Can't really use words to sum up this guy! I was in my field listening to downloads on sermon app, not knowing him i downloaded 1 of his sermons based on topic. The brother is beyond brilliant, beyond. So thankful God blesses those like him to defend our faith. I pray God protects and keeps His ministry through him.
@@JesusIsGodAlmighty736 this is just standard death rhetoric. "Magic sky fairy does this, does that, cares what you think,do,say!" Yet theres zero evidence that A god exists from any of the varieng cults on this earth, and no moral superiority in their beliefs of this imaginary being. Alot of the time these cults prove the opposite!
Jason Lisle is gifted with an easy going, yet very direct, uncompromising but approachable persona, and has a knack for delivering profound Godly truths in simple terms. Thank you Doc. Lisle for your dedication to dismantling the false narrative of conflict between God and "so called" science and the Bible and sharing the gospel of Christ.
A wise a brilliant true real Christian, very humble human being following the true teachings of Jesus Christ peace be upon him, the brother we love him, but GOD loves him most, no arrogancy, bride, lust from these great teacher, keep going sir,
@@alexmoreland7938 "Science is based on Biblical principles." It most certainly is not. "Darwinian Evolution is not science." It absolutely is science. It is some of the best attested science we have. "It [Evolution] is not testable and not repeatable in the present." It is absolutely testable and repeatable in the present. "[The Big Bang] is a myth. It is not something that is testable and repeatable in laboratory." It absolutely is testable and repeatable. The theory of the Big Bang makes predictions that are testable and repeatable in the laboratory. "The idea that bacteria eventually evolve into people is a myth. It is not something that is repeatable in a laboratory." It is also not something biologist claim ever happened. Bacteria are prokaryotes. We evolved from eukaryotes. In fact, we still are eukaryotes. There. All those lies were from just the first three minutes of the video.
Dr. Lisle is a favorite of mine to listen to. He has a gift for breaking down the most complex topics down for the laymen to understand without talking down to anyone. I thank God for people like him & their ability to reach others. It's not easy for me to communicate my faith to some people because of their higher intellect so I have often just referred them to Dr. Lisle's videos or books. I will pray for his ministry.
The thing is ... he isn't reaching anyone who doesn't already believe. He isn't actually answering any atheists' questions, and no one is there to challenge his alleged answers anyway. That's like standing in the ring and locking the doors to keep the challenger out, then saying you won an actual match ... which just seems rather dishonest and cowardly to me. Why doesn't he get some atheist like Aron Ra to come on the show, then respond to his questions?
@@NealeBaxter I can agree with your points about this particular video. My comment was an in-general one. I have watched some of his videos with friends of mind - some who believe and some I'm not sure about. I think what he does is give a person something to think about. Sharing your faith with people isn't always a through a challenge or debate; sometimes it's speaking your piece and leaving it at that. I for one, don't like being "convinced" of anything in conversations. I prefer being able to go away and think through things. The late Dr. Walter Martin was someone who was able to debate without being a "convincer".
@@TrudyConway I find it rather odd that anybody would find it necessary to try to invalidate the perceived position of another, to affirm one's own belief. I don't understand why anybody's confidence that God exists would alter should all of the claims of science be right. Is any true believer's faith reliant upon science being wrong? Personally I think much more productive conversations can be had between non-believers and believers, than squabbling over science.
@@NealeBaxter I'm not sure I understand your point (honestly & not being snide :-) ) I myself never try to invalidate anyone's personal beliefs. I do try (not very articulately most times) to share why I believe what I do. I heard a story once. Not sure if it's legit but... Either Penn or Teller remarked to a Christian that if we believe what we do, we would be wrong not to share it. I don't know what Penn or Teller believes, by the way. I don't think they are Christians (?). But his point was that if we truly believe that the result of not believing is such a terrible and eternal fate, we should share. I am not as bold and confident as I would like to be about sharing my beliefs. I don't rant or finger-wag. I simply share my story. And I agree that, if one has a strong belief (faith, for me) in something, it cannot be shaken. It should not be shaken. By the way, I do like discussing things with people, no matter what they believe. I don't want to live a life of hearing only those who always agree with me. I do NOT like conflict but I do like conversation. (Did any of this make sense? Hard to convey thought as well via text.)
@@NealeBaxter Don't atheists do the same thing all the time? I know I encounter many on forums like this. There is a thread below discussing just that. People positing illogical, straw men in lieu of debate.
I am a cradle Catholic, and what Dr. Lisle said is exactly what I have always been taught, that the Christian faith has nothing to fear from science, and that there can be no real conflict between the two. I have a microbiologist friend who shares many of Dr. Lisle's viewpoints. He says that that the more science "drills down," the more mysterious creation becomes, and that any "scientist" who doesn't believe in God in light of that is either a vain liar or a hopeless fool, neither of which is to be trusted. Thank you, Dr. Lisle! God bless!
Your friend is a fool. The majority of scientists reject your bronze age mythology, and the more accomplished they are the less likely they are to believe such silly nonsense. Science demonstrates that the Bible is false.
any doctrine not in scripture and made up by the Catholic Church: purgatory, Marian dogmas, pope and priests being “another Christ”, that the elements change substance in the Eucharist, the Invisible Container of grace and merit from Mary the other dead Saints that can be applied to you, that Mary or other saints will talk to Jesus for you, and those are just off the top of my head but there are so many more…. None of those doctrines are in the Bible. Not one. You just take away the false teaching of purgatory and the control of the Catholic Church crumbles. Nothing to work for, which is the actually gospel. The good news is way better than Catholics know.
I really enjoyed this interview. The questions were clear, relevant with respect to what people perceive faith, God and science to be. Dr. Lisle's answers were on point regarding common misconceptions and why scientific myths are flat out wrong and unscientific. Good job gentlemen. God Bless!
@@masonmaestro By definition he is, after all he IS a religious apologist, isn't he? Ergo he's less honest than a lawyer, a politician or a used car salesman.
@@omniscent3576 Not sure if you have considered the uniformitarianism versus Catastrophism theories? But if you look at catastrophism with an open mind your only question will be how many global catastrophies? One or six The main megasequences are a fact both secular and creation scientists agree on. Did they happen over billions of years or within a year?
Yes, the history in Genesis is far more scientifically compatible than any evolutionary myth in the light of ie laminated (study water dynamics), intercontinental rock layers (study geology) with little erosion (certainly not millions, let alone billions, of years worth); scientific observation that life does not come from non-life (study any ology you like); DNA's protein building irreducible complexity dependent on...proteins (study information technology); etc etc ad infinitum........................praise God! Try explaining the blood clotting cascade using evolutionary speil. Or the knee. Or a chrysalis. Or sonar. Or...or...or... There are tiny-minded people out there who study very little of anything worth knowing yet consider themselves qualified to name call.
