I want to be really clear here that this video is not intended to be an attack against Atheists. Rather, the reason I make these videos is because many people have been led to believe that Science somehow disproves or points away from God, when really the oppose it True (and increasingly true). In other words, it is important to follow the evidence wherever it may lead (even if that is to God). All the love in the world to you if you are an Atheist watching this! I'm always trying to frame this so that they don't create a knee jerk reaction, but rather, cause pause and reflection. For whatever that's worth! In any case, thanks for watching wherever you are on your spiritual journey!

I wonder why people get SO mad at these videos. Why listen if you've already decided that you don't want to hear it?

How anybody can deny creation as the beautiful work of God is beyond me. The evidence is everywhere!

I was a former atheist and lived purely for myself, I was extremely lost and depressed and felt like life was absolutely purposeless. Then when I least expected it Jesus Christ came into my life and for the first time Ever I felt true happiness, freedom, love, joy, peace etc. and not only once but ever since the day he came into my life, everything changed. Whoever you are, I know it may seem foreign to hear about Jesus Christ, but please consider Him and what he has to offer. Jesus Christ offers us everything and so many of us deny him, and this world truly offers us absolutely nothing and yet everyone flocks to it. Please remember Jesus, and consider him. he truly is that “thing” missing in your life. The only true God. Have a great day everyone, may God bless all those who watched this video.

I totally agree! Don’t settle for false freedom that isn’t freedom. You are so loved & that love will set you free🙏🏼

Several years ago I interviewed Doug Axe. I specifically asked him if any of his detractors found errors with his math. None did. It was all peripheral straw men meant to avoid Doug’s conclusions. I aired that podcast and within a few weeks a dean confronted me because an alumni called and asked why the college was supporting such activities? I asked the dean, what exactly did the alumni feel was “unscientific” about the interview? No answer. I asked the dean if he had information on math errors by Axe. It was then that I realized how firmly confirmation bias and illiberal ideology permeates American Universities.

I'm thankful that you addressed the Gospel as the solution instead of just relying on philosophy and science. 1 Corinthians 2:1-4.

Amen! 1John 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. 17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. 19 We love him, because he first loved us.

In every age God will inspire people to counter the narrative of the devil.

Humility is The Key people. Don’t be caught dead otherwise. Good show as always!

Exactly -- a library of infinite plausibilities but only the exact one to make it work.... it's truly a magnificent creation :)

An in-depth explanation of one of the many ways creation itself testifies to the creator

I love your content! Before I came to faith (38) the only thing holding me back was the science aspect… I was so exhausted researching… I just made a decision… That was called faith. This type of content is great for new Christians or those sitting on the fence!

This reminds me of Walter Veiths "Genesis Conflict" series. Specifically the episode "Genes of Genesis". He is an ex evolution professor and now creationsit; he was the head of the zoology department at the University of Cape Town. Great videos, highly recommended.

Anyone who has ever written computer code will understand the comparison with the complexity of the universe and of life on earth. I can not imagine getting functional software from any type of random process, let alone biological life.

Scientist here. I love these discussions. On the one hand, Meyer is absolutely correct that the classical mechanisms of Darwinian evolution do not explain large-scale differences in the evolution of new species. On the other hand, we should always resist falling into the "God of the gaps" argument (e.g., god is responsible for things we can't explain - which can impede scientific exploration and also diminishes a description of god, as his role shrinks as human gaps in knowledge shrink). My take is that these gaps in human scientific knowledge simply illustrate the enormous amount of stuff we don't yet know. There is an arrogance in secular culture that overestimates the understanding humans have about the stuff of the universe. While it's true that mankind has done extraordinary things (i.e., all of the tech we have built), it's also true that most knowledge still lies in the unknown and is yet to be discovered. Case in point: only 1-2% of the DNA of the human genome encodes for proteins. Until very recently, this non-coding DNA (98% of our chromosomes) was termed "junk DNA". How arrogant! We don't understand its purpose, so it's "junk"! There is far more work to be done to get closer to understanding the universe, the stuff that comprises it, and god himself.

Bless you for your message!

I watched this whole conversation. Thank your for your content and amplifying this important information.

