Stephen Meyer: The Return of the God Hypothesis
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 окт 2024
- Eric Metaxas interviews Stephen C. Meyer about the ultimate mystery of the universe as drawn from recent scientific discoveries in physics, cosmology, and biology.
The interview took place at the Dallas Conference on Science and Faith, sponsored by the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, in January 2019.
#EricMetaxas
#SocratesintheCity
![NOSFERATU - Official Trailer [HD] - Only In Theaters December 25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nulvWqYUM8k/mqdefault.jpg)
“ When you know God you are not afraid to talk about the truth” gave me such an impact that tears came to my eyes . Thank you. You know God.
He has a belief, nothing mere. Did the Indian mathematician Ramaujan "know" the Hindu goddess Namigiri?
The name 'Stephen Meyer' will never be forgotten. He has done so much for the truth, he's an eye opener.
Ummm.......his books are largely out of print and he's only ever appeared once in the professional literature. That appearance lasted only a matter of hours as the paper, actually a ludicrous "lit reveiw" containing ZERO research, only made it into the journal PBSW because the review process was cheated.
He's a malignant, lying religious activist ....and will be forgotten quickly.
@@mcmanustony "He's a malignant, lying religious activist .."
Good summary in a nutshell!
"..and will be forgotten quickly"
Wished I could share your optimism.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 Take as a precedent Ravi Zacharias......or to give him his full academic title: Ravi Zacharias...with his ridiculous drawer full of pathetic "honorary" "doctorates", hailed as the greatest apologist of our time, a philosophical genius whose searing razor sharp intellect would reduce opponents to tears...blah...blah....contd. pg 94.
He died, an exposed sexual predator and crook with an entirely fabricated "academic" history, and I've heard next to nothing from the drooling claque of sycophants since.
Meyer has contributed precisely NOTHING to any branch of any science at any time. His pressure group The "Discovery" "Institute" is well funded but has so far failed in its mission to gut science education and replace it with Bible Thumpery.
I don't see any reason for him to be remembered. His periodic release of creationist doorstops will end and the claque will have to make do with the rubbish he's already published.
opposition to their agenda has to continue for sure.....
You seem to keep him alive with your sad hatred LOL get a life.@@norbertjendruschj9121
The sheer amount of mad atheists in this comments section is utter gold. I expected some salt, but this is impressive.
We think that American pastors who fleece their congregations and take all their money to line their own pockets are the ones who are mad. Please give me an example where you can go to church in the USA without being asked for money if you think that I'm wrong. American Christianity is an organised racket.
Paul Morgan
Churches need to pay rent too.
I think there are some pastors that abuse this (the ones with private jets, etc). I agree with you, they’re “mad”.
However, in the vast majority of cases, the money put in the plate every week goes toward the church paying rent, paying for maintenance of the church, support for the priest (this is his job, after all. He isn’t getting paid), and charity causes.
If you don’t want to donate, then don’t. It isn’t mandatory.
Tell me. What’s so mad about that?
@@Joe-gi3nj *_"Churches need to pay rent too."_*
If they need money, they turn to you. If you need money, they tell you to go to god. This is how scams work. Especially since churches scam the US government for aprox 75 bil $ each year by not paying taxes for they profits they make.
*_"I think there are some pastors that abuse this (the ones with private jets, etc). I agree with you, they’re “mad”."_*
SOME??? Its essentially every church because they pretend to be charities, get tax exemption and then never reveal their finances again. Only few lost this because they openly violated the rules in such a manner that the IRS stepped in. In the meantime most mega church preachers boast about their jets and bank accounts more than actual millionaires/billionaires.
*_"this is his job, after all. He isn’t getting paid"_*
If they arent getting paid then its not a job. And they dont have any actual, useful qualifications, no useful product, arent obligated to be charitable and usually just tell the same stories every week. Sounds like the most useless job to me.
*_"If you don’t want to donate, then don’t. It isn’t mandatory."_*
In many countries you automatically pay a certain percentage of your income the first day you start a job, without your permission, until you cancel it. And even canceling it costs you money. Also known as "church tax". Sounds pretty mandatory to me.
*_"Tell me. What’s so mad about that?"_*
The billions the church as a whole organisation receives in profits each year without paying taxes, having its own small country inside a state, have a palace filled with gold from all the profits but still pretend to be a charity organisation, the daily child molesting cases, the mega churches...
ANY non-religious organisation would have been shut down, burned down and deeply condemned for such behavior. But not the church because its christians.
Its astounding how people like you can be so relaxed about this.
Dose he believe in giants too ? Lol
@@mikejohe1920 extra big ones probably.
Not one of atheist comments here provides anything that would convince me that they provide a better argument. Myers flattened them all with his logic.
*Not one of atheist comments here provides anything that would convince me that they provide a better argument*
That says a lot about you and nothing about them.
*Myers flattened them all with his logic*
And yet you can't even get his name right, you just know that he supports id
@@ukcadjockey You have no statement of anything other than a name was misspelled. You prove nothing. Dr. Meyers does.
Agree. Atheïst never come with arguments. Insulting is all they can.
Atheïsm is a science stopper.
Exposing Discovery Institute Part 2 Stephen Meyer
ruclips.net/video/Akv0TZI985U/видео.html
This guy is on another level. Stephen Meyer is awesome
Exposing Discovery Institute Part 2 Stephen Meyer
ruclips.net/video/Akv0TZI985U/видео.html
Dear Dr. Meyer,
I am a Bible believing Christian from India and I watch all your videos. I thank you for your concept of Intelligent Design, which I believe too and that God of the Bible IS THE DESIGN ER. His Designs have been always with Him eternally. Multiverse is a confusing, baseless nonsense. THANK YOU.
Sir, I assume you are from Odisha. Am I right ?
We need people like Dr. Meyer in India in Indian context.
@@anantguru8244 what for?
@@anantguru8244 Meyer isn't even a credible scientist,
Anyone tied to discovery institute is a joke
@@logicalatheist1065 Refute his arguments bro. Stop character assasination. 😉
@@anantguru8244 he has no credible argument... Intelligent design is nothing, it's not a thing.
Science does not support it.
Stephen Meyer is a treasure
Why would you treasure a lying religious hack desperate to corrupt science education?
Exposing Discovery Institute Part 2 Stephen Meyer
ruclips.net/video/Akv0TZI985U/видео.html
Dr. Meyer's books should be mandatory reading across US colleges.
I agree. Anyone wanting to be a scientists should be able to recognise pseudoscience.
hebrew used to be.........dennis prager
Sunix so true!
Sunix yes updates are very needed... the world is no longer flat like it was once said to be.
Mustapha Rashiduddin strong now very true but weakening by the minute. Thanks for the comment and view, every view and comments helps.
I can't believe there are so many mean comments to discredit Stephen Meyer... This video is informative and even entertaining while making questions that causes us to ponder that which is greater than ourselves. Whats wrong with that? I thought this talk was truly great and worth watching! Thank you Stephen Meyer!
I AGREE! I really, really enjoyed it!
His argument is in conflict with itself. He's demanding the science prove evolution better and then he turns around and claims it's all done by magic. AKA ID or creator or invisible supernatural being. If you want scientific rigor- good. Stick to it. There is no evidence for the supernatural. You can't use science to claim something unscientific.
@@LoveYourNeighbour. : But it's irrational. He's demanding rigorous scientific proof only for that which conflicts with his belief in a magical creator and none whatsoever for that alleged creator. It's utter hypocrisy and sophistry.
Since when has Meyer any credit in science?
Someone might say someone is mad to believe in God. But it's more plausible to say you're mad if you don't.
why so?
Did that sound good in your head?
God speaks through brilliant men such as Stephen Meyer. Even Though God doesn't need Stephen Meyer, or anyone else to speak for Him.
Atheists are starting to catch on to this guy and boy, they don't like him. I wonder why... ;)
@@davidmahfuz9737 No Hitchens would take the anti religious approach but would be way out of his depth on biological origins.
@@davidmahfuz9737 So the two would never have met. Actually I have a background in Bio Chemistry and am a Jehovahs witness. Discovery Instutute members religious views are way off, I have seen it in the comments on their site. EG God is 3 in one and think heaven is their goal.
So I say their science is well based but on bible understanding no better than the rest.
@@davidmahfuz9737 I know one is Jonathon Wells, but as far as I recall there arent any others. YECs are that way because of a very wrong understanding of Genesis. Not quite in the category of the flat earthers, who take for example Revelation's "4 corners of the earth", or earth has "socket pedestals" and they take them literal. Gen 1:1 is not part of the 6 "days" and could have been created as long as the radioactive "clocks" that are used on rocks say. The" days" could be millions of years each or perhaps 1000s of years each and have to do with preparing the earth for life and the creation of life. The 7th day is still continuing , it didnt finish with "there came to be morning and evening, a 7th day. I could give you more on this but that will do for now. David what they do is interpret the same data as do the evo subscibers, peer reviewed . I am speaking about Biochemistry and astro-geo physics. One side when it comes to the ORIGIN of the data say it all evolved. The other, which I subscibe to, say
it was designed By a "super intellect" to borrow a phrase by former Nobel prize winner Fred Hoyle. (He died, it is thought, agnostic)
As I have elsewhere here pointed out, All religions lumped together have failed their peoples and given the Bible a bad name by proxy. All of Christendoms 1000s of divisions are guilty of contributing in some way.
I just discovered your channel Socratesinthecity and I am delighted with the serious, scientific and philosophical honest discussions on Intelligent Design with Dr Meyer. Thank you for holding and broadcasting such discussions. This means something and I suspect it will change lives. Mr Metaxas (weird name) you are brilliant and a good man.
Thank you God. Thank you for Jesus Christ..Thank you God the Holy Spirit. And everyone who are waiting give a big AMEN...
AMEN !!
👍👍
Amen!
AAAAAMEN!!!!
This is why people are turned off to religion.
Ecclesiastes 3:11 - He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. I have been enthralled by the clear, concise, and way beyond my intelligence level the explanations Stephen Meyers lays out. As a wildlife biologist and range scientist who has been an apostolic oneness pentecostal for nigh 40 years I deeply appreciate the works of Meyers, Peterson, and their fellow scientists. I will be purchasing Meyer's books ASAP, not to answer my personal faith but hopefully to use as tools to help others along the journey.
"A well read bible is the best cure for Christianity" Mark Twain
He really is one heck of a fine teacher.
@@TheMattyPoppins I wonder why Sam suffered so much from depression?
I always love seeing how thoughtful and respectful the youtube comment section is.
We live in a PHD World you konw.
and how many Meyer sycophant, or fake troll account operated by hired Discovery insitute staff try desperately to pretend that they care.
At those number the united states ought to be ravageed by mobs burning down bilogy departments and their fossil records
just like the nazis did with books.
