The Science & Faith Podcast - James Tour & Ard Louis: Life, Origins, and Jesus Christ

[@gmjsimmons]

We have no right to hear such wonderful things from such wonderful men, but that our God wills it and shares you with us as part of your ministry through His grace. Thank you.

[@gmjsimmons]

@Earth Isn't Flat Well, it's not God, so what's your brain high on?

[@bibekacharya7060]

I am an Indian Christian. I was belong to a hindu bramhin family but now I am in Jesus. I feel so happy that I am in Jesus. These incredible Man with there doctarte choosen by lord Jesus himself. I am willing to do PhD in field of biology. May lord fulfil my desire. amen

[@sandiec6063]

Hallelujah God bless you Brother 🔥

[@ThomAnno]

Many thanks for your voice in this dead world, who ignore the current scientific data. Keep up the good work. These talks give us not only hope, it confirms that we are not alone (and not stupid ~ according to Richard Dawkins and his crew). Don't let them shut you up. Have a Blessed week ahead.

[@adamadams7314]

Brilliant interview, as expected. Thank you for taking the time out of your schedule to put this content out for us James, I appreciate your work.

[@SB-kc4qd]

Lord Christ bless you all. Dr. James ..I love the joy in your face as You guys talking about Jesus

[@moses777exodus]

_“People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature - the laws of physics - are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”_ -Physicist Paul Davies, the winner of the 2001 Kelvin Medal issued by the Institute of Physics and the winner of the 2002 Faraday Prize issued by the Royal Society (amongst other awards), as cited from his acceptance address of the 1995 Templeton Prize.

[@kleenex3000]

Laws are abstracts, iow do NOT exist. The law-text is categorically NOT law per se =as such (imaginary!) The law-text is categorically but an assertion !!!OF!!! a law (!!!OF!!! the imaginary)

[@gfujigo]

This is such an excellent point.

[@kleenex3000]

@@gfujigo Yes, namely If we replace "theological" by "brainological": Existence, law, logic, order, fine-tuning, information, Gods each is No-thing = imaginary = abstract made up FROM/ABOUT some-thing, assigned, ascribed, attributed TO some-thing. No-thing does not exist The assertion OF No-thing does exist. Kind regards from GERMANY

[@gfujigo]

@@kleenex3000 Thanks for you comments. So, to be clear, are you saying the laws or patterns of nature are not real? Thanks.

[@kleenex3000]

@@gfujigo Indeed. Any law, order, pattern, logic - being asserted FROM/ABOUT some-thing is per se = as such, it-self, on its own, in its own right, in its very essence... an abstract = thought = No-thing = imaginary-non-causal = epiphaenomenal - elicited, made up, fabricated FROM/ABOUT some-thing - ascribed, assigned, attributed TO some-thing.

Thanks again for this series of videos!

[@jasonp.6470]

Dr. Tour summed it up perfectly with his closing comment. God bless!

[@natemcguire5058]

Love your stuff brother. God bless you

[@InfinityBlue4321]

HE lives on us. Great revelation Dr Tour and Dr Louis: "Phenotype bias". Thank you so much!

[@rocko100able]

GOD ALMIGHTY HE spoke everything into existence, and for me that's all I need, I believe it, and doubt and unbelief has no place, but to be moldable correctable and teachable is also important, and that's why I'm here, I enjoy the CONVERSATIONS, I learned something every time, thanks again.

[@curiousgeorge555]

Great answer to the resurrection question

[@TheCarpentersDesk]

Loved Ard Louis' lecture at Veritas Forum, and wanted to see more of him. Thanks for bringing him on.

[@Dominick13777]

Great discussion.

[@steveneastep4250]

Can you say future Nobel Prize in Chemistry winner?

[@mzavros]

Can you say, "DERP"?

[@arulsammymankondar30]

@Internet User Without peasants raising crops ,there will be only famine and starvation. In my culture, peasants are treated with great respect.

[@krisjones4051]

@@arulsammymankondar30 lets not forget what happen in USSR & China

[@vernonchitlen8958]

@Internet User Why don’t you demonstrate abiogenesis, the natural origin of life? You guys believe something like the most, exquisitely, complex, integrated bio molecular 3D copy machine originated in a perfectly dead, inanimate, mindless primordial soup or whatever, dumb as the rock of Jesus’s tomb? By the chemical elements spontaneously, sifting themselves out of the 118 choices, totally unguided, undirected, by a serendipitous process of trial and error, assembling, arranging themselves into a cell including the directions, instructions for it’s continuing, maintenance, metabolism and division on DNA which has no metabolic function except for storing information. Bill Gates said DNA is a biological code that is far far more advanced than anything we have ever built. Read one scripture, it describes you very well: Romans 1:18-22

[@vernonchitlen8958]

@Internet User A Nobel peace isn’t anything near what it was. Obama received it, for what?

[@bettytigers]

The talk was very interesting. I wish both fellas well in dealing with the criticism that they will inevitably draw, by speaking on God's behalf in an educative and noble manner. Thanks for a fine effort.

[@jimfoard5671]

I'm very disappointed that James Tour is sitting there in slack-jawed admiration at what this man is spouting and gushing at his statements of evolutionary foo faw instead of rebutting his heresy. Many of these arguments are not new, they are simply being repackaged by Lewis. The evolutionist's definition of change over time involves an unproven assumption, that bacteria became metazoa that changed into fish that changed into amphibians that changed into reptiles that changed into mammals that turned into humans. This is an entire fantasy - no actual evidence has ever occurred to substantiate this claim. Darwin's theory of evolution is change over time only in the same manner that "The Lord of the Rings" is change over time: They both are works of fiction. Evolution glorifies destruction, extinction, selfish pride and the trampling of the weak under the ongoing progress of the strong, which has born bitter fruit in the 20th century, and if it continues to be our official academic Weltanschauung will produce a horrific future for mankind in the new century. Evolutionists try to masquerade their fiction as science, but there is nothing scientific about it at all. Thus we have to be extremely watchful, as our Lord said, "Wise as serpents and harmless as doves" on order to be on our guard against the duplicitous arguments of men who have set themselves against the truth, who have rebelled against the Word of God and seek to lead others astray in their rebellion. The book of Genesis is clear that God created all things "after their kind". If He did use evolution I do not think that early man would not have been able to understand this, after all, many primitive creation myths have a form of evolution tied in with them. God could have said in the Divine Record that fish became salamanders that became reptiles that became birds. He didn't though. God clearly said that he created specific kinds of living organisms, and to dispute this is to dispute what our Lord said, "If they believe not Moses' words, neither will they believe My words." (JMF)

[@FortBaker2011]

@@jimfoard5671 Thank you for posting this! This is superb. Darwinism has spawned unimaginable atrocities - I wonder if Darwin would be horrified.

[@victorthacker9374]

@@jimfoard5671 I just discovered that Dr. Tour, who I respect so much is outside of his calling by trying to be a moderator or host for someone spewing stuff that’s clearly against what he believes. I saw the same type of thing in his interview with Swamidass. To them the 7 day creation model that God is so jealous about seems to be just another philosophy. I will be interested to know what his core belief is since he rarely goes into scripture. Great scientist though.

[@jimfoard5671]

@@victorthacker9374 Bless you. Pray for me. I need God's mercy and help right now.

[@victorthacker9374]

@@jimfoard5671 I definitely will. He has been so merciful to me and I will be praying for the same for you. Thanks again for your encouraging insight.

[@rocko100able]

Absolutely I agree GOD created 🔭 science 🧪 things do definitely got to be defined and this was one interesting talk, and I was glad to be here, thanks to both of you.

