@@jounisuninen Yes, lying. He lies about information theory, lies about the fossil record, lies about controversies in evolutionary science, lies by manufacturing quotes to misrepresent scientists, lies about being a scientist, lies that his pressure group is not religiously motivated.....etc. He is a relentless bold faced liar.
@@mcmanustony Like the BS about land mammals having morphed into sea mammals or magical apes morphing into men as preached by Rev Dawkins of the church of Darwin
@@piertinence Dawkins is an atheist and hence a member of no church. Having two earned doctorates the correct title is DOCTOR (since he retired as professor) not “reverend”. You are deeply confused. The evidence for whale evolution is overwhelming. Magic was not involved. Do you know how books work? Maybe a bit more reading and a bit less belligerent sneering and you’d be less of a repugnant fool.
@@piertinence We have directly observed the evolultion of new species , also your personal incredulity is not an argument . Creation ism is pseudoscience by definition (fort example instead of developping a hgypothesis based on evidence and then improve it till it fits all the evidence and can become a theory, like any real science works, they start out with a theory and try to make the evidence fit their theory, which is the antithesis tro science), while evolution is real science and has mountains of evidence. So much in fact you could use at least 6 completely different and independant avenues to prove it.
@@midlander4 Here is some garbage for you. “It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn't work. You don't need to be a mathematician or physicist to calculate that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinity to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck. Far from being a difficulty peculiar to Darwinism, the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints and all the other living wonders is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve, and that Darwinism uniquely does solve. It solves it by breaking the improbability up into small, manageable parts, smearing out the luck needed, going round the back of Mount Improbable and crawling up the gentle slopes, inch by million-year inch." Darwinist evangelist atheist Dawkins
@@piertinence LOL you can´t make a single argument against anything he said, so the only garbage here is calling this evangelism. But at least you admit here that evangelism is something bad, so some progress at least.
Excellent presentation. I was struck by the rotary system in the genes and also struck by the integrated circuit. It suggests two types of technology that we presently know, and also an ascent in sophistication in that, historically, the circuit came after the rotor. This suggested to me the idea that there may be more models of technology that we are not aware of because we have not reached the stage to have developed them. Once we develop them we possibly might see it in nature, as we are now seeing the rotor and circuit. God is giving us clues of his handiwork that we can recognize from our own experience. Keep up the great work!
@@BrianSHenry Dr. Meyers addresses that question in other videos. Part of it is that scientists are influenced by our modern cultural values, values that separate science from religion. And part of it is that they are not up on the latest developments. Textbooks are still written with Darwin in mind as the authoritative explanation.
@@countvlad8845 "Textbooks are still written with Darwin in mind as the authoritative explanation."- utter bullshit. What Darwin got wrong was tossed decades ago. Modern evolutionary biology involves whole branches of science that either didn't exist- molecular biology, population genetics etc.- or were in their infancy- genetics, paleontology, cell biology etc. Why do you post this drivel?
@@mcmanustonyThat's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to the same materialistic prejudices that you see confront Meyers. That is what is important - not taking it on faith that materialism can explain everything. Many evolutionary scientists think it can. Keep an open mind before you say rash things.
@@countvlad8845 It’s “Meyer” and he’s not “confronted with prejudice”. He’s been exposed as a conman and liar peddling pseudoscience. Which immaterial entities do you think science should be concerned with: ghosts? Leprechauns? unicorn farts? Science has no need of your religion. Cope.
Thats deep. Evo people ignore the unanswerable questions and just say.....well, it happened some kind of way, and leave it at that. Then continue from there as if the fantasy is real. I see this in biochem text books all the time.
@@peterzinya1 Science encourages asking questions but they need to be *intelligent informed questions,* not the stupid off-topic strawman questions idiot creationists always ask.
@@peterzinya1 Typical theist misinterpret what is said! Science is looking to answer all questions whereas theists have no questions as their answers are given in the book. You know the one that says the sun orbits the earth and that there are no queen ants.
Thank you Dr. Meyer for ruffling the feathers of the materialistic. Great reading them throughout the comments!! You are right above the target and they know you know.😊
The Origins of the Intelligent Design movement "Our strategy has been to change the subject so that we can get the issue of intelligent design - which really means the reality of God's creation - before the academic world and into the schools. This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science or the truth. It's about winning at any cost, and affirming the reality of the God of The Christian Bible, by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the academic arena. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this which we call "The wedge". But remember, we must avoid debating the Bible and the Book of Genesis at all costs because we do not want to raise the obvious Bible-science dichotomy. Our goal is, "how to win". Phrase the pseudoscience argument in such a way that you can get it heard in secular academia and in a way that tends to unify other science illiterates religious fence-sitters. You must also avoid getting sidetracked onto other issues (like empirical evidence) which our intellectual superiors people are always trying to do." - Phillip E Johnson - the father of the ID/creation-science movement Conclusion: Creationists/ID fans are dishonest cowards
You made the same reply in the comment section three times as if the first one didn't get your point across. Very narcissistic of you. Sounds like you need Jesus. Hope you find him and he feels your heart with the ever lasting love of God.
@@repooc84 Why would I need a man who has been dead, if he ever existed at all, for 2000 years? I post this so it is seen because it is true. Intelligent Design is NOT true.
So present your evidence against the points being argued. You won’t. Because you are not pro current science theory, you are anti religion. You are not a smart person or a free thinking person. You are a cheer leader for the blind faith in science crowd.
Meyer promoted the same pseudoscience on FOX back in 2005, during the Kansas Evolutionary Hearings, when his efforts to teach I. D. And creationism in public schools were tested in court. The decision was clear. Meyer was a fake. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science. The fact he still does this tells me he is either deluded, or a lying grifter.
@@mcmanustony The fact that supposedly in that rock layer there's all sorts of creatures of varying "complexity" and some of much greater "complexity" that are in the wrong layer. See the Chinese dig where they found all sorts of life that was supposed to develop a lot later.
Exactly! There is no evolution, because nobody's able to tell how evolution could've even started. No wonder we do not see evolution - not in the nature, not in the fossils. Because evolution has never been scientifically proven, its advocates have started to call adaptive variation and subspecies as ”evolution”. That's what Darwin did with his finches. He fantasized seeing evolution because he couldn't know that there is no genetic mechanism to produce evolution. The core of Darwinist evolution theory is this: "All life on Earth stems from a Universal Common Ancestor (UCA)". UCA is also called "First Cell". Nobody has seen it because it is a purely hypothetical assumption. But if we ASSUME there was a UCA billions of years ago, it would've had the strange task to produce evolution while working against the evolution theory. Theory tells that evolution needs natural selection. Natural selection needs variations in the organisms, so that the fittest survive and the less fit go croak. The UCA however could've produced mere clones of itself. No sexual reproduction means no variation, which means nothing for nature to select = no evolution. It doesn't look realistic that UCA could have existed. Because evolution has never been scientifically proven, neo-Darwinists have started to call adaptive changes and subspecies ”evolution”. But there is no evolution. Species can produce only adaptive variations and subspecies, that’s all. In America there are over 20 elk subspecies. They are all elks and they will never produce anything else than more different elks. Subspecies are specialized for their environment. Specialization happens in the genome of a given population. How does the specialization happen? Genomes specialize when natural selection eliminates individuals with less fit genes and favors the individuals with fitter genes. When this continues long enough, only the individuals with dominating fitter genes are left and they copulate mainly or only with each others. This means impoverished genomes. Genetic impoverishment can be useful as long as the surrounding natural conditions do not change. But when that happens, there's not enough variation in the existing genomes to enable new adaptation. The end of the road is extinction. This means that all so-called ”evolutionary” processes are in fact devolution processes, as each new subspecies has less genetic variety than its stem species (like dealing a deck of cards). This fact makes impossible for any subspecies to create the path that would lead to new taxonomic genera or new taxonomic families i.e. to evolution.
@ Oxcart. You contend that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. But actually, it is inextricably tied to life's origin. Because the origin of life had to have come before life could evolve. So I think it's better to say that evolution can't explain the origin. Example: Count from one to two. If you start with two, you skipped the first part. Evolution starts with two,so to speak.
@@gregoryholden3255 Darwinist evangelist Atheist Dawkins is clearly retracing the genesis of an evolutionary creation to a primitive bacterial life that would have appeared in the mythical primordial soup 4.3 billion years ago.
Charles Lyell was NOT a geologist. He was a LAWYER. He was also a wealthy elitist who could afford to publish his own popular (NOT SCIENTIFIC) books, including "Principles of Geology". That was a popular work that was never subjected to scientific challenges.
None the less, his work represents the start of modern gelology, showing that the Earth is much older than the creationist's claim of 10000 year or less.
@@oldpossum57 Darwin was NOT a biologist. He was a geologist. He simply rewrote the Freemason/Islamic creation mythology of evolution by killing off the less fit, and he plagerized Pees Christian apologetics book for framing the argument. Lyell was a rabid, antisemitic lawyer, MOT a geologist. He was also a Freemason. He paid to publish Principles of Geology himself, because he coupd afford it. It was a pseudoscience, popular book, debunked in his own lifetime by real geologists. The Nazi "scientists" dragged his and Darwin's pseudoscience, popular books into academia. Have you read The Descent of Man? You'll recognize it as the source of Hitler's propaganda.
@@valerieprice1745 You have swallowed whole an especially nasty and bitter set of lies, Valerie. I don’t know who your teachers and preachers are: I hope never to meet them. On the other hand, I read here and elsewhere statements of former christians who “de-construct”, shedding the burden of ignorant hateful beliefs that they were taught. I do wish that for you. Unfortunately for you, the world at large has woken up to the error of superstitions. Unless you live like one of the desert hermits, everything you touch is based in the science that you despise. The Neo-Darwinian synthesis is the only model that the life sciences use. The technology you are using relies on standard physics, incompatible with the “magic” you claim to believe. Personally, I would rather have America-for all its ethical failures- the hegemon of the West. The alternative seems to be the Chinese, with one party communism, which experience tells us always ends in horror or disaster. But America’s intellectual leadership falls behind because of the deliberate ignorance of the electorate. I heard NASA astronaut Marc Garneau explain a little while ago that, in 60 technologies necessary for human survival in the future, China leads in 53. Neil de Grasse Tyson has much the same opinion.
@@tedgrant2 You have proven that reading is not understanding and you will put down blind people to save face. All while smugly pretending your arbitrary world view makes you somehow morally superior. How does it feel to be an unoriginal cynic?
Wouldn't adding the term 'scientific' be a misnomer when theories and opinions are involved. Here is a simple truth. Hebrews 3:4 Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.
I think we can safely say there is no credible mechanism we know of that can explain evolution in terms of natural selection through random mutation, or through piecemeal singular changes to DNA. The findings indicate that evolution is not random changes in parts which could only desrupt cellular and/or organismic functioning. It has to be a global system, and I feel the best mechanism to explain this is transcellular communication through iron channels which have recently been shown to govern the morphological development of embryos (see Michael Levin's research), because if you desrupt the electrical communication fields of the developing embryo it leads to corresponding morphological perversions. It is also worth noting that science never explained by what mechanisms, for example, arms know what shape to grow in and what length to grow too. Recent evidence shows that this electrical communication between cells, which becomes a global communication system governing the whole early life-system, governs the development of the body plan and therefore is a potential alternative mechanism for evolution. I don't know why the scientists aren't making more of this research because it really explains everything for me, even explaining what might be meant by the term Chi or Prana or Life Energy in Eastern philosophy and medicine and other traditional and spiritual discourses. What we call 'life', and that feeling of life, could be related to this transcellular intelligence which is a fare descriptive term. I am not stating that it is a conscious intelligence unto itself, or ruling it out, but unarguably it is a form of intelligence or an intelligent process. It is communication and co-ordination, and therefore there must be some intelligent process behind it. I don't like to speculate at all but to me this is an elephant in the room and the most obvious candidate for a substantial, comprehensive and satisfying explanation of what we see. It ought not be too difficult to prove these things either, because the electrical communication between cells is far easier to investigate and measure then evolution through DNA mutations over eons.
The church of Darwin gospel is horse shit an natural selection its main deity is a lame goddess. "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. “Darwinist evangelist Atheist Dawkins
@@mcmanustony he does such a great job on all the other stuff but he destroyed himself in his phd work when he dated the earth and he has never recovered
At Comicon Conventions, the cosplay contingent come out in droves. Harry Potter wizards and witches dress up in full regalia. I hope to see Steve Meyer and Michael Behe dressed up, pretending to do science. From the outside, they make me think of the cargo cults that sprung up in the Pacific, building the airports for the planes that never seem to land.
Yet the atheist cosmologist conjures up a universe which exploded into existence out of nothing, while the evolutionist imagines that the most sophisticated instruction manuals known to man or DNA templates have the ability to write themselves, using the magic wand of time. Hmm. Speaking of planes, ever heard of Hoyle's Junkyard Tornado?
I’ve heard of Fred Hoyle, yes. The singularity isn’t nothing. The theist is one who says, something happened, I don’t know why, I call my ignorance a god. Here is what should annoy you more: evolution is not teleological. There is no direction to it. The fact that , say H. sapiens developed in the primate line is the result of a series of accidents. My intelligence might be, they hypothesize, due to a mutated gene, TKTL1, which led to the development of extra cortex. But had the climate in East Africa been different at the time of speciation, no H. sapiens. I would not have been surprised to learn that H. habilis had religions. Thy were slow to solve problems.@@nlievense2
@@walkergarya Please enlighten me then. How can information with specified complexity such as DNA arise outside of a mind? How do intelligent codes appear without a coder? I would love to know.
This isn't a God of the gaps argument. You should read up on what makes something an argument from ignorance and what insures it isn't. This argument looks at competing hypothesis and infers to the best explanation. Its is an entirely positive argument and therefore CANNOT be a god of the gaps argument. And think about what your saying. You imply another type of argument from ignorance.... atheism of the gaps. "We don't know yet so it must not be design." Your more in violation then any that support ID.
@@blusheep2 if what you say IS the case, then why would a 4 word sentence require an essay in return...? Maybe your trying a bit to hard to convince yourself of something 🤔 😏
@@mrbwatson8081 Essays are sometimes required to explain why a claim is true, don't you think? Do you really want me to just respond with another 4 word sentence like.... "no it is not:)" Where would that get us. Now be an hones person and go research arguments from ignorance so that you can learn why ID is not a god of the gaps argument, instead of criticizing the number of words I use.
@@mrbwatson8081 Don't move the goal posts. We are talking about "god of the gaps." Is your attempt to shift the goal posts admitting that you were wrong about "god of the gaps?" If that is what you are saying, then I respect that. The hope is that we adapt our opinions and beliefs to new information. Anyone that can do that is "A-ok" in my book.
You can bet on that naturalist scientists won't ever be able to explain the beginning of the universe or the beginning of life ... or the beginning of "evolution" 😎
The more than thousand gods of the past have ALL been debunked by science and are now well understood, and ALL are natural phenomena! So nobody believes in those gods anymore! You are an atheist about all those thousands of gods of the past! You just have to go one god further!!! Since evolution is proven to be a fact, we know that we are nothing but a species of apes, nothing more, nothing less. So, ALL religions and ALL their silly doctrines ( sin and original sin, afterlife, resurrection, prayer, the silly statement that we have to be "saved" etc) can all be thrown right in the trash! There is not a shred of evidence for the existence of ANY god!!! You can believe whatever supernatural nonsense you want because it makes you feel good, but I prefer to live my life without delusions!
To me the universe is simple there is no such thing as nothing there is always something and something can transform into anything once something exists anything can happen and so on.
Your belief has inherent contradictions. You say when something exists, then it can change. How does it exist? Pre socratics thought it was all flux but they didn’t count for the presuppositions required. Like why don’t the laws of physics or logic change if anything can change into anything? How would flux be bridled in this way?
Essentially, you're either lying, or not intelligent enough to understand the information presented here. There are atheist scientists turning away from Darwin.
@@scottb4579 atheists scientists turning away from Darwin.... lol yeah the Muslim Buddhist Hindu Christian scientists are turning away from Newton and Kepler. Your statement is as ridiculous as this presentation about biology from a non biologist.... yeah essentially hovind 2.0.
@@IIrandhandleII You just proved my contention. Newton and Kepler were Christians by the way, and I haven't heard of any Christian scientists refuting them.
@@scottb4579 you just proved my point it doesn't matter what religion anyone believes in. What they discover and support with evidence has no relation with the superstitions they hold. Newton was an alchemist as well does that invalidate the laws of motion? No. You are obviously obsessed with only accepting " science " published by organizations that support your confirmation bias. Casey luskin and Stephen Meyer are such examples. You say atheist scientists are turning away from Darwin.... this is absurd. People don't worship Darwin ,einstein ,Feynman , they were only humans that made discoveries. You cannot find biologists that don't accept evolution just as you can't find astronomers that are flat earthers. It does not exist. Exactly why Stephen Meyer, pontificating on biology, is not in the slightest a biologist or even a life scientist. Yet you give him credence over the whole of the biology community.... very telling.
@@scottb4579 No, YOU are lying. Darwin and Wallace changed the way Biology is studied. The Theory of Evolution is our understanding of how species change over time. The ToE has itself evolved over the past 160 years. What Darwin and Wallace wrote is NOT our current understanding of Evolution. They are respected for their contribution but their words are not the Gospel of Biology. There is NO movement away from Evolution in Biology.
Ever since this steaming pile of creationist horsecrap came out I've been asking the same question. *What is the creation explanation for the 3+ billion years of life on the planet before the Cambrian era?* That includes at least 200 million years' of multicellular life. I've never received an answer.
Not sure why you are wanting an explanation. Meyer is simply pointing out that the fossil data does not support standard ideas of Darwinian evolution. As a chemistry teacher I had to teach the Miller Urey experiment as proof of evolution. This despite the fact that no serious scientist now believes this was how abiogenesis happened. I am happy to teach evolution as a theory, it has its merits, but it doesn't totally convince me. If I had to come up with the explanation for the previous three billion years, and why the wait, my hypothesis would be that it would not have worked earlier or that a lot of preparity work was going on. Pretty weak, but it is something. How would you explain the fossil record and punctuated equilibrium? I guess you go with the accepted view, but when you think about it, there are just too many bits that make no sense.
@@astan6445 Like most Creationists Meyer is arguing from his personal ignorance and is simply wrong. Your explanation for the 3+ billion years of life on Earth before the Cambrian is your omnipotent God was incompetent? Wow. What about punk eek don't you understand? Evolution tends to track environmental changes. When the local environment is stable for millions of years you get gradualism. When it changes rapidly you get rapid evolutionary change. There are plenty of examples of both gradualism and punk eek in the fossil record.
@@astan6445 Your understanding of Miller/Urey is just brutal. The experiment never claimed to prove evolution or abiogenesis. It was simply an experiment to see if the biological molecules used by life can form naturally *and they can.*
@@sciencerules2825 Dont stop there. Tell us all how identical nucleotides formed by the billions and ribose molecules by the billions, all identical, then found phosphorus , which is insoluble, and packed together to form the first RNA repleate with the info to make proteins and enzymes. Thanks in advance
Their is no angels or demons. Their is only angelic scientists and demonic artists intelligently designed to defeat devious that organized crime.:,-)
It seems like the the analogy of tge Emperor's New Clothes, where Darwin has made imaginary clothes accepted by most Scientists, but then someone like Dr. Steven Meyer is in the crowd, saying what is an obvious question, but where does the information come from? And us the audience agrees, and asks the same question, though the answer is clear, an Intelligent mind.
@@walkergarya Yes, you mix two dogs, you get a different kind of dog. But where does the information come from to get the first life? Who put the DNA in just the right order of code, all billion and a half "letters"?
@@scottm4042 They can't even figure out the simpler problem of how the four molecules necessary for life formed on a prebiotic earth. As time goes on, the problems with figuring out that problem have only compounded. The means by which information first appeared is far, far more difficult to figure out, and is in fact impossible to describe by material processes. Information is nonmaterial. It requires a mind, because information can only be created by thought and imagination.
The first living thing was not a cell. Cells came into existence only after a very long period of several hundred million years of a series of chemical transformations. These transformations resulted in the emergence of dissipative complex systems that could replicate and evolve via natural selection. The first living things were probably associations macromolecules on clay surfaces or in the tiny cell like spaces of a common mineral like feldspar.
@@beecee6850 Here are the 3 choices as far as I can tell: 1) complex sequential chemical evolution, perhaps a combination of primordial production of biomolecules followed by Sulfur World/Cairns Smith clay hypothesis followed by RNA World and finally entrapment by lipid miceles forming protobionts which evolve into the first cell or cells. LUCA emerges after final bombardment 4 by ago. 2) An Intelligent Designer (God) did it. 3) Panspermia as in movie PROMETHEUS. Can you think of other options? Let me know.
@@filamcouple_teamalleiah8479 I guess natural selection overlooked the process. "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader” Darwinist evangelist atheist Dawkins
@@piertinence Good points. I sippose I should read the book before being critical. That's the whole point! That was Darwin's inspiration. The first chp of Origin deals with artificial selection. Darwin provides an outstanding introduction and makes the case clear that human intervention can produce radical change rapidly. Evolution by natural selection is not guided yet the result is often impressive. Why? Enormous amount of time, random mutation sometimes assisted by isolation (tenrecs in Madagascar for example) and a winnowing of individuals due to competition and limited resources. The result is a change in gene frequencies in a population over time. Ensatina salamander diversity in Cali is an obvious example that basically defines speciation. Surely there can be no debate about what happened after the first replicator appeared whstever it's nature. Abiogenesis is another kettle of fish however. Hazen, a geologist w/ a specialty in minerology has written an excellent summary of the recent research on abiogenesis. Get it.
The demon in sunshine movie is Jesus. It's not reality but people's perceptions. The churches have failed Jesus. Fighting over the star makes more sense than the horrible prophecy fighting over who knows what.:-D
@@walkergarya oaths end with so help me God. God does reveal himself to people if he can be perfectly moral about it.. he wouldn't reveal himself to a prosecutor trafficking people into mental hospitals for example. You have to be friends of God first before he will reveal himself. God isn't the total mystery people think it is.
The idea that a million years isn't a lot of time geologically exposes the sadly inadequate education in mathematics in Western education. People have no clue how much time they're talking about. Even half a million years geologically is an extremist view, ignoring current erosion rates, and all the other mathematical realities.
the earth is 4.54 billion years. One million years is one 4540th of that time. It's a short geological timeframe. What mathematical realities are you talking about? Where did my mathematics educators go wrong?
It looks rather that deeply humane Meyer feels pity for Darwin and his modern followers. Their 164 years old worldview is tumbling down by the modern science.
@@jounisuninen What Darwin got wrong was tossed decades ago. Creationists like Meyer and yourself were not involved. What he got right is astonishing given the scope and success of his theory and the scant knowledge of his time. It is not a worldview. It is a scientific theory. Modern science has extended and deepened the theory of evolution. Try to keep up and stop posting stupid lies.
With a television you don't have to be supernatural. God prefer that because it's more social but we have to use it correctly. Right now we have anarchy blindness. Despite the anarchy blindness I figured it out. That proves we can be God like. Only a person getting crucified would suspect something greater. They crucified me with exact same disease that in pink Floyd the wall. Victor said it's all good. It should be possible to make everything all good.:-D
@@daftwulli6145 making somebody smarter isn't spam. The debate has been intelligently designed to be deadlocked on stupid. Evolution is a jailbreak. I'm trying to break it out of jail. My goal is to liberate the debate so it's not deadlocked on stupid.
@@robertmcclintock8701 Intelligent desing is pure pseudosciuence since it does not follow the scientific method at any step. So it is not even in the debate for anybody rational enough toi realize that
@@daftwulli6145 Darwinism always find itself at the center of a religious debate and is only competing for a share of the religious market. Rev Dawkins made himself filthy rich preaching the modern pagan creation myth founded on Darwin hallucinations.
One of the foundational requirements of any discussion (but especially a “scientific” discussion) is agreement on & consistency in the use of terminology. I don’t believe that this person is unaware of the difference between “evolution” & “abiogenesis”. Meyer has been embroiled in these discussions for a long, long time. He has been corrected on this fallacy hundreds of times in debates with people who really understand evolution, and the difference between the two terms. My only conclusion for his deliberately conflating these terms to a lay (ie., non-expert) audience is that he is willfully lying to them. An HONEST expert in any field makes absolutely certain that he does NOT mislead his audience by using non-standard terminology. Lying is no way to demonstrate credibility. Meyer lies again to his audience when he claims that “the Cambrian explosion was the earliest known time when life has been found on the earth”. It has been known for decades that a rich bounty of earlier, simpler life has been found in the Ediacaran period that precedes the Cambrian. Why does Meyer lie to his audience? Why does he use non-scientific references (like Time magazine) as his reference, instead of REAL respected scientific journals, except for the explicit purpose of lying to his audience. The explicit reason for this is that neither Steven Meyer nor any other creationist can get any article published in a REAL scientific journal.EVERY competent Paloeobiologist knows that the “Cambrian explosion” in an anachronistic concept when tied to “origins of life”, but only demonstrates a huge radiation of “hard shelled, easily fossilized creatures”, and that different techniques & locations are required to find earlier (soft bodied & single called) life. Lying is no way to establish credibility. The Cambrian explosion present NO challenge to Evolution. Lying is no way to establish credibility. Darwin gave explicit reasons why he thought the fossil record was extremely sparse. One minute after you imply that he had no explanation, you quote several of the (accurate, eventually verified) reasons that the fossils were not know INHIS TIME, but are known today. Quoting Steven Jay Gould as if his “punctuated equilibrium” theory is problematic for evolution is lying at at its grossest level. Gould is one of the strongest supporters of evolution that has ever lived. Lying is no way to build credibility. In the Texas case, (edit: sorry, I believe I misremembered this incident, I believe that it happened in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case) the judge found that Meyer et al. LIED when they asserted that their “Intelligent Design” was not a deceitful attempt to sneak a thinly disguised creationism into school textbooks. His lies were discovered when it was found that they (stupidly) did a global “search & replace” substituting “intelligent design” for “creationism” throughout their literature. See: theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/32/ Liars, the lot of them! Liars are untrustworthy! There is NOTHING to trust in this willful liar.
Gee whiz Mr. Honesty, you state that ..."neither Stephen Meyer NOR ANY OTHER CREATIONIST can get ANY article published in a REAL scientific journal"! (And you Mr. Honesty are the judge of what a REAL scientific journal is?" Have you read ALL the "real" scientific journals in the English speaking world? Tsk, tsk Mr. Honesty. Calling others liars because they have opinions that differ from yours means you are not confident in your science. You are wrong.
@@jaybennett236 All right, Jay. Try reading with a little comprehension for a change. I did NOT call Meyer a liar “because he has opinions that are different than mine” or “because he can’t get any paper published in a REAL scientific journal”. I I am 100% confident in my “science” & comfortable with my conclusions. I have participated in “overthrow the accepted theories” efforts in my field (cardiology). We made ZERO UA-cam videos, we did NOT present our methods or results to random people on the street, or oncologists or neurosurgeons. We presented only to world class, respected cardiologists, got them on our side & the rest of the community followed along. THAT is how REAL science is done. I demonstrate that his theories are “vapid, stupid, non-scientific AND WRONG” because NONE OF THEM can get any paper published in a REAL scientific journal. And they never will. They won’t even try, because they know they they’ll be laughed OUT of the building during the peer-review process & they can’t do it. Instead, they attempt to do “science by UA-cam”. And “science by debate (with incompetent, amateur opponents, like Bill Nye & other amateurs. Nye’s background is mechanical engineering (although he’s not really a mechanical engineer, he’s an entertainer. “You are what you do.”) or by filmed ambush interviews of random amateurs on the street (like Ray Comfort & others). That is NOT how REAL science is done. I don’t need to “read every journal. There is a well established measure (called Impact Factor) which grades the value of both journals & individual papers. I wanted to distinguish between demanding, impactful journals ( like Cell, Nature and the ones on the list linked below) versus the fake, “Pay to Publish” junk journals ( like Bentham), who will & historically HAVE, published all manner of trash … if you just pay their fees. YOU, Jay could publish a paper of total gibberish on String Theory next week (it doesn’t even need to be constructed of full sentences, random words out of the dictionary will do as long as you pay the fees!). Here’s a list of High Impact journals in Evolution ( www.omicsonline.org/evolution-journals-conferences-list.php ). Took me less than 10 seconds to find. I called him a liar because he is NOT a clueless amateur, he has been up to his eyeballs in this debate for decades, and - just like every other”high profile” creationist (such as Kent Hovind & Ken Ham, Michael Behe, etc.) he has been corrected on EVERY ONE of the dozens of issues that he misrepresented hundreds of times. I am responsible for the issues that I speak on in public, especially those in which I hold myself up to be an expert. It is MY responsibility to be sure that the info I disperse is complete, fair & accurate & clear (especially if I am presenting to amateurs). If ANYONE ( especially another expert in my field) makes the slightest suggestion that anything I’ve said in public is not factually accurate or possibly misleading, then I am going to spend however many hours are necessary to research that subject in fine detail. If my statement was wrong, or misleading in ANY way, then I’m going to change the way I present it the next time. I called him a liar, because he intentionally use techno-babble to mislead his audience, counting on their ignorance to not catch him in the lie. In plain speak, I called him a liar because he lied to his audience in a prepared speech, which is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT Zthan merely “mis-stating some point in an extemporaneous discussion. I called him a liar because he lied. You are invited to find me a “pro-creationist” article in any of those journals on that list, if you can. Note carefully, an article that points out “issues” with evolution is NOT pro-creationist”. Real science articles point out weaknesses & questions in the accepted dogma ALL THE TIME.
Materialistic scientists know WHEN Life appeared in the evolutionary timeline, but do Not Know HOW Life was introduced into lifeless molecules. The hypothesis Abiogenesis has Not been proven. Because, Life is Not Inherent in mechanistic atoms and lifeless molecules. Therefore, a fundamental Gap for modern science on earth 🌎🌍
Tell Me Again The "Science" Behind Talking Snakes,Donkeys,.How the "Sun Stopped in The Sky" Or Even "Reversed it's Orbit So That A "God Ordained" Slaughter Might Continue,..And How A Man Walked Through Walls Or Vanished Into Thin Air,..Or Rose From The Dead,..Or Flew Into Heaven..??
Why are there always religous zealots on scientific podcast posts. To me its bizzare i wouldnt go on a religous podcast and preach my scientific understandings!!
He's been delivering the same schtick for decades. I can do it in my sleep....drunk. "Inside the cell we find nano machines digital technology inside the cell with digital code or characters in a machine code inside the cell Cambrian explosion digital code inside the cell complexity exquisite machines nano inside the cell with digital code Cambrian explosion......blah fucking blah"
More indoctrination from the those who make things up and think they know the mind of God. They plan to have followers nod and graze like a herd of sheep, using the name of Darwin as if he was just full of doubt when in fact he started out with questions and doubt as any good scientists does but ended up authoring a book outlining his understanding and findings. A book now that is the basis for modern biology, so shall we go back to iron age thinking and expect that those thoughts can lead us into the truth about biology and science. The bible may teach us of the rock of ages but it does not tell us of the ages of rocks. Bottom line is the bible is not a book of science and only fools try to force it to be so.
“It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn't work. You don't need to be a mathematician or physicist to calculate that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinity to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck. Far from being a difficulty peculiar to Darwinism, the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints and all the other living wonders is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve, and that Darwinism uniquely does solve. It solves it by breaking the improbability up into small, manageable parts, smearing out the luck needed, going round the back of Mount Improbable and crawling up the gentle slopes, inch by million-year inch." Darwinist evangelist atheist Dawkins
The Origins of the Intelligent Design movement "Our strategy has been to change the subject so that we can get the issue of intelligent design - which really means the reality of God's creation - before the academic world and into the schools. This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science or the truth. It's about winning at any cost, and affirming the reality of the God of The Christian Bible, by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the academic arena. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this which we call "The wedge". But remember, we must avoid debating the Bible and the Book of Genesis at all costs because we do not want to raise the obvious Bible-science dichotomy. Our goal is, "how to win". Phrase the pseudoscience argument in such a way that you can get it heard in secular academia and in a way that tends to unify other science illiterates religious fence-sitters. You must also avoid getting sidetracked onto other issues (like empirical evidence) which our intellectual superiors people are always trying to do." - Phillip E Johnson - the father of the ID/creation-science movement Conclusion: Creationists/ID fans are dishonest cowards
Although atheism has no provision for miracles. Atheist Dawkins portrays an evolutionary creation as a natural miracle. “It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn't work. You don't need to be a mathematician or physicist to calculate that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinity to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck. Far from being a difficulty peculiar to Darwinism, the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints and all the other living wonders is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve, and that Darwinism uniquely does solve. It solves it by breaking the improbability up into small, manageable parts, smearing out the luck needed, going round the back of Mount Improbable and crawling up the gentle slopes, inch by million-year inch." Darwinist evangelist atheist Dawkins
The Origins of the Intelligent Design movement "Our strategy has been to change the subject so that we can get the issue of intelligent design - which really means the reality of God's creation - before the academic world and into the schools. This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science or the truth. It's about winning at any cost, and affirming the reality of the God of The Christian Bible, by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the academic arena. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this which we call "The wedge". But remember, we must avoid debating the Bible and the Book of Genesis at all costs because we do not want to raise the obvious Bible-science dichotomy. Our goal is, "how to win". Phrase the pseudoscience argument in such a way that you can get it heard in secular academia and in a way that tends to unify other science illiterates religious fence-sitters. You must also avoid getting sidetracked onto other issues (like empirical evidence) which our intellectual superiors people are always trying to do." - Phillip E Johnson - the father of the ID/creation-science movement Conclusion: Creationists/ID fans are dishonest cowards
I guess you did not get the memo? Intelligent design cannot be taught as Science in the public schools in the U.S. since the Kitzmiller vs. Dover decision in 2007.
@@walkergarya I guess I missed your intention. I do think the court decision needs to be highlighted in arguments with creationists. I suspect they will try what they did after the Scopes trial in 1925.
@@patmoran5339 Pat, there are some people who are simply not going to concede. It is actually quite sad for those who simply ignore the obvious. All we can do is hope they open their eyes. Stay strong.
The Origins of the Intelligent Design movement "Our strategy has been to change the subject so that we can get the issue of intelligent design - which really means the reality of God's creation - before the academic world and into the schools. This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science or the truth. It's about winning at any cost, and affirming the reality of the God of The Christian Bible, by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the academic arena. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this which we call "The wedge". But remember, we must avoid debating the Bible and the Book of Genesis at all costs because we do not want to raise the obvious Bible-science dichotomy. Our goal is, "how to win". Phrase the pseudoscience argument in such a way that you can get it heard in secular academia and in a way that tends to unify other science illiterates religious fence-sitters. You must also avoid getting sidetracked onto other issues (like empirical evidence) which our intellectual superiors people are always trying to do." - Phillip E Johnson - the father of the ID/creation-science movement Conclusion: Creationists/ID fans are dishonest cowards
Dr. Meyer is one of my favorite lecturers. One of the brightest and bravest!!
What's brave about lying for Jesus?
LOL what he lectures is pseudoscience that has nopthing to do with reality. IN what world is that bright ?
@@mcmanustony Lying?
@@jounisuninen Yes, lying. He lies about information theory, lies about the fossil record, lies about controversies in evolutionary science, lies by manufacturing quotes to misrepresent scientists, lies about being a scientist, lies that his pressure group is not religiously motivated.....etc.
He is a relentless bold faced liar.
@@mcmanustony Preaching a creation myth founded on Darwin hallucinations is way more commadable
Thanks for sharing this Outstanding presentation. 'Biology is run by information' is a powerful statement.
It is always a pleasure to hear Dr. Meyer speak. It is always a faith building experience..
You take pleasure from being lied too.
Good, so it's not a KNOWLEDGE building experience.
@@walkergarya what were the specific lies in the video? I’m not scientifically literate enough to pick them up
@@bretttheroux8040 ua-cam.com/video/LaLYLWA_Lss/v-deo.html&ab_channel=CreationMyths
@@WilbertLek Faith comes through knowledge. That's why evolutionists do not have faith.
One of the best videos yet by Dr. Meyer
Have you tried real science?
@@mcmanustony Like the BS about land mammals having morphed into sea mammals or magical apes morphing into men as preached by Rev Dawkins of the church of Darwin
@@piertinence Dawkins is an atheist and hence a member of no church. Having two earned doctorates the correct title is DOCTOR (since he retired as professor) not “reverend”. You are deeply confused.
The evidence for whale evolution is overwhelming. Magic was not involved.
Do you know how books work? Maybe a bit more reading and a bit less belligerent sneering and you’d be less of a repugnant fool.
@@piertinence Humans ARE apes you idiot. “Ape” is not a species.
It’s the book thing again: try it, you might like it
@@piertinence We have directly observed the evolultion of new species , also your personal incredulity is not an argument . Creation ism is pseudoscience by definition (fort example instead of developping a hgypothesis based on evidence and then improve it till it fits all the evidence and can become a theory, like any real science works, they start out with a theory and try to make the evidence fit their theory, which is the antithesis tro science), while evolution is real science and has mountains of evidence. So much in fact you could use at least 6 completely different and independant avenues to prove it.
This by far is my most favorite talk by Dr. Meyer! Thank you for sharing!
Have you tried learning science from scientists and not from lying zealots?
Dr. Meyers is amazing!
Meyer is a fraud, that is not amazing, it is pathetic.
He's been peddling the same lies for decades. What is "amazing" about that?
Brilliant thanks for the great work
It's dishonest unscientific rubbish.
It's garbage
@@midlander4 Here is some garbage for you.
“It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn't work. You don't need to be a mathematician or physicist to calculate that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinity to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck. Far from being a difficulty peculiar to Darwinism, the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints and all the other living wonders is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve, and that Darwinism uniquely does solve. It solves it by breaking the improbability up into small, manageable parts, smearing out the luck needed, going round the back of Mount Improbable and crawling up the gentle slopes, inch by million-year inch." Darwinist evangelist atheist Dawkins
@@piertinence LOL you can´t make a single argument against anything he said, so the only garbage here is calling this evangelism. But at least you admit here that evangelism is something bad, so some progress at least.
God has been living in people's ears since the dawn of time
Excellent presentation. I was struck by the rotary system in the genes and also struck by the integrated circuit. It suggests two types of technology that we presently know, and also an ascent in sophistication in that, historically, the circuit came after the rotor. This suggested to me the idea that there may be more models of technology that we are not aware of because we have not reached the stage to have developed them. Once we develop them we possibly might see it in nature, as we are now seeing the rotor and circuit. God is giving us clues of his handiwork that we can recognize from our own experience. Keep up the great work!
I wonder why no one has talked about Dr Nathaniel Jeespns work on DNA if the science is good, why are more scientists paying attention?
@@BrianSHenry Dr. Meyers addresses that question in other videos. Part of it is that scientists are influenced by our modern cultural values, values that separate science from religion. And part of it is that they are not up on the latest developments. Textbooks are still written with Darwin in mind as the authoritative explanation.
@@countvlad8845 "Textbooks are still written with Darwin in mind as the authoritative explanation."- utter bullshit. What Darwin got wrong was tossed decades ago. Modern evolutionary biology involves whole branches of science that either didn't exist- molecular biology, population genetics etc.- or were in their infancy- genetics, paleontology, cell biology etc.
Why do you post this drivel?
@@mcmanustonyThat's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to the same materialistic prejudices that you see confront Meyers. That is what is important - not taking it on faith that materialism can explain everything. Many evolutionary scientists think it can. Keep an open mind before you say rash things.
@@countvlad8845 It’s “Meyer” and he’s not “confronted with prejudice”. He’s been exposed as a conman and liar peddling pseudoscience.
Which immaterial entities do you think science should be concerned with: ghosts? Leprechauns? unicorn farts?
Science has no need of your religion.
Cope.
It is better to have questions we can't answer than answers we can't question
Thats deep. Evo people ignore the unanswerable questions and just say.....well, it happened some kind of way, and leave it at that. Then continue from there as if the fantasy is real. I see this in biochem text books all the time.
@@peterzinya1 Science encourages asking questions but they need to be *intelligent informed questions,* not the stupid off-topic strawman questions idiot creationists always ask.
@@peterzinya1 Typical theist misinterpret what is said! Science is looking to answer all questions whereas theists have no questions as their answers are given in the book. You know the one that says the sun orbits the earth and that there are no queen ants.
@@peterzinya1 this is absolute nonsense. What unanswerable questions?
@@peterzinya1 nice fake account, 'Peter' 🤣
CR, you are walking with eyes wide open and a closed mind!!!
Thank you Dr. Meyer for ruffling the feathers of the materialistic. Great reading them throughout the comments!! You are right above the target and they know you know.😊
@@F15CEAGLE1 oh dear
The Origins of the Intelligent Design movement
"Our strategy has been to change the subject so that we can get the issue of intelligent design - which really means the reality of God's creation - before the academic world and into the schools. This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science or the truth. It's about winning at any cost, and affirming the reality of the God of The Christian Bible, by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the academic arena. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this which we call "The wedge". But remember, we must avoid debating the Bible and the Book of Genesis at all costs because we do not want to raise the obvious Bible-science dichotomy. Our goal is, "how to win". Phrase the pseudoscience argument in such a way that you can get it heard in secular academia and in a way that tends to unify other science illiterates religious fence-sitters. You must also avoid getting sidetracked onto other issues (like empirical evidence) which our intellectual superiors people are always trying to do." -
Phillip E Johnson - the father of the ID/creation-science movement
Conclusion: Creationists/ID fans are dishonest cowards
You made the same reply in the comment section three times as if the first one didn't get your point across. Very narcissistic of you. Sounds like you need Jesus. Hope you find him and he feels your heart with the ever lasting love of God.
@@repooc84 Why would I need a man who has been dead, if he ever existed at all, for 2000 years?
I post this so it is seen because it is true. Intelligent Design is NOT true.
@@repooc84 you just helped to confirm that Intelligent design is Creationism dressed up in a lab coat.
So present your evidence against the points being argued. You won’t. Because you are not pro current science theory, you are anti religion. You are not a smart person or a free thinking person. You are a cheer leader for the blind faith in science crowd.
@@repooc84 why is pointing out facts and the lies of Stephen Meyer narcississtic? What is wrong with you?
Your approved
You mean......you're approved, right?
Steven Myers’s always provides irrefutable fact-filled excellent presentation.
The supposed "Cambrian Explosion" and the lack of "evolution" should call into question the whole theory for anyone who find out about them.
Meyer promoted the same pseudoscience on FOX back in 2005, during the Kansas Evolutionary Hearings, when his efforts to teach I. D. And creationism in public schools were tested in court. The decision was clear. Meyer was a fake. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science. The fact he still does this tells me he is either deluded, or a lying grifter.
Irrefutable? He's been debunked seven ways from Sunday. It's drivel from start to finish.
@@Roescoe What lack of "evolution? What are you talking about?
@@mcmanustony The fact that supposedly in that rock layer there's all sorts of creatures of varying "complexity"
and some of much greater "complexity" that are in the wrong layer. See the Chinese dig where they found all sorts of life that was supposed to develop a lot later.
🙏🏻
Thank you.🙏
For what? Lying to you are science?
Fun fact: evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life!
Exactly! There is no evolution, because nobody's able to tell how evolution could've even started. No wonder we do not see evolution - not in the nature, not in the fossils. Because evolution has never been scientifically proven, its advocates have started to call adaptive variation and subspecies as ”evolution”. That's what Darwin did with his finches. He fantasized seeing evolution because he couldn't know that there is no genetic mechanism to produce evolution.
The core of Darwinist evolution theory is this: "All life on Earth stems from a Universal Common Ancestor (UCA)". UCA is also called "First Cell". Nobody has seen it because it is a purely hypothetical assumption. But if we ASSUME there was a UCA billions of years ago, it would've had the strange task to produce evolution while working against the evolution theory. Theory tells that evolution needs natural selection. Natural selection needs variations in the organisms, so that the fittest survive and the less fit go croak. The UCA however could've produced mere clones of itself. No sexual reproduction means no variation, which means nothing for nature to select = no evolution. It doesn't look realistic that UCA could have existed.
Because evolution has never been scientifically proven, neo-Darwinists have started to call adaptive changes and subspecies ”evolution”. But there is no evolution. Species can produce only adaptive variations and subspecies, that’s all. In America there are over 20 elk subspecies. They are all elks and they will never produce anything else than more different elks. Subspecies are specialized for their environment. Specialization happens in the genome of a given population. How does the specialization happen?
Genomes specialize when natural selection eliminates individuals with less fit genes and favors the individuals with fitter genes. When this continues long enough, only the individuals with dominating fitter genes are left and they copulate mainly or only with each others. This means impoverished genomes. Genetic impoverishment can be useful as long as the surrounding natural conditions do not change. But when that happens, there's not enough variation in the existing genomes to enable new adaptation. The end of the road is extinction.
This means that all so-called ”evolutionary” processes are in fact devolution processes, as each new subspecies has less genetic variety than its stem species (like dealing a deck of cards). This fact makes impossible for any subspecies to create the path that would lead to new taxonomic genera or new taxonomic families i.e. to evolution.
@ Oxcart. You contend that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. But actually, it is inextricably tied to life's origin. Because the origin of life had to have come before life could evolve. So I think it's better to say that evolution can't explain the origin. Example: Count from one to two. If you start with two, you skipped the first part. Evolution starts with two,so to speak.
@@gregoryholden3255
But the origin has an entirely different science behind it. The research into the origin of life is called abiogenesis
@@gregoryholden3255 Darwinist evangelist Atheist Dawkins is clearly retracing the genesis of an evolutionary creation to a primitive bacterial life that would have appeared in the mythical primordial soup 4.3 billion years ago.
@@oxcart4172 Abiogenesis is being portrayed as the genesis of a Darwinian evolutionary creation myth.
Charles Lyell was NOT a geologist. He was a LAWYER. He was also a wealthy elitist who could afford to publish his own popular (NOT SCIENTIFIC) books, including "Principles of Geology". That was a popular work that was never subjected to scientific challenges.
None the less, his work represents the start of modern gelology, showing that the Earth is much older than the creationist's claim of 10000 year or less.
You might as well say that Galileo wasn’t an astronomer, or Darwin not a biologist. They didn’t have degrees in those fields.
@@oldpossum57 Darwin was NOT a biologist. He was a geologist. He simply rewrote the Freemason/Islamic creation mythology of evolution by killing off the less fit, and he plagerized Pees Christian apologetics book for framing the argument. Lyell was a rabid, antisemitic lawyer, MOT a geologist. He was also a Freemason. He paid to publish Principles of Geology himself, because he coupd afford it. It was a pseudoscience, popular book, debunked in his own lifetime by real geologists. The Nazi "scientists" dragged his and Darwin's pseudoscience, popular books into academia. Have you read The Descent of Man? You'll recognize it as the source of Hitler's propaganda.
@@valerieprice1745 You have swallowed whole an especially nasty and bitter set of lies, Valerie. I don’t know who your teachers and preachers are: I hope never to meet them. On the other hand, I read here and elsewhere statements of former christians who “de-construct”, shedding the burden of ignorant hateful beliefs that they were taught. I do wish that for you.
Unfortunately for you, the world at large has woken up to the error of superstitions. Unless you live like one of the desert hermits, everything you touch is based in the science that you despise. The Neo-Darwinian synthesis is the only model that the life sciences use. The technology you are using relies on standard physics, incompatible with the “magic” you claim to believe.
Personally, I would rather have America-for all its ethical failures- the hegemon of the West. The alternative seems to be the Chinese, with one party communism, which experience tells us always ends in horror or disaster. But America’s intellectual leadership falls behind because of the deliberate ignorance of the electorate. I heard NASA astronaut Marc Garneau explain a little while ago that, in 60 technologies necessary for human survival in the future, China leads in 53. Neil de Grasse Tyson has much the same opinion.
How come Jesus kept bumping into blind people ?
You see less than those blind
men.
@@henrywolf5332
I can read your comment, which is more than they did.
@@tedgrant2 You have proven that reading is not understanding and you will put down blind people to save face. All while smugly pretending your arbitrary world view makes you somehow morally superior.
How does it feel to be an unoriginal cynic?
Maybe because they were blind
He didn’t.
Wouldn't adding the term 'scientific' be a misnomer when theories and opinions are involved.
Here is a simple truth.
Hebrews 3:4 Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.
Has learning the definition of “scientific theory” never occurred to you?
What an idiot
Science is full of theories and opinions. We call your argument a strawman.
I think we can safely say there is no credible mechanism we know of that can explain evolution in terms of natural selection through random mutation, or through piecemeal singular changes to DNA. The findings indicate that evolution is not random changes in parts which could only desrupt cellular and/or organismic functioning. It has to be a global system, and I feel the best mechanism to explain this is transcellular communication through iron channels which have recently been shown to govern the morphological development of embryos (see Michael Levin's research), because if you desrupt the electrical communication fields of the developing embryo it leads to corresponding morphological perversions. It is also worth noting that science never explained by what mechanisms, for example, arms know what shape to grow in and what length to grow too. Recent evidence shows that this electrical communication between cells, which becomes a global communication system governing the whole early life-system, governs the development of the body plan and therefore is a potential alternative mechanism for evolution. I don't know why the scientists aren't making more of this research because it really explains everything for me, even explaining what might be meant by the term Chi or Prana or Life Energy in Eastern philosophy and medicine and other traditional and spiritual discourses. What we call 'life', and that feeling of life, could be related to this transcellular intelligence which is a fare descriptive term. I am not stating that it is a conscious intelligence unto itself, or ruling it out, but unarguably it is a form of intelligence or an intelligent process. It is communication and co-ordination, and therefore there must be some intelligent process behind it. I don't like to speculate at all but to me this is an elephant in the room and the most obvious candidate for a substantial, comprehensive and satisfying explanation of what we see. It ought not be too difficult to prove these things either, because the electrical communication between cells is far easier to investigate and measure then evolution through DNA mutations over eons.
Evangelical grifters
The church of Darwin gospel is horse shit an natural selection its main deity is a lame goddess.
"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. “Darwinist evangelist Atheist Dawkins
You can dress up sky fairies and magic with pseudo-science and the result is the same as putting lipsstick on a pig...
You buerk 😂
You look old cold and miserable.
Pigs don’t wear lipstick.
The millions and billions interpreters
Make a mockery of the Bible
It deserves to be mocked.
@@mcmanustony he does such a great job on all the other stuff but he destroyed himself in his phd work when he dated the earth and he has never recovered
@@falconguy4768 huh?
@@mcmanustony on other parts such as intelligent design
@@falconguy4768 Intelligent Design is pseudo scientific nonsense.
We know some disciples had doubts and lacked faith.
Yet they had first hand evidence !
(Matthew 14:31, 28:17, Mark 11:23, Luke 12:29, John 13:22)
U wiil become the will of god
What does that even mean? 😂😂😂😂
Reasonable versus possible combinations
what? combinations of what?
At Comicon Conventions, the cosplay contingent come out in droves. Harry Potter wizards and witches dress up in full regalia. I hope to see Steve Meyer and Michael Behe dressed up, pretending to do science.
From the outside, they make me think of the cargo cults that sprung up in the Pacific, building the airports for the planes that never seem to land.
Yet the atheist cosmologist conjures up a universe which exploded into existence out of nothing, while the evolutionist imagines that the most sophisticated instruction manuals known to man or DNA templates have the ability to write themselves, using the magic wand of time. Hmm. Speaking of planes, ever heard of Hoyle's Junkyard Tornado?
I’ve heard of Fred Hoyle, yes.
The singularity isn’t nothing.
The theist is one who says, something happened, I don’t know why, I call my ignorance a god.
Here is what should annoy you more: evolution is not teleological. There is no direction to it. The fact that , say H. sapiens developed in the primate line is the result of a series of accidents. My intelligence might be, they hypothesize, due to a mutated gene, TKTL1, which led to the development of extra cortex. But had the climate in East Africa been different at the time of speciation, no H. sapiens.
I would not have been surprised to learn that H. habilis had religions. Thy were slow to solve problems.@@nlievense2
@@nlievense2 Your creationist strawmen only prove your ignorance.
@@walkergarya Please enlighten me then. How can information with specified complexity such as DNA arise outside of a mind? How do intelligent codes appear without a coder? I would love to know.
@@nlievense2 Please define "specified complexity".
God of the gaps:)
This isn't a God of the gaps argument. You should read up on what makes something an argument from ignorance and what insures it isn't.
This argument looks at competing hypothesis and infers to the best explanation. Its is an entirely positive argument and therefore CANNOT be a god of the gaps argument.
And think about what your saying. You imply another type of argument from ignorance.... atheism of the gaps. "We don't know yet so it must not be design." Your more in violation then any that support ID.
@@blusheep2 if what you say IS the case, then why would a 4 word sentence require an essay in return...? Maybe your trying a bit to hard to convince yourself of something 🤔 😏
@@mrbwatson8081 Essays are sometimes required to explain why a claim is true, don't you think? Do you really want me to just respond with another 4 word sentence like.... "no it is not:)" Where would that get us.
Now be an hones person and go research arguments from ignorance so that you can learn why ID is not a god of the gaps argument, instead of criticizing the number of words I use.
@@blusheep2 ok, so who designed the designer :)
@@mrbwatson8081 Don't move the goal posts. We are talking about "god of the gaps." Is your attempt to shift the goal posts admitting that you were wrong about "god of the gaps?"
If that is what you are saying, then I respect that. The hope is that we adapt our opinions and beliefs to new information. Anyone that can do that is "A-ok" in my book.
A lot of you guys are in for a big surprise. But you’ll still deny it happened.
What’s the big surprise? Meyer stops lying?
You read a book written by a scientist? Tell!
We can hardly wait 🤣
@@midlander4 what might it be?
@@mcmanustony you’e been told… and deny.
Won’’t repeat
@@appaloosa42 you have your weird beliefs.
I don’t share them.
Grow up and move on. Maybe try learning some science….
I'm really glad that those pesky scientists still don't know everything.
It means there is still a chance that God exists and that Jesus loves me.
😁😁
You can bet on that naturalist scientists won't ever be able to explain the beginning of the universe or the beginning of life ... or the beginning of "evolution" 😎
The more than thousand gods of the past have ALL been debunked by science and are now well understood, and ALL are natural phenomena! So nobody believes in those gods anymore! You are an atheist about all those thousands of gods of the past! You just have to go one god further!!!
Since evolution is proven to be a fact, we know that we are nothing but a species of apes, nothing more, nothing less.
So, ALL religions and ALL their silly doctrines ( sin and original sin, afterlife, resurrection, prayer, the silly statement that we have to be "saved" etc) can all be thrown right in the trash! There is not a shred of evidence for the existence of ANY god!!!
You can believe whatever supernatural nonsense you want because it makes you feel good, but I prefer to live my life without delusions!
@@jounisuninen
That's very reassuring.
I really need Jesus in my life.
@@jounisuninen
But what if they pray for guidance ?
Couldn't Jesus fill in the gaps with data ?
To me the universe is simple there is no such thing as nothing there is always something and something can transform into anything once something exists anything can happen and so on.
Your belief has inherent contradictions. You say when something exists, then it can change. How does it exist?
Pre socratics thought it was all flux but they didn’t count for the presuppositions required. Like why don’t the laws of physics or logic change if anything can change into anything? How would flux be bridled in this way?
How ? I’m waiting…
@@pumpkineater_69557 are you stupid read my theory something always exists and something can be anything. REALITY is god it always exists!!!!!!
Essentially Kent Hovind 2.0
Essentially, you're either lying, or not intelligent enough to understand the information presented here.
There are atheist scientists turning away from Darwin.
@@scottb4579 atheists scientists turning away from Darwin.... lol yeah the Muslim Buddhist Hindu Christian scientists are turning away from Newton and Kepler. Your statement is as ridiculous as this presentation about biology from a non biologist.... yeah essentially hovind 2.0.
@@IIrandhandleII You just proved my contention. Newton and Kepler were Christians by the way, and I haven't heard of any Christian scientists refuting them.
@@scottb4579 you just proved my point it doesn't matter what religion anyone believes in. What they discover and support with evidence has no relation with the superstitions they hold. Newton was an alchemist as well does that invalidate the laws of motion? No. You are obviously obsessed with only accepting " science " published by organizations that support your confirmation bias. Casey luskin and Stephen Meyer are such examples. You say atheist scientists are turning away from Darwin.... this is absurd. People don't worship Darwin ,einstein ,Feynman , they were only humans that made discoveries.
You cannot find biologists that don't accept evolution just as you can't find astronomers that are flat earthers. It does not exist. Exactly why Stephen Meyer, pontificating on biology, is not in the slightest a biologist or even a life scientist. Yet you give him credence over the whole of the biology community.... very telling.
@@scottb4579 No, YOU are lying.
Darwin and Wallace changed the way Biology is studied. The Theory of Evolution is our understanding of how species change over time. The ToE has itself evolved over the past 160 years. What Darwin and Wallace wrote is NOT our current understanding of Evolution. They are respected for their contribution but their words are not the Gospel of Biology. There is NO movement away from Evolution in Biology.
The fact this talk is given in a church is telling. This is religion, not science.
Duh, ya think? My my, religious people should never address the scientific world( pearl clutching) . God bless .
you can not 'rewire' the basic RNA of a being during its lifetime. even IF, where would prebiological earth get the RNA plan from? lol.
Ever since this steaming pile of creationist horsecrap came out I've been asking the same question. *What is the creation explanation for the 3+ billion years of life on the planet before the Cambrian era?* That includes at least 200 million years' of multicellular life.
I've never received an answer.
Not sure why you are wanting an explanation. Meyer is simply pointing out that the fossil data does not support standard ideas of Darwinian evolution.
As a chemistry teacher I had to teach the Miller Urey experiment as proof of evolution. This despite the fact that no serious scientist now believes this was how abiogenesis happened.
I am happy to teach evolution as a theory, it has its merits, but it doesn't totally convince me.
If I had to come up with the explanation for the previous three billion years, and why the wait, my hypothesis would be that it would not have worked earlier or that a lot of preparity work was going on. Pretty weak, but it is something.
How would you explain the fossil record and punctuated equilibrium? I guess you go with the accepted view, but when you think about it, there are just too many bits that make no sense.
@@astan6445 Like most Creationists Meyer is arguing from his personal ignorance and is simply wrong. Your explanation for the 3+ billion years of life on Earth before the Cambrian is your omnipotent God was incompetent? Wow. What about punk eek don't you understand? Evolution tends to track environmental changes. When the local environment is stable for millions of years you get gradualism. When it changes rapidly you get rapid evolutionary change. There are plenty of examples of both gradualism and punk eek in the fossil record.
@@astan6445 Your understanding of Miller/Urey is just brutal. The experiment never claimed to prove evolution or abiogenesis. It was simply an experiment to see if the biological molecules used by life can form naturally *and they can.*
@@sciencerules2825 Dont stop there. Tell us all how identical nucleotides formed by the billions and ribose molecules by the billions, all identical, then found phosphorus , which is insoluble, and packed together to form the first RNA repleate with the info to make proteins and enzymes. Thanks in advance
@@peterzinya1 Tell me what your question has to do with the OP topic and why you can provide no answer to the OP question. Thanks in advance.
Their is no angels or demons. Their is only angelic scientists and demonic artists intelligently designed to defeat devious that organized crime.:,-)
*There are
Homeschooling has obviously got America to where it is today.
Too bad his faith he is ashamed of sometimes.
It seems like the the analogy of tge Emperor's New Clothes, where Darwin has made imaginary clothes accepted by most Scientists, but then someone like Dr. Steven Meyer is in the crowd, saying what is an obvious question, but where does the information come from? And us the audience agrees, and asks the same question, though the answer is clear, an Intelligent mind.
That is a typically stupid argument for your Intelligent Design Creationism.
@@walkergarya So tell me where do you fit in the picture? Where does the information come from?
@@scottm4042 New traits have been seen to develop from mutation in DNA.
@@walkergarya Yes, you mix two dogs, you get a different kind of dog. But where does the information come from to get the first life? Who put the DNA in just the right order of code, all billion and a half "letters"?
@@scottm4042 They can't even figure out the simpler problem of how the four molecules necessary for life formed on a prebiotic earth. As time goes on, the problems with figuring out that problem have only compounded.
The means by which information first appeared is far, far more difficult to figure out, and is in fact impossible to describe by material processes. Information is nonmaterial. It requires a mind, because information can only be created by thought and imagination.
Can’t believe they let my dude go on stage with that collar 🤦♂️
The will of Allah
The first living thing was not a cell. Cells came into existence only after a very long period of several hundred million years of a series of chemical transformations. These transformations resulted in the emergence of dissipative complex systems that could replicate and evolve via natural selection. The first living things were probably associations macromolecules on clay surfaces or in the tiny cell like spaces of a common mineral like feldspar.
You buerk 😂
@@beecee6850 THANKS!
@@beecee6850 Here are the 3 choices as far as I can tell: 1) complex sequential chemical evolution, perhaps a combination of primordial production of biomolecules followed by Sulfur World/Cairns Smith clay hypothesis followed by RNA World and finally entrapment by lipid miceles forming protobionts which evolve into the first cell or cells. LUCA emerges after final bombardment 4 by ago. 2) An Intelligent Designer (God) did it. 3) Panspermia as in movie PROMETHEUS. Can you think of other options? Let me know.
@@filamcouple_teamalleiah8479 I guess natural selection overlooked the process.
"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader” Darwinist evangelist atheist Dawkins
@@piertinence Good points. I sippose I should read the book before being critical. That's the whole point! That was Darwin's inspiration. The first chp of Origin deals with artificial selection. Darwin provides an outstanding introduction and makes the case clear that human intervention can produce radical change rapidly. Evolution by natural selection is not guided yet the result is often impressive. Why? Enormous amount of time, random mutation sometimes assisted by isolation (tenrecs in Madagascar for example) and a winnowing of individuals due to competition and limited resources. The result is a change in gene frequencies in a population over time. Ensatina salamander diversity in Cali is an obvious example that basically defines speciation. Surely there can be no debate about what happened after the first replicator appeared whstever it's nature. Abiogenesis is another kettle of fish however. Hazen, a geologist w/ a specialty in minerology has written an excellent summary of the recent research on abiogenesis. Get it.
The demon in sunshine movie is Jesus. It's not reality but people's perceptions. The churches have failed Jesus. Fighting over the star makes more sense than the horrible prophecy fighting over who knows what.:-D
Jesus is a fairy tale. You could worship Mother Goose with as much effect.
@@walkergarya oaths end with so help me God. God does reveal himself to people if he can be perfectly moral about it.. he wouldn't reveal himself to a prosecutor trafficking people into mental hospitals for example. You have to be friends of God first before he will reveal himself. God isn't the total mystery people think it is.
@@robertmcclintock8701 I do not swear to your phony god. Your fairy tales do not impress me.
@@robertmcclintock8701 Many oaths don´t end in that, it is just a christian thing
Most famous wishful thinking in the world, --- theory of evolution.
The idea that a million years isn't a lot of time geologically exposes the sadly inadequate education in mathematics in Western education. People have no clue how much time they're talking about. Even half a million years geologically is an extremist view, ignoring current erosion rates, and all the other mathematical realities.
the earth is 4.54 billion years. One million years is one 4540th of that time. It's a short geological timeframe.
What mathematical realities are you talking about?
Where did my mathematics educators go wrong?
Meyer's almost homoerotic fixation with Charles Darwin is very telling.
It looks rather that deeply humane Meyer feels pity for Darwin and his modern followers. Their 164 years old worldview is tumbling down by the modern science.
@@jounisuninen thanks for telling us you don't have a science degree 🤣
@@jounisuninen What Darwin got wrong was tossed decades ago. Creationists like Meyer and yourself were not involved. What he got right is astonishing given the scope and success of his theory and the scant knowledge of his time.
It is not a worldview. It is a scientific theory.
Modern science has extended and deepened the theory of evolution.
Try to keep up and stop posting stupid lies.
@@jounisuninen Actually, creationists are still into a 164 year old pout.
Idiot 😅
We do not have 100% (prob 99.9%)proof for evolution, but we do have a hell of a lot more than a talking snake and lost rock tablets. 🐹
With a television you don't have to be supernatural. God prefer that because it's more social but we have to use it correctly. Right now we have anarchy blindness. Despite the anarchy blindness I figured it out. That proves we can be God like. Only a person getting crucified would suspect something greater. They crucified me with exact same disease that in pink Floyd the wall. Victor said it's all good. It should be possible to make everything all good.:-D
Why are you making a million comments that have nothing to do with the video or the concepts in it ? You do realize that is spam right ?
@@daftwulli6145 I'm posting intelligent design. They don't debate correctly but I do.
@@daftwulli6145 making somebody smarter isn't spam. The debate has been intelligently designed to be deadlocked on stupid. Evolution is a jailbreak. I'm trying to break it out of jail. My goal is to liberate the debate so it's not deadlocked on stupid.
@@robertmcclintock8701 Intelligent desing is pure pseudosciuence since it does not follow the scientific method at any step. So it is not even in the debate for anybody rational enough toi realize that
There are medications that might help you, so just trying to give you some hope.
Charles Darwin. Still living rent free in apologists' heads after 150 years.
It’s a crude attempt to paint science as a personality cult…..as they are all too familiar with those
Charles Darwin is not only living rent free in neo-Darwinists' heads but also controls their minds. It's a Zombie thing.
@@jounisuninen lol no he is not, nobody today in the field cares about darwin except from a historical perspectice, but keep lying for jeebus
@@daftwulli6145 Darwinism always find itself at the center of a religious debate and is only competing for a share of the religious market. Rev Dawkins made himself filthy rich preaching the modern pagan creation myth founded on Darwin hallucinations.
Darwin
One of the foundational requirements of any discussion (but especially a “scientific” discussion) is agreement on & consistency in the use of terminology. I don’t believe that this person is unaware of the difference between “evolution” & “abiogenesis”. Meyer has been embroiled in these discussions for a long, long time. He has been corrected on this fallacy hundreds of times in debates with people who really understand evolution, and the difference between the two terms. My only conclusion for his deliberately conflating these terms to a lay (ie., non-expert) audience is that he is willfully lying to them.
An HONEST expert in any field makes absolutely certain that he does NOT mislead his audience by using non-standard terminology.
Lying is no way to demonstrate credibility.
Meyer lies again to his audience when he claims that “the Cambrian explosion was the earliest known time when life has been found on the earth”. It has been known for decades that a rich bounty of earlier, simpler life has been found in the Ediacaran period that precedes the Cambrian.
Why does Meyer lie to his audience?
Why does he use non-scientific references (like Time magazine) as his reference, instead of REAL respected scientific journals, except for the explicit purpose of lying to his audience.
The explicit reason for this is that neither Steven Meyer nor any other creationist can get any article published in a REAL scientific journal.EVERY competent Paloeobiologist knows that the “Cambrian explosion” in an anachronistic concept when tied to “origins of life”, but only demonstrates a huge radiation of “hard shelled, easily fossilized creatures”, and that different techniques & locations are required to find earlier (soft bodied & single called) life.
Lying is no way to establish credibility.
The Cambrian explosion present NO challenge to Evolution.
Lying is no way to establish credibility.
Darwin gave explicit reasons why he thought the fossil record was extremely sparse. One minute after you imply that he had no explanation, you quote several of the (accurate, eventually verified) reasons that the fossils were not know INHIS TIME, but are known today.
Quoting Steven Jay Gould as if his “punctuated equilibrium” theory is problematic for evolution is lying at at its grossest level. Gould is one of the strongest supporters of evolution that has ever lived.
Lying is no way to build credibility.
In the Texas case, (edit: sorry, I believe I misremembered this incident, I believe that it happened in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case) the judge found that Meyer et al. LIED when they asserted that their “Intelligent Design” was not a deceitful attempt to sneak a thinly disguised creationism into school textbooks. His lies were discovered when it was found that they (stupidly) did a global “search & replace” substituting “intelligent design” for “creationism” throughout their literature.
See: theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/32/
Liars, the lot of them!
Liars are untrustworthy!
There is NOTHING to trust in this willful liar.
You are totally correct.
Gee whiz Mr. Honesty, you state that ..."neither Stephen Meyer NOR ANY OTHER CREATIONIST can get ANY article published in a REAL scientific journal"! (And you Mr. Honesty are the judge of what a REAL scientific journal is?"
Have you read ALL the "real" scientific journals in the English speaking world? Tsk, tsk Mr. Honesty. Calling others liars because they have opinions that differ from yours means you are not confident in your science. You are wrong.
@@jaybennett236 No creatard, I am not wrong.
Intelligent Design Creationism is nothing more than fraud. That has not changed and will not change.
@@jaybennett236 All right, Jay. Try reading with a little comprehension for a change. I did NOT call Meyer a liar “because he has opinions that are different than mine” or “because he can’t get any paper published in a REAL scientific journal”. I
I am 100% confident in my “science” & comfortable with my conclusions. I have participated in “overthrow the accepted theories” efforts in my field (cardiology). We made ZERO UA-cam videos, we did NOT present our methods or results to random people on the street, or oncologists or neurosurgeons. We presented only to world class, respected cardiologists, got them on our side & the rest of the community followed along.
THAT is how REAL science is done.
I demonstrate that his theories are “vapid, stupid, non-scientific AND WRONG” because NONE OF THEM can get any paper published in a REAL scientific journal. And they never will. They won’t even try, because they know they they’ll be laughed OUT of the building during the peer-review process & they can’t do it. Instead, they attempt to do “science by UA-cam”. And “science by debate (with incompetent, amateur opponents, like Bill Nye & other amateurs. Nye’s background is mechanical engineering (although he’s not really a mechanical engineer, he’s an entertainer. “You are what you do.”) or by filmed ambush interviews of random amateurs on the street (like Ray Comfort & others).
That is NOT how REAL science is done.
I don’t need to “read every journal. There is a well established measure (called Impact Factor) which grades the value of both journals & individual papers. I wanted to distinguish between demanding, impactful journals ( like Cell, Nature and the ones on the list linked below) versus the fake, “Pay to Publish” junk journals ( like Bentham), who will & historically HAVE, published all manner of trash … if you just pay their fees. YOU, Jay could publish a paper of total gibberish on String Theory next week (it doesn’t even need to be constructed of full sentences, random words out of the dictionary will do as long as you pay the fees!). Here’s a list of High Impact journals in Evolution ( www.omicsonline.org/evolution-journals-conferences-list.php ). Took me less than 10 seconds to find.
I called him a liar because he is NOT a clueless amateur, he has been up to his eyeballs in this debate for decades, and - just like every other”high profile” creationist (such as Kent Hovind & Ken Ham, Michael Behe, etc.) he has been corrected on EVERY ONE of the dozens of issues that he misrepresented hundreds of times. I am responsible for the issues that I speak on in public, especially those in which I hold myself up to be an expert. It is MY responsibility to be sure that the info I disperse is complete, fair & accurate & clear (especially if I am presenting to amateurs). If ANYONE ( especially another expert in my field) makes the slightest suggestion that anything I’ve said in public is not factually accurate or possibly misleading, then I am going to spend however many hours are necessary to research that subject in fine detail. If my statement was wrong, or misleading in ANY way, then I’m going to change the way I present it the next time.
I called him a liar, because he intentionally use techno-babble to mislead his audience, counting on their ignorance to not catch him in the lie. In plain speak, I called him a liar because he lied to his audience in a prepared speech, which is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT Zthan merely “mis-stating some point in an extemporaneous discussion. I called him a liar because he lied.
You are invited to find me a “pro-creationist” article in any of those journals on that list, if you can. Note carefully, an article that points out “issues” with evolution is NOT pro-creationist”. Real science articles point out weaknesses & questions in the accepted dogma ALL THE TIME.
Materialistic scientists know WHEN Life appeared in the evolutionary timeline, but do Not Know HOW Life was introduced into lifeless molecules.
The hypothesis Abiogenesis has Not been proven. Because, Life is Not Inherent in mechanistic atoms and lifeless molecules. Therefore, a fundamental Gap for modern science on earth 🌎🌍
Meyer is as clueless as they come.
Perhaps you are the one who is clueless. It is within the realm of possibility.
@@stevendapra9465 Not in this case.
Tell Me Again The "Science" Behind Talking Snakes,Donkeys,.How the "Sun Stopped in The Sky" Or Even "Reversed it's Orbit So That A "God Ordained" Slaughter Might Continue,..And How A Man Walked Through Walls Or Vanished Into Thin Air,..Or Rose From The Dead,..Or Flew Into Heaven..??
Why are there always religous zealots on scientific podcast posts. To me its bizzare i wouldnt go on a religous podcast and preach my scientific understandings!!
Yet Stephen Meyer, John Lennox and Hugh Ross plus other scientists bring scientific and religious understandings on podcasts.
Stephen Meyer wouldn't recognise science if it hit him on the head.
He's been delivering the same schtick for decades. I can do it in my sleep....drunk.
"Inside the cell we find nano machines digital technology inside the cell with digital code or characters in a machine code inside the cell Cambrian explosion digital code inside the cell complexity exquisite machines nano inside the cell with digital code Cambrian explosion......blah fucking blah"
More indoctrination from the those who make things up and think they know the mind of God. They plan to have followers nod and graze like a herd of sheep, using the name of Darwin as if he was just full of doubt when in fact he started out with questions and doubt as any good scientists does but ended up authoring a book outlining his understanding and findings. A book now that is the basis for modern biology, so shall we go back to iron age thinking and expect that those thoughts can lead us into the truth about biology and science. The bible may teach us of the rock of ages but it does not tell us of the ages of rocks. Bottom line is the bible is not a book of science and only fools try to force it to be so.
His millions and billions are an abomination
“It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn't work. You don't need to be a mathematician or physicist to calculate that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinity to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck. Far from being a difficulty peculiar to Darwinism, the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints and all the other living wonders is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve, and that Darwinism uniquely does solve. It solves it by breaking the improbability up into small, manageable parts, smearing out the luck needed, going round the back of Mount Improbable and crawling up the gentle slopes, inch by million-year inch." Darwinist evangelist atheist Dawkins
The Origins of the Intelligent Design movement
"Our strategy has been to change the subject so that we can get the issue of intelligent design - which really means the reality of God's creation - before the academic world and into the schools. This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science or the truth. It's about winning at any cost, and affirming the reality of the God of The Christian Bible, by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the academic arena. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this which we call "The wedge". But remember, we must avoid debating the Bible and the Book of Genesis at all costs because we do not want to raise the obvious Bible-science dichotomy. Our goal is, "how to win". Phrase the pseudoscience argument in such a way that you can get it heard in secular academia and in a way that tends to unify other science illiterates religious fence-sitters. You must also avoid getting sidetracked onto other issues (like empirical evidence) which our intellectual superiors people are always trying to do." -
Phillip E Johnson - the father of the ID/creation-science movement
Conclusion: Creationists/ID fans are dishonest cowards
Brilliant!
Although atheism has no provision for miracles. Atheist Dawkins portrays an evolutionary creation as a natural miracle.
“It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn't work. You don't need to be a mathematician or physicist to calculate that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinity to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck. Far from being a difficulty peculiar to Darwinism, the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints and all the other living wonders is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve, and that Darwinism uniquely does solve. It solves it by breaking the improbability up into small, manageable parts, smearing out the luck needed, going round the back of Mount Improbable and crawling up the gentle slopes, inch by million-year inch." Darwinist evangelist atheist Dawkins
The Origins of the Intelligent Design movement
"Our strategy has been to change the subject so that we can get the issue of intelligent design - which really means the reality of God's creation - before the academic world and into the schools. This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science or the truth. It's about winning at any cost, and affirming the reality of the God of The Christian Bible, by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the academic arena. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this which we call "The wedge". But remember, we must avoid debating the Bible and the Book of Genesis at all costs because we do not want to raise the obvious Bible-science dichotomy. Our goal is, "how to win". Phrase the pseudoscience argument in such a way that you can get it heard in secular academia and in a way that tends to unify other science illiterates religious fence-sitters. You must also avoid getting sidetracked onto other issues (like empirical evidence) which our intellectual superiors people are always trying to do." -
Phillip E Johnson - the father of the ID/creation-science movement
Conclusion: Creationists/ID fans are dishonest cowards
I guess you did not get the memo? Intelligent design cannot be taught as Science in the public schools in the U.S. since the Kitzmiller vs. Dover decision in 2007.
@@patmoran5339 I got the memo, it is the fools pushing the lie of Intelligent Design that did not.
@@walkergarya I guess I missed your intention. I do think the court decision needs to be highlighted in arguments with creationists. I suspect they will try what they did after the Scopes trial in 1925.
@@patmoran5339 Pat, there are some people who are simply not going to concede. It is actually quite sad for those who simply ignore the obvious. All we can do is hope they open their eyes. Stay strong.
@@walkergarya Are you an angry person?
The Origins of the Intelligent Design movement
"Our strategy has been to change the subject so that we can get the issue of intelligent design - which really means the reality of God's creation - before the academic world and into the schools. This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science or the truth. It's about winning at any cost, and affirming the reality of the God of The Christian Bible, by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the academic arena. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this which we call "The wedge". But remember, we must avoid debating the Bible and the Book of Genesis at all costs because we do not want to raise the obvious Bible-science dichotomy. Our goal is, "how to win". Phrase the pseudoscience argument in such a way that you can get it heard in secular academia and in a way that tends to unify other science illiterates religious fence-sitters. You must also avoid getting sidetracked onto other issues (like empirical evidence) which our intellectual superiors people are always trying to do." -
Phillip E Johnson - the father of the ID/creation-science movement
Conclusion: Creationists/ID fans are dishonest cowards