Atheists are generally well behaved.
They'd not burn the fossil record of the Biblical Flood of Noah.
@@micklee6063
Nobody would have any motive for discrediting that _fictitious_ flood but _creationists_ have an excellent reason for faking it as did the authors of the _Xtian_ bible.
@@philaypeephilippotter6532 There’s plenty of evidence the great flood happened. The earth goes through a 12000 year catastrophe cycle and a flood is part of that as there’s a polar shift that drastically affects the earth’s tectonics.
Excellent discussion! Dr. Meyer is an excellent expositor of the Intelligence Design theory. The evidence is on his side!
*Dr. Meyer is an excellent expositor of the Intelligence Design theory*
He is indeed that. Doesn't make him right though, does it.
*The evidence is on his side!*
Actually, no, the evidence is against him. It's why the entire scientific community, which is majority christian, says he's wrong.
There is no scientific theory of “intelligent” “design”. Meyer and his cronies concocted it to skirt the law after Edwards vs Aguillard which prohibited the teaching of creationism in school science classes.
“Some unidentified designer or designers, by some mechanism we can’t identify, at some point or points in the past did some….ummm….designing”- is NOT a scientific theory.
@@mcmanustonysome unguided process of physics without a direct cause of non life into life is also seemingly lacking in evidence...
@@zacksmith4509 You're wrong.
for 700,000,000 years the planet was dead. For two billion years after than life was unicellular. How did that transition happen? Either there is a set of natural processes that can explain it or it was magic.
Amino acids occur naturally
Bilipid membranes form naturally into spheres from hydrophobic and hydrophilic monomers- Cronin
Polymerisation of precursor molecules via auto-catalysis is well known and understood- Cronin
Mineral catalysis- via, eg, montmorillonite is understood. - Hazen
Plausible prebiotic synthesis of pyrimidine has been shown- from which 3 of the 4 RNA bases are simple derivatives- Sutherland and Powner.
There is no complete understanding of the process. That's why it's being worked on. That's how science works. To say it is lacking in evidence is false.
Here's a list of observed phenomena that have been successfully explained by an appeal to the supernatural.
1.
.
@@zacksmith4509 Where is the evidence for intelligentdesign?
you have not idea, but this talk has been seeing from Tmalín, Veracruz, México. a plece than maybe you don´t will visit, but this talks really has had impact. thank you, and God bless!
Amen brother. Hello from u s a
I am from Oman
God bless in Jesus name!!!
9888
@@tylerbouck3555 lll
Eric, I love your funny, nicely irreverent interview style. Thanks for re-phrasing and clarifying with Stephen what he is saying. I've been taking massive notes -- pretty much taking straight dictation. I'm hoping to pass along to other RUclipsrs in various discussion groups, the information discussed here. I will try to distill it down in little digestible pieces. I will refer people back to this discussion. Thanks for doing this series, Eric.
I’ve never seen so many atheists with a crusaders complex in a single comment section. One dude replied to every single comment😂and got in a fight with everyone. If your purpose is to dissuade others from faith and ridicule them, reassess your goals in life. There’s got to be something better to do than this.
Yeah. It’s insane. These people hate God or the possibility of a creator so much, they just can’t go away. Nope. They have to spread hate and then tell everyone why they believe there’s no god, like it’s their mission to dissuade others from their belief.
Mentioning god, is like Splashing Holy Water on the Exorcist. They all writhe and lash out with hatred. It’s getting worse as time goes by.
They see anything related to Christianity and they go berserk.
Bet you they don’t go after muslims like this. Wonder why? 🧐
@@poppabear9279 How does someone hate something that he is convinced, is not real?
It is sad to see that so many people are delusional, it is sad that their superstition informs their actions...there is so much wrong with believing in a God fantasy. THere is however no hate involved...This obsession with "hate" might tell more about those who subscribe to faith based culty than about those who can and do distuingish betweenn fantasy andreality. Bertrand Russel put it very eloquently:
“There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dare not face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not rational, he becomes furious when they are disputed.
@@poppabear9279 its because for the first time we can answer them with science and they cant handle it.
@@derhafi your answer is what we are talking about. Read your comment again.
@@MrJoebrooklyn1969 You obviously have no grasp on science whatsoever.....No wonder, somebody who has problems with the difference between fantasy and reality...how could you distuingish between science and the pseudoscience Meyer, of all people, is babbeling out.
Fortunately, I’m old enough to have missed the primeval soup teachings, but I first heard about the fine tuning from a preacher and pastor of Josue Assemblies of God Church in San Salvador, El Salvador. Kudos to Hermano Lisandro Bojórquez whose sermon years ago convinced me that creative design was the truth, not just by faith but also by science.
why not try learning science from scientists and not ignorant preachers.
Well worth the time to watch these interviews twice. And enjoyable.
Loved the talk. It is simple yet so complicated that I had to come back and rewatch. Thank you!
I am so thankful for Dr. Meyer!
What for?
Many more people need to see this. Berating this says more about the critic than the information supplied and supported in this discussion.
I'd much rather listen to an actual scientist talk about shit that actually exists
@@logicalatheist1065 I see, so you have decided to ignore the most recent findings in the scientific community as you are afraid that your personal world view will be challenged. Perhaps you shouldn’t look, please turn away now, I would hate for you to be disillusioned. Ignorance is a much safer road to travel for some. At this stage Logical Atheist is truly an oxymoron.
@@shaz30867 Stephen Meyer and the discovery institute are not part of the scientific community.
Intelligent design is pseudoscience
@@logicalatheist1065 I was not referring to Stephen Meyer but many of the scientists who seem to be unable to explain or discredit some of their own findings.
@@shaz30867 I am referring to the video we are commenting on
My favorite show.. No nonsense they just get into the TRUTH .
agreed!
What truth specifically? All I heard was falsehood after falsehood.
@@myopenmind527 really?? Even if you do not agree with everything, can you truly say everything you heard was false?? For a guy with the name "myopenmind" saying all you heard was falsehood is disappointing, and just sounds like you commented based on a trigger. Not trying to put you down for it cause I deal with my own triggers too but say it how it is.
Thank YOU so much Eric...Mr M ~ you're tremendously heady & comical, blesses me always! Dr Meyers, 15 yrs ago also blessed me BIG TIME because of his scholarly work, breaking ground (like you) and placing our Creator front & center in our cultural mindset!
SweetieTurner only if you’re a batshit crazy creationist.
@@myopenmind527 Yes Open mind, we are creationists. Its not a dirty word. what then if were are creationist?
Brightwell Kunene ignorant or willfully ignorant? Which is it?
Where did you get your education? You should ask for a refund.
Scholarly LMFAO.....scholarly and scentific must be polar opposites in your world.
Simply excellent!! Stephen Meyer has truly done his home-work. Fascinating subject and delivery!
A Capp its still intelligent design. Which has no actual evidence
@@jnyfcbytd7459 You are delusional.
Jake is correct there’s no evidence for ID
Love the Socrates in the city forums. We appreciate the content.. did the host just say, 'video taping' this. Takes me back..
These forms make it easier for gullible swallows.
I love the rarity of a discussion of this caliber which reaches toward tremendous ramifications-excellent video
Tremendous vaporous ramifications.
@@intlprofs1 only according to your vaporous heart
God and science fit perfectly.
@@vilicus77 "Zero evidence"? I guess I take issue both "zero" and "evidence". I try to think of a universe in which I would say the same as you. I think that that universe would have to be in such a way that new universe constantly pop up within them. Or that banana flies evolves at least to a small butterfly over a century. Or that the gravitational force could be of any strength - everything would work like clock-work anyhow. Or that the DNA would actually be mostly mumbo-jumbo garbage which would produce a lump of gel which actually was the cell - it would have to be pretty simple so one could believe a lucky reaction to create it. Or that religious claims and experiences was not something reported by billions, but by a tiny looney minority. And a thousand other changes - then I could perhaps say something like you did. That you are capable to say something in *this* universe is sort of saddening and makes me wonder how very differently it's possible to process the existence.
R. Miller The reality SHOUTS the glory of God in my opinion. You let your scientism get in the way of seeing the larger picture when you insist on a verifiable, repeatable experiment that without doubt point to a living God. You dont take into account that God may not wish to reveal himself as an automata, but prefer to let nature speak and let the life of Jesus speak. You have indeed zero evidence of the specific type you require, as you have zero evidence for love, will, meaning and identity and personhood.
@@vilicus77 But do you believe yourself to be a person with a mind and will? If yes - can you prove it?
@@vilicus77 If you act as if these most contentious (and materialists find them to be false) claims are indeed true - then you're not a real follower of scientism anyway. Therefore it follows that you requirement for an experiment of the scientific sort is something you apply at will. Nothing suggests that the God hypothesis is any less foundational than your will or identity. If you indeed are a materialist and do not believe in any will or personhood (all is an illusion) then this conversation is pointless.
@@vilicus77 I guess I'm saying you have double standards. Look up scientism and see if you subscribe to that.
One of the most impressive discussions I have heard in my life.
@@walkergarya the assumption that a self replicating encoded system evolves from some random process could also be put aside as a fairytale.
@@walkergarya no spontaneous creaton of information into the dna has been observed either. Yet people talk one theory down by calling it a fairytale.
@@walkergarya So the shifting of already excisting information resulted in a slightly altered metabolism which turned out to be beneficial in digesting a specific substance. Well that is not a surprise to me, neither is it impressive.
Stephen Meyer is brilliant and makes much sense an should be heard.His book Signature in the cell was tremendous.
sycophant statement. confidence without substance.
@@sebastianschulz6531 you dont know that. all im saying is that you must give both sides equal footing . after 50 years in the sciences and 3 degrees ,i opted for Christianity and God as the Best explanation of why there is something rather than Nothing. Evolution is lacking in many areas of the Macro. and i have read as much as anyone .
@@bobfree1226
ID proponents were given the chance to produce evidence that meets the scientific standards, abstain from logical fallacies like arguments from ignorance, begging the question, circular reasoning, speciel pleading, deliberate misrepresentation.
Itf you arfe late to the party....you might think ID deserves a chance but it has been around and it waived all chances already.
ID creationists on top of that repeat disproven claims against evolution all the time, and they present that as their proof for their creationism, which is simply not how science works. The scientific method stands and has been arounf for a while for good reason. There are many people in science who try to dodge it, and they get criticized for that by other scientist fiercly.
There is no need for that to be changed for creationism.
@@bobfree1226
If you really wanna know why Meyer is complete wrong
ruclips.net/video/aBSbnFvmMkY/видео.html
PZ Myers really points to the things, plus he gives counter examples to many generalized statement Meyer makes.
Showing how DNA recombination creates new information, without guidance but a complete random process.
