Stephen Meyer: The Return of the God Hypothesis

[@MariaLuciaSL]

“ When you know God you are not afraid to talk about the truth” gave me such an impact that tears came to my eyes . Thank you. You know God.

[@mcmanustony]

He has a belief, nothing mere. Did the Indian mathematician Ramaujan "know" the Hindu goddess Namigiri?

[@Shigan4059]

The sheer amount of mad atheists in this comments section is utter gold. I expected some salt, but this is impressive.

[@paulmorgan4369]

We think that American pastors who fleece their congregations and take all their money to line their own pockets are the ones who are mad. Please give me an example where you can go to church in the USA without being asked for money if you think that I'm wrong. American Christianity is an organised racket.

[@Joe-gi3nj]

Paul Morgan Churches need to pay rent too. I think there are some pastors that abuse this (the ones with private jets, etc). I agree with you, they’re “mad”. However, in the vast majority of cases, the money put in the plate every week goes toward the church paying rent, paying for maintenance of the church, support for the priest (this is his job, after all. He isn’t getting paid), and charity causes. If you don’t want to donate, then don’t. It isn’t mandatory. Tell me. What’s so mad about that?

[@Z4r4sz]

@@Joe-gi3nj *_"Churches need to pay rent too."_* If they need money, they turn to you. If you need money, they tell you to go to god. This is how scams work. Especially since churches scam the US government for aprox 75 bil $ each year by not paying taxes for they profits they make. *_"I think there are some pastors that abuse this (the ones with private jets, etc). I agree with you, they’re “mad”."_* SOME??? Its essentially every church because they pretend to be charities, get tax exemption and then never reveal their finances again. Only few lost this because they openly violated the rules in such a manner that the IRS stepped in. In the meantime most mega church preachers boast about their jets and bank accounts more than actual millionaires/billionaires. *_"this is his job, after all. He isn’t getting paid"_* If they arent getting paid then its not a job. And they dont have any actual, useful qualifications, no useful product, arent obligated to be charitable and usually just tell the same stories every week. Sounds like the most useless job to me. *_"If you don’t want to donate, then don’t. It isn’t mandatory."_* In many countries you automatically pay a certain percentage of your income the first day you start a job, without your permission, until you cancel it. And even canceling it costs you money. Also known as "church tax". Sounds pretty mandatory to me. *_"Tell me. What’s so mad about that?"_* The billions the church as a whole organisation receives in profits each year without paying taxes, having its own small country inside a state, have a palace filled with gold from all the profits but still pretend to be a charity organisation, the daily child molesting cases, the mega churches... ANY non-religious organisation would have been shut down, burned down and deeply condemned for such behavior. But not the church because its christians. Its astounding how people like you can be so relaxed about this.

[@mikejohe1920]

Dose he believe in giants too ? Lol

[@paulmorgan4369]

@@mikejohe1920 extra big ones probably.

[@satyashobhandas110]

Dear Dr. Meyer, I am a Bible believing Christian from India and I watch all your videos. I thank you for your concept of Intelligent Design, which I believe too and that God of the Bible IS THE DESIGN ER. His Designs have been always with Him eternally. Multiverse is a confusing, baseless nonsense. THANK YOU.

[@anantguru8244]

Sir, I assume you are from Odisha. Am I right ? We need people like Dr. Meyer in India in Indian context.

[@mcmanustony]

@@anantguru8244 what for?

[@logicalatheist1065]

@@anantguru8244 Meyer isn't even a credible scientist, Anyone tied to discovery institute is a joke

[@anantguru8244]

@@logicalatheist1065 Refute his arguments bro. Stop character assasination. 😉

[@logicalatheist1065]

@@anantguru8244 he has no credible argument... Intelligent design is nothing, it's not a thing. Science does not support it.

[@joedanache7970]

God speaks through brilliant men such as Stephen Meyer. Even Though God doesn't need Stephen Meyer, or anyone else to speak for Him.

[@michaelwill7811]

Atheists are starting to catch on to this guy and boy, they don't like him. I wonder why... ;)

[@ralphgoreham3516]

@@davidmahfuz9737 No Hitchens would take the anti religious approach but would be way out of his depth on biological origins.

[@ralphgoreham3516]

@@davidmahfuz9737 So the two would never have met. Actually I have a background in Bio Chemistry and am a Jehovahs witness. Discovery Instutute members religious views are way off, I have seen it in the comments on their site. EG God is 3 in one and think heaven is their goal. So I say their science is well based but on bible understanding no better than the rest.

[@ralphgoreham3516]

@@davidmahfuz9737 I know one is Jonathon Wells, but as far as I recall there arent any others. YECs are that way because of a very wrong understanding of Genesis. Not quite in the category of the flat earthers, who take for example Revelation's "4 corners of the earth", or earth has "socket pedestals" and they take them literal. Gen 1:1 is not part of the 6 "days" and could have been created as long as the radioactive "clocks" that are used on rocks say. The" days" could be millions of years each or perhaps 1000s of years each and have to do with preparing the earth for life and the creation of life. The 7th day is still continuing , it didnt finish with "there came to be morning and evening, a 7th day. I could give you more on this but that will do for now. David what they do is interpret the same data as do the evo subscibers, peer reviewed . I am speaking about Biochemistry and astro-geo physics. One side when it comes to the ORIGIN of the data say it all evolved. The other, which I subscibe to, say it was designed By a "super intellect" to borrow a phrase by former Nobel prize winner Fred Hoyle. (He died, it is thought, agnostic)

[@ralphgoreham3516]

As I have elsewhere here pointed out, All religions lumped together have failed their peoples and given the Bible a bad name by proxy. All of Christendoms 1000s of divisions are guilty of contributing in some way.

[@FRJMJ]

This guy is on another level. Stephen Meyer is awesome

[@DocReasonable]

Exposing Discovery Institute Part 2 Stephen Meyer kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5zZYYeQfp5ra7c

[@sunix6551]

Dr. Meyer's books should be mandatory reading across US colleges.

[@eckyhen]

I agree. Anyone wanting to be a scientists should be able to recognise pseudoscience.

[@41357500]

hebrew used to be.........dennis prager

[@ds525252]

Sunix so true!

[@ds525252]

Sunix yes updates are very needed... the world is no longer flat like it was once said to be.

[@ds525252]

Mustapha Rashiduddin strong now very true but weakening by the minute. Thanks for the comment and view, every view and comments helps.

[@ronnieherrera8830]

Thank you God. Thank you for Jesus Christ..Thank you God the Holy Spirit. And everyone who are waiting give a big AMEN...

[@ValeryTolkachev]

AMEN !!

[@ds525252]

👍👍

[@Leeh1945]

Amen!

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

AAAAAMEN!!!!

[@sspbrazil]

This is why people are turned off to religion.

[@xavija9349]

you have not idea, but this talk has been seeing from Tmalín, Veracruz, México. a plece than maybe you don´t will visit, but this talks really has had impact. thank you, and God bless!

[@LumbridgeTeleport]

Amen brother. Hello from u s a

[@tahiralbusaidi7573]

I am from Oman

[@tylerbouck3555]

God bless in Jesus name!!!

[@dorislater4826]

9888

[@IrfanAhmed-up7cl]

@@tylerbouck3555 lll

[@tiffanymagee2700]

Excellent discussion! Dr. Meyer is an excellent expositor of the Intelligence Design theory. The evidence is on his side!

[@ukcadjockey]

*Dr. Meyer is an excellent expositor of the Intelligence Design theory* He is indeed that. Doesn't make him right though, does it. *The evidence is on his side!* Actually, no, the evidence is against him. It's why the entire scientific community, which is majority christian, says he's wrong.

[@mcmanustony]

There is no scientific theory of “intelligent” “design”. Meyer and his cronies concocted it to skirt the law after Edwards vs Aguillard which prohibited the teaching of creationism in school science classes. “Some unidentified designer or designers, by some mechanism we can’t identify, at some point or points in the past did some….ummm….designing”- is NOT a scientific theory.

[@zacksmith4509]

​@@mcmanustonysome unguided process of physics without a direct cause of non life into life is also seemingly lacking in evidence...

[@mcmanustony]

​@@zacksmith4509 You're wrong. for 700,000,000 years the planet was dead. For two billion years after than life was unicellular. How did that transition happen? Either there is a set of natural processes that can explain it or it was magic. Amino acids occur naturally Bilipid membranes form naturally into spheres from hydrophobic and hydrophilic monomers- Cronin Polymerisation of precursor molecules via auto-catalysis is well known and understood- Cronin Mineral catalysis- via, eg, montmorillonite is understood. - Hazen Plausible prebiotic synthesis of pyrimidine has been shown- from which 3 of the 4 RNA bases are simple derivatives- Sutherland and Powner. There is no complete understanding of the process. That's why it's being worked on. That's how science works. To say it is lacking in evidence is false. Here's a list of observed phenomena that have been successfully explained by an appeal to the supernatural. 1. .

[@mcmanustony]

@@zacksmith4509 Where is the evidence for intelligentdesign?

[@Magnus0311]

I always love seeing how thoughtful and respectful the youtube comment section is.

[@joseantoniocastro1486]

We live in a PHD World you konw.

[@sebastianschulz6531]

and how many Meyer sycophant, or fake troll account operated by hired Discovery insitute staff try desperately to pretend that they care. At those number the united states ought to be ravageed by mobs burning down bilogy departments and their fossil records just like the nazis did with books.

[@micklee6063]

Atheists are generally well behaved. They'd not burn the fossil record of the Biblical Flood of Noah.

[@philaypeephilippotter6532]

@@micklee6063 Nobody would have any motive for discrediting that _fictitious_ flood but _creationists_ have an excellent reason for faking it as did the authors of the _Xtian_ bible.

[@patricknyman727]

@@philaypeephilippotter6532 There’s plenty of evidence the great flood happened. The earth goes through a 12000 year catastrophe cycle and a flood is part of that as there’s a polar shift that drastically affects the earth’s tectonics.

[@jaynelson9617]

Well worth the time to watch these interviews twice. And enjoyable.

[@bumpsterw7625]

Not one of atheist comments here provides anything that would convince me that they provide a better argument. Myers flattened them all with his logic.

[@ukcadjockey]

*Not one of atheist comments here provides anything that would convince me that they provide a better argument* That says a lot about you and nothing about them. *Myers flattened them all with his logic* And yet you can't even get his name right, you just know that he supports id

[@ToddSauve]

@@ukcadjockey You have no statement of anything other than a name was misspelled. You prove nothing. Dr. Meyers does.

[@Drifter4ever]

Agree. Atheïst never come with arguments. Insulting is all they can. Atheïsm is a science stopper.

[@DocReasonable]

Exposing Discovery Institute Part 2 Stephen Meyer kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5zZYYeQfp5ra7c

[@sweetieturner3377]

Thank YOU so much Eric...Mr M ~ you're tremendously heady & comical, blesses me always! Dr Meyers, 15 yrs ago also blessed me BIG TIME because of his scholarly work, breaking ground (like you) and placing our Creator front & center in our cultural mindset!

[@myopenmind527]

SweetieTurner only if you’re a batshit crazy creationist.

[@brightwellkunene8995]

@@myopenmind527 Yes Open mind, we are creationists. Its not a dirty word. what then if were are creationist?

[@myopenmind527]

Brightwell Kunene ignorant or willfully ignorant? Which is it? Where did you get your education? You should ask for a refund.

[@sebastianschulz6531]

Scholarly LMFAO.....scholarly and scentific must be polar opposites in your world.

[@Skyhigh275]

My favorite show.. No nonsense they just get into the TRUTH .

[@J0PHIEL]

agreed!

[@myopenmind527]

What truth specifically? All I heard was falsehood after falsehood.

[@J0PHIEL]

@@myopenmind527 really?? Even if you do not agree with everything, can you truly say everything you heard was false?? For a guy with the name "myopenmind" saying all you heard was falsehood is disappointing, and just sounds like you commented based on a trigger. Not trying to put you down for it cause I deal with my own triggers too but say it how it is.

[@ValeryTolkachev]

Great material! Thank you, friends!! Don't worry for the angry comments of those who are so much afraid for their prejudices. The wind of history normally blows away such ones.

[@derhafi]

The wind of history has blown away thousands of Gods, the one you happen to belive in, will be gone too at one point.

[@ValeryTolkachev]

@@derhafi The wind of history likewise has blown countless numbers of followers of "there is no God" hypothesis. And this continue on and on, regardless of their desire to get away with God's existence.

[@revelationtrain7518]

Meyer is a genius, I like his brain

[@qaqqclifdunbar5154]

His mind is more like Christ than it used to be because he wasn't born this smart but the goal for us all is Christ mindedness

[@stevenseagal5950]

He's pretty far from a genius.

[@sebastianschulz6531]

@@stevenseagal5950 He is even dropping the ball spo early he would not get a PhD because he does not even investigate at all.

[@TrumanGN]

He's an idiot, debating what is common knowledge - that there is a god/creator and the theory of evolution is a comedy. Therefore God created everything, including holacausts and genocides. Hard to accept, but obviously true. God is not a nice man.

[@sebastianschulz6531]

@@TrumanGN How much common knowledge from previous centuries is crappy bullshit today. Creator crap has been around before Christianity which is a crappy plagiarizm of many religions in ancient times from around mesopotamia to Egypt. Many Nazis believed in their racist utopia....did this common knowledge make their crap true? I do not know how evolution is comedy....Darwin's theory had come hundred years before DNA was discovered and this discovery further proved common descent, as did paleontology. The comedy is what happens in the United States right now. The joke voted into office and the pathetic crowd that voted some child abusive crotch groping old pig. Evolution is boring in comparison....it is proven more than a century ago, and the more data is collected the more evidence in favour of evolution piles up.

[@DaniilIshchenko76]

Loved the talk. It is simple yet so complicated that I had to come back and rewatch. Thank you!

[@wawaxzfella]

Love the Socrates in the city forums. We appreciate the content.. did the host just say, 'video taping' this. Takes me back..

[@intlprofs1]

These forms make it easier for gullible swallows.

[@alwilson3204]

I love the rarity of a discussion of this caliber which reaches toward tremendous ramifications-excellent video

[@intlprofs1]

Tremendous vaporous ramifications.

[@michaelmakinney20]

@@intlprofs1 only according to your vaporous heart

[@acapp3004]

Simply excellent!! Stephen Meyer has truly done his home-work. Fascinating subject and delivery!

[@jnyfcbytd7459]

A Capp its still intelligent design. Which has no actual evidence

[@somedude9038]

@@jnyfcbytd7459 You are delusional.

[@dancingnature]

Jake is correct there’s no evidence for ID

[@zootalk]

I'd like to like this video more than 1 trillion times.

[@esterhudson5104]

Luis Henrique Caetano 😊

[@ds525252]

Luis Henrique Caetano 👍

[@mick1gallagher]

There's something missing from your head and I think it's called a brain but I could be wrong

[@zootalk]

@@mick1gallagher I bet you got to that conclusion by inferring with selective force's such as Natural Selection? Don't even need a brain to guess that one from ya... Shame on you, needs a hole lot of imagination and faith to believe in fairy tales such as Darwin Evolution.

[@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264]

@@zootalk and also saying evolution by natural selection is contradictory as natural selection is not a creative force . It only selects what’s best for the creature in a certain environment

[@michaelsorensen8670]

God and science fit perfectly.

[@mortensimonsen1645]

@@vilicus77 "Zero evidence"? I guess I take issue both "zero" and "evidence". I try to think of a universe in which I would say the same as you. I think that that universe would have to be in such a way that new universe constantly pop up within them. Or that banana flies evolves at least to a small butterfly over a century. Or that the gravitational force could be of any strength - everything would work like clock-work anyhow. Or that the DNA would actually be mostly mumbo-jumbo garbage which would produce a lump of gel which actually was the cell - it would have to be pretty simple so one could believe a lucky reaction to create it. Or that religious claims and experiences was not something reported by billions, but by a tiny looney minority. And a thousand other changes - then I could perhaps say something like you did. That you are capable to say something in *this* universe is sort of saddening and makes me wonder how very differently it's possible to process the existence.

[@mortensimonsen1645]

R. Miller The reality SHOUTS the glory of God in my opinion. You let your scientism get in the way of seeing the larger picture when you insist on a verifiable, repeatable experiment that without doubt point to a living God. You dont take into account that God may not wish to reveal himself as an automata, but prefer to let nature speak and let the life of Jesus speak. You have indeed zero evidence of the specific type you require, as you have zero evidence for love, will, meaning and identity and personhood.

[@mortensimonsen1645]

@@vilicus77 But do you believe yourself to be a person with a mind and will? If yes - can you prove it?

[@mortensimonsen1645]

@@vilicus77 If you act as if these most contentious (and materialists find them to be false) claims are indeed true - then you're not a real follower of scientism anyway. Therefore it follows that you requirement for an experiment of the scientific sort is something you apply at will. Nothing suggests that the God hypothesis is any less foundational than your will or identity. If you indeed are a materialist and do not believe in any will or personhood (all is an illusion) then this conversation is pointless.

[@mortensimonsen1645]

@@vilicus77 I guess I'm saying you have double standards. Look up scientism and see if you subscribe to that.

[@gabrielkwock6836]

To atheists and intelligent creator believers alike, I pray for your soul, and I wish you good health. None of us are all-knowing, so we must always have grace with our fellow man. I believe we’re all trying to find what’s true. The question of faith in a greater power is either the most important question of our existence or worthless. In my opinion, wrestling with this question is endlessly fascinating. I wish you well on this journey, and I’m glad I have you guys.

[@cole141000]

If you watch Meyer’s interview with the Hoover Institution he explains that his theological explanation is Judeo-Christian. Hope this helps. They discuss evolution with David Berlinski and some mathematician. The question of evil comes up & Meyers finds it as no problem, because of his theological standpoint. But it’s important to point out that he has kept his scientific integrity and hasn’t intermingled them in any of this

[@ds525252]

Cole Mayhugh 🏆🏁 same with Tour. Some Atheistic scientists do the same about exposing their personal believes but not many. I appreciate those that do. Many excellent Atheists living good life’s and forwarding science, they are not the enemy they are our brothers and sisters. Both sides should be patient with the other and remain productive. I’m trying hard to do that. Thanks for your comment.

[@mcmanustony]

"some mathematician"- is David Gelernter who is not in fact a mathematician and nor is Berlinski. Nor of course is Meyer- who is not a scientist of any kind. The Hoover piece is as slick as it is dishonest. "Mathematical Objections to Evolution"- in which three non mathematicians babble non-mathematically about science none has the slightest expertise in and none has actually studied. Why are you people so gullible/ dishonest?

[@---yu7ff]

"Judeo-Christian" lol

[@tiffanymagee2700]

I am so thankful for Dr. Meyer!

[@mcmanustony]

What for?

[@prycenewberg3976]

It amazes me that people are somehow offended by Mr. Metaxas' sense of humor. Personally, I appreciate the levity and that a serious topic does not preclude lightheardedness.

[@kystars]

I agree, some people just need to lighten up

[@innamarinkova5857]

Thank you, God!

[@roberthutchins4297]

For what? The late great Christopher Hitchens used to list the "benefits" we could thank God for. Were he/she/it to exist.

[@inukithesavage828]

@@roberthutchins4297 I would thank God for creating the universe and fine tuning it for life. Have not read the Hitch list, but I should imagine it's horribly ungrateful and lists numerous things that are our fault - because that's what he was like.

[@roberthutchins4297]

@@inukithesavage828 I wonder what you envisage God as being. Something material, tangible? I could go on at length with the absurdities involved with religious belief. I don´t know how the Universe "popped" into existence from the absolute and total nothingness - no-one does know. But then, I don´t know where the hypothetical God figure came from. You´d say from no-where - he/she/it just "is".

[@inukithesavage828]

@@roberthutchins4297 Why would I believe that God is a physical being when absolutely everything in Christianity says he's not material? If you can't even get that right, why would I listen to you about these so-called 'absurdities'?

[@roberthutchins4297]

@@inukithesavage828 Tell you the truth, I don´t much mind whether you listen - or not. I expect you have absolutely clear what a "non-material" God means. Doesn´t it say somewhere that we are made in his/her/its image? Are we all immaterial, then? I know - there´s an "answer" for that too. It´s a lot of nonsense. You believe that particular nonsense because of where you were born. If you´d been born elsewhere, then you would have believed anither nonsense.

[@sophiebelle5724]

@Eric Metaxis I really, really love your stuff here. You have a good sense of humor and I enjoy your interview style. I saw Stephen Meyer discuss the signature of the cell on another KZbin channel and I didn't think I would learn more since then, but Stephen Meyer; if you will forgive the baseball analogy, really hits it out of the field. I am an RN and when I graduated several decades ago when DNA was taught, it was a double helix structure discovered by Cricks & Watson and not much more. I then saw in the 1990's an explosion of how it could be used and the development of the sequencing and the Human genome. I love Science, and I really believe that Science is the study of GOD's created world. The two, Science & GOD, are not mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, being a parent and having a son in College who only graduated a few years ago, I see that none of this information has made it into the Public School text books or the classroom it's self. I thank you for getting this important information out, Science should not have an AGENDA, it should go where the evidence leads but it does not. To some people Atheism and/or Science has become their Religion and like Ben Stein so aptly showed in his film, EXPELLED, No intelligence Allowed, they guard it with their life and anyone in Academia who disagrees is treated to a myriad of negative sequela. I have subscribed to your channel and look forward to seeing more Socrates in the City. Thank you

[@mcmanustony]

Here’s a complete list of all Meyer’s peer reviewed publications in all the sciences. 1. .

[@mcmanustony]

Ben Stein is a lying degenerate. Can you name anyone in that trashy film who was expelled from anything?

[@ducktape5970]

I raise and applaud

[@Mauser_.]

Universe had a beginning, this is unquestionable. They tells us that a very hot and very compact point existed, then it began a rapid expansion. We therefore have to accept one of two options: 1) Either the hot compact point existed then began expanding without a cause, or 2) An originator that exists outside of the laws of cause and effect caused that hot compact point to exist and expand. The second option might seem hard to believe, but at least it doesn't have the logical contradiction of the first one where a purely physical phenomenon is somehow exempt from the laws of physics ☺

[@lawrencestewart8668]

Highly recommend all read the 2nd Psalm...

[@sebastianschulz6531]

why?

[@karenclements7497]

@@sebastianschulz6531 You can read it for yourself. Don't have a Bible? Look it up online- just type "Psalm 2".

[@creepyspaceinvader1704]

And Pslam 19.

[@juancorzo5081]

And psalm 22. Written 1000 years after christ.

[@BibleResearchTools]

This Psalm is interesting: _"[The Lord] covered [the earth] with [water] as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. At your rebuke [the waters] fled; at the sound of your thunder they took to flight. The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass, so that they [the waters] might not again cover the earth." -- Ps 104:6-9 ESV_ That simple passage explains all geological anomalies found throughout the earth. Dan

[@kingjames104]

Amazing how many atheists hunt down these videos and probably watch a 1/3 of the video and try to throw out comments like "So the whole argument is GOD OF THE GAPS??" Ignorance must be bliss when it comes to your realm of thinking. One thing I know for sure is Science and God are not separate they are intertwined as God created the very realm in which Science functions. Perhaps it is time to get used to this Truth and come to some understanding within yourself.

[@trayseebee6413]

All things were made and came into existence through Him: and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

"One thing I know for sure is Science and God are not separate they are intertwined as God created the very realm in which Science functions." And you know this because...

[@sandypidgeon4343]

@@JamesRichardWiley HE created the human brain to have functions, like logic and reason, which are the basis for empircal investigation, unlike animals.

[@Z4r4sz]

*_"Ignorance must be bliss when it comes to your realm of thinking."_* The people who fail to provide reasonable evidence for 2.000 years have spoken... *_"Science and God are not separate"_* I must have missed the memo that someone managed to demonstrate any supernatural force. Or someone explain why the overwhelming majority of scientists identify as not religious... Something clearly doesnt add up with your bogus claims. Oh wait! *_"HE created the human brain to have functions, like logic and reason"_* Yet theists reject logic and reason and rather praise someone who sells books on amazon and pretends he is publishing science, no scientific breakthrough through his "work" for over a decade... which he promised would be fruitful... promotes bronze age superstition sprinkled with science terms after rebranding his "product" because it failed in court and at basic scientific standards.

[@sandypidgeon4343]

@@Z4r4sz Good evening, Z, if I may abbreviate. >>>"The people who fail to provide reasonable evidence for 2.000 years have spoken." Fail? Jesus was a historical person, and the Christian movement is documented in many seaprate Roman histories. The cosmological, chemical, and biological arguments all point to a designer. >>>Yet theists reject logic and reason..." Ah no, we use logic and reason over the centuries to make the abductive argument for GOD's existence. Information, logic, and reason are immaterial, so from where do they come? >>>no scientific breakthrough through his "work" for over a decade." ah no, again. Meyer's work has shown abiogenesis to be impossible as naturalistic processes do not provide for the presence of information such as 3.5 billion strands of DNA in a single cell. WHAT tells an organism to change? WHY would it need to change if it is already a successful organism? Mutations are generally detrimental to an organism. As for your assertion "it failed in court", you do know the Judge in the Dover case is in trouble for plagiarizing/receiving the prosecutor's memo for his decision? The decision, itself, was NOT supposed to be to the validity of ID science;rather, it was supposed to be to the LEGALITY of teaching it. The Judge should be removed for legal malfeasance. GOD Bless.

[@graphguy]

10^77 that number proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Intelligent Design is the only answer.

[@TheMattyPoppins]

You're gonna have to give more details about that claim otherwise it looks a whole lot like 1st rate bullshit.

[@MegaZaki2000]

@@TheMattyPoppins cry

[@michaelmakinney20]

@@TheMattyPoppins See, for instance, Mathematical models provided by Robert Sauer of MIT

[@iankclark]

Sean Carroll sees the 'multiverse' as the only plausible explanation. Someone should tell him that the multiverse hypothesis itself relies on miraculous fine tuning. The irony. Even then God gives us free will to resist the irresistible, which in itself is kind of miraculous.

[@georgedoyle7971]

@Van Smack Free will is an illusion” 1. No one needs to study and master quantum theory for years or neuroscience to know that the qualitative subjective experience of reality such as love, altruism, bravery including the courage of the nurses and doctors who sacrificed their lives caring for the victims of the Corona virus was real bravery and a real choice not just the meaningless motions of biological robots who were all just determined by “matter” and “neuroscience”. Not to mention the qualitative subjective experience of morals, ethics, meaning and purpose this bravery and self sacrifice demonstrated by the nurses and doctors entailed, that is the qualitative subjective experience of mind and consciousness. You’re arguments are a “Scientism” and materialism of the gaps fallacy. Thankfully determinism, which clearly has the potential to be an harmful “philosophy” as it can be used as an excuse for violent crime as it removes all accountability and responsibility, has actually been debunked by the brilliant Oxford Professor Richard Swinburne. Equally, “Determinism” is based on the assumption that time is linear and that “matter” is fundamental to reality not consciousness or both. No one has actually “proved” that “Matter” is fundamental to reality not consciousness as science is only provisional so can not “prove” anything as it can only infer theoretical abstractions of the mind such as “matter” using predictions. Hence the common term among experts on mind and consciousness the “hard problem of consciousness”. Ironically consciousness is only a “hard problem” if you presuppose that “matter” is fundamental to reality. However, the fact is that.... “we cannot empirically observe matter outside and independent of mind, for we are forever locked in mind. All we can observe are the contents of perception, which are inherently mental. Even the output of measurement instruments is only accessible to us insofar as it is mentally perceived.” (Bernardo Kastrup). From a philosophical perspective there is absolutely no evidence that the world of “matter” is the only world that matters as....“the fact is that evolutionary naturalism implies that we shouldn’t take any of our convictions seriously including the scientific world picture on which evolutionary naturalism itself depends.” (Thomas Nagel). The fact is that our families and children and our communities are clearly more than biological and chemical robots that lack intentionality as they are just determined by “matter”. The fact is that it is actually Classical “materialism” not idealism that posits an unproven hypothesis and is based on backwards, “magical” thinking as no one has ever observed “matter” without being a conscious (observer), that is without mind and consciousness. Which is why our families and children are unbelievably valuable and precious and have (value) and their human rights should be protected from murderers and rapists who would like nothing more than to have (free will) and (choice) refuted so they have an (excuse) and can just say they were not accountable or responsible for their evil actions no matter how depraved. Why any normal person would even want to “prove” such an hypothesis/“philosophy” that is so intuitively wrong is beyond most normal people. I think the bereaved families of the victims of the holocaust would beg to differ that Hitler and the Nazis were not responsible and accountable for their actions as they had no “free will” and “choice” because they were just determined by “matter” and “neuroscience”. Not to mention the bereaved families of the children who were tortured and murdered at the hands of the Moors murderers. “Intelligent tuning decorator doesn’t sound intelligent to me” Ironically your claims regarding fine tuning and “naturalism” are actually “metaphysical” as the belief that everything can and will be explained by scientific naturalism was easily refuted by Einstein decades ago using basic logic and philosophical proofs. According to Einstein... “It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure” ( Einstein). Also methodological naturalism is supposed to be metaphysically neutral and so can only describe what “is” not what “ought” to be. It’s clear that many eminent deists, agnostics and even atheists do not share or adopt your ad hominem approach when debating theists. The natural sciences can not explain and “prove” anything because “science” can only infer and requires a metaphysics. that is a “philosophy of care” in order to even be useful to humanity in many areas such as medicine and surgery etc. The fact is that only logic. deductive reasoning and philosophy can provide “proofs” as such not the natural sciences because as I already pointed out science is provisional and can only infer to the best current evidence, usually based on the current dominant materialistic paradigm that has persisted for political reasons. Equally, no scientist worth his salt claims that one universe is enough to explain the unbelievable fine tuning for life in this universe hence the “Goldie locks universe” analogy. Also according to prominent scientists such as Paul Davies an unfalsifiable multiverse could stifle scientific endeavour because that which can be used to explain away anything explains nothing. In an infinite multiverse all things are possible lol. This is common knowledge among both theist and atheist philosophers. You can’t even carry out basic scientific experiments without metaphysical concepts such as truth, knowledge, being, identity time and space etc. Of course it’s important to recognise and tackle extremism and harmful theistic and atheistic ideology wherever it is. However, the “defenders” of “intelligent design” have actually made valid and fascinating scientific contributions to the debate about “irreducible complexity” and have actually been praised for their scientific approach by eminent atheist philosophers such as Thomas Nagel. “I believe the defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude for challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to liberate us from religion. That world view is ripe for displacement” (Thomas Nagel). Conversely, intelligent design proponents and irreducible complexity has been criticised by prominent scientists who are Christians who believe in evolution such as the DNA expert Dr Francis Collins. It just proves how diverse theism and atheism is when you have a prominent public intellectual and atheist such as Thomas Nagel praising the proponents of intelligent design and then a prominent scientist who happens to be a Christian such as Francis Collins criticising them. Similarly, it’s ironic to hear “New atheists” constantly use the “God of the gaps” accusation when it was actually Christian theologians who coined the phrase “God of the gaps” in the first place in order to correct over Zealous religious people who had the habit of using absurd teleological arguments for god. Nevertheless, consciousness still remains an elusive qualitative subjective property and like the laws of physics it is clearly irreducibly complex. The fact is the natural sciences do not have all the answers and when mixed with naive metaphysical assumptions eugenics has taught us that “scientism” can be used as an excuse for justifying and rationalising genocide as could determinism. Nevertheless, religion is not perfect and has made many mistakes.. However, you can’t solve the mistakes of religion by replacing it with another “quasi religion” such as “New atheism” or “scientism”. What we need is good science, good philosophy and good theology. “Quantum electrodynamics requires mastery” “ This is the arrogance that underlies creationism” Appeals to scientific authority and scientism and materialism of the gaps fallacy again in a metaphysical, that is a philosophical debate about the fundamental nature of reality. The fact is that most of our physical theories and metaphors to describe the world of “matter” have been progressively falsified and replaced by what appears to be immaterial probability waves, atoms and quarks that are invisible, bi locational, non locational, timeless, unmeasurable and collapse at the wave function during measurement due to the observer effect suggesting that consciousness not “matter” is fundamental to reality in some way. The idea that neuroscience has explained away consciousness and free will is quite an extraordinary statement in that it completely inverts the natural direction of inference: normally, one infers the unknown from the known, that is consciousness is the only thing we really know, not the known from the unknown, that is the theoretical abstraction of the mind known as “matter”. No one knows what “matter” actually is. (Scientism: “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities (Merriam Webster Library definition). You suggested that you believed in determinism but do you really believe Hitler had no free will and choice as he was just determined by “matter” so he was not responsible and accountable for the orders he gave that led to the mass genocide of millions of innocent men women and children ? The materialists blind devotion to the Gods of determinism, empiricism, falsificationism and quantifiability leaves them blind to the elephant in the room condemning their myths to hollowness. ❤️

[@georgedoyle7971]

@Van Smack “A quick look through a telescope at our chaotic universe would dispel any superstitions about fine tuning“ Again you’re using a scientism and materialism of the gaps fallacy in order order to present a false dichotomy. “Materialism is incomplete even as a theory of the physical world, since the physical world includes conscious organisms among its most striking occupants” (Thomas Nagel). Empirical science can only infer because ultimately it is the logic contained in philosophy that provides “proofs” as such. Equally, the written code of conduct and the Hippocratic oath of ethics that nurses and doctors promise to uphold is littered with philosophical terminology and concepts that are based on metaphysical that is philosophical concepts. These codes of conduct were developed to protect patients from mad scientists, protecting human rights, promoting positive patient and health care professional relationships that are outside the explanatory power of the natural “sciences”. These life saving concepts are based on philosophical concepts such as altruism, empathy, compassion, respect and the right to life. None of which can be helpfully explained by the natural sciences without reaching an absurdity or an unhealthy conclusion such as rapists and murderers are not responsible or accountable for their actions evil acts. Nevertheless, science and philosophy are not mutually exclusive as they actually complement each other. It is perhaps interesting that objective analysis determines consciousness as an illusion of the brain, and subjective analysis determines the brain as an illusion within consciousness. Perhaps we will find that the truth is somewhere between the two However, the fact is that “science” is meaningless and purposeless and even dangerous and harmful without altruism, common decency, compassion, integrity and a “philosophy of care”. The common assumption or claim that these aspects of morals and ethics are presupposed and are just social convention as they can’t be grounded in metaphysics. that is the sanctity of life, mind and consciousness is based on an assumption that materialism and the natural sciences can adequately describe all aspects of reality. The fact is that the logic that science is founded on is actually itself presupposed by scientists. To argue different is to argue in a circle as you can’t empirically prove logic with science. Nevertheless, only the logic contained in philosophy can demonstrate “proofs” about reality as science can not provide “proofs” as such as it can only infer and is provisional. Equally, the brilliant mathematician Kurt Godel demonstrated with his incompleteness theorems that all knowledge is incomplete and is ultimately founded on (faith) in something you can not empirically prove. Godels work demonstrated the existence of something that is unlimited and absolute, fully rational and independent of empirical science possibly platonistic and clearly non mechanistic. The fact is there are things that are true that can not be empirically demonstrated. Science is based on faith and a subjective point of view. “Observation is always selective. It needs a chosen object, a definite task, an interest, a point of view, a problem. And its description presupposes a descriptive language, with property words; it presupposes similarity and classification, which in their turn presuppose interests, points of view, and problems” (Karl Popper). Can we empirically prove and verify that it is meaningful to state that “genocide is objectively wrong” and can this statement be falsified? I think what is meaningful is the statement that Materialism is incomplete even as a theory of the physical world, since the physical world includes conscious organisms among its most striking occupants. “As an explanation of the world, materialism has a sort of insane simplicity. It has just the quality of the madman's argument; we have at once the sense of it covering everything and the sense of it leaving everything out” (G.K. Chesterton). The fact is that the natural sciences/empirical science can not demonstrate whether “Materialism”, the belief that matter is fundamental to reality, is any more plausible than “Idealism”, the idea that mind is fundamental to reality, and will never be able to falsify either. In physics the foundations of Materialism and Idealism are untestable. According to Aristotle “no science proves its first principles”. When “new atheists” claim they are a materialist they have left behind the natural sciences and are doing metaphysics. Similarly, when claiming Materialism has explained away consciousness, altruism, love, meaning and purpose “new atheists” are unwittingly doing metaphysics very naively. This statement by the eminent philosopher and scientist David Chalmers speaks volumes. “Materialism is a beautiful and compelling view of the world, but to account for consciousness, we have to go beyond the resources it provides” (David Chalmers) Similarly, Alvin Plantinga suggests that If you believe that evolution and naturalism is a complete explanation of reality then you have a reason to doubt your faculties are reliable”. Alvin Plantingas conclusions echo the doubts of Darwin “but then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind” (Charles Darwin). Interestingly, the eminent atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel also shared these concerns in his fascinating book (Mind and Cosmos) and comes to the controversial but logical conclusion that “the Materialist Neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false”. Nagel argues very eloquently that because consciousness is associated with biological structures developing through evolution, then the current materialist version of evolutionary biology must be fundamentally flawed. Equally, the cosmological history, the origins of life, the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history. An adequate conception of nature would have to explain the appearance in the universe of materially irreducible conscious minds and no neuro biologists worth his salt would claim we have explained away consciousness. It’s not surprising that the brilliant philosopher Alvin Plantinga stated that “there is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and theistic religion, but superficial concord and deep conflict between science and naturalism” (Alvin Plantinga).

[@rstevewarmorycom]

No it doesn't. Fine tuning is likely not a thing, those values could not have been other than they are.

[@BibleResearchTools]

rstevewarmorycom wrote, "No it doesn't. Fine tuning is likely not a thing, those values could not have been other than they are." Have you ever read this statement by Nobel laureate Arno Penzias? _"[Dr. Arno Penzias said,] it seems to me that the data we have in hand right now clearly show that there is not nearly enough matter in the universe, not enough by a factor of three, for the universe to be able to fall back on itself ever again. My argument… is that the best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole." [Malcome W. Browne, "Clues to Universe Origin Expected." New York Times, March 12, 1978]_ Dan

[@safedba]

At 35:40 he mentions flipping a coin and estimating the chances of its landing on its side. This actually happened for me and this other kid in Mrs Connors "Math Dynamics" class. We sat around flipping coins and counting the distribution. It never happened again. Of course now I wish we had it on video.

[@frederickbowdler1509]

Yes it landed on its side I believe you. But was it heads or tails?

[@safedba]

@@frederickbowdler1509 That's the point. It was neither. By the "side" I mean the narrow edge of the coin.

[@smartrecords4881]

To God be the Glory.

[@tommore3263]

Eric Metaxas does a good job of helping us flesh out Dr Meyer's thoughts for us. Very helpful.

[@myheadhurts1927]

Science and Observational Instrumentality will eventually mature to the point where Scientists are looking directly into the eye of God.

[@iftequarali6685]

The theory of undirected evolution is already dead, but the work of science continues.

[@mcmanustony]

this is utter nonsense.

[@ikemiracle4841]

Damnit!! Stephen meyer is so good 😊

[@mcmanustony]

What at? Lying to adults with a view to getting a crack at lying to their children? He wants science education replaced with fundamentalist dogma. He has so far failed. Long may it continue.

[@ikemiracle4841]

@@mcmanustony bro are you seriously following me this is literally the third or fourth time you've been replying my comments with your stupid arguments. Stop it please.

[@ivorfaulkner4768]

Why is Wikipedia allowed describe Intelligent Design as Pseudo-Science?

[@ikemiracle4841]

@@ivorfaulkner4768 because it's made by people like you

[@mcmanustony]

@@ivorfaulkner4768 For the same reason it describes the earth as round. "Intelligent Design" was concocted to get around the law after Edwards v Aguillard prohibited the teaching of creationism in school science classes. It just IS pseudo science- refuted and rejected by the relevant scientific disciplines. It collects no data, makes no testable hypotheses, no predictions.....NO SCIENCE.

[@user-td7vg1op9y]

This makes me want to read all dr meyer's books

[@ReviewOutdoorGear]

One word... just WOW. Amazing stuff!!

[@highfunq2863]

People still throwing insults online and defaming Meyer. The work is scientifically rigorous (to anybody with half a background in science), and there is an atypical silence from evolutionary biologists. All I hear from the same vocal people demanding "facts" are insults. Hard not to stifle a chuckle when all the trolls can do is try clog up the comment sections, and draw people who actually listened into a fruitless online debate to demoralise them. Facts are on the other foot, and they've got that foot in their mouths. :D

[@AcidAdventurer]

It's funny how in over a decade his argument literally hasn't changed by a word. Either he is an absolute fool who clings to an obviously fallacious argument or no legitimate contention has been raised. With all the insults, it's pretty clear. Intelligence begets intelligence

[@LoveYourNeighbour.]

@@AcidAdventurer I've been listening to him since his best seller Signature In The Cell, a DECADE ago... So I know what you mean Nathan!

[@LoveYourNeighbour.]

I've seen it happen OVER & OVER again... Skeptics flocking to good Christian videos, and then bombarding people with ad hominem attacks & insults. I'm not saying they ALWAYS do that. But it's definitely a common occurrence.

[@highfunq2863]

@@LoveYourNeighbour. I think the anger behind the vitriol is a common emotional response to having to confront the existence of a Creator. This confrontation might rock some worldviews that don't like to be rocked. Some, such as our "skeptic" friends, like to feel as though their beliefs (or disbeliefs) are guided by reason, but more often times than not, it's guided by our temperament unfortunately. When excuses run out and reason guides them opposite to what they intended to believe, the obvious target of attack becomes the source of that reason...like Mr. Meyer himself and everything associated with it.

[@svenamundsen4879]

I have a difficult time accepting "design" outside of the paradigm of "creation"...I don't subscribe to the through process that more than suggests "primoradial" as a basis or platform for life. I believe that God in His wisdom and abilities is more than capable of having a "design" to everything He created. "1 Corinthians 14:33 - For God is NOT the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints." Yes, this passage is speaking of a different topic however, what stands regardless is "God is not the author of confusion". I use this in conjunction with John 1:3 "All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made." Hebrews 1:3 "He is reflection of God’s glory and the exact likeness of his being, and he holds everything together by his powerful word." All this "explaining" in my mind, is only man's attempt to understand how God did what He did . " In the beginning, God said"..

[@imout671]

A criminal can't find a policeman for the same reason most folks can't accept Jesus the Christ.

[@logicalatheist1065]

Policemen exist in reality, the idea of Jesus only exists in a primitive bronze age book of Mythology

[@logicalatheist1065]

@@joefriday2275 proof is in math... You clearly have no clue what you're talking about 😅

[@imout671]

@@logicalatheist1065 well ok what ever you think but at least get the bronze age right. The Romans were the iron age.

[@derhafi]

@@imout671 The Abrahamic God is a product of the Bronce age.

[@mimusic1853]

Brilliant!

[@korykent5645]

A lot of people are complete jerks to this man because he's brilliant and not a follower of the current worldview cult.

[@ds525252]

Kory Kent Yep! Even the numbers can speak for themselves. Many claims about logic but none actually used.

[@graemel3069]

This is pure gold...I absolutely love the dialog between these two very clever, intelligent and charamatic gentlemen!

[@logicalatheist1065]

These are clowns from the discovery institute, they have nothing to do with science

[@Jim-mn7yq]

@@logicalatheist1065 Science? What would you possibly know about science. You’ve rejected basic mathematics, you don’t understand probability theory, and u r totally clueless as to what falsifying a scientific theory means. In short, your a joke.

[@logicalatheist1065]

@@Jim-mn7yq I know alot more than you'll ever know... Coming from the clown who thinks discovery institute is credible, LOL... Care more about your education

[@Jim-mn7yq]

@@logicalatheist1065 It's almost a law of nature. In any group, the dumbest kid always gets up and tries to tell the rest of us how smart he is. Goober, if you're so friggin smart, then start answering questions. Where are the transitionary forms in the precambrian era? Where are the new eyes, brains, guts that we see only a short time later??

[@logicalatheist1065]

@@Jim-mn7yq intelligent design is still not science, nor does the religious belief have anything to do with reality

[@raggedyman2257]

I would appreciate if Stephen Meyer might expand on the "so what." What direction does a theistic hypothesis take us; what can it mean for understanding and pragmatic application.

[@raggedyman2257]

Mr. Meyers answer this question at minute 00:54 in the video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/h5qnnqd6qrJ7icU .

[@Z4r4sz]

@@raggedyman2257 His answer to the question how to test intelligent design is "intelligent design offers a better explaination of the facts". This is not a method. Its just babbling.

[@jacobkim2402]

The host is funny he should do stand up comedy

[@frederickbowdler1509]

Yes. Reminds me of Bob hope.

[@alantasman8273]

We'll leave the stand up comedy to the Darwinists.

[@McLovin_2007]

I was an evolutionist, until I found out there was another side. When I grew up, I believed in God, but never heard of terms like Intelligent Design or Creation Science. Evolutionists have done a great job of hiding them.

[@pup1008]

Funny how away from the swivel eyed nut jobs in America, that only something like 3% of the boys & girls in *SERIOUS* mainstream science & in particular in these fields under discussion are believers in secular, advanced Western Europe!

[@McLovin_2007]

@@pup1008 This is one of the problems with evolution. No is allowed to question it. So people go along with it, for fear of peer pressure. Normally consensus is the first argument evolutionists make. They say they have the band wagon on their side. But what they don't tell you is that they rigged the system to produce that outcome. By fighting in court to ensure evolution is the only theory to be taught, and then firing any scientists who don't believe it, that creates a false consensus. Then that becomes their proof.

[@pup1008]

@@McLovin_2007 There's billions of people & billions of $'s that bat for your side dude. I think it has little to do with any ridiculous conspiracy theory & a lot to do with it all being nonsense! You had your day in court with *Dover V Kitzmiller* which was actually presided over by a Christian judge!

[@hongotedesco8931]

What? It all started with Creationism, and then they changed it to ID to try to give it a less religious spin; basically marketing. And I've been hearing about Creationism/ID forever, decades, so where have you been? No one is trying to "hide" it, but because it's not science, an evolutionary biologist dismisses it out of hand. And you can find many of these evolutionists arguing against it here and there, much to their chagrin (they just find it a waste of time).

[@pup1008]

@@McLovin_2007 Did you want to get back to us on any of that God Boy?

[@rduse4125]

There simply MUST be a force of some kind out there that resists God (or the notion of God) at every turn. I mean, the great lengths that science (so called) and the media, and education etc. go to, to ensure that materialism is the ONLY option, irregardless of the evidence is stupefying.

[@dakotaedwards1426]

Irregardless 💀

[@Daily-PE]

Sadly we are that force, God gave us free choice and this is what a lot of people used it for.

[@rduse4125]

@@Daily-PE - I’ve been wondering that too. Free will means we get to choose.

[@ashrichman9956]

The only force that resists God is called people. Those who tune in to educational videos like this and instead of learning, critique and judge on a subject that their heart shuts down

[@rduse4125]

@@ashrichman9956 - I see that point and consider it…but there seems to me to be something else that seeks to lure people away from the truth.

[@rickvassell8349]

Eric, your humor is a connective positive force, thank you.

[@desr278]

"Ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding" - Mark 4:12 ... Such is this world. So many of your hearts are harden, hence you don't even want nor desire to hear the truth ... Stop letting your intellect get in the way of your heart.

[@oliverjamito9902]

desr278...wisdom is surely a gift. Which God have given you. My brother or sister. Well said...

[@karinecarde1254]

desr278 yes, they are willfully ignorant. It won't excuse them when they appear before Holy God.

[@jasonwarren9279]

One of the points I haven't heard is the fact that the space of states which encompasses "an infinity of universes" idea allows for a theistic creator. If we're going to talk about an idea which allows for the possibility of "independent, self aware, dreaming brains simply floating in the aether," and "we actually live in a Matrix" scenarios, then we necessarily have to concede that Biblical literalism, or Hindu literalism, or whatever, is possible. Therefore, how do I determine the likelihood that the world I live in is more likely to be a happy accident, or the Matrix, or whatever, when I have to reason from first principles based on the assumption of an unbounded, infinite, anything is possible, space of states?

[@adr3ns]

I think you may find an acceptable answer researching Boltzmann brains...under such logic the 1st brain would be God...

[@joefriday2275]

According to the Journal of the American Medical Association - Psychiatry, people who place a high importance of religion in their lives have thicker cerebral cortices. Thicker cerebral cortices in individuals is positively associated with higher intelligence.

[@logicalatheist1065]

If only that were the case... None of you demonstrate intelligence

[@logicalatheist1065]

@@joefriday2275 believing a bronze age mythology book to be true only makes your intelligence primitive. You're scientifically illiterate, science goes over your head

[@logicalatheist1065]

@@joefriday2275 LMFAO, dreamer. An atheist would be more intelligent in the long run, less bullshit to believe... You think magic is an answer, no intelligence detected with you...

[@logicalatheist1065]

@@joefriday2275 Great way to concede before making a total fool of yourself. You never had it in ya. unfortunately you're scientifically illiterate :-/

[@logicalatheist1065]

@@joefriday2275 You're delusional

[@jaypee8768]

He was unfairly discredited. Hope meyers suceeds in his quest. The microbiology is far too complex for a simplistic original darwinian explanation .

[@rstevewarmorycom]

That's called an argument from ignorance, you don't understand genetic Evolution so it must be wrong.

[@rstevewarmorycom]

@Fabio D You don't seem to understand that I'm a physicist and have designed computer processors. A physicist also has a mastery of math through complex variables, differential equations, and multivariate calculus. I have written Evolution simulations, they work perfectly. You're posturing and babbling nonsense.

[@rstevewarmorycom]

@Fabio D No, you're a fucking liar. Evolutionary algorithms prove the principle easily. They do NOT "run on rails" determined by the programmer. No machine language program is a successful representation of how genetics does it. Nature does not crash. All DNA means some procedure or protein, even if it were random, it is mathematically complete, machine language is not precisely BECAUSE it can crash. Your probabalistic math bullshit doesn't show anything about Evolution. When you have quintillions of TONS of seawater and each mL of it has thousands of experiments going on in real time, and it has billions of years to run, nature can indeed produce all of life. All your arguments amount to your doubt that it is probable enough, when it has already happened, and no god thing has ever shown up or been evidenced. Nature doesn't guess huge numbers. It tries everything and massively replicates anything that works. Claiming the info in a cell is 200GB comes from all the atomic positions, as if they were just random and not determined by electrostatics. Nature doesn't NEED to specify all atomic positions. The atoms do that themselves. And once anything can replicate it is a fait accompli that Evolution proceeds. All mutations occur either in protein coding genes or in control genes, or in body plan genes, and those are a hierarchy of potential changes that can do little or do a huge amount to the animal's form. This hierarchy was the reason for the Cambrian explosion. Suddenly wholly new phyla could be made just by changing a few base-pairs in the newly formed HOX genes, rather than having to rewrite everything again. And the same in the control genes, they already had a function that worked and base-pair changes merely tweaked it to change embryonic growth slightly in some respect. The number of digits in the limb was changed by just one or two base-pairs in the control gene called "Sonic Hedgehog". Whether a limb formed or was reabsorbed in utero was determined in this way as well, we even found that a mutated virus was responsible for the production of the placenta!! Genetics scavenges from all over the junk parts of the genome to produce new designs. And natural selection kills the losers and preserves the winners.

[@rstevewarmorycom]

@Fabio D All that is cut-n-paste creationist baloney math and doesn't include the simple fact that atoms do all this all by themselves, reducing the impossibility to a mere slight improbability. Biomathematicians have laughed at this creationist bullshit math for decades now. Atoms are like very very complex puzzle pieces, they only fit together one way, and that's to make life. It's their inherent predilection!! And as we have tried to tell you time and time again, nature doesn't guess big numbers like a safe combination. It gets the numbers one at a time and tests them to find the one that works, and then does the next and the next, and only takes a relatively short time, not the quintillion years it would take to guess the combination all in one string. Your supposition is based on your error of approach due to your absolute desperation that there be some god.

[@rstevewarmorycom]

@Fabio D Yes, but they don't crash the system, the universe. Nature still works and all attempts are independent of each other. So your whole claim here is moot nonsense.

[@rapturebound197]

Metaxas & Meyer make a great combination for a discussion. Darwinism is yesterdays news. God is not dead...He's very good at walking out of tombs! Hallelujah!

[@RayB1656]

What ??? Tombs ! God may not be dead ( ?? ) however he left this small planet in a dark corner of the Milky Way, a very , very long time ago !

[@danieldietsche2954]

Great interview... Steven is a great mind, and combines all of the latest evidence of the cosmos, biology, and the spiritual, into a believable philosophical package.

[@mcmanustony]

He has no training and little knowledge of biology. He is adept at distorting the actual work of real biologists but nothing more.

[@danieldietsche2954]

@@mcmanustony Apparently BS, and a PhD from Cambridge isn't "training". Educate yourself.

[@mcmanustony]

@@danieldietsche2954 I was educated at The University of Glasgow and did research at the University of Exeter. His Phd is in philosophy and involved no scientific research whatsoever. His BS is not from Cambridge- they issue no such degree. It's from a small Christian school in the US and is in physics. This involves no training in any of the disciplines he abuses to push his religious ideas.

[@mcmanustony]

@@danieldietsche2954 If you read what actual biologists, actual geneticists, actual paleontologists have to say about Meyer's fanatical distortions of the science you'd maybe not post such tripe. Educate yourself.

[@danieldietsche2954]

@@mcmanustony I didn't say his BS was from Cambridge. There are hundreds more new biologists, physicists, and mathematicians, every year, who are agreelng with him. The more that's learned about life, the more complex it gets. Mathematical impossible for even the simplest cell to have been form by accident.

[@YAS9112]

I don’t believe in earth religions but I believe in an intelligent designer

[@Brotherred1]

Religion is nothing more than an attempt to know the designer.

[@studygodsword5937]

@@Brotherred1 The Bible is the one that has proven itself over and over again, with prophecies ! Old Testament prophecies in the New Testament, Old and New Testament prophecies in my lifetime ! Fulfillment of prophecies have been increasing as the world pulls closer to the tribulation ! Christians it's time to look up !

[@hermannf.1612]

@@Brotherred1 Well said!

[@hermannf.1612]

@@studygodsword5937 What prophecy of relevance can ever be considered fulfilled? Can't think of any. You are suggesting tribulation, on what basis? All the past under the rule of religions was much darker.

[@studygodsword5937]

@@hermannf.1612 Prophecies fulfilled, European Union forming, including brexit, two more countries will leave the EU ! Never in history has there been More of "calling good evil and evil good (up to and including the presidency of the United States)" And a related prophecy, massive loss of respect for authority! Never before has there been more scoffers over the word of God ! These are just some of the prophecies !

[@sranney1]

DNA discovery was Huge

[@matthew6335]

God bless you man

[@kevinmiller6443]

There isn't another information system/program even remotely as complex as DNA! And people want to believe it came about through imaginary processes over an imaginary period of time.

[@igoroshka]

I am blown away.

[@danielkrcmar5395]

"An alien seeded life on Earth"... Okay then, who created the Alien then Dawkins?

[@mcmanustony]

Dawkins doesn't believe aliens seeded life. He was conned into giving an interview to lying degenerate Ben Stein who pushed relentlessly for Dawkins to conjure up a scenario whereby intelligent design might have played a role in the emergence of life on earth. He did that- a scenario in which he does not believe. Stein and his claque then deceptively edited the footage to con the likes of you into thinking his extreme hypothetical answer was a position he was advancing as his belief. Stein is a liar. So is Stephen Meyer. Why do you people lie so much? Why are creationists so relentlessly and nauseatingly dishonest? Why?

[@Raiddd__]

@@mcmanustony No one has claimed that Dawkins actually believes intelligent design is true. But in the interview you're talking about (i just watched the entire unedited thing), Dawkins clearly puts forth the alien seeded idea as an actual possibility. He wasn't forced into the answer whatsoever. The question was (these are direct quotes), "What do you think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?" and his answer was "it could come about in the following way it could be that uh at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this this planet um now that is a possibility and a intriguing possibility and I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um at the detail details of biochemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer." So as you can see by the question and response, this was a completely volunteered answer. Dawkins was NOT forced to conjure up some scenario that he doesnt believe is possible at all. He voluntereed this response when he could have perfectly acceptably answered "its impossible" or "0% chance", in just a few words. You say "pushed relentlessly", but the question I just quoted was literally the FIRST TIME in the ENTIRE INTERVIEW, that the topic was even brought up. Dawkins immediately offered up the above quoted answer, under no duress and totally freely and calmly. So whose the dishonest one here? Answer that and ill tell you why I think there's dishonesty involved.

[@mcmanustony]

@@Raiddd__ "i just watched the entire unedited thing"- no, you didn't. The interview as presented in Stein's disgusting little film was clumsily, heavily and DECEPTIVELY EDITED- not unedited. "was literally the FIRST TIME in the ENTIRE INTERVIEW"- you LITERALLY haven't seen the ENTIRE INTERVIEW as LITERALLY the ENTIRE INTERVIEW wasn't presented in the film. The interview was obtained by LYING to Dawkins about a film called "Crossroads". There was never any such film. Psychologist Dr Michael Shermer was similarly lied to, anthropologist Dr Eugenie Scott was similarly lied to, Dr PZ Meyers was similarly lied to. "So whose the dishonest one here?"- Ben "Hitler was a Darwinist" Stein.

[@mcmanustony]

@@Raiddd__ "No one has claimed that Dawkins actually believes intelligent design is true"- utter bullshit. The whole point of Stein's dishonesty was to do precisely that. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eKDRlH14p9eXh5o Why are you people so utterly and hopelessly dishonest?

[@mcmanustony]

@@Raiddd__ No one has claimed that Dawkins actually believes intelligent design is true. Bullshit. kzbin.info/www/bejne/pqOpi4eDfrCCn5Y

[@SG_88]

55:40 so this is what baffles me. Why are so many people so committed to proving that we have no purpose, no creator and no meaning? I’d venture to guess that it’s because if there was a creator, then what they do could possibly matter and therefore life becomes harder than the currently nihilistic approach of “fuck it”.

[@bcatcool]

For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. Rom3.1 - the reason is unfortunately partly due to their choice and partly to do with their blindness...... these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. 1Cor2. Ultimately there is mystery in those who do and those who don't . I find it frustrating but then I remember these verses and it pretty much explains. After that we trust God who is the only one who can truly save and the only one who can truly know who is seeking him. Of course the revelation of truth is ultimately through Jesus and is Spiritually discerned - it is not something you can ultimately learn. You can only receive it. Peace!

[@daveynotes3266]

Is wanting or feeling that your life should have a purpose or meaning not a theist or a religiously based belief ? I think it's just a part of the theist vs atheist debate

[@floodstoriestruth6390]

What does Meyer believe about the age of the Earth and how God's creation fits into Genesis and the fossil record?

[@mikutho9820]

I've a feeling he really doesn't believe in God of christianity but at the same time he's afraid of the eternal fire in hell

[@patldennis]

There are facts and beliefs concerning the age of the Earth. For example we know the Earth is sphere-ish but flat Earthers believe it is flat. Similarly we know the age of the Earth is 4.5 by old, but YECs believe otherwise.(believe is an app word to use seeinhlg as how their dismissal of reality is religious based).. I think Meyer is old Earth.. he wrote a "book" about the Cambrian explosion. However the disco tute claims to be agnostic on that aspect. After all stating a position one way or the other would alienate potential donors on either side

[@franmorrison1080]

@@mikutho9820 originalgospel.blog

[@headwingsentinel8320]

@@mikutho9820 You've "a feeling..."? What do mean by "I've a feeling..."? Are you talking about a rumble in your gut, due to acid indigestion? Or dizziness and pain in your neck from sleeping all night long, in the wrong position? You offer neither an example nor any evidence, yet I'm supposed to put intellectual stock in the fact that you've "a feeling"? When did "feelings" begin to qualify as "arguments"? What is your argument in defense of your assertion: "I've a feeling he really doesn't believe in God of christianity but at the same time he's afraid of the eternal fire in hell"? Why/How would Meyer be an atheist---with no "real belief in God," per your "feeling"---and at the same time be "afraid of the eternal fire in hell"? Can you not see how utterly fallacious and self-contradictory you're statement is? Are you in the business of persistently uttering oxymorons and non sequiturs? Why in the world would I, or any other critical thinker, take you seriously? Wait. I get it. Isn't it true, Jericho, that your "feeling" is simply your own personal resentment toward, and hatred for, the God whose existence you cannot disprove, because science actually supports God's existence? So haven't you simply dug in your heels, with your commitment to resent and to hate the Biblical God, whose existence is evidenced scientifically, philosophically, and logically?

[@jenniebugs1]

Given that the fossil records and rock strata etc are now being proven to have not happened slowly over billions of years, but in a much shorter time, and given that some dinosaur bones have been unearthed with some tissue and blood still intact, which could not have possibly happened if they had lived millions of years ago, it is all inexorably leading us back to the Genesis account of creation as being accurate. Meyer highly respects J Tour - and its a must to listen to him as well in order to get a fuller picture.

[@adr3ns]

Materialism died in 2015... science killed it.

[@3tp]

Then why do I like my stuff, but not as much as the stuff I haven't gotten yet?

[@adr3ns]

@@3tp because once you attain stuff it doesn't fill the void in your soul & you think the next batch of stuff will?

[@vagabondsojourner9847]

Science is man's attempt to explain creation, Faith is man's attempt to understand the Creator and our relationship with the Creator. Sir John Houghton said " one of the most important things a scientist can state is "I don't know" and one of the most important statements a Theologian can state is " I don't know' Watch his interview on PBS www.governmentjobs.com/careers/washington/jobInterestCards/categories

[@BibleResearchTools]

Vagabond Sojourner, you wrote, "Science is man's attempt to explain creation, Faith is man's attempt to understand the Creator and our relationship with the Creator." What society needs is a return to the scientist-theologian, like we had during the Scientific Revolution with the likes of Einstein's three heroes: Newton, Faraday, and Maxwell. Dan

[@hydraman007]

Science is a method, if science is allowed to say I don't know then it's no longer science. Science must always reject theories that do not work, and come up with new hypothesis. If intelligence design is on the table, so be it.

[@yahushua7773]

I can’t say I agree with everything the Intelligent Design movement says, but anyone that says their side is “pseudoscience” should be aware that they were only taught one side of the scientific arguments. There are many things I can agree on with the Intelligent Design movement, just as there are things I agree with the atheist movement (in a scientific sense anyway). I’m no atheist or agnostic, nor do I have complete faith in science or man, but God’s Word; my faith in Him has led me to more answers than I will ever learn from school.

[@logicalatheist1065]

Intelligent design religious belief is indeed pseudoscience as the people who practice it do not follow the scientific method, I've already told you this... Now you play stupid, I guess that suits you better

[@logicalatheist1065]

Gods word aka man's word... Unless you can be the first person to demonstrate a god to exist...

[@byrons3244]

It is pseudoscience. Even religious scientist would agree. People on these channell Meyer and Behe are either incompetent, dishonest or both. The arguments they presented have been peer review and failed.

[@yahushua7773]

@@byrons3244 the idea of evolution came from the Hindu Dashavatara. So if you believe in evolution, you are religious too.

[@byrons3244]

@@yahushua7773 Stupid comment. Darwin did not come up with evolution to begin with(changes in population of species overtime). Darwin came up with his theory on evolution through natural selection and if you don't understand the semantic difference between darwin's theory and Dashavatara version of evolution. You are an idiot.

[@pseudonymy]

"Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." John 20:29

[@myopenmind527]

Your god belief is a matter of faith not a matter of fact.

[@pseudonymy]

@@myopenmind527 That is true. There's a reason it's called an 'act' of faith. It's a conscious choice open to us all - you either choose to believe, or you choose not to. If it were an obvious fact like the sun in the sky, then we would be like the angels - we would all follow God's will, most of us at least. What makes humanity so special is that we have to struggle with error/confusion/darkness/evil (call it what you will) to find the Lord. But find it we can, if we will it, "for behold, the kingdom of God is within you." Luke 17:21

[@pseudonymy]

@@happilyeggs4627 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" John 1:1-14. Again, it's not about being sure (see my reply to @My OpenMind), it's about finding the Truth. If you want to find out more about this from a scientific perspective look up James Tour on KZbin and listen to any of his talks on origin of life studies. He's an organic chemist and speaks to the mystery of originary code/information/word.

[@myopenmind527]

Garrett Mullen who wrote that? #curious

[@pseudonymy]

@@myopenmind527 Who wrote what?

[@joannthomases9304]

Yes, the words of communication are patterns. Man memorizes in patterns, finds in sequences. So we pull out and find in said way, also. Might be. Our words are all on ciphering. And yes, it's already all there, just waiting for us, to find. Also, the more you learn, the more one has to learn, again, which is very humbling.

[@thatdud3614]

No matter you’re opinion. We should Love one another ❤️

[@dolfkellens5701]

give it 10 years . the materialst view is out the window . check out James Tour. The guy is amazing. Facts people Facts. Just gotta love stephen and James .

[@brightwellkunene8995]

@Richard Fox You talking a bout a scientist who is well respected and has more than 120 patents to his name arising out of his scientific work, saying he manipulates the truth. What do you have except adopting someones theory that is full of holes?

[@Draezeth]

I'm afraid not. Look at the view count of this video, then compare it to new atheist videos using the same old meme arguments. The ammunition (facts) are all on our side, but the atheists have almost all the artillery.

[@sebastianschulz6531]

LOL. James Tour only preaches to non academic masses and that is where people like him. He is no expert in biology either. His videos are only posted by discover istitute(non scientific). And therefore are not academic in nature.

[@marlinkhoshababratdeel2250]

God bless you Stephanie Myers, and thank God A person like you defending the our Lord that created this universe that human brain cannot comprehend. Thank God for our Lord that gives the brain and thinking of something that they cannot even believe

[@hongotedesco8931]

Well, there are certainly many things the human brain cannot comprehend, but there are lots of things that it can. Eg, we have a pretty good story as to how we came to be, from the Big Bang to today. Not a complete story by any means, but far, far better than anything else on the table. And note, at the scale of the universe, we've just started doing science. What if we're around for another billion years? What do you think we'll have discovered?

[@BibleResearchTools]

Hongo Tedesco, you wrote, "Well, there are certainly many things the human brain cannot comprehend, but there are lots of things that it can. Eg, we have a pretty good story as to how we came to be, from the Big Bang to today. Not a complete story by any means, but far, far better than anything else on the table. And note, at the scale of the universe, we've just started doing science." Astronomy has been around for several thousand years, and scientists still have no clue how the first star formed, how our sun formed, how our solar system formed, nor how the planets and moons attained their positions and motions around our sun. =================== Hongo Tedesco, you wrote, "What if we're around for another billion years? What do you think we'll have discovered?" I think we will still have no clue how the first star formed. Dan

[@hongotedesco8931]

@@BibleResearchTools What? We do. We do know how stars form. We do have a pretty good idea as to how solar systems form. Modern astronomy has only been around for about 100 years. Another billion years? Yeah, we will discover many more things. What are you saying? Do you think "we're done" discovering the mysteries of the cosmos? We've just begun my friend.

[@BibleResearchTools]

Hongo Tedesco, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools What? We do. We do know how stars form." LOL! Scientists haven't a clue how the first star formed. _"The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is that we do not know how even a single one of these stars managed to form. There's no lack of ideas, of course; we just can't substantiate them." [Martin Harwit, "Star Formation." Science, Vol. 231, Issue 4742. Mar 7, 1986, p.1201]_ _"Theorists aren't yet ready to revise equations on their cluttered whiteboards, but they agree that the surveys illuminate serious flaws."We're starting from a shaky foundation," says cosmologist Carlos Frenk of the University of Durham, U.K. "We don't understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form." Fellow theorist Simon White of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Garching, Germany, concurs: "The simple recipes in published models do not reproduce the star formation we see. Theorists are now having to grow up." [Robert Irion, "Surveys scour the cosmic deep." Science, Vol.303, Iss.5665; March 19, 2004, p.1750]_ _"We do not really know how stars are formed, nor just how they die. But we think we understand the structure of the most commonly found stars and the mechanisms that generate the energy we see as starlight." [Martin Harwit, "Astrophysical Concepts." Springer, 4th Ed, 2006, p.313]_ Lately, cosmologists have been resorting to computer models, since they are easily manipulated (i.e., You can prove anything with a computer model. You can even predict the earth's temperature a century ahead of time. LOL!) ==================== Hongo Tedesco, you wrote, "We do have a pretty good idea as to how solar systems form." Not a chance. Cosmologists are no closer to understanding the formation and (sometimes bizarre) motions of the planets and moons than they were when Newton wrote this over 300 years ago: _"[T]he parity of reason must take place in the celestial spaces above the earth's atmosphere; in which spaces, where there is no air to resist their motions, all bodies will move with the greatest freedom; and the planets and comets will constantly pursue their revolutions in or bits given in kind and position, according to the laws above explained; but though these bodies may, indeed, persevere in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws... This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." [Isaac Newton, "Newton's Principia: the Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy." Daniel Adee, 1846, Book III, p.501]_ The protoplanet hypothesis would be plausible if anyone had a clue how it might work: _"The Solar System was a really messy place at this time, with gas and dust and debris floating around. But planet formation appears to have happened relatively rapidly. Small bits of dust and gas began to clump together… We can't use modelling yet to exactly predict how the planets of the Solar System ended up where they were. Also, in fine detail our Solar System is kind of a messy place, with phenomena such as asteroids with moons. And we need to have a better understanding of external factors that could affect planet formation, such as supernovae (explosions of old, massive stars.) But the protoplanet hypothesis is the best we've got-at least for now." [Elizabeth Howell, "How are planets formed." __Phys.Org__, Jan 30, 2015]_ The major obstacle is the inability of planetesimals to form from dust by any known physical process: _"Once these planetesimals have been formed, further growth of planets may occur through their gravitational accretion into large bodies. Just how that takes place is not understood." [Harwit, Martin, "Astrophysical Concepts." Springer, 2nd Ed, 1988, p.553]_ _"The formation of planetesimals, the kilometer-sized planetary precursors, is still a puzzling process." [Blum & Wurm, "The Growth Mechanisms of Macroscopic Bodies in Protoplanetary Disks." Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol.46; Sept 22, 2008, p.21]_ It seems that once planetesimals reach a certain size, the force of collision with other large planetesimals causes them to break apart (i.e., back to square one, or two.) Of course, there is still the problem of understanding where all of that dust came from. ==================== Hongo Tedesco, you wrote, "Modern astronomy has only been around for about 100 years. Another billion years? Yeah, we will discover many more things. What are you saying? Do you think "we're done" discovering the mysteries of the cosmos? We've just begun my friend." Cosmologists are going in the wrong direction with all sorts of unknown, hair-brained properties and schemes, such as dark energy and dark matter. My recommendation is throw out all the modern stuff and start over with Newton's work, if cosmologists ever expect cosmology to be recognized as science. Dan

[@wizardofp]

It is hilarious that no one has mentioned that Stephanie Myers wrote the vampire books, this is Stephen Myer. Brat'Deel are you being clever?

[@cameahgill8464]

What these gentlemen are talking about is wisdom and spiritual knowledge already held, passed down orally and occasionally written in hidden scriptures from hundreds of thousands of years ago as part of the mystery school traditions around the world. And life as mainstream academics would have the masses believe bare little resemblance to the true reality. All is mind. We are the mind, the living imagination of GOD itself.

[@daveynotes3266]

Which GOD ? There are about 2000 plus to choose from :-)

[@cameahgill8464]

All of them are interpretations of the human experience of God which is ultimately transcendent and void of human description.

[@jackjones3657]

We have the Bible which is God's word. He provides the description and details for us.

[@cameahgill8464]

All scriptures resemble each other for a reason. And it’s been said that Christianity will be the saving grace of humanity at this point in our evolution.

[@nikkigrace3816]

WOW!!! Mind is officially blown! So grateful for this and I can’t wait to read the book! To God be the glory!

[@vgordonw]

Inference not mentioned at he end of Hoover Institute video on this book. Bible begins with “And God said let there be light, The author notes what was agreed amongst other scholars that “matter came after light”. The inference overlooked or not mentioned is simple and is this….If God said “let there be light”that infers that sound existed before light. Think about how deep the interpretation of Gods words are and the importance of correct and diligent English presentations should be on the true meaning. All the alliterations from Latin to King James to now. Only the first words as an example here are possibly ignored or simply not recognized as such. Simply said, sound exists before light. Cymatics show geometric shapes and patterns from simple single tones from an electronic source direct to a plate with sand or salt/ sugar etc. Extrapolate that to a 3D test tube of variously sized and weighted particles suspended in various viscosities of liquids. I suggest a shape development similar to helix like DNA is conceivable therefore in support of Intelligent Design or God. My thought is of my own but others must have considered this.

[@logicalatheist1065]

Science doesn't support any god or intelligent design

[@thebunnisher]

@@logicalatheist1065 not with the biases you hold no

[@vgordonw]

@@logicalatheist1065 OK ….science as you know it, likely an elementary level or less, says for you to jab yourself with an unknown dagger with unknown fluid and pump it into your blood supply you blindly obey. Thousands of years of intense life experience and thoughts presented in a printed format elicit 5 words from your intellectual and scientific mind. You are a product of our community school system. Go stock the shelves at the liquor store.

[@logicalatheist1065]

@@vgordonw doesn't sound like you have too many active brain cells left... Not with a reply like that, lmao...

[@logicalatheist1065]

@@vgordonw I forgot more about science than you'll ever know about it... Take your tin foil hat off and try again

[@issamelias1747]

Dear Sirs, why don‘t you interview Richard Dawkins himself? Have you done it already? If so, what was his reaction ? God bless both of you. ❤ Medizinalrat Mag phil. Dr. med. Issam Elias/ Austria. 🇦🇹

[@klarakolonits7549]

Highly recommended!

[@hazegrayandunderway8077]

The God hypothesis is coming back and I am onboard with it. I, in a way left God and listened to Hitchens and Dawkins and other ex-Christian atheists. I am not going to lie, I felt they were free, and I liked that. But the Darwinian model of creation is way to full of holes for me. I liberally tried to believe it. I just can't. I believe a designer set it in motion. How? Ha! Nobody knows, but they can tell you there are fingerprints of God all over it. I do understand why people loath religion. But don't blame that on our creator.

[@Z4r4sz]

What is "Darwinian model of creation"?

[@logicalatheist1065]

@@Z4r4sz I would also like to know...

[@logicalatheist1065]

It'll be a hypothesis for a long time because no evidence supports any god... Just a man made whim...

[@toninobelimussi296]

I'd like to know whether one scientist exists who can explain how the image formed on the Shroud (Turin).

[@MartTLS]

It’s a fake .

[@danharte6645]

@@MartTLS no, it's not fake If you're referring to the carbon 14 dating then you may be interested to know that it's now come to light that the sample taken was from a repair made during the 12th century. The weave and material is of a different kind as found in the rest of the shroud. In 2013, scientists in Italy used infrared light and spectroscopy to date it between 280 B.C.E. and 220 C.E., a period covering Christ's lifetime. Further research has shown that the image within the cloth can only be duplicated by use of an excimer laser. The National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA) conducted five years of experiments, using state-of-the-art excimer lasers to train short bursts of ultraviolet light on raw linen, in an effort to simulate the image’s coloration physicist Paolo Di Lazzaro of ENEA has stated: The ultraviolet light necessary to [simulate the image] “exceeds the maximum power released by all ultraviolet light sources available today." It would require “pulses having durations shorter than one forty-billionth of a second, and intensities on the order of several billion watts. It's the real deal but if you dont believe me then fo online and look it up yourself

[@toninobelimussi296]

@@danharte6645 There is so much information out there why the C-dating was not valid, I wouldn't even bother with stating it. The fact is that C-dating should never have been performed on the Shroud as long as the phenomenon through which the image formed - aka RESURRECTION OF JESUS - remains unexplained. And don't you think that, would C-dating have provided a confirmation of the supposed age of the fabric of the Shroud, every atheist out there would be shouting for ever: DO IT AGAIN (until - so they would hope - there would remain nothing of the Shroud).

[@toninobelimussi296]

@@MartTLS Please tell us by which process the image is formed. Since you "know" it's "fake", you certainly can explain the image: is it applied (NOPE), is it carved (NOPE), then how is the image "processed" on the Shroud?

[@danharte6645]

@@toninobelimussi296 I totally agree! I have no doubt in my mind that the shroud is the real thing and all the information and evidence support it. We're blessed to have an image of our Lord 😃

[@Richard-darixdax]

An awesome man. History will admire this man. He is a GOD fearing man! God is great! Listen¡

[@soniavadnjal7553]

Can't help noticing. Dr Meyer is quite good looking. So, a brilliant mind, good looks, and a sense of humour. What a combination! And a must-see!

[@jamesginty6684]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fXu6qpKmhrCNeck

[@Z4r4sz]

Fraudsters need to have these traits in order to convince gullible, uneducated people to give away their money.

[@katherineelizabethco]

I’m wondering if atheists need to believe there is no God, because they are filled with fear and trembling as to how God would judge them. What would God do to atheists in response to their non belief ?

[@caliber693]

My friend the bible is pretty clear about what will happen to people who do not put their faith in the Lord and Savior of the world Jesus Christ. I don't say this to be demeaning, but read the bible, it is the direct source. Don't let others give you their opinion, even me lol. Always go to the source. God is not shy about describing what happens on Judgement day.

[@johnjtong]

Atheist here. I’m no more afraid of the God of Abraham than I am of Zeus. I don’t have anything against people of faith, but I put my trust in reason, doubt, evidence, and irony. I listen to Christian apologists on occasion to help understand my own arguments of where faith ends and reason begins. I think Stephen Meyer is smart but makes really poor arguments with his God Hypothesis especially the leaps of logic from deism to theism. By all means, believe whatever you like, but it’s not for me and I don’t fear judgment from any others than my fellow humans.

[@dougsmith6793]

[kat]: "I’m wondering if atheists need to believe there is no God, because they are filled with fear and trembling as to how God would judge them." For any God that makes sense to me, "fear and trembling" is an odd way to react to it. [kat]: "What would God do to atheists in response to their non belief ?" Laugh.

[@Readthefineprint221]

@@johnjtongthen what about his science is wrong?

[@youbetyababy]

Dawkins head just exploded.

[@RayB1656]

Again, the Christians Bible verses says that you should love your neighbour as yourself ! You are not the best example of a true Christians with your definition of an ''' exploded head ''

[@trixy8669]

@@RayB1656 Who the hell considers Dawkins a neighbor?

[@studygodsword5937]

@@RayB1656 The Bible makes it clear that nobody is perfect, other than Jesus, the ones did Jesus condemn the most, were the finger pointers !

[@mcmanustony]

What an incredibly stupid post. Dawkins is a distinguished world class scientist. Meyer is a hopeless lying zealot at a far right Christian fundamentalist pressure group- which has so far failed to achieve its goal of replacing science education with religious dogma.

[@mcmanustony]

@@trixy8669 His neighbours.

[@bushtick6082]

It must make certain commenters here uncomfortable when they discount all of Meyer’s argument by saying the magic word science without actually dealing with the science Stephen is explaining. They are actually invoking a religious argument based on their belief system, Darwinism, without dealing with its flaws. Theirs is now the faith-based argument.

[@ds525252]

Bush Tick science is a magic word. It’s amazing and it’s true. The entire Scientific community once said the world is flat without a doubt, only idiots said it was round back then, all the text books showed a flat earth then poof like magic.... you know the rest.

[@ds525252]

Bush Tick even Aron Ra who is among my 4 favorite Atheists says Darwinism has been updated.... short version. *Modified. Thanks for your comment. I’m saying that as a believer of God. I’m stating the theory is already on it’s way out..

[@alexnorth3393]

Sure, sure...

[@ds525252]

Alex North 👍✔️

[@SabbathSOG]

Eric what I recommend you do is go over this interview and count the number of times you used the wird "I"

[@Sarcasticass]

Listening to this makes me wonder how long it will be before KZbin bans videos like this for spreading false or misleading information because it doesn’t go along with the scientific communities “consensus “.

[@Z4r4sz]

Unfortunately YT doesnt ban flat earthers, chemtrailers, creationists, big footers and other conspiracy nutjobs. But they like to pretend to be persecuted though.

[@mmatt2613]

@@Z4r4sz why is it unfortunate? everyone deserves a seat at the table, and have their ideas scrutinized, etc.

[@Z4r4sz]

@@mmatt2613 Too many people still fall for it. Supporting the promotion of pseudoscience is a bad idea.

[@mmatt2613]

@@Z4r4sz it isn't any more of a pseudoscience as the multiverse.

[@Z4r4sz]

@@mmatt2613 The multiverse is a theoretical concept, not a scientific theory like light & energy or tectonic plate movements. Creationism is on the level of a flat earth. Big difference.

[@alanflood8162]

Brilliant interview ❤👏👏👏

[@wildernessofzinn17]

Stephen Meyer is a brilliant man. Wow...what miserable creatures writing in the comments below. Why does the heathen rage?. This is not atheism, but anti-theism. Considering the pointless ad hominem attacks below, all I have to say is, "just wait. Enjoy your short nihilistic existence because you're in for one hell of a surprise".

[@sebastianschulz6531]

LOL brilliant who? Meyer? what did he contribute to science?

[@JosePerez-lk8be]

31:00 - The reason no one has called you up to "recall" outdated information on evolution is because the hallmark of the scientific process is its revisability. Just because what you learned in school 20 or 30 years ago no longer hold exactly true today does not mean scientists are trying to sweep their ignorance under the rug, it means you yourself have some research to do. The literature that's been published over the years is literally all over the Internet for you to find... it's not a mystery.

[@electricmanist]

Expansion of the universe (a given) poses the unanswerable question of what existed or caused the formation (or design) of matter in the first place, unless we factor in an initiator or God. Remember, everything (all matter) is subject to laws which not only regulate its operation but define its very existence.

[@wms72]

Laws of physics require a Lawgiver.

[@jackoneill8654]

@@wms72 word games require two to play. Lawgiver requires...oh Lawgiver always was and always will be, even if there was a 'time' of no time...the Creator that wasn't created...that's a winning argument, congrats, you worked hard for that one...and then the Savior, proclaim your faith and claim your prize, another stupendous effort. BTW said Lawgiver is then not alive, you change the definition to say It is. If It ain't gonna die, It can't be alive. Faith is, and can only be, a solitary pursuit.

[@anandsuralkar2947]

@@wms72 lawgiver is physics..its stupid..to say that law of me needs a law giver ok its me myself only

[@anandsuralkar2947]

@@wms72 there needs a creator of a law giver if law giver is a personality Can a personality be self created :-yes Can laws and universe be self created :- yes So yes universe and laws of nature are self created..if 2+2=4 Then is 4+2=6? Yes it is who says that did i make this law,? :-no Who made this new law ?:- It made itself.

[@electricmanist]

@@wms72 The creator of the laws of physical matter is of course God- the source of everything. Our present state of evolution limits our understanding and perception not only of the physical universe but also the spiritual realms which transcend everything.

[@zilefn9212]

Stephen is a clever guy, but at the 22 min point he says something which troubles me. He says he became convinced he could use Darwin's scientific method in a way which would support the ID hypothesis. This feels a little like reasoning backwards, from the desired conclusion to find evidence or engage a method to support that conclusion. That isn't neutral investigation. It feels more like the reasoning engaged in by many proponents of AGW: we know where we want to get to, now let's find a mechanism to get us there. I need to think about this some more.

[@brightwellkunene8995]

He has a problem of wanting to be accepted by the materialist evolutionists. And it doesnt help to be liked by everyone. He should take his side and stand for it

[@brightwellkunene8995]

@Darth Quantum cherry pick which data. Your statement is too general. Evolution has been found out, its only being politically propagated now. You people should abandon Darwin, try and work on a new theory for the origin and diversification of life on earth

[@esterhudson5104]

JJ Lols there’s nothing objectionable about reasoning backwards...all bio-evolutionists do it.

[@Dennis-nc3vw]

This guy is almost 65! He looks 45!

[@theokirkley]

Maybe purity of heart is to blame

[@mcmanustony]

@@theokirkley He is a lying charlatan....what purity?

[@Netomp51]

WHAT ?

[@Metal-Nine11]

Funny that my entire life changed one year ago because Stephen Meyer walked into a lecture on a whim, twenty years ago.

[@ruckboger]

Loved his introduction :)

[@jonirving5606]

this guy seems a bit smarter than the spaghetti monster stuff

[@candeffect]

Christians don't believe in the 'spaghetti monster'. Why do nonbelievers mock God while knowing all criminals effectively mock God?

[@ds525252]

CauseAndEffect the reply you get will be like his first comment. But I don’t fault you for trying. They didn’t believe Him so most won’t believe us either and that’s ok, we dust of our shoes and move forward. We know why we try. You tried.

[@TheMattyPoppins]

@@candeffect I'm confused as to the relationship between being a criminal and being a non believer? False equivalency is it not.

[@michaelimhoff1588]

Thanks Stephen for coming out to Intel yesterday. Sadly, I was in Folsom and you were at the Chandler site. I wasn't aware that you were into Cosmology so much... I would love to share an interesting new idea about what gravity might be, and it might just turn Einstein over in his grave.

[@PhilisophicalDad]

Please do share.

[@michaelimhoff1588]

@@PhilisophicalDad What happened to all the energy that was involved in the Big Bang? Was every bit of it consumed creating particles and atoms, or was some energy left behind? I suggest that the remaining energy exists at the level just below the ability to create the simplest particle. That also suggests that this energy is everywhere, defining what really is space, and also what exists between and within the atoms. This energy appears to move like a fluid to even out the higher and lower levels in order to reach an equilibrium(from higher to lower)... Now as to matter, imagine making a sphere out of a couple of pipe cleaners and dropping it into a clear stream(our sphere represents an atom). Notice that the water runs through the sphere but it still moves with the current... not very efficiently, but yet it moves along. If it is true that matter or particles are caught up in this movement, then we have an explanation as to what is carrying away the galaxies from the origination point. How fast can this fluid movement of energy in space go? It is not limited by the speed of light, because it is not made of matter or particles. In theory this rushing current can move unimaginably fast, many times the speed of light, which by comparison is dreadfully slow. So here's the kicker... What if atoms consume energy to do what they do, for instance electrons using energy to sew a barrier to protect it's sphere from intruders and so on? Then hydrogen would sip energy, while lead would guzzle it. So then these energy sippers and suckers would create a flow of energy, and if these electron barriers(think of their fluidic behavior as sails on a boat) would be the primary reason that atoms are caught in the current of the vast ocean of energy. So then planets and stars would behave much like a hole in a lake, except in this case, the fluid is energy instead of water, and the fluid munching atoms of these stars and planets are the cause of these "holes". Speaking of holes, then this fluid-like energy movement would also help explain how galactic black holes hold on to the stars around their far outer arms. Let's return to the sailboat analogy... Imagine a hydrogen atom as a tiny single sail boat, and a lead atom as a huge pirate ship with sails everywhere. The wind is blowing very fast and hard, so both ships are travelling along at a very good clip. Interestingly enough, they are both going at the same speed. Soon they both run into a dock that is blocking their way... The tiny sailboat barely pushes against the dock, but the pirate ship with all it's sails is pushing the dock so hard that it almost breaks. In this story, the tiny boat is hydrogen and the pirate ship is lead. The light and hard pushing against the dock? That's gravity. So then my theory of gravity is based on these three foundational ideas; 1. Energy is everywhere, much like an ocean and it flows from high to low. 2. Atoms suck(meaning atoms consume energy) 3. Atoms are caught up in the current of moving energy.

[@walterralls9447]

Wonderful!!! God is real!!

[@JewandGreek]

17:58 Not to be anal or anything, but Apollo 11 was the first mission to the moon. Apollo 13 was the one with the problem. Love ya, Stephen!

[@micktulk]

I`ve had a hard day so I won`t try to be humble and keep shtum .....but I`m sure you`ll find that the reference to the creation of the universe in Hebrews 11:3 supports not that it was created from nothing but created from things which do not appear. This is stated to be only apprehended by FAITH. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. However the faith that the writer describes is not appropriated by reason as it is entirely outside of ourselves. The Epistles clearly describe faith toward God as a gift. In fact when it is narrowed down to the person of Jesus they declare that it is His faith that we have been given and by which we are saved. So there is only one place to look for the meaning of everything. Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. But the question is....What are we saved from? Most will say our sin but Jesus said not " I have come to save people from their sin ( a word wrongly understood as bad behaviour ; The correct translation from Koine Greek is "Lost Identity". ) But Jesus did say that he had come to seek and to save THAT which was lost. i.e. man`s mistaken identity of separation from God, and to connect back us to our true identity in our minds, in unbroken fellowship with the Father. He identified with our identification of the Adam lie of original sin, then he died to it for us and rose to include the whole of creation, reconciling all things back to God in unblemished innocence. Reconciliation to the unified and dearly loved state we had from before time began. HOWEVER Thanks Stephen. Anything that might lead any to be reconciled to God through Jesus has to be good.

[@weldonmcmillan5732]

Jesus must be glorified, to the honor and Glory of the Father!

[@rstevewarmorycom]

@@weldonmcmillan5732 Your jesus never existed.

[@weldonmcmillan5732]

Oh Jesus not only existed, He rose from the dead & Jesus the Christ is coming back, Again! Romans 1:18

[@rstevewarmorycom]

@@weldonmcmillan5732 Yeah... NO. Your jesus was a STORY, not fact. It was a story written around 75 CE by a cabal of Greek-speaking rabbis who were trying to re-ignite judaism around a hero-savior figure after the destruction of the temple in 70 CE where the Jews thought god LIVED!! The STORY was set in 30 CE, almost 50 years before because lifespan was 48 back then. They figured nobody would survive to contradict their narrative. They stole the pauline cult visions and dreams-only story of the archangel jesus/yeshua/joshua from the book of Daniel, and tried to claim jesus lived on earth. There is NO record of any jesus tried and executed either by the Romans or the temple, and no records of any of his disciples existing at all! There is not even anything written AGAINST them, which is most suspicious. Anyone who is real had enemies. Euhemerization, the writing of earthly lives for god characters was very popular then and was done to propagandize for the various god cults. These rabbis tried several times to get the jesus myth going, writing 4 works, each crazier than the first, later called Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John by the RC church in order to fool the common folk into thinking the "disciples" wrote them. But they were all written more than a lifetime later.

[@micktulk]

@Van Smack I AM the evidence.