This one hasn’t shown up in my Revealed Apologetics podcast feed? I would love to have it as a podcast! Thank you so much for having Dr. Lisle on again and for your ministry!
@@RevealedApologetics Wonderful! Delays are no big deal…It’s good to know I can still rely on my feed and not miss any of the episodes! Thank you for working on all of this in the midst of “normal life.” May the Lord bless you with the ability to balance it all!
Eli, nice job as always. I love listening to Jason and have learned immensely from the two of you in this and in other presentations. One of my favorite interviews was the one you did with Jason and Hugh Ross.
Never get tired of listening to Dr. Lisle. His teachings have encouraged my faith and deepen my love for science. Beautiful soul. Thanks for inviting him. 😁🧠🪐☄️
even though he's completely wrong? you do realise there are literally billions of religists who are more than happy that evolution is the way of the world.
Evolution by natural selection is a proven fact of nature and the very backbone of modern science today. Even if we couldn’t see evolution in progress today (which we could) the mountains of evidence we have that demonstrates evolution is undeniable: genetics, transitional fossils, observed speciation, vestigial structures, and even embryology all help us understand how life diversified.
Not so..."proven"? based on assumptions. So how did rocks and non-living matter evolve? Your faith in a creator is amazing to see....because you have to have one too.
@@CORVAIRPILOTIt's called autocatalysis. Nucleotides form chains, structures, enzymes, copy themselves and evolve by Darwinian-type natural selection.
Enzymes are basically machines and the reason you see them is there were coded into the DNA. Instructions are written by intelligence not spontaneous random chances. Honestly I’m not sure why the “no God” crowd doesn’t”t just move to panspermia. It’s more believable than nothing naturally making everything we see today
Sheesh this guy is amazing. He understands the scientific evidence against evolution but is presuppositional to the core so he’s able to break that apart without even going into the weeds of the science
Thank you for hosting this important defense of the biblical worldview. Dr. Lisle is awesome and he has so much good content. I really enjoy listening to him. Thanks again.
it's a worldview that's not shared with billions of religists of all faiths. it's nonsense, it has no practical application, and why it's so important to cling onto beats me, it makes religion look even more daft than it does already.
Excellent interview! I've admired Dr. Lisle for years and continue to learn. I see that Eli is an excellent interviewer, and it would have been nice if he had interviewed me back when I was doing these things for Question Evolution Day. By the way, Dr. Lisle corrected me on natural selection as mis-taught by Dr. Randy Guliuzza. Instead of learning, he and others at ICR are doubling down and have made several discussion videos. I hope Dr. Lisle watches and responds to them so I don't have to.
As far as retention tools are concerned, he takes the cake. Just presuppose your way out of a jam, right? When all goes wrong, simply claim you can’t know anything without god!!
Can I be a guest on the show? I mean I have bachelors in electronics so about the same authority as Dr Lisle when it comes to biology Bloody hell I just finished this thing. I thought you guys were just joking but you actually are proud of being ignorant and presuposing the answer XD Thats just sad to be honest. Im sorry that people demanding that you prove your stuff is too much for your "incredibly correct and strong and proven case of creation". The faster we get rid of indoctrinated thinking like this the better...
The subjects are not impossible to learn outside of a classroom. He has multiple degrees and considering the amount of overlap that often exists he could probably be very close to the biology bachelors you mentioned. Do you have the timestamp where I can hear the part that you are referring to?
Considering human evolution is considered fact among nearly all credible scientists, I can do little more than ignore the rantings of someone who has no real background in any related field.
Thank you for this! I would love it if Dr. Lisle could find the time to deal specifically with “theistic evolutionists” since they are working so hard to teach these lies in the church.
You mean how they are trying to work with the evidence? How it’s slowly dawning in them that they can’t bury their heads in the sand and ignore what doesn’t agree with your beliefs?
yeah, sounds good doesn't it, sadly the same applies to the religious, you're just scared to death of hell and that's why you pretend to believe. annoying isn't it.
@@HarryNicNicholas Ok, this is how a sinner thinks: "yeah, sounds good doesn't it, sadly the same applies to the religious, you're just scared to death of hell and that's why you pretend to believe. annoying isn't it." Well, let's see if there is anything of merit or value here. This fool honestly believes that I am scared to death of hell. HA HA HA HA HA What a moron. Why would I be scared to death of hell? What reason could I possibly have to be even the slightest bit afraid of hell? As a person not going to hell, I have no reason whatsoever to be scared at all of hell. What I am sure you were aiming at was the idea that I only became a Christian because of a fear of hell. That is your assumption because sin has clearly made you stupid, and has been acting on you in that direction for quite some time now, eh? Put simply, I am not only not scared of hell; I am not scared of anything. One of the great advantages of knowing Jesus Christ for real is lack of fear, lack of stress, and total freedom from all forms of depression. For what it's worth, I discovered that I had avoided going to hell months after getting saved. So, you see? You are a fool who speaks when he knows nothing. You are the one who believes in his stupid naturalistic religion because you are the scared one here. You are terrified that God is real. What's more? Your terror is made sharper by the fact that YOU KNOW GOD IS REAL. You will try to reply to this in a way that makes you feel better about yourself, but that is just more proof that you have Daddy issues.
@@GodID7 : _"The same GG who said that chimp Y chromosome is the most similar to human Y"_ I dunno if she said that. And I dunno if that's correct or not. What I know is that she knows her subject very well, and way better that the naive guy above. _"she was exposed?"_ She may have made a mistake, we all do, which, if it's the case I'm sure she corrected (something that dogmatic believers never do). _"I don’t think so"_ What do you don't think?
You are very skilled as a host and moderator! I see your channel being very successful!! I think Dr. Lisle is my new favorite apologist. I'm not a presuppositionalist, but I think I need to learn some of it. Dr. Lisle's mind is so sharp on everything. If I were an evolutionist,I would be terrified having to debate him, lol
I cover an extremely logical response to the sun on day 4 answer on my live show. Short version is when did the creator of Minecraft create the sun in the game? It wasn't day one of dev I assure you. It is a periphery that is added later
I do agree that we all have starting presuppositions (things everyone takes for granted). As Lisle points out, "There's an implicit assumption that our observations correspond to (an external) reality" is one of those starting assumptions. The thing is, that isn't a uniquely scientific presupposition. It's something everyone presupposes. We literally take that stuff for granted long before we become smart enough to question our own epistemologies. The Christian worldview is internally consistent with that presupposition (Our senses are truthful cuz God is truthful and He made our senses). It's still presupposed though, and demonstrating the presupposition is internally consistent doesn't render it no longer a presupposition (I think people get confused about that). I contend everybody shares the same set of presuppositions. "These presuppositions have absolutely no secular foundation". All that my team (the Christians) are doing is coming up with a way in which our presuppositions (uniformity of nature, external world exists, senses are generally reliable, etc) are internally consistent with our religious views (ie I use my senses to read that the Bible says my senses can be trusted). The gauntlet is therefore the same for the atheist. All they gotta do is come up with a set of beliefs that are internally consistent with the presupposed ideas that "the external world is real" or "my senses are reliable". As long as they don't pick something busted like radical empiricism it shouldn't be tricky.
Lisle: "They are borrowing presuppositions that can only be sensibly justified in the Christian worldview". Showing that a given presupposition is internally consistent/expected to be true given your worldview is not the same as justifying those presuppositions. I don't think the most foundational presuppositions lend themself to justification, but even if they can be it won't be justified merely by internal consistency.
