Listening to John Lennox is always amazing, so much insight

@mcmanustony

Жыл бұрын

Have you tried learning about biology from actual biologists? Origin of Life research from people who actually research the origin of life? I think they might have more insight that a lying, religiously motivated, long retired mathematician whose work had ZERO application to any aspect of any life science.

@rolfme5499

Жыл бұрын

@R e P Listening to Lennox damages your brain! .

@atyt11

Жыл бұрын

@@mcmanustony not sure I've heard a statement more ridiculous. Lenox has more wisdom and knowledge in his left pinky toenail than in all 30 trillion, accidentally made from billion year old soup, cells in your body. You OBVIOUSLY did not listen to the full conversation or you would not have spouted such drivel 🙄🙄

@mcmanustony

Жыл бұрын

@@atyt11 " not sure I've heard a statement more ridiculous. "- try to get out more. There's NOTHING ridiculous in pointing out that claiming tens of thousands of biologists, biochemists, geneticists, paleontologists are fundamentally wrong when you have ZERO training in any of these is the height of arrogance. All Lennox has is religiously motivated dishonesty. He is simply regurgitating long debunked creationist talking points- and showing up his colossal ignorance of the science involved. There is NO CRISIS in evolution. He is a liar. His dishonest misrepresentations of Dawkins, Gould etc are an utter disgrace and will shame him for years to come. "Lenox has more wisdom and knowledge in his left pinky toenail.....blah blah". Give it a rest Sparky. Lennox's speciality was the theory of infinite soluble groups, an area of abstract algebra of interest to me, not that I've EVER actually heard him utter a word about it, which has absolutely no application whatsoever to any aspect of biology. Which of his theorems was your favourite? This work dried up decades ago and it's been the same weak boilerplate apologetics ever since. His grasp of genetics, given that he has the jaw dropping arrogance to suggest they are all wrong and he is right, is utterly pathetic. He does not understand the absolute basics of the subject and doesn't care.....it's all Jesus all the time. The primordial soup hypothesis has been largely superseded by hydrothermal vents. Many of the steps to prebiotic synthesis of biomolecules are understood- amino acids arise naturally, Sutherland and Powner demonstrated the synthesis of RNA nucleotides absent enzymes, Cronin has demonstrated the prebiotic polymerisation of these....etc. Maybe try a bit more reading and a bit less sneering and you'll not come across as so much of an obnoxious prick. If you really want to hear drivel, rather than listen again (since YOU have listened to the whole torrent and I've not) to Lennox completely fuck up the relationship between DNA, RNA, amino acids and proteins....it's utter, pig-ignorant tripe. But, sure, wisdom, toenails and all that.....

@ndjibukabengele973

11 ай бұрын

@@mcmanustony I know you're an atheist and you hate him because evolution according to your dumb minds has nothing to hold on. Everything needs information coming from a mind lol, big bang crumbles lol.

Listening to John Lennox is like sipping a fine Cognac by the fire. Complex, yet so precise it is relaxing.

@samburns2339

Жыл бұрын

Pity he's so brutally ignorant of evolutionary biology.

@bitchoflivingblah

Жыл бұрын

Unless you understand science and then you you realise its just obfuscation masquerading as knowledge. There is no God. You don't need a degree in Maths to figure that out. The magic man in the sky doesn't exist and doesn't hear your prayers. Any God who could create such a cruel world wouldn't be one anybody should follow anyway, one who would forgive a mass murderer just because they repented on their deathbed is the height of injustice. That is a monster.

@janinetrue

Жыл бұрын

@@gonefishingtoday Ironically, I am a non alcohol lover as well, it was just the metaphor that popped into my mind! My point is, I actually do relax when I hear precise, intelligent speech.

@leonhugo228

Жыл бұрын

"Faith is a gift of God" and if dont have it you Have to argue a case against it or else.....you have an eternal problem

@danielgautreau161

Жыл бұрын

@@leonhugo228 Faith is believing what someone else told you, when they cannot give any reason at all why anybody should believe it

Professor Lennox knows a lot.... And I mean a lot. It is good to have him here with us.

@mcmanustony

Ай бұрын

He know very very little about biology, biochemistry, paleontology, genetics......just another yapping liar for Jesus.

John Lennox is the grandpa we all would be delighted to have ❤

@mcmanustony

4 ай бұрын

I loved the grandpa I had. He was a hard working docker from Glasgow. Not a pompous, self important, lying buffoon like John Lennox.

It is a great joy to listen to Prof John Lennox. The more evolution advances as a theory, the closer it gets to the reality of God.

@mcmanustony

11 ай бұрын

utter drivel.

@Brody9592

11 ай бұрын

@@mcmanustonyExactly 😂

@vikingskuld

11 ай бұрын

What do you 2 fools think is the best proof of evolution then.

@mattikaronen7728

8 ай бұрын

What are you talking about?? 🤔 Everything we find shows that there is no God…

@vhawk1951kl

2 ай бұрын

And what exactly are you calling 'god' titch? moreover how do you know that whatever you are callingbut hsve not the faintest idea what you mean by it) god is indeedhatever you mean by, but have not the faintest idea)god? Unless of course you are relying on on the old invisible aeroplane con. Fatty Lennox is such a fraud; he claims to be a christian but could not more be a christian that any dreaming machine could be a christian.

Ever since I got to know John, I have been amazed about his sharp mind. A mathematician... I love that: clear, sharp analytical thinking and a warm heart: wonderful!

@mcmanustony

Жыл бұрын

Have you ever actually heard him discuss mathematics? His last publication was decades ago. All I’ve ever heard is weak apologetics and now this appalling, dishonest drivel. Sharp as a melon.

@vikingskuld

11 ай бұрын

​@@mcmanustonywell since your such an intellectual giant a powerhouse of brain function and analytical facts whats your best evidence of evolution? Surely you can give Me at least one factual proof of evolution? Or are you just a little jealous mind that has to troll lie to yourself to make you feel better about your lack of common sense and manners?

@mcmanustony

11 ай бұрын

@@vikingskuld "your such an intellectual giant"- You do this repeatedly, and it's quite comical: sneering in ignorance at the mental capacity of a stranger...and making a basic grammar howler as you do so. Pure gold! " are you just a little jealous mind "- other than the inadequacies of your own mind why would you post that about someone you know absolutely nothing about? Lennox was once a distinguished mathematician. He is now degenerating into a repulsive, hopelessly dishonest, arrogant old fool. What's there to be jealous of? My background is in pure mathematics. I did research in an area ( the theory of valuation rings) not too far from Lennox's speciality (infinite soluble groups)- I've never heard him utter a syllable about that, which is frustrating. I left mathematics many years ago- even so I'm invited back to my old department to give a talk on mathematics and music- but keep an interest and some kind of grasp of what's happening. I have friends in the subject more active and more distinguished than Lennox to ask if I have questions. I have been a professional musician for 30 years. I get paid to travel the world doing what I love. Try to find something better to do than sneer at strangers from a position of total ignorance- it's not a good look. Being lectured by you on manners is just funny. Well done. Sneering at someone's manners then calling them a "fool" as you are incapable of joining any conversation. You're a bit special aren't you.... "whats your best evidence of evolution?"- maybe try asking without the foul mannered sneer. "at least one factual proof of evolution?"- as has been explained to you- empirical science does not deal in "proof". It deals in evidence. The evidence is for common ancestry and for heritable modification due to mutation, random genetic drift, natural selection, environmental factors etc. Four lines of evidence (of many): 1) comparative anatomy (is it a coincidence that the bones in a whales flipper (but not a fishes fin) have exact homologues in the bones in a bats wing (but not a birds wing). It is explained perfectly by cetacean evolution from land mammals- and not by design. 2) embryology 3) genetics (we see in 3 colours because of a duplicated opsin gene acquiring a point mutation- precisely identified, and common to all old world primates) 4) the fossil record. "Design" tells us NOTHING about life's history. Evolution and its implications led paleontologists to look for marsupial fossils of a specified age ( 64 million years old) at a precise strata, having precise intermediate features between extant Australasian marsupials and extinct South American species. The were found exactly as predicted at a precisely specified location IN ANTARCTICA. This is on a par with finding a small needle in a continent of haystacks. The theory generated the prediction. The prediction was borne out by the facts. There is nothing comparable generated by "design". That's how science works.

@vikingskuld

11 ай бұрын

@@mcmanustony hey wow I could really really go on about you but I'm going to be polite and point one thing out that may actually help you. People project what they are onto others. So to help you out you need to really reflect and see how much of that was about you. Since you really don't know me or have the slightest clue about me that's a lit to say about someone when your really far off the mark. It was your sneer I replied to so I gave you what your putting out. It's just decency to treat people how they treat others. Then and maybe only then will they see how they act and understand enough to grow. Unfortunately in your case I doubt you will prove me wrong but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Some of the more intelligent people I have known were into pure math and music. Also they were some of the worst humans you could imagine. Barely capable of holding a conversation let alone a friendship with most normal people. Music is a wonderful gift but the really talented people get that at a high cost in their personal life. I spent a long time repairing violins violas and cellos for people. You may not want to admit it but some of the more talented players never had much of a social life. Unfortunately I never had the least bit of musical talent but I could do some very very nice work on the instruments. As far as evolution goes you need to really rethink some of what you said. Dna far out competes comparing a few bones and making up things about them. All you really need to do is look at the latest DNA bar code study. It's very funny when they say life seemed to just all pop up about the same time. What was it around 1k a little more or less was looked at. Also you really honestly have no mechanism to change one organism to another one through dna. You'll never get a pig to develop wing in a billion years. Give me an example of a large amount of new information ever being found. Mutations are neutral or detrimental seldom do they ever give you anything helpful. Again I would ask show me an example of new novel information being slowly developed that wasn't there before. That really destroys the whole idea of evolution. You can't show it you can't prove it. Bringing up the whale I'm sorry you do know the so called feet and what your talking about is actually used for the reproductive organs. Even the whole idea of the whales ancestor slowly moving their air hole from their snout to behind their head was made up. Subsequent fossils found proved that. Honestly dinosaurs soft tissue has been found a lot. Blood cells nerve fiber and other proteins collagen just being one. There is no mechanism to preserve so tissue 65 plus million years. Abiogenisis is mathematically improbable you being said math guy should know that if you have taken the time to look. There I no known simple cells or simple life. Even the simplest parasitic cells have what half a million pairs of dna. You are never going to mathematically get the odds for that to develop on its own. Now I will totally admit to poking fun at you in my earlier comments yet sneering at you sorry that's just not me. You read that into my text. Remember I'll treat you like you treat me that's only fair. How many times should I have to point out be polite and I'll be happy to be myself. Just because we see things differently doesn't mean anyone is dumb. It's just about how open with yourself and the evidence you can be. Unfortunately in academia there is a lot of falsehood that's passed off as science. Piltdown man is just one. Lucy and her foot prints are another. Just some things for you to consider. Best of luck to you

@mcmanustony

11 ай бұрын

@@vikingskuld can you explain how “design” accounts for tricolour vision better than evolution? Can you explain how “design” makes the kind of predictions that evolution does? Give me something that compares to predicting the discovery of 64 million year old marsupial fossils in ANTARCTICA. Do you, in your witless ignorance, think they were just guessing? Really?? “We have different points of view”. Wrong. You don’t know enough to HAVE a point of view. You know nothing about this subject and think that memorizing some creationist slogans beats getting off your arse and doing some work. Your “point of view” is as substantial as a child who can’t count to ten having a “different point of view” on algebraic topology to the entire field of algebraic topology. Good grief……

I appreciate John and Peter and this intriguing discussion. I look forward to more.

@mcmanustony

10 ай бұрын

Why not sidestep the lies and drivel from Lennox and maybe listen to evolutionary biologists, geneticists, biochemists discuss evolution? How would Lennox respond to a group of mathematically illiterate biologists banging on about dark secrets about flaws in group theory and them being hidden by dodgy mathematicians. Lennox is an arrogant, ignorant, dishonest old fool. ......who at one time did mathematics.

Brilliant, thank you both

@herrbonk3635

Жыл бұрын

Brilliant wishful thinking.

@bitchoflivingblah

Жыл бұрын

@@herrbonk3635 pontificating bullshit is probably a better description. with his intelligence the only reason must be he's trolling his colleagues. and fair play to him his points would have been relevant 50 years ago, but today, the only things missing are clown makeup and a bucket with glitter that are his arguments.

@herrbonk3635

Жыл бұрын

@@bitchoflivingblah Hmm, 50 years ago would be 1973 :) I would say that we knew everything we needed to know in order to really scrap religion already in the late 1800s, some 150 years ago.

