The Science & Faith Podcast - James Tour and Joshua Swamidass: The Genealogical Adam & Eve

[@davoforrest5]

Dr. Tour your personal testimony as it relates to your faith in Christ has been a great blessing. I love the science and it has helped me as a science teacher, but more than anything it is your testimony that strengthens me to the glory of our God and Father of our Lord Jesus !Christ

[@mugdiller2124]

I'm so glad that Joshua has the freedom to express his views on evolution - and I'm equally glad to say, "non-sense!".

[@uyabtheorginal8023]

Right! there is no such thing as a mutation that adds new information that is beneficial to any living organism. The only field of science that ignores the entropy because they cannot help themselves. as for his"Ghost" DNA it's not like every gene that is passed down from one to the next is transferred. "People say you cannot prove the Bible but you can you just have to do your homework" Quote from Dr. Chuck Missler a scriptural teacher of which in my 50 year's of Biblical study surpasses all I have ever heard and I have heard from them all.

[@timconstable7348]

@@uyabtheorginal8023 For 50 years or more Dr Missler has been revealing deep truths and bringing great wisdom to understanding. to anyone who is not aware of Dr Chuck Missler: Get finding his videos and WATCH them!

[@lewis72]

@@uyabtheorginal8023 "there is no such thing as a mutation that adds new information that is beneficial to any living organism." - FAIL. Where's your evidence for this assertion ? _"In 1975, a team of Japanese scientists discovered a strain pf bacterium, living in ponds containing waste water from a nylon factory, that could digest certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture, such as the linear dimer of 6-aminohexanoate"_ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

[@larrystephens4652]

What is overlooked is DNA is a programming language. Mutations do occur on computer programming, but that never is NEW code. So, standards "evolution", where an entirely new type results, is impossible. Granted, I'm speaking this way because I am a programmer, with 20+ years experience.

[@mugdiller2124]

@@lewis72 I'm not a geneticist, but I couldn't tell from the article you posted if the mutation actually added new information or lost information thus making it more suitable for its environment (reductive evolution). At any rate, renowned geneticist Dr John Sanford's position on beneficial mutations are that they are very rare and are virtually impossible to become fixed within a species. If you're not familiar with his work and have an open mind toward such things, his book Genetic Entropy is an excellent presentation of this view. I'll also add a link to an article from Dr Sanford relating to beneficial mutations. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5906570/

[@harleydavidson1014]

I was a Christian and then i encountered what i thought was irrefutable evidence for the big bang amd evolution so that turned me i to an Athiest. My life spiraled out of control afterward when i thought life was ultimately meaningless i started taking drugs and became an addict. This video showed me that i can believe in evolution and and the big bang and jesus at the same time and has finally brought me back to Christ and it brought tears to my eyes. I feel like such a weight has been lifted from me. Thank you so much. God bless both of u men!

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

@Quran Meaning Translated - English Only Look to reality, both religions were made up by ignorant men. Both books have many errors.

[@Gowdru-qu8uh]

Where's the Comment? What was the message?🤔😮

[@goodmorning6827]

I've been an atheist all my life and I've never had difficulty getting along in the world. The god fantasy will not rescue you from stupid behavior. Believe me, it's all up to you.

[@kazumakiryu157]

Wow that's very funny. I was an atheist who became a Christian because of scientific discoveries and theories such as the Big Bang! The Big Bang posits a beginning to the universe, that we thought was past-eternal, implying a cause to the universe. This and many other arguments was what made me a theist!

[@goodmorning6827]

The Big Bang indicates the beginning of a phase, not the beginning of everything. Christopher Hitchens has multiple videos online. I suggest you watch them. But really, you don't need any more evidence than the prima facia stupidity of the invisible man in the sky.@@kazumakiryu157

[@jamesg4208]

Excellent ! I appreciate the effort that Joshua Swamidass has placed into thinking and investigating for his book and Kudos for James Tour having a forum for discussion. I see nothing intrinsically evil about any method God might have used for creation. There is nothing that was not created by Him no matter the method and nothing exists outside of His will.

[@michaelbrickley2443]

Amen! People have really embraced a literal Genesis story and it drives me crazy. We don’t know exactly what happened but we do know that Jesus was resurrected and His Father is Yahweh

[@rickwinkler2711]

I have been blessed to follow Dr. Tour since i first heard his speech on the origin of life from a prebiotic earth. Stunningly brilliant. This is my first encounter with Dr. Swamidass. Thank you both for your insights. I believe that both of you will not be disserved by acquainting yourselves with the work of Dr.Gerald Schroeder B.Sc. Chemical engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), M.Sc. Earth and planetary sciences, M.I.T., PhD Earth Sciences and Physics, M.I.T. Dr. Schroeder has spent a lifetime studying the confluence between the natural sciences and Bible. His work should not be ignored.

[@LoveYourNeighbour.]

Dr. Gerald Schroeder spoke with Antony Flew once, about the existence of God. I'm familiar with him! He's a great scientist!

[@uyabtheorginal8023]

Thanks Nice find Love this guy kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpy4immofbN8qbs

[@chrisreimers84]

Always appreciate Dr. Tour.

[@ceciliasmith1004]

My eye's are wide open, I will listen to this again and again.

[@davidfiorello5526]

Thank you for opening up New truth. For God so loved the world

[@5crownsoutreach]

Dr. Tour, your faith, your background as a Jewish believer in your Messiah and my savior Jesus Christ is amazing and challenging. I have godly jealousy to share my faith more, amen.

[@lukedavis1769]

God bless both of you for the work you do for the Lord. 🕊🌍🌎🕊

[@flamingswordapologetics]

Love these conversations, love Dr. Tours passion for Christ!

[@michaelbrickley2443]

When I point out his conversion story to a skeptic, they say he’s entitled to his delusion. Smh. When the Shepherd calls…

[@scottjensen7555]

I appreciate this video, it's nice to see people who disagree getting along.

[@ambassador_in_training]

Thank you brother Jim and Josh. I am so blessed by your life!!! I personally don't accept evolution as God's method of creating, especially unguided Darwinism. The evidence I see strongly points away from Darwinism. But, I do believe cordial discussion and disagreement amongst Christians is MUST before a dying world. Jesus gave ONLY one criterion how people would know we are His disciples: when we love one another. Too much rudeness, name-calling, division among believers etc. have produced so much damage! We have failed to honor Christ in this ONE command! We must agree to disagree, wash each other's feet, and proclaim the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, while having a healthy dialogue about things we disagree about. Common ancestry makes sense in the following sense: God made all land animals and Adam from the dust of the earth. That's why our bodies & physiology are so similar. Yet, there's an enormous difference between humans and apes, or other animals in our spiritual and intellectual lives: from prayer to poetry to music to science ... God bless you richly brothers!!!

[@kenbarber6592]

God bless you Alexandru, and thank you for reminding us that, “Jesus gave ONLY one criteria how people would know we are his disciples: when we love one another.” However, you went on to say, “We have failed to honor Christ in this ONE command.” When did this become a command? I believe that love is fruit of the Spirit and that it comes by grace through faith, and not by adherence to any law, nor can it. The law of God has been fulfilled. However, thank you again for the exhortation to practice “cordial discussion” and I would welcome any disagreement and adjustment. Peace.

[@cockatielnation5425]

Excellent point!

[@wilhelmlorenz5852]

👉EXELLENT 👈🤗👋🙏👉JESUS SAID,,"IN THIS ALL WILL KNOW THAT YOU ARE MY DISCIPLES , IN THAT YOU WILL HAVE 🙏👈👉LOVE 👈😘❤️❤️❤️ FOR ONE ANOTHER 🙏👈🤗👉👋👉 AMEN 🙏👈👉 GOD BLESS 👈👉🤗👈👉❤️👈☝️☝️👈

[@mireklalas]

Fearless testimonies of true scientists who see science as it should be seen - as the true application of letting the evidence guide you to the truth.

[@sylviawackenier8618]

Thank you, Dr. James Tour, Dr. Joshua Swamidass. Great Podcast. How to Connect. The power of the word, building a bridge instead of a breach.

[@irlc1254]

Thank you so much for this podcast. It was well worthwhile to hearing more about Dr Swamidass’s ideas, even if I still struggle with both the science and the exegesis. I tried to run with what Dr Swamidass is proposing, but fundamentally, I think we have a problem. Perhaps I can illustrate this with a thought experiment. Here’s what I asked myself after having listened: How difficult would it have been for God to tell the creation story in evolutionary terms - if that’s what actually happened? God is not beholden to anyone; he is free to tell the creation account in the manner that he did it and no one can argue with him. So Genesis could have easily have read: “In the beginning God created heavens and earth. Out of nothing he spoke matter [or dust if you prefer] into being. And God gathered the matter/dust together to form stars. God also formed the earth and the moon and provided the sun to give the earth warmth and light, and days and nights and the seasons. And God caused life to arise on the earth. First tiny life. And God, by his wisdom and power, enable this tiny life, over a long period of time, to develop into plants, and animals, insects and birds, all living things. Life developed from simple forms to complex forms. And God saw what he created and established was good. In time, after the hominids [or whatever appropriate term] had emerged, God chose a special pair. He called the male Adam and the female Eve, and God breathed his Spirit into them and said, you now bear my image; in my image I have created you. And God saw all that his hand had made, and it was very good. …” I suggest that had God caused Moses to write that creation account, not a single Israelite would have batted an eyelid, nor, probably, a single human being living then or thereafter. They would have simply said, I see, so that’s how God did it. Ancient civilisation groups may have their own creation stories, but this one would have read just as reasonably along side them, if not far more so. Hence, this, for me, is a fundamental problem. God could have easily written a more ‘accurate’ account, from Dr Swamidass’s viewpoint, that is just as easy to understand, but he didn’t. This tells me there is something very problematic with the evolutionary account, not to mention that I disagree on scientific grounds also. Note, there is no need to mention 7 days in the creation story at all. He could have introduced the 7-day week into Law by saying, “Just as God rested from creating, so God decrees that you shall work for 6 days and he grants you rest on the 7th. You shall keep the 7th day holy …” I also disagree with the exegesis of Rom 5.12-14. But I’ve written enough for now already. But thank you once again for the podcast, and for the challenge of new ways of looking at the creation account. Iron sharpens iron, as the scripture says.

