Can Good Science Start with the Bible? - Dr. Kurt Wise

Critics of young-earth creationism often think that Scripture cannot be used as a starting point for scientific research. Many times, this stems from the idea that science itself is based on non-christian principles. As evidence, critics will point to individuals like Aristole as laying the groundwork for modern science, highlighting his belief in an eternal, self-running, Creator-less universe. In this video, paleontologist Dr. Kurt Wise investigates Aristotle's views on science and what he calls "Aristotle's Intuition."
𝘐𝘴 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘴 𝘏𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺? is a documentary series that reveals how science intersects with the Bible. In over a hundred videos, scientists and scholars explore the evidence for creation in six normal days, a real Adam and Eve, a global Flood, a tower of Babel, plus hundreds of other fascinating aspects of God’s creation. Dr. Del Tackett serves as your guide in this amazing series that has impacted millions of people worldwide.
#kurtwise #creationism #youngearth #aristotle
- - - - - - - - - -
If you want to purchase a copy of the film and our entire library of creation-affirming content, check out the 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦 𝘊𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘉𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘭𝘦 at our website! You can do so by clicking here: bit.ly/2A7Pd2Z.
Don't forget to check out our web store for 15+ hours of videos, books and other resources as well: bit.ly/2A7Pd2Z
- - - - - - - - - -
Also, be sure to browse around our channel. There, you can find videos from our 𝘉𝘦𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘐𝘴 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘴 𝘏𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺? series, as well as in-depth technical lectures given by creation scientists.
- - - - - - - - - -
To find out how you can support our ministry, click the link here:
isgenesishisto...
- - - - - - - - - -
Finally, if you prefer to read articles with a curated video collection, we have lots of free resources at our website: bit.ly/3idgpi7
We hope you enjoy the film!
- - - - - - - - - -
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." Romans 1:20
----------------------------------------------------
✨ Looking to learn more about Genesis and Creation?
🦕 Visit our blog for helpful articles: bit.ly/3d306R1
🍃 Free Videos: bit.ly/3e1HRgc
🌌 Questions & Answers: bit.ly/3d0EG6T

[@Dontquoteme933]

Wow! Thank you so much brother Wise.

[@gregwilkin6565]

Thank you for sharing. :)

[@steveparks2976]

As Christians we are totally dependent upon the word of the living God, the Scripture, the Bible. We are committed to the Word of God as absolutely true, and we are committed to every phrase, and every verse, and every chapter, and every book as having come from God Himself. The only way we can know God and His will is to have it given to us in a way that is unmistakable, and God has chosen to do that in a book, the Bible. Any Christian who disregards the Bible as being less than anything else is doing themselves a huge disservice and it will keep them from growing in their faith. God bless.

[@docsavage30]

Are you committed to the instructions for slavery in the bible, and where do you stand on the various genocides, infanticides and suchlike?

[@VictimAdvocate]

Great lecture, thank you ❤

[@alabamatechwriter6959]

YES : In part because "science" is an assumption about the universe around us, but also because the Bible is our clearest view into the past.

[@stevepierce6467]

Actually, science is very specifically NOT an assumption about the universe. It is the systematic research gathering empirical evidence, study and analysis of this evidence (found already existing in the natural world) and then finally drawing conclusions. Religion is the field you were thinking about that starts with the conclusion, the assumption, and then tries to come up with arguments or possibly some bit of evidence to confirm the conclusion already drawn, the assumption already made.

[@MarSchlosser]

@@stevepierce6467 And it is so amazing that you have blind faith in dark ages scientists. Modern scientific came about because God said, prove things, learn and teach. Nothing about we got a conclusion and gotta work from there. Every science derived from the Bible and secularists have to go to YEC and ID for new theories.

