Negative comments always comes from ignorant people that have nothing to offer. To all of the ones that understands Chemistry and mainly have common sense when learning from the experts, do not waste your time answering to the ignorant that do not want to learn. Use your time wisely. Thank you Dr. Tour for allowing us to know the truth about Science. We are now carefully checking who we can trust.
Tour doesn't know diddleysquat about evolution or abiogenesis. He just denies they are possible by natural means, because they aren't in his bible, which is the only text he ever takes seriously. It's why scientists ignore his opinions.
@@Greenie-43xYes, their level of childishness and ignorance is remarkable. As if James Tour is the only chemist who sees all the numerous chemical problems with life originating without any help
@MithrasTheElder if what he is saying is wrong, why do none of the experts in the field refute any of his claims? I watched the round table with Lee Cronin and he only disagreed with Tour on the significance of the problems. He didn't even address any of Tour's points. Since then I have watched several other origin of life scientists (mostly on Grayson Hawke's channel) and they generally don't claim Tour is wrong regarding the current status of our knowledge. They too just disagree on how much of a problem it all is.
@MithrasTheElder If he is so wrong, then someone should be able to point out where he is wrong. But it seems the only retorts that come ar ad-hominems. That's telling. Very telling.
So you can get screamed at like poor Dave Farina? Nah, the reason people won't debate Tour is because he's a religious fanatic, not a scientist. He stopped doing science years ago.
@ Actually that’s false, and you’re a Coward imagine being so upset by something you don’t even believe in to begin with😂😂😂 completely laughable going out of your way to comment on something you don’t believe in that’s pathetic dude don’t even bother searching anything to do with Christianity.
@@409RustyShackleford When and if Mr. Tour ever has evidence to disprove abiogenesis, no doubt he will publish it in a peer-reviewed journal, and not a dud forum like this.
@ it’s incredible how stupid you are get a life you clearly don’t have one of this is what makes you happy a real atheist doesn’t care about this stuff by the way they wouldn’t go out of their way to even bother with something they don’t believe in and what you said is false soo just go away😂
You could gather a pile of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, sulfur and phosphorus, like they've been doing since 1953 and can't "make" them do what the atheists/naturalists claim occured on a barren, prebiotic world.
Actually it's Tour who knows he has nothing of scientific value to offer OOL research. That's why he avoids submitting his creationist garbage for peer-reviewed publication and instead makes these creationist propaganda videos with their bogus "challenges". Tour is a Biblical creationist who traded in his scientific integrity in order to shill for his religious beliefs. No amount of teeth gnashing and pearl clutching by you creationist nitwits will change that.
In all the Tour videos on this topic the same Dave clones pop up over and over again. Poor Dave, so much time later and he's still desperate and embarrassed.
Dave's fans don't understand chemistry and don't care about chemistry. They watch for his entertaining insults. Dr.Tour is talking about chemistry but Dave just insults him and his fans think they're watching wrestling. Very sad.
@@jaybennett236He or 10 of your experts on the natural origin of life haven't answered a single question of Dr. Tour's 5 question 60 Day Challenge. They are legitimate questions. The first is demonstrating the prebiotic chemistry required for a single protein to form. All Dave has is chemical diagrams he thinks is proof of a Abiogenesis. Proteins account for 50% of the mass of prokaryotic cells.
@@Vernon-Chitlen You mean Tour's bogus creationist "challenge" with four demands for impossible levels of detail and one demand ("specified information") taken directly from the ID-creationist playbook? The "challenge" which got Tour laughed at even harder by actual OOL researchers? The "challenge" only designed to stir up his brutally ignorant followers just like you? 🤣🤣🤣
@@mirandahotspring4019 to believe in abiogenesis is religion. it is putting faith into something they want to be true but has no evidence. In fact their faith has to go against the science to believe in their religion.
One thing is certain: if scientists would have been all like Tour, none of them would have soiled their hands building an atomic bomb. We would all have personal nuclear reactors like the one in "Back to the future". 😄 We have people like Dawkins telling us the universe is merciless and indifferent and good and evil are meaningless ...
Mr. Tour, you should write a book for the public presenting the problems of OoL science through the lens of the required chemistry. Science must be popularized. Make a chapter about the way the scientists and the media distort the subject, about the bragging and failures, about the non-combat and the others that published scientific papers pointing out the problems only to be ignored ... I believe it is possible to present the problems in a manner where even laymen can understand it. I saw one of your presentations where you were talking about cookies and recipes: one does not simply add the frosting, there are required steps that must be followed. That was a great illustration. You were talking about reactions that require specific temperatures. If you need a hot rock and then a cube of ice for two succesive chemical reactions it should be clear you don't find both the hot rock and the cube of ice next to each other. Talk about the various OoL hypothesis and show the problems all of them have. Keep it 100% scientific, as you always do. Write for the layman but put citations in the same way you would do in a scientific paper. Have a chapter about probabilities ... Give us a tool that we can use when discussing origin of life with others. Allow us to rest in your scientific shadow. Have David Berlinski write the opening of the book or the ending chapter. You really should do this! It will be hard work but I think you should not let this opportunity go away.
Hah! If Tour could support any of his bullsh!t claims about OOL researchers he would have done so long ago. All he does is fling unsupported accusations so his clueless creationist fans like you will get all riled up.
@ROK-PSU I doubt there are any "related books". I never heard about anyone else to discuss OoL issues from the perspective James Tour is bringing. I don't know who are the know-nothings you speak of but I would definitely buy his book and read it. I think a lot of other people would read it and lots of other people would speak about it. To popularize science is important, right?
@@GeDePeU *I never heard about anyone else to discuss OoL issues from the perspective James Tour is bringing.* That's because no other scientist is as dishonest and shameless as Tour is.
Now there's an interesting argument. "If an intelligent being discovers how to do something, say, make lightning, then that proves everything in nature like lightning is intelligent designed and directed!" So every lightning bolt is directed by an intelligent being! You have some really weird ideas!
@MithrasTheElder The origin of lightning is presumed to be unintelligent, undirected. It's not been proven. Science presumes such things and cannot determine any conclusion on the subject
Tour is wise in saying he can never deny the future possibility of finding a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life... science always seeks naturalistic explanations. But one thing is certain, even if we do find a workable explanation, it will not supplant intelligent design. ID is an axiom for the origin of complex, information rich systems, like living systems.
Waiting for those whose understanding of science is limited to a one-time reading of On the Origin of Species and The God Delusion to claim greater knowledge than James Tour on the subject.
@MithrasTheElder Oh hi professor. Let me run this past you. Richard Dawkins developed a "scale of atheism" to represent the range of beliefs or positions people hold regarding the existence of God or gods. I have observed that many atheists rely heavily on laughing emojis to make their points. I wonder if it would be helpful for Christians to develop another scale using laughing emojis to rank atheists from 1🤣 = annoying and silly through to 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 = belligerent & sarcastic and culminating with 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 = Should be on a watch list. Then if one comes across a well know troller in the comments they can give the Christian engaged in dialogue with them a heads up: "Such a such is a 🤣🤣🤣 " or simply 🤣🤣🤣. It might be a time saver.
I have a silly question ... why all these OoL-researchers doing all these OoL-experiments in labs ? Why don't they go outside ? Did life emerge in some lab ? I don't get it...
Is that a serious question? Working in a lab allows scientists to control the variables in an experiment and change one or just a few parameters at a time. Virtually all science research is done that way.
@@martinjan2334 *how did nature control all these "variables / parameters" ?* Nature didn't have to. Nature had the entire planet and 500 million years to experiment. At least one combination ended up producing life. It only took one. You creationist fools just don't understand anything about science do you? 🙄
1. Life might have happened way before when physical conditions were different from today's. In a lab, you'd guess and create those. 2. It would difficult to observe and confirm when non-biological organic matter change to life. Like missing links. But in a lab, you could start from non-life conditions. Then if life appears, then most likely life from non-life organic matters, even you don't actively see it happening. Something like that, I guess.
Listed below are unanswered essential points that sufficiently justify the required corrections to the current teaching contents: 1. The formation of polypeptides via a prebiotic route. 2. The formation of polynucleotides via a prebiotic route. 3. The formation of polysaccharides via a prebiotic route. 4. Source of specified information in a living cell. 5. Assembly of a living cell given all the constituents parts. All the above and a few hundred other unsolved issues are beyond the current knowledge of the Origin of Life research scientist. Intellectual honesty requires that we inform the students and teachers that we currently have no clue on the functioning or making of a living cell or first life.
