Questions on Visions, Sin, and Young Earth Creationism | Reasonable Faith Video Podcast
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- Questions from listeners about visions in the Bible, the origin of sin, and whether Young Earth Creationism is an embarrassment.
For more resources visit: www.reasonable...
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonable...
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains short clips: / drcraigvideos
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Like the Reasonable Faith Facebook Fan Page: / reasonablefaithorg
![Tee Grizzley - Blow for Blow (feat. J. Cole) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wNLN5xsx5dc/mqdefault.jpg)
![NOSFERATU - Official Trailer [HD] - Only In Theaters December 25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nulvWqYUM8k/mqdefault.jpg)
I’m so thankful to WLC for standing up against YEC. Young Earth Creationism can drive young believers away from the faith and hinder intelligent seekers from viewing Christianity as a valid option.
That’s not even to mention that YEC completely fails to do a proper genre analysis of Genesis 1-11.
God gave us both the Bible and a world that can be scientifically examined . All truth is God’s truth and it will never contradict if rightly understood.
Well, personally, I think it's a mistake to force a view one way or the other. Both are valid options for exegesis. If someone is a YEC, there's nothing wrong with that at all. and if someone is an Old Earth Creationist, there's nothing wrong with that either. I say we don't make it a stumbling block. Doing so makes one just as divisive as someone like Ken Hamm is on the matter.
@@brando3342I agree 💯 what WLC did is make himself the same as Ken Ham with this statement. Disappointed!!!!
@@brando3342 YEC is the worst option for exegesis when you understand the ancient near Eastern context.
@@bayesianhulk Oh, I get it. Trust me, I totally get it. I’m not even a YEC, but that’s really beside the point.
@@brando3342 YEC has three strikes against it.
One, the interpretation of Genesis to a YEC understanding was born in the late sixties, over fifty years ago. We now know far more of the Middle East and writings of the time of Moses. The YEC interpretation is no longer tenable.
Two, YEC believers, as Dr. Craig asserts, are no different than flat earthers in their science denial. The scientific evidence for an ancient Universe is not questionable. To put it simply, if YEC was the proper interpretation of Genesis then the Bible is flat out wrong.
Three, YEC proponents largely portray themselves as the only group that understands Genesis and demand that they are right and if you believe the Bible then you believe the Universe is 6,000 years old. This is an abomination that has shipwrecked the lives and faith of countless people. I have heard report after report after report of people abandoning their faith after finding the evidence against a young Earth is incontrovertible.
Thanks Dr. Craig for all you have written and debated. Thanks for pointing out that the young earth interpretation is indefensible.
It has strengthened my faith enormously through the years. I grew up in YEC thinking and am glad to have come out of it even if it is somewhat isolating. It's possible to change one's view.
We DEFINITELY need to hear Dr. Craig’s opinion about Jordan Peterson’s most recent podcast episode with Alex O’Connor!
Wow, "Young Earth Creationism is an embarrassment," but the people are free from the shame of their belief? How do you think you sound to those who hold to this view?
Dr. Craig does not seem to hold to sound Bible teaching; read the verses below and think of what Dr. Craig said to believers in Christ who believe in a YEC.
John 13:34-35 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."
1 John 4:7-8 "Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."
Ephesians 4:32 "Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you."
Colossians 3:13 "Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.
Ephesians 4:2-3 "Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace."
Romans 12:16-18 "Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone."
Hebrews 10:24 "And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds...
Dr. Craig was subtle in his wording, but not loving, caring, of considerate.
Who is the embarrassment to Christianity?
I don't care about the argument one way or the other, but his statement on this is terrible, and he should retract it not double down. Just say you don't agree with it and say why. Leave it to God to decide who, if anyone, is 'embarrassing the faith' or 'keeping people from Christ'.
@@bassmanjr100 He said the VIEW ITSELF is embarrassing, not the individuals or persons who believe it. You are taking it personally, he is talking about the belief itself.
16:27 I think the questioner's point was:
* ideology = Christianity overall
* behaviour of some = Young Earth Creationism.
Christianity must be judged on its own grounds, if as you and he believe Young Earth Creationism _were_ foreign to its substance, well, the enquirer would need to totally ignore that and judge Christianity on its own grounds, it would be unfair to be hung up on Young Earth Creationists.