@@Testeverything521 I am a little confused by your comments are you saying because they can’t be justified that they are not true what is your definition of justification
@@DekemaStokes Justification is just having good evidence for a thing. Most presuppositions can be proven, but I contend that foundational presuppositions don't lend themselves to justification. That doesn't mean they aren't true though.
" I contend everybody shares the same set of presuppositions."..... So everynody presups an all knowing God created the universe? " I use my senses to read that the Bible says my senses can be trusted)."..no, I use my senses in such a way I can know things because an all knowing God created them that way. An all knowing God allows me to know the Bible in a way consistent with God's plan for me. That's why there's many differing interpretations.
@@icanfartloud Everybody shares the same set of presuppositions, but "an all-knowing God created the universe" isn't a real presupposition. I argue the existence of an all-knowing God is a conclusion that we draw from using our senses, not a presupposition at all. I think presups could be better named. What they are really doing is trying to argue for God's existence by transcendental argument, but their transcendental argument ends up being no good.
It really would be an honor to meet Dr. Lisle. I have never heard a more truly brilliant person in my life. His wide range of knowledge is supernatural like.
@@Terabapu3156 : that won't help you. If academic credentials are your reference, then see that all biologists disagree with him. Even more those way more qualified than he is. Using your own method, you should distrust him. Agree?
Belief in a religion already tells me that someone's grasp of science is tenable at best. In the very least, that person is not applying the scientific method to their own beliefs.
Unfortunately that ignorant statement shows your bigotry and nothing more. That's like saying someone who can spell can't possibly grasp math concepts There is nothing mutually exclusive between science and religion. As a student of both, my religion does not interfere in any way with science. Who I don't always agree with some scientists and their conclusions, it's not the science I'm disagreeing with. It's the conclusion. Unfortunately it's those like yourself who conflate science with a belief system. But it is exactly people like you who troll these channels looking for opportunities to personally attack those who are speaking and yet not one shred of evidence. Do you present that? Anything he said is unfactual. My guess is you were barely 2 minutes into the conversation when you posted this comment, again, the ignorance and bigotry is appalling
Also something to note in Revelation where it's mentioned that we will no longer need the light of the day because God himself will be the light so since he will be the light in the future wouldn't it make sense that he was the light in the past 🤷
odd that god says "thou shalt not kill" but designs everything so it has to kill something to survive, and even more strange when he also invented photosynthesis and NO ONE need kill to eat.
@@truthbebold4009 you are aware that jesus didn't write a single word? we have NO IDEA what jesus thought, said or did, it's guesswork that came years after his death. not to mention xianity is based on one man having a hallucination he saw another dead man. it's a really shaky story.
@@HarryNicNicholas You are confusing the effects of the fall with creation, these two things are not the same thing, and each state operates under its own set of laws All creation has been corrupted because of the fall…
@@shuttlemanjack I actually got it from two videos but only remember the partial one [1]. I'm no scientist. But then I read this [2]. My understanding from that article is that galaxies with red shifts ~11 are supposed to be rare. There were two detected and that is supposed to be super rare since finding just one is already super rare. I'll add a quote here and I think it's from this site [3] (I got it from [2]). “Theoretical and empirical models of early galaxy formation predicted that a 10-100× larger survey would have been required to find one such bright galaxy at z = 11 (e.g. Waters et al. 2016; Mutch et al. 2016).” There is also the possibility of galaxies being present with red shifts ~20 challenging the standard model of formation that places all of them at about 300 ma after the big bang. This is just the distant-galaxies problem. The standard model also faces the mass and structure of the earliest galaxies problem. Here's a quote that I got from [2] and I think the original source is this one [4]. “The stellar mass density in massive galaxies is much higher than anticipated from previous studies based on rest-frame UV-selected samples: a factor of 10-30 at z∼8 and more than three orders of magnitude at z∼10.” I don't want to just comment without bringing scripture so I added two verses. Verses For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. Hebrews 11:6 Sources [1] ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-HjmkDgE0MpQ.html [2] biblicalscienceinstitute.com/origins/creation-cosmology-confirmed/ [3] arxiv.org/abs/2207.09434 Naidu, R., Two Remarkably Luminous Galaxy Candidates at z≈11−13 Revealed by JWST, Astro-ph/arXiv:2207.09434, July 19, 2022. [4] arxiv.org/abs/2207.12446 Labbe, I., et al., A very early onset of massive galaxy formation, Astro-ph/arXiv:2207.12446, July 25, 2022.
@@jorgei.alonso9959 you have no idea what you are talking about, right from the outset you've no clue what redshift is about, do something else with your time, you only get one life, go and run around in the sun.
I'm a primatologist and PhD student in Biological (Paleo) Anthropology and I kid you not almost all of what Dr. Lisle said in this interview was incorrect or misconstrued. From the usage of Tomkin's 80% number, mispronouncing Australopithecus, and the bones that "separate apes from humans" to the general lack of understanding of common descent. I would love nothing more than to chat with Dr. Lisle about his misconceptions, but I very much doubt he would ever agree. Human evolution is rock solid, as is the ancient age of the Earth, something I have covered ad nauseum on my own channel.
Secular evolution destroys intelligibility. For all of your intellectual feats and capabilities, you dialectically believe a metaphysical system which renders impossible your very utterances
Thank you for your post. Can you please provide just one example of evolution (where one kind evolves into another)? For something to be rock solid, there must be evidence. If you can't provide an unequivocal example, that is OK as I have been searching for such an example for a very long time, but unfortunately, all I have found are examples of adaptation. God bless.
I'm inclined to think evolution isn't true, but some things are hard to explain. I was thinking recently about why there would be so many marsupials in Australia if not because of having a common ancestor in thatb area?
try not to think, thinking will just lead you to asking more questions and before you know it you'll be saying daft things like "why didn't god put a fence around the tree of knowledge" you'll be losing your fear of hell, smiling a lot and making jokes, instead of fearing god and quaking in your boots.
Im willing to explain anything about evolution you could ask. I will not go into abiogenisis though, i dont know enough about it to give an explanation i would be happy with
@@ThomasKundera funny how you want to say pure crap but you don't say why? Obviously deep down you know he is right but it doesn't align with what you want to hear. So you come trolling to try and feel better about it. I find it deeply sad for you. Evolution has nothig going for it. Let me repeat Evolution has NOTHING GOING FOR IT. it's a bad idea, it's a lie, there is nothing else so instead of God they make up crap and try to prove its right with a sad desperation.
@@mrosskne hey sorry your confused again. Just because evolution is a lie don't confuse their methods with the truth. Evolutionists have lie and brainwash gullible morons into believing absolute crap story with no proof. What is the big lie they all say THERE IS MASIVE AMOUNTS OF EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION LOL. Yet they don't and can't give any lol. It's a bigger fairy tale then snow white. So please educate yourself on the topic and give me what you think is the best proof for evolution being real...
As a dentist I see no difference between Neanderthal and human dental morphology. None. In fact, I can tell you their diet, age, and sex. If they are not human, I shouldn't be able to do that being trained in human dental anatomy
It is not consistent. As Christians, we are to trust the word of God, 'avoiding worldly, empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called “knowledge”' that the world presents. And let's face it, the only reason people have presented the idea of evolution and billions of years is to try to take God out of the equation. God says He created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Are we going to trust Him or wicked men?
