" lol. I am actually quite conservative, I just don't interpret Genesis in a strange way. I'll make a vid on the reasons for my beliefs differing from his eventually.
@Epydemic2020 "I just don't interpret Genesis in a strange way. "
I think your interpretation is very strange. Although, now days his idea is not near as common as it used to be. It seems to me that 7 day creation is meant and was understood as literal. Naturally the story is wrong so Christians now say it is metaphorical. Of course they do. Christianity can't fail any test. Goalposts must be moved.
The problem I see in saying genesis is speaking of literal 24hour periods of time is that the seventh day is still continuing now and so the days cannot be 24 hours, not only that but it's hard to even interpret genesis since it's poetic and vague in nature, for instance it says God was walking in the cool of the day through the garden, yet God is immaterial and so we find metaphor in the stories which makes it difficult to take in a wooden box fashion. Just my thoughts on the matter.
@1GodOnlyOne I didn't make it up lol, the seventh day in genesis is not ended with a morning and evening like all the other days are and says "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works". Then in Hebrews 4:1-11 it says the seventh day of rest is still being interred through faith and some still have not because of disobedience. There is much debate on these passages but you can check them out and study them yourself and come to your own conclusion.
...con't,...much of it is masked by the theory of evolution which is very atheist/agnostic in saying life can come about on its own without the need for intelligent intervention that life has a natural cause and not an intelligent one. Who comes to know of God's existence through evolution? nobody, is it evidence for God's existence? no. Who comes to know of God's existence through creation? quite a few, is it more convincing evidence for God's existence? yes,
Christianity & evolution just don't mix. Evolution says all organisms have a single common ancestor, Genesis 2:7 says "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground..." (KJV) nothing in there says we came from another animal. Romans 1:20 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Creation itself is the evidence for God's existence but
Whether abiogenesis or spontaneous creation, man comes from the dust of the ground. The idea that God not only created, but created using a method which we can study, come to understand, and benefit from is not something that should detract in any way from our idea of God. If that is the case it only further testifies to his power.
@Epydemic2020 Common Decent says that life started in the oceans or some primordial soup, nothing in the Biblical text suggests that the dust that man was made out of was underwater. Secondly Evolution is a mindless, purposeless, undirected process, how do you direct an undirected process? furthermore the sequence of events of creation in Genesis don't match the accounts Common Decent. In Genesis the birds were made before the land animals...
Primordial soup is codeword for "dust of the ground". Either way you look at it, we are star stuff. The same materials that we find in the planet or "in the ground" we find in our bodies.
Evolution is directionless from a non-omniscient human perspective. The only reason we call things "random" is not because they dont follow from causes that should be able to be predicted, but from our finite perspective we can't calculate all of the causes (making us call mutations random).
@Epydemic2020 "Primordial soup is codeword for "dust of the ground" lol! what? where did you get this piece of information from? You don't think theistic evolution undermines God? the idea that God made thousands of mistakes just to form man, that he had to use trial an error to get results, it works fine when teaching a lesson but when making something...Anyway, this doesn't addresses the contradiction of the order of events between Genesis and Common Decent, birds first
...and there is no real danger, because anyone who truly examines evo THEORY, and has a grasp of science and logic, will eventually come to the conclusion (which is the truth), that there is absolutely no evidence for darwinian evo THEORY, just as there is no evidence for atheist Dogma.
@Epydemic2020 There is no scientific or scriptural evidence that the soul (which is who we actually are) has anything to do with stars, or with "star stuff," whatever that may mean.
If you think that you are the material body, then I suppose you can believe that you are star stuff, but Jesus taught about the soul, not about the body or the stars.
There is no evidence of anything "random" in the entire universe.
@Epydemic2020 ...con't, in common decent birds came from land animals or dinosaurs, also it says that he used the rib of man to make a woman, nothing about the woman evolving. You should try to make evolution fit Genesis, if Genesis is wrong than its wrong, but I don't see that it is
@Epydemic2020 That is true, from the perspective of intellectual inferiority. Those with a poor fund of knowledge can use evo THEORY as a vehicle to approach God, and that is as it should be.
However, those who have a richer fund of knowledge (especially in spiritual subjects) don't need to use evo THEORY to approach God, just as a man at the top of a building no longer needs to use the stairs to get to the top.
The theory must in time be dropped to continue approaching God.
I don't argue that evolution is a theory to approach God. I think evolution is an accurate way to understand how God created, but your ideas about the process God used to create life are ultimately irrelevant to whether or not you wish to approach God.
@Epydemic2020 If it's not a theory to approach God, then it is ultimately useless and mundane.
The fact is that some people do use it to get closer to God, and whether one does that or not, it must eventually be dropped in order to continue approaching God.
@GallusSapien see my response to Epidemic, Christianity implies that the Bible is true, I don't see that its a matter of salvation, but the accounts of Genesis don't match the accounts Common Decent,
Romans 1: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
I say This Clearly speaks out against evolution, what do you think this scripture is saying? Read the whole chapt,
I have been looking for that verse actually. Romans 1:21 certainly isn't talking about theistic evolution. I am not glorifying something other than God, I am arguing that evolution is the process by which God created. This doesn't turn God into a corruptible man, birds, fourfooted beast, or creeping thing.
@Epydemic2020 Well it has clear symbolism towards it(Glorifying a process rather than his name), If you refer to my previous post of the verses in Genesis you would see "21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." The words "according to their kinds" are not mere meaningless fillers they are there for a reason, how can you refute?
I don't think the Bible intends "kinds" to be a scientific classification of animals as intelligent design proponents typically argue, but I don't see that as an important issue. I think it is just saying that they are different kinds of animals. That just isn't inconsistent w/ theistic evolution.
@Epydemic2020 I do not think im a better Chrisitan because I believe God created everything without dependence on natural processes. However, I do think it is an attempt to belittle the Glory of God. To say that God was required to abide by natural laws in order to create draws away from his omnipotence, and again his Glory.
Genesis 1:20 And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens." 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.
I have to say that this is quite a wonderful series. I admire the patience and open-mindedness you show in your interviews and am especially intrigued how you manage not to get trapped in intimidation games. I really hope you keep these up and sub you to see more of it ;)
I hope you keep doing these, ive found on youtube and other places its pretty easy to find out almost all of these creationists have no idea what they are talking about, they seem to have an answer for everything, unless you start getting technical with them, then they just stop responding or try and change the subject. That's why ive pretty much given up on it, the issues you're dealing with are more of the root cause as to why they dont believe in the first place though.
as for atoms being the smallest bits of matter, that was scientists opinions, not demonstrated by evidence, evolution is in fact supported by the evidence. why the fuck cant all christians be like epydemic2020
Anyway, Epydemic my recommendation to consider reading it stands. Everyone is free to read what they choose. I think well reasoned insight or critiques from outside any field can be of value, be that Theology, Biology or even Astrology :) Considering your interest in philosophy I am sure u will appreciate it, though it is long. I do not wish this side topic to hijack your video so will cease on it. Thx
That book "Signature in the Cell" has been endorsed by many top scientists & philosophers. Claims of internet based refutations should be viewed with caution. The author, Stephen Meyer, has defended the book via journal published peer reviewed literature in answer to his internet critics. Check it out & Read the book.
@Galmozzi99 Hmm, for some odd reason, you didn't respond to me with that comment. Anyhoo...
Stephen Meyer has absolutely no background or degree in biology or in chemistry. Why you would promote a book by someone unqualified to speak on the topic of Evolution is beyond me. Try reading reviews of "Signature" from scientists actually qualified to speak on the subject. Such as Steven Fletcher (chemist) and Darrel Falk (professor of biology)
@Drgamedood The book's central arguments deal with abiogenesis & the question of what is Science. The broad knowledge of a Philosopher of Science is highly applicable. As well his use of the accepted peer reviewed Literature that he argues from is well referenced, he simply challenges the presuppositions. I have read some negative reviews but they failed to deal with his central arguments and simply straw-maned the book. Is an Atheist "qualified" to critique Christian Theism? Read it first.