The problem being of course, your view of an Adam 750 000 years ago is an actual scandal, since it would make:
* Moses incapable of accurately knowing Genesis 3 as history
* and mankind during those 750 000 years incapable of correctly remembering and being comforted by that promise.
There are Old Earth views that put Adam even more recently, with even more disastrous results.
13:51 to 15:58 - Craig's thoughts on young earth creationism.
14:04-14:57 Dr. Craig, this is terrible. I’ve loved your work for so many years, but this is awful.
Why? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Dr. Craig is fully aware of the difference between “uncompelling” and “indefensible.” If he is not convinced of Young Earth Creationism, or the literalistic approaches of interpreting Genesis 1-11, then it is entirely within Christian liberty and charity to say that he finds those positions uncompelling. But to say they are “intellectually indefensible” is to level everyone who does affirm those approaches as intellectually beneath him. And to call those who hold to such beliefs “embarrassments” who are doing harm to the Christian cause is so unnecessary.
This statement comes across as if it is from a man attempting to maintain academic credibility at the cost of needlessly offending brothers and sisters in Christ.
He should be above this. I’ve seen the vitriol with which Ken Ham and others have treated Dr. Craig, but I have always seen him in the highest of lights as far as his ethical and moral fortitude were concerned. This statement, however, entirely changes that. To degrade and minimalize the positions of millions of fellow Christians in such a way is humiliating for someone who has so long loved his work and defended his name against detractors and skeptics. In every way, this is terrible and awful.
@@hmichaelshultzjr //Dr. Craig is fully aware of the difference between “uncompelling” and “indefensible.” If he is not convinced of Young Earth Creationism, or the literalistic approaches of interpreting Genesis 1-11, then it is entirely within Christian liberty and charity to say that he finds those positions uncompelling. But to say they are “intellectually indefensible” is to level everyone who does affirm those approaches as intellectually beneath him. And to call those who hold to such beliefs “embarrassments” who are doing harm to the Christian cause is so unnecessary.//
First, it should be noted that he's talking about assessment of the scientific evidence for the age of the universe/earth, not the correct interpretation of Genesis 1-11. Scientifically, he believes that the claims of Young Earth Creationists are indefensible. However, that's not to say that he thinks YECs are beneath him intellectually, just as he doesn't think that Peter van Inwagen is beneath him intellectually just because they disagree on the existence of abstract objects.
Why does Dr. Craig consider YEC an "embarrassment"? Because, as a people who should be known for their reasonableness and given the amount and variety of evidence against YEC, he believes that YEC does great harm to Christians' reputations. You may not find that embarrassing, but embarrassment has much to do with one's operating context. Presumably, you are not operating in the same context as Dr. Craig, so you may not feel the embarrassment he does. And that's ok. Since you are familiar with Dr. Craig's oeuvre, you know that he's much more concerned with truth than with reputation, which brings us to the next point...
//This statement comes across as if it is from a man attempting to maintain academic credibility at the cost of needlessly offending brothers and sisters in Christ.//
Again, as one who is familiar with Dr. Craig's work, you must know that Dr. Craig holds to a number of positions which may be an embarrassment for certain other Christians. Those who hold to conditional immortality may be embarrassed that he affirms an eternal conscious torment model of hell. Or for those who hold to God's timelessness, that he holds to God's entering into temporal relations at the moment of creation. And so forth. So, while Dr. Craig may find YEC as a doctrinal position an embarrassment, he nevertheless works for unity within the body of Christ while offering what he considers the best defenses of the Christian faith.
//To degrade and minimalize the positions of millions of fellow Christians in such a way is humiliating for someone who has so long loved his work and defended his name against detractors and skeptics. In every way, this is terrible and awful.//
Note your wording here. Dr. Craig minimalizes "the position" of fellow Christians. Yes, that's the correct wording. Positions don't deserve respect. People do (or do not). Dr. Craig isn't disrespecting YECs. He's very clear about that at around the 15:45 mark. He simply thinks they are wrong and that we as Christians should adopt a different position as a matter of truth. - RF Admin
@@hmichaelshultzjrmessed up xtian gets angry about another clueless xtian. Who knew?
