Intelligent Design: What it is and Why it Matters to Our Worldview and Culture, Dr. Stephen Meyer

This is the Friday session of the Southland seminar God's Sovereign Plan Through His Creation by Dr. Stephen Meyer.
@DrStephenMeyer @DiscoveryScienceChannel

[@louisesamchapman6428]

Proverbs 2. 1to5 "...if you keep seeking for wisdom and understanding... you will find the very knowledge of God. "

[@edh.9584]

"Wisdom for man is to worship the true God." St. Augustine

[@garywalker447]

Nope. Real wisdom starts with realizing just what a shit hole religion is.

[@pauls1707]

ALL INPUT WELCOME: My psychology PhD thesis has been approved and in its final stages - The majority of YT atheists trawling the comments sections are on the autism spectrum (ASD). Please leave comments below. They may or may not be in support of my findings. Sorry to be so direct. Many thanks in advance.

[@mirandahotspring4019]

Ridiculous assertion.

[@pauls1707]

@@mirandahotspring4019 Thank you for your comment. Your input is valued

[@bobsmith-hd2zr]

put your name to that statement

[@gerardmoloney433]

Atheists are on a spectrum called (SAD) . By their own admission they are not intelligently designed. Enough said!

[@jeffofthehillpeople7728]

I’ve listened to Dr. Meyer for more hours than I can remember but this is truly him at his best. Great job to all involved in bringing this video to the world!

[@walkergarya]

As Meyer is a fraud, a fraud at his best is still bad.

[@mcmanustony]

It's the exact same bullshit he's been peddling for decades. What is it about this lying conman you admire the most?

[@midlander4]

🤮🤮🤮🤮

[@mathew3267]

Should be called intentional design, intelligence is subjective.

[@Renato84Br]

Stephen Meyer is a bright soul in these dark atheistic ages.

[@galileog8945]

Of all the morons at the DI, Meyer is probably the dumbest.

[@holliemccammon1941]

The idea of information in the dna is a very solid evidence for intelligent design. Similarly, irreducible complexity is literally everywhere.

[@mcmanustony]

If DNA is intelligently designed why is so much of it junk? "irreducible complexity is literally everywhere"- no it isn't. Not a single irreducibly complex structure has been identified. Behe has been peddling the bacterial flagellum- as if there's only one such structure in nature- only to find that if you take away some parts you have the Type III secretory system. A population of bacteria had the genes for the flagellum knocked out. It re-evolved very quickly. Meyer and Behe are wrong- and so are you.

[@trusttruth6097]

Keep speaking Truth Stephen let the minions of Satan regurgitate their Lies. The Truth is for those that will accept it.

[@walkergarya]

I do trust truth. YOU trust the bible that is full of lies and bullshit.

[@williamcarr459]

Fiddlesticks. No gods no satans no no no. Wake up!! There is no evidence for any of those entities. They no exist. Please. Think. How can you allow these empty words which have no meaning torment your consciousness?! Never existed then or now. Please. Wake up.

[@gifoTV]

Just because someone isn’t necessarily Christian they’re a minion of satan? You are misunderstanding stephens point lol. Also it’s accept not except

[@trusttruth6097]

@@gifoTV The people lying to promote the absurd that everything comes from nothing are. And Evolution didn’t happen because it can’t. Yes, those who are deliberately trying to deceive people away from God are Satan’s useful idiots. There is a difference between immoral and Evil people. Immoral lie, steal, act impure, and kill ect. While evil people do those things too they also try to destroy the morality of others. I suggest you worry more about your soul than spelling.

[@bobsmith-hd2zr]

EVRYONE THAT DISAGREES WITH ME IS SATAN!!!!!

[@tedgrant2]

As we all know, the shepherd takes great care of his sheep and they love him. If only they knew his true motive !

[@thedynamicsolo4232]

Can you do anything other than take pot shots at real scientists and those who support them?

[@tedgrant2]

He provides solace to those who feel their faith is undermined by science.

[@cosmiccruxbot3841]

​​​@All About Britain That's rich, coming from one blindly following the likes of Dawkins, Hawking, Harris and such. In his utter desperation to explain away abiogenesis, Dawkins once resorted to the laughable, nonsensical sci fi notion of "panspermia" borrowed from Crick, without even realizing, he was merely kicking the can down the road. As John C Lennox says.... *"Nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world famous scientists.."* In the end it's all relative. All philosophical arguments are basically "word salads" if you do not subscribe to that particular world view. So it all depends on the one you pick, and how you dress it. Ciao,

[@robertp5998]

Science has always supported and strengthen faith. Only a lack of understanding of God or science leads to a weakening of faith.

[@tedgrant2]

@@robertp5998 You could, if you wish, have faith that the world was created by pixies five minutes ago. Science could offer nothing to shift you from that faith.

[@jounisuninen]

@@robertp5998 There'll always be atheists, but with the discoveries made in modern science, they can't refer to science anymore to support their faith.

[@Steve-yx1xj]

Science undermines faith. Science = evidence . faith is only works where there's no evidence.

[@mustaphadaddah9406]

As a electronic engineer ...i am sure closed systems only work if all parts are available same time to function in close systems, so evolution can not answer all questions...there must be a Great creator who sent prophets to people to know him.

[@hellerart]

The part with prophets is speculation though. The view of Vedanta (Vedas, Bhagavad Gita and so on...) is, that god lives in any human and creature. So god is at the same time close. And must not been sent. But would already be here. If there is a soul, there must be a connection between body and soul, Merdians and chakras point out just this. And also in christianity the heart charka and Saharara is stressed very much in christian art - glowing haerts and heads. In the Evangelion of Thomas it is still stated, that enlightment - merging with the creator - is possible to all beings. (2) Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All." In my opinion Enlightment and teachers of it would have the potential to conenct all religions into one. Enlightened Mystics always making the same experience of merging with god (like Buddha, Laotse, Jesus...) and having to put very abstract concepts into words that are easily understood by simple people. "I and the father are one" is a perfect saying of this merging. Or oneness. (77) Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." This omnispresence and Nonduality could be a perfect representation of god. A nondual God can not change, he/she does not experience time, he/she can not be created, he/she can not end. Vedanta sees the entire world as a hologram/projection/dream/maya inside of god. And god is actual being itsself or existence. Uncreated Existence. If there is God, most probably there is reincarnation and enlightment in my opnion. Just think of all the other planets. Jesus can never be the sole savior. He would have to visit any potentially inhabitated planet. So I stronly believe in God. And I believe in the saying: "I let myself find by the ones, that seek me". Buddha did so on his one. So maybe god send some prphets, but to me the image that God lives in all of us and is kind of self forgotten and can be awakened in every soul over the course of many lives makes the most sense. In Vedanta God is not seen outside the world. He is not touched by the world, but the world is nothing but god in form. Like a spiders net. The net of the spider is nothing but the spider, but the spider (god) is not changed by the net. So Jesus talking of the kingdom, that is not from this world (net) would speek of the spider. But in the end everything is one. So there is no super mighty god being on the one side and tiny humans on the other side, but God lives in all of us. That would make a lot more sense to me. And would make God a lot more approachable. Even christian mystics taught unity mystica. Of course church did not like this view for a long time because of sale of indulgences and power. Rebirth and enlightment would threaten the power of it. But if the mystic saying by Jesus (or any other prophet) are regarded in a deeper more abstract way it's actually the same as vedanta teaches, the nonduality of everything. Waking up from a dream like Platos cave. So to sum it up: I love this talk very much. But I dislike the concept of God of christian Church somehow. I have the feeling the image of god got heavily manipulated by church over the centuries to cement its power. So I believe and God but maybe we have the oportunity to look at him in a new scietific undogmatic way and debate old christian views with modern day findings. So much in the bible must be symbolic and is often taken much to literal in my opinion.

