Signature in the Cell: Stephen Meyer Faces his Critics, pt. 1: The Presentation

[@JPTEvangelioparatodos]

these kinds of lectures have led me not to be a materialistic scientist...and realised that science really doesn't exclude agency or a supernatural one... terrific!

[@MrDominex]

Science doesn't exclude leprechauns, either, but the universe can be explained without them, there is no evidence for them but there is evidence that people make them up, which is exactly the same for gods.

[@chaotickreg7024]

Do you mean a material scientist? Or a natural scientist maybe? I wonder how you decide the world works if science doesn't work.

[@truthgiver8286]

"science really doesn't exclude agency or a supernatural one" It does not include it either there is no testable evidence so science does not consider it at all

[@IsaacNussbaum]

*One of the great mysteries of life, to me at least, is how can so many otherwise intelligent people so completely buy into the incredible notion that unguided anomalies in reproduction are capable of building the intricate and robust cellular machines, functions, and interlocking systems operating by the thousands in organic cells.*

[@IsaacNussbaum]

Natural selection does not enter the picture until and unless mutations build something. The question then is, is there anything in the human experience that suggest accidents can engineer and build factories? (After all, that is what cells are, nano-factories.)

[@god9513]

Isaac Nussbaum Your stupidity is truly astonishing ... .... Well done ... yet again... Anything else ... ??

[@IsaacNussbaum]

You read that popular self-help book, didn't you, god. You know the one. _"If You Can't Attack a Man's Ideas, Then Attack the Man."_ You sly devil, you!

[@god9513]

Isaac Nussbaum Your stupidity is truly astonishing ... .... Well done ... yet again... Anything else ... ??

[@IsaacNussbaum]

_Hurry, Hurry. Step right up folks. Just 10¢. One tenth of a dollar. See god, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, a freak of nature. He’s a living, breathing infinity loop. His programming lacks a functional exit so he repeats himself indefinitely._

[@rolfeliason5950]

Many of the comments below come from people who have not read Meyer's book Signature in the Cell. For me, even with two years of science and Genetics, it was a challenge. His focus in the book is not refuting evolution. It points to a huge gaping hole evolution does not answer: how did life start? Darwin's focus from the title of his well known book is The Origin of Species, not The Origin of Life. That is the gaping hole Meyer addresses. It is material and of note he started his quest as an atheist. It is also material and of note he did most of his research at a post doctoral level at Cambridge University. Not every PhD is let in to that university. He is no intellectual midget. He was very careful to leave God out of his thesis as he damn well knew critics like the mudslingers below would come out of the woodwork. His conclusion is not God- his conclusion is intelligence put the sequences together, not random chance. Make your own mind up on the intelligence! It is enough for a bolt of random lightning to produce life, but also get reproductive capacity exactly right at the same instance? You will have to wait again a billion times a billion years again to get the probability even a speck of chance of starting life again. The most simple cell that can be observed is extremely complex. He looks at probabilities and reason, not gimme that old time religion leap in the dark. We are expected to believe macro mutations somehow circumvent the laws of entropy? Whether chemistry, physics, or biology, no area of science can escape these orderly laws. Better question yet, is why are these laws themselves there, repeatable and orderly? Doesn't seem random to me. A monkey at a typewriter would never write Macbeth in a billion billion years, but he would also have to invent a photocopier at the same time.

[@cecildison6788]

Rolf Eliason well said but the naysayers will never read the book

[@eckyhen]

Well I have read Stephen's book. About 90% is good science and I must admit I learned a lot about the incredible complexity of cell machinery. However, ultimately it is just Paley's watch brought up to date. Simply claiming that science can not explain something therefore, the only alternative is "god did it" is not very satisfactory. Apart from the fact that it explains nothing, it does not consider the possibility that life could have come into existence by some other means that no one has thought about yet. Yes, he studiously avoids mentioning god but we are left to wonder what is this disembodied intelligence that made living organisms come into being by thinking them into existence. He offers no plausible mechanism by which this intelligence, which of necessity had to exist outside of space and time, produced matter and then interacted with it to create everything. His recurring argument is that the complexity of the DNA, RNA and protein mechanisms in the cell are too unlikely to have occurred by chance and since they are ALL mutually dependent a living cell could not appear by chance. The thing is, NO SCIENTIST involved in abiogenesis research is making this claim. Latest research has shown that nucleotides will form spontaneously in the primordial oceans and can become encapsulate in the hollow bilipid spheres which were also present, in effect a primitive cell like structure. So we do not need a complicated cell for "life"to begin. All that is required is a simple, self replicating molecule to appear in the primitive ocean. If variations in the copying occur then we also have two of the ingredients for evolution to occur, reproduction and variation. The third factor is of course, selection. Since these simple self replicators must absorb chemicals from their environment, a simple form of nutrition, then it follows that some may be better at it than others. The last piece of the jig-saw is now in place, selection. Inevitably, these non-living self replicators will become more and more complex. Evolution is happening, it only takes time and nature certainly had enough of that, about 4 billion years.

[@eckyhen]

@@ExtantFrodo2 ,NO one has paid me yet. Where do I apply?

[@eckyhen]

@Kuffar Legion None of my own, just reporting what others, much smarter than myself have done. Nor do I remember sending you a link but here's one to the Szostak lab. They have done a lot of ground-breaking research on abiogenesis, confounding the creationist assertion that "scientists are no nearer showing how life can originate from non-living matter": molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/

[@lrvogt1257]

OMG!!! Evolution and natural selection do not attempt to explain how life began. It's not a hole. It's another subject.

[@honestquestions]

I appreciate very much how Dr. Stephen Meyer presents his arguments for intelligent design. I see in his videos his treatment of proponents of biological evolution with dignity and respect. I see there is no labeling or name calling or attacking the character of those who are proponents of Darwinian and modern evolutionary explanations of biology. He does not try to imply that those who subscribe to organic evolution are lacking intellect.. Does not use tactics that unfortunately I see so many of his harsh critics use to the chagrin of their fellow evolutionists. I am impressed and because of that, I am very willing to look at more videos of his lectures and to view them repeatedly.. I have for many years looked very closely at evolution and added much information to my library and I have to say that Stephen Meyer's book is going to also be included in my library. Stephen Meyer you have my deepest respect. .

[@nmarbletoe8210]

honestquestions agree, and his chemistry is impeccable. he does employ assumptions that may or may not be true, and this results in real debate over the conclusion that abiogenesis is statistically impossible.

[@ProfezorSnayp]

Sorry my comment is a year late but I just stumbled upon this channel. If you like this video I recommend seminaries of dr Kent Hovind (you can find them on his YT channel). He's been presenting evidence against evolution for many years now and after a long hiatus of inactivity made a new series of great videos. His arguments are airtight, his logic simple and his faith unshakable. If you're interested I could also recommend some other, less known KZbin experts and self-taught scientists.

[@monicahale887]

honestquestions atheist make me a tongue,a nose , a ear a eye a foot , a hand, they don't even have to work we will be amazed, but don't make me laugh,

[@martinlag1]

Profezor Snayp His arguments are airtight, his logic simple and his faith unshakable. His logic is way to simplistic and entirely unscientific. Meyer accepts common descent because the science supports this view well. Hovind says "were you there? God was. He wrote it in the Bible" One of my few criticisms of Meyer is that he is way too tolerant of YEC religion. It is tempting to suppose they are customers of his books. Maybe he doesn't want to rattle their cages because at least they are 'saved' Neither reason, if accurate is a scientific reason to turn a blind eye to such ignorance.

[@incomemobile8566]

He didn't say it but I most certainly will. Knowing what we now know regarding DNA, probability, consciousness etc .. continukng to buy into and supporting Darwinian Evolution is a evidence of a severe mental disorder requiring either immediate triple by pass brain transplant ... or the wood chipper.

[@edwardpayne3967]

To me one of the greatest verses spoken in scripture is after Moses asked God, " Who shall i say sent me"' God could have declared His glory in infinite ways, but YAHWEH God simply said, " I AM THAT I AM, TELL THEM, I AM SENT YOU"'. Fully declaring His self sustaining eternal existence.

[@MrDominex]

Saying "I AM" doesn't tell us anything about the nature of the god who supposedly said it in the scientific sense. Science answers much more practical questions like how species develop and what the relationship between matter, energy , time and space are.

[@charlesoneal3094]

@Kuffar Legion that's funny.

[@charlesoneal3094]

@Winston Grettum the only thing He can't do... is contradict His word. Glad you pointed that out... many miss this point!

[@MrDominex]

@Msg of Yitzhak Kaduri Scientists are the first to admit that they've barely scratched the surface of reality, but religions like yours never even did that-- all religion ever did was spin fanciful tales. Science has made real discoveries that explain real phenomena and changed human life for the better. Religion never even realized that earth is a planet or where the sun goes at night. Science has a long, exciting future of new discoveries before it, but your religion has nothing to look forward to but its own imaginary "End Times."

[@MrDominex]

@Msg of Yitzhak Kaduri It has become a tenet of the born again religion to deny that it is a religion. You all say that like trained parrots, which is typical of dogmatic religious cults. It is people like you who gave "religion" a bad name in the first place, and has created your desire to escape the label. You epitomize the worst tendencies of religion to withdraw into an insulated subcultue with its own skewed terminology. I know it makes you feel good and I'm not trying to talk you out of worshipping as you please, but Born Againsim is turning Americans off to Christianity in droves.

[@mirrasikulislam7344]

Though i am a Muslim i have a huge respect for Stephen Meyer for building a case for Intelligent design

[@Vega3rd]

I have almost made it through my Signature in the Cell book and not only has Stephen Meyer completely destroyed the materialist/"Blind Watchmaker"/Darwinistic approach to life, but he has also given the public the opportunity to examine the contradictory and ill fated foundation that our modern scientific community is built on. Say what you want about creationist and their biblical ideals about the origin of life, but also take a real hard look at what academia has proposed as the alternative. It simply falls apart at the mere examination of its principles and cancels out any logical explanation for the information that makes any of their hypothesis possible. If theories do not succeed in explaining the origins of species, which in the case of Darwinian evolution and the many variations of theories that followed, what is that point of proceeding in that direction? It has less to do with being a Christian or a Muslim or a Hindu and more to do with the reexamination of logic and an honest unbiased scientific examination of the evidence. There is so much more to our lives and existence then a random roll of the dice and until people realize this they will continue to follow a false dogma that inherently tells them they are nothing but the product of a mindless system that does not give a damn about them. I see no merit in this.

[@Vega3rd]

Unfortunately your only response is clearly a self serving and totally bias approach that sadly I expect from most deeply entrenched intellectuals. Sure, completely ignore the relevance of my argument, assume that I am uneducated, inform me that ID has gained no traction in what you call the "scientific community" and on top of that try and stump me with your flaccid question about what I've read. For you information I have read On the Origins of Species, The God Delusion, Why Evolution is True and yes every sorry excuse for a biology book since I was in grade school. So please, don't think that because the established scientific community believes that it has a monopoly on knowledge that it actually means something. If you piss on my head and call it rain, its still piss my good man. What's great about this debate is that instead of attacking the theory of ID, most critics end up trying to attack the merits of its proponents and not the hard fact that the theory of Darwinism is flawed in so many ways, mainly in explaining the origin of genetic information. I can read every pro evolution piece of literature until I kick the bucket but in doing so I will not be answering any meaningful questions that I have about our origins. I have complete respect for individuals who seek the truth and frankly complete distain towards individuals who use a groupthink mentality to argue for intellectual superiority. Until I come across an actual mechanism that can produce something out of nothing, which is essentially the Darwinian mechanism, I will proudly consider myself an ID'er. Abiogenesis, The Miller-Urey experiment, Alexander Oparin's Marxist influenced theory of chemical evolution have all in my humble opinion failed in answering anything about the origin of our specified genetic engineering. This is not from a previously established "religious" outlook on my part but from an opened minded and genuinely curious approach to the facts at hand. Good science should be about the truth and it should be open to multiple competing hypothesis. Not, "well we all say its true so it is!". That's not scientific, that's dogmatic.

[@Vega3rd]

mcmanustony You have once again, shown that you have no relevant alternative to the the source of genetic information. You have also clearly not taken a good look at what Stephen Meyers has brought to light in in his works. My biggest bone to pick with critics like you is that you refuse to address the real issue at hand. Mainly, where did the genetic information that dictates every form of life on earth come from. Go ahead, correct my grammar and continue to try and belittle me. It just shows me that you really don't want to have a serious debate about this issue. Let me put it this way. Does random mutation and natural select explain the specified information in our genome? Has any materialistic hypothesis been promoted that can explain this enigma? No. As I have stated before, Darwin's theory of Natural Selection and random mutation can explain changes in the outward appearance of a species(modification by decent) but it can not explain where and how the organism came to be in the first place. Darwin himself had a hypothesis that stated, "But if (and oh! What a big if!) We could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etc., present that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". Now how is this not Abiogenesis A.K.A nonliving to living? And how much different is it then the theory that is still promoted by the Neo Darwinian mechanism? If you base all your evidence on fossils and morphology then you are still missing the big picture! The information needed to direct the whole process of life itself! Also don't attempt to assassinate Stephen Meyers character and pull that right wing religious card, its so frivolous. Yes he is a Christian and yes he believes in God, but he is also extremely well educated and has produced some of the best evidence for his case of Intelligent Design that has ever come to light. The truth is there will never be a consensus on this issue. It will always end up being about what side of the facts you are on. I'll have to agree to disagree with you on this one. Good back and forth though!

[@stephenland9361]

David Vega *"Let me put it this way. Does random mutation and natural select explain the specified information in our genome? Has any materialistic hypothesis been promoted that can explain this enigma? No. As I have stated before, Darwin's theory of Natural Selection and random mutation can explain changes in the outward appearance of a species(modification by decent) but it can not explain where and how the organism came to be in the first place."* ************************ ID has invented some terms that have no meaning in science. "Specified complexity", "irreducible complexity" and "specified information" are among them. William Dembski is big on his version of information theory and how it "proves" evolution to be "mathematically impossible" (or merely highly, highly improbable ... I'm not sure what the guy actually means). At least he has the balls to come out and state that ID is rebranded religion, especially his own contribution to ID. _"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."_ - William Dembski touchstonemag.com/archives/issue.php?id=49 The theory of evolution certainly does explain changes in DNA. (I'm referring to modern science, not what was held 150 years ago.) It certainly does explain the human genome and that of our living evolutionary cousins (the other primates). What science doesn't have to do is answer questions about "the specified information in our genome" because in science, that phrase is meaningless. Just what exactly, does it mean? If it's got anything to do with the Logos theology of John's gospel, it is outside of science. The theory of evolution does account for how species arise. While science today has yet to explain how life got going in the first place, how that life diversified is what the theory of evolution is all about. Similarly, science has yet to explain how RNA and DNA got going but how it has changed is well explained by evolution. That's what evolution is...change in DNA and RNA. Biology has known for some time that random mutation and non-random natural selection are not the only mechanisms underlying evolution. As for the where of a species origin, all we have to go on is the (incomplete) fossil record. That said, if the fossils of any particular species are found only in Australia (for example), it's reasonable to say that's where the species originated. Just remember that what is now Australia wasn't always where it is right now.

[@andresmith7105]

"I see no merit in this." The universe does not care what you think about your origins.

[@2Barry5]

Stephen Land The theory "certainly does explain"....."does account"......etc. If it truly did such a great job of dealing with these questions, there would be no controversy. However, many think this is no more than a pipe dream. Evolution is sound only to those who have a preconceived bias and are afraid to see reality.....it is bankrupt.

[@YuGiOhDuelChannel]

That process of the construction of objects in the cell was mind blowing, it is truly like a otherworldly technology.

[@switzerlandful]

Ya. Its like some god-like super-intellect was behind it. Although not absolutely perfect at the moment, it would still take a massive amount of knowledge and experience to get where biological life is. Another interesting thing is that DNA has measures built into it that catch most replication mistakes. Its like an error correction quality to the code. Besides the fact that almost all life forms are like self-healing, growing machines, they also have fairly good information protection built in. Its a whole new level of sophistication that makes NO sense if you look at life as atheistic or something that just happened to self-assemble.

[@tyndaleisrael7822]

YuGiOhDuelChannel and if you like that, you might find Genomic Entropy interesting: yt: John Sanford on Genomic Entropy Average cell in 15 yr old - up to 6,000 mutations per cell. (all your cells are different) Skin cell in 60 yr old - up to 40,000 mutations Mutations primary cause of aging and death. “...little potential for substantially increasing the upper limit of human life span.” (upper limit: 120 yrs) --Michael Lynch (Population Geneticist) 50% reduction in sperm count in men. Around 100 new mutations per generation. Geneticists: Dr. Crow: we are inferior to caveman. Dr. Knodrashov: no human geneticist doubts man is degenerating. Dr. Lynch Even assuming a lower mutation rate, we are degenerating at 1%-5% per generation. Implies a young Creation and as with DNA complexity, theory of evolution is unlikely. Dr. Francis Collins, head of Human Genome Project, converted to Christ partly due to the data.

[@switzerlandful]

Tyndale Israel Interesting...

[@YuGiOhDuelChannel]

Tyndale Israel pretty cool information

[@nmarbletoe8210]

1.618 Dave god made it self-assemble

[@charlesoneal3094]

Loved this presentation... but you know what is so refreshing?? That every comment I have read has used correct grammar. Wish it was like the flu and could be caught!! Thank You, Lord, for the battle that this man has put his heart toward... he is a Kingdom asset!

[@jae1297]

Amen, on the correct grammar! :)

[@joelhinrichs979]

If only he knew what he was talking about. GOD's Universe has subtle capabilities the Meyer disputes. His thesis is a joke, lovable only to those who want a cab ride to a preferred destination.

[@IsaacNussbaum]

​@@joelhinrichs979 You concentrate on sarcasm, Joel, and Meyer concentrates on science. The winner here is Meyer. He advances to the next round. You go home.

[@joelhinrichs979]

@@IsaacNussbaum Sarcasm is presenting reality in a negative manner. Meyer doesn't present reality at all, and among scientists he is an embarrassment.

[@IsaacNussbaum]

@@joelhinrichs979 *"...among scientists he is an embarrassment."* You act as though "scientists" were a monolith, Joel. They aren't. But if you had written, _"...among SOME scientists...."_ I would have agreed with you.

[@pesmergaserene7988]

Note: Saying that Meyer needs to read more books or attend a biology class does not refute the arguments he presented in this video.

[@MrDominex]

It is you who needs to read some science, not Meyer. Meyer's arguments are sophistry, not science, he argues like a lawyer or politician, not like a scientist who is genuinely curious about how things actually work.

[@TyrellWellickEcorp]

@@MrDominex Not one scientist has ever throughly refuted any of Meyers arguments and neither can you so stfu

[@TyrellWellickEcorp]

@@MrDominex He’s an honest scientist who follows the evidence where it leads. Unlike Richard Dawkins

[@MrDominex]

@@TyrellWellickEcorp Stephen Meyer is not a scientist, he's not recognized as such by any scientific institition anywhere-- he's just a gadfly with a following among anti-intellectual religious conservatives. Richard Dawkins is squarely in the scientific mainstream, nothing he says about evolution is out of the ordinary in biology.

[@MrDominex]

@@TyrellWellickEcorp Everything in Meyers's book was immediately refuted as soon as it came out-- it has never influenced science. It is only taken seriously by anti-science religious extremists.

[@piusvapor]

Thank God we have philosophers to take scientific discoveries and knowing what to do with said discoveries. Leave it to the egg heads in lab coats and all you get is political opinion, world view, guise as pure science. Great job Dr Meyer!!

[@possumverde]

That comment is literally painfully ignorant...You really should include a warning at the beginning so that poor unsuspecting folk whose heads aren't safely up their asses can avoid the trauma of reading it...

[@possumverde]

Jan Aike lol

[@dirtyred579]

think this comment is a joke...right?

[@dirtyred579]

He's obviously joking.

[@wwatkin21]

A sense sarcasm.

[@ganuv]

I couldn’t agree more with Meyer on practically everything he said .. I came to the same conclusion many years ago, explaining the origin of physical entity from a physical perspective never made sense to me, all physical elements in the universe no matter what they are are limited in time and could not have been emanated or created on their own without an outside force that puts everything in structure order and balance.. and that can be only one thing ,a conscious mind. Before coming up with a particular shape of a new car it starts in the creative mind.

[@MrDominex]

Intelligence is a physical phenomenon that exists only through biology, it requires a material nervous system to happen at all, it doesn't exist in disembodied form like a ghost. Consciousness, a sense of self, will, desire purpose, planning and goal oriented intentions are characteristics of organisms like us-- and we invent gods in our own image to project our own motives onto natural phenomena.

[@MrDominex]

Who created God? If God needs no creator then why does anything else need one? God is merely a convenient exception to your premise that everything needs a creator.

[@MoMoMyPup10]

@@MrDominex In reality, it seems to me that intelligence is the *byproduct* of information, and information is not a physical phenomena, but rather something that is stored *within* a physical phenomena - cells, molecules, atoms. And all of the 'natural phenomena' studied is ALL a byproduct of intelligent design. We have no other explanation for everything that exists but "design". We know of no physical thing that appeared by itself, on it's own strength or purpose. It's really hard to write that off as 'so what'. We have "B" because of "A", every time. Rationally, it doesn't make sense. That is part of the evidence of deduction and reasoning. We're all just trying to reason through this phenomena -- 'how in the world did the world and everything it, get here?'. As the speaker suggests - the *best* explanation from the evidence is Design thru Intelligence. Rationalizing that 'since God doesn't need a creator then why does everything else', doesn't cut it.

[@MrDominex]

@@MoMoMyPup10 We know how intelligence works, it is a biological function, it doesn't exist in disembodied form like a ghost, it is dependent on the workings of nervous tissues like brains and can't happen without them. This isn't even debatable unless you are just dead set on clinging to pre-scientific superstitions. Information happems when intelligent animals like us observe phenomena and commumicate our understanding of it in symbolic form to each other. No one has to consciously understand what DNA "means" for it to do what it does.

[@MoMoMyPup10]

@@MrDominex Yes, we know how it works, but we don't know how it started/initiated. Intelligence comes from something, it can't initiate itself into existence. Random mutation is a failed argument. It is science that has actually proven that this is so. Maybe take a look at this and see what I'm referring to: kzbin.info/www/bejne/p6nLpqudaLyFnMk

[@pvdguitars2951]

Stephen, I love your work! What you do, as well as Bryan Enderly and other scientifics, is so important to debunk false science and atheist world views. May our Lord bless you🙏

[@DrunkenHotei]

@@mcmanustony But ignorance makes them feel so much safer and more right about things. If you never leave your bubble, everyone will tell you how right you are. It's so safe and easy! Who needs that confrontation of studying and the effort of critical thinking that might make me just feel dumb for being wrong when I can find people who tell me I'm right and ignore everything else? It's not like I care about the actual TRUTH, after all :v

[@techservant]

I was still taught in public school in the late 70's and early 80's that the cell was a very simple form of life.

[@MrDominex]

Single celled organisms are a relatively simple form of life. Creationists are merely screeching from the rooftops that microbes are "complex" to put over their claim that it is proof that only their particular god could have made them..

[@TheOneStraightPath]

@@MrDominex You're in for a Nobel Prize, without a doubt. MrDorminex When was the last time you actually read something of substance, aside the comments on social media? To tell you the truth, I am not sure whether to laugh or to cry at your silly statement.

[@MrDominex]

@@TheOneStraightPath I read scientific articles every day. I also read Creationism articles, even though they have come up with no new ideas since the 1980s and all their arguments are like the stuff you hear on Fox News and AM hate radio, aimed at uneducated dogmatists struggling with their own ideological hang ups. That has nothing to do with science.

[@alwaysflat7996]

Kindly

[@TheOneStraightPath]

@@MrDominex ​ @MrDominex You first need to understand one fundamental thing, science is not the truth it is merely an idea and an attempt to try and explain some observable phenomenon, it's not written in stones. Science does not belong to a particular group, science does not care of your worldview, to be scientifically minded you should go where the evidence takes you not the pseudoscientific leads you. I do not watch Fox News and I do not listen to any radio. Now when you says "Creationists" what do you mean by that? You have two worldviews atheistic worldview and a theistic worldview all theists believe in the creation explanation, this dismissive tactic by using buzz words like " Creationist, Conspiracy theorist" don't work, by attempting to poison the well will not work my friend. *(I am not saying you did, but many use this rhetoric)* If I am not an atheist that means I am a Creationist using rationality and deductive reasoning. Atheism does not have any answers whatsoever, atheism fails on many fronts, I know I've been there, and spent most of my life looking into every aspect of life through the atheistic lens, always a dead-end. Trust me it leads nowhere but nihilism and in severe cases depression. To be honest I don't know which arguments you're referring to, perhaps if you give a couple examples of "their" arguments then we can go through them together and see what are these people spreading.

[@invisibleinkling1474]

I have read Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer when it first came out. I love science, and I loved the information found in this book.

[@MrDominex]

If you love the misinformation in Signature in the Cell you don't love science.

[@MrDominex]

@Dan Delgado We have a special committee here at KZbin that removes comments deemed to be inappropriate. We also keep a record of the IP addresses of repeat offenders and there are certain measures we can take with regard to their online activities if necessary. We also work closely with federal law enforcement and can provide them with your browsing history which can be made public at any time. We here at KZbin value free speech, but only as long as it conforms to the guidelines that you yourself agreed to when you registered with us.

[@MrDominex]

@Kuffar Legion No, i was just pulling that guy's leg because he thought someone "in authority" was deleting posts. Posts seem to come and go on this forum for mysterious reasons but I don't think anyone is being censored.

[@MrDominex]

@Kuffar Legion Do you also post as Dan Delgado? Because that who I was replying to when i kidded him about posts being deleted. KZbin has a screwy system, but no one is censoring anybody unless you threaten or harass and even then you have to get multiple complaints that are valid.

[@anthonyjames5474]

MrDominex Like the admittedly fake embryo drawings taught to hs students? Lying filth.

[@SaddamHussain-hq6zf]

I love this lecture, may God guide him further towards His path.

[@YouOnlyLiveOnceTV]

Incredible presentation ... very enlightening ... well done!

[@jamesginty6684]

have you seen aronra's video "Prager U supports Intelligent Deception"?

[@DrunkenHotei]

@@jamesginty6684 But that might contradict what he wants to believe! He's not brave enough for that.

[@vicachcoup]

Why hasn't Dawkins tracked down and spoken with Stephen Meyer. He seems to just track down the unintelligent or weak theists since it is easier to look good against them.

[@huckster699]

He doesn't argue with creationists for the same reason you wouldn't argue with a person who thought the earth was flat. Also Stephen Meyer does not have a degree in biology or zoology or anything related to evolution.

[@vicachcoup]

huckster699 Oh yes he does. He has an entire program on exactly that. He enjoys belittling those that are intellectually easy to embarass. Creationist or not. And he loves weak theists without any sciene degrees at all. This is the real reason why Dakwins will not debate him: - - - - - Meyer graduated with a B.S. degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from the Christian Whitworth College[4] and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.[5] Shortly after, Meyer won a scholarship from the Rotary Club of Dallas to study at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991 at the University of Cambridge.[6] His dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies."[6] After gaining his Ph.D., Meyer taught philosophy at Whitworth,[7] then at the Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University.

[@vicachcoup]

mcmanustony Yes unlike the unbiased truths of Dawkins. You a member of the fan club? A groupie?

[@huckster699]

vicachcoup I'm actually not that big of a fan of Dawkins. But he won't debate because it would be like debating a flat earther. How does your creation story explain these large craters all over the earth from comets that would have wiped out human life if it existed? How can we see stars from billions of light years away if the universe is young? And with those 2 things alone with many others. The debate is over before it begins.

[@vicachcoup]

huckster699 Nonsense. He debated Deepak Chopra for Gds sake! You are just disnhonest. Like Dawkins.

[@FOUNDEDEARTHBROTHERS]

I wish he would've been one of my professors in college. I would've fallen in love with science. It wasn't until I became a biology teacher and had some miracles happen that intelligent design became my passion.

[@jimborowy8160]

Thank you Dr. Meyer for this fresh and truthful look at the origins of life! You have been given the gift of the Almighty to not only understand the ultimate truths, but also explain them well! The only thing I would add to hopefully help you is when you talk about the evolutionists use of the "laws" of nature. If you claim no design or intelligence, then you start with a blank slate. Where did these assumed "laws" come from? What intelligence set up the fact that selection in nature even "should" happen? Why do protein molecules form the shapes that they do and where did the attraction of electro-magnetism come from?

[@spiritualandphysicalfitnes3331]

Interesting and insightful presentation by an intelligent creation of God 🙏🏽✝️

[@robbliss9149]

The leap from intelligent design to “god is the intelligent designer” does not follow from the evidence at hand. The source of the intelligence the evidence suggests is at work (or was at work way back when life started) is a problem exogenous to the argument for intelligent design.

[@ziad3650]

@Bob Robertson God, by definition is the all knowing, all powerful, first cause, and the creator of everything. When looking at such complexity in the cell that cannot be simplified, it's quite obvious to conclude a creator that intentionally created these things, and put them together in that sophisticated manner. Even Richard Dawkins himself said it's highly likely, that we have been created by aliens because the cell shows some sort of design. The irony on how he attacks the belief of God, but has no issue with the idea of aliens creating us.

[@jounisuninen]

​@bobrobertson9547 Atheists are funny 😀 They hate calling the intelligent designer God, as if names were objectively essential in this subject. This tells of the deeply religious nature of atheism. From the scientific point of view the evolution theory in nothing more than an atheistic creed.

[@joedanache7970]

Dr. Stephen Meyer is one of the most brilliant men I have listened to. Very highly educated.

[@JasonLeonPike]

That was a fantastic lecture! Thank you for the introduction to this set of ideas. Great sense of humor as well-I appreciated that.

[@DrunkenHotei]

You should go well past the introduction to see why it's all a bunch of BS

[@colepriceguitar1153]

@@DrunkenHoteiwhat’s BS?

[@DrunkenHotei]

​@@colepriceguitar1153 You mean where is Meyer lying or what does "BS" stand for?

[@colepriceguitar1153]

@@DrunkenHotei where is he lying?

[@DrunkenHotei]

@@colepriceguitar1153 He's lying by intentionally misrepresenting his concept of "information" as if it were somehow viable or useful while totally ignoring actual Shannon-Weaver information theory (which is already a branch of mathematics; also, I'm a math guy, so be prepared for a dose of realism in that dept.). He has to ignore it, of course, because if he acknowledged it, that would destroy his wacky claims in an instant. If you aren't familiar with information theory or very good at math, one of the ways you might start to see how silly his notion of "functional information" or whatever is (it's been years since I watched this particular lecture, so sorry if I forgot some of his made-up terminology) is by asking yourself the following question: "If we want to test whether or not the amount of information/functional information in a system has changed, how do we measure it, and what are its units?" If you can't measure something, and it has no units, then you can't say anything scientific about how much it goes up or down by in a given situation, now can you?

[@oscarrivera8660]

Excelent bro May the Lord Jesus bless you and yours

[@oscarrivera8660]

It is

[@Krillian777]

mcmanustony ...would love to hear your scientific arguments regarding Meyer's findings. I've heard VERY few arguments that refute his research and the questions he's raised against how random, undirected causes can explain the biological information needed to create, assemble, and direct even the most basic building blocks of life (DNA, RNA, protein sequencing, etc.). It turns out that all of these basic building blocks have turned out to be infinitely more complex than scientists could ever have imagined. The complexity and the interactions necessary for assemblage and function require meticulous organization and instruction. How? Where does that information come from?

[@DrunkenHotei]

Sean Davis Define cellular "information" and I will tell you where it comes from.

[@seamus9305]

Ignoring probable evidence because of possible implication is the Gap of the Atheist.

[@seamus9305]

Steven Meyer is not saying because it is complex it is evidence of a designer. He is saying the only known cause for complex sequential information is intelligence. If SETI received signals revealing code for the first 20 prime numbers they would accept it as proof of intelligence. Another way of looking at it is, can materialism be capable of managing complex information? If there is any material non-living system capable of managing complex sequential specified information then lets hear an example.

[@seamus9305]

Wassily, the Fibonacci Sequence is simply a spiral. 20 prime numbers don't have such a simple structure. I agree about pattern recognition, but in the case of DNA a complex sequence is stored, transferred to machinery (proteins), self corrected where there are coping mistakes, start at start commands and stop at stop commands. Machinery builds from the sequence information. If amino acids are out of place the machinery can't fold into working machinery. You may need the first sentence of Genesis many of us are quite satisfied with a recipe for life. People so often try to underrate the informational complexity that it would take to even begin this process (self replicating information). I need a better example, than a spiral sequence, of matter organising information on the scale of DNA.

[@seamus9305]

Perhaps Einstein put it best Wassily.. "Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations."

[@harrrgh944]

It's too easy to put your hands over your eyes and shout "Where are you? Show yourself!" LOL.

[@harrrgh944]

No reason for a deity, or no reason for a Deity?...

[@annabelle7626]

Years ago, I concluded that God is a Benign Super Intelligence. That conclusion underpins my worldview and serves it well.

[@jarrygarry5316]

Even if religions are wrong,trust me God exists.

[@tituslivius2084]

Despite the fact it’s unfounded??

[@MaoMavo]

It's not unfounded, the beginning of the universe implies the supernatural, the godly realm.

[@mooooo1974]

There was a time when Einstein divided everything by zero, it wasn't satisfactory. Dividing everything means everything comes from nothing. It still isn't satisfactory. Math couldn't state everything came from nothing, so where did everything come from?

[@howtodoit4204]

@@jarrygarry5316 Islamic god is the true god, because his names are actually his attributes, like the creator, the designer, the evolver, the giver of shape, the holy, the king etc. Islamic god is not an Arab god but the creator himself. I hope you read Quran brother

[@victoriahhigman9611]

I love the way he explains all this for me the layperson. I can’t imagine that Richard Dawkins or any of the neo Darwinists would think they need to bother. There always has to be a defensive explanation from Stephen. Why is it I wonder that the other scientists are not just considering his scientific explanations rather than arguing with his methodology. I see Stephen as an engineer of highest quality. Maybe that’s why they don’t get it. I am so glad he keeps going with so much energy. I so admire him.

[@ClariceAust]

Stephen Meyer is doing a great job in educating people as to the truths of our reality.

[@michaelwill7811]

@Folk Aart I love folks who watch an entire video, comprehend everything being said and then deny everything in the video.

[@logicalatheist1065]

He's not doing a very good job... Id is still pseudoscience

[@TymP321]

Thank you for your works sir. To me, the most revealing thing is the Darwinian statement that they have a piori commitment to a materialistic interpretations. That precludes any interpretation inconsistent with their beliefs. ... Beliefs

[@jarrygarry5316]

Even Darwin is not atheist.Read his last line in Origin of Species.He believed in God

[@DrunkenHotei]

@@jarrygarry5316 Why are you lying? Bearing false witness is a sin, no?

[@alikhalid305]

The universe is finely tuned The cell is finely tuned All around us is finely tuned Yet some still believe it is mere an unbelievable chances and impossible probabilities that "must have happened" ! What can convince you then

[@logicalatheist1065]

🤣🤣😂😂

[@pichytechno6782]

Genesis 1:26 This is the reason why we can program and create amazing things in life because we have our creator attributes.

[@MLeoM]

I admire Stephen Meyer's work, because he's honest in when it comes to sharing of his discoveries no matter what comes out of the discoveries.

[@MLeoM]

@Dirk Knight I didn't mean discoveries in science, but the probable explanations...

[@MLeoM]

@Dirk Knight lol, 😆 that's harsh...

[@MLeoM]

@Dirk Knight well I don't think I agree with the last statement....

[@MLeoM]

@Dirk Knight I don't think He is a Christian who just does science and only few facts he accepts. I'd rather say, people find it better as an explanation that God created everything when they look into science regardless of beliefs. Many would say that science points and pointed them to God and before that, they never believed much in God...

[@DrunkenHotei]

@@MLeoM Don't give him so much credit. Meyer has never done a lick of science at all. Ever.

[@gjsterp]

I admire Mr. Meyer for his "out of the box" thinking. He makes many points where science has failed to explain many things about the origins of life, and it takes such thinking to get scientists to consider other causes for the phenomena that we see. Science does not have all the answers. We know that to be a fact. There will be many things that science will never be able to explain, especially where the answers lie buried in eons of time past. Keep prodding scientists to think out of the box. Keep challenging them to get answers! That's how progress is made.

[@fritzdoerring9058]

A modern day Socrates.

[@johnsposato5632]

Exactly right. The belief that the observational and logical methodologies used by scientists are capable of allowing us to understand and/or explain everything is called scientism. Science can explain natural phenomena, but some things rise above that.

[@gjsterp]

John Sposato Science has proven to able to explain many many things. Belief in a God doesn't explain anything.

[@johnsposato5632]

@@gjsterp I didn't deny your first statement; in fact I asserted it. But I would dispute your 2nd statement.

[@gjsterp]

John Sposato What does a belief in A God explain ? I would argue that we are a product of the Cosmos. If you studied any astronomy, you would realize the Cosmos has produced many phenomenal objects. Life is just another potential of what the Cosmos is capable of producing.

[@sanjosemike3137]

I was an atheist for over 50 years. However, I was introduced to the synthesis of proteins and their geometric folding. While I was in medical school, this was not known in the detail it now is. From there on it was a short step to dropping my atheism. It was not easy, because when one is an atheist for many years, your own "personality" is built upon it. But wrong is wrong. I was wrong. I now realize that Dawkins is himself having problems with this...in the questions asked him by college students familiar with proteins. He and Krauss are no longer able to answer those questions from the audience. His "fall back" position has been that "aliens implanted life on Earth." While this is not impossible, when he says it, it sounds like a cheap B-grade movie I might have seen in a cartoon when I was a child. In short, Dawkins is just an idiot. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

[@gregoryholden835]

Congratulations San Jose Mike! I'm glad you came around.

[@narniagirl1574]

Has anyone else taken note of the wonderful , fresh, innocent, devoid-of-pomposity persona that Steven Meyer exudes? I perceive the essence of a man who is not trying to "prove" himself in any way but simply presents himself and his beliefs without a molecule of self-aggrandizement. Amazing. Refreshing. So encouraging to see someone live in this space. I think he must fellowship with a group of believers who really help him stay "Velveteen Rabbit" real in the challenging world of academia and scientific research. All you young people out there who want to love God through science, take note of how this kind of living and 'being' is done!

[@rationalskeptic2215]

Narniagirl *help him stay "Velveteen Rabbit" real in the challenging world of academia and scientific research* LOL!! The only way to " challenging world of academia and scientific research" is to provide your own evidence that was produced using the scientific method and allow it to undergo the same vetting process as the *_scientific information_* he's challenging. For example, if he were to present his nonsense, he would be laughed out of town with that "Darwinism" bullshit. The poor fool doesn't realize that Darwin hasn't been relevant in evolutionary biology since the 1940s. Nobody mentions the Wright Brothers when discussing flight.

[@narniagirl1574]

@@rationalskeptic2215 Hello there, RationalSkeptic22: You misunderstand -- I am speaking about relating to people and learning to BE on a whole different plane. A spiritual plane. It is possible, as the Apostle Paul said, "to have all knowledge, yet if I have not love, I am nothing." I recall the last words spoken to me by my 86 year old father. He felt his body winding down, like an old clock. He knew death was imminent. He said, "All my life I have struggled to make a name for myself, and to contribute something to the world. For my life to MATTER. But now I see that all that struggle was for nothing. All that I struggled for doesn't matter. In the end, LOVE is all that matters. . .in the end, it's the ONLY THING that matters." So I was expressing a desire for Stephen to stay close to the Heart that created and that rules and reigns over the Universe, even as he delves into its mysteries. Peace to all who will follow the Truth, no matter where it leads them. Take care, RationalSkeptic22 and peace.

[@sassy3923]

Enjoying your book The Signature in the Cell very much. I thought the ideas presented may be a little abstruse for a homemaker like me, but the clarity of your thought comes through very nicely in your writing. Thank you for devoting your life's work to defending Intelligent Design. I just wish there were more like you in our classrooms.....

[@k_alex]

I am speechless, the times are truly changing. Mr Meyer is simply phenomenal. Now to deal with Darwinian-fascists who are holding science hostage for the sake of their dogma.

[@korykent5645]

Oooooh sick burn!

[@rstevewarmorycom]

You're an uneducated moron.

[@hjalmar.poelzig]

The times are a-changing all right-- Creationism has collapsed and evolution is totally triumphant. Less than a hundred years ago Ceationists were able to have people arrested and tried for teaching evolution. When's the last time Creationists won a court case? How many major universities deny evolution or take Creationism seriously?

[@MrDominex]

Creationism is in decline with the general public, it isn't taught in a single university on earth and it hasn't won a single court case in 95 years.

[@rstevewarmorycom]

@@MrDominex Yup!

[@m.villagrana9677]

Excellent work Dr. Meyer. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and experience. Its time for a Neodarwinism paradigm shift.

[@DrunkenHotei]

I pray this is a joke. Your "paradigm shift" has gotten the attention it deserved and has been relegated to its rightful place as one of the great ideological lolcow religiously-motivated conspiracy theories by both biology and even the Internet at large. People can be amazingly stupid, but the average person who takes a serious interest in this kind of thing is just not as stupid as creationism would require them to be.

[@stefniehatzimichael209]

Love Stephen Meyer His the only scientist that make sense to me these days God Bless you! Greetings from SA

[@MrNanonen]

Fantastic. Love watching your talks.

[@flamingswordapologetics]

Always like to hear Stephen Meyer talk about ID.

[@danbeard66]

From a book published in 1886 "it is a self-evident truth that effects must be produced by competent causes"

[@MichaelHarrisIreland]

"Intelligent Design" would be a very good theory to work with in understanding cells. The quotes means we're not sure what Intelligence Design might really mean. Darwin's theory is proved wrong and is holding back science.

[@gregoryholden835]

Michael, that's a very good summation. Hard to grasp why people don't capitulate to the only obviously correct option of there being a Creator. I think that a lot of atheist are so unsatisfied with the way that things are that they just decide that it must not be a God. I could only imagine that mindset:" There cannot be a God... because things are not the way I think they should be!" I can empathize with them but I can't join them 😔!

[@bg81973]

another issue with the bike-lock analogy is that the thief can dismiss each tried and failed combination but chance cannot. chance will repeat many combinations many times even after failure. the thief may determine that the first dial cannot be a one but chance will continue to select a one on the first dial every tenth try. and this continues with each and every dial on every random attempt.

[@marieindia8116]

excellent point. even to speed run the available chances you would need a mind.

[@stratpac]

Very interesting. Great presentation and I'll buy the book now and check out more details. Facinating.

[@DrunkenHotei]

Why not check out some opposing points of view first and make up your own mind?

[@gargola1887]

Thank you very much for all the work you have done! My dream is to one day work at the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute

[@chuanhiang]

Having listened to Stephen in several other lectures and talk shows, his approach to science and faith is outstanding. Faith has never opposed science. However, when we don't surrender our will to God during times when something is beyond our understanding even though we try our best, is when faith seemed to oppose science. If we continue to keep both faith and science, it will inevitably lead us to more discoveries.

[@chuanhiang]

@Dan Delgado Please help me to understand your intention better. Do you mean google these three words and in what context?

[@chuanhiang]

@@ds525252 Are you referring to things like these? whatstheharm.net/christianscience.html

[@chuanhiang]

@@ds525252 Respect for other opinions if they meant what they said and said with a good and genuine intention to contest is important for constructiveness and learning. If we want to have a proper discourse we must respect viewpoints regardless of its seeming nonsensicalness at first. We must be cognizant that when Copernicus suggested a heliocentric universe, he might have been ridiculed but with time and science and effort, he was proven right. We must adopt the same attitude when it comes to discovering knowledge and truth.

[@ds525252]

Chuan Hiang Teng you are right.... I am deleting my comments now. 👍☮️

[@chuanhiang]

@Dan Delgado "We aim to show that they are decidedly not." Who is we?

[@55k3v1n]

Steve doesn't leave even one stone unturned in "Darwin's Doubt". He's got every base covered!

[@MrDominex]

Creationism is a grab bag of fake arguments designed to appeal to religious fundamentalists who are anxious about their own doctrines. Evolution makes no religious claims and challenges no one's theology, it merely explains how species form. Meyer never offers an alternative theory to evolution, he just takes random, unconvincing potshots at it.

[@john_smithchiropractor3931]

@@MrDominex He seems convincing to me.

[@MrDominex]

@@john_smithchiropractor3931 You are naive to be taken in by Meyer. He cleverly takes advantage of your ignorance. He doesn't fool scientists, only the same kind of religious conservatives who would be fooled by Donald Trump.

[@john_smithchiropractor3931]

@@MrDominex Wow! you're pre-judging comment leaves me confounded. Just because I do lean towards his ideas You immediately assume I am "naive" and "ignorant". It is obvious who is the ignorant person between you and I. If you actually believe everything coming from the supposed "intellectual Educational establishment in current state. Then you are more gullible than intelligent.

[@MrDominex]

One base that Steve leaves uncovered-- an alternative explanation for how species form. That's a pretty important base to ignore so completely, in fact that is the central issue.

[@M1GOGREEN]

thx steve... keep up the good work

[@oseelogic6707]

the answer is - that you have to know the end from the beginning - otherwise how do you know what parts to make first ... [ how can you know what information to put into the DNA, unless you already have the plans finished for the completed construction ...

[@VirtuelleWeltenMitKhan]

Uhm, you don't need a goal to get results. Even most creationist acknowledge that evolution can create stuff without a goal. Do you have anything specific "goal" in mind you can't explain without a mind? Take this for example. You have a pretty simple organism with just a few cells (like 20k or so). They eat, they get eaten. One day a mutation occurs and a few cells start to be light sensitive. The resulting creature can survive just a little bit better because it can sense when something in the environment moves. It can sense prey. The little advantage is spread throughout the whole population over many generations. The next mutation occurs and the cells around the light sensitive cells bulk up. Direction of light can be figured out now. Next mutation, cells at the border bulk up even more, better direction. uhm, what am I talking ...you will not understand you will just claim "the eye" was always the goal. You see a mutation and think "that is the direction" but you can't think about all the mutations removing the light sensitive cells. You will never understand evolution. Question is: Do you have to understand it? Live your happy life without evolution ...all good.

[@adamdouglas5596]

Dr.meyer is razor sharp and in the field daily, he's not making claims he is stating facts, that holds water!

[@sambowdin5608]

I've watched this and some other of Stephen's presentations. Intelligent design seems an inescapable conclusion to me.

[@davidreinhart418]

Yes. The world powers don’t want to admit there is a higher power than them.

[@al-bayyinah2077]

Thank you mayer, I get important knowledge through you.

[@joemarshall4226]

The more people mock Intelligent Design, the less they know about it.

[@johnhammond6423]

The more people mock the natural evolution of species the less they know about it.

[@joemarshall4226]

@@johnhammond6423 I don't hear people knock it. It was a clever hypothesis, but the evidence to support it has steadily waned.

[@johnhammond6423]

@@joemarshall4226 _'the evidence to support it [evolution] has steadily waned'_ Some Christion apologists are making this claim and some really gullible people are actually believing them. 🙄

[@joemarshall4226]

@@johnhammond6423 Darwin would say it himself. The fossil record does not support evolution by random mutation alone the way Darwin thought it would.

[@johnhammond6423]

@@joemarshall4226 Anybody that thinks the modern theory of evolution is dependent on what Darwin did or did not say 150 years ago has no idea about the theory of evolution.

[@muheen6699]

Okay so I get that the first ever Cell came into existence by Random chance but how did the Second Cell come into being? Did the First Cell develop Binary Fission by Random Chance too? 🤔

[@citizen0101]

Evolution is also a blind faith. Faith in the knowledge of what your being told at university by professors is true, without seeing the evidence or proof. The lack of evidence for animals changing kinds is astounding and speaks volumes.

[@jesus7es7dios7]

BUT ALSO, I BELIEVE THAT EVOLUTION (WHICH QUESTIONS GOD) IS A VERY COMFORTABLE WAY OF BELIEVING FOR MANY PEOPLE SEEKING TO ESCAPE GOD, THE BIBLE, AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF SIN....

[@lrvogt1257]

That's just silly on the face of it. Evolution has been observed, studied, tested and verified for 150 years. ID etc is just the waving of a magic wand by a supernatural force. There is exactly nothing to test because there is zero evidence anything like that exists. FYI: "Kind" is a made up word that does not exist in biology. It's sophistry.

[@michaelwill7811]

@@lrvogt1257 Zero evidence that is accepted by atheists, to be a bit more clear. I would think that God doesn't need to wave a magic wand, He should be able to just think about what He wants to happen, and, it would happen. I *do* love the attempt to dismiss an opposing view with the use of puerile rhetoric though, entertaining! ;)

[@lrvogt1257]

@@michaelwill7811 Seriously? "Wave a magic wand" is metaphorical. The comment to which I replied was badly reasoned so I can't accept it as a serious argument. And yes, Zero evidence as in nothing to be observed, measured, or tested. Until there is evidence it's pure speculation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and without it the likelihood of it being factual becomes highly improbable.

[@niklaswikstrom78]

Maybe look up what “blind faith”, evolution and evidence is, and then come back. Good luck! Why would evolution show evidence for a concept (kinds) from an old storybook? Evolution has no evidence for how the Harry Potter Dementors evolved, that speaks volumes!

[@EQUAL.RIGHTS.4ALL]

Stephen is well capable on the subject. Well done.

[@arkadyrenko8684]

In terms of the existence and power of the Divine intelligence involved: For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Romans

[@ereynatetasgrafas9933]

Amen Hallelujah!!!

[@ProfezorSnayp]

"And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee. And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay." The Talking Ass Numbers 22 : 28-30

[@MrDominex]

Science explains how species form in clear, physical terms-- but you prefer invisible phantoms and vague fables that make no demands on your intellect.

[@brightwellkunene8995]

@@MrDominex Science is not clear as to the origination of life. The formation of species is a later-on process. the problem with evolutionist who are atheist is that they want to completely do away with intelligence in the emergence of life, but then are unable to explain how an unguided purely materialistic process originates life and create complex systems, that are then acted upon by other factors to form the species that you are talking about. The other problem is that they lace their retorts or discussions with too much invectives such that you become unable to separate the crap from real stuff. Do not accuse people on the ID side to be pseudoscientist. Just present a coherent explanation of how evolution/science did things right from the emergence of first life until the human being at the apex. Please allow for engagement also with any of your suggestions on how things happened through evolution. This test the other side, your side has consistently fail, yet they want us to buy into their suggestion. We cannot be bullied into accepting something that does not make full sense. Sorry people

[@MrDominex]

@@brightwellkunene8995 Science is not clear on the details of how non-living matter makes the transition to living chemistry but we know it happens because life could not have existed in the early universe. No scientific explanation for anything relies on gods or the supernatural, but that doesnt make science anti-religious. You can always believe that your favorite deities are responsible for any natural process, science is only concerned with how it actually works.

[@tomzeman5964]

I love people like Stephen C. Meyers superheros of our time

[@scooner67]

Holy Holy Holy is the Lord God Almighty.

[@MrDominex]

The praising of gods is done to curry favor with them, not to discover how the universe works-- for that you need science.

[@catherineanderson7460]

Amen and amen!

[@Jonas-gl9ke]

Dan Delgado:LOL!

[@ds525252]

Dan Delgado Magic Rock

[@ds525252]

MrDominex your god died. Long live Chrissy

[@JoanKentBible]

Stephen has opened my eyes to scientific truths that I had no idea about before. It is wonderful to see a scientist openly speak about his belief and faith in Jesus Christ as the son of God and creator of all.

[@lrvogt1257]

While I don't share it, your faith should not lean on such bad and dishonest science as Meyer's and the appalling sophistry and dishonesty of the Discovery Institute. pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/meyers-hopeless-1.html

[@adamdouglas5596]

@@lrvogt1257 triggered,why does it bother you that people believe in god and meyers science is sound and also disproves that which you believe,thats why your crying

[@lrvogt1257]

@@adamdouglas5596 : It is of no consequence to me what people's religious beliefs are as long as it doesn't interfere with me or cost me money. It should be clear what I object to is Meyer's promoting specious science to try to disprove something that is inconvenient for his beliefs while ignoring science altogether to advance his beliefs in supernatural events like the resurrection. That is egregiously hypocritical, illogical and dishonest.

[@adamdouglas5596]

@@lrvogt1257 ignoring science? He used science and the evidence points to an intelligent designer,also he never mentions jesus or god at all, your a sad atheist it sounds like, things that are deemed supernatural insinuates that humans know all possible information about the universe and that is the only thing illogical and dishonest,modern science is driven almost soley by politics,so it's no wonder that present day humans are without belief of anything greater than themselves resulting in 100's of millions living sad,mondane and purposeless lives,shitting on peoples religious beliefs is arrogant and wrong

[@lrvogt1257]

@@adamdouglas5596 : That's what I'm saying. He uses science to attempt to diminish what he doesn't like but he will not and cannot use it to prove his beliefs in the supernatural. By the way, his clever scientific critiques don't hold up. He has a whole other talk about how the Bible proves the resurrection and totally ignores science in the process. He has to weaken evolution in order to get people to believe his ID of the gaps arguments.

[@Hannodb1961]

Magic: To attribute to nature something that would normally require the activity of a conscious agent. Darwinism = believe in magic.

[@Hannodb1961]

@Dan Delgado Those who believe in magic, do not distinguish between natural and supernatural. They attribute to nature things and powers that usually requires an intelligent agent. For example: if you cast a spell, and that causes the woods to build a cabin on its own - without any interaction of a conscious agent - that is magic. If you attribute the formation of vast amounts of functional information in our cells to unconscious natural processes, that is magic. Design - on the other hand - is *not* magic, because the only natural occurring mechanism that has been observed to be capable of producing vast amounts of new functional information, has been intelligent agent.

[@Hannodb1961]

@Dan Delgado From the ramblings above, it is clear you have no idea what the argument is, or how to refute it. You clearly do not seem to understand the difference between Shannon information and functional information, and what specifically differentiate them. I _know_ this is biochemical, and that is exactly the point, because biochemistry is not dependent on chemistry alone, but also on the functional information contained in polymer sequences. This is the reason why abiogenesis "studies" isn't getting anywhere, because nature does not have the probabilistic resources to overcome the improbability of producing vast amounts of functional information by chance. This is also why Jerry Coyne wrote on his blog: _Virtually all of the non-creationist opposition to the modern theory of evolution, and all of the minimal approbation of Shapiro’s views, come from molecular biologists. I’m not sure whether there’s something about that discipline (the complexity of molecular mechanisms?) that makes people doubt the efficacy of natural selection, or whether it’s simply that many molecular biologists don’t get a good grounding in evolutionary biology._ Yeah, sure Jerry. I think you've got it the wrong way around. Then you go on to rant about Moses and Exodus, which is completely irrelevant to the discussion, other than you revealing your own irrational materialistic biases and unwillingness to follow the evidence wherever it leads, making an argument with you completely pointless.

[@Hannodb1961]

@Dan Delgado Put simply: The DNA contains a sequence of 4 different nucleotide types. There is nothing in the chemistry of the DNA that predetermines the sequence of the DNA nucleotides. The DNA is then transcribed into a string of amino acids, where the sequence of mRNA determines the sequence of the amino acids. Again, chemistry has no part in predetermining the order of amino acids: any amino acid can bond to another amino acid. The side chains of each amino acid determines how the amino acid chain will fold up - if at all - into a protein. Just like 99% + of all possible arrangements of letters will just be gibberish, so too, the far greatest majority of amino acid sequences will *not* fold up into a functioning protein, and will simply disintegrate. The shape of the protein determines whether the protein will be able to fulfill its function. Most proteins work together with other proteins to perform a function that is critical to the cell's survival, and an error in one protein will more often than not cause complete loss of the function of the entire protein complex. So, in order to get a working cell, you need vasts amount of novel, FUNCTIONAL, informational sequences of nucleotides, which - according to your theory - was found over billions of years though nothing but chance and selection. Trouble is, the selection method cannot select for it, until all the information is in place to actually provide some functional benefit. Also, you can calculate the probabilistic resources available to find out if enough time has passed for chance to be able to overcome the probabilistic obstacles, and according to the math, billions of years isn't even remotely enough for chance to do what you claim it can do. As a simple illustration: It took Malaria 50 years to discover the two point mutations it needed to gain resistance from cloroquine. Given its massive population and rapid reproduction rate, it is ridiculous to propose that mankind have evolved from some ape like ancestor in a mere 2 million years. Perhaps those "apeman" fossils you found was nothing but just that: apes. And if you want to discuss ancient documents, I suggest you find a forum where that is relevant. Bringing it up here is nothing but a red herring, and simply reflect that you are not discussing the issue in good faith. In my younger years, I would've done my best to convince you of the facts. Now, I've accepted that some people are just too ideologically blinded to be swayed by evidence. And since I have work to do, I'll leave it at that.

[@Hannodb1961]

@demi- dogg _And who gives a snap?_ You do, apparently, given the emotional nature of your posts. _Whatever science nerds do know or don't know, has nothing to do with Muslims threatening children with torture after death & offering virgin whouries in Paradise. Has nothing to do with raising kids to believe what really matters is a Mormon afterlife as gods with degrees of glory._ As I said before, this is a red herring that has nothing to do with the topic. All it shows is that you don't care about facts and evidence, and you're only here to push your agenda. Using the shotgun approach in the hopes that you might throw me the correct bait, is not going to work. You need to find the correct forum if you want to discuss those topics. And that is as far as I bothered to read your reply, because - as I said before: You are too ideologically blinded to be able to have a rational discussion with.

[@Hannodb1961]

@demi- dogg Let me rephrase that for you: You would LIKE me to stick to the spiritual matter. But that is not the topic here. The topic is whether life on earth was created through undirected, unconscious natural processes, or through a designing agent - and which hypothesis is best supported by the evidence. The identity of the designing agent - whether it's aliens, God or Metacondrials - is beyond the scope of the discussion. You seem to be emotionally vested in the idea that life must have a purely materialistic origin, and so debating the issue with you will be of little value.

[@randypage26]

I am an atheist with no religious ties. The big question some of you are missing is WHERE did the INFORMATION of life come from? If u can't answer the question..how can one say the source can't be INTELLIGENT?? People that are in opposition to all religious beliefs become just as blind as the church. We live in an informational digital reality. Design is more likely as we grow in understanding through time and technology.

[@davidbutler1857]

And I'm Mickey Mouse!

[@davidbutler1857]

You are not an atheist.

[@semientroy]

As a Christian scientist, I will make some predictions: 1. Man will never create life from non-living material. 2. Man will never find life outside of earth. 3. The world is not getting any better. And it will get continually worse until the day Jesus returns. 4. As time goes along, the book of Revelation will prove itself true. Read it and watch for the signs!

[@nmarbletoe8210]

christopher semien I predict yes on 1 and 2. 3 idk. 4 we'll find out that it is true but in unexpected ways. i think the second coming is already here for anyone ready to accept it. that's why it cannot be known the hour and day -- it happens for each person when it happens.

[@apeek7]

christopher semien And what happens to your faith when 1 becomes reality??? And how about 2 ??? The first life form was created in 2010. The DNA contains the names of the creative team together with the URL of the website. The DNA was just typed into a DNA creating machine and then inserted into a handy empty cell and, whala, it was alive. The question is - what will happen to your faith???

[@semientroy]

apeek7 If man creates life from nonliving material then God is not real and evolution is true. Good luck.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

christopher semien wait, i thought you were a Christian. doesn't it say somewhere "do not test the Lord thy God" ? do you believe that God's existence can actually be tested by things we can measure on earth? i say give unto God what is God's, give unto Darwin what is Darwin's.

[@apeek7]

christopher semien Christopher, man has, indeed, created a new lifeform. www.theguardian.com/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form www.ted.com/talks/craig_venter_unveils_synthetic_life?language=en Even before that in 1991 an active virus was created from scratch. There is a new discipline called Synthetic Biology where new life forms are created and then their genomes are manipulated to see how each part of the genetic code operates. Check it out on Wikipedia.

[@ralphmotorhead]

Religion PHOBIA . Just the words "creative design" scares the hell out of the religion phobes.

[@alexanderbaus7451]

mcmanustony Do you abhor math as primitive nonsense? Or do you affirm the objectivity of abstract mathematical objects?

[@monicahale887]

mcmanustony people have discovered math science or anything, we created none of it , because we cant,

[@thegreatbehoover788]

@@mcmanustony 8 years of study and yet you "buy" evolution of DNA ? You definitely did not say graduated! Maybe you can explain why someone who studied math BELIEVES in IMPOSSIBLE MATH??? Or were you too lazy to even look at the statistics of DNA?

[@lukebristol3136]

and we only call it that because the word GOD...causes meltdown.lol

[@MrDominex]

@@thegreatbehoover788 How do species develop if not by evolution? Explain how the process works in cause and effect terms as scientific theories do.

[@mikekelly1777]

Nice Job Steve.

[@sojournners9799]

Mankind are capable to 'create', made (assemble) *_artificial intelligent robots / machines_* (an inanimate non-living thing), _programmed_ it, even _'communicate'_ with it and _command_ it to perform certain amazing tasks. ...but *God* is far more beyond, *He* created _quarks, atoms, molecules_ (an inanimate non-living thing), or even the thing smaller than those ; Just imagine, like as a *_miniature Super AI robots / machines_*, God could _"programmed"_ it, _inspires_ and _commands_ them to perform certain astounding, splendour tasks, such as a _molecular bio-machines_ in a cells. _Al-Qur'an, Surah 41 ~ Fussilat (Explained in detail)_ _41:11__ ~ Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."_ God guides, inspires the Universe, inspires to all things. _The answer for ;_ _The "missing gap" of Molecular Evolution hypothesis for the atheist scientists._

[@alpacamaster5992]

@@sojournners9799 "the Quran is perfectly preserved"

[@FEJK82]

What makes Transcription happen so fast? How do proteins and Amino acids move to where they are supposed to go? How do cells know to stop dividing /growing... how does a cell at the tip of your nose know where it is on your body?

[@lrvogt1257]

All good questions but this isn't the best place to get good answers.

[@Roachehh]

Please can I see this guy tear Richard Dawkins a new one, this was phenomenal!

[@possumverde]

You really don't want to see that happen...Meyer is good at making his arguments sound intelligent to people with little to no understanding of the relevant subjects but against anyone with a basic understanding or better his points (those that aren't simply straw man arguments that is) are at best laughable...Someone like Dawkins would eat him for breakfast in an actual scientific debate... Really though it's a moot point as Meyer has too successful of a business going with the creationist lecture circuit, writing books that tell said creationists what they want to hear etc to risk anything beyond pointless philosophical debates (where charisma and clever misdirection often count as much if not more than a well supported argument when it comes to deciding a "winner.")

[@Roachehh]

I fail to see what is illogical about Meyers points. I'm astounded that evolution can masquerade as science when it's mostly guess work? Misinterpretations of the fossil record and the presupposition that mutations can even increase functionality of a system, much less create it in the first place. I don't think we will ever get conclusive proof for either way until armageddon actually comes. And by then.. well this debate will be insignificant to the other problems mankind will be facing (prior to the actual dismantling of this system)

[@ChandraShaker108]

possumverde Thats why Dawkings has refused several times to debate with him then?

[@possumverde]

***** It's a "lose" / "lose" proposition for Dawkins (and Meyer knows this which is his true reason for requesting the debate...) If Dawkins does the proper thing and ignores the request, then jokes like you can imply he's "afraid" yet if he accepts and subsequently demolishes Meyer (which, don't kid yourself, would be the outcome...) he still makes it appear as if Meyer's bunk was legitimate enough to warrant the debate in the first place (when it most certainly isn't.) The only choice an honest person has in a situation like that is to risk having fools think he's "chicken" in order to avoid playing into a con man's scheme to get some free, completely undue "credibility" for his con... I'll give Meyer one thing...he is smart...sadly though he chooses to use his intelligence for underhanded purposes and schemes...and thus is simply another in a long line of well educated con men...

[@ChandraShaker108]

possumverde Yes its a lose lose as he will quickly be exposed as the foolish paid dogmatic shill he is....And Dr Shekdrake? He refused not only Dr Meyer he also refused to look at "Solid Evidence" funded by Cambridge University!! in fact anyone (DOGMA DAWKINS) knows will expose him he swiftly avoids.If Dawkins is the proper thing he should do the noble thing and debate thus putting to rest ID forever....is your brain working ok? Actually the more you comment the more i'm starting to think there maybe a case for evolution we may just have found the missing link!! :) Lol

[@senseijuan3230]

Amen, I have been discussing creation with some atheist and Evolutionist on another site. It amazing how quickly some of the resort to cursing, hostility and accusing me of being closed mined or lying. Some have any scientist who stops believing in evolution is stupid. Some have said no real scientist accepts creation.

[@marieindia8116]

Yeah, when logic fails, verbal and mental abuse is the only option besides capitulation...which is unthinkable for some....

[@jounisuninen]

"Some have said no real scientist accepts creation." Many of the greatest names in science were devout Christians or at least believing in God: Nicolaus Copernicus (a monk), Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Joseph Priestley, James Clerk Maxwell, Charles Darwin, Gregor Mendel (the founder of genetics and abbot of a monastery), Lord Kelvin and Albert Einstein. Plus, many of the pioneers of quantum physics: Werner Heisenberg, Max Plank, Erwin Schrödinger, James Jeans, Louis de Broglie, Wolfgang Pauli and Arthur Eddington. And today's scientists - the astrophysicist Paul Davies, Simon Conway Morris (Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology at Cambridge), Alasdair Coles (Professor of Neuro-immunology at Cambridge), John Polkinghorne (who was Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge), Russell Stannard, Freeman Dyson ... and Francis Collins, who led the team of 2,400 international scientists on the Human Genome Project and was an atheist until the age of 27, when he became a Christian. Over 60% of all Nobel Laureates in Science believe in God. The more stupid or uneducated a person is, the more he is inclined towards atheism.

[@ds525252]

273,000 views 7,200 comments. Keep supporting this channel. Comment often and engage dialog.

[@harlanburch2375]

Stephen Meyer is one of those scientists. Brilliant man.

[@michaelbratsch5157]

Thank you Dr. Meyer. You have taught me so much. God Bless!

[@gigmix1958]

Stephen is a breath of fresh air in the field of intelligent design. Other scientists try to shoe-horn their mainly-christian beliefs in with it, like they would say the bible says it so there, or at the end of the presentation that talk about Jesus being the saviour blah blah. Stephen does away with all of that and just talks science and valid scientific theory.

[@rac717]

Exactly. I love the guy!

[@livinginthespirit407]

So true and yet so many are not able to see this highly pronounced distinction.

[@legisrcs3069]

Can we all just agree to worship the one God and no one besides him?

[@ergonomover]

Which one? Is Jesus of the bible not one with the Father? Islam affirms Allah created Jesus, a human prophet. Should you agree with Hindus that it was Brahma / Vishnu, or maybe Spinoza and Einstein were right to venerate natural processes as if they were gods. What if 3000 gods mankind has named all have one crucial thing in common? Notice ID cofounder Meyer tries to avoid naming God. Could be aliens dunnit.

[@fritzdoerring9058]

Itt is a sort of dance, that has rythym, audio tone, pleasing sequence of order, mathematical rule of progress, and goal of completeness! In other words, non-chaos! --- PERFECTION. King David came closest of human achievement to this in his Psalms; and Isaiah in his prophesy.

[@fritzdoerring9058]

With critical organization!!!!!

[@ds525252]

17,000 subscribers. This channel is getting so many views and comments increasing exposure and subscribers. Both sides keep the comments coming👍. KZbin sees the numbers jumping and it is suggesting the channel more and more.

[@Roosterbate44]

I love looking at what God created.

[@johnwaldon123]

Richard Dawkins: 'It looks like design, but it's not'. In other words: 'Who you gonna believe? me, or your lyin' eyes?'

[@johnwaldon123]

@Kuffar Legion Pretty sure God made the earth round.

[@johnwaldon123]

@Kuffar Legion Where does the Bible say the earth is flat?

[@johnwaldon123]

@Kuffar Legion Wait a minute . . . . You believe the earth is flat ?

[@johnwaldon123]

@Dan Delgado I believe God, and the eyes He gave me.

[@johnwaldon123]

@Dan Delgado One afternoon in South Carolina, I talked by phone with a man in China who said that in China it was nighttime. If the earth were flat, it would have been daytime in China when it was daytime in South Carolina.

[@renaldosimmons6389]

In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word comes from a Mind.

[@godisaliveforever1749]

I love God

[@jarredgreer2959]

Amen!

[@RegardingThePlan]

Craig Jones I really like the one that died for you.

[@randolphpatterson5061]

Yes, our beloved Osiris is one cool dude. Or, Shiva, yeah, him.

[@randolphpatterson5061]

You really should be ashamed of yourself. That's what your god wants for you, after all.

[@jacketrussell]

Yes - Thor is amazing, isn't he?

[@peterzap9144]

Official science, mainstream is 30 years behind cutting edge research.

[@bruce3102]

Peter Zap very true!

[@Tupouish]

As is with all area of research

[@hjalmar.poelzig]

"Intelligent Design" arguments were invented in the 1980s to disguise Creationism as science and havent progessed since. Creationism was invented in the 1920s as a reactionary, anti-modernist religious movement harkening back to ancient mythology. Its proponents like to present it as "cutting edge" but no one is fooled by that.

[@MrDominex]

Creationism is 150 years behind current research-- it's laughable to present it as some kind of "advanced" study like it's the next big trend. There is no trend toward "Intelligent Design" in science or society, . evolution is not controversial among scientists, there is no alternative theory on the horizon, and the publication of new discoveries in the field is accelerating every year. Creationism is just a little cult with delusions of grandeur.

[@kinetic7609]

@@MrDominex Science is neutral. Creation is a paradigm, as is materialism. Both of these paradigms use science to support their case. Please stop conflating science with materialism. Just an fyi, modern science is killing materialism. Your position is no longer tenable.

[@oakmeal53]

Excellent presentation!

[@thomasw78]

47:03 That number is 10 billion not 10 trillion.

[@lyng1905]

its easier to believe a washing machine made itself than complex molecular machines

[@markward3981]

I have been throwing metal and plastic at walls for years hoping to randomly come up with a washing machine . By neo Darwinist evolution reasoning I should eventually come up with one 😲🔍😂

[@aakau88]

Very interesting explanation for intelligent design of 'life', living cells. Of course God exists! 👍🏼

[@kcp2967]

After you watch this..... Watch the lecture by James Tour on Origin of Life. Then tell your friends to watch it.....

[@ds525252]

KC P Oh yes!👍

[@kcp2967]

@Dan Delgado - His "Origin of Life" lecture is much more detailed, and highly recommended for anyone who is unfamiliar with the subject. I do not think James is endorsing any kind of ID or creationism. He seems to imply that what has been presented or implied by MSM and others....is not in actuality, completely true.

