If God, What's Evolution? | Episode 1810 | Closer To Truth
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 03. 2020
- Assuming the existence of God, what is evolution? If God does not exist, evolution is a full explanation of human origins, without deep meaning or purpose. But if God does exist, what is evolution and how did it happen? Here are possibilities. Featuring interviews with Michael Ruse, Nancey Murphy, Celia Deane-Drummond, Francisco J. Ayala, and Michael Murray.
Season 18, Episode 10 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
#Theology #Evolution
Love this series although, technically, we never end up actually getting any closer to truth
Is that true?
Sounds like religion in general.
Its notable how theists placed their creator in the realm of the metaphysical, an intangible, undetectable place safe from any kind of scrutiny. I would contend that this was a deliberate act engineered to enable this highly profitable fraud to continue in perpetuity.
@@bradwhelan4466 You can't see, its not your fault. Some day.
@@1974jrod you a smart guy bro
to me, it doesn't matter if we are eternal or not, to me, all that matters is the capability of thinking about it, that's the true gift of life or god if it exists
Yes, its quite fascinating that people are free to do anything but we chose to put each other down while we cage ourselves with our own ideas. We take thinking for granted, given enough time we can figure out almost anything.
That’s lame
@@Manny_El_M1.1 Yes, I find it fascinating that if an idea suggests itself in our own mind, we're willing to entertain it. Yet, if the very same idea were proposed instead by someone else, we tend, it seems, to oppose it, or at least to resist it.
@@billwassner1433 I have noticed that in many people lol. I have been guilty of it but I have gone out of my way to notice it and think about it until its no more. I would say that's the ego, everyone wants to be right and feel they are right. There could also be a trust issue, some people only trust themselves when it comes down to solving an issue. One of my worst and best qualities is thinking about risk/reward ratio, so many times I explain my whole thought process on how I ended up at my conclusion even if its the same as the other person. Many find my tone and explanations to be condescending but my intention is to not leave any stones unturned. I have learned to just trust in other people's abilities as a sign of respect for them even if I am dying to tell them about the rabbit hole I went down during my 15 min break.
@@Manny_El_M1.1 Yeah. Good comments. Definitely ego. But trust too does seem to enter into it. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Have a great Thanksgiving.
Philosophy CZcams video essays are much indebted to this man and series, be it directly or indirectly. He's been doing it for decades
Personally, I like the mystery of it all. And I'm not ashamed to state that if an unimaginable force created the universe and regardless of it guiding or watching what we call evolution or not; I honestly don't care. Don't get me wrong, I'm interested and ask myself what, how, when, etc and I'm perfectly fine knowing I don't know and even more so knowing a little mystery in life makes it all worth experiencing. That's just me
If only you had some idea of what you mean by "the universe" but are about to illustrate that you have not the faintest idea
You sound like you are very confused
This should be on all network stations it’s so good. 👍👏
But then there would be a increase of people with existential dread. I think about existence a lot more since I started watching his videos.
@@Manny_El_M1.1 you are it, you have arrived! 😊
In Emmanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, he develop's the notion of apriori constructs consistent with creatures of four dimensions with the fourth dimension being time. These apriori constructs allow us to conceive of an infinite Universe and God setting evolution in motion within it yet God exists both inside and outside the Universe/s. In this Universe, good can not exist without evil and evil can not exist without good, therefore evolution has both good and evil outcomes.
Love this!!! Really gets me thinking !..
The first person he interviews reminds me of the phrase "if a peacock could speak he would boast of his soul, and would affirm that it inhabitated his magnificent tail" (Voltaire)
Kuhn consistently implies throughout this series that the explanatory model that is preferred by the majority of current scientists is most likely the correct one. However, science is not a democracy or a popularity contest. The best model should be selected based solely on the fit of the evidence to all possible models, not on the basis of current trends or politics. Scientists are very prone to confirmation bias and “peer pressure”.
@Edward The Booble - There was no clear division between science, mysticism and religion in the 16th century, but you are the one who introduced geocentrism into the debate - so maybe choose a better example.
I see that you are unable to read as well as unable to spell. I didn't say Newton was wrong.
You began by saying, "no scientist ever became a leader in their field by agreeing with their predecessors". Now you are saying there is no consensus to disagree with, and leaders in the field are merely adding details. Sounds like a climb down to me!
@@nicolassbrown9881 Yes! If a scientist came along and showed where Darwin is wrong, he's be among the immortals in science history. For example,ight now, there are young physicist (and some not so young!) drooling to punch a hole in Einstein's theory of gravity. That's what science is all about.
But, after over a century of trying to disprove Evolution, we have only solidified it as settled science. No-one disputes helio-centrism and it would be foolish to do the same for Darwin's theory, at this point
@@christophercousins184 - I agree with Blindlemon's opening comment that pressure in the scientific community is to conform, and disagree with Edward The Booble's view that the greater social pressure is to break the consensus. If you want to build a career, it is always more difficult to go against the flow. Those who challenge the neo-Darwinian paradigm, within science and on scientific grounds, are always subject to some degree of ridicule and ostracism. Your own bringing up of the helio-centric analogy is one commonly used form of ridicule, along with 'flat earth'.
Why is it okay to "punch a hole" in Einstein's theory of gravity, but not in Darwin's theory of natural selection? Both have been around for over a century.
@@nicolassbrown9881 Evidence, evidence, evidence... All the evidence from myriad fields overwhelmingly support Darwin's theory. If you had evidence that contradicted some fundamental aspect of Evolutionary theory (say you actually found an ordered system for gene mutation, not that it was random, which you won't), you would become a science star!!! You'd be on every talk show, write a book (or several) and would have tenure secured at some hallowed institution, without a doubt. But, if you come out with some novel theory without evidence that purports to knock down something that's been verified over and over through experimentation and observation (again in a myriad of disciplines), then , yes, you will not be taken seriously (and, probably, have to endure some ridicule). You wouldn't be ostracized at all if you challenged a paradigm using sound methods (methods agreed upon by the community & peer review) that held up under a lot of scrutiny. It is OK to punch a hole in any theory, BTW, that is what we ( Mr. the Booble, I mean) are saying. It's just that every time the results of experiments are consistent with what you's find in an evolutionary model.
Quantum Gravity seems to be the future and scientists are trying to figure out what Einstein missed (apparently, there's some math issues that are beyond my intellect), not overturn his Theory of General Relativity.
But, yes, science is basically designed to try and find out what's wrong with any prevailing theory, no matter our confidence in that theory.
@@christophercousins184 - Your argument is essentially a false dilemma fallacy: either the consensus theory is right, or you have to produce a better one. The third option is a double negative: the consensus theory is wrong, and no other viable theory is currently available. This doesn't mean descent with modification didn't happen, simply that we don't know how it happened.
