IF EARTH IS ONLY 6000 YEARS OLD HOW IS IT THAT WE CAN SEE LIGHT COMING FROM STARS MILLIONS OF LIGHT YEARS AWAY WHICH IS MEASURABLE AND DOESNT NEED CARBON DATING
@phliperphil IF EARTH IS ONLY 6000 YEARS OLD HOW IS IT THAT WE CAN SEE LIGHT COMING FROM STARS MILLIONS OF LIGHT YEARS AWAY WHICH IS MEASURABLE AND DOESNT NEED CARBON DATING
@phliperphil IF EARTH IS ONLY 6000 YEARS OLD HOW IS IT THAT WE CAN SEE LIGHT COMING FROM STARS MILLIONS OF LIGHT YEARS AWAY WHICH IS MEASURABLE AND DOESNT NEED CARBON DATING
A reindeer herder in Russia's Arctic has stumbled on the pre-historic remains of a baby woolly mammoth poking out of the permafrost, local officials said on Friday.
The herder said the carcass was as perfectly preserved as the 40,000-year-old mammoth calf Lyuba discovered in the same remote region four years ago, authorities said, adding that an expedition had set off hoping to confirm the "sensational" find.
Sorry I answered your question wrong, I'll tell you what this may do for Christianity and mainly Christian scientists. If more and more people know about people like the one in the other video because it would mean that too many people would believe that all Christians are misguided and therefore would throw them out of the science community. Not just Christianity though, Christian creationists speak for way too many people. It will lead Christian creationists to stand up for way too many.
I must disagree with you because I also watched this video and I could think about a way to prove him wrong for every point he had, I'm 15 and I haven't got past secondary school that means here in the UK no-one would believe that I know all the things I should know(about science) yet I know how to disprove most of this persons theories.
If you are not a "science guy then maybe you shouldn't believe things about science from people who are black sheep's in their community.
@whosthisguythinkheis Who's video are you talking about? What points were you so easily able to disprove? I'm not sure who this comment is meant for. If I remember correctly (I made the video 3 years ago) I was responding supportively to a Christian who was not a creationist.
you make a very good point. i never thought of that. i know the bible is all myths its pretty obvious i have watched dozons of videos of people trying to prove creationism and just look silly in the process. i have also watched several videos of people slamming creationism and they are right but you hit a note there saying that it doesnt really matter. why does it matter if the bible is literally true thats not what its about creationists are missing the point.
Good video. Christians have gut to incorporate scientific fact into there believes and acknowledge the figurative nature of the bible and even incorporate scientific fact into there religion. Evolution for example, which is fact and not theory, seems to be a very likely mechanism for an eternal, omnipotent, all knowing god to patiently create man. And Christians should also embrace the idea that the statement "Let there be light, and there was" is very similar to the notion of the Big Bang.
Thanks for the, in my mind, reasonable point of view.
If we read Genesis as an allegory instead of literal, it simply becomes a story about nature once living in complete harmony (Garden of Eden), and us humans coming along and taking things over by being smarter (fruits of knowledge). Read it like that, and it's the truth, as you can see with your own eyes today.
Remember the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey"? The first half of that movie is, to me at least, an alternative version of Genesis.
i thought you tried to get your point across, and as I can see in the comments, I think you did a pretty good job. so Kudos. (something funny is that pagans were around before christians and it's even proven by the bible but most don't even know Christmas is a pagan holiday, and so is easter, may day, as well as thanksgiving, so I can see how people try to use the bible as fact can kinda screw themselves, this video is just another example.)
@sukruoosten Do not spam my video. Evolution is not a religion. It makes no claims about ultimate reality or the existence of God. It does not "say there is no god PERIOD." What part of evolutionary theory says anything about the existence of a God? Who says your literal interpretation is more accurate than a more metaphorical interpretation?
Evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion, sadly creationism does, in fact it is wholly based on religion with no scientific basis what-so-ever.
Evolution is the most observable science we have, you can literally watch under a micro-scope the mechanisms for yourself.
OR you could just look at your cat or dog and see that this animal is different morphologically that wild ones due to domestication which means change in genetic variation from change in environment must've occurred.
Modern geologists and geophysicists accept that the age of the Earth is around 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3] This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. The Sun, by comparison, is about 4.57 billion years old, about 30 million years older.
There is a lot of evidence, above and beyond radiometric dating, for an old Earth. Would you care to support your claim that radiometric dating is a "fraud?" In fact, whatever misgivings I have about Darwinian evolution as the sole mechanism for the diversity of species on the planet, the age of the Earth is one are that is pretty certain in my mind--I've studied quite a bit more geology than evolutionary biology. Again, I'm listening for any actual evidence--not mere dismissive assertions.
I like how you ignored my request for actual evidence and simply made a dismissive assertion.
Nobody says radiometric dating is "100% accurate." It doesn't have to be. That is why there are several different methods of dating the earth that independently agree on an old earth.
it was ignored because I agree with you, there is too much evidence showing an old earth. The only evidence creationists have is that it was written in a book. The simple flaw I was pointing out is that radiometric dating isn't 100% accurate, so basing your claim of an old earth solely on that particular method isn't enough, regardless of if it HAS to be or not, it just isn't enough.
OK, but you ignored my request for evidence of the flaws in radiometric dating. I never said it ought to be the sole method for dating the earth. In fact, in the comment to which you replied and in my recent reply to you I explicitly stated that there are several different methods and that we ought not rely on just one.
And what is the flaw in radiometric dating? Is it that it isn't "100%" precise or that it sometimes fails completely? No dating method will get you the exact day of death..
You just answered your own question, FIRST, "No dating method will get you the exact day of death.." if this is the case then how can we rely on any method to test the age of any specimen, weather it be organic or inorganic?
SECOND your right, the margin on anything scientifically dated is between 0-10,000 (AT MOST) years. It's proven.
THIRD its accuracy will suffice for geologists, not creationists.
furthermore, its an endless argument, unless we have ABSOLUTE proof.
The fact that it's not perfectly accurate to the day is irrelevant. We don't need to know that this particular fossil was formed on a Monday as opposed to the next Tuesday we need to know that it was formed more than 6,000 years ago. That's why the dating method need not be precise in order to be very useful.
I don't think anybody in this debate is trying to convince creationists. They've made up their minds. The point is to provide good, solid evidence to convince those who might be swayed.
Radiometric tests are a lot more accurate than what you said with modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so. Depending on what you are analysing you would use the appropriate method which would give an acceptable error margin.
One thing radiometric dating has shown irrefutably is that the earth is billions of years in age.
There is a better change that I am in fact a tomato plant than the earth being 10,000 years old.
evolution is a religion because there is no hard/solid proof NONE end other religions except the jewish and christian belief (bible) i say is wrong like evo. theorie
Evolution is the most observable, demonstratable, provable science we have.
From a Scientific viewpoint it's irrefutable. Just take a petri dish full of bacteria and subject them to just enough toxin to kill 99.999% of them then keep applying the toxin. Pretty soon you'll have a whole population of bateria that can live in the toxin. You have selctively "Bred" toxin loving bacteria. These new Bacteria will phenotypically differ from the population you started with.
But even if for some bizarre reason it was say 1% accurate, it would still show conclusively the earth is a lot older than 10,000 years and that you would have to inherently hate truth and your mother to think such a ridiculous thing.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There is no evidence that the earth is older than 6000 years. Radiometric dating has been shown to be a fraud, and it is not used anyway. The geologic column is pure fantasy.
i don't think Christians have any problem with science at all, just evolution.... i think we need some real statistics on what percentage of evolutionists are Christians and what percentage of christian believe in evolution or what denominations are more likely to believe in evolution. i wanna work with ya on this, like real dialogue and discussion.
the thing is, we still have people that live in caves today, if the world is older than 6000 or 30000 years old what makes them think they all had the same cultures and lifestyles? this has never been the case in any history that we've found. even in ancient cultures there are cultures within cultures, not just a tribe of people throwing a spear at a mammoth. But this is the imagery that bombards the population through evo propaganda.