[@kcp2967]

@Dan Delgado I think every person who signed that list, originally caught a lot of professional heat. Personally, I think it makes it much less likely that Ivy League scholars would risk pissing their reputations away by signing the list......and the same probably holds true for the number of people who remain on the list, after being updated in February. I seriously doubt any of those scholars are six day creationists. Many Christians have a genuine love for science, technology, etc., and follow this area of science due to the extreme amount of "bad information," put out by YEC and hard core Darwin supporters. It seems to me, that to be "genuine" about properly educating students, there needs to be a correction to the "mission statement" of Origin of Life Sciences, and some clear updated educational materials stating "what science does know, and what it does not know." Often times, it is "marketed" by MSM popular scientists like Bill Nye, Brian Cox, NDT, and scholars like Dawkins that "sell" the attitude that "Science has it all figured out," which is unfortunately inaccurate and misleading. There is no definitive version of the creation account......most modern Christians know this, and it is not an issue of "faith" for them. I think many main stream "scientists" think that all Christians have some comic book conception of YHVH / Jesus of Nazareth, which is also inaccurate and misleading. I do not think "science" will ever "prove" His existence, as much as I think He will "reveal" Himself through things that are measurable through modern science. However, scientists seem determined on insisting "a superior intelligence" of ANY kind does NOT exist.......which is just "bad science."

[@kcp2967]

@Dan Delgado Look, I agree there are limits to what should be considered reasonable material for science education. But, it goes both ways......Let's face it, based on what we know now, should "Lucy" be used as an example of the evolution of modern humans? You get my point, right? When one of the biggest problems science has regarding DNA, is the origin of the information......is it really a wise idea to take the possibility of a superior intelligence, completely off the table? You've got six day creationists screaming, "we didn't come from monkey's" while the modern scientists are screaming "G-d didn't do it." It's just two extremes that are unwilling to budge and both are interjecting their biases into the argument. I say we just "do science" and let the evidence take us wherever it leads....... Real people of faith do not fear science, but, we don't always trust the results that are spoon fed to the public by the MSM sciguys.

[@OurNewestMember]

Sort of a cliff hanger at the end! What are the experimental questions and methods to characterize this intelligent design? What is the most valuable scope to pursue? Are there meaningful features in our universe which might be excluded from the intelligent design perspective (eg, certain geological or cosmological phenomena)? Even though I found the molecular content to be overwrought, overall this talk was the most compelling of the several I've seen by Myer. And it's a define success by the metric of stirring further scientific interest!

[@hannocoetzer8763]

So basically. Building a single protein consisting of a modest number of amino acids, it would take even longer than the universe is old, if you have the amount of brute force possible combinations per second, equal to the amount of particles in the universe

[@nilesspindrift1934]

Nice to hear the phrase "begging the question" used correctly! Not so nice to hear 10^10 called ten trillion! This said, I'm halfway thru and enjoying listening to an intelligent IDist who doesn't say "watch = watchmaker; Scrapyard -> Jumbojet? Case Proved" ! I shall continue with great interest.

[@warrenjoseph76]

Niles Spindrift that error stopped me in my tracks too....came to the comments to check I was the only one. He really needs to correct that

[@johnpauldebarro730]

This is a good man

[@andrewwilhelms1978]

No man is good but he is pretty darn decent dude.. Deep info but I as a layman can even understand it

[@MrDominex]

"Intelligent Design" is not a scientific theory, it is a religious doctrine. Everyone is entitled to their own psychological coping mechanisms, there is no need to disguise them as scientific knowledge.

[@terrencebrooks733]

If actually listen properly to his lectures , he points out he doesn't start from a religious point of view , he is just opening up the explanations from a purely scientific evidences , It's just your bias ,so his lectures are wasted on you, go .

[@MrDominex]

@@terrencebrooks733 He's not using science to prove the existence of God, he's using the philosophy of logic, mainly relying on a fallacious 'argument by incredulity,' a handy tool for salesmen of the supernatural. He merely declares that no logical person can possibly believe that complex structures and.processes can arise 'by accident,' assuming that nature is blind and stupid and only a conscious, self aware, personal intellect can make intetesting things happen. But matter is made.of energy and is constantly changing to create every pattern we see through the interaction of natural forces. Intelligence is strictly a biological phenomenon like digestion or sex, it doesn't exist in disembodied form like a ghost, it requires a physical nervous system just as walking requires legs and seeing requires eyes. As science has figured out how natural phenomena work God has become irrelevant. No scientific theory resorts to the supernatural, but God is still invoked in the area of morals, cultire, emotion and interpersonal relationshipsm We create God, not the other way around.

[@MrDominex]

@@terrencebrooks733 Meyer uses no science except in the way a lawyer or political campaign strategist would try to make an argument for a preconceived conclusion by dressing it up in science-y sounding language. He's trying to justify rejection of evolution by people who already hate it for religious reasons, he's not offering an alternative theory of species formation.

[@MrDominex]

@@terrencebrooks733 Meyer starts with a religious premise and then.looks for ways to attack science so as to trick people liike you into thinking that anyone who defends science is anti-religious. Science explains how processes work, Meyer isn't interested in explanations, he is just exploiting your religious loyalties the way crooked politicians try to set social groups against one another.

[@MrDominex]

@@terrencebrooks733 Promoters of "Iintelligent Design" are just winking at their followers when they say they're not talking about God. Who do they think they're fooling?

[@berylackermann8240]

How amazing is our Creator. Everything He has created has a plan and a purpose from that which man cannot see to what man can see. He has His signature on everything. Man cannot decipher the code in the DNA as he needs the LANGUAGE to get the trillions or billions of information written in it. They also do not understand what is "CONSCIOUSNESS" or "what is energy". Each person is unique. Even look alike twins do not have the exact same fingerprint or DNA. It give the bone structure, shape and size of ears, eyes (its color) the skin, size and shape of hands (and fingers) and feet (and toes), the hair straight, curly, crissy, wavy, etc. Which throws out the " reincarnation" belief, taking on another body, that does NOT look like the original person. There will only be ONE of you. As the created said "You are fearfully and wonderfully made". "I moulded and shaped and formed you in your mothers womb". (The mother is the instrument - incubator - to bring this unique human into this world). "Every SOUL is mine (belongs to me) and my desire is NONE should perish but come to repentance". (Meaning - turn back from your unrighteous ways and walk Righteously before ME, according to the "Constitution our Creator gave for man to LIVE by on this EARTH - regarded as His Kingdom. Manifesting the Righteous Character (image) of our Creator you were created in).

[@aaronbarlow4376]

Irreducible complexity is a big problem. There are complex cellular components that cannot evolve on their own, individually they have no function. It's like saying a car engine accidently came together with some pistons and other parts lying around. One needs a car that's been built to get car parts.

[@stubdo16]

To get to the modern car took thousands of years of evolution of ideas, culture and technology, and car designs are constantly changing and evolving today. Someone did not sit down one day and make the first car from scratch. Cars are still constantly evolving as technology, demand, materials, innovation, fashions, external circumstances change and evolve. Each generation of car differs from past ones by amendments, innovations, improvements, alterations etc.

[@gungrave10]

@@stubdo16 And there is intelligence behind that evolution

[@stubdo16]

@@gungrave10 yes, but god did not need that evolution process. For example, when he created the talking snake in the garden of Eden he did not have to keep making loads of prototypes. The talking snake started off with legs but god got rid of its legs after the whole thing with the forbidden fruit. Presumably it had to mate with a female snake with legs, but their offspring must have had no legs and lost the ability to speak, leading on to the modern snake.

[@stubdo16]

@@gungrave10 humans did not evolve. God made Adam out of dust and then made Eve out of a bit of Adam as a companion after none of god's animals turned out to be suitable companions for Adam. So humans were just made by god pretty much instantaneously. We know this as it says so in Genesis so must be true (in fact, therefore is true (?))

[@marieindia8116]

@@stubdo16 I'm sorry, which Bible scripture tells us this amusing story? I must have missed it. The one about the snake.

[@summondadrummin2868]

I think Alan Watts description that Religious people have put us humans WAY UP and Science puts Us WAY DOWN is a useful way of understanding the tension in this polarized discussion. As per usual theres a middle way.

[@noobsaibot5285]

The universe is very young Stephen

[@simplefaithforall3174]

Very good presentation!

[@MiracleOlulu]

The other possibility is that the Academy will gain lasting fame in history for having opened its own Pandora's box. From the economic standpoint, if genuine scientific evidence for creation has been published in leading scientific journals and if the Academy has ignored this evidence while extolling evolution as the only truly scientific theory of origins, should not there be an investigation of this matter? The potential cost for negligence in advising the Government of this information could be enormous. For example, millions of dollars are granted annually by government agencies to fund a variety of evolution-oriented research projects. One well-funded effort concerns attempts to synthesize life from nonliving matter. All such research is based on the fundamental evolutionary assumption that in the distant past life began spontaneously, by chance. However, valid scientific evidence that the earth was created shows the evolutionary scenario to be wrong, and the belief that life began by chance crumbles. Taxpayers have a stake in learning whether the Academy has tried to maintain the status quo of evolution by remaining silent about evidences for creation. And [p. 7] Americans have more at stake in this issue than their money, almost none of which is used to investigate the scientific basis for creation.

[@marieindia8116]

touche. hence the paid trolls that do their best to squash the tide of questioners. it's evil.

[@jounisuninen]

"...millions of dollars are granted annually by government agencies to fund a variety of evolution-oriented research projects ..." That's exactly why the old evolutionists hang on their "house of cards" called the evolution theory. Why are they so afraid? Because they sit on the money and hold the profitable professorships! Atheists and evolutionists always seem to piss their pants when creationist theories are presented. They are so scared that they even want to deny telling creationism in schools. Strange. If they believe that creationism is incredible, then why don't they let the schoolchildren decide for themselves to laugh it off? The problem is of course the danger that they won't laugh it off ...

[@Andy_Mark]

It's okay Dr. Meyer. I'm sure that graduate professor is very proud of who've you become today. (Awkward shuffling of feet) 🫢 You've carved a path in my mind, which allowed me to pursue my faith. For that, I will forever be thankfull.

[@williamchamberlain2263]

Were our designers designed? Where did the original designing come from? Or did the first designers just evolve?

[@sssssnake222]

Even if it was somehow possible for a cell to just come alive out of nothing, there's no possible way that it could also replicate itself. The only possible explanation for life is that it was designed by a subatomic civilization inside of universe Earth.

[@302indian]

I believe the Heavenly Host could be viewed as a designing subatomic civilization.

[@sssssnake222]

@@302indian we only one because we were the best programmers

[@DrunkenHotei]

@@sssssnake222 It's actually sort of necessary that it replicate by virtue of the unidirectional nature of entropy. There are also molecules which can self-replicate that don't even belong to living organisms necessarily, like prions.