What is presented as 'evidence' is really interpretation of evidence based on preconception. For example, the fossil record is interpreted as evidence for Darwinian gradualism, when it doesn't actually conform to that pattern. Sub-theories are then invented to attempt to explain why the evidence doesn't support the main theory, such as, gradual change occurred in small isolated populations that escaped preservation.
There have been constant challenges to the random mutation/selection model, and these continue today. A good source for recent research is The Third Way: Evolution in the Era of Genomics and Epigenetic. The website rationale states that Neo-Darwinism "invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation". Of course, no one has come up with a viable alternative, but that takes us back to the false dilemma.
Life is a series of movies as we go along....some turn out to be true, some good, some bad...human beings love story telling 😊😅
Thank you Robert
I listen to Nancy Murphy and just can’t believe someone can have that in their head and is still considered sane.
God don't have to align with science, God lives in the spiritual dimension.
Exactly, and i have met him many times. He is around us all the time, but sometimes we become HIM
@@ayoubzahiri1918 lol what does he look like? I bet he is not a woman or a black man
And zip zero evidence of any such dimension
@@ramaraksha01 There is no evidence whatsoever that everything came from nothing either.
@@Jesusismykin That is true and Scientists are happy to tell you that - we still don't know what caused the big bang or even if one such occurred - but we don't make up magic men that give us comfort
All this talk of God and at the end of the day to aspire to have the shameless life of a prostitute/gigolo/leech/freeloader/parasite - shamelessly sponging off God for eternity
Am I the only one that gets the chills during the intro?
What a great episode! I think what Nancy Murphy had to say was subtly profound. It made me think of Leibniz vs Voltaire and the whole "best of all possible worlds" idea. Are there really other possible worlds, or are there only hypothetical ones? I find people commonly using "quantum randomness" to validate the idea of other possible worlds, parallel realities, etc., but for one, we have other equally valid hypotheses like bohmian mechanics to explain strange quantum behavior, and also, the level of reality we operate at (classical physics) doesn't seem to be effected by the weird behavior that happens at the quantum level, so I see this world as more of an "only possible world", which is kind of weird, but I haven't found any other way of seeing it that seems more plausible. It really doesn't have any extremely disruptive implications when one really breaks it down from what I can tell as a compatibilist, but that's debatable I suppose.
Anyway, kudos!
Your words frighten the weak, the lazy, the coward & the shameless - they want a Sugar Daddy land - a magic being who will keep them eternal children - keep them in comfort while keeping the big bad real world away
Shameless because such is the life of a leech/freeloader/parasite/prostitute/gigolo - the easy good life is theirs shamelessly sponging off their rich Sugar Daddies
Amazingly such is the life the vast majority of humanity aspire to!
In the 21st century! With all our education and intelligence!
@@ramaraksha01 they have a sugar daddy, but only one person appears to be capable of stomaching the sugar since its fermented, or something...
Me too. I’m in ‘the only possible world’ camp. One metric further away or closer to our Star( the Sun) and we simply would not be Earth and it’s evolutionary story. It feels purposeful to me but I could be delusional. Could we be directional and random like fractal structures ⁉️ In creativity, some things go wrong, rightly🤷🏽♀️
@@jeanettesdaughter indeed. I still feel the same way. I've read some more about David Bohm's ideas since my last comment, and it's only strengthened my position. The other day at work we were getting into this kind of talk and someone said "I think we're all just clones off eachother or something."
I think that's a good way of putting it. More people should think like this. But if I were them, then they'd be me. Lol. So it's kind of a weird paradox~
You would have to set out what you mean by " world" but are about to demonstrate that you cannot.
A Great series exploring scientific issues; but it strays when it gets into religion and theology.
Not necessarily. Because theology. Is. Real. Thought is real. Your opinion is thought. Is that not real. If not then we shouldn't even try to inguage in language. Because it requires thought. .,
with or without god, evolution is still true.
Ok, so evolution is true, does that mean abiogenesis is true also?
@@dashiva7069
_"does that mean abiogenesis is true also?"_ Somehow the first cell had to come together. The scientific field of abiogenesis has some pretty interesting hypothesis for that.
@@dashiva7069 Abiogenesis meaning how life began is a real thing. From that standpoint it is true, abiogenesis was real. Life did start. How non-life became life , the details of that process, is a mystery. Some say "God Did It" that's an assertion without details. I suspect that it was a chemical process that happened when the right chemicals got together under the right conditions, that's just a guess. It's a mystery.
God created evolution
@@mysticwine maybe but its kinda wonkey.
Adversity is a driver for innovation
Darwin’s theory was not a recipe
for change, but for constancy. Lucky flukes might arise from time to time, but they would
soon vanish under the general impulse to bring everything back to a stable mediocrity. If
natural selection were to work, some alternative, unconsidered mechanism was required.
How much more mental gymnastics do theologians have to create to fit their model in with evolutionary theory?
I am an engineer and create system. I have created systems that has been ticking on quite nicely for over 10 years without any one touching it. I have systems that I have to keep on tweaking. Now, my worst systems are the ones I have to tweak. Now if I was god, tweaking wouldn’t happen.
It all sounds so serious and earnest until one takes just a half a step back from it and then it all disolves into silly sophistry.
Damn right!
Absolutely! All this talk about theism is irrelevant. The philosophers and liberal theologians delight in these sort of arguments but we're really talking about a god as understood by serious religious people, a deity who has rules and regulations and who dishes out rewards and punishments. This sort of god writes books (otherwise you wouldn't know the rules) and when you read the books you realise that the guy that wrote them knew nothing about evolution and described something else completely to inform origins. Therefore they are discredited, forget about it, random changes in the DNA molecule and shuffling alters the phenotype and the environment weeds out the individuals that don't fit.
then why did you watch it?
@@johnbacsa1616 Because it must be eradicated !
@@keitho9508 What you said just displayed your ignorance on (at least) Christianity. You didnt really even make any point either..
The problem in this video is the presupposition that God exists. Evolution doesn't need God, and in fact argues against a benevolent God.
Evolution is things changing. The Origin of the Species describes that. Can you show me the beginning of evolution?
Abiogenesis is unrelated to evolution
God created Evolution or Evolution created God ?
Show me how dna or any type of matter 'adds', information. It changes...yes...but it is always...always...a 'loss', in information. To believe in evolutuon...comes with nothing but presuppositions.
Ruse is a great read
"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" said the one true god on the sixth day.
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female"
"And God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply" and they knew exactly what he meant
(even though the English language didn't exist for another 13.7 billion years).
Love the disclaimer, "if such a being exists" 🤣
Yea ,, if. Means that it might,exist. It infers. I could be. ,,,,
Is simple , God started it , evolution keeps it going.
Which god?
And zero evidence of any such being
The human definition of good and evil places no obligation on God.
