Stephen Meyer - Darwin: A Myth for the Post-Christian Mind

The prominent atheist Richard Dawkins has said that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Many Christian leaders have determined that the only way to survive in a post-Christian culture is to attempt a synthesis of Darwinism and Christianity. In this session, Dr. Stephen Meyer will explain why it is precisely the wrong time to capitulate since Darwinism itself is being undermined daily by new scientific discoveries.
This message is from our 2014 West Coast Conference, Overcoming the World: • Overcoming the World: ...
Purchase this conference as a digital download: www.ligonier.org/store/overcom...

[@DynastyWarriorsMod]

''In our country [China] we can question Darwinism just not the government; In America you can question the government but you can't question Darwinism.'' 25:18 God, I love this quote.

[@sandman9390]

Great quote!

[@sandman9390]

@@matthewstokes1608😊 I think we should question everything we are taught! Blind Faith is never good😉

[@sandman9390]

@@matthewstokes1608 Well, I do believe in the Light, as in Jesus is the Light of The World😉....but I reject the "New Age" concept of "Light" ....and HE said, "Therefore be careful lest the light in you be darkness." - Luke 11:35 The Apostle Paul, referencing false apostles & teachers said: "And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.- 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 Jesus also said, "And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”- John 3:19-21...and HE was talking about "religious" people who thought they were in the "light", as well as the folks that denied, and/or refused God's Sovereign Authority ❤️

[@sandman9390]

@@matthewstokes1608 ❤️✝️

[@moseshoward7072]

Stop pretending that science is oppressing Creationism. Americans are perfectly free to question evolution. The problem for Creationists is that evolution has all the answers and all the evidence.

[@diana.nikolova7383]

When I heard Stephen Meyers' and Michael Behe's speeches on KZbin years ago it was an eye-opener to me. I slapped myself on the forehead for realizing such a logical conclusion about life,its origin and development. I remember ever since I was a kid in high-school I was thinking about how the parts of the cell were acting like small machines and frequently asked myself how did the different parts "knew" that they should interact the way they do in order to function, how did the migrating birds knew their way for the first time and passed it onto the other birds of the same population... and many more questions. I was a curious kid. Things just didn't match with what the textbooks said... but the teachers "preach" them like it is the Holy Bible and leave no place to doubt or reflect on their content. I am really happy that I happened to hear of this alternative explanation. Stephen Meyer has truly a brilliant mind.

[@diana.nikolova7383]

He believes in intelligent designer aka God which pushes him to choose a religion. Normally this is the one that he is brought up into and in his case christianity. What is the problem with that? There are many ways to God and Christianity is one of them.

[@thanksforbeingausefulidiot9016]

+Diana.Nikolova - you should have slapped your forehead a little harder. You might have knocked a little more sense into your brain.

[@factchecker9442]

john cameron (Elohiem or Yaweh or Allah)God is your lord and not Jesus -was your prophet and the holy spirit was his fortified soul.

[@BillPrueter]

Diana, you have an impressive mind.

[@rickdavis2235]

Diana.Nikovlova - There is only one way to God and that's through Jesus Christ. John 14:6 - Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

[@simmo212121]

All that matters is the truth . Those who refuse to understand the problems with Darwin's view are in denial. Great job Stephen Meyer . I only recently began to follow you and I am appreciative of your knowledge sir. Thank you

[@Annie.747]

Yes and those that subscribe to the “everyone has their own truth” ideology, are lazy. If my truth is that your truth is false, is that still truth? There is one truth. Everyone should have the endeavor to find the truth. Jesus Christ, Yeshua Hamashiach, is that truth.

[@the-Carpenter]

What a pleasure it is to listen to Dr. Meyers. He is not only knowledgeable, but articulate and easy on the ears even to a lay person like me. Amazingly, he is also humble. God bless...

[@christopherparks4342]

He is also very wrong

[@the-Carpenter]

@@christopherparks4342 If you say so!

[@derhafi]

@@the-Carpenter "If you say so!" every bit of data we have collected says so.

[@Peekaboo-Kitty]

Yes he "tickles" your ears with all sort of false propaganda!

[@the-Carpenter]

@@Peekaboo-Kitty Which part is false. Would appreciate if you could point it out.

[@BillPrueter]

What I also find interesting in this whole debate is that science, modern science, has dug so deep into discovery that their revelations have caused doubt about the theories which are dependent upon those discoveries. In some ways they have demonstrated their own undoing. And instead of responding to challenges to their theories with wonder and interest, they respond in the same way as religious leaders did centuries ago when their cherished beliefs were crushed.

[@mcmanustony]

what a lot of pompous uninformed tripe. do you have any evidence for this drivel or does it just pour out randomly?

[@brightwellkunene8995]

@@mcmanustony And what would you offer us again Sir, instead of the expletives you are choosing to throw about in hoping that Bill here will cower and be afraid to express his views on the subject?

[@brightwellkunene8995]

@@mcmanustony so predictable

[@mcmanustony]

@@brightwellkunene8995 where do you think you saw an expletive? the is simply uninformed tripe as I said. vague anti science nonsense delivered as if there is point in there.......

[@brightwellkunene8995]

@@mcmanustony There were expletives in your comment

[@rac717]

Again, God bless you, Mr. Meyers, for your brilliance AND courage.

[@mcmanustony]

the courage to do what? lobby school boards when he claims to have the goods on 150 years of biological research? why does he not have the courage to submit his "work" for peer review like real scientists do?

[@tntruther]

Intelligent design is rejected by science journals. People have lost their jobs and or their positions for allowing it or for even talking about it, ...much less publish it. We see the same thing played out over and over throughout time when new information is brought into the discussion. This artificial peer review argument is all that Darwinists have left but it is quickly crumbling. Darwinists will need to explain the origin of the information for the DNA code and the Cambrian explosion before they will be able to carry on their (religious) Darwinistic theory.

[@mcmanustony]

"Intelligent design is rejected by science journals"- yes. and for the same reason phrenology or cold fusion is rejected by science journals.....it's because it's not science. "People have lost their jobs and or their positions for allowing it or for even talking about it"- care to name one? the best known advocate of ID is Behe. at the time he published his pop sci books he was a tenured professor at Lehigh University, PA. As of today he is still a tenured professor at Lehigh. who are these people who lost their jobs? "We see the same thing played out over and over throughout time when new information is brought into the discussion" we see nothing of the sort. new information is brought to the discussion literally every day. papers are published in peer reviewed journals every single day. Meyer's attempt to do this was by the back door using his crony Sternberg to sneak a paper into PBSW bypassing the proper review process. they got caught. what is a darwinist? there is a body of scientific knowledge ascribed to by 99.99% or more of working scientists in relevant disciplines. they agree that the theory of evolution is the only scientific explanation of the diversity of life on this planet. the standard work on the cambrian is Erwin and Valentine.....how much of it have you read? cover to cover since you seem to think yourself an expert. science is not a religion. ID is.

[@tntruther]

I'm no expert. But then I don't need to be. I have seen how new ideas that challenge the standard doctrine are excluded. We saw it with the spherical earth theory, the controlled demolition of the world trade center theory, the washing of hands before childbirth theory, continental shift theory, the earth as the center of the universe theory, etc. We even have a quote for this. It goes something like, "First the ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win.". Wegener’s theory of continental drift was rejected by most other scientists during his lifetime. It was only in the 1960s that continental drift finally became part of mainstream science. Semmelweis could not explain why hand-washing was effective - he didn’t know about germs - he just saw that it worked and that patients no longer caught fevers and other diseases. He was lured by another doctor into an insane asylum in Vienna. Realizing it was a trap, Semmelweis tried to get out, but was held and badly beaten by guards and placed in a straightjacket. He died two weeks later, most likely from injuries he suffered during the beating. Aristarchus was the first person to propose that the earth and the other planets orbit the sun. He also said that the stars are much farther away than the planets. Some people demanded that Aristarchus be put on trial for daring to say Earth is not at the center of the universe. Soon Aristarchus’s work was forgotten. It would stay forgotten for almost two millennia. I saw with my own two eyes how the scientific community reacted to the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC7. They wouldn't even look at the evidence, ...stating that, "A new investigation would put us (the AIA) on record as calling the official narrative into question. Darwinists are people who religiously believe in the doctrine of Darwinism; a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.

[@mcmanustony]

stick to the topic you raised can you name these people who have lost their jobs as you claimed. if the answer is "no" then say so

[@cshort1302]

I never get tired of listening to Dr. Meyer. He is brilliant and the evolutionists know he is right ! They just can't admit it because they are all trying to preserve their careers. Thanks to Ligonier Ministries for helping to extend his platform.. ..

[@logicalatheist1065]

It's unfortunate he doesn't understand anything about biology and just lies for religion

[@jounisuninen]

@@logicalatheist1065 That's quite useless tantrum, as you obviously can't point out what would be faulty in Meyer's presentation.

[@logicalatheist1065]

@@jounisuninen provide evidence for a god then, since you fail as well you continue to support Atheism, good luck. Please no crying

[@logicalatheist1065]

@@jounisuninen Stephen Meyer has no credibility as a scientist. Next?

[@diana.nikolova7383]

Brilliant mind. He is not afraid to go against the tide.

[@mcmanustony]

and yet he is afraid to subject his "work" to scientific scrutiny..... absolute zero= the number of scientific conferences Meyer presents his "work" at infinity= the discovery institute's budget for harassing elected school boards divided by it's budget for test tubes.

[@kennethgee2004]

@mcmanustony Actually, it is the scientific and academic community that won't review his work. Meyer has even published books on the subject, so he is putting his work out there for everyone to see.

[@mcmanustony]

Kenneth Gee You are 100% wrong. His books have been extensively debunked by actual scientists who, unlike Meyer, actually work in the fields where he feigns expertise. For example his mangling of palaeontology was described as "jaw dropping incompetence" by a.....drum roll.....palaeontologist! Not to mention his sickening dishonesty in cobbling a "quote" from a scientist by excising TWELVE PAGES and joining the remainder to utterly misrepresent the stated views of the scientist in question. Meyer should be called out for what he is - a professional liar for a right wing Christian pressure group. He is no more a scientist than I'm the king of Sweden! Oh....don't waste your time looking for his "work" in the peer reviewed literature. He and his crony Sternberg got a little essay into the PBSW journal.....only to have it repudiated and dropped when it became clear they'd cheated the review process to sneak it in behind the backs of the editors. He will continue to harass school boards and scientists will get on with doing science

[@kennethgee2004]

@mcmanustony You have not provided any of the reviews. who are these unknown palaeontologists that spoke about intelligent design. Your remainder of the argument is all ad hominem about the critical claims of Dr Meyers work.

[@mcmanustony]

I"m not obliged to hold your hand here. get off your duff and READ. Start with Scienceblogs; look up "Meyer's hopeless monster" and educate yourself. your claim is that the scientific community is somehow running shy of Meyer's work. as I said, you are 100% wrong. he would run a mile rather than do what real scientist do day in and day out- subject his output to rigorous peer review and publish in the scientific literature. you don't seem to understand "ad hominem". I stated the fact that Meyer is utterly and relentlessly dishonest. I gave examples of that. you have not posted a syllable to address his numerous documented lies.