[@mikekelly5784]

Dr Tour. Do you have an opinion on the lipid nanoparticle delivery method bing used in the mRNA vaccines? Is there a possibility of toxicity? How about the vaccines themselves, other than the delivery method? You seem intelligent and very reasonable, and would like your suggestions. Thank you.

[@r.c.l2569]

Great guest. Intriguing content. Ty good sir.

[@moses777exodus]

_“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”_ Max Plank (the Father of Quantum Physics) ... It is curious how Max Plank's conclusions were so revolutionary in the field of science / physics (i.e. the immaterial (non-material) reality of nature and "the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind" as the ultimate force behind the fabric of reality). Yet, when microbiologists. biologists, geneticists, biochemists, other scientists, etc. come to the same conclusion (i.e. Intelligence/consciousness/mind is an integral and fundamental force behind the initial introduction and subsequent propagation of biological systems), they are rebuffed as being "unscientific". Matter cannot exist without physical laws and constants first existing. Physical laws and constants cannot exist without mind / consciousness / intelligence first existing. Mind / consciousness / intelligence is Prime. Mind Exists Before Matter.

[@marsha-madness-super-badness]

Always an informative comment from you 👍

[@kleenex3000]

Forces are exerted by two or more particles / objects to another. Forces are not causal agencies. Particles / objects are.

[@rocko100able]

10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

[@moses777exodus]

Information doesn't create the cosmos. Information waves are the fabric of the cosmos. And, as demonstrated with the famous double slit experiment, a conscious observer converts those information waves of potentiality / probability into "particle", "matter", or "cosmos". The Prime Observer creates the Cosmos.

[@kleenex3000]

The DS experiment does not.

[@thinkpositive550]

I grew up in a community of many Jewish people, going to school with them from an early age. To this day, I don't know if I am Jewish. How can I know?

[@BOBBY-73]

Ard's explanation of "SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST" was wrong. Why didn't James pull him up on that?

[@jarrodneal1917]

I’m unpersuaded that random mutation and natural selection is sufficient to explain the history of life. One would expect a continuous stochastic process to produce a continuously unstable fossil record, not punctuated equilibria. “Just so” stories, like Cetaceans arising from/through Pakicetus, could be replicated using the skeletons of a polar bear, walrus, and right whale, were DNA not available to counter it. DNA similarities between species as direct evidence of relatedness, depends on the assumption that certain shared sequences have no underlying morphological or physiological functionality that would account for the similarities. This last case may turn out to be persuasive, but our understanding, even after ENCODE, is still quite rudimentary.

[@obiecanobie919]

All roads will eventually lead to Rome , science is not a good ground to investigate God as mind will always navigate towards pleasurable, and always end up with unpredictable results.The clues are more than sufficient as they are ,more of them will not change a bit .

[@tonyabrown7796]

Have you ever seen the channel Standing For Truth? They debate those kinds of subjects.

[@samuellowekey9271]

Yes. Water, oxygen, glucose, chlorophyll, gravity, temperature. All life has the same needs, and experiences the same forces. So why should we be suprised that life shares many of the same cell functions and anatomy structures.

[@moses777exodus]

*_“It may seem bizarre, but in my opinion science offers a surer path to God than religion.”_* -Physicist Paul Davies, the winner of the 2001 Kelvin Medal issued by the Institute of Physics and the winner of the 2002 Faraday Prize issued by the Royal Society (amongst other awards), as cited in his book God and the New Physics.

[@jimfoard5671]

We don't need to have our faith re-explained to us and the Divine Record re-explained to us by the latest so-called current, popular fads advocated by scientific researchers who consider themselves wiser than the prophet Moses and our Lord, who said, "If they believe not Moses's words neither will they believe My words". God could have clearly said that fish became amphibians that turned into reptiles that turned into mammals that turned into men. Many early creation myths have a type of ascended hierarchy with "just so" tales taking place. Early man could have understood this. But God did not say that. He clearly said "After their kind." God did not use evolution, this is a faux straw man argument. For James Tour to enthusiastically embrace this man's heresy like a clapping seal without rebutting it is disgraceful.

[@robertmccarthy1256]

Dr.Tour, is there graphene oxide in the COVID-19 vaccine jabs?

[@gfujigo]

Amen! This was awesome! Praise God!

[@SnakePlissken1]

See you have each scientist doing there own thing, don’t you need someone to see all of it? That’s what I’m going for! God Bless

[@tonyabrown7796]

Standing For Truth youtube channel has lots on the macro/micro evolution subject.

[@augustobuczek2816]

👏👏👏

[@moses777exodus]

A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." (*The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80.) The probability of a functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by undirected random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that undirected random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.) Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/ 10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness. A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what many of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a purely arbitrary, subjective, materialistic ideology. Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic subjective ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by discoveries in Quantum Physics.

[@csmoviles]

🙏💖🙏💖🙏

[@moses777exodus]

Romans 1:20 _For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:_

[@victoriardh]

I’ve heard it said that the account of Noah’s flood is implausible due to water temperature. With the, “Fountains of the deep” opening, and the crust of the Earth cracking, it would create such heat that would cause impossibility for biological material to have survived? Does anyone have material that debunks hypothesis?

[@tonyabrown7796]

The you tube channel Standing For Truth has geologists come on and talk about this issue.

[@jannaswanson271]

Have you considered that Biblical Cosmology says we live under a firmament, on a relatively flat surface and that the Earth does not move? Man says that God is wrong. Is man right or is God right?

[@FREDAFMK]

we have common ancestry with all creation. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth

[@FREDAFMK]

@@derhafi Hey Rob, man of God. with His Word. no magic here. God is self excitant. Uncreated Creator. You are made in His image. No He in your image. He loves you man of God.

[@daddada2984]

Micro evolution is acceptable to Christianity.... Its adaptation.. its biblical... Macro? Nope. Wolf like to whale? Nope.

[@ezekielnow425]

@@derhafi where does anyone find the specific mutations that change one kind into another. Where are those transitional species with all the proof in their genetics? Where are all the beneficial mutations? When mutation are passed from one generation to another, they are said to have a negative impact on the organism. Can you show where an organism benefited from a mutation and that mutation didn't have a negative impact on the organism?

[@ezekielnow425]

@@derhafi you think mutations add information which leads to evolution? That is a joke in which you have been brainwashed. Please go into where you can modify and edit the programming of your phone or computer. Then randomly make changes. Just change 1 character on each line and do that to a few lines. Then go run the program or programs and see if it runs having new funtions or watch it crash. Chances it will crash. I bet you do that it will always crash. DNA is information that comes from an intelligent source, a mind. You guys think information just appears out of nowhere. If an organism needed vision to survive or another needs the ability of flight to survive, those organisms would have to survived millions of years while waiting. That has to be the most stupid way of thinking. The way you think, some humans will one day grow wings and fly if they lived in high places and jumped down and flap their arms. Because that thing without intelligence will begin to cause mutations to all those who do not die from the impact of those falls.

[@freddan6fly]

@@ezekielnow425 Mutation add information. The most common mutation is duplication. All mammals can see blue and green. We humans that are mammals, can also see red.

[@ezekielnow425]

@@freddan6fly duplication isn't new information. It's a copy of the information already there.

[@freddan6fly]

@@ezekielnow425 Moving the goal post. "you think mutations add information" - I have shown that mutation both add information with duplication, and also add what you stupid enough call complexity.

[@the_lomax]

So Mr Tour if you are so right about you refutation of all the science behind origin of life theory where's your peer reviewed paper on the issue?

