Answering Evolution & Islam - Dr. Greg Bahnsen

[@michaelwill7811]

I think the most lucid point he makes here is the one concerning male and female genitalia. If we evolved from amoebae (cell division version of reproduction) to humanoids (copulation to begin the reproduction process), and the fertile period of a female is about 40 years (he was generous and pinned it at 100 years), what are the odds that a single male and a single female wound up with functioning genitalia within that 40 year (or even 100 year) period? I agree that Evolution, as an explanation for origin of life, is a fairy tale. We do see evidence that it functions as an agent of change, but origin of life? Wow, just wow... And they say Christians are loony, lol. I'd rather be loony than "flipping out of my mind" insane.

[@LosChongo]

@michael will Haha, stoopit

[@DrMrMonkey]

@@theresawilliams4296 somebody got raped by her priest

[@markmarino5053]

@Dd S - exactly, because both atheism and evolution are fairytales

[@markmarino5053]

@@theresawilliams4296 - calling evolution a fact doesn't make it a fact. That's wishful thinking. Facts don't care about your feelings. Christianity is true no matter how much you want it to be false. *Jesus Resurrection is a historical FACT. Get over it* !

[@theresawilliams4296]

@@markmarino5053 Well if you think evolution is false, well why don't you prove it is instead of just saying it is false. Personally, I think you can't prove jack shit, especially how your saviour rose from the dead. Nobody has ever come back from the dead after three days in the history of humanity. And why aren't you a household name from proving evolution false, you should have a Nobel peace prize for your research and have your name in every scientific journal on the planet, because that is a pretty big deal. But apparently you can only get on KZbin and say that evolution is false without any evidence to back up your outrageous claims. Hmmmm I wonder who to believe, the scientists that have studied this their whole lives, or do I take the word of an indoctrinated religious idiot because he said so. Hmmmm, this is a hard choice to make. I bet you can't even find your saviours name (jesus) outside of the bible in any other sources. It's like he wasn't important enough to mention, or maybe he was made up. So go on and do a bit of research, I bet you can't find his name anywhere, not even the Romans, Egyptians or any other cultures know about him. Gee I wonder why that is, huh?

[@shamounian]

What year was this talk presented?

[@WillboeBagins]

1993 i think cuz he talks about the bombing of WTC saying "this year" 1:15:30

[@Holojipula]

The fact that I was not taught this blows my mind. What a brutal rebuttal to evolution.

Bahnsen lies multiple times here. He is the master of Reconstructionism, the worst theology ever. He wants to make America the Christian fundie version of Sharia law controlled nations.

[@DavidParker-cf2km]

Evolution is the government religion, government schools are the established religion of the central government. The central government is the god of the evolutionist. Krauss, Dawkins, Pinker, et al., are the high priests, the National Science Foundation manages tax funding for those scientists whose faith is in evolution.

[@Detson404]

Because it’s a strawman.

[@jamespitts10]

@@Detson404 he is citing secular scientists. Tell me which argument is the strawman so I can evolve like you

[@Detson404]

@@jamespitts10 He’s doing the typical creationist quote mine and mischaracterize schtick. Example: “we’re expected to believe that cell division reproduction changed to copulation reproduction by chance.” That’s a strawman, the “tornado in a junkyard.” Evolution isn’t pure chance, it’s determined by natural processes like selection. There are a few ways scientists think sexual reproduction could have arisen but none are “it just happened randomly.”

[@TheCannonofMohammed]

This guy was BRILLIANT.

[@lewis8332]

Dean wright baseless? Give an example

[@spiritofelijah5386]

Lewisヅ Dean has left the building

[@DEAD4LIVE]

@@lewis8332 GG dean Wright. With ur references

[@lewis8332]

@@DEAD4LIVE lmao

[@wesmiles8353]

You can only see him as being brilliant if you are so involved with the god hypothesis you are blind to the truth.

[@JScholastic]

Rest in peace Greg you will never be forgotten ill see you up there.

[@patarikisoterion9899]

This is a fantastic upload. Thanks.

[@PracticalFaith]

He said "flock" of wolves.. Can't believe anything he says 😆 Jk, he's quickly becoming one of my favorite apologists. Thanks for the upload!

[@BOASTinTheLORD]

Lol

[@BOASTinTheLORD]

Amen

[@Ahmayzin]

@The Faithful Truth w/ Caleb Jacobs exactly.

[@TKaramali]

It’s because they are wolves in sheep’s clothing

[@AG-rl5pw]

​@T Karamali beautiful response... have to admit, I was coming here to make a comment, and was stunned by how great this comment is, and forgot what my response even is. 😂

[@rickdavis2235]

If flight was advantageous to birds, why didn't every living thing evolve for flight? What a great way to hunt and escape predators.

[@Devilock07]

The general idea is that traits evolve randomly.

[@drummerboy737]

@@Devilock07 l ....wait? randomly on purpose?

[@Devilock07]

@@drummerboy737 "randomly on purpose?" What do you mean?

[@beautifulfeetpreachingsc]

@@Devilock07 if it’s random than could it change into something completely different than what the bird has now?

[@Devilock07]

@@beautifulfeetpreachingsc I don't know. Perhaps, if given enough time the descendants of a bird lineage could look nothing like a bird. If we consider our ancestors were something like a planarian flat worm, that's pretty different than a human. However, some things, like being eukaryotes has remained constant.

[@evangelistmatthew783]

This guy is atheists nightmare! Well done good and faithful servant of the most high God!

[@LuciferAlmighty]

Not really, he's easily defeated.

[@Chris4127basket]

@@LuciferAlmighty Next time choose a better screen name if you want to say something true

[@LuciferAlmighty]

@@Chris4127basket doesn't follow

[@dartheli7400]

@@LuciferAlmighty Can you provide an example or explanation?

[@Chris4127basket]

@@LuciferAlmighty Don't worry, sorry

[@bowrudder899]

Islam starts at the 1:12:00 mark. A contradiction in the Quran is given at 1:31:20. And surah 42:11 does NOT say that no human language can describe God. That is an interpretation. It only says that there is nothing like God, a wonderful verse to share when Muslims complain that the Trinity is not comprehensible.

[@BoasNovastraduzidas]

thanks for the clarification, brother. Would you have a reformed apologist video refuting Islam to suggest? I´d like to have it on my channel, which is dedicated to translating Christian content from English to Portuguese. Thank you, God bless.

[@bowrudder899]

@@BoasNovastraduzidas, James White is reformed. He debates Muslims and discusses Islam.

[@BoasNovastraduzidas]

@@bowrudder899 Thank you

[@ZigmasOfSamogitia]

The problem however is that words themselves and therefore languages are created things rather than uncreated things. Since they are created things, they are unlike God, and no analogy can be made between the created and the uncreated, because they share no similarity. Thus, language in the Islamic worldview is incapable of describing anything about God.

[@bowrudder899]

@@ZigmasOfSamogitia You don't think Allah's words are eternal?

[@Devilock07]