[@stefniehatzimichael209]

Thankyou Dr Stephen !!! The Word of God gives wisdom&knowledge for All things! Hallelujah!! God Bless you Dr Meyer!!

[@jamespitts6725]

What do you think, the code just wrote itself! Got to love this guy!

[@mcmanustony]

no you don't. Can you name a few books on biology written by biologists that you've read?

[@Raydensheraj]

@@mcmanustony I'm sure he hasn't, or else he would know what Meyers and the Discovery Institute stand for... Maybe he should watch the Dover Trial to learn about the tactics of these Religious hustlers. Mr Meyers left the court proceedings - I wonder why? And Behe - who takes that man still serious except uninformed morons, seriously?

[@anthonyjames5474]

mcmanustony That all you got? Fake embryo drawings, fake peppered moths, non-existent fossil record, Darwin's finches are still finches. Show the origin of life. Or shut the fuck up with your fat mouth. Bring something besides bullshit.

[@happilyeggs4627]

The "code" did just write itself. Failed code means the species dies out. You only see successful code directed by various pressures in living species. The "code" as you call it is complex chemical molecular chains and cannot be deciphered to say god did it.

[@happilyeggs4627]

That is exactly what happens. DNA self replicates, you dummy. Idiot. You know nothing. Go to Google and type in DNA self replication. You might learn something. you tit.

[@MikeOzmun]

Man, I would love to see Stephen Meyers and Jordan Peterson talk for a couple hours. I feel like Mr. Peterson could illuminate a lot of things for Dr. Peterson.

[@ThisFish888]

The SETI scientists are scanning the cosmos in hopes of receiving a signal from an alien life, they say the they can distinguish a signal from a natural source and an intelligent source because a signal from an intelligent source will convey information.

[@happilyeggs4627]

And..... You think you can see information in an intelligent form in DNA. It's only chemical information. It can't be deciphered in the sense that you can derive a message. It's only of use as a function of form.

[@johnvirgilio5323]

Of course you can tell it ultimately came from an intelligent source because of the beyond Microsoft software information and incredible workings within DNA. It will decipher its own incredible code. That's the genius. It's a reasonable inference to see ID.

[@johnpatmos1722]

@@happilyeggs4627 "It's only of use as a function of form." That's quite a leap! This isn't merely "Na burns orange, and cobalt burns blue/green." You simply skip over the entirety of the presentation and dig in your heels with circular reasoning: It is only a function of form because it is result of blind random reaction, and in its randomness it has arrived at this form with this function. Nobody has said that DNA is the intelligence, as if it had a brain. It is result of intelligence. We know signs of intelligence when we see them. @31:09 “The information in DNA is highly complex. That means it is not just a repetitive pattern. It’s not a mantra. It’s not ‘um, um, um.’ It’s not the same letters repeating over and over, ‘AT, AT, AT.' Instead it’s complex and unpredictable and a-periodic. But it’s also specified. That is, the arrangements of the characters in the DNA molecule are specific in order to perform a communication function. In particular, the function of conveying information to the cell’s manufacturing system about how to build the proteins that the cell needs to stay alive… That’s what we have in DNA. We have information that is functional.”

[@johnpatmos1722]

@John King And your merely saying to John Virgilio that he is ignorant about evolution and so stupidly concludes it must be God is a statement in circular reasoning. He cannot know about evolution because he sees the hand of God in the origin of life. Believing in God, he is ignorant. This offers no substantive response to his comment, let alone to Meyer's lecture.

[@johnpatmos1722]

@John King Are you trying to say that you know more than Meyers about RNA and DNA?

[@louisemaguire944]

When Darwinists ask me about the "great spaghetti monster in the sky" I ask them if their pet rocks are reproducing yet?

[@JR-nh7fc]

The theory of evolution is about species evolving from other species. It postulates nothing about how life originated

[@JR-nh7fc]

@Nautical Miles and biochemist J R states that "the signatures of evolution are even clearer when you look at the biochemical level". Now, which biochemist is correct and why?

[@JR-nh7fc]

@Nautical Miles when you say "see evolution of biochemical and cellular systems, what are you specifically talking about? J R is an actual living scientist work at Harvard University and studying evolution. I never met any scientist or read any scientific paper denying evolution

[@christopherparks4342]

That's because you're so ignorant that you don't understand that abiogenesis and evolution are two different theories and two different fields of science.

[@graemel3069]

Indeed lol...and they would give birth to pebbles!

[@danielmanning7689]

KZbin comment section. The gift that keeps on giving.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

such talks overshadow the comment section......lol

[@kennethwalter6417]

Daniel Manning does the comment section include channels that disallow comments?

[@mtlicq]

♥

[@kriskhinson443]

The theory of Evolution requires more faith to believe than what is required to believe in a Creator. Darwin must have been a very smart guy capable of recruiting scientists as his priests from the other side. He would be pleasantly amazed by his large following with a high number of them being scientists who have not and cannot find the missing link to support Evolution theory. If he, Darwin, was alive today, he would not make a fool of himself.

[@marcocappelli2236]

Kris K Hinson Evolution's been proven since 150 years ago. The theory of evolution was at first very critisiced, but the evidence has been piling up ever since. Only people questioning it are creationists, how odd... kzbin.info/www/bejne/gKiTfn-Af6-Vp8U

[@i.1213]

That’s what I have always thought! And I know it’s still premature to say it openly, but also the heliocentric model tbh… not a single actual and irrefutable proof that such a thing as “Space” even exists (Nasa’s “pictures” of the Earth and of the planets are actually graphic renderings, by NASA’s own admission).

[@shaoorehsan9114]

Mr. Meyers has proved argument with substantial, decisive and overwhelming evidence through his genius knowledge and presentation style. Appreciative and admiring.

[@logicalatheist1065]

Yet Evolution is still one of the best supported facts in science with nobody ever getting close to falsifying. :) Meyers is a goofball

[@johnnyboy1586]

@@logicalatheist1065 he give the only logical answer to the questions . materialism doesn't give any but hits a brick wall

[@logicalatheist1065]

@@johnnyboy1586 anyone who's part of the discovery institution isnt worth a second of my time. Stephen meyer isn't even a scientist

[@johnnyboy1586]

@@logicalatheist1065 well you seem to have given enough time and thought into clicking on and answering

[@logicalatheist1065]

@@johnnyboy1586 don't need to, discovery institute is pseudoscience

[@YHWHisSovereign]

Evolutionism vs science, you can't have both. I'll choose science. It is amazing how a "theory" (but it's not a scientific theory) has been pushed for so long that clearly contradicts science.

[@mcmanustony]

what contradictions?

[@mcmanustony]

crickets......

[@mcmanustony]

Still crickets......you're not very good at this.....

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

well it was pushed.....because it offers real life rewards. If you are a biologist, you need to educate your self on evolution in order to find a job. If you are a businessman in a biology related industry, you need to use evolutionary principles in order to make money. Here are a "few' practical applications of evolution....lol www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3352551/ www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html

[@moseshoward7072]

Evolution is considered settled science, as universally accepted as the "theory" that earth orbits the sun. It is not controversial just because a few religious fanatics are upset by it for their own zany reasons.

[@deborahkate1849]

love the beautiful mind of this guy.... wow

[@selviskk]

This is incredibly fascinating even for a non theist like my self, it is a thrill listening

[@dustinnyblom7835]

Non theist?

[@a_l_e_k_sandra]

Scientific dogma is still a dogma.

[@mattk6719]

131 Dislikes by science-denying Darwinists.

[@thomasaskew1985]

It isn't the Darwinists who deny science; it is those who deny Darwin who deny science. Your talking snake doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[@youthresist8956]

Thomas Askew “Maybe we should question this theory and see if it holds up” “How dare you! It’s a scientific fact! You must hate science!”

[@TheRykpaalt]

@@thomasaskew1985 Matthew 24:40-42

[@khanusmagnus577]

@@thomasaskew1985 >Darwin >science Pick one

[@thomasaskew1985]

@@khanusmagnus577 False dichotomy. If I pick Darwin, I have already picked science. If I pick science, I have already picked Darwin. How would you like it if I told you to pick between Jesus and Christianity? Would you see how ridiculous that is? Pull your head out of your fundament and see how prone the Bible is to error.

[@judestongue]

The part about the Microsoft engineer saying, "what, do these darwinists think the code wrote itself?" Got me thinking about an analogy. Humans believing this information for life "wrote itself" would be similar to a basic AI that eventually becomes self aware through more and more sophisticated programming and then concludes that nothing intelligent gave it the ability to code in the first place.

[@33bb33bb]

A strange paradox isnt it? Is this the legacy of humanity? To manifest an artificial "Adam" of sorts...

[@gregdiprinzio9280]

Write that script.

[@Spolt_main]

No because computer code isn't driven by chemistry and physics

[@topseykretts7608]

Let's say you and I both work at a Bicycle factory. Our job is to inspect the bikes as they come off the assembly line. We spend all day examining finished bicycles for possible defects before they are sent out into the public to be purchased. Defects (or mutations) are not that common. We may see one every 10 years. And most defects (around 99.999%) of them are detrimental for the bike. They are not successful defects. They hurt the bikes' performance or ability to be sold on the open market. About once every 1,000 years (probably closer to a million) or so, we actually come across a bike with a "beneficial" defect. Perhaps a seat is a bit more cushioned or more rounded, or one of the peddles is a bit wider. We feel that the defect may actually help the bike sell.....so we implement the defect into every new bike from that point on. In MY version of this analogy, in a billion years or so, we will STILL have bicycles coming out of the factory. they may look a lot different than the older models, but they'll still be BICYLES!!! In the "evolutionist" version of this analogy, in a billion years or so, we will have F-14 fighter jets coming out of the factory!?!!?? Do you see what I mean?? There's no way (defects) over time will turn the bicycles into fighter Jets......that just won't happen. AT least NOT without outside help! But it doesn't stop there. The "evolutionist" also says that a whole lot of other things have also came out of the bicycle factory.....like aircraft carriers, race cars, helicopters, 747's, and teh space shuttle !!???!?!?

[@Edward-bm7vw]

it's a bad analogy. The chemistry does not function the same way

[@zootalk]

I just can't stop listening to PhD. Meyer.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

Try taking an academic course on biology.....after that you wont be able to stand his sophistry!

[@thedad7828]

Well you should, if you fact check all of his information then you will realize he’s purposely misleading you and lying to push his own agenda

[@Thisisnotmyrealname8]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 I'm just curious. Do you people ever say anything interesting?

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@Thisisnotmyrealname8 the term "interesting" is an observer relative term, it's NOT an intrinsic feature of an opinion or a statement. If you don't find anything interesting of what its being said, you will need to check your own interests mate!

[@Thisisnotmyrealname8]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 Please, stop, your smart talk is backfiring.

[@KelliAnnWinkler]

Just finished his book "Darwin's Doubt" and now looking for presentations and writings to explore more of where he is coming from. I am not a religious in any sense of the word, but find his thinking to consistent with some of the questions I have been contemplating.

[@mcmanustony]

Have you balances Meyer's book by reading what actual scientists have to say?

