Видео

If a group of reasonably sane, loving, articulate, informed individuals build a house, a theory, a dream, or a city, together, does not that edifice have more reality, in some sense, than a reality any member of the group grasps by finger in the wound or by good report? Is not the edifice "self-evident" in a more real way?

You can get conference details here - www.tickettailor.com/events/christiansinscience/1353678?

Electriconic batteries not chemical battery 🔋

Open and closed hashing ONE way function

Moses also had access to Israel documents passed on from abraham, Noah and his sons who lived very long

Moses had access to the egyptian documents

The storage structures were discovered.

Venus and Earth have 5 points of passing during an Earth year. Venus' rotation is reverse of earths due to gravitatinal interaction with Earth. The sun rises and sets several times a day on Mercury due to effect of Venus and Earth rotational resonance. Astronomers dont touch this due to US anti-christian bias. So much great science is being lost due to this bias.

This gentleman needs to cosult astrophysics. Retrograde and sychronous rotation happens all the time.

Ash from Mt St Helens fell as fas south as Mexico and the rain increased from 3.5 inches /year average to 22 inches and back down over several years. The volcano is about 2000 miles from Las Cruces, New Mexico and El Paso, Texas

The storage towns Joseph built are still in existance along with recently found structure with Hebrew poem to Josephs wife, written by his sons. There is archeological proof, but white tower historians and archeologgists dont know about them because they dont look for proof

Jesy bol rai kisi ko samjh Ani bhi ho tou ni ati

Very, Very good. Thank you. 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽

Great to have this talk

Thank you for sharing your knowledge.

Where is the discussion on the big bang and God? It's in the title but not discussed.

Can some of the books shared in the chat, be shared here too?

GLORY TO THE TRINITY! KEEP GOING BY THE EMPOWERMENT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT PRAYING TO THE FATHER WITHOUT CEASING ALL IN JESUS NAME! AMEN HALLELUYAH!

Thank you! Fantastic presentation and conversation!

Please do not stop publishing content regardless of your view count. We need these conversations public and really enjoy your videos. Thank you.

Very good talk. Looking forward to Spencer's new book. But that was a slide of Andrew Dickson White, not John William Draper!

Helpful

Praise God

It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with primary consciousness will probably have to come first.

I am watching it from Brazil in 2021

It's becoming clearer that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with primary consciousness will probably have to come first. The thing I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing.

Fiina

Probabilities in physical process are significantly measurable. Probabilities in social process are not significantly measurable.

At 2.39 Roger makes a spoiler alert: *There will be far more pastoral theology than science this evening. I hope you won't be disappointed by that.* _Of course it's a disappointment!_ Imagine that this group wasn't called _'Christians In Science'_ but _'Astrologers in Astronomy'_ because there happen to be some astrologers who claim that astrology & astronomy overlap in some significant way & then the astrologer who's been invited along to support the channel's ambitions starts his talk by saying *There will be far more astrology than astronomy this evening. I hope you won't be disappointed by that.* Wouldn't _you_ be disappointed by this admission that there's a disconnect rather than any significant connection between the two? - If not _why_ not seeing as the sole purpose of this channel is to try & show that science & faith aren't contradictory? i would.

Science is certain of _nothing_ & demands evidence for _everything_ whereas religions are certain of _everything_ & demand evidence of _nothing._ So which is more _humble?_

Paul correctly says that the Bible says nothing about evolution. It also says nothing about DNA and quantum mechanics. If it had done so its original audience would not have understood it, because they did not have the scientific background. The biblical writers used the language of their own culture to communicate. In the Bible I have not found a single instance of God revealing to the writers a science beyond their own culture.The Bible is not a science textbook, although it does contain some detailed observations of our world and of human nature.

Paul also asks if prayer works. Prayer is a conversation with God. Something like a child talking to his/her father. But if a child asks his father for a real gun, a loving father will say no. So God can say no to our requests. But I believe that prayer works.