@@sebastianschulz6531 lol cmon you know the judges were all evolutionists read the transcripts
“…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaws & holes as sound parts.” Charles Darwin
Amazing how many atheists hunt down these videos and probably watch a 1/3 of the video and try to throw out comments like "So the whole argument is GOD OF THE GAPS??" Ignorance must be bliss when it comes to your realm of thinking. One thing I know for sure is Science and God are not separate they are intertwined as God created the very realm in which Science functions. Perhaps it is time to get used to this Truth and come to some understanding within yourself.
All things were made and came into existence through Him: and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being.
"One thing I know for sure is Science and God are not separate they are intertwined as God created the very realm in which Science functions."
And you know this because...
@@JamesRichardWiley HE created the human brain to have functions, like logic and reason, which are the basis for empircal investigation, unlike animals.
*_"Ignorance must be bliss when it comes to your realm of thinking."_*
The people who fail to provide reasonable evidence for 2.000 years have spoken...
*_"Science and God are not separate"_*
I must have missed the memo that someone managed to demonstrate any supernatural force. Or someone explain why the overwhelming majority of scientists identify as not religious... Something clearly doesnt add up with your bogus claims. Oh wait!
*_"HE created the human brain to have functions, like logic and reason"_*
Yet theists reject logic and reason and rather praise someone who sells books on amazon and pretends he is publishing science, no scientific breakthrough through his "work" for over a decade... which he promised would be fruitful... promotes bronze age superstition sprinkled with science terms after rebranding his "product" because it failed in court and at basic scientific standards.
@@Z4r4sz Good evening, Z, if I may abbreviate. >>>"The people who fail to provide reasonable evidence for 2.000 years have spoken." Fail? Jesus was a historical person, and the Christian movement is documented in many seaprate Roman histories. The cosmological, chemical, and biological arguments all point to a designer.
>>>Yet theists reject logic and reason..." Ah no, we use logic and reason over the centuries to make the abductive argument for GOD's existence. Information, logic, and reason are immaterial, so from where do they come?
>>>no scientific breakthrough through his "work" for over a decade." ah no, again. Meyer's work has shown abiogenesis to be impossible as naturalistic processes do not provide for the presence of information such as 3.5 billion strands of DNA in a single cell. WHAT tells an organism to change? WHY would it need to change if it is already a successful organism? Mutations are generally detrimental to an organism. As for your assertion "it failed in court", you do know the Judge in the Dover case is in trouble for plagiarizing/receiving the prosecutor's memo for his decision? The decision, itself, was NOT supposed to be to the validity of ID science;rather, it was supposed to be to the LEGALITY of teaching it. The Judge should be removed for legal malfeasance. GOD Bless.
Great material! Thank you, friends!! Don't worry for the angry comments of those who are so much afraid for their prejudices. The wind of history normally blows away such ones.
The wind of history has blown away thousands of Gods, the one you happen to belive in, will be gone too at one point.
@@derhafi The wind of history likewise has blown countless numbers of followers of "there is no God" hypothesis. And this continue on and on, regardless of their desire to get away with God's existence.
To atheists and intelligent creator believers alike, I pray for your soul, and I wish you good health. None of us are all-knowing, so we must always have grace with our fellow man. I believe we’re all trying to find what’s true.
The question of faith in a greater power is either the most important question of our existence or worthless. In my opinion, wrestling with this question is endlessly fascinating. I wish you well on this journey, and I’m glad I have you guys.
If you watch Meyer’s interview with the Hoover Institution he explains that his theological explanation is Judeo-Christian. Hope this helps.
They discuss evolution with David Berlinski and some mathematician. The question of evil comes up & Meyers finds it as no problem, because of his theological standpoint.
But it’s important to point out that he has kept his scientific integrity and hasn’t intermingled them in any of this
Cole Mayhugh 🏆🏁 same with Tour. Some Atheistic scientists do the same about exposing their personal believes but not many. I appreciate those that do. Many excellent Atheists living good life’s and forwarding science, they are not the enemy they are our brothers and sisters. Both sides should be patient with the other and remain productive. I’m trying hard to do that. Thanks for your comment.
"some mathematician"- is David Gelernter who is not in fact a mathematician and nor is Berlinski. Nor of course is Meyer- who is not a scientist of any kind.
The Hoover piece is as slick as it is dishonest. "Mathematical Objections to Evolution"- in which three non mathematicians babble non-mathematically about science none has the slightest expertise in and none has actually studied.
Why are you people so gullible/ dishonest?
"Judeo-Christian" lol
Meyer is a genius, I like his brain
His mind is more like Christ than it used to be because he wasn't born this smart but the goal for us all is Christ mindedness
He's pretty far from a genius.
@@stevenseagal5950
He is even dropping the ball spo early he would not get a PhD because he does not even investigate at all.
He's an idiot, debating what is common knowledge - that there is a god/creator and the theory of evolution is a comedy. Therefore God created everything, including holacausts and genocides. Hard to accept, but obviously true. God is not a nice man.
@@TrumanGN
How much common knowledge from previous centuries is crappy bullshit today. Creator crap has been around before Christianity which is a crappy plagiarizm of many religions in ancient times from around mesopotamia to Egypt.
Many Nazis believed in their racist utopia....did this common knowledge make their crap true?
I do not know how evolution is comedy....Darwin's theory had come hundred years before DNA was discovered and this discovery further proved common descent, as did paleontology.
The comedy is what happens in the United States right now. The joke voted into office and the pathetic crowd that voted some child abusive crotch groping old pig.
Evolution is boring in comparison....it is proven more than a century ago, and the more data is collected the more evidence in favour of evolution piles up.
I'd like to like this video more than 1 trillion times.
Luis Henrique Caetano 😊
Luis Henrique Caetano 👍
There's something missing from your head and I think it's called a brain but I could be wrong
@@mick1gallagher I bet you got to that conclusion by inferring with selective force's such as Natural Selection? Don't even need a brain to guess that one from ya... Shame on you, needs a hole lot of imagination and faith to believe in fairy tales such as Darwin Evolution.
@@zootalk and also saying evolution by natural selection is contradictory as natural selection is not a creative force . It only selects what’s best for the creature in a certain environment
Oh my God is stunning! And I see more clearly today how we are made in His image, with this incredibly intense discussion. So much information - perfect combo of Eric and Stephen. I am so excited to even be able to follow this conversation, no chance I could participate. Praise God for great minds seeking to follow His thoughts
It amazes me that people are somehow offended by Mr. Metaxas' sense of humor. Personally, I appreciate the levity and that a serious topic does not preclude lightheardedness.
I agree, some people just need to lighten up
Very relevant and current subject matter. Thank you so much for posting this!
I find it interesting that faint radio signals of sorts that SETI receives can immediately be construed as coming from an extra terrestrial intelligence. Yet, the presence of DNA in a cell is deconstructed in many ways except thru an intelligence source.
Yes, this absurdity reveals the boundless depths the heart of man will sink to in order to avoid ANY notion of there being a higher being to which we must give account. Not surprisingly, this same "higher being" told us - in no vague terms - just how far our rebellion against Him has gone, insomuch as it warrants a terrible but just punishment. Fortunately, He also DID provide a means of reconciliation; the Forgiveness(via an equal payment He Himself, in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, made) of sins.
@@happilyeggs4627 I believe you missed the entire point of the comment. It is a simple equation. Mainstream science is looking for a "signal in the noise" coming in from space. They are looking for a signal that was clearly designed and could not have been natural phenomena as a sign of intelligence........why don't they apply that exact same logic to DNA? The complexity of DNA shows extremely clear characteristics of design, therefore it is logical to assume there was a designer.
It is really quite simple.
This is something I have thought about a great deal! I have posed this very question to two atheists. One in person and another in a comment section here on youtube. They both had the same disappointing answer.... _there's no evidence DNA was designed!_ It is really frustrating talking to people who refuse to see the obvious.
@@happilyeggs4627 its called proof of life. Actually quite easy using probability theory. Life cannot be created randomly. Its mathematically impossible
@@hambone4728 yup. They just natter on about there being no evidence. You might as well deny the sun exists on the basis that nobody has touched it
Funny that my entire life changed one year ago because Stephen Meyer walked into a lecture on a whim, twenty years ago.
I raise and applaud
Lots of haters here in the comments.... not a lot of evidence against Meyer except some insults though
His lack of research is the evidence against him. And the fact that he and similar organisations like his created a face science journals with the credibility of a garage sale offering degrees (like many christian institutions) to pretend to offer valid science but only fool gullible and uneducated people who want their bias confirmed because they dont know how to analyze claims. But keep calling skeptical and reasonable people haters for not being fooled by scharlatans. Thats how the scam keeps going.
The evidence is that we simply don't know. For us to be aware of these things, we'd need to be able to peer back into the past at least 14 billion years. As there is no conceivable way for anyone on planet earth to be able to do this, it follows as a consequence that nobody will ever be able answer the question about the existence or non existence of a deity.
@@paulmorgan4369 When people, physical beings who can only interact with anything thats physical, claim they interact with something non-physical without any reliable method or tools, provide no evidence, then we can say it doesnt exist. Also this deity cant show itself in any way and has all properties of an imaginary friend. Invisible. inaudible, incorporeal, immaterial, exists outside of the universe, is timeless, not observable, immeasurable, does nothing and leaves no evidence for its existance. So we can say it doesnt exist.
More insults here, but no substantial issues with his theory
@@asmith7094 What are you going on about? I haven't insulted Stephen Myer. I quite like him, Mr Looney Bin.
Thank you, God!
For what? The late great Christopher Hitchens used to list the "benefits" we could thank God for. Were he/she/it to exist.
@@roberthutchins4297 I would thank God for creating the universe and fine tuning it for life. Have not read the Hitch list, but I should imagine it's horribly ungrateful and lists numerous things that are our fault - because that's what he was like.
@@inukithesavage828 I wonder what you envisage God as being. Something material, tangible? I could go on at length with the absurdities involved with religious belief. I don´t know how the Universe "popped" into existence from the absolute and total nothingness - no-one does know. But then, I don´t know where the hypothetical God figure came from. You´d say from no-where - he/she/it just "is".
@@roberthutchins4297 Why would I believe that God is a physical being when absolutely everything in Christianity says he's not material? If you can't even get that right, why would I listen to you about these so-called 'absurdities'?
@@inukithesavage828 Tell you the truth, I don´t much mind whether you listen - or not.
I expect you have absolutely clear what a "non-material" God means. Doesn´t it say somewhere that we are made in his/her/its image? Are we all immaterial, then? I know - there´s an "answer" for that too.
It´s a lot of nonsense. You believe that particular nonsense because of where you were born. If you´d been born elsewhere, then you would have believed anither nonsense.
