Canceled Science: Scientific Discoveries Some Atheists Don't Want You To See
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 апр 2022
- Eric Hedin, author of Canceled Science, explains how he was canceled by the scientific establishment and reflects on the lessons he learned during the experience. He also discusses scientific evidence which points to a Creator. This talk was presented at the 2022 Dallas Conference on Science and Faith in January 2022.
============================
The Discovery Science News Channel is the official RUclips channel of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research, sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information visit www.discovery.org/id/
www.evolutionnews.org/
www.intelligentdesign.org/
Follow us on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter:
Twitter: / discoverycsc
Facebook: / discoverycsc
Instagram: / discoverycsc
Visit other RUclips channels connected to the Center for Science & Culture
Discovery Institute: / discoveryinstitute
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer: / drstephenmeyer 
Наука
I'm not a Christian. However, I find myself siding with Christians on most things these days including science. After many years of going back and forth on this issue, I finally realized there's no conflict between faith and science.
Opened minded people are a joy to speak with even if they don't share the same beliefs. May I ask why you are not a Christian?
Perhaps we can look forward to having you join us sometime soon?
We were all "not a Christian" once.
Each of us has a story of how we came to believe and to trust in the Saviour Who now means so very much to us.
Perhaps one day you too will have such a story.
I truly pray so, my friend.
Science is science; knowledge. But there are those areas that people propagate as being science when they clearly are not.
Also faith isnt as blind as some may paint it to be.
Hebrews 11:1 (NASB)
"Now faith is the certainty of things hoped for, a proof of things not seen."
And then, some of us have moved from that point and actually _seen_ these things.
People, both atheists and believers, have a misconception about what faith is.
There is evidence that God exists and that He is the God of the Bible.
Don't " believe through faith ", investigate the evidence.
The Bible says " prove all things, hold fast that which is true. "
God doesn't expect or desire blind faith.
Faith is trust and confidence in someone, not believing without evidence.
We don't believe in God through faith, we have faith in God because we know He exists and what He promises.
We appreciate your patience and willingness to learn and change your mind.
I used to be an atheist as well, until i found the evidence.
Bill, you may not identify yourself as a Christian (yet), however, you are not far off from becoming one. And when you eventually make that decision, you will never look back at the hopelessness that atheism has to offer. Christ is coming soon.
Attend church, participate in a Bible study and form fellowship with believers.
While an undergraduate at MIT, many years ago. I vividly remember the professor explaining how difficult it was to compose a list of "random numbers" to use with computers.
After much contemplation, I came to the experiential conclusion that operational randomness in our Universe is non-existent.
The basis of evolutionary theory, random processes, is simply an unproven, unprovable theoretical construct.
Entropy increases randomness, this doesn't mean it's utterly unpredictable, but it's inherently destructive to structured/functional information by adding more and more noise over time as waste heat scatters, filling the vacuum.
What it is is unproductive to increase functional diversity in organisms (adaptive mutations), it almost universally just breaks functional genes, which can occasionally confer an advantage.
Wow.
That is fascinating.
Yuor clnoucsoin seems cercort. At heart randomness can be seen as an illusionary function. If you formulate an outcome based on unconscious physical activity, maybe the temperature of a square meter of air or water measured to the 100th decimal point coupled with the amount of atoms in that given space, and compare that figure with another square meter 5000 mi away in a direction that is determined by a 100 sided dice, and arrive a number from the comparison of the two, would you still have true randomness? After all the attributes of the combined measurements can be assigned by prior activity, from macro/ micro interactions to wave function. Perhaps it could be argued that conscious decision is actually closer to randomness than not.
Thank
lol
The big bang theory can be compared to the parts of a 747 aircraft being put together by a hurricane and being able to fly the aircraft with out an issue afterwards. People say it's possible but that's one heck of a what if? 😉
The more I learn about neurochemistry, inflammation and the complexity of signalling pathways, the more I simply could not believe that it all came about as a result of random processes.
2 out of 3 comments not showing..? RUclips is quite busy with censorship these days.
That’s good, because evolution doesn’t propose that it’s the result of purely random processes. I.D. wants you to believe otherwise, because they realize evolution is too intuitive and well-evidenced to be represented honestly.
I didn't even know that was a belief? Who believes everything comes from randomness, and what is that belief called. I'll look into it. I'm an atheist, but I'm always interested in new beliefs. Does the belief have a name?
That's an argument from incredulity which is just an argument from ignorance which you then solve by introducing magic which you think you understand more than rAnDoM pRoCeSseS hahahahaha
The darwinists on this thread can't agree amongst themselves whether life is the result of random process or not. One says darwinists doesn’t propose that it’s the result of purely random processes, another darwinist says it is the result of rAnDoM pRoCeSseS.
We need more great professors like you. As a biochemist I studied many things that clearly showed design. And not just design, but extraordinary design that caused awe and wonder. My friend who was an atheist said she had a hard time believing there wasn't a God after a graduate course about DNA replication.
Amazing thank you
At least your friend had an open mind, that’s not the case for a majority of atheists
Praise God!
@@jean-marclamothe8859 Jean-Marc, I agree with you. I have found arguments with atheists on line end with them becoming verbally abusive. They almost always do. Perhaps that is your experience too.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
@@jean-marclamothe8859 The God of the world has blinded them. A lot of times it’s pride and preconceived notions without actually understanding anything about Christianity. They group the other false religions with it instead of comparing evidence, they assume it’s all the same. Satans real goal is not to torture people on earth or possess them, but to keep them away from Christ at any means possible and make them dishonor God. If they never actually approach the subject with sincerity and without bias, then he’s done his job. Unfortunately, he’s successful more than he’s not.
As a high school physics teacher from Sweden I absolutely love this talk. Thank you for producing these
I really agree!!!...as a truthseeker from Sweden :)
@@evasmedberg3180 Really? He straight up made two assertions without any evidence in a minute starting here (30:00). One is low probability without giving how many attempts happened. The other is the universe is finite. Most physicists are unsure if it is or not.
@@stephenhousman6975 he's assuming that you understand the first and second law of thermodynamics. Based on those alone, there cannot be an infinite time for the universe.
@@SOMAnxg you may want to study the history of modern science. The scientific method was developed with the presupposition that there is a Creator God, described as a Law Giver, and being "made in His image" man can discover the Laws of Nature that He put in place. From Bacon to Newton, Maxwell to Pasteur and Lister, every major field of scientific study was started by someone "thinking God's thoughts after Him" until Hutton and Lyell who wanted to "free the science of Geology from Moses". If it weren't for them there would be no "science" as we know it today.
"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us for a while, full of grace and truth"
Thank you for your insight and explanation
When you read John 1:1-3 the newer translators have added a pronoun that does not belong.
Hebrew and Greek don’t have pronouns. It fact those two languages don’t have spaces between words, any punctuation, or chaptalization. Translators added even verses and chapters.
Nouns determine the gender. In John 1 the KJV has it right.
John 1:1-3 (KJV) 1 In the beginning was the Word, (logos=speech, concept, plan) and the Word (speech, concept, plan) was with God, and the Word (speech, plan, concept) was God.
2 The “same” (not he) was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In Genesis, God spoke and it happened. God is the word.
The New Testament writers gave warnings that there were false teachers even in their midst. That’s why there are so many different churches. Men have itching ears which causes multiple departures from bible truths.
John 17 explains the oneness between the Father, the son Jesus and his disciples. Three times in Jesus prayer he says that he was one with the Father just as the disciples are one. Jesus only spoke what his Father Jesus told him to to say, which was God’s word not Jesus’ word.
The Jews never believed that God was a triune entity. The Old Testament is the foundation for the New Testament so it has to be accurate.
Deuteronomy 6:4 (KJV)
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD:
Mark 12:32 (KJV)
And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
I won’t continue with all the other verses because of space.
And He went about doing good and healing people.
Proclamation of the Kingdom!
@@peggylivermore2613
How do you explain the Father is greater than the Son?
The trinity is false doctrine, the trinity and anything like it came out if babylon.
@@technicianbis5250 guess you are unaware of the pentateuch, which clearly shows the Trinity.
@@technicianbis5250 The Trinity is a dogma of the Faith. It was revealed to the Church by Christ, and it is not up for debate. If you place yourself above the Church and above Christ, then you are effectively creating your own religion, something that no one has any right or authority to do.
It is interesting that astronomy is threatening for some people when combined with asking philosophical questions. If people are interested in pursuing truth - asking questions should not be threatening but the starting point. Perhaps it indicates that for some, they believe people should rather listen and obey to their naturalistic doctrines than asking inconvenient questions. That the universities allow this kind of bullying is surprising. One would think that they had learnt something from Galileo.
in the world today the push is toward the truth being the enemy and must be reversed.
The universities don't merely "allow this kind of bullying" they overtly engage in it. The Ball State University administration set up the commission that "investigated" Dr. Hedin, and chose to fill it with rabid Darwinian ideologues.
The lies and deception form part of the global economy.
When truth conflicts with policy , when truth conflicts with what they want to believe , it's dismissed as there is no ultimate truth.
So what are you going to believe
Scientific theory , and secular policies , or revealed truth of religion
And facts that don't back up
Scientific theory or secular policy.
That GOD is the ultimate truth or that there is no ultimate truth.
There’s dogmatic thinking all over science. It’s just as bad there as it is in any religion, bar none.
For me, it’s not so much the fact that there are many more ways to go wrong than to create something functional but the fact that the chemistry and biology are exerting forces towards biological structures breaking down that I think is powerful to indicate that you can’t build life incrementally from chemistry. The analogy that you used of forming any atom with any number of protons and neutrons is possibly helpful here. In certain conditions elements with different numbers of protons and neutrons can be made but they are unstable and will quickly break down. A body when it dies will quickly break down. Keeping life going takes a precise, intricate system of error correction, regeneration and nurturing, which all must be present. It isn’t just like building an aeroplane in a junk yard with a tornado but it’s like adding a dye to the mouth of a river and expecting it to colour the water at the head of that river, against the flow.
All Truth passes thru 3 stages:
1. It is ridiculed.
2. It is violently opposed.
3. It is accepted as being self-evident. Schopenhauer
Fortunately, evolution theory is know arrived at step three.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 - He said 'Truth'.. which obviously precludes Darwinian Evolution.
Everything is self-evident of a Creator.
There’s always a 4th stage: reversal and denial. Truth loves to be questioned, but lies hate to be challenged.
It’s disgusting that colleges cannot even imply creation, or discuss these matters, yet courses about porn or any vile subject is embraced as fine subject matter.
That's communism infiltrating the schools just as they said they would... Without a single bullet fired here we are
What other vile subjects are embraced at colleges and universities? Which colleges and universities are they located?
reason for that:
their spiritual eyes are blinded by the god of this age - Satan. (Paul in Corinthians)
they are willingly ignorant - (Paul in letter to Romans)
They do not want to come to the Light lest their deeds are exposed - they love Darkness more than Light - (Jesus, John 3)
Could also imply morphing. God morphing into creation.
@@anthonymonge7815 I guess porn and woke-ism isn't perverted enough for you? How about politically left leans? Political correctness? Silencing the opposition? Oh I know... that's doesn't happen in your mind does it? One does not need to even get to college before these perversions take place. Grammar and high schools all across the world are now employing outcome based education. Oh and drag queens reading stories to our children against the parents will? Hmmm.
The more you look, the more you see and what you see is design
everywhere. I'm now looking at the design of my own life.
And finding it there, too.
Why can people so easily use the term “random processes?” By definition, a thing that is random is not a process.
Among the scientists who postulate spontaneous biogenesis, there are some who attribute it to chance and others to physical laws.
How is this contradiction explained?
In reality, this contradiction is only apparent and the product, in my opinion, of an epistemological confusion, since chance and physical law, far from excluding each other, correspond.
Physicochemical laws - the only ones acting before the appearance of life - are precisely based on chance, since they depend on the disordered or unpredictable movement of atoms and molecules,
which only obey the thermodynamic sense of the reaction and the law of large numbers.
If the atoms and molecules did not act randomly, the physicochemical laws would not act, their regularity depends precisely on their "perfectly" disordered behavior. So this regularity is probabilistic.
For the statistical calculation to be valid, it is essential that each and every one of the elements involved in a phenomenon to only obey chance. Otherwise it is impossible.
If we throw a coin on the ground a hundred times, we will get approximately 50% of each of
the faces. And this we can predict. It is scientific. Obeys laws.
But if the coin has some alteration that favors one of its sides - that is, it is not due to chance - then our calculation will not work.
If there were atoms and molecules that could somehow choose their own course of action, physical laws would not hold.
All scientific laws are statistical in nature, and are based on the assumption that atoms and molecules do not obey other laws than those of chance.
Therefore, to say that life originated by the action of the physical laws of the universe is - in terms of its mechanism - exactly the same as saying that it did so thanks to the random movement of atoms and
molecules.
exactly, even with "AI" the spooky words is based on what the programmer develops and inputs to create the intelligence to choose one or the other and based on some internal calculation for prime outcome, which doesn't always work(takes a lot of failures lol). Machine learning is the same way it teaches the experience and increases a better outcome, but still takes the programmer several testing and eventually debugging issues. We as humans if considered as machines would be the most expensive product you could buy, because of our sensory and "gut" decisions and the fact we run emission free in a sense haha either way the Father is a great designer and all credit goes to him and the son.
