Beyond the "creation vs. evolution" debate | Denis Lamoureux | TEDxEdmonton
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 лип 2024
- This talk was given at a local TEDx event, produced independently of the TED Conferences. In February 2014, a debate on the origin of the Earth was held between Bill Nye, "The Science Guy", and Ken Ham, the CEO of the creation Museum, received over 7 million hits online. This reaction speaks to the confusion within the minds of many people around where we come from and the meaning of life. Holding a PhD in evangelical theology and a PhD in evolutionary biology, Lamoureux provides a unique perspective that takes us past the “creation vs. evolution” debate, and into a world where both ideologies can exist together.
Denis is an Associate Professor of Science and Religion at St. Joseph's College in the University of Alberta. His appointment is the first tenure-track position in Canada dedicated to teaching and research on the relationship between scientific discovery and religious faith.
About TEDx, x = independently organized event In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)
"I can live with doubt & uncertainty & not knowing. It's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers & possible beliefs & different degrees of certainty about different things. But I'm not absolutely sure of anything, & there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here, & what the question might mean. I might think about it a little bit; if I can't figure it out, then I go onto something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell -- possibly. It doesn't frighten me." Richard Feynman
Hey up, I thought you were brilliant, right up until you attributed the quote to Richard Feynman. Seriously, what a brilliant mind.
"It's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong."
This statement contradicts itself. Because not knowing means that you might be wrong.
@@lightbeforethetunnel
When you don't know something you must be honest and admit it instead of trying to end your discomfort with your uncertainty by reaching a conclusion out of arguments from ignorance that a God did it.
@@lightbeforethetunnel
Only fools believe and consider as sacred the fairy tales and myths from a book just because the book claims itself to be the holy truth.
@@AtamMardes Might you be wrong about your atheism?
Why are people so rude when they talk about this stuff.
because they have put their whole life into this idiotic thing
@@clayle people spend their whole lives working at McDonald’s or not working at all, you don’t have to be a president for your career to be valuable, we all have roles and this is his, I just hope your role is not to be a judge of people online.
@@picklelt_4998 this has nothing to do of what we are talking about bye.
@@clayle it kinda is, when you say “they put their entire lives into this idiotic thing” that infers that you don’t think that their job has value, but I described that all jobs high salary or not have a role in society
When you say that it’s purely subjective, because I didn’t think it was rude.
He made an interesting statement. He said "the doctrine of creation does not deal with "how" God created only "that" God created. I think there in lies the problem for many creationists. The bible does speak about how God created and there in lies the debate. It says that he made the world and everything in it in 6 days by the word of his mouth. It says that when he was finished, it was very good. It also says that Death and the brokenness of our world came after Adam and Eves sin. Thus according to evolution we have disease and death well before man ever came on the scene. Here then you start to see the theological breakdowns that begin to happen. I am sorry to say but unless you shift and fudge the issue of sin and its effects, then evolution and creation will never be philosophically compatible.
I believe that evolution doesn’t necessarily require death of the species that came before. The Bible didn’t mention that any animals died before Adam and Eve ate the fruit. Also, 6 days does not mean 6 days on Earth. If God created time, then he lived outside of time. Saying that God created things for 6 days was written to help people comprehend it. Unless if I am factually and logically wrong, it is possible for evolution and creation to coexist, based off of this. (Please let me know if I got any of this wrong)
BigG99 Scientists say the universe had a beginning . Atheists scientists I might add. They say that time space and matter all came into existence at the same instant . And whatever created it had to be timeless space less and immaterial.
God is timeless space less and immaterial
The Bible says in the beginning ( Time ) God creates the heavens ( Space ) and earth ( Material )
So technically atheists scientists proved the biggest miracle in the Bible.
But where did God come from? It's the same question.
Paul Taylor If we keep on asking where everything comes from, it would just go on for all eternity. This is a reason why Christians believe that God is the very beginning.
@@athenachenxs I think that's a cop out. It's ok to have valid explanations for why you believe in creationism but when it comes to proving God's existence, you can't suddenly conclude that trying to do so will result in a never ending search. Sure, a God creating the universe is an easier way to try and understand its origins but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the right explanation, especially when there's such a stark lack of scientific evidence for such a God.
Spends 3-7 years working on a Ph.D. in Theology
Spends 3-7 years working on.a Ph.D. in Evolutionary Biology
Gets heckled by anonymous youtube viewers
How exactly does one get a degree in imaginary beings?
By the reality than that being is real.
must be he doesn't remember how long it took him to get his "P"ermanent "H"ead "D"amage (PHD),,,,, was it 3 years or 7 ??????
He got a degree in the stupidest religion ever. Evolutionism lol. It's just sad how many zealots repeat exactly what they are told uncritically.
JasonBarton That’s an assertion, please prove it.
And thus..”PERIODT “ was born
Lmaooooo
💀💀💀
I was actually reading this while he's demonstrating it 😭
It's gratifying to hear my own position expressed so well . Unfortunately , there will still be closed minds . Looking at some of comments posted proves it .
Disagreeing with this video doesn't necessarily denote close mindedness. I believe Lamoureux is misrepresenting Charles Darwin's claims about a "Designer". Charles Darwin didn't believe in any sort of supernatural creator/designer. There is an article from the National Academy of Sciences website called "Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer"
Here's a small part of that article.
"Darwin completed the Copernican Revolution by drawing out for biology the notion of nature as a lawful system of matter in motion that human reason can explain without recourse to supernatural agencies. The conundrum faced by Darwin can hardly be overestimated. The strength of the argument from design to demonstrate the role of the Creator had been forcefully set forth by philosophers and theologians. Wherever there is function or design, we look for its author. It was Darwin's greatest accomplishment to show that the complex organization and functionality of living beings can be explained as the result of a natural process-natural selection-without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent. The origin and adaptations of organisms in their profusion and wondrous variations were thus brought into the realm of science.
Darwin accepted that organisms are “designed” for certain purposes, that is, they are functionally organized. Organisms are adapted to certain ways of life and their parts are adapted to perform certain functions. Fish are adapted to live in water, kidneys are designed to regulate the composition of blood, and the human hand is made for grasping. But Darwin went on to provide a natural explanation of the design. The seemingly purposeful aspects of living beings could now be explained, like the phenomena of the inanimate world, by the methods of science, as the result of natural laws manifested in natural processes."
So when this guy says that Darwin believed in intelligent design, there should've been more of an explanation to that statement, otherwise he's simply misleading his viewers in believing in something that is not true.
Personally I think this whole attempt to add in a supernatural cause to the naturalistic one, claiming they are simply 2 sides of the same coin, or as he put it...."Science deals with the physical, not the mystical or spiritual." This whole thing reeks of someone who is desperate to have their cake and eat it to. They can no longer deny the facts and reality of evolution, but they still very much want to believe in a God as well. So they simply say God put evolution in to motion. Can that be proven? No, because God is part of the mystical and spiritual realm and that is a place that science doesn't dwell. Well how convenient..... and totally superfluous. This is all unnecessary baggage. The God/designer claim is not needed nor warranted for explaining evolution. One thing I believe that calls this guys claims into question is the fact that he is a Christian. Because if by some crazy chance that evolution was proven to be put in to motion by a designer/creator/God, this wouldn't in any way prove that Christianity is true or the cause. Yet, I guarantee they would automatically add their Christian God as the cause. And Muslims would do the same, claiming Allah was the cause, and so on. Intelligent design after all is simply creationism in disguise. You can't simply say that a God put something like evolution in to motion, because it contradicts their claims that a creator is only part of the mystical and spiritual. Evolution is very much part of the physical world, and if you're going to claim that it was somehow influenced by a supernatural being, then you should be able to scientifically prove that claim.
@@jeremybr2020
That was long. You say evolution has the proof, but you give no proof.
@@solonkazos1379 compadre, you can litterally plug in the algorithm for evolotion into a computer, run a simple simulation and you get the evolutionary prosses out. You can see change occuring over generations tending towards greater fitness. That's all evolotion is, an algorithm.
If something can replicate and can have errors introduced during replication and the somethins have differental replication or persistace then the population will change over time to be better at replicating.
You can even run a simulation in your head and prove evolution.
Evolotion happens in computer simulations, in spoken languages, in product categories etc etc
When you look to see, do these rules also play out in the realm of biology we find an emphatic yes. Things do reproduce and mutate and thus we'd predict change over time to tend to maximise fitness and if we run this test with bacteria we find that exact thing happening, or if we look at fossil evidence, comparative anatomy or extend the logic of DNA family testing to multiple species all of these point to a long history of evolotion resulting in what is here now. The evidence is truly overwhelming.
It is to me much more interesting to think... "Why has this fact been so hard to come to terms with for many groups of people especially compared to other easily adopted findings of sciance". Since we know memes (cultural informational units of replication) also evolve, we can look at the meme of Evolution and ask; what makes this more fit and what makes it less fit.
First thing to realise Is that truth, a true reflection on what actually is real, is not a prerequisite for sucsessfull spreading of a meme. Plenty of urban legends spread becise they are fun to spread, or seem like important information.
The second thing to realise is that we are not rational beings, not entirely. We have biases and we have psychology needs and tendancies. The creationist meme is that some higher power made us in a particular way and thus we are ultimately valuable rather than untimatley valueless is a nice thought (and we like information that flatters us). This claim that particular way if coming to to being transpired is seriously undermined by evolution which means that the rationale for giving value to your life or others is hard to work out. People don't like this.
The third thing to remember is that evolution also happens to memes. If a meme can replicate well it will spread faster thought the humans. It can do this by (amoungst other ways): being easier to explain to someone, moralise belife in the meme, apeal to people's desirre to understand the truth (note: APEAL), making people kill others without the same meme, making somone have more Childen who can have memes spread to them very easily since they don't have any memes installed in their brains yet and the parents have a first change to spread their memes.
There is so much to talk about here but this comment already too long
@@samgrainger1554 To bad none of what you said is true.
When we plug information into an evolutionary model on a computer we get back the inputs we put in. In other words the computer is only going to tell us what we put into it in the first place. There is no such thing as a computer thinking an original thought on its own.
There is zero evidence biology is getting better over time. What we have is a degrading of the forms over time. No forms have gained with time, no matter how long the time is. What evolutionists are left with is a bunch of story telling. This is why computer models show forms that have never been , they come from artistic drawings . No bones, no DNA, nothing pointing to these transitional species, just the creative imaginations of fiction.
So just in case anyone missed it, the models will say something like; millions of years ago something happened and ___________ and then we continued to evolve. This is a two bit problem. First what happened, because something isn't really a science term. Second , then we continued to evolve. No evidence of this, no DNA proving evolving, no bones showing it, just the story of fiction.
@@solonkazos1379 _"we continued to evolve. No evidence of this"_
Your ignorance of what evolution is and how it works is abundantly evident.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." --Albert Einstein
He also said that all religions are man made and childish tales. So explain what he meant by this quote.
@@swarsi12 Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza.
@@swarsi12 he is not a creationist he is panthiest who belived god came after the universe
Yes, he did say that, but he'd had beer!!
@@n.ramthilak4475 🤨
When you mix theology and science, this is what happens.
Do you not realise that his whole message is not to mix theology and science?
@@darkdrift0r124
No, his message is to not use Science to examine and dismiss religion, and he's WRONG!!
@@rstevewarmorycom a third example has just appeared. Three different people got three different messages about the same topic. He has just been proved right, your all religious... None of you are scientists with billion dollar equipment or religious scholars with decades of academia or archaeologists digging up ancient clay tablets or linguists deciphering dead dialects or physicists who solve math equations four pages long. You have to take their word for it. You have to BELIEVE they are right in their observations. That is the definition of faith.
Actually hes mixing theology and theology. Evolutionism is a religion. It's not science.
josh portie ,
I agree......evolution science is another creation belief......
My mom told me growing up that Satan placed fossils and stuff on Earth to temp us and test our faith. 🤣💀
I am religious and wow this is the dumbest thing I've heard in my life lol
@Dominic Schmidt yeah bc something coming from nothing makes sense
@Dominic Schmidt lol yeah people take the bible literally and it just wouldn’t make sense based on scientific facts
Justin Scoot dude Go to inspiring phylosophy channel and he argues that the bible dosent say the Earth is 6000 years old he's a christian he's alos a evolutionist and a creationist and he gives pretty good arguments of how the bible and evolution can co-exist
Lol. That’s funny.
Dennis didn't watch the Ham Nye debate. Dennis' talk is what Ham talked about. Ham said both sides have the same facts but differ in the interpretation. The Bible speaks correctly when it talks of science.
Not really. The Bible has the Earth and plants created before the Sun.
If your mind us closed (to either "system") you will miss the point of thus talk. If not it raises a simple but profound question: can the two systems coexist? That us a valid question, surely.
Looks like you didn't watch the debate either, both sides did not have the same facts. Did you even watch the debate or the words coming out of Bill Nye's mouth just went over your head.
Harsh Fodo: The point here us that "facts" implies scientific facts. They are articles of a religion called scientism.. I've no time for religions of any kind. The science I do admire is the science of the open mind, alas largely forgotten. We now have the science if the closed mind, eg String theory provides some impossible solutions, ergo there must be multiverses where these solutions fit! An open mind might include the possibility that string theory is wrong. A busted clock tells the correct time twice every 24 hours, ergo it must be a true time teller? Eh, no ..it's busted.
@@oftbanned101 Mate I don't know what you're on about. What does cosmology have anything to do with evolution by means of natural selection, those are two entirely different disciplines. And I was talking about the Ken Ham and Bill Nye debate, where did string theory pop out from?
'Plan' or 'purpose' is only a derivation of the original meaning of the term 'teleos'. It originally meant 'target' as in a archery target or a post to run to. Also, I think the NT Greek translated into English as 'sin' is 'ateleos', meaning, 'missing the target'. Also, 'metaphysics' is called that because it was in the book Aristotle wrote after the physics. Logically, it precedes physics.
Evidence is why the two are separate. If evidence is required for one thing and not the other than by definition you've contradicted yourself and the point of Science. A "leap of faith' isn't required if you had evidence for your beliefs Dr. Lamoureux.
Science operates on faith. Ever heard of Humes problem regarding induction? Also, the state of science is ever changing, how many scientists of the past were wrong.
Some problems I have with this video 1) Evolutionists tend to use the word evolution rather flexibly! Evolution mean "change over time" (which nobody denies), but depending on context, this could refer to micro-evolution (change within gene pool), macro-evolution (one KIND developing into another KIND) and design evolution (Ford model T to Bugatti Chiron). This issue of definition is nowhere addressed. 2) I.D. is a PROPOSITION that many scientific OBSERVATIONS are BEST EXPLAINED by the notion that they are the results of intelligent design rather than natural processes. 3) The ancient cosmology as described is a bit misleading; the ancients knew that rain comes from clouds, not some water above the firmament which spits at you! 4) It ignores the more abstract aspects of words like firmament (which those in 4000 B.C. were well capable of) that a firmament denotes a firmly fixed limit to something, e.g. the cosmos; current big-bang theory states the same. 5) the Egyptian cosmology shown is different to the Biblical one previously shown, which had the Sun and stars BELOW the firmament. 6) Where is the 'law' saying that science cannot and must not be described poetically? True, the Bible is not a scientific text book, but data and the contemporary understanding of that data can be gleaned. 7) DARWINIAN macro-evolution and Theistic Creation are BOTH speculative interpretations of science, and they ARE mutually exclusive, one being materialistic (denying there is any such thing as the supernatural and all things must therefore have a naturalistic cause), the other saying all material things originate from the supernatural and are a sub-set of it. Neither deny that micro-evolution happens, but Biblical creation has to take into account everything else the Bible says about the character of God, the nature of life and so on.
No. You just literally have no idea of what you’re talking about.
The definition of evolution is simple: A change in the allelomorphic frequency of a population of organisms. What creationists call micro and macro evolution are literally the same thing, macro just being the cumulation of the aforementioned in time. And that is why macro and microevolution are poorly defined terms in the first place.
Wow. Along with this, is the fact that just because evolution is said to be micro, doesn't mean, the micro is evolution.
As you said, evolution is supposed to be change. But, the evolutionists had filled in in the type of changes to be expected, when they claimed that dinosaurs evolved, (CHANGED), into birds. That land animals evolved, (changed into whales), that ape like creatures evolved, (CHANGED), into man.
The fact is, the chanes they are claiming occurred in the past, are not the type of changes occurring so what they claim about the past, is completely contradicted by the types of changes they present to support that evolution is change over time.
And they offer examples they claim is evidence for evolution, but, again, they do not provide evidence to support this.
They say that since the descendant offspring of the different kinds of organisms are not identical to the parents, this means evolution is occurring.
But, what if there is another reason why offspring are not identical to parents. What if science can be used to show, this is not true.
And this is exactly the case.
When you start with the lowest possible denominator, the single celled organism, science tells us that when the single celled organism reproduces, the resulting newly formed organisms are IDENTICAL TO THE PARENT ORGANISM.
That's it. Sure, they claim that the DNA is different.
But, science tells us that they are identical right down to the copy of DNA.
So, here is where evolution should end. They should close the toilet led and flush it.
Because, they can't produce any evidence a protocell ever existed. They can't even prove only one protocell formed. They can not prove life forms did not appear as whole fully functional organisms.
But, neither can they provide any evidence that protocell could have evolved into a more complex cell.
All they can do, is admit that the cells we see are complex. More complex than what an has ever devised.
And now, they have nothing to used to bridge the gap, the chasm from single celled life to multicelled life.
And they must realize the impossibility of trying to hold on to the possibility that a single celled organism could have replicated a multicelld life form.
Since today, they are claiming that a bunch of single celled organisms grouped together, and began cooperating with one another, and they morphed into a multicelled organism
WHERE IS THE SCIENCE TO SUPPORT THIS. Yes, some single celled organisms do bunch together. But, they do not form multicelled organisms.
Yes, again, with the "but with enough time". Again, how do they know. They haven't been around long enough to have verified this to be possible.
And anyway. What happened to the, "if you do somehting once, its easier, to do it again" idea?
If the single celled life had already done the bunching into a multicelled life form before, WHY AREN'T THEY ABLE TO DO IT OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN?
Did they forget how it was done before.
They don't forget how to replicate. They can still form fuel for their dynamos.
Why is it forming multicelled life form single celled life forgotten?
