Dr. Craig Responds to Ken Ham in an Interview with Joshua Swamidass

[@EssenceofPureFlavor]

Ken Ham calling William Lane Craig a pseudointellectual is tbe biggest joke in this entire video.

[@Apocryphile1970-check_it]

@@williamlanecraig752 brothers and sisters. Believers and non-believers. look their are 3 ways to read the bible. 1 you can literally read every word in the bible and not use the keys laid out in their. 2 you can read the bible and use the keys laid out in it. 3 or you can just let to church tell you what to think. And we know how that gos. We end up with so many different visions. So there is a correct way to read it. Now you tell me the best way to read it. Is it 1, is it 2 ,or is it 3 ?.... I'll just tell you 2. No actually am not the church I'll show you. When you read any scripture correctly. You are given a chance to see. A true display of Gods greatness sorry about it being so long. Jesus's crucifixion correctly interpreted. Jesus=the living word/logos was crucified word/logos cant die truth can not die only hidden. So when he the word/logos was berried . This is the logos being hidden in earthly vessels. It was the priest's and rabbis who had jesus put to death and it was them who hide the logos part of hiding the logos was doing away with scripture. And taking books out the bible. This is jesus's blood we must drink because they will open our eyes. As indicated by the spear jesus took to the side and the blind soldiers eyes receiving his sight. This is why peter denys him. 3 times 1 for the religions leader who said no to some books of scripture in there inner court. just after peter/the church denys him jesus/logos 2 the church cut the number down again and put a limit on how many books are in there bible. as they where stripping the word/jesus of his clothes 3 would be when the porisident bible was formed. And a woman even says to peter/the church you are a gallallian I know you by your voice all the decipels had spiritual eyes and mouths. Watch this bit and realise God is in control even what people say. And peter said I do not know him I swear it. By this time the church was not teaching it and can not have it. This is because by this time it was lost to them. because they had hide it. now it is hidden from them. now they are bond by tradition. And are teaching in error and doctrines of man have crept in and its lost to them now. And if the understanding from the father makes him peter the rock jesus built his church on. If he does not have this understanding he is no longer the church christ built with the understanding from the father. This is when the jesus/word/logos is being slapped in the face and being spat on and disrespected. A day is one thousand years with the LORD. So the father raised the son according to Paul. and Paul was blinded and made to see. Or he had seen jesus and know he was God. and he realised he was spiritually blind and Adonis showed him jesus in the scripture/old testament. so he got his spiritual eyes opened basically. And according to paul the father raised the son/logos. But the son raised his body so when we die we go to heaven. the father raised the logos at the end of the church age. And the holy spirit is sent by the son. In Hebrew The ruach means great wind/doctrine. logos in Greek means, word, plan, reason. To bring us in to the knowledge of all truth. That is how we are resurrected with christ. And that's how the father raised the son/logos. And is how the spirit preside from the son. And lives in us knowledge is logos. Spiritual meaning is life. And earthly meaning is death. That is why jesus is the way the truth and the life. And we need to be born of spirit. Because flesh and blood cant enter the kingdom of heaven. And it's better I go away so I can be glorified with the the father. the father called it from the beginning and jesus called it from the beginning of the church age. So put that together with this. How to understand jesus walking on water correctly. Matthew 16:18 peter=church ephesians 4:14 wind=doctrine jude 1:3 ranging waves=wicked men jesus= the holy living word of God (christ) boat=cannon (what men say our bible should be) the sea=kings and kingdom's, across time ( last 2000 years ) now put that with the story. and this is the correct interpretation. The canon will be battered by doctrines and wicked men. and this will course confusion and mislead believers to accept false doctrines. and the only way to rise above is to use your spirit eyes and ears. Logos in Greek means reason, word, plan. The logos is basically keys to understand scripture That the father raised now. Because the son raised his body literally 3 days later. And a day is a 1000 years with the LORD. And according to Paul the father raised the son. 2000 years of the church age has now finished.we are entering the 3rd day. The logos is now raised by the father. and we are now raised with him. Because this is how we have the mind of christ. use scripture to interpret scripture. Jesus is God and has a Human nature. This is what died for our sins when we died we go to heaven forever. But when christ has his 1000 year reign on earth. That can't be in heaven if it's on earth. christ does away with sin forever is a contradiction. And if the age of the gentiles is 2000 years. The church will die or we will or we will be around after it passes. Or when Simon bar Johanna receives the understanding from the father. When the logos is resurrected. And 2000years is up and this is the undefiled stone/testament rev 2.17 jesus said he will give us to eat of the hidden manna for those who overcome the church. this is why there are 3 items in the ark of the covenant 1the father=jews 2the son=Christians 3holy spirit=the elect Robert ferrell apocryphallia1970 check him out am a novice. He interpreted the book of revelations years ago he is leaps and bounds ahead of everyone. Listen to this all the scripture that was found berried in the earth is hidden manna/latter rain remember manna is sweet like honey. So there is a difference. moldy bread turns in to medicine. with this we can take the scripture the church deem death/blood and heal them with our new eyes and these become holy/living and sweeter than our scripture now. At the last supper jesus said you must eat my body/bread and drink my blood/ apocrypha. And the latter rian/living word sent from heaven some scripture. or you could say the word is a seed that was watered and brough foward fruit. And the prophecy about the Dead Sea coming back to life. Is sent Living water/logos that was not deemed holy by the church is now holy again. And the lord's teachings again are the same as. they first where the last become first and the first becomes last. Because they all know the same stuff. Jesus said to the women at the well. she should ask him for living water. this is what you want according to jesus. How great is our LORD. This is the spirit showing us the truth. And if he told us plainly how could the church hide it. He showed us with actions. And now the spirit of truth can bring us into to the knowledge of all things. The comforter not speak of him self. By Follow me now. so the father is spirit and the word became flesh. And the holy spirit is God. Jesus is God the son in the flesh. And the spirit precedes from the son. And he is not talking about himself he is talking about jesus in the flesh. And this knowledge lives in us. And this is how the church will end. Because there teachings are wrong. and the church have been proven to be bad. At one point jesus even calls peter/church satan. In eden when Adam and eve where cursed by God. And God prophesied to satan that the woman's seed/child will crush your head/doctrine and you will bruise her seed/children's heal meaning satan will miss lead people. and they won't be walking on the narrow path of God. jesus crushed his head. When he showed them the new way/doctrine .God is the same as he was today yesterday an forever. So he made clear what was meant by God originally. So really it's the new old fashion way. Satan will mislead lead them again. When you have sore heel/walk in the spirit you can't walk the narrow path of God, you can't look up that good. So over time you become all hunched and used to looking at the ground/earthly meaning/flesh and blood. and not walking/in the spirit on the narrow path of God. You don't know what it is so how will you know if you are. walking the narrow path of God. And if you don't recognize the heavenly meaning/logos/jesus how will you know your not being lead astray. this is why all the Jews needed teachings the logos/spiritual meaning. And why they never just accepted jesus their God and our God. As God

[@davidsturges3559]

David Lee Roths brother William Craig just is wrong about death before sin, by sin death entered the world

[@Apocryphile1970-check_it]

@@davidsturges3559 he is spiritual dead that is why

[@johnharrison6745]

@@davidsturges3559 No; Dr. Craig is right (because he's reasonable and actually knows what he's talking-about).

[@eui6037]

Why do you have to argue like THIS? where is your love one to another? Wasn't THIS the sign that you are His? ....

[@harleydavidson1014]

Dr. Swamidass I struggled so much, about the evidence of evolution, because I was taught that I had to believe in the bible or evolution but couldn't believe in both so it turned me into an atheist. Your interview about your book with Dr. Tour quite literally brought me to tears and was such a relief. Thank you for finally explaining that I can believe in evolution and Jesus. Dr Craig your debate with Hitchens was spot on along with your other debates with the atheist intellectuals we're such a treat to watch they really strengthened my faith. I want to thank both of you intellectual men there are plenty of people like me that felt unrepresented in the debates and you both argue the points I'd like to be there to do and have really helped my faith to grow and I owe both of you a huge thanks. As far as Ken Ham I think he really believes in a young Earth but it's totally uncalled for the way he attacked William here it actually says something about the people that hold the young Earth view. It's almost like they know they can't defend their own viewpoint and resort to ad hominem attacks. The logic people use to defend young Earth is so obscenely absurd sometimes laughable and I'm pretty sure they know it, that that's why I've seen them just straight up lie about statistics about polls of people that agree with them and if they are being obviously dishonest it seems like they don't want to debate the logic they just want to get people to agree with them. For Ken Ham to call William a " pseudo intellectual" is a head scratcher to keep it polite. Either way I wanted to thank both of you great men you truly changed my life and cleared up so much cognitive dissonance it is such a relief so Thank you both and God Bless you two.

[@salmonkill7]

I fight this issue with OLD / YOUNG EARTH as we have teachers at my Christian high school that are ABSOLUTELY FANATICAL about the YOUNG EARTH standpoint. I completed my PhD Physics coursework at Purdue University and I worked 34 years as a Research Scientist at a National Laboratory. I retired at my National Laboratory research job and I now teach at a Christian high school that tends to be very fundamental in their beliefs and tend to lean heavily toward a YOUNG EARTH. I am an OLD EARTH CREATIONIST CHRISTIAN with a PASSION for my personal Savior the Lord Jesus Christ!! I tend to affirm SCIENCE and I understand dating and the basics of Earth Science, Physics, and GEOLOGY!! I have great issue with how YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM dates the Earth and how DISHONEST THEY ARE with their garbage Science. You really have to toss out ALL THE HARD SCIENCES to believe in a YOUNG EARTH!! In terms of EVOLUTION, I strongly believe GOD is the Creator of everything. That said if EVOLUTION is true, it's just because GOD created life to EVOLVE!! ONE HAS TO BE REALLY ARROGANT to think YOU HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS to how God created Life and HOW GOD CREATED THINGS!! How in the World can we claim we know EXACTLY HOW TO READ And UNDERSTAND the BIBLE and that we know all the mysteries about Life and God's Creation!!