@Drgamedood In 1947 Crick knew no biology and practically no organic chemistry, so that much of the next few years was spent in learning the elements of these subjects. During this period, together with others he worked out the general theory of X-ray diffraction by a helix, and at the same time as L. Pauling and R. B. Corey, suggested that the alpha-keratin pattern was due to alpha-helices coiled round each other. His degree in Molecular Biology was after His discovery of the DNA Molecule.
It is often claimed that natural selection is directing evolution but only in a mindless sense. There is no goal or purpose. As a theistic evolutionist how do you propose evidence for directed purpose? Does God only foreknow the result? How would providence apply? I have many questions and do not expect answers in the comments but do in the videos. Thanks, God bless, and for sure test all things, hang on to the good.
Things only appear random to humans because we are not omiscient. If God created the mechanical process by which evolution works and knew the results, then evolution wouldn't mutations wouldn't truly be random. They would still appear random from our non-omniscient perspective tho. So it is accurate for us to call them random.
For your vids please develop your def of Evolution a bit. "Change over time" is like "stuff happens" no one disagrees. Adding "in a species" sounds like micro evolution. The YECs would agree with it.
I would recommend reading "signature in the cell" first for the best discussion from an ID view. You will need to answer its concerns.
@Galmozzi99 I just want to second your recommendation of Signature in the Cell. As far as scientific analysis, reasoning, and interpretation of the available evidence, I think it set the bar.
@weseeinpart Thx, I agree it's very impressive. The first half can be a bit of a slog to get thru the necessary background info but after that, wow. For anyone new to the book, don't skip the first half though, ha ha.
Undirected or directed? if directed, How? What is your evidence? If undirected how is it achieving a purpose?
Chemical to biological? RNA world? Is the functional, specific & complex info in DNA possibly evidence of intelligence? If not, why?
Methodological Naturalism Only?
Discuss Organic evolution only as opposed to stellar or the 101 other uses? People generally have no issue with the other uses other than the implication of it as evidence for the particles to people notion.
Because they held a sign saying "evolution is a lie" and they did so while representing Christianity. They are supporting the dichotomy between "you either believe in God or you believe in evolution". I think that is a false dichotomy, and as such I oppose it.
@Epydemic2020 But you have to give them some credit. Look at all the atheists on youtube who use evolution to deny God. I have personally met someone who thought Christianity was stupid because he believed in evolution. They do this because they look at texts like Genesis 1 and it's a pretty straightforward reading. Could you please provide us with a negative presentation of passages in the Bible that are used in support of Creationism?
It is not only fundy Christians that support the dichotomy between evolution and God. Some fundy atheists jump on the bandwagon too.
Genesis 1 has multiple interpretations (and had them before darwin). The way Augustine understands Genesis is compatible w/ evolution for instance. I plan on giving my understanding of it in a short video series.
Augustine was a former Gnostic for 9 years prior to his conversion.. he taught many false doctrines I'm sure you do not agree with. One of them is that Mary was sinless.. this is something that literally "evolved" out of his past Gnosticism to fit his new teachings on Christianity. Because it's only logical if Mary was a sinner and people are born sinners, then Christ was born a sinner(one of many reasons I reject original sin as unbiblical). Look forward to that series tho!
Yeah do a slight study on what most Gnostics sects taught if you get the time, they believed all physical creation was sinful due to an inferior creation(Demiurge for most of them). So that logically means all flesh is sinful from birth(or conception). 1st and 2nd John speak clearly about them, it's just most don't go beyond that. John said those who say Christ wasn't in the flesh were anti-Christs(2 John 1:7). I just began to ask what most won't--WHY did Gnostics teach that?
Oh okay, awesome! You're lightyears ahead of most professing Christians in that view--most have no idea what I'm talking about even though the Scriptures speak of them and the early church was constantly in confrontation with them.
Today's Calvinism is semi(maybe I should say quasi)-Gnostic. This is what I use against Calvinists I come in contact with... so many wish to claim their 5 points are apostolic back to Paul, but it's an empty claim unless the Gnostics count.
@droptozro "Today's Calvinism is semi(maybe I should say quasi)-Gnostic"
All of modern Christianity is "quasi" gnostic. Not sure why you think the thinking is specific to Calvinism. The first Christians were Jewish; the resurrection happens in *this* world -- as every good Pharisee knew. When gentiles started becoming Christians, gnostic ideas were introduced to the religion.
I'd agree with what you mean by "modern" if most of them could even be considered Christian to begin with. Things that are Calvinist that are like the early Gnostics of the apostles day: Fatalism/Double-Predestination(elect saved/damned from beginning), which follows a OSAS, and Total Inability. These above things the early church refuted in gnostic teachings.
Yep, modern "Christians" think their spirit goes "up" to heaven when they die--that's a gnostic belief.
I would be interested in thoughts about the following two ideas:
1. Might organisms have been created with the ability to adapt, which may be perceived as having the ability to evolve beneficial mutations?
2. If so, might the fallen nature of this world result in harmful mutations outpacing any beneficial ones over time, resulting in extinctions; basically a death sentence?
3. If #2 becomes the prominent worldview, would denial of God evolve into resentment of God?
#1 There seems to be some really good evidence to suggest that mutations are random, and not intentionally adaptive to the environment. (it is natural selection which non-randomly selects the beneficial mutations).
#2 The harmful mutations do outweigh the beneficial ones, but that doesn't necessarily lead to extinction.
#3 No, at least there is no good reason for that to happen.
Part of what made me think of #3 was that in a recent debate with William Craig; Michael Tooley (PhD, Princeton, 1968) argued that even if Jesus was raised from the dead, he would have been raised by a powerful evil being, not the God that Mr. Craig believed in. It surprised me. How might one argue more forcefully than a resurrection? (I put clips of him making these statements at the end of my Adam and Eve video at about 9-53). If they call him evil when they don't believe...
Did I hear correctly? "The definition of evolution is change over time in a species". Do you accept or reject the common evolutionary premise of "If organisms appear similar, they MUST be related by a common ancestor"? Quoted from my kid's Biology teacher (a theistic evolutionist). Do you believe in particles to people evolution? Was God only needed for the initial conditions? For abiogenesis? Do you embrace the framework view of Genesis? Comments are too short, I Look forward to your vids
It's good to see you doing stuff like this. Creationists will actually listen to fellow Christians.
I'd like to see you stop them when they start to go off on tangents. Having patience has better results and a better dialogue, but it's not very fun to watch. I'd like to see more than one or two points addressed in a ten minute video.
Epydemic2020, I was looking through your videos and I didn't come across anything--so I'm going to ask now and hope I don't sound ignorant(or you can point me to the proper video).
So do you have a video explaining how you believe your interpretation of Genesis(or other areas of Scripture) fits with evolution? I'm not looking to straw-man you and I don't know exactly what you believe on it--so maybe you should include making a video on your position within this series so it can be discussed?
@Epydemic2020 The messiah was supposed to be a descendant of King David on the father's side. In Matthew and Luke they trace Joseph's lineage to David, but then Jesus was supposed to have been of virgin birth. So how exactly is Jesus a descendant of David if he wasn't Joseph's son?
Joseph is still Jesus father. Jesus gets to claim Joseph as his earlthy father and God as His heavenly father. You are bringing up a lot of random points on my videos lately.
@Epydemic2020 "You are bringing up a lot of random points on my videos lately."