I loved your analogy of the lost sheep and I feel the same way as you we all long to be loved and belong and it is only truly with God our loving Lord and Saviour Amen God bless you and your loved ones as well as this channel Amen🙏👰

Look at what He’s done for us!!

Excellent Analysis! Thanks!

The Archfiend only has 1 emotion: Anger. There is a war. Thank you for the rational objectivity.

Really good. And really good talk in the last few minutes of the video.

Hmm... I wonder why I've not yet heard or read from our atheist friends such concrete, coherent and objective argument from science just to defend its position like from Dr Meyer.

Well done my friend!

You’re doing Gods work my friend. Keep it up!

Thx for great videos man. I saw your documentary and was really good. God bless you

More than 20 kinds of amino acids were found in the dirt sample from the astroid that circles around the sun recently. Some more may be found in the dirt sample from another astroid by the US, too. It seems amino acids can be formed naturally in space.

Undeniably powerful evidence! Loving and beautiful welcome home message as well! Thank you!

Good Point. Peoples mistakes are not a reason to forsake God. It is definitely tempting to blame God for human error but that is actually what's happening.

Great video and great message at the end!

Why would anyone want the comfort, relationship and love of a God when they can know of a life with no apparent purpose that will someday extiguish as if it never was and never mattered?

Yes, I have seen much of this conversation before, on another channel. DNA conveys coded information. That strongly suggests an Encoder. How do random events in nature produce complex order rather than chaos? Thanks for sharing.

Really great video. The last part where you shared about lost sheep was really really good. Thanks for all you do, God bless, and Jesus name!

Well done brother.

Besides what is commented in this video, consider that hemoglobin, for example, is made of four different chains of peptides and they all need to have the correct sequence for hemoglobin functioning properly...

Now THIS is modern evangilizing. Thank you. God bless you and your work, the way your videos bless me. Amen

Stephen Meyer is the GOAT

Amazing how math can help us understand Divinity 🙏 ❤ keep learning guys!

Brandon, I’ve watched the subscriber count go up over time and I just want to say congratulations. It’s inspiring as someone who is spending lots of time learning about my faith and apologetics, feeling that the spirit is leading me towards something, although quite unsure at the moment of what that is. I’ve learned quite a bit from your videos. Peace be with you. 🙏🏼🤘🏼

If it's not true and He's not real, what are people upset about? I am not upset by them not believing. I only wish to see them gain Eternal Life. It's quite peculiar to see people so upset at the things they say do not exist. Isn't that acknowledgement that HE does?

I am a software developer, we go through design, development, and testing to produce a working application. A team of many people are involved in this. It is ludicrous to believe that random chance can develop a working application let alone the infinitely higher complexity of DNA (like all the apps on your phone), proteins (a single app on your phone), DNA transcription (which is similar to an ORM), and protein folding (there is no software equivalent). The clincher is that there is no observable process that produces new DNA. Life always comes from life. That is the law of biogenesis.

We are instructed by God's Word to not be deceived

Great video, brother.

Here to see the atheists call Dr. Meyer a liar 😂

Commenting while just hearing the opening. Let’s go!! Haha

People mostly get mad when confronted with truth that contradicts a firmly held idea.

The Lord knows how many apples come from the seed. Great work again God Bless

Amen to that 🙏🙏🙏❤❤❤ Agree 💯💯💯 with your interpretation 🙏

The work by Dan Tawfig, the biochemist that Meyer is referencing here actually demonstrated the opposite of what Meyer is claiming here. Tawfig demonstrated that these proteins CAN evolve functionally through random mutations without living cells. It’s easy to find on his wiki: demonstrated the evolvability of promiscuous protein functions (the ability of mutations to dramatically enhance a promiscuous activity with minor effects of the protein’s original function) It seems Meyer is misunderstanding or misrepresenting Tawfig’s work Aside from that when Meyer says you can’t use random changes to evolve a computer program that is also false. Neural networks are able to evolve new functionality through random changes

Wow! The ending of this video (last 4.5 minutes) is *_awesome!_* The pleasures of Nature are extremely temporary. You eat to satisfy hunger, but soon you're hungry again. You eat of the spiritual flesh and blood of Christ (the opposite of the spiritual fruit forbidden in the Garden) and you will have permanent satisfaction. 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯

8:15 Stretches of genetic code can be duplicated, a functioning gene can be duplicated with it, and then evolve separately from the other copy. I wonder how the quick evolution of bacteria and viruses can be explained if what is said here is true. I only have a layman's understanding, but viral and bacterial evolution occurs through the same mechanism as us macro-beings, right? And we can see viruses and bacteria evolve over the course of weeks and months.