It's because it never happened.
All of what the evolutionists claim, is based upon unsubstantiated assumptions, placed behind a shield of time.
?It happened a long time ago. You can't see it happen as we say, because a lot of TIME must go by"
But, there is no science that supports it.
Thank you for trying to reduce the animosity between people of science and faith. There is a common middle ground where we may not necessarily agree, but we can respect each other enough to stop fighting.
Ya sure pal sure as much as transformers ever could of 🎮 team death match.
@@mistylover7398 Go for a run or something. It's therapeutic.
@@acdude5266 🤨 ummmm Okey?
I dont get why academia has always considered these two views as incompatible. I've always believed in education and also lean towards the idea of a grand purpose or prophecy. This is nothing new, but should also be considered more seriously.
Than you are against the word of God since he created man perfectly no evolution he created everything perfect.
Creationism isn't scientific, it's just religious make believe, whereas evolution has graduated to the top of the scientific tree in becoming a scientific theory of evolution. Hence religious dogmatic assertions and scientific facts and theories are not compatible. Basically religion requires faith while science requires facts.
PS If you believe a religious prophecy can be proven then present your evidence to the religious Templeton Foundation and if they agree then you'll be awarded their top prize of over $1 Million and become world famous overnight. The physics books will all have to be rewritten and edited to include your world changing discovery. Let me know how you get on?
And what pray tell would GRAND PURPOSE supposed to mean?
a grand purpose or prophecy that failed over and over to prophesy
You may ‘think’ Intelligent Design is real and that’s about all you can say. Doesn’t make it real.
Denis was a young earth creationist. Would like to hear how he was convinced, at the time , that it was a real thing.
I am a former atheist who gave up atheism because of science, years before I started reading and believing the bible.
@@puglover8171 So now you don't eat the flesh of cloven-footed animals (no more succulent hamburgers!!!) no more spilling your seed wantonly, or any other such idiotic prohibitions in a list a mile long !!
Are you sure you've made a sensible choice. Oh, and by the way, did you have a painful circumcision after joining the fold!
@@puglover8171 That's amazing.
Taxonomic connection between birds and fish. Vertebrates, animals, eukaryotes. The ‘none’ assertion was BS.
He should have asked for a taxonomic connection between sea animals and air animals that leaves out land animals (which were created on the next day). Even if you ignore invertebrates and occasional exceptions (like whales, bats, and ostriches), he's asking for a taxonomic connection between fish and birds that leaves out reptiles and mammals. And we don't have that.
@@tobybartels8426 taxonomy is a temporal hierarchy and it includes everyone at one place. All the species mentioned join at the eukaryote level.
What does that mean - "period." (including the professor's gesture)?
Period = Full stop. The end of a sentence.
I'm guessing the meaning might be lost because it is colloquial, although I'd be surprised if it is limited to English. In this context, he means the statement is complete without caveat or outlying exceptions. You might be able to swap the word "period" with "nothing more, nothing less".
3:37 "Creation is a religious belief that the world was made by a Creator." "The doctrine of creation does not deal with HOW God created but rather with THAT God created."
Well I suppose if he only read Genesis 1:1, but how does he account for the rest of the chapter?
Well, there are many ways one can go about that. But if you're interested, my perspective on the first chapter of Genesis can be found here: iesouschristos.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/an-analysis-of-genesis-11-23/. I suspect that Professor Lamoureux would agree with my analysis, as I drew heavily upon his article. But anyway, for whatever it's worth. :)
Interesting article, though I don't see how one can be both a "creationist" and an "evolutionist" because if the "days" in Genesis are not literal, and instead millions (or billions) of years, then how does that view account for death before sin? Death is absolutely necessary for evolution to progress (natural selection), while for literal days there is no issue of death before sin. This article talks about this: answersingenesis.org/death-before-sin/biblically-could-death-have-existed-before-sin/
+C Note It's better to understand the "death" in Romans 5 as spiritual death rather than physical. Even so, evolutionary creationists are not united on this issue; there's still a range of differing opinions on whether Adam and Eve actually existed or if the flood was an actual event.
Look up Ron Wyatt. He found what has been to date the best evidence for Noah's Ark, but the scientific community won't even look at the evidence.
Death before sin is a Christian concept. It has no part in the Five Books of Moses (Torah).
Watched this twice and still can't figure out what he believes. Is he saying that God created the environment and ingredients for evolution to be possible, but beyond that God was not involved in evolution? That would be the only way I could imagine that simultaneous belief in both evolution and God would be possible, since evolution is supposed to be a purely scientific theory, not requiring God's interference to work.
Wow this comment section lol
Love how all these people think that they're smart, better than him, know more...
@Rick James we? Wasn't talking about you.
Teilhard de Chardin was one of the first faith-filled scientists. He centered the recognition of the process of evolution in a divine milieu, with love impelling the development, through increasingly complex and conscious patterns. Because he was a geologist, he understood the huge amounts of time which the process took. His book "The Phenomenon of Man" is worth reading. He is a Jesuit priest, and his understanding of Jesus is important, as a connection point at the center of the universe, connecting human and divine, in a conscious way.
Martina Nicholson according to the evidence all of the layers of the earth were laid down very rapidly, possibly in a flood
What does being a PRIEST of anything have to do with it?
I appreciate the trouble with which Mister Lamoureux tries to have a dualistic approach of the debate.
Yet, I can't help but feel like while scientific facts are facts, and so aplpy to everyone, the elements of his talk mentioning faith can ONLY be accessible to people for whom faith is important. Therefore, his vision, it seems to me, is only acceptable by believers.
Now I'm not one of those anti-religion guys. I happen to be an agnostic, but I don't refuse religion : I just lack faith, which does not prevent me from accepting and tolerating religion, or loving the idea of it (and realizing that there are many different beliefs, not just the christian, muslim and jewish ones).
To me, mixing the two is impossible, because the vision of the world presented by religious texts is so obviously ignorant of the realities of the physical world that I always wonder how people can still refuse to accept they are purely wrong.
Oh, and Neil Degrasse Tyson debunked Intelligent Design quite brilliantly...
have you even watched the video?
melkor bauglir Hmmm maybe you could start by telling me why you think I didn't ?
Xela Crémant
because you don't understand mister Lamoureux. faith is important to EVERYONE.
"the vision of the world presented by religious texts is so obviously ignorant of the realities of the physical world."
THESE TEXTS WERE WRITTEN TWO MILLENNIA AGO!!!! of course the writers didn't had the same knowledge as we now.
Well, exactly. So when do you disagree that when scientific knowledge is concerned, religious ideas based on faith should have nothing to do with it ?
My question is how is truth define, because I choose to believe something therefore is true and how does he reconcile the contradictions of evolution and creationism is there a duality of reality.
🤨
Those who believe God created, can not produce God on a petri dish. We have no present day videos of God creating the universe, Painting the blue sky with clouds.
Indeed we can not offer empirical evidence of God's existence.
But, the evolutionists/atheists, and everyone in between, can not produce any evidence life began as a protocell.
In fact the protocell, which the atheists need as a bridge from non life to life, is a construct of the evolutionists to give credence to the mythical universal common ancestor they imagined evolved from that protocell after it supposedly evolved into a more complex cell which supposedly evolved into a single celled organism.
I'll ask anyone, did your teachers or professors, ever produce an authentic picture, of that protocell, that more complex cell, or that single celled organism?
No, right. But, they make a fuss, when those who accept God's existence can't produce evidence for God.
But, there are plenty of contradictions with the universal common ancestor and science.
Science is based upon observation. I just showed you there is not for how they claim their beginning of life model, falls on its face.
But, look around. What is observed. How many years has anyone observed human babies being born?
Is it not true that a human female and human male are the ones, have been the only ones known to give birth to human babies?
And is it not the same case for how baby apes are born. There are male and female apes that give birth to baby apes.
Again, IS THIS NOT WHAT HAS BEEN OBSERVED?
Now, please tell me which of you again, witnessed that at some time in the past, what is observed, today, and was observed yesterday, and the day before and the day before, was not what they observed at some time in the past?
No one can. What evolutionists claim occurred is something they NEVER EVER OBSERVED OCCURRING.
And they ignore the fact that what is truly observed is the empirical evidence that disputes what they can only imagine occurred.
It doesn't matter that there are egg heads who claim one fossil has similarity to another.
Since they can not produce an orignal fossils with small changes occurring until what they claim evolved from that original fossil, they are only making assumptions, that one evolved from the other.
In fact, since we known apes and humans are living today, and they were living yesterday, we also know they have similar anatomies. And even though we share similar anatomies with apes, still the apes are still apes, and man is still man.
So, for the evolutionists to prove that man evolved from the apes, (or something ape like), they must supply the evidence that man actually was not present when the apes, or ape ancestors were present, and they must, that the lineage had indeed began from the mating of two apes, whose descendants slowly became man.
The problem is, they think that just because they haven't found any human fossils that date to the time of those "ape like" creatures they believed slowly became man, that is a safe and "SCIENTIFIC" reason TO ASSUME, man was not around at the time they would expect him to be there to not form the conclusion, that man evolved from apes.
But, do you remember when Darwin, was asking himself for the possible reason as to why they, in his time, (and 150), years later were not finding the transitional fossils Darwin had predicted they would be finding?
He also offered another assumption that he hoped would be the reason why they were not finding the "TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS" needed to give hope for his universal common ancestor speculation.
He said, more or less, that it is possible that they hadn't explored enough to have found the needed, and predicted transitional fossils.
But, look how hipocritical they are being.
Just because they think they have not found human fossils as old as the ape fossils, this must mean they are same to assume humans had evolved from apes.
And not apes from humans. Or apes having their own ape ancestors and man our own human ancestos.
The evolutionists are great at making unsubstantiated assumptions, but even better at not thinking they need to supply the evidence to support their assumptions.
What is worse, they are even better at pretending that there is a mountain of evidence, when instead, all of what they have piled to make that mountain, is nothing more that unsubstantiated assumptions.
How does an evolutionary biologist NOT know the definition of biological evolution? It's not "the origin of life" as he stated, it's the origin of species and diversity. The origin of life is abiogenesis. Secondly, that Nye/Ham debate had nothing to do with the existence of God, it was about the truth of evolution and the fallacies of mythological "creation". He's starts this talk with the most common incorrect definition of the subject he claims to be an expert in and then proposes a false dichotomy as his premise. Sounds just like an apologist.
+Kyle Orr You should probably ask a scientist.
Get thee to a university science department; listen to fact finders, not dogma
He obviously is just a glorified Sunday school teacher.
Kyle you are focusing on just one fossil. Not only that but there is a massive amount of varied evidence.
Way to split those hairs. Rock on troll.
There are facts, and then there are the interpretation of those facts.
J. D. Fluekiger 🤣🤣🤣 lold hard at this
@@ZenDonn why? Original comment is true
@Paul Oxo In your comments you criticize the unreliable Bronze Age Document that writers ripped off from other cultures to make up their stories. Scholars are abandoning explanations like the Documentary Hypothesis or that Israel stole a Sumerian story and adapted it for their purposes in place of a polemic story to counter theologies of surrounding cultures. If you are going to attack people for their historiography, at least stay current with the research, Paul Oxo. When people consider "evidence," they do not only consider scientific evidence, but also archeological, historical, and anthropological evidence when trying to come to conclusions; and if one were to go back and listen to Denis Lamoureux's presentation again, one would conclude that even he would look at other kinds of evidence. The nature of science is not absolute and never as rigid as what you are putting forth. Science was never designed to deconstruct faith or prove that a deity doesn't exist--that's insulting to all honest scientists. Idealougues who use science in that way, take scientific (or other kinds of) evidence and then come to personal philosophical conclusions and develop their own dogma of Scientism. So, even they take a step of "faith." While other very reasonable and thoughtful people, look at that same set of evidence and come to very different conclusions.
At that time Darwin couldn’t say HE didn’t believe in god or a god, that would have been the end for him and his studies/fundings/support etc
As 9tails the rapper once said " I don't lie I'm just speaking different truths on the low"
Just the fact he said "it's not debatable" proves Creationists right when they say Evolutionists view their beliefs as a religion, not as science. Any scientific consensus is debatable, by definition. And there is no scientific evidence for Macro-evolution, only speciation (which is not equivalent). Yet the Theory of Evolution relies on Macro-evolution being real despite being an imaginary process that has never been observed.
Quit listening to "creationist scientists" (a contradiction in terms).
@@nofairytales5604 You're just demonstrating my point. You automatically assume Creationists are wrong and can't be scientists (despite the verifiable fact that most scientists who made the theories and breakthroughs we still rely on today were openly Creationists and many thousands of mainstream scientists today still are)
I recommend looking up "begging-the-question fallacy" or "circular reasoning" to learn about the fallacy you're commiting.
The fact you're using circular reasoning in that way also demonstrates Evolution is a religion to you just as i said... as you automatically assume it's truth and anyone disputing it is just automatically wrong for doing so... regardless of evidence/reasoning.
That's dogmatism (religion) which is completely antithetical to science. In fact, the scientific method was specifically designed to avoid dogmatism like that when applied correctly.
At the end of the day, Macro-evolution has never been observed and therefore obviously has no place in a scientific theory. This should be common sense. Science is about what we can observe. You can't just make up imaginary faith-based processes and then base theories around them completely.. and call it a "scientific" theory.
And if you think you can, then Creation theory would be just as scientific to you.
The difference is Evolution theory is taught as if it's actual science (in science class) when it clearly is not... while Creation theory isn't for some reason, despite requiring the same number of faith-based processes: one.
Yet, no one can provide a single example of scientific evidence that conflicts with Creation theory. 100% of scientific evidence matches with it... so why isn't it taught as science?
Evolution is a faith-based religion clothed in scientific terms
@@lightbeforethetunnel
This argument of “never been observed” is fallacious. It’s a weak argument, it just shows your total lack of understanding of science.
It’s pathetic
It is not debatable. Evolution has evidence and nothing disproving it. Creation has zero evidence and much disproving it. It is like saying a flat Earth is debatable.
There is a major problem with this man’s theory though. If the Bible cannot be trusted in its statements on the natural world, natural history, etc., then why does he believe it can be trusted on spiritual matters? On such an important matter as going to heaven??
Bingo!
I’d encourage you to consider that he is not denying Biblical statements. Rather he is highlighting other factors one just consider when reading ancient texts such as audience, time written, genre of book, its purpose, its inclusion of poetry or lack therefore. The beginning of genesis is cited by many scholars as using a figurative language to communicate real and true things. The genre of say the book of Leviticus, numbers, the gospels, acts, etc, is the genre of history and so should be read more literally than genesis. The Bible is not a book about how God created. It is about WHAT God does and why. To read genesis without regard to scientific logistics is completely consistent with trusting the promises of the Gospel. The beginning of Genesis describes that God ordered things, not how. He spoke in ways which his audience of the near East would understand. It was not an important thing to teach them about evolution.
It’s always an argument of, are we making the box or are we in it.
Finding ground is so difficult in times where truth is in flux. Spirituality offers stable ground in the fact that there is an ultimate. Meanwhile science just says that we are going forwards. This is why my heart is heavy.
The source of the conflict lies in the “-ism” of each of the two points of view. Evolution as a fact and Creation as a belief have no inherent conflicts: they are just inversely proportional points of view of the same event.
Paul Oxo, thanks for your comment; please read my response again for clarification...👍🏼
🤨
There are no facts with evolution. It is worse off than that of the Creatio model.
Supply what you think is a fact, and I'll show you how it is an unsubstantiated claim.
It’s comforting to hear “a professional” agree with my hypothesis. Didn’t study at university, but Scripture led me to the same conclusion.
Which?
There are many! Some notable ones are Francis Collins and William Lane Craig.
@@Jalip07 He means he believes in theistic evolution/evolutionary creation.
The orator, Lamoureux. His doctorate gives me some small, almost theoretically tangible reassurance that there are some interpretations of our existence which support my primarily “spiritual” perception of a supreme being. As my beliefs on the origin of man are largely decided by my faith and personal experience, it’s comforting to hear another likeminded scholar, more studied than myself, offer some alternative physical defense for my perceptions of our being.
@@FelixAn the demons believe and tremble, without a covenant with God, you have nothing ! Jesus made the way !
This video needs to be played everywhere! So beautifully and coherently put. Thanks!
Thank you!
I can't see that firmly entertaining two diametrically opposed views in the same head can generate anything _but_ "incoherence" by way of argument!
That the world was created at 9 o'clock on the morning of the 29th of October 4004 BCE, or over a period of hundreds of thousands of years some 4bn years ago, and claiming to accept both statements as being factual, is a sure sign there's something badly amiss in that person's noggin!
Words are very important and I find it interesting that he inserts the word, "ridiculous", into the very first quote. Why, I wonder...
This is similar to the concept advocated by Clarence Darrow in the Scopes Trial.
Amagine some one on TikTok finds this and makes it a remix meme
Hey. Great idea. But how do we do this?
this guy really said: “i’m playing both sides so that i always come out on top”
Not at all. Get trained in both evolutionary science and biblical theology, and you'll end up holding this view. I'm quite centric in both.
The problem is that he thinks this is some kind of honest, noble or virtuous position.
@@denislamoureux6569
Theology is not a serious subject for academia. You may as well have a PhD in palm reading, astrology or Mother Goose for all the practical value they have.
Although, in the USA you can make a very decent living as a -snake oil salesman- theologian or psychic.
@@jtveg Thanks for your comment John. It is a window into your bias & skewed secularist thinking. The academic discipline of theology and in particular my specialty of Science & Religion is well-respected in leading universities. For example, there are Sci & Rel positions in Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard, and Princeton. Do you have the academic firepower to tell these institutions they don't know what they are talking about?
@@denislamoureux6569
Like I've said before. Having a PhD in theology is no better than having a PhD in palm reading, astrology or any other pseudoscience. It is pure invention. There is nothing objective about it. That in itself isn't a problem because writing fiction is also pure invention except writers of fiction don't pretend that their writings reflect objective reality or that nature is beholden to the words in their books. Theology on the other hand speaks about realms they have no evidence for, beings that have never been shown to exist and phenomenon that break the laws of nature and expect us to believe it is all true.
Theology has demonstrated absolutely zero about whether a god exists or what his properties are other than by pure assertion and by pseudo philosophers sitting in their armchairs in deep thought and coming to the conclusion that _it just must be so._
The only reason these subjects are still taught is not because they have any practical value for humanity. It is because of tradition, culture and because religion is a virus of the mind spread by parents to their children. It is still a taboo to denigrate religion and there is still a giant social and economic apparatus funding such institutions which is why they remain.
Why is there no Nobel prize in theology? Why did they have to invent the Ratzinger Prize in order to appear to have the same legitimacy as real academic disciplines?
Religion is a blight on humanity that we will hopefully eventually grow out of. There is nothing that religion can provide that secularism can't, that is practical and valuable to humanity.
Since theology doesn't have any empirical facts at its disposal, it can never speak about what goes on in the external objective world. It is all pure speculation with an a priori bias to the religion one is already beholden to.
Do you think a Christian religious university or college will ever discover a theological truth about Islam or Hinduism or vice versa? No, it seems every theologian only discovers truths about their own religion and also discovers that all the other religions are false. Funny how that works.
You are smart enough to know what I'm talking about and you don't need me to point this out. Who is the one really biased? Who is the one invested in their worldview? Who really has the burden of proof here?
Anyone engaging in _"The Outsider Test For Faith"_ always employs special pleading arguments and cherry picking.
I've said enough and will say no more.
Have a nice day. 👋🏼😷
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory
That's why he is both a creationist and an evolutionist. There is no "beyond" this debate, there is only terror management.
whenever anybody is talking about things and they say...there is no debate... I think, ya right
mark wright He never said that there is no debate. He literally gave an example of one! What he did say is that this debate should not exist.
Genesis 1:11-12 "And God said, 'Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.' And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that is was good." God did not use evolution as stated right here.
Interpretation my friend, these things did come into existence, nowhere does it say it didn't come from evolution
BTW the Bible isn't always right.
Manish Squad who am I to spoil your dream. Dream on.
So you have forfeited the opportunity to understand/learn beyond what was known +/- 2000 years ago? OK.
dude your just wrong. no where in the verse that you quoted did it say God didn't use evolution. He may not have used evolution for those particular parts of creation, but you just can't make these absolute statements that "God did not use evolution" because thats not what it says
I wonder what miricles he's seen? I'd love to be able to belive in god the way these guys do!
There is a video on UA-cam of a Russian truckddiver crashing and flying through the wind shield but emerges unscathed unharmed only shooken up. If this is not a miracle I don't know what is
@@jackyhenson3726 I mean like a real paranormal miricles, somthing science or coincidence can't explain!! People say they talk to God all the time, somthing like that
@@fakhirpathaankhan746 I think the closest thing you'll get to that is exercise of the law of attraction. God gave us the ability to morph the universe into whatever we want
@@jackyhenson3726 I don't get it? Please elaborate
@@fakhirpathaankhan746 there is a documentary on Netflix that brilliantly explains it called the Secret. When you joyously and cheerfully believe that your life was meant to be abundant and you redirect negative thinking to manifest your dreams. Say you spend 5 minutes a day twice once when awoken and once before bed, and you spend this time visualizing a new car of your dreams. After any amount of time of consistantly thinking positive and believing you will attain your goal and even feel as though you already accomplished it you will achieve it. Please look into the law of attraction don't disregard this as "spiritual brouhaha" look into certain processes that will change your life for the better. Jesus even spoke of the law of attraction in the bible. "Believe in your heart and the mountains will move" whether you think you can or can't you're right
What's the taxonomic connection between fish and birds? They're both in the phylum vertebrata
Yeah, but so are we, and we were created on the next day (along with all the other land animals). He didn't phrase it well, but the point is that there's nothing in modern biology that matches the distinction between the 5th day and the 6th day in Genesis.
So I'm off to watch Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye
Ham =overacting Nye(nigh) =close to .
I mainly watched the debate for entertainment purposes.
Same even though I am a creationist
JARJARBANKS ! I’m a creationist too
Really great perspective, enjoyed hearing this.
I don't believe they are are separate and can be brought together. Who am I to contradict Gould, lol? They are not overlapping and, more, they are mutually exclusive.
At 8:30, what are we saying here---that the Intelligent Designer was a Trinity?
only thing i liked about this was the galileo quote lol
Thanks for this explanation. Your presentation articulates the false dichotomy in a concise way 🙏☺️
I appreciate the effort to find a common ground between creationists and those who believe in the scientific method. But I find the attempted explanation wholly unconvincing. Even in the description of the firmament being told from the perspective of the people of that time, it only serves to indicate that there was know God with superior knowledge to correct the mistakes in the Genesis story. It is far more likely that this is people giving their explanation of what's in the sky and how life and the earth came to be, based on their own limited ability to comprehend what they saw.
As with algebra we can use what we know to figure out what we do not know. There is a science greater than our own in nature yet nature lacks the apparatus to have constructed itself any more than a painting could paint itself. As designers and programmers we recognize the signature of these characteristics. If weakness, and vulnerabilities were enemies to nature, given nature were calling the shots, and the entity responsible for such complexity in design would certainly counter such attributes with extreme prejudice as a base protocol. High voltage, venomous toxins, armor plating, chemical bio- weapons, razor sharp appendages, shape shifting stealth camouflage, advanced sensory, and break neck speed would be standard equipment for complex biology. I often wonder if we only had the opinion of our equal to consider how we would fair at governing ourselves?
no
No wonder I feel so out of place. 2019 and we are still having too convince people that 2 things are happening at the same time. How long will it be before we get to the point where we are aware that there are 2 forms of evolution and religion is only a small step of that evolution? Fish didn’t just walk out of the water, there were many small changes over many millennia.
What about frogs? They go way back and have not changed.
Rich Vail
Sorry to put on such a lamentable display of ignorance. But could you please specify WHICH fish stepped out of the water, when, at what rate, and on account of what environmental pressures? Why did some 'choose' (or accept) to remain in the water, whereas others took a 'leap of faith' (or a crawl)? How were breathing processes maintained in the initial stages of transition? Where are your 'missing links' to demonstrate this process of transition, or did intermediary forms 'selectively' decay without having the opportunity to fossilize? I find this all terribly puzzling.
But a simple declaration by an adherent of evolutionary Science is enough to establish any 'fact' beyond doubt. I heard on a Nature doc that manatees originated in the sea, arrived on land, and then returned to the sea. No evidence given. No evidence necessary. We plebeians are expected to take this on 'faith'.
What this man says about 'faith' is quite appropriate; it is not only for the 'religious'. Whether one has learned much or little about the workings of the physical universe, everyone must arrive at his/her own metaphysical conclusions. To set up Faith and Reason, Science and Theology, as diametrical opposites, is foolishness. Surely GOD Who created this universe is the greatest Scientist of all, and uniquely able to explain Himself in terms which we may understand.
(John 3:16) 'For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.'
Jesus is Lord & Savior Those questions are better off getting answered by someone with the proper PhD. We are so far away from figuring out exactly how things started that for anyone to claim that they know, they must understand that they are delusional. There are enough fossil records to show that there is evidence of physical evolution. From my life experiences I can see my own spiritual fossil records to prove to myself adequately that there is a spiritual evolution as well. I see by your name that you have your own philosophy and I’ve spent enough time in that understanding of things to prove adequately that that philosophy causes more problems than it solves, so I’ve moved on to something more powerful for myself.
@@richvail7551
A degree is not always proof of wisdom. It is usually proof of academic competence, which is not quite the same.
But I totally agree, we are far from figuring out the origins of the universe, or of life itself. It is not really our mandate to find out, and if we do speculate about these things, it ought to be in a spirit of reverence for our Creator God, not one of hubris-----------such as I have seen among the so-called 'new atheists'.
The fossil evidence of a past world is immensely rich, as even I have read (being a non-scientist). But INTERPRETATION of the data is problematical. There have been two conflicting schools of thought, one based on the idea that natural processes have remained more or less constant throughout history (uniformitarianism); and one which acknowledges the power of catastrophic events to reshape the natural environment (catastrophism). This video is too short to address that debate.
Many years ago I read a very interesting book called 'The Genesis Flood' (Whitcomb and Morris), which brought some respectability back to catastrophism through analysis of anomalies in the geological and paleontological records. I'm not saying that the authors had it all figured out by any means, but I was influenced by their thinking. They certainly exposed a lot of weaknesses in the Darwinian macro-evolutionary perspective (for no one seriously disputes micro-evolution). Also they performed a good service IMO by linking Faith and Science, which the speaker in this video does not quite dare to do. If we don't dare, IMO we are going to end up with an impoverished and compartmentalized view of the universe.
Also we need a way out of philosophical and moral relativism. Yes, it's good and necessary that people should think for themselves; better than leading an unthinking life. But if God has revealed a common truth to all mankind, then we do not have to remain each in our own corner. We can know God personally, and also have a corporate spiritual life. This is where Biblical revelation and Jesus Christ come in. We learn that sin and self-will have alienated us from God, and that He has taken action IN HISTORY to reconcile us to Him, if we are willing. Probably you have heard:
(John 3:16) 'For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.'
The 'down-payment' on eternal life is the fact that Jesus, after they had killed Him, rose from the dead. So there is a force at work in the universe which is even more powerful than 'evolution', even more powerful than death.
Jesus is Lord & Savior So the controversy is solved by the simple fact that your book is the actual facts and all other books just don’t have any truths.
