Canceled Science: Scientific Discoveries Some Atheists Don't Want You To See

[@patheally]

I'm not a Christian. However, I find myself siding with Christians on most things these days including science. After many years of going back and forth on this issue, I finally realized there's no conflict between faith and science.

[@Waiting4Him111]

Opened minded people are a joy to speak with even if they don't share the same beliefs. May I ask why you are not a Christian?

[@paularrowsmith9980]

Perhaps we can look forward to having you join us sometime soon? We were all "not a Christian" once. Each of us has a story of how we came to believe and to trust in the Saviour Who now means so very much to us. Perhaps one day you too will have such a story. I truly pray so, my friend.

[@i7Qp4rQ]

Science is science; knowledge. But there are those areas that people propagate as being science when they clearly are not. Also faith isnt as blind as some may paint it to be. Hebrews 11:1 (NASB) "Now faith is the certainty of things hoped for, a proof of things not seen." And then, some of us have moved from that point and actually _seen_ these things.

[@justincase1919]

People, both atheists and believers, have a misconception about what faith is. There is evidence that God exists and that He is the God of the Bible. Don't " believe through faith ", investigate the evidence. The Bible says " prove all things, hold fast that which is true. " God doesn't expect or desire blind faith. Faith is trust and confidence in someone, not believing without evidence. We don't believe in God through faith, we have faith in God because we know He exists and what He promises. We appreciate your patience and willingness to learn and change your mind. I used to be an atheist as well, until i found the evidence.

[@williamcattr267]

Bill, you may not identify yourself as a Christian (yet), however, you are not far off from becoming one. And when you eventually make that decision, you will never look back at the hopelessness that atheism has to offer. Christ is coming soon. Attend church, participate in a Bible study and form fellowship with believers.

[@eswn1816]

While an undergraduate at MIT, many years ago. I vividly remember the professor explaining how difficult it was to compose a list of "random numbers" to use with computers. After much contemplation, I came to the experiential conclusion that operational randomness in our Universe is non-existent. The basis of evolutionary theory, random processes, is simply an unproven, unprovable theoretical construct.

[@ravissary79]

Entropy increases randomness, this doesn't mean it's utterly unpredictable, but it's inherently destructive to structured/functional information by adding more and more noise over time as waste heat scatters, filling the vacuum. What it is is unproductive to increase functional diversity in organisms (adaptive mutations), it almost universally just breaks functional genes, which can occasionally confer an advantage.

[@EternalVisionToday]

Wow. That is fascinating.

[@xenphoton5833]

Yuor clnoucsoin seems cercort. At heart randomness can be seen as an illusionary function. If you formulate an outcome based on unconscious physical activity, maybe the temperature of a square meter of air or water measured to the 100th decimal point coupled with the amount of atoms in that given space, and compare that figure with another square meter 5000 mi away in a direction that is determined by a 100 sided dice, and arrive a number from the comparison of the two, would you still have true randomness? After all the attributes of the combined measurements can be assigned by prior activity, from macro/ micro interactions to wave function. Perhaps it could be argued that conscious decision is actually closer to randomness than not.

[@jeffmcatee2552]

Thank lol

[@rev.redhand6205]

The big bang theory can be compared to the parts of a 747 aircraft being put together by a hurricane and being able to fly the aircraft with out an issue afterwards. People say it's possible but that's one heck of a what if? 😉

[@torbjorntoll1481]

It is interesting that astronomy is threatening for some people when combined with asking philosophical questions. If people are interested in pursuing truth - asking questions should not be threatening but the starting point. Perhaps it indicates that for some, they believe people should rather listen and obey to their naturalistic doctrines than asking inconvenient questions. That the universities allow this kind of bullying is surprising. One would think that they had learnt something from Galileo.

[@standingbear998]

in the world today the push is toward the truth being the enemy and must be reversed.

[@TheMoravians]

The universities don't merely "allow this kind of bullying" they overtly engage in it. The Ball State University administration set up the commission that "investigated" Dr. Hedin, and chose to fill it with rabid Darwinian ideologues.

[@gramediastudioz]

The lies and deception form part of the global economy.

[@tomdooley3887]

When truth conflicts with policy , when truth conflicts with what they want to believe , it's dismissed as there is no ultimate truth. So what are you going to believe Scientific theory , and secular policies , or revealed truth of religion And facts that don't back up Scientific theory or secular policy. That GOD is the ultimate truth or that there is no ultimate truth.

[@jonp3890]

There’s dogmatic thinking all over science. It’s just as bad there as it is in any religion, bar none.

[@NihouNi]

The more I learn about neurochemistry, inflammation and the complexity of signalling pathways, the more I simply could not believe that it all came about as a result of random processes.

[@freemind..]

2 out of 3 comments not showing..? KZbin is quite busy with censorship these days.

[@danielj.nickolas]

That’s good, because evolution doesn’t propose that it’s the result of purely random processes. I.D. wants you to believe otherwise, because they realize evolution is too intuitive and well-evidenced to be represented honestly.

[@onegoodthought6581]

I didn't even know that was a belief? Who believes everything comes from randomness, and what is that belief called. I'll look into it. I'm an atheist, but I'm always interested in new beliefs. Does the belief have a name?

[@MrTheclevercat]

That's an argument from incredulity which is just an argument from ignorance which you then solve by introducing magic which you think you understand more than rAnDoM pRoCeSseS hahahahaha

[@samuellowekey9271]

The darwinists on this thread can't agree amongst themselves whether life is the result of random process or not. One says darwinists doesn’t propose that it’s the result of purely random processes, another darwinist says it is the result of rAnDoM pRoCeSseS.

[@pacificrailproductions5281]

It’s disgusting that colleges cannot even imply creation, or discuss these matters, yet courses about porn or any vile subject is embraced as fine subject matter.

[@crct2004]

That's communism infiltrating the schools just as they said they would... Without a single bullet fired here we are

[@anthonymonge7815]

What other vile subjects are embraced at colleges and universities? Which colleges and universities are they located?

[@ianmcdonald8648]

reason for that: their spiritual eyes are blinded by the god of this age - Satan. (Paul in Corinthians) they are willingly ignorant - (Paul in letter to Romans) They do not want to come to the Light lest their deeds are exposed - they love Darkness more than Light - (Jesus, John 3)

[@markaguilera493]

Could also imply morphing. God morphing into creation.

[@GORF_EMPIRE]

@@anthonymonge7815 I guess porn and woke-ism isn't perverted enough for you? How about politically left leans? Political correctness? Silencing the opposition? Oh I know... that's doesn't happen in your mind does it? One does not need to even get to college before these perversions take place. Grammar and high schools all across the world are now employing outcome based education. Oh and drag queens reading stories to our children against the parents will? Hmmm.

[@tiffanymagee2700]

We need more great professors like you. As a biochemist I studied many things that clearly showed design. And not just design, but extraordinary design that caused awe and wonder. My friend who was an atheist said she had a hard time believing there wasn't a God after a graduate course about DNA replication.

[@albusai]

Amazing thank you

[@jean-marclamothe8859]

At least your friend had an open mind, that’s not the case for a majority of atheists

[@_sarah.]

Praise God!

[@sanjosemike3137]

@@jean-marclamothe8859 Jean-Marc, I agree with you. I have found arguments with atheists on line end with them becoming verbally abusive. They almost always do. Perhaps that is your experience too. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

[@LC-jq7vn]

@@jean-marclamothe8859 The God of the world has blinded them. A lot of times it’s pride and preconceived notions without actually understanding anything about Christianity. They group the other false religions with it instead of comparing evidence, they assume it’s all the same. Satans real goal is not to torture people on earth or possess them, but to keep them away from Christ at any means possible and make them dishonor God. If they never actually approach the subject with sincerity and without bias, then he’s done his job. Unfortunately, he’s successful more than he’s not.

[@Mike__G]

Why can people so easily use the term “random processes?” By definition, a thing that is random is not a process.

[@andoapata2216]

Among the scientists who postulate spontaneous biogenesis, there are some who attribute it to chance and others to physical laws. How is this contradiction explained? In reality, this contradiction is only apparent and the product, in my opinion, of an epistemological confusion, since chance and physical law, far from excluding each other, correspond. Physicochemical laws - the only ones acting before the appearance of life - are precisely based on chance, since they depend on the disordered or unpredictable movement of atoms and molecules, which only obey the thermodynamic sense of the reaction and the law of large numbers. If the atoms and molecules did not act randomly, the physicochemical laws would not act, their regularity depends precisely on their "perfectly" disordered behavior. So this regularity is probabilistic. For the statistical calculation to be valid, it is essential that each and every one of the elements involved in a phenomenon to only obey chance. Otherwise it is impossible. If we throw a coin on the ground a hundred times, we will get approximately 50% of each of the faces. And this we can predict. It is scientific. Obeys laws. But if the coin has some alteration that favors one of its sides - that is, it is not due to chance - then our calculation will not work. If there were atoms and molecules that could somehow choose their own course of action, physical laws would not hold. All scientific laws are statistical in nature, and are based on the assumption that atoms and molecules do not obey other laws than those of chance. Therefore, to say that life originated by the action of the physical laws of the universe is - in terms of its mechanism - exactly the same as saying that it did so thanks to the random movement of atoms and molecules.

[@Aoekin]

exactly, even with "AI" the spooky words is based on what the programmer develops and inputs to create the intelligence to choose one or the other and based on some internal calculation for prime outcome, which doesn't always work(takes a lot of failures lol). Machine learning is the same way it teaches the experience and increases a better outcome, but still takes the programmer several testing and eventually debugging issues. We as humans if considered as machines would be the most expensive product you could buy, because of our sensory and "gut" decisions and the fact we run emission free in a sense haha either way the Father is a great designer and all credit goes to him and the son.

[@psychedelicearth1239]

Exactly, Chaos theory

[@BlacksmithTWD]

Well, one can have a seemingly random process. Though of course you are right, those people probably are confusing what is the case with what merely seems to be the case but which may in fact be completely different than that it seems to be. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that human beings learn language by firstly reproducing language without having the faintest idea about its meaning.

[@antonystark9240]

The quantum mechanics that underlies everything in the world does indeed seem to be a random process. There have been numerous attempts to show that his is not so, and so far all have failed in experiment. Some argue that what appears to us to be random is where god can make a difference.

[@061banyon]

As a high school physics teacher from Sweden I absolutely love this talk. Thank you for producing these

[@evasmedberg3180]

I really agree!!!...as a truthseeker from Sweden :)

[@stephenhousman6975]

@@evasmedberg3180 Really? He straight up made two assertions without any evidence in a minute starting here (30:00). One is low probability without giving how many attempts happened. The other is the universe is finite. Most physicists are unsure if it is or not.

[@mikeadams6108]

@@stephenhousman6975 he's assuming that you understand the first and second law of thermodynamics. Based on those alone, there cannot be an infinite time for the universe.

[@mikeadams6108]

@@SOMAnxg you may want to study the history of modern science. The scientific method was developed with the presupposition that there is a Creator God, described as a Law Giver, and being "made in His image" man can discover the Laws of Nature that He put in place. From Bacon to Newton, Maxwell to Pasteur and Lister, every major field of scientific study was started by someone "thinking God's thoughts after Him" until Hutton and Lyell who wanted to "free the science of Geology from Moses". If it weren't for them there would be no "science" as we know it today.

[@jamesmaybury7452]

For me, it’s not so much the fact that there are many more ways to go wrong than to create something functional but the fact that the chemistry and biology are exerting forces towards biological structures breaking down that I think is powerful to indicate that you can’t build life incrementally from chemistry. The analogy that you used of forming any atom with any number of protons and neutrons is possibly helpful here. In certain conditions elements with different numbers of protons and neutrons can be made but they are unstable and will quickly break down. A body when it dies will quickly break down. Keeping life going takes a precise, intricate system of error correction, regeneration and nurturing, which all must be present. It isn’t just like building an aeroplane in a junk yard with a tornado but it’s like adding a dye to the mouth of a river and expecting it to colour the water at the head of that river, against the flow.

[@umvhu]

"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us for a while, full of grace and truth" Thank you for your insight and explanation

[@peggylivermore2613]

When you read John 1:1-3 the newer translators have added a pronoun that does not belong. Hebrew and Greek don’t have pronouns. It fact those two languages don’t have spaces between words, any punctuation, or chaptalization. Translators added even verses and chapters. Nouns determine the gender. In John 1 the KJV has it right. John 1:1-3 (KJV) 1 In the beginning was the Word, (logos=speech, concept, plan) and the Word (speech, concept, plan) was with God, and the Word (speech, plan, concept) was God. 2 The “same” (not he) was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In Genesis, God spoke and it happened. God is the word. The New Testament writers gave warnings that there were false teachers even in their midst. That’s why there are so many different churches. Men have itching ears which causes multiple departures from bible truths. John 17 explains the oneness between the Father, the son Jesus and his disciples. Three times in Jesus prayer he says that he was one with the Father just as the disciples are one. Jesus only spoke what his Father Jesus told him to to say, which was God’s word not Jesus’ word. The Jews never believed that God was a triune entity. The Old Testament is the foundation for the New Testament so it has to be accurate. Deuteronomy 6:4 (KJV) Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD: Mark 12:32 (KJV) And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: I won’t continue with all the other verses because of space.

[@lisamoag6548]

And He went about doing good and healing people. Proclamation of the Kingdom!

[@technicianbis5250]

@@peggylivermore2613 How do you explain the Father is greater than the Son? The trinity is false doctrine, the trinity and anything like it came out if babylon.

[@bowez9]

@@technicianbis5250 guess you are unaware of the pentateuch, which clearly shows the Trinity.

[@MillionthUsername]

@@technicianbis5250 The Trinity is a dogma of the Faith. It was revealed to the Church by Christ, and it is not up for debate. If you place yourself above the Church and above Christ, then you are effectively creating your own religion, something that no one has any right or authority to do.

[@cavscout62]

Any scientist who observes DNA and the structures of micro organisms KNOWS, if they are honest that there is a Grand Designer.

[@glenliesegang8935]

I think deep down they have reasons to not want anything higher than themselves to exist. scoffing shuts down thought by a surge if pride, which says, "boy, are they stupid!"

[@therick363]

KNOWS… that’s your opinion and interpretation of things. Doesn’t equal a fact of reality. It’s a cheap tactic when theists say “if they are honest”….because that is not honest at all. Because if you want to go that way….if theists were honest all we see are natural causes and events and no supernatural causes.

[@Delgen1951]

@@glenliesegang8935 Yes Satan's sin, Pride.

[@anthonymonge7815]

Any scientist, by profession, looks for provable and repeatable ways to explain something. A grand designer does not fit that bill.

[@oldtimefarmboy617]

@@therick363 Sir Roger Penrose, a member of the Order of Merit and a Fellow of The Royal Society, an English mathematical physicist and Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute of the University of Oxford and an Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College; who has received a number of prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics which he shared with Stephen Hawking for their contribution to our understanding of the universe and is renowned for his work in mathematical physics, in particular his contributions to general relativity and cosmology; calculated the odds of the universe forming as it is known today. In his book “The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics,” Sir Roger Penrose gives the odds at 1 in [(10^10)^128]. According to Penrose: "This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in ordinary denary notation: it would be ‘1’ followed by 10^128 successive ‘0’! Even if we were to write a ‘0’ on each separate proton and each separate neutron in the universe - and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure - we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed." "The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics" was written in 1989. Since then it has been discovered that there are billions or trillions more galaxies and thousands of planets in our galaxy have been discovered. Anyone familiar with calculating odds knows that the more variables you add to the calculation causes the odds to grow exponentially.

[@JOHN-yo6qk]

I can see the love of Christ in you. May God bless you Professor for your good work and for your love for God.

[@thepsycholotree1016]

so, because some things are yet unknown to science, the bible must be correct. What? Then to justify this claim, you cite the bible as a source. What? This is the problem. Why not believe in Spinoza's pantheistic god then, that will also answer your questions. Why the Christian faith? Hinduism can also answer such questions, but I didn't see any Hindu scriptures being used here. This is why the conversation (which, for some reason, I am getting involved in right now) is always fruitless. Science does not know everything, it might never do. That's fine. that is to be expected. It doesn't claim to. It does not mean you need to look at the Bible, which somehow and very suspiciously, claims to answer everything by referring to itself.

[@TheAaronYost]

The problem is you're not sophisticated enough to understand what he's saying. This conversation is fruitless for two reasons: First, you haven't taken the time to examine this gentleman's worldview. You have no idea what argument is being made. You have to take the time to investigate what the critics of your worldview are saying. That requires effort, and atheism is lazy. Second, you haven't taken the time to examine your own worldview. If you had, you would understand that atheistic materialism doesn't give you the necessary preconditions to even trust science. Science is a purely christian idea. You think because you don't give God the glory, you don't need him for science. That's just more ignorance that stems from the laziness of atheism. Christians have to defend every little thing they say. Conversely, atheists just take their entire worldview for granted. You assumed logic, math, science, induction, etc etc etc. You relentlessly appeal to these concepts but you can't give a rational justification for them. And that makes sense, because you can't. As soon as we start investigating your foundations for trusting things like science, your whole worldview is going to fall apart. And if you think I'm making this up, I invite you to get on a podcast with me and let's talk about it. Because your worldview will fall apart. It will fold like origami..

[@vladim73]

All Truth passes thru 3 stages: 1. It is ridiculed. 2. It is violently opposed. 3. It is accepted as being self-evident. Schopenhauer

[@norbertjendruschj9121]

Fortunately, evolution theory is know arrived at step three.

[@freemind..]

@@norbertjendruschj9121 - He said 'Truth'.. which obviously precludes Darwinian Evolution.

[@alfazehsas]

Everything is self-evident of a Creator.

[@WisdomThumbs]

There’s always a 4th stage: reversal and denial. Truth loves to be questioned, but lies hate to be challenged.

[@tmjcbs]

That's indeed a good description how in previous centuries the church reacted to scientific discoveries....

[@evetsize]

One of the things that needs to be addressed is the unfair play by atheists. They object to any teaching about God in the classroom but they are free to PREACH - in the same classroom - that God does not not exist. What's good for Peter should be good for Paul as well. If God-fearing lecturers can't talk about God then atheists should have the same restrictions.

[@zenuno6936]

Even worse a problem is that they preach fallen morality.

[@MATTHEWSTARTICUS]

I don't think atheists are allowed to actively say there is no god in public schools. Maybe university, but even then I imagine they would get complaints.

[@jasonwarren9279]

I was an atheist for at least a decade. Studying science is what led me to reject atheism. Studying the Bible led me to Christ. People who talk about contradictions in the Bible, while "believing the science," haven't studied either.

[@freemind..]

That is a page from my book as well. I was a believer, but feel away for over a decade due to trusting in MEN rather than God. In my mind, 'Science' had disproven the biblical Creation and Flood narratives. If I couldn't trust scripture on the big things, why would I trust it on the rest? I was so very wrong! But, like you, it was SCIENCE that brought me back! True 'Science' VALIDATES scripture. The pseudoscience that pervades is wrong at the foundational level on many things, yet those fallacious IDEAS have been accepted as fact, and built upon for 200 years. It's no wonder there is a perpetual need for the creation of new mysterious forces, particals, waves, substances and processes to plug some of the holes in the latest theories..

[@bradsmith9189]

Same here 👍

[@billysichone5262]

Amen!

[@BillYenair0077]

This kind of information makes a session on KZbin, with all its dark content, bearable and well worth it.

[@freegeorgia4808]

Try Dr James Tour

[@walterf6993]

Thank you for your gentle and factual teaching. This is the most honest approach to the study of science. We wished that all scientists would do this and admit their limits. If you know what the limits are, especially after the ever-increasing knowledge gained as we view smaller and smaller into the microscopic material world, than you can search better and not just accept quasi-scientific presumptions and assumptions that we seem to be forced to believe by past established traditions of scientific study. "There are limits to what science can and cannot do" and prove. Science cannot prove our origins for one (everyone of us have come in during the middle [or end] of the movie). Science cannot prove the existence of God (1 Corinth. 1:20 "Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe."), though it can prove, through the ever more discovery of the complexity of creation, that a Creator had to design it; and yet, only the faithful and humble-contrite person will God "look to" and show the mystery of His wisdom (1Corinth.2:12 "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God", ) (Is. 66:2 ““For My hand made all these things, Thus all these things came into being,” declares the Lord. “But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word."

[@joshua9449]

I asked a question during an lgbtq training at work that all my coworkers agreed was fair and respectful regarding forced speech impeding on others beliefs. I didn’t mention Christianity and the instructor of this class slandered the name of Christians and said there are no two sides, his side is truth and nothing else matters. I was upset and thinking about how I should respond and God put in my heart a way to show this man love while still showing the importance of my side and exposing the lies he was calling truth and showing how that is harmful to both sides, all in a respectful matter. MLK Jr said it best: hate can’t drive out hate, only love can do that.

[@gfujigo]

You are right and MLK was right. It took me a while to understand what he meant by that.

[@knightclan4]

Uniformitarianism versus Catastrophism That is the debate I want to see more of. If you see the truth of the global flood stated in Genesis, you eliminate evolution and Uniformitarianism.

[@MountainFisher]

I have a question, was everyone and every land mammal except those on the Ark killed in the Flood?

[@CBALLEN]

Our state religion is evolution, too bad we can't separate our state from this cult.

[@wayneshufelt3393]

With all the detailed information available to us in this modern world, I am still somewhat amazed that more people are still blinded to the design and specialness of everything around us. The reality of our planet and the cosmos that surround us shows so much complexity and design that one should not doubt that it was created. But... many do. They have been deceived. A new telescope will further reveal this complexity and design and STILL they will deny.

[@taylor6618]

They are brain washed by our schools

[@tardigrade8019]

I'm assuming you're a creationist, so let me ask one thing. Do you believe there is anything in the observable universe that wasn't designed? Cus if not, then everything, regardless of complexity, or usefulness, was designed. Why do I need to look in the cosmos, shouldn't a lump of mud be proof of design. Or hell, literal poop. All designed. Basically if this is true, your criteria for viewing design is just "it exists". A wee bit fallacious.

[@bobs4429]

As a Christian interested in science, I'm sure you've been accused of being blinded by your faith. It's common for evangelistic atheists to do so. I humbly ask you to use this experience to see things from the perspective of one who does not see a creator in the mystery and majesty of the universe. We believe that we are also honestly seeking the truth as well and work diligently to keep from being deceived. We embrace evidence and are open to the prospect that we are wrong. We just don't see things the way you do, just as you don't see things the way we do.

[@lampkin9287]

Even if one came back from the dead, they would still doubt.

[@truthbebold4009]

@@tardigrade8019 There is an astonishing level of design found within a clump of mud. But I believe you are referring to the shape of the clump.

[@brodiedriscoll2003]

The thing is, Atheists don't disregard the possibility that the universe has some sort of creator. We are open to the idea, it is definitely possible. We simply don't believe that there is any evidence that any God or any religion that currently exists or has ever existed has been responsible. Especially the Christian God of the the bible. Every single point that he made in this video had absolutely no merit in giving credit to the Christian God of the bible.

[@ludwigkirchner08]

So, a creator yes, but a religious creator, no? How do you fortify that logic? This is certainly not the typical belief of atheists. Not sure why you framed it that way.

[@obgfoster]

@@ludwigkirchner08 atheists lack belief in a deity (by definition). If there is a supernatural entity that created it all, you'd think it would have written a better book, for one thing. For another, how is it that the one "correct" god is the one you believe in? There have been hundreds of different deities that you have rejected without even learning about them. How do you know the stories you have heard and read are the correct ones (factually)?

[@truthbebold4009]

I'm curious why the Christian God is least likely to be responsible for creation?

[@rev.redhand6205]

Sounds pretty satanic to me Brodie, especially when you left out Yahweh specifically 🕵️

[@lederereddy]

Man, oh man, Mr. I didn't catch your name. Your presentation was like opening a jewelry box. Several amazing nuggets of truth! Truths I'll be using!The Lord richly bless your socks off, young sir!

[@randypacchioli2933]

We do serve an awesome triune God. ✝️

[@sofly7634]

Wow he teaches well Randomness was perfectly explained More ways to go off the rails with Random Theory Got it!

[@kalabalakrishnan1484]

Shalom. A personal testimony, when Heavenly Father first revealed His Son's name was Yehoshua/Yeshua for short, I argued with Him, n said after all these years (40+yrs) when I have got used to Jesus, now You tell me Jesus's actual name is Yeshua, He said " you wanted the truth".😯 then I sighed, there was no arguing with that. Since I loved the truth, Yeshua it was, believe me it took me some time.

[@dohpam1ne]

bro I'm halfway through the video and he still hasn't gotten to the scientific discoveries some atheists don't want me to see, he's just been talking about the bible

[@2FollowHim777]

The more you look, the more you see and what you see is design everywhere. I'm now looking at the design of my own life. And finding it there, too.

[@moses777exodus]

DNA code can be equated to a type of computer language. DNA code is more complex than regular computer language in that it is not binary (based on 0 and 1). It is quaternary (based on A T C G). And, as with every known language in existence, confirmed through scientific experiment and observation, is the product of only one thing ... mind/ consciousness /intelligence. ... _"The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an INFORMATION SCIENCE. Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science: its DIGITAL nature and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. DNA has two types of DIGITAL INFORMATION - the genes that ENCODE proteins, which are the MOLECULAR MACHINES of life, and the GENE REGULATORY NETWORKS that specify the behaviour of the genes."_ (Source: Nature Journal, Nature com) _"Language: ALL DIGITAL communications require a formal language, which in this context consists of all the information that the sender and receiver of the digital communication must both possess, in advance, in order for the communication to be successful."_ (Wikipedia: Digital Data) *”The instructions in a gene that tell the cell how to make a specific protein. A, C, G, and T are the "letters" of the DNA code; they stand for the chemicals adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T), respectively, that make up the nucleotide bases of DNA. Each gene's code combines the four chemicals in various ways to spell out three-letter "words" that specify which amino acid is needed at every step in making a protein.”* ( “Genetic Code - National Human Genome Research Institute” Genome . gov) *_”Genetic code is the term we use for the way that the four bases of DNA--the A, C, G, and Ts--are strung together in a way that the cellular machinery, the ribosome, can read them and turn them into a protein. In the genetic code, each three nucleotides in a row count as a triplet and code for a single amino acid. So each sequence of three codes for an amino acid. And proteins are made up of sometimes hundreds of amino acids. So the code that would make one protein could have hundreds, sometimes even thousands, of triplets contained in it.”_* (Lawrence C. Brody, Ph.D., Genome dot gov) *_"It is only at the semantic level that we really have meaningful information; thus, we may establish the following theorem: Theorem 14: Any entity, to be accepted as information, must entail semantics; it must be meaningful. Semantics is an essential aspect of information because the meaning is the only invariant property. The statistical and syntactical properties can be altered appreciably when information is represented in another language (e.g., translated into Chinese), but the meaning does not change. Meanings always represent mental concepts; therefore, we have: Theorem 15: When its progress along the chain of transmission events is traced backward, every piece of information leads to a mental source, the mind of the sender."_* Dr. Werner Gitt (Former Head of the Department of Information Technology at Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Germany) Modern scientific discoveries in Genetics (i.e. biology) have shown that functional / coded / digital Information (i.e. DNA code) is at the core of ALL Biological Systems. Without functional / coded / digital information, there is NO biology. The only known source (i.e. cause) in the universe that has been Observed in nature to be capable of producing functional / coded / digital information, such as that found even in the most primitive biological systems, is mind / consciousness / intelligence.

[@thegroove2000]

This is absurd.. There is not one drop of evidence that supports the idea that there is a GOD and one from the scriptures at that There maybe something behind this all but no one knows. NOT YOU NOT I NO SCIENTIST NO ONE. That is been intellectually honest and not been deluded.

[@peterkel4451]

A gentle refreshment and peacefully presented. Characteristics I hope to improve and grow into as I walk. Thank you for sharing this.

[@sanjosemike3137]

It is unclear to me if Coyne and his cohorts actually tried to get him fired and or stop his road to tenure. I once had an argument with an atheist who “insisted that attacks against religious professors never happened and that I was lying contemptuously.” This particular episode suggests it has, at least this time. He badgered me for weeks DEMANDING examples which he would then dismiss them as “fabrications.” I should have realized that he was just an online bully, but I was somewhat shaken by him. I guess he had a right to refute me. There are scientists at the Discovery Institute who faced this. He regarded them as a bunch of “pseudoscience charlatans who were beneath contempt. I have since given up on arguments with atheists online, because most become abusive and perhaps deeply “threatened” by any science that may point to God. That is a true experience I had. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

[@michaelwill7811]

The thing to remember is that no matter how much evidence you present, it will never be enough. The VAST majority of atheists have been hopelessly blinded by the god of this world so you will NEVER convince them otherwise. I have even had a few to the point where they had run out of objections and basically admitted (in a roundabout way) that there likely was a god but they could never follow Him because of "x" reason. It was futile to wrestle with them about why their view of "x" was a misconception about God, in relation to "x", they simply did not want to follow Him. The good news is that there is a chance others, who are open-minded to some extent, will see your post and perhaps you have planted a seed, for them...

[@BlacksmithTWD]

Though I don't consider myself to be an atheist, I would be rather sceptical towards anyone claiming to have scientific evidence for any god. The trouble I experience with many self proclaimed atheists on the internet is that they seem to adhere to scientism rather than to science, especially when it comes to gods. Nine out of ten times they are not even capable to respond to my statements, but instead keep regurgitating However, i would have taken another approach. Since it was the atheists making the claim that it doesn't exist, the burdon of proof is on him, not on you. the atheist in your story seems to have been making the irratical choice concerning Hempel's paradox: No matter the amount of black ravens one is able to count, it doesn't provide any evidence whatsoever about the existence of white ravens. Hence to claim that white ravens don't exist based on not having seen one and only having seen black ravens is a fallacy. If he makes the claim it doesn't exist, he should provide the evidence for that claim, not the other way around. The default scientific position is : "I don't know" rather than "x does exists" or "x doesn't exist", whoever claims one of the latter to be the case is required to provide evidence for that claim, not the other way around. When it comes to science, there is merely evidence making one or the other claim more likely to be true, actual proof for one or the other claim I've only seen in mathematics. Though of course, when someone starts making accusations of the other person lying, prematurely ruling out the other person merely being mistaken or being misinformed is a red flag already. And it's another claim that requires evidence. I often tend to annoy atheists by quoting Hitchens : "claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Usually they just stop commenting.

[@ShogunV]

What did you expect? Online arguments are driven by ego not by search for truth. Especially online atheists who tend to get triggered, abusive, and go into full denial mode.

[@johnmartin4152]

Atheists who make the assertion you describe always, always lie. It comes well naturally with the worldview.

[@obgfoster]

I followed this closely (Muncie resident and atheist), and no, Coyne didn't try to get him fired. He tried to get the course removed from the science sequence. It could have been a great course in philosophy of science. I'm not sure of his claim that students could access the syllabus before taking the course, either. That's not how registration works at Ball State. But even if they could, they wouldn't have understood what they were getting into.

[@grevberg]

Isn't Darwinism itself a religion/philosophy A number of scientists prefer to believe it, knowing it's impossible.

[@obgfoster]

Nope, not a religion, and not even an -ism really. There is "Darwinian evolution," which is parallel to "Newtonian physics" - i.e. concepts and evidence related to a theory (not a hypothesis) developed by a particular scientist. "Darwinism" is a straw man created in anti-science rhetoric to attack scientists with a tu quoque argument. At most, you can say that scientists believe the scientific method is useful for learning more about nature and that they accept theories confirmed by evidence.

[@kylemoore7746]

No, that's some idea that creationists have projected onto evolution by natural selection. There's no Einsteinism or Newtonism, but because evolution is taken as a threat, it's better to project it in that light.

[@kingpeer14]

No Darwinism is not a religion, it is a scientific idea. Religion is something with peolpe in it that belief in a god and go to some kind of a church. A lot of people nows that why don't you?

[@AviViljoen]

@@kingpeer14 I don't agree with your definition of religion. Religion is a belief. It has nothing to do with buildings. From my own circle of friends, I have seen people adhering to Darwinism - in spite of overwhelming evidence of its impossibility - because it replaces their belief in God. They "believe" in Darwinism. So, in many ways, Darwinism IS a religion.

[@-chantillydoce-2443]

@@kingpeer14 actually no, A religion is something that you belive and that changes your worldview

[@olarsarp]

Science does not say the universe came from nothing. It says the universe came from a state of high density and temperature.

[@fernandosanchez6054]

The universe came from a state of the "universe" or the universe came from a state of "nothing"? It's a nonesense anyway the "nothing" has no states, the "non existing universe" has no states

[@norbertjendruschj9121]

Science looks for naturalistic explanation and is very successful with this approach. Religion looks for supranatural explantions and has produced nothing but superstition. Make your choice!

[@kingpeer14]

Religion looks for people that think there own perception of reality is that of his neighbour so they can live in a save 'social construct' The problem is they think they belief the same thing but thet all have a different image of 'that'

[@michaelbrickley2443]

Not sure why the idea of faith troubles the non believer. Oh, wait, they serve the god of the earth.

[@AnotherViewer]

Well, faith can be correct or wrong in equal measure. I assume you are Christian based on your reply, and your faith is in your god. Does that mean that some other religion, say Islam, whose members also use faith to know their god is true, are wrong? Listen to this interaction and tell me which person you agree with: kzbin.info/www/bejne/r6fbo4igr8eqgrs

[@jameswhite7997]

@@AnotherViewer It's not difficult to impartially investigate the historical evidence for Christianity and Islam as being true. Reason need not go out the window - the term 'Faith' to lump all religions together is so vague its meaningless.

[@shenanigansofmannanan]

It's the submission and the final acknowledgement that they are not God and do not control their own eternity....

[@hojda1]

@@AnotherViewer Faith: believe your HYPOTHESIS is *ACTUALLY* TRUE and see what conclusion you draw.. The result should be coherent, non-contradictory and relevant. Apply that to EVERY belief you have, after all it IS the Scientific Method.

[@williamprice1844]

As a Christian I agree with you, you can believe your right and be wrong. Science has proved this axiom over and over.

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

33:33 A question I have been asking Atheists/Materialists/Whatever lately is Explain Beauty, using only those things that can be measured, weighed, The material. not why is one thing said to be beautiful and another not, but the Idea of Beauty.

[@skatter44]

@@CR-yd4qe Aesthetics is the philosophic study of Beauty. If there is a branch of philosophy that writes papers and have discussions about what constitutes Beauty, it can't be all subjective.

[@utopiabuster]

The "Aesthetic Argument" for God's existence is one of the best arguments. Even Darwin saw the concept of beauty a challenge to his theory. Peace

[@evangelosgeronicolas2385]

@@CR-yd4qe Well, no! The subjectivity of beauty is something that has been promoted by 20th century revolutionary propaganda. Try to buy a house in a beautiful landscape, and its price will convince you that everybody else sees its beauty.

[@jameswhite7997]

@@skatter44 That's assuming philosophy arrives at any definitive answer/s which (let's face it) philosophy rarely does.

[@HegelsOwl]

@utopiabuster 2017. How does one bridge "Hume's Gap" to get to "Beauty"? Just curuous.

[@madam9566]

Great information from a very knowledgeable man. I wish this was taught to all students, and any confusion relating to creation would be eliminated.

[@johnmonk9297]

Unfortunately many people totally refuse to accept the truth. The bible says in the last days people will want lies over truth. I have shown people lots of evidence against evolution and they totally ignore or reject the Truth.

[@davidpeck3912]

That's why it WON'T be taught

[@dennyjay4252]

They are too busy teaching gender identity from people who have a gender identity disfunction!

[@DrWhom]

No not great information, not a knowledgeable man

[@thegroove2000]

Using the scriptures and GOD as the conclusion to been prove that is a creator of all is highy problematic. It would be better to assert that there maybe something behind it all but you dont know. Anything else is dishonest and self deluded.

[@aoifelucas4107]

The first 51% or so of this entire talk is just preaching. Just like you have been accused of doing in the classroom. Hopefully, soon, you will start talking about this so called canceled science.

[@Mike_Wilson_KJV]

Typical atheist troll posting from a fake 10 day old account with no content.

[@racerx4152]

athiesm is a religion also, they just don't want competitors. to ignore creationism is to cancel it.

[@8slkmic]

@@racerx4152 how is it a religion?

[@sekateksekate]

Big up Discover Science on the endeavor to portray that Science points to the Loftiest subject of all human mind can engage, heart can ponder, God of Scriptures. Him alone is huge

[@evangelosgeronicolas2385]

Of course the same happens with the Nature that we perceive through our senses. And this is also Aristotle's philosophical conclusion. The only presupposition is that the heart does not reject the Spirit of Truth.

[@karlhenriksson9394]

Whenever people on one side of an argument try to cancel ideas and/or people from the other side by force, including political force (lawsuits, withholding tenure, and the like); they have not only lost, but they know they have lost, whether they will ever admit it or not. Any appeal to force to "win" an argument is an elementary mistake in logic, recognized since at least ancient Greek times.

[@obgfoster]

False binary -- there are many explanations for nature in religion & folklore. A cross-cultural exploration of ancient explanations for the stars, moon & planets would be really interesting.

[@freemind..]

Yep. Yet pay attention to how many replies there are to a given comment on KZbin vs how many are visible. I bet the vast majority of those that don't show up are expressing views that question and oppose things like Darwinian Evolution, climate change alarmism, gender fluidity, etc.. So much for free speech.

[@bobs4429]

If you talk to most physicists these days, people like Max Tegmark, Roger Penrose, Mark G. Alford and the like, you will find that they embrace and even revel in disagreement. On the cutting edge of physics these days there is little consensus but great passion to reach better understanding. Debate between those with differencing positions is key. Given this reality in the field, I wonder why Dr. Hedin feels cancelled? If he has something to bring to the discussion then he should have been welcomed/

[@andrewstidham7950]

Everything science knows or will know is just a speck and less then that according to what our heavenly Father knows.. he has this whole thing in his big big hands. He isn't called God for nothing and the Son sits at his right hand doing just as the Father does.. the meaning of life is Jesus for he said I am the way the truth and the LIFE!... is no real meaning without him NONE! he gives us meaning this whole thing exist cause he wanted it to.. to understand God he has to be understood in the spirit cause he is a spirit and his son we must worship him in spirit and truth.. trying to understand him with the carnal mind he really doesn't care for. it can't really recieve anything from him not truth anyway. You can see what he done in this flesh but not really see him or know him read the Bible Jesus clearly states that..

[@douglasrasmussen480]

In the instance of the field of archaeology, there have been confirmations of places and sites mentioned in the bible, but until discovery were lost in history. Facts are to be accepted. What I do not see is the acknowledgement of archaeology that directly disputes and disproves biblical accounts. I also do not see an acceptance of science that directly disputes such things as the great worldwide catastrophic flood of Genesis or the impossibility of the accounts of Exodus. While truth is to be pursued, acknowledging that which is false is also a pursuit of truth.

[@jagdtiger9287]

Exactly, science gone astray when the "Smithson" and science in general hides the fact of giant bones found throughout America and in the Midwestern mounds.

[@raygsbrelcik5578]

You stated; "Natural processes can do SOME things..." Yes, but those Natural Processes, and their organic components, were Created by a Mighty GOD in the FIRST place.

[@gregoryhoffman6828]

This is the ultimate expression of love, to share the truth for all to hear & continue to share when so many want to silence the truth. I really appreciate your light & love for people.

[@randycooper3940]

I found it ...actually quite predictable ...that in the very beginning of his "talk" ...he referenced asking students about "the meaning of life". He mentioned only 2: God ..and ...hopelessness. (as if, without God ...hopelessness is all that's left ..I disagree.) I'm sure there are many answers in between, I just find it ..well ..predictable that he would start his conversation having "planted that seed".

[@randycooper3940]

He just told an untruth. Common mistake. He just threw out the "something from nothing" misinformation concerning the big Bang Theory. The theory does not propose that "it all came from nothing" ..it proposes that it all came from a point of singularity. No one has ever proposed that what existed there ...was "nothing". We just don't have a clue what it was ..and we may never know.

[@alexk48]

How different is that from planting an atheist seed? And can you provide us with some of these multitudes of meaning between God and hopelessness?

[@geoffreysummerhayes4793]

@@alexk48 What is an atheist seed? The only difference between a theist and an atheist is the theist says the number of gods is larger than zero and the atheist says larger than or equal to zero.

[@waynesulak1488]

It seems to me that the level of our scientific understanding has no bearing on the existence of God. He either exists or not regardless of the level of our knowledge. Increasing in scientific understanding does not diminish God and lack of it does not add to God.

[@kingpeer14]

not bad...

[@CyreniTheMage]

Correct. Science has no opinion on the existence of (any) god, but it does have opinions on all of the naturalistic processes that can be observed and measured, and that can be put up against physical claims made by scripture, preacher, and prophet.

[@phillipmorris4555]

Wayne nature is the second book the first is the Bible.

[@finbarstadt7213]

The arrogance of man! When science falls short of providing an answer, we don't abandon it in favour of religion: you do more science and develop your understanding.

[@jackt4274]

Awesome! The meaning of our existence, to know God and to be loved by Him.

[@kingpeer14]

He does not love you stop claiming that...

[@johannesstephanusroos4969]

@@kingpeer14 Explain

[@WDE1121]

@@johannesstephanusroos4969 God sets people on fire and burn them for an eternity. He started a flood and drowned everybody on purpose. There has no being that has caused more human suffering and death than God himself.

[@EasyEd1955]

Eric: In the 1st half (up through 21:41 minutes) you picked versus having to do with responding to attacks against your profession/teaching or your faith in Christ. The research you did must have been rewarding, but I suspect you needed comforting and reassurance that you are doing what Jesus wanted you to do and where you're doing it. It's time to research again for conformation that He puts us in difficult and stressful situations for his purposes. Reexamine Paul's writing about the fact we have been sealed by the Holy Spirit and already been seated in our heavenly home with Jesus. It's only a matter of a few more minutes, days, weeks or years before we go to be with the Lord forever. I pray that you will be encouraged and rejuvenated by these words and Paul's (& others) words on this perspective. When reading the Bible we always default to the notion that the promises will be fulfilled according to our eathly needs before we die (or raptured), but I ultimately think Jesus and the others were acknowledging our time is short in this life. I would encourage you to pray about these circumstances and burdens to Jesus Christ, but it depends on his plans, not ours. These things we struggle with on a daily basis will die with us. None of the tragedies in this life will matter any longer. We really do need to focus on Jesus and finding ways to reveal his word to those around us that are willing to listen.

[@Catman7442]

I thought I'd hear something about science, but it seems to be a Bible study from the outset, setting up and confirming biases taught from infancy, and doesn't discuss how wrong intuition can be.

[@vincentswift7]

Firstly the term evolution suggests a progression independent of anything other than itself including a goal to evolve which makes no sense whatsoever and clearly isn't how we got from chariots to motor cars

[@obgfoster]

It's not independent - it depends on the environment of the individuals of the species and the pressures on the species as a whole. There isn't a "progression" for a lot of species, just differentiation.

[@freemind..]

@@obgfoster Environmental pressure is a mechanism for adaptive change within a species, not for transformation into something so different that it can no longer breed or be bred with those of its ancestral lineage.

[@slakjawnotsayin5451]

So, you got into trouble because you were including or mixing christianity with your teaching of science, and then @ 14:15 in the video you posted quotes from the bible to compare yourself to? I'm confused as to how you became a teacher at a University level, and especially teaching science, while somehow being completely oblivious to knowing or understanding that the bible hasn't been proven to be either fiction or nonfiction. Not only that, but how can you tech science if you don't understand the actual meanings and proper use of words like: Proof, Fact, Belief, Convinced, Claim, and more? The exact authors and when they wrote the sections of the bible aren't even known for sure, and even if they were known for sure and without a doubt, we still wouldn't know if they wrote fiction or nonfiction. You can personally associate and believe whatever you want in your own head, but you can't just mix your personal beliefs and information you read from a book that nobody knows if it is fiction or not, and teach it to other people like it belongs there. Give your head a shake! There's a very good reason for not mixing theism with science, and you not understanding this is quite troubling! WOW!

[@legendsend3520]

VERY troubling. People that cannot distinguish between fact or even what the word fact means should not even teach people how to put their socks on let alone academic subjects.

[@GreatBehoover]

The confusion over the word NATURE is intentional and done with the objective of fooling people. The word nature is a description it is not an entity nor is it a being nor can it choose or select anything! It is a measure of what is made by man or not made by man. Everything is considered to be part of nature that man didn't make! It was never intended to be that no one made the things in nature, but rather man did not design or build them that way. A house is not part of nature although it is made of natural objects like wood and stone. Man is part of nature because he did not design and build himself. The problem comes in when naturalists assume that nature means undesigned! People have always understood that God designed everything. Only those with a cynical bias against God assume otherwise. Their bias is so extreme that they've actually assigned a personification to the word nature. I have pointed out this bias and called their force of design, the "Natural Selection Fairy"! This "fairy" comes in to save the day whenever an eyeball is needed, or an ear is needed, or an immune system is needed, or a circulatory system is needed, or a man is needed when there was no man, or a cell is needed when there was no cell. The pure silliness of assuming that a mere description has these "selective" powers is laughable! The silly naturalists play it off by explaining that nature doesn't actually select...the ACCIDENTAL ACCUMULATION of SUPERIOR FUNCTIONING GENOMES... is the reason! 😂😂😂 Sound so super-duper sciency..doesn't it!😂😂😂 And it would be if it were TRUE ! It would be amazing in functional DNA CODE could "emerge" from no DNA CODE! But this is DEMONSTRAVLY FALSE. DNA CODE CAN'T SELF-CREATE and SELF-ASSEMBLE into cells ACCIDENTALLY! It would be amazing if 2 chromosomes could combine ACCIDENTALLY to form new species! But alas...This is also IMPOSSIBLE according to all UNASSUMED OBSERVATIONAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE! Plenty of FAITH-FILLED DOGMA purports that chromosomes "can" and "did"...but they CAN'T show us this in TESTABLE REPEATABLE SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY...because it doesn't work! We have the ability to test this silly farce...they just simply REFUSE to demonstratewhat they tell you to FAITHFULLY BELIEVE! 😂😂😂How convenient! It would be amazing if THOUSANDS of novel proteins could "emerge" to form new species! Unfortunately...once again... the UNASSUMED OBSERVATIONAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE of evolutionary study is the culprit for dismantling this lie! The largest evolutionary study in history had TRILLIONS of confirmed offspring! Guess how many novel proteins were produced in TRILLIONS of offspring? If you guessed ZERO...ZIP...ZILCH...NADA... You'd be correct! Yet in only BILLIONS of possible offspring between chimp-like creatures and humans...they readily EMBRACE THE MYTHOLOGY that novel proteins occur readily!🤣🤣🤣🤣 Why do the naturalists ASSUME such untrue pseudoscience drivel? Could they have an emotional neediness for a Godless universe? Would emotional neediness explain the hilarious displacement of rational thinking and logic to still believe in disproven naturalism? As a former atheist, I can say ...ABSOLUTELY YES! Now watch as no one is able to refute any statement I've made using UNASSUMED OBSERVATIONAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. All these atheist/naturalists mentally stunted in their God hatred. Even after the PROOF that DNA CODE SELF-CREATED and SELF-ASSEMBLED into cells ACCIDENTALLY...as they faithfully BELIEVE... they maintain the LIES! Even after scholars PROVED Jesus was a historical figure...Dawkins maintains the LIES! REMEMBER folks...it's perfectly OK to lie as an atheist...no one is watching in their silly world view!

[@willthewhale8021]

So, he asks a group of students "What is the meaning of life?" and his summation of their responses were "Some pointed to God, some pointed to hopelessness." ...yeah, my guess is that the students just write "God" or "hopeless." Even if they DID say "nothing," his portraying it as "hopelessness" is his own projection.

[@BlacksmithTWD]

Perhaps the meaning of life is merely to try find an answer to that question.

[@crct2004]

After an intensive philosophy course where I had hoped to discover the meaning of life, I was disappointed to find that, no matter the topic, the root of every argument was, is there a God or not. I was agnostic and furious that my time had been wasted. I was also furious that I got a C on my final which was a thirty page paper on our own philosophy. The professor said I was peachy. Just now, some 20 years later I must confess he was correct. I thank out Creator, our Father, that I have been duly humbled. It's either God or nihilism period. The only protection we have from the destructive forces of nature are the tools given us that resemble, are the likeness of, our Creator. That is why we are not apes, cats, or dogs but their masters.

[@crct2004]

Yikes, was that peachy? Lord is still working on me, lol.

[@markmeyer6729]

Challenged an atheist secular materialist troll on another site to explain his rational foundational principles for morality. He said... Common sense and weighing consequences. And he was serious. Took philosophy as a freshman, couldn't wait to learn some wisdom. Great revelation of some 3000 years of conjecture and semantic exercises in logic... there is no objective truth. I have since spent most of a half century watching the hypocrisy of "intellectuals" and secularists asserting that somehow their ontological interpretations of the human experience are valid... as in, true. They therefore claim the prerogative of re-writing the rules to suit themselves. If there is no God, there is no meaning, there are no metaphysical qualities. That includes morality. No action has the qualities of right or wrong. That is not a proof in itself for the existence of God, but I have yet to meet a secular materialist who could actually fully face and internalize the implications of materialisms implicit nihilism. A few who have made a show of it, but they always slip up. Ironically, if they are willing to argue any point, they have placed a value on that point, a metaphysical quality, of good or bad, or at least relevance. Death, and it's summary result extinction, would extinguish subjective relevance in a mindless universe. Like the lady above said... It's a Creator... or nihilism.

[@markmeyer6729]

@@crct2004 Sartre propagated a lie. Essence preceeds existence.

[@lukemullisen7252]

Thank you Dr. Hedin for your message! I was canceled at my public middle school in California because of how I taught my class. Now I'm teaching at a private Christian school in TN and loving it!

[@larrybedouin2921]

Yes, evolution is a religion.

[@dangunn6961]

It just seems strange to me that God can create a universe but he can't write a book. And God talked with a few humans centuries ago but isn't talking to us now. And prayer statistically has a good outcome very rarely. For every good outcome from prayer I would guess there are millions of unanswered or bad outcomes from prayer. I personally know some very good religious faithful people who were sick and were prayed for fervently. They suffered and died anyway. Nothing fails like prayer.

[@brookewollitz3124]

Darwinists are very devout believers as well, but they aren't aware that the more we discover through science, the more holes there are in their deities' (Darwin) theory...

[@kennethobrien8386]

Actual scientific argument starts at about the 24:35 mark.

[@michaellennington1866]

Thanks

[@DrWhom]

Nope no science here whatsoever

[@kalabalakrishnan1484]

Shalom. TRUTH, my most favourite word. Loved it from very young, searched for it all my life, found it in GOD of Israel n Yeshua of Natsareth, ended up filled with it, with the Holy Spirit of Truth. HalleluYah, HalleluYah,HalleluYah 😊. Blessed is He who comes in The NAME of the LORD.

[@kingpeer14]

Please speak for your own little world please and not for everybody...

[@aoifelucas4107]

Your "Scribbles" does not compare to "The Creation of Adam" because they are very different genres of art. Instead, try to compare your "Scribbles" to any Jackson Pollock. I contend that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and many might actually find your "Scribbles" more beautiful, in its simplicity, than "The Creation of Adam." Highly subjective, not useful to try to prove anything objective.

[@obgfoster]

Also, the Creation of Adam isn't in the Louvre.

[@rikardotsamsiyu]

😂😆 Name ten atheists who don’t want you to see this and provide proof of how you know they don’t want you to see this (e.g., them trying to suppress or deny this): 1. __________ 2. __________ 3. __________ 4. __________ 5. __________ 6. __________ 7. __________ 8. __________ 9. __________ 10. __________

[@johnclower945]

A singularity, from which it is thought the universe expanded, is NOT nothing.

[@avi8r66]

They don't like facts around here....

[@captainandrew016]

@@avi8r66 Rather, they do not like your unprovable theory. I'm not surprised you are cynical towards us; rather I am wondering if you were not curious as to the facts of this video. It's sad to see that you put more faith into those whose theories and hypotheses change on a whim with 'new information' that will not come to a conclusion ever, than you do with words that have lasted thousands of years and have never been proven wrong (because if the Bible was proven wrong, it would be front page news, and you know it). It's equally sad that you will find out God exists at the moment He throws you into hell for Rejecting Christ who died for the sins of the world; rather than humbling yourself enough to ask God for forgiveness here and now while you still can. “As it is written, ‘There is none righteous, no, not one.'” (Romans 3:10, KJV) “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23, KJV) “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 6:23, KJV) “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8, KJV) “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” (Romans 10:13, KJV) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Romans 10:9-13, KJV

[@gregoryholden3255]

@ John Clower . The Singularity could not have happened without matter, space , time and energy. The question is: Where did these things come from? Were matter, space, time and energy already here? Did they just appear suddenly? If the answer is yes,then a creator could have been here already. Or he could have just appeared suddenly. The options are totally fair. Feedback?