At 12.25 Colin points out that if the first chapter of the Bible is wrong about a young Earth the whole Bible can't be trusted. *Yes* so why do so when there's no reliable means to know where some parts are right & other parts wrong? At 18.35 Colin says he has faith that through prayer God can save people's lives but _also_ he prays *realistically* in the knowledge that it may not happen. That's a tacit admission that it's _not_ realistic to think prayer works. That's hardly a scientific mind set, is it? It's simply _hope_ but hopes in science aren't justified until they are realistic i.e. _supportable._ The analogy at 10.08 about God being free to break his own rules isn't justified because in science a hypothesis like this one needs to be testable in such a way that if it were incorrect we could be able to know what a failure looks like but this vague analogy has no means of being testable therefore it's not remotely scientific & any scientist ought to know better than to suggest that it might somehow be justified. If I'm wrong about that how _could_ such a claims about our world be shown to be wrong? - Any answers? (Incidentally his claim that scientists try to discover how God made the universe work is unjustified too. They look at the evidence & if they see something that shows things _don't_ exhibit evidence of an intelligence behind it that must be acknowledged too & as life shows no signs of intelligence behind it that's what a _good_ scientist points out, e.g. Here: ruclips.net/video/cO1a1Ek-HD0/видео.html At 22.03 Colin claims that evolution is the way that God chose to create but the Bible says nothing even close to that so he's simply ignoring the texts & deciding that the science must somehow be down to God (despite evidence to the contrary given in the link above ^). Well at least the creationists stay true to what the Bible says unlike Colin who has to come up with excuses why he can cherry-pick what's valid & what isn't. i.e. He's a 'Buffet Christian' who thinks he can help himself whereas the Young Earth Creationists _go by the book_ when it comes to Christianity (the book being The Bible). At 22.20 Colin says that you have to accept that bad things can evolve as well as good & as God set things up that way it's a consequence of him creating via natural selection. The problem with that is The Bible doesn't say God used natural selection, does it? God could have made things anyway he likes if he's supernatural & yet things only show natural origins which begs a question: How would things look any different then if natural selection wasn't God given? (Esp. in light of the video link above showing an obvious lack of intelligence in the laryngeal nerve being clearly _much_ longer than is sensible). Like the interviewer says in response: *anybody who doesn't understand why evolution isn't a problem [to belief in intelligence behind life on Earth] doesn't understand it.* _Yes indeed!_ It's rather ironic that around the 30-minute mark Colin despairingly recounted hearing the previous day that Tony Blair's scientific advisor became an atheist after he read Richard Dawkins & yet _he_ heard that his friend in Australia expressed how sad it is he was a man of faith while being a scientist _too._ - Clearly this is something that cuts both ways then, isn't it? Especially since he suggests that Christians In Science might befriend isolated believers in scientific environments who feel out on a limb. - Exactly the same issue in reverse exists for priests, pastors & others in religious roles who have lost their faith but can't escape because that's what they've devoted their whole lives to, but they have no alternative career with which they can migrate to in order as an escape route & atheists organizations have created 'The Clergy Project' in order to help them find an escape route from the pulpit. Could the above points be passed on to Colin for responses please?

It makes sense once you understand that the "god of this world" spoken about in the New Testament is the "Yahweh" of the Old Testament

Polkinghorne: 'The created order looks like a package deal... you can't have one without the other At 33.20 you say that disorder is as much a part of order to life' - well what would be a sign that there's no God involved then? At 36:00 you claim that God limits his power to know what will happen - this means he limits his power to appreciate that a peodophile somewhere will sexually abuse a child because he thinks it's more important to allow the peodophile's freedom to keep on abusing children than know they will & stop them as easily a blinking. Would you consider ME good if I had an easy means to know who would rape or murder children in the future but I refused to lift a finger to stop such crimes because I said 'Well who am I to prevent a rapist or murderer from raping & murdering children when that would impact on those criminal's free will to do what they want?' I don't think so but if God is God who is he _not_ to? - He's *God* isn't he? At 37:15 you cite Polkinghorn again claiming that chance is an opportuniuty for freedom through purposelessness but it's not because chance i.e. quantum randomness has no causes at all & therefore that's not a path to any kind of choice any more than you choose the out come from rolling dice so this _can't_ be correct. At 37.55 you say 'Except someone like me comes along & asks what is happening at a metaphysical level?' - What reason do we have to believe that anything at all is happening at a metaphysical level when no one can even describe what something metaphysical is only what it's _not?_ i.e. _Not_ physical, _not_ measurable & _not_ detectable? Sounds an aweful lot like _nothing at all_ doesn't it? If it's not nothing what _good_ reason is there to think that it's _something_ then & how can we test if it's genuinely a good reason rather than simply _believe_ that it is? At 39:23 you cite JP again when he says _'It is a coheriet possibility that God interacts with the history of his creation by means of "information input" into its open physical process.'_ - But _why_ is it a _coherient_ possibility at all? Just because he says it is? Is that _it?_ Just because he _thinks_ it's coherient? That's not how sceince works. I could just as easily think that the involvement of invisible fairies is a coherient possibility too (& you can't prove they _aren't_ involved can you?) but *so what* if I do or JP does if noboby can give a _good reason_ to think why such an idea *is* a possibility at all?

