@@Birdieupon I am sorry but mine 2 of them disappeared. I just said that Adam and Eve story is nonsense as before they ate a fruit they didnt know what is bar and good . So how they could made any bad decision if they even didnt know what is to make a bad move ? How they could be held responsible to act badly if before they ate fruit- they were not able to know what is bad ?
@@avitalsheva "they were not able to know what is bad ?" Doesn't matter what the tree was called, God told them not to eat of it. Did they know they were doing wrong? Yes there is no excuse for ignorance of the law. That's why Jesus died on the cross and rose three days later; cause they didn't know any better.
@@TheOtiswood DO you have problem with basic logic? How they know it is bad to eat it and how they know that not listen to God id BAD if they didnt know what BAD mean? If you know that something BAD will happen to you , then you can obey and you may know that not listening is BAD. But if you dont know what BAD mean than how you can do anything bad and be responsible for it ? The God sentence to them " you will die" can not be understood as they didnt know what does it mean... because they didnt know what bad mean nor what death mean ( if they would know it then they already would know what it is a BAD thing, before eating fruit)
This is just anecdotal observation but I thought I’d mention it. I graduated for medical school about 50 years ago. I knew then there was something weird going on when I studied biochemistry, physiology, chemistry ,embryology and about every other ology , you can imagine. The more I learned about the specifics of these various disciplines the more I wondered how any of this could work so seamlessly. I couldn’t imagine the amount of concise manipulation of the genetic code would be required to make the simplest stereochemical change in an enzyme as an example.Even if you knew what sequence of amino acids would be required to yield an active site on an enzyme, how would you know how to manipulate the nucleotide sequence in the DNA molecule to be able to manufacture that particular protein? Anyway, the more I learned about the more I realized how little we know and we know an awful lot. It’s just that, like anything in life the more you know the more you know you don’t know..
It doesn't always work "seamlessly". Things malfunction. Take the design of the urethra through the prostate. Not such a good design. So is aging. Not good for any animal. And we are just animals.
Interesting observation. The fact is that most students learn Evolution BEFORE they learn any meaningful biology. This is deliberate as they would not accept Evolution if they understood what it was claimed to have done. Many people are so busy later they never review the Evolutionary foundations they were given so early. We can excuse Darwin as he only knew about animals and plants not biochemistry and cell biology or genetics. Anyone looking at what we know about the cell today will see Evolution for the absurd idea it is.
@@FlowDeFlowDrainage I do believe in the “evolution “ of species but only as an adaptive mechanism to aid in survival .I can’t see a simplistic theory like the evolution of species as being even remotely possible but I do think Darwin,with the limited understanding available at that time ,pretty observant for 1859,saw something but he probably just misinterpreted the extent to which it could explain the tremendous diversity of species.
@@lv4077 Discussion of this topic gets tricky if we don't define the term evolution carefully. Darwin saw evidence that finch beaks on different Islands change according to the food supply. This is driven by the recent climate. Some have short beaks and others long ones. But modern observations show when the weather changes the beak lengths drift back and forth. This demonstrates that both varieties are present and selection just adjusts their numbers. This is not evolution since nothing new is added. We just see selection from latent options. All the examples of observed evolution are like this.
Yes, we know very few about almost everything. And it is normal because our primate brain can not conceive periods of billions of years(to mention just one aspect of the problem). And how matter behaves. It does not mean there are a creator.
On the random chance of producing a simple protein example Dr. Myer speaks to, even if you came up with a protein by random, what would: - Preserve it - Utilize it - Reproduce it the "What" necessary to answer these questions exist yet - all you have is a randomly produced protein that folds in a way that might be useful with nothing to contain it in order to preserve it, use it, and reproduce it. This explanation of the problem massively under estimates the totality of what is needed to produce the first life. And we haven't even touched the chemistry and laws of thermodynamics problems with abiogenesis.
"we haven't even touched the chemistry and laws of thermodynamics problems with abiogenesis." WHAT!?!?! "what is needed to produce the first life." You should stop listening to creationists like Tour and Meyer. They are clueless. ### Role of RNA in Abiogenesis Abiogenesis is the process by which life arises naturally from non-living matter. The RNA world hypothesis is a central theory in understanding how abiogenesis might have occurred, proposing that RNA was a key molecule in the early stages of life. Here’s how RNA fits into the process of abiogenesis: 1. **Formation of Organic Molecules**: - **Prebiotic Chemistry**: Early Earth conditions allowed for the formation of simple organic molecules, such as amino acids and nucleotides, through chemical reactions in environments like hydrothermal vents and tide pools. 2. **Self-Assembly of RNA**: - **Polymerization**: Nucleotides spontaneously polymerized to form short RNA strands, with catalysts such as clay minerals aiding this process. These RNA molecules could store genetic information. 3. **Catalytic RNA (Ribozymes)**: - **Self-Replication**: Some RNA molecules developed catalytic properties, becoming ribozymes capable of facilitating their own replication and other biochemical reactions. This ability to self-replicate was crucial for the persistence and evolution of these molecules. 4. **Formation of Protocells**: - **Encapsulation**: Lipid bilayers formed spontaneously, creating protocells that encapsulated RNA and other molecules. These protocells provided a microenvironment that protected RNA molecules and concentrated them, enhancing the efficiency of replication and other biochemical processes. 5. **Evolution of Complex Replication Mechanisms**: - **Natural Selection**: RNA molecules with efficient replication abilities had a selective advantage. Over time, these molecules evolved more complex and efficient replication mechanisms, leading to the emergence of more sophisticated life forms. 6. **Transition to DNA and Protein-Based Life**: - **DNA and Proteins**: Eventually, RNA-based life forms transitioned to using DNA for long-term genetic information storage and proteins for catalysis. DNA is more stable than RNA, making it a better long-term repository for genetic information, while proteins are more versatile and efficient catalysts. ### Key Points Connecting RNA to Abiogenesis - **Chemical Origin**: RNA molecules formed from basic organic compounds available on early Earth. - **Self-Replication**: RNA's ability to catalyze its own replication made it a prime candidate for early life forms. - **Catalytic Versatility**: RNA’s catalytic properties allowed it to perform essential biochemical reactions, supporting early metabolic processes. - **Protocell Formation**: The encapsulation of RNA within lipid bilayers provided a stable environment for early biochemical processes, leading to more complex cellular structures. ### Conclusion The RNA world hypothesis suggests that RNA was a fundamental molecule in the early stages of life, playing a critical role in storing genetic information, catalyzing biochemical reactions, and facilitating self-replication. These functions were essential for the transition from non-living chemical systems to living organisms, making RNA a key player in the process of abiogenesis.
@@bpuryea in what way do the laws of thermodynamics make abiogenesis less likely? You should look up some of the current scientific research into this I think they've already figured out how proteins can form themselves I mean complex chemistry is going to constantly be happening I'm not sure where you're seeing the difficulty
@@darkeen42You say that "they've" figured out how proteins can form themselves. Who are the "they" you refer to? Where was that published? Other than racimic mixtures of a few amino acids, I have heard of nothing that has been shown that lies on the path of naturalistic syntheses of proteins.
@@BrainDamagedBob A protein that self-replicates Date: February 27, 2018 Source: ETH Zurich Summary: Scientists have been able to prove that a protein structure widespread in nature -- the amyloid -- is theoretically capable of multiplying itself. This makes it a potential predecessor to molecules that are regarded as the building blocks of life. Share: FULL STORY Long regarded as a biological aberration, amyloids are fibrous aggregates of short protein fragments. Amyloids have a bad reputation because they are thought to be the cause of multiple neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.
No, Dr. Meyer you didn't go too long. Just when I started to feel lost you somehow managed to crystalize your profound point/argument in a way I could intellectually grasp. Outstanding work---thank you.
@PageP1975 oh I watched pseudo scientists like Meyer too many times. Meyer has not put out his "science " for peer review for a reason. He only sells books to gullible people.
I have found him long-winded & oftentimes obtuse myself. Would urge him to try to keep it simple & clear. I know the subjects are complicated-keep that for your books & when talking to other scientists-but when talking to the rank & file clarity & simplicity, though not dumbed down, is key.
I understand the mathematical reasoning leading to the conclusion that quantum math equations need a mathematician's living mind to decide those equations necessary for the beginning of a time, space fine-tuned physics Universe. At sunset in the south hemisphere of Central Africa, I looked at the sky and was filled with immense joy: In my mind, I heard: Manuel, you are part of All this beauty! It was so magnificent an impression that I spoke loudly: I Thank You for having Created me.
Looking at the diversity of life on this planet……how many types of fish, birds, mammals, amphibians, insects, bacteria, viruses etc are upon the earth, and then add how many species of plants, trees, flowers, molds, fungi etc…the number is staggering….how can all this flora and fauna come from nothing? All the elements in the universe, all the mathematical equations that add up? How can something this grand can just happen, its too incredible….there must be a grand power behind it all! More powerful than our arrogant human brains want to comprehend you think? I know “he’s” there, watching etc!😁🥰😁
I love your honest expression of what you feel and think when looking at the sheer, magnificent beauty of the unfathomable mystery we have been chosen to live in and experience. I BELIEVE we were chosen by the same Creator of the entire universe, which I BELIEVE is infinite in space and eternal in time. Our Creator is the Holy Spitit referred to in the Christian New Testament and Jewish TANACH. More specifically, our Creator is the God of Abraham found in the Jewish TANACH. Sadly, the Old Testament found in Christian Bibles is a counterfeit version of the Jewish TANACH. Unfortunately, mankind has a long history of disobeying the Will of our Creator, who many deny even exists!!!! That kind of thinking is a symptom of a serious psychological disorder very similar to schizophrenia...where people hear and see things in their minds that don't exist in reality.😇
That's nice. Why don't you check out a hospital filled with innocent individuals suffering from life-threatening diseases and disorders as well? I'm sure you would be able to make the same conclusion!
The Bible is the most interresting book, and once you have a handle on who Jesus is he changes you to a point where you regret your whole previous existence. To repent and believe in Him is life changing. Things make sense again and fear vanishes like fog.
Soo true I’ve been a believer since I was very young but for the past ten years I sort of just stopped learning and yearning for gods word and wanted to just stay where I was but you can’t do that you either better yourself or you worsen yourself but 3 months ago I saw what was going on in Israel and just felt the need to read the Bible and at first in Matthew I couldn’t understand it it was going right over my head I prayed to god to help me understand and literally right after that it started making since in ways it never had before showing me things about my life I’ve never seen before the things I’ve been doin in my life I shouldn’t have been doing and since then my whole life has changed I see everything differently and I believe god woke me up because Jesus is returning for his church very soon it is the season and everyone even nonbelievers feel something going on in the world people feel the end of the world is close but it’s just the end of this age there are millions of Muslims in the Middle East converting to Christianity china has millions as well so many are having visions of Jesus and the rapture and tribulation it’s all over the devil has literally stopped hiding because he knows time is short
Love your neighbor. Love yourself. No Hell No Heaven. No need for blood sacrifice. No resurrection. The Canonical Bible is not Divine. There is no “Bearded Papa” waiting to judge or reward.
@@LGpi314 LMAO NOPE. The more educated people get the more they realize how vulnerable the human mind is to cult of personality and the only freedom from that slavery is to ground ourselves in eternal truth - we are God's creation put here with a purpose.
Who would believe a book is not written from a mind, an intelligent source? No one. Yet some believe the entire universe was created without a mind. Go figure.
A book does not evolve from atomic particles and quantum phenomena. It is a product of human consciousness. The universe is not a product of human consciousness…unless we are living in a simulation. You are obviously not intelligent because you’re not capable of complex thought. Your analogy lacks basic logic and is a pathetic attempt at comparing two mutually exclusive concepts.
@@therick363 The commonality is the intelligence behind both. What insane person cannot see the intelligence behind creation? That is why Einstein and the large majority of scientists are theists, increasingly so the younger they are. To believe that the universe was produced by itself demonstrates great credulity. Kurt Gödel, the best-known mathematician in recent history, was a theist; Einstein, the best-known physicist, was a theist; George Lemaitre, the greatest cosmologist and father of the Big Bang Theory, was a theist and a Catholic priest; Gregory Mendel, the father of genetics, was a theist and also a Catholic priest; and Max Planck and Werner Heisenberg, the fathers of quantum physics, were theists. Francis Collins, the greatest contemporary biologist alive who worked under the last three U.S. Presidents as the Director of NIH, was an atheist who turned theist. Thoroughly convinced by the evidence from science that there is a God, he wrote multiple books on this topic. The founder of modern statistics, Ronald Fisher, was also religious. Robert Boyle, the father of modern chemistry, was a theologian, and the founder of microbiology, Louis Pasteur, was a devout Christian. On the other hand, most of the leaders of the new atheism, which purports to be rigorously scientific, generally studied the humanities, like Daniel Dennett (philosophy), Sam Haris (philosophy/neuroscience), Christopher Hitchens (journalist), Steven Pinker and Darrell Ray (psychologists), and Michel Onfray (high school teacher of philosophy). A few, like Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss, have scientific training and education. The Big Bang Theory indicates a creator, the Second Law of Thermodynamics points to God, and the Uncertainty Principle from Quantum Physics also points to the existence of a Creator.
@@markoneill1768and as dishonest as the day is long. Is he as eloquent as an actual scientists who have actually studied these subjects and now research them? Do you pay any attention to them or is this lying hack as far as it goes?
The universe had existed 9 billion years before the formation of the Earth. It had existed 13.8 billion years before the emergence of humans on Earth. It will continue to exist trillions of years after humankind's extinction. So no, the fine-tuning argument doesn't make any sense.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440So you are just molecules, no purpose or cause to your existence. I don't think so. Jesus came into his creation in the recent past. You are loved by him .
Awesome conversation. Thank you Justin for asking the right questions and what a mind God has blessed Dr Meyer with! Greatful to be alive and hear these responses.
Justin is full of bullcrap and fallacies just like Meyer. The scientific community rejects Stephen C. Meyer primarily because his support for Intelligent Design (ID) lacks empirical evidence, offers unfalsifiable claims, and misrepresents evolutionary theory. ID is viewed as a religiously motivated idea rather than a scientific theory, and Meyer's work has not been widely published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Additionally, legal rulings, like the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover case, have reinforced that ID is not considered science, further solidifying its rejection by mainstream scientists.
You're doing the Lord's work Dr. Meyer. I don't know if you understand how important your voice is, but in this dark world where people run around aimlessly falling into into deeper and deeper darkness, you're a saving grace. Thank you! God bless you!!!! And to all the deaf and blind people commenting, if God is not real, nothing in this world (waking up to work, paying your bills, defending innocents, losing weight) it doesn't matter, you will die anyway. There's NO hope. period. It all sucks. Everyday you have to put up with BS from everything around you and maybe get a few moments of joy in between. No hope. So now, understand what Jesus did... he resurrected. He defeated death. And then he told his disciples to go forth and tell everyone the good news.... that is, the Gospel.
Denis Noble is also challenging Neo Darwinism but still takes a materialistic position. Michael Levin’s work is doing a similar thing but also from a materialistic position. The big difference between this and that of even a decade ago is the recognition that Science is agnostic with regards to God and all other world views. This is good for both Science and philosophy because it requires the Scientist and the philosopher to acknowledge their biases as they approach their work. This can only be healthy.
There is a good reason why science is materialistic. It is the study of the natural world. It can be defined as asking testable questions based on a hypothesis. This is not really a bias, just staying within the field. The God hypothesis cannot be tested until we claim God acts in the world. If God acts in the physical world, it becomes teatable, and a scientific question. Another claim sometimes made is life after death. Science recognizes no evidence and no possible mechanism. While we cannot technically prove a negative, science can say that if people have an afterlife, there is no detectable interaction in the physical world.
@@clark5363 Sure. What bible says - humans were created by evolution? The sun and stars were created after the Earth? So bible is fake, not a god's word.
@@James-ll3jb 98 percent of biologists believe humans evolved over time. Google it yourself. That is huge, huge consensus. These are experts, and I am sure many are theists.
Stephen myer is doing some incredible work. Frank turek always asks atheists an important question “if Christianity were true would you become a Christian?” Many still say no, so it’s not about “proof” as they always claim, they hate the idea of a god, they hate the fact that they can be held to a higher standard to which they do not want to be held too. So that is why people are still denying Stephen myers incredible work. Apparently people in the comment section know more than Stephen myer 😂
Nice little straw man you've built there. But I have a lighter in my hand ... 🔥 If Christianity were true I wouldn't become a Christian because I don't believe in stoning people to death (for any reason); I also don't agree with slavery, genocide, substitutional atonement and many of the other morally dubious/corrupt tenets of Christian morality that Christians, in some bizarre exercise of mind-blindness, seem to genuinely believe is 𝘢 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘥. Wow. Unlike you, I won't speak for all atheists ... ... but I for one, don't hate your god, as I have no reason to believe it exists ... but I definitely dislike the character as portrayed in your theology and regard the idea of such a monster being real as nightmarish. If Christianity were proven true, I'd believe your god exists - but I would not worship it. This is the nuance that whooshed past your hemispheres without even skimming them. Something being proven real is separate from whether that thing deserves respect. Call me weird but I just don't think I'd get on well with a possessor of an eternal torture chamber. There's nothing about that I can respect.
for me as kind of Christian, scienctific evidences are not issue at all. for me biggest problem for Christianity is problem of evil and suffering. There are more than enough of evidences that completely refute evolution.
