the-signs-of-god-s-existence-documentary

And as we have been programmed, programmed mentally, intellectually, one must be aware of this being programmed, like a computer. The programming that we are constantly assaulted by throughout our life, conditions us, it programs us to a particular world view. is they are absolutely propagandizing the world with all of their theses about the nature of the universe that we live in, where we come from, our origins, the origin of the universe, and so forth. The project is literally the secularization of the world. To completely strip the world from religious beliefs. This is the project, and that is why it is called Novus Ordo Seclorum. A new secular or worldly order. A new study says the news media have been pushing a gospel of godlessness on the American public. Sure, it's hard for some of you to believe, but you will never see it more clearly than you will today. I mean, it's just so amazing that creationists were right all along. To be honest, they just didn't have the argumentative skills. All of you are engaged in running your mouths, doing your business, multiplying, buying houses, cars, business, whatever you're doing. And when you're told about God, religion, life, morality, you're saying, look, I ain't got no time for that. Because this media is here and designed to make sure that they ask no critical questions, to make sure that the only thing that they are concerned about is having a good time. The only thing they're concerned about is filling their bellies. The only thing they're concerned about is having a good time having a good time the only thing they're concerned about is filling their bellies the only thing they're concerned about is acquiring more and more material things and so that is why today one of the struggles that you have as young people that when you want to do different events and you want to talk about real issues You have the struggle of many of your peers Who've been so conditioned in this matrix That they would rather party than listen to the truth They would rather party and shop and go to the mall Than to stand up for issues of justice They're stuck in the matrix But you have the responsibility Of helping to wake them up I'm hoping to wake them up, I'm hoping to wake them up, I'm hoping to wake them up Now how do we know that there's a God? After having been thoroughly brainwashed. And how do we know that there's a creator? About 15 billion years ago, there were no stars in the sky. There wasn't even a sky. All that existed was the primordial fireball. Primordial fireball. Then, somethingball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fireball primordial fire The Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang, Big Bang forever basically doesn't change the universe's steady state but what happened in the last hundred years is that model has been blown away because of the evidence observations now suggest as you all know that the universe began some 12 to 15 billion years ago the first evidence that the universe had a beginning is the expanding universe researchers wanted to believe in a universe that always was and always will be eternal but galaxies flying away from each other meant that once long ago they were clumped together it meant something started them moving the universe had a beginning today it's called the Big Bang Theory this was first discovered in 1929 by Edwin Hubble, and it's the first evidence that the universe had a beginning. The second evidence that the universe had a beginning is the cosmic background radiation. The discovery of the cosmic background radiation was a fatal blow to those who wanted to believe in an eternal universe. The Big Bang proponents had won. Now the final evidence for the origin of the universe is the relative abundance of light elements. It's very clear now that the universe had an origin, and scientists have come to accept this. In fact, the equations of general relativity that Einstein developed had an origin of the universe. When Einstein developed his equations of general relativity, they showed that there should be an expansion of the universe and an origin, and Einstein didn't like that. He added something called a cosmological constant, which he later realized was not there. When we saw that the universe was expanding, that there really was an origin, he threw out the cosmological constant, and he said that that was the biggest mistake of his scientific career, was introducing that, was introducing that, was introducing that, was introducing that, was introducing that. But when this Big Bang model was first proposed in the early part of the 20th century, it was received with great skepticism by the scientific community. Because the scientific community knew that the Big Bang opened up the possibility of having a beginning and a creator and someone who began it. you ever asked yourself where the universe came from why everything exists instead of just nothing typically atheists have said that the universe is just eternal and uncaused for example Bertrand Russell the famous atheist on the radio program he said the universe is just there and that's all but the astrophysical evidence indicates that the universe began to exist in a great explosion called the Big Bang 15 billion years ago most laymen do not appreciate that not only were all matter and energy created in that event, but physical space and time themselves. This is of utmost importance, for it implies, as the Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle points out, that the Big bang theory requires the creation of the universe from nothing now this tends to be very awkward for the atheist for as anthony kenny of oxford university urges a proponent of the big bang theory at least if he is an atheist must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing but surely that doesn't make sense out of nothing nothing comes even atheists philosophers such as David Hume he wrote in a letter I never asserted to absurd proposition as that anything might arise without a cause similarly PJ thought in his publication about time said if there is anything we find inconceivable it is that something could arise from nothing so where did the universe come from why does the universe exist instead of just nothing there must have been a cause which brought the universe into being we can summarize our argument thus far as follows premise one whatever begins to exist has a cause two the universe began to exist three therefore the universe has a cause it doesn't mean it's God doesn't mean it's Jesus doesn't mean it's Allah it doesn't mean anything it just means as a cause for the universe so we ask another question what is the nature of this cause and the nature of this cause upon conceptual analysis which means critical thinking thinking about this cause we come to some startling conclusions So the cause of the universe must be immaterial beyond space and time, beyond space and time. Now there are only two things that can fit in this category. The first, abstract objects second an embodied client so we're faced with two world views one starts in the beginning with mass energy the particles and everything is derivative including information the other says the exact opposite says the exact opposite says the exact opposite so in the first worldview mass energy is primary and mind is derivative in the other worldview mind is primary and mass energy is derivative and so far as tonight's lecture is concerned it is the diametrical opposition between the world view of materialism and the world view of theism it is a conflict between these two world views but i want you to notice there are scientists on each side of it now what's the better candidate now abstract objects the problem with abstract objects is they're causally defeat and they can't cause anything like for example the number one can't cause anything the simple law of arithmetic one plus one equals two never brought anything into being i wish it did it never has any money into my bank account. If I put a thousand pounds into the bank today and later another thousand pounds, the laws of arithmetic will rationally explain how it is that I now have two thousand pounds in the bank. But if I never put any money into the bank myself and simply leave it to the laws of arithmetic to bring money into being, I shall be permanently bankrupt. C.S. Lewis, with usual brilliance, grasped this years ago. The laws of nature produce no events. They state the pattern to which every event, if only it can be induced to happen, must conform, just as the rules of arithmetic state the pattern to which all transactions with money must conform, if only you can get a hold of any money. Thus, in one sense, the laws of nature cover the whole field of space and time. In another, what they leave out is precisely the whole real universe. The incessant torrent of actual events which makes up true history. That must come from somewhere else. to think the laws can produce it is like thinking that you can create real money by simply doing sums for every law says at the last resort if you have a then you will get B but first catch your a the laws will not do it for you now scientists love developing theories involving mathematical laws to describe natural phenomena which enable them to make predictions and they've done it with spectacular success but most are aware I think that on their own the theories of laws that they find cannot create anything, let alone a universe. Yet Hawking seems to think they did. Professor Stephen Hawking says that modern science has established there was no need for God in the creation of the universe. In a new book, Hawking suggests that a theoretical framework known as M-theory can explain how the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics. According to him, it is the laws of physics, not the will of God, that provide the real explanation as to how the universe came into being. The Big Bang, he argues, was the inevitable consequence of these laws. I quote, because there is a law such as gravity the universe can and will create itself from nothing now a supernatural being or god is an agent who does something dismissing such an agent hawking ascribes creative power to physical law. But physical law is not an agent. Hawking, it seems to me, is making a classical category mistake by confusing two entirely different kinds of entity, physical law and personal agency. Our physical laws are a description, usually mathematical, of what normally happens under certain given conditions. This is surely obvious from the very first example that Hawking gives in his book, The Sun Rises in the East. But this law does not create the Sun, nor the planet