The bible says that species evolve only after their own general kind. So something like a turtle and a human having a common ancestor would be incompatible with the bible. To say a human evolved from a monkey would also be incompatible not only with the bible, but with Natural Selection and with the law of entropy. But you might be able to say that humans and monkeys devolved from a common figure, which that would not contradict the scripture.
@blattt188 "Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind"- You do understand that many people would agree that Genesis 1:1 - 3:1 (Or further) Are allegorical. Secondly Evolution occurs slowly, Thus the creature which bares evolutionary differences is only based out the original creatures genetics. So technically it is baring its own kind.
@AceofDlamonds Even though I disagree with your statement that evolution is probably true I believe you have your theology mixed up on the origin of sin. The Bible does not reveal that sin was a created thing rather, because of free will, a consequence of disobedience. We know there was sin before Adam because Satan himself sinned against God along with a 3rd of the angels. There are many different interpretation as to what scripture meant by "and by one man sin entered the earth"
I would add to what craig said that Origen, Ambrose and hilary of poiters have also taken a allegorical interpretation of genesis. So their is no need for this discussion about literalism and genesis. I think the creation-evolution debate is a waste of time and energy
It's not difficult. God supposedly made the animals in one day ( can't remember which) within the 1rst seven days. Man made in "our image". So the evolution of species from abiogenesis would falsify the First book of the bible. Without that... Christianity would suffer a major philosophical blow. As retarded as young Earth creationists are, at least they are consistent with their own theology.
Darwinism evolution is in DIRECT conflict with the biblical account of the Genesis.
If, God made us through evolution, then death created man...and that BIG implications for the nature of God... its not just a cute disagreement amongst Christians. Its everything!
@theUDTfrogman Humans didn't evolve from monkeys. Nor did monkeys didn't get turned into humans. Both humans and monkeys are MODERN animals, and come from the same ancestor.
Of course evolution disproves christianity (as christianity makes claims about the creation of life that is contradictory to the theory of evolution). However, since the age of enlightenment science has disproved christianity so many times that it's not a big deal anymore.
"since the age of enlightenment science has disproved christianity so many times that it's not a big deal anymore"
An example?
Besides, not really. It was the Atheistic scientists of the 19th and early-20th centuries that claimed that the universe was eternal. However, modern physics shows us that the universe did have a beginning. In the 19th century, it was thought that a cell was little more than a blob of goo (I forget the scientific word, but that's irrelevant)....
@THEEVANTHETOON modern physics does NOT show us that the universe had a beginning, just that this state of the universe did.
we don't know what was before the big bang, and 'nothingness' was only the leading theory for 17 years, suggested AND rebuked by the same scientist, Hawking, as the frontiers of singularity physics advanced.
at the moment it's generally thought to be more likely that some hyperspace multiverse preceded the big bang, not nothingness
Actually it does. When you apply the holographic principle to cosmology, you find that entropy requires space-time to have vanished from existence going back to the Big Bang. Space-time can only be produced after the Planck Epoch.
The wave-function of the universe precedes the universe, but it's not defined by any physical units.
...But improvements in technology have shown us that the cell is a very complex thing. So to say that "science has disproven Christianity" is a completely unfounded argument, which is why I am guessing you got this "information" from Richard Dawkins and the like.
"christianity makes claims about the creation of life that is contradictory to the theory of evolution"
Actually, it doesn't. For more information, actually watch the video.
Ugh yeah I'd just like to let everyone know that i am informed statistically I have been trained to be a professional statistician from my extensive work using google and yahoo search engines and uhh oh i just wanted to make it very clear the %'s of the truth which is that -67.8% of all scientists and intelligent people do not believe in god and around ugh idk maybe 147.000% believe in atheism so yeah i just wanted to let you know the statistics that are the truth and yes
I geuss the way people interpret the bible is like children looking at a cloud. One may see a cats head, another might see a telephone and yet another would see something else entirely. In the end it`s just a bunch of water vapor.
@VibrantNTingling I have heard other statistics that state that the scientists are nearly split (50-50) on the existence of God. Evolution does not and should not, in most cases, create these peoples atheism.
@VibrantNTingling I'm just glad you understand that it IS possible to (theoretically) disprove God. Though I believe your points are somewhat sophomoric, at least you get the point.
@BraunBrothers , no, the discoveries of modern science show that the bible was written by man. It contains too many contradictions to be the work of God. Do not confuse atheism with agnosticism, I simply believe man does not know the true nature of God, only our lame concepts of such a being. In our image, how vane can you be?
@VibrantNTingling By proving that the Christian God's existence is a contradiction and therefore impossible. I'm honestly surprised you don't know this.
@VibrantNTingling You have to be careful of your sources. It's these same evolutionists who think that you can STILL be a theist while believing in evolution. They also are NOT atheists because of evolution.
@drcraigvideos evolution puts death and suffering before and with adam when it was considered "good" therefore evolution doesnt belong with Christianity
This is the point where I must disagree with Dr. Craig, although I have utmost respect for him, his arguments are sound, and logically presented, however I can see no reason(Perhaps Dr. Craig can present one) why an All Powerful,Omnipresent,and Omniscient GOD could create a universe,such as we observe today in 6 days,or 6 minutes if He chose to !
An Eternal, All Powerful, All Knowing GOD does not require billions of years for His Work to come to fruition
@bkeay100 Well that same question could be asked from anything God does. If he could create everything instantly, why (in your view) did he take 6 days? why did Jesus wait so long to come to Earth after the fall? Why hasn't he returned yet? God is mysterious and doesn't always act how we think he would/should. :)
i bet that when the bible was created and peple started reading it they took everthing literaly but the writers (or profets if you will) left ALOT for interpretations wich makes this religion very hard to discuss, every single person understands it differently, so now when new scientific facts are discovered and its refuting the bible people add it to there religion and say thats how god did it and pull parts of the bible that are very open for interpretation and say it is proof of gods will
@Thunderios how do we determine a 24 hour day? The sun and the moon, right? Well according to Genesis 1:16 those were not created til day 4. So were the the first 3 days really days?
@BoomerB29 He created the light at day one, as if it was something different from the sun and moon. We call the time day, when it's light, and night when it's dark. We don't use the moon to determine a day, since it's around during the day as well. So we can still determine a 24-hour day from the first creation day.
But even if you were right, then all of evolution would still have had happened within the last three actual days, so the incomparability between evolution and genesis remains.
Evolution doesn't necessarily DISPROVE Christianity but it certainly contradicts Christianity - at least any traditional or orthodox Christianity.
Here's why. One element that is basic to any understanding of evolutionary theory is common descent - the idea that all life forms share common ancestry. Including man.
This is firmly rejected by traditional Christianity (which holds that individual species were created by supernatural act of special creation) including Craig's own institution.
@citizenghosttown And since a contradiction can't exist in out universe, and every place where logic rules, one of the two has to be wrong. Since evolution has evidence, and Christianity isn't more than merely speculation, it does disprove it.
I don't see how you can state that if something that we know is true contradicts something that we don't know is true, it isn't disprove of the latter...
The ID debate was lame, most of ayala's argument were some kinda bizarre ad hominem with the designer lol and the rest of the time, Dr Craig was correcting him and explaining the central topic.
Hmm, I really enjoy listening to Dr. Craig, but disagree with him on this. The bible is pretty clear where it is talking in a literal sense and where it is figurative. Everywhere else in the bible, the literal Genesis interpreation is considered valid. He's thinking too hard about this, you don't need to allow modern day events to guide interpretation of the Bible.