Believe me I've watched enough atheists and evolutionist videos and have sat through the biology lessons to be brain washed a dozen times over. I'm not ignorant, i don't ignore the information, i keep an open mind. Just that every time i see an evolutionary argument there's a tone of hatred, narcissism, and belittlement. even if creationists are wrong they still come up with real variables that evolutionists refuse to even look at that could be really important. that's anti progression.
I don't disagree that many skeptics can be condescending and dismissive but I think that comes from frustration at the pure lunacy and ignorance of some of the arguments coming from the creationist side. The problem is that creationists are purporting to present a scientific theory but are not practicing science at all. They are starting with an ancient text which was never intended as a science book.
I also think that much of the acrimony is because some Christians have insisted on the incompatibility of science and faith. Creationists have made this a fight by presenting science as anti-Christian. Science does not claim to, nor is it equipped to, answer the questions with which religion is concerned.
i just see ignorance from all sides of the argument. whenever i see debates i see nothing but personal or off topic attacks. or evo vs. crea i've seen the crea being an evo crea. for the most part i see evolution as a direct intentional attack on Christianity. I just want to see a real debate between a true evo and a true young earth creationist without going off topic or attacking the bible. just a pure debate on a chosen topic.
I definitely agree that there is a lot of ignorance on both sides (starting with me). I am curious as to why you think evolution is a "direct intentional attack on Christianity," given that many evolutionists are believers. Is it just Christianity that this theory is attacking, in your view?
comn ur full of it. lookin on the video like smiling and ohhahahahaaa. just stop. u said u would be interested to hear responses. cmon all u want to do is to disprove. if i tolled u god is real this and that and then said i dont have any evidense ur not going to belive me. how bout if i show u a miracle then tell u to prove to me that what u have seen is real. u would not be able to but that doesent meen u did not see a miracle does it. im just wasting my breath
I'm not entirely sure what it is you are arguing here...I never said I don't believe in God--in fact, I do. I think a miracle could be a very convincing piece of evidence for somebody who witnesses it but is not terribly convincing second-hand.
Spoon: Good Vid. Things of this nature take away from the message God is sending us. We have knowlege and curiousity of a God, these are part of our punishment. Logic is our enemy, it is useless in our quest for salvation. This is a clear reson why God did not state to Adam after he made him ," Adam i made you out of h2o,co2,with plasma and cells to convert energy". i hope you get were im going, he said love me worship me. Our logic like Fiberkain said will lead us away to damnation.
You are sweet in your presentation and in your sincere inquiry regarding the problem posed for Christianity's "reputation" when people are faced with a choice between the "literal creation story" and evolution. I think Christianity can co-exist with science when the Bible stories are viewed as an allegory. But it is the "fundamentalist dogma" that creates the outcry. Fundamentalist I think do themselves a disservice because their literal interpretation leaves no room for inquiry and free will.
Thank you for the comment. I totally agree with you. This type of literal interpretation is difficult to reconcile with conflicting evidence--and it's really unnecessary.
I accidentally erased a comment by stango141 while trying to reply to it. Here is it:
Big you talked about the Bible being wrong. There isn't one thing in the Bible that has been proven wrong. Actually a lot of it has being shown to be fact. Such as all the places describe in the Bible are real places. If you think it was corrupted then why are the dead sea scrolls exactly the same as any Hebrew Bible found today. I think it safe to say the bible is a exact copy from it's original copy.
When did I say the Bible was wrong? I think I expressed, and I certainly believe, that the Bible has simply been misinterpreted in this regard. The Bible was never meant to tell us the nuts and bolts on how the Earth was created and that interpretation is wrong. There is no indication that the Jews who originally wrote Genesis believed it was anything but a creation myth with spiritual meaning.
I would also encourage you to check on the statement on the consistency of our Bible and the Scrolls
you know the ones , the same people who claim Homosexuality is an inborn and acceptable normal human variant behavior most of those behind studies which "proved " this were either homosexual , or were sympathetic to the Homosexual agenda
What does the debate on homosexuality have to do with evolution or creationism? Can we not drag this into some discussion of huge, complex conspiracy theories about the culture war? I don't think anybody "proved" anything about homosexuality nor claimed to. It is unclear why we should accept a connection between those that might argue that homosexuality is something with which a person is born and advocates of Darwinian evolution and an old Earth.
geological data agrees with the Biblical timeline for the great flood ( there is worldwide evidence of a flood ) to be sure I am certain that those agreements in those flawed age determining processes were well arranged and decided upon by anti- theist evolutionists and scientists with a definite agenda to discredit what they cannot in fact disprove.
Why don't you provide some of this geological data? You continue to make unsubstantiated claims. How, for example, do you explain the fact that the different layers in the fossil record are not mixed up, as you would expect if a flood laid down those layers?
The rest of your comment is an ad hom attack on scientists that has zero basis in fact. Most scientists are themselves theists who are mature enough in their faith to know what sorts of messages they should seek from the Bible.
I anxiously await geological evidence for a Young Earth. Perhaps the message system would be the most appropriate means. Then, we could continue the discussion without having to be as concerned with character limits.
I am studied in the sciences and I am well aware that there are huge problems with carbon 14 and mineralogical dating.
evolution s as much a faith as any religion
I think that creationism is a fact backed by scientific data and that this does zero to damage Christianity it does a lot to damage atheists and evolutionists .
He is the one WE have to account to not the other way around.
free will , believe what you want, only you have to deal with the consequences of your decision
Whatever problems may exist with various dating systems, it does not follow that the Earth is actually only 6,000 years old. Several, independent dating systems including radio-metric dating and observations of sea-floor spreading independently agree on an age of about 4.5 billion years. The problem Christianity faces from Creationism is the false dichotomy created between science and religion when there is ZERO reason to believe the Bible was ever meant to be a literal account of creation.
OK, so you've made some pretty substantial claims, dismissing the vast majority of scientific theory on the topic of the age of the Earth. Now, please specifically explain why several independent methods of finding the age of Earth came up with very similar answers. Please, do not simply dismiss it--give me an actual argument. I'm more than willing to be convinced. Also, please explain why you are so certain that the Bible is a science text. Feel free to message me if you like.
Your implication is that both are meant to perform the same task. This is absurd. I'm going to express this again: Science is a method or set of methods by which we gain information about the physical world by making observations and developing hypotheses and theories to understand natural phenomena. Religion is a broad term which describes both mankind's search for meaning and origin to life as well as our relationship, if any, with the unknown and the divine.
Bible=Historical text which may or may not have been divinely inspired.
I don't know that I said anything about my religious beliefs so I'm not sure why your comment is relevant to this video...
You are entitled to your belief that there is no God and I think it can be a reasonable conclusion but you've presented nothing convincing to support that claim--just a tired old statement which amounts to nothing.
Does a lucky rabbits foot really bring you good luck? No why because it is SUPERSTITION. But why do people believe? Its the same thing with the belief in the lord! Science has brought you medicine and airplane and space flight. Thats fact! They were not given to us by god were they>? NO!
The difference is that, while you may not think they are convincing, there are reasons to believe in a God. Technological advances are irrelevant. I never said God was responsible for our advances and the fact that you bring up this inane argument demonstrates the extent to which the creationists have succeeded in re-framing the discussion. Why do you buy into this ridiculous notion that science and religion are in some sort of competition? They speak to two entirely different sets of questions.
question's christians can't answer: Why were the animals and adam and eve in th e" garden" created with teeth and a digestive system Meat eating teeth and plant eating teeth. Reproductive organs. poison, claws, spider webs for catching fruit? no insects for eating. No death in the garden of eden hardly. What about the incest factor? We got here by incest. Thats so immorral isn't it?
Those are questions that a creationist (not a Christian) might have trouble answering and I would encourage to direct them in that way. Why, exactly, are you asking me those questions? I'm not even a Christian. You did watch the video on which you are commenting, didn't you?
I'm responding to your comment about science= method. etc I disagree. Its not just a method but a fact when you can construct an airplane, medicine, etc. Why do you have a picture of a religous nature on your wall.
Your last comment had nothing to do with the scientific method, but ok. Science is a method, not a fact. Science is a method by which we learn facts about the natural world, which are then applied to engineering various technologies. This is pretty basic stuff...