1. "Incredible" meaning unbelievable? Because I'd agree with that. 2. Yeah Turek's dishonest. Belief *in god* requires evidence *of god.* Yet you'll notice Turek's dishonest question sidesteps that and asks if Christianity were true would you become Christian. So Turek changes the topic from god to Christianity, and then changes it *a second time* from Christianity to becoming Christian. (After all, it's true Kim Jon Un exists, right? Does that mean you follow him? Or would you agree that knowing something is true is different from knowing it's worth following?) It should bother you that the main proponents of your worldview regularly make dishonest arguments like that. It should bother you that there's no logical argument for theism.
In good, er ... faith, I'm gonna assume that you aren't just presenting a vapid and asinine straw man and genuinely believe the things you've said about atheists' position on these matters. Unlike you, I won't speak for all atheists ... If Christianity were true I wouldn't become a Christian because I don't believe in stoning people to death (for any reason); I also don't agree with slavery, genocide, substitutional atonement and many of the other morally dubious/corrupt tenets of Christian morality that Christians, in some bizarre exercise of withering self-deception, seem to genuinely believe is 𝘢 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘥 than any other form of morality. I don't hate your god, as I have no reason to believe it exists ... but I definitely dislike the character as portrayed in your theology and regard the idea of such a monster being real as nightmarish. If Christianity were proven true, I'd believe your god exists - but I would not worship it. This is the nuance that apparently whooshed past your hemispheres without even skimming them. Something being proven real is separate from whether that thing deserves respect. Call me weird but I just don't think I'd get along with a being in possession of an eternal torture chamber ... if I learnt that a neighbour of mine had a torture chamber in which he abused his children I'd be reporting him to the authorities while you were, supposedly, loving him.
@@tonygoodkind7858 Thinking that 4,5 bilion letters word called DNA came to existence randomly over time is more incredible than anything i have heard. You going on a beach and seeing just simple word HAHA writen on sand would never say "waves did it over milions of years" you would instantly know that somebody visited beach and was playing with sand. 2. That has nothing to do with dishonesty what the hell are you talking about. He answers question that are asked, maybe questioner doesnt like that answer thats different thing. THen he asks question of his own. He can ask from his perspective and his belief that is not changing the question. You are out of context completely. Comparing God to Kim Jon Un as example of something bad isnt really good in many ways. several are fallowing: Kim Jong Un constantly monitors you and prohibits your actions if they are against his rules. God on the other hand lets us do what we wont. So you both cry about God not being here and visible to prove himself but hate idea of God existing to tell you what to do. If God was evil planet would be way way worse. And in Christianity regardless if you beleave in it or not what is the claim?? It claims that God came to earth in human form, and was brutally killed and put on cross to rot. What does God according to christianity do here on earth among us tiny humans? Why is he willingly allowing to get tortured by us humans? well at least in Christianity God came to share suffering with us and isnt distant from problem of evil and suffering. Why would God care at all about sharing pain with us if he is evil? Think about it.
Great questions, thumbs up for not beginning the discussion with already known facts of how someone stsrted his carrier etc, but jumping straight into the exciting territories. Great interview, thanks.
Believers have no sense of humility or shame, no morals or standards. Huckaby & other pastors endorsed Trumpism. I find that believers strike out with threats, when informed of reasoned denial, of the existence of a God outside of fiction. Atheist literature goes back to 500 BC. I suspect educated men have always known Deity as a tool of fiction, a tool of state. I enjoy the ludicrous notions of faith. Believers begin their crimes like Moses, becoming history's worst navigator, as if travel were best done with one foot in fantasyland. Believers fail to comprehend the saying of Jesus Christ which has lasted to this day. Believers are found among a gathering crowd, when Jesus Christ is alarmed by a wicked generation, those who seek the signs of resurrection. "The only sign given is Jonah" - who was a believer. He was outnumbered & murdered by other believers. Jesus Christ "hangeth on a tree" to celebrate the War of the Jews. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree:" Galatians 3:13 "Render to Caesar"
@@Dirshaun Start by proving it, then I'll acknowledge he exists. But I might still reject him coz he's an a-hole. He made cancer, he made a world where it's creatures have to brutally eat each other to survive, parasites, viruses, he flooded the world killing all inhabitants women and children included. He ordered genocide of civilizations. I could go on, but no need.
The biggest problem I see today with scientific philosophy in it’s general consensus with it’s materialistic and naturalistic perspective is it’s rigidity of thought. In many ways, scientists have become unwilling to accept new ideas regardless of how well an argument is presented concerning any deficiencies in their current positions. One needs to at times to stand outside and consider a minority view to maybe see things in a different way in order to be more objective. All to often when ID or creationism is brought up, a wave of emotionalism erupted and an ad hominem attack replaces a more fruitful argument. I see this even more so with scientists arguing with James Tour. Even with all his scientific experience and knowledge, they deride him as a creationist rather than address his arguments and concerns with facts or data. I find this very telling.
Thats absurd. If someone came up with a new theory for gravity tomorrow, the scientists would investigate it. In my opinion it is the religious people who have the rigidity of thought, because they must conform to what is in their holy books regardless of any kind of discoveries.
@@davidgreen6490 look how long it took them to accept the concept of the Big Bang theory. Einstein even went so far as to cheat with the math. Scientists are human and a lot of the time they are afraid to follow where the evidence leads them!
@@davidgreen6490: Another example of how scientists try to cover up the fact’s with false science is by the shroud of Turin. Here the STURP team had conclusively shown that the image on the artifact could in no way have been created by human means in any way, even with today’s technology. But carbon dating for twenty years supposedly had shown it to be a product of the Middle Ages. Recently the carbon dating has been falsified! The ones who did the original dating had purposely chose a part of the cloth they knew was repaired and did not do a random sample! They were paid off by Oxford university. By using the latest technology the cloth has been shown to have been made in the first century
I wholeheartedly disagree with all you said. Science creates hypothesis, makes predictions based on that, observes the results, is willing to accept that a hypothesis was wrong (theists never do this as dogma doesn't allow it), create a new hypothesis if needed or further narrow it down and the cycle goes on. The issue is that theism or god has never in the history provided any hypothesis, has not made any predictions and therefore offers no value to science. So it's not a problem of scientists that theism provides absolutely nothing to the field to explore.
@@patienbear: How many times have scientists fudged or buried data for political reasons or to maintain their funding?! For instance, the scientists working for the cigarette companies knew for fifty years that cigarettes were cancerous and buried the data. Christian’s who are scientists I think would be conscientious in following the data and not sitting on it
People and scholars in particular are so embedded in their views, they refuse to even consider another possibility. Because to do so would wreck their reputation and career. So to maintain the status quo it is easier and safer personally than to sacrifice everything they have worked toward, even though they know they are wrong.
@bw3240 That's why the scientific method is better than trusting the words of a book. The scientific method allows for scrutiny of their most venerated, the scriptures and their churches, mosques, and temples historically have not.
@@Jigglepoke science also takes leaps of faith and they end up clutching to the word of man and over time they have back tracked and changed their theories. Examples being steady state universe to the big bang, life began by a pool of chemicals struck by lightning to they really have no clue, and no proof of darwinian evolution but only darwinian adaptation. Science has great faith in man therefore science must be rewritten over time, yet the Bible has been constant for over 2,000 years.
@Jigglepoke the most scrutinized book in history is the Holy Bible. In my life time numerous scientific "truths " have had to be rewritten because the experts who wrote it originally were wrong. Man has no idea how the origin of life happened, science only has poor hypothesis. Putting your trust and faith into a fallible man is at best highly risky. Faith is faith, where you place your faith is wholly up to you. I have made my choice and I am at peace with it, I hope you are as well.
@bw3240 The Bible has been scrutinised, of course. Most of that scrutiny has come since the enlightenment and the formulation of the scientific method. That method has shown that Genesis and other Biblical ideas of the world can not be literal. The scrutiny improved our lives, but it was hard fought for. You obviously know how churches through the ages have treated anyone who disagrees with dogma. Even today, churches disfellowship adherents who no longer believe exactly what their version of Biblical truth is. This can include shunning from your community and family. Meyer complains about scientists having a kind of club that you'll be excluded from if you teach something contrary, but it's nowhere close to the way many religious communities shun people. Furthermore, when you read Meyer, Doug Axe, Behe... they all relished the opportunity to prove the establishment wrong. Also if they changed their minds, would the Discovery Institute still fund them? You can be at peace without bringing us back to the dark ages.
@1:12:36 - It takes putting one’s pride away to being humble about God. It takes the Holy Spirit to convict you of truth and righteousness. It takes repentance, aka changing your mind about the God of the Bible; To convince an unbeliever the ability to believe God created everything. - There are many verses in the Bible talking about there’s the knowledge of God within everyone ever born; That they suppress their knowledge of God in unrighteousness.
"It takes putting one’s pride away to being humble about God. " Which god? There have been over 4000 religions and god claims and none, zero, zilch, nada got even close to being true. Once you understand why you reject every other god's claim then you we will understand why we reject them all.
@@alantasman8273 Why do you lie? Allah is the only true god. Any Muslim will tell you. "God...Jesus the Christ....creator of the universe and all therein." Mohammed split the moon in half. your jesus never existed outside of the bible. show me historical documents where jesus as son of god is called by the name outside of the bible. I'll wait.
@@LGpi314 Jesus was mentioned even in the Quran. If you claim to follow Mohammed but deny the existence of Jesus, you deny the writings of Mohammed in the Quran, and thus are no muslim. Along with that, the Quran even confirms the Bible to be true, and the Bible explicitly stated in the Book of Revelations that any writing that came after it was false. Therefore, if the Quran is true, the Bible is true. However, if the Bible is true, the Quran is false. You cannot deny this if you claim to follow Mohammed, because it is all written in the Quran, and to deny the Quran in any capacity is to not be muslim.
Gerd Muller commenting on SM misrepresenting his presentation: "Disagreements about the theory of how evolution works, do not call the facts of biological evolution into doubt. This is where most ID design advocates make a jump in their argument that is simply not warranted. SM does not use my criticism of the standard evolution theory in the sense in which it was intended" - This does not sound like a man who thinks evolution is false.
RICHARD DAWKINS Speculations don't have to count, he works with the evidence and because of this his speculations do count, unlike the god squad with all Thier linguistic acrobats, STILL DO NOT HAVE ONE GRAIN OF PROOF FOR THIER god. and it's MR.DAWKINS TOO YOU. 🌍💚☮️
Nick Lane’s work on hydrothermal vents and membranes is the most convincing I have seen with regards to abiogenesis but it still makes very limited claims and is nowhere near a coherent or consistent explanation. However, Nick Lane himself, while pursuing materialistic explanation, has, like Noble and Levin, a welcome openness to philosophical positions other than materialism.
To Thomas Nagel: I LOVE the universe where God looks after us and takes cares of our mistakes. I hope from my heart that one day you will recognize the love the God is.
'The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses,' Einstein wrote to Gutkind, 'the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this.'
@@LGpi314 Watch some NDE stuff.. where people were dead for hours and even days and they were send back. They all say that material experience is nothing compared to soul experiences. And you can even check some 'big balls I'm a bad ass man' who died and were completely transformed when they come back. The truth is that we are souls who have earth experience and not bodies who have souls.
@@ThOperator Do muslims see jesus in their NDEs? None of the studies have proven NDEs. Why do you people have to lie? Do you know what happens during NDE? Oxygen deprivation. Drugs can do the same thing. It has nothing to do with balls. "The truth is that we are souls who have earth experience and not bodies who have souls.' Ha ha. Funny. Now prove it. “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens There is no evidence of angels, satan or gods. Do better next time. What else do you have?
@Robert-ct6bc I see that you have some inner unrest. Now I still love you as fellow human being and will pray for you. Maybe check some NDE-s of people that landed in hell and they were then revived in the ambulance. The problem is always that time runs much slower when you are not in the body. Let God help you and show you the path to Him. God bless.
Meyer should address what his model of life's history actually is. In detail, explain what we observe and how that fits into the Genesis account including the flood. Explain the days and order of creation. Explain how before the flood the Bible indicates all animal life including humans were vegans. Explain how an entire planet can flood.... the list goes on...
I don't know whether he has or hasn't touched on those things since I have never read any of his works. Obviously this video was more of a conversation between two people rather than a structured expose on his beliefs and understandings. You mentioned the flood twice. Did you know that there is believed to be between 3 and 11 times more water beneath the surface of the earth than in all of the oceans, lakes, rivers, and ice caps combined. We are talking groundwater, because that is a misleading term. We are talking in gases, vapor, liquid form, etc. Groundwater makes up approximately 10.5 cubic miles of water. The mantle holds approximately 1-1.5 times as much as the oceans and other surface water, and the deep interior holds yet much, much, more. Obviously we cannot observe what could have happened to bring water to the surface in great magnitude over a short period of time, but just one single volcano in 2022, Hunga Tongs-Hunga Ha'apal released an estimated 160,957,451.26 TONS of water vapor into the atmosphere. I don't pretend to have the answers, but I do not just dismiss things out of hand simply because I want any of the answers to be different. I actually enjoy trying to seek answers. Peace.
@@aussieman8738 dying on the hill of saying the firmament doesnt exist is crazy. Water below exists. The air (firmament) exists. Space is like 2/3rds water. Thats the last water space. Ive yet to find anything in Genesis that contradicts anything we have currently discovered. In addition it never even suggests the earth is flat.
@just_me2797 Thanks for your reply and for pointing out that I seem to keep on mentioning the flood 😀. When I was a believer, I found it possible to explain away almost any question with a little science, logic, and mental agility. I genuinely believed that all scriptures were inspired by God and held all the answers if we only looked deep enough 2nd tim 3:16. I realised after many years that I was, in fact, cheating as my beliefs could explain away questions and challenges, but not entire models. For example, if we are to consider the flood, that the water stored underground is enough to flood the entire planet to 15 cubics(?) above the highest mountain, what would be the knock-on effects for that amount of water coming out in such a short period of time? One of the many problems is the heat problem, but there's scores of others. That's just for the water coming out of the Earth. How about where it came from in the heavens? The Bible says it was stored above the sun and stars... that's a bit weird, right? Life spreading from the ark 4350 years ago to what we have now is a bit weird as well? How would that be possible?... There's always an answer but never a model! A model should be able to explain all of these things. That's why I believe Meyer doesn't give a comprehensive one because it simply can't be done using observation and the Bible without an extraordinary amount of poetic license and arbitrary interpretation. That being said, maybe there's truth in the Bible who knows. I like some forms of Christianity and to believe in God can be a beautiful thing.
@@hemankhouilla2795 obviously he is Goat like lennox and other great apologetics. Our friend tony doesnt like idea of inteligence to exist, yet he likes to type on internet how he is more inteligent than us stupid belivers
@@tonygoodkind7858 I think the issue is not that as clear cut as you present it. I usually enjoy hearing to Meyer, didn't check anything tho. But one thing I do think is that a fully naturalistic view of the world is not that consistent with the world around in which we live : the "appearance" of design, the meaning of life etc...
You mean scientists are turning to God. Science has always been a field of knowledge and study that interacts with and interprets God's handiwork. Cheers ;)
What utter bollocks. There is no god, if there was it would have the decency to reveal itself or science would have found it by now. You shouldn't listen to crooks like Meyers who lie for Jesus and their income.
Yeah, never mind the fact that we cant explain a single thing about the creator or how it works, or that there is precisely nothing necessary about it, or that it even exists at all, let alone what it can do, lets just use circular reasoning to say that the evidence that it exists is that it needs to exist.
@@SnakeWasRight Kind of like saying these fossils are X amount of years old because they are in this rock strata and the rock strata is this amount of years old because it has these fossils in it?
@@dalesherry1056 think about what you say. What about God creating itself because it knew it had to create itself before it existed? Yeah, stupid. Plus, no one thinks matter created itself. Matter is the result of interactions between quantum fields. If you dont understand the physics, stop talking about it. Either way, a god that didn't create itself but always existed, versus quantum fields that always existed and didn't create themselves. That's fine.... except there are way more assumptions for a god. And it contradicts itself because something needs to exist outside of God since God has limitations, and if you don't agree, just ask yourself if it's possible for god to make 2+2=5, or to make it good to set toddlers on fire for fun.
@@dalesherry1056 wow, so you bought the lies of creationists, didn't you? Fossils aren't dated by the rock layer and the rock layer by the fossil. That's stupid. It's a shorthand for rhe ACTUAL dating methods that ACTUALLY date the rocks: radiometric dating. The rocks are dated by radioactive samples in the rock, and the fossils are then dated by the age of the rock. Simple as that, stop spreading lies.
@@dalesherry1056 yeah, so you aren't educated. No, the rocks are dated by radiometric dating. Radioactive samples in the rock give an age to the rock, and thus an age to the fossils in the rock. Stop spreading misinformation. You can use a shorthand because if we already know X species always occurs in Y layer, and we know that from radiometric dating, Y layer always has the same age, we know that X fossils are most likely to be that age because they're most likely in Y layer. Of course, they could always be found in different layers, which paleontologists check for, obviously, since that adjustment is made all the time. Which you would know if you did literally any research.