[@freddan6fly]

Well he is not right, so there is of course no peer reviewed paper. This a video to comfort his sycophant and keep them in line.

[@mwils51]

Silly question. It is right there with all the peer reviewed papers of scientists you are following that conclude there is no God.

[@freddan6fly]

@@mwils51 "scientists you are following that conclude there is no God." - you have obviously never read a scientific paper. Science is about reality not the alleged supernatural or gods. The problem is that a lot of religious uneducated zealots try to disprove science from ignorance. Like it is a very popular believe especially in USA that you can disregard biology because it is against the bible. Then they argue for something that can be disproven by science. Like YEC is disproven by at least a dozen different disciplines of science.

[@mwils51]

@@freddan6fly Please do show me within the peer review your science papers that refutes Dr Tour's claims. You seem to think he doesn't know science when in fact he has authored more peer reviewed science papers in more respected journals than ANY scientist you follow.

[@the_lomax]

@@mwils51 Right he has a lot of papers published. And he's the head of many companies he set up... I tend to go for Quality over quantity. Heres the thing Mike, if Mr Tour is so right about his debunking of the science in all of these papers to do with abiogenesis, where is his peer reviewed paper on all the issues he brings up that he says the papers are wrong about.. So for example wheres his peer reviewed paper on say there is no selection being done on a prebiotic earth. He has made some quite big claims in his speeches for Discovery Institute and In his youtube videos.. I would challenge Mr Tour to present his arguments that he has made in these videos at any bio chemistry symposium. Or maybe present his argument at the royal society of chemistry.

[@evasanders7327]

You once said you would buy lunch for anyone that can explain evolution.... Well dr tour come and buy me lunch.... We have somethings to talk about......

[@wesleycolemanmusic]

What was the episode he was in?

[@jbalish102]

I kept trying to see if James is trolling this fella.

[@rocko100able]

1st Timothy-6:20👉 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

[@FREDAFMK]

tell the children to look into the mirror because we have been made in His image. God should look like what you look like

[@claudiaperfetti7694]

I'm glad about this interview believing in Christ. Havn't finished this interview yet, and I hope he does tell us when he became a Christian. I don't like his attitude about what God said about creation. What he says is theistic evolution, is only adaptation, a virtual mutation is evolution? Why didn't you push back on that. That part of the conversation is ridiculous.

[@johnknight3529]

I also don't like his attitude about how the universe came to be . . The notion of a "singularity" (and then a "Big Bang") having ever existed, comes from the belief that one can simply "reverse" the apparent spreading out of things in the universe, till it was all in/at one single point, IS itself an atheistic approach. IF there is a creator God (as in an actual hyper powerful/intelligent GOD ; ) there is no logical reason to assume the expansion of the universe indicates it was once ultra tiny. It could have been Created smaller, even just slightly smaller, than it is now, in an expanding state. No one has gone back in time to check (except in their imaginations ; )

[@WizzRacing]

@@johnknight3529 They have better tools today. As they can calculate down to 1/1,000,000,000,000 Billionth of a second..That the Universe come into existence. So close enough for me... And I'm not even religious. But I'm not stupid. So what if an Outside Agency, God, Creator exist. It doesn't change anything..The real issue for people is the resurrection. And that scares people. As if it's true. Then they stand accountable for their actions. Why the New Atheist have resorted to hijacking Science. They use it to practice being Bigots. I will even tell you this.. The reason the Neo Darwinist switched to, Theistic Evolutionist. They been cornered. So they had to come up with a new name. As we got better microscopes today. And it is beating Neo Darwinism in the dirt. Why we teach Mendelian Genetics in every school on the Planet. We don't teach Darwinism. We never have. As they give Darwin maybe two pages in Biology Books..

[@johnknight3529]

@@WizzRacing ~ Just curious; How do you think they can measure when the universe came into being? I searched the word "evolution" and here are a few first definitions given; : the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. :Evolution is the process by which the physical characteristics of types of creatures change over time, new types of creatures develop, and others disappear. : Evolution definition is - descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms. Mendel tested variations based on already present genetic coding. It had nothing to do with new coding coming into existence. Macro evolution (such as those first definitions refer to) demands new genetic coding come into existence (since there would be zero genetic coding present on a sterile planet, and now there are a great many functional "codons" on the planet, which is to say distinct genetic sequences that code for the production of specific molecules various living creatures require to form and live).

[@WizzRacing]

@@johnknight3529 No such thing as New Coding.. As the Cell Nucleus is a Top down only Solution..Not bottom up...Why I loathe people that revert to this dribble.. Fact is. You have to show first the Universe has the traits to convert non organic material found in it. To living organic Matter. What was the Mechanism that allows it? What forces in nature allowed it. As you only have the four fundamental ones known to cause anything to happen or move..Not one sane person knows the answer either. Their not even close to one.. So the proper premise is. Why is it not Observable. Repeatable, Testable. As the physics that govern our Universe have not changed in 14+ Billion it has existed. And if one person brings up Time, Chance. Random. I will laugh in their face so hard. As they are not Physical Forces found in nature. As the Affect can never be greater the Cause. That is Science 101... And you people violate that basic Axiom everyday... And just to correct your Evolution as Defined by who knows. "Evolution definition is - descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms" The first part is "Mendelian Genetics" Plain as day. "descent with modification from preexisting species" You left out the part "Within the Same Species" Dogs from Wolves. etc...No Humans from Apes horse shit. As that myth is dead.. The second part, "Cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms" is horse shit. As you just used the word "Time" on me.... So tell me. What force does "Time" have on any Object? I will wait. As it's just code for Magic Pixie Dust did it.. And the next Short Bus Rider that tries that. They better not say it in person. As the next sound you hear. Will be me laughing...As genetic information doesn't just appear. Hell it's in three Dimensional form. Using both Analog and Digital... Something Humans can't even do yet. The closest thing we created is CNC machines. As the Cell Nucleus makes humans look like we just discovered fire.. Good Luck.. As I said. I'm not religious. But I'm sure as hell not stupid..

[@johnknight3529]

@@WizzRacing ~ I effectively agree with your position on new coding coming into existence by happenstance . . but I don't understand how you can think this; "...the New Atheist have resorted to hijacking Science.", and also assume that the age of the universe is known to be 14.x years, in some infallible (and unbiased) sense. I mean, I get that a certain line of reasoning based on certain evidence can lead to a calculation, but again, that calculation is based on the assumption that the universe began as a "singularity". If a God Created it, there is no logical reason to assume it began as a singularity.

[@moses777exodus]

Regarding the timeline of creation stated in Genesis 1 of the Bible, many people think that creation occurred within a 7 "earth-day" period. However, if one reads the actual text of the Bible carefully, it is very clear that the “days” mentioned in Genesis 1 are not referring to the assumed 24-hour earth- days with which we are all accustomed. Because, what is a “day” on earth? Isn’t a "earth-day” the single revolution of the earth around its axis? (By the way, science has shown that the rotation of the earth has not been constant over earth's history. Additionally, every celestial body has a different length for its "day".) According to the Bible, the Earth was not "formed" until the 3rd day of creation. Prior to the 3rd day of creation, the earth was "without form and void". So, how could an "unformed" earth have rotated about its non-existent axis during the first two days of creation to provide a measure of time? Clearly, Universal Consciousness was using a different measure of time for a “day” during the “seven days of creation”. In other words, Universal Consciousness was not using an “earth-day” as a unit measure of time during creation. To think that Universal Consciousness would use an "earth-based time clock" to measure the creation of the universe is akin to the out-dated geocentric belief that the universe revolves around the earth. Even though Universal Consciousness is everywhere at all times, Universal Consciousness did not have to be "on" earth [Obviously, since the earth had not even been formed until the third "day" of creation.] and therefore not limited by an earthly time frame, when He created the heavens and the earth. (By the way, when was the clock invented? When was the unit measure of time for a second, a minute, an hour, a 24-hour day established? These are all relatively new innovations. So, how could they have measured time at the moment of creation.) Universal Consciousness is beyond heaven, earth ... and time.