[@IISeverusll]

@@avi8r66 There are only 2 genders. Keep crying

[@lgiant2047]

I came to this video in search for just one argument for the existence of god that cannot be refuted. I recently realized that i had never heard an argument like that and was ecstatic when i saw a video from a physicist on the matter. Unfortunately i had to be dissapointed. The first mover argument was refutet long ago, it was refutet by Hume whose theories on inference are quite flawed but his counter to the firsts mover was still solid and it can, to this day, not be refuted itself. This Universe existed for roughly 14 billion years, yes that is not an infinite timespan but singe-celular life developed about 3.5 billion years ago and multicelular animals turned up 600 million years ago. So there were 2.9 billion years for these so called "random" connections to form. However i am affraid you cannot have your proverbial Cake and eat it too. You said one scene before that that the elements in their formation have to adhere to the laws of nature and so do molecules that form cells. The number of failed attempts is so unthinkebly high that i can understand someone would deem them infinite. However look at it like this. Within a billion planets there is one that can sustain life and on this planet it takes 10.5 billion years untill the requirement for life and the development of that life reaches the point at which it can generate a single cell. The timeframe for that development does not need to be infinite, it needs to be sufficient. Every cell that evolves in the "wrong" direction dies and only the ones that develop "right" survive that is the step by step process. If you go wrong once you cant go wrong again, i agree with that. However it is the nature of evolution that no two cells evolve the same, that is speciffically because it is random. That is why it took billions of years to form life. And to simply infer that nature can design, just because Humans "are natural" is a statement that is so preposterus that i would doubt the capability for reasonable thought of anybody who would make that inference. And than the example of the doll not having a beauty as deep as an actual living Human, no shit sherlook but what is that supposed to prove. Nature also does not CHOOSE the damn mutations the mutations that are better suited for survival will simply outperform the others. And to inferr God just because Nature can not make ionformed decisions is a god of the gap argument, which is in no form satisfying. So sadly if anything, this video turned me into more of an atheist.

[@rl7012]

Abiogenesis is a fairy story. There is no evidence for macro evolution. Hume's argument boils down to insisting that the universe just is as a brute fact. If that convinces you then good luck with your religion of believing mainstream science on everything. Mainstream science, especially origin of life science, is entirely faith based.

[@d.e303-anewlowcosthomebuil7]

just try to prove that someone loves you, scientifically? Yes, you live on faith

[@profanotherletter4346]

teaching correct science is teaching religion

[@KenJackson_US]

Don't think so. Religion involves the worship of God, not merely acknowledging the necessity of his existence.

[@profanotherletter4346]

@@KenJackson_US i honestly believe that acknowledging that god is the greatest existence possible/there is, is worship

[@jcrosset]

Intelligent design has theistic implications. Natural selection has atheistic implications. Plain and simple.

[@ronaldmorgan7632]

@@profanotherletter4346 I think it's more like you can teach that it looks like there is an unnatural cause to something based on what we know of the limitations of the natural. You don't have to say God (even though we believe it is), and for sure not religion.

[@michaelbrickley2443]

Religion is a word that fits but doesn’t fit. Relationship is the way I see it and many have felt the presence of God. Alvin Plantinga said that while there is plenty of evidence for God and the resurrection, the indwelling Holy Spirit is proof enough for me

[@oliviaoreilly4645]

God Bless you for being brave and helping others understand the truth

[@milliern]

Does Eric’s book (or some other books/articles) further compare and contrast the ideas of specificity in relation to complexity?

[@PinkSamuraiSL]

I watched this and found it very interesting kzbin.info/www/bejne/naicZaSjadaXpJo . I also watched several videos with the author or The Return of the God Hypothesis Stephen Meyer, some of them were conversations with other scientists who oppose the ID idea. This is one of the videos from the same institute kzbin.info/www/bejne/naicZaSjadaXpJo , and if you search you will find the other conversations.

[@idonotwantahandle2]

I looked at this as I was searching for something to forward to an atheist friend. Unfortunately this won't do. The main issue is it is obviously from a faith based point of view and that is in itself enough reason to anger some people. Yes, I have witnessed people actually becoming angry when their beliefs are challenged. To reach that type of people, the presentation needs to be so less biased. For me, I believe. I don't need this type of presentation to consolidate faith. I have made my choice but I wish there was better presentations to reach others. I'll finish with a point about a creationism/evolution discussion I had with said friend. After he decided to cite novels of Frank Herbert to explain the state of things, I told him he puts too much faith in people. He was speechless. I finished by pointing out that what I read was not written by people trying to make money, further their career or improve their social standing. That ended the discussion.

[@DiscoveryScienceChannel]

Thanks for your comment! This was a talk given at a science and faith conference, and so the remarks were addressed to that particular audience. We publish many other videos that you might find more useful for your purposes. Have you considered: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l3KQd5akgdh5Z8k kzbin.info/www/bejne/nKLMiZqqecl4ra8 kzbin.info/www/bejne/naicZaSjadaXpJo kzbin.info/www/bejne/pKDNZaOegrlshac

[@cedriceric9730]

Some people are too far gone

[@cuchius30]

the best is Shapiro with Stephen C. Meyer.

[@Si_Mondo]

I'd have turned it round on him with Herbert and Dune(assuming that's what he was referencing). Herbert's message regarding the Bene Gesserit's eugenics program, with the aim to make a near God-like human through selective breeding of the nobles, and resulting in Paul Atreides' transformation into this being, reeks of analogy with the Eden story. Right down to the principle decisions effecting, both the beginning of, and the outcome, being made by women. The result is even if one of us *could* "become like gods" (incidently, that scaly so-and-so never said "the same as"), we wouldn't be able to handle that sort of power longterm. Paul was only like God in the sense he could see all points in time, past and all possible futures, but only pertaining to mankind. There was still a limit on it, and through that he could see how it *would* all go south! Frank Herbert may not have been a believer but he certainly got a significant aspect correct regarding what people of faith have to understand; Our species is deeply, deeply flawed and trying to play God with ourselves(like the Bene Gesserit did) is deadly. This philosophical point may not have been the particular subject of discussion but he did bring Herbert into it! Bet it would have twisted his melon.

[@stephenhousman6975]

You do realize you are using faith here in two different instances. I am not that surprised. Our brains usually think to use the same definition throughout a conversation. Faith in your first instance here is religious based. The instance when you said he puts too much faith is on a science based. Where that person did research and used science for that research.

[@fortuner123]

At 3.46 the Ball State course description is utter nonsense word salad.

[@getayalewe1009]

The LORD will fight for you; you need only to be still.” Exo 4:4 Amen. its my WORD. i received it in the name of the lord.

[@itumahvictor6598]

The calmness,🥺

[@ErikPehrsson]

This guy has a very soothing voice.

[@maync1]

God bless you, Eric! I recently came across videos of yours such as "God and Information Theory," which I replayed twice to get the depth of the message. Your work is wonderful and absolutely essential for whatever headway can be achieved against atheists and those who prefer scientism to science. I am looking forward to lots more from you. Many, many thanks.

[@stevenswitzer5154]

31:30 absolutely correct. The passage of time does not cause evolution; change in the environment does

[@joecoolioness6399]

Well, a change in an organism that benefits it in its current environment will tend to live to pass along that change to its offspring.

[@kevinbealer9052]

...over time.

[@janetcross5211]

And we are “the change”; where our focus goes our energy flows

[@victorfinberg8595]

No, the environment does not need to change for evolution to happen. Furthermore, if the environment changes too rapidly, evolution also does not happen; you just die.

[@brycew2]

I'm not sure that is true from a naturalist point of view. It is the random mutations selected for fitness over time that create evolutionary change. Changes in the environment may increase the selection pressure, but it is not what drives evolution. This is their point of view as i understand it, I'm not opposed to evolution but I'm very skeptical.

[@kameelffarag]

When suddenly and shockingly my 6 year grand daughter of atheist parents looked up and told me grandpa I now believe there is a God otherwise all these things around us where did they come from. I smiled and remembered what Jesus said in Matthew 21:16 (reference to psalm )and they said to him, “Do you hear what these are saying?” And Jesus said to them, “Yes; have you never read, Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise’?”

[@Pops2]

I questioned the meaning of my existence when I took statistics.

[@obgfoster]

I had a root canal that had the same effect.

[@dennismiller9681]

Statistics would show that you are a unique individual -- just like everyone else...

[@z1DEv_ag]

In one breath the big bang is described as both a scientific model and a scientific result. I thought these were two different things. Results tell us about models (they either contradict the model or they don't,) but they are not themselves models. I think this confusion is one of our biggest problems.

[@rocketsurgeon1746]

What is a scientific result? I have not heard the term compared with model

[@stevenswitzer5154]

The big bang is just sciences creation myth. As an atheist I dont believe this nonsense either...

[@ianfrancis3605]

There is no meaning for our existence, why do you feel the need for one?

[@stapleman007]

Critical Race Theory needs to get the same attention that Eric Hedin's class did.

[@Michael-on4ti]

David Pawson, a great bible teacher also tackles some of these theories in the book of Genesis

[@MLaak86]

No one is cancelled by a scientific 'establishment' - that's a projection by a religious mind that science behaves like religion does so if couldn't be that you are wrong, no you're being silenced...