[@stevepierce6467]

@@MarSchlosser I made no mention of dark-ages scientists. I have faith in modern scientists because of their proven track record. They discovered that microbes and not sin are the cause of most illnesses. They discovered (as recently as 1923, a mere 26 years before I was born) that the Milky Way is not the entire universe. They discovered genetics and DNA, airplane flight, electronics for phones, TVs, computers etc. Nobody knows what god said, or even if this god even exists to be able to say anything. It is possible that there is some encouragement for intellectual inquiry hidden somewhere in the bible, but for many centuries the Church, using more commonly known parts of the bible as justification, did its level best to discourage, stifle or even stamp out independent intellectual inquiry. Nearly all modern scientific advances were made, not with the blessing of the Church, but in spite of the Church's best efforts. YEC and ID are constantly being rendered less relevant as we discover more and more real, tangible, verifiable things about our universe. YEC is in fact "the conclusion," drawn from the bible and used as the foundation off of which everything else in religion is built.

[@dagwould]

​@@stevepierce6467 Science has to make assumptions to be possible; but we know from Genesis that we can make valid assumptions about the operation of the material world, because it is created in terms of rational causality (God spoke, it came about). That's why modern science had its flowering from the work of those who took Genesis to be directly descriptive of the creation process and this was definitional of the world as it is: rational, ordered, expressible propositionally and subject to the law of the excluded middle.

[@stevepierce6467]

@@dagwould Hmm. In your mind, "rational causality" = some unproven fantasy figure spoke, so it happened. With exactly equal validity, I can proclaim that Paul Bunyan spoke and it came about. You certainly cannot prove that it did not happen that way. Science makes no assumptions, but rather looks at evidence gathered to see if it leads in any direction toward a possible conclusion. Occasionally scientists will make hypotheses based on some, but scanty, evidence, a guess if you like, about where this line of inquiry could lead. Modern science flowered from the work of people often criticized or even persecuted by the church, precisely because their findings were in direct contradiction to the words of the bible. I think of Giordano Bruno in particular who took Genesis precisely NOT to be directly descriptive of the creation process and its results.

[@MarSchlosser]

Hope all is well with the folks in Georgia. Our prayers are with them. Aristotle? the flat-earther? Hebrews knew the earth is round, and David put it in a Psalm. Flat-earthers laughed at that for 800 years before they realized the peasants were right, the earth is round.

[@christtheonlyhope4578]

Yes, of course. In short, Christians know the Scriptures are God's Word because in them they hear the voice of their Lord.

[@docsavage30]

Have you ever looked into the concept of fallacious logic, and the forms it can take?

[@christtheonlyhope4578]

@docsavage30 yes I hear about it all the time. Especially when I'm talking to someone who believes evolution is true.

[@docsavage30]

@@christtheonlyhope4578 Last I checked, selective pressure still changes population genomes over time, in the lab and otherwise (and evolution has been observed up to and including the species level). Maybe you've had a different experience, or have a different interpretation of the various data streams supporting biological evolution. If so, I'd be interested in understanding your position, so please feel free to share it. Best Wishes, Dr Ian.

[@christtheonlyhope4578]

@@docsavage30 actually elasticity shows us that the operating systems that allow for change in animals operate much like a computer system. Genetic switches that trigger only under certain circumstances and are filled up with codes and information that can only come from an intelligent mind. Do computers have creators? They do, right? Then why would we think that our DNA, which is far more complex than any supercomputer created in this world, not be?

[@samuelrodriguez9199]

Revelation is God's self-disclosure. It is God making Himself known to men. God has revealed Himself in a limited way in creation but the Bible is a form of special revelation. The Bible is "special" revelation in the sense that it goes beyond what may be known about God through nature. It is divine in origin, since in the Bible God makes known things which otherwise could never be known. God bless 🙏

[@alphabeta1337]

Genesis is literally true

[@stevepierce6467]

If we actually had any evidence to support any of the Genesis stories, we could certainly say that it is literally true. Having been brought up christian, I would be the first to join you.

[@HS-zk5nn]

yup exactly

[@bobinindiana]

@@stevepierce6467 Unless you had closed your mind to new scientific discoveries.

