Dr. Meyer Debates Paleontologist Charles Marshall on Premier Radio
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 гру 2024
- In November 2013, Stephen Meyer debated paleontologist and UC Berkeley professor Charles Marshall about Darwin's Doubt and intelligent design. An engaging and timely discussion!
Stephen Meyer is the author of The New York Times best selling book Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the case for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, 2013). For more information on the book and to order your copy visit www.darwinsdoub...
I personally commend people such as Stephen Meyer for fighting the fight. Marshall says he's frustrated, but frankly i'd be frustrated tenfold if i was Stephen, here we have a person dedicated to share his find and researches using all the tools and methods science allows us, telling everyone look at the stats, data and the facts, but most of what the opposition does is to say he has a theist agenda, missing the point that even if that was true it wouldnt and shouldnt matter, the same way Dawkins clearly is guided by is atheist belief, clearly putting it before science or truth, the only thing that matters in any groups of science or not is "IS THE DATA TRUE?". Thank you so much Dr Meyer for your work. I'm no man of science, but of logic and common sense, i questioned Darwin's from a young age, not because of my belief in God, i grew up convince it somehow all fit, but i came to the same conclusions but pretty much kept to myself, i've only discovered Dr Meyer's work a week ago, what he stand for is exactly what i stand for, seeking the scientific way, by what is observable, so far anyone who confronts him does not pinpoint exactly what the problem is in his data. they just say "it doesnt hold" and "its not science", well how so? explain then!!
What are you thanking him for? he has never done any scientific work. Not any. Unlike Behe and Dmebski, he doesn't even pretend to. What are you talking about?
I'll explain. Meyer's position is essentially impossible because he seeks to "prove a negative:" X could not POSSIBLY have evolved, therefore X was designed." That can never be shown, absent "serial numbers" of the designer tattooed onto cells.
Furthermore, his position could NEVER be falsified: i.e., no one could EVER say living things were positively NOT designed because, for example, a designer could have designed them to appear exactly and convincingly like they had evolved through natural selection. If you can't disprove a theory or hypothesis, then your theory or hypothesis is not within the realm of science.
GetMeThere1 What happens is i believe quite the opposite. Two issues they tackle.
1) Meyer and others in growing numbers are pointing at the flaws in Darwin's.
2) They then bring forth the theory of intelligent design as opposed to all just coming into by chance or at random, and goes on demonstrating how they come to such conclusion.
Again, thats a theory, whatever agenda he has, no one is forced to believe him, but he uses the scientific format and method to research all this.
"not in the realm of science", What is science, who is to say what?? The one that has the most credential or part of the top science circle? Science is what it is today because people were not afraid to push the boundaries, and ask the challenging questions, against the opinion of the world or the elite.
Great if thats your way to go, for me i look at the data being true or false, and the issue here is not so much him trying to prove there is intelligent design, that is totally normal for someone who is convinced as he is to go and defend that belief and position, the problem to me comes when the opposition say intelligent design is absolutely impossible. To this day i've seen people debate him and they still cant properly refute the theory he and others bring forth.
Aramis Alexander Please cite some scientific papers Meyer has written (and one which were subject to real peer reviews, not published in a house organ he controls).
Natural selection is not random.
HConstantine Once again, you're getting lost on what is irrelevant, you judge someone on their credentials or lack of, i judge on the data brought forth.
I will not simply believe someone and say it must be true because he is a stellar academic, and in the same way i will not dismiss someone's words and claim just because he is a bum on the street.
I take whats being said from high and low, check it and make my own conclusions. I share why i like Meyer, you asked why and i explained that as well.
He brings a theory he is convinced and passionated about and fights for it and welcomes any debates.
Anything i could share here will not change anyone's made opinion on the guy, so thats irrelevant to start a back and forth, i acknowledged the guy is a phony to you. Great! To me is simply something else.
I did not say natural is random. If you understood it that way, thats definitely not what i meant to say.
Dr Meyer your response to Dr Marshall was legendary... at 1:17 you expose his priori commitment to self organisation materialist answers only, instead of following the evidence where it leads. Then again at 1:20:33 you then point out, he is using speculation because the evidence is against him, so his special pleading argument is actually just a rescue device.
Dr Marshall seems to be using many obvious logical fallacies when you examine the dialog. Several times he attacks the validity of Dr Meyers points with attacks on his knowledge as not being a scientist. This is an obvious Ad Hominem argument with an argument from authority. Dr Marshall's foundational bias towards materialism was exposed at 1:17.
Amazing to see how even the best highest trained professors have no real answers, with evidence. ID clearly wins this debate hands down. Evolution is reduced to fables, babble and speculation of what if's.
I tire also of the argument from authority. While not a trained scientist, the same information is available to Meyers as to Marshall, and so one's articulation of the understanding of that information is what ought to be the object of discussion.
Agreed, Dr. Marshall was simply crushed. Although, I am sure he would disagree ;)
Why has ID created 10,000 species of Bryopyhta moss? What's the point of that in an ID world?
@@ytehrani3885 If you can answer that, you will be one step closer to God...
@@michaelwill7811 If I could answer that, I'd be well on my exhibiting the weird excesses of an unguided, random, material process. 10,000 moss Bryophta seems exactly what wld happen in a natural system that has high levels of competion, enough plasticity in DNA, long periods of times & differential environments, predators, disease etc. Sounds like there's more than enough room & time & ability to cause 10,000 species to emerge.
Dr Stephen Meyer is the best!! God is using him Mightily with truth, intelligence, wisdom , strength and knowledge
Stay Blessed!
Reading the book now. It is very interesting. From listening to this discussion, Marshall didn't answer how proteins were created, only that once the information of the protein is encoded, it can be used in novel ways. The development of a well-folded protein in a search space of 10^77 is a big question that I was hoping to hear the answer to. By postulating the genetic information was already there at the Cambrian era only punts the question earlier on when did novel proteins get encoded, not giving a mechanism by which it occurred.
The other question was the developmental gene regulatory networks. He admits they are very resistant to any mutation and says that it's foolish to think they work the same now as before. That they must have been easier to change at some point. That sounds more like wishful thinking than a scientific model.
I think Meyer was fairly gracious on not pursuing Marshall's fairly empty blanket statements.
Zictomorph That’s a nice explanation. Dr. Marshall reminded me of a magician relying on misdirection, not dealing with the actual arguments being presented, but trying to distract to something which was not the issue being discussed.
Zictomorph•••
I would like to have heard Meyer talk about the fact that big bang and evolution theory is taught to our kids in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century.
There are political motives behind theses arguments that have nothing to do with actual science .
Charles knows he is wrong but he can’t find a way to agree with Stephen. Wait for about 5 years and science will find a way to make their own without given Stephen credit.
@@mcmanustony
So you think this is just about paleontology. That’s the problem with your thinking. It’s not just paleontology. It’s molecular biology, it’s mathematics, computer science, etc. If you live in a silo you think like a silo.
@@mcmanustony
You first. You have not brought one specific point of contention to discuss.
Not to mention Charles claims to “open minded” but the precondition for his open mindedness is whether or not someone is able to appeal to HIS scientific knowledge and preconceptions. The fact that he doesn’t see the irony in that statement takes my breath away. Thank God for people like Steven Meyer.
Will K ••••
Stephen Meyer confines his scientific opinions to ID and evolution . I wish he would speak more about the politics of atheism .
Ever wonder why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century?
Why doesn't Meyer have anything to say about that ?
William Springer I’m sure if you asked him he’d be on board but his whole mission is to get people to take the theory as serious science based on the same historical methodology that underlines darwinism. There are many things up against them (ID) as a movement so much so that they aren’t even advocating ID in schools but rather just teaching the strengths and weaknesses of neodarwinism to students. That shows how deeply entrenched the materialist agenda is in our world. So there’s stuff that they don’t bring up because they’re focused on specific things.
1:22:12 Dr. Marshall starts to lose it. He begins attacking Dr. Meyer's scientific methods and credulity. Isn't that usually the case, when you can't refute the point, you attack the person making the statement.
+Andrew P standard propaganda tactics because they know it works, that's the sad part. It works so well on those who are already biased towards a certain view. This counts also for theologians and their biased flocks, well described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4. If someone tells you what you want to hear...(that which tickles your ears, read those verses to see what I mean, try the NASB translation, or Weymouth, or both at bible dot cc).
Also google the article:
"The Manipulation of Information"
That being said, the source of information is still important to examine, their track records show their attitudes towards inductive reasoning and basicly whether or not they prefer propagandistic arguments or logical arguments.
Marshall is right. Meyer isn't a scientist. At the time point that you mention, Marshall clearly and specifically lays out the commonality of life. He destroys Meyer's argument.
It's been over a year since I made that comment. I don't agree with you that Meyer is not a scientist. I don't remember Meyer arguing against the commonality of life. However, the fact that 20 of the 27 known phyla appear suddenly in the Cambrian layer is detrimental to darwinistic evolution. Darwin acknowledged that changes must happen in almost imperceptible increments, gradually over multitudes of generations or the change would prove to be deleterious to the organism. This sudden appearance requires massive amounts of new specified information and darwinian evolution cannot account for it. Intelligence IS the only known source for new specified information.
Well you don't get to disagree with me about Meyer not being a scientist. He isn't. Plain and simple.
Ah, but these phyla don't appear 'suddenly'. More like several million years, with preceeding groups that gave rise to them. You know, like how all that is mentioned in the sources that Meyer quote mined from, like the works of Marshall, Erwin, etc. Darwin's pure gradualism was shown to be wrong anyway as he himself expressed doubts about it being specifically the case. More creationist misrepresentations.....
Intelligence 'accounts' for nothing. You sound like a fucking presuppositional apologist.
I'm sorry David, but you don't get to assert your opinion and then tell me I can't have my own, especially when your opinion isn't even supported.
I gather from your remarks you're an atheist. That means you're forced to disagree with Meyer or your worldview crashes. As your objections stem from extreme bias, which isn't a problem unless it forces you into foolishness, which it obviously has done for you.
I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself though, if "intelligence accounts for nothing" then please offer an explanation of where the new specified information originated.
And you're wrong, they do appear 'suddenly' meaning there are no ancestral predecessors for those 20 phyla in the precambrian layers. Have you actually studied this, or did you just miss your coffee and feel like throwing an atheist temper tantrum?
Focused. Precise. Organised. Relevant multi-discipline referencing. Dignified. Respectful. Knowlegeable. Stephen Meyer, a man of great grasp of education extending beyond Science. Thank you!
I thank God for raising people like Dr. Meyer from time to time to refute the arguments from atheists.
I thought it was Justin bieber for a second
Meyer lost this argument badly. Marshall explained the basis of the Cambrian explosion clearly.
@@wambaofivanhoe9307
Haha !! Only to the blind like yourself 😂
Meyers is clearly brilliant.
He is eloquent but it’s an Emperor without clothes. ID has no testable hypothesis. It is crap.
@@wambaofivanhoe9307Definitely not crap because many scientists discuss this topic all the time.
yep@Drifter4ever
@@wambaofivanhoe9307 you heard that somewhere and think it sounds cool
Charles Marshall refutes himself in his opening argument.
No he doesn’t. Lol.
@@sspbrazil When Marshall says one cell unfolds into a chicken he omits the egg unfolded from a fully developed chicken. Self refuting.