[@CJFCarlsson]

@@salmonkill7 While I feel very unthreatened by the scientific notion of evolution the moral hazard it represents can not really be accepted. Removal of the unfit is not up to us.

[@salmonkill7]

@CJFCarlsson Ensign I think I can appreciate your dillema and the moral problems associated with "playing God" and selecting the FIT from the UNFIT. Fortunately we only practice this with ANIMALS in 2023. We select which animals we will breed with our best livestock. Looking back at the SOVIET UNION and even worse our experience with NAZI GERMANY and the unthinkable "experiments" they chose to do to our fellow man is just HORRIBLE and UNTHINKABLE today!! Can you explain just what else you meant with your comment, I'm not certain I understood all of it...

[@carlospadron488]

You’ve been deceived sorry that happened to you…Jesus and evolution are Never compatible!

[@AnniEast]

​@@salmonkill7would an old earth creationist believe evolution means that we came from something other than humans? Honest question, as I am trying to figure out where I fit into this discussion. Old earth and the fact that all life continually evolve seems logical to me, but I cannot go with the idea that our common ancestor is pond scum. Would you be so kind to elaborate more?

[@LessThanZero-j6e]

"We need to be United on the essentials and then have charity to one another with regard to the non-essentials" - Dr. Craig - (21:36). Brilliant, reminds me of Jude 22 "Be merciful to those who doubt."

[@ricoyochanan]

Yeah, well one of the essentials is believing Moses who wrote Genesis. Jesus said if you don't believe Moses, you won't believe Jesus. Joh 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. Joh 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Mr. Craig is ashamed of Jesus and Moses and accommodates the academic community in their great ages story of what they never observed. The liberal church leaders want to thank Mr. Craig for his unwavering support of the evolution timeline by twisting Scripture, as they fulfill Jesus warning about not believing Him, and promote gay marriage and other lifestyles contrary to Moses and Jesus.... Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. Mar 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; Mar 10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. Nowhere is the word day more highly defined and contextualized than in Genesis 1's six times mentioned day in the context of evening and morning. I wonder how Mr. Craig defines a day at Genesis 7:11? Well, it's no matter I guess since he doesn't believe in Genesis 1-11 as literal anyway. But he's more than ready to accommodate those speculators posing as scientists. Mr. Craig is the Johnny Cochran defender of the faith. He really doesn't defend Scripture, just his beliefs that contradict Jesus and Moses. Paul says Adam was the first man, not Johnny Cochran though. Jesus' genealogy goes back to the first man, Adam, but not Johnny Cochran. Mr. Craig has these wild notions of Adam being chosen out of a pre-adamic race, which is NOWHERE taught in Scripture. So Mr. Craig toys with Jesus' genealogy, no, he in fact denies it. you're either for Jesus or against Jesus Mr. Cochran. You can't have it both ways.

[@benjaminwatt2436]

@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros I'd be hard pressed to call someone who so vigerously defends the resurrection "not a Christian". WLC upholds the gospel message that we are sinners in need of a savior. He teaches Christ is God and is the perfect sacrifice and the only way to heaven. He's views on Genesis, do not determine his salvation and I think for the sake of Christian unity which Christ himself prayed for in John 17, you should hesitate before making such bold claims

[@codyjones2540]

@@ricoyochanan people begin to disregard your comment when you use KJV to try and make a point.

[@ricoyochanan]

@@benjaminwatt2436 Nevertheless, WLC doesn't believe Jesus when Jesus refutes evolution. So what kind of a Christian doesn't believe Jesus, but instead accomodates SPECULATORS posing as scientists.

[@ricoyochanan]

@@codyjones2540 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path....Psa 119:105

[@josephaggs7791]

Craig staying classy even when being slandered

[@gideon4773]

@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros give an example.

[@samsmith8381]

I’m pretty let down and unimpressed by Ken Ham’s personal attacks on Craigs character.

[@FrostinthePines]

I'm unimpressed and letdown by Ken Ham generally.

[@RobbDepp]

Ken Ham attacks anyone with a different Christian world view or Biblical interpretation than himself.

[@samsmith8381]

@@RobbDepp yeah, I really like how gracious Craig remained even though he was being personally attacked for none fundamental issues of Christianity. I think It’s easy for us to sometimes peg our faith on issues outside of scripture.

[@66fredo99]

@@FrostinthePines I too was disappointed by Ham's personal attack. But I'd heard him do this before years ago in a debate with Hugh Ross. This smug sense that he knew what was in his detractor's heart (an intent to deceive) was over the top and simply un-Christian. Ross came off as humble whereas Ham seemed to be seething with arrogance. Look, I'm not an evolutionist, but neither am I a YEC advocate. But if I were to be persuaded by YEC advocates it wouldn't be from Ken Ham.

[@nrg753]

The problem with Ken Ham is that he's human. If you ever put someone up high be prepared to be disappointed by them.

[@UncensoredChristian]

It’s great seeing two Jesus loving people openly acknowledge the scientific findings of Gods creation.

[@davidsturges3559]

Not both, David Lee Roths brother is wrong

[@geezee1946]

This is appalling to see. Supposed Christian theologians surrendering to the lies and myths of this modern science. There is no evidence for the theory of evolution. There is no evidence for the Big bang theory. Evolution exists exclusively to try and find a way around a true living God. It's ridiculous for Christians to now try and work that agenda into our worldview.

[@HenryCenter]

We appreciate your work, Drs. Craig & Swamidass. Hope to host you guys for more of these important conversations soon!

[@mikenimer934]

I agree with ken hams position against macro evolution and Genesis being figurative, but disagree with how he handled this. Craig is a solid scholar/apologist and not a false teacher or arrogant. Come on Ham, Choose words carefully

[@jonathanbaake6228]

Craig fails to understand how critical literal Genesis is to Jesus' credibility. the fact that Craig is blind to this, makes him more an enemy of Christ than an allie... Especially how he's being used in atheistic propaganda.

[@mikenimer934]

@@jonathanbaake6228 I don’t know if I would label him an enemy of Christ that’s pretty strong language; he’s saved and he doesn’t oppose the gospel; he holds to the fundamentals of the faith; I do think his view of Genesis is off and he’s being blinded by current scholarship However, nowhere in the Bible does it say you have to hold to a literal view of Genesis 1-2 to be saved. Craig does affirm Adam and eve as historical people and he does believe in original sin.

[@jonathanbaake6228]

@@mikenimer934 Putting death before sin (aka evolution) taints the relevance of Christ's redemption (Romans 5). If sin is not the cause of death, what does Jesus' atonement mean? This is the logic where people will end up, "following" William, which severely undermines their faith. He's badly deceived, propably saved. Who can tell... but God.

[@mikenimer934]

@@jonathanbaake6228 I agree with your position and I think hes got it wrong. However, in fairness to him, I have not heard his postilion on this in total, so I cant speak to it. Have u heard his position on it? I know him affirms sin and the need for redemption

[@randomperson2078]

@@jonathanbaake6228 Did nothing eat before the Fall? Or is the death of man - eternal death - quite different from the death of a fish or a tree, as they lack souls?

[@andycastro1014]

Watching this for a second time. Really appreciate Dr. Swamidas' direct style of communication. It helps for clarification not always being so nuanced.

[@FreeRadical7118]

I listened to this with rapt attention; it was a fascinating discussion, and I thank you both for this presentation!

[@williamlanecraig752]

Beloved thank you for taking your time out to watch this message and for your comments and support.your comment and constant support has brought me this far.keep supporting Email MD ([e-mail]) It is an orphanage home that has a baby dying from leukemia please send donation to the MD email in charge for more support and your prayers will be answered and your healing will manifest, after donating,pray with Psalm 51,46,130,24, only faith can move mountains we are God children of the most high God, remember we are not fighting against flesh and blood but against principalities, against evil power's, against rulers of darkness,God bless you..

[@anthonychacon254]

Great dialogue with the exception of constant interruption by Josh: I would’ve loved to hear the poster analogy without Josh’s interjection, and then[Bill] “if we ever came to the point where we believed Scripture taught us... [cue Josh]. arrgghh.

[@robertproctor977]

That's 4 . Dr "Must Talk" might want to consider this. The video is scarcely watchable because "Must Talk" had to interrupt Dr. Craig.

[@The_table_242]

Yes please

[@spacemanspiff9773]

Josh, please stop interrupting! You’re the interviewer.

[@erichodge567]

Wherever he goes, he talks too much.

[@Unknown2Yoo]

Glad I wasn't the only one who noticed this.

[@nguyenducdat6579]

It is so annoying!!

[@MyMemphisable]

True. There is an art to interview and dialogue. Some of it is subtle but crucial. The flow, timing, and cadence of pauses, reflective moments, silent seconds, and opportunities to process; each of these is undone with hasty interruptions and immediate follow-on commentary. Fortunately, this is an easy skill to learn.