[@PeacefulscienceOrg]

I'd be curious to see how you think about the full case I make in the book. Exchanges like this video are always curtailed. Maybe that would resolve some of your objections. :)

[@PeacefulscienceOrg]

Oh, and a lot of people argue that Genesis 1 is God telling us creation in evolutionary terms too! It says that the "land" and the "sea" gave forth plants and animals of many kinds. That is how God created, by asking the land and sea to bring forth. That's literally what Genesis 1 says, which is very close to how one might describe the evolutionary story to ancient readers.

[@irlc1254]

@@PeacefulscienceOrg Thanks so much for the dialogue, Dr Swamidass. I’m very tempted to buy your book. I’m feeling a bit guilty because I’ve not read a few books that I have bought recently! I may well still go for it😊. Your point about the language of “gave forth” is interesting. As you say, it could be cast in evolutionary terms, but I have a number of objections: 1. You could read it in evolutionary terms, but you don’t have to 2. The term is not used consistently (not being a Hebrew scholar, I’m using online Hebrew interlinears to cross check). ‘Bring forth’ in 1:24 is not the same as 1:20. The NIV translates 1:20 as “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth …”, which seems more accurate 3. 1:21 uses the term, ויברא - create. That, therefore, at the minimum, suggests intelligent design, and not undirected natural selection. 4. According to ToE, animals came out of the water. Therefore, strictly speaking, it should be the sea that gave forth land animals, but I suppose we could let this one slip! As I mentioned before, it was learning about Genetic Programming that completely turned me off evolution. To me, it’s nothing but design dressed up as evolution. That’s why I just don’t buy it (but may be I’ll change my mind after reading your book! But it would have to be extremely convincing!) However, investigating the “bring forth” term still does not address the crux of my original argument. Would you agree that God could have easily caused Moses to write the creation account as I laid out in the original post? Evolution would have flowed out of it seamlessly. I argue that no ancient people would have had any problem with that formulation - i.e. not at all beyond their grasp. There would have been no need for us to have do mental gymnastics in the 21st century. It would just have been so much easier for all concerned. The fact that God freely chose not to give such an account makes me deeply suspicious, and makes me suspect that the ToE account is fundamentally incorrect. Perhaps you could speak to that point? (Edited last paragraph to make it clearer)

[@PeacefulscienceOrg]

@@irlc1254 I'm not saying that you must read it in evolutionary terms. Rather, I"m saying it does not rule out evolutionary terms, and might even be poetically evocative. Certainly Scripture doesn't box us into evolution, nor does it force us to reject evolution. That is my point. As for mental gymnastics, we might have wanted God to explain evolution to Moses, but that would have required immense mental gymnastics for him to do, beyond what is already written. Moreover, the same argument can be deployed against heliocentirsm. Why didn't God make clear that the planet earth orbits the sun, and that mornings/evenings are a consequence of the rotation of the earth, and cannot exist before the Sun exists (contra a YEC reading of Genesis 1)? Well, that sort of scientific knowledge, even though God could have conveyed, wasn't nearly as important to God. He had other things, of more importance to him, to teach us. This is no more an argument against evolution than it is against heliocentrism.

[@irlc1254]

@@PeacefulscienceOrg Right, I see. Thanks. I’d argue that the creation account is qualitatively different to heliocentrism, planetary orbit and earth’s rotation. While explaining planetary motion might be out of the purview of scripture, and also difficult to grasp for the ancient man - purely because from an ancient observer’s point of view the sun does seem to rise and set, I’d argue that not only can you make the creation account easy to grasp, but that it just has to be present in scripture; it is critically important to the storyline and therefore has to be told. Even in your account, you had to surmise that God took a pair of hominids and put his image on them as a vital detail. Given something had to be written, would you agree that what I wrote would not have caused any disconcertion to the ancient man, or you and I in this century for the following reasons: 1. The style is not that different to the scriptural account. If they would have struggled with my text they would have had struggled with the Biblical account, but they didn’t. 2. Everybody, ancient or modern, understands the concept of starting simple then developing into something more complex. You start building a simple hut, then progress to houses, temples and pyramids, simple boats to ships, villages to cities, etc. Here’s my thought experiment text again: “In the beginning God created heavens and earth. Out of nothing he spoke matter [or dust if you prefer] into being. And God gathered the matter/dust together to form stars. God also formed the earth and the moon and provided the sun to give the earth warmth and light, and days and nights and the seasons. And God caused life to arise on the earth. First tiny life. And God, by his wisdom and power, enable this tiny life, over a long period of time, to develop into plants, and animals, insects and birds, all living things. Life developed from simple forms to complex forms. And God saw what he created and established was good. In time, after the hominids [or whatever appropriate term] had emerged, God chose a special pair. He called the male Adam and the female Eve, and God breathed his Spirit into them and said, you now bear my image; in my image I have created you. And God saw all that his hand had made, and it was very good. …” Here are my questions: If Aaron and the Israelites had read this above in Moses’s account, would they have had any more problems with it than the actual Biblical text? If the above really were the text in our Bibles today would you or I have any problems with it? For me, the answer is a clear no in both cases. Therefore, the fact that God chose to word it so differently tells me that my formulation is far from correct. Basically, I have analogous problems as Dr Tour has with abiogenesis and evolution; at 30,000 feet you can theorise what you like, but where it counts at the fundamental layer (chemistry for Dr Tour and genetic programming for me) it just doesn’t make sense.

1 Corinthians 1:26-29 2 Timothy 3:12 Regards from Brazil, Dr, Tour.

[@charlesmedlock9408]

I love James Tour.

[@truesay786]

As a Muslim I appreciate Joshua’s articulation around common themes that resonate for me like evolution, I Design.

[@davidweatherby2012]

You have proven that evolution cannot exist alongside others , don’t let anyone dissuade, your excellent testimony.

[@sagatff994]

Thanks for doing what you're doing Professor . God bless you ever

[@rolandparfenovics5250]

The first man created was Adam the father of all of us. Created on Day 6 of Creation Week wth all land animals as well. Please believe the Bibles account not evolutionary nonsense. Chapter 2 of Genesis is more details. Not contradicting Genesis 1. Theistic Evolutionists are deluded . The truth and timeframe are in the Bible. We are not made from apelike animals . Absolutely contradictories of Genesis. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Exodus 20:11. There is no question mark . Read the account given by of the Creator . Johns Gospel ....In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Jesus is Logos =Word Kinsman Redeemer Saviour Mighty Creator Prince of Peace. There is no space in the Bible for Evolution. Cain married his sister. DNA was perfect back at the beginning even after the Fall Genesis 3..... Joshua please read the Bible the Truth and inspired Word of God. Why do you and James want to compromise the Truth. ?Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life !

[@kymdickman8910]

I so agree! Also, 1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. And... Genesis 2:2-3 And on the seventh day God finished (!!!) his work that he had done, and he rested (also means ‘ceased’) on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested (cease; desist from exertion) from all his work that he had done in creation.

[@ce6236]

@@kymdickman8910 dude is this really your name

[@hcwmultimedia]

Dude. These people are brilliant scientists and committed Christ followers. Their point here is that we should not come to the Bible with preconceived notions that shape the way that we interpret the scriptures. Which clearly you are doing. These men are not compromising the truth, they are EXAMINING, thinking, and discussing ways the scriptures can, or might be able to be interpreted, as part of their ongoing study - in search of increasing their understanding of the truth. It is staid, intractable thinking like you are expressing here that has caused statistics like nearly 80% of young Christians to stop going to church and many to leave the faith once they graduate high school and go off to colleges - where they are out from under the heavy handed thumb of parents who are so CLOSED MINDED (and I would add fearful) that you do not even CONSIDER that there are other ways of looking at what we believe about life. You pull scriptures out of their context and place them into the context of your closed minded narratives. Then smack people with your self-righteousness, looking down on people whose knowledge of these issues eclipses your own. Neither of these men had compromised a single scripture. They are just saying things that you, personally, do not like. So, you try to squelch their highly educated voices with your “google level” understanding of the scriptures. Not cool.

[@jakestevanja1304]

God bless you James Tour

[@KVSimon-fl5ni]

Dear Br.Jim and Br.Josh , As for me all that matters is : Problem of sin . Provision of sin atoning sacrifice . Preeminence of Lord Jesus Christ alone as the savior of the fallen world .

[@vinsonhelton7141]

I believe after you get saved among the first truths you should study is the subject of God's word and preservation, and exactly and precisely everything he has to teach us about it. To me just off the top of my head chapter 2 verse 1 tells me in the King James Bible that " the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." To me this eliminates the gap theory and the idea of any other type of being. We need extreme patience when studying God's word more than trying to know everything right now. The joy is in seeking it.

[@miltonwetherbee5489]

I think it's important to note that adopting a view of the Bible that fits with science isn't the same as making the Bible fit what we know from science. Instead, we are paying closer and closer attention to what the Bible actually says and considering all legitimate interpretations. It's also worth pointing out that it's likely that the interpretation of many passages in the Bible in the 16th century were interpreted in contrary manners from how the original Jewish audience understood it, some of which may have been trying to make the Bible fit conventional knowledge of the day, and we are going back to an understanding that is closer to how the original Jewish audience would have understood it.

[@michaelbrickley2443]

Milton Wetherbee, Amen! I look at it this way, if Yahweh had tried to tell Moses what really happened his head would have exploded

[@millywawera1686]

" Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having the seal: The LORD knows those that are His."

[@amateurschallenge]

I have to think long and hard about these things. I am not looking to synchronize evolution and creation--but I try to embrace the truth and go where the evidence leads

[@joanh.richardson4906]

I became a theist by meditating on the stars. One day I understood God created everything. I became a Christian years later, even after my college professors taught evolution, which was mythical to me. (I thought they'd lost their minds, and in a way, they had.) There is no evidence at all for the evolutionist, only his imagination. No bones, no changes between kinds. Nada. Nothing. I was an art student and learned about design and how we can identify the artist by his work. I thought my professors were illogical, and they were, but it was the only way they could maintain their atheism. God calls them fools, which I thought they were years before I became a Christian. Many Jews refuse Christ to this day because they love praise from men more than praise from God. (Jn. 12:43) And many Christians do the same, fearing what people would think if they believed in a six-day creation. But is anything too hard for God? Jesus said man lives by every word of God, not by morphing His words, but by believing them. The devil is called a serpent for a reason: he weaves his cunning way through God's words by persuading mortal minds. Just a little leaven pervades and inflates the lump of dough.