@@rickm5853 that’s nonsensical.
@@sspbrazil First Round KO! by Meyer
@@mathew3267 hardly.
GREAT PROGRAM DR MEYER IS DOING AN EXCEPTIONAL JOB, I ALWAYS ENJOY HIS LECTURES
No need to shout.
Charles Marshall sounds like he's trying to sound calm and objective, but not really succeeding! Also the micro-aggressions are pretty juvenile: E.g. Calling ID a creationist movement when ID people always make a distinction.
He also made several remarks how Dr Meyer is not a scientist when he obviously is. Marshall also sounded very upset towards the end lol
Pete Said •••
Well, the main thing is that debates like these justify keeping ID out of the public schools.
Ever wonder why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century?
Can't have hundreds of millions of heavily armed ignorant peasants running around thinking they have a soul and there's a God, now can we?
Glad you mentioned the fact that Charles seem to get somewhat hostile toward the end. I think he knew he'd lost the debate and was frustrated.
Great talk and Dr. Marshal was far more engaging and respectful that Atkins was. After listening to this I remain firmly entrenched as a theist based on the evidence outlined by Dr. Meyer. Great show!
John Watson •••
Have you ever wondered why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century?
Kinda makes you think they're up to something sneaky, doesn't it?
@@williamspringer9447 I used think about that too. But, you know what I did?
I put a jet engine in my Mustang last spring, and the chicks really dig me.
You couldn't get a degree in engineering with out passing Latin, Greek and logic not to long ago.
The fantastic designer of Bells lighthouse (The first off shore lighthouse) never finished his degree because he failed Greek/Latin.
P.S. not arguing against Big bang just answering your question.
I am against Materialism (the philosophy,, and methodological materialism( though.
@@mcmanustonyoh am I playing being condescended at by an atheist.
Wow I have never played this game before 🤣
In plenty of Private schools here in Australia it's still part of the Curriculum.
But Google is your friend for that information I gave you a data point to get started.
And I am talking about the mind body problem, which is currently taught as having being won by materialism.
But the issue is we have no intelligible description of material. So the mind body problem is dead, because matter is ethereal not because mind is.
There are plenty of non religious scientists who are examining the implications of this.
Chomsky and his series on Machine ghost and the limits of Understanding is a good start.
@@mcmanustony do you know what the most magical and rare entities I can describe are?
A polite Rational Materialistic Atheist and/or a a polite Rational young earth creationists on the internet.
I was listening to one of the Meyer's comments about rewiring at about 38 minutes.
I just saw a show on someone rebuilding a car. And by far the most complicated piece of the car that he had to contend with was wiring the car. By most complicated I mean most numerically complicated.
Instead of trying to fix the old wiring, all of it, he's simply installed new set of wires for the modules that he wanted to upgrade.
Also for every kit that he used in rebuilding the car, additional information was provided that had nothing to do with operating the car. For example, there were additional instructions on bolting stuff, on how to bolt it, on what pattern to use and on how tight to torque the bolts.
There is a lot of information that is used in assembling or rebuilding the car.
At the time that I saw the video or series of videos, I thought that it looked like a lot of work in putting the car together.
But in hearing the numbers and the discussion, it all seems relatively simple to put the car together compared to a living organism.
It is common knowledge that a person or team of people designed the car and participated in the manufacturing of it. So it is very simple to understand that the human being or the living organism was design buy a intelligent being.
If you ask a child who built the car, the child would say the car builder.
***** The designer has always been.
The name for _Almighty_ in Hebrew is called _El Shaddi_.
_Agnosticism_ calls God the first cause.
In the New Testament the name of the Son of God is _Yeshua Hamashiach_.
God is. Has always been. And, always will be.
John 1
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it...
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!""
***** There has to be a beginning. God is the only explanation. God has no beginning or end. He is the beginning and end of all things.
Jesus says in the book of Revelation: _I am the beginning and the end, the first and the last._
Jesus is God.
"Brainless dun it all " is not an intelligent argument. We're talking about life and the cell, things man does not understand very well. The other problem is, a complex creature CANNOT produce something more complex than itself. It can ONLY produce something less or as complex as itself. That's a law of the universe. Macro evolution is NOT POSSIBLE.
I like that Meyer's arguments do not require speculation. Marshall's arguments would be completely invalid if the guess of a malleable regulatory control system were found to be untrue. Where is the evidence?
Greg Nelson •••
Hey, Marshals doing his best with what he's got to work with .
We can't have hundreds of millions of heavily armed ignorant peasants running around thinking they have a soul and there's a God. That could get ugly .
"Their central dogma is the immortality and transmigration of the soul. A doctrine which they regard as the finest incentive to courage, since it inspires contempt of death."
-Julius Caesar, "The Commentaries", regarding the spiritual beliefs of the ancient Druids, 51 B.C.
This was a well done interview between the two men and the discussion was done with respect for each other and from the interviewer, respect from all 3 men. Nicely done.
Barbara Duncan •••
But who won?
I sensed feigned respect from Marshall. He was intolerably arrogant. Why are the dimwits always the most arrogant?
Evolutionists. They make conjectures, present it as facts. Then make the claim that this conjecture is overwhelming proof of their theory. Anyone who dares to question their conjecture, gets ridiculed.
yeessss, exactly!!
Very true
So the statements made the religious belivers are based on what exactly.
@@tonywilliams49 Historical biblical and extra-biblical data
@@tonywilliams49 Philosophy. When you walk down a deserted beach and see something complex written in the sand, you do not say that this was written by chance. You think a mind created that. The complexity of the human body is hundreds of thousands times more complex than any words written in the sand. But anyone who assumes a mind created life, gets ridiculed.
I’m a layman, but I do understand the general themes of the debate. Meyers logic makes more sense to me. Energy poured through a closed system does not create specified complexity that’s necessary and required to build complex body parts.
The basic question is how did the first cell form spontaneously.
Indeed, and that is a question ID can never answer. Science on the other hand does not sugges that a cell ever formed spontaneously.
parsivalshorse The only evidence for ID is extreme complexity, which does not necessarily mean design. However, there is very little evidence that a cell could have evolved from a more simple form considering the amount of information and parts needed just to replicate.
+Sandy Combs What? None of the most complex things discovered have been shown to be designed. Sorry, but you are talking nonsense. None of the most complex human creations were designed - they all evolved. From the computer to the automobile. Can you name me anything KNOWN to be designed as complex as DNA, an ecosyste, a cell?
You seem unaware that ID collapsed before it even got as far as proposing a test for design.
parsivalshorse I'm not sure what you're talking about? Every bit of technology we have was designed by someone or several people. Besides I do not subscribe to ID at all. However, Darwinian evolution cannot explain the emergence of life...at all. Just because it is the only explanation you can come up with doesn't mean it is the correct explanation to where the first cell came from. I see no current hypothesis as adequately explaining how the first cell or any cell came into being.
+Sandy Combs You have confused evolution for abiogenesis. Evolution is not about how life began.
Dr Stephen Meyer "Awsome points of view " Thanks
Charles is quite condescending at various points. I suspect this is an avoidance tactic.
libertatem habet pretium it’s the modus operandi of darwinists. Their arrogance is mind boggling and yes, it’s an avoidance tactic
I noticed that too. The explanation of an avoidance mechanism makes sense. Arrogance is inherently blind, as it exists to prevent the shame of being wrong.
Matt Houston •••
The science of classical logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto
So the public is extremely vulnerable to fallacious arguments and clever logical fallacies.
its because his religion is being attacked.
You’re condescending.
"Stephen doesn't have a background in biology." *Continues to make general statements and ad hominem attacks while Stephen speaks pure science.
Not really. He’s a sham in the scientific community.
@@darkdragonite1419 And what does he says that is not scientific?
DARK DRAGONITE •••
Did you write "the scientific community" as if it had some credibility ?
Ever wonder why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century?
Maybe it's because they want to enlighten us?
@@anaarkadievna all he does is question evolution, he doesn’t bring forth any credible evidence that gives an alternative to evolution, the problem is since you are religious and he throws in some of his understanding of science, you get hooked and believe he’s accomplishing something scientific, when in fact he’s just regurgitating what he’s read and wraps gish gallop around it to sound like he’s making a point.
@@sspbrazil Well... I believe there a lot of questions with evolution myself... i've seen that those who support it reject debates with those who question it (and I am not talking about ID; ID suports evolution in case you did'nt know - you didn't read their stuff)... so I believe there is lot of space to be agnostic about evolution,especially when Nobel Price winner don't want to respond to these questions...
One thing I notice which is not mentioned in these discussions, that I'm aware of, is the probability problem. That cells would have to be in an almost constant phase of mutation, to successfully select functional proteins etc, and that those cells would have to survive long enough to be naturally selected in order to progress on to the next stage of evolution.
Why they even use the word select. Selection means someone doing the selection.
Did Marshall say that building computers was more complex than building a living cell. Oh really, Ok then simply do as you say, fold some proteins, don't let them get contaminated, and unfold them into a living organism. Otherwise, wake up, shut up, and listen to what the preponderance of evidence shows us. And please stop taking my tax money, to teach such a highly speculative, though very creative idea, to our children. The concept that one species could evolve into another species, through a random natural selection process, lacks enough intellectual sensibility to be considered as a plausible hypothesis, let alone to be taught in schools as a theory.
RD: John, how did you get to work today?
John: Well I drove my car RD.
RD: Are you sure you drove a car John?
John: Yes that is my car, right there, RD, and I drove it to work today.
RD: Now John, that is not a car. I know it appears to be a car, and I can't explain what it is, but I know it can't really be a car. You see John, if that was a car, well, that would just be incredible.
or how about this logic?
Judge: Mr Dawkins, can you explain how all of this garbage ended up on the your neighbors lawns and the city streets? By the pictures I have seen, it certainly appears to have come from your property and intentionally designed to end up everywhere else.
RD: Well your honor. I had a helium balloon in my yard and it exploded.
Judge: Ok and so where did all the garbage come from?
RD: It just randomly formed that way.
Judge: Are you trying to convince me that all of that garbage came from nothing? That something can come from nothing?
RD: Well of course, something did come from nothing, well there must have been something, but really it came from nothing.
And you Neo-Darwinists call this kind of logic and reasoning, science. OK.
I’d he did then
He is simply wrong
- how many cells
Have been
Built from
Scratch?
William Baker •••
Ever wonder why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century?
Maybe they want to enlighten us ?
"Their central dogma is the immortality and transmigration of the soul. A doctrine which they regard as the finest incentive to courage, since it inspires contempt of death."
-Julius Caesar, "The Commentaries", regarding the spiritual beliefs of the ancient Druids, 51 B.C.
@@williamspringer9447 Watch "The Principle". It's been a long road for them to get where they are.
My heroes of today's era: C.S. Lewis and Stephen Meyer, in their profession and defense of Christianity,
philosophically and scientifically.
The real problem for Social Darwinists is this. There's NO SUCH THING AS A SIMPLER FORM OF LIFE. Every form of life is mind blowing in its complexity.
