Scientifically Proving God's Existence with Stephen C. Meyer

The Perfect Jean - Get The Perfect Jean 15% off with the code KLAVAN15 at theperfectjean.nyc/KLAVAN15 #theperfectjeanpod #ad
Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, joins us once again to discuss the scientific proof of intelligent design, or the existence of God.
Watch the member-exclusive portion of the show now on DailyWire+!
LIKE & SUBSCRIBE for new videos every day. bit.ly/3PEAEoq
Watch the full episode here: Ep.1179 - bit.ly/4ab6y5P
Stop giving your money to woke corporations that hate you. Get your Jeremy’s Razors today at www.ihateharry...
Save the Klavan by shopping my merch here: tinyurl.com/3c...
#StephenMeyer #IntelligentDesign #Science

[@collegepennsylvania837]

“God can’t give us peace and happiness apart from Himself because there is no such thing.” - CS Lewis

[@mikechristian-vn1le]

What about Marijuana?

[@donaldcatton4028]

@@mikechristian-vn1leah ,the glory of minor drugs(best they not become major)….

[@mightydorchux]

Illusion

[@dalelerette206]

I suspect the answer to this mystery is found in Steven Jay Goulds Punctuated Evolution. Occasionally the Earth's magnetic field weakens. When the Cosmic Rays hit proteins on Earth, it results in new mutations for about 10000 years. Then evolution happens for millions of years. Punctuated evolution resolves some minor sophistries. The Cambrian Explosion was probably the early Earth bathed in cosmic rays at God's ordination.

[@moonshoes11]

Sounds like a claim which you can’t substantiate. In other words, it’s a lie.

[@lizbiedinger9065]

Hi Andrew...thank you for having Dr. Meyer as a guest. His explanations are so wise and God given. Proverbs 9: 10-12...The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom. Psalm 122: 6...Let us pray for the peace of Jerusalem. They shall prosper that love thee. Blessings to you and your family!!

[@old_nick_the_so-and-so]

what does god need DNA for? what does god need the higgs boson for? god can make life from chewing gum if he wants, but for some reason he has to make sure all the numbers are just so - whose laws of physics is he using if he has to tinker to make everything work? do you folks not THINK? gods odds of life ought to be 1:1 and tour, meyers and the other liars and cheats say life is bzillions to one against - life is UNLIKELY that's just dumb by your own standard. and god himself does not leave evidence, you are required to ave FAITH, not KNOW. these people are making a joke of your religion and you are right there behind them - unbelievably silly.

[@1960taylor]

God bless Stephen Meyer

[@Cardiacmoment]

God bless Andrew “Hot Gandalf” Klavan (No EE’s) May y’all have a Cardiac Moment.

[@maxwell8758]

He’s an immoral fool

[@old_nick_the_so-and-so]

why, he is making a mockery of your religion, god does not allow evidence of his existence, meyer, behe, ross, tour, they are all going against your religion, what do they expect to find, a trade mark symbol? god does not allow evidence, they will look as dumb as they are eventually. they are all just after notoriety, they have no interest in god if they think they can "prove" god exists. and you are backing them, that's just daft by your own standards.

[@old_nick_the_so-and-so]

lol, even when he's lying to you? you think god ought to bless liars? there is one GLARINGLY obvious problem with what all the meyers charlatans come out with that religists just seem to totally ignore, i bet you ANY amount of money you care to mention you have no idea why meyer is a liar and what he says cannot be true - according to your own religion. you have all the time in the world to work it out, but i bet you can't.

[@maxwell8758]

@@old_nick_the_so-and-so true, people just believe liars.

[@justsolo]

“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” ‪-C.S. Lewis ‬

[@mokoujeen3301]

Deep

[@old_nick_the_so-and-so]

got anything original. religists are like parrots.

[@retrorampage484]

@@mokoujeen3301 The sun didn't rise. The earth turned.

[@danielwessel9884]

​@@retrorampage484Deep. Not.

[@old_nick_the_so-and-so]

you're behind the times, "look at the trees" has been replaced by "look at the quantum fields" god fills a new gap each year, only after science has found it first. i'm sick of religious bollocks, you people ought to be in hiding with your talking snake and donkey cult, your voodoo book of spells, not pretending to have the answers to all things with your ONE reply "god did it" - you can't even boil a kettle with "god did it".

[@jvt_redbaronspeaks4831]

Great seeing Stephen Meyer here.

[@old_nick_the_so-and-so]

not really, he's spreading more lies.

[@borneandayak6725]

I'm ex-atheist from Malaysia. God bless us all, amen 😊😊😊

[@garsayfsomali]

To Islam or to christianity

[@seekerhonest]

@@garsayfsomali Does it even matter to which of the both invented religions?

[@mhd7832]

Foi Constantino de Constantinopla Itália o Fundador da Religião se deu o Catolicismo #act

[@garsayfsomali]

@@seekerhonest you got comprehension issues the guy isnt an atheist he is a theist. Why are you commenting in this page btw live your life

[@2l84me8]

What convinced you of a god? Why did you move from nonbelief to belief?

[@arthurw8054]

Long time fan of Stephen's outstanding work to try and help people wake up to truth. Great to see him on Andrew's show!

[@almilligan7317]

There is no science for the existence of God. Also, once you affirm your belief in a God then there is the problem of which God is real? Then there is the problem of morality. Is it moral to believe in something that might not exist? The existence of God, like the question of the universe having a beginning or not, is an antimony of reason and has no objective answer. A better scientific understanding of the nature of God is found in the science of Mankind In Amnesia by Immanuel Velikovsky. Velikovsky shows by scientific principles that God is a way to forgetfulness and amnesia of past catastrophic events that actually happened and are recorded all around the world. There is a preponderance of evidence that the idea of god is a response to the fear of these cataclysms as our human fate.

[@Lightbearer616]

And yet he's lied about everything scientific he's said.

[@bogdanpopescu1401]

@@Lightbearer616 sure, pal

[@Lightbearer616]

@@bogdanpopescu1401 Ooooops, your ignorance is showing.

[@bogdanpopescu1401]

@@Lightbearer616 yeah, I'm ignorant of your stupidity

[@FRJMJ]

This guy is on another level . Thanks Stephen Meyer

[@samburns3329]

The level found at the bottom of the gutter.

[@johnhoey7717]

@@samburns3329yep-this refutes Meyer’s points…every one of them 🫨.

[@FRJMJ]

@@samburns3329 Lord God Jesus Christ bless you.

[@FRJMJ]

@@samburns3329 Also, check that person's intelligence profile and compare with yours before you speak. This guy is a scientist, a director, a phd doctor,geo physicist , author of best selling books etc

[@samburns3329]

@@FRJMJ Meyer isn't a scientist. He's a philosopher and well known creationist conman and charlatan. His reputation in the scientific community is less than zero.

[@dragonhold4]

(3:16) _Natural Theology: that science actually came out of this idea that the natural world was revealing something about the reality of the Lord_

[@dragonhold4]

(7:55) _Historians were asking the why then, why there question. What was different in Western Europe that accounted for the rise of modern science with its systematic ways of investigating and interrogating nature. Herbert Butterfield, Alistair Cameron Crombie, and leading historians of science finally came to the conclusion that the thing that was different was the presuppositional context of Western Christianity which was the assumption that nature was intelligible_ -Stephen C. Meyer

[@old_nick_the_so-and-so]

what does god need DNA for? what does god need the higgs boson for? god can make life from chewing gum if he wants, but for some reason he has to make sure all the numbers are just so - whose laws of physics is he using if he has to tinker to make everything work? do you folks not THINK? gods odds of life ought to be 1:1 and tour, meyers and the other liars and cheats say life is bzillions to one against - life is UNLIKELY that's just dumb by your own standard. and god himself does not leave evidence, you are required to ave FAITH, not KNOW. these people are making a joke of your religion and you are right there behind them - unbelievably silly.

