Can a Christian Believe in Evolution? 

There have been scientific contributions from all ridiculous religions.

@@IIrandhandleII Name a few.

@@IIrandhandleII wdym ridiculous religions and for example?

so...what? there is no connection with evolution idea whatsoever.

@@jemperdiller Yes, so what?

Can you tell me where

Yup! Science and Christianity are two things interwoven together which can never be separated. Afterall, Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind.

@GDDM sam yes , you are showing your ignorance . criticizing things you don't know about .

@GDDM sam oooh , you read the bible , makes you an expert . i bet you have a black friend too , and marched in a womans march , checked all the boxes to be a youtube warrior .

@GDDM sam typical keyboard expert , study on your own time .i have ,

@@damienasmodeus928 Then let me be more exact. I graduated in Chemistry in 1985 back in the day when only 8% of my country's population went to university. In my country only university graduates can teach. I have taught Science to 12-14 year olds and Chemistry to 14-18 year olds for the last 36 years. Does that help?

@Hunter Marsh You may need to look into the difference between myth and fairy tale. I think you're also overlooking the three centuries of Christianity before the idea of original sin was developed. You do also know, don't you, that the official Catholic position on evolution (and, while I'm not one, Catholics make up the largest body of Christians in the world) is that it is the best current explanation for the development of life on Earth. As for whether I can call myself a Christian or not, I'm pretty sure that acceptance of Genesis 2 as literal truth is not definitive of Christianity. Still - maybe you have a better grasp of what Ibelieve than I do.

@Hunter Marsh No. That's almost certainly not how the story came about. There's no evidence people of that time were interested in explaining where humans came from in the sense you suggest. The story we have in Genesis is almost certainly a reworking of an earlier story which expressed a sense of longing for simpler, pre-agricultural times. The story we have isn't about explaining the existence of human beings either. It's a curtain-opener to an Old Testament which is concerned with Israel's repeated falling away from obedience to God and consequent disasters.

@@andrewmorton7482 You wrote " the three centuries of Christianity before the idea of original sin was developed" - Can you elaborate on that? I'm interested:)

@@whoamI-xi3ln The doctrine of Original Sin was largely developed by St. Augustine of Hippo in the early years of the 5th Century. It was opposed at the time by the likes of Pelagius who took the view that guilt was incurred by sin during one's life. It is only after Augustine that infant baptism became normal in response to his idea that sinfulness was inherited at birth.

Me too. I believe he set up the process.

Same I think that’s what gods plan is

I don't Think so

I believe that stuff like God Satan and heaven exist but I still believe in evolution in glad this video was created

@@MrFossil367ab45gfyth Of course

Dawkins’ “Best Evidence for Evolution” disappears before his eyes . Famous Evangelical atheist Richard Dawkins used to teach that the “best evidence for evolution” was that organisms; which were similar to each other have similar DNA. This is pure supposition and absolute speculation driven by a passion to obliterate God from the equation of life. Richard Dawkins claimed that genetic research proved Darwin’s tree of life; nothing could be further from the truth. These claims were made before we learned more about DNA and RNA and in 2009 he got his book published: “The Greatest Show on Earth” in which he taught that Darwin’s Tree of Life was supported by the pattern of resemblances, that you see when you compare genes. The fossil record does not support Darwin’s Tree of Life, because there is no evidence of transitional fossils in the actual earth’s geology demonstrating evolution. There is no evidence that plants and animals diversified from a Common Ancestor over millions of years, being due to imaginary evolution. In 2009, the same year, New Scientist magazine ran an article with the title: “Why Darwin was wrong about the Tree of Life.” In it, scientists stated that the Tree of Life was “mis-leading” because Darwin’s theory limits and even obscures the study of organisms and their ancestries end of quote. The “best evidence for creation” is the fossil record, finding only fully formed organisms in Cambrian rocks. Our technology has advanced to such a stage that we can now “read” the genes of many different species and it is even clearer now that Dawkins’ “Best Evidence for Evolution” does not exist. Now scientists have sequenced a great number of genomes belonging to different organisms. Casey Luskin, Associated Director of the Center for Science and Culture, wrote for Evolution News, that Dawkins was wrong! Every gene does not deliver approximately the same Tree of Life end of quote. DNA research does not show a Tree of Life. But what is described as “bushes of life” meaning no branching as in Darwin’s Tree of Life, but organisms that reflect the fossil record throughout time with minor variations, these are attributed to kinds within species due to genetic variety until they went extinct. “Genes are dissimilar in their development and unique as they form into the embryos of different organisms. Ernest Haeckel German scientist tried it on; by drawing fraudulent embryos making them look alike, because he loved Darwin’s theory of evolution. At the University of Jena he was convicted of fraud in 1875. When asked why he had lied, he said it is necessary for us to believe in spontaneous generation: that everything made itself by random chance, because the alternative is Creation and that is unthinkable! A lot of people have a similar mind-set today, this is why evolution will not go away as a theory and be buried. It should be disqualified by the “scientific method” today, but there is wide spread indoctrination through the education system with the theory of evolution which should be abandoned, because there is no evidence to support such a theory which has outlived its usefulness. The indoctrination of evolution through the education system is a “back door” to promoting immoral behaviour within the populace. This is the aim and plan of the globalists to bring about chaos, anarchy and confusion, in short lawlessness, whereby they have a legitimate reason to use modern technology to mark and control the masses. It is simple, if you teach students there is no God to answer too, then why bother to behave! Create fear among the populace and they will be happy to except electronic monitoring by those in authority, but first they must create the environment and the people will look to those in authority for a solution: it is called Cause and Effect. The general public need to waken up and smell the coffee as there is a lot of corrupt manipulation going on by the elite billionaires, who are now controlling bank accounts, politics and the education system, where people are taught what to think, not how to think critically. There is a desire to take away your freedom of speech in relation to telling the truth.

As a Baptist to Catholic convert, we have a lot to agree on! Shame we don’t recognize it more.

You must become Catholic in order to be saved. Checkout the VaticanCatholic RU-vid channel and website to learn information vital to your salvation.

@@jacksonreese17 No, you cannot put conditions on salvation! Only God can judge others' souls. Read the Catechism

it is just common sense. Those who deny empirical evidence, proven science, are denying god's plan for creation. Pure arrogance, they just don't want to go through the effort it would take to understand it properly cause they think they know better than everyone else, even God. This is a strawman of course, but there are unfortunately people who would rather believe the whole world has gone mad than believe that maybe they themselves are just wrong about something and should humble themselves before God. Patience, grace and prayer is the only cure for these people.

@@jacksonreese17 parable of the pharisee and the tax collector

Don't forget Friedmann, Robertson and Walker.

Was it? I always thought it was Edwin Hubble who discovered it.

You forgot mendel and bruno

It was Fr. George Lemaitre

I learned about him in Geology class in college.

Millinta athesists usually come from the same background as the anti-evolution Christians and Muslims

Is the virgin birth of Jesus also a myth?