@bitchoflivingblah

Жыл бұрын

@@herrbonk3635 Well, we still little idea of abiogenesis except some very good guesses. What has cemented our current knowledge and concrete evidence has been molecular biology and our ability to sequence genomes especially Sanger sequencing in 1977 (hence my choice of that time period). As far as scrapping religion, I think we should begin by trying to scrap creationism. Islam and christianity are resistant to this because in the eyes of literalists taking the most important aspect of the story of creationism, the fall of man (woman) - christianity - and god's creation of man and woman (adam & eve islam) would shake their foundations to the ground. Without Jesus dying for the sins of man and adam and eve being the creation of god, what use is god? So we're always going to live with religion.

@herrbonk3635

Жыл бұрын

@@bitchoflivingblah How much does "abiogenesis" has to do with evolution though? (We won't use latin terms for this stuff in my language.) Physics has a pretty weak picture of the start of the universe as well. That does not mean that we are questioning ohm's law or maxwell's equations. Simply because they work, just like evolution does, proven every day in labs all around the world! (Only communists and religions have tried to deny it.) Yes, we have progressed in organic chemistry and technology during the 1900s. Even more in the 2000s, with fast and cheap DNA sequencing methods and detailed comparison of different humans, Both race differences (however taboo) and (pseudo) sub species like neandertal, denisovan, and more. That's extremely interesting. But to me, normal "macro biology" and what we could see of evolution already by dissecting animals and ourselves (long before Darwin really) was enough to dismiss these strange and far fetched tales of religion. I appreciate spirituality though, and humbleness. Because that's certainly not the same as forcing people to belive or "respect" these childish or violent stories from the iron ages (or early middle ages).

Excellent! Could listen to Lennox all day.

@davethebrahman9870

Жыл бұрын

Yes, his silly arguments make a handy compendium of logical fallacies.

@Jewonastick

Жыл бұрын

your brain would probably slip into a coma after a few hours....

@Melkor3001

Жыл бұрын

@@Jewonastick Only if you carried on typing😂

@rolfme5499

Жыл бұрын

@Melkor3001 Lennox produces meaningless gibberish! .

@Melkor3001

Жыл бұрын

@@rolfme5499 👍

Love professor Lennox.

@mcmanustony

Жыл бұрын

Which of his contributions to group theory was your favourite?

@KelliAnnWinkler

Жыл бұрын

The man is amazing. I especially loved his central concept that a soluable group can repeatedly form group extenstions while strictly remaining within the boundaries of soluable group theory. Incredible insight.

@mcmanustony

Жыл бұрын

@@KelliAnnWinkler you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about, do you?

@mcmanustony

Жыл бұрын

@@KelliAnnWinkler why do you post this dishonest tripe? The one area where Lennox has some actual expertise is infinite soluble groups. He’s never been heard to utter a single word about it. You don’t know anything about it but scurry off to Google College Oxford and regurgitate some garbled nonsense with the intention of fooling someone into believing you know something about Lennox’s work in mathematics. It’s not working….

Thank you John lennox....I love you, I value and appreciate you . Blessings and prayers from Sydney Australia .

@mcmanustony

4 ай бұрын

Which of his lies is your favourite?

Lord bless the hard work on you guys’s behalf

@mcmanustony

11 ай бұрын

Hard work would be Lennox actually studying the subjects he's lying about here.

@SB-kc4qd

11 ай бұрын

Well, since you are so bright, why don’t you come out and refute him And show us how you evolved from chimpanzees especially when they still exist at large, and you for some reason decided to become allegedly human that can read and write

@mcmanustony

11 ай бұрын

@@SB-kc4qd He is lying about evolution being a theory in crisis. It is not and he knows damn well it is not. His ignorance of genetics is jaw dropping. His misrepresentation of SJ Gould, Richard Dawkins, Richard Lenski etc. is sickening and shameful. Why do you people have to lie so much?

@mcmanustony

11 ай бұрын

@@SB-kc4qd Where did I say anything about me being bright? Have you always been a sneering fool or did you grow into it?

We have to respect the strong intellect of John Lennox since even if he is overlapping into areas not within his primary expertise, he certainly reads into them and also mixes with many who can advise him to engender a high degree of.confidence and authority. The published debates such as the 2017 Zondervan Counterpoints book entitled “Four Views on Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design” can be extremely helpful in understanding the issues and being informed will help us to avoid the side issues which John talked about, so that we can help people focus on the core arguments which support belief in Christianity.

@paulgarrett4474

Жыл бұрын

Dishonest quote mining and strawman arguments don't deserve respect.

@MarkHunterSolo

Жыл бұрын

@@paulgarrett4474 He does quote Francis Collins who is himself a Christian and created the BioLogos organisation. He is a big name in science and health so surely you respect him? As I say a proper debate is the best way forward rather than just having one side of the story.

@samburns2339

Жыл бұрын

@@MarkHunterSolo Science isn't done by debate. Science is done by testing and providing your results to the scientific community for critical review and vetting. Lennox doesn't understand a single thing about evolutionary theory. All he did in this video is repeat the same bog standard lies creationists have been telling about evolution for decades.

@paulgarrett4474

Жыл бұрын

​@Faith Defender "Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.“ Francis Collins.

@paulgarrett4474

Жыл бұрын

​@Faith Defender he also misrepresents Steven J Gould, implying that he did not think that the fossil record supports evolution. Here is his response from a published interview. But when I talked to Koonin, he told me this interpretation was simply wrong. Creationists, he said, “delight in claiming that whenever any aspect of ‘(neo)Darwinism’ is considered obsolete, evolution is denied. Nothing could be further from the truth.” Koonin explained that what is “crumbling” in his view is a half-century-old approach to thinking about evolution. Modern evolutionary theory is “a much broader, richer and ultimately more satisfactory constellation of data, concepts, and ideas.” Evolution is alive and well, while creationist understanding of it is apparently stuck in the Eisenhower era. Besides which the quotes are from 40 years ago, perhaps he could try misrepresenting a 21st century paleontologist??

wonderful, clear.

@mcmanustony

Жыл бұрын

Pompous and dishonest.......

Brilliant professor Lennox!❤

@mcmanustony

7 ай бұрын

He's an arrogant, dishonest old fool. He may have been brilliant at mathematics. His apologetics are as much use as a cast iron cabbage.

@mcmanustony

4 ай бұрын

It really isn't brilliant. A long retired mathematician who's now a pompous, dishonest old fool. Where's the brilliance?

If John Lennox has a lecture anytime soon I must attend!

@mattikaronen7728

8 ай бұрын

I would have been fun to see him have a lecture in Sweden. He would be totally crushed in his beliefs… 🤯🤣

@mcmanustony

4 ай бұрын

If you wait another 143 years you'll hear him give a lecture on the one thing he knows something about- ALGEBRA. This performance is an utter disgrace. To see a serious academic stoop, for purely religious reasons, to lie and misrepresent science and scientists is shocking. FYI- SJ Gould EXTENDED and refined the theory of evolution he DID NOT contradict it. Lennox is lying. Lenski's LTEE demonstrates evolution in real time. It was not "designed to show the limits of evolution". That is a lie. and, in case you were wondering, THERE IS NO CRISIS IN EVOLUTION.

@mcmanustony

4 ай бұрын

You'd be better off listening to an honest person who knows what he's talking about.

This is a really exceptional interview on the subject of evolution! Really liked John's insights on the subject. Thanks very much for sharing this video.

@mcmanustony

11 ай бұрын

He's a liar. Which lie was your favourite?

@Practical.Wisdom

11 ай бұрын

@@mcmanustony Hi Tony, I really like your music! I found John's ideas on evolution intriguing, especially in reference to Watson and Collins, namely the fact that evolution doesn't explain how or why, in the space of 150 million years, the pre-biotic environment gave rise to life.

@mcmanustony

11 ай бұрын

@@Practical.Wisdom the germ theory of disease doesn’t explain black holes for the same reason. Evolution does not address the origin of life. Evolution is not in crisis. This is a lie. Why do creationists lie so much?

@mcmanustony

11 ай бұрын

@@Practical.Wisdom where does the 150 million years come from? Life emerged 3.6 billion years ago.

@paulspence7600

11 ай бұрын

Insights from a man who doesn't understand the subject or refuses to do so? Religion poisons everything.

I believed this theory for a while because it was taught at school. Thought it was ridiculous when I first heard it. Took it seriously for a time. But for the last few decades, it seems even more ridiculous. There are parts to the theory that I think are true, but these were known about before the theory of evolution. An example is survival of the fittest.

@rizdekd3912

Жыл бұрын

Just to clarify, 'survival of the fittest' is an often misunderstood concept. Evolution works on gene pools, not necessarily individuals. Yes, in order for a gene pool to survive a sufficient number of individuals have to survive to the stage when they produce the next/another generation. But this may or may not depend on ALL individuals surviving to reproductive stages...or even the majority. It may be, depending on the species and its strategy for survival and reproduction, that a genepool survives better if some individuals are willing to put themselves in harms way for the good of the gene pool, overall. That would explain altruism in humans and other animals. Human groups require most individuals have an instinct to get along sufficiently so that there can be a cohesive group. Without a group, generally humans couldn't survive. That could explain the strong feeling of right/wrong that is referred to as morality. When you speak of the 'ridiculousness' of evolution, I take it you think some assumptions make it improbable to the point of being unbelievable, right? In which case, hopefully you're also considering the potential 'improbability' of the existence of an intelligent designer. I know in most societies on earth kids are introduced to the idea of God or a god, or gods, at an early age. Even if a kid in the US isn't raised in a religious home, generally they are ubiquitously exposed to the idea of God in society at large. And its introduced in ways that gloss over whether the existence of god is probable or even possible. God is posited to be a mind that exists in a timeless/spaceless realm and is infinitely powerful, omniscient and...in most cases good. But...while it might be valid to infer the existence of such a being or beings, what if there really is NO such being. What if what God is supposed to be is literally impossible? I mean, consider whether a mind that is 'timeless' could actually think in sequence. And if it DOES think sequentially, that presents the potential problem of an infinite regress, since sequential events imply something like time, by definition. Time can be defined as that which keeps everything from happening all at once. If something can happen sequentially...whether in the natural world or in God's world, then time of some sort must exist.

@MeasuredFlat

Жыл бұрын

Ohhh, it is very ridiculous

@herrbonk3635

Жыл бұрын

Survial of the fittest is the basis and driving mechanism behind evolution. So if you belive in that you belive in evolution.

@herrbonk3635

Жыл бұрын

@@rizdekd3912 You make it far too complicated :) Basic evolution can be explained in a much simpler and straight forward way. (But you are right about the sense of a moral being stronger in humans than in most other mammals, and why that is.)

@markuse3472

Жыл бұрын

@@rizdekd3912 Yet The Bible is proved accurate and factual time after time and again, but "professors" and "scientists" (which include all "science" magazines/companies) are Counter Scientists when it comes to Creation vs Evolution and so they will never ever allow the The Bibles realities, details, logic and science--when it touches on science. This scientist mathematician in the video so clearly explains away evolution, but the truth is not what most in the world actually want. God has a "residing place" as spoken in his word. Time and space exists for God because he created them, we have them and live by them, but time and space exists different for God alone since he has no beginning and no end. All the sciences we now have and understand, are by no way, shape and form, by far and away, the reality that God knows and understands: God is "living" and therefore he is science, as all life is science, but a science we are too small ("we are dust" [meaning Like dust]) or insignificant to understand. Gods miracles, as spoken of in The Bible, as seen in all creation and the great cosmos, are surely for us miracles, but for him is a work of his hands, his spirit, through his only begotten son Jesus Christ.

I am nither a doctor or a professor, you might say i,m a jake of alot of different trades. But, i do enjoy listening to you fella,s talk about these topics. Mr. Lennox is a straight shooter i would say.

👍Wonderful, Thank you.

@mcmanustony

Жыл бұрын

have you tried listening to evolutionary biologists on evolutionary biology rather than a lying, ignorant long retired mathematician?

James Tour is a wonderful Christian and scientist and so is John Lennox!

@paulgarrett4474

Жыл бұрын

They are both professional liars for jesus.

@christophercoughlin9493

Жыл бұрын

@@paulgarrett4474 And who are you?,a professional liar for Satan?

@paulgarrett4474

Жыл бұрын

​@@christophercoughlin9493 just somebody with an education who fact checks claims before accepting them. Satan is also imaginary by the way.

@christophercoughlin9493

Жыл бұрын

@@paulgarrett4474 If you actually listen to James Tour and John Lennox and check the information they present, you will find they are presenting the information that we know about these two fields in a perfectly honest way. It is people like Crick and Watson who have a difficulty with the truth. One thought life must have been brought by aliens, the other didn't know what to think. And who are you to say whether God or any other being does or does not exist. That would make you God, wouldn't it?