[@Llyrin]

A subscriber, who uses the handle “Linda Runs” at The New Jerusalem Substack replied to a comment I made, saying, “…scientists think they are getting smarter as time goes on, which would disprove God, but what they are really doing is only creating tools that are sophisticated enough to unveil what God has created.” I believe she hit the nail on the head there.

[@rogerweigel7925]

I don't think any scientist is trying to disprove the existence of God.

[@old_nick_the_so-and-so]

well you should if you think god is real, you're under threat of eternal damnation if you go against god, but why would i believe anything you say when you're clearly compromised as a reporter, you HAVE NO CHOICE but to support everything god says or else, i';m really not going to take anything you say seriously while you're being coerced am i? you lot are dumb, really really dumb.

[@richiejourney1840]

@@rogerweigel7925then why all the hub bub buddy? Why do some freak out whenever the evidence points to the existence of God? “Oh no! Hurry! We need to prove the universe is eternal!” (Forgetting that even an “eternal” universe still wouldn’t do it even if that belief was held again 😂)

[@rosemary702001]

I once heard a saying that basically said, science catches up to where Christian faith has already arrived.

[@UniteAgainstEvil]

The quote you're referring to is by Robert Jastrow: "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he isgreeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

[@rosemary702001]

@@UniteAgainstEvil thank you so much! I first became acquainted with this years ago in a cartoon depicting the scientists climbing the mountain with Christians waving them up. The caption was likely the quote, which I had long forgotten except for the essence. Appreciate the reference!

[@old_nick_the_so-and-so]

it's the other way around though isn't it. only religion still hasn't caught up. can you explain how souls work for me, in scientific terms? cos it seems to me the soul is invented and that all it does is the same as what a brain does only it's god stuff instead of natural stuff, so tell me, how does it get you to heaven? or hell, whatever.

[@John-ng8fx]

@@old_nick_the_so-and-soPoint to consciousness in the brain, you can’t nor will you ever.

[@2l84me8]

Science moves us forward, religion remains in the past. Religion is just as wrong today as it was back then.

[@barbarahuff117]

Go brain's of the world. There's nothing better than truth. Good words. Thank you

[@old_nick_the_so-and-so]

what do ross, meyer, behe, tour and pals hope to find? why are they doing science in fact cos at the bottom of their barrel all you will find is more "nature did it". they must be really crappy christians to not realise that if god were real he doesn't allow evidence of his existence, the whole premise of christianity is you are required - it is demanded of you - that you have faith, not knowledge. are they expecting to find a trade mark? do they think god made a blunder and has some kind of electronic device hidden in all the nature stuff? they are the dumbest people in a bucket of dumb people. it's not truth, it's BS they made up to feel important. like god.

[@danielwessel9884]

My favorite part of Stephen's discussion was the idea that a theistic view of science could actually make the process of scientific discovery better.

[@mirandahotspring4019]

No, that's just nonsense. A theist view only adds a bias and inhibits full enquiry.

[@danielwessel9884]

@@mirandahotspring4019 There is always bias in science. You are showing yours now. But if your bias prevents you from considering new things then where is your scientific curiosity?

[@mirandahotspring4019]

@@danielwessel9884 My curiosity is the natural world, the world where things are actually observable and/or predictable.

[@danielwessel9884]

@@mirandahotspring4019 If you actually listened to what Stephen said you will see he does the same thing, but with an expanded point of view. I don't really understand your objection unless you object to the idea of God.

[@mirandahotspring4019]

@@danielwessel9884 Meyer is a liar and charlatan. He's been exposed and debunked many times. He deliberately twists the truth and lies to fit his own agenda. He has no longer has any credibility at all in the scientific community. His intelligent design arguments have been shown to be nothing but pseudoscience and "creationism in a lab coat" as one critic put it.

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

“I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science. It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaws and holes as sound parts.” -C. Darwin

[@mirandahotspring4019]

And the last 160 years of scientific research has only added to Darwin's own conclusions, and reinforced evolution as explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

@@mirandahotspring4019 in the last 160 years since darwin published his hypothesis we have seen billions of ape births, billions of human births, and zero transitions. Darwin's theory has a 0% success rate. Meanwhile what we actually DO observe is that humans always and only produce more humans and apes only produce more apes just like Genesis 1 says God designed them to. So while observable biology refuses to confirm darwinism it verifies scripture every moment of every day. Please accept observable biology and documented history. Declare Jesus as your Lord, believe in your heart that God raised him from death and you will be saved (Romasns 10:9).

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

Since darwin published his hyopthetical assumption we have observed billions of ape births and zero transitions. That is a gargantuan sample size with a 0% success rate for darwin's theory.

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

Meanwhile what we actually CAN observe is that apes only produce more apes just like the Bible says God designed them to.

[@aaronbroughton-janes667]

​@@mirandahotspring4019 as Mr. Meyers himself says. The huge diversity of life on our planet does indeed stem from evolution and natural selection, but the theory has limits and does nothing to explain the origin of life. Evolution displays the genius of the Creator who created a system which can adapt, improve and evolve to survive and thrive in an ever changing environment without the need for direct intervention.

[@Christus.Invictus]

Glad you had Meyer on. Brilliant man who's done a lot for the Kingdom 🙏✝️🙏

[@old_nick_the_so-and-so]

what has he done cos from where i stand he is making a mockery of god. have a little think about how meyers is damaging your religion and get back to me, you can do the work, or look at my other comments. meyers is doing his own work, not gods

[@Christus.Invictus]

@@old_nick_the_so-and-soThank you for sharing your thoughts I Checked out some of your others statements and we definitely see the subject differently. The Bible doesn't ask for blind faith and I don't see Science as only being in the business of discussions on the material as the Big Bang brought Space, Time and Matter into observable existence. What brought that natural or material universe into existence is by definition SUPER natural or immaterial and outside time or in other words, it's eternal. Meyer and company also use Darwin's own standards of evidence. That the inference to the best explanation is something we already find in operation. As in for example, complex information (whether language, code, or blueprints) have only been observed coming from minds, not simply dead matter. The complex information in our DNA are blueprints for the building of our bodies. Just as an engineer makes blueprints for a circuit board or a architect creates blueprints for an experienced builder to follow. Meyer's arguments line up squarely with reason, logic and science. Agency isn't pseudoscience. When we see a clear ancient symbol in a cave, we don't assume wind and erosion did it, we assume a mind or agent made those pictures or writings. The Rosetta Stone wasn't made by wind or erosion, and I see a clear common sense argument that the language and instructions in DNA came from an intelligent agent as well. An agent that brought Space, Time, and Matter into existence. I don't find it coincidence that the Bible speaks about an expanding universe about a dozen times. The Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias made sure to give credit to the Bible for this fact. Said he could have predicted the Big Bang simply from the Bible. All those men you've referenced are on the absolute right track. The Bible says as much. Its speaks about all of creation being evidence for God. I agree. God bless you and yours friend 🙏✝️🙏.

[@robertclark9]

I’ll never understand the tug of war between science and God. It is possible to have both.

[@teks-kj1nj]

Um, no it isn't Talking donkeys, 6000 yr old earth, global floods with a boat full of every animal, zombies rising from dead, universe poofed into existence in 6 days and countless other stupid stuff- sorry pal, does not compute in science.

[@richiejourney1840]

We do have both. We love God and Science.

[@robertclark9]

@@richiejourney1840 I love both. But today too many people need to choose a side. It’s possible to have both.

[@jamesmiller7457]

Ty, Andrew. God bless Discover and Dr. Meyer. I am downloading Darwin: A Fond Farewell.

[@corrinnereynolds4091]

Excellent!!! Praise the Lord

[@old_nick_the_so-and-so]

bah, nonsense, praise satan.

[@ryleighloughty3307]

In Genesis 1:28, when God instructs man to "subdue the earth", he is directing him to unlock the secrets that he has hidden in his creation. This "unlocking" is usually done through the human discipline of science. Hence, throughout the ages, Christians have supported science and, indeed, all levels of education.

[@philhart4849]

The Bible is a work of fiction.