@drcraigvideos Christianity states that Jesus died for everyone's sins, i.e. the original sin being that of Adam and Eve's inherited by everyone. But if evolution is true, the story of Adam and Eve is false (since they're different explanations and mutually exclusive), so Jesus died for absolutely no reason.
@drcraigvideos it has nothing to do with the time frame interpitation but rather it hangs on if GOD created MAN in his image this is were it hangs on the back of cChristianity
@drcraigvideos It makes sense that evolution disproves Christianity. Is the character of God in the bible really consistent with someone who would abandon his creation to fend for themselves for billions of years through natural selection? What a sick and twisted God that would be. Also, why then would he choose to reveal himself 2,000 years ago, 198,000 years after modern humans evolved? Also, why did God create Neanderthals and allow us to kill them 30,000 years ago?
@idiallin *SIGH* Yeah, I heard all this same typical stuff from Hitchens. Try to be more original. There is no inconsistency between evil or sickness existing and God existing, because He can have a sufficient reason for allowing it. Seems simple enough. And neanderthals pertty much died by themselves, we didn't kill them. I would suggest you read Francisco Ayala who is an evolutionist and a scientist who believes God's existence is NECESSARY in order for evolution to happen.
@drcraigvideos Hitchens didn't invent the problem of evil. Please be a little more aware of historical context.
What moral reason does God have for torturing small animals with disease and predators and starvation? Do you simply have faith that God has a morally justification for such a thing? It's hardly a surprise that religious dogmatists would justify any form of evil on the basis of faith in some hidden spiritual justification.
@Fray2221 I think that Dr Craig is well aware of the history of the problem of evil, and probably was by the time he got his master's degree in philosophy of religion in 1975. He was just pointing out that you may think you're going to leave him speechless with your astonishing proof that there is no god, but he heard this tired old argument when he debated Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris, and A. C. Grayling. In fact, he devotes two chapters to it in his book Hard Questions, Real Answers.
@idiallin Christianity is based on the teachings and life of Jesus. All dogmatic bullshit aside evolution doesn't disprove the existence or discredit the teachings (forgiveness, pacifism, questioning establishment.) of Jesus so by that logic it in no way disproves Christianity. As for theism in general, I personally believe in biological evolution but what's to say the the changes initiated through it weren't orchestrated by a force larger than us?
@idiallin Dr Craig also proposed that the speed or effectiveness in creating something for an unlimited being as God is not a problem because he has all the resources and all the time, but the efficiency and speed is necessary for us since we are limited
Evolution doesn't have to disprove christianity any more than physics has to disprove the notion that gravity is the result of invisible intangible pixies with strings.
atheistic evolution ( transitional forms ) sure sounds like the biggest lie ever invented for biology students . Just give the impossible enough time and it will all happen like trying to make 1 plus 1 equal 3. The dog's ancestor was a ..................dog - that's why all the damn creatures just keep creating after their own kind today..stop hiding behind billions of years and come out in the open so the light of Christ can shine on your hopelessness.
@adstanra ha ha - the wolf is still a type of dog - evolution exposed again. There are different types of lizards, birds, cats, fish - they will remain lizards, birds, and fish - atheistic evolution ( marco evolution ) is a MASSIVE LIE! Quit hiding behind billions of years .
@whiteliketar Are you admitting that the Dog's ancestor is the grey wolf? That all "cats", "Fish","lizards" have a common ancestor? What about all marsupials,placentals,vertebrates,invertebrates? you are the one lying to yourself
@adstanra No coconut brain - just because they all have the same 4 chemical letters dosen't mean anything - a plane has many of the elements of a truck...can the truck fly? God created those 4 chemicals - not nothing in a vacuum madness. it's your premise that cutting you off at the legs...the madness of atheism needs to invent this bulshit to scoot away from accountability. Quit hidind behind billions of years.
@whiteliketar That's not an explanation so much as a bare assertion supported by absolutely nothing. That's the assertion you're trying to evidence, just reasserting it is not evidence.
@badpanda84 Because if you read the Bible you can tell what parts are to be taken literally and what others aren't. I wish more atheists would realize this if they study basic Hebrew texts.
@drcraigvideos It's funny this comes up so often. Probably one of the only times I was actually dumbstruck, and lost for words, was when I was discussing Genesis on an Atheist forum and I got two replies, from different people, one said, "Context doesn't matter, stop pretending it does." and the other was, "Stop playing word games. A day is a day." which was in reponse to me talking about specific definitions of words in Genesis. I too wish people would realise -how- to read the Bible.
@drcraigvideos You should read the Guide for the Perplexed by Maimonides. Maimonides was a medieval Jewish Theologian and is considered an authority on Biblical interpretation. In his book, he says that Adam was not the first Homosapien, but the first Homosapien to be given a soul. He says that there were other Homosapiens living that were the equivalent of animals since they did not have a soul. Pretty interesting stuff...
@drcraigvideos Haha, maybe to you... lots of other Christians would disagree. Lots of Christians take it literally. Some embrace the Old Testament, some don't - it's all subjective as to what you want to believe.
I think Darwinian evolution, if true, makes it very difficult to believe in the Christian God. Evolution is not directed, and there is no historical fall of man. Difficult to imagine a creator "play (ing) with dice"
" think Darwinian evolution, if true, makes it very difficult to believe in the Christian God. Evolution is not directed, and there is no historical fall of man."
How so? If evolution is true then it gives the narrative as to how homo sapiens arrived on the Earth (engineers use the darwinian principle for wing and pipe optimisations today) but that doesn't preclude that a pair of primates could become aware of God and then, at a given point, disobey him and make a mess of the world.
@Birdieupon Well, the problem is that there never was any guarantee of any primates ever existing.Evolution also instructs us in why we are the way we are; endowed with survival instincts like lust,fear,anger,tribalism.It may be that some ancestor "disobeyed" God, but I am a distinct individual.we certainly know that "Man" did not cause predation,death, suffering to come into the world. these things predate us by billions of yrs.
If evolution ever falls from the lofty position it currently holds in the scientific community, it will be science that brings it down, not the book of Genesis. I agree with Dr. Walton in his book "The lost world of Genesis One", that the book of Genesis does not speak to this subject, but rather is an account of God's dedication of his creation, just as the completed temple was dedicated to God after its completion by ancient Jews.
In Genesis, God "commands the Earth" to bring forth living beings, and He does so in stages.
Thus an intelligence invaded this dead planet, causing massive waves of species to appear, thrive and then be replaced by the next wave of species (and be joined by entirely new species).
And then God stopped, the "evolution force" stopped.
This explains what we see in the fossil record, and it verifies (for Christians with doubts planted by Darwinists) Intelligent Design Theory.
3. Evolution, God had no part 55% 9% Taken from NCSE website. So your proud that even in the US only 40% of scientists believe in a god (not just christian)? Apparently 93% of the public believes in some sort of god. I'm surprised It's only 40% with the overwhelming ignorance that proceeds them.
I cannot interpret the Genesis chapter compatible with Darwinism, even when I stretch my imagination to its extreme limits. I don't think it is obvious or straightforward and he just tells his interpretation without how he reached it. Is Craig's interpretation within reasonable limits or is he forcing it too much? I think his answer raises another question: What are the limits? Do we ever stop interpreting at some point? Maybe it is just free interpretation
@SirFoggy2Doped Dr. Craig got his facts from the anti-Creationist organization NCSE (the link to the article is in the description area). The NCSE! Dr. Craig didn't conjure up this statistic out of his butt like Richard Dawkins. This is just a fact. That 93% statistic sounds like something you got from Bill Maher or Sam Harris.