Christianity is fake. It stole pretty much everything from other earlier religions and the same way Islam did with small modifications. The is no evidence of a global flood, there is no evidence that jesus as the son of god or Moses ever existed, and the resurrection was stolen from Julius Caesar's resurrection. No resurrection. Snakes and donkeys do not talk. Genesis is full of contradictions. Earth is not 6000 years old. ALL THOSE ARE LIES. People now know and leaving the religion for what it is CULT.
Since scientists are convinced that comb jellies evolved before sponges. And my understanding is that evolution poses that less complex life gives way to more or equally complex life, how do we account for this underdevelopment or de evolution so early on?
What is likely not understood is God; Consciousness is all there is God is in space, as space; everywhere present; everywhere conscious; everywhere in charge. There is Consciousness; fundamental, mind elemental, elements; both macro and micro plus what works on them; the three forces; strong, neutral, and weak plus magnetism which is still not understood. I wish in this age of physics and forces they would be considered, and start moving away from gross materialism which without force is just inert matter.
There is also the question of is it all within Mind or outside; its independent existence can be questioned as well; if the way we perceive it is a play of ideas on substance; the ideas from consciousness; the substance also from consciousness.
@@peterwallis4288 That "may have" is like saying, I "may have" found 2 trillion dollars on the floor, yay. The likelihood of that "may have" is abysmally low.
Professor Dawkins position is an accurate reflection of the consensus of world experts in all of the various fields covering evolution. Theists attempt to ignore the overwhelming scientific data and put forward a design argument, however they really need to produce some sort of evidence instead of just multiple philosophical assertions.
It be worth finding out one way or the other You show your bias amd lack of understanding of who the Christian god is. You should probably go research that question.
Logically there can only be one true God. You can look this up yourself. Many Muslims recently reported having dreams of Jesus Christ before converting to Christianity. This is something directly predicted within the Bible. Therefore there’s good proof for the Christian God.
Justin, Randy J. GUliuzza, of the Institute of Creation Research in Dallas, Texas, says, "Biology needs a theory of biological design." He has degrees in both Medicine and Engineering and this has led him to look at biology as something that has been engineered. He has written on, "Why biology needs a theory of biological design." I think that this topic would produce a great podcast to follow this one. Stephen argued for intelligent design. Randy goes the next step and says, Let's look at biology as something that didn't occur by random processes, but required careful engineering. I look forward to hearing such a program.
Love and faith come together and need two to exist. Mankind can't be alone. Abraham looking at the starry sky believed in a loving Creator and received God's Love.
@Robert-ct6bc I don't have a designer entity, but it is interesting that you imagine I do. What I have is an unanswered question and (about which) a "lack of" surpirse.
@Robert-ct6bc Thought is neurons interacting. Let's leave that to one side. The rest we can work with. What is meant by naturally occurring? In what quality is natural occurrence identified as opposed to design?
Many people miss the point with the concept of design. DNA does not contain information. It expresses a pattern that when interpreted builds a living organism. To see this clearly imagine a modern book written in English. Now if you give that book to someone that does not speak English the information content is zero. It is just a series of patterns. The information arises when the symbols are interpreted which requires an interpreter which we would call a mind. Imagine someone wrote out the DNA code and gave it to you. Then you were asked to read it. Why would you even thing it codes for making proteins? It could just as easily be a story about a snowman. It would depend on the rules you employed to decode it. Cyphers use this method all the time, they invent codes that can be decoded in multiple ways like hiding text in a JPEG.
First of all I want to say that I think the biggest problem is humanistically psychological in nature, which is simply biased prejudice, where someone for whatever reasons are incapable of the quality of integrity, to be willing to follow the evidence for wherever it may lead to a conclusion, and so prefer to know what’s true even if the evidence leads to a conclusion that wasn’t what the may have preferred and might even hurt. And without that quality of character, that was more powerful than a person’s biases, someone like Richard Dawkins for example, would be handicapped for discovering what’s true about anything that they had a biased prejudice towards. And it’s a psychological fact that the longer someone has believed something that wasn’t true, it is very difficult for them to change their mind, and no matter how solid and profound the challenging evidence. And such is the need for some people to win an argument, that renders them incapable of admitting that they were wrong, apologizing or saying they were sorry.
@@jimhughes1070 Absolutely, and if someone didn’t possess a good portion of integrity, and at least strived towards it, what other qualities of character could someone have that could make up for it? None I can think of anyway, other than to say, someone could be worse. And yet it’s also true, that if it weren’t for God’s grace, given the right situation, every one of us is capable of doing far worse than we’ve ever done.
@@garywilson7992 No doubt... I forget the head count Samuel got up to when he was hacking at them false prophets... Obedient no matter what... That's the kind of integrity I need 👍🙏... Sorry I was thinking about something else when I started those phrases 🤣
Your reasoning to a mind being behind our reality makes perfect sense to me but you will never convince the majority of people to believe it because as the Bible says “narrow is the way”. Most people will always reject the truth because they don’t want to be accountable to God. They want to be their own God.
@@gusgrizzel8397 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Romans 1
@@gusgrizzel8397 actually He projected Himself into space/time and died on a cross so that we could know Him. But if you choose to turn your back to Him that’s your choice.
If intelligent design doesn't explain what actually happened with the origin of life besides "God did it", and offers no predictions for things we don't already know, and provides no precise definition for, intelligence, information, design, or God itself, it's not a theory. It is a conclusion. The only thing ID seems interested in actually doing is getting people to say that God exists, and not actually adding any sort of scientific insight.
You mean like the hypothesis of the multiverse? The Neo Darwinists have gone from the incredible to the absurd. The more they try to strive to keep Darwinism relevant, the sillier they sound.
Well, considering that God is meta-natural, the existence of God is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. It’s Stephen Myers’ job to give the available scientific evidence, typically regarding fine-tuning, to lead people to a philosophical conclusion. So yes, God is a “conclusion”, as you put it, but that’s simply the nature of the case.
The thing intelligent design theory is interested in is looking at the evidence without presuppositions and concluding what it best and most reasonably shows. If that's what the evidence shows, then that's the most likely scientific answer. Yelling "you can't just say God did it" is neither scientific nor rational; its close minded and starts with an assumption that certain conclusions cannot be considered no matter what the evidence shows.
Sooo.... You haven't been paying attention at all? 🤔... The scientific evidence is available for everyone to look at... They're not "making up" science bro... You're condemning ID because it makes conclusions about the evidence at hand? How about the conclusions atheist scientists came to 180 years ago?... With no scientific evidence whatsoever 🧐 That's where logic is supposed to intervene! 🎉 But the religiously devout care nothing for "evidence".... They are taught that dirt " got smart", and created everything.... (Except the dirt 🤣).... And "by god" they're going to stick to their principles! 😎 The path of least resistance is always preferred by natural born liars 😉.. You go ahead and keep stacking them up... logically, you should eventually revert back to zero intelligence 🧐
My father was a scientist (geologist) who always encouraged us to follow the evidence no matter where it leads. I was intellectually lazy for most of my early life and his counsel seemingly led me down a self-indulgent path. It was only when I began to take science seriously that I began to see there were no satisfactory explanations for the origin of the universe and life that didn’t include intelligence. Science has become an important undergirding of my faith and one of the most enjoyable interest of my life.
@@mcmanustony That's a great question. If we accept God as the intelligent designer, He claims the name, "I AM" which some take to mean He exists throughout eternity. Something we really can't comprehend.
@@DerBeatle7 " If we accept God as the intelligent designer," Why do we need to accept something before having the evidence for it? It makes no sense. "He claims the name, "I AM" " Claims with no evidence are just bullshiiit. "Something we really can't comprehend." We used to not comprehend lots of things and now we do. We used to attribute lighting and thunder to Zeus and now we can recreate lighting in the lab whenever we want.
@@DerBeatle7 Unfortunately these argumentative trolls (two weeks ago ~= OCTOBER 2024) have said in their hearts "there is no God" and their door to living water supply is fastened by their arrogant attitudes. We could continue to pray for their repentance.
Once you produce a single experiment that shows god or how it works, then you GET to talk science and god. But we're still waiting. Thousands of years and EVERY act of god or gods has been shown to be completely natural, or has only natural aspects that have been discovered. Then theres the people who think the argument from ignorance is a valid argument. It isn't. It's a fallacy.
By your standard, no one would ever get to propose a theory of anything. A theory is a proposal intuited by pieces of observational data and mathematical possibility, of as-yet unobserved data. A theory is the logical leap to the unproven. If you limit or don't allow data that you don't like, you're not performing science. You are spending a lot of time and money going in a circle of confirmation bias.
@@claytondennis8034 Where did you come up with this drivel? By the standard of needing evidence, no one can propose a theory? You mean a hypothesis? I'm not sure you understand how this works, buddy. You come up with a guess, or hypothesis, then you come up with a way to test it, ie differentiate between imagination and reality, so you can see whether your guess was correct. That's called evidence. Where is your confusion? What's the problem with that standard? No, that's not what a theory is, try again. A theory is not a logical leap into the unproven. That's just nothing. The closest thing that exists is a hypothesis. And hypotheses are absolutely WORTHLESS until you show them to be correct with TESTING. You don't seem to understand that data is what shows your hypothesis (or as you say, theory) is correct or incorrect. A "leap into the unproven" is not data, it's a guess at what the data are. You seem VERY confused.
@@therick363 we get it, you would prefer to believe you are a random monkey mistake than an intentionally, intelligently designed image bearer of the most amazing being in existence, but we'll keep the light on for ya 😉
@@refuse2bdcvd324actually we all get it’s YOU who can’t handle reality or honestly. Let us know when you’re ready to discuss things like an honest adult
I wonder why Meyer doesn't embrace YEC. He is a formidable proponent of the ID position, I'm curious why he never seems to mention the possibility of a recent origin of all living thingsv only thousands of years ago.
Because he prefers to tell lies that are arguable to semi literate people. YEC is nonsensical and can only be sold to the dumbest people. Even meyers wouldn't stoop that low.
Check out Darwin's Drlimma, I think he mentions or alludes to young earth: I.e. transition from one creature, to another, ...very interesting documentary!!😊
TH-cam comments always show how desperate people are to avoid even entertaining a worldview that posits objective morality. People would rather be told that everything is meaningless than renounce their sin.
@@vladtheemailer3223 Intelligent designer is now proven. Whether that designer is the God the Father of the Bible or say Allah in Islam science cannot really prove that. Science is the tool to examine, theorize the material world or the created world.
Whenever you hear someone discussing the statistics of bio-chem, take all their other claims with a grain of salt. You can't forecast odds in chemistry like it's the weather. ESPECIALLY, not in the wild where there are variables at play that we don't even know about at this time.
That’s what it claims to be able to do. It’s obviously NOT how it works though. So maybe you should consider that it’s not settled as much as you think 💯
@@cliveadams7629 you can always write a paper and publish it proving evolutionary mechanism explains creation of different species and rebuke Meyer claims. :)
The Real Being - is the Real Being ----- no one more Real - in an absolute way. Words - are dancing around - the Great Mystery. Fare thee well - in life's journey.
"Stephen Myer would destroy Dawkins in any debate." I somehow doubt that. Stephen Meyer's arguments are so easy to be countered. However whether or not this is true, our power or skill in being eloquent in debate has no bearing on the veracity or falseness of what you are saying.
@@lozferris1719 Its one and a half hour discussion FFS. I'm not going through it again just for you. you choose a point he's making and I will give you a counter
Dawkins has forgotten more about evolutionary science than this fool will ever know. Intelligent Design is nothing more than a cut and paste of Creationism.
I notice you didn't engage any of the arguments. The key one being what gave the information its order? Meyer doesn't even deny evolution as happening, just that it's not sufficient to explain the origin of the universe.
if you see model of a car of specific name and his next successor model which is very similar to previous one, do you say workers in factory took previous version, hammered it changed some parts and made new model, or they made it from stratch using some existing technology and few new ones? does old model desapier when new one is released?
However, he’s unwilling to write a paper to substantiate his claims. I think he’s scared of being peer reviewed, because it’s just denying without evidence.
@@PaulChater-z9t He would be instantly rejected like Dr. Michael Behe before him. He won't waste his time with an establishment that has their agenda and conclusion already.
I am puzzled by the fact that so many religious believers try to find confirmation of their beliefs in science. Why? You are supposed to have faith and believe, even the things which are not true, like making wine out of water, or walking over water. Is your belief maybe a little weak? Well, I could understand that.
@@LifeandLifeMoreAbundantly I am always willing to listen and analyze new evidence, arguments, facts, etc etc. I haven’t heard any good ones which have caused me to change my mind/position/whatnot. But I’ll always ready for new data.
The difference between a Physicist or Biologist and Meyer is that they are looking for the answer. Meyer doesn't even try but goes for god of the gaps.
What do you suppose the word science to mean and what do you suppose " science" to be, but it depends on whether or not have have any Latin which all with wits learning and breeding- at any rate in England, have, it being customary for the upper class to put their results or children to Latin from the sage of eight onwards and to those with any Latin the meaning of the word science is obvious to them or jumps out at them as you will know if you have wits learning and breeding. You may use the words science and not have any idea whatsoever what you seek to convey when you use that word, as you stare about to demonstrate but it would help you if you had at least some idea what the word science means and exactly what you seek to convey when you use the word. If you have any Latin the meaning of science would obvious, but what you seek to convey when you use that word you are about to demonstrate that you have *Absolutely_No* idea There is just no curing you fcuk-the-commandments anthropomorphic idolaters of tour idolatry is there? You cling on to your wretched totem fetish, image or idol like grim death, don’t you?
The fine tuning argument has been debunked so many times that you cannot continue to use it in good faith. For this argument to work, you have to show that different values for the constants are even possible. Assuming that a variable can have any value and then calculating the probability of the value that it has is simply a bad use of probabilities. What is the probability that a hydrogen atom has one proton? It is a one, a dot, and after that, so many zeroes that no calculator in the world can hold them! What is the probability that someone with my DNA exists? Calculated in 1900, it is a number that is so small that nobody can ever calculate it precisely! And yet, here I am.
Yes! "For this argument to work, you have to show that different values for the constants are even possible." This is a fair critique of the fine tuning argument and the reason I dismiss it too.
That sounds like a strawman to me. So if you find a piece of technology somwhere in the earth by archeologists, you can assume it evolved naturally - because even though impossible - here it is! Therefore nature can write poems, create technology, even make computers (suppose you find one)etc. And all of that, that you'd never ascribe to nature is a much much simpler version that a human brain, organism or even a single human cell is.
@@dyvel there's a difference between believing a claim and proving a claim. you said if you can prove. no one can prove. only believe. so your challenge or argument is meaningless.
@@joegame4576 Fair. So here's the logical conclusion then: With that argumentation - if you believe that Thor or any other single god doesn't exist, you must necessarily also believe that no god can exist. So do you believe Thor exist?
@@dyvel "if you believe that Thor or any other single god doesn't exist, you must necessarily also believe that no god can exist" i don't see how that's logical. also, thor is a part of a polytheistic religion. if thor exists, then odin also exists. so again, your argument is meaningless.
"God is RETURNING to SCIENCE? Dr Stephen Meyer" Big fat NO. " Dr. Stephen Meye' So you are a creationist. If Joe Rogan can make Meyers look dumbdumb then it is the end of the line. "People believe big foot exists" Joe Rogan. The whole scientific community rejects everything DI can come up with. Dawkins calls those "scientists" a disgrace to humanity.
@@johnmalcolm2028 Meyer is a pseudo-scientist that the whole scientific community rejects. I'm not ad hominem anyone. Maybe you should look in the mirror.
Stephen Meyer makes the exact argument a person would expect him to make,🎉 since he comes from an Evangelical presupposition to practice some science. There is zero concern amongst evolutionary biologists that selective adaptation over time accounts for the speciation of our world. Meijer dramatically overstates the "concern" amongst neo-darwinists.
You're kind of making his point. What I find interesting is that the Scientist with a Theistic worldview do not entirely exclude evolution as a causal agent when thinking about and when they "do" science, but Neo Darwinist may have hurt their ability to do good science in part because of their dogmatic insistence that there can't be any design but merely an appearance of design, and that they insist that there is no evidence that an intelligent mind is even a possible causal agent. The Neo-Darwinist /materialistic world view on a philosophical level might be prohibiting scientists from making sound hypotheses. It might even be hindering societal and scientific advances. Wow what a revelation. Maybe it's time to break the outdated mold. Cheers ;)
John 14:21-23 ESV Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him." [22] Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, "Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?" [23] Jesus answered him, "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.
There is a ton of concern as soon as you start looking at the math... The second you realize whatever you propose has to have been able to happen since the beginning of the universe, you then realize that we can calculate the expected time a process would take, based on what we have observed (or not observed) over that last nearly 150 years)... From there you realize that there isnt even 1 trillionth of the time needed for the current models to be correct. At that point you have to say one of 3 things: 1) We have the age of the universe wrong. (However we have no evidence that it is older than we think it is). 2) We are missing a key element that speeds up the process, IE our models are wrong. 3) The whole thing is non-sense made up by a guy that didnt even know there was such a thing as DNA... Ima go with not believing the mid-wit that renounced his own theories before he died, and not believing people who have worked their whole lives to try to prove the mid-wit right and hav failed for over a hundred years (this is not my conjecture, its due to the fact that pretty much every new discovery makes the process take even longer, or not possible at all)...