As we ponder, I wonder if we have the capacity to determine what is "good". Given the fact that we know have the knowledge of the existence of "good and evil" but do not have the capacity to understand what those things means and yet we continue as if we understand. Seems we've put a few carts before that horse.
I'm a theist. First the origins of life then the universe and finally consciousness forced me to consider the likelihood of a religion being true that finally led to theism.
Evolution is strongly in favour of theism as well because of epigenetics. The majority of evolutionary biologists now believe that morphological evolution is primarily driven by epigenetics. The algorithmic like power within epigenetics is found in every organism in the world which means this information was fully in place with the very first organism which supports a deity over blind chance. Geology shows that life started pretty much as soon as the earth was capable of supporting life. So the abiogenesis concept of slow chemical evolution (proven impossible by chemistry) forming millions of years later the formation of a proto cell (proven impossible by chemistry) which over millions of years formed DNA and then millions of years later epigenetic information that happened to develop exactly the same independently in each and every bacteria that already existed due to DNA (again impossible).
As to evolution, God is rational, anything with omnipotence would be. As such he used rational approaches to the creation of the universe and life (terraforming). Billions of years to a deity outside of linear time constraints is the same as seconds as the past, the present and the future are one.
God would then have the ability to nudge if he so wishes. Either through the image of God, miracles, etc. I do not see such a figure creating something with a exact determined end already in place (what is the point? A bit like playing a game of chess with yourself having determined the moves and outcome up front - fairly meaningless) but a destination that evolves as the complexity and wonder unfolds giving man free will to participate in this destination.
@Rene Descartes first of all abiogenesis has not been proved in anyway. It is why there are multiple hypothesis being banded around falling into 3 main camps - abiogenesis, panspermia and simulation within the sciences. In desperation they all agree that perhaps intelligent aliens seeded life on earth. If you look at chemistry they have developed multiple strict protocols in highly controlled laboratory conditions to produce a fairly complex molecule thar is extremely simple compared to biological compounds. Then they have other simpler molecules that do simple chemical catalytic reactions which they claim have enzyme like properties. Far from any explanation.
As for epigenetics, there are many aspects to it of which some do lead to cancer when a person is under stress from work. However it also affects babies in the womb and organisms throughout their life changing the organism. You are mistaking what evolution is. There are the small changes which modern synthesis explains perfectly, but people understood that 200 years ago through selective breeding and empirical studies have since completely supported. Then there is morphological speciation which modern synthesis fails to explain and all evidence refutes it. Over 90% of all major morphological speciation change occurred immediately after mass extinction events. The fossil record alone has shown this. Darwin said this was a major flaw in his thesis but believed time would find other fossils to support his theory. This has been the materialist mantra for everything - the origin of the universe, life, consciousness and of course evolution. Geology and paleontology have proven there was no time and that there were no ancestors hidden to explain these mass speciation events. Empirical studies have also proven mutation rates and mutation alone can not explain it while other empirical evidence shows that epigenetics do in fact change the body plan within a few generations if the organism is put in extreme conditions by creating new types of proteins from existing DNA. The DNA then differs over time, this has been found to be true within species where an environmental change will result in females choosing different males from other females who were not affected. This creates selective breeding naturally and the genes start to differ slightly over time.
We are moving away from the materialist worldview in all aspects of science as the last 40 years began to indicate, the last 20 years began to show why and the last 10 years have steadily. Some scientists are even beginning to become more open to natural philosophy which founded modern science before the materialists took over. We are entering a post materialist era and science is becoming exciting once more with new ideas and questions being asked again.
@Rene Descartes actually I get my information from the latest science not the narrative sold as science to mugs. There is a difference between science and scientism. Unfortunately, too many scientists put their worldview ahead of the facts and state their metaphysical beliefs. You can tell this because they all vehemently disagree with each other - abiogenesis vs panspermia vs simulation for example. They happily rip apart each others position by using science because it does not provide any evidence to support any of their positions. Numerous scientists literally shake their heads in bafflement at how scientists put narrative ahead of science. However much of that is the way science is done today with 50% of peer reviewed articles that are published being impossible to replicate by other scientists because they false. Getting one's name recognised in order to obtain grants comes first for many, while science comes second.
@Rene Descartes all you have presented is your own supposition and no facts, just generic misinformation such as abiogenesis having been proved. So at the moment I think you will find that your comment is far more applicable to yourself.
“ let the dead bury the dead”
Evolution is the procedural method which God used on the first life he created, to create all living things.
I understand questions by the "unlearned" are ignored fm the beginning....but then, why if a question coming fm a "learned" regardless how ridiculous is addressed right away.....A way for the "learned to "protect" each other?
God deals with the cosmos / universe through meaning, with quantum reality through relationship, with natural life through evolution.
What is the meaning? Set people apart by religion - billions of Hindus, Buddhists & Atheists are to be the Jews in the afterlife, to be set apart & dumped into gas chambers in hell while those who managed to convert to the "right" religion cheer?
@@ramaraksha01 only God meaning for each person, no human or political leadership
@@jamesruscheinski8602 All religions are but ideas that came from one person & many followed - there is zero to no evidence of any God
The Christian/Islamic God is the local King/Dictator - get down on our knees, swear loyalty(belief) & obedience & hope for a reward(Heaven)
Hindus/Buddhists view God as a Parent, a Teacher - the goal is not to go back to childhood & be kept in comfort for eternity but to walk in God's footsteps, make our parent/teacher proud of us, our accomplishments
@@ramaraksha01 have to get rid of political central government and human leadership
@@jamesruscheinski8602 That's so funny - get rid of human leadership? You think there is a magic man out there? Just frustrated with this idea that there is a magic man who is the solution to all our problems - there is no magic man in the sky
When did American get so weak?
Damsels in distress hoping the magic knight in shining armor will come riding to their rescue?
I absolutely love this channel! Please don't leave youtube! It's so good, I'd even pay for it! It's unbelievable that it is free!! Thank you!
Spot on, and always impressed that he knows to ask just the 'Right Questions' too. Some folks complain about the lack of 'resolution' to any of these questions... but after all, it's still basically a tv series, which by its nature requires a reason to _continue._
So called "fine tuning of cosmological constants" is a just that - so called. Has anyone done analysis of what will happen if every constant was varied independently or simultaneously or in several permutations and combinations what universes will result and which will result in life - may not be something that looks like humans? Do any scientists know the answer to this question? Sean Carroll? Neil De-grass Tyson? Tim Maudlin? Lawrence Krausss?
I do, I know the answer to your question.
No, scientists haven't varied every cosmological constant and created every conceivable universe.
That was easy.
Satisfied?
How can God be a loving God in the light of the evil in the world?
Questions from our intellect are driven by our emotions.
Convincing answers are designed to overcome our doubts and suffering.