[@jasonp.6470]

2 Peter 3:8 “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” I think God is working on a eternal clock, unimaginable to us, his creation. Maybe he should have just said, “it took me a really long time to do all this stuff. And then I took a break for a while.”

[@hwd7]

Oxford Hebrew scholar, Professor James Barr, on the meaning of Genesis ‘… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: A) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience B) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story C) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.’

[@MrWholphin]

These arguments have been refuted many times. You should have at least got the number of creation days right.

[@kleenex3000]

@@jasonp.6470 The assertion of your Abrahamic god (=your idol) evolved (changed over generations) FROM the assertions of Canaanite Polytheism.

[@joshtheflatearthjedi222]

The earth is flat and stationary just like the bible says. You are trying to blend the satanic heliocentric model with gods model of creation and they are two different things.

[@hadjmuhamad]

Honorable Dr. James, I invite you and all the gentlemen who follow the research and investigation of the religion of Islam and the belief of Muslims in Jesus, the son of the Virgin Mary Thank you

[@youlkas]

Yes, please instruct us in the mystery of how the sun sets in a muddy pool and asks Allah to rise each day

[@moses777exodus]

The concept of "Nothing" represented by the number "0" (zero) did not exist in the beginning. The number "0" (zero) is a relatively recent human innovation in mathematics. But, there has always been "1" (one). The fact that one (1) exists and can generate the position/concept of "nothing" (0) shows that there first exists one (1). Thus, nothing (0) does not truly exist alone: One (1) must first exist that can generate the position/concept of nothing (0). Mathematically, Absolute nothing "could be" expressed as 0 to the power of 0, which can equal 1. "Nothing" IS "Something"; because, it comes from "Something". Moreover, since Nothing (perceived) is not Nothing (actual), then it is possible for Something to come from Nothing (actual). Because, Something (1) is inherently pre-existing within Nothing (actual), hence, 0 to the power of 0 can equal 1. Simply put, Something (1) exists before Nothing (0) can exist.

[@WizzRacing]

Yep.... Problem is the Number 0 was discovered over 5000 years ago...And they understood that the number 0 was not what you just posted. It's used to show Infinite..Called the Laws of Zero.. The concept of zero and that of infinity are linked, but, obviously, zero is not infinity. Rather, if we have N / Z, with any positive N, the quotient grows without limit as Z approaches 0. Hence we readily say that N / 0 is infinite. Just to add. The Laws of Zero do not exist in Higher Dimensions..

[@ByGraceThroughFaith777]

How does Adam and Eve fit into the evolution story? And I don't mean to be rude but christians who bilieve we evolved from primates need some explaining to do regarding what they think the book of Genesis really speaks of, including the spoken words of God himself. Sounds to me a lot like wanting to have the cake and eat it too. If we are to take the Bible as the true word of God, why would God hide such an important aspect of our creation like evolution and natural selection. Instead He tells us that He created Adam and Eve, not that they evolved from a monkey. I personally can't stand behind evolution of species, becase God is telling us He spoke the animal kingdom into existence, not through a gradual progress of mutations until we got to Adam, who would have not been alone in the garden as the Bible tells us, for example.

[@j0cr0z]

hey James Tour, how much the Doctor title cost. you obviously bought yours. Professor James Explains.. cuts down all points you “tried” to make. very sad that people listen to you.

[@freddan6fly]

Professor -James- *Dave* Explains.

[@ezekielnow425]

Where is the intellectual mind in random mutation and natural selection? Are they Gods like mother nature who controls the weather? Btw, random mutation and natural selection, is that 1 god or 2 gods?

[@freddan6fly]

Well James denies the field of biology. Thus he don't have to bicker on how many gods it result in.

[@Rochesterhome]

How can anyone call themselves a Christian and speak out loud we have common ancestry with apes. Didn't Louis read the Bible?

[@johnknight3529]

I find it hard to take Dr. Louis very seriously, owing in part to the utter lack of any mention of the possibility that science can be corrupted. The question about micro vs macro evolution seems a like good example. One is essentially a reshuffling and dealing of the genetic deck, one might say, a given form of living thing contains. The other necessarily involves the coming into existence of brand new cards, so to speak. Lot's and lots of new cards. He acted like that is a trivial difference . . (and reminded me of certain prefessor Dr. Tour has been dealing with of late, in his almost robotic attitude about this ; )

[@johnknight3529]

@UCI9d7Lb4oszda0FH3meFDkA ~ A good example is the word evolution itself, I feel. The word just means gradual change, but it is almost "religiously" used by people with degrees in Evolutionary this and that, to mean vastly more than just gradual change. The other day I heard an Evolutionist say (paraphrasing) that since we can see that our children are not exactly like us, it is irrational to reject Evolution (clearly implying the Grand Origin Story kind), and that this rejection demonstrates the irrationality of "Religion" and religious people. (Neglecting to mention that none of our children have gills or feathers ; )

[@tonyabrown7796]

Have you seen the channel Standing For Truth?

[@johnknight3529]

@@tonyabrown7796 - Yes, I've watched several of their videos, including some debates. Good stuff.

[@SnakePlissken1]

Expert scientists say the Higgs Particle appears to be fine tuned to 246 in mass. They are struck by how or they should ask who fine tuned it!

[@freddan6fly]

Nope.

[@ymiladi100]

Dr Tour I'm a Muslim. We all believe in Jesus as a messenger of God and if someone say I don't believe in Jesus he is not a Muslim anymore. And we love all prophets as well as we adore our prophet, Muhammad. We believe in the bible. Here are some verses about it in the Quran: 3: 2-6 Allah: There is no god but He, the Alive, the All-Sustaining. He has revealed to you the Book with the truth, confirming what has been before it, and has sent down the Laws (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) earlier to give guidance to mankind, and has sent down the distinction (between right and wrong). Surely, those who have rejected the verses of Allah, for them there is severe punishment. Allah is Mighty, the Lord of Retribution. Surely, Allah is such that nothing is hidden from Him, neither in the earth nor in the sky. He is the One Who shapes you in the wombs as He likes. There is no god but He, the Mighty, the Wise. You have found God through the holy scriptures and true science. If you read the Quran you will see many similarities between the bible and the quran and many scientific facts have been mentioned in Quran. I'm sure that you will understand that it is the truth. you can't reject it. in each verse it's really clear that these words are God's words, no one else. I just suggest you to read the quran and If you have read it before, read it again and again. Don't trust on what the media says about Islam they're telling the lie. Quran is a great guidance and mercy from God for humankind. it heal our soul and give us wisdom as God said about it: 17: 82 We send down the Quran as healing and mercy to those who believe; and it adds nothing to the unjust but loss. 11: 120 We narrate to you all such stories from the events of the messengers as We strengthen your heart therewith. And in these (stories) there has come to you the truth, a good counsel and a reminder to those who believe. 42: 52,53 So We have revealed a spirit (the Quran) to you [Prophet] by Our command: you knew neither the Scripture nor the faith, but We made it (the Quran) a light, guiding with it whoever We will of Our servants. You give guidance to the straight path, the path of God, to whom belongs all that is in the heavens and earth: truly everything will return to God. We don't believe that Juses was son of God. Because it's impossible. God is one. How can he have a son while he doesn't have a wife?! He doesn't need them. he just creates everything that he wants. "He begot no one nor was He begotten. No one is comparable to him " In Quran there are many verses about Jesus such as: 3: 45,46 The angels said, ‘Mary, God gives you news of a Word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, who will be held in honour in this world and the next, who will be one of those brought near to God. He will speak to people in his infancyand in his adulthood. He will be one of the righteous.’

