The other thing that makes God a natural stopping point is that everyone believes that something has to be eternal. If nothing exists, nothing is all there could ever be. Even that statement is contradictory, nothing can't "be", further proving the point. Even the hardest naturalist has to admit that the big bang did not spring from nothing. So, a Christian believes God is that eternal thing, and the naturalist struggles greatly to pinpoint what they want to believe is eternal, or why it could be so. But the point remains, we all believe in the eternality of something, or someone to bring this reality to fruition.
A naturalist doesn't struggle with the idea of the eternal. A naturalist seeks to derive the natural laws of the universe and then explain the things we can observe within the scope of those laws. We put together all of the reasonable explanations, rule out the ones we can, and in the course of studying the ones we cannot rule out, we assign probability to them. An intellectually honest person says "I don't know", instead of assuming that the people before him already had all the answers. Especially when a person has no evidence of the god that everyone seems to think is real.
@@deluxeassortment That’s an odd statement, of course there is evidence for God. We all have the same evidence, but it is our interpretation of the evidence that differs. The naturalist starts with “there is no God” and reasons from there which really limits any other possible outcome. Anything that points to a designer is rejected as a possible interpretation since God does not exist.
Not much is new actually, what he said are real issues except for his theological position. Most evolutionary biologists now agree that modern synthesis models do not have sufficient explanatory power to explain Evolution. It is now pretty much accepted that the cell and not DNA specifically is the driver of morphological change. We also know that this algorithm-like information that affects the gene regulatory networks is shared in all species showing that this information existed from the beginning of life. The only question is, is it purely natural or intelligent design? Science has no evidence on this as the Origin of Life question purely revolves around metaphysical hypotheses.
@@iain5615 true !! I appreciate the post-neo-Darwinian hypotheses, but they also lack the explanation necessary for the new information necessary for new animal life. Which one do you tend to lean towards ?
@@clarkharney8805 I do not believe Neo-Darwinian Hypotheses actually have sufficient explanatory power to explain most of evolution. They do explain small changes within a genome such as dogs from wolves, and the variety of breeds, etc. However, when looking at mass speciation events and the fossil records of those events as well as actual empirical studies, these hypotheses fail. As such I believe epigenetics is the primary driver of major speciation events and major morphological changes. This has also been shown to work in empirical studies too. If Neo-Darwinian hypotheses have failed empirical studies while epigenetics has been shown to achieve real morphological change, etc. then I will always go with the epigenetic route.
@@iain5615 Epigenetics is super cool ! I agree, it still has to prove its explanatory scope and power to solve the fundamental problem of the origins of biological novelty and complexity of ontogenetic information. Another area of interest; What do you think about other post-neo-Darwinian theories; species selection, neutral evolution, natural genetic engineering, neo-Lamarckian epigenetic inheritance, niche construction ? Have you heard of them ?
Half an hour in, Bechly authority quoted Peter Ward’s 2006 book on the Triassic Explosion, but as that includes the RMT he previously appeared to accept, we can be curious as to what conceptual sidesteps we’re about to get now, especially as he went to Haramiyida, which Debuysschere 2016 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5075691/ notes is one of the more poorly known members (basically spotted by just their teeth). Likewise, just how abrupt is the appearance of dinosaurs, given that Nesbitt et al 2013 on Nyasaurus rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/9/1/20120949 pushed the boundary back millions of years, and that the archosaurs involved all look a lot alike (small bipeds with long necks and balancing tails). The full dinosaur mode involved an incremental shift to a fully upright stance, not some out of the blue fresh body plan. Putting up just the name of the animal without reference to what the others looked like is again the sort of maneuver we would expect from a Duane Gish style creationist, and Bechly was in Gishian selective citation mode with Bernardi et al 2018 www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03996-1 which described the rapid diversification of dinosaurs that had been minor players previously, not that the ones doing the diversifying were inexplicable or involved radically new body forms. And why did Bechly call up the 1903 partial skull of Paliguana as an exemplar for what is, after all, a minor reptile niche? It was found ironically by Robert Broom, the same fellow who correctly predicted the double-jawed transitional therapsids that Bechly did not allude to in his sprint of