How Math Refutes Materialism & Points To GOD (Brilliant!)

[@sirgb7]

Agnostic here. I have to say that this breakdown of the mathematical argument for intelligent design is probably the most serious and convincing argument for God I've ever encountered on the Internet.

[@komrij1944]

ID is pseudo science. An agnost should know that.

[@jonathanrussell1140]

And then god chucked a rock at his creation....

[@jonathanrussell1140]

​​@@joshuamkkgod chucked a rock at the dinosaurs because humans have free will and humans fell. I'm glad that makes sense in your head...

[@akarsh5871]

Even if it is an intelligent being it would not be the biblical god or any other religion god cause a biblical god's concept started with humans' lore, life started with microorganisms.

[@madeforgood]

@@joshuamkk human beings didn't fall. Adam and Eve fell. If God had been fair he would have gave me my personal Eve and Garden of Eden.

[@lencac7952]

Francis Bacon is quoted as saying "a little science drives people away from God. A lot of science brings them back".

[@MichaelVandeventer-c3q]

@@lencac7952 and he's been proved wrong ever since. You can all do you a little tap dancing all you want but it's just the fact that the more people learn about science the less likely they are to be religious. And the more likely somebody is to rage against The very idea of learning how reality works the more likely they are to be religious

[@lencac7952]

Your problem is you think this is about religion. Nothing could be further from the truth. Good luck with all that though.

[@MichaelVandeventer-c3q]

@@lencac7952 all pray tell what is it about then? Lol are you one of those people that thinks you're a religion so super cool it's actually not a religion at all? Lol

[@MichaelVandeventer-c3q]

@@lencac7952 everything go far more accurate quote would be a little Bible brings people to God but the whole Bible sends them away. Definitely learning where the Bible came from

[@stanleysitarzewski9296]

Science is proof of materials and substances. Spirituality is the substance of things not-seen. Truth. Demons believe in God, and shudder- Jesus Christ has the Authority of : Completeness- Science attempts to prove truths of matter. Jesus Christ is : Righteous Right Hand of Creater.

[@schectermf350]

Cool to see Saul Goodman becoming a contributing member of society. In all seriousness, great talk. Really enjoyed it.

[@jonathanrussell1140]

Great talk, but sadly unsubstantiated bs from start to finish. Nature doesn't care about massive improbabilities about increasing numbers of mutations. Nature doesn't work like computer code. Nature works with what it's got.

[@MichaelVandeventer-c3q]

This entire argument is just begging the question. He says this can't be unintended information because we've never seen unintended information therefore we've never seen it because this isn't it

[@jacejackson5253]

Heh, he kinda does look like Saul Goodman.

[@KingfisherSeven]

😂

[@Mike-rt2vp]

​@@MichaelVandeventer-c3qnot really. He laid out that there are too many needed variations and rolls of the dice required versus time given to eventually get to a random yet organized structure. And other points like there is no process or explanation given explaining how you go from dead matter to living matter.

[@alabamaflip2053]

Put another way it is more likely that this takes place: 1) If you were to write down a list of numbers from 1 to 52 on a page 2) Beside each number you write down an unique playing card that you just thought of. No duplicates. All unique. In any order that you choose. 3) And then allow someone who has never seen your list is to fairly shuffle a deck of playing cards and place it in front of you. 4) As you turn each card up from the shuffle deck it would perfectly match your list. The first card turned up matches the first card on your list. The second card you turn up matches the second card on your list. Etc. All the way through to the 52nd card. 5) The odds are one in eight followed by 67 zeros that this could happen. The universe is only 4.3 seconds old followed by 17 zeros. You are far more likely to have the playing cards come out in your order then the gene pool is to randomly coming out with a code that supports life (followed by 77 zeros). In other words, you being here is probably not a random event but one planned out ahead of time.

[@jraelien5798]

No scientist has ever claimed that evolution or life came about by random chance. You do not understand the science.

[@Anon-f6j]

The argument of unlikely odds tends to be akin to survivor's bias fallacy. It seems highly improbable that things would line up so perfectly that we ended up being able to exist, but if things had lined up differently and a completely different set of sentient beings emerged to observe it all, they would arrive at the same conclusions. Same for a different way things lined up and yet another different set of sentient beings and on and on ad nauseum.

[@jeremyed9507]

​@Anon-f6j The point of the video is not that the odds of intelligent beings coming into existence is low. The key takeaway here should be that a random "evolutionary process" would ultimately lead to chaos and the demise of the system.

[@alabamaflip2053]

@@jeremyed9507 Well said.

[@Anon-f6j]

@@jeremyed9507 I'm aware of the point of the video. It still comes down to a matter of improbability. This one is a more potent argument than the Fine Tuning one, but I believe further investigation might result in a similar counterargument. People were absolutely convinced about Dr. Behe's arguments initially. Then Richard Shermer came along and effectively shut them down, and now we almost never hear about Behe any longer. I wouldn't let yourself be immediately convinced by any argument anyone made on either end.

[@theeeway7]

"Do you know who fixed it's dimensions, or who measured it with a line?" Job 38 5. Great discussion, praise Elohim!

[@kos-mos1127]

The dimensions of the Cosmos are not fixed as someone moves theory space the observable horizon moves with them. So going 13.8 billion years back in time won’t take you to the beginning of the Cosmos. You would see the Cosmos as 13.8 billion years old from your perspective.

[@dracula3811]

@@kos-mos1127sorry but you're incorrect

[@RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217]

​@@kos-mos1127 You still frequenting after all this time this channel's video comment threads eh "Kosmos" _[which "Cosmos" in the Bible Greek means "the Hosts of Heaven"]_ ???? I told you before, you could have the most hardest evidences presented to you and you still will resist / rebel against God/Jesus because IT IS NOT AB0UT **THE EVIDENCE** - **IT'S ABOUT THE HEART ISSUE!!** ....You are your own little 'god', thus you prefer to worship yourself hence why you suppress the truth of God's existence in unrighteousness _[Romans 1:18-32]_.

[@taylorthetunafish5737]

Measurements are arbitrary things made up by humans.

[@trevormadland5802]

⁠@@kos-mos1127 The cosmos is not 13.8 billion years old, is it about 6000 years old according to the genealogies written in the Bible, besides my “book of fables” is more accurate about history than your pseudoscience of evolution.

[@batfink274]

Every time i hear Ben talk i have to check my playback speed isn't on 2x

[@captainfantastic7843]

I always ask myself, " what would Ben do"?

[@robertklemm10]

He may need to try decaf

[@LeaderCourse]

😂

[@HolyGhostDrummer]

The only man on earth, who can skip letters in words. Crack heads mumble. This guy is straight up passing over whole letters in his speech🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@jonathanrussell1140]

Us atheists we love a good ad hom. But only on stupid people 😂😂😂

[@clintwood9472]

Well, as an agnostic, this is an extremely compelling argument supporting an intelligent design of life.

[@OgdenCrimmcramer8162]

It's a terrible and completely wrong argument since Meyer's silly "it's too improbable!" calculations don't model actual evolutionary processes. It's GIGO all the way.

[@rembeadgc]

To consider that the alternative is an unintelligent design, which theoretically would be no design at all, for which, I would say, there really is no evidence of such. This communication, along with every other existing thing, being an actualization, in time, space and consciousness of that very design. Its utterly inescapable except through the exercise of the will in the arena of the mind.

[@JoseyWales44s]

Agnostics are honest in their skepticism and are open to argument Atheists, on the other hand, are often as devoted to their own belief system as the most fanatical religious zealot.

[@clintwood9472]

@rembeadgc while I do share your interpretation, for my own egoic and emotional reasons, I tend to shy away from philosophical or logical arguments either for or against an intelligent creator. I find it too easy to potentially be misled. But, mathematics, which I think is as close to the language of God (assuming the possibility of a God) as a human being can get, is the best tool for wrestling with the idea. . So I look for scientific arguments that are backed by solid math in order to either support or dismantle the argument of intelligent design. And Meyer presents a very strong argument.

[@josephdrbohlav5705]

Look out your window.

[@afronovaable]

Stephen Meyer is amazing. He deserves to be interviewed much more. And he is humble and down to earth. God bless you.

[@Belmondo_RH]

He is a professinal liar and claims to know things we simply can't.

[@afronovaable]

@@Belmondo_RH How so? Why? Give me something specific.

[@Belmondo_RH]

@@afronovaable He spends the entirety of Darwin's Doubt for instance,engaging in the use of quote mines, wholesale misrepresentations of real scientist's work (several of whom have publicly called him out for it, such as Charles Marshall), speculations over long outdated data and outright lies. Meyer is an absolute disgrace and deserves no platform or respect. His "work" consists mostly of lying about science for his boss Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. who openly wants to replace democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy. If he's not busy writing books full of lies about the Cambrian explosion or "The wedge paper" which outlines his and his right wing Christian Taliban employers strategy : “To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God". Does that sound like someone who is interested in scientific progress?

[@Belmondo_RH]

@@afronovaable Dave Farina took his claims and compared them to the actual scientific literature...the result is a stagggering testemony of misrepresentationsand lies coming from a man with no relevant credentials and no expertide at all. The video is called "Exposing Discovery Institute Part 2: Stephen Meyer" see for yourself.

[@jonathanrussell1140]

​@@afronovaableMeyer's a liar. He's been trying to peddle this bs for 20 years. He deliberately misrepresents the duration of the Cambrian "explosion" - an unfortunate misnomer - it's now considered to be an epoch of around 70 million years - so plenty of time for life to diversify. He also lies about lack of evidence for precursor life forms in the PreCambrian. We have that evidence. Watch Jackson Wheat's 2-part video "Darwin's Confidence" or Dave Farina's debunk of Meyer in his Discovery Institute debunk series. Meyer just conveniently avoids aspects of evolution that don't fit his narrative, and just plain lies about the way genetics work.

[@danielbrowniel]

Whenever I see Meyer talk his stillness is impressive. Nothing surprises him and that suggests he has considered much already.

[@Echo_1174]

I totally feel you. I see that as a necessity behavior for highly intelligent individuals. His resume is like, wow (similar to Musk's stillness). God bless you!

[@blomster4304]

Except for the actual facts? See for example a real biologist (Darrel Falk), also a theist, absolutely destroy multiple of Meyer's statements on biology and evolution in his reflection on biologos.

[@Echo_1174]

@@blomster4304 With only 365 subs, I think I'll pass! 😄

[@conversative]

@@blomster4304 "Except for the actual facts? See for example a real biologist (Darrel Falk), also a theist, absolutely destroy multiple of Meyer's statements on biology and evolution in his reflection on biologos." I just looked at his critique. Just to address a few of many problems with his critique-he cites Robertson and Joyce's paper, which does not address the RNA world hypothesis at all, and his rephrasing of Stephen Meyer's point on "knowledge-gap" is mischaracterized, demonstrating that he does not understand Meyer's argument.

[@danielbrowniel]

@@blomster4304 sounds like an ankle biter?

[@ChandlerTC]

James Tour adds some valuable insight into this issue as well. He points out that because random mutation overwhelmingly produces failure, that failure not only impedes progress but in most cases risks the viability of the entire organism. And dead organisms do not evolve.

[@stanleysitarzewski9296]

liken to Doctors of Western Medecine ? Flesh was Created Perfect. 100% Very Good. Truth. 6028 Years Past- King James Print Version of Bible Year 1611 Original Language Tongue. 1189 Continuing Chapters of Truth + History. Truth. Jesus Christ came for the Oppressed- the Prisoners- the Poor- the Blind. Truth. all numbers add up to Salvation, through self- sacrifice. Just as Jesus Christ Taught, Commanded, and lived. Un-Able to do. Why ? With-Out the Baptism, repentance, turning and going a new way. Re-Birth of Spirit. @ NEW-CODE OF THE FLESH. old-flesh is : Broken. 100% Truth.

[@johnsmith4811]

Well ... yeah. That's exactly how it's supposed to work. You are arguing for natural selection.

[@ChandlerTC]

@ no, you missed my point. Natural selection can lead to micro changes, but for the kind of changes that are necessary for macro evolution, it is not a viable option. This is because most changes produce failure. And failure often leads to the death of that organism. And the process now has to go way back to far earlier forms and start over. The idea of building micro improvements to generate macro changes is just not possible.

[@johnsmith4811]

@@ChandlerTC I understand the point you are trying to make. I reject your conclusion. A simple organism (bacteria, for example) reproduces fast and often. Let's say it lives in a methane-rich environment, but is indifferent to it. 99% of the time, it'll make a very similar copy of itself. 0.5% it'll make a 'bad' error (where methane becomes poisonous, leading to dead/nonreproducing offspring) and 0.5% it'll make a 'good' error (where methane can be metabolized for extra energy, leading to more offspring). The 0.5% more proliferative offspring will now start slowly overtaking the 'parent' version until an equilibrium is reached. Hence, micro improvement leading to macro changes. All the while, the 'new and improved' version will be going through its own 99-0.5-0.5% process.

[@ChandlerTC]

@ very true. But that is an example of micro evolution. In the end, no matter how much time passes, the organism will still be essentially the same organism. It can’t and will never become something else. And, you can’t explain, using your example, how that organism came to exist in the first place. It doesn’t work that way.

[@Deploracle]

Please have a show about the Flagellar Motor (if you haven't already had one). The idea of anything mechanical happening inside a bacteria never occurred to me. Not just mechanical but with extreme complexity and efficiency. The motor can spin up to 100K rpm and is fully reversible ... driven by the electrical potential difference between two membranes. Amino acids form complex gear-like shapes ... essentially a ring gear with numerous pinions to deliver torque to the flagellum. It's truly astounding.

[@melbymelb23]

@@Deploracle I watched a detailed video explaining that and it was truly astounding!

[@skilz8098]

Already seen it! Absolutely amazing! 100% Intelligent Design without a doubt! Creation +Infinity; atheistic evolutionary Darwinism not even a goose egg!

[@hlam020]

@@melbymelb23 Could you share the link of the video please?

[@trevormadland5802]

@@melbymelb23 link?

[@kmiller5808]

​@@hlam020 try searching michael behe

[@jimmieanderson8789]

I am not an educated person. I believe what I believe about the origins of man for reasons that I’ve seriously considered and thought out. That said, the way this man knows what he knows from his own head is truly remarkable. His references aren’t recalled from written notes. It’s part of who he is. Truly impressive

[@TheDudeAbidesYo]

Data scientist here. The math he is using is good, and it applies to the origin of life not being able to arise from randomness due to the sheer improbability of it. Very cool.

[@Ignirium]

Doesn't improbability point to "improbability" though - not God?

[@TheDudeAbidesYo]

@Ignirium Good question. If we can agree that randomly adding or subtracting genes or proteins is highly unlikely to create any form of life, then what alternative is there? If we reject that life didn't evolve out of nothing, then how did life begin? This, combined with the complexity of DNA, gives rise to an excellent argument that we were indeed created by a being. One that is vastly more intelligent and capable than ourselves.