I'm addressing points from other exchanges. How is that random? Also some of them do tie to morality, albeit indirectly. If there were forgeries in the Pentateuch then that means we need to question whether or not these are from (if you insist, 'founded in') god or just made up by other people. It's highly doubtful that the moral commandments were all from Moses. The OT makes a big deal out of that (cont)
@Epydemic2020 That prophet that you appealed to in Jeremiah wasn't talking about Jesus. Jesus didn't fulfill the prophesy. After the Jews had been disenfranchised from their homeland and wanted their country back. The prophesy was for a king like David and Solomon, not some metaphorical king, I mean a literal king and country. He wasn't ever supposed to have been crucified, it was supposed to be an eternal kingdom. Messiah to Christians today is way different than OT Messiah.
hahaha, that one did make me think really quickly if misspoke or not, cuz that conclusions definitely didn't follow from what I had just finished saying. Evolution is mundane, therefore you are mundane. What?
I believe Moses, I just think people are interpreting him in a funny way. Interpreting Genesis wasn't such a problem until after Darwin. Ironically, Young earth creationism/ literal day approach to Genesis is largely a response to darwinism (and some political events as well). Needless to say, I personally don't find the literal day approach persuasive, but at the very least I don't see how anyone could promote it as a pillar of Christianity.
@Epydemic2020 Do you find the literal approach to the Exodus persuasive? Numbers (I think) describes a fighting force of 600,000 people. That means the entire population would be in the neighborhood of 2.5-3 million. They are supposed to have wandered the desert for 40 years but they left no evidence of such a transit?
Look at Exodus 24-32. All those chapters are supposed to have been Moses' commandments on those tablets. Either someone slipped some stuff in, or those tablets were (cont)
That was awesome. I liked how you cut right to the heart of the matter off the bat. You made some very good points and showed pretty well that it all boiled down to differences in the interpretation of genesis as well as differences in opinions about evidence (both for creation and for evolution). I really enjoyed these two interviews and think I have learned some from them as well. Keep up the good work. I hope you continue along this vein.
This guy has never read one sentence of a science textbook in his life. He doesn't even know a basic definition of evolution FFS! No use trying to talk sense to these people. They are brainwashed absolutists with a lack of functioning neurons.
Two fantastic videos, it's refreshing to finally see a Christian having this "Evolution"-discussion. I have only managed to have one satisfying Evo-discussion with a Creationist, and that was under somewhat false pretenses (I think he believed I was a Christian and I never bothered to correct him). Usually creationists keeps me occupied by a barrier of confusion of what biological evolution is.
It's a breath of fresh air to see you able to carry this conversation. Keep up the good work!
I recently had a convo w/ my mom (after her watching the vid) that sparked another convo about evolution. She is less than pleased that I believe in evolution, it is really hard to assure her than when i say "evolution" I am referring to change over time in a species, not to "the theory that God doesn't exist". Its hard to break free from the dichotomy that some atheists and Christians both find themselves supporting.
Having the camera rolling w/ my rents would be interesting.
@Epydemic2020 For A long time I've been curious of how some Christians are able to mend Evolution with their faith. I've just assumed they throw away "Adam and Eve" (or not bothered thinking about the implications of Jesus saving us from the original sin). But if I got you right, it seems like you still believe in Adam and Eve as a result of Evolution? If thats the case, Cain's wife isn't much of a mystery ;)
I'd love to see a vid where you explain your "Evo+Christ merge". Have any?
No, but I am planning several videos on the topic discussing the process by which I came to believe in evolution, and what was holding me back beforehand. I think there are a couple possible ways of reading Genesis which don't involve throwing away Adam and Eve or negative implications for original sin. In fact, I think almost every pre-darwin interpretation of Genesis falls into that category.
"Macro Evolution" is not science. There is no evidence that proves "Macro evolution" happened. It is strictly imaginative and a distraction of actual science.
Why do you think it is that the deeper we dig the less complex the fossils become? If everything existed at the same time, why do the lower layers only contain amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates? Not a single mammal in all those lower layers? It is almost as if mammals didn't exist yet...
@Epydemic2020 Uniformitarianism is an all too common assumption evolution uses often. Your an honest fellow; Read some papers on brief, intense, periods of sedimentation. I'm sure you'll find the evidence a challenge to the theory of evolution. Get rid of the assumptions and evolution has no basis. If Man evolved, when did he start having a soul that is capable of sin? How does the heart, arteries and blood start evolving without all existing at once?
Do you have an answer to the fossil question, or are you merely confident other's have answers?
"How does the heart, arteries and blood start evolving without all existing at once?"
"Your an honest fellow; Read some papers..."
Do you think nothing has ever been written about how the heart, arteries, and blood evolved? If you want a rough idea of how that works, just look at various different creatures in different phases of complexity of their circulatory systems.
@Epydemic2020 This observation does not prove that one animal evolved into a completely different animal (reptiles and birds for example). In the history of science and observation there is not a shred of evidence (some may call it evidence, but it has always shown to be a fake or highly speculative) that shows one animal evolving into another. All that has been observed is what you may call "Micro Evolution" which is variations within a kind. Dogs produce dogs my friend.
I actually agree. A better question would be, if we can get a wolf to become a chihuahuah in a couple hundred years, given a couple millions years of dog breeding do you think the ancestors of a chihuahua would still be able to mate with a wolf from a couple hundred years ago, or would they just be too different by that time? If you think they would be too different, then you agree that speciation can occur and that what evo is all about.
@Epydemic2020 You would agree that a chihuahua and a wolf are both dogs. Yet they cannot breed. This is not the result of any NEW information which evolution asserts (species are getting better, stronger and faster), but a steady isolation of already existing genes found in the dog pool of genes. There is no new information added in this process. This is not an example of evolution. Some may say it is "Micro Evolution" yet in reality is nothing other than a variation of a single kind of animal.
Chihuahua's and wolves can breed. They are different breeds but members of the same species (unlike a fox and a dog, which are different species). Evolution doesn't assert that the species will get better, stronger, or faster (it only states there will be a tendency for mutations which increase survival to be passed on to future generations). Viewing current dog breeds over the past couple hundred years is microevolution, but nobody is disputing that.
If you live in a sunny environment, a mutation which gives you more melanin would be beneficial because it gives you protection from the suns rays (sunburn causes cancer). Live in a less sunny environment, a beneficial mutation would be one that decreases melanin, to increase the vitamin D you can get from the suns rays.
Most mutations have a cost and a benefit, it depends on your environment as to which effect is greater.
@Epydemic2020 How did this mutation develop? Can you attribute this to evolution or is this just an example of existing isolated genes in a population? Your example is one of a harmful mutation (no beneficial mutation exists). If your skin cannot absorb vitamin D, that's bad. Evolution text books do what you've done all the time. They say "beneficial mutations exist, see look at this harmful mutation, this proves evolution". Where are the beneficial mutations?
@RefinersFire298 "There is no new information added in this process"
New information is added to the genome via random mutations. Sometimes segments of DNA get duplicated and accumulate other "errors" when copying. A segment "GATA" might be incorrectly copied as "GATAGATC" (a duplication plus a point mutation). The "GATC" part is NEW information that wasn't there before.
This was a great video. The man you interviewed was typically less knowledgable about science but nothing too surprising. There needs to be more understanding Christians like you who. I shared this on my facebook page.
Very perceptive, I think this Evolution vs God issue is primarily an American phenomenon. Its not evolution vs theism, but Naturalism vs Theism that's the issue
I should brush up on some possible counterarguments. I think it'd be interesting to ask if they think of my understanding of Genesis as a response to evolutionists, cuz ironically I think it is the literal day interpretation which comes into popularity post-darwin, and not the other way around.
My question to him would be whether he thinks scientists believe quarks are the smallest components period or whether they're the smallest component discovered up to now.
Firstly, bacteria, which is the most common animal (yes, theists animal, gasp!) isn't mentioned once in the baa-ble.
That's for starters.
Theists are either fuckin' dumb! Lazy as fuck. Or soooo deeply brainwashed that you can smack their stupid low-brow heads with a text book full of varified facts and they'll still look the other way.