[@stevepierce6467]

@@bobinindiana My mind is open to all new scientific discoveries. At the moment, we do not have any scientific way to assess supernatural claims of the kind found in the bible, so I do not expect any new discoveries from that quarter.

[@MarSchlosser]

@@stevepierce6467 Because you closed your mind to modern, 21st century scientists. Secular scientists have proved the creation days are right, but of course do not agree with the timing. Secularists took a closer look at the Grand Canyon after the Little Grand was cut into bedrock in a matter of days. Now, after sneering at YEC for decades, they now agree the Grand was formed rapidly. All sciences came from YEC and ID, and all theories seem to derive from them. Look of Bible foreknowledge. Ask who told the hebrews about things.

[@pokerips6241]

The answer is always “YES, And?”

[@stevepierce6467]

I guess you actually have to understand the meaning of the word "science." Its original meaning is "what you can know" and its more recent technical extension of that meaning is "systematic research and study of empirical tangible evidence that can be seen in our natural world, to be able to say that this is what we know." Science involves verifiable knowledge about the natural world, while religion deals with supernatural beliefs which cannot be verified because there is nothing tangible to study to be able to verify.

[@VanyaD]

@@stevepierce6467 given that science clearly can't figure out the essence of life, because life in itself is intangible and shouldn't exist, we don't have anything but the supernatural to go by. Science is only good, and sometimes not good enough, when it comes to visible things. But beyond that, it can do nothing.

[@ChristisLord2023]

​@@stevepierce6467so, by your own definition, science cannot tell us how old the earth is, how old the universe is, how life began, or how the universe began. Science cannot account for morality, natural order, emotions, or numbers. Science cannot justify its own existence.

[@sciencerules2825]

@@ChristisLord2023 _science cannot tell us how old the earth is_ The Earth is 4.543 BY +/- 50 MY. The age was scientifically determined through isochron dating.

[@alphabeta1337]

@@sciencerules2825 The earth is 6000 years

[@HS-zk5nn]

yes indeed. in fact all the scientific data in question fits with the Bible.

[@sciencerules2825]

Except the 99.99% of scientific facts which don't.

[@alphabeta1337]

​@@sciencerules2825And all the "scientific data" against creation is actually fake or misinterpreted

[@sciencerules2825]

@@alphabeta1337 Right. 99.99% of all the scientific data gathered in the last 150 years is fake or misrepresented. 🤣🤣😂😂😅😅 The cost of the tinfoil for your hat must be astronomical.

[@HS-zk5nn]

@@alphabeta1337 exactly, some data have been misinterpreted. data fit with the Bible. the misinterpretations otoh are just based on fallibility.

[@alphabeta1337]

@@sciencerules2825 All science facts agree with creation and none agree with Evolution. Evolutionists just twist the facts to make their myth look real

[@masada2828]

Who is the Author of the Laws of physics?

[@lisarie6785]

This is one of my favorite channels. Thank you.😊

[@TheSharperSword]

As a PhD in MolBio, and a student of history, I say yes. The Biblical world view permits greater insight when making observations and developing hypotheses.

[@goody8839]

How so? Can you name a scientific hypothesis based on Scripture which was later demonstrated correct? Because I can think of hundreds which were proven wrong.

[@TheSharperSword]

@@goody8839 Yeah. The first video in my playlist, "Evolution is a Laughable Hoax," shows how human genetic diversity today cannot be explained by millions of years, but only by approximately 6000 years of descent from one mating pair based on both Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA comparisons. And secondly, see the videos about the Grand Canyon and young earth geology. Beware, youll never be able to believe in Evolution again after watching the first 5 or 10 videos in said playlist, I'm telling ya. Playlist accessible from my channel page. Your move, expert researcher....

[@goody8839]

@@TheSharperSword There's no way you have a PhD in Molecular Biology with that level of scientific incompetence.

