Philosopher of Science Stephen C. Meyer Explores The Exciting Theory of Intelligent Design

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 2 ноя 2024

Комментарии • 55

  • @malvokaquila6768
    @malvokaquila6768 Год назад +1

    Fantastic as always Dr. Meyer.

  • @SolSystemDiplomat
    @SolSystemDiplomat 5 лет назад +39

    Favorite KO’s of all time.
    1. Holly holm head kicking Ronda rousy
    2. Ngannou uppercutting overeem’s head into orbit.
    3. Dr. Meyer dismantling Dr. peter Ward.

  • @christophersurnname9967
    @christophersurnname9967 5 лет назад +49

    This guy is a cutting edge dude

  • @k_alex
    @k_alex 5 лет назад +17

    And thank you Dr Meyer for sharing this important presentation with us.

  • @CandidDate
    @CandidDate 5 лет назад +12

    When I first heard of I.D., I thought it was like a band-aid to bridge the gap between newly discovered facts about biology and theism. A sort of "meeting halfway" between science and religion. If I didn't believe in the importance of what a belief system means to me, I wouldn't be concerned enough to find the TRUTH. It appears that macro evolution and descent with modification make me feel like something is missing in the story of how this Universe was created to beget humans. Thank you for this talk. I am currently in a state where I want there to be peace in my world and in the world around me. Christians tend to say that this world is ruled by evil forces, and I am faithful to the TRUTH, hoping beyond hope that things will work out. There is definitely a spiritual battle going on in many guises on this planet at the moment. I will do my best to reconcile TRUTH with FAITH.

  • @yearight1205
    @yearight1205 5 лет назад +34

    Keep doing what you're doing, I believe in your work.

  • @skyman1770
    @skyman1770 5 лет назад +28

    Oh yes! Ive been waiting for soo long for another talk from you.
    You sir have opened my eyes.

  • @Mindhumble
    @Mindhumble 5 лет назад +29

    wow i just found out about stephen and his theories, and he suddenly uploads his first 2 videos in 2 years, nice! i really believe that darwinists are a type of cult from my research. for someone who has studies the patterns of religions they rely on the classic micromanaging information that people have access to, but it is on a much larger scale, so more similar to a totalitarian state. this is why i am not just questioning the argument of materialism, but now i have serious doubts about the reliability of the fossil record, and a young earth may indeed be consistent with real science.

  • @pughums
    @pughums 5 лет назад +25

    Stephen, I love listening to your talks. You have been blessed with an wonderful (non-evolved) mind.

  • @kaamraanroshan68
    @kaamraanroshan68 6 месяцев назад

    This man deserves to win a Nobel Prize... Why hasn't anyone discovered him? Is there something wrong with him?

  • @benrest308
    @benrest308 5 лет назад +19

    Thank you, Dr. Meyer for the talks you have posted here on RUclips.

  • @jamesbarresse8272
    @jamesbarresse8272 5 лет назад +25

    This was awesome. Thank you. I've been listening to you for almost 10 years now. I appreciate you.

  • @timwrightfamily740
    @timwrightfamily740 5 лет назад +17

    Awesome. I've been waiting for some new Meyer! Meyer reminds me that I just can't muster enough faith and imagination to believe in random, spontaneous, biological and astronomical fine tuning needed for this amazing world of life.

  • @Mustafa.alhijjawi
    @Mustafa.alhijjawi 5 лет назад +8

    Keep going you're on the right bath
    May God Almighty be with you and guide you along your path!
    Big fan.

  • @vdoniel
    @vdoniel 5 лет назад +17

    So good to hear from you. Dr. Meyer. Thank you for sharing.

  • @GabrielbenGabriel
    @GabrielbenGabriel 5 лет назад +20

    Big fan of Stephen Meyer!

  • @letsbesane
    @letsbesane 5 лет назад +10

    Glad to see you back in action!!!

  • @radhi8063
    @radhi8063 Год назад

    Get the pleasure to meet Dr. Meyer in the JRE but joe keep trying to discredited his work and his faith, it was so frustrating, glad the I find this here... Thank you doctor.

  • @joshuafeist4862
    @joshuafeist4862 5 лет назад +18

    Excellent!

  • @zionism48
    @zionism48 4 года назад +7

    I have begun to have serious doubts about the existence of extra-terrestrial life. I think our purpose as humans is to be the ones who explore the universe & to colonize other worlds. Hundreds or thousands of years from now, we may even be able to terraform planets. By that time, maybe Darwinists will have figured out they were wrong.

    • @sanjosemike3137
      @sanjosemike3137 Год назад +1

      Most Neo-Darwinists don't realize that Darwin himself was very conflicted by the fossil record of the explosion of new body structures, that seemingly occurred precipitously without any precursors. Darwin just "assumed" that the fossil evidence would eventually be discovered. Well, THAT did not happen, and that "conflict" just continues to get worse. Stephen Jay Gould, a committed Darwinist just "renamed" the problem: "Punctuated equilibrium." It was just a rename. He STILL had no fossil evidence.
      Neo-Darwinism is under attack by committed evolutionists. However, you and I do not HEAR this, because of their "fear" of Intelligent Design entering the lexicon.
      Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

  • @johnellison3030
    @johnellison3030 Год назад

    This was a very good talk. Although I was expecting more information based more on the whole spectrum of the sciences, and not just the one presented here on Darwin's Theory pf natural selection.

  • @lorenh763
    @lorenh763 5 лет назад +6

    Actually, via machine learning and AI, critics will refute you by stating that unintelligent machines and programs CAN code and even "learn." However, intelligence created those unintelligent systems. Thought it was worth pointing this out

    • @Boris82
      @Boris82 Год назад +3

      Like you point out yourself already (as the machine was created by intelligence) there will be no refuting on that point.

    • @habeebijaz5907
      @habeebijaz5907 Год назад +1

      AI do not learn patterns from the data in a magical way. You have to define a cost function. Adjusting the form of cost function is actually fine tuning the machine; there exist no single cost function that can solve the problem before hand. Even in machine learning there is a lot of human effort involved. The machine is just doing calculus, minimizing the error. Picking the best cost function that minimizes the training error doesn't guarantee that it performs well on the test set. You have to revise your model many times. This is nothing but training the machine. It can not learn on its own.

    • @Kramartie4491
      @Kramartie4491 Год назад

      Self refutation Loren.

  • @HamraKalkotkandy
    @HamraKalkotkandy 8 месяцев назад

    i really salute this person.....HIGH RESPECT.....all praise be to GOD the most high the most Merciful

  • @duncansunrise
    @duncansunrise 4 года назад +5

    This guy knows what he's talking about. He doesn't have to descend to the mud-throwing level of most of the dogmatic scientists in the modern era. The hi-jacking of science by the new atheists is symptomatic of a much wider societal problem.

  • @saifurrahmansajal9088
    @saifurrahmansajal9088 5 лет назад +8

    love & respect from Bangladesh

  • @annettegenis2781
    @annettegenis2781 5 лет назад +6

    Wow! Thank you!

  • @kjustkses
    @kjustkses 5 лет назад +8

    Please add consciousness in to the explanations.

  • @josecasper8717
    @josecasper8717 5 лет назад +2

    Brilliant mind, convincing theory.

  • @JewandGreek
    @JewandGreek 5 лет назад +5

    This looks like an old video. Say, 2014?

  • @emmanueljohnson5934
    @emmanueljohnson5934 Год назад

    23:51 Fine tuning of the universe

  • @CriticalThinker02
    @CriticalThinker02 5 лет назад +3

    For some reason I can’t view the 19 comments here.

  • @michaelgonzalez9058
    @michaelgonzalez9058 Год назад +1

    Walter Bryant

  • @fellowshipofthemystery6154
    @fellowshipofthemystery6154 5 лет назад

    5-year-old material? Where's the new stuff?

  • @samsummerington2152
    @samsummerington2152 5 лет назад +5

    Mr. Meyer seems like a perfectly pleasant fellow, but his approach to biology strikes me as highly problematic. From the sense of biological science itself, there are a range of issues with some of the analogies that he draws, in addition to other arguments. From the sense of biology as a community of researchers, the notion of some contentious debate racking the halls of academia strikes me as a bit exotic

  • @ZombieXee
    @ZombieXee 8 месяцев назад

    Discovery Institute has spent decades trying to come up with a way to detect design. The problem is that you cannot prove design because, in essence, they are trying to prove god.
    The intelligent designer is god. Therefore ID is and will always be religion. God is not falsifiable.

  • @patrickhannon4188
    @patrickhannon4188 5 лет назад +5

    A lot of beating around the bush to prove intelligent design. Why not just read the scripture verse that says Christ created all things viable and invisible. Colossians 1:16
    "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"
    King James Bible

    • @coachmarc2002
      @coachmarc2002 5 лет назад +8

      What would that do for people who don't believe the bible?

    • @jayc222
      @jayc222 5 лет назад +8

      Because many of us want to know the nuts and bolts of creation. We’re not satisfied with, “Let there be light” and then there was light. Some of us are curious about the entire process. It leads to improved understanding of the world around us and technological advancement that lengthens and enhances the human existence.

  • @jl1267
    @jl1267 5 лет назад +3

    All theories require some amount of faith to get from A to B, including Darwinism.
    (In reply to the statement he makes @54:10)

  • @looks4stuff121
    @looks4stuff121 5 лет назад +3

    I love your work and support ID in fact I taught it in my biology class. However, I wish you would look into Cavendish experiment. Try and determine what is his cause and effect is. You will realize that it does not adhere to scientific method and is pseudoscience. Also explain how the earth can have an atmosphere with pressure next to the vacuum of space? I know your not arguing this line of science. but you use the absurd argument that the laws and constants of physics make life possible. I would argue its the dome.

  • @sally4388
    @sally4388 5 лет назад +1

    It all depends on the defenition of information. Barren moons that have never been seen or visited have a lot of information, no man or mind created that, just processes of the impacts.

    • @jamgrl38
      @jamgrl38 5 лет назад +7

      Huh? Information only has one definition and it can only be formulated by a mind.

    • @cecildison6788
      @cecildison6788 5 лет назад +3

      You didn’t listen to the video did you. How about listening before you comment

    • @thetruthchannel349
      @thetruthchannel349 5 лет назад +8

      Sikor - That is completely non-sequitor and non-analogous to the kind of information being discussed here. You are stretching the definition of information in order to create a chaotic ambiguous application. Thats dishonest.

  • @MrAndrew535
    @MrAndrew535 5 лет назад +2

    Ordered design does not, (or does not necessarily) equate to "intelligent design". Out of infinite possible outcomes, chaos will inevitably produce any and indeed all, coherent design to which intelligence can be either inferred or attributed.

    • @coachmarc2002
      @coachmarc2002 5 лет назад +14

      That's simply an unsubstantiated assertion. Obvious design requires a designer. That's what we know from experience. What is your evidence that the opposite is true?

    • @morellecummins7419
      @morellecummins7419 5 лет назад +7

      Andew Tarjanyi There is no existing infinite from which chaos can create all possible outcomes. Indeed, there is only a singular outcome.