@@georgethomas9263 It's true that we don't have a scientific theory about abiogenesis as robust as evolution explaining the diversity of species once life had arisen. That doesn't mean it's impossible, nor that we cannot develop one, nor that we should stop research into it, as Tour and his Touristas want. We have made small steps in that direction, starting with the fact that all the basic building blocks of life are found abundantly in the cosmos. We also know that all the basic condensation reactions to build polymers from monomers will occur naturally under appropriate conditions. We also don't know of any scientific theory that says abiogenesis is in principle impossible. All we get from believers like Tour and his Touristas is god of the gaps arguments: We cannot understand it, therefore it must be false!
"Dear God, I know I am a sinner. I want to turn from my sins, and I ask for Your forgiveness. I believe that Jesus Christ is Your Son. I believe He died for my sins and that You raised Him to life. I want Him to come into my heart and to take control of my life. I want to trust Jesus as my Savior and follow Him as my Lord from this day forward. In Jesus' Name, amen." Did you pray to receive Jesus Christ and begin a relationship with him?
@MithrasTheElder "I'm happy to be mistaken for Dave - I have a great deal of respect for the guy, given what a demolition job he did of Mr Tour. :)" I actually like those comments from your clones. Every insult and empty comment proves that they have nothing to offer. It's very entertaining.
Just so you people know, Mithras is a known troll. I suspect that the main trolls who come here are the same people who when they were younger used to play MMO games and would run around begging for gold and items and generally be a pest to other players. Griefers. They would have high level characters and run around ganking newbies and stealing whatever they had and laugh about how cool and clever they were. They are now older and think that their MMO tactics work in the real world. Old habits never really die. That is what Mithras and pals are, nothing but childish griefers who get their jollies from being a big pain in the butt to other people. It's their whole reason for being. They love it. They can't get enough of it. They hide behind their online personas and think they are untouchable. Most of them have multiple personas, keep that in mind. You may think you are talking to two different people but very often it's the same troll using one of his alternate accounts. They LOVE doing that. Every once in a while you can catch them at it. They will forget which account they are using and flub up. If you are paying attention you can see it. Bottom line is, they love it. In some ways you could say they are professional trolls due to their multiple years of experience. They cut their teeth on MMO's. They are griefers for profit. Anyone who ever played MMO's back in the day knows what I am talking about.
@@littleacorn2244 What do you understand by scientific "evidence"? If you are so intelligent, it shouldn't be a problem for you to explain how the first primordial cell came into existence. My tip for you: Charles Darwin might be very helpful to you in this regard...😉😉😉😉😉😉😉😉😉
@@littleacorn2244 "Evidence?" Really? You mean you actually have something other than your ad homs and a great faith in your god Darwin? Gaia and Chronos? Is Earth your mommy and time your daddy?
@@littleacorn2244 LOL. Sure, sure. How convenient. Why don't you watch the video and find out what it takes to get life going. You're not a chemist are ya? You have no clue whatsoever. Face it, the only thing you will do is pontificate, demur, blabber on and puff yourself up. You got NOTHING. Go solve those problems Tour elucidated. You will win a Nobel prize and be world famous. Come on, show us what you got. Heck, if you can bring a cadaver back to life you will be world famous Dr. Frankenstein. Every item needed physically is right there at your fingertips. Should be easy right? If pure random chance can do it, surely you can since you are so smart. C'mon genius, let's see what you got.
Look at it like this. A friend walks up to you one day and says, "Here, I have a cake for you." You say, "Thank you." and ask him where he got it. He replies, "It just made itself over a long period of time." You would look at him and wonder if he was joking or what. That is exactly what the atheists are proposing here. The cake baked itself, no intelligence required. Just lots of time. Would anyone buy that excuse? Would you? Life, far exceeds a cake, in complexity and list of required ingredients. If you would laugh at someone trying to tell you a cake made itself, you are smarter than the atheists. You don't have to meet the actual baker to know this. You know that cakes just don't self assemble. Why would anyone believe that something far more complex than a cake could? It's completely irrational, unless you have a thing against bakers and wish it so. Still won't change reality though.
I think it is difficult to prove life formed without purpose and design. But in appearance it did, so therefore it must have is atheist logic I guess, and everything has to be made to fit that.
@MithrasTheElder Impossible you say? Do you exist? Are you a rock? I know you have them in your head but are you a rock? The evidence for God is right there in the mirror every time you look in it. The evidence for God is all around us, you just deny that it exists. Eyes wide shut. Believe whatever you want but all your trolling won't change reality. You aren't even a scientist. You are a GRIEFER. Plain and simple. Now, let's hear your screeching and wailing of ad homs and all the usual fluff you produce, we all know the one thing you won't provide is any logical proof of anything, other than your own petty wants and desires. Coo-coo strutting pigeon.
It sounds like they have been fraudulent in their claims and capitalising on people's ignorance. Then comes along one guy who actually knows the subject, who didn't get the memo and has now thrown a spanner in the works. Good 🙏
@@MarkPatmos Yes, Tour's claim that abiogenesis is impossible is easily refuted, because he's unable to provide any scientific hypothesis that proves it cannot happen. All he and you have is "I can't understand it, so it can't be real!" God of the gaps argumentation, and that's a huge philosophical fallacy.
@@MarkPatmos The most Tour can do, scientifically, is say we don't know how abiogenesis happened by natural means. That's true, so far as it goes. He wants that to mean it cannot possibly happen. We need your evidence for that bizarre claim. I get you prefer to believe in magic. Seriously???
If a scientist did create life in a lab that would be evidence that life can be intentionally designed by an intelligent being it would not be evidence that life happened by chance or accident.
Tour hasn't responded with science. Had he wanted to, he could have published his doubtlessly extensive research into how abiogenesis is impossible. Yet not a peep out of him about that! Amazing.
To those listening without ears to hear. Why are you here if not to learn? Clearly it shows that science, certainly chemistry, appears beyond your understanding. For while Dr James Tour shares his Faith, he does so within a solid framework of organic chemistry. His statements OoL researchers well know. Yet, in a presentation based on clear science, you ask for science. Understandably Trolls are without mind. What of the rest of you? If to learn, ask and you will be shown. If to make fools of yourself, you have done well.
What, exactly, has Mr Tour published showing that abiogenesis is impossible? We need chapter and verse, here. What are the actual arguments, because listening to Tour, I've never heard him make any statement he could justify scientifically.
@MithrasTheElderHe isn’t trying to show abiogenesis is impossible just making sure there is proper science being done. At least that is my understanding of it.
@MithrasTheElder What? His chemistry could not have been more clear. It is upon those claiming solutions to OoL questions, to prove their case. He merely debucks them, clearly showing their claims are built upon sand
28:00 Nothing can not make something by itself.... The Causeless Cause is real. Even if we don't agree on the specifics. Dr. Tour! Can I ask? Do you think the geometry of the word God is intentional!? G = rotational vector o = perfect form d = perfect form along a perfect line Cause that is VERY MEANINGFUL TO ME!
@MithrasTheElder This is a Uni-verse. So there is nowhere else to come from. Nothingness doesn't exist. As Nature abhors a vacuum and no matter how sparse you make it, it can only be emptier relative to something more full. Eg. the glass isn't half full, or half empty. It's always full. And God isn't an existence. It's a being. (Try not to confuse the two)
@MithrasTheElder There still is.... even in your own model, and even if you won't admit it. I worship The Causeless Cause. You worship Infinite Regress.
Why would the question of origins be less valid on another Planet than on our own? Is not the origin of ever planet within our solar system as valid as the origin of the Earth alone
You’re merely changing the location but the same problem exists, how did dirt and water form the first cell? It’s a “sleight of hand” con trick pulled by desperate darwinoatheists like Dawkins (he said aliens seeded earth in “Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed” and is on my TH-cam channel) to try and either…….. 1) lessening the improbability by ‘suggesting” it being probable and likely 2) change the location, this change the subject is a tactic to stop the train of thought 3) appealing to authoritative gatekeeping 4) appealing to academic gatekeeping
It's impossible to determine where any such theoretical organism came from. It could have come from earth, it could've been created on that planet or some other planet. Finding life on Mars proves nothing. The concern is unscrupulous scientists would misinterpret such data and jump to unscientific conclusions.
Do you think that if they were successful in putting together life in a lab that MAYBE just MAYBE they would appreciate that God had done such an amazing feat after they repeated any of His achievements? Mark 9:39 But Jesus said, “Do not stop him; for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me.
Because these videos are in the public domain and so I can see them. I disagree with a lot of what Tour says, or how he says it. Why are you here commenting?
