It's uncanny!

@@ArmorofTruth I think he's a great philosopher, but maybe he lives a double life :)

LOL

I saw an old photo of William Lane Craig from 84 singing in a band called Van Halen

I knew he look familiar

Well said. Pursuit of the truth requires a humble heart and mind.

lets see truth and be biasless and yet someone makes you think in some perspective simply because they are nice,be humble so you wouldnt follow someone just because you like them becauss you believe yourselves are wise

An apologist by definition is not seeking truth. They defend a preferred narrative & typically do so NOT by providing objective evidence, but instead by demanding evidence AGAINST that preferred stance. As an example, I have no evidence that Big Foot exists, but u cannot prove he doesn’t exist. This is the opposite of science. Religion starts with a supernatural claim & then demands we cannot prove it to b false. An apologist is always finding creative ways to square the Bible (or Torah or Koran, etc) with current times & against scientific fact (claims supported by objective evidence). I point my evangelical friends to William Craig because I respect his education as a theist & feel he is a wonderful communicator. In my opinion, a religious person who seriously pursues theism is much less dangerous than the average church goer who shows up to a giant shed church each week & is brainwashed into prosperity preaching, Christian Nationalism, & often….bigotry as it is personally embraced by that particular pastor/organization. But make no mistake about it, Mr. Craig has never put forth any work that started from a blank slate. He is always defending Christianity & the belief in God.

Seeking truth in a fan fiction story by analyzing Spiderman, Hermione, Harry Potter mud man and rib woman is a strenge endeavor.

@@TorianTammas Jesus mythicism is a fringe theory not respected by any serious scholars.

You are kidding, right? Try watching Josh across a few interviews, and critically.

Josh seemed receptive of this new information

Agree with Rob. Check out some prior interviews. B ut maybe he's learned to be more reserved in recent times. Still digs Biologos, it seems, a lot.

​@@Polynuttery Based on this interview and his book, I do genuinely believe that Josh has strong convictions but a charitable posture towards those who disagree with his positions. It's a difficult thing to balance, our opinions and our humility. Sometimes we tip the scale of that balance too far in either direction. Based on your comment here, i'm assuming you also hold strong opinions and find it difficult to give people with opposing views the benefit of the doubt. So, all kidding aside, I do stand by my position, and if Josh, in future interviews, presents himself as an arrogant and uncharitable guy, I will adjust my opinion.

Yes, I agree. I have read his book and interacted with him on his website and I am deeply impressed by the way he tries to build bridges with people of different perspectives, and by his openness in admitting when he has made a mistake. Of course like all of us he is only human, and the way he was treated by biologos is obviously still a sore point for him.

Haha y’all gettin wild with this in depth lore.

Exactly. It is the Bible´s own teaching that is being ignored, sidetracked, or contradicted, so that men might indulge in intellectually stimulating "speculations," rooted in naturalistic assumptions, that are clearly incompatible with what the Bible says. Craig needs to realize that God does not give us the option of choosing between two Christian "faiths"-- a simple, literal, exoteric faith for the ignorant masses, and a more sophisticated, metaphorical, esoteric faith for the "initiated" Phd´s. There is only one Christian faith, its contents revealed in a book which is not only inerrant but also perspicuous (clear) in its fundamental teachings. However, to receive those teachings, one must humble his mind and accept those teachings with the simple faith of a child, and hold fast to them as the underlying, unwavering presupposition of one´s investigations into ALL areas of knowledge. Thus, the literal existence of Adam and Eve as the parents of the entire human race, who lived thousands, but not hundreds of thousands of years ago, must be accepted BY FAITH. There is no honest way one can insert two hundred thousand years of history between Adam and Noah, in light of the genealogies given to us in Scripture. To subject the clear and unequivocal teachings of Scripture to the guns of skeptical, higher critical thinking, as Craig seems to be doing, is a sure path to agnosticism and the erosion of faith. One simply cannot harmonize the teachings of Scripture with theories, assumptions, and conclusions about natural history based on post-Enlightenment Deistical thinking about the natural world and what we find in it.

@Richard Fox You are misinformed.

Yes , they simply won't take God at his word .

@Richard Fox That's reprobate thinking.

Amen , Greg !

?

Or reality or even honesty

Amen .

Justin tips his hand in his massive agreements with Craig. Good did it, science isn’t infallible.

It's impossible for me. Lol

I read this in WLC’s voice

Especially of you can make it PLAaaUSIBOooOWL! 😏

Ham is chop liver!

Ham is not a good rep for young earth creationism. Daniel Faulkner and other scientists should speak in his place.

@@Whatsittuya407 no one is a good rep for YEC. It’s not even a debatable point. All young earth creationists are presuppositionalist crack pots.