[@heroldable]

Good to hear you two. You should try to come together with John Lennox, to disquss these things. He's a brilliant thinker on God vs science. Thanks for a good program.

[@calebgodard4554]

Dr. Tour is speaking (posted on this channel) with John Lennox on Monday, August 31st!

[@heroldable]

@@calebgodard4554 Ok. 👍 Thanks!

[@BennyLaw]

I have enjoyed every single video from brother James Tour and I have received so much help from him, not just in terms of knowledge but his passion for the gospel and for Christ. However, I have to say that this video is an exception. I was troubled by the views that Joshua was presenting, and even more so when James seemed to be supporting them. I just hope that no one will be encouraged to think that Darwinian evolution can be true because of this video.

[@davidweatherby2012]

Eve is the mother of all, no matter if there were people outside the garden they had to be created, Dr Tour you are an amazing lover of truth , not maybes, ifs & additions to the word which include, U no.

[@markoh6641]

The problem with reading Genesis 1 and 2 in a sequential way is that at the beginning of Gen 2, it explicitly states that "there was no man to cultivate the ground". How would you resolve this?

[@LoveYourNeighbour.]

I'd LOVE to hear a response to your question!

[@gregpfaffe4098]

Hunter gatherers(?)

[@chloemartel9927]

Fleshes out the Creation of Adam and Eve.

[@kenechiokoli7716]

Exodus 20:11 - this refers to Genesis 1. "Heaven and earth and ALL in them." God didn’t make humans twice.

[@davidnostwold8280]

Well said!

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

" God didn’t make humans twice." Nor at all as that is a long disproved book, there was no Great Flood so the Bible is proved to be from ignorant men, not a imaginary god that flooded the entire Earth.

[@kenechiokoli7716]

@@ethelredhardrede1838 wait wait wait, so you KNOW there was no great flood? What evidence is there to back up your assertion? Before you reply please note I’ve been studying this for several years now. But I’m genuinely eager to hear it if you have some new information in the mainstream literature which I somehow missed.

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

@@kenechiokoli7716 " so you KNOW there was no great flood? " Correct, take a geology class. " What evidence is there to back up your assertion? " The entire planet. Christian geologists were quite surprised to find that the evidence for the Flood they expected find simply did not exist and the evidence they did find disproved it, in the 1800's. They sure got a surprise. "Before you reply please note I’ve been studying this for several years now. " Gee several years vs nearly two centuries of geologists. Or decades for me. " But I’m genuinely eager to hear it if you have some new information in the mainstream literature which I somehow missed." So you NEVER saw anything about real geology in your entire life. How did you manage that? Three disproofs of that silly flood story coming up. Perhaps you have an open mind and will go to learn about REAL geology as there are about 3 geologists that have the delusion that there was a Great Flood vs the many thousands to do real work and never us Flood Theory, because it did not happen.

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

@@kenechiokoli7716 A geological disproof of the Great Flood. Here you go Creationists, disproof of the Bible all based on well understood and undeniable science. The layers, even without any dating of any kind, fully disprove the Great Flood that never happened. They simply cannot be laid down the way they are in a dozen floods much less one. No Creationist has ever shown an error this. Few have even tried to deal what I am actually posting. The data is from: GRAND CANYON Explorer kaibab org You can find similar information on plenty of other sites. Try using sites that don't have religious ax to grind as those will not tell you the truth. The same layer structure can be on on nearly any site about the Grand Canyon. Most of the writing is mine except some of the specifics on the layers. So far no one has shown any real error in this and I have posted it many times. IF the Flood was a real as you claim then the over 30,000 geologists in the US alone would HAVE to use Flood theory to do their job. They don't, and the do their job anyway. No mining or oil company would hire someone that used a theory that was that far off from reality. IF the Bible was a source of special knowledge, that is from a god, there would be clear evidence of the Great Flood. There is none. Yes there are fish fossils on mountains, from around 200 million years ago. The ones in question are often those first discovered by Charles Darwin. They are evidence that the world is old that moutains can rise from the ocean floor. The mountains to the north of me have risen about twenty feet in two earthquakes in my lifetime alone. I do not have to know everything to know that there was no such flood. I only have to be sure about what can be tested. Life evolved and all the evidence supports that. The nonsense Creationists push is disproved by the utter lack of evidence for the Flood. And no, ancient flooding cannot prove a recent flood. Nor can multi million year old fossils prove a flood from 4400 years ago. In REAL science a theory is checked against reality. You look at the theory and see what should be if the theory is real. Evolution is supported by evidence so lets look at the Flood. By using internal evidence in the Bible it can be dated. The usual date is around 4400 years ago. That is disproved by actual written history. However this is about the geology as Creationist just deny known history. The dating for the layers is irrelevant for this as the layers themselves, and the meanders cut into them, could not have formed this way in a whopping great flood. This can be seen by anyone that goes to the Grand Canyon. ANYONE. IF there was flood there should be sediment sorted by density vs cross section as that is how suspended matter settles out of a water column. That is actual physics that anyone can test with dirt and glass of water. But that is not what we find at the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon would have this order of sediment. Lime Dust Fine sand Sand Gravel Boulders Granite base as there wasn't enough time or flooding to have a major sediment base under the flood boulders. Unless you think Jehovah made the Earth as lie. In which case why not the Bible as the lie instead of simply being the result of ignorance as it is. A god that deceives in geology is a god that would deceive in writing. What you actually get is: Limestone - water based both of those layers formed over millions of years not in a flood. More limestone different color - water based then: Sandstone - from sandunes which means NOT from water and thus not from the Flood. Shale which is finer grained than sandstone and is from water and that shows the Flood didn't occur right there But wait there is more as there is sandstone that is on top of top of mixed shale and limestone. Does not fit flood either. Next: Redwall Limestone - marine limestone - hmm how could that be below the sandstone if it was formed in the Flood instead of millions of years ago as real science shows. Can't happen the Creationist way. Temple Butte Limestone - Fresh water - Can't have the fresh below the salt in Flood Nonsense. But reality shows there was no flood in yet another layer. Muav Limestone - composed primarily of limestone that is separated by beds of sandstone and shale. Again can't have formed in single whopping great flood. s not have much in the way of fossils, some trilobites and brachiopods. Which means marine again and now below fresh water limestone. Bright Angel Shale - marine animals such as trilobites and brachiopods. Which somehow aren't in the higher limestone. Again not fitting Flood Nonsense. And not one fish among them as would be the case if the Bible was true. Tapeats Sandstone - this a marine sandstone. Then the really old stuff. Sixtymile Formation - This tan colored layer is composed primarily of sandstone with some small sections of shale. Kwagunt Formation - This layer is composed primarily of shale and mudstone with some limestone- Fossils to be found in this layer are those of stromatolites, the oldest fossils to be found anywhere in the Grand Canyon. Which form near the surface yet are the bottom. And no trilobites. Which all fits reals and evolution and completely fails Flood Nonsense again. And again no fish as should be there as ALL life that exists now should have existed at the beginning of the flood. Galeros Formation - This layer is composed of interbedded sandstone, limestone and shale. Impossible in a single whopping great flood. Again Fossil stromatolites also exist in this layer and no trilobites nor fish nor whales nor any fossils that we know evolved much later. Nankoweap Formation - This layer averages about 1,050 million years old and is composed of a coarse-grained sandstone. Well at least is below limestone. Cardenas Lavas - not exactly a flood thing. Can't form as it exists there while underwater. You would have pillow lava. Dox Sandstone - This layer averages about 1,190 million years old, is composed of sandstone interbedded with shale. Shinumo Quartzite - This layer averages about 1,200 million years old and is composed of sandstone Hakatai Shale - This layer averages about 1,200 million years old and is composed primarily of shale with some sandstone. Bass Formation - This layer averages about 1,250 million years old and is composed primarily of limestone with some interbedded shale Woops now the sandstones in Nankoweap ARE above limestone. None of this fits Flood Nonsense. Vishnu Schist and Zoroaster Granite - This layer averages about 1,700 to 2,000 million years old and consists of mica schist. These were originally sediments of sandstone, limestone and shale that were metamorphosed and combined with metamorphosed lava flows to form the schist. Which does not fit a world that was just 1600 years old or a whopping great flood. Nor can the entrenched meanders of the flood form in whopping great flood. Nor could the river flow ACROSS the slope of the land as it does instead of downhill in multiple rivers to the Gulf of Mexico as it would have if there had been a whopping great flood. So the Grand Canyon fits real science and Henry Morris and Dr. Brown just plain LIED about such things fitting Flood Nonsense. So with the Bible's Flood fitting right in the middle of the Egyptian Pyramid building era just how does ANYTHING fit the Flood? Ethelred Hardrede

[@ceciliasmith1004]

Very refreshing indeed

[@DolioFoilio]

Dr. Michael Heiser gives great insight on the sin before Adam that Joshua mentioned. Josh knows Heiser so not sure if this was before or after meeting him. The Hebrew & Greek needs to also be taken into consideration primarily. We cannot base these tertiary concepts on our modern translations alone. Great discussion though! 😊

[@johnknight3529]

Once upon a time (roughly two decades ago ; ) I asked a God I didn't believe existed, but could not logically rule out existing, to change my mind if that was HIs will. And over the span of several weeks very unusual "coincidences", that invariably related to the only Book I was aware of that seemed to be inviting me to ask such a thing, drew me into examining various portions of that Book (which I was not very familiar with, never having been exposed to it through my family or any church or the like). I hesitated to "make too much" of the strange coincidences, not wanting to delude myself over what could be just coincidences, but nonetheless I was gradually becoming more familiar with the Book and what it was saying about some aspects I was learning of through examining parts I was "led" to consider. One day I realized I was anticipating the next "lesson" I might be drawn into getting about that Book, and it dawned on me that God had done what I had requested . . One does not wait for a bus one does not believe exists, after all. I had become a Believer in a "de facto" sense. Some aspect(s) of my mind had become "convinced" that there was a "teacher" providing lessons that coincided with my own curiosity and understanding of what I was reading and wondering about, regardless of my own tendency to rationalize away the peculiar "coincidences" that were (in fact) related to what I had thus far learned of the Book I was holding in my hand. I decided it was a good idea to read the Book from the beginning (so to speak ; ) and when I did I "saw" some of what I'm hearing here in this video. Things that struck me as indications of a sort of gradual "deployment" of what was said to have been Created in the "first" Genesis account. Perhaps the clearest example was in Genesis 2 (vs 4 and 5); "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground." It seemed obvious to me that at least potentially, being "Created" did not necessarily mean being physically "manifested". I thought that in the case of living things, it might mean the "coding" had been generated/determined, and that's why things were being spoken of in terms of "before it was in the earth" and "before it grew". The concept that things were being "deployed" at times that were appropriate for them to be, struck me as quite plausible. That said, this is the first time this "Book baby" (as I was once called upon someone hearing how I came to Believe) has heard others discuss in any depth what I thought I "saw" indications of as I read the Book in a relatively ignorant state. I didn't "make too much" of what crossed my mind at that point ; ) I was still hesitant me, and one of the early "Lessons" I learned involved some people in a Garden, making too much of what crossed their minds upon hearing some things suggested about what God was up to . . ; )

[@mythologicalmyth]

“Seems to....maybe could have been.....implies.......might be....of course.......” A good neutral, unbiased, secular education comes out in your language. And I’m only at 11:56.