What is that view of original sin called? I've never heard it before. It's very intriguing
Great Q&A, Dr. Craig. I just had "the evolution talk" with my youth group at church. Many are curious and searching, some are ardent YE creationists. I had to handle the topic carefully, but watching this, I wonder what I'm missing that you know which makes you so confident on the fallacious nature of YEC. 🤔
He prefers an Adam from 500,000 years ago. Sound arguement, no? 😂 He says YEC are an embarrassment yet brings that theory. I'm not convinced of YEC, BTW.
@@bassmanjr100 what's your criticism? You question its soundness without targeting anything specific. 🤔
@@bassmanjr100i hold to the day age theory, which puts Adam and Eve around 49,000 to 150,000 error bar , scripture has in genesis the 4 rivers that come together. They place the location of these rivers where the Persian Gulf is . The date for that is around 50,000 years ago coming out of an ice age cycle. Fun subject until people get heated .
@@Terrylb285That is a more reasonable theory than Craig's.
@@AdamLeisHow did Moses have any idea to put the things he put in Genesis if Adam was 500,000 years ago? Was it simply zapped into his head and he wrote in a trance? There could be no record that would last that long. The Bible goes on to say Adam and his direct descendants farmed and built cities? Any scientific evidence for that 100s of thousands of years ago? The Bible says that Adam and his direct descendants worshipped the God of the Bible and called upon the name of the Lord. Any evidence form 500,000 years ago? Craig chooses this crazy theory because he want to place Neanderthals as humans with a soul. Maybe they had one, maybe not but the Bible we have does not seem to address God's relationship with them any more than it addresses God's relationship with potential alien life out in the universe. I argue that God must have other ways of revealing Himself to those people (if they are people). To put Adam back any further than maybe 50,000 years sound nuts to me.
I'll ask what John MacArthur asked. If you deny a literal flood, 14:00-14:40, where and when does the Bible become trustworthy, Doctor?
One does not have to deny the trustworthiness of the Bible in order to conclude that not everything in Scripture is meant to be taken literalistically. In fact, to assert such a reading would do violence to the variety of genres included within it which require different modes of interpretation. - RF Admin
If the bible makes intellectually indefensible claims then how does that help with its trustworthiness? Dr Craig's approach is the correct one.
1:26 But I _do_ have an idea.
Angelic beings cannot directly read thoughts. They can extrapolate from physical factors which they would see better than any scientist, but they cannot read thoughts that are not from them.
However, the reverse is no problem.
Within God's permission or orders (the devil would hardly be acting on God's orders, usually, but could not act without God's permission, while the angel appearing to Joseph in a dream certainly _was_ acting on God's orders), they have no problem at all sending telepathy.
So, yes, an angel has that capacity.
See St. Thomas Aquinas and also Archbishop Thiandoum of Dakar, the successor of Archbishop Lefebvre. I read his wonderful angelology / demonology article in The Latin Mass Magazine.
Dr. William Craig's comment regarding Christians who believe in Creation being good but consider Creationism as disgraceful is inherently inconsistent. This disparity arises from the fact that Creationism, in essence, is the belief held by certain Christians that the universe and life originated through divine Creation, as per the biblical account. Therefore, maintaining that Christians who hold these beliefs are good, but the belief system itself is disgraceful suggests a contradictory stance. It's crucial to recognize that one's belief in Creationism is a fundamental aspect of their Christian faith, and thus, labeling the belief as disgraceful while still considering the believers as good creates a paradoxical situation.
WLC never said he rejects creation, he says he rejects young earth creationism.
So, animals also have self-preserving biological instincts. So what exactly, apart from the biological aspect sets us apart from animals? It’s a sensus divinitatis, or a spiritual nature that is capable of choosing immortality and not capable of righteousness. It’s a corrupted spiritual nature that produces the desire and impulse to sin with our bodies.
_"so I repeat what I said before that __15:07__ this movement is doing tremendous harm __15:11__ to the Christian Faith by portraying __15:16__ this __15:18__ intellectually indefensible view as __15:22__ essential to the truth of Christianity __15:25__ and of the Gospel"_
What if it _is_ essential? If so, you are already going down as someone recommending isolation and marginalisation of Young Earth Creationists at least if they are content providers, which sounds like "can neither buy nor sell" and you might one day end up sending them to the guillotine, or if you don't, your dramaturgic expression may have contributed to those who do.
Meanwhile, far from, from your point of view adding to the defense you could make against this danger, you are undercutting your own supposed defense.