[@jounisuninen]

@@mcmanustony All actual scientists agree with Dr. Meyer. The more ignorant do not. In his posthumously-published Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John, Isaac Newton expressed his belief that Bible prophecy would not be understood "until the time of the end", and that even then "none of the wicked shall understand". From an objective standpoint there are no supernatural things, because every individual defines ”supernatural” according to his own subjective worldview. God is a natural agent for any person who’s got a true experience of Him. Some of the greatest names in science who believed in God: Nicolaus Copernicus (a monk), Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Joseph Priestley, James Clerk Maxwell, Gregor Mendel (the founder of genetics and abbot of a monastery), Lord Kelvin and Albert Einstein. In fact, even Darwin was not an outright atheist. Plus, many of the pioneers of quantum physics: Werner Heisenberg, Max Plank, Erwin Schrödinger, James Jeans, Louis de Broglie, Wolfgang Pauli and Arthur Eddington. And today's scientists - the astrophysicist Paul Davies, Simon Conway Morris (Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology at Cambridge), Alasdair Coles (Professor of Neuro-immunology at Cambridge), John Polkinghorne (who was Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge), Russell Stannard, Freeman Dyson ... and Francis Collins, who led the team of 2,400 international scientists on the Human Genome Project and was an atheist until the age of 27, when he became a Christian. Over 60% of all Nobel Laureates in Science believe in God. The more ignorant a person is, the more he is inclined towards atheism. Natural sciences started to decline when Charles Darwin presented his evolution theory, without understanding anything of genetics. Physics is the basis for all modern natural sciences. Robert Laughlin, professor of physics at Stanford University, and sharer in a Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on the fractional quantum Hall effect, describes evolution theory as ”an ideology, a logical dead end and an anti-theory”. Evolution theory is against the discoveries caught from empirical studies of natural science. According to Laughlin, the observations which are used to justify evolution theory are questionable at best, and at worst they are completely false. Dr. Laughlin continues by stating that empirical natural science does not need the evolution theory and the evolution theory does not get support from empirical natural science. There'll always be atheists, but with the discoveries made in modern science they can't refer to science to support their faith anymore.

[@DocReasonable]

@@jounisuninen Review of Stephen Meyer's ludicrous *Signature in the Cell* 'Meyer's book is yet another in a long line of 'Intelligent Design' propaganda pieces. Intelligent design is not even an hypothesis, much less a scientific theory. I realize that the Discovery Institute has resources and money to get these books published, but after reading this I ask myself: Why do they bother? They don't have any science to offer. Meyer suggests that intricacies of cells and of DNA could not possibly have evolved without an "intelligent designer," which everyone knows by now is just a code word for 'God.' The utter dishonesty of not just coming right out and saying: 'God did it' (which ultimately is their REAL argument) gives an idea of how much Meyer and his ilk can be trusted. ID is not science, no matter how you try to argue it, Meyer. Evolution by natural selection on the other hand explains the evolution of the cell, and all subsequent life beautifully - no deity necessary. If you want to read some books discussing the real science of evolution, check out Richard Dawkins' 'The Greatest Show on Earth' Donald Prothero's 'Evolution What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters' Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution is True' and Neil Shubin's 'Your Inner Fish A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body'. Meyer's book is still potentially useful though. For instance, if you have a table with one leg that's too short, you could even it out by putting 'Signature in the Cell' under the short leg. Problem solved, and the Discovery Institute will finally have done something useful for humanity.'

[@Daveena1008]

@34:23 His daughter's soccer coach who is also a Software Engineer at Microsoft tells him... "So what do these Darwinists think that the code just wrote itself?" And then he said... "Not at Microsoft, it doesn't work that way!" ABSOLUTLEY AWESOME & PRICELESS!!!!! Exactly, computer code cannot write itself, it requires a programmer to code and design it, in the same way that the code in DNA cannot write itself randomly by chance. If you think about it, the code in DNA is far more complex and sophisticated than software code, so there is no chance that it would have occurred through evolution or by chance, as the Darwinists claim. You would have to be SUPER foolish to believe so. Thank you Dr. Stephen Meyers for a very enlightening lecture, you have a brilliant mind!!

[@happilyeggs4627]

Another dummy. DNA does write itself. It is self replicating. Go to Google and type in DNA self replication. You will find thousands of scientific papers that describe the process. You will find school primers in the form of video clips that show how it self replicates. Nit.

[@Daveena1008]

@@happilyeggs4627 --- Did the comment you just posted above "write itself"? Who's the "nit" here?

[@happilyeggs4627]

@@Daveena1008 Was what I said wrong? Doesn't DNA self replicate? Please reconsider your comment. I expect no apology but I would wish you to absorb some truth. DNA is self replicating. This is easily checked and verified, and the process well known and fully illustrated. Please, I say please and I don't care, check the internet and discover the truth. Just type in Does DNA self replicate? I'm sure you will get a dozen papers up at least along with one or two instructional videos. However, I'm sure you don't care for the truth.

[@christopherparks4342]

Except DNA isn't a code. That's a metaphor that makes it easier to understand at the elementary level.

[@lahaina4791]

@@happilyeggs4627 The mathmatical science went right over your head...nit

[@honawikeepa5813]

Excellent talk. I remember the Intelligent Design debate how clear Stephen Meyer was.

[@IIrandhandleII]

There is no debate.

[@42872]

Thanks for all your hard work

[@youtubezcy]

Why would you applaud someone for being dishonest?

[@simonluzny2487]

Thank you, Mr mayor, for tirelessly seeking the truth, and not being afraid to question and face those who, apparently, invested too much of their life in something that might be a lie.

[@logicalatheist1065]

He's extremely far from the truth with the unscientific organization he's a part of

[@ephs145]

The atheist substitutes God with time. Bible: 'With God all things are possible', Evolutionary theory, 'With time all things are possible.'..

[@johnpatmos1722]

Good Terms and Statements to Understand and Remember: @4:42 “Morphological Innovation” @6:08 “Population Genetics … as scientists have begun to calculate how much change could take place in a given period of time when they need even just two or more coordinated genetic mutations, what are called ‘waiting times,’ go right out the roof. They rise exponentially. And once you get beyond two coordinated mutations, the expected waiting time … suggests that we would have to wait much longer than the period of time that life has been on earth.” @11:45 “the central mechanism of modern Darwinian theory, the mechanism of natural selection acting on random genetic variations, lacks the creative power required to explain events like the Cambrian explosion. It does a great job of explaining minor variations … But these are cyclical variations within an established limit. They do not explain where we get moths, or birds, or indeed animals in the first place… neo-darwinism explains the survival, but not the arrival of the fittest. It explains small scale variation. But it does not explain what is called ‘morphological innovation.’” @18:47 “So rather than a few basic forms of life missing ancestral forms, now as a result of the Burgess find, there were many … exotic forms of animal life that had been unknown before, each of which was also missing ancestral forms.” [re: the 1909 Burgess find in Canada] @19:56 “Again, the fossil finds accentuated the problem of the Cambrian explosion… They found that the period of time of the explosion had been even much shorter than had been previously believed… The period of time of the Cambrian had shrunk so much that one paleontologist said, ‘What I like to ask my evolutionary biology colleagues is this, How much faster does this have to happen before we stop calling this evolution?’ [re: the 1984 in China] @23:20 “Stasis: Lack of directional morphological change” @23:42 “’[Professor Chen] said, ‘These new animal finds in the Maotianshan shale in southern China have turned Darwin’s Tree of Life upside down.’ The Darwinian metaphor of the tree implies that change moves gradually from simple to complex. But instead, what the fossil record shows is the very first forms of animal life come into the fossil record fully formed, with an extraordinary integrated complexity, in each case exemplifying a unique body plan.” @27:50 “We could think of this as an engineering problem. How do you build an animal? How would the evolutionary process have produced these complex forms of life, given that it requires a great deal of time to work, and given that it relies, we now know, on unguided, undirected copying errors in genetic information.” @31:09 “The information in DNA is highly complex. That means it is not just a repetitive pattern. It’s not a mantra. It’s not ‘um, um, um.’ It’s not the same letters repeating over and over, ‘AT, AT, AT.” Instead it’s complex and unpredictable and a-periodic. But it’s also specified. That is, the arrangements of the characters in the DNA molecule are specific in order to perform a communication function. In particular, the function of conveying information to the cell’s manufacturing system about how to build the proteins that the cell needs to stay alive… That’s what we have in DNA. We have information that is functional.” @32:58 “If you want to build a new Cambrian animal, we now know that you need a whole bunch of new types of cells… There’s a big jump in complexity as measured by the types of cells required. But for each new type of cell, you need new… dedicated proteins. So to build each new form of animal life with all these new cell types, you need all kinds of new proteins. And each kind of new protein requires more genetic information. Now, that’s where things start to get sticky from a… neo-darwinian point of view, because we know something about systems of code or informational text. If the systems are functional, random changes are not friendly to maintaining function. Random systems tend to degrade function rather than to enhance function.” @42:20 “The method of multiple competing hypotheses, or the method of inference to the best explanation. ‘The best explanation,’ said Lyell ”is a cause now in operation, a cause known from our present experience to have the power or capacity to produce the effect in question.” @44:47 “What is the cause now in operation for the production of digital code? What do we know from our uniform and repeated experience about what it takes to generate information in an alphabetic, typographic, or digital form? It’s a mind, right? It’s an intelligence. That’s what we know from experience.”

[@gimmelyod]

What I find totally ironic is the current use of computers to "teach" evolution with programming models of creatures that can exchange characteristics, and "evolve" over generations of the model. I would argue that this "evolution simulator" is actually a CREATION MODEL. I have a background in computer programming so I'm in my element discussing this. What is called an "evolution model" is, in reality an environment conjured into existence by the creators of the software. The "life" in this environment didn't arise from progression of objects that were not "alive", but were placed ALREADY FORMED in their rudimentary selves in the environment where rules (once again - dictated by the programmers) allowed or disallowed these "life forms" to change over time. This entire product is clearly an argument in favor of INTELLIGENT DESIGN - despite the advertising of being an "evolutionary teaching tool"; -Truly an example of "not being able to see the forest because of the trees..."!

[@michaelcarey299]

Interesting!

[@ozowen5961]

Even more interesting is that the genome is "designed" to add new elements and to change constantly. So it is designed to evolve.

[@johnpatmos1722]

@@ozowen5961 But it must break or blunt genes to evolve. There is information loss.

[@ozowen5961]

@@johnpatmos1722 No it does not. Do you guys just make this stuff up? Yeesh

[@johnpatmos1722]

@@ozowen5961 okay. This is where I say, yes, it does.

[@donaldcoder407]

In other words, evolution is in deep trouble. It could never have happened but the naive continue to embrace it as fact.

[@garywalker447]

No, the ToE is not in trouble, nothing that Meyers says has any scientific merit.

[@mcmanustony]

and the "naive" would be the entire scientific professions involved.....and not an ignorant fool posting tripe on youtube?

[@thedad7828]

Well evolution on its own is an observable fact. Look Up the red fox domestication experiment and the multiple cellular experiments where you can watch when you put the same micro bacteria in different environments they start to develop changes. The only thing you can try to debate is Darwin’s theory which has only gotten stronger over time. Point out one argument in this video that was convincing to you and I can debunk it with facts immediately.

