Is It A SIN For Christians To Believe In EVOLUTION?

[@BlessGodStudios]

🎟:Get Tickets to the Bless God Summit Here: www.itickets.com/events/479802

[@real_Hamilton]

Believing in evolution doesn't mean there wasn't a God who caused the evolution. So no I don't think it's a sin

[@joelercoaster]

I think it’s a deception but not a sin, and definitely has nothing to do with salvation

[@BigChurch-c4k]

It starts to degrade the absolute power of God. Placing credit for certain creations on the process of evolution rather than Him purposely creating everything.

[@WCUmetalhead]

@BigChurch-c4k would not the counter argument to that be that through His absolute power, he created a world in which it's inhabitants possessed the ability to adapt and change over time as necessary? Especially if he gave domain of the planet to mankind. Our actions over the course of our history on the planet change entire ecosystems (war, agriculture, civilizations, trade, migration, etc.). I see what you're saying, but be careful not to stifle God's creativity by trying to pigeonhole the possibilities of His actions.

[@BigChurch-c4k]

@ I think we agree more than disagree. From Adam and Eve came all the different types of people running around today. Shaped and adapted to their different regions, cultures and technological gains. But that’s not evolution. Just like the different types of dogs aren’t evolved from wolves. Anyways, God bless you and thank you for a thoughtful and respectful response.

[@Mc-ln3gr]

Not only is it sin. It’s a damnable sin.

[@nelysilva5833]

I believe God had his hand in all creation, evolution or not. I don't understand how evolution alone can do anything. It can't. God is the great creator. I dont even care how he did it, I just care and know he did it. Thank you Jesus for your beautiful creation🙏🙏🙏🙌🙌🙌❤️

[@nuanceatnoon]

You’re precisely right. Evolution is the process. Not the cause. The atheist will say “God of the gaps” so you think “God did it”. Yes and no. It’s doesn’t have to be an active action. An automated mechanism coined “evolution” of course is within the realm of something an omniscient entity, God, can do. 😂

[@orpheemulemo8053]

​@@nuanceatnoon Also Biblicaly evolution can't happen because evolution says through millions of years creatures existed and died then the first humans came and they weren't intelligent But the Bible says there was no death sickness before Adam and eve there are dinosaur bones found with sicknesses like cancer So no I don't believe in evolution I believe God we can find evidence for the Biblical account though I recommend the channel answers in Genesis

[@austinbruce6917]

@@nuanceatnoonEvolution is a random process with no end goal. Any scientist will tell you this. Could we have been intelligent crabs “made in the image of God” and worship a crab messiah? Think about it

[@daMillenialTrucker]

​@@nuanceatnoon it's funny because their god is time, "oh well with enough time though!", thats their explanation loooooool

[@unknowncowman]

@@austinbruce6917 Evolution is not random actually, it's selection and survival of the fittest. That means that over given time only the most useful mutations will survive. But genetic mutations sometimes come through degeneration of unused features (f.e. Musculus palmaris longus, the longer palmar muscle) is not present in some humans today because it degenerated/deactivated in the genome due to lack of usage in some humans and then doesn't get passed on anymore (you could reactivate it though and the people affected would grow the muscle again). That means not only random processes bring about evolution.

[@jesusesaluzdomundo]

You know what is the REAL evolution?... To an atheist to Christian, that's what happened to me, I evoluted! :D

[@orpheemulemo8053]

Facts

[@ehimareadedoyin3683]

You evoluted 😂😂😂. I find the way you said it so funny

[@codedee]

@@jesusesaluzdomundo amen

[@pierrebaldwin9672]

These ads mid vid kill me omg😭

[@yllatusmuna]

That's evolution. The video was without ads. Then it evolved into a video with ads. 😂😂😂

[@mattdezigns]

The Segway into the ads get me everytime...😂😂😂😂😂

[@factorc5058]

All the scientists have access to the same data, but it is how the data should be interpreted is what is debated. As Frank Turek says, "Science doesn't say anything, scientists do."

[@Orthosaur7532]

Yet all come to the same conclusion?

[@factorc5058]

@Orthosaur7532 it's not as much of a consensus as is advertised. There are a number of scientists who disagree with evolution and hold to the idea of Intelligent Design. In the history of science, there have been accepted paradigms that have been difficult for scientists that held a different views to overcome. Some examples of previously held paradigms are, the heliocentric model of the solar system, and the big bang theory was not accepted at one time either.

[@Orthosaur7532]

@@factorc5058 What exactly do you mean by "Intelligent Design"? That God evolved us with purpose, or full-on YECism? If the latter one, you could also say that there are Flat Earther scientists. But everyone would laugh, wouldn't they?

[@Orthosaur7532]

@@factorc5058 What exactly do you mean by "Intelligent Design"? That God evolved us with purpose, or full-on YECism? If the latter one, you could also say that there are Flat Earther scientists. But everyone would laugh, wouldn't they?

[@factorc5058]

@Orthosaur7532 at this point, I don't see point of continuing the conversation if you're simply going to throw out every position you disagree with without considering the evidence. So of course all the scientists will say the same thing, if you disregard the ones who disagree with you. When you're not allowed to disagree with a certain position, then it stops being science, and becomes a religion.

[@tdmidas289]

We never evolved. We've always been human. Always been this smart.

[@TimeTravlah23]

@@tdmidas289 you saw it happen?

[@daMillenialTrucker]

​@@TimeTravlah23yes, yes i did.

[@jessemckenzie2374]

@@tdmidas289 yes and no. Evolution doesn't suggest we come from apes more like apes and humans have a common ancestor...

[@br.m]

That's not true. Humans are becoming less intelligent as a species as time goes on. Just wait till AI does everyones thinking and remembering for them.

[@gatzu8599]

​@@jessemckenzie2374humans can't have "common" ancestor as any animal lol Commone designer is more accurate

[@ricardochiesa9829]

Props to you, Ruslan, for bringing in people and creating a space to discuss subjects that you don't necessarily dive in. I think this shows humility to discuss things that help us all grow in faith.

[@VTdarkangel]

I usually don't get hung up on this. The Bible says that God spoke, and it happened. It doesn't describe the mechanisms that God used, with the exception of man, and even then, it is still vague from a scientific perspective. What scientists say happened doesn't change that God did it.