@paulgarrett4474

Жыл бұрын

​@@christophercoughlin9493 I have listened to them extensively, then compared their claims to actual published science. They're full of shit for want of a better description. In this very video Lennox deliberately misquoted Steven J Gould to give the impression that he did not think that the fossil record supports evolution, when the exact opposite is true. Then quoted a completely pointless probability argument against an extant cell forming spontaneously, when no credible origin of life researcher would claim that is how life began. Is evolution in crisis? No, a million miles from it, it is reinforced with more evidence on an almost daily basis.

Thanks for this great talk!

Incredible. Thank you both!

@mcmanustony

4 ай бұрын

Which lie was your favourite?

@rac7773

4 ай бұрын

@@mcmanustony YOUR lie about the theory of evolution being true is my favorite.

@mcmanustony

4 ай бұрын

@@rac7773 what a pathetic, dishonest, cowardly response. You can take your false accusation about me and shove it back where you found it. There is NO CRISIS IN EVOLUTION. The title is a lie Lennox is a despicable joke of a man at this stage. Arrogant in the extreme as he confidently babble utter rubbish about subjects he had never bothered his fat backside to actually study. Stephen Jay Gould’s work EXTENDED and refined the theory of evolution. Lennox claim it was in opposition. He’s lying. Lenski’s work was “to test the LIMITS OF evolution”- stupid lie. His LTEE demonstrates evolution in real time. Why do creationists lie so much? Try to tell fewer lies- you’ll feel less dirty.

@mcmanustony

4 ай бұрын

@@rac7773 what do you think is false?

@rac7773

4 ай бұрын

@@mcmanustony The entire theory is bunk. You cannot evolve a kidney, pancreas, bone, brain, heart, etc, let alone an entire organism. God is real. Darwinism is for children.

I just love John Lennox.

@mcmanustony

Жыл бұрын

What is “beautiful” about an ignorant retired mathematician telling religiously motivated lies about a subject- biology- he’s never done a hand’s turn of work in?

Death came by man. NOT: Man came by death. The Creator created the conditions of HIS universe but not dependent on the conditions HE set up HIS universe to function. Take God at HIS word. Not man decides truth. God's word, the Bible, is true (John 17, 17).

@MartTLS

Жыл бұрын

Prove it.

@Morewecanthink

Жыл бұрын

@@MartTLS - In relation to what?

@MartTLS

Жыл бұрын

@@Morewecanthink In relation to your claims .

@Morewecanthink

Жыл бұрын

@@MartTLS - Anyway. If God's word were not true you couldn't know anything.

@MartTLS

Жыл бұрын

@@Morewecanthink That’s a non sequitur which you can’t demonstrate is true .

Wonderful talk. The tides are starting to change.

@mirandahotspring4019

Жыл бұрын

No they are not!

@paulgarrett4474

Жыл бұрын

Not in the slightest.

@DamburaDioa

Жыл бұрын

So all of the scientific luminaries and top-level biologists calling for a complete re-think of the evolutionary mechanism and even our understanding of biology itself isn't "the slightest" hint of change? Right.

@paulgarrett4474

Жыл бұрын

​@@DamburaDioa Name one.

@IIrandhandleII

Жыл бұрын

Yeah the tides are changing, more young people have free access to information and are leaving they're absurd religions in droves.

Brilliant ❤

Thank you Lennox. 😊

@mcmanustony

4 ай бұрын

For lying to you? There is NO CRISIS IN EVOLUION.

May I recommend an alternative by a Christian scholar? Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution by Kenneth R. Miller

@bruce3102

Жыл бұрын

His book was written in 1999... Many of the points he made in support of evolution are now known to be wrong. Read Michael behe, Stephen Meyer, their books have much more current data.

@samburns2339

Жыл бұрын

@@bruce3102 Behe and Meyer are clowns who shill for the RW creationist organization Discovery Institute. Their books are some of the worst science-free garbage available anywhere.

@JohnWMorehead

Жыл бұрын

@@bruce3102 I'm not prepared to jettison the totality of Miller's work, but if you want something more current, may I suggest the work of anthropologist Augustin Fuentes who gave the Gifford Lectures a few years ago and who is the author of books like The Creative Spark, and Why We Believe. There is plenty of good scholarly analysis out there demonstrating that while neo-Darwinian evolution has been called into question at points the overall theory is in good shape. Many Christian scientists and theologians accept this. It might be helpful to read beyond ID authors.

@paulgarrett4474

Жыл бұрын

​@Bruce Castro Behe and Meyer could have shortened their books to a single line. Its complicated therefore god. That's all they write.

@mc07

Жыл бұрын

@@paulgarrett4474 that’s a gross mischaracterisation and misrepresentation of the arguments ID scientists present.

Kurt Godel to Hao Wang his biographer: "The formation within geologic times of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similiar nature) is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components" This Godel was Einstein's intimate colleague at the Institute for Advanced Study (Princeton) and found an important solution to Einstein's General Relativity Equations.

@paulgarrett4474

Жыл бұрын

And?

@WmTyndale

Жыл бұрын

@@paulgarrett4474 Learn some math and physics. Someone will be waiting to answer your questions

@paulgarrett4474

Жыл бұрын

​@@WmTyndale find a biologist from the 21st century who doesn't accept evolution.

@lizadowning4389

Жыл бұрын

Georges Lemaitre, a Jezuit priest, corrected Einstein's view of a static universe when he proposed his Big Bang model. Einstein later admitted this was his biggest blunder. Interviewed on Belgian television in 1953, the reporter asked Lemaitre: "So you don't support the idea that the beginning of the universe and the movement of galaxies is due to god? Lemaitre replied with a grin on his face: "That goes without saying."

@mcmanustony

Жыл бұрын

So what? Why do you assume that a logician is correct about biology and tens of thousands of biologists are wrong?

Wow, I watched a documentary on Francis Crick and Watson. John Lennox got to meet some of these great scientists and discuss with them! Dude is really a thruth-seeker.

@mcmanustony

4 ай бұрын

'He's actually a lying buffoon.

Excellent. The point I would make is that matter arises from consciousness, including human beings. We do not need to be religious to believe in a “God” so as to understand the valid points made here. There are as many ideas about God as there are people on the planet. It’s no hardship to recognise that all arises from consciousness. 🙏

@bengreen171

11 ай бұрын

where's you're evidence that matter arises from consciousness? It seems pretty clear that matter can exist without consciousness, but consciousness cannot exist without matter.

They should have first started with a definition of what they think the Theory of Evolution is, bcs half of what was said isn't even part of the Theory of Evolution, but part of abiogenesis. What's more is, even something that has a low probability of happening, still has a high chance of occuring if it is repeated a lot of times (e.g. winning the lottery).

@zenuno6936

Жыл бұрын

He addressed the lottery argument when talking about Dawkins. Dawkins proposed that idea of the monkeys typing randomly which would then produce Shakespeare given enough time. Problem is the universe isnt big enough to accommodate all the typing monkeys needed for such odds to be possible. Then Dawkins proposed that there would be a master monkey, holding the correct letter as soon as it was typed. But here he is admitting a commanding intelligence is needed. Also the age of the Earth doesnt accommodate enough time for the impossible odds of abiogenesis and evolution to even take place, not to mention to take place constantly in succession. Winning the lottery can mathematically happen, these things cant mathematically happen.

@lizd2943

Жыл бұрын

@@zenuno6936 You're ignoring selection. Evolution is an observed process so the odds of it happening are 1 in 1. You can't calculate the odds of abiogenesis since we don't know the full process yet.

Very good. I quite enjoyed this, particularly at certain points, naturally. Admittedly I am a rather sympathetic audience for these kinds of pesentations, assertions and arguments. I think I arrived at fundamentally similar conclusions from more abstract and philosophical lines of thought. That is, without knowing or considering hardly anything to do with biology or organic chemistry or various other areas of the natural sciences, I was interested in the possibility of creating a software program to solve a problem that I didn't know how to solve (and had no available algorithm for), by "genetic programming". And it occurred to me that I (or my little population of competing programs) would get so far, and then get stuck, or plateau, without reaching a satisfactory level of capability, and that in order to over come such stagnation (due to competative dominance of a sub-optimal program) I would have to introduce "extinction events" or radical novel environmental pressures, basically in order to "kill off the dinosaurs so that the mamals could evolve", (to eliminate the dead end program solutions which were out competing much weaker algorithms which yet existed on developmental branches containing the more desirable solutions). But then it occurred to me that I didn't know what sort of "environmental shocks" and pressures I would need to introduce, and the likelihood of arriving at the right sort of environmental shocks or pressures by random chance seemed very small. And it seemed to me that if success was to be at all likely, the environment would basically have to be "guiding" the process, essentially providing the lacking information. But as I didn't know what that information might be, I basically gave up on the potential utility of providing environmental pressures, and returned to calculating odds of solution generation via random generation / "mutation". The problem is essentially a search problem, for a specific bit sequence, or for a bit sequence in a relatively tiny set of bit sequences, out of much vaster (on the order of 2^(10000), or 10^3000, say) population or search space of candidate sequences. Some quick back of the envelop / order of magnitude type calculations involving the number of seconds in a year, some estimate, say 10^10 for the number of "variations" per second, etc quickly indicated that "random discovery" would be statistically impossible, practically speaking. This left only the possibility of exploiting potential "local convexity" or some other means by which the search space could be effectively reduced. Unfortunately, seeing how the desired "evolution" could be factored or leveraged up in developmental stages seemed completely non-obvious, except that it suggested that perhaps it would be necessary to "evolve" one's solution within an "environment" of or containing other relevent items or subprocesses, and well, it seemed to me that it is necessary to somehow consider the whole environment rather than the target / goal in isolation, and that, in effect, the total environmental process must "code" for the development of the target species. But again, this "environmental algorithm" (or "environment as factory") obviously can't just be something simple, like "generate and try all 2^10,000 binary sequences of 10,000 bits", but must be something that arrives at the solution much more efficiently. It must, in effect, roughly correspond to a program which will write the program we are trying to find. Anyway, the upshot was that I concluded "genetic programming" wasn't likely going to be of any use, and I simultaneous concluded that the supposed explanatory power of "evolution", (as some kind of "universal algorithm" which can solve any problem) has similarly been exagerated and overestimated. There must be some important information provided somewhere, pethaps in "boundary conditions" or in yet undiscovered laws or biases in the physical laws, that have allowed the development of something like human life, to be other than miraculous and unacceptably unlikely, assuming nothing else but mechanism and randomism. It seems much more likely that much of the information is somehow built in from the start, than it is for that information to have been provided by a random source. And well, if you like to imagine that the dynamically evolving physical universe is like a giant computational process, I think the idea kind of jumps out at you that it's far more of an unfolding process than one of random spontaneous creation, where the "core information" or however you might like to think of it, is somehow something that doesn't seem to just appear and vanish but rather seems to be time invariant, (like the "laws of physics" or the program that's running, - at least for the most part). (One can imagine computational systems where there is some randomness and yet some overall "stability" as well, for example, John Conway's Game of Life cellular automata with some extremely low probability that a cell will spontaneously "flip". And presumably, one could also have some similar kind of automata that also posessed some partial abilty to "correct" for problematic random flips.) I don't know how key the question of how predetermined or deterministic the universe is, is, with respect to this idea of the information being temporally invariant or latent. I mean you can also imagine some structure with some holes (or portions yet) to be filled in, that can only be filled in in a few specific ways that are somehow consistent with the overall structure, but where there is also, in some sense, no predetermined way in which those holes will ultimately be filled in (or in which the structure will ultimately be completed). Here we're considering the possibility of partial or incomplete predetermination with constrained or partial random supplementation. But in any event, it seems that, at least within the familiar computational framework, the random supplementation with a developmental process must be severly limited. If you know every bit but fewer than a few dozen, you can probably manage. But if you're missing several thousand independent bits you're basically going to need some clues, a miracle or divine help (or else you're basically screwed). The environment might provide those clues, but the point is that then it's the environment actually providing the info. "Natural selection" seems to gloss over the amount of information that must be latent in and provided by the environment. Yes, some creature will be "selected" to survive, but this is for, or as determined by, the given environment. And one can then argue that it is the evolution of the environment that governs or dictates the evolution of the species / plants and animals, and that the origin of man is not explicated without the provision of an explication of the evolution of the earth (and all the other living and non-living things with which humanity interacted), which, on closer analysis, must be far, far more detailed than both the usual description provided as well as the most comprehensive description provided thus far. Though most people might feel they are in posession of an adequate answer and explanation, the details are simply being glossed over, ignored and regarded as "random noise". "How did you come to read this?" "Some random shit happened which caused me to read it. It was all just random." No. But in order to understand things, we often simplify our models down so that we regard as random whatever we don't explicitly include/detail in our models. But when you look more closely you can see that such things weren't actually random at all, but merely convenient to regard as random. Anyway, I've probably wasted too much time on a comment no one will read, so I'll stop now. Great video, thanks! Cheers, love and God bless (Oh yeah, spirit and God are real, but I suppose you're not expected or required to know that, and lol, I'm not going to try to explain how I know here.)

