Author Stephen C. Meyer presents the case against Theistic Evolution. From the event "Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique," hosted by Biola University.
@@MrBubinski777 he is a malignant lying hack at a right wing Christian fundamentalist pressure group who pretends he’s a scientist for audiences of ignorant US conservatives
Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday. Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of “theory” was so broad it would also include astrology.
Why criticize anyone in the science field when a US candidate for the Supreme Court claimed that she didn't know what a woman was because she was not a biologist. You don't have to be a biologist to know what a woman is, you just have to understand that humans are a species that requires, traditionally anyway, both a male and female (man and woman) to produce a human child. The science of medicine tells us, traditionally, that a virus can be defeated with a vaccine that helps the body create anti-bodies that fight the virus by attaching to receptors to prevent it from binding with human cells where it typically enters the cell and uses the cell to reproduce itself and create more copies that it can spread to other hosts. Now, however, we inject humans with a concoction that does very little to actually create an immune system response and instead it sets up the immune system to be totally reliant on boosters to keep a supply of the spike proteins handy so that the body becomes very susceptible to every kind of autoimmune disorder and eventually dies from some diseases that it typically would have kept under wraps for many many decades. That's modern science and medicine at work to destroy the human race. And what did the Bible say about tampering with genetics? God would be very angry...very angry indeed...and he would destroy those mutants. It also said there would be a time like the days of Noah when the corruption would return and that sounds like right about now.
@@peli_candude554 Wow. You are really good at strawmanning all these issues. That is not to say that I believe anything you say, your post makes it quite clear you are a fool.
@@peli_candude554 Sometimes a person reads something that really brings comfort. Thank you for your words. It feels so good to agree with someone. My husband is a doctor and Covid really separated us, because he was so adamant on doing everything the way the government told the medical community to do it. When Trump suggested hydroxychloroquine, and when Dr. Peirre Kory told the Wisconsin hearing that ivermectin is safe and effective, the left went too far the other way. People died that wouldn't have had to. It is sad.
@TheHealthPhysicist Of course, "He doesn't do any science". He was on a stage speaking. By calling what he said "propaganda", are you saying that the scientific findings and facts he quoted and referenced are incorrect? Or, are you saying that he was lying about what those findings claim? Is this what you are saying? If so, why has he not been sued for libel? It is a published platform. The only other option is that he is correct. What are you afraid of? If what he said is correct, wouldn't you rather know the truth, even if it is not what you like?
Kuffar Legion , You are reading something into my comment that wasn't there. First, when you expressed your distaste for religion, intentional or not, it is a red herring. I did not comment on any worldview, mine or anyone's. My comment was about calling something propaganda. .Merriam-Webster definition of propaganda, (and the one usually associated with the word in normal conversation) is, "Usually disapproving ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated". Mr. Meyer made these statements on a published platform, which is considered the same as in writing. If he misrepresented facts or statements by others, that is libel. Why has he not been challenged if he was lying? You can believe, or not believe, anything you want but calling what he said propaganda, when he refers accurately to someone's work, is deceptive. My other comment was also a point of reasoning. I made no comment, regardless of my own worldview, concerning the existence or non existence, of ANYONE'S God. My comment was about, if you are a religious person and you believe in God, what is the reasoning behind saying what he could or could not do? There is no rationale behind the argument. He is either not a God or he is, in which case he can do anything he wants and any way he wants to. There is no logic behind the argument as far as any traditional concept of a God is concerned. Personally, I believe in God but. my comment had nothing to do with belief in his existence. It was about a rational and non self contradicting argument.
@Kuffar Legion You say _//"all Meyers says is he can't understand biochemistry of Life"//_ But when we look at all that IS known about biochemistry, there is STILL much that we don't _understand._ Still much inference and speculation going on. So 1.) Meyer says he doesn't have the answers. 2.) College biochemisty does not have the answers. It is still wide open as to who's current views are correct.
@@richardrogers668 All of Meyer's statements onstage are designed to mislead, he is playing to a fundamentalist audience who want to be lied to about evolution.
There is nothing here but pseudoscientific nonsense. Meyer does nothing to contribute to the scientific community. He is a con man/liar for Jesus who writes books directed at scientific illiterates and gives talks at fundamentalist churches to raise money for his ministry (The Discovery Institute).
As a religious person, I see that science backs up creation. I don't believe in the literal 24 hr period...as the bible says over and over again God's days range from 1000 years to 'periods' or time... such as in the creative days
@@garywalker447 there is no arrogance there, fairytales abound on what created the universe, and the fine tuning of the universe and let’s not forgot the miraculous start of life from non-life, I call this entity God.
@@michaelstevens4638 I look for evidence and scientifically viable explanations of these questions, you magical god does not rate. Oh and there is no "fine tuning of the universe". The universe is what it is and we evolved to suit the conditions on this planet. If the conditions in the universe had been different, then either we would have evolved to suit those conditions or we would not have evolved at all.
@@anahata3478 Bullshit. He prefers evo-devo/structuralism which is also opposed to darwinism and much closer to ID than the neo-darwinistic modell. ID is in itself an evolutionary theory, that just argues that evolution is limited to new species and stuff like that. Don't be so closed minded
True...although every Catholic learns the Faith inside and out...It is the Protestant that needs to relearn and rethink his or her ideas. "There are angels near you to guide you and protect you, if you would but invoke them.“ - Fulton J. Sheen Angels Life Is Worth Living (1951-1957) Context: There are angels near you to guide you and protect you, if you would but invoke them. It is not later than we think, it is a bigger world than we think.
This is the piece I want to know more about, Is he saying that DNA alone is not the only code for getting from cellular to mammal? If so the system is even more insanely complex.
~Bought a couple of your books & really enjoy anything that you speak about esp. of our Lord who is in complete control...thank you so much. Plz get on as many youtube talks as you can. We need you Stephen Myers. Love Dr. John Lennox also. Thank you.
Thank God for "Return of the God Hypothesis." The failure to consider the Laws of Nature as inseparable from the Laws of Nature's God in proper scientific research and application is destroying society. Thomas Steven Roth, MBA, MD Christian Minister for Biblical Medical Ethics, and therefore, Scientific and Religious Refugee from the Clinical Practice of Psychiatric Standards of Care
As science has advanced religion has lost influence. Science didn't shift into high gear until it unshackled itself from religion. Modern scientists never resort to the supernatural to explain anything. Most scientists do not believe in gods, devils, angels or other phantoms. Science has earned a reputation for credibility that religion can only envy and tries to hijack, but science never turns to religion for justification, it stands on its own merits.
Christian ministers have zero influence in science. Their ideological propaganda has infested politics to the point where no one trusts anything they hear from politicians or preachers anymore, but so far science has been immune.
The insufferable atheist hate verifiable remote consciousness after the brain stem and heart have stopped, not to mention a world renowned cardiovascular surgeon stating there is a God. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-JL1oDuvQR08.html
@@Luke-pc5rb Cite some evidence for "verifiable remote consciousness after the brain stem has stopped." Nobody "hates" the idea-- but nobody takes it seriously either unless you can demonstrate it empirically. In science we don't choose what is true according to what we love or hate, we follow the evidence wherever it leads.
@Paul Dana So Father Lamitre must have been unintelligent as well being as though he believed God designed the Universe with a beginning? People do not tell you that the person who came up with Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest.
@Dan Delgado This has nothing to do about personalities. The idea being coughed up is that belief in God somehow equates to unintelligence or that in not subscribing to pure naturalism you might have the tendency to not be able to be logical or "scientific".
@demi- dogg I'm not idolizing anybody so please don't accuse me in doing so. I'm simply listening what he saying. Yes, he admits micro evolution is real and valid but what he is questioning is macro evolution. If science did already confirm where the INFORMATION in DNA was derived from we would not even be having this conversation right now. He brings up meetings with top evolutionary biologists from around the world and they also having different theories besides neo-darwinism. I suppose they are part of this "propaganda" as well? Send me an article showing where science has found the origin of DNA and the complexity with it. This "half-wit" also has a degree from Cambridge and I suppose they just let him in? You see is it one thing to disagree with someone but it is another thing to insult somebody.
@Paul Danawe dont know what this universe is and we will never understand only you can come with stupid philosophies. if you are so cleaver provide evidence for origin of universe and origin of life.if you believe life can come into exsistence naturally find a similar earth to ours or any planet with life on it to prove it can happen naturally.otherwise you are talking about something you dont know nothing about and believing it to blindly "because scientists say that"
Why did the Intelligent Designer design humans with so many physical flaws? S-shaped spine, narrow pelvis, inflexible knee, exposed testicles, crowded teeth, misrouted laryngeal nerve, misplaced voicebox, embryonic gill slits, vestigial organs, triune brain, hiccups, movable ears, men with nipples, tailbone, etc. Asking for a friend.