[@sciencerules2825]

@@goody8839 _scientific incompetence_ It wouldn't be a YEC site without some self-proclaimed genius singlehandedly destroying Evolution and its 160+ years of positive consilient evidence from dozens of independent scientific fields. He's probably expecting his Nobel Prize in the mail any day now. 😎

[@nathancook2852]

@@goody8839 I couldn't agree more.

[@MarcelinhoTheRock]

One of The best vídeos of this Channel by Far.

[@jonatasmachado7217]

Very interesting approach. Really challenging current paradigms. A breath of fresh air...

[@mariekolify]

Vielen Dank für all Ihre Bemühungen um Aufklärung und Klärung der Begriffe und Weltsichten. Die Klarheit tut gut.

[@cosmictreason2242]

It MUST Biblical presuppositions are the only foundation that justifies science

[@samburns3329]

Completely false. If all human knowledge were wiped out and people began investigating the world again, in a thousand years religions if they existed at all would be different but our scientific knowledge would have the same facts as today.

[@cosmictreason2242]

@@samburns3329 nope that's not how it happened. Science wasn't developed any time or any place else but where Christianity has permeated the culture

[@sciencerules2825]

@@cosmictreason2242 Correlation does not imply causation.

[@cosmictreason2242]

@@sciencerules2825not the argument being made

[@nathancook2852]

@@cosmictreason2242 I am sorry, but science was developed by the Chinese, Arabs, and ancient Greeks. There was actually very little to absolutely zero Christian influences there.

[@samburns3329]

You have to feel sorry for the creationists here and the massive cognitive dissonance they all experience. They see the amazing progress of modern science all around them every day yet insist that same science must be all wrong when it comes to their literal Genesis religious beliefs. They twist themselves into pretzels trying to cram scientific discoveries into their literal interpretations of scripture not knowing or caring how silly and disingenuous it makes them look.

[@beestoe993]

All hail the primordial soup!! (Do you really think we are supposed to care about the fuzzy images you may harbor of us in your brainwashed mind?)

[@samburns3329]

@@beestoe993 Part of what makes you genuises so adorable is your complete lack of self-awareness. 🥰

[@beestoe993]

@@samburns3329 Nothing but insults. That is the extent of your expertise. Shoo fly.

[@captaingaza2389]

@@beestoe993 Not a single rebuttal from the creatard Just the usual bleet

[@beestoe993]

@@captaingaza2389 Rebuttal to what? Before a rebuttal is necessary you have to actually present an argument. Insults and bluster don't qualify as a a scientific model in the real world silly boy.

[@I...am...becauseIhavetobe]

Hi sir great work. Can you cover the allegory of The Cave by Plato. I asked you this because I wanted to know if you know the Golden question.

[@VernCrisler]

Very shadowy question..

[@I...am...becauseIhavetobe]

@@VernCrisler the best information in the short amount of time nothing shadowy about that

[@inthelightofhisglory9614]

The Bible may not be a science book but it is a history book from God. I'll take God's word over man's word.

[@Bc232klm]

Bible is man's word.

[@docsavage30]

Can a legitimate science journal require that authors sign a statement of faith, prohibiting certain conclusions? Best Wishes, Dr Ian.

[@IsGenesisHistory]