I have a hard time believing that evolution can account the huge variety of life by random mutation and selection. The vast number of non-functional mutations required to get to one functional mutation does not add up.

Just finished "Return of the God Hypothesis" by Stephen Meyer. Incredible book. The topic in this video is an important part of his argument, but there is much, much more.

Random mutations are not the only way genes can change. Dennis Noble points out that cells can use the stochasticity of their environments to generate variants of their own genes as ways to solve problems presented to them.

I don't have a problem with the theory (let's call it that) of intelligent design. What I have a problem with who or what is being credited with being the creator. I have yet to see convincing evidence of exactly who that creator is. And no, you don't know who it is either. Regardless of how strong your feelings are.

May the Lord deliver his people from the gods of this age in Jesus name. Amen 🙏

I'm no biologist, so maybe that's why this doesn't make sense to me, but "evolution" doesn't work that way. He is saying since we can't go from one coherent/functional computer program to another by random changes w/o loosing all functionality in between then there can't be evolution. What about small incremental changes that don't break the functionality, but eventually add functionality? That's how they say evolution works. Not some huge change in 1 fell swoop. It doesn't really matter since God created everything and either built in evolution or not, but this doesn't prove non-evolution to me.

"The Stand" is not ultimately words that make a story but an author, Stephen King, who originates that story and therefore the words. The words express a content that is pre-existent and of which they are the expression. The philosophical materialist wants (apparent) meaning to flow from random "signs," just the opposite.

Answering the title cold: Pretty hard to see any mathematical problems for Atheism. I'm guessing this will be a 'life is complex' argument.... So...complexity is demanded by thermodynamics, meaning DNA is mathematically inevitable, as is the normal distribution of codon's found in DNA.

This is one of the best videos I've seen yet it really broke it down in scientific form. How could anyone have doubts after listening to the proof no God even has the scientists confused.

This type of calculation is stupid. Genetic mutations are random. Natural selection is not. The environment will direct the change and the fittest one will have a higher chance of survival. Also, who said all choices are available. In other words, natural is unlike a die with six sides of equal chances. There may actually be only one option for any constants (weak forces, strong forces). Therefore, the result is already predetermined. Using your logic, there are infinite way that a god could be. Since you claimed your god is certain way, the chances for him to be like that is also astronomical.

No sermons needed. Intelligent design is one thing. The concept of "God" is quite another. It is very personal, varying from person to person. It also derives from your culture, your upbringing and your religious attachment. Dogmatic labels are not required to identify an "Intelligent Designer". Like the edge of space it may never be determined.

Not to mention that random changes also would have to evade the cell auto-death functions that will cause cells that mutate to self-destruct.

Isn’t Stephen Meyer some sort of power house intellectual in the intelligent design world? It’s a shame i never hear him mention his research. He is always just spouting his opinions. Next time he is on you should ask him about all the ground breaking technologies, medicines, and predictive modeling coming out out of the intelligent design space 😂😂😂

I wanted to let your thumbnail illustrator know that the image of DNA is incorrect. Biological B-DNA exists in a right handed helix turn. The thumbnail shows a left turn. The simple fix is just to mirror the image to get the right handed turn.

Many people do not object to the idea of a Creator, as long as that Creator minds His own business and leaves them alone. What people reject is the idea of a Creator who demands morality from His creation.

Can you imagine that these people have spent their life trying to convince themselves something that was true no matter what they thought, where did the doubt come from to begin with? being sinful and setting off to doubt what was always obvious and still to this day, people don't believe that their is a creator and so there goes another man wasting his life on the exploration of a creator.

Misleading title to this video! What Steve Meyer is talking about may be a problem for darwinism, but darwinism is not atheism. Remember: Thou shallt not bullshit.