@@douglasmcnay644 we trust the word of God, and also inductively accumulate the data that complements the word of God giving examples on many truths stated in the word of God about what He created. Isaac Newton, said that he was thinking after God's thoughts. No creationist is trying to compete with the scriptures. Live out your life and enjoy creation along with the scientists , such as Newton and Kepler, who expressed their findings that our Creator has provided. And I am not contradicting you, but supplimenting your statements.
Your initial statement suggests, from the title of the video being about the viability of evolution, that evolution is is compatible with the creation account. We are not talking about Newton and other scientists that merely studied the creation and have quantified properties. You are conflating actual science with "knowledge so called", that being the theory of evolution.
Thanks for the interview. Dr. Jason Lisle is amazing and always has great information and has really helped me a lot to see the world in the correct lenses. To answer the question about a good Old Testament scholar, you can find a great study on Genesis (and many other books in the Bible) by Pastor Stephen Armstrong from Verse By Verse Ministries. There is a free app on your phone and there is also a youtube channel. He really breaks down Genesis verse by verse as he does many books in the Bible and they are amazing. He passed away a few years ago from Covid 19, but the church is still doing more teachings.
More deluded talking to the deluded. They believe in a book that has talking animals, sticks turning into snakes, rising from the dead, people walking on water, burning bushes, food falling from the sky, wizards, demons, witches, dinosaurs coexisting with man , all sorts of absurd primitive stories. They said use the brain god gave you ,l did, now I’m an Atheist ironic isn’t it <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="3212">53:32</a>
@@timothyvenable3336 Should I really explain to you what a broken integrity is? Like, you don't know what it means? Google it, do "broken integrity meaning". I'm not here for lecturing you, you can inform better by yourself.
what about life has always been there? Both theories of originated life sound irrational to me. Its strange that people cant overcome the boundaries and always need a beginning, a start, but in nature there has no beginning observated. Never ever. It goes even against academical established natural laws.
I once watched a 5 month old Zebra kick a hole in a lion's head. Sure, it was a video, but how do you fake that? Imagine being an 'ancient human' - 9 month gestation period, at least half of which you suffer a serious hit to your speed and dexterity, just to have a brat that you need to carry around for a year just so they can walk a quarter mile an hour, once a day for another 2 years, just to have to wait another 12 years for them to have the strength to wield a weapon, clumsily, for another few years until they finally can defend themselves against a world of predators that somehow they have evaded up to this point, so your species can ascend to the top of the food chain. Color me skeptical.
I heard Jason mention that "evolutionist" are good people and that he thinks he has biblical support to support that? The Bible says there are none righteous not even one. So can you or him explain if thats what he meant ?
When I researched this point in the past, I was convincingly shown that what Romans is referring to is in the sense of works righteousness, no one is Good enough to be righteous by way of works, bar One. But the Bible does indeed refer to people as being good or upright, so we can presume people can for the most part be considered relatively good, as per the bible.
@@freegracerevival speaking of the good or upright in the context of "saved" or unsaved people? Please provide chapter and verse and to whom it is referring to as being "good and upright"
there are literally BILLIONS of religists who are more than happy with evolution, ID and creationism are bollocks - try to find ANYONE who has a use for creation science, you won't.
The problem is when the bible is using metaphor, allegory, hyperbole or it just the perspective of ancient people. If evolution by common descent were to sufficiently evidenced for these guys so they believe it, they would just update their interpretation of the bible. I just wonder where the firmament is above the sky that holds all that water?
Christianity has been overtaken by denominations. That was not the plan that we see in scripture. Galatians <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="66">1:6</a>-9 is pretty clear it’s been happening from before the scriptures were done being recorded. Doctrine is important and the overwhelmingly popular faith alone by grace crowd need to really study the scripture and stop listening to some preacher. If their belief about salvation is correct the people being sent to eternity in hell in the follow conversation with Jesus on judgement day these people would definitely be considered saved, but that wasn’t the case: Matthew <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="441">7:21</a>-23 KJVS [21] Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. [22] Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? [23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Evolution simply puts the "magic" (as you would call wonders) to a distant past, it doesn't solve any naturalistic problems, it simply puts them so far away, that nobody looks at it anymore.
So, you believe in evolution and survival of the fittest? Riddle me this. If humans evolved from Homo neanderthalensis and they evolved from Homo habilis, which evolved from Homo heidelbergensis, which evolved from apes, why is it that the least evolved species in the chain have out-survived more evolved and superior species? If we all evolved from single-cell amoebas, where are the two-cell, three-cell, four-cell, and more-cell organisms we evolved from? A theory that does not adhere to its core foundational basis (survival of the fittest) is not science, it is science fiction.
A logical response to your claim would be if evolution is false and yet you claim there is no evidence for creation were true, there has to be a third alternative which there really can’t be. Unless you believe in theistic evolution which is self contradictory. Either this universe came into existence totally by unguided natural processes or there was an eternal self-existent designer who created it. And real world science confirms the latter.
@@irishchocolate3872 --- lol! You young earth creationists are as thick headed as the secular evolutionists. *Real world science* confirms the third view, my view.
@@irishchocolate3872 nope, another false dichotomy. You give no reason as to why this designer must be self-existent in order to creat the universe. You also don’t consider that the universe itself could be self-existent, though in different form.
@@Bomtombadi1 So you either have to believe the universe is eternal(and the 2nd law of thermodynamics refutes that). Your other alternative is the universe created itself. Even given billions of years is not enough to produce life from non-life. Also that would be quite a trick for the universe to create itself and you managed to evolve from a rock. No. You are the one that has untenable position. An eternal, self existent God is the only credible solution. Your other options are nonsense.
Psa <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="841">14:1</a> To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. This issue of rejecting God is way older and predates the New Testament by almost a thousand years. Even way back then science was in its infancy so that we would not have the tools until modern times to give scientific answers to God rejecting atheists. If we could not do it back then, then why do it now? what has changed that we should owe them a scientific explanation? nothing has changed. We owe them a true witness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that is it, but the mock and reject the Bible Rom <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="617">10:17</a> So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. The atheist refuses the very thing that brings faith, which is the word of God, and by rejecting to bible itself they reject the very thing that would increase their faith. We do not owe them modern science proofs of creation and witnesses against their own models, if we could not do these things in the distant past why do them today? If they reject the gospel, then that is on them, I do not owe them modern science as an alternative to the Gospel, I do not owe them anything but a true witness of the gospel, if we could not do these kinds of witnesses in the past why should we think we can do them today, the distant atheists of the past rejected God and we had no such science to convince them, so why use it now when their distant predecessors did not have it available to them? is it fair for the modern atheists to have this science available when it was not available to their distant predecessors? But both the modern and the ancient atheists had the witness of His word. Rom <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="618">10:18</a> But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
LOL. Believes pond sludge, fairy dust, and bacteria can make everything. That means pond sludge, bacteria and fairy dust bubbling puddles over many years are cleverer than you (because you can't even make a plant seed). Let that sink in. Pond sludge and bacteria is cleverer than you.
Actually not at all vague. You looking at the one Darwin drew, or the phylogenetic one from being able to map the genomes of 100s of thousands of species?
