Great video! You might want to use the expression I've heard: "There is more good evidence that Y'shua (Jesus) lived and died and rose again, than there is evidence that you and I exist." Lee Strobel's books ("The Case for a Creator" and "The Case for Jesus") are also quite good for those prefering less technical arguments. May God bless you and make these videos effective in reaching as wide an audience as possible.
As a biologist, who has taught biology for years, I know that the generation of life from a dead environment is impossible, not just difficult. The probabilities of random physical and chemical processes resulting in living cells, even bacteria, is absurd, so I have to guess that other biologists can teach that crap and still sleep at night because they don't understand the improbability of it.
If we didn't assume natural selection and mutation in our function in genetics, we wouldn't have most modern medicine. I like this guy but it seems like evolution is a fight he's unprepared for :/
@MCulpa hmmm...did I debate natural selection or mutation? no...don't think i did. >.> been a while since I made it though. no doubt: natural selection exists and mutation happens. that's a world apart from "we cam from one celled organisms by happenstance."
I'm admittedly not a biologist, but a similar process seems evident in the fossil record, and the process of NS & mutation, left to itself, would naturally create more complex life more adapted to its environment.
Oh, BTW: I *do* like your videos, going to recommend them to every Christian with an interest in theology I can find, my pastor included.
I didn't mean to be offensive in the comment; hope it wasn't construed as such. Great to see you respond; keep up the good work.
@authorandrewcothran Any level of corruption taints evidence. Science or more specifically the scientific method is only as good as its evidence. If the evidence is corrupted then the conclusions are not reliable. If you read the articles in journals you will see they have a tendency to site a variable "p". That variable is the statistical number indicating likely accuracy of the test. Even science acknowledges its level of uncertainty.
@authorandrewcothran Actually the corruption of creation is objective truth. Is not the breakdown of our DNA a sign of corruption? Essentially science is only a systematized approach to natural knowledge and it can only tell us so much. It can touch on truth but never discover absolute truth. One it is limited by its practitioners and two a good chunk of truth has/had to be revealed.
@authorandrewcothran Science is unreliable. While it can give great insight, it has major flaws. One is that it always changes the things it observes. Two it is highly dependent on human reason. Scientists take steps to minimize the effects of the flaws, but it is still flawed. Back to the evidence, the hard and fast limit is that the fall has effected all of creation so the hard and fast wall is the fall. Can't know anything beyond that point.
@authorandrewcothran Probably the best way to reconcile Scripture with Science is by allowing them to speak only in their realms of authority. To many ppl make the mistake of trying to treat the Bible as a Science text and many more make the mistake of thinking Science can speak where it cannot. Core point in Scripture that effects science can be found in Rm 8:22. That means all physical evidence is corrupt and it puts a hard limit on how far back we can examine
Thank you Rev Fisk. Though I don't know much about science, I am a business student and my professors and other students look at me weirdly if my faith comes up. I have to admit to being ashamed but also doubting whether Christianity is worth it all. Thanks again for the reminder that it is Christ who brings us into faith, not ourselves. Thank the Lord for that one!
@authorandrewcothran Yes, I think the problem is that growing up an atheist, I believed that science was the only truth, and it explained everything... I could not comprehend that anything outside of it was true. I guess it was my "faith." As a Christian I understand science to be our observation of God's creation. Since we are imperfect our science is imperfect, but it is my pride- when I trust in my own science more than God's word, and that is what makes me doubt.
Thanks again for a great video! Not to nitpick too much, but evolution doesn't say that we descended from apes/monkeys, but that we share a common ancestor with apes/monkeys. It's not a huge distinction, but treating the evolutionist viewpoint with some respect can help when you are talking about it with someone.
Hey I have a question. Ok so you said that God chose who would be saved before he created people, right? So did he choose that just randomly or was it based on a foresight that those would not be the people that resisted the grace? Because if he chose it just randomly (or well, at least not based on who would/wouldn't resist the grace) wouldn't that mean that not all people have a fair chance or opportunity to be saved? Do all people have a chance to be saved when they hear the scripture?