The opening statement (regarding the near certainty that a base pair mutation leads to a total failure of folding) is complete rubbish. 1- The 64 combinations of DNA (codon) are mapped to 20 amino acids used in the protein chain. Many mutations produce the same protein. In addition, the mapping tends to replace a different Amino with the same type (water loving or hating) which produces a similar protein structure outcome. 2- There are lots of replicated DNA sections which both produce the same protein, so a mutation producing a seriously damaged protein doesn't really matter as it doesn't affect the copy. Throwing out this "ten to the bagillion" number in the face of the genetic codes evolved correction mechanisms is just farcical.

To work out the real probability of something happening, you have to determine the most probable paths that that something could have happened and then sum them. What he seems to be calculating is the possibility of proteins as we know them today, spontaneously forming. His calculation may have some validity, but we absolutely KNOW it didn't happen like that. What we think of as the very early stages of evolution, took up most of the 4 billion years of evolution. And then at the end of day, calculating the improbability of X happening when we have evidence that X indeed happened, is an exercise in stupidity. Evolution has random elements, but it is NOT random!

If this was true, then how do we observe mutations happening all the time? Probably because it's not random, it's induced by the environment. I mean just look up the "giant petri dish" experiment and you can literally watch a time-lapse of bacteria, through random mutations, evolve a new trait that allows them to survive. It's not random. If it was just completely random then of course these astronomical numbers would be relevant, but it's like they're not even taking into consideration the environmental and biological constraints that effectively rule out so many of those truly random iterations.

Well to be honest, mutations are not the only way to get new genes. Horizontal and vertical gene transfer exist too , for example around 8% (at least that much) of our genome comes from the viruses. And even when these "unfavorable permutations" happen, which is happening to you as we "speak", vast majority of the time nothing bad happens. Bcs repair mechanisms. You've probably had 100s of cells develop a fatal mutation today, but the *robust* repair mechanisms fixed it, if by no other means than by inducing apoptosis. Finally living organisms disseminate those changes effortlessly, providing they've happened in the germinal cells if we're taking most eukaryotes. The idea that there's way too many wrong combinations as opposed to a few good ones, doesn't seem to negate the evolution, rather imply it's very much dependent on time and large populations, which is what any remotely decent evolutionary scientist won't argue. Better argument would be the sheer number of initial factors being *perfectly* (no space even for a minute marginal error whatsoever) active at a *perfect* and precise amount of time, for an amino acid to come to be from inorganic matter. That's without taking in account it would need to "survive" and that's still billions upon billions times easier than a (proto)cell spontaneously being formed from organic compounds just laying around, created by the previously described oddities and randomness. And then you'd need to calculate in the chances of such cell surviving the methanogenic atmosphere and hot, hyperacidous/hyperbasic environment. When you account in for those, Oparin's hypothesis becomes laughably naive.

Scripture provides us with plausible explanations. Evolution provides implausible assumptions.

We don't connect with God with our senses but by prayer. John 7:24 says, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment".

Ok. Got it. Because it is complex. Therefore, god. Got it. Good to be you. The rest of us live in reality.

What kind of intelligence, what kind of designer would design cancer, disease, the cruelty of ichneumonid wasps etc etc etc etc ...?

Science: Nothing indicates a designer. Also Science: We may live in a simulation.

He presumes a uniform probability distribution ... why?

So when they counter with "but mutayions have been documented, so clearly it's possible." How do we respond to that?

If you would like to accept Jesus as your Savior, pray this aloud: "Lord Jesus, I repent of my sins and surrender my life. Wash me clean. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. That he died on the cross for my sins and rose again on the third day for my Victory, I believe that in my heart and make confession with my mouth, that Jesus is my Savior and Lord."

Intelligent design is a post hoc analysis. It does little to explain how life came to be, because it lacks the ability to make novel testable predictions, which is the gold standard of evidence. For any christian wondering, start by looking at all the novel predictions evolution has made vs the ones intelligent design has made. Until we can devlop a hypothesis that is able to make more novel predictions, evolution is by far the better option.

This is something I’ve thought about before. If evolution is real and biological changes are explained to be random mutations. That means something good can mutate to have degraded functionality. When evolution seems to explanation how things get better, survival of the fittest, adapt to an environment, how a birds beaks elongate to hunt specific prey. I can’t seem to understand how random mutation fits into this idea.