Become a composer then you will understand that without an intelligence, combining sounds to create music cannot be just random evolution of noise. The arrow of music requires millions of bits of intelligence to arrive at the most basic melody, yet we think nice tune, write it sown, now it is a transcription in brevity without the 999 thousand other bits we have taken for granted that were intelligently built for us already, ear,mind, instrument, fingers, scales, strings etc... Thank you Stephen for articulating much of my reasoning on this subject. Regards Arto.
Arto Heino •••
Yeah, there are a whole lot of people who refuse to accept that the universe and life are the result of random chance .
I wonder why they are so afraid of intelligent design ?
I also wnt to point out that Marshall says things started with a cell and built from the bottom up. Maybe, but how did the cell come to be. For that, he should have a discussion with Dr. James Tour.
WHY not consider a mind behind it all? It's not like science has all the answers... at he end of the conversation Dr Meyer was ridiculed. Why? The man is highly intelligent and just looks at important questions from all sides. I respect that!
That was a fantastic conversation
Sounds like Mr. Marshall is spinning a fairy tale here - a great hope in a happily ever after ending (one in which Mr. Darwin would approve, of course).
I'm 32 minutes and 34 seconds in, and so far, Professor Charles Marshall has not given a proper rebuttal. It seems he is claiming that Dr. Meyer uses outdated studies from the 1980s. Marshall also claims that thinking of design and information with genetics is "completely offbase". If that's the best opinion he's got, then this is not looking good for evolution. I'll listen more to the debate later.
citizenguy •••
The Darwinian theory of evolution is dependant upon authority figures in science to assert that it is true .
The problem is that the mainstream scientific community is both morally and intellectually bankrupt . Nine out of ten Americans still believe that man walked on the Moon , even though there is zero reliable evidence that it ever happened. They believe because authority figures have told them so.
They teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a.century.
@@williamspringer9447 There is a reflective panel on the moon , we bounce lasers off it to accurately determine its distance from earth. Who do you suggest put it there ?
Brad Whelan•••
Here is a cogent argument that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that man never walked on the Moon: ••••
"Without the presentation of solid evidence no argument can be a good one"
-Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 1985 ••••
"... why didn't the astronauts make some visible signal from the Moon? It would have been relatively easy to touch off some hypergolic chemicals, beam a laser to a mirror on Earth, create a pattern with lightweight black dust, or provide some other means of definitely proving that they were really there. Relying on an easily simulated picture on TV was the least reliable means of 'proof'." -Bill Kaysing, "We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle",1974, page 7 •••••••••
Just imagine a 100 foot diameter "A", written in light weight black dust, on the surface of the Moon for every school child to see, visible from their State's observatory ."A" for America or "A" for Apollo. ••••••
And throughout all six of the supposedly successful missions to the Moon the astronauts never took any pictures of the stars. They could have filmed the Earth from the Moon with high resolution color film , showing the cities lit up at night, the Earth spinning , with atmosphere turning, orbiting brilliantly around the Sun ; possibly the most magnificent film footage ever taken . Instead, all of the pictures and film of the Earth were either of extremely poor resolution or easily reproducible with models and trick photography in a 1969 movie studio. ••••••
What are the chances that some of the most brilliant scientists in the world , working for nearly a decade on the Moon landing, spending thirty billion 1969 dollars , and supposedly succeeding in landing on the Moon six times, would forget to produce any solid evidence that it ever happened? Let's say that there was a 1% chance of these geniuses forgetting to produce each of the five forms of solid evidence mentioned here (1. "A" on the Moon, 2. pictures of the stars, 3. Detailed colored film of the Earth, 4. laser from Moon to Earth, 5. Hypergolic explosion on Moon). I say that there is none, but just to be generous , let's say that there's a 1% chance. That's 100 × 100 × 100 × 100 × 100 to 1 against . Ten billion to one . But remember , they forgot six times in a row . That's ten billion to the sixth power to one against . That's sixty zeros . That's approximately The number of atoms thought to be in our solar system. The State executes men for DNA evidence , which is reliable to about one in a billion . That's the standard for proof beyond a reasonable doubt to take a man's life in a court of law. Sixty zeros proves inductively, beyond a reasonable doubt, that man never walked on the Moon. •••••
"A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based on the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind."
-L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99 ••••••••••
"Sotheby's has announced that it is putting up for auction moon rocks brought to Earth by an unmanned Soviet space mission in 1970 and expects they will sell for between $700,000 and $1 million.
The rocks to be auctioned off in New York City on November 29 are the only known documented samples from the moon to be legally available for private ownership." -Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty •••••
"A team of physicists led by a professor at UC San Diego has pinpointed the location of a long lost light reflector left on the lunar surface by the Soviet Union nearly 40 years ago that many scientists had unsuccessfully searched for and never expected would be found.
The French-built laser reflector was sent aboard the unmanned Luna 17 mission, which landed on the moon November 17, 1970, releasing a robotic rover that roamed the lunar surface and carried the missing laser reflector. The Soviet lander and its rover, called Lunokhod 1, were last heard from on September 14, 1971." - Science Daily
@@williamspringer9447 Could you clarify as to whether you dispute that we landed on the moon, or we did land but failed to disembark .
In 20:00 - 35:28, Charles Marshall is very calm and clear in his arguments and explanations. I love how he breaks down the problems with Stephen's concept of the Cambrian explosion, gene theory (specifically how genes are expressed across different species), fossil record, and his intellectual dishonesty when he cherry picks certain studies. He doesn't only rely on his (extensive) research experience as a paleontologist, zoologist, biologist and physicist, but legitimately tries to explain his point of view in layman's terms. On the other hand, Meyer is also kind, articulate and charming, even though I disagree completely with most of his ideas. But, he didn't have good comebacks for Marshall's main criticisms.
The fact that 99% of the comments here are saying things like Meyer won 10-1, or "Marshall is so condescending", show that most of these commenters skipped his segment and didn't care to hear his point of view, aka brainwashed. Or maybe Meyer's channel manager is deleting critical comments.
I think a prime mover theistic position is possible hypothesis for the origin of the universe and I respect religion as a way to provide moral principles and comfort to billions of people. I don't agree with some atheists that say abolishing religion will make the world better. However, intelligent design is very far from becoming a scientific theory. I read Darwin's Doubt and all Meyer does is compare a myriad of studies in a surface level way, then cherry pick specific theories and present them in an elementary and biased way. Even if you 100% agree with the premise in Darwin's Doubt, at no point does Meyer provide an alternative to evolution. It is a comparative study at best, that doesn't provide any new evidence or original experimental data, or measurements about biology, or the origin of life. How could it, since Meyer has never specialized in the very things he writes about (his studies are in Philosophy of Science, not biology, paleontology, or genetics). How did God or "disembodied mind" do it? Where is the evidence? Lack of evidence for evolution doesn't prove ID.
Why obsess over the origin of life or the universe, when humanity will probably never be able to know the truth? There are millions of other fascinating scientific questions that can be studied.
What could be more fascinating to study then where we came from?
I am curious, what specifically do you find issue with from Meyer's arguments against naturalistic materialist explanations of evolutionary theory?
there is a few dozen design patterns in information evolutionists only see three: trees, randomess, and nothing. yet they believe they know everything.
Bob Phin •••
Hey, give em a break. They've got hundreds of millions of heavily armed ignorant peasants to control . Can't have them all running around thinking they have a soul , now can we?
That's why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century.
"Their central dogma is the immortality and transmigration of the soul. A doctrine which they regard as the finest incentive to courage, since it inspires contempt of death."
-Julius Caesar, "The Commentaries", regarding the spiritual beliefs of the ancient Druids, 51 B.C.
Charles Marshall did not argue Darwinism. He simply attacked (poorly) ID.
Did he seriously just make the argument that ID isn't science because we haven’t invented any new words? Please tell me I miss understood that argument, lol.
I'm afraid there is not much more to understand. Maybe ID proponents should play a card from the SJW handbook...
Comment was 5 years ago but whatever. It’s not that ID is the science, ID is the conclusion drawn from the science.
Macro evolution is a hoax with 0 evidence to support it. Just look at the facts, no transitional fossils, order to disorder, no new information in the genetic code. So much evidence against macro evolution. These atheists always throw insults from a log in a raging river that they are so desperately hanging onto.
@@barnum99
"no transitional fossils"
ua-cam.com/video/BwBWvVLlC2g/v-deo.html
You can do your own checking.
"order to disorder"
Learn thermodynamics before you speak.
"no new information in the genetic code"
...Uhm, how does one get dogs from wolves? Perhaps... mmm, new genetic information? Have you read up on why AIDS is so hard to cure? AZT was a very promising prospect... until it was found that HIV always evolved to combat it. (though not in an orthogenesis type manner...)
Nick Nack This is seriously misunderstanding what is being asserted. The assertion is a positive one, not a negative one. Not “We don’t understand X, it must be God.” but “We do understand X. This is how it works.”
@@ewallt
The problem is it doesn't give a very testable 'how' to it working. If, for instance, one could detail such a being in greater detail and the natural process by which they arrived and made life, then one could see whether it was the case. As it stands, there is no known such thing. In this sense, intelligent design is a road block-one doesn't gain anymore understanding. One can't tell one the actual manifestation of such a being or how they made life, to what type of design they aimed for. The mere existence of things necessary for life that we observe since we are alive and aware of our world is to speak quite redundantly.
The issue is that while in terms of a formal philosophical argument, they are difference, the way the actual premise is established is based on our ignorance. There is no known instance of 'irreducible complexity' in a way of positive evidence. All instances of 'irreducible complexity' is typically in the sense that there is no known way to create, say a cell. That is relying on 'gaps'.
The Cambrian Explosion is said to be explained by "Punctuated Equilibrium," which is a deliberately disingenuous, equivocal term which essentially means: "evolution by natural selection works by tiny, incremental mutations over long, long, long periods of time...except for when it doesn't, 'cos sometimes it's fast and just produces new species all over the place, then goes back to being slow. Why? Well, it must have, because we don't have any other explanation... but it's definitely not ID, anything but that."
Stephan is definitely right on his approach on this great healthy shift on the Scientific community, personally I always knew that there is an intelligent force that directed all the laws that exist in the universe, creation along with the material existence and everything in it it’s too complex to have been occurred by some random coincidence, it just doesn’t make sense mathematically. You can never understand the origins of life from the material dimension you must have a director that puts everything in order and balance for the right tuning of everything in existence. Creations cannot create themselves they’re bonded within their borders and parameters , to be able to create anything on the sophisticated level of complexity you need a mind intelligence and conscience , so it’s pretty simple to come to the conclusion of an intelligent design. The meaning of any system lies outside of the system therefore the meaning of the universe lies outside of the universe.
Pinto ••
Why does the mainstream scientific community so resolutely refuse to respect the intelligent design theory ? What is their real agenda ?
Why do they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century?
Getting into his specificity of the DNA sequence versus that of computer code, I don't think he really gets what he's talking about. There are relatively few useful protein configurations compared to the number of possible proteins. If you construct a protein wrong by changing just one amino acid, the protein won't fold the way it needs to, and won't work. So you have a protein that's a few hundred amino acids long and you mess up one amino acid and it therefore doesn't work at all. How is that different from getting a single 1 or 0 wrong in computer code and end up with a nonfunctional portion of code?
Milton Wetherbee •••
The important thing to remember is that we can't have hundreds of millions of heavily armed ignorant peasants running around thinking they have a soul and there's a God. That could get ugly.