Earth with East and West. It is descriptive and predictive but not creative. Similarly, Newton's laws of gravitation doesn't create gravity or the matter in which gravity acts. In fact, it doesn't even explain gravity, as Newton himself realized. But it's even worse. The laws of physics cannot even cause anything to happen. Newton's celebrated laws of motion never caused a pool ball to race across the table. That can only be done by people using a pool cue in the action of their muscles. Supposed to make matters clearer, we replace the universe by a jet engine, and we are asked to explain it. Shall we account for it by mentioning the personal agency of its inventor Sir Frank Whittle? Or shall we, following Hawking, dismiss personal agency and explain the jet engine by saying it arose naturally from physical law? Now this would be absurd. It is obvious we need both levels of explanation in order to give a complete description it is also obvious that the scientific explanation neither conflicts nor competes with the agent explanation they complement one another it is the same with explanations of the universe God does not conflict or compete with the laws of physics as an explanation. God is actually the ground of all explanation in the sense that he is the ultimate cause in the first place of there being a world for the laws of physics to describe. Now there's more to this because the laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works but not how it came came to exist in the first place. Jet engine needed the intelligence and creative engineering work of Whittle. Indeed, come to think of it, the laws of physics plus Frank Whittle could not actually produce a jet engine on their own. There also needed to be some material subject to those laws that could be worked on by Whittle. Matter, ladies and gentlemen, may be humble stuff, but it is not produced by laws. I submit to you that the world of strict naturalism in which clever mathematical laws all by themselves bring the universe of life into existence is pure science fiction. Now Hawking here echoes Peter Atkins, a colleague at Oxford, a well-known atheist, who believes that space-time generates its own dust in the process of its own self-assembly. Atkins dubs this the cosmic bootstrap principle, referring to the self-contradictory idea of a person lifting himself by pulling on his own bootlaces. Philosopher of religion Keith Ward is surely right to say that Atkins' view of the universe is as blatantly self-contradictory as the name he gives to it, pointing out that it is logically impossible for a cause to bring about some effect without already being in existence. Ward concludes, between the hypothesis of God and the hypothesis of a cosmic bootstrap there's no competition there's no competition there's no competition we were always right to think that persons or universes who seek to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps are forever doomed to failure what perhaps all this goes to show is that nonsense remains nonsense even when talked by world-famous scientists by world-famous scientists so the only alternative is an embodied mind what this called god an embodied mind immaterial outside time and space I know that sleep is coming soon. So there's a God. Then you have to say, but, sorry, where where did God come from it's not a question I hear often answered in order to recognize that an explanation is the best you don't have to have an explanation of the explanation in order to recognize that an explanation is the best you don't have to be able to explain the explanation folks this is an elementary point in the philosophy of science suppose astronauts were to find on the backside of the moon a pile of machinery there that had not been left by American or Russian cosmonauts, what would be the best explanation for that machinery? Well, clearly it would be some sort of extraterrestrial intelligence that had left the machinery there. And you don't have to have an explanation of who these extraterrestrials were or came from or how they got there or anything of that sort in order to recognize that the best explanation of this machinery is intelligent design. In order to recognize an explanation as the best, you don't have to have an explanation of the explanation. In when you think about it requiring that would immediately lead to an infinite regress of explanations you would need an explanation of the explanation but then order to recognize that as best you need an explanation of the explanation of the explanation and then an explanation of the explanation of the explanation of the explanation and so that nothing could ever be explained one of the outdated philosophical cliches in my opinion is that what we created God we hear that all the time and they think it's a baseball bat against the theists but it's it's made of sponge. And let me tell you why. If we say, what caused the cause that caused the universe? Then let's continue. What caused the cause that caused the cause that caused the universe? Let's continue. Then what caused the cause that caused the cause that caused the cause that caused the universe? Let's carry on. Then what caused the cause that caused the causa, causa, causa, causa, cause. And that goes on and on and on backwards. But at one point, I have to have an uncaused cause. Or there would be nothing in existence today. Think of a string of dominoes. You have a domino that knocks over a domino that knocks over a domino I have to have a first domino or that string of falling could never start remember the premises of the argument I gave Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Something cannot come into being out of nothing. But if something is eternal and timeless, then it doesn't fall under that first premise. It doesn't need a cause. And the concept of God is the concept of an eternal, self-existent, necessary being. And therefore, the answer is simply that God is uncaused. He is self-existent. Dear Dr. Craig, one of the objections which has been raised is the first law of thermodynamics, the rule that matter and energy can only be rearranged, or in other words that matter is neither being created nor destroyed. Yeah, what's funny about this objection is that this is not an objection to the existence of God. This would be an objection to the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe. It would show that the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe is false because according to that theory, all matter and energy, even space and time themselves, came into being at the moment of the Big Bang and are therefore not eternal. They haven't always been there in the past. So if these fellows were right, all contemporary cosmologists who believe in the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe would be contradicting the laws of thermodynamics. And that's hardly the case. Why? Well, because the laws of thermodynamics and that's hardly the case why why why well because the laws of thermodynamics in particular the law of the conservation of matter and energy only applies once the universe comes into being it applies at every moment at every time and every point in the universe. But it doesn't apply to the origin of the universe itself. And that's why cosmologists don't consider that the law of conservation of energy and mass is violated by the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe. In fact, the atheist fellow mentioned the laws of thermodynamics. He might have wanted to talk about the second law of thermodynamics, which says that in a closed system, things tend toward increasing disorder. Now, the universe on the atheistic view is just a gigantic closed system because it is everything there is and there's nothing outside it. And what that implies is that given sufficient time, everything in the universe would grind down to a state of maximum disorder. So if the universe has existed for infinite time from eternity past, why is it that we don't find ourselves in this sort of thermodynamically disordered state? I think that the best answer to that is that the universe has not existed forever. It began a finite time ago in a low entropy condition, and the thermodynamic clock has been running ever since then. so the evidence of thermodynamics itself suggests that the universe and matter and energy are not infinite or eternal in the past but had an absolute beginning to remind ourselves of the argument again we have premise one whatever begins to exist has a cause premise two the universe began to exist and from that we draw the conclusion that the universe had a cause the universe had a cause so we ask another question what is the nature of this cause and the nature of this cause upon conceptual analysis which means critical thinking thinking about this cause we come to some startling conclusions this cause must be one the reason for this is because if we use the philosophical principle Occam's razor which posits that we do not multiply entities beyond necessity then we conclude it must be one this cause must be uncaused as we have already discussed the absurdity of An infinite regress of events similarly with causes this cause must be uncaused as we have already discussed the absurdity of an infinite regress of events, similarly with causes. This cause must be immaterial because it created the sum of all matter which is the universe itself. Significantly brothers, sisters and friends, this cause must be personal. The reason I'm saying this is how else can an eternal cause bring into an existence a finite effect the universe that had a beginning in time it must have chosen the universe to come into existence and choice indicates a will and a will indicates a personality so we have concluded the traditional view on God that a transcendental immaterial uncaused eternal being exists being exists Some strange results have come up in about the last 20 30 years particularly in astronomy and also in quantum physics which suggests that the universe actually may have a purpose and some physicists are now suggesting it does have a purpose and this has come out of some findings about the atomic some of the fundamental numbers in atomic physics during the past 40 years scientists have determined the relative strengths of each of these primary laws and forces these strengths are so critically balanced they are often described as being finely tuned these are numbers like the mass the weight of an electron the weight of a quark the strength of gravity the strength of the electromagnetic field about 20 numbers that describe those and other parameters features of our world but nobody knows why it is that those numbers have the particular values that they do now you