The chance of me donating is virtually zero.

More of the same nonsense from Meyer. "Stuff is complicated. We don't know how it happened. I can't accept that my god didn't do it.............therefore my god did it" This is a bad argument.

Always the same thing. Someone who has no understanding of computer code or DNA, says that God did it, because they have no idea of either. No matter how low you set the probability for DNA, God's probability is even lower. DNA at least exists and can be shown to have evolved. For God on the other hand we only have people claiming that God did something without showing that God exists or that God even did anything. It would be great if people at least tried to show that God exists and actually did something instead of using something that exists, not understand it, and then claim that God did it. Somehow every argument for God is contradicted by God. Like it's complex therefore God did it, but God is more complex and he can just exist. Or everything must have a cause and can't just exist, therefore God has no cause and can just exist. Or energy can't be created, therefore God created energy. The claim that science points to God is a lie. Science can't point to God, because it only deals with the natural world, while God is supernatural. It's simply not possible for science to point towards a God. To not know is preferable to claiming God did it, because God is an additional claim that needs to be demonstrated, and it doesn't even explain anything.

Thanks for not using the information to "win" the argument or as a club to beat people.

Following Rene Descartes meditation Category 1: Minds I exist and I am a mind. Therefore Minds exist. Category 2: Matter I have feelings. These feelings originate from sensors in what I call my body. The sensors are receptive to stimulation from events created from within my body and from events created from outside my body. The stuff that bring about these events I shall categorise as matter. Thus my body is also made of matter. Therefore Matter exists. Category 3: Space My body needs space and matter in general needs space. Matter can exist only in space. Therefore space must exist. Category 4: Time My body needs time to change and matter in general needs time for change. Matter can change only in time. Therefore time must exist. From the above observation I conclude that these 4 categories permeate each other and exist equally with none more abstract or less abstract than another. Now to the question of the origin of these categories Could it be that any one or more of these categories can be made from any one or more of the remaining categories? Could these categories transform from one to another? Matter needs space and time for its existence, therefore without space and time matter will not exist as such matter could not have been the origin of space and time. From physics it has been observed that space and time can give rise to matter spontaneously. As such matter maybe a result of a localised change to space and time. So then could space and time be the origin of everything else? Again from the theory of the Big Bang all space, time and matter originated from this singular event. Therefore space and time could not alone have brought about the other categories. Since the big bang was an event, could it be that all things are made from events? Where there is space, time and matter there is always an event. There can be no space , time or matter without events. In an instant all of space and the matter is nothing more or nothing less than a set of events. So then space, time and matter is one and the same as a set of simultaneous events from one instant to the next. From this observation the 4 categories can be reduced to 2 categories Category 1 : Minds Category 2 : Events Now then can minds exist without events. We know that simultaneous events give rise to feeling in minds. We know from special relativity simultaneous events cannot give rise to anything physical or material. Therefore feelings cannot be physical or material. Now as feelings are a part of minds we must conclude minds are not physical. Now can the mind exist without feelings OR does feelings create the mind, that is one and the same as the mind? If feeling create the mind then as feelings are created by events then space, time and matter which we have concluded is the same as events, must also have feeling and thus be one and the same as a mind. Thus we would need to conclude a rock has a mind or is part of a mind to the same extent that my brain is a mind or is part of a mind. This conclusion is not palatable as such let’s consider the OTHER alternative Now if a mind can exist without feeling then we also know that the mind can create events. (e.g throw a rock, move a finger) So then given that the mind can create events then the big bang (The Event) could have originated from The Mind in order to evoke feelings in other minds. These other minds may have also been created by The Mind such that the earthly life of each mind is the big bang that determines the eternal or heavenly life of that mind in The Mind. philpapers.org/rec/DESCAS www.jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/1020/0

That's got nothing to do with Atheism. Do you even know the meaning of the words you use?

More" god of the gaps " arguments

7:21 Not stated, but the intermediate states to get from A to B must be functional too.

This video has nothing to do with atheism. It is a discussion of biology. A discussion about atheism would examine why some people believe in a god, and others don't. It would also examine why one particular god instead of another. If these guys want to have a discussion about biology, they should probably have a biologist on hand.