Basically this guy is just ignorant as can be about science, I don't think he got a single thing right mentioning the atom. Only something like religion can make someone that uneducated go around and state things they no nothing about as truth.
whats interesting about this is that they seem to be more at ease with you. you're getting more information and perspective from them then any atheist could.
@MpowerdAPE One of the first things people do is form preconceptions when they think someone is from an outgroup. Dan Ariely has a video from a TED talks presentation called "our buggy moral code" that talks about that.
Thanks. Hopefully some more street preachers find their way to campus and that i hear about it when they do. Perhaps I can branch out and interview pastors or professors or something.
I find it very interesting that many street preachers would go on preaching against evolution, but actually admit that if convinced that evolution were true, it would not destroy their belief in God and Christianity.
dude you got a long ass neck. In the beginning of the video you could put a giraffe to shame with it.
Brushles83 2 weeks ago
Here we go with the "science keeps changing" nonsense. Yes, science gets it better and better. Like walking toward some moving thing in the background, as you get closer - you see its a person. Oh you changed your mind, first it was a "thing" now its a "person". As you get closer you see its a man. Oh now you changed your mind again - first a "thing" then a "person" and now a "man". And you get closer and you see it is Epydemic2020 - dang can't science ever get it right?
g24417 1 month ago
0:52 "For each of the days of creation, you have an evening and a morning..." At any particular point in time, it is simultaneously morning in some parts of the world and evening in others. In Genesis 1, the phrase "And there was evening, and there was morning" is repeated stylistically to mark the 'days' suggesting that God was physically located in a specific place on the surface, that the author lacked any awareness of the simultaneity issue, or that it was just meant as a poetic flourish.
cavalrycome 1 month ago
Well evolution does not disprove god at all after all in the bible it says god created us from the earth and it also says that god created eve from adams rib sounds like evolution to me. I mean i really dont believe in evolution but it certainly does not disprove god
cjguitarist100 2 months ago
Good video! Always good to see people asking the big questions!
BadLilNinja 2 months ago
Mere "change over time" is accepted by everyone, on every side of the issue.
However, never in the history of the planet has one member of one species ever been observed producing a member of a different species. That fantasy is an unscientific myth and a biological impossibility, has never happened, and will never happen.
Postulating that it somehow happened violates scientific method because it has never been observed, and there is no evidence that it could have ever happened.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne The theory of evolution by natural selection doesn't claim that a member of one species ever gave birth to a member of another. With each generation there are very minor differences as between you and your own parents. These small differences add up to big differences over very many generations, and this is exactly what we have observed in the breeding of domestic animals like dogs - every breed of which was breed from a wolf ancestor in very recent history.
cavalrycome 1 month ago
Gravity is not a "description" of anything. Gravity is a force.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
Gravity is a law, not a "theory."
The LAW of Gravity is what it's called. That is VERY different from a theory.
A law is backed by solid scientific evidence, but a theory falls short of the requirements for being called a law, in that there is no evidence to support it.
Hence, evo THEORY is not called a law, but is only a theory.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Scientists don't use the term 'theory' to mean an uncertain or unproven idea in the way that lay people use it. It simply means "an explanatory framework" and even after confirmed by evidence, a theory doesn't graduate to being a 'law'. A 'law' is a precise mathematical statement about a phenomenon and may or may not be correct. For example, Newton's laws of motion match observations very closely, but turn out to be slightly inaccurate at very large and small scales.
cavalrycome 1 month ago
If evolution THEORY doesn't comment on the beginning of the universe, then it is an incomplete theory, and should be rejected on those grounds.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne The germ theory of disease doesn't say anything about the beginning of the universe either because it's not a theory of that. Likewise, evolution isn't a theory of the beginning of the universe. That isn't a fault. It's just not what it's intended to explain.
cavalrycome 1 month ago
Absolutely hilarious.I have never seen two Christians at such odds.I could feel the unmistakable tension from the Creationist towards Epydemic2020 and his views of his brand of Whitewashed Liberal Christianity.I come from the old school teachings of Christianity and have seen it's decline in its founding beliefs to adapt to humanity's intellectual progress.There is hope for humanity yet.
oemfx1965 2 months ago
@oemfx1965
"whitewashed liberal Christianity" lol. I am actually quite conservative, I just don't interpret Genesis in a strange way. I'll make a vid on the reasons for my beliefs differing from his eventually.
Epydemic2020 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Epydemic2020 "I just don't interpret Genesis in a strange way. "
I think your interpretation is very strange. Although, now days his idea is not near as common as it used to be. It seems to me that 7 day creation is meant and was understood as literal. Naturally the story is wrong so Christians now say it is metaphorical. Of course they do. Christianity can't fail any test. Goalposts must be moved.
DayfallKat 2 months ago
The problem I see in saying genesis is speaking of literal 24hour periods of time is that the seventh day is still continuing now and so the days cannot be 24 hours, not only that but it's hard to even interpret genesis since it's poetic and vague in nature, for instance it says God was walking in the cool of the day through the garden, yet God is immaterial and so we find metaphor in the stories which makes it difficult to take in a wooden box fashion. Just my thoughts on the matter.
95TurboSol 2 months ago
@95TurboSol
I'm glad you commented. You explained it a bit differently, and perhaps better, than I had been doing.
Epydemic2020 2 months ago
@95TurboSol The Bible does not state that the seventh day is still continuing now -- you just made that up yourself.
The Bible does not state that God could somehow be "immaterial." In fact, that word does not appear anywhere in the Bible, in any context.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne I didn't make it up lol, the seventh day in genesis is not ended with a morning and evening like all the other days are and says "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works". Then in Hebrews 4:1-11 it says the seventh day of rest is still being interred through faith and some still have not because of disobedience. There is much debate on these passages but you can check them out and study them yourself and come to your own conclusion.
95TurboSol 2 months ago
...con't,...much of it is masked by the theory of evolution which is very atheist/agnostic in saying life can come about on its own without the need for intelligent intervention that life has a natural cause and not an intelligent one. Who comes to know of God's existence through evolution? nobody, is it evidence for God's existence? no. Who comes to know of God's existence through creation? quite a few, is it more convincing evidence for God's existence? yes,
Law19157 2 months ago
Christianity & evolution just don't mix. Evolution says all organisms have a single common ancestor, Genesis 2:7 says "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground..." (KJV) nothing in there says we came from another animal. Romans 1:20 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Creation itself is the evidence for God's existence but
Law19157 2 months ago
@Law19157
Whether abiogenesis or spontaneous creation, man comes from the dust of the ground. The idea that God not only created, but created using a method which we can study, come to understand, and benefit from is not something that should detract in any way from our idea of God. If that is the case it only further testifies to his power.
Epydemic2020 2 months ago 2
@Epydemic2020 Common Decent says that life started in the oceans or some primordial soup, nothing in the Biblical text suggests that the dust that man was made out of was underwater. Secondly Evolution is a mindless, purposeless, undirected process, how do you direct an undirected process? furthermore the sequence of events of creation in Genesis don't match the accounts Common Decent. In Genesis the birds were made before the land animals...
Law19157 2 months ago
@Law19157
Primordial soup is codeword for "dust of the ground". Either way you look at it, we are star stuff. The same materials that we find in the planet or "in the ground" we find in our bodies.
Evolution is directionless from a non-omniscient human perspective. The only reason we call things "random" is not because they dont follow from causes that should be able to be predicted, but from our finite perspective we can't calculate all of the causes (making us call mutations random).
Epydemic2020 2 months ago
@Epydemic2020 "Primordial soup is codeword for "dust of the ground" lol! what? where did you get this piece of information from? You don't think theistic evolution undermines God? the idea that God made thousands of mistakes just to form man, that he had to use trial an error to get results, it works fine when teaching a lesson but when making something...Anyway, this doesn't addresses the contradiction of the order of events between Genesis and Common Decent, birds first
Law19157 2 months ago
@Law19157 For those who approach the issue of evo THEORY from an intellectually lower position, Theistic evolution THEORY is a step up.
