Sorry but both of these guests make me ill.

I thought this episode was sick but in a good way. Like “this episode was siq yo

Justin, please try to arrange a talk between Francis Collins and Stephen Meyer. Two men of faith who seem to be saying conflicting things about evolution and I for one would love to hear them hash it out.

33:00 35:40 39:00 Over the millennia, connotations of the word "God" have become so deteriorated. The terms Consciousness / Mind / Intelligence seem more scientifically relevant for these types of discussions. It seems that the concept of God is not scientifically testable. 44:30 However, evidence for the effects of Consciousness / Mind / Intelligence are scientifically demonstrable.

26:30 28:44 35:00 40:40 All of Darwinian evolution is based on un-directed random chance. Quantum Physics has shown that Reality is based on Probabilities. A statistical impossibility is defined as *_“a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument."_* The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of a functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more *Rational and Reasonable* to conclude that the cell was not formed by undirected random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.) Furthermore, of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/ 10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more *Rational and Reasonable* to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer while trying to determine the origin of the universe. 48:30 A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". 40:00 Yet, these extremely *Irrational and Unreasonable* hypotheses are what many of the world’s top scientists _‘must’_ believe in and promote because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview. Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, Information, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millenia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by discoveries in Quantum Physics.

I agree, yes, it's a pleasure watching him maneuver the conversations into directions that would yield better, clearer points of view from both the parties.

I agreed with you on this.

He needs to cut out some of the waffle and he needs to be more concise in his questions. As Dawkins pointed out at the beginning, the conversation needed to start immediately with the science, not with Hitchens or with the history of Covid, or the political ramifications of it.

Yea this was a good one.

It is. I think Dawkins agreed to this meeting 1) on the commonality that they both believe in evolution and 2) Collins is not an aggressive person unlike Dawkins who can be outright hostile.

@@bryanphillips6529 Collins is fun and intelligent

Dawkins does not come across as aggressive, oh yeah if the person does not agree with you they are aggressive

Dawkins is a bit persona non grata lately because of his horrible bigotry against LGBTQ of late so he's not able to be so picky on his public events

@@davidbradley834 that comment probably says more about how you feel about people who disagree with you!

It truly was. Respectful disagreement. Dawkins is usually rude to his opponents, but not this time.

Hmmm. Wonder why that is??? Maybe because they are on the same team, eh?

@@HeritageWealthPlanning what do you mean? What team do you think they might both be on?

@@ProfYaffle I was thinking the same thing😂 What on earth is he talking about?

Probably the “those who agree about Covid and evolution are evil godless heathens who don’t accept the plain truth of the Bible” sort.

Yes!

Respect is earned and not freely given !

Really. John Lennox destroyed him as did Rowan Williams in their 3 on 3 debate at Cambridge. William Lane Craig would have done the same but Dick ran away.

@Donkey Kong Odd. The Cambridge debate with Williams gave it 324 votes to 136 in favour of Rowan's side. Dawkins ran to the Guardian after multiple atheist groups pressed Dawkins to face Craig. John Lennox just schooled him.

@@TBOTSS Oh dear. You are representing the ignorant religious helmets perfectly here.

Kameel Farag. Oh really? I saw him get owned by a young Muslim girl: "This is how young Muslim girls embarrassed a big Atheist Richard Dawkins" (KZfaq). Also, he refuses to debate. Bible-believing fundamentalist on the grounds that they are not worth his time. That's his excuse anyway.

So you got respect and trusting entertainment purposes only and not to be trusted like usual. You personally Saw these people being confronted with others in operations. or any one educated talented smart person can bring in the masses with the same out look in other words for years wile what has ever gained in it all way's Failed. the only thing God ever involves us in is Faith but only to believe it prevents te incinorator witch makes us saved suckers really. These people knew you would come up with this possitive responce because they know your expectations and had controled you be for you even thought how nice this is. I LOVE ENTERTAINMENT THE FAKE ART OF GATHERING RESPECT. But only on screen is the best place for an operator of my gladness. Finding later i need to Click to find it as it last as long as my eyes can see it on screen . REALITY is just a bad delusion. Walk back out the door finding life not quite like this ends up more a downer for the soul fool not food for thought but yet an other created word by Man as we speak controling the Masses. seems every one has a some what point of view just like they keep you . no one will ever have a power of thier own because its no longer a single understood created meaning .God does not by mans idea to make simple robots to relate to Said. but if we just look at it we see that is exactly what we have been ever when this mass of control began. love is control till it kills you. Love causes more suffering in the simple minded trusting every step they or we make.