[@TommysBliss]

Great video yall. There’s a lot of science on an old earth. Could you guys do a video about Neanderthals and like Lucy?

[@mattdezigns]

Lucy has a whole movie....

[@blacklamb8393]

This is such a non issue... if you believe that we as humans have souls and were created in the image of God then you can believe or not believe in evolution. I personally believe in evolution, and as a Catholic, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

[@mattb4249]

The issue is how death came into the world.

[@igregmart]

Everything in the Bible is an issue. Everything in the Bible is important.

[@munashemanamike4217]

Seems only Us Catholics can be logical about evolution without having to dumb ourselves down

[@catalyst3713]

​@@mattb4249 From my understanding, Death has always been a part of life on earth.The Tree of Eternal Life is how humanity gained immortality, and God removing humanity's access to it is how we remained mortal.

[@GrowYourOwnGYO]

At what point does the image of God enter into humans? When we were bacteria? Or at a later stage?

[@93greenstrat]

Theistic evolution is......well, problematic. The major question for me is at what point do we go from whatever pre-human ancestor to being fully human and this in the image of God. The creation account in Genesis describes humanity as being fully created on the "sixth day"......not that we are the genetic descendants of an ancestor shared with apes.

[@bruhmingo]

The image of God is not biological, so your concern isn’t really relevant. Imagine God is a calling or election, not something we biologically developed.

[@Lynnimod]

And with theistic evolution there were many deaths that happened, but we are told in the bible that death only occurred when Adam disobeyed God

[@tking2199]

​@@Lynnimodno, death occurred, Adam would obey and sacrifice to God. Spiritual death is what entered when Adam disobeyed. The 6 day argument falls flat because that is how they enumerated yet the actual figure would be wildly different to how we count days.

[@joshpetermann]

What is a “day”? The same word is used 3 different ways in the Genesis account alone. Multiple “days” passed before the entities were created that we use to track our relatively modern adoption of the 24-hour “day.” That alone defies our comprehension and forces us to embrace the mystery of the text. Not to mention that the Jewish people throughout history counted “days” completely differently and followed the Evening>Morning pattern of the text for when days began/ended. Even to this day the Sabbath starts on Friday at sundown and ends on Saturday at sundown.

[@Arvak777]

I think that since God created the heavens and the earth and said it was good then every aspect of creation would reflect an aspect of its creator. Everything is fair game in appreciating God. Evolution, astronomy, paleontology, geology, biology, every single piece of science discovers an aspect of an intelligent and creative God.

[@freedomissue7824]

God made a full grown Adam with years in him in 1 day, Why couldn’t God make a earth with millions or billions of years in it in 1 day he’s God? lol

[@1089S]

You guys are awesome!

[@grandmoffporkins]

Michael Behe’s book Darwin Devolves is really fascinating for this. His research points to evidence that, while evolution occurs, macro is basically impossible because mutations are protein chains breaking off the DNA strand, not being added to. Further to that though, I’ve heard very compelling arguments that because each mutation is passed on in the genome to each generation, our bodies are compounding more and more mutations, meaning more and more breakdowns of our DNA. TL,DR, our genome can’t survive another thousand years at the rate we’re mutating. We’ll be extinct. Hence why cancers and the like are growing so rapidly. That was my understanding of what these super smart people were saying and it makes sense to me. This points to the whole Earth, including us, breaking down and groaning for its Savior physically as well as Spiritually.

[@catalyst3713]

Behe and his arguments were refuted decades ago in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. Even the evangelical Christian Judge presiding over the case determined that Behe and the other ID proponents hadn't enough evidence supporting their claims. Go read the transcripts of the trial. In short, there are many well documented mechanisms for adding genetic information that creationists ignore. So genetic entropy isn't really a thing.

[@yllatusmuna]

Thank you! Dr. James Tour also has some good analysis on the topic.

[@lukewoodward4342]

Genome size can be increased by transposable elements or crossover events (errors in replication of DNA). Evolution by nature will select against individual mutations which aren't beneficial to individuals. It only selects for mutations which increase an individuals/populations evolutionary fitness.

[@ripper12322]

I don't think it is a sin. But The Word warns us about false teachings, false prophets and so forth (2 Tim 4:3-4), and I completely believe that evolution is a teaching from the devil himself. This came at the age of enlightening and we have to ask the question what was the purpose of this? It destroyed purpose in us as people, it destroys creation, it creates us in our own image and not that of purpose attacking our identity in Christ, our created identity. We also only ever hear one side of the 'science" and that is of evolution and yet so many unanswered questions. Lastly something I found interesting and it is HOW God created the earth, and as example I would say it like this. When God created Adam he was a fully formed man around age 28-30 years old in stature. However technically Adam was only 1 day old. Same thing with the rocks and the plants and so forth, God could have created it to look much older than it really is.

[@userJohnSmith]

God gave us eyes to see and does not like to us. Evolution is a means of creation. Nothing counter to the Bible even (what's really wild is that things basically appear on the order they evolved, except for birds but that could easily be an accidental classification error of early very large insects by the author). If you allow for allegory it's correct, and it's the only creation story that is. That's a very very powerful argument. Don't discount it.

[@TimeMachine7773]

In terms of the age of the earth, I call it active earth theory. When Adam was made, he was made a man. If he had died, scientists would have said he lived an infant and adolescent life and into adulthood. Yet he was born as an adult. As a human, scientists would have said, "oh, there must be parents and grandparents." They would say that even if Adam only lived 3 minutes. It's possible God made earth already in a cycle where there were already trees that were fully grown that require hundreds or thousands of years to grow. Same for types of rocks. We also don't know if the dating systems are correct since we can only verify the dates of a few things. There is possibly that at a certain age, there is a decomposition rate increase where things appear to be older. There is also the question of things like floods and heavy weight compression that could possibly manipulate the samples. We don't know. We can guess the age, but we just don't know. What I do know is that Jesus is who He says He is!

[@ralos3500]

Ruslan said he feels like we're starting with a conclusion, then trying to make everything fit into that presupposed box and that's not how science works. Actually, that's exactly how science works. People have been trying to make things fit into their scientific presuppositions for years. The whole point is that we as Christians must start with the Word of God, not science. Not because we need to be intellectually lazy, or hold to some idea. It's because you can't pick and choose what you want to believe and what you don't want to believe from the Word. Either you believe it's the word of God, or you believe it's the fallible words of man. There is no allowance for science to tell us what we should believe in the Word and what we should not. God transcends science and every earthbound law that science has to adhere to. This is why there are miracles all through the bible. If we were to base everything on what is scientifically possible, there would be no faith. The hundreds of miracles in the Bible could not have happened. Science can illuminate the Word, not disprove it. The Word does not come under the authority od science. Science comes under the authority of God's Word!

[@bruhmingo]

This is not true.

[@Trivium1989]

This is well said. You’re right. I think the Genesis account is so clear, whether in Hebrew, the Septuagint or a modern English translation. It’s just the idea of going against the pseudo-science of our day (i.e., Darwinian evolution) is counterintuitive.

[@icemancfh1253]

Ruslan, who is Jesus Christ? Is He your savior? What does He save you from? Is it death? Does the Bible say that millions and billions of years of death through evolution brought man into existence? Or does it say that man’s sin brought death into existence? The ideas are mutually exclusive. It’s either one or the other, it cannot be both.

[@Arvak777]

My view is that God made creation so science is in service to God not the other way around. God could use any method he wants to. And if its evolution so what? Maybe we need to change our interpretations

[@munashemanamike4217]

You Prots drive me crazy with your personal conclusions man

[@icemancfh1253]

@@Arvak777what does the Bible say?

[@icemancfh1253]

⁠@@munashemanamike4217as opposed to an impersonal conclusion?

[@garethindman8144]

It would be awesome to see Ruslan sit down with Hugh Ross on this topic.

[@Shadow01974]

I dont know enough either way to say im convinced either way, but, and i cannot emphasize this enough... It IS NOT a salvific issue. Stop making it into one. From my personal experience ive been told many times that i am going to hell because i dont necessarily believe the universe is 6000 years old. Its not that serious people. Things like that are why people leave Christianity, YEC's make it way more difficult than it needs to be to reconcile what people are taught in school and what they read in Genesis.

[@stephenbailey9969]

There is so much gray area in the first chapters of Genesis that all Christians should hold their views of God's creative method and timing with humility. What matters? God is the source of creation. Human beings have been created in the image of God with distinct capabilities and responsibilities on this planet. Humanity, however, is broken and each person must choose who is Lord: the Creator or one's self.

[@obad.iah.]

Since there are so many totally valid and faithful interpretations of the creation account, (and the Word of God in general) that are compatible with different theories of evolution, I do not find any good reason to deny evolution.

[@juandeleon1665]

As a Christian I believe the Bible as a whole,and if you don’t believe the beginning then why believe the end or the middle or any of it

[@bruhmingo]

We believe the whole Bible, just not your interpretation (presumably)

[@userJohnSmith]

I don't believe Jesus's parables are literal, because they aren't. Why would I place the same standard on Genesis when it's clearly allegorical (and rather accurate viewed that way)?

[@danielcarroll1816]

Death entered the world through Adam and Eve, before their sin there was no death. If you say there was, then the wages if sin is not death as death already existed. And if death already existed, why did then Jesus have to come down and sacrifice himself to defeat death.

[@maylingng4107]

Humans lived on this earth for the past 7 million years. Modern humans (homo sapiens) lived for the past 250,000 years. Adam and Eve are fairy tales for children.

[@RandyCandelario-gq6kt]

The sin belongs to Adam.

[@maylingng4107]

@@RandyCandelario-gq6kt There never was an Adam, unless you mean my grocer, Adam Samuels. He makes great hero sandwiches.

[@TheChessNerd1234]

I believe that our genes can change, but we can't get kids with other types of animals, obviously. So we can change a lot from one another, but we are still the same type of animal, and nothing can change that. The same goes for every type of animal, too. A giraffe can't gain a hippo's head.

[@munashemanamike4217]

🤦🏾‍♂️🤦🏾‍♂️🤦🏾‍♂️🤦🏾‍♂️🤦🏾‍♂️🤦🏾‍♂️🤦🏾‍♂️🤦🏾‍♂️🤦🏾‍♂️🤦🏾‍♂️🤦🏾‍♂️

[@raeveth]

This is exactly correct. Massive capacity for creatures to epigenetically adapt but they can’t become something else

[@munashemanamike4217]

@@raeveth adaptation implies change

[@robbiestones9447]

Animals can change to other animals it just takes millions of years..this is what we are told..kent Hovind says its so slow it never happens LOL

[@userJohnSmith]

I mean that's a total misunderstanding of speciation. We even see some of this in humans with things like down syndrome. Chromosome duplication, or other errors could create strong survival advantages as they build up over time. We've seen insects speciate in the wild in a single lifetime too so this view is just completely wrong.

[@fatalheart7382]

"From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands." You can trust in God, or in man, but you can't do both. ;)

[@yllatusmuna]

yes

[@droe2570]

It's not about trusting God or man, it's about interpretation and what is meant by terms and phrases, especially when a lot of the text is poetic and shaped by ancient cultures, ideas, knowledge and beliefs. The way we write today is very different than the way we wrote thousands of years ago. We see the world differently in every way than they did thousands of years ago. To read a text that is thousands of years old as if it was written in modern language in the modern day by people who think and perceive about the world the same way we do, is a failure to understand context.

[@esztertarr929]

If you read Genesis, it says days not thousands of years. There's no way that those terms changed from 4 thousand years ago ​@@droe2570

[@fatalheart7382]

@droe2570 There's a Holy Spirit that confirms interpretation among the saints. Cowards are thrown outside the city. They used to circumcize themselves to avoid persecution. "If anyone is ashamed of my words, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him at his coming."

[@droe2570]

@@fatalheart7382 The problem with your thought here is that all who are in Christ have the Holy Spirit, yet we still interpret some things differently. What is called for is humility, not arrogance.

[@maylingng4107]

There is a very simple way to convince anyone including me about a divine Jesus (crucifixion and resurrection). All you have to do is to name a single eyewitness (other than the lies in the bible), an eyewitness, a writer or a historian who mentions one word about Jesus. It is alleged that thousands of people including writers and historians witnessed Jesus. So name one eyewitness, and we will all believe you!