[@CCD_106]

As a statistician, I do not believe there has ever been such a thing as complete randomness, just stuff we have no way to model...🤷🏾‍♂️

[@TheDudeAbidesYo]

@CCD_106 True. But it simplifies the modeling process to say it is random, and at times this simplification is quite good 🙃

[@TheDudeAbidesYo]

@CCD_106 Also, another really interesting thing to consider is this: if there were a mechanism to guide the process of adding or removing DNA or proteins together in a meaningful way, so that it isn't random, then what is this process? Would it even be possible for any such process to reduce the search space meaningful enough to make generating meaningful DNA sequences at least much more likely to happen?

[@Echo_1174]

DDW! Stephen C. Meyer blew my mind when I was first introduced to him, when interviewed by Piers Morgan. I got so excited hearing him speak in favor of God! He is a philosophy of science! Your video today gives to those that follow the Bible and spread the Gospels, 'a silver bullet' in which to use it as a homerun for God! Always enjoy your content! May God continue to bless and protect you and yours!

[@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom]

God bless my brother ❤️

[@Echo_1174]

​@@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom Thank you! That makes me happy! 🌱🌻

[@kos-mos1127]

Stephen Meyers is not a philosopher of science. He is a philosopher of bs. Philosophers of science believe the Cosmos is infinite and is they absolute reality. For them reality happens now but our movement through the Cosmos is what cause time to emerge. This video does not give Christian’s a silver bullet more like a wet noodle. Anyone that has more than a high school understanding of physics will see through Stephen Meyers narrative.

[@bryant475]

Agreed, it's really impactful when scientists like Drs Stephen Meyer, Hugh Ross, James Tour, Michael Behe, John Lennox, etc., give evidence for God! One of the reasons is that atheists use science as a way to show God doesn't exist, when in fact it's quite the opposite- the more we dive deep into the sciences, the more we see God's amazing genius!

[@T_J_]

@@Echo_1174 Don't worry guys, you're gonna live forever ... ... the man in the sky said so.

[@chaddca]

The hardest, most challenging college course I ever took was molecular biology. Even the simplest, most basic-seeming components of life are broken down to more and more complex systems that can be unbelievably difficult to grasp. Taking this class surely deepened by faith in a roundabout way.

[@jonathanrussell1140]

But then your god chucked a rock at the dinos...

[@olyabutorina6869]

​@@jonathanrussell1140 maybe it was made for humans to not have problems with dinos? Have tou ever thought about this possibility? 🤔

[@testimoniesontheroad5895]

@@jonathanrussell1140 After every mass extition the most evolved life forms filled the nitches , that is how life did not become stagnant. Jesus Christ did this so we could have a proper vase to sustain this soul.

[@jonathanrussell1140]

​@@testimoniesontheroad5895what do you mean by "the most evolved"? Also, where in the body is the soul situated?

[@jonathanrussell1140]

​@@olyabutorina6869well, doesn't that kinda raise the question why did god bother creating the dinos in the first place? He's a bit of a joke, this god of yours, wouldn't you say?

[@c.b.6627]

Thank you, Brandon for your KZbin videos I can’t tell you how many times I have felt down and tired with life’s challenges and then I watch a couple of your videos and my spirit is restored. Your enthusiasm and dedication to spreading the good news is very uplifting. Keep up the good work thank you thank you thank you.

[@jonathanrussell1140]

Ah, you settle for lies to restore your spirit. How sad is that?

[@Fathersonandholyspirit-u2d]

Stephen Meyer is a pleasure to listen to. God bless this man 🙏🏼✝️

[@happygolucky9004]

He's wrong though. He only factored in genetic hard coding and completely missed epigenetics. Anyone with a basic knowledge of genetics will know he's a quack.

[@valtersjanevics65]

@@Fathersonandholyspirit-u2d he is a pseudo intellectual and a liar

[@alexgonzo5508]

I feel cringe when i listen to him.

[@oscargr_]

Only relative to Shapiro 😂😂

[@alexgonzo5508]

@@Mario_Sky_521 Precisely because he is nice. Just so you know that the word "nice" etymologically originates from Latin nescius ‘ignorant’, from nescire ‘not know’.

[@nunyabeezwax1413]

Math is the language of God

[@FirsteMann1929]

Especially when you observe the Mandelbrot set

[@nickfrate4396]

@@radupopescu9977 Is Mathematics an Invention or a Discovery? Mathematicians and Philosophers have been arguing this for a long time. It seems like its already there waiting to be discovered. Math being Discovered is not the general consensus of many Mathematicians or Scientists today. I suppose because in their minds it leaves humans limited or dependant on something else.

[@kos-mos1127]

@@radupopescu9977Math is not unchangeable, undetectable and nor does it permeate every point in the spacetime continuum. Math is an abstraction and language built on axioms. Any axiomatic language can never fully describe the Cosmos.

[@PhilAlumb]

​@@kos-mos1127...learn that in sophomore year?

[@maxhagenauer24]

​@nickfrate4396 The symbols, nomenclature, and how to use it and ferform it were invented but the system, logic, rules, axioms, theorems, ect. were discovered. They could not have been created by anyone or anything.

[@sumanamjs]

Mathematicians have been way ahead of the Physicists regarding the Universe. Once again, they have dared to go where no Scientist would ever dare to venture.

[@K94Life]

Science isn’t allowed anymore. The split from science and spirituality of western society is what the powers use to compartmentalise and limit our knowledge and understanding. They likely know already - it’s just not intended ‘for the masses’

[@almilligan7317]

@@sumanamjs very good point. The math reflects reality rather than reality reflecting math. Math is a tool that has become the thing in itself.

[@jonathanrussell1140]

I'm glad you acknowledge Meyer isn't a scientist.

[@harekrishnajairam]

@@sumanamjs "Math is the queen of all sciences."

[@skilz8098]

Try dividing by 0. We humans can't conceive of it, yet Elohim already has! And I fully understand it as not being undefined but actually well defined.

[@marcosgarcia7321]

Thanks!

[@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom]

Thank you!

[@pepekont3736]

I NEED MORE SIMILAR STUFF! This is the best arguement for God's existence i ve ever heard

[@PanhandleFrank]

Then don't miss the Hoover Institution channel's "Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution" (57 mins). Long form conversation between Meyer and Berlinski, and David Gelernter and (host) Peter Robinson. Mind. Blowing.

[@pepekont3736]

Thank you so much for the suggestion!

[@jonathanrussell1140]

Watch Jackson Wheat's 2 part "Darwin's Confidence". It points out Meyer's lies.

[@jonathanrussell1140]

​@@PanhandleFranknot really mind blowing at all. Far more interesting is Jackson Wheat bursting Meyer's bubble of tosh with "Darwin's Confidence". Very revealing.

[@PanhandleFrank]

@@jonathanrussell1140 What lies? Name his top 2 or 3.

[@davidhenning5971]

Thanks for posting. Meyer really lays out the problem of probability very well here.

[@kos-mos1127]

There is no problem of probability there is a problem with imagination. Imagination is limited what it perceives and can only remix things that have already happened to create something new. The Cosmos can create something new because reality is just what happens. That is was found out by 20th century scientists.

[@duppyconqueror420]

The mistake he makes is he picks a hypothetical DNA sequence of a particular length and says the probability of this combination is prohibitively low as if that combination had to spontaneously form. He’s leaving out all the previous steps that lead to that combination. The sequences are built on previous simpler sequences and over a series of many increments.

[@englishguy9680]

@duppyconqueror exactly

[@461weavile]

​@@duppyconqueror420 how many orders of magnitude less time will it take than the time he suggested it would take?

[@duppyconqueror420]

@@461weavile he did not make a claim of how much time it would take he only asserted that 4 billion years would not be enough. He didn’t say how much time would be enough. Based on what I’ve read it probably took about 2 billion years.

[@MrJayvj]

Had to rewind a few times to understand some concepts and numbers. But it's a great thought-provoking talk. loved it.

[@ProgressIsTheOnlyEvolution]

I never get tired of listening to Stephen Meyer, great interview and video!

[@mcmanustony]

@@ProgressIsTheOnlyEvolution which of his lies is your favourite?

[@jonathanrussell1140]

And which of his omissions do you particularly admire?

[@gordonf.woodbine7588]

Great content, which I thoroughly if not totally comprehended after I slowed down the speed of the audible presentation by 25%.

[@jonathanrussell1140]

What Meyer doesn't explain is why his god chucked a rock at his own intelligently designed creation 65 million years ago.

[@Kberk79]

@@jonathanrussell1140 he got tired of playing with dinosaurs 😆

[@sideeffect2]

​@@jonathanrussell1140​I'll never understand why atheists linger in religious spaces. Imagine the ego needed to get off on trying to tell people their faith is wrong. Yeah you really got that guy.. now on to the 50 BILLION other people in the world practicing a religion. Better double your effort.

[@jonathanrussell1140]

​@@sideeffect2 you can have as much faith as you like in supernatural things.. You can believe whatever superstitious nonsense you like. You don't get to push it into science classes and you don't get to legislate with it. I'm not here to stop you believing. I'm here to debunk bs. Meyer doesn't talk to people who know what they're talking about. He would soon be exposed if he did. This is pseudo-science, pure and simple. It's been debunked by Jackson Wheat in his 2-part video, Darwin's Confidence. I challenge you to watch it. And no-one has yet explained to me why the intelligent designer should want to throw rocks at his intelligent design. Is he a moron?

[@jonathanrussell1140]

​@@sideeffect2you can believe whatever superstitious poo you like. Whatever gives you that warm rosy glow inside. What I object to is the political agenda from the "Discovery" Institute (they couldn't discover their own navel fluff regardless of the time they spend gazing). Meyer is spouting Douglas Axe's pseudo-science improbability nonsense. Watch Jackson Wheat's 2-part debunk called "Darwin's Confidence". It shows Meyer is being incredibly economical with the truth. I'm here arguing the toss because fools like Meyer should not get to argue for the teaching of Intelligent Design in science classes since it is fundamentally antithetical to the scientific method. Neither should they be posturing for political influence. Religion is a matter for the individual and not something that should be imposed through legislation. That is the DI's agenda and it stinks.

[@c64os]

When I watch your episodes, I feel like Super Mario is teaching me about God.

[@cherokeethomas8656]

I'm dead 💀 🤣

[@jezreelbatistapalmero699]

@@c64os okey.... 😂🤣

[@prizerunner4828]

Brandon, I want to thank you for everything you do. You are really an inspiration to me. I’m also a part of your wisdom society page which is awesome. You give me courage to one day share my testimonies.

[@kos-mos1127]

You got scammed.

[@prizerunner4828]

@@kos-mos1127 what?

[@stanleysitarzewski9296]

Great Job, Brandon. bless you Sir. In Jesus Name.

[@nuggetoftruth-ericking7489]

This was very interesting. Thank you for this discussion.

[@2gr82b4gotn]

Chuck Missler stated this 20 years ago. Although he used the Hemoglobin molecule to illustrate the absurdity of "creation by chance"

[@rizdekd3912]

Nothing in the natural world happens by chance. Chemistry is not random chance interactions but operates in regular and predictable ways. Now, if someone wants to contend that this chemical process is the handiwork by God, fine, but then that limiting God by saying he was unable to design a natural world such that life would arise naturally. Why bother fine tuning the natural world if it can't self organize into life? If God was just going to (have to) design life anyways, no fine tuning of the natural world would be needed. In fact no natural world would have been needed. God COULD create life that could exist anywhere, under any conditions.

[@stevenselleck5460]

But wahhh my atheist feelings. I'm a genius because I tell myself I am!

[@rizdekd3912]

Missler would be correct. life arising naturally wouldn't be 'creation by chance.' I know of nothing that actually happens by chance in nature. Things happen that are unpredictable, but that doesn't mean they happen by chance. Chemistry doesn't work 'by chance.' It works according to very specific ways in which matter/energy interact. Chemistry is so reliable that all life manages to work due to chemistry.

[@overlordsshadow]

@@2gr82b4gotn I miss Chuck. Creator beyond space and time

[@2gr82b4gotn]

@@rizdekd3912 Missler used Hemoglobin as one of his examples. The odds were like 10^57 of hemoglobin accidentally occurring.

[@babygoat3845]

I'm a little tight on money right now, but I will become a member of the wisdom society in the coming months! Your channel is truly making a positive impact for believers. And the book club PLUS q&a's with the author?! Amazing, gotta be a part of that. Keep up the good work brother ✊🏽🙏🏽

[@babygoat3845]

@123456stronzo helping myself is directly helping the people around me. Growing in knowledge, patience, wisdom, understanding, etc, gives my brothers a better role model. My woman; a better leader. My parents; a better son. And society; a more productive member. We must all be the example of change we want to see. That starts with self improvement.

[@jonathanrussell1140]

​@@babygoat3845don't be a liar like Meyer

[@jonathanrussell1140]

Before you piss away your money, ask Stephen Meyer why god chucked a rock at his creation 65 million years ago.

[@babygoat3845]

@@jonathanrussell1140 oh yeah, because "science" can reverse time. You know exactly what happened MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO...

[@jonathanrussell1140]

​@@babygoat3845here we go... You're not by any chance a YEC are you? Because it seems your boy Meyer here is at least buying-in to deep time, so we shouldn't really have to argue about radiometric dating. But if that *is* what is behind this rash comment of yours, you might want to Google the part radiometric dating plays in Basin Modelling for the fossil fuel industry, which helped Mobil pull viable reserves out of an oil field in the Gulf of Mexico which had previously been deemed non-viable. So yeah, we can figure things out about geology with a reasonable degree of accuracy. We can read the geologic column, we can assess the Chicxulub impact and we can say with some confidence, based on the uniform thin layer of Iridium around the planet at the K-Pg boundary, that that's probably what wiped out a whole bunch of land dwelling dinosaurs around 65 million years ago. Why? Did you see the stoners writing the bible? Google "Cannabis detected on 2,700-year-old altar in Israel" Science is so much more fun than saying "god dunnit". First you have to prove god exists before you can posit god as a candidate explanation. We're still waiting... After 4000 odd years...

[@markgrissom]

I love this content. Please don't stop.

[@sciencedaemon]

You love lies?

[@GormKjeldsen]

Does it validate your beliefs?

[@joshuamkk]

@@GormKjeldsenYes actually lol

[@digitalnomad9985]

@@sciencedaemon You respond to an argument with an assertion. Who do you think you're fooling?

[@sciencedaemon]

@@digitalnomad9985 everything the religious say is an "assertion" with no evidence to back it up. How have you been so easily fooled?

[@lainegordon5831]

This was fascinating and remarkably understandable. Thx for posting

[@bryant475]

Wow, I didn't realize Dr. Meyer went on Ben's show! With both together, this is definitely a high IQ convo :) Can't wait to watch the whole episode! Thanks for sharing, Brandon! God bless you! 🙏

[@ajzma]

No my friend. With 2 frauds, it's just a highly fraudulent conversation. Only massively gullible people like you would think these people have even the faintest idea of what they are talking about. Unfortunately though, you are in the majority.

[@rickwohlfiel7649]

Great job, thank you for sharing. This is a really good one.

[@jonathanrussell1140]

It's awful. Watch Darwin's Confidence to see this bs taken down piece by piece.

[@GXP50]

LOVE ALL THIS DETAIL & SUPPORTING A CREATOR FACTS ! AMEN ! 🙏🏾 KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK BROTHER 🙌🏾 GOD BLESS !

[@Les-i7e]

Nothing is proven.The bible is written by men

[@jonathanrussell1140]

Sadly debunked many times over during the last 20 years that he has been peddling this bs

[@viniciuscoutopires3117]

Where can I found the work showing combinatorial problem ?

[@williamwenrich3288]

There are cases in which more than 5 different mutations must happen before a change is useful. Not only must each have occurred in a single individual but each change on its own must be beneficial. Also, the parts must not only be present but be arranged in a particular way.

[@GH-ub7qz]

and 99 percent of mutation is lethal and only presents in somatic cells...not haploid reproductive cells

[@gordonmorris6359]

And, very importantly, the change can't be so significant as to render the carrier unable to mate successfully with an available mate (with or without the mutation) to produce offspring.

[@sppindrgold1981]

​@gordonmorris6359 And truthfully, if you add a mate in that process, then the possibility of that process successfully taking place gets raised exponentially. Basically, the truth is, if evolution was really a thing then the process of asexualization, which they say happened first, since we came from amoeba supposedly, is a way more reliable, effective means of reproducing, which is one of the fundamental elements supposedly, even in evolution, which is the continuation of life. So, according to their own theory that would mean that we're actually in a regressive phase of evolution if that was the case, which evolution is supposed to be a process that continues forward, which is an oxymoron

[@gordonmorris6359]

@@sppindrgold1981 I think you're characterization of evolution in terms of being directed, and the implication that it can be valued in contrast to 'devolution', or retrogression, because the primordial asexual reproductive typologies had advantages forfeited by later sexual reproductive typololgy, is presuming too much 'purposefulness' in the process, as if adaptations and mutations and selection ought to be able to preserve 'the way back' as a survival mechanism, but evolution is a one-way trip with no return ticket, man can't return to a state of nature (primitivism is still an option though), that option was lost long ago.

[@sppindrgold1981]

@@gordonmorris6359 It shouldn't be expected to have to provide a way back, but in every example of evolution, even by definition, efficiency is one of the main elements, as you're evolving, not devolving, and efficiency is one of the major elements of every evolutionary scientists that I've heard push the idea of the evolutionary process. There should be no argument therefore about what's more efficient between asexual vs two people sexually reproducing, so that's what I was describing and that's why it would be an oxymoron and pretty much literally destroys the whole idea

[@josephtattum6365]

I’ve said this before, but whether or not God used evolution to create us is way less interesting than that we have anything at all to observe rather than nothing. As far as disproving theism I find the point to be moot because we can still ask “what started the physical processes that lead to evolution in the first place?”

[@jimhughes1070]

That's a great baseline to begin with!! 💪

[@kos-mos1127]

We can still ask whether did God come from as wel. The physical process that lead to evolution was already there.

[@jimhughes1070]

@@kos-mos1127 Uhhh... Hey just explained the magnitude of the improbabilities involved... He was talking about one protein chain... Not the whole living cell... Which would have to pre-exist the first chain... But of course it couldn't. Cuz there were no proteins built... To build the first cell.. "Discovery Science" on KZbin has the best videos on the makeup of a living cell... The most recent theories of the operations within... How it lives and dies. The speed of those operations are particularly mind-boggling 🧐 "Once you see it"... Takes on a whole new meaning! 😎

[@jimhughes1070]

@@kos-mos1127 You can ask... And he will answer you... You get the same answer as everyone else... He just IS... And evidence of his existence is all around you. The public is taught that scientists have explained everything... They haven't even got the door cracked 😭 If you don't know anything, and you would like to know everything... I think the first question is... "Why is there something rather than nothing"?

[@duppyconqueror420]

@@josephtattum6365 how does god answer the question why is there something rather than nothing?

[@suechapel1443]

❤ I love love love Dr. Steven Meyer! 😊

[@jonathanrussell1140]

You love love love a liar?

[@Mike20464]

Loved the video. Of course it's weighted in the right direction for me, so thats the easy part! However seeing design described by odds and, equating those odds to something relative in my and most individual minds, is astonishing.

[@NordaVinci]

"God of the gaps" - a phrase used to mock religion is equally useful in mocking materialist science which presents "chance and accident" as the materialist "God of the gaps." "We don't understand it, thus chance and accident did it."

[@highroller-jq3ix]

Perhaps if you're kind of a dope.

[@365USA]

Well said.

[@iriemon1796]

["God of the gaps" - a phrase used to mock religion is equally useful in mocking materialist science which presents "chance and accident" as the materialist "God of the gaps." "We don't understand it, thus chance and accident did it."] The huge difference you miss, however, is the huge difference in the underlying premise between the two world views. There is undeniable observable, testable, and verifiable evidence of a natural world. So it is quite reasonable to believe that there is likely a natural explanation for things we don't yet understand. Just as once was the case for lightning, earthquakes, meteors, eclipses and rainbows -- all things that were attributed to God or gods but for which we now understand the natural basis. OTOH, there is not one iota of scientific evidence for an "intelligent designer" or for the supernatural. Trying to compare one belief that is consistent with a natural world we can scientifically prove, with another belief that is based on the existence of supernatural beings for which there is zero scientific evidence, is a false equivalency.

[@honourhimmusic]

​@iriemon1796 . But you have huge gaps in your belief. This is one of many videos and studies that proves mainstream science does not know half and much as it thinks it does. Because of its assumption God does not exist. The only thing propping up evolution, is the greed of scientist who would lose too much income for admitting the obvious intelligent design, and atheists who can't provide a better alternative. If science is to be conducted properly, you must observe and report, without discounting anything.

[@stanleysitarzewski9296]

Creater explained all in the Devine Book of Truth. Code Book = King James Bible Print year 1611. 1189 Continuing Chapters DEVINE CODE ***

[@user-vu7yt8pm4p]

There are 64 possible DNA codons, and all but 3 code for an amino acid. Those 3 are “stop codons” that code for the termination of the protein sequence. A point mutation in DNA does not code for gibberish; it will code for a different amino acid (or maybe the same amino acid), unless it codes for one of the stop codons, which probably would be destructive to the protein, but not necessarily. A different amino acid is not necessarily worse for a protein, but possibly improves it, depending on the environment it finds itself in.

[@patriciataylor8738]

I have a young relative with a point mutation. One point on one gene is "flipped" to a wrong letter. As a result, he's legally blind, nonverbal, and a paraplegic with a prognosis of a significantly shortened life span. Yea, I would say point mutations can be damaging. Theory is fun and all that, but when it comes to real life medical function, "genetic mutation" is never an advancement. It ranges from neutral (eye color) to catastrophic.

[@user-vu7yt8pm4p]

@@patriciataylor8738 I'm sorry to hear of your relative's condition. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not can depend on the environment. Sickle cell trait is a single point mutation in the hemoglobin gene. In homozygous individuals it causes sickle cell disease, which can be devastating. In heterozygous individuals, also known as carriers because they have one good gene and one mutated gene, they are resistant to malaria. There is some evidence that carriers of the cystic fibrosis gene have resistance to cholera. These are called balanced polymorphisms, and they are strong evidence of evolution.

[@Thecelestial1]

Where has it been seen where a point mutation where an amino acid is changed confers an improved protein? Sickle cell anemia is the example always cited, but I would argue niche malaria survivability because your blood doesn't circulate properly isn't exactly an improvement.

[@user-vu7yt8pm4p]

@@Thecelestial1 Biotech firms use the software DDmut to actually predict how single point mutations change the stability of a protein molecule when it folds.

[@frontiervirtcharter]

@@Thecelestial1 In areas with endemic malaria (which also happen to the the areas where the sickle cell mutation is common), having one sickle gene gives an advantage over having two or none. Sickle cell disease only occurs for those who have two copies of the gene (one from each parent) . Two parents who each have one copy have 25% chance to produce a child with zero copies, 25% chance to produce a child with two copies, and 50% chance to produce a child with one copy.

[@gregariousguru]

It doesn't work because you can't skip the pages. In order for natural selection to become an evolutionary process, there not only has to be information of replication, but there already has to be organisms already equipped with design to surviving their environmental conditions. This a common evolution of the gaps argument.

[@kos-mos1127]

It works because evolution has aleady happened.

[@duppyconqueror420]

@@gregariousguru that’s not true you can have chemical evolution before any organisms. Also RNA is self replicating, entails complex encoded information and metabolism and it has been observed spontaneously forming on clay from amino acids in laboratory settings that mimicked plausible primordial earth-like conditions

[@gregariousguru]

@@duppyconqueror420 that right, RNA already has the information to replicate. How convenient. Did you skip over my comment that said, "There already needs to be replication instruction?" Whether there are molecules or traits that are better suited to their environment, there are significant differences between them, but you still need specified, directed information and the capacity to survive its environment. Again you're skipping the pages.

[@duppyconqueror420]

@@gregariousguru right but if RNA and self replication can emerge spontaneously from amino acids which do not entail replication, that suggests that replication information can be emergent. How do you eliminate that possibility?

[@gregariousguru]

@@kos-mos1127 that is textbook for evolution of the gaps. Perfectly said.

[@dr.w.w.daniels7203]

Well done Ben, great questions and responses . Thank you for sharing.

[@jonathanrussell1140]

Vapid, inconsequential nonsense. Shapiro chooses not to push back against Meyer's misrepresentations.

[@briancasey4917]

Aside from mathematical improbability. The question still is how is any action initiated without a preexisting cause?Or give it enough time and we will find out we exist.

[@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom]

True

[@kos-mos1127]

Things just happen due to randomness and symmetry breaking.

[@briancasey4917]

@@kos-mos1127 How?

[@waynerackley]

@@kos-mos1127 Did you even watch the video?

[@briancasey4917]

@@waynerackley yup

[@ryanstory1642]

Combinatorics is a very frequentist approach assuming that there are no physical principles that make some arrangements more likely than others. When we look outside DNA to the complexity of hydrocarbons, non organic chemistry, even sub atomic arrangements - it is not a case of "all possible combinations are attempted with equal probability!". There are various forces and other phenomena that govern more likely arrangements and greatly reduce the "combination space". The mistake here is our Information Theorist has made an assumption of independence in chemical arrangements. This independence is false.

[@nathanieldillon3612]

Certainly it is true that rare things happen. If you throw a dart at a dartboard with infinite granularity, the probability you would have hit whatever point you actually hit is zero. A frequentist will tell you that it will never happen again (or the probability of it happening again is zero). The Information Theorist's argument seems to be: If natural selection is driven by uniformly random mutations in the nucleotide bases in DNA structures, then the probability of producing a beneficial mutation is absurdly small, and, given the age of the universe, it is very improbable that life evolved from the assumed mechanism (que math to demonstrate). He then rejects the premise that natural selection is driven by uniformly random mutations in the nucleotide bases of DNA structures and offers another premise (that of intelligent design). For clarity, do you agree with his conclusion (that uniformly random mutations cannot be the cause of natural selection) but offer a different premise? Could you flesh out the "independence in chemical arrangements is false" idea? You are arguing that there is a separate mechanism that increases the odds of beneficial mutation? What is that mechanism?

[@carlosimotti3933]

"Physical principles making some arrangements more likely than others" is a way to define an organic intelligence/will acting on an object. Which is exactly the point the scientist is making by the way

[@ricks200192117]

I just had an information exchange with a scientist who needed something from me and vise versa, none of which I may discuss here. That notwithstanding, there are lots of surprises LOL. GOD? I don't know, I think there's something going on. There is so much we have virtually no understanding of that we thought we were conversant with 20 years ago.

[@evanf1443]

So you’re arguing that there’s something to make favorable mutations in DNA more likely than random chance?

[@liaminblue9984]

this this this THIS! combinatorics is NOT appropriate here and this is a prime example of the straw-man fallacy! no one claimed evolution to be random, so why model it as such. i just finished writing more or less the same comment because no one seemed to notice that the whole premise of this video holds no logical validity at all, it is shocking how many people will overlook that

[@miyojewoltsnasonth2159]

*Question for Christians:* I'm an atheist. I didn't arrive as an atheist because I was "rebelling" against God or "rejecting" God. I don't believe in God for the same reason Christians don't believe in Krishna. You are not rebelling against or rejecting Krishna, you just think Krishna is made up. I feel the same about the Christian God, I just think He is made up. Isn't your own disbelief in Krishna the same as my disbelief in God? I feel like I'm more indifferent about God rather than actively rebelling against or rejecting God

[@JS-vl5gd]

That's a great point. Whenever they want to prove the existence of God, they talk in general terms, and they feel that them and all religious people are wise, but in reality the acceptance of a god of one religion is the rejection of the other religions. Even between the people who belief in Jesus, there are multiple sects than don't agree on much. I know evangelicals now believe that Trump is a prophet, which is non-sensical.