@@knightclan4 I love that brother! I bring it up with evolutionists, 'supposedly' 5 mass extinction events in the 600 million years plus the last ice age 12k years (younger dryas) so the whole process had to happen at least 5 times over 🤣 God bless!
Dr Lisle is and actual working astrophysicist and not just a spokesperson like Tyson Degrassi. Dr Lisle developed the Parker Space Probe and remote pilots teh craft leading the mission. I have heard Niels best argument and it goes like this "You Christians are all idiot's and wrong" That is all he has. Insults and anger and no facts. He is known for storming off the stage when questioned with logic. Neil is an angry man for a reason.
@@paulmerritt2484 Uh, Jason Lisle has never held a job as an Astrophysicist. He did NOT develop or help develop the Parker Space Probe, and had nothing to do with anything about it. He did some research while in grad school using the SOHO probe, but that is a booking situation on observation time and that is it. Lisle immediately went into full time creationism advocacy after graduating with this PhD from Boulder.
Love this guy; never have I heard a man like this expand his knowledge to the public to defendcthe Christian faith, and makes athiests looks like a fool in their own belief
Really? Did he actually present some objectively verifiable, positive evidence for creation did he? Now that would really _"blow my mind",_ considering that no creationist before him has ever managed it.
@@edenicchristian335 LOL. Typical dishonest theist, always trying to evade meeting any burden of proof for their claims. I wonder why that is your first reaction, instead of doing something like presenting any actual objectively verifiable positive evidence to support your extraordinary claim? Could it be because you already KNOW that you have no evidence to present, as your claim is a totally bogus, being nothing more than a make-believe tribal fairy tale? .
@@NealeBaxter Fallacy of dismissal. Laughing at someone is not an argument, it's just rude. My first reaction was to prove you have nothing to stand on. Nothing more. Don't read too much into it and project your insecurities on me.
The fact that all of these comments saying how they liked video fail to see how much this man suffers from double think is extremely troubling to me. I hope all of you realize that in order to get his degree, he either had to get it from a christian school or had to disregard his beliefs and study what was written in science textbooks to pass his exams. These christian scientists always reference the bible when trying to explain something scientific without realizing how ridiculously unaware they sound
Your fallacies and misrepresentation of things you obviously don't understand yet feel qualified to spout about are very troubling to me. You appear not to realise that as with all registered educational bodies, Christian colleges and universities abide by official guidance. Much of what is written in science textbooks is observable, testable, repeatable - not historical story telling - science: perfectly acceptable and reasonable forms of study You seem ridiculously unaware that many secular scientists turn to Christianity due to the implausibility of the evolutionary dogma during their studies; others find that 'most scientists believe..' phrasology in their papers does not require leaving Christian belief at the exam room door. You appear to expect Christian scientists (and please don't conflate with christian science, which is neither Christian nor science) to drop reference to their own handbook of life. Would you expect evolutionary scientists to drop reference to darwin? Hypocrasy in the extreme.
@@marciamcgrail5889 there are so many contradictory points in this passage i don't even know where to begin. The implausibility of the evolutionary dogma?? My friend, the aren't many things in the world with more evidence than evolution, your bias just will not allow you to understand that the evidence that exists is not "historical storytelling". Just because someone didn't take out their iphone and record 100 million years of timelapse footage doesn't mean the clues aren't there. What do you think forensic scientists due? How do you think people find evidence for crimes with no witnesses? The piece together the information this is provided and find repeatable and provable patterns. You can find tens of thousands of traceable pieces of evidence. These scientists don't turn to religion because of the objective implausibility, it's most likely because they struggle to find meaning in their lives and doing so is more comforting. Most of the time, these people were raised christian and then stopped believing and then began believing again. It's not like they were raised athiest and nonreligious all their lives and then all of the sudden at age 35 they became christian because evolution was too complicated for them to understand. Please don't be condescending, I can assure you I am more qualified in evolutionary biology than you are
Jason is one of the truly great Christian scientific minds of our day. We are lucky to have such a man out there speaking up for Christianity in a fallen world that is so smugly anti-God. and anti-Christian.
I just found out Jason is 69 years old!! I first came across his content in 2014 and I kid you not I thought he was in his 20's. You sir, are ageing well.
Jason Paul Lisle (Creation scientist and author) Jason Lisle.jpg Born December 10, 1974 Cambridge, Guernsey County Ohio Resident of Dallas, Texas Religion Christian Jason Paul Lisle (born December 10, 1974)[1] is an astrophysicist who specializes in topics related to science and the defense of Christianity and creationism
The problem with creation is not science, it’s the idea that we have a creator to whom we must submit. People love sin and will remain willfully ignorant.
But the issue is that creation is science. The setting of the physical constants took a lot of knowledge and design. This is the whole point to this video. This is just one example.
Kenneth Gee I agree. To clarify my statement, lack of science is not the issue. There is an abundance of science to confirm creation. People don’t accept creation because they reject the God of creation.
@@RedefineLiving I don't think there's any science at all confirming creation. "Creation" is only a claim, not worthy even of being labelled an hypothesis. A valid hypothesis must be falsifiable, "creation" is not, it remains nothing more than bronze age mythology.
@@NealeBaxter He seems to be all of those things, despite your raving to the contrary. And don't get me wrong, I think he is wrong on a number of things (i.e. Biblical infallibility), but in terms of there being a loving, creator, he is spot on.
@@edenicchristian335 How can you say "spot on" as some sort of statement of fact, when what you're referring to here is faith-based belief? And how can god be loving and, as Stephen Fry said, allow some children to die of bone cancer at age 3? If you had 5 kids and you had the option to give 1 of them bone cancer, would it be a "loving" thing to do and would you do it?
@@siim605 I don't think "God" did that/ We live in a fallen world. And why? Do we follow God's will? No! We destroy his creation, billions of animals, etc. to glut our appetites. We go to war, worship mammon/money over God, and all other kinds of ungodly acts. You don't think these would have consequences?
@@peterbeaumont7619 you're not smart enough to know how dumb you really are by the way go learn English and grammar you can't even structure a simple sentence correctly
I'm not a intellectual even though I'm above average IQ . I am a born again believer in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. My son is rebellious and rejects Christianity . He let me know in his defense he has read Stephen Hawking . I told him I read that book when he was 9yo . So now I'm sending him your stuff , Greig and Faulkner 😁
You're not allowed to say your son is "rejecting" Christianity, because for something to be "rejectable", it needs to first be indisputable or not be in dispute. Your belief system is entirely faith-based, which means what he's doing is DISMISSING your belief system based on it not meeting any burden of proof. You can have your private beliefs, but the arrogance and the way you talk about your son is just awful.
"Fantastic Beast, huh?" Yeah, I think you already know. Lmbo You people believe in God, b/c if you didn't you wouldn't hate him so much. We're not as dumb as we think you are. You don't want to have this debate with me, believe me.