could easily say yeah who, you know, who really cares? You change the mass of the electron by a little bit more, a little bit less. Does it really matter? And the answer is it does. See, it turns out that if you imagine that we had 20 dials right here, and we could fiddle with those 20 numbers at will, even a small change to the values of the known values of those numbers would cause the world as we know it to disappear. Because it turns out, and this is a very surprising, unexpected discovery, that the laws of physics, the basic given fabric of the world, had to be very specific, very finely tuned, as we sometimes say, for the possibility of carbon-based life appearing at all. For example, the strengths of the other forces are all important, the masses of the various subatomic particles this is one of a long list of properties in underlying physics that seem to be prerequisites for a universe with life if all of these things were even a little bit different uh then life certainly life as we know it could not exist it's a very surprising uh conclusion uh but it's true it's true and all scientists would acknowledge that's the case. Bernard Carr is a cosmologist and studies how the laws of physics operate in the universe. He says that the laws of nature are so finely tuned to enable complex life to exist that it is extremely unlikely that this could have happened by chance. Such fine-tuning, Carr believes, at least raises the possibility of a tuner. This is a diagram, it's called the Pyramid of Complexity, and what we've got here, we've got the different levels of structure in the universe, and at the bottom we've got the things like quarks that make up the atoms, and the atoms build up to make molecules, the up to make living cells the cells make organisms and eventually we end up with brains and consciousness it's rather hard to to you know estimate what the probability is but it was clearly very very unlikely that those coincident those fine tunings which allowed this pyramid of complexity to arise would be there a very simple and central example is the question of where does carbon come from the very early universe doesn't make any carbon it's very simple you know you make simple things hydrogen and helium they're pretty boring in terms of chemistry now where does carbon come from there's only one place in the whole universe where carbon is paid it's in the interior nuclear furnaces of the stars. We are people of stardust, made of the ashes of dead stars. And it turns out that the process by which carbon is made inside the stars is an extraordinary delicate process. In fact, it looked at first sight as though it couldn't happen at all. It's only possible because there's a very large enhancement effect called a resonance in the trade, which makes it go much quicker than you might have expected. And that resonance is there because the laws of nuclear physics take a very specific form. If they were a little bit different, either there would be no resonance or it would be in the wrong place at the wrong energy. That's a very striking example of how finely tuned the universe has to be for us to be inhabitants of it. The fine-tunings, how fine-tuned are they? Most of them are 1% sort of things. In other words, if a thing is 1% different, everything is bad. And a physicist could say maybe those are just luck. On the other hand, this cosmological constant is tuned to one part and ten to the one hundred and twenty, a hundred and twenty decimal places. Nobody thinks that's accidental. That is not a reasonable idea, that something is tuned to a hundred and twenty decimal places just by accident. That's the most extreme example of fine-tuning. No force in the history of cosmology has ever been discovered to be that finely tuned. The cosmological constant needs to be set to one part in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, otherwise the universe would be so drastically different that it would be impossible for us to evolve. That the cosmological constant arrived at such a tiny value by chance seemed to be out of the question. There are many who say that finally, when we look at the universe, especially at the origin, we see that it cannot be born by chance, and that chance has no role. And the further we go back in time, the further we go back to the Big Bang, the more we find a universe that is ordered, regulated, adjusted. For example, if we go back to, say, one second big bang at that point the expansion rate and the mass density have to have been adjusted to each other just right so that the universe is just at this critical point if the universe at that point were expanding just one part in the 15th decimal place faster the universe would have flown apart without galaxies ever having had a chance to form. On the other hand, if the expansion rate were just a little slower than what we think by a change of one in the 15th decimal place, then the universe would in fact have expanded to a maximum size and collapsed. We would never have even reached the time in the universe in which we're living. with one zero, one comma, and then sometimes dozens of decimals behind the comma. Well, if we simply changed one of these decimals on one of these twenty constants, the universe could not appear. Well, that means that chance has no role to play at the origin of the first explanations that comes to mind is that there was a tuner, or a creator, or if you like, God. And obviously for people of a theological disposition evidence of design in the fine-tuning of the universe. He explains, Our universe and its laws appear to have a design, that both is tailor-made to support us, and if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is not easily explained, and raises the natural question of why it is that way. The discovery relatively recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many of the laws of nature could lead at least some of us back to the old idea that this grand design is the work of some grand designer. That is not the answer of modern science. Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. Now the idea of a grand designer is certainly old, but the important question to ask is whether or not it is true. Simply to say it is old can give the erroneous impression that what is old is necessarily false and has been superseded. Secondly, it can give the further erroneous impression that no one holds it today. But some of the finest minds in science, at least one Nobel Prize winner in physics, does hold it. The conviction that there is a grand designer is one of the major convictions in the history of human thought. That does not, of course, prove it's true, but it certainly means it's worthy of our serious consideration. Now Hawking goes therefore too far in saying that is not the answer of modern science. There are scientists who believe it, there are scientists who do not. But his answer is what he calls the multiverse. And that is the idea that there are several many world scenarios and many universes, some suggest infinitely many, whatever that means. That anything that can happen will happen in some some universe so it's not surprising that at least one universe is like ours well obviously if you're not a theist and especially if you're a person who would prefer the universe to be a godless sort of universe those are the sorts of facts that can make you feel a little bit uncomfortable so there's no shortage of persons trying to derail the argument from fine-tuning. One popular way to try and do that is to take the fine-tuning data, not so much to suggest that there's a God who made this universe, but that perhaps our universe is one of bajillions of others. If you think about a multiverse, if you think that there are jillions and jillions of universes out there you might reason to yourself that well at least one of them had to turn out right and it just so happens to be ours lucky for us so multiple universe theory incidentally you can see on the October 2005 edition of astronomy magazine cover story why you live in multiple universes if you see all these little marble looking things over the cover, those are literal universes expanding much as ours is. Interesting that cover title seems to take for granted that there actually are multiple universes. There have to be in order to get this sort of probability back up. Well, suffice to say, there's really no independent confirmation for multiple universes or for any universe other than ours. The only reason for buying into a multiple universe theory is to derail the fine-tuning argument. Some, including Oxford philosopher of religion Richard Swinburne, have said, multiple universe theory represents the height of irrationality. It's an attempt to dodge a rather elegant and simple theory, namely theism, by inflating your probabilistic resources to the extent of postulating bajillions of universes. When you start to increase your probabilistic resources like that just in order to avoid a pretty plausible, elegant theory, well, Bill Dembski has referred to that as the inflationary fallacy and there's still some discussion going on with respect to the plausibility of the multiple universe theory. Probably the number one objection to it, there seems to be no independent evidence and no possibility of coming up with such independent evidence for that hypothesis in the future. In the various ways that are conceived of these many universes existing, it's the case that they are unobservable in principle. The only universe we can observe is this one. These other universes cannot be observed even in principle one problem is this sure you could say if there were many different universes all with different chenings then it wouldn't be too unlikely that our particularly fine chained universe exists but for this objection to carry through the objector actually needs to assume that it's true that there are all of these different universes and is there any independent evidence that such universities exist it doesn't seem to me the case that there is I mean sure if you had enough monkeys typing at enough typewriters then they could produce the works of William Shakespeare just by luck but nobody looks at the work of William Shakespeare and goes ah there must be a lot of monkeys with typewriters somewhere in the absence of independent evidence that there is a whole typing pool of monkeys working away everyone knows that the most rational explanation of the specified complexity of a text like Shakespeare's work is that there was a single designer who produced it intentionally. And the same thing goes for our universe. So now we come to the second set of false alternatives, God or the multiverse. But as leading philosophers have pointed