[@joycekoh3416]

@@maylingng4107 pascal wager. do u prefer to believe in God or not in God. Atheists are taking risks with their after life by not believing in God. supposing, Atheists are right, both Christian and Atheists will be part of mother nature and turn into fertilizer after death. Supposing, Christians are correct that Jesus is God. Atheists will face the judgement of God. Really, between 2 choices, it is better to believe in God rather than be an Atheist.

[@ROCCOANDROXY]

The catholic priest Teilhard De Chardin was probably the first person to tackle this question in the early ninetieth century.

[@GhostBearCommander]

To answer the Title of the video, it depends on which kind of "evolution" you're talking about. For example, Micro-Evolution is both absolutely borne out by Science and (despite what some atheists and some misinformed Christians will tell you) borne out by the Bible. It still has every creature bearing after it's own kind, so it's no issue. Plus, almost all proofs for evolution given by atheists fall into this category, so it's a win-win. On the other side we have Macro-Evolution. There's very little "proof," if any, of that. And the proof they have is largely fabricated fossils composed of entirely different beasts and a lot of plastic and wire (coupled with a lot of good artistic pictures, like in a sci-fi novel). Bottom Line: Micro Evolution is proven and Bible-friendly Macro-Evolution is Sci-fi fairy-tale material and operates largely on fabrication. The only problem is that Atheists have learned to switch the two mid-conversation to confuse and decieve people. It's a shell game.

[@munashemanamike4217]

You guys are simple minded. If you beleive in Micro Evolution you already beleive in Macro Evolution. Micro Evolution over large periods of time leads to speciation. Let's be logical here. 🤦🏾‍♂️

[@raeveth]

@@munashemanamike4217explain why no fish have been found with legs lol

[@munashemanamike4217]

@@raeveth you mean reptiles or amphibians?

[@munashemanamike4217]

@@raeveth this is an incredibly simple minded view of what evolution is man.

[@bruhmingo]

@@raeveth we do see fish with legs. They are called tetrapods, and you are one of them.

[@joshuanelson7790]

If macroevolution is real, then jesus did absolutely nothing when he died on the cross. The Bible states that death came into the world through mans sin. If there was millions of years of death before man then the Bibles theology falls apart. Then dying for mans sin would not defeat death. Because death would have been here not because of mans sin. But from just a natural reason. Also you would have to conclude that God loves death. Because when you made the world he said it was very good. So i guess millions of years of death and suffering is good. macroevolution does not work with the Bible.

[@tbracerplays]

Ding!!! Buying into macro-evolution theory denies aspects of the Bible through and through. We have an archeological evidence of NOAHS ARK we can see the old ship remnant on the mountain. We have evidence of the Exodus as well. God shows us his presence in the world so much if you just look.

[@maylingng4107]

@@tbracerplays There is no evidence of the Flood or Noah's ark. The rocks in the Durupinar region in Turkey is a natural rock formation.

[@robbiestones9447]

I remember kent hovind having a debate with Hugh Ross on this issue about sin...it was a very good listen...

[@maylingng4107]

@@robbiestones9447 Both Hovind and Ross are creationists; the first is a young earth creationist, the second an old earth creationists. Other than that there is no difference between the two liars.

[@robbiestones9447]

@@maylingng4107 yeah 2 positions as christians..this is a christian channel..not an atheist one...

[@Jah_Babylon]

i've recently converted from young earth view to theistic evolution, after studying the view of magisterium/catholic church and the church of england.. it just doesn't make sense that dinosaurs such as the mosasaur and the megalodon ate sea grass before the fall, or the t rex and the lion led down together eating watermelons.. also i have had ET contact, and thus a young earth doesn't work there for me..the creation account is clearly symbolic and alot of these old stories were passed down by other cultures such as egypt and sumeria..i will say that the catholic church has a view that there was a literal adam and eve and that where original sin comes from..

[@3dtrip870]

The question is: why do you believe this or that? Do you not trust the Bible? Do you want to be accepted by the secular world? If you’re going with the common modern mainstream scientific view of the age of the Earth, make sure to study both sides; I choose the God’s word: it is hard to think that a genealogy that is that detailed is not a literal account.

[@vanessakarsa3220]

Ruslan, why don't u have a YEC creationist on to hear their reasoning?

[@JheyBlakk]

@@vanessakarsa3220 Thank You. It's not that I think it's a salvation issue or that we should be fighting about it but that the discussion on these platforms should include more YEC for them to explain their view

[@austin_penn]

as if YECs haven't platformed themselves for the last 20 years as being the pervasive view.

[@robbiestones9447]

He should get kent Hovind on...

[@WriteTrax]

God could do and make anything look or be in any state he wants. To me it is irrelevant.

[@igregmart]

I do not think anything in the Bible is irrelevant.

[@WriteTrax]

@@igregmart Evolution is not in the bible, perhaps metaphorically through the Adam and Eve story if you take it that way? But generally I think evolution is possible regardless because God can make the world look and behave however he wants, it does not prove or disprove anything in the bible to me?

[@rlee7389]

I agree

[@Descriptor_]

The thing that we can’t measure scientifically is a world that was unmarred by the curse of sin. A pre sin earth would not have aged and deteriorated so I don’t believe the argument of pointing to non literal days before the fall representing millions of years holds up because that was before God cursed the ground. I do think that God cursing the ground may have had an instantaneous effect on the earth’s appearance and operation to where the earth could actually be young but appear old because of it.

[@userJohnSmith]

You're being too metaphysical and literal with specific verbage. The universe had entropy before we showed up, we can observe that. Our sin didn't cause things to change outside a very limited perspective.

[@Descriptor_]

@ So you believe that God created a universe that originally would have decayed and eventually died?

[@userJohnSmith]

@Descriptor_ There's some weird quantum mechanical behavior that actually goes with this (and would allow for your argument that the decay was caused by sin) but essentially yes. We see stars at the beginning of the universe and they behave like they do now. I kind of don't get a choice in the matter because I'm a physicist. There was entropy some ten+ billion years ago and I don't argue with God because I want to have a neat little philosophy of biblical interpretation. When he's showing me what's going on, I believe Him.

[@droe2570]

We are saved through Christ, not our opinions about the mechanics of the world or life. None of us know all these things, so having differing opinions on the subject is certainly not a sin.

[@tobbyman3d]

8:45 Exactly. Everyone has presuppositions, even conclusions that have been agreed upon universally are built on assumptions and theories that would best explain and account for every presently known situation. Science has been refined through the years by hitting walls that couldn't be explained by the theories they had and thinking through, experimenting, and coming up with better suited explanations that through trial holds up in every case we're aware of. There's a lot of abduction and deduction based on solid (as solid as can be) presuppositions that no one questions since we believe those who came to those conclusions before us. Half of what we're told isn't verifiable by the average person, so it actually takes a lotta faith to believe in science 😂, so I don't find it shocking that there's people who don't believe something just because it's a scientific "fact". I don't even think flat earthers are being dumb. I think they're just being skeptical. At times, I've even worried that one day I might hear something that'd affect my faith in God. But funnily enough, I've actually experienced more supernatural power of God that can't be explained without calling me and my family and anyone else involved liars or brushing them off as 0.001% chance coincidences than I have experienced scientific concepts that I learn, believe, and make sense to me.

[@Thebravemovement]

The gentlemen on the left is correct ✅

[@ungeimpfterrusslandtroll7155]

If scientist were around a day after Creation they would have probably looked at the newly created earth and said it's million of years old because it is made like that. They would have also identified Adam clearly as a maybe a 30 year old man and not a toddler even though he was just created. Then they would have turned around and explained to everyone how everything came from nothing and evolved over millions of years into this and why God is not needed.

[@Athair48]

I would argue the Earth could be billions of years old. The universe could be billions of years old. Evolution could be true in the same way that Domino's falling down are guided by the one who set them up. And Christianity is certainly true and completely compatible with all I have previously mentioned. The best way to think about it is why make this a divisive issue because there have been so many people who leave the faith after learning about biology and evolution and then hearing people claim you can only have science or religion and they choose science. God is the Truth. Therefore, supposing science is true in this instance then rejecting. It is therefore rejecting God and making it more likely others reject Christ by making Christians look foolish.

[@BigChurch-c4k]

God said 6 days homies. God is that big, that powerful, that awesome. He made all the animals as well, some are extinct or going extinct, some are similar to others. Maybe God likes variety, or to flex. Edit: I’ll add, how does “all of science” age things? Carbon dating and silly guesses at things. A whole lot of assumptions point against what the Bible says.

[@rlee7389]

I’d recommend William lane Craig’s going through genesis videos. To me it clearly shows that genesis 1 isn’t meant to be literal. It’s not the genre of the text. He better explains than I could.

[@austin_penn]

the bible isn't a science book. The God didn't say 7 days, the author of Genesis did.

[@BigChurch-c4k]

@ I prefer to trust in the Lord rather than the words/wisdom of men. He said 6 days, He meant 6 days. God is big enough and powerful enough to go further than our little brains can imagine.

[@BigChurch-c4k]

@ God said 6 days, He rested on the 7th. He is the author. He is the Word.

[@rlee7389]

@@BigChurch-c4k so in psalms when the literature is clearly poetry do you read it as literal when it is clearly using metaphors? Or when Jesus uses parables? God gave us reason and logic to be able to discern.

[@williammcneely2854]

When Ruskin talks about this, you can tell how little he knows about the topic on both sides.

[@RuanPysoft]

Interesting video! Just a nitpick I have with the title though (or more like responding to the question), I don't think that beliefs can be sinful. Can a belief lead to sinful behaviours/thoughts/desires? Yes. Is the belief itself sinful? No. Of course, this doesn't mean you can believe/disbelieve what you want and be saved, you still have to believe in Jesus, but belief or unbelief in Jesus doesn't have moral weight, I reckon, as you are not saved by the good you do (belief in Jesus, in the case that that is a moral good), but rather by God's grace _in spite_ of the bad you do.

[@bubbag8895]

I stopped believing 100 in evolution after I grade with a degree in anthropology

[@maylingng4107]

Evolution is not something you need to believe; it is a science supported by evidence.

[@kylekemper4217]

What is Ruslan on in this video

[@TimeTravlah23]

Conscience is the creator and guide.

[@bruhmingo]

Christian who is also an evolutionary biologist here. The evidence is truly overwhelming, believe me when I say that denying evolution wholesale is as preposterous as believing in a flat earth. Many of the arguments levied against it are on the same level of Reddit-tier arguments against Christianity.

[@munashemanamike4217]

Thank You. Someone with Logic. I really hate when they make false claims out of pure ignorance. It's very embarrassing for us Christians who understand the evidence of Evolution. Glad I'm Catholic though cause we don't have this issue

[@raeveth]

@@bruhmingo do you see evidence of creatures essentially turning into other creatures as evolution teaches? Or are you perhaps confusing the incredible capacity for various creatures to adapt and yet remain as that creature? I study human genomics as part of my work and see no evidence for the former but constant evidence is being published on the latter

[@JiraiyaSama86]

Just because you're a biologist doesn't mean we should take your word. But it does mean we get to press you on certain key questions. Like, how does the new genetic information come about? Why do we not see fossils or remnants of the supposed transitional species? If fossils take such a long time to be made, explain the unusual fossils. For example, a jellyfish.

[@bruhmingo]

@@JiraiyaSama86you’re absolutely right on your first point, but I do have a level of expertise in the field. We do see transitional fossils. And new genetic information comes about via mutation. Changes in genetic sequences are in fact new information. I am also a process structuralist, which holds that evolutionary processes are essentially “guided” by certain natural laws. It’s more complicated that most who aren’t familiar assume.

[@bruhmingo]

@@raevethevolution does not teach that creatures “turn into other creatures”. Again you’ve levied an argument that to those informed, only shows ignorance. Look into the principles of cladistics for more accurate information.

[@userJohnSmith]

No. Denial of evolution and the evidence in the world is hubristic vanity, and requires denial of reality and an incredible amount of pride to say "I know more than these millions of people who've spent their lives studying something" so it may well be sinful, but belief in evolution would in no way be sinful.

[@AlexanderTate.]

We as Christians can affirm evolution as a process but not evolution as an origin, as that is philosophy.

[@LoneStarLawman]

Evolution is man's philosophy. God's Word is of God. You can't mix the two.

[@LouisStravinsky]

If you believe that evolution is true you also have to believe that God created death. Therefore the definition and impact of original sin is changed. It affects many things theologically.

[@munashemanamike4217]

How did Even know what death is then? In the Garden?

[@LouisStravinsky]

@munashemanamike4217 I don't understand the question. Could you reformulate it please?

[@LeonMartin-q9n]

Adam was born an adult, the planet were "born" millions of years old.

[@Ike-un6mc]

It depends on what people mean by evolution and what evolution entails. Living things evolve and adapt, this is observable. Evolution however isn't the origin of life, it is one of the processes of life, and humans didn't descend from apes. Humans began life as humans, and apes as apes and evolved successfully on planet Earth, exactly why both aren't extinct.

[@userJohnSmith]

Humans most certainly descended from apes. This fact offers no commentary on the nature of sin, a literal Adam and Eve, or the validity of Genesis. Move on.

[@richardparker2539]

I think just as God created a mature Adam (not a newborn) I think he created a mature earth.

[@maylingng4107]

Humans evolved from a common ancestor (humans and chimps) 7 million year ago. Adam and Eve are fairy tales for children.

[@rogervincent2092]

Is it a sin? It could be. But we all sin

[@aeh3253]

What are your thoughts about women keeping silent in church ?

[@imaristotle]

i think when God made the earth he didnt make it start from the beginning, he didnt make trees start as seeds, he created the trees as already grown trees and the same with rock formations and planets

[@samuelmcmurray3502]

Actually the animals would have evolved after the garden of Eden because the animals were as they will be after the judgement not needing specific diets like carnivores like lions. They weren’t at that time eating other animals and it will be that way again.

[@OctagonalSquare]

I don’t think it’s a sin. But, and this is kinda subjective, I think the full denial of the creation account without even considering the science in light of that can lead to an eagerness to deny other parts of scripture. The only people I see falling into progressive Christianity are those who hold to a non-young earth creationism stance. Not everyone who does hold it is a progressive Christian, but I’ve yet to meet a progressive Christian who isn’t an old earth or outright creation denialist.

[@douglaspedersen3355]

Have you ever flown over Utah and Arizona? The Grand Canyon shows evidence of a a rapid creation. In my humble opinion. I’m not trying to start a back and forth dialogue. Just my observation. Plus, no one here wants to get into hydro geology.

[@exclusive_148]

I always believed adam existed LONG AGO and humans just evolved from adam meaning humans looked different say 200,000 years ago and we might look different 100,000 years from now

[@BornAgainJared]

Well if the only way we worship God is in Spirit and Truth then it’s safe to say that it indeee is a Sin.

[@golf398]

Idk, I wasn’t there. I don’t know what it looked like when He formed the heavens and the earth. I would assume, in the young earth model, everything was made as a mature thing - the first man was never a baby, in the same way the earth was never primordial; but we would see Adam and assume he lived 20 years prior (or whatever his starting biological age was) in the same way we would measure aspects of the earth and guess, assuming our models were correct, that the earth formed over billions of years. The ultimate fence sitter position: God made it all, I don’t know how He did it. There is a correct answer, but we can’t really know it.

[@igregmart]

I do know, some of the clearest passages in the Bible are in Genesis Chapter one.

[@catalyst3713]

That's like saying we can't use forensic analysis to determine whether someone committed a crime because we weren't there.

[@golf398]

@@catalyst3713 no, we’ve verified that forensic tools work pretty well. However, all tools used to measure the age of the earth are unverifiable by nature because they rely on a massive degree of extrapolation.

[@Nick-ij5nt]

But for "science" to say the earth is billions of years old assumes that carbon dating is correct. The people that are saying carbon dating is correct are saying that it's correct based on their apriori atheist assumptions. There are a bunch of other things that are assumed prior to whether or not carbon dating is correct, one of these things would be the uniformity of nature.

[@jyu467]

When Ruslan says the world looks old, I think he's forgetting that the global flood dramatically changed the topology of the earth. What we see in structures like the grand canyon is evidence of a global flood, not of an old earth.

[@munashemanamike4217]

Incorrect because the Grandcanyon has different sedimentary rock layers which would tell us the earth is old.

[@bruhmingo]

There is zero evidence for a global flood. The Grand Canyon looks nothing like what we would expect from such an event.

[@catalyst3713]

That's false. If that was the case there would be Grand Canyons everywhere. There are over 40 various dating methods from independent fields that independent corroborate each other. We know for a fact that Earth, and the universe is billions of years old, and that there was no global flood. If you read the Bible closely, you'll see that a global flood interpretation isn't even necessary.

[@TommyGunzzz]

​@@munashemanamike4217incorrect, firstly yes a global flood would dramatically change the typology of the earth. Another mini grand canyon formed overnight basically in just 6 days (Burlingame canyon). Second, what tells you the age of layers without assuming what's in question?

[@luke7846]

@@TommyGunzzz Rock aging, paleomagnetism, the fossil record, and half a dozen other lines of evidence would suggest the age of the canyon itself. Also, there's no physical, rapid process that can explain the formation of the Grand Canyon in a few days. A miniscule "canyon" being formed in a few days is small fries compared to the absolute enormity of the Grand Canyon. YEC Christians would be better off just arguing the Grand Canyon was created by God instantaneously alongside all the other animals that were made in that way.

[@wcm8909]

I don’t understand how all life has common ancestry. At what point during the evolutionary process did man become “in the image of God” and at what point did we begin to have a soul. I believe the Bible teaches man and animals were created separately.

[@whocares4464]

Old earth Christians at least what I looked into it they believe the world is older than 7000 years old but not necessarily evolution the way it's taught. Some do but the majority just think the world is really really old but God did create everything

[@chancebrown98]

Im an old earth creationist. We believe the Bible storys and doctrine but also agree with the scientific dating of the earth.

[@KSATSpotting]

we believe everything before day 6 is repurposing the use of the universe, not from scratch. Example, in science the universe was chaotic, and violent. Earth's atmosphere was too thinck for life and blocked out the sun In Genesis, God thins out the atmosphere letting in light, calms the early solar system, making it stable and appoints the different celestial bodies with a task for Earth and the future inhabitants, etc.