@SirFoggy2Doped Yup, you're a moron. You've showed me no proof whatsoever that atheists outnumber theists in evolution. And you totally skipped the article by NCSE. It's a good idea to trust science but it's not the answer to everything: watch?v=vxJQe_FefxY. Please attempt to grow a brain.
@drcraigvideos Concerning your response to SirFoggy2Doped (interesting name), you were correct. It seems that he was simply emotionally and irrationally responding to an attack upon his athiestic worldview. Bitterness and anger seem to be a common theme among certian athiests. It is an indication that they are unable to rationally defend their world view.
@drcraigvideos Heres some numbers, google " Evolutionary Biologists Flunk Religion Poll". I checked out the author of the NCSE article, and he's religious. Now listen, the poles in the survey asked the question poorly. They made no distinction between a deist(which could even imply they are still a pure naturalist) or theist god. The study in the link shows exactly what I mean. The arguments made for religion are on par logically, with that of conspiracy theorists.
@SirFoggy2Doped The unmber of people holding to a belief doesnt make the belief true - that is a logical fallacy - Did you know there are almost 2 billion Catholics in the world? That is OVERWHELMING compared to the number of Atheists in the world - Now my point should be clear - Catholicism is a false religion holding billions of professing members but that doesnt make it True or False - number mean nothing.
@markpaghi I'm going to assume this was in reply to his 93% claim (which isn't far from truth). OBVIOUSLY the number of people believing in something doesn't make it true. But when the vast majority of people who's job it is to examine the universe, using the only system we have to determine truth to any extent are saying that it is extremely improbable that there is a god, I take that as evidence that we live in a self-sustaining universe.
also i really can't stand some scientist/atheist assumed that we evolved into intelligent beings when it seems they were jus as intelligent b4 the flood & babylon thats why the destruction lets face it God didn't destroy babylon b/c of a tall structure it was a spiritual gateway (or some sort of technology ) yet they were ignorant & not near as smart as we are today lol
the only thing i have 2 say about this is that many scientist would suggest that we are related 2 animals therefore we were probably once an animal ourselve (ex:monkey) this would absolutely go against genesis in the since that we are made in God,s image CONT...........
I'm sorry, but Dr. Lane Craig obviously shows the thing I've said the whole time, a neutrality when it comes to God---while he believes it's truth he's following(the evidence where it leads), he's following man and not God when he admits this...
It's not to say I have perfect understanding, nor deny that Genesis does have many other theological references for the entire scriptures within itself... but it does in no way--support evolution, and Dr. Craig needs to read earlier into church history.
..quoting Augustine--a former Manichaean Gnostic.. he's not an early church father, try earlier.
Barnabas--a traveler of Paul
"In six days, God made the works of his hands. On the seventh day, he made an end, rested on it, and sanctified it." c.70-130E
..and there are many more like this. The early church knew of theories of evolution also... Origen has many quotes about humanist naturalist philosophers in the 200sAD who believed everything came about by chance or not according to Genesis
This all brings up another question... Why, if god wanted us to live by the bible does he allow it to be interpreted in such different ways? How do you make the distinction between what is meant to be taken literally; for me a day is quite obviously 24 literal hours. Saying that "Ohh no... they aren't literal" just seems to me, like an attempt to square the circle.
from the 1st to 3rd "day" the sun wasn't made. so obviously the word "day" meant something else not 24hrs. the sun only came to be made on the 4th day. the question you should be asking is what does the word "day" actually mean. this is what old earth creationists and young earth creationists are debating. but i personally don't bother with the issue much but because christianity is not about finding out how old the earth is. the "day" issue is what makes genesis very open.
@piprod01 Genesis is an early form of poetry with slightly different structures than the English language. For example, if you read Genesis chapter 1, then chapter 2, they seem like two different Genesis stories. But in the ancient Hebrew writing style, you give the reader a broad over view(chpt 1), and than you go back and give them more detail(chpt 2). Parts of Genesis and Revelation can not be read as literal language. I would suggest studying the Word more, you won’t regret it. Good Luck!
“Saint Augustine in the late 1800’s postulated that God created certain potencies in life forms that over time came into actualization and didn’t require special acts of creation.” I think that his is a pretty inaccurate Biblical interpretation. Genesis 2:7 “the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” The man could not have evolved from a single celled ameba; the breath of life was not in him.
@IceKnight, the early commentator Rashi extrapolated an ungiven amount of time between which Adam was formed as a creature with an animal soul and when the "neshema" or "breath of life" was breathed into him making him human. Evo. has had a devil of a time trying to account for the origins of life and their last stronghold is to say crystaline clay structures originated the first cell. Gerald Schroeder believes Genesis records the evolution of hominoids for these reasons. I don't believe in evo.
@52blades I’m not sure I understand the part about crystalline clay structures hah. “an ungiven amount of time between which Adam was formed as a creature with an animal soul and when the "neshema" or "breath of life" was breathed into him making him human.” The breath of life did not make Adam human, it made him come alive. How then, could we have evolved from a single cell before we were even alive. Since we have no life, the cell would have no life.
I've also studied Genesis and I agree with Dr. Craig that it is very subtle. You would, however, have to believe in a figurative day as well as a somehow "spiritual" death entering into the world because of original sin. Also, each day it says "evening and morning" which seems to out of it's way to say one day. I believe that it's fully possible for a "maximally great being" to suspend physics to create the world any way He chooses. There's no need to justify God to the science of the moment.
@RighteousPaladin "I believe that it's fully possible for a "maximally great being" to suspend physics to create the world any way He chooses." I agree! But heres the kicker... it's irrelevant! Sure it's possible, but so is anything else that you can imagine. I reject your premise. You need to at least have demonstrable evidence to even give your god hypothesis a bigger chance of be true than anything else you can imagine. You, like all other theists are ignorant of your own logical fallacies.
@MRfullon "sure its possible, but so is anything else you can imagine" The argument wouldnt be "its possible or not" The argument would be its the MOST plausible explanation. And i would have to disagree with the anything is possible statement - Some things are physically , logically, etc. Impossible - Such as a Corner in a circle room or Flying Pigs or Counting to Infinity , etc. Such things arent possible, they are simply Impossible and Illogical.
@markpaghi Ok, lets go with plausible then. This doesn't make your position look much better. You still need demonstrable EVIDENCE that your presumption is plausible. Now please enlighten me with your evidence of creation.
@RighteousPaladin "I believe that it's fully possible for a "maximally great being" to suspend physics to create the world any way He chooses." I agree! But heres the kicker... it's irrelevant! Sure it's possible, but so is anything else that you can imagine. I reject your premise. You need to at least have demonstrable evidence to even give your god hypothesis a bigger chance of be true than anything else you can imagine. You, like all other theists are ignorant of your own logical fallacies.
@RighteousPaladin Yea i agree - evolution is garbage - but the point is Evolution doesnt disprove Gods existence - which is a false assumption - evolution being true doesnt Negate Gods existence - they are logically compatible - it is obvious - only an ignorant person would argue evolution disproves God - that is straw man arguments.
@markpaghi No evolution is not garbage. We know it to be true on relatively the same level as we know we exist in a galaxy. Which we consider to be fact.
