Evolution or Intelligent Design? What the Science Really Says | Dr. Stephen Meyer

[@TroubleActual]

Saw Dr Meyer in South Carolina several years ago in a small classroom setting. Brilliant guy and approachable

[@steveg1961]

Meyer is a smart guy, and an approachable guy, and exceedingly unscientific in the pseudoscience he promotes, all at the same time. The issue with creationists isn't with whether or not they're smart, or whether or not they're nice people - it's about the fact that in regard to the science that they're making up crap about all the time, they're always scientifically wrong. Creationism is about particular religious beliefs, not about science, and every time a creationist tries to pretend his religion-driven thinking is "science" he's literally just demonstrating something very corrupt about his religion-motivated thinking.

[@SpikeSpiegel-hk7tr]

⁠@@steveg1961you wrote a whole nothing comment 😂🤣. If I were to go to any website going against Meyer and his organization, they would all share the same properties. For. Profit. Organization. All of them are! If your precious little ape theory got debunked, all of your great scientists would be out of cash the next day, that’s why they defend the delusion, because their livelihoods depend on it

[@Seratan144]

@@steveg1961 "and exceedingly unscientific in the pseudoscience" Your opinion and nothing more.

[@steveg1961]

@@Seratan144 Thank you for demonstrating not only the fact-challenged nature of creationist rhetoric, but also the dishonest manner in which creationists routinely try to disparage the facts they don't like (as motivated by their particular religious beliefs). Indeed, it's precisely because you said what you said as motivated by your personal religious belief that you're the one stating merely a personal opinion (and a false one at that), while what I pointed is simply the straightforward fact of the matter in regard to the actual science. And we all know how much creationists despise dealing with the actual science - which is exactly why creationism pseudoscience promoters (such as Meyer) deliberately stay well away from even attempting to publish any genuine scientific research in professional science journals. That's because even they know fully well who their intended audience is: fellow evangelical/fundamentalist Christians, not professional scientists. Additionally, in regard to Meyer (as well as the other creationism pseudoscience promoters), he has had numerous of his claims and arguments repeatedly debunked over the years, and he just ignores this and keeps right on promoting the same bogus claims and arguments. None of this is merely my personal opinion, but is me stating the actual facts of the matter.

[@Seratan144]

@@steveg1961 💤💤💤

[@halfknott]

5 seconds in and Dan is already strawmanning evolution. No, evolution doesn’t proport to “explain the universe” or “why we’re here.” It doesn’t even explain how life began, it just explains speciation and how life forms change over time. Sigh.

[@SuperEdge67]

Exactly. As an Australian I find it interesting that evolution is a controversy in America. It just isn’t here. Says a lot about religious indoctrination.

[@SuperEdge67]

@gerardmoloney433 Meyer isn’t a scientist, he’s a philosopher…….and a religious fanatic. Throwing in a few scientific words doesn’t change the fact that intelligent design is just fundamentalist religious creationism. How about even proving a god exists before giving him/her it credit for designing anything. Forrest Valkai (an actual evolutionary biologist) recently debunked Meyers nonsense on KZbin. You should watch it, you’d realise nearly everything he says is demonstrably WRONG!!

[@OptimusNiaa]

@@SuperEdge67 It's good to honor truth. (Or, at least according to some worldviews it is. A worldview that rejects anything beyond the physical, on the other hand, has nothing that can serve as an ontological basis of moral value. There is only subjective opinion. Pontificating on a comment section of a YT video about horrible religious fanatics is no better than being one if such a worldview is correct, because there *is* no better or worse. Merely what people like and dislike. Reject the supernatural and you are logically forced to reject meaning.) "Meyer isn’t a scientist." Check his CV. Simple matter, really.

[@steveg1961]

@@SuperEdge67 Excuse me, but Ken Ham - well known creationist in America - came from Australia. Please take him back.

[@steveg1961]

@@OptimusNiaa You wrote, "A worldview that rejects anything beyond the physical, on the other hand, has nothing that can serve as an ontological basis of moral value. There is only subjective opinion." Ahhh, yes - a person expressing his subjective opinion to try to pretend that people who treats empirical facts as superior to subjective religious beliefs have no basis for determining anything about moral values, because somehow magically subjective religious beliefs are supposed to trump empirical facts in the mind of the religious believer expressing his subjective opinion. Thank you for exposing the self-contradictory nature of the subjective pronouncements of religious belief.

[@jannamarrs7110]

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist or an evolutionist when creationism is clearly seen in all that naturally exists. Something never comes from nothing

[@walkergarya]

I do not need any faith. I see no evidence for any god so I believe in none. I do see evidence for Biological Evolution and I understand, as a lay person, the evidence for the Big Bang. Having evidence, I have no need or want of faith.

[@norbertjendruschj9121]

But god then is not an answer either. Because if you say the universe comes from nothing or god comes from nothing mahes no difference.

[@BangMaster96]

@@norbertjendruschj9121 The very definition of God is an eternal power with no beginning, no end, no creation, no destruction, no cause. For anything to exist, there has to be something Eternal, something can not come from nothing. Now, the question is, what can be something that is Eternal. Is it Mind, or is it Matter. Looking at the Universe, of how well designed everything looks, of the finely tuned constants of Physics without which Life would not exist, of the finely tuned position of Planet Earth, the Moon, the Sun, also without which Life would not exist, of the massive complexity of just a single cell and all the machinery within a cell, of the fact that we Human Beings have consciousness, ability to find beauty in Nature which no other animal has, ability to distinguish between Right and Wrong which again no other animal has, ability to Reason and Debate which no other animal has, etc...all point to the fact that that Eternal thing is a Mind, a powerful supernatural divine force that is beyond the Space & Time of our Universe. Atheists believe that the Eternal thing is Matter, Theists believe that the Eternal thing is Mind. And again, by simple observations of Nature & the Universe, Mind makes much more sense than Matter.

[@steveg1961]

You wrote, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist or an evolutionist when creationism is clearly seen in all that naturally exists." Of course, when we look at the actual scientific research that is published in the professional science literature of biology, genetics, and paleontology, we see the mountains of scientific evidence that backs up and illuminates biological evolution - and at the same time we see zero evidence for your baseless claim that "creationism is clearly seen in all that naturally exists." Of course, leave it to a creationist to spout off baseless personal assertions based on pretending that the published scientific research doesn't even exist and based on pretending that his or her personal religious beliefs are "scientific" despite the fact that when we actually look at the actual scientific research their personal religious belief can't be found there. That's just standard operating procedure with vacuous creationist rhetoric. And then there's that "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" - which is a great example of the utterly two-faced nature of so much of the rhetoric that creationists love to use. It is precisely creationists who promote creationism pseudoscience on the basis of their particular religious beliefs in certain religious doctrines based on certain fundamentalist/evangelical Christian interpretations of religious stories in a religious book - while atheists discussing science discuss the empirical results of scientific research (not religion, not faith), and the literal definition of "atheism" itself entails "not religious faith" because they consider the very concept of religious faith to be fallacious. But leave it to a creationist to make the argument that "not religious faith" = "religious faith" - which just goes to demonstrate how incoherent and nonsensical creationist rhetoric is so often. And not to mention the obvious fact that most Christians around the world reject anti-science creationism pseudoscience, and accept the discoveries of scientific research. (In other words, most Christians are theistic evolutionists - and with those Christians who are professional scientists, especially those who do research in biology, genetics, and paleontology, the VAST MAJORITY are theistic evolutionists.) Which is exactly why when creationists try to pretend that all of the science they hate because it doesn't fit their particular personal religious beliefs isn't really science but is all just part of some massive worldwide atheist conspiracy, critics of creationism pseudoscience just laugh at the delusional nature of the silly creationist pretension. You wrote, "Something never comes from nothing." Agreed. And your point is what, exactly?