@@learnwithjaredandmaria since you asked so politely, you can look it up yourselves. that's why God granted you Free Will. although in your case, the larynx should have probably been located in your rectum given your propensity to talk out of your ass.
@@ravikeller9626 what? now i have to be a Movie Director before deciding that a movie is shitty? become a chef before saying my friend's wife can't cook? become a serial killer before pointing out Ted Bundy's mistakes...
From Lehigh University Department position on evolution and "intelligent design" The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others. The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
Natural selection isn’t the arrival of new beneficial traits, but rather the preservation of beneficial traits. That is huuuge! So it’s not the few who have new traits that survive, but rather the few who have negative mutations that die! Wow
@@HoneybunMegapack thats how it appears, but in reality, if there were enough mutations to actually create a new trait, the gene network wouldn’t allow it.
@@HoneybunMegapack i don’t remember exactly what he said, it’s been a while since I watched the video, but the gene network is something that prevents change, and if too much change occurs, it results in death of the organism. Again, it’s been a while, so take this with a grain of salt
@@HoneybunMegapack Theoretically, a mutation happened in one creature. Somehow it spread to the whole tribe. The mutation in DNA would have to have commas, periods , stops, starts, a mechanism of where to put the new proteins or body structures and a feedback system, to name a few. if the mutation doesnt kill the organism, its doubtful it was passed on. So evo says, the first life, a bacterium, kept having wonderful mutations til it turned into Marilyn Monroe. 3 billion yrs of successful mutations, in every type of creature on the planet, and plants too. Its just a story, a darn fine story, which i used to believe, but its just a story.
25:38 Unguided evolution theory for silicon: How long will I have to wait for my Apple II and Commodore 64 to evolve into an Intel I7 PC with Nvidia graphics accelleration? Billions of clock cycles have elapsed on these old CPUs and I see no progress made yet ☺
Computers evolve, they can be traced back to the first abacus and to notches on bones before that. The people who invented the first computers had no idea where their development would lead, they had no overall master plan, they simply reacted to circumstances. Everything evolves, nothing is static. Human intelligence is involved in building machines just as insect intelligence is involved in making hives, but intelligence isn't part of every evolutionary process. Organisms reproduce, they are not built, planned or put together out of separate parts for any goal or purpose. The idea that 'brute matter" can't do anything by itself unless moved by "living spirit" went out with the Dark Ages.
@@gareginasatryan6761 Yes, non-living things do reproduce-- ever hear of self-replicating molecules? Read up on it. Evolution works after life is already happening, abiogenesis is the term for the transition from non-living to living chemistry.
@@gareginasatryan6761 Non-living matter can produce self-replicating structures which gain complexity over many generations. New body parts don't appear suddenly, they develop out of ancestral structures through incremental stages. Evolution works in living things, it can be observed directly and seen in the fossil record. Nature never produces a final product, species are always adapting to constantly changing environments. Only a few religious fundamentalists still deny this, but not for scientific reasons.
The more I hear this video, the more I am glad that Stephen Meyer and his team put this together. Stephen sounds a lot smarter than Arran Ra and King Crocodyle.
@Daulton Horton All of Meyer's lies have been amply destroyed, both in rebuttals published in legitimate scientific journals and right here in this thread. After half a dozen times I get tired of posting them again as Creationists always come back with the lie that Meyer's pseudoscience and logical fallacies haven't been addressed.
@Daulton Horton All of Meyer's talking points come down to the same deceptive claim-- that order cannot arise from nature except through intelligent decision making and willful intention. But order arises from nature through the interaction of impersonal forces all the time. Intelligence is just an outgrowth of nature, nature doesn't need to know what it is doing to do it. Humans often try to project their own personal motivations on nature, but that's an illusion. Your thoughts and feelings are not the center of the universe.
@@bobdobbs943 Debunking Creationists - Dr. Jason Lisle ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-II3XnsYA3c4.html Dr. Lisle's ultimate proof of creation ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0qz3XkwgYxM.html Dr. Liar, Creationist As(s)trophysicist, Part 1 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nMHScAsWPkU.html
I don’t understand how Neo-Darwinism has survived as a scientific theory for so long. The absurdity of it’s hypothesis is an insult to good science. It’s the most sustained succes of the labeling of our ignorance as science, that has ever occurred. I expect, that in a hundred years from now, biologists will be astounded, by the very idea that this absurdity was once accepted as science.
eroceanos, your inability to understand the Theory of Evolution is not evidence against it. The absurdity is that there are so many creationists when there is NOTHING to support religion as evidence.
@@reymilortizluis96 No it does not. We observe the fossils, we observe the genomes of living plants and animals, we study these and we can test our ideas by manipulating the DNA
The more you know the more you can know. Why should we think that there does not exist intelligence that knows it all! We are just growing intelligence put in the dark for our own schooling. The best schooling is hands on experience; having to figure things out of your own desire and necessity to learn, to solve. At death, school is out for kindergarteners. You go home. Intelligence raises intelligence. That is the pattern we see in the life all around us.
Stephen Meyer is a brilliant scientist/philosopher. He is really our greatest hope of bringing some form of ID Into the scientific mainstream, and he is a strong antidote to the tired maxim of absolute materialist reductionism being the sole source of truth in the universe. I just wish that the prayer at the beginning could have been excised from the video, not because it offends me-I am a person of faith-but because it will automatically close many scientific minds.
Intelligent Design is dead. There is no possibility of getting this pseudoscience garbage ever being accepted as science. ID is creationism, it has no supporting evidence, no innovation and no scientific support. It violates the principals of science.
Gary Walker . Does it really violate the “principals of science”, Gary? What about the “principles of science”? A strong suggestion would be to come to at least an armistice of sorts with English grammar, before undertaking an empty, baseless lecture of a person (myself) who holds a Ph.D. in biochemistry, a Ph.D. In theoretical quantum physics, an M.A. in the philosophy of science (do yourself a favor, and read a few tomes by the greatest ever philosopher of science, Karl Popper, a brilliant agnostic who would certainly disagree with your dogmatic rejection of AI in all possible forms), and a summa cum laude B.A. in microlinguistics, at the age of seventeen. All of these degrees were attained at three of the finest universities in the U.S. Just for giggles and to show that I am nobody’s dummy, my WAIS-R Full-Scale IQ, employing all sub-tasks and the WMS, is 168, which is over 2.5 Standard Deviations higher than the assigned U.S. mean IQ of 100. This 99.9998th percentile IQ means that I am as smart as or smarter than 99.9998% of American adults within the U.S. Stated yet another way, just to ensure that you apprehend exactly with whom you are speaking, Only about 650 Americans within the U.S. are smarter than me. This averages to 13 persons per state, within which set, you are assuredly not included. It is rather pitiable that your imagination has been thoroughly usurped by the trendy radical material-reductionist paradigm, spewed, without any new or undemolished arguments, by Dawkins (a non-scientist, as a biologist, and a laughably inept philosopher and free-thinker), Hitchens (an astoundingly effective and witty speaker who lacked a science background, and whose arguments tended to aerosolize under the slightest puff of intellectual air, Hawking (a theoretician whose belief in a deity or lack thereof changed as often as the breeze shifted, Dennett (an agonizingly unoriginal, dry, soulless atheist apologist), and the lesser New Atheists, or “brights” (what a prima facie arrogant and inappropriate moniker). As with virtually every person who has yielded to the not charmless propositions of the New Atheists, you seem unable to present any actual arguments for your position, preferring to communicate in generally safe platitudes. This, you must concur, places me in an unenviable position of intellectually responding to the rational equivalent of tinnitus or cosmic background radiation. Saying something just does not make it so. As with so many unlearned atheists and reactionary “critics” of ID, you fail to note the distinction between micro-evolution, which undeniably happens thousands of times per day, and the origins of primal life forms and speciation, via macro-evolution, which is not supportable by real science, even in principle. This is because the evidence, as it is, for speciation based on the environment and existing phenotypic variance acting very gradually upon almost universally fatal phenotypes caused by DNA/RNA point mutations and DNA transcription errors in the organism’s genotype, must be inferred from a confusing, contradictory, and gap-toothed set of ancient fossil remnants. Science relies on theories and hypotheses that provide the basis for mutually exclusive predictions, in experimental form. If the experimental results fail to reject the null hypothesis at an a priori alpha level (often less than or equal to 0.001), we can only deduce that the hypothesis was not borne out. On the other hand, if the null hypothesis is statistically rejected by the experiment, we can never conclude that the theory or hypothesis is valid. We can merely state that, at present, the theory or hypothesis has not been shown to be false. In a very real sense, scientific predictions, tested with experiments, may only be rejected, never accepted, other than provisionally, until a different experiment shows the prediction to be invalid. In science, the more easily that an experiment can hypothetically reject a theoretical prediction, WITHOUT THE PREDICTION ACTUALLY BEING REJECTED, the higher our confidence can be in the veridicality of the underlying theory. This is known as Popper’s falsifiability criterion, and it is specifically a result of the hard problem of logical induction, which basically says that, unlike deductive syllogisms, in which the conclusions are non-ampliative (contain no information not embedded in the predicates), and, therefore, must be true, given valid predicates, ampliative induction can never be proven to be true, due to the fact that proving the validity of induction necessarily requires the use of inductive reasoning. Therefore, induction is a tautology, in that it presupposes itself. The situation, in terms of anything approaching scientific “proof”, is far more dire in the case of establishing evidence for macro-evolutionary processes (like speciation) from our major evidentiary source: The fossil record. Since fossils were laid down in an unsystematic manner, millions and millions of years ago, macro-evolutionary researchers are unable to use controlled experiments to test hypotheses. What ends up happening is that paleontologists create, out of whole cloth, little stories to explain the reasons for changes in the fossil record. This resembles nothing so much as Rudyard Kipling’s famous “just-so stories” for children that develop fanciful stories for the long neck of a giraffe or the spots on a leopard. These stories that paleontologists will into being eventually take on the dint of scientific reasoning, when they are anything but. I should know. My father is an accomplished vertebrate paleontologist who has specialized in both dinosaurs and proto-horses of Western South Dakota (Badlands and Black Hills). As his faith in paleontology as a science nose-dived through the years, he became a brilliant locator of nearly whole animal skeletons and a highly skilled field artist, with pen drawings and watercolors. Before shooting from the hip, may I suggest that you anticipate your audience’s strengths. The only thing that I care less about than your attitude toward macro-evolution as a science is the number of body modifications that Miley Cyrus has. Please read Popper, David Berlinski, and Stephen Jay Gould, the incredible agnostic ecologist, geneticist, evolutionary biologist, and deep thinker. He was always fair to those with whom he disagreed, he acknowledged the deep flaws with neo-Darwinian evolution, and he defended the rationality of his colleagues’ faith lives. He’s an excellent role model.
@@blindlemon9 Does it violate the “principals of science”, Gary? What about the “principles of science”? A strong suggestion would be to come to at least an armistice of sorts with English grammar, before undertaking an empty, baseless lecture of a person (myself) who holds a Ph.D. in biochemistry, a Ph.D. In theoretical quantum physics, an M.A. in the philosophy of science (do yourself a favor, and read a few tomes by the greatest ever philosopher of science, Karl Popper, a brilliant agnostic who would certainly disagree with your dogmatic rejection of AI in all possible forms), and a summa cum laude B.A. in microlinguistics, at the age of seventeen. All of these degrees were attained at three of the finest universities in the U.S. Just for fun, my WAIS-R Full-Scale IQ, employing all sub-tasks and the WMS, is 168, which is over 2.5 Standard Deviations higher than the assigned U.S. mean IQ of 100. This 99.9998th percentile IQ means that I am as smart as or smarter than 99.9998% of American adults within the U.S. Stated yet another way, just to ensure that you apprehend with whom you are speaking, Only about 650 people Americans within the U.S. are smarter than me. This averages to 13 persons per state, within which set, you are assuredly not included. It is rather pitiful that what passes for your imagination has been thoroughly usurped by the trendy radical material-reductionist paradigm, spewed, without any new or undemolished arguments, by Richard Dawkins (a non-scientist, as a biologist, and a laughably inept philosopher and free-thinker), Hitchens (an astoundingly effective and witty speaker who lacked a science background, and whose arguments tended to aerosolize under the slightest puff of intellectual air, Hawking (a theoretician whose belief in a deity or lack thereof changed as often as the breeze shifted, Dennett (an agonizingly unoriginal, dry, soulless atheist apologist), and the lesser New Atheists, or “brights” (what a prima facie arrogant and inappropriate moniker). How was that for an epic run-on sentence?
Gary Walker . You are a 40w bulb in a 100w socket, Gary. My initial point completely eluded you. You refer to “scientific principals”. The correct term is “scientific principles”. Anybody who knows a thing about science would know this. Try to stick to your specialties...Airsoft battles, cigarettes, and D&D. You are obviously free to believe what you will. This has no bearing on my status as a polymath. (Whew! What a relief.) I typically never disclose my intellectual gifts to others, but I thought that you might choose to bail out while you still had a bit of self-respect left. That ship has sailed. In terms of science and religion being at loggerheads with each other, you may find it interesting (you won’t) that, over the past century, around 75% of Nobel Prize winners in a science discipline have professed to be strong believers in either a theist or a deist God. Over the past 20 years, this percentage has been closer to 80%. Paraphrasing Gould, “ Either my numerous brilliant science colleagues who are powerfully religious are completely insane, or religion and science are not at inherent odds with each other, and the two disciplines likely answer different big questions. I believe the latter.” In fact, Gould saw atheism to be childish, prone to ad hominem fallacies of the generic type, vulgar, and often vile. This is one chief reason for his remaining an agnostic, with some real sympathies toward theism. Feel free to clutch, white-knuckled, to the lap-bar of your glorious life of nihilism. I hope that it’s a fun, fulfilling ride. I have now wasted plenty of time on a typical wannabe intellectual who just is not up to the task.
@@blindlemon9 You are a 40w bulb in a 100w socket, Gary. My initial point completely eluded you. You refer to “scientific principals”. The correct term is “scientific principles”. Anybody who knows a thing about science would know this. Try to stick to your specialties...Airsoft battles, cigarettes, and D&D. You are obviously free to believe what you will.
Yes it is orderly to: ...continue to be readjusted....(2Cor.13:11) To have a complete understanding of God's Creation. 1 Cor.1:10.....that you should all speak in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you may be completely united in the same mind and in the same line of thought. A cleansing of the understanding of the Scriptures should also take place, Christiandom is too distant from itself.
Interesting angle for sure. I remember watching Stephen Meyer when I first started researching evolution and other aspects of what the atheist contingent was using for arguments. Dr Meyer's presentation on Intelligent Design was like a shot of adrenaline to an athlete struggling to finish a race respectively and launched my belief into sub Theological orbit...much below God but much above the atheist level of understanding.
Check out a book at the library .. icons of evolution .. it's a book that's put together by a Christian but he used the research done by all of the different evolution scientist , that was trying to redo the experiment so that they could prove that it was right .. And and could not .. you will enjoy the read
@@derhafi not concluded...inspired to pursue deeper. Where have you been for a year? I’m far away from settling for answers because the questions keep coming...
@Herry Gerry And it doesn't even explain the origin of life very well or completely. There is more missing from the evolution story than there is present. It's like an atheism of the gaps explanation.
@@bertlegion683 All of Intelligent Design is intellectual fraud. It has NO scientific basis and is only a rehash of "Creation Science", itself a fraud.
@@bertlegion683 https: //ui.adsabs.harvard.edu › abs › abstract by M Bobrowsky · 2006 - One of the most frequently heard attacks on science deals with "alternatives to evolution" (intelligent design and various forms of creationism). While one might ... Intelligent Design Creationism: Fraudulent Science. www.lockhaven.edu › philosop › creation A newer pseudoscience arose, first called "creationism" or "creation science", which tried to impose the literal interpretation of Biblical accounts into science, and ... Kitzmiller vs Dover. From Lehigh University Department position on evolution and "intelligent design" The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others. The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
Thank God for Stephen C Meyer! He's not only brilliant, but articulate. He and his co-authors of Theistic Evolution have finally pushed back against the flawed theory of Neo-Darwinism. I hope the book continues to sell and that church wakes up to the fact that they need not sell out the Scripture in order to accommodate bad science.
@@bartleysawatsky2423 The parts where Mr Meyer starts with the conclusion and works backwards to confirm instead of following the science (empirical evidence) wherever it leads Mr Meyer and his ilk are lone mavericks working in isolation using inconsistent and invalid logic. They make grandiose claims that go BEYOND the evidence and use vague jargon to confuse and evade. He is dogmatic, unyielding and hostile towards criticism. He does not science
@@captaingaza2389 do you really believe that evolutionary scientists don't work from a presupposition? They presuppose a naturalistic universe (no supernatural allowed), they presuppose the universe to be billions of years old, and most scientists today presuppose Darwinism to be true because it's the only thing they've been taught. But top biologists around the world are starting to come clean that Darwin's model of natural selection and random mutations producing entirely new species is impossible. A woman named Suzan Mazur interviewed some of the world's top biologists and here are some of their own words (taken from Mazur's book "The Altenberg 16". (She describes it as an “industry” that the scientific community has to keep supporting for lack of a better option.)