@docsavage30 Thank you for your comment, Dr. Ian. It seems you are suggesting that creation science journals prohibit authors from publishing conclusions that do not align with a young-earth framework. This is simply not true. In fact, peer-reviewed creation science journals actively engage with unresolved challenges in the field. For example, recent papers have addressed Flood geology-related issues like the Clay Consolidation Problem and the Heat Problem (see resources list below). There have even been papers authored by non-young-earth creationists published in creation-affirming technical journals! (see Frello, 2018 and the link to the Clay Consolidation paper.) These are ongoing areas of research that demonstrate the model-building nature of creation science. Geologist friend of the channel, Paul Garner, has even given an entire presentation on unresolved challenges within the Flood model, highlighting the importance of grappling with such questions. Your assertion that creationists ignore difficulties with their models is mistaken. Like every scientific discipline, creation science thrives on addressing unresolved challenges. These challenges drive us to gather new data, formulate hypotheses, and refine testable models. Far from being a weakness, unresolved challenges are an important feature of building positive models of young-earth history. References "Facing the Hard Problems in Creation Geology" by Paul Garner kzbin.info/www/bejne/h4bSpYCZaauFfLcsi=n8X75OtX9xMbKnQR www.creationresearch.org/the-clay-consolidation-problem-and-its-implications-for-flood-geology-models answersresearchjournal.org/heat-problems-flood-models-1/ Worraker, W.J., and R. Ward. 2018. Modeling of Flood and post-Flood ocean floor cooling. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism, ed. J.H. Whitmore, pp. 673-682. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship. digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings/vol8/iss1/15/ Frello, S. (2018). No Replacement of Darwin. Answers Research Journal, 11, 57-62.answersresearchjournal.org/no-replacement-of-darwin/.

[@cliveandersonjr.8758]

Thank you Dr. Wise for your passion, enthusiasm, and wisdom in sharing the Truth of God's Creation. Seeing as many of the fathers of modern fields of Science were Christians, I believe that it is self-evident that a Christian philosophy of science is superior to any other. Kepler, Newton, Boyle, Maxwell, etc. Christianity is the only Realigion.

[@hamiltoncamp]

When does he talk about the title topic?

[@VernCrisler]

Philosophers have generally agreed with Aristotle that perception is veridical -- i.e., cannot be wrong. It's our INTERPRETATIONS of what we perceive that can be right or wrong. If our sensory experience were wildly unreliable, then how could we reliably perceive our Bibles? [Okay, I see what you are saying. Perception is reliable but only on the presupposition that God has created the world and our sensory faculties.]

[@seanvogel8067]

Does the south Atlantic anomaly have some kind of correlation with where the plates sank down?

[@josephholliman6006]

Then who are the contributors to that body of knowledge that fills in the gap between physical observation and biblical data to make a complete philosophy of science based on both observation and biblical scripture?

[@timosaksala4797]

DNA alone is not enough to guide the morfogenesis since DNA codes only the order of aminoacids. There are other laws of created order at play

[@appaloosa42]

DNA actually codes morphogenesis through ordering the shape and function of proteins and generating super-codes recently discovered.

[@timosaksala4797]

@@appaloosa42 Ok, thanks for this correction. So it seems we don't need to resort to Rupert Sheldrake's morphogenetic field

[@angusmackaskill3035]

Yeah,snakes used to be able to talk and used to have legs until god condemned them to slither on their bellies for eternity

[@StanGraham1]

I disagree with Aristotle with regard to the universe being simple: it is not. It is rational. There is an enormous difference.

[@ChristisLord2023]

Good science does start with the Bible.

[@sciencerules2825]

No science of any sort starts with the Bible.

[@ChristisLord2023]

@@sciencerules2825 justify the morality required for scientists to be honest about thier research. Justify the existence of the laws of logic required by science. Justify the law of non-contradiction in a randomly formed universe.

[@sciencerules2825]

@@ChristisLord2023 Humans are a social species and morals are simply evolved social behaviors which aid in the species' survival.

[@ChristisLord2023]

@@sciencerules2825 "blind pittiless indifference" doesn't develop morals. Please explain how caring for grandma aids in the species survival? How about crippled people, in nature they are left to die which aids in the survival of the species. This is a tired old refuted argument.

[@bobinindiana]

⁠@@sciencerules2825Forensic science about the history of the universe can start with the Bible as a history of what happened.

[@michaelbergfeld8751]

Philosophy is interesting, philosophers not. Using too many words they show they're not ripe, however clever. So i try to do better and be simple and fundamental. So non-being being contradiction in terms it simply CAN'T exist. So being is divine, and hence beings creations. Now, if science IS logic, it has an absolute obligation to accept and God and création and reject any other metaphisic starting point. So if they claim Aristoteles they should claim above all the Bible. Exemple: no one ever says to me that the son turns in an orbit which every logic human should comprend because all kinds of planets are drawing it in their turn. So it's very plausible to think that a planet get's trapped in it's orbit. You'll find major strange assertions in Einstein.

[@jacktbugx1658]

You looking for rubber stamp to approve mythological characters which never existed

[@joshuataylor3550]

What? Aristotle not getting everything right literally thousands of years ago doesn't undermine the basic principles of science today 😂. Not even to mention that science is literally there to continually update knowledge with new evidence. Just admit that reality is scary (I agree) and so you take comfort in ancient jewish mythology.

[@detijdlijnserie]

Science is the social and systematic search for coherence in data. Our mathematical brain is designed to build relationships, but when it pertains to the material world is has to work with data and assumptions to build these relations. The secular worldview is in no way superior to a Biblical worldview, it's just constructing theories based on different assumptions. I think many modern secular scientist still grossly overlook their own assumptions. In the end, if a creationist framework works, which it does very well, it has to be taken serious, even if you don't like the assumptions.

[@kurtdejgaard]

Quote: "if a creationist framework works, which it does very well". Answer: Erh... Nope. If a creationist framework (i.e. it's timeline) can be falsified, scientifically - and it has, by very many independent means, both in terms of natural sciences and in terms of archaeology - then that train has reached the end of its line. It is not the job of science to somehow try to make work what has already been falsified - debunked - by scientific means.

[@VernCrisler]

No, science must be more than mere coherence. It's also about correspondence with reality. IOW, we want more than just beautiful theories; we want theories that are true.

[@kurtdejgaard]

@@VernCrisler That can be hard to define. Newton gave is a nice mathematical model for mass attraction. But only with Einstein's theory of General Relativity did we begin to understand what lies behind. That doesn't make Newton wrong (though inaccurate for for example Mercury's path around the sun), but it also doesn't make him right. He didn't give us "a truth". He gave us a formula that we can use and that is universally applicable, providing us reproducible results. So what, then? Well... Science must be rational. That is the one requirement. It can be more or less accurate, but it must be based on rationality - measurable values like weight, density, distance, velocity, temperature etc, that can be objectively measured in a reproducible manner and used to predict outcomes that are in excellent/good/fair agreement with what we actually observe, irrespective of the frame of reference. When you publish your scientific observations and/or findings in a scientific journal, what you implicitly promise the publisher and your peer reviewers is not that your conclusions are correct (no one can promise that), but that your observations are reproducible/that your experiment delivers reproducible results.

[@tmjcbs]

Nope...

[@bufordghoons9981]

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." --Proverbs 9:10 The bible is the foundation by which we can begin to understand the world properly. It is not a science textbook per se, and this is not to say the ungodly cannot have insights or apply the scientific method. Those who do not believe in God may have knowledge of science but they have no understanding. They generate fables to explain and rationalize the creation without a Creator. This is their error, pre-supposing there is no God, which is their starting point and foundation. This is the same starting point as someone declaring 1+1=3. It may be all of the rest of the math may add up correctly when assuming 1+1=3, but although following calculations math may give a "correct" result, the results will be false because the beginning is false. 1+1=3 is false. "There is no creator God" is false. "Humans, both male and female, were not created on the same day" is false. The bible is true. Any "science" that contradicts the Word of God is absolutely 100% false. You cannot evolve a female then millions of years later evolve a male --both male and female would have to evolve within each other's lifespan, an extraordinarily unlikely possibility. This God, by the way, is the one in the Bible. All things were created by The Word (Logos), which is Jesus. "For by him [Jesus] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him" --Colossians 1:16 Evolutionists, for example, declare humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor _fill-in-the-blank_ millions of years ago. They use genetics to justify their claim that humans and apes share a lot of genetic material; therefore, humans evolved from apes. Yes, humans and apes share genetic material, but that is not evidence humans evolved from the lower primates. That is an assumption, a hypothesis which contradicts the Book of Genesis; therefore it is false. Humans have veins; tree leaves have veins. There is DNA --blueprints, which produce veins. There is DNA that produces roundlike structures such as eyeballs and plums. Did we evolve from trees, the plum tree being a distant ancestor? No, as stated in the book of Genesis "In the beginning God created..." God made it all in 6 days.