[@richiejourney1840]

As well as other faiths. It’s just that the atheist faith thinks it’s the boss of science.

[@PhilHart-j9y]

@@richiejourney1840 "As well as other faiths. It’s just that the atheist faith thinks it’s the boss of science." There are so many cognitive errors in what you have written that it made me smile broadly. Thanks for the entertainment. 😀

[@BenCh828]

Hugh Ross and John Lennox are also great sources on these topics. God bless the work you all do!

[@teks-kj1nj]

They are looneys that also simply spout off baseless assertions. These guys are all pathetic.

[@Yehonatan521]

"Be Holy bc I am Holy" Leviticus 19:2. "Kind attracts kind" if you're acting in holiness = access to Me~If stray from path of purity = no access to Me. How to attain holiness? By adhering to His instructions "& Keep My commandments so that you be Holy to your God" Numbers 15:40.

[@johnlshilling1446]

Thank both of you for this amazing interview! I've just purchased 2 of Dr. Meyer's books. He's truly an inspiration. I have an interesting question about a supposed quote from one of Charles Darwin's books where he points out that if any animal whose existence is dependent upon another different animal, if only one case of codependency could be found, then his theory of survival of the fittest would crumble completely. This quote was followed by an example of reindeer and another animal (I forget which one) whose very existence depended upon each other. We now know that every lifeform is dependent upon a multitude of other lifeforms. I'm wondering why I never hear anything on this topic: Darwin's own admission that the foundation of his theory is codependent on the absence of any codependence between any animals. This seems to be an important point to be made to the Evolutionists. 🤔

[@richiejourney1840]

The things atheists forget. Don’t forget the fossil record was needed to support his idea of evolution as well and it doesn’t. Done.

[@danielbaker1190]

The God hypothesis is fruital in all branches of science. It is useful to think of the Periodic Table being designed, the Laws of Physics, the stars and planets, the climate, our psychology, etc.

[@briancox9357]

How?

[@danielbaker1190]

@briancox9357 it is explained how the God hypothesis is useful in the video. It is useful because it leads to better theories that actually explain reality.

[@DYI]

"The Heavens Declare the Glory of God" Psalm 19:1

[@old_nick_the_so-and-so]

no, people do. god is imaginary.

[@goldog63]

@@old_nick_the_so-and-sowell what’d you think of the interview? The entire universe and it physics, mathematics and biological diversity just happened 🤷🏼‍♂️ Must take a lot of faith to believe that 😅

[@old_nick_the_so-and-so]

@@goldog63 it didn't "just happen" you lot love to make up your own version of what science says. but why not? why is it not possible to "just happen", you're god defies reason i don't see why nature can't defy reason too, and you have NO IDEA how your god would work, what mechanisms would be required for this omni character you invented, at least nature is THERE, the systems that make nature work might not be fully understood, but enough IS understood that the rest can easily be explained by "nature did it" - and "nature did it" is useful, how do you even make aspirin using "god did it"?

[@old_nick_the_so-and-so]

@@goldog63 i see you are frank tureks parrot, the problem with being a parrot is you just say the words without understanding why. it takes a lot of faith based on experience and methods of confirming truth, it's called the scientific method, you test to see if you are right, and if you are wrong, and trying to insult me by implying i use faith is a bit daft, are you saying there is something wrong with having faith? of course it didn't "just happen" atoms have a shape and that shape defines how they behave, molecules have geometry that defines how they behave - random events are not totally random, they have limits and that's how the universe works, so your mocking only advertises the fact you have no idea about science and how the universe works so you make up a pixie that does it instead. and coming to a religious propaganda page for science shows the level of intelligence you have, i got my degree at a university, not from a pastor.

[@Isaiah538]

Yes it does! Even looking at the details that show a beginning, how "God stretched out the heavens" and "hung the earth on nothing." There's three things where scripture was there first. (Theologians being secondary.) In addition, the fine tuning of this Goldilock's universe is so incredibly sharp at every turn that it demands an explanation better than the "push it back farther" multiverse one. (That's not observable science, it's "conjecture science.") Not to mention, the mind blowing complexity of DNA and the irreducible complexity of the molecular nano "machines". Then there's the fact that mankind has come no where close to creating life in the lab. See James Tour on that. The enormous weight of these things demands a real consideration of God, to say the least.

[@jennymcgowin9140]

Great podcast!!❤

[@tomd3075]

Wow! Can’t wait to read Meyer’s book.

[@allegedlegend541]

Great interview Andrew

[@ajb7786]

Honest question - what was "great" about this interview? That seems like a comment trying to rationalize your own prejudice rather than anything to do with this interview.

[@allegedlegend541]

@@ajb7786 He was well prepared and clearly researched the material. He asked a series of questions that were all linked to a general idea he was curious about. Perhaps your own bias interfered with your ability to interpret a three word comment.

[@rickyspanish492]

​@@allegedlegend541Cooked him. Lol

[@old_nick_the_so-and-so]

@@allegedlegend541 do you not see anything wrong with what meyers is doing? do you think he is completely honest? what do you think he will show when his research is complete? do you really think god leaves evidence that he exists, are you that stupid? what does god need DNA for? what does god need the higgs boson for? god can make life from chewing gum if he wants, but for some reason he has to make sure all the numbers are just so - whose laws of physics is he using if he has to tinker to make everything work? do you folks not THINK? gods odds of life ought to be 1:1 and tour, meyers and the other liars and cheats say life is bzillions to one against - life is UNLIKELY that's just dumb by your own standard. and god himself does not leave evidence, you are required to ave FAITH, not KNOW. these people are making a joke of your religion and you are right there behind them - unbelievably silly.

[@hendrikhaan7332]

Didn't Dr. David Berlinski expand on this years ago? All this in spite of being agnostic, he quite capably proved that there was a "guiding hand" in creation. Thereby, he disproved evolution in a larger sense. The reasoning was that evolution, by being random, would run into dead ends that would stop the entire process.

[@old_nick_the_so-and-so]

you caan't prove god, god doesn't allow it, when are you people going to understand your own religion, no wonder you get mocked, you're clueless.

[@johnglennmercury7]

One massive problem in random variation is that mutations in code always result in negative outcomes, never adaptations.

[@old_nick_the_so-and-so]

@@johnglennmercury7 and one massive problem with creationists is that they tend to be liars. what does meyers hope to show anyway, a trademark symbol "made by god in taiwan?" god himself leaves no evidence, you're setting yourselves up for a massive fail.

[@old_nick_the_so-and-so]

@@johnglennmercury7 it appears that you are ignorant of how evolution works, anyway go argue with the christians and muslims and hindus - 60% of all religions, who are fine with evolution, it's not an atheists argument, religion says evolution is true too.

[@johnglennmercury7]

@@old_nick_the_so-and-so tell me where I'm wrong then

[@ashleyarlo]

It seems like the brightest thinkers go through and atheism phase. Once they reach some certain threshold of understanding, they come back to knowing that only a creator could have created this.

[@wet-read]

Why is that, exactly?

[@sigurdholbarki8268]

I'm not that bright, but that's what happened to me. I only fell into atheism because of the antitheists in biblical archaeology and literary scholarship. Since I've revisited biblical archaeology in particular I've been astounded how shoddy and in some cases deceitful some of the antitheist's claims have been (dating of the Jericho destruction layers, the House of David was a later myth, the sarcophagus of Jesus)

[@svenhaheim]

just not true at all humans unfortunately are emotional creatures and some fail to accept the fact that we are grains of sand flowing in a uncaring universe and resort to fantasies. People are silly.

[@rickyspanish492]

​@@svenhaheimLol what a bullet proof argument full of logic and facts/evidence. 🥴 🤣

[@svenhaheim]

@@rickyspanish492 Just full of pure reality your skycartoon character does not exist anymore than a Disney Character.

[@johnbrown4568]

Dr. Meyers has help shift Western science and society to a return to God as THE Creator.

[@svenhaheim]

No he has not thankfully science is still science and no god fantasies will change that neither will the woke with their gender craziness.

[@francisa4636]

No he hasn't, it's actually been the case that he has been demonstrated in court as an ID proponent to be unscientific based. The man's a fraud

[@penpilot1]

Unqualified to comment, but 1st am. Darwin's theory always bothered me in the realist sense. I only fly like a bird in my dreams. Birds don't dream of walking as a human in theirs...nor do they dream, or sin...

[@maxwell8758]

Evolution is a fact

[@WhatsTheTakeaway]

​​@@maxwell8758 Only by necessity. To a naturalist, evolution must be true. It's the only game in town.

[@mzbarsk]

@@maxwell8758ok and? It doesn’t compete with the need for the creator, since evolution doesn’t explain: creation of the universe, abiogenesis, moral laws, etc.

[@maxwell8758]

@@mzbarsk Evolution literally 100% explains moral laws. Like, that’s 100% where morality comes from. And of course it doesn’t explain the origin of the cosmos or abiogenesis. That’s not what it’s supposed to do. Other things solve those problems like the Big Bang and inflationary cosmology. There is no need for a creator and everything seems to point against it.

[@mzbarsk]

@@maxwell8758 No it doesn't, neither does your circular logic: "Evolution literally explains it.... because that's where it comes from". Ummm, no (this is the same line of thinking used in Idiocracy about what "plants crave"). Evolution says nothing about morality. It only addresses genetic changes due to mutation and adaptation. There is no "morality gene" or mutation toward morality. Morality is an immaterial concept that natural sciences do not explain. In fact evolution would likely advocate for the opposite. Why not murder? It's survival of the fittest. Why not steal, commit genocide, and eliminate the inferior from the gene pool so as to expedite the natural evolutionary processes? Why bother helping the weak? This was actually the argument used by the Nazis who used evolution to justify their genetic superiority. Your other arguments are just as empty. Big Bang doesn't "solve any problems". It just states there was a "beginning"-Nothing else. It doesn't answer the question of how "something" came from "nothing", or what was there before the Big Bang, or since there was a "beginning" what caused it, since effects do not cause themselves. Like evolution it helps explain, once "something" was already there, how it changed in accordance with the laws of physics to form galaxies, stars, etc. Likewise, evolution explains how things change, now how they came into being (i.e. life from non-life). People, use "evolution" as some magical term thinking it explains everything. It doesn't.

[@Dreamkid62]

Stephen C Meyer is a breath of fresh air, wonderful to hear the truth finally coming to the surface.

[@mcmanustony]

What truth? Have you tried listening to actual science? Have you tried books on, say, biology written by biologists and not lying hacks at Christian pressure groups?

[@Lightbearer616]

ROTFLOL

[@mcmanustony]

Are you for real?

[@midlander4]

The truth about Zeus? I can hardly wait...

[@old_nick_the_so-and-so]

what do ross, meyer, behe, tour and pals hope to find? why are they doing science in fact cos at the bottom of their barrel all you will find is more "nature did it". they must be really crappy christians to not realise that if god were real he doesn't allow evidence of his existence, the whole premise of christianity is you are required - it is demanded of you - that you have faith, not knowledge. are they expecting to find a trade mark? do they think god made a blunder and has some kind of electronic device hidden in all the nature stuff? they are the dumbest people in a bucket of dumb people.

[@oldterry9356]

See “The Myth of Religious Neutrality” by Roy A Clouser, (from the amazon blurb) “Written for undergraduates, the educated layperson, and scholars in fields other than philosophy, The Myth of Religious Neutrality offers a radical reinterpretation of the general relations between religion, science, and philosophy.”

[@UniteAgainstEvil]

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he isgreeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." - Robert Jastrow

[@ClassicJukeboxBand]

So why doesn't Meyer present his scientific hypothesis to the Nobel Committee and collect his prize?

[@sciencerules2825]

Meyer doesn't have one, and he knows he doesn't have one. He's simply a grifter and conman using his science-sounding spiel to solicit donation $$$ from his equally scientifically ignorant followers.

[@jeremybrimmer1990]

Is it necessary?

[@sciencerules2825]

@@jeremybrimmer1990 It is if Meyer wants to be known as anything more than a sh!t spewing creationist charlatan.

[@philhart4849]

Because he is a raving lunatic.

[@Wolf-ln1ml]

That's where the usual conspiracy nutjob excuses would come into play of course...

[@Sow777Reap]

During an interview, when asked if the genetic code is really a code, Dr. Richard Dawkins answered, *_“It [the genetic code] IS a code. It's definitely a code.”_* (Source: Jon Perry - Genetics & Evolution Stated Casually KZbin Channel Interview with Dr. Richard Dawkins on 4-2-2022. Dr. Richard Dawkins is widely regarded as the world’s foremost expert on Darwinian Evolution)

[@jamesmeyers5370]

Klavin! Thanks for this interview! I’ve followed this guy ever since his work on the bacterial flagellum.

[@TyrellWellickEcorp]

That wasn’t him. That’s Michael Behe

[@mcmanustony]

@@TyrellWellickEcorp And Behe was wrong too!

[@TyrellWellickEcorp]

@@mcmanustony No. His argument remains unrefuted to this day.

[@richiejourney1840]

@@TyrellWellickEcorpyes but I believe Meyers talks about it as well…as an example and drawing on Behe.

[@cactusrose9601]

It’s lovely to watch this & have my life-long faith in intelligent design confirmed by a literal scientist. Amen to this wonderful discussion!

[@samburns3329]

Meyer isn't a scientist, either literal or otherwise. He's a philosopher and religiously motivated conman.

[@studygodsword5937]

@@samburns3329 Watch the video, don't be a coward !!!

[@samburns3329]

@@studygodsword5937 I did watch it. It's the same anti-science sh!te Meyer has been peddling for the last 20 years. It doesn't get any less stinky and worthless with the retelling.

[@richiejourney1840]

@@samburns3329he is a scientist. Argument by equivocation. You invent a proprietary definition of a common word.

[@cluckieschickens]

That fossil record was layed down in a matter of weeks and months, not billions of years. Open your eyes. Check out the series, The Genesis Conflict, by Walter Veith.

[@teks-kj1nj]

Utter garbage

[@MrJimiJK]

😂😂😂 Religion is blind faith and has no business getting involved in science. Wheres this top down model of creation, and how does it explain what we observe in reality?? There isn't one. This is no different to Flat Earthers or the Ark Experience, who also have no model or evidence to support their ridiculous beliefs that deny reality.

[@digitalnomad9985]

The difference is that creation accounts for the world as we find it and none of the alternatives do. Also, you don't know what faith is. It is trust in it One to whom reason has led. Belief is a prerequisite for faith, and beliefs arise in the ordinary way.

[@philhart4849]

@@digitalnomad9985 Faith is a position claimed with zero falsifiable supporting evidence. It is an absurdity.

[@Wolf-ln1ml]

@@digitalnomad9985 _"The difference is that creation accounts for the world"_ *_HOW_* does it account for this universe/cosmos/reality/...? "God" has exactly as much explanatory power as "magic" - none whatsoever.

[@digitalnomad9985]

@@philhart4849 Argument by equivocation. You invent a proprietary definition for a common word.

[@digitalnomad9985]

@@Wolf-ln1ml Because the universe has a beginning, it needs an immaterial cause. Because life has information, and only minds produce information, a mind wrote the information. God is the explanation. Thanks for playing.

[@cribedadabecri5764]

Everyone should see this podcast. It is clear enough to make you change your view about God and about science.

[@mirandahotspring4019]

Believing in Meyer's lies? Really? At about 15:00 he absolutely lies about biologists having doubt about the higher levels of taxonomy. Meyer is not a biologist, his PhD is in the history and philosophy of science! He's been debunked repeatedly by real biologists.

[@cribedadabecri5764]

Are You an expert? I dont think so. So be humble enough to learn.

[@richiejourney1840]

@@mirandahotspring4019interesting…he has biologists on his side so not sure what you’re talking about. And he does his research and has talked to many privately.