[@walkergarya]

Intelligent Design has NO scientific basis, no evidence and no scientific standing. It is nothing more than intellectual fraud.

[@mustaphadaddah9406]

@@walkergarya if you find a smart phone in a desert, would you believe that it must have a designer or not or the phone can be made by chance? Look at your body and the sky, stars,.. planets..etc more complex than the smart phone, is that not proof of a Great creator with knowledge ...etc, like the phone or not? But i do not believe jesus is god, he is only a prophet like others, the real one god can only seen hereafter, thx.

[@walkergarya]

@@mustaphadaddah9406 Another stupid argument. Smart phones do not biologically reproduce.

[@mustaphadaddah9406]

@@walkergarya ok, where does the first dna in the first cell come from?

[@jacobogutierrezsanchez]

Thank you very much! It has been helpfull to see the topic from an broader perspective.

[@DaleGray52]

Gawds magic nonfingers started everything. These are the same people who push the proposal of faith as a bad thing on others." It takes more faith to believe in blank".Then, use faith to defend their position.

[@ibatan7243]

May our ONLY, EVERLIVING LORD/GOD, JESUS CHRIST - the GREATEST EVER and MOST HIGH - Bless and Protect You, Your Family, Friends, Fans, Subscribers, Staff, Partners, Supporters and your Loved Ones Forever. AMEN

[@bonitalang9975]

There is no Jesus the Christ. The New Testament is a false teaching. Read chapter one of Isaiah to find out how to get salvation. There is no death or blood involved.

[@ibatan7243]

@@bonitalang9975 WRONG. I have read it. We, Christians, do NOT make any blood sacrifices at all. We do commemorate the death/resurrection of our ONLY EVERLIVING LORD/GOD Jesus Christ, God the Son. By his death, he sealed the NEW COVENANT between GOD and HUMANS that blood sacrifices are NO LONGER NECESSARY for the redemption of our sins. All what we have to do is believe in HIM as our ONLY GOD and ULTIMATE JUDGE, ask HIM for HIS forgiveness and REPENT (to the best of our capabilities). Prove to me that the New Testament is false?

[@tedgrant2]

Remember to keep comments respectful. In particular, never write anything that might upset a Moslem.

[@robertdoyle3582]

Excellent

[@vhawk1951kl]

When dear old Carl Gustav Jung was asked if he " believed in" god, he smiled and puffed on his pipe and said :"I know; if I know, why would I believe?"

[@jounisuninen]

If life was born spontaneously on Earth in the past, we would see it happening all the time. Evolutionists say that thermodynamics has always worked in the universe - so they refute their own evolution theory, but in the thermodynamics they are right. God is not supernatural for those who have encountered Him.

[@bobsmith-hd2zr]

@@jounisuninen dunning Kruger

[@kcrcbest]

love this and love Machen also :)

[@F15CEAGLE]

Maranatha.

[@edh.9584]

But you know, the news is even better than intelligent design. Intelligent design states that God set the parameters of the physical universe, and then left town. But that's deism. It's even better than that: in Genesis it states that "The Spirit moved over the waters." So the Spirit, God, accompanied creation from the very start, and continues to accompany creation.

[@dekutree64]

@All About Britain Have you seen Nathaniel Jeanson's work? Genetic science is discovering strong evidence for the reality of Noah's flood. Watch some videos about flood geology too, and hydroplate theory. I'm not entirely convinced yet since there are many features that I don't know how to explain without long ages. But plenty more than can't be explained any other way than a recent global flood (rock arches, dinosaur soft tissue, etc.).

[@abduazirhi2678]

Thanks for sharing this great video ! Dr Meyer's idea of information (digital code) stored in the DNA is a plausible and rock-solid evidence for an active intelligent design (first cause). Random processes do not create the terribly complex design. Materialism is an irrational doctrine.

[@mcmanustony]

"Meyer's idea of information (digital code) stored in the DNA is a plausible and rock-solid evidence for an active intelligent design"- no, it isn't. Why is so much of the genome junk? Have you tried reading books to learn about biology? I know it's harder work than sitting on your backside chanting slogans but it's very rewarding.

[@HeezRzn2112]

Dr Frankl in his book, "Man's Search for Meaning" cited similar tenets. Ohhh man....we have a penchant to mess up due to our own beliefs and aggrandizement

[@SNDN_LN]

Every creationist should read the paper life as a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics by E.D. Schneider.

[@rochellecaffee1417]

Life has purpose one day at a time. It seems hopeless to those who try to travel faster than God created them to go, and who are constantly “future tripping”, or trying to create something from something that is not there yet. NO ONE IS PROMISED TOMORROW. But Scripture tells that “manna” was given to the Hebrew people fresh, each day, and not more than they could eat in one day. Spiritual food works the same way. Emotional food is needed every day as well. I t was not intended that we would have more of what we need at any time….temperance is the principle, self-control is given by the Spirit to aid. Those who do not have the Truth and the Spirit, live foolishly always wanting this and that and more than is healthy or life-giving and sustaining. That is called “living from the FLESH, in the Word of God. Reality is best served when present evidence continues over time, where being “present” each day or prescribed time, produces the presence of truth. God gave us the creation to teach us that. Over dailyness, water in the stream will roll over the rocks breaking down and smoothing them. A small seed grows one day at a time and after many many days, weeks, years you have a large tree. Everything in creation is moving “slowly” as man perceives it, but the right pace is the healthy pace God created. There are numerous reasons for man to slow down to God’s pace. Those who are “walking by faith, are those who do not try to live in the future, or the past. God said, “I Am, is what you should tell them,” to Moses. He gives us the personal example of living ing the “present”. Why is there so much anxiety? Because people are being influenced to bypass God on the road, and get to “the answers, BEFORE WE CAN DEAL WITH IT. If you stop and ask yourself this question, “what is wrong at this moment, in my life?” Probably nothing. Things are probably just ok, or satisfactory. Then, you can ask to the anxious person, “why are you upset?” God has promised that he will provide for His children, like He provides for the birds every day. Our biggest problem is that we humans want, want, want, now, now, now, Racing to the end of our lives, and now, maybe the end of our wonderful planet. Progress needs to be redefined, to “slower and less.” Instead of “more, AND faster”. Every where we turn we are expected to RACE with the supposed Progress, or even BEAT IT, SO THAT WE CAN BE FIRST TO THE STOP LIGHT. Even the Stop light is trying to tell us something.

[@walkergarya]

The Origins of the Intelligent Design movement "Our strategy has been to change the subject so that we can get the issue of intelligent design - which really means the reality of God's creation - before the academic world and into the schools. This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science or the truth. It's about winning at any cost, and affirming the reality of the God of The Christian Bible, by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the academic arena. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this which we call "The wedge". But remember, we must avoid debating the Bible and the Book of Genesis at all costs because we do not want to raise the obvious Bible-science dichotomy. Our goal is, "how to win". Phrase the pseudoscience argument in such a way that you can get it heard in secular academia and in a way that tends to unify other science illiterates religious fence-sitters. You must also avoid getting sidetracked onto other issues (like empirical evidence) which our intellectual superiors people are always trying to do." - Phillip E Johnson - the father of the ID/creation-science movement Conclusion: Creationists/ID fans are dishonest cowards

[@jounisuninen]

"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science or the truth." Exactly! I have become to the conclusion that we see a battle between atheism and science. The atheist Dawkins' words are revealing: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Dawkins inadvertently admits that atheism per se has nothing to do with intellect or science. Instead, atheists are just happy if they feel like getting some support from Darwin’s outdated opinions. Here we can see Dawkins’ atheistic world view, not a scientific approach. From the scientific point of view the evolution theory in nothing more than an atheistic creed, full of unproven assumptions and wishful thinking.

[@garywalker447]

@@jounisuninen Nope. The Theory of Evolution is the foundation of all modern biology because it alone make sense of what we see in biology.

[@Myfootonyourneck1]

@@garywalker447 Are you serious? Even as evolution is real, there is no evidence of the mechanism of acts such as ape-like creature to human evolution or dinosaur to bird evolution. Adaptation yes, mutations acting on existing genes, yes. But to suggest that there is evidence of an evolutionary mechanism for the creation of novel genes is a joke. You cannot in any way show in evidence otherwise, so please stop

[@302indian]

How do you figure?

[@walkergarya]

@@302indian Ask any biologist that does not work for some creationist lobby org.

[@kevinpoole4323]

M.Sanger

[@michaelgonzalez9058]

Acualy there is a process of how the water is filtered through the fins or gills

[@302indian]

The process of Natural Selection sounds like a bloody amazing process. Does anyone know the origin of this process ? …I can’t find any information at all.

[@LibertasOrationis]

This was the Darwinian theory.. which was observed in micro evolution, as natural selection..

[@Braun09tv]

The question is how much of the design is mixed with chaos along all evolution / developement / outbreak & overshooting.

[@edh.9584]

Also see the movie 2001 for the alien theory.

[@axisofbeginning]

A joke about the contest between God and a scientist creating life: when the scientist was about to begin, he bent down and picked up a handful of dirt. God wagged a finger at him and said, "Put that down. You go make your own dirt." Max Planck said . . . "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." So intelligent design is the science of TODAY for TOMORROW. Then isn't it time we begin educating our children with the truth? Earth is where the Biblical story begins. Our Salvation is what His story is about, and Jesus, the Word of God, is the story's hero.

[@jounisuninen]

Wonderfully said! Yes, the time has come. A reborn Christian, I started studying creationism, genetics, evolution theory, thermodynamics, geology, radiometric, paleontology ... to get weapons for the spiritual battle for Christianity. It has been great to learn how my faith gets confirmed when I see how all modern scientific evidence witnesses more and more for God's existence. Intelligent design indeed is the science of today for tomorrow. 😎

[@skronked]

Can you explain what the Good Lord was thinking during the Jurassic? I think all you could come up with is.... a diversionary mind game done to put us off the track? Or maybe you think the Age of the Dinosaur is a fiction? Maybe the fiction is your Bronze Age messiah???

[@frankvandermerwe1487]

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - O my freaking God you are dumb if you think that is somehow true or profound. I've seen enough stupid on the internet for one day, but this bullshit comment has sent me off the edge. Literally one of the most retarded things i've seen a scientifically illiterate normie say. Jesus Christ. But funny enough, your "quote" is spot on - spot on when it applies to religion, such as Christianity. Which is based on biased and outdated doctrine, that should never be questioned, examined, scrutinized or changed. That quote is LITERALLY the opposite of the scientific method. Scientific method is forming a hypothesis, researching and providing evidence, writing a paper, distributing paper and findings to be scrutinized by the scientific community and experts in the field, and which is then continuously re-adjusted until consensus is reached by the community. To try and suggest that scientific findings and research is never questioned by opponents (other field experts) is being FREAKING intellectually dishonest, and literally the dumbest thing you can say about science. Go read a book. Also, Jesus doesnt exist. Nor was the earth created by a God. That's the truth.

[@frankvandermerwe1487]

@@jounisuninen "I started studying creationism, genetics, evolution theory, thermodynamics, geology, radiometric, paleontology ..." - O, how i doubt you have an inkling of an understanding for any of those topics.

[@jounisuninen]

​@@frankvandermerwe1487 An inkling ... Let's see if you've got an inkling of them. Please tell us the mechanism of how the universe appeared without God. Please give us the mechanism of how life started from lifeless matter against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Please give us the mechanism of how the "Universal Common Ancestor" could have produced the earths' biodiversity, without containing a DNA-code telling of planning. Please tell us how fossils could've got buried according to the Darwinist theory of slow layering, instead of getting eaten away. Do you know how the mass of space affects the speed of light and time? Do you know what are the Hox -genes and why they make evolution impossible? Do you understand why the evolutionist invention called "Universal Common Ancestor" could never exist? Do you know the difference between evolution and adaptive variation? Or do you know why subspecies can never bring about evolution? Please tell us why you believe in evolution while there's never been a singe successful scientific test to prove evolution possible. i doubt you have an inkling of understanding for any of these topics.

[@manamanathegreat4986]

I absolutely forbid you to read the Judges summary from the Kitzmiller trial.

[@f-xdemers2825]

It is fascinating how an apparently normal human brain can organize its perception as to fit any set of implanted concepts to the exclusion of all conflicting facts. Scarry, but interesting.

[@vgrof2315]

I would have Dr. Meyer go to a number of children's hospital cancer wards and explain his god to patients.

[@gskills55]

What college did that lady attend where science professors were "constantly" lecturing that students shouldn't believe in god based on the curriculum? Any secular or non-believing person would agree that would be an insane thing for any professor to say to their students even once let alone a bunch of professors "constantly". It's a good thing that story is completely made up.

[@edh.9584]

Wallace, at the time of Darwin, sketched evolution within a theistic perspective.

[@mirandahotspring4019]

The Catholic church teaches evolution in Catholic schools. They just say it is guided by god. A pity the nutty American fundamentalist Christians can't be as pragmatic!

[@302indian]

Henri Bergson did as well in his book Creative Evolution.

[@mirandahotspring4019]

@@302indian Bergson's book was more directed to orthogenesis than god, he claimed animals had an innate tendency that caused them to evolve to a predetermined end goal driven by the "élan vital", a "vital impetus."

[@edh.9584]

@@302indian Yes, I agree. I should read more Bergson, I was going to read some of Wallace at the time of Darwin.

[@Studio-gt2te]

The following reasons behind the raise of Unbelieval in God in the Western Countries: Here's a simplified explanation of the argument you mentioned: Some people who don't believe in God argue that if Jesus is considered God, then they find it difficult to understand why, according to Christian belief, Jesus did not save himself from crucifixion. They also question the logic of Jesus being God while, in Christian theology, God is said to have created the Universe. This leads to a perceived contradiction: if Jesus is God and created the Universe, how could he exist before himself?

[@BrianSHenry]

None of the opposing views are at all surprising, the Bible tells us the arrogance of the intellect will be their own downfall. It also tells us that the world will always deny the wisdom of God. Jesus said, repeatedly, let those with ears to hear, let them hear. And in Matthew 13:10-11 the disciples asked why do you teach in parables, he answered, it is given to you to understand the mysteries of heaven, but to them, it is not given. They cannot see or hear. Therefore it’s loving to be patient and care for them until they can. Which of course requires Jesus as Lord

[@garywalker447]

Science is based on detailed examination of evidence. Your dogma is based on accepting fairy tales written in old holy books without rational thought. I do not care what is in your bible or any other holy book. Do not demand respect for your religion from me, you will not get it.

[@skronked]

Can he explain the fun God had during the Jurassic period? Why Stephen, why?

[@mmccrownus2406]

No theory describes all aspects including Darwinist’s.

[@jounisuninen]

There was no "Jurassic period". Those "periods" are just names given by humans. Earth is only ca. 6000 years old. Noah's flood logically explains fossils and geological formations. All carcasses are eaten away within days. This means that the evolutionist story of dead animals getting slowly buried under earth layers during millions of years must be nonsense. All fossils have come about as the consequence of a great geological catastrophe (the Flood) which buried animals suddenly while they were still alive. From a biblical point of view, at the end of Noah’s Flood lots of sediment would have been added to the sea with the water coming off the unconsolidated land, making the amount of sediment perfectly consistent with a history of thousands of years. Iron-manganese nodules (IMN) on the sea floors. The measured rates of growth of these nodules indicates an age of only thousands of years. Lalomov, A.V., 2006. Mineral deposits as an example of geological rates. CRSQ 44(1):64-66. Related to this is the concentration of nickel in the oceans. The age of placer deposits (concentrations of heavy metals such as tin in modern sediments and consolidated sedimentary rocks). The measured rates of deposition indicate an age of thousands of years, not the assumed millions. See Lalomov, A.V., and Tabolitch, S.E., 2000. Age determination of coastal submarine placer, Val’cumey, northern Siberia. J. Creation (TJ) 14(3):83-90. Pressure in oil / gas wells indicate the recent origin of the oil and gas. If they were many millions of years old we would expect the pressures to equilibrate, even in low permeability rocks. “Experts in petroleum prospecting note the impossibility of creating an effective model given long and slow oil generation over millions of years (Petukhov, 2004). In their opinion, if models demand the standard multimillion-years geochronological scale, the best exploration strategy is to drill wells on a random grid.” -Lalomov, A.V., 2007. Mineral deposits as an example of geological rates. CRSQ 44(1):64-66. Direct evidence that oil is forming today in the Guaymas Basin and in Bass Strait is consistent with a young earth. Rapid reversals in paleomagnetism undermine use of paleomagnetism in long ages dating of rocks and speak of rapid processes, compressing the long-age time scale enormously. The pattern of magnetization in the magnetic stripes where magma is welling up at the mid-ocean trenches argues against the belief that reversals take many thousands of years and rather indicates rapid sea-floor spreading as well as rapid magnetic reversals, consistent with a young earth (Humphreys, D.R., Has the Earth’s magnetic field ever flipped? Creation Research Quarterly 25(3):130-137, 1988). Measured rates of stalactite and stalagmite growth in limestone caves are consistent with a young age of several thousand years. The decay of the earth’s magnetic field. Exponential decay, with fluctuations especially during and after the Flood, is evident from historical measurements and is consistent with the hypothesis of free decay since creation, suggesting an age of the earth of only thousands of years. For further evidence that it follows exponential decay with a time constant of 1611 years (±10) see: Humphreys, R., Earth’s magnetic field is decaying steadily-with a little rhythm, CRSQ 47(3):193-201; 2011. Excess heat flow from the earth is consistent with a young age rather than billions of years, even taking into account heat from radioactive decay. See Woodmorappe, J., 1999. Lord Kelvin revisited on the young age of the earth, J. Creation (TJ) 13(1):14, 1999. Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years. Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years. Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years. Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years. Note that attempts to explain away carbon-14 in diamonds, coal, etc., such as by neutrons from uranium decay converting nitrogen to C-14 do not work. These are part of the evidence for the Young Earth theory. Evolution theory is not based on science but on blind atheism. The whole evolution theory is so mindless, so full of scientifically unproved assumptions, that it limps forward only because in this world enough people hate the very idea of God.

[@jamesmiller7457]

Not his intent

[@larrywilliams5490]

Dr.Meyer,one of my favorites.

[@walkergarya]

Your favorite fraud? Why would you have a favorite fraud?

[@larrywilliams5490]

@@walkergarya In what way do you see him as being a fraud?

[@walkergarya]

@@larrywilliams5490 Intelligent Design is creationism and has NO scientific evidence, value or standing. It is psudoscience garbage and is nothing more than the reanimated corpse of "Creation Science", therefore entirely religious in nature.

[@larrywilliams5490]

@@walkergarya Keep playing your little game.You are a fool.

[@jounisuninen]

@@larrywilliams5490 Don't bother, they never give justifiable intelligent answer to that question. Evolution theory is an atheistic religion, obsession. For atheists the point is not whether evolution is true or not. The point is that God is not allowed to exist in their mind.

[@mousasaab2652]

Amazing lecture. The only critique I have is when he says “Judeo-Christian”, does Stephen Meyer mean it in a context that includes or excludes Islam? I understand Stephen is from the West and Hebrew/Christian interpretation of God is the most prevalent but it’s a really big to miss out on Islam which shares immense similarities between Judaism and Christianity separately, it is it maybe because the audience will only digest a Prostestant interpretation of scripture.

[@vhawk1951kl]

you mean the only criticism, not critique. He says Judaeo-Christian because Christianity is a subset of Judaism, which latter is monotheistic although strictly speaking Christianity does not require an idea of whatever god might be; I doubt Jesus christ ever used the word "god" in his life, partly because Jews are forbidden to use the word and partly because it is meaningless and controversial, so he went for cognates and synonyms such as my father in heaven which embraces causation on another level. It is often wisest to avoid using the word god because it means so many different things to so many different beings and triggers mechanical reactions in the motional function god =like or god=dislike, and that can be random or automatic(choiceless) An idea of whatever is meant by god is not necessarily a sine qua non of what is called Christianity which is not easily deciphered or understood and not necessarily normative. the teachings of Jesus make as much sense -however understood with or without the god word which I doubt he ever used, for pragmatic reasons.

[@jounisuninen]

"Islam which shares immense similarities between Judaism and Christianity " No similarities however can cross the abyss between Islam and Christianity when speaking of Jesus Christ. Islam says that Jesus was a mere prophet. In Islam it's considered blashemy against Allah if you claim that God has the Son. In Saudi Arabia and many other Islamic country you can lose your head if you declare that Allah has a son. Instead, in Christianity Jesus is our Savior and the Son of God. This difference means that Christianity as a religion is a blashemy against Allah! We are directly mocking Allah for just being Christians. So what practical meaning those "immense similarities" between Islam and Christianity could have? The very core of Christianity is Lord Jesus Christ, but for Muslims it is a direct attack against Allah. Judaism does not accept Christ either because they are still waiting for Him. Allah have cursed Jews so they neither are considered friends of Muslims.

[@thedynamicsolo4232]

No disrespect to you sir, but the Qouran stating over 230 times that Christians are to have their heads cut off, be murdered and subjected has no association with the new testament of Jesus Christ. The Koran also advocates "Tekkiyah" meaning it is acceptable to lie to others to promote Islam. You may want to listen to David Wood with the apologetics roadshow on this media platform.

[@Sadqajaria786]

From where life came in first organism on this planet??

[@Erik_Danley]

Nice try Gould. In his Origin Of Species (the full title of which might surprise people, btw), Darwin mentioned God numerous times

[@mcmanustony]

In Darwins day the term "race" meant what we now call "species". What point were you hoping to make?

[@andywomack3414]

If I knew who designed my body I would sue them for malpractice.

[@vincentrusso4332]

Horseshoe crabs are several million years older than us, yet remain unchanged...however we are the one wearing sneakers... Selah

[@jounisuninen]

"Horseshoe crabs are several million years older than us," No scientifically valid evidence for that, just wishful assumptions.

[@tedgrant2]

My teeth were designed to be pulled out.

[@robertmcclintock8701]

With a television you don't have to be supernatural. God prefer that because it's more social but we have to use it correctly. Right now we have anarchy blindness. Despite the anarchy blindness I figured it out. That proves we can be God like. Only a person getting crucified would suspect something greater. They crucified me with exact same disease that in pink Floyd the wall. Victor said it's all good. It should be possible to make everything all good.:⁠-⁠)

[@tedgrant2]

I'm very worried about my future. What if God doesn't love me ? How can I be sure ?

[@thedynamicsolo4232]

You can be sure. First thing, do the things (not works, but acts of faith) that seal you as a child of God by faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 6). Once you are saved, you have assurance that the future really doesn't matter (to a point, generally) because God is in control of it. It is a much bigger study (that is why He gives us time) but as you "fail forward" and gain victories through seeing what those sins do, you gain the victory of Christ. If you want some things that will help assuage your anxiety, let me know. CJ

[@tedgrant2]

@@thedynamicsolo4232 I've read Romans 6 carefully, but it didn't help much. I understand the concept of sin, but I don't understand why we are sinful. We are all children of God, who designed us very carefully ! How can we be bad ?

[@paulgarrett4474]

​@tedgrant2 you're literally worrying about nothing.

[@neromillie]

​@@tedgrant2 A perfect God, desiring nothing less than the love of His creation, created humans in such a way that they had the genuine capacity to choose to love and accept Him or to choose to hate and reject Him. So, in this view, God Himself did not create sin, He only created the capacity for sin. God here takes on a passive involvement rather than an active involvement in the existence of sin or imperfection.

[@tedgrant2]

@@neromillie But Jesus never sinned and he had free will ! I'm sure God could have designed us to be good, regardless of free will and temptation. My dog is good, loves people and has never tried to bite anybody, despite having free will.

[@thedynamicsolo4232]

It all boils down to "Where did it all come from?". Hawking, Penrose, Sandage, Polkinghorn have given enough for any doubter to come to believe in the Almighty God. Any other stance is outright willful ignorance/indifference. Throw in DNA, Fine Tuning and backward extrapolation of the universe and abiogenesis studies, there can be NO OTHER CONCLUSION. God bless you seeker. You can trust the Creator of the universe and His son who Co Created us for His glory.

[@302indian]

You could say the results of all this scientific inquiry , while interesting , were quite superfluous to those who knew what the fact was all along.

[@blackmagicfilms39]

The fundamental mistake of creationists’ reasoning is that even if Darwin is wrong, it doesn't mean their god is real. If it looks like it was designed, it doesn't mean it was. "Designed nature" is a purely subjective perspective. Creationists fail to present any evidence for a supernatural aspect to the universe.

[@oneplaneteer1708]

I don't think it was the scientific method that lead folks astray from their faith. They were just shown that they can high a higher standard for evidence than stories, regardless of how new or old those stories are

[@sleepvark1]

I haven’t seen you try your bull shit arguments in favor of ID in a court of law lately. Does a perjury charge scare you that much?

[@deborahroghair5993]

It is sad these men who rejected God's existance are now in Hell.

[@garywalker447]

There is no hell.

[@edh.9584]

Marx rejoiced when he heard of Darwin's theory - that there was an explanation which left out God. Too bad materialism isn't true.

[@norbertjendruschj9121]

What has Marx´reaction to do with the question if Darwin´s theory is true nor not? You should learn to ask the right questions. Your comment just disqualifies you.

[@edh.9584]

@@norbertjendruschj9121 True enough. My two sentences weren't connected.

[@norbertjendruschj9121]

@@edh.9584 Now you impress me. Qualified again 🙂

[@garywalker447]

What about "materialism" is not true?

[@edh.9584]

@@garywalker447 Materialism was very popular around the 1920s, but as time has passed and even as science has discovered more, the shortcomings of materialism have become more apparent. Of course belief in materialism was present as far back as the ancient world, with Democritus. If we believe that everything has a cause, that reality is rational, then matter just can't explain what we see. Though Dawkins made a really strenuous (and quite silly) stab at it in his book about the gene. But hey, just because you're a materialist doesn't make you a bad guy.

[@edh.9584]

Dawkins says that people believe in God because they can't explain what exists. Not so - people believe in God because they have encountered God.

[@norbertjendruschj9121]

Very well, you just explained why I do not believe in God. But maybe you have his telephone number?

[@edh.9584]

@@norbertjendruschj9121 One can ask God to reveal himself, if one wishes. We'll all meet him eventually.

[@norbertjendruschj9121]

@@edh.9584 "We'll all meet him eventually." Well, will be hard for me to listen to all his/her excuses.

[@edh.9584]

@@norbertjendruschj9121 Very good, that's what one man said "I would say he didn't give me enough evidence."

[@sbranscum]

So, let me get this straight. There is a all powerful God, that loves us and created everything for us. But, the less we believe in this magic, the more bad things happen. So in essence, God is punishing us because his popularity is going down? Isn't that the definition of a narcissists???

[@mmccrownus2406]

It is not punishment but rather the logical result. Pull out the power cord and flow stops

[@frankvandermerwe1487]

@@mmccrownus2406 O, that's convenient

[@robertp5998]

@@mmccrownus2406 Agreed. Entropy is the state of this physical "dimension" for lack of a better word. This means in the physical realm things decay and that includes morals, a necessity of society. Without a standard or set of rules to live by that result in better outcomes, chaos and disorder take over. Consider this, roadways for cars would not exist or function if there were no rules of the road. Abide by the rules of the road and people can use them and drive relatively safely. Don't use the rules of the road, chaos is the result. Don't use or consider God's rules of life, then order disintegrates as disorder takes over. But this is not God's fault since it is the people that have the choice. It is not a punishment, but merely the outcome.

[@vhawk1951kl]

it is queer that you impute to some mister god all the nasty petty vindictive judgmentalism of men or have created a mister god in your own image, on the basis of what actual evidence is a complete mystery. Why suppose that your famous mister god is just as nasty and petty as you are?

[@tedgrant2]

The moon was intelligently designed for Clangers.

[@mcmanustony]

Mustn't forget the soup dragon.

[@tedgrant2]

@@mcmanustony I'll keep it in mind.

[@area51z63]

Hey Steve, when a star goes supernova creating debris for new stars and planets. Who engineers this? I believe in God but you are saying that nothing happens in the universe without Gods ok, which is as silly as your audience

[@edh.9584]

Intelligent design sounds kind of cold. If the Spirit accompanies creation, it's kind of like a parent leading on a child, a gentle guidance, as matter follows the guidance of the Spirit. And it's not mechanical in that it's just done by the presence of God.

[@gfujigo]

I completely disagree with Intelligent Design. However one point I will agree with is that we as Christians leave our children completely unprepared to face challenges to Christianity. Churches seem addicted to infantilizing the gospel and leave the faithful unable to understand, articulate, and even defend the truths of the gospel message.

[@gfujigo]

@Anon Ymous Intelligent design is actually a rejection of the Bible and the traditional teachings of the church. Intelligent design is actually at its core a capitulation to an atheistic, materialistic world view. It is actually very belittling to and contrary to what the Bible teaches us about God.

[@sbranscum]

@Anon Ymous Wow!! Such a inclusive group you are a part of!! 'You are not allowed to be a Christian unless you believe how I believe' Sign me up!!!

[@robertp5998]

@@sbranscum Your statement and logic is flawed. Using logical fallacies such as straw man and red herring, amongst others, leaves your point moot and only shows your bias. Try making a logical, intellectual, and academic criticism next time so that people can take you seriously. Christian's believe in Christ, the son of God, without who nothing was made. God who made everything, by necessity, had to be intelligent enough to design and create it all. It is not about being "inclusive" or "believe how I believe", but pure definition of doctrine easily documented in the Bible.

[@greatminds1017]

How is ID not viable when airplanes and other machines of flight are based on the study of birds and aerodynamics.... to me if one believes that birds can come about with random unguided involvement, with not a sign of intelligence behind it then airplanes and their engineers are a joke. And these crafts are not even alive. Humans live in an artificial world created with intelligent minds behind it yet somehow it is impossible for that to be the case in the natural world. It really makes no sense if people say Intelligent design is out of the picture. That is one major flaw which is hard to understand.