@Whatsittuya407 There is no credible YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST scientists. The entire "science" of Creation Science is based on several falsehoods (this is kind I should have said lies!). Here is the problem with the entire YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM Worldview, and please note I am a PhD level Christian Physicist that won 2 International R&D 100 awards and I developed ionizing radiation dosimeters and detectors for nuclear weapons safeguards. The first problem is that Science isn't a WORLDVIEW, Science is a METHODOLOGICAL approach to understanding the Natural World. The primary objective with Science is TRUTH. YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS are master TRUTH manipulators and I don't care if the Scientist making the claims is sincere or if they are just charlatans trying to make a buck, it's still dishonest either way. Push back at ANY Creation Scientists that tries to claim Science is a WORLDVIEW, or there is such a thing as multiple varieties of Science, there is only one type of Science. There is no such thing as "SECULAR" Science as Ken Ham and others like to blather on about to DECEIVE people and most YOUNG EARTHERS just don't know any better unfortunately so I don't blame them. Science doesn't have a "secular" or Christian version of Science. People bring their WORLDVIEWS with them that do Science and therefore you can be an athiest and do great Science, just as you can be Christian and do Science. The second major mistake of YEC is they created an entirely separate CREATIONISM JOURNAL to publish their "scientific " journal articles. Do you know why, it's because real Science Journals won't publish their nonsense. Look Science is Science it's a method to understand nature and I believe in God and I believe in Jesus Christ and the Ressurection. You don't have to be an Athiest to understand the Earth is ancient as I do. Remember God is outside time, space, and matter and is therefore not bound by these. This is basic Philosophy and Theism. Don't let Ken Ham and others cause you to loose your faith. You can be a great Scientist and also be a faithful Christian. I actually teach Worldviews and the 5 Basic Beliefs of the Christian Faith have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH GENESIS or a YOUNG EARTH. Also Ken Ham makes his money selling ANSWERS IN GENESIS videos and I have watched every one with an open mind and they all have many major scientific untruths and all are absolutely garbage from a Science standpoint. If these give you a WARM FEELING by all means listen to them, but please don't make the mistake Ken Ham makes and start pointing a NASTY FINGER at PhD Christian Physicists and PhD Christian Astronomers and Geologists that understand the age of the Earth. My mother ALWAYS said if someone other than GOD or JESUS is pointing their finger at you , they have THREE FINGERS POINTING BACK AT THEM!! Listen to Matt Walsh on WHY HE ISNT A YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS. Matt is smart and non-Scientific and Matt trashes YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM very effectively!! God Bless....

You know the answer to your first question. It's that the Genesis account was written as true history. If we write it off as allegory, we blow apart the whole foundation of Scripture. It's not so simple to just interpret some verses as figurative speech. We must deny the historicity of God's actual involvement in the world and invent entirely new unscriptural descriptions of his involvement both in purpose and means - and write our own books about it! It's an intoxicating but fatal doctrine.

1. He didn't deny an Adam and Eve, did he? 2. I the beginning God created the heavens and earth. Not in the beginning God created Adam and Eve. So is there an argument?

@@ProfYaffle I believe in a literal Adam and Eve too, but they are organic cyborgs yet to be created in our time traveling future, which will have their consciousness downloaded from Meta. This is obviously possible because God is timeless and spaceless. I mean the differences between that story vs the one where God carefully fashions Adam with His own hands in the clay and breathes the breath of life into him are immaterial, right? The process doesn't matter. God will still be responsible. Can I write a book about that and debate somebody about it? Like my joke, Craig has ceded so much Biblical ground to "appeal" to the carnal mind that it's a joke to attempt to call it Biblical in any way. 2 Peter 3 teaches that it is willful ignorance towards the reality of God and His judgement that leads men to accept gradualism and deny the global flood. If people wish to reject the inspiration of Scripture, fine, but don't claim to accept it while sacrificing the entire narrative arc and key story details at the altar of fallible human wisdom. That is something Scripture clearly condemns. Choose whether to doubt God's word or humanity's ability to flawlessly peer back into "deep time." I'll always choose the latter.

stories can be specific. Ever read Lord of the Rings?

@@michaelhenry1763 No comparison. Prov 30:5,6 Every word of God is flawless; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and prove you a liar.

no it doesn't

@@jayd4ever thorough refutation. I stand corrected

Yep. You need to reject it.

How did this song lead you to this topic? I also like that song.

😂

Great questions!

It’s quite disappointing especially he calls himself an apologist.

@@johnchristiandeguzman5295 i didn’t mean to imply that this idea is not worth exploring- only that pushing Adam so far into the past brings a whole history with it that needs to be reconciled with the Biblical record.

science above scripture Keith. that's what it's all about for these guys

@@hondotheology that's ridiculous. They're throwing ideas out there. Maybe you didn't even watch the video, because right of the gate Craig clearly states that scripture comes first. I suspect it's more comfortable for you to think of your faith in total simplicity, that anything outside your comfort zone must just be coming from Christians less committed than yourself. It's pure intellectual laziness. I don't even agree with these guys, but to claim they don't have first loyalty to scripture is absolute nonsense.

What do you think he's missing?

@@joelebert9767 that’s what the video is for 😂😂

Evolution process is extremely slow - addition of minute DNA changes over 100s of thousands of generations. Asking the question "Who was the first human?" is as absurd as asking "How old were you when you were growing up?". A theory explains a process based on evidence at hand. Theories can be modified, updated, or rejected based on new evidence. Fossil & DNA evidence prove evolution to be a fact & the evolution theory explains how it works.