Haha. What picture are you referring to? Why don't you tell me why it's religious. That should be interesting...And, I'm not sure what your point is, anyway. Please explain the relevance of that.
I believe in God,evolution,and that the earth is billions of years old......6,000 years is ridiculous.....the wooly mammoth has been extinct for about 10,000 years and is considered a 'recent' extinction.
I have to say, I agree with nearly everything you say in this vid. I am a christian, but I've never understood why people (creationists) see God and evolution as mutually exclusive. I find it funny (in a sad way) that some people few any form of questioning as blasphomy and call questioners atheists. Personally, I think it's arrogant to try to interpret God's intentions they way creationists often try to do.
The reason why Creationism and evolution are seen as mutually exclusive is very simple. Evolutionists know thru many means that the Earth is billions of years old. Because humans as we know it have occupied Earth for barely a fraction of that time it makes little sense to think we were made in God's image.
Because it has been used in literal terms. You see people use it as it is convenient to them. Everyone does, that encludes atheist. And when it comes to myth being so central in those times.. hmm i wonder isnt that the same statement taking it literal is trying to prove? think about it. I fyou use that logic nothing that comes form those times can be taken as anything other then myth.
How people use the Bible is irrelevant. We're talking about the intention of the authors. Why can't you take spiritual or moral truth from a myth? Why can't you try to separate the historical truth from the storytelling in an ancient text? Historians do it all the time. There is a lot of history in the mythical accounts from any ancient civilization that can be empirically confirmed. It does not have to be all or none.
Well, im not exactly saying it has to. I was saying that, that was the why, as to why i think they take it literally ^_^ I apologize for coming off kinda rude. I do think there is some good teachings in the bible. And if we can pick that out of the bible and ignore all of the other things it can do some good. I agree with the "all or none" i know it doesn't
Missing the point?u might be missing their point. you see people that take what the bible says literal do so in the thought that it is the word of God. if it is, there is really no other way to look at it, and if you think about it, HOW ELSE would people in the past read it? its only now that we say, "nah, it probably wasn't meant to say that" if we are using what the bible says as facts we gotta assume that the whole thing is fact, not just a few things. or else it would be a discarded
I understand that people take it literally. My question is why should we assume that the Bible was written as a literal account of the creation story when we know that myth was so central a part of ancient texts and story-telling? Just because it was never meant to be a science book does not mean that it's not true. There is nothing to suggest that the Bible was ever written to contain scientific "facts."
I am not a christian, but my mom is and she is also a micro-biologist. God cannot be proven, it can exist along side of advanced science... i choose not to subscribe, but for those who do, why reject the same science that gave them everything they have in the modern world...
Dont tell me that it could be allagory. Because it isnt presented as allagory, and there is nothing else in the Bible similiar to that kind of metaphor. The closest youll get is revelation, and even that would be totally different then the genesis account metaphorically speaking
What makes you so sure its not an allegory? Perhaps the most interesting thing about this whole argument is that it seems pretty clear that the ancient Jews who lived during the period when Genesis was written themselves thought this was a mythical account of the creation. This idea of a literal reading of Genesis is a much later development. And there are allegories and metaphors throughout the Bible so I'm not really sure where your belief in a literal Bible comes from...
If we dont believe in the Bible as being totally true,then we are saying that God has lied to the entire human race about the origin of mankind. If God has lied to all of mankind, then he is an evil God and we should be very afraid of him
You can easily believe the Bible is totally true and believe the Earth is older than 6,000 years. Nobody said God lied. Incidentally, isn't is conceivable that God told the truth and mankind manipulated and twisted that truth?
a reasonable christian! too few of you caused me to leave the faith. i'm not saying go to every science class, but if you haven't been to many they can be quite interesting. i am now a deist who believe God had some role in life on earth (like creating evolution)
Science is great! But be careful, every college professor has an agenda. Whether or not theyre in science, theology, literature, math... they all have opinions and like anyone else, they want you to agree. With biology, a professor will use microevolution to brainwash you into believing macro might have occured. Be careful, and use common sense.
First to BigSpoon, thanks for the video, nice style and pace and i can say : You're my kind of Christian (even though i am an atheist ;)
JohnnyHads, : Be careful and use common sense, well yes, let's stay sceptic to everything. Brainwashing biology professors, i'm quite sceptic to that too ;p
I'd like to pose to you that Evolutionists do the same, view science with pre-conceived notions. With Hackeal's embryos (proven fraud years later), Nebraska man (pig tooth), Neanderthal man, Java Man, Cro-Magon man. After further research, found out they were either a fraud or one side of the species. Both Christians and Agnostics have a worldview, both try to defend those beliefs. But you can't get past the evidence. Which, I believe points to a Loving Jesus Christ.
I agree that all people can tend to view the world through a particular paradigm and therefore miss or discard contradictory evidence. However, I think that the paradigm for evolutionary biology it much more well-established scientifically than is creationism. I also think that viewing a religious text as a science book is an inherently flawed starting-point.
There are 2 movements against 'evolutionary' anything. Creationism, I heard started in 1960. Now, the Intelligent Design Movement, I heard start either 15-25 years ago. I'd suggest two books for you. To hear the other side, Darwinism; under the Mircoscope by James P Gills, MD & Tom Woodward, PHD. Also Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe (Not Christian, nor young earth)
It's not just creationism that gives a problem to Christians. Having just read the Bible from cover to cover I now believe that most of it is a problem. I don't like to cherry pick, but just for interest, have a look at Numbers Chapter 15. I just can't see how anyone could believe in this stuff. The New Testament is not much better. For example Jesus warning us that there will be wailing and knashing of teeth and that we should give no thought for tomorrow.
Where do I start. How about the beginning. In the beginning God. God did not creat a young universe. He did not creat a baby. He did not creat a seed. It was mature. He created time. How can we understand all things. We cannot. Faith is what seperates us from you. If you do not believe in the Bible then you don't believe.
You are the one that says I don't believe the Bible. Explain to me why you are so sure that a literal interpretation of Genesis is the correct one. That is the point. You fail to demonstrate why your interpretation is correct and how those who believe Genesis is symbolic are not having faith.
No. I think Genesis is not literal and is a largely mythologized story meant to convey spiritual truths. To be honest, I don't really think it matters all that much--if the Earth is 6,000 years old (I don't think it is) or if it's 4.5 billion years old, it doesn't change the fundamentals of religion or faith. Thanks for commenting.
Good points, and youre welcome. And as a note, I dont believe in the bible but I do believe in a 10,000 year old earth going solely by science and evidence.
That's a unique position to have...To be honest, the old Earth is the thing about which I am most convinced. Like I said, I don't think it really matters for religion but I have seen absolutely no reason to believe the Earth is not billions of years old. I'd be interested to hear what makes you believe as you do.
Im curious first as to how 10,000 years is NOT old. I think about how much life has changed since the civil war and that was only 150 years ago. The earth shows many signs of being "only" a few thousand years old. Such as the rotation of the earth, the recession of the moon, the geologic column, the worlds oldest trees, reefs, artifacts, etc. The law of angular momentum, thermodynamics, and life itself.
10,000 years is not old in comparison to the birth of our planet, or the universe, but to a being that only lives up to around 80-100 years, it may seem old.
Ok - and as for the grand canyon its been revealed that was indeed a breached dam. The little colordao river is the result of this breach, just like the tootle river(which we witnessed).
Bigspoon19,I appreciate your tone in approaching this subject.
You HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD at about 4:10 into your video. This "starting at a belief" is also known as presuppositions that are based on a particular world view. Agreed creationists do this. But "objective" science does exactly that as well; they interpret the facts according to their beliefs;ie.17 billion year old universe.
People are really kidding themselves when they think that modern science is objectively based on facts.
You're right. I agree that believers in science can come to hold their beliefs somewhat "religiously". How many times in history has conventional wisdom been completely wrong in scientific matters? How many times have those that would eventually develop groundbreaking theories been laughed off by established scientists? I also agree that some evidence which is sparse at best gets taken for granted. Thanks for commenting.
Sweet jesus,you are so gulible.God isnt real,if i told you told you that gypsies will steal your teeth when you sleep would you believe.Your such a fucking virgin.