At 19:53, Bahnsen equates gradualism with evolution. By doing this, Bahnsen creates the illusion that Gould has admitted that evolution itself is not supported by evidence but is merely a metaphysical stance. Bahnsen quotes Gould as follows, "The general preference that so may of us hold for gradualism is a metaphysical stance embedded in the history of Western cultures. It is not a high order empirical observation induced from the objective study of nature." At 20:21, Bahnsen says, "..and here's the leading advocate (Gould) now admitting it's not because we studied nature objectively. It's not a high order empirical observation because we don't prefer evolution because we've studied nature empirically. It's our preference, metaphysical in character, embedded in the history of Western culture." And if there was any reason to think Bahnsen merely misspoke, at 21:16, he then paraphrases John Tyndall from way back in 1874 where he allegedly said that the basis of the doctrine of evolution consists not on experimental demonstration, but in its general harmony with scientific laws. So, it is quite clear that Bahnsen intended to lead his audience to believe that Gould and Tyndall were saying the same thing essentially. Now, as far as I can tell, Tyndall was a huge defender of Darwin, so I don't know if he said anything like what Bahnsen said he did, and since Bahnsen has a history of taking people out of context I have my doubts that Bahnsen represented Tyndall accurately. However, it appears to me from what I have presented here that Bahnsen's equation of graduaism with evolution was not merely a goof. Was it an honest misunderstanding of the literature or deliberate dishonesty? I don't know. Gould expressed some frustration with being misquoted about the lack of transitional fossils. This quote was taken from an article from NCSE titled, "Misquoted Scientists Respond." "It is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists-whether through design or stupidity, I do not know-as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but are abundant between larger groups." Niles Eldredge, coauthor with Gould on punctuated equilibrium, had this to say (also from the same NCSE article): "All science involves the search for better explanations. We are currently entering a period of renewed intensity in our search to understand the mechanisms of the evolutionary process. For the past forty years or so, evolutionary thinking has been dominated by a single, simple, and rather elegant notion: that natural selection, tracking environmental change, modifies organisms' adaptations. The "synthetic theory of evolution" claims that this process accounts for all of evolutionary history. Still the dominant view held today, this synthesis marks an unusual period of virtual agreement within the entire field of biology. Many biologists in different disciplines are now openly skeptical that adaptation via natural selection alone can really account for all aspects of the evolution of life's diversity. Scientists see this as a healthy sign; debates over the relative merits of conflicting ideas are the heart and soul of science. Creationists, taking the synthetic theory as a synonym of "evolution," conclude from the debates that biologists are no longer wholeheartedly sure that life has evolved." "As an example, the notion of "punctuated equilibria," which Stephen Jay Gould and I began discussing in the early 1970s, is commonly cited in creationist literature as evidence that evolution has not occurred. Among other things, the notion of punctuated equilibria accounts for the lack of change seen in most fossil species as they persist through, in some cases, several millions of years. We questioned the long-held belief that evolutionary change must be slow, steady, gradual, and inevitable-a view that goes back to Darwin himself. We claimed, instead, that evolution proceeds by fits and starts, mostly in conjunction with events surrounding the origin of new species. Creationists argue that, inasmuch as fossil species do not change much once they appear, the very notion of evolution is itself falsified. But Gould and I were only doing what scientists always do: testing predictions against real evidence. We found that the evidence failed to support the notion that evolutionary change in general is slow and gradual. We then offered an alternative explanation that, for the moment, seems to us to fit the evidence better. We never concluded that life did not evolve, but merely that it did not evolve exactly the way that Darwin said it did. Our data agree perfectly with the general notion that life has evolved."

[@SDRBass]

They’ll take anything but a creation story. Even Dawkins admitted that in his book. Tells me all I need to know.

[@Devilock07]

@@SDRBass What does that have to do with anything I said?

[@SDRBass]

@@Devilock07 “our data agree perfectly with the general notion that life has evolved.” Really? If it agrees so perfectly why are there so many questions from people who aren’t religious in any sense? If my options are 1) God created us from the dust of the earth or 2) nothing created us by random chance from a puddle of goop, I think I know what I’ll go with.

[@Devilock07]

@SDRBass "If it agrees so perfectly why are there so many questions from people who aren't religious in any sense?" What are the questions you are talking about? What does being religious or non-religious have to do with anything? Are these people who are asking questions scientists? I don't think you are understanding the point of my comment. It is about Bahnsen spreading false information about what Gould said and to what extent punctuated equilibrium challenged evolutionary theory. The end of Eldredge's quote you referred to was speaking of his and Gould's research being completely in alignment with evolutionary theory because Creationists were misquoting them as admitting that evolutionary theory itself is not supported by the evidence, and misrepresenting thier work of punctuated equilibrium as though it challenged the entire concept of evolutionary theory. Bahnsen is a clear example of someone regurgitating this misinformation. My comment is not a defense of evolution. I am pointing out Bahnsen's false information about punctuated equilibrium and Gould. Whether evolution is actually true or false is irrelevant to my original post. So, regarding Bahnsen's mischaracterization of Gould's statements and Bahnsen's misinformation about punctuated equilibrium, do you agree or disagree that Bahnsen was spreading lies?

[@Devilock07]

@SDRBass "If my options are 1) God created us from the dust of the earth or 2) nothing created us by random chance from a puddle of goop, I think I know what I'll go with." Whatever makes you feel better. I just want to know what's true, even if I don't like it.

[@bradleyungles8605]

Great video, thanks for posting! I've read some of the posts on here and I'm appalled at some of the so-called christian responses on here. I'm not surprised at angry atheists, most atheists are just plain angry when it comes to these kinds of discussions, which makes one to wonder why they bother in the first place. But Christians should know better. Jesus said "pray for your enemies," and that we should respond in love to those that persecute us. How are you representing Christ on here? I understand the frustration of someone attacking our beliefs that we hold dear, but the greatest evidence and the greatest way we can be a witness to others is by letting the love of Christ shine through us. God bless you brothers!

[@bradleyungles8605]

Charles Hopkins, thanks for your input brother. Peter tells us in his first epistle, "always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." 1st Peter 3:15. If you really think I'm in error use scripture, I promise I'll repent. the last thing I want to do is do something that doesn't bring God glory. I just don't see how name calling and insults glorify Christ. I don't doubt that people willfully deny God. But are you so special that you were born a Christian and not a sinner? Have you forgotten how lost and hopeless we were before God revealed Himself to us? Where is your compassion?

[@bradleyungles8605]

Charles Hopkins I agree we are yo reprove, rebuke and exhort, but we must do all of these things in love, not self righteousness and pride like the pharisees. If you read through my comments, you'll see I compromised nothing.

[@bradleyungles8605]

Charles Hopkins I'm still waiting for you to give me scripture. So tell me, where in the Bible do Peter, Paul, or any other apostle share the gospel and bring people to Christ by pointing fingers and hurling insults? Don't worry I'll wait.

[@bradleyungles8605]

Charles Hopkins no you didnt. Saying "Paul says..." and then not giving a refrence is not using scripture. Look brother, I agree- a mark of a true christian is that we see sin for what it is and we hate it. We hate the sin, not sinners. We're sinners too, just forgiven by the grace of God that comes through Christ (Romans 3:24). So we need to remember to be humble when discussing these things with unbelievers. That was my whole point. Be humble, loving and christ-like.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Charles Hopkins are you seriously suggesting that given scripture references is part of the problem? Just because a sinner acts like a horse's behind..... does that mean that we should also? Let me ask you a question...... is the purpose of the Great Commission to bash and beat-up, or to bring to Christ? Tag-you're it!

[@thundergrace]

Thank you. I love Bahnsen

[@lewis8332]

1:26:11 and 1:22:30 and 5:30

[@cscutler]

great!

[@nsp74]

for more about the topic of Islam, you can watch these following videos by Christian scholars. 1.CIRA international 2.david wood 3.loyd de Jongh 4. apostate prophet 5.rob Christian 6.adam seeker

[@theologymatters2479]

Nice ending

[@dmustakasjr]

Christ Is Lord

[@DavidParker-cf2km]

"The story that Christians believed in a flat earth until Columbus’ time, and for some time thereafter, began as part of a fictional story that was elevated to historical fact by late 19th-century Darwinists who used it primarily as a means to ridicule Christians.33 The spherical shape of the earth was known to the ancient Greeks, who even made some good estimates of its circumference and, contrary to the claims of the flat-earth myth perpetuators, was never lost. One well-known example is Eratosthenes who measured the earth’s diameter fairly accurately in the 3rd century BC.30 Eratosthenes calculated the circumference using geometry to within 3.5% of the true value.1 The ancient Greek experimenters knew its shape by evaluating a variety of evidences, including the earth’s shadow during a lunar eclipse and the changing sky as one travels northward and southward.1 The ancients knew much about astronomy because they spent a great deal of time studying the heavens and stars for navigation purposes and because of their strong interest in astrology. Christian theologians, almost without exception, likewise accepted the fact that the earth is a sphere. The only two Christian writers known to have advocated a flat earth were a fourth-century heretic, Lactantius, and an obscure 6th-century Egyptian Monk, Cosmas Indicopleustes. Christian theologians, almost without exception, likewise accepted the fact that the earth is a sphere. The only two Christian writers known to have advocated a flat earth were a 4th-century heretic, Lactantius, and an obscure 6th-century Egyptian Monk, Cosmas Indicopleustes.34 Later, these two obscure and uninfluential writers were used as the prime evidence to prove that the flat-earth view was accepted by the Church as a whole-or at least by large parts of it. The myth that the Church ‘condemned as heretics all who claimed that the earth was round’ was ‘invented by two fabulists working separately: Antoine-Jean Letronne, an anticlerical 19th-century Frenchman, and Washington Irving.’35 The 19th-century American writer Washington Irving was actually the first major promulgator of the flat-earth myth. In his very unreliable biography of Columbus, titled History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828), Irving wrote that it was the flat-earth believing churchmen who vehemently opposed Columbus’ plan to travel to the Indies on the grounds that his ship would fall off the edge of the earth while attempting to sail across the Atlantic.35 In fact, those who opposed Columbus not only knew the earth was a sphere, but also had a good idea of how large it was-and this was the major reason why they opposed Columbus. Columbus and his men were not afraid of falling off the earth as Irving claimed, but of travelling so far from land in an unknown part of the world. They did not know the American continent existed, and, for this reason, Columbus’ critics correctly believed that a voyage to the Far East would take far too long and cost way too much. Unfortunately, Irving used many facts from reputable references to make his fictional account appear well supported, and, as a result, ‘the public was fooled into taking his literary game as history.’36 A careful reading of Irving makes it clear that his ‘history’ was deliberately designed to make Christianity appear prejudiced, dogmatic and ignorant, and to make scientists appear as objective persons who were carefully weighing the facts and who, in the end, were correct. As Morrison correctly concluded, Irving’s account is ‘mischievous nonsense … . The sphericity of the globe was not in question. The issue was the width of the ocean,’ and on this question Columbus’ opposition was correct.37" The rest of the article and footnotes are in the original at: creation.com/the-flat-earth-myth-and-creationism