[@stanleysitarzewski9296]

correct- what one desires-one -follows. Sir. Young Creation, first lie, now. All have been corrupted = all have fallen, out of original-order. But- at just the right time, God sent - Jesus-Conceived of the Power of God throught the Holy Ghost. Truth. Why- ? no man could break the sin-curse. Continuing Chapter 738 Year 698 B.C. Verse 15-16 + 20-21 * ' Yea, truth faileth ; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey : and the Lord saw it, and it displeased him that their was no judgement. - + And he saw that their was no man, and wondered that their was no intercessor : therefore his arm brought salvation unto him ; and his righteousness, it substained him. - + + *** " And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and say unto them that turn from transgression, in Jacob, - - saith the Lord. - + - As for me this is my covenant with them, - -- saith the Lord - - My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of thy mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, - - saith the Lord, - - from henceforth and for ever. " *** ' * Judeo-Christian faith of : Spiritual nature re-birth of spirit. a free-will offering back to Almighty- Decreeing : I Belong-To-You, alone- Truth. Why ? Mind is divided by sin. all die. all that sin-must die. Truth. all fall short of the Glory of Creater. Continuing Chapter 3 Year 4004 B.C. Testing of the commands of the Lord-God all things were new. Brand-New ! do not ! Verse 9-10-11 * ' And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, *** " Where art thou ? " *** - + And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden : and I was afraid, because I was naked ; and I hid myself. - + And he said, *** " Who told tee that thou wast naked ? Hast thou eated of the tree whereof I commanded thee, that thou shouldest not eat ? " *** Truth. First, time Commanded : No ! Why ? A Testing of - flesh and absolutes. Truth. Note- Continuing Chapter 3 Verse 1-4-5 * ' Now the serpent was more subtile than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made : and he said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die : + For God doth know, that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened ; and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. ' * First lie's - Layered lie = slow death and no god. Flesh is corrupt All Flesh. Spirit + Soul given to men, But- flesh bound. Truth. If one adds more spiritual contact = more curses. not of the Lord. Equalls your statement of being indifferent to the Lord. Truth. New-age, as well as general - rebellion + pride of life (gulp), accounts for much of : this Spiritual-Warfare going on - right now, current and engrained. Temptation : and lies- Cursed is the flesh and the earth. Continuing Chapter 3 Year 4004 B.C. Verse 1-24 Overview of freedpm thru : testing, and decipline. Almighty Lord God Creater = Never tempts. but- flesh and this deminisional time-current is of the fallen-sin-nature of corruption. Most everything man understands is fallen understanding, only thr Words of the Lord- God remain forever. 1189 Chapters of truth. Man is a freewill agent. Requires no-added or taken away materials. 100% Complete. Yet, dies. Why ? Continuing Chapter 4 Year 4004 B.C. Verse 6-7 * ' And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth ? and why is thy countenance fallen ? - + If thou doest well, shalt thy not be accepted ? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door : and unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. " *** ' * Truth. Man is in a proven 10 dimensional relm. King James Print Version Copy Year 1611 Original Language and Tongue. Studied, and reveals this fact. Several hundred years past. Science has spent Billions of wealth value in this area, and has proved this as well. Reason Cern is doing what it is doing. Holy-Bible Judeo-Christian faith is 1189 continuing Chapters of Almighties History of our time here, as flesh and His Victory, over our sin- fallen-nature. Most love the : bad-boy, rebel it-draws us. Entices, the flesh. including pride of - - - - Truth. Continuing Chapter 957 Year 33 Verse 18-19-20 RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD + JESUS * ' And Jesus came, and spake unto them, saying, *** " All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. - + Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; - + Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you always even to the end of the world. " *** ' * Truth. Judeo-Christians faith of future life of : eternity with others that enjoy life. Cross of : Self-Denial of Pride, of abuse of anyone. Truth. Only by re-born of Spirit thru the water baptism spoken of by Christ. One can understand, obey, even have a chance of any - peace and hope. But- life to come. the second-eternal one. is the vision of the Spirit. Truth- 90% Do not choose this road. eternal judgement for original-sin choice awaits all who do-not call on the name of the the Lord-Jesus. CRY-OUT !!! REVEAL YOU-SELF TO ME JESUS HE WILL CHRIST IS THE RIGHTEOUS RIGHT HAND OF THE LIVING FATHER. Tribe of Judah, Almighty revealed this of : them. 42 Generations from Issac to Jesus Christ. Salvation is : First the Jews, then to the Gentiles. Truth. Earth is approximatly one week aged, according to the Lord's time. One day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day. Truth. Have a great day, seek out truth first thru Jesus. All else will be given unto you. even Science.

[@miyojewoltsnasonth2159]

@@stanleysitarzewski9296 When you write "Earth is approximatly one week aged, according to the Lord's time," how do you determine it to be "one week" rather than one month? I'll be honest, I read through your reply 3 times, and I really don't understand most of it. Could you please rewrite your reply in a way I can understand it?

[@miyojewoltsnasonth2159]

@@stanleysitarzewski9296 I sought out out "truth through Jesus" for many, many, years. I came up empty. That's why I became an atheist. What did I do wrong? *Reply to:* _"... seek out truth first thru Jesus. All else will be given unto you. even Science."

[@miyojewoltsnasonth2159]

@@stanleysitarzewski9296 Why do you believe the KJV is better than the original Hebrew and Koine Greek? *Reply to:* _"King James Print Version Copy Year 1611 Original Language and Tongue."_

[@ChopLancer]

When writing code, everything compiles down to binary which is similar to the sequences talked about. Purple used to use it for some basic functions by knowing how a particular processor controls inputs and outputs, designed by someone. Then people created assembly language still processor independent, eventually leading to languages like C, which is processor independent but still needs to compile for the processor used. All to say, it was logically designed and still quite imperfect (look up floating math).

[@eafadeev]

Sugars and RNA bases form spontaneously under certain conditions, then RNA under certain conditions polymerize, then some RNA oligomers randomly acquire catalytic properties, including self-replication. Protein synthesis comes later and the fatty acid membranes. DNA comes much later most likely via a virus. It is correct that the whole thing will not self-assemble spontaneously, but system by system, gradually it is possible.

[@rizdekd3912]

This has been proven in lab experiments where a medium/solution of certain natural chemicals end up self organizing into long chained molecules that replicate and mutate. The mutations end up replicating to produce new chemical forms. That tells me that life originating from natural chemistry is possible. In fact I'd go one further...I'd say chemistry itself is a form of life and what we typically call life in the world around us is just on off shoot of this basic living process. So life doesn't 'come from' anywhere. The natural world is alive in a sense since it is awash with chemistry.

[@netzarim1277]

Im not a scientist but reading what you wrote and applying the topic discussed then I should go like this: sugars and RNA bases form spontaneously under “certain conditions”…ok stop right there!! How was the sugar and RNA produced? From what? What are the “certain conditions”? How can it be assured that those “certain conditions did happen at a time”…if those conditions change will the sugars and RNA be destroyed? What’s the likelihood for those first “certain conditions happens again? Where or in what those sugars and RNA be hosted? “Then RNA under certain conditions polymerize” okay now that we found 1 instance in 10^77 power we got RNA. Now what are those “new” conditions required for polymerization to occur? Did the planet exist at that time? Did the sun exist at that time? What are the conditions? “Then some RNA oligomers randomly acquire catalytic properties, including self-replication” ok now we are at a (10^77) * (10^77) whatever that number is….do all RNA oligomers be able to acquire catalytic properties? What are the conditions for such? “Protein synthesis comes later” This one is a bit of a stretch because there are a lot of things assumed…what elements or compounds are there available to create synthesis!!how far into the later? Millions of years? Will the conditions (weather [heat, cold, humidity, etc]) hold still for that long? Should we now do (10^77)^3? I mean the odds of what you stated are so vast that you need a WHOLE LOT of faith on this idea. And we still not taken into consideration each living species ever existed on this planet and whatever natural process happened before it existed…let’s now take it to another level…now each species has a female and male for reproduction with each species having a vastly different biological construct for mating. I’m sorry but this rationale is INSANE. Let’s kick this to (10^77) ^ (10^77). If you wanna believe that can happen then good luck….I keep my Jehovah and his salvation. Good luck to you.

[@eafadeev]

​@@netzarim1277 "certain conditions" for the formation of RNA would be - presence of formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide, other rather simple molecules, presence of UV radiation, certain temperatures etc.; I won't be able to describe in detail now. But something along the lines was *demonstrated* in the lab to produce RNA bases. Interestingly - the RNA units that are present now are the most stable to the UV light. This is not a coincidence, but the UV was the selecting factor. Look up the "RNA world" theory. I don't think it's worthwhile to write long comments, curious people will find more information. The key is that the final result (aka Boeing 747) is not produced spontaneously from the basic elements, but random tweaks of the previous system over the millions of years might produce something like that.

[@innertuber4049]

Gradualism was the entire inspiration behind Darwin's hypothesis. As he traveled around and learned more about geology, he became convinced that, with some of the leading minds of the day, the geological layers had to have been deposited over thousands of years. When he saw the finches, this gave him an idea that maybe the same thing can happen in nature. He then turned to artificial selection, where small changes over time lead to entirely new traits, and posited that perhaps survivability could have a similar function to a human in determining which traits get selected for and which ones don't.

[@innertuber4049]

​@@netzarim1277 You are right that odds of it all getting started are kinda low. That's probably one of the reasons we haven't found extraterrestrial life yet. To answer your questions, sugars can form when carbon molecules arranged in the simple structure of formaldehyde are exposed to reactive metals. We have been able to find traces of sugars in meteorites, which supports the idea this is where they came from. Those sugars can then bind to nitrogenous compounds (many think melamine and barbaturic acid are good candidates because they are simple ring structures that can be synthesized from nitrogenous acids that form spontaneously) to form nucleotides. When exposed to phosphate, another very common molecule, these nucleotides spontaneously assemble into RNA. All things considered, the formation of RNA is not a particularly big miracle. Their ability to self-replicate is also pretty easy to see; if they aren't sticking to themselves, then there is open space for new nucleotides to bind. We've observed this in action on basalt plates. I think the trickiest thing to explain is the ability of RNA to organize the construction of proteins out of amino acids. What we do know is that RNA can bind amino acids to form what we call tRNA. The way life works right now, the tRNA will get lined up by an RNA-protein complex that we call the ribosome, with each one coming in, dropping off an amino acid to the chain, and leaving. It is possible early ribosomes only contained the RNA part, which can randomly arise like any other RNA sequence. The proteins back then were probably sloppy, but they were still enough to be about to create functionality. Put these things in a fat cell (which form spontaneously) and you've got all the ingredients for life. From there you have things self-replicating, and the ones who produce the most useful proteins end up surviving environmental changes better. Eventually you get one population that is fully self-sufficient, and this is the one that would end up picking up DNA. After DNA, your code can be protected (RNA is somewhat unstable), and you can really start playing around with new and exciting proteins. Most of the new code generated ends up being useless, but the parts that do work quickly outcompete the other cells around it. We see this happen all the time in bacteria. As for the 10^77, that is not the chances of these molecules forming. That is the ratio of useless to useful code that can be formed from our base pairs. Thus, you can only apply it to steps having to do with translation (protein building). The big problem with that number is that it hides the fact that you start off with a very simple genetic code that contains small and useful proteins, and over time those small proteins get built up by mutation to continue to be useful and to emerge with more uses. We see a lot of motifs in proteins, repeated over and over. These came from the fact that many mutations, while useless, are also harmless. Eventually, though, you can get enough of those harmless mutations piled up that functionality emerges. Again, we can see this in rapid-evolution organisms like bacteria.

[@jjw9641]

Well, as Christopher Hitchens would have said (actually, did say in more or less but not precisely these words), "If you disprove evolution..." (not that this video does), "And you prove a God at the origin of creation, you still have all your work ahead of you to prove that he cares what you say, what you do, that he demands worship and that eternal life exists beyond this realm of consciousness."

[@Elhardt]

An estimated 13 million people have had after death experiences. So we already know much of that. People go through a life review. Some people go directly to hell. Some people communicate telepathically with God. The problem with atheists is that they are too lazy and uninterested to learn anything.

[@gooner_duke2756]

Or you can have faith or continue to look for prove. That's down to each inviduals choice.

[@AngusF-r8b]

We have the Bible, I recommend reading it, maybe it will open your mind to the truth, God Bless!

[@bobwilkinson2008]

@@AngusF-r8b Read the bible, become an atheist

[@CatholicTVC]

The idea of an apathetic, non-personal God is logically absurd. Given that such a God doesn't need anything, He creates out of choice. Why would He choose to create if He's not going to care about it?

[@douglasstrother6584]

That the Laws of Physics can be represented mathematically is compelling metaphysical question. Maxwell's Equations for Electromagnetism are my favorites. They distill countless experimental results relating charges, currrents and the electromagnetic field (don't forget the Lorentz Force) in a very compact way represented by four first-order, coupled differential equations. Individually, one can develop an understanding of each; taken together, they unified electricity, magnetism & optics into one fundamental theory with a multitude implications.

[@MichaelVandeventer-c3q]

@@douglasstrother6584 math was made to explain and product natural processes. Natural processes did not develop to match math

[@digitalnomad9985]

@@MichaelVandeventer-c3q That is not historically true. At least not past Euclidian geometry. New applications are always being discovered for what was developed as abstract math. Whenever scientists or engineers need a new mathematical tool, some theoretical mathematician has already made it. This is a well established pattern and a recognized problem, and has been written on extensively. You just made a dogmatic statement about a field you don't know about. I deduce that you're an atheist.

[@MichaelVandeventer-c3q]

@@digitalnomad9985 where did you get all that garbage from know that is not how the history of math has worked at all. Why don't you start out by learning how calculus was invented learn before you speak

[@MichaelVandeventer-c3q]

@@digitalnomad9985 you live in the age of information you don't have to speak clearly false garbage you can learn bother to learn. Look up how calculus was invented. I swear where do you get this garbage from

[@TheFredmac]

So natural processes did not exist before the development of Arabic numerical representation?

[@doptagd]

Hey, Chat GPT, what are the arguments against Stephen Meyer's mathematical contention that there is not enough time for beneficial mutations to occur randomly and be preserved during the evolutionary process? (Answer too long to post.)

[@canadiankewldude]

*_2Ti _**_3:16_**_ All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:_* *_- KJB_*

[@ThomasClementsRVA]

Amen to that 🙏🙏🙏

[@kos-mos1127]

All scripture was made up by man.

[@nelsondavila9072]

​@@kos-mos1127 your documents, food, social security, history, laws of science were all made by man.

[@nelsondavila9072]

​@@kos-mos1127atheism provides more room for skepticism and criticism than any religion out there.

[@VaughanMcCue]

It is beautiful that the fastest-growing religion agrees with you and the Holy Quran.

[@jondeere5638]

One of the best indications for the existence of a creator is the achievements of those who were devout Christians; Tycho Brahe, Kepler and Newton , Faraday and Maxwell, and Nikola Tesla,. The founders of the Constitution all believed in God and affirmed this in the preamble which states; "endowed by their Creator".

[@joecoolioness6399]

Wow, that is a stretch. The best indication that a creator exists for your creator is that the creator created all this! And on and on. If everything needs a creator then so does god.

[@SacredScribble777]

⁠@@joecoolioness6399You misunderstand who God is, then. In our universe everything has a beginning and an end. A creation and destruction of you will. God is not bound to the universe as we are. He is eternal, without end or beginning, and it’s very hard for us to comprehend that. It’s like asking a one-dimensional person to comprehend three-dimensional people.

[@asherdevin]

@@SacredScribble777 Yet God shares our genders and speaks our languages, but has no way to explain Himself to anyone who asks. He can slaughter millions and do anything at any time, but speaking is too difficult. Honestly I'd probably have way more respect if it was the exact opposite. Like saying "Hey God?" and He appears, but He can't do anything else to interact with this world now that it's set in motion. No lighting, no miracles, just open conversation. He's obviously real and you can obviously have a direct conversation with Him where He responds, but you know He isn't going to do any more than that. He's not going to summon a boat or tell people what island you're stranded on, but He'll be there to hang out while you figure out how to save yourself.

