I really enjoyed this debate, and yes I also made the silly thumbnail. I thought it would show the friendly disposition we both have toward one another :)
This is so stupid. Evolution has made so many people stop believing in Jesus Christ, it’s an ATHIEST worldview because they reject Christ, everything is dire opposite to what Jesus says. The Devil has used evolution to kill the faith of Christians and WHY on Gods green earth would you think that it’s ok Redeemed Zoomer and then debate a pastor?
Why would Redeemed Zoomer belive something that Satan uses? Satan has used the false idea of evolution to attack the true church….the idea of evolution is a demonic idea created by Satan to make people against Jesus Christ and why is he debating a pastor, they supposed to be on the same side. This is so stupid.
the same lord that created sin, KNEW that Adam and Eve would sin, cursed them with Sin, cursed every human descendant with sin, gave the ultimatum to follow him or be eternally punished, knew the majority of humans that will live will not be Christian, (fun fact those are people claiming to be Christian, like Mormons, Jehovas etc) hardens peoples hearts then blames them for being evil... great guy
@morthalguard9098 So much wrong with that. Free will and an ultimatum are not the same thing, if I put a gun to your head and told you to rob the gas station or I'd kill you. Then the gas station owner takes you to court and the prosecution says "he made the conscious decision of his own free will to rob that gas station rather than dying thus he's guilty of being evil" does that sound like a moral or loving thing to do? especially when God knows everything about you from the beginning and yet he still sends the child he loves so much to eternal damnation, knowing full well he made them that way. We have free will so we can have a more meaningful relationship with God? then why does he have to threaten everyone who doesn't believe? No we 100% did not curse ourselves with sin, I don't remember eating the apple nor does anyone who has been alive in the past 6000 years, Adam and Eve ate the apple and God cursed every single human forever with sin, then he holds us accountable for sinning, even though he's the one who made us this way! God made EVERYTHING and knows EVERYTHING, he knew what would happen to everyone, he knew sin would afflict billions upon billions of people, he knew the vast majority of people would die unbelievers and go to hell, he knew how many people would die of starvation, disease natural disasters, and yet he still made the universe the way it is. (roughly only 30% of the world population is Christian, and that includes everyone who identifies as Christian, we both know a lot of those people do not qualify for salvation bases on their life style and beliefs Mormons, Jehovas etc) we should be grateful to God still allowing us into Heaven? even though he's the one who made us evil and subsequently wont let us in? If God didn't make sin than who did? us? the Bible clearly states God is the all maker, that's what all powerful means, he came before everything so thus everything is from him. God works though us and the world? gee why not save all the starving kids in Africa, or the children dying of leukemia. Also plenty of people who are not Christian attribute good things to their God(s) and nobody can prove any of that. Using the popularity of Christianity as a reason its true is dumb, first off its the Ad Populum fallacy, just because more people believe something doesn't mean its true, Everyone once believed the world was flat or infections came from demons, turns out that was all wrong. Second, Christianity is shrinking in population and Islam is projected to become the biggest religion, if that does happen, now what? is Christianity now not true? no Christians will now just stop using that point in favor of another equally ridiculous one and now Muslims will use it, and to which Christians will now say that argument is ridiculous. Byzantium is a strange one to bring up, despite being highly Christian it was destroyed by Muslims. If I were talking to a Muslim they would use Byzantium as an example of how Allah is the truth because he brought down a false religious nation. Everyone attributes good things about their religion to their god and ignores the bad, because religion is all about wishful thinking. "My life is utter shit, well at least my God(s) are watching over me and loving me." "The world is a cruel place and terrible things happen everyday, But God(s) have my back and will never forsake me"
@morthalguard9098 So God telling everyone to follow him or they will wind up in hell and the lake of fire isn't a threat or ultimatum? gee thats a lie. evil is the absence of good? even if that were true, God is still allowing the absence of it, he could change that instantly and now no more disease. Furthermore God is omnipresent, that means he's everywhere at once, and God is all good, thus anything not with god is evil. Are you saying God is not on earth? because that would be the only way for evil to exist. But if God isn't on earth (or hell) than he isn't omnipresent... what a strange contradiction. Once again I'll say it, God created EVERYTHING and is before EVERYTHING therefore god created EVERYTHING nothing exists without god right? if you don't agree than you don't think everything is reliant on God, which would mean he is not all powerful. This means everything that exists like disease is 100% created, without God there is nothing, how you can say disease is not created when God himself says he created everything, that would mean disease existed before god. Now that's not biblical at all. Your missing the point, Yes God knew Adam and Eve would sin, and subsequently punish everyone AND every animal too, the point is WHY did he put the apple where they could find it? why did he let Satan in the garden where he could tempt them? why are we to blame for the action of 2 people who came long before us? why are the animals being punished? why do we have to suffer for eternity for not believing? he supposedly loves us more than any parent can love their own children and yet he subjects them to the worst punishment possible. Jesus even said it would be better to not be born than to end up in hell... and yet he sends far more people than not to that horrible place. Many people are converting? news flash more people are leaving Christianity than joining it, that's why its a declining belief, hence why I said its projected for Islam to overtake Christianity in the next hundred years. Again I ask does having the most believers prove its real? it seems that's what you think, but if Islam or another religion overtakes Christianity does that prove their religion is true? "your argument has already been answered by theologians and apologists" Ah another fallacy, the appeal to authority fallacy, since theologians and apologists disagree you should too? because they are more knowledgeable? that makes the argument closed? what did Jesus say about placing your trust in men on matters of God? and to use your own mind? you know you really shouldn't watch RZ's channel at least for apologetics, because he has no idea what hes saying, hence why he got ripped apart by so many Atheists in his "answering all Atheist arguments" and why he had to admit he did a horrible job, no offense to you kid but you're doing the exact same thing. here's some food for thought. your salvation is based on where you are born, dont believe me? why are most people in India Hindu? why are most people in the middle east Islamic? because that's the religion they were told to follow, just like the vast majority of religious people. If you were born in Asia, Middle east or Africa there's a very good chance you would not be Christian. Which makes you wonder what happened to all the people in japan pre European contact, they never knew Jesus or the Abrahamic God, same with the native people of North and South America before colonization. None of those people knew either, but the Bible clearly states without Jesus there is no salvation. That means we know what happened to those people. 🔥🔥🔥
I think it is a black suit with black bowtie, the shirt isn't pleated and the lapels are notch, and the lapels don't look like a different material from the rest of the suit.
@crus4de50 I think the insane number and spread of dragon/reptile myths throughout all of known history kinda prove it tbh, regardless of whether we can find a body. Humans for some reason all came to the collective decision to depict large reptile-like creatures not unlike dinos, so something somewhere must have informed them.
@yahwehsaviour9083 the reason the debate was terrible was bc it wasn't a respectful debate like this one. There was a lot of insulting, including insulting the audience.
@Young_Christian7 not from James tour, tho. He can't help that dave is an inbred and an ego maniac. Dave didn't answer any of the tour's questions. Neither as Lee crooning or any origin scientist fo that matter. 🤔 humans can't come up with an explanation when the real ones starring us in the face. Were created being's
Tour's debate was bad because of Dave. He cussed and he ridiculed instead of addressing the challenge. James Tour tried to get his composure, but he was not accustomed to debates in that manner, so he got a little frisky with the provocations and personal attacks. I think the mediator should have stopped the debate right there to set things straight.
I think yourCalvinist holds a much more consistent position of biblical interpretation. Zoomer seems inconsistent but finds an explanation for everything.
It's great that you have the humility to have a friendly debate with a Christian with a different viewpoint RZ, I recently became a subscriber and I loved your video on young men in this generation. So I want to say this in gentleness and humility: I do disagree with evolution, and I think what Keith says from 1:21:51 *(Edit: to **1:22:09**)* outlines a bigger problem with believing that there would be such a large volume worth of missing history. I know God exists outside time and space (He created them both, after all), and I know it's not a Gospel issue, but it does cause the average person to question God's perfection I think.
Both of you guys are extremely intellectual in your presentations! I give thanks to the Lord for creating such great people like you who are willing to have a peaceful discourse over an analysis over God’s creation. Amen!!
I'm a theistic evolutionist. I see it as compatible with the Bible-and even supportive of some main central doctrines. I would put Adam before his initial sin in a heavenly realm, and see evolution as part of the punishment of sin. There are two main objections usually: 1. Original sin can't work with evolution, because it puts death before the fall. 2. This makes Genesis 1-2 not entirely honest, and waters down the meaning too much. If we can give an adequate answer to these two (and I believe we can), then there are actually strong arguments that can be made from evolution itself: 1. Evolution *displays the negative moral aspects of sin,* the sin nature in a cursed world: selfish striving to survive and replicate at the expense of others. One powerful argument to me, and it's an unusual one I think-is just how perfectly the basic principles of evolution exhibit the sinful nature and its values. Think about it-the principles of survival of the fittest, sacrificing other creatures to promulgate your own genetic line, pair-bonding based on performance and what mate offers the most to you, the stronger beating up on and extorting the weaker, the strains of parasites and viruses and cancers that live by draining the life out of other things-these all exhibit the heart of sinful selfish desires to be the best and use everything else just to make oneself happy. 2. Evolution *displays incredible unfolding design:* Imagine winding up a mechanism that later unfolds into the most intricate biological machines. The laws and materials of the universe, in any state whatsoever, even their most chaotic state, represent order and design. Evolutionists all admit the universe had to start with orderly laws and materials. Even if evolution itself were true, it would be an incredible design to have intricate and complex things arise from mechanistic processes out of an initial state of high energy being dispersed in simpler structures. 3. Evolution *displays the ideas of a curse and punishment:* it displays constant suffering, life at the cost of death, imperfection and struggle to survive. People will often point to the imperfections, the mutations, the dangers, the negative aspects of survival, and think this disproves design or goodness. But without a standard to measure what might be good, how can we determine what is bad? A car crash does not prove no one designed the car, nor does it prove the designer had bad intentions-it could very well illustrate the car was not used properly. The worst examples you can use, disease, natural disasters, constant dangers-well if these were in fact a punishment for initial sin, then they display their own purpose. 4. Evolution *displays strong signs of redemptive grace:* in the midst of the curse we find much beauty and meaning. Redemptive elements-given us in the picture of the death and resurrection of Spring, the night and morning of the circadian rhythm, the metamorphosis of the lowly caterpillar in "resurrection," the nurturing spirit of mothers towards the innocent young, the rewards of love and reproducing. And we have signs of our origin itself being cursed-our reproductive system itself being inextricably tied in with our toxic waste system, our painful birth and inevitable death. Perhaps creation itself is telling us more of a story that aligns with Sin and Redemption than we might at first perceive, intense suffering and selfishness combined with a longing and a hope for a better existence. Evolution by definition does not exclude God, intelligence, design, nor the fact that everything overall is getting worse in some sense. Now consider every Christian doctrine that can still be retained even while accepting evolution: 1. Original ancestors who transgressed God's Law bringing a curse on all creation. 2. An invisible realm with moral aspects to actions, and souls, angels and demons. 3. God becoming a man to suffer the punishment of sins as representative of the whole race. 4. Revelation from and union with the Holy Spirit to teach and impart spiritual truth. 5. An afterlife, with a final moral judgment of all of our lives before the throne of God.
Well said. Scripture and modern knowledge do not contradict each other. If you are too stupid so as to misunderstand metaphorical and allegorical subtexts then it may seem so. Once one studies the history of science, and that nearly all influential modern scientists were devoutly faithful, it becomes painfully obvious that not only do they not contradict, but it is foolish to say so. Theology provided the foundation for science, which is merely the art of studying God’s creation.
Hi there, investing post though I have a hard time to agree in that science is compatible with bible. Science corrects itself if wrong, bible doesn't. Bible is dogma written in stone. Bible is full of scientific errors, how to get around them if authors where inspired by God? By scientific errors I mean claims in bible that has been refuted by science. I will provide some examples: Bible told us that humankind arose from just two handcrafted humans. Evolution has corrected this, if you believes in evolution then you already know that life evolved from simplicity into complexity, I.closing humans. You know that we are apes, just like ducks are birds. You know that birds are dinosaurs and so on...This is the opposite to what bible claims. Bible told us that animals get their stripes from tree. Evolution also corrected this. Bible claims that the sun stood still a day. Cosmology proves that wrong. Bible tells us about Giants (more than twice as tall as humans) on the Earth. Paleontology shows that there has never been found one single fossil of any giant. Bible told us that Walls of Jericho were destroyed by trumpet (horn) blasts. Geology.proves it wrong, a major earthquake across the Levant and as far away as Greece in about 1550 BCE. I can go on and on.. What is your reflections of this?
