I really enjoyed this debate, and yes I also made the silly thumbnail. I thought it would show the friendly disposition we both have toward one another :)

Bro donned a tuxedo for an online debate. What a legend

What a scholarly discussion. Two great men, serving the one Lord.

I like that the creationist guy has a Jurassic Park poster.

RZ looks like he’s heading to a royal banquet after this debate 🤵🏻‍♂️

So much better than the james tour debate. No shouting, no strawmanning, just two people airing their arguments.

Yo Zoomers beard looking fire.

My comment has been answered! Not with a reply, but with an entire courthouse- this was a treat to watch

Inspiringphilosophy would be proud of you!

I think yourCalvinist holds a much more consistent position of biblical interpretation. Zoomer seems inconsistent but finds an explanation for everything.

Do you think you would ever talk with atheist youtubers? I'm a believer but I also watch the other side just to challenge my own belief. I'm not sure if I have seen someone well versed in the bible with your views on evolution debate those types. It's usually more evangelical creationists debating these guys, or they are reacting to those types. I could also see it not being as productive.

I would've liked to hear you go into more detail about why you favor a providential explanation over a supernatural one for much of creation. You disagreed with Pastor Keith's favoring the supernatural side, but I'm wondering why you favor the providential one. You can't say "because of the science," because that would be question-begging: The mere act of applying science to this question presumes the providential explanation (science can't study the supernatural; we don't call them the "natural sciences" for nothing).

Both of you guys are extremely intellectual in your presentations! I give thanks to the Lord for creating such great people like you who are willing to have a peaceful discourse over an analysis over God’s creation. Amen!!

Hey RZ I wanted to ask you. If I said that if Lutheranism soteriology is correct then that would confirm the entire book of Concord because of Systematic theology, would I be correct?

The best discussion I have seen on that topic in a while. On both sides zero screaming and talking down to the opponent. Unbelievable 😅

@Redeemed Zoomer How do you reconcile your beliefs to scripture in Genesis saying that living creatures (plants and animals) reproduced after their kind?

This is awesome!

It's great that you have the humility to have a friendly debate with a Christian with a different viewpoint RZ, I recently became a subscriber and I loved your video on young men in this generation. So I want to say this in gentleness and humility: I do disagree with evolution, and I think what Keith says from 1:21:51 *(Edit: to **1:22:09**)* outlines a bigger problem with believing that there would be such a large volume worth of missing history. I know God exists outside time and space (He created them both, after all), and I know it's not a Gospel issue, but it does cause the average person to question God's perfection I think.

I got a lot out of this from both sides. Thanks fellas!

Very enjoyable debate and truly a fresh breath of air in the world of religious debate.

I so appreciate this content and the respectful manners from which it was derived. Well done, gentlemen! Misc. comments, unrelated to each other: 1) RZ, I consider myself well-rounded in both Bible and secular knowledge, but have never, ever heard your interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis; I'd love to know from where these ideas melding evolution with the traditional understanding of Genesis were derived. 2) I suspect you will come to see differently as you grow and study more, as you have already done on other scriptural issues. 3) I continue to appreciate your humble and loving heart. 4) I'm continuing to pray for you; your Kingdom influence is already important and the enemy of your soul will not stand still for that effectiveness.

How is this even a thing between Christians. Evolution is something that shows up in atheist vs Christian debates. What has happened to people?

Nice, here early for this. Can’t wait to watch

I watched this live, great debate.

Christ coming soon is a bit layered. Unlike Genesis, where each day was marked by an evening and a morning, the return might be more like a Daniel soon. One part is the 1k years = day, so God might be coming in 2 weeks Another part is the thief in the night catching us off guard. Unlike Abraham w/ Sarah, God doesn't give us a schedule. And Joshua didn't march for 7k years. Simply put, God's time depends on context.

There always is a process to God's actions. It just so happens we can observe the signature of these processes.

Thank you for this debate, very entertaining. I do not think I've heard much new, but this format is very good.

I truly appreciate this debate. You both acted godly and honorably. We need more debates like this. I've been studying Genesis 1 and find it overwhelming. I still don't know where I stand in regard to YEC vs OEC. I have a lot of questions that I have yet to find some answers to. I'd love it if you guys could recommend a book that deals with the account in Genesis 1 and 2.

I don't think we need to link animal death or natural calamities to Adam's sin. The emphasis of Romans is that all men die as a result of sin. Jesus in His resurrected body, the first fruits of the new creation, ate dead fish. We have to stop acting like animal death is an evil that is a result of the fall. Jesus has already eaten dead animals after going into the new creation, and I fully expect to follow and have some steak.