[@yassine3262]

religion 🤢

[@Noy777]

Jesus is God

[@ymiladi100]

How can you say that? while every creature is a witness that God is one.

[@Noy777]

@@ymiladi100 yes God is one. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are together one God

[@ymiladi100]

So how Juses Christ can be same with his father while in Gasples he speak to his father? If they were one being, how he would talk to himself and call himself as son of himself!? Why Juses never said I'm your God worship me? But he said my "Father is greater than I." and : " for it is written, "Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him." It means that Juses worshiped God. How someone can worship himself? This word of Juses is in the Quran: And [also] on that Day God will state: "O, Jesus, son of Mary! Did you say To people take me and my mother for two gods apart from God?" He will say: "You Are Pure and Exalted from having Partners! It is not for me to say what Is not right. If I had said it You would have known it, since You Know what is in my soul, but I do not Know what is in You. You are The Absolute Knower of the hidden Secrets." (116)I only said to them what You commanded me to say, that you shall serve God my Lord and your Lord; and I was witness over them as long as I was with them, but when You took me up, You were watcher over them. You are witness over all things." (117) 5 :116,117 They are one in their path not in being. I just recommend you to read the Quran and search for the right path of God and his messenger Juses

[@christurnbull2726]

Ard's depiction of theistic evolution is inaccurate and therefore his claim that we Christians are all theistic evolutionists is misguided. Microevolution is accepted by all folks these days (as it's self-evident), regardless of their faith position. Macroevolution entailing transformation of kinds and common ancestry is a radically different proposition that lacks a credible mechanism and is contradictory to many lines of evidence. Theistic evolution has many nuanced versions but all are inherently misguided. Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique, Moreland et al provides a very comprehensive critique of this subject.

[@FortBaker2011]

Thank you for posting this!

[@psalm1197]

@@jimfoard5671 I agree with you. I can only see Dr Tour’s response to this heresy as cowardice and a lack of committed devotion to the Sovereignty of God. It follows then that he cannot believe the miracle of Jesus turning water into wine as that miracle follows the exact same principle as the miracle of God creating the world in 6 days (ie God doesn’t need Time to create anything).

[@jimfoard5671]

@@psalm1197 Amen. Praise God. Praise the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Praise the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Praise the Lord who parted the Red Sea. Praise the God who answered Moses out of the burning bush. Praise the Lord who created the stars, the Sun and the Moon, the earth and everything in it. Praise the King of the Universe who gives us bread from the earth. Is anything too hard for Him? Praise Him who gave us air to breath, water and sunlight to sustain us, Who breathed upon the depths of the deep with His Holy Spirit and said, "Let there be light", and there was light! He who created Adam from the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. Bless God, bless His Name forevermore! To Him be glory and honor and power forever and ever! Amen and amen!

[@psalm1197]

@@jimfoard5671 this has brought tears to my eyes. So rare to find another who lives in such awe and reverence of our perfect and Holy Creator whose Word is Truth. I look forward to meeting you in Glory with our Saviour.

[@tonyplumtree7747]

@@psalm1197 Let's not get too carried away, this was an interview not a debate. Dr. Tour has done a tremendous job bringing skeptics to faith including myself with his ability to explain the chemistry behind even the most basic cells, and the mathematical odds against life appearing on its own. He let a highly regarded professor speak his mind. Not a big deal, and there's definitely no need for pitchforks and bonfires.

[@generationalstewardship]

I'd like to ask, "When did sin and death enter the world - before or after Adam?"

[@MountainFisher]

Sin entered after Adam, but death was before. Animals died and Adam saw that.

[@generationalstewardship]

@@MountainFisher That must be because animals are such sinners. And, their sin brought about their deaths.

[@MountainFisher]

@@generationalstewardship No, because they were never made to be eternal. Nowhere does the Bible say ANIMAL death.

[@generationalstewardship]

@@MountainFisher What! There are no animals in heaven. That's a real downer. I like my dog more than most people.

[@MountainFisher]

@@generationalstewardship Dude if you ain't gonna be happy in Heaven without your dog then your dog will be there.

[@augustobuczek2816]

Yeshua is his name

[@dowmanvarn7160]

What I gather from the interview is this: Advances in science threaten my religious views, so those advances in science must be wrong. This is a dangerous path to take, and really quite unbecoming of a scientist. And it's sad. Certainly there is room to criticize and question in any field of science, but the motivations here seem to be perceived threats to the interlocutors' religious views rather than genuine scientific debate or intellectual curiosity.

[@InfinityBlue4321]

You just twisted the arguments on the interview to suit your faith or dislike for the religious world. What we saw here was in fact the pursuit of knowing through science how the Transcendence (this 2 great scientists are believers) did it. Probably you were not content with the concept of "Phenotype Bias", were you? So instead of acknowledging this fact you spited on the issue and in all the people that is challenging the mainstream materialist scientism world lost with its flawed pseudo philosophical mumbo jumbo. You probably havent even realized yet that our essence is immaterial, From DNA code to the human Mind. That's to say Information!

[@InfinityBlue4321]

@@derhafi I'm used to that kind of ignorance from the deluded materialist scientism faith people. I came here just to give you a taste of your limitations. Other thing that you dont even realise is that the matter is just the substrate/medium where the information (immaterial) processes and flows. Like in the hardware of a computer where the software, the immaterial dimension flows ( this analogy is not perfect). So... for the audience and not for you Rob, obviously ( it seems you cant follow complex explanations) remember why the UNESCO defined the immaterial patrimony of humanity? Now for you Rob, imagine a cooking recipe written in a sheet of paper, the paper is the support of the information but just minds(immaterial dimension) can know and act with the recipe (immaterial dimension). The sheet of paper doesnt care about what it carries (the recipe). This is just basic evidence from the facts. (At this stage God is laughing...)

[@InfinityBlue4321]

@@derhafi Other thing that you missed, and that is the most important scientific revelation in this talk is the "arrival of the fittest" and not the "survival of the fittest". Sooo....give it another try to see if you can grab all the concepts laid down. Obviously anyone working acrross the domains of Biology, chemistry, Math and physics with a sound reasoning knows that the Darwin Mechanism for evolution is a joke. No unguided evolution could arrive at what we see. Thats to say, that Evolution was and is a guided process. It just happens that we dont understand yet how it works. Is it a natural Law and thus its in the fabric of our dimension from the begining? What about the origin of life? Nobody has a clue.

[@InfinityBlue4321]

​ @@derhafi Sorry pal but I stopped reading what you wrote when I realized that you don't even understand what states in code (software) are (the basics). Moving electrons only guarantee those 0s or 1s states in a stream of binary digital coded information. The computer and all the matter involved in the hardware are only the support for information (immaterial) to process and flow. They couldndt care less for what they are doing. Similarly, the brain is only the support for all the memory, cognitive and rational capabilities of the mind acquired through learning from babyhood. So you simply cant understand ( or pretend not) what i'm saying. You are light years away of grasping what I'm talking about. But I gave you some good tips for starting your study. Good luck.

