Video

The junkyard example wasn't very good. I mean, we already know that similar parts could be reused in different machines. That an evolution are entirely different matters. It seems to me to be very similar to a false equivalence. There's really no need for the example in the first place, though. Simply say that we already *know* that things can be made, i.e., that intelligent minds can produce things that do not naturally occur, because we (humans) do it on a regular basis. Therefore, it's not implausible that a grander mind could've done something similar. Don't overextend yourself by trying to come up with a messy comparison.

why is it SO important to these guys that they HAVE to attribute a ' higher power' or an intelligent (unknown) designer" something that they clearly admit they have no no knowledge of instead of just laying out the high improbability of or even impossibility of (so far) science being able to mimic what obviously exists as life? Dr Tour, in another lecture kept repeating "we don't know" and then ended with a quote from the bible of all books! He is a deeply religious man - OK - no problem but stick to " I don't know and leave your faith at the doorstep of the lab! I have NEVER needed a "god" and I consider the height of hubris to pretend to "know" how such an unfathomable, inexplicable, unknowable, all encompassing entity thinks. feels, operates or exists!

Why do we think the universe is fine tuned to make our nature and us possible? It could well be that nature is fine tuned to fit this universe and if our planet was hotter or colder or in other ways different, nature would be different accordingly.

Macroevolution isn't real!? Holy cow, this Shapiro guy isn't as smart as I thought...

There must be someone who was there before anything else.

Why don’t people understand that ID is just the Argument from Incredulity, and just as easily dismissed as such?

Excellent discussion? Thank you.

Thank you for providing the evidence that we are not random monkey mistakes. There is intention and design in our existence.

Sir❤ love your work, on " irreducible complexity " just a thought? Is missing parts just like non working parts, further more artificial parts? Can the outside fool the inside?

Love the power strip plugged into itself. Sadly there are those who don't get the comparison.🤓Genius.

"Science and Faith", what a manipulating oxymoron.

Fascinating stuff as always. I can imagine God setting up his version of a 3-D modeling system and having a blast inventing things. "Today I design the skunk. Won't they be surprised. Hahaha!"

Blessings

Love it👍

The problem for Dawkins in Dawkins vs. Dembski is that Dembski is simply far more intelligent.

African American people are sons of Ham. Ham is a son of Noah. They are fully human beings with NO ties to any animal other than man kind. End of story. I am white so I am a son of Japheth which is also of Noah. The Asians are sons of Shem, also Noah. All of us... Man kind only. No animals in any of us. We are all made in God's image.

James Tour was ranked one of the Top 10 chemists in the world over the past decade, by a Thomson Reuters citations per publication index survey, 2009; won the Distinguished Alumni Award, Purdue University, 2009; and the Houston Technology Center's Nanotechnology Award in 2009.

Out of all the little arguments I often bring up with evolutionists, the argument from non-adaptive design (sometimes called irreducible complexity) is always the one they either can't answer or seem to deliberately misunderstand in various ways, usually saying that it had different purposes before the new system, neglecting the fact that it needs a selective advantage in order to evolve, which brings us back to pure chance

Everything that is seen is made of things that are unseen. Hebrews 11:3

Personally science snd religion should be kept apart.

😂 the same DNA molecules exist in the elements found on earth. That’s the origins of human life and what ever beings exist on earth. History shows evidence of evolution, development from primitive intelligence. Such as pyramids, a primitive structure, possible one of the most indestructible structures first experimented by egotistical determination. All of the tablets are an art form, all primitive art. Primitive ppl experimenting with tool making and stonemasonry

Report the video as misinformation. It's theocracy masquerading as science.

A theory is used to describe an unproven idea usually with the implication that it does not in fact happen. Gravity is a theory used to support the idea of a spinning ball earth which is not true.

The old junk DNA argument: "We can show function for the vast majority of the human genome" The new junk DNA argument: "We can't show function for over half of the human genome, but we think we will in the future"

The danger is the beast system of totalitarian control using it to identify and target. Doesn’t need to be creative or understanding.

The biggest danger I presently see with AI and robotics is it will take peoples jobs. You start to have a society where few people have jobs and then you have a huge problem. You will have a societal breakdown. A societal collapse.

The dream of AI being sentient is the elusive butterfly, it never will happen. Crudely speaking, it regurgitates what it has been fed. A very fast and powerful predictive modeling system. It has the advantage of having access to large amounts of data. Mimicking is useful with a lot of things to a certain point. There are things require genuine understanding or creativity.

Fascinating. I'm currently reading this mans book, The Return Of The God Hypotheses and can't put it down.

Thank you for using your intelligence and not artificial intelligence.

Amazing

Great stuff once again!

As a person who has spent the last 15 years of my life trying to understand how the human brain works( not academically)- using my own brain, I can vouch for the fact that humanity is really on the brink of unimaginable progress. This is just how the human brain works. Query and output. It follows the mantra: garbage in garbage out. You can never understand anything unless you have enough information about it. The brain, like a jigsaw puzzle, mysteriously determines where each piece fixes and comes out with THE WHOLE PICTURE. I was pleasantly surprised that scientists have come out with something called AI. Frankly, a Nobel prize does not even suffice this achievement. AI does not need to be sentient or have the characteristics in your submission to “take over”. Those things enriches our lives but it is not necessarily a benchmark for “super “ intelligence. Even animals have, to an extent, those qualities. Although the technology is in its infancy, if it eventually achieves singularity( remember programmers don’t fully understand AI), unbeknownst to human handlers, it will be very difficult to control. As long as it is not “conscious” and cannot make decisions from past experience and contemplating the future, we are relatively safe.

I think the approach is wrong. Convince scientists that the mechanisms for evolution are insufficient through peer reviewed research. Then there is more room to search for another explanation through science. The problem with ID is it's too philosophical. You can't find flaws in evolution, say something looks designed and pass that as science. You need novel testable predictions. You need explanations for what evolution explains. Why can we build nested hierarchies based on genetics among several things? Why is there a progression of simple to complex life in the fossil record? If ID is consistent with any circumstances then it's not really a theory. It can't be the negation of proving large scale evolution happened due to natural selection.

Ai doesn't need to be creative, if it can mimic it sufficiently well.

AI is a parasitical overlay to the vast corpus of human accomplishments. It cannot transcend humanity. Danger may not lie so much in AI itself, but humanity's reliance on and faith in it.

this genuinely reminds me of what's going on in Palestine

Guess what? It’s still only a theory! (that may be being disproven)

I agree with the conclusion about AI. 5:30 But here I disagree. We can prove beyond any doubt, that the process of evolution works. We only have to make some assumptions, make some simplification and finetune the control circuit very well. Mathematical proves can be correct in themselves, but they always have axioms. And if we make mistakes when it comes to the axioms then the mathematically correct proof will be pointless.

My fav podcast.

You can't tell me ID won't be worse than algorithms? ID will be bent so badly towards the left it will make the elites more powerful than ever.

With regard to intelligence, I'm sure scientists know they are intelligence, else how is it that they're able to figure out the laws of physics? But oddly, the evolutionary scientists, using their minds to understand it, somehow overlook how far back in our evolution "mind" plays a part. It may well be, that mind is one of the major causes of evolution, as "life" is defined in Merriam-Webster as "the ability to adapt." "Evolution" is just a fancy word for "adaptation." Going out on a limb, it seems "mind" is integral to the existence of "life." Which is why life could never have happened by accident, as mind is not a property of matter. Even if a cell could defy the laws of probability and be formed by accident, it would just create a dead cell. Something had to animate it - mind.

He was there ,he knows

Read Job 9:8, Job 26:7, Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 42:5 and Psalm 104:2 where the Bible discusses the ever expanding universe. How did they know several thousands of years ago what scientists have just figured out in the last 100 years?

This perhaps would have been a totally rounded lecture were it not for the fact that Dr Tour is a devout christian. I find it hard to credit that his statement at the start of the video that he will not bring god into the picture and yet ended with a quote from a work of fiction.

It would make more sense if they clarified what they mean by origin of life. The way he is talking it appears he means origin of physical life which is not the origin of life of forces etc. He is talking as if physical elements created forces.

The oscillating universe made a comeback. Well that was to be expected. Unlike the Spanish Inquisition.

regulatory DNA and 100million years could explain the Cambrian explosion

Mind blowing..simple and well explained

Why do you bother? Evolutionists do not care about truth. The evidence is Newtons laws of thermodynamics.

So good. SO GOOD. Nicely, nicely done.