out, from a theoretical perspective, why shouldn't God be responsible for the multiverse? The notion that there is a multiverse does not per se exclude a creator. Hawking doesn't seem to mention this at all. But with the multiverse, Hawking moves out beyond science into the realm of philosophy, whose death he has announced rather prematurely. As Paul Davis points out, all cosmological models are constructed by augmenting the results of observation by some sort of philosophical principle. Now Hawking here claiming to be the voice of modern science on the issue gives a false impression where the multiverse is concerned, since there are very weighty voices within science that do not support his view. Prominent among them, Sir Roger Penrose, Hawking's former collaborator, who shared with him the distinguished Wolf Prize. Of Hawking's use of the multiverse concept in the grand design, Penrose recently said, it's overused. And this is a place where it's overused. It's an excuse for not having a good theory. That's an immensely strong statement, isn't it? of 10 to the power of minus 60, which is equal to the precision that an archer must exercise if he wants to plant an arrow in a target of one square centimeter, so like that, very small like that, but which will be placed on the edge of the universe at 14 billion years. At the other end. Yes, that's it. You see, so extreme precision, it's really, it's really... So the question is, is there There is a creator principle, something that regulates things from the beginning? Or, so that's the necessity, or is it pure chance? But pure chance, when there is such a low probability that it will come true, we have to make the hypothesis that there is an infinity of universes. If you play lottery, if you buy all the tickets, of course, there will be one that will have the polo. So here, if you have an infinity of universes, what we call a multiverse, each one having a different combination of physical constants and initial conditions, La plupart sera empty of life, because the combination of physical constants will not be winning, except in ours, where we have the winning combination. Do you believe in this multiverse hypothesis, or do you rather see a predetermined universe? So I answer as a human being now, not as a scientist, because science can admit multiverses too. I would like to have your opinion, your intuition. Yes, so I take it, I call it my Pascalian bet, and of course I think that the universe is... there is a creator principle that has settled this from the beginning. And I think there is a unique universe because it is my intuition. It is difficult to believe when I look at the telescope, for example, to see all this harmony, this beauty, this organization, to believe that everything is a coincidence, that nothing makes sense and that we are here by chance, that all this cosmic architecture is done by chance. © BF-WATCH TV 2021 Thank you for watching! As we look at the details of nature, one thing stands out. This is the order, the patterns, the symmetry that surround us. You can see it in a flower, or a snowflake, or even a seashell. What we are seeing is intelligent design, which might be described as God's fingerprints upon nature. One of the more fascinating math relationships was first described back in medieval times, eight centuries ago. The scholar's name was Leonardo Fibonacci, an outstanding Italian mathematician. He excelled in many areas and one in particular. He generated a long list of numbers by, in each case, adding together the two previous numbers. You can begin with a two and a three. You add them together and you get 5. Now add 3 and 5 to get 8. Then add 5 and 8 to get 13. The Fibonacci sequence keeps going like this. 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, and so on. What Fibonacci realized was that this elegant list of numbers describes many items to be found in nature. For example, flower petals. The example of the petals of a marguerite. You say there is no chance in the number of petals of a marguerite. No, absolutely not. The number of petals of a marguerite is actually inscribed in a scenario that we could qualify as a cosmological scenario, that is to say that everything was planned at the beginning, and that the number of petals... For example, I have a single marguerite with 27 petals, it doesn't exist. There are no petals, there are no... There are no marguerites with 27 petals, it's not possible, it's not possible. And the number of petals of a marguerite is regulated by a mathematical law called the stem from the previous leaves. Third in the series are the plants like the oak, with leaves placed at every two fifths of a turn. The holly plant is the next, at three eighths, while the larch trees are the next, at five thirteenths. And the sequence goes on and on. Notice the number sequence of these fractions, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, and so on. Each number is the sum of the two numbers which came just before it in the sequence. This particular mathematical pattern is called the Fibronacci series. take for example the sunflower. The display of its florets are in perfect spirals of 55, 34 and 21. The sequence of Fibonacci. The fruitlets of the pineapple create the same spiral based on the sequence. The pine cone does the same. As currents move through the ocean and the tide rolls onto the shore, the waves that bring in the tide curve into a spiral that can be mathematically diagrammed onto a plot at the points 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 8 13 21 34 and 55 buds on trees sand dollars starfish petals on flowers are formed with this exact same blueprint This blueprint can be seen around us on a small scale every day, but the greatest example of all is directly above our heads. At an average of 100,000 light years across, even the spiral of the galaxies above us are formed with the exact design. This sequence, our blueprint, appears to be the trademark of a designer, a proof of a creator. Also known as the golden mean, the divine proportion is a mathematical formulation exhibited in everything from the double helix of DNA. The DNA molecule, the code for life, made up of two intertwining spirals we find the 0.618 ratio between the helixes width and cycle length to the form of the human body itself do something like measure the distance from the floor to your navel and then from your navel to your head if you're well proportion, the ratio should be 1 to 1.618, and that ratio is seen all over the beautiful body. People started noticing, and artists noticed, that the width of the mouth in a beautiful face, for example, not in any face, but it had to be beautiful. If a face was beautiful, the width of the mouth was exactly 1.618 times the width of the nose. If the wasn't beautiful that wasn't the case dentists in their dental work noticed that the upper front tooth was 1.618 times as wide as the next next tooth over the lateral incisor so the central incisor was 1.618 times the width of the lateral incisor the next tooth over wonderful give me some words of the few fingers the your fingers are each called phalanges and each bone in the fingers call a phalanx and the phalanx that's most the closest to your knuckle here is one point six one eight times the phalanx that's in the middle and that's one point six one eight times the length of the phalanx at the end with your fingernail so that was kind of amazing this number would come up over and over again then we find the Fibonacci ratio in heart muscles, in bronchial tube branch, even in the electrical potential of neurons, and as Roger Penrose pointed out, even in the arrangement of the brain's microtubules. As we scan our universe, from the tiny flower to the awe-inspiring galaxy, we see the fingerprint of God. We see the fingerprint of God. We see the fingerprint of God. As we're going to show in this broadcast today, that there is no doubt at all anymore that the science of intelligent design absolutely crushes any competition, absolutely crushes any competition absolutely crushes any other theory about the nature of the universe that we live in it's over there is simply no contest the preeminent theory, model, science of reality, from this point forward, I declare on this show, is the science of intelligent design, the science of intelligent design, and the absolute proof, I mean absolute, I'm using a strong word there, proof, is going to be given to you today, in just a minute here, I just can't even believe it, to be honest, discoveries like what I'm about to discuss to you just never cease to amaze me, for many reasons, that it's all covered nobody knows it's covered up and well since I was taught growing up that the world was was basically a random universe to just to find out such hardcore distinct verification that that's a lie just never ceases to amaze me so here's the information so here's the information I'm reading from the abstract of an article this is the first of many Many academic articles I'm going to be discussing with you here today. And these aren't just some academic journals. You go ask your university professor what the most prestigious academic science journals in the world are, and they're going to name the ones that I'm discussing here with you today. I'm going to read to you right now the journal Nature, there's a journal called Nature and there's a journal called Science, those are considered the two most prestigious overall academic science journals in the world and I'm going to read you part of I'm going to read you that part of the abstract of one right now let me just read okay this is this is the journal nature number 454 pages 362 to 363 March 18, 2010 but put on line March 18, 2010, but put online March 17, 2010. This is by a fellow named Ian Affleck, who teaches apparently in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of British Columbia. Listen to the title of this article, Solid State Physics, Golden Ratio Seen in Magnet. Let's go through this Science Daily article, it's sciencedaily.com, this was released on January 7 January 7 2010 title of the article golden ratio discovered in quantum world hidden symmetry observed for the first time in solid-state matter let's find out what that first time what that means let's let's read here researchers from Helmholtz Zentrum Berlin and it's's some German words, in cooperation with colleagues from Oxford and Bristol Universities, as well as the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, United Kingdom, have for the first time observed a nanoscale symmetry hidden in solid-state matter. Okay, did you catch that that this is the first time any symmetry of any sort has been observed in the nanoscale okay the quantum scale remember quantum physics is the study of the base level energies of nature, the smallest building blocks that make up everything, little pieces of energy like the electron or the muon or the quark. So specifically what was found in this study was that chains of atoms lined up together form what's sort of like a string and it resonates a frequency or pitch. What do you know? The pitch is in the ratio of 1.618, the golden ratio. Let me just read this paragraph to you it's a science daily again january 7 2010 golden race was discovered in quantum world by turning the system and artificially introducing more quantum uncertainty the researchers observed that the chains of atoms acts like a nano nanotech guitar string dr radu koldia from oxford university I'll see you next time. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great daych guitar string. Dr. Radu Koldia from Oxford University, who is the principal author of the paper and drove the international project from its inception a decade ago until the present, explains, here the tension comes from the interaction between spins causing them to magnetically resonate. For these interactions we found a series scale of resonant notes. The first two notes show a perfect relationship with each other. Their frequencies pitch are on the ratio of 1.618. This is just amazing. There's no defense that a random universe theorist in academia can give to counter this. There's no reason at all that the quantum base of reality should be exhibiting the specific number of the golden ratio if we live in a random universe. All the competing theories, evolution, random universe theories, all the junk from academia no longer competes in any way with intelligent design science, intelligent design theory when you hear a scientist say on the discovery channel or something an academic a professional say there's no evidence for intelligent design it's all a silly little parlor game and there's all this evidence for evolutionary science and the academic theories for the... design. It's all a silly little parlor game. And there's all this evidence for evolutionary science and the academic theories for the origins of the universe. You can know two things. One, we have to be compassionate, because they simply don't know the empirical data. They have no idea. They only, academics typically only talk on their closed little worlds and only accept information from their closed little worlds. And the second thing we can know, and make no mistake about it, is they are absolutely propagandizing the world with all of their theses about the nature of the universe that we live in where we come from our origins the origin of the universe and so forth and we realize that everything we've been taught before this point by the professionals were lies and we can prove it up and down all over the place and down all over the place The theory of evolution that was advanced in the 19th century denies this evident fact of creation. This theory holds that the species on earth were not created by God, but came into being as a result of processes governed entirely by chance. The founder of this theory was an amateur naturalist named Charles Darwin. Darwin expounded this theory in his book, The Origin of Species, which was published in 1859. Darwin's book was an instant success, but his popularity was due more to the ideological implications of the book rather than its scientific worth. Darwin's ideas provided considerable support for the materialistic philosophy which denied the existence of God. The founder of dialectical materialism carl marx dedicated his book das capital to darwin and wrote on the cover to charles darwin from a devoted admirer darwin's theory argued that all species descended from a common ancestor by means of little cumulative changes in long periods of time. Darwin could advance no sound evidence to prove this claim. Indeed, he was himself aware of the great many facts that invalidated his theory. He admitted these in his book in a chapter entitled, Difficulties on Theory. Darwin's hope was that these difficulties would be overcome by new scientific discoveries. But in fact, advances in science would refute Darwin's claims one by one. Darwin proposed that all species evolve successively from a common ancestor. But how did that first living thing come into being? Darwin did not address this question at all in his book. He was not even aware that this point was one of the biggest refutations of his theory. The primitive understanding of science in his day assumed that life had a very simple structure. According to a theory called spontaneous generation, which was popular since the medieval age, it was believed that living things could easily arise from non-living matter. It was commonly thought that frogs spontaneously arose from mud and bugs from food leftovers. And some curious experiments were designed to prove these theories. A handful of wheat was left on a rag and mice were expected to arise from the mixture. The maggots on meat were also taken as evidence that life could generate from non-living matter. But later it was understood that such maggots did not form spontaneously, but that they emerged from microscopic larvae deposited on the meat by flies. And in Darwin's time, the belief that microbes could emanate easily from non-living materials was very common. But five years after the publication of The Origin of Species, the famous French biologist Louis Pasteur scientifically refuted these myths that lay ground for evolution. After lengthy studies and several experiments, the famous French biologist Louis Pasteur refuted the foundation that lays ground for the theory of evolution can matter organize itself no today there is no circumstance known under which one could affirm that microscopic beings have come into the world without parents resembling themselves the first evolutionist to take up the issue of the origin of life in the 20th century was the Russian biologist Alexander Oparin. His aim was to explain how the first living cell, the alleged common ancestor of all living beings according to the theory of evolution, could emerge. In the 1930s, Oparin formulated a number of theories to show how the first living cell could arise from inanimate matter by chance. However, his efforts ended in failure, and O'Peron himself had to confess. Unfortunately, the origin of the cell remains a question that is actually the murkiest aspect of the whole theory of evolution. Evolutionists that followed Oparin conducted experiments to find an evolutionist explanation to the origin of life. The most famous of these experiments was conducted by the American chemist Stanley Miller in 1953. Miller obtained a few simple organic molecules by triggering a reaction among gases that he claimed would have been present in the primitive Earth atmosphere. At the time, this experiment was regarded as a scientific proof for evolution. It turned out to be no such thing at all. Later discoveries showed that the gases used in the experiment were very different from the gases that had been present in the early atmosphere of the world. Miller himself eventually admitted to the invalidity of his experiment. Every evolutionist attempt in the 20th century to account for the origin of life has ended in failure. Jeffrey Bethe, a professor of geochemistry and a leading advocate of the theory of evolution, confesses this fact in the February 1998 issue of Earth. Today, as we leave the 20th century, we still face the biggest problem that we had when we entered the 20th century. How did life originate on Earth? The biggest impasse confronting evolution is the incredibly complex structure of the living cell. Every living thing on Earth is made up of cells about a hundredth of a millimeter in size. Some living things are made up of a single cell. Yet even these single cell organisms are remarkably complex in their composition. They have complicated functions to survive and even little motors to move. In Darwin's time, this complex structure of the cell was unknown. With the primitive microscopes of those days, cells appeared to be little more than featureless stains. However, powerful electron microscopes invented around the middle of the 20th century began revealing just how complex and organized a living cell really was. They laid bare a complexity and organization that could not be a product of chance. A living cell is comprised of thousands of tiny parts that work in harmony. To make a comparison, within the cell, there are power stations, high-tech factories, a complex data bank, huge storage systems, advanced refineries, and a seemingly conscious cell membrane that controls what enters and leaves the cell. In order the cell to survive all of these organelles have to exist at the same time it is impossible that such an intricate and complex system could have emerged as a result of coincidences so there's a big question if you're just kind of trying to assess how likely is it that we'd find a protein by chance with all the amino acids in that prebiotic soup interacting with each other for say billions of years they give it a lot of time how likely is it that we'd ever get a protein to arise by chance so I have a colleague who's been interested in the whole question of whether or not life could arise by chance for a long time his name is Doug Ax Axe. He's a molecular biologist. He did his Ph.D. at Caltech. He worked for 14 years at Cambridge University, and he wanted to find out how common or how rare are the functional sequences of amino acids among the big space of all the possible amino acids there are. And he came up with a really number and it's it's 10 to the 74 power so just to get the amino acid sequence properly you've got it odds about 1 in 10 to the 74 but there's other probabilistic hurdles that have to be overcome if you want to build a protein we learned we know from chemistry that you have to attach the amino acids together with what's called a peptide bond. In nature, peptide bonds occur with about a one and two, in a one and two frequency. Half the bonds that form between amino acids are peptide bonds, half aren't. But if you get any bonds forming that aren't peptide bonds, you can't form a protein. So to form a protein, 150 amino acids long, you've got a 1 in 2 chance at each site of getting the correct type of linkage. So you've got 1 in 2 times 1 in 2 times 1 in 2 times 1 in 2 to the what power? Close to 150. Since we've got linkages, we have 149, but call it 150. So we've got another huge exponential problem to overcome problem to overcome So and it turns out that 1 in 2 to the 150 is equal is the same number as 10 to the 45th 1 in 10 To the 45 so now we got to eat