@@kickerpunter8414 ah yes, the old, “you must believe, because you can’t hate what you don’t believe,” argument. I call this projection. While I don’t believe in any god (let alone yours), it’s not the god I hate so much as it is the people who use this god as their shield from real consequences of the things they say. I find this projection is a means to protect your fragile ego, because you’re all so arrogant to think that no one could possibly hate a Christian. You’re all such good people by virtue of your beliefs, right? So it must be the god they hate, so therefore they believe in your god. “We’re not as dumb as we think you are.” - what makes you think I am dumb? The only thing I asked you is how you think Lisle is outstanding. - or perhaps you meant to say, “We’re not as dumb as YOU think WE are”? In which case, you should probably proofread before you push send. Something tells me I do wish to have this debate with you. Given I asked a question about why you think Lisle is outstanding, and you went into a diatribe of what you think I believe as a response. And with the typical canned replies virtually every armchair apologist gives. Doesn’t sound as though you have anything profoundly groundbreaking to offer, so try me.
@@fantasticbeast9962 It's coming. I live in New Orleans area & have been busy helping my folks in Mississippi, clear some land on their property, while I'm up here. Also I'm not so sure about how I should go about this one. Usually I know already, but I haven't figured out where you're coming from yet. I'm sure I'll find out after we begin. I'll probably ask a few questions to start, if you don't mind. Have a busy day tomorrow & will be back on the road by Tues. I'm looking forward to it, believe me. I've been thinking about it. You haven't given me much to go on as to who you are, & what you believe. I'll find out fast, as I usually do. This ain't my first time, you should know that. And I rarely lose, I don't mind telling you that, either. Patience, it's coming. I will be humble/civil, & understanding, until I decide you are not. If you begin using insults to avoid the issue we're discussing, the discussion will end. Get ready, it's coming. Without knowing you or your eperiences, I will be surprised if you endure this discussion well. I'm not being arrogant, rather, confident. Will contact you soon. Take care!
@@rebeleazy9221 Or they are just gutlessly and dishonestly creating a false sterotype of an atheist position, because they really aren't interested in listening to others. Atheism requires nothing more than the rejection of god claims. If anyone is claiming that atheists as a group believe anything, then they are lying from word go.
@@NealeBaxter No rebel is right u can check out alot of debates were the same questions/arguments against god/creation etc re-occur .Most people have actually heard most of the questions/arguments it would be funny if they were answering questions that had never been brought up,constantly but thats not what there doing and i got a feeling you already know that. i will pray for you, Take care
@@thomascurtis9630 Nope, they're just dishonestly creating a strawman atheist, which they can easily knock down, especially with nobody there to defend their position. My question is, what can you provide me with, which could be so compelling that I would accept such an extraordinary claim, that any God actually exists outside of myths invented from ignorance, fear and people's imaginations?
@@NealeBaxter dude its pretty obvious what your doing your not going to except any evidence you just dismiss everything there not creating a strawman. U heard the moral argument logically explained and just chose not to except it there is hours and hours and hours of arguments for Gods existence explained on you tube,some people ask questions because they really want the answer, u are not one of them and the sad thing is u think ur smart for playing this game, you can deny anything doesnt mean its not true or logical, u could spend your time actually learning if u wanted i hope 1 day u c it that way
@@megaconstans2425 I am not a scientist. But I heard that the whole universe has to be the way it is exactly for life on earth to exist. That’s pretty crazy
So if I uses stories about Santa Claus to point out inconsistencies and question the existence of Santa Claus, then that proves Santa Claus is real? LOL
Do you need motivation to _not_ believe in leprechauns? Do you need motivation to _not_ believe in pixies, and fairies, and goblins, and elves, and trolls too? Motivation is not an issue, it is the complete lack of any independently verifiable, positive evidence to support the claim.
@@NealeBaxter We do not owe you any scientific proof for the existence of God, we offer the Gospel of Jesus Christ based solely on Faith. Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. What we owe you is a true witness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with our lives matching up with what we are preaching. Faith is key, you cannot have Faith and Proof at the same time concerning the same things if I give you some Proof of God that you could and would except then I have just negated the Faith that you need to be able to come to God. Faith only works in this life, when we die we enter the true eternal reality and knowledge that, God exists, Jesus exists, Heaven and Hell exist, and your destination is determined by what you did with Jesus by either accepting Him and doing those things that please the Father or rejecting Him. This is not a convenience but simply the way coming to God through Christ works and that by Faith, those who are trying to prove God somehow with science are in fact trying to negate the faith that unbelievers need to come to Christ in the first place.
@@dennishagans6339 Why do theists always confuse the word _"proof"_ with the word _evidence? "Proof"_ is a concept in Mathematics, not science. You are right though, you do not owe me indepently verifiable positive evidence of God ... only if you want me to believe you. Apart from that, why should I believe a magical fable written 2600 years ago is actually 'fair dinkum' (the real deal)?
@@dennishagans6339 As for _"faith"_ it is the excuse you give when you have no evidence. It requires you to disregard an absence of confirmational evidence and even the presence of conflicting evidence. There is no position which can't be argued to be true by appealing to _"faith",_ meaning it is the most useless and unreliable method in determining what is actually true.
@@NealeBaxter NO if you know anything about Christianity you know that it is about Faith, I knew I knew you were gonna go there you people always do. except by Faith or reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ period. When you die you will have all the "Evidence" you demand but it will be too late to change your mind, deny it all you want, but death comes for everyone and there are no atheist/agnostics in Hell, they are all not believers but knowers!
Unfortunately, no he is not 'legit'. As an 'Astrophysicist' he has never held a job. Promptly after obtaining his PhD, he quit the field. He's never even so much as worked in an observatory or even taught the subject as a professor. He also has no formal education of any kind in Biology or Geology.
I was blown away when I watched the video where Dr. Lisle talks about the Mandelbrot set, and how we can graph numbers that are said to be imaginary but are, in fact, very real. Man did not create these sets, or formulas, such as calculus. They were discovered by mathematicians to help solve increasingly complex problems down through history when the current known laws in mathematics could not solve a certain problem, or theory. When computers became powerful enough to be able to graph the numbers in the Mandelbrot set, we find that it can actually count and even add. Also, the shapes that are graphed are infinite and seen throughout nature in so many ways. Watch the 1-hour long video, which goes more in depth than the 38-minute older video. Show this video to loved ones who didn't realize that God created numbers and He uses them all throughout his creation in so many ways. Dr. Lisle does a great job of explaining this in a way that anyone can understand and the examples he shows in nature that are seen in the graph are amazing.
@@ramigilneas9274 Just to be clear, they gave it DIRECTLY to the poor...not to the government first! They weren't socialists for sure...they didn't believe in big government as they were oppressed by government. And ask yourself why it is that totalitarianism of any type CANNOT coexist with Christianity.
@@NealeBaxter Hardly...Jesus said to render to Caesar what was his, and render unto God what was God's. Socialism and Communism CANNOT coexist with Christianity or belief in God as the government is hailed as the god.