However, for those who approach evo THEORY from an intellectually higher position, Theistic evo THEORY is a step down.
It all depends on the direction in which one is traveling -- toward God, or away from God.
For those confused and unfortunate individuals who are far from God, I think that Theistic evo THEORY is a fine vehicle to approach him.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
...and there is no real danger, because anyone who truly examines evo THEORY, and has a grasp of science and logic, will eventually come to the conclusion (which is the truth), that there is absolutely no evidence for darwinian evo THEORY, just as there is no evidence for atheist Dogma.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@Epydemic2020 There is no scientific or scriptural evidence that the soul (which is who we actually are) has anything to do with stars, or with "star stuff," whatever that may mean.
If you think that you are the material body, then I suppose you can believe that you are star stuff, but Jesus taught about the soul, not about the body or the stars.
There is no evidence of anything "random" in the entire universe.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@Epydemic2020 ...con't, in common decent birds came from land animals or dinosaurs, also it says that he used the rib of man to make a woman, nothing about the woman evolving. You should try to make evolution fit Genesis, if Genesis is wrong than its wrong, but I don't see that it is
Law19157 2 months ago
@Epydemic2020 That is true, from the perspective of intellectual inferiority. Those with a poor fund of knowledge can use evo THEORY as a vehicle to approach God, and that is as it should be.
However, those who have a richer fund of knowledge (especially in spiritual subjects) don't need to use evo THEORY to approach God, just as a man at the top of a building no longer needs to use the stairs to get to the top.
The theory must in time be dropped to continue approaching God.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne
I don't argue that evolution is a theory to approach God. I think evolution is an accurate way to understand how God created, but your ideas about the process God used to create life are ultimately irrelevant to whether or not you wish to approach God.
Epydemic2020 2 months ago
@Epydemic2020 If it's not a theory to approach God, then it is ultimately useless and mundane.
The fact is that some people do use it to get closer to God, and whether one does that or not, it must eventually be dropped in order to continue approaching God.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@Law19157 "Christianity & evolution just don't mix."
can you define what you believe christianity is? Because christianity, based on the definition i have is completely compatible with evolution.
GallusSapien 2 months ago
@GallusSapien see my response to Epidemic, Christianity implies that the Bible is true, I don't see that its a matter of salvation, but the accounts of Genesis don't match the accounts Common Decent,
Law19157 2 months ago
Romans 1: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
I say This Clearly speaks out against evolution, what do you think this scripture is saying? Read the whole chapt,
ALLKINDZASH1T 3 months ago
@ALLKINDZASH1T
I have been looking for that verse actually. Romans 1:21 certainly isn't talking about theistic evolution. I am not glorifying something other than God, I am arguing that evolution is the process by which God created. This doesn't turn God into a corruptible man, birds, fourfooted beast, or creeping thing.
Epydemic2020 3 months ago
@Epydemic2020 Well it has clear symbolism towards it(Glorifying a process rather than his name), If you refer to my previous post of the verses in Genesis you would see "21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." The words "according to their kinds" are not mere meaningless fillers they are there for a reason, how can you refute?
ALLKINDZASH1T 3 months ago
@ALLKINDZASH1T
I don't think the Bible intends "kinds" to be a scientific classification of animals as intelligent design proponents typically argue, but I don't see that as an important issue. I think it is just saying that they are different kinds of animals. That just isn't inconsistent w/ theistic evolution.
Epydemic2020 3 months ago
Comment removed
ALLKINDZASH1T 3 months ago
@Epydemic2020 I do not think im a better Chrisitan because I believe God created everything without dependence on natural processes. However, I do think it is an attempt to belittle the Glory of God. To say that God was required to abide by natural laws in order to create draws away from his omnipotence, and again his Glory.
ALLKINDZASH1T 3 months ago
@ALLKINDZASH1T
" To say that God was required to abide by natural laws in order to create draws away from his omnipotence, and again his Glory."
Well, I am glad I never said he had to abide by natural laws. "Had to" and "chose to" are different.
Epydemic2020 3 months ago
Genesis 1:20 And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens." 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.
KINDS
ALLKINDZASH1T 3 months ago
I have to say that this is quite a wonderful series. I admire the patience and open-mindedness you show in your interviews and am especially intrigued how you manage not to get trapped in intimidation games. I really hope you keep these up and sub you to see more of it ;)
TheNameIsUnimportant 3 months ago
I hope you keep doing these, ive found on youtube and other places its pretty easy to find out almost all of these creationists have no idea what they are talking about, they seem to have an answer for everything, unless you start getting technical with them, then they just stop responding or try and change the subject. That's why ive pretty much given up on it, the issues you're dealing with are more of the root cause as to why they dont believe in the first place though.
AbusiveAntitheist 4 months ago
as for atoms being the smallest bits of matter, that was scientists opinions, not demonstrated by evidence, evolution is in fact supported by the evidence. why the fuck cant all christians be like epydemic2020
wearestarstuffsagan 4 months ago
what i see is a sensible christian to the left and than an embarrasment to christianity on the right
wearestarstuffsagan 4 months ago
Anyway, Epydemic my recommendation to consider reading it stands. Everyone is free to read what they choose. I think well reasoned insight or critiques from outside any field can be of value, be that Theology, Biology or even Astrology :) Considering your interest in philosophy I am sure u will appreciate it, though it is long. I do not wish this side topic to hijack your video so will cease on it. Thx
Galmozzi99 4 months ago
Epydemic, This is an interesting series you are doing here. I would love to see you do an interview with Dr. Jason Lisle of Answers in Genesis.
SemperReformanda491 4 months ago
@SemperReformanda491
That sounds ambitious :P
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
That book "Signature in the Cell" has been endorsed by many top scientists & philosophers. Claims of internet based refutations should be viewed with caution. The author, Stephen Meyer, has defended the book via journal published peer reviewed literature in answer to his internet critics. Check it out & Read the book.
Galmozzi99 4 months ago
@Galmozzi99 Hmm, for some odd reason, you didn't respond to me with that comment. Anyhoo...
Stephen Meyer has absolutely no background or degree in biology or in chemistry. Why you would promote a book by someone unqualified to speak on the topic of Evolution is beyond me. Try reading reviews of "Signature" from scientists actually qualified to speak on the subject. Such as Steven Fletcher (chemist) and Darrel Falk (professor of biology)
Drgamedood 4 months ago in playlist More videos from Epydemic2020
@Drgamedood The book's central arguments deal with abiogenesis & the question of what is Science. The broad knowledge of a Philosopher of Science is highly applicable. As well his use of the accepted peer reviewed Literature that he argues from is well referenced, he simply challenges the presuppositions. I have read some negative reviews but they failed to deal with his central arguments and simply straw-maned the book. Is an Atheist "qualified" to critique Christian Theism? Read it first.
Galmozzi99 4 months ago
@Drgamedood In 1947 Crick knew no biology and practically no organic chemistry, so that much of the next few years was spent in learning the elements of these subjects. During this period, together with others he worked out the general theory of X-ray diffraction by a helix, and at the same time as L. Pauling and R. B. Corey, suggested that the alpha-keratin pattern was due to alpha-helices coiled round each other. His degree in Molecular Biology was after His discovery of the DNA Molecule.
Galmozzi99 4 months ago
@honestsenoh
haha, i pointed out the same thing in the description box.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
below replace
"Is the functional, specific & complex info in DNA possibly evidence of intelligence? If not, why?"
with
"Is the functional, specific & complex info in the DNA of the first cell possibly evidence of intelligence? If not, why?