To say “there is ZERO concern” utterly undermines your point. You DO NOT know that with epistemic certainty. To ascribe disingenuousness to Meyer belittles you not him. Your precognitive bias is running amok, you need to rein your chimps in.
What about a universe makes you think it's created just because you find meaning in it? Just like a Rorschak image - if you're looking for patterns you'll find it regardless of how random it is. Your brain has evolved to find patterns in everything.
@@Roescoe Well Yes, i would suggest that if god exists, she does it only within our experience, but the world exists even when we don't. But i don't understand how that would be connected to whether the world was created or not.
@@dyvel " but the world exists even when we don't" What reasoning do you use to arrive there? If your brain is just tricking "you" (that already bring up tons of contradictions)
I presume you prefer the cult of "smart dirt"... That "really isn't smart"... But somehow still able to produce what little brain you possess. 🧐 You should be commended for your strong faith, in your accidental brain😂
@@jerrymartin3965 Why don't you watch Professor Dave explains. He has the whole series of videos and explains them in detail. I'm not going to repeat it.
@@jerrymartin3965 Besides getting basic Molecular Biology concepts wrong, and making incorrect claims, he is also misrepresenting what Gerd Muller said at the 2016 meeting he keeps mentioning. Gerd corrected Steve on it, but Steve is still using it whenever he's interviewed. Essentially criticizing the scientific theory of evolution, in no way disproves the fact things evolved. The scientists Steve mentioned are only debating on the details of the mechanisms of HOW life evolved, not THAT life evolved and is evolving. The fact that things evolved remains an undisputed fact.
@@RLBays But those who are cowards, those who refuse to believe, they will all have a place in the lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death. Rev 21.8
@@shankerr484 “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me. And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.’ Matthew 25:45-46
@@RLBays Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” John 3:18
The idea of a large environment is immediately understood. It’s more than an idea. It’s a raw continual experience. You disavow existence in the larger environment/Universe at your own peril. The idea of a supreme being is a pure invention that one’s existence and functioning in the universe does not depend.
@@LmGpii There precisely is. If you make a positive claim about an entity's non-existence you must show it does not exist anywhere. The easiest way is by said entity being logically inconsistent ie law of non-contradiction. Before you do that you have to show why it's valid for you to use logic.
@@ernestcantu6751I see you’re gonna completely ignore what i said. Try actually addressing it first then say your bit. Because your blatant disrespect is showing and it fails right away
So God only exists in your brain? Got it, dunno which one of the thousands of versions of him, but no worries, yours is somehow by some kind of magic, the only real one ...
yet all original religions have very big similarities almost as if they came from same place and have common ancestor (common true story) like you evolutionist like to say. Imagine claiming naturalism is true we are all bunch of pure atoms and our brain too, there is no inteligence, yet claiming that you as naturalis are more inteligent than dumb belivers! If naturalism is true, your claims and statements are nothing but your DNA dancing and non of your statements and claims can be called inteligent. Your own worldview is selfdefeating just philosophically, not to talk about scientificly.
How did matter without the ability to 'think', design a brain which is capable of comprehending abstract thoughts, that the molecules building the brain are not even aware of? The human brain is the most complex object ever discovered, the number of processes that are generated between your eyes and brain exceed that of all the PS5's on Earth combined. We live in times where any person understands a pair of spectacles require intelligent design but the immensely complex eyes they aid do not. The many versions of God cultures worship is irrelevant, nor is the name they give God, all that matters is that God created all of us and to reach out and pray to him is never a mistake, there is only one God to listen to you, the one that mad all of us.
If I were a fly on the wall, what ID mechanism would I observe as regards the appearance of new species? Is it along the lines of a reptile lays an egg and hatches a bird?
@@aeiouaeiou100 Yeah. Philosophically the naturalist-materialist position does have a lot of hurdles to overcome, it's been pointed out even by it's own proponents since it's inception (I'm not talking about the Dawkins type of thinker, that's popular level philosophy if it can even be called philosophy at all). However, those issues are not resolved by throwing the theory away and calling for a God of the gaps (no matter how much these guys spin it around, the god hypothesis is a unfalsifiable, impossible to test, hypothesis). At the academic level, creationism and intelligent design are still and most likely always will be pseudoscience given the impossibility of testing real evidence, not conjecture or theories based on "materialism failed therefore god". You want to read top scholars on the topics of physics, biology, science in general? Intelligent design is not a respectable position among those disciplines, for obvious reasons, and the ones that promote it are on the fringe. There's christian scientist that are top scholars? yes, but in most cases if they are good scientists they set their personal beliefs apart, recognize their faith and don't mix it with the science. Does that mean it's not true just cause they are on the fringe? No, but until they have proper science to set real bases to their claims they will be among the pseudoscience crowd. You can propose whatever you want, good luck gathering actual evidence, specially if you cannot even keep your belief bias separate.
@@DiegoJPinto I think the point of this discussion is more or less that people are more and more accepting that the origins of things might always be pseudoscience by your definition, so would then HAVE TO fall under the scope of philosophy and theology.
@@deschain1910 The idea that understanding the universe might be impossible has been an idea within philosophy since forever, and even within science it's somewhat contemplated. There might be physical or metephysical constraints that prevent us from understanding the whole of existence and its origins. I wouldn't call that pseudoscience. What definitely IS pseudoscience would be to try to pass those ideas as scientific. On the one hand saying we cannot explain it and on the other saying that a possible explanation that we cannot confirm is scientific IS pseudoscience. That's why intelligent design is not and has never been science. Philosophy is respectable by my lights, even more than science since it's foundational to science in my view. Theology not so much but only because I see it as astrology or similar, where you can study it all but I dont see anything tangible. Philosophy at least deals with values, virtue, wisdom, and since Socrates, a commitment to truth whatever it might be but always recognizing we don't posses it yet and being doubtful of those who claim to posses it in a dogmatic way.
"The sea of faith was once too, at the full and round earth's shore. Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled." (Matthew Arnold, Dover Beach, if I remembered it right.)
Isaiah 45:7-I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. If your god exists then it created you evil to make itself look cool. I was looking for Krishna and AIIah. Are they partying with your jesus. I can't find any of those 3. Since you have a direct line why don't you ask. Dr. Price is correct. The existence of Christ is a myth. You should listen to Bible scholars Dr. Richard C. Miller PhD, Dr. Kipp Davis Ph.D., and Dr. Dennis R. MacDonald. on their discoveries about Christianity while studying other religions. It seems more and more that Christianity is fake and Christians are just a bunch of thieves.
This has been lifelong passion for me first as literal church of christ study as child, aetheism until 19, college study of physics, enginnering, and philosophy. Working to understand these perspectives for decades, i have a much better understanding of how these viewpoints correlate. Because of computers, information theory, quantum mechanics, science has shown basic aspects of religion, eternal life, spritual world, proof of existence of the 1 god are now possible. Also some religious concepts such as of nature of 1 god can be shown as false. In the pantheistic view of God as equal to the entire Universe, this show Aethism is the belief of God but call it the universe. Other beliefs in the nature of god are untenable such as ths common belief that god exists seperately outside the universe. Ontologically these peoples definition of the universe is not large enough. Conversely Aetheists who argue the universe is not intelligent, ignore the fact that they are intelligent and are part of the universe so therefore the universe must be at least as intelligent as humans. Eternity of universe seems to have much evidence based on quantum mechanics many worlds which imp,ies that everything that is possible happens likely defined statistically across sometimes vast distances of time and space. The metaphysical, spiritual, information aspects veiwed from aspects of emergent phenomena hint at a "realm of possibilities" the exploration of this is science. The religious view of this is called the spiritual world. It is non material but yet exists and gives form to everything we see, in computers it is ths program.
😊 There's no great mystery or argument required about the fine tuning required for our cosmos, it's just down to our ignorance of future conditions affecting our expanding universe. It seems pretty obvious to me that as our bubble of spacetime expands we will encounter a universe that's imploding - the two universes will have a little dance and then start sucking the life out of each other as their fascination grows. As they come closer together things start heating up and eventually as the temperature starts rising all sorts of things start getting mixed up until just as it looks as though they are inseperable things start to get violent and two sets of lawyers appear.
I’ve gone from atheist to agnostic to believer in God / a designer. I don’t believe however, that the designer God has revealed himself to us, because humans have created thousands of gods… simply because the designer hasn’t introduced himself to us. If we are made in God’s image ( as the bible says ) then are we kind of reflecting his personality ? Humans are not all good but they are not all bad either, so is that because God’s character / personality is not all good but not all bad either ? Planet earth & life on is beautiful but it is also awful. Not all good but not all bad. Would appreciate some thoughts on this & thanks in advance.
With a multiverse, there has been discussion of the inverse gambler's fallacy. If someone has a royal flush, that does not at all imply that they are playing many hands. You could be dealt a royal flush on the very first hand. There have been some pretty interesting discussions on that.
"God returning to science" Should it not read: "Science returning to God"? Comment about intelligent design being a non-solution [God of the gaps] That is an objection for those who do not believe God exists and do not want to consider any other belief, but if He does exist and He created the universe and life then that would be a solution, indeed the solution. If you are looking for evidence do not ignore facts because they disagree with your beliefs-you may be wrong, and the other view correct. So, unless you want to believe your belief regardless of the evidence, - because you want to believe it, you should take all views into account and look at the evidence and reason correctly.
Hilarious! First of all, there are two versions of Common sense: the normal good sense that everybody has - and an excuse when no evidence or argument can be produced. I'm guessing you mean the latter ("I know the truth, it's just common sense!"). Secondly, how are we supposed to know the truth if we don't study the competing theories and hypotheses? Let me guess: you just assert and declare that you "know" the truth - because "It's just common sense" - and that's all the "proof" you need to declare yourself an omniscient genius.
![ทุกครั้งที่หลับตา (Lucid Dream) - AYLA's [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4i1OBAQyv58/mqdefault.jpg)
Want a free chapter of my new book? Subscribe to my newsletter and I’ll send it your way… justinbrierley.com/get-justins-newsletter/
Why you removing normal disagreeing posts ? Is it too much inconvenient to read the facts ?
@@avitalshevayou’re kidding, right? The entire comments section is FILLED with disagreeing posts! 🤦🏻♂️
@@Birdieupon I am sorry but mine 2 of them disappeared. I just said that Adam and Eve story is nonsense as before they ate a fruit they didnt know what is bar and good . So how they could made any bad decision if they even didnt know what is to make a bad move ? How they could be held responsible to act badly if before they ate fruit- they were not able to know what is bad ?
@@avitalsheva "they were not able to know what is bad ?"
Doesn't matter what the tree was called, God
told them not to eat of it. Did they know they were doing wrong?
Yes there is no excuse for ignorance of the law.
That's why Jesus died on the cross and rose three days later;
cause they didn't know any better.
@@TheOtiswood DO you have problem with basic logic? How they know it is bad to eat it and how they know that not listen to God id BAD if they didnt know what BAD mean? If you know that something BAD will happen to you , then you can obey and you may know that not listening is BAD. But if you dont know what BAD mean than how you can do anything bad and be responsible for it ?
The God sentence to them " you will die" can not be understood as they didnt know what does it mean... because they didnt know what bad mean nor what death mean ( if they would know it then they already would know what it is a BAD thing, before eating fruit)
This is just anecdotal observation but I thought I’d mention it. I graduated for medical school about 50 years ago. I knew then there was something weird going on when I studied biochemistry, physiology, chemistry ,embryology and about every other ology , you can imagine.
The more I learned about the specifics of these various disciplines the more I wondered how any of this could work so seamlessly. I couldn’t imagine the amount of concise manipulation of the genetic code would be required to make the simplest stereochemical change in an enzyme as an example.Even if you knew what sequence of amino acids would be required to yield an active site on an enzyme, how would you know how to manipulate the nucleotide sequence in the DNA molecule to be able to manufacture that particular protein? Anyway, the more I learned about the more I realized how little we know and we know an awful lot. It’s just that, like anything in life the more you know the more you know you don’t know..
It doesn't always work "seamlessly". Things malfunction. Take the design of the urethra through the prostate. Not such a good design. So is aging. Not good for any animal. And we are just animals.
Interesting observation. The fact is that most students learn Evolution BEFORE they learn any meaningful biology. This is deliberate as they would not accept Evolution if they understood what it was claimed to have done.
Many people are so busy later they never review the Evolutionary foundations they were given so early.
We can excuse Darwin as he only knew about animals and plants not biochemistry and cell biology or genetics.
Anyone looking at what we know about the cell today will see Evolution for the absurd idea it is.
@@FlowDeFlowDrainage I do believe in the “evolution “ of species but only as an adaptive mechanism to aid in survival .I can’t see a simplistic theory like the evolution of species as being even remotely possible but I do think Darwin,with the limited understanding available at that time ,pretty observant for 1859,saw something but he probably just misinterpreted the extent to which it could explain the tremendous diversity of species.
@@lv4077 Discussion of this topic gets tricky if we don't define the term evolution carefully.
Darwin saw evidence that finch beaks on different Islands change according to the food supply. This is driven by the recent climate.
Some have short beaks and others long ones.
But modern observations show when the weather changes the beak lengths drift back and forth.
This demonstrates that both varieties are present and selection just adjusts their numbers.
This is not evolution since nothing new is added. We just see selection from latent options.
All the examples of observed evolution are like this.
Yes, we know very few about almost everything. And it is normal because our primate brain can not conceive periods of billions of years(to mention just one aspect of the problem). And how matter behaves. It does not mean there are a creator.
On the random chance of producing a simple protein example Dr. Myer speaks to, even if you came up with a protein by random, what would:
- Preserve it
- Utilize it
- Reproduce it
the "What" necessary to answer these questions exist yet - all you have is a randomly produced protein that folds in a way that might be useful with nothing to contain it in order to preserve it, use it, and reproduce it.
This explanation of the problem massively under estimates the totality of what is needed to produce the first life.
And we haven't even touched the chemistry and laws of thermodynamics problems with abiogenesis.
"we haven't even touched the chemistry and laws of thermodynamics problems with abiogenesis." WHAT!?!?!
"what is needed to produce the first life." You should stop listening to creationists like Tour and Meyer. They are clueless.
### Role of RNA in Abiogenesis
Abiogenesis is the process by which life arises naturally from non-living matter. The RNA world hypothesis is a central theory in understanding how abiogenesis might have occurred, proposing that RNA was a key molecule in the early stages of life. Here’s how RNA fits into the process of abiogenesis:
1. **Formation of Organic Molecules**:
- **Prebiotic Chemistry**: Early Earth conditions allowed for the formation of simple organic molecules, such as amino acids and nucleotides, through chemical reactions in environments like hydrothermal vents and tide pools.
2. **Self-Assembly of RNA**:
- **Polymerization**: Nucleotides spontaneously polymerized to form short RNA strands, with catalysts such as clay minerals aiding this process. These RNA molecules could store genetic information.
3. **Catalytic RNA (Ribozymes)**:
- **Self-Replication**: Some RNA molecules developed catalytic properties, becoming ribozymes capable of facilitating their own replication and other biochemical reactions. This ability to self-replicate was crucial for the persistence and evolution of these molecules.
4. **Formation of Protocells**:
- **Encapsulation**: Lipid bilayers formed spontaneously, creating protocells that encapsulated RNA and other molecules. These protocells provided a microenvironment that protected RNA molecules and concentrated them, enhancing the efficiency of replication and other biochemical processes.
5. **Evolution of Complex Replication Mechanisms**:
- **Natural Selection**: RNA molecules with efficient replication abilities had a selective advantage. Over time, these molecules evolved more complex and efficient replication mechanisms, leading to the emergence of more sophisticated life forms.
6. **Transition to DNA and Protein-Based Life**:
- **DNA and Proteins**: Eventually, RNA-based life forms transitioned to using DNA for long-term genetic information storage and proteins for catalysis. DNA is more stable than RNA, making it a better long-term repository for genetic information, while proteins are more versatile and efficient catalysts.
### Key Points Connecting RNA to Abiogenesis
- **Chemical Origin**: RNA molecules formed from basic organic compounds available on early Earth.
- **Self-Replication**: RNA's ability to catalyze its own replication made it a prime candidate for early life forms.
- **Catalytic Versatility**: RNA’s catalytic properties allowed it to perform essential biochemical reactions, supporting early metabolic processes.
- **Protocell Formation**: The encapsulation of RNA within lipid bilayers provided a stable environment for early biochemical processes, leading to more complex cellular structures.
### Conclusion
The RNA world hypothesis suggests that RNA was a fundamental molecule in the early stages of life, playing a critical role in storing genetic information, catalyzing biochemical reactions, and facilitating self-replication. These functions were essential for the transition from non-living chemical systems to living organisms, making RNA a key player in the process of abiogenesis.
@@bpuryea in what way do the laws of thermodynamics make abiogenesis less likely? You should look up some of the current scientific research into this I think they've already figured out how proteins can form themselves I mean complex chemistry is going to constantly be happening I'm not sure where you're seeing the difficulty
@@darkeen42 James Tour
@@darkeen42You say that "they've" figured out how proteins can form themselves. Who are the "they" you refer to? Where was that published?
