Krauss, Meyer, Lamoureux: What’s Behind it all? God, Science and the Universe.
About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery
Has a scientific explanation of the universe replaced the need for God as cause of its origins? Could life on our planet exist apart from divine intervention? Is there evidence for a designer? Does it even matter? Join us live at Convocation Hall at the University of Toronto, or stream to your site via YouTube, as we explore explanations of life and our universe. We are bringing together three top minds from three different perspectives for this 2-hour dialogue. We invite you to be a part of the conversation on March 19, 2016 - "What Is Behind It All? God, Science and the Universe." ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: PROF. DR. LAWRENCE M. KRAUSS, is an internationally known theoretical physicist with wide research interests, including the interface between elementary particle physics and cosmology, where his studies include the early universe, the nature of dark matter, general relativity and neutrino astrophysics. He has investigated questions ranging from the nature of exploding stars to issues of the origin of all mass in the universe. He was born in New York City and moved shortly thereafter to Toronto, Canada, where he grew up. He received undergraduate degrees in both Mathematics and Physics at Carleton University. He received his Ph.D. in Physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1982), then joined the Harvard Society of Fellows (1982-85). DR. STEPHEN C. MEYER, Intelligent Design advocate, received his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge. A former geophysicist and college professor, he now directs Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle. He has authored the New York Times best seller Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, 2013) as well as Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, 2009), which was named a Book of the Year by the Times (of London) Literary Supplement in 2009. In his first book on intelligent design, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, 2009) Meyer examined the mystery of the origin of the first life. With Darwin’s Doubt, he has expanded the scope of the case for intelligent design to the whole sweep of life’s history. DR. DENIS O. LAMOUREUX, received three earned doctorates: a Ph.D. in Oral Biology-Dental Development and Evolution (University of Alberta), a Doctor of Dental Surgery, DDS, (University of Alberta), and a Ph.D. in Interdisciplinary Theology-Science and Religion (University of St. Michael's College at the University of Toronto). An award winning teacher, Dr. Lamoureux is an Associate Professor of Science and Religion at St. Joseph's College in the University of Alberta. His appointment is the first tenure-track position in Canada dedicated to teaching and research on the relationship between scientific discovery and Christian faith. Lamoureux's academic specialty focuses on the modern origins controversy. Previous to this he was a clinical instructor in the Faculty of Dentistry at the University of Alberta from 1991 to 1996, had a private dental practice, and served as a Canadian Armed Forces Dental Officer (he received United Nations & Canadian Peace Keeping Medals in 1980 and 2003). ABOUT THE SERIES: The Religion and Society Series is a movement to generate conversations on the ultimate questions of life. The purpose of the Series is to play a catalytic role in helping community groups and churches across Canada to engage people in topics that deeply matter to individuals and society. See more information here: https://www.wycliffecollege.ca/religionandsociety
Comments
-
Just because you add in the factor of Chance and Time doesn't mean Life could've appeared by Chance and Time. Let's just say the odds are ONE in 100 trillion... Every single day your Chances remain at 1 in 100 trillion. Just because TIME passes doesn't mean the chances get better DAY by DAY. Every single DAY your Time and Chance start over at 1 in 100 trillion. The DAYS following the DAY your 1 in 100 Trillion began have no recollection of the previous DAYS. It's not like we go from 1 in 100 trillion to 2 in 100 trillion, then 3 in 100 trillion and on and on etc. Every day the NUMBERS on this Combination Lock start over at 00000000001. THE ODDS DO NOT GET BETTER THE MORE TIME THAT PASSES. Imagine a Trillion piece jigsaw puzzle, Now imagine all 1 trillion of those pieces finding each other in the Galaxy and not only that, but each piece has to find its interlocking piece and arriving somewhere in this Time and Chance equation at the same exact Time, find a Male or Female Counter part, reproduce and then Survive for Billions of years. Would you say that if given enough Time and Chance that Mount Rushmore could carve itself out from meer Wind and erosion? Just