At 59.33 I asked Sharon *Can you genuinely 'explain' consciousness by appealing to another mystery i.e. a god?* to which she came up with the following list of largely _baseless_ claims: *So do you know... I'm... I think that erm... I'm trying to look at, you know, what is the **_framework_** that makes the most sense of reality, erm... & erm errr, you know none of that kind of final section of my talk is to detract from any of the neuroscience that should be done & has been done & will be done in the future that we will need to understand what's going on in the brain in terms of consciousness we do need a neuroscience of consciousness. Erm... but I guess I'm saying that the question of **_why_** it exists that, that's not a scientific question. It can't be answered by science. Science was never intended to answer those kinds of questions. We need philosophy & **_arguably_** theology, so we need to look at what are the different beliefs out there & erm, how do they help us & actually what is the best explanation that makes sense of human consciousness & I guess I try to highlight you know some of those frameworks. I think that's why I think panpsychism is so interesting because actually if you start to regard consciousness as fundamental you actually gain a fair amount of explanatory power. I guess I'm not appealing to a kind of **_consciousness of the gaps_** type thinking here & I'm not actually appealing to another **_mystery._** You know God is not actually totally mysterious. He has actually made himself known & one of the key things about the Judeo-Christian God is that erm... well he has made himself known most specifically in the person of Jesus Christ & this God is **_relational._** Erm... firstly erm as Father, Son & Holy Spirit & as the person of Jesus Christ who was one part of that Godhead that entered human history & so this is not an appeal to mystery. Actually you know errr... the Christian framework is errr is errr... a valid possibility amongst the different arenas & different alternatives out there.* _Oh boy!_ How is appealing to _anything_ supernatural anything *but* an appeal to mystery? She claims a Judeo-Christian God is a possibility - WHY? Because an ancient book says so? Well the Jews don't believe Jesus was the son of God do they so Jews don't agree that God can be known in the person of Jesus Christ as she claims & even _Christians_ have many arguments about God who she says 'isn't' so mysterious nonetheless, Catholics believe in the _mystery_ of the '3 in 1' trinity (whatever that could possibly mean!) Unitarians think there's just _one_ God whereas _Mormons_ say there are _many_ gods! She ignores all the _Pagan_ gods & _Hindu_ gods & the _Sikh_ god etc. No it's her _Christian_ 'God' god which _is_ a possibility! But *why* it is isn't something she can tell us despite being sure it *is* a contender because... _erm... erm..._ it just *might* be. - however just how that so-called 'possibility' _is_ known to be be possible is put down to panpsychism (a proposition _Hinduism_ *not* _Christianity claims is the case). Panpsychism claims have _no coherence at all_ & if only philosophers can address the question of consciousness not scientists here's a link to a philosopher of consciousness Professor Daniel Dennett explaining exactly why it _philosophically_ fails *so* miserably: ruclips.net/video/gxqXdzMv7Io/видео.html