I notice he did not spare a single word to discuss Adam & Eve, which is the more ridiculous aspect of the Genesis story. And the Adam & Eve narrative is completely false if biological evolution is true.
@hawke123 Ummm, no. If you don't see the contradiction, you are not going to induce me into a flurry of typing by merely saying, "How so?" Prima facie, they contradict each other. If you think they are reconcilable, you would have to be the one to justify it. I don't even know why I'm responding to this, though. If you think they are reconcilable, you no doubt do not have an ounce of rationality or knowledge of evolutionary biology.
How old are you and what is your educational background?
@Uroshnor: You're dodging my question and shifting the burden of proof when I haven't claimed anything. Moreover, your post is extraordinarily presumptuous about my knowledge regarding evolutionary biology. Lastly, it is plausibly condescending. The last line in particular.
I ask you a simple question of elaboration and clarification and you respond with this? Wow...
@Uroshnor did you hear what Craig said about the early church fathers? I find this incredible-that the church fathers did not necessarily accept young earth creationism, but they saw the creation narrative some do today. Symbolic.
None of the Church Fathers accepted "young earth creationism", nor did they preach it. In fact, it was only cultural tradition, and the lack of knowledge of pre-history that caused anyone to believe earth/humans were "young" (under 10,000).
You should also look at Aristotle, who said that Zoroaster lived 6000 years before him. Clearly not a young-earther.
@Uroshnor, i agree. this is another reason why i think evolution is complete crap. billions of fossils and less than 300 highly disputed transitionals, the genetic process, and the diversity and creativity of life prove design. evo is trash.
GENESIS CHAPTER TWO verse 1-.."the heavens and the earth were FINISHED,and ALL the host of them."- If evolution were true the heavens and earth would have just BEGAN. Not finished. Finished = complete. Nothing to evolve since everything is finished-
@shotsxxx: Also the whole meaning of the word BEGINNING, becomes very vague when we need to induce the millions of years in order to interpret what would seem "right" in modern scientific terms.
Consider the following:
Bible starts with IN THE BEGINNING (Gen 1:1)
Man was made FROM THE BEGINNING OF CREATION (Mark 10:6)
and also God made man AT THE BEGINNING (Matthew 19:4)
Can we really say, that since Gen 1:1, there was a long period of time after which came man - "at the beginning"?
@AhoSenpai You are over complicating this.Your references are about the beginning of time and you have made no point except to provide further evidence that proves MY point. This can only mean man and woman were made complete in the beginning and did NOT evolve.- "Beginning" is not vague at all.In fact, it is quite clear what is meant by the "beginning"- The start of it all. "In the beginning...... it is finished"- NO EVOLUTION.
@shotsxxx I'm sorry, it seems that you have misunderstood the point of my comment. My whole point was to support the point you had made. In my comment I merely tried to show how vague the meaning of the word "beginning" needs to be in order to justify the millions of years. But as you stated the word beginning is not vague at all. The last question in my comment just goes to show how absurd the situation becomes. So that's all, you misunderstood where I was coming from.
@AhoSenpai We do not need to "induce millions of years to interpret what would seem right in modern scientific terms"- Science has a lot of good guesses but when you get to the point where you pick the answer that science offers, over what the Bible says, when they seem to disagree, You cannot call yourself a Christian and people who do this will surely burn in hell. But if you insist, I believe your answer lies in the Garden of Eden-Adam and Eve could have lived in the garden for a long time.
no adam and eve means no original sin which means no fall of man which undermines what jesus died for.
aj19bcx 1 week ago
The bible says that species evolve only after their own general kind. So something like a turtle and a human having a common ancestor would be incompatible with the bible. To say a human evolved from a monkey would also be incompatible not only with the bible, but with Natural Selection and with the law of entropy. But you might be able to say that humans and monkeys devolved from a common figure, which that would not contradict the scripture.
blattt188 2 weeks ago
@blattt188 "Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind"- You do understand that many people would agree that Genesis 1:1 - 3:1 (Or further) Are allegorical. Secondly Evolution occurs slowly, Thus the creature which bares evolutionary differences is only based out the original creatures genetics. So technically it is baring its own kind.
TheFaithfulApologist 1 week ago
um wouldnt an intelligent god create things to "evolve" so they can adapt and live.
tzDub92 1 month ago
If evolution was true...and it probably is...how does sin enter the world through Adam, the "first human"?
AceofDlamonds 2 months ago
@AceofDlamonds Even though I disagree with your statement that evolution is probably true I believe you have your theology mixed up on the origin of sin. The Bible does not reveal that sin was a created thing rather, because of free will, a consequence of disobedience. We know there was sin before Adam because Satan himself sinned against God along with a 3rd of the angels. There are many different interpretation as to what scripture meant by "and by one man sin entered the earth"
bumper212 2 months ago
I would add to what craig said that Origen, Ambrose and hilary of poiters have also taken a allegorical interpretation of genesis. So their is no need for this discussion about literalism and genesis. I think the creation-evolution debate is a waste of time and energy
jamaicanification 3 months ago
wow read the article drcraigvideos posted, thank you drcraigvid! As always your doing a great job keep it up thankyou.
Hewhobearschrist 3 months ago
It's not difficult. God supposedly made the animals in one day ( can't remember which) within the 1rst seven days. Man made in "our image". So the evolution of species from abiogenesis would falsify the First book of the bible. Without that... Christianity would suffer a major philosophical blow. As retarded as young Earth creationists are, at least they are consistent with their own theology.
stormblast49 3 months ago
debating genesis is such a waste of energy. Its a poem!
cheesypasta 4 months ago
yes it does as long as you hold a literal account of Genesis. If you don't, then it doesn't.
Casshyr 4 months ago
Darwinism evolution is in DIRECT conflict with the biblical account of the Genesis.
If, God made us through evolution, then death created man...and that BIG implications for the nature of God... its not just a cute disagreement amongst Christians. Its everything!
BrokHomz 4 months ago 5
Macro evloution has been tested and proven >_<
This "if"
TheMrgoku1985 5 months ago
@theUDTfrogman Humans didn't evolve from monkeys. Nor did monkeys didn't get turned into humans. Both humans and monkeys are MODERN animals, and come from the same ancestor.
HipHopWorldStar 5 months ago
Of course evolution disproves christianity (as christianity makes claims about the creation of life that is contradictory to the theory of evolution). However, since the age of enlightenment science has disproved christianity so many times that it's not a big deal anymore.
Fuglebolle 5 months ago
@Fuglebolle
"since the age of enlightenment science has disproved christianity so many times that it's not a big deal anymore"
An example?
Besides, not really. It was the Atheistic scientists of the 19th and early-20th centuries that claimed that the universe was eternal. However, modern physics shows us that the universe did have a beginning. In the 19th century, it was thought that a cell was little more than a blob of goo (I forget the scientific word, but that's irrelevant)....
THEEVANTHETOON 5 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON modern physics does NOT show us that the universe had a beginning, just that this state of the universe did.
we don't know what was before the big bang, and 'nothingness' was only the leading theory for 17 years, suggested AND rebuked by the same scientist, Hawking, as the frontiers of singularity physics advanced.
at the moment it's generally thought to be more likely that some hyperspace multiverse preceded the big bang, not nothingness
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 2 months ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke "does NOT show us that the universe had a beginning"
Actually it does. When you apply the holographic principle to cosmology, you find that entropy requires space-time to have vanished from existence going back to the Big Bang. Space-time can only be produced after the Planck Epoch.