acceptance of the RMT. With the slightly misspelled “Pappochelis” we really have to wonder what manner of transitions Bechly is expecting for turtles, since the Schoch & Sues 2015 paper www.nature.com/articles/nature14472 noted this as yet shell-less ancestor had just the traits a transitional would need to spur on to the later turtle lineage. Even more curious was the long reach of bringing up Ctenosauriscus, since Butler et al 2011 journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025693 described a taxon far from the root of the later crocodiles (who have their own fertile paleontological record, branching off initially with very generic forms that only much later take on the distinctive crocodilian profile). Bechly morphed still more on the Gishian line as the video progressed, waving isolated examples without investigating why there might be difficulties in resolving the paths. That is assuredly the case with marine reptiles, offered without sources, though the chart on ichthyosaurs he alluded to later comes from Fischer et al. 2012 journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029234. How would one spot the earliest branching for Triassic marine reptiles given (a) how few deposits are available (plate subduction) & (b) are above water for paleontologists to dig in (submarine paleontology having yet to hit its stride)? The Mesozoic marine reptiles start out small and near-shore fauna, then go through many a shift over the millions of years to come, per Bardet et al 2014 www.researchgate.net/publication/262793802_Mesozoic_marine_reptile_palaeobiogeography_in_response_to_drifting_plates nd Scheyer et al 2014 journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0088987&type=printable with Jiang et al 2016 on early ichthyosaurs www.nature.com/articles/srep26232 If Bechly has some idea what he thinks was going on back then design-wise, we urge him to draft that monograph so we may all see (and to illustrate by more detailed discussion whether ID can explain any of it, let alone better than a common descent model). Concerning one detail Bechly brought up, mosasaur bronchi, as Lindgren et al 2010 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2918493/ laid out, it is not that they have a split that the monitors lack, but where that occurs, shifting to a particular spot as in whales (suggesting some comparable selective pressure anatomically). Perhaps Bechly relied too heavily on a secondary account (Wikipedia for example made the “unlike monitors” comparison). Soft tissue preservation being so rare, the odds of seeing many of the precursor stages are remote, though for the hard parts we know of in the cetacean case, the nares shifts gradually back to the layout found presently. Evidence that Bechly might indeed be riffing off Wikipedia would account for his later authority quoting Richard Klein on the human cognitive revolution but attributing it to “(2000, 2002)” sources he did not identify. The en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Revolution_(human_origins) entry has exactly that with the quote, referring chiefly to Klein’s 2000 paper www.researchgate.net/publication/280081663_Archeology_and_the_Evolution_of_Human_Behavior. The authority quote from Hawks et al 2000 is from faculty.ucr.edu/~shlee/Publications/00%20Bottle(MBE).pdf That Bechly relies on the video claims of Sternberg on whales is also interesting. We hope Sternberg will work out his argument rigorously and with suitable documentation (a Bio-Complexity paper perhaps), but until then a video presentation lacking technical documentation qualifies as, well, just a video presentation lacking technical documentation.
1:39:00 The chasm between answers from an evidentialist and a presuppositionalist. Romans 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. According to Paul, the answer has never been, "they just don't think about it." Suppression is a willful act.
Perhaps the predecessor species were soft bodied, and that's why we cannot find them. Also, the Cambrian explosion was rapid in geological time scales, but it lasted about 25 million years. That's a slower kind of explosion than many people might imagine. Also, horizontal gene transfer accounts for a lot, we just don't understand it well enough to fully incorporate into the Theory of Evolution yet.
@@LitoLochoss "What do you mean by die ? also He raised him self from the death just debunked your point" How do you raise yourself from death, if you are dead, dead => no consciousness any more If god never died on the cross, what was the sacrifice?
@@LitoLochoss "Yes so body death God is a spirit So body death is just flesh my friend and God is not limited so it’s pretty easy to understand" So god did not die on the cross, so what was the sacrifice?
Excellent presentation! It’s wonderful to see a distinguished ex-evolutionist present evidence for the woefully incomplete fossil record.
Quite the extensive overview! Thank you so much!
Excellent presentation.
The other thing that makes God a natural stopping point is that everyone believes that something has to be eternal. If nothing exists, nothing is all there could ever be. Even that statement is contradictory, nothing can't "be", further proving the point. Even the hardest naturalist has to admit that the big bang did not spring from nothing.
