have you check out "Exposing the Discovery Institute Part 1: Casey Luskin" and "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 44 Lucy" on youtube. they shows how ignorant .Casey Luskin and discovery institute are.
you are the blind and brainwashed chum. do me a favour and try to find a practical application for any of the "science" they mention, creationism isn't used for anything other than trying to get god into schools. and their lies actually work against them, look up the dover trial where creationism was put on the school curriculum, it LOST, it was proved false in court - every detail debunked in public, the truth comes out eventually and then people can see for themselves that meyer is a fraud.
Meyer is, as usual, lying through his teeth. He was at the Royal Society meeting and say IN THE AUDIENCE. He wasn't invited, had nothing to present and has lied his tits off about what was presented.
Phenomenal discussion. I have seen Dr Meyer as well as Dr Tour talks online, but I think one can definitely appreciate an engagement and genuine impulse that this forum brings out of them both. Thank you so much, please keep it coming.
Not everyone is moved by the Spirit and experience joy from this type of content. For those with much, even more is given. Glory to God who made it all!
possiblt because they talk nonsense, ID has been proved false IN COURT. it got kicked out of school - it's PURELY a way to sneak religion into schools.
@@HarryNicNicholas Oh yeah... it's been proven false "IN COURT," as if the courts have never gotten anything wrong. You should sneak YOURSELF into school occasionally. Maybe you would learn the difference between "proved" and "proven." 🤔
@@allensmith342 What was proven in court was that ID is a religious idea peddled as science. Meyer has contributed precisely NOTHING to any branch of any science at any time- his one paper in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington was dropped immediately as his crony Sternberg cheated the review process to sneak it in behind the backs of the board of editors. Tour has an impressive publication list, in an unrelated field, and less impressive ethics- he's a deranged, lying embarrassment to his university. Here is a comprehensive chronological list of all his research papers on Origin of Life. . . . . . . . here, in case you missed it, is that list again- this time in alphabetical order. . . . . . . . . Have you considered reading the work of scientists who actually work in this field?
That car broken down into constitute parts illustration just goes to show Hebrews 3: 4 "Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God."
except that goes perfectly well for nature with no need for a mind behind it. god is eternal - the cosmos is eternal. anything god can do, nature can do and demonstrably, try getting god to fix you car.
Lucifer, hell, the great flood, death. pain suffering, then came and cured one or two people of blindness, cripple, issue of blood and allowed the murder of his half son "demi god" and then says he's sorry he destroyed every one and set a rainbow as a proof, then we must accept that for give him and if we become a slave he might forgive us if only we believe and accept. Convoluted. Don't ask why, just accept and O.K. Now he is LOVE. So everything is alright. Quite the construction.
@@iankelly6632 what are you struggling with? And what the hell is an "evolutionist"? Are there germists in medicine? Gravitationalists in physics? I responded appropriately to a monumentally ignorant comment. What's your problem exactly?
@@iankelly6632 Wrong. Evolution is a tested and successful scientific theory. It is based on evidence and nothing to do with "belief" Maybe you could try reading books?
Fabulous 👌 👏 thankyou. I'm always amazed how people just believe its "scientific" to believe the evolution theory without any actual examination into it. It falls apart very quickly as you explain in your discussion. Thankyou x
@@brianmabasa5251 I'm talking about the fact that Meyer here is a demonsteble liar working for the ill-named Discovery institute where they do no research at all, none, and of which one of its founders Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. openly wants to replace democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy…this institution is a propaganda mill and nothing else, run by liars and frauds. ID has never and will never contribute anything to our understanding of nature. They cater to the emotions of scientifically illiterate believers and that's it. You have been conned. That is what Iam talking about.
@@brianmabasa5251 Meyer tells lies for a living. That's who he is and what he does. He's not and never has been a scientist, has no training of any kind in any branch of any life science and has published NOTHING in the professional literature of any science at any time. His one attempt was the result of cheating the review process to sneak a paper into the PBSW. He got caught and the paper was dropped.
@@mcmanustony Hmm thats a bold accusation dont you think? A typical Ad Hominem... Why dont you tell me how and what about his claim is a lie and then, explain or better yet have a good rebuttal. Lets see...
@@mcmanustony just show me the best article of the real science that you are following, and I mean the best one, that convinced you that the randomness creat life, and I am ready to wait for whatever time you like. But please tell whether 5, 6, 10years.
@@fozidakilah6277 On life's origins you can read or watch presentations from Jack Szostak (who was disgracefully smeared by the lying zealot James Tour), Addy Pross, Sutherland, Nick Lane etc. All of whom actually work in Origin of Life research. Tour does not and Meyer isn't even a scientist of any kind.
@@mcmanustony you didn't even understand the magnitude of the question, and advising me whom to listen to!! It seems, you have a lot of faith in the names you mentioned and you take whatever they want you to take. I have no problem in the science that they are doing and the results, but the problems in their conclusions and what they want you to swallow. From your first reply, I am not really sure you will understand what I am saying.
@@fozidakilah6277 I understood the question. I also understand that you know next to nothing about this subject. Spare me the narcissistic posturing. NO ONE in this presentation works in OoL research. I gave you pointers to distinguished scientists who do. Why do you mention "randomness"? The laws of physics and chemistry are not random. None of this involves faith of any kind. There are some things known about the origin of life but many questions remain. one thing that is 100% certain is that Meyer, Tour and their claque of religious zealots will not be providing the answers. "I have no problem in the science that they are doing and the results, but the problems in their conclusions and what they want you to swallow. "- why the sneer? I doubt very much you could name a single OoL researcher whose work you've actually read.
I have followed Stephen Meyer for some time and find his argument persuasive. Recently I watch Blue Birds nest and found out that the chicks poop in a membrane that the parents remove from the nest until the chicks leave the nest! I find that amazing and cannot fathom how that may have developed via natural selection. Seems like it would be wonderful for humans to have developed that beneficial trait which lead me to wonder why certain generally beneficial traits allegedly developed via natural selection seem to be isolated to species and subcategories of species like Blue Birds.
@@realscientistflanders1688 Well I can’t say “officially” but let me suggest… The “ageing process” is necessary. Or do you think 90 year old people should have been born at age 90?
@Ben There I don’t know either. No being born at 90 is impossible as reproduction is not possible therefore extinction is inevitable. The ageing process isn’t necessary. Our bodies deteriorate because they are programmed to decline. Living healthily just delays it all. All complex life is the result of evolution.
Tour's description of the sequence required to even get the complex raw materials is exactly what I hoped to have him outline. He's brilliant and he's a wonderful Christian as well, but he has an odd resistance to using the phrase/concept "intelligent design" even though he's making an intelligent-design argument against the unguided emergence of life.
@@allensmith342 "Dr. Tour only uses hard science to refute arguments for abiogenesis " I don’t know what is worse, that he thinks audience is so gullible and simple minded that he can get away with this, or that he is right in thinking so. What is the alternative to abiogenesis? aka the notion that life had an non-naturalistic origin? Would you like to name one credible alternative? Every so called alternative, rests on the existence and interference of some “intelligent cause” an ill-defined metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science. Let’s have a look at the evidence he presents for this this: Nothing Let’s have a look at his personal favourite on how it went down: “The word of God is true. *Every word in this book is true, every word,*. Let everything else be a lie, this book is true! This book is true, this was a prophecy and it’s just piled upon fact upon fact, evidence upon evidence. How much more would you like to understand that this book is true? To bow before God and say: Lord thank you for your work…every word in the Bible is true!” James Tour - at a “lecture” Huston first Baptist church 2019 Every point he ever made in regards to abiogenesis and evolution, is one out of the three following categories: - A misrepresentation by quote mining, confirmed by the researchers who got treated in this dishonest manner by Tour -Irrelevant to the subject -A blunt lie. Given all that, Tour might as well claim that magical unicorns are responsible for life as an alternative for natural causes. That is just as credible as any other so called alternative.
A straw man, nothing else....If chemicals would not follow certain pathways under certain conditions there would not even be water. chemical compounds are made by natzural causes all the time...
@@derhafi "Chemicals do not 'evolve' into life without information added from the outside of the chemical reaction by a mind." Science is based upon observation. This, so far, is a universal observation without exception.
@@eswn1816 "Science is based upon observation." Evidence...not solely obervation. Science is the study of the natural world....You seem to have fallen for the lie that something beyond the natural world had a hand in the origin of life. That is not different from claiming that "Magic did it" Every so called “alternative” to natural causes for the life we see today relies on the existence and interference of some ill-defined metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science. In other wirds…. every so called “alternative” to natural causes for the life we see today, is an empty assertion with no credibility.
@@eswn1816 ""Chemicals do not 'evolve' into life without information added from the outside of the chemical reaction by a mind."" What do you think information is?? Information is what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things. That's it. Information is not an entity or some magic ingredient. It's the new buzzword creationists use to bedazzle their scientific illiterate audience. I don’t know what’s worse, that the ID frauds think that their followers are so gullible, ill-informed, brainwashed, ignorant, and depended on this God fantasy to fall for this crap, or that they are predominantly right in thinking so. That is pathetic.
i don't think anyone hated jesus, jesus just had a big mouth that got him into trouble. if you're going to piss off rome, do it quietly. it's all STORIES mate.
He can also say: "I believe in ghosts and ghosts created the earth and the humans, but i´m not stupid." Then i would say: "You're not the only one in the world who thinks you are not stupid, other stupid people think that too." We are still part of the primate family. 99% of our DNA matches that of chimpanzees. There are even people who claim that there are only animals on this planet. We are mammals. Perhaps someday there will be creatures on this planet that really deserve the label "human". At the moment I don't see anything that separates us from other primates. I don't even see that we are better animals. Then this planet would look very different and would have a better future. Simply claiming that the earth is flat and at the center of the universe and that humans become divine as a result, has also been shown to be nonsense.
He can also say: "I believe in ghosts and ghosts created the earth and the humans, but i´m not stupid." Then i would say: "You're not the only one in the world who thinks you are not stupid, other stupid people think that too." We are still part of the primate family. 99% of our DNA matches that of chimpanzees. There are even people who claim that there are only animals on this planet. We are mammals. Perhaps someday there will be creatures on this planet that really deserve the label "human". At the moment I don't see anything that separates us from other primates. I don't even see that we are better animals. Then this planet would look very different and would have a better future. Simply claiming that the earth is flat and at the center of the universe and that humans become divine as a result, has also been shown to be nonsense.
@@HarryNicNicholas Right. So if I walk into a city and say "I cannot imagine all this being built by chance" it shows lack of imagination? No, it simply refuses to engage in the fools' errand of trying to prove such a thing.
@@Just1Bum right that's why they are the ones doing experiments and publishing research papers everyday, you know the ones you don't read. Flat earthers, young earthers, crystal healers, they all just lack the curiosity to face the reality of complexity.
there isn't any knowledge in intelligent design, it's BS designed to sneak god into places where god isn't required. you can't cure cancer using creationism, it's useless for anything practical.
@@HarryNicNicholas Limited knowledge is dangerous. It is my scientific discovery of Creator who is separate from God. Cancer is an effect, whose source is coded in human consciousness. World and knowledge has moved on Intelligent Design which I have discovered in my 30 yrs journey.
When I was a born microbiology was in its infancy. The step from protein to to simple cell was a short distance and possibilities were endless. With DNA and fantastic complexity of a “simple cell” the distance to the origin of life is miles rather than centimeters apart .
@@eswn1816 There is not one scientific publication out there claiming that something came from absolutely nothing. No scientists believes that. (and no, Krauss book is not a scientific publication and does not claim that “sometning came from absolutely nothing”..read it). Keep your straw man. It is however, what the Bible teaches, isn’t it? chapter one: A divine being with supernatural powers, “God”, with no origin by himself (special pleading fallacy), which has no demonstrable correaltion with reality, turns nothing into something. I agree, it is foolish nonsense! Believers seem to have no problem with that..