[@greatminds1017]

@Anon Ymous That is like saying "look an iphone is not proof of design." If your memory was wiped and you never knew about Jobs and his team or Apple, it still does not make sense to conclude the iphone assembled itself randomly, especially after studying the hardware and software. So do you need to meet the programmer to know it was programmed... Nope. The design SPEAKS for the minds behind it. It is a conclusion that makes sense, and yes people do act as if it is abnormal to think this way. Darwin never knew the knowledge we know today and yet Newton and others even before him came to a different conclusion through their studies. The evidence they saw was evidence of design. This makes sense because this is the same principle in our world. You see a design for a house etc, it is 100 percent sure there is a designer.

[@tedgrant2]

I've never understood why God created some cunning animals. We've all seen a cat creeping slowly towards an unsuspecting bird. And don't forget the "subtil" beast God created ! (Genesis 3:1)

[@tedgrant2]

"Nothing shall be impossible unto you" (Matthew 17:20) "With men this is impossible" (Matthew 19:26) Mmmm...maybe a little more editing is required.

[@CR-yd4qe]

And when the first Christian quoted the Old Testament, the Hebrew said “get your own testament” and when the 5th century bce Hebrew quoted the Talmud the Canaanite polytheist said ^*%+@@(#} you get the idea. The moral of this is “don’t think you have the only or the first god”. 🐹

[@AhirZamanSairi]

58:48 Not 10 billion universes just this one, I guess he mixed it up. Because our universe has 10 to the 90 particles, and the cosmological constant also 10 to the 90, so 1, not 10 billion, still completely impossible tho

[@thedynamicsolo4232]

You may want to hear Douglas Axe on this point.

[@AhirZamanSairi]

@@thedynamicsolo4232 I know yeah I did

[@tedgrant2]

Snake oil.

[@edh.9584]

If I have it right, Dawkin's mother ran off with an Anglican minister, who brought his mother to South Africa, where she died. At age 12 Dawkins had to go to South Africa to get her body, and he (quite understandably) hated God and religion since then. If I have it right.

[@2msvalkyrie529]

You do NOT have it right !! I am no fan of Dawkins but you should debate him on Scientific grounds ! Your comment was despicable !

[@edh.9584]

@@2msvalkyrie529 Well, Mr. Dawkins makes arguments which seem more like tenets of faith rather than ideas based on science, so I was looking for something in his background which might explain his choice of beliefs.

[@jounisuninen]

@@edh.9584 Exactly ... One must understand that atheism is a religion which is based on the conviction that God must not be. This means that whatever scientific evidence is presented for God's existence, it doesn't change the basic atheist worldview. "Life can only come from life and intelligent code can only come from intelligent mind" are compelling, proven and logical facts, telling of Intelligent Design. It doesn't mean that logical facts would have any effect on the atheistic mindset. Richard Dawkins’ words are revealing: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Dawkins inadvertently admits that atheism per se has nothing to do with intellect or science. Atheists are just happy if they feel like getting some support from Darwin. Here we see Dawkins’ atheistic world view, not any kind of scientific approach. It's not incorrect to name evolution a religion. Atheists are atheists with or without Darwin.

[@ChrisHall0397]

😢 Intelligent Design has been debunked SO many times that it's PAINFUL to hear this guy still make grand efforts to keep the baseless idea relevant.

[@Pyr0Ben]

Debunked how? Athiests have already accidentally disproven that life could start on its own. They still don't even have a smart sounding theory for how the universe came to exist. God is necessary. Design is necessary.

[@mcmanustony]

​@@Pyr0Ben Debunked by Kenneth Miller- evolutionary biologist and devout Catholic. Debunked by dozens and dozens of scientists who unlike the lying hack, Meyer, actually WORK IN THE RELEVANT FIELDS There is absolutely ZERO evidence for any designer- in physiology, in genetics, in biochemistry....etc. "Athiests have already accidentally disproven that life could start on its own" I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I doubt you do either. You'd be a bit more credible, maybe, if you could spell "atheist" correctly.

[@Reclaimer77]

@@Pyr0Ben LOL @ "smart-sounding" said unironically...

[@tedgrant2]

God designed birds with eyes on the side of the head so they can look out for cats all around. He designed cats with forward facing eyes so they can focus accurately when stalking birds. I guess he enjoys the contest.

[@KatyYoder-cq1kc]

No, God allows certain circumstances because of the Fall of Adam and Eve, thus enters Satans reigning power and God's plan of redemption and overcoming all Evil through Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour. The Greatest Story Ever Told and the only one that matters.

[@tedgrant2]

@@KatyYoder-cq1kc My science teacher told me that energy cannot be created. But I knew that wasn't true, because it is created by nuclear bombs. And God can create energy just by speaking !

[@tedgrant2]

@@KatyYoder-cq1kc I've often wondered why some people are blind from birth. (John 9:7)

[@tedgrant2]

Intelligent design is very important to Christians. It helps them to believe there really is a god. And it explains why rabbits have white tails.

[@tedgrant2]

@All About Britain Got designed rabbits with white tails to make them easier to shoot.

[@robertp5998]

@All About Britain Why and how would evolution explain white tails in rabbits? Explain this in detail and scientifically so that I may learn. Because everything I know in chemistry, biology and engineering says there is no biological or chemical mechanism or a "pre-rabbit" genetic source code to do so.

[@robertp5998]

@All About Britain This response, "Rabbits evolved white tails because they provide a survival advantage", fails to answer the questions of why and how evolution would explain why rabbits have white tails, explained in detail and scientifically as was requested. This is a "magic wand" reply with no depth, no science, and no explanation. It's a "just cuz" response. You have not proved nor shown anything of substance. What is the survival advantage? How did this happen and where did the white come from? DNA does not create new features but degrades. The DNA code for any trait is either present or it is not. What color tails did rabbits have before white tails? Where is the evidence for what color tails rabbits had before. Stating a survival advantage doesn't give proof that white tails evolved. The onus is on you to document that the tail colors were a different color, then document the reason for the change, and document how that would have done so genetically. Otherwise, without proof, it is equally likely that the species of rabbits that have white tails have always had white tails. Which is easier to document by finding fossilized remains of ancient rabbits and compare the genetic code to a rabbit of present time. And you can find some studies on this.

[@robertp5998]

​@All About Britain This 'What kind of word salad is "pre rabbit genetic source code"' almost sounds like you want to try to be insulting but I will assume that you are asking a genuine question and are just showing your ignorance because you might not be that informed or possibly not that well versed in evolution, science, or maybe even the English language. So I will explain. The etymology of the prefix "pre" comes from Latin and means before, prior to, in front of. So a pre rabbit would be the organism that comes before a rabbit. Unless you have a name for the evolutionary precursor to rabbits whose fossils date back to the Eocene Epoch some 40 million year ago. Quick test, what era came before the Cambrian era? Continuing on, genetic is from Greek origins and means relating to kind or offspring. Source is related to root or base. Code can simply be understood as a system of signals or symbols for communication. This could have been confusing since it can mean different things in different contexts. Now putting everything together. Genetic code is the biological instructions that not only makes organisms unique but is passed along to offspring to map out the growth of the offspring. We call it deoxyribonucleic acid. Otherwise known as DNA. You were stating that evolution explains why rabbits have white tails. If this is true, then the instructions for white tails is in the rabbit's DNA. Where did the rabbits get that DNA? Where is the source or origins of the genetic code? What came before the rabbits, aka pre rabbits? Genetic code either has information and instructions or it does not. Genetic code does not have the power to create new information. However, the information can degrade and become distorted and/or become lost never to be retrieved again in a genetic line. I hope this helps you understand. I suggest that you do more research and contemplation because I stand by my statement. I'll also note that evolutionary theory is all but dead as discussed at the Royal Society's conference "New Trends in Evolutionary Biology" in London in November 2016. Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd Müller said there, “the neo-Darwinian paradigm still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution, as represented by recent textbooks” it “has no theory of the generative.” In other words, the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection lacks the creative power to generate the novel anatomical traits and forms of life that have arisen during the history of life. Yet, as Müller noted, neo-Darwinian theory continues to be presented to the public via textbooks as the canonical understanding of how new living forms arose. Source - evolutionnews.org/2016/12/why_the_royal_s/

[@jounisuninen]

@@allaboutbritain3367 By which genetic mechanism?

[@haroldchester904]

Poor old Darwin gets all the flack. Not only is he responsible for the origin of atheism but also the Holocaust. If not Darwin - then God did it. But please Dr Meyer (I'm on your side) give us the mechanism of how God did it.

[@walkergarya]

Meyer is a fraud. There is NO basis for Intelligent Design.

[@jounisuninen]

Atheists never give up. If the main evidences are heading towards intelligent design, atheists are ready to reject the most obvious path and start going the less probable path as long as it's materialistic. No theistic researcher could be as fervent in his worldview than an atheist who has the blind faith in the power of "Holy Happenstance". Richard Dawkins’ words are revealing: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Dawkins inadvertently admits that atheism per se has nothing to do with intellect or science. Atheists are just happy if they feel like getting some support from Darwin's outdated opinions. Here we see Dawkins’ atheistic world view, not any kind of scientific approach. It's not incorrect to name evolution a religion. Atheists are atheists with or without Darwin. The supporters of evolution theory seem to be painfully ignorant of genome’s limits to produce transformation in the basic anatomical structure of any organism. The immutability of body plan is the core problem for evolution theory.

[@garywalker447]

Poor old Darwin gets all the flack. Not only is he responsible for the origin of atheism but also the Holocaust. If not Darwin - then God did it. But please Dr Meyer (I'm on your side) give us the mechanism of how God did it.

[@MarcusHitch]

Nope. Couldn't make it through. It is hard to watch a proven liar plying his trade. But I did try!

[@thedynamicsolo4232]

You claim he lies, can you elaborate on your claim and prove otherwise?

[@MarcusHitch]

@@thedynamicsolo4232 Why would I elaborate on my claim and prove otherwise? Wouldn't that be refuting myself? (I'm guessing that sounded better in your head, huh?) 🤔

[@jk.9300]

When are the arguments going to come? All he’s done is tell stories, show belief statistics, and summarize other philosophers.

[@hazeyswayze9910]

you can choke by just eating, cancer and your immune system can kill you by eating a protein from a food source

[@jounisuninen]

​@@allaboutbritain3367 There is NO EVIDENCE for evolution - just a lot of unproven assumptions. "A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory Evolution has never been successfully tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results! Evolution is pure fiction. That's why evolutionists have started to call adaptive changes and subspecies as ”evolution”. But there is no evolution. Species can produce only adaptive variations and subspecies, that’s all. In America there are over 20 elk subspecies. They are all elks and they will never produce anything but different elks. Subspecies are specialized for their environment. Specialization happens in the genome of a given population. Evolution however would need new and different genes. But there are no such genes. Mutations do not bring them. Mutations never create new functional anatomical structures, they only damage genes. Genomes specialize when natural selection eliminates individuals with less fit genes and favors the individuals with fitter genes. When this continues long enough, only the individuals with dominating fitter genes are left and they copulate mainly or only with each others (because the less fit are dead). This means specialized i.e. impoverished genomes. Genetic impoverishment can be useful while the surrounding natural conditions do not change. But when that happens, there's not enough variation in the existing genomes to enable new adaptation. The end of the road is extinction. All so-called ”evolutionary” processes are in fact devolution processes, as each new subspecies has less genetic variety than its stem species (like "dealing a deck of cards"). This fact makes impossible for any subspecies to create the path that would lead to new taxonomic genera or new taxonomic families i.e. to evolution.

[@possumm1702]

Meyer is a joke. His beliefs are based on his income

[@jamessheffield4173]

Entropy.

[@jounisuninen]

The Law of Entropy rules the whole universe. That's why we are heading towards the universal heat death. That's why extinctions are increasing. All goes just like the Bible says. In his posthumously-published Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John, Isaac Newton expressed his belief that Bible prophecy would not be understood "until the time of the end", and that even then "none of the wicked shall understand". I indeed appreciate Isaac Newton. The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that all matter decays by time and advances towards maximal entropy i.e. maximal disorder. That is the principal direction of all matter and it can only temporarily be stopped or reversed by using the continuously diminishing free energy => no abiogenesis => no evolution. This is what Bible predicts and this is what we see. God's deeds and the discoveries of honest human science are in total harmony. Sun is immensely bigger than a light bulb so it just takes more time to burn out - but burn out it does, and after that there will be no free energy for the earth anymore. So there is no miracle, just the way how God created our universe and how He will roll it up. This all is told in Bible. Hebrews 1:10-12 10 He also says,“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. 11 They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. 12 You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.” Thermodynamics is working all the time just as God intended - “they will all wear out …”. Bible told thousands of years ago the fact which evolutionists still don’t understand - there is no evolution. Just entropy and devolution.

[@markwrede8878]

Unfortunately the intelligence is clearly ET, rendering claims to divine authority undeniably foolish.

[@jounisuninen]

Proving the existence of God is easy while using the abductive method. When the evolution theory (which being an atheist religion is compelled to rest on abiogenesis) and creation are set against each other, we can successfully use the abductive method called Occam’s razor. Occam’s razor is the problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements. It is also known as the principle of parsimony or the law of parsimony. The most simple explanation is most probably the best explanation. For example, if in the forest there is a burn-out tree, it can be the consequence of a landing flying saucer or perhaps a lightning. According to Occam’s razor, lightning is the better explanation because it requires less assumptions. Using this method, existence of the Intelligent Designer is easy to prove against the abiogenesis. Abiogenesis means independent emergence of life from lifeless matter. It has been tried to prove empirically since 1953, always in vain. The impossibility of abiogenesis is known to anyone who has dug in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics i.e. the Law of Entropy. Because abiogenesis as a theory breaks the laws of physics, Occam’s razor cuts off abiogenesis as a possible reason for the birth of life - but it does not cut off the possibility of Intelligent Design. When we argue logically, we use the so called abductive argumentation which means a logic based on the best explanation available. That is a kind of “reductio ad absurdium” -argumentation where a counter argument is shown poorly justified and thus implausible. Bible predicts entropy not evolution, and entropy indeed rules the universe. So why should anyone believe in evolution and not in Intelligent Design - especially as there is no third alternative?

[@thedynamicsolo4232]

Proof please? If you cannot prove God or disprove God, you cannot prove ET's or that there are not ET's. You are positing self cancelling logic and it is also circular. It is the same as saying "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being that has infinite knowledge".

[@markwrede8878]

@@thedynamicsolo4232 I cannot disprove the figments of imagination.

[@robertmcclintock8701]

The demon in sunshine movie is Jesus. It's not reality but people's perceptions. The churches have failed Jesus. Fighting over the star makes more sense than the horrible prophecy fighting over who knows what.:⁠-⁠D

[@norbertjendruschj9121]

It´s funny that Meyer wants to besmirch Darwin for his brillant proposal of an unguided process while in reality that´s the great idea of Darwin. Not forget: If we look into nature, one is tempted to speak of unintelligent instead of intelligent design. God would be a quite dull dude if he were responsible for Mr. Meyer.

[@norbertjendruschj9121]

@Copy of fruit ninja For a creationist your comment might be funny. For an evolutionist it shows you have understood absolutely nothing. And as I have learned that there is no remedy against wilful ignorance, I only say: Have a nice day.

[@norbertjendruschj9121]

@Copy of fruit ninja As an academic I surely need no lessons from a moron who is to stupid to understand propability theory and nethertheless thinks he hits the bull´s eye 10 out of 10, while in reality he does not even gets the direction right.