Galmozzi99 4 months ago
It is often claimed that natural selection is directing evolution but only in a mindless sense. There is no goal or purpose. As a theistic evolutionist how do you propose evidence for directed purpose? Does God only foreknow the result? How would providence apply? I have many questions and do not expect answers in the comments but do in the videos. Thanks, God bless, and for sure test all things, hang on to the good.
Galmozzi99 4 months ago
@Galmozzi99
Things only appear random to humans because we are not omiscient. If God created the mechanical process by which evolution works and knew the results, then evolution wouldn't mutations wouldn't truly be random. They would still appear random from our non-omniscient perspective tho. So it is accurate for us to call them random.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 I see your point, the design would be all front end loaded so to speak. Thx will give that some thought.
Galmozzi99 4 months ago
For your vids please develop your def of Evolution a bit. "Change over time" is like "stuff happens" no one disagrees. Adding "in a species" sounds like micro evolution. The YECs would agree with it.
I would recommend reading "signature in the cell" first for the best discussion from an ID view. You will need to answer its concerns.
Galmozzi99 4 months ago
@Galmozzi99 I just want to second your recommendation of Signature in the Cell. As far as scientific analysis, reasoning, and interpretation of the available evidence, I think it set the bar.
weseeinpart 4 months ago
@weseeinpart Thx, I agree it's very impressive. The first half can be a bit of a slog to get thru the necessary background info but after that, wow. For anyone new to the book, don't skip the first half though, ha ha.
Galmozzi99 4 months ago
@Galmozzi99 That book's been refuted by TalkOrigins. Cheers! :-)
Drgamedood 4 months ago in playlist More videos from Epydemic2020
Undirected or directed? if directed, How? What is your evidence? If undirected how is it achieving a purpose?
Chemical to biological? RNA world? Is the functional, specific & complex info in DNA possibly evidence of intelligence? If not, why?
Methodological Naturalism Only?
Discuss Organic evolution only as opposed to stellar or the 101 other uses? People generally have no issue with the other uses other than the implication of it as evidence for the particles to people notion.
Galmozzi99 4 months ago
Can you explain to me your reasoning as to why you're asking if the bible really comments on whether or not evolution is true?
MetalcoreChristian77 4 months ago
@MetalcoreChristian77
Because they held a sign saying "evolution is a lie" and they did so while representing Christianity. They are supporting the dichotomy between "you either believe in God or you believe in evolution". I think that is a false dichotomy, and as such I oppose it.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 But you have to give them some credit. Look at all the atheists on youtube who use evolution to deny God. I have personally met someone who thought Christianity was stupid because he believed in evolution. They do this because they look at texts like Genesis 1 and it's a pretty straightforward reading. Could you please provide us with a negative presentation of passages in the Bible that are used in support of Creationism?
MetalcoreChristian77 4 months ago
@MetalcoreChristian77
It is not only fundy Christians that support the dichotomy between evolution and God. Some fundy atheists jump on the bandwagon too.
Genesis 1 has multiple interpretations (and had them before darwin). The way Augustine understands Genesis is compatible w/ evolution for instance. I plan on giving my understanding of it in a short video series.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020
Augustine was a former Gnostic for 9 years prior to his conversion.. he taught many false doctrines I'm sure you do not agree with. One of them is that Mary was sinless.. this is something that literally "evolved" out of his past Gnosticism to fit his new teachings on Christianity. Because it's only logical if Mary was a sinner and people are born sinners, then Christ was born a sinner(one of many reasons I reject original sin as unbiblical). Look forward to that series tho!
droptozro 4 months ago
@droptozro
That's interesting, original sin is the reason this guy rejects evolution...
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020
Yeah do a slight study on what most Gnostics sects taught if you get the time, they believed all physical creation was sinful due to an inferior creation(Demiurge for most of them). So that logically means all flesh is sinful from birth(or conception). 1st and 2nd John speak clearly about them, it's just most don't go beyond that. John said those who say Christ wasn't in the flesh were anti-Christs(2 John 1:7). I just began to ask what most won't--WHY did Gnostics teach that?
droptozro 4 months ago
@droptozro
I am quite aware of gnostic beliefs :P One of my classes talked about them.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020
Oh okay, awesome! You're lightyears ahead of most professing Christians in that view--most have no idea what I'm talking about even though the Scriptures speak of them and the early church was constantly in confrontation with them.
Today's Calvinism is semi(maybe I should say quasi)-Gnostic. This is what I use against Calvinists I come in contact with... so many wish to claim their 5 points are apostolic back to Paul, but it's an empty claim unless the Gnostics count.
droptozro 4 months ago
@droptozro "Today's Calvinism is semi(maybe I should say quasi)-Gnostic"
All of modern Christianity is "quasi" gnostic. Not sure why you think the thinking is specific to Calvinism. The first Christians were Jewish; the resurrection happens in *this* world -- as every good Pharisee knew. When gentiles started becoming Christians, gnostic ideas were introduced to the religion.
StormTrek 4 months ago
@StormTrek
I'd agree with what you mean by "modern" if most of them could even be considered Christian to begin with. Things that are Calvinist that are like the early Gnostics of the apostles day: Fatalism/Double-Predestination(elect saved/damned from beginning), which follows a OSAS, and Total Inability. These above things the early church refuted in gnostic teachings.
Yep, modern "Christians" think their spirit goes "up" to heaven when they die--that's a gnostic belief.
droptozro 4 months ago
I would be interested in thoughts about the following two ideas:
1. Might organisms have been created with the ability to adapt, which may be perceived as having the ability to evolve beneficial mutations?
2. If so, might the fallen nature of this world result in harmful mutations outpacing any beneficial ones over time, resulting in extinctions; basically a death sentence?
3. If #2 becomes the prominent worldview, would denial of God evolve into resentment of God?
God bless
weseeinpart 4 months ago
@weseeinpart *3 ideas :)
weseeinpart 4 months ago
@weseeinpart
#1 There seems to be some really good evidence to suggest that mutations are random, and not intentionally adaptive to the environment. (it is natural selection which non-randomly selects the beneficial mutations).
#2 The harmful mutations do outweigh the beneficial ones, but that doesn't necessarily lead to extinction.
#3 No, at least there is no good reason for that to happen.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020
Part of what made me think of #3 was that in a recent debate with William Craig; Michael Tooley (PhD, Princeton, 1968) argued that even if Jesus was raised from the dead, he would have been raised by a powerful evil being, not the God that Mr. Craig believed in. It surprised me. How might one argue more forcefully than a resurrection? (I put clips of him making these statements at the end of my Adam and Eve video at about 9-53). If they call him evil when they don't believe...
weseeinpart 4 months ago
What is your way around the genesis narrative epydemic? I don't see any way to reconcile the modern hypothesis of evolution with the bible.
1tmoch 4 months ago
Did I hear correctly? "The definition of evolution is change over time in a species". Do you accept or reject the common evolutionary premise of "If organisms appear similar, they MUST be related by a common ancestor"? Quoted from my kid's Biology teacher (a theistic evolutionist). Do you believe in particles to people evolution? Was God only needed for the initial conditions? For abiogenesis? Do you embrace the framework view of Genesis? Comments are too short, I Look forward to your vids
Galmozzi99 4 months ago
Comment removed
Galmozzi99 4 months ago
You have an astounding amount of patience. I couldn't sit through that as quietly as you did.
kelarael 4 months ago
@kelarael
lol, I think i will be a bit more assertive next time.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
It's good to see you doing stuff like this. Creationists will actually listen to fellow Christians.
I'd like to see you stop them when they start to go off on tangents. Having patience has better results and a better dialogue, but it's not very fun to watch. I'd like to see more than one or two points addressed in a ten minute video.
NoeLPZC 4 months ago
@NoeLPZC
Yea I totally agree, I should have been more assertive in this video. I'm surprised more people didn't point that out actually.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
Epydemic2020, I was looking through your videos and I didn't come across anything--so I'm going to ask now and hope I don't sound ignorant(or you can point me to the proper video).