@@eswn1816 "You mean "something from nothing?""- why is it that the only people who post this tripe- and they do it daily- are lying, pig-ignorant creationists?
Please discuss and debate uniformitarianism versus Catastrophism. Specifically catastrophic plate tectonics versus slow and gradual plate tectonics taught universally. You won't need to worry about origins if you show overwhelming evidence for the single catastrophic global flood.
This was my first time to hear Dr. Tour. My main take-away was "molecules don't organize themselves." Love it. Thanks so much! I love the bold, passionate presentation!
@@derhafi Do they organize themselves or is a snowflake just a reaction to outside forces? There are similar arguments about naturally occurring phenomena like tornadoes, hurricanes, etc where there are recognizable patterns. To put the quote in context, Dr. Tour is explaining that molecules don't organize themselves "toward life".
@@gradysockwell4255 That is matter acting accordingly to the laws of nature. There are 4 fundamental forces in action and they and a handful of fundamental particles are responsible for literally eveything we will ever experience. They are described in the Standard Model of Physics and they are what reality is made of. "that molecules don't organize themselves "toward life"" Which is completely in odds with what we can observe in nature all the time. With that nonsensical claim he is counting on the bias, ignorance and general scientific illiteracy of his audience...I don’t know what’s worse, that he thinks his audience is that gullible and moronic, or that he is right in thinking so.
@@gradysockwell4255 Wow, nobody said that " snowflakes demonstrate how molecules organize themselves toward life." The typical dishonesty of a ID proponent. The sentence, was "molecules don't organize themselves." which is plain wrong. And if you really want to know how water molecules arrange themself when freezing into a snowflake, I'd advise you to learn about hydrogen bounding. Which you will not do because wilful ignorance is next to dishonesty, one of the major foundations of being a ID proponent. Now...I’m still waiting to hear the ID explanation for ….antibiotic research, ring species, domesticated animals, vestigial organs, endogenous retroviruses, pseudogenes, syncytin, Biogeography, chromosome 2 in humans, cytochrome c and b, nested Hierarchs and classification, homologous structures, divergence, endemism and the observable speciation in American Goatsbeard flowers. I’m still waiting to hear the ID explanation for …why are there are no mammals or freshwater-fish, only animals that could swim or fly there in the first place, on Islands of volcanic origin, which specified there shown severe genetic overlap with animals on the nearest mainland? Whereas the animal population on islands which were former connected to mainland, contains freshwater-fish and mammals? In the light of Evolution this makes perfect sense. Let’s have a look at the ID explanation for all that: “An not further defined “Intelligence”, that is in no way detectable arranged that so…” The ID attempt of an “Explanation” is not different from claiming “Magic did it”. I don’t know what’s worse, that the ID frauds think that their followers are so gullible, ill-informed, brainwashed, ignorant, and depended on this God fantasy to fall for this crap, or that they are predominantly right in thinking so.
Numbers 31:17-18 King James Version 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Sincerely yahweh God of infinite peace and love
As, according to your bible, your god has on multiple occasions, wiped out whole populations, your god is far from the "God of infinite peace and love". On that basis, even if you could prove that he was real, I would not consider him to be worthy of praise or worship.
And why did he wait 10 billion years before thinking “Life might be a fun thing to create , I can give a species a guilt trip so hopefully they’ll praise and obey me” ?
What I am wondering is how you get the specified DNA, proteins and RNAs of 1:15:29 from racemic mixtures produced by nature? Nature has no selection mechanism for chemical processes. Insofar as this being applied to already existing biological life, it might be the time to learn rather than make assumptions. Each existing life form will have some features that may be known and some that are unknown, To assume randomness determines progressions is ludicrous to anyone who has studied formal logic. Where is the fitness function in a random process?
@@derhafi So you equate 'catalysis' with 'selection'? According to Darwin, selection works towards "making an improved product". How is what you describe an improvement?
@@l.m.892 So you equate listening to ademonstable liar with no scientific integrety to an education? Seems like it. The most important phenomenon related to first-order autocatalysis is selection in the Darwinian sense. When several types of autocatalysts are present simultaneously all except one are eliminated through competition for resources. You wrote ""Nature has no selection mechanism for chemical processes" Any intelligent person would be glad to have learned someting. You on the other hand.... "making an improved product" Nice chopped up quote you got here....ever rerad anything about evoultion that was not edited by the Discovery Institute?
I am 75. I never knew much about science. Is there any way this lecture can be simplified? If there is a real case here for a possible divine design, this might become a series. I am frustrated by my ignorance. I wonder if there is any way to bring this discussion down to my level. I know Dr. Tyson and Dr. Green highly doubt there is a higher power behind our creation. I think it would be wonderful if the three of you could work together to explore scientific facts regarding the origin of life. Is it possible that the three of you working together might learn from each other?
You are off to a good start by admitting your ignorance. Anyone who thinks that they are smart or clever is a loser. This is such a complex world that it's impossible for any normal human being to understand any subject fully. This includes man made or otherwise. In the big picture, nothing matters anyway. We have only been here for the blink of an eye and speculation is rife. Just my thoughts.
In short, the origin of life cannot be explained by processes observable in nature - i.e. scientifically - because life is far too complex, and the chemical reactions to do it are way way way too rare and improbable in nature. There is no evidence of these processes actually occurring in nature. The chemicals that make up living things - e.g. proteins and carbohydrates - always come from pre-existing living things. They never just form spontaneously in nature. This means that there is no basis in biology for claiming that life originated out of non-life, i.e. by natural processes. This means that the theory of evolution is cut off at the root, because evolutionary theory pre-supposes that life already exists, in order for new species to originate by natural selection. All the experiments which claim to have demonstrated the possibility of life chemically - i.e. not from pre-existing life - simply cook up some chemicals in a laboratory to produce more complex chemicals that are like some of the parts of life, e.g. amino acids which are the building blocks of proteins. But these are highly artificial processes, they are themselves the result of life - i.e. the scientists doing the experiment, trying to drive in the result in their pre-determined direction. And they completely fail to explain how the 'car' would just assemble itself.
Dr. James Tour is absolutely correct... no one knows where the information code comes from. Now I have made the scientific discovery, Information code comes from Quantum Code consciousness which is central to human consciousness but separate from physical human brain...now read this beautiful scientific discovery
The funny thing is that no one would believe this about anything they knew about, even very simple things. For example, one finds a plumbed wall in the forest and then creates a theory of how it formed without a human builder when it is so obvious that this would be the better explanation.
"For example, one finds a plumbed wall in the forest and then creates a theory of how it formed without a human builder " Theories rely in emperical data...all of the data for a plumbed wall points to humans. No data sustains some form of a designer for nature.
I share your doubts about how a so incredible complex structure like the eukaryotic cell with it's unimaginably complex chemistry could have evolved from simple molecules. The odds are so miserably low in favor of the random emergence of the right molecular structures for life in such a short period of time, 13.8 billion years. Nevertheless i'm of the opinion that a much, much older universe can give life time to evolve and expand through cosmos.
Since an uncreated being exited, not only is this impossible, if it were to exist uncreated it would have to have existed for eternity, but what was it doing all that infinite time.... masturbating?
When trying to explain the origin of life as a straightforward chemical process, one must include the anti-life substances and forces that are simultaneously produced (with equal probability) and degrade the "chemical evolution". Formaldehyde, cyanide, protein degrading enzymes and UV radiation, temperature and pH variations are examples of anti-life constituents.
When trying to explain the origin of life as anything else than a chemical process, one has to keep in mind that this is futile. Every so called alternative to a naturalistic origin for life, rests on the existence and interference of some ill-defined metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science. In other words, every "alternative" to natural causes is, according to the available evidence, as credible, as claiming “magic did it”.
Your argument is not different from claiming that there should be no sheep since wolfs exist too...The influences you mentionen provide natural selection but are far from being an unsurmountable obsticle for life.
@@derhafi all I said is that science needs to include the evolution of anti life components (and their effects), in the analysis. Can you cite a theory of life origin that includes this?
@@bshul10 All I said that this is covered by natural selection. It is very likely that some of the early self replicating molecules did not make it due to influences like UV etc. but life today orgins from those which passed that selection process. So yes, every naturalistic aka credible explantion, includes this.
@@derhafi so you are saying that the anti life components do not occur at an equal probability to the life generating components.....just like the matter antimatter conundrum....which has no current explanation. Once again, I contend that, in all the experiments and analyses proposed, so far, no anti life components are considered. Until they are added to the equation, in my opinion, there is no valid nature based, theory for life's origin. You are saying that the origin of life must come from a natural process and not supernatural process and I'm saying it might come from other sources, like pure random occurrence.
HOW did these chemicals manage to know what to combine with and in what order and how much of each????????How did humans , animals plants ,water air, etc come to be??????????????
Matter acting according to the laws of nature doesn't "know" anything, it has no goal...matter acting according to the laws of nature is what nature does all the time. Are you suggesting they were assembled by a non detectable force? Some ill-defined metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science did it?
I don’t think anyone anymore argues about whether we are created or not. The new consensus is how maybe did God use another form to create us and maybe if we look into UAPs. What if consciousness is the key and I think if you look into Gary Nolan’s work it’s very interesting. He’s done classified work into what the government has in its possession and what he’s concluded that this is not high technology but another form of consciousness that has been created and if you get into things that are beyond our understanding because our consciousness doesn’t then that’s where we need to start looking into consciousness itself instead of material understanding and get into conscience understanding. In a classified document called “the assessment “ by nato and yes it exists we are containers by definition living in soul through consciousness. No one is arguing anymore about whether we were created or not let’s look at different methods as Gary Nolan talks about and think outside the box.
On the contrary, a vast number of people argue that we are not created, at least not by an intelligent being or god. A huge number would argue that we are formed by a process, one that takes millions of years, and is ongoing, continuing still. Evolution, powered by natural selection, whereby tiny mutations in the genome produce complex living organisms such as plants and animals is the neutral process that allows complex life. If you believe nobody argues that anymore you are very mistaken, thankfully.
@@wotsitalabowt this consensus in short time will be challenged greatly by individuals that will be coming forward on the subject to disclose sensitive material that will change how we look at science and history. The charlatans will be put to shame and it’s not just a theory it will be fact. I don’t think the persons that challenge the view of a creator really have a concept of what they actually believe it’s they choose to hide what they really believe to live a particular lifestyle.
@@Truth-wg7zc You have gone from "I don't think anyone argues anymore", directly to it being a consensus that will soon be challenged. That's my point: it's not true that nobody argues about there being a creator, and you just agreed without realising it. Bye now because the rest is equally idiotic.
Body provides that pill a well designed mechanism to operate otherwise a pharmacy is full of pills but any chemical don't evolve and operates in its packing.
Imagining that inorganic chemicals mature to advanced signaling and coding systems is comparable to imagining that radio astronomers will stumble across a pulsar writing and broadcasting Lennon and McCarthy songs for its neighbors in the galaxy.
The issue of life' Genesis, Is too important To give into blind faith, For either a religious or secular believer... The humongous list of requirements, For something to have The life principle, Logically and necessarily requires a cosmic engineer.
What is most likely, 1) Simple but massive energy coming from "nothing" (Quantum fields) and developing into more complex forms. Or 2) A fully developed highly intelligent all powerful being coming fully formed and knowledgeable from what we would call "nothing" (eternity)?
Quantum fields are demonstrably real.........some ill-defined fully developed highly intelligent all powerful being, has no demonstrable corelation with reality whatsoever.
1) A Quantum field is not "nothing." Even if the universe could come from Quantum Fields (something), there is no evidence, or even theories, to account for the fine-tuning in our universe that allows it to exist as it does. 2) God did not "come from" anything. He is a necessarily existent being, who exists eternally. He had no cause.