[@kathleennorton2228]

Something not coming from nothing is a law and principle that is embedded into the universe. God is outside of the universe. God's Name that he told Moses is I AM. God is The Self Existing One. God is the one that just is. He is pure, organized, eternal, prefect light and energy. It is absolutely amazing that He exists. If God did not exist neither would we. All of creation, though broken from the weight of sin right now, shows forth the character, power and wisdom of the pure creative God who made it. The greatest most amazing thing is that anything at all exists, but it obviously does. The material universe came from the Self Existing One.

[@ed-jf3xh]

When I went to school, it was called the "Theory" of evolution. It was not presented as fact. However, Creation wasn't presented as an alternative.

[@jeromehorwitz2460]

The theory of evolution has been proven to be fact by all evidence, that's what a scientific theory is. It's not a guess or an opinion or a myth, which is all the religious doctrine of Creationism ever was.

[@ed-jf3xh]

@@jeromehorwitz2460 Then why isn't it still going on? Why are new species continually evolving?

[@robbaggett1127]

@@jeromehorwitz2460 it is not a fact and that is the big lie associated with Evolution. It doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory, but we are supposed to call it one because “scientifically” it makes the most reasonable sense.

[@jeromehorwitz2460]

@@ed-jf3xh New species continue to evolve today. This has been observed in living populations. The process happens over many generations, so, like continental drift, you may not be aware it is happening.

[@ed-jf3xh]

@@jeromehorwitz2460 Can you give me an example of two?

[@OptimusNiaa]

56:27 - "Do you believe in trees?" That made me chuckle. Also, excellent discussion.

[@thejavilobby]

It's 2023 and we're still trying to find ways to justify intelligent design. Never underestimate the human ability to be stubborn.

[@SuperEdge67]

……..and stupid.

[@CarlMCole]

No, we're still hopelessly trying to defend Darwinism when the facts of science themselves refute it.

[@derrickminion9874]

Right off the bat makes a categorical error by saying evolution describes the universe

[@japes7085]

Cool dude. You look like you know your stuff :)

[@EricPerrault-q1c]

No he did not.

[@mcmanustony]

@@EricPerrault-q1c yes he did. An utter fool of a man.

[@crowwick7652]

Strange how people feel it’s one or the other. Evolution can’t be part of the design? When I build a house I don’t suddenly have a finished product. There are stages.

[@SwimSweetie100]

I couldn’t agree more. One does not discount the other

[@OptimusNiaa]

Many people do believe evolution is part of the design. At bottom the debate is whether there is any design or all purposeless and blind pitiless indifference. If there is design, that doesn't preclude that design being implemented over time. And indeed, on the design side of the debate there's considerable difference of positions on how long, and through what mechanisms, design has been implemented. As for Dr. Meyer, he is skeptical that the neo-Darwinian model (which by definition is unguided and undirected and thus not at all designed) can result in the biology we see in the world.

[@reddirtwalker8041]

If you listen to more of the intellectuals of Intelligent design many acknowledge that evolution can and does play a role, but given the extremely minor changes evolution displays, that some other force has to have been involved in the initial creation of life on earth.

[@steveg1961]

The vast majority of Christians around the world accepted biological evolution - because that's the science - a long time ago.

[@steveg1961]

@@reddirtwalker8041 "intelligent design" promoters are in a broad spectrum - including theistic evolution such as Michael Behe, but also including young earth creationists such as Paul Nelson. In fact, Paul Nelson is just one of a number of young earth creationists who are fellows of the misnamed "Center for Science and Culture" (which is NOT for science) that's part of the Discovery Institute (which has nothing to do with scientific discovery, either).

[@davidfitnesstech]

Someone that believes the *Bible* is the *infallible word of God* also believes in *"intelligent design".* Couldn't see that one coming.

[@MatthewMoranMusic]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5zZYYeQfp5ra7csi=PDyKR1cenB7hivCP

[@sbgtrading]

As it is with the atheist deciding to believe in naturalistic abiogenesis.

[@jounisuninen]

@@sbgtrading Yes indeed. The belief in abiogenesis needs atheistic faith to miracles, because abiogenesis would break against the 2nd law of thermodynamics. As abiogenesis would be needed for evolution to start, we understand that evolution also would break the laws of physics 😂

[@sbgtrading]

@@jounisuninen Yes, the common behavior of lifeless matter, is to remain lifeless matter. Matter does not have a natural inclination to move toward life. So any belief in naturalistic abiogenesis is really a belief in a supernatural event. The best explanation for life, and the complex information encoded in life, is an Intelligent Designer.

[@cjfwildcat]

I like Dan Crenshaw, but he really shows his scientific ignorance in this video. Saying things like “Evolution is simply a theory and a very difficult one to prove”. 56:30. Theories in science are well substantiated explanations of aspects of the natural world which are supported by facts and observations. They are not guesses that need to be proven to be validated. And objections to the theory of evolution that individuals like Stephen Meyer presents may sound reasonable to people who don’t have PHDs in biology. However, when you ask other experts in the field, their arguments don’t hold water. See Kitzmiller v Dover, 2005. Much of the same arguments Meyer presents today were argued in this court case in 2005 by other ID proponents like Michael Behe and were found not credible when challenged by other scientists.

[@jannamarrs7110]

Most of the "evidence" for evolution is faked

[@walkergarya]

@@jannamarrs7110 That is quite the lie! Please tell me, one example of evidence for Evolution that passed scientific peer review that has been shown to be faked since 1970.

[@CarlMCole]

I don't care what other scientists think. They don't know more about this subject than I do, and Meyer's objections are valid.

[@trippy1v349]

Non life created life or the Panspermia theory takes equal amounts of faith as one who believes in God.

[@ricshumack9134]

IT guy here, coming at this from an agnostic perspective. There is apparent programming in DNA replication, especially the molecular "behaviours". This supports the notion of pre-existing informational content. Not sure this needs conscious intent as we understand it. We still do not really understand quantum behaviours and realities' substrate.

[@OmarFKuri]

I don't think quantum physics is the solution to the origin of life problem. It's like everything we don't understand in science we say is due to our lack of knowledge of quantum

[@PeterAtWork430]

No, think of it as a sieve. No need for some kind of agency when some things fit through a sieve and others don't.

[@ricshumack9134]

@@PeterAtWork430 A few years ago I would have agreed. Seeing the complex, multistep enzyme interactions required for DNA replication is hard to visualise as an incremental development. It requires multiple, coordinated, interdependant processes which may have occurred naturally, but this seems improbable. Always open to new ideas though and this may change again.

[@paulspence7600]

I'm sorry but the computer code as a model for DNA code is well past its sell buy date.

[@abduazirhi2678]

I really enjoyed the discussion. Thanks for sharing. Dr. Stephen Meyer has a beautiful way of explaining complex topics in simple terms. Just awesome to see him outlining biological evidence for active transcendent intelligence !