Not only that. If you suppose an active intelligent designer, you would propose a model of its manifestation. Suppose the information about the complexity of life is transcendent, then what forces "appear" in what sequence to fold the right constituents into the complex forms we observe (cells, complex organisms...) ? And then yes integrate evolution, which cannot be discarded simply because its model has hard times explaining the divergence of one particular branch out of 1000 others.
@@samuctrebla3221 isn't your math often by a magnitude of 70? Why a single viable protein change of 1 X 10^72? And now multiply the number that's already approaching the number of atoms in the universe by the number of specific types of proteins needed for a new body plan. These numbers makes the concept of random changes producing a new body part as untenable. And there are more issues besides. It is not an argument from an absence of knowledge but scientifically discovered measure elucidating that the theory is contrary to empirical evidence. Obviously science is based on empirical evidence and we have observed and experienced a small part of the universe; however, we can't just jettison the empirical evidence we do have because we really, really want to believe it must not be true.
@@allenrhoades8482 and yet across this ocean of possibilities there seems to be very limited patterns of protein folding (it's not random) that could be determined by the sole knowledge of the ACTG sequence (that can mutate randomly) . Check out deepmind that gets incredible predictions (surprisingly higher than 1/10^72). It became obvious that all shapes are far, far from being equally probable. Perhaps the folding mechanism will remain indescribable for humans but its randomness is already dead.
@@samuctrebla3221 , I'm aware of AI. A rather incredible tool we humans are creating. I think your death knell of the impossibility to create the needed proteins randomly is far less than a skeptical view of evidence. I've often found a dogma of materialism adulterating the scientific method and used to obliterate any honest look at evidence. Surely you realize that all current scientific empirical evidence shows life only coming from life. If the hypothesis is life randomly came from non-life then test that hypothesis by creating life ab initio using whatever design methodology that you think will work. That would be actual evidence that life can come from non-life instead of mere dogma and just so stories. Then to completely prove the hypothesis the remaining evidence would be to show how it could happen without design. If instead you accept as a priori that life must come from non-life then you need 0 evidence and have 0 skepticism to proclaim it as dogma.
@@allenrhoades8482 I am not satisfied with randomness as a mechanism to explain the emergence of life. I agree that's it's a poor, terribly unefficient one. But no one knows if life as we know it is bound to emerge for deeper reasons in our physical world. Back to evolution, it's not fair to consider that pure randomness is sufficient to sustain the neodarwinist view. The AI (but also other types of algorithm) findings on protein folding is sensing mechanisms. My criticism against intelligent design goes mainly against the lack of mechanism description (how and when does it manifest itself when species appear from a common ancestor for instance). I must say that I assume that the laws of physics remained constant (literally nothing seems to argue against it) in the past. But perhaps we are debating the possibility of local, temporary twists to manufacture the incredible piece of engineering that are living organisms. Are we?
I love this guy. I wish all people who believe in God open their eyes and see the systematic avalanche heading their way and stop bickering among one another and pool their resources for common causes such as researching these issues. Yes we fundamentally do and will always disagree on fundamental beliefs, but we can alsp agree on other things that we should work together on.
TheHealthPhysicist That's not a very scientific counter argument to the video. As a matter of fact, I havent seen a single counter argument posted by anyone. All I've seen is one liners.
MrModeratemuslim Con artists like Creationists, faith healers, self-styled exorcists and "prosperity gospel" preachers aren't doing God any favors. They're turning Americans off to religion in droves.
luvdomus Watch stevebee92653. You think only religious people disagree with evolution? Nah, people who aren’t religious disagree with it as well. Evolution is hanging by a thread right now.
Folk Aart again nothing new, but grandstanding from a theophobe. You know you haven’t got a clue to rebut the lecture but an inane statement to feel secure with.
Meyers makes the mistake of thinking that the first life forms needed 100 amino acids. For all we know, the first life could have only required 3 or 4 amino acids to kickstart an organism. His combination lock analogy assumes that cellular life 4.5 billion years ago was the same as it is today. If you had only one person trying to solve a 10 digit lock, sure, it would take millions of years. But if 1 million people are all trying to solve it at the same time, you'd have it solved way faster. That's why your chances of winning a lottery is extremely small and very unlikely. But when 100 million people are playing, one of those persons is going to win when the number is drawn 1 month later. I've watched a lot of videos from Meyer and he never addresses this.
I like what Meyer says here re: proteins. Having the chemicals arrive in a useful combination is one thing. [ random mutation *would have never have arrived* at any useful combination; Creation would have "got it right" as the design called for]. The theory of evolution is Miles Away from having any useful chemical combinations supplied via random mutation. Nowhere near even being remotely likely. NEXT we have the problem of _how do the 3D protein structures form?_ Add in More random chance claims that haphazard random chemical mutation [ one at a time!] was what caused random 3D protein structures. Already the exponential odds against that have entered solidly into IMPOSSIBLE LAND. Yet there are many that beat their heads against a brick wall trying to claim that it actually happened that way. The betting man would put his money on God/creator over ToE. ha ha
They want us to believe that given the time and the number of simultaneous attempts, anything is possible. Yet, the math shows that the odds of everything going right is against them. I have no problem with believing that we're all part of a huge experiment.
@@garywalker447 -"Scientists are relatively confident about when life on Earth first emerged." *** But that only points to the "confidence within man". That which is true through observing science has nothing to with such "confidence within man". That is a trite and rather meaningless comment within that article. -------"conducted a study . . . how some . . . may have linked up . . . " *** To say "Some" is to say incomplete data input. To say "May have" means insufficient study to prove anything. ------- "led by Dr. Moran Frenkel-Pinter of Georgia Tech . . . included multiple researchers . . . supported by NASA and the NSF . . . assistance from Dr. Luke Leman. . ." *** Lots of chummy freinds and buddies to pat each other on the back and say "Atta-boy!" . ----"a bit of a mystery to us . . . evidence from that time is scarce . . . have had theories . . ." -------"all attempts to verify these theories have so far failed." ------"conditions similar to what is believed to have existed on Earth 4 billion years ago". IS THAT A FACT? ------"However, they are also part of the core of amino acids. . . " NOTHING CONCLUSIVE, BUT ONLY RUDIMENTARY ACADEMIC FINDINGS ------"of peptides . . . that were closer to today’s actual proteins." CLOSER, THEY SAY? CLOSE ONLY COUNTS WHEN PLAYING THE GAME OF "HORSE SHOES". -----"in a way that it is similar to what happens with proteins today" STILL NOTHING. -----"From this, the team hypothesized . . . " THAT'S ALL THEY COULD DO? HYPOTHESIZE? -----"may also offer new insight into why just 20 amino acids went into the formation of life. . . Our idea is that life started with the many building blocks. . . but we don’t know how much was selected. . . Looking at this study . . . it appears today’s biology may reflect . . . more than we had thought" . SO. WHERE'S THE "BEEF" BUDDY BOY. THIS ARTCLE OF NO VALUE AT ALL FOR YOUR ARGUMENT.
@@garywalker447 Your link above was useless for your argument. But, really, thanks for alerting to me to NOT waste more time following up on any more of your innefectual links. Regards. . .
@@john-giovannicorda3456 Just because you are too stupid to understand the article or you are too arrogant to accept the article does not mean that it is useless.
@@garywalker447, why do you care if I ignore other “gods”? I don’t need materialistic tools to see and experience God and his blessings on a daily basis. That is magic 🪄😊
@@oliverastankovic7009 I care because fools like you are trying to push your fairy tales and barbaric "morality" into laws that destroy my hard fought for human rights.
As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that. Francis collins phd Genetics Nobel laureate Templeton prize genomics
LULZ!! It just hit me that this guy looks like Sam Donaldson from way back. The funny thing is at first I could swear he was from star trek with those crazy eye brows, and I couldn't place his name, and then it hit me he was a new anchor back in the day and BAM! There he was. Anyway...it's uncanny. And...I can't forget....while I'm here....Praise Jesus...all that.
@@user-nb9xi5lb2s Bob, I disagree. 1. You are not dear to me. Sorry to say that if you were to die tomorrow, I would not hear of it nor be moved by the event, not that I wish you dead, just making a point. 2. You and I are not friends. We do not know each other in the slightest. 3. Your assertion that Jesus is GOD is one I have heard or read many times before. I am as unmoved by your assertion as I was by the hundreds of assertions that yours repeats. Let me give you a hint. Positive claims require positive evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and claims asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. If you were to tell me that you had a pet dog, this is NOT an extraordinary claim and I would likely accept it without comment. The claim that a man is God in the flesh, that he is he who created the whole of the Universe is 6 days, flooded the planet in the days of Noah, parted the sea for Moses.... is an extraordinary claim and frankly, I see very little evidence to support such a claim.