Exactly, Chaos theory
Well, one can have a seemingly random process. Though of course you are right, those people probably are confusing what is the case with what merely seems to be the case but which may in fact be completely different than that it seems to be.
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that human beings learn language by firstly reproducing language without having the faintest idea about its meaning.
The quantum mechanics that underlies everything in the world does indeed seem to be a random process. There have been numerous attempts to show that his is not so, and so far all have failed in experiment. Some argue that what appears to us to be random is where god can make a difference.
Thank you Dr. Hedin for your message! I was canceled at my public middle school in California because of how I taught my class. Now I'm teaching at a private Christian school in TN and loving it!
This kind of information makes a session on RUclips, with all its dark content, bearable and well worth it.
Try Dr James Tour
Any scientist who observes DNA and the structures of micro organisms KNOWS, if they are honest that there is a Grand Designer.
I think deep down they have reasons to not want anything higher than themselves to exist.
scoffing shuts down thought by a surge if pride, which says, "boy, are they stupid!"
KNOWS… that’s your opinion and interpretation of things. Doesn’t equal a fact of reality. It’s a cheap tactic when theists say “if they are honest”….because that is not honest at all. Because if you want to go that way….if theists were honest all we see are natural causes and events and no supernatural causes.
@@glenliesegang8935 Yes Satan's sin, Pride.
Any scientist, by profession, looks for provable and repeatable ways to explain something. A grand designer does not fit that bill.
@@therick363
Sir Roger Penrose, a member of the Order of Merit and a Fellow of The Royal Society, an English mathematical physicist and Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute of the University of Oxford and an Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College; who has received a number of prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics which he shared with Stephen Hawking for their contribution to our understanding of the universe and is renowned for his work in mathematical physics, in particular his contributions to general relativity and cosmology; calculated the odds of the universe forming as it is known today. In his book “The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics,” Sir Roger Penrose gives the odds at 1 in [(10^10)^128]. According to Penrose:
"This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in ordinary denary notation: it would be ‘1’ followed by 10^128 successive ‘0’! Even if we were to write a ‘0’ on each separate proton and each separate neutron in the universe - and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure - we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed."
"The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics" was written in 1989. Since then it has been discovered that there are billions or trillions more galaxies and thousands of planets in our galaxy have been discovered. Anyone familiar with calculating odds knows that the more variables you add to the calculation causes the odds to grow exponentially.
This is the ultimate expression of love, to share the truth for all to hear & continue to share when so many want to silence the truth. I really appreciate your light & love for people.
What a lovely testimony from a gentle and gracious man. Thank you!!❤
With all the detailed information available to us in this modern world, I am still somewhat amazed that more people are still blinded to the design and specialness of everything around us. The reality of our planet and the cosmos that surround us shows so much complexity and design that one should not doubt that it was created. But... many do. They have been deceived. A new telescope will further reveal this complexity and design and STILL they will deny.
They are brain washed by our schools
I'm assuming you're a creationist, so let me ask one thing. Do you believe there is anything in the observable universe that wasn't designed? Cus if not, then everything, regardless of complexity, or usefulness, was designed. Why do I need to look in the cosmos, shouldn't a lump of mud be proof of design. Or hell, literal poop. All designed.
Basically if this is true, your criteria for viewing design is just "it exists". A wee bit fallacious.
As a Christian interested in science, I'm sure you've been accused of being blinded by your faith. It's common for evangelistic atheists to do so. I humbly ask you to use this experience to see things from the perspective of one who does not see a creator in the mystery and majesty of the universe. We believe that we are also honestly seeking the truth as well and work diligently to keep from being deceived. We embrace evidence and are open to the prospect that we are wrong. We just don't see things the way you do, just as you don't see things the way we do.
Even if one came back from the dead, they would still doubt.
@@tardigrade8019 There is an astonishing level of design found within a clump of mud. But I believe you are referring to the shape of the clump.
A gentle refreshment and peacefully presented. Characteristics I hope to improve and grow into as I walk. Thank you for sharing this.
Uniformitarianism versus Catastrophism
That is the debate I want to see more of.
If you see the truth of the global flood stated in Genesis, you eliminate evolution and Uniformitarianism.
I have a question, was everyone and every land mammal except those on the Ark killed in the Flood?
Man, oh man, Mr. I didn't catch your name. Your presentation was like opening a jewelry box. Several amazing nuggets of truth! Truths I'll be using!The Lord richly bless your socks off, young sir!
I can see the love of Christ in you. May God bless you Professor for your good work and for your love for God.
Thank you for coming to Bucknell! GB!
Whenever people on one side of an argument try to cancel ideas and/or people from the other side by force, including political force (lawsuits, withholding tenure, and the like); they have not only lost, but they know they have lost, whether they will ever admit it or not. Any appeal to force to "win" an argument is an elementary mistake in logic, recognized since at least ancient Greek times.
False binary -- there are many explanations for nature in religion & folklore. A cross-cultural exploration of ancient explanations for the stars, moon & planets would be really interesting.
Yep. Yet pay attention to how many replies there are to a given comment on RUclips vs how many are visible. I bet the vast majority of those that don't show up are expressing views that question and oppose things like Darwinian Evolution, climate change alarmism, gender fluidity, etc.. So much for free speech.
I asked a question during an lgbtq training at work that all my coworkers agreed was fair and respectful regarding forced speech impeding on others beliefs. I didn’t mention Christianity and the instructor of this class slandered the name of Christians and said there are no two sides, his side is truth and nothing else matters. I was upset and thinking about how I should respond and God put in my heart a way to show this man love while still showing the importance of my side and exposing the lies he was calling truth and showing how that is harmful to both sides, all in a respectful matter. MLK Jr said it best: hate can’t drive out hate, only love can do that.
You are right and MLK was right. It took me a while to understand what he meant by that.
Shalom. A personal testimony, when Heavenly Father first revealed His Son's name was Yehoshua/Yeshua for short, I argued with Him, n said after all these years (40+yrs) when I have got used to Jesus, now You tell me Jesus's actual name is Yeshua, He said " you wanted the truth".😯 then I sighed, there was no arguing with that. Since I loved the truth, Yeshua it was, believe me it took me some time.
If you talk to most physicists these days, people like Max Tegmark, Roger Penrose, Mark G. Alford and the like, you will find that they embrace and even revel in disagreement. On the cutting edge of physics these days there is little consensus but great passion to reach better understanding. Debate between those with differencing positions is key. Given this reality in the field, I wonder why Dr. Hedin feels cancelled? If he has something to bring to the discussion then he should have been welcomed/
Thank you for your gentle and factual teaching. This is the most honest approach to the study of science. We wished that all scientists would do this and admit their limits. If you know what the limits are, especially after the ever-increasing knowledge gained as we view smaller and smaller into the microscopic material world, than you can search better and not just accept quasi-scientific presumptions and assumptions that we seem to be forced to believe by past established traditions of scientific study.
"There are limits to what science can and cannot do" and prove. Science cannot prove our origins for one (everyone of us have come in during the middle [or end] of the movie). Science cannot prove the existence of God (1 Corinth. 1:20 "Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe."), though it can prove, through the ever more discovery of the complexity of creation, that a Creator had to design it; and yet, only the faithful and humble-contrite person will God "look to" and show the mystery of His wisdom (1Corinth.2:12 "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God", ) (Is. 66:2 ““For My hand made all these things, Thus all these things came into being,” declares the Lord.
“But to this one I will look,
To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word."
LOVE THIS CHANNELL!!! THANK YOU!!!!
Thank you for sharing your story Dr. Hedin. Your view on forgiveness sets an example for others to follow.
I think the concentration of natural parameters for life is important, but they should address that there is a very narrow range of physical constants just for atoms and stars to exist first.
Prove that they could be any other way and you'll have an argument for fine tuning. You will be stumped by this simple puzzle by the way.
Thank you so very much for sharing your perspective on forgiveness. My son and I were talking about his new position as a foreman at work. Someone who used to be a foreman in a different area is working under him at the moment and it is causing problems. I advised my son to remind the guy that when he was in charge of a job, whatever goes right or wrong on that job was his responsibility and it is the same for my son right now. It struck me that what you said about forgiveness is very much the same. As forgiven people we have that knowledge and responsibility... I never thought of it that way before - thank you!!
It's 8-1/2 minutes in and all he's talked about is me, myself and I, while repeating himself 3 times.
Wonderful testimony, Mr. hedin.
God bless you, Eric! I recently came across videos of yours such as "God and Information Theory," which I replayed twice to get the depth of the message. Your work is wonderful and absolutely essential for whatever headway can be achieved against atheists and those who prefer scientism to science. I am looking forward to lots more from you. Many, many thanks.
Great information from a very knowledgeable man. I wish this was taught to all students, and any confusion relating to creation would be eliminated.
Unfortunately many people totally refuse to accept the truth. The bible says in the last days people will want lies over truth. I have shown people lots of evidence against evolution and they totally ignore or reject the Truth.
That's why it WON'T be taught
They are too busy teaching gender identity from people who have a gender identity disfunction!
No not great information, not a knowledgeable man
Big up Discover Science on the endeavor to portray that Science points to the Loftiest subject of all human mind can engage, heart can ponder, God of Scriptures. Him alone is huge
Of course the same happens with the Nature that we perceive through our senses. And this is also Aristotle's philosophical conclusion. The only presupposition is that the heart does not reject the Spirit of Truth.
Science does not say the universe came from nothing. It says the universe came from a state of high density and temperature.
The universe came from a state of the "universe" or the universe came from a state of "nothing"? It's a nonesense anyway the "nothing" has no states, the "non existing universe" has no states
Very nice talk.
Wow he teaches well
Randomness was perfectly explained
More ways to go off the rails with Random Theory Got it!
Does Eric’s book (or some other books/articles) further compare and contrast the ideas of specificity in relation to complexity?
I watched this and found it very interesting ruclips.net/video/gw94qm4qdn8/видео.html . I also watched several videos with the author or The Return of the God Hypothesis Stephen Meyer, some of them were conversations with other scientists who oppose the ID idea. This is one of the videos from the same institute ruclips.net/video/gw94qm4qdn8/видео.html , and if you search you will find the other conversations.
just try to prove that someone loves you, scientifically? Yes, you live on faith
This guy has a very soothing voice.
Actual scientific argument starts at about the 24:35 mark.
Thanks
Nope no science here whatsoever
In the instance of the field of archaeology, there have been confirmations of places and sites mentioned in the bible, but until discovery were lost in history. Facts are to be accepted. What I do not see is the acknowledgement of archaeology that directly disputes and disproves biblical accounts. I also do not see an acceptance of science that directly disputes such things as the great worldwide catastrophic flood of Genesis or the impossibility of the accounts of Exodus. While truth is to be pursued, acknowledging that which is false is also a pursuit of truth.
Exactly, science gone astray when the "Smithson" and science in general hides the fact of giant bones found throughout America and in the Midwestern mounds.
The calmness,🥺
What I found most powerful in this video was the discussion about the process by which nature would form an informational system, and considering that, in this multi-step process of creating an intelligent structure/molecule/lifeform by accident, that, at every step, there are many more ways for the formation of the building block to get destroyed rather than improved.
The unlikelihoods are negated by an infinite universe hypothesis because if you truly had infinite possibilities, than we are that one EXTREMEly rare possibility, and though I have problems of my own with how we've decided this possibility - particularly that Quantum Science produces two different kinds of multiverses, one of which travels backwards in time, and the other is based on Astrophysics, which is loosely understood if at all... He brought an interesting perspective that infinite doesn't produce infinite, like, he supposes that the other universes aren't much different than ours... I don't think I repeated that right. But, I still want people to consider what I've observed about the problems as well in addition to causing them to pay attention to what he said now as well, so not gonna erase it.
"... many more ways for the formation of the building block to get destroyed rather than improved ..." as is explicitly described, and accounted for, in evolutional theory. If you're not aware of that, you need to learn about the theory before criticising it.
It's more correct to say evolutionary theory tries to account for it. I don't think it does so successfully, which is crippling. Stephen Meyer's "Signature in the Cell" deals very powerfully with those attempts, and I think very convincingly.
We do serve an awesome triune God. ✝️
One of the things that needs to be addressed is the unfair play by atheists. They object to any teaching about God in the classroom but they are free to PREACH - in the same classroom - that God does not not exist. What's good for Peter should be good for Paul as well. If God-fearing lecturers can't talk about God then atheists should have the same restrictions.
Even worse a problem is that they preach fallen morality.
I don't think atheists are allowed to actively say there is no god in public schools. Maybe university, but even then I imagine they would get complaints.
Isn't Darwinism itself a religion/philosophy A number of scientists
prefer to believe it, knowing it's impossible.
Nope, not a religion, and not even an -ism really. There is "Darwinian evolution," which is parallel to "Newtonian physics" - i.e. concepts and evidence related to a theory (not a hypothesis) developed by a particular scientist. "Darwinism" is a straw man created in anti-science rhetoric to attack scientists with a tu quoque argument. At most, you can say that scientists believe the scientific method is useful for learning more about nature and that they accept theories confirmed by evidence.
No, that's some idea that creationists have projected onto evolution by natural selection. There's no Einsteinism or Newtonism, but because evolution is taken as a threat, it's better to project it in that light.