Man has freewill and he can choose to do anything he wants including evil like the Hitler's and the Stalin's of the world. Unless you want to live in a world like in the movie "The Truman Show" where Truman and his world are scripted and controlled. A world without disease, no accidents (car crashes, airplane crashes, etc.), no earthquakes, no storms, no natural disasters is un-natural and a fake world. Imagine a world where everyone lives to be a 100 years old never gets sick, never gets into an accident, etc. there will be no place for hospitals, fire brigades, rescue team or 911 calls. - Everyone would need to have their brains poked so that they do not commit murder, robbery, or any other insane evil acts. Would anyone like to live in that world?
@@jamesrey3221 I think a lot of people who do NOT want THEMSELVES to rob, kill or rape people would have zero qualms against a world where OTHER people are made UNABLE to rob, kill, or rape EITHER.
@@jamesrey3221 yes i would. Let me ask u something would u give a birth if u knew your child would be the Hitler? God did.
Even if random traits occur through either mutations, or some outcome brought about through the mixed inheritance of both parents, you still have the pressure of survival and mating competition. There may not be a specific direction, but the general direction is to survive and reproduce.
That's the difference between animals and us - have we not moved forward
Animals don't care about art, science -giving one's life for others or for a cause
We alone do that
And when Christians & Muslims talk of Heaven - I see an animal life - only caring about simple pleasures of the flesh, enough to eat, a place to stay, nothing to do
Crazy that these people don't realize their Heaven is right here & that all they end up doing is exchanging human life for the life of an animal
@@ramaraksha01 "Animals don't care about... giving one's life for others"
Dogs can do that, to protect someone they care for.
Using bad arguments won't get you far.
@@IronFreee lol you conveniently left out Science, having dreams, aspirations
I feed sparrows here in the winter, early in the morning, they are waiting for me, once they feed, back they go back to sleep
An animal life is limited to the 5 S's - Sleep, safety, shelter, sustenance and sex - that's about it
Unlike Humans who have dreams, aspirations
Christians and Muslims only care about pleasures of the flesh in heaven - the worst kind - the life of a shameless leech, gigolo, prostitute - shamelessly thinking they can just sit and sponge off God for eternity
Such people will be reborn as Dogs, cats, Pigs - they will get their Heaven but at a price
@@ramaraksha01 You are the only one preaching here, and I see no distinction between you and any religious zealot's behavior and discrimination.
Your way of generalizing and caricaturing theists would be laughable if it wasn't a way to spread intolerance and divisiveness while pretending to do the opposite.
That's really hypocritical.
No Adam no Eve No SIN [ Hallelujah ] Evolution rules thank god
Adam and Eve were monkeys, therefore monkeys can commit cardinal sin ? Imagine telling a monkey you mustn't eat that fruit.
@@leswilk1601 Adam and Eve were monkeys? No they weren't you moron, Adam was a man and Eve was a woman. Also monkeys don't sin because monkeys are not capable of evil because they don't know better. What is wrong with you?
When we talk about the problem of evil: floods, tsunamis, plague, famine, etc. we view these things through a living human lens, but when people die and are resuscitated they often say they felt no pain at all, and in fact those moments after bodily death were unbelievably euphoric. They also talk about how in the afterlife there is no time (light doesn’t experience time and those near death experiencers say that both they and God appear as light during the time they had left their bodies). It’s as if life is (compared to an eternal euphoria) a short roller coaster ride that sometimes scares us and sometimes amazes us, but always helps us learn something about ourselves and our existence. So is there really evil in this world, or is this a human perception, perhaps created to help us learn to love one another and cherish the lives we have been given?
I like the idea of a god throwing dice (set of a sort of stardust timebomb causing a big bang) while knowing how that eventually will turn out: evolution being a part of that is about refinement and sublimation.
it work very well without a god.
@@anthonycraig274 Unfortunately nobody knows if there is a god. So your claim that ''it worked very well without a god'' is just a dumb statement.
@@fortynine3225 its dumb to assume there is something that there is no evidence of and zero clues of one. The ever decreasing god of the gaps. Nobody knows that there isn’t any space ants that helped to weave the space fabric of the universe, tell me how dumb would it be to assume it to be true without any evidence. The phenomenon works well without space ants.
@@anthonycraig274 Looking at the state of science there is just one universe coming from nothing with us being only intelligent life in it at this point in time that is pretty much proof that there is something outside this universe and that only can be a supernatural.
@@fortynine3225 Sorry, that’s not the current theory. 1. Our observable universe contracts to a singularity, it doesn’t contract to nothing. Its only the religious that keep on getting that wrong. 2. What is consistent in nature is that it doesn’t make just one of anything, therefore it’s highly likely there are many universes outside ours, which would be perfectly natural.
What you demonstrated is just another god of the gaps based on incorrect or misunderstanding of science.
It’s as ludicrous to think that highly intelligent beings that created space travel, art etc evolved from a puddle by complete chance and by unknown means yet we’re just to accept that but to me that’s ’as ludicrous as it is to think it was done by a god wagging his finger, both are not satisfactory, humans are too arrogant to accept that we cannot know for certain, ego always gets in the way whether through science or religion.
One has conclusive evidence... the other has evidence that shatters into pieces with the slightest scrutiny. how is this the same?
By chance ?
Where did you get that from.
Evolution has nothing to do with chance.
hey robert ... thanks for your work
we appreciate you staying in the question
too much word salad out there
tippying toeing around the point
When will we persue close study into the vetican
I think that some major questions will remain where they are at this point.. at the point of the frontiers of knowledge.. humans have explanations for existence but the purpose of IT.. why is IT so and not Something else? ....
Evolution is not random. Genetic mutation, which is one of it’s driving forces, is random.
Given that the word evolve means unroll, what do you mean by evolution?
what is the opposite of random?-something that your mister evolution does not doo?
The reason I like Thomas Kuhn is because he is a seeker of truth and recognizes that physicalism cannot answer certain fundamental questions, because it is not set up that way by the limitations it "must" constrain itself to...
He's the typical truth seeker. Convinced that he'll find it and he will hang the "Truth Label" on something sooner or later. I'm convinced he has a particular "God Truth" in mind and the label is ready for tagging.
The historic perspective is already a shortening of thinking (to generate knowledge). We can never know, if evolution is more than our structure and if it runned independently. In natural science the "subject" and "creator", the real "living" X, is already subtracted out of the calculation! There is no conflict between creation and evolution, or between religion and science; this conflict is an (productive) illusion! 🌿
Thanks
"Pretty much all the world, except the American South, had accepted Evolution..."
Everyone accepts evolution. Some extend it into silly magic. Like LUCA
@@Jamie-Russell-CME Try 'preaching' that in the Bible Belt.
I'm offended as a Southern atheist who accepts evolution.
@@chrismathis4162 *Teaching evolution in the South: an educator on the “war for science literacy"*
A Georgia Southern University professor explains the unique cultural factors that create skepticism toward science in the South
www.vox.com/conversations/2016/10/25/13344516/education-evolution-science-south-religion-controversy-creationism-culture
Not true
Amino acids must be everywhere in the cosmos even confirmed in comet trail dust. Perhaps the existence of the very building blocks of life being everywhere suggests a purpose built for life Universe. And if so, then perhaps God was content to ensure only that much and let the rest just unfold naturally.
doesn't make sense, there is not "Amino acids must be everywhere in the cosmos even confirmed in comet trail dust." it is just opinions from the famous and discredited NASA.
I like the idea that natural selection, random mutation, over reproduction, and survival of the fittest are NECESSARY, but maybe are not SUFFICIENT to explain the diversity of life on earth. It makes sense to me that there is some Lamarckian aspects of evolution. There's something in consciousness that helps select how genes activate and select.
I think so also how does natural selection know elephants are being killed for their ivory tusks as elephants are now being born without them
@@Thundralight I see an article in the Smithsonian "Female Elephants Are Evolving Without Tusks in Mozambique"
Actually if there is a mutation that makes a few female elephants without tusk, then it can simply be artificial selection of humans killing tusked elephants, and leading to the tuskless proportion going higher over time.
@@aresmars2003 How does nature know they were being killed for their tusks
@@Thundralight I'm confused by your question. It's a case where Darwinian evolution is enough, selection and random mutation. And its a seemingly poor mutation if it causes male elephants fetuses to die.
@@aresmars2003 I don't know, I think there is more than they want to believe. I think matter is secondary to actually reality. Like a reflection of something deeper than our senses can see. Like the double slit experiment. Like people have no idea there was a universe of bacteria and germs until the invention of the telescope/ I just do not think matter itself is everything there is and maybe just be a reflection of a higher truth
Wrong question: "If religion, what's evolution?" If you're looking for god, you'd ignore religion.
Episode by episode Lawrence is getting closer to atheism - ain't that the truth?
That's funny
I've said before.. atheists are closest to god.
makes more sense than believing a radical religion
I Love this show, although it seems like every comment is about how they love the show although we never get any closer to the truth.
How do you know that?
@@IronFreee I'm making a joke about the other comments here while delivering the same kind of comment I am making fun of.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Epicurus
📠
Meaning of the universe and relationship of quanta are parameters / guardrails for evolution of natural life.
As an agnostic Asian, all the abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) seem so childish. Kuhn will do better by exploring the eastern religions and philosophies especially from India and China, which I feel are much more profound and contain practical wisdom rather than dogmas.
It seems to me that Theologins constantly bend themselves into pretzels trying to rationalize the workings of God.
Thinking the same thing.
Kind of like Evolutionists, Biologists, and Geneticists do? 1) Information can never be added...it is always lost. 2). Every example of design we know to exist...has a designer. Your move, pretzel.
Babe Root
Your statements are Wrong!
1. New information is added by “ Gene duplication”..
...followed by fast accumulation of mutations...
...leading to new “useful” gene!
Also to say that a gene is just information is incorrect!...
...because DNA is a “physical atomic template”...
..physical; different combinations of elements have different “emergent properties”!
...that cannot be simply coded (by computer)!
2. Unlike designed things; living creatures “evolve”!
Your move!
You missed what physics did in the last century. That what's happens when you "overthink" a subject.
“Every example of design has a designer” ? The notion of a designer is implied in the definition of the world ‘design’ itself that you are using to define natural phenomena that are distinct from human made arrangements. Humans cannot design new fundamental laws of nature, for example, only observe snd measure them, so it makes no sense to call them designs, as there is no proof that they can be designed.
“Every example of design has a designer (1sr premise), everything in the universe is a design(2nd premise) therefore everything has a designer (conclusion, same as second premise)” Your conclusion is contained in your second premise and instead of supporting it, repeats it. Circular reasoning. Un-pretzel yourself my friend.
10:30 regarding so-called "original sin". It's unclear whether that Eden story is actually meant to be the original sin. There is a school of thought that the "sons of God" mating with mortal women was the sin, in Greek mythology, the Titans, in the Old Testament, the Nephilim. This was the original sin that apparently was airbrushed up a bit as later Judaism and Christianity emerged.
What is truth ? Why is truth true? Based on what do you define what the truth is?
I think a more important question is not "what does evolution imply for existence of God", but rather "what does evolution imply for kindness/goodness of God". You see, we would have no real moral sense to love or to respect evil, cruel, or even simply negligient God, even if we would be forced to worship such a God out of fear (if nothing else). But such a worship out of fear without either love or respect is in no way "relationship" with God. On the other hand, there IS a theology like that - "you MAY love God (if you can), but you HAVE to fear God." No need for love, only fear and obedience are obligatory.
This is a great point, not so much because it can settle the question of a god's existence (or not) but because it exposes both the duplicity of modern Christian apologetics and the moral chasm created by their claims about the loving nature of their god.
Theologians and apologists want to cloak their arguments in the respectability of science while engaging in the most dishonest abuse of rationality and evidence.
The faithful ignore the evidence that demonstrates the cosmic lack of compassion in the universe. Or they excuse it with special pleading where god's cruelty is transformed into kindness because he's god. The best they can hope for is the Deist god, an intellectual curiosity who lights the fuse and steps back to watch the results
@@con.troller4183 One can still imagine a kind God, even with evolution, but I find it to be pressing to imagine such a God without reincarnation. If there is reincarnation, one could always argue that horrible suffering of animals and humans are a sort of karmic retribution that a kind, but just God just has to administer to Her creations. But in the case of "only one life" there is no pre-history that could claim to justify the abuse we all suffer at the hands of indifferent Nature...
Theology = the "study" of how best to defend and rationalize the existence of a heavenly father who values homo sapiens above all other forms of existence. Believable...I think not.
Things could be created to evolve.
But we have no reason to believe that it was the case.
I think there is a misconception of our moving forward as evolution. It should be examined as adaptation (which God can plan for, not as random as they think).
Seems to me like this, it makes sense for God to create things that heal when injured, improve on their own, replicate, do foolish things, do amazing things and all the marvelous things we, living creatures get to experience here on Earth. Perhaps think of it like this... if you wanted to buy a car for your kid, and you did not want to work on it when it broke down and you found a car that fixed itself and even made new, better cars that your grandchildren would then have and so on, wouldn't you want that car? So, God makes a world and a bunch of living things, but doesn't want to have to fix them or make new ones... it makes sense to create life that repairs itself, replaces itself and updates its features to better suit the world it lives in. Make sense to you? Smiling, George.