Folk Aart your kicking up a tantrum, because you are sensitive to truth, and you know it’s getting you. Get a grip and listen instead of mocking. I’m sure you better than that.
Antibiotic Antibiotic The only people who are taken in by anti-evolution mind games are fundamentalist Evangelicals, fundamentalist Muslims and Scientologists. Birds of a feather.
Daulton Horton The main reason people "choose" the religion they do is what culture they grew up in. Rationality has nothing to do with it, emotional yearnings have everything.
Showing the limitations of the other theory doesn't prove your own theory. All these are ad hoc explanations. How do we test intelligent design theory? What are the precise novel predictions and applications from it. Where is this intelligent designer? Why is he hiding from us? How do we find him? What test will prove this hypothesis wrong for once and for all?
I think the reasons for pointing out these faulty theories is because evolutionary hypothesis is being pushed by the American Academy whether it is true or false. He shows evidence for an intelligent designer by arguing that the information required for an animal's initial existence requires information. Information has always been able to be traced back to a mind in other areas of science like computer science and information theory. In doing so he rationally points to an intelligent Designer. That is what I think he is attempting to accomplish. Reasons To Believe is a science and faith ministry where they make testable predictions of what the future will discover. Right now the scientific secular community refuses to be scientific. Evolutionism has an unscientific agenda. They want to eface God because they either hate Him or they hate His people. At the heart of things, there are no true scientists. We all have other agendas than to purely seek to find the truth itself.
have you seen aronra's video "Bisbee tries to refute evolution by misreading the evidence" and tony reed's video "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 44 Lucy" on you tube?
Read Romans 1 an the answer is all there.though they knew GOD ,they did not want to acknowledge HIM in any way. We All have the Light of Creation and the Light of Conscience in side of all of Us!!
Don't bother, he's a fraud. Here let me put the truth of it in layman's terms: mutations are God's Creativity and natural selection is God's Judgment. Ok, class dismissed. You can all go home and stop fighting now.
"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
Didn't understand or didn't want to understand the cientific meaning of evolution. Big surprise. Today we are so beyond Darwin in explanatory evolution that is ridiculous to keep dragging Darwin into the conversation
A lot of people here seem upset at the evidence presented but fail to address the evidence in favor of fallacious logic of attacking the presenter of the evidence. No logical person considers an ad hominem makes any statement either true or false. Many materialists (dogma that reality is only matter/energy - a contradictory abstract philosophy that claims no abstract philosophy is real) depend upon two contradictory beliefs that they attempt to bind together in the circular reasoning fallacy. 1. We don't need God because we can explain everything naturally - and - 2. Life must naturally come from non-life because there can't be God. And thus they ignore the evidence for the fallacious special pleading based on their own dogma. They seek to argue from ignorance - "because we don't know it must be true". When in fact everything we do know shows life does not arise naturally from non-life. Poor form. Regardless of our personal dogma let's be honest with the evidence.
have you seen aronra's video "Bisbee tries to refute evolution by misreading the evidence" and tony reed's video "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 44 Lucy" on you tube?
"let's be honest with the evidence." um....yeah....the evidence shows without any doubt whatsoever that evolution DID occur. Meyers tacitly admits this before quickly going back to his dog-whistle evolution denying rhetoric. Evolution denial is grossly dishonest. Questioning neodarwinism as the mechanism is hardly new or noteworthy. Intelligent design is not an alternative to evolution, and it is not science. It is a philosophy (likely of Freemason origin) that is often abused in an attempt to reject evolution. If you REALLY want evidence of "design," evolution is the BEST evidence.
@@jamesginty6684 Do you have a point to make? I look skeptically at any claim based on its supporting evidence and logic. I have no horse in this discussion. I just look to what the empirical evidence is and the best inference for the evidence. Since you've obviously watched these two particular videos you can explain the actual evidence presented. I've looked for the best evidence for a natural origin of life and the basic answer is that there is none as Sara Walker said to Sean Carroll in the Mindscape 79 video.
@@smitty121981 Okay, let's be honest with the evidence. Yes, we have evidence in the fossil record that there has been change over time. But the fossil evidence does not line up with Darwin as he himself expressed. Yes we have evidence of changes and the evidence is that genetics is the main factor of changes and that gaining information mutations are much too limited to account for the changes we see in the fossil record. We do have a lot of dogma for Darwinism as you have spouted. But that is not science. Yes, ID is a philosophy of science built on the best inference from the empirical evidence. You do realize that Darwinism is also a philosophy, yes?
@@allenrhoades8482 "Yes, we have evidence in the fossil record that there has been change over time" OKAY SO THEN STOP DENYING EVOLUTION "he fossil evidence does not line up with Darwin" Who cares? Neodarwinism has been criticized in the peer review for over 40 years now. Nobody except self aggrandizing anti-science lunatics jump from there to making the outrageous claim that evolution somehow didn't happen. "mutations are much too limited to account for the changes" THAT'S WHAT THE CURRENT PUBLISHED SCIENCE ALREADY SAYS!!! It's NOT an excuse to pretend that evolution somehow didn't happen!!!!! All it means is that OTHER mechanisms were involved, such as epigenetics. "You do realize that Darwinism is also a philosophy, yes?" No, it's a proposed scientific HYPOTHESIS for a MECHANISM of evolution. As a hypothesis it can be tested and falsified, which HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. You're just clinging desperately to it as a strawman so so can use it as a dog whistle. You think I'm dumb or something? Stop playing games. In stark contrast, the anti-Christian concept of an "intelligent designer" is NOT a testable hypothesis. It's a philosophy. And as such , it is a Freemasonic philosophy that denies the supremacy of Christ as the Creator, replaced with a thinly veiled rebranding of the "grand architect" "built on the best inference from the empirical evidence." No it's absolutely NOT built on the "best evidence" because the best evidence of "design" is EVOLUTION!!! Hello? Anyone home?? When we look at the development of human technology, it left behind a "fossil" record that bears every salient characteristic of the biological fossil record, including 1) macroevolution 2) microevolution 3) inheritance 4) diversification 5) modifications made subject to selection 6) punctuated equilibirum 7) extinction events But since ID is a masonic trojan horse being used to covertly attack Christianity, they don't actually care about the best evidence. They have to dog whistle to creationists instead in order to gain access.
Baylor Christian University In the Department of Biology, the science we teach and the science we research are all about understanding our world. I think you might even say that we have a Biblical mandate to understand God’s world. We are supposed to be stewards and care takers of the world that we inherited. We don’t own it and so we must understand it in order to preserve it and care for it. This goes for all of humanity as well as for the planet. Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University (Waco, TX) teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science’s statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously.
Even though evolution is a hollow theory and the "overwhelming" evidence is revealed to be paper thin upon scrutiny, ill put that aside for this question... Whats more important, being in accordance with the aaas or Gods word?
@@rejectevolution152 As your "god's word" was written by a pack of bigoted men who knew nothing of the world, I will follow the Scientific Consensus that is based on real evidence.
@@garywalker447 Apparently they knew quite a bit since the Bible is used by archaeologist and historians as a credible source. How did it know about civilizations and people before we even discovered them, such as the Hittites and pontius pilate?
@@rejectevolution152 Apparently they knew quite a bit since the Bible is used by archaeologist and historians as a credible source. How did it know about civilizations and people before we even discovered them, such as the Hittites and pontius pilate?
@@garywalker447 So youre going to ignore the fact that archaeologist and historians say its credible? Or that even secular institutions like the Smithsonian openly admit its an extremely accurate source on the ancient world...
I wish he gave examples of the people in evolutionary fields doubting it’s creative power, he said it a lot but wondering about some evidence for this… anyone have an example?