[@InfinityBlue4321]

@@derhafi Your presumption grunt here, tells all about your twisted (ill) state of mind, an example of the mainstream. I can only wish you the best and a fast recovery. The Universities I went on were fortunetly real houses of knowledge, not delusional post modernist, reducionist and pseudo progressist churches. Even my old but wise 80 years uncle, a former prof and materialist, after my 3 tries on explaining the material-immaterial thing, understood finally that our essence is immaterial ( information)... From DNA that builds our BODY_BRAIN to our " rational data processing mind". Sometimes it (the rational mind) gets blurred by the chemistry driven basic routines called instintcs or emotions (linked to the material survivability) . But even these routines were buit and are controled by DNA, ( if the considered agent doenst drift and get stuck to addictions like drugs or false beliefs :) ) To understand that, It would help if you had learned, as I did (in a prestigious University), computer science one of my core qualifications. Good luck. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rGOkdGdnmcyfpK8

[@bbiermanster]

Evolution is too vague to be so loaded. I know change happens, but it has nothing to do with origins. Random mutation explains things like diabetes. Mendelian genetics does more to explain variance within family , or genus; for instance the many breeds of dog, but the traits are built in. With morphology Darwinists have made "species" a hopelessly vague term that would divide dog from wolf, and neanderthal from human, when we know both pairs are demonstrated to mate and have fertile offspring, which is what most would call the definition of species.

[@freddan6fly]

or "I don't understand science therefore god". If you want to learn evolution you should study biology.

[@bbiermanster]

@@freddan6fly Everybody understands Evolution, and most get it in elementary school. What do you find so convincing about it?

[@Kawitamamayi]

Old vs new Earth? The Earth looks old. The Creator either created a new appearing Earth a long time ago or an old appearing earth either recently or long ago neither possibility negates the Creation of the Creator.

[@tonyabrown7796]

It looks young to me.

[@benrex7775]

I appreciate defining the words of theistic evolution and such. Defining of word is very important for conversations. But the definitions he uses don't align with a lot of people and it doesn't clear up things that much. Here's my take which is hopefully more align with the YEC crowd at least: - The theory of evolution once claimed that every living being comes from a single organism and got where it is through natural selection. Because of recent discoveries with proteins within the cell they took a step back and some of them claim now that every living being comes from a few different organisms at the beginning. - Micro Evolution is the thing we are capable of observing. Wolf to dogs and stuff like that. Micro evolution theoretically works even without any information gain from mutations. The DNA is very flexible and a body can carry the information for several traits at the same time _(different hair color is a more known one, but it works with a lot of different things as well)._ - Macro Evolution is basically an extrapolation of the micro evolution. Basically it tries to follow back the changes all the way to the first cell. Here the information gain through at least some means is necessary. Since we haven't discovered a mechanism for information gain, people assume it's though the random mutations and the selection of anything positive while the harmful stuff is selected against. And one of the main tools of the evolution theory are the phylogenetic trees. They compare different traits of different animals and sort them into how much they are related. - His definition of Evolutionism is probably correct. I can't really tell anything about it. - Young Earth Creationists often use the word positive and negative mutation while the others don't make that distinction. Because of that I probably have to clarify that as well. When we look at the first speculated cell and some random creature which lives today then we can clearly say that an organism of today is more complex than the first cell. After all that's the point of the theory of evolution. So even if we don't want to give something a value by calling it a positive mutation, viewing it in large scale there should still be mutations which increase complexity and others which decrease complexity. For example if all read-heads die out then that is a loss of complexity or a loss of information. And if a cave fish turns blind that is also a loss of complexity. But if a creature develops a new organ then it is a gain in complexity. So far almost all things we observed to have a local positive change does that by a loss of complexity. If you don't have a wing anymore you can't be blown away from an island by the wind. That's a local positive but at a loss of wings. Just like it is not likely to make a random change of letters in a manual and get a better description of how to build my Ikea chair out of it, the number of "positive" mutations are vastly outnumbered by the negative or almost neutral ones. In case of the manual a negative would be one which twists the meaning ("use screw 1" instead of "use screw 2") and an almost neutral one would be something which is still readable but not correct anymore ("vse screw 2" instead of "use screw 2"). And I agree that macro evolution still works if there are times where there is more loss of function than gain of functions. But it can't work if that applies to all times. Young earth Creationists speculate that since all observed mutations are loss of complexity or dilution of information then macro evolution can't work. Evolutionists speculate that there is a mechanism out there which is capable of increasing complexity, we just haven't found it yet. Here are the most basic and simplified Christian views in a random order. -The young earth creationists believe that god perfectly created the earth 6000+ years ago. And since the fall of humans the genome is deteriorating. There are few to none mutations which actually add complexity to the genome of all the around a 100 mutations which occur per generation. Apparently scientists in the field of medicine are worried that our genome is deteriorating. And YEC predict that this is the case for all organisms. They believe in kinds, which is around the family level. The theory behind that is called baramonology _(baram is the Hebrew word for kind if I'm not mistaken)._ - Theistic evolution think that the earth is old and all or most mechanisms proposed by the secular world are accepted. But the reasoning behind it is thought to be god instead of pure chance. But I think what I wrote in the Macro Evolution should apply here as well. - The old earth creationists believe in an old earth but they think that for what we observe in nature there need to be special creation event _(two examples are the first creation of live and the cambrian explosion)._ But this is the most diverse view over all. Some people believe the earth and space is old but live is young, some believe everything is old, but then there was a huge extinction event around 6000 years ago and god recreated everything again and so on. I hope I didn't misrepresent any view too much.

[@georgebond7777]

Sorry but I just can't accept God would use a process of death, deformities, disease etc as the process to go from bacteria to physicist. That's a cruel God and not someone I would worship. Not my God Mr Louis.

[@barthutto5869]

I'm somewhat curious: Where does your concept of good and evil originate, and does it have a sound basis? I ask this because I have encountered many who claim that saying "God is cruel" requires one to compare the "cruelty" (or evil) to an objective good or some objective moral standard, and, without God, there is nothing on which to base a proper belief in what is good. In other words, saying something is cruel assumes an objective moral standard exists, so one (whether the accept it or not) actually holds a belief in God in order to believe that something is cruelty or evil. I have not been able to argue around this point and stay within reason. I think your statement "I just can't accept God would use a process of death, deformities, disease etc as the process to go from bacteria to physicist" might need to remain open to something beyond death. If death is not all there is, and God provides something better on the other side, then those things shouldn't really be a problem.

[@georgebond7777]

@@barthutto5869 its in the Bible " ... and God said it was VERY GOOD". Do you think God would say death, desease, deformities etc was VERY GOOD? Give us a break.

[@lorrainehuff2703]

@@georgebond7777 Christians believe that whilst the universe shows the hand of God in the design, it also bears the marks of Satan, but their hope is in the promise 'For God was pleased to have all his fulness dwell in him (Jesus) and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross - that the earth will be restored to its initial perfection.

[@MrWholphin]

This is the fundamental gospel problem for any death (and disease) before sin view of creation. It makes Christ’s sacrifice and victory over death a solution to a problem that God created, and moreover, called ‘very good’. This disturbing conception of God hasn’t gone un-missed by Atheists. Biologos and their ilk are basically pushing another gospel

[@barthutto5869]

@@georgebond7777 You cannot define "good" without an objective moral standard. Where does that standard come from? And why are death and deformities bad? This assumes there is nothing beyond. Two unanswered questions upon which to reflect.