That is true. You can't, therefore Jesus was not resurrected.

@@michaelhenry1763 huh? How in the world did you conclude that

@@gabepearson6104 you make an excellent connection between belief in Adam & Eve and belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is a similar connection that Paul makes in Romans. Adam is the first human who brings death; Jesus is the first human that brings life. I reverse the connection. Because Adam & Eve did not exist thereby original sin did not exist to condemn humanity; Jesus did not resurrect to defeat sin because there was no original sin to defeat because Adam & Eve did not eat of the fruit.

@@michaelhenry1763 no one ever said Adam and Eve didn’t exist…

@@gabepearson6104 isn’t that what the original post is saying? Of course Adam and Eve did not exist. They are mythical characters designed to illustrate deeper truths about humanity: our capacity to do good or evil, our desire to gain wisdom, etc.

There were multiple eyewitness accounts to the Resurrection and it absolutely transformed them and their life trajectory and humanity's understanding of reality. And much of it was documented. It's about as opposite of mythohistory as we can get.

then there is no basis for Christianity you draw the line when you get to abraham the basis of Christianity is Jesus in my opinion the adam and eve can be considered a parable

You clearly didn't watch till the end

@@lkae4 same as Mormonism, except with the Mormon religion it was better attested and is growing faster than any other form of Christianity. Your point doesn't make it true.

Just a quick reminder that no theologian worth their salt believes Genesis 1-11 is to be taken as historical.

@@teachpeace3750 only serious theologians with proper discernment understand the literal narrative of the book of Genesis. The compromised theologians you speak of are only seriously clueless

@@teachpeace3750 just a quick reminder.

@@bwc6520 this isn’t really a debate outside of fundamentalist seminaries. As a graduate of a moderate seminary, I can assure you, this is a settled issue among serious scholars and theologians.

Well said truth is truth and doesn't care what you think.

If you think salvation is based on whether you believe humans were literally molded out of clay and popped into existence as adults, you need to go back to the drawing board

@@thucydides7849 What have I done to you for such personal attacks and disrespect?

There is no objective evidence for any supernatural claim in any religious text. This includes the resurrection of the character Jesus Christ.

Wow, you have to be one complete and total moron to believe the nonsense you’re selling.

What is all this other evidence of which you speak that points to a young earth? You’ve been sipping the kool aid way too long.

A mature earth at creation deals with these issues. Also the holographic element that Chuck Missler deals with.

The validation of the story is found in the truthfulness of things like the envy of Cain and how it destroys him. The necessity of sacrifice. The evil desires of mankind to dominate and amass wealth for their own selfish desires. To look around at what was obviously a creation and be so determined not to be subjugated to a creator that you demand proof when deep in your heart you know there isn't a proof you will accept because really you don't want to be held to account for the sins no one knows about but you. You want to be the master of your world, because then it is you who decides who is good and who isn't, but really, you weren't designed to be that judge and it is actually a burden too heavy to carry.

These acounts are myths or legends. That Christians still seek to reconcile them with history is an obvious example of motivated reasoning.

@@davethebrahman9870 I think you should look up the archeological evidence.

How would you know what's accurate if you weren't there?

What do you mean by “accurate”? I think you mean “modern scientific” but expecting an ancient Hebrew to think and communicate like moderns is bizarre.

mad to be debating something that never happened

@@paulrichards6894 The evidence, your existence, is plain that it did.

I cringed hard for as long as I could watch it, which to be honest wasn't long. I felt kind of embarrassed for everyone involved

@@houmm08 So you think passion for this subject is something worth feeling embarrassed about... Okay. What subject are you passionate about pursuing knowledge of?

its the 1 of those things in the bible where we have 100% proof it never happened

Very well said

Completely missed the entire point of the discussion. The question is, what is teacher actually teaching given the literary genre in an ancient culture

@Richard Fox Hey Richard, Thank you for your reply. I like your statement; it is short and straightforward. The issue I have is that "intellectual honesty" is subjective. It is subjective in that many Athiest have said that "intellectual honesty" requires that we reject miracles altogether. And many Christians would say "intellectual honesty" requires that we reject the majority of the Old Testament as a myth, rejecting historical figures from Abraham well into the kings of Judah. And as for the New Testament, the Jesus seminars, that had about 50 critical biblical scholars insist that "intellectual honesty" forces us to disregard or view with suspicion many of the Word of Jesus. I am trying to say that "intellectual honesty" really comes down to each individual and the worldview they adhere to, or as the Joker put it, "Hubba, Hubba, Hubba, money, money, money, who do you trust, who do you trust?" To be honest myself, I am a YEC, not because I ignore science. Rather, I believe science supports YEC, though I know most scientists disagree with this, and there is evidence to the contrary. Still, I do respect other Christians who disagree with this. But I would like for people to consider what they believe and why they believe it. I know that too many Christians young-earth creationism is a stumbling block, and to the lost, it is foolishness, but for me, it is true and has scientific credibility. Thank you again for your reply, and God bless. Richard Fox 2 hours ago The simple fact is that intellectual honesty requires we acknowledge the Creation story to be a myth.

@Richard Fox Thank you, Richard So you are a paleontologist? That is impressive; I know that it is hard work, but it is worth the effort. Still, I think your statement that "not a shred of evidence for a young earth" goes too far. There are YEC paleontologists who believe that paleontology provides good support for a young earth. You also said that "evidence from many many disciplines supports this view." I know this to be true also; that is why I said in the previous post that while "I believe science supports YEC, though I know most scientists disagree with this, and there is evidence to the contrary." Still, there are YEC creationists in many if not all of these other fields that believe the data does more than give sherd of evidence for the YEC position; it proves it. Now, your last comment is, to me anyway, the best argument for an Old Earth, that being distant starlight. This issue is the one that I had my greatest struggle in, though I know you were speaking to the formation of stars. How does this starlight travel from billions of light-years away to Earth in only a few days, seeing that stars were visible on day four? Models have been proposed to solve this issue, one of the proposals is by Russ Humphreys. His model works well with the current understanding of science. The drawback is that while his model works well for starlight from other galaxies, the light from our galaxy exceeds the time frame of a young earth; Humphreys is still working on this model. There are different models as well, but the point is that there are Ph.D. scientists from many, if not all, fields of research that claim that if they are to be intellectually honest, the area of study they are in supports a young earth. Still, this assumes that our, the YEC people, view on Genesis is correct, but we may have that wrong. The more I read from scientists like Hugh Ross, the more I find that his view of the creation account does hold weight. In this view, the days were ages, not literal days, and God used progressive creation to make the Earth ready for human life. This could be the correct view of Scripture, but to me, the Young Earth view fits better. Of course, I know of Waltons view, and at first, I had thought that this was a solid view that I could get behind. But after reading more on the subject and reviewing Dr. Craig's thoughts on the problems this view holds, I now think it carries little weight. I have also looked at Theistic evolution, but this is not a great view of science or Scripture, in my opinion. Recently Joshua Swamidass, who appears with Dr. Craig in this video, has released a book called The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry. This is a differnt take on what it means to be descended from Adam, and I think it has value, but it has to be grounded in a good view of Scripture. I believe the Hugh Ross model and Swamidass can work well together, other than the fact Ross believes that there was a literal Adam and Eve while Swamidass believes in common descent. Again, the only thing I do not like is how brothers and sisters in Christ can so easily disregard and belittle each other for honest disagreements. If we are to be intellectually honest, we must consider the other side, look at the evidence, and weigh it ourselves. This is where people like Ken Ham tend to wavier; they will say something dismissive about those who disagree and never really consider the other side. This is how I became a Hugh Ross fan; while I was on Ham's side, Ross seemed to act more Christian than Ham. Since then, I have picked up all the books Ross has put out and read most of them. My view of Ross's integrity as a scientist and Christian has only strengthened over the years. He always presents himself in a humble, very Christ-like manner in debates with YEC. Ross seems to be a good scientist as well, in that he seems to know his stuff, and he seems to be knowledgeable in Scripture, which makes Ross well worth listening to. Thank you again for your thread and your work as a paleontologist, and God bless.

@William Billy Craig The starlight is the equal problem for evolutionist. Universe is too big for light to travel through it as we observe it today. So you shouldn't really have that problem. And I think folks from CMI responded to this problem quite well.

Yes. I think this I really don't like. Myth.

So you think we can decide whether what God's Word says it's true or not?

I don't think WLC would cope, all he has is philosophy, his theology is abysmal.

A massacre

I’d prefer to see Johnathan Sarfati debate WLC.

He’s a fallible human being who made the mistake of trying to insert evolution into the Bible. We are to seek the Holy Spirit for all the answers, not man.

@@Keesha_Hardy Thank you Kesha, for your response. It is not easy to have all the dialogues we are all having about God and how we validate the "revealed text". I think a good number of believers today, perhaps including yourself, would never think it is okay to enslave other people, or stone witches or gay people to death. I think most people realize that those actions are immoral, even if they are sanctioned in the bible. So, for me, I do not have a problem with people believing as Christians. However, I keep my eyes open and engage in conversations and dialogues, to keep me aware of when believers start using their belief as a weapon against people. It is how dangerous that believers can easily become that worries me the most, and it is the reason I listen to religious stations and talks, in order to know when the temperature of believers start moving in the direction of real harm to real people. I'm sure it must be obvious to you that one of the main reasons why dogmatic believers insist that the Bible is inerrant, is so they can justify horrible things they are doing or want to do to people. By the way, I do not think you are like this at all, since I don't actually know you. But, I've seen a lot of believers who hold terrible views about other people, and do horrific things in the name of the book. Perhaps, you can help me understand what your thoughts are about how we can make sure that believers DO NOT use their beliefs as weapons against the populace. So appreciate your interaction with me. Thank you

Why would one man have all the answers? A man who makes a mistake in one area doesn’t invalidate his previous good work.

@@Keesha_Hardy "seek the Holy Spirit for answers.." of course, and you get tens of thousands of christian denominations worldwide with their founders claiming to receive all their teaching from the Holy Spirit...

@@Keesha_Hardy Sounds like you really know what the smart people told you to believe. Good job not thinking for yourself. I see a lot of people are in the same club as you. Good work... !

Hahahahaha

That’s right!

His Adam book? Man that book is expensive though.

Can't wait to ignore it...

Yeah. Santa Klaus has the same rules to exist in children's mind. Gifts or eternity, but always something to fill our human ego.

So basically magic

Science can’t disprove God. From what we observe the origin of the world is sound from a biblical perspective. There was a creator who is outside of time, space and matter. Nothing doesn’t create something.

I got up to 7 and a half minutes.. The blatant ignorance and misrepresentation of science is astounding. Religion poisons everything.

If you read between the lines, Craig suggested in this interview that everything up through the story of Abraham is part of the mythic history, which he says is not literal. He seems to be being very political about how he’s saying this, but that would make sense since if one accepts Noah as historical than ultimately THEY are the family from which everyone descends. But I agree, it does seem a little ad hoc for him to be so diehard about an actual historical Adam if he’s going to also go out of the way and say Genesis is mythic history. He seems to be trying to walk a fine line.

1. Umm no WLC groups together H. heidelbrgensis along with Neanderthals and us as all the same "humans". 2. WLC is pretty clear that Genesis 1-11 is mythohistory, he hardly cares about the historical accuracy of this section. Thus there is no "intellectual gymnastics".

@@everyzylrian Jimmy's assessment is correct. I don't know if I would say that there are no intellectual gymnastics however, lol. I think there most definetely are some gymnastics going on here but that shouldn't be a criticism of any worldview. Any serious worldview is going to requite intellectual gymnastics.

​@@everyzylrian Ummmm...... so according to WLC the events described in Genesis 1-11 which includes the original sin narrative is nothing but mythohistory and a nonbeliever shouldn't care about its historical accuracy. So why should a nonbeliever care about Jesus and Christianity? Paul says in Romans 5:12 12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned. If original sin is mythohistory and not accurate historically then Paul's original sin theology goes out the window. Also, do I really need to mention the NT scriptures where the authors relied on mythohistorical passages within Genesis to double down on their own arguments? Well actually, you know what I will... Exhibit A: Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9: 8. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man (from Adam's ribs). 9. neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. If the whole story of Eve being created from Adam's ribs is 100% non-historical as WLC claims, then tell me why am I reading this passage in 1 Corinthians 11? What else was Paul and other NT authors wrong about? Exhibit B: Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:13-14: 13. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Again I ask, what else was Paul wrong about? Heck, why should any nonbeliever care about what any NT author wrote about Christianity and Jesus?

Facts!

There were no men before Adam.

@@martinploughboy988 not Made in the imago dei

@@nathanmosqueda3185 Adam was made on the sixth day of Creation, there was no time for men to b made before him.

@@martinploughboy988 learn what the imago dei mean

@@nathanmosqueda3185 I know what it means, Adam was the first man, he was not descended from anyone.

But of no value from a Christian POV.

@Richard Fox There are equal bodies of evidence for a young earth. The pre-bias we use to interprete the evidence will lead us to the conclusions we choose. We come to the evidence with certain assumptions, mostly seeded by those who preceded us and our contemporaries. We acquiesce to authority because, after all, who should we trust. However if you look into the bodies of knowledge handed to us it is evident that they had an agenda. Critical thinking has long been lost in the academy and replaced with preprogrammed conclusions. It is uncouth to challenged what the professor declares to be established science even when it is still a theory. How is it certain ideas need be protected to the point of litigation? Shouldn't said ideas be strong enough to hold their own? It is also interesting how in flames a person gets when the ideas they hold come under question. As though the very person is under attack. Then mis apply this deference to the one with the challenge as a simple person might do. Symptom of a lack of accurate critical thinking. Please, do be challenged to not make shallow assumptions of someone because they choose to observe and weigh out faith, even in the face of scientific inquiry. Godspeed, in Christ.

@Richard Fox do you really ask your students that? What do you teach?

@Richard Fox There is no such evidence, nor is Evolution science.

@Richard Fox The Earth is clearly not thousands of millions of years old, the evidence is against it. On the other hand, we have genealogies going back about 6000 years. Without the Bible, you would still have no evidence of thousands of millions of years, but plenty of evidence of thousands.

@Richard Fox I'll answer both of your posts here, if I may. "The mountain ranges are still forming in the Alps - their rate of rise can be measured and give us a period of about 300 Million years between the initial tectonic collision and their current height. " So how do you know those rates have not changed, how do you know they were not faster in the past? You don't. "A young age of the earth does not give any time for coal or oil to form in the quantities we have, let alone the millions of years it took to make it." So where are you measuring the length of time taken to form coal? You're simply assuming. "It does not account for erosion of canyons (no, a 40 day flood does not make 1 mile deep canyons)" The Flood lasted for about a year, the amount of water that would have gathered to create the Grand Canyon would have been quite sufficient to form it in a fairly short period, since canyons require water rather than time. One thing is certain, it wasn't created by a river. "for the ancient super volcanoes that have exploded in the past, over 600,000 years ago in the case of the most recent Yelowstone erruption. " The Flood was a period of great seismic activity, no great time scales required. "And, of course, radio metric dating of moon rocks and earth rocks show that the earth and solar system are 4.5 Billion years old." RM dating shows no such thing. I is based on assumptions and has never been tested or calibrated. "Evolution is most definitely science" So demonstrate it, reproduce common descent. "says 25,000 Evolutionary biologists . . . have a chat with one about how they know." Maybe I should ask them if they feel guilty for being paid to do a job that involves pretending Evolution happened. "Remember, it is YOU that wants the facts to fit the Bible - scientists don't really do that." Oh yes scientists do that. When they have a hypothesis that they are convinced is true but their testing fails to give the required result they most certainly do. Do a search on scientific fraud & you may be unpleasantly surprised. Much of the fraud involves biology & medicine, which makes me very uneasy about the claims around COVID and the vaccines.

Interact...and other things

What?!!! So all that history of original sin that made me a sinner isnt real? Thans! Im free!!! Hahahaha

I said nothing of that sort Arsenne. What do you mean by original sin? Are you Catholic or Protestant? And how would you explain original sin in terms our genetics? Can we see sin in the human gnome?

I hope not. I dont believe in god or anything. I believe in what i can see.

@@wernerlottering8848 our genetics dont carry sin but carries a lot of identical parts with monkeys. ;)

@@arsennelupin8561 I am not necessarily in disagreement with you concerning our ancestory with apes. And to say that you believe in what you see seems to me not a good enough reason not to believe that God exists, to be honsest. How do you come to such a conclusion? There is no good reason to say that just because you have not seen something that it is not true. I mean, you did not see the Big Bang and how it looked or the formation of the earth and how it took shape. That does not mean that those things did not happen. We see the workings of God in the universe and posit that God exists. There are volumes of good evidence that points to the existence of God and along with that numerous evidences for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth to validate Christian beliefs.

OMG..such wonderful claims! LOLOL

Meeh!

God has a son!!! Why not daughter? Does he has a wife? God all great all power all wise , eternal, omnipotent will never has a son or daughter or wife. He is almighty the creator of all creations. Jesus peace be upon him is just a prophet and messenger like his brothers before him starting from our father all Adam , Noah , Ibrahem and so on.

@@aboalighazali9597 i agree with you partly. He has none of that because there is no good reason or evidence to believe that such a being exsists.

@Richard Fox at one point there was clear evidence that the earth was the center of the universe. And if there is a God, then there is definitely also a devil whos goal is to deceive. There is scientific evidence on my side. Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson (microbiologist), Dr. Jason Lisle (astrophysicist) and many more whos names I can't remember can explain that side better than I can, but from a purely philosophical point of view (as that is the specialty of Dr. Craig) it is more consistent with the character of God to believe that His word could be easily understood in a plain sense reading, than to believe He would leave us with a riddle that must be read with a key in the form of a specific literary genre.

@Richard Fox Not to be rude, but you're simply wrong. The belief that the earth was at the center of the universe was based on a mathematical "model" that accurately predicted the path stars would take across the night sky. It was the very best science and mathematics had to offer at the time. Look up the Ptolemaic Model.

@Jaron Hooten - surely the question you should be starting with is whether a 6 day creation and a literal Adam and Eve is consistent with scientific evidence. In both these cases the answer has to be no, for all the reasons that the most cursory review of the evidence would show. But this does not mean the stories are untrue - they are myths - they carry a truth, but are not true in themselves. Promoting a 6 day creation and a literal Adam and Eve will kill the Church, as they are so demonstrably false.

@@Faust2Dr I wholeheartedly disagree with not only your assessment of the available scientific data, but your conclusions about the Bible and the Church that you draw from them. I have taken more than a "cursory" look and have seen enough to know that the science is far from settled on the age of the earth and the genetic evidence of an ancestral pair at the top of our family tree.

@@Faust2Dr I have been told my entire life that science has proven that God is unnecessary to explain life and origins. The accepted scientific paradigm says there is no God. Accepting that paradigm is what will "kill the church".

I think he does not believe in genesis because the way its written. After all we are star dust, acording to science. But genesis is very similar to other mithological explanations for natural fenoma and not consistent with the nature of god

Dr. Craig is a philosopher that relies on empirical evidence and everyday experiences. So if the evidence for the beginning of the universe is that it is the beginning of spacetime, then it would be reasonable for him to believe the universe was created ex nihilo. But with regards to biology, no one has empirically seen any humans coming out de novo. Just to clarify on Dr. Craig's epistemology.

why are people debating this in the 21st century....humans trace back to at least 200.000 years...homo erectus 1.8 million

He’s not flabbergasted at de novo creation. He’s talking about whether the biblical account is literal or figurative. And given that it anthropomorphises God as having hands to mould clay and a mouth to breath into Adam’s nostrils WLC views this as a figurative account.

@@paulrichards6894 Good luck with putting facts on this comment feed, most of these people don't deal with facts, it hurts their religion too much.

Did you make it till the 38 minute mark when he touches on original sin?

@@Kingoflettuce Thanks Ryan. Yes, I listened Dr.WLC classified Original sin is based on Romans 5 as fact while rejecting the historical Adam & Eve described in Genesis 2 isn't literal. I don't think he understands the foundation of the Holy Bible, he along with Joshua may entertaining but not helpful any way to hasten the kingdom of heaven.

You sound crazy 🤪

@@bilbobaggins4403 Not a surprise, John 10:20 is true.

,

Pick and choose the bits you like, a cafeteria if you will!

@@rob-890 I'm not sure how respecting the work of an ANE scholar who is interpreting an ANE document or seeing a cohesion between his interpretation and the gospel is 'picking and choosing'. (ANE = ancient near east)

@@danielcartwright8868 The believers keep throwing random, esoteric concepts and their spokespeople at a wall to see if they stick better than spaghetti. Christians love to water down what it is they claim to believe in the first place. It's so easy to witness the weakness of their position exposed... (just get them talking amongst themselves and see how little they are up to speed regarding their supposed "beliefs"). Comical, really. Sad too. Adults... pretending to know what gods think and desire.... all the while denying the actuality of what they are able to substantiate. And, still, without good evidence for their personal, opinion based fairy tales. Don't you agree?

@@seawolf7649 You're the one putting out the opinion-based fairy tale founded on pure ignorance.

We actually know they didn't exist

According to bible mythology sin entered the world via the creator of everything, bible god.

@@MrAuskiwi101 that too!

Good point. If you affirm Biblical inerrancy you probably have to affirm a literal Adam

@@jasper2621 I think it's more to do with taking the bible literally or allegorically, rather than being inerrant. Paul took Adam to be a literal single person going by this verse .

@@jezah8142 exactly. Just looking at genesis, it’s not clear whether it’s literal or allegorical, but add in Paul’s commentary and you clearly have to read it as literal.

It's quite a reasonable amount of time to say that genetics cannot provide an answer to a question like that.

Do you have any idea what those say?

Indeed. Why should we rule it out?

Yes, agreed. I'd prefer to agree with the Bible and just wait for science to catch up. God's Word will be vindicated in the end. I've read that Neanderthals, for example, just look like very old people who lived for a long time after the flood and the opinion of Creation scientists is that their dna is too degraded to analyse properly.

If Jesus was both fully human and fully God, then perhaps his full humanness results in him believing in what his Jewish tradition believed in, even if that belief was not literally accurate. In addition, how do we know how Jesus actually interpreted the Adam and Eve narrative? Perhaps Jesus viewed that narrative a non-literal story that pointed to a larger truth.

@@ayurajanyamaka9255 Fair. But he refers to the text a bit literally. He timelines the institution of marriage, that “in the beginning, God made Adam and Eve.” Next, he forbids anyone to “asunder” marriage. Like…would Jesus base an argument about creation and marriage using a historic legend?

Like, when has Jesus ever described God’s activity in terms of legend? What other mytho-historical references does Jesus allude to in the Nee Testament?

You could call that the ‘argumentum de umbilico’ :)

They were once attached to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

@@user-vw6xp5nl6t Who's that ?

And they had stem cells. What's your point?

What is new atheism?

@@MoNtYbOy101 it's that thing that everyone understands what it is and have spilled gallons of ink on

when people talk about adam and eve being historical what do you expect....along with the flood they are the easiest to debunk in the bible....

@@billj6109 do the same as new Christianity?

Very well said. Still too nice though. WLC is a man to be avoided by a mile when it comes to theology. Good debater and philosopher for sure. It is him, who starts with myths. Myths of 19th century fool. It is a blasphemy to say, that there are myths in the word of the Living God. And if he won't repent he will bear the consequences... 😔

Amen! For God everything is possible, even a 6 day creation week! Jesus belived it. And so do I. Darwins theory is not proven on the macro-evolution. The question is how Great a God we have. Hard to understand with our micro-brains. People always tend to lower God to human standard thinking. Science should be to study creation as most God fearing scientists used to do before they were shut off the room by darwinist faith. Christianity and Darwinism is not able to unite. Totalt different and not anything for christians to mess with. Let each faith stand alone.

Shut up, ❄

lol WLC is a clown and king of misrepresentations. I'd love to debate him. His BS wouldn't last 5 mins.

@@MrAuskiwi101 I'm sure he'd love to debate some rando on the internet

@@jasper2621 I'd love to do it is his home town. WLC is an embarrassment to humanity.

@Souvik if he did, this video would not have been there.

@@MrAuskiwi101 uh dude are you talking about the Kalam because that shit is sound 😂

I'd say it's quite important, because if it's literal, it is demonstrably wrong, meaning that at least that part of the Bible is wrong.

@@Zeus-bn3nc it is only important for people looking for a reason not to believe in the truths about humanity. If you are looking for a reason not to believe they aren't hard to find. If you are willing to admit your personal falability, personal unholiness, unworthiness, when you realize you cannot be good enough to stand before the holiness of God, all else becomes less than. Grace is unmerited favor. Meaning I have it because of what God did. I don't have all the answers, but I have the ones that matter.

Well, it might be important whether or not you actually believe God. Do you think the Holy Spirit was mistaken or lying when He inspired the author to write the words in Genesis 1 - 3?

@@nooncecares But how do you know that if Genesis is literal and thus wrong? We can't get that from the Bible. What is a 'truth about humanity' that requires God or so? And what does 'unholiness' and 'unworthiness' even mean if we can't apply the context of what's said in the Bible? Additionally, why would one care about the 'holiness of God' if we can't trust his book?

@@rubiks6 you and I probably have a different concept of what inspiration is/means. I am often inspired. I can't know anything for you. You can't climb in my mind and think my thoughts. I know God is real.

The gospel is foolishness to the perishing. The deflation of the biblical narrative does nothing to promote or extend salvation to a damned people. We are failing being the image of God as we continue to seek contrary explanations for the biblical authority. I don't see how the salvation of humanity via the blood of Christ can be reconciled in the heart of one who refuses to believe in the creative authority of a God who cannot be the light until day 4, when he has chosen to craft the sun. Consensus is not science, especially as we grow further from true science. Our biases are becoming more deeply deceptive to proper science. As we move further from truth and heap up bad knowledge it becomes less likely that we will accept findings that prove opposite. When Christ appeals the Genesis Adam and Eve, When the ten commandments appeals to 6 day creation, you must either accept it, or reject it.

Maybe it’s best if people that have to have a scientific faith keep moving past Christianity , it may be too hard for them 😉 kidding sir it’s for all but I’m curious if your a Christian and do you find the Bible to be mythological ?

@@Mellownius ... Yah, I wonder why folks may have a hard time with talking snakes, donkeys, etc... Haven't they seen Shrek (Lol)... Nah, in all seriousness... No, I'm not affiliated with any Religion... I do; however, can see the usefulness in Religion (if properly executed)... I also think it would be useful for Christians to utilize the Mythological nature of many parts of the Bible... I think the Religion would do better than what it's already done and the longevity of it may be more easily sustained. It may be easier for the more scientific minded folks to buy into some of it.

William Lane Craig’s problem is he wants to dance on two weddings at the same time or better said serve two masters simultaneously and you already mentioned the coffin’s nail to WLC’s position: Jesus speaks of Adam and Eve as historical persons. Finito la musica. No other proof and argument is needed.

How to much studying can make you dumb. Keep it simple and believe the Bible

@@williamofbaskerville359 I agree with this. Jesus spoke about them as if they were real people. I don't need any more evidence that they in fact existed

@@stevedjuric8474 Not dumb. Sometimes too much intellect causes one to overthink. WLC is convinced of this, so it's obvious he's thought it through. He's just come to the wrong conclusion, imo. Definitely not a dumb man. A thinking man? Yes. Sometimes we ALL have a tendency to over analyze or analyze from pressupositions.

@@LetsTalkChristMinistries I can number you thousands brilliant minds who are heretical. Rather to be simple and take god at his word.… nobody questions his salvation but living in this time and age especially requires sounds doctrine so not to lead simple mind like me to error. I maybe a doctor and not a brilliant one …but I can see more errors of him which is not worth debating. I did followed him for long time …

He’s an old dude. He’s gotta watch his health

He is getting older

I purposely scrolled through to see if anyone else acknowledged his breathing as well. I agree he sounds as though he may have had a respiratory tract infection.

He's hoping to kick those non-filtered Camels by Christmas.

He has Charcot-Marie-Tooth syndrome so I hope it's a routine infection and not a sign of progression, God bless him.

Since you can easily distinguish between a historical letter and a founding myth. Historical fiction didn’t exist until recently, so it’s implausible to think that the gospel letters about a verified person added impossible elements for no reason + a lot of other factors within the gospels that make them reliable testimony like unintended coincidence, unexplained allusions, and trivial details.

Different writers, different era, different purpose of writing. To ask this question without actually considering the posibilities of ancient text is rather ignorant. How does one conclude that the story of king arthur was not a purely historical account in comparison to the battle of hastings?

Indeed - how does one interpret different genres? It’s impossible! There is only one genre, LITERAL LITERATURE, and thus I am confused by books like *Pilgrim’s Progress* or the Book of Revelation.

@@randomperson2078 Wait until you meet Star Wars

He's also appealing to the similar accounts of Genesis in the Babylonian creation accounts to explain how ancients did history. Genesis does seem to belong to an ancient Mesopotamian oral culture.

?

I honestly feel if Creation was meant to be taken figuratively, then there should be some sort of indication that isn't found much later in the Bible that it is.