Other than racimic mixtures of a few amino acids, I have heard of nothing that has been shown that lies on the path of naturalistic syntheses of proteins.
@@BrainDamagedBob A protein that self-replicates
Date:
February 27, 2018
Source:
ETH Zurich
Summary:
Scientists have been able to prove that a protein structure widespread in nature -- the amyloid -- is theoretically capable of multiplying itself. This makes it a potential predecessor to molecules that are regarded as the building blocks of life.
Share:
FULL STORY
Long regarded as a biological aberration, amyloids are fibrous aggregates of short protein fragments. Amyloids have a bad reputation because they are thought to be the cause of multiple neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.
No, Dr. Meyer you didn't go too long. Just when I started to feel lost you somehow managed to crystalize your profound point/argument in a way I could intellectually grasp. Outstanding work---thank you.
WHAT!?!?!
@@LGpi314😙
@@LGpi314what, what? If you watched the video, the comment you responded to isn't difficult at all to comprehend. Try harder.
@PageP1975 oh I watched pseudo scientists like Meyer too many times. Meyer has not put out his "science " for peer review for a reason. He only sells books to gullible people.
I have found him long-winded & oftentimes obtuse myself. Would urge him to try to keep it simple & clear. I know the subjects are complicated-keep that for your books & when talking to other scientists-but when talking to the rank & file clarity & simplicity, though not dumbed down, is key.
I understand the mathematical reasoning leading to the conclusion that quantum math equations need a mathematician's living mind to decide those equations necessary for the beginning of a time, space fine-tuned physics Universe. At sunset in the south hemisphere of Central Africa, I looked at the sky and was filled with immense joy: In my mind, I heard: Manuel, you are part of All this beauty! It was so magnificent an impression that I spoke loudly: I Thank You for having Created me.
❤🥰😇🥰😍🥰🤩😇❤💝💖❣️
Looking at the diversity of life on this planet……how many types of fish, birds, mammals, amphibians, insects, bacteria, viruses etc are upon the earth, and then add how many species of plants, trees, flowers, molds, fungi etc…the number is staggering….how can all this flora and fauna come from nothing? All the elements in the universe, all the mathematical equations that add up? How can something this grand can just happen, its too incredible….there must be a grand power behind it all! More powerful than our arrogant human brains want to comprehend you think? I know “he’s” there, watching etc!😁🥰😁
I love your honest expression of what you feel and think when looking at the sheer, magnificent beauty of the unfathomable mystery we have been chosen to live in and experience. I BELIEVE we were chosen by the same Creator of the entire universe, which I BELIEVE is infinite in space and eternal in time. Our Creator is the Holy Spitit referred to in the Christian New Testament and Jewish TANACH. More specifically, our Creator is the God of Abraham found in the Jewish TANACH. Sadly, the Old Testament found in Christian Bibles is a counterfeit version of the Jewish TANACH. Unfortunately, mankind has a long history of disobeying the Will of our Creator, who many deny even exists!!!! That kind of thinking is a symptom of a serious psychological disorder very similar to schizophrenia...where people hear and see things in their minds that don't exist in reality.😇
"A living mind"....in plain sight, beautiful.
That's nice. Why don't you check out a hospital filled with innocent individuals suffering from life-threatening diseases and disorders as well? I'm sure you would be able to make the same conclusion!
The Bible is the most interresting book, and once you have a handle on who Jesus is he changes you to a point where you regret your whole previous existence. To repent and believe in Him is life changing. Things make sense again and fear vanishes like fog.
Soo true I’ve been a believer since I was very young but for the past ten years I sort of just stopped learning and yearning for gods word and wanted to just stay where I was but you can’t do that you either better yourself or you worsen yourself but 3 months ago I saw what was going on in Israel and just felt the need to read the Bible and at first in Matthew I couldn’t understand it it was going right over my head I prayed to god to help me understand and literally right after that it started making since in ways it never had before showing me things about my life I’ve never seen before the things I’ve been doin in my life I shouldn’t have been doing and since then my whole life has changed I see everything differently and I believe god woke me up because Jesus is returning for his church very soon it is the season and everyone even nonbelievers feel something going on in the world people feel the end of the world is close but it’s just the end of this age there are millions of Muslims in the Middle East converting to Christianity china has millions as well so many are having visions of Jesus and the rapture and tribulation it’s all over the devil has literally stopped hiding because he knows time is short
What about Buddhists?
@@MNorbert89 Buddhists really don't believe in a God, not the one we usually think of anyway.
Very well said.
We are teaching the end of an era.
@@ciarahoverstreet1601
Love your neighbor. Love yourself.
No Hell No Heaven.
No need for blood sacrifice.
No resurrection.
The Canonical Bible is not Divine.
There is no “Bearded Papa” waiting to judge or reward.
Great conversation! Pray these conversations catch fire and really wake people up to the truth and reality of what is good.
LMAO NOPE. The more educated peole get then the more they know man-made god concept is full of bullcrap.
@@LGpi314 LMAO NOPE. The more educated people get the more they realize how vulnerable the human mind is to cult of personality and the only freedom from that slavery is to ground ourselves in eternal truth - we are God's creation put here with a purpose.
Who would believe a book is not written from a mind, an intelligent source? No one. Yet some believe the entire universe was created without a mind. Go figure.
A book is an artificial thing. The universe isn’t. Yet some believe they are the same. Go figure.
A book does not evolve from atomic particles and quantum phenomena. It is a product of human consciousness. The universe is not a product of human consciousness…unless we are living in a simulation. You are obviously not intelligent because you’re not capable of complex thought. Your analogy lacks basic logic and is a pathetic attempt at comparing two mutually exclusive concepts.
@@therick363 The commonality is the intelligence behind both. What insane person cannot see the intelligence behind creation? That is why Einstein and the large majority of scientists are theists, increasingly so the younger they are. To believe that the universe was produced by itself demonstrates great credulity.
Kurt Gödel, the best-known mathematician in recent history, was a theist; Einstein, the best-known physicist, was a theist; George Lemaitre, the greatest cosmologist and father of the Big Bang Theory, was a theist and a Catholic priest; Gregory Mendel, the father of genetics, was a theist and also a Catholic priest; and Max Planck and Werner Heisenberg, the fathers of quantum physics, were theists. Francis Collins, the greatest contemporary biologist alive who worked under the last three U.S. Presidents as the Director of NIH, was an atheist who turned theist. Thoroughly convinced by the evidence from science that there is a God, he wrote multiple books on this topic. The founder of modern statistics, Ronald Fisher, was also religious. Robert Boyle, the father of modern chemistry, was a theologian, and the founder of microbiology, Louis Pasteur, was a devout Christian.
On the other hand, most of the leaders of the new atheism, which purports to be rigorously scientific, generally studied the humanities, like Daniel Dennett (philosophy), Sam Haris (philosophy/neuroscience), Christopher Hitchens (journalist), Steven Pinker and Darrell Ray (psychologists), and Michel Onfray (high school teacher of philosophy). A few, like Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss, have scientific training and education.
The Big Bang Theory indicates a creator, the Second Law of Thermodynamics points to God, and the Uncertainty Principle from Quantum Physics also points to the existence of a Creator.
@@therick363you begging the question bro
@@deczen47 explain how so
Stephen is such a gift to the ID inclined. Extremely interesting and insightful interview. Thank You!!
ID decline. There I fixed it for you.
@@LGpi314 IQ decline, there I fixed it further.
@@LGpi314 boring
@@morganpauls1873 Yes, you are.
But is it true.
Excellent interview, Justin.
Meyer is extremely eloquent
@@markoneill1768 And extremely fool.
@@markoneill1768 And extremely dishonest.
@@markoneill1768and as dishonest as the day is long.
Is he as eloquent as an actual scientists who have actually studied these subjects and now research them?
Do you pay any attention to them or is this lying hack as far as it goes?
I once quipped that Universe wouldn't know it exists without us.
Excellent point. But God always knew. My opinion anyway, though God is a reasonable choice.
It would not have to.
The universe had existed 9 billion years before the formation of the Earth. It had existed 13.8 billion years before the emergence of humans on Earth. It will continue to exist trillions of years after humankind's extinction. So no, the fine-tuning argument doesn't make any sense.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440So you are just molecules, no purpose or cause to your existence. I don't think so. Jesus came into his creation in the recent past. You are loved by him .
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 How do you know of humankind's extinction friend? And how does the before & after effect fine-tuning?
Awesome conversation. Thank you Justin for asking the right questions and what a mind God has blessed Dr Meyer with! Greatful to be alive and hear these responses.
Which of his lies is your favourite?
Justin is full of bullcrap and fallacies just like Meyer.
The scientific community rejects Stephen C. Meyer primarily because his support for Intelligent Design (ID) lacks empirical evidence, offers unfalsifiable claims, and misrepresents evolutionary theory. ID is viewed as a religiously motivated idea rather than a scientific theory, and Meyer's work has not been widely published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Additionally, legal rulings, like the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover case, have reinforced that ID is not considered science, further solidifying its rejection by mainstream scientists.
As a christian biologist I love this conversations! Real science points to the truth... and the truth is a person...
May I ask, what do you see in biology that makes you believe? Is it that our genetic code?
God isn't a person.
@@monicatorres4965 Theists always have a problem with words like truth and evidence.
@@vladtheemailer3223Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.
And the truth is the Lord Jesus 🙏
Wonderful interview by Dr Meyer Very intelligent Man, and Bring people Closer to God.
You're doing the Lord's work Dr. Meyer. I don't know if you understand how important your voice is, but in this dark world where people run around aimlessly falling into into deeper and deeper darkness, you're a saving grace. Thank you! God bless you!!!!
And to all the deaf and blind people commenting, if God is not real, nothing in this world (waking up to work, paying your bills, defending innocents, losing weight) it doesn't matter, you will die anyway. There's NO hope. period. It all sucks. Everyday you have to put up with BS from everything around you and maybe get a few moments of joy in between. No hope.
So now, understand what Jesus did... he resurrected. He defeated death. And then he told his disciples to go forth and tell everyone the good news.... that is, the Gospel.
Very true, and the good news of God's Kingdom to restore the original purpose of the earth i.e. make it a paradise
Denis Noble is also challenging Neo Darwinism but still takes a materialistic position. Michael Levin’s work is doing a similar thing but also from a materialistic position. The big difference between this and that of even a decade ago is the recognition that Science is agnostic with regards to God and all other world views. This is good for both Science and philosophy because it requires the Scientist and the philosopher to acknowledge their biases as they approach their work. This can only be healthy.
There is a good reason why science is materialistic. It is the study of the natural world. It can be defined as asking testable questions based on a hypothesis. This is not really a bias, just staying within the field. The God hypothesis cannot be tested until we claim God acts in the world. If God acts in the physical world, it becomes teatable, and a scientific question. Another claim sometimes made is life after death. Science recognizes no evidence and no possible mechanism. While we cannot technically prove a negative, science can say that if people have an afterlife, there is no detectable interaction in the physical world.
If you look at the bible from scientific perspective - you'll see that science disprove god without even trying :)
@@SuperMrAndersennot even close.
@@SuperMrAndersen please lol...elaborate
@@clark5363
Sure. What bible says - humans were created by evolution? The sun and stars were created after the Earth? So bible is fake, not a god's word.
Dr. Meyer, yeah....Truly appreciated his new book!
Meyer is a pseudo-scientist that the whole scientific community rejects.
@@LGpi314 BOT
@@0ucantstopme034 Delusional.
@@LGpi314no he's not. That's slander.
@@James-ll3jb 98 percent of biologists believe humans evolved over time. Google it yourself. That is huge, huge consensus. These are experts, and I am sure many are theists.
Stephen myer is doing some incredible work.
Frank turek always asks atheists an important question “if Christianity were true would you become a Christian?”
Many still say no, so it’s not about “proof” as they always claim, they hate the idea of a god, they hate the fact that they can be held to a higher standard to which they do not want to be held too. So that is why people are still denying Stephen myers incredible work. Apparently people in the comment section know more than Stephen myer 😂
Nice little straw man you've built there.
But I have a lighter in my hand ... 🔥
If Christianity were true I wouldn't become a Christian because I don't believe in stoning people to death (for any reason); I also don't agree with slavery, genocide, substitutional atonement and many of the other morally dubious/corrupt tenets of Christian morality that Christians, in some bizarre exercise of mind-blindness, seem to genuinely believe is 𝘢 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘥.
Wow.
Unlike you, I won't speak for all atheists ...
... but I for one, don't hate your god, as I have no reason to believe it exists ... but I definitely dislike the character as portrayed in your theology and regard the idea of such a monster being real as nightmarish.
If Christianity were proven true, I'd believe your god exists - but I would not worship it. This is the nuance that whooshed past your hemispheres without even skimming them. Something being proven real is separate from whether that thing deserves respect.
Call me weird but I just don't think I'd get on well with a possessor of an eternal torture chamber.
There's nothing about that I can respect.
for me as kind of Christian, scienctific evidences are not issue at all. for me biggest problem for Christianity is problem of evil and suffering. There are more than enough of evidences that completely refute evolution.
1. "Incredible" meaning unbelievable? Because I'd agree with that.
2. Yeah Turek's dishonest. Belief *in god* requires evidence *of god.* Yet you'll notice Turek's dishonest question sidesteps that and asks if Christianity were true would you become Christian. So Turek changes the topic from god to Christianity, and then changes it *a second time* from Christianity to becoming Christian. (After all, it's true Kim Jon Un exists, right? Does that mean you follow him? Or would you agree that knowing something is true is different from knowing it's worth following?)
It should bother you that the main proponents of your worldview regularly make dishonest arguments like that.
It should bother you that there's no logical argument for theism.
In good, er ... faith, I'm gonna assume that you aren't just presenting a vapid and asinine straw man and genuinely believe the things you've said about atheists' position on these matters.
Unlike you, I won't speak for all atheists ...
If Christianity were true I wouldn't become a Christian because I don't believe in stoning people to death (for any reason); I also don't agree with slavery, genocide, substitutional atonement and many of the other morally dubious/corrupt tenets of Christian morality that Christians, in some bizarre exercise of withering self-deception, seem to genuinely believe is 𝘢 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘥 than any other form of morality.
I don't hate your god, as I have no reason to believe it exists ... but I definitely dislike the character as portrayed in your theology and regard the idea of such a monster being real as nightmarish.
If Christianity were proven true, I'd believe your god exists - but I would not worship it. This is the nuance that apparently whooshed past your hemispheres without even skimming them. Something being proven real is separate from whether that thing deserves respect.
Call me weird but I just don't think I'd get along with a being in possession of an eternal torture chamber ... if I learnt that a neighbour of mine had a torture chamber in which he abused his children I'd be reporting him to the authorities while you were, supposedly, loving him.
@@tonygoodkind7858 Thinking that 4,5 bilion letters word called DNA came to existence randomly over time is more incredible than anything i have heard. You going on a beach and seeing just simple word HAHA writen on sand would never say "waves did it over milions of years" you would instantly know that somebody visited beach and was playing with sand.
2. That has nothing to do with dishonesty what the hell are you talking about. He answers question that are asked, maybe questioner doesnt like that answer thats different thing. THen he asks question of his own. He can ask from his perspective and his belief that is not changing the question. You are out of context completely.
Comparing God to Kim Jon Un as example of something bad isnt really good in many ways. several are fallowing: Kim Jong Un constantly monitors you and prohibits your actions if they are against his rules. God on the other hand lets us do what we wont. So you both cry about God not being here and visible to prove himself but hate idea of God existing to tell you what to do. If God was evil planet would be way way worse.
And in Christianity regardless if you beleave in it or not what is the claim?? It claims that God came to earth in human form, and was brutally killed and put on cross to rot. What does God according to christianity do here on earth among us tiny humans? Why is he willingly allowing to get tortured by us humans? well at least in Christianity God came to share suffering with us and isnt distant from problem of evil and suffering. Why would God care at all about sharing pain with us if he is evil? Think about it.
Great questions, thumbs up for not beginning the discussion with already known facts of how someone stsrted his carrier etc, but jumping straight into the exciting territories. Great interview, thanks.
There is nothing more natural than the fact of an intelligent designer
but it's not a fact. It's a baseless claim devoid of any evidence. It would be pushing it to even call it a hypothesis.
Really , show me the process of creation of any world and its inhabitants anywhere by any supernatural intelligent designer
Believers have no sense of humility or shame, no morals or standards. Huckaby & other pastors endorsed Trumpism.
I find that believers strike out with threats, when informed of reasoned denial, of the existence of a God outside of fiction.
Atheist literature goes back to 500 BC. I suspect educated men have always known Deity as a tool of fiction, a tool of state.
I enjoy the ludicrous notions of faith.
Believers begin their crimes like Moses, becoming history's worst navigator, as if travel were best done with one foot in fantasyland.
Believers fail to comprehend the saying of Jesus Christ which has lasted to this day. Believers are found among a gathering crowd, when Jesus Christ is alarmed by a wicked generation, those who seek the signs of resurrection. "The only sign given is Jonah" - who was a believer. He was outnumbered & murdered by other believers. Jesus Christ "hangeth on a tree" to celebrate the War of the Jews.
"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree:" Galatians 3:13
"Render to Caesar"
@@teks-kj1nj I doubt it'd make any difference if we proved God existed. You would still reject him.