[@mcmanustony]

"Dr. Stephen Meyer has a beautiful way of explaining complex topics in simple terms"- he is a lying hack at a right-wing Christian fundamentalist pressure group, not a scientist. He doesn't outline anything- he abuses the scholarship of others to peddle his religion.

[@M4VRICK96]

Two of my heroes 👏 😁Stephen has a beautiful way of objectifying Christianic philosophy within the bounds of scientific theory. Just awesome to see and hear a creature of God so perfectly fulfilling his role. The ever-inquisitive Dan asks the pertinent questions that stoke Meyer's fire and fuel what is an excellent - what should be viewed as credible as it is authentic - and high-level discussion on the origin of life and the measures we as humans can take to observe and understand the preciousness of God's seemingly incomprehensible creation. God bless these guys and all the viewers/listeners 🙏

[@mcmanustony]

" The ever-inquisitive Dan..."- not inquisitive enough to ask a scientist about science, rather than a lying religious activist.

[@rembrandt972ify]

You need better heroes. Dan Crenshaw is bad enough. Stephen (Mammals first appeared in the Eocene) Meyer is running a confidence scheme in an attempt to destroy our democracy and replace it with a Fascist Theocracy. Please research the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document.

[@steveg1961]

Thank you for acknowledging that the anti-science/pseudoscience - aka, creationist - rhetoric of Meyer is really about religious belief, not science.

[@tdrake59]

I'd like to hear Dr Meyer talk about the problems and impacts of modern synthesis or extended evolutionary synthesis (Ees) on evolutionary theory.

[@mcmanustony]

I'd like to hear Meyer apologise for the lies and the intimidation of school science teachers to get them to peddle his religion. If you want information about the extended synthesis why not read someone who works in evolutionary biology.

[@tdrake59]

@@mcmanustony I'd like to see you prove your claim that he has lied.

[@mcmanustony]

@@tdrake59 read the leaked wedge document from Meyer’s right wing Christian fundamentalist pressure group.

[@tdrake59]

@@mcmanustony So, you’re not able to prove your claim then? If you want to stand by your claim, prove it.

[@mcmanustony]

@@tdrake59 “we are a group of scientists”- lie. Meyer is not a scientist. He has made one appearance in the professional literature and that lasted a matter of hours as it only appeared as a result of cheating the peer review process and sneaking it into PBSW behind the backs of the editors. “Information theorists talk about “complex specified information””- Jeff Shallit asked Meyer to name some- Jeff is an information theorist. Meyer couldn’t name a single one. That’s because he’s lying and the term has neither use nor meaning, being merely sciency sounding bafflegab concocted by his crony Dembski. The DI was behind the distribution of creationist “text book” Of Pandas and People and supported the despicable bullying of teachers to read an anti evolution statement to children in science class. They lost the resulting court case. Meyer is fundamentally and relentlessly dishonest.

[@michaelgonzalez9058]

Plasma can tell u the quantity but not the outcome

[@dtarby2095]

Soooo wrong. You cant say something is fact if it solely based on belief? Pick and choose certain "experts" to follow will force certain belief.

[@ryanlamotte2715]

If only you could convince the likes of Jordon Peterson; who ironically is already doing wonders for scriptural integrity. If someone as honest, smart and open as he is struggles to see the gaps in evolution, so are many others. Anyway, love your work and keep encouraging truth the way you do!

[@rembrandt972ify]

Jordan Peterson is as dishonest as a human can be. He has claimed to be a neuroscientist and an evolutionary biologist. He is not.

[@Philitron128]

What "gaps"? Please name one

[@ryanlamotte2715]

How does a fish ‘evolve’ a lung?

[@Philitron128]

@@ryanlamotte2715 The same way they evolved gills.

[@Philitron128]

@@ryanlamotte2715 if you really want to "see it", then look up a mudskipper. There's your "transitional" animal lmao

[@katherinef6931]

This is good 👍 even though I'm a lapsed catholic

[@spyder2782]

I am assuming since he says evolution has limited ability to Change then wouldn't that mean humans or close to humans would have to be around during the time of the dinosaurs, or a radical change in time frames, or humans were created long after dinosaurs out of nowhere along with all the other animals not shown in fosil records

[@reddirtwalker8041]

Some theologians argue that in the bible when it says it took 7 days, that "days" are relative. We have determined that a "day" is 24 hours. God could consider "days" as our time frame of 1000 years.

[@spyder2782]

@reddirtwalker8041 that is the better position since the 3000-year old range has issues

[@steveg1961]

@@reddirtwalker8041 Of course, the creation story in Genesis is a religious mythology, in which the creation is placed in a literary framework of a 7 day week - which was the 7 day week that the Israelites followed, the 7th day being the Sabbath day. As merely a literary framework, the "day" was never a literal reference to a literal day, meaning that nothing can be determined about it at all in regard to any actual span of time, not 24 hours, not a thousand years, and not any other definite span of time - which is the view of most Christian theologians. Incidentally, if the Bible really does teach that the Earth was created only about 6,000 years ago, or about 12,000 years ago, that would simply mean that the Bible teaches something that is factually wrong.

[@steveg1961]

You wrote about "he [Meyer] says evolution has limited ability to change." Creationists have fabricated the idea that there are "genetic limits" of some kind. Some young earth creationists in relatively recent years have fabricated "baraminology" ("created kinds," which literally has zero meaning in biological science) in which rhetorical framework they have all of the millions of species on Earth today evolving from a tiny fraction of today's number of species in only the last about 4,400 years (from the ark, you know). However, creationist pseudoscientists have never produced any scientific research in genetics backing any of this up. It's all just some idea they made up and then promote now (as Meyer does here) as just another pseudoscience attempt to try to prop up their religious beliefs by falsely pretending that their religious beliefs are "scientific," even though they aren't. Now, it's certainly true that there are barriers to mutation in a single organism and in a population in a single generation - because, obviously, many mutations are detrimental and too much mutation can simply make an organism unable to reproduce. But in regard to genetic mutations that can be propagated and ACCUMULATED over numerous generations, there is literally no such thing as some kind of "genetic change limit." Meyer (and other creationists) just made it up.

[@HS-zk5nn]

Bible is truth. science has been wrong many times

[@michaelgonzalez9058]

I dont want ,i give all by tine which is a precarioius thermometer

[@paulspence7600]

Of course working scientists regard Stephen Meyer's views on these topics as just plain wrong. I was an enquiring child who was fortunate to get himself to one of the top universities in the world where I learned how to do science. I've been a researcher ever since. As I'm someone who regards evolution, including human evolution as a fact and who never belived in the existance of the supernatural (such as gods), I regrded this whole discussion as lame. As Dan Crenshaw is a republican politician what else could I expect. You can of course ignore me as I'm a left leaning Oxford graduate (and US citizen) who would never vote for you, but I do suggest you speak with scientists who would test your preconceptions regarding reality, rather than those people who just reinforce them.

[@ChristopherLWeber]

Says guy who when he hears a convo that differs from his , calls it .. lame! Hah . .. sorry , I mean Oxford dude!!

[@paulspence7600]

@@ChristopherLWeber I don't know what a convo is. A conversation. Please use real words.