Think about it .
"Their central dogma is the immortality and transmigration of the soul. A doctrine which they regard as the finest incentive to courage, since it inspires contempt of death."
-Julius Caesar, "The Commentaries", regarding the spiritual beliefs of the ancient Druids, 51 B.C.
I think Stephen's first goal is to get people to consider that there might be an intelligent designer, and after people consider that there might be, then you can start having a conversion about what that designer might be like. It's very difficult to talk about attributes of something that people don't believe exists or even might exist as they get hung up on the existence bit. I mean, why worry about the aspects of a being you don't believe might exist?
35:00. I have heard this before. It is an old argument from before the digital nature of genetics was known. This notion of proteins having low specificity sounds like this. So life just kind of "mushes" or "slimes" things together?
Robert Dennis •••
If like to know why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century.
What do you think ?
@@williamspringer9447 I did have a course in logic and critical thinking in my college. I think it was an elective course though. If there is no emphasis on logic, perhaps the powers that be, don't like students applying it to politics or to implications beyond the immediate scope of their fields.
Robert Dennis ••••
So you're trying to say that you think our government didn't teach us logic because they want to deceive us?
I think you're right .
I also think that they don't want hundreds of millions of heavily armed ignorant peasants running around thinking they have a soul and there's a God. That could get ugly.
"Their central dogma is the immortality and transmigration of the soul. A doctrine which they regard as the finest incentive to courage, since it inspires contempt of death."
-Julius Caesar, "The Commentaries", regarding the spiritual beliefs of the ancient Druids, 51 B.C.
Dr Meyer swept the floor with his opponent here.
he always does
No he didn’t lol.
@@sspbrazil Yes he did 😂
@@TyrellWellickEcorp no he didn’t.
@@sspbrazil explain why he didn’t then. If Charles Marshall refuted anything that Stephen said, please, by all means, let me know. Good luck!
Perhaps Charles Marshall has forgotten that a great deal of the most famous scientists that our children still learn about at school were scientists that were convinced of a creative designer. So with these, the so called '''word map''' was already outlined until the confusion of Origin of Species in the 1880s.The unexplained Cambrian explosion plagued Darwin till his death. If Darwin realised that the cell was more than just a drop of protoplasm, but had met with Stephen C Meyer, he would never have written his confused '' map'' of Origin of Species.
Wayne Thomas •••
I wonder if Darwin would have persisted if he had known that his theory would be used to brainwash billions of people?
Ever wonder why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century?
"Their central dogma is the immortality and transmigration of the soul. A doctrine which they regard as the finest incentive to courage, since it inspires contempt of death."
-Julius Caesar, "The Commentaries", regarding the spiritual beliefs of the ancient Druids, 51 B.C.
Marshall assertions:
1) Marshall has more well-rounded knowledge so that he has “comprehensive grasp” (authority argument)
2) that Meyer is “giving up” because he doesn’t understand the issue - like not understanding fusion (disingenuous argument that ID doesn’t further scientific inquiry)
3) Meyer isn’t “committed” to “persistent” Scientific effort (again arguing that ID isn’t science)
4) minimizing the problem of the Cambrian explosion because the “evidence is thin” and it was a “long time ago”
5) Meyer is “outside of the scientific tradition”
6) Meyer’s work is creationist “now intelligent design” - a false characterization
7) Meyer’s work is dated “1980’s model of the way genes” operate (disingenuous minimization) and that Meyer is using information that was taught when Marshall “was a lad” - arrogant
8) Meyer is “not a biologist, he’s a philosopher”. He is a PHYSICIST
Utterly arrogant and disingenuous
Jender Newtrall •••
Hey, Marshals must doing his job. We cant have hundreds of millions of heavily armed ignorant peasants running around with pitchforks, thinking that they have a soul and there's a God that they're going to have to account to, can we?
Ever wonder why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century?
I don’t think you were actually listening to what Mr. Meyers was explaining. Charles knows Stephen is correct but can’t find a graceful way to agree.
@@mcmanustonyI bet you believe man walked on the Moon too, don't you? You should know, just because authority figures say something is true doesn't make it so.
@@mcmanustony Do you believe that man walked on the Moon?
@@mcmanustony Answer the question.
What does genetics have to do with the Cambridge
Explosion unless your talking about my mutation
As to Marshall pointing out that life grows while human made objects don't, I would just like to point out that the fact that an intelligent designer should be capable of such feats that are so far beyond our abilities. Therefore, using that as an argument against intelligent design is flawed. Furthermore, we are making strides in machine learning, which is a type of growth, granted that it's one on a much lower level, but considering our capabilities verses that of those an intelligent designer capable of creating the universe would have to possess, it's not unreasonable that such would be the case.
Milton Wetherbee •••
Marshal was in there to win . That's what counts for mainstream science in these public evolution theory debates . If you want to see a real nasty one , check out Ward vs Meyer.
They say of course that they don't teach intelligent design in schools because they want our kids to be properly educated . But interestingly , these people who want us properly educated haven't taught the science of classical logic in our State controlled public schools for more than a century.
Can anyone explain using ID the unused hip bone of sea mammals?
Declarations About Whale Hip Bones Were Wrong
www.icr.org/article/major-evolutionary-blunders-are-whales
The bones have DNA. DNA is packed densely with complex information. Where did the complex information come from.
They have hip bones because hip bones are part of the standard mammal chassis and taking them out entirely would have caused problems or felt wrong or something. The idea that the intelligent designer just couldn't leave them in is a reflection of particular theological views about how God would do it if he were the intelligent designer. Darwin popularized this particular theology by using it as the null hypothesis in the Origin. In the case of whales, the vestigial hip bones may help anchor the penis.
Marshall disapproves his own point by the analogy of a computer program existing only though a large support of all kinds of ancillary mechanisms. Yeah life. You cannot have ONE cell, or even ONE animal arrive on its own. You'd have to have the entire support system arrive simultaneously. Otherwise the cell or animal will instantly die - end of origins. Intelligent desin shows that the entire support system DID arrive simultaneously.
Dan Engle •••
Nope! Intelligent design means there's a God . Which means we all have immortal souls .
And we can't have hundreds of millions of heavily armed ignorant peasants running around thinking they have a soul and there's a God. That could get ugly .
Ever wonder why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century?
Do you think it's because they want to enlighten us ?
"The public is a ferocious beast; one must either chain it or flee from it." -Voltaire
"Their central dogma is the immortality and transmigration of the soul. A doctrine which they regard as the finest incentive to courage, since it inspires contempt of death."
-Julius Caesar, "The Commentaries", regarding the spiritual beliefs of the ancient Druids, 51 B.C.
Congradulations on your work which is obviously scientific and well done on your persistance in overcoming with grace and politeness all the personal-centered critisism.
Matin Angel •••
Dr Stephen Meyer is a great man . I must wish he would speak about the fact that they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century.
Marshall has ignored that Meyer was trained as a physicist. Is't a physicist a scientist. Meyer seem to follow the method of science to arrive at a conclusion that there is intelligent design in the genetic code.
He isn't using the scientific method
He has a degree in physics a degree in earth sciences and worked as a
geophysicist, but his critics always refer to him as a philosopher. Plus
Meyers works with other brilliant scientists from many fields.
Apples in Mono •••
Isn't the scientific method where scientists lie to us and say that man walked on the Moon, even though there is zero reliable evidence that it ever happened?
I prefer to reason through arguments for myself , rather than just blindly follow scientists .
Of course , that isn't made any easier by the fact that they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century.it
Read Inventing the AIDS Virus by Dr Peter Duesberg if you really want to understand the scientific community.
Great conversation. What’s the state of the art?
Modern day scientists find the idea of a god as the designer utterly horrifying because they consider that subject to be settled. They assume there is no God and no designer and proceed from there. In other words, you have no choice but to use only material based explanations otherwise you're a deluded crackpot to be ignored and shut down. Isn't it ironic how we have come full circle. In the times when the consensus was that the sun revolved around the earth and everything emanated from the word of God, woe betide anyone who wanted to posit an opposing view. Nowadays, it's the other way around. Even the mention of god or spirituality or anything of that nature, however clever or qualified you happen to be, will get you ostracized and ridiculed in the world of science. It's extraordinary how powerful the modern day atheist has become.
01:19:02 "We don't really have rules which we have to adhere to, like a lawyer, to establish reliable maps into the past, the future, or describing the present" But professor Marshall seems to have rules when it comes to rejecting all hypothesis that would point towards intelligent design, which is tad hypocritical if you ask me. In addition, at this point in the conversation Marshall was exposed as avoiding the arguments made in the book by simply saying, "It could have been different in the past". The irony here is, as the host pointed out, that this kind of 'avoiding the argument' behavior is usually associated with young earth creationists, a group that is loathed and mocked by the scientific establishment, to which professor Marshall belongs to, yet he found himself employing these exact same tactics ("It must have been different in the past"). That must have been a bitter pill to swallow for Marshall, but hopefully an instructive one.
Alex Kibou •••
Marshal did a good job with what he has to defend .
He knows that we can't have hundreds of millions of heavily armed ignorant peasants running around thinking they have a soul and there's a God. That could get ugly.
Ever wonder why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century?
"Their central dogma is the immortality and transmigration of the soul. A doctrine which they regard as the finest incentive to courage, since it inspires contempt of death."
-Julius Caesar, "The Commentaries", regarding the spiritual beliefs of the ancient Druids, 51 B.C.
Being Aussie, I can detect the sneering derision in Marshall's tone. He pays lip service to being open-minded and listening to Meyer in good faith, but he isn't. Meyer is too polite to go there, but I'm telling you, the Aussie *is* being a wanker, on purpose.
Ok, o.j.in His kind of closing statement, Marshall talks about that gene that arthropods need which is also in humans. So what that it's in humans? The way the gene is expressed in humans, is expressed is different. The question is how complicated are the changes in the instructions for using that gene to express it the way it is in arthropods? If you have to change the instructions a lot to use it the way it is used in arthropods, could those changes have been the result of evolution, which requires a slow change of instructions, or would it have needed several changes all at once, which is beyond what evolution can explain? If the latter, such changes would look like a programmer reusing a bit of code he wrote, but with significant changes than something that happened over time live in evolution. If it looks like rewritten code, that looks like the work of a designer.
Dr.Myer proposes that there was an entity that designed life, and provided a mechanism to effect that.
Dr. Marshall says that everything relating to life occurs as a result of miracles. If there are enough miracles, nature can make any thing. But it needs God to provide that constant stream of miracles.
does the acceptance of Darwinism factor in to the estimation of the age of the earth, various eras etc? Perhaps by some formula based on how long researchers believe it would have to take for evolution to bring life from a single living cell to the complexities of life as we know it now?
No. In fact Darwinist are coming to the conclusion it is not old enough. It is mostly about radiometric age dating. There are some that believe this method of dating has it's flaws. Hard to tell who is correct though.
adoracle1 ••
That's is the center of the argument , isn't it ? If We see life forms coming into existence faster than random mutation and and natural selection can account for , there's a problem with the theory of evolution.
If we see complexity in life forms that can not be explained by random mutation and natural selection there a problem.
And we see both, abundantly .
Ever wonder why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century?
Is it because they want to enlighten us?
What can the science of classical logic tell us about this argument ?
@@williamspringer9447 I think that what they want is to be "right", accepted, lauded and flush with fat grants etc. those desires come before any scientific application.
a great example is "Lucy". A bone fragment from what is believed to be from a hip in one location and a second bone fragment found miles away and voila! a tiny female from a previously unknown species that was "clearly" proof man was not created as man, but evolved from little Lucys. There was no science in that far fetched theory, that was imagination and hubris.
I personally believe in creation and find that nothing less than that can answer any of the mystery we stubbornly insist is not already answered and was never a mystery at all,
There is proof of creation; in particular, "God's fingerprint" aka Fibonacci sequence/golden ration being present in everything clear down to dna and as far away as the construction of the galaxy we reside in. Its hard to understand why that is not considered overwhelming evidence of a Creator. It is pushed aside in favor of imagination applied to fill in the blanks.
Humans complicate absolutely everything when the truth is so simple that children can understand,
great comment btw.enjoyed contributing again☺
adoracle1 •••
Wonderful response . Thank you .
Here's a little argument for the existence of God that you may enjoy. •••
Premise #1: The universe was created by either a directed (intelligent) or undirected (random) process .
Premise #2: The proposition that the universe was created by an undirected (random) process runs squarely against numbers that are so astronomically improbable that we can not reasonable entertain them as a possibility .
Conclusion : It is therefore a practical certainty that the universe was created by a directed (intelligent) process.
"A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based on the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind."
-L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99 ••••••••••
The following is a quote of Dr Frank Turek, taken from a debate between Frank Turek and Christopher Hitchens on UA-cam. ••••
"This is sometimes called the teleological argument for design.
Not only did the universe explode into being out of nothing , it did so with extreme precision . In other words, the big bang was not a chaotic explosion. How incredibly precise was it? Atheist Steven Weinberg put it this way. He said, "life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values." There are dozens of these quantities . One of them Steven Hawking identified was this: He said that if the expansion rate of the universe changed by one part in a hundred thousand million million, a second after the big bang , we wouldn't be here . The universe would not have expanded, or it would have collapsed back in on itself, or it never would have created galaxies . That's how precisely designed the big bang event was.
Not only was the big bang event precisely designed , so are many constants about our universe right now . If you change the gravitational force by one part in ten to the forty , we wouldn't be here . What's one part in ten to the forty? Illustration : Take a tape measure ; stretch it from that back wall to the front wall ; in inches. If you set gravity at a particular inch mark on that tape measure, and moved the strength of gravity one inch in either direction proportionally , we go out of existence . But the problem is that the tape measure doesn't go from that wall to this front wall; it goes across the entire known universe . You change gravity that much , across the entire known universe, and we don't exist .
For you Navy people out here, (I was in the Navy many years) think of an aircraft carrier , like the John Stennis or the Ronald Reagan, which displaces a hundred and ten thousand tons ; has a runway on it that is about three lengths of a football field ; has five to six thousand people on it ; several stories high. If you were to change the weight of that aircraft carrier by less than a trillionth the weight of one electron , it would be uninhabitable , if the aircraft carrier was the universe . That's how incredibly designed the universe is."
@@williamspringer9447 wow, that was beautiful William.💗 thank you. I understand the necessity of the precision required of creation but could never have explained it so eloquently. You painted a clear picture and I learned something new . again, thank you.🙏
It's pretty amazing that the bible, the old testament in particular, managed to get so much right. Ignoring time frames for a moment because perception of time is relative & it's a human construct that wasn't even really a thing until what, the 1930's? For example, how did people barely out of the stone age know that there was a beginning to everything, & the order in which everything was created? In the beginning God created heaven, then Earth, then the fish, then the birds, then man. Weird. Also, I wonder if science would ever have been a thing without the Bible. It seems that Theists and Atheists alike have been inspired by the the Bible to find the truth of our existence. Where we came from, where we are going, & what is our purpose?
I may have pointed this out before, but we do design many things to be modular, where you can easily change things around. We also design things to be used in a variety of ways. We may not be particularly good at that compared to what we find in nature, but us humans making things that aren't as well designed as things in nature, doesn't mean there isn't a designer, it may just mean that designer is way beyond us in ability and intellect, and I do believe that's a logical conclusion for such a being as would have crafted the universe.
Yes, that super intelligent supreme designer can design something that grows, repairs itself, can reproduce etc.
Methinks evolutionary science has become a haven for unbelievers. Any mathematition or poker player should be able to see how incredible the odds argue against evolutionary theory. Another example how world views are defended by those whose careers depend on it. Not the open mind science requires which always should include the possibility of a Creator
Stephen Meyer is trained in the scientific method, (he is a geophysicist) but his logic, reason and ability to see things from the broad base of a philosophical perspective gives him an edge. Brilliant as Prof. Marshall is, like most scientists he has a very specialized focus. Those dedicated to a particular scientific inquiry have to be this way in order to make their unique contributions. Meyer's brilliance, his mind is one of a very rare commodity. The scientists who criticize him, I have noticed, often come from a place of ego touting the expertise in their own area, which we can all readily acknowledge, but it is still somewhat narrow.
Could not have said it better.
@@mcmanustony
Well I could not get the link for the article I was trying to send so here is a summary:
1. The current evolution theory estimates it took roughly 3 billion years for the human to evolve from nothing.
2. The human genome has about 3 billion base pairs of nucleic acids.
3. This would mean that a favorable mutation would have to occur about 1 per year.
4. This is not even considering all the unfavorable mutations in between the favorable.
5. Since the theory of random evolution was supposed to occur slowly, 1 favorable mutation per year seems wildly optimistic.
There you go. What say you?
@@mcmanustony
Hey Chief,
I’m not a biologist but I understand enough to say with conviction you are avoiding giving an answer that can be discussed. You know that the theory of evolution is an archaic premise and is a scientific embarrassment. The only thing that is holding it up is an entrenched bureaucracy and the unthinking robots they are training.
Why don’t you answer your own objection and say when you think life started and how long it took for natural selection to evolve life into a human being. You were waiting for me to make a claim so you could tell me what a dunce I am so you could distract from not providing your own plausible rebuttal. That fact is, evolution is riddled with so many inconsistencies you don’t dare offer evidence with a straight face.
@@mcmanustony
You have not real said anything so this conversation is done.
@@mcmanustony
Wake me when you decide to have conversation.
Steven won the debate/argument hands down. The paleontologist assumes Steve is making a theist argument but he never once said God, or Christ or religion. Then like a spanked child he rebuts with adhominium attacks
He doesn't assume it. It's a well known fact that Stephen Meyer argues for a theistic god, and the Intelligent Design movement is funded by, staffed by, and founded by Creationists who have publicly, many many times, stated that this is their position.
@Robert Roberts....
Have you heard of the Wedge Report?
I think the paleontologist do ague the same premises against ID. Darwinists thinks they got a monopoly of science to teach to our kids only the material version of life. Its like the communists got a close mind and never opens their mind to new ideas and process. Let ID compete in the classroom.
bluejysm2007 ••••
Ever wonder why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century?
I'm pretty sure they aren't interested in enlightening us.
Ever wonder how they can herd us off to war like cattle over lies about weapons of mass destruction?
The theory of evolution is a tool to control the masses ; nothing more.
That's why no matter how much evidence people like Meyer present , they will never allow Intelligent design to be taught in State controlled public schools.
They can't have hundreds of millions of heavily armed ignorant peasants running around thinking they have a soul and there's a God. That could get ugly, That's the stuff revolutions are made of.
"The public is a ferocious beast; one must either chain it or flee from it." -Voltaire
"Their central dogma is the immortality and transmigration of the soul. A doctrine which they regard as the finest incentive to courage, since it inspires contempt of death."
-Julius Caesar, "The Commentaries", regarding the spiritual beliefs of the ancient Druids, 51 B.C.
Dr. Meyer acted in a humble and respectful way. To the credit of Dr. Marshall, he also acted in that way. The evidence is definately in Dr. Meyer's court, as his truths have not been logically addressed. But this debate was in good Christian respect and love.
Jim Borowy
If the evidence was in Meyers Court, that’s what we would be teaching in high school and college. We are not. Court case after court case has ruled that intelligent design is not science. This is because there’s no evidence. What in the world are you talking about?
What are the truths? I missed that part
Sir Ajax •••
My God , those guys have really done a number on your brain .
Ever wonder why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century?
Do you think it's because they want to enlighten us?
How is it that they can herd us off to war like cattle over lies about weapons of mass destruction?
Why is it that nine out of ten Americans still believe that man walked on the Moon, even though there is zero reliable evidence that it ever happened?
This whole Darwinian argument is about control ; that's it .
We can't have hundreds of millions of heavily armed ignorant peasants running around thinking they have a soul and there's a God. That could get ugly. That's the stuff revolutions are made of.
"The public is a ferocious beast; one must either chain it or flee from it." -Voltaire
"Their central dogma is the immortality and transmigration of the soul. A doctrine which they regard as the finest incentive to courage, since it inspires contempt of death."
-Julius Caesar, "The Commentaries", regarding the spiritual beliefs of the ancient Druids, 51 B.C.
Marshall is obligated to only materialistic explanations to be real science, however information, including all his thoughts and ideas are immaterial, as is the philosophy of science itself.
Intelligent design is indeed science.
By definition 'supernatural' is unintelligible. Which is just as useful as a concept that is nonsensical. ID has no substance without a theory of consciousness, sorry. The study of information is not antithetical to naturalism whatsoever. Information is useful in describing black hole physics, for example.
What do you suppose such a classroom curriculum would consist of for teaching intelligent design (considering there is no ID theory, and thus nothing to teach)?
We assemble things with our hands because we don't really care to know or want to wait until we figure out how to produce computer code teleonomically (that is to say, through entirely uninterrupted natural processes), since we already have a way in which we build things in place to begin with.
That is to use our hands to manually put things in the right order without waiting for the proper environmental conditions to arise naturally/teleonomically. There's just no time for that. So, we assemble things ourselves.
When it cames to computer code environmental conditions are *irrelevant.* When it comes to organic informational macromolecules that are capable of adapting as a result of interacting with aspects of certain environments -- environmental conditions are crucial to the discussion. Something that is completely over looked in these debates.
Put simply, the problem isn't imperviousness like you're ultimately suggesting but rather _unintelligibility._
Marshall is misrepresenting ID, he said life is always growing bla bla bla , he need to study more what is the theory of intelligent design. The best way is let it be debated in the classroom. Dr. Marshall is way behind the times when the book “the origin of species” first appeared. Time to open your mind professor.
sparkyy0007 •••
I'd love to know when and who decided that "real" science must exclude God as a causal factor .
I'd also love to know why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century.
"The public is a ferocious beast; one must either chain it or flee from it." -Voltaire
"Their central dogma is the immortality and transmigration of the soul. A doctrine which they regard as the finest incentive to courage, since it inspires contempt of death."
-Julius Caesar, "The Commentaries", regarding the spiritual beliefs of the ancient Druids, 51 B.C.
@@williamspringer9447
I agree with your quotations lol. "real" science as defined by F Bacon forbids metaphysical in repeatable experiments, but it's then taken too far in that it forbids any possible metaphysical intervention into the physical world without justification using circular reasoning as defense.
The argument is "prove a metaphysical intervention", but by definition a metaphysical intervention would be an non repeatable event.
God is not our slave, only the physical world is.
"The public is a ferocious beast; one must either chain it or flee from it." -Voltaire
God agrees, the human heart is evil above all things, who can know it.
Without God's law, man is far worse than beasts; beasts aren't sadistic to who they perceive as enemies.
@@tothesciencemobile4707
We design machines, and we understand the creative process for doing so, invention.
All machines we know the origin of were intelligently designed.
We now know all living organisms are indeed machines.
Therefore:
Living organisms were intelligently designed.
I've always had one puzzling question about the fossil record... If the layers are all different ages how is the whole earth 4 billion years old or whatever it is? And where does the next layer come from?
That’s a very good question without a good answer
A basic geology course will help you understand. The ingredients for the cake are the same age, but the cake was made today.
Layers come from many different ways; bio matter, silting process, volcanoes, dust in the wind, etc.
praise the lord
Intelligent desing makes more sense to me.
Thank you Dr. Meyer.
When will you submit to the authority of Scripture?
ForTheLoveOfChrist ••
The guy already said that he's a Christian . What does he have to do , start wrangling rattlesnakes or something ?
@@williamspringer9447 Thanks for the reply.
10 months ago... but iirc, he said his research was to defend basic theism. If I'm mistaken, I'll gladly delete this comment.
@@TheDeathInTheAir his research is to defend basic theism but he personally believes in Christianity.
The questions of "why" and "how" are often messed up.
43 minutes in and Meyer is winning...
Props to Professor Marshall for actually engaging with the arguments; normally in these debates materialists just offer slurs, slights and school-yard level theistic assumptions - thanks Marshall, you are what I call a 'proper scientist' - and you helped me learn new things. Yes, Marshall was a bit condescending at times peepes are like that sometimes eh!.
Having said that I still think that Meyer won the debate, in that, Marshall could not account for the necessary new information in the pre-Cambrian era (save for a circular argument that it must have been there because of what we see later on).
I get frustrated with this materialist argument that hypothesising a designer gets us nowhere and is lazy. No, no, rathers it could suggest a possible new paradigm or field of enquiry; analagous to when the new paradigms of relativity and quantum physics emerged - things no one thought possible before, but that have led to so much.
I'd give this debate a draw. Seems like Meyer hadn't accounted for the latest theories in his book, like the same genes can be reused and are shared among different body plans. Meyer had to play catchup and say it pushes the question back, but doesn't solve it -- but it does make the naturalist explanation more probable. And while I think intelligent design should be considered a possibility, there is the danger that it's a premature dead end to difficult questions. The history of science is a shrinking "god did it" to naturalistic explanations, whether it's from lightning to electricity, or from life to DNA. The fossil record itself is a testament to naturalist explanation, but theists hammer at the remaining gaps (such as the Cambrian explosion or the first cell) with an intelligent design hammer.
@@chrimony I give Dr. Meyer a 10 and Dr. Marshall a 2 for not being prepared on those issues though.
@@chrimony the fossil record does not support evolution…
@@freegraceau Yes it does.
I want to draw attention to the bias inherent in the title of this video. The title of "Doctor" is ascribed to Stephen Meyer (PhD, History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge), but not ascribed to Charles Marshall (PhD, Microbiology and Paleontology, University of Chicago).
Would the channel owner care to address this anomaly?
Surly it wouldn't reflect well on Meyers for debating someone not qualified so I disagree that it was intentional.
alachabre its a conspiracy
I gather Marshall is a professor. No wonder he is so fixed in his ways even with all the glaring evidence. If your life work has been built on a house of cards (Darwinian evolution) I suppose I would claw at straws too.
@5:21
Missing fossils
Macro evolution what caused it
Stephen has courage.
No courage is needed. It the truth.
Charles Marshall, "Imagine....imagine....imagine....imagine.....imagine...."
If Charles was alive 530 million years ago he would be as full of HIMSELF as today, throw in arrogance. Meyer is giving what is consistent with geneticists and many other specialists in other disciplines. Charles is the one becoming exasperated. Atheists always begin thinking and so-called experiments to prove macro EVOLUTION with design and information from intelligence.
Greg Blevins •••
There's a lot riding on this argument of evolution by undirected processes . We can't have hundreds of millions of heavily armed ignorant peasants running around thinking they have a soul and there's a God. That's the stuff revolutions are made of .
"The public is a ferocious beast; one must either chain it or flee from it." -Voltaire
"Their central dogma is the immortality and transmigration of the soul. A doctrine which they regard as the finest incentive to courage, since it inspires contempt of death."
-Julius Caesar, "The Commentaries", regarding the spiritual beliefs of the ancient Druids, 51 B.C.
I just finished listening to the entire podcast. Amazing how Charles at around the last 10 minute mark really started to become a bit frayed. His response about SETI was just ludicrous. SETI is looking for a signal among the noise that indicates intelligent life. That's directly analogous to ID. Did anyone hear a rational response to that analogy? If so, what was it??
And he never came up with a solution to the information question that Stephen kept mentioning. Instead he surmises, as Stephen points out, that these controlling networks in the past must have been much more flexible, something he has zero evidence of.
Bravo to Dr. Stephen Meyer for a well reasoned argument in defense of ID.
I agree. Charles never really responded to Meyer. The part about different building using the same material left out that buildings are all design, plans drawn and contractor built. Buildings don’t don’t design and build themselves.
Religion has nothing to do with ID.
You obviously haven't read the wedge document then.
1:16:10 Stephen strategically does not commit to what kind of mind he means. But applying Stephen's reasoning to his own theory: everything we have ever seen that looks designed was designed by a mind. But not a disembodied one, no, it was always a creature, a human here on earth. So Stephen, you would have to conclude that life was designed by a human, because that conclusion is based in our own experiences. This was the essence of the listener question to Stephen.
jiin5993 •••
Here s an argument for the existence of God that I think may interest you .
Premise #1: The universe was created by either a directed (intelligent) or undirected (random) process .
Premise #2: The proposition that the universe was created by an undirected (random) process runs squarely against numbers that are so astronomically improbable that we can not reasonable entertain them as a possibility .
Conclusion : It is a practical certainty that the universe was created by a directed (intelligent) process.
"A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based on the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind."
-L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99 ••••••••••
The following is a quote of Dr Frank Turek, taken from a debate between Frank Turek and Christopher Hitchens on UA-cam. ••••
"This is sometimes called the teleological argument for design.
Not only did the universe explode into being out of nothing , it did so with extreme precision . In other words, the big bang was not a chaotic explosion. How incredibly precise was it? Atheist Steven Weinberg put it this way. He said, "life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values." There are dozens of these quantities . One of them Steven Hawking identified was this: He said that if the expansion rate of the universe changed by one part in a hundred thousand million million, a second after the big bang , we wouldn't be here . The universe would not have expanded, or it would have collapsed back in on itself, or it never would have created galaxies . That's how precisely designed the big bang event was.
Not only was the big bang event precisely designed , so are many constants about our universe right now . If you change the gravitational force by one part in ten to the forty , we wouldn't be here . What's one part in ten to the forty? Illustration : Take a tape measure ; stretch it from that back wall to the front wall ; in inches. If you set gravity at a particular inch mark on that tape measure, and moved the strength of gravity one inch in either direction proportionally , we go out of existence . But the problem is that the tape measure doesn't go from that wall to this front wall; it goes across the entire known universe . You change gravity that much , across the entire known universe, and we don't exist .
For you Navy people out here, (I was in the Navy many years) think of an aircraft carrier , like the John Stennis or the Ronald Reagan, which displaces a hundred and ten thousand tons ; has a runway on it that is about three lengths of a football field ; has five to six thousand people on it ; several stories high. If you were to change the weight of that aircraft carrier by less than a trillionth the weight of one electron , it would be uninhabitable , if the aircraft carrier was the universe . That's how incredibly designed the universe is."
@@williamspringer9447 I don't accept your premises. Especially the second one - it's just an unfounded assertion that needs evidence and sounds like an argument from incredulity repackaged in superficial math and a wrong understanding of randomness.
Secondly, even if I accept your conclusion (to be clear, I don't), how do you go from 'directed process' to 'God exists'?
Lastly, concerning your 'fine-tuned universe' argument, look up the anthropic principle. We observe these specific constant values because if they would have been different we would not be here, i.e. they are necessarily compatible with life, because otherwise we would not be here to observe them.
jiin5993 •••
(1) Atheists physicists were forced to come up with the multi-universe argument to deal with the astronomically unlikely numbers that they face . So I think you missed the bus there .
(2) My argument concluded that the universe was the result of a directed intelligent process. Once that is established , the rest just logically follows .
(3) I sgree; if we weren't here, we wouldn't be here .
But we are here , and the universe has provided us with overwhelming evidence for Intelligent Design .
Have you ever wondered why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century?
Do you think it's because they want to enlighten us?
Those in power now, do not want hundreds of millions of heavily armed ignorant peasants running around thinking they have a soul and there's a God. That could get ugly. That's the stuff revolutions are made of .
"The public is a ferocious beast; one must either chain it or flee from it." -Voltaire
"Their central dogma is the immortality and transmigration of the soul. A doctrine which they regard as the finest incentive to courage, since it inspires contempt of death."
-Julius Caesar, "The Commentaries", regarding the spiritual beliefs of the ancient Druids, 51 B.C.
@@williamspringer9447 1. So your refutation is pointing to an explanation that actually supports the origin of the universe as an undirected process? How does that help you?
2. I'm asking you how that 'logically follows' exactly. Again, you are not really making an argument here, just an assertion that reads like "Duhh!".
3. Same thing, asserting that there is evidence for ID and not actually addressing the anthropic principle with an argument.
The rest of your post reads a little like a conspiracy theory.
"Those in power now, do not want hundreds of millions of heavily armed ignorant peasants running around thinking they have a soul and there's a God."
It seems here that you are associating ignorance with religious belief. I doubt that you meant it that way, but I think you are on to something. Of course, peasants don't have busts made of them, so you are clearly not talking about yourself.
jiin5993 •••
Your response was just a knot of rhetorical nonsense . That part about the bust was pretty good though.
When I say "ignorant " I'm talking about a State Crime Against Democracy . I'm talking about the fact that the science of classical logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. That is ignorance that has been criminally imposed upon us .
Marshall chooses to be blind to truth.
John, By definition 'supernatural' is unintelligible. Which is just as useful as a concept that is nonsensical. ID has no substance without a theory of consciousness, sorry. The study of information is not antithetical to naturalism whatsoever. Information is useful in describing black hole physics, for example.
What do you suppose such a classroom curriculum would consist of for teaching intelligent design (considering there is no ID theory, and thus nothing to teach)?
We assemble things with our hands because we don't really care to know or want to wait until we figure out how to produce computer code teleonomically (that is to say, through entirely uninterrupted natural processes), since we already have a way in which we build things in place to begin with.
That is to use our hands to manually put things in the right order without waiting for the proper environmental conditions to arise naturally/teleonomically. There's just no time for that. So, we assemble things ourselves.
When it cames to computer code environmental conditions are *irrelevant.* When it comes to organic informational macromolecules that are capable of adapting as a result of interacting with aspects of certain environments -- environmental conditions are crucial to the discussion. Something that is completely over looked in these debates.