@@Dirshaun Start by proving it, then I'll acknowledge he exists. But I might still reject him coz he's an a-hole.
He made cancer, he made a world where it's creatures have to brutally eat each other to survive, parasites, viruses, he flooded the world killing all inhabitants women and children included. He ordered genocide of civilizations. I could go on, but no need.
The biggest problem I see today with scientific philosophy in it’s general consensus with it’s materialistic and naturalistic perspective is it’s rigidity of thought. In many ways, scientists have become unwilling to accept new ideas regardless of how well an argument is presented concerning any deficiencies in their current positions.
One needs to at times to stand outside and consider a minority view to maybe see things in a different way in order to be more objective. All to often when ID or creationism is brought up, a wave of emotionalism erupted and an ad hominem attack replaces a more fruitful argument.
I see this even more so with scientists arguing with James Tour. Even with all his scientific experience and knowledge, they deride him as a creationist rather than address his arguments and concerns with facts or data. I find this very telling.
Thats absurd. If someone came up with a new theory for gravity tomorrow, the scientists would investigate it. In my opinion it is the religious people who have the rigidity of thought, because they must conform to what is in their holy books regardless of any kind of discoveries.
@@davidgreen6490 look how long it took them to accept the concept of the Big Bang theory. Einstein even went so far as to cheat with the math. Scientists are human and a lot of the time they are afraid to follow where the evidence leads them!
@@davidgreen6490: Another example of how scientists try to cover up the fact’s with false science is by the shroud of Turin. Here the STURP team had conclusively shown that the image on the artifact could in no way have been created by human means in any way, even with today’s technology. But carbon dating for twenty years supposedly had shown it to be a product of the Middle Ages. Recently the carbon dating has been falsified! The ones who did the original dating had purposely chose a part of the cloth they knew was repaired and did not do a random sample! They were paid off by Oxford university.
By using the latest technology the cloth has been shown to have been made in the first century
I wholeheartedly disagree with all you said. Science creates hypothesis, makes predictions based on that, observes the results, is willing to accept that a hypothesis was wrong (theists never do this as dogma doesn't allow it), create a new hypothesis if needed or further narrow it down and the cycle goes on. The issue is that theism or god has never in the history provided any hypothesis, has not made any predictions and therefore offers no value to science. So it's not a problem of scientists that theism provides absolutely nothing to the field to explore.
@@patienbear: How many times have scientists fudged or buried data for political reasons or to maintain their funding?!
For instance, the scientists working for the cigarette companies knew for fifty years that cigarettes were cancerous and buried the data.
Christian’s who are scientists I think would be conscientious in following the data and not sitting on it
People and scholars in particular are so embedded in their views, they refuse to even consider another possibility. Because to do so would wreck their reputation and career. So to maintain the status quo it is easier and safer personally than to sacrifice everything they have worked toward, even though they know they are wrong.
Such as?
@bw3240 That's why the scientific method is better than trusting the words of a book. The scientific method allows for scrutiny of their most venerated, the scriptures and their churches, mosques, and temples historically have not.
@@Jigglepoke science also takes leaps of faith and they end up clutching to the word of man and over time they have back tracked and changed their theories. Examples being steady state universe to the big bang, life began by a pool of chemicals struck by lightning to they really have no clue, and no proof of darwinian evolution but only darwinian adaptation. Science has great faith in man therefore science must be rewritten over time, yet the Bible has been constant for over 2,000 years.
@Jigglepoke the most scrutinized book in history is the Holy Bible. In my life time numerous scientific "truths " have had to be rewritten because the experts who wrote it originally were wrong. Man has no idea how the origin of life happened, science only has poor hypothesis. Putting your trust and faith into a fallible man is at best highly risky. Faith is faith, where you place your faith is wholly up to you. I have made my choice and I am at peace with it, I hope you are as well.
@bw3240 The Bible has been scrutinised, of course. Most of that scrutiny has come since the enlightenment and the formulation of the scientific method.
That method has shown that Genesis and other Biblical ideas of the world can not be literal. The scrutiny improved our lives, but it was hard fought for. You obviously know how churches through the ages have treated anyone who disagrees with dogma.
Even today, churches disfellowship adherents who no longer believe exactly what their version of Biblical truth is. This can include shunning from your community and family.
Meyer complains about scientists having a kind of club that you'll be excluded from if you teach something contrary, but it's nowhere close to the way many religious communities shun people.
Furthermore, when you read Meyer, Doug Axe, Behe... they all relished the opportunity to prove the establishment wrong. Also if they changed their minds, would the Discovery Institute still fund them?
You can be at peace without bringing us back to the dark ages.
I love the good doctor, he's very well spoken.
@1:12:36 - It takes putting one’s pride away to being humble about God. It takes the Holy Spirit to convict you of truth and righteousness. It takes repentance, aka changing your mind about the God of the Bible; To convince an unbeliever the ability to believe God created everything.
- There are many verses in the Bible talking about there’s the knowledge of God within everyone ever born; That they suppress their knowledge of God in unrighteousness.
"It takes putting one’s pride away to being humble about God. " Which god? There have been over 4000 religions and god claims and none, zero, zilch, nada got even close to being true. Once you understand why you reject every other god's claim then you we will understand why we reject them all.
@@LGpi314 The one true God...Jesus the Christ....creator of the universe and all therein.
@@alantasman8273 Why do you lie? Allah is the only true god. Any Muslim will tell you.
"God...Jesus the Christ....creator of the universe and all therein." Mohammed split the moon in half. your jesus never existed outside of the bible.
show me historical documents where jesus as son of god is called by the name outside of the bible. I'll wait.
@@LGpi314 I'm sure he's about to get back with you.
@@LGpi314 Jesus was mentioned even in the Quran. If you claim to follow Mohammed but deny the existence of Jesus, you deny the writings of Mohammed in the Quran, and thus are no muslim. Along with that, the Quran even confirms the Bible to be true, and the Bible explicitly stated in the Book of Revelations that any writing that came after it was false. Therefore, if the Quran is true, the Bible is true. However, if the Bible is true, the Quran is false. You cannot deny this if you claim to follow Mohammed, because it is all written in the Quran, and to deny the Quran in any capacity is to not be muslim.
Gerd Muller commenting on SM misrepresenting his presentation: "Disagreements about the theory of how evolution works, do not call the facts of biological evolution into doubt. This is where most ID design advocates make a jump in their argument that is simply not warranted. SM does not use my criticism of the standard evolution theory in the sense in which it was intended" - This does not sound like a man who thinks evolution is false.
Yeah, ID's and YEC's love to quote mine. The people they quote mine NEVER agree with the ID or YEC. It's a really disgusting tactic.
I don't think you understood SM. He never said the theory of evolution is false.
SM has never claimed that evolution is false. You have much catching up to do.
Dawkins' speculations don't count as scientific evidence...
RICHARD DAWKINS Speculations don't have to count, he works with the evidence and because of this his speculations do count, unlike the god squad with all Thier linguistic acrobats, STILL DO NOT HAVE ONE GRAIN OF PROOF FOR THIER god. and it's MR.DAWKINS TOO YOU. 🌍💚☮️
If Dawkins is speculation, then what in the world are the rantings of a bunch of illiterate Goat Herders????
Meyers ignorance also doesn’t disprove scientific facts like Macroevolution.😉
@@victormason6954Atheists by their own admission are not intelligently designed. Enough said!
@@ramigilneas9274So explain the mechanism for Macro evolution and gain yourself the greatest Nobel Prize ever. Go on then, make a name for yourself!
Thank you gentlemen for bringing to light very complex subject matter .
Love it all!!
Nick Lane’s work on hydrothermal vents and membranes is the most convincing I have seen with regards to abiogenesis but it still makes very limited claims and is nowhere near a coherent or consistent explanation. However, Nick Lane himself, while pursuing materialistic explanation, has, like Noble and Levin, a welcome openness to philosophical positions other than materialism.
...primordial soup 2.0
To Thomas Nagel: I LOVE the universe where God looks after us and takes cares of our mistakes. I hope from my heart that one day you will recognize the love the God is.
'The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses,' Einstein wrote to Gutkind, 'the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this.'
@@LGpi314 Watch some NDE stuff.. where people were dead for hours and even days and they were send back. They all say that material experience is nothing compared to soul experiences.
And you can even check some 'big balls I'm a bad ass man' who died and were completely transformed when they come back.
The truth is that we are souls who have earth experience and not bodies who have souls.
@@ThOperator Do muslims see jesus in their NDEs?
None of the studies have proven NDEs. Why do you people have to lie?
Do you know what happens during NDE? Oxygen deprivation. Drugs can do the same thing. It has nothing to do with balls.
"The truth is that we are souls who have earth experience and not bodies who have souls.' Ha ha. Funny. Now prove it.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
There is no evidence of angels, satan or gods.
Do better next time. What else do you have?
@Robert-ct6bc Well everyone that comes back is marked as NDE even if it was in a morge for a day. So I don't know what to call that.
@Robert-ct6bc I see that you have some inner unrest. Now I still love you as fellow human being and will pray for you.
Maybe check some NDE-s of people that landed in hell and they were then revived in the ambulance.
The problem is always that time runs much slower when you are not in the body.
Let God help you and show you the path to Him. God bless.
The role of a mind is impossible to deny, because the conceptual always precedes the literal.
Meyer should address what his model of life's history actually is. In detail, explain what we observe and how that fits into the Genesis account including the flood.
Explain the days and order of creation. Explain how before the flood the Bible indicates all animal life including humans were vegans. Explain how an entire planet can flood.... the list goes on...
I don't know whether he has or hasn't touched on those things since I have never read any of his works. Obviously this video was more of a conversation between two people rather than a structured expose on his beliefs and understandings.
You mentioned the flood twice. Did you know that there is believed to be between 3 and 11 times more water beneath the surface of the earth than in all of the oceans, lakes, rivers, and ice caps combined.
We are talking groundwater, because that is a misleading term. We are talking in gases, vapor, liquid form, etc.
Groundwater makes up approximately 10.5 cubic miles of water. The mantle holds approximately 1-1.5 times as much as the oceans and other surface water, and the deep interior holds yet much, much, more.
Obviously we cannot observe what could have happened to bring water to the surface in great magnitude over a short period of time, but just one single volcano in 2022, Hunga Tongs-Hunga Ha'apal released an estimated 160,957,451.26 TONS of water vapor into the atmosphere.
I don't pretend to have the answers, but I do not just dismiss things out of hand simply because I want any of the answers to be different.
I actually enjoy trying to seek answers.
Peace.
where does it indicate anything other than humans is vegan?
It is a flat earth with a dome on top. Like the Bible says water above and below.
@@aussieman8738 dying on the hill of saying the firmament doesnt exist is crazy. Water below exists. The air (firmament) exists. Space is like 2/3rds water. Thats the last water space.
Ive yet to find anything in Genesis that contradicts anything we have currently discovered.
In addition it never even suggests the earth is flat.
@just_me2797 Thanks for your reply and for pointing out that I seem to keep on mentioning the flood 😀.
When I was a believer, I found it possible to explain away almost any question with a little science, logic, and mental agility.
I genuinely believed that all scriptures were inspired by God and held all the answers if we only looked deep enough 2nd tim 3:16.
I realised after many years that I was, in fact, cheating as my beliefs could explain away questions and challenges, but not entire models.
For example, if we are to consider the flood, that the water stored underground is enough to flood the entire planet to 15 cubics(?) above the highest mountain, what would be the knock-on effects for that amount of water coming out in such a short period of time? One of the many problems is the heat problem, but there's scores of others. That's just for the water coming out of the Earth. How about where it came from in the heavens? The Bible says it was stored above the sun and stars... that's a bit weird, right? Life spreading from the ark 4350 years ago to what we have now is a bit weird as well? How would that be possible?... There's always an answer but never a model!
A model should be able to explain all of these things. That's why I believe Meyer doesn't give a comprehensive one because it simply can't be done using observation and the Bible without an extraordinary amount of poetic license and arbitrary interpretation.
That being said, maybe there's truth in the Bible who knows. I like some forms of Christianity and to believe in God can be a beautiful thing.
Thank you for a most interesting and enlightening conversation.
I see Dr Stephen Meyer : I watch the video
Same. The guy's bad arguments deserve to be revealed.
@@tonygoodkind7858 we're not here for the same reasons tho. Meyer is a goat in my view
@@hemankhouilla2795 obviously he is Goat like lennox and other great apologetics. Our friend tony doesnt like idea of inteligence to exist, yet he likes to type on internet how he is more inteligent than us stupid belivers
@@hemankhouilla2795 So you think it's good for falsehoods/unknowns to be spread using bad/dishonest arguments?
@@tonygoodkind7858 I think the issue is not that as clear cut as you present it. I usually enjoy hearing to Meyer, didn't check anything tho. But one thing I do think is that a fully naturalistic view of the world is not that consistent with the world around in which we live : the "appearance" of design, the meaning of life etc...
Gratitude and Honor
You mean scientists are turning to God. Science has always been a field of knowledge and study that interacts with and interprets God's handiwork. Cheers ;)
What utter bollocks. There is no god, if there was it would have the decency to reveal itself or science would have found it by now.
You shouldn't listen to crooks like Meyers who lie for Jesus and their income.
Yeah, never mind the fact that we cant explain a single thing about the creator or how it works, or that there is precisely nothing necessary about it, or that it even exists at all, let alone what it can do, lets just use circular reasoning to say that the evidence that it exists is that it needs to exist.
@@SnakeWasRight Kind of like saying these fossils are X amount of years old because they are in this rock strata and the rock strata is this amount of years old because it has these fossils in it?
@@SnakeWasRight Or how about matter created itself because it knew it had to create itself.
@@dalesherry1056 think about what you say. What about God creating itself because it knew it had to create itself before it existed? Yeah, stupid. Plus, no one thinks matter created itself. Matter is the result of interactions between quantum fields. If you dont understand the physics, stop talking about it.
Either way, a god that didn't create itself but always existed, versus quantum fields that always existed and didn't create themselves. That's fine.... except there are way more assumptions for a god. And it contradicts itself because something needs to exist outside of God since God has limitations, and if you don't agree, just ask yourself if it's possible for god to make 2+2=5, or to make it good to set toddlers on fire for fun.
@@dalesherry1056 wow, so you bought the lies of creationists, didn't you? Fossils aren't dated by the rock layer and the rock layer by the fossil. That's stupid. It's a shorthand for rhe ACTUAL dating methods that ACTUALLY date the rocks: radiometric dating. The rocks are dated by radioactive samples in the rock, and the fossils are then dated by the age of the rock. Simple as that, stop spreading lies.
@@dalesherry1056 yeah, so you aren't educated. No, the rocks are dated by radiometric dating. Radioactive samples in the rock give an age to the rock, and thus an age to the fossils in the rock. Stop spreading misinformation.
You can use a shorthand because if we already know X species always occurs in Y layer, and we know that from radiometric dating, Y layer always has the same age, we know that X fossils are most likely to be that age because they're most likely in Y layer. Of course, they could always be found in different layers, which paleontologists check for, obviously, since that adjustment is made all the time. Which you would know if you did literally any research.
Our Lord God YHWH is a Gracious Creator God
Christianity is fake. It stole pretty much everything from other earlier religions and the same way Islam did with small modifications.
The is no evidence of a global flood, there is no evidence that jesus as the son of god or Moses ever existed, and the resurrection was stolen from Julius Caesar's resurrection. No resurrection. Snakes and donkeys do not talk. Genesis is full of contradictions. Earth is not 6000 years old.
ALL THOSE ARE LIES. People now know and leaving the religion for what it is CULT.
How if most people go to hell? Am I "good" because I don't torture ALL my puppies for peeing in the house? Would you say that makes me AWESOME?
Since scientists are convinced that comb jellies evolved before sponges. And my understanding is that evolution poses that less complex life gives way to more or equally complex life, how do we account for this underdevelopment or de evolution so early on?
Does finding the ingredients for life in space offer any evidence that life is natural event that happened? Did God put the ingredients in space?
Life may have started in a natural way, but that would not say anything about the origin of the universe.
What is likely not understood is God; Consciousness is all there is God is in space, as space; everywhere present; everywhere conscious; everywhere in charge. There is Consciousness; fundamental, mind elemental, elements; both macro and micro plus what works on them; the three forces; strong, neutral, and weak plus magnetism which is still not understood. I wish in this age of physics and forces they would be considered, and start moving away from gross materialism which without force is just inert matter.
There is also the question of is it all within Mind or outside; its independent existence can be questioned as well; if the way we perceive it is a play of ideas on substance; the ideas from consciousness; the substance also from consciousness.
It is likely that it is a projection.
@@peterwallis4288 That "may have" is like saying, I "may have" found 2 trillion dollars on the floor, yay. The likelihood of that "may have" is abysmally low.
Professor Dawkins position is an accurate reflection of the consensus of world experts in all of the various fields covering evolution. Theists attempt to ignore the overwhelming scientific data and put forward a design argument, however they really need to produce some sort of evidence instead of just multiple philosophical assertions.
And Meyer had such an opportunity in the Kitzmillee V Dover trial. He was scheduled to be an expert witness for ID but pulled out of the court case.
But it's ONLY the Christian God who is the designer, right?