Going off from what you said about 1st Corinthians 15:47-48, I feel that could be also interpreted as since Adam and Eve were the first humans, we all “come from dust” (Adam)

Prolly my favorite debate because I can tell you guys actually have good will towards each other

Looking good RZ ❤️💯🔥🔥✝️

Genesis 1:29-30 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.

I liked this debate it's the most respectful debate I've seen in a long while God bless you both

Please keep up the debates!

My app says theres half dislikes. Is this true?

Just seen the thumbnail. That is brutal Zoomer 🙊😳

Thanks!

Fascinating, can someone help remind me, what happens to days in Revelation, as it says now the light will come from Christ, will there be no more day and night? Or just that Chirst is the sun in a sense now and there still would be day and night, thought one of you biblical scholars could tell me the verse?

You are handsome..God bless you❤

debate or talk with alex o connor next??

Hey this was amazing! I came out with understanding both sides and not settling on either side.

Excellent debate, well done both of you

Zoomer, I say this respectfully, you have a lot of misunderstandings about evolution (like claiming it's something that happened rather than a continuous process or that we came from Neanderthals) if you ever wanna chat about it, let me know, it doesn't have to be live. Ps: I am a biologist and I would be happy to help you understand evolution better

A non-literal interpretation of Genesis has been anathematized in the councils. Christians are unanimous on this issue.

Y’all are awesome, guys!

So you are a good debater, indeed. You just need it to be in a structured debate like this. Excellent job.

The fact that evolution is STILL a genuinely contested topic within Christian circles is crazy to me. ☠️

I really enjoyed this debate. As someone who enjoys watching debates (yes, I’m weird) this was truly refreshing to see; two men debating and exchanging ideas but with humility and kindness. Praise the Lord! But I do have to say, as much as I like Redeemer Zoomer and have benefited much from him - he had no biblical arguments for his position. His conclusion was really cool IF evolution was true, but there just isn’t any Scripture to back up his position and there’s a mountain of Scripture that goes against it. Unfortunately, I think RZ is a product of his culture and he’s trying to fit what he already believes (evolution) INTO the Bible. No one would ever read the Bible and come away with Darwinian Evolution.

Very respectful exchange, thank you both for that. Highly recommend Reading Genesis Well by C. John Collins for anyone interested in the topic. Examining the literature in the original context can help us avoid reading modern ideas into the text.

Kyle: (furiously taking notes)

I've never heard the "evolution makes death the hero" argument. I think it's wrong, but it is interesting. I find it more convincing that the death that is being referred to is spiritual death, because Adam represents the beginning of a spiritual life in men. In the same way animals can only be hurt, they cannot suffer because they are not self-aware, the predecessors of Adam could not truly "die" because they were never truly "alive." It is only with a spiritual life that true death, and true salvation, is possible.

The last point you made zoomer I think was very beautiful. I may not exactly subscribe to it at the moment but I’ve never heard that and think it’s an excellent point that it does line up with the timeline

Can you debate inspiring philosophy on Genesis 1?