@@YECBIB Where did I give indication of being a snowflake here? Creationist name calling is great, isn’t it? You don’t know about the phylogenetic tree developed as a result of mapping the genomes of 2.3 million species? You really are in the dark ages, aren’t you?
@@YECBIB aw muffin! In denial are we? Only response to the vastly updated tree is, “Nuh-Uh! No such thing! Grow up!” Still believing in fairy tales of poofed existence?
By far the best evidence for evolution is phylogeny; it was only briefly touched on here. And the objection doesn’t hold up. “Genes code for traits.” There is truth to this, but it isn’t the full truth. For example, a whale shark shares many traits with actual whales; outside of the vertical/horizontal tail distinction, the whale shark just looks like a whale. But their DNA is very different. Same traits, different DNA. On the flipside, whales look very quite different from hippos but share a lot of DNA coding. Octopi and arachnids have different lines of code that produce eight legs. Bats and birds don’t have the same coding for wings. Many creatures have eyes that do not use the same coding. Traits and genes are in two different categories. Significant overlap in many cases, but not a one-to-one correspondence by any means. The DNA evidence doesn’t conclusively “prove” shared ancestry. Proof is the wrong category for science; that’s for math. But shared ancestry is the most parsimonious interpretation of the phylogenetic data, especially since it’s the exact same data that we use for paternity tests and genealogies.
What did Jesus say, he says, I am the light of the world so we wouldn't have needed the Sun created on the first day therefore it makes sense that he created it in the order that he planned to which was on the 4th day because he himself was the light remember he says I am the light of the world you're welcome 😆
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="3450">57:30</a> _"How do you know that your mind has the capacity to be rational, surely you're not simply using your mind to assume that your mind is rational, wouldn't that be circular, and how do you account for induction ?"_ Circular ? So how does he solve the problem ? The bible ? Surely one needs a rational mind to be able to understand the bible doesn't one ? So the bible is needed to explain the rational mind, and the rational mind is needed to explain the bible. Isn't that circular ? Isn't that begging the question ? Surely one has to use one's mind to make conclusions about one's mind doesn't one ? Induction is accounted for by connectionistic models.
At the level of ultimate foundations, whatever is ultimate must self-attest, otherwise it is not ultimate, but relies on something else. This goes for any worldview. Everyone necessarily must be epistemically circular at the foundational level, even the Christian. The difference is our ultimate foundation is God, who is the self-attesting ultimate foundation for all that exists, but for the atheist it is their own mind. Very obviously though the individual mind is not the ultimate foundation of reality if anything outside the mind is real.
On the biblical worldview, God made our minds in a way that minds are rational so we can comprehend Gods revelation and reality. On the non-Biblical worldview, the mind is a product of chance. It is bound by the laws of chemistry and exists in a word that was not created by God to be rationally understood.
@@whiskeyjak *-"At the level of ultimate foundations, whatever is ultimate must self-attest, otherwise it is not ultimate, but relies on something else. This goes for any worldview."* No it doesn't, there is no requirement for *"ultimate foundations"* see "coherentism" or "infinitism". *-"Everyone necessarily must be epistemically circular at the foundational level, even the Christian."* Can you develop this a bit ? Do you join foundationalism and coherentism into one category ? *-"The difference is our ultimate foundation is God, who is the self-attesting ultimate foundation for all that exists, but for the atheist it is their own mind."* I think that is one of the best summary that I have ever seen, and in fact, I sometimes present it like this myself. *-"Very obviously though the individual mind is not the ultimate foundation of reality if anything outside the mind is real."* Be careful here, in your previous sentence, you speak of the *"ultimate foundation for all that EXISTS"* , but now you talk about the *"ultimate foundation of REALITY"* . It isn't necessary to have any foundation for *"reality"* , and in fact, idealists like Kant reject having any knowledge about the "noumenon" (reality). Some like Berkeley straight up affirm that there is no such thing as mind dependent ontology.
@@RedefineLiving *-"On the non-Biblical worldview, the mind is a product of chance. It is bound by the laws of chemistry and exists in a word that was not created by God to be rationally understood."* Not necessarily. Islam is a non-biblical worldview wouldn't you agree ? And yet, the mind isn't the product of chance in islam (see : fitrah).
@@MrGustavier When you appeal to a worldview that you don’t hold, it necessarily entails the falsification of whatever world you do hold. Ouch. Now if an Islamic individual wanted to make that decision, and we would point out the contradictions in Islam in the same way as any other non-biblical worldview.
"Most scientists accept evolution because other scientists believe it". This is the worst kind of strawman. Scientists are deeply respectful of the scientific method which is skeptical. Publications are critiqued, experiments and calculations repeated and verified. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which is reexamined again and again. Searching the publication servers for peer reviewed publications will find hundreds of thousands of papers on biology and they reference Natural Selection. Biologists know this. Other scientists know that Biologists know this.
@@timothyvenable3336 How about this? Please start with the evidence. Make a theory, that encompasses the evidence, makes testable predictions & passes those tests, is in concordance other branches of science (like chemistry & physics) and is as simple as possible but no simpler. I'm interested how you come up with God.
@@user-bb3ej3iv9y Christianity (and God) is not something that is physical or something that can be measured, tested and repeated like the scientific method suggests… the scientific method only works on certain questions about the physical world, and specifically only works in the present. You can’t perform the scientific method on history… so I’m not really sure what you’re asking me but it sounds like a silly attempt to ask me to give physical evidence that “proves” God exists, which is an absurd and irrational notion
Any change in the genetic sequence is a change in information. Mutations happen all the time, the genetic material can undergo occasional modifications such as duplication or multiplication of genes, combination of pre-existing ones to form new ones, etc. The complete complexity of the genome did not happen by chance either, it is generations of specific mutations being selected by the survival of the fittest.
What seems strange to me is someone like Jordan Peterson who seems to me one of the best thinkers I’ve ever seen in conversations, debates and interviews. Nearly impossible to corner him or cause him to speak before he has is ready to make a statement. I really enjoy his conversations with those who disagree with him. So when I hear him going on about billions of years and humans and lobsters are so much alike ect ect it’s just kind of hard to understand how he can’t use the same skills that allows him to dominate a conversation with his skills. He does a lot of biblical commentary on different topics and it can be very painful to see all the provably false claims and conclusions. Same for Ben Shapiro and his Orthodox Jewish beliefs that require its followers to butcher the Old Testament teachings concerning Jewish law and its requirements. Practicing Judaism as they were instructed can’t be even attempted. They don’t even have the ability to find a single Levite to perform the priests duties. Also for 1st century Jews to deny Christ as the messiah isn’t that surprising apart from seeing miracles and not believing but I can’t relate I’ve never witnessed a miracle. I’d like to think I’m different and would have been totally on board with a plan that was not what was expected by most all Jews. But with perfect hindsight and a couple thousand years of waiting and religious Jews to consider the facts and evidence.. it seems to me to be about pride and love for their history and national identity. They were THE chosen people.