[@BoasNovastraduzidas]

Tell that to Isaiah

[@BoasNovastraduzidas]

@@DavidParker-cf2km exactly. See how he chooses the words to describe something flat and also to describe something spherical in different situations. He didn´t lack of a term to describe neither of the shapes. When it comes to the shape of the earth, it is flat according to him.

[@DavidParker-cf2km]

@@BoasNovastraduzidas Isaiah wasn't the least bit concerned about the shape of the earth. Read Isaiah.

[@DavidParker-cf2km]

@@BoasNovastraduzidas Your interpretation. Isaiah was being what God's prophets were - prosecuting attorneys, warning the apostate people of the consequences of disobeying God, informing them what was going to happen to God's enemies who attacked, etc., not conducting astronomy lessons. "In general, the Bible uses correct but equivocal phenomenological language on many scientific subjects, as we do today because speaking strictly scientifically would drive us all crazy. There is no reason to be so pedantic that we cannot use the shorthand “sunrise” and “sunset” for example, even though we all know the sun is only appearing to move because the earth is spinning. But even if we have learned a few things about science over thousands of years, the purpose of the Bible is not to be a science book. Instead, it is a history book that points us to Jesus Christ, the Saviour. Thus, it should be understandable to both ancient and modern people, in line with the doctrine of perspicuity of Scripture (i.e., the Bible is understandable). It should also not be wrong when it delves into science, but we should not expect to learn a great deal on many scientific subjects from within its pages. Clearly, the earth was created in a short space of time a few thousand years ago. And clearly, the universe did not arise through naturalistic means. But most of the details have been left to us to discover, in a sense “thinking God’s thoughts after Him” as the great astronomer and dedicated Christian, Johannes Kepler, said. Also, we need to read different Bible passages according to this grammatical and literary context. While the psalms, for example, do contain some historical information, one does not treat a psalm in the same way as a passage from one of the historical books (e.g., Genesis or Judges). See further explanation in Is the raqîa’ (‘firmament’) a solid dome? and Is the ‘erets (earth) flat?. Many of the supposed flat-earth passages are from poetic books that are not meant to be taken literalistically. An important consideration is what “earth” (אָ֫רֶץ ‘erets) means in the Bible, and it can mean different things depending on context. For example, in Genesis 1:1, “earth” the planet is being discussed, in contrast to the heavens. But on Day 3, God made dry land appear and called it “earth”, in contrast to the waters that he called “seas”. And in Exodus 20:8-11, it explains that God made the whole created order in the six days of Creation Week, contrasting the earth with both the heavens and the seas, making it an all-encompassing merism.2 When it comes to the verses cited by flat-earthers, we should understand that the passages are likely to be talking about the land, not the planet. Finally, if you are not in a position to check the original language of Scripture, at least check multiple English versions. If a reading is found in only one, and that one is being cited by a flat-earther, it is probably cherry-picked. The list of “200” verses that supposedly support a flat earth can be grouped into at least three classes, each of which displays a different error on the part of flat-earth supporters. We have kept the “200” but re-ordered them. Class 1: verses that have nothing to do with the flat-earth argument. In classical terms, these are called non sequiturs, or “does not follow”. Class 2: verses that are ambiguous in relation to the shape of the earth, i.e. using equivocal language. A proper analysis would require a decent knowledge of ancient languages and the context, or at least a careful reading of scholarly sources that discuss the passage in question. Class 3: verses that involve a misreading of non-modern English terminology in some older versions, often cherry-picked. In classical terms, this is called lying. This is actually being generous, because most fall into multiple fallacies not just one!" creation.com/refuting-flat-earth

[@BoasNovastraduzidas]

@@DavidParker-cf2km this is a fallacious website. When it comes to Isaiah 40:22, they forgot to mention Isaiah 22:18. It just seems that you arbitrarily chooses what is worthy of trusting and what is not. The Bible does not need your help to be trustworthy. It does not need the so called science feedback of false information. Like it or not, the Bible is a flat and young earth book, bro.

[@WillboeBagins]

Is this the first recorded formulation of the Quranic dillema? 1:40:08

[@johnspartan98]

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. *For although they knew God,* they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but *their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.* Although they claimed to be wise, *they became fools* and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. Romans 1:18-32 I know.....it's all foolishness to those who are *perishing*

[@johnspartan98]

@ The God of the Bible. Every other god is a false God.

[@samc1432]

Rusty Writer you make a lot of claims. You know that all Gods are man made myths? You have all knowledge?

[@samc1432]

Rusty Writer the most civilized ancient society was “nearly all illiterate”? What history books do you read ?

@@samc1432- you agree with me on the millions of man-made god and godman myths - except that one you were brainwashed into as a child.

[@samc1432]

Rusty Writer the advanced pond goo can reason! What a miracle. Did it feel good to try and attack my character dusty? Turn to Christ while He gives you time

[@Devilock07]

At 42:41 Bahnsen said, "Now, we’re supposed to believe in the evolutionary hypothesis that we have a slow gradual development of what? Two-way lung into one-way lungs over a long, long period of time. Well, the only problem with that is that you got to eventually put an end to the two-way and have the one-way one system functional. Now, how long can most creatures last without air? What are we three, four minutes I think is the upper limit for any creature. Well, I guess maybe it would be longer if you think about whales. But as we know, birds don’t last very long without breathing. Maybe four minutes. Let’s be generous. Just say it’s five. That means we have got to have a changeover from the two-way system of the reptile’s lung to the one-way system of the avian lung in a five-minute period. So, if you don’t have that, the creature that we’re talking about dies." Anyone who doesn't see the fundamental error Bahnsen is making here does not understand a very basic principle of evolution. This demonstrates how little research Bahnsen did to understand evolutionary theory. INDIVIDUALS DON'T EVOLVE. POPULATIONS EVOLVE! Did he really think that no scientist would have figured that out by now if it had to happen the way he suggested? Imagine, Bahnsen really thought that if he could present this problem to Gould or Dawkins, they would be like, "Aw man... I never thought about that. You got me there." Bahnsen is such an intellectual and scholarly disappointment in this lecture. He was either horribly ignorant or a liar.

[@gylbard8237]

yes, population evolves, but it has to start at some point, instead of a group of animals all just having it? Eager to hear the correct explanation

[@Devilock07]

@@gylbard8237 "yes population evolves, but it has to start at some point, instead of a group of animals all just having it? Eager to hear the correct explanation." First, thanks for your response. I would like to state that my main intention and focus here is to expose Bahnsen's misinformation on evolution, not to defend the truth of evolution. However, I'm not sure I understand your question. You want me to explain how the avian respiratory system evolved from the reptilian respiratory system? If so, then watch this. kzbin.info/www/bejne/o6C1p4KNfZhjnck

[@gylbard8237]

@@Devilock07 Happy to see your response. My question is that no matter if it is a group of animals or the version claimed by Bahnsen, it seems that you will always need a first guy that got the very mutation. Thus I do not see the significance of emphasizing it is the population that evolves. I think what Bahnsen is doing here is focusing on this very first individual among its population that will supposedly evolve together. What do you think

[@Devilock07]

@@gylbard8237 I don't think the idea that any one individual animal got "THE" mutation is an accurate way to view it. We would have to be talking about gradual change in allele frequency over time within the entire population. That would not be a single individual in a population being born with a different respiratory system, nor would an individual evolve a new respiratory system sometime during its life, as Bahnsen put it. The incremental steps would be so slight that change would be hardly noticeable for many generations, but many hundreds of generations would show much more change over that time. Each generation would be slightly different than the one before, but over a vast number of generations, these differences accumulate.

