I deeply admire your ministry. As with Fuz, Dr. Ross was the first writer to resolve my problems with young earth creationism in a satisfactory Christian model. For years I listened to your Creation Update podcast on my way to work and read many of the ministry's works. Recently, I have read Dr. Collin's book and he is an Evolutionary Creationist (I probably have the term wrong). I was eager to see him address the Cambrian explosion and transitional life forms; however, he gave few plausible examples of transitions and that was it. I was willing to change my view but that just did not in any way fill in the huge gaps. I also love James Tour, but he doesn't fill in the fossil record either.So unless there is an amazing find of transitional life fossils, I will stick with the RTB paradigm. Few issues in my life have been as firmly resolved as the evolution issue, so I thank you guys for helping me so much in this area and many other areas.

Looking at the complex designs of the chemistry, biology, universe, and all life around.. it's an amazing world and an amazing God.

Wow. I have to say I am very impressed. I’ve recently found out about Dr. Ross and feel like I might have gotten a little addicted so to speak on basically everything he puts out. I’m a huge fan. I must admit, I haven’t paid much attention to any of the content that flows out of Reasons-To-Believe that Dr. Ross doesn’t personally create. Dr. Rana is no opening act. This guy is amazing! What a gift he has. Seems very sincere and I love his wanting to please attitude. Very easy to listen to. Weird thing is, I’m one of those guys who has never posted a comment on the Internet. I don’t even have a Facebook account and try somewhat stay out of the digital world for the most part. I use KZfaq and I’m not sure how this works or if he actually gets to see these comments but I’ve watched a few of Fuz’s videos today and he just seems so eager to interact with his audience, I felt kind of compelled to post a comment. So, my name is, Scott Rollins, and I’m from Pleasanton, California in the USA. I love researching the relationship between science and faith and get a lot of the content organizations like RTB create. If I had a question for Dr. Rana, and I actually don’t. But, to help out with possible questions for future discussions. When sharing our faith with non believers does our fascination with Apologetics/Science discoveries some how distract from the message of the gospels and the cross? Just for the sake for argument, if we think about Johns’s message, or Paul’s, or even Jesus. The message was pretty simple. Repent. Pick up your cross daily. Remain holly and separate from the world. Etc. Seems to me there’s a place for every message that points us to how much God loves us but would be interested in your thoughts. I’ve read comments by scholars that suggest Hugh adds to scripture by explaining in greater detail explanations not found in the Bible. So, my question is, if you were given a chance to speak let’s say at a conference overseas with a audience that hasn’t heard much about Jesus. Which message would you personally focus on? How science shows us Gods exists? Or, the message of the cross and how much Jesus loves us?

Dr Rana, having been introduced to RTB by Art Carroll, I have been sincerely blessed by everyone who presents. You are no exception and I thank you!

I appreciate your explanation and thought process. I am not a science person, but these issues are obviously important issues to be discussed and addressed intellectually by people of faith. I just recently met you and enjoyed your presentation of a Christian perspective on transhumanism. After many years of being highly skeptical of evolution, not just as a matter of faith, but as a matter of common sense, but being equally skeptical of young earth creationism, it was a breathe of fresh air to find Hugh Ross and RTB. You guys have given me some solid ground to stand on intellectually and spiritually. Thank you!

Greetings from Germany. Looking forward to the videos of the conference!

I am also an Old-Earth Creationist because it fits the best with both the biblical text and the scientific evidence

Great presentation 👏. The "understanding gap" between "Reasons to Believe" and "Is Genesis History" channels (I recommend both) is widening.

It is safe to say that Dr. Rana does not hold to any theory of unintelligent design. That said, neo-Darwinian evolution is, in reality, a theory of unintelligent design: a creation story without a Creator.. No intelligence or intervention is allowed. (Humans can be genetic engineers but God can't be.) If evolutionary creationists accept neo-Darwinian theory (as it accepted by the vast majority of scientists) it is very hard to understand what the noun "creationist" actually means in any biological sense. If evolutionary creationists accept neo-Darwinian theory as an adequate mechanism to explain the origin and diversity of life on Earth they face a number of problems. 1. The history of life on Earth is not Darwinian. The pervasive pattern of natural history reveals the disparity of the body plans preceding variations on these pre-existing themes (macro precedes micro). Darwinian theory predicts the opposite (micro precedes macro). While there is nothing like a good theory of origins, neo-Darwinian theory is nothing like a good theory of origins. 2. Random mutations do a better job of explaining loss of functional information and genetic load than they do major evolutionary change while natural selection does a better job of explaining stasis through the elimination of useless transitional or incipient stages than is does explaining major evolutionary change on a gradual stepwise basis. Darwin's mechanism of natural selection lays a better foundation for a Theory of Conservation than a Theory of Evolution. 3. The theism (belief in a Creator who acts in space and time) is difficult to justify unless evolutionary creation rejects neo-Darwinian theory (except at lower-taxon levels) and sees God as a genetic engineer (in addition to phenomenal physicist, incomparable chemist, marvelous mathematician, etc.). Point #3 leaves us with this question - If a person believed that God acted as a genetic engineer, modifying pre-existing life-forms over time to create new species, genera, families, orders, classes, phyla, etc. would the person be better described as an Evolutionary Creationist or an Old Earth Creationist? (Perhaps he/she could be either.) The devil is in the definitions (which is probably why Dr. Rana sidestepped a much more lengthy answer to the question).