Intelligence is the ability to solve problems. Now what problem is God is solving to be him called intelligent. And who created this problem in first place. Because problems should preceed intellingence. Or we should end up in a paradoxical statement that God is solving the problem created by himself. Since he is the creator of everything, he must have created both problems and solutions. Lets say probability of universe occuring is 1/100. Odds of 99/100 of universe not occuring should also be created by God. Since creation is ex nihilo, problems didn't exist before him.
@@johncastino2730 all observed evidence shows that the nature of life forms has changed dramatically over the last few hundred million years. evolution explains that well, and is supported by thousands of detailed studies on the evidence. all creationists have is the statement "evidence demonstrates creation" with zero detailed studies of the evidence.
@@oif3gunner sorry but that's it in a nutshell, "god did it" gives you no idea as to what to do next, we aren't going to cure cancer with "god did it" as a starting point, what we do is ACTUAL science and figure out how things really work. that's how we cured smallpox, whooping cough, aids, measles, and on and on "god did it" has NEVER been the case. WE did it. and if you say god helped, why is god only doing cancer one patient at a time? we are good enough for the smallpox cure, not quite good enough for the cancer cure? mysterious, or BS?
Sounds like these combinations where assembled randomly and then ‘programmed’ to have a specific function, information must be key but where did it come from? I’m recently hearing established and renowned theoretical physicists talk about consciousness being fundamental, like Bernardo Kastrup. Is there perhaps time for Physicists, Biologists, Chemists and other sciences to start working together? If we’re looking for a theory of everything you would imagine all sciences merging at some point, all singularities are equally perplexing.
Ok fine there is intelligent designer. Then what? Make some precise novel predictions from this assumption that can be tested. All l hear is ad hocs, " this is mysterious/complex therefore, l am right ".
The natural sciences cannot have a theory of everything. Such a theory is the territory of metaphysics and mysticism. This is basic definitional stuff.
@@derhafi I don't know if I agree that's what they're saying. I think what they're saying is more along the lines of scientists making claims from "evidence" that is not actually backed up by the evidence. Furthermore, if we follow the evidence honestly, it leads us to a transcendent, personal Creator of the universe. But can you give a specific example of what they said in this video that was an "irrelevance, misrepresentation, and blunt lies?"
@@chrispark2698 "if we follow the evidence honestly, it leads us to a transcendent, personal Creator of the universe." That, ma well spoken friend, is utter nonsese. Only assumtions, wishful thinking and fallacies lead to the supernatural, which your supposed creator, is a part of.
@@derhafi Well, that is your opinion, but there is, in fact, evidence to back up this position. Do you have evidence to back up yours? By the way, you still haven't answered my question - would you care to?
They have very well sustainned ideas how it started and those ideas get more concrete bit by bit...That's why they do research istead of mentally wanking over ancient mythology.
scientists love the topic cos it keeps them employed. what they don't like is people making up bullshit them calling them dishonest too. meyer is a fraud.
Science is most probable best explanation of all independently repeable testable claims that can make most of precise novel predictions. Intelligent design fits none of that criteria. Cherrypicking limitations of other theories and giving ad hoc explanations with no precise falsifiable predictions i.e. Pseudoscience 101
That is not hair wrote, "Science is most probable best explanation of all independently repeable testable claims that can make most of precise novel predictions." I may agree with that statement, depending on how you define science. One very famous physicist defines science this way: _"Learn from science that _*_you must doubt the experts._*_ As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: _*_Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."_*_ [Richard P. Feynman, "The Pleasure Of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works Of Richard Feynman." Perseus Publishing, 1999, p.187]_ I follow that rule. If science gets bogged down in consensus, or in the rules and ideology of the establishment (those who have elevated themselves to the status of "experts",) then science doesn't advance. That is not hair wrote, "Intelligent design fits none of that criteria." You are speaking from ignorance. Combinatorial mathematics alone rules out raw chance (e.g., dumb luck,) the driving force of evolution. Another very famous physicist wrote this about the overwhelming evidence of an intelligent designer: _"A _*_common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology,_*_ and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. _*_The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."_*_ [Fred Hoyle, "The Universe Past and Present Reflections." Engineering & Science, Vol 45, No.2, November, 1981, p.12]_ That is not hair wrote, "Cherrypicking limitations of other theories and giving ad hoc explanations with no precise falsifiable predictions i.e. Pseudoscience 101" LOL! You have been brainwashed. Evolution is a hypothesis based exclusively on ad hoc assertions, i.e., there is no supporting data. The hypothesis is so bad that evolutionists in the early part of the 20th century were forced to assign the unfalsifiable and vacuous definition of "change over time" to keep evolution from being relegated to the dustbin of history, where it rightly belongs. Evolution is unfalsifiable because it is not science, but pseudoscience. Dan
@@BibleResearchToolsGive me atleast one precise novel prediction from intelligent design framework. What new discovery or an effect we will see at specific place or time if it is true otherwise it will be proven false. i.e. falsification criteria. You know something that pseudoscientists lack.
@@BibleResearchTools Instead of quote mining and preaching in your echo chamber. Why don't you get out of your house and take tools, explore, collect evidence. Do expirements. Then formulate a belief that can make predictions which can be seen and tested. Check error of your prediction from what you really obeserve. And make better models with less error and accomodate and predict more facts. You know what real scientists do. Pseudoscientists can only talk and does nothing, that is exactly what l see with I D proponents.
That is not hair wrote, "Give me atleast one precise novel prediction from intelligent design framework." Is "novel" the new evolutionism "word of the week"? LOL! Evolutionists are always coming up with "novel" ways to fool the naive. The only time I have seen the word "novel" used in evolution debates is in the evolutionist prediction that random mutation/natural selection could form new, "novel" body parts over time. That has never been observed in anyway, shape, or form. Further, genetic research has rendered that process all but impossible. That is not hair wrote, "What new discovery or an effect we will see at specific place or time if it is true otherwise it will be proven false. i.e. falsification criteria." Genetics research over the past few decades has demonstrated that the cell and genome are intelligently designed, not to mention the myriad of highly-complex systems and organs in every organism, from the smallest multi-cell organism to humans. There are so many non-adaptive structures spread across many phyla (e.g., the pentadactyl limb) that random mutation/natural selection can be true only if natural selection has forward-looking intelligence. Specified Complexity in DNA is just one of many intelligently-designed components of the cell. Symbiotic relationships in the cell are virtually impossible by random or "chance" mutations, for example: _Proteins are made by molecular machines. Molecular machines are made of proteins. Which came first?_ There are many such relationships in the cell that are unexplainable by so-called natural (i.e., materialistic) processes. Only the mathematically-challenged can honestly claim those relationships could have been formed by chance. Those proficient in mathematics know such materialist claims are pure nonsense. That is not hair wrote, "Some that pseudoscientists lack" Let me complete that sentence for you. "Some that pseudoscientists lack the ability to write in complete sentences." :) Dan
Prof. Tour is undoubtedly a very smart guy but he is clearly using a lot of jargon to disguise the fact he wants to conjure up a divine rather than a natural origin of life. His is the tired old argument “Boy, life is complicated! God must have done it!” It’s lazy and unconvincing.
I got to the end of my interest in our universe and learning that the Bible speaking of nothingness was accurate, and so decided to look inward. At a certain point in just a matter of weeks it led me to Protons and Quarks ~ and that's it. This led me to ask "where did information come from that controls everything?" It was at that point I realized that if I could find this point without much effort why aren't our scientists speaking about it openly? I learned that answer also..... Faith in Christ, Amen.
Except the Universe is not full of "nothing." Everything that is in the Bible can be observed by everyone - which proves it was not divinely inspired of God but made up by primitive superstitious men with an Agenda.
There is no middle ground here, you either believe that there is a spirit animating all life or you believe life is mechanical. If you believe that life is a series of chemical reactions (mechanical) and that an animating spirit is not 100 percent necessary for life then you are faithless.
@@IIrandhandleII Yes, that is correct, all life has a spirit, humans have a soul and spirit. When the body dies and a spirit can no longer remain in a creature the spirit returns to God. Humans have an immortal soul/spirit that may, or may not return to God. To be saved in Christ means that the soul becomes a part of the body of Christ while still alive, and there is no other way for a soul to be saved other than through Jesus.
Ah ok so amoeba and single cell organisms are alive, it is the cell wall that makes something "alive" or not alive? And living things have spirits you say? So single cells have spirits?
From my perspective, we have two choices. We can either believe that the universe was created by an entity that designed suffering as part of its plan ... or, we can believe (as did Stephen Hawking, before he died) that the universe always existed, and will always exist ... no plan involved. I prefer the second choice.
It’s not about belief, it’s about evidence and facts. Hawkins proposal is flat out nonsensical and basically a superstition. All the evidence points to there being an ultimate reality from which everything draws its existence. God is not some entity. God is the very being of all reality and is existence itself. God is not a being, God is being itself and is uncaused. We know this because we can use logic and empirical evidence to extrapolate from what we do see in reality. God is, bar none, the best explanation for reality. Everything else is a superstition. Cheers 😊
The issue of suffering has been addressed in books by thoughtful men and women, one of my favorite treatments is C S Lewis' "The Problem of Pain". To imagine a world without the possibility of suffering is akin to imagining a world of knowledge without the existence of ignorance.
@@artiefount Mother Teresa was also one for aggrandizing pain as being a holy cause. She said that suffering was "the kiss of Jesus." However, when SHE was dying, rather than staying with "her" poor, she chose to go to the best hospital, with the best treatment for herself. She was a hypocrite, and even she admitted it in her letter to the vatican. If you had the power to create a universe ... would suffering exist as it does in all forms of life on planet earth. And is so, would you want to be perceived as being "perfect" and expect to be worshiped? I suggest you wouldn't, because YOU have a conscience. And if a god were to exist, it would NOT have a conscience.
@@artiefount I relate to the words of Mark Twain … "GOD … a God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice, and invented hell--mouths mercy, and invented hell--mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slave to worship him!"
@@artiefount From my perspective, we have two choices. We can either believe that the universe was created by an entity that designed suffering as part of its plan ... or, we can believe (as did Stephen Hawking, before he died) that the universe always existed, and will always exist ... no creator and no plan involved. I prefer the second choice.
1:37:37 In saying this he's completely defeated his own self-defined paradoxes with respect to information theory. Just swap 'Experimenter' with 'nature' - that's how an evolutionary process accrues information. Of course, it's against his monetary interests to recognise this, sooooo 😂
Not a logical deduction, Nature is not mind. Nature cannot project, that is a mind/information process. A cause and effect process and adding information are completely different processes.
@@tookymax what makes anyone think the universe was designed, if you try to imagine how the universe came about by happenstance, try imagining how an intelligence could have put all the parts together, and in such a way as to hide the designer, and how would you get from a creator to jesus anyway? and at what point does god NOT interfere, cos we're supposed to have free will, if he's dicking around at the atomic level, we're puppets - where does god intervene in this "design" - design and free will are incompatible.
Rob Davis....Here's a teachable moment.....I emailed Dr. Jack Szostak (a leading researcher in origin of life....maybe google him?) I wrote..........My understanding of the work that you and others are doing. is to follow elementary constituents, proposing mechanisms that leads to biological complexity. I have the thought that any comprehensive theory of these mechanisms would have to include the parallel process of the development of what I call “anti life” constituents, which unless proven otherwise, would have equal probability of forming at any stage of the process and negate or derail the proposed forward process. Examples of these “anti life” constituents would be the formation of alcohols, peroxides, chlorine, cupreous compounds, protein, fat and carbohydrate degrading enzymes, excessive temperature and pH excursions and excessive levels of energetic radiation. A origin theory without simultaneously addressing these inputs, would be quite incomplete. Could you point me to a paper that includes a mention or “equal treatment” of these anti life constituents? I believe the situation is akin to the matter/antimatter conundrum. Please let me know your thoughts and thank you for your time and consideration. and he wrote back... Hi, This is an IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION of course. I think it is implicit in the search for appropriate environments that would nurture the first cells, but then we don’t usually try to list all of the destructive elements that need to be avoided. We and others have explicitly tried to consider the harmful effects of UV radiation in degrading intermediates in nucleotide synthesis. Enzymes did not exist at the time of the origin of life, so that’s not an issue. One thing we are thinking about these days is the nature of environmental fluctuations that would be sufficient to drive replication but not so severe a to destroy early life - AN INTERESTING PUZZLE TO BE SURE....Best,Jack... Ok now try some heavy spinning to twist my and his scientific thoughts into YOUR debunking mantra about god/designer.