@@trafficjon400 What?

The problem is that two opposing ideas are treated as though they are equally worthy of respect, and this is demonstrably not the case. If a prominent scientist can do no better than to offer the most common - and distinctly poor - arguments, no more evidence or reason-based than the average believer, there is no comparison between the positions. Dawkins has the distinct advantage, in that there is no convincing case for gods being anything other than the ancient invention of ignorant humans.

@@chikkipop What is the word?

@@chikkipop Why they all way's put ENTERTAINING PURPOSES ONLY ! You tube fucking up a lot of minds including i better take a long break if i though it would be so Necessary . What is today

not really. Collins is an idiot. God kicked us out of Eden and into this world as punishment not so that we can go on some wonderous journey or whatever.

One a brilliant genius (Dawkins) and the other a flawed smart guy!

I dont agree that RD is " so real" He doesnt want to accept debating W L Craig because he knows that he wont win.

They did debate. Try using search. Looks like he won just fine.

@@luisrodriguezvera5935 no one "wins" in these debates. Both debaters pump out the soundbites that their loyal supporters want to hear. As a result, both sides come away feeling like their spokesman won. Case in point, the logic and wit that Christopher Hitchens employed in all of his debates, I feel like he comfortably won hands down against all of his religious adversaries. Yet I converse with believers all the time that think the opposite.

​@@noneyourbusiness9668 Dawkins has never debated Craig one on one. He's made it a point to avoid him. The time you're likely referring to was a group panel.

@@luisrodriguezvera5935 he doesn't have to . And there's a reason he won't. And Craig's a liar

Irre- force meets immovable object. wecome to our how simple it sounds is because it is meaning by second guess useless. irresistible needs to move just by a micro- to be noticed with out mans words .

I wouldn't call Francis Collin's feeble arguments either an irresistible force or an immovable object .........

@@retromograph3893 definitely, he could not stand up to any moderate thinker or Bible teacher.

My thoughts exactly. I think Collins' personality contributed to Dawkins' pleasantness too. I did not know he could smile and laugh so much. I love the WLCraig Roger Penrose chat on unbelievable cos Penrose is so humble and intelligent. I also love the Jon Lennox vs Dawkins chat too, but there is no lightness or humour or smiling until right at the end with Dawkins. Which is your favourite apart from this?

Dawkins is at his weakest when discussing religion and at his best when discussing science.

@@waynecrich7731 I find people like Ken Ham really bad at science too. Why they think they can tell us more about evolution than say Francis Collins is beyond me

@@ProfYaffle everyone knows that Ham is a scammer

@@ProfYaffle there are more options than materialist evolutionary theory and YEC. Even evolutionary biologists admit that natural selection can only select something that is already there. It does not create anything new. How new organs and body plans developed is still a scientific debate. Plus, evolutionary theory does not explain life, it depends on it. Look up chemist James Tour as well as palaeontologist and former atheist Günter Bechly.

To me Dawkins outperformed collins 🤷‍♂️

Collins outperformed Dawkins? You're letting your spiritual biases get in the way of your logic pal. Not the first time it's happened to a Christian, I suppose!

I would say that Dawkins outperformed Collins in this discussion not, as you suggest, the other way around. I could accept Collins for becoming a deist, but not for believing in Christ, the cross, the sermon on the mount etc. That would seem like god let natue roll on for billions of years then suddenly appeared 2000 years ago in the form of christ, performed a few acts contrary to science and then disappeared again ? Also, Collins would seem to have rejected much of the bible which is conflicts with what Collins himself has accepted with regards to the formation of the earth and evolution. How has he rationalised that away ?

Sounds like your part of the understandings policy.

As I write this, I'm about halfway through, and I don't think one outperformed the other. I think Collins articulated his ideas a little better, and made some good arguments, but I think his argument still came down to the argument from ignorance. Granted, Dawkins' argument "there's no evidence," but the burden of proof was on Collins.

" miracles " are a part of all religions. They exist in order to try and persuade people to believe in that particular one. I'm thankful that i dismiss them all as pure nonsense.

@@holdontoyourwig That's fine, but your comment is not related to the specific assertion of Dawkins that I am addressing.

@@Nighthawkinlight Yeah. The fact we know now that time itself, let alone space and matter, had a beginning, obviously debunks materialism as there must exists a transcendent or “supernatural” realm outside of nature that caused its existence. The timelessness of God also gets rid of that old atheists dogma: “who created God?” Timelessness by nature is eternal, infinite, and un caused.

