Видео

@@YNRChoppa_08 Hello, my I suspect Lutheran contributor. Thank you for watching and for your reply. God bless you. Scripture, Scripture, Scripture for me. No man has a scintilla more authority than we do post the apostles in interpreting that Scripture. And everyone, just as you did, will claim what is or isn’t “traditional”. I do not condemn on this. Luther was wrong on baptism. Many were. But to Scripture- from it first my theology on the ordinances is found soundly. It is mine, but of course not just mine. Many share my beliefs and always have as they are the correct interpretation of the data. Baptism is a work. Period. Paul’s baptism didn’t forgive sins. His Savior alone did/does. The Cross is not our baptisms. No works save (as in regenerate)…even when we mislabel our good works “God’s works” which no apostle ever did. They sanctify, but they do not regenerate or justify. Baptism is made analogous to salvation because it is, but Christ did *not rise so that our good works would become our saviors, sir.

@@Biblecia name me 1 passage where is says baptism is to show everyone you are a Christian? Name me 1 early church father that did not agree with baptismal regeneration. You can't, and if you say you view is just clear in scripture. What about the Mormons, JW and the other 40 000 denominations. Where did the Apostles explain in detail what scripture meant? So the earliest and closest people to the Apostles are the ones who tell us what they meant. Off course they not fallable. But brother their was no canon till what year? I must say off course I respect you and your view as a brother in Christ and as a Pastor. So nothing like that here I just thought I'd share the unanimous position of the church for 1500 years. Also Luthor was right about the cannon but not baptismal regeneration? Why trust him at all?

Sorry. "Christians" did NOT believe that the eucharist was truly the flesh and body of the Lord for 1500 years. No. It was not really even debated all that much until the end of the 9th century. And well into the 12th century, future popes like Hildebrand were publicly arguing on behalf of other church members that the church should officially tolerate both the memorial view and the literal transubstance view because there was no dogmatic definition at all yet. So, you can "feel hurt" by my view, sir, but I'm "condemned to hell" by the 13th century (and mostly beyond) developments of un-biblical dogma on the nature of the elements. So, it's not my side that made this a divisive issue, it's the other side(s). I must simply answer the men who've made it such. Anyone who adds to the word of God like that is guilty of great sin and they'll answer to God for it. My whole argument is to support the "blessings" of the ordinances of the Christian Faith. He does love his people, and they are gifts of his love. What Rome has done, along with the EOC, in its sacrifices in "eucharist" are completely false and destructive of the Gospel.

@Biblecia off course u do not agree with the Pope and his Dogmas and Rome did mess up with their resacrificing the middle ages. But the view of real presence has always been there. Ignatius of Antioch, desciple of John. Quote 107 AD:"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His goodness, raised up again". Also the corinthians were sick and died from participating and remembering the symbol. Also we sin against the symbol of his body. Jesus(The one who said let their be light) said this symbolises my body? Can you please find me a early church father that had your view? Unless the church somehow fell away right when the Apostles died. Again I do respect and love you as a brother in Christ. I just disagree on those points.

@@siphomlangeni1978 Good evening to you. Hello! And may it be!

Statement 1: It's too general and false in many ways. There are religions that go in the opposite direction of God, the truth. There are those that keep a person standing still, entrenched, unmovable. There are false religions that are total enemies of God. There are religions the OT describes as being of demons. The Christian path to sanctification is through the sacraments of baptism, communion, confession, confirmation, matrimony, holy orders, and anointing of the sick. It is through cooperation and participation in these sacraments that one "walks toward God" and the Bible is very clear that no act is pleasing to God outside of Christianity. Statement 2: First, I would point out that Catholic ecumenical councils that have been extremely helpful in clarifying and unifying the Church were in opposition to some heresy or fighting against some false belief. So, Pope Francis' statement is just too general. Furthermore, I feel that statements of agreement in Interfaith councils are simply condescending nonsense. Respect is given when people articulate their differences and passions for those differences. Statement 3: We are all created in the image of God but only Christians may accurately call themselves Children of God as the Bible states clearly. As with Paul, you give non-believers the complete truth instead of condescending rubbish. You look to what Paul states in Acts 17. Finally, you may not be aware, but Pope Francis dug himself a deeper hole by declaring that the diversity of religions is a gift from God. In doing so, Pope Francis says that God actively willed false religions as spiritual gifts to the world. It's time to stop defending Pope Francis or you'll fall into the same pit that he is in.

@steveempire4625 just as the fall was foreseen by God in His salvific plan, so is this reality we are facing. Believing and trusting God is greater than these adversities is true faith. Everything you describe as contrary to the Pope's words refers to Catholic teaching and understanding. Yet too many people just simply are not there yet, they dont understand and they have not been taught. We might be picking at straws, but how do you reach those people? I believe thats the real concern the Pope has, and as far as Im concerned, thats what it means to be a shepherd who goes out to the lost sheep. In the end, we know Christ's victory will be made known to all. In the meantime, we hold to truth and live by charity <3

@@philosophicalneo If you put your trust in a false prophet and believe false doctrines, you will not be able to give Papal Infallibility as an excuse before Judgement. You were given the Scriptures, Sacred Tradition, countless words of previous popes and saints, and a thinking brain capable of reason. The true adversaries of the faith are in the Vatican today, not papal critics. The points I laid out are precise and documented. You give me a confused mess of a reply. You cannot go after lost sheep with false doctrines, deceit, confusion, and manipulation which is Pope Francis. How do you reach lost sheep by declaring that all religions walk to God, are a path to God, and are a gift from God. That only cements people in their false beliefs and frustrates conversion while demoralizing evangelizers. It would be best for you to go point-by-point that I have given here in my first statement and either agree or disagree logically and concisely. Christ's victory is inevitable, and that victory includes the end of this papacy, and the disgracing of this papacy like so many other corrupt popes who have failed.

@steveempire4625 my position is clear and transparent. As i mention in my first post, i have made a short 1.5 hour series called Building a Proper Disposition. Review this and then let me know what roads lead to Christ and which do not <3

@@saintpolycarp8197 Thank you for this feedback.

Well said. We all need to pray for Pope Francis.

@@Biblecia Also the pope has stated many times in statements and homilies the reality of Jesus and the Church is NEEDED for the salvation for the entire world. I watched this entire conversation the pope has with these children and the subject is about the youth willing to have conversations about their religions in non violent ways which he admired. Context matters.

Or protestantism 🤔

Instead of being divisive and leaving the Catholic Church because of the erroneous opinions of Pope Francis, how about we pray for him? How about we unitel our prayers with fasting and acts penance for him?

No its not. The Church doesn't teach what the Pope says in random conversations with children. Church teaches from magisterial statements, not off the cuff conversations the pope says. Catholics for all purposes should worry more about what their local bishop does and not care what the Pope says, and the Pope only really matters in times of councils or magisterial statements.

@@giansetyadi4859 I mean...

Thank you for writing in. Yes, sadly it does appear he is teaching a form of universalism. I've considered Orthodoxy (ruclips.net/video/AiSXvdW7sPQ/видео.html), and have much to learn about it with no one to get into depth with, but it seems it's in the same boat as its Catholic divorced counterpart. It's no better. Both have added their church (their sacraments, their priests) unlawfully to the Gospel and have thus sacrificed the Gospel on the altar of works. Open to dialogue!

Long story short. YES! the Roman Catholic Church - or at least the Roman Catholic 'supreme pontiff' IS teaching universalism. Time for Orthodoxy

Long story short. YES! the Roman Catholic Church - or at least the Roman Catholic 'supreme pontiff' IS teaching universalism. Time for Orthodoxy

@@marcokite No its not. The Church doesn't teach what the Pope says in random conversations with children. Church teaches from magisterial statements, not off the cuff conversations the pope says. Catholics for all purposes should worry more about what their local bishop does and not care what the Pope says, and the Pope only really matters in times of councils or magisterial statements. You should actually learn what the popes role in the Church is and not say such obviously wrong and sensational things.

That man is an anomaly. No salvation outside the Church.

What did John Paul do at Assisi?

Hello and thanks for writing in. I would challenge each of these points you made, sir or ma'am. In depth if I could and with respect. A few replies: 1) The liturgy has changed dramatically over time. The dogmatic definitions of Rome today are not what they once were. 2). Current movement in the RCC have moved away from the Latin Mass expressly in most parts of the world. 3) Sedevacantism is growing among Catholics in my experience for a reason. Even some comments here in response to this short video clearly demonstrate this. This is not for no reason. In the video I linked to in this video's description on Fiducia Supplicans, for example, I documented and played at length a video of one African RC priest publicly denouncing FS on same sex blessings as the work of Satan, and saying he would not allow it to be observed in his diocese. There are major issues happening within. 4). The magisterium is led by clear liberals today. Leftists. Pro-abortion advocates. LGBT sensitive activists, etc. Francis (seems) to want this. So no, even that is changing. This recent video from him is not unexpected, sir or ma'am in my opinion. We see where the Vatican is going. As far as Protestantism goes, the church surely has its problems. Tons of them, but those same problems exist in the 250+ recognized denominations (or rites) of Roman Catholicism. A brief response; I don't want to take too much time. If they're legitimately Protestant- they believe in the Trinity and justification by faith alone and approach the word of God as the sole infallible authority for matters of faith (in some respect to these ideas) we will not have a different faith and need not have the same hierarchy. Scripture does not give us a hierarchy above the local churches, so we're not concerned with it. You're welcome to question any Christian group. I know why I'm Protestant. The questions I'm asking here in this video, I pray, are relevant and not misrepresenting the views of this current pope. And I hope I'm asking questions worth asking.

I hear your words about the pope. Thanks for writing. I'm not sure where I was wrong though, ma'am? I advocate that Christ is the only way to the Father. Are you just saying that I'm wrong because I'm not a Roman Catholic? Are you a Catholic? Do you attend a Roman Catholic church that denounces Frances as a heretic?

Your so wrong. There is only one way to the Father and that is Jesus Christ. Ecumenicalism came through Vatican 11. Which is also wrong. This pope is an anti Pope. Who teaches Hearsay. Every Pope, before V11, taught that you must be inside The One True Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, that Jesus started to be saved. No other.

Hello. To your first point, I agree that he was speaking about the fact that contentions, for the sake of contentions alone, is not good, and isn't what anyone should be about. That it takes courage to dialogue, etc. These are good words. But I'm sorry, his words surrounding that point you're talking about said clearly that the posture of the Christian was that his or her faith was *not alone true. He said that plainly in a few ways. Many paths, many languages, etc. It was repeated. Next, you wrote: "The plan of salvation includes all people and God wouldn't leave his children without hope, we all have reason and a conscience, and a will to recieve love and understanding to recieve wisdom." This does reflect the pope's words, and the RC catechism as I go on to show, but this is just not biblical. Not all are God's children. You must be born "again" to become a child of God's, John 1:12-13. In Ephesians 2:12, Paul writes to believers: "Remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." People outside the New Covenant have no hope...except to become members of it. I'm sorry, but it remains clear that the repeated words of this pope, even to atheists as I showed in video 2, and to these people here in video 1 of many varying religions, etc., is one of, at best, a modified universalism, and also does not represent a sound biblical anthropology. Thanks for writing in.

@@Biblecia Good points, I would say that salvation is possible for non-christians but not by following their own religion like it's just another language among many/different paths, Jesus said I am "the" way, not "a way" so the Popes choice of words didn't really resonate with what I was trying to defend. Thanks for sharing those verses, good points, I would say there is also a more general sense of being children of God, by being made by God, in the image and likeness of God & Paul confirms this more general sense (Acts 17:29) but you're right in pointing that out. In regards to the verse from Ephesians, salvation for non-christians is still through Christ, he is still the hope for those who through no fault of their own have no way of knowing of Christ or have not heard of him in a way that they can clearly understand. Paul says even those without any direct revelation of God still have his moral law written in their hearts (Rom. 2:14-15) and can know much about God through the witness of creation (Rom. 1:20). Because God has made it possible for every person to have knowledge of him, this makes faith in God possible for all people. And because God wills all men to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4). He must then have provided the means for that will to be accomplished, even for those who through no fault of their own have no way of knowing of Christ. In Acts 17:26-30 "that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him" shows that it is possible to seek and find God, but that we ought to know better and not plead ignorance, for a rational mind can percieve that an idol can't be God. This all leads to the idea that those who seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, who try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience "may" achieve eternal salvation. But this is sincere dictates of conscience and not dictates of alternative religions being different paths and languages, the question is can those be the same thing, it's controversial.

Sorry but you are sounding like Bishop Baron here. With his lesser lights. They have, Pagan beliefs, that, come from the Devil. That's what Bible says. . Vatican 2 so called Popes have lead millions , people plus Catholics off the path, . I know from personal experience.. You can't flip, flop.with the truth. Or you'll loose them.. That's what they're done. "One True" to Ecumenicalism. People , believe they were lied to, all along. People gave up everything for the Church once. This is just another, slap in the theological face, to Catholics. . He sent the Apostles to preach the Gospel. Except for St. John they were all Martyred. People are still being Martyred.

Did you watch the same video(s)? He said no one should fight or say that their religion is right, or say that someone else’s religion is wrong, or that one’s God is more important than another’s, etc. So, Vishnu is as important for some or only as right as Jesus is for Catholics? I think you may be looking at this with a certain set of glasses on and thus missing it. I invite you to watch it again. And what of his words in the second video about the atheist father? Are you saying you also believe that an atheist’s dad should be spoken of as surely being in heaven because they baptize their children? Are you Catholic? Thanks for writing in. You may not agree with my conclusions, but I really don’t feel like I’m misrepresenting anything he was clearly trying to communicate.

Long story short. YES! the Roman Catholic Church - or at least the Roman Catholic 'supreme pontiff' IS teaching universalism. The ONLY inference of what Jorge says is that the Lord Jesus Christ is not necessary. Time for Orthodoxy

It is not an essential doctrine. I hear you, sir. My concern is that a growing number of people inside the church seem to find just about everything to be non-essential. Evolution robs people of Christ. Simply put.

@Biblecia that's a big leap from evolution to no Christ. historicly, it has never been essential.

@@conorrobinson8337 I hear you. But 1) evolution is simply unscientific. It's false on its own merit and should be argued against as the obvious falsehood that it is. And 2) Historically (at least not for all that much of it) Christians didn't have naturalistic evolution to answer. Now we do. In the fourth century you could say, "Historically, the Deity of Jesus wasn't an essential issue." But it always was. The church just has to answer the issues of its day. Nicea (in AD 325) didn't "create the issue" it just sought to answer it. God creating the heavens and the earth is a biblical fact. Clearly, naturalists oppose this. Evolution/naturalism has become a dominant philosophy dogmatizing people about origins. People these days often erroneously say things like, "I just believe in science" (though never seeing evolution) and imagining that this naturalistic confession must somehow preclude Jesus and the supernatural. This is just how it works, man, therefore, it robs people of Jesus and of the Gospel.

@@Biblecia It's hard to say that something that came about using the scientific method and holds a consensus among the people of the field is unscientific. To your second point, I think you are right about the deity of Jesus, but that issue is not the same as the young earth issue. Scripture gives a lot more clarity on the deity of Jesus, the resurrection, and the Gospel than it does the creation in Genesis. That is why historically people like Augustine and other prominent theologians held different views than a young Earth one. Nothing about this topic could affect clarity we have on the Gospel or the reliability of scripture.

@@conorrobinson8337 So, you believe that your ancestors were fish? You’re a theistic evolutionist? Or are you full atheist, sir? I’m asking because I don’t know. Have you even watched the two videos we’ve posted so far on evolution? You’re saying my points are not reasonable? Which? Why? “It’s hard to say that something that came about using the scientific method and holds a consensus among the people of the field is unscientific.” My discussions here show that the conclusions of macroevolution are flatly outside of the scientific method. They do not come from the scientific method. So, you are mistaken. And do you know how many scientists there are that do not believe in billions of years, or surely not in macroevolutionary philosophy? Physicists, biologists, mathematicians, astronomers, paleontologists, geneticists, chemists, etc? Are you taking into consideration their consensus with the other consensus you mentioned? There is also consensus in communities that will tell you an unborn child is not a baby too, or will say that we can’t tell the difference between men and women. Do you believe these “scientists?” Their ideas are just as cringe as macroevolution. Depending on the lenses someone has on, the sciences can either bring focus or make blurry. Anyone who believes in billions of years and in macro evolution cannot see via science correctly, they only see their philosophies. I begin and end with the Bible. It is the only reliable text about the creation of the universe. That’s where you and I will differ it seems. I’ve considered many arguments for macroevolution, and now understand fully how those arguments hold absolutely no water. I’m exploring them here. I’m open to learning, but I’m also very much into testing what people tell me through reason and, most importantly, through Scripture. Show me just one sound deduction from the “scientific method” for macroevolution please.

Sir, the naturalists fail, not the creationists. Obviously all sides have their standards for measure and peer reviews. Aside from biology for a moment- Case in point as where the naturalists fail. Dr. Jason Lisle predicted years ago (2021ish) in writing that as the James Web ST does its work we’ll see fully formed galaxies further red-shifted out in the universe. The majority of naturalists said otherwise. Lisle predicted that instead of them correcting their errant views on the age of the universe that they would just push their guesses at the age far to the right to accommodate their beliefs. They said these universes would be smaller and unformed as closer to the supposed large pop. Lisle was right.

@@Biblecia Meanwhile, in the real world world, creationists are a complete and total failure in science. So thank you for displaying the utterly delusional nature of creationist rhetoric.

@@Biblecia You wrote, "Aside from biology for a moment..." In my previous post, I discussed some aspects of astronomy that destroy the young earth creationism pseudoscience rhetoric. But here I wanted to focus on your specific statement here. YES! ASIDE FROM BIOLOGY! EXACTLY! So now you need to explain WHY you young earth creationists are all the time spouting off with the DISINGENUOUS rhetoric you pseudoscience promoters spout off with all the time trying to pretend that ASTRONOMY and ASTROPHYSICS is part of some massive worldwide "evolutionist" conspiracy in science. ASTRONOMY is not BIOLOGY. ASTRONOMY is not PALEONTOLOGY. ASTRONOMY is not GENETICS. YES! EXACTLY! THIS IS THE POINT! THIS IS THE FACT ABOUT THE NATURE OF SCIENCE! These OBVIOUS FACTS about science are exactly what you young earth creationists deliberately ignore all the time with the rhetoric you use. So I applaud you here for basically screwing up and stepping outside of the clownish young earth creationist mentality and recognizing the reality that astronomy and astrophysics really is its own field of science that has nothing to do with evolution. "Aside from biology for a moment..." EXACTLY! "Aside from biology." Which is exactly why when young earth creationists open their mouths spouting off with "evolutionists" this and "evolutionist" that in regard to EVERYTHING IN SCIENCE that contradicts their bogus religious belief they are doing nothing more than displaying the clownishly out-of-touch-with-reality nature of their rhetoric.

That's what your God did. It was miraculous. God did not have intercourse with Mary, but he impregnated her with a unique life. That same life, he gave mankind the ability to give via sperm. The Creator gave his creatures the ability to procreate. This one was unique among them all since Adam and Eve.

@@Biblecia I don’t know of any real god so I can’t say I have a god. Miraculous conceptions were a common motif in Ancient Greek and Roman cultures.

OK you don't understand science and the scientific method, but you can learn. No serious or respected scientist in the field has any problems with evolution for scientific reasons. There is nothing but evidence supporting it. You just fear the writing on the wall for simple minded literalism. Evolution has been observed the Theory is just the model tying it together.

“You’ll see.”

Calling the Scientific Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, a "philosophy" is a category error. Evolution by Natural Selection is the best available model to explain a huge percentage of biology as we know it. That said, science is always looking to update & improve their models, so as to improve their understanding of how the world works. Accordingly, if you have a model that does a better explanatory and predictive job than the current model, I encourage you to present it as a coherent, testable theory. If on the other hand, all you can offer is putting-your-fingers-in-your-ears-and-drumming-your-heels, while repeating "No! No! No! No! No!", that non-scientific theory has been tested & repeatedly failed. Significantly, that model seems utterly unable to make useful, much less accurate predictions.

@@davidinsf2680 Sorry sir, yes, if you watch the video (and the others to come) you’ll see only hours of my fingers in my ears shouting “No, no, no!” That’s all we do. But in Jesus’ name. 😀 No sir, I (we) will examine evidences for the philosophy of it and answer them. Evolutionary ideology is a house of cards. It is not fact. It is disprovable. I’ll try to show this. Most of us doubt the claims of it. My goal is to help people see they needn’t be afraid to. It’s not science that shuts down exploration; it’s philosophy masquerading as a science with many foregone philosophical conclusions necessary to make it work that does. Parts of evolutionary belief are not entirely baseless, but it’s a misleading and confused ideology ultimately. The only reason evolution makes sense to me as to why anyone would believe it is that we live in a fallen world where people “suppress” the truth Christ came to bear witness to in unrighteousness. I am arguing from the Christian worldview. The same one which gives footing to all our modern sciences. God made us…and not by billions of years of random mutations. Period. You’re welcome to examine the evidences with us. And may God bless you thereby. Thanks for taking the time to write in.

@Biblecia You need to define what you mean by "philosophy". Because the common usage of the term, makes your writing come across as gibberish.

We take it very serious.

Your entire statement is a straw man

@@grwood15 Where is the straw man argument? Point it out... Lets see it... If you fail to murder someone we call it attempted murder not murder.... If I were to sacrifice my kid to the Gods but then my kid comes back to me alive and well in 3 days what sacrifice did I make? How can you call it a sacrifice if you fail to make a sacrifice. If he is all alive and well after the sacrifice then you can't really call it a sacrifice now can you.

I guess you watched the video then.

@@Biblecia So you are dodging the question too... I can't say I am surprised.

@@PAIP_Studio Sir, I don’t swing at wild pitches.

You’re a very religious person.

@@Biblecia And you are programmed to view everything through the lens of your religion, thus why you apparently feel the need to project the same dogmatic epistemology onto others. If you have some kind of special knowledge that would overturn the entire field of evolutionary science on its head, present it for peer review and earn your Nobel prize. That's how science works: it's an honest empirical process that uses observation and repeated experimentation to derive tentative conclusions about reality. A religion is the complete opposite, claiming to possess ultimate cosmic knowledge from the very beginning, then employing emotionally exploitative or flat-out dishonest tactics to persuade its adherents of its validity, often in spite of contradictory evidence. And please stop calling people "Darwinists", that's like calling your doctor a "Pasteurist" because he's not sticking leeches on you to balance your humors.

@@wonkydonk9073 LOL. I’ve heard your recycled line about the Nobel from several other Darwinists in very recent years. Where’d you hear that line? I’ll bet it was from a favorite Darwinist apologist you few have shared. Sir, there is simply no good reason to believe in evolution.

@@Biblecia Except for the huge amounts of evidence supporting it. Your ignorance about this topic isn't coming across well in these comments.

Thanks for writing in. Tons of rhetoric. Always. But zero facts. It’s not that I expect you to “lay the evidence out” here. It’s a lot you think you have. But what I know is that you literally have none. Zero. Not a single proof. You state a fact (as you perceive it) and just expect others to go along to some end with it. It’s like a house of cards Darwin’s devotees try to build and pretend they’re real bricks. It’s just a house of cards. I (like many) do not believe what you believe. I’ve gone beyond the rhetoric to examine the evidences for them. What I’ve found is that evolution is like a wizard of Oz when you pull back the curtain. Speciation is not evolution. There are known limits in genetics as to what it can produce. Huge ones. The analogy of the manufacturing line perfectly illustrates the un-scientific nature of your claims.

2 Idiots

Two people (of a great many) who simply don’t hold to the Darwinian faith.

We don’t hold to your religion. Yeah.

@@Biblecia i dont have a religion. I am sane.

@@leroyjenkins4165 Then you’re quite insane. And no, you’re a worshipper too, just not rightly of the God who made you and everything you see.

@@Biblecia that’s all just religious fundamentalist word salad. Not to be taken seriously.

@@leroyjenkins4165 Only in the case of fools, sir. If you are one, continue. If not, you’re most welcome to interact with the arguments both here and coming.

So, if we believed our ancestors were fish we wouldn’t be fools? 😂

@@Biblecia What would we need to show you or provide to demonstrate evolution beyond a reasonable doubt?

​@iorangebean325 I kept expecting "Never gonna give you up", for the full Rickroll experience...

@@orangebean325There is nothing you can show, sir. But you’re most welcome to. Give it your best shot if you like. Evolution is ultimately an unreasonable premise. I’ve considered much of the evidences. They’re just not convincing.

"Downplaying the work of science and scientists" - while in the act of demonstrating sheer incompetence in regard to comprehending what science is or how it even works in the first place. There, I fixed it. ;-)

@@steveg1961 Yes its Unfortunate we still have people who believe the incompetence of people in this video.

@@kennyehm2004Evolution is the fairy tale. You mock others, but you actually think your ancestors were fish.

@@Biblecia Your remarks demonstrate haven’t spent 5 minutes learning about Evolution. I’ll bet you’re a disciple of Kent Hovid or Ken Ham.

@Biblecia You wrote, "Only science fiction." That's your personal ASSERTION, based on the fact that you're deliberately ignoring the scientific research on the subject that is published in the professional science literature of biology, genetics, and paleontology and falsely pretending that that scientific research doesn't even exist - and the reason you're doing it is because of your particular personal religious beliefs, not because of science. And since you're a young earth creationist, it's the same way you deliberately ignore the scientific research published in the professional science literature of astronomy, astrophysics, geology, geophysics, and physics and try to pretend that doesn't exist either. So the actual fiction here is literally your own rhetoric.

Why are you criticizing your own name?

@@Ragnar638 🧌

Watch if you like. We’ll discuss the errant philosophy of evolution.

@Biblecia You can start by telling us what the heck you mean, when you use the term "Philosophy", as you seem to be employing a non-standard usage.

@@davidinsf2680 A fair question, sir. The voiced mindset of the modern devotee of Darwinism is something like, “Everyone else has philosophy or religion, but I have science.” This is false. The evolutionist, like the Christian (or anyone else), also only has unproven/unprovable as from natural means alone philosophies under which they seek to appropriate facts or arguments available. Nothing more. We both have ideology about ultimate causality and must both appeal to processes, or God, outside of the observable sciences to attempt to substantiate our claims and theories. So, welcome to the table of ideas. I too have the sciences. And they will speak to my theory just as to anyone’s…with equal silence and possible abuse. Hope that helps.

@@Biblecia You used a lot of words (liberally spiced with fallacies), to NOT define what you mean when you use the term "philosophy". Whatever your intent may be, your avoiding answering a direct, specific and relevant question, comes across as intentional dishonesty. And creating the impression that you are intentionally dishonest, turns my attention away. Liars are boring. Liars for gawd are worse because of the inherent hypocrisy. I don't need a lecture. I need a simple, clear unambiguous definition of what you mean, when you use the term "philosophy".

@@Biblecia "Darwinism" -Strawman. "Unproven" -Incredulity. "We both have ideologies" -poisoning the well. Evolution has overwhelming evidence and the best model to explain our understanding of the subject. We do set out to prove or disprove anything, we simply fail to disprove our findings ie. we set aside our biases to the best of our ability. And just to be clear, evolution doesn't disprove god, nor does disproving evolution prove god. They are not mutually exclusive things. And further more, you can't disprove evolution by using fallacies and not even understanding the fundamentals of the Scientific method shows the best you have is argument from incredulity.

Macro evolution is an errant and very harmful philosophy. It’s had its day. That day is long since gone. We ask you to watch and consider what we’re saying in weeks to come if you like.

@Biblecia clearly your understanding of "mass delusion" is as deep & meaningful as your understanding of evolution by natural selection. Which is to say, an incoherent & functionally useless level of understanding.

If it was only “what you can prove” no one would hold so firmly to Darwinism. There are clearly other things at work.

@Biblecia 1) Define what YOU mean, when you use the term "philosophy". 2) "On the Origin of Species" was published 165 years ago. Since then Darwin's predictions have been proven valid repeatedly. Yet, the book is not Dogma, like religious texts. Please cite all the peer-reviewed data that refutes Darwin's theory. Absent specific demonstrable evidence "other things at work", is nothing more than a dishonest effort to smuggle in Thoth or Athena. Claims are easy, proof is hard.. which is why science uses peer-review, to identify actual specific problems (and why you can not put forth any peer-reviewed citations to back your claim.. lying for jeebus)

@@davidinsf2680 Hello again. Thanks for your time to write in. My goal is to pursue evidence where it leads. 1) I could cite you a dictionary def. Not sure if some comments of mine were somehow not posted. Some others have said they had that happen here in our talks. Philosophy (again. I've provided you definitions) as I'm using it is to highlight the nature of the debate as to the unproven/unprovable nature of the argued for ideas. Darwinism is just that, sir. It's presented as fact, but it's not...except in the minds of its followers. It's philosophy. Ideology. Speculation. There is a lot of science mixed into modern Darwinism which confuses people too busy to question it anyway. Here's where it takes on a dangerous religious life of its own. The scientific naturalist ideology is a worldview espoused often by professing atheists in our day. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc. Apologists for it. The science *fiction of macroevolution I am skeptical about are the bad ideas mixed in with the sciences I enjoy. My goal is to show the philosophy that motivates the ideology of many people today. 2) Some of Darwin's assumptions have been found valid. Many have been abandoned. I often have this thrown in my face by people. I.e. sir, the fossil record does not yield the bounty he hoped it would, or which his devotees shout about. He could not explain the problems it presented in the appearance of new Cambrian era species, and hoped someone would later be able to. No one has been able to substantiate his ideas...again unless you work to ideologically. Quite the opposite actually. We have found fossilized jellyfish and bacteria, but just not the forms that would be needed to substantiate Darwin's claims. The complete lack of microscopy in his day and the information discovery long after him (roughly 100 years) show us a world he never could have imagined. He barely speculated about much of what's debated today about first origins. His ideas about the simplicity of the human cell are in fact proven to be dead wrong. Organs cannot evolve through slight successive modification. His theory, according to him, is therefore disproven. So, again, some of his ideas were right. Most were wrong. And ultimately, I find his ideas deleterious. 3) Scientists like Jason Lisle, Michael Behe, Denis Noble, John Polkinghorne, Stephen Meyer, numerous mathematicians and many others are making the needed challenges to the dogmas you seem to strongly (but falsely) believe in regarding Neo-Darwinism. Google away. It's my belief that Darwinism must be challenged at the highest ideological level to show it for what it is- an errant philosophy. "Peer review" isn't something I dismiss, but 1) there are lots of disagreements among researchers on a lot, as you know, and 2) there are lots of peer reviewed materials only as good as the ideas themselves. If I restrict affirmative studies only to those resources I deem suitable I too can claim something beyond speculation "because we (whatever group I ID) all agree" loosely on something. I find this unhelpful. I'm fine with challenging all Muslims though they (many) agree on many things just as I'm comfortable challenging Darwinists though they (many) agree on a lot too. I will challenge both views on their merits. I don't need to outsource it. I can deal with it myself. Bottom line, sir. I respectfully deny the supposed certainties you purport. You present your speculative ideas as fact. This shows me you're exactly the kind of person I'm trying to help. What you call fact is not. There are better answers out there in Christ. Thanks again for your time to write in.