That’s the oldest stance and one that has caused many deaths. Maybe when we can put away such childish approaches and look at life as it is rather than what we feel comfortable with.
Quite unconvincing, I'm afraid.
Well it’s still happening in 2020
im glad i watched this video. the explanation Denis Lamoureux gave is the only one that convinced me much, cuz it matched my opinion on this topic. Very great job.
Because someone tells you what you want to hear, is not a good reason to believe it is true.
Says the bible is the word of God but to understand it you have to think like an ancient Egyptian
Yea I understand it...whatever
What if I only know how to walk like an Egyptian?
I'll show myself out...
The cognitive dissonance is painful.
Amen to that.
He is absolutely correct. Most everyone on either side limit their uderstanding. People will argue when they understand neither. To make an accurate judgment you must have a broader understanding. Evolutionary scientist for example have a very narrow understanding and imagination of possibilites. Frankly very unintelligent IMO. All of the assumptions of evolution are based on their lack of understanding which they believe proves their theory because they do not have the mental capacity to envision any other possibilities. With that said their could be some forms of preprogrammed evolution giving an animal the ability to adapt for example. But there are many other ways the so called evidence could come about. The problem is that it actually proves nothing. The average person doesn't undertand and take the scientist word and repeats the scientist understanding as their own as they believe them basically the authority.
They call what they believe to be true as proofs or facts. They "assumed" that there was an explosion out of "NOTHING" at the beginning. They believe that Cells produce on its own, Life begins on its own. The proof and facts they have right now actually begin with BELIEFS, ASSUMPTIONS there in the beginning.
How is that in any way different with religion? Both are based on beliefs. They just named it as a science and they want you to believe what they believe in, what they claim as the truth, they want you to study their religion and that ain't free either, you had to pay to study someone's religion?????? I call it the "hi-fi" religion.
They also have every right to teach their religion anywhere in the world. They nurture your kids and one of theirs. They brainwashed your kids before you know. The moment you realize it? You're already late.
@@xsplitxxsplitx5851
As you said... They call it science. Much of this actually isnt science. The problem is the people involved in scientific studies with schools and certain organizations. It more or less a cult low intelligence followers damaging the name of science and recruiting new vulnerable student members. That said there are logically reasonable scientists as well.
@@micahap1559 yes, you are right.
Honestly, I love science. Biology to be specific.
"Science deals with the physical, not the mystical or the spiritual." What are those last two? How do you definine them and how do you know about them without using the scientific method??
How can such a question be outside of what science can determine : " is there some sort of a mind or a god behind nature" ??
Anything that 'exist' is fair game in science is it not??
Well not exactly. You make a good point, and I’ll explain it to you. You see, since God created the universe, he created its laws(science) and that means he is beyond science. He existed before the universe, and before science, so it’s rules don’t apply to God. He’s a higher power than science. And science is there to show us how God created the universe, which is what he goes into. Some of the parts that do describe how God made the universe can be tested, but that isn’t the main point of Genesis.
If you still don’t understand what I’m saying, it’s like if someone passed a law saying that from now on, every newborn must have their hair dyed purple. Since you aren’t a newborn, the laws wouldn’t apply to you. You were around before all these new rules were created, so you aren’t affected by them. I think that’s something like how it is for God.
@@charlielindemann1294 Hello Charlie, thanks for the response. I think we have drastically different definition of the word science. For you Science seems to equate the 'Laws of nature' (correct me if I'm wrong) but for me Science means a method by which one is making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions. This is purely a human endeavor, and the only way to 'know' anything.
Now, you'll probably agree that 'you' are bound to the natural world. So if a god existed and he wanted to communicate with you in any way, he would have to use 'natural means' because the laws may not apply to him but they still apply to you. And if that is the case, this means it could, in theory, be measured using the scientific method. Don't you agree? Unless of course God never communicates in any way with humans but in that case you have no way of knowing anything about him.
@@MikoDarkblade that’s interesting. I haven’t really thought about that. But actually God has, and can do that. When Jesus was on earth, he healed many people, and preformed many other miracles. He was well known to have healed people who were very sick. Now that doesn’t mean he had to use natural means to heal them. There were none, the only way to heal someone inches from death was to preform a miracle. But with your line of thinking, he would have to have made those people like God to make natural disease not apply to them. But he didn’t, he just healed them, then sent them on their merry way. You see what he did, was he intervened, to heal them.
It’s like if an apple falls from a tree. Science says it will hit the ground, right? But if you step in and catch it, that doesn’t mean you are part of the ground, which is the only place for the apple to land. You’re just intervening with the abilities that allow you to do so. I think that’s what God is like, if I ever feel his presence around me, he isn’t part of the natural world, he is simply intervening using his abilities.
@@MikoDarkblade I think you’re half right on what I think about science. I mostly think of science as the natural world, which is what we can understand, and what we know, what we can learn, and all that. But I don’t blame you for assuming that based off of my comment, I find it is a bit easier to use science that way when I compare science and religion.
If you are interested in trying to find some way to test for God, or do some investigation, the best way to do that would be to test God’s creation, which is the universe. Look into what experts think on cosmology. Do they think evidence points towards a creator or not? Look into our inner workings as humans, what do experts think on DNA? Is it to well designed to have no creator? That would be the best way to investigate in my humble opinion.
Very interesting
rip comment section 😂
He calls his thinking reasoned based, but he uses faith to form his beliefs.
Who gave this guy a microphone?
You need faith whether you believe in God or not. How do you know you exist? Who confirms it that you are an actual real existence and that its not just some other thing you can't explain? If the human race is an intelligent race but there's no creator then who's confirms we are an intelligent race? How do we even know right and wrong are real things? How do we know bad is bad and good is good? When an evolutionist say's "Ok this is FACT there is no such thing as God" how does he come to the point of discovering something to be fact if there is nothing Godlike to confirm he even has intelligence in the first place to think that anything is right or anything is fact? You have to understand you can't possibly know anything unless it's confirmed by the higher power, because you can't prove it yourself.
@@Zero-wl7oe Please understand science is not based on any faith. Rather it teaches us to abandon our own senses (which are far from perfect). You can't see an x-ray but we proved it's existence with the help of laws of physics and mathematics. We are in an era where we could be close to proving the presence of dark matter which human senses can't even conceive. A scientist puts forward a hypothesis and he and everyone around looks for ways to falsify it. That's why science doesn't need any preacher, it's nonsense. Now regarding intelligence, science doesn't tell humans are the most intelligent species. It seems we are just comparably more intelligent in our tiny earth based on empirical observations and we are in fact searching for extra terrestrial intelligence. (SETI programme). Now comes morality. You don't need religion for it brother. In fact even religious rights and wrongs are just relative. To decide if anything is good for you, just ask 2 questions:1 Where will it lead you? 2. Where will it leave you? Hope you finds answers for the same.
@@bechumathew8819 yo wtf are you talking about fr fr I'm curious.
you just preached your own religion. bruh. so when this scientists die what happen to them
His definition of evolution at 3:24 is off. That's abiogenesis
Yeah, instead of ‘the origin of life’, he should have said ‘the origin of species’ (as In Darwin's book title) or maybe ‘the origin of life forms’.
Hey fellow viewer! If you are or were an atheist or just non-Christian, did this make you question or interested in the Bible? :0 I'm curious
Watch my finger... period.
me trying to focus 🙂🤣
We MADE UP gods and religions sometime after we started talking but well-before science came to the forefront of human philosophy. An evolutionary perspective makes this obvious.
You say that like it is fact, but you, in fact, have no idea if it is a fact; that's called ignorance.
What about the thing that mathematicians found that random mutations as a mechanisam that drives evolution is very unlikely. Also aren't there huge gaps in fossil evidance, especially for Cambrian explosion, no gradual appearnce of species can be found. How can someone claim that evidance for evolution is overwhelming and not address these problems.
Whales want to know why you never pay them any attention.
Once someone says they accept biological evolution as true then declares they are also a Bible-believing creationist and goes on to construe that the two are compatible, you know it's time to stop wasting your time. Beliefs are what people have when reality and reason don't suit them. It's nothing new.
Not saying that I disagree with you, but you do know that what you said was also a 'belief', right? If you had used the word 'faith' instead, I think it would be more correct.
@@eatbliss8895 Biological evolution is a fact, not a belief and certainly not "faith." You do know the difference, right?
@@stevenfeinberg3028 I, too, believe that evolution is a fact. I was merely pointing out that we all have beliefs, whether based on fact or not.
Excellent !
Evolution is a process,
Creation is the beginning.......
Yup. You got it. Evolution is a physical process; while creation is a religious belief. And you can put the two together as I do. Evolutionary creation asserts that God created through and evolutionary process.
@@tagalogkurt As usually, the atheist fundamentalist Dawkins is short-sighted and misses the point completely. There is only one God and humans have a myriad of views of how to understand him.
KDH KDH if you believe God you are believing one being. Many that you have stated are not rulers of all but rulers of specific sections of the world that were once unexplained during the time of their manmade creation. Example: Thor being the “God” of lightning. However, the God that Christianity, Judaism and Islam (the three main religions) believe are all one in the same, but interpreted differently from one another. Atheism is just a way to knock religion because the atheism in people is a lack of the ability to believe in something. You can’t see a God or prove he exists, so your weak mind knocks the idea of one in fear that he can control you, when in reality God is everywhere and gives us free will to do and believe whatever we please. You just use that ability to mock him
Denis Lamoureux ,
Evolution is a physical process, Creation is the infinite (unknown) beginning.
In evolution, the natural beginning physical process is not known, like gravity, which comes first, the egg or chicken?
In Christian definition, in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Moses, wrote, the secret thing belongs to God.
General Religious god belief is mental exercise, while Christians believe our God by faith.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Apostle Paul was right on, faith comes by hearing, hearing the Word of God.
Evolutionary physical process can not define God in the beginning of Creation.
In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth.
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
Denis Lamoureux can you prove that you God is the right and only one? Waiting for some evidence bro
As long as he doesn't deny the Earth is flat...
Good joke lol
I think he's just describing and elaborating the idea of Non-Overlapping Magisteria (as per Steven Jay Gould).
Nice comment. But at best Gould has science & religion meeting at a border. I actually believe there are places where they overlap. The issue of Intelligent Design (traditionally defined, not so-called ID Theory) is where the overlap best appears.
7:30. Now this speaks to me, and here is what it says. Question: What is the relationship between a belief and a premise? To use the nomenclature established by Daniel Harbour in The Intelligent Person's Guide to Atheism, a belief is a cognitive element associated with the Baroque Monarchy cognitive orientation, and a premise is a cognitive element associated with the Spartan Meritocracy cognitive orientation. Plenty of grey area between.
Further, I my mind there is no room on the stage of reality for both an Intelligent Designer and a natural world. To believe they are both on the stage, to give each equal ontological status, is to ignore that biblical injunction that says No man can serve two masters.
So he believes that the bible is the perfect word of the only omnipotent, omniscient god, and then asks the audience to understand the context into which the people who wrote genesis were back in the bronze age to justify the absurd depiction of the world by those people. I can understand that when someone tries to apply common sense at scales where it never worked (microscopic and macroscopic scales relative to the orders of magnitude that we have to deal with daily) it may seem that someone laid down the project for all of that, but this someone, if exists, is certainly not the divine humanoid who created fantasy worlds for "souls", and is certainly not omnipotent nor omniscient if you take in consideration reality as it is. From one side, science is subject of constant and deep scrutiny and testing, on the other side there is massive wishful thinking. To pretend that both positions have the same validity when it comes to claims about reality, is at the very least intellectual dishonesty.
Modern science, understandably, has shown how species have risen at a surprisingly fast rate. The various mechanisms of speciation are compatible with a properly understood creation model, although they are often touted as evolutionary mechanisms. But such mechanisms (Natural selection, mutation, etc.) would not turn bacteria into biologists, as naturalistic evolution requires.
Which brings us to the main objection to "from the goo, through the zoo, to you" evolution. It is not about whether changes occur through time, and neither is it about the size of that change (so use of terms "micro" and "macro"should be discouraged). It isn't even about whether natural selection happens (it does, as we all know). The key issue is the type of change required--to change microbes into men from a common ancestor requires changes that increase the genetic information content. The three billion DNA "letters" stored in each human cell nucleus convey a great deal more information (known as "specific complexity") than the half a million DNA "letters" of the simplest self-reproducing organism. The DNA sequences in a "higher" organism, such as a human being or a horse, for instance, code for structures and functions unknown in the sort of "primitive" first cell from which all other organisms are said to have evolved.
The alleged "proofs" of supposed " evolution in action" to date do not show that functional new information is being added to genes. Rather, they show just the opposite--sorting and/or loss of information. To claim that mere change (i.e. genetic variation or rapid speciation within kinds) proves that such information-increasing change will occur is like saying that because a merchant sells goods, he will sell them for a profit. The origin of information is an insurmountable problem for bacteria-to-biologists evolution (and please, spare us the alien or "Little green men did it" theory of Richard Dawkins--what is panspermia) .So are the billions of transitional (intermediate) fossils that are conspicuously absent from the fossil record (apart from a few highly disputed "transitional" fossils) an insurmountable problem for "from the goo, through the zoo, to you" evolution, as even the likes of Professor Stephen G. Gould, considered the world's foremost evolutionist, would have conceded.
My source is The Greatest Hoax On Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution" by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati , PH.D in physical chemistry.
Bro it took me 3 days to scroll through this lol.
@@jarjarbanks452 I started reading it the day he posted it, and I'm still not even half way done.
" The various mechanisms of speciation are compatible with a properly understood creation model,"
Hogwash. You are saying that two dinosaurs mated and their descendants one day laid an egg and a baby bird hatched from that egg. The Bible clearly says that God created each of the different kinds of life forms according to their own kind. It says that God gave each of the different kinds to reproduce others of their own kind.
So, land animals would never have descendants that would change into whales.
The idea of evolution contradicts the pure field of biology.
Anyone can see, that those of each kind, will seek another of their own kind to mate with.
And we know from this that when the resulting descendant offspring come along, they are always known to be the same kind of life form as the original two that mated them into existence.
Now, you mentioned SPECIATION. Surprise. Speciation does occur.
But, please make note of the fact that speciation occurs within those species that make up the same kinds of organisms.
Species will share common ancestors, that are of the same kind.
But, no two different kinds, will ever share a male and female ancestor.
Amen. The fossil record that clearly and overwhelmingly shows fossils appear abruptly, suddenly and fully intact or whole without as trace of intermediate or "transitional" fossils in the geological strata underneath supports biblical creation.
4.25. "Evolution ordained and sustained" by miraculous intervention. How does the miraculous fit in with a world understood in terms of natural law?
You said your theme of this talk is uncertainty. I say there is no uncertainty that stasis disconfirms evolution to its core.
Great video.
The best proof that evolution isn't true to Creationists is that their arguments never evolve.
Niklas Wikstrom
nah,
Its more like dinosaur soft tissue which contains blood cells, vessels, and Carbon 14.
The correct predictions by YEC that...
Neanderthals were people.
(DNA says they fall in the same spectrum of Homo Sapiens),
Junk DNA is a myth,
Paleo currents- Entire geologic layers showing water flow across multiple continents in a single direction. Then the next layer the same but in the opposite direction.
Poly Straight fossils
etc etc
Ok let's see:
The dinosaur tissue does not contain Carbon 14
YEC has nothing to do with Neanderthals being "people" (what ever that means)
Junk DNA / non-junk DNA is not a problem for evolution at all, and has nothing to do with evolutionary theory
How would paleo currents prove anything regarding the age of the earth or how quickly sediments were laid down?
Polystrate fossils I guess you mean? They are easy to explain so no issue there either.
Maybe try to read an actual science book instead of your creationism websites
jamie Russell I strongly recommend you research regarding the soft tissue. Most "creationists" sites that use that as an argument don't even present the research properly. Please read this long article when you have time: letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue/
jamie Russell also check these out as well
letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/2014/09/07/some-simple-evidences-for-an-old-earth/
letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/2015/01/03/evidences-for-a-young-earth/
Preserved dino soft tissue and organic material has been explained, creationists just don't like the explanation. To my knowledge, soft tissue has only been carbon dated once and the results came back "carbon dead."
I don't agree with Denis but I guess I should be happy Tedtalks finally has a sincere Christian?
'Natural processes'. His words. So what is the relationship between a natural process and a miracle?
I thought he was going to clarify what he meant -- and that it might make sense. Son, I am disappoint.
He did, everyone with two non-communicating brain halves can clearly understand his explanation.
Period!
@@dutchman7623 No
Am I the only one who likes what he's saying?
I think he made a very good point that we should reconcile book of nature and the Bible.
Not by dismissing one, but to appreciate both.
Alexandr Bich the bible is in its own complete nonsense
I like what he's saying too, may YAHWEH Bless you🙏🏾
But, what if it is error. You do understand what errror is. And how it is used to deceive?
God says He created in six days. He said He created the different kinds, (not species, but made species of each of the different kinds of life forms), and those species of each kind, speciated and formed those species we find living today.
@@rtmcdge if it's not reconcilable then yes, you're right
Why should the debate be evolution vs christain creation. Why not also include the other religious versions of creation?
There is other religious version of creation?
The debate is moot. It's been established that their are high spin mono-atomic elements with the body producing photons, room temperature super conductivity. These produce the well known effect of super-conductivity of resistanceless transmission of energy. This also works for conscious energy. Hence: psychic phenomenon and spirituality have a basis in physics/science. Hence: the dichotomy is resolved in that both are true. Some have more natural capability than others. Hence: all the excuse making for both sides is a moot point to the realities of actual physics. The universe is what it is whether we comprehend or not.
Woo woo
He claimed to have a PhD in evolutionary biology, but as soon as, when speaking of teleology and dysteleology, he said that dysteleology meant that everything came about by pure chance, he demonstrated that he did not have a real understanding of either physics or evolution, or else he was being deliberately dishonest to preach to his particular choir.
Well he doesn't have a PhD in physics.
He does have a PhD in evolution. You can’t just jump to conclusions about him based on one thing he said. If he didn’t have a PhD in evolution, than he would be a fraud, so you can’t just assume he does, but not realize that he wouldn’t even be doing a Ted Talk about this, the people who run Ted Talks do their background research, you aren’t smarter than him, though I’m sure it feels good to say that.
I just got to the "waters above" portion of this. In my old YEC mindset I had tried to find why God would describe this. He just blew my mind to realize it is simply a naive bronze age quirk of cosmology!
Well, it wasn't naïve. It was the best science-of-the-day.
Yep it's just that they didn't know any better. It almost makes sense in a funny sort of way.
Excellent. Break out of the false dichotomy.
Sorry - the dichotmy is still there - don't fool yourself. You will have to wake up to reality.
So, we have people who believe in gods and we have people who think they are better than god. One group believes god does everything (wouldn't that make god a liar?) and the other thinks that they know better than god because there is no god and all that surrounds us happened by chance. I don't know which group is worse.
Some of the comments do not appreciate what is like to attempt to address this subject from his perspective. Both ardent atheists and creationists are just about impossible to teach anything new on this subject. As soon as they hear a claim that they are certain is off the reservation they inhabit, they shut down and revert to the same unimaginative accusations.
You are not a computer or a machine. A computer just sits there waiting for some living being to give it energy and a task. In order to think at all you have to move. You are moving neurons and muscles and burning calories and even though the process can be described quite dispassionately, you are "moving" from one state to another when you think.
Why?
A purely scientific answer hardly satisfies, because it would have to say there is no real free choice ever being made. Do you see this? You could say the randomness of cause/effect physical processes account for the seeming illusion of free will, and we all just assume this is how it works as we move our thoughts (or as our thoughts move) in an absolutely predetermined pattern.
But free will? Choice?
The decision to think one way and not another. The directing of the mind by the will. I am afraid the necessity of faith is inescapable. You have to exercise your will to direct your thoughts. Your thoughts will lead you to other thoughts that will in turn lead to other thoughts and so on as you "move" towards a belief, which you need in order to help "land" and categorize your thoughts. A belief, by the way, that once held will have a lot of influence on the future direction of your thinking.
Life is miraculous. Comprehension of life is miraculous. The comprehension of beauty, values, meaning and purpose. . . all either miraculous beyond any possible scientific explanation or illusions. But a computer can't experience illusions. You think, therefore you have faith, and you are going somewhere when you think. What you believe opens and closes your options, and because you are finite you have to make these choices without much time or knowledge to work with. This helps explain the great confidence we have in science, ideas being thought by many people over a long period of time so we can just get on board, so to speak, with the consensus of scientists as a reliable shortcut to belief systems. We see how these systems work relative to other believe systems we might consider and we bet on science. Fair enough. But science has never been and will never be certainty. Some science is hardly disputable, while some "science" is so speculative it hardly deserves the title. We use our minds to decide which claims seem rationally justifiable, and the beliefs and presuppositions we already have play a huge role in what we stick in our "I know this is true" file. We call our rationally justifiable beliefs "knowledge", but they are only beliefs, that require faith.
A bit of humility might go a long way to prevent cementing in belief systems that might be wrong paths to go down if you hope to ultimately end up moving towards the truth. Of course many people don't see moving towards the truth as a great value, and why should they?
What is not CERTAIN aid RELIGION. You can’t prove any writings as truth and one of the biggest reasons why is because of its origins coming from stories passed down and ideas from the human mind. We’re Certain that’s where all religious origins started.
I really don’t get what you’re trying to get across to people with this argument that science isn’t certain and that certain aspects of life can’t be proven with science. We’re probably CERTAIN that we cannot do it either. You’re examples and explanations on your argument hold zero value. You essentially are making up some wild beliefs that are completely false as you’re typing it. You’re also trying to come off as an intelligent individual when this statements foundation is absolutely absurd. Let’s be real dude
D Kellum imagination doesnt tell the future very specifically lol. Evolutionism is the saddest religion ever. For the insanely gullible.
@@joshportie AKA kids sadly
u seem to love equivocation
ur giving science a biasedly bad wrap here
it is actually possible to remove all religious belief entirely from ur life
"that is beliefs without evidence"
science is by its definition is a removal of this sort of belief
to conflate them is in and of itself equivocation
science has no religious belief, science uses proper evidence to support theories
u can use the word belief to describe that
but to imply they are the same is untruthful
because in this sense u can also use faith and belief to describe facts
evolution is by definition a fact, but it can be described with those words
they have completely different definitions when used in science vs religious standings so u cannot mix them together
and no science is speculative, no science is undisputed
science and theories by there definitions must be evidence based and falsifiable
no science will ever have total agreement and that is for a reason
this stuff is just not how science works
if they are not, it is definitionally *not science*
so u cant pretend science is that messed up
thats either fringe science or psudoscience
fringe science is theories that are plausible by science but not supported by it -lacking evidence ect-
psudoscience is the bad one, something not even close to the scientific method pretending to be science
neither is uncommon in the world, and both just call themselves "science"
real science doesnt allow u to pick what is rational either
in science u *must* agree with a theory if it is supported properly
and if u think its not, u must prove it or just learn to agree with it
there is, and can be *no choice* in that or u are cherry picking
i think u have mixed real science with some other things unintentionally
that and u miss entire points of science
also deterministic processes dont remove free will
as u noted, a computer has deterministic processes but it comes back to choice
but if thats the case why would u *ever* assume deterministic processes can remove choice?
to say they can is a misunderstanding of deterministic processes
just because we dont fully understand then nature of choice doesnt mean we must have faith
it just means we dont know, and we will continue to study
@@YagamiKou Eh you're kinda wrong there. Science isn't a removal of the belief because science is just an observational of the world where some things we have found have been proven to be repeated. Evolution is also technically a belief and so is the world being billions of years old. If you've read Noah's ark then you know that the world has changed completely from what it originally was. Also alot of scientists claim things to be true before they have any evidence to prove that it is. In the bible it states that before the second coming of jesus, fake religions will begin to crumble leaving only one. The bible is true history. Oeople these days are full of conceit and indoctrination. They need to educate themselves with the truth because knowledge is power, and keeps you from going down the wrong path. I recommend you read the bible cuz it has an incredible amount of answers to really difficult questions. Man did not make up the bible because the words and statements in the bible haven't been proven wrong to this day. No man could've made such a thing as powerful as that. It isn't belief, it is knowledge of the truth through knowledge of the past. The bible also has the answers for the many why's and how's. Try and see for yourself, I promise it's not a waste of time, on the contrary it is a way of conserving your time.
♥ ♥ ♥
How is it that he uses 1 verse to say “A” even though in the same verse it contradicts what we says. There are 3 heavens, 1st, where the birds fly (atmosphere), 2nd heaven, where the stars are, space, 3rd heaven, well heaven. If you want to learn more about this I recommend Kent Hovind’s creation seminar.
I recommend you don't. Hovind is a fraud of the highest order. I was duped by him for about a decade, before I saw him and his "arguments" for what they are.
Im intrigued, please explain
@@95atnoon60 I am intrigued now. Please continue.
Earned PhD's does not necessarily remove confirmation bias. There are plenty of PhD Creation Scientists that firmly believe in Creationism.
You can desperately hang onto magic all you like. Doesn’t mean you’re right. As our knowledge grows you have to retreat into the God of the gaps.
When you are an atheist you run a hide from anything that threatens your beliefs.
No Name You are correct. Anyone can desperately hang onto magic all they like. That doesn’t make them right. However, it doesn’t make them wrong.
Whats magic is something came from nothing 🤣🤣🤣 evolution is a religion that says theory is fact thats just as bad as these Fake religions abusing and robbing people blind
@@titandmc8111, You're confusing evolution with abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is completely different from evolution. Evolution does not explain the origins of life, it explains how life formed to be divided into different groups.
@@sampleowner6677
More like they abandon what they are told to accept by faith and limit their confidence in facts only as much as evidence exists to confirm them and counterevidence is lacking.
They most often come from a background of questioning intense religious indoctrination or intense study and thought about reasons for any supernatural beliefs.
In other words they value reason higher than faith.
Evidence must precede or accompany belief.
Ultimately there is nothing you can generalize confidently about atheists, except that for any of a number of reasons they simply are not convinced of the existence of deities.
Comment section feels like war zone. Bratatatatattatat! Boom boooooom....!!!! PRTTTT!!!💀
It's still smuggling in a presuppositional position held without good reason.
The PHD level what universities or colleges? If its religion then that's community college level
Bill Nye isn't worth anything in the scientific community.
This is true.
he's an engineer and a science communicator not a scientist so that is trivially true.
No one cares if he is labeled a scientist or communicator. The problem is that he is not very bright! He obviously has no clue what he is talking about. He is preacher and believer in someone else's ideas that can cannot understand. He has "faith" in man because he has temendous emotional issues with God.
'Bill Nye isn't worth anything in the scientific community.
' That is opinion only, not fact and it happens to be incorrect.
@@madgeordie4469
Sure it depends on the context. As far a lending knowledge, helping etc. Bill Nye is worthless. When it comes to propaganda, Bill Nye as a mindless follower helps promote BS. So yeah he is a tool! And he is of some use to some.
Evolution doesn't equate to abiogenesis. I find this a bit dumbed down to be part of TED-Talks
What "PHD" in evolutionary biology would say in the middle of his talk that Fish and Birds have no anatomical connection? Did fail cladistics in his rush to justify faith in "going to heaven" where ever the heck that is?
This is brilliant