[@jimfoard5671]

At 1:02:10 Ard Louis calls Young Earth Creationism a "dangerous thing". This is sort of over the top. I have had great respect for Dr. Tour, but unfortunately he is giving this man a platform to propound his heresy and is not rebutting it at all. Imagine the reaction if I called Old Earth Creationism "a dangerous thing".

[@ROCKlMO]

He said that it's dangerous to say that our faith stands or falls on the age of the earth, not that Young Earth Creationism is dangerous.

[@jimfoard5671]

@@ROCKlMO I have a passion for the truth, and that is why I rebutted what he said, and that is why I am compelled to rebut what you said. You are a liar ROCKIMO. You gave a partial quote to enforce your argument. The entire quote is "If Christians say our faith stands or falls on a particular scientific interpretation of the world, like say that the world is very young, I think that's a dangerous thing because this young person who goes to university takes a geology course and thinks the evidence is quote good the world is old that they may not only drop their belief in a young earth, they may actually drop their belief in the resurrection as well since the same person told them both things. " This is exactly what has happened. Sadly. Notice that he did not mention that old earth creationism was dangerous, he singled out a specific view, young earth creationism and in context attacked that world view as dangerous. Many of these geology professors are themselves secularists and unbelievers. There are so many arguments against old earth creationism, such as death before sin, and if death came before Adam's sin then the scripture that says, "For if by one man death came by sin, then through one Man, Jesus, comes the resurrection of life; For in Adam all die, but in Christ shall all men be made alive," would have less meaning. There are so many other scientific arguments against old earth creationism, such as the fact that the great fossil beds could only have been created by sudden inundation and burial by sediment, i.e. we do not have fossils forming today of whales or fish, they float to the surface and are are devoured by scavengers, we do not have great buffalo fossil graveyards from the millions of buffalo slaughtered in the nineteenth century. Evolution theory is nothing but an attempt to rule out God that mixes truth with lies. Hutton's Book "Theory of the Earth" was published in 1795, it was designed to make the population doubt the Earth was 6,000 years old. Then Lyell's (a lawyer) book "Principles of Geology" published in 1830, was designed to make the population doubt the Flood. Even in his words, it was to "rid the science of Moses". Then in 1859 Darwin's book "Origin of Species" was published which made people doubt Creation. Darwin said He murdered God. He used a step by step process to use secularism as the new religion.

[@ROCKlMO]

@@jimfoard5671 I actually agree with you that the earth is young, but I understood what he said very differently. I'll explain so maybe you'll see where I'm coming from. Firstly, I did not give a partial quote anymore than you did in your original comment, instead I gave my interpretation of what he said. So he says that it is dangerous for Christians say that our faith stands or falls on a particular scientific interpretation of the world. Then he gives an example of someone not just who believes the young earth but also believes that it's essential to the faith. So if he comes to disbelieve that, he will disbelieve the resurrection since obviously our faith stands or falls on it. The fact that he did not mention old earth as an example does not seem significant to me. For one, it is already covered by his first sentence and the example is just given to demonstrate how making such claims can be harmful. I also want to note that no once did he explicitly say that young earth creationism is dangerous. You can of course say it was implied and just assume bad intent, like you assumed of me.

[@jimfoard5671]

@@ROCKlMO You are very gracious ROCKIMO. i apologize for calling you a liar. That was entirely inappropriate and out of place. I hope that you will accept my apology. We interpret what was said differently. I still hold to what I said and maintain that he did in fact infer that those who adhere to young earth creationism are holding a "dangerous" viewpoint. I wish you the best.

[@ROCKlMO]

@@jimfoard5671 That's alright brother. God bless you.

[@johnbenkovic7684]

Ard did not talk about homochirality and how proteins and sugars evolved or were created. Dr Tour just let this guy talk. Ard is a generalist although he rambles on intelligently. In the beginning GOD created.. That is the bottom line regardless of how wise man becomes, Remember professing themselves to be wise they became fools.

[@leroybrown9143]

As there is no theism in it, so called "theistic -evolution" isn't a "slippery" term, it's a misnomer and a gross misappropriation of the term. Christians that believe according to knowledge and fellowship with Christ, rather than pop culture insistence and assertion of man, believe God; who says and demonstrates that He created the heavens, the earth and all that in them are, in six standard days and repeats that he did so several times in both Biblical Testaments as is affirmed by the prophets, Jesus and the apostles. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit say evolution isn't part of His creation and has never told man anything different. To believe in evolution isn't "Christian belief," Jesus Christ who lives doesn't believe it, it's a belief in man whose ignorance burns for a moment before he is snuffed like a candle, ask Charles Darwin.

[@lorinbacke4702]

Unfortunately if you accept this view of the Theistic evolution you must discard the book of Genesis. If you cannot accept that God can create a world in six days and placed man and woman fully formed in a garden in which they fell and thus brought sin into the world, you will have difficulties with the rest of scripture. This is the problem you encounter whenever you place the ideas of men above the word of God. Louis will accept that fact of the incarnation but not the fact of creation. I find that odd. He needs to read his Bible with more care. Start with Genesis, then read the book of Romans, read the Gospels and pay attention to what Jesus Christ says about the creation. Both Jesus and the apostle Paul make reference to the garden of Eden. Ask yourself the question “were they wrong?“ Or is Louis right?

[@moses777exodus]

_“The question of whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the Universe has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed.”_ -Charles Darwin, the founder of evolutionary biology, as cited in his book Descent of Man.

[@faisalalharbi8774]

I wander , dose any one read about god in islam?!. Because you are right about existing of God , but wrong about who’s the God.

[@martinrumsey9639]

You have extracted ideas of God and Christ from scriptures and denied the relevance of a great many references to creation in the old and new testament and from the mouth of Jesus himself. Is yours a pick and choose faith?

[@martinrumsey9639]

@@derhafi Hi Rob, yes, I choose to interpret my surroundings in a completely individual way. None of us sees things the same way. Each of us has a unique perspective/view point in the universe, different background culture personality etc. So it is likely that you and I will emphasize some truths of the bible over others. In spite of this there is only one Father one Spirit One Lord over all who is the Truth, absolute and unchangeable, as He has always has been.., to whom we must give account for what we have done and how we have represented Him. While there are many mysteries in the Bible, not least in Genesis, there are also many internal biblical references to the validity of the Genesis account which cannot be airbrushed out, because once we start doing that we are then at liberty to 'pick and choose' which parts of the bible (God's inspired written word) are true and which are not, which is what the course of the violent history of the world church is evidence of. During James Tour's discussion with Ard Louis, which was very interesting, they seemed free of any reference to what the scripture had to say, all of which was given for our enlightenment.

[@nikkbroawn272]

How can ard louis say whats going on with the sun or in the sun if no one has ever been their or even took a sample from the sun? Im not star dust, im made of earth created by god. The bible says nowhere that were made of star dust or sun dust.

[@gospel2dgeek]

God also made the sun and stars. So it shouldn't really hurt anyone's faith if it ends up that we are indeed made of stardust.

[@nikkbroawn272]

Thats true. BUT saying as fact we came from something that hasn't been proven and i mean not even remotely. Plus the sun is not a star. A one hundred dollars telescope can show you star are some sort of orb like light in focus, not like our sun that we see but know absolutely nothing other than its a full spectrum light

[@gospel2dgeek]

@@nikkbroawn272 The theory isn't that we come from the sun, it's that we come from the same stuff that became the sun. The sun is a star, it's just closer to us than other stars. The Bible isn't a science book, nor does it claim to be one. So we shouldn't treat it as one. It doesn't matter how God created the universe, what is important is that He did. I'm not an evolutionist, I'm not convinced. However, we should be willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads, because it will lead us to the truth: Jesus.