@jonandjesskennedy2287

Жыл бұрын

I found this fascinating, how you attempted to evolve a program. Thanks for explaining and expounding. It's a lot of food for thought... Could there be an initial input program cleverly designed to unfold and develop in response to the environment in a certain way, as designed by God?

@dennyworthington6641

Жыл бұрын

@@jonandjesskennedy2287 Which god? I only ask because H. sapiens have conjured thousands of gods over the millennia.

@tommackling

Жыл бұрын

@@jonandjesskennedy2287 Thank you. Yes, I think that is certainly a very real possibility. I am also personally willing to suppose that just as we are intelligent and presumably are in posession of some degree of "free will", the entire universe, as a kind of all envelopping framework for our own, essentially compuational and informational processes, is also perhaps, in some real sense, intelligent, aware and alive, and that perhaps certain aspects of the future are already quite firmly established, while certain other aspects might not yet be determined or established, to be "filled in" in due course. But that also those aspects which exist, in the future, with overwhelming potentiality might in fact be drawing the present ahead, somewhat similar to the way in which objects become drawn in by gravitating bodies, - not litterally the same "force" of "gravity" of course, but as a future reality that already exists in terms of a potential that might somehow be skewing probabilities for what we would regard as random events, thus constituting a kind of retrograde causality, where it is as if the present is being influenced by the future. One model for such a possibility, envisages an exploratory virtual "cloud" of alternative futures existing in some "potential space", where our current reality tends to follow down one of the more successful pathways, a little like the way a small stream will follow down a pathway seeming discovered and established by an exploratory process. Ok, well I guess that was my long and convoluted way of saying that I also suppose some teleological principles may be as good as real, or true enough. Apparently, the pantheistic view is to regard the entire universe as alive and as the body of God, with perhaps the amalgamation of all conscious processes effectively being the computational substrate for the mind of God. Because of personal experiences and "insights"/"revalations", I do not doubt the existence of God. But whether or not the loving and merciful God that I wish to have a closer relationship with, that I want to enlighten, guide and improve me, etc., whether or not that God exists outside of our universe, or is the creator of our universe, or is even the "ultimate God", doesn't seem to be of any particular concern to me. I have been pursuaded of the existence of human spirit that can transcend human mortality, of powers beyond my comprehension, and of loving and merciful powers to which I now find myself grateful to and also in a kind of loving relationship with..., I wish to serve them and I think it is only through them and their grace that I exist. It is a long but maybe rather good story, but anyway, I won't try to explain it here. I only wish to admit that I know God exists, but I don't think I know all that much beyond this, except, for example, that loving and merciful powers also exist, and my own allegiance is to those powers, and a central figure amoung that alliance of the loving and merciful that I would elect and recognize as my God, Whom I would be entirely pleased to serve and benefit and please. But, um, apart from that, lol, I guess I'm not terribly religious, in that I don't really hold much stock in the Bible, particularly so for the Old Testament, which I regard as more of an historical account of the evolution of mystical belief and the development of judicial law and, to some extent, cultural norms and values. I have never liked attending Church services much, am not particularly fond of any organized religion, and am, I suppose, more of a Gnostic Christian than a regular religious Christian, basically attributing and owing my spiritual fealty to Christ more to spiritual/religious experience (of direct experience of the reality of His spirit) than to doctrinal or religious belief. I don't know why I'm writing all this. I wanted to admit my knowledge of the reality of spirit and God, and then, well I also wanted to clarify that, to the best of my understanding, this knowledge did not primarily stem from religious belief. I truly felt that "belief in the absence of evidence" was foolish, and, well I guess I received the evidence I was demanding, and my "faith" is very far away from "belief in the absence of evidence", it is not faith in the existence of some entity, but in the capacity and capability of "something" I have every reason to believe has an overwhelming amount of such capacity and capability, and no reason at all to doubt. Anyway, sorry for my possibly incoherent ravings here. All the very best, peace, love and God bless

@truthbebold4009

Жыл бұрын

​@@dennyworthington6641 God of the Bible

@devin_3875

Жыл бұрын

My goodness, I loved your comment. :D

If you add up ones, eventually you get to a billion. One is very small, but a billion is very big. That's evolution !

Teleological arguments are arguments for design. If you call them "argument from design," that presupposes design.

I like Dr. Lennox, but if you're going to have this discussion, it would be much more fruitful to have a discussion with a person who is active in the field of origin of life research. And someone active in biological evolution, I'm only a lay person these areas, but I know there's a lot of misunderstanding and misconceptions in this talk to clarify I am a Christian, theistic evolutionist who was for most of my life a YEC and then, for a shorter time, an OEC so I know all these camps intimately.

@dero2430

Жыл бұрын

Dr.James Tour keeps tearing apart the "science" of the Origin of Life scientists. Darwinian evolution is a sad, dangerous joke...

@bengreen171

11 ай бұрын

thank you for being apparently the only honest Christian here. And sorry for the hint of condescension implicit in that comment.

Have you seen how houses have evolved?!!!

@WmTyndale

Жыл бұрын

Books also write themselves, computers also assemble themselves and spontaneously boot up etc.......

@mcmanustony

Жыл бұрын

@@WmTyndale What a stupid pointless comment.

The sheet music plays and we dance its music … 🥳

As a career carpenter I have never seen anything create itself. Evolution is ridiculous.

@mcmanustony

4 ай бұрын

That is just a pathetic lazy strawman. Snowflakes exhibit exquisite six sided symmetry. Are they created? Have you tried books? Have you read any on evolutionary biology- or is sitting on your duff chanting mindless slogans the extent of your engagement?

Yep. We simply don't know how life started. But we know when and that it was initially microbial. I still can't rule out natural causes. If a personal and communicating God was involved, why not communicate this vs a creation story?

@clayjo791

Жыл бұрын

Better yet, Why doesn't He just appear in the sky to convince us that He exists, and created all life and existence? The purpose of the creation account is not to convince everyone on earth that He is the Creator: The incomprehensible structured complexity of His creation renders everyone without excuse Romans 1:18-21). But it is to give us the main facts and timing of His creative process in relation to the major narrative of the fall of man who violated His justice, and the promise of future redemption through a savior as the expression of His love, mercy, and grace to those who will believe.

@Joenerk

Жыл бұрын

@@clayjo791 I totally agree with the question in your first paragraph. I don't agree that life is incomprehensibly complex. There are less than 40 phyla and everything fits into those plans. There are zero cross phylum features in life. God design is simple compared to human design. We can mix technologies like GPS, RADAR, aircon, CPUs, etc. in vehicles. God cannot give a parrot a tentacle to grasp its food forcing it to use its feet. That's perfection?

@clayjo791

Жыл бұрын

@@Joenerk You think too highly of man's intelligence while thinking too small of God's intelligence behind His design. I totally disagree with your statement that man's design is more complex than God's design. In fact, in all of the debates and online discussions I've had, no one has ever come to the conclusion that nature is less complex than what man can design, because man can't even make a single living cell from inanimate chemicals, much less giving them the information and apparatus to self replicate. Here's why man is without excuse: If you picked up a romance novel from the sand of the desert, no one will ever be able to convince you that this particular book with it's designed cover with the title and author's name, the binded pages, and 200,000 meaningful symbols precisely ordered called letters organized into meaningful groupings called words, further organized into meaningful groupings called paragraphs, then chapters, which add up to a completed story, just so happened to come together as such in nature and over millions of years by a stroke of good fortune of paper and ink. No one would believe this with 200,000 letters. But people are willing to believe it with 3.4 BILLION precisely sequenced chemical letters that outline the blueprint design of a living organism. Like it is written, "without excuse".

@jounisuninen

Жыл бұрын

@@clayjo791 It's always as hilarious when people start telling how God should've made everything ... 😀 “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." (Corinthians 1:19) Science does not have the means to prove God nonexistent. Instead science proves that our world, such as it is, could not have appeared through billions and billions of parallel coincidences. Not in any practical and logical sense, anyway. The "scientific" atheists pick the weakest probabilities to support their beliefs, which is not scientific at all.

@onwardalone1182

10 ай бұрын

Because it needs to make sense to least intelligent human born at the begin all the way to most intelligent human born at the end. How would you describe a plane flying through the sky to someone who lives in a world where the most advanced technology known is the wheel and who has an IQ of 80?

How come you guys don't ever pull in a panel of biologists to ask these questions and make those comments?

@samueltopping7812

Жыл бұрын

I think most biologists view evolution as a limited theory- explains some change over time

@paulgarrett4474

Жыл бұрын

​@Samuel Topping no, pretty much every qualified biologist in the world accepts evolution as the only plausible explanation for the diversity and distribution of life on earth. The reason that they are not in these videos is that they don't care about creationist propaganda, it's not even on their radar.

@jon__doe

Жыл бұрын

@@paulgarrett4474 You're right. If everyone in the field simply ignores the problems in the field the field remains safe. If they start engaging with the people who call out the problems then the problems become real and the field is challenged fundamentally. It's a fascinating psychosis that produces a uniformity of purpose without any directed conspiracy. Some few have tried to address the problems within the field and alternative theories like EES have emerged, but they get no traction because they encounter problems of their own and in the end there is no real difference. Much better to dismiss all contrary evidence as a problem for some later date.

@paulgarrett4474

Жыл бұрын

​@@jon__doe there are no problems within the field, there are religious extremists knocking down strawman arguments to please the uneducated faithful.

@oldschoolsaint

Жыл бұрын

You have it exactly backwards. To conclude that design has occurred from the appearance of design is rational. Concluding that it is the result of blind forces is to presuppose the truth of Materialism.

Loved this. However Dr. James Tour is NOT an origin of life researcher - he is an organic synthetic chemist who makes molecules. That said he understand the problems that abiogenesis would have to overcome.

the prof is so sweet ,his IQ is off the chart.😍.hi Prof

@danielgautreau161

Жыл бұрын

It's below zero. There is no crisis in evolution.

@JonMurray

Жыл бұрын

@@danielgautreau161 exactly.

@jounisuninen

Жыл бұрын

@@danielgautreau161 There is no crisis in evolution because there is no evolution. All so-called ”evolutionary” processes are in fact devolution processes, as each new subspecies has less genetic variety than its stem species (like in "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. Physics is the basis for modern natural sciences. Robert Laughlin, professor of physics at Stanford University, and sharer in a Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on the fractional quantum Hall effect, describes evolution theory as ”an ideology, a logical dead end and an anti-theory”. Professor Laughlin notes that empirical natural science does not need the evolution theory, and the evolution theory does not get support from empirical natural science.

@danielgautreau161

Жыл бұрын

@@jounisuninen None of that is true.

@mcmanustony

Жыл бұрын

@@jounisuninen Not a single word of that is correct.

What excellent points made. I had no idea about the Mae Wan Ho matter. I have her book on genetic modification of foods/living things, and know how opposed to that she was, so it shouldn't surprise me that she saw through the nonsense of the atheists who apparently simply want there to be no God. I see the use of the Genesis phrase about The Word being at The Beginning as implying that all is intelligible and all makes sense. That is what words do, they make sense. Life makes sense. I often replace the word God with the word Life. Works for me.

@ezbody

Жыл бұрын

If your God is so real, then why do you need to resort to blatant lying? Isn't it opposite from what your God wants from you?

@stephenszucs8439

Жыл бұрын

@@ezbody What lies, and how do you know they are lies?

@davethebrahman9870

Жыл бұрын

@@stephenszucs8439 The claim that God is obviously real is clearly a lie, however you come down on the issue.

@stephenszucs8439

Жыл бұрын

@@davethebrahman9870 I disagree. The stars, the constellations, the way this planet is fine-tuned to sustain life, the fact that DNA is a set of written instructions all point clearly to an intelligent design. It requires a designer.

@davethebrahman9870

Жыл бұрын

@@stephenszucs8439 Sorry to say, that’s false. The universe is ‘fine tuned’ for the reduction of entropy. Life is a fortunate (or perhaps unfortunate) by-product of this. We know the universe isn’t fine-tuned for life because it is overwhelmingly hostile to it. Even those organisms in the tiny portion of one solar system that get to live do so for mere decades, centuries at most. DNA is not a set of written instructions, it is a biological molecular template that functions in three dimensions and is the product of natural selection.

I do not really care evolution since I do not think it has something to do with me. But I do really care about life after death since it has everything to do with me. Ignoring the existing of life after death is the most unwise decision I have ever made. So I sought the credible answer about the existence of live after death. I asked God who I was not sure his existence. It cost me nothing to ask Him and I would gain infinite benefit. Yes I gain a lot, I have hope the priceless jewel to bring happiness every day.

@lizadowning4389

Жыл бұрын

So basically Pascal's wager. Better believe in god and the afterlife ... just in case it might actually exist.

Being a Chemist and a Physician this is all beautiful to me. But belief does not come by logic or the scientific method, or the wisdom of the world. But by faith. And this of God.

@mcmanustony

Жыл бұрын

Can you explain the "beauty" involved in Lennox lying about Stephen Jay Gould? What beauty is there in lying about a "crisis in evolution". There is none.

@ozowen5961

Жыл бұрын

@@mcmanustony Correct. Even the idea of the theory in crisis is a lie. There is a developing challenge to the Neo Darwinian theory. But neither are asking if evolution happens. That is not a question, it's an observed fact. The only thing in discussion is how it happens.

Compare the chance that molecules came together in a particular form to the chance that "an intelligence" that could put them exactly in the right place (after of course first producing matter out of nothing) just happened to exist forever.

@rizdekd3912

Жыл бұрын

A good succinct capture of 'the rest of the story.' Granted, a lot of serendipitous events likely took place...the right sequences of the right kinds of micro environments for life to eventually get to the stage of more or less stability so it could evolve. But it seems those who depend on the incredulity of that happening don't stop to consider what it is they're replacing it with. They're credulously positing an all powerful mind that just happens to know how and wants to create a natural world...for what purpose, who knows. Certainly, per most doctrines, a god doesn't NEED a natural world. And this mind exists timelessly yet somehow apparently manages to 'think' in sequence. And by definition sequences...of anything....imply time. Then, despite it's omnipotence, it creates a natural world that...pretty much as soon as humans arose, it...falls. So he created no fail safes to prevent the disarray sin seems to have created. All because one species didn't do to suit him.

@WmTyndale

Жыл бұрын

You do not understand epistemology or causality. Study more.

@oscargr_

Жыл бұрын

@@WmTyndale You don't understand statistics. Study more.

God's work is so completely evident. It's evident in the fact that we were given the ability to hypothesize how he did it, even those who are totally opposed to Him existing. As for Dawkins, I personally think he disagrees with any of us who do believe just to well.... try and piss us off to put it bluntly. His arguments start off intelligent but he loses his footing the second you mention intelligent design simply because he'd rather insult our beliefs than to continue in a productive discussion. I pray, if it's God's will, that he and all those who are caught up in this THEORY will have an encounter with the holy spirit. We are all made in God's image and he has given us so many wonderful gifts to be used to lift each other up not to hate, cancel, insult etc... All praise and Glory to the God of all creation our Abba Father, amen and hallelujah ‼️🔥💪🏼🙏🔥✝️🎯🎁♾️🔥🔥🔥🔥

@BlacksmithTWD

Жыл бұрын

I'd like you to consider the possibility that Dawkins might think of people like you in a similar way as you are thinking about him.

@F15CEAGLE1

4 ай бұрын

Maranatha.

Too early in the discussion talking about probabilities of the two forms L and D f short proteins. Anyway, it is a question of time to know what really happened even though now is a mystery.

ALL INPUT WELCOME: My psychology PhD thesis has been approved and in its final stages - The majority of YT atheists trawling the comments sections are on the autism spectrum (ASD). Please leave comments below. They may or may not be in support of my findings. Sorry to be so direct. Many thanks in advance.

@WmTyndale

Жыл бұрын

Hallucination, false perception with a characteristically compelling sense of the reality of objects or events perceived in the absence of relevant or adequate stimulation EX. Evolutionary Quackery

@davethebrahman9870

Жыл бұрын

That may well be true. So what?

As far as I am concerned, I believe that it is fairly obvious that we are caught up in a vast cosmic process started by God, directed at every moment by God, and destined to be consummated somehow by God. Evolution is merely one of the ways through which God chooses to interact with the God's material universe. If that fact requires revising interpretation of some of the biblical narratives or some of the traditional Christian teachings then so be it. The works of Teilhard de Chardin offer a very persuasive approach as to how that reinterpretation could be done. It is about time that we Christians get with it. If we insist on clinging to our respective notions of inerrancy (biblical or papal or traditional or whatever), Christianity seems destined to be swallowed up by secularism, stating in the West, but eventually elsewhere as well.

@mirandahotspring4019

Жыл бұрын

So which god? There have been around 8000 of them over the millennia.

@DK-tk1nu

Жыл бұрын

@@mirandahotspring4019 The God of Abraham, Isac and Jacob, the triune Father Son and Holy Spirit, the creator of heaven and earth, of all that is and will ever be, the "Ground of being" that Thomas Aquinas speaks of, the One who said to Moses I am who am, the One who holds all things in existence from moment to moment, the One whom the gospel of John says is Love.

@mirandahotspring4019

Жыл бұрын

@@DK-tk1nu OH, OK, that fictional one.

@DK-tk1nu

Жыл бұрын

@@mirandahotspring4019 yes indeed. The one of whom GK Chesterton said "If God did not exist there would be no atheists."

@mirandahotspring4019

Жыл бұрын

@@DK-tk1nu When everyone realises no god exists then we will be all atheists!

Perhaps Richard Dawkins should give a talk about Mathematics in response.

@robertmoon1018

Жыл бұрын

Dawkins lost his credibility as a scientist when he said there is no possible way he could be convinced of the existence of God. So much for following the truth, where ever it may lead.

@dennyworthington6641

Жыл бұрын

@@robertmoon1018 Which god? I only ask because H. sapiens have conjured thousands of gods over the millennia. It's important to define your terms.

@matthewstokes1608

Жыл бұрын

@@dennyworthington6641buffoon

@paulgarrett4474

Жыл бұрын

​@@matthewstokes1608 no actual answer then?

@matthewstokes1608

Жыл бұрын

@@paulgarrett4474 what year is it? … And why? There is only one God since He came and lived among us as ultimate proof (leaving us the beacon of Eternity and the civilization that has swept the entire world precisely as He promised in the Gospel that was put before your own eyes - and well you know it. Enough of the puerile games. The leader of your dark cult - your own perverted “god” (because you are a cultist make no bones about it) will not help you from the coming very real judgement of your soul. You have been “trained” to ask such predictable questions and think you’re being clever. You sound like a cretin. You’re being duped by darkness.

A fantastic intellect that put a totally compelling case. However does one need to look at the complexity of life to suggest intelligence? Surely the symmetry of the periodic table nails it even without biology.

@mcmanustony

Жыл бұрын

The periodic table isn't symmetrical. Lennox may well have a fantastic intellect. His area of expertise is algebra- the theory of infinite soluble groups to be precise. On this topic I've yet to hear him utter a single syllable despite watching video after video after..... What you see here is not a fantastic intellect. It's a lying buffoon prattling about subjects he's never studied and dishonestly peddling the notion that the theory of evolution is challenged by ideas more favourable to his religion. I had some residual respect for Lennox- he comes across elsewhere as an affable Irishman with the same tired old apologetics as his claque of fellow zealots. I no longer have any respect for him. This is pure dishonesty and he should be called on it.

@nicolesousa1836

7 ай бұрын

Why is there such symmetry?

NOMA. Read and learn.

It fascinates me how people on both sides believe the way they do, as an atheist myself it's bizarre listening to people claim to know things that seem pretty obviously false. More interesting is how both side's audience only see the way their bias takes them. myself included. Which is why critical thinking exists. What he said about atheists using evolution and theists claiming that was his method, is strange considering the nature we see, only an unintelligent designer would design like that. What he said about the probabilities evolution would face, isn't a problem considering the amount of time it had. Hence why young earth creationists don't hold to an old earth.

@jon__doe

Жыл бұрын

_only an unintelligent designer would design like that._ Leave it to an atheist to make a theological argument. You didn't listen very well. There isn't nearly enough time for evolution to do its work. YEC is a doctrinal issue arising from interpretation of the OT. It has nothing to do with removing deep time. Not even an infinity could offer the time required for the modern synthesis to work, time isn't the problem. It's the mechanisms that don't work.

@BlacksmithTWD

Жыл бұрын

If you have a serious argument (and I think you might have one), don't pollute it unnecessarily by your frustrations, believes or attempts at satire. (general advice, you are the better judge to what degree it applies in this case. ) See how the following remarks leaning towards satire could have deminished my advice had I lead with them instead : What fascinates me is that so many people claim something to be true or false by arguing a proof of assertion fallacy while simultaniously complaining about lack of logic. How can you be an atheist while believing in an unintelligent designer?

Hahahaha 😂

Fewer translational fossils? Give me a break, we have loads. The one Lennox shoul read up about is tiktaalik found in the predicted geographical location at the right geological level. The transition between fish and amphibians.

So where did the creator get his information exactly and develop language being alone?

@nickydaviesnsdpharms3084

Жыл бұрын

exactly. Plus, if life couldn't start without a creator, where did the creator with all it's complexity come from? He will say he's eternal, which is all none sense of course.

@eswn1816

Жыл бұрын

​@@nickydaviesnsdpharms3084 "Eternal" is not infinite time, but existence outside of time. God is Spirit. God created the material Universe including time & space.

@stephenszucs8439

Жыл бұрын

That question would make sense if God was like humans. But, if he were like humans he would not be God.

@eswn1816

Жыл бұрын

@@stephenszucs8439 Exactly! 💯 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." John 1: 1-3

@stephenszucs8439

Жыл бұрын

@@eswn1816 I know. Made by a being who is not human. I know about computers. I can understand why they work. I cannot build one. It is amazing how "intelligent" a computer is. Not because the computer is smart, but because of the brains that built and programmed it. How much greater is the mind that programmed the computers that are the human brains responsible for building and programming computers? If we cannot grasp the number of the stars, how can we imagine that we can know all there is to know about the intelligence evident in all of creation? The greatest human folly is our attempt to humanize a God who is so unimaginably greater than we are.

"I'm not a biologist I'm a mathematician", well I am a biologist and I suggest he sticks to maths. The Irish accent takes me back to my nutty Irish catholic grandmother.

@WmTyndale

Жыл бұрын

U biologists know no math, physics, complexity theory and probably many of your statistic applications are not reproducible if of any importance. My experience concerning your type is that your reasoning is filled with Invalid Patterns of Inference such as the homology fallacy. Among those with a non-negative IQ, the biologists and their cousins the doctors are on the low end of the scale. Stick to farming Sir, the history of philosophy and science shows that mathematicians have been decisive. You may wish to learn something about Newton

@bruce3102

Жыл бұрын

If you are a biologist who keeps up with current findings, you know that what Lennox is saying is accurate.

@paulgarrett4474

Жыл бұрын

​@Bruce Castro really, where are these latest findings published?

@huveja9799

Жыл бұрын

Well, vague and nebulous expressions do not help at all, except to disorientate .. you can enlighten the disoriented masses and explain to us exactly where the mathematician goes wrong, why and and how science solves it ..

@WmTyndale

Жыл бұрын

@@huveja9799 They are incapable of that. Like those who believe in astrology, the evolutionary quackers cannot reason through the scientific objections. The great logician/mathematician Kurt Godel expressed the thought that "the formation within geologic times of a human body by the laws of physics(or any other laws of similar nature) is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components". This Godel was an intimate companion of Einstein at the Institute for Advanced Study and although a logician found a solution of Einsteins General Relativity equations.

Two secrets of life: Chemistry and Coincidence. Everything that happens to you stems from those two..... they dictate your Fate and Destiny.

@WmTyndale

Жыл бұрын

baloney. Hard work and Divine Providence in my life. Ph.D mathematics, NSF postdoc, IT consultant etc.....

@violinhunter2

Жыл бұрын

@@WmTyndale Well, let me see - your ancestry is simply a coincidence. The events in your life are coincidences. The blood in your veins and the cells in your brain are pure chemistry - your health is chemistry. I knew a boy who was studying to be a concert pianist but,... he ran an errand one night and was struck by a drunk driver and died. His amazing talent was chemistry and his accident was simply a coincidence. So many major discoveries have been made simply by accident. The secret of motivation is something that cannot be explained. So many successful people have reached the pinnacle of their profession by sheer luck, but they seem to forget that. If you meet the right person at the right time, off you go. For the majority of people, that moment never comes. For others, fear stops them in their tracks. Fear is a chemical reaction in the brain, as are so many other "emotions." Etc.,.....

@MRHallAuthor

Жыл бұрын

That would kick off with the 10 to the 10 to the 123 likelihood of the current universe existing (Prof Roger Penrose, who also reminds us that there are only 10 to the 80 elementary particles in the entire universe). Then the small matter of the probability of DNA forming by random chance - again, way beyond 10 to the 80 ... I presume you play the lottery and win every week - infinitely more likely than the universe and everything in it emerging by chance!!

@violinhunter2

Жыл бұрын

@@MRHallAuthor Absolutely - as that famous book said, no chance. We can wait a trillion trillion years for a rock to come alive and still,... nothing.

@patrickkelly8717

Жыл бұрын

​​@@MRHallAuthor it did. The idea a supernatural being did it is is farcical. You keep slapping each other on the back, the joke is on you pair.

The genetic code also seems to be quantized. Also we will ask: The common ancestor of man and the cow, how many stomachs did it have? did they have?

@itsamystery5279

Жыл бұрын

The common ancestor of humans and cattle was a small shrew-like mammaliaform which lived in the mid Cretaceous between 90-100 MYA. As far as we know it only had one stomach.

@WmTyndale

Жыл бұрын

@@itsamystery5279 Now tell me how the cow got 4. Baloney

@paulgarrett4474

Жыл бұрын

@@WmTyndale even if there is no specific research and material on the evolution of the cows stomach, and I suspect that there is if you look for it. What do you think you are demonstrating here? Do you think that not knowing a single specific point means that we don't know anything at all?

@itsamystery5279

Жыл бұрын

@@WmTyndale Cows don't have 4 stomachs. Cows have 1 stomach which has evolved to have 4 separate compartments to help break down the grass and other ruffage which is the cow's primary diet.

@WmTyndale

Жыл бұрын

@@itsamystery5279 What did their ancestors eat with only 1 compartment?

Thought DNA etc not only the fossil record

@paulgarrett4474

Жыл бұрын

There are multiple lines of evidence supporting evolution, including the fossil record and genetics.

@jounisuninen

Жыл бұрын

@@paulgarrett4474 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 believed 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.

Bravo. Fabulous conversation. The Creator is of a unfathomable name to the comprehension of modern humanity and it’s limited infant language of this realm of existence. Therefore, I simply substitute the word Love for this matter so a novelist such as myself can show respect to my Creator by expressing the two strongest emotions one can experience in this life. The feeling of joy and happiness that comes with falling in love, to the overwhelming emotion of finding true love for another being, perhaps a soul mate. Even more the pure bliss of love for the birth of a newborn child. It is also that gut wrenching feeling of losing your significant other, God forbid, to the passing of love ones as in a mother or suffering great loss. Those two spectrums of emotional highs and lows for me at least can in some sense describe the Alpha & Omega, the beginning and the end. So Love works for me in my personal description of name for our Creator. With that being said the proof of God is the very spirit of life in the air we are allowed to breath in as long as we wake up every day to inhale God’s greatness in granting us oxygen to exist another moment in the Creators space of time, is the true example of Love. I know God is real and thus presence, is very much present. The proof just materialized virtually before my eyes & ears, by the very reviewing of this good conversation of two great minds once again proving God’s intelligence is alive and well by observing some Godly wisdom in this highly stimulating back and forth chat. God Bless you both and blessing’s to you’re families. Just my lonely thoughts. Terrific upload. JL

@ericb.1384

Жыл бұрын

Based on your post, you have no idea who God is and will stay lonely because you pervert simple ideas with your futile speculations. Read the book of Romans.

Evolution is the most critiqued, attacked, and battle tested theory since it's inception. Many natural mechanisms, many evidences and data, many fields of study corroborate it and still no falsification. The Creator has Two Great Works we can study the Bible and Creation. Perhaps the Creator intended for a natural speciation?

@stephenszucs8439

Жыл бұрын

Natural selection is proven and has always been acknowledged by Christians (until the most recent times when logic has become passe in every segment of society). Natural selection is simply the way we get better crops and designer dogs. That's because with each generation of breeding genetic information is LOST. Each parent contributes1/2 of its DNA to the offspring. Traits are lost so that a Bull Mastiff and a terrier can make a pit bull, but no number of pit bull matings can ever produce a bull mastiff or terrier. The traits are LOST. No traits have even been gained. There is no fossil record of gained traits other than genetic mutations, which are not evolution (tho people grasp at them as if they are proof) because an accident can change a gene and cause a two headed snake, but that snake dies because it cannot survive long with the mutation, the mutation is harmful, not an adaptation to improve survival, and it is not passed on to the next generation. The pit bulls are not a new kind of animal. They are still canines.

@MartTLS

Жыл бұрын

But speciation according to the bible wasn’t part of the plan .

@grahamrogers3345

Жыл бұрын

Are you joking? The only "critique" allowed by the so called scientific establishment is critique that assumes evolution to be true in the first place. Evolution is a joke that has hindered Science for 164 years. Variation is a fact, the idea that a group of cells by chance turned into everything from giraffes to worms to people is a joke. It is not science and the lie needs to be exposed but it never will be because a pseudo scientific materialistic cabal control the show.

@eswn1816

Жыл бұрын

And yet "evolution" has no scientifically credible explanation for the origin of life from random chemicals. "Primordial Soup" IS the big fairy tale! 🥺

@stephenszucs8439

Жыл бұрын

@@MartTLS Where does it say that? They were aware of cross-breeding and hybridization.

😢

life is so complex that it could not have arisen, by chance.....it is said that information, which is dna, does not arise by chance..

@AMC2283

11 ай бұрын

Feel free to believe in god

@mcmanustony

11 ай бұрын

No one argues that DNA arose by chance. It likely arose from RNA...."so how did that arise? BY CHANCE??"- no, Sutherland and Powner's work demonstrated the plausible prebiotic synthesis of pyrimidine from which three of the four RNA bases are derived. Life has been around for at least 3.6 BILLION years. How complex were proto cells then? Have you considered reading a book rather than throwing out bald assertions?

Evolution is not a fact .It is a theory .

@mirandahotspring4019

Жыл бұрын

People who say things like that are simply showing their ignorance. It is a scientific theory! A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

@mirandahotspring4019

Жыл бұрын

@@ethanguy82 A lot of these people probably never made it that far.

@markenglishby4146

Жыл бұрын

@@mirandahotspring4019 what’s the independent variable?

@mirandahotspring4019

Жыл бұрын

@@markenglishby4146 Time.

@ellipticalequinox6869

Жыл бұрын

​​@@ethanguy82 I think you missed the point. Evolution isn't a natural, physical or occurring process in our environment. Next you might as well say The pixie princess unicorns are a scientific theory. I mean there's toys, books and shows about them (just like evolution 😂) but at the end of the day we both know that the pixie princess unicorn isn't a real thing. It doesn't matter if Stephen Hawking or Einstein says it is. It's not something that's been tested, shown or proven to exist. If you want to talk about biological adaptation, then that's a different discussion. As for the proposal of evolution... That we evolved from worms is utterly absurd. There's no archaeological evidence to support any of this, nor any biological evidence. When it comes to the Fossil record (which should be where you find evolution aka the transitional fossils) we don't see any evolution. When it comes to the Precambrian and Cambrian explosion which is when we see an explosion of life forms on the planet, it doesn't show a slow transition between life forms. Somehow all these life forms just appeared on the planet. They have no idea how that's possible and that's what the fossil record shows us. so unless you're going to make the argument that the fossil record (The evidence for early life) is incorrect, then you have to rethink evolution. When it comes to evolution (from what I personally seen through debating with people) it's a broken theory. I've asked the question "why don't we see any monkey human hybrids today and why did evolution stop with humans? The most common answer I would receive was "because evolution saw that humanity didn't need to further evolve or change" Which I would ask "how did evolution know to stop evolving when it got humans" Also I just want to point out that this is a simple version of the argument They just told me natural selection. Because somehow natural selection explains evolution deciding to stop the process. Of course if you would like to discuss Lucy (some proposes as missing link) or the tiktaalik (The proposed transitional fossil) then I would be happy to Converse.

Funny that it is never a biologist they're interviewing....

@WmTyndale

Жыл бұрын

Not true. There have been debates with such. Dr. Tour has had discussions with biologists. You are uninformed.

@IIrandhandleII

Жыл бұрын

@@WmTyndale interesting you say that because tour is not a biologist either.... noticing a trend here? Tour works on synthetic chemistry he's got no clue about genetics or phylogeny, basically any life science. Keep looking for a biologist that denies evolution though I'm sure youll find a flat earth astronomer beforehand.

@zenuno6936

Жыл бұрын

You didnt address any of the speaker's arguments, you did an ad hominem. Also, he quoted biologists.

@jounisuninen

Жыл бұрын

@@IIrandhandleII Don't you understand? Dr. Tour has had discussions with biologists and won them all in debates.

@IIrandhandleII

Жыл бұрын

@@jounisuninen tour is not a biologist, he just poses as one to fit the discovery institute religious narrative

I like that Lennox pointed out, be it quickly, that the implication is that the field is simultaneously "bottom up" and "top down". When one considers this, the larger implication becomes formidable. That is that not only is the small to large a simultaneously defined construct but, so must be the beginning and end. Making time within, and even dependant upon, the totality of the quantified field. Therefore, a mechanism for experience and not a constraint of the system itself. This also inclines one to conclude that "mind" is not a materially constituted product.

@mcmanustony

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for that useless serving of vacuous word salad.

@adamraisch2470

Жыл бұрын

@@mcmanustony you are quite welcome! 👍

@mcmanustony

Жыл бұрын

@@adamraisch2470 Try to have a point....and express it concisely.

@adamraisch2470

Жыл бұрын

@@mcmanustony if you don't understand it then it was not meant for you. The point was as concise as it could be.

@mcmanustony

Жыл бұрын

@@adamraisch2470 ....or it could just be pretentious, meaningless tripe.

If death is normal - sin makes no sense and I won't play.

@jounisuninen

Жыл бұрын

Death is normal only because of sin.

I really don't understand. These guys did 0 work to refute the inferences that make evolution undeniable. All they want to do is live in this vague space and cast arguments from ignorance and incredulity.

@WmTyndale

Жыл бұрын

You need to take an elementary course in symbolic logic and study the "logical fallacies". Then you will see what an Invalid Pattern of Inference is. The homology fallacy. Biologist: Look here we have a golf ball and an egg. Therefore they have a common ancestor.

@Swifter315

Жыл бұрын

@WmTyndale lol I did take symbolic logic. The 'homology fallacy' isn't a formal fallacy in which there is a problem with the form or validity - it would be an informal fallacy where there is a problem with the content of premises. Symbolic logic only deals with logical form... it's SYMBOLIC logic. So you're pretty confused there. I don't know why you think that I think that mere homology, on its face, necessairly rules out uncommon ancestry. 'One' of the inferences that make uncommon ancestry mathematically impossible is the fact that extremely rare mutations cross different kinds. Under your theory you would not expect this which causes an insurmountable problem. It is necessitated under common ancestry. I mean the whole 'well God made them look similar for xyz reason' is ad hoc in the first place. But that ad hoc rescue device doesn't even accommodate the data when considering mutations. Now you're left in a position where you have to deny that mutations are mutations. It's just a mess. It looks like you need to take a course on logic and also the philosophy of science :)

@Swifter315

Жыл бұрын

@@WmTyndale 🦗 🦗 🦗

@WmTyndale

Жыл бұрын

@@Swifter315 It is not I that is confused but your limited imagination . I never mention "formal fallacy". Every theorem of the First Order Predicate Calculus is a "valid pattern" of inference and there are an infinite number of them (deductive inference). Inductive inference is epistemologically more difficult. In statistics for example the 95% confidence interval would be an example of the assurance required. Fundamentally we must understand what An Invalid Argument is. In the inductive case it means no high probability of the conclusion given the appearance of the premises. In particle physics a certain number of standard deviations is the requirement. Homology type reasoning is an "invalid pattern of inference" because it is totally random 50/50 like a coin toss. There is no connection between the external or internal shapes of things and common origin or ancestry. Golf ball and egg e.g. Furthermore the same can be said about characteristics attributed to Natural Selection. These fallacies are related to cognitive biases of which dozens if not hundreds have been identified. Do your own search. I do not understand the remainder of your objections. I do not deny mutations. Nature or Creation is very sophisticated. Families that have multiple children find they are all different. Why? the genetic material never changed. Genetic shuffling. But they are still humans. With all the mutations induced in bacteria and viruses through medicaments and antibiotics they remain what they are. The genetic code is quantized. It is a computer program for running the cell. New machinery cannot be added without the software to run it. IMPOSSIBLE. The common ancestor of man and a cow, how many stomachs did it have? I recommend DR. James Tour for a complete High Probability refutation of the Evolutionary Quackery. John Froelich Ph.D, NSF postdoc, IT consultant.....etc etc

"Irreducible complexity" cannot be explained by evolution (an essentially random process.)

@paulgarrett4474

Жыл бұрын

Irreducible complexity is not real.

@eswn1816

Жыл бұрын

@@paulgarrett4474 Do you understand the meaning and implications of the term? The cell is a complex factory with many interdependent moving parts all of which require precise specifications to operate. The same is true for enzymes and proteins, the classic "chicken and egg dilemma." There is no imaginable way that they could have developed separately without some form of a design and plan requiring information. You provide no scientific response to my comment, but as many atheists, merely chant an emotional rant while waving your faith-filled banner of the 'god' of random ocurances. I'm not impressed... 🥺

@paulgarrett4474

Жыл бұрын

​@@eswn1816 provide a citation for a cell being irreducible in its complexity. The fact that we don't know exactly how something occurs does not mean that it was done by your imaginary friend with magic. That is literally a god of the gaps argument.

@eswn1816

Жыл бұрын

@@paulgarrett4474 I never mentioned "God!" That's your atheistic obsession. I said that scientifically and mathematically, the operation of the complex interactive parts of the cell could not have occurred in a random sequential process without the addition of information (design).

@eswn1816

Жыл бұрын

@@paulgarrett4474 Sure, how about the Nobel Prize in chemistry, awarded to Drs. Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith, and Gregory P. Winter for the ingenious engineering of biomolecules. ​They looked for purposes (design) in biomolecules, and used random genetic variation to engineer better biological processes. They did, in a very real sense, what design pioneer Michael Behe discovered in his principle of irreducible complexity: there are some biological functions that are complex in such a way that they cannot evolve simply by random variation and unintelligent natural selection. Intelligence must be added to the process to achieve high levels of biological complexity and function. The Nobel researchers showed how intelligence, coupled to variation, is essential to the evolution of biological novelty. In this sense, these researchers mimicked nature, which is replete with intelligent design. Nature, no less than ingenious biological researchers in their lab, relies on chance, and intelligence in evolution. This Nobel work is a beautiful vindication of irreducible complexity.

Can somebody please define what atheist means?

@paulgarrett4474

Жыл бұрын

The lack of belief in a god or gods.

@neilbowler7866

Жыл бұрын

@@paulgarrett4474 indeed. I was hoping for a reply from one of the Christian types, like these two gentlemen, who constantly strawman the atheist definition.

@lizadowning4389

Жыл бұрын

I like to go with "I don"t do gods". They're an unecessary layer adding nothing in understanding the what and how, the core questions of science. You can't even verify the existence (real) hypothesis or the properties (omni...) hypothesis. It's just the religious cop out for "I don't know, therefore goddidit."

@paulgarrett4474

Жыл бұрын

​@@neilbowler7866 I think you're being a bit over optimistic there!

@neilbowler7866

Жыл бұрын

@@paulgarrett4474 most definitely!!!

I absolutely """love""" the christian vs nihilist false dichotomy. Cannot get enough.

Charles Darwin wasn't his real name and who he associated with is alarming.

@shreddedhominid1629

Жыл бұрын

Good thing the validity of scientific theory has fuck all to do with the credibility of a Darwin. Notice how you can't dispute the evidence for evolution so you resort to criticising a dead guy?

@Mr196710

Жыл бұрын

@@shreddedhominid1629 Validity?! Obviously you haven't studied that dribble and are a virtue signaler. READ it, understand it and most importantly-KNOW who he associated with and their motives for pushing this "science". Another century of blind devotion?!

@mirandahotspring4019

Жыл бұрын

Charles Robert Darwin was his real name and he associated with people like Alfred Russel Wallace and John Stevens Henslow, both respected naturalists.

@Mr196710

Жыл бұрын

@@mirandahotspring4019 Well no, his real name was not Charles Robert Darwin.

@mirandahotspring4019

Жыл бұрын

@@Mr196710 So what was it? Simply say it isn't is pointless unless you can show an alternative.

Now Jonny, you know darn well that SJ Gould 'discovered' punctuated equilibrium, and he was refining evolution, and in no way rejecting it. It's late in the day for you: high time to be a little more honest with yourself... and only then, try to be honest with us. Cheers.

@nickydaviesnsdpharms3084

Жыл бұрын

Absolutely, and he is well known to have been corrected on a number of issues but keeps talking about them again and again. There's a sunk cost for him

@awaldron7743

Жыл бұрын

Gould is sadly departed. To get to the nub, he was Marxist (!) paleontologist following the “hopeful monster” theory of Richard Goldschmidt (1878-1958). I know whereof i speak having studied in his department though not under his direct supervision.

@markrutledge5855

Жыл бұрын

Actually, Gould's hypothesis did reject basic assumptions of neo-Darwinism. Take for instance Darwin's hypothesis that biological adaptation and change would occur very gradually and over long periods of time. Yet most paleontologists (such as Gould) know that the fossil evidence completely runs in the opposite direction. Gould tried to account for this difference between fact and theory by proposing "punctuated equilibrium" but he could only do so by rejecting a key tenet of Darwinian evolution. Interestingly, Gould didn't actually provide a new mechanism for the evidence that species enjoy long periods of evolutionary stability and then rapid change. This is why punctuated equilibrium never really gained a major following in evolutionary thinking.

@brandonmacey964

Жыл бұрын

​@@markrutledge5855 glad somebody clarified. SJ Gould didn't discover punctuated equilibrium, he proposed it, obviously. That's how science works. And everybody knows GLENN Gould is FAR SUPERIOR to SJ Gould. Cheers!

@Swifter315

Жыл бұрын

​@Mark Rutledge lol yes he did. He offered epistasis*. Habitat tracking and others also account for it.

why was my comment removed....who would remove a comment that helped to further Johns paradigm...why would it be removed....honestly youtube is turning into a filtered sanitized jungle....what a shame

@BlacksmithTWD

Жыл бұрын

Indeed, I often notice comments being removed before I could finish my response to them. If only it would be more transparent about the filter.

Is that a kiwi accent?

It is a shame that a discussion about biology involved nobody with any biological understanding.

@dylanjamesotf

Жыл бұрын

Lennox probably knows more about biology than a graduate that just received their PHD in biology yesterday

@davegaskell7680

Жыл бұрын

@@dylanjamesotf You think so? He may know bits and bobs about some areas of biology but people that don't think evolution is a fact (which it is) can't be considered to know much about biology.

@zenuno6936

Жыл бұрын

That's an ad hominem, you dont bother with any of his arguments, but attack the person instead. Also he quoted biologists.

@bayzedgossiper2852

Жыл бұрын

@@davegaskell7680 far from a a fact. Keep coping

@davegaskell7680

Жыл бұрын

@@bayzedgossiper2852 Evolution IS a scientific fact. Look it up. You are entitled to not agree with the science but it is quite definitely a fact in science. Indeed, it is a Theory. This is as high a standard of truth that it is possible to get in science. Like Electromagnetic Theory, Gravitational Theory, etc. It is silly to try to deny it. Evolution being true doesn't mean you can't stop believing in your god.

I knew about evolution as a 4th grader but only after reading The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins was the evidence so abundantly clear, I also went to see him lecture at Columbia University on the book. The entire thing is explanations and evidence for evolution, and it all still holds up the same way we have any other science theory- which is a well substantiated fact, higher than scientific law, so no there's no crisis only more and more evidence and more missing links. Not that we don't have a remarkable amount already in display at museums. Evolution is a fact. It's how nature works, it's the explanation of how we account for the diversity of life. 16 years on and off I've researched this and it becomes clearer and clearer. In a world where The Greatest Show On Earth EXISTS and people deny the theory (aka well substantiated fact) of evolution it makes zero logical sense to deny reality like that. A 5000 year old book isn't going to have more valid explanations about science than one's written in the early 2000s.

@nickydaviesnsdpharms3084

Жыл бұрын

people like Lennox can't see past their bias, and they have been vocal so are unlikely to go back on it now. it's complex, therefore God.

@davethebrahman9870

Жыл бұрын

For me it was also Dawkins, his ‘The Blind Watchmaker’. Suddenly everything made sense. That was thirty years ago, since then I haven’t seen anything at all that suggests Darwin was wrong as to his central proposition.

@Athetos861

Жыл бұрын

@@davethebrahman9870 Absolutely. I saw some old videos of a young Dawkins explaining the evolution of the eye, which people for some reason tell me is irreducibly complex and could not have possibly evolved without divine intervention. the lecture made it so obvious, it works like everything else. Still I deal with people who deny evolution on a regular basis and it's astounding how within a single community can exist someone with a mindset from 5000 years ago and someone who thinks in contemporary terms.

@davethebrahman9870

Жыл бұрын

@@Athetos861 Yes indeed. Such mental discontinuity can exist even within one individual, such as John Lennox.

Origin Of Life (please) see Dr. James Tour.

@paulgarrett4474

Жыл бұрын

Why?

@stevenwiederholt7000

Жыл бұрын

@@paulgarrett4474 You Might Learn Something.

@paulgarrett4474

Жыл бұрын

​@@stevenwiederholt7000 science denial motivated by childish attachment to bronze age mythology?

@stevenwiederholt7000

Жыл бұрын

@@paulgarrett4474 What makes you say he is denying Science? Ya know when I see someone say that The Bible is "bronze age mythology" I assume that person is A Troll. You do understand that "bronze age mythology" is a Major basis of the society you live in, right? No Judaism, No Christianity, No Western Culture/Society.

@paulgarrett4474

Жыл бұрын

​@Steven Wiederholt he claims that peptides cannot form I water. Condensation of amino acids to form peptides in aqueous solution induced by the oxidation of sulfur(iv): An oxidative model for prebiotic peptide formation Fei Chen & Dan Yang Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres volume 37, pages47-54 (2007) This study demonstrates that they can. There are dozens of papers that contradict his talking points, he is aware of them, he has had them pointed out to him, he ignores them because he knows his faithful fan base will never fact check him. Mythology is still Mythology.

Evolution in crisis, states a young earth Christian math teacher.

@CalvinGomes

Жыл бұрын

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you calling Professor John Lennox a pre-eminent Professor of Science at Cambridge University a math teacher? This would be the standard ad homenum argument.

@helpIthinkmylegsaregone

Жыл бұрын

​@@CalvinGomes it would be substandard, because as you have pointed out, he's a university Professor. It's funny how obviously these people are driven by hatred of Christians.

@IIrandhandleII

Жыл бұрын

@@CalvinGomes does he teach math? He is letting his religious views dictate his views on science instead of the other way around. If you want to learn biology ask a biologist.

@zenuno6936

Жыл бұрын

That's an ad hominem, you dont bother with any of his arguments, but attack the person instead.

@mcmanustony

Жыл бұрын

@@helpIthinkmylegsaregone I have no hatred of anyone. I do have a strong distaste for lying zealots like Lennox pontificating about subjects they've never studied. Were a biologist to lie about and sneer at his field (group theory- of ZERO application to biology) he'd be the first to point out the absurdity. Pompous obnoxious fool.

Absolutely painfull sitting through this.

@WmTyndale

Жыл бұрын

Yes I can understand a LOW IQ struggling with the elementary probablilty.

@zenuno6936

Жыл бұрын

Its the cognitive dissonance causing your pain. What he says is logical, but you abide by the opposing opinion, so its hurtful. Just change opinion.

@petethepeg2

Жыл бұрын

For goodnees sake ,have a cup of tea and perhaps a little lie down

Here's The Thing. (Say) Its 1872..1892, based on what was known (through Science) a good argument could have been made for Materialism (The material is All There is). Alas for the Materialists as we (through Science) have learned more and more about how The Universe works the argument for Materialism has gotten weaker and weaker and weaker. One of the (many Many) things I do not understand is how Intelligent knowledgeable people can this hold to that view. I Really Don't Get It.

@paulgarrett4474

Жыл бұрын

What independently verifiable evidence is there for anything outside the material?

@stevenwiederholt7000

Жыл бұрын

@@paulgarrett4474 What independently verifiable evidence is there for anything Inside the material?

@paulgarrett4474

Жыл бұрын

​@@stevenwiederholt7000 vision, touch, smell, taste, mass, luminescence, spectrograph analysis.

@davethebrahman9870

Жыл бұрын

Hardly anyone now thinks the world is made of matter. Rather, the more accurate term is ‘physicalism’, a world made of the particles, fields and forces described by physics. That view has more evidence every day.

@stevenwiederholt7000

Жыл бұрын

@@davethebrahman9870 Cite Evidence/Sources.

For we this Earth has of Time, Growth, Development & Change for is of Every land & Mountain on Earth, for is of every Plant, insect, animal & to in us Mankind. This is called EVOLUTION EXIST & EXISTED ON EARTH IS A FACT.

@stephenszucs8439

Жыл бұрын

No, this is called micro-evolution or natural selection. ALL intelligent people know that micro-evolution exists. It is a straw-man argument to claim that not accepting Darwinian's macro-evolution theory is the same as disbelieving natural selection. There is a big difference. REAL science has proven that each parent contributes 1/2 of its genetic traits to the offspring. The 1/2 of genetic information from each parent that is NOT contributed to the offspring is lost to that individual. With repeated selective matings of those without the undesirable traits continues, eventually a new species will appear (or a new "race" of humans.) BUT the opposite is not true, has never been observed, and has no fossil or archival evidence to support it. Reproduction does NOT add DNA. It does not ADD genetic traits. If an accident, injury, or toxic substance interferes with embryonic development genes may mutate and cause a two-headed snake to be born. That is not Darwinian evolution as it is not beneficial, not an aid to survival, and not a new species of snake.

The only crisis I see is the possibility of hairs & common sense growing on John's head 🤣

@stephenszucs8439

Жыл бұрын

What a silly, senseless comment.

@ayamayamblackwhite3190

Жыл бұрын

@Stephen Szucs as silly & senseless as your belief & logic & johns ?🤣

@norbertjendruschj9121

Жыл бұрын

Christians always have trouble dealing with humor since stakes came out of fashion.

@petethepeg2

Жыл бұрын

At least you concede the possibility, whereas John reels off the probabilities required for the processes of abiogenisis as to all intents and purposes as impossible . You sound as though you believe otherwise. I almost admire your relgious zeal and faith🤩

@ayamayamblackwhite3190

Жыл бұрын

@Petethepeg you know what's so predictable about people like you ? You assume a lot & you love to think for others 🤣🤣🤣

.... Regarding the fossils. This guy is either seriously misinformed or lying. First off, he references Gould and Eldridge as if they didn't contribute 50 years ago. He also seems to forget that they took issue with gradualism and gave another theory, punctuated equilibrium, to account for the fossil record. And no, this wasn't ad hoc because we have independent reasons to believe it occurs ala epistatic restraints, habitat tracking and so on. I have commented 3 other times on this video already... each of these sections are such poor arguments that it's hard to believe that any informed person could take them seriously.

@paulgarrett4474

Жыл бұрын

It's lying.

@BlacksmithTWD

Жыл бұрын

"I have commented 3 other times on this video already... each of these sections are such poor arguments that it's hard to believe that any informed person could take them seriously." Then why didn't you comment with better arguments? (sorry, I think I know what you meant but this was too much of an open goal)

@BlacksmithTWD

Жыл бұрын

@@paulgarrett4474 ""what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens

@Swifter315

Жыл бұрын

@@BlacksmithTWD better arguments? I don't deny evo. I think all the arguments against evo are trash.

@BlacksmithTWD

Жыл бұрын

@@Swifter315 You missed the joke, read your own statement again : "I have commented 3 other times on this video already... each of these sections are such poor arguments..." If you say "I have commented 3 other times" and then continue to use a reference word like "these", since the only thing you mentioned before that 'these' can refer to is the three other times you have commented, gramatically the logic interpretation is that you are complaining about the poor quality of arguments you made. Of course I understand that you meant to say that the comments of others in those sections contained poor arguments and that you commented on those, but that is not how you formulated it. ps. I think that we should evaluate arguments on their own merits, validity of reasoning and probability of the presented premises rather than on their conclusion alone.

Can’t do anything against the truth Gods Word is truth

@mcmanustony

11 ай бұрын

you can no more demonstrate god's word or even god's existence than you can raise the dead.

TOUR HAS BLOWN APART ALL CLAIMS THAT HAVE OR COME HWITUP ELEMENTAL OF ANY KIND.

@mcmanustony

11 ай бұрын

And in English? Tour has published 700 research publications in the peer reviewed literature of his speciality. Here is a comprehensive list of all those dealing with the origin of life. 1. That's it! You're not very good at this.

@mcmanustony

11 ай бұрын

What the fuck is this supposed to mean?

Agreed. The DNA sequence clearly demonstrates divine language and design as well the mystery of circular causality found in nature. To argue to the contrary is to force a square peg through a round hole. Perhaps man's fear of exposition of their sin has created so many branches of faulty human thinking in fruitless attempts at self justification throughout history. The issue is S I N and only repentance brings freedom through the Lord Jesus who gave His life to free us. All we need to do is repent and turn away from the corruption of our pride. Selah.

@mcmanustony

11 ай бұрын

DNA demonstrates nothing of the sort. Most of our genome is junk. Homologous sequences between species clearly demonstrate common ancestry and evolution- contrary to Lennox’s dishonest drivel about there being a “crisis” in the theory.

@vikingskuld

11 ай бұрын

Sorry that free will you have to do something to get into heaven is NOT biblical. If your not giving credit to God then your lying against the scripture period... there is no debating that or the fact God has never loved everyone and never will Roman's 9 proves that beyond a doubt.

@mcmanustony

11 ай бұрын

@@vikingskuld sad to see a grown adult generating such childish nonsense….

@vikingskuld

11 ай бұрын

@@mcmanustony honestly it's kind of what you asked for. No debate no argument you really brought nothing to the table to talk about. I think the last response I even asked you whats your best proof. Then nothing but more condensation. So do you honestly expect me to take you seriously or treat you like your an adult. It's simple. All you gave to do is say why do you believe this. This is what I think counters your line of thought. Then I would politely reply what I think and not talk to you like your under 10.just because you really believe something doesn't make you right and it may mean your right. I simply don't know as you have provided nothing coming near an adult conversation. I'm willing to have one as long as you are providing your side of said conversation. Pretty easy really. If I recall correctly I have pointed a few things out I have seen to be true and anyone willing to be objective use common sense should be able to see themselves. Ball is in your court.

@mcmanustony

11 ай бұрын

@@vikingskuld "honestly it's kind of what you asked for."- where? Where did I ask for a helping of incoherent religious babble? " I even asked you whats your best proof."- that comment is not visible to me. Empirical science- unlike the mathematics Lennox did decades ago- does not deal in proof. It deals in evidence. There is no "proof" of the any theory of gravitation. There is a mountain of evidence for evolution- unhindered by Lennox and his pathetic lies. If you want details I can provide a summary. If you want more than a YT comment can I suggest the crazy option of OPENING A DAMN BOOK? "No debate no argument you really brought nothing to the table to talk about."- bullshit. From me- " Most of our genome is junk. Homologous sequences between species clearly demonstrate common ancestry and evolution- contrary to Lennox’s dishonest drivel about there being a “crisis” in the theory."- Can you point me to where you addressed this- that I "brought to the table? "do you honestly expect me to take you seriously"- you'd need to take yourself seriously first. "treat you like your an adult."- An adult? You mean, someone who knows the difference between "your" and "you're"? "All you gave to do is say why do you believe this."- why I believe what? The theory of evolution? It's simple: the evidence. " I have pointed a few things out "- WHAT THINGS?

So John Lennox is a mathematician. Yet, why would any one bother with his assertion that an established scientific theory is in crises? Of course it is not but the point stands….why listen to a mathematician concerning biology?

@sparkyy0007

Жыл бұрын

Evolution does not qualify as a scientific theory... it cannot be tested or mathematically quantified; it's simply asserted from a naturalistic foundation as a philosophical belief. On Maths. Biologists have been duped into believing the nonsense of evolution because like you, they have no advanced mathematical training on statistics, or they would abandon the hypothesis in a heartbeat. In fact, a PhD in biology from an Ivy league school requires only introductory calc and stats. That's not a hyperbolic assertion, check for yourself. Fact is, a bachelors degree in economics holds more mathematical prowess than a PhD in biology. The language of science is maths. John is correct in his assertions, biologists are not.

@slackster999

Жыл бұрын

Not him asserting that but other Biologists…..brave ones anyway

@Andrew-pp2ql

Жыл бұрын

@@slackster999 consider this….. more professional biologists accept evolution than professional historians accept the validity of the holocaust? Simple answer biologists do not consider evolution is a theory in crises (the slogan a theory in crises alone has been used since the early 1970’s….the very title of the video using a 50 year slogan was the first red flag). Point is those who reject evolution or call it the theory in crises do so from religious beliefs…you don’t find a split within the scientific community between evolution and some other mechanisms to explain the diversity of life. Only by a segment within the Christian community as plenty of people of faith have no issue reconciling evolution and their faith. Granted because polling among biologists reveals such a high level agreement of near 99 percent accept the validity of evolution (a higher percent than historians who accept the validity of the holocaust as mentioned) does not mean they are correct but it is incorrect to state that a large percent of biologists today question its validity to explain the diversity of life. If one cannot reconcile scientific truth with their faith I get it…..you have to make a choice some are able too while some cannot (generally out of fear if they accept validity of the science then their faith has been falsified). However, perhaps it is wiser than too misleadingly state the science is fraught with difficulties and has been rejected in secret due to fear (conspiracy theories hardly ever are true) and simply state due to my religious beliefs I can’t agree with it? One should note evolution doesn’t state their is no god and not the place we start (no god) TOE explains the diversity of life but did god start life or design TOE for life to expand is entirely acceptable and not the concern of it. Only among those with religious concerns it is….but scientific truth does not begin with theological concerns of what is deemed acceptable. Enjoy your weekend

@sparkyy0007

Жыл бұрын

@@Andrew-pp2ql Good grief, what a silly post. If you don't believe evolution like me and the 99 % of atheist biologists, well then it just must be for religious reasons cause we're way more smarter. Insults, ad homs, genetic fallicies, and in group fallacies abound. Did you take special classes on bad arguments ? You just called 65% of Nobel Prize winners and all the founders of science idiots, not to mention 97 % of the world population who also believe a creator is responsible for the creation.

@WmTyndale

Жыл бұрын

Because biologists and doctors are LOW IQ and Isaac Newton was a mathematician, physicist and Bible believer.

Fine if you have a better SCIENTIFIC theory then publish your work, show your evidence. Faith is not science. Would you get in an airplane designed by faith?

@Mr196710

Жыл бұрын

A plane is of material unlike your soul. Science is a slave to $. 20% of Double-Blind studies are fake so WHY would you put faith in corporations that aren't altruistic?

@OBGynKenobi

Жыл бұрын

@@Mr196710 you gonna get on a plane made of soul?

@Mr196710

Жыл бұрын

@@OBGynKenobi How could a plane be made of such? Were your APGARS 1/2?

@hotdaniel_xxx

Жыл бұрын

@@Mr196710 The example seemed clear to me. Here's a different example. Would you get on a plane with no fuel indicator and you had to take it on faith that you have enough fuel to reach your destination?

@Mr196710

Жыл бұрын

@@hotdaniel_xxx You both confuse the spiritual side with the material. You realize that the meat suit you wear isn't all of you correct? Those that claim that they are well versed in 'Science' and logic are only at 180 degrees. Finish the race young man/woman/pronoun.

I stopped believing in ' micro ' evolution for the most part, I now believe and understand rather the ' natural selection ' of information that is already there. The ' moths ' did not change to match the trees, rather the moths of already different colors lived or died to match the trees.

@mcmanustony

11 ай бұрын

Do you know how books work?

Thinks: "that guy in the Biology department is making lots of money"

@mcmanustony

4 ай бұрын

Do you think they make more than mathematicians?

Evolution in crisis? Go show how it’s false and claim your Nobel prize then 😂. No? Didn’t think so.

@jon__doe

Жыл бұрын

Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. Look up why it's been pushed since the 50's. Panspermia: Look up why so many biologists are turning to it to fill "gaps". No need to falsify something that has no clear evidence it's even true.

It's not the fact of evolution that's in crisis, rather, given the whackadoodle nonsense that Mr. Lennox spews here and in other forums, it's common sense that's in crisis.

@grahamrogers3345

Жыл бұрын

You ignorant baffoon! You really make sensible dialogue impossible.

@dennyworthington6641

Жыл бұрын

@@grahamrogers3345 Thank you for the contribution to the discussion. Not sure, however, what you mean by the term 'baffoon' -- it's not in my dictionary. Perhaps you could enlighten us. Or if you yourself don't know, maybe your day-care supervisor could help you out. In any event, I hope you're having a good time at your day-care facility today -- and don't fret, mommy or daddy will be there to pick you up shortly.

@jon__doe

Жыл бұрын

so which part was whackadoodle nonsense?

T.C. 22:40 : (Every one knows the riddle ) Quote "what came first, the chicken or the egg"' E.Q, could be also: "WHO WAS first, the chicken or the egg" because it is nor a riddle nor a question! It's a TRAP!

@chemforumlachimie6754

Жыл бұрын

It's a genuine question There's no fundamental difference between "God of the gaps" and "evolution of the gaps" or "scientific explanation of the gaps"

@grahamrogers3345

Жыл бұрын

As God created the world the chicken came first. Glad to solve this thousands of years old riddle!

"The whole observable universe is not big enough to contain the necessary hordes of monkeys." LOL

Let's say that evolutionary theory is shown to not be the entire story and can't explain certain biological events. Just what the actual f*ck has that got to do with a man being nailed to a piece of wood and coming back to life again?

@YochananMat

Жыл бұрын

If death is normal - ie not a result of rebellion, then . . . . . nothing.

@grahamblack1961

Жыл бұрын

@@YochananMat When you die there’s nothing? Probably, I don’t know of a single good reason for believing anything else.

@YochananMat

Жыл бұрын

@@grahamblack1961 What has it got to do with a man nailed . . you asked - I replied "Nothing. If death is normal and not a result of rebellion as The Book says.

@grahamblack1961

Жыл бұрын

@@YochananMat Death is a completely natural process that has nothing to do with moral retribution