God and Information Theory | Stars, Cells, and God

Join Jeff Zweerink and Eric Hedin as they discuss new discoveries taking place at the frontiers of science that have theological and philosophical implications, including the reality of God’s existence.
God and Information Theory
In this episode, we discuss how living things exhibit a high degree of information¬-far beyond what can be explained by natural causes. The physics underlying information theory shows us that natural forces will degrade the information content of a closed system over time. Since the origin and progressive complexity of life manifests a dramatic increase in information, we conclude that the existence of living things is consistent only with intelligent design-as ascribed in the Bible to the creative work of God.
References:
Eric Hedin, “Is Life An Information Ratchet?,” evolutionnews....
Eric Hedin, “Information and Life’s Origin-A Retrospective View,” evolutionnews....
Eric Hedin, “Physics, Information Loss, and Intelligent Design,” evolutionnews....
Help us create even more empowering resources!
Support Reasons to Believe at: support.reason...
Follow RTB_Official for updates!
Facebook: / rtbofficial
Twitter: / rtb_official
Instagram: / rtb_official
Website: www.reasons.org

[@dianeflynn5111]

I like the time and thoughtfulness you take to truly explain the scientific reasoning. It helps me to understand and be able to remember the information. I thank God for the people at RTB.

[@HiFatherElisha]

Thank you Jeff and Eric for a fascinating talk. I appreciate your ministry so much. As John Lennox would say: "In the beginning was the Word..."

[@charlesmorris8791]

Thank you both very much for sharing. May God Bless you, your loved ones, and everyone who hears this message. Maranatha!

[@hunterhestekin7420]

This channel is awesome!!!! I am excited for this video! Love you guys! Thank you!

[@joeosp1689]

An entertaining and easy-to-understand book about the creation and evolution debate is Axis of Beginning.

[@InfoArtistJKatTheGoodInfoCafe]

Thank you for this informative video. "It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information" -- Professor Anton Zeilinger, 2011

[@cookiemonster3147]

This was very interesting!

[@Indorm]

"I believe that at the center of the universe there dwells a loving spirit who longs for all that’s best in all of creation, a spirit who knows the great potential of each planet as well as each person, and little by little will love us into being more than we ever dreamed possible. That loving spirit would rather die than give up on any one of us.” ~Fred Rogers~

[@pvdguitars2951]

So good! Now imagine that proteins were made by a natural process first. Next nature would have to reverse engineer the DNA or RNA code sequence to replicate those proteins. Now try to explain this without an intelligent mind? Jesus is King! Amen!

[@Jon-ti1rb]

The same forces that "might" could have created this hypothetical cell would have killed it far, far more quickly. WE ARE our own best evidence for the existence of God!

[@LinsonJoseph]

I wonder, how they explain dinosaur soft tissue. And that slates form very quickly.

[@timconstable7348]

@gerardmoloney433 'They' are scientists such as Mary Schweitzer, who first made the shocking discovery of pliable and recognisable soft tissue in a dinosaur fossil. Geologists have many facts which don't fit long-term uniformitarianism, but which they refuse to talk about, the rapid formation of slates being just one of them.

[@LinsonJoseph]

Every cell, does it not reproduce to its own kind? Or produce other kinds based on the DNA code it has?

[@LinsonJoseph]

How do you make sense of hydrogen and helium making way for all heavier elements when subjected to external factors. Is it an observable, repeatable observation?

[@timconstable7348]

No it certainly is not!

[@andrzejwojtowicz6433]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/kHu0m514h5uDmLssi=M86sQNCEkxPwyf3C This is a nice video on origin of elements, from hydrogen and helium Hope this is what you were looking for.

[@markr5251]

Minds that are independent of physical processes and physical constraints are minds that can have free will.

[@KT-en8pq]

Doesn’t the Shroud of Turin image process violate the second law of thermodynamics?

[@johnglad5]

We still have no idea how the image was formed. The best guess is some kind of radiation emitting from the body. So a miracle happened.

[@pvdguitars2951]

Order never comes from disorder. Structure never comes chaos. Organisation does not come from disorganisation. Not without, intent, intelligent design. Have you looked at fractals? Genesis 1:26 !!!!

[@timconstable7348]

I recommend Dr Jason Lisle's talk about the Mandelbrott set.

[@petervogel2350]

Are you describing irreducible complexity?

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

God is a logical necessity. Atheism is a logical fallacy.

[@raulhernannavarro1903]

God is a emotionally nessessity. Appealing to a god to explain something is a fallacy ad ignorantiam.

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

@@raulhernannavarro1903 God is a logical necessity. The Law of Biogenesis, which is based in observable science states that life only comes from preexisting life. That means the origin of life has to be an eternal living source. What do we know from documented history that meets that requirement? Only God. Therefore people who reject the existence of God fit the category of observable science denying documented history deniers. The only way anyone can rightly know God doesn't exist is if he has some means of observing everything that exists. Atheists are not qualified to make that assessment. Therefore atheism is an argument ad ignorantiam. Please accept observable science and documented history; declare Jesus as your Lord, believe in your heart that God raised him from death and you will be saved (Romans 10:9).

[@alvinreed9237]

The Theory of Biblical Patterns proves that God wrote the Holy Bible.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

God gave inspiration to men to write the Bible: God is the author NOT the writers.

[@davidtabaka2663]

Have I got some patterns to show you then. Lol Alvin!!! Psalm 2:7 John 3:16 Psalm 82:6 John 10:34

[@davidtabaka2663]

Isaiah 22:22 Rev 3:7

[@davidtabaka2663]

Psalm 89 Psalm 132

[@jt2097]

Even if nature could create the required specified complexity we must not forget that God created nature.