[@nikkbroawn272]

@@gospel2dgeek no one knows what a star is, its a theory that can't be proven just like what they claim the sun is. The bible says we came from earth and earth came before the sun and light to divide the darkness came before the sun and stars.

[@gospel2dgeek]

@@nikkbroawn272 We know what the sun and stars are made of because of the light they emit. Every element has a unique wavelength whenever it emits or reflects light. Scientists here on the ground use this to analyze the atomic makeup of things, and the same thing is applied to the light emitted by the sun and stars. So we do know some things about the sun. To say that we cannot know what the sun is, is to ignore our God-given intellect. We CAN know what the sun and stars is. The creation account doesn't have to be taken literally. Even early church fathers didn't think it had to be literal. I do think that humanity was a special creation unique from anything else in the universe. But still the clay God used to make our physical bodies was still made up of matter that was the result of the Big Bang.

[@andrej1659]

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” Romans 3:23-24

[@joshtheflatearthjedi222]

We are not made of star dust lol. That is big bang athiest talk.. These guys claim to know what stars are made of without ever being able to actually test a star. All of this astrophysics stuff is nonsense to me, I don't want to criticize this guy because thats his field of study but he's been sold a false worldview by science that does not match the bible. You can not combine the two together they are too opposed to one another.

[@guyjosephs5654]

So you dont understand the chemistry and physics…and you say you don’t want to criticize…yet you’re going to dismiss what we can explain with science and mathematics? If his worldview is wrong and what he’s been taught is false…then it should be easy to demonstrate that. Are you really a flat earther too?

[@joshtheflatearthjedi222]

@@guyjosephs5654 where did I say I don't understand the chemistry and the physics? And it is very easy to demonstrate that this model is completely opposite of reality and is satanic in nature. The heliocentric model has been reverse engineered to match what we see in reality so it is correct in many ways. But there are ways to falsify and debunk it, and this has been done very thoroughly.

[@guyjosephs5654]

@@joshtheflatearthjedi222 I’m saying you don’t understand those subjects. We are made of atoms yes? We know how atoms are made. So you we are made of star stuff. The heliocentric model does indeed match reality. Whereas there isn’t a flat earth model that works. Nor does the flat earth model explain other things nor give any data about it. If you disagree then I have a number of questions that no flat earther has ever answered.

[@freddan6fly]

"These guys claim to know what stars are made of without ever being able to actually test a star. " Oblivious of physics I read. Of course we can test stars. We have done it more than one hundred years. " I don't want to criticize this guy because thats his field of study but he's been sold a false worldview by science that does not match the bible." - That was ridiculous stupid. If observation don't match the bible you go for the bible. Ha ha ha. I got 125 observations only possible on a globe. But I go for the easiest one, that singlehandedly disproves flat earth. Sunset. Sunset is not possible on a flat earth. There is no model of a flat earth that allows the sun to sink under the horizon while still lit up clouds and mountains from below.

[@joshtheflatearthjedi222]

@@freddan6fly show me how you test a star you believe is billions of light-years away, its ridiculous to even think such a thing is possible. You've been lied to and brainwashed.

[@FREDAFMK]

where did the star you're talking about come from? nothing is too hard for GOD. GOD said and the elements came out of His mouth. you have to believe that GOD is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. seek first the Kingdom of God and all the other things will be added unto you.

[@garyavey7929]

Jesus is the Son of God Jehovah ,he is NOT God almighty I sudgest you read your Bible if you are interested in the truth.Jesus was resurrected into a spiritual body not physical body.he was dead God cannot die.

[@moses777exodus]

Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/ 10^10^123. By definition, "a statistical impossibility is a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a rational, reasonable argument." (*For reference, the probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80.) Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness.

[@kleenex3000]

laws and numbers are imaginary-non-causal.

[@SnakePlissken1]

Write a review in the failing NY Times? That’s all we need to know.

[@psalm1197]

There is no such thing as theistic evolution. You either believe God’s Word or you don’t.

[@Nighthawkinlight]

That is simply not true. To believe the Genesis creation account is an allegory or a philosophical summation of events might be a loose interpretation, but it is not in conflict with faith in God or the gospel. Christians need not have every fact of the universe correct in their understanding to be saved.

[@psalm1197]

@@Nighthawkinlight how can one say they have faith in God (believe that he is the Source of Truth) and not believe what He says? It’s not logical, is it? You either believe that God reigns and is omnipotent, meaning He can and does do everything according to His perfect will and purpose, or you do not believe this. If you dismiss Genesis, then do you dismiss the miracle of Jesus turning water into wine? Where does the actual truth of the Bible begin for you? And where does it end?

[@Nighthawkinlight]

@@psalm1197 A theistic evolutionist does not dismiss genesis, they interpret it as having a non literal meaning. Similarly to how most Christians do not take Jesus's words to cut off hands and gouge out eyes as literal instruction, or how many denominations see Jesus's words "this is my body" as not literal when he was holding a loaf of bread. It is possible to see the creation account in genesis in a similar way, as God's purpose was primarily to communicate theological truth, not scientific detail. A theistic evolutionist agrees that God created everything, they most often would simply say a "day" does not necessarily have to mean a day as we now understand it. To their point, God did not create the sun and moon until day 4. What does a day look like without a sun for the earth to orbit around? Or, God says he created man and woman in his own image. Is that meant to be taken literally or figuratively, or in one way but not another? Does God have literal eyes and ears, or kidneys and a liver? You see, we all take some parts of the story as figurative to illustrate a theological point, not a scientific one. I take the genesis account as mostly literal, but there are intelligent reasons why some parts could be taken a different way while still trusting that God's words are true.

[@Nighthawkinlight]

@@derhafi That's silly. Google 52 factorial and watch some of the illustrations of how unlikely it is to shuffle a deck of playing cards in any given configuration. Then consider the number of complex chemical components in the simplest living cell, or even a single protein in that cell. The observable universe could suffer heat death a billion trillion times over and not make a scratch in 1% likelihood of those components being shuffled the proper way for life to form. That's not even considering that many molecules needed to form the simplest cells can't survive outside of a cell for more than a fraction of a second before decomposing. A proper "primordial soup" where the components for life are all present isn't even chemically possible. To imagine life forming without an intentional creator requires one to ignore or be ignorant of basic facts of chemical science.

[@Nighthawkinlight]

@@derhafi Attempt to learn the chemistry of a cell and synthesize a protein. One metabolic pathway, one small piece of a cell membrane. You'll find I've understated my case significantly, and the claims that the origin of life is figured out are sheer embarrassment to science. You've excluded yourself from being able to honestly appraise whether a God exists, if the only one you can imagine owes human specks of dust his submission to scientific testing. A God that can create galaxies, let alone the universe, doesn't owe anyone squat. If you haven't considered a God powerful enough to create the universe, then you haven't really thought about the option at all.

[@robertseavor4304]

I do not accept microevolution.

[@benrex7775]

What do you understand with microevolution? If you and your wife both have red hair and your child also has red hair. This is called microevolution. This doesn't change anything at the DNA level. What do you reject of microevolution?

[@robertseavor4304]

@@benrex7775 Your definition is bollocks.

[@jimfoard5671]

Moses Exodus is sucking up all the air in this chat forum.

[@MrMaqe]

BS on BS..