I love your work! I’ve learned so much

I have taught geology for 20 years and am a Christian. I see the merits of both evolutionary and old Earth creationism. Our God can do anything he wants. However, the scientific method supports old Earth. That's where I lean. It's entertaining to explore. But it's not Paramount. My worship is Paramount. Your show allows me to express a different scientific view in the classroom. Thank you!

well done. I am in your camp.

Hi Fuz. Since I got to know RTB I also discovered the old creationism which also for me was positively chocking. Seems logic for me as well and I completely agree with you. In addition, I speak very much almost all the time in RTB context to reach people for Christ finally. So I got involved with a biologic teaecher a few weeks ago. Finally he is an agnostic and the discussion was realy difficult because he was not realy listening to me as I'm not a scientist as a background. Although I used as much as possible your arguments. What I was thinking due to these kind of conversation is that I miss people like you on my side. So for the future I have some ideas to be developed together with RTB. Thank you for your input into this broadcast. BR S

I'm so glad to have stumbled across this video! Thank you

I'm glad I tapped this video.

Howdy, from Houston Texas

Greetings from Bolivia!

Enjoyed your story

Hi, I am from Vancouver, Canada.

Blessed are you oh God, King of the Universe.

Thank you Fuz for sharing your religious life story and how you came to be Christian. I have a similar religious story and can appreciate the journey. Thank you for saying the evolutionary creationist are very similar to what we in rtb believe. I would say that maybe we at rtb believe in "micro-evolutionary (to make inter-species changes) creationism" where God is still involved to make those large species changes like to create two humans (not evolved from humanoids) and breath into them to make adam and eve, while their are still humanoids on the planet. I believe in similarities from 'common designer' not 'common descent' . :)

I agree with you all the way man ,since you can trace Jesus's linige back to major historycal Figures and you can see that they are through anilizing ,thus proving your point .

From near Tacoma WA, previously (75 years) from LA County which included zip codes 91773, 91750, and 91740.

I was a young earth creationist for decades, now -and with a more ushakeable faith over the years - Fuz, I would love to hear you explain the first and earlier stages of the Big Bang. Also, is there a book at Reasons to Believe that would help me to grasp this theory?

Are there any works that discuss or theorize about the laws of nature before the fall?

Did the Sanford session on Genesis and Evolution get published online?

Brian Davilla in Dayton, TN

Rosamond CA

Love this post! I’m learning so much! I just realized I used to be an evolutionary creationist , but recently as I started reading the Bible more I started rejecting it..

Is this going to be a weekly thing? And if so at what time?

Hey Fuz, it's Kenny

I disagree with evolutionary creationism and I am a person who thinks that the earth and the universe is old.

I am an old earth creationist but do not want to fellowship with theistic evolutionists without it being known that I dislike evolution period. The main difference between atheistic evolutionist and theistic evolutionist is the letter a.

Hi Fuz, the link in the profile is not working..

Brown vs. board of education dates fro 1954

Lots of think sir Excuse me sir. Can you lesson the Dr zakir naik lectures??????

I don’t think it was Brown v Board of Education. Probably you’re talking about McLean v Arkansas.

I've listened twice, and haven't really heard a scientific argument against evolutionary creationism. Did I miss it?

I am 100% A old earth evolutionary creationists. I already subscribe to your channel hit me in the new chat.

Would it be accurate to say that RTB believes the following: 1. God created the Universe then the Earth. 2. God introduced life on our planet in such a way that the appropriate life was introduced at the appropriate time to prepare the planet for the next type of life that was later introduced. 3. Then ultimately, when the planet was ready, he introduced man. If my understanding above is accurate then what would stop people from speculating sometime in the future that some alien civilization did this? It sounds a little like what science fiction would call terraforming a planet.

If biblical concerns are a major part of your rejection of evolution, why didn't you unpack that more? All you said was "Adam and Eve MUST be historical", but didn't really examine why.

So, where is the evidence for creation?

Whether or not you’re “Comfortable” with those views is irrelevant to the facts… Your reason for not choosing to accept the fact of evolution was revealed when you said it would undermine your Faith in Christianity and the thought of that is to much for you to bear. With that viewpoint, no amount of facts will be sufficient for you.