Another question for non- believer scientists: If the father of Genetics, Gregor Mendel, around 1865, discovered that the info of life is in the genes which are the molecular unit of genetic inheritance, since they store genetic information and allow it to be transmitted to offspring... How come around the year 1400 b.C, there are writings about the origin of life, that are called The Gene-sis? Either the author really knew about our origins and the roll of the genes in our DNA, or... whomever decided to call the genes, genes, actually took it from The Bible 🙆... How come? Am I understanding correctly if I asume, you spend your lifetime studying genetics, genes, that are named after The Book of our origin, you spend your life discrediting?🤔 Same as the name of the Pleiades, Orion, etc, written in The Book, are the same names we know those constelations today... based on The Book you dont believe.. but that's, another topic. Génesis is actually the Greek translation from the Hebrew word Berėshith, which means, in the beginning. So, yeah our genes are the unit of storage and transmission of information of the inheritance of the species. Every organism has at least two forms of each gene, called alleles, one from the father and one from the mother, not from the apes. How is it that 3500 years before the discovery of the genes, The Book of the origin of mankind, was named Genesis? From the same word: Genetics Gene Generation Posterity Procreation Multiplication Reproduction Conception Begetting Fertilization Incubation Living Coexisting Family Offspring So...either Mosheh was incredibly wise, or The Book was inspired by The Creator. You can deny Him but you still use the names He also created, to build you scientific knowledge 😄 He is God, and He as well, has an incredible sense of humor... His Book is alive, His Word is alive! You cannot see it because you are blinded by the neon lights of the dead books you read. Even with all your acquired knowledge, you will never ever ever, be able to bind the chains of the Pleiades or loosen Orion’s belt! Or even understand why and how. (Data from the book of Job, written just some years before the telescope...😏) And, they still are! Loosen and binded! Since ancient there have been people against The Bible, and all those who wanted to disappear it, are dead. The Bible? It's still alive! Proving as well, that our language has not evolved either! The Scriptures already used the literary forms of writing, the mastery of metaphor, epic narratives, sophisticated poetry, as well as prophecy, law, mathematics, morals, astronomy, the art of war, and a lot more... The beauty of language was already. From the beginning... John <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="61">1:1</a> In the beginning was The Word, and The Word was with God, and The Word was God.
non believer scientist type here - i'm not wading through pages of your rubbish, if you want my attention keep it short. you religists can talk the hind leg off a talking snake.
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="3250">54:10</a> _"In order to do that you have to have new genetic information [...] so if evolution were true at some point you'd have to gain brand new information, and as far as we know mutations do not do that"_ Either voluntary deception, or simple ignorance. Anyone can use google or wikipedia and type "genetic mutation" in the field and learn about amplifications (gene duplications or insertions), in the category of "large scale mutations", which creates new genetic material that is then free to evolve (especially if the inserted or duplicated part isn't functional, and/or if selective pressures are weak on that part of the genome). This is high school level biology.
Mutations don't create new information, it just scrambles around existing genetic information, or takes away information, but it is always a loss of genetic material, never a gain. Of course, you can always find someone who agrees with you on the internet just as I could (Wikipedia is known for its evolutionary presuppositions and Google plays favorites with Wikipedia which is why it always appears at the top of most Google searches), but this wouldn't mean that mutations add new information. I wish Dr. Lisle had dealt with this other reason that mutations don't work in the above video. Duplicating genetic information (such as cloning) is not adding anything new to the genome, and its not "evolution" in the strict Darwinian sense. If you use insertions to add components in, it would still be the same kind of lifeform. You can't insert, say, a segment of DNA from a Cow into a bacteria, you would need the DNA of another bacteria to this. This is not evolution. What it is you're assuming that such things leads to evolution, ultimately, when that is the thing yet to be proven. Variations within a kind is not evolution. You can get changes, of course, but these changes are not the same as common descent, nor are they the same as adding new information into the genome. Blessings!
@@apologetics-101 *-"Mutations don't create new information, it just scrambles around existing genetic information"* Yes, scrambling around existing information is indeed creating new information... Maybe you're not using Shannon's definition of information ? *-"but it is always a loss of genetic material, never a gain."* That is incorrect. Any insertion of new genetic material is indeed a *"gain"* of genetic material. *-"Of course, you can always find someone who agrees with you on the internet just as I could (Wikipedia is known for its evolutionary presuppositions and Google plays favorites with Wikipedia which is why it always appears at the top of most Google searches), but this wouldn't mean that mutations add new information."* I'm not sure what you're saying here... Do you mean to say that insertions don't occur ? Do you have reasons to believe that ? *-"Duplicating genetic information (such as cloning) is not adding anything new to the genome, and its not "evolution" in the strict Darwinian sense."* Duplicating means copying and pasting (to make it simple), so when you do copy paste on your computer, you *"add"* new letters don't you ? Only theists care about the *"strict darwinian sense"* ... For some reason that still evade me... Why do you care about the *"strict darwinian sense"* ? *-"If you use insertions to add components in, it would still be the same kind of lifeform. You can't insert, say, a segment of DNA from a Cow into a bacteria"* Yes and no. Yes it would still be the same kind of lifeform... I don't even understand why you felt the need to mention that, that seems completely irrelevant. Lisle says that mutations never create new information, by saying that he demonstrates either his complete ignorance, or his voluntary deception. Yes, insertions, duplications are all example of new information. If at time X a genome is 250000 base pair long, and at time X+A the descendentes of that genome have a genome of 270000 base pairs, then there is indeed new information that has been added (20000 new base pairs), which is what we observe in cases of recombinations, duplications, insertions etc... The new inserted genetic material is then a new substrate available for the evolution of new traits, which in the long run makes speciation, and, eventually, new *"kind of lifeforms"* (whatever that means). And no, you can indeed insert cow DNA into a bacteria, it has been done many times, and is still used on a daily basis by the pharmaceutical industry. And we can find examples of that with viral DNA of course, that inserts itself in all sorts of organisms' DNA. *-"What it is you're assuming that such things leads to evolution, ultimately, when that is the thing yet to be proven."* What needs to be proven ? *-"Variations within a kind is not evolution."* What is a *"kind"* ?
@@MrGustavier I have a lot to respond to, so bare with me. I have to spit my post up into multiple parts bc it is too long for RU-vid to let me submit it, but too good to delete anything. PART 1 1) How is scrambling around information synonymous is "new information?" The next time you eat a can of Alphabet Soup, make sure you scramble the letters in the bowel to see if you get the entire volumes worth of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Bet you won't. Scrambling around information _does not_ produce _new_ information. That just doesn't happen, and it's a _non sequitur_ to even argue that. I don't know who "Shannon" is, but I do work off the dictionary's definition of "information" which it defines as "knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction...the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (such as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary online at www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information). Information inside your cells fits this definition. However, it is not me that is confused. I don't think you understand what we mean by "new information" as will be indicated more below with other arguments and responses you made to me. We are talking about information that wasn't previously in the genome. Maybe a few illustrations are in order. Evolutionists think that some reptiles, and possibly some dinosaurs, evolved into birds, right? However, if you think about it, what would be required to change a reptile into a bird, both of which are distinct kinds of animals that differ fundamentally from each other? In order to do this, new body plans would have to happen with its own set of genetic instructions, and thus it would have to _gain_ information that it didn't previously have. For example, reptiles have scales, which is the hard portion of the skin of certain types of animals like a kind of outer body armor. However, birds have feathers which has different genetic instructions and makeup. A feather protrudes from the skin of birds, but it is not apart of their skin, rather it is distinct from it, like a hair & fur follicle is distinct from the skin of humans and animals which possesses that genetic information. It is also lightweight, and far from being anything like body armor. The "stem" of the feather is hollow, and the actual "feathery" portion is design to flow air easily through it to enable lift. If you were to look at the genetics involved in a scale and a feather on two different screens you see two different set of instructions that look very different. Did you know if you look at Dog's DNA and a human's DNA you can tell them apart. What about fish to land evolutionary development? Evolutionists claim that eventually creatures left the oceans, grew legs, and learned to move on land. However, fish don't have legs. What would it take for fish to have legs? The information, that was not there previously would have to be added to the genome. Try to understand. When we are talking about "new information" we are not talking about duplication of the information (see below), and we are not talking about force-feeding segments of DNA into animals (which would not be naturalistic mechanism for adding new information anyway--see below), and we are not discussing crossbreeding species to create new species (hybrids) nor speciation (also see below). We are also not talking about new traits that can result in mutations, which is _not_ evolution neither since it is still working off the same information that is already present. What we are talking about is adding something that is _new_ that was not there previously. This is what the evolutionist must demonstrate, and which we have no evidence for. 2) Again, it is not just simply the addition of any information, it has to be information that wasn't previously there. Duplicating information, scrambling around the information, or insertions of genetic material from the same kinds are not adding new information. My statement was correct. Perhaps a quote will work. This is from one of the world's top information specialist: "There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this...There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter" (Dr. Werner Gitt, "In the Beginning was Information", pp. 79-80, & 106). Whenever Bill Nye was asked by Ken Ham to produce an example of information coming through natural processes in his second debate with Nye, Nye's response was, "Sure, the fact that we are all here!" (you can find this debate on RU-vid here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-PPLRhVdNp5M.html) which, of course, is a circular argument, since he assumed his conclusion, which I think Ken Ham had picked up on. There is no naturalistic processes which is why Nye couldn't think up a reasonable response, so he argued in a circle instead. Lee Spetner, in "Not by Chance", wrote "Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome...The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence _against_ the theory" (Spetner, p. 160). On point mutations he argued, "All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it" (p. 138). 3) By my crack on you addressing internet-level information, I was pointing out the obvious that anyone can do Internet searches and find sites that agree with them. I didn't think that tidbit would be up for dispute. There is true and false information online, or do you believe everything you read online? This doesn't mean you can't use internet sources (I used one in my reply), it just means you need to exercise caution with sources online, and you can type in anything you like online and find sources somewhere that agreed with you. I wasn't denying the existence of insertions. Were there anything else I said in my reply that would lead you to that conclusion? 4) No, duplication is not "adding letters," & certainly not new ones. Using your analogy, if I copied the words, "EVOLUTION IS A LIE" with my computer, I don't end up pasting the words, "EVOLUTION IS THE TRUTH" whether, instead, I paste the words, "EVOLUTION IS A LIE" which is what I just did. My words and letters are just simply replicated. You do not get nothing new out of that. Like I said above, I think you are confused by what constitutes as _new information_ (see above). Creationists use certain terms to describe "evolution." There are two reasons for this: 1. To avoid the equivocation fallacy that evolutionists make with the word "evolution" (which I will explain here in a minute), and 2. To be precise, so no one is confused by what we are talking about or referring to (see below). Terms you might hear are "particles-to-people evolution", "evolution in the Darwinian sense" (which was also used by Dr. Jason Lisle in the above video), "molecules-to-man evolution", or my favorite humorous example, "from goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo evolution", etc. However, these are all used to describe the same thing. Evolutionists make the equivocation fallacy with the word "evolution." Since the word linguistically means "change" they think changes on a smaller scale (which they call "microevolution") eventually leads to "evolution" on a much larger scale (which they call "macroevolution"). Since we can observe these changes on a smaller scale within a kind (which we do observe), they then assume that "macroevolution" is true at a larger scale (which we don't observe). However, the issue is not over the simple fact that organisms change. If that was the case, then we would all agree and there would be no debate. The issue is the direction of change that is claimed by evolutionists. If we could look at such changes as "vertical changes" and "horizontal changes" then what we observe is vertical changes. Creationists do not deny this kind of change. We also do not deny speciation (see below). Instead, what we don't observe is the horizontal changes across the various major kinds of animals. Things like speciation and variations within a kind we don't deny, so to be precise, we try to use very precise language so you know what we are actually attacking.
@@MrGustavier PART 2 5) Again, insertions and duplication is NOT adding anything new to the genome. There is a difference between inserting a segment of another's animals DNA versus the specimen receiving information to grow legs. You say that bacteria has been inserted with cow DNA? Did it grow legs and fur, and produce milk? Of course not, because you cannot add new information into the genome like that. Duplication of the information that's already there, as already stated, does not produce new information. It just copying the information that is already there. Also, increasing the number of base pairs, genes, and chromosomes is _not_ introducing new information. Let's say you mutated a turtle, and it grew another head, this would not be new information. Big whoop, he already had a head, he just now got two of them! Lol! But this is not new information. What would be new information is if it had no head at all, but that information was added to give it the information for a head where that information was absent previously. Also, the introduction of new traits is not new information either. Traits has to do with an organism's functionality, not whether they had new information or not. You can create a variant of bacteria to form a different trait from other bacteria (such as resistance to pesticides), but this would not change a bacteria into a cow. Big difference. It isn't a "new kind of lifeform" as you put it. Bacteria is still bacteria. If you breed dogs with other dogs, you know what you get? More dogs! You can breed other species with each other to form new species, but this wouldn't be "a new kind of lifeform", although it could develop a new species from it. I think, as your post indicates, you are confused by my references to "kind", right? I'm using the word "kind" from the Bible since this is the word that the Bible uses. Kind doesn't mean "species" but is actually broader than the species level. We have to be careful since our modern-day classification system didn't exist in Biblical times, but the Bible uses this term broader than a species, and works off certain physiological traits such as referring to all birds as one category rather than a plurality of categories (Gen. 1:20), and then spoken that each "kind" would produce after its own "kind" which means it can interbreed with each other (vv. 21-22). The closest comparison on our modern classification system to this would be family. The "dog" family is Canid (pl. Canidae). This would include the various breeds of dogs, wolves, coyotes, foxes, etc. These animals, with the exception of the fox, can interbreed with each other. The fox is an example within a kind that lost so much information that it no longer has the ability to mate with others of its kind. This is what is the result of sin and mutations, and you think that all life had some kind of progressive "evolution" to all the major classifications of creatures? If you're uncomfortable with the biblical version of kind, then think of it as you claiming that these changes are occurring in all of the major classifications of creatures on earth, which is the very thing we don't observe. 6) What needs to be proven is that all of these major classifications of animals resulted from minor variations within a kind, and this resulted from _naturally_ adding new genetic information into the genome. This is the very thing that needs to be proven. So you might believe that these minor variations within a kind (which you call "microevolution") becomes all of these major classification of animals (which you call "macroevolution") is "evolution" but that is what has yet to be demonstrated, thus turning your argument into a circular argument. As Morrison said in "Evolution's Final Days", "The lowest estimated difference between the DNA of apes and that of humans is 50 million base pairs... 50 million [sic]! Yet a change of just 3 of these base pairs is fatal" (John Morrison, "Evolution's Final Days", p. 67). 7) I have already explained what a kind is. However, I would add this bit. Variations within a kind is not evolution on any level, because nothing new is being added to the genome. Well, this is all. I hope that helps. Sorry we disagree on this, but I think evolution is in trouble whenever it comes to the facts and evidence, and such evidence is being interpreted properly through a biblical-Christian worldview, which is the only way we can make sense of the evidence. Sorry for the lengthy posts, but thank you for your replies. Blessings!