What well thought out and articulated thoughts you've shared with all of us. I'm also stricken with just how applicable they are to my video. Thank you, oh wise one. You have opened my virgin eyes!
The fundies are much more of a problem for christians than people like dawkins. I think its their own fault. Its always atheists trying to explain to fundies why they're wrong about widely accepted scientific theories when it should really be christians. The youngearthers have turned christianity into a joke, and christians moan at atheists when they should be educating their fundies. I find it hilarious. Ken millers a christian who seems to understand their problem
I have question for any creationist, How far can we see with the Hubble space telescope? Anyone. This is question for a creationist only. So evolutionist don't answer. Until they answer
I think the fear from creationists comes from the doctrine itself.
1.) The line of Adam to Jesus is a lie
2.) Original Sin, without it Christianities pretty silly to acknowledge by fiat when this sin becomes metaphorical because well God comes down and gets himself killed for the metaphorical despite evolution en tales that everything was setup from the beginning to revolve around death and rather ignore morality till modern man. Quiet a silly theology rather preposterous at that point.
I'm not sure I agree with your conclusions. I agree that that may be what some Christians believe evolutionary theory does to their theology. But many Christians have no problem accepting evolution and Christianity. When you get to the core of the doctrine and take a symbolic understanding of Genesis there is no inherent contradiction. Thanks for the thoughts.
I'm an atheist, darwinist yada yada. But God remains a hypothesis, a bad one, but it's a hypothesis. Einstein STARTED with the premise that light's speed was consistent no matter your frame of reference. However Einstein's premise appears to be correct, God, not so much.
Actually Einstein was not correct. The speed of light is not constant and there are subatomic particles that do indeed travel faster than the speed of light (tachyons).
No the Bible is not a Science Book and shouldn't be made to be one either. I struggle with this question all the time. There seems to be strong evidence on both sides of the argument. Beliving in evolution or creationism does not discount your christianity though....
I believe if your going to teach evolution (which is a an atheist belief), then you should teach creationism which is a belief in a Creator. I think both sides should be presented, since most college kids lose their faith in universities...this being the reason why.
But I think that's precisely my point. Why are kids losing their faith in college? I think it's because they are being forced to make a choice by the leaders/teachers of their faith. I don't think that choice is a necessary one because science doesn't speak directly to the existence of a God and religion isn't meant to speak to the DETAILS of the creation of the earth (in my opinion).
evolution is a scientific fact, noone said God didnt create the universe and humanity through evolution. You do know the book of Genesis was told to Moses in a dream which he wrote down, right? Yo udo realize tha tthe first and second chapters of genesis were added MUCH later after the Jewish captivity in Babylon and are basically a retelling of Sumerian and Zoroastrian creation myths, right? Even in those two chapters they tell two different versions of creation.
Good video and good points made and I see you are a true seeker of the facts. I went through the very same thing with Kent Hovind; he is quite the character. My beliefs...I don't believe in MACRO-evolution, but I do believe in what is termed 'MICRO-evolution'. I don't believe we came from monkeys. Let me send you a cartoon on this.
That's right, it's Kent Hovind...the "Answers in Genesis" people are much better, though I still disagree with them. It seems they are more concerned with casting doubt on evolution and old-Earth science than presenting new evidence...
This has been flagged as spam show
IF EARTH IS ONLY 6000 YEARS OLD HOW IS IT THAT WE CAN SEE LIGHT COMING FROM STARS MILLIONS OF LIGHT YEARS AWAY WHICH IS MEASURABLE AND DOESNT NEED CARBON DATING
pana376 2 months ago
you people and your fucking religion think about the ET's that created us not some fucking god.. they were flesh and blood just like us Dummy's
phliperphil 5 months ago
@phliperphil Brilliant theory.
BigSpoon19 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@phliperphil IF EARTH IS ONLY 6000 YEARS OLD HOW IS IT THAT WE CAN SEE LIGHT COMING FROM STARS MILLIONS OF LIGHT YEARS AWAY WHICH IS MEASURABLE AND DOESNT NEED CARBON DATING
pana376 2 months ago
your an idiot too buddy give it a fucking break you grade two idiot
phliperphil 5 months ago
@phliperphil In which grade did they teach you punctuation?
BigSpoon19 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@phliperphil IF EARTH IS ONLY 6000 YEARS OLD HOW IS IT THAT WE CAN SEE LIGHT COMING FROM STARS MILLIONS OF LIGHT YEARS AWAY WHICH IS MEASURABLE AND DOESNT NEED CARBON DATING
pana376 2 months ago
A reindeer herder in Russia's Arctic has stumbled on the pre-historic remains of a baby woolly mammoth poking out of the permafrost, local officials said on Friday.
The herder said the carcass was as perfectly preserved as the 40,000-year-old mammoth calf Lyuba discovered in the same remote region four years ago, authorities said, adding that an expedition had set off hoping to confirm the "sensational" find.
fenackerpan 6 months ago
This is one of the most reasonable responses I read.
guyver2095 8 months ago
@AtheisMisReality
Is this guy a believer or not? I couldn't tell.
Wordlaw12 8 months ago
Sorry I answered your question wrong, I'll tell you what this may do for Christianity and mainly Christian scientists. If more and more people know about people like the one in the other video because it would mean that too many people would believe that all Christians are misguided and therefore would throw them out of the science community. Not just Christianity though, Christian creationists speak for way too many people. It will lead Christian creationists to stand up for way too many.
whosthisguythinkheis 1 year ago
I must disagree with you because I also watched this video and I could think about a way to prove him wrong for every point he had, I'm 15 and I haven't got past secondary school that means here in the UK no-one would believe that I know all the things I should know(about science) yet I know how to disprove most of this persons theories.
If you are not a "science guy then maybe you shouldn't believe things about science from people who are black sheep's in their community.
whosthisguythinkheis 1 year ago
@whosthisguythinkheis Who's video are you talking about? What points were you so easily able to disprove? I'm not sure who this comment is meant for. If I remember correctly (I made the video 3 years ago) I was responding supportively to a Christian who was not a creationist.
BigSpoon19 1 year ago
you make a very good point. i never thought of that. i know the bible is all myths its pretty obvious i have watched dozons of videos of people trying to prove creationism and just look silly in the process. i have also watched several videos of people slamming creationism and they are right but you hit a note there saying that it doesnt really matter. why does it matter if the bible is literally true thats not what its about creationists are missing the point.
abarbar06 1 year ago
Good video. Christians have gut to incorporate scientific fact into there believes and acknowledge the figurative nature of the bible and even incorporate scientific fact into there religion. Evolution for example, which is fact and not theory, seems to be a very likely mechanism for an eternal, omnipotent, all knowing god to patiently create man. And Christians should also embrace the idea that the statement "Let there be light, and there was" is very similar to the notion of the Big Bang.
natechomnicorp 1 year ago
I definitely agree with you, I'm sorry but I just don't agree with crationists.
KryptonSoft 1 year ago
All creationist speakers are full of crap. They fool sheeple only.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Are you an atheist dude??
maverickdaaddict 1 year ago
Thanks for the, in my mind, reasonable point of view.
If we read Genesis as an allegory instead of literal, it simply becomes a story about nature once living in complete harmony (Garden of Eden), and us humans coming along and taking things over by being smarter (fruits of knowledge). Read it like that, and it's the truth, as you can see with your own eyes today.
Remember the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey"? The first half of that movie is, to me at least, an alternative version of Genesis.
Cihl280777 1 year ago
@Cihl280777
Thanks for the comment. Great movie. It's been too long since I've seen it...
BigSpoon19 1 year ago
i thought you tried to get your point across, and as I can see in the comments, I think you did a pretty good job. so Kudos. (something funny is that pagans were around before christians and it's even proven by the bible but most don't even know Christmas is a pagan holiday, and so is easter, may day, as well as thanksgiving, so I can see how people try to use the bible as fact can kinda screw themselves, this video is just another example.)
thedarkmoonmidnight 1 year ago
Thanks for commenting.
BigSpoon19 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
first of all EVOLUTION is olso a RELIGON false made by the devil !!!!
second a treu christian beleiver
without a shadow of a doubt in the bibles words
cant except science that says there is no god PERIOD
sukruoosten 1 year ago
first of all EVOLUTION is olso a RELIGON false made by the devil !!!!
second a treu christian beleiver
without a shadow of a doubt in the bibles words
cant except science that says there is no god PERIOD
sukruoosten 1 year ago
@sukruoosten Do not spam my video. Evolution is not a religion. It makes no claims about ultimate reality or the existence of God. It does not "say there is no god PERIOD." What part of evolutionary theory says anything about the existence of a God? Who says your literal interpretation is more accurate than a more metaphorical interpretation?
BigSpoon19 1 year ago
Evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion, sadly creationism does, in fact it is wholly based on religion with no scientific basis what-so-ever.
Evolution is the most observable science we have, you can literally watch under a micro-scope the mechanisms for yourself.
OR you could just look at your cat or dog and see that this animal is different morphologically that wild ones due to domestication which means change in genetic variation from change in environment must've occurred.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
No creationists are scientists, or they would that believe all the crap.
gregrutz 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Modern geologists and geophysicists accept that the age of the Earth is around 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3] This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. The Sun, by comparison, is about 4.57 billion years old, about 30 million years older.
Tripper2010 2 years ago
i know what you mean. and yeah it mostly happens with young kids. caused by their parents and whatnot
xxbarelyhumanxx 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That's why some some tribe in Mongolia and Kirat people in Nepal worship phallus stone which signify creation and nature.
Here's the video "Connexion of Mongolia-Kirat:Revealing the Mystery of Origin of Phallus Stone Worship"
Later this culture was absorbed into Hinduism
diliprai 2 years ago
There is a lot of evidence, above and beyond radiometric dating, for an old Earth. Would you care to support your claim that radiometric dating is a "fraud?" In fact, whatever misgivings I have about Darwinian evolution as the sole mechanism for the diversity of species on the planet, the age of the Earth is one are that is pretty certain in my mind--I've studied quite a bit more geology than evolutionary biology. Again, I'm listening for any actual evidence--not mere dismissive assertions.
BigSpoon19 2 years ago
radiometric dating isn't 100% accurate.
mravtges 2 years ago
I like how you ignored my request for actual evidence and simply made a dismissive assertion.
Nobody says radiometric dating is "100% accurate." It doesn't have to be. That is why there are several different methods of dating the earth that independently agree on an old earth.
BigSpoon19 2 years ago
it was ignored because I agree with you, there is too much evidence showing an old earth. The only evidence creationists have is that it was written in a book. The simple flaw I was pointing out is that radiometric dating isn't 100% accurate, so basing your claim of an old earth solely on that particular method isn't enough, regardless of if it HAS to be or not, it just isn't enough.
mravtges 2 years ago
OK, but you ignored my request for evidence of the flaws in radiometric dating. I never said it ought to be the sole method for dating the earth. In fact, in the comment to which you replied and in my recent reply to you I explicitly stated that there are several different methods and that we ought not rely on just one.
And what is the flaw in radiometric dating? Is it that it isn't "100%" precise or that it sometimes fails completely? No dating method will get you the exact day of death..
BigSpoon19 2 years ago
You just answered your own question, FIRST, "No dating method will get you the exact day of death.." if this is the case then how can we rely on any method to test the age of any specimen, weather it be organic or inorganic?
SECOND your right, the margin on anything scientifically dated is between 0-10,000 (AT MOST) years. It's proven.
THIRD its accuracy will suffice for geologists, not creationists.
furthermore, its an endless argument, unless we have ABSOLUTE proof.
waste of time.....
mravtges 2 years ago
The fact that it's not perfectly accurate to the day is irrelevant. We don't need to know that this particular fossil was formed on a Monday as opposed to the next Tuesday we need to know that it was formed more than 6,000 years ago. That's why the dating method need not be precise in order to be very useful.
I don't think anybody in this debate is trying to convince creationists. They've made up their minds. The point is to provide good, solid evidence to convince those who might be swayed.
BigSpoon19 2 years ago
@mravtges
Radiometric tests are a lot more accurate than what you said with modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so. Depending on what you are analysing you would use the appropriate method which would give an acceptable error margin.
One thing radiometric dating has shown irrefutably is that the earth is billions of years in age.
There is a better change that I am in fact a tomato plant than the earth being 10,000 years old.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
my self as a beleiving christian say
evolution is a religion because there is no hard/solid proof NONE end other religions except the jewish and christian belief (bible) i say is wrong like evo. theorie
sukruoosten 1 year ago
@sukruoosten
Evolution is the most observable, demonstratable, provable science we have.
From a Scientific viewpoint it's irrefutable. Just take a petri dish full of bacteria and subject them to just enough toxin to kill 99.999% of them then keep applying the toxin. Pretty soon you'll have a whole population of bateria that can live in the toxin. You have selctively "Bred" toxin loving bacteria. These new Bacteria will phenotypically differ from the population you started with.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
@karlkarlkarl1234 im not gonna disagree at this point because
this is micro evolution adaptation en variation within its own kind
well even my holy bible tells me this !!!!!!!
but that new bacterie will never become a new type of animal like a frog ore dog
it even will not turn into a virus not today tomorrow over 100000000 years
sukruoosten 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mravtges
"radiometric dating isn't 100% accurate"
Actually it's ~99% accurate.
But even if for some bizarre reason it was say 1% accurate, it would still show conclusively the earth is a lot older than 10,000 years and that you would have to inherently hate truth and your mother to think such a ridiculous thing.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There is no evidence that the earth is older than 6000 years. Radiometric dating has been shown to be a fraud, and it is not used anyway. The geologic column is pure fantasy.
warriorprince1010 2 years ago
i don't think Christians have any problem with science at all, just evolution.... i think we need some real statistics on what percentage of evolutionists are Christians and what percentage of christian believe in evolution or what denominations are more likely to believe in evolution. i wanna work with ya on this, like real dialogue and discussion.
StarSedition 2 years ago
the thing is, we still have people that live in caves today, if the world is older than 6000 or 30000 years old what makes them think they all had the same cultures and lifestyles? this has never been the case in any history that we've found. even in ancient cultures there are cultures within cultures, not just a tribe of people throwing a spear at a mammoth. But this is the imagery that bombards the population through evo propaganda.
StarSedition 2 years ago
Believe me I've watched enough atheists and evolutionist videos and have sat through the biology lessons to be brain washed a dozen times over. I'm not ignorant, i don't ignore the information, i keep an open mind. Just that every time i see an evolutionary argument there's a tone of hatred, narcissism, and belittlement. even if creationists are wrong they still come up with real variables that evolutionists refuse to even look at that could be really important. that's anti progression.
StarSedition 2 years ago
I don't disagree that many skeptics can be condescending and dismissive but I think that comes from frustration at the pure lunacy and ignorance of some of the arguments coming from the creationist side. The problem is that creationists are purporting to present a scientific theory but are not practicing science at all. They are starting with an ancient text which was never intended as a science book.
BigSpoon19 2 years ago
I also think that much of the acrimony is because some Christians have insisted on the incompatibility of science and faith. Creationists have made this a fight by presenting science as anti-Christian. Science does not claim to, nor is it equipped to, answer the questions with which religion is concerned.
BigSpoon19 2 years ago
i just see ignorance from all sides of the argument. whenever i see debates i see nothing but personal or off topic attacks. or evo vs. crea i've seen the crea being an evo crea. for the most part i see evolution as a direct intentional attack on Christianity. I just want to see a real debate between a true evo and a true young earth creationist without going off topic or attacking the bible. just a pure debate on a chosen topic.
StarSedition 2 years ago
I definitely agree that there is a lot of ignorance on both sides (starting with me). I am curious as to why you think evolution is a "direct intentional attack on Christianity," given that many evolutionists are believers. Is it just Christianity that this theory is attacking, in your view?
BigSpoon19 2 years ago
god not real made up crap
fartingchipmonk 3 years ago
Complete sentences and punctuation aren't real either. Nor are logical or complete thoughts...
BigSpoon19 3 years ago
comn ur full of it. lookin on the video like smiling and ohhahahahaaa. just stop. u said u would be interested to hear responses. cmon all u want to do is to disprove. if i tolled u god is real this and that and then said i dont have any evidense ur not going to belive me. how bout if i show u a miracle then tell u to prove to me that what u have seen is real. u would not be able to but that doesent meen u did not see a miracle does it. im just wasting my breath
kartveli333 3 years ago
I'm not entirely sure what it is you are arguing here...I never said I don't believe in God--in fact, I do. I think a miracle could be a very convincing piece of evidence for somebody who witnesses it but is not terribly convincing second-hand.
BigSpoon19 3 years ago
Spoon: Good Vid. Things of this nature take away from the message God is sending us. We have knowlege and curiousity of a God, these are part of our punishment. Logic is our enemy, it is useless in our quest for salvation. This is a clear reson why God did not state to Adam after he made him ," Adam i made you out of h2o,co2,with plasma and cells to convert energy". i hope you get were im going, he said love me worship me. Our logic like Fiberkain said will lead us away to damnation.
dmsanch20 3 years ago
You are sweet in your presentation and in your sincere inquiry regarding the problem posed for Christianity's "reputation" when people are faced with a choice between the "literal creation story" and evolution. I think Christianity can co-exist with science when the Bible stories are viewed as an allegory. But it is the "fundamentalist dogma" that creates the outcry. Fundamentalist I think do themselves a disservice because their literal interpretation leaves no room for inquiry and free will.
lisaguurl 3 years ago
Thank you for the comment. I totally agree with you. This type of literal interpretation is difficult to reconcile with conflicting evidence--and it's really unnecessary.
BigSpoon19 3 years ago
I accidentally erased a comment by stango141 while trying to reply to it. Here is it:
Big you talked about the Bible being wrong. There isn't one thing in the Bible that has been proven wrong. Actually a lot of it has being shown to be fact. Such as all the places describe in the Bible are real places. If you think it was corrupted then why are the dead sea scrolls exactly the same as any Hebrew Bible found today. I think it safe to say the bible is a exact copy from it's original copy.
BigSpoon19 3 years ago
When did I say the Bible was wrong? I think I expressed, and I certainly believe, that the Bible has simply been misinterpreted in this regard. The Bible was never meant to tell us the nuts and bolts on how the Earth was created and that interpretation is wrong. There is no indication that the Jews who originally wrote Genesis believed it was anything but a creation myth with spiritual meaning.
I would also encourage you to check on the statement on the consistency of our Bible and the Scrolls
BigSpoon19 3 years ago
your so gay, i cannot tell if you beleive science or religion. you need to organize your claim or what ever it is your trying to say.
scarredqatsi 3 years ago
Brilliant comment...I'm gay because you couldn't figure out whether I believe science or relgion...
As if I had to "believe" one to the exclusion of another. As if they were competing ideologies.
I'm fairly sure I'm clear enough to be understood but I will take your thoughtful criticisms into consideration.
BigSpoon19 3 years ago
Fate is great, but don't mix fate and science.
When christians try to mix fate and science, it fucks up, and only science remains.
Creationists made more people go atheist than christian.
Way to go.
~Atheist.
fiberkanin 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
dude, just a question.....
do u take magic mushrooms???
ur eyes just look like ur on em or summit
squirrelsivertsen 3 years ago
what proof does a book give? why not believe in the necronomicon...?
7omnia7 3 years ago
What a fantastic and relevant question. Why not, indeed.
BigSpoon19 3 years ago
you know the ones , the same people who claim Homosexuality is an inborn and acceptable normal human variant behavior most of those behind studies which "proved " this were either homosexual , or were sympathetic to the Homosexual agenda
proudamericanguy 3 years ago
What does the debate on homosexuality have to do with evolution or creationism? Can we not drag this into some discussion of huge, complex conspiracy theories about the culture war? I don't think anybody "proved" anything about homosexuality nor claimed to. It is unclear why we should accept a connection between those that might argue that homosexuality is something with which a person is born and advocates of Darwinian evolution and an old Earth.
BigSpoon19 3 years ago
I was merely pointing out that they use the same tactics
proudamericanguy 3 years ago
geological data agrees with the Biblical timeline for the great flood ( there is worldwide evidence of a flood ) to be sure I am certain that those agreements in those flawed age determining processes were well arranged and decided upon by anti- theist evolutionists and scientists with a definite agenda to discredit what they cannot in fact disprove.
proudamericanguy 3 years ago
Why don't you provide some of this geological data? You continue to make unsubstantiated claims. How, for example, do you explain the fact that the different layers in the fossil record are not mixed up, as you would expect if a flood laid down those layers?
The rest of your comment is an ad hom attack on scientists that has zero basis in fact. Most scientists are themselves theists who are mature enough in their faith to know what sorts of messages they should seek from the Bible.
BigSpoon19 3 years ago
Hey proudamericanguy, we've found bushes that are older than 6,000 years old.
rjfrjf65 3 years ago
not that the scientific community is aware of , you haven't
and you certainly havent dated them with any accuracy because verification beyond recorded history is impossible
proudamericanguy 3 years ago
I anxiously await geological evidence for a Young Earth. Perhaps the message system would be the most appropriate means. Then, we could continue the discussion without having to be as concerned with character limits.
BigSpoon19 3 years ago
I am studied in the sciences and I am well aware that there are huge problems with carbon 14 and mineralogical dating.
evolution s as much a faith as any religion
I think that creationism is a fact backed by scientific data and that this does zero to damage Christianity it does a lot to damage atheists and evolutionists .
He is the one WE have to account to not the other way around.
free will , believe what you want, only you have to deal with the consequences of your decision
proudamericanguy 3 years ago
Whatever problems may exist with various dating systems, it does not follow that the Earth is actually only 6,000 years old. Several, independent dating systems including radio-metric dating and observations of sea-floor spreading independently agree on an age of about 4.5 billion years. The problem Christianity faces from Creationism is the false dichotomy created between science and religion when there is ZERO reason to believe the Bible was ever meant to be a literal account of creation.
BigSpoon19 3 years ago
tose methods depend on conjecture and not hard science
there is zero reason to believe in the validity of those who claim the earth is older than 10 thousand years
proudamericanguy 3 years ago
OK, so you've made some pretty substantial claims, dismissing the vast majority of scientific theory on the topic of the age of the Earth. Now, please specifically explain why several independent methods of finding the age of Earth came up with very similar answers. Please, do not simply dismiss it--give me an actual argument. I'm more than willing to be convinced. Also, please explain why you are so certain that the Bible is a science text. Feel free to message me if you like.
BigSpoon19 3 years ago
well basicly science means: getting an idea how things work from facts.
religions means: getting an idea how things work from a fictional book.
D4l4m4r 3 years ago
Your implication is that both are meant to perform the same task. This is absurd. I'm going to express this again: Science is a method or set of methods by which we gain information about the physical world by making observations and developing hypotheses and theories to understand natural phenomena. Religion is a broad term which describes both mankind's search for meaning and origin to life as well as our relationship, if any, with the unknown and the divine.
BigSpoon19 3 years ago
science=fact
religion=fiction
bible=comic book
christian God=superman
what makes your God better than superman?
give me proof your "God" exists. give me proof superman exists.
its all in your heads people. its only real because you believe it is.
zaxan 4 years ago
Science=a method, not "fact"
Bible=Historical text which may or may not have been divinely inspired.
I don't know that I said anything about my religious beliefs so I'm not sure why your comment is relevant to this video...
You are entitled to your belief that there is no God and I think it can be a reasonable conclusion but you've presented nothing convincing to support that claim--just a tired old statement which amounts to nothing.
BigSpoon19 4 years ago
Does a lucky rabbits foot really bring you good luck? No why because it is SUPERSTITION. But why do people believe? Its the same thing with the belief in the lord! Science has brought you medicine and airplane and space flight. Thats fact! They were not given to us by god were they>? NO!
jerro19711971 3 years ago
The difference is that, while you may not think they are convincing, there are reasons to believe in a God. Technological advances are irrelevant. I never said God was responsible for our advances and the fact that you bring up this inane argument demonstrates the extent to which the creationists have succeeded in re-framing the discussion. Why do you buy into this ridiculous notion that science and religion are in some sort of competition? They speak to two entirely different sets of questions.