[@adambrown7893]

I think we can all learn something from Bill in the way he dealt with this personal attack here. With the utmost humility he got his point across in excess without the need to return the blow with another sword. It shows real wisdom and gives me inspiration to try everyday also.

[@ZforZ07]

He’s got to be the funnest moderator ever, but thank God Dr. Craig is patient

[@jessetimmons8912]

Love for all my brothers and sisters. Pray for unity 🙏

[@williamlanecraig752]

Beloved thank you for taking your time out to watch this message and for your comments and support.your comment and constant support has brought me this far.keep supporting Email MD ([e-mail]) It is an orphanage home that has a baby dying from leukemia please send donation to the MD email in charge for more support and your prayers will be answered and your healing will manifest, after donating,pray with Psalm 51,46,130,24, only faith can move mountains we are God children of the most high God, remember we are not fighting against flesh and blood but against principalities, against evil power's, against rulers of darkness,God bless you..

[@therayn0]

I feel a strong love towards you both because you built up a beautiful faith in me, that I enjoy every day.

[@edge4192]

I wanted so badly to hear Dr. Craig's responses at the end...Josh interrupts him the first time and I threw my hands up. Then Josh's lets him begin to respond again by interrupting AGAIN... Dr. Craig says "well I think.." Josh-"Well there you have it thanks for joining us." CMON JOSH! I missed out on something I came here to hear specifically.

[@robertproctor977]

Another person with the same problem that another person and I have. Dr. "Must Talk"

[@soubhikmukherjee6871]

I love Craig's honesty.

[@johncook19]

If you earned as much money out of Christianity as William Lane Craig does, you could afford to appear honest. How can he be honest when he wants all people to believe in the resurrection, a phenomenon that never happened and is absolute rubbish . Have you seen a resurrection?

[@geraldpchuagmail]

@@johncook19 you just made 7 logical fallacies.

[@EricFavini]

What a great dialog. So many important points discussed here beyond just the question of creation and our origin. Love the analogy of the blind people holding parts of the elephant. The world needs more people who can think critically. Thank you Dr Craig for your integrity and humility and modeling grace in the face of personal attacks.

[@ChuckMcphail-z6m]

I'm a Catholic but I admire and respect Dr. William Lane Craig. I love watching his debates and discussions. I mostly almost always agree with him regarding God, existence and the role of science.

[@Tokkan1]

I forgive you

[@alger9003]

I would be very interested to attend a public debate between WLC and KH so that arguments could be exchanged and both views discussed. This would clarify the issues surrounding Genesis 1-11.

[@robertproctor977]

Dr. James I taught at a high school and one of my fellow teachers simply could not stop talking when he was around the rest of us. I called him "Must Talk" . For some reason that came to my mind when watching this video.

[@scottcarter1689]

52:12... "...I'm pretty hard on some of my Christian colleagues...." ...Lol! -You've got to love William Lane Craig! Whatever creation/cosmological time frame... (or even apologetic methodology) one holds to- Craig is an asset to the Christian worldview. (... it's the way God's decreed it! 😉) Soli Deo Gloria

[@williamlanecraig752]

Beloved thank you for taking your time out to watch this message and for your comments and support.your comment and constant support has brought me this far.keep supporting Email MD ([e-mail]) It is an orphanage home that has a baby dying from leukemia please send donation to the MD email in charge for more support and your prayers will be answered and your healing will manifest, after donating,pray with Psalm 51,46,130,24, only faith can move mountains we are God children of the most high God, remember we are not fighting against flesh and blood but against principalities, against evil power's, against rulers of darkness,God bless you..

[@stur734]

Good to see Joshua and Dr Craig talking again, and on an important topic. But it's unfortunate to see Joshua consistently interrupting Dr Craig just like he has done in previous conversations with him. Dr Craig exhibits great patience here, again.

[@MeganDelacroix]

Gets almost unlistenable. Like, okay, maybe Dr Craig doesn't find it as ill-bred and disrespectful as I would; maybe they're such good friends that Swamidass's manner doesn't bother him at all, but it's _also_ disrespectful of the audience.

[@robertproctor977]

As I posted below, at one public school where I taught, I named one fellow teacher "Must Talk" because he simply could not stop talking. James seems to have the same problem.

[@robertproctor977]

Approaches becoming unwatchable.

[@marktree1099]

Why isn’t this channel massive!? Like millions large

[@hexo-mobius]

I had asked Dr Craig on Facebook a while back if he was a theistic evolutionist. He said no. But here he is. 😂😂

[@BigMidge86]

I’m somewhere between WLC and Ross

[@Solid_Pawn]

@@williamlanecraig752 stop scamming.

[@davidsturges3559]

Me and Ken are with God and the bible

[@johnharrison6745]

@@davidsturges3559 No; you're with being willfully-ill-informed and superstitiously-scared.

[@fotoman777]

It is conversations like this that make me grateful that I am no longer a Christian and consumed with debates over "right doctrines." The secular world view is far less of an intellectual struggle. Just to be able to admit that we honestly just don't know why life exists or how it began is a huge relief.

[@royperrin2113]

I have to ask, and I'm in no way attacking, but that does sound like a very lazy attitude toward having faith (in either way) that is worth defending. Someone challenged you, and you gave up. Tell me if I'm wrong, and I'll listen. It seems pretty clear that you didn't have a foundation of Christianity built on your God-given ability to think for yourself and/or you just want to do whatever makes you happy with no accountability. I know that other people can read this if they follow the thread due to the nature of KZbin Comment sections, but if I knew you personally, this would be a private conversation. It's not my intent to disrespect you, but to give you an opportunity to self reflect on what motivated you to become an atheist. To your point about what they are talking about, it's an important part of Chritianity to keep each other in check and in line with God's word, and sometimes that's uncomfortable. I don't agree with the methodology used by either side of this one, because the Bible tells us to talk to each other one on one, then with the elders of the church and then to expose publicly. A personal attack was uncalled for.

[@fotoman777]

@@royperrin2113 I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic. That means I genuinely DO NOT KNOW, and have no idea how to explain life. Neither does anyone else. If God exists, I do not know who or what "God" is. Nobody does. Anyone who pretends to know "God" is just pretending to have superior knowledge that nobody actually has.

[@AdamLeis]

The banter was great here. I also couldn't help but chuckle a lot about how much Swamidass kept refering to Craig like he is a relic 😂 "You're going to die before me, almost definitely." 🤷‍♂ What a pal 😅

[@banmancan1894]

cannot believe Ken Ham-the man that boasts solely through his high faith levels and certainty without anything further calls Craig, one of the most academically impressive Christian philosophers/theologians of the century who has contributed monumental evidence for Jesus' resurrection to skeptics and believers, a "Psuedo intellectual." That's straight-up libel, and not only that-rude. It saddens me how people like Ham care far more about being right about secondary issues at best within Christianity than being a kind and winsome representative of Christ. Of course, all we need more now is to be more divisive.

[@andrewhinson4323]

While I agree with you, in the spirit of full and honest evaluation, Ham and those like him have a major issue. Its that they think the issues you call 'secondary' are 'primary.' The Word tells us to be rightly divided over such issues. We arent brothers and sisters with people who are muslim or moron because we disagree with them on primary issues. With Ham, he sees compromise on genesis as compromise on a foundational issue. A primary one. So its not like he is coming after Dr. Craig for his position on drinking wine (a position on which the Baptists would rage over). He sees himself as coming after someone who is deconstructing who God is, and what God has said. Until you realize and begin seeking to resolve his understanding, you are going to continue to be exasperated at the "talking past." But if you attempt to resolve that misunderstanding and he STILL is a divisive brother.. what does scripture say we are to do then?

[@banmancan1894]

I'm not going to lie, I laughed at the 'Mormon' typo pretty hard. I needed honestly needed that (haha). Yes, I can very much relate to Ham's belief that a literalistic interpretation of Gen 1 is a fundamental doctrine. I was once a young-earth creationist (YEC) as well (Joshua Swamidass was as well), so I am more than familiar with his reasons and even the word usage of "day/yom" and things like that. Thus, on a personal level, I know how to "resolve his understanding" as you say. However, I wasn't as arrogant as Ham is others-especially those far more intelligent than myself. Additionally, I became far more open-minded towards the authorial intent of scripture (rather than my own biases) when I was studying Biblical exegesis and theology in my undergrad studies. Learning the depth of scripture via exegesis is truly humbling and while we always have some bias, it can certainly help cast out the flesh on the subject. To answer your (perhaps unintentionally patronizing) question, you may be referring to the Matt. 18 passage about the if another brother sins against another. If this is the case, I would not compare it to the Matthew 18 passage because where his defamatory statements towards Dr. Bill are something worth going to the council over, Ham's general problem with WLC's views is that they conflict with his tightly held convictions. I don't think a battle over these kinds of convictions is sin, though, I think the way we handle it can be. Rom. 16 is especially a bad comparison of this situation. But since you've asked me a question, let me ask you one as well. How do you suppose one "resolve[s]" Ham's viewpoint? You speak as if you know the answer here, so I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject.

[@andrewhinson4323]

@@banmancan1894 woops! When words are separated from each other by a single letter....

[@andrewhinson4323]

@@banmancan1894 My question was 100% serious and asked with 0 intent to patronize. I was simply attempting to allow scripture to answer the conundrum for us. “As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is…sinful; he is self-condemned.” - Titus 3:10-11 I think that you would be hard-pressed to show that Ham is not the very definition of divisive. So ultimately, he needs to be warned, and then ignored.

