There are few people these days I have immense and unlimited respect for. Dr Meyers is an exception. He is a force of nature in his intellect and ability to convey his sound ideas. A good, decent, and brilliant man the world is fortunate to have around in times like this.
I'd be more optimistic if people didn't try to turn this into god is a possibility therefore Jesus must exist. The leap between there's a god and there's a Jesus is pretty wide. Christians and athiests love a binary debate because zombie jesus and absolute nothingness. The reality is god is self evident, it's the jesus bit that is up to debate.
The God Hypothesis is the past. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The Bible tells you where the expansion began from and when you establish the point of reference from the Bible, the Bible gets everthing 100% correct. The first thing that must be done to understand anything, is to get the reference point right. This is fundamental to the scientific method which came from the Bible. So many so called scientists don't realise that and they also don't realise that science does NOTHING! PEOPLE DO SCIENCE! And scientists can and do tell lies! They put their faith in science just as the pagans put their faith is idols and false gods that do nothing. Idols don't have senses and can't do anything just like Science can't. So called intelligent people calling themselves scientists, who don't believe in God, are by their own admission not intelligently designed! Would they trust in a computer that wasn't intelligently designed? If they went to Logoland would they believe the Logo blocks created Legoland? Seems like they would. Enough said!
Thank you! When Laplace explained the variation of the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter, Napoleon asked him: "But where is God in all this?" Laplace replied: "Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis". And Stephen Hawking's atheistic claim: 'Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation...” It seems to me Thomas Aquinas's diagnosis about such kind of questions remains actual: "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible."
Excellent presentation. It's also nice to see a video with actual video instead of just audio. It seems that there's more 'views' when there's something to watch with the audio.
Dr. Meyer is an absolutely brilliant scientist and orator who clearly explains the truth and facts about micro and macro evolution, without religious zealousness. As a progressive Christian who accepts micro evolution from the inception of intelligent design and creation, climate change, vaccines, spherical earth, and every other fact-based truth, I'm grateful for our genius'.
God encourages science: Ecc 1:13 And I set my heart to seek and search out by WISDOM concerning all that is done under heaven, this burdensome task God has given to the sons of men by which they may be exercised.
Also from that chapter, "There is nothing new under the sun." and the verses that pertains to the conclusion that "everything works according to their circuits". We always here about many of the mathematics who invented calculus, Boolean algebra, etc. all of the physicists many mentioned in this video, the ancient Greak Philosophers, etc... Yet, I feel that Solomon rarely ever gets the credit he deserves, and this isn't just about the words he wrote. It also pertains about the Temple he had built. It takes a mind of an engineer, craftsman, carpenter, chemist, etc. to design, procure, plan, construction and to complete such a task. If this isn't science, then nothing else is. Again, "There's nothing new under the sun".
Excellent question. I like to pose a similar related question this way. Did the enzymes which perform DNA replication in all living organisms (DNA polymerase, helicase, primase, sliding clamp, clamp loader, topoisomerase, etc.) appear during the magic of abiogenesis? Or did they evolve after that? How could there be any reproduction and therefore any evolution without all of them present? But then, that's an awful lot of separate complex components to pop into existence at the same time in abiogenesis. But how could there possibly be the numerous successive slight modifications that evolution would require to develop them when they are the very tools needed by reproduction?
@KenJackson_US wrote, "Excellent question. I like to pose a similar related question this way. Did the enzymes which perform DNA replication in all living organisms (DNA polymerase, helicase, primase, sliding clamp, clamp loader, topoisomerase, etc.) appear during the magic of abiogenesis? Or did they evolve after that?" I choose neither. Speaking materialistically, the probability of any of those components forming by chance from chemicals is virtually impossible; the probability of all appearing at the same time by chance is impossible. @KenJackson_US wrote, "How could there be any reproduction and therefore any evolution without all of them present? But then, that's an awful lot of separate complex components to pop into existence at the same time in abiogenesis. But how could there possibly be the numerous successive slight modifications that evolution would require to develop them when they are the very tools needed by reproduction?" Even if evolution was a workable biological process, and all of the necessary biochemical components were in the same place at the same time, it still lacks the information necessary to assemble the components. Further, there is the matter of life itself which has no natural origin. In Meyer's book Darwin's Doubt he cites the work of the late Eric Davidson of Cal Tech who explains the improbability of Neo-Darwinism being a workable biological process: _"Davidson's work highlights a profound contradiction between the neo-Darwinian account of how new animal body plans are built and one of the most basic principles of engineering-the principle of constraints. Engineers have long understood that the more functionally integrated a system is, the more difficult it is to change any part of it without damaging or destroying the system as a whole. Davidson's work confirms that this principle applies to developing organisms in spades. The system of gene regulation that controls animal-body-plan development is exquisitely integrated, so that significant alterations in these gene regulatory networks inevitably damage or destroy the developing animal. But given this, how could a new animal body plan, and the new dGRNs necessary to produce it, ever evolve gradually via mutation and selection from a preexisting body plan and set of dGRNs?_