I don’t believe in earth religions but I believe in an intelligent designer
Religion is nothing more than an attempt to know the designer.
@@Brotherred1 The Bible is the one that has proven itself over and over again, with prophecies ! Old Testament prophecies in the New Testament, Old and New Testament prophecies in my lifetime ! Fulfillment of prophecies have been increasing as the world pulls closer to the tribulation ! Christians it's time to look up !
@@Brotherred1 Well said!
@@studygodsword5937 What prophecy of relevance can ever be considered fulfilled? Can't think of any. You are suggesting tribulation, on what basis? All the past under the rule of religions was much darker.
@@hermannf.1612 Prophecies fulfilled, European Union forming, including brexit, two more countries will leave the EU ! Never in history has there been More of "calling good evil and evil good (up to and including the presidency of the United States)" And a related prophecy, massive loss of respect for authority! Never before has there been more scoffers over the word of God ! These are just some of the prophecies !
@Eric Metaxis I really, really love your stuff here. You have a good sense of humor and I enjoy your interview style. I saw Stephen Meyer discuss the signature of the cell on another RUclips channel and I didn't think I would learn more since then, but Stephen Meyer; if you will forgive the baseball analogy, really hits it out of the field. I am an RN and when I graduated several decades ago when DNA was taught, it was a double helix structure discovered by Cricks & Watson and not much more. I then saw in the 1990's an explosion of how it could be used and the development of the sequencing and the Human genome. I love Science, and I really believe that Science is the study of GOD's created world. The two, Science & GOD, are not mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, being a parent and having a son in College who only graduated a few years ago, I see that none of this information has made it into the Public School text books or the classroom it's self. I thank you for getting this important information out, Science should not have an AGENDA, it should go where the evidence leads but it does not. To some people Atheism and/or Science has become their Religion and like Ben Stein so aptly showed in his film, EXPELLED, No intelligence Allowed, they guard it with their life and anyone in Academia who disagrees is treated to a myriad of negative sequela. I have subscribed to your channel and look forward to seeing more Socrates in the City. Thank you
Here’s a complete list of all Meyer’s peer reviewed publications in all the sciences.
1.
.
Ben Stein is a lying degenerate. Can you name anyone in that trashy film who was expelled from anything?
Universe had a beginning, this is unquestionable. They tells us that a very hot and very compact point existed, then it began a rapid expansion. We therefore have to accept one of two options:
1) Either the hot compact point existed then began expanding without a cause, or
2) An originator that exists outside of the laws of cause and effect caused that hot compact point to exist and expand.
The second option might seem hard to believe, but at least it doesn't have the logical contradiction of the first one where a purely physical phenomenon is somehow exempt from the laws of physics ☺
Sean Carroll sees the 'multiverse' as the only plausible explanation. Someone should tell him that the multiverse hypothesis itself relies on miraculous fine tuning. The irony. Even then God gives us free will to resist the irresistible, which in itself is kind of miraculous.
@Van Smack
Free will is an illusion”
1.
No one needs to study and master quantum theory for years or neuroscience to know that the qualitative subjective experience of reality such as love, altruism, bravery including the courage of the nurses and doctors who sacrificed their lives caring for the victims of the Corona virus was real bravery and a real choice not just the meaningless motions of biological robots who were all just determined by “matter” and “neuroscience”. Not to mention the qualitative subjective experience of morals, ethics, meaning and purpose this bravery and self sacrifice demonstrated by the nurses and doctors entailed, that is the qualitative subjective experience of mind and consciousness.
You’re arguments are a “Scientism” and materialism of the gaps fallacy. Thankfully determinism, which clearly has the potential to be an harmful “philosophy” as it can be used as an excuse for violent crime as it removes all accountability and responsibility, has actually been debunked by the brilliant Oxford Professor Richard Swinburne. Equally, “Determinism” is based on the assumption that time is linear and that “matter” is fundamental to reality not consciousness or both. No one has actually “proved” that “Matter” is fundamental to reality not consciousness as science is only provisional so can not “prove” anything as it can only infer theoretical abstractions of the mind such as “matter” using predictions. Hence the common term among experts on mind and consciousness the “hard problem of consciousness”. Ironically consciousness is only a “hard problem” if you presuppose that “matter” is fundamental to reality. However, the fact is that.... “we cannot empirically observe matter outside and independent of mind, for we are forever locked in mind. All we can observe are the contents of perception, which are inherently mental. Even the output of measurement instruments is only accessible to us insofar as it is mentally perceived.” (Bernardo Kastrup). From a philosophical perspective there is absolutely no evidence that the world of “matter” is the only world that matters as....“the fact is that evolutionary naturalism implies that we shouldn’t take any of our convictions seriously including the scientific world picture on which evolutionary naturalism itself depends.” (Thomas Nagel).
The fact is that our families and children and our communities are clearly more than biological and chemical robots that lack intentionality as they are just determined by “matter”. The fact is that it is actually Classical “materialism” not idealism that posits an unproven hypothesis and is based on backwards, “magical” thinking as no one has ever observed “matter” without being a conscious (observer), that is without mind and consciousness. Which is why our families and children are unbelievably valuable and precious and have (value) and their human rights should be protected from murderers and rapists who would like nothing more than to have (free will) and (choice) refuted so they have an (excuse) and can just say they were not accountable or responsible for their evil actions no matter how depraved. Why any normal person would even want to “prove” such an hypothesis/“philosophy” that is so intuitively wrong is beyond most normal people. I think the bereaved families of the victims of the holocaust would beg to differ that Hitler and the Nazis were not responsible and accountable for their actions as they had no “free will” and “choice” because they were just determined by “matter” and “neuroscience”. Not to mention the bereaved families of the children who were tortured and murdered at the hands of the Moors murderers.
“Intelligent tuning decorator doesn’t sound intelligent to me”
Ironically your claims regarding fine tuning and “naturalism” are actually “metaphysical” as the belief that everything can and will be explained by scientific naturalism was easily refuted by Einstein decades ago using basic logic and philosophical proofs. According to Einstein...
“It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure” ( Einstein). Also methodological naturalism is supposed to be metaphysically neutral and so can only describe what “is” not what “ought” to be.
It’s clear that many eminent deists, agnostics and even atheists do not share or adopt your ad hominem approach when debating theists. The natural sciences can not explain and “prove” anything because “science” can only infer and requires a metaphysics. that is a “philosophy of care” in order to even be useful to humanity in many areas such as medicine and surgery etc. The fact is that only logic. deductive reasoning and philosophy can provide “proofs” as such not the natural sciences because as I already pointed out science is provisional and can only infer to the best current evidence, usually based on the current dominant materialistic paradigm that has persisted for political reasons. Equally, no scientist worth his salt claims that one universe is enough to explain the unbelievable fine tuning for life in this universe hence the “Goldie locks universe” analogy. Also according to prominent scientists such as Paul Davies an unfalsifiable multiverse could stifle scientific endeavour because that which can be used to explain away anything explains nothing. In an infinite multiverse all things are possible lol. This is common knowledge among both theist and atheist philosophers. You can’t even carry out basic scientific experiments without metaphysical concepts such as truth, knowledge, being, identity time and space etc. Of course it’s important to recognise and tackle extremism and harmful theistic and atheistic ideology wherever it is. However, the “defenders” of “intelligent design” have actually made valid and fascinating scientific contributions to the debate about “irreducible complexity” and have actually been praised for their scientific approach by eminent atheist philosophers such as Thomas Nagel.
“I believe the defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude for challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to liberate us from religion. That world view is ripe for displacement” (Thomas Nagel). Conversely, intelligent design proponents and irreducible complexity has been criticised by prominent scientists who are Christians who believe in evolution such as the DNA expert Dr Francis Collins. It just proves how diverse theism and atheism is when you have a prominent public intellectual and atheist such as Thomas Nagel praising the proponents of intelligent design and then a prominent scientist who happens to be a Christian such as Francis Collins criticising them. Similarly, it’s ironic to hear “New atheists” constantly use the “God of the gaps” accusation when it was actually Christian theologians who coined the phrase “God of the gaps” in the first place in order to correct over Zealous religious people who had the habit of using absurd teleological arguments for god. Nevertheless, consciousness still remains an elusive qualitative subjective property and like the laws of physics it is clearly irreducibly complex. The fact is the natural sciences do not have all the answers and when mixed with naive metaphysical assumptions eugenics has taught us that “scientism” can be used as an excuse for justifying and rationalising genocide as could determinism. Nevertheless, religion is not perfect and has made many mistakes.. However, you can’t solve the mistakes of religion by replacing it with another “quasi religion” such as “New atheism” or “scientism”. What we need is good science, good philosophy and good theology.
“Quantum electrodynamics requires mastery” “ This is the arrogance that underlies creationism”
Appeals to scientific authority and scientism and materialism of the gaps fallacy again in a metaphysical, that is a philosophical debate about the fundamental nature of reality. The fact is that most of our physical theories and metaphors to describe the world of “matter” have been progressively falsified and replaced by what appears to be immaterial probability waves, atoms and quarks that are invisible, bi locational, non locational, timeless, unmeasurable and collapse at the wave function during measurement due to the observer effect suggesting that consciousness not “matter” is fundamental to reality in some way.
The idea that neuroscience has explained away consciousness and free will is quite an extraordinary statement in that it completely inverts the natural direction of inference: normally, one infers the unknown from the known, that is consciousness is the only thing we really know, not the known from the unknown, that is the theoretical abstraction of the mind known as “matter”. No one knows what “matter” actually is.
(Scientism:
“an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities (Merriam Webster Library definition). You suggested that you believed in determinism but do you really believe Hitler had no free will and choice as he was just determined by “matter” so he was not responsible and accountable for the orders he gave that led to the mass genocide of millions of innocent men women and children ? The materialists blind devotion to the Gods of determinism, empiricism, falsificationism and quantifiability leaves them blind to the elephant in the room condemning their myths to hollowness. ❤️
@Van Smack
“A quick look through a telescope at our chaotic universe would dispel any superstitions about fine tuning“
Again you’re using a scientism and materialism of the gaps fallacy in order order to present a false dichotomy. “Materialism is incomplete even as a theory of the physical world, since the physical world includes conscious organisms among its most striking occupants”
(Thomas Nagel). Empirical science can only infer because ultimately it is the logic contained in philosophy that provides “proofs” as such. Equally, the written code of conduct and the Hippocratic oath of ethics that nurses and doctors promise to uphold is littered with philosophical terminology and concepts that are based on metaphysical that is philosophical concepts. These codes of conduct were developed to protect patients from mad scientists, protecting human rights, promoting positive patient and health care professional relationships that are outside the explanatory power of the natural “sciences”. These life saving concepts are based on philosophical concepts such as altruism, empathy, compassion, respect and the right to life. None of which can be helpfully explained by the natural sciences without reaching an absurdity or an unhealthy conclusion such as rapists and murderers are not responsible or accountable for their actions evil acts. Nevertheless, science and philosophy are not mutually exclusive as they actually complement each other. It is perhaps interesting that objective analysis determines consciousness as an illusion of the brain, and subjective analysis determines the brain as an illusion within consciousness. Perhaps we will find that the truth is somewhere between the two
However, the fact is that “science” is meaningless and purposeless and even dangerous and harmful without altruism, common decency, compassion, integrity and a “philosophy of care”. The common assumption or claim that these aspects of morals and ethics are presupposed and are just social convention as they can’t be grounded in metaphysics. that is the sanctity of life, mind and consciousness is based on an assumption that materialism and the natural sciences can adequately describe all aspects of reality.