Right? Cant be anyone else
@@therick363If you want to make argument Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator if our universe and our reality no one is stopping you
@@MarkPatmos I’m not. We are talking how Christians act like it’s can only be their god and nothing else.
It be worth finding out one way or the other You show your bias amd lack of understanding of who the Christian god is. You should probably go research that question.
Logically there can only be one true God.
You can look this up yourself. Many Muslims recently reported having dreams of Jesus Christ before converting to Christianity.
This is something directly predicted within the Bible.
Therefore there’s good proof for the Christian God.
Justin, Randy J. GUliuzza, of the Institute of Creation Research in Dallas, Texas, says, "Biology needs a theory of biological design."
He has degrees in both Medicine and Engineering and this has led him to look at biology as something that has been engineered. He has written on, "Why biology needs a theory of biological design."
I think that this topic would produce a great podcast to follow this one. Stephen argued for intelligent design. Randy goes the next step and says, Let's look at biology as something that didn't occur by random processes, but required careful engineering.
I look forward to hearing such a program.
To me Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett & Darwin are my favorites
Hitchens slaps are the best. Even more today.
big liars. altough hitchens was good, he just did not understand that all fr33mösön made religions worship the evil.
@@v2ike6udik What did they lie about?
"fr33mösön made religions worship the evil." WHAT!?!?!
Are you ok, bud?
Love and faith come together and need two to exist. Mankind can't be alone. Abraham looking at the starry sky believed in a loving Creator and received God's Love.
"What would it take foelr design to be taken seriously?"
Honesty.
the flagella
@Robert-ct6bc
What is design? What is wish? What is thought?
Are they separate from reality? If so, how?
@Robert-ct6bc cite
@Robert-ct6bc
I don't have a designer entity, but it is interesting that you imagine I do.
What I have is an unanswered question and (about which) a "lack of" surpirse.
@Robert-ct6bc
Thought is neurons interacting. Let's leave that to one side.
The rest we can work with.
What is meant by naturally occurring?
In what quality is natural occurrence identified as opposed to design?
Many people miss the point with the concept of design. DNA does not contain information. It expresses a pattern that when interpreted builds a living organism.
To see this clearly imagine a modern book written in English. Now if you give that book to someone that does not speak English the information content is zero.
It is just a series of patterns. The information arises when the symbols are interpreted which requires an interpreter which we would call a mind.
Imagine someone wrote out the DNA code and gave it to you. Then you were asked to read it. Why would you even thing it codes for making proteins? It could just as easily be a story about a snowman. It would depend on the rules you employed to decode it.
Cyphers use this method all the time, they invent codes that can be decoded in multiple ways like hiding text in a JPEG.
First of all I want to say that I think the biggest problem is humanistically psychological in nature, which is simply biased prejudice, where someone for whatever reasons are incapable of the quality of integrity, to be willing to follow the evidence for wherever it may lead to a conclusion, and so prefer to know what’s true even if the evidence leads to a conclusion that wasn’t what the may have preferred and might even hurt.
And without that quality of character, that was more powerful than a person’s biases, someone like Richard Dawkins for example, would be handicapped for discovering what’s true about anything that they had a biased prejudice towards. And it’s a psychological fact that the longer someone has believed something that wasn’t true, it is very difficult for them to change their mind, and no matter how solid and profound the challenging evidence. And such is the need for some people to win an argument, that renders them incapable of admitting that they were wrong, apologizing or saying they were sorry.
@@garywilson7992 As the saying goes, science progresses one death at a time!
Integrity is everything.. 🙏
@@jimhughes1070 Absolutely, and if someone didn’t possess a good portion of integrity, and at least strived towards it, what other qualities of character could someone have that could make up for it? None I can think of anyway, other than to say, someone could be worse.
And yet it’s also true, that if it weren’t for God’s grace, given the right situation, every one of us is capable of doing far worse than we’ve ever done.
@@garywilson7992
No doubt... I forget the head count Samuel got up to when he was hacking at them false prophets...
Obedient no matter what... That's the kind of integrity I need 👍🙏...
Sorry I was thinking about something else when I started those phrases 🤣
@@garywilson7992
Well said by the way... Your comments were on point and absolutely true.. 🙏💯
Your reasoning to a mind being behind our reality makes perfect sense to me but you will never convince the majority of people to believe it because as the Bible says “narrow is the way”. Most people will always reject the truth because they don’t want to be accountable to God. They want to be their own God.
Exactly right.
So then we can assume if there is a god, he doesn't want us to know him.
@@gusgrizzel8397 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Romans 1
@@gusgrizzel8397 actually He projected Himself into space/time and died on a cross so that we could know Him. But if you choose to turn your back to Him that’s your choice.
@@troycampbell7408 Omg. You need some help. Really.
If intelligent design doesn't explain what actually happened with the origin of life besides "God did it", and offers no predictions for things we don't already know, and provides no precise definition for, intelligence, information, design, or God itself, it's not a theory. It is a conclusion. The only thing ID seems interested in actually doing is getting people to say that God exists, and not actually adding any sort of scientific insight.
You mean like the hypothesis of the multiverse? The Neo Darwinists have gone from the incredible to the absurd. The more they try to strive to keep Darwinism relevant, the sillier they sound.
Well, considering that God is meta-natural, the existence of God is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. It’s Stephen Myers’ job to give the available scientific evidence, typically regarding fine-tuning, to lead people to a philosophical conclusion. So yes, God is a “conclusion”, as you put it, but that’s simply the nature of the case.
The thing intelligent design theory is interested in is looking at the evidence without presuppositions and concluding what it best and most reasonably shows. If that's what the evidence shows, then that's the most likely scientific answer. Yelling "you can't just say God did it" is neither scientific nor rational; its close minded and starts with an assumption that certain conclusions cannot be considered no matter what the evidence shows.
Have you researched the work of creation scientists? Sounds like no.
Sooo.... You haven't been paying attention at all? 🤔...
The scientific evidence is available for everyone to look at... They're not "making up" science bro...
You're condemning ID because it makes conclusions about the evidence at hand?
How about the conclusions atheist scientists came to 180 years ago?... With no scientific evidence whatsoever 🧐
That's where logic is supposed to intervene! 🎉
But the religiously devout care nothing for "evidence"....
They are taught that dirt " got smart", and created everything....
(Except the dirt 🤣).... And "by god" they're going to stick to their principles! 😎
The path of least resistance is always preferred by natural born liars 😉..
You go ahead and keep stacking them up... logically, you should eventually revert back to zero intelligence 🧐
My father was a scientist (geologist) who always encouraged us to follow the evidence no matter where it leads. I was intellectually lazy for most of my early life and his counsel seemingly led me down a self-indulgent path. It was only when I began to take science seriously that I began to see there were no satisfactory explanations for the origin of the universe and life that didn’t include intelligence. Science has become an important undergirding of my faith and one of the most enjoyable interest of my life.
Where did the intelligent designer come from?
@@mcmanustony That's a great question. If we accept God as the intelligent designer, He claims the name, "I AM" which some take to mean He exists throughout eternity. Something we really can't comprehend.
@@DerBeatle7 I can't comprehend it as it's meaningless nonsense.
@@DerBeatle7 " If we accept God as the intelligent designer," Why do we need to accept something before having the evidence for it? It makes no sense.
"He claims the name, "I AM" " Claims with no evidence are just bullshiiit.
"Something we really can't comprehend." We used to not comprehend lots of things and now we do. We used to attribute lighting and thunder to Zeus and now we can recreate lighting in the lab whenever we want.
@@DerBeatle7 Unfortunately these argumentative trolls (two weeks ago ~= OCTOBER 2024) have said in their hearts "there is no God" and their door to living water supply is fastened by their arrogant attitudes. We could continue to pray for their repentance.
Once you produce a single experiment that shows god or how it works, then you GET to talk science and god. But we're still waiting. Thousands of years and EVERY act of god or gods has been shown to be completely natural, or has only natural aspects that have been discovered.
Then theres the people who think the argument from ignorance is a valid argument. It isn't. It's a fallacy.
By your standard, no one would ever get to propose a theory of anything.
A theory is a proposal intuited by pieces of observational data and mathematical possibility, of as-yet unobserved data.
A theory is the logical leap to the unproven.
If you limit or don't allow data that you don't like, you're not performing science. You are spending a lot of time and money going in a circle of confirmation bias.
@@claytondennis8034 Where did you come up with this drivel? By the standard of needing evidence, no one can propose a theory? You mean a hypothesis? I'm not sure you understand how this works, buddy. You come up with a guess, or hypothesis, then you come up with a way to test it, ie differentiate between imagination and reality, so you can see whether your guess was correct. That's called evidence.
Where is your confusion? What's the problem with that standard?
No, that's not what a theory is, try again.
A theory is not a logical leap into the unproven. That's just nothing. The closest thing that exists is a hypothesis. And hypotheses are absolutely WORTHLESS until you show them to be correct with TESTING.
You don't seem to understand that data is what shows your hypothesis (or as you say, theory) is correct or incorrect. A "leap into the unproven" is not data, it's a guess at what the data are. You seem VERY confused.
God is a logical necessity. Rejection of God is a logical fallacy.
No,
Nope! But we get you lie
@@vladtheemailer3223 yes
@@therick363 we get it, you would prefer to believe you are a random monkey mistake than an intentionally, intelligently designed image bearer of the most amazing being in existence, but we'll keep the light on for ya 😉
@@refuse2bdcvd324actually we all get it’s YOU who can’t handle reality or honestly. Let us know when you’re ready to discuss things like an honest adult
I wonder why Meyer doesn't embrace YEC. He is a formidable proponent of the ID position, I'm curious why he never seems to mention the possibility of a recent origin of all living thingsv only thousands of years ago.
Because he prefers to tell lies that are arguable to semi literate people. YEC is nonsensical and can only be sold to the dumbest people. Even meyers wouldn't stoop that low.
@@BrainDamagedBob His comment is only that he will not demean their argument.
Check out Darwin's Drlimma, I think he mentions or alludes to young earth: I.e. transition from one creature, to another, ...very interesting documentary!!😊
@lewiscarey1593 lol... religion does a terrible thing to the brain. It's almost as if you guys are in kindergarten.
@@alfredoparadike4106that was a kindergarten insult
Keep the sincere conversations going = together
TH-cam comments always show how desperate people are to avoid even entertaining a worldview that posits objective morality. People would rather be told that everything is meaningless than renounce their sin.
Nailed it. Fear of being judged
Amen!
Ignorance carries a terrible cost😢
what sin?
@@aue82a
Any of the 10 ... 😎
It is amazing how science is now proving God without a shadow of a doubt . Interesting times we live in
No, their claim is pure pseudoscience, creationism dressed in a lab coat to look like science.
Not at all.
@@vladtheemailer3223maybe not out right proof, but definitely heavily implying a probabilistic favor. 🎉
@@clark5363 favor for what?
@@vladtheemailer3223 Intelligent designer is now proven. Whether that designer is the God the Father of the Bible or say Allah in Islam science cannot really prove that. Science is the tool to examine, theorize the material world or the created world.
Whenever you hear someone discussing the statistics of bio-chem, take all their other claims with a grain of salt. You can't forecast odds in chemistry like it's the weather. ESPECIALLY, not in the wild where there are variables at play that we don't even know about at this time.
Whenever you hear Meyer talking about anything, just assume he's lying because he almost certainly is.
That’s what it claims to be able to do. It’s obviously NOT how it works though. So maybe you should consider that it’s not settled as much as you think 💯
@@cliveadams7629you sound like someone who can’t debate complex ideas without calling ppl names 🤓
adding more variables into play doesnt help the issue at all, it means odds are even slimmer since more factors need to get right
@@cliveadams7629 you can always write a paper and publish it proving evolutionary mechanism explains creation of different species and rebuke Meyer claims. :)
The Real Being - is the Real Being ----- no one more Real - in an absolute way.
Words - are dancing around - the Great Mystery.
Fare thee well - in life's journey.
Stephen Myer would destroy Dawkins in any debate.
"Stephen Myer would destroy Dawkins in any debate."
I somehow doubt that. Stephen Meyer's arguments are so easy to be countered. However whether or not this is true, our power or skill in being eloquent in debate has no bearing on the veracity or falseness of what you are saying.
@@mchooksisGo ahead and counter his argument then, if it is so "easy".
@@lozferris1719 Its one and a half hour discussion FFS. I'm not going through it again just for you. you choose a point he's making and I will give you a counter
Very unlikely, but he does have some interesting thoughts.
You're correct but Dawkins probably wouldn't realize it.
Dawkins has forgotten more about evolutionary science than this fool will ever know. Intelligent Design is nothing more than a cut and paste of Creationism.
I notice you didn't engage any of the arguments. The key one being what gave the information its order? Meyer doesn't even deny evolution as happening, just that it's not sufficient to explain the origin of the universe.
SCM is a freaking Gem! Hyper intelligent. Incredibly well spoken.
So no evolution? How do you explain nested hierarchies in phylogenetic trees between kinds generated from the unconstrained regions of their genome?
Goddidit.
if you see model of a car of specific name and his next successor model which is very similar to previous one, do you say workers in factory took previous version, hammered it changed some parts and made new model, or they made it from stratch using some existing technology and few new ones? does old model desapier when new one is released?
@@ivans8713 this works for constrained regions of the genome but not for unconstrained. Look into it before commenting
Go read his book.
@@1rgam3r Which one? The one he is promoting here doesn't mention phylogenies at all. Try again
Stephen Meyer is the GOAT
Yet no reputable scientist takes him seriously!
However, he’s unwilling to write a paper to substantiate his claims. I think he’s scared of being peer reviewed, because it’s just denying without evidence.
@@PaulChater-z9t He would be instantly rejected like Dr. Michael Behe before him. He won't waste his time with an establishment that has their agenda and conclusion already.
@@planetdog1641 as I said denying without substantial evidence. Which is rather deceitful.
@@PaulChater-z9t Absolutely! He knows it will be ridiculed!
The universe is a type of virtual reality created by God's mind? A universe designed by God so that science is possible.
Reality is not virtual - it is real.
God created this life and the new Kingdom of Eternity to come.
@@matthewstokes1608exactly!!! 😎
Every goofy idea atheist scientists come up with to prove there is no God, gets some more absurd than the last! 🧐
@@jimhughes1070 It is their desperation to be relevant despite their hypotheses constantly being proven wrong.
@@alantasman8273
And let's not forget the cash money 😎👍
I am puzzled by the fact that so many religious believers try to find confirmation of their beliefs in science. Why? You are supposed to have faith and believe, even the things which are not true, like making wine out of water, or walking over water. Is your belief maybe a little weak? Well, I could understand that.
it was a response to the claim that science proves that god doesn't, or doesn't have to, exist.
Stephen Meyer is a brilliant thinker; thank God for his contribution to science.
@@LifeandLifeMoreAbundantly what contributions has he made to science?
The ID hypothesis can't be tested. Which necessitates it being nonscientific.
@@spankduncan1114 He proves scientifically that there is design behind the universe. I trust you don’t deny that.
@@LifeandLifeMoreAbundantlyhe did not prove that scientifically
@@therick363 If he did would you be open to the facts pointing to intelligent design?
@@LifeandLifeMoreAbundantly I am always willing to listen and analyze new evidence, arguments, facts, etc etc. I haven’t heard any good ones which have caused me to change my mind/position/whatnot. But I’ll always ready for new data.
The difference between a Physicist or Biologist and Meyer is that they are looking for the answer. Meyer doesn't even try but goes for god of the gaps.
It seems to me he went to great links to show why his view wasn’t the God of the gaps.
@@robertheath1387it is however
HUMAN create GOD,
An Atheist and a Scientist.
I hope you understand that all rulers worship lucifer, rite. incl most scientists. they know, they just find ways to decive and tortures.
@@v2ike6udik Keep your tinfoil hat on or we can hear your thoughts.
Justin , why is'nt Richard Dawkins on your podcast to debate Meyer ?
Because we know Meyer would lose and Justin will lose with him.
God Is returning to science because God invented science. You can only suppress Truth for so long before it pushes out.
What do you suppose the word science to mean and what do you suppose " science" to be, but it depends on whether or not have have any Latin which all with wits learning and breeding- at any rate in England, have, it being customary for the upper class to put their results or children to Latin from the sage of eight onwards and to those with any Latin the meaning of the word science is obvious to them or jumps out at them as you will know if you have wits learning and breeding.
You may use the words science and not have any idea whatsoever what you seek to convey when you use that word, as you stare about to demonstrate but it would help you if you had at least some idea what the word science means and exactly what you seek to convey when you use the word.
If you have any Latin the meaning of science would obvious, but what you seek to convey when you use that word you are about to demonstrate that you have *Absolutely_No* idea
There is just no curing you fcuk-the-commandments anthropomorphic idolaters of tour idolatry is there? You cling on to your wretched totem fetish, image or idol like grim death, don’t you?
The fine tuning argument has been debunked so many times that you cannot continue to use it in good faith. For this argument to work, you have to show that different values for the constants are even possible. Assuming that a variable can have any value and then calculating the probability of the value that it has is simply a bad use of probabilities. What is the probability that a hydrogen atom has one proton? It is a one, a dot, and after that, so many zeroes that no calculator in the world can hold them! What is the probability that someone with my DNA exists? Calculated in 1900, it is a number that is so small that nobody can ever calculate it precisely! And yet, here I am.