I know exactly who Jack Szostack is, He and John Sutherland demonstrated that many of the chemical reactions leading to life depend heavily on the presence of ultraviolet light. You find this fact repeated in your mail, so you can take UV like off your wish list. They basically ruled out a deep sea scenario. We call that progress….a concept which for you, as an intelligent design proponent might seem strange since ID never left the realm of fallacious assertions Let me get this straight, you suggest that the content of this mail is adding credibility to your non-detectable and thus fallacy based “alternative“ ….to a naturalistic explanation for the ool? You are just adorable in your stubbornness. “but then we don’t usually try to list all of the destructive elements that need to be avoided. “ Ask him why! The answer is: natural selection “I guess my thoughts ARE valid “ Whilst you are on it, ask him about “randomness “ as a driving force in this…ask him about your supposed non-naturalistic alternative, go ahead and ask him about intelligent design….since this is the hill you choose to die on. Since he is a man of science, I have a good Idea of his answer should he even waste some time on you once you show your true colours. A good friend of Stephen Meyer here, Jimmy Tour another liar from the Discovery Institute ilk pool, once publicly lied about Szostacks work in order to bedazzle his scientific audience. I’m sure he loves a reminder of that You can watch him lying live on stage here: th-cam.com/video/zU7Lww-sBPg/w-d-xo.html 45:27 "Those are not sugars..He is lying to you" Well, those are sugars. 46:11 "That's not a nucleotide, it's the wrong structure...." Well, that is a nucleotide with the right structure. Tour knows this. He also knows that YOU, his audience does neither know nor care
IN the beginning Elohym created Aleph Tav and the earth was without form and voidAnd the Ruach Elohym said let there be light and there was light and Elohym divided the light from the day and the darkness He called night and the eening and the morning were the first day....... Read Bere' shiyth { Geneseis} God made everything . He is the Way the Truth and the Life Yahusha or Jesus. Ask Him and He will. tell you. Why your at it ask Him to forgive your sins and ask He sends the Ruach or His Holy Spirit to come into you. thanks God Bless you in Jesus's name He is the Word of Yah. Ahmen.
The problem of consciousness creates the illusion/delusion that LIFE is something "special", over and above other forms of material existence. Just because we (humans) distinguish LIFE does not imply that life as such is.
If God were not omnipotent, he could hardly have created himself at a Monday morning. An when he did´t that, there was no beginning. Humans where created at Sunday evening. If there are only 2 individuals at the starting point, Adam an Eve and obviously there is no possibility of cloning, i see no other way to multiply and to populate the earth than mate to one another. Siblings with siblings, parents with siblings and so on. To get 7 billion people, you have to be very diligent. In this case there are no alternative facts. I always thought God condemned something like that. But obviously not in this case. But the main thing is that we don't have a common ancestor with chimpanzees. All swinishness thereafter so doesn't count.
Special is not the right word to use. That's a philosophical argument. However, we can absolutely argue that it is unique. Otherwise, an abiogenesis would simply occur and we could see it occur. But that does not happen.
On a side note, if you really believe what you're saying that life isn't special in any way, then I assume you don't believe in human rights, because that would be inconsistent.
All atheists have is illusion/delusion. And while it’s true not all espousers of human rights believe in God atheists moral code is just made up in their head and constantly changing with the zeitgeist. For as much “human rights” as they espouse they also support grave evil such as abortion, 🏳️🌈, 🏳️⚧️, body mutilation, and child drag Queen story hour. Also many support euthanasia with infanticide and other insidious immorality coming down the pipeline. Stay tuned.
For those who argue against a god, get back to me when all diseases are cured and you can stop aging. Maybe then I will entertain that you know enough about anything to presume to know about the origin of life.
1:33:30 it is no problem to make building blocks of life. that is NOT the problem. the problem is to assemble it. it would require time that far far exeeds the secular assumed life span of the universe biliion times bilions times billions fold and more. Nature is able to produce in a miller Urey way at least 40 different amino acids (life requires only 21) under such circumstances even the simplest protein would require 10^300 billions of yrs to even get formed let alone to work together ina perfect harmonized fashion as we see in our living cells. So making building blocks is NOT the key factor that holds spontanious formation of life back in reality. it is pure the randomness that drives the formation into the oblivion of lack of time. there are too many factors that prolong the spontanious formation of living things. statistically the chance is way way way beyond the 20S (standard deviations) for even a simple protein of 100 aminoacids. well IF secular scientists dare to be honest then they acknowledge that anything beyond 6S or 7S should be treated as NOISE let alone 20S and higher S statitsical chances. But secular science is NOT honest with respect to itself when it comes to the formation of life.
@@derhafi depends on who's side you're on.... if you believe in evolution-lies yes then from your perspective my math seems crap. But if you're on the truth side my math makes perefect sense..... here watch this article: "Is mathematical probability the same as physical reality; the power of the average and how life began."
@@thewaytruthandlife Found your " "article" its a blog not a scientific journal ...im also very impressed by your 0 citations in total. Semms you are incompetent in multiple fields.
@@derhafi any creationist is incompetent in evolutionistic people eyes.... it is called being BI-ASSED .... so whats new about that ?? you simply refuse to acknowlege science facts... because you refuse to accept the God did it consequences ... well dig it dude God did it non the less... facts remain facts....and they are NOT on the evolutionistic point of view... whether you like or acknowledge that...or not .....deal with it...
He can also say: "I believe in ghosts and ghosts created the earth and the humans, but i´m not stupid." Then i would say: "You're not the only one in the world who thinks you are not stupid, other stupid people think that too." We are still part of the primate family. 99% of our DNA matches that of chimpanzees. There are even people who claim that there are only animals on this planet. We are mammals. Perhaps someday there will be creatures on this planet that really deserve the label "human". At the moment I don't see anything that separates us from other primates. I don't even see that we are better animals. Then this planet would look very different and would have a better future. Simply claiming that the earth is flat and at the center of the universe and that humans become divine as a result, has also been shown to be nonsense.
@@HarryNicNicholas You can also say: "I believe in ghosts and ghosts created the earth and the humans, but i´m not stupid." Then i would say: "You're not the only one in the world who thinks he is not stupid, other stupid people think that too."
Brilliant men, Dr Tour and Dr Meyer, opening the eyes of the blind and the brainwashed
Two ethically challenged zealots opening eyes? Whose exactly?
have you check out "Exposing the Discovery Institute Part 1: Casey Luskin" and "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 44 Lucy" on youtube. they shows how ignorant .Casey Luskin and discovery institute are.
It is all part of a 163 year-old pout that protests that “Really. A ghost did do it!”
you are the blind and brainwashed chum. do me a favour and try to find a practical application for any of the "science" they mention, creationism isn't used for anything other than trying to get god into schools. and their lies actually work against them, look up the dover trial where creationism was put on the school curriculum, it LOST, it was proved false in court - every detail debunked in public, the truth comes out eventually and then people can see for themselves that meyer is a fraud.
The irony of this comment 😂
My new favorite video
Well done
Excellent work and information!!!
I love how matter of fact he is. We need more of this. Thank you God in Jesus name for creating all of this! ✝️🇮🇱🕊🙏
A cross and a zionist flag who spit at the cross and oprress christians and say he was a bastard lmao you are some piece of work m, much love to u tho
Meyer is, as usual, lying through his teeth. He was at the Royal Society meeting and say IN THE AUDIENCE. He wasn't invited, had nothing to present and has lied his tits off about what was presented.
Phenomenal discussion. I have seen Dr Meyer as well as Dr Tour talks online, but I think one can definitely appreciate an engagement and genuine impulse that this forum brings out of them both. Thank you so much, please keep it coming.
Great
Both Meyer and Tour are frauds, pushing the fairy tale of Intelligent Design/Creationism.
Boris, Drs. Meyer and Tour are two of my favorite also... very intelligent.
@@allensmith342 They are also frauds.
@@walkergarya How so, Mr TH-camr Expert?
God bless you Doctor Tour for trying to spread the truth.!
He's actually a notorious liar....but don't let facts slow down your sycophantic drooling.
One of the best discussions I've heard to date. It's hard to believe it has only received 1486 views and 75 likes. Liked and subscribed.
Not everyone is moved by the Spirit and experience joy from this type of content. For those with much, even more is given. Glory to God who made it all!
It's because he's talking crap.... Not science
possiblt because they talk nonsense, ID has been proved false IN COURT. it got kicked out of school - it's PURELY a way to sneak religion into schools.
@@HarryNicNicholas Oh yeah... it's been proven false "IN COURT," as if the courts have never gotten anything wrong. You should sneak YOURSELF into school occasionally. Maybe you would learn the difference between "proved" and "proven." 🤔
@@allensmith342 What was proven in court was that ID is a religious idea peddled as science. Meyer has contributed precisely NOTHING to any branch of any science at any time- his one paper in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington was dropped immediately as his crony Sternberg cheated the review process to sneak it in behind the backs of the board of editors.
Tour has an impressive publication list, in an unrelated field, and less impressive ethics- he's a deranged, lying embarrassment to his university. Here is a comprehensive chronological list of all his research papers on Origin of Life.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
here, in case you missed it, is that list again- this time in alphabetical order.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Have you considered reading the work of scientists who actually work in this field?
That car broken down into constitute parts illustration just goes to show Hebrews 3: 4 "Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God."
Volcanic molt grows especially adding water,their is a bond(don't touch)
@@michaelgonzalez9058 What?
except that goes perfectly well for nature with no need for a mind behind it. god is eternal - the cosmos is eternal. anything god can do, nature can do and demonstrably, try getting god to fix you car.
Lucifer, hell, the great flood, death. pain suffering, then came and cured one or two people of blindness, cripple, issue of blood and allowed the murder of his half son "demi god" and then says he's sorry he destroyed every one and set a rainbow as a proof, then we must accept that for give him and if we become a slave he might forgive us if only we believe and accept. Convoluted. Don't ask why, just accept and O.K. Now he is LOVE. So everything is alright. Quite the construction.
@@davidgrant4748 This is an interesting version of events. There were plenty of demi-gods. Maui was one. What creed is this?
Thank you phenomenal discussion. It seems to me that every argument for Darwinism argument in ignorance.. Darwin is the true God of the gaps.
This is utter nonsense.
@@mcmanustony typical evolutionist statement with nothing to back it up
@@iankelly6632 what are you struggling with? And what the hell is an "evolutionist"? Are there germists in medicine? Gravitationalists in physics?
I responded appropriately to a monumentally ignorant comment. What's your problem exactly?
@@mcmanustony you are an evolutionist if you believe in evolution. Just another belief system
@@iankelly6632 Wrong. Evolution is a tested and successful scientific theory. It is based on evidence and nothing to do with "belief"
Maybe you could try reading books?
Fabulous 👌 👏 thankyou. I'm always amazed how people just believe its "scientific" to believe the evolution theory without any actual examination into it. It falls apart very quickly as you explain in your discussion. Thankyou x
No Fiona, it does not fall apart...Based on the lies Meyer here tells for a living it does..but that has nothing to do with the reality of things.