[@paulspence7600]

@@ChristopherLWeber It differs from the educated views of trained, working scientists. He has also been proven wrong when he dares to make a testable claim

[@CarlMCole]

Who cares what working scientists think ? I'm not impressed by their authority. They DON'T know more about this particular subject than I do. (I have a 163 I.Q. and have been studying the issue for over forty years). Meyer's objections are reasonable and valid.

[@paulspence7600]

@@CarlMCole They know a shitload more than you do.

[@tonymak9213]

All these evolution protagonists, commenting here, were done over a decade ago. The evolution camp lost the argument, nobody could come up with how genetic mutation could produce the complex DNA computer like code and language without being directed. About the same time world foremost geneticist Craig Venter announced that there was no relatedness between different organisms in the world. That after his company had sampled over 60 million different organisms. He went on to say Darwin's theory was false, that it didn't hold up with the knowledge of modern science. As part of the same panel of the "Origins of Life", Dawkins asked " You don't mean to say that all life is not related do you?", After a quiet pause, Venter just laughed to his face.

[@walkergarya]

Nope. The Theory of Evolution remains the foundation of all modern biology. Lies from Stephen Meyer will not change that.

[@norbertjendruschj9121]

You have been deceived by liars as this idiot Meyer. Instead of poisoning your mind with creationistic nonsense you should read a biology textbook. In other words: GET SOME EDUCATION!

[@nervamerc]

Yep. Darwin is false. 'biology' is just worship of nature, and it leads nowhere

[@robbaggett1127]

I feel the biggest problem for evolution is in calling it a "Theory" when I believe as it is presented is a hypothesis at best, but I admit I am not a scientist and what do I actually know. It is used to try to fill in too many voids and overreaches its means.

[@ed-jf3xh]

Change you mind?

[@robbaggett1127]

@@ed-jf3xh Evolution seems to work on the micro scale, but to go to the macro is an extreme stretch and there is no way possible to observe it or repeat it at that level and therefore just a hypothesis. Evolution is presented as a theory of everything in biology, but we have an excellent example how a theory of everything is not yet obtainable by example of the universe with the theory of relativity and quantum theory. Both are near perfect but do not work together to cross over into the others theory, but we are supposed to just overlook these problems with evolution and accept it as is.

[@ed-jf3xh]

@@robbaggett1127 Don't tell me, tell @jeromehorwitz2460. My question to you was one of mistaken identity, sorry.

[@mcmanustony]

It's called a "theory" because it's a theory. Maybe try learning what words mean in a given context before using them. In science "theory" means a testable coherent explanatory framework with predictive power whose predictions are borne out by observation. It does not mean "guess". " It is used to try to fill in too many voids and overreaches its means."- I doubt you can give a single example of this but do have a go....

[@mcmanustony]

@@robbaggett1127 Macroevolution is heritable change at or above the species level. This has been observed. Any documented speciation event is an example of macroevolution and there are many out there in the literature. Have you looked? What does the contradictions between quantum THEORY and the THEORY of relativity have to do with the validity of evolution? They address VERY different questions. No one is overlooking anything or being told to. Where do you get this nonsense? There are unanswered questions in evolution. They are being worked on, not covered up. Perhaps Crenshaw's career will last long enough to invite on a biologist to talk about biology rather than a lying hack at a fundamentalist right wing Christian pressure group.

[@michaelgonzalez9058]

Yes

[@macdmacd7896]

im a designer. without infos. no design. without infos. nothing can exist.

[@corymoore5093]

The universe is obviously not 14 billion years old. However, it is probably not 6,000 years old either. The only need for the super long time theory is to save biological evolution.

[@sbgtrading]

If the Simulation Hypothesis is true, then it could be younger than 6k yrs. There is no scientific process that can accurately determine age of the earth/universe

[@mcmanustony]

you don't seem to have the faintest idea what you're talking about. What's that like?

[@histreeonics7770]

How do you get it is not around 14 billion years old? What evidence do you have of gross errors in the techniques that yield that number? -- "super long time" was not created to support evolution. It was discovered, not sought, by astronomers. Geologists also were not seeking to "save biological evolution" which was 80 years in the future when they figured out how long it took to make sedimentary features (which they underestimated not knowing how long it took to lithify various sediment types). Even the highly religious scientists of Darwin's time figured out from thermodynamics that the Earth had to be 20 to 75 million years old (the data was still crude, yielding a large range of uncertainty). The discovery of radioactivity and the means by which elements form is what has driven the number up to 4.5 billion years for the Earth, *by people who gave no thought at all about biology or evolution*. The idea that what is normally called "deep time" was created to save evolution is a lie. Repeating it shows you know less than nothing about the history of these parts of science.

[@tonycatman]

20:00 Meyer accurately explains what mutation does, then draws the wrong conclusion. He concludes that this is a fundamental problem with invoking mutation as the creative engine. A more correct conclusion is that the mutation nearly always fails, but occasionally succeeds.

[@OptimusNiaa]

Succeeds at what? It's important to be precise here. As you allude to, Meyer is talking there about the notion of mutation as a creative (non-purposeful of course) force. Randomly altering and/or/ inserting and/or removing letters in the genetic code sometimes has no effect, sometimes has a monumentally detrimental effect, and sometimes it has an effect that still allows the organism to function, maybe even better than it would have without the mutation. But the question is whether randomly altering/inserting/removing letters is adequate to explain the coming to being of novel structures (in many cases more complex ones) than what had previously been extant.

[@1RedneckCajun]

What do you mean by wrong conclusion? Just because you don't agree with his conclusion doesn't make it wrong. A mutation may in fact succeed but why should what you consider to be a successful mutation move forward over the non-successful mutation? There are a far greater number of non-successful mutations than there are successful ones. Why should only successful mutations advance? How would an organism know what is successful as opposed to non-successful?

[@steveg1961]

​@@1RedneckCajunWow. Apparently you skipped biology in high school, since your reply is based on totally ignoring natural selection, reproduction, and population genetics. Like - duh! - mutations are "beneficial" when they lead to an increase in the probability of an organism to reproduce in its environment. This has only been a BASIC element of biological evolution in science for A HUNDRED YEARS. The fact that creationists either don't know this yet or cannot comprehend it is exactly one of the many points that demonstrate the utter incompetence of creationist rhetoric in regard to science.

[@steveg1961]

@@OptimusNiaa You wrote, "the coming to being of novel structures (in many cases more complex ones) than what had previously been extant." Which, of course, is a standard creationist misunderstanding of biological evolution, because biological evolution is NEVER about the "coming into being of novel structures." Every step in the evolution of a population of organisms is about changes in existing "structures" which sometimes - after a great deal of ACCUMULATED CHANGES through numerous generations over a great deal of time produce modified structures that happen to improve a species survival in the environment it is in and possibly allow a species to exploit some aspect of their environmental niche that they couldn't exploit previously. For example, in lobe-finned fishes, fins became stronger, and in a certain niche (swampland), in some species this lead to even stronger fins that were more leg than fin (such as Icthyostega, Acanthostega, and Tiktaalik rosae). "Novel structures" are NOT produced by mutations in any population generation ever. What we call "novel structures" is the product of ACCUMULATED mutations over many millions of years. Also, there is no "goal" or "objective" in biological evolution. So the primitive legs of, say, Acanthostega, for example, are not something that biological evolution was working toward or seeking to produce. Legs were simply the product of circumstances and natural selection on mutations that happened to occur that benefited the survival of the various species that evolved into Acanthostega at the time. In regard to the comment by "tonycatman" ("A more correct conclusion is that the mutation nearly always fails, but occasionally succeeds"), his word "succeeds" is OBVIOUSLY in reference to population genetics in regard to natural selection. Like, duh. Meyer's tack is always to ignore the actual science and misrepresent the actual science, and frequently to omit something directly relevant in the science that contradicts some lame argument he's promoting that is falsified by the relevant scientific research that he's omitting. Seriously, anyone who makes some argument against biological evolution based on just talking about mutations and then ignoring natural selection (population genetics) is just talking out of his butt and doesn't deserve the time of day.