The wave-function of the universe precedes the universe, but it's not defined by any physical units.
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
@Fuglebolle
...But improvements in technology have shown us that the cell is a very complex thing. So to say that "science has disproven Christianity" is a completely unfounded argument, which is why I am guessing you got this "information" from Richard Dawkins and the like.
"christianity makes claims about the creation of life that is contradictory to the theory of evolution"
Actually, it doesn't. For more information, actually watch the video.
THEEVANTHETOON 5 months ago
@drcraigvideos thanks for this video! I really hope creationists and atheists will both benefit from it..
megaead69 5 months ago
do atheists believe in the Lochness monster ?
ikawpipa 6 months ago
Ugh yeah I'd just like to let everyone know that i am informed statistically I have been trained to be a professional statistician from my extensive work using google and yahoo search engines and uhh oh i just wanted to make it very clear the %'s of the truth which is that -67.8% of all scientists and intelligent people do not believe in god and around ugh idk maybe 147.000% believe in atheism so yeah i just wanted to let you know the statistics that are the truth and yes
scar504 6 months ago
Evolution has no bearing on disproving any religion.
The basics of evolution is that things change over time. It says nothing of the search for philosophical meaning in ones life.
To suggest that it does in any way is quite ignorant.
It does tell us that the world was not created 6000 years ago. It has no bearing on the view of evolution as creation happening.
Twicebakedtaters 6 months ago
I geuss the way people interpret the bible is like children looking at a cloud. One may see a cats head, another might see a telephone and yet another would see something else entirely. In the end it`s just a bunch of water vapor.
mdo686 6 months ago
@VibrantNTingling I have heard other statistics that state that the scientists are nearly split (50-50) on the existence of God. Evolution does not and should not, in most cases, create these peoples atheism.
YeshuaisLord100 7 months ago
@VibrantNTingling I'm just glad you understand that it IS possible to (theoretically) disprove God. Though I believe your points are somewhat sophomoric, at least you get the point.
BraunBrothers 7 months ago
@VibrantNTingling Actually, that's not necessarily true. The Christian God, for example, has traditionally been defined the same way.
And have you never heard of the problem of evil? That's an argument to prove that the Christian God does not exist.
BraunBrothers 7 months ago
@BraunBrothers , no, the discoveries of modern science show that the bible was written by man. It contains too many contradictions to be the work of God. Do not confuse atheism with agnosticism, I simply believe man does not know the true nature of God, only our lame concepts of such a being. In our image, how vane can you be?
zaurakdigis 6 months ago
@zaurakdigis Are you sure you meant that comment for me? How is that relevant to my last post?
BraunBrothers 6 months ago
@VibrantNTingling By proving that the Christian God's existence is a contradiction and therefore impossible. I'm honestly surprised you don't know this.
BraunBrothers 7 months ago
@VibrantNTingling You can disprove the Christian God.
BraunBrothers 7 months ago
@VibrantNTingling You have to be careful of your sources. It's these same evolutionists who think that you can STILL be a theist while believing in evolution. They also are NOT atheists because of evolution.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago 2
@theUDTfrogman Well, kiss my gritz! God made man in His own image by the dust of the earth.
drcraigvideos 8 months ago
@drcraigvideos evolution puts death and suffering before and with adam when it was considered "good" therefore evolution doesnt belong with Christianity
thinktothemax 4 months ago
It is Folly to ask " When" questions to an eternal being.
bkeay100 8 months ago
Evolution = No 1st man & woman = No Adam & Eve = No original sin = No need for Jesus to die for Adam's hereditary sin.
XanderBBo 9 months ago
@XanderBBo "No Adam & Eve " So you state and have scientific evidence that the same random mutation happen in large populations?
girtkaz 8 months ago
This is the point where I must disagree with Dr. Craig, although I have utmost respect for him, his arguments are sound, and logically presented, however I can see no reason(Perhaps Dr. Craig can present one) why an All Powerful,Omnipresent,and Omniscient GOD could create a universe,such as we observe today in 6 days,or 6 minutes if He chose to !
An Eternal, All Powerful, All Knowing GOD does not require billions of years for His Work to come to fruition
bkeay100 9 months ago
@bkeay100 Well that same question could be asked from anything God does. If he could create everything instantly, why (in your view) did he take 6 days? why did Jesus wait so long to come to Earth after the fall? Why hasn't he returned yet? God is mysterious and doesn't always act how we think he would/should. :)
BoomerB29 8 months ago
i bet that when the bible was created and peple started reading it they took everthing literaly but the writers (or profets if you will) left ALOT for interpretations wich makes this religion very hard to discuss, every single person understands it differently, so now when new scientific facts are discovered and its refuting the bible people add it to there religion and say thats how god did it and pull parts of the bible that are very open for interpretation and say it is proof of gods will
carlosboo1 9 months ago
Gen 1:8 "And the evening and the morning were the second day." Sounds like a 24-hour day to me.
Thunderios 1 year ago
@Thunderios how do we determine a 24 hour day? The sun and the moon, right? Well according to Genesis 1:16 those were not created til day 4. So were the the first 3 days really days?
BoomerB29 11 months ago
@BoomerB29 He created the light at day one, as if it was something different from the sun and moon. We call the time day, when it's light, and night when it's dark. We don't use the moon to determine a day, since it's around during the day as well. So we can still determine a 24-hour day from the first creation day.
But even if you were right, then all of evolution would still have had happened within the last three actual days, so the incomparability between evolution and genesis remains.
Thunderios 11 months ago
Evolution doesn't necessarily DISPROVE Christianity but it certainly contradicts Christianity - at least any traditional or orthodox Christianity.
Here's why. One element that is basic to any understanding of evolutionary theory is common descent - the idea that all life forms share common ancestry. Including man.
This is firmly rejected by traditional Christianity (which holds that individual species were created by supernatural act of special creation) including Craig's own institution.
citizenghosttown 1 year ago
@citizenghosttown And since a contradiction can't exist in out universe, and every place where logic rules, one of the two has to be wrong. Since evolution has evidence, and Christianity isn't more than merely speculation, it does disprove it.
I don't see how you can state that if something that we know is true contradicts something that we don't know is true, it isn't disprove of the latter...
Thunderios 11 months ago 2
The ID debate was lame, most of ayala's argument were some kinda bizarre ad hominem with the designer lol and the rest of the time, Dr Craig was correcting him and explaining the central topic.
IloveYOUviruses 1 year ago
Hmm, I really enjoy listening to Dr. Craig, but disagree with him on this. The bible is pretty clear where it is talking in a literal sense and where it is figurative. Everywhere else in the bible, the literal Genesis interpreation is considered valid. He's thinking too hard about this, you don't need to allow modern day events to guide interpretation of the Bible.