Are there repeatable, testable patterns in the fossil record, and zoological and phylogenetic classification. Isn't the fact that we never find a vertebrate with more than 4 limbs a repeatable observation? Or that all mammals are amniotes (with some that even lay eggs) a repeatable observation?
To generally answer your question, we can recognize observation in the physical world. Let's step back for a second, though, and consider the framework of your questions, first. How do you know your observations of the physical world are accurate and leading to correct conclusions?
@@EddTheBiker At its core, my question is no different from yours. I can also ask differently, why should one believe that science can't reach reasonable conclusions about the past.
Dr. Lisle's calm and intentional demeanor is so refreshing. God is the author of mathematics and science and what a privilege that He has revealed so much of it to us!
Take one story, a crude fable of a deity-created universe, and mangle the entirety of centuries of Science to fit it. 'No-one's been able to recreate the Big Bang.' What!!
@@Matthew_Holton Then what would be a great topic for him and Ra to debate then wouldn't it? Not just "any school kid" could handle a cross examination. That's where the truth comes out. They need to debate.
@@6.0hhh LOL - 'they need to debate'. thats priceless. Lisle, as a scientist, knows the real age of the universe. the real'debate' would be why he is cashing in his PHD to make money pandering to creationists.
Dr Lisle :" The only way you can disagree with Christianity is IF you AGREE with the Christian world view FIRST". Arguing with Dr Lisle is like wrestling with SMOKE. ☁
He is your favorite because he tells you what you like to hear. The name for this confirmation bias. And besides he seems to be quite likable guy. Pity he tells such a lot of nonsense.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 nonsense is believing in a worldview that does not comports with reality. So are you arguing for the truth of the atheistic position, or are you only arguing against the theistic position? For it seems to my mind that there is no pretended neutrality in a discussion like this. Why? Because to even to argue against a position, is to advocate it's antithesis. Do you believe that atheism is a viability philosophical system of thought?
@@michaelreichwein3970 Starting with the last question: I indeed believe that atheism is a viable philosophical position. But so is theism at least in its form of ethical monotheism. The jury is still out and might be for a long time. And for the nonsense part: Following to your own definition I would claim that Dr. Lisle indeed believes in nonsense. He distorts reality till it fits his needs. E. g. evolution being no science? 99 % of all biologists are wrong and the creationists are the only ones who got it right? Preposterous! Or take his excursus about the Mandelbrot set. This has nothing to do with the existince of a god at all, only with the properties of numbers. Nothing but a red herring.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 well... as far as Evolution goes. I have studied just about every bit of scientific information I can get my hands on. And I have yet to find any viable process to explain the necessary new genetic sequences needed for evolution.
@@gemguy6812 Please. This doesn’t make him a god. He got his PhD over 20 years ago and has never done anything with it, and it doesn’t make him an expert in much beyond a limited application of Astronomy. His area of focus was on stellar anatomy, ironically on stars like RR Lyrae types which are used as standard candles for calculating distances beyond several thousand light years. He has only ever published two papers as a contributor in his grad work and that was it. He quit. It doesn’t give him expertise in Biology, Geology or anything
@@davidbutler1857 never said he was a god. I see him doing the Lords work with his PhD. You hate him because you dont want a God to rule over your life- dont worry, a loving God would never force you into his presence for all eternity. Darwin never earned any degree in any sciences but you you love him dont you. Maybe Bill Nye the science guy as well? Jason Lisle is much smarter than you'll ever be, and it drives you nuts dont it.
How did the olive branch (leaf in many translations) “adapt” to its environment, then? Can an olive tree survive for a year underwater? Don’t think so.
What I do know about an olive plant is that it is one of the toughest plant known to man and you can grow it from a the leaf, seed, bark, branch or any part of the actual olive plant.
@@ojaiallen8004 Why don't you take an olive tree (or plant, as you seem to insist on calling it) and submerge it in water for a year? Hardy on not, it will die - and sooner than you might imagine. Now mix that in with brine from all the salt in the oceans, and your precious tree will be dead even sooner. There's really no way around this. Just let logic prevail.
@@scrumpymanjack the waters had receded and Noah remained in the ark for awhile. He sent a dove out and it brought back an olive branch. Clearly, the olive tree had time to grow between the waters receding and Noah sending out the dove. Noah wasn’t getting off of the boat until he knew there was sustainable life on the ground again.
@@scrumpymanjack I’d also like to add that the ocean back then was likely not as salty as it is now as the ocean takes in more salt than evaporates annually. That fact actually contributes to the argument of a young earth described in Genesis.
@@jlettizard6465 Listen, you clearly place more importance on your current beliefs than you do on a genuine search for the truth. To that end, you can keep finding things that help your beliefs to stand up (and reject those that don't!). But if you're really going to try that hard to keep believing what you believe, I'm not going to waste my time talking with you. Just don't try to make them teach this crap in schools. Good luck.
Neale Baxter I say the same of you atheists you guys play the cult of personality game, Christians are God centered not man centered. You atheists like to name names, instead of providing proof for you own claims, your types are on a pleasure quest, not a truth quest.
@@justchilling704 Yeah sure, and they own vast amounts of property where atheists assemble weekly, and they fly around in private jets collected in the name of ... nothing? You guys are the biggest name droppers there is, and the name you drop is only a fantasy anyhow. I don't see athiests claim anything in the name "name" of anybody. Atheists don't appeal to imaginary entities. I've found that creationists must use logical fallacies, like the _tu quoque_ (you too) fallacy you just tried. You have nothing but lies.
@@justchilling704 Christians aren’t god-centered or jesus-centered, you are book-centered because all you got are stories in a book. You worship a book written by men.😂
@@rubiks6 Sure, Lisle is an astrophysicist who disagrees with pretty much all other astrophysicists on the planet and knows almost nothing about biology or evolution.😂 But it’s certainly much better than 90% of the other creationists who are mostly dentists.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 a creationist invented the MRI machine. Seriously you are trying to discount the intellegence of us that believe in God? Dawkins had human foot prints destroyed that were discovered at the bottom of a creek bed in Glenn Rose Texas because they were in the strata rock base beside an inside some dinasour tracks but not before creationist got pictures and cast from them. Why did he do it? Because it refutes evolution and Dinasours were suppose to be extinct 10 million years before man existed. When we find many carvings in caves , ancient buildings and ancient pottery of man with Dinasours. Most Dinasours were vegetarian. The strata was not layed down inch by inch over millions of years impossible because 1,000's of fully intact dinasour fossils found in mass graves and some still have soft tissue in those bones. Exposed to the elements and other animals these bones would have been carried by scavengers or simply turned to dust. Vertical 100 and 200 ft. Trees going through many layers of strata. Samething woukd have rotted to nothing waiting to be buried. Spirit lake at the base of Mt saint Helens has taught us a lot about how long it takes to petrify trees and how the bark was removed and laid down then underneath coal layers we find the fragments of tree bark that did not form in to coal. I find God's intellegence is beyond anything we can imagine. Marine fossils in the strata across every continent along side land dwelling animals. How do the experts date the fossils? By the layer of strata they are found in. How do they date the strata? By the type fossils found in it. That is called circular reasoning. You refer to believers as weak minded uneducated just because we know if you find a complex working piece of machinery in the jungle an intellegent being must of designed it and made it. You have be intellegent enough to understand the complexity of life and the universe to understand the odds we just came to be and a perfect order for us to exist came from a chaotic explosion are impossible without a creator. My prayers are that your eyes be opened and you find the purpose we were placed here for.