(And notice that hate and ad hominem, attacking belief in God, is what evolutionists typically fall back on, which shows common descent evolution is more like an anti-science, anti-God cult). Consider: Science is about the repeatable portion of reality, not things like common descent evolution that contradict repeatable reality, can only be believed in, and they call reasons to believe in it 'evidence'. The bottom line is the topic of the origin of all biological diversity is beyond the scope of science as beliefs, and reasons to believe in it, are all anyone can bring to the table. Here's what *is* science: A.k.a., well documented and published even in evolutionists' own papers (when they happen to include something that's actually observable, repeatable, verifiable biological, scientific fact when they're telling their common descent stories and why they believe in it) that demonstrates common descent from a first life form is anti-science. Science shows that it's observable, repeatable, verifiable scientific fact that, no matter how many generations go by, no matter how much "change in genetic composition during successive generations", no matter how much "change in allele frequencies", no matter how much "development of new species", no matter how much "natural selection acting on genetic variation among individuals", no matter how much "adaptation", no matter how much "mutation", no matter how much "speciation", no matter how much "migration", no matter how much "genetic drift", no matter how much "insert other claims here" no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of: fish remain fish amphibians remain amphibians, canines remain canines, felines remain felines, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses, animals that never had lungs to breath air do not evolve lungs animals that never had hearts to pump blood do not evolve hearts animals that never had eyes to see do not evolve eyes animals that never had brains do not evolve brains animals that never had mouths do not evolve mouths living things that never had a reproductive system do not evolve a reproductive system animals that never had (insert organ here) remain living things without that organ, and so on. There are many more such groups. Science shows that the "common descent from a first life form" evolution (some call Darwinian evolution, some call theory of common descent) is anti-science. Evolutionist can never address these facts - many unfortunately just fall back on ad hominem, showing how they're seem to be really about deception that's contrary to actual science. ===== Part TWO ===== Here are a few objections/claims they may bring up when they cannot address the above observable, repeatable and verifiable facts: *Evolutionists sometimes try to claim you're against science.* Science is fine and requires no belief. In the entire existence of the human race: Objects drop to the ground. Observable, repeatable, verifiable, no belief required. In the entire existence of the human race: Diseases spread. Observable, repeatable, verifiable, no belief required. In the entire existence of the human race: All populations of: canines remain canines, fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, animals that never had hearts do not evolve hearts, animals that never had digestive systems do not evolve digestive systems (or brains, or eyes, or reproductive systems and many, many more cases like these). Observable, repeatable, verifiable, no belief required. *Evolutionists sometimes try to say they don't claim that populations of 'animals turn into other animals' over generations* Quite the opposite. Evolutionists claim the first life form was a single cell. They claim that it is the ancestor of all living things today. That's "animals turning into other animal" over generations of mythological proportions. They claim humans, apes, rats, banana plants (50% DNA similarity to human beings) are all related - that's again "species turning into other species" of mythological proportions, claiming all life is related. At some point reptiles did not exist in their worldview. That means they claim over generations some populations animals that were never reptiles 'evolved' over generations eventually into reptiles - That's "animals turning into other animals" over generations to mythological degrees. At some point no animals had brains. This means they claim over generations some populations of animals that never had brains 'evolved' brains over generations. Yet when called out on this some evolutionists even try to say "evolution doesn't say species turn into other species", which again is just not honest. It shows they not only know they're wrong, but they show their intent to push this falsehood anyway. *If you point out evolutionists "populations over generations" claims, and some will dishonestly pretend you're claiming evolutionists are saying that one kind of animal 'gives birth' to another kind".* Which again is clearly deception. Science shows *populations over generations* do not do what they claim. *Evolutionists typically imply making up reasons to believe in their common descent from a first life form belief system is the same as "observing" it,* which of course is false and is just circular reasoning. Making up beliefs ABOUT fossils or ABOUT DNA *that never happens* does not then make fossils or DNA 'evidence' or an 'observation of' of the belief you just made up about them. *Evolutionists also typically resort to the crime analogy.* For example, since you cannot "observe" a certain crime, but can look at "evidence" for a crime, that shows we can know things happened without observing it. But what they ignore: the thing called a "crime" is already observable, repeatable, verifiable reality, so now we can look for forensic 'evidence' of some *MORE* possible crimes that no one is left alive to have observed it. By sharp contrast, what evolutionists do would be the same as giving 'evidence' for some strange new crime that's never been observed even once by the human race, and yet claim that's also an observation of this crime that never happens actually happening (for example: a "crime" of turning someone into a tree). *Even some people factually observing something that's never happened is not science if it's not repeatable and also verifiable*. So for example, hundreds of people are witness to the fact Jesus Christ rose from the dead (or that He raised others from death), and they wrote about it. Direct observation. But it's still not science because it's *not repeatable* and not *verifiable.* There's also evidence He rose from the dead, and some have observed Him alive after the fact, but it's STILL not science that people can be raised from the dead, in spite of evidence, and in spite of it also being directly observed - because it's not *repeatable* and not *verifiable.* And so it goes with the belief of common descent from a first life form - not only is it not *repeatable,* not *verifiable,* it's not even *observable* either - which makes the resurrection far more likely to be called science before the belief of common descent from a first life form ever could. But neither of them can be called science of course. ===== Part Three ===== *Evolutionists almost always are against Christ but are teaching their religion* that goes along with their belief of common descent from a first life form - the belief of 'nothing did it - it all just happened on it's own, including life - you're just another animal related to all animals - so live how you want and you'll rest in peace when you die". But they also pass this religion off 'you are god' off as science as well. That in mind, I implore people to re-read the gospels and forget what any church or any religion or anyone has claimed they say and sincerely consider yet again for ourselves. Judgment is coming for us all for our lifetime of sinning AND refusing God's offer to forgive and forget in the person of Jesus Christ. But religions also twist God's truth to make people think it's their religion and system of rules that makes them right with God when it's about a person: Jesus Christ, and choosing to have a relationship with Him, having a change of mind about living for ourselves and turning back towards God/ Jesus Christ to live for Him instead. John 3 : 14-21 *_"[Jesus said] And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up [i.e., on the cross]: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved [exposed]. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."_* Live forever, friends!
No creatard, the origin of all biological diversity is NOT beyond the scope of science, it is quite well explained by the Theory of Evolution. Now run along and go play with your plastic jesus action figure.
You are totally correct. I’m still in school and they push this all the time. They contradict themselves. I see it, from the most “unbiased” point of view I can, as kind of like a fairytale. They say what we believe is a fairytale, but it’s real. Yes the supernatural is real (most of my generation is involved in witchcraft today, so they must be blind), but they either ignore it/say it’s just a silly superstition, or get angry because they know you can’t observe something that is supernatural the same way you can with the physical. If they understood basic English they would know what super-natural even means. Other than that, macro evolution seems like part of the religion of atheism. 🤔🤔🤔🤷🏾♀️
They change what they say. They change how they make their “half way humans” look like, and the “science” they talk about came from a period where pseudoscience was a major thing… they also avoid how macro evolutionary theory played a major part in giving racism a solid reason to exist, (because of their claim that humanity started in Africa, then “evolved” out of the continent), and how the eugenics movement used it. I’m a bit of a history nerd, but these people ignore history and truth. They can claim we are apes and I’ll just laugh.
@@garywalker447 because evolution is really good at writing complex code which if slightly incoherent would result in absolutely nothing meaningful. DNA is programming code that's why certain chunks of code can be extracted and used to do (unethical) things like grow a human ear on a mouse (which has been done) The process of Natural selection would just botch up code assuming it was correct/meaningful in the first place. It is correct to say that a belief in evolution is as much as faith position as any religion and if you question the dogma of evolution well you are a heretic and an idiot of course. Even Dawkins mentions the illusion of design so what if it is just that and not illusory: designed, simples
Theistic evolution disregards at least three fundamental contradictions: "Firstly, in the disquieting mix of divine purpose with purposeless Darwinism; secondly, in the projection of a god capable of miraculous intervention and personal reciprocation in the world (i.e. a 'living' god), yet apparently incapable of such miracles and interventions in the creation of life; and thirdly, in accepting the role of a creator god, while also accepting a materialistic theory that's very aim is to account for origins without the need for a creator god. A psychological state of tolerating inconsistent beliefs is recognised as cognitive dissonance, and may arise as a response to competing peer pressures." Extract form - 'Life Without Evolution: A Comprehensive Deconstruction of Darwin's Creation Story' (free to read online).
Really? So you prefer the psychological state of denying science, rabbitting out lies and pseudo science (the "and" was unnecessary just there) and pretending that Creationism and it's bastard offspring have even a modicum of credibility? Jesus was clear about who the father of lies is. And ID and creationism are all lies. Guess who your daddy is! Go on, guess!
You can read many rebuttals where his "work" is debunked or exposed for its rank dishonesty. Pieces written by actual scientists- rather then full time activists at right wing Christian pressure groups.
And in reality DNA, the discovery that human chromosome nr2 is a fusion of two ape chromosome and the discovery of ERV insertions proved once and for all that Evolution is an irrefutable scientific fact. That’s why most Christians accept the evidence for Evolution… and Creationism is mostly a phenomenon in some states in the Bible belt and in Muslim countries.
Dumbass. DNA proves evolution. We test the nuclear DNA of the nucleus for paternity and the mitochondria in cells for maternity then look for markers on the genomes in a codon for codon comparison.
Meyer is a fraud, like all who work for the "Discovery Institute". ID is pseudoscience that fails every scientific test. It is the warmed over corpse of "Creation Science" as shown by evolution of the creationist "textbook" "Pandas and People". Of Pandas and People (early 1987 creationist version. page 3-40) The basic metabolic pathways, (reaction chains) of nearly all organism are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationist accept the latter view. Creationists reason as .... Of Pandas and People (late 1987 ID version, page 3-41) The basic metabolic pathways, (reaction chains) of nearly all organism are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view. Design proponents .... The same text book, with the same authors with the same arguments for creation science and Intelligent Design. Creation Science is ID. Your assertion that "proves that the odds of unguided macro evolution is essentially Zero" is not supported by evidence and has, therefore NO value.
@@walkergarya It is supported by the evidence that any specified sequence changed at random results in degradation rather than new functional sequences. I'm sure you recall the theif and combination lock analogy.
@@JosephGranier If it was a case of unchecked duplication with the possibility of errors, you would be right. Fortunately biology is NEVER that simple. First, about 75% of our genome is junk so mutations that happen in this portion of the genome simply do not matter. Second, there are many genes that are duplicated in our genome, so if one copy is scrambled by a mutation, it does not much matter. Third, we get genes from both parents and as our parents are healthy enough to concieve a baby, there must be good genes between the two and in most cases, we get genes from both parents, so there is reduncancy there. (This is why it is NOT a good idea to have children with relatives, it does get more likely that having very similar heritage, the child will get multiple copies of poorer genes.) The other major protection agains the degridation you speak of is natural selection. If the genome of the child is not condusive to life, it will fail to implant, spontaneously abort, die at birth or later and the defective genes will not get passed on to the next generation.
@@walkergarya The entirety of your comment fails to acknowledge that the creative power of random mutations is not sufficient given the estimated time of the Earth's existence. The fact that the majority of mutations are not harmful means absolutely nothing.
@@JosephGranier Yeah that is another creatard lie. You see the FACT is that species evolve as POPULATIONS so several genetic changes can be working their way through a given population at the same time, they do not all have to happen one followed by another. So no, I am still not impressed with your creatard assertions.
Problem #1: Origin of Genetic information 24:27 Problem #2: Origin of the Genetic Circuitry (dGRNS) 34:40 Problem #3: Origin of Body Plan Morphogenesis (Organismal Form) 37:40 Problem #4: Post Neo-Darwian Theories are Inadequate to Explain the Origin of Pre-Programmed Information 41:10
@@theophilusmann7869 If there was any plausible evidence for your god I would change my mind but if it were the god of the bible, the god that played with Job's faith, that wiped out all humans save those on the Ark, that condones misogyny, slavery, ethnic cleansing in a war of conquest, it would NOT get my worship.
@@walkergarya So what you are saying is that you would judge the God of the Bible according to His deeds and expel Him from your presence for all eternity? I can only imagine what an all wise, powerful, yet patient Being, who actually has creator rights over all humans, would do.
@@theophilusmann7869 "creator rights"? I have "creator rights" over inanimate things I make until I sell or give them away. If I have a child or even have animals that I breed, I cannot do what ever springs to mind with them. Child welfare and animal cruelty laws and my own morality prevent that. So no, I reject that argument absolutely.
@@logicalatheist1065 Can’t you read? That’s what I said. Our government, schools and people like you are calling it a fact. Go back and read you first comment. It’s not a fact. It’s never been proven and the more science advances the more evolution looks like tossing bones in the dirt. Get with the times.
Nah. Theistic Evolution has been around since long before this lot. They despise it because unlike the ID crowd, Theistic Evolution just accepts the science.
Considering the inexistent contribution list of Meyer in the scientific field, I think anyone watching this ought to be aware, that Meyer does not work accroding to scientific standards...he shies away from many experiments that entirely rule out all models he makes up. Merely making up models that suit one's own self vision is not science, as a scientist you go where evidence leads you, and you do not leave out things that do not fit. And the video basically fails in the beginning....leading biologists never distiguish between macroevolution and evolution. Introducing your own set of words for things other people discovered is actually dishonest.
What I observe is not Meyers' list of research experience but what he says is lucid and makes sense. During the Cambrian Explosion different animal body plans show up without finding other transitional fossils that are required for Darwin's theory. Just what more need be said? Does he have to have several degrees to say what he says?
The general problem of Thesitic-evolution (I have the book on my shelf, unread as yet...and biblio-osmosis is not working) in Christian terms, is that it completely sets aside the concrete impulse of the genesian account. It holds that creation does not proceed by 'kinds' reproducing and filling the earth (and obviously adjusting as they go, because they were created **for** the earth), but of random accidents getting culled in vast numbers to express a few 'winners' -- this is a process of 'de-filling' -- contrary to the life-giving objective and joy of Genesis 1. It has the effect of seemingly either merging the creator into the creation in panentheistic terms, or making the creator remote and detached in deist, if not Aristotelian, terms. Neither has the creator in fellowship with his creatures and engaged in his creating, as the Psalmist, Proverbs and the prophets indicate and which is the ultimate thrust of the account. Both de-personalize what is an intensely personal sequence of creating actions. Theistic-evolution forks off from biblical creation to a marriage with materialism which at root holds that the cosmos is 'self-made' (and the old quip to a 'self-made' man applies: 'why did you finish so soon?), impersonal and devoid of actual personal wisdom, contra Prov 3:19-20.
So, your argument is based not on facts, observations, science, but on your interpretation of a translated ancient text based on your particular doctrine of exegesis and with no reference to actual reality?
OK, this is just disingenuous now. 32:00 onwards. There is no suggestion that evolution works in this way. Meyer knows it. It isn't a matter of completely functional mutation or nothing. Small functional increments are sufficient.
@@marieindia8116 That is literally false. Small incremental changes have been demonstrably proven to add up to a "new kind of animal" To deny the overwhelming evidence is just pathetic.
There must be a creative force and intelligence GUIDING all this. I don't see any other conclusion to how all these highly complicated things can happen. Algorithmic control......wow. More reason for intelligence having to be the reason.
To believe in the bible god is to believe an uncaused intelligence was just floating around in NOTHING for ETERNITY doing NOTHING until suddenly deciding to create EVERYTHING from NOTHING. Aren't you ashamed of yourselves for believing such twaddle?
We might never know how the Big Bang started but that does not mean it did not happen. What we do know is that the creation fairy tale in the bible is not true.
@@garywalker447 The Bible speaks so simple, even a child can understand and I love that. We're made of space, time and matter correct? Genesis 1:1 "in the beginning (time), God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter).
@@garywalker447 To say what you just did disproves your world view. Not the kind of proposition you mad but that one could be made at all. Atheism provides no precondition for rationality..morality...meaning...beauty...and the belief in God. These are all immaterial realities. How do atoms come to all of these. If they do then that makes them liars...and self consciousness an illusion. See Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stein
Judge Jones got it exactly right when he ruled: While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. (3:103 (Miller); 9:19-20 (Haught)). This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as “methodological naturalism” and is sometimes known as the scientific method. (5:23, 29-30 (Pennock)). Methodological naturalism is a “ground rule” of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify. (1:59-64, 2:41-43 (Miller); 5:8, 23-30 (Pennock)). …and… ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation
On the contrary, methodological naturalism seeks to pull itself off the ground by its own bootstraps. Everything that exists, can only exist by virtue of an agent that is external to it. Nothing can exist by virtue of its own parts.
No Larry, you quickly show you have no clue what you are talking about. Methodolgical Naturalism asserts that because we cannot control "supernatural" causes, they are not part of this process. We cannot test how much god affects how plants grow because we can neither include or exclude god from any set of plants in the experiment, like we could with water, light or other chemicals in the soil or air. There are many scientists who believe in a personal god and use Methodologial Naturalism every day.
@@garywalker447 Rather, you naturalists are as dumb as a dog's balls when it comes to understanding philosophical concepts. Methodological naturalism seeks answers to the existence of matter, from matter, so it is necessarily a system which seeks to pull itself off the ground by its own bootstraps. You can't determine a system's origin if you are internal to that system. So a quick course in set theory is what you need.
@@garywalker447 so ultimately if you are being logically consistent with your conclusion; I.e., you don’t really know about the origin of the universe,; then it i reasonable that your use of the scientific method in observing “change processes” now are based ultimately on faith; the same premise you accuse ID scientists of doing. Your argumentation is wound up in your own closed system deciding what the perimeters of scientific method are. You communicated within a steady state of randomness-totally antithetical to classic logic.