[@jacobwhitus3715]

@@Devilock07 why would there be a slight change that doesn’t add to the benefit of survivability? Why would there be a change that doesn’t help? And as the change occurs over thousand of years wouldn’t there be a step in that change that would actually encumber the survivability of said creature? Why would a slight change occur if it isn’t needed?

[@offgridislandfamily]

Apparently, 23 people came here looking for cat videos. What kind of morons 'thumbs down' INFORMATION?? LOL!

[@Devilock07]

I'm one of those 23 people. I thumbed down this video because it is full of misinformation.

[@PanhandleFrank]

@@Devilock07 “full of”? What are the three most egregious examples?

[@Devilock07]

@@PanhandleFrank I have been commenting on this video for nearly a decade. Many of my more lengthy responses are no longer in the comments for some reason. Here are a few off the top of my head. Bahnsen's mischaracterization of Gould allegedly admitting that there is no scientific evidence for the theory of evolution. Gould said this about gradualism, the idea that evolution happens at a slow, steady rate. Bahnsen's "evolution of genitalia" scenario, which was supposed to be from an evolutionary perspective in order to demonstrate the absurdity of the theory, is definitely absurd, but it is absurd because Bahnsen did not know what he was talking about. This was probably the best demonstration of his ignorance of the theory he thought he was debunking. According to evolutionary theory, sexual reproduction has been around for around 2 billion years, long before any organisms had genitals. Genitalia evolved later in sexually dimorphic populations as a mechanism for sexual reproduction, long before organisms could be des ribed as "humanoid". When I have time to listen to this and find a third example I will.

[@PanhandleFrank]

@@Devilock07 "According to evolutionary theory" [etc. & so forth] Well, admitting it's a theory is a grand start. Not sure when the Bahnsen lecture was recorded -- late 80s-early 90s, perhaps? But in 2019, Dr. David Berlinski (a secular Jewish mathematician and biologist), Dr. David Gelernter (an Orthodox Jewish computer scientist), and Dr. Stephen Meyer (a Christian and PhD in the History and Philosophy of Science) discussed "Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution." The discussion is on the Hoover Institution's KZbin channel. You might find it to be of interest.

[@Devilock07]

@@PanhandleFrank"Admitting" it's a theory obviously means something to you that it doesn't mean to scientists or me. Evolution is a natural phenomenon. Evolutionary theory is the explanation of the phenomenon. There's also a theory of gravitation. Scientific theories are simply the best explanation for phenomena we have with the information we have. That is why theories change with new information over time.

[@davidr1620]

Even AiG acknowledges speciation occurs. This is why they turn their sights to baraminology because refuting speciation is a fruitless task.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

Speciation is just a branching off process. Nothing new is gained. Both the Evolution model and the Creation model include speciation, so it doesn't prove either model.

[@davidr1620]

@@lightbeforethetunnel I agree. But Bahnsen seems to be skeptical of speciation. That's why I found his lecture very odd.

[@bobmartin6162]

I LOVE Dr. Bahnsen...so I would really like to listen to this video...but I can't stand the background noise / music or whatever it is. Drives me INSANE! I'm interested in what he has to say....not some track to a horror movie.

[@bluecollarfilosophy9819]

further listening makes me think its just poor audio quality. sorry. the information is great...thanks!

[@cronocoffin]

I agree, it's really distracting. Especially the guy who keeps laughing loudly.

[@DavidParker-cf2km]

Track to a horror movie! I hurt from laughing at that one. Someone who knows how may someday provide us with captions. There is never the money to record these seminars professionally. Some old video tape camera with built-in mic that catches everything but the speaker. Nota bene, use a mic on the speaker, headsets and even lapel mics work great.

[@cavabramono916]

does anybody know when and where exactly this took place?

[@michaelwill7811]

Some time during or after 1993 as he mentions the 1993 WTC bombing.

[@Devilock07]

@@michaelwill7811 Good point. And since Bahnsen died December 11, 1995, that's a pretty narrow window.

[@trialbyicecream]

@@Devilock07 I’ve been wondering why he doesn’t have a KZbin channel. (Jk but I didn’t realize he died all the way back then. I figured it was more recent.) he’s so compelling and articulate.

[@Devilock07]

@@trialbyicecream He was a smart guy to have so many credentials, but he has no idea what he is talking about in this lecture. I have been learning about and trying to understand evolution for 15 years, and the more I learn about it, the more I understand just how little I understand about it. Bahnsen did not understand what he was trying to critique. If he had done appropriate research on the topic, as someone with his credentials ought to know how to do, he would have learned just how little he undersrood about it.

[@Spookyjordan]

@@Devilock07 sure, i believe you devilock07. Me? My uncle was an evolutionary biologist and he studied it his entire life, you know what he said on his death bed? "it's all a big lie."

[@eliciavanscyoc6305]

Destroyed it.

[@Gofaw]

Rusty Writer shut the fuck up atheist

[@lukeandrachelbarendse6326]

@Luka K. please state your reference for this. I'd personally like to see where you heard this.

[@lukeandrachelbarendse6326]

@Luka K. thanks! I'll check it out

[@lukeandrachelbarendse6326]

@Luka K. Thanks, I just listened through it around 34 min in Greg is talking about Aristotle and Greg says, "All men know God, and in that sense, Aristotle had a Christian world view in that sense" so he wasn't actually saying, Aristotle was a born again believer, but someone who's world view parallels the Christians world view. kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3mZY3aFjJKknZI

[@lukeandrachelbarendse6326]

@Luka K. I see what you mean. I don't think Bahnsen was at all making the claim that the Christian worldview has been around in the sense that Christianity has been around. I think what he's meaning is that the Christian worldview comes from God, Who always has been, therefore, historically speaking, this worldview is both before and after Christ and Christianity. It's timeless. I think that's what he meant.

[@carinabakewell2311]

Very good and helpful, I have only one problem, he gives the impression that The God of the Bible is the same as Ala and he isn't....the God Ala is the moon God and cannot be confused with the triune God of the Bible.

[@michaelwill7811]

As previously mentioned "Allah" is the Arabic word for "God." Islam believes in the same deity, the God of Abraham. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant or suffering from some type of bias. Many of the same historical figures that are important within the Christian religion are important in Islam as well: Cain, Abel, Noah, Moses, Jeremiah, Daniel, Mary (the mother of Jesus) and Jesus are some of the more notables, according to Islam. The most important difference is that Islam believes Jesus is an important prophet, but not the Son of God as He is known to Christians. Interestingly, they *do* believe that He will return to the Earth one day to deliver justice.

[@johndeoliveira8476]

Dd S why are you getting so emotional did an theist hurt your feelings?

[@spiritofelijah5386]

@Dd S Thanks for all your insightful replies, they help us validate exactly what scripture says is true.

[@DavidParker-cf2km]

@Dd S Assumption is a logical fallacy. Idiots believe the universe created itself and that inert matter spontaneously came to life

[@bellakhokhar5621]

Brilliant! Answer the fool according to his folly.

[@Devilock07]

Bahnsen made up straw-men in this lecture, then answered the "fools" he fabricated from his own imagination.

[@DEAD4LIVE]

@@Devilock07 what was the straw man?

[@Devilock07]

@@DEAD4LIVE Hello! Thanks for asking this question. I think Christian's should be committed to the truth even when it involves accurately representing your opponents. I have posted a lot of examples in the comments on how Bahnsen misrepresented the theory of evolution, then defeats that version of the theory he presented. I also have some posts about how he and his sources have taken Gould out of context. He conflates the assumption of gradual, steady change with evolution itself, then says Gould admitted that the theory as a whole is not scientific, when Gould was speaking about gradualism, not evolutionary theory itself. Bahnsen presented the most ridiculous concept of the evolution of sexual dimorphism... completely made up nonsensical twaddle... then shows how ridiculous the idea is. I agree it is ridiculous, but it is not correct to begin with, so it is a straw man he has defeated. Theres a few examples, there are probably more. That's just off the top of my head.