Jason Lisle has a brilliant mind and speaks so quickly (and eloquently)... that I have to really concentrate. I appreciate his argument that the very existence of mind and knowledge presupposes an Intelligent Creator. About 10mins along he refers to a mentor who is "with the Lord now". That raised my eyebrows. Does Jason believe the "Rapture" is history? Paul knew that anointed Christians had to await that "return" of the Lord and their subsequent resurrection in order to first be reunited with Jesus. 1Thess.4 ¹⁶,¹⁷ Paul made the same point in 1Cor.15 ²³
Missed the part where he explained why the Ark Encounter ark - built to exact Biblical specifications -suffered $1 million in water damage in 2019 when it was dry docked. Guess not all the answers are in Genesis.
You missed lot more than just that. It was not built exaclty as Ark was, it is just an imitation of ship according to dimensions of the Ark, maybe in very different shape compared to original, and with LOT of various doors and entrances, it is actually a building NOT a real boat, which any part time thinking person under 5 can understand...
@@camberlubos3995 Got it. So when the website for the Ark says: "Experience Bible history at the life-size Noah’s Ark! " They are saying what again? And the: "Our commitment to historical accuracy and artistic excellence continues inside on three decks full of beautifully crafted teaching exhibits that will inspire you to think differently about the biblical account of Noah’s Ark." is saying what again????? Any part-time thinking person under five can see how you and they are just scammers, making up facts to suit an agenda. My post stands.
@@LearnAboutFlow Your post did not stand in the first place let alone now. Your quotes show how blinded by your hatred you are. They never claim they made the same Ark and you know it. You somehow missed or just oversaw my point that they have a LOT OF DOORS AND WINDOWS there. Anyone with 95% brain removed understands that this makes ANY boat - whether historically accurate, or artistically depicted susceptible to flooding. Put your hatred and mockery away and be fair. You did not have a point for a second.
@@luboshcamber1992 Cool! Thanks for admitting you can never take what a Christian says at face vale. When they say, 'we have a commitment to historical accuracy' it really means we bear false witness in the pursuit of greed. BTW, who said anything about flooding? Oh right, more lies on your part, or is it just willful ignorance? And, yes, anyone with 95% of their brain removed knows that $100 million boats with lots of doors and windows IN DRY DOCK do not suffer $1 million in water damage in their first year. Ask Bill Gates or David Geffen.
dr lisle, you are our next hope brother along with dr hovind. keep up the great work. and I think that you guys should unite forces just as the atheists are gathering, neglecting their differences only out of malice towards believers.
@@John-jh5ks He is claiming a scientific approach which means he is bound to scientific responsibility. Showing a graph that depicts a negative gravitational force. IE a repulsive force requires some serious math. And I mean serious...like math that refutes Einstein's theory of relativity serious. I love math I want to see his calculations for those moments they should change the way we look at physics.
@@John-jh5ks Um...so what you are saying is that we should just ignore the fact that what he said was obviously wrong and then move on to the idea that Christianity is right and everything else is evil?
@@John-jh5ks that obviously has nothing to do with a negative gravitational field, still I am happy to answer: Sin is nothing more than a subjective human construct. The ever evolving concept of "sin" is a direct product of empathy. Empathy is also subjective, hence why sin is subjective.
@@John-jh5ks Thats fun never been asked about the relativistic nature of sin at a job interview b4 but ok. I'll make this easy for you: tell me a sin any one should do. Don't tell me one of your many sins obviously, just mention a sin we can use for discussion.
Genuine question on why using ‘myth’ to replace ‘accepted scientific theories’ would be more convenient for Lisle to use? This is the perfect representation of why religious belief should not interfere with studying science nor the with the actual definition: the system of acquiring knowledge from reliable hypothesis and conformation. Personal bias is removed.
Because it is a logical term according to the definition of "myth." Just because a scientific theory is accepted doesn't make it true. The definition of science - observable, testable, and repeatable - is not about a religious belief; it's the scientific definition of science.
@@845karolewithak - well argued. Personal bias is never removed when applied to humans, whether scientist or not. Just consider the number of submitted papers that are rejected on grounds of bias/conflict of interest/undeclared payment etc. Phonies get through despite sifting: there was a study that purported to have a control but was discovered to have simply reversed the active sample numbers.
Theory does not = fact. Science is always changing. Why accept something that probably will change down the road due to another new theory, another new discovery? It’s just people trying to predict the past with theories.
Whoah. Already this video is wrong. At 0:14 it's asserted that Lisle is an Astrophysicist/Scientist. He hasn't published a single thing in his field since he graduated, and he holds no position as such an expert. 1996 was his first/only scientific publication in which he was only a contributor and not the primary author of, as part of grad work.
@Dan Delgado questions just for fun. Why does it matter if it is false hope? What are some of the negatives personally or just in general/society of being a "believer" in the Christ and the Bible in your eyes?
Dan Delgado -. Glad you listened. May The God Creator have mercy on your soul when God comes to sort the believers and non believers of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Perhaps you should read a 7 chapters of the Bible and if you want to continue with your non belief then go fishing or hunting. Just leave us believers alone. We leave you alone. You are on this channel spreading discontent.
Ah, as a Christian "probably" a baptist rather than being Christ-like and trying to win the lost atheists, you laugh at them in a mocking fashion further driving them away from Christ by your mocking attitude. Pro 18:19 A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city: and their contentions are like the bars of a castle. One of many "christians" that whatever comes up comes out. with no self-restraint at all.
Why have so many scientists came to the same conclusion as to how we got here..and why there is so much derision from christianity?you have no real proofs in the bible.