The fact is that the logic that science is founded on is actually itself presupposed by scientists. To argue different is to argue in a circle as you can’t empirically prove logic with science. Nevertheless, only the logic contained in philosophy can demonstrate “proofs” about reality as science can not provide “proofs” as such as it can only infer and is provisional. Equally, the brilliant mathematician Kurt Godel demonstrated with his incompleteness theorems that all knowledge is incomplete and is ultimately founded on (faith) in something you can not empirically prove. Godels work demonstrated the existence of something that is unlimited and absolute, fully rational and independent of empirical science possibly platonistic and clearly non mechanistic. The fact is there are things that are true that can not be empirically demonstrated. Science is based on faith and a subjective point of view.
“Observation is always selective. It needs a chosen object, a definite task, an interest, a point of view, a problem. And its description presupposes a descriptive language, with property words; it presupposes similarity and classification, which in their turn presuppose interests, points of view, and problems”
(Karl Popper). Can we empirically prove and verify that it is meaningful to state that “genocide is objectively wrong” and can this statement be falsified? I think what is meaningful is the statement that Materialism is incomplete even as a theory of the physical world, since the physical world includes conscious organisms among its most striking occupants.
“As an explanation of the world, materialism has a sort of insane simplicity. It has just the quality of the madman's argument; we have at once the sense of it covering everything and the sense of it leaving everything out”
(G.K. Chesterton).
The fact is that the natural sciences/empirical science can not demonstrate whether “Materialism”, the belief that matter is fundamental to reality, is any more plausible than “Idealism”, the idea that mind is fundamental to reality, and will never be able to falsify either. In physics the foundations of Materialism and Idealism are untestable. According to Aristotle “no science proves its first principles”. When “new atheists” claim they are a materialist they have left behind the natural sciences and are doing metaphysics. Similarly, when claiming Materialism has explained away consciousness, altruism, love, meaning and purpose “new atheists” are unwittingly doing metaphysics very naively. This statement by the eminent philosopher and scientist David Chalmers speaks volumes.
“Materialism is a beautiful and compelling view of the world, but to account for consciousness, we have to go beyond the resources it provides” (David Chalmers)
Similarly, Alvin Plantinga suggests that If you believe that evolution and naturalism is a complete explanation of reality then you have a reason to doubt your faculties are reliable”. Alvin Plantingas conclusions echo the doubts of Darwin “but then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind” (Charles Darwin). Interestingly, the eminent atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel also shared these concerns in his fascinating book (Mind and Cosmos) and comes to the controversial but logical conclusion that “the Materialist Neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false”. Nagel argues very eloquently that because consciousness is associated with biological structures developing through evolution, then the current materialist version of evolutionary biology must be fundamentally flawed. Equally, the cosmological history, the origins of life, the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history. An adequate conception of nature would have to explain the appearance in the universe of materially irreducible conscious minds and no neuro biologists worth his salt would claim we have explained away consciousness.
It’s not surprising that the brilliant philosopher Alvin Plantinga stated that “there is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and theistic religion, but superficial concord and deep conflict between science and naturalism” (Alvin Plantinga).
No it doesn't. Fine tuning is likely not a thing, those values could not have been other than they are.
rstevewarmorycom wrote, "No it doesn't. Fine tuning is likely not a thing, those values could not have been other than they are."
Have you ever read this statement by Nobel laureate Arno Penzias?
_"[Dr. Arno Penzias said,] it seems to me that the data we have in hand right now clearly show that there is not nearly enough matter in the universe, not enough by a factor of three, for the universe to be able to fall back on itself ever again. My argument… is that the best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole." [Malcome W. Browne, "Clues to Universe Origin Expected." New York Times, March 12, 1978]_
Dan
Highly recommend all read the 2nd Psalm...
why?
@@sebastianschulz6531 You can read it for yourself. Don't have a Bible? Look it up online- just type "Psalm 2".
And Pslam 19.
And psalm 22. Written 1000 years after christ.
This Psalm is interesting:
_"[The Lord] covered [the earth] with [water] as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. At your rebuke [the waters] fled; at the sound of your thunder they took to flight. The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass, so that they [the waters] might not again cover the earth." -- Ps 104:6-9 ESV_
That simple passage explains all geological anomalies found throughout the earth.
Dan
Wonderful talk and discussion!
It’s all spiritual and we, Christians, live by faith and we are saved by grace. To the atheists out there, you are still loved but unfortunately we all have to stand before God, our Creator, when we die on earth. Just remember this, you know the wind is there but you cannot see it or know where it goes, per Jesus’s words. You know. You have a choice and I pray you will choose to know that God exists and you repent and go to His kingdom forever with us. 🕊❤️
*It’s all spiritual and we, Christians, live by faith and we are saved by grace*
Hmmm, and yet the most christian nations are some of the most violent, up there with the worst of islamic nations, with the highest crime figures, especially sex crimes, and the highest drug dependency figures.
You don't have to believe me, just look it up for yourself.
*To the atheists out there, you are still loved but unfortunately we all have to stand before God, our Creator, when we die on earth*
And likewise, we don't hate you for being christian, we just wish you'd stop making unproven thinly veiled threats about what's going to happen to us after we die. We don't believe you, so it just makes you look spiteful and divisive.
*Just remember this, you know the wind is there but you cannot see it or know where it goes, per Jesus’s words*
So weather exists therefore god? that's a bit lame.
*You have a choice and I pray you will choose to know that God exists and you repent and go to His kingdom forever with us*
What makes you so sure you're going to heaven? I've never yet met a christian who lives completely by the dictates of the bible. You all seem to feel entitled to filter your lords words through your own personal moral compass, placing your own values above those of your god. At least atheists have the courage of their convictions, if i was a supreme being i'd be more inclined to respect someone who didn't believe i exist but leads a moral life anyway over a person who believes i exist but only obeys out of fear of retribution, and even then only partially.
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
Gandhi
@samanthawhang7498
*I bet if we take a poll in prison there won’t be many people who are “on fire” for God*
Yep, Pew research have done that poll, roughly 70% of the US prison population are christian, made up by 50% protestant and 20%catholic. Another 28% are religious by other denominations, and just under 2% are atheist.
*It is not a threat - we all die and we all face judgment*
So we're made sick and commanded to be well. How perverse.
*Just like when we say we will pray for you, that is an act of love*
Thanks but i don't need you to mumble for me, try mumbling for amputees, let me know how you get on.
*Do you think you just disappear when you die?*
Of course not that would be silly, we're either worm food or ash and smoke.
None of us existed for billions of years before we were born, we're here for a bit then we go back to not existing again. Just like everything else in the universe, i don't see the problem with that. It's only the religious who are arrogant enough to think that now they're here they own the universe forever.
*Or that hell isn’t real?*
Could you tell me where it is?
*You should hear from those who have died and gone to hell*
I don't hear dead people
*Why would you want to even risk it?*
For all you know you're pissing god off every time you pray to the wrong god anyway.
*But the good news is that your sins have already been paid for by Christ*
So how does that work exactly? God gives birth to himself to sacrifice himself to himself for something i'm going to do thousands of years later?
If i do the crime, and someone else does the time, i'm still the criminal. If he's omnipotent, why not just not make criminals?
*The thing is that atheists generally want to live by their own rules*
And the religious want everyone to live by theirs.
*They don’t want to be told that they’ve done anything wrong or are living a sinful life*
Do you like being told that you're living wrong? you don't agree, right? why then should an atheist agree with you?
*They want to be their own god*
errr, atheists don't think god exists, that includes themselves.
*They lack humility*
Oh the irony!!
I suggest the hubris is with the religious. They think they're right about absolutely everything, including how the universe began, without a shred of evidence for any of it.
*I just listen to how angry, dismissive, and arrogant atheists are, and it reaffirms my belief that it’s not good to be one*
And vice versa. However i'm not the one telling you how to live and how sh*t you are.
Just such a joy of logic
This is what I love. Thanks. Ppl need something to believe in to follow the line of good living. God , the universe n Science
At 35:40 he mentions flipping a coin and estimating the chances of its landing on its side. This actually happened for me and this other kid in Mrs Connors "Math Dynamics" class. We sat around flipping coins and counting the distribution. It never happened again. Of course now I wish we had it on video.
Yes it landed on its side I believe you. But was it heads or tails?
@@frederickbowdler1509 That's the point. It was neither. By the "side" I mean the narrow edge of the coin.
10^77 that number proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Intelligent Design is the only answer.
You're gonna have to give more details about that claim otherwise it looks a whole lot like 1st rate bullshit.
@@TheMattyPoppins cry
@@TheMattyPoppins See, for instance, Mathematical models provided by Robert Sauer of MIT
I was an evolutionist, until I found out there was another side. When I grew up, I believed in God, but never heard of terms like Intelligent Design or Creation Science. Evolutionists have done a great job of hiding them.
Funny how away from the swivel eyed nut jobs in America, that only something like 3% of the boys & girls in *SERIOUS* mainstream science & in particular in these fields under discussion are believers in secular, advanced Western Europe!
@@pup1008 This is one of the problems with evolution. No is allowed to question it. So people go along with it, for fear of peer pressure. Normally consensus is the first argument evolutionists make. They say they have the band wagon on their side. But what they don't tell you is that they rigged the system to produce that outcome. By fighting in court to ensure evolution is the only theory to be taught, and then firing any scientists who don't believe it, that creates a false consensus. Then that becomes their proof.
@@McLovin_2007
There's billions of people & billions of $'s that bat for your side dude. I think it has little to do with any ridiculous conspiracy theory & a lot to do with it all being nonsense!
You had your day in court with *Dover V Kitzmiller* which was actually presided over by a Christian judge!
What? It all started with Creationism, and then they changed it to ID to try to give it a less religious spin; basically marketing. And I've been hearing about Creationism/ID forever, decades, so where have you been? No one is trying to "hide" it, but because it's not science, an evolutionary biologist dismisses it out of hand. And you can find many of these evolutionists arguing against it here and there, much to their chagrin (they just find it a waste of time).
@@McLovin_2007
Did you want to get back to us on any of that God Boy?
Eric Metaxas does a good job of helping us flesh out Dr Meyer's thoughts for us. Very helpful.
To God be the Glory.
Just came across Dr Myers work thru one amazing video where he and 2 other scientists Debunk Darwinism..and ultimately show that they science that we are created with a design...and evidence points to a creator...that is God..
Yeah, because a youtube video with two dudes talking is how science works, right?
May I direct you two other dudes who debunk a spherical earth? Or to a big foot video? Or cows abducted by aliens? Where does your gullibility end?
@@Z4r4sz oh how wonderful you are advising me to check out where u get your knowledge from no thank you whoever you are..keep your knowledge base updated it will do you good... And for me don't worry RUclips or not I know whom I listen to these are not some random guys on street who to gimmicks like those guys u watch..they are well accomplished learned scientist..which I don't think you even can perceive what they are saying and hence your ingnorence ... please go watch some dog chasing videos...go on
@@deepz513 I get my knowledge from places where the use of proper sentences and scientific standards is the norm.
*_"they are well accomplished learned scientist"_*
Thats why they dont publish in credible science journals, created their own fake journals, sell their "research on amazon and havent provided a single application so far? Thats not the definition of "accomplished scientist". Sounds like every other fraudster who pretends to be a scientist and blames the inability to produce actual research on "the grand conspiracy among scientists" like flat earthers, chemtrailers and similar moronic groups.
Be glad that there are people who challenge your ignorance.
So refreshing. I think algorithms are a major factor as well. Patterns are everywhere
Bravo for such a well thought argument !
Are there really 30 people who do a thumbs down on this? Guess there will always be naysayers no matter how good something is.
I think they're just trolls.
Atheists REGULARLY fill comments sections, with (attempted) counter-arguments & thumb down the video. I've seen it happen AGAIN & AGAIN. It reminds me of the book of Acts, in which unbelievers would CONSTANTLY try to contradict solid Christian truth. "They began to contradict what Paul was saying and heaped abuse on him" (Acts 13:45).
@@LoveYourNeighbour. attempted counter arguments? How many times has Meyer attempted to present this stuff to an actual audience of scientists? Here's a clue- it's a non negative integer strictly less than 1.
Meyer is hopeless.....
@@brianlamptey4823 or rather than trolls- people who see Meyer for the lying charlatan he is, people who value intellectual integrity, people who respect the scientific method.
@@mcmanustony Let's say he was lying, what outside of a collective subjective opinion would make him wrong?
68,000 views and over 1.4k comments. Support this channel, each time you comment is also another view added. Meyers info is growing and this channel is blowing up. More comments needed. YT is seeing so much activity on creation channels.
Mostly laughter at how stupid they are.
Alex North why so upset? We each have our beliefs. No worries.
@@ds525252 Yeah, if evolution is true, there are no absolutes, no true rights or wrongs, everything is relative, it's all good, eh. or, it's all, so-so, or, it all just is...So, why all the moral level of outrage if someone has a different interpretation of the evidence? Why the need to use insults, sarcasm, smugness and superiority?
Karen Clements I don’t get it either.
hahaha...
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1
Thank You Father for being so awesome and kind!
In the beginning, universe creating Pixies made the universe
From the book "universe creating Pixies"
Thanks you Pixies for creating the universe
Grow up....
@@sodaht2296 Do you have a single thought that supports your irrelevant beliefs ?
@@studygodsword5937 it was simulating intelligence
The theory of undirected evolution is already dead, but the work of science continues.
this is utter nonsense.
Keep going brother Kent!! The family and I are loving this study in 1 Samuel. God bless you and yours!
People still throwing insults online and defaming Meyer. The work is scientifically rigorous (to anybody with half a background in science), and there is an atypical silence from evolutionary biologists. All I hear from the same vocal people demanding "facts" are insults. Hard not to stifle a chuckle when all the trolls can do is try clog up the comment sections, and draw people who actually listened into a fruitless online debate to demoralise them. Facts are on the other foot, and they've got that foot in their mouths. :D
It's funny how in over a decade his argument literally hasn't changed by a word. Either he is an absolute fool who clings to an obviously fallacious argument or no legitimate contention has been raised. With all the insults, it's pretty clear. Intelligence begets intelligence
@@AcidAdventurer I've been listening to him since his best seller Signature In The Cell, a DECADE ago... So I know what you mean Nathan!
I've seen it happen OVER & OVER again... Skeptics flocking to good Christian videos, and then bombarding people with ad hominem attacks & insults. I'm not saying they ALWAYS do that. But it's definitely a common occurrence.
@@LoveYourNeighbour. I think the anger behind the vitriol is a common emotional response to having to confront the existence of a Creator. This confrontation might rock some worldviews that don't like to be rocked. Some, such as our "skeptic" friends, like to feel as though their beliefs (or disbeliefs) are guided by reason, but more often times than not, it's guided by our temperament unfortunately. When excuses run out and reason guides them opposite to what they intended to believe, the obvious target of attack becomes the source of that reason...like Mr. Meyer himself and everything associated with it.
There are 2 facts about human existence that materialists can NEVER explain:
1. Evidence of the mind is manifest in our _questioning_ whether the mind exists.
2. Stupidity is the best indictment of Darwinian evolution: after supposed millions and billions of years evolution still has not weeded out the biological trait of _stupidity,_ and hence we get evolutionists! 🎉🎉🎉
Would it kill you to open a fucking biology book?
@@mcmanustony Will it kill you to brush your teeth? 🎉🎉🎉
@@pj_ytmt-123 I can see you’ve studied this subject in depth and are well placed to offer your insights…..
@@mcmanustony So, would you care to share your extensive knowledge and valuable insights to address the 2 points listed above? 😄
Not accurate. 1. The hard problem is equally hard for theistic theory of mind, if I understand it correctly. And more importantly 2. The fact that evolution has not converged upon hyper intelligence is itself evidence that that trait is not adaptive, and I think this is somewhat apparent to the casual observer today
Science and Observational Instrumentality will eventually mature to the point where Scientists are looking directly into the eye of God.
Dr. Meyer's defining question here is: "How do you get chemistry to produce code?"
If you're really so stupid that you don't know that, then go take a course in Evolutionary genetics. All of us who have taken the course ALREADY DO know!! Listen, dumbass: Boltzmann, Von Neumann and Shannon already proved that information comes into the world by random processes when constrained by selection pressures. We know this in genetics as mutation, and Natural Selection. Various types of copying errors in DNA replication can flip bits in the data, so to speak, or duplicate genes or whole chromosomes, and grow the genome and alter it over generations. You yourself have over 100 mutations from the genome your parents gave you. You are different, and your children and descendants will be ever MORE different. Natural Selection will control what survives to breed. THAT is how chemistry can write it's own code, so to speak, since it isn't really code. It is the contents of the chemical state machine that builds your body. Meyer doesn't seem to have ever learned any of this shit, he denies it happens, which makes him the stupidest author alive on the subject. He has NO scientific credentials, he is a religious philosopher, he has NO training in Science AT ALL!!
@@rstevewarmorycom Rational discussions do not start off with insults. You qualified the level of your narrow-mindedness with these comments:
“If you're really so stupid” “Listen, dumbass:”
You memorized unproven hypothesis and took the test to pass “Evolutionary genetics.” Good for you, your rant still does not explain how chemicals can produce DNA. You are listing unproven hypotheses and calling it proven facts.
“Boltzmann, Von Neumann and Shannon already proved” How, cite their evidence, not their hypothesis. “that information comes into the world by random processes when constrained by selection pressures.” Not true, this is unproven speculation and hypothesis, has it been replicated in the lab?
“We know this in genetics as mutation and Natural Selection.” Again, only hypothesis and speculation.
“Various types of copying errors in DNA replication can flip bits in the data, ‘so to speak,’ or duplicate genes or whole chromosomes, and grow the genome and alter it over generations.” ‘so to speak:’ is a form of speculation just like “may have’ ‘scientist think.’
Good boy, you passed the professor's test, but did you learn critical thinking for yourself?
“You yourself have over 100 mutations from the genome your parents gave you. You are different, and your children and descendants will be ever MORE different.” This is not evidence of “Natural Selection,” it is however evidence of DNA through heritage.
“THAT is how chemistry can write it's own code,” LOL.
“so to speak,” “since it isn't really code.” Shows you don’t know what DNA is or does. Why don’t you look up
“Meyers” credentials before you say dumb stuff about him like “ He has NO scientific credentials.”
You brought nothing to this discussion except an angry narrow-minded rant.
@@sherwoodsteele9698
If you knew anything you'd know that RNA strands form spontaneously from nucleotides in solution on Montmorillonite clays. You'd also know that the RNA nucleotides ACGU form spontaneously in the presence of the right gases in solution when drying and rehydrating occur. You'd also know that lipid micells form spontaneously and engulf these RNA strands and protect them. We've also seen them do things in lab, some few can replicate, and some others act as ribozymes and can build proteins,.
Now, if you are an unknowledgeable DUMBASS and don't KNOW any of these things, then stop complaining about being told you're a dumbass and go get educated on the subject BEFORE you claim to KNOW shit about shit!! Yes, Boltzman, Von Neumann and Shannon proved this mathematically a century ago!! Yes, we SEE DNA mutating and gaining information in lab AND in the field ALL THE TIME!! And it was also been proved by computer simulation. Real new useful information WRITES ITSELF in the right circumstances!! When your particular opinion relies on you being ignorant of a number of things, it MEANS your particular opinion is WRONG!!
@@rstevewarmorycom You have nothing but arrogance and insults. You did not answer how random chemicals can some how magically produce DNA code.
@@rstevewarmorycom Wrong statement, Computers have not been able to randomly produce DNA algorithms without human interaction it has been tried and did not work. See for your self: ruclips.net/video/noj4phMT9OE/видео.html
This makes me want to read all dr meyer's books
@40:24 "But the question is, is it more likely that a random search would succeed or fail? And we can show conclusively that it's more likely that it will fail. And, therefore, the idea that natural selection plus random mutation is the means by which new information is generated is also more likely to be false than true. And in science we prefer not to have 'more likely to be false' hypotheses and we prefer to have 'more likely to be true' hypotheses."
John Patmos Dr. Meyer is actually being quite modest in this statement. Given the total amount of carbon atoms in the universe, the required complexity of DNA, RNA and proteins in the proper primary, secondary, tertiary and quartenary arrangements the chance that even one proper sequence given 15 billion years is much less that 1 in 1 to the 10th power.
@@haroldgroff2100 one to the tenth power equals... one, sir.
From everlasting. No beginning and no ending. God is outside of time and space.
And you know this how?
@@ukcadjockey He said so in Genesis, and he would have to be to create a universe.
@@paulchristian8271
*He said so in Genesis*
Ah ok, where?
*and he would have to be to create a universe*
Do you know how to create a universe?
@@ukcadjockey I mean humans can't create anything in a sense
@@alpacamaster5992
*I mean humans can't create anything in a sense*
I honestly can't see how that relates to anything previously said in this thread. I'll take that as you looked in genesis and it doesn't say anything that relates to your initial post at all.
A criminal can't find a policeman for the same reason most folks can't accept Jesus the Christ.
Policemen exist in reality, the idea of Jesus only exists in a primitive bronze age book of Mythology
@@joefriday2275 proof is in math... You clearly have no clue what you're talking about 😅
@@logicalatheist1065 well ok what ever you think but at least get the bronze age right. The Romans were the iron age.
@@imout671 The Abrahamic God is a product of the Bronce age.
I LOVE LOVE LOVE THE, for me, bottom line where Eric states there are actually scientists who are positing other universes with absolutely NO EVIDENCE. What a fun discussion in general.
Yes, atheistic scientists actually "believe" their own lies. But don't possess the integrity to admit that all of the evidence conclusively refutes their lies. The scripture that immediately leaps to mind is this:
2 Thessalonians 2:11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,
2 Thessalonians 2:12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
You are a brilliant man, Steve!
A lot of people are complete jerks to this man because he's brilliant and not a follower of the current worldview cult.
Kory Kent
Yep! Even the numbers can speak for themselves. Many claims about logic but none actually used.
The host has an incredible sense of humor. His rapour, punctuality, and emotional intelligence is always on point.
I have a difficult time accepting "design" outside of the paradigm of "creation"...I don't subscribe to the through process that more than suggests "primoradial" as a basis or platform for life. I believe that God in His wisdom and abilities is more than capable of having a "design" to everything He created. "1 Corinthians 14:33 - For God is NOT the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints." Yes, this passage is speaking of a different topic however, what stands regardless is "God is not the author of confusion". I use this in conjunction with John 1:3 "All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made." Hebrews 1:3 "He is reflection of God’s glory and the exact likeness of his being, and he holds everything together by his powerful word." All this "explaining" in my mind, is only man's attempt to understand how God did what He did . " In the beginning, God said"..
A lot of committed atheists here. They would deny God exists even if He were to stand before them and slap them in the face.
Eric, your humor is a connective positive force, thank you.
A perplexing difficulty that is a thorn in the side of evolutionists is the complexity of body organs such as the eye, the ear, the brain. All are staggering in their complexity, far more so than the most intricate man-made devices. A problem for evolution has been the fact that all of the various and extremely complex body organs have to work together for sight, hearing or thinking to take place. Such organs would have been useless until all the individual parts were completed. It is assumed that these immensely complex body organs evolved separately, slowly over millions of years to the point where they could become functional, working in concert with other immensely complex body organs which likewise evolved slowly over millions of years. So the question arises: Could the undirected, unintelligent, purposeless, and goaless element of chance that is thought to be a driving force of evolution have brought all these parts together at precisely the right time to produce such elaborate and unbelievably complex mechanisms? This concept flies in the face of reason. It’s ludicrous to think this is what took place. It takes more faith to believe in this than to believe in ID.
Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: “To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” Nearly two centuries have passed since then. Has the problem been solved? Absolutely and resoundingly the answer is No. On the contrary, since Darwin’s time what has been learned about the eye shows that it is even far more complex than he understood it to be. Thus Jastrow said: “The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better.” But of course, you think this all happened through undirected and without purpose chance.
Complexity is not a design indicator. Organized complexity is exactly what an iterative feedback process like evolution ought to produce. Nice quote mining of Darwin. He went on in that paragraph to explain how the eye could evolve, and it turns out he was right.
@@lizd2943 Complexity is not a design indicator? I don't agree. Depends on what side of eyeball your looking through Liz. When intelligent agents act they produce specified complexity. We know this because we understand that when intelligent agents act, they use choice. An essay by William Dembksi lays out in detail how we can understand the products of intelligent design by examining how designers work:
To see why CSI [complex-specified information] is a reliable indicator of design, we need to examine the nature of intelligent causation. The principal characteristic of intelligent causation is directed contingency, or what we call choice. Whenever an intelligent cause acts, it chooses from a range of competing possibilities. This is true not just of humans, but of animals as well as extra-terrestrial intelligences. A rat navigating a maze must choose whether to go right or left at various points in the maze. When SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) researchers attempt to discover intelligence in the extra-terrestrial radio transmissions they are monitoring, they assume an extra-terrestrial intelligence could have chosen any number of possible radio transmissions, and then attempt to match the transmissions they observe with certain patterns as opposed to others (patterns that presumably are markers of intelligence). Whenever a human being utters meaningful speech, a choice is made from a range of possible sound-combinations that might have been uttered. Intelligent causation always entails discrimination, choosing certain things, ruling out others. Given this characterization of intelligent causes, the crucial question is how to recognize their operation. Intelligent causes act by making a choice.
CSI is a reliable indicator of design because its recognition coincides with how we recognize intelligent causation generally. In general, to recognize intelligent causation we must establish that one from a range of competing possibilities was actualized, determine which possibilities were excluded, and then specify the possibility that was actualized. What's more, the competing possibilities that were excluded must be live possibilities, sufficiently numerous so that specifying the possibility that was actualized cannot be attributed to chance. In terms of probability, this means that the possibility that was specified is highly improbable. In terms of complexity, this means that the possibility that was specified is highly complex. All the elements in the general scheme for recognizing intelligent causation (i.e., Actualization-Exclusion-Specification) find their counterpart in complex specified information-CSI. CSI pinpoints what we need to be looking for when we detect design. (Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information by William Dembski)
Turns out Darwin was right when he said “To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
@@cusoon9908 You can disagree all you like, you're still wrong. We recognize design by artificiality, not complexity. The SETI people actually had to write an article making this point in response to IDists clumsy attempts to co-opt them. SETI is looking for very simple signals of the type we know don't occur naturally. CSI is gobbledegook and is not a concept used in information theory. What Dembski has never been able to accept is that for evolution's purposes it's the environment itself that makes the "choice" via natural selection.
And since you're still putting in a hard day down at the quote mine, allow me to provide the full quote:
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”
And he was of course right. Simpler eyes exist in organisms right now.
@@lizd2943 "CSI is gobbledegook and is not a concept used in information theory." Liz, what is a "theory"? Hmmm? Is a "theory" proven fact?
Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists' explanations and interpretations of the facts
So Liz you can disagree all you like. I'm not buyin' it Liz. In my opinion CSI is not, as you describe it "gobbledegook". In my opinion your definition of "information theory" is gobbledegook. You have your opinion and I have mine. Often scientists' explanations and interpretations of the so-called "facts" are incorrect. Facts and theories are two different things.
For example, we have not observed one kind of creature changing to another. We cannot repeat events in the past nor can we observe them. We cannot design a falsifiable experiment to prove or disprove that evolution happened in the past.
As is true of Darwin’s THEORY, so it is likewise true of the “information theory”. Both theories make claims that are not substantiated by the scientific method. They are based on assumptions about the past-assumptions that natural selection and mutations led to changes from one kind to another or the assumption that conditions and processes of the past were continually the same as we see today (uniformitarianism).
Evolution cannot and should not be classified under “operational science” because it is a philosophical framework one assumes when interpreting past events. For most evolutionists, and if I may assume about you, this philosophical framework involves naturalism and materialism-worldviews which teach reality consists only of matter and that scientific laws are sufficient to explain all phenomena. These philosophies are irrational because if they were true, one could never know they were true since the preconditions of intelligibility do not exist. Being based on these irrational philosophies rather than the scientific methodology, evolution is not an operational science. That is, if evolution happened, then we have no basis for laws of logic, uniformity of nature, and morality. Being based on these irrational philosophies rather than the scientific methodology, evolution is not an operational science theory, much less a scientific fact. However, the Bible provides the rationale for each of these preconditions. So evolutionists must steal from the biblical worldview in order to build their own position. Their position appeals to themselves-human ingenuity in making up a philosophical framework-as the ultimate authority (in effect, claiming to be God) when examining evidence of the past (Psalm 14:1; Romans 1:18-23).
@@cusoon9908 That's nice, but reality is not multiple choice. No one but Demsbki attempts to make use of CSI, and even he has admitted it can't be quantified.
We can most certain falsify evolution happening in the past. The classic example is finding fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian. Basically if the fossils violated faunal succession, evolutionary theory would be falsified.
The "operational science" versus "historical science" thing is a meaningless distinction made up by creationists. Evolutionary theory, like every other branch of science, doesn't take the supernatural into account one way or the other. All science operates via methodological naturalism while taking no position on philosophical materialism. Trying to paint evolutionary theory as some kind of atheist philosophy is especially silly when you consider that most theists accept evolution is real and most people who accept evolution is real are theists. That evolution occurs is an observed fact. The explanation of how it occurs is the theory. Your religious views are neither here nor there.
For anyone considering becoming a Christian, know that a lot of the common doctrines are not the only way of interpreting the Bible. Things like an eternal hell, or predestination... these things are debated much and there are good ways to see the concepts without differently without any trouble. God bless
No Jasen, "hell" is a real place, Jesus talked about quite often!!
Just a couple of examples:
Jesus Christ says in Matthew 25:41, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into EVERLASTING FIRE, prepared for the devil and his angels." In Matthew 13:42, Jesus says: "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." HELL IS FOREVER! All who enter hell - abandon all hope!
And the idea that scripture is open to iterpretation:
2nd Peter 1: 20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
So Jasen, you are not on par with biblical Christianity.
@@kellyclemensen3730 Isn’t what you are providing an interpretation of yours?
@@jasensargent6176 NO it isn't "interpretation" it is SCRIPTURE spoken by Jesus! Recorded in the first century by those that followed him, and it is the most well documented book of antiquity. So I have very little trust in some one coming along 2000 years later and telling that they have the real story. I believe back in the first century it was called Gnostic:
Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
Something you want to keep in mind Jasen, when speaking of God and his Son Jesus, if it is "new" it isn't true, if it is true, it isn't new.
@@kellyclemensen3730 I never said I disagreed with Jesus’ words. I’ve only said that you are presenting your own interpretation of those words. You can argue that any other interpretation is false, but why wouldn’t you think it’s still interpretation? All reading is interpretation. But there are no new and hidden interpretations, you are right. Scripture is clear about it’s final message. I think that the teaching of everlasting fire emphasizes the fact that the fire cannot be put out, and therefore will inevitably destroy it’s enemies. The scripture does not say that the souls of the wicked are everlasting, rather that the fire is everlasting.
