Evolution debate

[@configurational]

Very much looking forward to this! Can I humbly suggest an episode with two Christians on different sides of creation-evolution-ID? e.g. Francis Collins and Stephen Meyer?

[@nisarfazil6104]

Stephen meyer is id Not recognises Sm is a philospher

[@johnhall2708]

Complete waste of time

[@johnhall2708]

Yes, well said Phil,we are learning how to play the game of life

[@untarnishedtruth]

Or Denis Alexander and John Lennox. Or Michael Behe.

[@martinploughboy988]

It would be better to have someone who is a biblical creationist.

[@GuentherShadow]

Francis Collins' argument regarding the universe having a beginning and requiring a cause has two significant issues: The universe’s beginning isn’t proven: While the Big Bang marks the start of the observable universe in its current form, it doesn’t prove that the universe itself had an absolute beginning. Alternative theories, like cyclical models or quantum gravity, suggest that the universe could have existed in another state before the Big Bang. To claim the universe definitively has a beginning is speculative and requires further evidence. Special pleading for God: Collins claims that everything with a beginning requires a cause, but he exempts God from this rule by asserting that God is the uncaused cause. This exemption is unsubstantiated and arbitrary. If the universe could be eternal and uncaused, why should God uniquely hold that status? This seems more like an attempt to dismiss counterarguments preemptively rather than demonstrating why God is the necessary exception. Collins appears to use a “shifting burden of proof” tactic here. He applies stricter scrutiny to the universe than to God, even though both concepts require equal justification. If we allow for the possibility of an uncaused God, we must also allow for the possibility of an uncaused universe. Without addressing this inconsistency, his argument remains speculative and incomplete. Thank you to Unbelievable? for hosting such thoughtful discussions-this platform does a fantastic job of fostering dialogue on big questions like these. I greatly respect Francis Collins for his contributions to both science and faith. Thank you so much for having him and Phil on the show. ♥

[@WheresWaldo05]

Lol!!!!!! The universe doesnt have an absolute beginning, but the big bang is a start point for one aspect of it. Ahhhh the irony.

[@heremtica]

Further, there is nothing about the universe having a beginning / not having a beginning per se that has any ultimate argumentative value for the existence of God. Many ancient philosophers believed in "God" yet simultaneously believed the universe was eternal. Even Christian theologians believed this - Origen and Clement of Alexandria being prominent and influential examples. In fact, from the Neoplatonic perspective, creation ex nihilo is a completely nonsensical position. It requires us to posit a change in God, which is entirely illogical. The notion of creation ex nihilo is tied to certain rigorist interpretations of the Hebrew Scripture and really has nothing to do with speculative philosophy, theology, or science.

[@WheresWaldo05]

@heremtica Something cannot come from nothing. If the universe is eternal, then that means an eternal being called GOD can exist. So any athiest claiming they do not believe in eternal or supernatural skydaddys has no leg to stand on. If they are claiming the universe itself is eternal. It is a self defeating argument.

[@heremtica]

@@WheresWaldo05 Exactly, whether or not the universe had a beginning has no bearing on the existence of God.

[@WheresWaldo05]

@heremtica For the universe to have had a beginning, since something cannot come from nothing, and since space, time and matter needs something spaceless, timeless and immaterial to create space, time and matter for which to create said universe, requires GOD.

[@norski4052]

I'm a bit disappointed with Francis' responses. Phil put forward several specific claims; explanation of fine tuning, moral concerns with God, historicity of Exodus, etc. Francis didn't rise to any of the challenges directly. Francis' lived out ethical examples and life were great to hear, and I thought Phil's positions were quite weak but I was hoping Francis would have given a more robust answer to the questions raised.

[@piano9433]

Phil is very well read. His views on these issues are far from weak.

[@norski4052]

@piano9433 I assume that is true, but I didn't hear him respond and clearly share those views, it would be great if he did.

[@martinploughboy988]

Collins is handicapped by his refusal to take Scripture at its word.

[@piano9433]

@@martinploughboy988 Do you take Scripture at its word when it says God created a firmament to separate the waters?

[@martinploughboy988]

@@piano9433 Firmament is a translation of a word that means expanse.

[@fatfrankie]

I really like Ruth’s enthusiasm, friendliness and intelligence

[@martinploughboy988]

She's amazingly naive, impressed with men's qualifications but not examining their position before God. That's a general failing of those who work for Premier.

[@dohpam1ne]

Nice discussion, but not really a debate. There was a good 10-15 minutes of respectful debate at the start, then anything to do with the existence of God was pretty much tossed aside for topics like "is truth important" and "what's your advice for listening better during conversations". The moderator did a great job, but for whoever picked the discussion topics, I don't know why they were so disjointed and kind of unrelated to the title/thumbnail. They weren't really topics that any two scientifically literate people would disagree on, so most of the discussion was just the guests agreeing with each other. Phil even tried to redirect back to theism at one point but that just got derailed again.

[@heynow1388]

Good discussion. Francis Collins is, of course, being an honest man when he maintains that Evolution is an undeniable fact. For me, the most interesting point to come from the discussion was that Collins sites morality as proof of God’s existence, yet when Phil Halper pointed out the monstrous immorality of the Christian God as portrayed in the Bible (which he did twice) Collins simply ignored what is a key defeater for any Christian attempting to cite morality as an attribute of their God. Christians are on extremely thin ice when it comes to claiming that their God is moral.

[@seekingtruthgaming8887]

It's a difficulty but I don't think it is unexplainable. Slavery has great responses by theologians such as William Webb, and genocide has great responses by scholars such as Mike hieser.

[@SuperMrAndersen]

​@@seekingtruthgaming8887 Do you remember that there were kids living in Sodom and Gomorrah. All explanations are immoral

[@heynow1388]

@@seekingtruthgaming8887 Many thanks for your reply, I really appreciate it. I will certainly look up the references you give. For the record, the sort of immoral things God does which I was referring to were . . . he commands genocide, commits genocide, condones slavery, commands sexual slavery, and does many other deeply morally problematic things. I think Christians almost always just assume that their God is moral because most have never actually read the Bible, or if they have done so they simply cherry pick the nice bits. I call them Disney Christians and love the Mark Twain quote . . . “The quickest way to make a Christian an atheist is to make them read the Bible.” Perhaps the biggest moral problems for me in the Bible are two of Christianity's core concepts . . . Namely . . . Intergenerational, inherited, or original sin. How can it be moral that we are responsible for the sin of Adam? We aren't even responsible for the sin of our grandfathers. I believe that telling a child that they are inherently sinful is shameful and is responsible for untold amounts of mental torment. Disgraceful. Hell - eternal conscious punishment for finite crimes (including honest disbelief in God). In what sense can hell be justified and be called moral? There is some good news. I always tell Christians that we can all be better and more moral than their God because we can all forgive without the need for torture, without the need for a blood sacrifice of anyone’s life, without requiring that someone worship us, love us, or obey us, without making our love or forgiveness conditional upon threats of damnation and promises of salvation. Unlike the Christian God, we can all simply forgive.

[@scottpreston3892]

@@seekingtruthgaming8887 Of course there are "responses". For the most part they boil down to asserting that God is doing some wild utilitarian calculus, one that would seem to be entirely unnecessary for an omnipotent being in the first place.

[@heynow1388]

@@seekingtruthgaming8887 Thanks for your reply. I will look up the references you give. For the the record, the sort of immoral things God does which I was referring to were . . . he commands genocide, commits genocide, condones slavery, commands sexual slavery, and does many other deeply morally problematic things. Christians almost always just assume that their God is moral; I think this is because most have never actually read the Bible, or if they have done so they have cherry picked the nice bits. I call them Disney Christians and love the Mark Twain quote . . . “ The quickest way to make a Christian an athesist is to make them read the Bible.” Apart from the many moral attrocities in the Bible, the biggest moral problems for me in the Bible are two of Christianity's core concepts. Namely . . . Inherited, or original sin. How can it be moral that we are responsible for the sin of Adam? We aren’t even responsible for the sin of our grandfathers. I believe that telling a child that they are inherently sinful is shameful and has been responsible for untold amounts of mental torment. Disgraceful. Hell - eternal conscious punishment for finite crimes. In what sense can hell be justified and called moral? There is some good news. I always tell Christians that we can all be better and more moral than their God because we can all forgive without the need for torture, without the need for a blood sacrifice of anyone’s life, without requiring that someone worship us, love us, or obey us, without making our love or forgiveness conditional upon threats of damnation and promises of salvation. Unlike the Christian God, we can all simply forgive.

[@MrNobodylj]

Good respectful discussion and Good moderating … both sides showed respect and honor and fruitful discussion

[@PatrickHeaps-d6g]

Absolutely fantastic discussion. Francis Collins is a fine example of someone who has come to a real living faith and who is a fine and trusted scientist. But a shout out for the way this discussion was carried out by all with good humour and respect.

[@liteenergy4843]

I don't see how eternity and Jesus's becoming eternal is at odds with quantum physics. To myself, they intertwine and complement each other.

[@piano9433]

Read your comment out loud.

[@liteenergy4843]

@@piano9433 ??

[@richard8176]

Evolution can explain a common sense of morality.

[@WheresWaldo05]

Evolution is just a concept of random and chaotic chemical thoughts in our brains. Which is just the result of evolution doing what it does. So if the chemicals in my brain say 1+1=2 and someone elses says 1+1=4. We both are correct. As evolution cannot be wrong in either case. Both brains chemically are doing what is needed to survive. Sorry but you lost this one Bubba.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@WheresWaldo05 That couldn’t be further from the truth. Our brains are information processing systems. If they were random and chaotic they would be useless.

[@seanpierce9386]

@@WheresWaldo05 In fact, you can say 1+1=4. It’s just a question of how useful it is. If you start arriving at contradictions, it’s not very useful at all for prediction, and prediction is the key to survival. So organisms tend towards accuracy for practical reasons, and logic combined with the scientific method helps us make that process more rigorous. In matters of importance, we specifically avoid human intuition and turn to mathematical tests.

[@seanpierce9386]

@@WheresWaldo05 It’s worth noting that there are cases where it’s useful to set a=0, in modular arithmetic. What you’re after are the axioms to prove such statements. But regardless of your religion, you’re out of luck, due to Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem: No system with basic arithmetic rules can prove its own consistency. And I don’t think the Bible can provide support for such axioms.

[@niklaswikstrom78]

@@WheresWaldo05Do all creationists misunderstand evolution? Or are you just being disingenuous

[@zachg8822]

Want to see a super genius say moronic shit? Youve come to the right place!

[@SOX-9]

Pain forced my eyes open, and kept my mind sharp; love is healing me and letting me sleep. Love is letting me build and grow. Love is patient, love is kind. Love gives us value, love conquers death, and love refutes the ignorant and shows the wicked their manipulative ways. Love frees, love shields, love binds, love resurrects. Love will reverse all wrong and wipe away all tears. Love came and took my pain, and the invulnerable accepted my vulnerability, saying that it will heal all wounds. It only asks that I believe, and when I believe, I become wiser, stronger, and bolder in the face of the now stranded but fallen foe. Love has won, love is winning, love will win.

[@gregzade5202]

Nice fluffy word salad. Love doesn't always shield, binds, reverse all wrong or conquers, let alone death or is kind at all. This is woo woo at it highest level of ignorance! However feel free to live in fantasy land, you deserve it!

[@derkurtneu]

There is a big difference between the science of Evolution and the polemics of Evolution. I have huge problems with Evolution as a polemical argument against theism. I have zero problem with the science of Evolution, or using the empirical method to discover how living things interact with their environment and adapt to it to survive. And, yes, I also have huge problems with polemical arguments theists use against atheist proponents of Evolution and Darwinianism. Polemics is the problem. Rational conversation and contention are mutually exclusive. All heat and no light leaves all parties burned and in the dark.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@derkurtneu I couldn’t disagree more. As our courts have found over a millenium, truth is best discovered by an adversarial process. The whole reason illogical beliefs persist is that they are never exposed to cross-examination. This is no doubt comforting for those who want to shield their beliefs from scrutiny, but many of us prefer to get to the facts.

[@seanpierce9386]

Yes and no. Yes, we should be seeking truth in our discussion. Yes, atheists can be quick to cite evolutionary theory as a gotcha without a second thought. But if there’s a conflict between your theological belief and science, you should probably work that out. Remember, a proof by contradiction is a valid syllogism and can’t simply be dismissed. The evolutionary theory is quite formidable if it’s used to support the Problem of Evil, challenge Biblical inspiration, or probe the origins of consciousness and morality.

[@SOX-9]

I like how they describe people who practice no religion, stoped believing at 15 and think they know what religion is all about

[@NN-wc7dl]

I like how children are often coerced into religious beliefs from the very start, leaving many unable to think outside of these beliefs for the rest of their lives.

[@SOX-9]

@NN-wc7dl lol. Please don't teach your kids things you think will help them in adulthood. The rest of us will do our best for our kids so they don't grow up and think men can become women by acts of faith

[@SOX-9]

@NN-wc7dl please don't teach your kids what will help them when they are adults. The rest of us will teach our kids good patterns of thought so they don't grow up craving safe spaces and and think men can become women by acts of faith.

[@SOX-9]

@NN-wc7dl please don't teach your kids what will help them when they are adults. The rest of us will teach our kids good patterns of thought so they don't grow up craving safe spaces and and think men can become women by acts of faith.

[@SOX-9]

@NN-wc7dl please don't teach your kids what will help them when they are adults. The rest of us will teach our kids good patterns of thought so they don't grow up craving safe spaces and and think men can become women by acts of faith.

[@dennyworthington6641]

Over the millennia H. sapiens have conjured thousands of gods. When Mr. Collin's tells me why he doesn't believe in most of them, he'll know why I don't believe in his. BTW, I would like to know Mr. Collins's view on Jesus's DNA.

[@TheAnalyticChristian]

I enjoyed listening to this conversation! Both were respectful. I thought Phil made better points than Francis on evidence for theism. Aside from that there was a lot of agreement between them and much wisdom in their advice. I hope others will listen.

[@kennethmichael1427]

Dr Francis seemed to completely dodge the statements that Phil made about the immorality of God in the old Testament (the biblical flood, genocide of the Amelikites, the story of Achan) he did not have any kind of direct reply to those statements. Other than that both men were real gentleman.

[@SOX-9]

Do you believe the universe is moral? If so, how do we get that morality?

[@SOX-9]

Alternatively, can you give me evidence that proves moral laws? As far as I understand it, atheist believe the world is amoral.

[@seekingtruthgaming8887]

​@@SOX-9couldn't the principle of credulity provide answers for morality? It's merely an intuitive insight we all have. (Perhaps it evolved or not is meaningless for this thought)

[@SOX-9]

@@seekingtruthgaming8887 Our preference for sexual partners is also intuitive. Do you want to argue about that? It is as important, if not more important, for reproduction and the continuation of the species.

[@SOX-9]

@@seekingtruthgaming8887 Our preference for sexual partners is also intuitive. Do you want to argue about that? It is as important, if not more important, for reproduction and the continuation of the species.

[@gatehanger1385]

I'm only here to read the comments from opposing sides saying 'Hmmmm... I never thought of it like that before' 😂

[@thetruthaboutscienceandgod6921]

Please watch and share with others my five brief videos in which I present examples of scientific facts contained in the Bible, facts that the writers thousands of years ago could not have been aware of without divine knowledge given to them by Jesus Christ / The God of the Bible. And today's scientists agree with those facts!

[@g4p5l6]

Enjoyed this. Thanks for posting.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Students shared "i" Am will say, nothing is better to harvest. "LOVE" can't be forced to be loved!

[@christopherdale1745]

I'm not sure lending credibility to Dr. Collins is a legitimate endeavor.

[@larrythomsen1072]

I agree. His collusion with liars like Dr Fauci and his own lies call everything he says into question.

[@MrCBTman]

Explain, please.

[@christopherdale1745]

@MrCBTman he lied about all things COVID-related, and he justifies abortion.

[@MrCBTman]

@@christopherdale1745 He didn’t lie. I read the transcript, the way those questions were phrased was bs

[@RpMcMurphy_]

@@MrCBTman Oh yes he did. He actively work to suppress and silence his colleagues. Read Great Barrington Declaration.

[@ThePaulmaxey]

Praising the NIH and Collins regarding the vaccines makes me extremely uncomfortable in light of the overwhelming evidence of the corporate capture of medicine. The dangers of gene therapy and contamination resulting in harm has long been established by eminent independent scientists, the suppression of this evidence and the demonisation of the alarm raisers is criminal.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Remember together!

[@oliverjamito9902]

Students will say, physical strength and given sincere conversations can't separate these 2?

[@chriswallis8258]

Phil did a great job, and collins is also amazing. This is how atheists and theists should interact

[@CanPat777]

Will Mr. Collins still be able to give interviews when he is in prison?

[@oliverjamito9902]

Brought a smile on my face!

[@skeptcode]

It's somewhat surprising that Dr. Collins doesn't seem to have heard about Axelrod's tournament and the successful strategy conditions for the prisoner's dilemma, particularly regarding how purely egoistic behavior doesn't seem to win (when he says he can't imagine why humans act altruistically).

[@SOX-9]

I guess you don't realise that the Great Khan was altruistic to his clan's men, not soo much to his foes. I.e. it is a good thing to eliminate threats before they eliminate you too

[@betsalprince]

​@@SOX-9 Kinda like how Yahweh eliminated threats by drowning everyone except a family of 8 in the book of Genesis. Such altruism!

[@SOX-9]

@@betsalprince exactly. So altruism as an explanation for morality is just silly

[@betsalprince]

@@SOX-9 Altruism is one aspect of morality, not an explanation for it. If that's your response to my comment, then God as an explanation for morality is just as silly.

[@SOX-9]

@betsalprince God as an explanation for morality is sufficient. Atheists tend to only talk about altruism, and that is what I critiqued. However, please give me your alternative explanations so we can compare them to Jesus.

[@johnhall2708]

A tautology is something true by definition within the meaning of the propositions

[@fatfrankie]

Doesn’t Francis Collin’s sound a bit like Ned Flanders from the Simpsons?😂

[@garethbeare8741]

In conversation with David Benatar about philosphical nihilism, Justin does raise honest questions about deontological matters.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Even these principalities who deceiveth and murderers exalted themselves above sitteth in high places unseen nor seen!

[@joseleon8235]

I do not get any reason for a God to be selective to drive evolution by hand rather than by a perfect categorical teleology that includes all ontology at once, including evolution, but by any means centered on it. Assuming God exists. Otherwise, it would be just brute force that, by ontological randomness and time, could become anything. I come to believe that the later never explains its own self-causation; instead, the first one, that "it is what it is," like in the Bible, "I am who I am," it is just beautiful; it summarizes the best, simple yet sublime definition of an entity that embodies all the meaning.

[@mrwallace1059]

Dr. Collins with such intelligence sounds like every other apologist , Craig, Wallace etc etc.

[@martinploughboy988]

And the problem with that is?

[@stephenbailey9969]

Even many believers today have been affected by the modern mindset arising out of Enlightenment deism, that this created realm in some way has a separate existence from God. The far older paradigm, however, expounds a universe that is contained by God and sustained by God moment to moment. Only God being eternal and the universe a contingent reality generated by God's mind and power and will. All contingent things continue to exist by his will, either the direct will or the permissive will. But there is no distance between the mind of God and physical reality. Divine thought and will give birth to us and what we perceive as material existence. As St. Paul said, to explore that created existence is to explore the revelation of the mind of God.

[@somerandom3247]

It seems odd that a god would create a world where the diversity of life arrose via evolution, then inspire men to write a book that states something else different entirely happened.... Unless you are happy to accept contradictions, I don't see how one can believe the bible and evolution.

[@redeemedchannel5580]

As a firm believer in the Word of God, I completely agree with you. The Bible and the evolutionary hypothesis are completely contradictory.,That’s why there is zero evidence for said hypothesis-because it’s not real. But if you believe it isn’t real, good luck keeping your job as an educator.

[@barry.anderberg]

Tell me you don't understand the Bible without telling me.

[@SOX-9]

I believe when the truth if fully known, we will see the hand of God. Before the current model of the making of the solar system, there were others and we now think they are wrong. The current evolutionary theory will undergo many more changes and give the resurrection of Jesus, I believe all truth will eventually align with Jesus. Also, the creation story is not a science story. The one thing I thought was obviously silly is the one thing I know to be true about it, light came before the sun. That obvious falsehood was not written out gives me confidence the story is preserved.

[@heremtica]

@@redeemedchannel5580 "a firm believer in the Word of God" I think what you mean is you're a firm believer in your traditional religious presuppositions that you read into the Bible thinking that is what it actually says. Just so you're aware, there is over a millennia of witnesses in the early and medieval church of figures who understood Genesis to be an allegorical and symbolic account. Virtually every rabbinic commentary treats it as such. Christianity exists outside of Bible belt American fundamentalism.

[@MrCBTman]

The Bible isn’t a single book. It’s a library of books, and not all are in the same genre.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Shared "i" Am Hosts Meeks will say, remember all thy shared "i" Am came with sincere conversations given just for thee! Likewise let not thy Hearts, minds, and the HELPER the Comforter thy spirit dwelling within thee be TROUBLED!

[@oliverjamito9902]

Remember all HIS shared "i" Am in front of all shared Feet resting upon all dry grounds!

[@PATRICKJLM]

Evolution by natural selection on Earth gave dinosaurs - and if it wasn't for a cosmic coincidence, they would have been still the rulers of Earth. I guess God's project Humans 1.0 didn't go as expected and he had to reset it with a comet...

[@martinploughboy988]

Evolution isn't scientific, it simply isn't observed.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Students will say, how else can a little child born "i" know? Feet resting upon 3 commands resting upon GRACE given as for all HIS shared "i" Am come forth!

[@NotAnEvilPersian]

Terrible choice for the God side of debate!

[@gaspingfortruth]

One helluva witness huh?

[@RpMcMurphy_]

I concur.

[@johnsteichen5239]

God does not have a side in a human debate. God does not lose debates. Ergo Satan. Don’t hitch your fate to human debates. A poor debater can be perfectly correct but loose to a clever debater. Debates can be interesting but only a fool will follow their outcome to their peril.

[@117-d7r]

@@johnsteichen5239yes, because we have never seen him debate anyone. Godzilla also never loses debates.

[@audunarvehenriksen8654]

With the following backdrop, Collins, a highly educated and reflected man, influenced by the thinking of CS Lewis, how could Collins be a bad choice? 🙂

[@oliverjamito9902]

Students, what is physical strength? Lord many with physical strength forgotten their given sincere conversations? If HIS Beautiful comes to poke shared Hearts! Many their own walls came crushing down in front of HIM!

[@oliverjamito9902]

Some will say, as HE walked through the wilderness as a little child "i"

[@mgosta2]

Not God, it was the invisible flying spaghetti monster.

[@Murphydennis2332]

But he is made of spaghetti.

[@tingtingtangtangtang]

The universe is computer simulated by the FSM

[@erehwhon]

Wow, what a sophisticated mind you have and how deep your thinking is. You are scary bright.

[@RpMcMurphy_]

@@erehwhon lol yeah and it’s not even original.

[@thomabow8949]

@@erehwhon Oh look, an offended theist! Quick everyone, laugh at it before it threatens to pray for you!

[@OpenMind4U2C]

I love it, let's make some excuses for why God doesn't intervene

[@SOX-9]

How do you know when God should intervene?

[@OpenMind4U2C]

@SOX-9 It's really not hard unless you want to make it so. For an example my good friends 1 year old dying of lukemia, none of the explanations you can give mean anything to them or me.

[@seanpierce9386]

@@SOX-9 Because in Christian theology, God has some pretty clear properties and goals. We can use that to infer a decent solution for God to get what He wants. But when God intervenes, it’s often totally contrary to those goals. So it’s not that we’re challenging God or assuming His role. It’s just that He’s supposed to be smarter than us.

[@SOX-9]

@@OpenMind4U2C I'm sorry, your friend's childs life has no significance or meaning in an Atheistic universe. Why should that story have any meaning to me. You cut the branch that could have given your friend life intrinsic value

[@SOX-9]

@@seanpierce9386 please show me how you can know the death and resurrection of Jesus based on God's Old Testament properties

[@Dannydreadlord]

Is it me or do the theist scientists sound so much like apologists.

[@martinploughboy988]

Where's the problem?

[@oliverjamito9902]

A little child "i" longing to learn! What is sincere conversations nor foolish conversations?

[@chilufyajosh2220]

I think people just need to believe because they found a particular faith appealing that's enough, otherwise to add a particular scientific back up to beliefs, sense goes out of the window..

[@Hearttouchingnasheed-r3z]

The background music, which popped up when this channel's or other stuff showed up, was annoying at all.

[@oliverjamito9902]

The "AM" will say, How's my little child born "i" Am?

[@martinploughboy988]

Perhaps Collins needs to consider that those experiencing pain in this life, who do not know the Saviour, will find that their suffering does not end when they die. When we die we go to stand before our judge, God, and He will give the appropriate punishment to those who hate Him, who do not serve Him. Animals, of course, do not have souls & when they die they end.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Resting upon Time!

[@johnhall2708]

Why should morality come from beyond our species learning how to rub along together over several hundred thousand years

[@oliverjamito9902]

Shared "i" Am come forth!

[@davethebrahman9870]

This discussion ought to make Christians question their reliance upon Collins as their chief example of a believing scientist. He is no doubt a fine scientist, but his main reason for belief is the Moral Argument, not any arcane scientific knowledge; and the basis of the said argument is merely the ‘intuition’ (i.e feeling) that moral facts exist. There is no good reason to think this is true, and the multiplicity of human moral beliefs, coupled with the power of evolutionary explanation in respect of moral feelings, gives us good reason to reject the Moral Argument. Even if one does think that there are moral facts, the positing of a God is not the only available explanation. So the belief of Collins is not informed by science, and is in fact anti-scientific in its conclusions.

[@rogersacco4624]

Ultimately what ever you decide it doesn't mean God will make you live forever.See some David Eagleman videos about the brain and trillions of connections in constant flux and existing with s time ,place,and history which is why you exist.None of that can be duplicated and no one has any idea what they want to do with an infinite afterlife

[@jonatasmachado7217]

In my opinion, the literal reading of Genesis still stands. The available evidence corroborates it. Natural selection was never observed to generate new and more complex biological structures and functions. Mutations are cumulative and degenerative, destroying genetic information. In the end, finches "evolve" into finches and iguanas into iguanas, as Darwin observed, Dawkins observes, Collins observes, we all observe and Genesis 1 clearly states (10 times). Fish to fishermen or frog to prince evolution has to be imagined. Imagination is not science.

[@martinploughboy988]

I doubt Collins is a Christian.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Time will say, remember came from HIS GRACE!

[@oliverjamito9902]

Students will say, have many forms! Like lust going after feelings that don't bring true rest but strife and separation from Thee?

[@diosrelish6924]

no problem with me if Dr. Collins believes in god but why he choosed the Christian god in particular !!! is it because he was raised in a Christian culture ? does he have a strong evidence that the Trinitarian god ! is the real god and not only a fabricated story developed decades after the death of jesus .

[@joshuaWEC]

Collins is an incredible scientist with more achievements and contributions to science than almost any other scientist in modern times. He is clearly very intelligent and has a great understanding of biology and evolution. However no matter how well he tris to explain these things and talk about the gospel and Christ's death and resurrection it will always sound foolish to those without the spirit, just as the Bible says.

[@The-DO]

Great news with "Ask NT Wright" as well

[@oliverjamito9902]

Angels who persevere and heard the WORD will say, liken unto the True Owner. Made a Garden for HIS FEET TO REST UPON AND TO WALK UPON. AMONG MY shared "i" Am come forth!

[@OpenMind4U2C]

Well done Phill 👏 he failed to address your great points

[@garethbeare8741]

Humans are irremediably convinced that they are in aggregate magical or quasi-magical beings. The irrationality is outwith my control

[@SOX-9]

The empathy explanation of morality is really silly once you acknowledge the numerous emotions we have. Morality elevates empathy not the other way round. Anyway, some people are better at reasoning than others. The atheist gave very bad answers to each question that at the end i was convinced he just did not like his religion. At worst, the religious answer is as bad as the ath3ist current preferences.

[@walker30904]

Please stop giggling! Very serious topic!

[@oliverjamito9902]

Without form and void going towards....? Who can make something from....?

[@robertmcclintock8701]

⌒(ё)⌒ We need to popularize the idea of getting God married. Getting God married is a good use of someone's time. You are supposed to make the environment intelligent so no God is needed. We fixed the video and audio for the best experience possible. Cameras are supernatural and all of them captured 3D that not a gimmick. The audio loud don't make violence so has depth. Nobody has to buy anything for it to work.

[@richard8176]

What is the morality promoted by the bible, turn the other cheek or an eye for an eye?

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@richard8176 Both.

[@markwrede8878]

Is tautology the source of meaning?

[@gerrybeves]

Science led me to faith - creation testifies that there is a designer. If by 'reject science' thry actually mean 'reject a theory that contradicts evidence' , then it it not about being more religious, but more analytical.

[@grayhalf1854]

How did science lead you to faith?

[@gerrybeves]

@grayhalf1854 I always believed in evolution, but when I tried to prove it, not only did I find no conclusive proof on offer, only speculation, I also found evidence against it. When I applied the laws of genetics reproduction to the process, I found that it contradicted the observed processes. I have some youtube videos explaining it. Look for Pilgrim Bible Society.

[@tridoc99]

@@grayhalf1854He literally said creation testifies that there is a designer. Many scientists see scientific explanations as ways of explaining away “the god of the gaps.”. Others like Dr. Collins, OP and myself see the complexity of life as evidence of a designer. Mathematically, random mutations haven’t had enough time to create the diversity of life we now see.

[@zhengfuukusheng9238]

What does not comport to the reality we experience and understand; we must deem false. The claims of all well-known religions, including Christianity, do NOT comport with that reality Thus, they are all, including Christianity, FALSE. QED

[@philippebouchard9093]

God does whatever He thinks is necessary to be done. It's not because He doesn't do what we would expect Him to do that He doesn't care or that he doesn't exist. God takes care of his creation but He also let men and women make their free choices and face the consequences of those choices so that they will learn.

[@piano9433]

A bunch of claims. Can you provide evidence for any of them?

[@oliverjamito9902]

What is feeling?

[@FreedomInTruth777]

Evolution and the Christian God contredict eachother, you can believe in one or the other but you can't believe in both without contredicting logic and reason.

[@zachbeall6810]

That's not true.

[@martinploughboy988]

@@zachbeall6810 Yes it is.

[@martinploughboy988]

But since Evolution isn't science, there's no problem.

[@zachbeall6810]

@@martinploughboy988 wrong

[@martinploughboy988]

@@zachbeall6810 Prove it, demonstrate Evolution.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Hosts Meeks will say, therefore, if our LORD is silent!

[@oliverjamito9902]

So Love unfamiliar unto many! For many have NOT KNOWN HIM? Yet ye know HIM!

[@OpenMind4U2C]

The simplest explanation doesn't explain what God actually is its just as speculative but even more so.

[@oliverjamito9902]

As commands for HIM to come as a little child born "i" a SON to take HIS SEAT with HIS "AM"? The "WORD" "i" Am

[@oliverjamito9902]

Who said impossible? But shared mouths!

[@oliverjamito9902]

Wilderness the pressures of life!

[@johnhall2708]

Collins says he was converted while walking through a forest in winter and came a cross a frozen three pronged stream of water - the trinity FFS!

[@johnhulbert8185]

Gravity is still not understood and evolution is practically irrefutable.

[@piano9433]

Is theism more refutable?

[@johnhulbert8185]

@piano9433 By an order of magnitude.

[@piano9433]

@@johnhulbert8185 Give me an example of an observation / observational statement that would refute it, that is, that would render theism demonstrably false.

[@johnhulbert8185]

@@piano9433 okay. Everywhere I look, no matter where, there is no proof of god. No miracles or a single unorthodox or unexplainable phenomena that points to a creator. There is a huge body of evidence for evolution. Therefore theism is far more refillable than evolution. If it weren't so, you would have to have faith would you? I don't need faith in evolution because I know it. I've seen the proof with my own eyes. God is a fanciful fictional creation that filled the gaps until we understood more. Catch up please.

[@markpequegnat]

Great discussion. My only regret was the missing direct response to the immoral revelations of God in the Bible. Sadly the majority of Evangelicals simply close their minds to the issue because they equate the reality of God and the inspiration of scripture with grossly mistaken hermeneutics based on Calvin rather than the express directives of Jesus himself. It's the same misinterpretation that caused the first century Zionists to reject the sermon on the Mount defining Jesus as the true Messiah. But Jesus defines truth as all of scripture inspired to point to himself as both the clarification and full revelation of God and his true essence which is self sacrificing love. (See 1 John). Christendom like zionism chooses to ignore not only Jesus express teaching on this-both in correcting the Pharrisies and on the road to Emmaus, but the way that all the New Testament authors applied this hermeneutic to their writings - all of which provide a consistent and inside out reinterpretation of the old Testament seen through this newly revealed lens. So we now realize that God was simply accommodating the current level of understanding and perspectives of the ancient near east peoples he began to work with and through as he gradually unveiled the truth of an incomprehensible God leading up to the full and accurate self disclosure in person. This person utterly redefines who ordered all the violence. Note that it was the Angel of death that slaughtered the first born - not God even in the Genesis account corrective passage. Suggest Greg Boyde - Crucifixion of the warrior God. Truth certainly matters. Jesus followers would not support Trump or any other like minded Ceasar. Only grossly mislead religion does that.

[@betsalprince]

Jesus' teachings, progressive revelation and hermeneutics (a.k.a. twisting scripture and reading into the text) do not make intentional animal torture via Yahweh's command any less evil. If Francis Collins went that route, he would've sounded even more silly than he did in this video.

[@martinploughboy988]

God is certainly not immoral, and who are you, as a morally wicked creature, to challenge your Creator? The Sermon on the Mount describes those who God has raised from the death of sin to seek God. Why would Zionists have any interest in it all, seeing they reject their Messiah.

[@johnhall2708]

Collins really hasn’t thought much about the issues so likely just chose to believe for emotional reasons

[@munbruk]

The Bible was regurgitated through human minds and will face challenges. Unlike the Quran which is is ok with evolution.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@munbruk The Quran presupposes the Bible. Islam is a Christian heresy, just as Christianity is a Jewish heresy.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Who rules HIS FOOTSTOOL!

[@oliverjamito9902]

Students shared "i" Am will say, unto all HIS shared "i" Am Wise, Scribes, nor professors! Remember thy Aims concerning HIS neighbors given unto us? Why students? Lord without thy given neighbors. How else can all thy shared "i" Am students ABLE TO SHOW OFF IN FRONT OF THEE?

[@mcmanustony]

quit fucking spamming.

[@oliverjamito9902]

REFLECTION of HIS CREATION.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Creation will say, remember HE have desired 1st?

[@RpMcMurphy_]

Frances Collin’s hey? Very smart and accomplished guy. However, even though he’s a Christian I have lost all respect for the man. It pleased me greatly learning how he came to Christ, but his behavior during the “event” revealed his true character. I believe all are redeemable, but I haven’t heard him apologize to citizens or colleagues in his field. No remorse, no regret, no explanation whatsoever. This is the worst kind. You guys should seriously reconsider having him on your program.

[@danielduvana]

What are you talking about? Sounds like you’re deep in conspiracy theories about vaccines

[@oliverjamito9902]

Obviously with an intent, based, foundation, and where your treasures is there your hearts will be also? Feet resting upon sustained!

[@oliverjamito9902]

By now, wise of this world, Scribes, nor professors?

[@johnhall2708]

The starting point is that we are evolved primates so if it was really all about us then why not at least our primate cousins too?

[@SOX-9]

Please show yhe line from there to morality

[@martinploughboy988]

No we are not.

[@toni4729]

Well I suppose if someone is sitting beside people who are one their deathbed looking for help day after day, it could turn anyone's mind. I call it brainwashing.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Indeed!

[@dwb1954]

the combined views on Covid19 or vaccinations do not reflect the scope of expert evidence based views on this topic...would love to see a fair debate on the international response to the Covid19 pandemic and vaccinations...

[@RpMcMurphy_]

What you mean exactly?

[@rlittlefield2691]

The fact is that for more than 1500 years they thought evolution was a Christian idea. St Augustine when he translated Genesis with native Hebrew Speakers came to the conclusion that God used evolution to create complex life. ( Evolution Plato not Darwin of course.) It turns out that while the word Day is the best translation it gives us an incorrect notion that day means 24 hours. Even in our DAY, in English it does not always mean 24 hours. See I just used it in a way that it does not mean 24 hours. The problem is what we observe in the fossil record is called Punctuated Equilibrium, not evolution, as there are no transitional fossils to be found. Or it could be said, it appears there was a big flood that covered up all the evidence for evolution. You may not know that is the case, and I have had people correct me and say there was a series of smaller floods,. Maybe they are right.

[@liammccann8763]

Why in that case did God command us, in Exodus, to 'keep holy the sabbath DAY'?.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@rlittlefield2691 Almost everything you say there is incorrect. ‘Evolution’ now means ‘evolution by natural selection’. Augustine, Plato, even Erasmus Darwin, they had no idea of the mechanism. The Hebrew word ‘יום’ always means ‘day’ when used in the absolute singular and without qualification. ‘Punctuated Equilibrium’ is a model rejected by most biologists and palaeontologists, and we know for certain there was never a universal Flood.

[@martinploughboy988]

@@davethebrahman9870 There most certainly was a universal flood, the rocks & fossils testify to it.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Bringing many scattered noises!

[@oliverjamito9902]

What is impossible?

[@oliverjamito9902]

For GRACE knows?

[@soldieroftruth77]

Ok now get two people next who don’t have TDS.

[@mcmanustony]

Grow up ffs....

[@OpenMind4U2C]

No we don't all agree we have Free Will certainly not the sort your proposing