This line of thinking is so seductive precisely because it makes sense and offers explanatory power in addressing life's biggest question… BUT… the deistic creator 'god' hypothesis is a colossal waste of time because as Matt Dillahunty is quoted as having said, “Either god exists or it doesn’t exist. If a god does exist, it either interacts with the universe in some detectable way or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, that god is indistinguishable from a non-existent god." Where is the utility in 'believing in' Deism? Without being able to verify your hypothesis, you'll never be justified in believing you have the answer to how the universe and everything in it came to be.
@@Robert44444444 I do not seek justification. I enjoy postulation and the open ended feeling of not needing to know the origin of a fish to enjoy catching it during my life. I also enjoy thinking that "time" is a myth of slaves and their masters. What possible difference does "time " make when enjoying thoughts and life... Thank you for those thoughts of yours. : )
@@trimbaker1893 - my comment wasn't meant to put you down, and there's much more that can be said on the topic, but as for you not seeking justification… fair enough, no one 'needs' that justification unless they care about the truth of their worldview more than what makes them feel good. I go with "I don't know" for many of life's biggest questions until such time as demonstrable answers become available… there's a good chance many of those may never be available… which is good news for those who enjoy filling in the blanks with their own home-brewed philosophy.
Spinoza’s God is what you are referring to.
@@johnahooker well, maybe, but I doubt it, as I have never heard of Spinoza. Perhaps though.
Evolution is simply a passive process of natural selection which results from the survival of the organisms that can thrive better in the environment they find themselves in. If the environmental conditions stay stable, the organisms better at adapting to the environment and surviving to reproduce, get better suited for that environment. So while the environment stays constant or in a narrow band, it may appear as if there is a "purposeful" connotation to that evolution. If the environment changes, the same organisms may not be best suited to survive in the new environment and some other species may become dominant. This is trivially true. This has happened even in earth's lifetime several times, when composition of atmospheric gases changed or when earth went through ice age and warm spells. Sudden disruption of environment can mean sudden extinction of organisms that were masters of that environment. For example, what happened to dinosaurs when the asteroid hit earth 65 million years ago. The point of this is that the apparent "purpose" people read into evolution in a stable environmental condition, is contingent on that "stability" of that environment (duh). In fact at a coarse grain level earth has been lucky to have stayed in a fairly narrow range of possible environmental conditions on a planet for almost 4 billion years with some what similar temperature, atmosphere, land/ocean ratio and liquid water making possible stable organic chemistry and biology that rides it etc. And yes within that band when the conditions varied, there were different species that dominated.
So why did it take 4 billion years for evolution to end up with humans? Well, because that is how long it takes for a passive process like evolution with occasional drastic shocks or catastrophes (e.g. asteroid hitting earth 65 million years ago). In fact, that pretty much terminated the "purpose" of that "dinosaur" branch of evolution. So please do not too much read any "theological" reason for the "purpose" in evolution. If there was a theological agency involved could that not have been achieved very fast? Why take 4 billion years to do it?
I would really like to know how many biological scientists really think if the evolution was replayed again, it will result in present day exact "humans". IMHO there is no guaranty of that. And even if it did, we may end up with some intelligent species but may not be exactly like humans of today.
Please note the biological evolutionary change happens slowly because it allows opportunity for the organism's offspring to change via reproduction (i.e. generational). So for humans it may be 15 years till a human is able to grow up and reproduce.
Lucky for us, about few tens of thousand years ago our brains evolved enough to start having abstract thoughts and language. This allowed the development of human culture. Since then, pretty much, the cultural evolution whose unit is a "meme" as opposed to "gene" which is a unit of biological evolution, where memes can transmit very fast, has enabled very high speed and exponential cultural evolution relative to biological evolution. A meme transmits as fast as one human can tell another human. And with transition from of bands, tribes, villages, town, cities, states, countries, continents and now the connected global culture, the spread of meme transmission is growing exponentially riding the network (many humans) and technological wave. In a nutshell, since the cultural evolution started, the contribution of biological evolution to humanity has pretty much been left into dust by the speed of cultural evolution. And thanks goodness for that. With evolved and progressive culture we no longer are always driven by the primal drives of biological evolution and overcome them when we do.
For example, in the days of biological evolution's primacy, if something like COVID-19 had come along, humanity could have gone extinct. So to some extent we are lucky we have tools of science and technology to deal with the threat and do it in a cooperative fashion because of the progressive cultural evolution.
Good comments and questions. If we follow just facts, we find that plant and animal species have evolved on earth for millions of years, no disputing that. Abogenesis has yet, for over 150 years, been able to produce life from nothing so it's safe to assume that life came from somewhere else in the universe. The earliest remnants of humans are only: ~200,000 years old, and have little-to-no evolutionary signs to our bodies. There is no link between humans and apes, in fact, it's impossible for humans to have evolved from apes or monkeys as we have 23 chromosomes and they have 24 and no known method can fuse chromosomes. Human DNA is very similar to other species and drastically different. Again, we can safely assume that humans were placed here or traveled here from another planet in our universe. Numerous people have seen and talked with God and have been told truths of our origin and purpose of life on this planet so we don't have to speculate or wonder, we know the truth.
@@MrArtist7777 Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without explanation.
@@SandipChitale I completely agree which is why I don't buy into the theory of human evolution as there is zero proof and zero proof to abogenesis.
@@MrArtist7777 I was saying exactly opposite. There is complete proof of human evolution. That is why we do medical tests on animals and apply those gene therapies to humans. I assume you are aware of that fact and are benefiting from the modern medicine that is based on theory of evolution. Not sure how you claim humans did not evolve from common ancestors of us and primates. Number of chromosomes is not like the atomic number which makes an element like carbon carbon. The number of chromosomes is not a property like atomic number of elements that determines which atom is for which element. We have around 118 distinct elements and thus we have that many atomic number. It is the contents of the genes in the chromosomes that makes us human. The number of chromosomes change in bacteria all the time. Please do not ascribe too much significance to number of chromosomes. If the number of chromosomes made a unique species then we would have to have some organisms with large number of chromosomes as there are millions of distinct species on earth. Please see the number of chromosomes for species. Many species have same number of chromosomes.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisms_by_chromosome_count
Evolution does not claim that humans evolved from modern apes. It says that both humans and modern apes (primates) evolved from common ancestor. And in fact the whole tree of life shares quite a bit of genome through the levels of species. And most importantly the mechanism of DNA - double helix that normally keeps intact the genetic code of a species, yet allows during reproduction for mutations to occur and thus cause changes tiny changes in the organisms lineage from generation to generation. See: czcams.com/video/wh0F4FBLJRE/video.html
@@MrArtist7777 About abiogenesis - don't count on it to be not solved yet. We are getting closer: www.ted.com/talks/craig_venter_watch_me_unveil_synthetic_life?language=en Obviously this is start. We still have some ways to go. But the research is accelerating because of collaboration between biology, genetics and bio informatics.
The whole thing is God, only a poetic understanding is possible, and everyone has a poem.
Why is there evil? It's a logical consequence of having free will. "Evil" is really just another word for error... and we make mistakes all the time... most of it unintentional. It's those who consciously set about to do the "wrong" thing that we have to worry about. [E.g. refusing to accept election results.] Pain and suffering are in the same camp... they are consequences of making mistakes, ours, our parents, and/or our leaders.
The Adam and Eve story have become one of the icons of this issue... Did Eve really bite some fruit from a tree with knowledge of good and evil? Did we ever hear of that tree again? Or was it a euphemism? Is the "snake" in the story just a subtle phallic reference?
You should get an islamic perspective on some these topics like, the problem of evil.
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
-
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
-
Future Maximillian Dood interviewing Michael Murray in different careers in a different universe....
If God, why gravity? If God, why chemistry? If God, why geology? If God, why?
"Only God knows why."
- Kid Rock
If god why bother thinking.
Evolution is the conscious pursuit of perfection as life has been given witness to its own image. It's a love story.
👏🏽
Rebellious angels🙄😆 Fine tuning? These people are absolutely ridiculous in their arguments...
Ok, God, is a plan to follow but Evolution is knowledge, growth, free-living, and more.
To answer this puzzle, we must establish who or what we choose to call God. Then we should establish if that God, or any set of Gods and or Goddesses had something to do with the development of of all Species, Planets and Universe. We go on what is known. As for Humans, our species has indeed evolved(developed and advanced) from our primitive ancestors. from the times of origin our species have learned new technologies, adapted, changed and advanced with each new discovery. We have evolved, and we are continuing to evolve. Those are the facts. What got everything started? Who or what set everything into motion? There is no set answer as of yet. But we must continue the never-ending search for the answer.
We all agree on the scientific data. We disagree on the philosophical interpretation of the data. The Judeo-Christian God by definition cannot be part of that data. Biology is driven by research questions, which shapes the agenda. If the questions presupposes atheism, then the scientific answers will reflect no need for God. In other words, educated theists do not expect to find God in the science. There is an impasse. That is why this video is unique and valuable, since it is one of the few that tries to bridge the two sides. Theists accept science; but atheists do not accept the spiritual and abstract (including consciousness and mathematical platonism). Theists live in a much bigger and richer universe where artists, musicians, and story-tellers inhabit. Atheists live in a universe reduced to a petri-dish or a wave-function or the size of their wallet.
Nonsense. My atheist universe has plenty of room for artists, musicians and story-tellers.
Theologists live in a world of blah, blah, endless blah, contriving a lot and concluding nothing. 5000 years of failure, this religion stuff. It's high time we just get over it.
@@vgrof2315 What an absolutely ignorant statement. Religion has been monumental in history for the art, music, plays, and scientific inquiries which it has created. Your comment shows your undying brevity to answer a deep philosophical question which many have been attempting to answer throughout the ages.
@@vgrof2315 It`s funny that Atheists are always so narrow-minded.
To me the real question is what is randomness
just wikipedia
@@elfootman well on a philosophical level mate. But yeah I should have done that. I'm talking a break from thinking btw not sure why I am telling you
@@shayaandanish5831 Oh, this quasi global lock down...
Yes, that’s a great question, and it has bugged me since college. We’re told gene mutations are “random,” but there’s a lot of presumption in that.
@@PlainsPup me gonna go to college after summer. Well actually alevel you might be American. Any tips bro.
And I'd say the answer lies in the question of objective truth and reality. Once you recognise that exists, then randomness cannot be the purpose behind everything
Please explain why God and evolution would be mutually exclusive...
Evolution is mutually exclusive with a Christian worldview. a) Evolution by natural selection is one of the most brutal and cruel processes imaginable. It would take a sadistic deity to make that the way he creates different life forms. b) A gradual process like evolution means there would be no definite point at which an evolving hominid would have an immortal soul unlike the other animals. (That would mean that a hominid parent would not have an immortal soul would have a more evolved child that would qualify for an immortal soul). c) Jesus' DNA status would be problematic.
Because western theistic religions say god created humans fully formed (i.e, fully evolved, at least up until our current form). We know that didn't happen.
publius ovidius 1. The concept of _qualifying_ for an immortal soul isn't inherently valid.
2. We already know that evolution works much faster than random genetic mutations sifted through selection.
The book Darwin's Finches demonstrates generation-swift and environmentally driven mechanisms as observed by three generations from the same human family. The science of epigennetics explains how this is possible..
rick landers Yeah, lots of pompous, self appointed frauds have spoken to Gods ways and means, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with God. If you realize fully that God's ways cannot be known by humans, there's no problem. He uses every means we may observe to keep the universe up and running...
@@Hallands. It's quite possible there's a god who created beings that evolved to humans through the process we call evolution. But that's not the western theistic story. ;-)
that’s a pretty big IF
You set a very low bar for religion: "Can theology ever be reconciled with evolution". Surely a more sensible question is: "is evolution best explained by theism"... What predictions does a theistic theory of evolution make? Is it falsifiable? If it isn't predictive and falsifiable then you are just banging a round peg into a square hole.
Is evolution best explained by theism? Where’d you get that one ??? Uahahahaha
@@corradobaldiserra5 oh God...this debate is evolving...
No, your conflating the argument. The answer is obvious and what Robert stated in the very few moments. Evolution can be explained without a theist belief. Period!
Fleeming Jenkin,considered the problem and noted an important flaw in Darwin’s argument. Darwin believedthat any beneficial trait that arose in one generation would be passed on to subsequent
generations, thus strengthening the species.
Jenkin pointed out that a favourable trait in one parent wouldn’t become dominant in
succeeding generations, but in fact would be diluted through blending. If you pour whiskey
into a tumbler of water, you don’t make the whiskey stronger, you make it weaker. And if you
pour that dilute solution into another glass of water, it becomes weaker still. In the same way,
any favorable trait introduced by one parent would be successively watered down bysubsequent matings until it ceased to be apparent at all. Thus Darwin’s theory was not a recipe
for change, but for constancy. Lucky flukes might arise from time to time, but they would
soon vanish under the general impulse to bring everything back to a stable mediocrity. If
natural selection were to work, some alternative, unconsidered mechanism was required.
@@vhawk1951kl It is lucky then that Mendel came along and showed empiricly that such blending does not happen (sadly his paper was missed by Darwin) and the reason why has been fully clarified today after Watson/Crick structure of DNA over half a century ago now and counting. Natural selection was a powerful theory from day 1, but the evidence that it is the explanation of why organisms are adapted to their environments has just got stronger and stronger as science has progressed to explain all the outlying problems too. Hence the modern synthesis is now the best evidenced and most supported theory in science.