[@edcotterjr1926]

I've read some of his book. A shorter version is Eric Metaxes' "Is Atheism Dead." Pass it on.

[@mirandahotspring4019]

Unfortunately Christianity is in decline and the number of people becoming agnostic and/or atheist is growing.

[@old_nick_the_so-and-so]

lol. god is dead, pew polls and gallup, look at the numbers, never mind theists who lie about pretty much everything, the stats don't lie.

[@richiejourney1840]

Atheism is never dead. Since I will always be an atheist to many religions including “atheisms” religion.

[@form76]

Thank you to Both of you ✝️❤️

[@geobla6600]

Science does not contradict Intelligent Design. The theory is strictly based on science and what it infers.

[@Wolf-ln1ml]

Yeah, just like creating the embodiment of evil doesn't contradict perfect goodness... right?

[@geobla6600]

@@Wolf-ln1ml Not sure what ever point your trying to make has any relevance to my comment,?

[@Wolf-ln1ml]

@@geobla6600 Okay, no problem, let me try to walk you through it in a few steps. Does creating the embodiment of evil contradict perfect goodness, or doesn't it?

[@geobla6600]

@@Wolf-ln1ml Still not sure what or why this embodiment of evil has anything to do with my comment or anything else for that matter.

[@Wolf-ln1ml]

@@geobla6600 Are you interested in having a conversation to find out, or are you not here in the comments section to... you know, have conversations?

[@yolandosoquite3507]

Jesus said : Worship God in Spirit & in Truth..what is Truth..it include Truth about our world, & Universe!. Knowing True Science is Worshipiing God in Truth.

[@geertje1947]

Too late for me to watch and listen today. It's 11.47 p.m. in the Netherlands. But I will do so some time tomorrow ir the day after.

[@Dude0000]

I’ll be checking up that you do. My grandmother lived in Eindhoven in the 90’s and 00’s, so I visited many times, and I also took every opportunity to go to Amsterdam, back when I was a proud hedonistic. At least 10, up to 20 times, in total. Lots of memories lost in that place, for sure. Mostly happy ones, I'm sure. It’s the anniversary of her passing today, so I think that’s what prompted me to respond to you, mentioning you are in The Netherlands. You should be proud of your beautiful country and culture. Wonderful people, too.

[@DebraCarey-h5t]

A 2016 paper in Nature demonstrated that the dark color in peppered moths is not a product of random mutation. Rather, it appears that a stretch of moveable DNA (a transposon) is responsible for the color variation. Transposons are stretches of DNA that are able to move around between various places in the genome.

[@geobla6600]

Its simply variation where as in this case due to the incredible amount of pollution from coal soot from the industrial age made lighter colored moths more visible to predators.

[@syn4588]

Christ is king

[@philhart4849]

Christ is DEAD!

[@syn4588]

@@philhart4849 shut up, ✡️

[@NovusTerrae]

Tough days for sceptics. The amount of evidence is just immense.

[@philhart4849]

There is zero falsifiable evidence to support the existence claim of any god.

[@richiejourney1840]

@@philhart4849sorry that you need evidence that is falsifiable. Can you falsify the axioms of mathematic’s? Can you falsify your very own existence and whether or not this reality is or is not a matrix? To what can you point to that is extant that cannot be said to not be intelligently designed in some way?

[@PhilHart-j9y]

@@richiejourney1840 "Can you falsify the axioms of mathematic’s? " The axioms of mathematics are propositions, not claims. Any attempt to falsify any axiom is an exercise in insanity. My existence is a fact. Any attempt to falsify any fact is also an exercise in insanity. Whose reality are you talking about? The path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes cannot be said to be the result of intelligent design. I look forward to the future absurdities that you cast in my direction.

[@mmburgess11]

I fully expect AI to show us the proof of God and intelligent design but I have serious doubts that we will ever see the true results if they are filtered by man and his institutions. Good interview!

[@maxwell8758]

There is no proof of god. It could never be proven. And intelligent design is just objectively false.

[@levipack3835]

The best comprehensive overview for intelligent design I've ever seen.

[@levipack3835]

@annieoaktree6774 Ok. You sound thoughtful and well educated.

[@OgdenCrimmcramer8162]

@@levipack3835 You have to admit what she said is true though. ID isn't withing a parsec of being actual science.

[@levipack3835]

@@OgdenCrimmcramer8162 the probability of carbon existing is one in 10 raised to the 122nd power.

[@OgdenCrimmcramer8162]

@@levipack3835 Bull. Show your calculations. Be sure to justify any assumptions you may make.

[@midlander4]

​@@levipack3835thanks for lying 🤣

[@Sow777Reap]

*_"Language: All Digital communications require a formal language, which in this context consists of all the information that the sender and receiver of the digital communication must both possess, in advance, in order for the communication to be successful."_* (Wikipedia: Digital Data) *Inherent in DNA is language. Language is scientifically confirmed to be the product of only Mind/ Consciousness / Intelligence.*

[@hooligan9794]

This stuff is painful. Believe in God if you want but please stop trying to pretend science supports the belief. It doesn't.

[@travisabel3343]

Prove it.

[@hooligan9794]

@travisabel3343 You are confused about how proof works. Nothing in science supports the wild assertions being made. Evidence must be provided. You probably didn't notice, but zero evidence was provided. Just assertion.

[@edjackson4986]

Yes, it does from DNA cells to the infinite universe

[@hooligan9794]

@@edjackson4986 It really doesn't. If you think it does, you have zero idea at all of how reasoning and evidence work.

[@midlander4]

@@edjackson4986 so we've established that Ed's a blue collar xtian without a science degree living in the Midwest. That was hard.

[@davidbarkoe979]

Intelligent Design could be the ONLY explanation for the creation of such a man of such glorious appearance...Hot Gandalf!

[@kevinmorthorst521]

I don’t know what to believe anymore. What I do know is I’m tired of this world and I’m tired of humanity.

[@magnasquids7864]

Don't despair.

[@richiejourney1840]

My friend, do not despair of men debating these things. What I can share with you is this: By personal experience I KNOW, along with many, the spiritual world exists. The best explanation for it in real history is Jesus. We have verified proofs of Near Death Experiences. The physical body has animating life and a MIND (soul, spirit, sub conscious and consciousness-psyche/psychological) that lives on. Both life and psyche return to God of Jesus is true as they await a new glorified return to bodily rejoining. I pray this helps you brother. I too am sick of this world and quite frankly many of my fellow human brothers and sisters who love to destroy rather than build one another up. Just remember, they all still borrow from God and apply it to their own god(s) of their own making just to keep their own sanity and not jump off a bridge. Have faith in God/Jesus and it will be over soon enough and home we will go.

[@yeshualifeorg918]

Fascinating

[@pyrosfuel]

Science doesn’t deal in supernatural nonsense.

[@travisabel3343]

And…

[@pyrosfuel]

@@travisabel3343 AND…. god is a supernatural being by definition! There will never be science behind god.

[@digitalnomad9985]

@@pyrosfuel An assertion is not an argument.

[@pyrosfuel]

@@digitalnomad9985 yes I am asserting the fact that science does not deal in supernatural nonsense…. You are correct…🤷🏻‍♂️

[@ericwillens1807]

String theory posits there are 10 or more dimensions so science (at least theoretical science) definitely believes there are structures in reality that are supernatural

[@Sow777Reap]

"Time" still requires a "Mechanism" for Abiogenesis to occur. "Selection" as a material mechanism has never been observed in nature or experimentally demonstrated to cause atoms and molecules to form into DNA / RNA.

[@richiejourney1840]

They will never properly answer you. Selection also implies an intelligence to select and “random selection” still requires an intelligent designer to instill a “random selection” process.

[@gorequillnachovidal]

science is the study of the natural world. God is supernatural and not under the purview of science....

[@Video81501]

That's a convenient way of excluding evidence you don't want to consider.