BigSpoon19 3 years ago
question's christians can't answer: Why were the animals and adam and eve in th e" garden" created with teeth and a digestive system Meat eating teeth and plant eating teeth. Reproductive organs. poison, claws, spider webs for catching fruit? no insects for eating. No death in the garden of eden hardly. What about the incest factor? We got here by incest. Thats so immorral isn't it?
jerro19711971 3 years ago
Those are questions that a creationist (not a Christian) might have trouble answering and I would encourage to direct them in that way. Why, exactly, are you asking me those questions? I'm not even a Christian. You did watch the video on which you are commenting, didn't you?
BigSpoon19 3 years ago
I'm responding to your comment about science= method. etc I disagree. Its not just a method but a fact when you can construct an airplane, medicine, etc. Why do you have a picture of a religous nature on your wall.
jerro19711971 3 years ago
Your last comment had nothing to do with the scientific method, but ok. Science is a method, not a fact. Science is a method by which we learn facts about the natural world, which are then applied to engineering various technologies. This is pretty basic stuff...
Haha. What picture are you referring to? Why don't you tell me why it's religious. That should be interesting...And, I'm not sure what your point is, anyway. Please explain the relevance of that.
BigSpoon19 3 years ago
I see evolution and our scientific laws that we're bound by, in this universe, as God's tools to bring our conscious into existence.
What's the big deal?
D33veeoss 4 years ago
That's precisely the question, I think. Thanks.
BigSpoon19 4 years ago
I believe in God,evolution,and that the earth is billions of years old......6,000 years is ridiculous.....the wooly mammoth has been extinct for about 10,000 years and is considered a 'recent' extinction.
Omgitszztop 4 years ago
It's good to hear someone else who has that same view of the bible. It is meant to give someone moral lessons through stories and alegories.
mjs3888 4 years ago
Have you read Lee Strobel's "Case for a Creator"?
bitterchew 4 years ago
I have not.
BigSpoon19 4 years ago
I have to say, I agree with nearly everything you say in this vid. I am a christian, but I've never understood why people (creationists) see God and evolution as mutually exclusive. I find it funny (in a sad way) that some people few any form of questioning as blasphomy and call questioners atheists. Personally, I think it's arrogant to try to interpret God's intentions they way creationists often try to do.
RavenoftheBlack 4 years ago
Absolutely. And I imagine it's particularly frustrating for a Christian.
BigSpoon19 4 years ago
The reason why Creationism and evolution are seen as mutually exclusive is very simple. Evolutionists know thru many means that the Earth is billions of years old. Because humans as we know it have occupied Earth for barely a fraction of that time it makes little sense to think we were made in God's image.
mnkwazi 4 years ago
god dosent exist
itsovabliss 4 years ago
Great VIDEO !!!
SferaNova 4 years ago
Thank you very much.
BigSpoon19 4 years ago
Because it has been used in literal terms. You see people use it as it is convenient to them. Everyone does, that encludes atheist. And when it comes to myth being so central in those times.. hmm i wonder isnt that the same statement taking it literal is trying to prove? think about it. I fyou use that logic nothing that comes form those times can be taken as anything other then myth.
WtfJuju 4 years ago
How people use the Bible is irrelevant. We're talking about the intention of the authors. Why can't you take spiritual or moral truth from a myth? Why can't you try to separate the historical truth from the storytelling in an ancient text? Historians do it all the time. There is a lot of history in the mythical accounts from any ancient civilization that can be empirically confirmed. It does not have to be all or none.
BigSpoon19 4 years ago
Well, im not exactly saying it has to. I was saying that, that was the why, as to why i think they take it literally ^_^ I apologize for coming off kinda rude. I do think there is some good teachings in the bible. And if we can pick that out of the bible and ignore all of the other things it can do some good. I agree with the "all or none" i know it doesn't
WtfJuju 4 years ago
I didn't think you came off rude at all--don't worry about that. Thanks for the comments.
BigSpoon19 4 years ago
Missing the point?u might be missing their point. you see people that take what the bible says literal do so in the thought that it is the word of God. if it is, there is really no other way to look at it, and if you think about it, HOW ELSE would people in the past read it? its only now that we say, "nah, it probably wasn't meant to say that" if we are using what the bible says as facts we gotta assume that the whole thing is fact, not just a few things. or else it would be a discarded
WtfJuju 4 years ago
I understand that people take it literally. My question is why should we assume that the Bible was written as a literal account of the creation story when we know that myth was so central a part of ancient texts and story-telling? Just because it was never meant to be a science book does not mean that it's not true. There is nothing to suggest that the Bible was ever written to contain scientific "facts."
BigSpoon19 4 years ago
I am not a christian, but my mom is and she is also a micro-biologist. God cannot be proven, it can exist along side of advanced science... i choose not to subscribe, but for those who do, why reject the same science that gave them everything they have in the modern world...
kfherrmann 4 years ago
Dont tell me that it could be allagory. Because it isnt presented as allagory, and there is nothing else in the Bible similiar to that kind of metaphor. The closest youll get is revelation, and even that would be totally different then the genesis account metaphorically speaking
AndrewdeCarion 4 years ago
What makes you so sure its not an allegory? Perhaps the most interesting thing about this whole argument is that it seems pretty clear that the ancient Jews who lived during the period when Genesis was written themselves thought this was a mythical account of the creation. This idea of a literal reading of Genesis is a much later development. And there are allegories and metaphors throughout the Bible so I'm not really sure where your belief in a literal Bible comes from...
BigSpoon19 4 years ago
If we dont believe in the Bible as being totally true,then we are saying that God has lied to the entire human race about the origin of mankind. If God has lied to all of mankind, then he is an evil God and we should be very afraid of him
AndrewdeCarion 4 years ago
You can easily believe the Bible is totally true and believe the Earth is older than 6,000 years. Nobody said God lied. Incidentally, isn't is conceivable that God told the truth and mankind manipulated and twisted that truth?
BigSpoon19 4 years ago
What about the Agnostic people? I don't feel like anyone has deceived me about anything.
dbsti300 4 years ago
a reasonable christian! too few of you caused me to leave the faith. i'm not saying go to every science class, but if you haven't been to many they can be quite interesting. i am now a deist who believe God had some role in life on earth (like creating evolution)
oddjob29 4 years ago
Science is great! But be careful, every college professor has an agenda. Whether or not theyre in science, theology, literature, math... they all have opinions and like anyone else, they want you to agree. With biology, a professor will use microevolution to brainwash you into believing macro might have occured. Be careful, and use common sense.
JohnnyHads 4 years ago
First to BigSpoon, thanks for the video, nice style and pace and i can say : You're my kind of Christian (even though i am an atheist ;)
JohnnyHads, : Be careful and use common sense, well yes, let's stay sceptic to everything. Brainwashing biology professors, i'm quite sceptic to that too ;p
mindwis3 4 years ago
Thanks bro
JohnnyHads 4 years ago
I'd like to pose to you that Evolutionists do the same, view science with pre-conceived notions. With Hackeal's embryos (proven fraud years later), Nebraska man (pig tooth), Neanderthal man, Java Man, Cro-Magon man. After further research, found out they were either a fraud or one side of the species. Both Christians and Agnostics have a worldview, both try to defend those beliefs. But you can't get past the evidence. Which, I believe points to a Loving Jesus Christ.
CrossRevolution 4 years ago
I agree that all people can tend to view the world through a particular paradigm and therefore miss or discard contradictory evidence. However, I think that the paradigm for evolutionary biology it much more well-established scientifically than is creationism. I also think that viewing a religious text as a science book is an inherently flawed starting-point.
