Creationism is only "gaining movement" in creationist bubbles. In the academic discourse they're gaining as much traction as the flat-earthers. If they came up with a model for creationism that'd be a good first step.
@@20july1944 Argument from ignorance fallacy. If he is pointing out deficiency in ID and creationism then that's what needs to be patched no "but you haven't got an alternative so therefore we should stick with this bad one".
@@elawchess No, I merely want to agree on what we know and don't know. Apparently you don't have a model for the origin of matter/energy WITHOUT a Creator. Somehow, we definitely need one.
Return of the God Hypothesis, by Steven Myers, is a must read on this subject. This book and the one by J Warner Wallace, Person of Interest, is another good resource that every Christian should have.
@@frosted1030 I have been reading the Return of the God Hypothesis for a while and, to me, Dr. Myers offers solid arguments for his hypothesis and provides good rebuttals for a completely materialistic view of how the universe came to be and how life first began. He is also modest in claims in that he does not say that his arguments prove that he is right or disproves the other views. From what I have read so far I believe he builds a good case for the Return of the God Hypothesis. Thank you for sharing our thoughts on his work.
@@eaglefangapologetics4678 " Dr. Myers offers solid arguments for his hypothesis" (Facepalm) First, Meyer isn't a practicing scientist, he's a shill for the discovery institute (a biased blog). Secondly no respected scientific journals have published anything related to this "hypothesis". It's just the same old fallacies. Most importantly, he doesn't support his assertion, instead he uses a simple argument from ignorance and gaps fallacy to pretend he has more to talk about. We can discredit this instantly when we ask the simple question: Can you provide support without using fallacious logical argument? "From what I have read so far I believe he builds a good case for the Return of the God Hypothesis." That's not science. It's only trying to convince an echochamber. Can you name anything he postulates, anything at all, that does not require fallacious logical argument? No? Then stop pretending you have some type of authority to elevate creationist prattle to the same stature as a scientific hypothesis! You don't, he is unpublished, and nobody (in the scientific community) takes him seriously.
I can't see that Adam Shapiro added anything to this discussion. I guess it's true that people use the phrase intelligent design differently but beyond that, he seemed to avoid argument entirely. Casey is correct that he completely strawmanned the ID argument around the 55 min. mark, so I question whether or not he is even informed enough on ID to debate it. He seems like he skim-read the Discovery Institutes blog but hasn't actually read the major works. Has public interest in ID died down? I believe it has. But I think that's for the better. These days, it's hard to make mainstream news if you aren't indoctrinating children with your religious/political views. ID researchers need to stay in the lab and out from in front of the cameras. The design argument is an academic question/issue. Unless you want to run Amber Heards fecal deposit through Dembskis explanatory filter, I don't see why the general public even ought to be interested.
Yes, I noticed the same thing as well. To be fair though, Adam did say he didn't want to speak on specific arguments that are not directly related to his area of expertise (history). Intelligent Design is indeed advancing though. There's no doubt about that 🙂
@@LoveYourNeighbour. The ID movement has not published a properly peer-reviewed article supporting ID in a scientific journal, failed to publish any peer-reviewed research or data, and it offers no testable or tenable hypotheses. It's regarded as pseudoscience for a reason. You could argue that it's advancing in the minds of certain Christians, but with all due respect, you're demonstrably wrong if you think it's advancing in the field of science.
idk how likely simulation hypothesis is the way its usually described (infinite simulations within a base reality) but the argument for it is the best argument for god imo. atheism in that sense is basically just the idea that a infinite multiverse is only capable of finite low level complexity. which doesn't seem very likely given our current level of emerging complexity in our own universe.
Meh, you can't have an informative discussion on whether ID is advancing or not and *not* include an evolutionary scientist in the discussion to push back. Once again: disappointed on the slant this show has taken lately. It used to be way more balanced, more willing on having tough discussions.