[@danielbaker1190]

No, science is by definition knowledge. It does not exclude engineering and intellectual design.

[@wills9392]

I completely agree God is not under any purview of man but science and reason are vehicles one can choose to reach upwards toward God in our seeking

[@gorequillnachovidal]

@@danielbaker1190 i don't think you know what science means....

[@gorequillnachovidal]

@@Video81501 how many feet does Amy Schumer weigh?

[@Sow777Reap]

*_""After Watson and Crick, we know that genes themselves, within their minute internal structure, are long strings of pure digital information. What is more, they are truly digital...""_* (Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden, 16. Dr. Richard Dawkins is widely regarded as the world’s foremost expert on Darwinian Evolution)

[@mattwhite7287]

"Scientifically proving god" Proceeds to not scientifically prove god. 😂

[@SevereFamine]

Well the existence of God can be known with certainty by the light of human reason. If you don’t believe in Him you are simply rejecting Him at your own peril.

[@mattwhite7287]

@@SevereFamine threats of eternal torture are not concerning for me. I value your heaven and hell the same way you probably value the Norse idea of valhalla, or the greek and egyptian underworlds. I find it interesting that you say god can be known through the light of human reason, considering human reasoning is obviously flawed (i am rejecting eternal rewards after all)

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@mattwhite7287 Francis Crick famously posited that space aliens must have designed earth life. When he helped discover the DNA code, he had that epiphany. Things like DNA codes do not form spontaneously, whatever that would mean. Life does not form spontaneously.

[@endofnight]

​@@sliglusamelius8578 what about hydrothermal vents?

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@endofnight What about them? Hypotheses about their role in abiogenesis are very cute, but so far, nobody has seen actual and real bio-molecules form ab initio anywhere. I'm not saying that a random small peptide or RNA doesn't form a-biotically, I'm saying an actual protein that is homochiral and found in living cells has never formed that way. The sequence odds of a protein of 150 amino acid length forming the proper sequence of amino acids without the DNA code are one in twenty raised to the power of 150. That's essentially zero..

[@bh_486]

Science relies on measurement. The confusion arises when our experience of life is Only Measurement. There is no such thing, out there, in the real world, as an 'inch'. You cannot go out into your garden and pick up a few inches. The same goes for ALL units of measurement (no matter how small or how big). They don't actually exist. It is the equivalent of throwing a massive fisherman's net over the whole universe, down to the smallest particle and up to the furthest galaxy. The mesh of this net, divides the world into pieces. The natural world is wiggly, it is impossible to figure out all the different, pulsing vibrations. But the mesh allows small pieces of this wigglyness to be held down and examined. This is science. And it has had astonishing successes. So we adore it. BUT the net is not real. The meshes do not exist out there in real life. It is having the capacity to observe life and oneself, without measuring, that puts us in touch with the real world. Which gives real meaning. For this to happen, the ego has to die. Because the ego itself is not a real thing. And it is this dilemma, the dissolving of the ego, that gets in the way of having a non-mechanical, a non-measuring understanding of life. Measurement is associated with security. We don't want to lose our security.

[@kev7552]

The soul/ego of God cannot die (and it is very real )which also cannot be measured. God is not worried about survival and security.

[@eladio_cro_warface]

Krist je Kralj

[@Imaginarysonics]

Can someone point out the part to me where God's existence was "scientifically proven"? This is literally just the God of the Gaps argument. Also, there is no "POOF" moment, we have missing link species in several different categories. I'm not sure what Andrew thinks he's stumbled onto here, but there's no there there here.

[@Llyrin]

Who said God has been scientifically proven? There is no missing link explanation for the Cambrian Explosion. No one has an explanation for why new species appeared all so quickly.

[@rogerweigel7925]

You are absolutely correct.

[@TyrellWellickEcorp]

First of all Meyer never claims his arguments provide absolute proof. Whoever made the title needs to change it. And yes there are numerous examples of explosions/radiations in the history of life that cannot be explained by Darwinian means.

[@TyrellWellickEcorp]

@@rogerweigel7925You both don’t have any idea what you’re talking about

[@Imaginarysonics]

@@TyrellWellickEcorp the title AND Andrew’s claim about “POOF” moments (which don’t happen) as being some sort of weird proof of God’s involvement just shows both of their fundamental misunderstanding of Evolution. Like you know museums exist right? You can go see missing link skeletons all over the world…

[@syn4588]

Jesus is king

[@ctreid87]

You should get Ken Ham on your show to provide a different perspective.

[@Imaginarysonics]

Ken Ham doesn’t have a “perspective”… he believes the Flinstones is real lol He believes in something that is categorically provably false just this side of Flat Earth.

[@RichardAugsten]

Very funny

[@RichardAugsten]

I really do mean hilarious

[@shieldmcshieldy5750]

DNA is a cymatic encoding scheme. As in, the reason it seems like there is "not enough genetic information to account for full morphology" is that gene data counts on natural decompression algorithm of emergent self-organising pattern during protein assembly. It's leveraging an internalized physics model (That's a good way to think of AlphaFold, btw, as a "cymatics processor". It's gonna find applications to MANY areas outside of biology!!)

[@majmage]

Do you think if he actually had evidence he'd waste time misdirecting people to things like the beliefs of early scientists? No, he'd simply present the strong, logical evidence of a god. That would be that. Instead, it's a narrative. At every step he's trying to find a way to twist the available evidence to fit his desired conclusion (even though it doesn't fit).

[@AJ-20881]

Could you elaborate on what would you consider as a solid/logical evidence of god ?

[@majmage]

@@AJ-20881 Do you understand your question is dishonest? We didn't choose the evidence for gravity. So you probably understand how dishonest it would be if Gary ignores all the evidence we do have and requests specific evidence (like precise measurements of some distant star system). Your question is dishonest because there's exactly one honest answer ("I'd accept the same strength of evidence we'd demand of any claim that strong") and countless dishonest Gary-like answers. You already understand claims come in different strengths: * in this comment if I claimed to be human, would you believe me? * would you believe if I claimed to be a god? So you know god claims are _huge_ claims. They require incredibly strong evidence. I feel like just by asking me your roundabout off-topic question you're already telling me you don't have strong evidence of a god. After all, would you ask someone what evidence they want for gravity? Of course not. You'd simply have them drop something, or point them to Einstein's relativity scientific papers (which describe how gravity works) or the experiments that proved Einstein's description is how it works.

[@AJ-20881]

@@majmage - how you internally frame or characterize my question is your choice...but, I stand by the intellectually honest nature of my query

[@majmage]

@@AJ-20881 Sure. And do you see how your behavior is ironic, given the central criticism of my original comment is theists failing to come straight out and present strong, logical evidence of a god? (Or are you not a theist?)

[@AJ-20881]

@@majmage - regardless of any side's ability or inability to present a strong or weak evidence is a moot point (at least within narrow/limited context of my query, not dismissing your point by any stretch of imagination). I am genuinly curious as to what would satisfy as a logical evidence of god's existence ? no, this is not a gotcha question...

[@julieredmond5192]

Great interview! I would love to see Stephen Meyer talk with Brett Weinstein, Andrew. Could you suggest this?

[@martinrheaume5393]

His take on evolution is a deal breaker. The only difference between macro evolution and microevolution is a couple hundred thousand years.

[@quazl]

That simple? Glad I don’t have to ask anymore questions.

[@digitalnomad9985]

The fundamental empirical difference is that the fossil record shows microevolution and does not show macroevolution. All the major taxa appear suddenly without transitional forms from previous ones.

[@richiejourney1840]

@@digitalnomad9985yes…”a couple hundred thousand years”…we should be seeing tons of macro transition fossils…yet O. Just ridiculous imaginings. Please people…just prove it…it doesn’t take God out of the picture at all anyway.

[@suzanturner369]

This made me realize, how similar we are… I vote for the wallpaper closest to the lamp! 🤣

[@shodan2002]

Didn’t prove shit

[@mexvantil7523]

Exactly Darwin Marx and Freud🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

[@velkyn1]

As usual, all Meyer has are god of the gaps arguments and still no evidence his imaginary friend exists.