@@derhafi What?! what are you talking about? how?
@@brianmabasa5251 I'm talking about the fact that Meyer here is a demonsteble liar working for the ill-named Discovery institute where they do no research at all, none, and of which one of its founders Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. openly wants to replace democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy…this institution is a propaganda mill and nothing else, run by liars and frauds. ID has never and will never contribute anything to our understanding of nature.
They cater to the emotions of scientifically illiterate believers and that's it.
You have been conned. That is what Iam talking about.
@@brianmabasa5251 Meyer tells lies for a living. That's who he is and what he does. He's not and never has been a scientist, has no training of any kind in any branch of any life science and has published NOTHING in the professional literature of any science at any time. His one attempt was the result of cheating the review process to sneak a paper into the PBSW. He got caught and the paper was dropped.
@@mcmanustony Hmm thats a bold accusation dont you think? A typical Ad Hominem... Why dont you tell me how and what about his claim is a lie and then, explain or better yet have a good rebuttal. Lets see...
It is just brilliant to watch. Very convincing and persuasive.
Have you tried learning science from people who actually work in the relevant areas. None of these do….
@@mcmanustony just show me the best article of the real science that you are following, and I mean the best one, that convinced you that the randomness creat life, and I am ready to wait for whatever time you like. But please tell whether 5, 6, 10years.
@@fozidakilah6277 On life's origins you can read or watch presentations from Jack Szostak (who was disgracefully smeared by the lying zealot James Tour), Addy Pross, Sutherland, Nick Lane etc. All of whom actually work in Origin of Life research. Tour does not and Meyer isn't even a scientist of any kind.
@@mcmanustony you didn't even understand the magnitude of the question, and advising me whom to listen to!!
It seems, you have a lot of faith in the names you mentioned and you take whatever they want you to take. I have no problem in the science that they are doing and the results, but the problems in their conclusions and what they want you to swallow. From your first reply, I am not really sure you will understand what I am saying.
@@fozidakilah6277 I understood the question. I also understand that you know next to nothing about this subject. Spare me the narcissistic posturing. NO ONE in this presentation works in OoL research. I gave you pointers to distinguished scientists who do.
Why do you mention "randomness"? The laws of physics and chemistry are not random.
None of this involves faith of any kind. There are some things known about the origin of life but many questions remain. one thing that is 100% certain is that Meyer, Tour and their claque of religious zealots will not be providing the answers.
"I have no problem in the science that they are doing and the results, but the problems in their conclusions and what they want you to swallow. "- why the sneer? I doubt very much you could name a single OoL researcher whose work you've actually read.
I have followed Stephen Meyer for some time and find his argument persuasive. Recently I watch Blue Birds nest and found out that the chicks poop in a membrane that the parents remove from the nest until the chicks leave the nest! I find that amazing and cannot fathom how that may have developed via natural selection. Seems like it would be wonderful for humans to have developed that beneficial trait which lead me to wonder why certain generally beneficial traits allegedly developed via natural selection seem to be isolated to species and subcategories of species like Blue Birds.
Believe me, there are many things you "cannot fathom". Can you "fathom" why God created poop and death? He could have omitted either one or both.
@@benthere4380 yep exactly, the universe is astoundingly complex therefore my preferred bronze age deity must be true... that is how the process goes.
@@benthere4380 that’s great. Why did the ageing process, causing decrepitude, evolve if evolution is essentially survival of the fittest.
@@realscientistflanders1688 Well I can’t say “officially” but let me suggest… The “ageing process” is necessary. Or do you think 90 year old people should have been born at age 90?
@Ben There I don’t know either. No being born at 90 is impossible as reproduction is not possible therefore extinction is inevitable. The ageing process isn’t necessary. Our bodies deteriorate because they are programmed to decline. Living healthily just delays it all. All complex life is the result of evolution.
Tour's description of the sequence required to even get the complex raw materials is exactly what I hoped to have him outline.
He's brilliant and he's a wonderful Christian as well, but he has an odd resistance to using the phrase/concept "intelligent design" even though he's making an intelligent-design argument against the unguided emergence of life.
Dr. Tour only uses hard science to refute arguments for abiogenesis so that he can't be accused of letting his religion interfere with his science.
what a shame about his serious ethical issues.....
@@allensmith342 HAHA!!!
@@derhafi HAHA!!! Is that the best argument you can brainstorm? 🤣
@@allensmith342 "Dr. Tour only uses hard science to refute arguments for abiogenesis "
I don’t know what is worse, that he thinks audience is so gullible and simple minded that he can get away with this, or that he is right in thinking so.
What is the alternative to abiogenesis? aka the notion that life had an non-naturalistic origin?
Would you like to name one credible alternative?
Every so called alternative, rests on the existence and interference of some “intelligent cause” an ill-defined metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science.
Let’s have a look at the evidence he presents for this this: Nothing
Let’s have a look at his personal favourite on how it went down:
“The word of God is true. *Every word in this book is true, every word,*. Let everything else be a lie, this book is true! This book is true, this was a prophecy and it’s just piled upon fact upon fact, evidence upon evidence. How much more would you like to understand that this book is true? To bow before God and say: Lord thank you for your work…every word in the Bible is true!” James Tour - at a “lecture” Huston first Baptist church 2019
Every point he ever made in regards to abiogenesis and evolution, is one out of the three following categories:
- A misrepresentation by quote mining, confirmed by the researchers who got treated in this dishonest manner by Tour
-Irrelevant to the subject
-A blunt lie.
Given all that, Tour might as well claim that magical unicorns are responsible for life as an alternative for natural causes. That is just as credible as any other so called alternative.
There are many mysteries.
For example, Why did I get married ?
I can't remember.
"Chemicals don't 'evolve'"
-Great point!
A straw man, nothing else....If chemicals would not follow certain pathways under certain conditions there would not even be water.
chemical compounds are made by natzural causes all the time...
@@derhafi
"Chemicals do not 'evolve' into life without information added from the outside of the chemical reaction by a mind."
Science is based upon observation.
This, so far, is a universal observation without exception.
@@eswn1816 "Science is based upon observation." Evidence...not solely obervation.
Science is the study of the natural world....You seem to have fallen for the lie that something beyond the natural world had a hand in the origin of life.
That is not different from claiming that "Magic did it"
Every so called “alternative” to natural causes for the life we see today relies on the existence and interference of some ill-defined metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science.
In other wirds…. every so called “alternative” to natural causes for the life we see today, is an empty assertion with no credibility.
@@eswn1816 ""Chemicals do not 'evolve' into life without information added from the outside of the chemical reaction by a mind.""
What do you think information is??
Information is what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things. That's it.
Information is not an entity or some magic ingredient. It's the new buzzword creationists use to bedazzle their scientific illiterate audience. I don’t know what’s worse, that the ID frauds think that their followers are so gullible, ill-informed, brainwashed, ignorant, and depended on this God fantasy to fall for this crap, or that they are predominantly right in thinking so. That is pathetic.
@@derhafi
Just curious: Are you a practicing scientist?
A question for Dr Tour: What powers and knowledge would an entity have to have if it were to build a living cell?
Why not ask a cell biologist? Tour has no training in any life science- and a disgusting track record of lying about those who have.
They hated Jesus for no reason they will hate you for no reason but be strong GOD is your strength
i don't think anyone hated jesus, jesus just had a big mouth that got him into trouble. if you're going to piss off rome, do it quietly.
it's all STORIES mate.
He can also say: "I believe in ghosts and ghosts created the earth and the
humans, but i´m not stupid."
Then i would say: "You're not the only one in the world who thinks you are
not stupid, other stupid people think that too."
We are still part of the primate family. 99% of our DNA matches that of
chimpanzees. There are even people who claim that there are only animals
on this planet. We are mammals. Perhaps someday there will be creatures on
this planet that really deserve the label "human". At the moment I don't see
anything that separates us from other primates.
I don't even see that we are better animals. Then this planet would look very
different and would have a better future.
Simply claiming that the earth is flat and at the center of the universe and
that humans become divine as a result, has also been shown to be nonsense.
@@HarryNicNicholas
LOL! Good one! 😆
The main thing that young earth creationists lack: curiosity
no - they lack imagination, all i hear is "i can't imagine all this coming about by chance", they have zip in the way of imagination.
He can also say: "I believe in ghosts and ghosts created the earth and the
humans, but i´m not stupid."
Then i would say: "You're not the only one in the world who thinks you are
not stupid, other stupid people think that too."
We are still part of the primate family. 99% of our DNA matches that of
chimpanzees. There are even people who claim that there are only animals
on this planet. We are mammals. Perhaps someday there will be creatures on
this planet that really deserve the label "human". At the moment I don't see
anything that separates us from other primates.
I don't even see that we are better animals. Then this planet would look very
different and would have a better future.
Simply claiming that the earth is flat and at the center of the universe and
that humans become divine as a result, has also been shown to be nonsense.
@@HarryNicNicholas Right. So if I walk into a city and say "I cannot imagine all this being built by chance" it shows lack of imagination? No, it simply refuses to engage in the fools' errand of trying to prove such a thing.
The irony is that perfectly describes evolutionists.
@@Just1Bum right that's why they are the ones doing experiments and publishing research papers everyday, you know the ones you don't read. Flat earthers, young earthers, crystal healers, they all just lack the curiosity to face the reality of complexity.
I missed the live online programme...would have loved to participate and share my new knowledge on Intelligent Design
there isn't any knowledge in intelligent design, it's BS designed to sneak god into places where god isn't required. you can't cure cancer using creationism, it's useless for anything practical.
@@HarryNicNicholas Limited knowledge is dangerous. It is my scientific discovery of Creator who is separate from God. Cancer is an effect, whose source is coded in human consciousness. World and knowledge has moved on Intelligent Design which I have discovered in my 30 yrs journey.
Let us make man in our own image quoting God
When I was a born microbiology was in its infancy.
The step from protein to to simple cell was a short distance and possibilities were endless.
With DNA and fantastic complexity of a “simple cell” the distance to the origin of life is miles rather than centimeters apart .
Nature is complex...so what?
@@derhafi
"Nature?"
You mean "something from nothing?"
Now THAT takes great faith!
@@eswn1816 where does your god come from
@@eswn1816 There is not one scientific publication out there claiming that something came from absolutely nothing. No scientists believes that. (and no, Krauss book is not a scientific publication and does not claim that “sometning came from absolutely nothing”..read it). Keep your straw man.
It is however, what the Bible teaches, isn’t it? chapter one: A divine being with supernatural powers, “God”, with no origin by himself (special pleading fallacy), which has no demonstrable correaltion with reality, turns nothing into something. I agree, it is foolish nonsense! Believers seem to have no problem with that..
@@eswn1816 "You mean "something from nothing?""- why is it that the only people who post this tripe- and they do it daily- are lying, pig-ignorant creationists?
Please discuss and debate uniformitarianism versus Catastrophism. Specifically catastrophic plate tectonics versus slow and gradual plate tectonics taught universally.
You won't need to worry about origins if you show overwhelming evidence for the single catastrophic global flood.
There never was a global flood.
This was my first time to hear Dr. Tour. My main take-away was "molecules don't organize themselves." Love it. Thanks so much! I love the bold, passionate presentation!
"molecules don't organize themselves." ....how do you think snowflakes form?
@@derhafi Do they organize themselves or is a snowflake just a reaction to outside forces? There are similar arguments about naturally occurring phenomena like tornadoes, hurricanes, etc where there are recognizable patterns. To put the quote in context, Dr. Tour is explaining that molecules don't organize themselves "toward life".
@@gradysockwell4255 That is matter acting accordingly to the laws of nature. There are 4 fundamental forces in action and they and a handful of fundamental particles are responsible for literally eveything we will ever experience. They are described in the Standard Model of Physics and they are what reality is made of.