@@apologetics-101 What a lot of words to say not a damn thing at all. *What we are talking about is adding something that is new that was not there previously* - but it WASN'T there previously. You have NO IDEA what you're talking about. When there's a new mutation which produces a novel affect then this is something that WASN'T there previously. What else are you looking for?? Magic?? If so then this is just a strawman. Whatever you're looking for is NOT an accurate representation of evolution. And YES we do DO have evidence for this. We've observed organisms mutate and develop new traits they did not possess beforehand. And I do not give a damn about Werner Gitt. He's another one of Answer's in Genesis's lackeys
Lisle gives the game away near the beginning of the interview when he says that the natural world is orderly, there are patterns of nature which extend over time and space. He then goes on to say that we can make inductions from observation based on this assumption. The early natural historians applied this idea to develop geology, which later gave us evolutionary biology, cosmology, anthropology and so on. So the very ideas that he is trying to refute are based on what he calls the Christian world view!
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="1342">22:22</a> Instead of a mockery of a contradictory debate, I would have loved to see an actual contradictory debate !
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="540">9:00</a> _"This is something that all scientists assume"_ I hope one day someone would explain why theists always make this claim. No, scientists don't _assume_ the orderliness of nature, in fact, the _"patterns of nature"_ are derived inductively, so they are not _"assumed"_ . Or do theists think that what is derived inductively is assumed ? I would add that there would be a need to define what _"orderly"_ means, because many scientists or philosophers of science would plainly disagree with the claim that nature is orderly.
Orderly simply means that scientists assume that a retesting of "evidence" for a hypothesis CAN be duplicated to confirm via numerous observable, repeatable, demonstrable tests. Now, are all "retests" of hypotheses approached the same way? No. "because many scientists or philosophers of science would plainly disagree with the claim that nature is orderly." Appeal to popular belief The sun "rises" tomorrow.....I assume that the Earth will continue to rotate on its axis, yes? Or do you "know" it ALWAYS will? My reasoning assumes the past will be like the future in order to use induction. Induction, evidence based logical reasoning, has to assume. It's rudimentary logic. BTW, Dr. Lisle knows more than you about how scientists think, obviously
@@icanfartloud *-"Orderly simply means that scientists assume that a retesting of "evidence" for a hypothesis CAN be duplicated to confirm via numerous observable, repeatable, demonstrable tests. Now, are all "retests" of hypotheses approached the same way? No."* That's not a definition of "orderliness". That's just a description of what you think is involved in the scientific method ? *-"Appeal to popular belief"* You are missing the point. I am not the one making broad general claims like _"This is something that all scientists assume"_ ... Jason Lisle does, therefore I only need to find counterexamples to falsify his claim. And it's not a small counterexample ! It is an entire branch of the philosophy of science ! *-"My reasoning assumes the past will be like the future in order to use induction."* I disagree, it is through induction that I conclude that the future is often like the past... I don't need to *"assume"* it, since I can justify it inductively. If the future wasn't often like the past, then through induction, I could conclude in the disorderliness of nature (if I were even able to perform induction)
You mention induction in your response... Can you give an accounting for how you can rely on inductive principles (in particular, how the future will be like the past)?
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="3385">56:25</a> _"What's love?"_ Increased concentrations of Endogenous oxytocin in the central nervous system... An evolutionary trait.
@@RedefineLiving *-"How does something physical and bound by laws that you can’t account for create something that is not made of matter? Your assertion is absurd."* What makes you think I can't account for *"laws"* ? What makes you think that love is *"not made of matter"* ? Do you presuppose that or do you demonstrate that ? Absurd means it contains a contradiction, what contradiction is contained in my assertion ?
@@MrGustavier Great, what makes those laws real if not God? Will you dodge this again? Can we extract a measurement of love and paint it a color? It is you making the assertion, I’m simply asking you to rise to your own standard which is evidence. You are very selective with your responses, are you ignoring that hard stuff? 🙂
@@RedefineLiving *-"Great, what makes those laws real if not God? Will you dodge this again?"* What makes you think there is any sort of requirement for the laws to be *"real"* ? *-"Can we extract a measurement of love and paint it a color?"* If you take love to be oxytocin in the brain then sure... *-"It is you making the assertion, I’m simply asking you to rise to your own standard which is evidence."* Evidence that love is oxytocin ? Do you know how to use google scholar ? Do you take scientific peer reviewed experiments as evidence ? *-"You are very selective with your responses, are you ignoring that hard stuff?"* That wasn't my intention. What hard stuff ?
@@MrGustavier let me know when you are prepared to be intellectually honest. I’m not going to entertain responding to your rhetoric. You have not provided one valid response.
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="468">7:48</a> _"There's an implicit assumption that our observation correspond to reality"_ Jason Lisle speaks of scientific realists. Which of course isn't necessary for science... <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="474">7:54</a> _"That what my eyes inform my brain is basically true"_ Does Jason Lisle presuppose a correspondence theory of truth here ? Does he realize that one doesn't need to take this theory of truth to practice science ? I encourage Jason Lisle to learn about an instrumentalist view of science, and the pragmatic theory of truth : truth is utility, and in the case of instrumentalism, truth is predictive power.
"Does Jason Lisle presuppose a correspondence theory of truth here ? Does he realize that one doesn't need to take this theory of truth to practice science"...he's fully aware that science doesn't conclude with truth. Dr. Lisle doesn't believe there are "theories of truth" His worldview states God created the universe and people in such a way that what is true is always a fact and facts will never be "not fact". And people can know or obtain facts, absolute truths, etc. because all obtainable knowledge comes from an all-knowing God. ": truth is utility"...is this true? :.."and in the case of instrumentalism, truth is predictive power."....is this absolutely true? pragmatic theory of truth....if all you have are theories of "truth" then it's simply true that truth isn't true it's merely a theory.
@@icanfartloud *-Dr. Lisle doesn't believe there are "theories of truth" His worldview states God created the universe and people in such a way that what is true is always a fact and facts will never be "not fact". And people can know or obtain facts, absolute truths, etc. because all obtainable knowledge comes from an all-knowing God."* Very well, so when he claims later on that according to him, naturalists are _"borrowing from the christian worldview"_ in order to do science, does he presuppose his version of science ? His version of truth ? His version of knowledge ? His version of what *"facts"* are ? If he does that, then his claim is easily defeated, in particular by the instrumentalists, since they don't think science gives *"absolute knowledge"* , they don't think *"truth is always a fact"* ... It would then seem that the instrumentalist doesn't need to borrow anything of the christian worldview. *-"truth is utility"...is this true?"* True according to which theory of truth ? *-"pragmatic theory of truth....if all you have are theories of "truth" then it's* *simply true that truth isn't true it's merely a theory.""* *"Truth isn't true"* ? What does that even mean ? One chooses one's epistemic criteria that allows one to evaluate the truth value of a proposition. This is what "truth" is (for an inflationist, cognitivist version of truth).
The government does not require you to preach it as gospel, fool. The government requires you to preach it as science, not as unsupported anonymous hearsay. You have no business teaching science, a subject you know little to nothing about and have even less respect for. I pity your students.
