Stephen Meyer: Rock of Ages & the Age of Rocks
2015 ж. 10 Там.
179 278 Рет қаралды
The contemporary media portrays the relationship between science and Christianity as one of perpetual conflict and warfare. But it was not always so, as many of the most prominent scientists in history were faithful Christians. In this message, Dr. Stephen Meyer explains why the two, when properly understood, are not in conflict and reminds us that Scripture and creation can never ultimately contradict each other.
This message is from our 2012 National Conference, The Christian Mind: • The Christian Mind: 20...
Purchase this conference on DVD: www.ligonier.org/store/christi...
Awesome. Thanks I am a computer scientist, a software designer (programmer), with IBM for thirty years. I can personally affirm that information 'always' comes from mind, not from naturalistic unguided processes. John says, in the Bible (NT), in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. All things through Him became, and without Him became not one thing that has become. This is profound. When we see the ACTG information coding in the double helix we are in fact looking directly at the mind of God; at the Word encoded in flesh. This is profound. This is the Word of the Lord, thanks be to God. marcus
You should study information theory. Information is just data. Not the interpretation of that data. Random numbers are data and therefor information, that does not mean it it can be interpreted to have any meaning.
@@tabularasa0606 wrong. random numbers carry individual values beyond their symbols but the collection of randomn numbers , sequentially, is NOT information. Why? it conveys no useful information except that the numbers are meaningless. How do we know? because mind tells us so. the law of non contradiction and causal relationships. so. wrong. your logic doesnt fly. why? because its not scientific.
ACTG*, not ACDG.
AMEN!! Thanks for this. Thanks for taking the time. Take good care of yourself. God bless.
"I can personally affirm that information 'always' comes from mind,"- no you can't. You can assert....and you can be refuted.
“Science has had an extraordinary success in tracing the chain of cause and effect back-wards in time. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the highest rock, he is greeted by a bunch of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” Robert Jastrow.
This is the best argument for " intelligent design" that I've ever heard. And I'm a long- term atheist. Over 50 years. Can't refute it.
Please watch this: Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial (creationism vs evolution)
And neither should you. Go where the hard evidence leads
@@marieindia8116 I do, that is why I accept the Science of Evolution and reject theism in all its forms.
@@garywalker447 i wasn't talking to you, troll
@@marieindia8116 I do not take orders from fools and creationists.
Meyer is a true American hero! Love you, Dr. Meyer!!!
Meyer is a fraud, nothing more.
@@garywalker447 That ad hominem attack is powerful, coming from you, Gary!
@@rac7773 You don't understand "ad hominem". You can't deny a factual statement "Meyer is a fraud" by simply bleating "ad hominem". The term refers to a fallacious argument of the form "X is a bad person, therefore X is wrong about Y". Simply pointing out "X is a bad person" is a statement not an argument. As it turns out the statement "Meyer is a fraud" happens to be true. He is a relentless liar with no intellectual integrity whatsoever- on top of heading an organisation who aim is to gut science education in schools and replace it with fundamentalist Christian dogma. Given the US constitution and its separation of church and state this would make him and his ilk more akin to the mullahs of Iran and less of an American hero. He is also wrong about Y. Y being, evolution, the fossil record, information theory, genetics, Darwin's knowledge of the cell.....etc. Hope this helps.
@@mcmanustony Buddy, YOU are the bleating sheep.
@@rac7773 Your inability to address a syllable I posted is duly noted. Do better.
I believe in God..saved by His gift of grace, repentance. forgiveness...
The three of them, the oneness of Yahovah is molding us like one of them, so Adam and Eve became like one of them knowing good and evil, and now through Yashua, Jesus the only way to salvation took us out of darkness too light, and a closer relationship with Him.
I do not believe in your god nor any other. If I need forgiveness, I seek it from my family, friends or society, not from a fairy tale invisible god.
@VideoAudioDisco09 what would be the relevance of your question?
@@garywalker447 How pathetically sad if you are right that the only reason we do everything or anything is because of random chance and unguided processes. There is a third or fourth answered you could give. You could move to another society that would welcome your behavior. You could start your own society that people would have to follow your conduct without apologizing. Survival of the fittest baby unfortunately by your reply you are not one of the fittest since you were just a follower of your chemicals.
@@danpozzi3307 No Danny, I disagree with you entirely. We are one result of some 4 billion years of evolution. We have invented our own tools, language, societies, music and technology to improve our living standards. We were not given anything by any god, OUR ancestors built the Pyramids, built our societies. Yes we can look back with pride that we, a species of evolved ape are now on the verge of moving beyond our planet. The purpose of your life is yours to discover and pursue to your best ability. The purpose of your life CANNOT be assigned to you from outside. That is slavery.
Stephen is a very-highly intelligent scientist. Puts a dagger through the heart of Atheist theology.
He is a demonstrably liar and a fraud...not that you care.
What is he lying about? Why do you say he is a fraud?
Meyer is a fraud, using the language of science to baffle gab losers like you. Intelligent Design is nothing more than intellectual fraud.
@@joedanache7970 Did you watch it yet?
Nothing about video or Dr. Meyer to prove that he is a liar and fraud as you claim.
Before I went to college, I knew that my faith would be challenged. Forewarned was forearmed, so I got through my education years with faith intact.
Forewarned = Forearming excellent
Congratulations.
@@deannabow313 While my education years did not include a degree of any kind, I was resolved to seek out the published science papers. Dawkins himself couldn't have shaken me loose.
@@jeromebarry1741 Same here 🇺🇸😄
@@jeromebarry1741 "I was resolved to seek out the published science papers."- you found some on creationism? In the scientific literature- really? Do you have some references?
Very good apologist. Thank you for being a warrior of God.
You don't mind him, professionally lying about science on order to defend his faith based belief and teach nonsese in schools?
Meyer is a typical apologist, a liar and grifter. I would not trust him for the time of day.
@@garywalker447 I will pray for you.
@Rob Davis let me know how it works out for you ;)
@@misternewman1576 Don't bother, your god is even more fake than Meyer.
Awesome, thanks so much. I became a Christian in 1979, just before finishing my PhD in chemistry. Science was less advanced then, but it did not take long for evolution to be demolished in my mind. I have tried to keep up with the progress ever since, and it is amazing. Love the argument from informatics.
If you really are a PhD, you again demonstrate that many people are educated beyond their intelligence.
@@garywalker447 again prove your work. Arguments from ignorance is lazy. 40% of published scientists believe in God. To say they aren’t “real scientists “ betrays your ignorance of how science works.
@@lynnjohnson2371 If a scientist, like Dr Kenneth Miller follows the Scientific Method, even as a believing Catholic, then he is doing science. ID dogma, in that it invokes supernatural causation, is NOT science so advocating ID is NOT science and while Meyer and is fellow frauds at the "Discovery Institute" advocate for ID, they are NOT scientists.
@@garywalker447 That is again a lazy argument, ad ignorantiam. Scientists are people who do research and publish their results so others can replicate the experiment. Your use of the word "fraud" is likely psychological projection; I speculate at a deep level you feel yourself to be a fraud, so you sling the word around carelessly. Which of Meyers' papers can you critique?
@@garywalker447 Origins science (whether it concludes darwinism, other naturalistic methods, or the actions of an intelligent agents) is a certain type of science that does not allow repeatable experiments. It is more like detective or history work. Looking at the current world and hypothesizing causes then checking its implications against observation. It is science to investigate nature, and if you disprove naturalistic explanations and find evidence of design, then concluding there must have been a designer, then finding results that match it... that’s origins science. If you disagree with the conclusion and disagree that implications that the design hypothesis are present, then fine. But I find that true. Disallowing the discussion, disallowing the presentation of evidence for the design hypothesis... is not scientific.
This was one of my favorite talks! Love Meyer!
You love a fraud.
@@garywalker447 haha love it. People get testy when you challenge their sacred cows.
@@PaDutchRunner No, I am simply stating a fact.
@@garywalker447 you have engaged in name calling but it is just a label and not a fact. Prove your so called fact. Who was defrauded when and how. Don’t rely on lazy labels.
@@lynnjohnson2371 Please refer to the Kitzmiller vs Dover Descision. ID is creationism, not science and therefore Meyer's continued advocating this dogma is fraud.
Magnificent lecture and so very important in today's secular world. I'm currently reading Darwin's Doubt and The Return of The God Hypothesis. Thank you so much. And thank you Lord, for this man.
Stephen Meyer is the laughing stock of the scientific community
Wayne, have you given any thought to reading actual scientists to learn science? Meyer is a Full time activist for a Christian fundamentalist pressure group.
Why are there no modern Animals within the Cambrian Explosion if this is the time God created all Animals???
@@Peekaboo-Kitty do you expect them to think? They already side with Stephen Meyer, that means your brain is shut off
Yeah thank "God" for giving you this Shyster and pretend-Scientist who Lies to you!
Drew Berry’s animations of DNA replication and other processes are really astounding. I’m equally astounded that people who understand the intricate goings on inside us still believe it all came about by chance.
Good points, but what if God created within inanimate matter the raw intelligence to "evolve" toward life. We have many other aspects of the universe evolving in similar ways -- hydrogen becoming helium and even heavier elements. Dust clouds becoming planets and new suns. Amino acids colliding with the ground, riding on meteors, becoming more complex peptides (J. Blank, et al.), and other wonders of God's beautiful design. We should not ever hitch our belief in God to any human hypothesis. God knows how it was done. Some day we might discover exactly how. But my faith in God will be unchanged by the findings of science, one way or the other.
It's much easier to fool proud high IQ types than one would think. God is not a respecter of persons and gives wisdom to whom he will.
@@joeking433 *_Amen!_* The combination of humility (a fundamental part of wisdom) and high intelligence is indeed rare. Einstein wasn't perfect, but he came close to having a full measure of both. I've come to call the sedentary certainty of some as the "dumb genius syndrome."
@@RodMartinJr Yeah, pride is the doom of many high IQ types. It's easy to gain the world and lose your soul when everyone is rewarding you for how smart you are.
@@joeking433 Amen to that! I have a horribly big ego and it takes great effort to tame it. But God's wisdom has allowed me to discover a kind of humility guided by the effortlessness of the Holy Spirit. Thus, I can rejoice in the knowledge of others, even when they lack any humility. Learning can come from all possible sources, either by an imperfect glimpse of God's Truth, or by contrast with that Truth.
24:40 I didn't lose my faith in God in my freshman year. I lost my faith in "higher education". I haven't been back.
@GaryWalker In much the same way that you choose sin over salvation, yes.
@GaryWalker I drew a parallel. You chose to ignore it in order to attack me and what I believe. I have no more consciously chosen ignorance than you have so chosen sin. I hope you have a nice day. At some point, you will meet the creator of all things. I hope you're ready for it.
"I haven't been back."- I'm sure you're not missed.
@@mcmanustony why would he be missed in a den of wolves?
@@marieindia8116 Which den of wolves would that be?
One of the rare ones, I call, "A Great One"; and, it's well-deserved! Peace & Blessings!
What's he great at?
Why are there no modern Animals within the Cambrian Explosion if this is the time God created all Animals???
@@mcmanustony Preaching by cherrypicking science and mocking great scientific heroes. This is nothing more than the hopeless 11th hour of one of the major cults in the history of mankind, and they look pathetic.
Well Done Gentlemen... Thank you.
Why are there no modern Animals within the Cambrian Explosion if this is the time God created all Animals???
Excelente, Dios es increible, no solo utiliza su Palabra para que podamos conocerlo, sino, nuestra inteligencia (la de los hombres de ciencia) para revelarse, pero como las escrituras enseñan, el hombre prefiere ser necio y negar lo evidente, que Dios es quien nos creo, y envio a su Hijo en la mision de rescate mas increible, para que quienes crean en su Hijo, tengan vida eterna. Gloria al Padre, al Hijo y al Espiritu Santo.
de acuerdo
No te apresures a aceptar la ciencia. La ciencia siempre está cambiando. La palabra del Señor permanece para siempre. I am using Google translate.
Si es infinitamente poderoso e inteligente, ¿por qué necesitaría rescatarnos de las consecuencias de su propia creación? Si uno lo piensa, un ser todopoderoso e infinitamente inteligente -por definición- jamás podría cometer un error. Pero un "rescate" implica que se necesitaba una corrección, y una corrección implica que hubo un error. Y vale notar que dicho supuesto rescate fue a través de un sacrificio humano, sospechosamente parecido a lo que hacían los supersticiosos pueblos originarios de América Central y muchas tribus en la edad de hierro (luego reemplazado con animales).
Thank you for this presentation. I have read Signature in the Cell. I will get your latest book soon.
Awesome presentation!
You think a lie-a-thone is awesome? You must love Trump!
@@garywalker447, You need to prove that he is lying or you have just committed slander.
@@nigeltremain1900 Meyers is just another Shyster lying for his God! Why are there no modern Animals within the Cambrian Explosion if this is the time God created all Animals?
I love the brilliance of Dr. Stephen Meyer. Don't forget to read his classic work...Signature in the Cell.
🤣🤣 dude is clearly a scientific illiterate 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
+Sassy Indeed. In fact, he's so brilliant that actual scientists can't take him seriously.
This dude can't grasp most basic science nit to mention logic
@@lawrenceharold8599 Try reading Signature in the Cell and refute his logic with any valid argument. You won't be able to because he already laid to waste the best theories of competing scientists to their utter frustration. These are the three stumbling blocks to which they have no answer: Where did matter come from before the Big Bang? How do you account for the fine tuning of the universe? How did information get into DNA? Answer those questions without the need for God. You can't....
@@sassy3923 And yet, oddly, established science continues to do established science, and actual qualified scientists continue to thrive in science that proves its validity and confirms its leading theories on virtually a daily basis. Meyer has no "competing scientists" because he isn't a scientist. He has minimal scientific training and has published no accepted research. These are all stumbling blocks for your nonsensical defense of a propagandist poseur. As for your questions that at least touch upon the realm of actual science, they aren't the gotchas that the god squad bizarrely supposes. Matter as we understand it resulted FROM the Big Bang. If you can presuppose an eternal, narcissistic, monomaniacal free-floating mind thing, how much easier to reduce the number of assumptions down to omnipresent quantum waves as fundamental energy. I don't need to account for the supposed fine-tuning of the universe, but if you hold with it, you need to account for all of the inbuilt waste, violence, and suffering if it was tuned by your pet, formless, paradoxical and self-contradictory mind being. There is no intrinsic information in DNA. It's reduceable entirely to chemistry. So yah, I can . . ..
Haha. An intelligent man who’s funny also. Great combination and easy to hear as well.
Meyer is a fraud peddling pseudoscience nonsense.
No, he's just another Shyster lying for his God! Why are there no modern Animals within the Cambrian Explosion if this is the time God created all Animals?
wonderful
This man has done more to prove the existence of God than all the Pope's and Priests that ever lived.
Proof? I guess maybe you think thinly veiled creationist dogma is the ultimate truth. I did not listen to the whole thing but I guess there was an avoidance of the term “natural theology”? Maybe there was also no mention of William Payley?
There is a reason why "Dr" Meyer lectures to church groups and is not invited to science conferences. He is more interested in the money made from "teaching" his creationism than he is to defend his pseudoscience against profesional scientists.
@@garywalker447 See, there are people who are willing to think.
@@patmoran5339 There are too many people who are satafied with being told what to think by people who are happy to lie to pad their bank accounts.
@@garywalker447 sheep does as sheep is?
This is just beautiful - the Eternal "MIND OF GOD" has always been -- is and shall forever "BE"!" TO BE OR NOT TO BE - That Is The Question!" Thank you, I have enjoyed your lecture and your humor. Seattle is beautiful, and from the looks of things -. we must include your intelligent Mind. Thank you. I am going to listen to your lecture again.
How we got from Newton to Dawkins is proof that evolution isn't true. In this case devolution speeded up. Dawkins is described perfectly in the Bible; thinking themselves wise they became fools. Maranatha.
Not surprised that creatards believe in devolution, as they see evidence of it everyday in the mirror.
Intelligent Design is intellectual fraud. It has no basis in science, no evidence and no value.
You do irony well.
What most scientists don't realize is that every discovery they make points further to a Divine Creator. 1 Corinthians 1:20-29. Edit: Nor do they realize that their earnest refusal to accept scripture is simply fulfilling scripture. The references we share are to encourage fellow believers, not the scornful. That would be like "casting pearls before swine." 🐷
@@tebelshaw9486 Nope. That is nonsense.
Excellent!
You don't mind him, professionally lying about science on order to defend his faith based belief and teach nonsese in schools?
Why are there no modern Animals within the Cambrian Explosion if this is the time God created all Animals???