[@kriskhinson443]

@@garywalker447 - You a real man of faith; I bet if Darwin was here today, he would have found something else to do with his life instead of making "scientific predictions"; it is called prophecy which must come from our Creator.

[@kriskhinson443]

@@thedad7828 - The experiments you refer to are being carried out by logical processes by making use of existing materials instead of the alternative "theory" of Big Bang followed by the Darwinian theory of predictions that are yet to materialise after all these years. In the meantime, fossils have beeen found but they point away from the "ToE".

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

Now I'm not saying Intelligent Design IS true. I am saying WHAT IF it gives us the best explanation of how Life started? It makes a compelling argument against the prevailing materialist Neo-Darwinist view. I would also ask Who has The Best argument against ID?

[@happilyeggs4627]

I should go and watch the Kitzmiller v Dover trial videos. There are several on KZbin. You will see ID and it's proponents getting their arses kicked. Hilarious. Your hero, Meyer, was deposed to give evidence. He realised that he would be unmasked as a charlatan, so he ran away without testifying. Behe was left to defend ID on his own and was embarrassed roundly. The judge gave him a complete dressing down and told Behe he'd never heard such dishonest testimony. The judge, by the way, was right wing and religious.

[@ricks7469]

Meyers “go to” explanation for every phenomena that science has not, as yet, been able to convincingly explain is to attribute the same to God. His is the classic God of the gaps.

[@jasonroshto2339]

When you “follow the science”…. Awesome.

[@bobbeckel5266]

When I ponder the evolution of evolution since the time of Darwin, I conclude that nothing has really changed. Modern evolution still ultimately depends on spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation appears to be the foundation of all modern science. That is, all except Intelligent Design.

[@mcmanustony]

have you ever tried opening a book on the relevant science written by scientists?

[@maync1]

Didn't it take a million years for the horses' teeth to grow just a milimeter longer?

[@jimstair6494]

I’d like to see Stephen Meyer discuss Intelligent Design with James Tour. Their mutual love for chemistry makes such KZbin event an exciting prospect.

[@derhafi]

The Discovery Institute and it’s entire ilk of employees like Meyer and Tour are utterly dishonest and have nothing to contribute to the search for real understanding. Meyer is not a scientist. he's a full time paid activist for a far right religious pressure group, one aim of that pressure group is to gut science education in schools and replace it with religion. one step on that path is convincing the public if the falsehood that they are legitimate scientists. Why does Meyer or anybody working for them, who'd like you to think he's got the goods on a 150 year body of scientific work, has never presented this "work" at a scientific conference- in fact he'd run a mile from such scrutiny- instead he does the rounds of fundamentalist church groups, right wing talk radio and jesus-tv shows. Why does he publish in vanity journals and not in science journals? Do you think if a real scientist had done work that destroyed one of the most established scientific theories in history, he or she would publish in newspapers and church magazines?

[@gregb6469]

@@derhafi -- Do you know if Meyer has ever been invited to present at one of these so-called conferences, and refused to come? DO you know if he has ever been asked to write a paper for any of these so-called scientific journals, and refused to submit anything? DFor that matter, how do you know he has not presented at sceintific conferences, or not published in scientific journals?

[@derhafi]

Well, yes. It is well documented that Sternberg and Meyer cheated the review process at the PBSW (Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington) to get Meyers essay in behind the board. You do not get asked to publish a paper, publishing your work is what scientist do to if they have anything to contribute, so that the peers on that subject can review what you present. This is an essential part of the scientific process. One of the reasons why he doesn’t get invited to conferences is the same reason why my Nan isn’t invited either. He is not an expert in this field. Other than my Nan, he also ignores evidence every time it contradicts his agenda. That man once owned up to the wedge paper. He stopped being a scientist long before that. If he had any original research to present, he'd do so...in a research journal in genetics or molecular biology. He'd present this revolutionary work to conferences of experts in these fields. But what does he do? He and his lying crony Sternberg cheated the review process to sneak a research free Essay bursting of psydoscientific nonsense, into a journal of research, that’s why the board repudiated the little essay and dropped it from the list of papers published, they were caught and got what they deserved.

[@gregb6469]

@@derhafi -- I found this in a short biography of dr Meyer: Prior to the publication of Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt, the writing for which Meyer was best known was an August 2004 review essay in the Smithsonian Institution-affiliated peer-reviewed biology journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The article laid out the evidential case for intelligent design, presenting it as the best explanation for the origin of the biological information necessary to produce the new forms of animal life that arose abruptly during the Cambrian explosion. Because the article was the first peer-reviewed publication arguing for intelligent design in a technical journal, it proved extremely controversial. The journal’s editor, evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg, was punished by his Smithsonian supervisors for allowing Meyer’s article into print. This led to the investigation of top Smithsonian personnel by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. The controversy was widely covered in the media with articles or news stories appearing about it in The Wall Street Journal, Science, Nature, NPR, The O’Reilly Factor and the Washington Post. The federal investigation eventually concluded that Sternberg had been wrongly disciplined and intimidated.

[@gregb6469]

@@derhafi -- I also notice that the wikipedia article on Meyer is very slanted/biased against his ID position.

[@JRRodriguez-nu7po]

As an agnostic 40 years ago I rejected modern cosmology and Darwinian explanations. I remained an agnostic for 1.5 years after that rejection. I would have no problem believing my Bible and macro-evolution, they are not mutually contradictory. My problem with macro-evolution is the science. PV=nRT means no first generation stars can form, so you add 99% dark matter? Might as well invoke the tooth fairy. So a new animal is formed from a mutated zygote. Great, where will it find a mate with the same chromosome number? There is no scientific explanation for how anything is here apart from an Eternal intelligent being. You either invoke the supernatural right at the beginning, or you invoke ignorance at every major step. One Eternal Tooth Fairy or a zillion little tooth fairies. I'd rather worship One God than many little gods.

[@GolfGuy32]

Thanks for your comment. The prime reality question! If an athiest or someone insisted that matter is eternal, that would be somewhat more logical than "matter came into being" on its own.

[@billh1983]

JR Rodriguez so beautifully put

[@diana.nikolova7383]

One eternal tooth fairy or a zillion little tooth fairies... very well put, I agree with you :)

[@diana.nikolova7383]

read the initial comment of JR Rodrigues and you will understand ;)

[@JRRodriguez-nu7po]

PV=nRT is experimentally verified fact that a gas expands forever, expands faster when heated and that gravity is many orders of magnitude too weak to reverse the diffusion. Add to this the centrifugal force of a spinning disk and you find NO computer model that can form a star from hydrogen/helium min. As a teenager this was all obvious to me. The Jane limit is a fantasy which can not be modeled without adding mythical unobserved substances. Now, I am not a physicist. I am a physician and biochemist whose specialty is single carbon metabolism. However, trying to explain why single carbon metabolism makes all thoughts of macroevolution ludicrous would require hours of technical knowledge; so I gave you PV=nRT

[@gustavoduran7077]

Darwinism, marxism, progressivism, environmentalism... modern oscurantism

[@mcmanustony]

were you trying to make a point?

[@TheRykpaalt]

@@mcmanustony Really? obscurantism - the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or full details of something from becoming known. I beleive that Gustavo SHOULD have judiciously placed an equal sign to make it easier, as such ... "Darwinism, marxism, progressivism, environmentalism = modern oscurantism. Make sense?

[@mcmanustony]

@@TheRykpaalt no, it doesn't make sense. If you are referring to the theory of evolution (Darwinism? Really??) then what facts are being suppressed? Take all the time you need......

[@pgsarlas]

I have been wanting to comment on this for some time. So far no one mentions Phillip Johnson's book, Darwin on Trial which I read in 1991 where he put forth all of the above information that Dr. Meyer uses to support intelligent design, such as Darwin's missing link has never been found because it doesn't exist and mutations don't mutate toward a perfect design, and that the archaeological record doesn't support Darwin's theory, etc.

[@happilyeggs4627]

They have found many missing links and nearly whole speciation events through the fossil record. It's just your religion won't let you recognise this. If you had to admit it your world would come crashing down around you. You would have to become Catholic.

[@rastrats]

Half way through, querying as to why the origin or 'arrival' of species explanation bothers Meyers. From everyday experience, we don't get bogged down by origins. For instance, when boarding a bus, we don't need to know the starting point, just the route ahead.

[@spitimalamati]

At 37:27, the bike lock analogy also makes the assumption the thief is systematically searching using his mind as a bookkeeper. A mindless, directionless thief could keep trying the same combinations. In a pre-biotic earth, several other challenges exist, due to thermodynamics and kinetics and starting materials limitations.

[@FrainBart_main]

His bike lock analogy is flawed, I think, because it neglects selection. Each step in evolution (neglecting neutral theory and such), each digit on the bike lock, is selected prior to the next step - of course this is a simplified view. This argument can be used for evolution by neutral mutations but it falls apart when we consider natural selection. That's why Meyer in his book _Darwin's Doubt_ presents additional arguments, arguments about how gradually accumulating, selected microevolutionary changes cannot produce a new protein function. But that's in direct conflict with empirical data - there are hundreds of studies, published in respected peer-reviewed journals, which show that that's just not what we observe. So Meyer's two main arguments against the evolutionary theory as we know it are flawed and he is left with his "missing fossils" argument in the case of the Cambrian explosion. And even this issue can be made much less acute by considering the data he (deliberately) omitted in _Darwin's Doubt._

[@vernon3252]

Thank you Stephen. You have a superb way of getting complex scientific ideas across to lay people like myself. You are giving me real insight into argument for science and faith. As a theology student this helps no end with my study of science and faith (as I explore both sides of the argument) but also gives me confidence and hope in faith! If that makes sense?

[@logicalatheist1065]

@Folk Aart Meyers isn't even respected in science due to him puking out religious nonsense

[@sayloltothetroll6806]

@@logicalatheist1065 Just because a cult doesn't respect him doesn't mean I don't!

[@logicalatheist1065]

@@sayloltothetroll6806 What?

[@sayloltothetroll6806]

@@logicalatheist1065 Like I said, it's pretty irrelevant if the "There-is-no-god-but-science-and-Fauci-is-his-prophet" cult respects Dr. Meyer. They're not exactly grounded in reality.

[@logicalatheist1065]

@@sayloltothetroll6806 Lol What? I'm an atheist, im not sure if there's no god, i just dont believe in any because no theist can support their claims with evidence. as for Fauci? ummm, okay? "Dr." Meyer's is a Pseudoscientist, he has no credibility in the scientific community. Nothing about a cult... besides "intelligent design"

[@tripurasundari89]

Im skeptical highly,of abiogenesis and its possibility under any scenario proposed by evolutionists.it would only be possible if all 400left handed amino acids of life were arranged properly in a place without UV rays and free Oxygen wich destroys organic compounds (wich is hard since the oldest rocks are oxidized showing oxygen existed in large amounts and no oxygen means no ozone wich means UV rays destroy any living concoction)it would have to be just dry enoug not to be degraded by heat and also wouldnt occur in water or a primordial soup(the strong thermodynamic tendency is for any peptide bonds to break down in water, not to form)and a primordial soup would have other chemicals that would destroy amino acids.it also a Catch22: the hydrogen cyanide polymerization that is alleged to lead to adenine can occur only in the presence of oxygen

[@michaelhudson9925]

Reverse entropy is impossible.

[@mtlicq]

Awesome Best comment ever !

[@LiftRunFight]

Would like to hear more about this subject

[@weeksMZ]

Right, when you have molecules that are arranged that take conflicting processes to create and a fine hand to arrange even if created, makes random chaos a pretty unbelievable theory even when you make up theories of multiverses and other imaginary things to try to explain how something so inconceivably unlikely could happen.

[@mtlicq]

@@weeksMZ multiverses haha so unscientific. Very imaginative artsy creative stories, eh?

[@kevinwaite6725]

I just love listening to Stephen Meyer

[@mcmanustony]

Wait till you try listening to actual scientists!! You'll lose your mind!!

[@logicalatheist1065]

Why?

[@r.d.machinery3749]

On the Cambrian explosion: When you run computer models using the genetic algorithm to evolve computer programs you notice that there are sudden, rapid jumps in fitness. You get not much of anything for a length of time and then suddenly the algorithm finds a particularly fit solution that enables the population to jump to higher levels of fitness and complexity in a short period of time. The system then plateaus at this fitness level for a period of indeterminate time before another jump occurs, which is usually smaller than the previous jump. I use this fact to determine when I should shut the algorithm down and stop looking for higher levels of fitness. Eventually the jumps in fitness become so small that it is simply not worth continuing to run the algorithm. I have no doubt that the computational biologists are aware of this fact.

[@thomasaskew1985]

If they are aware of it they would suppress it. Their agenda is to destroy Darwin at all cost. Their precious pride was wounded when they found out their designer god was unnecessary and insufficient to explain the actual phenomena.

[@cdcaleo]

Computer models are creation models, the very definition of intelligent design.

[@McLovin_2007]

2 Timothy 3:16 says "all scripture is given by inspiration of God". The bible literally claims to be God's message to man. In order to prove this you would have to show that there are things in the bible that only a being such as an omniscience God could have known at the time the bible was written. The bible was written during a period of 3500-2000 years ago. Unbelievers assume it's wrong because it's old. They argue it was written is pre-scientific times, back when people were supposedly stupid, and of coarse divine inspiration is not up for consideration. But for those of us who are open-minded, Divine inspiration of scripture is to be considered. So the question is....is there evidence for this? Genesis 1:1 says "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". The word beginning refers to time, the heavens refers to the universe, and the earth is matter. So you have time, space, and matter. Before the 1920's most scientists believed the universe was eternal with no beginning. The assumption was that the universe had always been there and would always exist with no end. If you lived at the time you may have thought the bible was at odds with science. In the 1920's Edwin Hubble discovered the universe is expanding. Scientists started to accept the need for a beginning. Einstein being one example. They knew if the universe is expanding, there had to be a starting point. Scientists discovered the universe began with light. The bible says the same thing. When God created the universe, the first thing he said was "let there be light". Today scientist's say the universe was smaller than an atom when it began, then it started with a flash of light, then it expanded out of that light, and continues to expand today. In Genesis 1:3 God said "let there be light" on day 1 of creation. The bible teaches that the universe was created in 6 days (Exodus 20:11) with day 1 being the beginning. Genesis 1:1-2 is a summery describing what happened in the beginning, but not how. The explanation of how creation began starts with verse 3 where God said "let there be light" . The bible describes the expansion of the universe by saying "God stretches out the heavens". (Zechariah 12:1, Isaiah 48:13, Jeremiah 51:15) Science and the bible agree on the beginning, the light, and the expansion. How can the authors know these things thousands of years before modern science? Scientist's say the big bang started with light then the universe expanded out of it. The bible says the same thing. The bible even describes scientific facts about the earth. Some ancient people believed the earth was sitting on water or on an animal, but Job 26:7 says "the earth hangs over empty space". A description of the earth floating in space, thousands of years before our space program. Many verses seem to describe the earth's mantle by saying "God laid the foundation of the earth (Zechariah 12:1, Jeremiah 31:37, Psalm 102:25). The earth's mantle provides a rock foundation to support the crust above it, while separating the crust from the core. The messianic prophecies are another great example of divne inspiration. The old testament was completed about 400 years before the birth of Christ, and it describes the death of Jesus in amazing detail. When Jesus hung on the cross he said "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me" (Matthew 27:46). People don't understand what he meant by that. It's not that God had really forsaken him, but Jesus was qouting Psalm 22 which begins with that same line. Psalm 22 describes the cruxifixion in detail. The piercing of the hands and feet, his enemies staring and gloating him, and dehydration. Jesus recited this psalm from the cross because he was referencing fulfillment of prophecy. Isaiah 53 also refers to his cruxifixion by saying "he was pierced for our transgressions, and by his wounds we are healed". In Zechariah 12:10 Jesus even prophesizes about his own death by saying "they will look upon me, the one they have pierced". John qoutes this line in his gospel to show fulfillment of prophecy (John 19:37). The bible identifies Jesus as the Creator. "All thing were created by him" (John 1:3) Even if you're the biggest unbeliever, Jesus is not hard to find. You just have to spend time in prayer and study the gospels and tell him you want to know he is real, and you want to repent and be forgiven of sin. Just pray and ask him to make himself known to you. He may not show up in the way you might expect, but over time you will get indications that he is listening. You will see him work in your life. If you devote your life to Jesus, he will change you, refine you, mold your character, and make you a better person with a purpose and mission. He will change you in ways that will just amaze you. For more info click below. I included video's and website's on creation/evolution, history of man, and the Shroud of Turin. . I suggest you save these link's and take your time examining the case for God and the bible. Dawkins proves Intelligent Design kzbin.info/www/bejne/pqOpi4eDfrCCn5Y Dr. David Berlinski destroys Darwin kzbin.info/www/bejne/d3XKhKmEnridobc Scientist speaks on Intelligent Design kzbin.info/www/bejne/nKLMiZqqecl4ra8 Pagan roots of evolution kzbin.info/www/bejne/g5nPnpKGgJyIrZY Death of Neo-Darwinism kzbin.info/www/bejne/fHW2oX94g7aea6s Fine tuning of the universe kzbin.info/www/bejne/i5uqgXt8aqZphtE God's name in DNA kzbin.info/www/bejne/sIW4aa2Xi6mYhsk Message from God in DNA kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z2Gmip2XhZaNiM0 The Case for Christ kzbin.info/www/bejne/jqLKgmydZ7KJlZo Shroud of Turin kzbin.info/www/bejne/f2O4XmpvlMyBgqc Science explains Shroud of Turin kzbin.info/www/bejne/ppXan4emjL2caa8 Table of nations kzbin.info/www/bejne/rYfPeqaIrdmjg9k Truth about Atheists kzbin.info/www/bejne/gnTMgJuEhsh4arM Does evil disprove God? kzbin.info/www/bejne/aF7LlH-mj9CFb8U star of Bethlehem kzbin.info/www/bejne/h5zFl4l6r9OVmZI Origins of nations www.soundchristian.com/man/ Expelled movie kzbin.info/www/bejne/jGaogayjmLyjY8k evolution ebook www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/33/t/how-evolution-flunked-the-science-test Creation/evolution ebook www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/creation-or-evolution-does-it-really-matter-what-you-believe Atheists suppress science www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_the_suppression_of_science creationism.org

[@happilyeggs4627]

I think, I may be wrong, but the genesis account was written in about 600 BC. I think your earliest figure of 1500 BC is incorrect. The earliest religious tomes are the Bhagavad-Gita which do date back to about 2000 BC. Although some estimates say there may have been copies as early as 3500 BC.

[@hopelessable]

Jarod. Thank you.

[@hopelessable]

@Tim Webb People just loved the painting and forgot The Great Painter!!! They are discussing when, how, color , expression , form, canvas, water color, paper mixed media , oil and forgot the The Great painter.

[@Lestergreen77]

God bless you for posting all this

[@lahaina4791]

@@happilyeggs4627 Genesis was written by Moses in 1513 BCE. The information was passed down from previous generations, and also inspired by God.

[@les2997]

To paraphrase Mr. Trump, I'm calling for a total and complete shutdown of Darwin's theory until we can figure out what he hell is going on.

[@gunterpatee4963]

Awwwe come ONNN now... Did you really have to go THERE? -.-

[@leonscott543]

Les Lolol yea that would have been a much more intellectually inspired use of that phrase lol

[@87dramarama]

stupid comment

[@mcmanustony]

to paraphrase the educated decent community- "get off your lying backside and read a bloody book or two"

[@garywalker447]

Books that are about science, but creationists might need to start with Dr Suiss.

[@tommore3263]

I am very confident that the existence of a necessarily transcendent , intelligent Being is proven by the classic metaphysical (basic) arguments of Aristotle as we see in the videos of Dr Ed Feser for instance. These are solid proofs based upon our experience of change. So God evolving life as final cause is simply a knowable fact as God is the ground of existence and order. But what a marvelous treat to discover Dr Meyer here with his deep scientific and philosophical lucidity. Wow. A new favorite.

[@walkergarya]

Your confidence is not evidence.

[@IIrandhandleII]

As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.

[@logicalatheist1065]

Honesty pays off.

[@thomaskuyper9495]

In programming coders use library functions to accomplish common tasks. Why would that not be true in biology. The new code uses library functions to accomplish new tasks.

[@truthmatters6069]

I appreciate the scientific honesty, but why can't you consider the similarities and homologous structure of DNA and even appendiges and similar functional arrangement as being an evidence of a common Designer instead of common ancestor?The door swings both ways but if you look at the whole of the available evidence clearly it leans toward ID.

[@logicalatheist1065]

@@truthmatters6069 no, it doesn't swing both ways. Intelligent design is a baseless religious position. It's not even scientific

[@truthmatters6069]

@@logicalatheist1065 Well, clearly an YT discussion or debate would be baseless AND fruitless, there we are much smarter people out there who have been doing debates for decades. Clearly, you haven't read or seen any of the thousands of available tomes by some of the greatest minds in cosmology, biomolecular biology, anthropology, genetics and other fields who have cast serious doubt of the scientific validity of the Darwinian evolution, have you?If you are open to a different opinion and not just repeating old evolutionary mantras, why don't you watch Signiture in the cell or other Inteligent design based scientific discoveries, just to get a feel for what theism is about?I don't oppose evolution because I am a Christian, but because there are insurmountable hurdles in trying to prove that life evolved billions of years ago through random, undirected processes. In fact Darwin's tree of life was completely turned upside down by the Cambrian explosion, not to mention the fact the main evolutionary postulates have been disproven long ago or seriously discredited! The fossil record is just that, a human term invented in the end of the 19th century. Radiometric C14 ating has been proven highly inaccurate and an example of circular reasoning as evolutionists date the age of the rocks by the fossils found in them and vice versa. Did you know that Henry Miller 's experiment "creating" organic molecules in 1953 was later disproven as impossible way to create life by number of well know academic institutions, even those who support and teach evolution?Did you know that Haeckel 's embryos drawings were found to have been falsified by him in order to look like they were proving all embryos looked alike in the early stages?He didn't have microscope available, neither did Darwin! There are no observable, scientific methods to EVER confirm evolution, nor has evolution ever given an answer how the first living cell was formed given its incredible complexity. If theism or ID belief is baseless, religious claim, so is the evolution, it takes much more faith to believe you came from a rock than from the hand of a Creator!You believe everything came from NOTHING, I believe everything came from SOMEBODY. Which one requires more faith? Did I forgot to mention that literally the brightest scientific minds of humanity were convinced amd believed there was a Designer based on their scientific studies?Einstein said: The more I study science, the more I believe in God". But these facts don't really matter to people like you, do they?

[@olevegn]

Important video.

[@josuerivera7921]

Really appreciate his boldness and his conviction to his craft!

[@davidbutler1857]

At 5:20 Meyer is whittling down even further, a quote mine of Samuel Bowring's 1993 paper in which Bowring describes a particular part of the Tommotian Atdabanian period of the Cambrian as being 5-6 million or unlikely to have exceeded 10 million years. Meyer is basically asserting that the entire explosion itself was only 5 million years, based on a quote mine of this: Here is the actual statement from Bowring's research on pg 1297: ""In contrast, if we accept the age of 525 Ma for the Atdabanian-Botomian boundary, then the Tommotian-Atdabanian period of exponential increase of diversification lasted only 5 to 6 m.y. In any event it is unlikely to have exceeded 10 m.y.. Numbers of phyla, classes, orders, families, and genera all reached or approached their Cambrian peaks during the short Tommotian-Atdabanian interval."" What Meyer fails to mention in the video, or anywhere else, is a slow diversification of the Ediacaran prior to this interval lasting some 14 million years (and which is mentioned by Bowring right before this particular part of the paragraph). Meyer now (as of this video) has 3 (three!) versions of this quote mine. In some online sources, he asserts that Cambrian explosion itself is 10 million years based on this Bowring source, in his book (Darwin's Doubt) he uses the 6 million year tail end, and in this video, he's down to 5 million now. This quote mine of Bowring appears on page 68 of Darwin's Doubt, as reference #62. At no time, nor in this video, does Meyer tell you that the Tommotian-Atdabanian is only PART of the Cambrian explosion period, and is not a 'main pulse'...which is just Meyer further running away with the quote mine from Bowring. Bowring is simply stating that groups reached their peaks during this interval.

[@lynnmcintosh]

Thank you Dr Meyers and Ligonier

[@geneellis6068]

Blessed by God to inform and help the unbeliever

[@garywalker447]

I am blessed with intelligence and critical thinking skills and I reject the fairy tale of god on that basis.

[@Nameless-pt6oj]

And yet you’ve not come to the realization that God exists and Jesus died for your sins so that you could go to Heaven.

[@BryonLape]

The parts of Darwin's theory that actually hold to scientific scrutiny are the ones he plagiarized from other scientists, many of them, oddly enough, Creationists.

[@jesusm.candelario2859]

:Indeed, sir, indeed!

[@logicalatheist1065]

Creationists can never support their Bullshit, mean while the entire Scientific community accepts Evolution :)

[@mcmanustony]

Which creationist scientists? Can you name some and give evidence for your claims?

[@jesusm.candelario2859]

@@mcmanustony :LMAOOO...First know; this nation was founded in double standards, this country was founded by slave owners who wanted to be free! There are dozens upon dozens of creationist scientists as I learned in 7th grade PUBLIC school science: Among many, MANY others; Sir J. J. Thomson, Sir Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur - "Science brings men nearer to God." Johan Gregor Mandell, Lord Kelvin, The Wright Bros., Johannes Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Sir Robert Boyle, George Washington Carver, Sir Frances Bacon, Galileo Galilei, Sir Michael Faraday, Sir William Harvey....So many others, and of course, Charles Darwin. But don't do like European/Americans do, don't have faith in *MY* studies; do *YOUR* own research and discover for yourself like Mexicans like to do. ¡No seas pendejo! Do your *OWN* work! LMAOOO...smh...

[@mcmanustony]

@@jesusm.candelario2859 What a bizarre outburst. I asked the commenter to name the creationist scientists that he claims Darwin plagarised- not for you to blurt out a list of scientists who incidentally believed in a god. Who knows what point you were trying to make? I know of all of these scientists and need no help from you identifying them. Lord Kelvin taught in lecture theatre 147 in the Natural Philosophy department of the University of Glasgow. I know this because my physics lectures in the 80s were in that room. "Do your OWN work! LMAOOO...smh..."- what on earth are you laughing about. your post is a pile of pompous self important tripe that in no way comes close to addressing my question. Would you like another go?

[@jthanbury4057]

May I point you to Sir Roger Penrose on Quantum consciousness. It changed me from an atheist to an agnostic.

[@mcmanustony]

it didn't have that effect on Penrose....

[@maync1]

Line up all the atheists and look at them; it will make you a believer in our spiritual selves, design, and finally, perhaps, GOD.

[@LiftRunFight]

I appreciate this 1000 foot arial overview of the subject, but for those in advanced educational placements - teachers, students, etc., can we get a more technical presentation with references. Also, tackling some of the harder issues, rather than the easy straw-man arguments with terms like "arrival vs survival"? Again I appreciate it, but this is not really dealing with many of the major issues or going in to some of the mathematial data he references.

[@awsomeman93]

True, he did himself say that he didn't get into because he wasn't presenting to students or academics. Perhaps he has more technical lectures out there

[@waltermclauren]

I keep wondering, given the necessary conditions for something to fossilize, and given the findings from every continent, why there has not been more speculation about the possibility of the "Cambrian Explosion" being the result of a worldwide flood.

[@davidbutler1857]

Well because even at the time of the Cambrian, there were areas that were clearly NOT underwater, for a long period of time. Life arose from bodies of water, and its there where the exponential changes display themselves.

[@waltermclauren]

Thanks for your reply David. I just keep looking at the sedimentary layer where the fossils are found and thinking that they all got buried at about the same time. I have also read that many cultures have a flood story in their history. Of course Abraham Lincoln warned us not to trust the internet. :)

[@davidbutler1857]

waltermclauren Well no they weren't. Most places people are going to dig for fossils from, the sediment is many hundreds of feet thick, from millions of years of accumulation. What we find IN that sediment however, is interesting. Layers of burrows, stacked on top of each other. Footprints from dinosaurs and pterosaurs, and early birds, cemented, then buried, then footprints ABOVE the others. Trace fossils, (tracks and markings of other animals) also buried on top of each other. Not redeposited, but simply the same thing as if you laid down cement, marked it with handprints, then laid down more cement, and done the same. Creationists ignore this evidence, and they make a point never to address these examples, it's why you've probably never heard of them. MOST cultures have 'flood stories' because MOST cultures live near water. Always have.

[@waltermclauren]

The evidence from the Mt. St Helens eruption makes me wonder about how long it takes to lay down layers of sediment.

[@davidbutler1857]

waltermclauren Sorry. The Andrew Snelling affair involved him purposefully testing his samples using the wrong method for the mineral involved and his peers who were there outed him for this. Namely Dalrymple. I'm well aware that creationists think this fraud overturns all of science but the fact is that tests worldwide from many industry related purposes such as petroleum confirm the age of the earth.

[@stevejames5863]

i find dr myer very interesting to listen to, and so bright. i think he brings up good points, of which it seems l acedmic science world, seems to mostly disregard. evolution is fascinating. but my question is, there are not only so many gaps in showing evolution, the proof of evolution, is somewhat weak at times. i look at it as an idea, an idea dawrin thought up...not a bad idea, but with such complexity in nature, i don t think it is fully proven. it is possible. when one looks at the complexity of the cell, the brain, and so on...to say complexity came from simplicity doesn t cut it for me. i m not excluding evolution, but i don t think it has been proven. and dr myer brings up a lot of questitons....which seem to be quite valid. evolution, to me becomes a religion, that some feel you don t question,.]

[@911TruthFighter]

I've tried to get a question answered by the Discovery Institute guys, for whom I have great respect (I've read all their books), but to my disappointment, have never gotten an answer. I now suspect that the question bothers them. Here it is (as submitted to a webinar): First, my question is not combative; quite the contrary. The crew at the Discovery Institute has enlightened me to a vital aspect of How The World Really Works and I'll forever be grateful. My question relates to the base cause of speciation, but for a clear answer I'll have to pose it a certain way (Note: there may be very different answers, depending on who you ask. Michael Behe, for example, believes in common descent (as do I), the idea of which is at the root of my question. I am especially interested in the answers from those who do NOT believe in common descent): You have a photograph of your parents, right? Your father? How about your grandfather? Good chance. How about your great grandfather? If not, you can imagine one, a full body shot, say… of a man, a Caucasian, with basic ‘family features.’ Now take it further and imagine a photo of your great great grandfather, imagining the full body shot, possibly with clothes appropriate to the mid 19th century. Now do this going back to your great grandfather to the 100,000th ‘degree,’ which would be somewhere around two million years ago (20 years for each generation). Please describe the being in general appearance. Now please do the same for 5 million years ago. And so forth, going back in the huge stack of photos to the first one. What do you see? Are there ‘moments’ (photographs!) that are particularly evocative of your worldview? Is there an ‘Adam’ where the stack ends? One reason I ask this is that it seems to me that we have two and only two choices regarding the subject of speciation. Either macro-evolution (with the causal mechanism known or unknown, but almost certainly via an 'intelligent designer' of some sort) brings us back to a one-celled organism (common descent) or we have a sort of ‘Beam me down, Scotty!’ scenario, wherein species poof into existence, presumably via the will of God (or other intelligent designer). There would be many millions of these ‘miracles,’ one for each species that ever existed. (I believe in common descent because I do not believe in this scenario.) If you see a third possibility, I’m all ears. And feel free to use the thought experiment to make any point you care to about life and its development. (I pose the question this way because it forces a clear, unequivocal answer. In other forms the question can be tip-toed around.) The above is from my 'Open Letter to Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, and Douglas Ax', which you can access here: blog.banditobooks.com/an-open-letter-to-michael-behe-stephen-meyer-and-douglas-axe/ Again, many thanks to all at the Discovery Institute. I've read all the books and look forward to those upcoming. Allan Weisbecker Note; Dr. Meyer is a good one to ask as he apparently believes in the Poof! Beam me down, Scotty explanation, although I doubt he would agree with my phraseology. (His books changed my worldview but I would like an answer.)

[@rapturebound197]

Those men don't have the time nor the inclination to play your gotcha mind game you have couched in such a way that you think it above reproach and suspicion. Its a silly little trap game you've concocted. There are no intellectual "roads" to God. None exist. Its not the lack of hard scientific evidence that keeps you from believing in God..its your intellectual pride. You want to match wits with God..and you're fairly certain you would win. Drop the ego, mind games and the intellectual snobbery. Get on your knees and ask God to forgive you. Tell Him you struggle with belief. Tell Him you're skeptical. Its a very long line you're in Allan. Billions have stood shaking their tiny fist in God's face just as you are. You won't be the first nor the last to doubt God. Come clean with Him..it's not that He doesn't already know your thoughts but He wants to hear it from you - Confession is good for the soul. Its imperative that when you speak with Him it has to be contrite and sincere. I would say good luck..but luck has nothing to do with this. We're the one that needs His mercy..He doesn't need ours. ------------------------ Heavenly Father please help Allan. Without your unmistakable and irresistible touch he has no hope Lord. Allan faces an eternity he cannot avoid without your help. So I ask you Father to help him as you've mercifully helped others like me. I was spiritually dead too Father but you gave my sightless eyes vision and my deaf ears now hear your voice thru your word. There is room at the cross for Allan too Lord. I ask these things in Jesus Holy name. Amen.

[@ambrosianapier7545]

I know this is 2 years old but I would like to give an answer. Whether or not speciation occurs depends on how you define a species. How many differences between 2 organisms does it take to consider them separate species? Are the differences genetic, physical, or both?(since genetic and physical differences don’t always overlap) Or is a species defined by who can breed to whom and produce viable offspring? I prefer the latter. Different races of humans tho physically and genetically different can still reproduce with one another, we are the same species. Thousands of breeds of dog exist yet they are interbreed all the time, even with wolves, they are the same species. In this we also observe an Oscillation about a mean. A species changes only so much before reverting. Domestic dog breeds released into the wild look and act more and more like wolves with each generation. There is evidence that there is a limit to how much a species can change. In the Bible this is hinted at when it says that God created animals “according to their kinds” variation can occur within a kind but one kind cannot turn into another kind. We need to clearly define a “kind” though or species. I say they are the same species if they can successfully breed. But I am interested in a more specific definition. Just how different is one kind to another? Where is the edge, the line that separates one species from another in genetic terms? If evolution is true there really won’t be such a line but if ID is true then there will be one that each species cannot cross. Again I think Dogs are the best example we’ve been selectively breeding them for quite some time. They are still dogs. And some breeds have touched the limits, like boxers who often need surgery to breath properly. So in conclusion speciation doesn’t happen, according to the definition that they are the same species if they can successfully breed, and that what we see is an oscillation around a mean and not an infinite departure.

[@matthewpettipas8233]

I am a creationist, I believe that God created the universe and all life within it. I am not ashamed to admit that, nor should anyone be. I'm tired of some (but certainly not all), people who believe in evolution calling me stupid just because I disagree on the origins of life, yes i studied for years to come to my conclusions, and so what if they don't align with yours? We can still be friends. As for the people who claim Meyer doesn't know what he's talking about and is stupid, your all laughable, it's obvious the man knows more than you do, he just as a different interpretation of the data, as many do. Whether one is a creationist or evolutionist, we should show respect to each other.

[@happilyeggs4627]

I call Meyers stupid because he is just like me - a lay person, but he pretends to knowledge he doesn't understand. His degrees are not in biology or related subjects. I've seen him get mangled in conversations when the discussion becomes technical.

[@monicahale887]

since being a atheist takes no effort ,why would someone think up God

[@pkosh1]

Monica Hale because they're not intellectually lazy?

[@johnnyboy1586]

Because it the only logical answer.that even a child can understand.

[@Shellshock361]

For someone to say there's no weakness in a Scientific theory, isn't being honest with themselves. There's no absolutes in science, there's just "beyond a doubt". Overtime theories are either made more or less plausible.

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

The oldest known specimen is not the Trilobite but rather the "Tribble". You can see how prolifically they multiply on the Star Trek episode "Trouble with Tribbles". They get into everything but are such cute furry creatures..

[@gendiabdi7281]

Tribbles are a fictional alien species in the Star Trek universe.... Fictional!

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

@@gendiabdi7281 Oh come on. I seen them with my own eyes. They quadrupled in a matter of hours and threatened to take over the Enterprise. 😁

[@cuylerbleecker5508]

Saul Goodman's other brother

[@Hannodb1961]

I was very impressed with the rigor of the ID argument when I first read a book about it, but I was still skeptical. Before I accept it, I wanted to know how the Darwinists would respond to it. After reading their response, I had to pick up my jaw bone from the floor. You did not need to be an expert to realise that they have no answer to it, their "arguments" form a museum of logical fallacies, including knocking down strawmen, red herrings, ad hominem attacks, the genetic fallacy, circular reasoning, appeals to authority, projection, and just plain dishonnesty. The more I listened to them, the more they convinced me ID is right.

[@garywalker447]

Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: It's True Nature and Goals. www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf Intelligent Design is not scientific. It is Creation Science warmed over and as both invoke agents for which there is no testable evidence as part of the process, yet the advocated of ID assert that ID is science, it is clear that ID is nothing more than pseudoscience.

[@happilyeggs4627]

You are another creationist pretending to have been converted. You are a liar. Does your God know you tell lies? Do you get special dispensation from god to tell your lies?

[@Golfinthefamily]

Deal with the data and arguments, not someone’s motivation. Science deals with facts and data. The reason you are attacking and calling them pseudo science is your aversion to their worldview. So I think it might be you who is positing pseudoscience

[@Hannodb1961]

@@garywalker447 Yeah. Its like you didn't read a word I said, you're just regurgetating all the falacies that you were given, and which I spoke of. I did learn where ID comes from, as the very first book I read about ID was on the history of the argument. The critics desperately and dishonnestly want to make it look as just a continuation of Creationism, because they can deal with Creationism, but they can't deal with ID.

[@Hannodb1961]

@@Golfinthefamily Absolutely agreed. Darwinism has more in common with religion than with science, because they filter the data through a materialistic lense which does not allow them to come to any other conclusion. So the theory is basically a circular argument for materialism. You know how Darwinist always like to claim "The theory of Evolution is as certain as the theory of gravity"? Yeah, funny how no physicist ever say "The theory of gravity is as certain as the theory of evolution". I wonder why that would be. 😄 Me think the lady doth protest too much.

[@i_am_a_real_cat1443]

how do you explain the evolution of a macbook for example?

[@gregsmith5134]

Marselluz it’s evil what is Apples logo ? A bite out of an apple. Proves that evil came from biting the forbidden fruit.

[@killinbildvow80]

@@gregsmith5134 wasn't an apple. Was drugs. Expand your mind. Know what God knows. Devil knew it was tempting. No I have no proof or support. Only Holy Spirit. God bless.

[@Theonyxconservative]

"In the beginning all things arose from the invisible and into the invisible all things will disappear in the end, but the end is not the end of the spirit. Out beyond this material creation born of the invisible, there is a higher eternal invisible of greater substance. When all material things have passed away, this will remain. Above all is timelessness, which is eternity, and there is My abode, the supreme goal of man, and those who attain it dwell in eternity. I am the Eternal God". -The Survival Scrolls 📜

[@Lestergreen77]

What?

[@bobfree1226]

i have a masters degree in astronomy and cosmolgy and also world religions. though an agnostic in my twenties i say for me the evidence all around us an especially in the heavens screams with Intelligeance. eventuall i became a Christian cause Jesus Christ proved to me that he was GOD in the Flesh.no one talked like him!

[@moseshoward7072]

People join "born-again" cults for emotional reasons, and then pretend that rational thought led them there-- because they know their emotions mislead them and rationality is much more credible..

[@moseshoward7072]

@Jonathan Jansen How did Jesus project this "authority"-- by speaking in a firm voice? Crowds are easily fooled by charismatic speakers.

[@thedad7828]

Well you are most likely lying about your degree in order to pretend to have credibility, but what screams intelligent design? The fact that we have so many deadly disease? The fact that we can’t live on most of earth and 99.9 percent of the universe? The fact that we are made up of the most common elements in the universe should show that we aren’t special, but exactly what you’d expect if there was no god. If god exists he’s and immoral stupid thug.

[@moseshoward7072]

What evidence is there of "intelligent design" in the shape of galaxies or in the arrangement of galaxy clusters? If you really had a masters in astronomy you'd know that these structures are manifestations of gravitational effects and miniscule quantum fluctuations in the early, hot universe that are by nature random.

[@MMradnane]

Butt hurt atheists/evolutionists in the comment section not addressing one single argument from Meyer, rather trying to futile mistakes to cover up the blatant problems with Darwinian evolution and the obviousness of design.

[@davidbutler1857]

I've watched only about 10 minutes of it and I've already listed multiple corrections

[@bird401]

Perhaps germane to this discussion is the following quote from Steven Wright: “I have a collection of seashells. I keep it on beaches all over the world. Perhaps you’ve seen it.”

[@amandamcgee6089]

I think the relentless debunking of religious scientism is part of why we're seeing more people turning to spirituality of different forms. It is clear that the answers are not found in secular science as has been long trumpeted. Yet the acceptance of the one true God is not an option..and on it goes..

[@PInk77W1]

Darwin told people what they wanted to hear

[@IIrandhandleII]

The pastor told people what they wanted to hear Darwin told people what they didn't want to hear... their favorite religion is a crock of crap.

[@PInk77W1]

adfasd my brother committed suicide. At his funeral the pastor said what he did was wrong. My family got pissed. I said the pastor is right. We ain’t suppose to kill ourselves. Darwin absolutely told people what they wanted to hear. Not all of course. But the elites.

[@rubiks6]

Did he say the evolutionary tree looked more like a lawn?! OMGoodness, I laughed. Great analogy, sir!

[@mcmanustony]

why is it a good analogy?

[@rubiks6]

@@mcmanustony - Because the "tree of life" is not like a tree coming down to a single trunk but like many individual, distinct branches, each with its own distinct root. Dogs are dogs and have always been and will always be dogs. Rhinoceroses are rhinoceros and butterflies are butterflies. Jellyfish are jellyfish and cyanobacteria are cyanobacteria and an oak tree is an oak tree. Like individual grass plants in a lawn, so are the different kinds of creatures (and kinds of plants, too). Within a kind (that is, "species") there is some variation but one kind never becomes another kind. Any similarities among different kinds are accounted for by a common designer, God. Any differences within a kind (for example, different dog breeds) are accounted for by pre-existing variations within the DNA of that kind but one "kind" does not morph into another "kind."

[@mcmanustony]

@@rubiks6 the term "kind" has no meaning in biology. you are wrong about species being fixed. Speciation has been observed and documented. Have you even read a book written by an actual biologist?

[@rubiks6]

@@mcmanustony - if you had read a book written by a biologist, you would know that "species" is not well defined and even "life" is not well defined. Now - have you got some arguments or just insults?

[@mcmanustony]

@@rubiks6 I didn't insult you. I asked you a question based on your ignorance of the science.

[@violinhunter2]

Like that man said long ago, "If there were no God, we would be obligated to invent Him." It is true that understanding God is pretty much beyond our ability. If God is All-Powerful and Just, why does He allow evil? Nobody knows.

[@gordonepema722]

Dostoyevsky -without God, everything is permitted. Look at out world today. Read CS Lewis The Problem of Evil - he offers some profound (painful) ideas. Then there's the requirement of justice, when no one is righteous, no, not one.