[@DEAD4LIVE]

@@Devilock07 u said alot but u didnt state what kind of evolution u want him to talk about. There are many aspects to the theory and alot of scientist disagreements with each other, hence it is still a theory.

[@Devilock07]

@@DEAD4LIVE "u said a lot but u didnt state what kind of evolution u want him to talk about." There is one evolutionary theory.

[@Devilock07]

At 9:00, Bahnsen paraphrases Michael Denton: To get a cell by chance would require at least 100 functional proteins to appear simultaneously in one place. This is another creationist misunderstanding or possible lie about evolutionary theory; that the theory even says that cells randomly came together by the chance grouping together of proteins. The origin of life is believed to be something like a self-replicating enzyme; a molecule, not a fully functioning cell. Another falsehood is to equate the randomness of mutations with the evolutionary process itself. Natural selection is not random. Bahnsen even says as much, but then explains in more detail without this point.

[@gregb6469]

If "natural selection" is not random, then it must be a result of deliberate thought and planning. Deliberate thought and planning requires a thinker/planner. Who is doing this thinking and planning? Do you deify Mother Nature?

[@Devilock07]

Greg B Why must natural selection be the result of deliberate thought and planning simply because it is not plain chance? evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32

[@gregb6469]

Because there is no third alternative.

[@Devilock07]

Greg B We don't need a third option. You're claim is that if natural selection is not random chance then it MUST be the result of deliberate thought and planning, which rules out a third option even if there was one available. Suppose there are 2 deer running from a wolf pack. Due to slight differences in their inherited traits received from their parents, one deer is slightly longer-legged and faster than the other. Because of this difference within that environment where they are running from wolves, the shorter, slower deer gets caught and eaten. Like natural selection, the genetic factors in the deer coupled with the environmental pressure yielded a non-random result.

[@gregb6469]

I'm not getting your point. You said in your OP that natural selection is not random. My point is that if it is not random then it must be the result of deliberate thought and planning, which necessarily involves a thinker/planner. My question is, "who is this thinker/planner?" Your illustration of wolves and deer misses the point, because it does nothing to explain beginning of life itself, or the development/emergence of new species [faster deer are still deer]. Even with your wolves and deer illustration random chance still plays a role, because the longer-legged deer could by chance trip over a tree root, fall, and be captured by the wolf, while the slower deer gets away.

[@DavidParker-cf2km]

It amazes me that functional illiterates who cannot spell, do not follow the rules of grammar, cannot distinguish among homonyms, and have a very limited vocabulary, pretend that they can sit in judgement of Dr. Bahnsen. Dr. Bahnsen majored in philosophy when it was necessary to be a bright and well educated student to even be accepted into the program at USC. He specialized in epistemology, the philosophical theory of knowledge - how can anyone know that they know what they know? Dr. Bahnsen never lost a debate as he continually advanced the theology of Dr. Cornelius van Til and his presuppositional apologetics, the most powerful philosophical argument of the Christian church. One case in point is the idiot who writes "It is the raining dogma in our culture" thinking to mock Dr. Bahnsen. This idiot likely never even heard the word "dogma" before he heard Bahnsen say it. He doesn't even know what the word means, simultaneously proving Dr. Bahnsen's point and not even realizing he proved Bahnsen's point. Such people are obviously unfamiliar with the rules of logic as well as grammar and homonyms. They are not even remotely capable of following a logical argument, they don't even listen to the video, and yet they comment accusing Dr. Bahnsen of logical fallacy. Such people don't even know what a logical fallacy is. The only thing to be said of such people is that they will believe anything except the fact that God created the physical universe and all living things.

[@DavidParker-cf2km]

As if you had a clue. Bahnsen is a saint. Also, it is logically inconsistent for you, an atheist, to call anyone "evil". Good and evil are defined by God, who you attempt to reject. Atheism is completely amoral: God defined ethics / morality, God declares what is good and what is evil. Bahnsen is a disciple of Cornelius van Til who advanced presuppositional apologetics. You are completely ignorant of what the Reconstruction movement proposes. It is nothing more nor less than the United Reformed Church with postmillennial rather than amillennial eschatology. Comparing any Christian denomination with Islam is ridiculous. Islam is a satanic fabrication, "sharia" is as transparent a fabrication as is "Allah". The entirety of scientific advances and the resulting technological revolution are the result of Christianity. Civilization is nothing more or less than applied Christianity. Christianity alone espouses individual liberty and personal accountability and the inherent value of human life because man is created in the image and likeness of God. Cornelius van Til, RJ Rushdoony, Gary North, Greg Bahnsen, James Jordan, Kenneth Gentry, Otto Scott, et al., - reconstructionists all - are exceptionally well educated men, conversant in Christian theology and history, all of which you are not. You have no foundation whatever for your comments which are merely an expression of ignorant hatred and bile you inherit from your spiritual father the devil.

[@LuciferAlmighty]

So you attack the person and not their argument... good job of running from the argument. Evolution is a fact a philosophical argument doesn't change the evidence for evolution nevermind his argument is one giant strawman, he got so much wrong it's sad really.

[@chrismathew2295]

@ The glaring issue with your 'complaint' is that it assumes that there is a standard of justice and morality apart from God's unchanging law. There is a perspicuous dichotomy here: Theonomy (God's Law) or Autonomy (Self Law). Greg Bahnsen and other Christian reconstructionists are attempting to restore God's law, or theonomy, here on Earth. The question is, is their aim right and just? For sure. On what basis do you say that his views of social justice are 'horrific' and 'evil'? Any conclusion produced by autonomous reasoning is bound to utterly fail.

[@lewis8332]

Jerry Writer what does that have to do with biblical law? Jesus wouldn’t of done that and he is the example Christians should follow. Don’t use the evil of one man to represent Christianity.

[@DavidParker-cf2km]

@ Why are you upset that Paul Hill, who is not a Theonomist (Bahnsen's term) or Reconstructionist (R.J. Rushdoony's term), shot an abortionist? To the atheist, there is nothing whatever wrong with murder. I wonder how many "needless deaths" the abortionist caused? Needless deaths as in the Bolshevik slaughters, Stalin's genocide of the Ukrainian Kulaks, Mao's massacre of some 60,000,000 of his fellow men and all in the last century? Genghis Khan was also a mass murderer. This is where atheism has always led. The US is in its present state of decline due to atheists instituting their religion of secular humanism.

[@AsixA6]

Wow! This guy has no clue what he’s talking about.

[@mrhartley85]

:)

[@joshdavidian]

this is awesome thanks for posting

[@Massolgy]

when does he debate Islam?

[@gregb6469]

Starts around the 1:10 mark.

[@carinabakewell2311]

Well considering Darwin was a Freemason..in our day what he did in the 19th century makes sense...make everybody lose faith in God Almighty.

[@Devilock07]

Responding to @Chad Snyder from another thread that reached its comment limit: "if I gave you all the evidence in the world would you ever Believe in Jesus Christ as Your God and savior from sin and repent and trust Him? Or do you flat out deny the divine authority of the Word?" That all depends on some other factors. If I grant that Christianity is true, then a lot of other things contingent on that must also be true. First, I don't believe the bible is divine, but if you presented sufficient evidence that it is divine, that Jesus really is the Son of God, and that he rose from the dead, then, in any other situation I think that would be enough to convince me it is true, and belief would necessarily result. But, if the bible is true,I should not be capable on my own power through reason and evidence alone of coming to a true salvific faith, believing in Jesus Christ as my savior from sin, and truly repenting of my sin and trusting in Him in my own power by reason and evidence alone. If it is all true, then true salvation and repentence would not simply be a rational belief based on evidence; it would be a gift from God, which would be up to him to grant to me. All the evidence in the world wouldn't be necessary for God to just reveal the truth to me by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit could draw me to Christ right now without all of that evidence, and would succeed in doing so. I'm just making the point that if the biblical God exists and he sent Christ to die for my sin so that I could be with him forever, he would not fail to do what he planned, and he alone would be the author and finisher of my faith regardless of whether I had all the evidence in the world or not because the Spirit would change my heart and my mind by revealing the truth of the Gospel to me in a way only he can. Reasoning from evidence alone can't get me there. It requires a literal intervention by God for anyone to understand and truly believe. Belief aside from that work of God is a general faith, but not sufficient for salvation. So, if you presented me with evidence, I would likely have my mind changed. I can't say that the Holy Spirit would draw me to Christ in an effective, salvific way.