[@jacobostapowicz8188]

COMPROMISED

[@MMAGUY13]

I’m so glad he showed us true science the story of Adam and eve does not contradict anything

Awesome video!!!! Thanks for your effort. May God bless us all!!!

[@miltonwetherbee5489]

I think they need to bring John Lennox into this discussion as he has done a lot of work trying to understand what the first couple of chapters of Genesis do and do not say, getting into specific differences in the way the word day is used in those chapters. He wrote a book on that titled, "Steven Says that Divide the World."

[@LukaszStolarczuk]

Can't wait ^_^

[@charlesmedlock9408]

don't let the haters get to you.

[@5crownsoutreach]

Initial separate human populations conflicts with the statement describing Eve as "mother of all the living." And Acts where "God made all nations from one blood." in other words, Adam.

[@kymdickman8910]

I So agree!!!

[@joshuachapman7177]

Have always read from Gen 6 that Adam and Eve were God’s bridge to man so interesting to see that in Gen 1 and 2. When considering the universe it makes more sense for space to be solid. Science has described space as a super fluid so when reading Gen 1:2 that “darkness covered the surface of the watery depths, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters”, it speaks of God connecting with the infinite darkness of space prior to speaking light into existance.

[@davidrupe]

Great example of bending the Bible to fit into a faulty view of Historical Science and reflecting a lack of understanding of modern population genetics. Zero evidence in this opinion based conversation. Very disappointing Dr. Tour. Unfortunately I think this was a cultural win rather than a faith win.

[@barthutto5869]

Can you elaborate on what you say is "a faulty view of Historical Science"? I'm curious about what Dr. Swamidass's actual book says about population genetics, and whether the lack of evidence you mention is actually present there. Also, can you explain how the Bible is being bent? Dr. Swamidass admits in this very conversation that this is just ONE WAY to read Genesis, and there are many ways to read the Bible. Did you have certain expectations for this conversation that didn't go your way? If you didn't actually express that to Dr. Tour and Dr. Swamidass, and they didn't actually agree to comply with your expectations, then I find your statement disappointing.

[@freshstartboys3581]

David, I am also saddened and disappointed when I hear when God's Word is sold out to myths. I listened to Stephen Meyer talk about the big bang as if it was fact and yet the people behind its upkeep are still inventing new things to overcome the gross failure of their theory (like inflation, multiverses, even alien's computer games and free-floating minds, etc). Now, on this, I listen to someone who claims to have an encounter with the living God and still believes that God used evolution and doesn't see a problem with it. What I don't understand, is why do these people think getting it right the first time is too hard for God? Why do they think that death didn't really come about because of Adam's sin? Why do they think that Jesus said things about Adam and Eve being created by God in the beginning and it didn't really happen that way, but God eventually evolved them. How limited is their God? If God can't get it right without numerous iterations in the beginning, what hope do they have that the end will look as beautiful and perfect as promised?

[@meggy8868]

@@freshstartboys3581 God spoke the worlds into existence, how is this contradictory to the Big bang? The Bible says, "In the beginning . . . " The Big Bang says there was a beginning. Very much in favor of the Bible.

[@freshstartboys3581]

@@meggy8868 I do agree with you that it could have sounded like a "big bang" when God spoke "let there be light" in Gen 1:3 or even when God created the heaven and the earth in Gen 1:1 out of nothing. BUT, apart from sound effects (which nobody apart from God would have heard) and the momentary acceptance of a starting point (which they are now questioning with inflation and multiverses), the rest of secular bigbangism is contradictory to the Bible account and the secular account has been shown to be wrong, so I wouldn't want to link to it at all! For the contradictions from Bible account, see: answersingenesis.org/big-bang/does-the-big-bang-fit-with-the-bible/ So, when you accept the term, you will confuse people into thinking it happened like the seculars say which is not consistent with the Bible account. Remember the whole goal of the world (and that which drives them) is to undermine and get people to doubt the Truth of God's Word, just like what happened in the Garden of Eden with Eve and Adam. That is why I lament when a guy like James Tour--who claims to know the Truth Himself--panders to the world rather than draw a clear line in the sand and does so in order to protect his position in science. Even Dawkins says people who try to support God and evolution simultaneously--as if they can both co-exist--are deluded. That is the one thing I have to agree with Dawkins on. There are so many contradictions in bigbangism and they keep adding things--like inflation, multiverses, asteroid impacts, etc--because their theory and models (without God) don't work. So, to link God to bigbangism isn't healthy, even if there was a big bang when God made it.

[@markfrank0924]

With all respect to Dr. Tour, I'm a great admirer, but he should not have had Dr. Swamidass on his podcast, they are in conflict. Towards the end, Dr. Sawmidass, realizing he was not finding common ground with Dr. Tour, spent 15 minutes undoing and then attempting to endear himself.

[@MrWholphin]

There is a basic problem with using the word Aretz (land/earth) to refute the interpretation that the Genesis flood was global. In the first verse "In the beginning.." Aretz is the word used for all the created land. Additionally you need to keep in mind that the first usage of a word is exegetically the most important.

[@isaacharvey]

Also makes me wonder if these guys have read, and if so dismissed, the scientific arguments from CMI (creation.com), and other organisations, for a global flood and how well the geological and fossil record fits with the flood account on a global scale.

[@AnswersFromGod_com]

I sent Drs. Tour and Swamidass a direct message regarding this but feel to include my discussion of what I believe to be various errors contained in this presentation for the benefit of those who might otherwise be led astray: In regards to the days of Genesis 1, I believe that it is erroneous to suggest that those days are anything other than normal, single rotation around the sun length days. For example, the Hebrew of each day says, “וַֽיְהִי־ עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־ בֹ֖קֶר,” (way·hî-‘e·reḇ way·hî-ḇō·qer), “and there was evening and there was morning.” Thus, clearly it is talking about a day that is one revolution around the sun, and it is wrong to try to distort the language in order to fit the hypothesis that the days of creation were somehow longer time periods for the sake of harmonizing misunderstood observational evidence with the biblical narrative. Furthermore, each of the creation days is numbered, “אֶחָֽד,” (’e·ḥāḏ), “first,” “שֵׁנִֽי,” (šê·nî), “second,” etc. Thus, if you did not grasp from the clear reference to evening and morning that the days being referred to were simple, ordinary, single rotation around the sun days, you should glean that from the fact that they are numbered. Additionally, the plants and the animals are created on separate days. Thus, if they were separated by so called geologically meaningful periods of time (e.g., millions or billions of years), the plants would have died without the CO2 production of the animals, and then the animals would have died shortly after they were created due to a lack of oxygen in the environment. Regarding the assertion that Genesis 2 is somehow a different account than Genesis 1, I have a one word answer: Nonsense. Dr. Tour suggests that the Genesis 2 zoom into the creation account of the first man and woman is somehow out of order, but nothing could be further from the truth. In Genesis 1, Yah gives a big picture overview up through the sixth day. In Genesis 2, He specifies the details of the sixth day in which A'dam and Chu'ah were created, along with other useful information needed to understand the fall described in Genesis 3 (e.g., the forbidden fruit). There is nothing out of order or unusual in this revelation of how Yah created life on earth, including the first two human beings. Also, the original text contains no chapters or verses; it is merely a continuous text. Regarding the suggestion that there may have been other kinds of humanoid beings created outside of the garden, I have a one word answer: Nonsense. There is no suggestion of that in the text, and it does not fit what is written, at all. Furthermore, I would argue that it does not fit the observational evidence, either. Regarding the assertion that so called Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon and other humanoids with diverse physical features were not Homo sapiens is likely mere feature based racism akin to that of the Darwinian minded Europeans who felt justified in conquering the likes of India, Africa, the Americas, etc. due at least in part to the fact that they perceived the peoples of those lands to be somehow inferior based merely upon their genetically expressed physical trait differences. Likely Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons, etc. are just Homo sapiens who manifested different sets of gene expressions for the benefit of optimized adaptation to their local environments. Those genetic expressions would have been in the genome provided to A'dam and Chu'ah by יהוה at the time of their creation, and those preprogrammed adaptations are merely a provision to our (human) kind by our loving Creator for the purpose of enabling us to survive and thrive in diverse environments. Regarding interbreeding with fallen angels (i.e., Genesis 6), that was at least hundreds of years after the fall of humanity. Likely such technology was given to the humans of that day as it apparently was given to the humans of our day, as well. (As an engineer who has worked on various types of technology over the years, I am familiar with the fact that various scientists and engineers are channeling technology from demons, even if those individuals deny the malignant nature of the beings that are providing said technology to them.) Thus, as The Messiah said, these days are becoming increasingly like the days of Noah (e.g., Matthew 24). Regarding Dr. Swamidass' assertion that Moshe (the author of Genesis and the rest of the Torah) did not comprehend the world as a sphere is ridiculous. First of all, the Genesis account is first hand revelation from יהוה. Clearly, He understood the nature of His creation. Second, The Bible regularly refers to the earth as a sphere (or its two dimensional projection - a circle). Projecting a false understanding upon the biblical authors in order to justify your misconceptions about the creation is just wrong (i.e., immoral and demeaning). Likewise, Dr. Swamidass' assertion that the flood described in The Bible was localized due to the fact that its author did not comprehend the earth is pure rubbish. We find evidence of the flood (e.g., fossils) literally everyone near the surface of the earth (including at the tops of the tallest mountains), and that fits perfectly with the biblical account. Contrary to the assertion that there are gaps in the biblical genealogy, I do not see any evidence for that in The Bible, and you provided no evidence other than your (presumably false) assertions in order to support your attempt to harmonize The Bible's historic account with your (likely erroneous) beliefs regarding observational evidence. Regarding assertions of the human genome being hundreds of thousands or more years old, I doubt that. Given my cursory knowledge of the mutation rate (being something like 30 to over 300 nucleotide mistakes per generation), I believe that it is safe to rest assured that if that mutation rate has remained constant back to the time of Adam and Chuah, then we are at about the biblical distance (around 6,000 years) from when they fell and, thus, the current entropic curse (Genesis 3) commenced. Regarding the assertion that there was sin and death prior to the fall, I have a one word response: Nonsense. According to The Bible, sin and death entered into the world as a result of Adam and Chuah's disobedience to Yah's Command not to eat of the forbidden fruit.