@@holdontoyourwig Everybody believes something. The natural sciences cannot answer the question whether matter + energy is all there is. Your free will alone shows: The self that is looking through your marvellous eyes cannot be reduced to physics and chemistry. "This... strongly reinforces our belief in the human soul and in its miraculous origin in a divine creation." John Eccles, neuroscientist and Nobel laureate You are not an accident, but a masterpiece. And loved, more than you can imagine.

Dawkin's objection to a god existing outside of conventional space & time does not rest on whether this supposedly timeless/spaceless property is a contrivance of modern,medieval or ancient vintage. The point was one of logic in relation to Darwinian evolution, whereby the baseless supposition of a complex creative intelligence conveniently located outside of spacetime by the human imagination is a betrayal of the evolutionary processes which allowed complexity to emerge from simplicity in the first instance. That one can imagine such a being , invest it with all kinds of powers of intelligence, install it outside perceivable time and have it be the catalyst of the laws of physics is one thing,whether it is true is another. the human imagination is not in itself proof positive of its miscreants however divine.

christianity is a cancer on society

Actually hes akways been like this when speaking to or debating respectful beiliers see his debate with Rowan Williams. Its just hes usually debating creationists. Hes very polite to believers just not fundermentalist ones who deny science.

Yes I agree. It is so good they had the conversation rather than the debate. Dawkins seemed so unsmiling talking to John Lennox, until the end. I think Collins' happy smiling persona brought out the best in him

Yes, as a Christian I completely disagree with him, but he comes across well here: I think, partly because he obviously really respects Francis Collins.

@@matt76716 me too but I found that respect for Collins was shining through today. I prayed for him today to have a revelation. I don't think I have ever seen the point before. I think if they had dinner and a few whiskys and chatted for hours, Collins might find some chinks in the armour

Watch him deal with Wendy Wright Dawkins is a fuvkin Saint

@@ProfYaffle Yes, maybe the fact they had a common friend in Christopher Hitchens also helped to keep this conversation more amenable than some of the debates that Richard Dawkins has had with christians. I love John Lennox, and you would think Richard Dawkins would respect his credentials, but I don't feel that he does. Anyway, just wanted to thank you for praying for Richard Dawkins, and not giving up on him, that is a good example to the rest of us: I haven't been, but I will start to do the same. We shouldn't give up on anyone.

You like the respect of fake entertainment that is not but entertainment to control you but not you controling any thing. why reallity stay's the same with wish wash.

The assertions made about the mind of god cd be made about the 38mil gods in the hindu pantheon etc etc..all unverifiable..

@@johnno6183 What's crazy about your assumptions is that there is books on about the different fundamentals between what you proclaim. There is evidence out there but the question is, would you go down that route? 🤔

@@MultiBigAndy which books about which assumption?

​@@MultiBigAndy How can Johnno go down that route if you don't say which books to read?

Watch his video with Wendy Wright. Dawkins is a Saint

Same. I ♡ crush on his writings ... He and Joy were blessed to find each other.

CS Lewis was a Gnostic. 🙂

Until the guy showed how dumb he was when talking about resurrection and believing in magic that happened 2k years ago without any evidence, at that point I thought Dawkins was going to have a stroke at the stupidity, but he kept it together lol

@@OArchivesX I hear atheists and non Christians say this all the time. It's not an argument based in fact. Of course there is historical evidence for the resurrection. A little research shows this. You may disagree with the conclusions of Christians but to say there is no evidence isn't a serious claim. Your statement says more about yourself than reality - a bias based on your own philosophical presuppositions through which you evaluate all supernatural claims. It's not an argument. It's a pronouncement of your own authority.

Yes, Christians twist their nipples at the thought of a scientist saying they believe in god. They see it as a “aha! If god doesn’t exist why are there scientists that believe. You can’t refute a scientist “ the notion that “because a scientists has a personal belief “ therefore true

@@rodzalez3549 yeah crazy how they manage to ignore the scientific consensus while putting a handful of them the cornerstone of their argument.

@@rodzalez3549 boy... No one is arguing here that because great scientists believe in Jesus, therefore it must be true. Look that the rational evidences they are putting forward. The conclusions are logical and inescapable... 👍

@@thebiblepiano1866 What are you talking about hahahahaha you melt

@@thebiblepiano1866 “the conclusions are rational and inescapable “? What? Which evidence? Who won the Pulitzer Prize for this evidence. Where is the peer review?

the problem with your last statement, is that the term humanity by definition presupposes God, otherwise humans are meaningless accidents of nature with no purpose or value, just a clump of cells, but of course nobody can live as if that is true, we all presuppose God in the end

@@user-rb3tk5th2i That was a funny one. I'll add it to the list.

Unless he’s just taken the lefts narrative completely like Neil degrasse Tyson

What do you mean

@@tripp8833 there are people in this country who have abandoned all common sense. People like Richard Dawkins…who I disagree with completely on his views of god, will at least be reasonable in his arguments even though I disagree.

Francis Collins is an even better biologist though you realise

I see you're probably refering to the genders thing in America and a question of what is a woman and such lol

Well you’re looking at it through a biased lens. As an atheist I’ve read both those books and collins book strengthened my atheism

@@rodzalez3549 all of our lens are biased and I stand with you on atheism

@@rodzalez3549 I find your comment pretty biased to such a thing. How can you be "neutral" when you read the opposing view's book and then claim it "Strengthen my Atheism"?

@@MultiBigAndy all biased and leading back to one simple understanding.

Well, you might not want to stop there...seek and you shall find! After all, if there is God , don't you think He would've left plenty of evidence for His existence? To adopt a theistic position and not to dig deeper isn't going to do you any good..God bless you 💖🙏💖🙏 you might want to watch Dr. Tours videos

Thats a cool story but why do you believe theres a god?

Dr. Collins manufactures whatever he needs to manufacture to defend his narrative, just like anyone else attempting to explain and support a case for religion. I

@@mikeregan7034 Science and all religions are completely incompatible. So they just turn to Philosophy and they found Empiricism. Religions are not welcome in the Philosophy of Explanatory Realism. where Empiricism is also unwelcome.

@@mikeregan7034 Agreed, but at least he’s one of the more honest theist scientists who knows to check his irrational beliefs at the lab door, and see where the actual evidence which manifests in reality leads.

Have you seen him before? The humility is new and a complete surprise. But really lovely to behold. He may be melting

@@ProfYaffle yes, I have seen him for years. And I think he was always humble, even if he seems to be a bit "aggressive"! I like his honesty!

@@p.p.6133 ok. I have only seen him a few times, so I concede that I have insufficient data. I like frankness and I guess if it is completely bizarre and ridiculous to him that any of us believe in God, he maybe gets very frustrated. That is understandable

Infinity is God. The ultimate origin of everything

How does that comment make you open to believing god? Thats a terrible reason.

YES PLEASE

Dawkins is also a Dr. as well btw

@@johnhenrysguitar Yes!

Boss battle!

geeze that would be insane

I never understood the stance that Dawkins is particularly strident or aggressive. I also don't think he's more honest here than elsewhere (that seems to imply that he was dishonest on other occasions, and I don't see a way to assess that).

They want him to be "nice" or "diplomatic" they don't like when he's making points against religion.

@@JesusCreatedAllThings Sometimes the Bible is metal.

@@Hiatus-Humanus Hi George, Thank you for your reply. I don’t know how you meant it, but I’m glad you replied. I don’t know what possessed me to write such a horrible post but I’m deleting it now. Blessings. 🙏

@Why I Believe Oh, you know.

I’m a big fan of Lewis & am surprised by your statement as well. Where can we read more about this?

@@zachhindt3408 Hi Zach, thanks for writing. Man, Lewis is an ongoing subject of interest to me, so over the years I've read many biographies and articles about him. I'm not sure which source to point you to. It's part of my interest in the contrast between the UK, which is so secular today, and the U.S. which has a large, strong Christian base. But the trend amongst younger people has been to leave the churches. My wife is on the board of The American Bible Society and they are extremely concerned about this trend. They are struggling on how to address it.

Would love to know more about this. What do you mean by ‘gave up on the apologetics’? What did he adopt in place of it? Does it mean apologetics in general isn’t effective for most?

@@Loumo Perhaps a better way to express it was that he opted for Narnia as the more effective channel for the Gospel In his circle, The Case for Christianity was not working with his peers and that was the group that mattered to him most I do think his Narnia books are the ones that will continue to last, just like Tolkien.

​@@michaelperkins485 So appealing to emotion rather than reason was found to be more effective. Maybe not surprising but still a bit disappointing as a scientist. Thanks for clarifying.