Bobsyoruncle Wilson,if there was never a shred of evidence for the credibility of the Bible I would probably join you in calling the Bible a bunch of fairy tales.The truth of the matter is that some aspects of the Bible have been proven to be true via historical and archeological digs.I did notice you made the classical mistake of underestimating the writers because they were sheep and goat herders.it seems that you equate their livelihood to intelligence.big mistake.additionally,not all writers of the Bible were herdsmen.luke was a medical doctor,Paul was a military man and tent maker etc.There will be people who will always attack the Bible for their own reasons without actually looking into the claims of the Bible in a serious way.all I can say at this point is that:THE BIBLE IS LIKE THE ANVIL THAT HAS WORN OUT MANY HAMMERS THROUGHOUT THE CENTURIES
@Bobsyouruncle Wilson you seem like a very intelligent chap,who seems to have an anti Christian world view.well sir I use to be exactly like you.once upon a time I could not stand christians.your attempt to school me in literature in comparing well known works to the Bible was weak at best.i have personally seeked to confirm archeological, historical and even scientific claims of the Bible.i came to the conclusion that the interpretation of the data was was seen very differently based on if you had a blibical world view or a humanist world view.The humanist world view has never made any sense to me.i choose to put my faith in a creator God rather than theory that says that we just came about by chance.you said something about faith,well Christian's don't follow blind faith,it is faith that is being cemented by world events (fulfilled prophecies), people lives changed and discoveries that confirms the bible.i usually don't bother to engage with atheists.it is my belief that atheism is in fact a form of religion albeit a relion with a lot of holes.God loves you sir.hope you find him.eternity is at stake
@Bobsyouruncle Wilson I am not going to go back and forth with you concerning my "imaginary friend".I see you think very highly of yourself in pointing out that I need a lot more IQ points to reach to your level.you probably have more degrees than a thermometer.i really know nothing about you but I do reiterate that I was once like you in the sense that I use to attack christians with the same exact arguments that you used in your comments.i am not going to go back and forth with you arguing the validity of the Bible or the existence of God.As I said,I don't know you, you don't know me.you seem to think that religious people have a stereotypical of thinking Wich tells me you do not know enough people of faith.i could easily stereotype people who are atheist or agnostic, but that would be wrong.listen if I came across as insulting to you in my last comment I am sorry.perhaps you are right, I'm probably not as smart as you.however, invite you to go on you tube and check out Dr Frank turek who is am apologist for the Christian faith.dr turek addresses and deals with the objection you have with christianity.god bless
Those scientists who "came to the conclusion" that evolution is true have a philosophical commitment to naturalism and will not allow for a supernatural Creator, to whom they are morally responsible.
Especially appreciates your debate with Dr Hugh Ross...in spite of his extensive knowledge and reason for believe i would only say I believe was totally bases on realizing God's greatest love ans sacrifice for me in spite of my sins, and no other logical reasoning nor evidence of God's existence matter.
Adaptation. We can always adapt within our own species. We can never evolve out of it. We mapped the gnome and know this now 100 percent. You can not add new information to our DNA. That means evolution is impossible. There is nothing left to argue. We are the same race according to our DNA also. Evolution is the only excuse and argument for racism. It is also the only reason to want to keep it going now we have observable evidence to prove evolution is impossible for man or animals. Some bacteria and such can sometimes evolve.
Evolution is an broad term used to culminate the complex actions that lead to differences of everything we see past present and future. So in short evolution is a way to measure behaviors that work in any given environment even up to and until when some behaviors dont work, this contributes to extinctions but is not the only factor.
Here’s a summary of his proof of God. 1) Look at the trees 2) I can’t believe this happened without God 3) Math is pretty, therefore God Let’s say his “proof” does get to a God. Well, which one???
Which God becomes quire simple once you understand the distinctives of the Christian God. No other God addresses the central issues and provides explanatory power regarding the co-reality of good and evil.
@@KXSocialChannel This response is nullified once you adopt an accurate worldview. Here’s a brief overview: As human beings, we are all considered to be sons of Adam. Adam, we all fell and as a result, we are all in sin, separated from God, and under His righteous condemnation. We are dead now - in a spiritual sense - and we will all eventually go in to experience physical death as well, and thjs is all due to sin. Now, God would have been perfectly just to immediately carry out the death sentence against Adam and Eve when they fell into sin, but instead He chose to have mercy upon them, allowing their race to continue. If Ge had not, neither you nor I would be having this conversation because neither of us would have had the opportunity to exist. So, rather than putting the human race to death, God immediately put into place His plan of redemption, shaping history so that He gathered a people, the Jews, who understood who He was so that at the proper time, He could perform the only possible act that would allow Him to forgive His people while at the same time preserving His perfect justice. Thjs is what we call the incarnation, wherein God Himself took on a second nature - the fullness of human form - and lived a perfect human life, and fulfilled the “covenant of works” which Adam failed to fulfill. (This is why He is sometimes called the Second Adam.) He then fulfilled the purpose of the sacrificial system which He instituted through the Israelites by allowing Christ to die on the cross. In so doing, He who deserved no death suffered the death that His people deserved, taking upon Himself their sin, and in turn, His people receive His life and are thus made spiritually alive in Him.
@@PaDutchRunner Fantastic. I’ll encourage you to tell the world about your discovery. We wouldn’t want all those Muslims and Hindus believing in the wrong God now, would we? Go spread your message in the Middle East. God will protect your body.
@@KXSocialChannel Yes, that’s why Christians spread the Gospel. It is the power of God to be saved. The first step here is to have YOU believe. Why won’t you place your faith in Christ?
So creating stereotypes of those who reject your beliefs, helps you to maintain those beliefs? Interesting. I would expect that if there is actually a _good_ reason to believe a proposition to be true, then you wouldn't need to use such weak reasoning as _"my belief is true because those who reject my belief are wrong"_ to justify belief in that proposition.
*"Jason Lisle approaches science from the perspective that God's Word is true"* so not a scientist then. That was meant to be praise from someone else who is not a scientist and also doesn't know how science works.
Vincenzo Russo have you not got to the end of the 'things to say to atheists' list yet? :) Science doesn't need "philosophical presuppositions" in the way a priest/Christian has. You might say that it assumes that reality is real but it doesn't even do that. All theories are working theories until we find out differently. A theory is constantly tested for flaws and nothing is ever 100% certain. That's quite different from your belief where you are told what you are going to think and then must look for reasons to support it.
I completely agree and have been listening to many but Dr Jason Lisle displays a humbleness together with his knowledge which makes him authentic and an extremely believable. I grew up in a Christian Protestant environment with very religious parents but always lacked the ability to defend the evolutionists effectively. I think together with the bible all Christians should be doing at least one course in apologetics to defend the word of God in the modern evil and immoral world.
Really? How about this: Dr Lisle uses the speed of light to prove the universe isn't 13.7 billion years old. But, as a astrophysicist, Dr Lisle knows "light years" is just a unit of measurement and has nothing to do with the measurement of the age of the universe. The age of the universe is calculated using a comparison of near galaxy width and luminosity versus the width and luminosity of distant galaxies. "Light years" has nothing to do with the calculation. We say the furthest galaxy is X miles away and, at light speed, it would take 13.7 billion years to get there. Further, the universe is expanding. By mathematically reversing that expansion by knowing it's varying rate of expansion we can calculate back to when it would have been a single point or singularity. Dr Lisle says: The change in the magnetic field of the earth is a parabola. If earth was more than 60,000 years old we would be ripped apart by the magnetism. (MRI's are 25,000 times the earths magnetic field and do nothing.). But Dr Lisle knows the magnetic field of the earth is reasonably stable except it dips every 200 million years. Dr Lisle says: If the earth was more than 2.4 million years old the moon would be touching it. But, as a astrophysicist, Dr Lisle knows, using reflectors placed on the moon during the Apollo missions, we physically observe the moon moves away from earth at a rate of 3.8 cm per annum i.e. 4.5 billion years ago it would be about 45,000km away. But scientific models produce 15-20,000 km away. So how honest is Dr Lisle? Given those facts, that he knows, are completely different to what he publishes in his books. And how many more things do you think he publishes he knows to be false?