How relevant, even for today. When you corner the evolutionist and simplify, they resort to ad hominem attacks or straight out empty retaliation. All we theists (me, bible only theology) are asking is "Will you be intellectually honest with this?".
Corner an evolutionist? Still having trouble accepting a scientific fact due to your religious beliefs?
Really? The thesis is BS. ID is NOT science! Saying that evolutionists resort to this or that non scientific argument is simply NOT true. OK, believe what you like, but don't seek to legitimize your beliefs by denigrating other that don't share them. The clue is in the term belief: taking as true something for which there is no evidence. ID is a belief, and that's a fact!
+TheDynamicsolo What an intellectually dishonest outburst of blather. The majority of so-called evolutionists (who are more commonly referred to as scientists) are theists. But if your tactic is to corner others, I can see how they might get uncomfortable. As far as simply presenting confirmatory evidence for the most well-founded theory in science, however, they can pretty much point you to the irrefutable, confirmatory evidence accepted by about 96% of the scientific community.
@@IIrandhandleII Luckily I stopped believing in that fact of evolution. I'm amazed how closed minded I was just because I misinterpreted scripture. Once I realized Jesus came to end religion and not make people work for salvation, I opened my eyes to the truth in scripture. Good luck. If origins is giving you trouble in believing, then check out Lee Strobel's book A Case for Christ
@@knightclan4 Besides, evolution is not a scientific fact, it's a deeply flawed theory. The Creation needs an eyewitness account to be accurate. Our eyewitness is YHWH Himself Whose works are clearly seen in nature. People choose to believe anything else at their own peril. But scoffers we will always have with us.
What can we know about God by looking at His handy work, He Is & He's Magnificent!
Thank you
Amen Alleluia Jesus 🙏
Amen!
I hope and pray that Myer can team up with Dr. James Tour for another great book.
As both Meyer and Tour are frauds, such a book would be a waste of pulp.
@@garywalker447 How are they frauds? Please give specific examples.
@@rl7012 You've had your answer.
Thank you so much.
Common since and rationality are god given .
Nope. 1. Your god, like all gods, is an invention of barbaric men. 2. Believing the fairy tales in bible is irrational. 3. Common sense would compare the natural explanation for our existance or the magical nonsense from the bible and come to the conclusion that the bible is garbage.
Why? Because you say so?
I think you meant sense? And as for god’s gifts, did he care about us? If so, why did he give us earthquakes floods, and cancer just to name a few? Which god gave us rationality? Zeus, Athena, Thor, Hermes?
@@patmoran5339 Yehovah gave us rationality, if we care to use it. As of now, because of our rejection of his rule, he is allowing us to show how well we can deal with reality without him. Cancer? Not so common until our modern age of synthesised chemical products, nuclear fallout sweeping around the world on atmospheric currents, and industrialised, poisoned food systems. Is that God's doing? Of course not, the designers of those "advances" would insult anyone who gives credit to a Creator for their brainchildren. If Yehovah wanted to speak to us now, he would probably say something like, "so, how is that working out for you?" And you would choke back our failures and say, "just fine, we never needed you."
@@garywalker447 common sense comes to the conclusion that any part of naturalism that implies the origin of the universe, life, and kinds of animals was random is complete garbage. Because the closer scientists look, the more ordered and mind boggling these get. Since when did you witness an explosion that came from no cause? Since when did sterile water or substrate ever spontaneously spawn bacteria, protozoa, or even proteins? Since when did your dog give birth to a different animal? These are all the fantasies of materialists.
Wonderful talk!
At 44:22 we see another Bible statement. The heavens rolled away like a scroll and the element burned with a fervent heat. Wow Glory to Jah.
Yes and it also says in 2nd Thessalonians as well as other scriptures that God will make blind and deaf those who have already decided not to believe in the truth! He destroyed the Earth and his creation the 1st time with the flood and the next time it will be by fire and fervent heating up of the elements.
Who cares what an ancient book of myth says? It's just stories.
Fascinating.
Yeah, it is fascinating how this fraud can lie with a straight face.
Thank you for your work...while studying a beautiful painting , its color, design and brush work etc how is it possible to think they put themselves on the canvas paint and brush strokes while interesting cannot
I am reading evolution from more than one year but i think after getting good knowledge of it i started to like stephen meyers talks now...
You must be reading the creatard's versions of Evolution. Meyer is a fraud, nothing more.
@@garywalker447 This is your personal opinion which is based upon emotions as long as you cant provide evidence for your claim that meyer is a fraud.
@@AbrarManzoor No, it's a fact. He's correct. Meyer is a fraud- basic degree in physics and a doctorate in philosophy. Peer reviewed scientific publications; nil. His abuse of scholarship is well known.
@@mcmanustony Labels are a weak substitute for actual thought. Rise above your thoughtless labels and name calling; read the book and let's have an intelligent dialog. See the dialog between Michael Shermer and Stephen Meyer. Shermer takes Meyer seriously, and he is clearly much smarter than you, who relies on cliched atheist talking points.
@@lynnjohnson2371 Oh, spare me the pompous posturing. I'm not interested. I labelled Meyer as a fraud. I did so because he's a fraud. Shermer is well aware that he's a fraud as is anyone in the scientific community who has had any dealings with him. If you don't understand the difference between accurate description and name calling then I have a friend explain it to you- I've neither the time nor the crayons. "Shermer takes Meyer seriously"- not as a scientist he doesn't. "he is clearly much smarter than you"- sitting on your self-important duff bleating in ignorance about the intelligence of complete strangers is not a good look. Grow up... "who relies on cliched atheist talking points"- you are wrong. I pointed out details of Meyer's education. Find someone who agrees that his academic history is an "atheist talking point" and have at it. I see you have no capacity to engage in the facts of Meyer's dishonesty. I mentioned his abuse of scholarship. Rather than engage with the facts of this you're going with "cliched atheist talking points"....what weapons grade nonsense! What does my belief or otherwise in a god have to do with the facts? That's right, Sparky! Nothing! He is guilty of grotesque misrepresentation, deliberate abuse of quotes, fabrication of quotes, lying about branches of science he has no training or expertise in, lying that made up creationist bafflegab ("complex specified information") has some traction in mathematical information theory- it doesn't, being party to sneaking a research free essay into a journal of research behind the backs of the editors of the journal....and much more. Maybe one day you'll quit whining and engage with the facts.
8:45 Please I need this time stamp don't delete it, please!
I would define 'science' as something like, 'The systematic study of and derivation of knowledge and wisdom from the physical things that God made and the physical laws that he put in place to govern them. Science is an outworking of the dominion mandate that God gave Adam in the Garden of Eden and is undertaken principally to show forth the glory of God in his works and to benefit one's fellow man made in God's image.' There is no conflict between true science and true religion. Not when you start with God and work down to man from there. When you exclude God from 'science', you're throwing away the priceless crown while getting excited about the cardboard box it came in. I love Steven Meyer. I read 'Back to the God Hypothesis' and will read it again. So much solid meat there. Steven really is a gift to Christ's Church.
No, science is the systematic study of reality. There is no god and no good reason to believe in any god.
A tremendous thesis. I agree over and over. Oh! and you're rather witty too Steven.
Meyer, like all the fools working at the Discovery Institute, is a liar and fraud and should not be trusted for the time of day let alone science.
Why are there no modern Animals within the Cambrian Explosion if this is the time God created all Animals???
In no way does it bring me pleasure to say this, it breaks my heart. Mr. Hitchens like millions, was lead astray and chose to remain adrift. Aside from the possibility of an unknown deathbed redemption, I assure you he has sealed his decision for eternity. And knows beyond any shadow of a doubt that the God of creation is more real than anything he had ever known in this temporary reality. But, has been cast into eternity with the decision to be separate from God.
Delusional nonsese
Carl Sagan knows he wrong now, as well. In hospice, I have yet to hear someone call out to Darwin as they die. Edit: To those who mock us, I say, thank you. You add to our reward in heaven. Unfortunately, you add to your own condemnation. Proverbs 16:4
@@tebelshaw9486 Those adherent to an ancient mythology are left with threatening others with their story book....Guess that what's left when you don't have anything else. Grow up.
@@tebelshaw9486 it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God. All we can do is to offer the truth of the Gospel, what they do with it, is up to them. It's a terrifying thought, for the many that will never accept it.
@@derhafi "From the mouths of babes, comes forth wisdom."
So God is blowing the universe up like a balloon...love it!
Awesome
You think it is awesome to be lied to?
@Gary Walker: loaded question. Try again.