1776iscoming 1 year ago
Answer to the Title is YES
SanguineBullet667 1 year ago 4
@SanguineBullet667 Please tell us how.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos Christianity states that Jesus died for everyone's sins, i.e. the original sin being that of Adam and Eve's inherited by everyone. But if evolution is true, the story of Adam and Eve is false (since they're different explanations and mutually exclusive), so Jesus died for absolutely no reason.
drrobertoboogie97 9 months ago
@drcraigvideos it has nothing to do with the time frame interpitation but rather it hangs on if GOD created MAN in his image this is were it hangs on the back of cChristianity
tonyteb 8 months ago
@drcraigvideos It makes sense that evolution disproves Christianity. Is the character of God in the bible really consistent with someone who would abandon his creation to fend for themselves for billions of years through natural selection? What a sick and twisted God that would be. Also, why then would he choose to reveal himself 2,000 years ago, 198,000 years after modern humans evolved? Also, why did God create Neanderthals and allow us to kill them 30,000 years ago?
idiallin 2 months ago
@idiallin *SIGH* Yeah, I heard all this same typical stuff from Hitchens. Try to be more original. There is no inconsistency between evil or sickness existing and God existing, because He can have a sufficient reason for allowing it. Seems simple enough. And neanderthals pertty much died by themselves, we didn't kill them. I would suggest you read Francisco Ayala who is an evolutionist and a scientist who believes God's existence is NECESSARY in order for evolution to happen.
drcraigvideos 2 months ago
@drcraigvideos Hitchens didn't invent the problem of evil. Please be a little more aware of historical context.
What moral reason does God have for torturing small animals with disease and predators and starvation? Do you simply have faith that God has a morally justification for such a thing? It's hardly a surprise that religious dogmatists would justify any form of evil on the basis of faith in some hidden spiritual justification.
Fray2221 1 month ago
@Fray2221 I think that Dr Craig is well aware of the history of the problem of evil, and probably was by the time he got his master's degree in philosophy of religion in 1975. He was just pointing out that you may think you're going to leave him speechless with your astonishing proof that there is no god, but he heard this tired old argument when he debated Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris, and A. C. Grayling. In fact, he devotes two chapters to it in his book Hard Questions, Real Answers.
cengime 1 month ago
@idiallin Christianity is based on the teachings and life of Jesus. All dogmatic bullshit aside evolution doesn't disprove the existence or discredit the teachings (forgiveness, pacifism, questioning establishment.) of Jesus so by that logic it in no way disproves Christianity. As for theism in general, I personally believe in biological evolution but what's to say the the changes initiated through it weren't orchestrated by a force larger than us?
boonskety 1 month ago
@idiallin Dr Craig also proposed that the speed or effectiveness in creating something for an unlimited being as God is not a problem because he has all the resources and all the time, but the efficiency and speed is necessary for us since we are limited
NomiVoluntad 3 weeks ago
Evolution doesn't have to disprove christianity any more than physics has to disprove the notion that gravity is the result of invisible intangible pixies with strings.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
atheistic evolution ( transitional forms ) sure sounds like the biggest lie ever invented for biology students . Just give the impossible enough time and it will all happen like trying to make 1 plus 1 equal 3. The dog's ancestor was a ..................dog - that's why all the damn creatures just keep creating after their own kind today..stop hiding behind billions of years and come out in the open so the light of Christ can shine on your hopelessness.
whiteliketar 1 year ago
@whiteliketar uh , no . Go back far enough and the Dog's ancestor is a wolf. This is well known.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra ha ha - the wolf is still a type of dog - evolution exposed again. There are different types of lizards, birds, cats, fish - they will remain lizards, birds, and fish - atheistic evolution ( marco evolution ) is a MASSIVE LIE! Quit hiding behind billions of years .
whiteliketar 1 year ago
@whiteliketar Are you admitting that the Dog's ancestor is the grey wolf? That all "cats", "Fish","lizards" have a common ancestor? What about all marsupials,placentals,vertebrates,invertebrates? you are the one lying to yourself
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra No coconut brain - just because they all have the same 4 chemical letters dosen't mean anything - a plane has many of the elements of a truck...can the truck fly? God created those 4 chemicals - not nothing in a vacuum madness. it's your premise that cutting you off at the legs...the madness of atheism needs to invent this bulshit to scoot away from accountability. Quit hidind behind billions of years.
whiteliketar 1 year ago
@whiteliketar oh, right. No further discussion required.
adstanra 1 year ago
@whiteliketar 'God created those 4 chemicals'
Evidence? Mechanism? Anything resembling a useful hypothesis.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation - Ha ha - IN the begininig God created......how's that for a useful explanation. Don't like that one ? lol
whiteliketar 1 year ago
@whiteliketar That's not an explanation so much as a bare assertion supported by absolutely nothing. That's the assertion you're trying to evidence, just reasserting it is not evidence.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
If genesis is open to wide range of interpretations -- why not the rest of the bible
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84 Because if you read the Bible you can tell what parts are to be taken literally and what others aren't. I wish more atheists would realize this if they study basic Hebrew texts.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago 2
@drcraigvideos Are you serious? With an answer like that, is there any question why your side has lost the debate?
GohModley 1 year ago
@GohModley Uh, yeah, it's not important to study the Hebrew text of the Bible then. You're too fast for me, GohModley.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
"you can tell" is your defense. Thats why lost the debate genius
mrbam8 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos It's funny this comes up so often. Probably one of the only times I was actually dumbstruck, and lost for words, was when I was discussing Genesis on an Atheist forum and I got two replies, from different people, one said, "Context doesn't matter, stop pretending it does." and the other was, "Stop playing word games. A day is a day." which was in reponse to me talking about specific definitions of words in Genesis. I too wish people would realise -how- to read the Bible.
DigitalDecadence 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos You should read the Guide for the Perplexed by Maimonides. Maimonides was a medieval Jewish Theologian and is considered an authority on Biblical interpretation. In his book, he says that Adam was not the first Homosapien, but the first Homosapien to be given a soul. He says that there were other Homosapiens living that were the equivalent of animals since they did not have a soul. Pretty interesting stuff...
AegeanKing 9 months ago
@drcraigvideos Haha, maybe to you... lots of other Christians would disagree. Lots of Christians take it literally. Some embrace the Old Testament, some don't - it's all subjective as to what you want to believe.
Karateworm 9 months ago
@badpanda84 Genesis is only open to an interpretation that explains what the author originally meant which we now describe as mythic.
Druidbaker 11 months ago
I think Darwinian evolution, if true, makes it very difficult to believe in the Christian God. Evolution is not directed, and there is no historical fall of man. Difficult to imagine a creator "play (ing) with dice"
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra
very much agreed.
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@adstanra
" think Darwinian evolution, if true, makes it very difficult to believe in the Christian God. Evolution is not directed, and there is no historical fall of man."
How so? If evolution is true then it gives the narrative as to how homo sapiens arrived on the Earth (engineers use the darwinian principle for wing and pipe optimisations today) but that doesn't preclude that a pair of primates could become aware of God and then, at a given point, disobey him and make a mess of the world.
Birdieupon 1 year ago
@Birdieupon Well, the problem is that there never was any guarantee of any primates ever existing.Evolution also instructs us in why we are the way we are; endowed with survival instincts like lust,fear,anger,tribalism.It may be that some ancestor "disobeyed" God, but I am a distinct individual.we certainly know that "Man" did not cause predation,death, suffering to come into the world. these things predate us by billions of yrs.
adstanra 1 year ago
If evolution ever falls from the lofty position it currently holds in the scientific community, it will be science that brings it down, not the book of Genesis. I agree with Dr. Walton in his book "The lost world of Genesis One", that the book of Genesis does not speak to this subject, but rather is an account of God's dedication of his creation, just as the completed temple was dedicated to God after its completion by ancient Jews.
VeryImagesozo 12 minutes ago
VeryImagesozo 1 year ago
In Genesis, God "commands the Earth" to bring forth living beings, and He does so in stages.
Thus an intelligence invaded this dead planet, causing massive waves of species to appear, thrive and then be replaced by the next wave of species (and be joined by entirely new species).
And then God stopped, the "evolution force" stopped.
This explains what we see in the fossil record, and it verifies (for Christians with doubts planted by Darwinists) Intelligent Design Theory.
jackdenver60 1 year ago
GALLUP EVOLUTION QUESTIONS
Question Scientists Public
1. Special Creation, 10 000 years 5% 46%
2. Evolution, God Guided 40% 40%
3. Evolution, God had no part 55% 9% Taken from NCSE website. So your proud that even in the US only 40% of scientists believe in a god (not just christian)? Apparently 93% of the public believes in some sort of god. I'm surprised It's only 40% with the overwhelming ignorance that proceeds them.
MRfullon 1 year ago
I cannot interpret the Genesis chapter compatible with Darwinism, even when I stretch my imagination to its extreme limits. I don't think it is obvious or straightforward and he just tells his interpretation without how he reached it. Is Craig's interpretation within reasonable limits or is he forcing it too much? I think his answer raises another question: What are the limits? Do we ever stop interpreting at some point? Maybe it is just free interpretation
alperduru 1 year ago
THE TRUTH IS that 93% of all scientists reject Intelligent Design and the existence of ANY GOD.
That's not just a majority.
It's an OVERWHELMING majority.
This man is SADLY MISTAKEN OR LYING about most/many scientists having belief in Theism.
SirFoggy2Doped 1 year ago
@SirFoggy2Doped Dr. Craig got his facts from the anti-Creationist organization NCSE (the link to the article is in the description area). The NCSE! Dr. Craig didn't conjure up this statistic out of his butt like Richard Dawkins. This is just a fact. That 93% statistic sounds like something you got from Bill Maher or Sam Harris.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago 25
@drcraigvideos I've heard from several reliable sources that most scientists are NOT Theists.
Creationists pull alot from their butts!!
I don't trust anything that a major religious institution has to say and I doubt the NCSE actually says that most scientists believe in God.
Keep massaging the numbers:),I'll trust science:)
SirFoggy2Doped 1 year ago 2
@SirFoggy2Doped Yup, you're a moron. You've showed me no proof whatsoever that atheists outnumber theists in evolution. And you totally skipped the article by NCSE. It's a good idea to trust science but it's not the answer to everything: watch?v=vxJQe_FefxY. Please attempt to grow a brain.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago 14
@drcraigvideos Concerning your response to SirFoggy2Doped (interesting name), you were correct. It seems that he was simply emotionally and irrationally responding to an attack upon his athiestic worldview. Bitterness and anger seem to be a common theme among certian athiests. It is an indication that they are unable to rationally defend their world view.
VeryImagesozo 1 year ago
@VeryImagesozo
I agree with you on that one....They put too much trust into their hate sites that they go to.
coolst0rybro 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos I'm loling at you so hard right now. DELUSIONAL! Have you ever considered you might be wrong? Honest answer please.
MRfullon 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos Heres some numbers, google " Evolutionary Biologists Flunk Religion Poll". I checked out the author of the NCSE article, and he's religious. Now listen, the poles in the survey asked the question poorly. They made no distinction between a deist(which could even imply they are still a pure naturalist) or theist god. The study in the link shows exactly what I mean. The arguments made for religion are on par logically, with that of conspiracy theorists.
MRfullon 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos evolution does not say there is not a god it just proves dat god is not the god of any of the world religions
thescorpionking2020 11 months ago
@drcraigvideos
When you refer to Dawkin's butt, are you talking about his mouth or his rear-end, because crap comes out both?
THEEVANTHETOON 5 months ago
@SirFoggy2Doped The unmber of people holding to a belief doesnt make the belief true - that is a logical fallacy - Did you know there are almost 2 billion Catholics in the world? That is OVERWHELMING compared to the number of Atheists in the world - Now my point should be clear - Catholicism is a false religion holding billions of professing members but that doesnt make it True or False - number mean nothing.
markpaghi 1 year ago
@markpaghi I'm going to assume this was in reply to his 93% claim (which isn't far from truth). OBVIOUSLY the number of people believing in something doesn't make it true. But when the vast majority of people who's job it is to examine the universe, using the only system we have to determine truth to any extent are saying that it is extremely improbable that there is a god, I take that as evidence that we live in a self-sustaining universe.
MRfullon 1 year ago
also i really can't stand some scientist/atheist assumed that we evolved into intelligent beings when it seems they were jus as intelligent b4 the flood & babylon thats why the destruction lets face it God didn't destroy babylon b/c of a tall structure it was a spiritual gateway (or some sort of technology ) yet they were ignorant & not near as smart as we are today lol
evewale 1 year ago
the only thing i have 2 say about this is that many scientist would suggest that we are related 2 animals therefore we were probably once an animal ourselve (ex:monkey) this would absolutely go against genesis in the since that we are made in God,s image CONT...........
evewale 1 year ago
I'm sorry, but Dr. Lane Craig obviously shows the thing I've said the whole time, a neutrality when it comes to God---while he believes it's truth he's following(the evidence where it leads), he's following man and not God when he admits this...
It's not to say I have perfect understanding, nor deny that Genesis does have many other theological references for the entire scriptures within itself... but it does in no way--support evolution, and Dr. Craig needs to read earlier into church history.
droptozro 1 year ago
..quoting Augustine--a former Manichaean Gnostic.. he's not an early church father, try earlier.
Barnabas--a traveler of Paul
"In six days, God made the works of his hands. On the seventh day, he made an end, rested on it, and sanctified it." c.70-130E
..and there are many more like this. The early church knew of theories of evolution also... Origen has many quotes about humanist naturalist philosophers in the 200sAD who believed everything came about by chance or not according to Genesis
droptozro 1 year ago
For an interpretation of Genesis 1 that best fits the historical background of the text, see John Walton The Lost World of Genesis 1.
andrewloke777 1 year ago
Not really mr. Lane Craig.
Patrickthedutch 1 year ago
got to love how Christians back peddle
WhiteJewDevil420 1 year ago
great video
iToyRobot 1 year ago
This all brings up another question... Why, if god wanted us to live by the bible does he allow it to be interpreted in such different ways? How do you make the distinction between what is meant to be taken literally; for me a day is quite obviously 24 literal hours. Saying that "Ohh no... they aren't literal" just seems to me, like an attempt to square the circle.
piprod01 1 year ago
@piprod01
from the 1st to 3rd "day" the sun wasn't made. so obviously the word "day" meant something else not 24hrs. the sun only came to be made on the 4th day. the question you should be asking is what does the word "day" actually mean. this is what old earth creationists and young earth creationists are debating. but i personally don't bother with the issue much but because christianity is not about finding out how old the earth is. the "day" issue is what makes genesis very open.
diuryl 1 year ago
@piprod01 Genesis is an early form of poetry with slightly different structures than the English language. For example, if you read Genesis chapter 1, then chapter 2, they seem like two different Genesis stories. But in the ancient Hebrew writing style, you give the reader a broad over view(chpt 1), and than you go back and give them more detail(chpt 2). Parts of Genesis and Revelation can not be read as literal language. I would suggest studying the Word more, you won’t regret it. Good Luck!
IceKnight366 1 year ago
check out biologis foundation
shedininja001 1 year ago
“Saint Augustine in the late 1800’s postulated that God created certain potencies in life forms that over time came into actualization and didn’t require special acts of creation.” I think that his is a pretty inaccurate Biblical interpretation. Genesis 2:7 “the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” The man could not have evolved from a single celled ameba; the breath of life was not in him.