So, a Christian believes God is that eternal thing, and the naturalist struggles greatly to pinpoint what they want to believe is eternal, or why it could be so. But the point remains, we all believe in the eternality of something, or someone to bring this reality to fruition.
Yes, EVERYBODY needs to posit an "unmoved mover" (as Aristotle put it) as the absolute 'source' of all things. Agreed.
A naturalist doesn't struggle with the idea of the eternal. A naturalist seeks to derive the natural laws of the universe and then explain the things we can observe within the scope of those laws. We put together all of the reasonable explanations, rule out the ones we can, and in the course of studying the ones we cannot rule out, we assign probability to them. An intellectually honest person says "I don't know", instead of assuming that the people before him already had all the answers. Especially when a person has no evidence of the god that everyone seems to think is real.
@@deluxeassortment
That’s an odd statement, of course there is evidence for God. We all have the same evidence, but it is our interpretation of the evidence that differs. The naturalist starts with “there is no God” and reasons from there which really limits any other possible outcome. Anything that points to a designer is rejected as a possible interpretation since God does not exist.
Thanks. New to me and very interesting. Cheers.
You know it's 2018, you owe it to your audience to put your sources in the discussion so they can follow up and fact check.
Not much is new actually, what he said are real issues except for his theological position. Most evolutionary biologists now agree that modern synthesis models do not have sufficient explanatory power to explain Evolution. It is now pretty much accepted that the cell and not DNA specifically is the driver of morphological change. We also know that this algorithm-like information that affects the gene regulatory networks is shared in all species showing that this information existed from the beginning of life. The only question is, is it purely natural or intelligent design? Science has no evidence on this as the Origin of Life question purely revolves around metaphysical hypotheses.
@@iain5615 true !! I appreciate the post-neo-Darwinian hypotheses, but they also lack the explanation necessary for the new information necessary for new animal life. Which one do you tend to lean towards ?
His sources are in his presentation lol
@@clarkharney8805 I do not believe Neo-Darwinian Hypotheses actually have sufficient explanatory power to explain most of evolution. They do explain small changes within a genome such as dogs from wolves, and the variety of breeds, etc. However, when looking at mass speciation events and the fossil records of those events as well as actual empirical studies, these hypotheses fail.
As such I believe epigenetics is the primary driver of major speciation events and major morphological changes. This has also been shown to work in empirical studies too.
If Neo-Darwinian hypotheses have failed empirical studies while epigenetics has been shown to achieve real morphological change, etc. then I will always go with the epigenetic route.
@@iain5615
Epigenetics is super cool ! I agree, it still has to prove its explanatory scope and power to solve the fundamental problem of the origins of biological novelty and complexity of ontogenetic information. Another area of interest; What do you think about other post-neo-Darwinian theories;
species selection, neutral evolution, natural genetic engineering, neo-Lamarckian epigenetic inheritance, niche construction ? Have you heard of them ?
Half an hour in, Bechly authority quoted Peter Ward’s 2006 book on the Triassic Explosion, but as that includes the RMT he previously appeared to accept, we can be curious as to what conceptual sidesteps we’re about to get now, especially as he went to Haramiyida, which Debuysschere 2016 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5075691/ notes is one of the more poorly known members (basically spotted by just their teeth).
Likewise, just how abrupt is the appearance of dinosaurs, given that Nesbitt et al 2013 on Nyasaurus rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/9/1/20120949 pushed the boundary back millions of years, and that the archosaurs involved all look a lot alike (small bipeds with long necks and balancing tails). The full dinosaur mode involved an incremental shift to a fully upright stance, not some out of the blue fresh body plan. Putting up just the name of the animal without reference to what the others looked like is again the sort of maneuver we would expect from a Duane Gish style creationist, and Bechly was in Gishian selective citation mode with Bernardi et al 2018 www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03996-1 which described the rapid diversification of dinosaurs that had been minor players previously, not that the ones doing the diversifying were inexplicable or involved radically new body forms.
And why did Bechly call up the 1903 partial skull of Paliguana as an exemplar for what is, after all, a minor reptile niche? It was found ironically by Robert Broom, the same fellow who correctly predicted the double-jawed transitional therapsids that Bechly did not allude to in his sprint of acceptance of the RMT.
With the slightly misspelled “Pappochelis” we really have to wonder what manner of transitions Bechly is expecting for turtles, since the Schoch & Sues 2015 paper www.nature.com/articles/nature14472 noted this as yet shell-less ancestor had just the traits a transitional would need to spur on to the later turtle lineage.
Even more curious was the long reach of bringing up Ctenosauriscus, since Butler et al 2011 journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025693 described a taxon far from the root of the later crocodiles (who have their own fertile paleontological record, branching off initially with very generic forms that only much later take on the distinctive crocodilian profile).
Bechly morphed still more on the Gishian line as the video progressed, waving isolated examples without investigating why there might be difficulties in resolving the paths. That is assuredly the case with marine reptiles, offered without sources, though the chart on ichthyosaurs he alluded to later comes from Fischer et al. 2012 journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029234. How would one spot the earliest branching for Triassic marine reptiles given (a) how few deposits are available (plate subduction) & (b) are above water for paleontologists to dig in (submarine paleontology having yet to hit its stride)?
The Mesozoic marine reptiles start out small and near-shore fauna, then go through many a shift over the millions of years to come, per Bardet et al 2014 www.researchgate.net/publication/262793802_Mesozoic_marine_reptile_palaeobiogeography_in_response_to_drifting_plates
nd Scheyer et al 2014 journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0088987&type=printable
with Jiang et al 2016 on early ichthyosaurs www.nature.com/articles/srep26232
If Bechly has some idea what he thinks was going on back then design-wise, we urge him to draft that monograph so we may all see (and to illustrate by more detailed discussion whether ID can explain any of it, let alone better than a common descent model).
Concerning one detail Bechly brought up, mosasaur bronchi, as Lindgren et al 2010 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2918493/ laid out, it is not that they have a split that the monitors lack, but where that occurs, shifting to a particular spot as in whales (suggesting some comparable selective pressure anatomically). Perhaps Bechly relied too heavily on a secondary account (Wikipedia for example made the “unlike monitors” comparison). Soft tissue preservation being so rare, the odds of seeing many of the precursor stages are remote, though for the hard parts we know of in the cetacean case, the nares shifts gradually back to the layout found presently.
Evidence that Bechly might indeed be riffing off Wikipedia would account for his later authority quoting Richard Klein on the human cognitive revolution but attributing it to “(2000, 2002)” sources he did not identify. The en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Revolution_(human_origins) entry has exactly that with the quote, referring chiefly to Klein’s 2000 paper www.researchgate.net/publication/280081663_Archeology_and_the_Evolution_of_Human_Behavior. The authority quote from Hawks et al 2000 is from faculty.ucr.edu/~shlee/Publications/00%20Bottle(MBE).pdf
That Bechly relies on the video claims of Sternberg on whales is also interesting. We hope Sternberg will work out his argument rigorously and with suitable documentation (a Bio-Complexity paper perhaps), but until then a video presentation lacking technical documentation qualifies as, well, just a video presentation lacking technical documentation.
1:39:00 The chasm between answers from an evidentialist and a presuppositionalist. Romans 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
According to Paul, the answer has never been, "they just don't think about it." Suppression is a willful act.
th-cam.com/video/uXtrH1aAhLA/w-d-xo.html
Perhaps the predecessor species were soft bodied, and that's why we cannot find them. Also, the Cambrian explosion was rapid in geological time scales, but it lasted about 25 million years. That's a slower kind of explosion than many people might imagine.
Also, horizontal gene transfer accounts for a lot, we just don't understand it well enough to fully incorporate into the Theory of Evolution yet.
Jesus Christ is God.
But Jesus apparently died on the cross
How is it possible for an omnipotent, omniscience deity to die ?
What/who resurrected this deity?
@@miscamisca6775 What do you mean by die ? also He raised him self from the death just debunked your point
@@LitoLochoss
"What do you mean by die ? also He raised him self from the death just debunked your point"
How do you raise yourself from death, if you are dead, dead => no consciousness any more
If god never died on the cross, what was the sacrifice?
@@miscamisca6775 Yes so body death God is a spirit So body death is just flesh my friend and God is not limited so it’s pretty easy to understand
@@LitoLochoss
"Yes so body death God is a spirit So body death is just flesh my friend and God is not limited so it’s pretty easy to understand"
So god did not die on the cross, so what was the sacrifice?