Tap to unmute

Epic Debate on Genesis & Evolution

  Рет қаралды 60,844

InspiringPhilosophy

InspiringPhilosophy

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 1 600
@InspiringPhilosophy
@InspiringPhilosophy 4 жыл бұрын
To give everyone a heads up, the wide shot camera was having technical difficulties for the first 30 minutes, so we only have a close up at first. So you won't see me during the introduction, but rest assured I will be on camera once I start my opening statements after the moderator introduces us both.
@deleteduser1877
@deleteduser1877 4 жыл бұрын
It is 22:28, in my country so i will not be able to watch premium I have to sleep early
@InspiringPhilosophy
@InspiringPhilosophy 4 жыл бұрын
Minecraft Legends of the Heroes no worries, I understand. I’ll be doing a live Q&A for donors on March 21 early in the morning in my time zone so supporters on the other side of the world can participate.
@michielvdvlies3315
@michielvdvlies3315 4 жыл бұрын
@@deleteduser1877 ah the former dutch first lady
@malvokaquila6768
@malvokaquila6768 4 жыл бұрын
Great job as always IP.
@followschrist9236
@followschrist9236 4 жыл бұрын
Dang, why isn’t your story about Jesus. I don’t care about the “camera technical difficulties”. Get behind me satan. This is not the Gospel.
@drakesmith2492
@drakesmith2492 4 жыл бұрын
I honestly think that the most important issue or idea or concept in the entire debate is revealed in the closing statements. Michael Jones states that many of the atheists he works with admit that coming to the conclusion that evolution did occur was the primary reason they first moved away from Christianity. Following this, in his closing statements, Dr. Boot admits that a person can be a Christian and believe in evolution at the same time. The salvation of such a person is not in question. To me this highlights the importance of what Michael Jones is trying to do in his ministry. Even if evolution turns out to be incorrect in the end the worst thing a theistic evolutionist has to worry about is finding out that he was wrong when he enters the Kingdom of God. On the other hand, the person who leaves behind Christianity because he believes evolution and Christianity are not compatible will miss salvation entirely. Because of this, I think it is wise to support Michael Jones even if you are not an evolutionist because he is helping bring more people to salvation who otherwise would not come to Christ because, in their experience, evolution is so convincing that they simply cannot deny it.
@InspiringPhilosophy
@InspiringPhilosophy 4 жыл бұрын
I am glad to see you understand why I do this.
@MegaVIDEOGAMEVIDS
@MegaVIDEOGAMEVIDS 4 жыл бұрын
Sin is also convincing and man too can't deny it. Adhering to theistic evolution begins, slowly but surely, to chip away at all other aspects of the bible. Indeed, if God didn't create all life, the flood was merely a local thing, then did water actually turn into wine? Oh yeah, the disciples just broke off little pieces of bread to distribute amongst the crowd. Did Christ actually raise Lazarus from the dead or was he just in deep sleep? Did Christ actually die? Indeed this leads right back to Christ and his miracles and most importantly the resurrection. A simple inquiry into the evolution and the current literature and discoveries made after Darwin as well as the arguments for God's existence show one has to pick one over the other.
@InspiringPhilosophy
@InspiringPhilosophy 4 жыл бұрын
All you said was nothing more than a logical fallacy known as a slippery slope. Good to YECs have to resort to logical fallacies now
@MegaVIDEOGAMEVIDS
@MegaVIDEOGAMEVIDS 4 жыл бұрын
@@InspiringPhilosophy You try and reconcile observations from a fallen world with how God intended it to be. And yes the SS is true. If we see it happen constantly with theists adopting evolution and quickly becoming agnostic or atheists then I'm sure the SS is true. The very fact the Christian is in between YEC and evolution and think he needs to drop one or the other is indicative of the fact that both positions can't truly be reconciled. Adopting evolution and maintain creationism is to invite the potential for further doubt down the line of other biblical events, obviously. Anyone with an understanding of the fallen nature of man and the noetic effects of sin can see this. I do find it somewhat commendable, for what it's worth, that you try and reconcile both positions for the sake of not having the believer drop Christianity and indeed salvation because of their intellectual inclinations.
@InspiringPhilosophy
@InspiringPhilosophy 4 жыл бұрын
Again that doesn’t follow it all, which is why it is a logical fallacy, not a cogent argument
@joekeenan6435
@joekeenan6435 4 жыл бұрын
"Some people, in order to discover God, read books. But there is a great book: the very appearance of created things. Look above you! Look below you! Read it. God, whom you want to discover, never wrote that book with ink. Instead, He set before your eyes the things that He had made. Can you ask for a louder voice than that?" ~ Saint Augustine God wrote two books, and they do not contradict one another
@gavinhurlimann2910
@gavinhurlimann2910 4 жыл бұрын
Joe Keenan - Brilliant!
@pleasantox7655
@pleasantox7655 4 жыл бұрын
@@gavinhurlimann2910 I really like that. Thanks for the quote, dude
@joekeenan6435
@joekeenan6435 4 жыл бұрын
@@gavinhurlimann2910 Thank you, I stole it from a North African (couldn't find the rest of the quote)
@gavinhurlimann2910
@gavinhurlimann2910 4 жыл бұрын
@@joekeenan6435: ha ha! No worries Joe. Most of my stuff is unoriginal. Here's a cool one from St Francis of Assisi (1181 - 1226) "Always be spreading the Gospel, and only when absolutely necessary - use words". God bless.
@fredericdouglas3574
@fredericdouglas3574 4 жыл бұрын
Hence, we use science to read what God has written.
@JAWesquire373
@JAWesquire373 4 жыл бұрын
Does this guy think Jesus had descendants? And that you had to be one of his descendants in order to be in Christ? I’m pretty sure a major part of the gospel is that you don’t have to come from a certain family in order to be saved. If this is true...how is he a theologian?
@rbxgamesstore230
@rbxgamesstore230 4 жыл бұрын
Wut
@jgbee2726
@jgbee2726 2 жыл бұрын
Statement makes no sense.
@JLCProductions1976
@JLCProductions1976 4 жыл бұрын
Seems like Dr. Boot was trying to conflate the scientific theory of evolution with a worldview built upon that theory. He clearly wasn’t familiar with Michael’s work and positions, which is sad.
@nealswanson8684
@nealswanson8684 4 жыл бұрын
It's hard for me to believe family tree evolution in both scientific and scriptural probability. Scientifically we have never observed or demonstrated family tree evolution. Even if you point to interesting Fossils, a field where plenty of fraudsters been involved, you don't know that they even reproduced or were products of major mutations.
@JLCProductions1976
@JLCProductions1976 4 жыл бұрын
@@nealswanson8684 true...true
@bieberbazzejunge
@bieberbazzejunge 3 жыл бұрын
...it seems he isn't even familiar what science, evolution, maybe othe subjects he talked about even really are. some statements and the quotes from "atheists" are clearly following the same (lame) argument and structure like f.e. the publications of the s.c. "creation research inst."
@PowerfulRift
@PowerfulRift Жыл бұрын
Hey IP you’ve helped strengthen my faith, thank you man! 😎
@ThePerfectchris
@ThePerfectchris 10 ай бұрын
I was struggling years with researching about evolution and compatibility with the Bible. After prayer and lots of ups and downs i found myself very happy when i realized that half of your arguments are what i have concluded too. God is great! Thank you brother.
@LtDeadeye
@LtDeadeye 4 жыл бұрын
IP did great but "I have a video on that" is an unsatisfactory reply, although I do understand that going into great detail eats up a lot of time.
@Fallen-Saint
@Fallen-Saint 3 жыл бұрын
I believe he's saying, that one can gain more info, in what he's saying.
@tylerwaymire7709
@tylerwaymire7709 3 жыл бұрын
Year late, but debates usually don’t change the debaters minds, they’re used to change the viewers mind, so I see it as he was using it as a resource for the viewer to look at for deeper research
@reedplaysgames
@reedplaysgames 3 жыл бұрын
@@tylerwaymire7709 true, it’s kinda sad tho that debates almost never end with either person having their mind changed, but still I see how they can be important
@Navii-05
@Navii-05 3 жыл бұрын
Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it. So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that. So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned. The reason why blood must be spilled for forgiveness of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough to temporarily cover some sins. (it did not allow forgiveness of sins, Unlike Jesus's, it only temporarily covered them). Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. Jesus was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV. kzbin.info/www/bejne/opPFZautjs9kb8k Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument. Regarding Christianity watch InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus reliability of NT. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true. J
@magnusm.4437
@magnusm.4437 4 жыл бұрын
I’m surprised Dr. Boot didn’t do the requisite research; in the cross examination he seemed to have little familiarity with IP’s views, if any at all. Moreover, the mentioning of tropes like the theory/fact distinction was a bit surprising. I would think that someone of Dr. Boot’s acumen would avoid such rudimentary misunderstanding.
@matthewmanucci
@matthewmanucci 4 жыл бұрын
Nope. Dr. Boot did very well addressing all of Jones’ claims including the theory/fact response. Yes, I said response because t he reason Dr. Boot mentioned that Evolution was a theory and not a fact was because Michael Jones called it a fact. Good on Dr. Boot for keeping on target with his opponents claims.
@dmx7329
@dmx7329 4 жыл бұрын
@@matthewmanucci Dr. Boot is completly mistaken and should stick to his Theology rather than getting into science because every scientist agrees it is a fact and he didnt address any of Michael jones claims periode
@DavidTextle
@DavidTextle 4 жыл бұрын
This comment told me to read a dictionary
@nealswanson8684
@nealswanson8684 4 жыл бұрын
@@dmx7329 "every scientist" plz. Not one time has family tree evolution been observed or demonstrated. Dr. Tour does a great job in explaining how improbable family tree evolution is as well. Peace and Gob Bless 🙏
@nealswanson8684
@nealswanson8684 4 жыл бұрын
God* 🙂
@wild7goose
@wild7goose 4 жыл бұрын
Dr. Boot brings up a lot of important points to consider and good questions that should be given time to think about. But the dude seemed more like an inquisitor than a co-debater. While I do not believe that theistic evolution is compatible with Scripture, IP, you did an amazing job and maintained a level head. I love the work you do bro.
@Nunya_Bidness_53
@Nunya_Bidness_53 3 жыл бұрын
I argue that Genesis is theological messaging and not about the "how or when" or even really the "what" of Creation, but about the Creator. "How and when" are questions that would not have occured to the bronze age, and "what" to the Hebrews meant "what purpose does it have", not it's composition. The intent is to reveal the Creator and distinguish him from the created order and it's elements (which is what bronze agers were worshipping).
@jgbee2726
@jgbee2726 2 жыл бұрын
You will have big problems in life if you believe someone because of their charisma!
@jgbee2726
@jgbee2726 2 жыл бұрын
@The wanderer You would rather use lies and mans wisdom in an effort to get people to be "christians" but remember that someone who becomes a Christian through lies will leave when they find out they've been lied to. For that very reason I do not tell kids santa is real, It is better to tell the truth from the beginning, even though others will not like it. By the way, what have veins got to do with it?
@Dht1kna
@Dht1kna 4 жыл бұрын
I haven't even gotten through a min or two of IP's opening and i'm already blown away by how persuasive he is, you've really gotten better at your presentation! Would love to see you discuss you Beliefs on Genesis 1 with Dr.WLC
@cannonballdotcom8332
@cannonballdotcom8332 4 жыл бұрын
gottem
@bennywolfe4357
@bennywolfe4357 2 жыл бұрын
His new interpretation is so wrong it seems misleading. Why does the second verse start with ‘and’?
@sidtom2741
@sidtom2741 2 жыл бұрын
@@bennywolfe4357 it doesn’t. “And” is not in the Hebraic text. That’s an adaptation to instill coherence
@cornelswinfen8025
@cornelswinfen8025 2 жыл бұрын
@@sidtom2741 Genesis 1:2 begins with the word: 'והארץ' with the prefixed conjunction 'ו', meaning 'and-'.
@sidtom2741
@sidtom2741 2 жыл бұрын
@@cornelswinfen8025 how does this play out with the actual text? I.e. where does the “and” go?
@vedinthorn
@vedinthorn 4 жыл бұрын
Does it bother anyone else how the good Dr. Wanted "in Christ" to mean something different entirely than "in Adam", then implies that Michael somehow is eliminating or changing the meaning when it comes to "in Adam"? The two concepts HAVE to be equivocal or they make no sense when Paul is comparing them. They are both conditions of relationship to God by way of the priest who mediates. That was Paul's entire point. He made no mention of biology in his handling of the matter.
@ean6612
@ean6612 4 жыл бұрын
Martial Apologist I caught that too, it seemed a little funky and I thought I might have been missing something
@jackadam8269
@jackadam8269 4 жыл бұрын
Martial Apologist I did as well, I think he knew he couldn’t get out of that one. I thought he would of gone into adoption or something.
@mugenel3712
@mugenel3712 4 жыл бұрын
@Martial Apologist In that respect would you also agree that all people who are dying in Adam shall also be living in Christ. In other words do you believe everyone will be saved?
@jackadam8269
@jackadam8269 4 жыл бұрын
Mugen El I don’t think that’s what Mike Jones was saying, I think he was saying the extent of atonement and the vastness of the offer
@114wildfire
@114wildfire 4 жыл бұрын
It bothers me that ip promotes death before sin, humans existing before Adam and Eve, no global flood, contradiction of creation event, saying that God needs our help to subdue the earth etc
@cadentaylor8034
@cadentaylor8034 4 жыл бұрын
As an atheist, this was a very interesting debate to witness. I really love how you attempt to use analytical and observational processes in order to make your points, even if I don't explicitly agree with them. Keep up the good work in promoting this free thought!!
@GM-uy3cm
@GM-uy3cm 4 жыл бұрын
Caden Taylor Look up vaticancatholic.com to see true Christianity.
@cryosteam3944
@cryosteam3944 4 жыл бұрын
Gil Friends you have to be joking, Roman Catholicism refutes itself by its very name, let alone the plethora of factual history that proves it is the chief bastardization of Christianity as Christ taught and intended
@mariofedele1244
@mariofedele1244 4 жыл бұрын
In your opinion, are Catholics going to hell?
@naimalus3827
@naimalus3827 4 жыл бұрын
@@mariofedele1244 In your opinion, does Catholic doctrine such Mary being referred to as a co- redemptrix align with biblical doctrine? Or Mary as a mediatrix?
@kneo12
@kneo12 4 жыл бұрын
@@mariofedele1244 If they believe there are other ways than Christ. I've met some radicle Catholics who think Mary had more power than Jesus because Mary is the mother of God and is the one who saves. Not saying this is Catholic doctrine just saying there are some who have been truly deceived
@PaulOtt
@PaulOtt 4 жыл бұрын
55:21 "So a lot of the diseases we suffer from today came about from human civilization constantly trying to build Babel." Oddly prophetic in light of coronavirus and globalization.
@prem9185
@prem9185 4 жыл бұрын
What's babel
@lukesalazar9283
@lukesalazar9283 4 жыл бұрын
@@prem9185 the tower God destroyed in Genesis
@Navii-05
@Navii-05 3 жыл бұрын
Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it. So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that. So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned. The reason why blood must be spilled for forgiveness of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough to temporarily cover some sins. (it did not allow forgiveness of sins, Unlike Jesus's, it only temporarily covered them). Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. Jesus was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV. kzbin.info/www/bejne/opPFZautjs9kb8k Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument. Regarding Christianity watch InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus reliability of NT. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true. U
@r6all273
@r6all273 4 жыл бұрын
I am truly surprised with comments regarding “it is not a fact, it’s a theory” - which supposed to discredit representative of YEC , whereas actually only show a disrespect and bias of people making those comments. It is just plainly dishonest to take these words out of context, shame on you. In his opening statement dr. Boot says: “Evolution actually is not a scientific theory unlike theories like gravity or thermodynamics or quantum mechanics. General evolution cannot be studied in any direct way, it can't be replicated in laboratory and their experimental conditions. It's a hot historical story of how particles became people. One of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, Karl Popper called darwin's basic idea “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research project he argued that it was unfalsifiable”. The Nobel laureate in physics Robert Laughlin agreed and he argues that general evolution is anti-science and involves explanations that have no implications and cannot be tested” [22:01] In light of that, only moron could make a suggestion that Dr.Boot does not understand what the word “theory” means in scientific sense. Would you really imply that he considers mentioned gravity, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics as not facts? No, because he didn’t suggest anything not even close to idea “if it’s a theory, that is not a fact then!”. And the very sentence before midcrop, Boot said: “evolution is a worldview, quantum mechanics is a falliable idea” because he recognizes MJ’s category error - to compare historical narrative with falsifiable scientific theory. The mic-drop gesture and sentence “it is not a fact, it’s a theory” was about MJ finally calling evolution a theory (remember, Boot said it is incorrect in light of qualifications of what scientific theory is), after numerous, repeatedly calling it as scientific fact (which is pure lunacy) earlier: “holding to the scientific fact that humans evolved from a common ancestor that we share with the great apes” (MJ opening statement 03:13). Boot was pointing that out [around 57:00] - absurdity of calling evolution “scientific fact” while holding different perspective on whole that process than the majority of the theistic-evolutionists scientists. And in the last words of cross-examination MJ just contradict his previous rhetoric, using word theory (scientific theory can be false. Scientific fact -nope). Earth is spherical - that can be called now scientific fact as we know it from empirical data, which verified the theory. Statements like “Earth is flat” or “Earth is cube” are scientific theories as well, but they got falsified. Geocentric model is also. If something is scientific theory, it does not mean it corresponds with reality or not. It means: this is explanatory idea which describes something observable, testable, repeatable, and above all falsifiable. Statement “humans evolved from a common ancestor” fits any of the requirements above. Nothing but mythological, wishful thinking. In the next 50 years there would be any atheist believing that nonsense, I presume. Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, James Tour and others - their influence is unstoppable. All unbelievers would change positions to some variation of intelligent design hypothesis with aliens constructing forms of life on earth, and only theistic evolutionist would stick to Darwinism. Disappointing.
@LogosTheos
@LogosTheos 4 жыл бұрын
What do you expect from YECs? You were surprised? I wasn't lol
@Norbingel
@Norbingel 4 жыл бұрын
Even the reply to this comment about how people misunderstood the "just a theory" comment misunderstood the explanatory comment.
@lordpredator8855
@lordpredator8855 4 жыл бұрын
You are an idiot. Evolution is true. True example of the Dunnung-Kruger effect. Why is it called a theory?
@danielcartwright8868
@danielcartwright8868 4 жыл бұрын
The YEC guy asked why it's only recently that we're reinterpreting Genesis to be compatible with evolution. I would ask why it's only recently that we've reinterpreted the bible to allow for a spherical earth orbiting the sun.
@thescapegoatmechanism8704
@thescapegoatmechanism8704 4 жыл бұрын
Snappy suit, IP
@InspiringPhilosophy
@InspiringPhilosophy 4 жыл бұрын
You’re snappy!
@bporrelli
@bporrelli 4 жыл бұрын
@@InspiringPhilosophy I think he meant snazzy! But I am Scottish, so.....
@kneo12
@kneo12 4 жыл бұрын
@@bporrelli the only true Scotsman who's not a fallacy!
@lukesalazar9283
@lukesalazar9283 4 жыл бұрын
@@kneo12 lol!
@Tylermania66
@Tylermania66 4 жыл бұрын
Did he just really hit us with the "it's a theory, not a fact"
@Kahless_the_Unforgettable
@Kahless_the_Unforgettable 4 жыл бұрын
I'm curious about why that's an issue. I'm also curious about why that got a heart from IP. There is a mountain of evidence to prove that evolution is false. Why is saying, "It's only an unproven theory" an issue? How much evidence would we need to prove that it's false?
@Kahless_the_Unforgettable
@Kahless_the_Unforgettable 4 жыл бұрын
@@JP-rf8rr, Um, not gonna open that link. Thanks though.
@JP-rf8rr
@JP-rf8rr 4 жыл бұрын
@@Kahless_the_Unforgettable Then why ask a question if you don't want to see the answer?
@Kahless_the_Unforgettable
@Kahless_the_Unforgettable 4 жыл бұрын
@@JP-rf8rr, I don't want to click random links from random people. Not quite the same thing.
@agustinvitti
@agustinvitti 4 жыл бұрын
@@Kahless_the_Unforgettable i'm curious, what evidence are you talking about?
@scholarwithasword591
@scholarwithasword591 4 жыл бұрын
I like the fact that I read these comments and have found different ideas on creationism and evolution when it comes to genesis and everyone being civil. At least we can all agree that Jesus is our lord and savior and God sent His one and only son to die for us. God bless you all.
@Xenosaurian
@Xenosaurian 2 жыл бұрын
*evolutionism
@ghostl1124
@ghostl1124 Жыл бұрын
Here is a quick view that opposes evolution. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y2K4lp6MpaqordU
@christopherjohnson1873
@christopherjohnson1873 4 жыл бұрын
Seriously, can a single YEC argue their case without a bulverism? "You're just using science to reinterpret Scripture!" Even though none of IP's analysis of Genesis made use of modern science, I suppose that Joe can 1) Read IP's mind, and 2) discredit IP's argument on those grounds (even though that's a fallacy).
@InspiringPhilosophy
@InspiringPhilosophy 4 жыл бұрын
Exactly
@MichaelAChristian1
@MichaelAChristian1 4 жыл бұрын
Read 2 Peter chapter 3. The only verse people use to try push "old earth" lie is in SAME CHAPTER that warns you IN ADVANCE about scoffers denying the worldwide flood and pushing "uniforitarianism" lies. It's not "coincidence". It's the perfect WORD OF GOD! Pray on it in Jesus Christ name!
@christophersnedeker
@christophersnedeker 8 ай бұрын
​@@MichaelAChristian1kzbin.info/www/bejne/h2GamKuul8yagNUsi=jpmFBc2vk_Mg3k5e
@cheekjulie
@cheekjulie 4 жыл бұрын
🤗I think you did a really great job👏👏
@InspiringPhilosophy
@InspiringPhilosophy 4 жыл бұрын
Thank you, and thanks for being a KZbin member!
@The_Scouts_Code
@The_Scouts_Code 4 жыл бұрын
@18:40 "force us to reinterpret scripture" That's just not true. OEC was espoused by people in the 300's AD.
@InspiringPhilosophy
@InspiringPhilosophy 4 жыл бұрын
Good point
@Jamie-Russell-CME
@Jamie-Russell-CME 4 жыл бұрын
Show me. I don't believe it.
@Jamie-Russell-CME
@Jamie-Russell-CME 4 жыл бұрын
Prove it.
@The_Scouts_Code
@The_Scouts_Code 4 жыл бұрын
Jamie Russell In debating Christopher Hitchens, Dr. William Lane Craig said “Saint Augustine in the A.D. 300’s, in his commentary on Genesis, pointed out that the days don't need to be taken literally nor need the creation be a few thousand years ago. Indeed, he suggested that God made the world with certain special potencies that would gradually unfold over time and develop. This interpretation came 1,500 years before Darwin so that it is not a forced retreat in the face of modern science.”
@user-ne8bd4gf5w
@user-ne8bd4gf5w 4 жыл бұрын
Anyone check out James Tour's lectures explaining that evolution is a complete myth? He is a chemist who has been working with molecules for over 40 years. I'd recommend checking it out.
@Actuary1776
@Actuary1776 4 жыл бұрын
Apostate Agreed. I don’t get the impression he believes evolution is a “myth”, he questions the explanatory power of evolution with respect to the diversity of life. I think he would agree with Stephen Meyer who often says “Evolution explains survival, not arrival.”
@hymnsake
@hymnsake 4 жыл бұрын
@Apostate great comment, I appreciate speaking with you today, God bless!
@babayaga9570
@babayaga9570 4 жыл бұрын
@Jacob Pilavin Do you have anything intelligent to say or are you just going to troll? Also, "accuracy" and "evolution" are two words that cannot be used in the same sentence.
@babayaga9570
@babayaga9570 4 жыл бұрын
@Jacob Pilavin Umm.. that wasn't an argument I was making, just a statement. Do you have an argument or not? You are the one who is name calling, so it would be nice for you to explain why exactly.
@babayaga9570
@babayaga9570 4 жыл бұрын
@Jacob Pilavin Have you ever looked at the work of James Tour or Steven Meyer or Michael Behe? How do you explain their conclusions? Genetic similarity is not evidence (let alone proof) for evolution simply because it would be expected whether we came by evolution or we were created by an intelligence. It can just as easily be argued that it is evidence of common design. If you know anything about engineering you would know of design patterns that engineers reuse all the time.
@thecurlycatastrophe8427
@thecurlycatastrophe8427 4 жыл бұрын
@InspiringPhilosophy I can see you've been taking advice from David Wood with your eyecatching new thumbnails
@thecurlycatastrophe8427
@thecurlycatastrophe8427 4 жыл бұрын
@Blake B The Dizzle rocks!
@justinrozario2003
@justinrozario2003 4 жыл бұрын
@buymebluepills and that's why i love the guy
@Jim-Mc
@Jim-Mc 4 жыл бұрын
IP I've been watching your vids on quantum physics etc and my takeaway is that quantum physics seems to actually affirm YEC ex-nihilo creation at any interval of time at any moment. Would love to see more vids on why an old earth evolutionary interpretation is more compatible with quantum physics.
@alphamf0
@alphamf0 3 жыл бұрын
Quantum fluctuations don't come from nothing but from quantum void which is radically different, in poor words think about it as a field filled with pure potential energy
@daMillenialTrucker
@daMillenialTrucker Жыл бұрын
​@@alphamf0 I'm a field of pure potential energy :D
@rikardotsamsiyu
@rikardotsamsiyu 4 жыл бұрын
As soon as Mike mentioned John McArthur, I instantly thought, "it would be awesome to have them both debate each other."
@BloodBoughtMinistries
@BloodBoughtMinistries 4 жыл бұрын
John mac is just another human being that has been deceive by calvinism. There is nothing to learn from him except that you can take the mark of the beast and still be saved.
@matthewmanucci
@matthewmanucci 4 жыл бұрын
Lol. These anticalvanist are like news paper cartoon characters.
@Navii-05
@Navii-05 3 жыл бұрын
Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it. So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that. So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned. The reason why blood must be spilled for forgiveness of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough to temporarily cover some sins. (it did not allow forgiveness of sins, Unlike Jesus's, it only temporarily covered them). Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. Jesus was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV. kzbin.info/www/bejne/opPFZautjs9kb8k Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument. Regarding Christianity watch InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus reliability of NT. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true. U
@rikardotsamsiyu
@rikardotsamsiyu 3 жыл бұрын
@@Navii-05 what?
@daMillenialTrucker
@daMillenialTrucker Жыл бұрын
​@@rikardotsamsiyu what do you mean WHAT?
@305thief8
@305thief8 4 жыл бұрын
The Dr. sounds better than Kent Hovind I will give him that. Edit: Lol don't take me out of context I am not a YEC lol YEC is far from the truth lol.
@ethanm.2411
@ethanm.2411 4 жыл бұрын
Unquestionably.
@micahmatthew7104
@micahmatthew7104 4 жыл бұрын
I really like that he didn't make this a question of orthodoxy, it really makes for a healthy but honest discussion
@114wildfire
@114wildfire 4 жыл бұрын
Kent hovimd is a beast at a debate. He hasnt lost yet. That's what happens when truth is on your side
@remieres
@remieres 4 жыл бұрын
There's many more like this defender of YEC. on the KZbin channel 'NorthWest Creation Network'. Many of them are PhD.'s in their own field or just very well studied. Ranging from astronomers to biologists and anthropology and archaeology.
@305thief8
@305thief8 4 жыл бұрын
@@remieres I don't really agree with YEC I go with theistic evolution.
@diegobarragan4904
@diegobarragan4904 4 жыл бұрын
Oh sure for thousands of years the Jews and Christians couldn’t understand genesis until the prophet Charles Darwin came along lol so ridiculous
@andrejones2147
@andrejones2147 4 жыл бұрын
Thy Kingdom Come exactly
@ean6612
@ean6612 4 жыл бұрын
Who is to say they didn’t understand this? Or that they must have had a view of creation perfectly in line with what we believe now? I’m hesitant to believe there has been an uninterrupted line of understanding about this topic for the last few thousand years, across various languages and cultures
@diegobarragan4904
@diegobarragan4904 4 жыл бұрын
Dualist why wouldn’t there be an uninterrupted understanding? If you study the early church you would see that they were very careful about preserving what they learned from the apostles and passing it down. Even Paul told Timothy to find faithful men to pass down his teachings to. Jude said the faith was passed down to the saints. Why do you think your generation is so special to know more than the last thousands of years? That’s pure arrogance, but I think it’s just the way this generation in western civilization was raised and babied.
@theberrby6836
@theberrby6836 4 жыл бұрын
Joe Boot for his argument of "evolution vs. the bible", makes good points to think about to me. Good job guy
@ashari7545
@ashari7545 4 жыл бұрын
It's really disingenuous to the text of scripture to force evolution into a text that has nothing to do with it.
@vedinthorn
@vedinthorn 4 жыл бұрын
Or a young Earth
@daniellowry660
@daniellowry660 4 жыл бұрын
That's not I.P.'s position. He doesn't argue the Bible teaches evolution and never has. Virtually no theistic evolutionist argues scripture teaches evolution. The view of most is that scripture simply isnt interested in describing biological origins.
@Actuary1776
@Actuary1776 4 жыл бұрын
Daniel Lowry So Jesus didn’t believe sin entered into the world causing death via Adams transgression?
@daniellowry660
@daniellowry660 4 жыл бұрын
@@Actuary1776 you could actually watch I.P.s videos on the topic and see that your statement is ultimately a strawman
@Actuary1776
@Actuary1776 4 жыл бұрын
Daniel Lowry That’s wasn’t a statement that was a question. I’m not sure how a question can be a straw man, but I’m sure you will refuse to answer nonetheless. You are equivocating.
@timeforprovidence
@timeforprovidence 4 жыл бұрын
Yes! I’m looking forward to this, super stoked!
@JP-rf8rr
@JP-rf8rr 4 жыл бұрын
You gotta quote star wars correctly. "I've been looking forward to this"- Dooku
@timeforprovidence
@timeforprovidence 4 жыл бұрын
我喜欢耶稣JP haha! My bad, I thought I’d add a little ‘spin’ to it, you know... Definitely don’t want to do Star Wars injustice.
@Navii-05
@Navii-05 3 жыл бұрын
Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it. So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that. So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned. The reason why blood must be spilled for forgiveness of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough to temporarily cover some sins. (it did not allow forgiveness of sins, Unlike Jesus's, it only temporarily covered them). Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. Jesus was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV. kzbin.info/www/bejne/opPFZautjs9kb8k Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument. Regarding Christianity watch InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus reliability of NT. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true. H
@williampaquet6573
@williampaquet6573 4 жыл бұрын
There needs to be much more discussion, one-on-one with all of these theological/philosophy subjects; not so much debate, per say, but extended conversations. The Q & A part of this particular presentation could have gone for two hours by itself.
@5BBassist4Christ
@5BBassist4Christ 4 жыл бұрын
This was actually one of the best debates I've seen. Both made several very good convincing points. I will say that Dr. Boot made a terrible mistake when he said that we shouldn't need a Hebrew/Greek scholar to explain the Bible to us. A theologian with a doctorate degree, he should be well versed with the reasons why studying these languages is so important. I will also say that Jones' line about knowing how theories are used was very wrong too. Theories are not scientific facts. It used to be that an untested (or lightly tested) scientific idea was called a "hypothesis". After a series of experiments (and years of documentation and continued experiments), a hypothesis would become a "theory". A theory was a highly probable idea of the truth of the universe, but because other alternative explanations exist, it is still "just a theory". Once any opposing explanation against the theory have been debunked, the theory becomes a "law". We see this in the "First/Second Law of Thermal Dynamics", the "Law of Mass Conversion", the "Law of Gravity", the "Law of Momentum", ect.. It is only in recent decades that scientists have been claiming that theory and law are interchangeable. Given that it is always evolutionists promoting this redefinition of the word "theory" to argue that evolution and the Big Bang are on the same level as gravity and momentum, it looks as though it's a propaganda redefining to promote an agenda (like the word gender no longer meaning the same thing as sex). I'm a young earth-creationists, but your points about the Hebrew language at the beginning were especially convincing. However, I would say that even to accept a long age of the universe, the Theory of Evolution does run into a couple of Biblical problems. First that Genesis says that God "reached down into the earth to create man." Perhaps I could accept an evolution of the animals, but Adam seems to be specifically created raw by God, not appointed after existence. The evolution of the animals does have a conflict with the "kinds" idea. But the idea of God "appointing purpose" does make sense. The New Testament describes that "In Him were all things made, and apart from Him nothing has be made that has been made." The "seven day period" described in Genesis could be billions of years after God made the matter, when He began to "assign it" purpose, though, so I think I could at least accept an ancient earth hypothesis. It works in theory, but I'm not able to consider it law, though, as there are some good competing arguments against it.
@zs9652
@zs9652 4 жыл бұрын
Not a Christian, but I always wonder why people say the kinds idea does not coincide with evolution. Evolution is descent with inherent modification. Meaning every child is just a modified version of the parents before it. So all children no matter how changed or removed by time will still be in the same family as it's parent and their parent's parent and so on and so forth. Thus they are still the same kind. Up until a certain ape species starts replacing their bodies with machines or something lol.
@bennywolfe4357
@bennywolfe4357 2 жыл бұрын
His interpretation of the first verse of genesis is ridiculous. It doesn’t only contradict all tradition, but it doesn’t make sense language wise. How is it that the next verse starts with and?
@g--br1el985
@g--br1el985 2 жыл бұрын
@@bennywolfe4357 you didn't provide evidence to back any of your claims.
@whatsinaname691
@whatsinaname691 2 жыл бұрын
The fact that the Hebrew names for many predatory animals is based on their violent tendencies is what convinced me that there was death in the garden, and that it’s not what the earliest Jews actually believed, lest they thought Adam had failed to name the animals himself.
@kajadaw
@kajadaw 7 ай бұрын
Something i feel theistic evolutionists haven’t addressed is that if there was evil and suffering and death before the fall, wouldn’t that make God the creator of those things, which negates the argument against the problem of evil
@ThiagoCT9
@ThiagoCT9 4 жыл бұрын
Your closing statement was pretty good man! Great debate overall as well.
@Xenosaurian
@Xenosaurian 2 жыл бұрын
Good closing statement, but it doesn't really serve his cause.
@ghostl1124
@ghostl1124 Жыл бұрын
Here is only a five minute opposition to evolution. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y2K4lp6MpaqordU
@Ståhlman101
@Ståhlman101 4 жыл бұрын
It is ironic that IP consistently argues for his position using incredibly thorough textual arguments and then gets lectured at by YEC's about "interpreting scripture with scripture", all the while building their arguments out of ad hominem rhetoric, cultural eisegesis, and ridiculous slogans like "theory not fact!".
@JohnBrown-of4pw
@JohnBrown-of4pw 4 жыл бұрын
Jim Wick Common decent and macro evolution are assumptions
@jordancox8294
@jordancox8294 4 жыл бұрын
@@JohnBrown-of4pw nope
@JohnBrown-of4pw
@JohnBrown-of4pw 4 жыл бұрын
jordan cox Yep
@JohnBrown-of4pw
@JohnBrown-of4pw 4 жыл бұрын
ISAI GARCIA I would disagree that it’s compatible with the Bible. And I would say that it’s no longer science when you go back that far. The purpose of science is to test natural phenomena in the present not to create creation stories. You can’t test macro evolution, therefore it’s not science
@JohnBrown-of4pw
@JohnBrown-of4pw 4 жыл бұрын
ISAI GARCIA If I gave you 100 theoretical dollars, how many things could you buy at the dollar store?
@Iamsuperb4
@Iamsuperb4 4 жыл бұрын
At first I didn’t realize you were part of the debate! But you’re Micheal
@InspiringPhilosophy
@InspiringPhilosophy 4 жыл бұрын
Yep, that is me!
@Phill3v7
@Phill3v7 4 жыл бұрын
Had I not been open to theistic evolution prior to this debate and not heard Michael's opening, Dr. Boots opening statement would have made me more open to theistic evolution.
@annonum1103
@annonum1103 4 жыл бұрын
Don't be more open to TE ... it has been condemned as a heresy more than a thousand years ago, and recently being warmed up again by Teilhard DeChardin. It is untenable.
@Phill3v7
@Phill3v7 4 жыл бұрын
@@annonum1103 Thanks but I'm more interested in knowing truth than I am being considered heretical.
@Navii-05
@Navii-05 3 жыл бұрын
Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it. So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that. So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned. The reason why blood must be spilled for forgiveness of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough to temporarily cover some sins. (it did not allow forgiveness of sins, Unlike Jesus's, it only temporarily covered them). Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. Jesus was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV. kzbin.info/www/bejne/opPFZautjs9kb8k Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument. Regarding Christianity watch InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus reliability of NT. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true. H
@Xenosaurian
@Xenosaurian 2 жыл бұрын
Why?
@Xenosaurian
@Xenosaurian 2 жыл бұрын
@@Phill3v7 Unfortunately it is an untenable position to hold and not one you ought to commit to if the truth is your concern.
@Archangel657
@Archangel657 4 жыл бұрын
"It's a theory, not a fact!" Oh boy, I told you so *takes several gulps of USSR branded extra strength Vodka*
@matthewmanucci
@matthewmanucci 4 жыл бұрын
“When someone openly says something is a fact, when in fact it is a theory. The proper response is “it’s not a fact, it’s a theory.” If you don’t want to hear someone say “it’s not a fact, it’s a theory then don’t call it a fact 🤗 Super simple.
@ag-bf3ty
@ag-bf3ty 4 жыл бұрын
@@matthewmanucci Evolution is both a fact and theory though. It's a fact that animals evolve and change over time. Natural selection is the theory part (explanation of the mechanism by which animals demonstrably evolve.) Evolution was an observable fact even before Darwin. Lamarkian Evolution proposed to explain why animals evolved before Darwin released his book, but Lamark's hypothesis was incorrect as an explanation. Darwin's proposal was the one that stuck because it was such a powerful and useful explanation.
@Drickdrick24
@Drickdrick24 4 жыл бұрын
@@ag-bf3ty Nothing can't be fact and theory
@Joleyn-Joy
@Joleyn-Joy 4 жыл бұрын
A theory is an explanation deemed correctly about a fact. For example, we don't have a "fact of relativity" or a "fact of gravity", these are deemed the correct interpretation of various facts. In the same way evolution isn't a fact, it's deemed the correct interpretation.
@Drickdrick24
@Drickdrick24 4 жыл бұрын
@@Joleyn-Joy are a believer
@walteryoung2025
@walteryoung2025 Жыл бұрын
As a YEC myself im glad to see you debate a good one. I'll be the first to admit not all of us are. I'd love to see you debate Dr. Jason Lisle sometime. Though we disagree on this I still consider you my brother in christ. Thanks for all you do.
@CBess
@CBess 3 жыл бұрын
Very satisfying debate! Joe Boot said all the things I’d hope he’d say, holding closely and consistently to scripture. I didn’t realize that Michael doesn’t agree with the English Bibles of our day, in Genesis 1. Even the Geneva Bible (1587) translates the Hebrew, as “In the beginning.”
@ea-tr1jh
@ea-tr1jh 4 жыл бұрын
25:24-26:19 I'm confused. Is he really implying that God cannot cause abiogenesis to happen; Is he really limiting God? Or is he attemping to internally critique evolution and assuming atheism in doing so? If so, he is straw manning, because Michael is not an atheist and made it pretty clear that he is a *theistic* evolutionist. So neo-darwinism or any other theory of evolution that is atheistic in nature is completely irrelevant to the debate. Also, the debate isn't "Is Evolution true?" It's "is evolution compatable with the Bible?" I think he is confusing the two. 27:04-27:10 Cool. Your point? You and Michael agree on this, and it actually strengthens Michael's case against many YEC arguments. He then uses verses in the NT to defend the view that God is the Creator. Cool. Michael agrees. Not sure what the point of saying that is or how it strengthens his arguments. 27:02-27:58 Thats because you assume YEC into those NT texts. They say *that* God created the world, not *how.* 28:48-28:56 And that's a bad thing? 28:56-29:00 This assumes that Scripture is perspicuous at all times. 29:00-29:06 This is a blatant strawman. Michael never claimed this and doesn't believe this. 29:06-29:10 Not all Christians, especially the church fathers, agree on interpretations of Genesis throughout history. Christianity is and never has been monolithic regarding interpretations of Genesis. 29:10-29:22 Irrelevant. This has nothing to do with whether evolution is true, and whether evolution is true or not isn't the debate. 29:28-29:30 This is irrelevant. Arguments from incredulity are not good arguments. Again, he doesn't understands what the debate is about. When is he going to address the topic? 29:47-29:59 Is he seriously using the same argument as Kent Hovind? Also, I seriously doubt he practices what he preaches. It is very dubious that he has not had help from another pastor, theologian, or scholar to expound upon Scripture and explain to him what it means. 30:45-30:52 Michael never denies this. 31:03-31:14 I have never read in the Bible a place where it explicitly says this. Please somebody point me to a place. If there is none, he is just making a baseless assertion and assuming something that is not there in the text. 31:23-31:29 Lol YEC also leads people away from the Christian faith and is actually statistically one of the top contributors to deconversion. He is being logically inconsistent. 31:30-31:36 He is committing the correlation causation fallacy. 31:37-31:42 Its not. You and others just baselessly assume it is. 31:53-32:13 All he is doing is presupposing a specific definition of "very good" here. 32:20-32:26 So? That doesn't make it true; It is factually false. He then makes claims (and doesn't really back them up) that Michael disagrees with. This was interesting for me to write. I do recommend you still listen to what he says, don't take my word for it. This is just my immediate thoughts on what he said.
@thebestSteven
@thebestSteven 2 жыл бұрын
"Is he seriously using the same argument as Kent Hovind? Also, I seriously doubt he practices what he preaches. It is very dubious that he has not had help from another pastor, theologian, or scholar to expound upon Scripture and explain to him what it means." Acts 8:26-40 I've never understood this YEC idea that the first thing you think when you read the bible must be what it means and you can never gain a deeper understanding of it, especially if someone who spent their life studying it elucidates it for you.
@ameribeaner
@ameribeaner 4 жыл бұрын
Great video. I’ve watched your Genesis videos and they’ve helped me a lot in talking to atheists so I thank you for that. I like this video bc during the questions phase there were times where you’re argument seemed insufficient. Both of y’all made good points and had moments where you looked good and moments you looked inadequate. I consider this to be good bc of all you did was post debates where you’re a rockstar I’d consider you a glory hound. Thanks for post this video and I can’t wait for more.
@IsraelCountryCube
@IsraelCountryCube 2 жыл бұрын
yeah i dont think he cares much for being a glory hound. theres glory but for sure God allows him to face Challenges to humility as much as I do and anyone else.
@slit282
@slit282 4 жыл бұрын
@ 1:06:34 Boot lost a lot of credibility in my opinion. I appreciate this video a lot to consider and to research into think about
@irodjetson
@irodjetson 4 жыл бұрын
Dr. Joe Boot says that according to Michael Jones the bible was being misread for centuries while he being a protestant believes that the church of our LORD Jesus Christ was wrong for about 1500 years...
@diegotobaski9801
@diegotobaski9801 4 жыл бұрын
He actually used the whole "it's a theory, not a fact" argument...... MASSIVE FACEPALM
@tan1591
@tan1591 4 жыл бұрын
There’s nothing wrong with that, because a scientific theory is a collection of scientific data and facts supporting the subject which is macro evolution. But supporting it isn’t proving it. And the evidence doesn’t really lead to macro evolution. So you can say it’s still a theory not a fact. To be a fact, it needs to be provable as if you’re proving that grass is green.
@JP-rf8rr
@JP-rf8rr 4 жыл бұрын
@@tan1591 Is gravitational theory not a fact? Is germ theory not a fact? These specific theories can be revised based on additional data but you couldn't argue that there isn't gravitational force, nor that organisms could radically change in adaptation like presented in macro evolution
@agustinvitti
@agustinvitti 4 жыл бұрын
​NR Ramirez it's wrong to dismiss something in science for being “just a theory”, gravity is just a theory, you can claim that a fact is an observation but in that case both evolution and gravity are theories supported by facts. Also: the evidence does lead to macro evolution heavily: fossils, genetic markers, embryological stages, anatomical homologies (as the wings of bats and the hands of humans) and much more. There is no proving in science, so if thats a problem for you, then don't believe in black holes, germs, genetics, gravity, etc.
@tan1591
@tan1591 4 жыл бұрын
我喜欢耶稣JP please tell me how evolution is observable as seeing an apple falling to the ground?
@tan1591
@tan1591 4 жыл бұрын
Agustin Vitti gravity is observable. Having the same function doesn’t prove that we evolve.
@marekfoolforchrist
@marekfoolforchrist 4 жыл бұрын
Did Joe just do the 'were you there'
@cannonballdotcom8332
@cannonballdotcom8332 4 жыл бұрын
W H O S J O E
@Kylerusse64
@Kylerusse64 4 жыл бұрын
I just finished watching the debate about 30 minutes ago. Just as I expected, you clearly presented your arguments in a well mannered style. Although I'm grateful to hear that Mr. Boot considers Christians who believe in evolution as true born again believers, I thought that a couple moments within this debate he was rude. Particularly in the case where after you said "evolution is a theory," he drops the mic in agreement as if he just made you concede to a point that you weren't arguing lol
@Kylerusse64
@Kylerusse64 4 жыл бұрын
@TTS NEWS Except for that evolution is both a fact and theory. The gradual progression of all living organisms in fossils and genetics is something which is factual. And the theory of evolution best explains that observed phenomenon. Gravity is both a fact and theory. "Theory" within scientific terminology is the best and highest status you can get in science. It's not something that is thrown on a whim. Something can easily rise to the status of hypothesis, granted that it is testable and has falsifiability, but for something to be theory, it takes factual information upon factual information The "drops mic" is usually in denoting something to be victorious and arrogant. And as far as the last part of your comment, it's not even worth bothering. Evolution isn't some religious belief. Anybody of any religious or faith background can believe in the theory of evolution and not be "pagan". The theory of evolution, more specifically common descent was something that even early Christians believed and argued in such as Basil
@Kylerusse64
@Kylerusse64 4 жыл бұрын
@TTS NEWS Um, theories are higher than laws. A law explains that past phenomeon while theories help. Saying that because the original theory of evolution or common descent has been modified, therefore evolution is debunked is nonsense. That's like saying that gravity is false because Einstien's theory of general relativity helps modifies it and explains it better than Newton's Laws of motions. But obviously we're not going to say that gravity itself is false. That actually proves the fact that evolution is not some sacrosanct belief which is above criticism. The fossil record actually indicates long ages rather than some global catastrophic flood. Not to mention that the different layers and levels of strata disprove that as well. There hasn't been soft dinosaur tissue found rather that explanation put forth by Mary Schweitzer who is a Christian and theistic evolutionist. She showed that what she actually found was Schweitzer et al. did not find hemoglobin or red blood cells. Rather, they found evidence of degraded hemoglobin fragments and structures that might represent altered blood remnants. They emphasized repeatedly that even those results were tentative, that the chemicals and structures may be from geological processes and contamination. Also, those people that you mentioned in Christian creationists actually helped layed out the foundation for evolution. Take Linneaus who is the founder of modern taxonomical classifications. He got heat in his day because he put humans in the same family as the other great apes such as chimpanzees, orangutans, Gorillas etc. Zoonomia was concocted in a masonic lodge, rather Darwin's expounded upon his grandfather's ideas. Which was believed by a lot of people at the time. Also, Aristotle didn't believe in evolution lol. "On the parts of animals" nowhere describes anything what correlates with what Darwin taught. He referenced it, but didn't say he was inspired by it or that it was influenced by it. Aristotle believed in the fixity of species. Evolution doesn't teach that.
@Kylerusse64
@Kylerusse64 4 жыл бұрын
@TTS NEWS Yeah, except for none of what you said refutes anything what I said. First, theory is still the highest standard (so to say) that you can get in the scientific method. theory is “a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena. a scientific theory must be backed-up with evidence, must be peer-reviewed, and must have passed a rigorous testing process. You can see more on the difference here and they agree with me medium.com/science-journal/scientific-theory-vs-scientific-law-5624633a8f1b The fact that laws themselves are observations which gives rise to theories, shows that theories themselves are above laws. Evolution is both a theory and fact as declared by the national academies of science that you can go on their website explain that. Evolution is most certainly testable, observable and is repeatable, including in laboratory settings. Observable: mutations, selection, adaptation. Simply sequence genomes from parents and offspring, or every couple of generations and you will see mutations, lots of them. Selection can be easily measured and quantified, e.g. as reproductive productivity, or selection of certain traits among genetically different offspring. Adaptation can be measured on many different levels, such as metabolic adaptation, color, morphology, temperature adaption etc. Repeatable: because mutations are largely (but not entirely) random, you cannot repeat their random pattern by random mutagenesis. However, we can reproducibly introduce specific mutations into most model organisms, including bacteria, plants, animals, etc (in theory even into humans). That way we can easily study the effect of any mutation (small and large, positive, negative, neutral) in a very repeatable fashion. Testable: Take the mutants from above and test how they affect selection, reproduction or any other feature, such as metabolism, morphology, population structure. BTW - you can do this with whole populations too to get more realistic data on selection (obviously, bacteria and small animals are the easiest to test). In addition, evolution has stuff like The agreement between phylogeny and biogeography; The correspondence between phylogeny and the palaeontological record; The existence of numerous predicted transitional fossils; The hierarchical classification of morphological characteristics; The marked similarities of biological structures with different functions; the congruence of morphological and molecular phylogenies; The various key commonalities at the molecular level (including fundamental biological polymers, nucleic acid genetic material, L-amino acids, and core metabolism); The near universality of the genetic code; The phylogenetic trees according to embryology, anatomy, the fossil record, genetics, molecular biology, ERV's, histology, ecology, development, transitional fossils, biogeography all corroborating one another; Orthologus-confirming evidence from 12 taxa, four from each domain of life, and 23 ubiquitous proteins; Atavistic remnants, in pseudogene form, of egg-yolk vitellogenin genes, in mammals. (VIT genes); Atavistic remnants, in pseudogene form, of tail development genes, in humans. (Wnt-3a and Cdx1 genes); Humans share over ~199,000 identical ERV indels, in identical locus, in our genome, with the Chimpanzee; Human's locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B are the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion, which marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2; Humans's share an identical, broken GULO sequence with all the other great apes.; Atavistic ,Bmp4 suppressed, odontogenic expression pathways in chickens; Atavistic enamelin protein synthesizing ENAM pseudogenes in toothless and enamelless mammals; And millions of other data points. As far as macroevolution not being observable, well this is ridiculous and demonstrably false. There have been numerous instances of observed speciation. Such examples include examples where we find speciation happening across living plants/animals. Oenothera lamarckiana, Primula verticillata, Tragopogon, Raphanus sativus, Galeopsis tetrahit, Madia gracilis, Brassica carinata, Adiantum pedatum,Woodsia abbeae, Stephanomeria malheurensis, Zea mays, Mimulus guttatus, Drosophila melanogaster, Drosophila pseudoobscura, Drosophila willistoni, Musca domestica, Rhagoletis pomonella, Eurosta solidaginis, Tribolium castaneum, Nereis acuminate, Chlorella pyrenoidosa, Lake Victoria cichlid fish. Macroevolution by very definition is changes at or above the species level. Therefore there has been first hand observation of this event occurring.
@Kylerusse64
@Kylerusse64 4 жыл бұрын
@TTS NEWS As far as the fossil record and geological strata supposedly disproving evolution, you haven't supported that at all whatsoever. You just merely assumed that it did. Yet, when one actually takes a look at the fossil record, they'll clearly see the gradual progression which shows evolutionary changes to all the organisms that are buried within there. As far as the soft tissue, you are wrong there again. If you actually cared to pay attention to what I said, you'll clearly see that I never said that Mary Schweitzer was a creationist, I clearly said that she was a theistic evolutionist. However, Mary was actually YEC prior to her findings which then convinced her to become a theistic evolutionist. Also, what she found is distorted by YEC's. The reports of the soft tissue, though remarkable, have been sensationalized further. The tissues were not soft and pliable originally. The tissues were rehydrated in the process of removing the surrounding mineral components of the bone Moreover, it is unknown whether the soft tissues are original tissues. Fossil flexible tissues and nucleated cells have been found before in which the original material was not preserved. Schweitzer et al. did not find hemoglobin or red blood cells. Rather, they found evidence of degraded hemoglobin fragments and structures that might represent altered blood remnants. They emphasizd repeatedly that even those results were tentative, that the chemicals and structures may be from geological processes and contamination. The bone that Schweitzer and her colleagues studied was fossilized, but it was not altered by "permineralization or other diagenetic effects". Also, the other "findings" which have been since then basically confirms her conclusions. But none of it is bone. The organic matter that made up the bone was long ago replaced with the more durable chemical bonds of inorganic stone. This specimen may (possibly) retain iron from the original animal, but it’s essentially a 3D cast made by replacement of everything organic over time. The only traces of organic molecules ever recovered from dinosaur fossils are traces of collagen, a protein. But you couldn’t radiocarbon date that because it’s far, far, far too old. If you found any C14 in it at all, it would be contamination or radiogenic-caused by radiation in the ground, and when the signal decays that far, it’s useless. Incidentally, I also own a nautiloid soft tissue fossil and a piece of late Cretaceous Bacculite with soft tissue (Bacculites were little else). Though this are called “soft tissue” fossils, they are not tissue. They are stone. Just as with bones, all the organic matter was chemically replaced long, long ago. Also, in regards to Linneaus, if you actually cared to pay attention to what I saidn, you'll clearly see that I didn't say he wasn't a creationist or that he wasn't a Christian. Rather, I said that he faced backlash or heat from the fundamentalists of his day because they thought that was an attack on the imago dei because putting humans in the same taxonomical classification as the other great apes was an insult to humans. They connected the physical with the spiritual because they thought that the flesh was just as separately made/created by God as the spirit and soul was. That's why you even have Christians today who object to the classification of humans as apes, primates, mammals etc. Also, common descent helps better explain the taxonomy than intelligent design (see my previous comment about that). Darwin referred to his grandfather, but he never cited his freemason background for his beliefs. Neither did his grandfather cite his background for any of his writings either. Heck, many people have even falsely accused Darwin of being a freemason himself despite the fact that has been debunked. Instead, where Darwin himself first concocted his beliefs was when he was on the voyage travelling around the world. You can actually this this in "The voyage of the beagle". You keep citing Aristotle. But again, Aristotle didn't believe in natural selection. Instead, he believed in fixed species, Darwin didn't. Also, in the case of Hinduism, likewise, Darwin himself never referenced Hinduism or hindu cosmology as the basis for his beliefs. Saying that just because something has slight parallels that means it's the ultimate origin or cause of something is completely refuted and debunkable. For example, prior to Christianity, many surrounding and distant pagan cultures themselves had the cross as a symbol But it's clearly different as with it's intentions, beliefs and application(s) of worship in it. Christianity didn't incorporate it from other beliefs, rather it's cross for it's purpose is a unique and peculiar that cannot be duplicated with the sameness as it does for the belief itself. Just because there are hints of evolution within hindu doesn't have any bearing or impact on the theory of evolution by natural selection which is quite different and distinct than from Hinduism. Hinduism at the end of the day is a supernatural belief, whereas evolution is more naturalism. And you citing that you have a supposed "policy" against conversating with evolutionists and yet you come here on my comment and write a long rebuttal (albeit a dismal one) shows that you have no credibility at all and are a walking contradiction. Sounds much life your beliefs. Have a nice day!
@michielvdvlies3315
@michielvdvlies3315 4 жыл бұрын
Just want to give a shoutout and thank you for your awesome videos especially the genesis 1-11 series
@christophera5818
@christophera5818 4 жыл бұрын
Hey Michael, will you ever do a debate with Bart Ehrman? He is one of the lead textual critics and seems to make really good points about the development of Christianity. I know you heard of him, I'm just wondering if you'll ever get a chance to debate him.
@lebronbrady6638
@lebronbrady6638 4 жыл бұрын
yarn rav On mostly everything but the resurrection Ehrman is pretty inconsistent with his debates he’s changed his view numerous times on topics it’s difficult to listen to at times
@christophera5818
@christophera5818 4 жыл бұрын
@@lebronbrady6638 What exactly has Ehrman changed his views on??? He believes in the existence of a historical Jesus like almost all scholars do. He doesn't believe that the gospels are historically accurate though. What I meant when I said debate was the consistency of the new testament. Most Christians believe that the new testament (the gospels in particular) have no contradictions. Bart Ehrman debates many fundamental Evangelical Christians on the idea that the gospels do have contradictions and they don't paint an accurate picture of the historical Jesus.
@Navii-05
@Navii-05 3 жыл бұрын
Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it. So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that. So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned. The reason why blood must be spilled for forgiveness of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough to temporarily cover some sins. (it did not allow forgiveness of sins, Unlike Jesus's, it only temporarily covered them). Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. Jesus was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV. kzbin.info/www/bejne/opPFZautjs9kb8k Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument. Regarding Christianity watch InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus reliability of NT. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true. J
@Zwemer100
@Zwemer100 4 жыл бұрын
Dr Boot was great . He understands theology . I love you IP but your theistic evolution is dangerous .
@jgbee2726
@jgbee2726 2 жыл бұрын
The theistic evolutionary hypothesis has destroyed the faith of many. It is accusing God of lying and using evolution.
@joshua_wherley
@joshua_wherley Жыл бұрын
Jones did an excellent job here. I didn't find anything Boot said compelling. His arguments seemed tired and fell flat. I mean no disrespect to him as an individual, but I come away from this debate more convinced of Jones's case than Boot's. Edit: blurting out "it's a theory, it's not a fact!" at 1:06:33 weakens his case substantially. Jones's response is dead on. The way "theory" is used within the scientific world is substantially different from the colloquial use. The fact that Boot tries to make a point from this doesn't do him any favors. It just looks embarrassing.
@busyharbor75
@busyharbor75 4 жыл бұрын
When he said that it's not really a theory, I think he was trying to show that compared to other well accepted theories it can't be directly studied or demonstrated. It relies on historical claims.
@Thrawnmulus
@Thrawnmulus 4 жыл бұрын
Evolution doesn't rely on historical claims though.
@MrDzoni955
@MrDzoni955 4 жыл бұрын
@Apostate what does a jury have to do with science? Its one thing to conclude who dunnit and another thing to do science
@busyharbor75
@busyharbor75 4 жыл бұрын
@@Thrawnmulus I am not saying that there is no evidence for evolution, there is. But it is not the sort that we have for gravity. We can not produce evolution in a lab or experiment on it. We look at fossils and DNA and make inferences on how all of it must be related. It's like looking at archaic artifacts and building a story around them. It is some evidence but not science in the ultimate sense. I could ofcourse be wrong in my understanding, so I'm open to discussing and learning. I admit I do not know much on evolution.
@busyharbor75
@busyharbor75 4 жыл бұрын
@Apostate history and humanities are not considered science disciplines because they do not rely on scientific method. Same goes for a jury in a court case. Keep in mind historical evidence is very real and worth accepting.
@Thrawnmulus
@Thrawnmulus 4 жыл бұрын
@@busyharbor75 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5918244/ We'Ve NeVeR sEeN eVoLuTiOn In A lAb.
@spitfiremase
@spitfiremase 4 жыл бұрын
I like his closing statement, that we shouldn't rush to reinterpret scripture based on evolution. Because we interpret it based on good scholarship and the text :)
@clarkemorledge2398
@clarkemorledge2398 4 жыл бұрын
The @ mic drop moment is very revealing, as it shows how we can not even agree on basic terms, such as "theory" and "fact." Why Dr. Boot changes the well-known definitions of such words to defend his presuppositionalism is really frustrating. But it just seems how these kind of debates roll these days. Aside from that, Dr. Boot's presentation was better than I expected. But it still fell short. I wanted to know if Dr. Boot has managed to persuade anyone to really consider the Gospel, by somehow "debunking" evolution first. I would really like to see such claims documented. I have never, ever met anyone who has met Christ that way. Normally, people become Christians first, then they somehow get persuaded to go the Young Earth Creationist route.... Great job, Michael. Keep up the great work!
@Xenosaurian
@Xenosaurian 4 жыл бұрын
I had to be persuaded of young-Earth creationism first before becoming a Christian.
@clarkemorledge2398
@clarkemorledge2398 4 жыл бұрын
@@Xenosaurian Very interesting. So, you do have me curious: What type of advanced scientific research have you had that led you to the conclusion that the earth is young, as a non-believer? Was this through a masters or PhD program somewhere?
@lukasbeier8338
@lukasbeier8338 4 жыл бұрын
That’s exactly what happened to me I became a Christian because of the evidence for the resurrection then because YEC then became an OEC then a theistic evolutionist
@neymarjr_.
@neymarjr_. 3 жыл бұрын
Michael Jones is the director of the non profit organization of "InspiringPhilosophy" lol dude just say hes a youtuber that has a channel called inspiring philosophy
@virgule888
@virgule888 4 жыл бұрын
Before I watch: Yes, it is. Creation and evolution are complementary; not at all contradicting. Is it not reasonable to believe that, In The Beginning, we have been created and that we've been evolving ever since? Isn't it true that evolution cannot and does not account for the beginning of life on Earth? The sine qua non of evolution is that life must exist in order to evolve. Without His Creation, evolution must account for dead rocks, naturally, who took it upon themselves to become alive and, in time, became elephants. Evolution and Creation are not in conflict. In fact, evolution without creation is flat out absurd.
@drsheev7413
@drsheev7413 4 жыл бұрын
My thoughts exactly, you summed it up perfectly
@andrejones2147
@andrejones2147 4 жыл бұрын
The Bible says everything comes from its own kind tho.... evolution says the literal opposite... they both cannot be correct for that reason alone.... now if you choose to come up with reasons that support the Bible not meaning what it actually says then sure .. you can make it compatible with just about anything
@Drickdrick24
@Drickdrick24 4 жыл бұрын
@@andrejones2147 no dude nothing can't come from it own kind has to be created
@andrejones2147
@andrejones2147 4 жыл бұрын
Style Miracle I agree ,,, but after it’s created it can only replicate its own kind... which is exactly what the Bible states
@Drickdrick24
@Drickdrick24 4 жыл бұрын
@@andrejones2147 do you know ppl can twisted God words around
@bcoon2000
@bcoon2000 4 жыл бұрын
I would like the dr to answer my question if you happen to meet him again, what does Cain meant in genesis 4:14 when he says to God "Since You expelled me today from the face of the ground and I must be hidden from Your presence, then I will be a restless wanderer on the earth-anyone who finds me will kill me!” Genesis 4:14 TLV? I read it in kjv and the wording is almost the same, still mentions other people. Was he talking about future generations or other people?
@jsharobi
@jsharobi 3 жыл бұрын
For in Your sight a thousand years are but a day that passes, or a watch of the night. Psalm 90:4 Maybe the "day" in creation wasn't a day in human terms 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️
@lynncomstock1255
@lynncomstock1255 4 жыл бұрын
RE: Communication: Alan Greenspan - ‘ I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant’ The literal meaning of spoken or written words is best known only by the speaker or writer. Wherever possible Scripture should be considered as the first resource for understanding Scripture.
@legolasegb
@legolasegb 4 жыл бұрын
Really enjoy your videos, and loved the debate! Super interesting, as usual.
@JordanTowner-e
@JordanTowner-e Жыл бұрын
54:13 So death is the proper function of God's creation? Like Dr. Boot said, Death is the final enemy to be defeated and cast into the Lake of Fire in Revelation. Assuming you would affirm a lack of death post-Revelation, how do you reconcile those two claims?
@FelipeForti
@FelipeForti 4 жыл бұрын
You answered one of my main concerns to the idea that Adam and Eve were not the first humans. Thanks.
@114wildfire
@114wildfire 4 жыл бұрын
Felipe Forti Why would you have that concern that Adam and Eve weren't first humans? That's what the Bible says.
@emanuelbotello23
@emanuelbotello23 4 жыл бұрын
mike jones People who think that everything started with Adam and Eve in a literal sense. Then the questions arise how exactly did they expand humanity with such diversity especially with limited amount of offsprings. And people assume that Cain’s wife must of been his sister ect ect. Assumptions that not only don’t make sense but are also fallible.
@114wildfire
@114wildfire 4 жыл бұрын
Emanuel Botello Everything did start with Adam and Eve. How do we know? Because God said so. God said it is not good for man to be alone. Then Eve comes out after the first surgery in the world takes place. This should be enough evidence for you that Eve was the first woman and Adam the first man. Bible says EVE is the mother of all living. As in human beings. All you gotta do is read the Bible and not let yourself being fooled by false teachers and false doctrines. Trust God.
@305thief8
@305thief8 4 жыл бұрын
@@114wildfire Well what do you think people are trying to do? Scholars study the culture and the original languages of the Israelites to get the right context. If you really think that they understood it through our modern sense then I don't know what to tell you. Get into biblical hermeneutics it really helps just know YEC is a dying view and scholars don't take it seriously there are better views than this you should check out Hugh Ross.
@114wildfire
@114wildfire 4 жыл бұрын
@305 Thief I personally believe that Christian's/fake Christian's Try to make evolution fit with bible because they're scared the world will ridicule them. Because they're still of the world.
@gleasonparker1684
@gleasonparker1684 4 жыл бұрын
A nice suit Michael. Plus your points are very well understood and not a bit convoluted as the other person. Thanks for your research and interest in helping us understand the Bible. I think when God created is a better translation than in the beginning God created and that makes a big difference.
@validcore
@validcore 4 жыл бұрын
So far (& I just started) IP's argument is- the bible is wrong let me retranslate it for you....now it says what I teach.
@InspiringPhilosophy
@InspiringPhilosophy 4 жыл бұрын
Nice straw man...
@validcore
@validcore 4 жыл бұрын
??? That's exactly what you did.
@validcore
@validcore 4 жыл бұрын
@Conan R no it's not called interpretation(that's when you just read it different but the words are the same) it's retranslating-saying the bible is wrong it should of said this. Then you rewrite the text to line up with what you believe. The bible warns against this & says ppl will do it.
@ryanfieldflower602
@ryanfieldflower602 4 жыл бұрын
Valid Core I totally agree with you
@themel5436
@themel5436 4 жыл бұрын
Valid Core who tells you that he translated it wrong?
@rocketeightyseven1823
@rocketeightyseven1823 Жыл бұрын
I think Genesis 1:15 is clear on the issue. God formed Adam and placed him in the garden. Evolution contradicts this one verse. Adam was created apart from the rest of the creation. I don’t really see a way around this verse to support evolution.
@jamestonnyy2944
@jamestonnyy2944 4 жыл бұрын
Joe boot won, especially with the closing statements.
@Toadzx
@Toadzx 4 жыл бұрын
Abraham Girt He didn’t have to.
@Toadzx
@Toadzx 4 жыл бұрын
Abraham Girt Whether you say “in the beginning” or “when” it doesn’t get you evolution.
@ManlyServant
@ManlyServant 3 жыл бұрын
true
@Navii-05
@Navii-05 3 жыл бұрын
Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it. So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that. So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned. The reason why blood must be spilled for forgiveness of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough to temporarily cover some sins. (it did not allow forgiveness of sins, Unlike Jesus's, it only temporarily covered them). Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. Jesus was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV. kzbin.info/www/bejne/opPFZautjs9kb8k Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument. Regarding Christianity watch InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus reliability of NT. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true. H
@ghostl1124
@ghostl1124 Жыл бұрын
@@Toadzx Exactly! So many textual and continuing revelation teachings from Moses, the prophets, and the N.T. writings show clearly that the Bible teaches creation. The Bible never even suggests evolution. I like the scriptures that Boot referred to, as they confirm the plain teaching of Genesis 1-11.
@Toadzx
@Toadzx 4 жыл бұрын
For anyone thinking IP made a good point with Abraham thinking he was too old for children; there was a clear downward trend in lifespans that Abraham would have been aware of. It would have been hard not to notice that people were dying younger and younger, and of course he could see the effects of age on himself and Sarah. So just because he possibly knew of someone who gave birth at his age doesn’t mean he should have had an expectation to do the same. Also I think IP was being deceptive with the ages but I would have to watch again to be sure. (I could be wrong on that part)
@InspiringPhilosophy
@InspiringPhilosophy 4 жыл бұрын
As I said in the talk, Eber would have out lived Abraham, and Jacob was having children at age 92 if the ages are literal. Yet in genesis 17 he says people doing have children in there 90s-100s, even though his own father was supposed to be 130 when he was born. Please study the full context and see my video on genesis 5 for more
@InspiringPhilosophy
@InspiringPhilosophy 4 жыл бұрын
kzbin.info/www/bejne/q6Czk42kh7NrrrM
@Toadzx
@Toadzx 4 жыл бұрын
InspiringPhilosophy Well now I see why you claim Terra was 130 when Abraham was born, but even if it was the case that Abraham left as soon as his father died and not many years later my point still stands. Abraham has plenty of reason to believe he was too old and there is no reason to assume he knew Eber and certainly not Jacob who wasn’t even born yet. Seriously bringing up Jacob as evidence for why Abraham would think 100 is old, is just weak, I expected better from you.
@InspiringPhilosophy
@InspiringPhilosophy 4 жыл бұрын
You are making excuses now. So Abraham was unaware people past the age of 100 where having children, like his own father? He was unaware of his own ancestors who were supposed to still be alive? And if the ages were slowly degraded Abraham should have been able to have kids at at least 115. Not well under when his father allegedly had a kid. But this gets back to my main point, YECs have to explain things away and do not just take the plain reading of the text
@Toadzx
@Toadzx 4 жыл бұрын
@@InspiringPhilosophy *"So Abraham was unaware people past the age of 100 where having children, like his own father?"* You haven't actually proven Terra was 130 when he had Abraham you've only assumed it, and again his father was older than him in a time when ages were getting less and less. It wouldn't make sense to compare himself to Terra when he knew he was aging faster. Also age is really more of a problem for women than men and the Bible doesn't say how old Abrahams mother was. *"He was unaware of his own ancestors who were supposed to still be alive? "* Happens easy enough in the modern day shouldn't be a problem in a day without phones and internet. But like I said it doesn't matter those are ancestors not peers. *"And if the ages were slowly degraded Abraham should have been able to have kids at at least 115. Not well under when his father allegedly had a kid."* First of all your the one alleging Terra was 130, the Bible only says he was 70. Secondly, you're making an unjustified assumption about how menopause worked with older ages, your just subtracting 50 years and saying that's when it would happen but there is no medical data from back then to base that on. *"YECs have to explain things away and do not just take the plain reading of the text"* The plain reading is that Terra was 70ish when he had Abraham, and that Adam lived over 900 years. Calling the kettle black isn't a good way to argue, your just exposing your own bias.
@WillGaylord
@WillGaylord 4 жыл бұрын
1:06:34 I think that's the proudest display of ignorance I've ever seen
@Drp_br_
@Drp_br_ 4 жыл бұрын
William Gaylord As in the yellow guy in the suit wrong or IP?
@deus_vult8111
@deus_vult8111 4 жыл бұрын
@@Drp_br_ the yellow guy lol
@lovedeepthandi3154
@lovedeepthandi3154 3 жыл бұрын
lol yeah, I was amazed that the guy is a "Dr." but doesn't even know what a scientific theory means.
@Navii-05
@Navii-05 3 жыл бұрын
Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it. So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that. So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned. The reason why blood must be spilled for forgiveness of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough to temporarily cover some sins. (it did not allow forgiveness of sins, Unlike Jesus's, it only temporarily covered them). Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. Jesus was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV. kzbin.info/www/bejne/opPFZautjs9kb8k Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument. Regarding Christianity watch InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus reliability of NT. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true. U
@thebestSteven
@thebestSteven 2 жыл бұрын
@@lovedeepthandi3154 that's a Dr. of theology.
@tommycapps9903
@tommycapps9903 2 жыл бұрын
I never will understand why any Christian would bow to the Christ-rejecting world’s beliefs on the origin of man!
@jeffreyroedel9804
@jeffreyroedel9804 3 жыл бұрын
Jones is arguing that the concept of evolution is compatible with what's in the Bible, and it seems Boot is arguing against the whole idea of evolution based not just on what's in the Bible but also centuries of Christian tradition. Because of that I felt this debate was not a success because the debaters were having two different conversations with different objectives, unfortunately. I know that happens in a lot of debates though. Still enjoyed the video a lot, especially Jones' discourse and examination of the early Genesis chapters and really appreciate this channel!
@JordanTowner-e
@JordanTowner-e Жыл бұрын
15:45 true but what would you define as law? Only the commandments issued to Moses? Would not the command to not eat of the tree of knowledge be just as much a law as "Thou shalt not kill"? I say that "You must not eat of that tree or you will die" is the broken law by which sin entered the world would you not agree?
@jordancox8294
@jordancox8294 4 жыл бұрын
"Theory" in science refers to a well-supported idea based on evidence. He's confusing theory with hypothesis.
@Kahless_the_Unforgettable
@Kahless_the_Unforgettable 4 жыл бұрын
It has only advanced to theory because it's the only possible non theistic explanation for creation. The evidence is soundly against evolution. Any other theory would have been abandoned if this much negative evidence existed.
@Austin1990
@Austin1990 4 жыл бұрын
Evolution is a hypothesis. Desperate atheists pretending that it is a theory does not make it one. Evolution is like one of those animated dinosaur “documentaries.”
@jordancox8294
@jordancox8294 4 жыл бұрын
@@Kahless_the_Unforgettable no.
@jordancox8294
@jordancox8294 4 жыл бұрын
@@Austin1990 evolution is a theory. There is nothing inherently anti-theistic about it.
@JohnBrown-of4pw
@JohnBrown-of4pw 4 жыл бұрын
jordan cox But the hypothesis can’t be tested
@Secular_Monk
@Secular_Monk 4 жыл бұрын
I think IP scares a lot of strict fundamentalists by trying to reconcile the old stories with modern scientific evidence. There is no evidence, for example, of a global flood at any time in earth's history. So IP accepts that scientific evidence, like any rational person does, and therefore has to interpret the flood story as being a local event - because there is at least some evidence for that. Or, since the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, IP does the rational thing and accepts this evidence for what it is. In which case, Genesis has to be interpreted as a metaphor, not a literal event. Uh oh, IP! Now you've done it! You're arguing that the Bible contains metaphors about things that fundamentalists have traditionally interpreted as actual events! So with that logic, anything in the Bible can be a metaphor, such as Jesus willingly dying on the cross to pay for mankind's sins. Maybe that's not an actual event; maybe that's a metaphor, as well! No, IP, don't do it! Don't do it! You're challenging my faith! (kidding)
@MegaVIDEOGAMEVIDS
@MegaVIDEOGAMEVIDS 4 жыл бұрын
Amino acids and proteins are a wrench in the evolutionary theory. The created order post-fall holds a different ontological status than creation pre-fall, thus any scientific observation of the universe must take into account Satan's rebellion, man's fallen and namely the noetic effects of sin and sins effects on the material universe. Our starting point isn't the bible and scientific observations and now how do we reconcile these two but indeed our start point is our worldview before our reconciliation attempt. Our presuppositions do impact our inquiry. Your comment perfectly describes a logical path one might take in holding to this view, in that it is great.
@marekfoolforchrist
@marekfoolforchrist 4 жыл бұрын
Imagine unironically using the 'it's just a theory' argument
@JohnBrown-of4pw
@JohnBrown-of4pw 4 жыл бұрын
Marek Kizer Well common decent is an assumption based on a secular worldview
@marekfoolforchrist
@marekfoolforchrist 4 жыл бұрын
@@JohnBrown-of4pw Prove it.
@JohnBrown-of4pw
@JohnBrown-of4pw 4 жыл бұрын
Marek Kizer Prove what
@marekfoolforchrist
@marekfoolforchrist 4 жыл бұрын
@@JohnBrown-of4pw Your assertion.
@JohnBrown-of4pw
@JohnBrown-of4pw 4 жыл бұрын
Marek Kizer Charles Darwin, who is credited for the theory of evolution by common decent held to an agnostic secular worldview, and many of his disciples also held similar worldviews,
@hukes
@hukes 4 жыл бұрын
22:18 Some theists seem incapable to grasp that millions of years can work wonders on self organizing molecules.
@derechoplano
@derechoplano 4 жыл бұрын
You don't understand probability. Millions of years are nothing compared to extreme low probabilities. Related: creation.com/from-ape-to-man-via-genetic-meltdown-a-theory-in-crisis
@nealswanson8684
@nealswanson8684 4 жыл бұрын
@@derechoplano not to mention time can be the enemy for certain base materials needed. Dr Tour explains this well.
@smilingarcher5093
@smilingarcher5093 4 жыл бұрын
IP, is the fact you observe about the Genesis 5 genealogies being multiples of 5 with a few exceptions that special? Given any integer, we can write it as a multiple of 5 plus or minus at most 2 multiples of 7. Is there something special about the exceptions using the "minus" option, while none use the "plus" option?
@Returnality
@Returnality 4 жыл бұрын
It's special because it's too unlikely that it is a coincidence. That means the genealogy was intentionally restricted to certain types numbers which means it can't be a literal genealogy.
@smilingarcher5093
@smilingarcher5093 4 жыл бұрын
@@Returnality If it was all multiples of 5s or all multiples of 5 plus or minus a 7, sure. But when it's a mixture, and in the case of Methuselah, we have to remove 2 multiples of 7, it doesn't seem as special.
@Returnality
@Returnality 4 жыл бұрын
@@smilingarcher5093 Disregarding your personal feelings about what makes something special, the facts are still that, even regarding Methuselah, the numbers we see are too unlikely to be coincidental.
@Navii-05
@Navii-05 3 жыл бұрын
Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it. So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that. So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned. The reason why blood must be spilled for forgiveness of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough to temporarily cover some sins. (it did not allow forgiveness of sins, Unlike Jesus's, it only temporarily covered them). Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. Jesus was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV. kzbin.info/www/bejne/opPFZautjs9kb8k Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument. Regarding Christianity watch InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus reliability of NT. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true. U
@RM-fs8ub
@RM-fs8ub 4 жыл бұрын
Agreeing to disagree is important, unity should be OK w/o uniformity of thought. Keep up with the debates...they should go on and on in a spirit of love and the quest of understanding our texts better as long as we have breath.
@igregmart
@igregmart Жыл бұрын
Unity with the truth is good. Unity with untruth is NOT good.
@TheMasterfulMishaps
@TheMasterfulMishaps 4 жыл бұрын
Nice job Michael!
@InspiringPhilosophy
@InspiringPhilosophy 4 жыл бұрын
Thank you
@TheMasterfulMishaps
@TheMasterfulMishaps 4 жыл бұрын
@@InspiringPhilosophy Will you be releasing the q and a?
@InspiringPhilosophy
@InspiringPhilosophy 4 жыл бұрын
@@TheMasterfulMishaps That was not recorded
@tommycapps9903
@tommycapps9903 2 жыл бұрын
The 1st question about what subdue meant wasn’t well thought out! If it is evolution is at work all Adam and Eve could do is wait around and let death bring about the changes necessary. Fine tuning is not man subduing but something else!
@vedinthorn
@vedinthorn 4 жыл бұрын
A common person probably could read the Bible without any help from a theologian or linguist.... In the time and place it was written. But I'm sorry, these days you can't even understand the basics of some fairly simple literature without real study if that literature is foreign enough to your language and culture. People can barely understand Shakespeare and it was written in early modern English only about 400 years ago in a fully Christian culture. If you study nothing but an English Bible you can probably get plenty enough for salvation and then some, but if you want to unpack the strange stuff you're going to need hard study. That's just how it is because God apparently didn't want to either leave thousands of years of people scratching their heads at what was written until it got to us, or constantly have it rewritten and authorized my miracles in every age.
@aldredmitchell2883
@aldredmitchell2883 4 жыл бұрын
Even if what Michael said is true, my question is, if God made the chaotic universe orderly, & if God did it in 6 literal days, where are the millions of years of evolution within that theory, I don't see it, the reason is if we are to except this theory, man is still created in the sixth day, because remember his saying the universe was chaotic & put in order within six lateral days, so there where no forms of life before this, for how can life forms survive in a chaotic universe. Or what am I missing, was order given, in terms of function, or in terms of something being created, coz how can u give a tree a function that has already been there for millions of years, I just don't get it.
@Actuary1776
@Actuary1776 4 жыл бұрын
You can’t get it. That’s the point. It’s an incoherent position to take.
@jcstroble91
@jcstroble91 4 жыл бұрын
Dr joe spent his entire opening to talk about why he thinks evolution is wrong and gave no facts to the contrary to lead us to sway to creation what I heard was Ip lay an amazing argument and dr joe come behind him and say “ he’s just wrong, thank you” dr joe talked for over 10 mins before quoting any scripture and gave arguments against things that Ip isn’t even saying
@InspiringPhilosophy
@InspiringPhilosophy 4 жыл бұрын
It’s funny because theistic evolutionist wanted to rely on scripture but the YEC didn’t rely on that much.
@smilingarcher5093
@smilingarcher5093 4 жыл бұрын
@@InspiringPhilosophy What's a rough ballpark estimate on how long ago you think Adam and Eve lived? Thanks
@Austin1990
@Austin1990 4 жыл бұрын
Smiling Archer Didn’t he say a few thousand BC in the debate? This has been determined convincingly.with genetic analysis.
@danielc6465
@danielc6465 4 жыл бұрын
What video is Michael refering to when dr. Boot mentions Jesus's words about the Flood (50:47)? I can't find it
@InspiringPhilosophy
@InspiringPhilosophy 4 жыл бұрын
kzbin.info/www/bejne/h2GamKuul8yagNU kzbin.info/www/bejne/on22qpyAbrCIedE
@TheBrunarr
@TheBrunarr 4 жыл бұрын
Dr. Boot's response to the literal age question was pretty poor. In fact, all of his responses to your questions were very poor. Great job!
@InspiringPhilosophy
@InspiringPhilosophy 4 жыл бұрын
Yeah, I don’t want to sound arrogant but I wish he prepared more. I don’t think he knew much about me.
@TheBrunarr
@TheBrunarr 4 жыл бұрын
@@InspiringPhilosophy I agree. It seems that a lot of people you debate don't know a lot about you before hand, which is a mistake.
@SwingDancer61
@SwingDancer61 4 жыл бұрын
Does seem to me that you can believe in the literal age pretty easy if you believe the genealogy isn't complete. Adding in some additional people between Noah and Abraham would solve Abraham's view of how old people can be and still become a father.
@thecrazyslopoke
@thecrazyslopoke 4 жыл бұрын
@@SwingDancer61 but then you wouldn't be taking the bible literally, which would be the point.
@SwingDancer61
@SwingDancer61 4 жыл бұрын
@@thecrazyslopoke No, you would be taking the Bible literally. Adding in additional people to the genealogy doesn't mean that the information that is there is wrong.
@paulhayes5684
@paulhayes5684 Жыл бұрын
I don't think God cares whether you're a Young or Old Earth Creationist, just that you believe His Son died for us and that we have a proper relationship with him.
@Actuary1776
@Actuary1776 4 жыл бұрын
The other guys position is coherent, I don’t agree with it, but from a Christians perspective his argument is the intellectually honest one and stands on the back of 2,000+ years of tradition. I feel like Michael (and other who believe the same) are twisting Christianity in an attempt to be reconcilable with science, as opposed to facing the theological implications that science imposes on Christianity. Otherwise, we are watching two intelligent men discuss what portion of a fairy tale they prefer over the other.
@Actuary1776
@Actuary1776 4 жыл бұрын
Mr Dyntasy IP? Just listen to his opponent here. For 2,000 years plus tradition has held that death is the result of sin. Jesus affirmed it, the OT affirms it, the NT affirms it. Fast forward to today when science says sorry but that’s wrong, death and decay were a part of the cosmos from its inception. Instead of addressing what that means theologically (ie a big red flag is being waived), IP (and others) come up with bullshit revisions that we were simply interpreting scripture wrong. Science pills the rug out of the idea that human beings die because of sin and need a savior to atone for that, instead of coming to grips with that we get debates like this.
@paradisecityX0
@paradisecityX0 4 жыл бұрын
I find it ironic how remarkably similar you are to fundagelicals in your understanding of the bible and Christianity -- their face value interpretation is relatively recent. I'm afraid you're knowledge of historical Christianity is poor. Science is the slow revelation of God's blueprint, fundie-Atheist. You really need to educate yourself with hermenutics and biblical scholarship
@Actuary1776
@Actuary1776 4 жыл бұрын
Abraham Girt You take the cake with ignorant comments, I was a Christian for 30 years of my life. The notion that anyone who doesn’t believe as you do is “biased” simply tells me you don’t really understand the arguments.
@Actuary1776
@Actuary1776 4 жыл бұрын
Purple Pill Philosophy No we certainly interpret scripture in a much more wooden literal sense than the ancients, there is a lot to learn from guys like Walton and Heiser for example, but only on an academic basis. You have a piss poor understanding of scripture if you don’t understand the sin/death overture found in literally the first chapters.
@joekeenan6435
@joekeenan6435 4 жыл бұрын
@@Actuary1776 "The Bible was composed in such a way that as beginners mature, its meaning grows with them." ~ Saint Augustine
@chaosinorder9685
@chaosinorder9685 3 жыл бұрын
While IP quoted ONLY scriptures and scholars concerning the scriptures, Joe Boot quoted mostly scientists and Not enough scripture. And he also seem to bring up points that he already refuted.. IP’s opening statement made more impact than his.
@rikardotsamsiyu
@rikardotsamsiyu 4 жыл бұрын
I haven't even watched the debate, but I already know that IP destroyed the whole "God's word vs. Man's word" argument.
@TomAnderson_81
@TomAnderson_81 4 жыл бұрын
What do you mean “gods word”? How do you know that? Have you talked personally to god and asked him if it is his “word”?
@JohnBrown-of4pw
@JohnBrown-of4pw 4 жыл бұрын
Tom Anderson 81 Hello Tom
@TomAnderson_81
@TomAnderson_81 4 жыл бұрын
John Brown why didn’t you answer last time?
@JohnBrown-of4pw
@JohnBrown-of4pw 4 жыл бұрын
Tom Anderson 81 For some reason I don’t get all of the comments in my notifications
@305thief8
@305thief8 4 жыл бұрын
@@TomAnderson_81 Look at the evidence for the resurrection check out IP's video presentation on it.
@mikedawson975
@mikedawson975 4 жыл бұрын
I think referring to scholarly opinions on grammatical issues is not one of Michael's more convincing persuasive techniques. Many of such opinions can and have been disputed by equally qualified scholars on the other side of the argument, so simply saying some scholars think such and such a verse should be translated in such and such a way because of this and that grammatical nuance does not carry a lot of weight. For example, take the idea that the Hebrew word for dominion (râdâh) in Genesis 1:28 means that death was already in existence in Eden. While the word can refer to a domineering, violent rule, its primary meaning is simply "to rule". It does not inherently carry negative connotations. For example, the same word is used in 1 Kings 4 to describe the peaceful reign of Solomon: "For he had dominion [râdâh] over all the region on this side of the River from Tiphsah even to Gaza, namely over all the kings on this side of the River; and he had peace on every side all around him. And Judah and Israel dwelt safely, each man under his vine and his fig tree, from Dan as far as Beersheba, all the days of Solomon." (1 Kings 4:24-25) Of course, the meaning of a word is best determined by its context. As Genesis 1 uses the phrase "it was good" seven times, a number which in the Hebrew mind indicates totality or fullness, it would seem that the chapter is describing anything but an environment in which death, suffering, and disregard for life is taking place. Clearly râdâh should be understood here in the sense of a loving and caring dominion, not the opposite.
@InspiringPhilosophy
@InspiringPhilosophy 4 жыл бұрын
That is not the case since 1 Samuel 8 and 1 Kings 11 says Solomon was ruling over them harshly. Yes, context matters so look at the full context of 1 kings 4. Also, see kzbin.info/www/bejne/baWQaJiuprh_ptk
@mikedawson975
@mikedawson975 4 жыл бұрын
@@InspiringPhilosophy 1 Kings 11 records the time when Solomon turns from the Lord. Earlier in 1 Kings 4 he was still faithful. The narrative flow has to be taken into account when considering the context. There were different periods of Solomon's life. 1 Kings 4 is before his apostasy; 1 Kings 11 is after. The context of chapter 4 is undeniably positive. As I've already mentioned, verses 24-25 record that there was great peace in the land during his reign. Furthermore, verse 20 literally says Judah and Israel "ate and drank and were happy", with verse 29 adding that God was blessing Solomon with wisdom and understanding. A harsh dominion? Absolutely not. Certainly râdâh refers to a harsh dominion in some contexts, but to argue it does here is, I think, simply without foundation.
@matthewzmarzley
@matthewzmarzley 2 жыл бұрын
Boot did an outstanding job. Very convincing. Great discussion.
@arandomyorkshireman9678
@arandomyorkshireman9678 4 жыл бұрын
IP, I believe basically the same thing as you, that Adam and Eve were simply elected to a covenant with god, but can you( or anyone else who holds your view) answer why In Jesus’ genealogy to adam in both Matthew and Luke describe Adam as the son of god, in my opinion this means they were created. So do you think it’s plausible Adam and Eve were created while other humans evolved?
@theapexfighter8741
@theapexfighter8741 4 жыл бұрын
On that point if view, you can consider that what happens is that they became the first of their “royal lineage” as they were the first elected. And some Jews at Jesus time had a very literal view about genesis so you can go both ways i guess.
@dooglitas
@dooglitas 4 жыл бұрын
The entire argument in your opening statement concerning Genesis 1:1 was strained and inaccurate. First, the argument about the meaning of "bereshith" is very artificial and involves some rather ingenious verbal finagling. You rationale for changing the meaning of "bershith" to "when" (in spite of what Heiser says) is imaginative but inaccurate and vague. Second, the discussion of the word bara as not meaning "creating" and then using two scriptures from Hebrew poetry, where it is obviously using figurative language, and then using those scriptures to state that "bara" does not mean physical creation, even though it is not figurative language being used in a poetic passage is a tricky deception. It's true that God was not talking about creating a physical heart from scratch. That is obvious from the context. However, in Genesis 1:1 God is talking about physically creating heavens and earth. And that's just the first couple minutes of your argument. Your arguments to that point are improper.
@dooglitas
@dooglitas 4 жыл бұрын
@@justchilling704 I've never really heard atheists deal with Genesis other than to ridicule it. I don't think IP is ridiculing Genesis 1, but he is trying very hard to find a way to fit it into his evolutionary mold. He states that it is a "fact" that man descended from a "common ancestor" with apes. Sorry, but that is not a fact. It is a narrative. Narratives are not facts.
@dooglitas
@dooglitas 4 жыл бұрын
@@justchilling704 Makes you think, doesn't it? Once you compromise on one thing, it usually does not stop there. There is abundant scientific evidence that is against evolution. The fact that he doesn't investigate that evidence is suspicious to me.
@Austin1990
@Austin1990 4 жыл бұрын
dooglitas His explanation of the Hebrew was fine for a while. It made perfect sense, even closed the option for a time gap between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. But, it still said the same thing from a simple reading, until he started forcing evolution into it.
@dooglitas
@dooglitas 4 жыл бұрын
@@Austin1990 Yes. He ignores the fact that the order of creation events is not consistent with the evolutionist order of events. Also, there is no way to logically say that evolution is consistent with the creation of a literal Adam and Eve, as he tries to claim. Also, he ignores the issue of the flood. If the flood of Noah happened, all fossil evidence before the flood would have been wiped out. He must deny a literal interpretation of creation AND a literal flood of Noah. He is hanging on the edge of falling into apostasy, whether he admits it or not. Compromise will eventually lead to apostasy. It has happened to thousands of Christians.
@Austin1990
@Austin1990 4 жыл бұрын
dooglitas Technically, he is saying that Genesis is talking about appointment rather than creation. And, yeah, he had to reference someone he did not even agree with to explain the creation of Adam and Eve, bypassing the issue. I have actually thought about IP and other Christians believing in evolution for a while. My conclusion is that changing their mind with facts and reason will not work. Essentially, they have elevated what people say above the Bible. Instead of looking deeply into the actual science to question what people say, he reads philosophical texts and reinterprets what the Bible is actually saying. I am not saying that you cannot investigate Biblical interpretation. I am talking about the motive. Since he put man’s word above God’s word in his heart, it would only be a matter of time before something else came up that would question God’s word. I am not talking about blind faith. Christianity is a relationship with God and must be based upon the Holy Spirit.
@jedijudoka
@jedijudoka 2 жыл бұрын
Theory: “A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results” Hypothesis: “scientific hypothesis, an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena observed in the natural world” Just to clarify for those who repeatedly misuse the word Theory. This also isn’t an argument for either side, just defining terms.
@Raiseflag_Surrender
@Raiseflag_Surrender 4 жыл бұрын
А nice debate and a very interesting and productive one. I am neither a creationist nor a theistic evolutionist, I think I'm in the middle. I believe in the evolution of forms but not in the evolution of stages, that is I believe that God certainly created the material world (Cosmos), the Life and the first Human Pair from nothing. Now between these three direct interventions there could have been an evolutionary process, also guided and controlled by God. But this whole thing is just my guesswork really. What we see nowadays in terms of evolutionary processes is not what it really was before the Fall, for I am a believer in a universal Fall theory (or so I call it for lack of a better word), meaning that not only human pair but also the whole creation suffered the Fall. Therefore, we can't really know what it was before the Fall due to science, because even the basic laws of the material world may have been changed completely. Holding that view one can really say that there could have been a real 7-days creation of the material world by God, or there could have been a long 7 stage process - we don't know. All we know is the fallen world we live in and we even don't see the invisible barrier in the timeline, the barrier that makes all our modern science a product of guesswork when scientist touch the problems of origin of cosmos, life and humanity. And yes, not science only but also a biblical study. God clearly didn't want us to concentrate on 'how' He created Cosmos and life and Humans. He wanted us to know: 1. Everything was created by One triune God. There was nothing 'before' God. 2. God created the first human pair and the pair entered Eden. What Eden was in truth no one knows for sure (for it was not merely a simple garden), we know only that he was placed on this Earth. 3. The human pair disobeyed God and stole the fruit of knowledge instead of waiting for a time when God freely gives them the fruit. This sin separated us from God and made us mortal, prone to disease and suffering, mentally disorganized and limited in our free will (before the Fall we could freely choose between whether to let evil enter into our life or reject all evil utterly, after the Fall we're constantly struggling between doing good or evil acts, some denominations of Christians therefore even claim that our post-Fall freedom is not a freedom at all and in some sense it is not). 4. Jesus Christ in His infinite mercy and grace entered our plane of existence, lived among us, toiled among us, had thirst and hunger and could feel torture and pain and experienced everything (even death). But He rejected sin (what Adam was unable to do) and lived a sinless life and gave His life for us on the Cross to deliver us from our fallen state. Through His Life and Death and Resurrection we are saved and made possible to enter Heaven and not only regain what was lost in Eden but enter an unfallen state. 5. Whatever there is about specifics of origin of cosmos, life and humankind we now don't know. God will show us in eternity after we pass His test here on Earth. For as Adam and Eve had limited knowledge and had to learn to trust and love God so do we need the same trait of character. I will even go as far to say that even those in Hell will be granted full knowledge of these things (if they ask for it of course, which I personally doubt) So I guess that makes me a theistic biblical pre-Fall agnostic, after all. But I don't think a person who is a creationist or a theistic evolutionist is a 'sinner' in the eyes of Christ. God doesn't care about the things we could not possible know and therefore would never blame us for imperfect guessing.
@existentialcatharsisvibe1709
@existentialcatharsisvibe1709 4 жыл бұрын
Wow what an interesting debate! Both were strong with their argument & it was hard to decide which one is right.
@williampaquet6573
@williampaquet6573 4 жыл бұрын
We have no way to know, but the search for understanding is a worthy endeavor.
@theosib
@theosib 4 жыл бұрын
It was very gratifying to see Mike Jones put his opponent to shame. As he always does. Brilliant guy. (In the debate with Aron Ra, I’m not sure there was a winner or a loser, but Mike was nevertheless brilliant.)
@InspiringPhilosophy
@InspiringPhilosophy 4 жыл бұрын
Debates never have winners or losers, only good and bad performances
@theosib
@theosib 4 жыл бұрын
@@InspiringPhilosophy BTW, could we have a brief discussion some time about quantum physics? I have a few nitpicks that I think could help you improve your digital physics argument. (The only apologist argument for God that so far doesn't make me face-palm.)
@305thief8
@305thief8 4 жыл бұрын
@@justchilling704 Just don't go around saying it's not compatible with the Bible just say in your opinion you believe evolution is not compatible but make sure to say there are Christians who believe in it and argue it doesn't affect it.
@kadillacking
@kadillacking 4 жыл бұрын
Apologetics disgust me, you shouldn't have to try to align your religion to mesh with modern day perceptions of reality. If religion was relevant in anyway to reality you wouldn't need apologetics, it would stand on its own merit. The sole fact that apologetics is a thing completely obliterates the veracity of any scriptural claims. Not to mention if the scriptures had divine providence they wouldn't need translation or interpretation at all. There is a reason there are thousands of denominations, because these STORIES cannot stand up to any rational, logical scrutiny.
@hungrybruh
@hungrybruh 4 жыл бұрын
Hey Michael, in Genesis 8:5, the mountain tops could be seen, yes, but this was after the waters had started to recede. I think this was an invalid point. Love your work, but a disagreement here.
@InspiringPhilosophy
@InspiringPhilosophy 4 жыл бұрын
So then in v9 the waters still covered the whole earth?
@hungrybruh
@hungrybruh 4 жыл бұрын
@@InspiringPhilosophy well, of course, I see no problem in that. The waters recede, mountain TOPS begin to be visible, but flood water still covers all the land. Verse 9 says "the bird couldn't REST the sole of it's feet". I guess it would probably be because of the muddy or wet texture caused by the waters.
@loisirsentertainment5919
@loisirsentertainment5919 4 жыл бұрын
@@hungrybruh Agree with Noah here. The waters still covered land, tho they had stared to recede and weren't covering the mountains anymore.
@andrejones2147
@andrejones2147 4 жыл бұрын
Good point. Which brings me to my problem with IP... are you simply making mistakes or do you ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT YOUR DOING.... in my opinion as far as his teachings go he is extremely suspect.......... and I believe that is what I’m yet to figure out... are you teaching these things intentionally or are you truly misunderstanding the scriptures you read. He seems to be trying his hardest to blend Worldly doctrines with those of the Bible.... they do not mix
@305thief8
@305thief8 4 жыл бұрын
@@hungrybruh But the thing is it is literally impossible for there to be a global due to geological research we have a very detailed plate tectonic profile showcasing relatively shorelines which means the world will never be flooded again. We are clearly interpreting it wrong. Here's an article on why a local flood is more likely than a global flood. www.sentinelapologetics.org/single-post/2017/10/14/Noah%E2%80%99s-Flood-A-Localized-Catastrophe-in-the-Persian-Gulf And I don't think a fundamentalist reading of scripture is really the best tbh
@lynncomstock1255
@lynncomstock1255 4 жыл бұрын
Re: Natural Laws: They exist as a creation of God that may limit humans and His creation, but they never limit God, should he choose to act otherwise. Many mighty acts of God are recounted in both the Old and New Testaments. If you are a believer, your faith and obedience are first hand knowledge of the work of God.
DEBATE: Is Evolution Compatible with Genesis? Michael Jones vs. Dr. Marcus Ross
1:56:15
God is not a Good Theory (Sean Carroll)
53:16
PhilosophyCosmology
Рет қаралды 1,4 МЛН
黑天使只对C罗有感觉#short #angel #clown
00:39
Super Beauty team
Рет қаралды 36 МЛН
UFC 310 : Рахмонов VS Мачадо Гэрри
05:00
Setanta Sports UFC
Рет қаралды 1,2 МЛН
Hugh Ross vs Peter Atkins • Debating the origins of the laws of nature
1:03:39
Premier Unbelievable?
Рет қаралды 520 М.
The Judeo-Christian Origins of Modern Science
55:36
Discovery Science
Рет қаралды 60 М.
Most Christians Don’t Know THIS About the Tower of Babel
19:46
Answers in Genesis
Рет қаралды 778 М.
Lennox vs Atkins - Can science explain everything? (Official debate video)
1:38:59
Premier Unbelievable?
Рет қаралды 899 М.
Atheists Will HATE This Video (Ken Ham)
57:54
Answers in Genesis
Рет қаралды 5 МЛН
The Book of Revelation Explained with Dr. Bart Ehrman
20:06
InspiringPhilosophy
Рет қаралды 87 М.
Science Is Reconsidering Evolution
1:22:12
Variable Minds with Andréa Morris
Рет қаралды 709 М.
DEBATE: Theism vs Atheism | Jonathan McLatchie vs Alex O’Connor
2:25:05
Origins Debate: Creationism or Theistic Evolution?
2:23:41
Sean McDowell
Рет қаралды 53 М.
Could There be Design in Evolution? | Michael Jones | TEDxIVC
15:49
黑天使只对C罗有感觉#short #angel #clown
00:39
Super Beauty team
Рет қаралды 36 МЛН