[@raulhernannavarro1903]

And who created God?

[@jt2097]

@@raulhernannavarro1903 No one knows, all we know is that the Bible says that God is from everlasting to everlasting. You can play the infinite regression game if you want, if someone made God who made the person who made God, and who made him and who made him, but it doesn't get you anywhere. Whoever was the original creator, that is "God." God introduces Himself in His 4th Sabbath commandment as the creator of heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is. So that is the understanding of Bible students. But anyway, not knowing where the creator came from doesn't mean that universes or life can create themselves out of nothing any more than not knowing who made your fridge means that fridges can create themselves out of nothing.

[@eswn1816]

@@raulhernannavarro1903 That's a common objection. Consider that all that we call creation (matter, energy & time, thus space-time) is material, while God is Spirit (not material). God created space-time, thus God created time, thus there is literally no time "before" God's creation. Eternity is not infinite time, it is (God's) existence OUTSIDE of time. God is the Creator of everything. God is un-created. Understand?

[@laszlokiss483]

@@raulhernannavarro1903 Thats a very stupid question to be frank. For anything to exist at all you must break the infinite regress with the chain of causality this is where we get the "unmoved mover" argument or in other words uncreated creator as Eswn pointed out.

[@darrennelson5855]

How do non-theists account for the informational content of DNA? The facts that DNA is information and that information cannot come from random processes seems like an almost infallible argument for the existence of God.

[@TheClimbingBronyOldColt]

Time of the gaps, if neither scientific method (observe repeat test) nor logical rationality can explain, then deep time did it (which is increased when they got a problem).

[@TheClimbingBronyOldColt]

Walking on the beach, or looking at a paper, and seeing a long word, information, one would be quite insane to think it came to be randomly. Most reason that, readable information comes from a mind, the lines or ink drawn with intent. However, with the longest word ever, DNA, then suddenly it made itself. That is not rational, nor is thinking that brain came to be randomly at random, and yet claiming one can trust his own mind to do science, and rely on own thoughts. A computer that came to be randomly at random, cant be trusted or relied upon, to be consistent, to be accurate. If a cake is baked, science cant explain reason or purpose for the cake, until it's revealed.

[@charlesmiller6281]

Good discussion, but takes 20x longer than Stephen Meyer or Dr James Tour to say the same thing. Bottom line, science is making it increasingly difficult to deny the God of the Christian Bible, aka Jesus Christ.

[@LinsonJoseph]

I liked the idea of Dr. Hugh Ross who tried to figure out if the Bible makes sense with an old earth worldview. His ideas explored that area and I have huge respect for him. However, is it not time to discard that idea yet? Why do the scientists on this channel hold on to the old earth worldview?

[@Terrylb285]

You have access to to all the answers to your question if you are online ,look into it .

[@LinsonJoseph]

@@Terrylb285 So much of other research areas are pointing to a young earth. Worshiping Dr. Hugh Ross' idea seems to be a new religion in itself.

[@Terrylb285]

@@LinsonJoseph Ok sir that’s fair, then hold to your beliefs .God bless

[@LinsonJoseph]

@@Terrylb285 I hope I did not offend you, I was just checking on what are the best observations that point to an old earth.

[@Terrylb285]

@@LinsonJoseph their reasons are on there website

[@rickallen9167]

"God and Information Theory | Lions, Tigers and Unicorns"

[@whyaskwhybuddry]

What I want someone at Reasons to Believe to explain in detail is what God did with the plants on earth for a million years before the Sun was finished and for 2 million years until the insects and birds came to be? Did God put plants in "SUSPENDED ANIMATION" for all that time? Plants need both the Sun to survive and creatures to spread their seeds to thrive. This "Day-Age" Idea held by Dr Ross has gaps of its own which need to be explained.

[@Randy-po8bk]

God created life by speaking it into existence. He could sustain it as easily in any medium.

[@whyaskwhybuddry]

@@Randy-po8bk I agree with that, but that doesn't answer my question of Old Earth

[@DorotheaJacob-c5s]

Garcia Jennifer Martin George Harris Helen

[@LinsonJoseph]

If long time cannot produce new material, why are we talking about old earth instead of a new one only 6000 years old?

[@myinternetname5911]

Where does scripture say the Earth is 6,000 years old? If not from scripture, from where does that age of the Earth come, and what evidence supports it?

[@spamm0145]

@@myinternetname5911 God created Adam on the 6th day, if all the ages of his descendants are added, you don't get millions/billions of years. The age of the Earth can only be approximated by this method and it is around 6,000 years.

[@myinternetname5911]

@@spamm0145 How do you know the genealogies listed in the Bible are complete?

[@LinsonJoseph]

@@myinternetname5911 In a father to son genealogy and with the ages and other timelines there is apparently very little missing if at all.

[@myinternetname5911]

@@LinsonJoseph The Hebrews often referred to a man as the son of another man without it meaning his actual father. For example, Jesus was called the son of David, and first century Israelites referred to themselves as sons of Abraham. If the genealogies were constructed using this convention, several generations could have been omitted, thus making them an improper basis for determining the age of the Earth.

[@BigPaulo9]

The pattern of the stars behind the speakers is not recognizable. Get with it RTB and show a view that shows the sky as viewed from earth. I would take you more seriously if I saw Orion or Cassiopeia behind you instead of nonsense.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

I would take U more seriously: if not for you're ignorant comment of just a background that obviously isn't actual STARS!

[@timconstable7348]

Just because you don't happen to recognise the pattern of stars doesn't mean they're not real! Have you memorised the pattern of the cosmos as seen from Earth to the 10th magnitude?