[@norbertjendruschj9121]

@Copy of fruit ninja I really hate it when guys delete their comments to conceal their stupity. "Copy of fruit ninja Norbert Jendruschj just admit the odds are against your stupid theories. And yes mr academic I can teach you a lesson every hour. " Haha, you listen to the creationistic scum and believe their lies. This alone shows you understand nothing. The propability you quoted is meaningless because the basic process is not propabilistic. You got not only the direction wrong but also the starting point. Poor dude, lost in the woods.

[@norbertjendruschj9121]

@Copy of fruit ninja "Fortunately for us we have the answers for everything." Yes, your 8 letter science: God did it. You and your kind are the laughting stock of all educated people in the world.

[@jounisuninen]

@@norbertjendruschj9121 "I only say: Have a nice day." While you don't have the means to defend your opinion, why do you bother to present it in the first place?

[@031767sc]

this guys a JOKE

[@jasc4364]

Are these people for real? This is so ridiculous. The USA is the most advanced country scientifically and at the same time half of the population still believes in old religious superstitions.

[@jounisuninen]

What could be more religious superstition than the evolution theory? Let's start from the core of Darwinist evolution theory: "All life on Earth stems from a Universal Common Ancestor (UCA)". In fact, modern evolutionists use to hide this part of their theory because it is a purely hypothetical assumption with no scientific basis - and common people have started to understand it. Most amusingly, UCA works against the very evolution theory! Science has no observation whatever of the UCA. According to evolutionists, the UCA is supposed to have been a simple cell. Science however does not know simple cells, they are all complicated. But if we accept that there was UCA, it would've had the impossible task to produce evolution while working against the evolution theory 😂 According to the theory, evolution needs natural selection. Natural selection needs variation in the organisms, so that the fittest survive and the less fit go croak. The UCA however could've produced mere clones of itself. No sexual reproduction, no variation, nothing for nature to select - no evolution.

[@JMaNRegZ]

so many bad arguments in this

[@carlospadron488]

Can you mention a few sir?all opinions are welcome

[@LookOutForNumberOne]

This Young Earth preacher is a bag of fallacies.

[@midlander4]

Con artist

[@paulray5647]

Your pithy comment is hardly a convincing argument against the detailed narrative that Steven puts forward

[@walkergarya]

@@paulray5647 Intelligent Design Creationism is a farce of pseudoscience. Meyer is a master of baffle gabb and bullshit.

[@midlander4]

@Paul Ray shame he's more interested in pushing a narrative than telling the truth.

[@edhouse4826]

Ok genius. MIT math professors working with biology professors have proven beyond any doubts that there is not even close to enough time for evolution to work. Barring all the biological evidence. You LOSE sir, good day.

[@walkergarya]

@@edhouse4826 If the math formulas do not accurately model what is happening in reality then the math is useless. We have directly observe Evolution happening so clearly, Evolution works and your math does not.

[@TheBeatle49]

Nonsense

[@chrisbrooks4032]

Intelligent design, it’s complete nonsense is what it is. Trying (and failing miserably) to disguise religious beliefs as science is beyond pathetic.

[@jounisuninen]

"Trying (and failing miserably) to disguise religious beliefs as science is beyond pathetic." How true! Evolution believers should remind themselves of this fact. "A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory How many times has evolution been successfully tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results? Answer is ZERO. How did the universe appear without God? How did life start from lifeless matter against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? How the Darwin's "Universal Common Ancestor" could have produced biodiversity, without containing the DNA-code and Hox genes which tell of intelligent planning for future? Or did you know that the Hox genes could not appear through random mutations because they have a task for future generations and evolution don't plan for future? You believe in all that happening without a Creator, without a slightest evidence to support your faith. Yours indeed is a blind faith.

[@walkergarya]

The Origins of the Intelligent Design movement "Our strategy has been to change the subject so that we can get the issue of intelligent design - which really means the reality of God's creation - before the academic world and into the schools. This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science or the truth. It's about winning at any cost, and affirming the reality of the God of The Christian Bible, by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the academic arena. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this which we call "The wedge". But remember, we must avoid debating the Bible and the Book of Genesis at all costs because we do not want to raise the obvious Bible-science dichotomy. Our goal is, "how to win". Phrase the pseudoscience argument in such a way that you can get it heard in secular academia and in a way that tends to unify other science illiterates religious fence-sitters. You must also avoid getting sidetracked onto other issues (like empirical evidence) which our intellectual superiors people are always trying to do." - Phillip E Johnson - the father of the ID/creation-science movement Conclusion: Creationists/ID fans are dishonest cowards

[@vincentrusso4332]

That's why we go back to the cuneiform texts, they recorded why our DNA is fused, why we were sterile, which is normal being a hybrid, the made several adjustments and we were able to reproduce on our own. They explained it all in great detail. Now if the cuneiform was good enough to steal all our math, time and Geometry units we use to this day from than obviously there must be some truth in the events they recorded. They also could design and build things we can't replicate to this day.. e.g.: the great pyramid, the 1K ton block at Balbek in Lebanon etc. Furthermore they recorded why they built the Pyramid, and the secret to how it was powered. It's all been clearly recorded. Now Genesis is pretty much all symbolic, everything from Noah to Christ has empirical archeological evidence for. KZbin Ron Wyatt's Discoveries 2022, and you will see evidence from Noah's Ark to the Ark of the covenant to everything in between. The Genesis account is all Annunaki, that's why KZbin puts a disclaimer on anything Annunaki related..and if you know anything about KZbin things with disclaimers mean you are over the target. - Surry Virginia

[@walkergarya]

@@vincentrusso4332 Vinnie, the people who wrote the cuneiform texts knew nothing about science or biology. This is the stupidest post I have seen in a long time.

[@walkergarya]

The Origins of the Intelligent Design movement "Our strategy has been to change the subject so that we can get the issue of intelligent design - which really means the reality of God's creation - before the academic world and into the schools. This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science or the truth. It's about winning at any cost, and affirming the reality of the God of The Christian Bible, by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the academic arena. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this which we call "The wedge". But remember, we must avoid debating the Bible and the Book of Genesis at all costs because we do not want to raise the obvious Bible-science dichotomy. Our goal is, "how to win". Phrase the pseudoscience argument in such a way that you can get it heard in secular academia and in a way that tends to unify other science illiterates religious fence-sitters. You must also avoid getting sidetracked onto other issues (like empirical evidence) which our intellectual superiors people are always trying to do." - Phillip E Johnson - the father of the ID/creation-science movement Conclusion: Creationists/ID fans are dishonest cowards

[@walkergarya]

The Origins of the Intelligent Design movement "Our strategy has been to change the subject so that we can get the issue of intelligent design - which really means the reality of God's creation - before the academic world and into the schools. This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science or the truth. It's about winning at any cost, and affirming the reality of the God of The Christian Bible, by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the academic arena. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this which we call "The wedge". But remember, we must avoid debating the Bible and the Book of Genesis at all costs because we do not want to raise the obvious Bible-science dichotomy. Our goal is, "how to win". Phrase the pseudoscience argument in such a way that you can get it heard in secular academia and in a way that tends to unify other science illiterates religious fence-sitters. You must also avoid getting sidetracked onto other issues (like empirical evidence) which our intellectual superiors people are always trying to do." - Phillip E Johnson - the father of the ID/creation-science movement Conclusion: Creationists/ID fans are dishonest cowards

[@jounisuninen]

I have never heard of Phillip E Johnson. Citing obsessively his thoughts here gives us the impression, that you do not have any scientific theses to prove wrong the creationist theses.

[@walkergarya]

@@jounisuninen Sorry but Johnson was one of the people who revived the fairy tale of Young Earth Creationism. If you do not know about him, that is your problem, not mine.