[@ericgray1312]

​@@joecoolioness6399God said he has no beginning nor an ending. Does that mean believers can comprehend it? We may not comprehend eternality, but we're still here. But, neither can you explain how everything came from nothing, and from what nothing then came that nothing.

[@iriemon1796]

Many of the founders where not Christian but Deists. Thomas Jefferson famously excised all references to miracles and the resurrection from his Bible.

[@codaniel]

Now imagine a trillion different computers searching for 3.5 billion years. Its not just one event or computer/set of unique chemistry.

[@haroldsdodge]

Very good point. And they're not searching for a single needle either. They're searching for a vast number of needles. There are a truly mind-boggling variety of organisms that have been able to do the only thing that the theory of evolution requires them to be able to do, which is survive long enough to pass their genes to the next generation. If you include microorganisms then we're talking billions if not trillions of species. That's a lot of needles.

[@Topher3088]

You’d probably need something closer to a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion……. ……… ……… etc…… computers to get anywhere near close to 10 to the 77th power. The numbers are so insanely unlikely that if we show the work we would need almost an indefinite amount of time and attempts to create a single functioning protein. An entirely new function of evolutionary adaptation may require several dozens of new functional proteins to mutate simultaneously to be remotely advantageous. I’m trying to be very generous with your analogy but I wouldn’t put too much faith in that

[@01MTodd]

@@Topher3088 But what if the first proteins were peptides of only three different types of amino acids (a negatively charged one, a positively charged one, and a neutral one) strung together in chains perhaps as short as 10 residues in length? That's only about 60,000 combinations. And what if all you needed for function were two consecutive negatively charged residues? Then the vast majority of these primitive proteins would be functional. My assumptions about the probabilities present on earth 4.5 billion years ago are far easier to justify than the ones Meyer makes. Try me if you doubt me. Bottom line: function in primitive proteins can arise from chance extremely easily.

[@Elhardt]

As a computer programmer I've calculated whether a computer running for 14 billion years and performing 1 billion random bit flips per second, within just 8 words of memory, could write the code to calculate ohm's law by chance. And the answer is, not even close. The fact that computer code can't be generated using the Darwinian mechanism would indicate that neither can anything else.

[@Topher3088]

@@01MTodd that’s a good what if hypothetical or thought experiment. I’ll admit I’m not too familiar with chemical evolution but I doubt chemicals spontaneously become more and more complex and ordered and structured against entropy in any significant quantities to self replicate in order for natural selection to even begin. Despite their promises chemists have been doing closed system experiments for decades and haven’t been able to observe or demonstrate a single experiment resembling DNA or spontaneous information generation. I’m convinced chemical evolution is pseudoscience. Even if we are able to miraculously synthesize self replication in a lab to any degree than can distribute information I’d be like great an intelligent mind was required to put it all together over the corse of decades of research and careful implementation.

[@markbody222]

Very interesting. Aside from the origin of physical things, where did consciousness originate from and why?

[@kentmulter]

Have these people never heard of epigenetics? DNA activity is not completely random; it can be influenced by environmental factors, which push a species toward advancement without waiting for random mutations. Darwin didn't know about that, but now we do.

[@thefuturist8864]

You’ve hit upon a common problem with theist attempts to refute evolution (or use it to supposedly prove existence of a divine being): they don’t know that it has advanced quite radically since Darwin, and that Darwin essentially proposed a hypothesis that was confirmed by modern genetics.

[@peopleofearth6250]

They're idiots. Just enjoy their stupidity.

[@houstandy1009]

I’m sure they have heard of epigenetics , it just doesn’t have anything to do with what they are talking about.

[@sciencedaemon]

That in no way invalidates the theory of evolution.

[@houstandy1009]

@@sciencedaemon was this comment aimed at me, it looks like it’s a response to what I have said but it doesn’t seem to be applicable to what I said. Replied to the wrong comment by mistake maybe?

[@JiraiyaSama86]

I remember how LONG combinatorials can be. I'm certainly grateful that I learned it. It has certainly helped me realize that materialism is so incredibly unlikely, that it is incredibly unlikely that we don't come from a mind.

[@kos-mos1127]

Materialism is very likely. Physical mechanism are need in order to make a theory useful. Mind only works if someone wants to describe the initial sate and predict the final sate. That not all that useful because it cannot be applied to engineering. There is no need to now the physical mechanism if they only thing that a person cares about is the S Matrix.

[@JiraiyaSama86]

@@kos-mos1127 Disagree. Order can not come from non order. That is very, very, very unlikely. So unlikely that it might as well be impossible. The more specific the order and structure of something is, the more likely there is a mind behind it. You're not going to tell me that the weather and forces of nature created Mount Rushmore or the buildings we have today. You're not going to put your clothes in a dryer and expect that after 40 minutes of drying, it's going to appear properly folded. We can recognize that the more ordered something is, the more likely that it is a mind behind it. The physical mechanism operates on laws that exist. Laws come from lawgivers. Lawgivers have minds in our experience. Laws are used to establish some form of order. A non-mind is not capable of establishing order. Because it has no intention.

[@duppyconqueror420]

@@JiraiyaSama86 order can emerge from natural it is very well understood. When 2 magnets stick together do you think there’s an invisible conscious person pushing them together? Because that is what your statement implies

[@DaniAlbaracin]

​​@@duppyconqueror420 How the life needed mouth and not died without it? How could micro living beings reproduce without complexity? Compare the living beings as machines by the complexity. God that created the first animals.

[@JiraiyaSama86]

@@duppyconqueror420 What you described is the result of something following a law. Where do laws come from? Second. What you described is a very low-level demonstration of the presence of a law. When you get to the higher levels, you recognize that the natural world can not make the more highly specific systems and structures in place. Then, when you look at the complexity of DNA and how it behaves much like a program or code, which we have seen time and again to come from a mind, are you really going to argue that it is more likely to come from a non mind? All the functions and programming just happened because some random chemicals come together? Not to mention, why don't we make a whole bunch of proteins let them sit together in some lake. Are we going to see life eventually spring from that?

[@showme1493]

If you are going to have to discussion that refutes mathematic and/or biologic findings, I would think it useful to have a mathematician and/or a biologist present. Two partipants coming at this to relieve theological discomforts doesnt really seem to be the most useful angle of attack.

[@Truthin15]

@@showme1493 that seems almost softly ad hominem. Does it matter specifically what a person’s degree says or rather the strengths of the arguments they present? I mean there are incredibly brilliant self-educated people that have no degree at all.

[@showme1493]

@@Truthin15 not really...it is the same as if we were going to discuss that state of your car, we might want to include a mechanic or if we were going to discuss medecine, i think most of us would require one or more doctors to put in their two cents. this has nothing to do with ad hominem...rather in every other area of our life, when we want an opinion, we go to people who have spent their lives studying it...and not just reading about it...but acutally practicing it.

[@RyanDasso]

First, this isn’t a theological discussion whatsoever. The conclusion that an intelligence is the most likely source of the origin of DNA is not a theological claim. Second, the meta of this discussion is literally Stephen Meyer’s field of greatest expertise… he is a PhD in Philosophy of Science and has degrees in Physics and Earth Science. The math involved is not so complex that it requires a Mathematician, and the heavy lifting math is clearly cited to the mathematicians who did the heavy lifting. Philosophy of Science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. Meyer’s goal is to critique the use of Evolution (or natural selection) as a valid support for the existence of biology and the variety of living organisms.

[@Just_Space_Dave]

His PHD dissertation was in origin of life biology.

[@RWZiggy]

Video's premise would be destroyed by actual mathematician or scientist. Math and physics are man-made, the universe doesn't work by either one. Our "laws of physics" have exceptions and situations where they don't work. As for math, there are many many systems of math, not one.

[@daardaar]

Groovy discussion !!!! Well spoken and also it is amazing how intuitively we can know there is a God but how our intellect and pride can make us rebel against it . Interestingly science based atheism is another faith . Every scientific discovery after experiments has its roots in a hunch or faith . Peace out y’all ❤️❤️❤️❤️😊

[@pokie6087]

The problem for atheists with Dr Meyer is that he's so likeable. You can't help but want to listen.

[@gdutfulkbhh7537]

Reality doesn't need to be charismatic. Only faith requires a salesman.

[@sciencerules2825]

He has the second most punchable face in all of creationism, behind Matt Powell.

[@sciencedaemon]

As an atheist I immediately tune out his nonsense because he obviously is a fraud. As a scientist also I know he is completely ignorant.

[@pokie6087]

@@gdutfulkbhh7537 Yeah like Neil De Grass Tyson and Brian Cox

[@pokie6087]

@@sciencedaemon But yet here you are 🤣

[@haroldsdodge]

I have a question for the creationists on this thread. How do they explain antibiotic resistance? For those who accept the theory of evolution (which is basically every serious biologist, along with pretty much everyone who has even a basic grasp this subject) the answer is obvious. Bacteria evolve so that the ones that can resist antibiotics are more likely to survive. Because bacteria are much more numerous than we are and have a far shorter life cycle, their evolution is much faster - fast enough that over the course of a human life you can actually observe their evolution in real time. It's really very simple. But how do creationists explain it? Did God "create" bacteria that are more dangerous? If so, why did he do that?

[@ben-str]

Randomness creates the bible. Is this a possibility? Or randomness create the Constitution of the United States. Is this possible to be done randomly?

[@haroldsdodge]

@@ben-str Um ... is that an answer to my question? If so it's a very strange one. My question again was: how do creationists explain antibiotic resistance? As to your question, no, randomness would not be remotely likely to create the Bible or the US Constitution. But those documents are a terrible analogy for evolution, for reasons that I and others have explained elsewhere.

[@ben-str]

'antibiotic resistance' - is when bacteria evolve to evade the effects of antibiotics, making them ineffective and infections difficult or impossible to treat. " - - that's not even deep. You need to go down the rabbit hole. Like how did the bacteria get there in the first place. We're talking creation. Not a simple subject like anti-biotic resistance. How did anti-biotic resistance appear? What deviated, interrupted them from their natural state?

[@haroldsdodge]

@@ben-str OK cowboy, back up there a bit. Let's take it one step at a time. We can get on to "how bacteria got there in the first place" later. Let's just stick to my specific question for now. I want to check I've understood you correctly. You've just said that bacteria "evolve" to become resistant to antibiotics. So you accept that evolution is a thing, right?

[@ben-str]

@@haroldsdodge What is the simple definition of antibiotics? A drug used to treat infections caused by bacteria and other microorganisms. What's so special about this? inject something to kill bad bacteria. It's like a band-aid to stop the bleeding. Who or what created the bacteria in the first place?

[@markgrissom]

You have to be careful here. Uniform and repeated experience when it comes to the information/combinatorial problem with Macro-evolution and OOL, along with the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, can be used to argue against the Resurrection.

[@MightyPotato22]

Can you explain this further, I'm interested

[@jimhughes1070]

"Be careful for nothing"... God put the first man together... With clay 😎... Resurrecting a pre-existing dead body is "child play" by comparison... I'm at the resurrected Lord 40 years ago... I still have great difficulty not laughing in people's faces when they try to tell me I didn't... Talk to him everyday... And he talks back! 😎

[@markgrissom]

@@MightyPotato22 It took some time for me to put it together, but they are really simple concepts that Meyer explains in his videos and books very well. James Tour, an unapologetic Jesus loving, Bible thumping former Jew (I say this the upmost respect for his science and faith) also gives eye opening depth to the combinatorial problem in organic chemistry that leads to the inescapable probabilistic impossibility of functional arrangements in RNA, DNA, proteins, carbs, and lipids by unguided processes. The Second Law of Thermodynamics basically says all things tend toward degradation with unguided processes. It takes information and incredible skill that can only come from a mind to establish/re-establish ordered arrangements for life as we know it. I take this to mean inanimate-to-animate when you speak of origin of life, macro-evolution (new living function out of inanimate material with instructions and unfathomably precise handling on how to do it), and the Resurrection ("recently made inanimate-to-animate with instructions and precise handling on how to reanimate). A God that created the universe and all things in it could certainly have brought our Lord and Savior back to life in this one instance, but in our "uniform and repeated experience" based in observation, experimentation, and probability, along with understanding the Second Law, this just does not happen. We know enough to revive/restart some of life's functions minutes away from cessation, but the historical evidence points to his almost certain death that stopped all life's processes all the way down the molecular level for several days.

[@jonathan711]

@@MightyPotato22 guess he cannot

[@BobOps-o9c]

​@@jimhughes1070...and a dead body is closer to a living organism than inert material is.

[@ljuboizsiska5448]

Completely unrelated question; does anyone know the name of the armchairs they are sitting on? They look like a variation of the Eames Lounge Chair.

[@Lambdamale.]

Theres a time where science stops and phiosophy begins.

[@luisantos1996]

@@Lambdamale. Elaborate

[@Gorpmeat]

@@luisantos1996 A simple illustration, take the statement: “Truth can only be found scientifically”. Is the statement true? It logically cannot be! The truth claim itself cannot be proven scientifically, it is a self refuting statement. There are many more forms of knowledge than scientific knowledge and many truths that cannot be learned through science.

[@elvancor]

And it absolutely shouldn't be when talking about the origin of biodiversity.

[@derekroberts1693]

@@luisantos1996 The importance of the scientific method is objectivity. The scientific method doesn't guarantee objectivity but it does diminish subjectivity. The scientific method diminishes subjectivity through quantifiable, reproducible experiments and ultimately peer review (the reproducing of the quantifiable experiment). If anyone mixes a known quantity of baking soda with a known quantity of lemon juice the reaction should produce a predictable and measurable result. And it is because everyone can measure the ingredients and then measure the result which is how the scientific method reduces subjectivity. If two people do the same experiment and get the same results it is less likely that their results are being interpreted subjectively. If 100 people do the same experiment and get the same results it is even less likely that the results are being understood subjectively. This makes the results more reliable as objective truth rather than subjective experience or perspective (misunderstanding of what is actually happening in the experiment). But this also means that anything that can't be quantified also can't truly be tested or proven using the scientific method. This is why the psychology and sociology and other social sciences are called "soft sciences" but the physical sciences like geology, physics and biology are called "hard sciences". The term "soft science" is kind of a polite way of saying "pseudoscience"; emotions and behavior can't be measured and the experiments are not reproducible.

[@kenlee9045]

​@@derekroberts1693nor, if you give it some thought, are you reproducible. Does that make you a pseudo human?

[@sidneyristock8754]

I am an Atheist and an Engineer. The Discussion is about the likelihood of DNA being designed vs. random mutational. It is not about the existence of the biblical God. Nor can one conclud DNA is likely being designed therefore a God must be the designer. The question who or what designed the DNA is very inticing.