@@FreedomsNurse no

@@FreedomsNurse, yes.

@@FreedomsNurse yep

If evolution is true, please explain the virgin birth of Jesus.

@@FreedomsNurse Are miracles possible? An example of a miracle might be: a universe from nothing; a complex and finely tuned universe from a random explosion; matter and energy organising itself to create the first cell. I guess then miracles are possible!

God Bless you! 🙏 Welcome to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church 🙂

@@FreedomsNurse what is to explain?

@tipseason Rex then says he created woman so man would not be alone.

I bet, you are right.

To be frank, they wouldn't be wrong. Catholicm in general has been more of a force for evil than good. The latest pope is an blatant heretical Ahab of a priest who thinks that all religions can be true at the same time and that Muslims worship the same God as Christians. Rewind a few decades and he'd have been officially declared a blasphemer. If the Vatican wasn't reprobate before it certainly is now. They're delving into New Age territory. However, that doesn't men that everything a particular Catholic says is wrong.

Check out Inspiring Philosophy, Sentinel Apologetics, Dr. Michael Heiser, Dr. John Walton, and Biologos. Those are all Protestant channels that believe pretty much the same thing regarding evolution. Your fundamental friends might be more willing to listen to them.

@@michaelturnage3395 Have to agree with you on that one. I’m not an expert on religion so I might be wrong but aren’t Islam and Christianity just different interpretations of the word of the original Hebrew God, YHWH (Yahweh) from Judaism? I could be wrong though.

@@kerajohnson1922 Not exactly. See Apostate Prophet's video on “YHWH Allah the same?”

So you accept the scientific evidence that 3.1 billion nucleotide bases that are the instructions for creating a human being from a zygote must have come from the mind of a genius. You accept the scientific evidence that it is impossible for random changes in the nucleotide base sequence in the genome of an animal to slowly transform that animal into a new and different animal. You accept the scientific evidence that evolution is impossible.

the devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve .nmbn

The way I see it is that God created the first living cells and just directed their evolution to the animals we have today

@@aliciavivi2147 How can you see that Satan if behind this facet or intellectualism trying to sound smart when we making the believers crumble to his satanic ideas

your comment remind me of my preschool year. I saw a spider on a plant and wonder why it hadn't move at all. when I ask my teacher, she just said "Oh, it's praying". since then I always thought that every animal also pray to God. That is of course until I grew up. Or maybe they ARE praying?

Beautifully written!

@Pipes Thank you. Peace+good!

SOOOO MANY Christians have meanwhile accepted Evolution because of all the Prove. But you just dont wanna see it. "Mommy, i dont wanna see it! I dont wanna see it" you cry, and your mommy kent accepts that and lets you watch a baby-cartoon instead of the 'big scary Science-Channel!!!!'. EPIC FAIL I repeat one last time before blocking you: More and more and more Christians and Pastors say Evolution is fact. Go figure...

@@splashpont Science may not Bite Religion per se, but Logic sure does. It sure does - hence why Atheist-Channel have more and more very-valid Criticism for Christianity and Religion overall. I implore you all, dear comment-readers, to inform yourself a lot, even though it’s admittedly time-consuming, but Religion and Atheism are Big Chunks of this World, so they deserve your time, I’d argue. Valid Questions are asked all the time by people like ‚Genetically Modified Sceptic’ and ‚Believe it or not’ and the harshest aka most direct of them all: ‚Viced Rhino’. And Forrest Valkai literally asks Religious Scientists directly in his longest-yet Video: Why do you ‚suspend your Disbelieve’ and make ‚Exceptions’ for Religion like you do for literally Nothing else? Why do you accept things you wouldnt accept elsewhere, he asks with great arguments. I’m no speech-maker, but i hope i convinced you to inform yourself and really check said Channels ‚throughoutly’, so to see where all the Criticism is coming from.

@@loturzelrestaurant All people have a right to their beliefs as we work together to make the world a better place. My point is that believers and scientists should be friends and never antagonists.

@Ameya Harris I mean considering he doesn't have to say "schooby dooby hooby booby" during church, I think that's rather easy

smdani ¡Saludos!

Thanks!

Padre Daniell!!!! SALUDOS👼

Yo vine porque lo recomendaste.. but I don't undertend Inglés: )

No sabemos inglés :@

Yeah, thats fair enough, but problem is: 'Logic' (seperated from Science, kinda) does totally oppose many God-Stuff. I mean, have you seen the valid Questions asked by 'Believe it or not' and 'Viced Rhino'? Or Forrest Valkai? All 3 very good RU-vidrs who really studied the Bible hard and now discuss them. But the problem becomes obvious: The Bible just has no historical or other worth and is clearly a logic-error... shouldnt we face that? What do you think? I mean, even 'just' the '10 Questions for Christians'-Video Rhino recently made; though just a small Part of his channel (duh) really makes me wonder.

no problem.....adam and eve no....noahs flood no....young earth no.....what has the bible got right to justify your confidence??

no adam and eve then no need for jesus...original sin

@@paulrichards6894 yeah you are correct with that without the original sin there is no need for Jesus

@@paulrichards6894 I’m open to talk about this with you I’m not gonna try to convert you or nothing but I feel like it would be a cool topic (I have studied a lot of things biblical and Science but I don’t know everything to heart so if I get anything wrong that’s on me)

They are not interconnected and religion has never helped us make sense of anything. Please supply an example of this?

the bible was humans' best guess on how we got here....they were like all other holy books horribly wrong.......i get it people are afraid of death and want some comfort....the trouble is religion comes at a price...... it cost millions of people they live.....worst invention by far.....and its not even close

@@paulrichards6894 Okay

@@blacksilus7419 lol fr

No Jesus can.

Evolution is not what Genesis teaches.

@@FreedomsNurse genesis and other books in the Bible are stories told by the earlier generations to try to explain and understand difficult things outside our understanding, other books are poems, other books are prayers and other books are historical facts. That information is part of the Bible study that is teached at least by the Catholic Church. And by the way.... The big bang theory was proposed by a scientist priest called Georges Lemaitre and approved and defended by the pope Pius XI while most scientist at the scientific community rejected. The idea that religion is against science is a big stupid lie. At least the catholic church (and probably other Protestant Christian denomination) have many priests scientists that have done many important contributions to Science along history. The Church gives a great importance to science since is considered a way to praise and value all the Creation, that's why the first universities in the world were created by the Catholic Church. I suggest you to search for the truth.

@Bert Clayton Yes, actually the Church consider time that way: the time for Man is called Chronos and the time for God is called Kayros because on God's time the past, present and future could be happening at the same time. About Galileus, there are some documents that shows the trial against him word by word and is about the disapproval of his theories partly because he didn't use the correct scientific method therefore he couldn't prove he was right and partly (and sadly) because many priests that time were stuck on taking the Bible on a very literal way. But really Galileo was friends with many priests and bishops and his punishment was to stay at his summer house. Of course I understand that it doesn't mean it was right but it was a matter of prides from Galileo and from the judges.

Should I read all this stuff?

Karina Mandarina your comment just blew my mind

Yeah, but the Main-Root, like THE MAIN ROOT, of Evolution-Denial is still... still... still Religion.

@@loturzelrestaurant so what? Besides, Catholics don't deny evolution, nor do the nonreligious Jews and a fair share of protestants. Moreover, evolution denial is more a thing in the united states. If you grew up in western Europe or in many countries of latin america you'll find out that evolution does not find much opposition.

@@loturzelrestaurant why not accept both? If God can create the universe than can’t he also grow life in the way we see today? For example, the Bible talks about creating the fish of the sea from out of nothing, but the theory of abiogenesis postulates that life came from inorganic matter and from there basic life forms evolved. Granted, the genesis story speaks about the creation in six days and the creation isn’t concise to our modern understanding of the earth, but this could be chocked up to how the creation story was written in a certain poetic way. (Also, something that occurred to me is that the air we breath, which contains water molecules, could also be how God split the waters into the waters above and the waters below.)

@@acrazyweeb7225 Yeah, accepting both is better than rejecting Evolution, thats for sure BUT that still leaves out the Issues with Religion and the God-Claim, let alone the specific Issues with current, modern Religion (like Greg Locke, as covered by RU-vidr 'Telltale').

Dawkins’ “Best Evidence for Evolution” disappears before his eyes. Famous Evangelical atheist Richard Dawkins used to teach that the “best evidence for evolution” was that organisms; which were similar to each other have similar DNA. This is pure supposition and absolute speculation driven by a passion to obliterate God from the equation of life. Richard Dawkins claimed that genetic research proved Darwin’s tree of life; nothing could be further from the truth. These claims were made before we learned more about DNA and RNA and in 2009 he got his book published: “The Greatest Show on Earth” in which he taught that Darwin’s Tree of Life was supported by the pattern of resemblances, that you see when you compare genes. The fossil record does not support Darwin’s Tree of Life, because there is no evidence of transitional fossils in the actual earth’s geology demonstrating evolution. There is no evidence that plants and animals diversified from a Common Ancestor over millions of years, being due to imaginary evolution. In 2009, the same year, New Scientist magazine ran an article with the title: “Why Darwin was wrong about the Tree of Life.” In it, scientists stated that the Tree of Life was “mis-leading” because Darwin’s theory limits and even obscures the study of organisms and their ancestries end of quote. The “best evidence for creation” is the fossil record, finding only fully formed organisms in Cambrian rocks. Our technology has advanced to such a stage that we can now “read” the genes of many different species and it is even clearer now that Dawkins’ “Best Evidence for Evolution” does not exist. Now scientists have sequenced a great number of genomes belonging to different organisms. Casey Luskin, Associated Director of the Center for Science and Culture, wrote for Evolution News, that Dawkins was wrong! Every gene does not deliver approximately the same Tree of Life end of quote. DNA research does not show a Tree of Life. But what is described as “bushes of life” meaning no branching as in Darwin’s Tree of Life, but organisms that reflect the fossil record throughout time with minor variations, these are attributed to kinds within species due to genetic variety until they went extinct. “Genes are dissimilar in their development and unique as they form into the embryos of different organisms. Ernest Haeckel German scientist tried it on; by drawing fraudulent embryos making them look alike, because he loved Darwin’s theory of evolution. At the University of Jena he was convicted of fraud in 1875. When asked why he had lied, he said it is necessary for us to believe in spontaneous generation: that everything made itself by random chance, because the alternative is Creation and that is unthinkable! A lot of people have a similar mind-set today, this is why evolution will not go away as a theory and be buried. It should be disqualified by the “scientific method” today, but there is wide spread indoctrination through the education system with the theory of evolution which should be abandoned, because there is no evidence to support such a theory which has outlived its usefulness. The indoctrination of evolution through the education system is a “back door” to promoting immoral behaviour within the populace. This is the aim and plan of the globalists to bring about chaos, anarchy and confusion, in short lawlessness, whereby they have a legitimate reason to use modern technology to mark and control the masses. It is simple, if you teach students there is no God to answer too, then why bother to behave! Create fear among the populace and they will be happy to except electronic monitoring by those in authority, but first they must create the environment and the people will look to those in authority for a solution: it is called Cause and Effect. The general public need to waken up and smell the coffee as there is a lot of corrupt manipulation going on by the elite billionaires, who are now controlling bank accounts, politics and the education system, where people are taught what to think, not how to think critically. There is a desire to take away your freedom of speech in relation to telling the truth.

Friendly Reminder: The f-ing Earth isnt f-ing Flat. Deal with it.

@@loturzelrestaurant Fully aware of that. I think, in fact, flat-earthism is utter nonsense. Were you actually trying to yell at someone else?

@@pentalarclikesit822 He said 'Friendly reminder' and you said 'yell'? Are you drunk, sir?

@@nenmaster5218 Well, friendly reminders don't normally require redacted vowels. Secondly their seeming issue has nothing to do with what I said. Assuming that they aren't claiming that I actually remember where I heard it or actually didn't find it interesting, they could think that using evolution to argue against theism is a good philosophical argument, personally, I think it's a rather weak one. They seem to be . . . upset with flat-eartherism, in which case they should probably argue with someone espousing it.

@@pentalarclikesit822 Redacted? ???? ?? ?

Literally 😂

School taught this you probably didn’t listen

I was studying GCSE biology at a Catholic school during John-Paul's papacy and my teachers were required to present opposing arguments to evolution in class. A couple of years later I studied for my Alevel biology and the teacher was no longer required to present contradictory arguments (other than to explain that they existed and essentially shoot them down) and made one of the only positive statements about pope benidict I heard in my entire time in school... Or since.

@@sophiasilva5866 Yeah, thats fair enough, but problem is: 'Logic' (seperated from Science, kinda) does totally oppose many God-Stuff. This Video makes it all seem like Science and Religion dont have to oppose each other, AND YES, that is FAR BETTER of an Idea than 'We have to be at WAAAAAR', obviously... Obviously... BUT: Logic kinda bites Religion and thats the Issue here. Atheist-Channels need to be watched to get what i mean, as i obviously cant just put it into 1 comment, duh. I mean, have you seen the valid Questions asked by 'Believe it or not' and 'Viced Rhino'? Or Forrest Valkai? All 3 very good RU-vidrs who really studied the Bible hard and now discuss it. But the problem becomes obvious: The Bible just has no historical or other worth and is clearly a giga-logic-error... shouldnt we face that? What do you think? I mean, even 'just' the '10 Questions for Christians'-Video Rhino recently made; though just a small Part of his channel (duh) really makes me wonder. It makes me wonder if Religion isnt something for Earth to 'overcome' and grow out of.

@@sophiasilva5866 That is literally your Fault and your Teachers.

Yeah, thats fair enough, but problem is: 'Logic' (seperated from Science, kinda) does totally oppose many God-Stuff. This Video makes it all seem like Science and Religion dont have to oppose each other, AND YES, that is FAR BETTER of an Idea than 'We have to be at WAAAAAR', obviously... Obviously... BUT: Logic kinda bites Religion and thats the Issue here. Atheist-Channels need to be watched to get what i mean, as i obviously cant just put it into 1 comment, duh. I mean, have you seen the valid Questions asked by 'Believe it or not' and 'Viced Rhino'? Or Forrest Valkai? All 3 very good RU-vidrs who really studied the Bible hard and now discuss it. But the problem becomes obvious: The Bible just has no historical or other worth and is clearly a giga-logic-error... shouldnt we face that? What do you think?

Dawkins’ “Best Evidence for Evolution” disappears before his eyes. Famous Evangelical atheist Richard Dawkins used to teach that the “best evidence for evolution” was that organisms; which were similar to each other have similar DNA. This is pure supposition and absolute speculation driven by a passion to obliterate God from the equation of life. Richard Dawkins claimed that genetic research proved Darwin’s tree of life; nothing could be further from the truth. These claims were made before we learned more about DNA and RNA and in 2009 he got his book published: “The Greatest Show on Earth” in which he taught that Darwin’s Tree of Life was supported by the pattern of resemblances, that you see when you compare genes. The fossil record does not support Darwin’s Tree of Life, because there is no evidence of transitional fossils in the actual earth’s geology demonstrating evolution. There is no evidence that plants and animals diversified from a Common Ancestor over millions of years, being due to imaginary evolution. In 2009, the same year, New Scientist magazine ran an article with the title: “Why Darwin was wrong about the Tree of Life.” In it, scientists stated that the Tree of Life was “mis-leading” because Darwin’s theory limits and even obscures the study of organisms and their ancestries end of quote. The “best evidence for creation” is the fossil record, finding only fully formed organisms in Cambrian rocks. Our technology has advanced to such a stage that we can now “read” the genes of many different species and it is even clearer now that Dawkins’ “Best Evidence for Evolution” does not exist. Now scientists have sequenced a great number of genomes belonging to different organisms. Casey Luskin, Associated Director of the Center for Science and Culture, wrote for Evolution News, that Dawkins was wrong! Every gene does not deliver approximately the same Tree of Life end of quote. DNA research does not show a Tree of Life. But what is described as “bushes of life” meaning no branching as in Darwin’s Tree of Life, but organisms that reflect the fossil record throughout time with minor variations, these are attributed to kinds within species due to genetic variety until they went extinct. “Genes are dissimilar in their development and unique as they form into the embryos of different organisms. Ernest Haeckel German scientist tried it on; by drawing fraudulent embryos making them look alike, because he loved Darwin’s theory of evolution. At the University of Jena he was convicted of fraud in 1875. When asked why he had lied, he said it is necessary for us to believe in spontaneous generation: that everything made itself by random chance, because the alternative is Creation and that is unthinkable! A lot of people have a similar mind-set today, this is why evolution will not go away as a theory and be buried. It should be disqualified by the “scientific method” today, but there is wide spread indoctrination through the education system with the theory of evolution which should be abandoned, because there is no evidence to support such a theory which has outlived its usefulness. The indoctrination of evolution through the education system is a “back door” to promoting immoral behaviour within the populace. This is the aim and plan of the globalists to bring about chaos, anarchy and confusion, in short lawlessness, whereby they have a legitimate reason to use modern technology to mark and control the masses. It is simple, if you teach students there is no God to answer too, then why bother to behave! Create fear among the populace and they will be happy to except electronic monitoring by those in authority, but first they must create the environment and the people will look to those in authority for a solution: it is called Cause and Effect. The general public need to waken up and smell the coffee as there is a lot of corrupt manipulation going on by the elite billionaires, who are now controlling bank accounts, politics and the education system, where people are taught what to think, not how to think critically. There is a desire to take away your freedom of speech in relation to telling the truth.

Danny Allen, neither can God lie. In the Sabbath commandment, in Exodus 20:11, God says very clearly that He created everything in SIX DAYS! So how can anyone who calls himself "Christian" DARE to call God a LIAR and commit such a BLASPHEMY??! Well, if you are part of a religious system or a cult that has fallen away from God long, long, long time ago and became His foremost and most effective enemy, then you certainly can call God a liar and also invent other blasphemies. Claiming that the theory of evolution is a valid scientific theory that we should accept, means contradicting the Word of God (the Bible) in yet another point: the introduction of DEATH. According to the Bible, death came as a direct CONSEQUENCE of Adam and Eve's SIN. While evolution DEMANDS the existence of death BEFORE the first human sin!!! Furthermore, the theory of evolution contradicts the biblical statement that God created a world that was "very good" (perfect, really)--a world without DEATH, or struggle, or bloodshed, or illness/disease or cruelty. What kind of "god" would create like that? Is out Heavenly Father sadistic?! What on earth is Catholic "Church's" "Magisterium" trying to do with such blasphemous teachings? But, sadly, that is not all. For the Roman Catholic "Church" also claims that the Old Testament book of the prophet Daniel has NO prophetic significance for us today, and that it does not deal with the "end time" issues. of the end"--the end of this world. But this AGAIN is just ASTOUNDING bold-faced and easily detected LIE--and Blasphemy!!! For this AGAIN is a direct contradiction of what God says! Just look up Daniel 8:17, or Daniel 2:44, 45, or Daniel 8: 26, or Daniel, Chapter 12. Astounding claim by RCC scholars! Nothing to do with us today, or with end time prophecies???! As one of the proofs of Catholic LIES, I quote the following statement from commentary on the book of Daniel as found in the Catholic Edition of the "New Community Bible"

Sorry, I accidentally pressed the "send" arrow, so I am continuing my post here. So the comment I referred to in the Catholic "New Community Bible" (page 1508) says the following: "Some people read in apocalyptic literature predictions about the end of the world. This is a misinterpretation. The author is writing for the people of his time in their miseries--at most, he is writing about the end of 'their world'". (End of quote) This "New Community Bible" that has its origin in India and carries a 2008 copyright of Saint Paul Society, Bombay. It has an Imprimatur of 5 of Catholic "Most Reverends": Most Rev Albert D'Souza and Most Rev Joseph Kallarangat, Most Rev George Punnakottil, Most Rev Abraham Mar Julios and Most Rev Thomas Dabre . The second person listed is the Chairman of the Commission for Doctrine and the last 3 are listed as Bishops. Anyway, all this is just shocking, for this is a direct contradiction of Daniel 2:44, 45, Daniel 8:17, Daniel, Chapter 12, etc., from which we clearly see that the book of Daniel is a major prophetic book that is VERY relevant to US today. And it DOES talk about the end times. And notice that they say "the author"? Do you know why they do NOT say "Daniel the prophet" bur "the author"? That is because they claim that the actual prophet Daniel DID NOT write the Old Testament Book of Daniel in the time of exile in Babylon, but that it was written by some anonymous writer who (allegedly) "assumed" the name of Daniel the prophet and intended his writings to be (and I quote from p. 1507) "a sort of PROPAGANDA TOOL tool to get the people to rise up and support the Maccabees." ASTOUNDING LIE!!! So, the Catholic commentators effectively call the Book of Daniel a fraud, a "propaganda tool" intended for local purposes, relevant only for the Jews living in second century BC!!! SPEECHLESS! They actually put the book of Daniel "after the events" and therefore DESTROY its prophetic nature!!! They put it in the second centuryBC (between 167 & 164 BC, in the time of Maccabeean revolt against the Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes). later (i.e. after the events) in the second century BC. They put it between 167 & 164 BC, i.e. the time of the Seleucid king of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Maccabean revolt. But this not true. This is yet another Romish DECEPTION that greatly diminishes the IMPORTANCE of the Book of Daniel. In fact, it UNDERMINES it. And no wonder, because both apocalyptic books, the book of Daniel AND the New Testament book of Revelation Testify AGAINST the Roman Catholic "Church" as the Number One ANTI-God, ANTI-Truth system. Therefore, God unmasks the Roman "church" in Revelation, Chapters 17 and 18, and also the first 9 verses of Chap. 13). Just look at at the symbolic names and description God gives of the Roman "church" in those texts. Revelation 17 (and also Revelation, Chap. 18). And notice what God says in Revelation 18:4. Anyway, they claim (and I quite from page 1507 of the above-mentioned Catholic Bible):

SORY, it happened again, I accidentally pressed "send" while manipulating (changing/deleting) my writings and consequently made a real mess (I'm really upset about it). I am usually much more careful. It seems as the evil one had something to do with it. He wants to stop publication of Truth. And I have much more to say about other Romish blasphemous teachings in which they blaspheme God--and even make Him a sadistic monster!!! But in fact, it is their fake "church" that is a real monster. Anyway, I will finish now.

@@matozec9177 Talk about straw-manning.

Forgive me Br Casey.......not sure where Br Ben came from. I opt to blame it on age........lol

Guess what? You are wrong!

Heres the thing. They get something right. Earth age. Genesis apologetics is a good page for young earth biblical creationism. That doesnt mean evolution doesnt exist...but it wasnt millions of years.

@@praaneshs2066 NO U

Hi! I would agree with you that the material and spiritual must be logically consistent!! But how is it consistent to say that Humans came to be from Apes when the Bible literally tells us differently that God created Man from the ground and Woman from his side? I'm in no way saying that any kind of animal development is necessarily wrong, and I am not even convinced that the Creation Story necessarily needs to be 7 literal days in order to be logical. But once the storyline changes, I don't get it. Do you get what I'm saying? The days might be a thousand years, whatever, God's timing is probably more complicated than what fits in our little brains. But how does the Fall of Man, creating Sin, make sense if the storyline of the Creation Story wasn't true? :)

​@@whoamI-xi3ln the story IS true, it's just not a little kid's story. It is the most advanced story ever told, and so the more science we learn the more maturity we need to approach Genesis with. In Chapter 1, we see man ('adam') being created in God's image as BOTH male and female. This is NOT Adam and Eve. This is lowercase adam, which means humankind. This is a population of humans, coming after animals and plants, just like science has confirmed. All humans and animals and plants, including the ones living today, are made of the dust of the ground. Chapter 2 is a continuation of the story, not a recap of Chapter 1. In Chapter 2, we have the creation of a single human spirit, named Adam, so that we have a single human spirit for the entire population. Thus we fulfill being made in God's image. God in chapter 1 is 'Elohim' which is a plural noun used in the singular. "And God said, let US make man in OUR image." And so Adam being a single spirit for the population adam of males and females, fulfills this paradoxical image of God which is both singular and plural. The separation of Eve is a spiritual one, thus we have Man and Woman. Animals have males and females, but only humans have a Man and Woman, Husband and Wife. This relationship of a plural population and a single spirit is made explicitly clear in Genesis 5:1-2 KJV "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man [adam], in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." Called their (plural) name Adam (singular). Get it? As a population of humans, Adam would not have died. Even as individual bodies came and went, humanity as a whole thrived and flourished. When they ate the fruit of knowledge, they fell into into individual bodies and got stuck. As a self aware individual we have full control over our bodies, giving us godlike powers. But the price we pay is having to die because bodies are temporal. And we are also faced with the temptation to indulge the sensual desires of the flesh, which can manifest in really horrible ways. Jesus Christ is saving us from this by bringing us once more into a collective human spirit. When we identify with the spirit and not an individual body, we are freed from the bondage to death and decay. Not because our body doesn't rot, but because we realize that we are not our body.

Scientific theories are purely explanations for all observable evidence. Denying evolution is denying all observable evidence, so of course creationists can't find a flaw in the theory, that's literally asking to try and find a flaw in reality. Now, if new evidence that contradicted the current evidence were to be eventually observed, it'd be taken into account and the theory of evolution would be revised to account for the new evidence. Because that's the scientific process.

Agnostics are super chill. Thanks for respecting bro. Have a beautiful life, I wish you well

Unfortunately, while Science may not Bite Religion per se, Logic sure does. HENCE why Atheist-Channels have a massive amount of valid criticism, valid questions, valid much.

@@nenmaster5218 What's your definition of logic?

Fr Casey has to be thorough in his research. If he doesn't he'll make a donkey out of himself and the Catholic Christian faith.

@@nenmaster5218 I'm not sure that's the case. There's plenty of logic on the side of religion as well. There's a reason why the intellectual debate on religion is still going on, because both bring up legitimate concerns. The debate is probably as old as religion itself! It's best to just do your research and keep an open mind to both sides of the aisle. Have a good day.

Science may not Bite Religion per se, but Logic sure does. It sure does - hence why Atheist-Channel have more and more very-valid Criticism for Christianity and Religion overall. I implore you all, dear comment-readers, to inform yourself a lot, even though it’s admittedly time-consuming, but Religion and Atheism are Big Chunks of this World, so they deserve your time, I’d argue. Valid Questions are asked all the time by people like ‚Genetically Modified Sceptic’ and ‚Believe it or not’ and the harshest aka most direct of them all: ‚Viced Rhino’. And Forrest Valkai literally asks Religious Scientists directly in his longest-yet Video: Why do you ‚suspend your Disbelieve’ and make ‚Exceptions’ for Religion like you do for literally Nothing else? Why do you accept things you wouldnt accept elsewhere, he asks with great arguments.

@@loturzelrestaurant the devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve .nm

@@loturzelrestaurant Genetically modified skeptic? I don't mean to be rude but you could of chose a better athiest channel.