[@rlee7389]

⁠@@KSATSpottingI believe that’s kind of what inspiring philosophy has said he believes

[@GlitchInTheSkatricks]

We can measure and confirm micro-evolutionary adaptations, but there’s no concrete evidence that full on macro-level, species changing evolution is an actual thing. It seems odd to imply we come from monkeys and then find only monkeys, then the “much more evolved” human, but no inbetween monkey-human versions. Would not more human-type monkeys be more fit to live than just a monkey? This could be said about every species. The strong distinctions and interdependence upon those distinctions for biodiversity and ecological balance are far too pronounced to support a macro evolutionary framework.

[@userJohnSmith]

Nope. We've observed it. That argument was stupid and wrong on it's face, before we had, but it's especially stupid now, so dispose of it. The Church has never held to the needed for a literal interpretation of Genesis, and in fact has frowned on it for over a millennia.

[@GlitchInTheSkatricks]

@ when have we ever observed a species become an entirely different species? And where do we see that mid-species transition in any living organism? There’s nothing more stupid than our modern day scientists and authorities proving to be untrustworthy and the masses just believing everything they say. There’s no proof of half of the things they pretend are 100% truth.

[@funwithmagnus8570]

God created with evolution. I believe the first soul bearing people created were Adam and Eve. There were humans for a long time before that, but they weren't persons. Just really smart animals.

[@maylingng4107]

Humans evolved from a common ancestor (humans and chimps) 7 million year ago. Adam and Eve are fairy tales for children.

[@paradisecityX0]

Adam and Eva were not the first humans -- far from it. But they were either the first behaviorally modern humans (circa 75,000 BC) or the individuals who jumpstarted the Neolithic Revolution some 14 thousand years ago. One or the other

[@janelleg597]

Our understanding of early humans is constantly changing

[@igregmart]

Then you are denying all the creation passages in the Bible including Genesis. When you openly deny any portion of the Bible, aren't you denying THE WHOLE BIBLE?

[@joelercoaster]

If the Bible says they were then they were. Idc what flawed men have to say, I care what GOD says.

[@paradisecityX0]

The creation narratives were mostly polemic against the Babylonian and Egyptian models. There's far more to the Bible than you know -- what you just said is a nonsequitur

[@paradisecityX0]

Nowhere does it say in the Bible that they were the first. But they were the first to bear God's image. Tell me, who was Cain afraid of when he received the mark of death?

[@br.m]

If they ever prove evolution, I might consider it and review their evidence.

[@maylingng4107]

Evolution is a proven fact. It has been observed in nature and duplicated in the laboratory.

[@userJohnSmith]

It's been observed in real time, so there are no objections left. Case for evolution is settled, in evolution's favor. Should that effect your faith? Course not. Genesis is hands down the best account of the early universe and Creation's evolution. It's damn near an exact match if approached as allegory and what deviations there are, are just as likely to be due to language limitations or drift. That's a hell of a lot more powerful an argument than one I could treat down in a five minute conversation. Moreover, literal interpretation of Genesis are an innovation of the last couple hundred years. The early Church didn't even hold to them and thought them to be a bad idea if not dangerously wrong headed.

[@br.m]

@@userJohnSmith Nonsense. You are a liar there is no observable evidence to prove beyond a doubt that evolution is fact. Bye.

[@userJohnSmith]

@br.m No I'm not. This was published and confirmed a few years ago. Why are you arguing? Are you do prideful that when God speaks, through observable phenomena, you won't listen? Would you deny a miracle because you thought the recipient didn't deserve it?

[@causeyje5791]

Young earth creation is the dumbest thing ever. Devil had to inspire it😭

[@arkonwolves7192]

There are a few issues with carbon dating yet its still not entirely wrong. I certainly don’t believe earth is only 3000 years old. But its not like 34 billion for sure. Truth is that we can say definitively

[@userJohnSmith]

4.5-4.6B actually. And that's pretty definite, and very very consistent.

[@EL_FIN_ESTÁ_CERCA]

*YES.*

[@VoiceOfTruthPodcast]

It is a sin to believe in theistic evolution, bc it’s blatant denial of what is Literally Written. If one denies the creation account in the scripture, what else in the Bible do they not take literally and deny? Very slippery slope! It comes down to this, do You really believe The Word of God and what is clearly spoken, or will one’s pride cause them to deny what’s clearly proclaimed and written. Remember, God isn’t the author of confusion.

[@mitromney]

As a theologian, an active engineer and at the same time, a radical, hardcore Young Earth Creationist doing public debates with Evolutionists for over a decade, I'd say: NO. Of course it's not a sin, that's silly. It's just stupid. It's stupid to believe God would mix up his perfect creation, his own children, into whom he literally breathed a soul, with animals that were made specifically to serve men from the start. But that doesn't get you to Heaven. Jesus gets you to Heaven. Get Jesus. Getting rid of stupid secondary beliefs the world imposed on you may come later, or may never come, that is not the key though.

[@anchitbose4151]

@@mitromney sir I would say let go of your faith for once and think clearly about all the evidence that we have about evolution.

[@mitromney]

@@anchitbose4151 My stance is not informed only by my faith. I made up my mind by looking at the best arguments, many of which have nothing to do with the Bible or faith at all. They're just facts. Like a fact that we're observing genetical information mutate for several generations now, and we've never seen any species add any new information to their genome. Which is impossible if we are to believe evolution is responsible for all countless millions of life forms that inhabit our planet. Or a fact that we have been diging all over the globe looking for missing links for hundreds of years and we've found NONE. All we find is complete organisms, and if we're to believe one changed into another, we're missing MILLIONS of transitionary forms between every two fossils. There are no missing links to be honest, the whole CHAINS are missing. So. I have been studying evidence for evolution for over 20 years now. With an open mind, reading libraries full of books on the subject. And it's all wishful thinking, a fairytale for adults. It's theorizing with an empty desk in front if you. "We konw nothing and found nothing, so, according to my new theories, such and such probably happened". If you wanna talk specifics... Please do. Be more specific. What evidence exactly is so convincing it should make me "think clearly"? You've got anything new for me, after all these years? Finally, some real proof? Please, enlighten me. I'm here for it. Always was. Always will be. Nothing of substance ever comes up.