I think it’s more embarrassing to have to deny obvious claims of the Bible to appease a scholarly body that is blind to begin with.
What makes them obvious? It's obvious to me not everything in the bible is meant to be taken as completely literal.
@@zombiesingularity I think “there was evening and there was morning, one day” is very clear language that is hard to interpret as allegory
the original sin is very difficult for me to comprehend. Any books suggestions on both sides?
2:56 The Roman Catholic doctrine is not that Adam's sin is imputed to his descendants (except Jesus and Mary), just like the doctrine on justification is not that Jesus' righteousness is imputed to us.
You are attacking a straw man.
Here is the Council of Trent resumings its view on Original sin in five anathemas:
If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.
If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:-whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,-which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, -is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.
If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,-whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, -let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin.
19:28 _"material things like words on a paper can be about things"_
Not to the ink and paper!
Only to the reader, who is not purely material.
Now for Craig's answer.
Great _minds_ think alike ...
I think the questioner has the impression that WLC rejects YEC because he doesn’t want to appear naive to the secular world. He wants to maintain his “respectability” with the unbelieving world. I have had the impression too
It's true that Dr. Craig doesn't want to appear naive, but not just to the secular world. Naivete is a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment. The mission of the ministry is "to provide in the public arena an intelligent, articulate, and uncompromising yet gracious Christian perspective on the most important issues concerning the truth of the Christian faith today." Having the appearance of naivete would run counter to this purpose.
But it would be a mistake to therefore infer that Dr. Craig allows his beliefs to be determined by such a desire. If that were the case, then he would not affirm that God is a maximally great being, that God is the best explanation for contingent existence, that God is the best explanation for the fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life, that Christ's atonement involved penal substitution, that there are objective moral truths, that Christ was resurrected, etc., etc.
One can seek to avoid the appearance of naivete without sacrificing intellectual integrity. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg that’s a scare tactic by YEC ,
@@ReasonableFaithOrg yes absolutely! That’s why I was pointing that would be an “impression”. I admire greatly to Dr Craig and was trying to understand the question on YEC. Many blessings
P.S Maybe it would be good to know the top reasons why Dr Craig considers YEC to be intellectually embarrassing or having a dialog with people like Ken Ham
Funnily enough, in my Young Earth Creationist Middle School, we were taught that Sin is transmitted to all of us through Adam’s Y Chromosome and thusly Jesus was sinless because he was not conceived with a human Y Chromosome
🤦♂
This is a poor restatement of the Traducian View of the imputation of sin. However, there is no more evidence for the theory of your YEC MS than there is in WLC’s position.
There is a fundamental problem with that. If true, then Jesus was not a normal human like the rest of us, hence, His sacrifice would not count.
Super helpful, thank you! 🙏🏽
🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
_"when you __13:55__ investigate the merits of young Earth __13:58__ creationism __14:00__ it is __14:01__ intellectually __14:03__ indefensible the idea that the world the __14:06__ universe was created a few thousand __14:09__ years ago in six consecutive 24-hour __14:12__ days is uh indefensible the idea that __14:16__ there was a worldwide flood within human __14:21__ history that exterminated all __14:24__ terrestrial life on Earth animal as well __14:27__ as human __14:29__ is __14:30__ indefensible"_
Because you say so?
By the way, "indefensible" means "no one can defend it" so ... how about calling me "nobody" for purposes of the possibly ensuing discussion?
_"uh the idea that all human __14:33__ languages originated from a zigurat in __14:37__ Babylon a few thousand years ago is __14:41__ intellectually __14:42__ indefensible so young Earth creationism __14:46__ is an incredible embarrassment for the __14:50__ Christian faith today"_
Strawman. Young Earth Creationism does not state that French and Spanish or German and Dutch were immediate and therefore immediately separate products of the Genesis 11 event.
I would also refuse to identify the "tower" with a Ziggurat or Babel geographically with Babylon. In political and religious terms, there is continuity, but that's also the case between Boston in Lincolnshire and Boston in Massachusetts.
But the main thing to recall is, not all 6000 to 7000 languages we have today came into being then, just the first ones, perhaps 72, from which others then developed.
Compared to the evils of the pre-Flood world, the Tower project was worked mainly by dupes, and stopping it involved no harshness of punishment, except to the power hungry.
400 -- 500 years after the Flood (which as mentioned was world wide) everyone was speaking the same language with perhaps minor variations that did not impede communications.