Incredibly improbable things that we've got to overcome to build a functional protein by chance alone One more problem when you're building proteins amino acids come in come in two flavors. There's a left-handed flavor and a right-handed flavor. They're called optical isomers, not flavors. And the left-handed version is the only kind that can be used in building proteins. You get even one right-handed amino acid in there and your protein won't fold properly. So you've probabilistic hurdle to overcome so you've got a one and two chance at each side again out to the 150th power two to the 150th power again is 10 to the 45 oh my goodness so the odds of building even a short functional protein by chance alone is 74 plus 40 you. Remember how you do this in math? You can add the exponents if you're multiplying exponential numbers. Thank you very much. Okay. Wow. Now, can anyone get their mind around a number that big? There's only 10 to the 80th elementary particles in the entire universe. There's only 10 to the 16th seconds since the Big Bang. There's only 10 to the 139th total events since the beginning of the universe. Now you're starting to get the understanding of why people are very skeptical that the chance hypothesis is going to do the job. Now you may have heard just the opposite. Has anyone ever gotten in a discussion with you about the origin of life and said, hey, it happened by chance? Do you hear that? I mean, this happens to me. I'm out and I'll be lecturing in hostile university environments and I'll get done and somebody will say, well, but, but, and they want to argue with me about the probabilities. And I just shut the discussion down because I say, no serious scientist thinks this is the way it happened. No serious scientist thinks this is the way it happened. No serious scientist thinks this is the way it happened. No serious scientist thinks this is the way it happened no serious scientist thinks this is the way it happened no serious scientist thinks this is the way it happened no serious scientist thinks this is the way it happened modern biochemistry has also revealed the unimaginably complex design of the dna molecule The structure of the DNA molecule the structure of the DNA molecule was discovered by two scientists James Watson and Francis Crick in 1955 their discovery demonstrated that life was much more complex than anyone had previously envisioned himself a a confirmed evolutionist, Francis Crick, who received a Nobel Prize for this discovery, came to confess that a structure like DNA could never have emerged by chance. Professor Anthony Flew of England and Reading University is the world's foremost academic atheist over the last 50 years and the author of more than 30 books. His first debate with former atheist-turned-Christian C.S. Lewis in 1950 in Oxford, England was the first time he advanced his argument for atheism. He later wrote a paper titled Theology and Falsification. The paper became the most widely reprinted philosophical publication of the last half century and a key foundation for atheists and agnostics Thanks for watching! The paper became the most widely reprinted philosophical publication of the last half century and a key foundation for atheists and agnostics who advanced materialist evolutionism. But now it is the advancement of science itself that has changed the mind of Flew and some scientists. At a recent summit at New York University, Flew changed his position and now believes in God as the creator of the universe. Flew turns to various discoveries of science to prove his point. But it is the manifestation of life written in DNA and the transcription of DNA to RNA and RNA into protein and the subsequent process of protein folding that makes the best case for flu. What I think that the DNA material has done has shown by its almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which lead to produce this being that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. When you look at RNA, you, as a chemist, you're in astonishment, really, at just what a wonderful molecule it is. It's complex. It's a really beautiful structure. And you inevitably wonder, how on earth did that structure arise? How on earth did chemistry produce it? RNA's structure looks simple, but looks can deceive. Each building block is actually made of two parts, a sugar molecule and a nuclear base. Chemists found they could make the nuclear bases and so when they then realized they could actually make the sugars they just thought we must be able to join them together and so they tried for many years but the problem was chemically you just can't join them together of course such an amazing structure could never have been formed by chance. The theory of evolution, which sees life as the result of mere coincidences and haphazard happenings, is helpless to explain anything in the face of the incredible complexity of DNA. Some evolutionists say that our DNA is about 98% similar to that of apes, and that this difference is only a few spelling mistakes. Others say a more accurate figure is no more than 95%. But considering that humans have 3 billion letters worth of DNA information in each cell, even a 2% difference is actually 60 million spelling errors. Of course, this is not error, but 20 500 page books worth of new information. A common designer is a much better explanation for the similarities in human and ape DNA. As an architect uses the same building materials for different buildings, we shouldn't be surprised if God used similar design features in many different creatures. After all, we do do share about 50% of our DNA with bananas, but that doesn't mean we're half banana. Every detail of a living being's physical and physiological makeup is coded in this double helix. All the information about our bodies from the color of our eyes to the structure of our internal organs and the shape and function of our cells are programmed in sections called genes and the DNA. The DNA code is made up of the sequence of four different bases. If we think of each one of these bases as a letter, DNA can be likened to a data bank made up of an alphabet of four letters. All the information about a living thing is stored in this data bank. If you found an ancient clay tablet with strange characters washed up on the shore, you couldn't read it. Unless someone had cracked the code. But you'd still know the letters represented a language. even if you didn't read it unless someone had cracked the code but you'd still know the letters represented a language even if you didn't know anything else about the author or his civilization language is recognizable even if you can't read it take Morse code it has three basic parts dots dashes and spaces these three simple parts are combined to represent letters there are 26 letters in the English language We'll be right back. basic parts dots dashes and spaces these three simple parts are combined to represent letters there are 26 letters in the English language which are combined to form over 400,000 words those words can of course be combined into an infinite number of sequences or sentences there is evidence that DNA represents a language for basic units called nucleotides combined into a code for 20 amino acids from those few amino acids the body forms more than 100,000 proteins even if you can't read DNA it still has all the hallmarks of language a language that biologists are just now beginning to crack. Every tiny cell in our body is packed with three feet of DNA, three billion nucleotides. The similarity between DNA and human language is uncanny. In addition to codes, both use similar techniques to pack access rearrange copy and translate information dna seems to represent a language the language of life an unseen author the creator of heaven and earth has left a testimony of his existence in the dna of every living thing the information that is is stored in the DNA molecule is pointing back to a designing intelligence. Now, why do I say that? It has to do with what we know about the cause and effect structure of the world. Our local hero in Seattle, Bill Gates, says the DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than any we've ever created. And that's a very suggestive remark because we know that programs always come from programmers. And in fact, we know generally that information, whether it's in a computer program or a hieroglyphic inscription or in a headline in a newspaper or a block of text in a book, information always comes from an intelligent source. So when we find information in the DNA molecule, the most logical thing to conclude is that it too had We'll be right back. a block of text in a book, information always comes from an intelligent source. So when we find information in the DNA molecule, the most logical thing to conclude is that it too had an intelligent source. Due to this primitive level of science at the time, the imaginary scenarios of the theory of evolution were not looked upon as odd at all. Darwin's theses had a great impact on the scientific circles of his day. However, Darwin was still distressed. In the chapter, Difficulties on Theory, he wrote, If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. As far as I'm concerned, I'm here to tell you, Michael, this morning, and Jason, evolution is dead. Long live the Creator. I'll tell you why, and I'm saying science says that as a scientist. Evolution is dead because there's such a thing as the gene set concept. They've taken a microplasma smallest organism, microplasma genitalia, which is the smallest organism that is known to exist, has four hundred and sixty eight genes. A gene is a mix of proteins. Right. So it can be a thousand can be ten thousand amino acids. OK, there are four hundred eighty six. And they've decided since year 2000, they've said, let's take them. Let's try to reduce it because we have to start if you're gonna be an evolutionist you have to start with zero genes and build up if you're gonna go from hydrogen to human and so somewhere along the way they said well let's take it down in year 2000 they published that even on paper they couldn't go below 200 genes in on the 6th of January 2006 in nature they published that in reality you could only go down to 397 genes. So a cell, which is where my specialty lies, in my scientific work, a cell needs a specific number of components to be functional. You have a membrane, but then you need to feed the membrane. So you have to have some mitochondria. You need a way of tagging the proteins. You need some DNA. So you need 397 things. Just the glucose cycle for getting energy takes over six different genes. So if you don't have one of them, you don't have any more energy coming to the