[@ronaldmansfield.6439]

No.

[@juanara4705]

Los ateos utilizan la lógica aristotélica con la que el Dios cristiano crea y conserva el universo, para rechazar a ese mismo Dios 😂😂😂😂 Son unos necios por rechazar al Dios que tanto les ama. 😢😢😢

[@Morewecanthink]

The Ultimate Proof Of Creation (Dr. Jason Lisle). Not man decides / determines 'truth'. God's Word, the Bible, is Truth (John 17, 17). Genesis 1, 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. - Proverbs 1, 7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. - Colossians 2, 2 ... Christ, 3 in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. - Psalm 111, 2 The works of the LORD are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein. - Without the Truth of God's Word, the Bible, there isn't any knowledge. Science is based on the prerequsite that God's Word is true.

[@jackburkhart873]

The Bible doesn’t confirm science Science confirms the Bible Any science should be confirmed the prism of scripture!

[@VictimAdvocate]

I wrote a novel using ancient Mesopotamian facts, genesis, and fiction to bring the Garden of Eden back into the light. Fauna & Flora are all spiritually connected ✨ “Return to Eden” by SG Clark

[@beestoe993]

So in short, Aristotle believed in the divine purpose of mindless nothingness. 😄😄😄

[@Stephan-ix8me]

If I see another Kurt Wise video I'm going to vomit.

[@VernCrisler]

Like a dog returning to its.....

[@alexcharow7282]

You are trying to find justification for your religion. I feel sorry for you.

[@billcook4768]

Every time you say “scripture” you should say “a particular interpretation of scripture.” Because that’s really what you are talking about. And when you say “Creationism” you should again specify that you are talking about one particular view of Creationism.

[@samburns3329]

It's quite amusing when you get a dozen Christians together you always get a dozen different interpretations of scripture. Then each of the dozen will claim his interpretation is the only correct one and the other eleven are wrong. 😄

[@masada2828]

@@samburns3329- interpretation can by proven in the Bible.

[@sellison080]

@@billcook4768 I agree. It all depends on the interpretational model one uses. I read the same Bi le as he does and come some different conclusions.

[@detijdlijnserie]

Usually people start using the word 'interpretation' if they don't agree with something. It sounds very sophisticated but it isn't. In this case, it is nothing but a way to avoid the main conclusion of this talk. And most likely avoiding the Author of the Bible.

[@billcook4768]

@@detijdlijnserie Not at all. It’s about standing up to people that claim their interpretation of scripture is the only legitimate one. Their view of creationism is the only one.

[@freddiefreihofer7716]

The answer is a resounding "NO!" And claiming that modern secular science seeks its governing principles in Aristotle is just ludicrous. And I would like to point out that William Lane Craig, the great apologist for Christianity, who debates many atheists who are scientists, accepts the scientific dates for the age of the Earth (13.8 billions years old) and the age of the Universe (13.5 or so billion years old). Taking the Biblical Creation narrative as the foundation and ground of a separate "science" fails on every point.

[@sciencerules2825]

Correction. The age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years.

[@otange599]

Prove it

[@billcook4768]

@@freddiefreihofer7716 Literally hundreds of millions of Christians around the globe have no trouble understanding the earth is globe shaped and old.