[@banmancan1894]

​@@andrewhinson4323 Haha, the slip of the fingers happens to the best of us my friend! Thank you for that clarification and scripture! I was so close, yet so far on the scripture (haha).

[@IdolKiller]

"You're so vain, you probably think this ad hominem is about you..." Ken Ham sings a karaoke version of Carly Simon

[@noahwatson4884]

"How do they move to the King's perspective?" -- The actual presence of the Holy Spirit. He confirms His Word. He has always confirmed His Word. He will always confirm His Word. Removing prayerful, fasting, earnest communal prayer from our discourse is the problem. Jesus never intended to not be the actual leader of His Church.

[@lianaepicgirl777]

👏🏽👏🏽

[@watsonfam2511]

Yes!!!

[@janetmusheganwatson]

So true!

[@bettywatson641]

Amen!

[@mtjc5336]

Im growing more concerned as I watch closer to the end of this video… dr Craig says of Jesus, “I’m sure Jesus thought the moon was luminous.” Um… Jesus, through whom and by whom all things were made that were made, had a mistaken understanding of how the moon works?? 🤭 Help me out here, but this statement (and some others about how our understanding of inspiration and inerrancy would need to be adjusted if modern science ever showed the Bible to be in error) seem to me to show what is ultimately a lower opinion of the scriptures, of the omniscience of God who inspired it, than of men who read it. Would God really allow mistakes in the original writings such as one that would allow others to call His truth into question and undermine the veracity and inerrancy of scripture as God’s revealed Word? I don’t see that as plausible. I think these well-studied men are getting the chicken and the egg mixed up, or the cart and the horse perhaps, when they lean further on the understanding of men and themselves than on the revealed truth from the God who created all things.

[@catalinak6320]

your spot on. He wants the respect of the academic class and their applause. its always the scholars of every era that try to spin scripture into something it never said so to appease the Brilliant minds of the day. this is just more of that liberal theology now spreading more and more into the genesis account and the plain reading of scripture. jesus plainly taught genesis as a literal event . adam and eve as literal people. literal 7 days. there was no death before the fall, but william claims, that is not so. its just a reading into scripture. [his words] death entered through adams fall. romans.

[@j-r-m7775]

@@catalinak6320 so you think lions were vegetarians until Eve at an apple 6 thousand years ago?

[@mtjc5336]

@@j-r-m7775 why not? Is it impossible that all creatures were herbivores until the fall? Then ask yourself if that is as impossible as the miracles required in order for macro evolution to be successful (the probabilities involved there, particularly with the requirements for life to occur in the first place, are mathematically impossible).

[@j-r-m7775]

@@mtjc5336 You think that despite what the biological evidence shows man lived with dinosaurs and that there was a time that lions were herbivores? If scientific method was that incompetent we would not be able to be communicating on these devices. The rapid spread of mobile phones that can access the internet has been made possible by a long list of discoveries in the fundamental laws of physics. Yet somehow you think that despite all the physical evidence putting the age of the Earth in the billions of years all of these scientists are not just wrong they are comically wrong. They are off by a factor of 1 million. Despite this being from scientist around the earth and of all different deferent backgrounds the only “scientists” who are correct are the less than 1% who happen to be fundamentalist Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

[@mtjc5336]

@@j-r-m7775 I’m not interested in debating when we aren’t going to change each other’s minds. Macro evolution is far from proven, there is conflicting evidence in support of old earth va new earth, whether one gives more credence to one vs the other tends to come down to world view and a great deal also seems to depend on whether or not we make the same foundations assumptions, such as uniformitarianism vs catastrophism, etc. There is so much evidence of Christ’s life and resurrection, as well as the global flood and other biblical historic accounts, as to lend credence to the Bible, yet how many people do you know who reject the Bible out of hand as fairy tale?

[@mattwarren2345]

Love this discussion but....Josh let the man talk without constantly interrupting him

[@robertproctor977]

8.

[@curiousgeorge555]

Saying that WLC is scattering sheep is wrong on so many levels. Ham should apologize.

[@SomeChristianGuy.]

Hello Dr Craig and Dr Swamidass. Im registering my request for you to pick up Dr John Sanford for the YEC position. He would no doubt be willing and would bring with him a substantial weight in scientific credibility.

[@NewsRedial]

Dude you need to stop cutting Dr Craig off and let him finish his points. Even the last comment he made could have lead to him expounding little but you just shut him down and went into wrap up. I found you content to be interesting but your tone a little disrespectful.

[@ttimetotroll]

I agree. Maybe Swamidass is new to being an interviewer or something. He seems so stuck to his script and on his thoughts that he forgets to listen and have a conversation. Take 27:30 for instance. Swamidass is so stuck on his lead up to his next question and so focused on his interpretation of of what Craig said, he didn't listen to Craig's clarification and kept reiterating on his original point. I hope he gains more experience and gets better on interviewing, as I do enjoy listening to these overall discussions.

[@segrimsjinn]

I'm no theologian, but I always thought a person could read Gen1:20-24 as a possible acceptance for evolution in the animal esp in 24 "God says 'let the earth produce..." though I struggle with that possibly giving un-due authority to the concept of gaia and am hesitant to adopt it as the defenitive point God gives us as biblical evidence for evolution.

[@roqsteady5290]

You can read anything to mean anything if you stretch it far enough. I'm sure if people worshipped a telephone directory, they could come to all sorts of positions, depending on what it was they wanted to believe.

[@rolandxb3581]

Can you explain what exactly changed in the science? I think I heard you talk about it but I can't remember.

[@pierreleroux2910]

Good conversation, except for Josh continually interrupting Dr Craig.

[@gcjenkins62]

Josh, I was not able to get to the end of Dr. Craig's response because of your interjections.

[@imabeast7397]

You have to explain why Jesus believed in Adam n Eve and them being created not evolved.

[@pitAlexx]

I think they keep missing the fact that God commanded the earth to bring forth life, so that's a process with all kinds of ways of happening since its left to the imagination, and then that out of the earth He made our body which means we should have something in common with the earth, with which animals have in common too.

[@THEAMERICAN-ob2wt]

Evolution could have been the way in which God created man. Not saying that’s how he did it but I don’t see that at some sort of obstacle

[@THEAMERICAN-ob2wt]

But to say evolution could have been the process doesn’t mean it was Darwinian evolution

[@randomuser6306]

Craig does believe in a created Adam and Eve. You seem to be missing information about his views.

[@jackplumbridge2704]

@@PsalmChapter117 the word being used in Genesis there is "yom" and it doesn't necessarily mean 24 hours. it can mean many different lengths of time, including and undisclosed length of time.

[@roberttombs3108]

Joshua...hard to comprehend how evolution is true as Order was created and thus only devolution is feasible, and increasing order to improve biological entities has no natural mechanism. Open to a methodology if one exists?

[@seshuaiyar5047]

Humans were initially cave dwellers or hunters,but look where we are today, don't you call that evolution?

[@roberttombs3108]

@@seshuaiyar5047 The claim that humans were cave dwellers and hunters is taught in government schools, but there is zero evidence. Not do you know when this happened other than a guess. But it is always funny to talk to liberal dupes.

[@seshuaiyar5047]

@@roberttombs3108 well take a hundred years back, did we have any knowledge TV,before that people fought with swordsor fight physcially,even push bikes were not there! Rode on mules or horses,Jesus was born not in a hospital but a cow shed, all these indicate developments,no high rise? Makes one think? But many don't,but just blindly follow,some Religious cult,hatred towards other cults?

[@roberttombs3108]

@@seshuaiyar5047 Another sick liberal. What is your claim, that there was no created order and that we are evolving from chaos to order?

[@seshuaiyar5047]

@@roberttombs3108 well creation of a talking snake and Lucifer,if was. In order? It's sick!

[@stavroskanias5314]

William Lane Craig is by far the most really-intellectual apologist of our time. Continue your amazing job!

[@jarroddavid8352]

@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros Someone who is consistently searching for truth will look inconsistent to a consistent liar who never searches for truth or growth.

[@OfficialBTC1]

Don’t forget John Lennox

[@barrettstearns2948]

This interviewer is a bit rusty on James’ exhortation to be quick to listen and slow to speak. Other than that, I always enjoy seeing how WLC responds to the fastballs thrown at him.

[@robertproctor977]

5.

[@JohnsonJLB]

Skip to 11:00 you're welcome.

[@dorothyhinkel185]

My mother always said people are the craziest monkeys.

[@aidenhill960]

lol God bless you!

[@lilhoss1]

Jesus referred to Adam as a real/literal person.

[@Chomper750]

No, Jesus never mentioned Adam. In Matthew 19 and Mark 10, Jesus only said that God created male and female to become one flesh in regards to a question asked by the Pharisees regarding divorce.

[@lilhoss1]

@@Chomper750 Ah, good catch! ok, more specifically - Adam is mentioned as an actual person in Jesus' Geneology - Luke 3:38. Paul refers to him in 1 Corinthians 15:45 as the "first man." Romans 5:12 - "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through ONE man..." Genesis 5:5 says he lived 930 years, and THEN HE DIED. This would make absolutely no sense to say that a figurative man representing all of mankind lived to be 930 years. Acts 17:26 - And he made from ONE MAN every nation of mankind..."

[@senorjimmy]

@@Chomper750 Jesus never mentions Adam by name in the four Gospels, but if you consider the divine inspiration of Scripture (namely passages that refer to a real/literal Adam), you could argue that Jesus refers to a real/literal Adam.