cell. Darwin's fears proved to be true soon after his death. The laws of inheritance discovered by an Austrian botanist, Gregor Mendel, caused Lamarck's and Darwin's assertions to collapse. The science of genetics that developed at the beginning of the 20th century proved that it was not acquired physical traits, but only genes that were transmitted to subsequent generations. This discovery made it clear that a scenario suggesting that acquired traits accumulated from generation to generation and generated different living species was implausible. In other words, there were no inheritable variations for Darwin's proposed mechanism of natural selection to choose from. Subsequently, the theory of evolution as advanced by Darwin has been collapsed early in the 20th century. All the other efforts by evolutionists in the 20th century could do nothing but only confirm that natural selection had no evolutionary power. A famous evolutionist, the English paleontologist Colin Paterson, admitted this what he said no one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection no one has ever got near it and most of the current argument in neo-darwinism is about this question when it was clear that the mechanism of natural selection proposed by Darwin had no evolutionary power, evolutionists had to make a fundamental change in the theory. In addition to the concept of natural selection, they added a second mechanism called mutation. MUTATIONS ARE ALTERATIONS OR DISTOR DNA of living beings, mostly as a result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action. The theory of evolution now holds that living things are differentiated from one another and develop as a result of mutations. This cannot be true, for mutations only damage the information in the DNA and give only harm to a living being. No beneficial mutation has yet been observed either in nature or in laboratories. Since mutations do not add new genetic information, it is impossible for living beings to acquire new organs through mutations. Is new information being generated? That's what evolutionists have to come up with. They have to have a mechanism that generates new never-before-existing genetic information right that can build all these bigger and better structures right that supposedly never existed before right right never before existing information and back when that when there was only a single cell that gave rise to all the diversity of life there wasn't information for skin and hair and heart and a brain and so on. So you have to generate it somehow, according to evolution. Now, Dr. Werner Gitt is an information specialist. Since we're talking about information, we'll go to an information specialist. He wrote a book called In the Beginning Was Information that you and I both love. And in his book he says this, A code system is always the result of a mental process. It requires an intelligent origin or inventor. It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition and creativity is required. He goes on to say, there is no known law of nature no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself and creativity is required he goes on to say there is no known law of nature no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself and matter right this is why professor richard dawkins one of the most renowned advocates of the theory of evolution of our day hesitates when he is asked to give a single example that increases the genetic information. Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary evidence for that if you look at the um at the detail details of biochemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer wait a second Richard Dawkins thought intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit Richard Dawkins is his name arguably the world's most famous atheist I don't know how you would test for that but maybe we'll ask them so what's wrong with in your opinion with believing in a god regardless of who the god is? I think it's false. I think that it's a matter of belief without evidence and I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the at the detail Details of biochemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer wait a second richard dawkins thought intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe in the 20th century the theory of evolution was refuted not only by molecular biology but also by paleontology that is fossil science a second proof usually offered is the fossil record according to most biology textbooks fossils show the gradual development of life from simple to complex over hundreds of millions of years but a growing number of scientists say that this textbook story is incomplete and even misleading because it ignores an extraordinary event in the history of life known as the Cambrian explosion the oldest stratum of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Camb, which has an estimated age of 500 to 530 million years. In strata older than the Cambrian, no fossils of any creatures except a few unicellular organisms are to be seen. In the Cambrian period, however, many diverse species appear quite abruptly. More than 30 invertebrate species such as jellyfish, starfish, trilobites, and snails emerge all of a sudden. In Darwin's theory, if you think of the branching tree, Darwin's branching tree, the common ancestor down here and the different modern forms of animals up here, you would have one form to begin with and then it would gradually diverge into slightly different forms and more and more different until you get the major differences that we see now. The problem with the Cambrian explosion is that all these major differences appear together at the same time with no fossil evidence that they descended from this common ancestor. The article reported on cutting-edge research by Chinese scientist J. Y. Chen, an internationally respected paleontologist at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology. Chen's discoveries in the fossil beds in Xinjiang, China, have rocked the scientific establishment. Located in the province of Yunnan in southern China, Xinjiang has some of the world's best-preserved fossils from the Cambrian era. Darwinism helps them, maybe only telling a part story for evolution. According to Chen, the fossils he's discovered turn Darwin's tree of life upside down Darwin as a tree reverse the conch ship very and aspectly our research is convincing major phyla starting down below a beginning of campion base is white gradually narrow so this is almost turned on different way. This situation refutes the theory of evolution for sure because Darwin wrote in the origin of species if numerous species belonging to the same genera or families have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection. This fatal stroke that frightened Darwin comes from the Cambrian period right at the the outset of the fossil record. No fossil remains supporting evolution have ever been unearthed in excavations conducted in every corner of the world. Professor Roberto Fondi is a specialist in paleontology. He teaches at the Department of Earth Sciences in the University of Siena in Italy. You may be surprised to know that the fundamental assumptions upon which evolutionary thinking is based are not at all confirmed by paleontology. All the biological groups from bacteria and blue green algae to men appear abruptly in the fossil record without any links connecting them with each other. Why is it then that so many people believe that fossils prove evolution? Evolution is presented to grown-ups and taught to the very young as a fact that has been verified and demonstrated for so long that it is a waste of time and even ridiculous to question it so what is the truth of the matter well there is a history book of the past and that is the rocks and the fossilized remains in them so it is up to the paleontologists to read that book and give the answer. And what do you read in that book, Professor? The fact is that after nearly two centuries of intense research, the palaeontological evidence for evolutionary theory is not only rare, but highly questionable. The point is that if evolution had really really happened the evidence would be in great abundance and incontestable the museums would be overflowing with fossils clearly documenting the transitions between the various biological groups yet there are none moreover there is no indication that the situation will change in the future. Those very few fossils which are claimed to show some kind of evolutionary link, such as the amphibians Ichthyostica and Cimoria, the reptile Propnognathus, the bird Archaeopteryx, and the australopecine ape, called Homo habilis, are very far from conclusive. Faced with these realities made clear by the fossil record, evolutionists directed all their attention to the claim that man evolved from ape-like creatures. 6,500 different ape species have lived so far, and the majority of them are extinct. The skulls of these extinct apes, both big and small, constituted a great resource for evolutionists on which to exercise their imaginations freely. arranging the skulls of these extinct ape species from the smallest to the biggest and adding some skulls of vanished human races to the series, evolution has concocted the scenario of human evolution. The most important role of this scenario is given to the extinct ape species called Australopithecus. The first Australopithecus fossil was found in 1924 by a paleontologist named Raymond Dart. Since then, evolutionists argue that this ape species, the name of which means southern ape, is a man-like creature. However, when Australopithecus and chimpanzee skeletons are compared, it is seen that there is no important difference between the two. In the face of this fact, evolutionists hypothesized that Australopithecus walked upright on its two feet differently from other apes. However, two world-renowned anatomists, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Professor Charles Oxnard, refuted this allegation. Simply put, Australopithecus advanced as the ancestor of man by evolutionists, is merely an extinct ape species. On the other hand, fossils that are included by evolutionists under imaginary classifications such as Homo erectus, Homoaster or homo sapien archaic in fact belong to different human races when these fossils are inspected it is seen that their skeletons are essentially the same as those of people living today the only dissimilarities are a few structural differences in their skulls. But differences like these are to be found in different human races alive on Earth today. The famous evolutionist paleontologist Richard Leakey admits that the difference between the skulls classified as Homo erectus