It is a PhD in History and philosophy of science. This makes Dr. Meyer an expert in those fields, but sadly, his knowledge is lacking in the fields of Geology, Genomics, Chemistry and other hard scientific fields.
Case in point: in the "Signature in the Cell," Meyer incorrectly portrays Prokaryotic genomes as having "more information than they need." Quite to the contrary, Prokaryotic genomes are demonstrably on the lowest end of the c-value scale.
Just as Scientology is based on a scifi author's 1950s fiction, & Mormonism on a known fraudster's 1800s fiction, Islam is likewise based on a 1300s fiction, Christianity, a 300s fiction and derivatives of the root, Judaism, which is based on more ancient works.
It is amazing how quickly ignorant folk can be sold wishful, utter BS, which they then pass on.
This guy and the "Discovery Institute" are pulling ALL of your legs. Do NOT be fooled into believing that "Intelligent Design" is a true scientific theory or has ANY reliable value in scientific discourse. It IS Creationism... specifically Christianity... re-branded with a more "scientific" sounding name in an attempt to compete with legit scientific theories... like evolution.
These guys and "Scientologists" are both guilty of the same trickery.
@JayJayAbels Have you read any ID literature or are you just spouting off the slogans from your side uncritically? Young Earth Creationism begins with an interpretation of Genesis and deduces from that hermeneutic what science must say. ID proponents like Dembski have formulated reliable design detection criterion for inferring design. His work was published in Oxford and his criterion are used (often unconsciously) in undisputed fields such as archaeology, forensics, and cryptography.
"Young Earth Creationism begins with an interpretation of Genesis and deduces from that hermeneutic what science must say." <--- That is NOT science. That's NOT how science works. That is misusing science in an attempt to "fit" the natural world into a pre-existing agenda.
"His work was published in Oxford" - What's the name of the scientific paper and in which scientific journal was it published?
"Dembski have formulated reliable design detection criterion for inferring design"- WRONG. it is pseudo mathematical gibberish and debunked entirely by Shallit and Ellsberry in their paper which, unlike Dembski's "work", was peer reviewed.
@mcmanustony : Even if it were valid, it would only be a valid indicator of design when there were no reason to think this biochemical pathways evolved naturaly(matt young,2002)
@JayJayAbels Well of course ID is creationism. It posits that an intelligence lies behind the origin of life, so what else would it be. When you consider that the genetic code found in DNA is information/language/coding, and that all codes have a mind behind them, then the idea of ID is not so ridiculous. It's been estimated that the organisational complexity of DNA renders the odds laughably small that it could have formed by undirected means.
Stop. First sentence. A theory is an EXPLANATION. Saying that an intelligence designed "some key features" of life is an assertion that explains nothing. It isn't even a hypothesis - ie, a testable explanation for a specific observation. This is a vague piece of handwaving for which neither Meyer nor any other person proposes an actual test.
It isn't science. It can't be taught as science. It is religion. No religion may be taught in the public schools. End of discussion.
The idiot Meyer carefully avoids the admission that according to US Law, set in Kitzmiller vs Dover, intelligent design has been designated to be religion, without any scientific merit whatsoever.
@edwin2028 As ruling Sharia legal would violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, it won't happen. Meyer the liar carefully avoids FACTS in favor of the ridiculous idea of intelligent design, for which there is not one iota of evidence. Of course the blatant dishonsty of Meyer and his fellow-travellers at the Disco Institute (do the hustle) avoiding referring to "the designer" as god was undone by Phillip Johnson who admitted that intelligent design was a ruse. Go figure.
What makes you think the universe was designed? It's an awful place that’s mostly instantly fatal to life. How does that seem designed? And seeing as you think its designed –what evidence do you have to support this idea? I have never seen any.
Why is it that the only possible answer can be god? This is a fantastic argument from ignorance. "I can't possibly conceive any other way, so it has be "intelligent design" or god if we aren't obfuscating our message.
@giorgiv18 so? the relativity of time is only important when talking about great amounts of space and in practical terms it isnt relative in earth (just by seconds, important for gps only, not for the science that determines the age of the earth)
@supermanuman95 why should you consider earth as the starting system(sorry for bad English). And nobody said it was earth days they're talking about in the bible. The question of time is just a matter of observe point manipulation, nothing more. But why does it matter to you? If you are going to try and drag me into a debate, no can do. Debating something of this magnitude on Youtube of all places is, well... nothing short of stupid in my opinion.
@giorgiv18 I dont really understand what you mean with " nobody said it was earth days they're talking about " what do you mean with that? just curious, not trying to argue, although I dont really care having an argument on youtube, limit of letters and stupid people are a problem yes, but not a deal breaker (am I making an argument on youtube about not making arguments on youtube? xd)
@supermanuman95 the bible says that universe was created in six days. i was just saying that many things in the bible are not to be taken literally.( for instance the word "Adam" means man in Hebrew. So when they say 6 days, it doesn't necessarily have to mean 6 days on earth, i mean 6x24 hours. But i was implying that with a little bit of observational manipulation( choosing the system you want to observe from) you can turn those 6x24 hours into billions of years.
@giorgiv18 That is not science, thats literature, you are saying that maybe when they wrote "days" in hebrew they really didnt mean days but other larger unit of time without any reason, but just as an excuse for one of the many errors on the bible
@supermanuman95 hah! i knew it. you are starting a discussion about the bible. I wasn't referring to the bible when I mentioned science. I was referring to endless possibilities the universe has to offer to explain natural phenomena. Why do you people have to always start discussions about religion on youtube of all places? I'm just saying that there are reasons to believe that time units mentioned as days are not 24 hours long and as time is relative, it's not substantial. why do you care?
@giorgiv18 You discovered me!! im an undercover youtube person that starts discussions about religion!!
If it wasnt for you kids and the dog (from scooby doo)
but seriously I care because I want to know when Im right and wrong. I thought you were referring to the bible because of the 6 days thing (athough it was in 7 I think)what reasons are there to believe" that time units mentioned as days arent of 24 hours" (and mentioned where? becuase surely you dont mean in the bible)
@supermanuman95 O.K, let's clarify. when i mentioned observe spot manipulation, that was a scientific possibility. When i mentioned 6 days, it was the bible, on the seventh God took a break. The day mentioned in genesis is the one that appears after separation of light and darkness(a.k.a. night). The day(24 hours) appeared only on fourth day. So there's where my assumption comes from.
@giorgiv18 so because there wasnt light and darkness, time didnt pass in the same way? and after the 4th day ,do they start counting after the 4th one? I dont really get you, I mean yess, its easier to count days having night and daylight but time passes anyways and I think god must have been able to count days without them, and why would he also call them "days" to those measurements that endure a billion years each and also call days to measurements of 24 hours, does it make sense?
@supermanuman95 This is my last reply, as this is turning to a Youtube debate. For more detailed information, visit a church. Contrary to popular beliefs, God didn't write The Bible with his own hands, didn't come to earth 2000 years ago and didn't live it to people as an indisputable statement. It was being written by many authors for centuries and was formed from many separate books. the reason why the author refers to those time-spans as days is to make them more easily understandable .
@giorgiv18 why is it understandable to say that a billion years is a day? I dont know what you have against youtube man, im just trying to discuss stuff (or ARGUE!!) in an educated manner, if you dont want to answer its ok, but dont act as if using youtube is pejorative to you or anything like that, dont be to cool for school
@supermanuman95 i'm not acting like i'm cool, i've just had past experience of stupid fanatics bugging me with their silly arguments all the time. Who says million years is one day? the text only introduces a more simplified version of origin of the universe, where a day represent a new phase in development of world. Nobody is says anything about actual time, thus making whole argument stupid.
@giorgiv18 fanatic is a term generally used for religious people,, just saying, I dont know where you get this stuff about a day representing a phase, as an english teacher when she overanalyzes the texts of books, the bible, I think has always been taught and thought as literal until recent times when people started discovering some thigns didnt make sense and said that the stupid things were just metaphors, how do you decide what is literal (like jesus healing people) and what not?
@supermanuman95 and also, fanatic can be anyone, religious fanatics are just a sub-types of fanatics. And as to what you decide what is literal and what not, well, it's clearly visible here that the day as we know it appeared on the fourth "day" when he also marked seasons and years. So isn't it obvious that these days are not 24 hours? You should not look at parables as literary work, or they will hide their true meaning from you.
@giorgiv18 every christian at the XIV century believed them as literal work, now they dont just because they have proven to be false, but they try to put in the literal part the most possible, like the miracles, that by definition are impossible, or some historical data that is obviously wrong
and I repeat, they wouldnt call them days, if they didnt intend to say days, they could have said that earth was created in 7 steps, but no, they used day, that by definition is a unit of time of 24 hours
@supermanuman95 God! don't you see? God created the day that lasts for 24 hours only on the fourth "day".
So those units referred to as days can't be 24 hours long. nobody says they are. Yes, the bible is literal very often, but why do people not try to analyze it? What about the first century? fourth century? are you familiar with works of jesuse's contemporary scholars? or ones from later?
@giorgiv18 ok, so im crazy for asuming that when he wrote DAY, he meant DAY right? "in the bible it says he made light to MARK days, not to create days, before they were more dificult to mark because there wasnt this difference of weather but they still existed (I repeat, days have nothing to due with light, its the time it takes the earth to rotate over its axis), he just marked them
@supermanuman95 What makes you think I call you crazy for assuming he meant a day when he wrote a day? I am just irritated by my inability to make you see what i see. The bible on my native language says that in the beginning god created sky and soil. Then he created light. And then it says that dusk came and then the dawn. BEFORE NIGHT AND DAY WERE MARKED!!! So doesn't that mean they are talking about something else than 24 earthly days? And stop teaching me astronomy, i prefer Novikov's work
@giorgiv18 the day is the 1st thing that god created, in the firstday ( kind of a paradox, but it means at the begining), light is separated from darkness,day and night are named, so days are created the 1st thing (obviously he created time the first thing, that makes sense to me), therefor all the next days are real days because he has already made time as we know it, (theres a difference between the day existing and being marked) the bible is the same in all languages btw it should be at least
@supermanuman95 but he marked days only on the fourth. so how did dusk come and dawn afterwards? The bible is built on parables. So it is logical to conclude the day is a different time unit, if time unit at all. But who cares? people can think what they want. I think this way, you think that way. that's the diversity i enjoy in the world.
@giorgiv18 But someone has to be right and someone wrong, it is not logical at all to say that time is a different time unit and you didnt give any valid logical reason for it but if by this point you havent changed your mind you probably wont even if I try to explain it in an easier and simplified manner, because you simply dont seem to want to listen, you are being willingly ignorant, but thats ok, peace
@supermanuman95 We are just different cultures, my reasons don't seem to be valid for you, because you can't understand what i mean. That's O.K. My ideas have always been difficult to understand. so let's try one more time. The days are marked on the fourth "day", hence the sun did not exist on the first day, hence dusl couldn't have come, unless it's a parable having hidden meaning in it. The thing about arables it they always have more than one meaning and pretty vague too.
@giorgiv18 it’s in consistent because it’s a lie. Ask any detective - inconsistencies in stories point to lies and deception. This is the mostly likely answer.
@Realityprogramming What makes you say that the Bible is inconsistent? The Eastern Orthodox Church gives a detailed explanation of what's a parable and what not. From the eyes of a historic, the book must be describing series of events, but several things might be missing from them. But even more, why do you care? You know I won't change my beliefs because of what you said, so did you just intend to offend me with that?
@giorgiv18 Actually I was hoping to make you think but that's obviously not going to happen, so go ahead and take offence. Perhaps being offended will make you think. Anyway - inconsistent as in 2 creation stories in the old testament that are clearly different. That's what I mean by inconsistent and that’s just one example and there are loads.
@Realityprogramming what do you mean " I was hoping to make you think"? I believe in god, so that automatically makes me stupid? And I already answered your statement about inconsistencies. First refute those arguments and then label me according to my beliefs. (I'm not a creationist. I just wanted to see what the creation vs evolution controversy, which does not rise in Eastern Orthodoxy, is all about)
@giorgiv18 I will explain the ''creation vs evolution controversy''. THERE IS NONE. Religious people will never accept science that proves their bible wrong. They promote ''the controversy'' so the can teach ID and religion in schools. ''Teach both sides'' bullshit.
@giorgiv18 Science keeps proving the bible wrong, Galileo did it hundreds of years ago. But they still keep trying to get 'creationism' into schools and won't allow stem cell research.
@gregrutz you didn't understand my question. At first science can not disprove anything in the bible, because the new testament doesn't say anything about science, and the old testament consists of many parables. And what does Galileo have to do with this? He just proved Aristotle wrong.
@giorgiv18 The Church [the people who made the bible] put Galileo under house arrest for proving the bible wrong. Does the bible say there was a global flood? Then it conflicts with science and reality.
Does the new testament say a human rose from the dead?
@giorgiv18 No, i don’t think you are stupid yet. It makes you blinkered and closed minded, naive even. Ok so if the bible is not inconsistent then explain this. Jesus was known as Jesus of Nazareth correct? So why does it say he was born in Bethlehem in the nativity story?
@Realityprogramming At least it doesn't take away my politeness. As for your question, I think you should go to Eastern Orthodox Church and ask a priest. Even a 2-year-old child can ask as many questions, that 10 wise men won't be enough to answer. And I am far from wise. But I think the answer to that specific question lies in the New Testament. Methew 2. Jesus was brought up in Nazareth, or at least lived there longer than Bethlehem. Hence the name.
@giorgiv18 pd (i know days arent of 24 hours in all planets but im pretty sure they didnt so for them that is correct) and a day is the amount of time it takes the earth to rotate on its axis so it has nothing to due with night and day btw
@supermanuman95 now that is a matter of lingual difference. Don't forget that the Bible was written in Hebrew. And we can't tell what the author originally intended. But from what i can see, the author doesn't mention the dates at all. But if you want to further study this, you are welcome to learn ancient Hebrew, get university degree in history, or linguistics, become a world renowned professor and solve the stupid argument over the age of earth.
@gregrutz So, if I call a day different span of time, there's no conflict. What does God taking a day off must mean? Before making conclusions, one must have a thorough knowledge of history, linguistics, ancient Hebrew and their culture. The old testament has many parables, so taking it literally and using it as an argument is invalid. Where do you get your knowledge from?
@gregrutz So what? What does that have to say anything about the bible being wrong? You can't argue with me like with a protestant, who clings only on the knowledge of bible and considers it a literal work.
@giorgiv18 ''considering that time is relative'' And you don't understand Einstein's theory of Reletivity either. The earth is 4,545 million years old.
@Hoogz20 1. I don't ''use'' scripture. And the bible is not even a good history book. It sure does not record what happen in the age of the dinosaurs or the Cambrian Period.
2. I ''believe'' the evidence. Study Geology or Paleontology if you want to know the distant past.
3. I don't have a world view, that is a made up religious term.
@gregrutz Everyone has a worldview and it certainly isn't a religous term. It's just how you view the world. The fact that you are appealing to Geology and Paleontology is evidence that you have a world view. You're claiming to "believe" the evidence which leads me to believe you're an empiricist. That simply means that you believe that the only way to know anything is by sensory experience. Am I right?
If you claim there is any way to know something beyond the senses I would need proof of this. But it's okay, you don't need to bother, because I know that's bullshit. We observe reality through these senses and assessing reality further than those senses is illogical not possible (otherwise it would be a sense).
@BeBoBli No I'm not claiming that at all. That would be ridiculous. I believe that many truth claims are proven empirically but not all of them. I'm simply asking this person their worldview.
@Hoogz20 This is true, human intuition is not always reliable, however... I would object anyone to say that science is anything but the best tool for determining a truth.
You gave an explanation of The Big Bang, not the origin of information. I sent you a private message so that we can discuss this in an easier format. Please reply to it when you have time.
This is why I do not do debates over comments, there is not enough room to get the full questions out there. The question was what is an example of relevant information coming from an unguided premise>?(I was asking about its origin.)I can take the word CAT and change it to ACT but it doesn't show where the information is derived from in the first place. Where did information come from and what was the first cause that produced the ability for said information? No more grasping at straws please.
@jshowa4 Your ignorance is stunning. The origin of the universe is not a mutation. If information is present then variations of relevant information is already possible. Your answer is a cop-out to the actual question. What is the first cause and how can a universe full of relevant information be derived from a non intelligent premise? I'm still waiting on your private message by the way....
@jshowa4 Why are you criticizing me for not providing links to support my point when you can't post URLs on youtube? You want an extended debate, I do not do those on youtube pages as the comment format does not favor extended debates. Feel free to private message me though. We can infer that everything needs a designer. I can not think of one example of relevant information coming from an unguided premise can you? Message me with your reply I will not be having an extended debate over comments.
@jshowa4 Supporters of common descent did exactly what you described with amoebas have genes that are very similar to humans, which isn't a prediction of evolution.
Most Christian do not know Solomon spoke of a pre-Adamic race in Ecc.
As an old earth creationist I believe the Neanderthal was created before Adam & Eve who were created 6000 years ago. Neanderthal was more than likely created millions of years ago and that age was destroyed by flood.
@toobsucker. Genesis 1:1-2a In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; ( no Neanderthals listed here.) I am preparing a lesson on truth right now. I found this interesting how many ways people can take the Bible different way based on how we were brought up or what the general public takes as fact.If we stopped trying to make the Bible fit what others say or what we think it should say and read whats there, it is very simple in so many areas.
@brandonneg "Genesis 1:1-2a In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; ( no Neanderthals listed here.)"
Yes of course and Adam was not listed here either. We don't know when God created the heavens and the earth, all we know is approximately when God created Adam & Eve. 6000 years ago. I do not believe this OEC Vs YEC has a thing to do with salvation. Paul said we see things as through a dark glass.
@brandonneg Ecc 1:10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
Ecc 1:11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.
These perceived "new things" were done in old times before US (homo sapiens) and the clue to this is there is no memory of that time. We have a remembrance from Adam & Eve time via the scriptures
Ecc 3:15 That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past.
Again Solomon says what has been in the past exists now. But more importantly he says what will be in the future (of which he has no idea) has already taken place in the past
Just some thoughts. I'm not claiming to know it all. I am interested as to what passage you are referring to where Solomon spoke of a pre-Adamic race in Ecc. Let me know. Have a good one.
Ecc 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
What has been in the past will be again in the future. That which happened before will happen again.
This verse alone does not suggest a pre-adamic race, but when tied to the proceeding verse it does
Ecc 3:15 That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past.
Solomon says that which exists now has been in the past, and that which will be in the future (of which Solomon does not know) has already taken place before Solomon existed
The Earth and all history was created in 1979 by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The first thing he designed were lasers - to quote from the book of Durum:
"And the Mighty Noodle on High said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And the Great Pastamon saw that the light was awesome"
Dr. Stephen Meyer is a very intelligent scientist that articulates information very well. There exists a video in which he debates a Evolutionist in Washington state & was hosted & mediated by a institution in Seattle
Dr Meyer easily outclassed his opponent with sophistication & thoroughly relevant arguments, while his opponent did a great job in representing evolution by convincingly appearing to be an Ape that resorted to much grunting & giggling & jokingly dismissing most items of contention
@Chuichupachichi "THE WORLD’S GREATEST CREATION SCIENTISTS From Y1K to Y2K" by David F. Coppedge is an excellent resource! Appears to be over 100 pages long in my Word document :) And here are two books that maybe you have not heard of - both are somewhat in the same vein. (1) "For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery." (2) "The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution."
@Chuichupachichi The titles of both these books speak for themselves. Thank you very much for bringing up godandscienceDOTorg. I thought I had that in my list of favorite links from long ago, when I was doing a little research on the Bible. But apparently, it somehow slipped away...odd! As for "Creation-Evolution Headlines," it looks like a terrific website with a lot of substance. How can I not love it if it spans into space, microbiology, biology, physical science, and origins,
This also goes to anyone who has read a book(s) they enjoyed a lot and don’t mind sharing the title(s) with a seeker like myself. I am a tyro here, so I welcome anything that may help me—list of sites, books, etc. I will be superlatively thankful for advice/tips as well!
The top 3,000 ft of the Himalayas are littered with clam fossils. They could not have died & settled on the sea floor & then the sea floor arise to become the Himalayas because the clams would have disappeared due to erosion long before the mountains would have reached their current elevation
The only explanation is a global flood & the clam's current fossilized presence, dictates that the flood occurred fairly recently. From the flood, we know the length of time back to creation
@Chuichupachichi Thank you a lot for that information Chuichupachichi! I am just beginning to actually study in-depth the data debated among the evo. & Creation camps :-) I’m sad ISCID has been mothballed and so sadly I cannot register on there. But of course, I know there are much more intellectual and scientific sites out there like cosmicfingerprints, UD, AiG that can, and currently ARE, helping me very much in understanding and obtaining the knowledge needed in this subject.
The American southwestern mesas, such as those within Monument National Park, possess a form of vertical walls & flat tops that are all at the same general elevation. Their form cannot be explained in evolutionary terms. The global flood waters began to recede by draining from the bottom, such as a plug pulled from a bath tub. The waters at the highest elevations came rushing down in oceanic volumes, at great speeds & washed away all the material that existed between the mesas & that made the
@Chuichupachichi And oh yeah...BOOKS! So far I've read Dembski's "Intelligent Design: Bridge between science and theology" and soon will begin reading, "The Design Revolution." If you're a vet in this controversy maybe you can give me some links to sites that you visit or have visited in the past, they will be of much benefit to me. In addition, literature recommendations are much encouraged too.
Its good that you've taken interest in this matter since its ramifications & implications are far reaching & effectual upon nearly every area of human life
There exists a particular historical work on the internet that I like much & I feel its very informative & helpful in a general sense, regarding the Atheist/Evo - Christian/Creation culture/science war.
Simply Google this > "The World's Greatest Creation Scientists From Y1K to Y2K"
I like this website quite a bit > "Creation-Evolution Headlines"
the URL is 3 dubayou's period crev period info - It has tons of information & it directly engages evolution in the origins debate. They update the site frequently with the latest issues buzzing in the scientific realm that are relevant to origins
Another that looks good, although I hardly know it but intend to spend time there is > 3 dubayou's godandscience period org
Stephen C. Meyer is indeed a very talented and gifted man. I have listened to a few debates with Stephen, (on his own website signatureinthecellDOTcom), and can say that he easily outwits his adversaries.
Thanks for all the help, and hopefully my contribution will be of some value to you as well, and keep garnering that knowledge!
Adieus.
P.S.
My channel is unavailable because I intentionally hid it.
mesa tops the previous ground-level floor. The mesas are the material that was consolidated enough & strong enough to withstand the oceanic torrents of water
They can be explained no other way that is plausible. Their flat top's minimal erosion, indicate the flood was fairly recent
Geology is beautiful for Creationists because a global flood covers the entire Earth & recordable rocks just happen to exist all over the Earth
Hey Meyer you can believe what you like, you're a twit. Intelligent Design has been debunked and you're lying because you're making shitloads of money the discovery institution is paying you to do so. You're a creep.
Atheists seem to think that they possess some rare form of logical thinking that enables them to know beyond any doubt that God does not exist. With this kind of arrogance they will religiously oppose any challenge to their blind chance universe no matter the scientific evidence that opposes it. Even Richard Dawkins is so insecure in the claims he makes in his best seller, "The God Delusion" that he won't debate the claims Stephen Meyer makes in his best seller, "Signature in the Cell".
@55k3v1n Don't worry about atheists, they are in obvious denial.
But what bothers me is people who give God an image (eg Jesus, bearded man, elephant man with many hands). No God is a being that we cannot imagine or ever understand, you just have to look at what he has created. I don't think humans are capable of understanding the being who knows all things. But we are certainly arrogant enough to think we do, or even deny him!
@AskariWaryaa Yeah, a good example of that is when Moses asks God what to call him when he goes to the Israelites. God replies, "I am who I am". I think God is so unimaginable that we humans can't add adjectives to describe His ultimate character: otherwise, God would have just filled in words that describe Him.. but we can make an inference of His loving character through many examples in the Bible. :)
"Funny how atheists try to seem so intelligent."
They mistake bookish diligence (ie. learning and reciting facts, protocols and procedures) for intelligence, whereas in fact, the seat of genius lies in innovation, principle-level engagement, lateral thinking, creedal adaptability and epistemological insight. All of these are hallmarks of those few scientifically qualified individuals who can recognise that naturalism is a non-empirical, unfalsifiable, ontologic precept.
Right on, Dr. Meyer. Dr. James Dobson and Dr. Hugh Ross believe in "old earth" creationism as well. As you say, this question is of secondary importance.
Science shows there is a Creator and Scripture reveals the answers to the, What, Which, How, Who, Why, When and Where type questions you may have of HIM!
What evidence!??
EGMAG 1 week ago
look at this guy playing at being a scientist.
spammemang 3 months ago
@spammemang
Look at you, pretending to have a HIGH SCHOOL diploma lol.
Dr. Meyer has a PHD__FACT
Where's your degree? Do you have one in evotardism?
evoTARDSareINSANE 3 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE
It is a PhD in History and philosophy of science. This makes Dr. Meyer an expert in those fields, but sadly, his knowledge is lacking in the fields of Geology, Genomics, Chemistry and other hard scientific fields.
Case in point: in the "Signature in the Cell," Meyer incorrectly portrays Prokaryotic genomes as having "more information than they need." Quite to the contrary, Prokaryotic genomes are demonstrably on the lowest end of the c-value scale.
Greyclouds40 2 months ago
Just as Scientology is based on a scifi author's 1950s fiction, & Mormonism on a known fraudster's 1800s fiction, Islam is likewise based on a 1300s fiction, Christianity, a 300s fiction and derivatives of the root, Judaism, which is based on more ancient works.
It is amazing how quickly ignorant folk can be sold wishful, utter BS, which they then pass on.
psycotria 3 months ago 2
This guy and the "Discovery Institute" are pulling ALL of your legs. Do NOT be fooled into believing that "Intelligent Design" is a true scientific theory or has ANY reliable value in scientific discourse. It IS Creationism... specifically Christianity... re-branded with a more "scientific" sounding name in an attempt to compete with legit scientific theories... like evolution.
These guys and "Scientologists" are both guilty of the same trickery.
Do not be fooled guys/gals.
JayJayAbels 3 months ago
@JayJayAbels Have you read any ID literature or are you just spouting off the slogans from your side uncritically? Young Earth Creationism begins with an interpretation of Genesis and deduces from that hermeneutic what science must say. ID proponents like Dembski have formulated reliable design detection criterion for inferring design. His work was published in Oxford and his criterion are used (often unconsciously) in undisputed fields such as archaeology, forensics, and cryptography.
123bogger123 3 months ago
@123bogger123 Bullshit.
"Young Earth Creationism begins with an interpretation of Genesis and deduces from that hermeneutic what science must say." <--- That is NOT science. That's NOT how science works. That is misusing science in an attempt to "fit" the natural world into a pre-existing agenda.
"His work was published in Oxford" - What's the name of the scientific paper and in which scientific journal was it published?
Like I said... BULLSHIT.
JayJayAbels 3 months ago
@123bogger123
"Dembski have formulated reliable design detection criterion for inferring design"- WRONG. it is pseudo mathematical gibberish and debunked entirely by Shallit and Ellsberry in their paper which, unlike Dembski's "work", was peer reviewed.
mcmanustony 1 month ago
@mcmanustony : Even if it were valid, it would only be a valid indicator of design when there were no reason to think this biochemical pathways evolved naturaly(matt young,2002)
MrAquinoflavio 5 days ago
@JayJayAbels Well of course ID is creationism. It posits that an intelligence lies behind the origin of life, so what else would it be. When you consider that the genetic code found in DNA is information/language/coding, and that all codes have a mind behind them, then the idea of ID is not so ridiculous. It's been estimated that the organisational complexity of DNA renders the odds laughably small that it could have formed by undirected means.
chessnotdice 2 weeks ago
Question, 'How old is the earth'.
Doctors Answer, ''Intelligent Design is not Creationism''.
OK fine
gregrutz 3 months ago
Stop. First sentence. A theory is an EXPLANATION. Saying that an intelligence designed "some key features" of life is an assertion that explains nothing. It isn't even a hypothesis - ie, a testable explanation for a specific observation. This is a vague piece of handwaving for which neither Meyer nor any other person proposes an actual test.
It isn't science. It can't be taught as science. It is religion. No religion may be taught in the public schools. End of discussion.
puffin51 4 months ago
The idiot Meyer carefully avoids the admission that according to US Law, set in Kitzmiller vs Dover, intelligent design has been designated to be religion, without any scientific merit whatsoever.
TheLizardPeople 4 months ago
@TheLizardPeople US judge also ruled that Muslims can use Sharia Law in US, would you accept it also?
edwin2028 4 months ago
@edwin2028 As ruling Sharia legal would violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, it won't happen. Meyer the liar carefully avoids FACTS in favor of the ridiculous idea of intelligent design, for which there is not one iota of evidence. Of course the blatant dishonsty of Meyer and his fellow-travellers at the Disco Institute (do the hustle) avoiding referring to "the designer" as god was undone by Phillip Johnson who admitted that intelligent design was a ruse. Go figure.
TheLizardPeople 4 months ago
What makes you think the universe was designed? It's an awful place that’s mostly instantly fatal to life. How does that seem designed? And seeing as you think its designed –what evidence do you have to support this idea? I have never seen any.
Realityprogramming 4 months ago
Why is it that the only possible answer can be god? This is a fantastic argument from ignorance. "I can't possibly conceive any other way, so it has be "intelligent design" or god if we aren't obfuscating our message.
AlphaDogmatist 4 months ago
What can design a universe and not be a GOD?!?
Who does he think he can fool?
ID is an argument for God. One with no evidence.
gregrutz 4 months ago
@gregrutz What makes it such a big deal?
giorgiv18 4 months ago
@giorgiv18 ID-iots are trying to teach religion in public schools, good thing they lost in court.
gregrutz 4 months ago
age of earth is the most useless feud ever started, considering that time is relative.
giorgiv18 5 months ago
@giorgiv18 so? the relativity of time is only important when talking about great amounts of space and in practical terms it isnt relative in earth (just by seconds, important for gps only, not for the science that determines the age of the earth)
supermanuman95 5 months ago
@supermanuman95 why should you consider earth as the starting system(sorry for bad English). And nobody said it was earth days they're talking about in the bible. The question of time is just a matter of observe point manipulation, nothing more. But why does it matter to you? If you are going to try and drag me into a debate, no can do. Debating something of this magnitude on Youtube of all places is, well... nothing short of stupid in my opinion.
giorgiv18 5 months ago
@giorgiv18 I dont really understand what you mean with " nobody said it was earth days they're talking about " what do you mean with that? just curious, not trying to argue, although I dont really care having an argument on youtube, limit of letters and stupid people are a problem yes, but not a deal breaker (am I making an argument on youtube about not making arguments on youtube? xd)
supermanuman95 5 months ago
@supermanuman95 the bible says that universe was created in six days. i was just saying that many things in the bible are not to be taken literally.( for instance the word "Adam" means man in Hebrew. So when they say 6 days, it doesn't necessarily have to mean 6 days on earth, i mean 6x24 hours. But i was implying that with a little bit of observational manipulation( choosing the system you want to observe from) you can turn those 6x24 hours into billions of years.
giorgiv18 5 months ago
@giorgiv18 thats just speculation without any valid justification dont you think?
supermanuman95 5 months ago
@supermanuman95 No, it's just a possibility. Too little is known about the world to be speaking about anything in science confidently.
giorgiv18 5 months ago
@giorgiv18 That is not science, thats literature, you are saying that maybe when they wrote "days" in hebrew they really didnt mean days but other larger unit of time without any reason, but just as an excuse for one of the many errors on the bible
supermanuman95 5 months ago
@supermanuman95 hah! i knew it. you are starting a discussion about the bible. I wasn't referring to the bible when I mentioned science. I was referring to endless possibilities the universe has to offer to explain natural phenomena. Why do you people have to always start discussions about religion on youtube of all places? I'm just saying that there are reasons to believe that time units mentioned as days are not 24 hours long and as time is relative, it's not substantial. why do you care?
giorgiv18 5 months ago
@giorgiv18 You discovered me!! im an undercover youtube person that starts discussions about religion!!
If it wasnt for you kids and the dog (from scooby doo)
but seriously I care because I want to know when Im right and wrong. I thought you were referring to the bible because of the 6 days thing (athough it was in 7 I think)what reasons are there to believe" that time units mentioned as days arent of 24 hours" (and mentioned where? becuase surely you dont mean in the bible)
supermanuman95 5 months ago
@supermanuman95 O.K, let's clarify. when i mentioned observe spot manipulation, that was a scientific possibility. When i mentioned 6 days, it was the bible, on the seventh God took a break. The day mentioned in genesis is the one that appears after separation of light and darkness(a.k.a. night). The day(24 hours) appeared only on fourth day. So there's where my assumption comes from.
giorgiv18 5 months ago
@giorgiv18 so because there wasnt light and darkness, time didnt pass in the same way? and after the 4th day ,do they start counting after the 4th one? I dont really get you, I mean yess, its easier to count days having night and daylight but time passes anyways and I think god must have been able to count days without them, and why would he also call them "days" to those measurements that endure a billion years each and also call days to measurements of 24 hours, does it make sense?
supermanuman95 5 months ago
@supermanuman95 This is my last reply, as this is turning to a Youtube debate. For more detailed information, visit a church. Contrary to popular beliefs, God didn't write The Bible with his own hands, didn't come to earth 2000 years ago and didn't live it to people as an indisputable statement. It was being written by many authors for centuries and was formed from many separate books. the reason why the author refers to those time-spans as days is to make them more easily understandable .
giorgiv18 5 months ago
@giorgiv18 why is it understandable to say that a billion years is a day? I dont know what you have against youtube man, im just trying to discuss stuff (or ARGUE!!) in an educated manner, if you dont want to answer its ok, but dont act as if using youtube is pejorative to you or anything like that, dont be to cool for school
supermanuman95 5 months ago
@supermanuman95 i'm not acting like i'm cool, i've just had past experience of stupid fanatics bugging me with their silly arguments all the time. Who says million years is one day? the text only introduces a more simplified version of origin of the universe, where a day represent a new phase in development of world. Nobody is says anything about actual time, thus making whole argument stupid.
giorgiv18 5 months ago
@giorgiv18 fanatic is a term generally used for religious people,, just saying, I dont know where you get this stuff about a day representing a phase, as an english teacher when she overanalyzes the texts of books, the bible, I think has always been taught and thought as literal until recent times when people started discovering some thigns didnt make sense and said that the stupid things were just metaphors, how do you decide what is literal (like jesus healing people) and what not?
supermanuman95 5 months ago
@supermanuman95 and also, fanatic can be anyone, religious fanatics are just a sub-types of fanatics. And as to what you decide what is literal and what not, well, it's clearly visible here that the day as we know it appeared on the fourth "day" when he also marked seasons and years. So isn't it obvious that these days are not 24 hours? You should not look at parables as literary work, or they will hide their true meaning from you.
giorgiv18 5 months ago
@giorgiv18 every christian at the XIV century believed them as literal work, now they dont just because they have proven to be false, but they try to put in the literal part the most possible, like the miracles, that by definition are impossible, or some historical data that is obviously wrong
and I repeat, they wouldnt call them days, if they didnt intend to say days, they could have said that earth was created in 7 steps, but no, they used day, that by definition is a unit of time of 24 hours
supermanuman95 5 months ago
@supermanuman95 God! don't you see? God created the day that lasts for 24 hours only on the fourth "day".
So those units referred to as days can't be 24 hours long. nobody says they are. Yes, the bible is literal very often, but why do people not try to analyze it? What about the first century? fourth century? are you familiar with works of jesuse's contemporary scholars? or ones from later?
giorgiv18 5 months ago
@giorgiv18 ok, so im crazy for asuming that when he wrote DAY, he meant DAY right? "in the bible it says he made light to MARK days, not to create days, before they were more dificult to mark because there wasnt this difference of weather but they still existed (I repeat, days have nothing to due with light, its the time it takes the earth to rotate over its axis), he just marked them
supermanuman95 5 months ago
@supermanuman95 What makes you think I call you crazy for assuming he meant a day when he wrote a day? I am just irritated by my inability to make you see what i see. The bible on my native language says that in the beginning god created sky and soil. Then he created light. And then it says that dusk came and then the dawn. BEFORE NIGHT AND DAY WERE MARKED!!! So doesn't that mean they are talking about something else than 24 earthly days? And stop teaching me astronomy, i prefer Novikov's work
giorgiv18 5 months ago
@giorgiv18 the day is the 1st thing that god created, in the firstday ( kind of a paradox, but it means at the begining), light is separated from darkness,day and night are named, so days are created the 1st thing (obviously he created time the first thing, that makes sense to me), therefor all the next days are real days because he has already made time as we know it, (theres a difference between the day existing and being marked) the bible is the same in all languages btw it should be at least
supermanuman95 5 months ago
@supermanuman95 but he marked days only on the fourth. so how did dusk come and dawn afterwards? The bible is built on parables. So it is logical to conclude the day is a different time unit, if time unit at all. But who cares? people can think what they want. I think this way, you think that way. that's the diversity i enjoy in the world.
giorgiv18 5 months ago
@giorgiv18 But someone has to be right and someone wrong, it is not logical at all to say that time is a different time unit and you didnt give any valid logical reason for it but if by this point you havent changed your mind you probably wont even if I try to explain it in an easier and simplified manner, because you simply dont seem to want to listen, you are being willingly ignorant, but thats ok, peace
supermanuman95 5 months ago
@supermanuman95 We are just different cultures, my reasons don't seem to be valid for you, because you can't understand what i mean. That's O.K. My ideas have always been difficult to understand. so let's try one more time. The days are marked on the fourth "day", hence the sun did not exist on the first day, hence dusl couldn't have come, unless it's a parable having hidden meaning in it. The thing about arables it they always have more than one meaning and pretty vague too.
giorgiv18 5 months ago
@giorgiv18 it’s in consistent because it’s a lie. Ask any detective - inconsistencies in stories point to lies and deception. This is the mostly likely answer.
Realityprogramming 4 months ago
@Realityprogramming What makes you say that the Bible is inconsistent? The Eastern Orthodox Church gives a detailed explanation of what's a parable and what not. From the eyes of a historic, the book must be describing series of events, but several things might be missing from them. But even more, why do you care? You know I won't change my beliefs because of what you said, so did you just intend to offend me with that?
giorgiv18 4 months ago
@giorgiv18 Actually I was hoping to make you think but that's obviously not going to happen, so go ahead and take offence. Perhaps being offended will make you think. Anyway - inconsistent as in 2 creation stories in the old testament that are clearly different. That's what I mean by inconsistent and that’s just one example and there are loads.
Realityprogramming 4 months ago
@Realityprogramming what do you mean " I was hoping to make you think"? I believe in god, so that automatically makes me stupid? And I already answered your statement about inconsistencies. First refute those arguments and then label me according to my beliefs. (I'm not a creationist. I just wanted to see what the creation vs evolution controversy, which does not rise in Eastern Orthodoxy, is all about)
giorgiv18 4 months ago
@giorgiv18 I will explain the ''creation vs evolution controversy''. THERE IS NONE. Religious people will never accept science that proves their bible wrong. They promote ''the controversy'' so the can teach ID and religion in schools. ''Teach both sides'' bullshit.
gregrutz 4 months ago
@gregrutz interesting, but what does science have to do with the bible? has any new historic research been made or something?
giorgiv18 4 months ago
@giorgiv18 Science keeps proving the bible wrong, Galileo did it hundreds of years ago. But they still keep trying to get 'creationism' into schools and won't allow stem cell research.
gregrutz 4 months ago
@gregrutz you didn't understand my question. At first science can not disprove anything in the bible, because the new testament doesn't say anything about science, and the old testament consists of many parables. And what does Galileo have to do with this? He just proved Aristotle wrong.
giorgiv18 4 months ago
@giorgiv18 The Church [the people who made the bible] put Galileo under house arrest for proving the bible wrong. Does the bible say there was a global flood? Then it conflicts with science and reality.
Does the new testament say a human rose from the dead?
gregrutz 4 months ago
@giorgiv18 No, i don’t think you are stupid yet. It makes you blinkered and closed minded, naive even. Ok so if the bible is not inconsistent then explain this. Jesus was known as Jesus of Nazareth correct? So why does it say he was born in Bethlehem in the nativity story?
Realityprogramming 4 months ago
@Realityprogramming At least it doesn't take away my politeness. As for your question, I think you should go to Eastern Orthodox Church and ask a priest. Even a 2-year-old child can ask as many questions, that 10 wise men won't be enough to answer. And I am far from wise. But I think the answer to that specific question lies in the New Testament. Methew 2. Jesus was brought up in Nazareth, or at least lived there longer than Bethlehem. Hence the name.
giorgiv18 4 months ago
@giorgiv18 pd (i know days arent of 24 hours in all planets but im pretty sure they didnt so for them that is correct) and a day is the amount of time it takes the earth to rotate on its axis so it has nothing to due with night and day btw
supermanuman95 5 months ago
@giorgiv18 pd: if he wanted to meant phases he could have said phases, or parts, or steps, which people would have understood as easily
supermanuman95 5 months ago
@supermanuman95 now that is a matter of lingual difference. Don't forget that the Bible was written in Hebrew. And we can't tell what the author originally intended. But from what i can see, the author doesn't mention the dates at all. But if you want to further study this, you are welcome to learn ancient Hebrew, get university degree in history, or linguistics, become a world renowned professor and solve the stupid argument over the age of earth.
giorgiv18 5 months ago
@giorgiv18 The earth is 4,545 million years old no matter how you change the bible or whatever you call a day.
''on the seventh God took a break'' Yes, He rested. WHY? Not an all powerfull God?
gregrutz 4 months ago
@gregrutz So, if I call a day different span of time, there's no conflict. What does God taking a day off must mean? Before making conclusions, one must have a thorough knowledge of history, linguistics, ancient Hebrew and their culture. The old testament has many parables, so taking it literally and using it as an argument is invalid. Where do you get your knowledge from?
giorgiv18 4 months ago
@giorgiv18 Dinosaurs ruled the earth for 160 million years no matter what you want to call a 'Day'.
God is ALL POWERFUL but took 6 days to make the world, then had to rest?!? You don't see something a little funny about that?
''must have a thorough knowledge of history'' YES !
Make sure you include the fossil record and the last 600 million years of history.
gregrutz 4 months ago
@gregrutz So what? What does that have to say anything about the bible being wrong? You can't argue with me like with a protestant, who clings only on the knowledge of bible and considers it a literal work.
giorgiv18 4 months ago
@giorgiv18 ''considering that time is relative'' And you don't understand Einstein's theory of Reletivity either. The earth is 4,545 million years old.
Evolution was accepted 150 years ago.
Meyer lost is court, ID is Creationism.
gregrutz 4 months ago
@gregrutz Excuse me but are you attempting to use Scripture to argue against Scripture? What do you believe? What's your worldview?
Hoogz20 3 months ago
@Hoogz20 1. I don't ''use'' scripture. And the bible is not even a good history book. It sure does not record what happen in the age of the dinosaurs or the Cambrian Period.
2. I ''believe'' the evidence. Study Geology or Paleontology if you want to know the distant past.
3. I don't have a world view, that is a made up religious term.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz Everyone has a worldview and it certainly isn't a religous term. It's just how you view the world. The fact that you are appealing to Geology and Paleontology is evidence that you have a world view. You're claiming to "believe" the evidence which leads me to believe you're an empiricist. That simply means that you believe that the only way to know anything is by sensory experience. Am I right?
Hoogz20 3 months ago
@Hoogz20 No, we use LOGIC sometimes to ''know'' something.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@Hoogz20
If you claim there is any way to know something beyond the senses I would need proof of this. But it's okay, you don't need to bother, because I know that's bullshit. We observe reality through these senses and assessing reality further than those senses is illogical not possible (otherwise it would be a sense).
BeBoBli 3 months ago
@BeBoBli No I'm not claiming that at all. That would be ridiculous. I believe that many truth claims are proven empirically but not all of them. I'm simply asking this person their worldview.
Hoogz20 3 months ago
@Hoogz20 This is true, human intuition is not always reliable, however... I would object anyone to say that science is anything but the best tool for determining a truth.
BeBoBli 3 months ago
Meyer is a shill.
None of what he says resemble facts....
odinata 5 months ago
You gave an explanation of The Big Bang, not the origin of information. I sent you a private message so that we can discuss this in an easier format. Please reply to it when you have time.
blondetrumpetboy 6 months ago
This is why I do not do debates over comments, there is not enough room to get the full questions out there. The question was what is an example of relevant information coming from an unguided premise>?(I was asking about its origin.)I can take the word CAT and change it to ACT but it doesn't show where the information is derived from in the first place. Where did information come from and what was the first cause that produced the ability for said information? No more grasping at straws please.
blondetrumpetboy 6 months ago
Comment removed
blondetrumpetboy 6 months ago
@jshowa4 Your ignorance is stunning. The origin of the universe is not a mutation. If information is present then variations of relevant information is already possible. Your answer is a cop-out to the actual question. What is the first cause and how can a universe full of relevant information be derived from a non intelligent premise? I'm still waiting on your private message by the way....
blondetrumpetboy 6 months ago
@jshowa4 Why are you criticizing me for not providing links to support my point when you can't post URLs on youtube? You want an extended debate, I do not do those on youtube pages as the comment format does not favor extended debates. Feel free to private message me though. We can infer that everything needs a designer. I can not think of one example of relevant information coming from an unguided premise can you? Message me with your reply I will not be having an extended debate over comments.
blondetrumpetboy 6 months ago
@jshowa4 Supporters of common descent did exactly what you described with amoebas have genes that are very similar to humans, which isn't a prediction of evolution.
blondetrumpetboy 6 months ago
Most Christian do not know Solomon spoke of a pre-Adamic race in Ecc.
As an old earth creationist I believe the Neanderthal was created before Adam & Eve who were created 6000 years ago. Neanderthal was more than likely created millions of years ago and that age was destroyed by flood.
toobsucker 6 months ago
@toobsucker. Genesis 1:1-2a In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; ( no Neanderthals listed here.) I am preparing a lesson on truth right now. I found this interesting how many ways people can take the Bible different way based on how we were brought up or what the general public takes as fact.If we stopped trying to make the Bible fit what others say or what we think it should say and read whats there, it is very simple in so many areas.
brandonneg 6 months ago
@brandonneg "Genesis 1:1-2a In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; ( no Neanderthals listed here.)"
Yes of course and Adam was not listed here either. We don't know when God created the heavens and the earth, all we know is approximately when God created Adam & Eve. 6000 years ago. I do not believe this OEC Vs YEC has a thing to do with salvation. Paul said we see things as through a dark glass.
toobsucker 6 months ago
@brandonneg Ecc 1:10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
Ecc 1:11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.
These perceived "new things" were done in old times before US (homo sapiens) and the clue to this is there is no memory of that time. We have a remembrance from Adam & Eve time via the scriptures
toobsucker 6 months ago
@brandonneg
Ecc 3:15 That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past.
Again Solomon says what has been in the past exists now. But more importantly he says what will be in the future (of which he has no idea) has already taken place in the past
toobsucker 6 months ago
Just some thoughts. I'm not claiming to know it all. I am interested as to what passage you are referring to where Solomon spoke of a pre-Adamic race in Ecc. Let me know. Have a good one.
brandonneg 6 months ago
@brandonneg
Ecc 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
What has been in the past will be again in the future. That which happened before will happen again.
This verse alone does not suggest a pre-adamic race, but when tied to the proceeding verse it does
toobsucker 6 months ago
@brandonneg
Ecc 3:15 That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past.
Solomon says that which exists now has been in the past, and that which will be in the future (of which Solomon does not know) has already taken place before Solomon existed
toobsucker 6 months ago
The Earth and all history was created in 1979 by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The first thing he designed were lasers - to quote from the book of Durum:
"And the Mighty Noodle on High said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And the Great Pastamon saw that the light was awesome"
DissorderedArray 6 months ago
Dr. Stephen Meyer is a very intelligent scientist that articulates information very well. There exists a video in which he debates a Evolutionist in Washington state & was hosted & mediated by a institution in Seattle
Dr Meyer easily outclassed his opponent with sophistication & thoroughly relevant arguments, while his opponent did a great job in representing evolution by convincingly appearing to be an Ape that resorted to much grunting & giggling & jokingly dismissing most items of contention
Chuichupachichi 7 months ago
@Chuichupachichi "THE WORLD’S GREATEST CREATION SCIENTISTS From Y1K to Y2K" by David F. Coppedge is an excellent resource! Appears to be over 100 pages long in my Word document :) And here are two books that maybe you have not heard of - both are somewhat in the same vein. (1) "For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery." (2) "The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution."
randomuseronthenet 7 months ago
@Chuichupachichi The titles of both these books speak for themselves. Thank you very much for bringing up godandscienceDOTorg. I thought I had that in my list of favorite links from long ago, when I was doing a little research on the Bible. But apparently, it somehow slipped away...odd! As for "Creation-Evolution Headlines," it looks like a terrific website with a lot of substance. How can I not love it if it spans into space, microbiology, biology, physical science, and origins,
randomuseronthenet 7 months ago
Comment removed
randomuseronthenet 7 months ago
This also goes to anyone who has read a book(s) they enjoyed a lot and don’t mind sharing the title(s) with a seeker like myself. I am a tyro here, so I welcome anything that may help me—list of sites, books, etc. I will be superlatively thankful for advice/tips as well!
randomuseronthenet 7 months ago
The top 3,000 ft of the Himalayas are littered with clam fossils. They could not have died & settled on the sea floor & then the sea floor arise to become the Himalayas because the clams would have disappeared due to erosion long before the mountains would have reached their current elevation
The only explanation is a global flood & the clam's current fossilized presence, dictates that the flood occurred fairly recently. From the flood, we know the length of time back to creation
Chuichupachichi 7 months ago
@Chuichupachichi - well said
whiteliketar 7 months ago
@Chuichupachichi Thank you a lot for that information Chuichupachichi! I am just beginning to actually study in-depth the data debated among the evo. & Creation camps :-) I’m sad ISCID has been mothballed and so sadly I cannot register on there. But of course, I know there are much more intellectual and scientific sites out there like cosmicfingerprints, UD, AiG that can, and currently ARE, helping me very much in understanding and obtaining the knowledge needed in this subject.
randomuseronthenet 7 months ago
The American southwestern mesas, such as those within Monument National Park, possess a form of vertical walls & flat tops that are all at the same general elevation. Their form cannot be explained in evolutionary terms. The global flood waters began to recede by draining from the bottom, such as a plug pulled from a bath tub. The waters at the highest elevations came rushing down in oceanic volumes, at great speeds & washed away all the material that existed between the mesas & that made the
Chuichupachichi 7 months ago
@Chuichupachichi And oh yeah...BOOKS! So far I've read Dembski's "Intelligent Design: Bridge between science and theology" and soon will begin reading, "The Design Revolution." If you're a vet in this controversy maybe you can give me some links to sites that you visit or have visited in the past, they will be of much benefit to me. In addition, literature recommendations are much encouraged too.
randomuseronthenet 7 months ago
@randomuseronthenet
Its good that you've taken interest in this matter since its ramifications & implications are far reaching & effectual upon nearly every area of human life
There exists a particular historical work on the internet that I like much & I feel its very informative & helpful in a general sense, regarding the Atheist/Evo - Christian/Creation culture/science war.
Simply Google this > "The World's Greatest Creation Scientists From Y1K to Y2K"
Chuichupachichi 7 months ago
I like this website quite a bit > "Creation-Evolution Headlines"
the URL is 3 dubayou's period crev period info - It has tons of information & it directly engages evolution in the origins debate. They update the site frequently with the latest issues buzzing in the scientific realm that are relevant to origins
Another that looks good, although I hardly know it but intend to spend time there is > 3 dubayou's godandscience period org
Have fun & knock out some Apes
~ The Ape Hunter ~
Chuichupachichi 7 months ago
all which match my interest?! :D
Stephen C. Meyer is indeed a very talented and gifted man. I have listened to a few debates with Stephen, (on his own website signatureinthecellDOTcom), and can say that he easily outwits his adversaries.
Thanks for all the help, and hopefully my contribution will be of some value to you as well, and keep garnering that knowledge!
Adieus.
P.S.
My channel is unavailable because I intentionally hid it.
randomuseronthenet 7 months ago
mesa tops the previous ground-level floor. The mesas are the material that was consolidated enough & strong enough to withstand the oceanic torrents of water
They can be explained no other way that is plausible. Their flat top's minimal erosion, indicate the flood was fairly recent
Geology is beautiful for Creationists because a global flood covers the entire Earth & recordable rocks just happen to exist all over the Earth
Don't forget Dr. Gentry's Polonium Halos
Earth is created & YOUNG!
Chuichupachichi 7 months ago
Hey Meyer you can believe what you like, you're a twit. Intelligent Design has been debunked and you're lying because you're making shitloads of money the discovery institution is paying you to do so. You're a creep.
bigboy45454545 8 months ago
Could you give me a different perspective? :]
Basilisk525 8 months ago
''The Theory of Intelligent Design....'' WTF? It is not Science so it is not a Scientific Theory. Scientists don't do ID.
Is he a DR. of Geology? NO
The earth is 4,545 Million years old, + or - 2 million years.
gregrutz 8 months ago
Atheists seem to think that they possess some rare form of logical thinking that enables them to know beyond any doubt that God does not exist. With this kind of arrogance they will religiously oppose any challenge to their blind chance universe no matter the scientific evidence that opposes it. Even Richard Dawkins is so insecure in the claims he makes in his best seller, "The God Delusion" that he won't debate the claims Stephen Meyer makes in his best seller, "Signature in the Cell".
55k3v1n 10 months ago
@55k3v1n Don't worry about atheists, they are in obvious denial.
But what bothers me is people who give God an image (eg Jesus, bearded man, elephant man with many hands). No God is a being that we cannot imagine or ever understand, you just have to look at what he has created. I don't think humans are capable of understanding the being who knows all things. But we are certainly arrogant enough to think we do, or even deny him!
AskariWaryaa 10 months ago
@AskariWaryaa Yeah, a good example of that is when Moses asks God what to call him when he goes to the Israelites. God replies, "I am who I am". I think God is so unimaginable that we humans can't add adjectives to describe His ultimate character: otherwise, God would have just filled in words that describe Him.. but we can make an inference of His loving character through many examples in the Bible. :)
Basilisk525 8 months ago
its sad that you swallow the bible literally, ti really is sad...how about studying it from other perspectives..
zenithar6666 8 months ago
Funny how atheists try to seem so intelligent.
shamiotzi253 10 months ago
@shamiotzi253
"Funny how atheists try to seem so intelligent."
They mistake bookish diligence (ie. learning and reciting facts, protocols and procedures) for intelligence, whereas in fact, the seat of genius lies in innovation, principle-level engagement, lateral thinking, creedal adaptability and epistemological insight. All of these are hallmarks of those few scientifically qualified individuals who can recognise that naturalism is a non-empirical, unfalsifiable, ontologic precept.
JCrownwell 9 months ago
@JCrownwell amen
matrixlone 9 months ago
@shamiotzi253 Funny how Creationists think they are Scientists.
gregrutz 8 months ago
GO BACK TO SLEEP
zenithar6666 8 months ago
So many God haters out there. They deserve to be wiped out with impunity
Seigu007 11 months ago
@Seigu007 I don't hate what I don't believe
fcdog555 11 months ago
Good interview. Definitely not the most important question/discussion point to focus on.
berean315 11 months ago
Right on, Dr. Meyer. Dr. James Dobson and Dr. Hugh Ross believe in "old earth" creationism as well. As you say, this question is of secondary importance.
rac717 1 year ago
Science shows there is a Creator and Scripture reveals the answers to the, What, Which, How, Who, Why, When and Where type questions you may have of HIM!
mikeeboy1000 1 year ago
Some think it's old, some think it's young...it's all good! geeez, give me a break.
ndjarnag 1 year ago