Christian argument still boils down to speculation. Not only that but their speculation veers into the supernatural realm of which there is no evidence for. Back in reality we are more concerned with evidence based demonstrable facts. Until you have those, it is unknown.

Here's my usual challenge to strict materialists; FYI, this _still_ hasn't been answered head-on by anybody: Calculate the odds of assembling the specific sequence of the very first functional protein on pre-biotic earth of modest size (150AA) purely by chance alone. I’ll give you all the particles in the known universe *(10^80)* working together in unison to make this one protein, reacting with each other at the fastest possible speed (Planck time of 10^-47 seconds), since the beginning of time *(about 10^18 seconds),* with an estimated sample space of functional proteins compared to nonfunctional proteins as *1 in 10^77.* Don’t forget that forming a covalent bond between amino acids is a 1 in 2 chance and that L-form formation is also approximately a 1 in 2 chance. Let’s assume there are 20 amino acids to choose from, so each amino acid should be considered as a 1 in 20 chance. These are extremely generous, and even absurd, conditions to the advantage of the naturalist, but feel free to do the math. Once you calculate the number, we'll compare it to the number of possible bit operations since existence began.

0:54 Holy FLIP. That fact ALONE needs to give everyone supporting genetic material injections IMMEDIATE pause. You just can't know for sure what that genetic material will do, given any number of variables. FULL stop.

Stephen LEGIT knows what he's talking about, so to try and test him is futile XD YOU HAVE TO LOVE IT

This is truly hilarious, isn't it? The title is "Scientist Explains HUGE Mathematical Problems for Atheism," but the pinned comment from the channel owner says "this video is not intended to be an attack against Atheists." And in reality, it's _not._ It's just about two crazy theists arguing against modern biology. Of course, neither of them is a biologist! And they're not arguing against biologists in biological research journals, because... well, because they have nothing to argue with except their religious faith. That's obvious, isn't it? If they actually _had_ something, they'd show their evidence to biologists. And the most hilarious thing about this is that evolution has nothing to do with atheism and nothing to do with Christianity, either. _Lots_ of Christians accept the reality of evolution - after all, the *worldwide scientific consensus* includes _Christian_ biologists - while accepting evolution is certainly not required of atheists. (Most of us _do_ accept the worldwide scientific consensus, yes. But that's only because we don't have a religious reason to reject reality.) This whole thing is absolutely hilarious. But despite the title, this isn't for atheists. This is just pandering to their base, that's all. It's just a way to make believers feel better. And when you're faith-based, all that matters is that you _want_ it to be true (and, these days, getting the political power to force your own beliefs on everyone else). I'm not a biologist. I've had very little education in biology. So why would I think I know more than the *worldwide consensus of biologists about biology?* Seems silly, doesn't it? Well, that's because it _is._ But when you really, really want to believe what you really, really _want_ to be true,... well, just ask Trump supporters! I don't get it. I really don't. I've never understood faith-based thinking. But that's because I care about the truth. I don't give a crap about evolution, one way or another. If these faith-based idiots actually _had_ something which they could demonstrate to biologists, then the worldwide scientific consensus would change and my opinion would change right along with it. (Not about gods. This has nothing to do with gods. But my opinions of biology would change if the consensus changed. And I'd consider that to be a _good_ thing, since - again - I care about the truth.)

Meyer is one of the experts at misunderstanding the difference between "we use language to understand this" and "this is a language."

One comma, one period, one letter out of place in thousands of lines of computer code and it makes the program flop. Even when you compile it, the error sometimes goes unsolved. You practically have to start all over again. I used to code in BASIC back in the 80's. It took me days to make simple games and thinking the coding was perfect it crashed and I lost all that work. I used to get so frustrated. It got so complicated I decided not to go into programming and changed my major to architecture and structural engineering instead. I admire all you computer programmers for sticking with it. You are indeed highly needed in this day and age and in my opinion, should be paid more than doctors and architects. It's a tough daunting job, I know.

"The functional sequences are so rare that if you begin to change the bit strings you are inevitably, after a few changes, going to destroy the function long before before you ever get to something new or functional." This is not a problem for an atheist. In fact, you are right, in 10 or 100 million years you may get somethin new and functional. These are the time frames we are talking about.