Well that video included some desperate attempts to reconcile bronze age mythology with modern science. The solution is simple, just admit that the Bible is just another mythology.
The OT is a mythology book.
@@John-bf7ny All of it is mythology.
It does not mean there is no god. Bible can just describe wrong one
The thing is also that time moves in two directions... with the result being a very gradual result we see. As dark matter and energy interact.. the result is the effect of time.. it's kinda like two cars on a highway getting in a head on collision.. say they are the same car with the same mass.. ones just going a mph faster than the other.. the resulting splat creates a slower motion in the direction with more momentum.. time is sort of like this.
Dark energy expands in a radial way from the center of mass outward. While dark matter which is fundamentally a torus form.. contains and spins more. The spinning dm surrounding the expanding de.. results in the schrodinger equation and quantum mechanics. Which also creates gravity. The frequency of the leptons moving relative to the expanding hadrons results in radiating spacetime.. which bends the 5th dimension or fabric of space.. space expands from the mass creating the effect of gravity. :)
I would delete my writings if I feel there is no appreciation or curiosity. Or may decide to ignore writing in the first place. I do not write only to help others, as I live in this society. Yet my writings are about challenging, or I may have different theories or solutions to the question or statements of others.
Metaphysician philosopher
I LOVE this channel...but am appalled at the lack of social distancing. My sense is that our good host is quite ready to die in quest of the 'truth'.
I think it's probably safe to say that most of these videos were produced before the virus arrived.
Every 50 years, the Christian religion changes. Can you imagine if someone from 1550, and 0900 speaking with someone from 1950 about Christian religion in heaven? 😂
The whole thing is ridiculous.
The original idea of Heaven was just like their Kingdom down on earth - a King-like God sits on his throne in the heavens, Heaven is his kingdom & life would be good but first we must swear loyalty(belief) to this King and only if he is pleased he will let us live in his kingdom
You can see how that would make sense to primitive people living under Kings/Dictators
If you want to live in Russia or North Korea today, you better learn to praise the Master, who you are as a person does not matter, all that matters is your loyalty(belief) to the Master
Amazing isn't it? That in the 21st century, with all our education & intelligence, in the free world that God is a Putin, a Saddam, a Stalin?
So much for our intelligence and morality
How is that any different from science? Do we assume "the whole thing" of science is ridiculous because it changes so much?
@@montagdpNope. Science is built on previous findings or refined. Science encourages the pursuit of understanding.
When anyone has a theory, everyone has the opportunity to refute it and are rewarded if they prove it to be incorrect.
In religion, people have been killed for stating facts that goes against Christian doctrines. Christianity changes only because what they believe is just ridiculous.
@@anthonycraig274 Originally you criticized religion for changing. Now you're criticizing it for not changing. Can't have it both ways.
@@montagdp i think you need to read it again. I said Christianity changes because what is believed is ridiculous, it may take a generation or two, but it changes. People have been killed for stating facts that conflicts with what Christian’s believe. Then after a generation or two, what people were killed for changes because what was believed was and still is ridiculous.
Evolution is Biology’s Grand Unified Theory that explains the diversity of life, past and present.
This question came to me in a snap, so it did not take moments to think about it. Darwin was incorrect in the foundation of his research, that all things would be from evolution. (I say it is designed ©). I published this about 30 years ago. As of today, no one can beat me in my theory and philosophy and science.
Metaphysician philosopher
This channel becomes more and more theological. How about change the name of the channel?
I just unsuscribed after seeing this vídeo.
@@FranciscoBautista196 Those are old videos. Dont unsub, mate. I have my criticism too. But they did a great job many times, like that playlist with Sean Carroll. I think mister Robert is just depressed in these tough times. We all know he wants to believe.
They've got to have something to talk about while we're waiting for physics to come up with the next religion-demolishing fact.
"Evolution," is not what we have been taught to perceive. Consciousness & intelligence, does not emerge from matter. Consciousness, precedes & informs all matter. So the only "evolution" occurring, is an evolution in Consciousness, which must precede, and inform any evolution in the material realms. Newtonian physics places the proverbial cart before the horse, which is by now, one of the oldest nags in physics.
If consciousness precedes and informs matter, how come a hammer to the head changes your consciousness?
What you say is a hypothesis do you have any evidence that conscious orders matter 🙏🙏🏿
@@Limbiclesion Just as a thought, precedes and informs a word, so too does the Self, precede and inform the body. Dr. Bruce Lipton is somewhat of a sage in these matters. See Lipton's CZcams post "I Didn't Believe in Spirituality." Eventually, the principle should become Self-evident.
Its a big If
When you encounter a fast talker, force them to slow down so that you can get a word in edge-wise. Use this as “guardrails” to not be snookered.
Evolution is not random. Mutations are random, but natural selection and epigenetics are not random.
I dont get what you’re talking about in the first half of ur comment….
…but correct me If Im wrong but Mutations are not purely random. Sometimes they’re based on the species environment aka epigenetics
@@d2xr That’s not the way epigenetics work. Epigenetics does not affect mutations or DNA in general. Epigenetics is the study of how your behaviors and environment can cause changes in the way genes work
Mutations are random.
@@georgegrubbs2966 We don’t even know that how can you say that its a brand new field of study
@@d2xr Epigenetics has been around for some time so it is not a brand new field of study. There is plenty of evidence to support epigenetics.
There are serious lunatics in the comment section.
Ooh. Where??
Evolution is a fact and is like acid to religion.
Evolution is a broad spectrum of beliefs... If you are able to define your set of beliefs, I'd be glad to make them as acidic as it gets...Just try me!😉
Descartes had it right. There are all kinds of philosophers. The difference between the great ones and the good ones is that the great ones were reduced to only ONE ASSUMPTION to explain all of reality- That god exists!
Unfortunately Descartes lived some time ago! We have moved on since then!!
You’ll find out
Evolution is an illusion so is life.
All these youtube commenters must be philosophical geniuses. Thats why youall post these inept comments. Please everyone just shut up and watch the videos
If you have a problem with the comments, maybe you shouldn't read them.
I like how you took the time to comment about comments.
Theology and Evolution are mutually exclusive.
The question of why there is evil in the world has a simple answer in my opinion. We have free will that alone seems to make suffering and evil something that would be necessary. However, I think it goes beyond that. In order for us to truly grow to understand the nature of God's goodness and Grace we must know it's opposite. We must navigate our way through it with free will. Oftentimes if not always learning experience which is some hardship or pain Loss or suffering. So if one believes as I do that there is an intended purpose to creation, that the creature is to draw as near to the Creator as possible, then these questions have an obvious answer.
Evil and suffering and pain are all the tools of spiritual evolution
A
An even more simple answer is it is a relative concept invented by man.