@eurasianchica That was from your magesterial tulip video... I apologize if I am annoying with the questions, but you seem like the best guy to ask. :)
@eurasianchica I posted it to the WEteam, so maybe it will get a written response. The best thing to do if you are curious about election from a Lutheran perspective is to google Book of Concord and read the Forumla of Concord Epitome Article XI. It's easy to find on bookofconcord dot o r g
That is a good explanation Rev Fisk, thank you. I used to be an atheist and now I am a Christian, but those days still have their effect on me and my biggest problem is the science vs faith thing... I want to believe but the science is always pulling my mind.
I am a Christian, but I have significant doubts at times. Atheists consider Christians to be uneducated and superstitious. According to them, we believe in nothing more than fairy tales. Reading through the OT it seems at times like every second page God smites the wicked and preforms miraculous interventions on behalf of his people. How can someone living in a modern scientific time believe that God made an donkey speak, caused iron to randomly float, turned city walls into dust, and so on .
@jergification Not really true. Things like that happened (and then, only rarely) to a very select group of people, mostly all part of one family's line of succession, all the way down to Jesus himself. Then, with the 12 Apostles, things went kind of nuts for a bit, but Jesus didn't promise that would last forever. He did promise that his Word would. How does a modern person believe God made a donkey speak? Easy:
@Revfiskj he believes the historical fact that Jesus rose from the dead, and so all best are off as to what is and is not possible. In a world where I can talk to someone in Africa over a wire that transports light, and in which a doctor can use a laser to fix my eyesight, I don't see what the problme is with believing that the Almighty God who designed the universe can toy with it whenever he pleases: more so, I'm glad he isn't haphazard about it, but in fact has a plan: to save you in Jesus.
So I agree with you that having the Book of Concord translated into other languages is a totally awesome and necessary thing to do. I was wondering though, if you've ever mentioned or talked about the thousands of languages in the world that do not yet have a Bible translated. Have you covered that topic or are you at all involved in that first step in the process before our confessional books can even make sense? (full disclosure, I work for a Bible translation organization)
@missionmobilizer Well - there are millions of lanugages spoken by small people groups and then there are a few languages spoken by millions. The math is pretty simple. The fact is, translating the Bible but not translating doctrine (such as the creed, or hymns, or the confessions) is kind of silly. It's like telling a new doctor he has to figure it all out on his own by looking at the human body. Pretty silly approach really. Ideally, work in translation would find a happy medium.
Anyone who says that Jesus Christ wasn't real [God does not exist, no resurrection, conspiracy, etc] just because they did not see him with their own eyes, would they also say that George Washington was not president of the United States because they were not present for his inauguration ceremony? Of course not! They know it to be true because it was written down by eyewitnesses, and that fact is preserved by our historical records.
<--Master's level microbiology, science in its place is awesome. It is great with the things it can directly observe not so great with past events. Latest evolutionary biology papers have words like inferred and assumed in them. Not a lot of proof, lots of interesting possibilities.
Great video! You might want to use the expression I've heard: "There is more good evidence that Y'shua (Jesus) lived and died and rose again, than there is evidence that you and I exist." Lee Strobel's books ("The Case for a Creator" and "The Case for Jesus") are also quite good for those prefering less technical arguments. May God bless you and make these videos effective in reaching as wide an audience as possible.
007TruthSeeker 1 day ago
As a biologist, who has taught biology for years, I know that the generation of life from a dead environment is impossible, not just difficult. The probabilities of random physical and chemical processes resulting in living cells, even bacteria, is absurd, so I have to guess that other biologists can teach that crap and still sleep at night because they don't understand the improbability of it.
007TruthSeeker 1 day ago
If we didn't assume natural selection and mutation in our function in genetics, we wouldn't have most modern medicine. I like this guy but it seems like evolution is a fight he's unprepared for :/
MCulpa 1 week ago
@MCulpa hmmm...did I debate natural selection or mutation? no...don't think i did. >.> been a while since I made it though. no doubt: natural selection exists and mutation happens. that's a world apart from "we cam from one celled organisms by happenstance."
Revfiskj 1 week ago
@Revfiskj
I'm admittedly not a biologist, but a similar process seems evident in the fossil record, and the process of NS & mutation, left to itself, would naturally create more complex life more adapted to its environment.
Oh, BTW: I *do* like your videos, going to recommend them to every Christian with an interest in theology I can find, my pastor included.
I didn't mean to be offensive in the comment; hope it wasn't construed as such. Great to see you respond; keep up the good work.
MCulpa 1 week ago
Xenophobia is defined as "an unreasonable fear of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange :)
greenberetdelta 2 weeks ago
That costume idea is hilarious!
StatuesBleedingGreen 1 month ago
@authorandrewcothran Any level of corruption taints evidence. Science or more specifically the scientific method is only as good as its evidence. If the evidence is corrupted then the conclusions are not reliable. If you read the articles in journals you will see they have a tendency to site a variable "p". That variable is the statistical number indicating likely accuracy of the test. Even science acknowledges its level of uncertainty.
aggierev 2 months ago
@authorandrewcothran Actually the corruption of creation is objective truth. Is not the breakdown of our DNA a sign of corruption? Essentially science is only a systematized approach to natural knowledge and it can only tell us so much. It can touch on truth but never discover absolute truth. One it is limited by its practitioners and two a good chunk of truth has/had to be revealed.
aggierev 2 months ago
Watching WVeverlasting leads to my library growing and my wallet shrinking....
ehzzz 2 months ago
@authorandrewcothran Science is unreliable. While it can give great insight, it has major flaws. One is that it always changes the things it observes. Two it is highly dependent on human reason. Scientists take steps to minimize the effects of the flaws, but it is still flawed. Back to the evidence, the hard and fast limit is that the fall has effected all of creation so the hard and fast wall is the fall. Can't know anything beyond that point.
aggierev 2 months ago
@authorandrewcothran Probably the best way to reconcile Scripture with Science is by allowing them to speak only in their realms of authority. To many ppl make the mistake of trying to treat the Bible as a Science text and many more make the mistake of thinking Science can speak where it cannot. Core point in Scripture that effects science can be found in Rm 8:22. That means all physical evidence is corrupt and it puts a hard limit on how far back we can examine
aggierev 2 months ago
Thank you Rev Fisk. Though I don't know much about science, I am a business student and my professors and other students look at me weirdly if my faith comes up. I have to admit to being ashamed but also doubting whether Christianity is worth it all. Thanks again for the reminder that it is Christ who brings us into faith, not ourselves. Thank the Lord for that one!
heidimae12 2 months ago
@authorandrewcothran Yes, I think the problem is that growing up an atheist, I believed that science was the only truth, and it explained everything... I could not comprehend that anything outside of it was true. I guess it was my "faith." As a Christian I understand science to be our observation of God's creation. Since we are imperfect our science is imperfect, but it is my pride- when I trust in my own science more than God's word, and that is what makes me doubt.
eurasianchica 2 months ago
Re the challenges of translating the Book of Concord into French. Is it possible that Canadian Lutherans have already done so?
RichKauz 2 months ago
When is Ask Da Pastor 2.1 coming out?
Mackay878 2 months ago
@PrinceOfPerelandra ha! oops....
Revfiskj 2 months ago
Are you implying Bicycles are only for poor people?
harrypotter1479 2 months ago
@harrypotter1479 That is precisely the point of the entire video. Down with bicycles! XD
Revfiskj 2 months ago
Thanks again for a great video! Not to nitpick too much, but evolution doesn't say that we descended from apes/monkeys, but that we share a common ancestor with apes/monkeys. It's not a huge distinction, but treating the evolutionist viewpoint with some respect can help when you are talking about it with someone.