[@imabeast7397]

Problem is dna doesn't create information. The evidence points to evolution appears to not be able to happen unless intelligently forced.

[@ericrodriguez9562]

That’s the point there sticking with god is still at the center of it all

[@simonmarian6804]

@@ericrodriguez9562 that is basically just a God of the gaps approach. Whatever we don't understand or whatever seems to not be born out by evidence must just be God working behind the scenes to force evolution to succeed. Neo-Darwinism has nothing to offer Christianity. And quite frankly, is currently going through a huge internal struggle that no one in the mainstream is aware of. It's ironic that at the very weakest moment in the history of Neo-Darwinism, there is a serious movement within the church to embrace mainstream conventional understanding of the origin of species.

[@MessianicJewJitsu]

Swamidass and Craig both emphasize keepin' the focus on Yeshua. Genesis interpetation doesn't matter without Jesus. The Jews are the example of the Preservation of Favoured Races in the struggle for Life; not based on size, abilities to follow Torah, or intelligence. Whatever God is; It loves the Jews.

[@ericrodriguez9562]

But they are not talking about evolution but the age of the earth and also if you watch there other stuff they talk about how there not trying to change no ones mind but show that there are possibilities and good reason to also believe science with a basis of god pushing everything forward bc no matter how you look at it the probably of everything being the way it is could not happen by accident but regardless like both dr. Said the corner stone is Jesus regardless of how we take genesis and no reason to attack him like a lot of people on this post is doing

[@THEAMERICAN-ob2wt]

@@simonmarian6804 it’s an accumulative argument. If you can find good reasons to believe in God then other things will follow. But it’s not God of he gaps because it’s belief based on what we do know not what we don’t

[@Noseqquiero]

I’ve heard both sides and am fb friends with Dr Swamidass but absolutely reject evolution as feasible. All I’ve learned from those who accept it and my own research, like listening to both sides of the aisle, I’ve found YEC is the absolutely most substantial. That is one of many reasons I’m a YEC

[@alrightsquinky7798]

Exactly. It flies in the face of the entropic principle. Not only that, but we’ve never been able to come up with a predictive model for evolution. I highly recommend the works of Stephen Meyer and the Discovery Institute. His scientists really put a nail in Darwin’s coffin.

[@jonathanbaake6228]

if I could, I'd like your comment twice ;-). YEC is the only consistent, theologically-sound, framework.

[@m.g7408]

Bro evolution is the most dominant theory for biological diversity that best explains and predicts the data at hand, if yec was the most substantiated then that would not have been the case and evolution would not have been called as a theory.

[@jonathanbaake6228]

@@m.g7408 since its popularization in mid 1800, evolution was promoted by guys like Lyell, Darwins spiritual father and fervent God of the Bible hater (in his book principles of geology). The real fact about evolution is that mostly people with prior commitment to rejecting God actially "confess" the worthless theory, Not based on evidence. Want evidence for YEC? A huge FLOOD buries animals, not yearly dust layers. And what was first? The enzymes transcribing the DNA, or the DNA that codes for all the complex enzymes that transcribe it. You must be a fool to believe such nonesense. But God bless you none the less ;-).

[@Noseqquiero]

@@m.g7408 something being called “the most dominant” doesn’t mean it’s true. In Nazi Germany “the most dominant” idea was the superiority of arians. Will you equally apply the idea to the Nazi’s ideas and call their racism a theory since it was “the most dominant?” As for evolution explaining and predicting things, well, to address this scientifically, since I’m a biologist by academic training, that means we must eliminate all competing ideas. What other ideas have u falsified? As for what YEC is or not, wrong. The large majority, such as yourself, won’t even consider it, so u can’t really speak to this.

[@erlwilliam1]

I would like to hear a dialogue between James Tour and Richard lane Craig regarding the origins of life I think that would be productive

[@edwardwicks304]

Love Dr. Craig. I think that he is the top apologist alive today. I hear a couple of strawman arguments. 1) Did the 2 early church Fathers that he mentioned that didn't believe in a literal 6 day believe in millions or billions of years? 2) In comparing the 1st six chapters of Genesis to the book of Revelation wasn't that a little misleading considering that Revelation is full of apocalyptic language? How would 1st century Christians have read Genesis? How would the have read Revelation ?

[@escalonajes]

what year is this video from?

[@FinishedGamesLLC]

I find it interesting how much many Christians cling to a theory that was designed to explain origins WITHOUT God. Not necessarily saying they are wrong, but as a former agnostic, I do find it intriguing.

[@williamlanecraig752]

Beloved thank you for taking your time out to watch this message and for your comments and support.your comment and constant support has brought me this far.keep supporting Email MD ([e-mail]) It is an orphanage home that has a baby dying from leukemia please send donation to the MD email in charge for more support and your prayers will be answered and your healing will manifest, after donating,pray with Psalm 51,46,130,24, only faith can move mountains we are God children of the most high God, remember we are not fighting against flesh and blood but against principalities, against evil power's, against rulers of darkness,God bless you..

[@fightintheshade]

Christ believed in a literal Adam and Eve, and literal Noah’s flood. Paul believed in a literal Adam and Eve. Peter believed in Noah’s flood. Think I’ll go with Christ, Peter and Paul on this one...

[@jackplumbridge2704]

Craig also believes in a literal Adam and Eve and a literal flood.

[@fightintheshade]

@@jackplumbridge2704 yeah sure he does. Here’s their pics 🐵&🐵 🤣

[@jackplumbridge2704]

@@fightintheshade do you really not know what Craig's views are? why in the world are you criticising him if you do not even know what he believes?

[@jackplumbridge2704]

@@fightintheshade i got a notification that you responded, but i cant see the response here. i can only see the first part where you quote WLC saying the genetic evidence shows humans didn't descend from an original couple. I'm not sure where you got that quote from, but i can tell you that he does not believe it. i was watching from him just the other day in which he states Adam and Eve are the descendants of all humanity. not just homo sapiens but the other types of humans like Neanderthals. what WLC means by a literal Adam and Eve is that they were 2 real people from which all human beings are descended.

[@fightintheshade]

@@jackplumbridge2704 disregard as that post was a miss click. As you stated WLC said “Adam and Eve are the ancestors of Neanderthals and ancient homosapiens”. According to the fairytale that is evolution Neanderthal is a different species. So now Craig has two different species coming from Whatever he means by “adam and eve” this idea its nothing to do with Christ, Peter, Paul and the Bible but you’re welcome to go off the rails with the man if you want. Im sticking with the Christ, Apostles and the Bible.

[@MackLeeGreen]

The problem with comparing a figurative reading of Genesis 1-11 with Revelation is you're essentially saying less slightly less than 25% of Genesis is figurative and the rest historical while Revelation is clearly figurative the whole way through.

[@gabepearson6104]

I don’t see the problem there.

[@falcon7404]

I think the hard part of correcting our brothers like Craig correctly is tough when these leaders do not have an actual contact information. Leading to public forums being the only form of connection. (I agree with craig on his points of the vid) it is just true our Christian "leaders" are hard to read.

[@Tigerengineer]

Please stop interrupting the guest speaker.

[@purevdorjjamsran5671]

Love WLC's work! Thank you so much... from Mongolia!

[@edgardelgado8753]

The position ken Ham take is right. We should allow God to speak not impose a secular worldview to His word. Now Craig is absolutely a brother in Christ, and more intelligent than I’ll ever be, He’s been a amazing solider defending the truth of Jesus Christ our God, our savior. Brothers in Christ should love eachother!!!!!

[@Swectorious]

Poor fool. WLC is right. The facts are important.

[@KupoIsaiah]

Respect to Dr. Craig, but 41:24 is telling. I do hope they talk it out, maybe have WLC can talk to Jason Lisle.

[@shipwright6122]

Like to hear WLC and Jason Lisle debate.

[@mikegrecamusic5917]

Can anyone provide a measurable, working definition of "pseudo intellectual"?

[@MeanBeanComedy]

Josh! Get off his Keister about that stupid vaccine!!

[@TinySkySky]

I have a genuine question. If we claim that Genesis is poetic instead of literal, then how do we explain Luke’s genealogy description that he gave for Jesus? Luke and Matthews genealogy’s don’t match up. So is Luke’s wrong? And then how can we be sure what to trust within the Bible. Also if we claim Adam and Eve are poetic (not actual people) then how do we fit in evolution or humans existing for 300,000 years instead of 6,000 years? Thank you I’ve been a Christian for a long time but I have a love for philosophy. These have been some burning questions for me and I would love to hear your response.

[@johnharrison6745]

You might want to go to his website, Reasonable Faith.

[@mindburnjw]

If possible, is there a discussion on free will that could be had ?

[@theophilus5132]

You might want to check out his book "The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge & Human Freedom" by William Lane Craig

[@mindburnjw]

@@theophilus5132 thank you !

[@mindburnjw]

@@theophilus5132 I think I'm driving a little deeper on the free will problem. I'm not quite sure if I've ever had a satisfactory answer/explanation. I've followed WLC and plantinga for a while, and often times free will is just assumed. In my limited reading, free will isnt treated seriously or it's an overlooked foundation. I appreciate the time it took you to bring up the text.

[@theophilus5132]

@@mindburnjw I'm glad I could help. I have to ask, though, were you determined to write what you wrote by the laws of chemistry and physics, or was it a choice? Did the laws of chemistry and physics pre-determine you not to read Dr. Craig's book, or is it a choice between two live options? I promise I'm not trying to be snarky here. It just seems obvious to me that you did indeed chose between those two live options. I may not be able to do a deep dive philosophically on why that is the case; it just seems prima facia true. Sometimes I think philosophers make things way too complicated than they need to be.

[@mindburnjw]

@@theophilus5132 thank you for such a genuine response. Hmm. The hard sciences arent involved in the problem I have. I'm a christian just to make things clear.

[@MorganFreemansFavoriteFreckle]

Dr.Craig speaks with a humility and openness that I rarely hear from Young Earth Creationists. I have never heard him insult or a belittle someone for holding a differing scientific view

[@michaelwalsh81]

I don't understand why S. Joshua Swamidass Phd, seemingly interrupts WLC while he is speaking. To me it takes away from the interview.

[@willquinn8993]

The theory of evolution is almost certainly correct, and frankly modern farming/husbandry wouldn't demonstrably work if the basic mechanisms required weren't in place. There is absolutely no question with regards bacterial and viral evolution, you can watch it in action. There's also next to no question with regards macro-invertebrates, given basic phenomena like Darwin's finches, and the pendadactyl fossil record, and the general fossil record in general. The creation myths were very, very clearly written as figurative poetry. There is absolutely no question that the universe as we understand it, was not created in 6 days (24 hour cycles), we can look back in time via radio-telescopes and see as much. There is also no question that human beings evolved from more primitive ancestors, given the fossil record is incredibly complete in illustrating our advance to our current form. There were Neanderthals, that is a fact. So, if there were an actual Adam and Eve (and perhaps there was), Eve was most certainly not made from a rib. None of the above brings into question, however, whether there is truth inherent to these stories, which I would claim there is in abundance. Assuming the texts to be divinely inspired/guided, then it has much to teach us of human nature, and the relationship of mankind to God. They are best understood as philosophical enquiries into how man and God relate. They are not, nor were they ever intended to be according to most scholars, historical accounts. WLC is entirely on the money.

[@roqsteady5290]

"truth inherent to these stories" If you mean by truth that which is in accord with reality, which is I think the standard usage, then you can hardly claim these scriptures are true. And if the scriptures are in fact just moral instruction, no one can agree on what they have to say about that in most cases. Surely the most sensible way to view them is as the creation myths of an ancient tribe and we have no sensible reason to suggest that they are any more in accord with reality or more morally instructive than the creation myths of other tribes, other than that through various historical accidents they became current in western societies.

[@willquinn8993]

@@roqsteady5290 Not so much. You see it all comes down to Christ, the base of Christianity. The case for His divinity is evidentially well beyond any other figure in history and His endorsement accords weight to these accounts. Further a great deal of the Old Testament offers a valuable historical record and a provenance for the stories shared by these ancestors. If Christ is the Lord, and I believe He is, then his endorsement is however of spectacular weight.

[@roqsteady5290]

@@willquinn8993 There is a circularity to this argument, because you have to already be a Christian (or extremely gullible) to accept that there is even close to enough "eviidence" for Christ's divinity. In actuality, for anyone rational, there is no more reason to believe in the miracles of Christianity than those of any other religion or fantastical belief system. There is simply no way to verify claims of singular past events and when they are miraculous or implausible there are many much more likely mundane explanations, such as making stuff up. Mormons are just as adamant that Joe Smith dug up gold tablets as you are that some guy rose from the dead. Both are very easily explained mundanely.

[@willquinn8993]

@@roqsteady5290 Argument by assertion as you attempt above is no argument at all. There is no shortage of examples of scholars who have come to believe in Christ after examining the evidence, and not before. Indeed far too many to prove rather than refute your assertion. Bart Ehrman, not a Christian of course, nonetheless attests to the indisputable historicity of Christ. This is the overwhelming majority position amongst historians. After that it’s simply a question of asking if you believe the testimonies given therein. I, like many lawyers in particular, find the case compelling. Now you can believe differently, but your position, which appears to be built on ECREE (a logically false idea), is not inherently superior.

[@roqsteady5290]

@@willquinn8993 We are not discussing the historicity of Jesus. It has got to be obvious that there is a big difference between existing and being divine; it is hardly the overwhelming position of historians, other than Christian ones, that Jesus was divine; in fact you would lose all credibility if you made such a claim in a secular academic paper... But, whether a person called Jesus who did some or any of the stuff attributed to him existed or not, the fact that scholars can (and increasingly do) make a convincing case for the negative does underscore how little is really known about his life and how flimsy the evidence really is. In any case saying the evidence for Jesus being divine is stronger than for any other figure is a very very low bar, and one that every other religion on the planet would disagree with and prefer their own guru/s with no compelling difference in the evidence (ie little to none). I don't imagine, you being a lawyer Jesus would be convicted of being "divine" in any sensible court, not least because we don't have any sensible criteria for divinity, so what exactly would you be testing for? And the fact that you are convinced says more about where you were born in the world and your indoctrination into that culture than it does about the evidence for Jesus divinity. The equation is a simple one: people who are born into the religions of their cultures overwhelmingly believe in those religions. So belief in a religion is independent of it's truth. Now it may be that you lucked out and landed on the one true religion, but there is no compelling evidence that you did so over the many thousands of other religions that have existed in history. That is always the bottom line - everything we know about history is more plausibly explained by mundane causes (people make stuff up) than it is by supernatural ones, so we simply use Occam's razor to avoid multiplying entities beyond necessity. As to your last sentence, whatever it is meant to mean, I would say that witholding belief when there isn't sufficient evidence is surely "inherently superior" if you consider holding true beliefs to be superior than holding false ones. And no religion has got even close to close to providing evidence that their prophet figure/s are divine, inspired by some god or whatever. The main problem with all this credulity is the effect it is having on our ability to address the worlds problems. In your case though, you do get some credit for not letting your religious credulity infect your understanding of science.

[@gissie391]

Did you study science ?

[@anaclaudiaqueiroz4075]

I really believe modern science should be respected as said. However, how many errors or mistakes has science made? Can’t the same be happening today? So should we trust in it all the time and let it guide our conclusions?

[@Dannisoldier3000]

Yeah, most of the scientists today are interpreting science with evolutionary lenses.

[@FightingfortheKing]

Is Swamidass capable of not interrupting?

[@aidenhill960]

God bless you!

[@adrizo78]

"Jesus probably thought the moon was luminous" I'm surprised this statement has been glossed over, as it's probably the most controversial statement in the whole interview. Is Craig's position that Jesus was not all knowing?

[@imabeast7397]

I find this end analogy is wrong to a degree. Its not a question of whether or not its an elephant they all believe its an elephant, the question is how did the elephant get there when science shows a greater difficulty of it naturally happening vs it being supernaturally created and the evidence supports the latter but we argue the the first. Is God powerful enough to not need time and evolution to create and why would not just create and wait billions of years to see his creation he decided to make from the beginning.

[@jackplumbridge2704]

"Is God powerful enough to not need time and evolution to create and why would not just create and wait billions of years to see his creation he decided to make from the beginning." - God is powerful enough to instantly create things fully formed, but that isn't the point. the question is HOW he did it. also, billions of years to God is nothing at all.

[@scottm4042]

@@jackplumbridge2704 So, you want to know how God did it. Why do you want to know? To worship God more, or to be God yourself? Lucifer wanted to be God, not a good idea. If we knew everything God knows, (all knowledge), would we still appreciate God, or would we have tried to replace Him? We are sinful, and prideful, and God has given us plenty of information. But, we could not handle being all knowing. God questioned Job in Job 38 - 40, saying were you there when I created the world, etc.? And in 40:14, He tells Job, if you were there, and had God's power, than I would tell you your own right hand could save you. Meaning, we were not there, so we can not save ourselves. This is why Jesus had to come from God to die on the cross in our place, for the price of our sins. So, when we repent of our sins, and put our faith and trust in Christ alone for our salvation, His death for our sins, burial, and resurrection on the third day, we can be saved. (See 1 Corinthians 15;1 - 4.).

[@jackplumbridge2704]

@@scottm4042 "So, you want to know how God did it. Why do you want to know? To worship God more, or to be God yourself?" - did you just accuse me of being like Satan for wanting to know how God created the world? honestly you sound like a crazy person. yo starting having a rant over nothing. please dial down the crazy.

[@scottm4042]

@@jackplumbridge2704 The serpent used the same tactic to convince Adam and Eve to sin, they wanted the knowledge of good and evil. He tempts us the same way. Unsaved people are condemned to hell, as is the devil. We are all sinners, deserving of punishment. Jesus is the Way out. You can ask God questions, when your motive is right. Like the religious leaders of Jesus day, He gave them parables, or the sign of Jonah, but rarely explained clearly to them, as their motives were selfish.

[@grosty2353]

To those complaining about Josh interrupting - he’s just excited

[@Apollos2.2]

@48:37 Dr Craig says: "Jesus probably thought the moon was luminous" What?? No way. Jesus created the moon and everything that has been created. John 1:2, Col 1:16. Why would he not know how the moon reflects light? Perhaps what Dr Craig mean to say was that Jesus' audience wouldn't have understood if He started to break it all down to them scientifically. (?)

[@davidbrenneman1574]

45:20 craig can't see how anyone would believe that... I wish he were right about that... I know some ppl that read it literally and materialistically like that...

[@waynemershon8920]

So what happens when you get to the point that you realize that a straightforward interpretation of Genesis is correct but have spent years leading people astray with the fantasy of macroevolution? Claiming that you were just " following the science" will not be an acceptable excuse.