BigSpoon19 4 years ago
There are 2 movements against 'evolutionary' anything. Creationism, I heard started in 1960. Now, the Intelligent Design Movement, I heard start either 15-25 years ago. I'd suggest two books for you. To hear the other side, Darwinism; under the Mircoscope by James P Gills, MD & Tom Woodward, PHD. Also Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe (Not Christian, nor young earth)
CrossRevolution 4 years ago
It's not just creationism that gives a problem to Christians. Having just read the Bible from cover to cover I now believe that most of it is a problem. I don't like to cherry pick, but just for interest, have a look at Numbers Chapter 15. I just can't see how anyone could believe in this stuff. The New Testament is not much better. For example Jesus warning us that there will be wailing and knashing of teeth and that we should give no thought for tomorrow.
tedgrant2 4 years ago
Where do I start. How about the beginning. In the beginning God. God did not creat a young universe. He did not creat a baby. He did not creat a seed. It was mature. He created time. How can we understand all things. We cannot. Faith is what seperates us from you. If you do not believe in the Bible then you don't believe.
elviswadeward 4 years ago
You are the one that says I don't believe the Bible. Explain to me why you are so sure that a literal interpretation of Genesis is the correct one. That is the point. You fail to demonstrate why your interpretation is correct and how those who believe Genesis is symbolic are not having faith.
BigSpoon19 4 years ago
Good video, you dont believe in the gap theory though do ya?
JohnnyHads 4 years ago
No. I think Genesis is not literal and is a largely mythologized story meant to convey spiritual truths. To be honest, I don't really think it matters all that much--if the Earth is 6,000 years old (I don't think it is) or if it's 4.5 billion years old, it doesn't change the fundamentals of religion or faith. Thanks for commenting.
BigSpoon19 4 years ago
Good points, and youre welcome. And as a note, I dont believe in the bible but I do believe in a 10,000 year old earth going solely by science and evidence.
JohnnyHads 4 years ago
That's a unique position to have...To be honest, the old Earth is the thing about which I am most convinced. Like I said, I don't think it really matters for religion but I have seen absolutely no reason to believe the Earth is not billions of years old. I'd be interested to hear what makes you believe as you do.
BigSpoon19 4 years ago
Im curious first as to how 10,000 years is NOT old. I think about how much life has changed since the civil war and that was only 150 years ago. The earth shows many signs of being "only" a few thousand years old. Such as the rotation of the earth, the recession of the moon, the geologic column, the worlds oldest trees, reefs, artifacts, etc. The law of angular momentum, thermodynamics, and life itself.
JohnnyHads 4 years ago
10,000 years is not old in comparison to the birth of our planet, or the universe, but to a being that only lives up to around 80-100 years, it may seem old.
BeyondDGrave 4 years ago
No, trust me 10,000 years is a loooong time. Look how much our earth has changed and "evolved" in that time.
JohnnyHads 4 years ago
Your response is, "No,...Trust me."....
"Look how much our Earth has changed in that time"...
In what respects JohnnyHads?
BeyondDGrave 4 years ago
10,000 years of human history is a looooooooooong time and we have changed. to the earth, it's just like a penny compared to a million dollars
oddjob29 4 years ago
Did you use the grand canyon as evidence for the earth being fairy tale old?
JohnnyHads 4 years ago
I'm sending you some links.
BigSpoon19 4 years ago
Ok - and as for the grand canyon its been revealed that was indeed a breached dam. The little colordao river is the result of this breach, just like the tootle river(which we witnessed).
JohnnyHads 4 years ago
Bigspoon19,I appreciate your tone in approaching this subject.
You HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD at about 4:10 into your video. This "starting at a belief" is also known as presuppositions that are based on a particular world view. Agreed creationists do this. But "objective" science does exactly that as well; they interpret the facts according to their beliefs;ie.17 billion year old universe.
People are really kidding themselves when they think that modern science is objectively based on facts.
stenocoma 4 years ago
You're right. I agree that believers in science can come to hold their beliefs somewhat "religiously". How many times in history has conventional wisdom been completely wrong in scientific matters? How many times have those that would eventually develop groundbreaking theories been laughed off by established scientists? I also agree that some evidence which is sparse at best gets taken for granted. Thanks for commenting.
BigSpoon19 4 years ago
Sweet jesus,you are so gulible.God isnt real,if i told you told you that gypsies will steal your teeth when you sleep would you believe.Your such a fucking virgin.
towelplugholedude 5 years ago
What well thought out and articulated thoughts you've shared with all of us. I'm also stricken with just how applicable they are to my video. Thank you, oh wise one. You have opened my virgin eyes!
BigSpoon19 5 years ago
The fundies are much more of a problem for christians than people like dawkins. I think its their own fault. Its always atheists trying to explain to fundies why they're wrong about widely accepted scientific theories when it should really be christians. The youngearthers have turned christianity into a joke, and christians moan at atheists when they should be educating their fundies. I find it hilarious. Ken millers a christian who seems to understand their problem
rhinohornhooverbag 5 years ago
Thanks for the comment. I agree.
BigSpoon19 5 years ago
I have question for any creationist, How far can we see with the Hubble space telescope? Anyone. This is question for a creationist only. So evolutionist don't answer. Until they answer
chaikona 5 years ago
They believe that they have spotted a galaxy 13 billion light years away.
Is that far enough for you to try make your point about the time it took for the light to reach earth?
I'll be waiting...
stenocoma 4 years ago
I think the fear from creationists comes from the doctrine itself.
1.) The line of Adam to Jesus is a lie
2.) Original Sin, without it Christianities pretty silly to acknowledge by fiat when this sin becomes metaphorical because well God comes down and gets himself killed for the metaphorical despite evolution en tales that everything was setup from the beginning to revolve around death and rather ignore morality till modern man. Quiet a silly theology rather preposterous at that point.
jojo8039 5 years ago
I'm not sure I agree with your conclusions. I agree that that may be what some Christians believe evolutionary theory does to their theology. But many Christians have no problem accepting evolution and Christianity. When you get to the core of the doctrine and take a symbolic understanding of Genesis there is no inherent contradiction. Thanks for the thoughts.
BigSpoon19 5 years ago
I'm an atheist, darwinist yada yada. But God remains a hypothesis, a bad one, but it's a hypothesis. Einstein STARTED with the premise that light's speed was consistent no matter your frame of reference. However Einstein's premise appears to be correct, God, not so much.
brian1625 5 years ago
Actually Einstein was not correct. The speed of light is not constant and there are subatomic particles that do indeed travel faster than the speed of light (tachyons).
There goes your theory about God not existing!
stenocoma 4 years ago
ignorance is bliss
cccmarkgreene 5 years ago
Preach on!
toonami54 5 years ago
No the Bible is not a Science Book and shouldn't be made to be one either. I struggle with this question all the time. There seems to be strong evidence on both sides of the argument. Beliving in evolution or creationism does not discount your christianity though....
vmanvand 5 years ago
I believe if your going to teach evolution (which is a an atheist belief), then you should teach creationism which is a belief in a Creator. I think both sides should be presented, since most college kids lose their faith in universities...this being the reason why.
CHIC33LETTE 5 years ago
But I think that's precisely my point. Why are kids losing their faith in college? I think it's because they are being forced to make a choice by the leaders/teachers of their faith. I don't think that choice is a necessary one because science doesn't speak directly to the existence of a God and religion isn't meant to speak to the DETAILS of the creation of the earth (in my opinion).
BigSpoon19 5 years ago
An Atheist belief? You know the majority of Christians believe in evolution as well right?
minorgrey 5 years ago
evolution is a scientific fact, noone said God didnt create the universe and humanity through evolution. You do know the book of Genesis was told to Moses in a dream which he wrote down, right? Yo udo realize tha tthe first and second chapters of genesis were added MUCH later after the Jewish captivity in Babylon and are basically a retelling of Sumerian and Zoroastrian creation myths, right? Even in those two chapters they tell two different versions of creation.
RLByrum 5 years ago
BigSpoon,
Good video and good points made and I see you are a true seeker of the facts. I went through the very same thing with Kent Hovind; he is quite the character. My beliefs...I don't believe in MACRO-evolution, but I do believe in what is termed 'MICRO-evolution'. I don't believe we came from monkeys. Let me send you a cartoon on this.
CHIC33LETTE 5 years ago
That's right, it's Kent Hovind...the "Answers in Genesis" people are much better, though I still disagree with them. It seems they are more concerned with casting doubt on evolution and old-Earth science than presenting new evidence...
BigSpoon19 5 years ago
thanks brother for the encouraging words, you brought up some excellent points...i'll do my best to get a vid response to you...
peace
TogetherForPeace 5 years ago