[@Fanboy1222]

without god, you cant even define evil

[@josephlocklear6647]

Great videos, is there away to make the volume louder on the videos for this ministry

[@bhabeshkarmakar1971]

outstanding scientist

[@happilyeggs4627]

Aw, nobody was offended by your comment. No criticisms.

[@icrushchildrensdreams4556]

@@happilyeggs4627 its pretty obvious you were

[@AmericanConcrete]

64 people put their heads in a hole in the dirt to cover their ears.

[@Slimc74]

The ignorant ones that belief God is supposed to serve man. A common, but simple mistake.

[@stephenoni2019]

great arguments made to be confident

[@stephenoni2019]

@@NoisySplatter honestly, the only argument I need is no argument at all. It is "The Bible says...". There is no debate; it's either it is accepted or rejected.

[@stephenoni2019]

@@NoisySplatter have you heard of the verse "In the beginning God created the heavens and earth..."?

[@michaelgonzalez9058]

It is like a library being reread to produce and process new equipment to life new development

[@bungalobill7941]

Dawkins on complex life forms.......They have the appearance of being designed. Dawkins on Abraham Lincoln........He has the appearance of being dead.

[@canadiankewldude]

O. J. Simpson's Lawyer: "My client only has the appearance of being guilty".

[@christiankaiser4471]

Dawkins on Intelligent Design : “Yes it could be... in the form of an alien life form that disseminated DNA on earth “... 😐 google it. Dawkins aliens.

[@brightwellkunene8995]

@Kuffar Legion you cramed this from where. Doesn't make sense to me. Please speak in English, and don't tell me I am a Turd as you are predictable likely to do.

[@brightwellkunene8995]

@Kuffar Legion Seeding planets seeded life in what form?, you will always have to start from Prebiotic, Keep moving the goals on the origins of life

[@brightwellkunene8995]

@Kuffar Legion Dr. Behe did a research on mutations relating to the Malaria virus . That research should help answer your question. Simple google Dr. Behe. I'm not an expert in the field of Science. I only have studies Finance and Business Management. But his research if you bother to look at it should easily convince you that what evolutionist are suggesting in relation to these things is inaccurate. Oh, and I hope you are not going to say I shouldn't be talking on these issues since I'm no expert.

[@moseshoward7072]

Stephen Meyer is to science what Tucker Carlson is to journalism-- a joke.

[@thomasscott2553]

Thank you so much Steven.

[@noneofyourbusiness7055]

Ah I get it, demonstrable scientific fact is the myth, and the book of mythology including witches, spells, curses, blessings, giants and talking animals is NOT the myth. Just like the flat-earth creationists pretend everyone who doesn't agree with them calls the sphere earth a myth for the post-christian mind. Right on par there mate.

[@logicalatheist1065]

Lol

[@Aria-Invictus]

This is a poor argument. No scientific theory is meant to have explained everything. They are simply meant to explain what facts it entails. So all he is saying is that there is still some stuff scientists dont know that the theory doesnt explain yet, therefore we need a new theory. No. Unless the theory contradicts the evidence, we keep it till we find something better. Appealing to imaginary beings, especially supernatural ones, is anti-science. This is just a verbose appeal to ignorance fallacy.

[@IsaacNussbaum]

*"No scientific theory is meant to have explained everything."* But neo-Darwinism does not explain anything, A.I. Dysteleological anomalies, acted on by population mechanics, have never generated anything. Not a new species. Not a new body plan. Nothing. The hypothesis DOES contradict the evidence.

[@Aria-Invictus]

Isaac Nussbaum It explains the biodiversity. The idea of a bodyplan implies intention. Scientific explanations aren't about the intentionality of imaginary beings. Evolution explains why there are species. It doesnt generate new species. It seems like you are trying to anthropomorphize science. It's a methodology to create explanations.

[@IsaacNussbaum]

@@Aria-Invictus I understand what you are saying, A.I. It seems to me, however, that since the fossil record does not contain any evidence of evolution, the neo-Darwinian hypothesis is a profoundly flawed (some say failed) explanation.

[@Aria-Invictus]

Isaac Nussbaum What would be evidence for you concerning the fossil record being evidence for the theory of evolution?

[@IsaacNussbaum]

@@Aria-Invictus Thank you for asking, A. I. The neo-Darwinian hypothesis posits that universal common descent happened over long ages via many minute, unguided anomalies in reproduction. Each minute change took hold in a population and then another, and another, and so on. If I saw in the fossil record an unbroken line of minute changes, changes so small and so continuous that it would be impossible to determine exactly where one phylum left of and another one began, I could be won over to Darwinism.

[@randybunn7491]

trilobite is still more complex than the earth worms we dig out of the ground today....

[@freddygravy6753]

A brave man. Please continue with this work.

[@derhafi]

His work is lying to the scientific illiterate.

[@freddygravy6753]

@@derhafi Oh dear. How wrong you are. I myself am PhD qualified. I wouldn't adjudge myself and colleagues to be illiterate in any sense of the word.

[@derhafi]

@@freddygravy6753 "I myself am PhD qualified. " You yourself are PhD qualified, are you?! That is adorable buddy, really! PHD QUALIFIED!! Hahahaha

[@DocReasonable]

@@freddygravy6753

[@TheLawRival]

The only evolution I know of is a baby spoon to a tea spoon to a table spoon to a shovel. 😆

[@voiceoftruth2646]

Then the shovel became a man 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@thomasaskew1985]

Have you noticed that the category is Entertainment? That's right. This video is entertainment, not science. That should be your first clue that it is entirely fictional.

[@ericbreaux6124]

From Wikipedia about irreducible complexity: This was based on the mistaken assumption that evolution relies on improvement of existing functions, ignoring how complex adaptations originate from changes in function, and disregarding published research. Evolutionary biologists have published rebuttals showing how systems discussed by Behe can evolve, and examples documented through comparative genomics show that complex molecular systems are formed by the addition of components as revealed by different temporal origins of their proteins. Me: Behe never said that evolution is improvement of functions. A new function could not develop in millions of years time, because if something is still needing to develop for a certain function it will be useless. How are most scientists not smart enough to know this? All fossils ever found are have parts with a known function. Those components added to molecular systems being needed for different functions proves irreducible complexity. Many scientists like to think that because parts can have more than one function that that's evidence that the system they are part of doesn't make that system irreducible. Kenneth R. Miller said that one of his classmates "...struck upon the brilliant idea of using an old, broken mousetrap as a spitball catapult, and it worked brilliantly. It had worked perfectly as something other than a mousetrap. my rowdy friend had pulled a couple of parts (probably the hold-down bar and catch) off the trap to make it easier to conceal and more effective as a catapult... leaving the base, the spring, and the hammer. Not much of a mousetrap, but a helluva spitball launcher. I realized why Behe's mousetrap analogy had bothered me. It was wrong. The mousetrap is not irreducibly complex after all." The problem is that when those parts were removed the function they were used for in that system stopped. This proves the opposite of the logic he thought was proven and I wonder how most scientists don't know this when it's such simple logic that a child would know.

[@halbrown7121]

I'm interested in why the strong force increases with distance. Why quarks have mass, why matter warps space time. Only God knows.

[@moseshoward7072]

Saying "only God knows" means the same as saying "nobody knows." At least scientists say, "nobody knows yet, but i intend to find out."

[@RandalWeidenaar]

There are serious scientists that consider conscieness as responsible for energy and mater. If we dont explore the reality of conscieness or exclude it apriori from our field of inquiry we risk not fully understanding reality.

[@ikawpipa]

Only gullible gays believe Richard Dawkins' Dogma of great grandpa the Fish.

[@garywalker447]

Your obvious homophobia shows that you are nothing more than an ignorant bigoted imbecile.

[@matthewpettipas8233]

Seriously dude? Your the type of person who gives religious people a bad name. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being gay lol. I disagree with Gary on several things, but he's right here, your ignorant and bigoted.

[@happilyeggs4627]

Ah I see we are dealing with someone who has a single celled brain.

[@chrisbirch4150]

Interesting how he is quoting Darwin like scripture. It's like he has made the Origin of species something he can interpret, semantically, to fit his argument. I think it's quite disturbing to see.

[@davidbutler1857]

Interestingly, he's not actually quoting Darwin. He's actually misquoting Darwin, and not even misquoting, he's inserting words into sentences Darwin said in order to recharacterize the entire statement. Darwin's book is easily accessible online, and so I'm quite amazed that Meyer is doing this. Usually creatards try to misquote older sources where it's not so easy to find the original version. But 'On the Origin of Species' is a world famous book long out of copyright and freely available to anyone online, in multiple formats.

[@chrisbirch4150]

David Butler wow even worse!

[@davidbutler1857]

What does that have to do with this thread?

[@chrisbirch4150]

David Butler give him some credit. that was a real drop the microphone moment :)

[@davidbutler1857]

lol, Oh I wish there was a god. Then he might actually do something. :) :mic drop:

[@moseshoward7072]

This video and comment thread demonstrate why God and religion are on their way out in every advanced Western nation.

[@Pyr0Ben]

"Waaaah he doesn't have the same ideas on evolution as me therefore he's 'misrepresenting the science' waaaah"

[@zakaryloreto6526]

In a strange sense of a way learning about how divergences take place in organisms can be seen the same in languages except with a much smaller local pressure adapter.

[@snowtracks]

Mind before matter is so much more coherent than matter before mind. Eons of time go by and suddenly there is a first thought, really? Be interesting to know what that first thought was from a brain that was constructed without a prior thought.

[@z11542]

biocentrism answers that

[@nedebitus]

Check out Romans 11:36 for a Scrptural answer to the prime question. The prepositions in the Greek are, ek = out of; dia= through; and lastly eis = into.

[@notfactoryapproved]

The more I study the more I see that Darwin's theory is inadequate. In his autobiography, written by one of his sons, he talks about his hesitation over the evolution of the eye. As pressure to publish mounted he became "at peace over the evolution of the eye". Even though no further evidence was found and his questions remained unanswered. Have you ever presented any material on radiometric dating? When I was given the responsibility at my work of measuring gamma radiation I realized that the assumed instrument accuracy in radiometric dating was likely overstated.

[@RebootedMind]

What a reawakening getting into this kind of information. I’m hopeful for the future again

[@mcmanustony]

You'd derive more hope for the future knowing that this lying zealot has so far failed in his quest to gut science education and replace it with discredited religious dogma.

[@RebootedMind]

@@mcmanustony I will pray for your lost soul to be found again

[@mcmanustony]

@@RebootedMind I see you resort to religious nonsense rather than deal with the fact that you've been taken in by a notorious liar.

[@RebootedMind]

@@mcmanustony I’m sorry you feel this way. It will get better though. God has a plan for you Whether you believe in him or not

[@mcmanustony]

@@RebootedMind It's nothing to do with how *I* feel. Meyer is a notorious and relentless liar. How I *feel* about him has no bearing on the facts of his nauseating dishonesty. I don't share your faith. You're welcome to it, but spare me the sanctimonious noise, thanks.

[@sarahs3980]

Listening on my way to work. Not watching the screen. Trying to figure out what a bi-clock is!

[@logicalatheist1065]

You should learn science from the professionals, not hacks that belong to anti science "intelligent design"