sdmuss 2 months ago
@sdmuss and what was that common ancestor? more monkey or more man? hmmm? :D
Revfiskj 2 months ago
Hey I have a question. Ok so you said that God chose who would be saved before he created people, right? So did he choose that just randomly or was it based on a foresight that those would not be the people that resisted the grace? Because if he chose it just randomly (or well, at least not based on who would/wouldn't resist the grace) wouldn't that mean that not all people have a fair chance or opportunity to be saved? Do all people have a chance to be saved when they hear the scripture?
eurasianchica 2 months ago
@eurasianchica That was from your magesterial tulip video... I apologize if I am annoying with the questions, but you seem like the best guy to ask. :)
eurasianchica 2 months ago
@eurasianchica I posted it to the WEteam, so maybe it will get a written response. The best thing to do if you are curious about election from a Lutheran perspective is to google Book of Concord and read the Forumla of Concord Epitome Article XI. It's easy to find on bookofconcord dot o r g
Revfiskj 2 months ago
That is a good explanation Rev Fisk, thank you. I used to be an atheist and now I am a Christian, but those days still have their effect on me and my biggest problem is the science vs faith thing... I want to believe but the science is always pulling my mind.
eurasianchica 2 months ago
@eurasianchica Science is good for some things. But it can't do what it, by definition, can't do, which is answer questions of ontology.
Revfiskj 2 months ago
I am a Christian, but I have significant doubts at times. Atheists consider Christians to be uneducated and superstitious. According to them, we believe in nothing more than fairy tales. Reading through the OT it seems at times like every second page God smites the wicked and preforms miraculous interventions on behalf of his people. How can someone living in a modern scientific time believe that God made an donkey speak, caused iron to randomly float, turned city walls into dust, and so on .
jergification 2 months ago
@jergification Not really true. Things like that happened (and then, only rarely) to a very select group of people, mostly all part of one family's line of succession, all the way down to Jesus himself. Then, with the 12 Apostles, things went kind of nuts for a bit, but Jesus didn't promise that would last forever. He did promise that his Word would. How does a modern person believe God made a donkey speak? Easy:
Revfiskj 2 months ago
@Revfiskj he believes the historical fact that Jesus rose from the dead, and so all best are off as to what is and is not possible. In a world where I can talk to someone in Africa over a wire that transports light, and in which a doctor can use a laser to fix my eyesight, I don't see what the problme is with believing that the Almighty God who designed the universe can toy with it whenever he pleases: more so, I'm glad he isn't haphazard about it, but in fact has a plan: to save you in Jesus.
Revfiskj 2 months ago
So I agree with you that having the Book of Concord translated into other languages is a totally awesome and necessary thing to do. I was wondering though, if you've ever mentioned or talked about the thousands of languages in the world that do not yet have a Bible translated. Have you covered that topic or are you at all involved in that first step in the process before our confessional books can even make sense? (full disclosure, I work for a Bible translation organization)
missionmobilizer 2 months ago
@missionmobilizer Well - there are millions of lanugages spoken by small people groups and then there are a few languages spoken by millions. The math is pretty simple. The fact is, translating the Bible but not translating doctrine (such as the creed, or hymns, or the confessions) is kind of silly. It's like telling a new doctor he has to figure it all out on his own by looking at the human body. Pretty silly approach really. Ideally, work in translation would find a happy medium.
Revfiskj 2 months ago
Thank you for doing what your doing! Worldview Everlasting has been a wonderful gift in my life! thank you :)
ChazzP1992 2 months ago
I like to explain it this way:
Anyone who says that Jesus Christ wasn't real [God does not exist, no resurrection, conspiracy, etc] just because they did not see him with their own eyes, would they also say that George Washington was not president of the United States because they were not present for his inauguration ceremony? Of course not! They know it to be true because it was written down by eyewitnesses, and that fact is preserved by our historical records.
The Gospels are history.
matthewdhewlett 2 months ago
For the person who had history type question check out the work of Dr Paul Maier. It is easy to digest and will point you in some good directions
aggierev 2 months ago
<--Master's level microbiology, science in its place is awesome. It is great with the things it can directly observe not so great with past events. Latest evolutionary biology papers have words like inferred and assumed in them. Not a lot of proof, lots of interesting possibilities.
aggierev 2 months ago