[@scottb4579]

I suppose natural selection would be said to be the arbiter of succesful vs non-successful. But then we could conclude if evolution is true, we should be seeing all maner of novel features appearing in individuals of all life forms every generation. There would be many failed mutations where changes in body structure occurred, but didn't become fixed in the various populations. Animals should be developing novel features all the time for natural selection to work on. We don't see these things happening. @@1RedneckCajun

[@derrickminion9874]

What is the explanation for the diversity of life after Noah's flood?

[@johnbrinsmead3316]

Hyper evolution.

[@steveg1961]

@@johnbrinsmead3316 You wrote, "Hyper evolution." Exactly! (Also known as creationist "baraminology.") Creationists, for a hundred years: "Evolution isn't science. Evolution never happened. Species don't evolve." Creationists, after a hundred years of their BS arguments: "Species from the ark evolved a million times faster than evolutionists say it did, to produce all of the millions of species we have on earth today." Creationism - 'We don't need to actually make any stinking sense, we just need to keep working hard to try to pretend our religious beliefs are scientific.'

[@MiserableMuon]

​@@johnbrinsmead3316wait, I thought you said evolution was false.

[@johnbrinsmead3316]

@@MiserableMuon I believe the theory of biological evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. Apologies for any misunderstandings.

[@MiserableMuon]

@@johnbrinsmead3316 nah, I should apologize for misunderstanding you.

[@walkergarya]

cdesign proponentsists!

[@pulsar22]

"it is not science ..." While it seems to creationist that negating a theory is enough to support their own theory this is totally not true. You have to support your theory with evidence and not rely only on disproving another theory.

[@steveg1961]

And literally every single time a creationist says that biological evolution is not science he is telling a blatant lie, because everyone who actually looks at the relevant scientific research that is published in the professional journals of biology, genetics, and paleontology sees the massive volume of research about biological evolution that is published every single year.

[@android4754]

Yeah but the argument is that the current evidence we have supports positing a designer and assuming design in our scientific endeavors. He does not have to provide evidence just point out philosophically the current evidence better supports his point which it clearly does.

[@pulsar22]

@@android4754 Wrong. There is no evidence either for a designer. You just assume that any complex thing need a designer. Have you ever heard of the Mandelbrot fractal series. It was not designed but discovered. A simple equation and a simple rule of either IN if it converges OUT if it diverges results in a very complex figure. Even the complex mineral structures, snow crystals, geological formations are the result of very simple physics and mathematical formulas. No need for a creator / designer there.

[@CarlMCole]

He is supporting his theory with evidence----the evidence is that ALL information ALWAYS comes from intelligent agents, so why should the information encoded in DNA be an exception ?

[@pulsar22]

@@CarlMCole If you assume that everything in the universe comes from an intelligent being, then absolutely you think that every information was created by an intelligent designer. Science comes from making observation, coming up with a hypothesis then designing experiments to try out if your hypothesis is correct. With the idea of intelligent design, very similar to climate change, everything you observe will be from an intelligent designer. Therefore, there is no science there. You cannot disprove it. It is the LAW. So, how can we debate meaningfully when that is your default position that ALL information ALWAYS comes from intelligent agents? Is there anything in this universe you will agree to that can be possibly not created? A snowflake perhaps? Or diamonds? Or crystals? Because everything is information. Each quantum particle, each electron, each atom, etc... is in itself information.

[@notloki3377]

i laughed out loud at "scribe of the gaps" argument

[@michaelgonzalez9058]

That where the body steps in

[@derrickminion9874]

Fine tuning describes ebola virus?

[@CarlMCole]

Yes ! There could be no ebola virus (or any other lifeforms) if it weren't for the fine tuning of the universe.

[@wesleycolemanmusic]

No, it's not describing that at all.

[@tonycatman]

37:30 The universal constants or 'fine tuning' argument. I think that this has been explained several times, but perhaps the answer is so simple that it isn't embraced. If you divide the length of your keyboard by its width, you will end up with a number with an almost infinite number of decimal places. You can do this with any two objects, or any two observations - not just linear distances. It is true to say that the universe could not exist in its current form without those numbers. Why do you think there has to be an explanation for those numbers ?

[@OptimusNiaa]

I don't think your explanation works because of a category error. The numbers in both cases (measurement of distance, alleged fine-tuned constants and quantities) are abstractions. The numbers 'exist' in our minds, not in the real world. But we use them when contemplating things in the real world that actually exist outside of our minds (the amount of matter in the universe, how strongly matter attracts matter, how strongly subatomic particles attract and repel each other, etc.). What is claimed to need explanation isn't numbers in our minds that have many numerals after the decimal (you could have used Pi as a well-known example of such a number), but why it is that the actual stuff in the universe and the strengths of their impact on each other is just so precisely as they are.

[@steveg1961]

@@OptimusNiaa You wrote, "why it is that the actual stuff in the universe and the strengths of their impact on each other is just so precisely as they are." Regardless of any different features of any different universe, there are always going to be "precise impacts," which will be different, but they're still going to be "precise impacts." So this argument as you've stated it here is pretty much just pointless.

[@matthewhowze3588]

@@OptimusNiaathis argument has always seemed silly to me. If i threw a rock and and it landed on the smaller side of it in a vertical manner next to an empty coke can. you can extrapolate backwards and see the impossibility of that shot. Ie had to be thrown at this angle at this velocity with this wind speed and humidity etc etc etc and then someone going well because of the unlikelihood of this event it had to be planned by an outside force. In this manner any random event can seem so impossible that it had to be “intended”

[@CarlMCole]

No one suggests that the universe couldn't exist in many different forms. It could, but not even one in a TRILLION TRILLION of those forms would allow for the existence of LIFE ! That IS remarkable, and is the fine tuning argument in a nutshell.

[@tonycatman]

@@CarlMCole "No one suggests th" I see that you are one of those people who try to convince yourself that you are correct by using capital letters and exclamation marks. It looks a bit, well, 'tarded. You have just invented an assertion with nothing to back it up.

[@joeosp1689]

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

[@HUGE_Wiener]

The sage in bloom, Feels like perfume, clap,clap,clap,clap, Deep in the heart of Texas.

[@Seratan144]

Reminds me of, the gal I love bop bop bop bop, deep in the heart in Texas

[@michaelgonzalez9058]

Use a fly

[@jkorling]

As a former serviceman, my hat's off to you Crenshaw for your service, but when it comes to these type of topics, it's best to leave alone as Intelligent Design as a scientific concept has been proven to be pseudoscience... repeatedly, and as for Stephen Meyer in particular, well... I hope you put in the effort required to fact-check him on his claims from the scientists that actually work in the field of biology and genetics, as his scientific qualifications for both are virtually zero.