Of course you can always pretend that your favorite divinity-- however you define it-- is ultimately behind any natural process, be it evolution, the weather or the orbits of the planets. That has nothing to do with science, which only concerns itself with the practical method by which these processes work, not the psychological coping mechanisms you wish to attach to them.
luvdomus, you wrote, "Of course you can always pretend that your favorite divinity-- however you define it-- is ultimately behind any natural process, be it evolution, or the weather or the orbits of the planets." Which is your favorite divinity, luvdomus: natural selection or cumulative selection? ============== luvdomus, you wrote, "That has nothing to do with science, which only concerns itself with the practical method by which these processes work, not the psychological coping mechanisms you wish to attach to them." Who made up that silly rule? Let me guess . . . Atheists? Have you ever heard of men named Newton, Maxwell, and Faraday? Believe it or not, at one time they were considered to be scientists,. Dan
Bible Research Tools. Science didn't really take off until it began to outgrow the dominance of religion about two centuries ago. Religious characters are psychological symbols of our own desires and fears in our collective mythology, which has its place in human life but it has no scientific explanatory power. There is nothing "atheistic" about evolution, it merely explains how a physical process works. No scientific theory resorts to the supernatural to explain anything-- but that doesn't mean that science is trying to take Jesus away from you. So relax, your struggle with atheism is all in your own head.
luvdomus, you wrote, "Science didn't really take off until it began to outgrow the dominance of religion about two centuries ago." I propose that is a myth; but you are welcome to present your case. No opinions, please. ======== luvdomus, you wrote, "Religious characters are psychological symbols of our own desires and fears in our collective mythology, which has its place in human life but it has no scientific explanatory power." That is pure baloney, luvdomus. Your ignorance of the God of the Bible, and his Word, does not constitute proof. Your assertion is simply another of your many, unsubstantiated opinions. ======== luvdomus, you wrote, "There is nothing "atheistic" about evolution, it merely explains how a physical process works." It doesn't explain anything, other than Charlie's wild imagination. ======== luvdomus, you wrote, "No scientific theory resorts to the supernatural to explain anything-- but that doesn't mean that science is trying to take Jesus away from you." Both of your assertions are false, luvdomus. We will take them in order: 1) The "origin of the universe" requires a supernatural occurrence: either via magic, or a creator. 2) Atheist thugs have been suppressing Christianty in tax-payer funded schools for over a half-century. ======== luvdomus, you wrote, "So relax, your struggle with atheism is all in your own head." Sanctimonious jackass. Dan
Bible Research Tools. Science has come a long way in the past 200 years, while your religion hasn't. Evolution describes the physical process of species development with step by step logic, whay cant you? Let us know when a major universty anywhere denies evolution or starts treating Creationism as if it were a science.
"inside the cell we find exquisite nano machines with digital code inside the cell with machine code nanotechnology inside the cell with Darwin's historical scientific method exquisite nano machines inside the cell characters in a machine code inference to the best explanation sequence space inside the cell we find exquisitemachines insidethecell withcharacters inadigitalcodeinsidethecellwithDarwin10^67possiblemachinesinsidethecells enginosnjjgjgpoldiieiepsppgnnspijbbnn" It's really entertaining but it'll never replace science.
A lot of good points but there was no 'Long time ago'. I hate this form of compromise, trying to blend in a bogus hypothesis, macro evolution, in with the bible. It is not even a theory since we have no evidence of any animal gaining new informational codes for a more complex change. Natural selection / survival of the fittest cannot build / change a new feature that is not already working, think about it. If it is not functioning it cannot add to a better survival rate thus phasing out the prior stages, end of story. We have tons of historic artifacts and stories with people living with dinosaurs before people found and assembled dinosaur bones to then get an idea of their shapes and sizes. We also now have found soft tissue, red blood cells and partial dinosaur DNA still impeded in dinosaur bones, even ones found just a few feet deep. Do we now throw out 100+ years of biological science on decay rates? We are being told that we need to re-examine it all now since it is wrong! Really?? We are expected to believe we are now 10,000+ times off on all the studies? Do the math, study it out. These studies were cut and dry with no assumptions since we have had the known death times. How about Carbon dating that is said to be only good up to 50,000 years?? For you Christian's, you would have to forget the doctrine that Adam's sin caused death to the world and the fall and the possible need of a Savior. Adam the first person made by God, is mentioned 9 times in the new testament alone, do we throw it all out? It is written the Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth, not your own understanding or even a person with master / doctorate degrees.
A lot of good points but there was no 'Long time ago'. I hate this form of compromise, trying to blend in a bogus hypothesis, macro evolution, in with the bible. It is not even a theory since we have no evidence of any animal gaining new informational codes for a more complex change. Natural selection / survival of the fittest cannot build / change a new feature that is not already working, think about it. If it is not functioning it cannot add to a better survival rate thus phasing out the prior stages, end of story. We have tons of historic artifacts and stories with people living with dinosaurs before people found and assembled dinosaur bones to then get an idea of their shapes and sizes. We also now have found soft tissue, red blood cells and partial dinosaur DNA still impeded in dinosaur bones, even ones found just a few feet deep. Do we now throw out 100+ years of biological science on decay rates? We are being told that we need to re-examine it all now since it is wrong! Really?? We are expected to believe we are now 10,000+ times off on all the studies? Do the math, study it out. These studies were cut and dry with no assumptions since we have had the known death times. How about Carbon dating that is said to be only good up to 50,000 years?? For you Christian's, you would have to forget the doctrine that Adam's sin caused death to the world and the fall and the possible need of a Savior. Adam the first person made by God, is mentioned 9 times in the new testament alone, do we throw it all out? It is written the Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth, not your own understanding or even a person with master / doctorate degrees.
"Natural selection / survival of the fittest cannot build / change a new feature that is not already working, think about it." I can smell your ignorance regarding Evolution through my computer. Natural selection and survival of the fittest are not the only things at play in Evolution. Why aren't you educating yourself properly? What is your understanding of mutation, migration (gene flow), and genetic drift? You thought you'd bring a butter knife to a fight where the opposition has lasers, didn't you? The reason, I suspect, that religious nuts never properly educate themselves, is that they are afraid that there may actually be reasoning and evidence behind Evolution. Either that, or they're just lazy asses. Pick your poison. There is more bullshit you wrote that I can destroy at another time if you want. Your call. Educate yourself. You sound like an idiot.
No one wants the knowledge of the power the low components,you have to use the animals that the body and all of life has which is an ever existing education
Groan! "God guiding an unguided process?" Stephen Meyer creates an unnecessary oxymoron and seems to miss another possibility: That God created ALL the processes, guiding them by initial intent. In other words, God was so intelligent that He could imbue physical matter with self-organizing principles, and that life could "feel" its way toward self-improvement because of God's intelligent design. In much the same way that vines can "see" a pole that was moved so it can change its direction to acquire that much desired support, plant species worldwide evolved in parallel C4 species to cope with the massive scarcity of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere (800 ppm, twice what it is today).
@@garywalker447 you are the fraud telling people random undirected processes create life and consciousness when you have no evidence for it. Whereas we say intelligent people create information as seen while assembling a single cell.
@@vivekp5196 Nope. Until you can show direct testable evidence that your "intelligent people" exist, you have nothing and there is a huge body of evidence showing the natural process of biological evolution is real.
Has he talked about the ways Darwinian evolutionary theory has affected the interpretation of Christian doctrine? I would like to know what I’ve misinterpreted growing up with majority of Darwinism evolution teachings and minority of Bible teachings.
Evolution helps us make more sense of things. It explains, for instance, why our sin comes from our flesh, because we inherited very strong animals instincts from evolution.
Don't hold your breath for him to say but the internal documents of the Discovery Institute and his buddies there openly admit that it is the god of the bible. They are all hypocrites, saying one thing to some and denying it to others. ID is nothing more than Creation Science rebranded. Texas-based Foundation for Thought and Ethics "Dr" William Dempski, Senior Fellow of the "Discovery Institute" publishers of the Creationist/Intelligent Design Text book, Of Pandas and People. "The world is a mirror representing the divine life. The mechanical philosophy was never blind to this fact, Intelligent Design on the other hand readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, Intelligent Design is just the Logos Theology of John's gospel restated in the idiom of Information Theory. "
@@garywalker447 Do you think an amoeba could explain the existence of a human? If there is a God (or intelligent designer) he would be much more advanced than a human than we are above amoebas. Are you so arrogant as to presume man is the most highly developed life form in existence?
@@timweber406 Sorry by all I see is a lot of "what if"s, but no evidence. It is just possible that aliens deposited life on this planet, but I doubt it, as there is no evidence for that. Until you have evidence for your god or "intelligent designer", there is NO reason to believe in such.
@@garywalker447 bla bla bla. if incredibly complex design within design within design isn't evidence for a designer, your blabber isnt evidence that you have a brain either.
1. Authority. Protestants say Scripture alone is the authority. Catholics say Scripture and Sacred Tradition together (along with the Magisterium, which is the teaching office of the church that explains what Scripture and Sacred Tradition mean). "America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance - it is not. It is suffering from tolerance. Tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." Fulton J. Sheen
What is true is established by examining the evidence. Biological Evolution has a huge body of evidence. The fraud of Intelligent Design has, like "Creation Science" from which it was invented, has no evidence.