I'm a theistic evolutionist. I see it as compatible with the Bible-and even supportive of some main central doctrines. I would put Adam before his initial sin in a heavenly realm, and see evolution as part of the punishment of sin. There are two main objections usually: 1. Original sin can't work with evolution, because it puts death before the fall. 2. This makes Genesis 1-2 not entirely honest, and waters down the meaning too much. If we can give an adequate answer to these two (and I believe we can), then there are actually strong arguments that can be made from evolution itself: 1. Evolution *displays the negative moral aspects of sin,* the sin nature in a cursed world: selfish striving to survive and replicate at the expense of others. One powerful argument to me, and it's an unusual one I think-is just how perfectly the basic principles of evolution exhibit the sinful nature and its values. Think about it-the principles of survival of the fittest, sacrificing other creatures to promulgate your own genetic line, pair-bonding based on performance and what mate offers the most to you, the stronger beating up on and extorting the weaker, the strains of parasites and viruses and cancers that live by draining the life out of other things-these all exhibit the heart of sinful selfish desires to be the best and use everything else just to make oneself happy. 2. Evolution *displays incredible unfolding design:* Imagine winding up a mechanism that later unfolds into the most intricate biological machines. The laws and materials of the universe, in any state whatsoever, even their most chaotic state, represent order and design. Evolutionists all admit the universe had to start with orderly laws and materials. Even if evolution itself were true, it would be an incredible design to have intricate and complex things arise from mechanistic processes out of an initial state of high energy being dispersed in simpler structures. 3. Evolution *displays the ideas of a curse and punishment:* it displays constant suffering, life at the cost of death, imperfection and struggle to survive. People will often point to the imperfections, the mutations, the dangers, the negative aspects of survival, and think this disproves design or goodness. But without a standard to measure what might be good, how can we determine what is bad? A car crash does not prove no one designed the car, nor does it prove the designer had bad intentions-it could very well illustrate the car was not used properly. The worst examples you can use, disease, natural disasters, constant dangers-well if these were in fact a punishment for initial sin, then they display their own purpose. 4. Evolution *displays strong signs of redemptive grace:* in the midst of the curse we find much beauty and meaning. Redemptive elements-given us in the picture of the death and resurrection of Spring, the night and morning of the circadian rhythm, the metamorphosis of the lowly caterpillar in "resurrection," the nurturing spirit of mothers towards the innocent young, the rewards of love and reproducing. And we have signs of our origin itself being cursed-our reproductive system itself being inextricably tied in with our toxic waste system, our painful birth and inevitable death. Perhaps creation itself is telling us more of a story that aligns with Sin and Redemption than we might at first perceive, intense suffering and selfishness combined with a longing and a hope for a better existence. Evolution by definition does not exclude God, intelligence, design, nor the fact that everything overall is getting worse in some sense. Now consider every Christian doctrine that can still be retained even while accepting evolution: 1. Original ancestors who transgressed God's Law bringing a curse on all creation. 2. An invisible realm with moral aspects to actions, and souls, angels and demons. 3. God becoming a man to suffer the punishment of sins as representative of the whole race. 4. Revelation from and union with the Holy Spirit to teach and impart spiritual truth. 5. An afterlife, with a final moral judgment of all of our lives before the throne of God.

I see @ConversationswithaCalvinist drinks the reformed soda of choice; Diet Coke. The legacy of dr. Sproul lives on.

Where can i find the QA section??

5:02 The “1,000 years on Earth is 1 day to God” saying is actually what first had me questioning if I should believe in evolution rather than creationism

I liked hearing your take here. I think the insistence of an young earth creation idea, really serves as a stumbling block for people who are just getting interested in the religion. If you learned science first, archeology, anthropology, astronomy, geology, biology, and many more groups I probably forgot, it goes against the 100% literal interpretation of the bible. So you have to choose, do you follow Christ and forget all the evidence that the earth is old, or do you do the tough work of trying to learn scripture and seeing how it all relates to an old earth. We really need more people talking about why Science and religion should be compatible, both are looking at the truth, so if they can't agree then one is a lie, and there is far too much evidence the world was created much older than 6000 years ago. I do wish debate was praised as old earth creation vs young earth, as Darwinian evolution is just as flawed as most young earth arguments. As Darwin ignored the full existence of God, just as the young earth creationists ignore all the evidence earth must be much older....even those you sited in scripture. I see 3 sides to the debate, Young Earth Creation, Darwinian Evolution and Old World Creation. most your best points were in favor of Old World Creation, and most YourCalvinist best points were against Darwinian Evolution, but Old Word Creation looks at the evidence though the natural world as well as theology to find a better truth than any of the other 2.

As a Christian from the from the STEM world I have come to the exact same conclusion that conclusion as Zoomer has. If science is the way God does things, then his argument makes the most logical sense to me.

GLORY BE TO THE FATHER, TO THE SON, AND TO THE HOLY SPIRIT, ONE GOD ALMIGHTY, AMEN. HALLELUJAH.

Hello from India Mizoram

Inspiringphilosophy would be proud.

This thumbnail is crazy 😭☠️☠️

Well done, brothers. God bless in the name of Christ ✝️

Hey can I go on your program then?

Reminder: EVERYONE believes in evolution. Creationists simply stop at micro- and everyone else leaps to macro- That's why it's bad communication to shorten all to evolution, like saying you love your children doesn't mean you /love/ your children.

Zoomer wearing a tux like he’s getting married

At 28:50 if Jesus conquered death in any way other than spiritually, why do people still die?

The cross-examination was interesting, as they both poked serious holes in each other's arguments.

Do you believe that Adam had a belly button? Because if you do, then that directly contradicts Genesis chapter 2.

While I do believe evolution, I’m not gung ho about it, and I respect those who don’t believe it. There’s a lot of room for disagreement on these things in Christendom. I’m glad those two could have a productive conversation. God bless.