[@michaelgonzalez9058]

Ur not

[@watchthe1369]

Whatever the distant causes, I do not much care if it is science or god. As long as intelligent design and science can agree upon a cause/effect in the short and middle term I am fine with both. The long term is not going to impact me because I will be dead, be it a 6000yearold(?) universe or 14 billion year old one.

[@steveg1961]

Of course, the earth is 6,000 years old just like the sun orbits the earth and just like the stars are fixed in a firmament in the sky. And the very fact that the people who push the factually false notion that the earth is only about 6,000 years old explicitly as motivated by their religious beliefs tells us something very important about those religious beliefs. Can you guess what that is?

[@watchthe1369]

@@steveg1961 Like I said above... Have a decent life.

[@steveg1961]

@@watchthe1369 I totally get the fact that people have all kinds of different interests - and so, for example, a lot of people just aren't all that interested in science, just as many people are not interested in art, or woodworking, or gardening, or auto mechanics, or what have you. But it's only creationists who try to pretend that their particular RELIGIOUS doctrines, based on their particular religious interpretations of religious stories in a religious book, are "science," when in fact their particular religious ideas are unscientific and, indeed, are scientifically falsified. So creationism isn't about science, but nothing more than a pseudoscience fraud. But you're quite right, some people don't care that creationism is a pseudoscience fraud.

[@scottb4579]

@@steveg1961 Of course, nowhere in the Bible does it state the sun orbits the earth. And you should do a little research on that word "firmament". It doesn't exist in the original Hebrew, neither does the orignal Hebrew express any notion of a solid dome enclosing all celestial bodies, or having said bodies set into it.

[@steveg1961]

@@scottb4579 The word is "raqia," which means "dome." And Genesis 1 states explicitly that God placed the sun, moon, and stars in the dome. So nice try at completely ignoring what the Bible actually states, but no cigar.

[@micahsmith7539]

I know I'm late to this but I just came across it while browsing and want to briefly include something because the conversation is platformed by a member of Congress. I will assume that, like myself, Crenshaw and the majority of viewers are laypeople who are not in a strong position to critique some of the content that Dr. Meyer presents. A court case in Pennsylvania in 2005 called Kitzmiller v Dover School Board is a good place to get context on the intelligent design idea that Meyer advocates for. I will touch on one item here that is included in the case (it was as much a science class as it was a court case) because Crenshaw mentioned a misunderstanding about human evolution. Biologists do not advocate that we come from monkeys. The understanding is that we evolved alongside other apes and part of the reason our lineage diverged from them is a head-to-head telomere fusion between two chromosomes that remain separated in modern chimpanzees. This fused chromosome is observed as chromosome 2 in the human genome and contains an inactivated centromere that is directly homologous to chimp chromosome 14. This explains why we have one less chromosome than other apes.

[@economicfreedom8591]

>>>Biologists do not advocate that we come from monkeys. The understanding is that we evolved alongside other apes and part of the reason our lineage diverged from them A difference without a distinction. The meaning of "evolve alongside other apes" is that humans and apes supposedly had a *common ancestor*, which is another way of colloquially saying "humans came from apes."

[@histreeonics7770]

@@economicfreedom8591 and since humans are apes in every way as has been understood since Linnaeus himself started taxonomy it is a no-brainer to conclude we have common ancestry with our siblings. Understand the law of monophyly and that the techniques we use to determine phylogenies is identical to that used for paternity law suits and you will understand why the theory of evolution is said to be better proven than our theory of gravity (which it is).

[@CarlMCole]

And the relevance of that assertion is what ?

[@economicfreedom8591]

@@CarlMCole The relevance is that is no "missing link" or "common ancestor" between humans and apes. Another Darwinian myth.

[@Test_Card_Tom]

Many people accept there may well be an 'intelligent creator' or God; but that shouldn't imply that intelligence holds opinions on how humans behave or has ever spoken to a human about what rules and regulations they should live by including the bizarre rule that it must be worshipped by humans. Its the various religions that many people reject for their hijacking of this intelligent creator and using their belief in it as a means of controlling humans in their respective congregations with so-called commandments and thou shalt and thou shalt not rules etc. I'm fine with there being an intelligent creator of the universe. . .its just religions I reject.

[@avi8r66]

I always thought SEALS team members to be intelligent... you ruined that for me.

[@leonidesrivera9812]

Strictly speaking, evolution cannot be observed or tested any more or less than intelligent design, but that does not seem to be an issue with non-believing evolutionists. Consequently, all data is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre-accepted worldview of naturalism, without alternate explanations being considered. Neither the origin of the universe nor the origin of life can be directly tested or observed. Both creation and evolution require a level of “faith” to be accepted. We cannot go back in time to observe the origin of the universe or of life in the universe. Those who adamantly reject creation do so on grounds that would logically force them to reject evolution as well. 🙄 If creation is true, then there is a Creator to whom we are accountable. Evolution, as often presented today, is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life developed apart from a Creator God. As such, modern theories of evolution serve as a substitute “creation story” for the religion of atheism.

[@mcmanustony]

" evolution cannot be observed or tested any more or less than intelligent design"- utter bullshit. evolution is tested every day.

[@mcmanustony]

The theory of evolution does not address the origin of life. Neither it nor the science of cosmology involve faith- that's just a stupid slogan. Atheism is not a religion- kind of in the same way that helicopters are not a fruit. would it kill you to open a fucking book?

[@histreeonics7770]

We have directly observed evolution so you are flat out wrong on testability. Do a search for "induced multicellularity". I know creationists lie about the Lenski experiment, but their lies are easily debunked. Evolution theory was used to predict where fossils like what we now call Tiktaalik would be found. They were found. The theory is valid, which is the highest accolade a theory is given by scientists. -- Even if creation is true it is a non-sequitur to claim that we are accountable to the Creator. "Accountability" comes from being part of a social hierarchy. That a creator is above the created in a social hierarchy is yet another arbitrary rule that you are presuming. Ownership of that sort is a mortal characteristic, a God who can have whatever he wishes due to be the most powerful entity (might makes right) owns everything and as such has no need for the concept of ownership. Ownership is only meaningful if it is something that can be allocated to a subset of the set of all entities. Evolution is a clue to some people that a fanatically literal interpretation of a holy book is not valid. Plenty of people do not become atheists by accepting what has been shown about evolution of species. Most people don't need a "creation story" to feel content with their religious myths. You are factually wrong, logically wrong, and projecting your personal uncertainties on the rest of humanity.

[@CarlMCole]

Right on all that.

[@mcmanustony]

@@CarlMCole wrong. Evolution is observed routinely. Look up Lenski’s LTEE.

[@StephenBRICK]

Just had a thought, everything I would consider to be a living organism can heal it's self.... man that almost sounds like magic. I mean there is a limit to the healing and we can't live forever. If only my truck would heal itself haha. I am also convinced my truck would never have evolved on its own.