and those of modern men is only racial. These differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans. the only defense left to evolutionists against all these scientific facts Is just one thing Propaganda The baseless scenario of the human evolution Is imposed on the public by means of imaginary drawings That appear in evolutionist publications In these drawings Creat creatures with hairy bodies and simian features are decked out with overtones of human-like motifs. The given impression is that these half-man, half-ape transitional forms did live once. From time to time, drawings that present snapshots from the social life of these creatures are made. These misleading drawings are introduced in a particular sequence to engrave the scenario of the human evolution on the subconscious of society. Even in the most famous scientific publications, there frequently appear such window dressings called reconstructions and imaginary family tree drawings made by their inspiration. The imaginative power of evolutionists is not limited to fictional drawings and models. They go even further and shoot movies in which imaginary half-man, half-ape creatures act. However, all of these are pure deception. The only evidence at hand is generally nothing more than a few skull fragments or a tibia. The Hair, skin, nose, ears, lips, or other facial features of a living being cannot be determined from its bone remains. Evolution has shaped these soft tissues, which leave no trace in the fossil, to suit the purposes of their theorypanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher. These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public. Evolutionists go so far in this subject that they can even invent very different faces for the same skull. The three entirely different reconstructions made for the fossil calls in Xantrapus is a famous example showing how persistent evolutionists are in producing these false masks. Evolutionists engage not only in drawing and modeling tricks, sometimes they commit deliberate forgeries. The most famous of these frauds is the Piltdown Fossil, introduced in England in 1912 by an evolutionist named Charles Dawson. This fossil was presented as the most important transitional form between ape and man and was displayed in museums for more than 30 years. Experts who re-examined the fossil in 1949 discovered that it was a forgery that had been produced by attaching an orangutan's jaw to a human skull. Another intermediate transitional form fabricated by evolutionists was the Nebraska Man. This was cooked up in 1922 on the basis of a single fossil tooth. The evolutionist did not neglect to give it an ostentatious Latin name, Hesperopithecus Harold Cookeye, or to make imaginary drawings related to it. It was soon revealed that the tooth that had been the source of inspiration for nebraska man in fact belonged to a wild pig many other fossil skulls have been presented as great evidence for evolution failed one by one neanderthal man was advanced as evidence in 1856, dismissed in 1960. Piltdown Man was advanced as evidence in 1912, dismissed in 1953. Zinzantropus was advanced as evidence in 1959, dismissed in 1960. Remapithecus was advanced as evidence in 1964, dismissed in 1979. Despite all these facts, these skulls are still presented to the public through the media and in some evolutionist textbooks as if they were scientific facts. In many countries, an important part of the society supposes that evolution is a proven fact. a great deal of this so-called evidence of evolution much of which has been dismissed by evolutionists themselves is still presented to school children in their textbooks where they are depicted as the ancestors of man in fact the truth that the evolution has try so hard to deny and conceal is there for all to see. Species appeared all of a sudden and perfectly on the earth. That is, they were created. The divine creator ruling over the whole of nature created all kinds with their unique and perfect traits that divine creator is Allah the one and only God he is the Lord of the heavens the earth and all that is between them Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, Oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh- Thank you for watching. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, As my knowledge of science grew 25 years ago in basically a flash I came to the conclusion that the universe is so perfectly made and everything so perfectly matches together that there must be God and only one god and only one god so i accepted there is god but i was not looking for a religion i thought all religions are wrong christians say this is one the jews said jews are chosen people and if you're not jew you're not not chosen and about islam i only had negative information negative information negative information so how does one distinguish with all the different ways of life, calling to people, telling them that they're the only way? How do we distinguish what's the right way with all this confusion? First of all, let's get this straight. It has to be really easy to tell if Islam is a true religion or a fake religion. And it has to be real easy to see which religion on earth is the one from Allah And which is the one from men, from devils, from conmen, what have you It can't be that the one true religion from Allah That's generally from God Is going to look exactly and not discernible from the one that's from devils One that's written by men or made up by men or altered by men And I can't tell which is the one authored by allah and which is the one authored by people it can't be then he finished the sentence he said i'll go to your faith it's better than my faith but you'll need proof and i said man religion has never been about proof it's about faith that's it that's what religion is he said in islam we have both we have proof and faith we have both we have proof and It in Islam, we have both. We have proof and faith. We have both. We have proof and faith. We have both. We have proof and faith. So different people from different religions used to knock on my door. And once the discussions got down to evidence, they had no answers. And that wasn't going to fly with me. And then I discovered Islam. And shortly after, I became Muslim. 1,400 years ago, when the world was immersed in darkness, the Quran was revealed, which brought light to a beleaguered world. And whereas the earlier books came with many scientific mistakes due to the hand of man having delved into them, the Quran had none of these contradictions. The world thought there could be no reconciliation between religion and science but the quran mentioned many scientific facts in great detail like how a human being developed in the mother's womb as a medical doctor particularly attracted to natural sciences and physiology. I must confess that in 1972 when I read the Quran in the original text for the first time, these data concerning man were those which impressed me most. Mohammed could not have known these facts about human development in the 7th century because most of them were not discovered until the 20th century. Muslims and others are justified in concluding that these facts could only have been revealed to Muhammad by the one known who knows all about us, not only about how we developed, but how we live and function. And described other scientific facts which amaze the world's renowned scientists renowned scientists actually i'm very much impressed by finding true astronomical facts in korea i don't i personally can't see how this could be a mere chance there are too many accuraciesacies. And like Dr. Mohr, I have no difficulty in my mind reconciling that this is a divine inspiration or revelation which led him to these statements. Let me go straight to the second argument, which is about the miraculous nature of the Quran. The Quran being a signpost to the the transcendent what I mean by this is that the Quran can only best explained by the fact that it is a divine book and I'm going to use the inimitability of the Quran for this now what do I mean by inimitability what I mean by inimitability that the Quran cannot be emulated, reproduced, matched or copied with regards to its literary and linguistic features. But since Prophet Muhammad is the last messenger that was sent to mankind, isn't it fair that his message, the miracle that came with him and his message be preserved till the end of time? So that humans can still make that judgment call whether this this miracle and message is in fact man-made or divine, man-made or divine, man-made or divine. And then when I was maybe about one-third in Quran, I remember telling my wife, you know, this Muhammad, he must have been a very smart, very intelligent man because this book is very clear, very logical, very easy to follow and there are no contradictions, no contradictions. But then as I read later, I suddenly saw a scientific fact which I knew was only discovered in the 20th century. So immediately I saw that Muhammad is not the author of the Quran. Muhammad is a messenger sent by God to give the Quran to mankind. Muhammad is a messenger sent by God to give the Quran to mankind. I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, had no idea this life would judge my eternity I look at myself and I wondered who created me I had to open my heart and open my mind And open my eyes to see Open my eyes and see the existence of what's surrounding me It's more than just chance, it's more than just coincidence You look around and see the earth, the moon, the sun and the sky A beautiful creation of Allah, so how could you deny? How can you deny the oneness of Allah? Allahu Akbar How can you deny the oneness of Allah? Allahu Akbar How can you deny the oneness of Allah? Allahu Akbar, how can you deny the oneness of Allah? Allahu Akbar Lift your head and look up above, and you see it so clearly There's stars that glitter all around The birds are flying above, and you see it so clearly, the stars that glitter all around, the birds that fly over me, I see the rain fall from the sky, I see you see it become a dream, lift a veil from your heart, worship Allah and you'll succeed, you surely succeed Open my eyes and see The existence of what's surrounding me It's more than just chance It's more than just coincidence The air that I breathe The food that I need The plants and plants and the trees, the sun and the seas, you and me, everything you see, so how could you deny? How can you deny the oneness of Allah, Allahu Akbar How can you deny the oneness of Allah, Allahu Akbar How can you deny the oneness of Allah, Allahu Akbar How can you deny the oneness of Allah, Allahu Akbar How can you deny the oneness of Allah, Allahu Akbar