Dizerner - thank you for your thoughtful comment. It's obvious you've given this a lot of thought. I actually saved your comment to my notes app for further ponder. Thanks Would you mind fleshing out, tho, what you mean when you say, "I would put Adam before his initial sin in a heavenly realm, and see evolution as part of the punishment of sin." • what do you mean by "in a heavenly realm"? Care to elaborate? • if evolution is part of the punishment for sin, do you hold that the first sin somehow happened millions of years ago? Or that evolution wasn't in place until a literal Adam sinned? • do you hold to a literal Adam? Did he live thousands of years ago or millions of years ago? These questions aren't meant to spark debate (I'm just thinking on this subject with the Genesis account as a guide) but rather as clarification and, for my own purposes, as friendly "stress-test" to your nicely articulated thoughts. Anyway, care to clarify on the above and put some specifics on how you see the creation-redemption timeline shaking out? > blessings
@@AnHebrewChild Sure. See, Eden in Scripture is a walled garden paradise, and it represents the idyllic state, basically a glorified state of uninhibited relation to God. But for an idyllic state to exist, we can't have degradation, the second law of thermodynamics, pain receptors, the ability to fall and break your neck, block your airways, any kind of "hurt or harm" on all God's holy mountain. Now if the Garden of Eden were a literal place on earth, the laws of physics themselves would literally have to change to create a sickness-free, pain-free, accident-free, death-free environment, and you will find groups of Christians trying to sneak death in before the fall which ruins the whole sin-death connection constantly seen in Scripture. If you disconnect death from sin, you've put death in the idyllic state, you've made death a part of the glory of God, and that violates God's holiness. Now, if such were the case, we would also find evidence that the laws of nature, the laws of physics, at some point in the past, would have actually changed at the original sin, and there would be evidence that physics worked differently, but we do not find anything inconsistent with the current laws of physics. What this means is that Adam and Eve were in a type of the actual place of heaven itself, heaven is what sin has lost us, and this would be before the current laws of physics which are intrinsically tied with imperfection and suffering, came to be. And this idea explains why God's creation starts with chaos and darkness over the waters, a negative element before the good of light is even introduced.
I so appreciate this content and the respectful manners from which it was derived. Well done, gentlemen! Misc. comments, unrelated to each other: 1) RZ, I consider myself well-rounded in both Bible and secular knowledge, but have never, ever heard your interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis; I'd love to know from where these ideas melding evolution with the traditional understanding of Genesis were derived. 2) I suspect you will come to see differently as you grow and study more, as you have already done on other scriptural issues. 3) I continue to appreciate your humble and loving heart. 4) I'm continuing to pray for you; your Kingdom influence is already important and the enemy of your soul will not stand still for that effectiveness.
I would've liked to hear you go into more detail about why you favor a providential explanation over a supernatural one for much of creation. You disagreed with Pastor Keith's favoring the supernatural side, but I'm wondering why you favor the providential one. You can't say "because of the science," because that would be question-begging: The mere act of applying science to this question presumes the providential explanation (science can't study the supernatural; we don't call them the "natural sciences" for nothing).
@@JoeMama-cs3te What about the gift of healing then? What about the gift of tongues? The supernatural exists and there are things happening in the world which science just can't explain. Stop trying to fit Christianity with the world.
I have no clue why he wants to believe providential over supernatural, but if I had to make a few points I'd say 1. it could realistically be one or the other, honestly I'd say that more often than not god works providentially 2. It makes his argument work better LMAO
Do you think you would ever talk with atheist youtubers? I'm a believer but I also watch the other side just to challenge my own belief. I'm not sure if I have seen someone well versed in the bible with your views on evolution debate those types. It's usually more evangelical creationists debating these guys, or they are reacting to those types. I could also see it not being as productive.
I’m an atheist but I think you’d probably dig the Inspiring Philosophy debates, he’s very well versed in Christian theology and accepts evolution, he has a number of debates with prominent atheist creators.
Christ coming soon is a bit layered. Unlike Genesis, where each day was marked by an evening and a morning, the return might be more like a Daniel soon. One part is the 1k years = day, so God might be coming in 2 weeks Another part is the thief in the night catching us off guard. Unlike Abraham w/ Sarah, God doesn't give us a schedule. And Joshua didn't march for 7k years. Simply put, God's time depends on context.
The Bible never says that we can ever assume that 1 day = 1000 years. The point of 2 Peter 3:8 is that time means nothing to God, so soon doesn't comport to our idea of soon. It says that to God, a day is _like_ 1000 years, and 1000 years is _like_ a day.
@Redeemed Zoomer How do you reconcile your beliefs to scripture in Genesis saying that living creatures (plants and animals) reproduced after their kind?
They do reproduce after their kind. You’ll never find a monkey giving birth to a human or a dog giving birth to a cat. That’s not what evolutionists believe. Think about species in the same way you think about the visible light spectrum. Red is different from yellow, but there’s no absolute point in which the color red turns into yellow. There’s orange in between. The gradient of change is so gradual that there’s no stark difference.
I truly appreciate this debate. You both acted godly and honorably. We need more debates like this. I've been studying Genesis 1 and find it overwhelming. I still don't know where I stand in regard to YEC vs OEC. I have a lot of questions that I have yet to find some answers to. I'd love it if you guys could recommend a book that deals with the account in Genesis 1 and 2.
I don't think we need to link animal death or natural calamities to Adam's sin. The emphasis of Romans is that all men die as a result of sin. Jesus in His resurrected body, the first fruits of the new creation, ate dead fish. We have to stop acting like animal death is an evil that is a result of the fall. Jesus has already eaten dead animals after going into the new creation, and I fully expect to follow and have some steak.
As a Christian from the from the STEM world I have come to the exact same conclusion that conclusion as Zoomer has. If science is the way God does things, then his argument makes the most logical sense to me.
5:02 The “1,000 years on Earth is 1 day to God” saying is actually what first had me questioning if I should believe in evolution rather than creationism
@BLandBeanz honestly curious - what argument other than this verse convinced you? One can affirm the truth in this verse and not have to reinterpret every time God says the word day. Is Jesus still in the tomb? I'm being facetious but i hope you get my point.
Going off from what you said about 1st Corinthians 15:47-48, I feel that could be also interpreted as since Adam and Eve were the first humans, we all “come from dust” (Adam)
Zoomer, I say this respectfully, you have a lot of misunderstandings about evolution (like claiming it's something that happened rather than a continuous process or that we came from Neanderthals) if you ever wanna chat about it, let me know, it doesn't have to be live. Ps: I am a biologist and I would be happy to help you understand evolution better
@HeatStrokess The misconceptions I am talking about appear during the time he starts taking questions from Your Calvinist At around 56:00 he says evolution is something that happened, but that is not happening anymore
@@HeatStrokess At 57:00 he says there's a difference between macro and microevolution, which really there is not, we have seen speciation in the last 100 000 years multiple times
It seems that the whole purpose of the debate is to present both sides, and not to prove the other wrong. Keith and Zoomer are both very humble in their presentation and show Christ-honoring live. The fact that we debate over this (lovingly of course) shows that we care about God. Gotta love the respect both sides have in this debate
@@RedeemedReformedRenewed That's good to hear people were respectful. I can't imagine an evolution-supporting position that a true Christian could take, suggesting man evolved from something other than man. For any of us who are very experienced in this debate going back several decades, it's absurd on its face. The only purpose upward evolutionary theory serves is to find a way to justify God not existing.
I've never heard the "evolution makes death the hero" argument. I think it's wrong, but it is interesting. I find it more convincing that the death that is being referred to is spiritual death, because Adam represents the beginning of a spiritual life in men. In the same way animals can only be hurt, they cannot suffer because they are not self-aware, the predecessors of Adam could not truly "die" because they were never truly "alive." It is only with a spiritual life that true death, and true salvation, is possible.
No Christians ever thought like this before Darwin came along with his theory. You're only kowtowing to Darwin and reinterpreting Christianity to fit in with modernism.
@@mangledaway Suffering requires the ability to imagine a different state of being. Pain is merely a sensory experience. If a human is sick or injured, they both experience the pain and discomfort and have to deal with the dissonance between their current state and an imagined healthy state without pain and discomfort. Animals do not have the ability to do this, they only have the sensory experience of pain.
I do not think it’s true that animals cannot suffer, or that they cannot imagine other states of being or think. I’ve had dogs all my life and I can tell you they definitely consider whether they should do the right thing or the wrong thing (I can see them thinking about whether they should steal our food or not). They can be sneaky and do things when they think you’re not looking. They act guilty when they did something wrong. Also, trying to say pain and suffering are different is just wordplay.
@@gigahorse1475 Dogs are a bit of an exception since they are semi-sentient. The vast majority of the animal kingdom does not have that capability. And even when it comes to dogs, they cannot become resentful in the same way humans can. This isn't an argument, I clearly defined how they are different. If you don't want to consider subtle distinctions just move on.
I liked hearing your take here. I think the insistence of an young earth creation idea, really serves as a stumbling block for people who are just getting interested in the religion. If you learned science first, archeology, anthropology, astronomy, geology, biology, and many more groups I probably forgot, it goes against the 100% literal interpretation of the bible. So you have to choose, do you follow Christ and forget all the evidence that the earth is old, or do you do the tough work of trying to learn scripture and seeing how it all relates to an old earth. We really need more people talking about why Science and religion should be compatible, both are looking at the truth, so if they can't agree then one is a lie, and there is far too much evidence the world was created much older than 6000 years ago. I do wish debate was praised as old earth creation vs young earth, as Darwinian evolution is just as flawed as most young earth arguments. As Darwin ignored the full existence of God, just as the young earth creationists ignore all the evidence earth must be much older....even those you sited in scripture. I see 3 sides to the debate, Young Earth Creation, Darwinian Evolution and Old World Creation. most your best points were in favor of Old World Creation, and most YourCalvinist best points were against Darwinian Evolution, but Old Word Creation looks at the evidence though the natural world as well as theology to find a better truth than any of the other 2.
@@quadrga That why I suggested, as did YourCalvinist in the debate, the idea of Old World Creation. I think Zoomer did a better job supporting Old World Creation with his arguments, through scripture, than he did supporting any form of Darwinism.
What do you consider to be the single Best evidence that the Earth is 14 billion years old ? Are you conflating Macro Evolution [basically amino acids evolved into all the living creatures] with Micro [variety within species preset boundaries] for example: Birds, From the giant Condor to the tiny Hummingbird to Penguins... look Vastly different yet they all are classified as Birds and share the same DNA
Genesis 1:29-30 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.
I was surprised that this was skipped. Also,in Gen 9, God specifically says He now gives animals for food. Then in the NewH and NewE, we see carnivores reverting to herbivores. So yes, biology changed since the 6-day creation.
Sure, it's silly to deny that evolution is true, but many of people who believe that evolution is true believe many silly things as well. Many people who claim to believe in evolution believe that there aren't significant differences between different human groups, that race can be reduced to mere skin colour. These people, despite claiming to, don't really believe in evolution.
I suppose it should be. What's the point of the scientific method if everyone just agrees? Findings need to be contested in order to reach the correct conclusion.
Reminder: EVERYONE believes in evolution. Creationists simply stop at micro- and everyone else leaps to macro- That's why it's bad communication to shorten all to evolution, like saying you love your children doesn't mean you /love/ your children.
@jongreen its much easier to say "evolution" than "macroevolution with common descent from a universal common ancestor" every time. People with more than two brain cells know what is being discussed.
@@asphilosophyusa that's the issue, at least 65% of the population by your standard has two brain cells or less. Even intellectuals often have blind spots, the average person is intentionally ignorant lol, they're nearly unreasonable when it comes to dogma-challenging conversations like this
Micro and macro evolution is the same thing, there is no distinction. Only the time and the fact that Micro evolution will lead to new species evolving over time, it is inevitable.
@traditionalamerican one distinctoon is that there is a great deal of empirical evidencexfor one (micro), there is practically zero empirical evidence for the other (macro). Plus based on what we know about mutation rate frequency and time limitations of earth's history, macroevolution is mathematically impossible.
I loved the whole debate, I align witt RZ but I loved Keith Foskey closing statement. He goes to the heart of it; no matter what God is Creator, the creation testifies to it.
It's sad that after watching the video in full, I check the comments to see that many people commenting CLEARLY did not watch the whole thing before they commented, or at least we're not paying attention.
Hey RZ I wanted to ask you. If I said that if Lutheranism soteriology is correct then that would confirm the entire book of Concord because of Systematic theology, would I be correct?
Absolutely love this! RZ can make theistic and evolution more appealing than anyone else I’ve talked to, but ultimately I agree with the young earth creationist.
Really??? He's made me a definite creationist after watching his lame attempt at suggesting God used evolution to create humans, lol 😆 😂 🤣 😄. I actually think his full argument is flawed on so many levels, and I'm surprised he follows this evolution lie. Major surprised as I actually enjoyed listening to him
@yahwehsaviour9083 a lot of us came to Christ after already believing in evolution just like him. Thank God I didn't believe I had to reject evolution to accept Christianity. Maybe I missed it (or maybe the argument was just so bad I blocked it out), but why is evolution different than heliocentrism again? It definitely seems like we're making the mistake of holding to geocentrism all over again unless I'm mistaken.
@yahwehsaviour9083 interesting. I know there's no evidence of how life emerged from inanimate material, but you mean even after God seeded life there's no evidence the life evolved from there?
@JustAskingQuestions8571 yes there is zero evidence for macro evaluation all Darwin got right was adaptation and selection which is a form of evolution but species are created as such and don't morph into other animals. The full story of evolution is silly we all didn't come from one common ancestry. U like Stephen myers? His book is interesting on intelligent design. The evidence is everywhere
I swear I'm in this internal conflict about religion rn and every time I hear an atheist speak, they convince me more of God's existance and Christianity being true, and every time I hear a christian talk they legit just convince me less. Like bruhhh y'all are terrible at your jobs 💀💀💀💀
@@charliespleen The 7th council’s teaching on the nature of iconography precludes any non-literal interpretation of Genesis. The types reflect the realities of the prototypes.