[@martylawrence5532]

Why is God so-called 'hid'? It's because the gift of eternal life is by faith. This preserves free will and makes love possible. God being in sight of us and browbeating us into acknowledging him against our will would not save us anyway. Again. No love is possible this way. Having company of us being sons and daughters would be negated. Why would God, the Creator of the universe have the second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, die on the cross? There are over 122 measurements and constants in chemistry and physics that are fine tuned to 10^40 [that's ten with 40 zeros] to 10^125 each or no life is possible. ONE OTHER FINE TUNING NEEDED? Holy God and our sin cannot exist in heaven at the same time. The remedy? It's faith in Jesus' death, shed blood on the cross paying for our sins in our stead and belief in his resurrection. Then his 100% perfection is transferred to US. Our sins are transferred to him. There's the fine-tuning needed. We can spend eternity together. It has not entered into the hearts and minds of man and ladies what God has prepared for us. Evidence? Many fascinating areas to look for the truly seeking. One is the Shroud of Turin in which the image took 8 billion watts in 1/40,000,000,000th of a second to make. The blood stains were there FIRST [electron microscope examination] and then the resurrection image was imposed on the cloth. There is NO technology on earth that can do this. It's supernatural. Don't be fooled with this world's secularism. Life is too short to believe its lies for all of your life and then paying for it thru all eternity. AS FOR EVOLUTION? The 'evidence' of evolution in the classic adaptations to changed environment or diet has been done by our pre-existing...pre-enabled....epigenomes in all life. It's a 2nd biological information code working overtop the DNA sequences, turning genes on and off...or up and down for the new structures or functions for the needed adaptations. It works like a software program thus giving an intelligent design signature. The intelligent designer is Jesus Christ beyond doubt.

[@basgordijn9722]

Why a Christian should not follow Darwin! Darwin was not a believer in God. It was a distinct objective of Darwin to show that species had not been separately created. Which basically means that God had no play in the origin of all living and non-living mater. This goes directly against Genesis 1 in which God shows he created everything. As a Christian it is thus totally contra dictionary to follow a doctrine that has removed God and has in it a mechanism that removes faith from a human being, and frankly speaking has shown to be quite well in doing so, as many churches stand empty nowadays. Quotations from Darwin about creation: In considering the Origin of Spieces, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological relations, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created but had decended, like varieties, from other species. On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, 1860, introduction page 3 Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and sispassionate judgement of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly enterrained - namely, that each spcies has been independently created - is erroneous. On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, 1860, introduction, page 6 It is only our natural prejudice, and that arrogance which made our forefathers declare that they were descended from demi-gods, which leads us to demur to this conclusion. But the time will before long come when it will be thought wonderful, that naturalists, who were well acquainted with the comparative structure and development of man and other mammals, should have believed that each was the work of a separate act of creation. The Decent of Man. 1871. Page i.33 - i.34 I may be permitted to say as some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view, firstly, to shew that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change, though largely aided by the inherited effects of habit, and slightly by the direct action of the surrounding conditions. […] I had the above two objects in view; hence if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power [...] I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations. The Decent of Man. 1871. Page i.152 - i.153 Those who do not admit the principle of evolution, must look at species either as separate creations or as in some manner distinct entities; and they must decide what forms to rank as species by the analogy of other organic beings which are commonly thus received. But it is a hopeless endeavour to decide this point on sound grounds, until some definition of the term "species" is generally accepted; and the definition must not include an element which cannot possibly be ascertained, such as an act of creation. The Decent of Man. 1871. Page i.228

[@walkergarya]

I agree. Of the two, only Evolution has testable evidence so that is what I accept. The bible has no value for me.

[@basgordijn9722]

This post was more or less addressed to Christians. Obviously, you are not a Christian. And thus, what I wrote should not concern you. Have a good day.

[@histreeonics7770]

Most biologists today also do not follow Darwin. Evolution theory is not based on anything that Darwin produce, none, it is entirely based on molecular genetics and population genetics. Darwin's ideas are shown to be consequences of the modern theory, they are not the basis for it in any sense. Much of this was recognized in his own time by those who called his theory tautological, which it was until we discovered the mechanism of inheritance. God is an end to enquiry and that is why belief is not used in the progress of science. Science is not opposed to God, but simply cannot make any use of such a hypothesis as it cannot explain any of the things we care to know, such as burn rate of hydrogen to helium in stars.

[@CarlMCole]

Thanks for the quotes, they are informative.

[@SuperEdge67]

Forrest Valkai (an actual Evolutionary Biologist) has just put of out video completely debunking the nonsense Meyer speaks. Please remember Meyer is NOT a scientist, he’s a philosopher.

[@steveg1961]

And he's not the only one. There have already been at least three or four debunkings of Meyer's rhetoric published on KZbin since his interview on Joe Rogan's podcast a few weeks ago. And, of course, various of the pseudoscience arguments Meyer promotes have been debunked numerous times over the last twenty years. Of course, that's what creationism is built on: Ignore dealing with the actual science, make up bogus claims and bad arguments about the science in trying to pretend that the religious beliefs are "scientific," and then after the bogus claims and bad arguments have been debunked just keep right on promoting the bogus claims and bad arguments for the next 40 or 60 years. Heck, creationists today are still - sixty years later - trying to pretend that astronomers don't have any explanation for how Haley's Comet can exist in a solar system that's been around for millions of years - a pseudoscience argument about short period comets that was literally debunked before creationists even manufactured it in the first place.

[@mcmanustony]

He’s not really even a philosopher. He taught Jesusological Christology at the College of Christological Jesusology. He doesn’t actually DO any philosophy or publish any. He is a malignant religious activist, nothing more.

[@timothykeith1367]

Forrest Valkai is an atheist who believes crazy stuff

[@shilohauraable]

Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. James Tour are real scientists though. 🙄

[@CarlMCole]

It doesn't matter if Meyer is an auto mechanic. I wish you evolutionists would stop using appeals to authority as a substitute for logic or evidence. You accuse Christians of doing that, and then do it yourselves. Meyer's arguments CAN'T be "debunked" because they are true and valid.

[@kentl7228]

Great. He entertained a quack.

[@OmarFKuri]

49:14 Pretty sure he can get rid of the right lens in his glasses

[@histreeonics7770]

Even blind eyes are subject to physical damage that is harmful to the person as a whole. If you looked at my lenses you would know why I don't wear contacts.

[@Look_At_My_Picture.]

C'mon Danny, i wanna hear you say "Howdy Everyone", just like they do in Texas, not the YEEHAAAAAAA!!!!! thing, what i'm saying is, i wanna see and hear you saying "Howdy Everyone", like the KZbinrs do on the beginning of every video, the famous guys i mean.

[@mcmanustony]

His Phd was in philosophy, not biology.

[@CarlMCole]

The philosophy of science, and from Cambridge (not some podunk university)

[@mcmanustony]

@@CarlMCole PHILOSOPHY of science in the PHILOSOPHY department, supervised by a PHILOSOPHER and examined by PHILOSOPHERS. I’m very familiar with Cambridge University thanks… Here is a complete list of every single publication of Meyer’s in the professional literature of all branches of all sciences at all times. 1. .

[@mcmanustony]

@@CarlMCole I should clarify. Meyer managed to get a ludicrous essay into a journal of research: the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The essay had nothing to do with the subject of the journal, contained zero research and was simply a rehash of his schtick for many years. It made it in because the journal’s temp editor was a creationist crony Sternberg who cheated the review process and hid the paper from the associate editors. Why do creationists lie so much?

[@norbertjendruschj9121]

@@CarlMCole Even Cambrigde produces some rotten apples.

[@mcmanustony]

@@CarlMCole some podunk school like where he got his physics degree?