Viable? Yes. Change happens, not least as part of creation. Although, perhaps, this is not quite as Pop Science imagines (even of the type taught as fact in schools, etc). Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek. God bless. ;o)
@@mrosskne Very nearly. Change is perceptible via our senses - aka it is 'real' = a 'thing'. 'God', clearly enough, is not .. and cannot be .. perceived in a material sense = being 'no thing' (as if but one thing among others). Aquinas can be fun .. even for those who like to believe in unbelief in < G > i.e. the 'what' / 'who' Christians (and the ancient philosophers) called 'God' (e.g. being, per se). Yey! ;o)
At 35 minutes 40 seconds. Jason says that we know that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens can’t be ancestors because they lived at the same time. I live at the same time as my father. Does that mean he’s not my ancestor. Bad creationist logic!
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="2925">48:45</a> _"It's just amazing that we're able to see that and people can look at that and be like, mm, random evolution, hahaha..."_ I'm always surprised that theists can be well aware of the cognitive biases described by evolutionary psychologists like christian scientist Justin Barrett, and then completely surrender to the bias without the least bit of ponder...
@@RedefineLiving *-"What justification do you have for your naturalistic presuppositions?"* I don't have any *"naturalistic presuppositions"* , I am a methodological naturalist.
@@RedefineLiving Not exactly, you made an assumption about me, and then you asked me something based on that assumption being correct. Your assumption was incorrect, so I corrected you. And your question too is incorrect, since the assumption it was based on was incorrect. Please follow the conversation it's really not that complicated. You ask me : how do you justify X. Except I don't accept X, so why would I have any justification for X ? Please read carefully the following : The proper course of action, would have been for you to START BY ASKING ME IF I ACCEPTED X. You can do that easily by asking the following question : "Are you X ?" or "Do you accept X ?" In our case : "Are you a philosophical naturalist ?" To which I would have answered : No I am not. You see ? You would have prevented the ridicule that you brought upon yourself by making unwarranted assumptions about your interlocutor, and then accusing him of *"dodging"* your question based on your unwarranted assumption.
LOVE DR LYLE BUT HE NEEDS TO DO MUCH DEEPER STUDY ON THE CLAIMED MOON LANDING. HIS REASON BEING MONEY IS NOT CORRECT AND SPECIALISTS SAY THE REASON IS THAT ALL THE TECHNOLOGY HAS BEEN DESTROYED AND THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL DEVELOPED THAT CAN COPE WITH THE RE ENTRY. CHECK IT OUT.
"Every scientific discovery ever made has gone against the majority. " Nope. Most discoveries do not disprove prior conclusions, but improve or enhance them. Lisle is truly ignorant of science.
@@travelsouthafrica5048 Nope. Take a look at the research papers published in Natura or Scientific American over the past year. What percentage overturn previous Scientific paradigms? Your ignorance.
Is Evolution Viable? If not why is it ubiquitous within science, has plethora of evidences in biology/tangential fields, and has been the most critiqued theory in the last two centuries and not yet falsified? When ones interpretation of scripture does not agree with the reality God created, perhaps the reader's bias, culture, teaching, and personal experiences could be flawed perceptions. We are fallen, after all. "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." Proverbs <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="978">16:18</a>
odd that diseases are due to the fall, when we are curing those diseases, how does that work? smallpox, chicken pox, measles, rubella, whooping cough, hepatitis, aids - and on and on, what's god going to do when we stop dying? and more importantly when death is optional, what will religists do, cos self death is a naughty isn't it?
I am THEIST which means..... I am definitely human, but I have a very early version of the human brain. The "Intelligence" portion is not yet properly formed. I am not capable of making a decision on my own - God makes my decisions for me. I am not capable of taking responsibility - God takes responsibility for me. If I Fxxx up, it's Gods fault! I am not capable of understanding Science. (OK, I'm a bit thick.) Anyway, my God says it don't matter cos God has all the answers. (Ok, he was wrong about the witches, but we only slaughtered a few...) I am astonishly arrogant about what I think I know, because I know I'm right. I speak with God (don't you know!) I am ridiculously ignorant of the things I do not know. There is nothing I and God don't know. Knowing I have God on my side means I am better than you. My God, out of the 30,000+ Gods is the ONLY GOD. I know this because I am Theist and I am right. "THEIST" = "THE" "1ST" in BULLSHIT. "THEIST" = Zero Intelligence. "THEIST" = Holding back humanity.
Nope. Under the Christian worldview in which an all-powerful God exists who want us to come to know him, we would expect perfect senses. Not senses which are fallible, as Lisle concedes they are. Fallible senses are consistent with a naturalistic worldview that operates under physical limitations. Fallible senses are not consistent with the Christian worldview. First fail by Lisle.
Wait why would you assume that a philosopher like IP would be more knowledgeable than an actual scientist regarding this discussion? I like Michael Jones but even he understands the problem with appeals to authority which can be just as convoluted as appeals to popular opinion. I would ask IP to listen to Dr Lisles reasoning and see if it is not well founded from the philosophical standpoint. That is IPs strength.
Dr. Marcus ross already demolished Uninspiring Compromiser. And Dr. Lisle refuted Dr. Hugh Ross in a live debate on this channel. TE and OEC are indefensible positions. Jason Lisle probably sees IP as low hanging fruit--especially since hes been refuted so many times already.
And Lisle's authority to speak on biology is.....what? Nonexistent? Children, learn science from actual scientists who can speak with authority in their field of research. Lisle isn't even respected as an astrophysicist.
Clearly someone does not know what viable means, nor that it has no application in relation to the theory of evolution which is based on a fundamental misapprehension- *There_Is* no mechanism where by supposedly favourable traits can be made heritable, and the supposition that if there are enough monkeys and enough typewriters and enough time is very close to superstition of the idea that nothing is impossible for Mister Unrolling(Evolve simply means unroll) You might say that religion is the fanciful supposition that nothing is impossible. There is no difference between the supposition that nothing is impossible for mister god or mister evolution they are *both* equally superstitious nonsense. if you throw ll the ingredients for a birthday cake up in the air *Once* they will not descend in the form of a fully baked birthday cake and the idea that if you do that a great many times, on one occasion they will land in that form is a triumph of hope over experience . In the words of eimnstein the supposition to doing the same thing over and over again you will get different results is a form of inanity, as is the supposition that there is a mister god who is awfully fond of stars and beetles I hate to break it to the adherents of mister god and mister unrolling, but sorry chaps, I have to tell you that your supposition that*Nothing* is impossible for mister god or for mister evolution-unrolling is mistaken, as is the suposition t the theory of evolution is nonsensical*T-h-e-r-e-f-o-r-e* mister god can do the impossible is equally mistaken. Wht I don't understand is why those that imagine that the are or can be christians suppose that the documents if a religion that has *Absolutely_Nothing* to do with christianity to be magic. GEenesis is as much documents of s religion that is not christianity exactly has the Rig Veda has nothing to do with christianity and those that deceive themselves that the could be christians do not suppose the Rig Veda to be magic so why the fcuk suppose that genesis which has fcuk nothing to do with christianity is magic? Where is the sense in that?
That evolution has,dows, will happen, is fact. Stone cold, rock solid fact. Nothing creationists have brought to the table of consideration... NOTHING has EVER shown a thread of validity to back the ridiculous, FACTLESS juvenile notion of creationism. Nada, zilch, zero. Time to grow up