So do you have a video explaining how you believe your interpretation of Genesis(or other areas of Scripture) fits with evolution? I'm not looking to straw-man you and I don't know exactly what you believe on it--so maybe you should include making a video on your position within this series so it can be discussed?
droptozro 4 months ago
@droptozro
I haven't made that video series yet.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 The messiah was supposed to be a descendant of King David on the father's side. In Matthew and Luke they trace Joseph's lineage to David, but then Jesus was supposed to have been of virgin birth. So how exactly is Jesus a descendant of David if he wasn't Joseph's son?
Agnosgnosia 4 months ago
@Agnosgnosia
Joseph is still Jesus father. Jesus gets to claim Joseph as his earlthy father and God as His heavenly father. You are bringing up a lot of random points on my videos lately.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 "You are bringing up a lot of random points on my videos lately."
I'm addressing points from other exchanges. How is that random? Also some of them do tie to morality, albeit indirectly. If there were forgeries in the Pentateuch then that means we need to question whether or not these are from (if you insist, 'founded in') god or just made up by other people. It's highly doubtful that the moral commandments were all from Moses. The OT makes a big deal out of that (cont)
Agnosgnosia 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 because Moses was the only guy who saw god and lived. That means everyone else doesn't get any say in moral commandments.
So how are those random or irrelavent?
Agnosgnosia 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Epydemic2020 "Joseph is still Jesus father. Jesus gets to claim Joseph as his earlthy father and God as His heavenly father."
Again with the heatless dragon breath? Look just because you can't see my invisible dragon, that doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
Agnosgnosia 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 That prophet that you appealed to in Jeremiah wasn't talking about Jesus. Jesus didn't fulfill the prophesy. After the Jews had been disenfranchised from their homeland and wanted their country back. The prophesy was for a king like David and Solomon, not some metaphorical king, I mean a literal king and country. He wasn't ever supposed to have been crucified, it was supposed to be an eternal kingdom. Messiah to Christians today is way different than OT Messiah.
Agnosgnosia 4 months ago
This guy has the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki predating Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
Jesus wept.
lotanddaughters 4 months ago
I love the expression on your face around 8:33 after he asked you "so you're just mundane?"
TheFunkyTheist 4 months ago
@TheFunkyTheist
hahaha, that one did make me think really quickly if misspoke or not, cuz that conclusions definitely didn't follow from what I had just finished saying. Evolution is mundane, therefore you are mundane. What?
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 We all know you're not mundane, since you are created with the most excellent and advanced neck of all humanity.
TheFunkyTheist 4 months ago
@TheFunkyTheist
I knew what you were going to say and I had only read "We all know you're not mundane"
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 HAHAHA
TheFunkyTheist 4 months ago
Nice interview, both men seem very reasonable despite the fact I disagree with them completely.
manutdfan4321 4 months ago in playlist More videos from Epydemic2020
John 5:46-47
TheLORDismySheperd1 4 months ago
@TheLORDismySheperd1
I believe Moses, I just think people are interpreting him in a funny way. Interpreting Genesis wasn't such a problem until after Darwin. Ironically, Young earth creationism/ literal day approach to Genesis is largely a response to darwinism (and some political events as well). Needless to say, I personally don't find the literal day approach persuasive, but at the very least I don't see how anyone could promote it as a pillar of Christianity.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 Do you find the literal approach to the Exodus persuasive? Numbers (I think) describes a fighting force of 600,000 people. That means the entire population would be in the neighborhood of 2.5-3 million. They are supposed to have wandered the desert for 40 years but they left no evidence of such a transit?
Look at Exodus 24-32. All those chapters are supposed to have been Moses' commandments on those tablets. Either someone slipped some stuff in, or those tablets were (cont)
Agnosgnosia 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 big as sh** and Moses was a beefcake.
Agnosgnosia 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 By "funny" I assume you mean, literal?
How would a person, not taking Genesis literally, interpret the Sabbath week?
Exodus 20:9-11
TheLORDismySheperd1 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 And I agree, Genesis was NOT a problem. Few Christians believed in "millions" of years before Darwin, and few took it seriously after.
TheLORDismySheperd1 4 months ago
Comment removed
TheLORDismySheperd1 4 months ago
That was awesome. I liked how you cut right to the heart of the matter off the bat. You made some very good points and showed pretty well that it all boiled down to differences in the interpretation of genesis as well as differences in opinions about evidence (both for creation and for evolution). I really enjoyed these two interviews and think I have learned some from them as well. Keep up the good work. I hope you continue along this vein.
cyphonyx 4 months ago
@cyphonyx
Thanks, I think I can come up with some better questions for next time.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
This guy has never read one sentence of a science textbook in his life. He doesn't even know a basic definition of evolution FFS! No use trying to talk sense to these people. They are brainwashed absolutists with a lack of functioning neurons.
Stringprodigy 4 months ago
Excellent video! Great interview! Well done sir, my hat is off to you :)
SwissTopper 4 months ago
@SwissTopper
I'm glad you liked it.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
They just don't want to understand... sad
masticina 4 months ago
Great video, Epy. I thought you posed some excellent questions, and 8:38 - 8:56 was my favourite part as well as yours - a very well-stated point.
QualiaSoup 4 months ago
@QualiaSoup
Thanks man
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
Two fantastic videos, it's refreshing to finally see a Christian having this "Evolution"-discussion. I have only managed to have one satisfying Evo-discussion with a Creationist, and that was under somewhat false pretenses (I think he believed I was a Christian and I never bothered to correct him). Usually creationists keeps me occupied by a barrier of confusion of what biological evolution is.
It's a breath of fresh air to see you able to carry this conversation. Keep up the good work!
FatLingon 4 months ago
@FatLingon
I recently had a convo w/ my mom (after her watching the vid) that sparked another convo about evolution. She is less than pleased that I believe in evolution, it is really hard to assure her than when i say "evolution" I am referring to change over time in a species, not to "the theory that God doesn't exist". Its hard to break free from the dichotomy that some atheists and Christians both find themselves supporting.
Having the camera rolling w/ my rents would be interesting.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 For A long time I've been curious of how some Christians are able to mend Evolution with their faith. I've just assumed they throw away "Adam and Eve" (or not bothered thinking about the implications of Jesus saving us from the original sin). But if I got you right, it seems like you still believe in Adam and Eve as a result of Evolution? If thats the case, Cain's wife isn't much of a mystery ;)
I'd love to see a vid where you explain your "Evo+Christ merge". Have any?
FatLingon 4 months ago
@FatLingon
No, but I am planning several videos on the topic discussing the process by which I came to believe in evolution, and what was holding me back beforehand. I think there are a couple possible ways of reading Genesis which don't involve throwing away Adam and Eve or negative implications for original sin. In fact, I think almost every pre-darwin interpretation of Genesis falls into that category.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
@FatLingon
Thanks
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
"Macro Evolution" is not science. There is no evidence that proves "Macro evolution" happened. It is strictly imaginative and a distraction of actual science.
RefinersFire298 4 months ago
@RefinersFire298
Why do you think it is that the deeper we dig the less complex the fossils become? If everything existed at the same time, why do the lower layers only contain amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates? Not a single mammal in all those lower layers? It is almost as if mammals didn't exist yet...
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 Uniformitarianism is an all too common assumption evolution uses often. Your an honest fellow; Read some papers on brief, intense, periods of sedimentation. I'm sure you'll find the evidence a challenge to the theory of evolution. Get rid of the assumptions and evolution has no basis. If Man evolved, when did he start having a soul that is capable of sin? How does the heart, arteries and blood start evolving without all existing at once?
RefinersFire298 4 months ago
@RefinersFire298
Do you have an answer to the fossil question, or are you merely confident other's have answers?
"How does the heart, arteries and blood start evolving without all existing at once?"
"Your an honest fellow; Read some papers..."