Yes! "For this argument to work, you have to show that different values for the constants are even possible." This is a fair critique of the fine tuning argument and the reason I dismiss it too.
@@martinlag1 then there is the Big Bang, life, consciousness, math the language of the universe, DNA,
Good evil … Israel … Christianity … good evil..
That sounds like a strawman to me.
So if you find a piece of technology somwhere in the earth by archeologists, you can assume it evolved naturally - because even though impossible - here it is! Therefore nature can write poems, create technology, even make computers (suppose you find one)etc.
And all of that, that you'd never ascribe to nature is a much much simpler version that a human brain, organism or even a single human cell is.
@@mputilin You are mixing arguments. The fine-tuning argument has nothing to do with pieces of technology.
@mputilin Sure, just like they assume a rock had a designer.
With your argumentation - if you can prove that any one God of any religion doesn't exist, no God can exist.
So - do you accept that Thor exists?
can you prove that thor doesn't exist?
@@joegame4576 I can't, but ask a Christian whether they support the claim that Thor doesn't exist - and hence that no god can exist.
@@dyvel there's a difference between believing a claim and proving a claim. you said if you can prove. no one can prove. only believe. so your challenge or argument is meaningless.
@@joegame4576 Fair. So here's the logical conclusion then: With that argumentation - if you believe that Thor or any other single god doesn't exist, you must necessarily also believe that no god can exist. So do you believe Thor exist?
@@dyvel "if you believe that Thor or any other single god doesn't exist, you must necessarily also believe that no god can exist"
i don't see how that's logical. also, thor is a part of a polytheistic religion. if thor exists, then odin also exists. so again, your argument is meaningless.
He's never been away.
But, I understand your point. 👍
"God is RETURNING to SCIENCE? Dr Stephen Meyer" Big fat NO.
" Dr. Stephen Meye' So you are a creationist. If Joe Rogan can make Meyers look dumbdumb then it is the end of the line.
"People believe big foot exists" Joe Rogan.
The whole scientific community rejects everything DI can come up with.
Dawkins calls those "scientists" a disgrace to humanity.
@@LGpi314 Please work on your spelling and punctuation if you want to be taken seriously.
Noticed how you skirted articulating coherently an actual point of contention and went straight to an ad hominem attack. Brilliant.
@@dalesherry1056 My English is just fine. ad homs do not work.
@@johnmalcolm2028 Meyer is a pseudo-scientist that the whole scientific community rejects. I'm not ad hominem anyone.
Maybe you should look in the mirror.
@@johnmalcolm2028 Oh no, Sir. I'm not brilliant... I'm so dumb, I believe in a Creator.
Stephen Meyer makes the exact argument a person would expect him to make,🎉 since he comes from an Evangelical presupposition to practice some science.
There is zero concern amongst evolutionary biologists that selective adaptation over time accounts for the speciation of our world. Meijer dramatically overstates the "concern" amongst neo-darwinists.
You're kind of making his point.
What I find interesting is that the Scientist with a Theistic worldview do not entirely exclude evolution as a causal agent when thinking about and when they "do" science, but Neo Darwinist may have hurt their ability to do good science in part because of their dogmatic insistence that there can't be any design but merely an appearance of design, and that they insist that there is no evidence that an intelligent mind is even a possible causal agent. The Neo-Darwinist /materialistic world view on a philosophical level might be prohibiting scientists from making sound hypotheses. It might even be hindering societal and scientific advances. Wow what a revelation. Maybe it's time to break the outdated mold. Cheers ;)
He brought receipts though. Did you attend the conference he mentioned?
John 14:21-23 ESV
Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him." [22] Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, "Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?" [23] Jesus answered him, "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.
There is a ton of concern as soon as you start looking at the math... The second you realize whatever you propose has to have been able to happen since the beginning of the universe, you then realize that we can calculate the expected time a process would take, based on what we have observed (or not observed) over that last nearly 150 years)... From there you realize that there isnt even 1 trillionth of the time needed for the current models to be correct. At that point you have to say one of 3 things:
1) We have the age of the universe wrong. (However we have no evidence that it is older than we think it is).
2) We are missing a key element that speeds up the process, IE our models are wrong.
3) The whole thing is non-sense made up by a guy that didnt even know there was such a thing as DNA...
Ima go with not believing the mid-wit that renounced his own theories before he died, and not believing people who have worked their whole lives to try to prove the mid-wit right and hav failed for over a hundred years (this is not my conjecture, its due to the fact that pretty much every new discovery makes the process take even longer, or not possible at all)...
To say “there is ZERO concern” utterly undermines your point. You DO NOT know that with epistemic certainty. To ascribe disingenuousness to Meyer belittles you not him.
Your precognitive bias is running amok, you need to rein your chimps in.
Intelligent design: Creationism in a lab coat.
I think you don’t know what “creationism” means. Virtually all forms of theism are creationist.
LOVE IT!!!!!🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦
@Robert-ct6bc Are you sure that isn't projection on your part? What claim do you have to logic being a tool you can use?
What about a universe makes you think it's created just because you find meaning in it? Just like a Rorschak image - if you're looking for patterns you'll find it regardless of how random it is. Your brain has evolved to find patterns in everything.
And many times it is wrong.
@@yuvanraj2271 correct
Well that's a form of solipsism. You can arrive there through many means. In the end the question is if you believe in reality beyond yourself.
@@Roescoe Well Yes, i would suggest that if god exists, she does it only within our experience, but the world exists even when we don't.
But i don't understand how that would be connected to whether the world was created or not.
@@dyvel " but the world exists even when we don't" What reasoning do you use to arrive there? If your brain is just tricking "you" (that already bring up tons of contradictions)
Cult. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
Enjoy the flames precious 😁
I presume you prefer the cult of "smart dirt"... That "really isn't smart"... But somehow still able to produce what little brain you possess. 🧐
You should be commended for your strong faith, in your accidental brain😂
@@jimhughes1070 "Enjoy the flames precious" Just more delusional nonsense from religious nitz.
@@jimhughes1070 "I presume you prefer the cult of "smart dirt"" Did god run out mud for Eve? LMAO
SM is completely misrepresenting the field of evolutionary biology. Please don't take anything he says on this topic as true.
Dawkins calls those pseudo scientists a disgrace for humanity for a reason.
Explain to me what he is misrepresenting.
@@jerrymartin3965 Why don't you watch Professor Dave explains. He has the whole series of videos and explains them in detail. I'm not going to repeat it.
@@jerrymartin3965 I asked you multiple times about your education and you dodge it every time. I even put out mine.
@@jerrymartin3965 Besides getting basic Molecular Biology concepts wrong, and making incorrect claims, he is also misrepresenting what Gerd Muller said at the 2016 meeting he keeps mentioning. Gerd corrected Steve on it, but Steve is still using it whenever he's interviewed. Essentially criticizing the scientific theory of evolution, in no way disproves the fact things evolved. The scientists Steve mentioned are only debating on the details of the mechanisms of HOW life evolved, not THAT life evolved and is evolving. The fact that things evolved remains an undisputed fact.
Intelligent Design is not a "field" in science - it's just science-sounding religious window dressing.
The fool has said in his heart , “there is no God” - Prov 14.1
@@shankerr484 If you say, 'you fool,' you will be liable to the hell of fire - Matthew 5:22
@@RLBays But those who are cowards, those who refuse to believe, they will all have a place in the lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death. Rev 21.8
@@shankerr484 “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me. And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.’ Matthew 25:45-46
@@RLBays Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” John 3:18
The idea of a large environment is immediately understood. It’s more than an idea. It’s a raw continual experience. You disavow existence in the larger environment/Universe at your own peril.
The idea of a supreme being is a pure invention that one’s existence and functioning in the universe does not depend.
All gods are fiction
Now you bear the burden of proving it
@@i_assume There is no need to disprove something that has not been proven.
@@LmGpii There precisely is. If you make a positive claim about an entity's non-existence you must show it does not exist anywhere. The easiest way is by said entity being logically inconsistent ie law of non-contradiction. Before you do that you have to show why it's valid for you to use logic.
@@Roescoe Nope. I do not.
Prove pixies do not exist.
Show me the evidence of your god and disprove all others.
@@LmGpii Prove pixies do not exist. Why? I don't know whether they do.
intelligent design was literally debunked in court with a christian judge. look up the trial called "kitzmiller vs dover"
No it wasn’t Debunked in a court room. Science isn’t decided in court rooms.
@@roberttormey4312ID=god did it. Thats not scientific nor belongs in the classroom
The court system of verification of science was debunked a long time ago.
@therick363 Idiot thinking=No one did it. The tide is turning, and the math is winning-period.
@@ernestcantu6751I see you’re gonna completely ignore what i said. Try actually addressing it first then say your bit. Because your blatant disrespect is showing and it fails right away
So God only exists in your brain? Got it, dunno which one of the thousands of versions of him, but no worries, yours is somehow by some kind of magic, the only real one ...
yet all original religions have very big similarities almost as if they came from same place and have common ancestor (common true story) like you evolutionist like to say. Imagine claiming naturalism is true we are all bunch of pure atoms and our brain too, there is no inteligence, yet claiming that you as naturalis are more inteligent than dumb belivers! If naturalism is true, your claims and statements are nothing but your DNA dancing and non of your statements and claims can be called inteligent. Your own worldview is selfdefeating just philosophically, not to talk about scientificly.
How did matter without the ability to 'think', design a brain which is capable of comprehending abstract thoughts, that the molecules building the brain are not even aware of? The human brain is the most complex object ever discovered, the number of processes that are generated between your eyes and brain exceed that of all the PS5's on Earth combined. We live in times where any person understands a pair of spectacles require intelligent design but the immensely complex eyes they aid do not. The many versions of God cultures worship is irrelevant, nor is the name they give God, all that matters is that God created all of us and to reach out and pray to him is never a mistake, there is only one God to listen to you, the one that mad all of us.
You could try to address his actual arguments....
Logically there cannot be more than 1 God...
Conscious seems not in your brain but existing without a brain. See NDE and OBE witnesses
If I were a fly on the wall, what ID mechanism would I observe as regards the appearance of new species? Is it along the lines of a reptile lays an egg and hatches a bird?
That has a lot of assumptions built in. First that new species "appear" second that ID even cares to answer the specifics of OOL.
Please dont pull a muscle jumping through this many hoops trying to prove your opinion while completely ignoring logic :D
Sounds like you’re not used to listening to arguments and exchange of ideas?
Agree 100%
@@sammyking9407 I think he is just saying good luck with the evidence.
I just joined. What's the claim here, that abiogenesis was started by God?
@@Doublebasist Evidence for what?
An unfalsifiable hypothesis returning to science? To pseudoscience maybe.
Did you listen to anything that was said?
Clearly not lol
@@aeiouaeiou100 Yeah. Philosophically the naturalist-materialist position does have a lot of hurdles to overcome, it's been pointed out even by it's own proponents since it's inception (I'm not talking about the Dawkins type of thinker, that's popular level philosophy if it can even be called philosophy at all). However, those issues are not resolved by throwing the theory away and calling for a God of the gaps (no matter how much these guys spin it around, the god hypothesis is a unfalsifiable, impossible to test, hypothesis). At the academic level, creationism and intelligent design are still and most likely always will be pseudoscience given the impossibility of testing real evidence, not conjecture or theories based on "materialism failed therefore god".
You want to read top scholars on the topics of physics, biology, science in general? Intelligent design is not a respectable position among those disciplines, for obvious reasons, and the ones that promote it are on the fringe. There's christian scientist that are top scholars? yes, but in most cases if they are good scientists they set their personal beliefs apart, recognize their faith and don't mix it with the science. Does that mean it's not true just cause they are on the fringe? No, but until they have proper science to set real bases to their claims they will be among the pseudoscience crowd. You can propose whatever you want, good luck gathering actual evidence, specially if you cannot even keep your belief bias separate.
@@DiegoJPinto
I think the point of this discussion is more or less that people are more and more accepting that the origins of things might always be pseudoscience by your definition, so would then HAVE TO fall under the scope of philosophy and theology.
@@deschain1910 The idea that understanding the universe might be impossible has been an idea within philosophy since forever, and even within science it's somewhat contemplated. There might be physical or metephysical constraints that prevent us from understanding the whole of existence and its origins. I wouldn't call that pseudoscience. What definitely IS pseudoscience would be to try to pass those ideas as scientific. On the one hand saying we cannot explain it and on the other saying that a possible explanation that we cannot confirm is scientific IS pseudoscience. That's why intelligent design is not and has never been science. Philosophy is respectable by my lights, even more than science since it's foundational to science in my view. Theology not so much but only because I see it as astrology or similar, where you can study it all but I dont see anything tangible. Philosophy at least deals with values, virtue, wisdom, and since Socrates, a commitment to truth whatever it might be but always recognizing we don't posses it yet and being doubtful of those who claim to posses it in a dogmatic way.
I doubt anyone could in a way that would convince doubters who've made up their mind to the contrary.
"The sea of faith was once too, at the full and round earth's shore. Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled."
(Matthew Arnold, Dover Beach, if I remembered it right.)
Isaiah 45:7-I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
If your god exists then it created you evil to make itself look cool.
I was looking for Krishna and AIIah. Are they partying with your jesus. I can't find any of those 3.
Since you have a direct line why don't you ask.
Dr. Price is correct. The existence of Christ is a myth. You should listen to Bible scholars Dr. Richard C. Miller PhD, Dr. Kipp Davis Ph.D., and Dr. Dennis R. MacDonald. on their discoveries about Christianity while studying other religions. It seems more and more that Christianity is fake and Christians are just a bunch of thieves.
This has been lifelong passion for me first as literal church of christ study as child, aetheism until 19, college study of physics, enginnering, and philosophy. Working to understand these perspectives for decades, i have a much better understanding of how these viewpoints correlate.
Because of computers, information theory, quantum mechanics, science has shown basic aspects of religion, eternal life, spritual world, proof of existence of the 1 god are now possible.
Also some religious concepts such as of nature of 1 god can be shown as false. In the pantheistic view of God as equal to the entire Universe, this show Aethism is the belief of God but call it the universe.
Other beliefs in the nature of god are untenable such as ths common belief that god exists seperately outside the universe. Ontologically these peoples definition of the universe is not large enough.
Conversely Aetheists who argue the universe is not intelligent, ignore the fact that they are intelligent and are part of the universe so therefore the universe must be at least as intelligent as humans.
Eternity of universe seems to have much evidence based on quantum mechanics many worlds which imp,ies that everything that is possible happens likely defined statistically across sometimes vast distances of time and space.
The metaphysical, spiritual, information aspects veiwed from aspects of emergent phenomena hint at a "realm of possibilities" the exploration of this is science. The religious view of this is called the spiritual world. It is non material but yet exists and gives form to everything we see, in computers it is ths program.
😊 There's no great mystery or argument required about the fine tuning required for our cosmos, it's just down to our ignorance of future conditions affecting our expanding universe. It seems pretty obvious to me that as our bubble of spacetime expands we will encounter a universe that's imploding - the two universes will have a little dance and then start sucking the life out of each other as their fascination grows. As they come closer together things start heating up and eventually as the temperature starts rising all sorts of things start getting mixed up until just as it looks as though they are inseperable things start to get violent and two sets of lawyers appear.
I’ve gone from atheist to agnostic to believer in God / a designer. I don’t believe however, that the designer God has revealed himself to us, because humans have created thousands of gods… simply because the designer hasn’t introduced himself to us. If we are made in God’s image ( as the bible says ) then are we kind of reflecting his personality ? Humans are not all good but they are not all bad either, so is that because God’s character / personality is not all good but not all bad either ? Planet earth & life on is beautiful but it is also awful. Not all good but not all bad. Would appreciate some thoughts on this & thanks in advance.
We've lived through order...then gone into chaos ....and then through chaos we have found order in information.....
What is your opinion on Crop Circles?
Some end up being a human created.
With a multiverse, there has been discussion of the inverse gambler's fallacy. If someone has a royal flush, that does not at all imply that they are playing many hands. You could be dealt a royal flush on the very first hand. There have been some pretty interesting discussions on that.
Multiverse is the biggest myth yet ....as if deep time wasn't enough. To my sci-fi does not make it so.
"God returning to science" Should it not read: "Science returning to God"?
Comment about intelligent design being a non-solution [God of the gaps] That is an objection for those who do not believe God exists and do not want to consider any other belief, but if He does exist and He created the universe and life then that would be a solution, indeed the solution.
If you are looking for evidence do not ignore facts because they disagree with your beliefs-you may be wrong, and the other view correct. So, unless you want to believe your belief regardless of the evidence, - because you want to believe it, you should take all views into account and look at the evidence and reason correctly.
Common sense will always lead us to the truth. Know the truth and the truth will set you free from the nonsense theories and hypothesis.
Hilarious!
First of all, there are two versions of Common sense: the normal good sense that everybody has - and an excuse when no evidence or argument can be produced.
I'm guessing you mean the latter ("I know the truth, it's just common sense!").
Secondly, how are we supposed to know the truth if we don't study the competing theories and hypotheses?
Let me guess: you just assert and declare that you "know" the truth - because "It's just common sense" - and that's all the "proof" you need to declare yourself an omniscient genius.
He never left science . Science left him
Exciting 😮