@@jasensargent6176 Jesus says: "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
Jesus doesn’t only reference hell, he describes it in great detail. He says it is a place of eternal torment (Luke 16:23), of unquenchable fire (Mark 9:43), where the worm does not die (Mark 9:48), where people will gnash their teeth in anguish and regret (Matt. 13:42), and from which there is no return, even to warn loved ones (Luke 16:19-31). He calls hell a place of “outer darkness” (Matt. 25:30), comparing it to “Gehenna” (Matt. 10:28), which was a trash dump outside the walls of Jerusalem where rubbish was burned and maggots abounded. Jesus talks about hell more than he talks about heaven, and describes it more vividly. There’s no denying that Jesus knew, believed, and warned about the absolute reality of hell.
Jasen, if the "worm" doesn't die, then neither will those sent there.
Jasen, if you are not very comfortable with Hell, you and me agree 100%. But it is our duty to tell those that are questioning that it really does exist, and it isn't a place that you want to spend even a moment in. Accept the offer of grace, made by God in the flesh and come to the knowledge of salvation. I
It is the best free gift you will ever receive.
Prof Father Lefavre (a Priest, Prof) was the one who actually mathematically showed the expanding universe.. Hubble gets to much credit..
Lemaître
Damnit!!
Stephen meyer is so good 😊
What at? Lying to adults with a view to getting a crack at lying to their children? He wants science education replaced with fundamentalist dogma. He has so far failed. Long may it continue.
@@mcmanustony bro are you seriously following me this is literally the third or fourth time you've been replying my comments with your stupid arguments. Stop it please.
Why is Wikipedia allowed describe Intelligent Design as Pseudo-Science?
@@ivorfaulkner4768 because it's made by people like you
@@ivorfaulkner4768 For the same reason it describes the earth as round. "Intelligent Design" was concocted to get around the law after Edwards v Aguillard prohibited the teaching of creationism in school science classes.
It just IS pseudo science- refuted and rejected by the relevant scientific disciplines. It collects no data, makes no testable hypotheses, no predictions.....NO SCIENCE.
The universe is constantly evolving….part of the brilliance of God’s Plan….time is nothing but eternal
Which god?
@@joefriday2275 you never have anything intelligent to say 😂
@@logicalatheist1065 the god that logically and rationally aligns with reality.
It must make certain commenters here uncomfortable when they discount all of Meyer’s argument by saying the magic word science without actually dealing with the science Stephen is explaining. They are actually invoking a religious argument based on their belief system, Darwinism, without dealing with its flaws. Theirs is now the faith-based argument.
Bush Tick science is a magic word. It’s amazing and it’s true. The entire Scientific community once said the world is flat without a doubt, only idiots said it was round back then, all the text books showed a flat earth then poof like magic.... you know the rest.
Bush Tick even Aron Ra who is among my 4 favorite Atheists says Darwinism has been updated.... short version. *Modified. Thanks for your comment. I’m saying that as a believer of God. I’m stating the theory is already on it’s way out..
Sure, sure...
Alex North 👍✔️
There simply MUST be a force of some kind out there that resists God (or the notion of God) at every turn. I mean, the great lengths that science (so called) and the media, and education etc. go to, to ensure that materialism is the ONLY option, irregardless of the evidence is stupefying.
Irregardless 💀
Sadly we are that force, God gave us free choice and this is what a lot of people used it for.
@@Daily-PE - I’ve been wondering that too. Free will means we get to choose.
The only force that resists God is called people. Those who tune in to educational videos like this and instead of learning, critique and judge on a subject that their heart shuts down
@@ashrichman9956 - I see that point and consider it…but there seems to me to be something else that seeks to lure people away from the truth.
According to the Journal of the American Medical Association - Psychiatry, people who place a high importance of religion in their lives have thicker cerebral cortices.
Thicker cerebral cortices in individuals is positively associated with higher intelligence.
If only that were the case... None of you demonstrate intelligence
@@joefriday2275 believing a bronze age mythology book to be true only makes your intelligence primitive.
You're scientifically illiterate, science goes over your head
@@joefriday2275 LMFAO, dreamer.
An atheist would be more intelligent in the long run, less bullshit to believe...
You think magic is an answer, no intelligence detected with you...
@@joefriday2275 Great way to concede before making a total fool of yourself.
You never had it in ya.
unfortunately you're scientifically illiterate :-/
@@joefriday2275 You're delusional
I see a few people in the comments mock Meyer, but they can never give a straight answer as to why he should be mocked-except for ridicule and generic “there is no evidence for ID.” The anger and mockery from atheists should be the clearest indicator of the truth of the matter.
@@walkergarya Thank you for making my point.
@@walkergarya thank you, once again, for driving home my point!
But the actions of overzealous religious persons are only attributable to the individual, not gods fault or failure of proof-of-concept?
People with a materialistic world view adhere to there beliefs withe religious fervor and dogma.
There is no ANGER, this is in our mind only ! You can practice your faith in all tranquility ! Same for the one billion and half people, from the Islamic faith ! And, the hundred and hundred of other religions in the world, which all believes they have the True GOD ..
The principle that convinced me of the fallacies of evolution is called Murphy's Law. Yes, given enough time, incredibly organized events can happen - but at the same time, there are destructive processes also at work. The higher the order of organization in something gets, the slower additional advancements proceed, but the more likely destructive events occur.
Excellent point! So factual!
Thomas Coffin Do you really believe that Thomas? Prove to me how the brain creates consciousness. You can’t. Nor can any scientist, so until then, stop acting like that’s true
Apex Funny Moments 👍
Thomas Coffin .... honestly no argument I’m learning by hearing different points. Please be patient and I promise I won’t counter (truly just listening on this subject☮️). If I died of a bad heart valve and surgery was done to repair the valve and modern medicine got my physical body working, I would not function because my spirit (mystical, non tangible, invisible, unmeasurable) has left my body, is that the one time we have to believe there is something more than what can be scientifically known?. I’m saying if modern medicine made everything perfect again except my soul. Could the soul be a unique situation to science? Again I have no set up or plan. You or someone could have a very good explanation👍. *I used the terms spirit and soul but any word works it’s just what came to mind.
Thomas Coffin how do you feel the death example works. Can a physically sound body fixed by modern medicine function with a controlling entity (the person) I’m trying to not use the term soul or spirit.
Enjoy this video, because RUclips will someday remove this for being "hate speech".
No chance, itll be in the comedy header under the tragedy section.
do you have hobbies other than victim posturing?
@Electro_blob 2 What a stupid hopeless comment. There a countless videos of Stephen Meyer peddling his drivel on RUclips. He is not censored and neither is that simpering clown Metaxas. I've watched enough that I can do his schtick in my sleep: "inside the cell we see miniature machines with complex digital information inside the nano-technology with Darwin's historical scientific method inside the cell machine code complex machines inside the cell digital code with complex information inside the cell in the remote past Darwin's historical scientific method inside the cell......blah blah...."
They are victims of their own weak minds- nothing more.
@Electro_blob 2 not sure what that is supposed to mean.
@Electro_blob 2 Spare me.....Meyer has open access to social and other media to spread his lies about science. I think fanatical Christian zealots like Meyer, aided by self important sycophants like Metaxas, trying to gut science education and replace it with fundamentalist dogma is a big enough issue.
He is not a scientist and never has been. He is however, dangerous.
I would appreciate if Stephen Meyer might expand on the "so what." What direction does a theistic hypothesis take us; what can it mean for understanding and pragmatic application.
Mr. Meyers answer this question at minute 00:54 in the video: ruclips.net/video/QiDmtDuMHSc/видео.html .
@@raggedyman2257 His answer to the question how to test intelligent design is "intelligent design offers a better explaination of the facts". This is not a method. Its just babbling.
It's always great to hear Stephen. Design should be called "no brainerology"
lmao. Can't tell if IDer or critic.
@@jiin5993 Intelligent Design, also design requires intelligence to be design. Stephen is making the scientific, official, case for ID which is the only case that has evidence.
I've even spoken to him personally.
I've never seen an "imperfect" flower, they are all a miracle taking place under our very own eyes. We don't understand anything, much less such a display of phenomenal CREATION and somehow there are so many who "want to be as gods" and replace the True God with their own egos. God, please, put an end to this nonsense.
That's because the imperfect flower dies before you get to see it.
@@3dmaster205 I meant an imperfect kind of flower, of course there are imperfections on this or that flower, but you don't get to see an ugly, or a disgusting or crooked flower. Take animals: beauty is to be seen everywhere. Take nature: same thing (even sand dunes are beautiful, compare them to human habitat). If this world were the result of chaotic evolution, surely it would be chaotic, don't you think? Apart from the fact that it becomes ever more difficult to explain the origin of life. Darwin can be forgiven if he thought life could just evolve, a man from a toad, a giraffe from a fish, etc. But nowadays, the more scientific research allows us to understand the complexity of life, the less the chaos/random explanation becomes acceptable: it's like saying, build a bomb powerful enough to pulverize our whole galaxy, then come back in a few billion years and you'll find harmony, order, beauty, etc. ... because that's just the way "mother nature" works. Good luck with that.
"We don't understand anything". Speak for yourself.
Materialism died in 2015... science killed it.
Then why do I like my stuff, but not as much as the stuff I haven't gotten yet?
@@3tp because once you attain stuff it doesn't fill the void in your soul & you think the next batch of stuff will?
Brilliant!
I am a Muslim and I truly respect Dr Meyer he is wonderful and GOD is getting his work done trough this good man may the Almighty guides him and us to the right path, it’s mentioned in the holy Quran that ( we will show them our sings in the Horizons and within themself until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth ) And for those who see the signs and Still deny Quran also speaks of such ppl ( Deaf dumb and blind and they return not )
He talks verifiable nonsense. So does your book.
Pete Conrad , plz answer this if you truly believe in yourself and justice , 1400 years ago Quran says that the earth is geo circular and talks about earth sun and Moon rotating into their axis it talks about expanding universe it talks about finger prints it talks about embryology it’s talk about plants having males and female and it says we have created every living thing from water will you than not believe ? It has over 1000 verses which speak of science yet it’s is not a book of science it is a book of signs ,Tell me one scientist who was aware of these scientific fact 1400 years ago ??????? You made a claim of the book I believe in being nonsense plz reply
Pete Conrad like I said over 1000 verses which speak of science I only asked you if few , let see where you stand
ruclips.net/video/pJP129w84tk/видео.html
fake Scientific facts ??? You must be trump supporter first there was fake new and now you ppl have fake scientific facts too ? It’s just amazing to see ppl like you talk like this , Which one of the facts I mentioned are fake plz explain if not than you are one of those ppl of whom Quran speaks of ( Deaf dumb and blind and they return not ) , point out one fake Scientific fact ?????????????????