[@edge4192]

Maybe I missed it but I've never heard WLC say macroevolution is true, not in this video or any other. As he stated he's not dogmatic on these views and is willing to change his mind based on interpretation of the science alongside scripture.

[@timothyhaugan2903]

So is Adam the first human or not?

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

Yes, Dr. Craig affirms that Adam was the first human. - RF Admin

[@aidenhill960]

God bless you!

[@22julip]

Please let Dr Craig talk !!! I tuned in to hear him answer Ken’s accusations , I can see dialogue with him ask the question then let him answer , if you want to talk to him do it after the video , I have no problem with you personally, but I understand what Dr Craig means , I don’t need you to explain,

[@papinbala]

start watching from 10:48

[@emanuelcharron1878]

I am an Atheist and I can still have respect for Dr Craig’s position and explanation where I can easily reject Ken Ham who does not provide a reasonable explanation of anything at all. I feel his interest is in ticket sales for his ridiculous theme park.

[@jastoms]

I really respect William Lane Craig, but in this particular area I really hope he would consider some of the reasons why Ken-Ham’s(unfortunately too passionately and not necessarily humble reply) is just born out of frustration in a field he has devoted his life to. Firstly regarding genre - we have to admit that the biblical genres aren’t so black and white compared to what we are used to. Genesis 1-11 I believe fits in the broad ‘Narrative’ genre - as do many scholars. But this doesn’t mean we need to get hung up on phrases like firmament how the stars are hung in the sky. Instead we do need to look at what the primary message the author is trying to convey. In the case of Genesis 1-11 regardless if we believe it or not, the fact that God created the earth I think is a clear message the author believes. This is definitely not laid out as a scientific report, although there are some aspects I believe the author is trying to convey in a historically accurate manner (And possibly even a litteral 6 days, although that is emphasised in the text slightly more than other aspects, it's probably not worth being hung up over). So then regardless of genre, is there any need for someone who doesn’t need to deny God to accept Evolution or any of the ‘science’ that falls under. If we can step back from our worldviews and compare the data with how the multiple ways it can be interpreted (and not just swallowing the interpretation that is most publicly presented based on 1 world view only) then we can see that scientifically there is a lot of support for a historic Genesis 1-11, and I would given more time like to present the case that there is more scientific support for the young earth interpretation of the data, compared to a long age earth. (We have to accept on either worldview that from a scientific point we don’t have all the facts and understanding, and the window into the past is not as clear as some present) As some commenters have put forward, Evolution vs Creation is a secondary issue in the Christian theology, and I agree. But the Genesis 1-11 text also contains much of the foundations of the Christian theology too, and that is why we must be very careful here. William Lane Craig, as someone I respect greatly, I hope you read this comment and I would be happy to try represent this case more complete and better if it would help? (Not that I have all/many answers, but maybe presenting different views clearer can help)

[@bybelseapologetiek2444]

Thanks! Wanted to respond very similarly, but you did it much better than I would've been able to.

[@russelllankton1394]

No it’s not a “secondary” issue. You don’t believe in Genesis because you can’t help but put your reason into your heart. If you don’t believe in Adam as he is described, how can you believe in the second Adam? If you were told Earthly things and don’t believe them, how can you believe heavenly things?

[@Josiahpaitofficial]

I want them to debate so bad

[@marleyandme447]

The stage is set for debate. Craig must come forward and respond to the challenges of Ham and Dr. James White. He has previously refused to debate Christians.

[@johnharrison6745]

What for? I mean, Ken Ham is as far below Dr. Craig as Earth's core is beneath its moon; and, Dr. White, though far better educated and informed that Ken Ham, SEEMS to be too willingly/willfully stuck in a rather narrow, myopic mindset to be fit to share a stage with Dr. Craig.

[@marleyandme447]

@@johnharrison6745 It seems like you have Craig on quite the pedestal. He is, no doubt a brilliant man, but is a thoroughgoing Arminian who has criticized Reformed positions as well as a traditional rendering of Genesis. I am simply asking that he put his money where his mouth is and hopefully edify the Christian community with his acumen.

[@DonDraperism]

Dr. Craig is far more polite than I would be as I have zero patience for people like Ken Ham. I don't care if people want to believe that the world is 10 thousand years old or a billion years old. Just not on the top of my list and fortunately it almost never comes up in conversation. I saw one debate Ken Ham had with another Christian on the age of the Earth and Ken Ham was belligerent and rude. Complete waste of time watching him.

[@freddief939]

If you use a text to speech synthesizer, you'll catch a lot more errors.

[@andreww4885]

As much as I agree with Ken Ham and a young earth view, I’m saddened by his attack on Bill’s character. To handle this Biblically, William should exercise Matthew 18 and go to his brother Ken Ham and point out Ken’s sin against him. I would love to see a debate and Godly discussion between the two of these men, both of whom I respect

[@hectorjoseherrerarivera7]

¿y los subtitulos?

[@featurebroadcast297]

YEC's are, with some exceptions, openly hostile. This makes them difficult to consider seriously.

[@alexivonkuciak3786]

Origen advocated for the whole Bible to be an allegory so saying oh well Origen agrees with me that Genesis 1-11 is not litteral is probably not a very strong argument.. Specially coming from Craig.. Probably one of the strongest defender of the faith with unbeliever that is currently alive..

[@williamlanecraig752]

Beloved thank you for taking your time out to watch this message and for your comments and support.your comment and constant support has brought me this far.keep supporting Email MD ([e-mail]) It is an orphanage home that has a baby dying from leukemia please send donation to the MD email in charge for more support and your prayers will be answered and your healing will manifest, after donating,pray with Psalm 51,46,130,24, only faith can move mountains we are God children of the most high God, remember we are not fighting against flesh and blood but against principalities, against evil power's, against rulers of darkness,God bless you..

[@aidenhill960]

God bless you!

[@xenohelix]

Darwinian macroevolution is little more than the ancient “Chain of Being” myth (promoted by early pagans) expressed in modern scientific jargon. Anaximander (c. 610-546 BC) taught that humans “originally resembled another type of animal, namely fish.” Democritus (c.460-370BC) taught that early humans initially spoke with “confused” and “unintelligible” sounds, and that “gradually they articulated words.” Epicurus (341-270BC) taught that there was absolutely no need of a God or gods because the Universe came about by a chance movement of atoms. And many more examples could be cited. “When I began the search for anticipation of the evolutionary theory. . . . I was astonished to find how many of the pronounced and basic features of the Darwinian theory were anticipated as far back as the seventh century, B.C. . . . Far Eastern philosophers thought of creation in evolutionary terms. . . .a belief in an inherent continuity of all creation and, second, a reference to the merging of one species into another. -H. F. Osborne (the director of the American Museum of Natural History) "...As a scientific theory, Darwinism would have been jettisoned long ago. The point, however, is that the doctrine of evolution has swept the world, not on the strength of its scientific merits, but precisely in its capacity as a Gnostic myth. It affirms, in effect, that living things created themselves, which is in essence a metaphysical claim....Thus...evolutionism is a metaphysical doctrine decked out in scientific garb....it is a scientistic myth. And the myth is Gnostic, because it implicitly denies the transcendent origin of being; for indeed, only after the living creature has been speculatively reduced to an aggregate of particles does Darwinist transformism become conceivable. Darwinism, therefore, continues the ancient Gnostic practice of deprecating 'God the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth.' It perpetuates...the venerable Gnostic tradition of 'Jehovah bashing.'" -Alan Morrison (From Old Gnosticism to New Age I, SCP Journal Vol. 28:4-29:1, 2005, pp. 30-31) And, as for cosmology, Scripture states that "the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved" (and many passages reiterate this truth). Therefore, the notion that it is orbiting the sun at 66,600 mph (~29.78 km/s), with a 66.6° tilt (90° - 23.4° = 66.6°), based upon theories developed in 1666 (the young alchemist Isaac Newton's so-called "Annus Mirabilis") should be discarded as false. "'Hast laid the foundation of the earth.' We have been deeply impressed with the fact that God has some good reason for referring in His Word to 'the foundation' and 'foundations' of the earth or world more than twenty-five times. We believe it is to safeguard His people from the popular delusion of the day, namely, that the earth revolves on its axis, and that the heavenly bodies are stationary, only appearing to our sight to move, as the banks and trees seem to be doing to one seated in a rowing-boat or sailing ship. This theory was first advanced (so far as the writer is aware) by Grecian heathen philosophers, echoed by Copernicus in the fifteenth century, and re-echoed by science 'falsely so called' (see 1 Timothy 6:20 ) today. Alas, that so many of God’s servants and people have accepted it. Such a conceit cannot be harmonized with 'a foundation' so often predicated of the earth; which, necessarily, implies its fixity! Nor can such a theory be squared with the repeated statements of Holy Writ that the 'sun moves' (Joshua 10:12 ), etc. The writer is well aware that this paragraph may evoke a pitying smile from some. But that will not move him. Let God be true and every man a liar. We are content to believe what He has said. Paul was willing to be a fool for Christ’s sake (1 Corinthians 4:10 ), and we are willing to be thought a fool for the Scripture’s sake." -A. W. Pink A. W. Pink obviously knew the difference between astronomy and astrology (as did Martin Luther); while they both involve observation, the latter, in addition, involves mystical and occult beliefs/motivations/biases: "There is talk of a new astrologer [Nicolaus Copernicus] who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth." -Martin Luther (Tischreden) "All of Copernicus' 'radical' notions - especially the heliocentric concept - are to be found in the Hermetica - which originated from 2nd or 3rd century Alexandria...Newton didn't make his great discoveries despite his occult beliefs, but because of them." -Brendan D. Murphy Instead of being "swift to hear, slow to speak, [and] slow to wrath," we have found that in relation to this subject in particular many, alas, are slow to hear, swift to speak, and swift to wrath (I might also add slow to research): "The sluggard is wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason" (Proverbs 26:16). It can be easily shown (at least for those willing to put in the work) that many so-called astronomers throughout history, instead of yielding their belief system to observation, yielded observation to their belief system (bias/philosophy). "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God" (1 Corinthians 3:18-19a).