Wow that is amazing. I know a RU-vidr who is making lots of videos to help young people (e.g. answering common questions). Seeing as evolution+Adam and Eve is a massive stumbling block for new Christians, I was wondering whether I could recommend you to him, or any other biblical scholar to perhaps do an interview with him. I think such an in-depth, reasoned and biblical answer will help many people. Just reply to my comment specifically and I’ll be able to get a notification. Regardless of your answer, thank you so much for an intellectual answer in an area where so many people misinterpret. An area which has caused lots of suffering. God Bless!💫🕊

S P2 You’re welcome! 😄

Leonardo Bozza Hi, you’re welcome! And thanks for the invite, but I’m no expert. I was taking a very basic (undergrad) Old Testament class, as I said, at a well-known Catholic university. (I took it as a background for my graduate program, spiritual direction.) You might want to find a Theology professor for your friend to interview about this. A RU-vid channel I’ve enjoyed for thoughtful analysis is “Religion For Breakfast”. One of the problems we Catholics have (and I think Protestants too) is that they don’t take into account the cultural differences and expectations between ancient Hebrews/Israelites/Jews, and modern people, including that we moderns take what’s written in the Bible according to our modern culture and assumptions. It’s very easy to misinterpret what’s written in the Bible. That’s why, 50 years ago, Catholics were actually discouraged from reading the Bible. They didn’t have the Theology training that priests did and do.

Thank you for translating the Hebrew here, I'm a bio major and I love animals, but this has always been my one contention. I just resolved that God will give me wisdom when he deems it right. I believe he sent me to your comment to see that. God Bless to you too! Keep up the God work sharing the good news!

@@sp2817 the millions of years simply do not fit into the creation account in genesis, whichever way we interpret it. Also in genesis, first came the earth, then the sun. and we r taught just the opposite. Also first came the birds then the animals (dinosaurs). And we r taught just the opposite. First we doubt the length of days, now we doubt the order too?? So the order written by God in genesis is wrong? Ok or maybe there's another interpretation. Fine. What is that interpretation may I ask.

How can you see that Satan if behind this facet or intellectualism trying to sound smart when we making the believers crumble to his satanic ideas

@@nenmaster5218 - What is the difference between the Christian religion of a belief in Logos and a belief in logic?

@@nenmaster5218 - New Testament, paragraph 1 line 1: In the first principle there was Logos (Reason). Logos was unto God. Logos was God. Through it everything was created and without it (without logos i.e. reason) nothing was ever created. It is a formula borrowed from the Stoic philosophers c. 3rd C BC - 2nd C AD, who considered reason to be the only god and the cause of everything. It is the standard mainstream view of Orthodox Christians, at least those who can read Greek. After all it says what it says. You can check Wikipedia about the Stoic philosophers and consult a Greek - English dictionary on the meaning of λόγος. It is the root of logic, logical, etc. Not everyone bothers to open up a dictionary, regardless of whether atheist or religious. The problem with some/many people of religion, especially in America, is that they want a God who has nothing to do with reason.

@@nikolaosaggelopoulos8113 Interesting. I didnt know there were Christians who tell themselves theyre not Opposed to Logic, despite ofcourse being that 24/7; like that

@@nenmaster5218 - You do not understand. that we Believe in Logos, it is not the we are not opposed to it. That is the Christian faith, at the least the mainstream Orthodox Christian faith from a theological standpoint. Christianity, however, is for all, even for lunatics. Half of humanity has an IQ below 100. They can also be Christians and have access to the internet.

the devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve .nm1

Yes ! My mother needs to see this video .

@@marylinramos4300 The Problem is, the Try to make Religion and Science co-exist is a Wrong Idea in itself. Think about it: Isnt this all because Science-Denial has not worked out for Religion, so Isnt it curious how Religion now trys to claim it was co-existing all along and both are true? Even though religion and science (or better said, religion and Logic) totally do bite each other? Sorry, but face the harsh truth here: This resembles more a marketing ploy. Think about it for real: Has ‚open’ Science-Denial not failed and people realized that Science is a ‚positive word’? Isnt this perceived positivness now something to be ‚stolen’, for a lack of a better word? Good People like ‚Sci Man Dan’ and countless others have even made a Living from debunking all the PSEUDO-Science and Fake-Science (pretending to be science but having no science behind it, as religious people love to do nowadays) so that alone is a thing to consider; hard. Sci Man Dan and all the others totally debunk everything they say. Religion has now entered a new marketing-strategy, which is ‚Co-existing with Science is Possible!!’ and they even funny-enough add ‚I knew it all along; just so ya know!’ I mean, ok? I'm not here to throw shade on all the scientists and teachers in this c-section who say they are religious and educated: But i have to stress that your going into the wrong direction here. The 'idea' that religion and science are kinda the same and everyone should just leave it at that and hold hands 'sounds' nice but is in the end very, very wrong and also does have a multitude of negative effects, tbf. ‚Forrest Valkai’ even directly adresses you, my dear Scientists/Teachers/Such who go in this c-section here and say ‚Right! I always knew they dont bite each other!’

You better take some life lessons and start reading the protocols of zion and catholic history. You are as prophesied, the elect will be deceived and lose the faith.

@@crucemsanctamsubiitallelui3664 Evolution is a defined fact of population genetics

@@chadwoods2364 Really?? If it is a fact, It must be no problem for you to give an example where you observed an evolutionairy transition by natural selection?

Science may not Bite Religion per se, but Logic sure does. It sure does - hence why Atheist-Channel have more and more very-valid Criticism for Christianity and Religion overall. I implore you all, dear comment-readers, to inform yourself a lot, even though it’s admittedly time-consuming, but Religion and Atheism are Big Chunks of this World, so they deserve your time, I’d argue. Valid Questions are asked all the time by people like ‚Genetically Modified Sceptic’ and ‚Believe it or not’ and the harshest aka most direct of them all: ‚Viced Rhino’. And Forrest Valkai literally asks Religious Scientists directly in his longest-yet Video: Why do you ‚suspend your Disbelieve’ and make ‚Exceptions’ for Religion like you do for literally Nothing else? Why do you accept things you wouldnt accept elsewhere, he asks with great arguments.

Jesus luvs u

@@anarmiesworld2709 So why did he invent hell?

@@2l84me8 Short answer: he created hell because he is good, loving, and also just. Being good by definition must hate evil. Long answer: Hell is a just punishment for unrepentant unbelievers of the Lord Jesus' death and resurrection. Hell is locked from the inside. This means that people in hell will literally prefer hell than confessing their sins, they prefer heaven but they deny the only thing that will get them to heaven and that is by repenting of their sins and believing in the death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We are all undeserving hopeless sinners, the only difference is that we believe in God. I highly suggest you to read the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus in the bible, just search it up and read it. Edit: I forgot to say that people don't stop sinning in hell for eternity, they will keep blaspheming to God and hating each other for eternity so it is just to punish them for eternity.

@@sagittariusa581 So the simple act of not being convinced of an outrageous and ridiculous story is eternal torture by someone who is supposed to be all loving? I don’t think you understand what just, love, nor merciful means. You honestly believe all of humanity is automatically bad just because a clone woman supposedly ate a piece of magic fruit after being convinced by a talking snake? First demonstrate your god even exists in the first place and then we’ll talk.