Lol "all Christians are unanimous" what a meaningless statement. Yeah just dismiss arguments you don't like without providing evidence other than "creed xxx and council yyyy from 1000 years ago says so"
@@terrinsnelgrove4005 You misunderstood the point of my comment. I’m not saying that everyone who claims the moniker of “Christian” believes in the proposition. I’m claiming that the ones who believe in the proposition are the only ones who are really Christian. But also yes, the authorities of the Church - who receive their authority from Christ and the Apostles - do get to tell you what is right and wrong. That’s why Christ established their office in the first place, lol. The faith was delivered once. So, if your beliefs sprouted up 1500+ years after Christ (and it wasn’t what any Christian believed before), then you might be a Protestant - and need to reconsider.
A WARNING from my own life: For me growing up, evolution was the only thing that made me consider leaving the faith. Evolution is by definition a natural explanation of how everything inevitably created itself, with no creator necessary. You can imagine a generic "guiding hand" but it winds up feeling like "I know my parents bring the Christmas presents but I still believe in Santa". Thankfully I did my research and there's plenty of reasons not to believe in evolution, plenty of reasons to believe in the Bible's account of creation and the flood. You can make room for evolution and keep your faith, but just because it's okay for you doesn't mean it isn't destroying the faith of your brothers and sisters and leading the whole culture into godless humanism.
@mr_meme_420 If you read my whole comment, you'd see that I addressed the evidentiary side in my own search for truth. This video focuses on the theology of the topic, not scientific details. So my comment is in answer to "theologically, it doesn't matter" which it clearly does. There is a lot of content on RUclips that is about the science side of the debate, and you can watch that if you're interested.
@ethanmoon3925 So you're basically saying it doesn't matter. You'll keep your faith regardless. I would say there's not much of an issue with this, as long as you keep it out of a science classroom. But I will ask a question: Do you doubt any other piece of science due to this way you think about evolution? The danger is that if you do, you may deny other pieces of science such as climate change, which are way more relevant to our lives currently.
@mr_meme_420 No, you're still not reading me clearly. People on here are saying it doesn't matter, I'm the one saying it does matter. Dinosaur soft tissue that we find cannot be preserved for millions of years. Lack of erosion between the sedimentary rock layers and fossils that span the gaps between them show they were laid down at the same time, not millions of years apart. We see natural selection and epigenetics choosing what genes out of the larger gene pool are expressed for adaptation purposes, but we don't see new genetic information being added to the gene pool. Mutation is like a glitch in computer software, it doesn't write a new operating system it just breaks what you have. Frankly I don't think the belief that everything created itself accidentally for no reason to be a scientific idea, nor is it a good worldview to push on people.
@ethanmoon3925 If you had a code where random bits were changed over time and only bits that improved the code were kept, and you ran the process of this over millions of years you may actually get an OS at some point. However, I don't really know the odds of this happening. If they were low, I would consider it evidence of divine intervention, and if the chances were high, it isn't really evidence either way. Since I don't know the odds, I can't comment on whether it's good evidence for a God. Anyway, the thing convincing me that Christianity isn't true is the fact that looking at Genesis Chapter 1 and the history of the Earth best evident to us via science, you can see incredible differences in the order that things take place. Let's accept how Redeemed Zoomer interprets it in this debate; He says that the 'days' are not 24 hours but just undefined periods of time, which I think is a fair valid interpretation. However, the problem arises on day 3- day 5: Genesis 1:9: "And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so." Okay, so we have plants and trees, but then Genesis 1:20: "And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”" According to scientists, the first major presence of life in the sea was the Cambrian explosion around 538.8 million years ago. While the first plants emerged around 450 million years ago. A difference of 88 million years, so you can't argue against this by saying the dates may be a bit inaccurate because there is such a large difference in time between them. Sorry if I'm sort of yapping a bit and going off topic from your original response, but these are just my thoughts, and I suppose I'm just trying to write them all down.
While I do believe evolution, I’m not gung ho about it, and I respect those who don’t believe it. There’s a lot of room for disagreement on these things in Christendom. I’m glad those two could have a productive conversation. God bless.
Fascinating, can someone help remind me, what happens to days in Revelation, as it says now the light will come from Christ, will there be no more day and night? Or just that Chirst is the sun in a sense now and there still would be day and night, thought one of you biblical scholars could tell me the verse?
Very respectful exchange, thank you both for that. Highly recommend Reading Genesis Well by C. John Collins for anyone interested in the topic. Examining the literature in the original context can help us avoid reading modern ideas into the text.
So I'm sure this gets addressed later in the video but wanted to leave this comment now while it's fresh in my head. During his opening statement, YourCalvinist keeps referring to death as the hero or a positive thing in the tide of evolution as evidence for why evolution and religion cannot be reconciled. I feel like this lens is inaccurate because in Darwinism, there is no benefit to death. The center of that idealogy, whether you believe in it or not, is that survivors pass on their genes so that the next generation will be more likely to survive. While evolution does not seek to "defeat death" in the same sense that Jesus did, it absolutely does not glorify death and seeks to post-pone as long as possible.
I always find YEC deeply frustrating and upsetting. It really makes Christianity appear to the unconverted as conspiratorial, unintellectual and stupid (making conversion and outreach so difficult)
YEC was one of the biggest stumbling blocks for me fully accepting Christ, I was given a false dichotomy that I had to reject all the actual science evidence or I could not ever be Christian. That does a huge disservice to the religion when both Science and Theology are looking for the truth. We should not be pushing people away from Christ because we disagree about things, we should bring them in as we all continue to learn and grow closer to Christ.
Why? 99% of people don't understand the science behind evolutionary theory, so it's literally the same as taking that information on faith. Why encourage people to be beholden to science they can't understand and cannot prove BEFORE being beholden to God who they can barely understand and also cannot prove? Don't make Christians become scientists who don't question or accept scientific doctrine before they're Christian, that's half the reason all the Prot churches accept transformers now lol.
The only thing I can't wrap my head around is how complex proteins came about. Yes, there have been studies saying that amino acids can be created from an early earth environment, but you can not really do much with those proteins as there aren't any other structures to assemble them. Then you have the fact that said structures are made of protein themselves, etc etc.
Problem is, without YEC, and with evolution looking to be the way life changes and adapts, it doesn't make sense with the bible. If death did not enter the world until Mankind sinned in The Garden, then evolution could not have happened. As it takes many generations of death and adaptations for evolution to occur.
@@Traditional_American Although not very well versed with the Bible which is something I am working on, one verse that came up to mind during Redeemed Zoomer's opening statement was Genesis 3:18, "Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee" where it is a change within plants as a result of Adam and Eve sinning. So I did not really understand the whole, "Well satan was already in the earth so there was already evil" portion. Another statement I hear is that if you doubt the account of even Genesis 1:1, it is to say after studying and doing research, you conclude, "well it may not actually be the case". Then the whole Bible comes into questioning whether it is from the OT or NT is actually true in what it says.
If Darwinian evolution were true, I do not see anything in the Bible, or specifically in the book of Genesis, that would be incompatible with God using this as a means. However, the Bible does not affirm this position either. Based on the Cambrian Explosion, I do not see how Darwinian evolution is possible. If species evolve slowly with gradual change over a long period of time, going from micro-organisms to all animal phyla that quickly, according to the fossil record, seems to refute Darwin.
@@ZT5513 The problem is that if Darwin's version of evolution were true, there would be more intermediate steps between micro-organisms and the existence of all animal phyla. Otherwise, the progression of life would be less of a progression and more of a manifestation from micro-organisms to wide varieties of complex life. This would not fit with Darwin's theory.
Can we take a moment to appreciate how well this was produced compared to the Kyle v RZ debate (if you could call it that) that was constantly bombarding the viewer with Ortho-bro memes... Kyle, please try harder.
Islam gets the trinity completely wrong. The Quran thinks that the trinity is God, Jesus, and Mary, and that Christians worship these as three separate Gods. Also the whole child marriage thing.
You do realize that science is merely the study of God's creation? Yet you uphold science as something on par with God. There are a plethora of Christian scientists who hold a young earth literal 6-day view of creation. i'm honestly shocked that you believe in macro-evolution and can say that with a straight face..
@@sdubs *You do realize that science is merely the study of God's creation?* Then why does the "study of God's creation" contradict God's creation as described in the bible? *Yet you uphold science as something on par with God.* I uphold it as something superior to God, because science studies the world empirically in a way that we can most reliably analyze as far as our physical senses & our brains allow us to, while using God to explain the world doesn't have any utilitarian merit whatsoever... *There are a plethora of Christian scientists who hold a young earth literal 6-day view of creation.* It's not really a plethora, because they only make up about a maximum of 1-2% of all scientists around the world. And for the most part these creationist scientists have degrees in scientific fields that are not in any way relevant to geology, biology, physics or any other field that would be relevant to the age of the universe and earth and towards biodiversity. In fact, those three fields have the least percentage of YECs out of all fields. *i'm honestly shocked that you believe in macro-evolution and can say that with a straight face..* Well, everybody who actually understands what macro-evolution really is (and no, it's not "changes between kinds") says it with a straight face. Creationists simply don't know what it is, that's all...
The only miracles required as described in Genesis was 1) creation "ex nihilo" of the cosmos, while all other development/evolution was not directly miraculous, it was provided by God to occur as He willed, so from a singularity to stars and star systems to planets to life to humanoid life to the 2) miracle of giving a soul/spirit/spiritual life to Man...
In cross-examination, they both asked fairly soft questions that teased out a few finer points that one would draw from their openings, so...a draw there
I’m a young earth creationist and it’s very interesting to hear a Christian hold a different view. As long as an earthly view doesn’t walk people away from God and a relationship with Jesus I don’t think it’s a problem with it. Great debate!
I’m a theistic evolutionist, and I don’t have a problem with YEC (I used to be one). The only problem I have with it is when they claim that only YECs can be Christians or believe in and respect the Bible!
The last point you made zoomer I think was very beautiful. I may not exactly subscribe to it at the moment but I’ve never heard that and think it’s an excellent point that it does line up with the timeline
I always found the arguments for evolution, especially within Christianity, to be very weak when compared to the young Earth creationism arguments. While Redeemed Zoomer does make some very good points, I still think that the point of view defended by pastor Keith makes much more sense, both theologically and scientifically.
@@Ubions I could say the same about Redeemed Zoomer's participation, especially his arbitrary argument of "oh, there are a lot of supernatural miracles in the Bible, but creation specifically wasn't supernatural because no." Don't get me wrong, I don't agree 100% with Keith, especially when it comes to doctrine. I'm not a calvinist, I'm not an amillenianist, and I'm not a Presbyterian, but I do agree with *most* of his arguments. Sure, there are a lot of arguments that weren't good enough for me, and I could make better arguments than those, but, in my opinion, Redeemed Zoomer's arguments are far weaker. For example, RZ says that Darwinian evolution agrees with the Bible about plants being created before the other lifeforms. Except I learned in school that that can't be the case because, if the first organisms were autotrophic, then there would be no reason for there to be heterotrophic organisms. The Bible saying plants came before animals is a direct rebuttal of Darwinian evolution. I could present a lot more arguments against Darwinism if you want.
@@UbionsThe most important argument against Darwinism, in my opinion, is that death *could not* have come *before* the fall, because this goes completely against the entire Bible, and, again, I could present many arguments for this point of view if you want.
@@therick363 That God created the Earth in 6 days and that only *after* the fall death came into the world and the organisms started dying and adapting to their environment.
So where im confused is when you explained that all the creation days line up with science. First, I've not heard those claims from any source I've ever seen. Second, the fact that creatures of sea and sky were created before creatures of land doesn't fit. The evolutionary timeline has sea before land, yes, but flighted creatures didn't appear on the scene until long after they made their way onto land.
Your argument was very convincing, I totally see how the modern theory of evolution could line up with the bible and I think it is a pretty decent possibility that the universe is actually billions of years old. The only deal braker for me as of now is the inconsistency of carbon dating and the existence of soft dinosaur tissue that should have been completely gone millions of years a go, but I'd say I'm pretty split between both positions right now.
I'd just like to throw out that the inconsistencies of carbon dating are why we don't carbon date very old things. I'd also like to add that carbon dating is fairly accurate up to 10,000 years, so if the earth is as young as 7,000 years them carbon dating should be perfectly reasonable to date anything. Have a blessed day 😊
@@PGBigRed we don't just use carbon dating, no scientist is gonna use carbon dating to date things millions of years old. Instead they do radiometric dating with things like Uranium that have a much longer half life.
My thought at the end of RZ's opening statement (maybe he expounds later): I don't think it is convincing to say that the tree of life proves the existence of death prior to the fall. Revelation 22 states the tree of life will be present, which is after death has been thrown into the lake of fire. In other words, the tree of life will exist in a world without death. It could just as easily have existed in the garden prior to death. The tree of life's existence does not necessitate the presence of death.
Ad hoc, begging the question, esiegesis, incredulity, this was all i heard from zoomer in this debate. This children is why you shouldn't allow your future children to be indoctrinated by the state.
Zoomer falls into a lot of argumentative fallacies and I'd say it's one of his biggest problems. But it's a fallacy within itself to think that a fallacy makes an argument wrong.
@priestofronaldalt I'm not sure that's correct, bud, but let's explore that a little bit, 1 what is the name of the formal or informal fallacy you are referring to, the one that states it is falacious to declare an argument incorect because it is argued through fallacy? And second, if ones line of reasoning is fallacious, by definition it is wrong (mistaken belief), even if if the conclusion is correct, which in this case, neither the argument nor the conclusion is correct and to point that out is not fallacious in the slightest, the statement, it's a fallacy to state an argument is incorrect because it is fallacious is a violation of the law of noncontradiction, it cannot be a mistaken belief and not a mistaken belief simultaneously.
@@jeffreyAferguson first the fallacy I mentioned is the fallacy fallacy or the notion that an ARGUMENTATIVE fallacy makes the point argued incorrect. An example would arguing that the earth is round with a flat earther and I strawman by saying "all flat earthers think X" or "all flat earthers are like X" those argumentative tactics may rely on fallacies to work, but the point being argued I still true. PS, using "bud" comes off as condescending and disagreeing with you doesn't mean the person who disagrees with you is brainwashed.
@priestofronaldalt I'll admit, I have never read of the argument from fallacy before now and I'm not sure I quite agree with its assertions based on my prior reasoning, i can see your particular examplee holding watter, i would assert however that if the arguments and the conclusion are founded and concluded in logical fallacies and in violation of the laws of logic, identy and or noncontradiction it canot be labeled as such, logically speaking. also don't be so soft, "bud" is common use in the Midwest.
@@jeffreyAferguson I agree with you. If a conclusion is the result of LOGICAL fallacies then it's probably wrong. I'm from the Midwest but my family hails from Texas and Kentucky so I never heard bud at home and I really only heard it from those being demeaning to me so I've personally never liked the word
This is something that has been plaguing my mind recently. I just don’t know who or what to agree with. I went from being firm in my belief of the old earth, to firm in my belief of the young earth, to unsure of anything. I don’t know if it will matter on the day of judgement wether or not we think the earth is seven thousand or four billion years old, but this is something that I care and think about often. I am currently going into paleontology/geology, so wether I am a believer in the old or young earth will matter. At this point, I believe that either is possible and there is nothing that can definitely say one or the other is more true. It is all up to how you interpret the Bible; literally or figuratively.
The only thing that bothers me about darwinian thought is Darwin, literally claimed that other races are "lower" than the white race. And i understand the argument "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" but this guy literally created the theory as a agnostic racist. Not trying to be PC or anything, I'm just saying i can't get behind his motivation to his thought process.
Different human groups evolved differently due to different selection pressures. If evolution is true (and it is), then egalitarianism *must be* false.
@@noah2633 okay so then you affirm that the people of darker completions in the world are lesser than those with European heritage? And from this world view, which people's are the greatest and which are the least?
The best scientist that I've ever come across in answering this so call debate about Creation VS (Evolution or Darwinism) professor Walter Veith has the best reasonable presentations to this big debate and he is a GIANT in the field and I believe know one could stand to a face to face conversation...check out one of his many presentations one being "The Genesis Conflict"....
I really enjoyed this debate. As someone who enjoys watching debates (yes, I’m weird) this was truly refreshing to see; two men debating and exchanging ideas but with humility and kindness. Praise the Lord! But I do have to say, as much as I like Redeemer Zoomer and have benefited much from him - he had no biblical arguments for his position. His conclusion was really cool IF evolution was true, but there just isn’t any Scripture to back up his position and there’s a mountain of Scripture that goes against it. Unfortunately, I think RZ is a product of his culture and he’s trying to fit what he already believes (evolution) INTO the Bible. No one would ever read the Bible and come away with Darwinian Evolution.
That's great if you need to believe macro evolution to believe the Bible is true. What like 10 of all the fossil record might be transitional? And today we don't see any transitional species unless you say a platypus or flying fish? I'm just not convinced species evolved into different species over millions of years.
It's not syncretism to interpret the Bible as compatible with science because science is not against religion. Science comes from religion and its how we can understand God's creation better. Don't be anti science and surrender science to the atheists.Dont let atheists turn science against religion.
If I believe in faith + works to be justified, am I right with God? If I reject Christ's imputation, but instead place my dependence on Christ empowering me to do perfect works (in Christ) so as to maintain my justification, and thus faith + works to at least stay justified, will I go to heaven or the Lake of Fire?
The protestant view is that faith alone justifies us, because there is nothing we can do to be consider righteous before God, cause only Christ lived a perfect live. So we are completely dependent on the imputation of his righteous that it is freely given to us by faith. Moreover, we sanctified by God because as Paul said "For it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose."(Philippians 2:13), but this will be evidenced by the fruits that we produce in our lives, so our works are directly linked with our sanctification and are necessary for our salvation, in a sense.
If you believe in not being justified by faith alone, but by works, then you are right with God because you actually believe the Bible. The idea of imputation as merely a legal declaration and not an efficacious transformation is a more modern one, but the term technically works.
@@bigfootapologetics your faith is what saves you. Your fruits or works are extensions of that faith, but thinking that your works do anything in your favor as an addition when it comes to salvatiom then that's just not true.
@@The-Beyonder Our faith is indeed what saves us. And works are indeed only the way But James is plain in stating that faith without works is dead. Js. 2:20. Demons have faith, but they tremble; they do not do works, and will not be saved. Js. 2:19. But if faith alone were enough, and faith alone produced works, then the faith of demons would lead to fruits sufficient for their salvation. Yet we know this is not the case. Hence, we must be co-workers with God and cooperate with His grace in order to be saved. 1 Cor. 3:9. To be fair, even Lutherans now officially agree with the traditional Churches on this, with it being understood that "faith alone" is an acceptable way to express our salvation - so long as it is also understood that we must do works, however we want to articulate that semantically.
Well Done ! I have a book suggestion for Redeemed Zoomer its "The Face that demonstrates the Farce of evolution" by Hank Hanegraaff the author absolutely drives a stake through the heart of Darwin's theory. thoroughly explains how the 'Fossil Record' is an embarrassment for paleontologists as there are NO vertical transitional species, radiometric dating methods don't work, 4 billion years isn't sufficient time for amino acids to form protein molecules needed to construct a basic cell from which all life 'evolved' Its a great read and, by the time you finish the book you'll be asking yourself... "How in the world did I ever believe Darwin's Fairytale" ?
lol it is impressive how quickly you managed to demonstrate your scientific incompetence in one comment. There are a myriad of issues with your post, including citing an apologist when discussing a scientific theory, but I am always most interested in why on earth you think radiometric dating is unreliable? It is based on the foundations of chemistry itself, if we can trust in anything it is the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes. What could have possibly dissuaded you from that idea?
1] They find measurable C-14 in Dinosaur [bones,fossils] while claiming they are 65 million years old and the half life of C-14 is claimed to be 100k years 2] The igneous rocks formed during the Mt St. Helens eruption [1980] were radiometrically dated at over 100k years Krakatoa [1883] rocks were given dates in the millions of years, many more examples could be sited to illustrate the point that those dating methods are seriously flawed. 3] The Christian Apologists book contains an extensive bibliography with hundreds of scientific sources referenced. 4] When you lead off your comment with an insult, it just makes You sound like an arrogant condescending douche @@hutchbailey2208
@@llfeforce9484 1. C-14 dating is entirely unrelated to the radiometric dating I am talking about. Carbon dating is certainly unreliable past about 60,000 years and should not be used with fossils, those are best dated with other radiometric techniques or more commonly what layer the fossil is found in. 2. What you are referring to is a well-documented phenomenon unique to young volcanic rocks, and absolutely does not discredit radiometric dating as a whole. You should look into it for yourself, but basically the process of igneous rock formation traps excess argon in a way that skews the proportions of isotope to decay product. Again, this comment demonstrates extreme ignorance to the actual body of science, and it sounds like you are just regurgitating what an apologist told you in bad faith. There are other isotopes you can test for in the same rocks that are consistent with the correct age. Just because one type of isotope test is not accurate in one specific situation, does not mean that the entire process is unreliable. 3. The issue is not that there "are no sources". The issue is that a book by an uncertified apologist is not sufficient against a literal mountain of peer-reviewed work by actual experts in the field. 4. I do not mean to insult, I am literally stating that you have (and continue to) demonstrated your ignorance on this topic. I don't think you are being intentionally dishonest, I just think you are being led astray by sources that you think will confirm your biases. You should look into the actual evidence for the hypothesis of evolution and other theories, and not rely on straw-man arguments from apologists. Because when you say these things, it does look quite silly.
How does the belief that one can be naturally homosexual contradict the scriptures (I know homosexual acts are gravely sinful but I don’t think that it is unnatural a lot of bad things are natural desires)
The desire to steal money from your mom's purse is sinful. The desire to kill people is sinful. The desire to have sex with other people of the same gender is sinful. Sinful desires are sinful and need to be confessed and fought against. It's not natural. You should really check out Romans 1. It says they turned from what was natural to burn with lust for one another.
I really enjoyed this debate, and yes I also made the silly thumbnail. I thought it would show the friendly disposition we both have toward one another :)
Ya did a great job 😂
That thumbnail is goated
Thank you!@@FollowersofTheShepherd
Is that good? lol @@fabril2673
@@ConversationswithaCalvinist Certainly haha
What a scholarly discussion. Two great men, serving the one Lord.
This is so stupid. Evolution has made so many people stop believing in Jesus Christ, it’s an ATHIEST worldview because they reject Christ, everything is dire opposite to what Jesus says. The Devil has used evolution to kill the faith of Christians and WHY on Gods green earth would you think that it’s ok Redeemed Zoomer and then debate a pastor?
Why would Redeemed Zoomer belive something that Satan uses? Satan has used the false idea of evolution to attack the true church….the idea of evolution is a demonic idea created by Satan to make people against Jesus Christ and why is he debating a pastor, they supposed to be on the same side. This is so stupid.
the same lord that created sin, KNEW that Adam and Eve would sin, cursed them with Sin, cursed every human descendant with sin, gave the ultimatum to follow him or be eternally punished, knew the majority of humans that will live will not be Christian, (fun fact those are people claiming to be Christian, like Mormons, Jehovas etc) hardens peoples hearts then blames them for being evil...
great guy
@morthalguard9098 So much wrong with that.
Free will and an ultimatum are not the same thing, if I put a gun to your head and told you to rob the gas station or I'd kill you. Then the gas station owner takes you to court and the prosecution says "he made the conscious decision of his own free will to rob that gas station rather than dying thus he's guilty of being evil" does that sound like a moral or loving thing to do? especially when God knows everything about you from the beginning and yet he still sends the child he loves so much to eternal damnation, knowing full well he made them that way.
We have free will so we can have a more meaningful relationship with God? then why does he have to threaten everyone who doesn't believe?
No we 100% did not curse ourselves with sin, I don't remember eating the apple nor does anyone who has been alive in the past 6000 years, Adam and Eve ate the apple and God cursed every single human forever with sin, then he holds us accountable for sinning, even though he's the one who made us this way! God made EVERYTHING and knows EVERYTHING, he knew what would happen to everyone, he knew sin would afflict billions upon billions of people, he knew the vast majority of people would die unbelievers and go to hell, he knew how many people would die of starvation, disease natural disasters, and yet he still made the universe the way it is. (roughly only 30% of the world population is Christian, and that includes everyone who identifies as Christian, we both know a lot of those people do not qualify for salvation bases on their life style and beliefs Mormons, Jehovas etc)
we should be grateful to God still allowing us into Heaven? even though he's the one who made us evil and subsequently wont let us in? If God didn't make sin than who did? us? the Bible clearly states God is the all maker, that's what all powerful means, he came before everything so thus everything is from him.
God works though us and the world? gee why not save all the starving kids in Africa, or the children dying of leukemia. Also plenty of people who are not Christian attribute good things to their God(s) and nobody can prove any of that.
Using the popularity of Christianity as a reason its true is dumb, first off its the Ad Populum fallacy, just because more people believe something doesn't mean its true, Everyone once believed the world was flat or infections came from demons, turns out that was all wrong. Second, Christianity is shrinking in population and Islam is projected to become the biggest religion, if that does happen, now what? is Christianity now not true? no Christians will now just stop using that point in favor of another equally ridiculous one and now Muslims will use it, and to which Christians will now say that argument is ridiculous.
Byzantium is a strange one to bring up, despite being highly Christian it was destroyed by Muslims. If I were talking to a Muslim they would use Byzantium as an example of how Allah is the truth because he brought down a false religious nation. Everyone attributes good things about their religion to their god and ignores the bad, because religion is all about wishful thinking. "My life is utter shit, well at least my God(s) are watching over me and loving me." "The world is a cruel place and terrible things happen everyday, But God(s) have my back and will never forsake me"
@morthalguard9098 So God telling everyone to follow him or they will wind up in hell and the lake of fire isn't a threat or ultimatum? gee thats a lie.
evil is the absence of good? even if that were true, God is still allowing the absence of it, he could change that instantly and now no more disease. Furthermore God is omnipresent, that means he's everywhere at once, and God is all good, thus anything not with god is evil. Are you saying God is not on earth? because that would be the only way for evil to exist. But if God isn't on earth (or hell) than he isn't omnipresent... what a strange contradiction.
Once again I'll say it, God created EVERYTHING and is before EVERYTHING therefore god created EVERYTHING nothing exists without god right? if you don't agree than you don't think everything is reliant on God, which would mean he is not all powerful. This means everything that exists like disease is 100% created, without God there is nothing, how you can say disease is not created when God himself says he created everything, that would mean disease existed before god. Now that's not biblical at all.
Your missing the point, Yes God knew Adam and Eve would sin, and subsequently punish everyone AND every animal too, the point is WHY did he put the apple where they could find it? why did he let Satan in the garden where he could tempt them? why are we to blame for the action of 2 people who came long before us? why are the animals being punished? why do we have to suffer for eternity for not believing? he supposedly loves us more than any parent can love their own children and yet he subjects them to the worst punishment possible. Jesus even said it would be better to not be born than to end up in hell... and yet he sends far more people than not to that horrible place.
Many people are converting? news flash more people are leaving Christianity than joining it, that's why its a declining belief, hence why I said its projected for Islam to overtake Christianity in the next hundred years. Again I ask does having the most believers prove its real? it seems that's what you think, but if Islam or another religion overtakes Christianity does that prove their religion is true?
"your argument has already been answered by theologians and apologists"
Ah another fallacy, the appeal to authority fallacy, since theologians and apologists disagree you should too? because they are more knowledgeable? that makes the argument closed? what did Jesus say about placing your trust in men on matters of God? and to use your own mind?
you know you really shouldn't watch RZ's channel at least for apologetics, because he has no idea what hes saying, hence why he got ripped apart by so many Atheists in his "answering all Atheist arguments" and why he had to admit he did a horrible job, no offense to you kid but you're doing the exact same thing.
here's some food for thought.
your salvation is based on where you are born, dont believe me? why are most people in India Hindu? why are most people in the middle east Islamic? because that's the religion they were told to follow, just like the vast majority of religious people. If you were born in Asia, Middle east or Africa there's a very good chance you would not be Christian. Which makes you wonder what happened to all the people in japan pre European contact, they never knew Jesus or the Abrahamic God, same with the native people of North and South America before colonization. None of those people knew either, but the Bible clearly states without Jesus there is no salvation. That means we know what happened to those people. 🔥🔥🔥
Bro donned a tuxedo for an online debate. What a legend
I bet he really liked that movie Step Brothers.
You should always dress well
Redeemedbrah
I think it is a black suit with black bowtie, the shirt isn't pleated and the lapels are notch, and the lapels don't look like a different material from the rest of the suit.
It's just how we dress for church lol
I like that the creationist guy has a Jurassic Park poster.
Lol
Tbf, the book of Job describes a behemoth. They could’ve existed with us.
@crus4de50 I think the insane number and spread of dragon/reptile myths throughout all of known history kinda prove it tbh, regardless of whether we can find a body. Humans for some reason all came to the collective decision to depict large reptile-like creatures not unlike dinos, so something somewhere must have informed them.
We believe in dinosaurs.
@@crus4de50 Not at all but clearly you like to believe whatever you want
RZ looks like he’s heading to a royal banquet after this debate 🤵🏻♂️
Yo Zoomers beard looking fire.
So much better than the james tour debate. No shouting, no strawmanning, just two people airing their arguments.
James tour is brilliant 👏, u didn't enjoy him schooling dave the fake professor??? Tour is one of the best out there.
What strawman did he use also?? 😳
@yahwehsaviour9083 the reason the debate was terrible was bc it wasn't a respectful debate like this one. There was a lot of insulting, including insulting the audience.
@Young_Christian7 not from James tour, tho. He can't help that dave is an inbred and an ego maniac. Dave didn't answer any of the tour's questions. Neither as Lee crooning or any origin scientist fo that matter. 🤔 humans can't come up with an explanation when the real ones starring us in the face. Were created being's
Tour's debate was bad because of Dave. He cussed and he ridiculed instead of addressing the challenge. James Tour tried to get his composure, but he was not accustomed to debates in that manner, so he got a little frisky with the provocations and personal attacks.
I think the mediator should have stopped the debate right there to set things straight.
My comment has been answered! Not with a reply, but with an entire courthouse- this was a treat to watch
Inspiringphilosophy would be proud of you!
He would be.
MORE OVER GOD IS PROUD
Praise from a heretic??
@@OGQuranChristian4245 what makes IP, our brother In Christ, a heretic? You should be specific.
@@OGQuranChristian4245A heretic? Does he reject the Trinity? Does he reject Jesus being fully God and Fully man?
I think yourCalvinist holds a much more consistent position of biblical interpretation. Zoomer seems inconsistent but finds an explanation for everything.
It's great that you have the humility to have a friendly debate with a Christian with a different viewpoint RZ, I recently became a subscriber and I loved your video on young men in this generation. So I want to say this in gentleness and humility: I do disagree with evolution, and I think what Keith says from 1:21:51 *(Edit: to **1:22:09**)* outlines a bigger problem with believing that there would be such a large volume worth of missing history. I know God exists outside time and space (He created them both, after all), and I know it's not a Gospel issue, but it does cause the average person to question God's perfection I think.
Both of you guys are extremely intellectual in your presentations! I give thanks to the Lord for creating such great people like you who are willing to have a peaceful discourse over an analysis over God’s creation. Amen!!
The best discussion I have seen on that topic in a while. On both sides zero screaming and talking down to the opponent. Unbelievable 😅
I'm a theistic evolutionist. I see it as compatible with the Bible-and even supportive of some main central doctrines. I would put Adam before his initial sin in a heavenly realm, and see evolution as part of the punishment of sin. There are two main objections usually:
1. Original sin can't work with evolution, because it puts death before the fall.
2. This makes Genesis 1-2 not entirely honest, and waters down the meaning too much.
If we can give an adequate answer to these two (and I believe we can), then there are actually strong arguments that can be made from evolution itself:
1. Evolution *displays the negative moral aspects of sin,* the sin nature in a cursed world: selfish striving to survive and replicate at the expense of others. One powerful argument to me, and it's an unusual one I think-is just how perfectly the basic principles of evolution exhibit the sinful nature and its values. Think about it-the principles of survival of the fittest, sacrificing other creatures to promulgate your own genetic line, pair-bonding based on performance and what mate offers the most to you, the stronger beating up on and extorting the weaker, the strains of parasites and viruses and cancers that live by draining the life out of other things-these all exhibit the heart of sinful selfish desires to be the best and use everything else just to make oneself happy.
2. Evolution *displays incredible unfolding design:* Imagine winding up a mechanism that later unfolds into the most intricate biological machines. The laws and materials of the universe, in any state whatsoever, even their most chaotic state, represent order and design. Evolutionists all admit the universe had to start with orderly laws and materials. Even if evolution itself were true, it would be an incredible design to have intricate and complex things arise from mechanistic processes out of an initial state of high energy being dispersed in simpler structures.
3. Evolution *displays the ideas of a curse and punishment:* it displays constant suffering, life at the cost of death, imperfection and struggle to survive. People will often point to the imperfections, the mutations, the dangers, the negative aspects of survival, and think this disproves design or goodness. But without a standard to measure what might be good, how can we determine what is bad? A car crash does not prove no one designed the car, nor does it prove the designer had bad intentions-it could very well illustrate the car was not used properly. The worst examples you can use, disease, natural disasters, constant dangers-well if these were in fact a punishment for initial sin, then they display their own purpose.
4. Evolution *displays strong signs of redemptive grace:* in the midst of the curse we find much beauty and meaning. Redemptive elements-given us in the picture of the death and resurrection of Spring, the night and morning of the circadian rhythm, the metamorphosis of the lowly caterpillar in "resurrection," the nurturing spirit of mothers towards the innocent young, the rewards of love and reproducing. And we have signs of our origin itself being cursed-our reproductive system itself being inextricably tied in with our toxic waste system, our painful birth and inevitable death. Perhaps creation itself is telling us more of a story that aligns with Sin and Redemption than we might at first perceive, intense suffering and selfishness combined with a longing and a hope for a better existence.
Evolution by definition does not exclude God, intelligence, design, nor the fact that everything overall is getting worse in some sense. Now consider every Christian doctrine that can still be retained even while accepting evolution:
1. Original ancestors who transgressed God's Law bringing a curse on all creation.
2. An invisible realm with moral aspects to actions, and souls, angels and demons.
3. God becoming a man to suffer the punishment of sins as representative of the whole race.
4. Revelation from and union with the Holy Spirit to teach and impart spiritual truth.
5. An afterlife, with a final moral judgment of all of our lives before the throne of God.
Well said. Scripture and modern knowledge do not contradict each other. If you are too stupid so as to misunderstand metaphorical and allegorical subtexts then it may seem so. Once one studies the history of science, and that nearly all influential modern scientists were devoutly faithful, it becomes painfully obvious that not only do they not contradict, but it is foolish to say so. Theology provided the foundation for science, which is merely the art of studying God’s creation.
Hi there, investing post though I have a hard time to agree in that science is compatible with bible.
Science corrects itself if wrong, bible doesn't. Bible is dogma written in stone. Bible is full of scientific errors, how to get around them if authors where inspired by God? By scientific errors I mean claims in bible that has been refuted by science. I will provide some examples:
Bible told us that humankind arose from just two handcrafted humans.
Evolution has corrected this, if you believes in evolution then you already know that life evolved from simplicity into complexity, I.closing humans. You know that we are apes, just like ducks are birds. You know that birds are dinosaurs and so on...This is the opposite to what bible claims. Bible told us that animals get their stripes from tree. Evolution also corrected this. Bible claims that the sun stood still a day. Cosmology proves that wrong.
Bible tells us about Giants (more than twice as tall as humans) on the Earth. Paleontology shows that there has never been found one single fossil of any giant. Bible told us that Walls of Jericho were destroyed by trumpet (horn) blasts.
Geology.proves it wrong, a major earthquake across the Levant and as far away as Greece in about 1550 BCE. I can go on and on.. What is your reflections of this?
Dizerner - thank you for your thoughtful comment. It's obvious you've given this a lot of thought. I actually saved your comment to my notes app for further ponder. Thanks
Would you mind fleshing out, tho, what you mean when you say, "I would put Adam before his initial sin in a heavenly realm, and see evolution as part of the punishment of sin."
• what do you mean by "in a heavenly realm"? Care to elaborate?
• if evolution is part of the punishment for sin, do you hold that the first sin somehow happened millions of years ago? Or that evolution wasn't in place until a literal Adam sinned?
• do you hold to a literal Adam? Did he live thousands of years ago or millions of years ago?
These questions aren't meant to spark debate (I'm just thinking on this subject with the Genesis account as a guide) but rather as clarification and, for my own purposes, as friendly "stress-test" to your nicely articulated thoughts.
Anyway, care to clarify on the above and put some specifics on how you see the creation-redemption timeline shaking out?
>
blessings
@@AnHebrewChild Sure. See, Eden in Scripture is a walled garden paradise, and it represents the idyllic state, basically a glorified state of uninhibited relation to God. But for an idyllic state to exist, we can't have degradation, the second law of thermodynamics, pain receptors, the ability to fall and break your neck, block your airways, any kind of "hurt or harm" on all God's holy mountain. Now if the Garden of Eden were a literal place on earth, the laws of physics themselves would literally have to change to create a sickness-free, pain-free, accident-free, death-free environment, and you will find groups of Christians trying to sneak death in before the fall which ruins the whole sin-death connection constantly seen in Scripture. If you disconnect death from sin, you've put death in the idyllic state, you've made death a part of the glory of God, and that violates God's holiness. Now, if such were the case, we would also find evidence that the laws of nature, the laws of physics, at some point in the past, would have actually changed at the original sin, and there would be evidence that physics worked differently, but we do not find anything inconsistent with the current laws of physics. What this means is that Adam and Eve were in a type of the actual place of heaven itself, heaven is what sin has lost us, and this would be before the current laws of physics which are intrinsically tied with imperfection and suffering, came to be. And this idea explains why God's creation starts with chaos and darkness over the waters, a negative element before the good of light is even introduced.
@@Dizerner hmm. Thank you for taking the time to reply. I'll be thinking about this and -may- probably will circle back.
Cheers
I so appreciate this content and the respectful manners from which it was derived. Well done, gentlemen! Misc. comments, unrelated to each other: 1) RZ, I consider myself well-rounded in both Bible and secular knowledge, but have never, ever heard your interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis; I'd love to know from where these ideas melding evolution with the traditional understanding of Genesis were derived. 2) I suspect you will come to see differently as you grow and study more, as you have already done on other scriptural issues. 3) I continue to appreciate your humble and loving heart. 4) I'm continuing to pray for you; your Kingdom influence is already important and the enemy of your soul will not stand still for that effectiveness.
I would've liked to hear you go into more detail about why you favor a providential explanation over a supernatural one for much of creation. You disagreed with Pastor Keith's favoring the supernatural side, but I'm wondering why you favor the providential one. You can't say "because of the science," because that would be question-begging: The mere act of applying science to this question presumes the providential explanation (science can't study the supernatural; we don't call them the "natural sciences" for nothing).
What if all supernatural occurrences are just higher scientific functions we don’t understand?
@@JoeMama-cs3te What about the gift of healing then? What about the gift of tongues? The supernatural exists and there are things happening in the world which science just can't explain. Stop trying to fit Christianity with the world.
I have no clue why he wants to believe providential over supernatural, but if I had to make a few points I'd say
1. it could realistically be one or the other, honestly I'd say that more often than not god works providentially
2. It makes his argument work better LMAO
Do you think you would ever talk with atheist youtubers? I'm a believer but I also watch the other side just to challenge my own belief. I'm not sure if I have seen someone well versed in the bible with your views on evolution debate those types. It's usually more evangelical creationists debating these guys, or they are reacting to those types. I could also see it not being as productive.
I’m an atheist but I think you’d probably dig the Inspiring Philosophy debates, he’s very well versed in Christian theology and accepts evolution, he has a number of debates with prominent atheist creators.
@@joetaylor197 oh ok I’ll have to look for em
I’m atheist and I watch RZ videos for the same reason
Christ coming soon is a bit layered.
Unlike Genesis, where each day was marked by an evening and a morning, the return might be more like a Daniel soon.
One part is the 1k years = day, so God might be coming in 2 weeks
Another part is the thief in the night catching us off guard.
Unlike Abraham w/ Sarah, God doesn't give us a schedule.
And Joshua didn't march for 7k years.
Simply put, God's time depends on context.
The Bible never says that we can ever assume that 1 day = 1000 years. The point of 2 Peter 3:8 is that time means nothing to God, so soon doesn't comport to our idea of soon. It says that to God, a day is _like_ 1000 years, and 1000 years is _like_ a day.
@catfinity8799 and God also exists out of time he exists every when and where
It's been 4 months
I got a lot out of this from both sides. Thanks fellas!
If you got a lot out of creationist you might need help
@@colinschmitt6571🤓☝️
@@colinschmitt6571no you
Very enjoyable debate and truly a fresh breath of air in the world of religious debate.
@Redeemed Zoomer How do you reconcile your beliefs to scripture in Genesis saying that living creatures (plants and animals) reproduced after their kind?
They do reproduce after their kind. You’ll never find a monkey giving birth to a human or a dog giving birth to a cat. That’s not what evolutionists believe.
Think about species in the same way you think about the visible light spectrum. Red is different from yellow, but there’s no absolute point in which the color red turns into yellow. There’s orange in between. The gradient of change is so gradual that there’s no stark difference.
Presumably that just means with similar animals
I truly appreciate this debate. You both acted godly and honorably. We need more debates like this. I've been studying Genesis 1 and find it overwhelming. I still don't know where I stand in regard to YEC vs OEC. I have a lot of questions that I have yet to find some answers to. I'd love it if you guys could recommend a book that deals with the account in Genesis 1 and 2.
Prolly my favorite debate because I can tell you guys actually have good will towards each other
I don't think we need to link animal death or natural calamities to Adam's sin. The emphasis of Romans is that all men die as a result of sin. Jesus in His resurrected body, the first fruits of the new creation, ate dead fish. We have to stop acting like animal death is an evil that is a result of the fall. Jesus has already eaten dead animals after going into the new creation, and I fully expect to follow and have some steak.
I watched this live, great debate.
I liked this debate it's the most respectful debate I've seen in a long while
God bless you both
There always is a process to God's actions. It just so happens we can observe the signature of these processes.
but, isn't it YourCalvinist's entire argument that this process is unnatural and thusly wouldn't leave a signature of processes?
As a Christian from the from the STEM world I have come to the exact same conclusion that conclusion as Zoomer has. If science is the way God does things, then his argument makes the most logical sense to me.
5:02 The “1,000 years on Earth is 1 day to God” saying is actually what first had me questioning if I should believe in evolution rather than creationism
@BLandBeanz honestly curious - what argument other than this verse convinced you? One can affirm the truth in this verse and not have to reinterpret every time God says the word day. Is Jesus still in the tomb? I'm being facetious but i hope you get my point.
There are free introductory courses in biology that can give you a lot of information
Going off from what you said about 1st Corinthians 15:47-48, I feel that could be also interpreted as since Adam and Eve were the first humans, we all “come from dust” (Adam)
Zoomer, I say this respectfully, you have a lot of misunderstandings about evolution (like claiming it's something that happened rather than a continuous process or that we came from Neanderthals)
if you ever wanna chat about it, let me know, it doesn't have to be live.
Ps: I am a biologist and I would be happy to help you understand evolution better
would you mind giving a list of some things with timestamps? also im assuming ur talking Abt 11:55 which says homosapiens not neanderthals
@HeatStrokess
The misconceptions I am talking about appear during the time he starts taking questions from Your Calvinist
At around 56:00 he says evolution is something that happened, but that is not happening anymore
@@HeatStrokess
At 57:00 he says there's a difference between macro and microevolution, which really there is not, we have seen speciation in the last 100 000 years multiple times
@@HeatStrokess I may have misheard the Neanderthals point though, I can't find it
@jmca_power oh really? Citation needed my friend
Exceptionally good, cordial, and informative debate!
This is awesome!
So you are a good debater, indeed. You just need it to be in a structured debate like this. Excellent job.
How is this even a thing between Christians.
Evolution is something that shows up in atheist vs Christian debates. What has happened to people?
Indoctrination in public school is what happened, mixed with cognitive dissonance and incredulity of God's word
@@jeffreyAfergusonshow its indoctrination….
Show its cognitive dissonance….
You can’t make claims then not back them up.
It seems that the whole purpose of the debate is to present both sides, and not to prove the other wrong. Keith and Zoomer are both very humble in their presentation and show Christ-honoring live. The fact that we debate over this (lovingly of course) shows that we care about God. Gotta love the respect both sides have in this debate
@@RedeemedReformedRenewed That's good to hear people were respectful. I can't imagine an evolution-supporting position that a true Christian could take, suggesting man evolved from something other than man. For any of us who are very experienced in this debate going back several decades, it's absurd on its face. The only purpose upward evolutionary theory serves is to find a way to justify God not existing.
@@Recon777xsame way with the earth being flat. My brother you can’t just say a statement and expect it to be correlated with atheism
I've never heard the "evolution makes death the hero" argument. I think it's wrong, but it is interesting. I find it more convincing that the death that is being referred to is spiritual death, because Adam represents the beginning of a spiritual life in men. In the same way animals can only be hurt, they cannot suffer because they are not self-aware, the predecessors of Adam could not truly "die" because they were never truly "alive." It is only with a spiritual life that true death, and true salvation, is possible.
No Christians ever thought like this before Darwin came along with his theory. You're only kowtowing to Darwin and reinterpreting Christianity to fit in with modernism.
What do you mean that animals can’t suffer?
@@mangledaway Suffering requires the ability to imagine a different state of being. Pain is merely a sensory experience. If a human is sick or injured, they both experience the pain and discomfort and have to deal with the dissonance between their current state and an imagined healthy state without pain and discomfort. Animals do not have the ability to do this, they only have the sensory experience of pain.
I do not think it’s true that animals cannot suffer, or that they cannot imagine other states of being or think. I’ve had dogs all my life and I can tell you they definitely consider whether they should do the right thing or the wrong thing (I can see them thinking about whether they should steal our food or not). They can be sneaky and do things when they think you’re not looking. They act guilty when they did something wrong. Also, trying to say pain and suffering are different is just wordplay.
@@gigahorse1475 Dogs are a bit of an exception since they are semi-sentient. The vast majority of the animal kingdom does not have that capability. And even when it comes to dogs, they cannot become resentful in the same way humans can.
This isn't an argument, I clearly defined how they are different. If you don't want to consider subtle distinctions just move on.
I liked hearing your take here. I think the insistence of an young earth creation idea, really serves as a stumbling block for people who are just getting interested in the religion. If you learned science first, archeology, anthropology, astronomy, geology, biology, and many more groups I probably forgot, it goes against the 100% literal interpretation of the bible. So you have to choose, do you follow Christ and forget all the evidence that the earth is old, or do you do the tough work of trying to learn scripture and seeing how it all relates to an old earth. We really need more people talking about why Science and religion should be compatible, both are looking at the truth, so if they can't agree then one is a lie, and there is far too much evidence the world was created much older than 6000 years ago.
I do wish debate was praised as old earth creation vs young earth, as Darwinian evolution is just as flawed as most young earth arguments. As Darwin ignored the full existence of God, just as the young earth creationists ignore all the evidence earth must be much older....even those you sited in scripture. I see 3 sides to the debate, Young Earth Creation, Darwinian Evolution and Old World Creation. most your best points were in favor of Old World Creation, and most YourCalvinist best points were against Darwinian Evolution, but Old Word Creation looks at the evidence though the natural world as well as theology to find a better truth than any of the other 2.
@@quadrga That why I suggested, as did YourCalvinist in the debate, the idea of Old World Creation. I think Zoomer did a better job supporting Old World Creation with his arguments, through scripture, than he did supporting any form of Darwinism.
What do you consider to be the single Best evidence that the Earth is 14 billion years old ?
Are you conflating Macro Evolution [basically amino acids evolved into all the living creatures] with Micro [variety within species preset boundaries] for example: Birds, From the giant Condor to the tiny Hummingbird to Penguins... look Vastly different yet they all are classified as Birds and share the same DNA
Genesis 1:29-30
And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.
I was surprised that this was skipped. Also,in Gen 9, God specifically says He now gives animals for food. Then in the NewH and NewE, we see carnivores reverting to herbivores.
So yes, biology changed since the 6-day creation.
The fact that evolution is STILL a genuinely contested topic within Christian circles is crazy to me. ☠️
Well, were we created in God's image or weren't we? Evolution kinda says that we weren't.
Sure, it's silly to deny that evolution is true, but many of people who believe that evolution is true believe many silly things as well. Many people who claim to believe in evolution believe that there aren't significant differences between different human groups, that race can be reduced to mere skin colour. These people, despite claiming to, don't really believe in evolution.
I suppose it should be. What's the point of the scientific method if everyone just agrees? Findings need to be contested in order to reach the correct conclusion.
@@kahner93 Evolution is true.
@@kahner93where does “evolution” “say” this?
Kyle: (furiously taking notes)
Just seen the thumbnail. That is brutal Zoomer 🙊😳
He designed the thumbnail not me
@@redeemedzoomer6053blud is defensive
@@redeemedzoomer6053literally 1984
Thank you for this debate, very entertaining. I do not think I've heard much new, but this format is very good.
The cross-examination was interesting, as they both poked serious holes in each other's arguments.
I love how cordial this debate was!
Looking good RZ ❤️💯🔥🔥✝️
Nice, here early for this. Can’t wait to watch
Reminder: EVERYONE believes in evolution.
Creationists simply stop at micro- and everyone else leaps to macro-
That's why it's bad communication to shorten all to evolution, like saying you love your children doesn't mean you /love/ your children.
There are a BUNCH of evangelicals who deny evolution.
@jongreen its much easier to say "evolution" than "macroevolution with common descent from a universal common ancestor" every time. People with more than two brain cells know what is being discussed.
@@asphilosophyusa that's the issue, at least 65% of the population by your standard has two brain cells or less. Even intellectuals often have blind spots, the average person is intentionally ignorant lol, they're nearly unreasonable when it comes to dogma-challenging conversations like this
Micro and macro evolution is the same thing, there is no distinction. Only the time and the fact that Micro evolution will lead to new species evolving over time, it is inevitable.
@traditionalamerican one distinctoon is that there is a great deal of empirical evidencexfor one (micro), there is practically zero empirical evidence for the other (macro). Plus based on what we know about mutation rate frequency and time limitations of earth's history, macroevolution is mathematically impossible.
I loved the whole debate, I align witt RZ but I loved Keith Foskey closing statement. He goes to the heart of it; no matter what God is Creator, the creation testifies to it.
I see @ConversationswithaCalvinist drinks the reformed soda of choice; Diet Coke. The legacy of dr. Sproul lives on.
It's sad that after watching the video in full, I check the comments to see that many people commenting CLEARLY did not watch the whole thing before they commented, or at least we're not paying attention.
Hey RZ I wanted to ask you. If I said that if Lutheranism soteriology is correct then that would confirm the entire book of Concord because of Systematic theology, would I be correct?
Lutheranism is heresy. Submit to Orthodoxy
Hey this was amazing! I came out with understanding both sides and not settling on either side.
Absolutely love this! RZ can make theistic and evolution more appealing than anyone else I’ve talked to, but ultimately I agree with the young earth creationist.
Really??? He's made me a definite creationist after watching his lame attempt at suggesting God used evolution to create humans, lol 😆 😂 🤣 😄. I actually think his full argument is flawed on so many levels, and I'm surprised he follows this evolution lie. Major surprised as I actually enjoyed listening to him
@yahwehsaviour9083 a lot of us came to Christ after already believing in evolution just like him. Thank God I didn't believe I had to reject evolution to accept Christianity.
Maybe I missed it (or maybe the argument was just so bad I blocked it out), but why is evolution different than heliocentrism again? It definitely seems like we're making the mistake of holding to geocentrism all over again unless I'm mistaken.
@JustAskingQuestions8571 heelocentrism has evidence, evolution hasn't.
@yahwehsaviour9083 interesting. I know there's no evidence of how life emerged from inanimate material, but you mean even after God seeded life there's no evidence the life evolved from there?
@JustAskingQuestions8571 yes there is zero evidence for macro evaluation all Darwin got right was adaptation and selection which is a form of evolution but species are created as such and don't morph into other animals. The full story of evolution is silly we all didn't come from one common ancestry. U like Stephen myers? His book is interesting on intelligent design. The evidence is everywhere
Thanks!
I swear I'm in this internal conflict about religion rn and every time I hear an atheist speak, they convince me more of God's existance and Christianity being true, and every time I hear a christian talk they legit just convince me less. Like bruhhh y'all are terrible at your jobs 💀💀💀💀
Very accurate.
Y’all are awesome, guys!
A non-literal interpretation of Genesis has been anathematized in the councils. Christians are unanimous on this issue.
Which council
@@charliespleen The 7th council’s teaching on the nature of iconography precludes any non-literal interpretation of Genesis. The types reflect the realities of the prototypes.
Lol "all Christians are unanimous" what a meaningless statement. Yeah just dismiss arguments you don't like without providing evidence other than "creed xxx and council yyyy from 1000 years ago says so"
@@terrinsnelgrove4005 You misunderstood the point of my comment. I’m not saying that everyone who claims the moniker of “Christian” believes in the proposition. I’m claiming that the ones who believe in the proposition are the only ones who are really Christian.
But also yes, the authorities of the Church - who receive their authority from Christ and the Apostles - do get to tell you what is right and wrong. That’s why Christ established their office in the first place, lol.
The faith was delivered once. So, if your beliefs sprouted up 1500+ years after Christ (and it wasn’t what any Christian believed before), then you might be a Protestant - and need to reconsider.
A WARNING from my own life:
For me growing up, evolution was the only thing that made me consider leaving the faith.
Evolution is by definition a natural explanation of how everything inevitably created itself, with no creator necessary. You can imagine a generic "guiding hand" but it winds up feeling like "I know my parents bring the Christmas presents but I still believe in Santa". Thankfully I did my research and there's plenty of reasons not to believe in evolution, plenty of reasons to believe in the Bible's account of creation and the flood. You can make room for evolution and keep your faith, but just because it's okay for you doesn't mean it isn't destroying the faith of your brothers and sisters and leading the whole culture into godless humanism.
Womp womp science about the truth, if the truth is contradictory to something why should people belive it?
@mr_meme_420 If you read my whole comment, you'd see that I addressed the evidentiary side in my own search for truth.
This video focuses on the theology of the topic, not scientific details. So my comment is in answer to "theologically, it doesn't matter" which it clearly does. There is a lot of content on RUclips that is about the science side of the debate, and you can watch that if you're interested.
@ethanmoon3925 So you're basically saying it doesn't matter. You'll keep your faith regardless. I would say there's not much of an issue with this, as long as you keep it out of a science classroom.
But I will ask a question: Do you doubt any other piece of science due to this way you think about evolution? The danger is that if you do, you may deny other pieces of science such as climate change, which are way more relevant to our lives currently.
@mr_meme_420 No, you're still not reading me clearly. People on here are saying it doesn't matter, I'm the one saying it does matter.
Dinosaur soft tissue that we find cannot be preserved for millions of years. Lack of erosion between the sedimentary rock layers and fossils that span the gaps between them show they were laid down at the same time, not millions of years apart. We see natural selection and epigenetics choosing what genes out of the larger gene pool are expressed for adaptation purposes, but we don't see new genetic information being added to the gene pool. Mutation is like a glitch in computer software, it doesn't write a new operating system it just breaks what you have.
Frankly I don't think the belief that everything created itself accidentally for no reason to be a scientific idea, nor is it a good worldview to push on people.
@ethanmoon3925 If you had a code where random bits were changed over time and only bits that improved the code were kept, and you ran the process of this over millions of years you may actually get an OS at some point. However, I don't really know the odds of this happening. If they were low, I would consider it evidence of divine intervention, and if the chances were high, it isn't really evidence either way.
Since I don't know the odds, I can't comment on whether it's good evidence for a God.
Anyway, the thing convincing me that Christianity isn't true is the fact that looking at Genesis Chapter 1 and the history of the Earth best evident to us via science, you can see incredible differences in the order that things take place. Let's accept how Redeemed Zoomer interprets it in this debate; He says that the 'days' are not 24 hours but just undefined periods of time, which I think is a fair valid interpretation. However, the problem arises on day 3- day 5:
Genesis 1:9: "And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so."
Okay, so we have plants and trees, but then
Genesis 1:20: "And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”"
According to scientists, the first major presence of life in the sea was the Cambrian explosion around 538.8 million years ago. While the first plants emerged around 450 million years ago. A difference of 88 million years, so you can't argue against this by saying the dates may be a bit inaccurate because there is such a large difference in time between them.
Sorry if I'm sort of yapping a bit and going off topic from your original response, but these are just my thoughts, and I suppose I'm just trying to write them all down.
While I do believe evolution, I’m not gung ho about it, and I respect those who don’t believe it. There’s a lot of room for disagreement on these things in Christendom. I’m glad those two could have a productive conversation. God bless.
GLORY BE TO THE FATHER, TO THE SON, AND TO THE HOLY SPIRIT, ONE GOD ALMIGHTY, AMEN. HALLELUJAH.
Fascinating, can someone help remind me, what happens to days in Revelation, as it says now the light will come from Christ, will there be no more day and night? Or just that Chirst is the sun in a sense now and there still would be day and night, thought one of you biblical scholars could tell me the verse?
Very respectful exchange, thank you both for that. Highly recommend Reading Genesis Well by C. John Collins for anyone interested in the topic. Examining the literature in the original context can help us avoid reading modern ideas into the text.
Inspiringphilosophy would be proud.
So would Satan 👌
@@OGQuranChristian4245 I also don't buy the TOE but calling it satanic is a bit of a stretch. Charles Darwin was an Anglican.
@@HorseloverFat1984 Darwin lost his faith.
So I'm sure this gets addressed later in the video but wanted to leave this comment now while it's fresh in my head. During his opening statement, YourCalvinist keeps referring to death as the hero or a positive thing in the tide of evolution as evidence for why evolution and religion cannot be reconciled.
I feel like this lens is inaccurate because in Darwinism, there is no benefit to death. The center of that idealogy, whether you believe in it or not, is that survivors pass on their genes so that the next generation will be more likely to survive. While evolution does not seek to "defeat death" in the same sense that Jesus did, it absolutely does not glorify death and seeks to post-pone as long as possible.
I always find YEC deeply frustrating and upsetting. It really makes Christianity appear to the unconverted as conspiratorial, unintellectual and stupid (making conversion and outreach so difficult)
YEC was one of the biggest stumbling blocks for me fully accepting Christ, I was given a false dichotomy that I had to reject all the actual science evidence or I could not ever be Christian. That does a huge disservice to the religion when both Science and Theology are looking for the truth. We should not be pushing people away from Christ because we disagree about things, we should bring them in as we all continue to learn and grow closer to Christ.
Why? 99% of people don't understand the science behind evolutionary theory, so it's literally the same as taking that information on faith. Why encourage people to be beholden to science they can't understand and cannot prove BEFORE being beholden to God who they can barely understand and also cannot prove?
Don't make Christians become scientists who don't question or accept scientific doctrine before they're Christian, that's half the reason all the Prot churches accept transformers now lol.
The only thing I can't wrap my head around is how complex proteins came about. Yes, there have been studies saying that amino acids can be created from an early earth environment, but you can not really do much with those proteins as there aren't any other structures to assemble them. Then you have the fact that said structures are made of protein themselves, etc etc.
Problem is, without YEC, and with evolution looking to be the way life changes and adapts, it doesn't make sense with the bible. If death did not enter the world until Mankind sinned in The Garden, then evolution could not have happened. As it takes many generations of death and adaptations for evolution to occur.
@@Traditional_American Although not very well versed with the Bible which is something I am working on, one verse that came up to mind during Redeemed Zoomer's opening statement was Genesis 3:18, "Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee" where it is a change within plants as a result of Adam and Eve sinning. So I did not really understand the whole, "Well satan was already in the earth so there was already evil" portion. Another statement I hear is that if you doubt the account of even Genesis 1:1, it is to say after studying and doing research, you conclude, "well it may not actually be the case". Then the whole Bible comes into questioning whether it is from the OT or NT is actually true in what it says.
You look like every Campus Republican Club president jammed into one person
You are handsome..God bless you❤
As a previously Old Earth Creationist who now attends a Young Earth seminary this was a super interesting debate to hear!
165 missed calls from geometric dating
@@koalaplays8855 ??
If Darwinian evolution were true, I do not see anything in the Bible, or specifically in the book of Genesis, that would be incompatible with God using this as a means. However, the Bible does not affirm this position either. Based on the Cambrian Explosion, I do not see how Darwinian evolution is possible. If species evolve slowly with gradual change over a long period of time, going from micro-organisms to all animal phyla that quickly, according to the fossil record, seems to refute Darwin.
That's not really a sensible rebuttal though, why shouldn't things evolve relatively quickly? or quickly sometimes and slowly sometimes?
@@ZT5513 The problem is that if Darwin's version of evolution were true, there would be more intermediate steps between micro-organisms and the existence of all animal phyla. Otherwise, the progression of life would be less of a progression and more of a manifestation from micro-organisms to wide varieties of complex life. This would not fit with Darwin's theory.
@@Holytuna1982
How many intermediate steps are there, currently?
Please keep up the debates!
This thumbnail is crazy 😭☠️☠️
Can we take a moment to appreciate how well this was produced compared to the Kyle v RZ debate (if you could call it that) that was constantly bombarding the viewer with Ortho-bro memes...
Kyle, please try harder.
Awesome video! Can you make one on why islam is a false religion? thanks
Watch David Wood (Apologetics Roadshow). He has tons of videos debunking Islam.
Even Inspiring Philosophy has a bunch on Islam now that they are advocating for child marriage
Islam gets the trinity completely wrong. The Quran thinks that the trinity is God, Jesus, and Mary, and that Christians worship these as three separate Gods.
Also the whole child marriage thing.
Excellent debate, well done both of you
Do you believe that Adam had a belly button? Because if you do, then that directly contradicts Genesis chapter 2.
You do realize that science is merely the study of God's creation? Yet you uphold science as something on par with God. There are a plethora of Christian scientists who hold a young earth literal 6-day view of creation. i'm honestly shocked that you believe in macro-evolution and can say that with a straight face..
@@sdubs *You do realize that science is merely the study of God's creation?*
Then why does the "study of God's creation" contradict God's creation as described in the bible?
*Yet you uphold science as something on par with God.*
I uphold it as something superior to God, because science studies the world empirically in a way that we can most reliably analyze as far as our physical senses & our brains allow us to, while using God to explain the world doesn't have any utilitarian merit whatsoever...
*There are a plethora of Christian scientists who hold a young earth literal 6-day view of creation.*
It's not really a plethora, because they only make up about a maximum of 1-2% of all scientists around the world. And for the most part these creationist scientists have degrees in scientific fields that are not in any way relevant to geology, biology, physics or any other field that would be relevant to the age of the universe and earth and towards biodiversity. In fact, those three fields have the least percentage of YECs out of all fields.
*i'm honestly shocked that you believe in macro-evolution and can say that with a straight face..*
Well, everybody who actually understands what macro-evolution really is (and no, it's not "changes between kinds") says it with a straight face. Creationists simply don't know what it is, that's all...
@@sdubs
Macro evolution is simply a build up of micro evolution.
Well done, brothers. God bless in the name of Christ ✝️
RZ had the stronger opening, 1pt to RZ
The only miracles required as described in Genesis was 1) creation "ex nihilo" of the cosmos, while all other development/evolution was not directly miraculous, it was provided by God to occur as He willed, so from a singularity to stars and star systems to planets to life to humanoid life to the 2) miracle of giving a soul/spirit/spiritual life to Man...
RZ with a tighter rebuttal, but other bro did have a few points, so let's leave it as a draw that round
In cross-examination, they both asked fairly soft questions that teased out a few finer points that one would draw from their openings, so...a draw there
I’m a young earth creationist and it’s very interesting to hear a Christian hold a different view.
As long as an earthly view doesn’t walk people away from God and a relationship with Jesus I don’t think it’s a problem with it.
Great debate!
I’m a theistic evolutionist, and I don’t have a problem with YEC (I used to be one). The only problem I have with it is when they claim that only YECs can be Christians or believe in and respect the Bible!
The last point you made zoomer I think was very beautiful. I may not exactly subscribe to it at the moment but I’ve never heard that and think it’s an excellent point that it does line up with the timeline
I always found the arguments for evolution, especially within Christianity, to be very weak when compared to the young Earth creationism arguments. While Redeemed Zoomer does make some very good points, I still think that the point of view defended by pastor Keith makes much more sense, both theologically and scientifically.
Bro strawmanned the entire time. He Spoke more philosophical dilemma than actual empirical and logical analysis.
@@Ubions I could say the same about Redeemed Zoomer's participation, especially his arbitrary argument of "oh, there are a lot of supernatural miracles in the Bible, but creation specifically wasn't supernatural because no." Don't get me wrong, I don't agree 100% with Keith, especially when it comes to doctrine. I'm not a calvinist, I'm not an amillenianist, and I'm not a Presbyterian, but I do agree with *most* of his arguments. Sure, there are a lot of arguments that weren't good enough for me, and I could make better arguments than those, but, in my opinion, Redeemed Zoomer's arguments are far weaker. For example, RZ says that Darwinian evolution agrees with the Bible about plants being created before the other lifeforms. Except I learned in school that that can't be the case because, if the first organisms were autotrophic, then there would be no reason for there to be heterotrophic organisms. The Bible saying plants came before animals is a direct rebuttal of Darwinian evolution. I could present a lot more arguments against Darwinism if you want.
@@UbionsThe most important argument against Darwinism, in my opinion, is that death *could not* have come *before* the fall, because this goes completely against the entire Bible, and, again, I could present many arguments for this point of view if you want.
@@darthhunter69what is the point of view scientifically that makes sense to you?
@@therick363 That God created the Earth in 6 days and that only *after* the fall death came into the world and the organisms started dying and adapting to their environment.
So where im confused is when you explained that all the creation days line up with science. First, I've not heard those claims from any source I've ever seen. Second, the fact that creatures of sea and sky were created before creatures of land doesn't fit. The evolutionary timeline has sea before land, yes, but flighted creatures didn't appear on the scene until long after they made their way onto land.
debate or talk with alex o connor next??
Wedding day; T-shirt
Zoom debate with Pastor Keith:
My app says theres half dislikes. Is this true?
No lol it’s not accurate
How do you see dislikes? I thought RUclips removed that feature.
@@gigahorse1475 For me at least, Chrome extension
@@gigahorse1475there are some plugins that bring it back
At 28:50 if Jesus conquered death in any way other than spiritually, why do people still die?
Your argument was very convincing, I totally see how the modern theory of evolution could line up with the bible and I think it is a pretty decent possibility that the universe is actually billions of years old. The only deal braker for me as of now is the inconsistency of carbon dating and the existence of soft dinosaur tissue that should have been completely gone millions of years a go, but I'd say I'm pretty split between both positions right now.
I'd just like to throw out that the inconsistencies of carbon dating are why we don't carbon date very old things. I'd also like to add that carbon dating is fairly accurate up to 10,000 years, so if the earth is as young as 7,000 years them carbon dating should be perfectly reasonable to date anything. Have a blessed day 😊
@@PGBigRed we don't just use carbon dating, no scientist is gonna use carbon dating to date things millions of years old. Instead they do radiometric dating with things like Uranium that have a much longer half life.
@@JSFTruth did you mean to reply to my comment? I specifically said we don't carbon date old things
My thought at the end of RZ's opening statement (maybe he expounds later): I don't think it is convincing to say that the tree of life proves the existence of death prior to the fall. Revelation 22 states the tree of life will be present, which is after death has been thrown into the lake of fire. In other words, the tree of life will exist in a world without death. It could just as easily have existed in the garden prior to death. The tree of life's existence does not necessitate the presence of death.
Ad hoc, begging the question, esiegesis, incredulity, this was all i heard from zoomer in this debate. This children is why you shouldn't allow your future children to be indoctrinated by the state.
Zoomer falls into a lot of argumentative fallacies and I'd say it's one of his biggest problems. But it's a fallacy within itself to think that a fallacy makes an argument wrong.
@priestofronaldalt I'm not sure that's correct, bud, but let's explore that a little bit, 1 what is the name of the formal or informal fallacy you are referring to, the one that states it is falacious to declare an argument incorect because it is argued through fallacy? And second, if ones line of reasoning is fallacious, by definition it is wrong (mistaken belief), even if if the conclusion is correct, which in this case, neither the argument nor the conclusion is correct and to point that out is not fallacious in the slightest, the statement, it's a fallacy to state an argument is incorrect because it is fallacious is a violation of the law of noncontradiction, it cannot be a mistaken belief and not a mistaken belief simultaneously.
@@jeffreyAferguson first the fallacy I mentioned is the fallacy fallacy or the notion that an ARGUMENTATIVE fallacy makes the point argued incorrect. An example would arguing that the earth is round with a flat earther and I strawman by saying "all flat earthers think X" or "all flat earthers are like X" those argumentative tactics may rely on fallacies to work, but the point being argued I still true.
PS, using "bud" comes off as condescending and disagreeing with you doesn't mean the person who disagrees with you is brainwashed.
@priestofronaldalt I'll admit, I have never read of the argument from fallacy before now and I'm not sure I quite agree with its assertions based on my prior reasoning, i can see your particular examplee holding watter, i would assert however that if the arguments and the conclusion are founded and concluded in logical fallacies and in violation of the laws of logic, identy and or noncontradiction it canot be labeled as such, logically speaking. also don't be so soft, "bud" is common use in the Midwest.
@@jeffreyAferguson I agree with you. If a conclusion is the result of LOGICAL fallacies then it's probably wrong. I'm from the Midwest but my family hails from Texas and Kentucky so I never heard bud at home and I really only heard it from those being demeaning to me so I've personally never liked the word
sheeeeesh RZ looking spiffy
My gosh redeemed zoomer that was a freaking good argument
This is something that has been plaguing my mind recently. I just don’t know who or what to agree with. I went from being firm in my belief of the old earth, to firm in my belief of the young earth, to unsure of anything. I don’t know if it will matter on the day of judgement wether or not we think the earth is seven thousand or four billion years old, but this is something that I care and think about often. I am currently going into paleontology/geology, so wether I am a believer in the old or young earth will matter. At this point, I believe that either is possible and there is nothing that can definitely say one or the other is more true. It is all up to how you interpret the Bible; literally or figuratively.
Zoomer wearing a tux like he’s getting married
He’s engaged!
Oh man RZ nailed his opener.
The only thing that bothers me about darwinian thought is Darwin, literally claimed that other races are "lower" than the white race. And i understand the argument "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" but this guy literally created the theory as a agnostic racist. Not trying to be PC or anything, I'm just saying i can't get behind his motivation to his thought process.
Different human groups evolved differently due to different selection pressures. If evolution is true (and it is), then egalitarianism *must be* false.
@@noah2633 okay so then you affirm that the people of darker completions in the world are lesser than those with European heritage?
And from this world view, which people's are the greatest and which are the least?
@@pharobroneveryone’s human dignity must be equally and fairly respected. That is all.
@@what-oy8il so "empathy for the apes"? Although they (darker skinned peoples) are lesser beings we should respect them?
@@pharobron I did not say that, so please don't put words into my mouth.
The best scientist that I've ever come across in answering this so call debate about Creation VS (Evolution or Darwinism) professor Walter Veith has the best reasonable presentations to this big debate and he is a GIANT in the field and I believe know one could stand to a face to face conversation...check out one of his many presentations one being "The Genesis Conflict"....
I really enjoyed this debate. As someone who enjoys watching debates (yes, I’m weird) this was truly refreshing to see; two men debating and exchanging ideas but with humility and kindness. Praise the Lord!
But I do have to say, as much as I like Redeemer Zoomer and have benefited much from him - he had no biblical arguments for his position. His conclusion was really cool IF evolution was true, but there just isn’t any Scripture to back up his position and there’s a mountain of Scripture that goes against it.
Unfortunately, I think RZ is a product of his culture and he’s trying to fit what he already believes (evolution) INTO the Bible. No one would ever read the Bible and come away with Darwinian Evolution.
Hello from India Mizoram
I really like the reedem zoomer position, it's easier to believe, sounds normal, makes religion more berrable for some of us
That's great if you need to believe macro evolution to believe the Bible is true. What like 10 of all the fossil record might be transitional? And today we don't see any transitional species unless you say a platypus or flying fish? I'm just not convinced species evolved into different species over millions of years.
@pavlensovic
It is easier to believe because it is syncretism ;)
It's not syncretism to interpret the Bible as compatible with science because science is not against religion. Science comes from religion and its how we can understand God's creation better. Don't be anti science and surrender science to the atheists.Dont let atheists turn science against religion.
If I believe in faith + works to be justified, am I right with God? If I reject Christ's imputation, but instead place my dependence on Christ empowering me to do perfect works (in Christ) so as to maintain my justification, and thus faith + works to at least stay justified, will I go to heaven or the Lake of Fire?
The protestant view is that faith alone justifies us, because there is nothing we can do to be consider righteous before God, cause only Christ lived a perfect live. So we are completely dependent on the imputation of his righteous that it is freely given to us by faith. Moreover, we sanctified by God because as Paul said "For it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose."(Philippians 2:13), but this will be evidenced by the fruits that we produce in our lives, so our works are directly linked with our sanctification and are necessary for our salvation, in a sense.
If you believe in not being justified by faith alone, but by works, then you are right with God because you actually believe the Bible.
The idea of imputation as merely a legal declaration and not an efficacious transformation is a more modern one, but the term technically works.
@@bigfootapologetics I was awaiting for Zoomer to say something, I'm deeply saddened he has refused to respond.
@@bigfootapologetics your faith is what saves you. Your fruits or works are extensions of that faith, but thinking that your works do anything in your favor as an addition when it comes to salvatiom then that's just not true.
@@The-Beyonder Our faith is indeed what saves us. And works are indeed only the way But James is plain in stating that faith without works is dead. Js. 2:20. Demons have faith, but they tremble; they do not do works, and will not be saved. Js. 2:19. But if faith alone were enough, and faith alone produced works, then the faith of demons would lead to fruits sufficient for their salvation. Yet we know this is not the case. Hence, we must be co-workers with God and cooperate with His grace in order to be saved. 1 Cor. 3:9. To be fair, even Lutherans now officially agree with the traditional Churches on this, with it being understood that "faith alone" is an acceptable way to express our salvation - so long as it is also understood that we must do works, however we want to articulate that semantically.
Well Done ! I have a book suggestion for Redeemed Zoomer
its "The Face that demonstrates the Farce of evolution" by Hank Hanegraaff
the author absolutely drives a stake through the heart of Darwin's theory.
thoroughly explains how the 'Fossil Record' is an embarrassment for paleontologists as
there are NO vertical transitional species, radiometric dating methods don't work, 4 billion years isn't sufficient time for amino acids to form protein molecules needed to construct a basic cell from which all life 'evolved'
Its a great read and, by the time you finish the book you'll be asking yourself...
"How in the world did I ever believe Darwin's Fairytale" ?
lol it is impressive how quickly you managed to demonstrate your scientific incompetence in one comment. There are a myriad of issues with your post, including citing an apologist when discussing a scientific theory, but I am always most interested in why on earth you think radiometric dating is unreliable? It is based on the foundations of chemistry itself, if we can trust in anything it is the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes. What could have possibly dissuaded you from that idea?
1] They find measurable C-14 in Dinosaur [bones,fossils] while claiming they are 65 million years old and the half life of C-14 is claimed to be 100k years
2] The igneous rocks formed during the Mt St. Helens eruption [1980] were radiometrically dated at over 100k years
Krakatoa [1883] rocks were given dates in the millions of years, many more examples could be sited to illustrate the point that those dating methods are seriously flawed.
3] The Christian Apologists book contains an extensive bibliography with hundreds of scientific sources referenced.
4] When you lead off your comment with an insult, it just makes You sound like an arrogant condescending douche @@hutchbailey2208
@@llfeforce9484
1. C-14 dating is entirely unrelated to the radiometric dating I am talking about. Carbon dating is certainly unreliable past about 60,000 years and should not be used with fossils, those are best dated with other radiometric techniques or more commonly what layer the fossil is found in.
2. What you are referring to is a well-documented phenomenon unique to young volcanic rocks, and absolutely does not discredit radiometric dating as a whole. You should look into it for yourself, but basically the process of igneous rock formation traps excess argon in a way that skews the proportions of isotope to decay product. Again, this comment demonstrates extreme ignorance to the actual body of science, and it sounds like you are just regurgitating what an apologist told you in bad faith. There are other isotopes you can test for in the same rocks that are consistent with the correct age. Just because one type of isotope test is not accurate in one specific situation, does not mean that the entire process is unreliable.
3. The issue is not that there "are no sources". The issue is that a book by an uncertified apologist is not sufficient against a literal mountain of peer-reviewed work by actual experts in the field.
4. I do not mean to insult, I am literally stating that you have (and continue to) demonstrated your ignorance on this topic. I don't think you are being intentionally dishonest, I just think you are being led astray by sources that you think will confirm your biases. You should look into the actual evidence for the hypothesis of evolution and other theories, and not rely on straw-man arguments from apologists. Because when you say these things, it does look quite silly.
@@llfeforce9484 That's crazy about the volcanoes. Where can I read more about the igneous stone being dated?
How does the belief that one can be naturally homosexual contradict the scriptures (I know homosexual acts are gravely sinful but I don’t think that it is unnatural a lot of bad things are natural desires)
The desire to steal money from your mom's purse is sinful. The desire to kill people is sinful. The desire to have sex with other people of the same gender is sinful. Sinful desires are sinful and need to be confessed and fought against. It's not natural. You should really check out Romans 1. It says they turned from what was natural to burn with lust for one another.