At 1.07.16 the interviewer asks Sharon my 'lovely' question: *If you are not just your brain, then would you contemplate a brain transplant **_[i.e. assuming they became possible]_** if your doctor said you needed one to survive?* to which she admits she _wouldn't:_ *Errrrm... I don't think so, no, I mean & that's the interesting thing, who is going to volunteer for **_that_** study? Who is going to be the person who volunteers for that? **_Erm_** I mean erm.. I... yeah... I think that... **_erm_** so, y'know, I'm obviously... www... **_we're..._** we're not **_just_** our brains but we do **_need_** our brains & obviously erm... there are both y'know... who we are is clearly integrated with the activity of our brain. The points I've been making this evening are to say that's not everything. That's not the whole story. That's a big part of the story but it's not the **_whole_** story... ermm.. and so we do need our brains & for that reason & I think my **_particular_** brain & it's networks & the genetics which contribute to personality & all the different things that make up who you are has both a physical basis & a non-physical basis, but I do need my particular brain not someone else's.* - To which the interviewer says _Thank you, you're doing really well!_ *L.O.L!* How is *admitting* that she _wouldn't_ contemplate having a brain transplant & saying nobody would agree to one in any way _supportive_ of her claim that we _aren't_ just our brain or for that matter that there's some 'non-physical' aspect of our selves? She didn't explain how she can possibly know that (despite this channel being called *Christians In Science* ). If we're something non-physical that needs a physical brain how that nondescript _something_ do any integration when it's not instantiated as a physical force or substance?! Surprise surprise she didn''t say a single _word_ about how it could be possible but happily said it's 'obviously' was the case, but *HOW?* Science _answers_ questions, it doesn't *dodge* them!

May God bless you all 🙏

Blessings to you! 🙌🏾 Great work! I hope you’ll like the words of our church too --> #GraceofGodMinistries 👏🏾

www.wattpad.com/story/244571962-what-cancel-currency-%EF%BC%81 Cancel currency is the way to save ourselves.

Wonderfully inspirational talk - thank you!

24:40 isn't it mammalian chauvinism to be surprised at a duck scavenging a seal carcass, when we humans will be quite happy when ducks eat slugs and snails in the garden

This lecture was amazing!! Very instructive!

Question for the Panel Discussion on Friday: In both Bob's and Mirjam's talks and subsequent questions the role of the Devil in the coronavirus pandemic was raised, but discussion was limited. Could the panel discuss this in a more comprehensive way, please? Many thanks, Hugh Reynolds For what it's worth, my take on this would include: 1. Absolutely everything in creation, including viruses, was created by God (Genesis 1; John 1v3). 2. The Devil doesn't create anything; to paraphrase a preacher I much respected: "He doesn't have a single creative thought in his head." 3. The Devil's chief work is to spread lies and to accuse and confuse God's people - starting in Genesis 3. So I'm sure he is well satisfied with many of the effects of Covid-19: fake news and misinformation, conspiracy theories, fear and misunderstanding, the disruption of Western-style education (joining the sentiments of Isis and Boko Haram), and the interference with communal worship and evangelism, etc. He is no doubt congratulating his underlings on setting up the human failures that led to the explosion in Beirut - and for the brilliant idea of doing it during the pandemic. 4. Notably, the New Testament has various warnings about false teachers who will seek to do many of these sorts of things in the church.

Poxa! Uma pena não ter doido interpretado em português. Mad um dia meu inglês chega lá...

Enjoying this talk very much Steph B and Lizzie H

I was a Christian from an early age but, since I was taught that the earth was old in school, I also used to believe that God must have used evolution in order to create. I never considered the thought that the layers of sedimentary rock we see, even driving down a road or highway across the country, to be formed as a result of the Flood of the Bible. It was a hard thing to consider, and it was like when your walking forward in one direction and having your head turned to the side looking at a distraction, while unknowingly walking into a telephone pole. But, it did make me pause for some time, as I went through several emotions over time. For a while, I was shocked I wondered if I had been deceived all these years. I considered that everybody all over the world believed in evolution. But, in consideration, the thought came to me that when I pick up a handful of dirt, I can't tell if that dirt was millions of years old or 6,000 years old. I asked myself, "If the dirt was just created seconds ago, would it look any different than dirt that was created millions of years ago?" if so, how would it look different. Since dirt that I had seen and come in contact with as a child didn't look any different at all then dirt that I can pick up now that, there is no real reason for the dirt to look different over time. Then, I learned that radiometric dating had built-in ASSUMPTIONS. The thought came to me that, any dating method that is based on even one assumption, can only give an assumed answer. If the answer is an assumption, then it's not proof of anything and not any better than having an assumption with no testing. I now know that to believe in evolution was not scientific at all but, is a belief system in itself. Any evidence for evolution is not really testable, or definitive. Yet, much of science supports what the Bible talks about, before we knew it scientifically.

Keep up the great work!

Thanks a lot for this