No Darwinism is not a religion, it is a scientific idea. Religion is something with peolpe in it that belief in a god and go to some kind of a church. A lot of people nows that why don't you?
@@kingpeer14 I don't agree with your definition of religion. Religion is a belief. It has nothing to do with buildings. From my own circle of friends, I have seen people adhering to Darwinism - in spite of overwhelming evidence of its impossibility - because it replaces their belief in God. They "believe" in Darwinism. So, in many ways, Darwinism IS a religion.
@@kingpeer14 actually no, A religion is something that you belive and that changes your worldview
Thanks for this... Very inspiring!
This actually backed up my points, and I am grateful to watch this. All support for the advancement of science. 💗💝
The late Robert Gange also has an excellent description of entropy in that book. He was a close friend of mine.
God Bless you for being brave and helping others understand the truth
He sounds like such a great teacher.
In one breath the big bang is described as both a scientific model and a scientific result. I thought these were two different things. Results tell us about models (they either contradict the model or they don't,) but they are not themselves models. I think this confusion is one of our biggest problems.
What is a scientific result? I have not heard the term compared with model
The big bang is just sciences creation myth. As an atheist I dont believe this nonsense either...
I remember Jerry from University of Maryland in the late 70’s … not surprised by his response..
I looked at this as I was searching for something to forward to an atheist friend. Unfortunately this won't do. The main issue is it is obviously from a faith based point of view and that is in itself enough reason to anger some people. Yes, I have witnessed people actually becoming angry when their beliefs are challenged. To reach that type of people, the presentation needs to be so less biased.
For me, I believe. I don't need this type of presentation to consolidate faith. I have made my choice but I wish there was better presentations to reach others.
I'll finish with a point about a creationism/evolution discussion I had with said friend. After he decided to cite novels of Frank Herbert to explain the state of things, I told him he puts too much faith in people. He was speechless. I finished by pointing out that what I read was not written by people trying to make money, further their career or improve their social standing. That ended the discussion.
Thanks for your comment! This was a talk given at a science and faith conference, and so the remarks were addressed to that particular audience. We publish many other videos that you might find more useful for your purposes. Have you considered:
ruclips.net/video/aA-FcnLsF1g/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/fqiXgtDdEwM/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/gw94qm4qdn8/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/noj4phMT9OE/видео.html
Some people are too far gone
the best is Shapiro with Stephen C. Meyer.
I'd have turned it round on him with Herbert and Dune(assuming that's what he was referencing).
Herbert's message regarding the Bene Gesserit's eugenics program, with the aim to make a near God-like human through selective breeding of the nobles, and resulting in Paul Atreides' transformation into this being, reeks of analogy with the Eden story. Right down to the principle decisions effecting, both the beginning of, and the outcome, being made by women.
The result is even if one of us *could* "become like gods" (incidently, that scaly so-and-so never said "the same as"), we wouldn't be able to handle that sort of power longterm. Paul was only like God in the sense he could see all points in time, past and all possible futures, but only pertaining to mankind. There was still a limit on it, and through that he could see how it *would* all go south!
Frank Herbert may not have been a believer but he certainly got a significant aspect correct regarding what people of faith have to understand; Our species is deeply, deeply flawed and trying to play God with ourselves(like the Bene Gesserit did) is deadly.
This philosophical point may not have been the particular subject of discussion but he did bring Herbert into it! Bet it would have twisted his melon.
You do realize you are using faith here in two different instances. I am not that surprised. Our brains usually think to use the same definition throughout a conversation. Faith in your first instance here is religious based. The instance when you said he puts too much faith is on a science based. Where that person did research and used science for that research.
So, he asks a group of students "What is the meaning of life?" and his summation of their responses were "Some pointed to God, some pointed to hopelessness." ...yeah, my guess is that the students just write "God" or "hopeless." Even if they DID say "nothing," his portraying it as "hopelessness" is his own projection.
Perhaps the meaning of life is merely to try find an answer to that question.
After an intensive philosophy course where I had hoped to discover the meaning of life, I was disappointed to find that, no matter the topic, the root of every argument was, is there a God or not. I was agnostic and furious that my time had been wasted. I was also furious that I got a C on my final which was a thirty page paper on our own philosophy. The professor said I was peachy. Just now, some 20 years later I must confess he was correct. I thank out Creator, our Father, that I have been duly humbled. It's either God or nihilism period. The only protection we have from the destructive forces of nature are the tools given us that resemble, are the likeness of, our Creator. That is why we are not apes, cats, or dogs but their masters.
Yikes, was that peachy? Lord is still working on me, lol.
Challenged an atheist secular materialist troll on another site to explain his rational foundational principles for morality. He said...
Common sense and weighing consequences.
And he was serious.
Took philosophy as a freshman, couldn't wait to learn some wisdom.
Great revelation of some 3000 years of conjecture and semantic exercises in logic... there is no objective truth.
I have since spent most of a half century watching the hypocrisy of "intellectuals" and secularists asserting that somehow their ontological interpretations of the human experience are valid...
as in, true.
They therefore claim the prerogative of re-writing the rules to suit themselves.
If there is no God, there is no meaning, there are no metaphysical qualities.
That includes morality.
No action has the qualities of right or wrong.
That is not a proof in itself for the existence of God, but I have yet to meet a secular materialist who could actually fully face and internalize the implications of materialisms implicit nihilism.
A few who have made a show of it, but they always slip up. Ironically, if they are willing to argue any point, they have placed a value on that point, a metaphysical quality, of good or bad, or at least relevance.
Death, and it's summary result extinction, would extinguish subjective relevance in a mindless universe.
Like the lady above said...
It's a Creator... or nihilism.
@@crct2004 Sartre propagated a lie.
Essence preceeds existence.
Shalom. TRUTH, my most favourite word. Loved it from very young, searched for it all my life, found it in GOD of Israel n Yeshua of Natsareth, ended up filled with it, with the Holy Spirit of Truth. HalleluYah, HalleluYah,HalleluYah 😊. Blessed is He who comes in The NAME of the LORD.
Please speak for your own little world please and not for everybody...
Jerry Coyne never understands consequences of his arrogance. I love hearing him bemoan cancel culture. He is one of the original cancelers.
Firstly the term evolution suggests a progression independent of anything other than itself including a goal to evolve which makes no sense whatsoever and clearly isn't how we got from chariots to motor cars
It's not independent - it depends on the environment of the individuals of the species and the pressures on the species as a whole. There isn't a "progression" for a lot of species, just differentiation.
@@obgfoster Environmental pressure is a mechanism for adaptive change within a species, not for transformation into something so different that it can no longer breed or be bred with those of its ancestral lineage.