[@wretch1]

Muslims claim that only God is eternal, yet they claim that the Quran is the word of God and is eternal. If I buy a Quran and burn it to ash, does the word of God cease to exist? They may answer by claiming that the Quran I bought wasn't actually the eternal word, but just a printed copy of it. Yet the Muslim cannot see how Jesus can be the eternal God and yet die on the cross and then be resurrected. What if (by way of analogy) Christ is the eternal word and his human nature and body are the pages on which it has been written?

[@DavidParker-cf2km]

If God is not, which is the central part of the atheist materialist's worldview, and if scientists find evidence that the universe had a beginning and is now in constant motion, then how did it begin? Origins is the crux of the argument. Evolution is an invention of atheists to explain a godless origin of the universe and living things. To counter the common belief throughout history that God does indeed exist, and not only exists but created the physical universe and all living things, modern atheist materialists invented the notion of evolution and pasted the label "scientific" on that notion. However, science is 100% based on cause and effect relationships, deals with observable phenomena, and so cannot bolster the Godless creation posited by atheist materialists. Bahnsen messed up the analogy on top soil. A mistake in a speech does not validate the notion that evolution explains how the physical universe and living things came to be. For the record, there are no "intermediate" fossils because there never were "intermediate" creatures that could die, get covered quickly, and be fossilized by the flood of Noah's day. Only created kinds died in that worldwide flood. Very simple. Archaeopteryx, regardless of the evolutionist etymology of the name, regardless of spectacular media claims, never retracted, was 100% bird, no "transition" at all. Archaeopteryx is the evolutionist's poster child for the "transitional" creatures. What is really laughable is that everyone snickers at the thought of people long ago bowing down to stone idols and believing in pantheons of anthropomorphic gods, yet they are willing to believe that chance is a creative force.

Which god? Humans have worshipped millions of them. The bible god was invented by men 4,000 years ago in a multi-billion year old universes. Bahnsen had no comprehension of evolutionary biology. He was a mere propagandist.

[@DavidParker-cf2km]

"Which god?" You are not original. You merely join a huge number of equally ignorant and dim witted people who cannot and will not discern reality. Man did not "invent God": God created the physical universe and all living things for mankind, his culminating creation. The one and only God the Father to whom you are going to answer when he ends your mortal existence. There is no such thing as "evolutionary biology". Biology got along quite nicely without an evolutionist framework being imposed on it. Evolution has added nothing to the physical sciences. Rather it hinders thought and research as everything must be interpreted according to its "emperor's new clothes" fabrications. "Evolutionists tend to lump all opponents of materialistic ‘science’ under the same category, whether they call it ‘creation science’ or ‘intelligent design,’ ignoring the profound differences among the various camps. As a result, they make some outlandish claims that simply do not apply to Bible-believing Christians. For instance, Scientific American attacks ‘creation science’ because it promotes some shadowy intelligence that is beyond scientific inquiry and that offers few answers to scientific questions: Intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligences?) Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life’ history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. [SA 85] In reality, the founders and leaders of modern ‘creation science’ base their views on the Bible, believing it is God’s inspired account of history given to mankind. It is wrong to confuse this group with other, more recent advocates of ‘intelligent design’ who wish to avoid all appeals to biblical authority. Christians don’t advocate just any ‘designer’ who may or may not be capricious. Rather, they identify the Designer with the faithful triune God of the Bible. We base our science on the biblical framework of history, which provides much information about when and how the Designer performed special acts of design. That is, during creation week about 6,000 years ago, He created distinct kinds of creatures. Shortly after that, Adam sinned and brought death and mutations into the world. About 1,500 years later, God judged the world by a global Flood that produced most of the world’ fossils. But two of every kind of land vertebrate (seven of the few ‘clean’ ones and birds) were rescued on an ocean-liner­sized ark. After they landed on the mountains of Ararat, the ark animals migrated and diversified, adapting to different environments-including some speciation. Mankind disobeyed God’s command to fill the earth, and migrated only when God confused the languages at Babel about 100 years later. This explains why human fossils are higher in the post-Flood fossil record than other mammals. Evolutionists often attack advocates of intelligent design for perfectly admissible types of logical arguments (which evolutionists also use). For instance, Scientific American condemns advocates of intelligent design because ‘they pursue argument by exclusion-that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain.’ [SA 85] This is not wrong. It is simple logic, called the law of the excluded middle.2 Evolutionists from Darwin to today have used the same tactic, i.e., ‘God wouldn’t have done it that way, therefore evolution must explain it.’ It’ notable that Darwin often used pseudo-theological arguments against design rather than direct arguments for evolution. But this form of argument presupposes the ‘two-model approach,’ i.e., that creation and evolution are the only alternatives, so evidence against creation is evidence for evolution. Ironically, many evolutionists scream loudly if creationists use this same form of logic to conclude that evidence against evolution is support for creation! Scientific American goes on to claim: Logically, this is misleading: even if one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. [SA 85] This attack overlooks the obvious fact that the ‘intelligent design’ arguments are based on analogy, a common scientific procedure, about what we can observe being produced by intelligent and unintelligent causes. There is nothing wrong or ‘misleading’ about that approach. The article continues with another misleading objection: Moreover, it does not make one intelligent-design theory more reasonable than another. Listeners are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituting their religious beliefs for scientific ideas. [SA 85] Here Scientific American is accusing their opponents of doing something that evolutionists do all the time. Editor John Rennie has no objection to substituting (and confusing) his own atheistic religious ideas for scientific ones, but he finds it offensive when other people’ religious ideas are brought into the discussion!" creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-1-argument-creationism-is-religion-not-science

[@DavidParker-cf2km]

Bahnsen knew more about everything including the physical sciences (except your personal fetishes, avarices, and depravities) than you ever will. There is general revelation - the physical universe and all living things - about which you know very little if you maintain it just popped into existence without cause - and there is special revelation which is the Christian Bible in which God reveals himself to his creature man. You have no proof whatever of the age of the universe. There is no such thing as "evolutionary biology". There was biology and then evolutionists attempted to impose their interpretation upon biology contributing absolutely nothing to the discipline of biology. No advancement in understanding, no prediction, nothing except an eligibility for a research grant from the NSF for promoting the state religion of evolution.

[@DavidParker-cf2km]

Bahnsen understood "science" - the use of logic to understand physical mechanisms in a rational cause and effect universe - perfectly well. You, on the other hand, are too ignorant to even participate in a discussion of Bahnsen's lecture, much less sit in judgment of Bahnsen. You believe what you want regardless of logical argument and that puts you in the category of too stupid to communicate. You are nothing but a parrot blurting out what you do not understand with the exception that the parrot does not pretend to any wisdom or knowledge. It is no lie to point out that you have utterly no understanding of what you hope to criticize - your only hope is to confuse, not enlighten, to obfuscate rather than clarify and you are too stupid to realize the concept you hope to argue is indefensible. Further, as a Christian, the truth is what sets me free from the lies that entangle you. Guess what? You will meet God face to face when God so determines: All your bluffing will vanish as you face eternity.

[@DavidParker-cf2km]

I put science in quotes because of people such as yourself who use the word constantly and have not a clue what it means. The scientific method starts with assuming the universe is orderly and there is a cause for every effect - observed phenomena -, hypothesizing what caused the phenomena, designing an experiment to weed all known variables, experiment, arrive at some conclusion regarding the data, all in a quest to discover the laws of the orderly universe. When apparent theories and laws are identified and quantified, the process is repeated to test the theories and laws that govern the universe. So, "science" is merely a word you assume refutes Christianity. Bahnsen demonstrates that Christianity is essential to scientific research and technology. You choose to ignore the evidence and spew out a lot of atheist dogma that cannot be logically defended. Also, Bahnsen made it a point not to be indoctrinated lest he become such an irrational creature as you are.

[@LuciferAlmighty]

The chance of life forming is 1 to 1, even if it was 1¹⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰ it still can happen. It can only be impossible if the odds are 0 and 0 only.

[@lukeandrachelbarendse6326]

...............................wow.................................

[@rickyachaval2016]

Hahahaha, you are a fool...

[@Detson404]

Don’t play their game. They don’t understand probability. It’s not like there was one single process trying again and again to make some amino acid. There would have been a lot of chemistry going on in parallel… because it’s chemistry and molecules are tiny. There’s 1.5 sextillion molecules in a drop of water. I don’t know what chemistry created the building blocks of life but I expect there were quite a bit more than one drop of water’s worth involved.

[@michaeliler9954]

4:28 rebuttal is, the balance is man and woman think different in nature, but not in spirit. I believe Christianity is a good moral code. The scare is we go Benjamin Button and start going backwards without someone being the opposite, without hate there is no love. mo mento mori, right? carpe diem via mo mento mori, and vise versa?

[@michaeliler9954]

,And if the world's moral code lives around Christianity; the earth will take care of its self right? The problem is anomalies happen...

[@Detson404]

How is his faulty understanding of probability and abiogenesis relevant to evolution? He really doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

[@TheGreatWaldoPepp]

what I'm having trouble with is that if we are dealing with probability and you have let's say one chance in ten billion that X could be the case then there's absolutely nothing to say that this 1 out of 10 billion could not happen the first time verses having to wait 10 billion years or however long for X to be the case... In other words if you have one chance in ten well the first shot could be it ...you don't necessarily have to wait 10 of whatever for X to be the case.

[@pocketaces6762]

the number quoted is so astronomically small that it is essentially zero. In theory, anything that is not an absolute zero has a chance of occurring but in our universe which follows the rules of mathematics some things just wont happen. In theory i can win the mega millions jackpot 5 times in a row. The probability isnt an absolute zero but for all practical purposes, given the odds, it just wont happen. Now back to the mathematical odds of the proteins randomly forming a cell, the odds given are so small that we can essentially rule out the possibility of that scenario occurring. Its much much more likely that another scenario took place.

[@TheGreatWaldoPepp]

+Pocket Aces. I understand probability but you're only speaking of one chance and so many that one can happen at any time. I don't believe in chance I just believe in the will of God and how he operates however since he's consistent there's predictability.

[@Devilock07]

Why does Bahnsen think that evolutionists think a fully formed cell assembled from non-living matter? The "beginning of life" is believed to possibly be self-replicating enzymes, not a whole cell forming all at once. That is ridiculous even to an evolutionist, I would think.

[@1seanv]

Bacteria is considered to be the first organism. Bacteria are incredibly complex. How do you go from basic chemicals to an incredibly complex bacteria by chance?

[@TheGreatWaldoPepp]

Devilock07 He doesnt. in a naturalist worldview there WAS in the beginning inorganic matter. material doing what it does subject to the laws of physics. Then allegedly inorganic material somehow gave rise to organic things. It is an unscientific claim. We have NEVER observed such a thing nor have we found it in nature nor can we reproduce such conditions/results in a lab. Its something that by nature is a religious claim.

[@Devilock07]

1:02:24 Bahnsen said of Darwin’s theory of natural selection incorrectly describing it as survival of the fittest, “The theory is simply not a scientific theory. It’s a way of looking at the world. And it's not defended by scientific evidence. Gould already admitted that.” This is incorrect!!! Gould said the idea that evolution happens gradually was an assumption not supported by the evidence. He said there are few examples of transitional forms at the species level, but there are plenty above the species level. He did not say that evolution itself is not supported by the evidence. Punctuated Equilibrium challenges gradualism, not evolution by natural selection. If Gould did admit that there is no evidence for evolution, one might wonder why he would continue defending it and why he would publicly comment on how creationists have taken his comments out of context.

[@DavidParker-cf2km]

It is no wonder that an atheist would continue to be an atheist. Gould, like Dawkins and Pinker, are paid performers. That is how they got their tenure. Atheists are, by definition, atheists and cannot accept any evidence that says God did it because they, like you, unconsciously reject that is even a possibility. It isn't as though they carefully considered whether 6,000 years fits better than 16 billion. They recognize, at least to the extent microbiology was developed in their lifetimes, that a cell is extremely complex, and automatically assume that means some completely unknown random processes over billions of years is possible. That does not explain how anything came to life, but an evolutionist can rationalize anything including black magic, as long as the rationalization denies that God created the earth, the universe, living things, and mankind.

[@Devilock07]

@@DavidParker-cf2km Hey there. My comment was addressing Bahnsen's mischaracterization of Gould. Whether I or anyone being referenced by Bahnsen or myself is or isn't an atheist is irrelevant. However, I reject the majority of your mischaracterizations of myself and others, including your generalization of all atheists as though they all are evolutionists, and all evolutionists are atheists. This is simply false. There are plenty of scientists who are not atheists who also accept evolution.

[@DavidParker-cf2km]

@@Devilock07 All atheists reject the fact that God created the earth, the universe, living things, and mankind in six days about 6,000 years ago. The atheist religion of evolution is by default the religion of all atheists. The pseudo-scientific veneer of evolution made it a wildly popular new religion in 1859 and ever since among the majority population of atheists. Darwin wasn't even a scientist, the concept of evolution was not even his own, famous merely because he beat his competition to the press.

[@Devilock07]

@@DavidParker-cf2km All atheists at least do not accept the proposition that God exists. Atheists do not accept the assertion that it is a fact that God exists. There is nothing about being an atheist that requires believing evolution. Weather Darwin was a scientist or not makes no difference. We have come a long way since Darwin. It is no secret that evolution was not Darwin's idea. Natural selection was his and Wallace's contribution, independently arrived upon. I don't know what you mean about Darwin beating his competition to the press. They agreed to publish together. None of this matters to the status of the theory of evolution today.

[@Devilock07]

28:53 Bahnsen said, "..and we're supposed to believe that somehow there's a pathway from cell-division as a way of having offspring to copulation as a way of having offspring, and all of that by chance over billions of years." NO! Natural selection and other mechanisms of evolution are not by chance.

[@thenintendudes2046]

Isn’t Darwin’s Theory Natural Selection acting on RANDOM mutations? Sounds a bit like chance.

[@Devilock07]

The Nintendudes Mutations are random, but natural selection is not. evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32

[@drummerboy737]

@@Devilock07 How can natural selection not be random? lol the process is one of survival and he already made the point that animals migrate and environments dictate conditions for mortality

[@Devilock07]

@@drummerboy737 Hey there. Forgive me, but I don't understand what you are talking about. What do you mean by "random"? Here is what I mean, or better yet, what scientists mean when they talk about it, at least in an evolutionary context. evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/glossary/glossary_popup.php?word=random With that definition of random, here is how natural selection is not random. evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/misconcep_05 I'm not sure what you mean by "the process is one of survival," and "he already made the point that animals migrate and environments dictate conditions for mortality." If you could elaborate a little, I might catch on. Thanks!

[@milkshakeplease4696]

Let's say the fittest wolves are out hunting. The weak wolves are hiding in a cave. A virus comes and wipes out the the fit wolves who are hunting. The weak wolves are not exposed to the virus and thus are not killed by it. Following the logic of darwin worshippers, the weak wolves hiding in the cave are the "fittest." Except they'll quickly die out because they can't live without the fit wolves hunting for them. And a scenario such as this wouldn't be by chance? The materialist worldview is self-refuting, and atheists don't live their lives as if only the material exist (they presuppose the laws of logic, numbers, the past, and the continued reliability of the physical laws, etc). Little do they know, they live by faith, too. Don't judge a person by their words, judge them by their actions.

[@California1973-o1d]

Total ignorant nonsense. And evolution is not a hypothesis, it's a scientific theory, with so much confirming evidence as to make it a fact. Bahnsen was also a young earth creationist, who believed the planet is only a few thousand years old, which is easily refuted. And the ID advocates he quotes I guarantee believe the Earth is billions of years old, whatever their views on evolutionary biology.

[@CCP-Lies]

The 82nd element, lead disproves young earth creationism. Uranium-238 takes billions of years to decay into Lead

[@Devilock07]

The singular form of species is also species, not specie.

[@yahweh247]

Devilock07 is the Holy Spirit working in your heart?

[@Devilock07]

@@yahweh247 Hello. With all due respect, whether the Holy Spirit is working in my heart or not has nothing to do with what I am discussing here. If you disagree, please elaborate. Thanks!

[@DavidParker-cf2km]

There are no "intermediate fossils" also known as "transitional forms". The announcement of the fakes creates enough headlines, an actual one would be like discovering life on Mars. Remember Lucy? The ape touted as a human for so long then quietly dismissed. It got Donald Johansen some money to keep digging. Remember Haeckel's embryos ( creation.com/haeckel-fraud-proven )? How did Haeckel's fraud benefit him? Where is the great benefit of a supposedly purposeless universe where anything goes? Why do evolutionists defend their religion so vociferously? Cognitive dissonance can explain some of the passion - they have absolutely nothing to gain from such a stance yet contribute time and energy to the point the fight alone becomes their strange reward until they die and face reality.