How many of those “facts” you mentioned are indeed facts or are they assumptions. If one believe in something and then try and find a means to prove it is different than reading a book which confirms itself with the truth.
@demi- dogg are you serious, the order in the universe with the planets, their orbits, the earth being exactly placed to support life. Not to mention that for the size of the earth and it's rotation, mountain peaks,oceans and all, the earth is an almost perfectly exact sphere. Not ordered you have to be kidding. Now people, governments etc. That's something out of order but it's mostly because of non belief in god
I listened to Dr Lisle's ultimate proof of creation video. Great video. I never thought about the fact that when people start using the Bible to disprove God's existence or to dispute why they should believe in Him, usually the old testament and the passages where God says to detroy even the women and children, because they say "he's not a loving God if the Bible is true" they're standing on the Bible for their proof. It also reveals then that they do believe in Him, they just don't worship Him or care.
@@cygnusustus I didn't say it wasn't.🤨 Maybe learn to comprehend what's commented before you decide what someone has said. And I'm likely older than you are, child.
@@notadumbblond3 "I didn't say it wasn't." You, in your post: " It also reveals then that they do believe in Him, they just don't worship Him or care." Internal critiques do not require acceptance of a proposition. Lying fool.
Solid reasoning, genius. Just yesterday a guy pointed out the inconsistency with Santa Clause stories, but he was using stories of Santa Clause as his evidence. That just proves Santa Clause is real. SMH
I was hoping that Lisle would actually talk about his knowledge in the field of astrophysics. I've already heard the AIG philosophy of epistemology enough times.
He can't really, because that field of science necessarily contradicts most of his religious beliefs. For example, he specialized in his degree program anyway, on Stellar anatomy (stars). Like, for instance he studied stars like the RR Lyrae type, which interestingly are a standard candle type of star for measuring stellar distances well beyond parallax limits. These necessarily invoke huge distances of many tens of thousands of light years, which by default eliminate his position of claims that all stars are less than 6,000 years old and that light from them has taken less than 6,000 years to reach us, via his 'instant starlight' proposals from his blogs and stuff (he's notoriously never tried to publish that claim in an an academic capacity because he knows it would get shot down as nonsense). That all aside, he quit the field of Astrophysics as soon as he obtained his PhD, and has never actually worked in the field since (2004).
@@davidbutler1857 The fact that the one-way speed of light is conventional was noted long ago by Einstein, but he hasn't published anything since way before 2004 so I guess his credentials aren't up to par. Do you think the conventionality of simultaneity thesis is false? Can you propose an experiment or any way to empirically verify isotropic light speed? Cause if you can't, if isotropy is a convention we are free to adopt or reject, as it is currently held by the vast majority of physicists as far as I know, then your "necessary contradictions" and "necessary [deep time]" don't really seem so necessary...
@@hudjahulos There have been several attempts to measure it and you can look them up. Once again Lisle is only using this as a god of the gaps argument, hoping to lead people on about all this automatically implying a young universe
@@davidbutler1857 So your source for the one-way speed of light, a contentious question that the most brilliant minds in science have been trying to solve for over 100 years, is "look it up." Got it. That's almost as convincing as name calling.
@@hudjahulos It’s a fairly well known issue much as you state, and this is RU-vid, so I’m suggesting to you that because this issue is well known, you can easily find papers and articles about it to satisfy your demands, and you don’t have to rely on me for that. I am not your local encyclopedia Britannica, and if your only argument is that I don’t provide a citation for something that is common knowledge (on this topic) then you’re simply telling me that you’re scared of any source
Already Lisle is lying here at 1:30 by arguing that Evolution and what we know about it isn't science and that it's not testable or repeatable, etc. Flatly wrong.
David Butler Speciation, natural selection, and all other things that Christians also accept from evolution are testable, however common ancestry and animals evolving out of their kind is not testable.
@@classycactus8449 //however common ancestry and animals evolving out of their kind is not testable./// Common ancestry is entirely testable. We do this literally every day by analyzing whole genomes of animal groups. It works not unlike a paternity test. We know quite clearly from seeing divergences in MtDNA how far apart certain species are. Also, you can easily google tests of common ancestry in the professional literature. Stating this is utter ignorance. Additionally, 'evolving out of their kind' is macroevolution on a large scale (group transitions) and this is also proven with analysis of the same MtDNA and calibrations of the fossil record and biogeography. You have NO idea what you are talking about.
@@classycactus8449 ///Similarities in genomes do not reveal common ancestry. You have to assume that./// Well, yes they do by warrant of their ability in many cases to interbreed (speciation does not require the inability to interbreed for example, it's just one old way to tell species apart), their shared biogeography both currently and in the fossil record, along with skeletal structures, shared genomes of parasites , a whole number of other things I could spend all day listing. I 'get' what your argument is, but this is the old creationist trope of denial of reality so that you can accuse your opponent of being confused, while never allowing that same attack to be used against you. This is why creationists NEVER try to explain their side of things but will constantly stay on the attack against evolution. You can't explain anything you propose to be true with anything resembling facts.