_"Davidson makes clear that no one really knows: 'contrary to classical evolution theory, the processes that drive the small changes observed as species diverge cannot be taken as models for the evolution of the body plans of animals.' He elaborates:_
_"Neo-Darwinian evolution... assumes that all process works the same way, so that evolution of enzymes or flower colors can be used as current proxies for study of evolution of the body plan. It erroneously assumes that change in protein-coding sequence is the basic cause of change in developmental program; and it erroneously assumes that evolutionary change in body-plan morphology occurs by a continuous process. _*_All of these assumptions are basically counterfactual._*_ This cannot be surprising, since the neo-Darwinian synthesis from which these ideas stem was a premolecular biology concoction focused on population genetics and... natural history, neither of which have any direct mechanistic import for the genomic regulatory systems that drive embryonic development of the body plan."_ [Stephen C. Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt." HarperOne, 2013, p.269] Davidson went so far as to rule out chance: _"Each apparently redundant spatial control mechanism turns out to have a special function, often not evident a priori. The overall control principle is that the embryonic process is finely divided into precise little "jobs" to be done, and each is assigned to a specific subcircuit or wiring feature in the upper level dGRN [developmental gene regulatory network.] No subcircuit functions are redundant with another, and that is why there is always an observable consequence if a dGRN subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, _*_the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way."_* [Eric H. Davidson, "Evolutionary Bioscience as Regulatory Systems Biology." Developmental Biology, Vol.357, Iss.1, Sept 1, 2011, p.40] Dan
I noticed that time did not extend smoothly - that it was punctuated by moments and I fell down into a crack between two moments. Dr Kary Mullis. LSD experiments Harvard university
So much polish accolades and praise. What does it all mean? Ha. I know what I've lived thru snd seen accrue. TY.. lets just call it what it is? We lost what upright continuance is. The un-parented children have accrued into a majority of lost souls feeling soul-less. What ever a divine source is called by humans. Too many stopped calling on it.
There are few people these days I have immense and unlimited respect for.
Dr Meyers is an exception.
He is a force of nature in his intellect and ability to convey his sound ideas.
A good, decent, and brilliant man the world is fortunate to have around in times like this.
Thank you Dr. Meyer for all your efforts to promote Intelligence in science! The God Hypothesis is the future!!!
I'd be more optimistic if people didn't try to turn this into god is a possibility therefore Jesus must exist. The leap between there's a god and there's a Jesus is pretty wide. Christians and athiests love a binary debate because zombie jesus and absolute nothingness. The reality is god is self evident, it's the jesus bit that is up to debate.
The God Hypothesis is the past. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The Bible tells you where the expansion began from and when you establish the point of reference from the Bible, the Bible gets everthing 100% correct. The first thing that must be done to understand anything, is to get the reference point right. This is fundamental to the scientific method which came from the Bible. So many so called scientists don't realise that and they also don't realise that science does NOTHING! PEOPLE DO SCIENCE! And scientists can and do tell lies! They put their faith in science just as the pagans put their faith is idols and false gods that do nothing. Idols don't have senses and can't do anything just like Science can't. So called intelligent people calling themselves scientists, who don't believe in God, are by their own admission not intelligently designed!
Would they trust in a computer that wasn't intelligently designed? If they went to Logoland would they believe the Logo blocks created Legoland? Seems like they would.
Enough said!
Dr. Stephen Meyer is truly the man of the hour. 🎉🎉🎉
Thank you Dr. Myer for your wonderful work in the scientific field of intelligent design.
1. PLEASE post more from this conference.
2. Why its Almost Like There's A Plan Or Something!
Great talk
Thank you! When Laplace explained the variation of the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter, Napoleon asked him: "But where is God in all this?" Laplace replied: "Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis". And Stephen Hawking's atheistic claim: 'Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation...” It seems to me Thomas Aquinas's diagnosis about such kind of questions remains actual: "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible."
Excellent presentation.
It's also nice to see a video with actual video instead of just audio. It seems that there's more 'views' when there's something to watch with the audio.
Dr. Meyer is an absolutely brilliant scientist and orator who clearly explains the truth and facts about micro and macro evolution, without religious zealousness. As a progressive Christian who accepts micro evolution from the inception of intelligent design and creation, climate change, vaccines, spherical earth, and every other fact-based truth, I'm grateful for our genius'.
309 views, 41 likes and zero comments? The suppression is real.
The most slept on public figure of our time
The world will eventually catch on to what Dr. Meyer is saying.
Another good talk.
God encourages science: Ecc 1:13 And I set my heart to seek and search out by WISDOM concerning all that is done under heaven, this burdensome task God has given to the sons of men by which they may be exercised.
Also from that chapter, "There is nothing new under the sun." and the verses that pertains to the conclusion that "everything works according to their circuits". We always here about many of the mathematics who invented calculus, Boolean algebra, etc. all of the physicists many mentioned in this video, the ancient Greak Philosophers, etc... Yet, I feel that Solomon rarely ever gets the credit he deserves, and this isn't just about the words he wrote. It also pertains about the Temple he had built. It takes a mind of an engineer, craftsman, carpenter, chemist, etc. to design, procure, plan, construction and to complete such a task. If this isn't science, then nothing else is. Again, "There's nothing new under the sun".
The British are seeing the hell coming up and reconsidering the truth: they were not free thinkers rejecting God.
Proteins are made by molecular machines. Molecular machines are made of proteins. Which came first?
Dan
Only God can solve that paradox, along with the myriad of others.
Excellent question. I like to pose a similar related question this way.
Did the enzymes which perform DNA replication in all living organisms (DNA polymerase, helicase, primase, sliding clamp, clamp loader, topoisomerase, etc.) appear during the magic of abiogenesis? Or did they evolve after that?
How could there be any reproduction and therefore any evolution without all of them present? But then, that's an awful lot of separate complex components to pop into existence at the same time in abiogenesis. But how could there possibly be the numerous successive slight modifications that evolution would require to develop them when they are the very tools needed by reproduction?
@KenJackson_US wrote, "Excellent question. I like to pose a similar related question this way.
Did the enzymes which perform DNA replication in all living organisms (DNA polymerase, helicase, primase, sliding clamp, clamp loader, topoisomerase, etc.) appear during the magic of abiogenesis? Or did they evolve after that?"
I choose neither. Speaking materialistically, the probability of any of those components forming by chance from chemicals is virtually impossible; the probability of all appearing at the same time by chance is impossible.
@KenJackson_US wrote, "How could there be any reproduction and therefore any evolution without all of them present? But then, that's an awful lot of separate complex components to pop into existence at the same time in abiogenesis. But how could there possibly be the numerous successive slight modifications that evolution would require to develop them when they are the very tools needed by reproduction?"
Even if evolution was a workable biological process, and all of the necessary biochemical components were in the same place at the same time, it still lacks the information necessary to assemble the components. Further, there is the matter of life itself which has no natural origin.
In Meyer's book Darwin's Doubt he cites the work of the late Eric Davidson of Cal Tech who explains the improbability of Neo-Darwinism being a workable biological process:
_"Davidson's work highlights a profound contradiction between the neo-Darwinian account of how new animal body plans are built and one of the most basic principles of engineering-the principle of constraints. Engineers have long understood that the more functionally integrated a system is, the more difficult it is to change any part of it without damaging or destroying the system as a whole. Davidson's work confirms that this principle applies to developing organisms in spades. The system of gene regulation that controls animal-body-plan development is exquisitely integrated, so that significant alterations in these gene regulatory networks inevitably damage or destroy the developing animal. But given this, how could a new animal body plan, and the new dGRNs necessary to produce it, ever evolve gradually via mutation and selection from a preexisting body plan and set of dGRNs?_
_"Davidson makes clear that no one really knows: 'contrary to classical evolution theory, the processes that drive the small changes observed as species diverge cannot be taken as models for the evolution of the body plans of animals.' He elaborates:_
_"Neo-Darwinian evolution... assumes that all process works the same way, so that evolution of enzymes or flower colors can be used as current proxies for study of evolution of the body plan. It erroneously assumes that change in protein-coding sequence is the basic cause of change in developmental program; and it erroneously assumes that evolutionary change in body-plan morphology occurs by a continuous process. _*_All of these assumptions are basically counterfactual._*_ This cannot be surprising, since the neo-Darwinian synthesis from which these ideas stem was a premolecular biology concoction focused on population genetics and... natural history, neither of which have any direct mechanistic import for the genomic regulatory systems that drive embryonic development of the body plan."_
[Stephen C. Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt." HarperOne, 2013, p.269]
Davidson went so far as to rule out chance:
_"Each apparently redundant spatial control mechanism turns out to have a special function, often not evident a priori. The overall control principle is that the embryonic process is finely divided into precise little "jobs" to be done, and each is assigned to a specific subcircuit or wiring feature in the upper level dGRN [developmental gene regulatory network.] No subcircuit functions are redundant with another, and that is why there is always an observable consequence if a dGRN subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, _*_the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way."_*
[Eric H. Davidson, "Evolutionary Bioscience as Regulatory Systems Biology." Developmental Biology, Vol.357, Iss.1, Sept 1, 2011, p.40]
Dan
It really is the ultimate "Chicken-or-Egg" question.
A question. If all the galaxies are moving away from us, does that mean the our galaxy is at the center or was at the point of the big bang?
The beginning of an entirely new and likely the most productive chapter of science in world history, I imagine.
I noticed that time did not extend smoothly - that it was punctuated by moments and I fell down into a crack between two moments. Dr Kary Mullis. LSD experiments Harvard university
Could magnetism be involved in gravity? Just a thought.
Does everyone have a cold right now?
Yeah
YT algorithm, top and newest feature is ridiculously materialistically biased.
This irks me that everyone's talking about God and have no clue.
So much polish accolades and praise. What does it all
mean? Ha. I know what I've lived thru snd seen accrue.
TY.. lets just call it what it is? We lost what upright continuance is. The un-parented children have accrued into a majority of lost souls feeling soul-less. What ever a divine source is called by humans. Too many stopped calling on it.