@@martam4142 As intelligent design is intellectual fraud, Meyer, being a trained scientist, knows that ID fails to meet the minimal definition for science therefore he is lying. I will not "try again", I stand by my assertion that Meyer is lying in this video.
Why are there no modern Animals within the Cambrian Explosion if this is the time God created all Animals???
I've read highly held science books saying you can judge the age of bones by the rocks around it, and then in a few pages it says you can judge the age of rocks by the bones around it
Your emoji is correct here.
@@realestateunplugged6129 This is neither circular nor contradictory. Before the techniques of dating rocks through radioactive isotope decay, the relative age of rocks was somewhat determined by surrounding fossils with the less developed fossils assumed to be older than the more complex ones. Nowadays, with radioactive decay dating techniques, we can get absolute ages and therefore determine the age of embeded fossils.
@@amsterdamable I heard that dating method assumes a consistent environment and laws of nature and still remains a theory not empirical science.
+David Westhoff Actually, no. Have you ever had your reading comprehension skills tested?
@@lawrenceharold8599 lol...that smart arses have come out to play...
Great!
A great liar.
@@garywalker447 What does he lie about?
@@stuestolen Everything he asserts is a lie. ID is pseudoscience. Radiometric Dating is a reliable way to dietermine the age of rocks when used appropreately.
@@garywalker447 Did you actually listen to the presentation?
@@stuestolen I have read up on the Science of Radiometric Dating from working physicists. I have read up on Evolution from working Biologists. I get my science from scientists, not the Creationist frauds working for the Discovery Institute.
Brilliant man, Dr Stephen Meyer !
Meyer is a fraud, like everyone who works at the Discovery Institute.
At this point naturalism is one of the religions that require the most faith to believe in.
"Naturalism" is not a religion.
Did that sound good in your head?
+Juan Olivier At this point, I'm not sure you could have uttered anything more dimwitted.
So you don't believe in what you see in Nature around you?
@@mcmanustony - Sure, facts sounds good or true everywhere.
I've pretty much concluded that naturalistic evolution is a variant of pantheism - nature is god and has the creative power of god.
Wow are you ever barking up the wrong tree!!
I believe there is nothing outside of the Universe or Cosmos, and belief in the supernatural is lazy. I am more Pantheistic and I believe the Universe is God. Even these intelligent design types, require natural phenomenon to carry out every magic show of the nonsense called supernaturalism.
@@richtomlinson7090 that's kinda a rediculous presupposition. If everything was supernatural, then nothing would be.
@@richtomlinson7090 I suggest you go back and watch the video again. "The universe is God". that is the epitome of denial and you will soon regret typing it. Not even Dawkins and his ilk would entertain that idea. Duh!
@@anthonypolonkay2681 nothing is supernatural, because it's just a lazy method of avoiding explanations. Just because you can't explain something now, doesn't mean it's made of different stuff than what you presently understand.
When I look at life I see design everywhere. I think that the intelligent design movement has very good points but I do not think it's necessary. Design in life is apparent. This leads to the following: 1. Design always has a designer. 2. A designer is, by necessity, a personal being. 3. Life has all the appearance of being designed with an extremely sophisticated design. 4. It is rational and reasonable to take the appearance of design in life to be just that, design. 5. This designer behind life is, by necessity, a personal being. This appearance of design in life is overwhelming. We cannot wrap our heads around it. It is a properly basic belief to take this appearance of design as that, design. This means that this position does not need to be defended. Rather, if someone wants to claim that this appearance of design is, in fact, NOT design then it's upon that person to show this. But not just tell some story, they need to demonstrate that extremely sophisticated design can come from an unguided and purposeless process.
As design requires a designer, before you can assert design you must show evidence of that designer.
@@garywalker447 Your statement doesn't make sense even from a materialist's viewpoint. You can look at a painting and deduce that there is an artist. I can tell you I am an artist but if I don't show you my work, there is no proof that I am. the first chapter of Romans will tell you that you are without excuse because what can be known about God is evident from his artwork.
@@HiHoSilvey Your statement doesn't make sense even from a materialist's viewpoint. You can look at a painting and deduce that there is an artist. I can tell you I am an artist but if I don't show you my work, there is no proof that I am. the first chapter of Romans will tell you that you are without excuse because what can be known about God is evident from his artwork.
@@garywalker447 why must you?
@@dsplodge86 I call out liars and fools for their anti-science dogma.
He looks smart in his nice suit and is obviously healthy. It reminds me of a story in the Bible. (Luke 16:19)
They think "religion" is separate from science. When politicians, they say "I keep my personal beliefs out of the work I do as a congressman." So if you personally believe in God, you must exclude Him from your professional life, or it's not valid. So much for the strength of their beliefs!
I study quantum fields, particle physics, and microbiology for fun. Science actually proves that God exists.
By "study" you mean, you watch some YT videos and then made things up? There is nothing in nature that points to a God, let alone "proves that God exists". Your assumtions and wishful thinking has no bearing in that fact.
present this fabricated evidence for us then
No, you more likely study your confirmation bias.
+Kathy M You're actually completely wrong. Maybe you ought to try getting serious if that's the best you can come up with.
You’re correct Kathy, follow your gut instinct and not the atheist lunatics. They can explain nothing.
Stephen Meyer is a bad mama jamma!!!!
***** all Meyer ever destroyed is his own credibility. No one, expect a few crazy religious fanatics of course, takes this dude and his "work" seriously.
+peter renner Says the person who beleives we come from an accident...that everything is an accident....ha ha....it is your camp that is anti intellectual....not us Theists....
+Albertanator I am sorry, but it is obviously and evidently your camp which is anti intellectual and anti science. Here are a few of Meyer constant misrepresentations or lies which come to mind at the moment. Many more can be added to that list: -the guys at SETI using the same methods to detect extraterrestrial signals as the ID proponents do and are hence on Meyers side -the altenberg 16 guys calling for a "new theory of Evolution" and are hence on Meyers side -natural selection and random mutations are not sufficient mechanisms to produce the variety of animal life we see today, both alive and in the fossil record -more and more scientists disassociate themselves from the theory of evolution -there are peer reviewed articles supporting ID -ID is scientific in its nature -ID is a scientific theory -ID is not religious in its nature -dna is a digital code -only a mind can produce information seti: www.space.com/1826-seti-intelligent-design.html theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/seti-vs-intelligent-design/ ncse.com/news/2005/12/why-seti-isnt-like-intelligent-design-00707 www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-02-16/ altenberg 16: rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk/2008/07/altenberg-2008-what-happened.html pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/luskin-has-lost.html rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk/2008/07/is-there-fundamental-scientific.html scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/19/altenberg-2008-is-over/¨ rationalwiki.org/wiki/Altenberg_16_controversy www.researchgate.net/profile/Gerd_Mueller/publication/258235989_Elements_of_an_Extended_Evolutionary_Synthesis/links/0f31753a54d20a66c4000000.pdf natural selection and random mutations: ncse.com/book/export/html/1902 www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/evolutionnotbychance/ discovermagazine.com/2014/march/12-mutation-not-natural-selection-drives-evolution www.science20.com/adaptive_complexity/evolution_forget_random_mutation_variation_is_the_real_issue acceptance of ID among scientists: ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve www.theclergyletterproject.org/ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_bodies_explicitly_rejecting_Intelligent_design en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Support_for_Darwinism peer reviewed articles on ID rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#The_Dover_trial rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Lack_of_peer_review.2C_and_claims_of_vast_establishment_conspiracies en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy ID is scientific in its nature / ID is not religious in its nature: undsci.berkeley.edu/article/id_checklist www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/what_you_can_do/why-intelligent-design-is-not.html#.Vhlo4WehcpE www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf rationalwiki.org/wiki/Wedge_Strategy rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intelligent_design en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design dna: ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/dna rationalwiki.org/wiki/DNA www.quora.com/Is-DNA-a-digital-code information: www.theguardian.com/books/2015/apr/22/the-vital-question-nick-lane-review-secret-life www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jan/28/creation-origin-life-future-adam-rutherford-review www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/13/secret-life-unveiled-chemistry-lab www.cambridge.org/ch/academic/subjects/life-sciences/evolutionary-biology/seven-clues-origin-life-scientific-detective-story? www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html And a few of the critics of Meyers books paleontologist, zoologist and phylogeneticist Robert Asher pandasthumb.org/archives/2014/01/robert-asher-on.html paleontologist Charles R. Marshall www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6152/1344.1.full evolutionary biologogist Nick Matzke pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/meyers-hopeless-1.html pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/06/meyers-hopeless-2.html pandasthumb.org/archives/2014/06/meyers-hopeless-3.html paleontologist Donald Prothero www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/13-08-07/ www.skepticblog.org/2013/08/28/stephen-meyers-fumbling-bumbling-amateur-cambrian-follies/ pulitzer prize winner Gareth Cook www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/doubting-darwins-doubt?
@@peterrenner5427 dissociate *
@@EvaLasta lol wut?!
37:50 “This is in Psychology - a theory called ‘denial’”!!! Ha! Nice one Meyer
In discussing questions of this kind two rules must be observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i. 18). The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing. St. Thomas Aquinas Q68 Art. 1 Pt.1 On the work of the Second Day
The best explanation for someone like me a Christian and a scientist. I wish when I was growing up that people would have explained this to me and I wouldn't have searched for the missing link!! Missing link is Jesus Christ our intercessor our counselor, the way, and only way to the Father! Science is based on observation but if you're only observing, or only wanting to observe, processes that we know of we have completely limited ourselves arrogantly and ignorantly! Ever since I was a teenager when I would look at the rock formations in Utah, Arizona, desert varnish, Obsidian, hoodoos, swirling patterns that obviously look like they were shaped violently by water and force, and the vertical or slanted rock formations along the ocean etc., and I would just say this looks like something catastrophic happened here, this wasn't soft and gentle dust falling, rain drops or the wind! The aethist scientists have to remove important factors from their hypothetical formulas to make their theory maybe work like by adding millions and millions and millions and millions of years so that the number goes infinitely and there is no way to observe or prove it, this is how they start their philosophical blunderings taking God out of the picture as the infinite Being, to explain the origin of life by self AGRANDIZATION. God is the architect and the designer of all things and processes in all life, and science is just man's discovery Of God's processes that he designed so that there is life. The chicken came before the egg, adult males and females of all animal, plant and human life came before the infant or baby!!
You are long on assertions and empty on evidence.
@@garywalker447you are short on both
@@matthewstokes1608 If you think Stephen Meyer speaks the truth, you are short on critical thinking.
@@garywalker447 critical thinking is much overrated in a world of incalculable marvels. Once you get to faith in Christ there is no going back - only ever upwards into wonder and the exploration of the natural world and “the mind of God” as Einstein put it. Imagination and awe - awe at the mystery of your being and the nothingness of yourself as a sinner - are far more important than scientific reason. This is why far too many young men fall victim to the crass laziness of “scientism” and materiality (bigots and puritanical zealots to ludicrous fear) which is far more illusory than you have yet come to grips with. All that dies is sin - and is not real - all that lives on in love and in the beautiful soul through the gift and treasure of faith is eternal. You may wish to push a future of darkness and extinction as “proven” “science” (which is laughable) - and belong unwittingly to your cult of death - but the many around you choose LIGHT and eternal beauty! (Read less dunderheads like Penrose and Hawking and more Tesla). God Bless you on your journey to Him, brother.
@@matthewstokes1608 The crazy thing about scientific materialists is that they are too dense to comprehend the metaphysical assumptions that they make to get through their day. Almost nothing is provably true that they take for granted, things like “is my consciousness real, does my brain apprehend reality in any way that reflects the real world, is dreaming real or is wakefulness real?” You have to assume that consciousness is real, it can’t be proved. Is love real? Can it be proved? Is murder wrong? Can that be proved? How would you prove a moral proposition? It’s impossible. I believe in God because it’s impossible to make any connection between atoms and morality, between our ontological essence as moral beings and the chemistry of life. If atheists really believed what they claim to believe, humans have no more significance than rocks.
Stephen Meyer is one of the few scientists who claim to be Christian that has a convincing testimony. Some of the others, like Francis Collins, are likely described in Matthew 7:21-23 -- not saved, but think they are.
Actually, since all religion is nonsense, nobody is saved because there is no heaven and no hell.
Oh and by the way, Meyer is NOT a scientist. He is trained as a scientists but he is a liar and a fraud.
+WB D'Angelo He isn't a scientist. He's a fundie propagandist and science-denier with a degree in the Philosophy of Science.
@@lawrenceharold8599 -- Just wanted to correct your spelling -- the word is Scientism, which is the blind faith in unproven nonsense, like abiogenesis. He is a Scientism denier. Good on him :) Atheists will believe anything but the Truth.
Why are there no modern Animals within the Cambrian Explosion if this is the time God created all Animals???
Excellent presentation by Steven as usual, something that puzzles me though, I have noticed he never mentions consciousness which is surely the greatest mystery of all? How do we become conscious?
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?
The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God"
No, a fool is somebody who believes absurd claims on little or no evidence. As there is no good evidence for any god, theists are fools.
@Frank Servant Romans 1:20
@@garywalker447 and what do you believe in smarty pants?
@@voiceofREASONS I believe that science is a reliable way to understand the universe and religions are con jobs.
@@garywalker447 Grow a set of ears and eyes fool.
Having read some of the comments here, there’s one thing that’s apparently true; “In the last days, men will increase in knowledge but be unable to see the truth”. As Einstein initially (he later became a Diest) reacted, they do not want there to be a God.
Wow
He is a liar. Why are there no modern Animals within the Cambrian Explosion if this is the time God created all Animals???
👍
Lotta ad hominem going on in here towards Meyer, and the discovery institute. Launching insults, and pressing labels doesnt help your case against it guys. If anything It procts people to check out what the discovery institute is saying, and take it seriously. Which given the circumstance. Seems warranted.
Tony, ID (Creation Science) has the same scientific standing as Flat Earth Geography. Meyer, Behe and the other frauds at the Discovery Institute deserve all the insults they get and more.
@@garywalker447 look dued, you can bark it all youed like, but whenever I'm allowed to have an honest inquiry Into this kinda stuff, it has merit, and actually poses serious problem/solution dynamics to issues that are otherwise written off, and never actually investigated. Whether that's to due with intellectual sociological bias, or not(and I suspect it is) is debatable. But whatever er the reason is. Most people like you who deny ID definatly dont honestly examine data. You examine it through the lense that materialistic reductionism must be true, and therefor all answers will come from it. That is call starting from a conclusion, and is not an honest method of inquiry.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 The proponents of ID have NEVER submitted this to the legitimate peer review process because they, being trained as scientists, know full well that ID is pseudoscience nonsense that fails every test there is for science. ID is Creation Science rebranded, it is intellectual fraud and a red herring.
@@garywalker447 my question is what is the peer review process? In asking rhetorically ofcourse. The point is that they do not have control over the biases of those doing the reviewing. And modern scientific institutions have an overwhelming bias towards materialistic reductionism. Which anything that would imply a different conclusion than that is immedeatly dismissed, and demonized. You can see that affect with the reaction every positive reviewer toward Meyers books was given. Irregardless of their previous credentials, and tenure.
@@garywalker447 Interesting. A man who believes in science is condoning fallacious arguments. You do know that delicious arguments our false arguments, don’t you? Arguments needed when your arguments or not overwhelmingly credible. Science is just knowledge, not the supreme Being. GOD’s best on our quest for truth
It is nice to see a seven years old video are still generating recent interest. Although I think this video is mistitled, should it be named as “The God Hypothesis” instead?
So the New Atheists' disagreement with early natural philosophers regarding the relationship between creator and creation. How does this disqualify the New Atheists' view?
I'm an old atheist. Never been anything else. Never (in 74 years) seen a scrap of actual evidence for any god or any supernatural being.
What would you accept as evidence?
@@davidcoleman5860It would have to be something way beyond what humans can do, Like rearranging a few stars or turning the moon around so we see the other side. According to the claims, he made all the stars and planets and moons so I am not asking too much I don't think.
@@robertcircleone Thanks for your reply, but I don't think what you ask for would qualify as proof for the existence of God. It would, no doubt, prove the existence of a pretty powerful being, but given the vastness of the universe, it's at least possible that there are civilizations far more advanced than we, and they may have mastered the art of matter manipulation to satisfy your demands. I don't see how a cosmic display would get us to an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent being who is the ground of existence for everything else. Would you please elaborate?
It is claimed that "God" created everything other than himself, so, moving a few stars into new positions would be child's play. But maybe I am too easily satisfied. How about creating a fully grown human before our very eyes?
@@robertcircleone Of course it would be "child's play" for God to move things around or to create a fully grown human before your eyes, but how does that constitute being God? If an advanced civilization worked out the details of how that could be done, that would not make them God. Indeed, we can do many things today that ancient humans would consider witchcraft, but that obviously doesn't make us witches. So, Robert, my questions are sincere. When you say that you've seen no evidence for God, I'm genuinely interested in what constitutes evidence in your eyes. And I don't see how cosmic tricks get us to God. So, please, if you don't mind, give me an argument _why_ you think that matter manipulation translates into God.
Essentially what this talk illustrates is a simple philosophical dichotomy...One worldview has an eternal force or being, with personality, intention and purpose while the other...has an eternal force that is impersonal, random and utterly without purpose. The question is...Do you want to live your life in submission to a higher authority or, are you the only authority? The mechanisms by which everything exists is secondary to the philosophical question...Where do you place your faith...In God or in yourself alone? ALL atheists have faith IF they make ANY truth claim or even ANY suggestion towards anyone else about how one should conduct his or herself in life. Intellectual honesty is NOT a prevalent trait amongst atheists...OR...There is an apparent lack of IQ points in certain domains...I'm not quite sure which is more true? I suppose it depends on the individual? I'd rather one admit..."I do not know" BUT, I choose to hope this is true! I want it to be true so much, that I choose to make decisions based on the assumption that IT IS true! This is faith...and EVERY human makes decisions like this daily, whether consciously or sub-consciously!
ID is not science and has NO supporting evidence, it is not testable and has no value. It is intellectual fraud, nothing more.
"The question is...Do you want to live your life in submission to a higher authority or, are you the only authority? " No that is NOT the question. What is real is NOT dietermined by what I want. What is real is real and is understood through the evidence available to us. I will argue that there is no good evidence to support the claim that there is a god so there is no good reason to believe in such.
@@garywalker447 Just because you don't like the writer's question doesnt make it invalid. Whom o you serve? "What is real needs evidence"? Is love real? Do you want love? It is real and available to you. if you seek it you will find it.
@@deborahsuddarth7438 Intelligent Design has NO credibility. It ranks up there with the Flat Earth fools.
+Jon Ingram No, the question is what is most likely true and what does the evidence support. Believing what you find comfortable and embracing wish fulfillment is a betrayal of the capacity to reason.
wonderful! once had the pleasure of listening to Duane Gish.....brilliant micro-biologist and a born again Christian.
Gish was not a micro-biologist. He was a biochemist.
Gish was a fraud, "god did it" has NO scientific basis.
@@stevendapra9465 You're right! Thanks for that. Still a lovely man of God though.
@@stevemills1481 He was a relentless and unstoppable liar.
@@mcmanustony I think when you make such an attack on someone, you should be prepared to back it up with "facts"...unless of course, yours is only an opinion, then just say "in my opinion". In my opinion!....I found him to be a very approachable and lovely man of God, sharing his faith with others...also having read his book re Creation, he makes perfect sense.
When Richard Dawkins was asked in one of his videos to give the full title of Darwin's famous " The Origin of Species . . . " he couldn't come up with it. He stumbled and stammered and, in his frustration, exclaimed. ,"Oh God." Well , God came to the rescue and he was eventuallly able to get it right.
And your point? Darwin was one of the greatest scientists in history- the book was published 160 years ago. Things have moved on. Though not you apparently
@@mcmanustony Thought the point was obvious, but , none so blind as those who won't see.
@@helencheung2537 Yes your point seems to be: I can do no better than to sneer at scientists whose work I've not read but who conflict with my bizarre religious myths. His book was extremely important. The subtitle less so, though creationist liars fulminate over the word "race" omitting to mention that in the 1850's it meant something akin to "species". Dawkins wrote the most influential book in the life sciences in the 20th century. The fraud featured here has appeared in the peer reviewed literature precisely once- and that was very fleeting as the appearance was due to cheating the review process. The paper- actually a hopelessly dishonest and useless lit review- was instantly dropped.
@@mcmanustony I think you meant to say that Dawkins wrrote the most influential 20th -century book in the life sciences. To which I reply., "That is opinion, not fact." What you did say was "Dawkins wrote the most influential book in the life sciences in the 20th century , " to which, if. you meant what you said, I reply, "The life sciences in the 20th century is being overtaken by that of the 21st century. Dawkins and his acolytes are becoming science dinosaurs.
@@helencheung2537 you are wrong. Tell me about the most exciting developments in Intelligent Design in the last 20 years.
I've tried to get a question answered by the Discovery Institute guys, for whom I have great respect (I've read all their books), but to my disappointment, have never gotten an answer. I now suspect that the question bothers them. Here it is (as submitted to a webinar): First, my question is not combative; quite the contrary. The crew at the Discovery Institute has enlightened me to a vital aspect of How The World Really Works and I'll forever be grateful. My question relates to the base cause of speciation, but for a clear answer I'll have to pose it a certain way (Note: there may be very different answers, depending on who you ask. Michael Behe, for example, believes in common descent (as do I), the idea of which is at the root of my question. I am especially interested in the answers from those who do NOT believe in common descent): You have a photograph of your parents, right? Your father? How about your grandfather? Good chance. How about your great grandfather? If not, you can imagine one, a full body shot, say… of a man, a Caucasian, with basic ‘family features.’ Now take it further and imagine a photo of your great great grandfather, imagining the full body shot, possibly with clothes appropriate to the mid 19th century. Now do this going back to your great grandfather to the 100,000th ‘degree,’ which would be somewhere around two million years ago (20 years for each generation). Please describe the being in general appearance. Now please do the same for 5 million years ago. And so forth, going back in the huge stack of photos to the first one. What do you see? Are there ‘moments’ (photographs!) that are particularly evocative of your worldview? Is there an ‘Adam’ where the stack ends? One reason I ask this is that it seems to me that we have two and only two choices regarding the subject of speciation. Either macro-evolution (with the causal mechanism known or unknown, but almost certainly via an 'intelligent designer' of some sort) brings us back to a one-celled organism (common descent) or we have a sort of ‘Beam me down, Scotty!’ scenario, wherein species poof into existence, presumably via the will of God (or other intelligent designer). There would be many millions of these ‘miracles,’ one for each species that ever existed. (I believe in common descent because I do not believe in this scenario.) If you see a third possibility, I’m all ears. And feel free to use the thought experiment to make any point you care to about life and its development. (I pose the question this way because it forces a clear, unequivocal answer. In other forms the question can be tip-toed around.) The above is from my 'Open Letter to Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, and Douglas Ax', which you can access here: blog.banditobooks.com/an-open-letter-to-michael-behe-stephen-meyer-and-douglas-axe/ Again, many thanks to all at the Discovery Institute. I've read all the books and look forward to those upcoming. Allan Weisbecker Note; Dr. Meyer is a good one to ask as he apparently believes in the Poof! Beam me down, Scotty explanation, although I doubt he would agree with my phraseology.
"The crew at the Discovery Institute has enlightened me to a vital aspect of How The World Really Works and I'll forever be grateful." No they did not. They are a bullshit pseudoscience company that has no basis in reality.
Of course it means he created the first species most likely at the cambrian explosion. Why would god just drop 1 cell down to evolve, even from that era there still wouldn't be enough time for it to develop into something so complex. If you believe in evolution from common descent, how do you think the designer started it? Did he poof the cell into existence as opposed to poofing 2 whole humans? Whats the difference supernaturally, both are equally supernatural lol.
The point of your question is very hard to understand. Try this instead with your camera. Go back taking snapshots to find the common ancestor of man and a cow. The cow has four stomachs and the man has 1 stomach. In which photo does one relative have 1 stomach and the other 4. The point is that evolution needs a continuum to go from 1 to 4. You can't just jump in one generation. DNA is quantized. Evolution is mathematically, statistically and absurd in many other ways. It is based on invalid patterns of inference.
@@WmTyndale Wow. Is it a creatard objective in life to show off their native stupidity? Do you work at getting the Theory of Evolution so wrong?
@@walkergarya I Slap your ignorant and offensive belching spirit on the Schnout!
I know this much, no matter how obvious the one who created all things has been, there would always be a rebellious bad anti-scientist who would reject a Designer, because they love sin more than a Creator. Narrow is the gate too salvation, so most people in this world has been rebellious against the Designer and it has with most scientists, because of rebellious hard heart dogma people, so the designer has caused a great illusion. For the wrath of God who created all that exist is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of human beings, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them from deep within themselves, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes is clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and change the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore, God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creatures rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
"no matter how obvious there is a Designer in all creation of life," Nope. It is obvious there is NO "designer" in all or any life. We have far more junk DNA than we do functional DNA. We do not need "salvation" from your phony god. We NEED good Science.
@@garywalker447 There is no junk DNA, but back up DNA which is RNA not DNA. RNA is used to adapt to the environment or another reason, so it is needed. Science does not say anything, but it is how we people look at it and interpret it by our belief system, so I personally by what I see and observe from my experience, and I scientifically have did experiments to learn what really happens... No you can not lie to me about your dogma evolution religious belief system.
@@toddoryall7420 There is no junk DNA, but back up DNA which is RNA not DNA. RNA is used to adapt to the environment or another reason, so it is needed. Science does not say anything, but it is how we people look at it and interpret it by our belief system, so I personally by what I see and observe from my experience, and I scientifically have did experiments to learn what really happens.. . No you can not lie to me about your dogma evolution religious belief system.
@@garywalker447 You don't know nothing about genetics but lies. I know more about genetic than you do, so all you know that there is junk DNA which there are know junk DNA, so good luck thinking you have good science which you don't.
@@toddoryall7420 Boy, you do not know the difference between RNA and DNA so shut the fuck up boy.
I think it interesting that around 24:00, Meyer begins talking about how atheism leads to the logical conclusion of determinism and lack of freedom of choice, yet he is here speaking to a Reformed church which believes that believers are completely inert in the process of salvation, that it depends unilaterally on God's unconditional election of who is saved, and where we are not free to resist his saving grace. These two beliefs (Atheism and Calvinism) actually find common-ground in agreeing that determinism is true.
@Mark Harris, the computer scientist ... Ditto on that. I am a data architect and spend my days analyzing data and organizing it according to its ontological and relational properties. Data - i.e., information - is at bottom mathematical. This is so because we live in a demonstrably rational universe. This inherent rationality inescapably demonstrates a transcendent Intelligence. And we can relate to this intelligence because we are in His image. :)
Evolutionary quackery is based on a lot of "invalid patterns of inference". These are recognized logical fallacies. See for instance "Intro to Logic' by Copi and Cohen. One example in particular is the very definition of "evolution" Where the meaning shifts as the explanations progress. Change, genetic mutation, new life forms etc. This is the Fallacy of Equivocation and probably also the Fallacy of Amphiboly. The "homology fallacy" is such an invalid pattern of inference that even a child could understand it. Similiar things have a common ancestor. Like a golf ball and an egg. Plus it is not reproducible in a laboratory. The corona in particular has been mutating orders of magnitude more than any virus could in the geologic past since there are so many human laboratories available. I'm still waiting for a monkey to emerge.
Do you have any science to support your creationism or should I just accept that your word salad is the best you can do?
@@garywalker447 Just watch Stephen Meyers videos and those of others. They pass my muster: Ph.D mathematics, NSF postdoc, joint paper with physicist, IT consultant etc. etc. retired at 45. What are your academic credentials by the way? I hate wasting time with Low IQ people that simulate intelligence. This is the age of AI and virtual reality you know!
@@WmTyndale I mean, that's your argument. That means you yourself didn't understand his knowledge. Otherwise, you could have explained your understanding of the science, not just referring to a video.
@@WmTyndale And I have never seen even one evolution denier trying to explain selective breeding/artificial selection and how it is possible without evolution.
@@nofreewill Your bad grammar displays your LOW IQ. End of discussion. JF PH.D mathematics, NSF Postdoctoral research fellowship, IT consultant etc, etc etc. Did I mention that I retired when I was 45?
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.
Yes, but to use your words, evolution "has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific", unless of course you have conducted experimentation and can show your proof.
@@epsyuma Nice reply to this practitioner the religious like belief of Darwinism. Their foundation is Charles Darwin in their own words who didn’t know testing, accepted Ernest heckles fraudulent drawings, and Did not want to bend his knee to a higher power. Sad a good old Charles Darwin, ended up bending his knee to the Lord Jesus Christ. They seek after truth but find none. The elitists through history and there beliefs have been repeated and repeated. All of them thought they had the absolute truth. Now it is the worshipers of science. So sad, but God‘s best on our quest for truth
@@danpozzi3307 Nice reply to this practitioner the religious like belief of Darwinism. Their foundation is Charles Darwin in their own words who didn’t know testing, accepted Ernest heckles fraudulent drawings, and Did not want to bend his knee to a higher power. Sad a good old Charles Darwin, ended up buying his knee to the Lord Jesus Christ. They seek after truth but find none. The elitists through history and there beliefs have been repeated and repeated. All of them thought they had the absolute truth. Now it is the worshipers of science. So sad, but God‘s best on our quest for truth
Too bad your support is based on faulty hypotheses. Keep teaching, though, and perverting the minds of the impressionable. God will be waiting to judge your disservice to humanity.
@@terrysquier6765 Gary Walker sure must have some obvious sin or him to attack so viciously. Oh the reason I lean towards young earth creationism was the message Of salvation was so spot on and sinful people justifying sin and saying it so absolutely, but saying they believed in no absolutes. And then of course people like him that lied to me about the evidence of Darwinistic Evolution. Ernest heackel’s fraudulent drawings were used to prove evolution to me. Also Darwins finch beaks and the spotted months. Definitely not proof for common ancestors. It’s would be totally funny the way Gary acts like a grammar school bully calling out liar liar pants on fire, but since he’s messing up the eternal message, he’s quite pathetic. GOD’s best on our quest for truth
Are there any examples of sudden creation documented?
What do you mean by "creation"? Speciation has been observed in a single generation.
Which god does the three rational arguments demonstrate to exist and how do you know?
There are no rational arguments for any god.
@@garywalker447 Obviously there are three even those arguments fail to prove what they claim to prove.
@Gary Walker There are no rational arguments disproving any gods either. Such things are unverifiable and unfalsifiable. Therefore empirical science cannot prove or disprove any philosophy or worldview, including atheism.
The title of Meyer's talk is misleading--"the Age of Rocks," He never mentions that. I would like the Discovery Institute to tackle that subject, since they never seem to talk about the actual age of rocks or the beginning.
Yes. I have the same opinion.
@@chuckyz2 not by you, certainly.....
It was a tongue-in-cheek title, referring to how it all began (ages of rocks) and the creator (rock of ages), and not meant to be taken anywhere near seriously. It's too bad. I had been looking forward to hearing their opinion on the ages of rocks. Dude's a former geophysicist, after all. Oh, and rocks CAN be dated, if you know how, but the degree of accuracy leaves a lot to be desired.
@@chuckyz2 You are a liar.
"I would like the Discovery Institute to tackle that subject,"- why? They are a pressure group comprised of hard right fundamentalist Christian zealots- and grifters like Berlinski. Do any of them have any experience of or training in geology? Why look to these clowns rather than the scientists who actually work on this subject in the real world? If you have questions about history do you ask a committee of florists? If you want to know about quantum physics do you seek out the views of some basketball players? What a weird comment....
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
You could not be more wrong in your assessment sir...The scientific academy is rife with faith claims based on assumptions and NOT demonstrable evidence that can be observed in a lab or in nature! You really should read Dr. Meyer along with the other scientists you've read...or...shoot, read Berlinski at least. Your statement, specifically the part that says "...permitting supernatural causation", is a logical fallacy. If an individual, a group of individuals, or institutions try to limit one's interpretation of material evidence, is to indicate said individuals, etc. have crossed from science into religion...from intellectual honesty into philosophical tyranny! The scientific community should be very careful about trying to dabble in philosophy! Judge Jones explained what has been BUT, it is no way right. Just that statement alone, is a faith claim. Furthermore, "methodological naturalism" isn't "centuries old"...LOL It's roughly, 150 years old or so... The atheist and/or agnostic worldview is something like saying, if you will?...."Yes, you may visit Yosemite natural park for vacation BUT, don't you dare enjoy the view! You're not allowed to! It's not scientific!" LOL
@@joningram4187 Sorry but YOU are wrong. ID is NOT science. "Dr" Behe admitted that for ID to be considered science the definition of science would need to change therefore that is an acknowledgement that ID does NOT meet the definition of science. ID was shown to be nothing more that Creation Science rebranded.
You are telling a story to yourself that you want to hear to justify your worldview. I have read many of your responses and you are a lost person, not just theologically, but also logically, scientifically, and intellectually. Lost.
They would argue Forensic Science and even SETI have the purpose, at a high level, of differentiating between what is natural phenomena and what is influenced by a mind
The only known source of new information is intelligence. Given this fact, it is most likely that the information that provides order to the natural world - such as Newton's laws and genetic code - is the result of intelligence. This doesn't prove that an intelligent force is out there, but it is the only explanation supported by the one known method of information generation. Besides, we haven't even gotten past the Miller-Urey experiment in primordial chemistry. We don't actually know how life can be created by purely inanimate processes. There are still many things that need to be answered to prove Darwinism, but it's been taught in schools for years. Students deserve to be informed of the holes in Darwinism posed by Meyer. Something that's been mathematically proven to be statistically impossible should be taught with the warning that it may be statistically impossible. By denying students the right to this information, we're no better than the religious institutions who held back science in the past. It's a slap in the face to all the great scientists who believed in intelligent design, such as Sir Isaac Newton.
I've come to the conclusion that God can reconstitute anyone who ever lived at the time of the return and the resurrections -just by knowing all their DNA.
Let’s make up something that does not contradict the book of fairytales
What these atheists, new or old, don’t understand, is that they live in a cursed creation and they themselves are under a curse as their lives and what they say give plenty of evidence of it. I always go back to Romans chapter 1 to explain all this regarding what happens when God pulls his restraints back and lets humans go their natural way.
You are long on assertions and empty on evidence. We live on an imperfect world, but that world was not created by your phony god. We are not cursed by your phony god. The universe was formed by natural processes, as was our world, we evolved to live in the environment of this Earth. I do not care in the slightest what is in your bloody bible. Evidence counts, not your favorite fairy tales.
A Creationist teaching Science is like an illiterate person teaching people to read! 😆
That's a profound comment.
@@stevendapra9465 Glad you liked it.
have you seen the logicked's video "Hello, My Name is Kent Hovind 4: The Texas-Sized Pig and the Hammer-Proof Cockroach" on youtube?
have you seen "Scientist Reacts to "Fossil Record Debunked" | Reacteria" on youtube?
Mr Meryers why Mr Philippe Martin who as or as a blog long time ago on Vox. This personne Mr Philippe Martin is probably the best giving response to the originel question of.
You go to college with faith intact and keeping god ….while you study science it challenges faith and yet we keep faith ….unreasonably
Uniformitarianism versus Catastrophism. If the single catastrophic global flood happened as stated in Genesis, old earth believers are found wanting.
Yup, but your problem is there never was any global flood so that chapter of the bible, like most of the bible, is garbage.
+Rick Knight Yes, if absurd and nonsensical fantasies are real, then rationality and reason go out the window. Good point.
@@lawrenceharold8599 Do you really think the complexity of the single cell really came to existence without an intelligent designer?
@@knightclan4 I have no reason to infer an imaginary designer, but were I to infer a designer, I would have to be consistent and attribute its design to a whole parade of types of cancer cells and flesh eating bacteria. Such a designer would be a cruel and malignant horror.
This cursed world groans and is waiting for the new world. You are putting blame on God for pain and suffering in the world. Try to unlearn your interpretation of scripture and realize Jesus came to end religion. He promised Adam in the beginning and finally came back in human form 4000 years later. He fulfilled His promise and said He will come again to end this cursed world. I suggest you put away your anger towards God long enough to realize your need for Jesus. I went 40 years before I opened my mind long enough to get to know Him and believe in Him. That's it. Just believe. No works involved. Just belief. Let me know if you want to discuss other questions.
DAWIN did bought his samples from youth student in going voyage. And the only samples was those examples for his theory ! But he never had been in INDONESIA ! The samples was some of birds with different shape of becks. That`s all.
I don't get it. Why is "everyone" still talking about Darwin? That guy died in 1882..... long time ago. Darwin did not even know what DNA is. I always asked myself, why do people still argue about "On the Origin of Species" a book from 1859. Everything in that book is outdated and we know it. If you want to argue against evolution bring the evidence to disprove contemporary knowledge.
So which god? Please do remind me? Christianity? Islam? Judaism? Hinduism? Buddhism? Etc. etc. etc. etc. Please do explain
I am GOD
Where did the pre-existing material come from that God allegedly used to guide evolution? Divine fiat by ex nihilo.
The Big Bang.
Why can't we start with something like this... take 12 of the smallest but most technologically advanced drones that money can buy. I'm talking state of the art. Fly to the strange areas and drop the drones in or if the planes can slow down enough let them take off from there and just let them slowly fly through the jungle capturing everything on the most crystal clear camera. When the battery to fly it is about to die set it as best you can and let the camera keep rolling and get as much footage we can
As the NEW JERUSALEM CAME DOWN out of Heaven ... the Tohu va Bohu seems to suggest that EARTH ALSO CAM DOWN OUT OF HEAVEN ... would this not explain the many strange anomalies of our planet?
I really do not care in the slightest what is written in your barbaric book of fairy tales, lies and phony morality. I follow evidence, not mythology.
So what about the age of rocks? I was expecting a debunking of carbon dating and the such.
Why? None of his premises require or imply the fallibility of carbon dating.
Carbon dating doesn't work past 50,000 years. There are rocks older than 4.5 billion years.
Christianity: one book. Science: thousands and thousands, all of them subject to improvement. I was a Christian for 10 years (or so I was told), then I had my 10th birthday. I guess I am an old atheist, which is pretty much the same as the so-called "new" atheist.
What does science tell you that explains the origin and organization of anything?
@@sliglusamelius8578 Read up on the formation of bilipid membranes, the synthesis of amino acids, the synthesis in the absence of biotic enzymes of RNA nucleotides, their polymerization via mineral catalysis (montmorillonite clay)....Jack Szostak, Nick Lane, John Sutherland, Addy Pross, Lee Cronin, Matthew Powner, Nita Sahai, Stever Benner....if you're interested that is......
Science: thousands and thousands of books, no definitive answer.. Christianity: one book, the answer. No ammendments needed
@@helencheung2537 what utter nonsense. An insult the the work of many thousands. What a miserable outlook. Shame on you
@@helencheung2537 It is obvious that you haven't read any of the science books.
The steps in logic are all sound from red shift to the Big Bang but I would caution that they are not the only interpretations. Shifting light to the red end of the spectrum is a decrease in frequency and energy. One scientist noted 42 different mechanisms which might cause this, one is the Doppler effect as noted, but any loss of energy as light travels through space would have the same effect. Empty space is not nothing, whether it is seen as a quantum grid where particles pop in and out of existence from a ‘latent space’ or it is a luminous aether as historically proposed it is not nothing and could be stretched similar to the way Einstein suggested of spacetime or could absorb energy from the light passing through it. As observed by scientists in the past a water or sound wave stores energy in the water or air it passes through, light is a wave which transmits energy so where is the energy of a photon of light when it is half way from the sun to the earth. The logical answer must be that empty space must be something that can store and release energy. James clerk Maxwell managed to calculate accurately the speed of light by measuring the permeability and permativity of empty space, showing that space is something. Although it became the orthodoxy of main stream science that the aether didn’t exist the logic still requires it. (Often the fact that Einstein was right about E=mc2 is taken as proof of all his theories including the rejection of the aether but you can get to E=mc2 without needing to postulate relativity and dismissing the aether). If the aether is a right interpretation of the observations then earth is oddly near the centre of the universe and one interpretation of the red shift is that space itself is “stretched out”. Although not popularly believed this is in keeping with the observations and an interpretation that the aether is the firmament of Genesis which God stretched out (10 times in the text) would also fit with the observation of the red shift being quantised ( a contested claim, possibly because it is so weird and doesn’t fit with the Doppler interpretation) If we make a mistake in a crossword or logic puzzle the next steps may be logical but wrong. We find ourselves with a model which has to keep inventing theoretical quantities like dark matter and dark energy which have still not been detected. Maybe we made a mistake earlier in our quest for understanding and we need to go back to that point and follow a different path.
The Big Bang Theory is supported also by the abundance of Hydrogen in the universe, the higher proportion of Hydrogen in distant gallaxies, the Cosmic Background Radiation and much more.
@@garywalker447 You can say that it is ‘consistent with’ your noted observations, but that certainly still doesn’t make it the only viable hypothesis. When the timescales for testing and trying to falsify hypothesis is in terms of decades not months it is more sensible to be working with a methodology of ‘multiple competing hypotheses’ and trying to avoid the biases inherent in favouring just one.
This talk does not mention the ages of rocks at all.