[@LuciferAlmighty]

Macro evolution is a demonstrated fact.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@@LuciferAlmighty nope! Care to demonstrate?

[@LuciferAlmighty]

@@michaelreichwein3970 the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@@LuciferAlmighty en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position. Holder of the burdenEdit When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1] This is also stated in Hitchens's razor. Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion, the Sagan standard, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".[2] This has been explained to you many times and it's straight from the internet! So you're either stupid or argumentative or a little of both! So.... since you are claiming that macro-evolution is a fact ......demonstrated it! I will wait....................

[@milkshakeplease4696]

@@michaelreichwein3970 look at his username. Atheists hate God the same way the devil does. Let them. I got into it with an atheist once, and he admitted to me if Jesus appeared to him he would try and spit in his face. You cannot reason with them.

[@Devilock07]

29:50 Bahnsen asks, "Why did genitalia develop when they weren't being used for reproduction?" Well, the assumption being made here is that genitals came before sexual reproduction. As I understand it, sexual reproduction came first. Genitals evolved because organisms were already reproducing sexually.

[@gregb6469]

How can there be sexual reproduction without sexual organs?

[@gregb6469]

Is it assumed that this form of reproduction preceded the development of sexual organs? If this method worked okay, why would sexual organs have developed/evolved at all? It makes much more sense to say the God created both types of reproduction, giving to each creature the form best suited to it.

[@JRRodriguez-nu7po]

Development of sexual organs as a general concept is not a problem for macroevolution. However, when the specifics are considered explanations fail. Many similar contra macroevolution arguments are put forth which are weak, such as development of the eye. As a creationist development of sexuality and or organs is a weak argument.

[@Devilock07]

Greg B Well, I'm talking specifically about genitalia, which is what I believe Bahnsen was talking about. I may be wrong, but it appears to me he was talking about penises and vaginas and the act of intercourse or copulation. Many fish simply excrete their eggs and/or sperm into the water and fertilization happens in the water. In most if not all bird species I know of both males and females have cloacae, which is “a common cavity at the end of the digestive tract for the release of both excretory and genital products in vertebrates (except most mammals) and certain invertebrates,” according to Dictionary.com. Reptiles, amphibians, monotremes and most fish have cloacae as well. Also flowering plants don't copulate with genitalia yet many of them reproduce sexually.

[@gregb6469]

What do fish, birds, and plants have to do with human reproduction (which I agree is what Bahnsen had in mind)? It all goes back to my earlier question--if adequate reproduction was happening without genitalia, why would such organs have ever evolved? Evolutionists can give no answer, other than "it just happened, how and why we don't know." Sorry, but if they expect anyone to accept that as a proven, unquestionable scientific argument, that's not good enough! From a logical standpoint, it makes far more sense (and it fits in much better with the evidence we have) to say that God created each type of creature with the reproductive method He thought best for it. Inventing just-so stories to try to fill in the gaping holes in the molecules-to-man evolution fairy tale is not science.

[@LuciferAlmighty]

Evolution is not a hypothesis, it's actually a theory... he starts out with a strawman.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

I thought you called it a fact! Now you calling it a theory! If you're going to make up an argument at least be consistent!

[@johnspartan98]

Your comment is a strawman.....dummy.

[@johnspartan98]

@Dd S Your father is the Devil. He likes you because you let him screw with your mind and you are proud of it. You are so lost kid. You are a disgrace to your human father's eyes, but to your spiritual father (the Devil) you are his game.

[@johnspartan98]

@Dd S you are projecting again kid. The strife and divisions are caused by mouthy demonized punks like you. If you kept your mouth shut about things you know nothing about things would go smoother for both sides. All I am doing is defending the word of God against your filthy mouth and demonic lies. You started it fella....and don't ever forget that FACT. If you expect all Christians to sit back and do nothing while you mouth off like a left wing lunatic atheist then you really are delusional. Not on my watch pal. You walked right into this, so suck it up and stop whining like a left wing ANTIFA sissy.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@@johnspartan98 maybe he thinks if he insults you enough you'll just go away!

[@robotrobot4430]

5:34 Kek

[@LuciferAlmighty]

Funny the majority of Christians have no problem with evolution, in fact Christians have helped demonstrate common ancestry.

[@matthewmanucci]

Fail.

[@fiveSolas879]

so truth is by popular consensus now? since when?

[@michaelwill7811]

The majority of Christians (I'd like to see your source for that claim, btw) have no problem with Evolution, as an agent of change... possibly, yes. An explanation for the origin of life? Not a chance.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@@michaelwill7811 The sources come from his imagination!

[@Detson404]

@@michaelwill7811Yes because that’s another topic entirely.

[@LuciferAlmighty]

Wow, evolution hasn't helped science... well it sure helped medical science, ever hear of vaccines.

[@goranvuksa1220]

What do vaccines have to do with evolution?

[@Detson404]

@@goranvuksa1220 Honestly I think it’s more the reverse, the ability of diseases to develop resistance through random mutation is more evidence of evolution than vaccines are a product of the theory. We need to constantly make new vaccines because evolution is true.

[@goranvuksa1220]

@@Detson404 but the theory itself didn't help in developing vaccines. If theory was never proposed, vaccines would be developed in the same way regardless. On the other side I have no idea what observed limited adaptatios of organisms have to do with Darwins theory, but that's besides the point.

[@Detson404]

@@goranvuksa1220 I’m agreeing with you on the first bit. The second bit is just cope; changes in a population due to a pressure aka “Natural Selection” is part of Darwin’s Theory, you just don’t like the implications.

[@goranvuksa1220]

@@Detson404 why would I need to cope with it? Until a couple of years ago I fully accepted this theory. But looking at this objectively it makes zero sense. Natural selection is perfectly fine, but only when it has something to select. But these changes have nothing to do with Darwins theory. In labaratory and in the "wild" we have subjected bacteria and virses to unprecedented evolutionary preassure, mimiking tens of millions of years of evolution, and all of these "changes" are either them losing or damaging functional parts or activating functionalities they already had but were not using. Not one example of gain of function (at least in part) can be provided. But to get complexity we can observe, you need constant gain of function, that is just unavoidable. So it seems to me that trying to use these examples to demonstrate the validity of Darwins theory is just coping with the lack of actual evidence.

[@LuciferAlmighty]

Reptiles did not become birds... he really should learn what the theory actually says.

[@lukeandrachelbarendse6326]

Howdy, I was in high school back in the 90's and I remember my biology teacher teaching exactly that, that Reptiles became birds. There has been so many transitions in the evolutionary theory itself where conclusions have changed, it doesn't surprise me that it used to be common thought by evolutionists that Reptiles became birds and in another decade, maybe they'll think that Reptiles became thought or consciousness. It doesn't surprise me. I remember also my teacher saying that evolution teaches racism by definition, because not all humans evolved exactly the same depending on their region, therefore, the idea that racism exists is just a form of selected species. This I somehow agree with, evolution does lend itself to harsh racism.

[@LuciferAlmighty]

@@lukeandrachelbarendse6326 complete ignorance

[@lukeandrachelbarendse6326]

@@LuciferAlmighty LOL ok....

[@lukeandrachelbarendse6326]

@@LuciferAlmighty Also, I just did a google search (for fun) and yeah, there are a lot of scientists that still teach and theorize that reptilian dinosaurs became birds...so are you anti-science bro?

[@LuciferAlmighty]

@@lukeandrachelbarendse6326 clueless babble

All gods are man-made myths, so any claim to a law made by a god is a lie sustained by false assumption.

[@Fuzzawakka]

Oof this guy is an evolution denier. Its hard to take anything he says seriously. He miswell be a flat earther.

[@jarrodmaston2621]

There is irrefutable evidence for a spherical earth, not for macro evolution.

[@drummerboy737]

aha, he basically made his point by your statement. little cheeky bit of irony there.

[@jarrodmaston2621]

​@@drummerboy737 Where does my statement support his point? Where do you get the irony from?

[@drummerboy737]

@@jarrodmaston2621 was talking to the original poster although if you're not a christian I'm not sure how you would claim there is irrefutable evidence

[@jarrodmaston2621]

@@drummerboy737 I am a disciple of Christ.