[@rl7012]

Yours is a very naive comment.

[@truthbebold4009]

No one is cancelled by a scientific establishment? Au contraire!

[@matthewpaul1111]

@@truthbebold4009 There are many well documented cases of the establishment punishing/persecuting Christians for simply sharing their beliefs publicly.

[@russellhare3110]

I sympathize with what you had to go through, you were clearly treated unfairly. That's a clear bias in favor of atheism- if an evidence based discussion about these fundamentally important questions isn't tolerated then it's just bias-- or perhaps they will tolerate discussion of these questions, but only if you reach what they have arbitrarily determined is the acceptable answer- that the existence of God or something transcendant is not possible.

[@DrWhom]

Evidence based indeed! You would not recognize evidence if it hit you in the head

[@simonminnesota]

A very interesting talk. So interesting that I just bought the book.

[@jameshale6401]

If all is chance and random why is anything for sale

[@waofactor.graphic]

I was told nature can create anything if given enough time and it is science, luckily I know what is missing from science videos.

[@dianathomas2674]

Ironically, in the times of major, evidence based, scientific discoveries, scientists were Christians researching the created universe. Now, that belief in God is taken out of science, we are often required to believe in factless philosophy presented as science.

[@freemind..]

Very well-said!

[@IISeverusll]

Which is why there are now 60+ "genders". It's beyond pathetic now.

[@ncuriousmediator9434]

Yes, yes, of course there is evidence of design, let us then praise Allah, the Merciful and Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon Him!

[@RodMartinJr]

*_When you realize that Christ was once very much like us_* -- a sinner with weaknesses -- then we can *_rejoice_* that he overcame all earthly obstacles to become God's *_First Graduate!_* For *_no one_* had ever gone up to Heaven except the one who later came down from Heaven -- the one we now know of as the Son of Man. (John 3.13). And being *_First Graduate,_* God lavished upon Jesus every possible honor.

[@evangelosgeronicolas2385]

The notion of faith has a structue. It is faith on X in order to hope for Y. If what you hope for is to become powerful, it wouldn't make sense to have faith in Christ. So, you wouldn't want to see or listen whatever weakens your faith to your 'God' and questions your hopes. Chances are that you will end up having faith in Satan, one way or another. Here is what Aleister Crowley says to express his hatred towards God by his doing unpardonable things: "The sin which is unpardonable is to reject truth, to fear knowledge lest that knowledge pander not to thy prejudices". (Liber Aba: Book 4)

[@andrewjohnson8232]

You might learn a little more by reading better material than Crowley. Faith is demonstrating a commitment to what you claim to be the truth. Two people are arguing over whether the thing they see stretching across the river is a bridge or an alligator, one of them is correct. It is faith which will determine whether either walk across or not. Faith is not the refusal of knowledge, it is the determinant of action.

[@obgfoster]

Yup, if you have to deny piles of evidence in order to believe a few lines from a 5,000+ year-old story, you're on weak ground. Many Christians view Genesis as a metaphor or folk tale and have no problem believing in a deity while also accepting evidence about the natural world.

[@chaplainand1]

Thank you. I appreciate your perspective and insights. May The Creator continue to bless and strengthen you as you share your heart.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Father what comes with the privilege of life comes with sincere conversations as a CHILDS with God and to thyself and to one another beloved! Remember sincere answers will be given indeed. HOW ELSE UPON ALL DRY GROUNDS WILL RECOGNIZE SINCERE CONVERSATIONS BELOVED? REMEMBER THY FEETS BELOVED RESTING UPON 1ST. LOVE GOD 2ND. LOVE THY NEIGHBORS AS THYSELF. HUMBLE WASHERS OF FEETS OF NEIGHBORS AND WIPING TEARS FROM ALL EYES. LIKEWISE HUMBLE TO .......come as you are beloved. As YESHUA Jesus christ have love us likewise to LOVE ONE ANOTHER BELOVED UPON ALL DRY GROUNDS NOR THE WORLD! FEETS OF YESHUA JESUS CHRIST. REMEMBER ALL DRY GROUNDS NOR THE WORLD IS GOD'S FOOTSTOOL. WITHOUT THY NEIGHBORS BELOVED? HOW ELSE CAN YOU AND ME SHOW OFF TO OUR FATHER THE TRUE FATHER OF ALL. THY TRUE WILL FATHER WILL BE DONE. TRUTH AND PEACE REUNITE BASICALLY noone can indeed....without for thy lives have to be DESIRED 1st. For even time in due time will be understood why? what is time? For whom for what? Nor who laid time? Nevertheless the true owner will removed time. Now why removed time? LANGUAGE given and LANGUAGE understood indeed. Remember thy MILEAGE from thy FEETS. Time given indeed. Father all thy FEETS as a CHILDS upon all dry GROUNDS nor the world be 1 FEETS. THANK YOU FATHER FOR MY NEIGHBORS UPON ALL DRY GROUNDS NOR THE WORLD YOU HAVE GIVEN. NOTHING IS WASTED BUT INCREASED BELOVED! KEEP IT GOING!

[@RodMartinJr]

At 21m 50s, *_Bless your enemies!_* And the best way to bless them is to take full responsibility for their acts against you! When you do this, you cease to be a victim *_and_* "turning the other cheek" suddenly becomes not only intuitive but also easy. This is one of the lessons of Christ on the cross, for he took responsibility for all the sins of the world -- every act of evil which he *_did not do!_* If we are to follow him, we must follow his example.

[@QuantumElectroDynamic]

The problem is that all religion is, by definition, FALSE. I know God, so I can see the truth in all things. I can see in this talk here on KZbin, just by them saying "He" when referring to God, that they do not know the truth. You CAN know truth, simply ask and you shall receive. You CAN witness God yourself, simply LOOK. Of course it isn't, in reality, so simple. As with all things there is an effort that is require to attain it. To SEE God you must still your mind, which ain't easy! Or you must suffer to some an extent. There is always something required to move from what IS to what COULD BE. For you to move from potentially BELIEVING to actually KNOWING God you must be a witness. Sadly you cannot simply believe and know, just as the blind cannot simply believe and know the color green. Vision is required to know a color. Witnessing is required to know God. You CAN get close to some understanding, perhaps, but you cannot possibly understand that perfect thing without perceiving it directly. Modern Science is revealing truths from results of instruments and logical inquiries into nature, and that may bring us into believing but never into knowing. We ALL know God in truth, because when I witnessed that perfection I suddenly REMEMBERED. How could I not know? It is the root of me and all things! How could I have possibly FORGOTTEN? It is all in the design, I suppose. A truly magnificent thing to behold. Also a truly terrifying thing to behold! haha Even though it expressed an infinite Love of Life, of which I am a part, it was terrifying. Perhaps that is because of the vast gulf between us. I am SO damned imperfect and THAT PERFECT THING LOVES ME! Was THAT what terrified me most?! hahaha Yes, probably... hahaha wow, i am an idiot. I'm glad that I did not design this thing we're all playing within because, even though I have developed software, I am nowhere near God-tier yet. I see all of my imperfection very clearly now, and struggle to keep from lighting a cigarette or getting liquored up. Just keep in mind that all religions are FALSE! They must be, because there is NOTHING you can do or say or paint that will give God to the unclean masses. They can only point, and they are all pointing from different perspectives at something without possible description. Just as I can flap my lips for eternity and not give green to the blind, nothing in the world will give God to you. You must struggle to obtain it for yourself. And if you do, if everything they say is true, which is probably is all things considered, then you achieve God-tier. Of course that is likely to require a cleanliness of thought and action equivalent to the clean-rooms required to build a modern AMD/Intel processor. And this filthy old Irish bastard couldn't possibly make a processor, let alone achieve purity of thought and action equal to God! Holy Wut?! No way! hahaha But if I did I am certain I could move mountains or planets or galaxies in any way I choose. This IS all just God, after all. This is ALL a virtual reality, because God is the ONLY objectively real thing. The one and only real thing. Crazy.

[@rkb6783]

Eric Hedin, I need to ask you. To stop helping science ! The Advice Is. Learn how to speak to audiences. Rather than making ( IT ) I.E. the talk... About you ! Which pushes people away. Learn to be inclusive. To be inviting. TO BRING PEOPLE TO THE TALK. Not push them away with, ME. ME. ME.

[@poseidondz30]

UNIVERSE Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. ("The heavens" refers to everything you see when you look up into the sky (beyond the clouds at any rate) Genesis 1:16 King James Version 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. JOB 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. HEBREWS 1:1-3 1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the universe 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, Hebrews 1:10 10 He also says, “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. Isaiah 40:22 It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in; Psalm 19:1 To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Psalm 8:3-4 When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? Isaiah 40:26 Lift up your eyes on high and see: who created these? He who brings out their host by number, calling them all by name, by the greatness of his might, and because he is strong in power not one is missing. Psalm 147:4 He determines the number of the stars; he gives to all of them their names. Psalm 33:6 By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host. Jeremiah 33:25 Thus says the Lord: If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed order of heaven and earth, Isaiah 42:5 Thus says God, the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it: