@Chuck McPhail So in other words He's a Jerk. There is a saying in legal circles...If you have the law on your side, argue the law, if you have the facts on your side argue the facts, if you have neither Pound The Table. He's pounding the table.
Did Krauss actually offer any scientific evidence? If he did it was buried in all the unfounded insults. Evidently his proof is measured by insults not science
www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/science/lawrence-krauss-retires-sexual-harassment.html Krauss is a disgusting human being. www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/science/lawrence-krauss-retires-sexual-harassment.html
in all Krauss is more dignified and distinguished in his field, the either of the gentleman or both combined... the exception you took to his arguments was that he was not a complete gentlemen..ok
I suffered from visual migraines in the past before i got it under control...each episode absolutely floored me. Its astounding to witness Meyer continue with the degree of intellectual rigor he mustered! Bravo 👏 👏
YT users: *clicks scientific debate video to learn about the origin of life* Video: *starts with Krauss criticizing Meyer rather than the evidence presented*
He crticised Meyer because he's a lying, malignant hack whose well funded organisation is out to gut science education in favour of Christian fundamentalist dogma.
meyer is a hack and too many people idolise him, if he teaches bad science - and lying - it need calling out. i'm sick of religion gettring a pass based on folks like you saying "it's not polite" TRUTH is what matters.
On Krauss's tactics, some astute comments from Ryan: During his [opening] diatribe, Krauss informed the audience that Meyer and his ideas are not worth debating and that Meyer himself is something of a dishonest marketing man for Intelligent Design. And what exactly is Krauss's justification for this claim? Well, you see, several years ago at a school board hearing in Ohio, Krauss, having failed to inform himself of Discovery Institute's long-standing position [against] mandating the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools, assumed they would be in favor of such a thing. When he discovered from Meyer's testimony that they were not advocating the introduction of ID into public schools, Krauss came to the only reasonable conclusion he could imagine: Steve Meyer and Discovery Institute were lying about their position. After all, the only other alternative was that Krauss had failed to do his due diligence in trying to understand the position of one of his opponents... This is classic Krauss. If you denigrate, misrepresent and discredit your opponent in the eyes of your audience right up front then you don't have to worry too much about answering their arguments later. You just make silly faces while they're talking or offer a few snide remarks here and there and hope the audience believes that you know better than your opponent, and that they shouldn't consider his arguments any more seriously than your mime routine suggests you're considering them... This was an incredible display of intellectual dishonesty on Krauss's part and it is a sign of the weakness of his position.... When you honestly believe you have the better case and the ability to present that case, you don't resort to an opening ad hominem salvo... ...Krauss forced Stephen into making a decision to either address the misrepresentations that had been leveled at him in order to clear his name before proceeding with his arguments for ID or to simply ignore Krauss and make his presentation. If Stephen chose to address Krauss's inaccurate attack it would take up a significant portion of his speaking time and almost certainly prevent him from completing his presentation. On the other hand, if he just ignored the personal attack he would clearly risk having his entire presentation undermined in the eyes of the audience... In order to choose the latter approach, one must have a high degree of confidence in the intellectual capacity of the audience and be willing to trust that they are capable of seeing through sleazy debate tactics.... And this was precisely what Meyer did.... Conversely, Krauss showed a significant amount of disrespect for the intelligence of the audience members by assuming that they could be persuaded to dismiss Meyer's actual arguments by presenting them with an irrelevant and false attack against his person. www.evolutionnews.org/2016/03/readers_weigh_i102713.html
lol, the guy is an idiot, even if god were real he doesn't allow proof does he, it';s a stupid to argue. stay inside your empty tomb. keep your voodoo.
Billy b Heartfelt opinions based on heartfelt feelings, tho well meant and strongly convinced of are not necessarily obtained through critical thinking, in that case those opinions are often pointless.
I love it. Krauss' talk reminded me of a self confident Pentecostal preacher strutting and huffing and puffing. I half expected him to fall down and roll around on the floor speaking in tongues! Then mild mannered Meyer gets up, and without delay, slowly and methodically built a very strong case for ID. Impressive: 10^-30.
I have read Krauss books before and I was very impressed by him. Sure that is not saying much since I am not some world renowned scientist, but this was the first time I saw him debate. I was so disappointed and could not stop thinking he is a stupid person and how in the world did he become so famous. Anyway really disappointed.
Did we watch the same debate? Because Meyer's arguments were really childish. Krauss very well explained everything wrong. Or just because it sounds offensive what he says isn't true? Well, arguing with idiots is really hard.
"Natural Selection selects for the functional advantage, but the mutational search has to find it within the combinatorial sequence that's being explored...natural selection doesn't work until you have something functional to be selected." Good exchange between Dr. Meyer and Dr. Kruass on Natural Selection, ultimately leaving Dr. Krauss unable to respond to the high level of randomness required to create a certain protein before natural selection could begin to choose it.
why do they bother? it's IMPOSSIBLE to show that god exists, those folks insisting that the tea towel of turin is evidence of christ are wasting their time, you can ONLY EVER show that things have a natural origin, you'll never find god's logo printed in DNA - god does not allow it. why religists insist on making themselves look foolish - there own god says "you must have faith" - beats me. what do they expect "look, i proved god exists where's my movie contract"? creationists will always make fools of themselves. god is hidden, he won't let you find him. it's HIS rules sillies. (and he's mainly imaginary). meyer is just trying to become famous for something no one can ever prove or disprove, you a=have been suckered. i don't care one way or the other about krauss, as long as his physics works, fine, but meyer is a LIAR and he is tricking HIS OWN. that is not tolerable.
what do ross, meyer, behe, tour and pals hope to find? why are they doing science in fact cos at the bottom of their barrel all you will find is more "nature did it". they must be really crappy christians to not realise that if god were real he doesn't allow evidence of his existence, the whole premise of christianity is you are required - it is demanded of you - that you have faith, not knowledge. are they expecting to find a trade mark? do they think god made a blunder and has some kind of electronic device hidden in all the nature stuff? they are the dumbest people in a bucket of dumb people.
I'm a software engineer who has written for 30 years. I haven't come close to writing that much code, by decades-worth, perhaps by centuries-worth. Who wrote the code?
Great quote I read: Steve alone faced three challengers at once -- the atheist, the theistic evolutionist, and the migraine. Of those, by far the most potent opponent was the headache. I respected him a lot before this, but now my respect has doubled.
+Leanne Davis Sympathy??? His only opponent that wasn't weak was his migraine. We should feel especially sympathetic to Krauss who compared biological design with the design of a snowflake!
Meyer and the creationist were debating a physicist and cosmologist with weak biology arguments. They were too afraid to meet Prof. Krauss on his own turf obviously. And the things they did talk about were fairly content free.
+Leanne Davis Meyer is willing to debate anybody at any time. He challenged Dawkins who essentially said he's to much of an amazing scientist to debate somebody so inferior. In other words he's afraid of Meyer.
No, Dawkins is over debating with people who are a waste of his time. Plus, with his health he can now no longer be under the stress that crazy religious people cause him. He likely won't be doing much debating at all in the future. It's a shame but he is 75 yrs old now and is still recovering from the stroke he had earlier this year.
I'd say his intelligence is surpassed easily by Krauss who, unlike Meyer, is an actual scientist. Meek? He MEEKLY pressures high school science teachers to MEEKLY abandon all professional integrity and MEEKLY peddle his religious nonsense as science...... Give it a rest.
@@ZebecZT : I was just trying to dismiss it with a joke but to answer your question... When it's used disingenuously to convince people of things that are not factual. Having a pleasant demeanor says nothing about the data or validity of what's being claimed. There is no data to support the supernatural. There is only belief. Pretending things for which there is no evidence have some affect on the laws of nature is unsupported, unconvincing, and unscientific so it can't honestly be used as science. Whenever religion has challenged science it has eventually lost and I expect that trend to continue.
@@lrvogt1257 there’s data to support the supernatural, to me if you can’t even acknowledge that i see it as dishonesty. i have had this debate many times and and i’ve come to the conclusion that you simply cannot convince someone who doesn’t want to be convinced no matter what. methodological naturalism is precisely what i mean, it’s arrogant, narrow minded and goes against the whole “ we follow where the evidence lies” which is a fundamental principle in science. “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism.” - biologist todd scott if you can’t see a flaw with this then i can’t think there’s much to talk about.
Jason Brooks , you wrote, "I get suspicious when I hear a scientist say 'case closed'." You will never hear a scientist say "case closed!" The scientifically-challenged (junk scientists) use those words frequently, but not scientists. Dan
guym1234, you wrote, "I see no problem using case closed when it is commentary to pint out the hypocrisy of an assertion." It is never appropriate in scientific debates and discussions. Dan
I'm only about 3 minutes into hearing Dr. Krauss speak, and all I can think is how he comes across as such a thoroughly unpleasant man. In my opinion if you cannot debate your points without first insulting your opponents, you must have some level of uncertainty that attacking an individual's character seems like the smartest thing to do. Being intelligent is great, but if one is so unpleasant that people don't want to listen, that will prove to be a problem if they wish to change anyone's mind. The person with a relaxed confidence in their position is ultimately going to come across as more trustworthy when compared to such ungracious and belittlingly behavior.
It's interesting how Krauss would appeal to the formation of crystals like snowflakes as a means to crush Meyer's argument about nature being incapable of creating specified complexity and information. The greatest flaw with Krauss' reasoning is that he falsely conflates the characteristics of self-organization to that of DNA segments that code for proteins. If Krauss actually bothered to study crystallography, he would realize that crystal formation or self-assembly chemistry follows two distinct characteristics: 1) order of repetitiveness/redundancy & 2) non-sequence specificity. In salt crystals for instance, the molecular atoms that build up the sodium crystals are actually based on the repetitive molecular structure order of NaCl-NaCl-NaCl (sodium-chloride). In addition to that, you can change the order of the atoms and it will have no effect to the overall crystal structure. Self-organization follows these two very principles. You can even use sand dunes as an example and you will see that nature even follows these principles. Unlike the self-organization of crystals, the protein coding regions of DNA are actually non-repetitive (the order of nucleotifes/amino acids is very precisely arranged) and are sequence specific, meaning the order of nucleotides/amino acids is very critical to biological function. The fact DNA is so uniquely arranged and unlike any known self-organized crystals is enough to warrant that the laws of self-organization/physics do not explain the origin of biological information, which Meyer tried to emphasised. Krauss did a pretty bad job in refuting Meyer's argument, worse thing about it is that he actually had no idea what he was talking about.
well stated. what this points out is that this debate yet again shows the anti theist has no idea what he is arguing against. If krauss would have read signature in the cell, he would have learned exactly what you just explained.
Krauss spent a lot of time positing caricatures of ID , conflating indeed. I though he was going to start booger flinging. Meyer adjudicated himself with class and knowledge with out the caricature.
@@PeteParsons-wf8sm "Krauss spent a lot of time positing caricatures of ID"- it pretty much caricatures itself. Utter nonsense- a legal ruse to skirt the law settled by Edwards v Aguillard. Read slowly: IT> IS>NOT>SCIENCE.
why do people idolise the dumbest of religists like meyer, don't you understand your own religion? if god were real he himself won;t allow ANY kind of proof he exists, you have to have faith, meyer is blasphemous to try.
Even with a migraine, Dr Stephen Meyer articulated his theory incredibly well and was still able to demonstrate the massive flaws in Darwinian evolution. Laurence Krauss and Lamoureux just invoked their philosophical beliefs rather than provable scientific data.
Did I see the same debate that you did? Meyers completely mischaracterized Evolution as operating purely randomly. Krauss made him take it back when he correctly pointed out that Evolution is a self-pruning process using Natural Selection. This is not at all pure randomness. Meyers also incorrectly claimed that programmers always have to add new code or change existing code when giving software new behaviour. That is incorrect. Nuural Networks can adapt to changing conditions without requiring any input from a programmer.
@Atiø Lozan You're completely missing the point. Evolution works by natural selection and mutations. The possibilities that don't work out do not pass on their genes and die out. That's exactly how neural networks operate. The possibilities that don't work out are automatically discarded. Programmers were required to set up a neural network, that's true, but no "programmers" are required to set up natural selection and mutation.
@UCLlrcftJY5pVYz9To23G-Cg But I just showed you that natural selection with mutation can set up a neural network. And you agree that neural networks can produce new results without any external input. So what's the problem?
@@nissimlevy3762 We did not seem to watch the same debate. Meyers was correct that the mere 1 in 10^77 of the possible protein folds are able to create a protein that is conducive to life. Krauss claiming it is not random because of natural selection. Natural selection is part of the ARRIVAL but of the survival if it arrives. So yes, for a brand new protein fold to occur is totally random mutations - 1 in 10^77. Once it arrives then natural selection will aide in it surviving. A programmer can program an AI to go through a programmed computation method to determine what the programmer programmed is the best outcome. This is intelligent design to the Nth degree. And you are correct that designing for something to be adaptable is a much greater engineered design than merely designing it to do a repeatable task. But what are you trying to say that shows?
@@nissimlevy3762 Not true, Neural Networks change "conditions" based on information or algorithms already programmed in by the programmer in order to recognize patterns. It tries to mimic the way the human brain works and as you can see human created neural networks cannot even come close to what the human brain can do.
The more I watch Krause debates, the more I feel sorry for him. He’s ran over with arguments he can’t respond to intelligently so he uses insults instead. He’s not smart enough to know he should be embarrassed.
I generally like observing debates, and while Meyer presented most of the information I had come to know from reading his work, I'm disappointed to see how Krauss handled the debate. It was sloppy and fallacious. He operated with minimal, if not absent, civility in a public forum. The disrespect is sickening. I don't care what position you hold to, a modicum of conduct should be exhibited in an academic forum such as this. His appeal to authority and ad hominem arguments skirted the actually issue and purpose of having a discussion about the ideas. Hell, his opening statement was essentially a attack on the other position, trying to discredit his opponent as holding to silly, stupid, or meaningless ideas instead of actually addressing the matter at hand. He also attempts to make metaphysical claims while stating that he wants no part in it. As John Lennox would say, scientists often make poor philosophers, and I'm afraid Krauss proves his point ad nauseum. This is shameful.
Yeah, because weaseling into a debate with someone who would not have initially agreed to the debate with you there, that's the honest way to go. Prof. Krauss generally doesn't debate ID people as it leads to people thinking it's a legitimate idea worthy of debate. Meyer knows that, yet managed to get himself added in and Prof. Krauss honored his commitment anyway. That doesn't mean he's not going to point out the sleezy way that Meyer's organization tries to skirt rules in otjer areas too in an attempt to dumb down science classes, and the electorate as a whole.
+Leanne Davis hello! I'm having a hard time seeing where he 'weaseled' into the discussion. Krauss himself admitted to participating in this debate knowing full well what the subject and didn't think about who the participants would be (which he could've). It doesn't excuse the behavior. Instead of addressing the ideas alone, he attacked the other presenters. It's intellectually distasteful and, frankly, comes off as bullying. As far as the ideas being presented, I'd appreciate if you could point out specifics on what ideas of Meyer's seem so absurd compared what Krauss'. If I remember right, Krauss hardly addressed points that Meyer brought up, but instead made appeals to legal cases or pounded the table saying 'that's not how it is'. Not to mention that on a couple of occasions he made appeal to authority, saying the other participants couldn't speak on his ideas because they don't hold degrees in physics. By the same reason he shouldn't speak on anything relating to biology.
+Leanne Davis Also, I do mean this as a general inquiry. I'm not trying to rabble-rouse or anything. It seems as though your concern is that the opposition is affiliated with an organization you don't agree with. Isn't this a form of ad hominem? Instead of listening to and critically analyzing what's being said, an attempt is made to discredit their argument by tarnishing their reputation? In the spirit of intellectual inquiry, and honesty, perhaps we should pick apart the ideas and enjoy that instead of making pseudoarguments that never address the topic at hand.
+Johnathon Swierski First of all, he agreed to do it but did not know that *Meyer* was a part of it until after the fact and held to that agreement. That's what actually happened. Secondly, he explained how this organization wants to be on an intellectual par with science that has gone through rigorous examination which it is not. There are not two sides to every story...sometimes the other side is just wrong. As to what he said about physics, he meant that if they try and speak to a field that they know nothing about with someone at the forefront of the field, he'd be more than willing to make them look like the idiots they really are. Prof. Krauss was the only one speaking to actual scientific theories and hypothesis. A lot of these may be proven with the discovery of gravitational waves, pushing the "God of the gaps" back even further into the realm of superstition and mythology. Prof. Krauss brought up the legal cases so that people would be aware of who Stephen Meyer is and what his organization tries to do so as not to be fooled into thinking he's not a charlatan. Anyone who has ever seen any of the hundreds of debates that Prof. Krauss has done knows that he does not pull punches. At all...ever. You don't like it, don't debate him.
Judging from the comment section it seems like having migraines was the best thing that could've happened to Stephen Meyer. Everyone is talking about that instead of the substance of the debate and it seems Meyer won the debate the second he was able to form sentences while also having a migraine. Amazing.
why do they bother? it's IMPOSSIBLE to show that god exists, those folks insisting that the tea towel of turin is evidence of christ are wasting their time, you can ONLY EVER show that things have a natural origin, you'll never find god's logo printed in DNA - god does not allow it. why religists insist on making themselves look foolish - there own god says "you must have faith" - beats me. what do they expect "look, i proved god exists where's my movie contract"? creationists will always make fools of themselves. god is hidden, he won't let you find him. it's HIS rules sillies. (and he's mainly imaginary). meyer is just trying to become famous for something no one can ever prove or disprove, you a=have been suckered. i don't care one way or the other about krauss, as long as his physics works, fine, but meyer is a LIAR and he is tricking HIS OWN. that is not tolerable.
@@mcmanustonyhave you read his books or his work? Calling someone a liar because they don’t believe what you believe… nice, and presumably without actually knowing his position. Also saying “hey guys I see strong evidence of design here” then spending time researching and articulating that evidence doesn’t seem like religious fantasy. It seems like he believes something because of the evidence, not in spite of it. It’s incredible how similar you “atheist” types are.
I started getting migraines and couldn't read well. It is embarrassing to be at work and mess up reading while presenting. Come to find out I had a rare cancerous brain tumor the size of a lemon. Thank science and doctors for removing the tumor and I've been cancer free for a year. Thank God for my life in the first place and for creating an intelligible universe that we can make medical progress with our ration brains.
@@robvuksanic6841did you seriously comment on a two year old post to tell a grateful cancer survivor who to thank, and not to believe in God? My goodness. You people sometimes.
@@thomasmoeller2961… but …much more significantly life does … have a porpoise 🐬 Also, you haven’t the first clue as to how chemistry became conscious biology .. let alone possibly the most intelligent water living mammal. Not the first clue either as to what consciousness is and how you are going to “make” it in a lab from plasma using the good old cook book of … nature .. or science/materialism. How are you going to make awareness from the only stuff you as a materialist have at your disposal … dead unconscious (extremely hot )matter. I don’t think it’s occurred to science that the Big Bang .. if it happened .. and it almost certainly did .. wasn’t a nuclear explosion in space. No one would wait around for 14 billion years after that … expecting Earth, Einstein, Dali, Disney and Mickey 🐭 to appear. The Bug Bang was obviously the cracking of a cosmic egg .. with the 4 forces transcendent mathematics/geometry (a territory mathematicians feel they discover ) , entropy, arrow of time , space, atoms cooling and flipping bits /info as they “compute” and interrelate . As I said it wasn’t an explosion in space but science pretends it was … leaving out all the intrinsic intelligence forces maths and order .. all the good stuff. Sir Roger Penrose - “Perhaps in 500 years we’ll be able to make a start in understanding consciousness “ and wouldn’t you know it … you don’t know that his theory re consciousness (not what it is but how it may be mediated in the brain through quantum processes ) with Dr Hameroff has had some early confirmation due to lab work on crystalline microtubules found in every cell. Google it. Something to ponder . It’s likely that The Universe (all that is was and will be) is organismic .. it just doesn’t look like a living conscious organism from our perspective if it’s infinity . Reality check for science .. The Universe creates every scientist .. from plasma and no scientist knows what energy IS .. we only have the maps of its behaviour couched in maths (another territory science did not create ) It’s likely that The Universe is cyclic and eternally so (out with time and space) and is an organism of a dimension science can’t get its militant materialist conditioning to even ask the right questions about. If you have the cogent answers or solutions to the above mysteries.. let’s hear them. News just in … Dr Federico Faggin .. inventor of the micro processor /logic gate technology had a mystical experience 30 years ago and has now collaborated with a specialist in quantum information to produce a theory with regard to the relationship between consciousness and quantum theory Mystic - Someone who experiences Universe as self .. and not conceptually but actually. In case you hadn’t realised that is what enlightenment is … what all the fuss is about re the mystical experience talked about by Jesus and Buddha . There is an inner subjective Universe as vast as what only appears to be the outer Universe . Why do you think people meditate in caves for 20 years ? They are explorers as much as any scientist Organised religion has got nothing to do with first hand mystical experience … someone should help Richard Dawkins to understand that fact . Read “The science delusion” by Dr Rupert Sheldrake who has the singular distinction of being banned by TED talks .. for heresy 😀
It's funny cause it gives his life purpose to let us all know we have no purpose. Lol He doesn't realize he is a narcissistic sociopathic tendency person
Amazing to see that there is a platform where people can discuss openly their ideas and debate on question which has been asked again and again through out history. Freedom of speech brings out the best of the intellectual community, religious group and scientist.
"The mark of an educated mind is to entertain a thought - without accepting it". Prof. Kraus is a disgrace. How childish. How arrogant.....and the organisers just sat and watched.
Unfortunately for Meyer, he cannot use any of the alleged scientific rigor he demands of abiogenesis to defend his own ID superstition. Nature is real. Magic is not.
@@lrvogt1257 no one really knows what is real and what is not, maybe magic is real and nature is not, what we are certainly sure of is that science will change drastically in a 100 year and today's conventional wisdom is not any more, paradigm shift will happen always and we will never reach a full understanding of anything, the only thing that is intrinsically feel true is the islamic religion you can ask any question and you will get a satisfied answer, a single book written a 1500 years ago and till this day never debunked maybe you should check it
@@gamingsight8016 : We have a pretty good idea about what phenomena we can predict with accuracy. Testing things is how we determine what is factual. To believe magic, the supernatural, is real will take some compelling evidence and until then there is no reason to accept it. What is considered a satisfactory answer from an ancient text is really up to the individual and largely not scientifically useful. There is no factual information in any of them that educated people at the time didn't know already. One would think an omniscient source would drop a few bits of useful information about germs, eclipses, volcanoes etc. but it was all common knowledge because it was written by common people.
I find it interesting how Lemoureux tries making the point of theists bring a priori assumptions into their interpretations as though no other group does that? Everyone does that. Its part of how science works. You have an idea about how such and such a thing happened and then you look at the evidence to see if how well your assumption fits.
@@ErenYaegerPhilosophy lol no one "deserves" ad-hominems in a formal debate. for so-called "smarter" and more "trained" people to think that that's permissable is just arrogantly dumb. the idea of creation and God is enough for new atheists and anti-theists like Krauss to accuse theists of being misleading because they apparently have a "religious" contempt for all religions.
@@femibabalola4057 so having read fuck all of his actual work and displaying zero interest in changing that, you still feel comfortable questioning why a distinguished scientist who has been tenured on three continents is a professor? Good grief…..you’re a bit special aren’t you….
As far as I know Krauss is not employed as a professor anywhere. His career at ASU was ended by proven evidence of at least 10 years of sexual harassment of women. Behavior you might expect from someone who believes that human beings are merely "cosmic pollution."
He is a professor and a brilliant one. Never seen him get beat in an argument on any subject never mi d the cosmos. Mr rational himself. Superb logic and a master of explaining empiracal evidence, and also an expert at ripping apart indoctrinated myths! FACT!!
I have had the honor to have earned a BA with summa cum laude honors in archaeology, a PhD in theoretical physics, and a PhD in biochemistry from some of the finest Universities in the US. I am thankful to have been published around thirty times so far in well-regarded peer-refereed and reviewed journals, and I greatly enjoy teaching incoming freshman college students and guiding graduate students on their research quests. I have seen and heard thousands of academic lectures and presentations from brilliant people who wished to teach me how to think skeptically, rather than to teach me what it was acceptable and unacceptable to believe. While I have heard a few more intellectually insulting lectures than that of Krauss on this video, I have perhaps not heard any that were accompanied by such a paucity of good, citable science. Krauss should be ashamed for his utter laziness and contempt shown to the other panelists, who actually had some advanced, potentially testable hypotheses. Krauss ought to join a traveling circus, in which audiences are unlikely to have heard his hackneyed, long-debunked pseudo-arguments and stream of ad hominem arguments. As it is, most viewers would gain far more brain stimulation from a yoghurt smoothie.
I do not know where you got your PhDs man but in American prestigious universities like in others around the globe, we use to denounce dishonest charlatans like Meyer. Maybe because your field of knowledge covers so much you just cannot grasp easily understandable basic facts.
I am beginning to think that Meyer has some very good points. Kraus, on this occasion, couldn't not talk his way over this or interrupt his way to victory. I think that Meyer would probably win this on a good day.
Myer makes poor arguments and presents poorly, he mumbles and rambles and could not articulate his points - I think had Richard Dawkins been on stage, Dr Dawkins would have shown Myers up to be the poor scientist he is. Kraus won this one
@@inman8583actually, even with the presentation, the points were very strong despite the migraine. The fact that you don't know shows you haven't watch this debate or just don't care for other sides
@@curtisreimer4592 lol, he deserves it, god's way of telling him to go home and keep his crap t himself, don't you think, or do you disagree with god? i think it was a modern miracle, even god hates meyers guts and tried to shut him up. o? you disagree with me?
Stephen meyer himself is as good of an argument for the existence of God as his science. Being humble and patient amidst bullying and insults from Krauss is a concrete argument from this man.
In general: if you have to take a cheap shot [or multiple], you probably feel its the best, or only, way to score points. Rather than attack the argument with reason or a counter point, you attack the man. Find me a debate where the atheist isn't smug & full of snarky insults- I may have seen one, but it's extremely rare. "Empty space with nothing in it, can start to produce particles." Uhh- what? Where did you get the 'space' and how do you define 'nothing'? Krauss' model makes no sense and I think he knows that once it is challenged. The whole negative energy/positive energy meaning you can create a universe with No energy [free lunch] hypothesis is nonsense. It may sound impressive but it doesn't work in any practical sense.
Amazing that an intellectual like krauss could talk about a “universe that doesn’t care”, and the meaninglessness of our existence, and then go on to mention that we “should” do this and “should not” do that, over and over and over. Thanks for the irony Dr
there is no irony in there;you just don`t understand that while the universe,certainty does not care,we as human society,putting up in this world,in this universe our constructs,do care ,because,it is in our interest as humanity to care.The latest news ,however show that even we don`t care what`s happening to the world ,and most likely,in not to a distant future ,we shall prove the larger truth that neither we nor the universe care for life!There,you see the difference how to take Krauss` statement.
Jacek Masterofalltrades This is a metaphysical question. He’s essentially saying there are only facts without meaning. Yet he derives morality. That is the is-ought problem. He’s being irrational or at least incoherent with this world view
@@deanodebo: do you think that just because you use a meaningless mambo-jumbo word like metaphysical you saying anything sensible. No you idiot,facts have no meaning,they are only meaningful in a context,within a framework of a discourse.Everything is subject to an interpretation.And stop using the word metaphysical,the word in discussion about how the mechanisms of the world we live in does not carry any weight,it`s just hot,stinking air!
Jacek Masterofalltrades Send over a list of words you don’t understand, that way I can avoid using them. Oh,and,thanks,for,the, irony, i,love,when,morons,call,me,an,Idiot,,,,,in,their,own,special,way
I’m sorry to find Dr Meyer was not in a proper mode. I suspect partly because he had not well prepared to be attacked by a Christian brother, but I don’t think his headache was an excuse as suggested by KC-vk6mg. Sometimes, when you lose a step, a normally insignificant unfavourable factor may bring you completely out of balance.
I genuinely believe that dr Meyer was put off by that opening speech from Krauss. Not everyone can just ignore personal insults on a stage and focus on their speech. It’s no wonder Krauss likes to go first in many of his debates, so he can make his opponent more uncomfortable before they have evens started to give their speech. Furthermore when they are having a discussion sat down and Krauss tells Meyer “I’ve been know to give people migraines” shows you all you need to know about Krauss
Typical Atheist rude and bigoted ad hominem attack similar to Richard Dawkins calling Anthony Flew "senile" when he followed the science to an understanding that the complexity of design at the microbiological level points to a Designer. A less godly person than Meyers would wish that you suffered a solid months worth of migraines before you make such an unfounded and disgusting accusation again. @@Vintage-Bob
well meyer is a liar, if you can;t see it, then i feel sorry for you, but i don't really care, cos likely you aren't interested in science or truth, just another one wants to get into heaven by any means possible.
@@blakeenloe3608 i never watchthiese things cvos listening to people like meyers talk nonsense is painful, i just troll people like you who clearly need to be told how to think cos you can't think for yourself. here, let me remond you of your OWN religion: it's IMPOSSIBLE to show that god exists, those folks insisting that the tea towel of turin is evidence of christ are wasting their time, you can ONLY EVER show that things have a natural origin, you'll never find god's logo printed in DNA - god does not allow it. why religists insist on making themselves look foolish - there own god says "you must have faith" - beats me. what do they expect "look, i proved god exists where's my movie contract"? creationists will always make fools of themselves. god is hidden, he won't let you find him. it's HIS rules sillies. (and he's mainly imaginary).
Even with the obvious distraction of a migraine Meyer understood and meet head on all the points and arguments raised by Krauss, it's a shame it didn't work the other way around!
meyer is full of bollocks mate, why do religists insist on acting like science is some kind of conspiracy and the real liars, the meyers of this world, get applauded - they are lying to YOU as well you know. whether god exists or not, you don't LIE about it. i frigging hate god, but prove to me he's real and i'll shrug and go "okay" meyer is making fools of YOU, his own, with this UTTER TRIPE. why do they bother? it's IMPOSSIBLE to show that god exists, those folks insisting that the tea towel of turin is evidence of christ are wasting their time, you can ONLY EVER show that things have a natural origin, you'll never find god's logo printed in DNA - god does not allow it. why religists insist on making themselves look foolish - there own god says "you must have faith" - beats me. what do they expect "look, i proved god exists where's my movie contract"? creationists will always make fools of themselves. god is hidden, he won't let you find him. it's HIS rules sillies. (and he's mainly imaginary). meyer is just trying to become famous for something no one can ever prove or disprove, you a=have been suckered. i don't care one way or the other about krauss, as long as his physics works, fine, but meyer is a LIAR and he is tricking HIS OWN. that is not tolerable.
Krauss just calls name and this and that like if he were giving a demonstration on a museum to kids. he got nothing to offers. Good thing Dr. Meyer expanded about ID and the fine tune. I never lose my time when listening to Dr. Meyer lectures. I am sorry to be blunt, but Dr. Krauss need go to a library for more research and prepare more before engaging in a debate with ID proponents. He lost this debate but never is too late to go prepare with more research. Good debate, the more the hot the better. Dr. Meyer got this one.
I am very impressed with Meyer. Krauss is very good at ad-hominem, directing his statements against Stephen, God, etc., rather than the position Meyer was maintaining.
His books are interesting. In his book; a universe from nothing he contradicts himself when he says “of course I don’t mean nothing in the classical sense” he and Dawkins are narcissistic and the believe in god, it’s just that they are it!
Meyers couldn't handle krauss and his intellectual arguments so his brain went into recovery mode and he had a migraine 🤣🤣. Meyers has built a career making these unscientific arguments to illiterate Christians who already believe in intelligent design. So, when you put an intellectual giant like Krauss in front of him he conveniently has a migraine. Such a coward 😔.
54:00 props to Meyer for persevering through a migraine. I know exactly this sensation of losing your direct sense of vision, not being able to read or perceive objects in space. It is hell. I would have to bail on the debate right then and there. I don't know how he was able to continue.
Any person, regardless of credentials, who uses mocking ad hominem attacks in a public forum to presumably boost his point of view, immediately causes me to discount Dr. Krauss. I was shocked at his behavior. Dr. Meyers has significant credentials and may or may not be right, but no one should be treated like this in public.
It seems ironic that Krauss sounds like a babbling dogmatic preacher. I can't shake the feeling that he's smoke-screening by quickly hurling so many personal insults at the person he's debating. That behavior should be slapped down by the moderator. This should be a content-only forum, not a popularity contest. Maybe he's terrified at the possible reality of a creator, maybe he should be.
Matt yes I also agree that the moderator should have intervened for Krauss own well being, He just ignored his opponent Dr. Meyer's lecture was serious and informative. The only thing I gained with Dr. Krauss was that slide of the Hubbert picture of the universe the rest was bulling and disrespecting a sincere debate. Lamentable.
Maybe I need to back up a bit to see what this Wycliffe channel / forum is all about? Moderator inaction is one thing, and the audience applause another. A crowd assembled to hear a talk on this subject should cause Krauss type insults to fail like the worst joke in stand up comedy history.
I'm working thru a book called "The Biotic Message" by James Remine that postulates that the theory of evolution is simply a bunch of magic, where one explanation slips into another, as one doesn't fully work. Remine tears the theory to pieces, with their own words, into four logical fallacies: tautologies, like the survival of the fittest (who are the fittest, those who survive; who survives, only the fittest), special definitions that are a multitude of conflicting explanations masquerading as a single unified theory, metaphysical explanations that are not testable and so are not science, and lame formulations that do not even address the problem of adaptation, so, therefore, they cannot solve it. At a bit over 500+ pages it is well worth the read, and you will be an expert, by the end.
My respect for S.C.Meyer has increased a thousand fold after watching this. Krauss is intentionally crass. His character oozes a thick and stench aura akin to a decomposing skunk. Here he shows his ignoble and vainglorious mindset, he is a monumental embarrasment to academia and the human pursuit of knowledge.
"he is a monumental embarrasment to academia and the human pursuit of knowledge"- what a pile of ignorant pompous horseshit. How much of Krauss's academic research have you read? That's right Sparky- NONE. I've read every syllable of Meyer's peer reviewed research- there being precisely NONE. What a posturing dickhead.
@@muhammadsalafiahlulhadith I disagree with you. All of existence must have emerged from non existence. If you are asking how all that exists emerged and if you say it emerged from something that also exists then you need to ask where that thing that exists came from. The only idea that makes sense is that Reality initially popped out of nothing.
@@neiljohnson7914 *HAHAHAHA DELUSIONAL ATHEIST LITERALLY PROVES MY POINT! U R JUST AS DUMB AS KRAUSS U BELIEVE THE WHOLE UNIVERSE CAME FROM NOTHING! LOL*
Krauss is a perfect example of what God says "Men hate God and refuse to submit" ROMANS 8:7 This has never been about evidence or Science. This is about a group of individuals who resist God and Truth.
One way or the other...either for God or against God...no one knows the truth. Period. All of us are in the dark together no matter what you speculate.
How do you or anybody else know what God said. This is not an accepted axiom. You've only got to look at the tele- evangelism community to get a dose of God nonsense .
It really saddens me that Krauss, who I have held in high regard, opened up this discussion by poisoning the well against Meyer. I have been an atheist of sorts for a few years now but on a constant search for more, and listening to Stephen C Meyer I have often been astounded by just how well articulated and evidenced the arguments for intelligent design have become. I don’t have a dog in the fight in a sense, if the universe was designed great, if it is a product of cause and effect and random mutation that’s fine too, I’m just fascinated by the exploration of the ideas. The idea about “teaching the controversy” is becoming more important as time goes on because there are more and more weighty challenges being given to evolution by natural selection as the explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. If nothing else, I am curious if the theory of evolution needs some sort of massive update to how the mechanism works that we haven’t yet figured out, possibly due in part to the scientific community having such a need to hold to its dogma.
@@mcmanustony I don’t doubt any specific claim, as that wasn’t my intention - I’m actually an avid listener to the Origins podcast; I would point you to what ‘assertion’ actually means…
These debates are so fascinating. Everyone in my house thinks I’m so smart by listening lol. I tell my daughter who is 11 that I don’t understand all the specifics but it does not stop me from enjoying my curiosity. I have “The Physics of Star Trek” by Krauss and have been a fan for a long time. You can understand my dissatisfaction with his behavior on this panel. What a jerk.
Mr Krauss for all his scientific legitimacy launches right into discrediting Mr Meyer's work as well as disparaging his peson, supposing this will exonerate himself. The debate is not about Mr Meyer, and his credentials. Mr Krauss after his attack on Mr Meyer, puts forward 3 rules (by which we are supposed to judge his opponents). 1. Do not assume the answers before you ask the questions. (adding) Our beliefs should conform to the evidence of reality, not vice versa. 2. The universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not. (After further comment he adds) - 'it's up to the universe, not us, to decide what makes sense. 3. Lack of understanding is not evidence for God. It is evidence for lack of understanding. Mr Krauss assumes that the universe itself can decide what makes sense, not us. Mr Krauss no doubt realizes that he is a person with intelligence, but by his own admission, it is not up to him (nor anyone) to decide what makes sense, it is the UNIVERSE that must decide. This assumes that the universe has the capacity to decide something that we cannot. This implies intelligence and or personality, and makes the universe more intelligent than any person or group of persons on the face of the earth. How does Mr Krauss know that the universe has intelligence to decide anything, let alone decide what makes sense? His comments are not science. It is a personal assumption. How would he know if the universe can decide anything? Where is his empirical evidence to observe or measure that the universe itself processes any information, or decides anything? When addressing the billions of galaxies in the universe and their ages etc, he says; “the civilizations that may have existed around those stars, that may have invented their own myths are long gone. And if they took a picture of us....... by the time the image got there, our civilization will be long gone and our sun will be burnt out...(etc)....because the univese doesn't care about us.” 1. Civilizations MAY have existed (assumption - no evidence) 2. MAY have invented their own myths (assumption - no evidence) 3. ARE long gone (statement of fact). 4. IF they took a picture of us (assumption - no evidence). 5. The universe doesn't care about us (statement of fact). (How would he know? It may well care a lot about us) Here he makes 2 assumptions and turns it into a fact by the use of the phrase 'are long gone'. Then another assumption, which he turns into a fact by stating that the universe has the ability to not care about life on earth, which implies the universe has some kind of intelligence or personality. How would he know this? This lack of knowledge of Mr Krauss is not evidence for the universe having any such function, but shows his own lack of understanding. It seems like he is breaking his own rules. About the 19 min mark he states that everything in the universe, and the room he and others present are in, are, uncluding the 'us' is irrelevant and that this is ...wonderfulL It is WONDERFUL to be irrelevant!!?? So by his own admission everything he says is irrelevent; all his knowledge, all his argumentation, all his endeavours to prove Mr Meyer a liar, is simply irelevant. Not only is Mr Meyer and the other speaker and the adjudicator irrelevant , anything he has to say on what he seeks to prove is irrelevant. How scientific is that? He says that empty space is not so empty, but is a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles... (and) when you add gravity in, and wait long enough..... Where did the boiling bubbling brew come from to begin the process of forming the universe in which space is a part of? What or who adds the gravity in? Waiting long enough? Where does the time element come from and why does “it” need to wait at all? Why can't it all happen instaneously, with everything appearing fully formed and fully matured? I think Mr Krauss has shot himself in the foot, in both of them. I wonder if he thinks love and affection and kindness and hope are irrelevant? Mr Krauss wants to believe in a universe without God. He is indeed without God and without hope. And one day it will not be so irrlelevant and useless to him at all.
@@quantumdave1592 Whom do you trust and hope in- yourself? You will see how clever you are on the Day of Judgment when you stand before your Maker and Redeemer whom you dismiss without His blessing. Acts 17:27-31 Today is the day of salvation. You may or may not get tomorrow.
@@ianmcdonald8648 First of all, you are batshit crazy. Second, you assume I am not religious. Third, Jesus never said you have to be brain dead to get to heaven. There is no incompatibility between science and religion. Krause may not be religious, but he has valid points. Blind religion is far more dangerous than any atheist.
Meyers couldn't handle krauss and his intellectual arguments so his brain went into recovery mode and he had a migraine 🤣🤣. Meyers has built a career making these unscientific arguments to illiterate Christians who already believe in intelligent design. So, when you put an intellectual giant like Krauss in front of him he conveniently has a migraine. Such a coward 😔.
@@terryknight6817 🤣🤣 your post is a perfect example of ignorance. Krauss' science is more aking to speculation. Meyers never mentions, but it is Krauss that cant resist theburge to go there.
@@terryknight6817 What else can you say.... the reason why? or just claims and insults. that's what Krauss did and that's what his audience did. Even though Meyer had a migraine, he still managed to shut down both krauss and his audience with comebacks. That takes skill man.
@@christiandanario Hey nitwit Wycliffe College is a Theology school....so I doubt krauss had much of an audience there. Shut down lol. Typical theist..... you did no research to know that.
In the very moment you realize that the cell operates with integrated networks of digital information processing, the inference of its primordial *intelligent design* is rather _EFFORTLESS._
The moment you see a moron replying an intellectual claim with personal insult without nearly discussing the claim itself logically, is when you know that the likes of Kraus have many children. ؛؛؛؛
I think the point is that it's a little too effortless. We use digital code for computers, so it's easy to anthropomorphize things in nature and say "hey that's like what we do." I think Krauss is very combative in this debate but I think the point is that one shouldn't fall back on "I guess it's designed" at every roadblock that arises.
@@AhmedAbughadeer. It was an opinion, not a dissertation. It was aimed to people like me; professionals in the biological sciences that know who really Meyer is. I did not pretend to educate you, or convince you o even argue science with you. That’s your own responsibility. And it seems that you need a lot of reading if you give any credit to the non-sense that Meyer regurgitates.
@@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523 You say, "It was an opinion, not a dissertation. It was aimed to people like me; professionals in the biological sciences that know who really Meyer is." Well, please, tell us all -- who is Dr. Stephen Meyer??
In the film 'Enemy of the State' Jon Voight's character makes the following statement regarding Will Smith's character: "I want people to know he's lying before they hear what he says". Seeing the attitude of Krauss in his opening statement reminded me of that.
It’s a long time since I watched it and I only rewatched the first minute of Krauss talking to remind me what we were discussing here. But it struck me as an attempt at character assassination over rational dialogue. I’d be pretty suspicious of anyone who who went to great lengths to disparage an opponent’s motives before addressing the opponent’s claims. If Krauss is so correct, let his irrefutable arguments do the disparaging for him. After all, it may be true that Meyer has underhand motives to smuggle the teaching of ID into classrooms. But that is irrelevant to the truth of ID as a concept.
@@JonnyJackalK19 There is no theory of ID. There is a bunch of slogans and nothing more. They collect no data, do no experiments, publish no research (even their own comedic vanity journal has published nothing for years), make no testable predictions etc. So the attempt to push an idea comprehensively rejected by the relevant scientific communities can't be anything other than underhand. Regardless of Krauss's command of biology (not as good as it should have been), pointing out that Meyer is a corrupt and dishonest zealot is perfectly fine. ID has been systematically debunked as a scientific non-starter by multiple biologists, geneticists, biochemists etc. I can give references if needed.
He's correct. That's the important part. Religious nonsense should no be promulgated in schools at all. The rest of the civilized world shakes their heads at the USA, who still have serious problems with creationists. It's the ONLY western world country with this problem.
@@matsbjur2535 It shoild be obvious to any thinking person that dogma is not within the empirical evidence of the scientific method. This includes the atheistic dogma. Sadly too many seem to demand that the scientific method must show their atheistic dogma and are very antiscientific. Sad to see really.
Krauss lost me when he said “gravity and bubbles of quantum realm come together, we get particles and a universe from nothing.” Whaaaaat!?!? Gravity and quantum vacuum is not “nothing” in the sense of the word absence of anything. That’s stupidity.
Big props to Meyer. I suffered from migraines for years before they discovered my trigger. Huge respect for this performance. I heard him say that he never got to articulate his true main argument because of the migraine. If that’s true, Krauss would’ve got completely destroyed.
@@MarcusHitch God truly had mercy on both of Stephen’s colleagues that evening. They both would have been obliterated with Scientific truth. And his cosmological argument for Krauss would have been a knockout blow. He gives a little more insight into this very night in his latest book. The origin of information and the concept of prior fine tuning are two of the huge hurdles that purely material causes will Never solve. Professor Dave admitted as much at the end of his recent debate with James Tour.
@@yeshualifeorg918 Yeah, I've seen the Tour/ Farina debate twice, just for shits and giggles. Dave brought a mountain of research, and Tour brought his manic tendencies and a stick of chalk. Meyer, Meyer, pants on fire, got roasted here. Everything he said about biology, got crushed by an evangelical biologist, and his cosmological "argument" would undoubtedly be weak as piss too... sorry.
Krauss is a weak man. He knows though , but just like a little boy he doesn't wanna lose his ball. I'm glad he utilizes quotes so often because you can easily tear down everything he says using nothing but the man's own words that he once utterered.
The materialists are not into science…they are into their dogmatic quasi-religious, pseudo-scientism. It has absolutely nothing to do with science per se… from the literature it is clear it is nothing but a concoction that ignores all contradictory data.
What’s Behind it all? God, Science and the Universe. I wanna see Dr. John Lennox & Stephen Meyer Ph.D debate Lawrence Krauss & Sam Harris at Wycliffe College at the University of Toronto
I'm no scientist, but what I walk away with after the entirety of the discussion is that Krauss and the other fellow view Meyer's argument as a "God of the Gap's" argument, which they clearly reject. The problem I see is that this gap, or lack of knowledge about the origins of the information that begins a mutation, is so large in its vast openness that it could contain all other previous gaps and is rivaled only by the other behemoth, which is how existence began with all its multiple Universes and Yatta, Yatta, I will make a prediction: science will never and can never disprove Intelligent Design.
@@SarjanaTeknikKimia I don't understand, please explain your point. It seems to me that intelligent design implies the process of logic. Logic is an "Operator" in the mathematical sense. Intelligent design is the system, like Euclidean geometry is a system which encompasses operators like Hypothesis, Postulates, Theorems, etc.
Krauss thinks if you can explain the inner workings of a computer you don't need the one who designed it to even exist. Krauss also says he has no evidence that a Designer exists but he will fight every idea that would suggest that there is one. There's just too much atheism and too much hatred for the opposite in Krauss' presentation that skews everything else he says. To be willfully ignorant of the designs in nature just because you don't like the implications of it can be the worse self-deception ever.
+Self Fulfilling Prophet: the Ten Commandments are not arbitrary--and as Hitchen once said: a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
+Self Fulfilling Prophet: "2000 year whisper-game," See "Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels," by Kenneth E. Bailey @ biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_tradition_bailey.html. He also eliminates the claim about the "telephone game"" Bailey quickly dispenses with this comparison in "Middle Eastern Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels." He clarifies how Western youth leaders played the game with Middle Eastern students. "To the amazement and dismay of the western guest, the story emerges almost intact at the end of the game. In such cases what is passed on is irrelevant material" (p. 366). But in the informal gatherings of villagers in the Middle East, the material is highly significant. So this means that the storytellers take extra-care in transmitting a story. Read more: www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/do_oral_traditions_lie_behind.html#ixzz43k8CACsY Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
+MosheMYY M If random mutation together with non-random selection cannot give rise to new information, I wonder why genetic algorithms (computer simulations of natural selection) are used so extensively as an optimisation algorithm in so many fields of study. I guess that thousands of people are merely entertaining themselves and pretending to do useful stuff as a job security measure, because if we believe Stephen Meyer, they sure can't be attempting to discover new solutions to difficult problems, because that would constitute new information. Meyer gives the false impression that biological enzymes can be assessed on the basis of chance in the way he describes. He claims that a biological enzyme can be said to have a one in 10 to the 77 chance of happening. For this claim to be true he would have to prove that the example he gives of a biological enzyme is in fact the ONLY active enzyme among the gazillion he has calculated. NOTE: he has calculated the probability mathematically, BUT he has NOT synthesised the entire gazillion different sequences and tested each one to see if only one is in fact active. And what's more, there is no way known that he, his buddy whom he referred to, or anyone else is going synthesize and test 10 to the 77 sequences. So the important message is we do not know how many sequences might be equally or perhaps even more effective than the single one we do know about. Even if we accept his trashy probability figures, we are at least dealing with KNOWN chemical processes, KNOWN atoms, KNOWN molecules, KNOWN chemical bonding processes, KNOWN phenomena of enzymatic activity all happening in a KNOWN universe. Even randomness is a KNOWN phenomenon. Now to see which one of TWO events is more probable than the other, it is blindingly obvious that we need to calculate not one but TWO probabilities!!!! That way WE CAN COMPARE THEM TO SEE WHICH IS MORE LIKELY!!!! Are you with me so far??? So does he calculate the probability of there being an intelligent agent, that must have arisen by means UNKNOWN, that exists in a place UNKNOWN, that is manifest of some substance UNKNOWN, that manipulates atoms and molecules here on earth (why here of all places in the universe?) by means UNKNOWN, employing intelligence way beyond anything we have (hint: this agent would need to be way more complex than anything it is invoked to explain!!!). Guess what: NO he does not come up with the other calculation of probability, and even more telling, he does not give it even ONE NANOSECOND of thought! He is effectively requiring science to explain the position of every atom in every living organism, but thinks his own idea of ID is exempt from any critical thought and investigation! Now THAT is what I call an asymmetry of argument, if ever there were one!!! So criticise someone else's ideas as much as you like, but that does NOTHING to prove your own!! No wonder Krauss was upset at having to debate this guy. Debating him gives the false impression that there even is anything to debate at all! The poor Lamoureux guy, while he did come up with two good bits of information - evidence for the evolution of teeth from scales (Hey, did any creationists notice the INTERMEDIATE FORMS???!!!!), and the evolution of a nylonase enzyme - the rest of what he had to say was essentially vacuous. He is bright enough to appreciate the evidence for evolution, but he is so scarred by religious thinking that he is quite unable to break free from its shackles. Instead he tries to have his cake and he wants to eat it too. PS I have debated creationists and IDers ad nausium and I know that whenever I challenge them to apply the same level of detail that they demand of science, to their own ideas, the outcome is ALWAYS the same. They go silent. I expect it will be no different this time. The reason is obvious. Science at least HAS a theory. They, on the other hand, no matter how hard they try to spin it, have precisely NOTHING.
I’m surprised how GREAT Stephen Meyer did with the facts even though he had a horribly debilitating MIGRAINE during this debate! Amazing, and hats off to him and his professionalism! If the facts trash his opponents on his worst day, what if he was having a good day? And then, how ridiculously immature and unprofessional Krause is! I’ve never seen anything quite like it. He humiliated himself. Anyone with debate education can see right through it. Appeal to authority, insult your opponent, and fallaciously avoid the details and facts of the genuine discussion by attacking the character, motive, or other attributes of the person you are supposed to be debating!? Can any say Ad Hominem?! Then the amount of Straw Man arguments were ridiculous. This is academia folks! It is also extremely revealing! Everyone should read Stephen Meyers book. It is excellent.
"The facts"? Meyer's postion is based on the false assumption that natural selection is a random process. It isn't. His entire position fails right there.
@Anthony Maurice why would you infer that? A scientific observation of organic life emerging from inorganic chemistry would be a Nobel prize winner. Your position is "God of the gaps"... and if/when those gaps are filled what happens to your peace of mind?
Peter Ward is another arrogant example of "see how smart I am and how ignorant you are", Stephen Meyer has debated. Ward was less critical than Krauss, but no less arrogant.
@@N3Rd32 Not exactly. In another forum he could be debating someone who believes .. all is mind .. and he has two PhDs one in Philosophy (idealism) the other in Computer Science (he previously worked at CERN .. and not as a plumber) Dr (x2 ) Bernardo Kastrup .. was once 15 years old. They, perhaps wisely didn’t mention the fact that materialism has practically nothing to say about the actuality which makes science possible and lends being/existence to everything … consciousness. It’s simple. The materialist majority practicing within the scientific community hold a big fat assumption as fact. This is that energy (E=mc2) is dead and mechanical. Just like life, energy is “something” that science never needs to define. Never needs to say what it IS not … merely give a mathematical narrative about observations of phenomena. No one k owes how “dead” chemistry (once dead formless plasma “energy” of The Big Bang❗️) … becomes conscious biology 🧬 No one knows (google it) or has the FIRST CLUE. Intuitively it seems apparent (because we are waiting as a scientific community for some facts) that energy has never been dead and unconscious. The Universe is organismic in essence in nature … that’s why and how “dead” matter/ LEGO atoms manage to progress via stars planets seas and cells … to Disney and Mickey Mouse. Just leave plasma with its inherent teleology of .. the 4 forces .. the transcendent territory of mathematics/geometry, information, atoms as they manifest from the plasma start flipping bits … computing dynamically interrelating m, in now present (but derivative) time and space, the directionality of entropy Just some cooling and clumping and some waiting around for 14 billion years … hey presto … what was inherent in the Big Bang plasma manifests somewhere in the almost infinite Universe (which may eternally be cyclic … see Sir Roger Penrose ) Yep … science can’t agree a definition of what constitutes .. life No surprise … because their dead unconscious mechanical Universe is a fiction a hallucination of logical positivism and militant materialism. The cosmic egg 🥚 of creation isn’t a hippy joke. Plasma .. waiting … Disney 🐭 That’s what happened. Otherwise make some consciousness from some Lego atoms via a Lego brain 🧠 within a Lego person in a dead Lego Universe … in the lab from plasma …. See how you get on. Google it … there is absolutely no evidence that brains manufacture consciousness. Read the book “ The Science Delusion by Dr Rupert Sheldrake” if only for to recognise his badge of honour of being banned from the TED talk platform “No platformed” .. for saying things which don’t compute .. to militant materialists because their creed bans even the possibility that the Uni-verse is organismic in essence. Plasma grew a Universe as much as evolved one. How could plasma produce the chicken and egg and the chicken and egg problem within consciousness … if both egg and chicken are not potentials within the pure energy of the Big Bang Plasma stars black holes galaxies planets 🌍 seas and cells … and 💃🏻 All manifested without a single human thought or scientific theory from the living teleos that is … whatever energy IS …. and no one knows what it IS. Even the slanderer Laurence “Crass” Some humility in the face of the miracle would help find an answer to the above unknowns. Dark matter/energy anyone? Help 95% of the Universe is missing but Laurence has it all sewn up. Earth 🌍 🌊 🦠.. Science is functioning in a dead and unconscious zone and expects to uncover the mystery of life and consciousness … which gave existence to every scientist… and science itself.
It is amazing how Krauss flips back and before, declaring he knows everything and declaring he knows nothing, and the fools in the audience applauding him. I think, if he was arguing before a group of psychiatrists, he would be declared insane.
+Bob Beckel Rather than expose about yourself the fact that you do not have the capacity to comprehend the findings of science, why not concentrate on showing even the slightest bit of evidence for any supernatural being let alone the one particular god that you believe exists? It's easy to attempt ad hominem but unfortunately it gets you no where as an argument stands or falls on its own merit or lack thereof, especially the argument for gods. So.....evidence please.
He has a PhD in the history and philosophy of science. Meaning, he isn't a scientist. And these qualifications make him good at only one thing: Writing books full of bullshit. His arguments are mostly derived from those of Douglas Axe, and cobbled together crap from creationists about paleontology.
I made no claims about his credentials. I simply stated that he reminds me of a character from the bible... err I mean Star Trek. Improve your reading comprehension.
Ernani Savaris and if he succeeds, he will try to convince us that it was not fine tuned. Also, he has to take from preexisting information to make such life. I can’t believe a scientist being this dumb.
@@auxtas The more we learn about the complexity of life, the further away we are from recreating it. It's ironic, but at the same step science understands about the origin of life, the more it appears to be a miracle that it ever happened. Krauss is just pulling stuff out of his ass when he says atrocious bullshit such as that one.
My gosh....Kraus is insufferable. I've watched him perform his schtick enough; he'll go into a debate and completely disregard the debate topic in favor of leveling personal attacks on his opponent. As a physicist, I'm sure he's brilliant. As a philosopher he's an embarrassment.
john roesti Lol, let me educate you nitwit. When you're on stage discussing "What's behind it all..." you're engaging in philosophical debate. Thanks for trying spud.
+john roesti I'd like to invite everyone to check out your RUclips profile and view your predilection for kids doing yoga and painting their toes. Thanks again spud!
+realtick You spent a lot of time on this, you thought you could shame me? Not possible, I go to sleep watching CHaboyyhd and wake up to girls failing to draw with their toes it's called autoplay. And your still a moron.
Meyer is correct! Abiogenesis is a Joke! Chemists in state of the art labs, cant even force abiogenesis to happen in controlled labs!! Krauss thinks it can happen on harsh early earth!
In a interview Meyers explained that he had a really bad migraine just before this presentation, and had trouble speaking and seeing. Edit: he actually says this at 54:00
Dr Stephen Meyers won the day by knocking out both opponents with his hands tied behind his back and both feet too. I hope Krauss manages to keep on working and maybe one day he will string together a sentence that makes sense .
One is heaping up as much scientific information as he can to demonstrate no more than that we don't need to believe in God as he sees it. I am sure he was mixing facts with theories with hypothesises with his own imagery explanations. The other is just pleading “I am with you guys, I believe in science too, please don't kick me out”. And then Myers is discussing a specific point with apparent logic making apparently perfect sense. But no one else is providing any arguments about the exact points Myers is making, instead they're lost in their own monologues. ؛؛؛؛
proximaism You obviously don’t know the meaning of the word atheist. I am not surprised by such ignorance. Creationists are either ignorant, wilfully ignorant, or dishonest. In this era of information there is no excuse for just plain ignorance.
Krauss is arguing against something he doesn't like. He invoke bad design against intelligent design, which isn't an argument against design. He has no science contrary to intelligent design, just ad hominems and strawmen arguments. Lamoureux has been duped by evolutionary science, nothing more to say about him. Meyer still did a good job explaining the position of intelligent design and why there is reason to infer intelligence as the reason for the awesome designs in the world and the fine tuning conditions of the universe. I hope he gets well soon.
+MosheMYY M Lamoureux duped by scientific facts which amass into the Theory of Evolution? You should take one think he said from his rather poor performance...evolutionary science and theism are not in opposition.
+CanadianOrth Lamoureux duped as I stated. There are no scientific facts backing evolution, just evolutionary scientists probing fully formed, fully designed, fully functional biological systems that are programmed to adapt and have variation. They try to assign all they see to evolution without ever presenting demonstrations of evolution in action. Lastly, contrary to Darwin's imagination of organisms upgrading we see nothing but devolution.
MosheMYY M I see you have not really looked at evolution but have merely dismissed it. Even Answers in Genesis now realizes that todays animals could not have been created by God and on the ark, but only some primitive "kinds" which later experienced hyper evolutionary speciation in under 4500 yrs without anyone noticing. thenaturalhistorian.com/2015/12/30/dodging-darwin-how-ken-hams-ark-encounter-is-slowly-embracing-evolution/
Dr. Krauss should know that a cause and its effect can exist together. For example, a refrigerator magnet sticks to the refrigerator door because magnetism is causing it to do that. Megnetism doesn't attach the magnet to the door, stop working on it, and leave the magnet stuck there.
1:28:00 Some ancient science is quite good, and we're discovering that some ancient scientists were even millennia ahead of their times. (If I recall correctly, someone effectively invented a kind of calculus centuries before Leibniz and Newton) Euclidean geometry is of course still useful today, despite being from Ancient Greece.
@@lrvogt1257 The Church was the most active support of science from the beginning of Christianity. The university system came into being because of the Church! And attendance was free! Scientists right up to the Enlightenment found their most powerful motivation pursuing the nature of things around them because they found--and still find--it reflects the mind of the Creator, giving them a transcendent experience in the bargain. One which you are missing.
@@janetbaker1945 : It's true that the church supported inquiry until it began conflicting with Biblical accounts... as you say "right up to the Enlightenment." Then they opposed any science they deemed a threat just as fundamentalists do to this day. Any discussion of the origin of the universe, abiogenesis, and evolution is immediately followed by whining about "atheistic scientism."
Louis Pasteur was the one scientist of his day who denied spontaneous generation. All the atheists claimed it was a fact. But Pasteur knew that God doesn't work that way. Life comes only from life. So he had to crush the atheist mockers by proving it a dozen different ways. So who were the enemies of progress?
+bammbamm12 said "Louis Pasteur was the one scientist of his day who denied spontaneous generation." Rubbish. The ancients beliefs that rotting meat spawned maggots and sweaty shirts produced lice were popular "wives tale" myths and folklore. They had nothing to do with "science". That folklore also had NOTHING to do with atheism. As a born-again Christian and retired scientist and Biblical scholar, I find Krauss both annoying and often misleading. But when anti-evolutionists confuse spontaneous generation and abiogenesis with evolution, they nauseate everyone on all sides of the origins debates. Please. Learn some basic science before posting nonsense.
+bammbamm12, by the way, for centuries prior to Pasteur (and the other scientists who denied spontaneous generation), many Christians assumed that maggots came from rotted meat and lice from sweaty shirts because the fall of Adam and Eve when they sinned in the garden of Eden brought about such spontaneous generation cycles. So your attempt to spin this history into an anti-atheism propaganda spiel is ignorant at best and dishonest at worst. Please. You aren't advancing the Kingdom through the Great Commission when you display ignorance and dishonesty because you naively copied such rubbish from silly origins-ministry websites.
Allen Joseph I don't blame you for being sore. It was a huge embarrassment for the atheists. But you have to live with your foibles. Just like people laughed at Columbus, your people laughed at Pasteur. Don't try to reinvent history. You made fools of yourselves, and you always will. By the way, I understand the missing link is still missing. Hahahahahahahahahah!!!
There’s a common thread with Atheists - arrogance. Dawkins, Krause, Dennett, Hitchens, et al. “They will be ever increasing in knowledge yet be unable to see the truth”.
I think thats a strong reason to believe in God as well,since its a proof why people who believe in God arent arrogant and are generally better people with a good aura surrounding them,while atheists ALWAYS are arrogant and full of themselves.I havent met yet any atheist who has a good energy surrounding him.What can u expect from someone who denies his own Creator? Its clearly a proof for those who think.I mean everything is there,everything leads to God,its just people who dont want to accept it in their hearts and try to give stupid reasons for it so that they may sound smart.But if you think logically,without bias,you will definitely point to a creator. Irony is that they mock religious people and theists and they think that they are full of logic while they re not applying it. Indeed, those who disbelieve - it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them - they will not believe.They [think to] deceive Allah and those who believe, but they deceive not except themselves and perceive [it] not.In their hearts is disease, so Allah has increased their disease; and for them is a painful punishment because they [habitually] used to lie.And when it is said to them, "Do not cause corruption on the earth," they say, "We are but reformers."Unquestionably, it is they who are the corrupters, but they perceive [it] not.And when it is said to them, "Believe as the people have believed," they say, "Should we believe as the foolish have believed?" Unquestionably, it is they who are the foolish, but they know [it] not. So have they not traveled through the earth and have hearts by which to reason and ears by which to hear? For indeed, it is not eyes that are blinded, but blinded are the hearts which are within the breasts.
You are absolutely right✅ what's laughable is Krass calls intelligent design "child abuse" yet does not see anything wrong with incest WTF is he on ? Atheist dope?
What a stump by Meyer to Krauss regards....natural selection requires a "design" to start with in order to evolve!!! What a simple way to put it...wonderful 🤔🤔the body language is interesting of these three.....
Funny how all these debates are 5+ years ago, many recorded even longer than that ago. Nobody could stomach a real conversation about the most important topics in our species history today..
@@Sam-ik5rp 97 % of world population believe a creator made our universe and 65 % of Nobel Prize winners are Christians. But the smart ones are convinced a bucket of dirt, sunlight and time could eventually write the complete works of Shakespeare. ...lol
Prof. Krauss started the debate with ad hominems and strawmans, and never let up. This wasn't a debate on his part, this was a chance to mock others.
Meyer -"produce RNA molecules without intelligent chemists and designed synthesis machines"
Krauss.. umm umm no no!!
@Chuck McPhail
So in other words He's a Jerk. There is a saying in legal circles...If you have the law on your side, argue the law, if you have the facts on your side argue the facts, if you have neither Pound The Table. He's pounding the table.
Did Krauss actually offer any scientific evidence?
If he did it was buried in all the unfounded insults.
Evidently his proof is measured by insults not science
www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/science/lawrence-krauss-retires-sexual-harassment.html
Krauss is a disgusting human being. www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/science/lawrence-krauss-retires-sexual-harassment.html
in all Krauss is more dignified and distinguished in his field, the either of the gentleman or both combined... the exception you took to his arguments was that he was not a complete gentlemen..ok
I suffered from visual migraines in the past before i got it under control...each episode absolutely floored me. Its astounding to witness Meyer continue with the degree of intellectual rigor he mustered! Bravo 👏 👏
It’s the same debunked rubbish he’s been peddling for years.
mograines prove god now?
you're sp blind it amazes me.
@@mcmanustonywhich things have been debunked ?
@@killerbee6484 let’s start with his lies about the Cambrian
YT users: *clicks scientific debate video to learn about the origin of life*
Video: *starts with Krauss criticizing Meyer rather than the evidence presented*
He crticised Meyer because he's a lying, malignant hack whose well funded organisation is out to gut science education in favour of Christian fundamentalist dogma.
meyer is a hack and too many people idolise him, if he teaches bad science - and lying - it need calling out. i'm sick of religion gettring a pass based on folks like you saying "it's not polite"
TRUTH is what matters.
Dr Meyers, I respect you 10 to the 1000000th for being gentle in the midst of the challenge- migraine.
For casting perals before swine
@@emgee2267 He's a hopeless lying hack.
On Krauss's tactics, some astute comments from Ryan:
During his [opening] diatribe, Krauss informed the audience that Meyer and his ideas are not worth debating and that Meyer himself is something of a dishonest marketing man for Intelligent Design. And what exactly is Krauss's justification for this claim? Well, you see, several years ago at a school board hearing in Ohio, Krauss, having failed to inform himself of Discovery Institute's long-standing position [against] mandating the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools, assumed they would be in favor of such a thing. When he discovered from Meyer's testimony that they were not advocating the introduction of ID into public schools, Krauss came to the only reasonable conclusion he could imagine: Steve Meyer and Discovery Institute were lying about their position. After all, the only other alternative was that Krauss had failed to do his due diligence in trying to understand the position of one of his opponents...
This is classic Krauss. If you denigrate, misrepresent and discredit your opponent in the eyes of your audience right up front then you don't have to worry too much about answering their arguments later. You just make silly faces while they're talking or offer a few snide remarks here and there and hope the audience believes that you know better than your opponent, and that they shouldn't consider his arguments any more seriously than your mime routine suggests you're considering them...
This was an incredible display of intellectual dishonesty on Krauss's part and it is a sign of the weakness of his position.... When you honestly believe you have the better case and the ability to present that case, you don't resort to an opening ad hominem salvo...
...Krauss forced Stephen into making a decision to either address the misrepresentations that had been leveled at him in order to clear his name before proceeding with his arguments for ID or to simply ignore Krauss and make his presentation. If Stephen chose to address Krauss's inaccurate attack it would take up a significant portion of his speaking time and almost certainly prevent him from completing his presentation. On the other hand, if he just ignored the personal attack he would clearly risk having his entire presentation undermined in the eyes of the audience...
In order to choose the latter approach, one must have a high degree of confidence in the intellectual capacity of the audience and be willing to trust that they are capable of seeing through sleazy debate tactics.... And this was precisely what Meyer did.... Conversely, Krauss showed a significant amount of disrespect for the intelligence of the audience members by assuming that they could be persuaded to dismiss Meyer's actual arguments by presenting them with an irrelevant and false attack against his person.
www.evolutionnews.org/2016/03/readers_weigh_i102713.html
Steven Meyer seems to be straight to the point but really modest. Well done sir. Huge fan!
lol, the guy is an idiot, even if god were real he doesn't allow proof does he, it';s a stupid to argue. stay inside your empty tomb. keep your voodoo.
Disregarding the argumentation, which I can't comment on. Meyer seems like a better person
Dr. Krauss starts starts out insulting Dr. Meyer. Real Classy! Something I would expect from a 6 year year old.
A man that wants to lie to children should be insulted.
How do you know he's lying?
Billy b Heartfelt opinions based on heartfelt feelings, tho well meant and strongly convinced of are not necessarily obtained through critical thinking, in that case those opinions are often pointless.
@@billyb6001 emotional arguments are pathetic way to start.
I love it. Krauss' talk reminded me of a self confident Pentecostal preacher strutting and huffing and puffing. I half expected him to fall down and roll around on the floor speaking in tongues! Then mild mannered Meyer gets up, and without delay, slowly and methodically built a very strong case for ID. Impressive: 10^-30.
I have read Krauss books before and I was very impressed by him. Sure that is not saying much since I am not some world renowned scientist, but this was the first time I saw him debate. I was so disappointed and could not stop thinking he is a stupid person and how in the world did he become so famous. Anyway really disappointed.
He is a hot tempered and arrogant person. That is the problem.Stephen Meyer is more calm and articulated.
@@nastasedr some of the most intelligent people are also they most arrogant. Krauss is a total jerk, and this type of personality enjoys being one.
Did we watch the same debate? Because Meyer's arguments were really childish. Krauss very well explained everything wrong. Or just because it sounds offensive what he says isn't true? Well, arguing with idiots is really hard.
@@alexnik1181 No, he didn't. He just spent his time insulting Meyers. And talk about arrogance. Holy cow, what an ego!
"Natural Selection selects for the functional advantage, but the mutational search has to find it within the combinatorial sequence that's being explored...natural selection doesn't work until you have something functional to be selected." Good exchange between Dr. Meyer and Dr. Kruass on Natural Selection, ultimately leaving Dr. Krauss unable to respond to the high level of randomness required to create a certain protein before natural selection could begin to choose it.
why do they bother? it's IMPOSSIBLE to show that god exists, those folks insisting that the tea
towel of turin is evidence of christ are wasting their time, you can ONLY EVER
show that things have a natural origin, you'll never find god's logo printed
in DNA - god does not allow it. why religists insist on making themselves look
foolish - there own god says "you must have faith" - beats me. what do they
expect "look, i proved god exists where's my movie contract"? creationists will
always make fools of themselves.
god is hidden, he won't let you find him. it's HIS rules sillies. (and he's mainly imaginary).
meyer is just trying to become famous for something no one can ever prove or disprove, you a=have been suckered. i don't care one way or the other about krauss, as long as his physics works, fine, but meyer is a LIAR and he is tricking HIS OWN. that is not tolerable.
what do ross, meyer, behe, tour and pals hope to find? why are they doing science in fact cos
at the bottom of their barrel all you will find is more "nature did it". they must be really
crappy christians to not realise that if god were real he doesn't allow evidence of his
existence, the whole premise of christianity is you are required - it is demanded of you - that
you have faith, not knowledge. are they expecting to find a trade mark? do they think god made
a blunder and has some kind of electronic device hidden in all the nature stuff? they are the
dumbest people in a bucket of dumb people.
I'm a software engineer who has written for 30 years. I haven't come close to writing that much code, by decades-worth, perhaps by centuries-worth. Who wrote the code?
Great quote I read: Steve alone faced three challengers at once -- the atheist, the theistic evolutionist, and the migraine. Of those, by far the most potent opponent was the headache. I respected him a lot before this, but now my respect has doubled.
+55k3v1n Sympathy for his migraine doesn't make his arguments any more convincing.
+Leanne Davis Sympathy??? His only opponent that wasn't weak was his migraine. We should feel especially sympathetic to Krauss who compared biological design with the design of a snowflake!
Meyer and the creationist were debating a physicist and cosmologist with weak biology arguments. They were too afraid to meet Prof. Krauss on his own turf obviously. And the things they did talk about were fairly content free.
+Leanne Davis Meyer is willing to debate anybody at any time. He challenged Dawkins who essentially said he's to much of an amazing scientist to debate somebody so inferior. In other words he's afraid of Meyer.
No, Dawkins is over debating with people who are a waste of his time. Plus, with his health he can now no longer be under the stress that crazy religious people cause him. He likely won't be doing much debating at all in the future. It's a shame but he is 75 yrs old now and is still recovering from the stroke he had earlier this year.
Dr. Meyer’s intelligence, meekness, and maturity was unmatched!
I'd say his intelligence is surpassed easily by Krauss who, unlike Meyer, is an actual scientist. Meek? He MEEKLY pressures high school science teachers to MEEKLY abandon all professional integrity and MEEKLY peddle his religious nonsense as science......
Give it a rest.
But not in a good way.
@@lrvogt1257when is maturity, intelligence and meekness something negative?
@@ZebecZT : I was just trying to dismiss it with a joke but to answer your question...
When it's used disingenuously to convince people of things that are not factual.
Having a pleasant demeanor says nothing about the data or validity of what's being claimed. There is no data to support the supernatural. There is only belief.
Pretending things for which there is no evidence have some affect on the laws of nature is unsupported, unconvincing, and unscientific so it can't honestly be used as science.
Whenever religion has challenged science it has eventually lost and I expect that trend to continue.
@@lrvogt1257 there’s data to support the supernatural, to me if you can’t even acknowledge that i see it as dishonesty. i have had this debate many times and and i’ve come to the conclusion that you simply cannot convince someone who doesn’t want to be convinced no matter what.
methodological naturalism is precisely what i mean, it’s arrogant, narrow minded and goes against the whole “ we follow where the evidence lies” which is a fundamental principle in science.
“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism.” - biologist todd scott
if you can’t see a flaw with this then i can’t think there’s much to talk about.
I get suspicious when I hear a scientist say “case closed”
I get suspicious when I hear someone they speak for god.
Jason Brooks
, you wrote, "I get suspicious when I hear a scientist say 'case closed'."
You will never hear a scientist say "case closed!" The scientifically-challenged (junk scientists) use those words frequently, but not scientists.
Dan
@@BibleResearchTools I see no problem using case closed when it is commentary to pint out the hypocrisy of an assertion.
guym1234, you wrote, "I see no problem using case closed when it is commentary to pint out the hypocrisy of an assertion."
It is never appropriate in scientific debates and discussions.
Dan
Is Krauss, the Crass, really a scientist?
I'm only about 3 minutes into hearing Dr. Krauss speak, and all I can think is how he comes across as such a thoroughly unpleasant man. In my opinion if you cannot debate your points without first insulting your opponents, you must have some level of uncertainty that attacking an individual's character seems like the smartest thing to do. Being intelligent is great, but if one is so unpleasant that people don't want to listen, that will prove to be a problem if they wish to change anyone's mind. The person with a relaxed confidence in their position is ultimately going to come across as more trustworthy when compared to such ungracious and belittlingly behavior.
Sound broken up. Shame
It's interesting how Krauss would appeal to the formation of crystals like snowflakes as a means to crush Meyer's argument about nature being incapable of creating specified complexity and information. The greatest flaw with Krauss' reasoning is that he falsely conflates the characteristics of self-organization to that of DNA segments that code for proteins. If Krauss actually bothered to study crystallography, he would realize that crystal formation or self-assembly chemistry follows two distinct characteristics: 1) order of repetitiveness/redundancy & 2) non-sequence specificity. In salt crystals for instance, the molecular atoms that build up the sodium crystals are actually based on the repetitive molecular structure order of NaCl-NaCl-NaCl (sodium-chloride). In addition to that, you can change the order of the atoms and it will have no effect to the overall crystal structure. Self-organization follows these two very principles. You can even use sand dunes as an example and you will see that nature even follows these principles.
Unlike the self-organization of crystals, the protein coding regions of DNA are actually non-repetitive (the order of nucleotifes/amino acids is very precisely arranged) and are sequence specific, meaning the order of nucleotides/amino acids is very critical to biological function. The fact DNA is so uniquely arranged and unlike any known self-organized crystals is enough to warrant that the laws of self-organization/physics do not explain the origin of biological information, which Meyer tried to emphasised.
Krauss did a pretty bad job in refuting Meyer's argument, worse thing about it is that he actually had no idea what he was talking about.
well stated. what this points out is that this debate yet again shows the anti theist has no idea what he is arguing against. If krauss would have read signature in the cell, he would have learned exactly what you just explained.
👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
Krauss = fraud
Krauss spent a lot of time positing caricatures of ID , conflating indeed. I though he was going to start booger flinging. Meyer adjudicated himself with class and knowledge with out the caricature.
@@PeteParsons-wf8sm "Krauss spent a lot of time positing caricatures of ID"- it pretty much caricatures itself. Utter nonsense- a legal ruse to skirt the law settled by Edwards v Aguillard.
Read slowly: IT> IS>NOT>SCIENCE.
The enemy at work but God’s truth always prevails.Thank you Dr. Meyer and co. Praying for you.
why do people idolise the dumbest of religists like meyer, don't you understand your own religion? if god were real he himself won;t allow ANY kind of proof he exists, you have to have faith, meyer is blasphemous to try.
_"God's truth always prevails."_
You live a rich and vivid fantasy life. Don't let anyone take that away.
*_"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him."_* - Louis Pasteur (Founder of microbiology and immunology)
So what?
" *A little science leads you to the D.I. but a lot of science leads you to science.* "
❤
if only god were a thing eh.
Are you blind?@@HarryNicNicholas
Even with a migraine, Dr Stephen Meyer articulated his theory incredibly well and was still able to demonstrate the massive flaws in Darwinian evolution. Laurence Krauss and Lamoureux just invoked their philosophical beliefs rather than provable scientific data.
Did I see the same debate that you did? Meyers completely mischaracterized Evolution as operating purely randomly. Krauss made him take it back when he correctly pointed out that Evolution is a self-pruning process using Natural Selection. This is not at all pure randomness.
Meyers also incorrectly claimed that programmers always have to add new code or change existing code when giving software new behaviour. That is incorrect. Nuural Networks can adapt to changing conditions without requiring any input from a programmer.
@Atiø Lozan You're completely missing the point. Evolution works by natural selection and mutations. The possibilities that don't work out do not pass on their genes and die out. That's exactly how neural networks operate. The possibilities that don't work out are automatically discarded. Programmers were required to set up a neural network, that's true, but no "programmers" are required to set up natural selection and mutation.
@UCLlrcftJY5pVYz9To23G-Cg But I just showed you that natural selection with mutation can set up a neural network. And you agree that neural networks can produce new results without any external input. So what's the problem?
@@nissimlevy3762 We did not seem to watch the same debate. Meyers was correct that the mere 1 in 10^77 of the possible protein folds are able to create a protein that is conducive to life.
Krauss claiming it is not random because of natural selection. Natural selection is part of the ARRIVAL but of the survival if it arrives. So yes, for a brand new protein fold to occur is totally random mutations - 1 in 10^77. Once it arrives then natural selection will aide in it surviving.
A programmer can program an AI to go through a programmed computation method to determine what the programmer programmed is the best outcome. This is intelligent design to the Nth degree. And you are correct that designing for something to be adaptable is a much greater engineered design than merely designing it to do a repeatable task.
But what are you trying to say that shows?
@@nissimlevy3762 Not true, Neural Networks change "conditions" based on information or algorithms already programmed in by the programmer in order to recognize patterns. It tries to mimic the way the human brain works and as you can see human created neural networks cannot even come close to what the human brain can do.
It's so hard to watch Stephen like this. He normally has a great stage presence and maintains his cool. God bless you Stephen! We all have bad days
He still schooled the pair of them though.
He gets like that when he speaks with intelligent people
@@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523 Have you watched many of his debates?
@@Greenie-43xHave you watched any *real* debates? One high school professor has a 5+ hour-long series on Meyers company and their believes.
meyers is a fool, he's a liar and you're going to find yourself in trouble with god if you support him.
The more I watch Krause debates, the more I feel sorry for him. He’s ran over with arguments he can’t respond to intelligently so he uses insults instead. He’s not smart enough to know he should be embarrassed.
@Msg of Yitzhak Kaduri its an adjective in my reply. Not a noun. It means the same thing it always has in that. No supernatural theistic being.
Don't worrie he does plenty of that when he looks in the mirror
Same thing for Richard Dawkins...
cesar leon
, you wrote, "maybe he is not nice, but he had the best arguments and just destroyed the other hypocrites."
Which arguments, cesar?
Dan
I get the feeling Krauss didn’t care how much of a dumpster fire he was.
Krauss gives me a headache too.
Hahahaha
I'm pretty sure Krauss is a character on The Simpsons, which is funny, because he deserves to be taken about as seriously.
This is an insult ! ... to the Simpsons :)
the Simpsons is the foretelling of the future. Would like to see what his future is like on this program.
Silly Krauss with his scientific consensus
@@gateway6827 Haha!
The irony here is that Meyer's entire position is based on a Strawman.
Krauss is always personalizing everything, then speak his own opinions which are not necessary true. these people never change.
+Hossam Moghrabi - VEGETA How dares he! He has opinions! He personalizes things! Outrageous.
+TheElementalBrain
Indeed, it is outrageous. A scientific debate is meant to evaluate _objective_ _facts_, not personal opinions.
+XΣN that's not a scientific debate you null-realizer!
that is a scientific debate u null-realizer
+Hossam “VEGETA” Moghrabi nope, it certainly isn't.
I always have a hard time listening to debates between anyone and Lawrence Krauss... I wonder why...... Dr. Meyer has all my admiration!
I generally like observing debates, and while Meyer presented most of the information I had come to know from reading his work, I'm disappointed to see how Krauss handled the debate. It was sloppy and fallacious. He operated with minimal, if not absent, civility in a public forum. The disrespect is sickening. I don't care what position you hold to, a modicum of conduct should be exhibited in an academic forum such as this. His appeal to authority and ad hominem arguments skirted the actually issue and purpose of having a discussion about the ideas. Hell, his opening statement was essentially a attack on the other position, trying to discredit his opponent as holding to silly, stupid, or meaningless ideas instead of actually addressing the matter at hand. He also attempts to make metaphysical claims while stating that he wants no part in it. As John Lennox would say, scientists often make poor philosophers, and I'm afraid Krauss proves his point ad nauseum. This is shameful.
Yeah, because weaseling into a debate with someone who would not have initially agreed to the debate with you there, that's the honest way to go. Prof. Krauss generally doesn't debate ID people as it leads to people thinking it's a legitimate idea worthy of debate. Meyer knows that, yet managed to get himself added in and Prof. Krauss honored his commitment anyway. That doesn't mean he's not going to point out the sleezy way that Meyer's organization tries to skirt rules in otjer areas too in an attempt to dumb down science classes, and the electorate as a whole.
+Leanne Davis hello! I'm having a hard time seeing where he 'weaseled' into the discussion. Krauss himself admitted to participating in this debate knowing full well what the subject and didn't think about who the participants would be (which he could've). It doesn't excuse the behavior. Instead of addressing the ideas alone, he attacked the other presenters. It's intellectually distasteful and, frankly, comes off as bullying. As far as the ideas being presented, I'd appreciate if you could point out specifics on what ideas of Meyer's seem so absurd compared what Krauss'. If I remember right, Krauss hardly addressed points that Meyer brought up, but instead made appeals to legal cases or pounded the table saying 'that's not how it is'. Not to mention that on a couple of occasions he made appeal to authority, saying the other participants couldn't speak on his ideas because they don't hold degrees in physics. By the same reason he shouldn't speak on anything relating to biology.
+Leanne Davis Also, I do mean this as a general inquiry. I'm not trying to rabble-rouse or anything. It seems as though your concern is that the opposition is affiliated with an organization you don't agree with. Isn't this a form of ad hominem? Instead of listening to and critically analyzing what's being said, an attempt is made to discredit their argument by tarnishing their reputation? In the spirit of intellectual inquiry, and honesty, perhaps we should pick apart the ideas and enjoy that instead of making pseudoarguments that never address the topic at hand.
+Johnathon Swierski First of all, he agreed to do it but did not know that *Meyer* was a part of it until after the fact and held to that agreement. That's what actually happened. Secondly, he explained how this organization wants to be on an intellectual par with science that has gone through rigorous examination which it is not. There are not two sides to every story...sometimes the other side is just wrong.
As to what he said about physics, he meant that if they try and speak to a field that they know nothing about with someone at the forefront of the field, he'd be more than willing to make them look like the idiots they really are. Prof. Krauss was the only one speaking to actual scientific theories and hypothesis. A lot of these may be proven with the discovery of gravitational waves, pushing the "God of the gaps" back even further into the realm of superstition and mythology.
Prof. Krauss brought up the legal cases so that people would be aware of who Stephen Meyer is and what his organization tries to do so as not to be fooled into thinking he's not a charlatan. Anyone who has ever seen any of the hundreds of debates that Prof. Krauss has done knows that he does not pull punches. At all...ever. You don't like it, don't debate him.
+RESISTANCE IS FUTILE He was totally right about the other two arguments being "content free"
Judging from the comment section it seems like having migraines was the best thing that could've happened to Stephen Meyer. Everyone is talking about that instead of the substance of the debate and it seems Meyer won the debate the second he was able to form sentences while also having a migraine. Amazing.
why do they bother? it's IMPOSSIBLE to show that god exists, those folks insisting that the tea
towel of turin is evidence of christ are wasting their time, you can ONLY EVER
show that things have a natural origin, you'll never find god's logo printed
in DNA - god does not allow it. why religists insist on making themselves look
foolish - there own god says "you must have faith" - beats me. what do they
expect "look, i proved god exists where's my movie contract"? creationists will
always make fools of themselves.
god is hidden, he won't let you find him. it's HIS rules sillies. (and he's mainly imaginary).
meyer is just trying to become famous for something no one can ever prove or disprove, you a=have been suckered. i don't care one way or the other about krauss, as long as his physics works, fine, but meyer is a LIAR and he is tricking HIS OWN. that is not tolerable.
You obviously haven't paid attention to the substance of his arguments
We await Meyer’s publication of the greatest upheaval in the history of science…..actually not me: I see him for the lying religious fanatic he is.
@@mcmanustonyhave you read his books or his work? Calling someone a liar because they don’t believe what you believe… nice, and presumably without actually knowing his position. Also saying “hey guys I see strong evidence of design here” then spending time researching and articulating that evidence doesn’t seem like religious fantasy. It seems like he believes something because of the evidence, not in spite of it. It’s incredible how similar you “atheist” types are.
I suffered from migraine headaches as a child, this man has my respect for carrying on.
same, especially through one that affected his vision!
That was impressive.
Who do you mean?
especially with a ferocious arrogant jerk like Krauss.
I started getting migraines and couldn't read well. It is embarrassing to be at work and mess up reading while presenting. Come to find out I had a rare cancerous brain tumor the size of a lemon. Thank science and doctors for removing the tumor and I've been cancer free for a year. Thank God for my life in the first place and for creating an intelligible universe that we can make medical progress with our ration brains.
Man, you write well. I didn't know people could have brain surgery and still be intelligent and coherent...amazing
Firstly, glad you recovered, science is amazing isn't it? But secondly, question, your dad was God? Thank your parents. God had nothing to do with it
@@robvuksanic6841did you seriously comment on a two year old post to tell a grateful cancer survivor who to thank, and not to believe in God? My goodness. You people sometimes.
It truly is a pitty that Lawrence always feels the need to insult other people and make fun of groups of people, philosophers for example.
Krauss makes it his life's purpose to convince others that life has no purpose.
It doesn’t !
What a sad way to live@@thomasmoeller2961
@@thomasmoeller2961… but …much more significantly life does … have a porpoise 🐬
Also, you haven’t the first clue as to how chemistry became conscious biology .. let alone possibly the most intelligent water living mammal.
Not the first clue either as to what consciousness is and how you are going to “make” it in a lab from plasma using the good old cook book of … nature .. or science/materialism.
How are you going to make awareness from the only stuff you as a materialist have at your disposal … dead unconscious (extremely hot )matter.
I don’t think it’s occurred to science that the Big Bang .. if it happened .. and it almost certainly did .. wasn’t a nuclear explosion in space. No one would wait around for 14 billion years after that … expecting Earth, Einstein, Dali, Disney and Mickey 🐭 to appear. The Bug Bang was obviously the cracking of a cosmic egg .. with the 4 forces transcendent mathematics/geometry (a territory mathematicians feel they discover ) , entropy, arrow of time , space, atoms cooling and flipping bits /info as they “compute” and interrelate . As I said it wasn’t an explosion in space but science pretends it was … leaving out all the intrinsic intelligence forces maths and order .. all the good stuff.
Sir Roger Penrose - “Perhaps in 500 years we’ll be able to make a start in understanding consciousness “
and wouldn’t you know it … you don’t know that his theory re consciousness (not what it is but how it may be mediated in the brain through quantum processes ) with Dr Hameroff has had some early confirmation due to lab work on crystalline microtubules found in every cell. Google it.
Something to ponder . It’s likely that The Universe (all that is was and will be) is organismic .. it just doesn’t look like a living conscious organism from our perspective if it’s infinity . Reality check for science .. The Universe creates every scientist .. from plasma and no scientist knows what energy IS .. we only have the maps of its behaviour couched in maths (another territory science did not create )
It’s likely that The Universe is cyclic and eternally so (out with time and space) and is an organism of a dimension science can’t get its militant materialist conditioning to even ask the right questions about.
If you have the cogent answers or solutions to the above mysteries.. let’s hear them.
News just in … Dr Federico Faggin .. inventor of the micro processor /logic gate technology had a mystical experience 30 years ago and has now collaborated with a specialist in quantum information to produce a theory with regard to the relationship between consciousness and quantum theory
Mystic - Someone who experiences Universe as self .. and not conceptually but actually.
In case you hadn’t realised that is what enlightenment is … what all the fuss is about re the mystical experience talked about by Jesus and Buddha .
There is an inner subjective Universe as vast as what only appears to be the outer Universe .
Why do you think people meditate in caves for 20 years ?
They are explorers as much as any scientist
Organised religion has got nothing to do with first hand mystical experience … someone should help Richard Dawkins to understand that fact .
Read “The science delusion” by Dr Rupert Sheldrake who has the singular distinction of being banned by TED talks .. for heresy 😀
It's funny cause it gives his life purpose to let us all know we have no purpose.
Lol
He doesn't realize he is a narcissistic sociopathic tendency person
Lol
Amazing to see that there is a platform where people can discuss openly their ideas and debate on question which has been asked again and again through out history. Freedom of speech brings out the best of the intellectual community, religious group and scientist.
The freedom of speech is outlawed on RUclips.
"The mark of an educated mind is to entertain a thought - without accepting it". Prof. Kraus is a disgrace. How childish. How arrogant.....and the organisers just sat and watched.
Thank GOD for Dr. Meyer. He you can easily see, is a gentlemen.
Which god?
Maybe he's a gentleman but he's scientifically wrong. He is also misleadingly scientifically ignorant people.
tony williams are you gonna state why you think he is wrong or?
Thank God for his migraine 🙏....
=+k k) k jugular u 43.2 3)3 1 all
i think Dr Meyer argument is very logical and it should have a lot of respect from the opponent .
Unfortunately for Meyer, he cannot use any of the alleged scientific rigor he demands of abiogenesis to defend his own ID superstition. Nature is real. Magic is not.
@@lrvogt1257 no one really knows what is real and what is not, maybe magic is real and nature is not, what we are certainly sure of is that science will change drastically in a 100 year and today's conventional wisdom is not any more, paradigm shift will happen always and we will never reach a full understanding of anything, the only thing that is intrinsically feel true is the islamic religion you can ask any question and you will get a satisfied answer, a single book written a 1500 years ago and till this day never debunked maybe you should check it
@@gamingsight8016 : We have a pretty good idea about what phenomena we can predict with accuracy. Testing things is how we determine what is factual.
To believe magic, the supernatural, is real will take some compelling evidence and until then there is no reason to accept it.
What is considered a satisfactory answer from an ancient text is really up to the individual and largely not scientifically useful. There is no factual information in any of them that educated people at the time didn't know already. One would think an omniscient source would drop a few bits of useful information about germs, eclipses, volcanoes etc. but it was all common knowledge because it was written by common people.
I find it interesting how Lemoureux tries making the point of theists bring a priori assumptions into their interpretations as though no other group does that? Everyone does that. Its part of how science works. You have an idea about how such and such a thing happened and then you look at the evidence to see if how well your assumption fits.
+Self Fulfilling Prophet "Or you set your assumptions to the side, which is what atheistic science does." Baloney.
I am only 5 minutes into video and Krause is attacking Meyer's integrity. What's with that?
Because Meyer's is a known liar.
Meyer wanted to teach creationism in schools.
He absolutely deserved it.
@@ErenYaegerPhilosophy That is simply ridiculous.
@@ErenYaegerPhilosophy lol no one "deserves" ad-hominems in a formal debate. for so-called "smarter" and more "trained" people to think that that's permissable is just arrogantly dumb. the idea of creation and God is enough for new atheists and anti-theists like Krauss to accuse theists of being misleading because they apparently have a "religious" contempt for all religions.
@@ErenYaegerPhilosophy Prove it
@@ErenYaegerPhilosophy so if i think kraus is a liar i should ridicule him in a formal debate?
that's arrogance
One can summarise Kraus as follows; The Universe was made by nothing, from nothing, for nothing. Brilliant. And this guy is a Professor?
You could inaccurately summarize Krauss as such. You could do better by getting off your arse and READING some of his work.
@@mcmanustony Total waste of time. I have listened to him debate, and non of what he says/postulates makes any sense.
@@femibabalola4057 so having read fuck all of his actual work and displaying zero interest in changing that, you still feel comfortable questioning why a distinguished scientist who has been tenured on three continents is a professor?
Good grief…..you’re a bit special aren’t you….
As far as I know Krauss is not employed as a professor anywhere. His career at ASU was ended by proven evidence of at least 10 years of sexual harassment of women. Behavior you might expect from someone who believes that human beings are merely "cosmic pollution."
He is a professor and a brilliant one. Never seen him get beat in an argument on any subject never mi d the cosmos. Mr rational himself. Superb logic and a master of explaining empiracal evidence, and also an expert at ripping apart indoctrinated myths! FACT!!
I have had the honor to have earned a BA with summa cum laude honors in archaeology, a PhD in theoretical physics, and a PhD in biochemistry from some of the finest Universities in the US. I am thankful to have been published around thirty times so far in well-regarded peer-refereed and reviewed journals, and I greatly enjoy teaching incoming freshman college students and guiding graduate students on their research quests. I have seen and heard thousands of academic lectures and presentations from brilliant people who wished to teach me how to think skeptically, rather than to teach me what it was acceptable and unacceptable to believe. While I have heard a few more intellectually insulting lectures than that of Krauss on this video, I have perhaps not heard any that were accompanied by such a paucity of good, citable science. Krauss should be ashamed for his utter laziness and contempt shown to the other panelists, who actually had some advanced, potentially testable hypotheses.
Krauss ought to join a traveling circus, in which audiences are unlikely to have heard his hackneyed, long-debunked pseudo-arguments and stream of ad hominem arguments. As it is, most viewers would gain far more brain stimulation from a yoghurt smoothie.
I do not know where you got your PhDs man but in American prestigious universities like in others around the globe, we use to denounce dishonest charlatans like Meyer. Maybe because your field of knowledge covers so much you just cannot grasp easily understandable basic facts.
Quit writing words you can't define Speedy
Are you defending Meyer or Lamoureux?
If someone gets their PhD and doesn’t immediately brag about it, did they really get a PhD?
I don't believe you.
I am beginning to think that Meyer has some very good points. Kraus, on this occasion, couldn't not talk his way over this or interrupt his way to victory. I think that Meyer would probably win this on a good day.
Myer makes poor arguments and presents poorly, he mumbles and rambles and could not articulate his points - I think had Richard Dawkins been on stage, Dr Dawkins would have shown Myers up to be the poor scientist he is. Kraus won this one
@@inman8583 Myer was having a migraine
That comment sounds like confirmation bias to me.
@@inman8583actually, even with the presentation, the points were very strong despite the migraine.
The fact that you don't know shows you haven't watch this debate or just don't care for other sides
@@curtisreimer4592 lol, he deserves it, god's way of telling him to go home and keep his crap t himself, don't you think, or do you disagree with god? i think it was a modern miracle, even god hates meyers guts and tried to shut him up. o? you disagree with me?
Stephen meyer himself is as good of an argument for the existence of God as his science. Being humble and patient amidst bullying and insults from Krauss is a concrete argument from this man.
Outstanding from Meyer. Absolute respect.
"Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong." Rousseau
False premise statement.
Bs
Insults are shallow however that quote isn’t true
Exactly. And this is how we know those stupid pesky theists are wrong!
In general: if you have to take a cheap shot [or multiple], you probably feel its the best, or only, way to score points. Rather than attack the argument with reason or a counter point, you attack the man.
Find me a debate where the atheist isn't smug & full of snarky insults- I may have seen one, but it's extremely rare. "Empty space with nothing in it, can start to produce particles." Uhh- what? Where did you get the 'space' and how do you define 'nothing'? Krauss' model makes no sense and I think he knows that once it is challenged. The whole negative energy/positive energy meaning you can create a universe with No energy [free lunch] hypothesis is nonsense. It may sound impressive but it doesn't work in any practical sense.
Amazing that an intellectual like krauss could talk about a “universe that doesn’t care”, and the meaninglessness of our existence, and then go on to mention that we “should” do this and “should not” do that, over and over and over.
Thanks for the irony Dr
there is no irony in there;you just don`t understand that while the universe,certainty does not care,we as human society,putting up in this world,in this universe our constructs,do care ,because,it is in our interest as humanity to care.The latest news ,however show that even we don`t care what`s happening to the world ,and most likely,in not to a distant future ,we shall prove the larger truth that neither we nor the universe care for life!There,you see the difference how to take Krauss` statement.
Jacek Masterofalltrades
This is a metaphysical question. He’s essentially saying there are only facts without meaning. Yet he derives morality. That is the is-ought problem. He’s being irrational or at least incoherent with this world view
@@deanodebo: do you think that just because you use a meaningless mambo-jumbo word like metaphysical you saying anything sensible. No you idiot,facts have no meaning,they are only meaningful in a context,within a framework of a discourse.Everything is subject to an interpretation.And stop using the word metaphysical,the word in discussion about how the mechanisms of the world we live in does not carry any weight,it`s just hot,stinking air!
Jacek Masterofalltrades
Send over a list of words you don’t understand, that way I can avoid using them. Oh,and,thanks,for,the, irony, i,love,when,morons,call,me,an,Idiot,,,,,in,their,own,special,way
Krauss is a dumpster fire of humanity.
Meyers is the only one who is honest and open .
I really felt he was by far the most uneducated of the three and used his headache as a nice excuse.
He was proven ignorant.
Confirmation bias is in us all.
I’m sorry to find Dr Meyer was not in a proper mode. I suspect partly because he had not well prepared to be attacked by a Christian brother, but I don’t think his headache was an excuse as suggested by KC-vk6mg. Sometimes, when you lose a step, a normally insignificant unfavourable factor may bring you completely out of balance.
@@whchohkable You're probably correct in your assumption. I often assume the worst of peoples intent. A flaw that needs working in me.
@@N3Rd32that is a really bad flaw. imagine if everyone was like this….
I genuinely believe that dr Meyer was put off by that opening speech from Krauss. Not everyone can just ignore personal insults on a stage and focus on their speech. It’s no wonder Krauss likes to go first in many of his debates, so he can make his opponent more uncomfortable before they have evens started to give their speech. Furthermore when they are having a discussion sat down and Krauss tells Meyer “I’ve been know to give people migraines” shows you all you need to know about Krauss
Meyers' migraine was a ruse because he knew he would be getting an ass kicking from Krauss, and a well deserved one.
@@Vintage-Bob Explain how he won the arguments.
Typical Atheist rude and bigoted ad hominem attack similar to Richard Dawkins calling Anthony Flew "senile" when he followed the science to an understanding that the complexity of design at the microbiological level points to a Designer.
A less godly person than Meyers would wish that you suffered a solid months worth of migraines before you make such an unfounded and disgusting accusation again. @@Vintage-Bob
well meyer is a liar, if you can;t see it, then i feel sorry for you, but i don't really care, cos likely you aren't interested in science or truth, just another one wants to get into heaven by any means possible.
@@blakeenloe3608 i never watchthiese things cvos listening to people like meyers talk nonsense is painful, i just troll people like you who clearly need to be told how to think cos you can't think for yourself. here, let me remond you of your OWN religion:
it's IMPOSSIBLE to show that god exists, those folks insisting that the tea
towel of turin is evidence of christ are wasting their time, you can ONLY EVER
show that things have a natural origin, you'll never find god's logo printed
in DNA - god does not allow it. why religists insist on making themselves look
foolish - there own god says "you must have faith" - beats me. what do they
expect "look, i proved god exists where's my movie contract"? creationists will
always make fools of themselves.
god is hidden, he won't let you find him. it's HIS rules sillies. (and he's mainly imaginary).
Even with the obvious distraction of a migraine Meyer understood and meet head on all the points and arguments raised by Krauss, it's a shame it didn't work the other way around!
meyer is full of bollocks mate, why do religists insist on acting like science is some kind of conspiracy and the real liars, the meyers of this world, get applauded - they are lying to YOU as well you know. whether god exists or not, you don't LIE about it. i frigging hate god, but prove to me he's real and i'll shrug and go "okay" meyer is making fools of YOU, his own, with this UTTER TRIPE.
why do they bother? it's IMPOSSIBLE to show that god exists, those folks insisting that the tea
towel of turin is evidence of christ are wasting their time, you can ONLY EVER
show that things have a natural origin, you'll never find god's logo printed
in DNA - god does not allow it. why religists insist on making themselves look
foolish - there own god says "you must have faith" - beats me. what do they
expect "look, i proved god exists where's my movie contract"? creationists will
always make fools of themselves.
god is hidden, he won't let you find him. it's HIS rules sillies. (and he's mainly imaginary).
meyer is just trying to become famous for something no one can ever prove or disprove, you a=have been suckered. i don't care one way or the other about krauss, as long as his physics works, fine, but meyer is a LIAR and he is tricking HIS OWN. that is not tolerable.
Krauss just calls name and this and that like if he were giving a demonstration on a museum to kids. he got nothing to offers. Good thing Dr. Meyer expanded about ID and the fine tune. I never lose my time when listening to Dr. Meyer lectures. I am sorry to be blunt, but Dr. Krauss need go to a library for more research and prepare more before engaging in a debate with ID proponents. He lost this debate but never is too late to go prepare with more research. Good debate, the more the hot the better. Dr. Meyer got this one.
I am very impressed with Meyer. Krauss is very good at ad-hominem, directing his statements against Stephen, God, etc., rather than the position Meyer was maintaining.
Dr. Myer is a fraud. He solely got his education in order to have credential cover while he peddles his religious dogma
His books are interesting. In his book; a universe from nothing he contradicts himself when he says “of course I don’t mean nothing in the classical sense” he and Dawkins are narcissistic and the believe in god, it’s just that they are it!
Much respect to the man with the migraine. I used to have migraines and there is no way in hell I could have walked around let alone speak and debate.
He's got a job to do
Especially with complex concepts; I used to try to turn my mind off when I had migraines.
Meyers couldn't handle krauss and his intellectual arguments so his brain went into recovery mode and he had a migraine 🤣🤣.
Meyers has built a career making these unscientific arguments to illiterate Christians who already believe in intelligent design. So, when you put an intellectual giant like Krauss in front of him he conveniently has a migraine.
Such a coward 😔.
Perhaps because he didn't have a migraine. Fool couldn't even set up his laptop at the start, it was embarrassing.
Convenient time for a migraine.
He knew he couldn't defend his views and was attempting a 'playing hurt' excuse.
Even with a sever migraine, Stephen Meyer obliterates Krauss' and Lamoureux arguments.
Watch it again.
How about you watch it again
i did watch it again , and meyer clearly destroy krauss and the other guy , glad my mind stilll fine 😎
54:00 props to Meyer for persevering through a migraine. I know exactly this sensation of losing your direct sense of vision, not being able to read or perceive objects in space. It is hell. I would have to bail on the debate right then and there. I don't know how he was able to continue.
Any person, regardless of credentials, who uses mocking ad hominem attacks in a public forum to presumably boost his point of view, immediately causes me to discount Dr. Krauss. I was shocked at his behavior. Dr. Meyers has significant credentials and may or may not be right, but no one should be treated like this in public.
It seems ironic that Krauss sounds like a babbling dogmatic preacher. I can't shake the feeling that he's smoke-screening by quickly hurling so many personal insults at the person he's debating. That behavior should be slapped down by the moderator. This should be a content-only forum, not a popularity contest. Maybe he's terrified at the possible reality of a creator, maybe he should be.
Matt yes I also agree that the moderator should have intervened for Krauss own well being, He just ignored his opponent Dr. Meyer's lecture was serious and informative. The only thing I gained with Dr. Krauss was that slide of the Hubbert picture of the universe the rest was bulling and disrespecting a sincere debate. Lamentable.
Maybe I need to back up a bit to see what this Wycliffe channel / forum is all about? Moderator inaction is one thing, and the audience applause another. A crowd assembled to hear a talk on this subject should cause Krauss type insults to fail like the worst joke in stand up comedy history.
Sorry your feeling is hurt, but lets focus on the science and evidence and not feelings.
@@seanjahangiri7266 i didn't say that, agree Krauss should stick to the data and science
I'm working thru a book called "The Biotic Message" by James Remine that postulates that the theory of evolution is simply a bunch of magic, where one explanation slips into another, as one doesn't fully work. Remine tears the theory to pieces, with their own words, into four logical fallacies: tautologies, like the survival of the fittest (who are the fittest, those who survive; who survives, only the fittest), special definitions that are a multitude of conflicting explanations masquerading as a single unified theory, metaphysical explanations that are not testable and so are not science, and lame formulations that do not even address the problem of adaptation, so, therefore, they cannot solve it. At a bit over 500+ pages it is well worth the read, and you will be an expert, by the end.
My respect for S.C.Meyer has increased a thousand fold after watching this.
Krauss is intentionally crass. His character oozes a thick and stench aura akin to a decomposing skunk. Here he shows his ignoble and vainglorious mindset, he is a monumental embarrasment to academia and the human pursuit of knowledge.
this despite the fact that what he says males sense
"he is a monumental embarrasment to academia and the human pursuit of knowledge"- what a pile of ignorant pompous horseshit. How much of Krauss's academic research have you read? That's right Sparky- NONE.
I've read every syllable of Meyer's peer reviewed research- there being precisely NONE.
What a posturing dickhead.
@@neiljohnson7914 *Krauss never makes sense he literally believes nothing is something lol*
@@muhammadsalafiahlulhadith I disagree with you. All of existence must have emerged from non existence. If you are asking how all that exists emerged and if you say it emerged from something that also exists then you need to ask where that thing that exists came from. The only idea that makes sense is that Reality initially popped out of nothing.
@@neiljohnson7914 *HAHAHAHA DELUSIONAL ATHEIST LITERALLY PROVES MY POINT! U R JUST AS DUMB AS KRAUSS U BELIEVE THE WHOLE UNIVERSE CAME FROM NOTHING! LOL*
Krauss is a perfect example of what God says "Men hate God and refuse to submit" ROMANS 8:7 This has never been about evidence or Science. This is about a group of individuals who resist God and Truth.
no it isn't.
One way or the other...either for God or against God...no one knows the truth. Period. All of us are in the dark together no matter what you speculate.
"Truth"
How do you or anybody else know what God said. This is not an accepted axiom.
You've only got to look at the tele- evangelism community to get a dose of God nonsense .
Confident Dr. Meyers easily unravels Krauss
Which of Meyer's pper reviewed scientific publications is your favourite? Here's a comprehensive list!
1.
.
It really saddens me that Krauss, who I have held in high regard, opened up this discussion by poisoning the well against Meyer. I have been an atheist of sorts for a few years now but on a constant search for more, and listening to Stephen C Meyer I have often been astounded by just how well articulated and evidenced the arguments for intelligent design have become. I don’t have a dog in the fight in a sense, if the universe was designed great, if it is a product of cause and effect and random mutation that’s fine too, I’m just fascinated by the exploration of the ideas. The idea about “teaching the controversy” is becoming more important as time goes on because there are more and more weighty challenges being given to evolution by natural selection as the explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. If nothing else, I am curious if the theory of evolution needs some sort of massive update to how the mechanism works that we haven’t yet figured out, possibly due in part to the scientific community having such a need to hold to its dogma.
@Gerard Moloney no it doesn't.
Everything Krauss said is 100% true. Every. Single. Thing.
@@mcmanustony very strong assertion
@@parkerj1776 His exposure of Meyer as a malignant charlatan was entirely factual. If you doubt something he said can you identify that?
@@mcmanustony I don’t doubt any specific claim, as that wasn’t my intention - I’m actually an avid listener to the Origins podcast; I would point you to what ‘assertion’ actually means…
These debates are so fascinating. Everyone in my house thinks I’m so smart by listening lol. I tell my daughter who is 11 that I don’t understand all the specifics but it does not stop me from enjoying my curiosity. I have “The Physics of Star Trek” by Krauss and have been a fan for a long time. You can understand my dissatisfaction with his behavior on this panel. What a jerk.
Mr Krauss for all his scientific legitimacy launches right into discrediting Mr Meyer's work as well as disparaging his peson, supposing this will exonerate himself. The debate is not about Mr Meyer, and his credentials.
Mr Krauss after his attack on Mr Meyer, puts forward 3 rules (by which we are supposed to judge his opponents).
1. Do not assume the answers before you ask the questions.
(adding) Our beliefs should conform to the evidence of reality, not vice versa.
2. The universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not.
(After further comment he adds) - 'it's up to the universe, not us, to decide what makes sense.
3. Lack of understanding is not evidence for God. It is evidence for lack of understanding.
Mr Krauss assumes that the universe itself can decide what makes sense, not us. Mr Krauss no doubt realizes that he is a person with intelligence, but by his own admission, it is not up to him (nor anyone) to decide what makes sense, it is the UNIVERSE that must decide.
This assumes that the universe has the capacity to decide something that we cannot. This implies intelligence and or personality, and makes the universe more intelligent than any person or group of persons on the face of the earth.
How does Mr Krauss know that the universe has intelligence to decide anything, let alone decide what makes sense?
His comments are not science. It is a personal assumption. How would he know if the universe can decide anything?
Where is his empirical evidence to observe or measure that the universe itself processes any information, or decides anything?
When addressing the billions of galaxies in the universe and their ages etc, he says; “the civilizations that may have existed around those stars, that may have invented their own myths are long gone. And if they took a picture of us....... by the time the image got there, our civilization will be long gone and our sun will be burnt out...(etc)....because the univese doesn't care about us.”
1. Civilizations MAY have existed (assumption - no evidence)
2. MAY have invented their own myths (assumption - no evidence)
3. ARE long gone (statement of fact).
4. IF they took a picture of us (assumption - no evidence).
5. The universe doesn't care about us (statement of fact). (How would he know? It may well care a lot about us)
Here he makes 2 assumptions and turns it into a fact by the use of the phrase 'are long gone'. Then another assumption, which he turns into a fact by stating that the universe has the ability to not care about life on earth, which implies the universe has some kind of intelligence or personality. How would he know this?
This lack of knowledge of Mr Krauss is not evidence for the universe having any such function, but shows his own lack of understanding. It seems like he is breaking his own rules.
About the 19 min mark he states that everything in the universe, and the room he and others present are in, are, uncluding the 'us' is irrelevant and that this is ...wonderfulL It is WONDERFUL to be irrelevant!!??
So by his own admission everything he says is irrelevent; all his knowledge, all his argumentation, all his endeavours to prove Mr Meyer a liar, is simply irelevant. Not only is Mr Meyer and the other speaker and the adjudicator irrelevant , anything he has to say on what he seeks to prove is irrelevant.
How scientific is that?
He says that empty space is not so empty, but is a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles... (and) when you add gravity in, and wait long enough.....
Where did the boiling bubbling brew come from to begin the process of forming the universe in which space is a part of?
What or who adds the gravity in?
Waiting long enough?
Where does the time element come from and why does “it” need to wait at all?
Why can't it all happen instaneously, with everything appearing fully formed and fully matured?
I think Mr Krauss has shot himself in the foot, in both of them.
I wonder if he thinks love and affection and kindness and hope are irrelevant?
Mr Krauss wants to believe in a universe without God. He is indeed without God and without hope. And one day it will not be so irrlelevant and useless to him at all.
Its not that deep
You are very confused and not that smart, but hey…live your best life 🙃
@@quantumdave1592
Whom do you trust and hope in- yourself?
You will see how clever you are on the Day of Judgment when you stand before your Maker and Redeemer whom you dismiss without His blessing. Acts 17:27-31 Today is the day of salvation. You may or may not get tomorrow.
@@ianmcdonald8648 First of all, you are batshit crazy. Second, you assume I am not religious. Third, Jesus never said you have to be brain dead to get to heaven. There is no incompatibility between science and religion. Krause may not be religious, but he has valid points. Blind religion is far more dangerous than any atheist.
@@ianmcdonald8648 well said.
I can’t stand debates when it gets personal. This being the stark difference between the heart of the Christian and the heart of the secularist.
even with a migraine, Meyer stumps Krauss LOL
Meyers couldn't handle krauss and his intellectual arguments so his brain went into recovery mode and he had a migraine 🤣🤣.
Meyers has built a career making these unscientific arguments to illiterate Christians who already believe in intelligent design. So, when you put an intellectual giant like Krauss in front of him he conveniently has a migraine.
Such a coward 😔.
@@terryknight6817 🤣🤣 your post is a perfect example of ignorance. Krauss' science is more aking to speculation. Meyers never mentions, but it is Krauss that cant resist theburge to go there.
@@terryknight6817 What else can you say.... the reason why? or just claims and insults. that's what Krauss did and that's what his audience did. Even though Meyer had a migraine, he still managed to shut down both krauss and his audience with comebacks. That takes skill man.
only a nitwit theist would think that
@@christiandanario Hey nitwit Wycliffe College is a Theology school....so I doubt krauss had much of an audience there. Shut down lol. Typical theist..... you did no research to know that.
In the very moment you realize that the cell operates with integrated networks of digital information processing, the inference of its primordial *intelligent design* is rather _EFFORTLESS._
The very moment a moron regurgitates senseless words that he heard from another moron, you realized that evolution progress making mistakes
The moment you see a moron replying an intellectual claim with personal insult without nearly discussing the claim itself logically, is when you know that the likes of Kraus have many children.
؛؛؛؛
I think the point is that it's a little too effortless. We use digital code for computers, so it's easy to anthropomorphize things in nature and say "hey that's like what we do."
I think Krauss is very combative in this debate but I think the point is that one shouldn't fall back on "I guess it's designed" at every roadblock that arises.
@@AhmedAbughadeer. It was an opinion, not a dissertation. It was aimed to people like me; professionals in the biological sciences that know who really Meyer is. I did not pretend to educate you, or convince you o even argue science with you. That’s your own responsibility. And it seems that you need a lot of reading if you give any credit to the non-sense that Meyer regurgitates.
@@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523 You say, "It was an opinion, not a dissertation. It was aimed to people like me; professionals in the biological sciences that know who really Meyer is."
Well, please, tell us all -- who is Dr. Stephen Meyer??
In the film 'Enemy of the State' Jon Voight's character makes the following statement regarding Will Smith's character: "I want people to know he's lying before they hear what he says".
Seeing the attitude of Krauss in his opening statement reminded me of that.
Krauss is also correct.
@@mcmanustony correct about what exactly?
It’s a long time since I watched it and I only rewatched the first minute of Krauss talking to remind me what we were discussing here.
But it struck me as an attempt at character assassination over rational dialogue.
I’d be pretty suspicious of anyone who who went to great lengths to disparage an opponent’s motives before addressing the opponent’s claims.
If Krauss is so correct, let his irrefutable arguments do the disparaging for him.
After all, it may be true that Meyer has underhand motives to smuggle the teaching of ID into classrooms. But that is irrelevant to the truth of ID as a concept.
@@JonnyJackalK19 He is correct that Meyer is a lying charlatan who abuses science to push a hardcore fundamentalist religious agenda.
@@JonnyJackalK19 There is no theory of ID. There is a bunch of slogans and nothing more. They collect no data, do no experiments, publish no research (even their own comedic vanity journal has published nothing for years), make no testable predictions etc. So the attempt to push an idea comprehensively rejected by the relevant scientific communities can't be anything other than underhand.
Regardless of Krauss's command of biology (not as good as it should have been), pointing out that Meyer is a corrupt and dishonest zealot is perfectly fine.
ID has been systematically debunked as a scientific non-starter by multiple biologists, geneticists, biochemists etc.
I can give references if needed.
Congratulations Larry!!! You just confirmed what a small person you are.
Krauss is condescending and likes making derogatory remarks. That alone is suspect.
He's correct. That's the important part. Religious nonsense should no be promulgated in schools at all. The rest of the civilized world shakes their heads at the USA, who still have serious problems with creationists. It's the ONLY western world country with this problem.
@@matsbjur2535 It shoild be obvious to any thinking person that dogma is not within the empirical evidence of the scientific method.
This includes the atheistic dogma. Sadly too many seem to demand that the scientific method must show their atheistic dogma and are very antiscientific.
Sad to see really.
Krauss lost me when he said “gravity and bubbles of quantum realm come together, we get particles and a universe from nothing.” Whaaaaat!?!? Gravity and quantum vacuum is not “nothing” in the sense of the word absence of anything. That’s stupidity.
Krauss is a rambling string of insults incoherence. He is nothing but a grease stain of humanity.
Big props to Meyer. I suffered from migraines for years before they discovered my trigger. Huge respect for this performance. I heard him say that he never got to articulate his true main argument because of the migraine. If that’s true, Krauss would’ve got completely destroyed.
More like, Meyer would've more boldly projected his failed positions.
@@benkrapf How are they failed?
He's lying about everything else... why not the migraine?
@@MarcusHitch God truly had mercy on both of Stephen’s colleagues that evening. They both would have been obliterated with Scientific truth. And his cosmological argument for Krauss would have been a knockout blow. He gives a little more insight into this very night in his latest book. The origin of information and the concept of prior fine tuning are two of the huge hurdles that purely material causes will Never solve. Professor Dave admitted as much at the end of his recent debate with James Tour.
@@yeshualifeorg918 Yeah, I've seen the Tour/ Farina debate twice, just for shits and giggles. Dave brought a mountain of research, and Tour brought his manic tendencies and a stick of chalk. Meyer, Meyer, pants on fire, got roasted here. Everything he said about biology, got crushed by an evangelical biologist, and his cosmological "argument" would undoubtedly be weak as piss too... sorry.
Krauss is a weak man. He knows though , but just like a little boy he doesn't wanna lose his ball. I'm glad he utilizes quotes so often because you can easily tear down everything he says using nothing but the man's own words that he once utterered.
Pretty ironic the most anti-science person in the debate, based on his own statements, is Krauss
The materialists are not into science…they are into their dogmatic quasi-religious, pseudo-scientism. It has absolutely nothing to do with science per se… from the literature it is clear it is nothing but a concoction that ignores all contradictory data.
What’s Behind it all? God, Science and the Universe.
I wanna see Dr. John Lennox & Stephen Meyer Ph.D debate Lawrence Krauss & Sam Harris at Wycliffe College at the University of Toronto
they would be outnumbered by Dr Lennox
I'm no scientist, but what I walk away with after the entirety of the discussion is that Krauss and the other fellow view Meyer's argument as a "God of the Gap's" argument, which they clearly reject. The problem I see is that this gap, or lack of knowledge about the origins of the information that begins a mutation, is so large in its vast openness that it could contain all other previous gaps and is rivaled only by the other behemoth, which is how existence began with all its multiple Universes and Yatta, Yatta, I will make a prediction: science will never and can never disprove Intelligent Design.
intelligent design fails if it cannot extrapolate logic.
@@SarjanaTeknikKimia I don't understand, please explain your point. It seems to me that intelligent design implies the process of logic. Logic is an "Operator" in the mathematical sense. Intelligent design is the system, like Euclidean geometry is a system which encompasses operators like Hypothesis, Postulates, Theorems, etc.
Stephen Meyers after Krauss said "The case is closed": I am suffering from Migraine pain but what is this guy suffering from?
Krauss thinks if you can explain the inner workings of a computer you don't need the one who designed it to even exist.
Krauss also says he has no evidence that a Designer exists but he will fight every idea that would suggest that there is one.
There's just too much atheism and too much hatred for the opposite in Krauss' presentation that skews everything else he says.
To be willfully ignorant of the designs in nature just because you don't like the implications of it can be the worse self-deception ever.
+Self Fulfilling Prophet Have you ever heard the gospel ?
You are talking about the bible. I am not.
+Self Fulfilling Prophet: the Ten Commandments are not arbitrary--and as Hitchen once said: a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
+Self Fulfilling Prophet: "2000 year whisper-game,"
See "Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels," by Kenneth E. Bailey @ biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_tradition_bailey.html. He also eliminates the claim about the "telephone game"" Bailey quickly dispenses
with this comparison in "Middle Eastern Oral Tradition and the Synoptic
Gospels." He clarifies how Western youth leaders played the game with
Middle Eastern students. "To the amazement and dismay of the western
guest, the story emerges almost intact at the end of the game. In such
cases what is passed on is irrelevant material" (p. 366). But in the
informal gatherings of villagers in the Middle East, the material is
highly significant. So this means that the storytellers take extra-care
in transmitting a story.
Read more: www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/do_oral_traditions_lie_behind.html#ixzz43k8CACsY
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
+MosheMYY M If random mutation together with non-random selection cannot give rise to new information, I wonder why genetic algorithms (computer simulations of natural selection) are used so extensively as an optimisation algorithm in so many fields of study. I guess that thousands of people are merely entertaining themselves and pretending to do useful stuff as a job security measure, because if we believe Stephen Meyer, they sure can't be attempting to discover new solutions to difficult problems, because that would constitute new information.
Meyer gives the false impression that biological enzymes can be assessed on the basis of chance in the way he describes. He claims that a biological enzyme can be said to have a one in 10 to the 77 chance of happening. For this claim to be true he would have to prove that the example he gives of a biological enzyme is in fact the ONLY active enzyme among the gazillion he has calculated. NOTE: he has calculated the probability mathematically, BUT he has NOT synthesised the entire gazillion different sequences and tested each one to see if only one is in fact active. And what's more, there is no way known that he, his buddy whom he referred to, or anyone else is going synthesize and test 10 to the 77 sequences. So the important message is we do not know how many sequences might be equally or perhaps even more effective than the single one we do know about.
Even if we accept his trashy probability figures, we are at least dealing with KNOWN chemical processes, KNOWN atoms, KNOWN molecules, KNOWN chemical bonding processes, KNOWN phenomena of enzymatic activity all happening in a KNOWN universe. Even randomness is a KNOWN phenomenon. Now to see which one of TWO events is more probable than the other, it is blindingly obvious that we need to calculate not one but TWO probabilities!!!! That way WE CAN COMPARE THEM TO SEE WHICH IS MORE LIKELY!!!! Are you with me so far??? So does he calculate the probability of there being an intelligent agent, that must have arisen by means UNKNOWN, that exists in a place UNKNOWN, that is manifest of some substance UNKNOWN, that manipulates atoms and molecules here on earth (why here of all places in the universe?) by means UNKNOWN, employing intelligence way beyond anything we have (hint: this agent would need to be way more complex than anything it is invoked to explain!!!). Guess what: NO he does not come up with the other calculation of probability, and even more telling, he does not give it even ONE NANOSECOND of thought! He is effectively requiring science to explain the position of every atom in every living organism, but thinks his own idea of ID is exempt from any critical thought and investigation! Now THAT is what I call an asymmetry of argument, if ever there were one!!! So criticise someone else's ideas as much as you like, but that does NOTHING to prove your own!!
No wonder Krauss was upset at having to debate this guy. Debating him gives the false impression that there even is anything to debate at all!
The poor Lamoureux guy, while he did come up with two good bits of information - evidence for the evolution of teeth from scales (Hey, did any creationists notice the INTERMEDIATE FORMS???!!!!), and the evolution of a nylonase enzyme - the rest of what he had to say was essentially vacuous. He is bright enough to appreciate the evidence for evolution, but he is so scarred by religious thinking that he is quite unable to break free from its shackles. Instead he tries to have his cake and he wants to eat it too.
PS I have debated creationists and IDers ad nausium and I know that whenever I challenge them to apply the same level of detail that they demand of science, to their own ideas, the outcome is ALWAYS the same. They go silent. I expect it will be no different this time. The reason is obvious. Science at least HAS a theory. They, on the other hand, no matter how hard they try to spin it, have precisely NOTHING.
I’m surprised how GREAT Stephen Meyer did with the facts even though he had a horribly debilitating MIGRAINE during this debate! Amazing, and hats off to him and his professionalism! If the facts trash his opponents on his worst day, what if he was having a good day?
And then, how ridiculously immature and unprofessional Krause is! I’ve never seen anything quite like it. He humiliated himself. Anyone with debate education can see right through it. Appeal to authority, insult your opponent, and fallaciously avoid the details and facts of the genuine discussion by attacking the character, motive, or other attributes of the person you are supposed to be debating!? Can any say Ad Hominem?! Then the amount of Straw Man arguments were ridiculous. This is academia folks! It is also extremely revealing! Everyone should read Stephen Meyers book. It is excellent.
"The facts"? Meyer's postion is based on the false assumption that natural selection is a random process. It isn't. His entire position fails right there.
@Anthony Maurice "pRoVinG INteLliGeNt dEsiGn" :D
@Anthony Maurice hahahahahahaha your understanding of the verb "to prove" is hilarious :D
@Anthony Maurice we have no need to prove the absence of "God"... the burden is on the brainwashed theists :D
@Anthony Maurice why would you infer that? A scientific observation of organic life emerging from inorganic chemistry would be a Nobel prize winner.
Your position is "God of the gaps"... and if/when those gaps are filled what happens to your peace of mind?
We need more debates with scientists like Krauss. Let the people see the disdain and arrogance that opposing ideas are met with.
Peter Ward is another arrogant example of "see how smart I am and how ignorant you are", Stephen Meyer has debated. Ward was less critical than Krauss, but no less arrogant.
@@bruceatkinson5357 It's hard not to be. It's like being a mathematician debating a fifteen year old drop out on the subject of math.
@@N3Rd32 Not exactly. In another forum he could be debating someone who believes .. all is mind .. and he has two PhDs one in Philosophy (idealism) the other in Computer Science (he previously worked at CERN .. and not as a plumber)
Dr (x2 ) Bernardo Kastrup .. was once 15 years old.
They, perhaps wisely didn’t mention the fact that materialism has practically nothing to say about the actuality which makes science possible and lends being/existence to everything … consciousness.
It’s simple.
The materialist majority practicing within the scientific community hold a big fat assumption as fact. This is that energy (E=mc2) is dead and mechanical. Just like life, energy is “something” that science never needs to define. Never needs to say what it IS not … merely give a mathematical narrative about observations of phenomena.
No one k owes how “dead” chemistry (once dead formless plasma “energy” of The Big Bang❗️) … becomes conscious biology 🧬
No one knows (google it) or has the FIRST CLUE.
Intuitively it seems apparent (because we are waiting as a scientific community for some facts) that energy has never been dead and unconscious.
The Universe is organismic in essence in nature … that’s why and how “dead” matter/ LEGO atoms manage to progress via stars planets seas and cells … to Disney and Mickey Mouse. Just leave plasma with its inherent teleology of .. the 4 forces .. the transcendent territory of mathematics/geometry, information, atoms as they manifest from the plasma start flipping bits … computing dynamically interrelating m, in now present (but derivative) time and space, the directionality of entropy
Just some cooling and clumping and some waiting around for 14 billion years … hey presto … what was inherent in the Big Bang plasma manifests somewhere in the almost infinite Universe (which may eternally be cyclic … see Sir Roger Penrose )
Yep … science can’t agree a definition of what constitutes .. life
No surprise … because their dead unconscious mechanical Universe is a fiction a hallucination of logical positivism and militant materialism.
The cosmic egg 🥚 of creation isn’t a hippy joke. Plasma .. waiting … Disney 🐭 That’s what happened.
Otherwise make some consciousness from some Lego atoms via a Lego brain 🧠 within a Lego person in a dead Lego Universe … in the lab from plasma …. See how you get on.
Google it … there is absolutely no evidence that brains manufacture consciousness.
Read the book “ The Science Delusion by Dr Rupert Sheldrake” if only for to recognise his badge of honour of being banned from the TED talk platform
“No platformed” .. for saying things which don’t compute .. to militant materialists because their creed bans even the possibility that the Uni-verse is organismic in essence.
Plasma grew a Universe as much as evolved one. How could plasma produce the chicken and egg and the chicken and egg problem within consciousness … if both egg and chicken are not potentials within the pure energy of the Big Bang
Plasma stars black holes galaxies planets 🌍 seas and cells … and 💃🏻
All manifested without a single human thought or scientific theory from the living teleos that is … whatever energy IS …. and no one knows what it IS.
Even the slanderer Laurence “Crass”
Some humility in the face of the miracle would help find an answer to the above unknowns.
Dark matter/energy anyone? Help 95% of the Universe is missing but Laurence has it all sewn up. Earth 🌍 🌊 🦠.. Science is functioning in a dead and unconscious zone and expects to uncover the mystery of life and consciousness … which gave existence to every scientist… and science itself.
💯👌
@@seabud6408 Nice book.
Didn't read it...
Still wrong.
Intellectual honesty doesn't need to result in personal attacks. It only exposes the gaps and the desperation.
Krauss: I believe your idea is not worthy of respect, therefore you are not worthy of respect.
Very sad little man
Well that's hypocritical
@@billyb6001 nah. You don't have to respect jerks. If someone disagrees with you, that's one thing. If someone calls you a moron, that's another.
It is amazing how Krauss flips back and before, declaring he knows everything
and declaring he knows nothing, and the fools in the audience applauding him.
I think, if he was arguing before a group of psychiatrists, he would be declared
insane.
+Bob Beckel Rather than expose about yourself the fact that you do not have the capacity to comprehend the findings of science, why not concentrate on showing even the slightest bit of evidence for any supernatural being let alone the one particular god that you believe exists?
It's easy to attempt ad hominem but unfortunately it gets you no where as an argument stands or falls on its own merit or lack thereof, especially the argument for gods. So.....evidence please.
0:00:00 - Moderator Intro
---
0:03:35 - Opening Remarks: Lawrence Krauss (Scientist)
0:34:16 - Opening Remarks: Stephen Myer (Christian)
1:05:22 - Opening Remarks: Denis Amoureux (Christian scientist)
---
1:30:26 - 5min Response: Stephen Myer
1:36:05 - 5min Response: Denis Amoureux
1:41:22 - 5min Response: Lawrence Krauss
---
1:47:05 - 15min Open Dialogue
2:02:45 - Q&A
---
2:16:30 - Closing Statement: Denis Amoureux
2:17:50 - Closing Statement: Lawrence Krauss
2:19:45 - Closing Statement: Stephen Myer
---
2:21:21 - Moderator Conclusion
2:22:25 - [Silent End Card]
ID dude reminds me of Reg Barclay from star trek.
Meyer has a Ph.D in science improve your research.
He has a PhD in the history and philosophy of science. Meaning, he isn't a scientist. And these qualifications make him good at only one thing: Writing books full of bullshit. His arguments are mostly derived from those of Douglas Axe, and cobbled together crap from creationists about paleontology.
I made no claims about his credentials. I simply stated that he reminds me of a character from the bible... err I mean Star Trek. Improve your reading comprehension.
He does need some haircut advice.
2:06:26 Krauss says with a straight face he is very close to recreating life in a lab. You can't make this shit up.
Maybe he's a mad scientist
Ernani Savaris and if he succeeds, he will try to convince us that it was not fine tuned. Also, he has to take from preexisting information to make such life. I can’t believe a scientist being this dumb.
@@auxtas which makes Dr Meyers' point.
@@auxtas The more we learn about the complexity of life, the further away we are from recreating it.
It's ironic, but at the same step science understands about the origin of life, the more it appears to be a miracle that it ever happened. Krauss is just pulling stuff out of his ass when he says atrocious bullshit such as that one.
You guys are stupid, with no science education and hipocrites for using science.
You have already assumed life cannot be created.
My gosh....Kraus is insufferable. I've watched him perform his schtick enough; he'll go into a debate and completely disregard the debate topic in favor of leveling personal attacks on his opponent. As a physicist, I'm sure he's brilliant. As a philosopher he's an embarrassment.
+realtick Hes not a philosopher, you have the critical thinking skills of a potato.
john roesti Lol, let me educate you nitwit. When you're on stage discussing "What's behind it all..." you're engaging in philosophical debate. Thanks for trying spud.
+john roesti I'd like to invite everyone to check out your RUclips profile and view your predilection for kids doing yoga and painting their toes. Thanks again spud!
+john roesti [quick!!! Erase your viewing history and 'unlike' those creepy videos of those little girls]
+realtick You spent a lot of time on this, you thought you could shame me? Not possible, I go to sleep watching CHaboyyhd and wake up to girls failing to draw with their toes it's called autoplay. And your still a moron.
i feel bad for Steven Meyer, he's normally very well spoken and he struggled so hard to speak
Meyer is correct! Abiogenesis is a Joke! Chemists in state of the art labs, cant even force abiogenesis to happen in controlled labs!! Krauss thinks it can happen on harsh early earth!
In a interview Meyers explained that he had a really bad migraine just before this presentation, and had trouble speaking and seeing.
Edit: he actually says this at 54:00
It's hard to go up against reality, especially when someone as sharp as Dr Krauss is representing it.
@@worldgonemad5866
If by sharp you mean dull, then yes I agree!
@@worldgonemad5866 translation: it's hard to go up against an agenda of such narrow bullshite, when some as bigoted as Krauss is presenting it..
"A Darwin in the mind of Richard Dawkins is a Darwin created in the image of Richard Dawkins." I'm not a theist but that was a fantastic argument.
It's not an argument. It's a statement.....and a fairly vacuous one at that.
@@mcmanustony - dude, he had a whole argument in which he said that "statement" in and gave good reasons for why he said it.
@@higiniomorales459 It's just pompous nonsense.
Dr Stephen Meyers won the day by knocking out both opponents with his hands tied behind his back and both feet too.
I hope Krauss manages to keep on working and maybe one day he will string together a sentence that makes sense .
One is heaping up as much scientific information as he can to demonstrate no more than that we don't need to believe in God as he sees it. I am sure he was mixing facts with theories with hypothesises with his own imagery explanations.
The other is just pleading “I am with you guys, I believe in science too, please don't kick me out”.
And then Myers is discussing a specific point with apparent logic making apparently perfect sense. But no one else is providing any arguments about the exact points Myers is making, instead they're lost in their own monologues.
؛؛؛؛
the atheist cult is losing it's ground as fast as krauss lose his hair
+proximaism My advice to people like you who have nothing to say is: Then don't say it.
Ahahahaha
+proximaism Showing your true colors. And there I thought ID wasn't about god...what a bunch of dishonest hypocritical assholes.
16:52 looks like krauss face skin
proximaism
You obviously don’t know the meaning of the word atheist.
I am not surprised by such ignorance. Creationists are either ignorant, wilfully ignorant, or dishonest. In this era of information there is no excuse for just plain ignorance.
Krauss is arguing against something he doesn't like. He invoke bad design against intelligent design, which isn't an argument against design. He has no science contrary to intelligent design, just ad hominems and strawmen arguments.
Lamoureux has been duped by evolutionary science, nothing more to say about him.
Meyer still did a good job explaining the position of intelligent design and why there is reason to infer intelligence as the reason for the awesome designs in the world and the fine tuning conditions of the universe. I hope he gets well soon.
+MosheMYY M THats what Krauss does at every one of his debates I've eveer watched. I'm getting to be embarrassed that ppl keep taking him serious.
+Karoline Hofr I agree. I've watched a few of his debates and yes, he's more of a defender of atheism than a defender of science.
+MosheMYY M Lamoureux duped by scientific facts which amass into the Theory of Evolution? You should take one think he said from his rather poor performance...evolutionary science and theism are not in opposition.
+CanadianOrth Lamoureux duped as I stated. There are no scientific facts backing evolution, just evolutionary scientists probing fully formed, fully designed, fully functional biological systems that are programmed to adapt and have variation. They try to assign all they see to evolution without ever presenting demonstrations of evolution in action. Lastly, contrary to Darwin's imagination of organisms upgrading we see nothing but devolution.
MosheMYY M I see you have not really looked at evolution but have merely dismissed it. Even Answers in Genesis now realizes that todays animals could not have been created by God and on the ark, but only some primitive "kinds" which later experienced hyper evolutionary speciation in under 4500 yrs without anyone noticing.
thenaturalhistorian.com/2015/12/30/dodging-darwin-how-ken-hams-ark-encounter-is-slowly-embracing-evolution/
Dr. Krauss should know that a cause and its effect can exist together. For example, a refrigerator magnet sticks to the refrigerator door because magnetism is causing it to do that. Megnetism doesn't attach the magnet to the door, stop working on it, and leave the magnet stuck there.
1:28:00 Some ancient science is quite good, and we're discovering that some ancient scientists were even millennia ahead of their times. (If I recall correctly, someone effectively invented a kind of calculus centuries before Leibniz and Newton)
Euclidean geometry is of course still useful today, despite being from Ancient Greece.
The church condemned every scientific discovery that even hinted at a conflict with religious doctrine. It has lost those arguments every single time.
Greeks did not invent geometry
@@jaybaxter958 Correct but Euclid codified it.
@@lrvogt1257 The Church was the most active support of science from the beginning of Christianity. The university system came into being because of the Church! And attendance was free! Scientists right up to the Enlightenment found their most powerful motivation pursuing the nature of things around them because they found--and still find--it reflects the mind of the Creator, giving them a transcendent experience in the bargain. One which you are missing.
@@janetbaker1945 : It's true that the church supported inquiry until it began conflicting with Biblical accounts... as you say "right up to the Enlightenment." Then they opposed any science they deemed a threat just as fundamentalists do to this day. Any discussion of the origin of the universe, abiogenesis, and evolution is immediately followed by whining about "atheistic scientism."
Meyer rocks.
Louis Pasteur was the one scientist of his day who denied spontaneous generation. All the atheists claimed it was a fact. But Pasteur knew that God doesn't work that way. Life comes only from life. So he had to crush the atheist mockers by proving it a dozen different ways. So who were the enemies of progress?
+bammbamm12 said "Louis Pasteur was the one scientist of his day who denied spontaneous generation." Rubbish. The ancients beliefs that rotting meat spawned maggots and sweaty shirts produced lice were popular "wives tale" myths and folklore. They had nothing to do with "science". That folklore also had NOTHING to do with atheism. As a born-again Christian and retired scientist and Biblical scholar, I find Krauss both annoying and often misleading. But when anti-evolutionists confuse spontaneous generation and abiogenesis with evolution, they nauseate everyone on all sides of the origins debates.
Please. Learn some basic science before posting nonsense.
+bammbamm12, by the way, for centuries prior to Pasteur (and the other scientists who denied spontaneous generation), many Christians assumed that maggots came from rotted meat and lice from sweaty shirts because the fall of Adam and Eve when they sinned in the garden of Eden brought about such spontaneous generation cycles. So your attempt to spin this history into an anti-atheism propaganda spiel is ignorant at best and dishonest at worst. Please. You aren't advancing the Kingdom through the Great Commission when you display ignorance and dishonesty because you naively copied such rubbish from silly origins-ministry websites.
+bammbamm12 Ah yes, all the atheists in the 19th century...
Allen Joseph
I don't blame you for being sore. It was a huge embarrassment for the atheists. But you have to live with your foibles. Just like people laughed at Columbus, your people laughed at Pasteur. Don't try to reinvent history. You made fools of yourselves, and you always will. By the way, I understand the missing link is still missing. Hahahahahahahahahah!!!
bammbamm12
Columbus was a genocidal idiot. Spontaneous generation has nothing to do with atheism. Missing link is an outdated term.
Good argument for being accountable as an intellectual species. But 'who are we accountable to?' is the problem.
Thank you Mr.Krauss for making Mr.Meyer opinion more reasonable for me )
There’s a common thread with Atheists - arrogance. Dawkins, Krause, Dennett, Hitchens, et al.
“They will be ever increasing in knowledge yet be unable to see the truth”.
I think thats a strong reason to believe in God as well,since its a proof why people who believe in God arent arrogant and are generally better people with a good aura surrounding them,while atheists ALWAYS are arrogant and full of themselves.I havent met yet any atheist who has a good energy surrounding him.What can u expect from someone who denies his own Creator? Its clearly a proof for those who think.I mean everything is there,everything leads to God,its just people who dont want to accept it in their hearts and try to give stupid reasons for it so that they may sound smart.But if you think logically,without bias,you will definitely point to a creator. Irony is that they mock religious people and theists and they think that they are full of logic while they re not applying it.
Indeed, those who disbelieve - it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them - they will not believe.They [think to] deceive Allah and those who believe, but they deceive not except themselves and perceive [it] not.In their hearts is disease, so Allah has increased their disease; and for them is a painful punishment because they [habitually] used to lie.And when it is said to them, "Do not cause corruption on the earth," they say, "We are but reformers."Unquestionably, it is they who are the corrupters, but they perceive [it] not.And when it is said to them, "Believe as the people have believed," they say, "Should we believe as the foolish have believed?" Unquestionably, it is they who are the foolish, but they know [it] not.
So have they not traveled through the earth and have hearts by which to reason and ears by which to hear? For indeed, it is not eyes that are blinded, but blinded are the hearts which are within the breasts.
You are absolutely right✅ what's laughable is Krass calls intelligent design "child abuse" yet does not see anything wrong with incest WTF is he on ? Atheist dope?
cesar leon Wrong, rude,crude and condescending .
It's called rebellion.
This is only an option it doesn’t demonstrate it try to demonstrate anything, and it applies to theists in my opinion
What a stump by Meyer to Krauss regards....natural selection requires a "design" to start with in order to evolve!!! What a simple way to put it...wonderful 🤔🤔the body language is interesting of these three.....
Funny how all these debates are 5+ years ago, many recorded even longer than that ago. Nobody could stomach a real conversation about the most important topics in our species history today..
Sadly we now live in a time where intelligence is unrecognizable.
Among religious kooks, YES.
@@Sam-ik5rp
97 % of world population believe a creator made our universe and 65 % of Nobel Prize winners are Christians.
But the smart ones are convinced a bucket of dirt, sunlight and time could eventually write the complete works of Shakespeare.
...lol
@@Sam-ik5rp oh, there you are proving the point
Thanks Dr.Mayer..
WOW. Krauss starts off by insult rather than proof - which indeed is a proof in of itself of the weakness of his argument.
Don't get rattled by the insults, Dr Meyer. How do you overcome an enemy? Make him a friend.
Bring him the Gospel.