I like listening to debate like this where there is no jumps from one thing to another. No one is trying to get an easy win over the debate. No one is using an ad hominem type ”argumentation”. Instead we are listening to carefully crafted essays 🙏🏻

If I believe in faith + works to be justified, am I right with God? If I reject Christ's imputation, but instead place my dependence on Christ empowering me to do perfect works (in Christ) so as to maintain my justification, and thus faith + works to at least stay justified, will I go to heaven or the Lake of Fire?

Who’s that guy with the beard sitting where redeemed zoomer is supposed to be? : o his voice sounds like zoomer too, it’s very weird. (Me being silly aside I’ll look forward to listening to this later)

I really like the reedem zoomer position, it's easier to believe, sounds normal, makes religion more berrable for some of us

That mustache might be the best one I’ve ever seen

Wedding day; T-shirt Zoom debate with Pastor Keith:

Awesome video! Can you make one on why islam is a false religion? thanks

My gosh redeemed zoomer that was a freaking good argument

54 mins before cross examination starts? Come on....

I need that opening speech that RZ used typed down so I can copypaste it to people when needed

Absolutely love this! RZ can make theistic and evolution more appealing than anyone else I’ve talked to, but ultimately I agree with the young earth creationist.

If Darwinian evolution were true, I do not see anything in the Bible, or specifically in the book of Genesis, that would be incompatible with God using this as a means. However, the Bible does not affirm this position either. Based on the Cambrian Explosion, I do not see how Darwinian evolution is possible. If species evolve slowly with gradual change over a long period of time, going from micro-organisms to all animal phyla that quickly, according to the fossil record, seems to refute Darwin.

Never heard the arguments for Theistic Evolution before that was interesting

This is something that has been plaguing my mind recently. I just don’t know who or what to agree with. I went from being firm in my belief of the old earth, to firm in my belief of the young earth, to unsure of anything. I don’t know if it will matter on the day of judgement wether or not we think the earth is seven thousand or four billion years old, but this is something that I care and think about often. I am currently going into paleontology/geology, so wether I am a believer in the old or young earth will matter. At this point, I believe that either is possible and there is nothing that can definitely say one or the other is more true. It is all up to how you interpret the Bible; literally or figuratively.

I always find YEC deeply frustrating and upsetting. It really makes Christianity appear to the unconverted as conspiratorial, unintellectual and stupid (making conversion and outreach so difficult)

Your argument was very convincing, I totally see how the modern theory of evolution could line up with the bible and I think it is a pretty decent possibility that the universe is actually billions of years old. The only deal braker for me as of now is the inconsistency of carbon dating and the existence of soft dinosaur tissue that should have been completely gone millions of years a go, but I'd say I'm pretty split between both positions right now.

The big debate

How does the belief that one can be naturally homosexual contradict the scriptures (I know homosexual acts are gravely sinful but I don’t think that it is unnatural a lot of bad things are natural desires)

I’m a young earth creationist and it’s very interesting to hear a Christian hold a different view. As long as an earthly view doesn’t walk people away from God and a relationship with Jesus I don’t think it’s a problem with it. Great debate!

Well Done ! I have a book suggestion for Redeemed Zoomer its "The Face that demonstrates the Farce of evolution" by Hank Hanegraaff the author absolutely drives a stake through the heart of Darwin's theory. thoroughly explains how the 'Fossil Record' is an embarrassment for paleontologists as there are NO vertical transitional species, radiometric dating methods don't work, 4 billion years isn't sufficient time for amino acids to form protein molecules needed to construct a basic cell from which all life 'evolved' Its a great read and, by the time you finish the book you'll be asking yourself... "How in the world did I ever believe Darwin's Fairytale" ?

I love how he just has that extremely formal outfit XD.

You look like every Campus Republican Club president jammed into one person

I always found the arguments for evolution, especially within Christianity, to be very weak when compared to the young Earth creationism arguments. While Redeemed Zoomer does make some very good points, I still think that the point of view defended by pastor Keith makes much more sense, both theologically and scientifically.

Ad hoc, begging the question, esiegesis, incredulity, this was all i heard from zoomer in this debate. This children is why you shouldn't allow your future children to be indoctrinated by the state.

What's with the bow tie?

I think you should debate Dr. Steven Meyer 😊

The only thing that bothers me about darwinian thought is Darwin, literally claimed that other races are "lower" than the white race. And i understand the argument "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" but this guy literally created the theory as a agnostic racist. Not trying to be PC or anything, I'm just saying i can't get behind his motivation to his thought process.

2 calvinists W