[@johnharrison6745]

"yada, yada, yada": Just a bunch of ad hominems, genetic fallacy, and out-of-context copied-&-pasted quotes. Young Earth creationism IS garbage; and, all the gibbering and self-delusion in the world won't change that fact.

[@xenohelix]

"Just a bunch of ad hominem [mere assertion], genetic fallacy [mere assertion], and out-of-context copied-&-pasted [assumed accusation] quotes. Young Earth creationism IS garbage [invective]; and, all the gibbering [invective] and self-delusion [invective] in the world won't change that fact [ungrounded assertion]." Is that supposed to be a rebuttal? Why would you resort to such tactics? Dear brother, do you not seem to forget, that assertions require proofs? If you disagree with anything that I have written, then please cite that section and provide proof to the contrary.

[@johnharrison6745]

@@xenohelix 'Just a bunch of ad hominem [assertion of fact], genetic fallacy [assertion of fact], and out-of-context copied-&-pasted [assertion of fact] quotes. Young Earth creationism IS garbage [assertion of fact]; and, all the gibbering [what you have done here] and self-delusion [what you've done to yourself] in the world won't change that fact [very obvious fact].' "Is that supposed to be a rebuttal?": No; it's an accurate descriptive assertion of reality. "Why would you resort to such tactics?" Because YEC's are extremely hardheaded and strongly deluded. "that assertions require proofs": No; they don't. Chris Hitchens was wrong about that; and so are you. "If you disagree with anything I've written.....": Look-up the terms 'ad hominem' and 'onus probandi'. Young Earth creationism is absurd garbage; its adherents are superstitious psy-damage cases; and, out-of-context copied-&-pasted quotes, and logical-fallacies WON'T change that fact. 😏😉😜

[@xenohelix]

Insults are not arguments, assertions are not proofs, and, in accordance with your own admission, you have refuted nothing. I repeat, if you disagree with anything that I have written, then please cite that section and provide proof to the contrary.

[@johnharrison6745]

@@xenohelix "Insults": All I've done is stating facts: What you've said is a load of propagandic, unsupported fallacies (practically irrelevancies); and, Young Earth creationism is a security-blanket for childish, sick people. 😏😉😜

[@mtjc5336]

I really wish Ken Ham had not made a personal attack, but had instead outlined briefly but clearly his frustration or concerns with Dr William Craig’s views and how he is trying to marry macro evolution and an old earth view with the Biblical account. Ken Ham’s life work has been to demonstrate the importance of Genesis as a foundation for our faith, and to show how essential tenants of the Christian faith stem from the very beginning chapters of Genesis. If we allow the foundations to be destroyed, what are we left with? An unstable structure. One would have to already be very familiar with Ken Ham’s work to understand where his huge frustration is coming from, and perhaps to properly interpret what he’s saying in his tweet. I am not as familiar with Dr. Craig‘s work, and I am very interested in becoming more familiar with it because I don’t want to stick my head in the dirt and ignore new perspectives, but I do see some pretty clear and scary implications when we take away a literal understanding of the first chapters Of Genesis. It truly does shake the roots of the Christian faith, or at least calls them into question, Which I think should only be done with fairy very convincing and clear information

[@THEAMERICAN-ob2wt]

I don’t see how macro evolution and Christianity are at odds? We aren’t speaking of Darwinian evolution. What does it say man was made out of clay right? God definitely could have done it that way. The point is God created man through whatever process in the image of God.

[@mtjc5336]

@@THEAMERICAN-ob2wt macro evolution is evolution between species - not within a species. For example, a bird turning eventually into a dinosaur or a mammal. God says he created everything to reproduce “after its own kind.” There is also the problem of necessary death during the many many years required for the changes macro evolutionist suggest took place… before mankind arrived to introduce sin into the picture. I’m not sure what Dr Craig’s proposal is exactly, but if it includes macro evolution generally that includes the journey from building blocks of life up through the ages (full of death, disease, and failed mutations) up until man finally arrives. Which is problematic.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

Check out Reasons to Believe at Reasons. Org and Dr.Michael S.Heiser videos on the Genesis text of 1-11 . They both agree from RTB's science and the ancient Hebrew text of a O.T scholar,Dr. Heiser. ;its not the YEC of Hovind/ Ham fundamentalism.

[@daniellucas2968]

I've never been a fan of Ken Ham. He's so contentious, and these tweets are just a case in point.

[@pieterlabuschagne7641]

Great teaching to watch on this subject is by Dr "John Lennox: "Seven Days That Divide the World"" on KZbin

[@germaan1]

Why do people call William Lane Craig Bill all the time? Is Bill his nickname?

[@davidhog]

In the US most people named William are called Bill. Like Bill Clinton.

[@germaan1]

@@davidhog Thanks :-)

[@beowulf.reborn]

The only thing in Genesis 1 through 11, that I think could be even motely considered "figurative", is the use of Day, in Genesis 1 and 2. And even here, I do not think it is so much a case of being "figurative", as it is, using a word that has a large range of meanings, to order the periods of God's creative activity, in a way that would be easily grasped by, and make sense to vast number of God's people who have read/heard the creation account over the past 3500 years. Ordering God's "Divine Days", in a way that resembles our human days, or rather, ordering our human work week after the pattern of God's "Divine Work Week".

[@davidsturges3559]

Genesis is the foundation of our faith, In the beginning God (Jesus Christ) created the heaven and the earth

[@rwleif]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/iGOXiI1qfdusqsU

[@Apocryphile1970-check_it]

Bare in mind God did this before Adam fall and told to leave eden. So God is God right. he can do anything yes. And all these churches are reading it wrong. Or God is the God of confusion. Well the church's are reading it wrong. And God has placed a code in it. So if you can read this code you will know you are reading it right. And you know the code is from God because it works in every language even before the language existed. God spoke the world in to existence his language is code. Philosophers have said God's language is math. DNA is our code everything is made of atoms arranged in a specific way this is there code. And the logos is God's code. In the beginning when the spirit of God moved upon the waters. well if you think of the waters being scripture. And the heavenly and the earthly meanings. then the logos is written in scripture. before God created everything. So everything is created in a way God can use it to. In code a secret language. Through keys for words. When you understand this code you will know God is in control of everything. And you will truly know God is on the throne. When you see all what God has done. And can explain even half of it. Even atheist will bow in amazement. When you use the logos it can reveal the future. It dose it in a way where people are types. Like take this for example. A woman come from man so a woman can be used for a man in code. And serpent/satan gave eve the fruit. You know a tree by the fruits it produces. So fruits are works. And the tree was the knowledge for good and evil. So she performed works with this evil knowledge and it produced a seed or child. She gave the knowledge to Adam a child of God's own work of his hand an knowledge. And Adam God's child died spiritual. So you could say mans understanding is of the devil or antichrist. And this knowledge will cause you to died spiritually. It's a foreshadow of what happens when you don't listen to God's voice. And you let someone else tell you about a thing. Let God be true and every man a liar. Am a novice check Robert ferrell apocryphallia1970 you will not be disappointed. Thanks for your time gby

[@dansmith9724]

I watched a recent utube preacher teach recently. His opinion is that mankind is about 6000yrs old but the universe is older than mankind, which he couldnt give an answer saying it could be 6001 yrs old or 60000 yrs old or 6 million years old. He referred to the gap between genesis1 1 and 2, saying in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. The rest of genesis from when day 1 started with light and he seperated it by darkness. There was evening and morning the first day. That shows that each day was 24hrs long. William Lane Craigs eg of trees needing time to grow and produce fruit, well this preach said God created things with the appearance of age. So although fruit trees would only be a day old they would be mature, fully grown and produce fruit. This preachers example was that Adam and Eve would have been less than a day old but would have been fully mature adults and didnt have to go through puberty etc as God told them to go forth and multiply. So they were created with the appearance of age. So i think the vegetation, the animals etc would have been created the same way. It was an interesting concept of an old earth but new living creation on earth. Something he said that was taught in churches many years ago. Ive seen another video where he mentions the earth was made for angelic beings with free will who chose to sin. The earth was destroyed and the earth left formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep. Thats a different take on things.

[@L5player]

I wish Craig would explain how he believes that the individuals cited in the Genesis text were real people--they actually lived on Earth in real time--but the stories surrounding them are not to be taken at face value, as if to say, for instance, that there was no flood, or Abraham was a real person, but his having a child at an old age didn't really happen, or his great-grandson Joseph didn't really get sold into slavery in Egypt, or Moses never struck the rock and got water, or whatever. What is so unbelievable about those stories? Just because Revelation is written in obviously symbolic fashion (because it contains things and events that are just not real life) it doesn't follow that Genesis is the same--or how about the other historical books, like Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles? Fables? How does he decide the people are real, but the stories aren't? Jesus cited the rules of marriage that are initiated in Genesis, so are His admonitions not based on facts of history? Christianity rises or falls on Christ, but if the Christ we worship takes Genesis seriously, but we don't, I'm not sure that can work.