Well wouldn't an evolutionary scientist merely be interested in specific mechanisms in HOW SPECIFIC PHYSICAL characteristics have developed and NOT WHETHER OR NOT intelligence or intentionality is imbued in reality? I mean, it would be like expecting a manufacturer of salt to discuss the details of a recipe on pot pie.
@@20july1944 I speculate that, in alignment with Newton's Laws, energy can't be created or destroyed. So it is just a necessary being. You speculate that that God is a necessary being. Cool that was fun
Adams brought up a lot of points that cut both ways though he doesn't seem to be aware of it. Just as certain groups employ ID as a means to push religion. Atheists, and even some of the most popular atheistic scientists do the same with evolution wrt atheism, materialism, naturalism, etc. None of that speaks for or against the legitimacy of any of those positions though.
Even if ID were a probability (unlikely) we know it isnt any of the gods touted by any known religion. So it is not the Christian god, that one has been debunked beyond reasonable doubt
You cannot debunk God. He made everything that’s been made through his spoken Word! “The heavens declare the glory of God. The skies proclaim His handiwork.”
i disagree. to some extent at least. cooperative outcomes in game theory are what lead to the emergence of complexity throughout the whole known universe. jesus christ was sorta like the recipe for the ultimate complex system i.e. god. like sure, magic prolly doesn't exist, but that doesn't make the key ingredients of christianity any less true.
@@m76353 The probability of life originating on Earth by chance, is as probable as a tornado assembling a 747. Sir Fred Hoyle We clearly are designed, made and intelligently created. No magic - all God, an all powerful, all knowing and all present God.
@@gandysweet4288 i think god is real too. i just don't like your argument for "why". if the universes/multiverses (whatever) is infinite, then any "probability" above zero would HAVE to exist infinitely as well. so the fact that life COULD evolve, means it HAS to evolve no matter how small the probability. the same argument works for god too. like that fact that an ultimate complex system (what we would call god) could possibly exist within the laws of physics, would mean god HAS to exist, as long as the laws of physics allow for it.
@@silphiumforever For one he wasn't asking for an argument so I didn't give him one. And also if my world view is correct then this is not really a threat just as telling someone with cancer that he has cancer isn't a threat. And if his world view is correct then just as telling someone who has not a cancer has cancer is not a threat. It might cause him to go to a doctor to look if he has cancer, but besides that I don't see where the threat could lie here. Unless of course I could somehow make a God appear out of nowhere with nothing but my words. But I doubt that.
@@benrex7775 And if your insightful comment "You will" was not obviously completed by "and then you'll be sorry" then I am the King of Siam. Deny it all you want.
@@benrex7775 Yes mate, I was asking for an argument or rather making a point which it seems has escaped you. Read Why I'm not a Christian by Bertrand Russell and he has raised the same point. A creator who is supposed to be prefect making this world with so much sufferings and inequity in which we have no choice but to live can't be a good designer. As for threat, yes it is implicit in your response, in the sense your God or rather his son is rubbing his hands in glee waiting to burn in hell all those who won't accept him, for eternity.
One must clearly distinguish between the claims ID makes and the persons or groups who exploit these discoveries for a variety of religious/political/whatever purposes. . These are two distinct and separate and objectively unrelated battlefields. The claim of ID has been articulated ad nauseam, along with clear explanations of what their claim does not entail. . Should be understood by now.
I contest Adams view that ID is being associated with God, as it is most recognised for the science of Irreducible Complexity, it is Evolutionists that try to link ID to religion.
There was a court case that undeniably showed the two are linked. Creationist always go to conspiracy with the Dover trial though because it destroys their "were not smuggling in a god" claim. Even though the judge was a popular conservative appointed by Bush.
@@BigDongWong Evolution is a supposition at best, really it is an Aunt Sally argument, and it must apply Irreducible Complexity to prove its case. That is why Creationists like me like that science, as it was that lack of any evidence for Evolution, other than adaptation, which is a built in system not by mutation, and why other ideas of multiverses and alien seeding are used.