@@2l84me8 I'm going to leave you with one question. Does love require approval?

You are easy to be manipulated, huh? ?

Science may not Bite Religion per se, but Logic sure does. It sure does - hence why Atheist-Channel have more and more very-valid Criticism for Christianity and Religion overall. Again: Hence why Atheist-Channels have a lot of valid Criticism. And ignoring Criticism is nothing i recommend, tbh...

@@loturzelrestaurant vznnthe devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve .nm

@@a.39886 Oh friend. If you only knew how Christians see you.

@@loturzelrestaurant I serve no man but God almighty he won´t permit his creation be corrupted by this horrible ideology

@Oliver Flanagan Thank you!

He talks about it in his great work “The City of God.”

I think the work you actually want to look at is De Genesis ad Litteram (On the Literal Meaning of Genesis)

Christans, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and pagans have been writing about evolution long before Charles Drawin and many people don't know this but Drawin was a life long Christian, he didn't convert on his death bed, like some doubious sources claim

“The little world of Don Camillo” is brilliantly written, full of humour and humanity, in an understated and economical style and it’s a pure joy to read.

@@Rick-ve5lx There are several books in the "Mondo Piccolo" of Guareschi. It was originally a weekly text in a small newspaper. There is a special book called "Tutto Don Camilo" which has all the chapters. In the books many of the chapters where taken out. These eliminated chapters were too related to facts of the moment or about political facts of that time. It's believed that Guareschi texts and ideas had an important part in the defeat of Comunism in Italy. The books are at least four: "Don Camilo", "Don Camilo e il suo gregge" (in Spanish "La Vuelta de Don Camilo"), "Don Camilo e i giovani d'oggi" and "Il Compagno Don Camilo" (in which Don Camilo manages to be in a trip to Russia for comrades of "sure faith" and shows the real life in communism).

Arturo Luis Alfredo Lisdero Molina Thanks very much for that. I only have “The little world” but it’s one of my favourite books and I still read it occasionally. It was on TV years ago in the UK. Peppone was played by Brian Blessed. I forget who played Don Camillo but he was also very good.

@@Rick-ve5lx I you search in RU-vid you may find something. "Don Camilo English" game a result of Terence Hill and also some of the older ones of Fernandell.

Arturo Luis Alfredo Lisdero Molina Terrence Hill player Don Matteo, a later serie much more pop/trash. The original Don Camillo was played by a French actor. I come from that part of Italy (po valley) and I grown up with Don Camillo. The context was so similar to my town that I though that all the world was divided between Communists and Catholics... very funny and intelligent films; all of them. The good thing is that Peppone (the communist) was not portrayed as an evil man, but as a good man, playing in the “wrong team”

Science may not Bite Religion per se, but Logic sure does. It sure does - hence why Atheist-Channel have more and more very-valid Criticism for Christianity and Religion overall. I implore you all, dear comment-readers, to inform yourself a lot, even though it’s admittedly time-consuming, but Religion and Atheism are Big Chunks of this World, so they deserve your time, I’d argue. Valid Questions are asked all the time by people like ‚Genetically Modified Sceptic’ and ‚Believe it or not’ and the harshest aka most direct of them all: ‚Viced Rhino’. And Forrest Valkai literally asks Religious Scientists directly in his longest-yet Video: Why do you ‚suspend your Disbelieve’ and make ‚Exceptions’ for Religion like you do for literally Nothing else? Why do you accept things you wouldnt accept elsewhere, he asks with great arguments.

Science may not Bite Religion per se, but Logic sure does. It sure does - hence why Atheist-Channel have more and more very-valid Criticism for Christianity and Religion overall. I implore you all, dear comment-readers, to inform yourself a lot, even though it’s admittedly time-consuming, but Religion and Atheism are Big Chunks of this World, so they deserve your time, I’d argue.

Facts, this guy is knowledgeable

@@ring9089 Understanding enough to not take a hardline stance. If only more religious people like this

man about most people in the world are theists and you have the guts to say that very little of them understand evolution. thats a pretty huge generalization you got there

Yes! He understands it better than Answers in Genesis or several popular (and inefficient) christian apologists

Yeah, thats fair enough, but problem is: 'Logic' (seperated from Science, kinda) does totally oppose many God-Stuff. I mean, have you seen the valid Questions asked by 'Believe it or not' and 'Viced Rhino'? Or Forrest Valkai? All 3 very good RU-vidrs who really studied the Bible hard and now discuss them. But the problem becomes obvious: The Bible just has no historical or other worth and is clearly a logic-error... shouldnt we face that? What do you think? I mean, even 'just' the '10 Questions for Christians'-Video Rhino recently made; though just a small Part of his channel (duh) really makes me wonder.

@@loturzelrestaurant Yeah, thats actually a really good point, and those videos are very informative. I think it's important as Christians to ultimately realize that the Bible is not the be-all end-all of faith, God is. Although scripture is God-breathed, it is written by man. There are obvious flaws such as the idea that the earth is flat, or the geocentric view of the universe that the Bible clearly states are true. So I think we just need to realize that the Bible is simply the many authors' interpretations of God using the historical and cultural contexts of their time. The letters of someone like C.S. Lewis are potentially just as viable as the letters of Paul. Just a thought.

@@aidanpatman-clark7131 Science may not Bite Religion per se, but Logic sure does. It sure does - hence why Atheist-Channel have more and more very-valid Criticism for Christianity and Religion overall. I implore you all, dear comment-readers, to inform yourself a lot, even though it’s admittedly time-consuming, but Religion and Atheism are Big Chunks of this World, so they deserve your time, I’d argue. Valid Questions are asked all the time by people like ‚Genetically Modified Sceptic’ and ‚Believe it or not’ and the harshest aka most direct of them all: ‚Viced Rhino’.

I love the sheer amount of Copium Chrisitans nowadays need. I mean, it's obviously so hard to grow up in the Internet-Age and blending-out every Squaremeter of Reality yelling 'HEY, DIDCHA KNOW SCIENCE DEBUNKED THE BIBLE?' People cope differently with the objective fact that it's objectively proven that countless different Things in the Bible literally never happened, but dont worry, that's what Copium is for.

@@loturzelrestaurant i’ll pray for you man, hope you change your mind in future 🙏

@@rurushu8094 Can we have an actual, civil talk about the fact that objective fact is objectively and factual that Evolution exists? Or is that too high for you?

@@rurushu8094You being objetively wrong is too much to handle for YOU, so YOU need to CHANGE your Mind.

@@loturzelrestaurant I dont see myself as wrong, my own faith was borough about by studies in science, and God willing he will help me get through my course. Edit: Studying cladistics and the genetics behind evolution is what brought me closer to God, I don’t recall ever saying evolution is false or Fr Casey saying something like that in this video. But I won’t reply to this untill the discussion becomes more civil because it’s clear you have quite a strong resentment towards God and his church. He died for all of us and he loves all of us. I’ll keep praying for you homie.

A thing can be "before" something else in more than one way. One way is temporal, by which a thing exists at an earlier period of time than something else. If this is all you mean by "before", then you're right. On the other hand, a thing can also be "before" something else simply by being a prerequisite for it. For instance, a side is "before" a square. Even if a square were to come into existence all at once, "side" would still be the prior idea, since the square can't exist unless there is such a thing as a side. In this sense, any death which took place temporally prior to sin would still be logically posterior to it, and therefore not exist "before" it. That is, placing oneself in the first moment of a hypothetical universe in which sin would never be committed, one would anticipate a different natural history for that universe than one in which sin, as in ours, *was* going to be committed.

Remember, the time of God is eternal, not as a linear thing without extremes, but as a "now" that lasts forever. God knows not only the past, present and future, but all the possible pasts, presents and futures of this universe... and all possible universes that may exist, because God IS WHO IS in every second in every moment of all time. God isn't limited by a story in a book, whichever that book may be. So, it is possible that death, physical, simple ceasing of function of organs and cells happened before sin (Also, why animals and plants die? They can't sin). Death as eternal separation from God's presence, the only death that should worry a Christian, that's the death that happens after sin. But in man's time, not God's infinite time.

@@delsydebothom3544 the devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve .nmaban

@@a.39886 If my wording implied that I think we are not a unique creation of God, my words were poorly chosen. You, too, are a unique creation of God, but you were also brought into existence by natural causes. The two ideas are not in competition with each other; God is the author of nature. This means he is also the author of all the productions of nature. It is not in spite of this, but because of this, that nature possesses within itself the ability to bring about its effects. The aspects of human life which are animal appear to be instances of these effects. This fact does nothing to obtain for any conclusion that would deny we are special creations of God. Rather, it in truth stands defiantly athwart any such devilish conclusions.

@@delsydebothom3544 He is working for the devil trying to destroy the only and almighty faith for God we are not animals we are God´s unique creation we have soul and purpose animals don´t

Yes ,and how can we know what these ancient people believed was true,or how much of it was true?

Actually it’s easy: The Old Testament (Torah) is an allegory; the New Testament (the Gospel) is a “diary” (aka not allegorical).

frank whelan most of that ancient people were not able to read; they believed what the community believed...

Science may not Bite Religion per se, but Logic sure does. It sure does - hence why Atheist-Channel have more and more very-valid Criticism for Christianity and Religion overall. I implore you all, dear comment-readers, to inform yourself a lot, even though it’s admittedly time-consuming, but Religion and Atheism are Big Chunks of this World, so they deserve your time, I’d argue. Valid Questions are asked all the time by people like ‚Genetically Modified Sceptic’ and ‚Believe it or not’ and the harshest aka most direct of them all: ‚Viced Rhino’.

I disagree

@Ayos Mukha if you believe in evolution you say that death came before sin and God ordered death before the first couple and called it good. That is not what the Bible teaches

@@amartinez589 dude.. i don't care about your head canon

@Ayos Mukha dude, I’m just talking about the word of God I don’t know what you worship

@@amartinez589then why bother comment in the first place?

If God didn't create a man, Adam, then the entire Bible is a lie. Perhaps the virgin birth is also written in the style of MYTH? Perhaps the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is also a myth? You're well on your way to being an athiest.

the devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve .nmagathe devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve .nm

Yeah, thats fair enough, but problem is: 'Logic' (seperated from Science, kinda) does totally oppose many God-Stuff. This Video makes it all seem like Science and Religion dont have to oppose each other, AND YES, that is FAR BETTER of an Idea than 'We have to be at WAAAAAR', obviously... Obviously... BUT: Logic kinda bites Religion and thats the Issue here. Atheist-Channels need to be watched to get what i mean, as i obviously cant just put it into 1 comment, duh. I mean, have you seen the valid Questions asked by 'Believe it or not' and 'Viced Rhino'? Or Forrest Valkai? All 3 very good RU-vidrs who really studied the Bible hard and now discuss it. But the problem becomes obvious: The Bible just has no historical or other worth and is clearly a giga-logic-error... shouldnt we face that? What do you think? I mean, even 'just' the '10 Questions for Christians'-Video Rhino recently made; though just a small Part of his channel (duh) really makes me wonder. It makes me wonder if Religion isnt something for Earth to 'overcome' and grow out of.

the devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve .nmzb

I think the great mystery (and beauty) of evolution is that it is a really fluid process. There isn't really a line to be drawn between, say, homo erectus and homo sapien, as if there is a clear cutoff in history. We make these broad categories, but there are really millions of in-between steps, meaning that we are less a species and more an individual. To your question, I think it might point us to see that, while we are definitely different from other living beings, we are not so wholly different that it is a binary distinction. Is it possible to see all of creation as imbued with some "image and likeness" of God, maybe not to the same extent as humans, but reflective nonetheless. Is there maybe a bit of a soul, a bit of a spirit, albeit not as developed, in all of creation? In which case, we have to wonder: did Jesus come simply to bring salvation to homo sapiens, but to redeem all of creation and to bring everything into himself? The great mystery of the incarnation is not necessary that God became a human, but that God "took on flesh," became a part of creation. In this way, I think that your question about the biological parents of the first humans is a really interesting question, but I don't think it applies.

Perhaps humans needed saving once they were aware of right and wrong... I think it's an intelligence issue and once we started deviating from God and started following our own ambitions. This could be an explanation why the fall occured because Man ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

@@BreakingInTheHabit you are flirting with heresy Father, and I suggest you repent before it is too late. This modernism you've embraced is not Catholic. Animals have spirit? Are you claiming animals go to heaven as well?

Ciência e Filosofia chill out man; he’s not flirting with anything, he’s just Franciscan... and however, he has to be obidient to his superior, not you. If he is allowed to make this videos it means it’s fine. A Catholic trusts the church authority, remember...

@ you are no better than any other animal on this earth. you weren't magically put here to be god over every other lving thing. get over yourself.

Yeah, thats fair enough, but problem is: 'Logic' (seperated from Science, kinda) does totally oppose many God-Stuff. This Video makes it all seem like Science and Religion dont have to oppose each other, AND YES, that is FAR BETTER of an Idea than 'We have to be at WAAAAAR', obviously... Obviously... BUT: Logic kinda bites Religion and thats the Issue here. Atheist-Channels need to be watched to get what i mean, as i obviously cant just put it into 1 comment, duh. I mean, have you seen the valid Questions asked by 'Believe it or not' and 'Viced Rhino'? Or Forrest Valkai? All 3 very good RU-vidrs who really studied the Bible hard and now discuss it. But the problem becomes obvious: The Bible just has no historical or other worth and is clearly a giga-logic-error... shouldnt we face that? What do you think? I mean, even 'just' the '10 Questions for Christians'-Video Rhino recently made; though just a small Part of his channel (duh) really makes me wonder. It makes me wonder if Religion isnt something for Earth to 'overcome' and grow out of.