[@rudolfbergert2506]

Seems, that Mr. Swamidass is overloading himself with his interpretation and got confused over that, sorry for that . . . Only two short examples: There were NO other people living outside the garden of eden at the sametime with adam and eve, because they were the FIRST created by God. And Cain married his sister, that was not wrong at that time, Gods law on that came later, at the time of Moses and the ten commandmends...

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

"There were NO other people living outside the garden of eden"" Because its just a silly story. The Bible is clearly the product of ignorant men. Adam and Eve were imaginary and so was the Great Flood. It is sad that a man Dr Tour's education prefers silly disproved nonsense over verifiable evidence.

[@jasonwolfe2991]

@@ethelredhardrede1838 Your comment is a silly story written by an ignorant man.

[@jamesr.g.2320]

@@jasonwolfe2991 an ignorant and obsessed man

[@NukeChiefMech]

Does the study of genetics indicate definitively that man existed outside the Garden of Eden before Adam? If man did exist outside theGarden of Eden, does the study of Genetics find what you would expect to find? What are the inconsistencies you find?

[@GospelEDGE]

Good Question! the Sumer(Mesopotamia) is the oldest, there were no other evidence of man outside this land for human origin. what are your thoughts?

[@andrewwatson9805]

I bought the book. Looking forward to reading it tonight.

[@sbgtrading]

After a year, how was the Swamidas book?

[@timconstable7348]

Although I'm a huge admirer of Dr James Tour, there is much that I disagree with in this conversation. TWO FACTUAL ERRORS: 1) Job is well recognised as being the oldest book in the Old Testament. In Job 26 a sound, probably the best understanding of what is written there is that the Earth/world is described as a sphere suspended on nothing. So the idea WAS established very early on that the Earth was a sphere in space, which of course opens the doors to a heliocentric view of the solar system, regardless of any anothropocentric descriptions elsewhere in The Bible. This does not conflict with other verses that talk about the Sun moving, because the Sun is orbiting the centre of the Milky Way galaxy at 828,000 km/hr! The conflict the Roman church had with the likes of Galileo was because they had adopted the entirely non-biblical cosmology of Ptolemy. 2) There is a highly respected professor of Ancient Hebrew called Robert Alter. In his translation of Genesis, he makes it quite clear that the division between Genesis 1 vs 1 and 2 is entirely wrong, in that they are one clause: "When God began to create Heaven and the Earth and the Earth then was welter and waste and darkness over the deep.... God said "Let there be light". So with a correct understanding of the ancient Hebrew, there is NO room for anything between verses 1 and 2. But my big question is: Dr Swamidass's book seems to be another attempt to harmonise scripture with Darwinian evolution. Why would anyone even WANT to do such a thing? There is NO EVIDENCE for Darwinian evolution, which is an interpretation of certain scientific ideas by godless, materialist, uniformitarian science philosophers. It is an idea which conflicts with much now-established scientific data. And it is an idea which throws up all kinds of crazy ideas solely because they 'cannot let a Divine Foot in the door' (Lewentin). Science is an exploration of physical reality which, at least on the cutting edge, is constantly changing. This year's new 'fact' is next year's refuted error! It seems to me that Dr Swamidass's book is not so much a bridge as a traffic island, trying to get everyone moving in the same direction before deciding which exit to come off at. The trouble with traffic islands is that there can be several exits, so no guarantees at all that people will come off at the exit signposted 'Biblical authority and reliability', and so does very little if anything to establish the fact of Jesus' resurrection.

[@masada2828]

Well said Tim.

[@pmac_]

You need to take into account Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast. God spoke a word of commsnd and the universe came into being. We are not told what God said in Gen1:1 but this predates Gen 1:2 where we are informed what God was doing and saying. We need to take into account the whole of scripture in reaching our conclusions.

[@mindistheindex338]

Fantastic talk. Amazing.

[@michaelschielke290]

I love this. Thanks so much guys! Would be great to meet Dr. Tour considering I live in Houston!

[@davidrichards2113]

GM 2:5 “For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground;” You said there were men in Gn1?

[@uyabtheorginal8023]

I am coming to the conclusion that many of these scientists while strong on math are rather weak on biblical study. John 1:1 is a good place for them to restart their journey.

[@chrisyoung4482]

Chapter and verse?

[@thomassliger6859]

Amazing….

[@jeremycarroll2161]

The image of God, Jesus Christ. Created through him for him and by him and without him was nothing else made. What is going on in this conversation?

[@davidnostwold8280]

Jesus....Who being the brightness of HIS Glory and the express IMAGE of His Person......Hebrews 1:3......Amen

[@davidweatherby2012]

This is the first article of yours that I do not wish to watch beyond the 12 minute mark

[@voiceofREASONS]

Me mistakenly thinking I was tuning in to hear a discussion about the genetic evidence for Adam and Eve 👁️👄👁️

[@gerardmoloney9979]

If EVOLUTION IS possible there would have to be a mechanism. Surely we would have found the mechanism by now and understand how it works! The guy Darwin wouldn't believe in EVOLUTION if he was alive today. He thought the cell was a simple blob of CHEMICALS that do magic. The more we know about the cell, the more we KNOW we don't know.

[@PeacefulscienceOrg]

Maybe God did it? Why couldn't God create through common descent? I think he is powerful enough to pull it off, don't you? :)

[@gerardmoloney9979]

@@PeacefulscienceOrg God told us how He Created. Don't you believe what He told us. SCIENCE has proved the creation story 100% correct in sequence and once the word used in the Bible for day is understood to have four different meanings, one of which is a long finite period of time, then there is no conflict between the Bible and science. The scientific method comes from the Bible and should rightly be called the Biblical method. Put everything to the test and hold fast to that which is good. Maranatha

[@PeacefulscienceOrg]

@@gerardmoloney9979 Oh I see. You are working from some large misconceptions here. Genesis 1 and 2, when read as literal history, do not contradict evolutionary science. Both could be true at the same time. So of course I believe what God tells us in Scripture, his inerrant and infallible word. My trouble is with your false sense of conflict. I wonder if it's because you are reading Genesis in a non-literal way, or according to some human tradition. The actual text of Scripture and evolutionary science is perfectly compatible..

[@gerardmoloney9979]

@@PeacefulscienceOrg you need to read Genesis again. Read it slowly so you notice God doesn't make Adam from any other kind. He created human kind when He created Adam in the image of God. All different kinds were made by God and they don't change into other kinds because God didn't need them to change there kind. Very simple to understand. Read it slowly.

[@PeacefulscienceOrg]

@@gerardmoloney9979 maybe you should read my work closely. I show how Adam and Eve could have been created without parents, specially created de novo, from the dust and a rib, without common ancestry with the great apes. Why would you say something that implies I insist otherwise? Turns out this is 100% consistent with evolution, crazy right?

[@dorcasmcleod6583]

Suggesting there were people outside? Eve is called the mother of all living. She was the 1st woman. All people came from her! He has a lot of conjecture, but little scripture. Why do you want us to be biologically directly related to apes. God put apes in man's dominion from the beginning. It belittles the awesomeness of God! God tells us he made man on day 6. He says he rested from all his work on day 7. You would have to make each day in Genesis 1 be millions of years long, and have day 3 earth, plants, tree for millions of years, then day 4 sun moon and stars millions of years. So how did the plants and trees live without the photosynthesis needed by the sun that was not yet created for millions of years? Rediculous! You have to go to the old idea that Genesis 1-11 is alegorical. Nothing in Genesis 1-11 reads as anything but that these miracles literaly happeed. God's word is infallible, science always agrees with it. Scientists are fallible, but God is not. Scientists interpret data differently, but that does not change God's truths. Romans 5 does not support his thesis. This guy is very intelligent and intelligently wrong. Macro evolution is the belief that things turned into other things. It is a fairy tale. Part of my belief as a Christian is that God made the heaven, the earth, the seas and everything that is in them. By geneology found in the Bible "the beginning" was about 6,000 years ago. He rejects this, and therefore rejects God's word in these areas. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Please rethink your notions of macro evolution.

[@matthewherzel264]

Here's a strange thought. What if we sought to determine what is true based on observations, rather than on our wishes? We may think a certain view belittles God, but that is a personal preference. We should not allow our preferences to influence our conclusions or evaluation of evidence. That is the textbook definition of wishful thinking.

[@enidsnarb]

I believe the term " Image Of God" is simply grammatically possessive , i.e. , an image belonging to and created by God , an image made by ,belonging to ( of ) God !

[@uncatila]

Easter Shattered at the break of day all broken was the seal Empty was his resting place where Mary came to kneel Scattered were the weapons One hundred soldiers fled What on earth had happened here to bring the world such dread Mary came to wonder and wandered near the flowers weeping for her master for what had seemed like hours Then a voice so lovely had caused her to recall She recognized the sound of it It was the master's call Weeping by the fountain within the garden green He touched her with his wounded hand that Mary must have seen and with the mantle of her hair He wiped away her tears a perfect love had touched her and drove away her fears Magdalene was first to find the Resurrected king as power and Dominion Into the world she'd bring

[@anantguru8244]

*Can someone make Richard Dawkins to watch this if possible !*

[@freshstartboys3581]

I don't think you really want that. Richard Dawkins considers "theistic evolutionists" to be "deluded". Below is a video clip where he says it was clear to him as a teenager that evolution and Christianity are incompatible: And, on that, he is right. What shocks me is that Dr. Tour who knows the complexity of the cell and knows the impossibility of a cell creating itself can still allow for the concept of evolution from ape to man in contrast to what the Bible--and Jesus Himself--clearly says. Here is the video clip: creation.com/media-center/youtube/richard-dawkins-theistic-evolutionists-are-deluded.

[@les2997]

@@freshstartboys3581 Dawkins will never stand in front of people who know what they are talking about.

[@freshstartboys3581]

@@les2997 I agree. BUT, there are an overwhelming majority of people who don't line up with what God says (and therefore don't know what they are talking about), who do value him and what he says. He may be standing on sinking sand, but he and others like him are controlling the education system from top to bottom.

[@stevenhird1837]

Anant Guru yeah if you want to send him to sleep zzzz .

[@miltonwetherbee5489]

@@freshstartboys3581 I think Dr. Tour holds the view that if evolution did happen, it was guided by God, which would have to be the case as it wouldn't happen on it's own. So, evolution isn't, strictly speaking, an impossibility when it comes to God and creation.

[@wendellsullivan2341]

As a complete layman, can someone give a simple explanation of the length of time required for the genetic diversity found in the world? I believe the science, as described by Dr. Tour and others, makes evolution highly unlikely if not impossible. Therefore the length of time for genetic diversity to occur is very relevant. Thanks in advance.

[@johananandrewich5707]

You first have to understand that not all genetic diversity is explained by time. God build genetic diversity in first people so that they would not produce clones but be fruitful as God has said. Now, after the fall mutations started to happen and we can look at the rate of mutations and it confirms biblical timeline. Evolutionists think that all diversity is the result of mutations. But there is at least one area where creationists and evolutionists agree that mutations are only reason for diversity that is part of DNA found in mitochondria of the cell. We can measure rate of mutations in mtDNA and it explains all diversity in mtDNA in about 6000 years.

[@wendellsullivan2341]

@@johananandrewich5707 Thank you. I fully believe something along that line must be the case. Can you point to a scientific study that would indicate this to be true, or is it simply a required assumption for a 6000 year timeline? Thanks again.

[@johananandrewich5707]

@@wendellsullivan2341 Yes, there are scientific studies that show this without any assumptions we just measure the rate of mutation accumulation , there are also studies that measure mutation rates in Y chromosome. Try looking at this paper: answersingenesis.org/adam-and-eve/genetics-confirms-recent-supernatural-creation-adam-and-eve/ it is not highly technical. You can also read this: answersingenesis.org/genetics/mitochondrial-dna/origin-human-mitochondrial-dna-differences-new-generation-time-data-both-suggest-unified-young-earth/ and this: answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/molecular-clock/evidence-human-y-chromosome-molecular-clock/. There are other ways to test evolutionary vs biblical timeline, rate at which new species form confirm biblical timeline, in other words species form quite fast (because genetic diversity God build in animals) . Noah would have had original kinds of animals on the ark. From these kinds came all different species we see today. Evolution predicted that species form much slower, if we assume evolutionary time line and apply known rates of speciation we get totally wrong numbers even when we account for extinctions etc.

[@wendellsullivan2341]

@@johananandrewich5707 thank you. I’ll look at the articles.

[@johananandrewich5707]

@@wendellsullivan2341 You are welcome.

[@tomborges2500]

If all the reading of Genesis 2 is a sequential account, it works against your theory because Genesis 2:5 says, "For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground." (esv). It says there were no men created before Adam; I believe the first 3 verses are part of a sequential account but not the whole account of Genesis 2.

[@TheLamboman640]

I totally reject evolution and see it completely contradictory to scripture. Micro evolution-sure. But the whole premise of Darwinian evolution is to provide an alternative to theism and support naturalism. Genesis is explicit about God creating the different creatures according to their kinds. If all living things evolved from a common ancestor, why create different kinds? Why save all the different kinds of animals on the ark? Far too many problems with theistic evolution. However, at least what really matters is what we all have in common-that Jesus is the way, truth, and the life! Another fantastic video Dr Tour!

[@RameshBaburbabu]

yesterday I watched podcast with James Tour and John Lennox . John Lennox asked interested question in split sec.. most of the people might missed it. As it strikes for me I stoped the Podcast and dwelled little time. here is my expanded version of same question.. Why are asking `Is the Yehusha rise from dead ..? is it historical ...? can we prove it ..? etc.. Why do we all treat Yehusha as a dead person .... if he is raise from the dead .. then logical conclusion is . HE is alive today too.. and tomorrow also ( but I may die tomorrow ) . It is like it is our job to prove to the world that dead person is alive .. and struggle for that too.. "Let the Lion out of the cage , He will defend " . Be prepared .. it will cost our life out here ..

[@khufu8699]

I do not think we should take things like "made from the dust of the earth" to literally mean dust. Naturally, today, we would replace the idea of dust to mean particles and atoms. But you could not say "atoms" in ancient times and have people understand that. So we have to be careful with overly literal interpretations. But the sequential account is crazy similar to how technically, things had to be completed - which is really cool and some kind of evidence.

[@mindistheindex338]

ஆமென்

[@Critter145]

Swamidass simply cannot be taken seriously. His assertions contain many inconsistencies that disqualify them from earnest consideration.

[@randyphung]

Interesting discussion between two devout Christians. It's good to talk and debate about things and get a deeper understanding in a positive and respective manner. The question of "Where did Cain get his wife from?" can also be answered by understanding the Adam and Eve does NOT ONLY have 2 children (Cain and Abel), but also had other children as well. There's no indication of the age of Cain when he killed his brother Abel. There's no indication of the duration given between Cain and Abel. There may be other children born in between Cain and Abel. Genesis 4:2 states "LATER, she gave birth to his brother Abel". We only know that Abel came after Cain. It also seems the Bible only focused on those 2 is to illustrate what happened between them. So if Adam and Eve had other children between Cain and Abel, Cain can literally marry his sister. One must understand that genetically there are is no problem because mutation was not an issue since they are the 1st generation from Adam and Eve. We cannot have offsprings from our biological sibling nowadays due to genetic defects due to the amount of mutations in our genome. Does that make sense?

[@PeacefulscienceOrg]

Here some question's you've left unanswered: 1. Who was Cain’s wife? 2. In what sense did Seth “replace” Abel if Adam and Eve already had may other sons in addition to Cain and Abel? 3. Why was Cain afraid of people in the wilderness away from him family? 4. If Cain was not the firstborn, why was his lineage recorded? 5. If Seth was not the eldest son left (with Abel dead and Cain exiled) why was his lineage recorded? 6. If Enoch was not Cain’s first son, why was his birth in Cain’s city recorded? 7. If Abel had children, why was his lineage not recorded? 8. If Cain, Seth and Enoch were first born sons, and Seth was the third born, who filled the city that Cain built? The simplest answer to these questions is that there were people outside the garden. If there weren't, you need some other answers. What are they?

[@randyphung]

@@PeacefulscienceOrg Those are some good questions. I love a good chat to challenge my views. I do not mind being corrected. I want to make sure my understanding is Biblical. To answer your questions, if you look at the point of view of Adam and Eve having other children between Cain and Abel, kept having children after Seth, you can see how things fit into place. 1. Who was Cain’s wife? He married his sister. Genetics of the first generation of humans created were perfect without mutations. So there's no genetic issues...unlike today. 2. In what sense did Seth “replace” Abel if Adam and Eve already had may other sons in addition to Cain and Abel? God provided for Eve for losing a son by giving her a son in replacement of Abel...even if she's had many other children in between. Losing a child is painful and God eased that pain by giving her another son in replacement of Abel. If you have multiple children (sons and daughters) and one of them dies, you would also rejoice when God provides you with another child in replacement of the child you lost. 3. Why was Cain afraid of people in the wilderness away from him family? He was afraid of his other siblings, and the offsprings of those siblings, that knew of his murder. 4. If Cain was not the firstborn, why was his lineage recorded? Cain could be the first born. But there may be many born between Cain and Abel (sons and daughters). What does this question have to do with your point? 5. If Seth was not the eldest son left (with Abel dead and Cain exiled) why was his lineage recorded? His lineage was recorded because his lineage leads to Noah. This was the chosen lineage by God. 6. If Enoch was not Cain’s first son, why was his birth in Cain’s city recorded? What does this question have to do with your point? 7. If Abel had children, why was his lineage not recorded? Abel may or may not have had children. Don't think it matters when Adam and Eve had other children to populate the Earth. What does this question got to do with your point? 8. If Cain, Seth and Enoch were first born sons, and Seth was the third born, who filled the city that Cain built? It could be for his family and other relatives (offprings of Adam and Eve and their offsprings). Now I have some question on your view: 1) If there were other people outside of the Garden, then why did the Bible only mention that Adam was created to work the garden? Why didn't God just get somebody outside the garden? 2) If there were other people outside the garden, then how did they inherit Adam's sin? 3) If there were other people already during the time of Adam and Eve. Were they created at the same time God created Adam and Eve? On day 6?

[@PeacefulscienceOrg]

​@@randyphung Your answers aren't satisfying. If they were correct, it would be an inexplicable deviation from custom of following the first born child, except in exceptional circumstances. I can grant that perhaps all these deviations happened, but it seems like twisting the story in to pretzels to satisfy a preconception that can't actually be found in Scripture. Now, I can grant that you are trying to be faithful with Scripture, and that Scripture doesn't directly say you wrong. It just doens't seem like what you are saying is consistent with a close reading of Scripture. Your questions: 1) Because the people outside were not suitable to the garden. They were not transgressors like Adam would be come, but they were not morally perfect as he was created, so they did not have access to the Garden. 2) The people outside the Garden obviously did not inherit Adam's sin, but they would have been affected by Adam's sin. But Scripture doesn't concern them so it does not teach they inherited Adam's sin. Rather, in time, Adam and Eve's lineage spread across the globe, and by the time Paul writes Romans, all anthropos are in fact descendents of Adam and Eve. 3) Scripture does not say that Adam and Eve were created on Day 6. It depends how you read Genesis 1 and.2 to make sense of that. There are several ways that make sense, and exegetes are hashing it out amongst each other as we speak. Jon Garvey goes one step farther than me. I say that people outside the garden are allowable, but Garvey argues they are helpful to theology. YOu might want to check his book out. peacefulscience.org/garvey-theology-garden/

[@randyphung]

@@PeacefulscienceOrg With all due respect, I did not seek your satisfaction to my answers. I'm simply providing a plausible answer that does contradict the scriptures. I do not understand why you need to emphasize the first born child customs. In the old testament, I see many examples of God using His servants who are not first born. Abraham was not the first born. Isaac was not the first born to Abraham (Ishmael was). Jacob was not the firstborn (although Esau gave up his birthright to Jacob). Joseph was not the firstborn to Jacob. King David was the youngest amongst his brothers. What's important is the messianic line that God has chosen. It seems your explanation also has flaws and reading into scripture. I do not see a fundamental difference between your explanation and mine. While I postulate that it's possible many more children were born between Cain and Abel. You postulate that there were already other people when God created Adam and Eve. Scripture does not explicitly state either one. If the people outside the Garden and did not inherit Adam's sin, then how does this satisfy Romans 5:12 (Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned)? Who were these people outside of the Garden? Were they created in God's image? When were they created? Does your explanation satisfy scripture? Do not get me wrong. I am a man of science. I'm a practicing Professional Engineer by trade. I design "buildings" and are trained to peer review and ask questions. I also ask my peers to review my work (part of my professional practice protocol). I compare the design against the building codes and other applicable codes. I get questioned on my design and asked to show my calculations. I also ask questions when I peer review. You would want engineers to do that in order to provide a safe and sound design for the public. It is our due diligence. I apply the same questioning to science today. It is how we progress. I like your website's mission statement and virtue statements. I agree with that. We can discuss with respect. We can agree to disagree. There are limits to scientist's knowledge and scientific processes. Sometimes scientists will apply many assumptions. Sometimes those assumptions may be flawed and nobody ask questions to those assumptions. As an engineer, I do not like to see engineers making assumptions. It can be costly to the project and it can be fatal to the public. And so I ask questions to the assumptions. I like what Dr. James Tour is doing. He listens and asks questions if he doesn't understand. I am trying to do the same. I truly believe if science methods are done correctly, without false assumptions applied, and allowing the data to speak for itself without manipulation of the data, then the scientific findings will affirm the Scriptures. I practice engineering. I do not conduct scientific studies. I believe you are a man of science. I do have many questions for you if you don't mind me asking. All I want is an honest answer in a peaceful and respectful manner. I'm just simply seeking the Truth. We can take this offline on another media.

[@PeacefulscienceOrg]

@@randyphung My main point is that it is acceptable to see these passages as hinting at people outside the garden. It seems that you do make space for this. I"m not insisting you adopt this interpretation, but merely that we make space for it. So we may be in agreement. As for the questions you have for me, ask me on this forum please: discourse.peacefulscience.org.

[@des711]

I feel like this almost puts nature creating man and so forth, before God being the creator of all. Like he started nature and is letting it run its course. Why would God not give us this information with more detail in the bible? I am pretty sure he doesnt want us to add information in between the verses of the Bible. And this is what this theory does. The first time I read Genesis I absolutely assumed the second writing of creation was a more zoomed in part of creation. God healed me. It is a miracle. I praise Go and thank God for doing that in my life. No one could help me, He was able to. Thank you Jesus for saving us from our sins and from darkness.

[@nicholastaylor232]

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon. all men, for that all have sinned

[@Josdamale]

By way of contrast, here is an Orthodox Christian theological view of Genesis 1-3: Firstly, I would recommend one read St Basil the Great, On the Hexaemeron (6 days of creation). The arguments he counters of the philosophers then are essentially what atheists have tried to maintain over the centuries, but that science has actually clarified on the side of Christianity. Secondly, the Word of God is the person of Jesus Christ (and not a book), who exists in two natures as true God and as true man, and the Gospel is the truth of who he is and what he is. The Gospel is that God the Word become a man in order to make humans like God. The Holy Scriptures (the Old and New Testaments) are also an image of their prototype, Jesus Christ, the Word of God, and thus point us to Christ and his Gospel. Man on earth in Paradise surrounded by the animals is an image of the Holy Trinity in heaven surrounded by the angels. Therefore, just as God is three persons sharing one Divine Nature, so man on earth would also be three persons sharing the one human nature as the image of the Holy Trinity. For this reason, the Virgin Man was created in the image of the Incarnate Word of God, and from his flesh the Virgin Woman was created, in order that she might become the Mother of Life, who is Jesus Christ, God the Word incarnate. Remember that the Will of God is that the Word of God become a man to make humans like God, who is Love. Therefore, had Eve and Adam obeyed the will of God the Father in heaven, God the Word would have become a human child through the Virgin Woman. This incarnation of God the Word would have completed the image of the Holy Trinity on earth, but humans would still need to become like God, who is Love. The first step towards Love is obedience to God's will. The Gospel of love is that we love God with all our being, and our neighbour as we love ourselves. The Lord instructed Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, for in that day they would surely die. The Lord did not say, Do not touch the Tree, nor, Do not eat of the Fruit, but, Do not eat of the Fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Had the humans obeyed the Lord through faith, and he became man of the Virgin Woman, he would have grown to maturity as they learnt humility, patience and abstinence (self-control), which are necessary virtues to become loving like God. Then, the Word of God would have taken the Virgin Man and the Virgin Woman to the centre of the Garden passing through the four Rivers of Life, clothed them in white garments like baptismal robes, and cut a branch from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and then grafted it into the Tree of Life, and given them to eat of the Fruit of that Tree of Life, which is the True Cross, the fruit of obedience, right judgement, and eternal life. Then, in the Lord's will, the Lord may have created the souls of all humans and clothed them in the immortal bodies of his Body, as he will clothe the souls of the saints and the dead on the day of Resurrection. The Gospel of Jesus Christ would have been completed in man as an image of God in heaven without sin and disobedience to God. But, the humans disobeyed God, because they doubted his word, because of their pride, which arose out of their lack of love for God and for their neighbour. From Adam and Eve, who turned away from God's will, to John the Baptist and the Virgin Mary was the great detour that God took humanity to bring humans back to the Way of God's Will. This is God's Will: that God the Word become a man to make humans like God, who is love. God made all things out of his love, and in order to share in his love. We cannot accept the lie that creation is diabolical, or a mixture of good and evil. This is the false religion of Greek Gnosticism (also called, Latin Scientism or Hebrew Mandaism), which is the forerunner of the Antichrist. God made all things good to share in his love, through the image of Elohim the Holy Trinity on earth, which is the Man, the Virgin, and the Child God incarnate. One must remember that Lucifer desired to prevent the incarnation of God the Word, and to live inside fallen man forever in Paradise. Instead of Christ, Cain (the image of the Antichrist) was born to Eve, and Cain murdered his brother Abel out of religious jealousy, and God gave Seth instead as a hope of the incarnation of God the Word. The genetic modifications that resulted in the giant human nephilim and the other titan beasts were the corruptions of all flesh before Noah, and were a result of the fallen angels meddling in God's creation. Lucifer regards this sinful world as his creation, as a mixture of light and darkness, good and evil, but this is a Gnostic (Scientism) lie. When Jesus Christ eventually became a man of the Virgin, who obeyed and continues to obey God the Father, he drove the evil spirits out of humans and he healed the sick and suffering. But his own people put him to death, as Adam and Eve had aborted the incarnation of God the Word. Sin is disobedience to God's will, which aims to abort God the Word becoming man and making humans like God. Nevertheless, Jesus Christ rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and will come to judge the living and the dead. He has given us his Body and Blood as a New Testament of eternal life. On the Day of the Lord, that Great Day of Judgement and Resurrection, the Lord will bring a final end to Lucifer's influence on earth, and the Lord will complete his will for man on earth. Don't follow Lucifer and his Antichrist and False Prophet, who will destroy earth, and take their demonic and demonised followers into Outer Darkness of space and the Lake of Fire of the sun. Don't leave earth, even if it is destroyed, because the Lord God who created the earth and man, and all life on earth, will return to restore what the devil has destroyed. Repent and confess your sins in the Church before the Lord, and be sanctified through Holy Baptism. Then, you will be clothed in the Wedding Garment and be accepted at the Feast of the Bridegroom, where we partake of the glorified and resurrected body and blood of Jesus Christ. We are freely called to be many persons sharing in the one human nature of Jesus Christ, as Jesus Christ shares the divine nature of the Father together with the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ united God and creation in his person. He is one person in two natures: the divine uncreated nature, and the created human nature. This is the Gospel and God's Will that will be done on earth. God became a man to make humans like God.

[@isaacharvey]

I don’t see how Romans5:12-14 is saying that sin existed before Adam? It says sin exists before Torah, but it doesn’t explicitly say before Adam (or disobedience of the command given to Adam). How do you know that Paul’s reference to ‘law’ or ‘Torah’ is specifically referring to God’s command to Adam versus the law/Torah given to Moses? Also, doesn’t the ‘Universal Common Descent’ narrative suggest that there was millions of years of death and decay prior to Humans evolving? But doesn’t the bible state that death came only after the fall as a result of it? You suggest that Genesis 1:26 could be read as humans created prior to Adam, but as I understand it the hebrew here for ‘humans’ is ‘adam, and in verse 27 ha-’adam. So that’s confusing. Genesis 2:5 suggests that there was no one to cultivate the ground prior to creating Adam in verse 7, so seems to imply he was the first human. Paul refers to Adam as ‘the first man’ in 1Cor15:45 and again in verse 47. Here is CMI’s take on ‘pre-Adamic man’, which they believe undermines the gospel: creation.com/pre-adamic-man-were-there-human-beings-on-earth-before-adam All of that aside, I think it is crucial to keep in mind the following before trying to harmonise the bible with naturalistic explanations for origins/history: “By trusting, we understand that the universe was created through a spoken word of God, so that what is seen did not come into being out of existing phenomena.” Hebrews 11:3 (CJB) The author of our natural laws is not bound by them, and various instances in the bible seems to suggest that he has altered them in the past. Science is great! Some areas of it is not so trustworthy, especially with regard to speculative fields. It really irks me the way all fields of science are abbreviated under the one banner of ‘science’, which implies they all carry equal authority. Be careful not to place excessive trust in our or others’ understanding (Proverbs 3:5). May the Lord our God open our eyes and unstop our ears, and reveal to us what is true and what is not. May he humble us and rid us of pride and arrogance.

[@PeacefulscienceOrg]

It is really important not to read human ideas into Scripture. Scripture does not teach years of death and decay prior to the Fall, but it also doesn't teach against it (outside the Garden, that is). Scripture tells us what God wanted to tell us, but it does not answer all the questions we bring to it.

[@martialbrook]

@@PeacefulscienceOrg I think Isaac Harvey is saying that Romans 5:12-14 is referring to the law of Moses, not God's command to Adam not eating the fruit from the tree. That interpretation is bound by context of verse 14 where "...Adam until Moses" (NASB) is mentioned. I don't think Isaac Harvey is reading any human ideas into it. His question is derived from a historically valid interpretation of Romans 5:12-14. Thanks for your comment.

[@masada2828]

Sin came into the world with the sin of Adam, I think that’s clear.

[@God_is_in_the_details]

I think Joshua has an insurmountable problem with Exodus 20:11: a direct, sensible and honest reading reinforces a literal seven-day creation period for both the earth AND the heavens. All must fit within this framework. Scripture, as due to its own claims and ontology, is a demanding master: either it’s all true, in scope and detail, or it’s not. If not true in the smallest detail then you have reason to dismiss all of it. I ask: which is more reliable: the rock of Scripture or the vicissitudes of Institutional Science? Which finds itself confirming the other, again and again? Just two among countless examples: 1) Mary Schwartz’s discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones ‘known’ to be 65M+ years old. 2) Halton Arp’s discovery that red shift is intrinsic rather than Doppler effect, thus nullifying the chief pillar of big bang cosmology.

[@freshstartboys3581]

Agreed!

[@ccr3092]

I've been a Dr. Tour fan but do far this has been sickening. Incredibly disappointed with such bad interpretation of scripture

[@media333]

That's my reaction as well.

[@MezztovenShort4DannY]

Just reading ya comments makes me weary of seen the rest of this video, I guess let's go

[@MezztovenShort4DannY]

Joshua, though I respect his ideology, I don't agree with it, his teaching is not driven by the The Word, seems more like the teachings of some doctrine that doesn't make sense by man

[@JohnMackeyIII]

There was no death before the fall outside or inside the garden.

[@billh1983]

Day one, a literal 24 hour day, has been stretched by the expansion of space/time and is represented by the first seven billion years and correlates to the scholarship of creation. Demonstrated by Dr. Gerald L Schroeder a MIT physicist and biblical scholar.

[@fudgedogbannana]

I think that Dr. Swamidass is over thinking it all (just the way people over think where Cane got his wife. Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters, no strangers, no apes) and (he said that the bible says that Earth was formed on the fourth day when he must have just read that God created the Heavens and Earth (the WHOLE UNIVERSE) in the beginning). I know that Dr. Swamidass is a very smart guy and good scientist but I am afraid that he just doesn't get the reading of the Bible and God.

[@fransvanroode1329]

For a good understanding of the book of Genesis it helps a lot wen you read the book “New discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis” from P.J. Wiseman.

[@JohnMackeyIII]

There was no one before Adam and eve. Why why why why these ludicrous ideas. Why do scientist always want to reduce the cost of sin that was only put on Adam not on eve. The most mysterious thing is that when Eve ate the fruit her eyes did not open but when Adam ate the fruit both of their eyes were opened. Because of the sin of Adam the curse was brought upon creation. The sin of one man was a tone for by the righteousness of one man.

[@astan6445]

When I read the Genesis three passage, it looks like they both ate the apple and both sets of eyes opened. You are reading something into it which is not there. It can be interpreted in a variety of ways of people want to speculate.

[@卷卷猴]

good

[@lincolndunstan3057]

How do we then reference "Babel", and the language issue, with people in and out of the "garden"?

[@ccr3092]

There was NO death before sin.

[@barthutto5869]

I guess there was no food then? What did the animals eat? Dirt and rocks? I'm pretty certain a plant had to die. You should define what you mean by "death". Death of what.

[@ccr3092]

@@barthutto5869 do your homework

[@offcenterconcepthaus]

It's a very interesting idea. The problems with evolution are simply insurmountable, though -- irreducible efficiency is 1000x the problem that irreducible complexity is.

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

"The problems with evolution are simply insurmountable" No. "irreducible efficiency is 1000x the problem that irreducible complexity is." So silly nonsense is more a problem than other silly nonsense. Thanks for the strawmen. Life evolves, we have ample evidence. There as no Great Flood so rational people KNOW that the Bible was made up by ignorant men. Dr Tour is not rational where his religion is concerned.

[@offcenterconcepthaus]

@@ethelredhardrede1838 No, It's not a specified process. We're arguing/speculating on pure conjecture.

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

@@offcenterconcepthaus "No, It's not a specified process. " What do you mean by that. Please be specific as the term SPECIFIED has no real meaning here in science. "We're arguing/speculating on pure conjecture." No. I am going on real science and threw out nonsense numbers from nowhere at all. Source please. We know that life does evolve. We KNOW that there was no Adam and Even from dirt and THAT is what Dr Tour believes in denial of all the evidence to the contrary. Humans have been on Earth for over 200,000 years, again not mere speculation. We KNOW that thee was no Great Flood, yet Dr Tour thinks it is real. How about you produce a source for you were claiming.

[@bobdalton2062]

I see this podcast is really old. I find very many issues with this theory. Is it a shame Jesus didn't tell us about all these other peoples?

[@andrewrobertson3316]

The problem I always have with science (world Knowledge) is exactly this. There is verses in proverbs 3: 5-6 that says Trust in thenLord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding and in all your acknowledge Him and He shall direct your path. He the thing Moses only held the pen but God wrote the book. All knowledge was given to Moses as he wrote the book of Genesis. It’s Gods word not Moses. You introduce an extremely spurious account and try and manipulate scripture to suit a narrative. This is very dangerous. You want to undermine scripture not bolder it I feel. Jesus Himself talks about Adam as the first man. All through scripture Adam is referred to as the first man. Also your point about Eve sinning first. No the commandment to not eat of the fruit was given solely to Adam not Eve. It was when Adam ate of the fruit that sin came into the world not when Eve did. I find your theory here extremely dangerous and it could undermine a lot of christians confidence in scripture. I think it is irresponsible. I’m also extremely sure someone like Ken Ham could put you straight on the Genesis account.

[@TheOtiswood]

All I can say is, Dr. Tour, If God could do some of the things you claim you believe He did; then the man made consensus (out of the mind of men), that we share common ancestors with self replicating bio-molecules would not be necessary. I mean if God could, (and I believe He knows where every (at this point in our understanding), planck length and particle is an any given instant from eternity past to eternity future, then our musings and what we think we see from the data is more than insignificant. all life is made from the same matter and the genetic materials are only a vehicle for the information in it that makes each lifeform special in God's eye. I don't pretend to know what God is thinking but I know what I think and the Holy Spirit will comfort us.

[@borischum5733]

Have you considered the idea that God uses the word "earth" with reference to people.? After all, from dust we are to dust we return.

[@chronicfatiguehermithiker3022]

I get the impression that spirit creatures look different from each other, like there may be families of them, like some might be serpentine, some birdlike, some plantlike, some sea creaturelike etc, and some humanlike. I believe the ones that are humanlike are God’s image; we were given that particular image for his reasons; so I believe that the image is both physical appearance and attributes like being capable of love, reasoning, justice etc. If we could look at God I don’t believe we would see anything but light since he is pure energy, but he might have a form of some kind under all the light, and maybe that form is human-looking.

[@HigherInfluence]

At what point do we acknowledge God created matter and the universe rather than it all just appeared from nothing by itself?

[@martarico186]

We dont follow Adam, but his sin Follow us. Jesus came to earth because of Adam.

[@tonussi]

😊❤

[@JV-pl5kp]

Could you try to host dr Hugh Ross on Genesis please.

[@gerardmoloney9979]

Genesis 3:20 the man named his wife Eve because she is the mother of all living. Very clearly stated.

[@PeacefulscienceOrg]

Very clear...except at the time Eve was not mother of anyone, not even Adam, nor all the animals. And it was a fallen Adam who said it, so how do you know if he was correct? discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/tgc-reviews-the-gae/9752/21?u=swamidass

[@isaacharvey]

Logically it would refer to all of human life stemmed from Eve. It could also be an anachronism in that it is referring to ‘all who lived’ at the time of the writing of Genesis presumably by Moses. Are you suggesting that all of scripture was written by fallible humans, so now we can assume there is error and/or lies throughout, rather than the inspired word of God? Isn’t that just believing only whatever we want (2Tim4:3-4)? Yeshua never seems to speak of scripture in such a way that implies fallibility.

[@isaacharvey]

But I agree that things are not quite so clear. “Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely.” (1Cor13:12) But until things are made clear, how about a friendly wager? I bet you 50 bucks that after all is said in done and this world is finished, the bible will be revealed to have been infallible, and that there were no humans before Adam! :-)

[@gerardmoloney9979]

@@PeacefulscienceOrg Genesis 1: 27/28 that's how I know.

[@PeacefulscienceOrg]

@@isaacharvey It really seems to be saying that Eve will BECOME the mother of all the living. And of course, she does. If Adam and Eve are real people in a real past, than we all descend from them. You can see more of the discussion about this here: discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/tgc-reviews-the-gae/9752/21?u=swamidass

[@johnpinckney7269]

Yes, Paul in Romans is speaking about the law of Moses. Look at the context, the law in the bible is torah law. (

[@frankclark5611]

Check out Dr. John Walton of Wheaton College. He is an ancient Hebrew text expositor with many good insights.

[@lelanicampher4813]

Love James Tour. This was somewhat disappointing. The crux of the gospel is that death was the consequence of sin. If death was there before Adam sinned, death is not defeated at the cross and will be our constant companion even after our final redemption.