[@tedc9682]

Minute 6: the host repeatedly claimis that "scientists" disagree with the guest, and asks the guest to give those scientists' argument. In other words, the host is totally biased. I stopped listening. The guest is interesting, but the host is totally close-minded. The host is not a scientist. Why is the host making claims about what scientists say?

[@mcmanustony]

The guest isn’t a scientist either. Meyer is a full time activist at a right wing Christian fundamentalist pressure group. God forbid Crenshaw would actually invite a scientist on to talk about science….

[@austinbalon3124]

Dr. Meyer provided decent, although somewhat fallacious, argument… for our world being a simulation, not for the Abrahamic God.

[@basgordijn9722]

1.1 In the beginning God created the Heaven, and the Earth. So, Christians should be Intelligent Designers - “In the beginning” indicates there is a beginning of time. Time is created, so there was no time before the beginning. So God does not exist out of time. Bpr: beginning of everything. See the general theory of relativity, completed by Albert Einstein in 1916 -Heaven is what we call space. Before the beginning there was no space. So god does not exist out of space. -Earth (planets, stars, etc) is matter. So before the beginning there was no matter. God does not exist out of matter. This has a logical following on your view of the world: -God is the creator of the heaven and the earth, so God is creative. -Therefore God is intelligent. Or God is an intelligent designer / creator. -All Christians should therefore see the world around them as created by a creator and be Creationists and Intelligent Designers. - All Christians scientist should therefore expect intelligent design features in nature. See it more like how archaeologists see the world: How did the Romans built this? Thus: How did God built DNA? (Open a zipper with Talon on it is intellgient Design, but opening a strand of DNA by an enzyme that has no "God" brand on it, then copy one strand in the normal way by another enzyme and the other in sections because it only goes one way and so new DNA strands are copied gazillion times around us in every living organism, 24/7/365,... has randomly evolved over eons of time... sure... think about that when you unzip your zipper )

[@walkergarya]

There is no evidence for either Intelligent Design or your blood soaked bible.

[@basgordijn9722]

@@walkergarya I already gave evidence of ID, the copying of DNA compared to a zipper. According to the law of Information, information can only come from an intelligent being. For me that is fine as the first sentence of the bible says, "in the beginning God created heaven and the earth", so time space and matter, which includes living creatures that copy DNA 24/7/365. I already mentioned that. As I have a bible at home I don't know what you want with evidence for a bible. There are a lot of them. Mine are not blood soaked. I have one, a copy of a 1657 bible which is a collectors item. An other is a study bible, in which I wrote a lot of side notes. So it is a bit messy but not soaked with blood or something. Hope you are not too upset about this.

[@mcmanustony]

@@basgordijn9722 " According to the law of Information, information can only come from an intelligent being. "- this isn't a law. There is no "law of information"- it's just a stupid slogan chanted by ignorant creationists. It might look good on a teeshirt. Science it is not.

[@basgordijn9722]

@@mcmanustony I will come back on it, or not. Thinking DNA has just randomly evolved is beyond me. But have it as you want, there is freedom of religion.

[@mcmanustony]

@@basgordijn9722 why the false dichotomy? God or random chance…..the laws of physics and chemistry are not random. Have you tried reading books?

[@ds19771]

I was surprised by how unbelievably stupid this conversation was. Just so so stupid.

[@mcmanustony]

Did Crenshaw say that "Darwinian evolution" says: we came from monkeys? I'm pretty sure he did.....and absolutely sure that lying right wing activist Meyer didn't correct him.

[@mmarciniak]

This host is annoying and he cuts off Dr. Meyer way too much.

[@walkergarya]

There is NO "growing reason to challenge" the Theory of Evolution. This video is creationist propaganda.

[@kaysands6959]

Why don’t you listen first

[@walkergarya]

@@kaysands6959 I have heard the creationist propaganda, I know who and what Meyer is and I would not trust him for the time of day.

[@GhostBearCommander]

As a Med Lab Technician (and a Christian), I am compelled to remind everyone that Science isn’t dogma. Like life, it must adapt (dare I say evolve) in response to new environmental pressures. In the case of evolution, the theory has actually undergone numerous overhauls throughout history. For example, Darwin had no concept of mutation or genetics or the Cambrian Explosion. That said, Atheistic Evolutionists have turned the Scientific process into a dogma with the command “thou shalt not question our biology.” As Science has grown, Macro-Evolutionary theory is increasingly having to move its own goalposts in order to survive.

[@CarlMCole]

Is that why the leading scientists themselves are abandoning the theory ?

[@walkergarya]

@@CarlMCole Leading scientists are NOT abandoning the Theory of Evolution. This video and the fraud Stephen Meyer, are nothing but lies.

[@pulsar22]

If you are talking about modern cells and life. Because the current modern cells are most likely very much more sophisticated than very ancient pre-life cells. Pre-life cells are most likely just clay/mud with some autocatalytic inorganic molecules with no information storage.

[@ZebecZT]

there’s no evidence that suggests this.

[@mcmanustony]

@@ZebecZTthere’s certainly evidence for a set of natural processes leading to life from prebiotic chemistry …..and none whatsoever for divine intervention.

[@shilohauraable]

And then the information, or digital coding, if DNA came from where? What is life in a living cell? When a cell dies, what is it that is lost? If all the parts, including information, are there, what can bring it to life? Check out some of Dr James Tour. They don't even know WHAT life is, let alone how non-biological molecules can come to life.

[@mizz308]

You can’t be serious

[@mcmanustony]

@@mizz308 who are you addressing,?

[@falcor88]

I thought Dan Crenshaw was more or less a voice of reason within the Republican party. So sad to see him promoting pseudoscience.

[@spyder2782]

God is non testable

[@gsincs]

Neither is multiverse, string theory etc. You know the marvel comic book theories science has developed into.

[@spyder2782]

@gsincs anything that is untestable with the ability to replicate the test or have evidence supporting it isn't science. It's fine to say those aren't either

[@gsincs]

@@spyder2782 Can we replicate random mutations turning into completely different species? I'd also like to mark this off the list.

[@reddirtwalker8041]

@@spyder2782 The Big Bang is not testable either, but it is taught as fact, not theory. At the same time intelligent design is ridiculed as non-fact, untestable, and not regarded by many in the scientific community as worth teaching as even a theory.

[@ryanlamotte2715]

Consciously, you can. It’s just a question of where you direct your thoughts, and what you believe to be good. Meditate on what is good, and give thanks, risk a little more, and make a request.

[@guitarizard]

Liars

[@rembrandt972ify]

You sir, have a penchant for the understatement.

[@Ukie_Hags_World]

We are not evolved from apes/monkeys in the trees nor amoebas from the sea. Humans have simply always been here, and we evolved from ourselves. That's what I believe.

[@rembrandt972ify]

Well, you are right about one thing. Humans didn't evolve from amoebas. The rest of it, not so much.

[@Ukie_Hags_World]

@@rembrandt972ify Humans have always been humans.

[@rembrandt972ify]

@@Ukie_Hags_World Humans have also always been apes, primates, mammals, synapsids, tetra pods, vertebrates, chordates, eukaryotes and animals. There is evidence supporting this conclusion from over a dozen scientific disciplines. Do you know what we don't have evidence for? The conclusion that humans are created in God's image.

[@steveg1961]

It's turtles all the way down.