I love this lecture. Bringing me closer to God x

I hate it when these guys call Darwin a "scientist," because he was no such thing. In fact, he was at best nothing but a 'wannabe scientist,' who's only degree was in theology - a vocation he never delved into. There's also the fact that most, with only an exception or 2, 'scientists' of Darwin's day were lawyers, or other professions outside of science. Remember, all someone needed to be 'a scientist' in the 19th century was - MONEY... ...because it took a lot of it to pretend to be one...

Except that Behe's characterization of Darwinian evolution is inaccurate. Other than that, a finer sermon I have not witnessed.

Life without ABIOGENESIS is illogical.

The notion of irreducible complexity is bogus. It preys on people’s ignorance, appeals to incredulity, and relies on the errant assumptions that a simpler version of the structure couldn’t have existed and that an “incomplete” version could not be of use to the organism.

I mean why does having a scientific explanation about the origin of life is always assumed to be detrimental to the belief in God? Doesn't that just means that we have learned a fraction of the process of how God created life in the first place? Some religious people rave about appreciating God's creations. But when it comes to actually appreciate it intellectually, suddenly there's hostility and discomfort.

Lot of trouble to pollute and destroy one planet. Creator must be almighty, but not very smart, lol. Cant wait to watch next video, hope it will tell us more abut creator, his agenda and lack of brain.

A brilliant lecture by a brilliant legal and rational mind.

What Michael Behe says about the irreducible complexity in the flagellum of the cell is actually not irreducible, because part of the flagellum motor is the secretory system and does secretory work in other cells.

This guy is completely full of it. search "Professor Dave Jonathan Wells" if you have the courage

Naturalists reject any reality that can't be universally observed or manipulated. Why would you limit yourself like that? I count myself very lucky to have a direct interaction with what I believe was God.. and I sometimes wonder, if everyone had the same experience I'd be willing to bet most of these naturalists would not budge. There is usually a reason in the background. My closest friend in college was a Darwinian and all of our conversations would boil down to perspective or perception... It's as if in someway both evolution and creationism lend themselves to delusions not in all instances but MOST instances. So people are usually left believing what appeals to them, if you spend a lot of time debating and you are honest about what is said you will see this pattern. My friend was intelligent that is why I like him but I found out later that he had a motive to reject God when he got a little tipsy one day and came on to me.. lol So I get why he would have animosity towards the idea of God. My conclusion is that for the most part bias drives our thoughts very strongly. The evidence itself is neutral and that in itself is remarkable to me, given the theological implications. A naturalists with very little knowledge would probably assume Christians aren't smart enough to be microbiologists, physicists, engineers, medical practitioners, imaging science professionals (me), working at NASA.. Yet there we are, does that have any weight in itself? no. It does however have weight if we are being honest with our beliefs and Christian intellects do a great job at this. For example if you tell a Muslim that Mohammed is a pedophile they just walk away.. If you tell a Buddhists that maybe Buddha just got a sugar high,.. they'll laugh and say, "I never thought of that". Whatever you believe, if you are not willing to question it, the weight of your personal bias decreases. If you find a sincerely curious naturalist, they will not be a naturalist for long.

It is creationism in all its forms that is the fairy tale. All creationism is lies.

2024 anyone?

Very well done! And understandable to a non scientist like me.

Mr Wells, you were right that the Big Bang Theiry will be jettisoned. It had been!

Informative

This presentation is very dishonest. It deliberately leaves out lots of information. Only showing things that support their narrative. Not cool. And not how truth is arrived at.

Breathtaking inanity

"Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise." -Adolf Hitler

"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will." -Adolf Hitler

"As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." -Adolph Hitler

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter." -Adolph Hitler

The Moth It is a scathing indictment of Evolutionary theory that this example is relied upon. All it shows, even if it were true, is variation in sub-type frequencies. It tells us nothing about how the varieties came into being, or how they differentiated. And it doesn't show the mythic 'natural selection' This was a tendentious and purposefully disingenuous coinage by Darwin to kid his readers that nature actually had agency and 'selected' as a breeder does. Of course, nature selects nothing. all it is left with it what is not 'de-selected' by some sort of ecological (or environmental) culling of variants of a creature that is more comparatively unsuited to the particular ecological conditions than others of its kind or type. This would be likely to occur if the sub type was in a mutated and less effective branch. The Fruit Fly. This shows up Darwinism for what it is: a mid-Victorians gross-morphology fairy-tale. Sure, the experimental fruit fly has extra wings. Gross morphology changed. But what hasn't been explained is how the animal's flight balance system would also have been changed to enable flight, how the musculature and its anchor points, and surrounding enabling structures could have also changed in step with the extra wings, how the nervous system was changed to 'drive' the wings and manage flight with this new equipment, and how any other affected systems, such as, perhaps visual processing, instinctual reactions to changing flight conditions or 'body awareness' were also upgraded at the same time. Animals are whole integrated 'systems of systems' and one small gross morphology change, or some chemical alteration in isolation is a trivialization of the complex work that evolution must do to make a creature reproductively more successful (and markedly more comparatively survivable in an ecological niche) than another of its species and so out do them. Clearly Evolution is a jejune smoke and mirrors game with its proponents relying on the most trivial of examples as evidence of its veracity. Dawkins is a prime example of this: he boosts 'natural selection' without recognizing that nature selects nothing, it only culls out the comparatively-in-the-particular-ecological-circumstances weaker examples of a species; and that is hit or miss as well!

Life always originates from life. By the way, the water Behe drank every now and then was actually vodka.

I know the conditions, events, and processes at the DNA levels for how complex life emerged Precambrian. I also have discovered a few additional factors for how life emerged on Earth about 4 Billion years ago. I have a few small gaps to fill to complete the research so I can publish in science and medical journals. I am looking for a $50,000 to $100,000 grant to complete the research.

You need to read the "Descent of Man ", and his letters. Darwin wrote that he was "counting on his German supporters" to put Social Darwinism into practice. Social Darwinism is the practice of killing off "less evolved people " to "breed superhumans." Even Marx wrote scathing accusations against the Jews. I always thought Marx was Jewish himself, but his writing identified the Boigiose (townfolk) as the Jews (who had to live in cities in Germany, because they were prohibited from buying land. Darwin, Marx, and Lyell were horrific racists, rabid antisemites, and anti-religious. Don't give them a pass on this. It's too important, because German National Socialism and Soviet Bolshevism are the same thing. The only difference was that each of them claimed to have real socialism.

Today's darwinists act exactly like the people that went after Galileo. Sure, no more stakes to burn people but enough power to ruin peoples' career, publicly shame people and dictate the terms of the debate. I have never heard or seen a partisan of ID insult and demean darwinists but almost all darwinists insult, demean and denigrate whether online or in public institutions. It shows their insecurity that they act like this. I didn't know that they doctor evidence, though. I am not all that surprised however.

The electrical engineer made a better argument for intelligent design by example than the whole presentation while trying to argue against it and didn't even realize it. 😂

0% of democrats know any of this information.

Science been hijacked by materialistic atheistic,philosophical naturalism.

God and the devil are fighting there and the battlefield is the heart of man.

If God's hand was in the design of the fundamentals of life, what are your thoughts about the "evolution" of man?

Love the question about the microchip... "Each step in the development"... Lol... The kid was making the argument FOR intelligent design!

Common sense is not so common …

There a pdf or something to look at just the text?

The American science academic community is pushing an agenda that is not that of observing and testing a phenomena and permitting the evidence to lead them to their conclusions. There are no scientists who are truly searching for truth. This world began on truth and exchanged it all for a lie. Paul wrote, "Let God be true and every man a liar." (Romans 3:3). Paul also wrote: 'Test all things. Hold to that which is good."

wooooowwwww!!!!!! This guy call himself a scientist???? The guy is a creationist nutbag. His mind is infected with religion, and when that happens, even the most intelligent individual stop reasoning in a rational way, and uses his or her intelligence to justify and rationalize lies so they can escape the pain of their cognitive dissonance. All of this has already been debunked. For instance, the mouse trap cannot be a mouse trap with all the parts, right? But the parts by themselves are useful in their own way. That’s what happens with the eye. There was no eye millions of years ago, but there were other components - like proteins - or cells that slowly but surely, started reacting to the light, and after a long period of time, they formed the eye. The “irreducible complexity” is a fallacy.

*_"The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has known that ever since Cuvier. If you want to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into the school to study. Again, because you don't see it, that brings terrible distress."_* (Stephen J. Gould, Professor of paleontology from Harvard University, During the question and answer session following his Hobart and William Smith College lecture, Dr. Gould was asked if there was not Stratigraphic evidence indicating gradualism)

*_“When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”_* (Charles Darwin, 1800’s Evolution Theorist, in his letter to G. Bentham May 22, 1863)

A person does Not need to have a Phd (or even an undergraduate degree) to question the validity of the Abiogenesis Hypothesis, or any hypothesis. As long as people have an understanding of basic scientific principles, common sense, and open mindedness to seek the truth, they can come to a more accurate conclusion for themselves. Basic Science 101: Wikipedia 2021, *_“A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the SCIENTIFIC METHOD requires that one can TEST IT … Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is NOT the same as a scientific theory.”_* Hypothesis is also referred to as a Hypothetical or Educated GUESS. Wikipedia 2021, *_"In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process ARE STILL UNKNOWN, the prevailing scientific HYPOTHESIS is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event [i.e. spontaneous generation]... There are several principles and HYPOTHESES for how abiogenesis COULD HAVE occurred."_* One of the reasons that abiogensis is merely a "hypothesis" and has not advanced to the status of being a "scientific theory", is that abiogenesis hypotheses still lack the experimental data required by the scientific method. Abiogenesis Hypothesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times.

Abiogenesis Hypothesis may be seen as a modern derivative of the Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis (i.e. life arising from non-living matter), one of the main differences being the supposed timeframes of each experimentally unproven process. Generally, the Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis speculated that living organisms “spontaneously” (i.e. within a relatively short period of time) emerged from non-living matter. And, Abiogenesis hypothesizes that undirected random natural processes caused molecules to form into biological life by random chance over the span of millions / billions of years. Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis was believed to be ‘fact’ for almost 2000 years, until it was scientifically disproved by experiments from such scientists as Louis Pasteur in the 1800's. From Wikipedia 2021, "In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process ARE STILL UNKNOWN, the prevailing scientific HYPOTHESIS is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event ... There are several principles and HYPOTHESES for how abiogenesis COULD HAVE occurred." If abiogenesis (and macro-evolution) was a real natural process, nothing should be preventing the abiogenesis (and macro-evolution) of completely novel species, at some stage of formation, from still happening today. However, to date, abiogenesis (and macro-evolution) has NOT been observed in nature. Only biogenesis (and micro-evolution) has been observed in nature. One of the reasons that abiogensis is merely a "hypothesis" and has not advanced to the status of being a "scientific theory", is that abiogenesis hypotheses still lack the experimental data required by the scientific method. Abiogenesis Hypothesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times.

Why is Darwin's macro-evolution speculations on the hypothetical common descent of all biological systems from a single celled common ancestor (which is not supported by the standard scientific method, the historical scientific method (i.e. there are no "presently acting causes" that support a common descent belief), Gene Regulatory Network mutation limitations, DNA mutation plasticity limitations, mathematical / computer modeling, information theory, etc.) referred to as a "theory" by the scientific community? Most importantly, the common descent illusion is not supported by the fossil record as revealed in the Cambrian geological layer. Just like the Spontaneous Generation "Theory", Charles Darwin's out-dated 1800's self-proclaimed "theory" of common descent macro-evolution from the materialist ideology / worldview DOES NOT meet the present day definition requirements of being a "Scientific Theory" in modern science and should be immediately downgraded by the modern scientific community. Countries' indoctrination of the masses in the pseudo-science of Darwinian Common Descent Macro-evolution and Social Darwinism, has continued to breed false scientific justification for racism and war in the modern era for over a century and could potentially lead to total human genocide through World War 3.

Thank you

Not only does the macro universe point to Intelligent design, but also the micro universe. The discoveries in cell complexity not only points (requires by reason) to Intelligent design but also to a very young universe.

Hate that electronic voice. Blocked channel

His examples of natural selection proved Dr Johnsons point. Made it to 43 minutes

Richard Dawkins calls the DNA's quaternary code a 'little bit' more complicated than the computer's binary code. A little bit? The DNA is much more complicated. It can be read backwards along with forward. It can work by offsetting a few frames [codons] and go forward or backward once again and make a different needed protein. The theory of evolution's proponents use this simplifying. It's misdirection by simplifying. At least he calls it a code that many of his students and cohorts will not do. He tries to simplify the self-arranging of the complexity of the DNA sequences as being 'saved' by natural selection. Natural selection must select something intelligent...an intelligence in which are mathematical impossibilities-by-chance. Natural selection does not save self-assembling biological codes. They do still have an intelligent design signature to them. These two talk like there is just one code involved in living cells. Not true. There are FIVE codes. There is the DNA code, the mtDNA code, the epigenome code, the lipid code of cell membranes, and the 'sugar code' that are on the surfaces of the cells. This more than a catch 22. It's a 'catch 55' needing to come together all at the same time for life to succeed. Again...natural selection can't save the theory of evolution with all of this complexity. What does natural selection select? It selects the epigenome's gene modifications without evolution's DNA mutation-engine. This again fits the intelligent design signature. The proteins are not simple either. They have to fold perfectly to make a needed product for life in the cell within a split second...or up to four seconds depending on the complexity. Manmade supercomputers TIED together takes WEEKS to duplicate the feat! This probably should be called the sixth code. I mentioned the epigenome code above. It is from this already built-in biological code that adaptations and trait passing comes from...passing for HUNDREDS of generations without DNA mutations being involved. Not credited to do so by evolutionary scientists until 2014. The epigenome works like a software program running overtop the DNA hardware program. See this catch 22 working along with the other three codes? Here is a cut and paste...and a link describing the epigenome. www.dictionary.com › browse › epigenomeEpigenome Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com Epigenome definition, a network of chemical compounds surrounding DNA that modify the genome without altering the DNA sequences and have a role in determining which genes are The epigenome's multi-generational adaptation and trait passing capability does not involve evolving of DNA sequences but is a biological system with standing-already-there capability. It takes cues from the environment such as new diets, new environments, and new threats and modifies into new things like the beak of the Darwin Finch or bacteria coming onto new antibiotic resistance. This new information is passed on in the female's eggs AND the male's seminal fluid that the sperm swims in. This newly 2014-credited epigenome's ability was miscalled as being 'evidence' for the ASSUMED EVOLVING OF DNA MUTATIONS miscalled 'microevolution'. All of the macroevolution schemes were built on these two miscalled precepts. The 'engine' for evolution is therefore missing 'under the hood'. Wrong precepts makes the evolution's concept impossible. Evolution's proposed way of evolving does not make it to first base. This makes macroevolution's home runs just a mind construct. You must run to first base to proceed to touch all the bases in your homerun trot. How does the epigenome software code work in conjunction with the DNA code? Let's do an analogy of a new built car. A new car has the same 'hardware' as a pre-1970 car of the engine, the pistons, and the drive shaft. Let's call that the 'DNA' of the two cars. In a high-end new car there are up to a hundred computers and a 150 computer chips. This we will call the 'epigenome' of the new high-end car. These feed information into the engine for precision of its workings. This is like how the epigenome-DNA relationship works in life. There you go! I give you science showing we are a creation. Your evolution scientists and academic mentors give you scientism. The Creator? Jesus Christ. Here is a 4 minute video describing the TRUE gospel... kzbin.info/www/bejne/jZmUh4hjlLR5b5o

Religious believers just don’t get it. They continually bend and squash their faith to fit current scientific thinking. Yes human beings are unique amongst all other creatures. But we are also the ape that got lucky. Thanks to the Chicxulub meteor, wiping out the dinosaurs and then by surviving another climate catastrophe 70,000 years ago that reduced the population to around 10,000. We are just lucky to be here.

Who designed the designer = who cooked the cook

irreducible complexity is an argument that something as complex as ( for example) the human eye could not have evolved naturally & required a creator. The argument ignores the fact that the argument itself is an argument that the creator who created our eyes would have to be more simple than our eyes or would have needed a creator for itself. And the human eye is not irreducibly complex. Remove the cones from our eyes and we would still have vision, we just wouldn't see all the colors we see now. Remove the rods from our eyes and our eyes wouldn't be good in low light conditions.