No I think the religious proponents intentionally tried (unsuccessfully) to strip ID of it's religious connotation so as to better sneak it in politically.
@@elawchess Its not about Dover, its about the science of Irreducible Complexity which tests Evolution, and whether people are aware of the gaps in Evolution. However society moves on and now science is in the bin, and the WOKE have labelled it White Supremist.
Why can’t we say this to our students? Instead of saying wow, four limbs in so many animals can be a sign of a common designer, we are required in public schools to teach that they are all descended from a common ancestor.
@@gueritamom1 do you actually believe all quadrupedal animals just individually developed four legs? No sir. Do some research on analogous and homologous synapomorphies
Most secular academics have no interest in hearing arguments about intelligent design or arguments that question secular mythology concerning our origins. I was recommended a Jordan Peterson podcast recently where he had an evolutionary biologist talk about the alleged 1% difference between human and chimp DNA. Anyone who had researched this knows this is a lie. There may be a mid section of genetic information with a 99% similarity, but when you include the full genome for both chimps and humans the similarity is only 69% to 80% similar which casts serious doubt on common ancestry claims. Yet this lie continues to be parroted over and over despite being debunked.
He's repeating an argument he's made several/many times. He's organized his thoughts and condensed them for obvious reasons. You could call that a script, but it is pointless to reinvent a wheel he know's he'll use again.
I'm on Casey's side, I wasn't being critical. I pick fights with atheists based on cosmology and by this point I have a mental script that I work from because it is as condensed and clear as I can make it.
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros I didn't say I'm a scientist, I'm a military analyst but my education included the astrophysics course sequence at the University of Chicago, so I know the cosmogony issues. Casey is making an argument he has command of and has honed his points for quick elaboration. If you want to discuss cosmogony with me, that would be interesting.
I'm sorry but this was just a waste of time. No new arguments, baseless claims about "numerous studies" and "person X converted". Justin could have pushed back a bit more to get him to not look at a different screen where his script seemed to be.
@@20july1944 I know a very little bit yes, thanks for asking. About what kind of star would you like to know more? And what would be the link between the workings of that star and evolution or ID?
There are gaps in the theory of Evolution related to all sciences, because each one requires an intelligence and special skill to complete, yet the statistically impossible unrelated unmoralistic God of Evolution is worshipped. So be it.
Do you think science answers more questions or raises more? Penrose, amongst others, finds awe in science because good science raises more questions numerically and raises questions that are harder to answer. secondly, the 'god of the gaps' philosophy is foolish. it's foolish in part because it assumes that only religious people use their theory to answer the unknown. every person uses what they believe is true to make sense of what is unknown, even the materialist. Also, just because we discover the mode of cause doesn't mean we have discovered the initial cause. removing God from the natural process would be like removing a nail being driven by a hammer by the carpenter who controls the hammer.
@@zachrayburn6701 I just read a theory of Penrose's that the universe will end with only photons (light) and no time or space. Of course in Genesis 1:3 God said "Let there be light, and there was light". Maybe God was the 'Singularity' of the universe. It is strange how science keeps agreeing with Genesis.
@@simonskinner1450 I definitely think a metaphysical being (God) is the singularity necessary for creation. There is a correlation between mass and energy according to the theory of general relativity. However, the beginning of the material world would require energy (for a cause) without mass. Since their is a correlation between mass and energy, for anything to exist without mass but have energy (which is necessary at least once) would thereby make that initial cause have infinite power because its not limited by mass. Penrose is such a humble amazing man to listen to. I dont think he has everything right, but I think he is so genuine about admitting he doesn't know everything
@@2l84me8 God demonstrated His power in the things we can clearly see. A theory that popped on the scene less than two hundred years ago has never been demonstrated. Evolution begs the question because it has no origin and you can't test millions of years
@@Converterguy No that’s a baseless assertion once again. Just because you don’t understand the very backbone of modern science doesn’t mean you’ve “debunked” anything. It just shows you don’t care to look at the credible evidence and would rather appeal to magic to solve any questions you had.