give it several Billion years...I don't think soo... how about a modern day BMW automobile? Can you imagine all the parts to a BMW creating themselves and then not only magically finding it's other parts in the Galaxy but somehow putting all the intricate parts together and then surviving and reproducing? How about just a small ANT? How did all the WATER on EARTH come about? did every WATER Molecule find the other WATER Molecules at the same time While all the INFORMATION needed to CREATE and SUSTAIN LIFE aside from WATER met up in the same place at the same TIME and just happened to arrive with Everything needed to EAT, MATE, BREATHE etc etc... Where did TIME AND CHANCE come from? Why do we have TIME AND CHANCE to even work with? Why would there even BE TIME AND CHANCE? And the last I checked random explosions in Outer Space do not form perfectly rounded spears THE EARTH and all the other PLANETS are perfectly rounded. How did a random explosion CREATE WATER and OXYGEN from nothing? A big bang would only destroy especially a big bang of such magnitude. What was the MAGIC explosive ingredient that had the POWER to CREATE LIFE AND EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS? Consider this, as A DOG or any other Animal cannot even begin to Understand its CREATER, but it doesn't even have the BRAIN capacity to begin to learn how to think about such. So humans cannot even begin to Understand GOD and how he CREATED THE UNIVERSE. That's where FAITH comes IN. GOD couldn't have explained it any more SIMPLER then IN GENESIS 1:1 IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH. You don't just pick and CHOSE what parts of the BIBLE you want to believe, WITH GOD IT'S ALL OR NOTHING. WHEN YOU FIND GOD HE REVEALS THINGS TO YOU WHICH ARE BEYOND HUMAN EXPLANATION. All this talk about PROVE THIS OR PROVE THAT.. GOD DOESN'T NEED AN EXPLANATION OR TO PROVIDE PROOF OF ANYTHING BECAUSE HE'S GOD. IT'S SIMPLE. It sounds to me that MAN GREW UP TO QUICK AND THINKS HE HAS OUT SMARTED HIS OWN CREATOR. Follow the ROAD less traveled, follow the LORD JESUS CHRIST. TAKE THAT LEAP OF FAITH. Only then will GOD REVEAL HIMSELF TO YOU AND SPEAK TO YOU.
-
haha i would love the three be stuck in an elevator for an hour
-
Lol....the migraine discredited Meyer more than Krauss did.
-
science by definition cannot answer questions that are related to this subject! hahah also operational definition?
-
its not okay to use the word "shenanigans" in an intellectual debate but it's okay to perform a magic trick based on misdirection? hahahah
-
thank you for promoting concerns about climate change!!
-
Dr. Meyer's point was that evolution can't start UNTIL you have the first self replicating cell, and then you can't have an advancement in evolution UNTIL you have the information that can be selected for by nature. UNTIL you have the information, natural selection has NOTHING to SELECT from.
-
Meyer- "Make RNA molecules without intelligent chemists" Krauss has Nothing! Just cheap shots! Abiogenesis is a Joke!
-
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, ok krauss evidence of something from nothing,
-
Krass lost, again. He's simply not a philosopher and cant string a coherent argument at all
-
Without the ribosome, there is no genetic code and any hope for abiogenesis grinds to a halt.
A 2015 paper by Bowman, Hud, and Williams challenges the notion that a step wise path to the ribosome through the RNA world could have taken place: "We conclude that the translation system presents critical challenges to RNA World Hypotheses.
Firstly, a timeline of the RNA World is problematic when the ribosome is incorporated. The mechanism of peptidyl transfer of the ribosome appears distinct from evolved enzymes, signaling origins in a chemical rather than biological milieu.”
Secondly, we have no evidence that the basic biochemical toolset of life is subject to substantive change by Darwinian evolution, as required for the transition from the RNA world to extant biology. Thirdly, we do not see specific evidence for biological takeover of ribozyme function by protein enzymes.
Finally, we can find no basis for preservation of the ribosome as ribozyme or the universality of translation, if it were the case that other information transducing ribozymes, such as ribozyme polymerases, were replaced by protein analogs and erased from the phylogenetic record."_ These four objections by Hud et al pose intractable problems for the sustainability and underlying plausibility of the RNA world hypothesis. -
Let ‘origin of life’ = outcome X.
Let ‘natural processes’ = process Y.
Now, let's listen to the naturalist position: “I personally can’t understand how outcome X could have occurred without process Y. There is no evidence showing that process Y resulted in outcome X. Now, outcome X has obviously occurred. Process Y must therefore have given rise to outcome X.”