David Pawson, a great bible teacher also tackles some of these theories in the book of Genesis
DNA code can be equated to a type of computer language. DNA code is more complex than regular computer language in that it is not binary (based on 0 and 1). It is quaternary (based on A T C G). And, as with every known language in existence, confirmed through scientific experiment and observation, is the product of only one thing ... mind/ consciousness /intelligence. ...
_"The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an INFORMATION SCIENCE. Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science: its DIGITAL nature and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. DNA has two types of DIGITAL INFORMATION - the genes that ENCODE proteins, which are the MOLECULAR MACHINES of life, and the GENE REGULATORY NETWORKS that specify the behaviour of the genes."_ (Source: Nature Journal, Nature com)
_"Language: ALL DIGITAL communications require a formal language, which in this context consists of all the information that the sender and receiver of the digital communication must both possess, in advance, in order for the communication to be successful."_ (Wikipedia: Digital Data)
*”The instructions in a gene that tell the cell how to make a specific protein. A, C, G, and T are the "letters" of the DNA code; they stand for the chemicals adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T), respectively, that make up the nucleotide bases of DNA. Each gene's code combines the four chemicals in various ways to spell out three-letter "words" that specify which amino acid is needed at every step in making a protein.”* ( “Genetic Code - National Human Genome Research Institute” Genome . gov)
*_”Genetic code is the term we use for the way that the four bases of DNA--the A, C, G, and Ts--are strung together in a way that the cellular machinery, the ribosome, can read them and turn them into a protein. In the genetic code, each three nucleotides in a row count as a triplet and code for a single amino acid. So each sequence of three codes for an amino acid. And proteins are made up of sometimes hundreds of amino acids. So the code that would make one protein could have hundreds, sometimes even thousands, of triplets contained in it.”_* (Lawrence C. Brody, Ph.D., Genome dot gov)
*_"It is only at the semantic level that we really have meaningful information; thus, we may establish the following theorem: Theorem 14: Any entity, to be accepted as information, must entail semantics; it must be meaningful. Semantics is an essential aspect of information because the meaning is the only invariant property. The statistical and syntactical properties can be altered appreciably when information is represented in another language (e.g., translated into Chinese), but the meaning does not change. Meanings always represent mental concepts; therefore, we have: Theorem 15: When its progress along the chain of transmission events is traced backward, every piece of information leads to a mental source, the mind of the sender."_* Dr. Werner Gitt (Former Head of the Department of Information Technology at Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Germany)
Modern scientific discoveries in Genetics (i.e. biology) have shown that functional / coded / digital Information (i.e. DNA code) is at the core of ALL Biological Systems. Without functional / coded / digital information, there is NO biology. The only known source (i.e. cause) in the universe that has been Observed in nature to be capable of producing functional / coded / digital information, such as that found even in the most primitive biological systems, is mind / consciousness / intelligence.
It is unclear to me if Coyne and his cohorts actually tried to get him fired and or stop his road to tenure. I once had an argument with an atheist who “insisted that attacks against religious professors never happened and that I was lying contemptuously.”
This particular episode suggests it has, at least this time. He badgered me for weeks DEMANDING examples which he would then dismiss them as “fabrications.” I should have realized that he was just an online bully, but I was somewhat shaken by him.
I guess he had a right to refute me. There are scientists at the Discovery Institute who faced this. He regarded them as a bunch of “pseudoscience charlatans who were beneath contempt. I have since given up on arguments with atheists online, because most become abusive and perhaps deeply “threatened” by any science that may point to God.
That is a true experience I had.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
The thing to remember is that no matter how much evidence you present, it will never be enough. The VAST majority of atheists have been hopelessly blinded by the god of this world so you will NEVER convince them otherwise. I have even had a few to the point where they had run out of objections and basically admitted (in a roundabout way) that there likely was a god but they could never follow Him because of "x" reason. It was futile to wrestle with them about why their view of "x" was a misconception about God, in relation to "x", they simply did not want to follow Him.
The good news is that there is a chance others, who are open-minded to some extent, will see your post and perhaps you have planted a seed, for them...
Though I don't consider myself to be an atheist, I would be rather sceptical towards anyone claiming to have scientific evidence for any god.
The trouble I experience with many self proclaimed atheists on the internet is that they seem to adhere to scientism rather than to science, especially when it comes to gods. Nine out of ten times they are not even capable to respond to my statements, but instead keep regurgitating
However, i would have taken another approach. Since it was the atheists making the claim that it doesn't exist, the burdon of proof is on him, not on you. the atheist in your story seems to have been making the irratical choice concerning Hempel's paradox: No matter the amount of black ravens one is able to count, it doesn't provide any evidence whatsoever about the existence of white ravens. Hence to claim that white ravens don't exist based on not having seen one and only having seen black ravens is a fallacy. If he makes the claim it doesn't exist, he should provide the evidence for that claim, not the other way around. The default scientific position is : "I don't know" rather than "x does exists" or "x doesn't exist", whoever claims one of the latter to be the case is required to provide evidence for that claim, not the other way around.
When it comes to science, there is merely evidence making one or the other claim more likely to be true, actual proof for one or the other claim I've only seen in mathematics.
Though of course, when someone starts making accusations of the other person lying, prematurely ruling out the other person merely being mistaken or being misinformed is a red flag already. And it's another claim that requires evidence. I often tend to annoy atheists by quoting Hitchens : "claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Usually they just stop commenting.
What did you expect? Online arguments are driven by ego not by search for truth. Especially online atheists who tend to get triggered, abusive, and go into full denial mode.
Atheists who make the assertion you describe always, always lie. It comes well naturally with the worldview.
I followed this closely (Muncie resident and atheist), and no, Coyne didn't try to get him fired. He tried to get the course removed from the science sequence. It could have been a great course in philosophy of science. I'm not sure of his claim that students could access the syllabus before taking the course, either. That's not how registration works at Ball State. But even if they could, they wouldn't have understood what they were getting into.
Thank you 😊
It seems to me that the level of our scientific understanding has no bearing on the existence of God. He either exists or not regardless of the level of our knowledge. Increasing in scientific understanding does not diminish God and lack of it does not add to God.
not bad...
Correct. Science has no opinion on the existence of (any) god, but it does have opinions on all of the naturalistic processes that can be observed and measured, and that can be put up against physical claims made by scripture, preacher, and prophet.
Wayne nature is the second book the first is the Bible.
This dismissal of people who actually want to expose the truth should be a red flag for everyone. Science doesn't exist because scientists discover algorithms, formulas, etc. The science has ALWAYS been there. What secular scientists are afraid of is losing their status, funding, etc., rather than using their position to promote the evidence.
I want to be enrolled in the "Boundaries of Science course". Can anyone please guide I may join it.
Our state religion is evolution, too bad we can't separate our state from this cult.
As the early church says:
Nature is our very first Bible.
Yes Sebastian.
33:33 A question I have been asking Atheists/Materialists/Whatever lately is Explain Beauty, using only those things that can be measured, weighed, The material. not why is one thing said to be beautiful and another not, but the Idea of Beauty.
@@CR-yd4qe Aesthetics is the philosophic study of Beauty. If there is a branch of philosophy that writes papers and have discussions about what constitutes Beauty, it can't be all subjective.
The "Aesthetic Argument" for God's existence is one of the best arguments.
Even Darwin saw the concept of beauty a challenge to his theory.
Peace
@@CR-yd4qe Well, no! The subjectivity of beauty is something that has been promoted by 20th century revolutionary propaganda. Try to buy a house in a beautiful landscape, and its price will convince you that everybody else sees its beauty.
@@skatter44 That's assuming philosophy arrives at any definitive answer/s which (let's face it) philosophy rarely does.
@utopiabuster 2017. How does one bridge "Hume's Gap" to get to "Beauty"? Just curuous.
I tried to put this video in Watch Later, but after three attempts it still wouldn’t appear in that playlist. So I’ll watch it right now. Silly RUclips.
Thank you. I appreciate your perspective and insights.
May The Creator continue to bless and strengthen you as you share your heart.
I was told nature can create anything if given enough time and it is science, luckily I know what is missing from science videos.
A very interesting talk. So interesting that I just bought the book.
Eric:
In the 1st half (up through 21:41 minutes) you picked versus having to do with responding to attacks against your profession/teaching or your faith in Christ. The research you did must have been rewarding, but I suspect you needed comforting and reassurance that you are doing what Jesus wanted you to do and where you're doing it.
It's time to research again for conformation that He puts us in difficult and stressful situations for his purposes. Reexamine Paul's writing about the fact we have been sealed by the Holy Spirit and already been seated in our heavenly home with Jesus. It's only a matter of a few more minutes, days, weeks or years before we go to be with the Lord forever.
I pray that you will be encouraged and rejuvenated by these words and Paul's (& others) words on this perspective. When reading the Bible we always default to the notion that the promises will be fulfilled according to our eathly needs before we die (or raptured), but I ultimately think Jesus and the others were acknowledging our time is short in this life. I would encourage you to pray about these circumstances and burdens to Jesus Christ, but it depends on his plans, not ours. These things we struggle with on a daily basis will die with us. None of the tragedies in this life will matter any longer. We really do need to focus on Jesus and finding ways to reveal his word to those around us that are willing to listen.
I questioned the meaning of my existence when I took statistics.
I had a root canal that had the same effect.
Statistics would show that you are a unique individual -- just like everyone else...
there should be timestamps
The concept of “nothing” cannot have the ability to act, otherwise it would exist as a “potential act” and be one of many things that exist. If the universe came from “nothing” then this nothing would have had the ability to become the universe. But the concept “nothing” as we previously explained, cannot have the ability to act, therefore, the universe could not have come from nothing on its own.
Since there are things that do exist, then “something” must have always existed, because as we just proved, things cannot come from “nothing” on their own.
If time had ever proceeded at an infinite rate, which is like fast forwarding through a motion picture, we would not be here today because all events would have already occurred in a single instant. Therefore, time has always progressed at a finite rate and any mathematician can prove that time could never have progressed over an infinite time interval. The proof goes like this, pick any number no matter how great. You can always add one to it and thereby make it greater in value, therefore you can never reach infinity.
And you cannot say that all we need to do is to wait an infinite amount of time and then we would reach infinity, because then you are assuming that you can wait an infinite amount of time. However, this is what you were trying to prove and so that is not proof at all. You cannot assume to be true, that which you are trying to prove to be true otherwise you can prove anything to be true, even that which is false. Therefore, time could not have started an “infinite” time ago and therefore had a beginning a finite time ago.
Since “something” always existed as we previously proved, it had to have existed before time started. Since space and time are one entity called the space-time continuum as Einstein pointed out, then this “something” had to have existed before space and time existed and therefore caused space and time.
Since this “something” existed outside of space and time it cannot be made up of material things, because material things can only exist in space. And this “something” could not be just chaos which has no order, because as we previously proved, something cannot come from nothing on its own, hence order cannot come from pure disorder. Therefore, this “something” had to have had the ability to cause order, space-time, material things, beauty, life, everything in our universe, including our universe and natural laws and rules. Since we call ourselves beings, then we should at least call this “something” a Being, who we call God.
Since only God always existed, and the universe is not made of God as we just proved, then God must have created the universe out of “nothing”. Since “nothing” does not even exist, then God must have infinite Power in order to have created the universe from “nothing”. Since all people desire happiness, then God must have created us to be happy out of love for us.
Naturally, all creatures should love their Creator. For us to love God from our heart, God had to create in us a free-will, because no person can be forced to love, otherwise this would not be true love from their heart. With our free-will, we can choose to do good or bad to our neighbor and this is why there is sin in the world, because some people have chosen to hate God and their neighbor and are only interested in pleasing themselves. God did not create evil, nor does He desire evil, but he does allow sin to happen because He had to form us with a free-will, in order for us to love Him and others from our heart.
At 21m 50s, *_Bless your enemies!_* And the best way to bless them is to take full responsibility for their acts against you! When you do this, you cease to be a victim *_and_* "turning the other cheek" suddenly becomes not only intuitive but also easy. This is one of the lessons of Christ on the cross, for he took responsibility for all the sins of the world -- every act of evil which he *_did not do!_* If we are to follow him, we must follow his example.
I think at the end of the day no one knows for certain the nature of our reality. I tend to mostly avoid people presenting them selves as though they do. Whether they be scientist or religious people
Yet you are saying that with certainty.
encouraging
ενθαρρυνση
Awesome! The meaning of our existence, to know God and to be loved by Him.
He does not love you stop claiming that...
@@kingpeer14 Explain
@@johannesstephanusroos4969 God sets people on fire and burn them for an eternity.
He started a flood and drowned everybody on purpose.
There has no being that has caused more human suffering and death than God himself.
The beginning?
Let's imagine that we are on 'our' planet earth. We sit next to each other in a rowing boat and float on the primordial soup.
- Let us not consider for a moment how planet Earth ended up exactly at that place in the universe, which makes life possible on it.
On the seat in front of us in the boat is a book by one of the world's best nature photographers.
We take the book and start leafing through it. We look at the beautiful photos in amazement.
After many aaahs and ooohs, we arrive at the last page. There, on that last page, we both read the following "prophetic" text:
Dear reader,
In this book you see a foretaste of what will happen 'by itself', and you can observe it yourself, if you stay long enough in this boat waiting for it to happen. It may take a few billion years or even longer, but in the end the result will be one like the pictures in this book.
Could we all agree that this so-called prophecy is utter nonsense?
Why do many scientists claim that it is and do most people still think that these claims are correct?
I think your analogy is nonsense, if that's what you mean.
@@obgfoster some people refuse to see- that's you.
I sympathize with what you had to go through, you were clearly treated unfairly. That's a clear bias in favor of atheism- if an evidence based discussion about these fundamentally important questions isn't tolerated then it's just bias-- or perhaps they will tolerate discussion of these questions, but only if you reach what they have arbitrarily determined is the acceptable answer- that the existence of God or something transcendant is not possible.
Evidence based indeed! You would not recognize evidence if it hit you in the head
Really don't know why these professors don't put forth their credentials proudly: Eric Hedin, B.S. in Physics from Seattle Pacific University; M.S. in Physics from the University of Washington: Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Washington
There may have been an introduction that was cropped out.
Physics ain't Biology.
A man who follows the Son of God would not gloat. His prestige is self evident and his power centers around his faith and his ability to reach places with his thought process
Nice
I came to this video in search for just one argument for the existence of god that cannot be refuted. I recently realized that i had never heard an argument like that and was ecstatic when i saw a video from a physicist on the matter. Unfortunately i had to be dissapointed. The first mover argument was refutet long ago, it was refutet by Hume whose theories on inference are quite flawed but his counter to the firsts mover was still solid and it can, to this day, not be refuted itself. This Universe existed for roughly 14 billion years, yes that is not an infinite timespan but singe-celular life developed about 3.5 billion years ago and multicelular animals turned up 600 million years ago. So there were 2.9 billion years for these so called "random" connections to form. However i am affraid you cannot have your proverbial Cake and eat it too. You said one scene before that that the elements in their formation have to adhere to the laws of nature and so do molecules that form cells. The number of failed attempts is so unthinkebly high that i can understand someone would deem them infinite. However look at it like this. Within a billion planets there is one that can sustain life and on this planet it takes 10.5 billion years untill the requirement for life and the development of that life reaches the point at which it can generate a single cell. The timeframe for that development does not need to be infinite, it needs to be sufficient. Every cell that evolves in the "wrong" direction dies and only the ones that develop "right" survive that is the step by step process. If you go wrong once you cant go wrong again, i agree with that. However it is the nature of evolution that no two cells evolve the same, that is speciffically because it is random. That is why it took billions of years to form life. And to simply infer that nature can design, just because Humans "are natural" is a statement that is so preposterus that i would doubt the capability for reasonable thought of anybody who would make that inference. And than the example of the doll not having a beauty as deep as an actual living Human, no shit sherlook but what is that supposed to prove. Nature also does not CHOOSE the damn mutations the mutations that are better suited for survival will simply outperform the others. And to inferr God just because Nature can not make ionformed decisions is a god of the gap argument, which is in no form satisfying. So sadly if anything, this video turned me into more of an atheist.
Abiogenesis is a fairy story. There is no evidence for macro evolution. Hume's argument boils down to insisting that the universe just is as a brute fact. If that convinces you then good luck with your religion of believing mainstream science on everything. Mainstream science, especially origin of life science, is entirely faith based.
Science is methods for exposing facts about physical creation.
Facts are not methods.
A singularity, from which it is thought the universe expanded, is NOT nothing.
They don't like facts around here....
@@avi8r66 Rather, they do not like your unprovable theory. I'm not surprised you are cynical towards us; rather I am wondering if you were not curious as to the facts of this video. It's sad to see that you put more faith into those whose theories and hypotheses change on a whim with 'new information' that will not come to a conclusion ever, than you do with words that have lasted thousands of years and have never been proven wrong (because if the Bible was proven wrong, it would be front page news, and you know it).
It's equally sad that you will find out God exists at the moment He throws you into hell for Rejecting Christ who died for the sins of the world; rather than humbling yourself enough to ask God for forgiveness here and now while you still can.
“As it is written, ‘There is none righteous, no, not one.'” (Romans 3:10, KJV)
“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23, KJV)
“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 6:23, KJV)
“But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8, KJV)
“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” (Romans 10:13, KJV)
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Romans 10:9-13, KJV
@ John Clower . The Singularity could not have happened without matter, space , time and energy. The question is: Where did these things come from? Were matter, space, time and energy already here? Did they just appear suddenly? If the answer is yes,then a creator could have been here already. Or he could have just appeared suddenly. The options are totally fair. Feedback?
@@avi8r66 There are only 2 genders. Keep crying
31:30 absolutely correct. The passage of time does not cause evolution; change in the environment does
Well, a change in an organism that benefits it in its current environment will tend to live to pass along that change to its offspring.
...over time.
And we are “the change”; where our focus goes our energy flows
No, the environment does not need to change for evolution to happen. Furthermore, if the environment changes too rapidly, evolution also does not happen; you just die.
I'm not sure that is true from a naturalist point of view. It is the random mutations selected for fitness over time that create evolutionary change. Changes in the environment may increase the selection pressure, but it is not what drives evolution. This is their point of view as i understand it, I'm not opposed to evolution but I'm very skeptical.
Hi Eric, I will be buying your book. Thank you. Hope I can find your Twitter in the description
He’s just siding with his idea of creationism.You can have a hit and miss over time and still be what we are today!
Thankyou 🙏✝️
The thing is, Atheists don't disregard the possibility that the universe has some sort of creator. We are open to the idea, it is definitely possible. We simply don't believe that there is any evidence that any God or any religion that currently exists or has ever existed has been responsible. Especially the Christian God of the the bible. Every single point that he made in this video had absolutely no merit in giving credit to the Christian God of the bible.
So, a creator yes, but a religious creator, no? How do you fortify that logic?
This is certainly not the typical belief of atheists. Not sure why you framed it that way.
@@ludwigkirchner08 atheists lack belief in a deity (by definition). If there is a supernatural entity that created it all, you'd think it would have written a better book, for one thing. For another, how is it that the one "correct" god is the one you believe in? There have been hundreds of different deities that you have rejected without even learning about them. How do you know the stories you have heard and read are the correct ones (factually)?
I'm curious why the Christian God is least likely to be responsible for creation?
Sounds pretty satanic to me Brodie, especially when you left out Yahweh specifically 🕵️
I love this channel and this community. I am a Muslim.
bro I'm halfway through the video and he still hasn't gotten to the scientific discoveries some atheists don't want me to see, he's just been talking about the bible
How to get the unregenerate to venerate?
Almighty God blessed us with this planet.
And as humans bias to self. It's wealth is both abused and pillaged.
Yet simple kindness released me from blindness.
Thanks for so many folk who treated me with significance!
Wonderful!