Creationism is only "gaining movement" in creationist bubbles. In the academic discourse they're gaining as much traction as the flat-earthers. If they came up with a model for creationism that'd be a good first step.
ID is as dumb as Flat Earth "theory". Bunch of deluded fools that insist on reality fitting their viewpoint instead of the other way around.
Chase Holt, what is your model for the origin of matter/energy WITHOUT a Creator?
@@20july1944 Argument from ignorance fallacy. If he is pointing out deficiency in ID and creationism then that's what needs to be patched no "but you haven't got an alternative so therefore we should stick with this bad one".
@@elawchess No, I merely want to agree on what we know and don't know.
Apparently you don't have a model for the origin of matter/energy WITHOUT a Creator.
Somehow, we definitely need one.
@@20july1944 matter/energy could always have existed. What would be the origin of a creator? From what did the supposed creator create matter/energy?
Return of the God Hypothesis, by Steven Myers, is a must read on this subject. This book and the one by J Warner Wallace, Person of Interest, is another good resource that every Christian should have.
Not an hypothesis. It's a flacious logical argument and dismissed.
@@frosted1030 I have been reading the Return of the God Hypothesis for a while and, to me, Dr. Myers offers solid arguments for his hypothesis and provides good rebuttals for a completely materialistic view of how the universe came to be and how life first began. He is also modest in claims in that he does not say that his arguments prove that he is right or disproves the other views. From what I have read so far I believe he builds a good case for the Return of the God Hypothesis.
Thank you for sharing our thoughts on his work.
@@frosted1030 You offer nothing but your opinion, and seem totally ignorant of science.
You're entitled to your opinion, but it has no wider weight.
@@eaglefangapologetics4678 " Dr. Myers offers solid arguments for his hypothesis" (Facepalm) First, Meyer isn't a practicing scientist, he's a shill for the discovery institute (a biased blog). Secondly no respected scientific journals have published anything related to this "hypothesis". It's just the same old fallacies. Most importantly, he doesn't support his assertion, instead he uses a simple argument from ignorance and gaps fallacy to pretend he has more to talk about. We can discredit this instantly when we ask the simple question: Can you provide support without using fallacious logical argument?
"From what I have read so far I believe he builds a good case for the Return of the God Hypothesis." That's not science. It's only trying to convince an echochamber.
Can you name anything he postulates, anything at all, that does not require fallacious logical argument? No? Then stop pretending you have some type of authority to elevate creationist prattle to the same stature as a scientific hypothesis! You don't, he is unpublished, and nobody (in the scientific community) takes him seriously.
@@frosted1030 You offer nothing but your opinion, and seem totally ignorant of science.
You're entitled to your opinion, but it has no wider weight.
Reminder: The original Scopes trial in Tennessee in 1925 ruled against teaching human evolution in a state-funded school.
Cards on the table guys. Do Casey Luskin and Adam Shapiro believe in a supernatural designer God?
The "G" in recognize is not silent.
NO one knows if there is something behind this all and what it could be if there was. At least I am honest.
Using our pea brains to determine if a being created it is certainly like lifting yourself up by the bootstraps. Man is so arrogant
If ones faith in God is so strong then there is no need for argument and debate. So why?.
I can't see that Adam Shapiro added anything to this discussion. I guess it's true that people use the phrase intelligent design differently but beyond that, he seemed to avoid argument entirely. Casey is correct that he completely strawmanned the ID argument around the 55 min. mark, so I question whether or not he is even informed enough on ID to debate it. He seems like he skim-read the Discovery Institutes blog but hasn't actually read the major works.
