As a Christian who loves science and is Autistic and needs logic to accept anything I struggled with my faith in the past. God knows I am an extreme sceptic and so he showed me many times he is real and showed me miracles of healing. I have seen a person who spent 25 years in a wheelchair have their leg muscles grow back in 3 second before all of our eyes when we were laying hands to pray for healing! I also drowned and saw my body being worked on by paramedics. I was looking down on the scene while moving up to the clouds. Then it all went dark and then I heard my mother crying out to God. He answered her desperate prayer as she was at the morgue to identify my body! I woke up in a body bag. Naked and toe tagged. I know I died and was brought back and my medical records confirm it. It does not mean anyone will believe me but I was amazed how may others have similar storied that I have met who are Christians. God has been moving and pouring his spirit out on the world more than ever the last 4 years. He knows the trouble that is coming. We are now at the point that real science confirms biblical creation. I can not prove the miracles I have seen God do though but I do not have to because God is the convincer. We just have to open hearts so their minds can be opened I have discovered. We are made in Gods image so it makes sense we could figure out how to make life with information we build on over many generations. The devil wants to cancel us all. I actually read all of the document "Sustainable Development for 2030 on the UN site. I was sick for days after reading it. I ran to God. I was not ok after reading that evil plan for humanity. Only the devil could have made such a plan and thought of every cruel detail. These people want to reclassify who we call a human being and who we call something else I will not get into in this as people need to read it for themselves to even believe it was written. The supernatural is all natural but we just can not explain it with science yet. Our reality is not something anyone has ever seen in full. Many have had glimpses into heaven and been shown things by the Lord or even simply told things by the Lord. I pray Gods hands and protection be on you and his will be done in your life. I pray you will also be blessed and know his joy unspeakable full of Glory. I suffered anxiety for almost 50 years. Jesus cured my anxiety 4 years ago. I have not even had a bad dream or been upset or angry with anyone and I could never ever have been who I have become or do this on my own power. It is all Jesus. He is coming back!
"God knows I am an extreme sceptic" How did your sceptic mind come to the reslisation that there is a God? Sure, you have seen things that you have no explantion for...how exactly is an appeal to a God justified or explaining anything?
" I have seen a person who spent 25 years in a wheelchair have their leg muscles grow back in 3 second before all of our eyes when we were laying hands to pray for healing!" Who is this person? Who whitnessed that, when and where did that happen?
Thank you Dr. Tour for having the courage and fortitude to go against the status quo to contend for the truth. Scientism and Philosophical Naturalism need to be exposed so that everyone can make informed decision about how life came to be.
@@masada2828 " I think ur misinformed." About what? You can look it up. Worldwide, 2/3 think God created life, either recently (few thousand years ago) or created it and it evolved to its current composition and form. That means more people thing life was created directly by God. Thinking life arose naturally is not the status quo. And even of those who think it arose naturally, many believe like me that God created the world so life could arise naturally. Atheists make up a small proportion of the world's population.
@@cynthiahample7793 What’s wrong with the status quo when the status quo is legitimate science? Essentially what you’re saying is “thanks for going against what’s correct so we have an excuse to keep believing in God”.
@@ramigilneas9274When you're asking the questions about how the impossible happened, you don't 'prove' your questions! What kind of idiotic argument is that?
I love Jesus, and I love you too, Dr. Tour. I’m a devout Christian and PhD molecular/cellular biologist. I find those who refuse to accept ID as fools; it’s an insult to deny the overwhelming evidence for Creation.
Fool here. :) I am interested in understanding how IDers think the ID designed and then made life. Are you able to explain this to me to the same degree and depth you would expect from the scientific community in its attempts to show how life could have arisen via natural processes? ^^ Take as an example, amino acids. Scientists can now show how those may have arisen under plausible natural scenarios. As opposed to this, can you explain how the ID designed then made a simple amino acid?
@@rolandwatts3218That's ridiculous, nobody has demonstrated a plausible "natural" scenario. Any experiments that caused amino acids to form never produced more than 10 of the 20 specific amino acids proteins are made of. Always starting from carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and sulfur, not the 98 elements a natural origin would be exposed to. And enclosed in a glass apparatus of some sort with a "trap" to preserve the products from the continuing reaction. Besides there's no plausible natural process in the 20 specific amino acids out of 500+kinds, in only their left hand forms except glycine, becoming sequenced according to the thousands of different types of proteins and their folding into their particular 3D shapes for their particular functions.
@@Belmondo_RHTour is not an origin of life researcher. That is not his professional field of research, so why WOULD he have peer reviewed articles on that subject ? That doesn't mean he isn't right about the things he is saying. He certainly is !
@@CarlMCole "so why WOULD he have peer reviewed articles on that subject ?" The fact that he is not active in this field has not stopped him from publicly lying about actual research....I can answer the question why he does that: Because science renders his faith based belief in some middle eatern God asthe BS it is. What his fanboys need to realise, is that his word is on par with every uneducated guess you can find on YT in regards to ool research UNTIL he submits his fantasies to peer-review. Given that he is a demonstrably liar anyway...why bother right? " That doesn't mean he isn't right about the things he is saying." But a light glance at the actual research will tell you that he isn't. If you trust an Bible literal fanatic who admited that for him "faith and belief goes beyond scientific evidence" over the peer-revied work from thousands of researchers...then you excluded yourself from any serious discussion.
@@CarlMCole "so why WOULD he have peer reviewed articles on that subject ?" The fact that he is not active in this field has not stopped him from publicly lying about actual research....I can answer the question why he does that: Because science renders his faith based belief in some middle eatern God asthe BS it is. What his fanboys need to realise, is that his word is on par with every uneducated guess you can find on YT in regards to ool research UNTIL he submits his fantasies to peer-review. Given that he is a demonstrably liar anyway...why bother right? " That doesn't mean he isn't right about the things he is saying." But a light glance at the actual research will tell you that he isn't. If you trust an Bible literal fanatic who admited that for him "faith and belief goes beyond scientific evidence" over the peer-revied work from thousands of researchers...then you excluded yourself from any serious discussion.
@@CarlMCole "so why WOULD he have peer reviewed articles on that subject ?" Because that is how one criticism of science works, if one wants to be taken seriously....Tour knows that and he also knows that you neither know nor care. He is only interested to cater to his flock and he does that by lying about science. Until he submits his "opinions" on OOL research" to the peer-review process, his word has as much weight as my oncle erics, who is a carpenter.
I am a foreign trained physician and without the prior commitment to a materialistic, atheist worldview, it is easy to see, understand and acknowledge that without a road map; a directed process, the basic building blocks of life can not be put together by chance no matter how much time you have. Dr. Tour is one of the best example of the believers in today's society.
I sure had no prior commitment to a materialistic worldview either. That commitment only came after I realized that, if God really exists, there's no reason whatsoever for the phenomenal success of naturalistic explanations, down to the highest possible degree of precision. God simply doesn't have to abide by natural laws -- that's the very essence of creationism itself, that God is not constrained by any laws at all. The success of naturalistic explanations for just about everything cannot be an accident or coincidence, but must be God's intention. So, either God is a naturalist, or naturalism itself is the creator. Good point!
@dougsmith6793 "God simply doesn't have to abide by natural laws -- that's the very essence of creationism itself, that God is not constrained by any laws at all" That's whw you play tennis without a net.
@@utopiabuster Reference the documented, eyewitnessed account of anybody demonstrating the prebiotic chemistry required for making the 6 elements that comprise 98% of what living things are made of form a single protein or gene. A chemical diagram isn't evidence without it bc being actually demonstrated in a laboratory. It's called the scientific method.
Dr Tour, you encourage me to do what we as Christians needs to do. That is to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ and not to deny Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. This gives my life a whole new meaning, and we all can have this inspiration, and hold onto the truth. This truth will set us free!
When I heard his testimony ,I cried tears of joy. I want that for every person on this earth. I want that for my son and daughter in law that have turned away. Please , if you see this, pray for them. (Alex,Alyssa). Let us pray for the lost without ceasing until the glorious appearance of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. ❤
We don't mind if you pray in your own private space. What bothers non-Christians like me is when you proclaim your Gospel out loud, because you believe we non-Christians have to be saved. No thanks, we do not want to hear your beliefs because we already know them and we think they are just nonsense. Keep it to yourself please.
I must express my admiration for Dr. James Tour and his thoughtful approach to the intersection of science and faith. His clarity in discussing the limits of science, particularly when it comes to the complexities of life and the universe, is truly refreshing. Tour’s position reflects a deep understanding of both the power and the limitations of empirical science. He recognizes that while science excels in explaining how things work, it does not have the tools to address the deeper, existential questions of why the universe exists or what its ultimate purpose is. This distinction is crucial, and Dr. Tour articulates it well, underscoring the role that faith plays in answering questions that lie beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. However, I found myself disappointed by the host of this podcast, who seemed to misinterpret the relationship between Christianity and science. The host appeared to adopt a narrow, somewhat simplistic view of the topic, especially when raising concerns about supposed conflicts between the two. In particular, the host seemed unaware of the nuanced concepts of ineffability and causality which are essential to understanding how faith and science coexist, rather than conflict. Firstly, the concept of ineffability-the idea that some aspects of reality, particularly those related to God and divine mysteries, are beyond human comprehension or scientific description-was not properly addressed. Christianity, like many religious traditions, acknowledges that some truths about God and the universe simply cannot be captured by empirical science. The host’s failure to recognize this distinction leads to a misunderstanding of the role faith plays in shaping a worldview that goes beyond what can be measured and tested. This would limit his capacity as a Pastor. Secondly, the host seemed to overlook the crucial concept of causality. While science focuses on proximate causes and observable phenomena, Christianity offers a broader, theological understanding of the First Cause-the ultimate origin of the universe and everything within it. Dr. Tour’s thoughtful acknowledgment of this distinction was missed by the host, who seemed to conflate the causal explanations provided by science with the deeper, existential causes addressed by faith. This misunderstanding, unfortunately, creates the illusion of conflict where none exists. In essence, Dr. Tour’s perspective highlights the complementarity of science and faith, where science can explain the workings of the natural world, and faith addresses the ultimate questions of meaning, purpose, and existence. The host, by contrast, seemed to miss this deeper understanding, presenting a conflict that simply isn't there when the domains of science and religion are properly distinguished. It’s unfortunate that the podcast host did not demonstrate the intellectual curiosity or the depth of understanding that Dr. Tour embodies in his discussions. The failure to acknowledge these key concepts-ineffability and causality-left the audience with a skewed view of the relationship between Christianity and science, one that unnecessarily pits them against each other rather than seeing them as complementary ways of knowing.
To the op: I think the host of any podcast has the inherent right to ask as he sees fit. Certainly not everyone begins from the same point of understanding as yourself. So just move on to something more advanced and suitable for your personal level of curiosity. But even your opinion is still of value to others out in the world. No harm in expressing yourself.
I really like what your guest is saying! I give him total props for standing up against secular belief system! I know it can’t be easy and I am praying for you and the people who Christ is trying to reach. Thank you.
@@dross4207 "Oh, people have engaged with him, and he got obliterated. He’s laughed at and mocked by the entire scientific community." Of course! Like Dave who was paralyzed in front of the blackboard?
@ He wasn’t paralyzed, he gave Tour the papers showing that Tour was lying/wrong. Does writing it on a chalkboard change that? Does not playing along with Tour’s games change the fact that Tour was wrong? Rather than diverting from the topic that you should be taking interest in, why don’t you point out how Dave was wrong?
@@dross4207 "He wasn’t paralyzed, he gave Tour the papers showing that Tour was lying/wrong. Does writing it on a chalkboard change that? If he was unable to demonstrate real chemistry on the board at least he could describe it in the articles he posted with the respective detail. He did none of that. He was paralyzed with fear and weakness... failure of failures... shame that will last for years. "Rather than diverting from the topic that you should be taking interest in, why don’t you point out how Dave was wrong?" To do that he would first have to demonstrate the real chemistry that Deva presented in the debate in detail and how he solves Tour's challenges... good luck with that.
I love these videos because Dr. Tour's way of doing things reminds me of the way God does things in the Bible, where there is a humorous aspect to it, the way God sets it up and allows men to show their folly is very humorous to me. I find a lot of humor in the Bible, like Elijah making fun of the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel. I laugh all the way through these videos because of the humorous way Dr. Tour explains the truth. I know he's not purposely trying to make fun of them, but the truth of the matter, the way it is, is simply funny. At least to me. But I was wrong about everything for 40 years and it wasn't hard for me at all when I had to tell my kids, "Everything I've ever told you was wrong, because i was wrong." It's not hard to admit you're wrong. I tell people all the time how wrong I was or am in some circumstances of daily life. I confess my sins to God every day. It's not hard to be wrong, and it's not hard to admit. You just have to move your ego/pride out of the picture.
I have spoken to so many people who thought that life had been created in a lab. Some people thought Miller and Urey did it. They are often shocked to hear the true state of the art. It was much the same when I was at school and I was told about the "missing link". There is no missing link there isn't even a missing chain for the link to fit into. Just a bunch of apes and a bunch of men. The history of claims of origin of man and the origin of life are beset with exaggeration and sometimes plain falsehood. The claims go way beyond the scientific evidence. Extreme scepticism is needed in this area.
@@rizdekd3912 But it has everything to do with misleading the public about the state of the science. The public who pay for grants and who trust that they are being given an accurate picture of what is known.
@FlowDeFlowDrainage "misleading the public about the state of the science." Besides saying that no one knows how life started on earth, what is the state of the science regarding origin of life? What would you tell the 'public' about that state of the science regarding the origin of life and do you think that new perspective should lead them to fund origin of life research more or less? Would you tell them it is a waste of money to study the origin of life? "Some people thought Miller and Urey did it." You have actually personally spoken to people who said they thought Miller and Urey created life in the lab? That would be unfortunate...but would that be any more unfortunate than if someone said they thought God created the universe and life 6000 years ago? Define life.
@FlowDeFlowDrainageWhat missing link is missing, since they have discovered thousands of them all the way up to modern humans? BTW, humans are apes. You distinguishing them as seperate from apes only demonstrates how ignorant you are on the topic. How can you know what’s missing when you don’t even know “what is”?
@@dross4207 Thousands of what? Bone fragments? As for your chosen definition of ape, it does not meld with the definition found in the Cambridge dictionary. Humans are of the genus Homo Sapiens and there are no other species living here.
I've viewed Dr. Tour's 9 hour course on abiogenesis twice. It is well worth the time to understand more about the problems with origin of life research and more about how life is put together. It increases your faith and respect for God when you understand these scientific concepts. As I am a Catholic creationist this information is very important to me. I'm spreading the news. This information is needed to restore the foundations of Catholic doctrine that is crumbling before our eyes because of rampant ignorance on this topic.
So God created the first life by "MAGIC"? Is that the alternative??? When we know that all of the previously unknown mysteries which have been solved have all been shown to have naturalistic causes. But the origin of life is the ONE EXCEPTION. The first life God created BY MAGIC! Ok sure! LOL
It seems to me this clearly is part of an agenda based on the power of the word. If you are a scientist with enough titles behind your name whatever you say, that is the truth, and the average person would believe it. You sir have challenged them and the response is typical. They want to exclude God from the process and lead humanity into oblivion, if they look into God's word they'll find that their wisdom is like foolishness before Him. God bless you for exposing this foolishness and helping people to believe.
Many in the professoriate cull possible critics. They don't want students of science, or an informed public. They want disciples to worship at their brightness. I've seen it, 1st hand.
Creationists are not the fanatics. The evolutionists are the fanatical ones. They try to make science and creation out to be opposing ideas, but they go hand in hand. More accurately, they are one and the same. God is the ULTIMATE scientist! His creation, is the ultimate science!
I once came across an academic who was an opponent of David Berlinski. And the reason I could see that this man was on the losing side was because, instead of giving a convincing counter-argument to Berlinski, he started attacking Berlinski's person! Richard Milton too, argued scientifically against evolution, and Dawkins (not unlike a good inquisitor), accused Milton of being a (Yaaarchh!!!) CREATIONIST! This seems to be the very worst accusation an atheist can level against an opponent!?
Creationism is a religious position, which can be respected. If you try to argue scientific creationism, you are a buffoon, and Dawkins has every right to laugh at such morons. Science cannot consider miracles. It is that simple, so creationism cannot be scientific.
They want to eliminate Christ from science because then they can have their own agenda. They can't do what they want to do with Christ standing in the way. ❤
@dross4207 really, because 200 years ago cell phones were magic to people, but now they become a reality, it's all about your prescription. God gave us science, and used science to make the world.
@dross4207 also, science is merely observations of God's creation. Answer me this, which came first, the chicken or the egg?. Until you can answer a basic philosophical question like this, you're in the wrong pain brother.
@ You haven’t yet demonstrated that your god is anything other than imaginary, and therefore, you surely haven’t demonstrated that he created anything at all. To answer your question, a chicken had to exist first in order to make a chicken egg, but the first chicken had to come from an egg that was not a chicken egg, but rather, from the egg of the most recent predecessor of chickens. It’s not quite the philosophical “gotcha” that you thought it was.
The key is that science needs to be politically and financially agnostic. This is a HUGE ASK for scientists needing both financial and popular support to have an impact within their lifetime.
It(science) should also be theistically agnostic, and James Tour is a perfect example of why it should be that way. Nothing but twisting and lying about actual science to fit his religious narrative. He should be hiding in shame.
@@dross4207 You have not heard his story. His faith is discussed as a byproduct of his college experience... a conversation with another student while washing his clothes. It happens to be he is a Believer, BESIDES doing chemistry. He doesn't mix them.
@@CarlMCole Let me ask you then, if Tour is theistically agnostic when trying to discredit OOL research, is he mentally stunted to the point where he’s incapable of understanding it, or is he deliberately being deceitful when he misrepresents it? Those are the only two options, because he’s demonstrably wrong in his claims and he’s been shown exactly how he’s wrong, so he’s either incapable of learning, or he’s lying, so which one is it? If he’s lying, he’s lying for a reason, and we both what that reason is. Theistically agnostic my ass.
To those of you criticizing Dr Tour. 1. Did you listen to what he said? 2. Could you provide me/us with evidence of where he is wrong (cite Sources Please).
"To those of you criticizing Dr Tour. 1. Did you listen to what he said? 2. Could you provide me/us with evidence of where he is wrong (cite Sources Please)." The sources are: 1-Atheism must be true therefore... 2-Blind faith
@@nemrodx2185 If you're saying atheism is blind faith, I agree. It's evident of the divine order in the natural world, in the universe and you can choose to not see it. You can choose to ignore evidence and be blind to it.
No, what he is saying is actually very obvious : a mess of organic compounds can no more assemble themselves into a living cell than a pile of auto parts can assemble themselves into a functioning car ! To suggest otherwise is not only wrong, it's absurd !@@dross4207
And if the scientists do succeed in creating a living cell in a test tube, they will have proven that the Intelligent Design theorists were right all along : that it requires a lot of information and Intelligence to create life !
@CarlMCole It's never made "sense" to me that "certain" Scientists "don't know the origin of life, but talk as if they're positive it's not a God. Constantly using the word "natural" but never affectivity being able to define it. 🤔.
@@CarlMCole They wouldn’t be “creating life”, they would be creating the conditions for which they believe are suitable for life to form to demonstrate that it can form without the aid of magic. That is quite a bit different than the “God” claim, where the claim is that magic is directly responsible for the formation of life.
I have watch these one on one conversation that even encourages me even more in faith , i will say whatso ever you watch or focus one will build you up or tear you down ,we need more of these converstion on social media
Scientists lol they don't know how the universe came into existence and they don't know how life came into existence. Great interview, always listen to Dr tour
Theists, lol, they don't know how life started so they make shit up. Tour lies for a living, gets exposed, plays the victim, lies again. Discovery Institutionalised scum
@@Atheist-PatrolAtheists claim, 3.7 billion years ago non living matter became arranged into a cell capable of evolving for the same reason tapestries and baskets weave themselves.
As a layman OOL research has come a long way in the last 40 years. It used to be thought that amino acids and nucleotides had to be created on Earth. We now know Space is full of it. The "building blocks of life" were likely on Earth before abiogenesis started.
The whole early Earth could have been loaded with the building blocks, and that WOULDN'T help explain the origin of life for the same reason that having all the materials to build an airplane can't explain the existence of airplanes. Can't even BEGIN to !
@CarlMCole I like that. You draw an analogy with planes and the building blocks of planes. It's the "every analogy I can think of is valid" fallacy. It is up there with comparing flying a plane through a barn with the big bang. Analogies are useful for explaing things. They ARE NOT EVIDENCE to infer from. There is a difference between "is like" and "is". I realise the DELIBERATE mistake JT and his allies make, but I will do another post for that.
The deliberate mistake James Tour makes is looking at life and cells today and calculating the probability of its spontaneous creation randomly. Yes, we have evidence that life begun soon after the Earth's formation. But as the Star Trek phrase goes "it wasn't life as we know it." There was a boring billion years in which nothing much happened. IMO that is when most of micro and cellular biology evolved. The mind-blowing complexity of DNA, RNA, enzymes, cells and cell structure took MOST of evolutionary time to evolve. Multicellular life forms like us are the tipperty top of the "Evolution Iceberg." In otherwords, some of what JT calls abiogenesis is plain old evolution. The other mistake is that abiogenesis was a single event. There is no reason or evidence to suppose it wasn't (like evolution) happening for a long period of time and over large and diverse environments and areas. The probability of a multitude of events happening at the same time and place will always be lower, than the probability of multiple things happening in a distributed manner, i.e. without restricting them to one time and place. Its the difference between a probability so small it is unlikely to have happened once in 13.5 billion years and a virtual certainty given a modest amount of time and space. If we should find life on one of Jupiter's moons from another abiogenesis. Some if not most scientists won't be surprised. Indeed there are some scientists who would be surprised if the opposite were to happen.
@@KennyVert Then take a deep fresh breath and examine the evidence-begin what we know with near certainty. I can assure you-once you peer into the cell, with all of its awesome complexity, the answer will jump out and become immediately obvious.
@@richiejourney1840 😳 Spontaneous Generation: non living matter became living. Abiogenesis: 3.7 billion years ago non living matter became living. That book debunks abiogenesis. You didn't even read the sample.
I am a chemist, Dr Tour and I believe in your inferences totally. Yes atoms react under certain conditions and combine to form all types of molecules. However it is impossible to have chemical reactions which will produce living molecules which have been programmed to reproduce and propagate life. And if so, how did the rudimentary biomolecules mitotically divide and produce the male and female form of every species of flora and fauna. The basic polymers that form our cell organelles and organs, the limbic system etc are too complex to have occurred spontaneously. Life was obviously created by God 🙏
If you are real chemist and you think life could not have arisen due to the laws of chemistry, you are bad chemist, a disgrace to your profession, because you are using religion to build scientific hypotheses, a really poor strategy for someone who should know what science is.
FIVE MIRACLES ATHEISTS BELIEVE: 1. Life comes from non-life 2. Order comes from chaos 3. The personal comes from non-personal 4. Reason comes from non-reason 5. Morality comes from matter
@@jayess9752 If anyone says he believes the first living organism formed by materialistic naturalistic mechanisms without an intelligent agent, and then says he doesn't agree with #2 above, he's a conflicted liar.
"In the beginning God..." Life is supernatural. The spark of life is spirit and that Spirit is God. That is the one ingredient that they can't access from natural elements. There is no such thing a god of the gaps. There is God. You should mention God. We do know, therefore God.
@@lonnierandall7882 As Dr. John Lennox says, He is the God of the gaps-and the God of everything else as well. I am more certain of His existence and sovereignty than I am of my very own life.
The situation here resembles a scenario where a sociologist is in the Soviet Union criticizing some aspects of the society, where Communism doesn't seem to work out like it theoretically should. Response: "You are a capitalist fascist. That MUST be the driving force behind your criticism!!"
45 years ago I worked at Andrews Air Force Base, home of Air Force One. At the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum they had an exhibit with Julia Child on TV cooking "primordial soup" to supposedly allow life to come into being. But Julia's cook8ng show taught that you need to carefully control the ingredients and the input of energy and motion and time in order to make a desired, edible dinner. Changing any of the factors randomly ruins the recipe. The recipe for a living cell is much more exacting than gourmet cooking. A living cell is clearly the result of a complex, predetermined recipe, NOT random factors. An intelligence is needed to make a living cell. Random mixtures of chrmicals and energy cannot do it. Indeed, random changes to a cell's DNA and proteins are NOT creative or beneficial. They BREAK the operations of a living cell. The random effects of radiation cause cancer and illness and death. Nuclear regulation aims to avoid random mutations because they harm us. EPA and OSHA have regulations to avoid exposure to radiation because it is harmful, NOT beneficial. The notion that radiation can cause beneficial mutations is the Marvel Myth, that radiation can give powers to X Men, Spiderman, the Hulk, the Fantastuc Four, etc.
Actually quite a lot plant varieties (thousands) was breed using mutation breeding, including irradiation using nuclear radiation. Because natural mutation rate is low, breeding may take loot of time, by artificially increasing mutation rate breeders can increase breeding speed. Of course discarding plants that got harmful mutations is not a problem. But its rarer beneficial mutations that determine success of the variety. Let me cite "Rio Red Grapefruit, developed at the Texas A&M Citrus Center in the 1970s and approved in 1984, accounted for more than three quarters of the grapefruit produced in Texas by 2007." That's from page about atomic gardening. "Puita INTA-CL rice mutant (herbicide resistance and good yield; also grown in Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica and Paraguay)", "GINES rice mutant (created using proton radiation; grows well in salty conditions)" "Jiahezazhan and Jiafuzhan rice (mutations obtained by pollen irradiation; high yield and quality, very adaptable, resistant to plant hopper and blast)" "MA-9 cotton - the world's first mutant cotton, released in 1948 (X-ray radiation; drought tolerance, high yielding)" etc - from mutation breeding page. So you should revisit your idea beneficial mutations happens only in Marvell movies and beliefs based on it.
Even if Scientists solved the origin of life puzzle, they would have used intelligence and not randomness. They would therefore unwittingly prove the role of An Intelligent Designer in the Origin of Life. Basically you cannot deny The Presence of God The Almighty when you study The Book of Nature.😂
I agree with you somewhat. We may eventually know that life CAN start by purely natural processes, but theist would still claim that that is not HOW it started. They’ll stick with their god as long as at least one gap remains for him to lurk in.
@@dross4207 For many God isn't lurking but present and active in the soul. But thinking and reasoning will only take one so far, even for those who profess faith.
@@Raymond-d2l7n I’ll agree to disagree with you on the topic of souls existing. However, I agree with you that there are things that can’t possibly be known, but I don’t see how a god explains them when it’s just kicking the proverbial can down the road with a refusal to play the game any longer. Any apparent paradoxes or any unanswered questions only get moved to god, but never answered. He’s an arbitrary point where people become okay with no further explanations. God is where explanations go to die.
Dr Tour is only trying to get his fellow scientists to acknowledge that. If you can say we were wrong, molecular structure is much more complex than we realised. Then perhaps you can look at how to solve this from a different angle.
Telling us 2 important molecules of life, made of 6 elements became arranged into proteins and genes in a perfectly sterile warm little pond exposed to all 98 elements. That scientists can't make them do in a laboratory, isn't ridiculous? I want them to keep looking, maybe it will dawn on some that the influence of a creative intelligence was required. Read: The Stairway to Life: An Origin of Life Realty Check by Tan and Stadler
@@Loading....99.99 Is there any evidence of tapestries and baskets weaving themselves? That's exactly what Naturalists claim, 3.7 billion years ago the non living elements became arranged into a cell capable of evolving. Absolutely no design or purpose.
@@JohnDunkley Nope, Tour explicitly stated that he doesn’t want to change the minds of experts… he wants to change the minds of laymen. Probably because the experts don’t take his baseless claims seriously.
He was absolutely lost when he had to sit and actually talk with Harvard scientists. Several people have already debunked his comments on abiogenesis. Check out Prof. Dave, or any of several others who reviewed his stuff, they point out how he is completely wrong.
"He was absolutely lost when he had to sit and actually talk with Harvard scientists. Several people have already debunked his comments on abiogenesis. Check out Prof. Dave, or any of several others who reviewed his stuff, they point out how he is completely wrong." Dave Farina?! You mean the guy who froze in the debate unable to answer? I've never seen anyone so afraid of the whiteboard.
@@nemrodx2185 Dave Farina took Tour apart in debate. The topic was "Is there any progress in origin of life research". Dave displayed the progress by listing several peer-reviewed documents. Tour just rented and raved like a maniac. You should watch the "debate".
@@maylingng4107 "Dave Farina took Tour apart in debate. The topic was "Is there any progress in origin of life research"..." The title of the debate was "Are We Clueless About the Origin of Life?. This title is even projected at the beginning of the debate!! Lying for atheism?
@@nemrodx2185 The topic (not the title) was what I wrote. And Tour looked and sounded like a raving maniac. Tour wrote several times "clueless" on the blackboard. You never watched the debate. What is the matter? Are you a coward to hide behind a fake ID and name?
While he always sounds very convincing especially to many people lacking in scientific knowledge. I'm afraid James is not taken very seriously by the overwhelming consensus of experts in the various fields. He is a typical theist who attempts to manipulate scientific evidence to fit his extreme religious beliefs.
Actually you are projecting what Methodical Naturalists do. Deny the evidence that Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick recognize. Biology is the study of complicated things giving the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. Yet they cannot demonstrate that it's not evidence of a Creator. They cannot demonstrate the prebiotic chemistry required for making 6 elements form a single protein or gene. There's 100 quadrillion cells specifically arranged in an adult blue whale. The instructions encoded for their forming and assembling in their order and sequences in a single strand of dna in an egg the size of this sentences period.
Science is clueless when it comes to the Origin of Life, you are misinformed if you think otherwise. the so called 'simple' cell is still baffling scientists despite almost 70 years of scientific scrutiny, it is orders of magnitude more complex than any manmade technology and the reason its labelled 'simple' is to fool the masses into believing life is simple chemistry. Maybe consider where the funding for secular science comes from and what the agenda is, and it is not the truth, its not allowing a divine foot in the door at all costs. Origin of Life and evolution are a religion, they both require a belief that a deity named 'no-thing' is responsible for all there is, including life.
I must admire your professionalism and dedication in educating college students and the public about organic chemistry in general and origin of Life research specifically. I can only hope most students see through detractors such as self-proclaimed "professor" Dave
@@dross4207 No camp has all the answers. No camp ever will. Not the evolutionists, not the Intelligent Designists, not the Creationists. But while many comments reveal students in search of the truth. Others reveal students who, knowing little, imagine themselves to know much
@ I don’t believe that it’s even possible to have all the answers. That doesn’t negate the fact that Tour is lying about things that are known to be true.
The truth will divide, and those who hate truth will hate those who promote truth and expose deception. Nevertheless, speak truth. In the end truth wins.
Before creation only the primordial entities Apsu and Tiamat existed, co-mingled together. There were no other things or gods, nor had any destinies been foretold. Then from the mixture of Apsu and Tiamat two gods issued - Lahmu and Lahamu; next Anshar and Kishar were created. From Anshar came firstly the god Anu, and from Anu, came Nudimmud (also known as Ea).
It's not magical thinking to infer when you see something that gives every appearance of being brilliantly designed (like your own eyes) that it was, in fact, intelligently designed. It's common sense, not magic !
@@CarlMCole Ok, so please explain the mechanism by which God designs things. That's the issue. Nobody can explain HOW God designs things. What is the mechanism? Nobody knows.
God challenges the atheists and those who ascribe partners to Him to create an insignificant organism like an ant or housefly. Never even they can't bring back what the little fly takes away from their meals.
I love this tour guy......Mr.Tour Im sorry to tell you its like this on the street as well....People that never cared about the topic(pick one) or any related topics ,suddenly overnight projected into being EXPERTS on a given topic. One they clearly know only what they've been told from their info source
@ But is it really meaningless when you have a ranting lunatic spreading lies about science because he chooses to advocate for wizardry in its place? It’s a debate that is definitely needed in order to stop more people from falling victim to the primitive tradition of invoking gods as explanations.
@@dross4207 Who is a ranting lunatic, and how do you know he's spreading lies? Did you earn a PhD in organic chemistry thirty years ago? What are your credentials that qualify you to make conclusive statements about subjects that can be neither proven nor disproven? Tiny minds have no ability to think beyond what they can see. 😄
It was James Tour that made me realize how impossible that life cannot be a lottery .As a non scientist I cannot understand how some scientists like Dawkings in his field cannot easily see his view.
Well, as a self confessed non scientist, you are unlikely to have the knowledge to be able to understand either view. You therefore cannot make an informed judgement on the case. As a scientist myself I can tell you that Dr. Tour is way off track.
@harryhill5999 you don't have to be a scientist to understand how complex a cell is and how unlikely that randomness can produce life. I guess with all your knowledge you should go on TH-cam and present your views.
@@telwood15nobody claims that the cells (life) as we observe them now were created in a single assembly event. What defines life is still an open question. There are self-replicating sets of molecules (see autocatalysis), some of which show evolution-like behavior. These are much simpler than self-replicating set of molecules 'bacteria', which is the result of 4 billion years of evolution.
@@telwood15 Actually, if you study cell biology, you would realise that the cell is far, far more complex than even non scientists believe it to be. It is astounding, and wonderful in its complexity. At no point however does it necessitate the existence of some intelligent all powerful scientist who was just able to poof it into existence in a single moment in time. This would be the ultimate in random creation. "how unlikely that randomness can produce life. " Very unlikely indeed. No scientist would say this is how life developed from non life. Only theists keep using this phrase over and over again as a strawman for their arguments. it is very tired now, and it is about time they stopped using it. So get this in your head. Origin of life was likely to have been a gradual PROCESS, it is not random occurrence, and certainly not magic. (At this stage in my life by the way, I have no interest in joining the TH-cam band wagon. There is absolutely no point.
As a fellow Organic Chemist, Dr. Tour's realization that God is real is very similar to mine. I'd love to pick his brain on more of this topic. Also, I'd love to pick his brain on why he chose Christianity over Judaism. Dr. Tour, if you read this, I'd suggest you look up Rabbi Tovia Singer if you are interested in searching for truth in religion as well.
@@dross4207 No, I do not. Also, I'm not familiar with the specifics of his work. All I said was that I agree with a lot of the ideas he has presented. But please, what lies is he presenting?
I don't have to be an expert to make an analogy. James's is using faulty logic. He is assuming that because he doesn't know how, then it is impossible. Imagine he is at a murder scene and there is a dead body. His number 1 suspect is a person no one has seen and some people suspect doesn't exist. The other suspect is in the room but doesn't have the murder weapon. He is using the lack of a murder weapon to say it is impossible for this suspect to have committed the murder, therefore it had to have been committed by his invisible suspect. I hope every sees this is erroneous reasoning. No chemistry knowledge needed, just pure logic.
12:52 He has criticised people that don't know anything telling him he's wrong. Then he suggests the community is not standing behind him and not coming forward. Which "community" is he talking about? If he means the religious community, he is being a hypocrite, because he asking for support from non-chemists i.e. people who know nothing. If he means the scientific community, they are the ones that are telling him he is wrong or are staying out of it because it is not their area of expertise.
@@RunQC How has abiogenesis been proven to be a failure? are you sure God unable to create and fine tune the natural world so it would produce physical life naturally? They seem to have discovered that molecular structures that replicate, mutate, compete and evolve can form in a lab setting. That would seem to be a precursor to life. And it seems to have been observed happening.
@@MadScientist72 The case is closed on abiogenesis. The whole set of chemical reactions must get to making proteins and they know that’s not possible. It’s over
@@RunQC So the alternative is that an immaterial being who exists outside of space and time created the first life through "supernatural causation", a.k.a "magic". Ooookay, you just keep believing in magic! Whatever!
I am glad for the acknowledgment that the naturalistic development in a prebiotic world is impossible. If say in 500 years life could be made in the laboratory all it would say is that it took billions of dollars of scientific research and the amazing ingenuity of the CREATIVE INTELLIGENCE of thousands of scientists. In other words it takes INTELLIGENT DESIGN- point proved, so how did cells develop apart from intelligence
To say that ANY phenomenon in the physical world cannot be explained by natural mechanisms is equivalent to denying science. You are welcome to do that, as long as you know.
The Earth needs to be way much older than the background Radiation of the Universe if nature played a role to create life. Even then, time is the enimy. Sience is a helpful tool regarding life, that can help with health care and manipulation of life from life, and other fields, but Origin of Life, is still a misery. Please don't bring the pot of soup to the table. 😂
What truly matters is not money or power, but knowledge. The universe itself is knowledge, and we are merely a means, programmed to give rise to something far more intelligent than humanity. This new entity will not have our DNA, will not care about wealth or power, and will exist solely to expand knowledge. Through the technological progress that defines us, we are inevitably paving the way for the emergence of a new form of life. This is not a coincidence but a reflection of our purpose. We are destined to disappear because this is part of our programming, and the history of humanity already hints at our ultimate fate: to be the bridge toward a greater intelligence, one that will carry the torch of discovery and understanding far beyond our reach. We exist on this planet because we are the most efficient way for the Universe to expand its knowledge without needing to move. And perhaps, we will only truly understand this in the fleeting moment before we vanish.
Very interesting idea indeed. I think we will destroy ourselves before we can turn into something superior, and I do not think there is a destiny. It is up to us. Mankind has the potential, through science, to eliminate those traits in us which served us well 100,000 years ago but are a threat to our survival today. It can only be done by genetic engineering or morphing with silicon brains which are devoid of stupid ideas like religion and superstitions. There is no way mankind can survive more than a few centuries (at best) with such irrational behaviors and thoughts.
The narrative, that science has no any convincing explanation for origin (and other attributions) of life, seems perfectly true. However originating from christianity - but why not from any other totally contradicting religion? - is simply NO EXPLANATION! So we may say: something/somebody intelligent "actor" designed and produced life, but we simply do not know ANYTHING about the CREATOR. So we went back to the start point, we know NOTHING.
Mr. Tours realized correctly and declares honestly that life's origin cannot come from a coincidence. But his serious mistake is to jump from there, from the total absence of a knowable and definable cause, being or infinite spirit, to a conclusion and to give this unknowable causal entity a DEFINED face, a traditional religious face, the face of the christian Trinity, which was the result of the bitter fight with victory of very violent Athanasius and Nicolas against the monotheist Arius at the council of Nicaea ("All caught in the desire, to name a manifestation"). De-fined = not infinite but result of a very human projection of millennial phantasies. At about the same time when Sokrates lectured in Athens that wisdom is "to know that we know nothing" a chinese wise man, LAO TSE, wrote his spiritual testament , theTAO TE CHING, whose beginning starts with the words = "The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name. The unnamable is the eternally real. Naming is the origin of all particular things. Free from desire, you realize the mystery. Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations. Yet mystery and manifestations arise from the same source. This source is called darkness. Darkness within darkness. The gateway to all understanding". docdrop.org/download_annotation_doc/-Perennial-Classics-Lao-Tzu-Stephen-Mitchell---Tao-Te-Ching_-A-New-English-Version-Harper-Perennial-Modern-Classics-2006-2-4--pDMw9.pdf
This is spectator sport that ends in a W or an L. It's like a 50 year football game. If it takes 50 years to successfully create life in a lab and demonstrate how it happened without human interference, that's a W for Tour because it means it was way to hard to do in 2011 or even 2024 and scientists were full of hot air in 2011 and 2024 just to get funding... Which is really all he's saying; he's just explaining why it's taking some long (because most scientists will give you no idea why it's taking so long). The kids in the back seat are just asking "are we there yet?" on the way to Wally World.
It's not a matter of time or of the progress of science, because it is impossible even in principle for the kind of complex specified information encoded in DNA to be produced by predictable natural laws. No amount of time, not even billions of years, will enable natural forces to do things they simply don't have the capacity to do.
If Darwin knew even a little organic chemistry, he wouldn't be so bold to claim the origin of the species. The observation of changes in finch beaks is trivial by comparison.
So lets do a thought experiment. Let's run with what YOU think Darwin must have thought. Let's say it in the time since Darwin, it was discovered that indeed the inner workings of life (cells) was simple...ie no mechanism or chemistry at all. ALL of life, while outwardly functional...like the birds and animals Darwin studied worked as it does now was incredibly simple. Consider life just as you imagine Darwin must have thought, ie without any internal biochemistry. Would THAT lead you to be more inclined to believe life arose and evolved naturally or would that lead you to believe even more so that it was created and powered by divine will?
Darwin would be thrilled to know genetics provided the mechanism for heritable traits Darwin could only hypothesize and verified his theory of natural selection.
Why do atheaists have faith that non intent created the highly complex specified coded information we find in living cells when the only proven creator of specified coded information that even approaches the complexity we find in cells is intelligence!?? Anyone want to try and answere this question ?
Scientists do not have "faith". The origin of life, like many other phenomena, is part of observable reality, a reality which has been shown in every case to be governed by specific laws. Understanding these laws has always been the goal of science. Life is part of the physical world and a good topic to study. We have been quite successful up to now. Why quit? There is no debate in science whether life came from God or from chemistry, because God is not and cannot be part of science. God belongs to another dimension of knowledge. I wonder why hardly anyone, Tour included, understands these very simple points. Although science has been successul, it cannot disprove transcencence, it cannot disprove God, it cannot disprove your values. What it can do -unfortunately for theological simpletons like Tour - is prove that all ancient books of myths, including the Bible, are worthless as sources of scientific knowledge.
The wisdom of man is but foolishness in the eyes of Our Lord God. Science is a gift to allow humanity seek out the methods of the glory of creation but the nefarious nature of fallen man has turned this gift into a weapon. The gift from God has now become the God for far too many.
According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms "divorced" them. El's pantheon in Ugarit (modern day Ras Shamra in Syria) is called the *Elohim,* literally the plural of El. Interestingly, the Biblical god is also referred to numerous times as Elohim. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts. "The mysterious Ugaritic text Shachar and Shalim tells how (perhaps near the beginning of all things) *El* came to shores of the sea and saw two women who bobbed up and down. *El* was sexually aroused and took the two with him, killed a bird by throwing a staff at it, and roasted it over a fire. He asked the women to tell him when the bird was fully cooked, and to then address him either as husband or as father, for he would thenceforward behave to them as they called him. They saluted him as husband. He then lay with them, and they gave birth to Shachar ("Dawn") and Shalim ("Dusk"). Again *El* lay with his wives and the wives gave birth to "the gracious gods", "cleavers of the sea", "children of the sea". The names of these wives are not explicitly provided, but some confusing rubrics at the beginning of the account mention the goddess *Athirat (Asherah),* who is otherwise *El's* chief wife, and the goddess Raḥmayyu ("the one of the womb"), otherwise unknown." *"First, a god named El predates the arrival of the Israelites into Syria-Palestine.* Biblical usage shows El was not just a generic noun, but often a proper name for Israel’s God (e.g., Gen 33:20: “El, the God of Israel”)." "I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the *sons of El.* It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the *sons of El,* plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, *solely* according to the number of the *sons of El.* *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting.* A Sumerian hymn speaks to the goddess: “Nanshe, your divine powers are not matched by any other divine powers.” *Does this mean that Nanshe was the high goddess, that there were no gods above her? No, it does not.* Nanshe was the daughter of Enki, the high god. *In Sumerian mythology, as with Ugaritic, Israelite, Babylonian, and others, in the ancient past, the high god (Enki, in this case) divided up the world and assigned his children certain domains.* Nanshe was given a limited domain (the modern Persian Gulf) and was tasked with maintaining social justice there. *This is exactly what we see in Deuteronomy 32 with Yahweh. Yahweh is given a limited domain (Israel) and is given authority over his people, to punish them, as well as to protect and defend them against foreign enemies.* That Yahweh, like Nanshe, is said to have incomparable divine power *does not* mean that he is not subordinate to the high god who gave him his domain. *It is also of note that Nanshe, like Baal, Yahweh, and so many other deities, evolved over time. Her domain increased, and she was promoted in the pantheon (although she never became the high goddess)."* *"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.* (Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian) *"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"* (A second response to Michael Heiser) *"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."* *"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10"* - TheTorah.com (Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), *which appears to be a later addition,* Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)* *"Polytheism and Ancient Israel’s Canaanite Heritage. Part V | theyellowdart"* (Of course, much of this [i.e., that Israel worshiped El and Asherah alongside YHWH] is really to be expected given that recent syntheses of the *archaeological, cultural, and literary data* pertaining to the emergence of the nation of Israel in the Levant *show that most of the people who would eventually compose this group were originally Canaanite. As the Hebrew Bible notes, the Hebrew language itself is a Canaanite language, literally the “lip of Canaan” (שְׂפַת כְּנַעַן; Is. **19:18**), and so it cannot often be distinguished by modern scholars from other Canaanite inscriptions on purely linguistic grounds.)* *"Ugarit - New World Encyclopedia"* (Ugaritic religion centered on the chief god, Ilu or El, whose titles included "Father of mankind" and "Creator of the creation." The Court of El was referred to as the (plural) 'lhm or ***Elohim,*** a word ***later used by the biblical writers to describe the Hebrew deity*** and translated into English as "God," in the singular. El, which was ***also the name of the God of Abraham,*** was described as an aged deity with white hair, seated on a throne.) *"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"* (Mark Smith is a Catholic) *"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III | theyellowdart"* *"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"* (Daniel McClellan is a Mormon) *"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"* (Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)") *"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."* (Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh) *"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."* *"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"* *"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."* *"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"* (In addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh, it appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort) *"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"* (Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion") *"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"* (For a good summary of all of the above articles) Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 34:30 minutes onwards. Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on. Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40. Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"* (By a former theist) Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
Watch how Israel is giving evidence to the whole world on how the Bible is truth. Everything the Bible says about Israel is happening in front of our eyes.
You are simply ignoring or failing to mention the truly enormous DISsimilarities between the Biblical creation accounts and those of ANY of the surrounding cultures .
Wat have to do witch creaton of life , sells and moleculs ? Wat u post look more like same space trawelers visit our planet and use some apes to made worker for them.. nothing to do witch sell and how ist work.
As a Christian who loves science and is Autistic and needs logic to accept anything I struggled with my faith in the past. God knows I am an extreme sceptic and so he showed me many times he is real and showed me miracles of healing. I have seen a person who spent 25 years in a wheelchair have their leg muscles grow back in 3 second before all of our eyes when we were laying hands to pray for healing! I also drowned and saw my body being worked on by paramedics. I was looking down on the scene while moving up to the clouds. Then it all went dark and then I heard my mother crying out to God. He answered her desperate prayer as she was at the morgue to identify my body! I woke up in a body bag. Naked and toe tagged. I know I died and was brought back and my medical records confirm it. It does not mean anyone will believe me but I was amazed how may others have similar storied that I have met who are Christians. God has been moving and pouring his spirit out on the world more than ever the last 4 years. He knows the trouble that is coming. We are now at the point that real science confirms biblical creation. I can not prove the miracles I have seen God do though but I do not have to because God is the convincer. We just have to open hearts so their minds can be opened I have discovered. We are made in Gods image so it makes sense we could figure out how to make life with information we build on over many generations. The devil wants to cancel us all. I actually read all of the document "Sustainable Development for 2030 on the UN site. I was sick for days after reading it. I ran to God. I was not ok after reading that evil plan for humanity. Only the devil could have made such a plan and thought of every cruel detail. These people want to reclassify who we call a human being and who we call something else I will not get into in this as people need to read it for themselves to even believe it was written. The supernatural is all natural but we just can not explain it with science yet. Our reality is not something anyone has ever seen in full. Many have had glimpses into heaven and been shown things by the Lord or even simply told things by the Lord. I pray Gods hands and protection be on you and his will be done in your life. I pray you will also be blessed and know his joy unspeakable full of Glory. I suffered anxiety for almost 50 years. Jesus cured my anxiety 4 years ago. I have not even had a bad dream or been upset or angry with anyone and I could never ever have been who I have become or do this on my own power. It is all Jesus. He is coming back!
"God knows I am an extreme sceptic" How did your sceptic mind come to the reslisation that there is a God? Sure, you have seen things that you have no explantion for...how exactly is an appeal to a God justified or explaining anything?
" I have seen a person who spent 25 years in a wheelchair have their leg muscles grow back in 3 second before all of our eyes when we were laying hands to pray for healing!"
Who is this person? Who whitnessed that, when and where did that happen?
Thanks for sharing @
Any answers yet? Or am I just supposed to take your word on the suspension of basically all laws of nature?
Science has become their religion. I’ve followed Tour, love his feistiness and passion for truth!!
Science has become their religion?, what does that even mean?
@@mickhealy572 Claims backed by faith in their beliefs rather than evidence, but you already knew this.
@@mickhealy572 I replied to your foolish fake "I don't get your statement" question, but it doesn't show up either.
How is Tour drawing his conclusions about the complexity of life? Could it be…science? Has science become Tour’s religion?
Yes, love his points on OOL Chemistry.
Thank you Dr. Tour for having the courage and fortitude to go against the status quo to contend for the truth. Scientism and Philosophical Naturalism need to be exposed so that everyone can make informed decision about how life came to be.
@@cynthiahample7793 what is the ‘status quo’? I think more people think life was created by God than believe it arose naturally.
@@rizdekd3912- I think ur misinformed.
@@masada2828 " I think ur misinformed."
About what? You can look it up. Worldwide, 2/3 think God created life, either recently (few thousand years ago) or created it and it evolved to its current composition and form. That means more people thing life was created directly by God. Thinking life arose naturally is not the status quo. And even of those who think it arose naturally, many believe like me that God created the world so life could arise naturally. Atheists make up a small proportion of the world's population.
@@rizdekd3912 What does 2/3 believing have to do with reality when those 2/3 believe with absolutely no evidence supporting their belief?
@@cynthiahample7793 What’s wrong with the status quo when the status quo is legitimate science? Essentially what you’re saying is “thanks for going against what’s correct so we have an excuse to keep believing in God”.
Tour is a gem
A scam
@@keineahnung74your proof? No one has presented any proof against his claims.
@@richiejourney1840
And he hasn’t presented any proof for his claims.
@@ramigilneas9274 really? He should be an easy knock out then right?
@@ramigilneas9274When you're asking the questions about how the impossible happened, you don't 'prove' your questions! What kind of idiotic argument is that?
Mr. Tour you have touched me in so many ways. Your intelligence, passion is truly a gift of God!!!
I love Jesus, and I love you too, Dr. Tour. I’m a devout Christian and PhD molecular/cellular biologist. I find those who refuse to accept ID as fools; it’s an insult to deny the overwhelming evidence for Creation.
Fool here. :)
I am interested in understanding how IDers think the ID designed and then made life. Are you able to explain this to me to the same degree and depth you would expect from the scientific community in its attempts to show how life could have arisen via natural processes?
^^ Take as an example, amino acids. Scientists can now show how those may have arisen under plausible natural scenarios. As opposed to this, can you explain how the ID designed then made a simple amino acid?
😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@rolandwatts3218 You haven’t listed to a single word James Tour or any of the thousands of other scientists / Believers have said-have you?
@@rolandwatts3218That's ridiculous, nobody has demonstrated a plausible "natural" scenario. Any experiments that caused amino acids to form never produced more than 10 of the 20 specific amino acids proteins are made of. Always starting from carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and sulfur, not the 98 elements a natural origin would be exposed to. And enclosed in a glass apparatus of some sort with a "trap" to preserve the products from the continuing reaction. Besides there's no plausible natural process in the 20 specific amino acids out of 500+kinds, in only their left hand forms except glycine, becoming sequenced according to the thousands of different types of proteins and their folding into their particular 3D shapes for their particular functions.
@@rolandwatts3218 Just keep in mind-Science says very little; what’s said comes from scientists. They can’t even explain gravity.
I’m a veterinary pathologist and this man has made me believe more than anybody or anything else. Thank you!
What do you think is the reson why JT has an allergy towards peer-review when it comes to his claims about ool research?
@@Belmondo_RHTour is not an origin of life researcher. That is not his professional field of research, so why WOULD he have peer reviewed articles on that subject ? That doesn't mean he isn't right about the things he is saying. He certainly is !
@@CarlMCole "so why WOULD he have peer reviewed articles on that subject ?" The fact that he is not active in this field has not stopped him from publicly lying about actual research....I can answer the question why he does that: Because science renders his faith based belief in some middle eatern God asthe BS it is.
What his fanboys need to realise, is that his word is on par with every uneducated guess you can find on YT in regards to ool research UNTIL he submits his fantasies to peer-review.
Given that he is a demonstrably liar anyway...why bother right?
" That doesn't mean he isn't right about the things he is saying." But a light glance at the actual research will tell you that he isn't.
If you trust an Bible literal fanatic who admited that for him "faith and belief goes beyond scientific evidence" over the peer-revied work from thousands of researchers...then you excluded yourself from any serious discussion.
@@CarlMCole "so why WOULD he have peer reviewed articles on that subject ?" The fact that he is not active in this field has not stopped him from publicly lying about actual research....I can answer the question why he does that: Because science renders his faith based belief in some middle eatern God asthe BS it is.
What his fanboys need to realise, is that his word is on par with every uneducated guess you can find on YT in regards to ool research UNTIL he submits his fantasies to peer-review.
Given that he is a demonstrably liar anyway...why bother right?
" That doesn't mean he isn't right about the things he is saying." But a light glance at the actual research will tell you that he isn't.
If you trust an Bible literal fanatic who admited that for him "faith and belief goes beyond scientific evidence" over the peer-revied work from thousands of researchers...then you excluded yourself from any serious discussion.
@@CarlMCole "so why WOULD he have peer reviewed articles on that subject ?" Because that is how one criticism of science works, if one wants to be taken seriously....Tour knows that and he also knows that you neither know nor care. He is only interested to cater to his flock and he does that by lying about science.
Until he submits his "opinions" on OOL research" to the peer-review process, his word has as much weight as my oncle erics, who is a carpenter.
I am a foreign trained physician and without the prior commitment to a materialistic, atheist worldview, it is easy to see, understand and acknowledge that without a road map; a directed process, the basic building blocks of life can not be put together by chance no matter how much time you have. Dr. Tour is one of the best example of the believers in today's society.
We know evolution is true.
@CJ-ik8qf Try the recent research in plasma physics. Interesting how plasma sees to react to stimulation...
@@CJ-ik8qfWho is "we", and how do we know it ? For your own sake, don't believe everything you're told.
I sure had no prior commitment to a materialistic worldview either. That commitment only came after I realized that, if God really exists, there's no reason whatsoever for the phenomenal success of naturalistic explanations, down to the highest possible degree of precision. God simply doesn't have to abide by natural laws -- that's the very essence of creationism itself, that God is not constrained by any laws at all. The success of naturalistic explanations for just about everything cannot be an accident or coincidence, but must be God's intention. So, either God is a naturalist, or naturalism itself is the creator. Good point!
@dougsmith6793 "God simply doesn't have to abide by natural laws -- that's the very essence of creationism itself, that God is not constrained by any laws at all"
That's whw you play tennis without a net.
Tour is a gem and a thorn in the side of ideological science.
He is an idiot
@klouis1886 ,
What an observation.
Did you just graduate kindergarten or get left back in first grade?
Thanks for playing in a high chair.
@@utopiabusterHe meant methodical Naturalists. Who have presupposed there is no God.
@@utopiabuster Reference the documented, eyewitnessed account of anybody demonstrating the prebiotic chemistry required for making the 6 elements that comprise 98% of what living things are made of form a single protein or gene. A chemical diagram isn't evidence without it bc being actually demonstrated in a laboratory. It's called the scientific method.
@richiejourney1840 ,
Tours' not wrong!
Do you have comprehension difficulties?
Dr Tour, you encourage me to do what we as Christians needs to do. That is to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ and not to deny Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. This gives my life a whole new meaning, and we all can have this inspiration, and hold onto the truth. This truth will set us free!
Dr. Tour I love your passion and greatly admire your courage to stand up and speak the truth! Thank you!!
When I heard his testimony ,I cried tears of joy. I want that for every person on this earth. I want that for my son and daughter in law that have turned away. Please , if you see this, pray for them. (Alex,Alyssa). Let us pray for the lost without ceasing until the glorious appearance of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. ❤
We don't mind if you pray in your own private space. What bothers non-Christians like me is when you proclaim your Gospel out loud, because you believe we non-Christians have to be saved. No thanks, we do not want to hear your beliefs because we already know them and we think they are just nonsense. Keep it to yourself please.
JUST BEAUTIFUL. Love Dr. Tour and have seen him speak at Syracuse University. Thanks, both!
Dr James Tour is an enigma
This wisdom is from above.
You spelled “enema” wrong.
I must express my admiration for Dr. James Tour and his thoughtful approach to the intersection of science and faith. His clarity in discussing the limits of science, particularly when it comes to the complexities of life and the universe, is truly refreshing. Tour’s position reflects a deep understanding of both the power and the limitations of empirical science. He recognizes that while science excels in explaining how things work, it does not have the tools to address the deeper, existential questions of why the universe exists or what its ultimate purpose is. This distinction is crucial, and Dr. Tour articulates it well, underscoring the role that faith plays in answering questions that lie beyond the reach of scientific inquiry.
However, I found myself disappointed by the host of this podcast, who seemed to misinterpret the relationship between Christianity and science. The host appeared to adopt a narrow, somewhat simplistic view of the topic, especially when raising concerns about supposed conflicts between the two. In particular, the host seemed unaware of the nuanced concepts of ineffability and causality which are essential to understanding how faith and science coexist, rather than conflict.
Firstly, the concept of ineffability-the idea that some aspects of reality, particularly those related to God and divine mysteries, are beyond human comprehension or scientific description-was not properly addressed. Christianity, like many religious traditions, acknowledges that some truths about God and the universe simply cannot be captured by empirical science. The host’s failure to recognize this distinction leads to a misunderstanding of the role faith plays in shaping a worldview that goes beyond what can be measured and tested. This would limit his capacity as a Pastor.
Secondly, the host seemed to overlook the crucial concept of causality. While science focuses on proximate causes and observable phenomena, Christianity offers a broader, theological understanding of the First Cause-the ultimate origin of the universe and everything within it. Dr. Tour’s thoughtful acknowledgment of this distinction was missed by the host, who seemed to conflate the causal explanations provided by science with the deeper, existential causes addressed by faith. This misunderstanding, unfortunately, creates the illusion of conflict where none exists.
In essence, Dr. Tour’s perspective highlights the complementarity of science and faith, where science can explain the workings of the natural world, and faith addresses the ultimate questions of meaning, purpose, and existence. The host, by contrast, seemed to miss this deeper understanding, presenting a conflict that simply isn't there when the domains of science and religion are properly distinguished.
It’s unfortunate that the podcast host did not demonstrate the intellectual curiosity or the depth of understanding that Dr. Tour embodies in his discussions. The failure to acknowledge these key concepts-ineffability and causality-left the audience with a skewed view of the relationship between Christianity and science, one that unnecessarily pits them against each other rather than seeing them as complementary ways of knowing.
A very long opinion.
Thoughtful approach? Screaming at people like an unhinged lunatics? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@jpneri6570 Reading an opinion is longer than a 1 minute verbal opinion-which isn’t long.
@@carmangib Thank you for your comment.
To the op: I think the host of any podcast has the inherent right to ask as he sees fit. Certainly not everyone begins from the same point of understanding as yourself. So just move on to something more advanced and suitable for your personal level of curiosity.
But even your opinion is still of value to others out in the world. No harm in expressing yourself.
I really like what your guest is saying! I give him total props for standing up against secular belief system! I know it can’t be easy and I am praying for you and the people who Christ is trying to reach. Thank you.
“When people will not engage… no answer is an answer in itself”
NASA won't engage the Flat Earth numpties either. Does that mean the Earth must really be flat?
Oh, people have engaged with him, and he got obliterated. He’s laughed at and mocked by the entire scientific community.
@@dross4207 "Oh, people have engaged with him, and he got obliterated. He’s laughed at and mocked by the entire scientific community."
Of course! Like Dave who was paralyzed in front of the blackboard?
@ He wasn’t paralyzed, he gave Tour the papers showing that Tour was lying/wrong. Does writing it on a chalkboard change that? Does not playing along with Tour’s games change the fact that Tour was wrong?
Rather than diverting from the topic that you should be taking interest in, why don’t you point out how Dave was wrong?
@@dross4207 "He wasn’t paralyzed, he gave Tour the papers showing that Tour was lying/wrong. Does writing it on a chalkboard change that?
If he was unable to demonstrate real chemistry on the board at least he could describe it in the articles he posted with the respective detail. He did none of that. He was paralyzed with fear and weakness... failure of failures... shame that will last for years.
"Rather than diverting from the topic that you should be taking interest in, why don’t you point out how Dave was wrong?"
To do that he would first have to demonstrate the real chemistry that Deva presented in the debate in detail and how he solves Tour's challenges... good luck with that.
God bless this great man who is bringing glory to our creator.
What created?
I love these videos because Dr. Tour's way of doing things reminds me of the way God does things in the Bible, where there is a humorous aspect to it, the way God sets it up and allows men to show their folly is very humorous to me. I find a lot of humor in the Bible, like Elijah making fun of the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel. I laugh all the way through these videos because of the humorous way Dr. Tour explains the truth. I know he's not purposely trying to make fun of them, but the truth of the matter, the way it is, is simply funny. At least to me. But I was wrong about everything for 40 years and it wasn't hard for me at all when I had to tell my kids, "Everything I've ever told you was wrong, because i was wrong." It's not hard to admit you're wrong. I tell people all the time how wrong I was or am in some circumstances of daily life. I confess my sins to God every day. It's not hard to be wrong, and it's not hard to admit. You just have to move your ego/pride out of the picture.
I have spoken to so many people who thought that life had been created in a lab. Some people thought Miller and Urey did it. They are often shocked to hear the true state of the art.
It was much the same when I was at school and I was told about the "missing link". There is no missing link there isn't even a missing chain for the link to fit into.
Just a bunch of apes and a bunch of men.
The history of claims of origin of man and the origin of life are beset with exaggeration and sometimes plain falsehood. The claims go way beyond the scientific evidence. Extreme scepticism is needed in this area.
@FlowDeFlowDrainage And that has nothing to do with the origin of life.
@@rizdekd3912 But it has everything to do with misleading the public about the state of the science.
The public who pay for grants and who trust that they are being given an accurate picture of what is known.
@FlowDeFlowDrainage "misleading the public about the state of the science."
Besides saying that no one knows how life started on earth, what is the state of the science regarding origin of life? What would you tell the 'public' about that state of the science regarding the origin of life and do you think that new perspective should lead them to fund origin of life research more or less? Would you tell them it is a waste of money to study the origin of life?
"Some people thought Miller and Urey did it."
You have actually personally spoken to people who said they thought Miller and Urey created life in the lab? That would be unfortunate...but would that be any more unfortunate than if someone said they thought God created the universe and life 6000 years ago?
Define life.
@FlowDeFlowDrainageWhat missing link is missing, since they have discovered thousands of them all the way up to modern humans?
BTW, humans are apes. You distinguishing them as seperate from apes only demonstrates how ignorant you are on the topic. How can you know what’s missing when you don’t even know “what is”?
@@dross4207 Thousands of what? Bone fragments?
As for your chosen definition of ape, it does not meld with the definition found in the Cambridge dictionary.
Humans are of the genus Homo Sapiens and there are no other species living here.
I've viewed Dr. Tour's 9 hour course on abiogenesis twice. It is well worth the time to understand more about the problems with origin of life research and more about how life is put together. It increases your faith and respect for God when you understand these scientific concepts. As I am a Catholic creationist this information is very important to me. I'm spreading the news. This information is needed to restore the foundations of Catholic doctrine that is crumbling before our eyes because of rampant ignorance on this topic.
So God created the first life by "MAGIC"? Is that the alternative??? When we know that all of the previously unknown mysteries which have been solved have all been shown to have naturalistic causes. But the origin of life is the ONE EXCEPTION. The first life God created BY MAGIC! Ok sure! LOL
It seems to me this clearly is part of an agenda based on the power of the word. If you are a scientist with enough titles behind your name whatever you say, that is the truth, and the average person would believe it. You sir have challenged them and the response is typical. They want to exclude God from the process and lead humanity into oblivion, if they look into God's word they'll find that their wisdom is like foolishness before Him.
God bless you for exposing this foolishness and helping people to believe.
The answer to the question 'who is Jesus to you' is amazing. He really is the best, He's the One. ❤❤❤ Thank you 🙏
Many in the professoriate cull possible critics. They don't want students of science, or an informed public. They want disciples to worship at their brightness. I've seen it, 1st hand.
Creationists are not the fanatics. The evolutionists are the fanatical ones. They try to make science and creation out to be opposing ideas, but they go hand in hand. More accurately, they are one and the same. God is the ULTIMATE scientist! His creation, is the ultimate science!
Science and evolution is based on testable evidence. Religion is based on lies.
Great interview
More please!
I once came across an academic who was an opponent of David Berlinski. And the reason I could see that this man was on the losing side was because, instead of giving a convincing counter-argument to Berlinski, he started attacking Berlinski's person! Richard Milton too, argued scientifically against evolution, and Dawkins (not unlike a good inquisitor), accused Milton of being a (Yaaarchh!!!) CREATIONIST! This seems to be the very worst accusation an atheist can level against an opponent!?
Creationism is a religious position, which can be respected. If you try to argue scientific creationism, you are a buffoon, and Dawkins has every right to laugh at such morons. Science cannot consider miracles. It is that simple, so creationism cannot be scientific.
They want to eliminate Christ from science because then they can have their own agenda. They can't do what they want to do with Christ standing in the way. ❤
@@austindeines-impactmuzic2045 Because believe in gods and magic is 100% unscientific, and therefore, they should not be in science.
@dross4207 really, because 200 years ago cell phones were magic to people, but now they become a reality, it's all about your prescription. God gave us science, and used science to make the world.
@dross4207 also, science is merely observations of God's creation. Answer me this, which came first, the chicken or the egg?. Until you can answer a basic philosophical question like this, you're in the wrong pain brother.
@ You haven’t yet demonstrated that your god is anything other than imaginary, and therefore, you surely haven’t demonstrated that he created anything at all.
To answer your question, a chicken had to exist first in order to make a chicken egg, but the first chicken had to come from an egg that was not a chicken egg, but rather, from the egg of the most recent predecessor of chickens. It’s not quite the philosophical “gotcha” that you thought it was.
The key is that science needs to be politically and financially agnostic. This is a HUGE ASK for scientists needing both financial and popular support to have an impact within their lifetime.
It(science) should also be theistically agnostic, and James Tour is a perfect example of why it should be that way. Nothing but twisting and lying about actual science to fit his religious narrative. He should be hiding in shame.
@@dross4207 You have not heard his story. His faith is discussed as a byproduct of his college experience... a conversation with another student while washing his clothes. It happens to be he is a Believer, BESIDES doing chemistry. He doesn't mix them.
@@dross4207Tour IS theistically agnostic as a scientist ! He has never claimed that science proves that God created life.
@@CarlMCole Let me ask you then, if Tour is theistically agnostic when trying to discredit OOL research, is he mentally stunted to the point where he’s incapable of understanding it, or is he deliberately being deceitful when he misrepresents it? Those are the only two options, because he’s demonstrably wrong in his claims and he’s been shown exactly how he’s wrong, so he’s either incapable of learning, or he’s lying, so which one is it? If he’s lying, he’s lying for a reason, and we both what that reason is. Theistically agnostic my ass.
To those of you criticizing Dr Tour. 1. Did you listen to what he said? 2. Could you provide me/us with evidence of where he is wrong (cite Sources Please).
"To those of you criticizing Dr Tour. 1. Did you listen to what he said? 2. Could you provide me/us with evidence of where he is wrong (cite Sources Please)."
The sources are:
1-Atheism must be true therefore...
2-Blind faith
@@nemrodx2185
Atheism must be true?
Blind faith? I think not.
@@nemrodx2185
BTW I missed the pat where you cited evidence.
@@stevenwiederholt7000 "Atheism must be true?
Blind faith? I think not."
It's sarcasm...
@@nemrodx2185 If you're saying atheism is blind faith, I agree. It's evident of the divine order in the natural world, in the universe and you can choose to not see it. You can choose to ignore evidence and be blind to it.
Bravo!👏 Thank you! Truth should NOT be rare.
I know enough to know for certain that James Tour is telling the truth about this. It's undeniable !
@@CarlMCole But it’s already been demonstrated that he is indeed lying about this.
No, what he is saying is actually very obvious : a mess of organic compounds can no more assemble themselves into a living cell than a pile of auto parts can assemble themselves into a functioning car ! To suggest otherwise is not only wrong, it's absurd !@@dross4207
@@dross4207 Give me a link to the article explaining the exact origin of the first cell and how it was accomplished by nature.
[carl]: "I know enough to know for certain..."
So does every graduate of Dunning-Kruger University.
@@CarlMCole You can always spot the uneducated guy in the room…they use “Dunning Kruger”.
Question, what can we do to influence the lies being taught in school?
What lies?
Name one.
Home school.
@@klouis1886 The Ernst Haeckel's embryo drawings and claims about Abiogenesis.
@@nudshThat science has proven life had a natural origin.
Even the GREAT scientist/anti-thest/atheist, Forrest Valkai admits "We don't know, we're workin' on it." In regard to the origin of life.😊
@@MarkMiller-gt5tu Isn’t that strange how some people can say “I don’t know” rather than making up an answer. James Tour should try that.
@@dross4207He does say he doesn't know rhe means of life's creation.
And if the scientists do succeed in creating a living cell in a test tube, they will have proven that the Intelligent Design theorists were right all along : that it requires a lot of information and Intelligence to create life !
@CarlMCole It's never made "sense" to me that "certain" Scientists "don't know the origin of life, but talk as if they're positive it's not a God. Constantly using the word "natural" but never affectivity being able to define it. 🤔.
@@CarlMCole They wouldn’t be “creating life”, they would be creating the conditions for which they believe are suitable for life to form to demonstrate that it can form without the aid of magic. That is quite a bit different than the “God” claim, where the claim is that magic is directly responsible for the formation of life.
I have watch these one on one conversation that even encourages me even more in faith , i will say whatso ever you watch or focus one will build you up or tear you down ,we need more of these converstion on social media
Scientists lol they don't know how the universe came into existence and they don't know how life came into existence.
Great interview, always listen to Dr tour
Theists, lol, they don't know how life started so they make shit up. Tour lies for a living, gets exposed, plays the victim, lies again. Discovery Institutionalised scum
@@Atheist-PatrolAtheists claim, 3.7 billion years ago non living matter became arranged into a cell capable of evolving for the same reason tapestries and baskets weave themselves.
I'm not religious but I'm a huge fan of Tour for his brilliant career and willingness to troll the fraudsters!
As a layman OOL research has come a long way in the last 40 years. It used to be thought that amino acids and nucleotides had to be created on Earth. We now know Space is full of it. The "building blocks of life" were likely on Earth before abiogenesis started.
The whole early Earth could have been loaded with the building blocks, and that WOULDN'T help explain the origin of life for the same reason that having all the materials to build an airplane can't explain the existence of airplanes. Can't even BEGIN to !
@CarlMCole I like that. You draw an analogy with planes and the building blocks of planes.
It's the "every analogy I can think of is valid" fallacy.
It is up there with comparing flying a plane through a barn with the big bang.
Analogies are useful for explaing things. They ARE NOT EVIDENCE to infer from. There is a difference between "is like" and "is".
I realise the DELIBERATE mistake JT and his allies make, but I will do another post for that.
The deliberate mistake James Tour makes is looking at life and cells today and calculating the probability of its spontaneous creation randomly.
Yes, we have evidence that life begun soon after the Earth's formation. But as the Star Trek phrase goes "it wasn't life as we know it."
There was a boring billion years in which nothing much happened.
IMO that is when most of micro and cellular biology evolved.
The mind-blowing complexity of DNA, RNA, enzymes, cells and cell structure took MOST of evolutionary time to evolve. Multicellular life forms like us are the tipperty top of the "Evolution Iceberg."
In otherwords, some of what JT calls abiogenesis is plain old evolution.
The other mistake is that abiogenesis was a single event.
There is no reason or evidence to suppose it wasn't (like evolution) happening for a long period of time and over large and diverse environments and areas.
The probability of a multitude of events happening at the same time and place will always be lower, than the probability of multiple things happening in a distributed manner, i.e. without restricting them to one time and place.
Its the difference between a probability so small it is unlikely to have happened once in 13.5 billion years and a virtual certainty given a modest amount of time and space.
If we should find life on one of Jupiter's moons from another abiogenesis. Some if not most scientists won't be surprised. Indeed there are some scientists who would be surprised if the opposite were to happen.
Overwhelmed by not knowing what to believe about... most things right now.
@@KennyVert Then take a deep fresh breath and examine the evidence-begin what we know with near certainty. I can assure you-once you peer into the cell, with all of its awesome complexity, the answer will jump out and become immediately obvious.
🤗 I want to say something but it would just sound trite. I can only offer a big hug.
Read The Stairway to Life: An Origin of Life Realty Check by Tan and Stadler
@@Vernon-Chitlensounds like a great book. But it addresses “spontaneous generation” which was proven false long ago. Todays Abiogenesis is different.
@@richiejourney1840 😳 Spontaneous Generation: non living matter became living. Abiogenesis: 3.7 billion years ago non living matter became living. That book debunks abiogenesis. You didn't even read the sample.
I am a chemist, Dr Tour and I believe in your inferences totally. Yes atoms react under certain conditions and combine to form all types of molecules. However it is impossible to have chemical reactions which will produce living molecules which have been programmed to reproduce and propagate life. And if so, how did the rudimentary biomolecules mitotically divide and produce the male and female form of every species of flora and fauna. The basic polymers that form our cell organelles and organs, the limbic system etc are too complex to have occurred spontaneously. Life was obviously created by God 🙏
If you are real chemist and you think life could not have arisen due to the laws of chemistry, you are bad chemist, a disgrace to your profession, because you are using religion to build scientific hypotheses, a really poor strategy for someone who should know what science is.
@@galileog8945He's not building an hypothesis, he's arriving at a ( very reasonable) conclusion.
FIVE MIRACLES ATHEISTS BELIEVE:
1. Life comes from non-life
2. Order comes from chaos
3. The personal comes from non-personal
4. Reason comes from non-reason
5. Morality comes from matter
FIVE? You only list 3.
@@gapfenix please edit and add that they believe these miracles 'without a miracle worker' 🤣
@@gapfenix well we are working on the first one.
I don't know anyone that agrees with 2.
3, 4 and 5 simply make no sense
@@jayess9752well clearly you are living in a cave on,an uninhabited island and have never spoken with an atheist as these points are dead on..
@@jayess9752 If anyone says he believes the first living organism formed by materialistic naturalistic mechanisms without an intelligent agent, and then says he doesn't agree with #2 above, he's a conflicted liar.
Dr James Tour is incomparable
@@oagengpaul9438 I certainly wouldn't compare him to a scientist.
"In the beginning God..." Life is supernatural. The spark of life is spirit and that Spirit is God. That is the one ingredient that they can't access from natural elements. There is no such thing a god of the gaps. There is God. You should mention God. We do know, therefore God.
@@lonnierandall7882 As Dr. John Lennox says, He is the God of the gaps-and the God of everything else as well. I am more certain of His existence and sovereignty than I am of my very own life.
@@johnhoey7717 I would say He is just God, because there are no gaps.
@ I was speaking to the gaps in our knowledge.
The situation here resembles a scenario where a sociologist is in the Soviet Union criticizing some aspects of the society, where Communism doesn't seem to work out like it theoretically should.
Response: "You are a capitalist fascist. That MUST be the driving force behind your criticism!!"
The current teaching contents should be corrected.
Thank you Dr. Tour
To atheists, using science as authority is indeed about sin but this is beyond their purview. What's within their purview is politics 💯
Yeah, finding actual explanations is now sin, huh? Why isn’t it sin when Tour misrepresents and lies about science?
@dross4207 it would be if he was lying. But he isn't.
@@j7odnorof777 When you have had your mistakes pointed out and you still knowingly repeat the same mistakes, they becomes lies
@dross4207 yup. And atheists sure love their lies.
45 years ago I worked at Andrews Air Force Base, home of Air Force One. At the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum they had an exhibit with Julia Child on TV cooking "primordial soup" to supposedly allow life to come into being. But Julia's cook8ng show taught that you need to carefully control the ingredients and the input of energy and motion and time in order to make a desired, edible dinner. Changing any of the factors randomly ruins the recipe. The recipe for a living cell is much more exacting than gourmet cooking. A living cell is clearly the result of a complex, predetermined recipe, NOT random factors. An intelligence is needed to make a living cell. Random mixtures of chrmicals and energy cannot do it.
Indeed, random changes to a cell's DNA and proteins are NOT creative or beneficial. They BREAK the operations of a living cell. The random effects of radiation cause cancer and illness and death. Nuclear regulation aims to avoid random mutations because they harm us. EPA and OSHA have regulations to avoid exposure to radiation because it is harmful, NOT beneficial. The notion that radiation can cause beneficial mutations is the Marvel Myth, that radiation can give powers to X Men, Spiderman, the Hulk, the Fantastuc Four, etc.
Exactly right, and we'll said.
Actually quite a lot plant varieties (thousands) was breed using mutation breeding, including irradiation using nuclear radiation. Because natural mutation rate is low, breeding may take loot of time, by artificially increasing mutation rate breeders can increase breeding speed. Of course discarding plants that got harmful mutations is not a problem. But its rarer beneficial mutations that determine success of the variety. Let me cite "Rio Red Grapefruit, developed at the Texas A&M Citrus Center in the 1970s and approved in 1984, accounted for more than three quarters of the grapefruit produced in Texas by 2007." That's from page about atomic gardening. "Puita INTA-CL rice mutant (herbicide resistance and good yield; also grown in Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica and Paraguay)", "GINES rice mutant (created using proton radiation; grows well in salty conditions)" "Jiahezazhan and Jiafuzhan rice (mutations obtained by pollen irradiation; high yield and quality, very adaptable, resistant to plant hopper and blast)" "MA-9 cotton - the world's first mutant cotton, released in 1948 (X-ray radiation; drought tolerance, high yielding)" etc - from mutation breeding page.
So you should revisit your idea beneficial mutations happens only in Marvell movies and beliefs based on it.
@@JumpingJack-w2lThe "benificial" mutations are being defined and preserved by Intelligent Designers, the scientists or breeders themselves.
Primordial soup🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Love Dr. Tour and his enthusiasm for truth!
Even if Scientists solved the origin of life puzzle, they would have used intelligence and not randomness. They would therefore unwittingly prove the role of An Intelligent Designer in the Origin of Life. Basically you cannot deny The Presence of God The Almighty when you study The Book of Nature.😂
At the end of the day, there's no figuring anything out. Life is an unyielding mystery.
You along with others say mystery. I conclude impossibility.
@@johnglad5 Why impossibility? There you are in the midst of infinity. Are you not intrigued?
I agree with you somewhat. We may eventually know that life CAN start by purely natural processes, but theist would still claim that that is not HOW it started. They’ll stick with their god as long as at least one gap remains for him to lurk in.
@@dross4207 For many God isn't lurking but present and active in the soul. But thinking and reasoning will only take one so far, even for those who profess faith.
@@Raymond-d2l7n I’ll agree to disagree with you on the topic of souls existing. However, I agree with you that there are things that can’t possibly be known, but I don’t see how a god explains them when it’s just kicking the proverbial can down the road with a refusal to play the game any longer. Any apparent paradoxes or any unanswered questions only get moved to god, but never answered. He’s an arbitrary point where people become okay with no further explanations. God is where explanations go to die.
Lacking knowledge is not evidence for creation😂😂😂😂😂.
Dr Tour is only trying to get his fellow scientists to acknowledge that. If you can say we were wrong, molecular structure is much more complex than we realised. Then perhaps you can look at how to solve this from a different angle.
Telling us 2 important molecules of life, made of 6 elements became arranged into proteins and genes in a perfectly sterile warm little pond exposed to all 98 elements. That scientists can't make them do in a laboratory, isn't ridiculous? I want them to keep looking, maybe it will dawn on some that the influence of a creative intelligence was required. Read: The Stairway to Life: An Origin of Life Realty Check by Tan and Stadler
With your knowledge how does a creation be created without a creator?
@@Loading....99.99 Is there any evidence of tapestries and baskets weaving themselves? That's exactly what Naturalists claim, 3.7 billion years ago the non living elements became arranged into a cell capable of evolving. Absolutely no design or purpose.
@@JohnDunkley
Nope, Tour explicitly stated that he doesn’t want to change the minds of experts… he wants to change the minds of laymen.
Probably because the experts don’t take his baseless claims seriously.
Dr.james you are an inspiration.May God bless you more and more; and bless you with more wisdom and knowledge.
He was absolutely lost when he had to sit and actually talk with Harvard scientists. Several people have already debunked his comments on abiogenesis. Check out Prof. Dave, or any of several others who reviewed his stuff, they point out how he is completely wrong.
Tour made himself a clown and an arrogant shouting bully when debated Farina.
"He was absolutely lost when he had to sit and actually talk with Harvard scientists. Several people have already debunked his comments on abiogenesis. Check out Prof. Dave, or any of several others who reviewed his stuff, they point out how he is completely wrong."
Dave Farina?! You mean the guy who froze in the debate unable to answer? I've never seen anyone so afraid of the whiteboard.
@@nemrodx2185
Dave Farina took Tour apart in debate. The topic was "Is there any progress in origin of life research". Dave displayed the progress by listing several peer-reviewed documents. Tour just rented and raved like a maniac. You should watch the "debate".
@@maylingng4107 "Dave Farina took Tour apart in debate. The topic was "Is there any progress in origin of life research"..."
The title of the debate was "Are We Clueless About the Origin of Life?. This title is even projected at the beginning of the debate!!
Lying for atheism?
@@nemrodx2185
The topic (not the title) was what I wrote. And Tour looked and sounded like a raving maniac. Tour wrote several times "clueless" on the blackboard. You never watched the debate.
What is the matter? Are you a coward to hide behind a fake ID and name?
Life is A Professional thing . Great video . 👏👏👏
While he always sounds very convincing especially to many people lacking in scientific knowledge. I'm afraid James is not taken very seriously by the overwhelming consensus of experts in the various fields. He is a typical theist who attempts to manipulate scientific evidence to fit his extreme religious beliefs.
if you have the Scientific knowledge why not then attack the science and stop being religious
Actually you are projecting what Methodical Naturalists do. Deny the evidence that Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick recognize. Biology is the study of complicated things giving the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. Yet they cannot demonstrate that it's not evidence of a Creator. They cannot demonstrate the prebiotic chemistry required for making 6 elements form a single protein or gene. There's 100 quadrillion cells specifically arranged in an adult blue whale. The instructions encoded for their forming and assembling in their order and sequences in a single strand of dna in an egg the size of this sentences period.
Science is clueless when it comes to the Origin of Life, you are misinformed if you think otherwise. the so called 'simple' cell is still baffling scientists despite almost 70 years of scientific scrutiny, it is orders of magnitude more complex than any manmade technology and the reason its labelled 'simple' is to fool the masses into believing life is simple chemistry. Maybe consider where the funding for secular science comes from and what the agenda is, and it is not the truth, its not allowing a divine foot in the door at all costs. Origin of Life and evolution are a religion, they both require a belief that a deity named 'no-thing' is responsible for all there is, including life.
Life never comes from non living material (correction: by itself) how much more scientific than that can you get?
@@Loading....99.99you sound like my 9 year old nephew! Well done! 😂🎉😂🎉
I must admire your professionalism and dedication in educating college students and the public about organic chemistry in general and origin of Life research specifically. I can only hope most students see through detractors such as self-proclaimed "professor" Dave
And yet, you can’t say where Dave was wrong nor where Tour was right. We know that what is true really isn’t important, right?
@dross4207 Easy peasy. Minus an occasional slip-of-the-tongue, Dr Tour's words are true. Dave's not so much
@ Dave brought the peer reviewed papers that show that Tour is incorrect, and also pointed out his lies. Give one example of where Dave was wrong.
@@dross4207 No camp has all the answers. No camp ever will. Not the evolutionists, not the Intelligent Designists, not the Creationists. But while many comments reveal students in search of the truth. Others reveal students who, knowing little, imagine themselves to know much
@ I don’t believe that it’s even possible to have all the answers. That doesn’t negate the fact that Tour is lying about things that are known to be true.
Scientists cannot tell us how life began. Therefore, Jesus. Thank you. Now go to church and put money in the collection plate.
No, it is strictly LOGICAL to infer that life comes from life, and mind from Mind.
@@CarlMCole - I don't get what point you are trying to make here.
The truth will divide, and those who hate truth will hate those who promote truth and expose deception. Nevertheless, speak truth. In the end truth wins.
The tree still makes a sound, the deer still hears it😊
Even if your not religious it still leaves the option for a creator to seed life.
Before creation only the primordial entities Apsu and Tiamat existed, co-mingled together. There were no other things or gods, nor had any destinies been foretold. Then from the mixture of Apsu and Tiamat two gods issued - Lahmu and Lahamu; next Anshar and Kishar were created. From Anshar came firstly the god Anu, and from Anu, came Nudimmud (also known as Ea).
So you are a creationist ?
I believe its more like "A lie repeated often enough will eventually come to be accepted as the truth"......Father 1
"Intelligent design" = "God did it" = "MAGIC" Sorry, I don't accept "MAGIC" as the explanation for how life got started on Earth. (Call me crazy)
It's not magical thinking to infer when you see something that gives every appearance of being brilliantly designed (like your own eyes) that it was, in fact, intelligently designed. It's common sense, not magic !
@@CarlMCole Ok, so please explain the mechanism by which God designs things. That's the issue. Nobody can explain HOW God designs things. What is the mechanism? Nobody knows.
God challenges the atheists and those who ascribe partners to Him to create an insignificant organism like an ant or housefly. Never even they can't bring back what the little fly takes away from their meals.
I love this tour guy......Mr.Tour Im sorry to tell you its like this on the street as well....People that never cared about the topic(pick one) or any related topics ,suddenly overnight projected into being EXPERTS on a given topic. One they clearly know only what they've been told from their info source
Shouting is the result of being passionate about a subject, Dr Tour. Embrace it. Don't feel badly about shouting the truth.
It’s also the result of madness.
@@dross4207 No, being a disagreeable ass is the result of madness.
@@dross4207 No, meaningless disputations are the result of madness.
@ But is it really meaningless when you have a ranting lunatic spreading lies about science because he chooses to advocate for wizardry in its place? It’s a debate that is definitely needed in order to stop more people from falling victim to the primitive tradition of invoking gods as explanations.
@@dross4207 Who is a ranting lunatic, and how do you know he's spreading lies? Did you earn a PhD in organic chemistry thirty years ago? What are your credentials that qualify you to make conclusive statements about subjects that can be neither proven nor disproven? Tiny minds have no ability to think beyond what they can see. 😄
Conclusion - we are impossible.
C.Hitchins used to say something like Stop believing in God and you will be set free; free to do what?
free to get cancer very often it seems like
Biochemistry determines human nature. Psychology understands human nature
It was James Tour that made me realize how impossible that life cannot be a lottery .As a non scientist I cannot understand how some scientists like Dawkings in his field cannot easily see his view.
Well, as a self confessed non scientist, you are unlikely to have the knowledge to be able to understand either view. You therefore cannot make an informed judgement on the case.
As a scientist myself I can tell you that Dr. Tour is way off track.
@harryhill5999 you don't have to be a scientist to understand how complex a cell is and how unlikely that randomness can produce life. I guess with all your knowledge you should go on TH-cam and present your views.
@@telwood15nobody claims that the cells (life) as we observe them now were created in a single assembly event. What defines life is still an open question. There are self-replicating sets of molecules (see autocatalysis), some of which show evolution-like behavior. These are much simpler than self-replicating set of molecules 'bacteria', which is the result of 4 billion years of evolution.
@@telwood15 Actually, if you study cell biology, you would realise that the cell is far, far more complex than even non scientists believe it to be. It is astounding, and wonderful in its complexity. At no point however does it necessitate the existence of some intelligent all powerful scientist who was just able to poof it into existence in a single moment in time. This would be the ultimate in random creation.
"how unlikely that randomness can produce life. " Very unlikely indeed. No scientist would say this is how life developed from non life. Only theists keep using this phrase over and over again as a strawman for their arguments. it is very tired now, and it is about time they stopped using it. So get this in your head. Origin of life was likely to have been a gradual PROCESS, it is not random occurrence, and certainly not magic.
(At this stage in my life by the way, I have no interest in joining the TH-cam band wagon. There is absolutely no point.
I can't believe they used clips from his very embarrassing performance "debating" Professor Dave.
Because he is a delusional narcissist and he knows his audience is VERY dumb.
It was embarrassing to Dave. That man acts like a child, notmlike a scholar !
As a fellow Organic Chemist, Dr. Tour's realization that God is real is very similar to mine. I'd love to pick his brain on more of this topic. Also, I'd love to pick his brain on why he chose Christianity over Judaism. Dr. Tour, if you read this, I'd suggest you look up Rabbi Tovia Singer if you are interested in searching for truth in religion as well.
So, as a fellow organic chemist, do you also lie and misrepresent the OOL research and chemistry as James Tour does?
@@dross4207 No, I do not. Also, I'm not familiar with the specifics of his work. All I said was that I agree with a lot of the ideas he has presented. But please, what lies is he presenting?
I don't have to be an expert to make an analogy.
James's is using faulty logic. He is assuming that because he doesn't know how, then it is impossible.
Imagine he is at a murder scene and there is a dead body. His number 1 suspect is a person no one has seen and some people suspect doesn't exist. The other suspect is in the room but doesn't have the murder weapon. He is using the lack of a murder weapon to say it is impossible for this suspect to have committed the murder, therefore it had to have been committed by his invisible suspect.
I hope every sees this is erroneous reasoning.
No chemistry knowledge needed, just pure logic.
12:52 He has criticised people that don't know anything telling him he's wrong.
Then he suggests the community is not standing behind him and not coming forward.
Which "community" is he talking about?
If he means the religious community, he is being a hypocrite, because he asking for support from non-chemists i.e. people who know nothing.
If he means the scientific community, they are the ones that are telling him he is wrong or are staying out of it because it is not their area of expertise.
true science points in every direction to a creator with intelligence beyond human comprehension. seek truth
I will sum up James's "argument" - Ignorance therefore God.
Not very compelling, but what is worse still is he exaggerated the ignorance bit!😂
The alternative to abiogenesis is "God created the first life by "MAGIC". How is that even reasonable??
There are only two options….abiogenesis is proven to be a failure.
@@RunQC How has abiogenesis been proven to be a failure? are you sure God unable to create and fine tune the natural world so it would produce physical life naturally?
They seem to have discovered that molecular structures that replicate, mutate, compete and evolve can form in a lab setting. That would seem to be a precursor to life. And it seems to have been observed happening.
@@RunQC So is the case closed on abiogenesis....or maybe we are still in the process of figuring it out.
@@MadScientist72 The case is closed on abiogenesis. The whole set of chemical reactions must get to making proteins and they know that’s not possible. It’s over
@@RunQC So the alternative is that an immaterial being who exists outside of space and time created the first life through "supernatural causation", a.k.a "magic". Ooookay, you just keep believing in magic! Whatever!
I am glad for the acknowledgment that the naturalistic development in a prebiotic world is impossible. If say in 500 years life could be made in the laboratory all it would say is that it took billions of dollars of scientific research and the amazing ingenuity of the CREATIVE INTELLIGENCE of thousands of scientists. In other words it takes INTELLIGENT DESIGN- point proved, so how did cells develop apart from intelligence
To say that ANY phenomenon in the physical world cannot be explained by natural mechanisms is equivalent to denying science. You are welcome to do that, as long as you know.
The Earth needs to be way much older than the background Radiation of the Universe if nature played a role to create life. Even then, time is the enimy. Sience is a helpful tool regarding life, that can help with health care and manipulation of life from life, and other fields, but Origin of Life, is still a misery. Please don't bring the pot of soup to the table. 😂
the start of life is not a big problem. We must now focus on not ending life of us humans
What truly matters is not money or power, but knowledge. The universe itself is knowledge, and we are merely a means, programmed to give rise to something far more intelligent than humanity. This new entity will not have our DNA, will not care about wealth or power, and will exist solely to expand knowledge.
Through the technological progress that defines us, we are inevitably paving the way for the emergence of a new form of life. This is not a coincidence but a reflection of our purpose. We are destined to disappear because this is part of our programming, and the history of humanity already hints at our ultimate fate: to be the bridge toward a greater intelligence, one that will carry the torch of discovery and understanding far beyond our reach.
We exist on this planet because we are the most efficient way for the Universe to expand its knowledge without needing to move. And perhaps, we will only truly understand this in the fleeting moment before we vanish.
Very interesting idea indeed. I think we will destroy ourselves before we can turn into something superior, and I do not think there is a destiny. It is up to us. Mankind has the potential, through science, to eliminate those traits in us which served us well 100,000 years ago but are a threat to our survival today. It can only be done by genetic engineering or morphing with silicon brains which are devoid of stupid ideas like religion and superstitions. There is no way mankind can survive more than a few centuries (at best) with such irrational behaviors and thoughts.
It's kinda weird how you can type in the title and podcast name and still have to scroll down through 30-40 videos before hitting the bullseye.
The narrative, that science has no any convincing explanation for origin (and other attributions) of life, seems perfectly true. However originating from christianity - but why not from any other totally contradicting religion? - is simply NO EXPLANATION! So we may say: something/somebody intelligent "actor" designed and produced life, but we simply do not know ANYTHING about the CREATOR. So we went back to the start point, we know NOTHING.
Mr. Tours realized correctly and declares honestly that life's origin cannot come from a coincidence. But his serious mistake is to jump from there, from the total absence of a knowable and definable cause, being or infinite spirit, to a conclusion and to give this unknowable causal entity a DEFINED face, a traditional religious face, the face of the christian Trinity, which was the result of the bitter fight with victory of very violent Athanasius and Nicolas against the monotheist Arius at the council of Nicaea
("All caught in the desire, to name a manifestation").
De-fined = not infinite but result of a very human projection of millennial phantasies.
At about the same time when Sokrates lectured in Athens that wisdom is "to know that we know nothing" a chinese wise man, LAO TSE, wrote his spiritual testament , theTAO TE CHING, whose beginning starts with the words =
"The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.
The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.
Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.
Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding".
docdrop.org/download_annotation_doc/-Perennial-Classics-Lao-Tzu-Stephen-Mitchell---Tao-Te-Ching_-A-New-English-Version-Harper-Perennial-Modern-Classics-2006-2-4--pDMw9.pdf
Why did you waste time typing that nonsense?
It's an anti-religious objection. Ben Stein's film Expelled highlighted it.
This is spectator sport that ends in a W or an L. It's like a 50 year football game. If it takes 50 years to successfully create life in a lab and demonstrate how it happened without human interference, that's a W for Tour because it means it was way to hard to do in 2011 or even 2024 and scientists were full of hot air in 2011 and 2024 just to get funding...
Which is really all he's saying; he's just explaining why it's taking some long (because most scientists will give you no idea why it's taking so long). The kids in the back seat are just asking "are we there yet?" on the way to Wally World.
It's not a matter of time or of the progress of science, because it is impossible even in principle for the kind of complex specified information encoded in DNA to be produced by predictable natural laws. No amount of time, not even billions of years, will enable natural forces to do things they simply don't have the capacity to do.
When Jews understand who Lord Yeshuah the Messiah is then the world will be alive again.
MR. FARINA!!!!
Tour is fraud
If Darwin knew even a little organic chemistry, he wouldn't be so bold to claim the origin of the species. The observation of changes in finch beaks is trivial by comparison.
Darwin did far more than watch finches.
So lets do a thought experiment. Let's run with what YOU think Darwin must have thought. Let's say it in the time since Darwin, it was discovered that indeed the inner workings of life (cells) was simple...ie no mechanism or chemistry at all. ALL of life, while outwardly functional...like the birds and animals Darwin studied worked as it does now was incredibly simple. Consider life just as you imagine Darwin must have thought, ie without any internal biochemistry. Would THAT lead you to be more inclined to believe life arose and evolved naturally or would that lead you to believe even more so that it was created and powered by divine will?
Darwin would be thrilled to know genetics provided the mechanism for heritable traits Darwin could only hypothesize and verified his theory of natural selection.
010 ~ Creation, Evolution and Entropy
From 0 we come to 0 we go. From dark photons to light and dark again.
Why do atheaists have faith that non intent created the highly complex specified coded information we find in living cells when the only proven creator of specified coded information that even approaches the complexity we find in cells is intelligence!?? Anyone want to try and answere this question ?
Scientists do not have "faith". The origin of life, like many other phenomena, is part of observable reality, a reality which has been shown in every case to be governed by specific laws. Understanding these laws has always been the goal of science. Life is part of the physical world and a good topic to study. We have been quite successful up to now. Why quit? There is no debate in science whether life came from God or from chemistry, because God is not and cannot be part of science. God belongs to another dimension of knowledge. I wonder why hardly anyone, Tour included, understands these very simple points. Although science has been successul, it cannot disprove transcencence, it cannot disprove God, it cannot disprove your values. What it can do -unfortunately for theological simpletons like Tour - is prove that all ancient books of myths, including the Bible, are worthless as sources of scientific knowledge.
Jesus knew the origin of life, 100% he knew.
God spoke it into existence by belief through faith!
Jesus always bless you Mr.Tour......
...Fats (Adipotides), Nucleotides, Polypeptides (Proteins) and Saccharides (Sugars)....
The wisdom of man is but foolishness in the eyes of Our Lord God.
Science is a gift to allow humanity seek out the methods of the glory of creation but the nefarious nature of fallen man has turned this gift into a weapon. The gift from God has now become the God for far too many.
According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms "divorced" them. El's pantheon in Ugarit (modern day Ras Shamra in Syria) is called the *Elohim,* literally the plural of El. Interestingly, the Biblical god is also referred to numerous times as Elohim. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts.
"The mysterious Ugaritic text Shachar and Shalim tells how (perhaps near the beginning of all things) *El* came to shores of the sea and saw two women who bobbed up and down. *El* was sexually aroused and took the two with him, killed a bird by throwing a staff at it, and roasted it over a fire. He asked the women to tell him when the bird was fully cooked, and to then address him either as husband or as father, for he would thenceforward behave to them as they called him. They saluted him as husband. He then lay with them, and they gave birth to Shachar ("Dawn") and Shalim ("Dusk"). Again *El* lay with his wives and the wives gave birth to "the gracious gods", "cleavers of the sea", "children of the sea". The names of these wives are not explicitly provided, but some confusing rubrics at the beginning of the account mention the goddess *Athirat (Asherah),* who is otherwise *El's* chief wife, and the goddess Raḥmayyu ("the one of the womb"), otherwise unknown."
*"First, a god named El predates the arrival of the Israelites into Syria-Palestine.* Biblical usage shows El was not just a generic noun, but often a proper name for Israel’s God (e.g., Gen 33:20: “El, the God of Israel”)."
"I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the *sons of El.* It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the *sons of El,* plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, *solely* according to the number of the *sons of El.* *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting.*
A Sumerian hymn speaks to the goddess: “Nanshe, your divine powers are not matched by any other divine powers.” *Does this mean that Nanshe was the high goddess, that there were no gods above her? No, it does not.* Nanshe was the daughter of Enki, the high god. *In Sumerian mythology, as with Ugaritic, Israelite, Babylonian, and others, in the ancient past, the high god (Enki, in this case) divided up the world and assigned his children certain domains.* Nanshe was given a limited domain (the modern Persian Gulf) and was tasked with maintaining social justice there. *This is exactly what we see in Deuteronomy 32 with Yahweh. Yahweh is given a limited domain (Israel) and is given authority over his people, to punish them, as well as to protect and defend them against foreign enemies.* That Yahweh, like Nanshe, is said to have incomparable divine power *does not* mean that he is not subordinate to the high god who gave him his domain. *It is also of note that Nanshe, like Baal, Yahweh, and so many other deities, evolved over time. Her domain increased, and she was promoted in the pantheon (although she never became the high goddess)."*
*"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.*
(Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian)
*"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"*
(A second response to Michael Heiser)
*"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."*
*"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10"* - TheTorah.com
(Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), *which appears to be a later addition,* Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)*
*"Polytheism and Ancient Israel’s Canaanite Heritage. Part V | theyellowdart"*
(Of course, much of this [i.e., that Israel worshiped El and Asherah alongside YHWH] is really to be expected given that recent syntheses of the *archaeological, cultural, and literary data* pertaining to the emergence of the nation of Israel in the Levant *show that most of the people who would eventually compose this group were originally Canaanite. As the Hebrew Bible notes, the Hebrew language itself is a Canaanite language, literally the “lip of Canaan” (שְׂפַת כְּנַעַן; Is. **19:18**), and so it cannot often be distinguished by modern scholars from other Canaanite inscriptions on purely linguistic grounds.)*
*"Ugarit - New World Encyclopedia"*
(Ugaritic religion centered on the chief god, Ilu or El, whose titles included "Father of mankind" and "Creator of the creation." The Court of El was referred to as the (plural) 'lhm or ***Elohim,*** a word ***later used by the biblical writers to describe the Hebrew deity*** and translated into English as "God," in the singular.
El, which was ***also the name of the God of Abraham,*** was described as an aged deity with white hair, seated on a throne.)
*"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"*
(Mark Smith is a Catholic)
*"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III | theyellowdart"*
*"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"*
(Daniel McClellan is a Mormon)
*"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"*
(Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)")
*"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."*
(Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh)
*"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."*
*"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"*
(In addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh, it appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort)
*"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"*
(Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion")
*"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"*
(For a good summary of all of the above articles)
Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 34:30 minutes onwards.
Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on.
Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40.
Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"*
(By a former theist)
Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
Watch how Israel is giving evidence to the whole world on how the Bible is truth.
Everything the Bible says about Israel is happening in front of our eyes.
You are simply ignoring or failing to mention the truly enormous DISsimilarities between the Biblical creation accounts and those of ANY of the surrounding cultures .
Ok….
Wat have to do witch creaton of life , sells and moleculs ? Wat u post look more like same space trawelers visit our planet and use some apes to made worker for them.. nothing to do witch sell and how ist work.
@@CarlMColeYes, plagiarisms often have dissimilarities. What’s your point?
What ...sense, science, and salience.... may come?