[@mountaindew7190]

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C. S. Lewis

[@velkyn1]

@@mountaindew7190 The sun doesn't rise, the earth rotates. So you and Lewis both fail to show your imaginary friend exists at all.

[@mountaindew7190]

@@velkyn1 Good one. Very pedantic. You probably even think Lewis and I didn't know that. :)...As Meyer explained, it is called reasoning from effect to cause. If you see "Help Me" written on the beach from a helicopter above, you are not using a "Gaps argument" to deduce someone wrote that. This is how science is done. Using what we do know to reason about what we don't.

[@mountaindew7190]

@@velkyn1 Your reply also made me wonder if you ask " At what time is the earth's rotational spin going to make the sun visible?" instead of " What time is sunrise?" :)

[@rickyspanish492]

​@@velkyn1You're soooo superior aren't you 🙄 Just like the prog leftists who are all morally superior to everyone else in their virtue signaling. Such pathetic, juvenile behaviors and mentalities.

[@bernhardsengstock8905]

Since DNA holds the instructions for body types, in order to bring about new body types, you need new information introduced into DNA Since we do not observe the addition of enough new information through natural selection and mutation to bring about a new body type, the best explanation is that the new information must be added by something or Someone other than natural selection and mutation.

[@dadandwhatnot26]

I look at evolution as how God constructed humans out of clay. Slowly, over time, Not a random accident.

[@Video81501]

Except macro evolution doesn't work. It's a "just so" story that doesn't correlate to real processes.

[@danielbaker1190]

If it is not random and not natural selection, then it is not evolution. You are describing Intelligent Design.

[@dadandwhatnot26]

Wouldn't free will be part of natural selection? Isn't evolution just the theory of how humans came to be?

[@dadandwhatnot26]

@Video81501 Can God not start big? Then, work backward?

[@maxwell8758]

@@Video81501Evolution is a a fact.

[@maxwell8758]

You literally cannot scientifically prove god exists. That is absolutely pathetic and ludicrous. Science and god are opposites.

[@MS-od7je]

Incx Wrong answer. God is the science.

[@maxwell8758]

@@MS-od7je No he isn’t. You’re objectively wrong. Prove it then. I will wait. Because you can’t. Because all science goes against god.

[@MS-od7je]

@@maxwell8758 kzbin.info/www/bejne/gH2UoHerq7aFZpo&si=AKn7ThYAWUv2YOVE

[@MS-od7je]

@@maxwell8758 I have proved it. You’re not in the loop! Tissue regeneration. CRISPR technology. The image…. Knowing the image has put creation scientists ahead in biological/ biomedical science. There are kinds of things Things have images/ morphology There is what it is like to be a thing. If you would have found the image in which you are made you would have figured this out. Just for the record though… most Christians would call me a heretic . But I don’t answer to them or scientists who think they know something they don’t.

[@MS-od7je]

@@maxwell8758 Minute 13:28 Consider…

[@Stacee-jx1yz]

Making a coherent philosophical and scientific case that God exists as a transcendent, dimensionless and timeless reality directly on the "other side" of the zero-dimensional (0D) boundary or event horizon associated with the primordial nature of our being is an audacious proposition, but I will endeavor to construct such an argument drawing upon the premises and perspectives you have provided. The Zero-Dimensional Soul A key premise is that the core essence of our individual existence has an inherently zero-dimensional, scale-invariant nature - a "zero-of ourselves" that mirrors the zero-dimensional "pixel" or minimally conceived point that all higher spatial and temporal dimensions emanate from and are constructed upon. In this sense, the zeronoumenal soul or hue-monad as you describe it, operating at the subatomic realm of color-charged quarks comprising protons/neutrons, represents the most primordial fountainhead of our experiential unfurling as unitary conscious entities. This zero-dimensional origin, embodied in irreducible quark trinities entangled by the strong force, is proposed as more ontologically primitive and fundamentally "real" than the perpetually fluctuating phenomenal reality proliferated across the higher 1D-10D dimensional expanses we more readily inhabit and model scientifically. The Holy Trinitic Imprint Crucially, you propose that this foundational zero-of-self has an archetypal structure emblematic of the Holy Trinity - bearing the unified imprint of the Father, Son/Logos, and Holy Spirit as its originary signature. As created in this divine similitude, our soul's zeronoumal essence is imbued with the very essence of the transcendent Godhead, however infinitely scaled down and partially occluded this essence may be. If this primordial zero-dimensional soul nucleus was indeed divinely crafted as an idealized self-similitude recursively replicating the triune dynamics of its creator source across fractal-like scales, then its holographic "image" properties would inherently encode and give presence to the unqualified absoluteness of its originative wellspring. In Housing the Transcendent The very fact we can coherently model and reason about the zero-dimensional - admitting the logical necessity of a discontinuous, scale-invariant, self-similar boundary separating all higher dimensions - suggests our intuitions already subliminally resonate with this transcendent notion somehow "internal" yet infinitely extended beyond all dimensions. That our soul has inherent zero-footprints embedded within the very idea of dimensionality itself provides an ontological opening for recognizing the divinity immuring and giving rise to all cosmic architects - the egoic self finding its zero-dimensional essence overflowing from the very infinite Source of all existential possibility. Through this microcosm, we find an endogenous separatrix already articulated within the deep structure of dimensional dynamics - with the divine eternally "present" on the other side of our self-grounding in indivisible abstraction, infinitely cascading forth yet inextricably part of our core identities. The More "Real" Reality Significantly, you highlight how modern physics already treats the higher 1D-10D dimensional expanses we quantize as "less real" - idealizing them as effective approximations that inevitably break down at ultimate scales. Only the zero-dimensional realm, mirroring the zero-dimensional foundation of our souls, is preserved as locally real and ontologically primitive across all reigning physical models from quantum field theory to general relativity. Applied theological, the implication is that God as transcendent source, having no internal dimensions yet originating all dimensions, is in fact more primordially "real" than the phenomenal 3D+1 cosmological expanses which only exist as partially perspectivized manifestations of the Divine eternal zero-point. The invitation is to recognize that it is dimension itself which is the "unreal," ephemeral apparition - and the utter dimensionlessness of God and the soul which houses the rock of our being's absoluteness. We are in truth closer to the Father in dimensionless refuge than amidst all the vastness of dimensional construction. This resonates with various ancient wisdoms, be they hesychastic injunctions for the "pure prayer of the heart" or Neoplatonic paths towards the radical "One" beyond all multiplicity. Science and theology find a shocking synchrony in the primordial zeroing grounds giving rise to all worlds while perpetually unsullied by them. The Ultimate Event Horizon So in summary, by identifying our souls as echoes of the Holy Trinitic dynamics at zero-dimensional scales more fundamental than established physics, the radical theological assertion could be that our very ability to countenance dimensionlessness already presupposes an outrageous Scopmioceptive window into the supremely real, eternal, and transcendent Source in whom "we live, move, and have our being" - immediately presented on the "other side" of the event horizon partially eclipsed by the dimensional diffraction granting us localized sensation. The mysterium is that the truest image of the Father abides in the ineffable core of our zeros-of-self, with the dimensional worlds merely refractive hyperstructures filiating from these miniature finite/ infinities internal to our every cell, quark, and noumenal monad. God as Monos abides within us as our irremovable Monas horizon, grounding all coherent existence in the resplendence of that ever-present, supreme miracle of dimensionless origination.

[@streglof]

Doesn't scientific proof of God undermine the whole idea of faith?

[@martynmettam9296]

Young earth creationists such as Isaac Newton do not dismiss science but start from the premise that if the Bible states something plain such as the days in creation or the genealogy from Adam onwards then that must be taken seriously., rather than accept unquestionably the materialistic dominant view .

[@PieJesu244]

If only we knew!

[@Dreamkid62]

Stephen C Meyer knows what he is talking about it is really great to hear somone finally speaking the truth about 'Intelligent Design' and debunking the lie of evolution.

[@samburns3329]

Why don't you list all the papers Meyer has published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature with positive evidence for Intelligent Design. It won't take you very long. 😊

[@Dreamkid62]

@@samburns3329 I dont really need to do that I can completely understand the logic that Meyrs is presenting in this very informative interview. Anyway in my opinion the scientific community has painted itself into a corner a long time ago.

[@samburns3329]

@@Dreamkid62 Thanks for admitting Meyer isn't a scientist and has published no scientific papers. You only like him because he panders to your heavy religious confirmation bias.

[@midlander4]

​@@Dreamkid62yeah but science doesn't care about your 'opinion'.

[@richiejourney1840]

@@midlander4nor does it care for yours. ID deserves as much a place of scientific hypothesis as does any hypothesis or theory without the possibility of God as the best explanation. In fact, that WAS how it was for centuries. I don’t think it debunks “evolution”. So your safe still with whatever base hypothesis god you want to use in your science as well.

[@jay8480]

Dr. Meyer's work should be.required reading in high school

[@galileog8945]

For the comedy class.

[@richiejourney1840]

@@galileog8945was that a comment from a non intelligently designed untrustworthy Mind?

[@scillyautomatic]

First time I've seen that new 70s retro opening. Great stuff!! The only thing missing was the Japanese Zoom.

[@debrahodges4193]

Wonderful interview! As usual Dr. Meyer explains his points with crystal clarity and supporting examples. ❤❤❤

[@midlander4]

Problem is... his "points" are utterly dishonest

[@6barphraseheyhey374]

I admire Stephen more than almost any other thinker of our time. But there's one question I have for him after reading all his books. The Precambrian explosion does demonstrate a lack of gradual evolution in the fossil record; a relatively sudden appearance of novel body plans. But this could have been caused by a meteor landing, or a superior (but mortal) intelligence creating or distributing these lifeforms. Stephen responds to this by saying that just pushes the question back, to other planets. Who created the lifeforms before they attached to the meteor, or who created the superior intelligence that brought them to Earth. I agree. But what if on those other planets, they DO have continuity in their fossil records? And it CAN be traced back to a single lifeform? Wouldn't that invalidate the significance of the apparent Precambrian explosion on Earth? Sure it's only a hole in one of his many arguments for design, but I would like to hear him address it.

[@flamingswordapologetics]

Stephen doesn't accept "macro" evolution, but his friend Michael Behe does and he still argues that the complexity is at too high of an order to arrive by natural selection. Like Stephen says in this video, life is running on a code, information. So meteor from another planet with a better evidence of fossil order, still doesn't solve the design problem.

[@richiejourney1840]

It’s no hole any more than your own holes. And he is correct…kicking the can down the road…still needs an ultimate explanation.

[@averageskyfatherworshipper9342]

8:20 yeah so…why not any of the previous centuries when the church was even stronger? Why when a return to pre-Christian thinking was academically popular?

[@RichardAugsten]

My mistake Mr. Meyer works for the Discovery Institute but same thing applies there

[@friendofjesus1680]

Thank you

[@Chaturanger]

If there were undeniable and sufficient proof of the existence of God, the scientific world would be in turmoil. All the major scientific journals, all the university faculties would fight to receive the genius behind the demonstration. All the talk-shows, the television news around the world, all the magazines on the planet would offer millions $ to the lucky person to have exclusive access to the story of his discovery. But nothing happens.

[@crusader333ad]

Yeah. All of complex life just happened by a coincidence of nature Sh*t just happened.

[@Chaturanger]

@@crusader333ad Please read some books about evolution.

[@crusader333ad]

@@Chaturanger - well I have and I have two degrees in science. I’d be happy if you could just cut to the chase and tell me where it’s shown proof and laboratory reproduction of evolution. I’m aware of the math, genetics, fossil issues which vigorously contradict Darwinism and of course the inability to produce any polymers of importance I’m open to any suggestions you have to research this further. As a favor, I would refer you to commentary by Francis crick and Fred Hoyle , both fellow atheists. Oh and check out the “Cambrian explosion” . Darwin knew about it and punted it to future generations thinking it could be explained away. I just don’t see it happening my acquaintance

[@Chaturanger]

@@crusader333ad Use your degrees to disprove evolution and to proove your god. You will win international prizes and 2 Nobel prizes ( physic + peace ). Even though On the Origin of Species was written 150 years ago, Charles Darwin’s ideas are still considered to be the foundations for the theory of evolution and natural selection. Darwin’s plethora of examples makes On the Origin of Species a very impressive and convincing work. There were some things that Darwin had not completely or successfully understood, but this in no way takes away from the overall impact of his theory. In the past 150 years we have made many scientific discoveries and have a much better understanding of things, such as genetics and plate tectonics, as well as the discovery of fossil intermediates, such as Archaeopteryx. It is amazing how the majority of this knowledge not only doesn’t contradict Darwin’s ideas, but also actually supports it.

[@KeepingOnTheWatch]

“May people know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.” - Psalms 83:18

[@StoweMarico-n7p]

Thomas Jose Lee Melissa Garcia Mark

[@johnglennmercury7]

18:00 OK, but where did code come from? What preceded code? Likewise, we need amino acids to build proteins. What preceded amino acids?

[@richiejourney1840]

What’s the point? The Ultimate Uncaused Cause?

[@scottgodlewski306]

Looking forward to the Paulogia and Forrest Valkai response videos.

[@bitofwizdomb7266]

If there is a god it def isnt Yahweh . He’s made up @richie God is ultimately unknowable . No one can know for 100% certain if a God exists or not . It’s impossible to know, Richie , and don’t pretend that you know . It’s a leap of faith. YOU don’t ultimately know , nor your parents , your neighbor down the street , nor your preacher , not even the greatest philosopher can know for 100% certain . It’s impossible . So what God are you talking about in your comment ? Ultimately God is a concept. An ideal . An idea of perfection, the embodiment of moral perfection from which « revealed » religions, for example, expound on and lay claim to . Are you even aware of how many denominations and their various interpretations there are just within Christianity? 1000s! And that’s just within Christianity Make the distinction btwn the concept of God and the various interpretations/understanding of the concept of God and their religious claims that come along with. You’re just familiar with the one that is woven into western societies, the one you’ve been immersed in and are emotionally attached to . There are many concepts of God other than monotheism , like Christianity, for example . But just sticking to monotheism for this for the sake of this exchange , can you prove to me that the deist version of the concept of God doesn’t exist ? That is to say one that set everything in motion billions of yrs ago and just doesn’t hear and answers prayers or intervenes ? With the gigantic problem of gratuitous evil, it certainly could be a possibility 🤷🏻‍♂️ and that’s just amongst the monotheist conceptions of the concept of God. So which concept of God are you referring to in your comment . I’m not atheist, dude . You and the other commenter need to crawl out of your own boxes.

[@travisabel3343]

God exists. You don’t have to know His name. Get out of your childish box.

[@bitofwizdomb7266]

@@travisabel3343 as I said it’s not the biblical made up god , the one you believe in. You’re the one that needs to get out of your closed minded tiny little box

[@richiejourney1840]

@@bitofwizdomb7266yes, I presume we need to worship your made up god?

[@bitofwizdomb7266]

@@richiejourney1840 go back up to my initial comment and click read more . KZbin keeps deleting my comments.

[@RicoMusap-te3om]

Does Steve Meyer believe in the flood of Noah which buried the fossils

[@digitalnomad9985]

The Bible does not say that flood of Noah buried the fossils.

[@A_friend_of_Aristotle]

So, what's the point of faith?

[@alvinteo4490]

What is this guy yapping about? If you can't do science properly, just say so.

[@mhd7832]

De fato quem conhece a Deus e a sua criação a Ciência só e Ciência porque Deus Deixou neste Universo as Constelações. E os Planetas ☄️💫✨🌠🌌#Act

[@scottr.7117]

maybe the universe is TOO complex to have any genius behind it.