Do you think nothing has ever been written about how the heart, arteries, and blood evolved? If you want a rough idea of how that works, just look at various different creatures in different phases of complexity of their circulatory systems.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 This observation does not prove that one animal evolved into a completely different animal (reptiles and birds for example). In the history of science and observation there is not a shred of evidence (some may call it evidence, but it has always shown to be a fake or highly speculative) that shows one animal evolving into another. All that has been observed is what you may call "Micro Evolution" which is variations within a kind. Dogs produce dogs my friend.
RefinersFire298 4 months ago
@RefinersFire298
Do you think dogs and foxes share a distant parent? What about dogs and weasels, dogs and bears, or dogs and cats?
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
@RefinersFire298
" Dogs produce dogs my friend."
I actually agree. A better question would be, if we can get a wolf to become a chihuahuah in a couple hundred years, given a couple millions years of dog breeding do you think the ancestors of a chihuahua would still be able to mate with a wolf from a couple hundred years ago, or would they just be too different by that time? If you think they would be too different, then you agree that speciation can occur and that what evo is all about.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 You would agree that a chihuahua and a wolf are both dogs. Yet they cannot breed. This is not the result of any NEW information which evolution asserts (species are getting better, stronger and faster), but a steady isolation of already existing genes found in the dog pool of genes. There is no new information added in this process. This is not an example of evolution. Some may say it is "Micro Evolution" yet in reality is nothing other than a variation of a single kind of animal.
RefinersFire298 4 months ago
@RefinersFire298
Chihuahua's and wolves can breed. They are different breeds but members of the same species (unlike a fox and a dog, which are different species). Evolution doesn't assert that the species will get better, stronger, or faster (it only states there will be a tendency for mutations which increase survival to be passed on to future generations). Viewing current dog breeds over the past couple hundred years is microevolution, but nobody is disputing that.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 what is a mutation that helps a species? I have always wondered about that...
RefinersFire298 4 months ago
@RefinersFire298
Easy, sickle-cell trait which is a point mutation, provides protection against Malaria.
That is, if you have one parent who gives you the sickle-cell gene and one that doesn't, you get immunity to malaria.
gotohell114 4 months ago
@RefinersFire298
If you live in a sunny environment, a mutation which gives you more melanin would be beneficial because it gives you protection from the suns rays (sunburn causes cancer). Live in a less sunny environment, a beneficial mutation would be one that decreases melanin, to increase the vitamin D you can get from the suns rays.
Most mutations have a cost and a benefit, it depends on your environment as to which effect is greater.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 How did this mutation develop? Can you attribute this to evolution or is this just an example of existing isolated genes in a population? Your example is one of a harmful mutation (no beneficial mutation exists). If your skin cannot absorb vitamin D, that's bad. Evolution text books do what you've done all the time. They say "beneficial mutations exist, see look at this harmful mutation, this proves evolution". Where are the beneficial mutations?
RefinersFire298 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RefinersFire298 "There is no new information added in this process"
New information is added to the genome via random mutations. Sometimes segments of DNA get duplicated and accumulate other "errors" when copying. A segment "GATA" might be incorrectly copied as "GATAGATC" (a duplication plus a point mutation). The "GATC" part is NEW information that wasn't there before.
NoeLPZC 4 months ago
This was a great video. The man you interviewed was typically less knowledgable about science but nothing too surprising. There needs to be more understanding Christians like you who. I shared this on my facebook page.
chattiestspike2 4 months ago
@chattiestspike2
Sweet, is there anything you would do differently if you were me?
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 Maybe have the camera at a different angle. On a tripod maybe. If you can get it widescreened, that would be even better.
Oh you mean how you handled the questions? No, you did great :D
chattiestspike2 4 months ago
@chattiestspike2
I plan on bringing either a tripod or a friend to steady the camera for me next time. This time I just rested it in my lap.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
Very perceptive, I think this Evolution vs God issue is primarily an American phenomenon. Its not evolution vs theism, but Naturalism vs Theism that's the issue
TheDutchPhilosopher 4 months ago
@TheDutchPhilosopher
Im thinking about starting off next time with either "what is evolution?" or "if evolution was true, would that change your beliefs?".
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 note btw that people think that the literal reading of Gen 1 is the only correct reading, question them on that... that should be fun;)
TheDutchPhilosopher 4 months ago
@TheDutchPhilosopher
I should brush up on some possible counterarguments. I think it'd be interesting to ask if they think of my understanding of Genesis as a response to evolutionists, cuz ironically I think it is the literal day interpretation which comes into popularity post-darwin, and not the other way around.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 Yea so I feel really stupid because I posted some comments addressed to you but they were really from someone else. fail...
Agnosgnosia 4 months ago
Creationist Conclusion: Science is bad if you can't get an emotional high off of it.
WolfSyndrome 4 months ago
My question to him would be whether he thinks scientists believe quarks are the smallest components period or whether they're the smallest component discovered up to now.
wimsweden 4 months ago
Ow.
There is a forehead shaped impression in my desk where there wasn't one prior to watching these two gentlemen that you interviewed.
HonestDiscussioner 4 months ago
Poor old fool.
Firstly, bacteria, which is the most common animal (yes, theists animal, gasp!) isn't mentioned once in the baa-ble.
That's for starters.
Theists are either fuckin' dumb! Lazy as fuck. Or soooo deeply brainwashed that you can smack their stupid low-brow heads with a text book full of varified facts and they'll still look the other way.
Domzdream 4 months ago
3-4 billion years of prokaryotes...that must have been one boring time for god.
trick0171 4 months ago
I like this series, thumbs up for you sir! :)
I also like that you can answer just as cold-turkey as the person you are interviewing can. :)
DigitalDecadence 4 months ago
Basically this guy is just ignorant as can be about science, I don't think he got a single thing right mentioning the atom. Only something like religion can make someone that uneducated go around and state things they no nothing about as truth.
adrenacrumb 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@adrenacrumb know*
adrenacrumb 4 months ago
thumbs up.
whats interesting about this is that they seem to be more at ease with you. you're getting more information and perspective from them then any atheist could.
MpowerdAPE 4 months ago
@MpowerdAPE
Thanks, I do think that presents somewhat of a unique opportunity.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
@MpowerdAPE One of the first things people do is form preconceptions when they think someone is from an outgroup. Dan Ariely has a video from a TED talks presentation called "our buggy moral code" that talks about that.
Agnosgnosia 4 months ago
It's bad enough to fake like you believe the bullshit in the bible, but then to not even be consistent w/ that bullshit, I mean goddamn.
No, you cannot be a real Christian & believe humans are descendants of non-humans.
Also, according to evo theory - a species cannot give birth to another species, which is what MUST of happened if Adam is the first human.
So yea, I guess that means a hairy ape farted out god's greatest creation. You are a fvcking disgrace to your own fake religion.
theDracoIX 4 months ago
@theDracoIX relax hombre
MpowerdAPE 4 months ago
pretty interesting to hear these opinions and learning about what's making them tick underneath the surface of their problems. Keep 'em coming
ChadMStevenson 4 months ago
@ChadMStevenson
Thanks. Hopefully some more street preachers find their way to campus and that i hear about it when they do. Perhaps I can branch out and interview pastors or professors or something.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
Concerning the definition of evolution 7:48 , I think you should visit the website of the
Center for Chemical Evolution
God bless :)
weseeinpart 4 months ago
So is he the creationist version of Matt Dillahunty because he is bald and kind of chunky or does he exhibit some personality traits of him as well?
sweatytoothmadman 4 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman
Appearances. Beard, facial features, baldness, etc.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
I find it very interesting that many street preachers would go on preaching against evolution, but actually admit that if convinced that evolution were true, it would not destroy their belief in God and Christianity.
thunderbolt94 4 months ago
@thunderbolt94
Granted, neither of these two think of disbelief in evolution as a pillar to Christianity.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago