Wonderful series!! I'm a geologist and work for gas drilling companies in the Northeast US. Young Earth 'geology' has no place in the field, as it explains nothing and only offers more questions than it gives answers.
Thanks again for the series, I will definitely recommend it to friends!
I thought you'd deal with the fact that there's no erotion nor inclination in the strata unless it comes from up to down (as shown in the picture behind you)
...the other exception are the unconformities, but then again, they are evidence of catastrophism
Wow I love this! I have but one question, if the bible can't get facts about this world right why should I believe what it has to say about the next (or if there is one)
the problem w/ most christians is they think that the bible states that the world is created w/ just 6 literal 24hrs/day. read again the genesis. it never claimed that the world was created in 6 literal days. the word "day" is just used to separate the phases of creation.
This guy debunks YEC in a very clear, concise, Christian friendly and in a civil manner. Can we get some shout outs for these videos Aronra, Donexodus2? Personally I don't think his explanation of how the Bible is innerant yet is inaccurate is very satisfying but it is much more satisfying then rejecting science and he at least doesn't make up bs or wishy washy crap.
According to several Hebrew scholars, the Hebrew in Genesis may refer to a flood covering the general geographic Mesopotamian region, rather than that it refers to the entire earth. Like English and other languages, Hebrew words and phrases often have more than one meaning. Conservative Christians are merely defending the King James edition of the Bible, rather than defending what the Old Testament actually says; ALL historians believe there was a great flood in the greater general region.
I am impressed by your video series, you show a real command of the subject matter. It does make me sad that you still accept Christianity let alone the existance of any God or Gods at all. Just let the evidence take you just one step further.
@glovergj Wow, a lot of the arguments you use against YEC are arguments I use against people who claim God must exist such as adding more problems than fixing current ones. I respect many deists because they have reasons philosophically they think make God the best hypothesis given what they know but they don't claim God must exist and poor creationist claims of design implies a designer and your sin causes you not to see God. I wish more Christians had the deists humility.
@Dchellberg What "evidence" is that? Perhaps you have evidence of motion arising from non-motion, life from non-life and creative intelligence from non-intelligent subatomic particles. If you do, then perhaps you should write the BioLogos foundation and explain why such top scientists like Francis Collins remain unenlightened, while you remain the Enlightened One that the rest of us should follow.
@richardaberdeen Francis Collins seems unelightened because he has faith without evidence. An effective administrator with nearly unlimited funding does not make a "top scientist". I understand Hawkings newest book, I think he would qualify as a top scientist, explaines Physics does not nead a Creator. I did not claim to be the Enlightened One, I will leave that for those that accept by faith propositions without adequate evidence.
@Dchellberg Francis Collins, like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, DaVinci, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein and myself, among billions of others, believe in God based on the evidence of creation. It is liars like Richard Dawkins who have no evidence for what they claim to believe. There is no evidence for magically appearing universes, intelligence from non-intelligence, conscious awareness from non-conscious particles or motion apart from Primary Cause. ATHEISM = A TOTAL LIE
@richardaberdeen I had the unique pleasure of spending a fair amount of time with Professor Dawkins duing a trip we took "Following the Footsteps of Darwin" through the Galapagos Islands. I found him to very forthright and would admit readily when he did not know an answer to one of my inquiries. Although it is a normal human trait to lie in some circumstances, a benefical trait I think, I would certainly not characterize him as a liar.
@Dchellberg Dawkins says in a video on YouTube that all of life began from a single source in the ocean. That's a lie, not because it might not be true but rather, because nobody knows if it is true; many scientists have other opinions of where life began. Dawkins says he doesn't believe in either God or the spaghetti monster. Any moron knows that's a big fucking lie, because we can eliminate the spaghetti monster without otherwise having to explain how the universe happens to exist.
@richardaberdeen In all probability based on our current knowledge all present day lifeforms are descended from a single common ancestor. That ancestor may have been one of many different forms that outcompeted other lifeforms. That ancestoral lifeform most likely originated in Earth's primeval oceans. Is this more to your liking? To rephase your eloquent statement "only a moron would think this is a big fucking lie". I can imbue the Flying Spaghetti Monster with all the characteristics of "God"
@Dchellberg This is not true. Some secular non-creationist biologists believe life might have first appeared in dirt, n fresh water, caves and as one stated, life may able to appear "where ever there is a little wetness". Others believe life was carried in on space rocks bombarding the early earth, for which there was some recent evidence found in the water from a recent asteroid landing in India. There may have been several "genesis" of life and life may have appeared from all over earth.
@Dchellberg (continuing) The current fossil record of macro scopic life is less than 1 billion years old and the record of ALL micro-life is about half of the earth's estimated age. And there is no geologic record for the earth's first 800 million years of existence. As far as anyone knows, life or the "seeds" for life was carried in on space rocks and as such, there may have been "zillions" of original life forms, as there are currently zillions of viruses. NOBODY KNOWS; get over it.
@Dchellberg Dawkins says he is "almost certain" there is no God and previously stated he is "6 of 7" certain. Yet, Dawkins has never provided any evidence that tips the scales in such dramatic fashion against the existence of God, nor has he ever bothered to explain why 6 of 7, rather than 9 of 10 or 2 of 5. Dawkins has never provided a shred of evidence for how motion can arise from non-motion, intelligence from non-intelligence or conscious awareness from non-conscious matter; DAWKINS=FRAUD.
@richardaberdeen In "The God Delusion" Richard clearly explains his 7 point scale. Adding more points to make it ten or less to make it five would have been artificial. It is just a historical artifact that we have five fingers, it is not a magic number. You have consistantly tried to put the burden of proof on those who lack a belief. It is incumbant on you to provide positive evidence for your belief. Your "motion from non-motion etc." is just an argument from ignorance.
@Dchellberg That is a perfect example of just how great a liar Dawkins in fact is. Someone who writes a book titled that is insinuating that every major historical scientist, moralist and other thinker was delusional. It doesn't take much of a monkey's brain to understand who in face, is delusional. What has Dawkins contributed to human rights that Jesus didn't already teach long ago? Only a total liar would entitle a book the "God delusion", as if anyone could possibly know there is no God.
@richardaberdeen Dawkins makes a convincing case that God is a human delusion. By far the majority of members of both the Royal Academy and the National Academy of Scientists are non-believers. What evidence for a God are you privy to that I am not? Other than upholding the barbaric Jewish laws what enlightening human rights did Jesus champion?
@Dchellberg I might also add that "those who lack a belief" in fact, have the burden of proof remaining on them. I can have a "lack of belief" that the earth is smaller than the sun, but such a lack of belief contributes nothing to humanity. "lack of belief" or just "disbelief" as atheists often define themselves, proves nothing, nor does it belong in any legitimate rational discussion. I can disbelieve anything I want and such a position neither proves, solves or contributes anything.
@richardaberdeen I have never read such nonsense. "a lack of belief contributes nothing to humanity" is not the standard for reality, evidence is. I can believe that mankind can pollute without consequences but that does not make it reality. Not accepting a proposition due to a lack of evidence contributes a rejection of the logical consequences of that proposition. In this case the stifling of humanity's potential due to an acceptance of a superstition.
@Dchellberg No, not accepting a superstition represents a positive thing if and when EVIDENCE provides a better explanation. For example, a child can eliminate Santa Claus when they find evidence of their parents wrapping presents up and addressing them from Santa Claus. However, unlike Richard Dawkins pretends, one can't eliminate God in the same breath as the Spaghetti Monster without first having a BETTER explanation for how the universe happens to exist. I'm still waiting. . .
@richardaberdeen Before Natural Selection was proposed as the mechanism for the observed fact of Evolution a rational person would conclude that the appearance of design in our world was due to a designer. Since Darwin not so much. Darwin characterized himself as Agnostic after he discovered Natural Selection. Einstein vociferiously disavowed a belief in a personal God. You seem to incorrectly assign beliefs to Atheism which is a lack of a belief. Are you confused or are you being a deciever?
@Dchellberg Darwin credited God for being behind the process of evolution in his final edition of On the Origin of Species. He wrote one "can be an ardent Theist and evolutionist" and he also wrote that his mind was "mainly agnostic, but not entirely". Agnostic in the time of Darwin, sometimes referred to mistrust in religion rather than God. Thus, Darwin could both believe in God and claim to be "agnostic but not entirely". If you are going to misquote Darwin, then I'm going to correct you.
@richardaberdeen Darwin gave in to theistic pressure by the Sixth Edition. I stand by my characterization of Darwin as an agnostic, a term his friend Huxley originated. I think that given the scientific advancement since Darwin's day he would be an Atheist now. Mere speculation but as Physics has advanced so "God" has diminished to being an unnecessary complication.
@Dchellberg That is total bullshit promoted by atheists and has been clearly debunked by Darwin's biographers. There is NO evidence or any credible reason at all why Darwin would "give in" to religious views; Darwin was noteworthy for years having debated with religious leaders. It is very, very, very historically unlikely that Darwin would risk his legacy over religious complaints and there is ZERO evidence or any credible reason at all why Darwin ever did or would compromise in his old age.
@richardaberdeen "I should wish if possible to avoid giving pain to your father's religious friends who are deeply attached to him, and I picture to myself the way that sentence would strike them, even those so liberal as Ellen Tollett and Laura, much more Admiral Sullivan, Aunt Caroline, &c., and even the old servants."
Quote from Darwin's widow-see the religious pressure to censor him being exerted even after his death.
@Dchellberg Einstein spoke in similar fashion, saying that he was an atheist compared to most Catholics, because like Darwin, Einstein viewed the existence of God as divorced and far different than religion. Atheists often attempt to marginalize belief in God based on what various religions claim, which only demonstrates how poorly educated they are. Anyone who has checked knows neither Jesus, Paul, Darwin, Einstein or Paine believed in religion; this does not mean they didn't believe in God.
@richardaberdeen "Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.[7] "
I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.
@richardaberdeen A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones. A dog acts in this manner, but he does so blindly. A man, on the other hand, looks forwards and backwards, and compares his various feelings, desires and recollections. See Following
@Dchellberg Humans don't know why dogs and other life forms do what they do. If you studied animal behavior, something Dawkins is supposedly an expert in, you would learn other animals demonstrate much more than "blind" actions of "instinct". Elephants for example, have a very sophisticated language and have been observed holding a funeral procession and days of mourning for a lost member of their group. Science by and in large, knows very little about why other animals do what they do.
@richardaberdeen There is no reason to think that animal consciousness is different in kind only degree. Dawkins studied ethology under Timbergen, I recomend reading some of his elegant papers, and would be considered an expert in the field. Elephants have a sophisticated communication system but most experts reserve the term language to systems that use syntax. Elephants do not, it is controversial whether the other great apes do even with human assisted systems.
@Dchellberg You can read the article "Animal Behavior" in the Britannica and several related articles and you will discover, that modern science knows very little about how animals think and perceive their world or, why they do what they do. Much is based on theoretical assumptions, rather than on hard evidence. Suffice it to say, it is rather difficult for a human being to think like an ape, an elephant, a bird, fish, ant or a spider. THERE IS A WHOLE LOT SCIENCE DOESN'T KNOW. Get over it.
@richardaberdeen I used to sell EB to pay my way through college. I have a hard time understanding how my wife thinks and why my teenager does not. I am throughly confused by your thought processes. How would I or anyone else be able to understand the world through the eyes of an elephant, a dolphin, or a dog? Until we can do a little "Freaky Friday" personality transfer to an animal I think the field will remain "theoretical". That does not mean that ther is no evidence., read Timbergen.
@Dchellberg You missed the point entirely. We don't think like other animals, which is WHY modern science doesn't understand animal behavior very well. Human beings conduct what is called an "extrapolation" whenever we attempt to define the motives of other species and, modern science compounds this confusion by trying to explain animal behavior in terms of reproductive survival, which is unfair to both animals and human beings. I don't think you are nearly as educated as you think you are.
@Dchellberg And, you are not correct about elephants. Scientists who have been studying them for years are compiling an "elephant dictionary" which is quite large. Much of the sounds they make are outside of human ear frequencies. And, I have seen video footage of elephants standing over and mourning their dead and walking in a deliberately detailed funeral procession past their dead, a type of ceremony that can last for several days.
@richardaberdeen An elephant dictionary does not imply syntax. Human and other animal intelligence are different as a matter of degree not kind as predicted by Evolutionary Theory and as falsifies Creationism.
@Dchellberg All species are different as a matter of degree, which is why they are classified as a different species. Human beings are not an "advancement" over an elephant, spider or a microbe--we are just a different part of life. Evolutionary theory has no relevance to God's existence, to which Darwin agreed. It is at best, a rudimentary and very incomplete attempt to explain how creation functions in the observable reality. That is all science ever has been or ever well be.
@Dchellberg There are a great many things that animals do that defy human explanation, including how birds fly in formation, which in some species involves a highly complex orderly process, where the lead bird is replaced in mid-flight by a bird from the rear and each bird moves back a notch in turn without breaking formation. Some species of spiders weave a highly complex different web every day. You can't pretend I haven't studied science and history to a significant degree, which I have.
@richardaberdeen That we do not currently understand all aspects of the natural world does not mean that an explanation does not exist merely that it has not been discovered yet. Tithe to research instead of superstition and someday we may have the answer. I have not claimed that you have not studied science only that your ideology has prevented you from understanding it.
@Dchellberg Of course, an explanation exists. God knows how he created the heavens and the earth, which is why God belongs at the center of all science and education, rather than in a corner called "religion", which has nothing in common with either God or creation reality.
@Dchellberg And, you can pretend all you want that God is not the Supreme Judge that Jefferson claimed he is, but God nevertheless will go right on being the Supreme Judge anyway. God will very much hold human beings accountable for their actions, whether or not they pretend that he doesn't exist. How could a just God give both Adolf Hitler and Albert Schweitzer the same reward? Modern intellectuals who don't believe God can both reward and punish them truly have their head up their ass.
@richardaberdeen And you can pretend all you want that your particular version of a God is the supreme judge but it will not make it so. Which set of your God's rules do you follow the Old ones, the New ones, the ones in Matthew, or the ones in John? Do you follow Calvanism, Southern Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic or one of the thousands of other versions. How could a just God condemn anyone fairly with so much confusion concerning the rules?
@Dchellberg That is what God is called in the Declaration of Independence; I was only quoting Jefferson. Apparently you haven't actually studied very much science and or history, otherwise you would be highly skeptical of the claims of people like Shermer, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett and other poorly educated people. Any one who pretends there is no God is by default, poorly educated at best.
@richardaberdeen He then finds, in accordance with the verdict of all the wisest men that the highest satisfaction is derived from following certain impulses, namely the social instincts. If he acts for the good of others, he will recieve the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives; and this latter gain undoubtely is the highest pleasure on this earth.
@Dchellberg The problem with atheism is, there is no rational explanation for why concepts such as God, morality and ethics exist. If there is no God, why are human beings lying about it? There would be no such thing as "good" if there is no evil and, no such concept as human rights would exist. Why would there be any lack of human rights, if there is no evil? Or, why would we say helping a homeless person is "good" rather than just something we do or don't do, without qualifying it as good?
@richardaberdeen You need to do some reading here. Try Michael Shermer "The Science Of Good and Evil" or "The Mind of The Market" or any one of Daniel Dennet's books on Evolutionary ethics and religion. This is certainly not a problem for Atheism and that you think it is shows that you have a cartoonish understanding of Evolutionary Theory as it is applied to human culture.
@Dchellberg Shermer isn't even a skeptic. A true skeptic, like Samuel Clemens for example, is equally skeptical of religious quacks and quacks of science and education. Shermer attacks the easy targets, while one can search all over his website and not find even a single sentence that dares challenge modern science and education. The modern Skeptics Society represents blind sheep following the blind. No true skeptic embraces atheism.
@richardaberdeen Samuel Clemens "Letter from the Earth" may have seemed thought provoking to a Preacher's Kid in High School, me, it was written before many modern scientific advances. I suggest that before you condemn Shermer after looking at his website try reading his books. It seems that you again are letting your ideology distort your perception. No true Christian accepts the divinity of Jesus, his resurrection, or the virgin birth.
@Dchellberg I have written several emails to Shermer. A couple he actually responded to and he agreed with me, that perhaps the Skeptics Society should be a little more skeptical of the claims of scientists. Modern intellectuals have a very bad habit of just assuming that whatever science claims is correct, even though the vast majority of what science claimed when I was in high school is not longer believed to be correct.
@richardaberdeen The Scientific Method is all about Skepticism. Science only accepts something provisionally while attempting to falsify it. I doubt that "the vast majority of what science claimed when YOU were in high school is no longer believed to be correct." Unless you went before "On the Origins Of Species" was published. Otherwise science has been building on the foundations laid by previous generations. Geology was not overturned by Plate Techtonics just added to. etc.
@Dchellberg No, the scientific evidence is all about evidence, which is why Dawkins is an obvious fraud; there is no evidence for a conclusion of atheism. Every major historical scientist claimed to believe in God, while even most minor atheist scientists would never call people like Jesus and Einstein "delusional". I'm not going to read any books by anyone who pretends that people who believe in God are delusional, case closed. You're just pissing up a rope.
@Dchellberg Richard Dawkins recently said: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."
RESPONSE: If true, there would be no concept of pitiless as opposed to caring; no such thing as ethics or morality, no such thing as the teachings of Jesus, no human rights or condemnation of Hitler. Atheists are invaribly illogical at the bottom-line, without exception.
@richardaberdeen Try actually reading "The Selfish Gene" is find out how Dawkins explains the Evolution of altrusim. He wrote it in 1976. I would agree with Richard's quote. The beauty of having the intelligence our oversize brain has endowed us with is that we can empathize and we can predict what the consequences of our actions will be. We can choose to rise above our baser nature, and we do it everyday without the aide of imaginary guides, guardians or gods.
@Dchellberg I have no interest in reading the books of someone who pretends that the vast majority of human history's scientists, human rights advocates, moralists and great thinkers were delusional. Only a total moron would pretend that they were wiser than Jesus and all of the major players of history, which is what Dawkins is pretending when he brands them all delusional. I have never read a book by Dawkins and never intend to--the few videos and articles I've seen are far more than enough
@richardaberdeen You have never read a book by Dawkins yet you feel free to quote him and to call him a liar. I have read the Bible, which is why I became an Atheist, so I can comment of it. Without reading Dawkins, with an open enough mind to comprehend what he wrote, you ethically can not criticize him-that would make you a liar.
@Dchellberg I've read several articles written by Dawkins and viewed several videos of him speaking. I am not quoting him third door down. I have no interest in reading a book titled "The God Delusion", which title itself announces to the world that the author is a poorly educated rube in need of a good spanking.
@richardaberdeen Richard Dawkins is "a poorly educated rube in need of a good spanking"? You have not read any of his books, make this inane statement and think that you have stumped the scientific community on the origin of disease. Maybe the God you believe in is YOU. Got much of an ego problem.
@Dchellberg I have never said I "stumped the scientific community" about disease. I merely pointed out to you what the scientific community already knows, that the root causes and origins of disease are poorly understood at best. Any human disease expert knows that. It seems it is you who know very little about evolutionary theory in general and origins of disease in particular. Perhaps you should study up a little on viruses and human disease and then get back to me.
@Dchellberg There are several things modern evolutionary theory fails to adequately explain, the origins of disease being is only one. As some historians have pointed out, natural selection is at best half right in light of the known human behavioral track record. You don't understand WHY Dawkins is a poorly educated rube. Just because he knows a lot about bio science doesn't mean he is well-educated. His perspective of history based on the few articles I've read, is elementary at best.
@richardaberdeen Again you appear delusional when you call Professor Dawkins a poorly educated rube. He until recently held a chair at Oxford, has authored many best selling books and he lectures across the world, The Selfish Gene was just issued by Scientific American as a special classic editon. He actually does research as when I joined him in the Galapagos. You mister Ego, on the other hand, have a cheesy website with typing for graphics, faulty logic and really crappy music.
@Dchellberg And anyone who pretends Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, Socrates, DaVinci, Newton, Einstein and a host of other historical giants were "delusional", belongs in a mental hospital tied to a chair, rather than holding a chair at Oxford or any other school of ivory towered crappola. Dawkins is a perfect example of why any and every self-respecting construction worker wouldn't throw away their hard earned money sending their children to Oxford. Who the hell wants a child taught that load of shit?
@richardaberdeen Because its true, applicable in real life, helps man kind, gets the next generation of medicine at your hospital? Gives you the ability to create bullshit at your keyboard?
@richardaberdeen "With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.— I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I shd wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. "
@Dchellberg There is great confusion among narrow-minded atheists and religionists over the difference between God and religion, which is why Darwin, like Einstein, experienced difficulty discussing God and religion in the same context with other people. God does not create or imply religion. Religions are inventions of human beings. God does not need a religion; creation speaks for God. There is a VAST difference between God and religions supposedly about God.
@richardaberdeen God is a fan of paisley ties and dislikes ultraviolet, which is why we can not see ultraviolet. First you need to prove evidence for a God before you can ascribe characteristics to it. There are as many quotes from Einstein as there are from Darwin rejecting the idea of a personal God. There is a VAST difference between stating there is a God and providing evidence for one.
@Dchellberg We don't know why God creates like God does. Like all of life, human beings are created to perceive some things and to not perceive other realities. Most scientists believe there at least six dimensions and may be eleven, yet we perceive only three of them (4 if you count time). Just because we can't see God doesn't mean there isn't a God, anymore than just because we can't see quarks and leptons or or other universes doesn't mean they don't exist.
@richardaberdeen " I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice."
@Dchellberg Nobody said that God did. According to the Bible, creation at least on earth is corrupted by the existence of sin in both human beings and the rest of the animal kingdom. One can easily explain the known history of human civilization if there is such a thing as sin, while it is quite impossible to otherwise explain the known record of human civilization. Good luck, trying to blame God for disease, as science has no idea how or why disease exists in a theoretical "avantage" system.
@richardaberdeen According to the Pupta disease on Earth came from a giant Upton that was upset his Retmop was stolen. But through the scientific method scientists have found evidence that many lifeforms compete for limited resources. Some fill niches that exist inside other organisms, when these organisms get a competitive advantage they can cause what we call "disease". Do you really think science has no idea why disease exists? Really? I have been wasting my time.
@Dchellberg I have challenged the entire basis of evolution by natural selection based on the existence of disease and no professor of biology, nor the skeptics society nor the biologos foundation nor anyone else has been able to refute my challenges. Your answer demonstrates you know very little about disease or about evolutionary theory; root causes of disease is very poorly understood by science. You can read my challenge in my online book in Appendix C found on my website, my name dot com
@richardaberdeen I did not realize until the previous set of comments that you are a self important delusional personality. You reject my simple explaination of disease and then tell me that you have stumped all biology professors, the Skeptics Society, of which I am a member and you have not stumped me, and Biologos Foundation. You are very impressive....to no one but yourself.
He lost it. This isn't the forum for those who want to throw around names like, "crazy Satanist" -- he is "free" to do that elsewhere, or make a video about how he think I'm a "crazy satanist" -- just not here.
Are you kidding? Oil companies don't care anything at all about age or how the layers got there. All they want to know is where is the oil. they do more comparison than aging. The only interest they have in fossils whatsoever is to help them find layers that might contain oil.
The layers aren't always in order, Many places have millions and millions of years missing, POOF, and the fossils do not support gradual change through mutation and natural selection. Gould from Harvard rejected that.
Like I said, oil companies care about results. They need geological models that make accurrate predictions. Flood geology doesn't work, mainstream geology does.
The layers are indeed in order. Missing layers do not equal "out of order". Missing layers are caused when uplifted sediments are exposed to weathering and eroded back down, then more sediment is deposited over these. There was no POOF, just natural processess.
Correct: fossils show consistent patterns of change - not gradual.
In addition to millions and millions of years missing there are also areas where the layers are out of order .....I think.... off the top of my head.... mmmm...check the Himalayas you might find some thing there.
fossil patterns do no show change they show order. order is not change. Also there is no method of change that can account for the diversity we see in the Cambrian explosion.
Sure, when sediments are lifted up 30,000 feet, some sections might get re-arranged such that the layers there are higher/lower than layers that are older/younger. That is to be expected when continents collide.
So you are a geologist now? When you find different fossils in different layers as you move up the column, that represents change over time -- and the change is also orderly in that it represents incremental change.
Cambrian "explosion" is a perfect example of evolutionary change.
The Cambrian explosion is a perfect example of something other than evolution. In the first 3.5 billion years of life there was only single celled life until the last .017% then all of a sudden every type of life that would ever exist on the planet showed up by random mutation and natural selection. According to Evolution that should not happen 99.83% of time with single cells then boom every type of life form that will ever exist.
Sorry that is not the way it is supposed to happen.
Evolution is biological change over time. In the period of about 80 million years, life on earth completely changed. That sounds like evolution to me. The only people who can't comprehend this either (1) know nothing about what evolution is or how it works, and / or (2) think they are sinning if they believe what the evidence clearly shows them.
The atmosphere once had no oxygen. It took 3 billion years of photosynthesis (mainly algae) to produce conditions favourable to multicellular life.
Nice try Sherlock but the Cambrian explosion took only about 5 million years. Way to little time for single celled organisms to mutate into every life form known on this planet using random mutation and natural selection.
Where are you getting your information? From AiG or ICR? Do your homework! 70-80 million years is the agreed upon duration for the geologic period known as the Cambrian.
Even if what you say is true a bout ns+rm -- that only leaves us with a God who takes 80 million years of R&D to figure out how to get from single to multi-cellular life. My God is more awesome that! His universe was gifted with all the requisite qualities for complex life from the beginning.
...denouncing evolution in favor of... what alternate theory?
There is none. At least none that does a better job of explaining the available data and making testable predictions than evolution. Perhaps someday a better theory will emerge -- in fact, I'm counting on it -- but so far nothing has even come close.
Physicists use gravitation and quantum mechanics even though they can't be reconciled. We know there is a better theory somewhere out there, but we until then, we use what we have.
Ya know, I think I'll stick with creation. Obviously if you look at a created universe it and everything in it will appear older. that's the problem with creation. observing the creation and inventing a story that denies the creation is one way. However when the best scientific minds cannot reconcile the existence of the universe without acknowledging a creator, then you are just denying the details.
Let me get this straight: the best scientific minds over the last 150 years all agree that the species have evolved and the earth is billions of years old. But you are going to take a quote by Einstein and use this to demonstrate that the biblical creation story is more scientifically valid than evolution?
I already agree that God created all things. Evolution is simply the process he used to do it.
You impose your world view and then you interpret the observation. you assume the star was formed naturally. you assume that the light occurred when the star was formed 14 light years away, you assume the light traveled to earth naturally, you assume that the light that is reaching earth now took 14 billion years to get here. Then you call God deceitful.
Maybe, just maybe, one or more of your assumptions are wrong.
Yes, I assume these things happened naturally because there is no evidence indicating otherwise.
What evidence is there to suggest all of these things happened by miracles? None!
If somebody comes to you and insists that they teleported here from another planet, do you simply take their word for it or would you demand some sort of evidence for this outrageous claim?
You assume, contrary to how we observe the universe to work, that all we observed happened majically. Based on what?
The Bible is the evidence. The book itself is a miracle.
66 books, written over 1500 years, by 40 different authors, ranging in status from kings to paupers, not all of the authors knew what was written before them, One message.
The message is that Man has turned away from God and that God overs free reconciliation through Jesus Christ.
you couldn't get 10 witnesses of a crime to agree five minutes after it happened.
One message? I don't think so. You obviously don't spend much time reading the bible or you would know that it's full of errors and contradictions. How can you say that it is the result of miracle?
God becoming flesh and being raised from the dead was a miracle! The bible is Holy because of its SUBJECT MATTER, not because the content is perfect or 100% accurrate.
It's ok to think for yourself -- God gave us brains.
You might not think so, but it is true. the bible is about Jesus from Genesis to revelation. The book itself is a miracle.
The stories you believe in were created by men after observing God's creation and denying Him. As good scientists disprove them one after the other, Evolutionists change the stories.
I think we're done here. You will just make up things like, "good scientists disprove them..." when backed into a corner. So there is no more reason for us to talk. I wish you well.
no!!!!!! your a lost cause... why does this even matter to you? I mean if you believe in God why do you ned to go out of your way to make an evolution Video? Trust me people who believe in evolution will not go to God because of your video so essentially you preach to a wall. You do nothing for God or anyone.
That's just false. By attaching Christianity to things that are demonstrably false, such as creationism and absurd ideas about the age of earth it seriously jeopardizes the gospel message. If you make it a requirement for an educated person (eg. a scientist) to throw out all of modern science in order to embrace Christianity, then that person is just not going to do that. It poses a serious threat to the crediblity of Christianity if followers have to ignore obvious reality.
No, the truth does matter to me -- which is why I am honest enough to face the truth, no matter how difficult it may seem at first. You, and others like you, just want to ignore the truth.
Wow your God is small if you dont think he has the power to create... How is my God Small? because i believe he is capable of everything good? He is limited if you think he used "nature" to create everything. God could do by just saying it, Read genesis. Nope My God isn't limited yours is... Your god is limited to an Evolutionist horrible interpretation of Gods creations.
Let me ask you something: did God use nature to create you or did you just appear out of thin air? Couldn't have God have just created you instantly? Why did He chose to work within a natural system that he set up for this very purpose?
If we were shooting pool with your God, he would just pick up the balls and put them in the pockets. I would say it was cheating; you would say it was a miracle.
If we were playing pool with my God, he would sink every ball on the break!
wow... well good luck worshiping your God called Nature. I mean let me give you this example. lets say I placed a Rock on top of a table, I then walk away. While im gone I tell my neighbor "Nature" to come in and chisel it into an apple. Using your Logic I would be the one chiseled the apple because i asked my neighbor to do it. MY logic would be no the credit goes to Nature for actually doing it.
I don't believe in Evolution because its foundations are based on lies. It uses the facts of natural selection to make people believe everything evolved. That past example is something I used to make you understand your giving Gods credit to something else, Satan? I mean How can you limit your God? MY God Can create things by just saying it. Yours is limited to mans interpretations. You insult God. All I can say is that I truly believe in him. And I believe in the bible.
No, when it comes to science, you only believe in the parts of the Bible that you agree with. For instance, I doubt you believe that the sun revolves around the earth, or that the sky is a solid dome with water on top, or that the stars are fastened to the dome, etc...
Ignore the truth? come on pal I go look for it. I dont assume the bible lies because a guy in a lab coat said it cant be that way. You base all your truth off horible interpretations. The worst part is you get your so called "truth" form people who hate God. In fact they hate God so much they make you believe he had nothing to do with creation!
Here are links to some of your fellow creationists organization who love God, love creation, and love the bible. Each of these sites gives a lengthy defense of geocentric theory FROM THE SCRIPTURES.
FYI... I tried posting this several times, but it kept getting kicked because of the links. In the typical creationists "jump-conclusions-without-any-evidence" fashion, you mistakenly assumed I was dodging your question.
If had any awareness of what the bible actually says, and not just what AiG and ICR tells you it says, you would be more carefull about stating what you believe. Before the 17th century, all theologians understood the bible to teach geocentricity.
Yeah the piece of crap youtube doesn't let you post websites. The bible never clashes with real science. your just poking holes in the bible. I mean you just pick what you want to believe in. what kind of christian are you? Not a very faithful one. The worst part is that you make accusations about the bible being wrong because of very few statements. if you want to read something read this.
w's (dot) creation (dot) com /our-galaxy-is-the-centre-of-the-universe-quantized-redshifts-show
I could very well bring old Darwin statements for evolution. I mean he had no knowledge of science and much of what he said isnt used today at all for evolution alot of his things are out of date. Just because some guy in the 17th century didnt understand how to look at scripture you keep bringing them up. what about today? why do you need to keep going back to the 17th century? I mean just because the bible says "the four corners of the earth" you say we believe its square? come on
It's relavent to show that Christians can easily misread the bible. And how do we know when we're misreading the bible? When it starts contradicting things we learn from other sources. Then we have to go back and re-evaluate our interpretations. This happened in the early church with the flat/round earth debate. It happened in the mideval church with the geo/heliocentric debate, and it's happening now with old earth/evolution. The problem is not the Bible, only how some Christians read it.
there's a big difference between those two and evolution is that the passages were short literally like 3 words long. Genesis is actually descriptive on how God created everything. How else could you possibly read Genesis? One main reason why Evolution even has popularity today is because of all the lies behind it. They had so many fossils back then to show intermediates between species. Now there's hardly any and if there is any they are highly arguable. Look at all his lies lead to.
I don't know where you are getting your information from, but you've got it backwards. In Darwin's time, there were little if any transitional fossils. Now there are literally thousands.
The universe created in Genesis does not exists. If you want to know how to faithfully read Genesis, watch lessons 15 and 16.
we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be modified or discarded as a result of more detailed information. What appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex.
whoa? are you kidding me? Darwin had more fossil evidence at his time because they honestly had no idea what the were dealing with i mean their idea of a neanderthal was a stupid retarded hunch back creature. Now it's erect and has funerals and buries its own dead. They also had evolution for the north american horse which was proven false now theirs hardly any fossil evidence. and if their is its very contriversial,
WHAT?! are you kidding me? Go research the evolution on just the Neanderthals over the years. Find out how they interpreted them during darwins time and now.
And it proves my point exactly. The evidence now is much more conclusive than it was in Darwin's day because not only do we have more Neanderthal remains to study, but we are now able to sequence Neanderthal DNA.
One of the great things about science is that it can change and adapt to new information. Creationism, on the other hand, has to force all new data to fit old ideas.
what does that say when you believe something that is so inconsistent that it changes everytime we know more? are you trying to make me laugh. I'm at least glad you do admit that evolution evolves. I can't wait to see how the mtDNA turns out. You know what I have a belief, Unlike you it's in the BIBLE, I dont pick what I choose to believe in or not. I will never judge the bible on science that cant keep its facts straights.
What are you like 10? You are a complete idiot. It's the nature of science to change, to learn, to explore. Just look at how every field of science changes as we learn more about creation.
The bible is based on ancient science. There is nothing in the bible that reflects a modern understanding of the universe. Looking to scripture as a basis for understanding the physical cosmos is futile.
And as I've already pointed out, you do pick and choose what scriptures you want to believe.
NO I believe it all. Just because we don't understand 3 small parts of the bible doesn't mean it should all be discredited. Well i can tell you one thing for sure. you lie up the wazoo when you say you are a christian. My God... how can you insult your very God by saying you believe in him and then turn around and spit on his creation. You need to stop pretending to be a Christian and start claiming souls elsewhere. I wont stand for your lies. Crazy satanist.
How many elements do you thing were on the periodic table 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 100? Criticising science for "evolving" has got to be about the stupidest thing ever said on my channel.
As you can see from my interaction with other viewers, I have a very high tolerance for disagreement and a healthy respect for opposing viewpoints. What I can't tolerate, howerver, is total and utter stupidity, and blatant disregard for the facts -- both of which you have unfortunately mastered.
Just as I warned you in my last comment, my patience with you has run out. You are on my site, I am not on yours -- but you are now are blocked!
Congratulations.
After the 1000's of comments I've received to date, many of those in sharp disagreement with me, you are only the 2nd person to get blocked -- and the 1st to get blocked for being a complete fool (the actual first was for using foul language).
Good video. I can't believe that people (creationists) still believe in the so called finds of Ron Wyatt, ie The Ark of the Covenant, Noah's Ark, Noah's grave, Noah's house, Mrs Noah's grave (containing a fortune in gold and jewelry) and Moses stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments & The Red Sea crossing with coral-encrusted chariot wheels & fossilized human skelatel remains. Every time you put evidence against these finds they say its true for it goes with the bible.
These kind of 'statements of faith' are an example of why maintstream scientists rightly criticise 'Creation Science' as an exercise in religion rather than hard science.
Reason shows us that sci cannot retain exclusive jurisdiction over origins, but must give way to faith at some point. If sci addresses only the material, it cannot answer ultimate origin, which is by necessity, immaterial.
Some mistakenly trust the univ is eternal, some trust it created itself, some assume God initiated the BB & some that God specially created.
The faith choice is up to the individual, & CS Lewis did not think that's an accident. Nor do I.
That is fair comment. I am an evangelical Christian, so I believe in God. I acknowldge the right of others to maintain a belief in a literal six day creation if they are comfortable with that (however incorrect I may consider it to be).
I have a problem, however, with Creation Science claiming that it has an equal right to consideration as genuine science when it is committed to a preconcieved view about how things came to be.
1. Mainstream science makes no assumptions about what may have happened in the past. Everything must be established by the evidence that is available to us in the physical world today. Any model can be modified or rejected based on new evidence.
2. Creation 'Science' is committed to the idea of a sudden creation event and a global flood a few thousand years ago. All their work is the attempt to explain how these two events made the evidence we see in the physical world today.
Respectfully counter that Hx sci is DEPENDENT on assumption, unlike op sci, which is presently repeatable all over the world (i.e., any lab can analyze Napoleon's bones & agree how much arsenic is in 'em, but how it got there is Hx sci & involves assumptions that are not as directly subj to testing.
"2. Crea sci.."
Of course. All sci (esp Hx) is based on a PHILOSOPHY of sci. Do interp's fit? Some fr/ multiple phil's of sci, others better fr/ one or the other.
All science is dependent of assumptions. These distinctions between op and hx are manufactured by creationists who don't like the results when science is applied to the past. Just because you can observe something directly doesn't mean that assumptions are not involved. The difference is that mainstream science only allows assumptions that don't bias the conclusion, whereas folk-science will pile on assumption after assumption until the data fits the pre-determined conclusions.
Which is also why creation "science" organizations require their members to sign statements of faith that no matter what they find, it must be explained in terms of a literal 6-day creation scenario.
I'd like to know what you think is an assumption made by historical science? It can be related to geology or any other field.
Yes, mainstream science tries to keep its set of a assumptions to the *bear minimum*. The ones chosen relate to reliability of what can be oberved and whether observations of events scientist *can observe now* are reliable for predicting how things are in situations he or she cannot observe - i.e. in the past or separated from them in space. If someone calling themselves a scientist rejects these base assumptions they can make their 'evidence' say anything they like.
1/3) Agreed. Maybe I can offer a clear example of the diff between op & Hx sci & why I accept the distinction.
I mentioned the dino soft tissue, but let's elaborate on the Napoleon examp. Using op sci, many labs can analyze his hair (repeatedly) to accurately determine arsenic concen, agreed?
But the CAUSE of its presence is a Hx sci question & requires a theoretical vs measurable answer, poss being homicide, accident or suicide, and if enough evidence is
2/3) interpd to support several equally, views can polarize, like a hung jury. If we find arsenic residue in Napoleons cup*, we might think he was murdered. But what if we also find:
1) Green wall paper in his home that produces arsenic vapor as it moulds, at concen too low to kill healthy persons, but enough for Napoleon w/ a perforated ulcer?
2) He occasionally drank fr/ the cup, but it was also known to sit on a shelf f/ weeks in a green wall papered room?*
3/3) of which can we be more certain? Hair arsenic concen, or the cause of its presence? Why? Is the murder poss eliminated? Could the arsenic have multi- causality? Why does reasonable doubt consideration exist for juries?
Past events are less subj to dir examination than those where we manipulate control variables and implement anti-biasing methods - (double)blind studies, etc, which I accept as op sci.
*The cup scenario, is illustrative fiction by myself for example purposes only.
You have used a legal analogy, so I will do the same:
Juries are randomly selected members of the community in order to minimise bias against a particular verdict in a case.
In the creation science community, however, the judge, jury, executioner and the entire jury are *all* already committed to a particular verdict before the case even begins.
Christianity if need be, can adopt theo evo (many do), accepting Gen as allegorical. The maj of secular sci is atheist, & atheism NEEDS evo to be true or it's DONE. So where sci overlaps philosophy (origins), who has the greater motive to be committed to a verdict? Lewontin said they have a prior commitment to mat'ism, even IF absurd, b/c they cannot allow a divine foot in the door. Sound objective? Nagel said he doesn't WANT there to be a God.
Dr. Gary Parker (former atheist evo'ist, then theo evo'ist, then crea'ist) said in an interview, "Then in geophysics we went over all of the assumptions that go into radiometric dating. Afterwards, the professor said something like this, 'If a fundamentalist ever got hold of this stuff, he would make havoc out of the radiometric dating system. So, keep the faith.' I was shocked!"
...Can you imaging an Atheist joining the Creation Research Institute though?
Mainstream science is open to anyone including those who are skeptical about evolution, provided their discussion, as scientists, sticks to following the evidence where it leads and not to any preconceived notion. Creativity and Skepticism are both vital parts of good science - one for new hypotheses to test, the other for eliminating faulty reasoning.
Of course I don't mind if you are skeptical about such things. You haven't seen evidence that convinces you yet. I engage in debates like this more because it
Wonderful series!! I'm a geologist and work for gas drilling companies in the Northeast US. Young Earth 'geology' has no place in the field, as it explains nothing and only offers more questions than it gives answers.
Thanks again for the series, I will definitely recommend it to friends!
bailesie 2 months ago 2
I thought you'd deal with the fact that there's no erotion nor inclination in the strata unless it comes from up to down (as shown in the picture behind you)
...the other exception are the unconformities, but then again, they are evidence of catastrophism
ps: nice vocabulary :)
IloveYOUviruses 9 months ago
Wow I love this! I have but one question, if the bible can't get facts about this world right why should I believe what it has to say about the next (or if there is one)
TheFluffyDuck 10 months ago
the problem w/ most christians is they think that the bible states that the world is created w/ just 6 literal 24hrs/day. read again the genesis. it never claimed that the world was created in 6 literal days. the word "day" is just used to separate the phases of creation.
Alvinladen 10 months ago
I would really love to see you delve more into the debunking of flood geology.
hugesinker 1 year ago
This guy debunks YEC in a very clear, concise, Christian friendly and in a civil manner. Can we get some shout outs for these videos Aronra, Donexodus2? Personally I don't think his explanation of how the Bible is innerant yet is inaccurate is very satisfying but it is much more satisfying then rejecting science and he at least doesn't make up bs or wishy washy crap.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
According to several Hebrew scholars, the Hebrew in Genesis may refer to a flood covering the general geographic Mesopotamian region, rather than that it refers to the entire earth. Like English and other languages, Hebrew words and phrases often have more than one meaning. Conservative Christians are merely defending the King James edition of the Bible, rather than defending what the Old Testament actually says; ALL historians believe there was a great flood in the greater general region.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
I am impressed by your video series, you show a real command of the subject matter. It does make me sad that you still accept Christianity let alone the existance of any God or Gods at all. Just let the evidence take you just one step further.
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg Thanks. don't be sad -- it's a conscious descision -- no based on physical evidence. So don't waste your time trying to undersand it.
glovergj 1 year ago
@glovergj Wow, a lot of the arguments you use against YEC are arguments I use against people who claim God must exist such as adding more problems than fixing current ones. I respect many deists because they have reasons philosophically they think make God the best hypothesis given what they know but they don't claim God must exist and poor creationist claims of design implies a designer and your sin causes you not to see God. I wish more Christians had the deists humility.
RuinSonic 8 months ago
@Dchellberg What "evidence" is that? Perhaps you have evidence of motion arising from non-motion, life from non-life and creative intelligence from non-intelligent subatomic particles. If you do, then perhaps you should write the BioLogos foundation and explain why such top scientists like Francis Collins remain unenlightened, while you remain the Enlightened One that the rest of us should follow.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen Francis Collins seems unelightened because he has faith without evidence. An effective administrator with nearly unlimited funding does not make a "top scientist". I understand Hawkings newest book, I think he would qualify as a top scientist, explaines Physics does not nead a Creator. I did not claim to be the Enlightened One, I will leave that for those that accept by faith propositions without adequate evidence.
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg Francis Collins, like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, DaVinci, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein and myself, among billions of others, believe in God based on the evidence of creation. It is liars like Richard Dawkins who have no evidence for what they claim to believe. There is no evidence for magically appearing universes, intelligence from non-intelligence, conscious awareness from non-conscious particles or motion apart from Primary Cause. ATHEISM = A TOTAL LIE
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen I had the unique pleasure of spending a fair amount of time with Professor Dawkins duing a trip we took "Following the Footsteps of Darwin" through the Galapagos Islands. I found him to very forthright and would admit readily when he did not know an answer to one of my inquiries. Although it is a normal human trait to lie in some circumstances, a benefical trait I think, I would certainly not characterize him as a liar.
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg Dawkins says in a video on YouTube that all of life began from a single source in the ocean. That's a lie, not because it might not be true but rather, because nobody knows if it is true; many scientists have other opinions of where life began. Dawkins says he doesn't believe in either God or the spaghetti monster. Any moron knows that's a big fucking lie, because we can eliminate the spaghetti monster without otherwise having to explain how the universe happens to exist.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen In all probability based on our current knowledge all present day lifeforms are descended from a single common ancestor. That ancestor may have been one of many different forms that outcompeted other lifeforms. That ancestoral lifeform most likely originated in Earth's primeval oceans. Is this more to your liking? To rephase your eloquent statement "only a moron would think this is a big fucking lie". I can imbue the Flying Spaghetti Monster with all the characteristics of "God"
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg This is not true. Some secular non-creationist biologists believe life might have first appeared in dirt, n fresh water, caves and as one stated, life may able to appear "where ever there is a little wetness". Others believe life was carried in on space rocks bombarding the early earth, for which there was some recent evidence found in the water from a recent asteroid landing in India. There may have been several "genesis" of life and life may have appeared from all over earth.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@Dchellberg (continuing) The current fossil record of macro scopic life is less than 1 billion years old and the record of ALL micro-life is about half of the earth's estimated age. And there is no geologic record for the earth's first 800 million years of existence. As far as anyone knows, life or the "seeds" for life was carried in on space rocks and as such, there may have been "zillions" of original life forms, as there are currently zillions of viruses. NOBODY KNOWS; get over it.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen Who said we know? I did not....I purposely used probabalistic language.
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg Dawkins says he is "almost certain" there is no God and previously stated he is "6 of 7" certain. Yet, Dawkins has never provided any evidence that tips the scales in such dramatic fashion against the existence of God, nor has he ever bothered to explain why 6 of 7, rather than 9 of 10 or 2 of 5. Dawkins has never provided a shred of evidence for how motion can arise from non-motion, intelligence from non-intelligence or conscious awareness from non-conscious matter; DAWKINS=FRAUD.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen In "The God Delusion" Richard clearly explains his 7 point scale. Adding more points to make it ten or less to make it five would have been artificial. It is just a historical artifact that we have five fingers, it is not a magic number. You have consistantly tried to put the burden of proof on those who lack a belief. It is incumbant on you to provide positive evidence for your belief. Your "motion from non-motion etc." is just an argument from ignorance.
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg That is a perfect example of just how great a liar Dawkins in fact is. Someone who writes a book titled that is insinuating that every major historical scientist, moralist and other thinker was delusional. It doesn't take much of a monkey's brain to understand who in face, is delusional. What has Dawkins contributed to human rights that Jesus didn't already teach long ago? Only a total liar would entitle a book the "God delusion", as if anyone could possibly know there is no God.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen Dawkins makes a convincing case that God is a human delusion. By far the majority of members of both the Royal Academy and the National Academy of Scientists are non-believers. What evidence for a God are you privy to that I am not? Other than upholding the barbaric Jewish laws what enlightening human rights did Jesus champion?
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg I might also add that "those who lack a belief" in fact, have the burden of proof remaining on them. I can have a "lack of belief" that the earth is smaller than the sun, but such a lack of belief contributes nothing to humanity. "lack of belief" or just "disbelief" as atheists often define themselves, proves nothing, nor does it belong in any legitimate rational discussion. I can disbelieve anything I want and such a position neither proves, solves or contributes anything.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen I have never read such nonsense. "a lack of belief contributes nothing to humanity" is not the standard for reality, evidence is. I can believe that mankind can pollute without consequences but that does not make it reality. Not accepting a proposition due to a lack of evidence contributes a rejection of the logical consequences of that proposition. In this case the stifling of humanity's potential due to an acceptance of a superstition.
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg No, not accepting a superstition represents a positive thing if and when EVIDENCE provides a better explanation. For example, a child can eliminate Santa Claus when they find evidence of their parents wrapping presents up and addressing them from Santa Claus. However, unlike Richard Dawkins pretends, one can't eliminate God in the same breath as the Spaghetti Monster without first having a BETTER explanation for how the universe happens to exist. I'm still waiting. . .
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen Before Natural Selection was proposed as the mechanism for the observed fact of Evolution a rational person would conclude that the appearance of design in our world was due to a designer. Since Darwin not so much. Darwin characterized himself as Agnostic after he discovered Natural Selection. Einstein vociferiously disavowed a belief in a personal God. You seem to incorrectly assign beliefs to Atheism which is a lack of a belief. Are you confused or are you being a deciever?
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg Darwin credited God for being behind the process of evolution in his final edition of On the Origin of Species. He wrote one "can be an ardent Theist and evolutionist" and he also wrote that his mind was "mainly agnostic, but not entirely". Agnostic in the time of Darwin, sometimes referred to mistrust in religion rather than God. Thus, Darwin could both believe in God and claim to be "agnostic but not entirely". If you are going to misquote Darwin, then I'm going to correct you.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen Darwin gave in to theistic pressure by the Sixth Edition. I stand by my characterization of Darwin as an agnostic, a term his friend Huxley originated. I think that given the scientific advancement since Darwin's day he would be an Atheist now. Mere speculation but as Physics has advanced so "God" has diminished to being an unnecessary complication.
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg That is total bullshit promoted by atheists and has been clearly debunked by Darwin's biographers. There is NO evidence or any credible reason at all why Darwin would "give in" to religious views; Darwin was noteworthy for years having debated with religious leaders. It is very, very, very historically unlikely that Darwin would risk his legacy over religious complaints and there is ZERO evidence or any credible reason at all why Darwin ever did or would compromise in his old age.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen Check out "Darwin" Niles Eldridge 2005
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen "I should wish if possible to avoid giving pain to your father's religious friends who are deeply attached to him, and I picture to myself the way that sentence would strike them, even those so liberal as Ellen Tollett and Laura, much more Admiral Sullivan, Aunt Caroline, &c., and even the old servants."
Quote from Darwin's widow-see the religious pressure to censor him being exerted even after his death.
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg Einstein spoke in similar fashion, saying that he was an atheist compared to most Catholics, because like Darwin, Einstein viewed the existence of God as divorced and far different than religion. Atheists often attempt to marginalize belief in God based on what various religions claim, which only demonstrates how poorly educated they are. Anyone who has checked knows neither Jesus, Paul, Darwin, Einstein or Paine believed in religion; this does not mean they didn't believe in God.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen "Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.[7] "
Charles Darwin
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen
I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.
Charles Darwin
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones. A dog acts in this manner, but he does so blindly. A man, on the other hand, looks forwards and backwards, and compares his various feelings, desires and recollections. See Following
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg Humans don't know why dogs and other life forms do what they do. If you studied animal behavior, something Dawkins is supposedly an expert in, you would learn other animals demonstrate much more than "blind" actions of "instinct". Elephants for example, have a very sophisticated language and have been observed holding a funeral procession and days of mourning for a lost member of their group. Science by and in large, knows very little about why other animals do what they do.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen There is no reason to think that animal consciousness is different in kind only degree. Dawkins studied ethology under Timbergen, I recomend reading some of his elegant papers, and would be considered an expert in the field. Elephants have a sophisticated communication system but most experts reserve the term language to systems that use syntax. Elephants do not, it is controversial whether the other great apes do even with human assisted systems.
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg You can read the article "Animal Behavior" in the Britannica and several related articles and you will discover, that modern science knows very little about how animals think and perceive their world or, why they do what they do. Much is based on theoretical assumptions, rather than on hard evidence. Suffice it to say, it is rather difficult for a human being to think like an ape, an elephant, a bird, fish, ant or a spider. THERE IS A WHOLE LOT SCIENCE DOESN'T KNOW. Get over it.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen I used to sell EB to pay my way through college. I have a hard time understanding how my wife thinks and why my teenager does not. I am throughly confused by your thought processes. How would I or anyone else be able to understand the world through the eyes of an elephant, a dolphin, or a dog? Until we can do a little "Freaky Friday" personality transfer to an animal I think the field will remain "theoretical". That does not mean that ther is no evidence., read Timbergen.
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg You missed the point entirely. We don't think like other animals, which is WHY modern science doesn't understand animal behavior very well. Human beings conduct what is called an "extrapolation" whenever we attempt to define the motives of other species and, modern science compounds this confusion by trying to explain animal behavior in terms of reproductive survival, which is unfair to both animals and human beings. I don't think you are nearly as educated as you think you are.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@Dchellberg And, you are not correct about elephants. Scientists who have been studying them for years are compiling an "elephant dictionary" which is quite large. Much of the sounds they make are outside of human ear frequencies. And, I have seen video footage of elephants standing over and mourning their dead and walking in a deliberately detailed funeral procession past their dead, a type of ceremony that can last for several days.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen An elephant dictionary does not imply syntax. Human and other animal intelligence are different as a matter of degree not kind as predicted by Evolutionary Theory and as falsifies Creationism.
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg All species are different as a matter of degree, which is why they are classified as a different species. Human beings are not an "advancement" over an elephant, spider or a microbe--we are just a different part of life. Evolutionary theory has no relevance to God's existence, to which Darwin agreed. It is at best, a rudimentary and very incomplete attempt to explain how creation functions in the observable reality. That is all science ever has been or ever well be.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@Dchellberg There are a great many things that animals do that defy human explanation, including how birds fly in formation, which in some species involves a highly complex orderly process, where the lead bird is replaced in mid-flight by a bird from the rear and each bird moves back a notch in turn without breaking formation. Some species of spiders weave a highly complex different web every day. You can't pretend I haven't studied science and history to a significant degree, which I have.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen That we do not currently understand all aspects of the natural world does not mean that an explanation does not exist merely that it has not been discovered yet. Tithe to research instead of superstition and someday we may have the answer. I have not claimed that you have not studied science only that your ideology has prevented you from understanding it.
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg Of course, an explanation exists. God knows how he created the heavens and the earth, which is why God belongs at the center of all science and education, rather than in a corner called "religion", which has nothing in common with either God or creation reality.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@Dchellberg And, you can pretend all you want that God is not the Supreme Judge that Jefferson claimed he is, but God nevertheless will go right on being the Supreme Judge anyway. God will very much hold human beings accountable for their actions, whether or not they pretend that he doesn't exist. How could a just God give both Adolf Hitler and Albert Schweitzer the same reward? Modern intellectuals who don't believe God can both reward and punish them truly have their head up their ass.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen And you can pretend all you want that your particular version of a God is the supreme judge but it will not make it so. Which set of your God's rules do you follow the Old ones, the New ones, the ones in Matthew, or the ones in John? Do you follow Calvanism, Southern Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic or one of the thousands of other versions. How could a just God condemn anyone fairly with so much confusion concerning the rules?
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg That is what God is called in the Declaration of Independence; I was only quoting Jefferson. Apparently you haven't actually studied very much science and or history, otherwise you would be highly skeptical of the claims of people like Shermer, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett and other poorly educated people. Any one who pretends there is no God is by default, poorly educated at best.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen Are you criticizing authors you have not read again?
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen He then finds, in accordance with the verdict of all the wisest men that the highest satisfaction is derived from following certain impulses, namely the social instincts. If he acts for the good of others, he will recieve the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives; and this latter gain undoubtely is the highest pleasure on this earth.
Charles Darwin
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg The problem with atheism is, there is no rational explanation for why concepts such as God, morality and ethics exist. If there is no God, why are human beings lying about it? There would be no such thing as "good" if there is no evil and, no such concept as human rights would exist. Why would there be any lack of human rights, if there is no evil? Or, why would we say helping a homeless person is "good" rather than just something we do or don't do, without qualifying it as good?
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen You need to do some reading here. Try Michael Shermer "The Science Of Good and Evil" or "The Mind of The Market" or any one of Daniel Dennet's books on Evolutionary ethics and religion. This is certainly not a problem for Atheism and that you think it is shows that you have a cartoonish understanding of Evolutionary Theory as it is applied to human culture.
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg Shermer isn't even a skeptic. A true skeptic, like Samuel Clemens for example, is equally skeptical of religious quacks and quacks of science and education. Shermer attacks the easy targets, while one can search all over his website and not find even a single sentence that dares challenge modern science and education. The modern Skeptics Society represents blind sheep following the blind. No true skeptic embraces atheism.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen Samuel Clemens "Letter from the Earth" may have seemed thought provoking to a Preacher's Kid in High School, me, it was written before many modern scientific advances. I suggest that before you condemn Shermer after looking at his website try reading his books. It seems that you again are letting your ideology distort your perception. No true Christian accepts the divinity of Jesus, his resurrection, or the virgin birth.
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg I have written several emails to Shermer. A couple he actually responded to and he agreed with me, that perhaps the Skeptics Society should be a little more skeptical of the claims of scientists. Modern intellectuals have a very bad habit of just assuming that whatever science claims is correct, even though the vast majority of what science claimed when I was in high school is not longer believed to be correct.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen The Scientific Method is all about Skepticism. Science only accepts something provisionally while attempting to falsify it. I doubt that "the vast majority of what science claimed when YOU were in high school is no longer believed to be correct." Unless you went before "On the Origins Of Species" was published. Otherwise science has been building on the foundations laid by previous generations. Geology was not overturned by Plate Techtonics just added to. etc.
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg No, the scientific evidence is all about evidence, which is why Dawkins is an obvious fraud; there is no evidence for a conclusion of atheism. Every major historical scientist claimed to believe in God, while even most minor atheist scientists would never call people like Jesus and Einstein "delusional". I'm not going to read any books by anyone who pretends that people who believe in God are delusional, case closed. You're just pissing up a rope.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@Dchellberg Richard Dawkins recently said: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."
RESPONSE: If true, there would be no concept of pitiless as opposed to caring; no such thing as ethics or morality, no such thing as the teachings of Jesus, no human rights or condemnation of Hitler. Atheists are invaribly illogical at the bottom-line, without exception.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen Try actually reading "The Selfish Gene" is find out how Dawkins explains the Evolution of altrusim. He wrote it in 1976. I would agree with Richard's quote. The beauty of having the intelligence our oversize brain has endowed us with is that we can empathize and we can predict what the consequences of our actions will be. We can choose to rise above our baser nature, and we do it everyday without the aide of imaginary guides, guardians or gods.
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg I have no interest in reading the books of someone who pretends that the vast majority of human history's scientists, human rights advocates, moralists and great thinkers were delusional. Only a total moron would pretend that they were wiser than Jesus and all of the major players of history, which is what Dawkins is pretending when he brands them all delusional. I have never read a book by Dawkins and never intend to--the few videos and articles I've seen are far more than enough
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen You have never read a book by Dawkins yet you feel free to quote him and to call him a liar. I have read the Bible, which is why I became an Atheist, so I can comment of it. Without reading Dawkins, with an open enough mind to comprehend what he wrote, you ethically can not criticize him-that would make you a liar.
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg I've read several articles written by Dawkins and viewed several videos of him speaking. I am not quoting him third door down. I have no interest in reading a book titled "The God Delusion", which title itself announces to the world that the author is a poorly educated rube in need of a good spanking.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen Richard Dawkins is "a poorly educated rube in need of a good spanking"? You have not read any of his books, make this inane statement and think that you have stumped the scientific community on the origin of disease. Maybe the God you believe in is YOU. Got much of an ego problem.
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg I have never said I "stumped the scientific community" about disease. I merely pointed out to you what the scientific community already knows, that the root causes and origins of disease are poorly understood at best. Any human disease expert knows that. It seems it is you who know very little about evolutionary theory in general and origins of disease in particular. Perhaps you should study up a little on viruses and human disease and then get back to me.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@Dchellberg There are several things modern evolutionary theory fails to adequately explain, the origins of disease being is only one. As some historians have pointed out, natural selection is at best half right in light of the known human behavioral track record. You don't understand WHY Dawkins is a poorly educated rube. Just because he knows a lot about bio science doesn't mean he is well-educated. His perspective of history based on the few articles I've read, is elementary at best.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen Again you appear delusional when you call Professor Dawkins a poorly educated rube. He until recently held a chair at Oxford, has authored many best selling books and he lectures across the world, The Selfish Gene was just issued by Scientific American as a special classic editon. He actually does research as when I joined him in the Galapagos. You mister Ego, on the other hand, have a cheesy website with typing for graphics, faulty logic and really crappy music.
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg And anyone who pretends Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, Socrates, DaVinci, Newton, Einstein and a host of other historical giants were "delusional", belongs in a mental hospital tied to a chair, rather than holding a chair at Oxford or any other school of ivory towered crappola. Dawkins is a perfect example of why any and every self-respecting construction worker wouldn't throw away their hard earned money sending their children to Oxford. Who the hell wants a child taught that load of shit?
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen Because its true, applicable in real life, helps man kind, gets the next generation of medicine at your hospital? Gives you the ability to create bullshit at your keyboard?
fmanh 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen:.....LOL you're an idiot.
McTaggStar 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen "With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.— I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I shd wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. "
Darwin letter to Asa Gray Continued next post.
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg There is great confusion among narrow-minded atheists and religionists over the difference between God and religion, which is why Darwin, like Einstein, experienced difficulty discussing God and religion in the same context with other people. God does not create or imply religion. Religions are inventions of human beings. God does not need a religion; creation speaks for God. There is a VAST difference between God and religions supposedly about God.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen God is a fan of paisley ties and dislikes ultraviolet, which is why we can not see ultraviolet. First you need to prove evidence for a God before you can ascribe characteristics to it. There are as many quotes from Einstein as there are from Darwin rejecting the idea of a personal God. There is a VAST difference between stating there is a God and providing evidence for one.
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg We don't know why God creates like God does. Like all of life, human beings are created to perceive some things and to not perceive other realities. Most scientists believe there at least six dimensions and may be eleven, yet we perceive only three of them (4 if you count time). Just because we can't see God doesn't mean there isn't a God, anymore than just because we can't see quarks and leptons or or other universes doesn't mean they don't exist.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen " I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice."
Charles Darwin letter to Asa Gray
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg Nobody said that God did. According to the Bible, creation at least on earth is corrupted by the existence of sin in both human beings and the rest of the animal kingdom. One can easily explain the known history of human civilization if there is such a thing as sin, while it is quite impossible to otherwise explain the known record of human civilization. Good luck, trying to blame God for disease, as science has no idea how or why disease exists in a theoretical "avantage" system.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen According to the Pupta disease on Earth came from a giant Upton that was upset his Retmop was stolen. But through the scientific method scientists have found evidence that many lifeforms compete for limited resources. Some fill niches that exist inside other organisms, when these organisms get a competitive advantage they can cause what we call "disease". Do you really think science has no idea why disease exists? Really? I have been wasting my time.
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg I have challenged the entire basis of evolution by natural selection based on the existence of disease and no professor of biology, nor the skeptics society nor the biologos foundation nor anyone else has been able to refute my challenges. Your answer demonstrates you know very little about disease or about evolutionary theory; root causes of disease is very poorly understood by science. You can read my challenge in my online book in Appendix C found on my website, my name dot com
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen I did not realize until the previous set of comments that you are a self important delusional personality. You reject my simple explaination of disease and then tell me that you have stumped all biology professors, the Skeptics Society, of which I am a member and you have not stumped me, and Biologos Foundation. You are very impressive....to no one but yourself.
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg at least it is a start for a christian to accept modern science and he is refuting the creationist... very good videos.
trailerfitter2 4 months ago
Right... "flood geology is just folk science."
...and 100 miles of rock layers just appeared from no-where all neatly layered AS IF they were...
...HYDROLOGICALLY SORTED?
what does secular science have to explain the appearance of all this rock? how about the weight change of it affecting the planet's orbit? Hmm...?
DoKtaTre 1 year ago
Please tell me you're joking. It's hard to believe anybody can be that ignorant of basic geologic priciples.
glovergj 1 year ago
@glovergj Unfortunatley there ae plenty of these guys around... Good job by the way glover, well done!
fmanh 1 year ago
I didn't think it was fair to block lacocacolaman, what happened to freedom of speech?
TaccountableC 2 years ago
He lost it. This isn't the forum for those who want to throw around names like, "crazy Satanist" -- he is "free" to do that elsewhere, or make a video about how he think I'm a "crazy satanist" -- just not here.
glovergj 2 years ago
Are you kidding? Oil companies don't care anything at all about age or how the layers got there. All they want to know is where is the oil. they do more comparison than aging. The only interest they have in fossils whatsoever is to help them find layers that might contain oil.
The layers aren't always in order, Many places have millions and millions of years missing, POOF, and the fossils do not support gradual change through mutation and natural selection. Gould from Harvard rejected that.
mejc2 2 years ago
Like I said, oil companies care about results. They need geological models that make accurrate predictions. Flood geology doesn't work, mainstream geology does.
The layers are indeed in order. Missing layers do not equal "out of order". Missing layers are caused when uplifted sediments are exposed to weathering and eroded back down, then more sediment is deposited over these. There was no POOF, just natural processess.
Correct: fossils show consistent patterns of change - not gradual.
glovergj 2 years ago 3
In addition to millions and millions of years missing there are also areas where the layers are out of order .....I think.... off the top of my head.... mmmm...check the Himalayas you might find some thing there.
fossil patterns do no show change they show order. order is not change. Also there is no method of change that can account for the diversity we see in the Cambrian explosion.
mejc2 2 years ago
Sure, when sediments are lifted up 30,000 feet, some sections might get re-arranged such that the layers there are higher/lower than layers that are older/younger. That is to be expected when continents collide.
So you are a geologist now? When you find different fossils in different layers as you move up the column, that represents change over time -- and the change is also orderly in that it represents incremental change.
Cambrian "explosion" is a perfect example of evolutionary change.
glovergj 2 years ago
The Cambrian explosion is a perfect example of something other than evolution. In the first 3.5 billion years of life there was only single celled life until the last .017% then all of a sudden every type of life that would ever exist on the planet showed up by random mutation and natural selection. According to Evolution that should not happen 99.83% of time with single cells then boom every type of life form that will ever exist.
Sorry that is not the way it is supposed to happen.
mejc2 2 years ago
Evolution is biological change over time. In the period of about 80 million years, life on earth completely changed. That sounds like evolution to me. The only people who can't comprehend this either (1) know nothing about what evolution is or how it works, and / or (2) think they are sinning if they believe what the evidence clearly shows them.
The atmosphere once had no oxygen. It took 3 billion years of photosynthesis (mainly algae) to produce conditions favourable to multicellular life.
glovergj 2 years ago
Nice try Sherlock but the Cambrian explosion took only about 5 million years. Way to little time for single celled organisms to mutate into every life form known on this planet using random mutation and natural selection.
Sorry charlie.
mejc2 2 years ago
Where are you getting your information? From AiG or ICR? Do your homework! 70-80 million years is the agreed upon duration for the geologic period known as the Cambrian.
Even if what you say is true a bout ns+rm -- that only leaves us with a God who takes 80 million years of R&D to figure out how to get from single to multi-cellular life. My God is more awesome that! His universe was gifted with all the requisite qualities for complex life from the beginning.
glovergj 2 years ago 4
I am not supporting God here I am denouncing evolutionism.
mejc2 2 years ago
...denouncing evolution in favor of... what alternate theory?
There is none. At least none that does a better job of explaining the available data and making testable predictions than evolution. Perhaps someday a better theory will emerge -- in fact, I'm counting on it -- but so far nothing has even come close.
Physicists use gravitation and quantum mechanics even though they can't be reconciled. We know there is a better theory somewhere out there, but we until then, we use what we have.
glovergj 2 years ago
Ya know, I think I'll stick with creation. Obviously if you look at a created universe it and everything in it will appear older. that's the problem with creation. observing the creation and inventing a story that denies the creation is one way. However when the best scientific minds cannot reconcile the existence of the universe without acknowledging a creator, then you are just denying the details.
mejc2 2 years ago
Let me get this straight: the best scientific minds over the last 150 years all agree that the species have evolved and the earth is billions of years old. But you are going to take a quote by Einstein and use this to demonstrate that the biblical creation story is more scientifically valid than evolution?
I already agree that God created all things. Evolution is simply the process he used to do it.
glovergj 2 years ago
Wait, you are saying that you believe in a being capable of speaking the UNIVERSE into existence, but he just couldn't do it in 6 days? Why not?
mejc2 2 years ago
He could have done it in 6 seconds, that's not the point. He could have done anything he wanted--He's God.
If the universe were created in 6 days only 6000 years ago, and there were a global flood 1500 years later, then there would be some evidence of this.
There is none.
Instead, we have evidence that creation was about 14 billion years ago, and continues to this day.
If God did create the universe in 6 days, then He must have made it look like it took much longer for no reason.
glovergj 2 years ago
You misunderstand observation for evidence.
You impose your world view and then you interpret the observation. you assume the star was formed naturally. you assume that the light occurred when the star was formed 14 light years away, you assume the light traveled to earth naturally, you assume that the light that is reaching earth now took 14 billion years to get here. Then you call God deceitful.
Maybe, just maybe, one or more of your assumptions are wrong.
mejc2 2 years ago
Yes, I assume these things happened naturally because there is no evidence indicating otherwise.
What evidence is there to suggest all of these things happened by miracles? None!
If somebody comes to you and insists that they teleported here from another planet, do you simply take their word for it or would you demand some sort of evidence for this outrageous claim?
You assume, contrary to how we observe the universe to work, that all we observed happened majically. Based on what?
glovergj 2 years ago
The Bible is the evidence. The book itself is a miracle.
66 books, written over 1500 years, by 40 different authors, ranging in status from kings to paupers, not all of the authors knew what was written before them, One message.
The message is that Man has turned away from God and that God overs free reconciliation through Jesus Christ.
you couldn't get 10 witnesses of a crime to agree five minutes after it happened.
My belief is based on the Bible.
mejc2 2 years ago
One message? I don't think so. You obviously don't spend much time reading the bible or you would know that it's full of errors and contradictions. How can you say that it is the result of miracle?
God becoming flesh and being raised from the dead was a miracle! The bible is Holy because of its SUBJECT MATTER, not because the content is perfect or 100% accurrate.
It's ok to think for yourself -- God gave us brains.
glovergj 2 years ago 3
You might not think so, but it is true. the bible is about Jesus from Genesis to revelation. The book itself is a miracle.
The stories you believe in were created by men after observing God's creation and denying Him. As good scientists disprove them one after the other, Evolutionists change the stories.
mejc2 2 years ago
I think we're done here. You will just make up things like, "good scientists disprove them..." when backed into a corner. So there is no more reason for us to talk. I wish you well.
glovergj 2 years ago 2
you're welcome.
mejc2 2 years ago
no!!!!!! your a lost cause... why does this even matter to you? I mean if you believe in God why do you ned to go out of your way to make an evolution Video? Trust me people who believe in evolution will not go to God because of your video so essentially you preach to a wall. You do nothing for God or anyone.
Lacocacolaman 2 years ago
That's just false. By attaching Christianity to things that are demonstrably false, such as creationism and absurd ideas about the age of earth it seriously jeopardizes the gospel message. If you make it a requirement for an educated person (eg. a scientist) to throw out all of modern science in order to embrace Christianity, then that person is just not going to do that. It poses a serious threat to the crediblity of Christianity if followers have to ignore obvious reality.
JT898 2 years ago
you mean modern interpretation of science? I have no problem tossing out bad interpretations. No problem at all.
Lacocacolaman 2 years ago
There is no interpretation here; the earth is ~4.6 billion years old, and living organisms did have common ancestors.
JT898 2 years ago
sure...
Lacocacolaman 2 years ago
The truth should matter to everybody.
glovergj 2 years ago
obviously not to you.
Lacocacolaman 2 years ago
No, the truth does matter to me -- which is why I am honest enough to face the truth, no matter how difficult it may seem at first. You, and others like you, just want to ignore the truth.
glovergj 2 years ago
ok... yeah keep thinking that is fact... good luck explaining things to God
Lacocacolaman 2 years ago
You think God is threatened by our attempt to understand how the universe He created operates?
Will He punish those who learn too much?
I suggest your God is too small.
Balabaw2 2 years ago
Wow your God is small if you dont think he has the power to create... How is my God Small? because i believe he is capable of everything good? He is limited if you think he used "nature" to create everything. God could do by just saying it, Read genesis. Nope My God isn't limited yours is... Your god is limited to an Evolutionist horrible interpretation of Gods creations.
Lacocacolaman 2 years ago
And God will get angry at those who don't believe in him and you know what believing in him also includes believing that he created it all.
Lacocacolaman 2 years ago
Let me ask you something: did God use nature to create you or did you just appear out of thin air? Couldn't have God have just created you instantly? Why did He chose to work within a natural system that he set up for this very purpose?
If we were shooting pool with your God, he would just pick up the balls and put them in the pockets. I would say it was cheating; you would say it was a miracle.
If we were playing pool with my God, he would sink every ball on the break!
glovergj 2 years ago
wow... well good luck worshiping your God called Nature. I mean let me give you this example. lets say I placed a Rock on top of a table, I then walk away. While im gone I tell my neighbor "Nature" to come in and chisel it into an apple. Using your Logic I would be the one chiseled the apple because i asked my neighbor to do it. MY logic would be no the credit goes to Nature for actually doing it.
Lacocacolaman 2 years ago
I don't believe in Evolution because its foundations are based on lies. It uses the facts of natural selection to make people believe everything evolved. That past example is something I used to make you understand your giving Gods credit to something else, Satan? I mean How can you limit your God? MY God Can create things by just saying it. Yours is limited to mans interpretations. You insult God. All I can say is that I truly believe in him. And I believe in the bible.
Lacocacolaman 2 years ago
No, when it comes to science, you only believe in the parts of the Bible that you agree with. For instance, I doubt you believe that the sun revolves around the earth, or that the sky is a solid dome with water on top, or that the stars are fastened to the dome, etc...
glovergj 2 years ago
Comment removed
CharlieRomeroTV 2 years ago
ok point out all these parts in the bible. The reason I dont do it is because im hoping you would read them and not fall into evolution propaganda.
Lacocacolaman 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you never responded...
Lacocacolaman 2 years ago
Ignore the truth? come on pal I go look for it. I dont assume the bible lies because a guy in a lab coat said it cant be that way. You base all your truth off horible interpretations. The worst part is you get your so called "truth" form people who hate God. In fact they hate God so much they make you believe he had nothing to do with creation!
Lacocacolaman 2 years ago
let try and post this again...
Here are links to some of your fellow creationists organization who love God, love creation, and love the bible. Each of these sites gives a lengthy defense of geocentric theory FROM THE SCRIPTURES.
Enjoy...
three w's (dot) fixedearth (dot) com
three w's (dot) staticearth (dot) net
three w's (dot) geocentricity (dot) com
glovergj 2 years ago
FYI... I tried posting this several times, but it kept getting kicked because of the links. In the typical creationists "jump-conclusions-without-any-evidence" fashion, you mistakenly assumed I was dodging your question.
If had any awareness of what the bible actually says, and not just what AiG and ICR tells you it says, you would be more carefull about stating what you believe. Before the 17th century, all theologians understood the bible to teach geocentricity.
glovergj 2 years ago
This is just one example of what happens when you look to the bible for answers to modern scientific questions.
That's not what the bible is for.
glovergj 2 years ago
Yeah the piece of crap youtube doesn't let you post websites. The bible never clashes with real science. your just poking holes in the bible. I mean you just pick what you want to believe in. what kind of christian are you? Not a very faithful one. The worst part is that you make accusations about the bible being wrong because of very few statements. if you want to read something read this.
w's (dot) creation (dot) com /our-galaxy-is-the-centre-of-the-universe-quantized-redshifts-show
Lacocacolaman 2 years ago
I could very well bring old Darwin statements for evolution. I mean he had no knowledge of science and much of what he said isnt used today at all for evolution alot of his things are out of date. Just because some guy in the 17th century didnt understand how to look at scripture you keep bringing them up. what about today? why do you need to keep going back to the 17th century? I mean just because the bible says "the four corners of the earth" you say we believe its square? come on
Lacocacolaman 2 years ago
It's relavent to show that Christians can easily misread the bible. And how do we know when we're misreading the bible? When it starts contradicting things we learn from other sources. Then we have to go back and re-evaluate our interpretations. This happened in the early church with the flat/round earth debate. It happened in the mideval church with the geo/heliocentric debate, and it's happening now with old earth/evolution. The problem is not the Bible, only how some Christians read it.
glovergj 2 years ago
there's a big difference between those two and evolution is that the passages were short literally like 3 words long. Genesis is actually descriptive on how God created everything. How else could you possibly read Genesis? One main reason why Evolution even has popularity today is because of all the lies behind it. They had so many fossils back then to show intermediates between species. Now there's hardly any and if there is any they are highly arguable. Look at all his lies lead to.
Lacocacolaman 2 years ago
I don't know where you are getting your information from, but you've got it backwards. In Darwin's time, there were little if any transitional fossils. Now there are literally thousands.
The universe created in Genesis does not exists. If you want to know how to faithfully read Genesis, watch lessons 15 and 16.
glovergj 2 years ago
we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be modified or discarded as a result of more detailed information. What appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex.
Lacocacolaman 2 years ago
So now you're an expert in paleontology? I don't know where you are getting your information, but you are flat wrong.
glovergj 2 years ago
whoa? are you kidding me? Darwin had more fossil evidence at his time because they honestly had no idea what the were dealing with i mean their idea of a neanderthal was a stupid retarded hunch back creature. Now it's erect and has funerals and buries its own dead. They also had evolution for the north american horse which was proven false now theirs hardly any fossil evidence. and if their is its very contriversial,
Lacocacolaman 2 years ago
You are either completely ignorant of the facts, or a blatant liar -- I can't figure out which.
glovergj 2 years ago
WHAT?! are you kidding me? Go research the evolution on just the Neanderthals over the years. Find out how they interpreted them during darwins time and now.
Lacocacolaman 2 years ago
And it proves my point exactly. The evidence now is much more conclusive than it was in Darwin's day because not only do we have more Neanderthal remains to study, but we are now able to sequence Neanderthal DNA.
One of the great things about science is that it can change and adapt to new information. Creationism, on the other hand, has to force all new data to fit old ideas.
You'll have to do better than this.
glovergj 2 years ago
what does that say when you believe something that is so inconsistent that it changes everytime we know more? are you trying to make me laugh. I'm at least glad you do admit that evolution evolves. I can't wait to see how the mtDNA turns out. You know what I have a belief, Unlike you it's in the BIBLE, I dont pick what I choose to believe in or not. I will never judge the bible on science that cant keep its facts straights.
Lacocacolaman 2 years ago
What are you like 10? You are a complete idiot. It's the nature of science to change, to learn, to explore. Just look at how every field of science changes as we learn more about creation.
The bible is based on ancient science. There is nothing in the bible that reflects a modern understanding of the universe. Looking to scripture as a basis for understanding the physical cosmos is futile.
And as I've already pointed out, you do pick and choose what scriptures you want to believe.
glovergj 2 years ago
NO I believe it all. Just because we don't understand 3 small parts of the bible doesn't mean it should all be discredited. Well i can tell you one thing for sure. you lie up the wazoo when you say you are a christian. My God... how can you insult your very God by saying you believe in him and then turn around and spit on his creation. You need to stop pretending to be a Christian and start claiming souls elsewhere. I wont stand for your lies. Crazy satanist.
Lacocacolaman 2 years ago
How many elements do you thing were on the periodic table 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 100? Criticising science for "evolving" has got to be about the stupidest thing ever said on my channel.
As you can see from my interaction with other viewers, I have a very high tolerance for disagreement and a healthy respect for opposing viewpoints. What I can't tolerate, howerver, is total and utter stupidity, and blatant disregard for the facts -- both of which you have unfortunately mastered.
glovergj 2 years ago
Just as I warned you in my last comment, my patience with you has run out. You are on my site, I am not on yours -- but you are now are blocked!
Congratulations.
After the 1000's of comments I've received to date, many of those in sharp disagreement with me, you are only the 2nd person to get blocked -- and the 1st to get blocked for being a complete fool (the actual first was for using foul language).
glovergj 2 years ago
Good video. I can't believe that people (creationists) still believe in the so called finds of Ron Wyatt, ie The Ark of the Covenant, Noah's Ark, Noah's grave, Noah's house, Mrs Noah's grave (containing a fortune in gold and jewelry) and Moses stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments & The Red Sea crossing with coral-encrusted chariot wheels & fossilized human skelatel remains. Every time you put evidence against these finds they say its true for it goes with the bible.
leadtech000 2 years ago
I'm not a christian but this is a great video. It's good to see someone besides just us atheists trying to talk sense into creationists.
majorvoltage 2 years ago
Comment removed
terryrozmus 2 years ago
These kind of 'statements of faith' are an example of why maintstream scientists rightly criticise 'Creation Science' as an exercise in religion rather than hard science.
terryrozmus 2 years ago
[Crea sci = religion]
Reason shows us that sci cannot retain exclusive jurisdiction over origins, but must give way to faith at some point. If sci addresses only the material, it cannot answer ultimate origin, which is by necessity, immaterial.
Some mistakenly trust the univ is eternal, some trust it created itself, some assume God initiated the BB & some that God specially created.
The faith choice is up to the individual, & CS Lewis did not think that's an accident. Nor do I.
mikebForJesus 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That is fair comment. I am an evangelical Christian, so I believe in God. I acknowldge the right of others to maintain a belief in a literal six day creation if they are comfortable with that (however incorrect I may consider it to be).
I have a problem, however, with Creation Science claiming that it has an equal right to consideration as genuine science when it is committed to a preconcieved view about how things came to be.
terryrozmus 2 years ago
Observation:
1. Mainstream science makes no assumptions about what may have happened in the past. Everything must be established by the evidence that is available to us in the physical world today. Any model can be modified or rejected based on new evidence.
2. Creation 'Science' is committed to the idea of a sudden creation event and a global flood a few thousand years ago. All their work is the attempt to explain how these two events made the evidence we see in the physical world today.
terryrozmus 2 years ago
"1. ...assumptions...the past"
Respectfully counter that Hx sci is DEPENDENT on assumption, unlike op sci, which is presently repeatable all over the world (i.e., any lab can analyze Napoleon's bones & agree how much arsenic is in 'em, but how it got there is Hx sci & involves assumptions that are not as directly subj to testing.
"2. Crea sci.."
Of course. All sci (esp Hx) is based on a PHILOSOPHY of sci. Do interp's fit? Some fr/ multiple phil's of sci, others better fr/ one or the other.
mikebForJesus 2 years ago
All science is dependent of assumptions. These distinctions between op and hx are manufactured by creationists who don't like the results when science is applied to the past. Just because you can observe something directly doesn't mean that assumptions are not involved. The difference is that mainstream science only allows assumptions that don't bias the conclusion, whereas folk-science will pile on assumption after assumption until the data fits the pre-determined conclusions.
glovergj 2 years ago
Which is also why creation "science" organizations require their members to sign statements of faith that no matter what they find, it must be explained in terms of a literal 6-day creation scenario.
I'd like to know what you think is an assumption made by historical science? It can be related to geology or any other field.
glovergj 2 years ago
Yes, mainstream science tries to keep its set of a assumptions to the *bear minimum*. The ones chosen relate to reliability of what can be oberved and whether observations of events scientist *can observe now* are reliable for predicting how things are in situations he or she cannot observe - i.e. in the past or separated from them in space. If someone calling themselves a scientist rejects these base assumptions they can make their 'evidence' say anything they like.
terryrozmus 2 years ago
"All sci deps on assumptions."
1/3) Agreed. Maybe I can offer a clear example of the diff between op & Hx sci & why I accept the distinction.
I mentioned the dino soft tissue, but let's elaborate on the Napoleon examp. Using op sci, many labs can analyze his hair (repeatedly) to accurately determine arsenic concen, agreed?
But the CAUSE of its presence is a Hx sci question & requires a theoretical vs measurable answer, poss being homicide, accident or suicide, and if enough evidence is
mikebForJesus 2 years ago
2/3) interpd to support several equally, views can polarize, like a hung jury. If we find arsenic residue in Napoleons cup*, we might think he was murdered. But what if we also find:
1) Green wall paper in his home that produces arsenic vapor as it moulds, at concen too low to kill healthy persons, but enough for Napoleon w/ a perforated ulcer?
2) He occasionally drank fr/ the cup, but it was also known to sit on a shelf f/ weeks in a green wall papered room?*
Of these 2 processes,
mikebForJesus 2 years ago
3/3) of which can we be more certain? Hair arsenic concen, or the cause of its presence? Why? Is the murder poss eliminated? Could the arsenic have multi- causality? Why does reasonable doubt consideration exist for juries?
Past events are less subj to dir examination than those where we manipulate control variables and implement anti-biasing methods - (double)blind studies, etc, which I accept as op sci.
*The cup scenario, is illustrative fiction by myself for example purposes only.
mikebForJesus 2 years ago
You have used a legal analogy, so I will do the same:
Juries are randomly selected members of the community in order to minimise bias against a particular verdict in a case.
In the creation science community, however, the judge, jury, executioner and the entire jury are *all* already committed to a particular verdict before the case even begins.
terryrozmus 2 years ago
"...jury committed to particular verdict..."
Christianity if need be, can adopt theo evo (many do), accepting Gen as allegorical. The maj of secular sci is atheist, & atheism NEEDS evo to be true or it's DONE. So where sci overlaps philosophy (origins), who has the greater motive to be committed to a verdict? Lewontin said they have a prior commitment to mat'ism, even IF absurd, b/c they cannot allow a divine foot in the door. Sound objective? Nagel said he doesn't WANT there to be a God.
mikebForJesus 2 years ago
Dr. Gary Parker (former atheist evo'ist, then theo evo'ist, then crea'ist) said in an interview, "Then in geophysics we went over all of the assumptions that go into radiometric dating. Afterwards, the professor said something like this, 'If a fundamentalist ever got hold of this stuff, he would make havoc out of the radiometric dating system. So, keep the faith.' I was shocked!"
Why would a prof say that?
mikebForJesus 2 years ago
...Can you imaging an Atheist joining the Creation Research Institute though?
Mainstream science is open to anyone including those who are skeptical about evolution, provided their discussion, as scientists, sticks to following the evidence where it leads and not to any preconceived notion. Creativity and Skepticism are both vital parts of good science - one for new hypotheses to test, the other for eliminating faulty reasoning.
terryrozmus 2 years ago
"...stick to the evidence where it leads..."
What if it appears to fork in two possible directions?
"Creativity & skepticism..."
So you don't mind if for the time being, I doubt the certainty of a deep time view?
mikebForJesus 2 years ago
Of course I don't mind if you are skeptical about such things. You haven't seen evidence that convinces you yet. I engage in debates like this more because it