Has public interest in ID died down? I believe it has. But I think that's for the better. These days, it's hard to make mainstream news if you aren't indoctrinating children with your religious/political views. ID researchers need to stay in the lab and out from in front of the cameras. The design argument is an academic question/issue. Unless you want to run Amber Heards fecal deposit through Dembskis explanatory filter, I don't see why the general public even ought to be interested.
Yes, I noticed the same thing as well. To be fair though, Adam did say he didn't want to speak on specific arguments that are not directly related to his area of expertise (history). Intelligent Design is indeed advancing though. There's no doubt about that 🙂
@@LoveYourNeighbour. The ID movement has not published a properly peer-reviewed article supporting ID in a scientific journal, failed to publish any peer-reviewed research or data, and it offers no testable or tenable hypotheses. It's regarded as pseudoscience for a reason. You could argue that it's advancing in the minds of certain Christians, but with all due respect, you're demonstrably wrong if you think it's advancing in the field of science.
I am always aware
All creations have a evolution
Since Casey is an ID advocate I wonder how seriously he takes the “Matrix” hypothesis
The "Matrix" idea is one version of ID, intelligent entities would in that case have designed the matrix.
idk how likely simulation hypothesis is the way its usually described (infinite simulations within a base reality) but the argument for it is the best argument for god imo. atheism in that sense is basically just the idea that a infinite multiverse is only capable of finite low level complexity. which doesn't seem very likely given our current level of emerging complexity in our own universe.
Meh, you can't have an informative discussion on whether ID is advancing or not and *not* include an evolutionary scientist in the discussion to push back. Once again: disappointed on the slant this show has taken lately. It used to be way more balanced, more willing on having tough discussions.
Well wouldn't an evolutionary scientist merely be interested in specific mechanisms in HOW SPECIFIC PHYSICAL characteristics have developed and NOT WHETHER OR NOT intelligence or intentionality is imbued in reality? I mean, it would be like expecting a manufacturer of salt to discuss the details of a recipe on pot pie.
I'd like to have a tough discussion with you.
Assuming you're an atheist, what is your model for the origin of matter/energy WITHOUT a Creator?
@@20july1944
I speculate that, in alignment with Newton's Laws, energy can't be created or destroyed. So it is just a necessary being.
You speculate that that God is a necessary being.
Cool that was fun
@@Kvothe3 So is energy a necessary thing?
Is energy a brute fact in your cosmology, as God is a brute fact in mine?
@@20july1944
It seems to be yes. I hold that tentatively since it is subject to further discovery of course but for now it seems to me a brute fact.
I wish Casey would speak up.
Adams brought up a lot of points that cut both ways though he doesn't seem to be aware of it. Just as certain groups employ ID as a means to push religion. Atheists, and even some of the most popular atheistic scientists do the same with evolution wrt atheism, materialism, naturalism, etc. None of that speaks for or against the legitimacy of any of those positions though.
Even if ID were a probability (unlikely) we know it isnt any of the gods touted by any known religion. So it is not the Christian god, that one has been debunked beyond reasonable doubt
You cannot debunk God. He made everything that’s been made through his spoken Word! “The heavens declare the glory of God. The skies proclaim His handiwork.”
i disagree. to some extent at least. cooperative outcomes in game theory are what lead to the emergence of complexity throughout the whole known universe. jesus christ was sorta like the recipe for the ultimate complex system i.e. god. like sure, magic prolly doesn't exist, but that doesn't make the key ingredients of christianity any less true.
@@gandysweet4288 he's not claiming to have debunked god and the sky doesn't proclaim anything except the color blue
@@m76353 The probability of life originating on Earth by chance, is as probable as a tornado assembling a 747. Sir Fred Hoyle
We clearly are designed, made and intelligently created. No magic - all God, an all powerful, all knowing and all present God.
@@gandysweet4288 i think god is real too. i just don't like your argument for "why". if the universes/multiverses (whatever) is infinite, then any "probability" above zero would HAVE to exist infinitely as well. so the fact that life COULD evolve, means it HAS to evolve no matter how small the probability. the same argument works for god too. like that fact that an ultimate complex system (what we would call god) could possibly exist within the laws of physics, would mean god HAS to exist, as long as the laws of physics allow for it.
Earth evolution animal evolution and human evolution
I would very much like to meet the designer God who designed this world this way. I surely have a few bones to pick with him.
You will.
@@benrex7775 Bereft of argument, he figured he would just low key threaten somebody. And *this* is why people are leaving, people like *you*
@@silphiumforever For one he wasn't asking for an argument so I didn't give him one.
And also if my world view is correct then this is not really a threat just as telling someone with cancer that he has cancer isn't a threat. And if his world view is correct then just as telling someone who has not a cancer has cancer is not a threat. It might cause him to go to a doctor to look if he has cancer, but besides that I don't see where the threat could lie here. Unless of course I could somehow make a God appear out of nowhere with nothing but my words. But I doubt that.
@@benrex7775 And if your insightful comment "You will" was not obviously completed by "and then you'll be sorry" then I am the King of Siam. Deny it all you want.
@@benrex7775
Yes mate, I was asking for an argument or rather making a point which it seems has escaped you.
Read Why I'm not a Christian by Bertrand Russell and he has raised the same point. A creator who is supposed to be prefect making this world with so much sufferings and inequity in which we have no choice but to live can't be a good designer.
As for threat, yes it is implicit in your response, in the sense your God or rather his son is rubbing his hands in glee waiting to burn in hell all those who won't accept him, for eternity.
One must clearly distinguish between the claims ID makes and the persons or groups who exploit these discoveries for a variety of religious/political/whatever purposes.
.
These are two distinct and separate and objectively unrelated battlefields. The claim of ID has been articulated ad nauseam, along with clear explanations of what their claim does not entail.
.
Should be understood by now.
😊
I contest Adams view that ID is being associated with God, as it is most recognised for the science of Irreducible Complexity, it is Evolutionists that try to link ID to religion.
There was a court case that undeniably showed the two are linked. Creationist always go to conspiracy with the Dover trial though because it destroys their "were not smuggling in a god" claim. Even though the judge was a popular conservative appointed by Bush.
@@BigDongWong Evolution is a supposition at best, really it is an Aunt Sally argument, and it must apply Irreducible Complexity to prove its case.
That is why Creationists like me like that science, as it was that lack of any evidence for Evolution, other than adaptation, which is a built in system not by mutation, and why other ideas of multiverses and alien seeding are used.
No I think the religious proponents intentionally tried (unsuccessfully) to strip ID of it's religious connotation so as to better sneak it in politically.
Please find out more about the Wedge document, the wedge strategy and Kitzmiller v. Dover
@@elawchess Its not about Dover, its about the science of Irreducible Complexity which tests Evolution, and whether people are aware of the gaps in Evolution.
However society moves on and now science is in the bin, and the WOKE have labelled it White Supremist.
everything lokks designed because it is
Exactly.
Lokks ?
Keep telling yourself that
Why can’t we say this to our students? Instead of saying wow, four limbs in so many animals can be a sign of a common designer, we are required in public schools to teach that they are all descended from a common ancestor.
@@gueritamom1 do you actually believe all quadrupedal animals just individually developed four legs? No sir. Do some research on analogous and homologous synapomorphies
I am tired of this have a good day gentlemen
Always hilarious to se a creationist infront of a wall of books. Small academic d*** energy.
Most secular academics have no interest in hearing arguments about intelligent design or arguments that question secular mythology concerning our origins. I was recommended a Jordan Peterson podcast recently where he had an evolutionary biologist talk about the alleged 1% difference between human and chimp DNA. Anyone who had researched this knows this is a lie. There may be a mid section of genetic information with a 99% similarity, but when you include the full genome for both chimps and humans the similarity is only 69% to 80% similar which casts serious doubt on common ancestry claims. Yet this lie continues to be parroted over and over despite being debunked.
Uhm ... We in the sciences have looked at ID and left laughing...
It is spurious nonsense based on fears and ignorance...
Casey just reading a script
He's repeating an argument he's made several/many times.
He's organized his thoughts and condensed them for obvious reasons.
You could call that a script, but it is pointless to reinvent a wheel he know's he'll use again.
I'm on Casey's side, I wasn't being critical.
I pick fights with atheists based on cosmology and by this point I have a mental script that I work from because it is as condensed and clear as I can make it.
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros I didn't say I'm a scientist, I'm a military analyst but my education included the astrophysics course sequence at the University of Chicago, so I know the cosmogony issues.
Casey is making an argument he has command of and has honed his points for quick elaboration.
If you want to discuss cosmogony with me, that would be interesting.
It's a simulation.
God is just one of the NPCs.
Intelligent design is in retreat. This is inevitable as religion is in decline.
I'm sorry but this was just a waste of time. No new arguments, baseless claims about "numerous studies" and "person X converted". Justin could have pushed back a bit more to get him to not look at a different screen where his script seemed to be.
Do you know any science, Nico, ideally physics such as how a star works?
@@20july1944 I know a very little bit yes, thanks for asking. About what kind of star would you like to know more? And what would be the link between the workings of that star and evolution or ID?
Dave just riped this sharlaton a new one
Love how the god liars still try to shove their imaginary gods into the few last remaining gaps in the sciences..
Hilarious!
There are gaps in the theory of Evolution related to all sciences, because each one requires an intelligence and special skill to complete, yet the statistically impossible unrelated unmoralistic God of Evolution is worshipped. So be it.
Do you think science answers more questions or raises more? Penrose, amongst others, finds awe in science because good science raises more questions numerically and raises questions that are harder to answer. secondly, the 'god of the gaps' philosophy is foolish. it's foolish in part because it assumes that only religious people use their theory to answer the unknown. every person uses what they believe is true to make sense of what is unknown, even the materialist. Also, just because we discover the mode of cause doesn't mean we have discovered the initial cause. removing God from the natural process would be like removing a nail being driven by a hammer by the carpenter who controls the hammer.
@@zachrayburn6701 I just read a theory of Penrose's that the universe will end with only photons (light) and no time or space. Of course in Genesis 1:3 God said "Let there be light, and there was light".
Maybe God was the 'Singularity' of the universe. It is strange how science keeps agreeing with Genesis.
@@simonskinner1450 I definitely think a metaphysical being (God) is the singularity necessary for creation. There is a correlation between mass and energy according to the theory of general relativity. However, the beginning of the material world would require energy (for a cause) without mass. Since their is a correlation between mass and energy, for anything to exist without mass but have energy (which is necessary at least once) would thereby make that initial cause have infinite power because its not limited by mass. Penrose is such a humble amazing man to listen to. I dont think he has everything right, but I think he is so genuine about admitting he doesn't know everything
@@simonskinner1450 ??
I'd believe in god too if I looked like Casey Luskin. What a freaky looking guy.
What a joke
Let's face it, Intelligent design proponents say GOD created everything. And HE did. End of discussion
No that is question begging and baseless assertions.
@@2l84me8 I'm not begging for questions. I made a statement
@@Converterguy No, you’re begging the question with your god assertion. Can you demonstrate your claims?
@@2l84me8 God demonstrated His power in the things we can clearly see. A theory that popped on the scene less than two hundred years ago has never been demonstrated. Evolution begs the question because it has no origin and you can't test millions of years
@@Converterguy No that’s a baseless assertion once again.
Just because you don’t understand the very backbone of modern science doesn’t mean you’ve “debunked” anything. It just shows you don’t care to look at the credible evidence and would rather appeal to magic to solve any questions you had.