"that molecules don't organize themselves "toward life"" Which is completely in odds with what we can observe in nature all the time.
With that nonsensical claim he is counting on the bias, ignorance and general scientific illiteracy of his audience...I don’t know what’s worse, that he thinks his audience is that gullible and moronic, or that he is right in thinking so.
I still haven't heard you explain how snowflakes demonstrate how molecules organize themselves toward life.
@@gradysockwell4255 Wow, nobody said that " snowflakes demonstrate how molecules organize themselves toward life." The typical dishonesty of a ID proponent.
The sentence, was "molecules don't organize themselves." which is plain wrong.
And if you really want to know how water molecules arrange themself when freezing into a snowflake, I'd advise you to learn about hydrogen bounding. Which you will not do because wilful ignorance is next to dishonesty, one of the major foundations of being a ID proponent.
Now...I’m still waiting to hear the ID explanation for ….antibiotic research, ring species, domesticated animals, vestigial organs, endogenous retroviruses, pseudogenes, syncytin, Biogeography, chromosome 2 in humans, cytochrome c and b, nested Hierarchs and classification, homologous structures, divergence, endemism and the observable speciation in American Goatsbeard flowers.
I’m still waiting to hear the ID explanation for …why are there are no mammals or freshwater-fish, only animals that could swim or fly there in the first place, on Islands of volcanic origin, which specified there shown severe genetic overlap with animals on the nearest mainland? Whereas the animal population on islands which were former connected to mainland, contains freshwater-fish and mammals?
In the light of Evolution this makes perfect sense.
Let’s have a look at the ID explanation for all that: “An not further defined “Intelligence”, that is in no way detectable arranged that so…”
The ID attempt of an “Explanation” is not different from claiming “Magic did it”.
I don’t know what’s worse, that the ID frauds think that their followers are so gullible, ill-informed, brainwashed, ignorant, and depended on this God fantasy to fall for this crap, or that they are predominantly right in thinking so.
1:49:15 Excellent comment (response) by Stephen.
Numbers 31:17-18
King James Version
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Sincerely yahweh God of infinite peace and love
As, according to your bible, your god has on multiple occasions, wiped out whole populations, your god is far from the "God of infinite peace and love".
On that basis, even if you could prove that he was real, I would not consider him to be worthy of praise or worship.
Wonderful discussion.
Thank you so very much😊!
Awesome
Brilliant 😁
blind leading the blind
God did it. Who made god? He just popped into existence
And why did he wait 10 billion years before thinking “Life might be a fun thing to create , I can give a species a guilt trip so hopefully they’ll praise and obey me” ?
What I am wondering is how you get the specified DNA, proteins and RNAs of 1:15:29 from racemic mixtures produced by nature? Nature has no selection mechanism for chemical processes. Insofar as this being applied to already existing biological life, it might be the time to learn rather than make assumptions. Each existing life form will have some features that may be known and some that are unknown, To assume randomness determines progressions is ludicrous to anyone who has studied formal logic. Where is the fitness function in a random process?
"Nature has no selection mechanism for chemical processes" Yes it does, autocatalysis.
@@derhafi So you equate 'catalysis' with 'selection'? According to Darwin, selection works towards "making an improved product". How is what you describe an improvement?
@@l.m.892 So you equate listening to ademonstable liar with no scientific integrety to an education?
Seems like it.
The most important phenomenon related to first-order autocatalysis is selection in the Darwinian sense. When several types of autocatalysts are present simultaneously all except one are eliminated through competition for resources.
You wrote ""Nature has no selection mechanism for chemical processes"
Any intelligent person would be glad to have learned someting. You on the other hand....
"making an improved product" Nice chopped up quote you got here....ever rerad anything about evoultion that was not edited by the Discovery Institute?
I am 75. I never knew much about science. Is there any way this lecture can be simplified? If there is a real case here for a possible divine design, this might become a series. I am frustrated by my ignorance. I wonder if there is any way to bring this discussion down to my level. I know Dr. Tyson and Dr. Green highly doubt there is a higher power behind our creation. I think it would be wonderful if the three of you could work together to explore scientific facts regarding the origin of life. Is it possible that the three of you working together might learn from each other?
You are off to a good start by admitting your ignorance. Anyone who thinks that they are smart or clever is a loser. This is such a complex world that it's impossible for any normal human being to understand any subject fully. This includes man made or otherwise. In the big picture, nothing matters anyway. We have only been here for the blink of an eye and speculation is rife. Just my thoughts.
@Gerard Moloney the Bible also says that Noah built an ark and put 2 of every species in it.
"Is there any way this lecture can be simplified?" Meyer is a liar and a fraud.
Glad I could help.
In short, the origin of life cannot be explained by processes observable in nature - i.e. scientifically - because life is far too complex, and the chemical reactions to do it are way way way too rare and improbable in nature. There is no evidence of these processes actually occurring in nature. The chemicals that make up living things - e.g. proteins and carbohydrates - always come from pre-existing living things. They never just form spontaneously in nature.
This means that there is no basis in biology for claiming that life originated out of non-life, i.e. by natural processes.
This means that the theory of evolution is cut off at the root, because evolutionary theory pre-supposes that life already exists, in order for new species to originate by natural selection.
All the experiments which claim to have demonstrated the possibility of life chemically - i.e. not from pre-existing life - simply cook up some chemicals in a laboratory to produce more complex chemicals that are like some of the parts of life, e.g. amino acids which are the building blocks of proteins.
But these are highly artificial processes, they are themselves the result of life - i.e. the scientists doing the experiment, trying to drive in the result in their pre-determined direction. And they completely fail to explain how the 'car' would just assemble itself.
@@derhafi As proved by nothing but your malicious abuse?
Glad I could help.
You need to understand that other people aren't as dumb as you.
Dr. James Tour is absolutely correct... no one knows where the information code comes from. Now I have made the scientific discovery, Information code comes from Quantum Code consciousness which is central to human consciousness but separate from physical human brain...now read this beautiful scientific discovery
It comes from natural selection on reproduction. Is that difficult for you to understand.
ah, you're talking nonsense too, for a moment.....
@@ThatisnotHair it's insufficient. Ca we discuss this further? I would gladly discuss with you.
@@HarryNicNicholas same to you
The funny thing is that no one would believe this about anything they knew about, even very simple things. For example, one finds a plumbed wall in the forest and then creates a theory of how it formed without a human builder when it is so obvious that this would be the better explanation.
"For example, one finds a plumbed wall in the forest and then creates a theory of how it formed without a human builder " Theories rely in emperical data...all of the data for a plumbed wall points to humans. No data sustains some form of a designer for nature.
@@derhafi the information in the cell points to intelligence.
@@ofs662 What exactly do you think "information" is?
I share your doubts about how a so incredible complex structure like the eukaryotic cell with it's unimaginably complex chemistry could have evolved from simple molecules. The odds are so miserably low in favor of the random emergence of the right molecular structures for life in such a short period of time, 13.8 billion years. Nevertheless i'm of the opinion that a much, much older universe can give life time to evolve and expand through cosmos.
have you seen "Scientist Reacts to "Fossil Record Debunked" | Reacteria" on youtube?
BEFORE God created anything and everything , what was he all loving and caring and knowledgeable about?
The Trinity
@@jdj0547 Not sure what you mean.
@@petrospetroupetrou9653 he's not sure what _you_ mean i think.
Since an uncreated being exited, not only is this impossible, if it were to exist uncreated it would have to have existed for eternity, but what was it doing all that infinite time.... masturbating?
@@HarryNicNicholas Uncreated things cannot exist as they would have to be eternal (impossible) or suddenly appear from nothing (impossible).
When trying to explain the origin of life as a straightforward chemical process, one must include the anti-life substances and forces that are simultaneously produced (with equal probability) and degrade the "chemical evolution". Formaldehyde, cyanide, protein degrading enzymes and UV radiation, temperature and pH variations are examples of anti-life constituents.
When trying to explain the origin of life as anything else than a chemical process, one has to keep in mind that this is futile.
Every so called alternative to a naturalistic origin for life, rests on the existence and interference of some ill-defined metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science.
In other words, every "alternative" to natural causes is, according to the available evidence, as credible, as claiming “magic did it”.
Your argument is not different from claiming that there should be no sheep since wolfs exist too...The influences you mentionen provide natural selection but are far from being an unsurmountable obsticle for life.
@@derhafi all I said is that science needs to include the evolution of anti life components (and their effects), in the analysis. Can you cite a theory of life origin that includes this?
@@bshul10 All I said that this is covered by natural selection. It is very likely that some of the early self replicating molecules did not make it due to influences like UV etc. but life today orgins from those which passed that selection process. So yes, every naturalistic aka credible explantion, includes this.
@@derhafi so you are saying that the anti life components do not occur at an equal probability to the life generating components.....just like the matter antimatter conundrum....which has no current explanation. Once again, I contend that, in all the experiments and analyses proposed, so far, no anti life components are considered. Until they are added to the equation, in my opinion, there is no valid nature based, theory for life's origin. You are saying that the origin of life must come from a natural process and not supernatural process and I'm saying it might come from other sources, like pure random occurrence.
And God confounded their language
Because he hates humans when they cooperate with each to achieve something! 😆
The Rosetta stone is permanent knowledge for me
knowledge of what?
Where do drug companies get mRNA for the Covid vaccine?
Why is blood blue suffercation
HOW did these chemicals manage to know what to combine with and in what order and how much of each????????How did humans , animals plants ,water air, etc come to be??????????????
Matter acting according to the laws of nature doesn't "know" anything, it has no goal...matter acting according to the laws of nature is what nature does all the time.
Are you suggesting they were assembled by a non detectable force? Some ill-defined metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science did it?
@@derhafi The ONLY way we came about was through intelligent design,how can anyone with a brain cell thinks this evolution did it.
@@derhafi there were no laws of nature before creation,
@@berniefynn6623 What "creation" ?
@@derhafi God's creation, who or what else could create.
Sophistry
That's why we go to the beach
I don’t think anyone anymore argues about whether we are created or not. The new consensus is how maybe did God use another form to create us and maybe if we look into UAPs. What if consciousness is the key and I think if you look into Gary Nolan’s work it’s very interesting. He’s done classified work into what the government has in its possession and what he’s concluded that this is not high technology but another form of consciousness that has been created and if you get into things that are beyond our understanding because our consciousness doesn’t then that’s where we need to start looking into consciousness itself instead of material understanding and get into conscience understanding. In a classified document called “the assessment “ by nato and yes it exists we are containers by definition living in soul through consciousness. No one is arguing anymore about whether we were created or not let’s look at different methods as Gary Nolan talks about and think outside the box.
On the contrary, a vast number of people argue that we are not created, at least not by an intelligent being or god. A huge number would argue that we are formed by a process, one that takes millions of years, and is ongoing, continuing still. Evolution, powered by natural selection, whereby tiny mutations in the genome produce complex living organisms such as plants and animals is the neutral process that allows complex life. If you believe nobody argues that anymore you are very mistaken, thankfully.
@@wotsitalabowt this consensus in short time will be challenged greatly by individuals that will be coming forward on the subject to disclose sensitive material that will change how we look at science and history. The charlatans will be put to shame and it’s not just a theory it will be fact. I don’t think the persons that challenge the view of a creator really have a concept of what they actually believe it’s they choose to hide what they really believe to live a particular lifestyle.
@@Truth-wg7zc You have gone from "I don't think anyone argues anymore", directly to it being a consensus that will soon be challenged. That's my point: it's not true that nobody argues about there being a creator, and you just agreed without realising it.
Bye now because the rest is equally idiotic.
Why glucose instead of body tissue
Imagine a pill that corrects the liver and cures the kidneys to produce healing
Why do you need a pill to do that? Good Nutrition is all you need.
Body provides that pill a well designed mechanism to operate otherwise a pharmacy is full of pills but any chemical don't evolve and operates in its packing.
Imagining that inorganic chemicals mature to advanced signaling and coding systems is comparable to imagining that radio astronomers will stumble across a pulsar writing and broadcasting Lennon and McCarthy songs for its neighbors in the galaxy.
You are comparing apples and helicopters.
How much actual OoL research have you read?
Because u are children and I am father
Which happens tob
The issue of life' Genesis, Is too important
To give into blind faith, For either a religious or secular believer... The humongous list of requirements,
For something to have The life principle, Logically and necessarily requires a cosmic engineer.
Can water or rocks produce life? Is that the same as water and rocks and being able to be the foundations or bedrock’s for life to exist in? Sky
What is most likely,
1) Simple but massive energy coming from "nothing" (Quantum fields) and developing into more complex forms. Or
2) A fully developed highly intelligent all powerful being coming fully formed and knowledgeable from what we would call "nothing" (eternity)?
Quantum fields are demonstrably real.........some ill-defined fully developed highly intelligent all powerful being, has no demonstrable corelation with reality whatsoever.
1) A Quantum field is not "nothing." Even if the universe could come from Quantum Fields (something), there is no evidence, or even theories, to account for the fine-tuning in our universe that allows it to exist as it does.
2) God did not "come from" anything. He is a necessarily existent being, who exists eternally. He had no cause.
Nothing or something? Hmm soooo hard
@@chrispark2698 Quantum field is the necessary existence
Intelligence is the ability to solve problems. Now what problem is God is solving to be him called intelligent. And who created this problem in first place. Because problems should preceed intellingence.
Or we should end up in a paradoxical statement that God is solving the problem created by himself. Since he is the creator of everything, he must have created both problems and solutions.
Lets say probability of universe occuring is 1/100. Odds of 99/100 of universe not occuring should also be created by God. Since creation is ex nihilo, problems didn't exist before him.
Yes
Yes I am Julie that's why I'm doing this because I want everything to get done now
I didn't have a blue pop rint
summary: there are things we don't know, therefore it must have been gods who did it.
You have it backwards Bill. The evidence demonstrates creation. Macro Evolution is plugged into the gaps by materialists with no evidence at all.
@@johncastino2730 all observed evidence shows that the nature of life forms has changed dramatically over the last few hundred million years. evolution explains that well, and is supported by thousands of detailed studies on the evidence. all creationists have is the statement "evidence demonstrates creation" with zero detailed studies of the evidence.
No
Either that or evolution did it
@@oif3gunner sorry but that's it in a nutshell, "god did it" gives you no idea as to what to do next, we aren't going to cure cancer with "god did it" as a starting point, what we do is ACTUAL science and figure out how things really work. that's how we cured smallpox, whooping cough, aids, measles, and on and on "god did it" has NEVER been the case. WE did it. and if you say god helped, why is god only doing cancer one patient at a time? we are good enough for the smallpox cure, not quite good enough for the cancer cure? mysterious, or BS?
Misleading title. NOT a Dr. Meyer video.
No, it's that screaming, lying lunatic Tour.
Sounds like these combinations where assembled randomly and then ‘programmed’ to have a specific function, information must be key but where did it come from? I’m recently hearing established and renowned theoretical physicists talk about consciousness being fundamental, like Bernardo Kastrup. Is there perhaps time for Physicists, Biologists, Chemists and other sciences to start working together? If we’re looking for a theory of everything you would imagine all sciences merging at some point, all singularities are equally perplexing.
Ok fine there is intelligent designer. Then what? Make some precise novel predictions from this assumption that can be tested. All l hear is ad hocs, " this is mysterious/complex therefore, l am right ".
kastrup is another BS artist, making stuff up to fit his own ideas. hawking and penrose gave up on the singularity by the way.
The natural sciences cannot have a theory of everything. Such a theory is the territory of metaphysics and mysticism. This is basic definitional stuff.
If that could happen maybe politicians could start working together!!?
The process is the private parts of the outcome
Add color to exrays
2.5h of Irrelevancies, misrepresentations and blunt lies.
Which do you believe is the most glaring?
@@chrispark2698 It must be the overarching suggestion that, "proving evolution/abiogenesis wrong" would add credibility to some god proposal.
@@derhafi I don't know if I agree that's what they're saying. I think what they're saying is more along the lines of scientists making claims from "evidence" that is not actually backed up by the evidence. Furthermore, if we follow the evidence honestly, it leads us to a transcendent, personal Creator of the universe.
But can you give a specific example of what they said in this video that was an "irrelevance, misrepresentation, and blunt lies?"
@@chrispark2698 "if we follow the evidence honestly, it leads us to a transcendent, personal Creator of the universe." That, ma well spoken friend, is utter nonsese.
Only assumtions, wishful thinking and fallacies lead to the supernatural, which your supposed creator, is a part of.
@@derhafi Well, that is your opinion, but there is, in fact, evidence to back up this position. Do you have evidence to back up yours?
By the way, you still haven't answered my question - would you care to?
Scientists don't like the topic because they haven't a clue how life started.
They have very well sustainned ideas how it started and those ideas get more concrete bit by bit...That's why they do research istead of mentally wanking over ancient mythology.
"I haven't a clue how life started".....there, fixed it for you.
scientists love the topic cos it keeps them employed.
what they don't like is people making up bullshit them calling them dishonest too.
meyer is a fraud.
Regarding Wikipedia, I have heard the "experts" that determine what is and is not science, are a few teenagers working out of their basements.
Dan
Science is most probable best explanation of all independently repeable testable claims that can make most of precise novel predictions.
Intelligent design fits none of that criteria. Cherrypicking limitations of other theories and giving ad hoc explanations with no precise falsifiable predictions i.e. Pseudoscience 101
That is not hair wrote, "Science is most probable best explanation of all independently repeable testable claims that can make most of precise novel predictions."
I may agree with that statement, depending on how you define science. One very famous physicist defines science this way:
_"Learn from science that _*_you must doubt the experts._*_ As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: _*_Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."_*_ [Richard P. Feynman, "The Pleasure Of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works Of Richard Feynman." Perseus Publishing, 1999, p.187]_
I follow that rule. If science gets bogged down in consensus, or in the rules and ideology of the establishment (those who have elevated themselves to the status of "experts",) then science doesn't advance.
That is not hair wrote, "Intelligent design fits none of that criteria."
You are speaking from ignorance. Combinatorial mathematics alone rules out raw chance (e.g., dumb luck,) the driving force of evolution. Another very famous physicist wrote this about the overwhelming evidence of an intelligent designer:
_"A _*_common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology,_*_ and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. _*_The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."_*_ [Fred Hoyle, "The Universe Past and Present Reflections." Engineering & Science, Vol 45, No.2, November, 1981, p.12]_
That is not hair wrote, "Cherrypicking limitations of other theories and giving ad hoc explanations with no precise falsifiable predictions i.e. Pseudoscience 101"
LOL! You have been brainwashed. Evolution is a hypothesis based exclusively on ad hoc assertions, i.e., there is no supporting data. The hypothesis is so bad that evolutionists in the early part of the 20th century were forced to assign the unfalsifiable and vacuous definition of "change over time" to keep evolution from being relegated to the dustbin of history, where it rightly belongs. Evolution is unfalsifiable because it is not science, but pseudoscience.
Dan
@@BibleResearchToolsGive me atleast one precise novel prediction from intelligent design framework. What new discovery or an effect we will see at specific place or time if it is true otherwise it will be proven false. i.e. falsification criteria. You know something that pseudoscientists lack.
@@BibleResearchTools Instead of quote mining and preaching in your echo chamber. Why don't you get out of your house and take tools, explore, collect evidence. Do expirements. Then formulate a belief that can make predictions which can be seen and tested. Check error of your prediction from what you really obeserve. And make better models with less error and accomodate and predict more facts. You know what real scientists do.
Pseudoscientists can only talk and does nothing, that is exactly what l see with I D proponents.
That is not hair wrote, "Give me atleast one precise novel prediction from intelligent design framework."
Is "novel" the new evolutionism "word of the week"? LOL! Evolutionists are always coming up with "novel" ways to fool the naive.
The only time I have seen the word "novel" used in evolution debates is in the evolutionist prediction that random mutation/natural selection could form new, "novel" body parts over time. That has never been observed in anyway, shape, or form. Further, genetic research has rendered that process all but impossible.
That is not hair wrote, "What new discovery or an effect we will see at specific place or time if it is true otherwise it will be proven false. i.e. falsification criteria."
Genetics research over the past few decades has demonstrated that the cell and genome are intelligently designed, not to mention the myriad of highly-complex systems and organs in every organism, from the smallest multi-cell organism to humans. There are so many non-adaptive structures spread across many phyla (e.g., the pentadactyl limb) that random mutation/natural selection can be true only if natural selection has forward-looking intelligence.
Specified Complexity in DNA is just one of many intelligently-designed components of the cell. Symbiotic relationships in the cell are virtually impossible by random or "chance" mutations, for example:
_Proteins are made by molecular machines. Molecular machines are made of proteins. Which came first?_
There are many such relationships in the cell that are unexplainable by so-called natural (i.e., materialistic) processes. Only the mathematically-challenged can honestly claim those relationships could have been formed by chance. Those proficient in mathematics know such materialist claims are pure nonsense.
That is not hair wrote, "Some that pseudoscientists lack"
Let me complete that sentence for you. "Some that pseudoscientists lack the ability to write in complete sentences." :)
Dan
That's why the body
why is mcclatchie working in a call center?
True
It is the body
Created in the image
Prof. Tour is undoubtedly a very smart guy but he is clearly using a lot of jargon to disguise the fact he wants to conjure up a divine rather than a natural origin of life. His is the tired old argument “Boy, life is complicated! God must have done it!” It’s lazy and unconvincing.
So you have nothing to say?
It's the typical Creationist argument - I don't understand it so God did it!
LIFE
The umbilical cord we all had
I got to the end of my interest in our universe and learning that the Bible speaking of nothingness was accurate, and so decided to look inward. At a certain point in just a matter of weeks it led me to Protons and Quarks ~ and that's it. This led me to ask "where did information come from that controls everything?" It was at that point I realized that if I could find this point without much effort why aren't our scientists speaking about it openly? I learned that answer also..... Faith in Christ, Amen.
Faith is believing in something for which there's no evidence
" We don't where it comes from, therefore God " lol
@@rickalta2770 That is incorrect, Rick. Faith is belief in something for which there is no proof.
Except the Universe is not full of "nothing." Everything that is in the Bible can be observed by everyone - which proves it was not divinely inspired of God but made up by primitive superstitious men with an Agenda.
The origin of life's mystery.
It is not RNA it is the red blood cellthat heals like plasma
There is no middle ground here, you either believe that there is a spirit animating all life or you believe life is mechanical. If you believe that life is a series of chemical reactions (mechanical) and that an animating spirit is not 100 percent necessary for life then you are faithless.
No middle ground eh, so you believe animals have spirits? Which ones exactly? Bugs, viruses, dogs, whales, chimps, humans?
@@IIrandhandleII Yes, that is correct, all life has a spirit, humans have a soul and spirit. When the body dies and a spirit can no longer remain in a creature the spirit returns to God. Humans have an immortal soul/spirit that may, or may not return to God. To be saved in Christ means that the soul becomes a part of the body of Christ while still alive, and there is no other way for a soul to be saved other than through Jesus.
@@sedevacantist1 so viruses have a spirit? Single cells have Spirit?
@@IIrandhandleII That's incorrect, viruses are not alive. Amoebas are single cell creatures and are alive.
Ah ok so amoeba and single cell organisms are alive, it is the cell wall that makes something "alive" or not alive? And living things have spirits you say? So single cells have spirits?
Don't u remember seeing spiders in vocanoes
There is the ecuivacant
Of how spiders are fighting
On the side of god
From my perspective, we have two choices. We can either believe that the universe was created by an entity that designed suffering as part of its plan ... or, we can believe (as did Stephen Hawking, before he died) that the universe always existed, and will always exist ... no plan involved. I prefer the second choice.
It’s not about belief, it’s about evidence and facts.
Hawkins proposal is flat out nonsensical and basically a superstition.
All the evidence points to there being an ultimate reality from which everything draws its existence. God is not some entity. God is the very being of all reality and is existence itself. God is not a being, God is being itself and is uncaused.
We know this because we can use logic and empirical evidence to extrapolate from what we do see in reality.
God is, bar none, the best explanation for reality. Everything else is a superstition.
Cheers 😊
The issue of suffering has been addressed in books by thoughtful men and women, one of my favorite treatments is C S Lewis' "The Problem of Pain". To imagine a world without the possibility of suffering is akin to imagining a world of knowledge without the existence of ignorance.
@@artiefount Mother Teresa was also one for aggrandizing pain as being a holy cause. She said that suffering was "the kiss of Jesus." However, when SHE was dying, rather than staying with "her" poor, she chose to go to the best hospital, with the best treatment for herself. She was a hypocrite, and even she admitted it in her letter to the vatican.
If you had the power to create a universe ... would suffering exist as it does in all forms of life on planet earth. And is so, would you want to be perceived as being "perfect" and expect to be worshiped? I suggest you wouldn't, because YOU have a conscience. And if a god were to exist, it would NOT have a conscience.
@@artiefount I relate to the words of Mark Twain … "GOD … a God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice, and invented hell--mouths mercy, and invented hell--mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slave to worship him!"
@@artiefount From my perspective, we have two choices. We can either believe that the universe was created by an entity that designed suffering as part of its plan ... or, we can believe (as did Stephen Hawking, before he died) that the universe always existed, and will always exist ... no creator and no plan involved. I prefer the second choice.
1:37:37 In saying this he's completely defeated his own self-defined paradoxes with respect to information theory. Just swap 'Experimenter' with 'nature' - that's how an evolutionary process accrues information.
Of course, it's against his monetary interests to recognise this, sooooo 😂
Not a logical deduction, Nature is not mind. Nature cannot project, that is a mind/information process. A cause and effect process and adding information are completely different processes.
What would be difference if world was intelligently and unintelligently designed
These men are saying that there is no design without intelligence.
@@tookymax what makes anyone think the universe was designed, if you try to imagine how the universe came about by happenstance, try imagining how an intelligence could have put all the parts together, and in such a way as to hide the designer, and how would you get from a creator to jesus anyway? and at what point does god NOT interfere, cos we're supposed to have free will, if he's dicking around at the atomic level, we're puppets - where does god intervene in this "design" - design and free will are incompatible.
They should have left me alone
Yes I am
Rob Davis....Here's a teachable moment.....I emailed Dr. Jack Szostak (a leading researcher in origin of life....maybe google him?) I wrote..........My understanding of the work that you and others are doing. is to follow elementary constituents, proposing mechanisms that leads to biological complexity.
I have the thought that any comprehensive theory of these mechanisms would have to include the parallel process of the development of what I call “anti life” constituents, which unless proven otherwise, would have equal probability of forming at any stage of the process and negate or derail the proposed forward process.
Examples of these “anti life” constituents would be the formation of alcohols, peroxides, chlorine, cupreous compounds, protein, fat and carbohydrate degrading enzymes, excessive temperature and pH excursions and excessive levels of energetic radiation.
A origin theory without simultaneously addressing these inputs, would be quite incomplete. Could you point me to a paper that includes a mention or “equal treatment” of these anti life constituents?
I believe the situation is akin to the matter/antimatter conundrum.
Please let me know your thoughts and thank you for your time and consideration.
and he wrote back...
Hi, This is an IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION of course. I think it is implicit in the search for appropriate environments that would nurture the first cells, but then we don’t usually try to list all of the destructive elements that need to be avoided. We and others have explicitly tried to consider the harmful effects of UV radiation in degrading intermediates in nucleotide synthesis. Enzymes did not exist at the time of the origin of life, so that’s not an issue. One thing we are thinking about these days is the nature of environmental fluctuations that would be sufficient to drive replication but not so severe a to destroy early life - AN INTERESTING PUZZLE TO BE SURE....Best,Jack...
Ok now try some heavy spinning to twist my and his scientific thoughts into YOUR debunking mantra about god/designer.
I know exactly who Jack Szostack is, He and John Sutherland demonstrated that many of the chemical reactions leading to life depend heavily on the presence of ultraviolet light. You find this fact repeated in your mail, so you can take UV like off your wish list.
They basically ruled out a deep sea scenario. We call that progress….a concept which for you, as an intelligent design proponent might seem strange since ID never left the realm of fallacious assertions
Let me get this straight, you suggest that the content of this mail is adding credibility to your non-detectable and thus fallacy based “alternative“ ….to a naturalistic explanation for the ool? You are just adorable in your stubbornness.
“but then we don’t usually try to list all of the destructive elements that need to be avoided. “ Ask him why! The answer is: natural selection
“I guess my thoughts ARE valid “ Whilst you are on it, ask him about “randomness “ as a driving force in this…ask him about your supposed non-naturalistic alternative, go ahead and ask him about intelligent design….since this is the hill you choose to die on. Since he is a man of science, I have a good Idea of his answer should he even waste some time on you once you show your true colours.
A good friend of Stephen Meyer here, Jimmy Tour another liar from the Discovery Institute ilk pool, once publicly lied about Szostacks work in order to bedazzle his scientific audience. I’m sure he loves a reminder of that You can watch him lying live on stage here: th-cam.com/video/zU7Lww-sBPg/w-d-xo.html
45:27 "Those are not sugars..He is lying to you" Well, those are sugars. 46:11 "That's not a nucleotide, it's the wrong structure...." Well, that is a nucleotide with the right structure. Tour knows this. He also knows that YOU, his audience does neither know nor care
Learned anything since this "teachable moment"....or are you still persistent in your ignorance ?
Still nothing? Maybe for the best.
@@derhafi guessing you are missing the good debate...I feel complete on this subject.
@@bshul10 "I feel complete on this subject" That seems to sum up the problem you have.
The body is a chemical fusion
U use prizm light. To id
IN the beginning Elohym created Aleph Tav and the earth was without form and voidAnd the Ruach Elohym said let there be light and there was light and Elohym divided the light from the day and the darkness He called night and the eening and the morning were the first day....... Read Bere' shiyth { Geneseis} God made everything . He is the Way the Truth and the Life Yahusha or Jesus. Ask Him and He will. tell you. Why your at it ask Him to forgive your sins and ask He sends the Ruach or His Holy Spirit to come into you. thanks God Bless you in Jesus's name He is the Word of Yah. Ahmen.
The problem of consciousness creates the illusion/delusion that LIFE is something "special", over and above other forms of material existence. Just because we (humans) distinguish LIFE does not imply that life as such is.
If God were not omnipotent, he could hardly have created himself at a Monday
morning. An when he did´t that, there was no beginning. Humans where created
at Sunday evening.
If there are only 2 individuals at the starting point, Adam an Eve and obviously
there is no possibility of cloning, i see no other way to multiply and to populate
the earth than mate to one another. Siblings with siblings, parents with siblings
and so on. To get 7 billion people, you have to be very diligent. In this case
there are no alternative facts.
I always thought God condemned something like that. But obviously not in
this case. But the main thing is that we don't have a common ancestor with
chimpanzees. All swinishness thereafter so doesn't count.
Special is not the right word to use. That's a philosophical argument. However, we can absolutely argue that it is unique. Otherwise, an abiogenesis would simply occur and we could see it occur. But that does not happen.
On a side note, if you really believe what you're saying that life isn't special in any way, then I assume you don't believe in human rights, because that would be inconsistent.
@@dave1370 No... believing what I am saying is not inconsistent with human rights. Not all people who espouse human rights believe in a God.
All atheists have is illusion/delusion. And while it’s true not all espousers of human rights believe in God atheists moral code is just made up in their head and constantly changing with the zeitgeist. For as much “human rights” as they espouse they also support grave evil such as abortion, 🏳️🌈, 🏳️⚧️, body mutilation, and child drag Queen story hour. Also many support euthanasia with infanticide and other insidious immorality coming down the pipeline. Stay tuned.
It's not carbohydrates it's blood
Discretion of cell
Mutations are satens mule which I God used against himself by ecause I am
For those who argue against a god, get back to me when all diseases are cured and you can stop aging. Maybe then I will entertain that you know enough about anything to presume to know about the origin of life.
What a stupid comment. What is wrong with you?
Membrain cell chromosomes are made according to all the factories created at once
and you know this how?
1:33:30 it is no problem to make building blocks of life. that is NOT the problem. the problem is to assemble it. it would require time that far far exeeds the secular assumed life span of the universe biliion times bilions times billions fold and more. Nature is able to produce in a miller Urey way at least 40 different amino acids (life requires only 21) under such circumstances even the simplest protein would require 10^300 billions of yrs to even get formed let alone to work together ina perfect harmonized fashion as we see in our living cells.
So making building blocks is NOT the key factor that holds spontanious formation of life back in reality. it is pure the randomness that drives the formation into the oblivion of lack of time. there are too many factors that prolong the spontanious formation of living things.
statistically the chance is way way way beyond the 20S (standard deviations) for even a simple protein of 100 aminoacids. well IF secular scientists dare to be honest then they acknowledge that anything beyond 6S or 7S should be treated as NOISE let alone 20S and higher S statitsical chances. But secular science is NOT honest with respect to itself when it comes to the formation of life.
So, you are fluent in bogus maths.
@@derhafi depends on who's side you're on.... if you believe in evolution-lies yes then from your perspective my math seems crap. But if you're on the truth side my math makes perefect sense.....
here watch this article:
"Is mathematical probability the same as physical reality; the power of the average and how life began."
@@thewaytruthandlife That's not an article , that's quote without citation.
@@thewaytruthandlife Found your " "article" its a blog not a scientific journal ...im also very impressed by your 0 citations in total.
Semms you are incompetent in multiple fields.
@@derhafi any creationist is incompetent in evolutionistic people eyes.... it is called being BI-ASSED ....
so whats new about that ??
you simply refuse to acknowlege science facts... because you refuse to accept the God did it consequences ...
well dig it dude God did it non the less...
facts remain facts....and they are NOT on the evolutionistic point of view... whether you like or acknowledge that...or not .....deal with it...
😂🤣😂🤣😂 I love internet comedy…
trouble is these guys aren't funny, they are dangerous.
He can also say: "I believe in ghosts and ghosts created the earth and the
humans, but i´m not stupid."
Then i would say: "You're not the only one in the world who thinks you are
not stupid, other stupid people think that too."
We are still part of the primate family. 99% of our DNA matches that of
chimpanzees. There are even people who claim that there are only animals
on this planet. We are mammals. Perhaps someday there will be creatures on
this planet that really deserve the label "human". At the moment I don't see
anything that separates us from other primates.
I don't even see that we are better animals. Then this planet would look very
different and would have a better future.
Simply claiming that the earth is flat and at the center of the universe and
that humans become divine as a result, has also been shown to be nonsense.
@@HarryNicNicholas
You can also say: "I believe in ghosts and ghosts created the earth and the
humans, but i´m not stupid."
Then i would say: "You're not the only one in the world who thinks he is not
stupid, other stupid people think that too."
I love your angst. It's so understandable. They are either highly deluded, or very, very deceptive.
Yes….that!
DNA mutates after decades of generation like God said that he would visit to the 5th and 6th generation
Vague ad hoc apephinia
No. DNA mutates in every single generation. We all carry at least 100+ mutations in us that are different to our parents DNA.
I did it
Use a cranium