[@JiraiyaSama86]

If it becomes an issue where you're saying that you have a problem with believing in Jesus because you believe in noitulove, then you need to reevaluate why you believe in noitulove. What do you really know about it? AIG Canada has explained a few times why noitulove really is a barrier. I will say this. If your problem is that if it comes out that you choose Jesus over noitulove and you have a problem with people seeing you as cray cray, consider that there already are a lot of people who already think so. Not just of you, but all of Jesus's followers. That's a you problem. We have to be careful not to be so bothered by people thinking we're cray cray and such.

[@CEDtalks85]

Not a sin. But it's suspect.

[@buckanderson3520]

It's possible that God formed our physical bodies in the same way He formed the mountains with natural forces over time. It's possible He formed us exactly as we are with no steps in between. I can't say that I know for certain either way because with God anything is possible. But in my opinion the physical evidence supports the theory of evolution but I don't like how people use it to say that there is no God and I don't like how people say that disbelieving the theory of evolution is a condition for salvation. The Bible doesn't have to tell us about everything in creation for what the Bible does tell us to be true. If the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs it's because it doesn't have to. I like to think that God left a little mystery for us to discover. It would be awfully boring if we had all the answers and there was nothing new to learn.

[@ryankrapenshitz1435]

Based on whatbwe know about time in heaven compared to earth by what the bible says, one day on earth is a thousand in heaven, creation might have took 6000 years amd then another 1000 for rest, and then add the biblical timeline from there of about 6000, the earth might be around 13000 years old. Im not a scholar or scientist but it makes sense to me 😂 God bless you all

[@shahnbarse5818]

Hebrew Gematria in the Bible actually spells out a 7000 year timeline for this universe. (This includes the 1000 year reign of Christ on earth) The current year on the Hebrew calendar is 5785. We have less than 215 years left until the millennial kingdom. The earth is young because the Bible says so. Subscribe to some Genesis apologetics channels. Stop defending lies please.

[@yllatusmuna]

😂 Evolution = we come from a monkey and we evolve into Gods. ❤ Bible = we come from God and we evolve into monkeys.

[@ForeverMe217]

Evolution as a Process but not as the origin.

[@bruhmingo]

Good thing evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life.

[@ForeverMe217]

@ It does. Scientifically all life comes from a ‘primordial soup’ called L.U.C.A.

[@MistyEry]

I’m not really bothered by evolution. Regardless, we were created by God as there was a need for a catalyst. How we became human whether it was with a snap of a finger or through evolution still would have been through the hand of God. Still, Sin entered the world through Adam and Eve, we required a saviour for our sin, and that came through Christ and his resurrection. In the end , we may never know until we are with Christ. The important commission we are called to in life is sharing the gospel.

[@jamestitus472]

No. Pius XII clarified this in the 1950s.

[@notquiteaxl]

7:25 amen!

[@bruhmingo]

The “assumptions” argument is folly.

[@samurai8698]

Both can be true. Living beings evolved and God uplifted humans.

[@sharongaston9989]

If you believe that you are deceived!!

[@Arvak777]

​@@sharongaston9989why tho? Why is your interpretation correct and why is everyone else wrong?

[@MrAwak3]

Sinful? I doubt. But dumb? Yes!

[@mrshankerbillletmein491]

What is so compelling about evolution?

[@devinotero4886]

Let me pose a question, adam was made by God a fully grown man, why couldn't he do the same thing when he created earth? Day 1 of earth could be a "fully grown" billion year old earth, just like adam on his first day would have lookd "fully grown", science would say adam was 20 or so or however old he was made, but he would have only existed for one day.

[@userJohnSmith]

Because he doesn't lie to us. If he had, he wouldn't have included millions of fossils or mineral relics that demonstrate, rather conclusively, a greater story of life and creation far more vast, complex, and impressive than poof. No, it's a bad argument necessitating an evil gnostic god.

[@devinotero4886]

@userJohnSmith in what way would it be a lie? Is their no other explanation for fossils, and mineral layers? A world wide flood maybe 🤔? You really didn't contend with the argument. If God made a rock, and he made the rock to be 1000 years old, wouldn't science tell you the rock is 1000 years old even if you with your own eyes saw it pop into existence a few minutes ago?

[@userJohnSmith]

@devinotero4886 He'd be lying by making it look that old when it wasn't. The argument doesn't hold, at all. Also, none of the geological evidence suggests a world wide flood, a world wide freeze yes, but not a flood.

[@danieljohnston3708]

If you don't believe that the entire scientific establishment could possibly be wrong about the age of the earth, you must either have a deep ignorance of the history of science or recency bias is clouding your judgement.

[@userJohnSmith]

This is a pretty well established "case closed" though. We've got lots of data points from earth, from the moon, from asteroids. There all about the same and they all show a very old earth. It's pretty settled science, and it all fits with an allegorical Genesis so why dispute it? Vanity perhaps?

[@Thunder-vm2ug]

I would say Adaptation not evolution

[@maylingng4107]

Adaptation is just a small part of evolution.

[@robbiestones9447]

He shouod get kent hovind on to talk about Young age earth.....

[@AquarianAgeApostle]

Darwinian evolution isnt something that is to be believed or not. It isnt that kind of an epistemological tool. It's merely a framework for studying ontological development through the course of temporal passage in the context of natural science. To have faith in God and be an advocate of applying a scientific apparatus such as Darwinian evolution are not mutually exclusive.

[@supermcfly100]

It’s demonic

[@mattb4249]

Darwinian evolution is a humanistic interpretation of how life came about without God, therefore, it is antichrist.

[@joelercoaster]

It’s a goofy lie made up by Satanists and Freemasons to hide the truth of Christ

[@munashemanamike4217]

Thank you

[@jonathanbertram1718]

It should be.

[@unknowncowman]

I think God will ask you "but did you believe in exactly 6 24 hour days and the literal ages in Genesis?" and if you say no you will land in eternal conscious torment. 😂😂😂 Stop making this a big issue. I f.e. believe in theistic evolution and figurative ages/generations, but more important I believe in the death and bodily resurrection of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ and I also believe in the Trinity. The latter two should be the important ones.

[@rlee7389]

100%

[@austin_penn]

the guy on the left shouldn't even be speaking..

[@justinharrell327]

All of science does not agree