Now, Nimrod had them working hard. One day, he came around, shouting "Good Morning! To work!" -- "Que dices? No entiendo?" -- "It's time to raise another stone circle today!" -- "Mais ça veut dire quoi, ce truc ?" -- "Has someone brought you too much beer yesterday?" -- "Hvad tjötar han om?" -- "If it's a joke, I don't appreciate it!" -- "Nie rozumiemy ..." (In fact it wasn't a joke, prawda nie rozumiali ...)
I use modern languages to illustrate the point, but am fully aware these particular languages developed only later. However, if the Flood c. 5000 years ago hadn't been followed by Babel, the languages today would probably be more similar than Indo-European languages, and wouldn't vary like between Chinese and Basque.
There is no evidence that even 5 of family trees of languages sprung into existence a mere 3500 years ago. We have Chinese and Egyptian writing dating back to 5000 years ago...
I think it’s time to get off the internet for a little bit.
@@jonathanw1106 _"We have Chinese and Egyptian writing dating back to 5000 years ago"_
Only if you accept the standard carbon dates.
A papyrus is found in a context dated to 3000 BC? Real date for those would be 1778 to 1756 BC. According to my recalibration, these dates would date in carbon to respectively 3028 and 2956 BC.
@hglundahl oh so now we can't date anything accurately beyond 3500 years ago? You do realize even AIG doesn't think carbon dating is inaccurate on those timescales? Also it's not even carbon dating at that point, we just read the text and determine which kings and peoples were around based on what's written and can determine their ages, all of which pre date the flood by several hundred years. Can you cite to a single source that provides an explanation for the thousands of records clearly showing various unrelated writings and populations popped into existence at exactly 1700 bc? Also if carbon dating is so inaccurate why are you "recalibrating it" what does that even mean
@hglundahl please explain why we are so clueless in archeology that we cannot even date something to 5000 years ago. Like I understand you arguing about millions of years (although you're still wrong and don't understand that physics and chemistry behind dating methods) but 5000?
I’d like to see WLC debate Ken Ham about yec. I like dr Craig but I think he’s wrong in this issue
I think he is right about YEC but totally wrong about saying they are keeping people from Christ. It isn't like a preacher that commits adultery and loses his reputation and that hurts his testimony. There is nothing, repeat, nothing in God's word that makes YEC wrong. It is science that has a problem with YEC. The Bible does not say we have a flat earth so comparing those two things makes no sense.
Yeah, no way he would do that.
Ken starts with the Bible Bill ends with the Bible…
I would love to see this debate as well. Ken Ham would be humiliated, I suspect.
3:35 _"how would moral corruption be transmitted genetically?"_
Genes for more impatience? Epigenetics?
PLUS God adapting the new souls to the bodies they are created with.
4:43 _"selfishness, that then becomes sin"_
Is selfishness sin? I mean per se, not just when it pushes limits God set up.
Is selfishness the general root of sin?
Does the Bible ever condemn selfishness. Note, I said the Bible, not the NIV.
I like WLC, but my goodness, his comments on young earth creationism are highly disappointing. I am not YEC, but to call them an embarrassment and to say they are keeping people from Christ is an embarrassment for WLC. He should know as well as anyone that if someone is sincere about being open to Christianity, meeting someone who is a YEC is not going to be a stumbling block. I would mention, in addition, his theory on Adam is about as ridiculous as it gets and has no evidence, scientific, historical, or biblical. I certainly would not let anyone say unchallenged in my presence that WLC is keeping people from Christ with his unscientific and unbiblical argument. Very disappointing and wrong. WLC should rethink this. I say all of this as a big fan!!!!
He’s said creation science is “embarrassing”. He’s said in the past that YEC hermeneutic is a completely legitimate interpretative approach
@@adamduarte895 actually at 14:47 he said young earth creationism is an incredible embarrassment and he likens it to flat earth. I think that is a ridiculous viewpoint. I also like and agree with other things Craig has worked on but his comment was silly
@@anomalylogic5947YEC is literally embarrassing 😂 Craig is correct, not politically correct 💯
It is certainly a stumbling block to anyone who values science. What if Christianity claimed that the earth was flat? Is it reasonable to say that that wouldn't be a stumbling block? Then why not think YEC is also a stumbling block.
He’s right