Put simply, the problem isn't imperviousness like you're ultimately suggesting but rather _unintelligibility._
38:00 addressing proposal by Marshall
Preadapted genome +
Gene novelties
Marshall relies on things we do not know and hope they will become known and will support his case. What a stupid way of arguing! And he introduces obfuscation and hides behind that. Why didn't he explain how encoded information can come about in a material-only way?
From the other comments, it's clear Marshall failed to convince not only me. Can't he see through his own weak arguments? Is his atheism so overwhelming? He argued from personal preferences.
In other words he is using a materialism of the gaps argument.
1:08:42... Meyer mentions the journal 'BioComplexity', which as of this past year, authored a 'paper' arguing for an Adam and Eve origin to mankind.
@Thomas Fleming Sorry but no. That paper was about DNA barcoding and there's a significant misunderstanding about something stated in the paper where they were talking about MRCA (most recent common ancestors),, which led many articles to state that as you say, all modern species only date that far back. But a MRCA is only a focal point of lineages that are already present and go even further back in time. It's not when they 'started'.
FYI this paper btw is due for retraction for that very reason, and the authors are I understand going to revisit some of their statements to address that confusion. They also made some other errors noted, but thats another issue.
@Thomas Fleming Again they were talking about MRCA's.
@Thomas Fleming We already know it happened. That's not a question, even for the authors of that paper. If you read it they make no claims otherwise and mention it often. Common ancestry is a verified fact. I'm sorry if you think it's not.
It's clear that you are merely trying to quibble and have no actual point. I'd suggest you go back and read that paper and the surrounding literature.
@Thomas Fleming Are you kidding? Common descent is only controversial to creationists. There's not a single biologist practicing in the field that doesn't recognize it...the entire biomedical industry is based on this. Murders have been solved and prosecuted based on it.
Spare me your stupid Dissent from Darwinism lists. Well known creationist nuttery.
@Thomas Fleming Common descent is probably one of the most verified and repeatedly tested facts of biology. To even say it's controversial is like arguing that gravity is just your opinion.
Charles Marshall based on assumptions, very weak, he got owned.
It doesn't matter where you stand on intelligent design.... If you cannot honestly have pause and seriously consider everything Doctor Meyers notes in this interview as a momentous critique of Neo Darwinism.... Then you are just not being honest.
confirmation bias is everywhere
15:13 mutation selection mechanism isn't good enough
44:38
Marshall thinks that sponges have "essentially the same set of genes" as humans.
Interesting idea; I wonder how Meyer will respond...
Um, that's true. Some of the first heart transplants were using primate hearts. We DO have a high degree of commonality to our genes. This is factually proven by several genomic studies.
You need to stop talking out of your arse.
Femi Babalola Obviously they are not perfectly compatible. The point is that they worked for a limited time, and the reason why is their similarity to ours. You know, kinda like how your god apparently made apes 'kinda' look like him. :)
Btw, I'm amused that your ignorance got you to write such a shitty book. It's just terrible, terrible terrible, full of all the old worn out creationist argument, often argued by someone with no experience or study. You should stick to ophthalmology.
David Butler I'm happy to learn my book made you uncomfortable. It was supposed to. If there is any particular issue you want to debate bring it on.
Femi Babalola Uncomfortable? No. Amused by your ignorance. Really, it's so bad, we wouldn't make it past the intro.
Random Mutation Selection....is not an Adequate Mechanism to explain the creation of life & New life forms. This is something the Neo Darwinists have known but can't openingly admit because it is the foundation that Darwinism is built on.
I love how Charles Marshall misses what Stephen Meyer is actually talking about with body plans. Sure, maybe you don't need a whole bunch of new genes for all the different body plans. But, you do need an entirely different set of instructions on how to put them together to get something new. Think about making some wooden object. We can simply things greatly and not deal with the multiple types of wood, or the various fasteners. Even at that, you have to differently shaped pieces of wood and there are specific places that you need to put screws to make one thing as opposed to something else. I recently made this wooden marble. It had several pieces of thin flat wood that had all these intricate shapes mostly pre-cut out. The whole thing was about 98% wood. There was some wax and a couple other specialized non-wooden parts, but it didn't even use screws. The instructions were fairly complex. And, the company that made it makes a few different wooden projects that purple can buy and assemble, all made from the same materials (significantly fewer than the number of genes making up all living things). The instructing for each is just as complex, and also very different. That's not even mentioning the instructions they used to create the pre-cut wooden pieces. Instructions are information, and different body plans require very different instructions for each other. And these instructions CANNOT come about through incremental changes. You would need a vast amount of changes in the instructions all at once to create something different and viable. Darwinism doesn't give you that. And that's what Stephen is arguing, at least in part.
I completely agree.
Charles Marshall knows that Dr. Meyer is talking about the need for new information to create new body plans. Marshall doesn't want to address the source of this new information. No fossil record evidence for how these new animal bodies "evolved".
23:55 model proposed by meyer is 1980s outdated
After watching many intelligent design debates I’ve realized something. ID debater will basically spend most of the explaining misconceptions. Always, the disagreeing opponent, most often materialist, will come to an agreement with ID debater actually meant on most issues and dodge the elephant in the room: the fact that ID is perfectly appropriate theory (or hypothesis) to bring into the conversation. The debate always ends with the (most often) materialist supporter supposing, after much explanation that ID isn’t, a god of the gaps argument that supposed that just because we can’t explain it now, doesn’t mean that god did it. Not at all in the least bit right. ID simply suggests that there is a gap and that there is a good reason to investigate and research this further. Instead, it is aggressively silenced and there’s so many accounts of scientists being kicked out of organizations around the world just for supporting it. I’m an agnostic and I don’t think Stephen proved anything yet but he shows a good reason how it might have happened and the debates prove that there’s a presupposed no-god (no -mind) of the gaps ideology that exists in place of god for materialist scientists.
Jordan Kasday •••
In my opinion , Meyer must eventually tackle the fact that they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century.
That is why evolution theory dominates . Hundreds of millions of people have been brainwashed by the State.
Bravely spoken and yet a lil vague. And the question would be, how can the brain evolve and masterfully correlate with all the intricate functions of the body. We have five senses..eyes to see and ears to hear, a mind to think, taste, touch, smell, and a beating heart. Emotions and feelings. A will to choose. Not to mention morals. Life from non life, then why do we die? Science attempts to define all these questions with language. And formulate that which is evidence and observed with theories. Do words have meanings? We have a tongue to speak. All by chance?
Simply a brilliant and logical argument against evolution. You can create infinitely more meaningless combinations with the alphabet a-z than you could create meaningful. Thus, the odds of life organizing and producing itself at random will always be less likely than the opposing argument which is that a designer created everything in the beginning.
The brilliant logical argument is an argument from ignorance, by definition- the same argument that has been used for thousands of years. No doubt, when we find the answers to abiogenesis, they will still be using the same argument in another area
@@jonathanjones770 what makes you think there is a resolution to the abiogenesis problem?
Zechariah Williams •••
And the astronomical improbability don't end in biology and DNA.
Here some interesting information about functioning that I find useful .
Premise #1: The universe was created by either a directed (intelligent) or undirected (random) process .
Premise #2: The proposition that the universe was created by an undirected (random) process runs squarely against numbers that are so astronomically improbable that we can not reasonable entertain them as a possibility .
Conclusion : It is a practical certainty that the universe was created by a directed (intelligent) process.
"A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based on the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind."
-L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99 ••••••••••
The following is a quote of Dr Frank Turek, taken from a debate between Frank Turek and Christopher Hitchens on UA-cam. ••••
"This is sometimes called the teleological argument for design.
Not only did the universe explode into being out of nothing , it did so with extreme precision . In other words, the big bang was not a chaotic explosion. How incredibly precise was it? Atheist Steven Weinberg put it this way. He said, "life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values." There are dozens of these quantities . One of them Steven Hawking identified was this: He said that if the expansion rate of the universe changed by one part in a hundred thousand million million, a second after the big bang , we wouldn't be here . The universe would not have expanded, or it would have collapsed back in on itself, or it never would have created galaxies . That's how precisely designed the big bang event was.
Not only was the big bang event precisely designed , so are many constants about our universe right now . If you change the gravitational force by one part in ten to the forty , we wouldn't be here . What's one part in ten to the forty? Illustration : Take a tape measure ; stretch it from that back wall to the front wall ; in inches. If you set gravity at a particular inch mark on that tape measure, and moved the strength of gravity one inch in either direction proportionally , we go out of existence . But the problem is that the tape measure doesn't go from that wall to this front wall; it goes across the entire known universe . You change gravity that much , across the entire known universe, and we don't exist .
For you Navy people out here, (I was in the Navy many years) think of an aircraft carrier , like the John Stennis or the Ronald Reagan, which displaces a hundred and ten thousand tons ; has a runway on it that is about three lengths of a football field ; has five to six thousand people on it ; several stories high. If you were to change the weight of that aircraft carrier by less than a trillionth the weight of one electron , it would be uninhabitable , if the aircraft carrier was the universe . That's how incredibly designed the universe is."
You do have to wonder why Meyer, as a proponent of Intelligent Design, feels that the most appropriate forum for this branch of science is Premier Christian Radio!! Or perhaps it's only a form of theology, wrapped up in a veneer of science. Of course, mainstream evolutionary biologists are not yet certain of the origin of life on earth but an untestable hypothesis called ID (with not just a little theistic guff thrown in) will NEVER be a serious contender worth of real scientific enquiry.
Incredible debate.
Specified Complexity. Dr. Marshall posits the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics can account for it. Dr. Meyer disagrees. Wish the discussion would have focused here much more---I would have loved to hear Dr. Marshall's response when Dr. Meyer drills down into the specifics as to why the 2nd Law cannot and does not account for specified complexity.
Sean Kennedy ••
Second Law of Thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time, and is constant if and only if all processes are reversible. Isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium, it not gonna happen maximum entropy.
Wikipedia
Can you explain more about how this information can be useful in our understanding of the intelligent design argument ?
@@williamspringer9447 You'd be better off asking Dr. Marshall---he's the one who seems to thinks the 2nd Law accounts for specified complexity.
Sean Kennedy •••
Yeah, that's right . I was must fishing for a little wisdom there . Here s an argument for the existence of God that I find persuasive. Maybe you can tell me what you think ?
Premise #1: The universe was created by either a directed (intelligent) or undirected (random) process .
Premise #2: The proposition that the universe was created by an undirected (random) process runs squarely against numbers that are so astronomically improbable that we can not reasonable entertain them as a possibility .
Conclusion : It is therefore a practical certainty that the universe was created by a directed (intelligent) process.
"A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based on the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind."
-L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99 ••••••••••
The following is a quote of Dr Frank Turek, taken from a debate between Frank Turek and Christopher Hitchens on UA-cam. ••••
"This is sometimes called the teleological argument for design.
Not only did the universe explode into being out of nothing , it did so with extreme precision . In other words, the big bang was not a chaotic explosion. How incredibly precise was it? Atheist Steven Weinberg put it this way. He said, "life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values." There are dozens of these quantities . One of them Steven Hawking identified was this: He said that if the expansion rate of the universe changed by one part in a hundred thousand million million, a second after the big bang , we wouldn't be here . The universe would not have expanded, or it would have collapsed back in on itself, or it never would have created galaxies . That's how precisely designed the big bang event was.