IceKnight366 1 year ago
@IceKnight, the early commentator Rashi extrapolated an ungiven amount of time between which Adam was formed as a creature with an animal soul and when the "neshema" or "breath of life" was breathed into him making him human. Evo. has had a devil of a time trying to account for the origins of life and their last stronghold is to say crystaline clay structures originated the first cell. Gerald Schroeder believes Genesis records the evolution of hominoids for these reasons. I don't believe in evo.
52blades 1 year ago
@52blades I’m not sure I understand the part about crystalline clay structures hah. “an ungiven amount of time between which Adam was formed as a creature with an animal soul and when the "neshema" or "breath of life" was breathed into him making him human.” The breath of life did not make Adam human, it made him come alive. How then, could we have evolved from a single cell before we were even alive. Since we have no life, the cell would have no life.
IceKnight366 1 year ago
I'm glad he talked about knowing how to interpret the Bible. Also he makes an interesting point at 3:35 .
urbanh196398105 1 year ago
I've also studied Genesis and I agree with Dr. Craig that it is very subtle. You would, however, have to believe in a figurative day as well as a somehow "spiritual" death entering into the world because of original sin. Also, each day it says "evening and morning" which seems to out of it's way to say one day. I believe that it's fully possible for a "maximally great being" to suspend physics to create the world any way He chooses. There's no need to justify God to the science of the moment.
RighteousPaladin 1 year ago 6
@RighteousPaladin "I believe that it's fully possible for a "maximally great being" to suspend physics to create the world any way He chooses." I agree! But heres the kicker... it's irrelevant! Sure it's possible, but so is anything else that you can imagine. I reject your premise. You need to at least have demonstrable evidence to even give your god hypothesis a bigger chance of be true than anything else you can imagine. You, like all other theists are ignorant of your own logical fallacies.
MRfullon 1 year ago
@MRfullon "sure its possible, but so is anything else you can imagine" The argument wouldnt be "its possible or not" The argument would be its the MOST plausible explanation. And i would have to disagree with the anything is possible statement - Some things are physically , logically, etc. Impossible - Such as a Corner in a circle room or Flying Pigs or Counting to Infinity , etc. Such things arent possible, they are simply Impossible and Illogical.
markpaghi 1 year ago
@markpaghi Ok, lets go with plausible then. This doesn't make your position look much better. You still need demonstrable EVIDENCE that your presumption is plausible. Now please enlighten me with your evidence of creation.
MRfullon 1 year ago
@RighteousPaladin "I believe that it's fully possible for a "maximally great being" to suspend physics to create the world any way He chooses." I agree! But heres the kicker... it's irrelevant! Sure it's possible, but so is anything else that you can imagine. I reject your premise. You need to at least have demonstrable evidence to even give your god hypothesis a bigger chance of be true than anything else you can imagine. You, like all other theists are ignorant of your own logical fallacies.
MRfullon 1 year ago
@RighteousPaladin Yea i agree - evolution is garbage - but the point is Evolution doesnt disprove Gods existence - which is a false assumption - evolution being true doesnt Negate Gods existence - they are logically compatible - it is obvious - only an ignorant person would argue evolution disproves God - that is straw man arguments.
markpaghi 1 year ago
@markpaghi No evolution is not garbage. We know it to be true on relatively the same level as we know we exist in a galaxy. Which we consider to be fact.
MRfullon 1 year ago
I notice he did not spare a single word to discuss Adam & Eve, which is the more ridiculous aspect of the Genesis story. And the Adam & Eve narrative is completely false if biological evolution is true.
Uroshnor 1 year ago
@Uroshnor: How so?
hawke123 1 year ago
@hawke123 Ummm, no. If you don't see the contradiction, you are not going to induce me into a flurry of typing by merely saying, "How so?" Prima facie, they contradict each other. If you think they are reconcilable, you would have to be the one to justify it. I don't even know why I'm responding to this, though. If you think they are reconcilable, you no doubt do not have an ounce of rationality or knowledge of evolutionary biology.
How old are you and what is your educational background?
Uroshnor 1 year ago
@Uroshnor: You're dodging my question and shifting the burden of proof when I haven't claimed anything. Moreover, your post is extraordinarily presumptuous about my knowledge regarding evolutionary biology. Lastly, it is plausibly condescending. The last line in particular.
I ask you a simple question of elaboration and clarification and you respond with this? Wow...
hawke123 1 year ago
@Uroshnor did you hear what Craig said about the early church fathers? I find this incredible-that the church fathers did not necessarily accept young earth creationism, but they saw the creation narrative some do today. Symbolic.
InDefenseofChrist 1 year ago 2
@InDefenseofChrist
None of the Church Fathers accepted "young earth creationism", nor did they preach it. In fact, it was only cultural tradition, and the lack of knowledge of pre-history that caused anyone to believe earth/humans were "young" (under 10,000).
You should also look at Aristotle, who said that Zoroaster lived 6000 years before him. Clearly not a young-earther.
smartwarlord 1 year ago
@Uroshnor, i agree. this is another reason why i think evolution is complete crap. billions of fossils and less than 300 highly disputed transitionals, the genetic process, and the diversity and creativity of life prove design. evo is trash.
godrulztheearth 1 year ago
GENESIS CHAPTER TWO verse 1-.."the heavens and the earth were FINISHED,and ALL the host of them."- If evolution were true the heavens and earth would have just BEGAN. Not finished. Finished = complete. Nothing to evolve since everything is finished-
shotsxxx 1 year ago
@shotsxxx: Also the whole meaning of the word BEGINNING, becomes very vague when we need to induce the millions of years in order to interpret what would seem "right" in modern scientific terms.
Consider the following:
Bible starts with IN THE BEGINNING (Gen 1:1)
Man was made FROM THE BEGINNING OF CREATION (Mark 10:6)
and also God made man AT THE BEGINNING (Matthew 19:4)
Can we really say, that since Gen 1:1, there was a long period of time after which came man - "at the beginning"?
AhoSenpai 1 year ago
@AhoSenpai You are over complicating this.Your references are about the beginning of time and you have made no point except to provide further evidence that proves MY point. This can only mean man and woman were made complete in the beginning and did NOT evolve.- "Beginning" is not vague at all.In fact, it is quite clear what is meant by the "beginning"- The start of it all. "In the beginning...... it is finished"- NO EVOLUTION.
shotsxxx 1 year ago
@shotsxxx I'm sorry, it seems that you have misunderstood the point of my comment. My whole point was to support the point you had made. In my comment I merely tried to show how vague the meaning of the word "beginning" needs to be in order to justify the millions of years. But as you stated the word beginning is not vague at all. The last question in my comment just goes to show how absurd the situation becomes. So that's all, you misunderstood where I was coming from.
AhoSenpai 1 year ago
@AhoSenpai Hey I'm sorry about that. Too much multi-tasking at the same time. I read it very quickly. I know to slow it down a bit now. Thanks.
shotsxxx 1 year ago
@AhoSenpai We do not need to "induce millions of years to interpret what would seem right in modern scientific terms"- Science has a lot of good guesses but when you get to the point where you pick the answer that science offers, over what the Bible says, when they seem to disagree, You cannot call yourself a Christian and people who do this will surely burn in hell. But if you insist, I believe your answer lies in the Garden of Eden-Adam and Eve could have lived in the garden for a long time.
shotsxxx 1 year ago