@@davidbutler1857 Could you maybe clarify your statement. Did you say that similarities in genomes reveal common ancestry because they can interbreed? Also, speciation does mean that they are unable to reproduce to make viable offspring. They can interbreed, but not for viable offspring. Similar skeletal structures fall in the same boat as similar genetics. In fact, I would argue that the similarities in skeletal structures and genetics is, at the very least, coherent with the Bible. Similar features can potentially indicate a common Designer. Now, of course, you will say why is it that similar features do not reveal a common ancestor, but they reveal a common Designer. So, we have to decide whether it is more reasonable for similarities to indicate a common natural origin, let's say, and a common mind. Well, let's go with common ancestor for a bit. As time goes on, organisms become more diverse, and, therefore, less similar. Questions arise from this, however. One of the main ones I thought of just now is that there are likely counter examples of organisms that do not share a recent common ancestor, but have similar genomes and similar structures, etc. So it is possible that organisms with higher degrees of similarity are father apart in their ancestry. That point likely requires further research. Another problem is that evolution (and its mechanism natural selection) are based on probability. It is more likely for similar organisms to be more related, but you don't know whether that is caused by randomness. Take the animal farthest from humans at the moment. If they started getting mutations that let them get more 'human' features, that would not make them more related in ancestry. As a naturalist, you have to believe that some very, VERY improbable events occurred. Fine tuning of the universe, abiogenesis, etc. Why would it be safe to believe that natural selection didn't work. Animals were more likely to survive and evolve a certain way, but didn't. There are a lot of factors at play that would influenve that probability and skew everything. There is a lot of uncertainty in the common ancestry hypothesis; there are a lot of assumptions and conclusions. You can say that similarities make it look like two organisms are more related. Let's give common designer a go. God created a specific set of plants and animals. Whether you think that was thousands of years ago, or even whether you believe it was millions of years ago, is less important (timing is not as important as the actual event). Animals evolve within those subsets. So, if you think about it, there is a similarity between the two propositions. The Bible says there is common ancestry between all organisms to God, but each kind of animal is directly evolved from the initial group of that kind. Now, it is certainly fair to say that when a mind designs, it is inclined to have similar designs. All Cadillacs have their really nice, semi-boxy design -- they are made by the same company, likely with the same group of designers That, however is from the artistic and aesthetic and even practical side of things. The problem is that we see similarities in encoded information for organisms. From experience, I can tell you that whenever you write code, you always take elements from a previous program and implement it into the current one. So you have similar structure and information: that points to intentionality. The similarities are so consistent and strong, that it becomes uncanny. All organisms have similar genomes There is a common strand throughout all of them, in their semiotic and linguistic DNA, that point to the same author. If you read multiple books from the same author you will see a similar style. Same with DNA. Also, if you want, I can go more into the linguistic characteristics of DNA. That is a very interesting piece of evidence for God. Either way, to try to clean all of this up: Similarities in structure and information seen consistently across all organisms are a common strand that pertain to intentionality and design more than the probabilistic mechanism that is natural selection, etc. Similarities can, at the very least, be applied at least as much in favor of God. I will be more than happy to explain my side of things. I do appreciate that you ' ' got' ' my argument at least to a certain degree. And I certainly got more insight into the common ancestry logic. It is logical to assume that extremely similar organisms are more related, however there is no scientific limiting factor for this reasoning. There is no reason to believe that you can extend it indefinitely, until you reach a single ancestor. When I was in biology class, though, I did find it very ironic that they were telling us we all had a common ancestor, but we didn't know who it was. Made me think God. The problem that I noticed is that all of the actual evidence and facts for evolution also apply to full on Creationism. The Bible just doesn't make the same assumptions off of the actual facts. It doesn't extrapolate as much in the direction of naturalism. Again, if you are interested, I would be happy to present my arguments for the existence of God.
What's funny is he actually takes atheists comments like the ones on this video and uses them in his lectures to show how to deal with fallacious arguments lol.
Not very successfully since all he does is use presuppositional arguments against them. It's a logically fallacious way of saying "I'm right because I say I'm right".
@@Ryan-rh8rn Well the premise put forward in the original comment was that everything is created by something. But as you have just demonstrated, clearly that principle can just be used selectively when it suits. Much like pretty much every other principle that creationists use to "prove" their views.
@@gavinmcewen5896 correctly stated, the wording should say "everything that BEGINS to exist has a CAUSE". This is the kalaam cosmological argument. So, since God has no beginning and is eternally existent, then God has no cause. God just IS.
@@Ryan-rh8rn Well its nice that you creationists are able to employ such pseudo philosophies in order to grant yourself such flexibility towards logic and natural laws. But can you actually give some proof of your claim that "God has no beginning and is eternally existent"?
If science is based on biblical principles then the japanese wouldnt be able to do it. Theyre not christian, never been christian, never read the bible. I better tell Dr. Kaku hes been wasting his time.
The Japanese learn from other scientists. You do know this right? The internet was originally created by scientists for scientists to expedite findings in scientific journals more quickly. It was also meant to be free, but that’s another story. There are some Japanese Christians, as well as Chinese. Ive spoken time them. What he is talking about is the consistency in the laws of the universe is brought about and upheld by a law maker(God) and that a creation out of mere chance is one of chaos. One must conclude that the law of gravity will be the same tomorrow as it was yesterday. This is described in the Bible. Time is short. Call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ with a sincere believing heart while you still have a chance. That is the only way you will find Him. You know that old saying, don’t knock it till you try it?
@@justinh4393 yes I understand ur argument but ur assumption that the laws of the universe are created by God (and not just any god but your particular god) is a claim without a shred of evidence. If there was, a few things would have happened, first, somebody would have won the Nobel Prize for proving the existence of a god and secondly :there would be no atheistic scientists. But supposing I was to grant your premise, that a god laid the foundations of the universe and the laws of science then it would be just as legitimate to say that the Hindu gods must have laid these scientific laws in place and science has a 'vedas' (Hindu holy book) foundation, after all Hinduism is a older religion than yours and lots of our mathematical insights come from the indus Valley and that part of the world. If a god truly lay these foundations there is absolutely no reason for u to argue that its your particular god, except your own bias.
BriansWrld there are mountains of evidence, that you choose to ignore. I chose to ignore it once before as well. Your not fooling me. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Having recently watched a few more videos of Jason, of which the comments section’s are switched off, I really need to say something about them/him. Jason claims to be a scientist but then says he believes the Earth is only a few thousand years old......the overwhelming amount scientific data shows that the age of the Earth is billions of years old, this is really now indisputable. Scientific endeavour prides itself on being open to challenges and admits when it is wrong, I wish the religious fraternity would look at themselves in the same way.
You trust men but men have been wrong on countless things which i dont even have time to give examples for. Old earth is being refuted constantly by many, many people. You have no idea what you are talking about when you say its irrefutable. Thats an incorrect statement within itself bc Lisle is one of the people who refutes it, and he is a scientist with a degree in astrophysics, just bc hes a christian with a different idea on how old the earth is doesnt give you the right to question his credentials. Also, Satan exists and so therefore you can expect lies to come from the scientific community as well. Darwin himself was a freemason, and once a freemason reaches the 33rd degree of intiation they fully accept Satan as God. So clearly dawrins loyalty wasnt only to science, he was also loyal to his God.
You should look up Lisle where in a few interviews he does about Craters and Flat Earth...he finds himself defending the scientific consensus on a lot of stuff, even defending NASA as being full of good professional experts...and it's hilarious to see him pivot in videos like this one where he's all like 'the Earth is 6,000 years old'... Guy is a tool.
@@tylerb9877 Even if Aron did have the guts, he doesn't have the knowledge. He's no scientist, no expert in ANYTHING. Just a pissed off miserable atheist mad at God and throwing tantrums. You can tell Aron is empty and miserable inside. Ever looked at his pictures? Never smiles in a single one and looks pissed all the time. No God no happiness. KNOW God...know happiness.
@@tylerb9877 //I've never noticed that he never smiles. Now that I think of it, I haven't seen him smile a single time. That is quite strange.// Because he has no peace. No Jesus no peace. You can see it in his debates, how he completely loses it VERY easily and blows his stack. Full of bitterness, rage and hate.