Not only was the big bang event precisely designed , so are many constants about our universe right now . If you change the gravitational force by one part in ten to the forty , we wouldn't be here . What's one part in ten to the forty? Illustration : Take a tape measure ; stretch it from that back wall to the front wall ; in inches. If you set gravity at a particular inch mark on that tape measure, and moved the strength of gravity one inch in either direction proportionally , we go out of existence . But the problem is that the tape measure doesn't go from that wall to this front wall; it goes across the entire known universe . You change gravity that much , across the entire known universe, and we don't exist .
For you Navy people out here, (I was in the Navy many years) think of an aircraft carrier , like the John Stennis or the Ronald Reagan, which displaces a hundred and ten thousand tons ; has a runway on it that is about three lengths of a football field ; has five to six thousand people on it ; several stories high. If you were to change the weight of that aircraft carrier by less than a trillionth the weight of one electron , it would be uninhabitable , if the aircraft carrier was the universe . That's how incredibly designed the universe is."
@@williamspringer9447 Indeed: To the extent the fine tuning is true, I find those arguments persuasive (though not NECESSARILY finally persuasive, for the reasons you explain above). I haven't studied the ID fine tuning arguments specifically, but I know that Dr. Meyer thinks highly of them. If I'm not mistaken, he discusses these, among other things, in his new book "The Return of the God Hypothesis." But, yes, a fraction of a fraction of a fraction quickly gets into natural impossibility territory. So though not necessarily true - a' la syllogism - for all intents and purposes, it's substantially close.
Sean Kennedy ••••
Thank you for that thoughtful and well reasoned response .
The first comment from Charles Marshall regarding the reuse of genetic information is, from what I can understand, severely oversimplified. Take a car for example. They all have engines, wheels, transmissions, exhaust systems, coolant, oil, and so on. They also have roughly the same shape, and are typically prey close in size. However, all of those systems and parts I listed, as well as all the ones I didn't, aren't simply a one size fits all. I'm not sure there is much, besides some bolts and nuts, that I could take off of my wife's 2013 Toyota Corolla and put on my 99 Saturn SL2 without the need for some major reworking. The amount of reworking for just a couple of those parts would require a great deal of information. The same, as far as I understand it, applies to find from one creature to another. And, even if there are parts that don't need to be changed at all, there's still a massive amount of information needed to adjust how that part is included in a creature with a slightly different body plan. So my understanding of what Myers is arguing isn't that genetic information for structures can't be reused, in fact I understand that he believes it would be, but that there's a massive amount of additional information needed to make even small changes. Take humans and apes. The DNA used to code proteins in both differed by about 2%. They, structurally, are very similar to us. However, all the DNA that used to be called "junk DNA" seems to control how those proteins are used to create a body, and there is a big difference in the DNA involved in that. For creatures that are so similar, there seems to be a remarkable amount of difference in the information used to implement those similarities in only somewhat different ways. Myers' question is where does that level of information come from, as the time frame of the Cambrian Explosion is insufficient to explain it utilizing the Darwinian explanation.
Milton Wetherbee •••
Great comment.
Ever wonder why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century?
Is it because they want to enlighten us ?
Here s s little argument for the existence of God that I find persuasive .
Premise #1: The universe was created by either a directed (intelligent) or undirected (random) process .
Premise #2: The proposition that the universe was created by an undirected (random) process runs squarely against numbers that are so astronomically improbable that we can not reasonable entertain them as a possibility .
Conclusion : It is therefore a practical certainty that the universe was created by a directed (intelligent) process.
"A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based on the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind."
-L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99 ••••••••••
The following is a quote of Dr Frank Turek, taken from a debate between Frank Turek and Christopher Hitchens on UA-cam. ••••
"This is sometimes called the teleological argument for design.
Not only did the universe explode into being out of nothing , it did so with extreme precision . In other words, the big bang was not a chaotic explosion. How incredibly precise was it? Atheist Steven Weinberg put it this way. He said, "life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values." There are dozens of these quantities . One of them Steven Hawking identified was this: He said that if the expansion rate of the universe changed by one part in a hundred thousand million million, a second after the big bang , we wouldn't be here . The universe would not have expanded, or it would have collapsed back in on itself, or it never would have created galaxies . That's how precisely designed the big bang event was.
Not only was the big bang event precisely designed , so are many constants about our universe right now . If you change the gravitational force by one part in ten to the forty , we wouldn't be here . What's one part in ten to the forty? Illustration : Take a tape measure ; stretch it from that back wall to the front wall ; in inches. If you set gravity at a particular inch mark on that tape measure, and moved the strength of gravity one inch in either direction proportionally , we go out of existence . But the problem is that the tape measure doesn't go from that wall to this front wall; it goes across the entire known universe . You change gravity that much , across the entire known universe, and we don't exist .
For you Navy people out here, (I was in the Navy many years) think of an aircraft carrier , like the John Stennis or the Ronald Reagan, which displaces a hundred and ten thousand tons ; has a runway on it that is about three lengths of a football field ; has five to six thousand people on it ; several stories high. If you were to change the weight of that aircraft carrier by less than a trillionth the weight of one electron , it would be uninhabitable , if the aircraft carrier was the universe . That's how incredibly designed the universe is."
12:00 functional sequences are rare
I've tried to get a question answered by the Discovery Institute guys, for whom I have great respect (I've read all their books), but to my disappointment, have never gotten an answer. I now suspect that the question bothers them. Here it is (as submitted to a webinar):
First, my question is not combative; quite the contrary. The crew at the Discovery Institute has enlightened me to a vital aspect of How The World Really Works and I'll forever be grateful.
My question relates to the base cause of speciation, but for a clear answer I'll have to pose it a certain way (Note: there may be very different answers, depending on who you ask. Michael Behe, for example, believes in common descent (as do I), the idea of which is at the root of my question. I am especially interested in the answers from those who do NOT believe in common descent):
You have a photograph of your parents, right? Your father? How about your grandfather? Good chance. How about your great grandfather? If not, you can imagine one, a full body shot, say… of a man, a Caucasian, with basic ‘family features.’ Now take it further and imagine a photo of your great great grandfather, imagining the full body shot, possibly with clothes appropriate to the mid 19th century.
Now do this going back to your great grandfather to the 100,000th ‘degree,’ which would be somewhere around two million years ago (20 years for each generation). Please describe the being in general appearance. Now please do the same for 5 million years ago. And so forth, going back in the huge stack of photos to the first one. What do you see?
Are there ‘moments’ (photographs!) that are particularly evocative of your worldview? Is there an ‘Adam’ where the stack ends?
One reason I ask this is that it seems to me that we have two and only two choices regarding the subject of speciation. Either macro-evolution (with the causal mechanism known or unknown, but almost certainly via an 'intelligent designer' of some sort) brings us back to a one-celled organism (common descent) or we have a sort of ‘Beam me down, Scotty!’ scenario, wherein species poof into existence, presumably via the will of God (or other intelligent designer). There would be many millions of these ‘miracles,’ one for each species that ever existed. (I believe in common descent because I do not believe in this scenario.)
If you see a third possibility, I’m all ears. And feel free to use the thought experiment to make any point you care to about life and its development.
(I pose the question this way because it forces a clear, unequivocal answer. In other forms the question can be tip-toed around.)
The above is from my 'Open Letter to Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, and Douglas Ax', which you can access here:
blog.banditobooks.com/an-open-letter-to-michael-behe-stephen-meyer-and-douglas-axe/
Again, many thanks to all at the Discovery Institute. I've read all the books and look forward to those upcoming.
Allan Weisbecker
Note; Dr. Meyer is a good one to ask as he apparently believes in the Poof! Beam me down, Scotty explanation, although I doubt he would agree with my phraseology.
The “poof, beam me up Scotty” comment is both insulting and mocking in nature.
Sadly, a typical and oh so common atheist attitude.
I wouldn’t answer it either…
God created Adam and Eve out of the dust. If you want to call the point where the Divine and the material meet some cringe Scotty line so be it.
God of the gaps hmmm. How bout using time to fill in the gaps. Just give it enough time and the frog can turn into the Prince.
If all life was made from different materials then we could only eat each other. The fact that we can eat a banana and our body uses it to replace and fix ourselves is so far more sophisticated then anything we can build. That makes the problem of no designer even more inconceivable
Really enjoyed this!
I never heard once Marshall address the question with the empirical evidence (where does the information come from?). He talks about all sorts of changes taking place in the living organism (animals) and these changes are supposed to represent evolution (positive, upward, onward path changes to turn fish into alligators, alligators into elephants, etc). Therefore, it is implied that these changes would have to be 'intelligence-based' (for upward, onward change) changes, and, that's the question by Meyer (where did this information come from?). Marshall never answers this! I never heard it! Please point me to it. How can secular scientists continue to observe blind, stupid, foresightless chemical reactions (matter and chemistry acting/reacting) but not reveal WHERE/HOW they produce information, specified information, chronological information, complex information, etc. Simple! Chemistry and matter acting/reacting CANNOT produce any information, let alone specified, ordered, complex information, and, information is a PRE-requisite for all life! In the beginning was literally information (the words if the living God)! Meyer is repeating that the scientists he knows are all conducting empirical, operational science (testable, observable, repeatable, reproduceable) and THE FIRST RESULTS THEY SEE ARE INFORMATION! The secular camp cannot refute this! Never has!
The science of information has repeatedly proven SCIENCE IS IMMATERIAL (no materiliastic, physical composition/origins). Information SOLELY comes from intelligent mind. Evolutionists are telling us that, if you continue to beat a rock against stainless steel for eons times exponential eons amounts of time, you will not only get information, but specific, ordered, complex information when it's all said and done in the rocks lifespan. Facepalm! Meyer made it clear that the point of his position was that information is a pre-requisite of all life and, posed the question to Marshall of where/how this information comes from blind, stupid, unintelligent, foresightless chemical reactions (materialism).
James Tour has schooled the entire scientific (secular and non) community on synthetic organic chemistry, and revealed that even with all the human intelligent input, secular scientists have failed to explain the origin of life. The 'simplest' cell becomes more complex daily as it is studied by creation and secular scientists. Every day the theory of evolution is receding further and further away from the scientific community (becoming less and less plausible as it has been since inception). There are only two world views when it comes to origins folks, and no matter what you hear from the secular camp, over 90% of the world professes a faith in Jesus Christ and, the scientific evidence plainly points to him! =).
xviewmytubex ••••
I think the problem may be that we've all been conditioned to believe authority figures in the case of complex scientific matters .
But authority figured lie for all sorts of reasons .
Ever wonder how they can herd us off to war like cattle over lies about weapons of mass destruction?
Ever wonder why nine out of ten Americans still believe that man walked on the Moon,even though there is zero reliable evidence to prove it?
Ever wonder why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century? ••
"The public is a ferocious beast; one must either chain it or flee from it." -Voltaire •••
"Their central dogma is the immortality and transmigration of the soul. A doctrine which they regard as the finest incentive to courage, since it inspires contempt of death."
-Julius Caesar, "The Commentaries", regarding the spiritual beliefs of the ancient Druids, 51 B.C.