[@juanara4705]

Los ateos utilizan la lógica aristotélica con la que el Dios cristiano crea y conserva el universo, para rechazar a ese mismo Dios 😂😂😂😂 Son unos necios por rechazar al Dios que tanto les ama. 😢😢😢

[@ChristisLord2023]

William Lane Craig is questionable at best. Try again. I can point to Christian apologists with multiple PHD's in multiple scientific fields, ie: geology, astrophysics, etc., who are young earth creationist. The appeal to 'the experts' and the majority rule arguments are both fallacious so why not present actual evidence.

[@sciencerules2825]

No. Science starts with the data and lets the data drive the conclusion. If you start with your Biblical conclusion and try to force the data to fit you aren't doing science, you're doing Apologetics.

[@appaloosa42]

Nobody’s forcing anything.

[@sciencerules2825]

@@appaloosa42 No creationist is succeeding in forcing the scientific data to fit creationism but it's not for lack of trying.

[@cosmictreason2242]

No it doesn't. Hypotheses happen before Data is gathered.

[@edisontrent618]

Oh, you mean that method evolutionists and old earth believers use to fit their data? Yeah, they do not do science.

[@sciencerules2825]

@@cosmictreason2242 Hypotheses yes, but not *conclusions.* Conclusions come from the data. You might want to take a basic science course at your local CC.

[@RonnyAndersson-q9b]

God the Father spoke into being. The big bang emerged into being. Something out of nothing.

[@shaundaugherty1028]

I wouldn't say Dr. Wise is on a wrong track; however, I would say that he is limiting himself unnecessarily by limiting himself to the Bible as being the special revelation from God. First, man was created before the Bible ever came into existence. When the Son of God came into the world, He did not do so as a book but as a human being. St. John wrote, "If you do not love your brother whom you have seen, you cannot love God whom you have not seen." The Bible records the story of the relationship between God and His people. Instead of looking for God and His people, too many "Christians" have substituted the Bible for His people and instead only look to God and the Bible. If Dr. Wise gave as much credence to the people who gave us the Bible as he does to the Bible, then, I believe, he could get much further down the road in his thinking and arrive at even better conclusions than the ones he has reached thus far.

[@mlauntube]

I disagree with this video: Aristotle was not a materialist. One of Aristotle’s more important books on logic was called “Metaphysics” and that is all about things that are not physical. All of Aristotle’s comments about “God” are favorable, but many of his comments about “the gods” are critical. He was clearly the best of the philosophers of his time. Aristotle's errors are caused by accepting existing science, for example about elements. I think you error in what you assume his intent is about perception. It seems to me he is just saying “are you going to believe someone arguments or your own eyes”. In one sense, your perceptions can be documented and used as data points. Interpreting your perceptions is another mater. This video seems to have an agenda to slander Aristotle based on a false belief that Aristotle rejected God. If you read all of his works, it is very clear that Aristotle does believe in God, but likely not the mythological “gods”. He doesn’t say this outright but that could have greatly endangered him.

[@nathancook2852]

No, the Bible isn't a science book. It gets a few names and locations correct, perhaps a few events, but that is about it. Science doesn't delve into the supernatural.

[@IsGenesisHistory]

@nathancook2852 I think you may have a misunderstanding. We do not claim here or elsewhere that the Bible is a science book. Rather, it describes history of God's interactions with the real, physical world throughout time. If those events left evidence behind, then we should be able to hypothesize about what that evidence should look like in the real, physical world. Science does not care where a hypothesis is derived from, only that it is testable by scientific methodology. For more, please see the following article: newcreation.blog/is-creation-science-really-science/

[@monster0_0]

The Earth is flat 🌎‍⃠

[@tomesplin4130]

Yes, according to the Bible. Don’t forget the fixed dome above the earth holding back the waters and fixing the sun, moon and stars in place, and the mighty pillars the earth is standing on. So some ‘pick and choose’ which bits the accept, whilst dismissing the rest…

[@VernCrisler]

So is your head --- cue Bugs Bunny cartoon.