This, boys and girls, is an argument from incredulity. -
Physics Evolution Intelligent Design and
Morality:
Standard physics is blind because it does not envisage the physical properties and laws which
distinguish life from non-life, so it infers that biological evolution is blind
random process. By doing so it gives chance to intelligent design advocates to
high-jack life's intelligent design and invite god of the gaps. Now life's
intelligent design can be accounted for by purely naturalistic forces: natural
genetic engineering (James Shapiro) and natural selection as mechanism and the
maximum action principle as driving force. According to the maximum action
principle, a bio-system rate of action increase is proportional to its
bio-information (gene expression). The maximum action principle underpins
bio-information and distinguishes life from non-life.
Based on quantum bio-information field theory (QBFT) the genome total bio-information generates two survival components: reproductive fitness component and bio-intelligence fitness
component. Bio-intelligence, which implies creativity and altruism, is group’s
selection fitness unit. So based on Wilson and Wilson (2007) proposed new theoretical foundation of sociobiology, ‘‘Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups.”, we conclude that altruism centered morality is a consequence of the evolutionary laws of survival, i.e., maximization of bio-intelligence. Morality in turns initiated religion, and not vice versa, this is why religion is not a necessary condition for moral behavior.
Also based on QBFT the laws of nature are hierarchically nested, i.e., the laws of life admit limiting transition to inanimate laws (ordinary physics). This explains the universe fine tuning for
life.
-
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40974-016-0010-2 -
A lot of what he mentioned about the Universe being inhabitable and being a finite respite is kind of what Theists have been saying all this time. But that's none of my business.
-
Sadly for you, the methodological naturalism you're promoting within Darwinism comes to a grinding halt when its molecular explanatory framework - DNA and the genetic code - are regressed all the way back to prebiotic earth.
Darwinism therefore has NO naturalistic molecular foundation.
Since methodological naturalists are hopeless in pursuing their goal to demonstrate a natural origin of life, Darwinism must therefore continue to just 'float in the air' with no foundation other than the collective FAITH of its supporters and its scientific practitioners. -
It's very clear that scientists argue for a natural origin of life on earth, yet they haven't the foggiest clue how it happened.
They have no evidence that life originated naturally. They nevertheless wave their hands frantically and assert, "it had to happen naturally, I can't imagine it happening any other way!!"
Due to their lack of evidence, they're left imagining how life couldn't have started naturally.
This appeal to an unstated act of imagination is a fallacy known as argument from incredulity. -
When Krauss asked which God?
That was a clear cut sign that he lost the debate. -
It takes imagination - in the absence of hard evidence in the field - to concoct the idea that a primordial soup existed, where just the right physicochemical conditions existed to synthesize canonical nucleotides.
You need a reducing atmosphere, even though free oxygen would have been liberated through the photodissociation of water vapour by UV light through an essentially ozone-free atmosphere.
You think you can form D-ribose but the formose pathway is sufficiently non-specific that any of eight different aldopentose stereoisomers might form, effectively derailing a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life through a significant admixture of unwanted carbohydrates.
Even if you had a small percentage of D-ribose available, and even if you could imagine some primordial access to all four RNA nucleobases, you're challenged to explain how free phosphate is available, at just the right pH to permit linkage of phosphate to D-ribose.
And you now have no control over whether the phosphate-to-ribose linkages are the preferred 3' - 5' bond versus the unwanted 2' - 5' bond.
And if BY NOW you've done all this in an aqueous primordial soup, you have an eclectic mixture of monomers with, perhaps, a 8-10% yield anticipating polymerization - but it ain't happening in the soup!
How will you move, selectively, any of these wildly varied nucleotides - the vast majority with incorrect aldopentose stereoisomers and 50% of them exhibiting incorrect phosphate-to-carbohydrate linkages - into some sequestered environment DEVOID OF WATER???
You have no plausible path to so much as synthesize canonical RNA monomers, let alone polymers, let alone COMPLEX SYSTEMS integrating them with other, equally complex biopolymers!! -
Let ‘origin of life’ = outcome X.
Let ‘natural processes’ = process Y.
Now, listen to the naturalist position:
“I personally can’t understand how outcome X could have occurred without process Y. There is no evidence showing that process Y resulted in outcome X. Now, outcome X has obviously occurred. Process Y must therefore have given rise to outcome X.”
This, boys and girls, is an argument from incredulity.
0m 0sLenght
351Rating