[@garethmccartan3636]

Jesus is calling you to read the 4 gospels

[@1922DPenny]

Also an engineer but a believer. I offer this for you to ponder. If mutations or evolution is random or unguided, why are we so favored in the randomness? You may hear the taller giraffe gets more leaves from higher on the tree, thus taller giraffes are favored. Any idea what we ate that allowed me to put this message in this chat? Some would say we were offered an apple.

[@markd9844]

Agreed. The talk simply leads the thinker to a designer of life and the universe. Maybe the Big Bang couldn't have had a non-intelligent, agentless cause? It could be the biblical God, or some other intelligent "thing". I think the search for that thing should lead people to see what humans have thought and said about it in the past since it looks like they may have experienced this thing. Maybe. Modern day humans have even claimed to experienced something outside of nature (super natural?). Near death experiences seem highly evidenced and recorded. Maybe. I think many can be weeded out as self serving and therefore, likely fiction. Some have "trust me" as evidence. Others may seem less so. I'm an Engineer. We know about the error of bias. Your question is indeed enticing. Best to you on your search.

[@JacobBogers]

DNA contains a lot of junk code that doesnt do anything (nor did it do anything in the past).

[@rogerdalton9987]

The Bible says in Romans that God is clearly revealed in what is created. But that is not entirely so. God’s nature and his purposes and his salvation plan for mankind are not learned by science. God has graciously made these known through his scriptures which his prophets and finally his Son have given to us.

[@ArchibaldRoon]

I really, really encourage you to listen to what the response is to Meyer's interviews from science educators specialised in evolutionary biology. They basically rebut what Meyer is saying and also point out some things that are simply factually incorrect. This is not a religious attack, it is simply pointing out how wrong Meyer's science is on this topic.

[@osbon]

@@ArchibaldRoon Eugenie Scott, who used to head science education in the US, continued to push such false textbook narratives as Equus for years, long after they were shown to be fraudulent. She famously told her evolutionary friends not to debate Berlinski, Meyer, Behe, and others who questioned Darwinism, because debates did not go well for the evolutionists.

[@blznguns]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/pZmnc2idl9mUe7Msi=CFn1PXEaql4liUe6 Your statement inadvertently reminded me of this Monty Python bit. To be fair, you didn't actually point out how Meyer's was wrong on anything. You just claimed you did, while not actually doing it. I'd just ask you to ask yourself, who are you putting your trust in and why. Really getting to the bottom of that "why" is the key to unlocking the truth.

[@floriansalihovic3697]

@@blzngunsbut claims is all we hear in the video - his friend’s math says so is not really satisfying to me. And contraticts what we learned in the last centuries. ​​⁠Even if I don't understand everything Meyer talks about - the interview segment is hard to follow - I have a good idea about software development and his elaborations are not satisfying. He also starts to redefine Information Theory to add semantics to it? You should be careful if you think that's a sensible approach to discuss this topic.

[@donparker4521]

@@blznguns kzbin.info/www/bejne/naScY2egqZd5m6ssi=Z62UnAlvKhrLqpm_ Even these ex xtrian bigots see Meyers for he is,… May everyone come to be disabused of evil, ☮️ & ❤️ Ps, our host is a liar as well, ask me how😊

[@ArchibaldRoon]

@@blznguns I know exactly that Meyer is talking about because Molecular Biology and writing Software code is my field of expertise. YT comments are no good for rebuttals, I'm just encouraging people to question what Meyer says, maybe research the topic a little and stay skeptical. YT is full of miss information, and this is no exception. My comment was meant as a warning for people who might take what Meyer says as facts and truth and leave it as that.

[@AerialLensVideo]

THANK YOU! Beyond amazing! THE BEST EXPLANATION for the inescapable conclusion that God - The Force - most definitely exists, past present and future, throughout the Universe. Wow.

[@patrickshepherd1341]

You know, something I notice is that the only people who say that DNA works like software code are people who don't know how at least one of those two things works at any level deeper than as a metaphor.

[@mystdragon8530]

Not sure what you mean? The metaphor is just to state that both carry information.

[@itsamystery5279]

Excellent point.

[@ronaldmorgan7632]

Well, DNA houses the code, and the machinery that processes it is akin to the operating system. It is obviously not a one-to-one match as hardware, software, and firmware is very specific.

[@itsamystery5279]

@@mystdragon8530 _The metaphor is just to state that both carry information._ That's not what creationists like Meyer argue. They point to human written computer code, then to complex DNA code and claim if human code has a designer then DNA must have a designer too. That's fallacious logic and simply wrong.

[@tTtt-ho3tq]

But DNA is now natural, right? Computer programs are not natural, man-made though they do behave like similar. DNA functions to instruct to form proteins according to the order of nature, chemistry and physics. Computer programs are instructions to instruct computer's basic hard-wired functions to perform said tasks. Am I right? So computer programs work with man-made hard-wired basic functions (machine language), whereas DNAs work with the order of nature, chemistry, physics, which is natural, right? DNA, life, sex, babies, procreation, are now all natural phenomena, right? Or are you saying life, sex, babies, procreation, DNA are all supernatural phenomena?

[@dichotomology]

The difference is that the information has been selected for by their environment. So even if the change is random the information that remains is the meaningful and non random mutations.

[@nunterz]

The whole point is that a random change that passes through the environment as "meaningful" occuring is prohibitively improbable. It's completely beside the point what the filtering mechanism actually is.

[@hengrave5]

I can see how all arrows point to an intelligence but couldn't that intelligence be nature itself?

[@fromlasttofirst22]

EXACTLY. Watch how water flows in a stream, it follows the easiest paths! You can find a formula for this.

[@poparafael3065]

Nature cannot be intelligent in itself because there are some laws and principles behind its functioning. She couldn't write them herself. Someone wrote them and that someone is God. Water, for example, has some characteristics, properties. How and can keep them universal? Someone needs to maintain / set them up from the back.

[@mumhustler]

@@hengrave5 i believe in something similar, and I also don't discount the possibility of God existing (not necessary for it to be an Abrahamic God)

[@playforge3438]

Who created nature? Nature didn’t just create itself. It requires a continuum of time space and matter to exist… just like every other measurable entity in the observable universe… that means for nature to come into existence, something that is not bound by time, space, or matter, must have existed before it to have therefore created it… There was a book written thousands of years ago, scholars believe this book to have been written by a man named Moses… It’s called Genesis… And it describes an intelligence that existed before time, space, and matter. It describes the creation of time, space, and matter way before that scientific notion was even around… like the people living in those ancient days, the author would not have had a profound understanding of this continuum or its relevance to creation… yet he describes it. He describes it while being guided by that same intelligent being… even our most ancient ancestors understood that everything in the observable universe had to have been created by something outside of the observable universe. Nothing else really even makes sense when compared to this logic…

[@hengrave5]

@@playforge3438 Mmm..I think I understand. My question would be: how can you know that there was ever a moment when nature didn't exist? The circumstances you describe prior to nature seem to be timeless so presumably within those there was not a moment when nature didn't exist and then another 'afterwards' when it did. Or am I missing something?

[@micknamens8659]

8:09 The astronomic number of non-functioning mutations vs. functioning mutations can be the result of wrong assumptions about the system you want to describe. 1. What if mutations are not totally random? What are the mutation patterns? 2. For many genes (controlling some specific protein or organ) there may be multiple alleles. If one of the alleles is changed by a "non-functioning" mutation the other allele(s) will still work. 3. Some genes are dominant-recessive. If the recessive gene is better suited for the current environment, then a non-functioning mutation of the dominant gene is advantageous. 4. Depending on the selection pressure a non-functioning mutation might be an advantage, e.g. animals in a totally dark environment without eyes, less hair in a warmer climate, pinguins without feathers, human beings without a tail. 5. There is a lot of junk DNA probably resulting from non-functioning mutations. These sequences are subject to further mutations eventually becoming a functioning gene after many generations. So it's not a big bang mutation, rather many small changes. 6. The sexual cross of mutations also improves the likelihood of successful mutations.

[@gregrice1354]

Your specification of points of contention are admirable for your serious and seeming thorough consideration. I must point out, however, that you mistakenly assume your own conclusions about the results of the processes you describe. The failing of the biochemical proposed solution to the origins of ANY life on earth are admitted by the top scholars in the field. It is not the most prominently publicized news, as the world academic communities have a Naturalistic/Materialism bias. The references in the good books on science, by both Christian/Believer scientists and mathematicians all include acknowledgment and citations of the failed claims and experiments - like the repeated human interventions in the Urey-Gellman peptide/protein experiment. In your Points 5, 6, you refer to "junk DNA" and presume a positively mechanistic design of evolution that guarantees "positive" traits are expressed, at the correct times, in every generation, due to an apparent planned operation of "evolution." Junk DNA ideas have been thoroughly disproved and revealed to be one of the most embarrassing mistakes of academic biological science. The actual design of every molecule and sequence within RNA and DNA has been demonstrated to be astoundingly detailed and specific for particular functions, including economizing of physical "storage"/habitation within cells. Look at the books by Dr. Fazale Rana or Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons To Believe for specific citations on the current limits of the failed Naturalistic Science explanations for: 1. Origins of any life on Earth; 2. Survivability limits of a non-directed or even Punctuated-Equilibrium model of Natural Selection. 3. The repeated evidence of appearance of more particular, narrowly defined DNA classifications of animal/life than the previously assumed order from the more general quality of types of animals, to the more narrow niche class of organisms and species. Theology is being RAPIDLY restored to the throne as Queen of the Sciences, due to the best pursuit of answers from Science for our origins. Check out the unique truth claims of the Bible, by the same scientists noted above.

[@micknamens8659]

@@gregrice1354 Junk DNA hasn't been disproved. It has been shown that a great part of the non-coding sequences (which was once called "junk DNA") have other important functions. But a certain part of the non-coding sequences is indeed non-functioning, i.e act only as an evolutionary reservoir, providing genetic material that can acquire new functions over time.

[@LisaGrace]

A car couldn't have evolved. Every part of the car took a tremendous amount of intelligence, from the mining to the refining, to the combining, to the factories, to the labor. And it is a billion times less complex than one human cell. Same with a sidewalk which is made from living things that have died. It takes intelligence--and tons of intelligence for just those two objects. So, hence, we had a designer(s).

[@MikeJohnson-de3zf]

A trillion crystal snowflakes sitting on your lawn couldn't have evolved.

[@TeaParty1776]

Hence? Whence?

[@andrewoliver8930]

A designer is more complex than a car. A designer needs a designer.

[@TeaParty1776]

@@andrewoliver8930 Reality is real. It does not need nor can it have a designer. Because its reality. Thats the way things are. The fact that man designs things cant be generalized. Reality is. Consciousness is consciousness OF reality. Consciousness cant create reality.

[@andrewoliver8930]

@@TeaParty1776 I'm just putting an argument against the OP's designer claim. Designers, all the way down.

[@jimurban5367]

I think the extreme odds mentioned here are only relevant if the trials are random and independent events. However, new DNA sequences do not arise from random and independent events but rather from building upon previous generations.

[@apoliticalobserver2741]

That's been pointed out to the IDiots probably a thousand times. Evolution doesn't have to search some ginormous search-space looking for functionality. It only has to search the small space immediately around an already working combination looking for small improvements. The process has been working making small gradual improvements for at least 4.2 billion years.

[@idea2go]

Correct --- it's not a random search of independent sequences but a guided random search of small stepwise modifications, with ample ability to prune & throw out any incorrect steps

[@jimurban5367]

@@idea2go What do you mean by guided?

[@CanaanZhou2002]

The problem is there are controlled natural selection process in biology labs right now. Evolutionary biologists are growing generations of E.Coli for decades, and select them for certain factors like resistence against certain chemicals. In short, we do know that natural selection is capable of producing new functioning genes.

[@innertuber4049]

What the creationists say is that all those functional genes were already buried in the code. Which is true, in a way. They are coming from harmless mutations, often motifs, that pile up until you get functionality. However, it is still something that is emergent, not immanent.

[@cd1857]

Evolution can "bring about" small adaptive changes in a species, but there's no evidence whatsoever evolution can explain a transmutational change of species

[@ministryofwords]

If there is control and selection, there must be a directing mind. You describe what animal breeders have done forever. That's not random, and the selection is not natural.

[@michaelbuick6995]

​@@ministryofwordsSo you acknowledge that selection can produce novel function? So if there was some kind of..."natural selection" then evolution would be proven correct?

[@rembeadgc]

Even what's called "natural selection" abides by observed principles and is only occurring within preset parameters. Natural selection itself is deemed to not be random. it's just the recognized tendencies in the mechanics of the natural world with a labeling that doesn't venture to explore that which isn't materially observable. It's an intellectual grift, a swindle. The biggest con is that it is deemed by some as the replacement for God. Mankind is paying and will continue to pay a heavy price for it.

[@bradrainier106]

Love these programs

[@nuggsrocks1]

There is literally a Richard Dawkins lecture to children that eviscerates this guy's claims

[@Jupiter862]

Can you link it

[@dananderson6697]

Apparently not.

[@nuggsrocks1]

@@Jupiter862 kzbin.info/www/bejne/j4WUp4uOgtiMl80

[@nuggsrocks1]

@@Jupiter862 just search "richard dawkins christmas lectures, mount improbable"

[@nuggsrocks1]

@@Jupiter862 richard dawkins christmas lectures mount improbable

[@faruhonest-freegunupi]

As a natural scientist and biotechnologist with decades of experience in programming and using artificial evolution algorithms and in-depth study of consciousness research, the following thoughts come to mind: A lot of claims are made here, but the scientific basis is incomplete. Who is the intelligent designer? How did it come about? This is a catch-22 situation. The maximum number of possibilities exists in chaos. This also applies to the "initial" universe. Evolutionary algorithms in nature show that if a structure that has arisen by chance, no matter how simple, has a property of self-reproduction, the probability of this structure spreading increases significantly due to this intrinsic advantage and the evolution of such structures is extremely accelerated. From this point onwards at the earliest, the purely combinatorial consideration of the probability of a structure arising no longer makes sense or is correct! There is no external force that specifically directs evolution in a certain direction. It is a crucial intrinsic property that the structure that achieves the highest reproduction rate under the current conditions replicates itself in evolution. Every replicating and thus developing structure increases its information content. At first only marginally, but through the ongoing potentiation of the resulting increasing probabilities, this process is extremely accelerated. The meaning of information does not arise; meaning is assigned individually by people. When people assign a functionality to information or discover it, it is recognized as functional. On the other hand, all information is functional, the only question is for what. Even what many people today consider to be superfluous information from structures is functional for evolution in the sense of the informational pool of possibilities of information, since this pool of possibilities is a prerequisite for evolution. Every process simulated today on the basis of artificial evolution algorithms starts with completely random information. The most important operator for evolution algorithms is the random operator, because this is the only way new information comes into the system. All other operators such as selection, information recombination, information migration, ..., whose parameters are also influenced by random operators, process this information in the sense of global optimization. This means that evolution is a universal global multi-objective optimization program with the property of achieving the greatest possible speed of approach to the current multi-objective spectrum. The fascinating thing about this is that evolution itself changes this multi-objective spectrum in every step. In principle, evolution is a process of approaching the constantly receding optimum of the constantly changing multi-objective spectrum at the greatest possible speed, but never reaching this optimum. Of course, the mutation rate must not be too high, as an evolutionary system collapses if the mutation rate is too high. This is also the reason why in naturally occurring evolution only systems have prevailed where this mutation rate lies in a certain probability interval. The simulated artificial evolution algorithms also only work efficiently in this probability interval. This means that programs could also be developed using artificial evolutionary algorithms, although from today's perspective this would not be efficient because the time required would be too long. It is precisely a characteristic of evolution to reduce the number of attempts so drastically exponentially in order to reach a certain solution. If you consider that the evolutionary processes on Earth have been going on for over 4 billion years and in the universe for over 10 billion years, it is primitive to expect that these results could be reproduced in a laboratory in a few decades. A new sequence is never searched for or created by random combinatorial means, as this is not possible (as mentioned) for reasons of time. The new functionalities of a protein sequence created today, for example, are always based on the existing and modified information from the information pool of the currently existing structures. The results of evolutionary algorithms do not improve evenly and continuously, but there are always long phases of stagnation and, more rarely, phases with huge leaps in results. Incidentally, this behavior can be reproduced when simulating artificial evolutionary processes, and all based on mathematics! You can be a spiritual person and not a totalitarian materialist and still describe the processes differently. Many people seem to behave in this respect in a similar way to religions, and religions are the opposite of open-minded spirituality, which arises intrinsically in highly developed brains. Everything is connected to everything and is in a constant open flow. This intrinsic openness is difficult or impossible for the ego of most people to bear. Hence the urge to want to explain and control everything absolutely in one's lifetime. Since that is not possible, narratives are constructed on the basis of unprovable assumptions that seem to completely close off this difficult-to-bear openness. The only positive thing about this is that it calms the egos, but ultimately it remains a kind of self-deception.

[@jkbrown561]

​​​@@faruhonest-freegunupi Word salad and conjecture. He didn't even go into the additional burden of subsequent mutations killing even a singly successful first mutation within an organism which is the outcome of virtually all negative mutations. The protein requirments in order to produce even a single successful mutation still fall within the constraints of this same math. So you'd have to start all over again with another abiogenesis event and having life spring up again under supposedly perfect circumstances..oh and what happens if it dies before it replicates? Game over. Hitting people with a tsunami of irrelevant information in regards to the math is pointless. Your ego and IQ on display, yet missing the mark completely. The math is the math. Quit trying to massage it and pretend that things are somehow incomplete and misunderstood. I should simply attack your understanding and say your don't fully qualify to comment as mathematics isn't your primary field of study as most materialists do to their critics. But that's exactly what you're attempting to do with this comment. I assure you Dr. Meyer understands this subject far beyond you. If you'd like to debate him, I'd be happy to see it. David Gelernter, who is wildly more successful than you in your own field of programming, agreed with Meyer on the math.

[@faruhonest-freegunupi]

@@jkbrown561 Thank you for your comment. I respect your opinion, of course. But what do you think you're doing, making claims and insinuations about me and my ego? By the way, that says a lot about your ego and your "abilities". It usually helps to look in the mirror yourself. And do you think that a condensed number like the IQ can describe a complex, intelligent, creative personality? I have enough life experience (including titles, if that's important to you) in the scientific, mathematical, biological, philosophical and spiritual areas to not have to hide behind other people because of a lack of arguments or to idolize them as gurus. I also don't need to show off out of a need for recognition. But every now and then I allow myself the freedom to write a comment based on logical arguments. Especially with people who want to force their statements or opinions on others. That reminds me a lot of the disastrous missionary work of the last few hundred years. Giordano Bruno comes to mind, who was even executed for his scientifically correct statements. Now to mathematics and negative mutations. Of course, for probabilistic reasons, there are far more negative mutations. However, these only take effect in the individuals where they occur. This means that these individuals die out very quickly because they have no selective advantage. Very rare positive mutations, however, are conserved in the population because they bring a selective advantage that multiplies over generations. If a negative mutation, which, for example, destroys many positive characteristics from previous positive mutations, this would have to affect the entire population of individuals in order to nullify them. But this event has an extremely low probability comparable to zero. I agree with you that it is pointless to abuse people with a tsunami of irrelevant information from mathematics to pseudo-negate evolutionary processes. And by the way, I do not shy away from discussions with epistemically open scientists and people. By the way, I am currently solving various technical questions based on optimized artificial evolution algorithms. In the current case, with 20 goals to be achieved in parallel (in contrast to nature, where the system that has the maximum reproduction and maintenance rate under the current conditions with the least energy expenditure multiplies without a goal) and 120 variable information parameters. In the resolution I am currently using, there are around 1.2x10E144 combinatorial variants. Just for comparison, the number of atoms in the visible universe is around 1.0x10E88. With a number of around 1000 individuals in a variant population, the system needs around 1000 generations to find the 100 best solution variants, i.e. around 1.0x10E6 attempts within around 2 hours on a computer with 32 processors. The optimization potential of these algorithms is simply fascinating. Just imagine what is possible with this efficiency with a microorganism population of >10E20 individuals per cubic kilometer of soil, a generation time of a few hours and a few billion years. It's actually almost unbelievable, which is why I understand the subjective doubters, but a look at our nature shows: It is possible. For your daily dose of wisdom, it is enough to live in the „now“. Perhaps also read a few pages of the book „A New Earth“ by Eckhart Tolle.

[@jkbrown561]

@@faruhonest-freegunupi Gee...didn't you casually make the ego comment first to basically to anyone who didn't believe your viewpoint that it's too much to bear? Which assumes your idea is correct right? Gaslight much? You said "we can't explain it all in our lifetime" right? You seem to be an ardent mouthpiece for the theory that takes takes the longest to verify though. As for your microorganism theory, 10e30 for total living microorganisms still fails at a spectacular rate in mathematical terms to the odds of successful mutations, let alone the necessary compounding, successive features required for advanced body plans in a swirl of different, unique living organisms, while replicating and surviving environments whilst somehow then making it into a large body of water, not forgetting you don't get to start with that population of microorganisms...gotta make your way there, in all their 1,400 different species through that same time, starting with abiogenesis in your worldview I would imagine. Should we even go into that timeline too? Can't evolve what doesn't already exist right? Gotta start only 4.8 billion years ago, according to current timelines, as per evolutionists. I admire your imagination and I too enjoy the exchange of ideas but you're the one insinuating Meyer and the rest of the people who subscribe to limit model of time aren't informed or capable. Nice gear switch though.

[@benjaminkenney3706]

@@faruhonest-freegunupi love this! Although I think you’re missing a few points. The mechanisms of accelerated probability you’re talking about here, still doesn’t explain the origins of the information itself. In other words, there has to be a creative mechanism involved to give rise that ever changing information in the first place. Also I don’t think curiosity about the origins of self and the universe should be reduced to a mere ego trip. It’s extreme important to understand where you have come from, as I’m sure you understand given your background.

[@jkbrown561]

@steve_dwell I have no idea how old the universe actually is. I just use the number materialists use to refute their own ideas based on mathematical logic.

[@xxpostitxx4843]

It’s also an issue with folding the proteins. The whole thing breaks down before a new one can be produced.

[@itsamystery5279]

No one in science thinks it's a problem for ToE. Why are the only people who think this is a problem creationists with a huge religious bias and motivation to defend their mythology?

[@occultislux]

​@@itsamystery5279Can you prove that nobody in science has a problem with protein folding? That's just a mass generalization and a logical fallacy.

[@itsamystery5279]

@@occultislux Find me a non-creationist scientist claiming protein folding makes evolution impossible.

[@innertuber4049]

You start with small proteins that fold into useful shapes spontaneously, and build from there.

[@01MTodd]

The earliest proteins were intrinsically disordered and not folded. This is a non-issue.

[@chrisskinner7859]

Well that was a video and a half .. gives one a little to ponder !!!!!! CHEERS

[@Iron44You]

His assumptions are flawed - proteins of 150 amino acids are not spontaneous assembled. According evolutionary theory random code errors act on existing proteins and incrementally changes them most of the mutations are harmful and are rejected by natural selection. So natural selection filters for useful functional proteins. His 10 to the -77 probability assumes a protein of 150 amino acids being generated from scratch and that is not part of evolution theory - his theory does not describe reality so he’s forced to invoke a designer. Without natural selection - what are the chances of an intelligent designer being spontaneously assembled - can he please provide a number?

[@ohernik]

He could be wrong on his assumption if it's within the mutation process, maybe not. We don't know for sure how the sequence is specifically generated and transmitted from generation to generation when it comes to mutations on evolution. But one thing is for sure according his assumption, that in the appearance of the very first functional cell back in the days, proteins must have been created (generated) from scratch and sequenced in the perfect order to build up just the simplest organ (cell) and it was not only a 150 amino acid protein, it must have millions or trillions of them in order to form the most basic genetic information, even they must have be in the functional order otherwise it would have also failed. And at the same time there must have others part to be formed like a functional membrane that separates from the environment and the enzymes that work on the genetic molecule, to read, repair and duplicate, at least to read and duplicate back then. There for sure is no chance for random arrangements.

[@ashes_of_eden]

@@Iron44You The statistical chance of life forming accidentally (even in its most basic and simplest forms) is mathematically impossible-resulting in an irrational and infinitely impossible number. Sheer math proves the existence of a creator: How likely to find a protein (gene code) by chance with all the amino acids interacting with each other in primordial soup? * How common (or rare) are the functional sequences (i.e., proteins) among all the possible combinations of amino acids? * 10 to the 74 power (just to get the amino acids sequenced properly) * How to build a protein (other probabilistic hurdles to overcome): * Attach amino acids together with a peptide bond * Peptide Bonds occur in a 1 or 2 frequency (half are, half aren’t) * Non-peptide bonds can’t form a protein * A protein is 150 amino acids long: means a 1in2 chance at each connection site of getting the correct type of linkage (149 linkages total) * This becomes 10 to the 45 power * When building proteins, amino acids come in two “flavors”: * Left handed and right handed “flavors” called optical isomers * Left handed version is the only one that can be used in building proteins, even one “right handed” optical isomer in there and your protein won’t fold properly * Chance to build a “short,” functional protein is again 10 to the 45th power Chances of finding a functional protein by chance: 10^74 x 10^45 x 10^45 = 1/10^164 Comparison: - 10^80 elementary particles in the universe - 10^16 seconds since the Big Bang - 10^139 events since the beginning of the universe 20,000 complete proteins comprise the human body www.scimex.org/newsfeed/finding-the-~20,000-proteins-that-make-us-human 20,000 x 1/10^164 = 2e-160 Mathematicians use the lowercase e for a much more interesting purpose - to denote Euler's number (2.7182818284 to 10 decimal places). This number, like π, is an irrational number, because it has a non-recurring decimal that stretches to infinity. Like an irrational person, an irrational number seems to make no sense, but the number that e denotes doesn't have to make sense to be useful. In fact, it's one of the most useful numbers in mathematics. But it is known to over 1 trillion digits of accuracy! sciencing.com/happens-raise-number-fraction-8535078.html “e” is a number. The number has a lot of decimals places (it has an infinite number of them), so the number is called “e” to make it quick to write down. The number is 2.71828… Hence the statistical chance that humans are here by accident is literally an infinite and impossibly long number. It’s just not possible.

[@mohitrawat_7]

A functioal protein can be formed with just 2 amino acids.

[@ohernik]

@@mohitrawat_7 a functional protein is not a functional organism, you're tryin to compare a bolt or a nut with the entire building, even my example goes way too simple. Proteins just don't group in a functional structure by themselves, even less in a structured code, this is far from being proven.

[@mohitrawat_7]

@@ohernik i know what you’re saying but I guess he was talking about the ‘origin’ Like the Darwin’s prebiotic soup

[@Whatsisface4]

The experts in the field disagree with Stephen Meyer.

[@yowamidesu]

Experts in the field disagreed with Galileo. It's irrelevant. Science is about exploring possibilities and being open to your way of thinking possibly being wrong.

[@Whatsisface4]

@@yowamidesuThis doesn't make Meyer right. Yes, science is about exploring possibilities and what has been explored in this subject show evolution real.

[@yowamidesu]

@@Whatsisface4 I never said it made him right, but it also doesn't make him completely wrong either. We can say that there is a good amount of evidence that counters what he says, but in the end that's as much of a faith argument as what he proposes is. We only have other people's works that we trust are legitimate to work with because very few of us have ever actually done anything to try to validate the truth behind what we believe.

[@Whatsisface4]

@@yowamidesu The evidence that evolution is true is considerable, to the point that it won't be overturned.

[@yowamidesu]

@@Whatsisface4 👍

[@maranatha256]

God speaks things into existence. The "alphabetic nature" of the base nucleotides is like His voice.

[@highroller-jq3ix]

That seems like thoroughly unsupported woo. Can you do better than an empty, nonsensical claim?

[@jsubb4680]

@@maranatha256 I’d say a more rational look at it would be that God is of immense light, and spoke word into being, and that he calmed the seas in the beginning. These are all forms of waves, light, sound, sea. If you think about what reality is, space-time, the quantum waves that make up matter, and the gravitational waves and surface that dictate its flow, God may well speak in the waves of the quantum and gravitational as they are the fundamental aspects of the universe. He word may just be a way to communicate that when he “speaks” it is just him manipulating the waves which make up reality.

[@iriemon1796]

AGGC T GTGT CCAAGT GGT TCGGA?

[@Martín-BlasPérezPinilla]

Your "alphabetic nature" is bullshit. We use alphabetic SYMBOLS for nucleotides. We could have used numbers or emojis.

[@simonthewelshman]

In the understanding we know that it happens like this in cycles… Intelligences -> spiritual existence -> human experience -> immortality -> eternal existence -> eternal families -> spiritual children from intelligences (repeats)

[@stanleysitarzewski9296]

immortality only through the re-birth of : Spirit and new life in Jesus Christ. Alone. Flesh is time dated, all die. Judgement is the issue here- Judeo-Christian Faith = re-born of Spirit. Truth. Now one can possibly 'Do-It.' = live, in the mind-set of Christ Jesus. obey-submit.

[@thommysides4616]

Almighty God is one smart dude...... He has to be...... He made me!!! Lol....

[@jonathanrussell1140]

I think you'll find your mum and dad made you.

[@Friction]

These mathematical arguments are very poor. Meyer cites Axe's 2004 article "Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds". What he alleges to show is that when ten side chains in a protein fold are replaced randomly, only about 1 in 10^64 are functional. This could be true but is irrelevant to the plausibility of the development of such chains in protein folds, or to actual evolutionary history. At best, this shows what was already obvious: sequences like these didn't come together entirely randomly or all at once; that's not a plausible chemical pathway at all. If we're allowing other chemical pathways (as we obviously should), then the argument that Meyer is making is trivially unsound. Regarding biological information being semantic, this isn't really an interesting observation. We are modelling chemical reactions, and it may be apt to talk about it in terms of semantic information. That does not entail that there's a mind behind this chemistry. His remarks suggests that he's making an inductive case given how other instances of semantic information with known origin can be traced to minds. However, given that we have a plausible explanation for the origin of this information that does not involve a mind (and given independent reason to think that a mind was not involved), this inductive inference is dubious at best.

[@stanleysitarzewski9296]

amino-acids - essential fatty acids - and spirit. Soul is involved, as well as vitamins and minerals. flesh is a strange item. Almighty Spoke-All - things into being. in the beginning, but- formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his, collective being @ miracle = be-came - Alive - Truth. 100% second life is to come, flesh counts for nothing here and now. a comfort, yet- being graded for the life to come, the second life. only thru Jesus Christ-His-Cross-Of-Judgement. all may come to the banquet, all invited- But- Few, are chosen. Why ? lack understanding of : Holy Scriptures. Cursed all day long. Man is given to destruction of the flesh. Sin-nature. Truth. All die- all fall short of the Glory of the Living Father-Lord-God. Truth. King James Print Version Year 1611 1189 Continuing Chapters of History Prophecy = Jesus Christ and Salvation. Truth. BSFInternational.Org for zip-code local hosted churches for studies and growth. Dr. BobLarson for spiritual-warfare here and now- Truth. God is Spirit- Must worship Him in Spirit and in truth. = Re-Born of water and of the Spiurit. Truth- Cru-oIUt Reveal your-self to me Jesus - he will. Jesus is the Righteous Right Hand of the Living Father. Have a great numbers day, = 0

[@jsbrads1]

What plausible explanation is there for the source of information? What independent information tells us there is no mind?

[@stanleysitarzewski9296]

@@jsbrads1 no-one only Almighty-Trinity Father-Son-Holy Ghost = 3 in 1 Creater of time-space-matter. Earth is 6028 years young- One Lord, One God, One Spirit. One ALMIGHTY SPIRIT ALL IN ALL Truth. flesh counts for nothing.

[@stanleysitarzewski9296]

@@jsbrads1 Perfection of source : King James Version Print Copy = Year 1611 Devine Word of the Lord. 6028 Years young- Truth all day long. But- Idenity of man, flesh deficits, lacking. Study of science and lacking: - Spirit crise out to Spirit !!! Continuing Chapter 1145 Year 64 Verse 14 * ' follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord. ' * Truth Verse 23-24-25-26-27-28-29 * ' To the general assembly and the church of the first-born, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made - - perfect, - + And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. - + See that you refuse not him that speaketh. for if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall we not escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven : - + Whose voive then shook the earth : but now he hath promised, saying, *** " Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. " *** - Note : Praise Jesus-Christ + And this Word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of thoes things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that thoes things which cannot be shaken may return. - + PLEASE NOTE THE TRUTH OF ETERNITY + Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably, with reverence and godly fear ; - + For our God is PAY-ATTENTION-NOW-CLESS : a consuming fire. ' * Truth. Creation will pass on, like an old garment- used, and cast from the Lord's presence but- Replaced with a : NEW-IMPROVED REALITY. Truth. Sin-Free, in the heavens- from the Lord Cry-out Reaveal Your-self to me Jesus. He - Will. Christ is : The Righteous Right Hand of the Living Lord God. FATHER. Truth. Bless you, Sir. Flesh counts for nothing - Spirit is eternal, flesh only binds. Seek-Out the Creater of All Spirits, he IS.

[@01MTodd]

Brandon, you are correct in that this is not a god-of-the-gaps argument. It's far worse. It is straight up begging the question. Look, Meyer claims that "functional information" can only be produced by an intelligence. That is debatable, but my argument does not turn on the truth or falsity of that claim. What we can say for certain is that in every case he cites for this claim (books, computer codes, etc.), the intelligence in question is physical (either a brain or a computer). In fact, we know of no cases where there is intelligence without a physical substrate. I am asserting that given what we do know about intelligence (namely that it's inputs, information processing, and outputs), non-physical intelligences are impossible. Let me repeat that last point because it is crucial: non-physical intelligences are impossible. The only response I have ever heard to this is to assert (without any evidence) that intelligence can be non-physical. You even said this to me months ago yourself...mind precedes matter. But in this context, that is just question begging. You are assuming the very point that you are trying to prove - that non-physical intelligences exist. We have absolutely no reason to think that other than logical fallacies. Two other quick points. First, you do non-believers a huge disservice by thinking that they refuse to believe in god because of some childhood trauma or some desire to deny authority. I never experienced such trauma or have the urge to rebel against authority. Look, I wish there were a god, I really do. But I have seen no evidence supporting such a claim. Second, all this discussion about genetic information simply points to a scientific problem that we have not yet solved. There are many such problems. Perhaps we may never solve this one, but I am fine with their being mysteries and unsolved problems. If you need to invoke god when you are confronted with a mystery, then you literally are doing god-of-the-gaps.

[@mrdavies7894]

Dinosaurs.

[@brandonflorida1092]

Could you please show us the calculation on a blackboard or refer us to the peer reviewed journal where it was published?

[@geneanthony3421]

Just because A is true, doesn't mean B is true. Just because A is false, doesn't mean B is true. We don't have all the answers, but that doesn't mean that absence of evidence is proof that another theory is true. A lot of my issue with creationists is that it's like ghost hunting. They look for evidence that supports their world view and ignore anything that could threaten their beliefs.

[@frontiervirtcharter]

Exactly ... Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[@stanleysitarzewski9296]

no threat, just warnings. Truth is the Bible = 100% CODE PERFECT. all history, all documentated, 1189 Continuing Chapters King James Print Version = Year 1611 Original Text Language. a code-of-enforcement-to-all. break the code = struggles, if : Judeo-Christian. But- If a 10 commandment breaker = living big, all day long. Why ? the flesh is in desire, the present fallen system, allows this equasion. no understanding = no conviction. Understand the commands of Creater = conviction of Person. CODE OF SIN IS NOW BROKEN. Truth. Words of the Lord are 100% CODE ENFORCED = FOR ALL CALLED + CHOSEN. not chosen = live as you choose to, but- Judgement is an impending truth of code. enforced = ALL DIE.

[@JustXolan]

That argument would only work if there is more than 1 answer. In this case, it is: is there a designer or not? A simple this or that question

[@geneanthony3421]

@@JustXolan we don’t know if there was a designer. Some people assume there must be a creator because something can’t come out of nothing. Even if that was true, the assumption is God came out of nothing which nullifies their argument. We can get a better understanding of life, but I don’t know if humans will ever know why we exist for sure.

[@xxxx__zzz988]

​@geneanthony3421 Most of arguments for God is like: Hey, atheist, explain everything in the universe. What, you can't? This means that everything in MY holy book is true and MY god exists, not any other of course.

[@user-vu7yt8pm4p]

No, you don't have to resort to intelligent design to get the evolution we see on Earth. The author seems to be arguing that only random mutation can create diversity in genetic code. He never mentions the crossing over of chromosomes, sexual selection, or the insertion of transposons typical of viruses. All these mechanisms create genetic change in addition to random mutation. The mathematics does not exist to handle that complexity of variables. All vertebrate animals have the same genetic body plan which appears as different visible body types (phenotypes) because of the way the component genes are switched on and off during development. They look very different, but their genetics are very similar.

[@wiscokiddd]

@@user-vu7yt8pm4p Some people are brainwashed into believing in God and some people are the brainwashers.

[@zrakonthekrakon494]

The body plans are so structured and organized, even specialized to fulfill an ecological niche in an environmental equilibrium, which extends out further into the biosphere which has sustained life for the duration of history. It’s all so finely calibrated and attuned, I just don’t see how random meiotic recombinance and virus transposons can account for such an organized and attuned system on both micro and macro scales

[@user-vu7yt8pm4p]

​@@zrakonthekrakon494That is the logical fallacy known as "survivor bias." We see only the survivors in the population because they are the ones that are the most adapted to the environment they are in. We don't see all of the ones who did not survive, or could not compete as well, because they have died out or have been reduced to a minimal part of the population. This gives the illusion that the existing population was designed perfectly to fit in its environment, when really all the alternatives have been simply weeded out. That's the "selection" part of natural selection.

[@wiscokiddd]

@@zrakonthekrakon494 Yes it took billions of years and no anthropomorphic patriarchal sky daddy could possibly have done it.

[@zrakonthekrakon494]

@@wiscokiddd the anthropomorphizing of God is not entirely biblical, Jesus came in human form for a separate reason, also you didn’t actually provide any real commentary or refutation you just said “billions of years” you should pat yourself on the back, that must’ve taken effort smooth brain

[@lucretiuscaro]

It feels like listening to flat-earthers, creationists, or science deniers.

[@wrekd4120]

It is. They are using God of the gaps which is based on the ignorance fallacy. Them pointing it out and saying it's not that, does not make it not exactly that. The airplane created from a tornado sweeping through a junkyard comment really sealed the deal. The host commentator is a clown. The two guests, less so, but they are still arguing based on known fallacies. Stephen Charles Meyer is an American historian, author, and former educator. He is an advocate of intelligent design, a pseudoscientific creationist argument for the existence of God

[@SkepticalGodlessAussieGlober]

They're all the same - ever notice how many FLERFs are also creationists and vice-versa? And they're all science deniers by default. It goes hand in hand.

[@beyondnow1600]

Science points to creation, so no one is denying science.

[@wrekd4120]

@@beyondnow1600 Science is a method. It doesn't do anything. People do. But people are full of their own bias, agendas, and self-interest.

[@beyondnow1600]

@wrekd4120 Well, I have zero bias. To me, our existence and self-awareness are more than enough proof of intelligent design.

[@AronD-fp5oq]

Being that math itself as understood by humans is a human construct. It makes sense that it points towards the existence of god

[@Ignirium]

Maybe they were divine numbers? w/e that means

[@AronD-fp5oq]

@ it means there are numbers that seem to have significance in how they appear. [Enter every spiritual correlation here]

[@niklaswikstrom78]

No it doesn’t.

[@FrankLaszloLazPaints]

Yes and then they will say............."It was little green men!"

[@uncreatedlogos]

?

[@MattWhite-vh6xh]

Those most proficient in mathematics, such as theoretical physicists, astrophysicists and cosmologists...nearly all of whom are at the very least agnostic, would beg to disagree.

[@tom7w]

@@MattWhite-vh6xh do you trust the scientists or the science to prove something? Do you think an argument is better because of who speaks it?

[@MattWhite-vh6xh]

@@tom7w I trust evidence, not the specious arguments of those desperate to reassure themselves of their position.

[@adayah2933]

Although I generally like the point, I have to definitely object: the most proficient at mathematics are mathematicians, not physicists. Incidentally even today I was reading a physics textbook and the math wasn't handled too well...

[@MattWhite-vh6xh]

@@adayah2933 Scientific disciplines are not mutually exclusive; and generally the people who write textbooks are not exactly at the highest level. Sir Roger Penrose, for instance is a mathematician, mathematical physicist, philosopher of science and Nobel Laureate in Physics. He is quoted as saying "I don't believe in established religions of any kind." He regards himself as an agnostic...as did Einstein.

[@MattWhite-vh6xh]

I think the furthest you can push the line of argument in the video would be to perhaps acknowledge the god of Spinoza...which is a very long way from Biblical or any other mythology.

[@aiami2695]

Information is a specific type of data stream that carries over from one mind to an other mind. Without interacting minds there is no information, all data is just gibberish... 😁😁👍👍

[@OrcaneVault]

Thank you! This whole diatribe that DNA contains information drives me insane. It’s a mistake to conflate are ability to describe what a biological pathway does and predict what it will produce with the process itself containing information.

[@innertuber4049]

Information theory actually gets applied to things like inert gases and quantum phenomena. Everything carries and can transfer information, even without an intelligent observer.

[@01MTodd]

What do you mean by a mind? Do you mean an intelligence? If so, you have a problem, because all intelligences that have ever been observed or studies are physically embodied in brains or computers - physical entities that input, process, and output physical information. How can a disembodied intelligence even exist?

[@spoofer44]

Good stuff! Keep it up!

[@sciencerules2825]

*EVOLUTION ISN'T JUST RANDOM CHANCE.* *EVOLUTION ISN'T JUST RANDOM CHANCE.* *EVOLUTION ISN'T JUST RANDOM CHANCE.* Damn we have some ignorant creationists here.

[@Hemifan4266]

Or maybe the Darwinist dont get that both God and evolution work together......

[@messertl]

Sure, Jan.

[@jonathanrussell1140]

​@@Hemifan4266show us your evidence

[@Hemifan4266]

I dont need evidence, the world itself is evidence. You atheist make me laugh....​@jonathanrussell1140

[@HeleneWheatfield0549]

What the hell is it, then?

[@spamm0145]

I have always said math points to Gods genius, he even performed a mathematical miracle with life, 1+1=3 because 1(mom)+1(dad) = 3 (child)

[@leongkhengneoh6581]

100% + 100% +100% = 100% This is the silly formula for trinity. All these silly people are here to talk about Maths and science

[@01MTodd]

P(God exists | evidence) = 0

[@ParttimeMultiplayerGamer]

When these youtube creators stop using the word "DESTROYED" in their titles, I will actually watch them, and maybe consider them good. Right now I will report it as trash.

[@jasonkrick1614]

The example I like to use is from my visit to Carlsbad Caverns. Hundreds of millions of years of slow dripping water to form stalactites of unimaginable shapes and sizes. But I didn’t see a simple brick wall there. Imagine that…hundreds of millions of years of active tock formation. And no brick wall.

[@mygrworld268]

So, is God incapable of creating an existing stalactite when He created earth? Anyway, cosmology is based on observable science and not experimental science. This means it is not replicable with the results and conflicting evidence we see and so can only be theory remaining as a hypothesis, not a proven theorem.

[@johnsmith4811]

I'll see your 'brick wall' and raise you 'God gave little Johnny brain cancer because He's mysterious like that'. Holocaust? One of those God's little 'mysteries'. Armenian genocide? Jesus wanted it like that ... obviously.