@@rolandwatts3218 here why I’m here and commenting….. 1) the universe came from nothing 2) the universal laws came from nothing 3) time came from nothing 4) periodic table came from nothing 5) life came from none life (soup? Vents? Crystals?) 6) all life past/present, male/female, creature/vegetation came from a cell with absolutely no transitional fossil evidence….fact 7) darwinoatheists have no free will (Dawkins/Krause/Pinker/Tyson/Farina) 8) all darwinoatheists have no purpose in life (Dawkins again), yet make a point of attacking ID 9) 100% of darwinoatheists live a life claiming the stupidity theism yet live a life by stealing/grafting/borrowing from a moral code inspired by a God they deny exists! 10) if you ask a pathetic darwinoatheist what has more value, a disabled child or a full functioning elephant, they would say the child but cannot use darwinoatheism to understand how they came to this conclusion 11) ask a darwinkatheist if life is precious, they should say no as it’s just chemicals from their mere material view, yet darwinoatheists claim life is precious, but cannot explain why? 12) darwinoatheism has had nothing but a toxic/corrosive/poisonous impact on society making it more divided/splintered/fractured via eugenics, along with… A) abortion is just another contraception B) euthanasia for mere mental illness C) lifestyles that are contrary to nature and that do not produce offspring (foetus) treated as normal D) clear mental illness where XY chromosome humans claiming to be XX chromosome humans allowed in XX sports/XX spaces and liberated as normal E) drag queen story time F) hormone suppressants for children without parental consent in some cases G) double mastectomies/castrations for teens who are clearly in need of mental support H) pedo behaviour now reduced to MAP’s (Minor Attracted Persons) I) 1 woman can have 2, 3, 4 children by as many different men treated as liberation J) 1 man can have 2, 3, 4 children by as many different women without being responsible for any treated as liberation K) drug abuses now considered lifestyle choices L) darwinoatheists totally oblivious to the 120mill deaths caused directly via darwinoatheism in the past 100 years by Zedong/Stalin/Pot M) darwinoatheists totally silent on the clear detrimental impact of capitalist/political/asset stealing wars (Gulf wars/Vietnam/Korea/Ukraine) to name but a few N) darwinoatheists completely silent on the detrimental impact of capitalist processed foods and their links to poor health and impact on local farming Suffice I could go on adding other negative impacts on humanity that you give clear tacit support for 13) if you ask a darwinoatheist if deception/lies/rape/cannibalism in the animal kingdom are wrong, they say no, yet why is it wrong for homo erectus to practice these things? 14) ask a darwinoatheist if incest is wrong, they say yes but cannot rationalise their response with darwinoatheism Suffice I could go on, but the point is, you damn well need objective theistic moral values because without them you’re f*cking clueless. Every breathing moment of your pointless, free will devoid existence you live a life by stealing the morality from Christianity because you a bare faced coward who is too mentally/emotionally/intellectually pusillanimous to live your life by the very world view you claim to accept as reality. Without theism you wouldn’t even know what a woman is! Even Scooby Do was not this confused
@@zuukash You clearly have no science point to make. Abiogenesis is impossible, if not, prove it! As for his comment on evolution, what he meant is that its claims make no sense, that's why he doesn't understand it..
Evolution is nonsensical. The mechanism is speculative. Mutation can make minor changes from parent to child, but mutations are generally nullified in reproduction, especially sexual reproduction. And all our observation shows serious limits to variation. Think about Titin, one of the largest proteins in all animalia species...over 30,000 aminos in length. Explain how mutations could create 30,000 specifically sequenced aminos occur so early in the development of life. Evolution is nonsense when you understand the scope of the problem. If you ignore the details, then sure, Evolution is easy to accept
@ Agreed! When you see that it takes enzymes (proteins) to create proteins in the first place, and when you learn about quantum tunneling as opposed to "lock and key" conformational change as the mechanism of action of enzymes, you would have to believe in Magic Molecules to believe in abiogenesis..
You truly have to be insane to believe (literally believe) that water and broken down rocks……. 1) formed the first cell 2) evolved into a fish 3) Evolved into a frog 4) evolved into a prince All accomplished with zero/nada/no evidence.
@ there more “hard evidence” for my God than….. 1) the universe came from nothing 2) the universal laws came from nothing 3) time came from nothing 4) periodic table came from nothing 5) life came from none life (soup? Vents? Crystals?) 6) all life past/present, male/female, creature/vegetation came from a cell with absolutely no transitional fossil evidence….fact 7) darwinoatheists have no free will (Dawkins/Krause/Pinker/Tyson/Farina) 8) all darwinoatheists have no purpose in life (Dawkins again), yet make a point of attacking ID 9) 100% of darwinoatheists live a life claiming the stupidity theism yet live a life by stealing/grafting/borrowing from a moral code inspired by a God they deny exists! 10) if you ask a pathetic darwinoatheist what has more value, a disabled child or a full functioning elephant, they would say the child but cannot use darwinoatheism to understand how they came to this conclusion 11) ask a darwinkatheist if life is precious, they should say no as it’s just chemicals from their mere material view, yet darwinoatheists claim life is precious, but cannot explain why? 12) darwinoatheism has had nothing but a toxic/corrosive/poisonous impact on society making it more divided/splintered/fractured via eugenics, along with… A) abortion is just another contraception B) euthanasia for mere mental illness C) lifestyles that are contrary to nature and that do not produce offspring (foetus) treated as normal D) clear mental illness where XY chromosome humans claiming to be XX chromosome humans allowed in XX sports/XX spaces and liberated as normal E) drag queen story time F) hormone suppressants for children without parental consent in some cases G) double mastectomies/castrations for teens who are clearly in need of mental support H) pedo behaviour now reduced to MAP’s (Minor Attracted Persons) I) 1 woman can have 2, 3, 4 children by as many different men treated as liberation J) 1 man can have 2, 3, 4 children by as many different women without being responsible for any treated as liberation K) drug abuses now considered lifestyle choices L) darwinoatheists totally oblivious to the 120mill deaths caused directly via darwinoatheism in the past 100 years by Zedong/Stalin/Pot M) darwinoatheists totally silent on the clear detrimental impact of capitalist/political/asset stealing wars (Gulf wars/Vietnam/Korea/Ukraine) to name but a few N) darwinoatheists completely silent on the detrimental impact of capitalist processed foods and their links to poor health and impact on local farming Suffice I could go on adding other negative impacts on humanity that you give clear tacit support for 13) if you ask a darwinoatheist if deception/lies/rape/cannibalism in the animal kingdom are wrong, they say no, yet why is it wrong for homo erectus to practice these things? 14) ask a darwinoatheist if incest is wrong, they say yes but cannot rationalise their response with darwinoatheism Suffice I could go on, but the point is, you damn well need objective theistic moral values because without them you’re f*cking clueless. Every breathing moment of your pointless, free will devoid existence you live a life by stealing the morality from Christianity because you a bare faced coward who is too mentally/emotionally/intellectually pusillanimous to live your life by the very world view you claim to accept as reality. Without theism you wouldn’t even know what a woman is! Even Scooby Do was not this confused
@@thunderous-one Sweetums, where did your magical god come from? Without science, you wouldn't know how to turn a computer on to spill bilge on the internet.
@@thunderous-one 1)how do you know that? 2)how do you know that? 3)how do you know that? 4)periodic table is a human attempt at formalizing the properties of elements. light ones like Hydrogen/Helium formed during the big bang, the heavier ones are formed in the stars. 5)life came from non-life. It is true for both naturalistic and religious models. If i remember correctly christian God made us from dust or dirt something like that. 6)no transitional fossils? Really? And you are talking about homo erectus in 13 point. So homo erectus is what? And who were Homo heidelbergensis, Homo ergaster, Homo habilis,Homo rudolfensis?How about Tiktaalik? 7) Thats the first time i hear darwinoatheist term. Some atheists think they have. How do theists think they have the free will if they were created by all knowing God, which meant he foresaw the sins and stuff and allowed that to happen? 8)Some atheists think they have a purpouse in life, its just not dictated by God for them. 9) Some atheist think that religion CLAIMS that moral code omes from God. Have you Heard about The game theory, or maybe the evolution of altruism? 10)the value is a vague definition. I would say that it depends on the level of disability. You still can be fertile, socially functioning with high cognitive abilities yet disabled, so still valuable to society. More valuable than elephant because elephant cant produce offspring with human, cant contribute to society by intellectual work, which is more valuable than physical. 11) some of atheist dont think that life is precious, but if group of people start practise hunting humans for meat or other self-destructive behavior they die out so do their phylosophy and lifestyle, so selection favors those who see life as something valuable 12) A lot of claims about all the atheists without realisation that they also can be different and have different phylosophies while not believing in God. I am not gonna adress all of them, sorry i am too lazy, pick some if you insist. There were many horrible things made in the name of God, like you know the phrase:'"Gott mit uns" and the conext it was used in? 13) cannibalism can lead to hunting its own species, not good for surviving especially for highly social creatures that rely for one another. Rape can cause physical damage + if woman gets pregnant and her husband doesnt know about this, then he will raise a child with different genes, and those who allow it are not favourited by selection because they are worse at spreading their own genes ( you spend recoures on children of others you are less likely to spend enough on your own if you have one) 14) the incest is more likely to produce the infertile and weak offspring, against the selection, in complete compatibility with darwinism So tell me how did ancient empires formed even before your God sent the moral rules for living. Big groups of people were somehow capable of not shreading each other in pieces before the Christ, so maybe ethics arises naturally? Sorry for my bad english, its my second language/
What would be the point? The problem is not religious, is scientific. The chemical processes proposed for abiogenesis do not seem to be able to produce the expected results. This does not change regardless one is an atheist or a believer.
@@GeDePeU This request is for James, but if you want to establish a debate on SFT, you can go there and request one with any criteria you would like. As for the point, there are a lot of atheist "scientists" who debate age of earth, evolution, existence of God, etc. there. They are usually parrots and make claims like "no scientist..." I would love to see them debate the likes of James Tour with his credentials and knowledge.
@@BlessedLaymanNC I believe you are missing the point: if you debate as atheist vs Christian on any subject the discussion will devolve to "You believe in sky daddy stupid!". I had a lot of talks myself with atheists and generally, in the end it comes to that. He should debate other scientists, not atheists.
NASA doesn't debate the Flat Earth clowns either. This is just Tour doing his usual grandstanding for his Fundy creationist fanbois. If Tour wanted an actual debate he'd do it in the professional science literature the way honest scientists do.
You know, it's perfectly fair to say that we still don't have a robust theory of abiogenesis. It's reasonable to critique particular experiments and hypotheses and point out their limitations. But of course, no scientist has ever claimed they'd demonstrated how it happened, only that various hypothetic intermediate reactions will occur naturally without a designer making them work. If Tour were an honest man, rather than a creationist busy trying to appear scientific, he'd admit he has no evidence against abiogenesis, and that it's a perfectly reasonable scientific question to ask how life could begin naturally. But he can't even bring himself to do that.
@MithrasTheElder When you already bragged you can make life in the lab in the next five years and the deadline expired ten years ago is a little bit hard to admit you actually have no clue how to put all the molecules together, if you have the skill to make them. All you guys have is ad hominem and zero scientific arguments.
If James Tour would be a clown I would agree with you but he is one of the top 20 synthetic chemists in the world. If the top 20 rocket scientist in the world would say there is a problem with the spaceship we are sending to Mars and NASA would ignore him because he is "unworthy" I would pull the plug on NASA instantly and probably fire the management there. If the top 20 synthetic chemist in the world is telling you your origin of life chemistry is crap and does not produce the results you claim and you ignore him, I will not think he is a clown but instead that you are a liar.
@@GeDePeU Sweetums, I never "bragged you can make life in the lab in the next five years" so that's just another creo lie to pile on the heap of lies creationists believe are true. Do any of you lot actually READ your silly bible? There are rules about lying, even to or about non-believers.
@MithrasTheElder Oh ... by "you" you understood "YOU personally". We were talking about scientist in general in this thread. I was hinting at Lee Cronin who bragged about making life in the lab and ... obviously failed. Thank you for your encouragement in my Bible studies! I am really slacking! Nonetheless I fell pretty safe on the lying matter! 🤣
I'd also ask Mr. Tour how old he thinks the earth is. Does he take the book of Genesis as literal history, or allegory? His religious take on abiogenesis makes questions like that relevant.
No it does not. Weather the current proposed mechanisms for abiogenesis work or not have nothing to do with James Tour's take on religion. He is not making a scientific case for God but a scientific case against bad science. If any scientist could prove him wrong they would do it. They can't.
@@GeDePeU Abiogenesis isn't bad science. How is it "bad science" to look for a natural explanation for the origin of life? We discovered the explanation for the origin of its diversity, evolution, after all. Only fools like Tour pretend that magic is needed for the beginning of life.
@MithrasTheElder He is not claiming magic. He claims science: bad science from a very biased and corrupt scientific field! I do not have a problem with you looking for a scientific explanation to confirm you presuppositions (even if you do not offer the same courtesy to those that do not share your ideas). Feel free to do it. Just stop making scientific claims that are obviously not making sense. Claiming you can get life in a dirty pool of water under a rock is not a scientific claim but a religious one because it requires faith instead of knowledge.
@@GeDePeU How is abiogenesis bad science? If you had any scientific education at all, which clearly you lack, you might have a point to make, but so far all I see is a kneejerk defence of your fellow-creo, Tour, who knows no biochemistry either. I could give both of you some lectures on the subject.
Sounds like you're pleading time of the gaps. But time works against current theories of abiogenesis. There isn't enough time in a billion universes to form even one simple enzyme, and then you just have one, and it breaks down long before the next one can form at random.
Mr Tour's opinion about abiogenesis is just an opinion, a layman's opinion, as he does no research in the field. As a chemist, he may be an informed layman, but he's not involved in the field, because he thinks the field isn't real. And worse, his biblical prejudices compel him to turn a blind eye to the evidence supporting abiogenesis, and simply deny that it's significant. Now, I'm a layman in the field as well, as is likely every contributor to this forum. But I do note that all the major biochemical precursors involved in life today are also found in outer space, on meteors and asteroids. The earth would have been amply seeded with these, even if no internal chemistry was generating them, which seems unlikely. I also note that many of these precursors have been formed in artificial conditions simulating conditions on an early earth a few hundred million years after initial formation. Of course, we could be wrong about the age of the earth, but if so, we've likely under-estimated it than grossly over-estimated it. Mr. Tour needs to come clean on his view about the earth's actual antiquity.
The earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and life has existed on earth for approximately 4 billion years. It is possible that life currently exists on Mars and in the atmosphere of Venus, as well as on moons of the gas giants. Life arose through purely natural processes (abiogenesis) and “intelligent design” played no role whatever. James Tour is not yet aware of the precise mechanisms by which abiogenesis occurred, and has published an extensive critique of the field in video format.
He never brings God on the table when talking about science. You are lying. Because you lack scientific arguments all you do is ad hominem and strawman, trying to shift the discussion from a scientific perspective to a faith based talk so you could dismiss it. There is no credible evidence for abiogenesis. If it were any evidence Lee Cronin as a leader in the field of abiogenesis would have presented it to James Tour but instead he did the same thing you do: ad hominem by claiming JT is a believer therefore ... scientific irrelevance. Then he proceeded stating he is a materialist therefore he believes this and that (about science and origin of life), not noticing the irony and hypocrisy of his position.
@@GeDePeU The ONLY reason Tour has for opposing ALL research into abiogenesis is because he has a nutty belief that the book of Genesis IS a literal history of creation. He never discusses evolution because he knows that denying evolution would explode his scientific credibility on the one hand, but affirming it would annoy his fellow creos on the other. So he keeps mum about it.
The question I'd ask Mr. Tour is, if he has solid scientific evidence that disproves abiogenesis, why doesn't he publish it in a major scientific journal like _Nature_ or _Science?_ Why leave it for his personal sounding board where he can delete everyone who points out the fallacies?
The editors of those journals would never publish anything against their narrative and their religion. Why don't they simply publish something that shows abiogenesis can be done in the lab ?
@@bobdalton2062 Bob, science is self-correcting - had you ever studied any you would have known that. If a theory is wrong, it gets discarded, like the flat earth and creationism, two sides of the same dud coin! The Christian church almost strung Galileo up when he suggested that Copernicus was right - and even Copernicus had delayed publication till after his death. Just because abiogenesis is still a research project rather than a well established theory like evolution doesn't magically mean it's impossible, it's just that it's a little hard to recreate all the probable conditions on an early earth in the lab, then wait around for a few hundred million years. We know of no hypothesis or principle that proves it's impossible, however much Mr. Tour screams and waves chalk around. And even once we discover a feasible route for abiogenesis, you lot would simply deny it, just like flat earthers deny the earth is a globe moving around the sun. To folk like you and Mr Tour, religious doctrine is much more important than reality.
I fear that you are missing the point about Dr. Tour. Dr. Tour does not say that abiogenesis did not happen ... rather, he says that the claims made by Big Science that they have proven abiogenesis (or even show it to be likely) is based on junk science or faulty argumentation. Now, to be fair, Dr. Tour believes that life was created by God and he holds that as a theological claim. A theological claim that is not refuted by science. But as a scientist, he is remaining neutral on first life because as a scientist, he can prove neither abiogenesis nor Special Creation. (I use the word "proof" several times because of how we use it in these discussions. Rather, I mean evidence that is scientific or logic based argument.)
Dr. Tour has never claimed to have scientific evidence that disproves abiogenesis. Instead, his claim is that the mechanism by which abiogenesis occurred is not yet fully understood.
Tour's fans love to complain he isn't motivated by religion yet in the *very video* we get fully half the sections pushing his religious views - Academic Journey: How Faith Shaped His Career - Faith in Research: Integrating Beliefs and Science - Faith in Action: Sharing the Gospel at University - Complexity of Life: Why Spontaneous Life Fails - Personal Faith: How God Shapes His Worldview - Academic Witness: Encouraging Christian Scholars Even his organization is called "JesusAndScience". Then you fools sit there with a straight face and claim Tour's attacks on OOL and evolution aren't motivated by his creationist beliefs. 🙄
@@stevenwiederholt7000 He *pretends* it isn't about his creationist beliefs just like the DI lies about ID-creationism when pushing it even now. It doesn't fool anyone in the science community, only his ignorant followers who love being fooled.
@@stevenwiederholt7000 I see you're one more gullible sap who loves being fooled by Tour too. The biggest tell is Tour still refuses to submit any of his garbage critiques for professional peer-review. His excuse is the standard big lie "the Evil Atheist Conspiracy censors all creationist work!" 😅
Well Billy. I'll pray especially for your soul. Because anyone who truly follows the creator of the universe believes in his word. His word is truth. Jesus died for the sins of ALL of those who receive him by faith... I'll pray that you receive his grace and mercy. Godly sorrow worketh repentance. It's the gift of eternal life in Jesus Christ! God says. I WILL take your heart of stone and I WILL give you a heart of flesh. One that will follow me... I was so wrong for so much of my life. Now I'm filled with joy and peace and HOPE. Nothing but Jesus can give you true hope. That you will love not your life unto death. He's better than anything. Everything is trash when weighed on the scales of life. He alone gives this. A new life,a new spirit. Born of water and spirit.
james u lost the last of ur credebility when u were liike ´bible say earth 6000 years old science say world older so i belive bible BUT i cant VET that´ haHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
He lost no credibility Carbon 14 literally debunks every evolution myth ever created along with helium All evidence for a young and created earth If you can’t be bothered to learn to cook stop trying to lecture chefs
@@Unique_Monk *_Carbon 14 literally debunks every evolution myth ever created along with helium_* - While I realise that creos aren't the best and brightest amongst us, could you enlighten us merely scientifically educated folk exactly how He or C-14 debunk anything at all? C-14 is constantly formed when a negatively charged cosmic ray particle strikes a N-14 proton in the stratosphere and converts it into a neutron, thus changing it as an element. C-14 then decays back to N-14 by emitting a beta particle (electron) with a half-life of 5700±30 years. This limits the practical dating capability for C-14 to about 50,000 years, though other longer-lived nuclides (such as K-Ar dating) can be used for measurements up to billions of years. The oldest living trees include a bristlecone pine in California which has been dated to ~5,000 years old (and tree ring comparisons with older stumps and trunks extend that to about 12,000 years), and a Swedish spruce which is about 10,000 years old. Bishop Ussher who calculated the age of the earth based on bible mythology and declared it was created on Oct 23, 4004 BC, must be spinning in his grave by now. Helium is generated in stars by nuclear fusion of hydrogen, and indeed all higher elements are made in stars and their supernovas. So in a sense, we are made of star-stuff. Bit hard to squeeze all that into a 6000 year time span. You couldn't even squeeze plate tectonics into that, as we'd have the plates screaming around the earth at the speed of slow freight trains, generating enough heat to melt the entire crust in the process. Have you ever considered completing your high school education? Because all that is high school stuff. You don't even need a degree to know stuff like this.
@@Unique_Monk James Tour did not say that buddy. You took the bait. Also, you should not claim a young Earth when clearly it is old. Being old is not contrary to the Biblical story. The Genesis is not a scientific account but a colloquial account of who is responsible for us being here. The stuff you say about Carbon 14 makes no sense.
James, you have magic thinking 🙄, what happens to you? That ideas full of miracles, magic eternal omnipotent deities that create, protect and save is unreal, absurd and not cientific. 🤦 Please stop saying all this as a scientist, you are spreading misinformation 🫵🧑⚕️. 🏃
Love and blessings to you Dr.James Tour, in Jesus Holy name.✝️🙏
Negative comments always comes from ignorant people that have nothing to offer. To all of the ones that understands Chemistry and mainly have common sense when learning from the experts, do not waste your time answering to the ignorant that do not want to learn. Use your time wisely. Thank you Dr. Tour for allowing us to know the truth about Science. We are now carefully checking who we can trust.
Tour doesn't know diddleysquat about evolution or abiogenesis. He just denies they are possible by natural means, because they aren't in his bible, which is the only text he ever takes seriously. It's why scientists ignore his opinions.
@jennykingston3097 and just as you described.... they start to trickle in.😃
God bless you!
@@Greenie-43xYes, their level of childishness and ignorance is remarkable. As if James Tour is the only chemist who sees all the numerous chemical problems with life originating without any help
@MithrasTheElder if what he is saying is wrong, why do none of the experts in the field refute any of his claims?
I watched the round table with Lee Cronin and he only disagreed with Tour on the significance of the problems. He didn't even address any of Tour's points. Since then I have watched several other origin of life scientists (mostly on Grayson Hawke's channel) and they generally don't claim Tour is wrong regarding the current status of our knowledge. They too just disagree on how much of a problem it all is.
@MithrasTheElder If he is so wrong, then someone should be able to point out where he is wrong. But it seems the only retorts that come ar ad-hominems. That's telling. Very telling.
God bless you Dr.
Thank you Dr Tour ♥️✝️
Thank you, Dr. JamesTour, for all you do. We love your Sir and we are praying for you.
I say this constantly! Debate James about the origin of life!!! ❤️🔥🙏
@@hunterhestekin7420 they are cowards 🤣
So you can get screamed at like poor Dave Farina? Nah, the reason people won't debate Tour is because he's a religious fanatic, not a scientist. He stopped doing science years ago.
@ Actually that’s false, and you’re a Coward imagine being so upset by something you don’t even believe in to begin with😂😂😂 completely laughable going out of your way to comment on something you don’t believe in that’s pathetic dude don’t even bother searching anything to do with Christianity.
@@409RustyShackleford When and if Mr. Tour ever has evidence to disprove abiogenesis, no doubt he will publish it in a peer-reviewed journal, and not a dud forum like this.
@ it’s incredible how stupid you are get a life you clearly don’t have one of this is what makes you happy a real atheist doesn’t care about this stuff by the way they wouldn’t go out of their way to even bother with something they don’t believe in and what you said is false soo just go away😂
Nice Work Jim Stay Passionate
A passionate Liar For Jesus is still a liar.
@@littleacorn2244 Cope
@@sabhishek9289 Get an education.
@littleacorn2244 are you Cronin's mum?
I truly believe if I were sitting in the desert waiting on life to show up without God it would never happen no matter how long I waited.
You could gather a pile of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, sulfur and phosphorus, like they've been doing since 1953 and can't "make" them do what the atheists/naturalists claim occured on a barren, prebiotic world.
change without to with and your statement is just as true.
Blessings
To those who criticize Dr. Tour and his positions, and with apologies to The Bard "Methinks They doth protest too much"
Against Dr. James Tour - they know they have nothing - and they can't BS their way out of things!
Actually it's Tour who knows he has nothing of scientific value to offer OOL research. That's why he avoids submitting his creationist garbage for peer-reviewed publication and instead makes these creationist propaganda videos with their bogus "challenges". Tour is a Biblical creationist who traded in his scientific integrity in order to shill for his religious beliefs. No amount of teeth gnashing and pearl clutching by you creationist nitwits will change that.
Dr Tour the best thank you from Spain
In all the Tour videos on this topic the same Dave clones pop up over and over again. Poor Dave, so much time later and he's still desperate and embarrassed.
Doesn't sound desperate OR embarrassed !
Dave's fans don't understand chemistry and don't care about chemistry. They watch for his entertaining insults. Dr.Tour is talking about chemistry but Dave just insults him and his fans think they're watching wrestling. Very sad.
@@jaybennett236He or 10 of your experts on the natural origin of life haven't answered a single question of Dr. Tour's 5 question 60 Day Challenge. They are legitimate questions. The first is demonstrating the prebiotic chemistry required for a single protein to form. All Dave has is chemical diagrams he thinks is proof of a Abiogenesis. Proteins account for 50% of the mass of prokaryotic cells.
@@Vernon-Chitlen You mean Tour's bogus creationist "challenge" with four demands for impossible levels of detail and one demand ("specified information") taken directly from the ID-creationist playbook? The "challenge" which got Tour laughed at even harder by actual OOL researchers? The "challenge" only designed to stir up his brutally ignorant followers just like you? 🤣🤣🤣
That's what happens when you make someone with narcissistic tendencies look bad they never get over it.
thank you!
Thank you, Dr. Tour.
Love and blessings dear brother.
The debate should be named: "Abiogenesis: The Origin of Lies." 😂
That would be religion, the origin of lies.
@@mirandahotspring4019 You are obviously biased!
@@GeDePeU No, just a rational thinker
@@mirandahotspring4019 to believe in abiogenesis is religion. it is putting faith into something they want to be true but has no evidence. In fact their faith has to go against the science to believe in their religion.
@@mirandahotspring4019
So as a rational thinker, you deny that subject of Abiogenesis is full of lies?
"Does the critic still want to dispute Shaddai? Let him who wants to correct God give an answer!"
Tour rocks !
In his head
He is a superb scientist and very brave to tackle this den of snakes that is OoL research.
Dr. Tour is what chemistry should be 😊
No. No science should be about unfounded attacks by a religious fanatic seeking only to push his religious/political agenda.
One thing is certain: if scientists would have been all like Tour, none of them would have soiled their hands building an atomic bomb. We would all have personal nuclear reactors like the one in "Back to the future". 😄
We have people like Dawkins telling us the universe is merciless and indifferent and good and evil are meaningless ...
Mr. Tour, you should write a book for the public presenting the problems of OoL science through the lens of the required chemistry. Science must be popularized.
Make a chapter about the way the scientists and the media distort the subject, about the bragging and failures, about the non-combat and the others that published scientific papers pointing out the problems only to be ignored ...
I believe it is possible to present the problems in a manner where even laymen can understand it. I saw one of your presentations where you were talking about cookies and recipes: one does not simply add the frosting, there are required steps that must be followed. That was a great illustration.
You were talking about reactions that require specific temperatures. If you need a hot rock and then a cube of ice for two succesive chemical reactions it should be clear you don't find both the hot rock and the cube of ice next to each other.
Talk about the various OoL hypothesis and show the problems all of them have. Keep it 100% scientific, as you always do. Write for the layman but put citations in the same way you would do in a scientific paper.
Have a chapter about probabilities ...
Give us a tool that we can use when discussing origin of life with others. Allow us to rest in your scientific shadow.
Have David Berlinski write the opening of the book or the ending chapter.
You really should do this! It will be hard work but I think you should not let this opportunity go away.
Hah! If Tour could support any of his bullsh!t claims about OOL researchers he would have done so long ago. All he does is fling unsupported accusations so his clueless creationist fans like you will get all riled up.
@@GeDePeU Wonderful idea, but related books are in print. Do you seriously think any of these know-nothings read them
@ROK-PSU Do you think actual science is done by laymen publishing popular press books?
@ROK-PSU I doubt there are any "related books". I never heard about anyone else to discuss OoL issues from the perspective James Tour is bringing.
I don't know who are the know-nothings you speak of but I would definitely buy his book and read it.
I think a lot of other people would read it and lots of other people would speak about it. To popularize science is important, right?
@@GeDePeU *I never heard about anyone else to discuss OoL issues from the perspective James Tour is bringing.* That's because no other scientist is as dishonest and shameless as Tour is.
❤❤❤❤❤
Arguing with those who CREATED their own fields of science (Evolution, gender/women studies, etc.) is rarely going to produce fruit.
They don't have anything but ad-hominems to offer.
Well, you've never managed to provide any evidence for your god!
If they build a synthetic cell they will get a prize for proving Intelligent Design was necessary.
Now there's an interesting argument. "If an intelligent being discovers how to do something, say, make lightning, then that proves everything in nature like lightning is intelligent designed and directed!" So every lightning bolt is directed by an intelligent being! You have some really weird ideas!
@MithrasTheElderIf something is designed by a conscious mind that is evidence for self-formation without purpose and design. Atheist logic.
@MithrasTheElder The origin of lightning is presumed to be unintelligent, undirected. It's not been proven. Science presumes such things and cannot determine any conclusion on the subject
@@sbgtrading So is evolution. Otherwise we wouldn't have idiots like god-botherers around.
Tour is wise in saying he can never deny the future possibility of finding a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life... science always seeks naturalistic explanations. But one thing is certain, even if we do find a workable explanation, it will not supplant intelligent design. ID is an axiom for the origin of complex, information rich systems, like living systems.
Nope, we've seen no evidence for any intelligent designer. Humans who believe in magic aren't examples of intelligence.
@MithrasTheElder There's plenty of evidence...you're just misinterpreting it because you are biased against ID.
@MithrasTheElder Then you need to define evidence. The information in DNA IS evidence. Don't conflate evidence with proof.
@@jon__doe Ignore him. He is just trolling.
@@GeDePeU Yet many good conversations have started this way with folks who just chime in. The troll may never respond, but someone out there may.
Waiting for those whose understanding of science is limited to a one-time reading of On the Origin of Species and The God Delusion to claim greater knowledge than James Tour on the subject.
lol, they haven't read any books from cover to cover, they scoff with no science knowledge whatsoever..
@@sliglusamelius8578 Look out ! They'll be out to refute you with a Christopher Hitchens slogan and a reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
@@YuelSea-sw2rp Two idiots swapping sob stories.
@MithrasTheElder Oh hi professor. Let me run this past you. Richard Dawkins developed a "scale of atheism" to represent the range of beliefs or positions people hold regarding the existence of God or gods. I have observed that many atheists rely heavily on laughing emojis to make their points. I wonder if it would be helpful for Christians to develop another scale using laughing emojis to rank atheists from 1🤣 = annoying and silly through to 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 = belligerent & sarcastic and culminating with 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 = Should be on a watch list. Then if one comes across a well know troller in the comments they can give the Christian engaged in dialogue with them a heads up: "Such a such is a 🤣🤣🤣 " or simply 🤣🤣🤣. It might be a time saver.
@@YuelSea-sw2rp Brilliant... like the way you think
Hi Dr. Tour, Happy Holidays! 🍗 Thanks for sharing. Much Blessings to you. 🙏 Lord-Jesus-Christ ✝c✝o✝m
44:20 amen!
I have a silly question ... why all these OoL-researchers doing all these OoL-experiments in labs ? Why don't they go outside ? Did life emerge in some lab ? I don't get it...
Is that a serious question? Working in a lab allows scientists to control the variables in an experiment and change one or just a few parameters at a time. Virtually all science research is done that way.
@@littleacorn2244 and how did nature control all these "variables / parameters" ?
@@martinjan2334 Funny! He doesn't seem to understand the implications of the question!
@@martinjan2334 *how did nature control all these "variables / parameters" ?* Nature didn't have to. Nature had the entire planet and 500 million years to experiment. At least one combination ended up producing life. It only took one. You creationist fools just don't understand anything about science do you? 🙄
1. Life might have happened way before when physical conditions were different from today's. In a lab, you'd guess and create those.
2. It would difficult to observe and confirm when non-biological organic matter change to life. Like missing links. But in a lab, you could start from non-life conditions. Then if life appears, then most likely life from non-life organic matters, even you don't actively see it happening.
Something like that, I guess.
Isn't it time to correct the science textbook contents? At the very least include the "known unknowns".
What science textbook needs correcting and on what? Please be specific.
Listed below are unanswered essential points that sufficiently justify the required corrections to the current teaching contents:
1. The formation of polypeptides via a prebiotic route.
2. The formation of polynucleotides via a prebiotic route.
3. The formation of polysaccharides via a prebiotic route.
4. Source of specified information in a living cell.
5. Assembly of a living cell given all the constituents parts.
All the above and a few hundred other unsolved issues are beyond the current knowledge of the Origin of Life research scientist.
Intellectual honesty requires that we inform the students and teachers that we currently have no clue on the functioning or making of a living cell or first life.
@@georgethomas9263 It's true that we don't have a scientific theory about abiogenesis as robust as evolution explaining the diversity of species once life had arisen.
That doesn't mean it's impossible, nor that we cannot develop one, nor that we should stop research into it, as Tour and his Touristas want.
We have made small steps in that direction, starting with the fact that all the basic building blocks of life are found abundantly in the cosmos. We also know that all the basic condensation reactions to build polymers from monomers will occur naturally under appropriate conditions. We also don't know of any scientific theory that says abiogenesis is in principle impossible. All we get from believers like Tour and his Touristas is god of the gaps arguments: We cannot understand it, therefore it must be false!
@@georgethomas9263
You missed another major issue - chirality problem.
Also Eigen's paradox is still valid.
There are several hundreds of issues that remain beyond our understanding
"Dear God, I know I am a sinner. I want to turn from my sins, and I ask for Your forgiveness. I believe that Jesus Christ is Your Son. I believe He died for my sins and that You raised Him to life. I want Him to come into my heart and to take control of my life. I want to trust Jesus as my Savior and follow Him as my Lord from this day forward. In Jesus' Name, amen."
Did you pray to receive Jesus Christ and begin a relationship with him?
The insults from the atheist scoffers are ridiculous, they have no real science arguments to make.
The insults from the theist scoffers are ridiculous, they have no real science arguments to make
@
You have heard the arguments on the video: refute them.
@MithrasTheElder
You have heard the science arguments on the video: refute them..
And a very merry Christmas to all the Touristas, as well as the scientifically literate folk. :)
"And a very merry Christmas to all the Touristas, as well as the scientifically literate folk. :)"
Merry Christmas, Dave!
@@nemrodx2185 I'm happy to mistaken for Dave - I have a great deal of respect for the guy, given what a demolition job he did of Mr Tour. :)
@MithrasTheElder
You couldn't introduce yourself better as an illiterate dimwit.
@MithrasTheElder "I'm happy to be mistaken for Dave - I have a great deal of respect for the guy, given what a demolition job he did of Mr Tour. :)"
I actually like those comments from your clones. Every insult and empty comment proves that they have nothing to offer. It's very entertaining.
Just so you people know, Mithras is a known troll. I suspect that the main trolls who come here are the same people who when they were younger used to play MMO games and would run around begging for gold and items and generally be a pest to other players. Griefers. They would have high level characters and run around ganking newbies and stealing whatever they had and laugh about how cool and clever they were. They are now older and think that their MMO tactics work in the real world. Old habits never really die. That is what Mithras and pals are, nothing but childish griefers who get their jollies from being a big pain in the butt to other people. It's their whole reason for being. They love it. They can't get enough of it. They hide behind their online personas and think they are untouchable. Most of them have multiple personas, keep that in mind. You may think you are talking to two different people but very often it's the same troll using one of his alternate accounts. They LOVE doing that. Every once in a while you can catch them at it. They will forget which account they are using and flub up. If you are paying attention you can see it.
Bottom line is, they love it. In some ways you could say they are professional trolls due to their multiple years of experience. They cut their teeth on MMO's. They are griefers for profit. Anyone who ever played MMO's back in the day knows what I am talking about.
Ah, the favorite creationist defense. Anyone who posts scientific evidence against the creationist cult's nonsense claims *must* be a "troll". 😂😂🤣🤣😆😆
@@littleacorn2244 What do you understand by scientific "evidence"? If you are so intelligent, it shouldn't be a problem for you to explain how the first primordial cell came into existence. My tip for you: Charles Darwin might be very helpful to you in this regard...😉😉😉😉😉😉😉😉😉
@@littleacorn2244 "Evidence?" Really? You mean you actually have something other than your ad homs and a great faith in your god Darwin? Gaia and Chronos? Is Earth your mommy and time your daddy?
@@georgbenad4436 I'll do so right after you demonstrate your supernatural space Genie using magic to POOF life into existence. 🙂
@@littleacorn2244 LOL. Sure, sure. How convenient. Why don't you watch the video and find out what it takes to get life going. You're not a chemist are ya? You have no clue whatsoever. Face it, the only thing you will do is pontificate, demur, blabber on and puff yourself up. You got NOTHING. Go solve those problems Tour elucidated. You will win a Nobel prize and be world famous. Come on, show us what you got. Heck, if you can bring a cadaver back to life you will be world famous Dr. Frankenstein. Every item needed physically is right there at your fingertips. Should be easy right? If pure random chance can do it, surely you can since you are so smart. C'mon genius, let's see what you got.
@25:57 let alone under a rock
lol!!!!! XD
55:15 Watched a little during premiere
Look at it like this. A friend walks up to you one day and says, "Here, I have a cake for you." You say, "Thank you." and ask him where he got it. He replies, "It just made itself over a long period of time." You would look at him and wonder if he was joking or what.
That is exactly what the atheists are proposing here. The cake baked itself, no intelligence required. Just lots of time. Would anyone buy that excuse? Would you? Life, far exceeds a cake, in complexity and list of required ingredients. If you would laugh at someone trying to tell you a cake made itself, you are smarter than the atheists. You don't have to meet the actual baker to know this. You know that cakes just don't self assemble. Why would anyone believe that something far more complex than a cake could? It's completely irrational, unless you have a thing against bakers and wish it so. Still won't change reality though.
That's a great demonstration of how little you creationist dimbulbs actually understand of evolutionary biology. 😄
God is the logical conclusion.
I think it is difficult to prove life formed without purpose and design. But in appearance it did, so therefore it must have is atheist logic I guess, and everything has to be made to fit that.
It's impossible to prove your god, either, but that doesn't stop you lot from blathering on about it till the cows drop dead on their way home.
@MithrasTheElderI didn’t mention God
@@MarkPatmos So you aren't a Jesus freak. Gotcha.
@MithrasTheElder Impossible you say? Do you exist? Are you a rock? I know you have them in your head but are you a rock? The evidence for God is right there in the mirror every time you look in it. The evidence for God is all around us, you just deny that it exists. Eyes wide shut. Believe whatever you want but all your trolling won't change reality. You aren't even a scientist. You are a GRIEFER. Plain and simple. Now, let's hear your screeching and wailing of ad homs and all the usual fluff you produce, we all know the one thing you won't provide is any logical proof of anything, other than your own petty wants and desires. Coo-coo strutting pigeon.
It sounds like they have been fraudulent in their claims and capitalising on people's ignorance. Then comes along one guy who actually knows the subject, who didn't get the memo and has now thrown a spanner in the works. Good 🙏
Tour knows nothing about research into abiogenesis. it's not in the bible, so he knows never to read anything about it.
@MithrasTheElderSo people he is arguing against should easily be able to refute him?
@@MarkPatmos Yes, Tour's claim that abiogenesis is impossible is easily refuted, because he's unable to provide any scientific hypothesis that proves it cannot happen. All he and you have is "I can't understand it, so it can't be real!" God of the gaps argumentation, and that's a huge philosophical fallacy.
@@MarkPatmos The most Tour can do, scientifically, is say we don't know how abiogenesis happened by natural means. That's true, so far as it goes. He wants that to mean it cannot possibly happen. We need your evidence for that bizarre claim. I get you prefer to believe in magic. Seriously???
@MithrasTheElder
You're even more idiotic, than I thought. In science, you don't prove impossibility, you prove possibility.
If a scientist did create life in a lab that would be evidence that life can be intentionally designed by an intelligent being it would not be evidence that life happened by chance or accident.
You might want to edit that!
@@GeDePeU Thanks - done.
Scientists should respond with science. Maybe come up with better scientific responses.
@@MarkPatmos Yes, he shared his Faith, but in context, he discussed enough organic chemistry to fill many classroom hours. Are you hard of hearing?
@ I was referring to other people
Tour hasn't responded with science. Had he wanted to, he could have published his doubtlessly extensive research into how abiogenesis is impossible. Yet not a peep out of him about that! Amazing.
To those listening without ears to hear. Why are you here if not to learn? Clearly it shows that science, certainly chemistry, appears beyond your understanding. For while Dr James Tour shares his Faith, he does so within a solid framework of organic chemistry. His statements OoL researchers well know. Yet, in a presentation based on clear science, you ask for science. Understandably Trolls are without mind. What of the rest of you? If to learn, ask and you will be shown. If to make fools of yourself, you have done well.
What, exactly, has Mr Tour published showing that abiogenesis is impossible? We need chapter and verse, here. What are the actual arguments, because listening to Tour, I've never heard him make any statement he could justify scientifically.
@MithrasTheElderHe isn’t trying to show abiogenesis is impossible just making sure there is proper science being done. At least that is my understanding of it.
@@MarkPatmos Correct!
@MithrasTheElder What? His chemistry could not have been more clear. It is upon those claiming solutions to OoL questions, to prove their case. He merely debucks them, clearly showing their claims are built upon sand
@ROK-PSU Sweetie, are you unable to READ? What scientifically reviewed publications has the moron Tour published to show his opinions are right?
Just look up the Lord Day Encyclopedia where it show in all 4 Gospel on Jesus resurrection
@34:50 if i were them i would avoid me too
XD
28:00
Nothing can not make something by itself....
The Causeless Cause is real.
Even if we don't agree on the specifics.
Dr. Tour!
Can I ask?
Do you think the geometry of the word God is intentional!?
G = rotational vector
o = perfect form
d = perfect form along a perfect line
Cause that is VERY MEANINGFUL TO ME!
So where did your god come from? Why is there a god, rather than nothing at all? I guess it popped itself into existence out of nothing!
@MithrasTheElder
This is a Uni-verse. So there is nowhere else to come from.
Nothingness doesn't exist. As Nature abhors a vacuum and no matter how sparse you make it, it can only be emptier relative to something more full.
Eg. the glass isn't half full, or half empty.
It's always full.
And God isn't an existence. It's a being. (Try not to confuse the two)
@@jaydenwilson9522 So no god, then.
@MithrasTheElder There still is.... even in your own model, and even if you won't admit it.
I worship The Causeless Cause.
You worship Infinite Regress.
What would Dr. Tour think about life on another planet, such as bacteria? Would it also just be a case of how did that form?
What bacteria on another planet, has it been found yet?
Why would the question of origins be less valid on another Planet than on our own? Is not the origin of ever planet within our solar system as valid as the origin of the Earth alone
You’re merely changing the location but the same problem exists, how did dirt and water form the first cell?
It’s a “sleight of hand” con trick pulled by desperate darwinoatheists like Dawkins (he said aliens seeded earth in “Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed” and is on my TH-cam channel) to try and either……..
1) lessening the improbability by ‘suggesting” it being probable and likely
2) change the location, this change the subject is a tactic to stop the train of thought
3) appealing to authoritative gatekeeping
4) appealing to academic gatekeeping
It's impossible to determine where any such theoretical organism came from. It could have come from earth, it could've been created on that planet or some other planet. Finding life on Mars proves nothing. The concern is unscrupulous scientists would misinterpret such data and jump to unscientific conclusions.
@@sbgtrading Soooo... magic is a "scientific conclusion"? You people are something else.
Do you think that if they were successful in putting together life in a lab that MAYBE just MAYBE they would appreciate that God had done such an amazing feat after they repeated any of His achievements? Mark 9:39 But Jesus said, “Do not stop him; for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me.
A question for the darwinoatheist Dawkins/Krause/pinker/Tyson/Farina/Ra fanboys…….
1) Why are you even here commenting?
What's wrong with pushing back against the many scurrilous lies told by creationists like Tour? Unlike you we believe lying is morally wrong.
Because these videos are in the public domain and so I can see them. I disagree with a lot of what Tour says, or how he says it.
Why are you here commenting?
@@rolandwatts3218 here why I’m here and commenting…..
1) the universe came from nothing
2) the universal laws came from nothing
3) time came from nothing
4) periodic table came from nothing
5) life came from none life (soup? Vents? Crystals?)
6) all life past/present, male/female, creature/vegetation came from a cell with absolutely no transitional fossil evidence….fact
7) darwinoatheists have no free will (Dawkins/Krause/Pinker/Tyson/Farina)
8) all darwinoatheists have no purpose in life (Dawkins again), yet make a point of attacking ID
9) 100% of darwinoatheists live a life claiming the stupidity theism yet live a life by stealing/grafting/borrowing from a moral code inspired by a God they deny exists!
10) if you ask a pathetic darwinoatheist what has more value, a disabled child or a full functioning elephant, they would say the child but cannot use darwinoatheism to understand how they came to this conclusion
11) ask a darwinkatheist if life is precious, they should say no as it’s just chemicals from their mere material view, yet darwinoatheists claim life is precious, but cannot explain why?
12) darwinoatheism has had nothing but a toxic/corrosive/poisonous impact on society making it more divided/splintered/fractured via eugenics, along with…
A) abortion is just another contraception
B) euthanasia for mere mental illness
C) lifestyles that are contrary to nature and that do not produce offspring (foetus) treated as normal
D) clear mental illness where XY chromosome humans claiming to be XX chromosome humans allowed in XX sports/XX spaces and liberated as normal
E) drag queen story time
F) hormone suppressants for children without parental consent in some cases
G) double mastectomies/castrations for teens who are clearly in need of mental support
H) pedo behaviour now reduced to MAP’s (Minor Attracted Persons)
I) 1 woman can have 2, 3, 4 children by as many different men treated as liberation
J) 1 man can have 2, 3, 4 children by as many different women without being responsible for any treated as liberation
K) drug abuses now considered lifestyle choices
L) darwinoatheists totally oblivious to the 120mill deaths caused directly via darwinoatheism in the past 100 years by Zedong/Stalin/Pot
M) darwinoatheists totally silent on the clear detrimental impact of capitalist/political/asset stealing wars (Gulf wars/Vietnam/Korea/Ukraine) to name but a few
N) darwinoatheists completely silent on the detrimental impact of capitalist processed foods and their links to poor health and impact on local farming
Suffice I could go on adding other negative impacts on humanity that you give clear tacit support for
13) if you ask a darwinoatheist if deception/lies/rape/cannibalism in the animal kingdom are wrong, they say no, yet why is it wrong for homo erectus to practice these things?
14) ask a darwinoatheist if incest is wrong, they say yes but cannot rationalise their response with darwinoatheism
Suffice I could go on, but the point is, you damn well need objective theistic moral values because without them you’re f*cking clueless.
Every breathing moment of your pointless, free will devoid existence you live a life by stealing the morality from Christianity because you a bare faced coward who is too mentally/emotionally/intellectually pusillanimous to live your life by the very world view you claim to accept as reality.
Without theism you wouldn’t even know what a woman is!
Even Scooby Do was not this confused
james tour `I DONT UNTETRSTAND EVOLUTION´
He's not even debating evolution.
@@midimusicforever well he denies that rna can complexiefy so no ur worng
@@zuukash
You clearly have no science point to make. Abiogenesis is impossible, if not, prove it!
As for his comment on evolution, what he meant is that its claims make no sense, that's why he doesn't understand it..
Evolution is nonsensical. The mechanism is speculative. Mutation can make minor changes from parent to child, but mutations are generally nullified in reproduction, especially sexual reproduction. And all our observation shows serious limits to variation. Think about Titin, one of the largest proteins in all animalia species...over 30,000 aminos in length. Explain how mutations could create 30,000 specifically sequenced aminos occur so early in the development of life. Evolution is nonsense when you understand the scope of the problem. If you ignore the details, then sure, Evolution is easy to accept
@
Agreed! When you see that it takes enzymes (proteins) to create proteins in the first place, and when you learn about quantum tunneling as opposed to "lock and key" conformational change as the mechanism of action of enzymes, you would have to believe in Magic Molecules to believe in abiogenesis..
You truly have to be insane to believe (literally believe) that water and broken down rocks…….
1) formed the first cell
2) evolved into a fish
3) Evolved into a frog
4) evolved into a prince
All accomplished with zero/nada/no evidence.
So where is the hard evidence for your god? Oh, that's right, you can't understand science!
@ there more “hard evidence” for my God than…..
1) the universe came from nothing
2) the universal laws came from nothing
3) time came from nothing
4) periodic table came from nothing
5) life came from none life (soup? Vents? Crystals?)
6) all life past/present, male/female, creature/vegetation came from a cell with absolutely no transitional fossil evidence….fact
7) darwinoatheists have no free will (Dawkins/Krause/Pinker/Tyson/Farina)
8) all darwinoatheists have no purpose in life (Dawkins again), yet make a point of attacking ID
9) 100% of darwinoatheists live a life claiming the stupidity theism yet live a life by stealing/grafting/borrowing from a moral code inspired by a God they deny exists!
10) if you ask a pathetic darwinoatheist what has more value, a disabled child or a full functioning elephant, they would say the child but cannot use darwinoatheism to understand how they came to this conclusion
11) ask a darwinkatheist if life is precious, they should say no as it’s just chemicals from their mere material view, yet darwinoatheists claim life is precious, but cannot explain why?
12) darwinoatheism has had nothing but a toxic/corrosive/poisonous impact on society making it more divided/splintered/fractured via eugenics, along with…
A) abortion is just another contraception
B) euthanasia for mere mental illness
C) lifestyles that are contrary to nature and that do not produce offspring (foetus) treated as normal
D) clear mental illness where XY chromosome humans claiming to be XX chromosome humans allowed in XX sports/XX spaces and liberated as normal
E) drag queen story time
F) hormone suppressants for children without parental consent in some cases
G) double mastectomies/castrations for teens who are clearly in need of mental support
H) pedo behaviour now reduced to MAP’s (Minor Attracted Persons)
I) 1 woman can have 2, 3, 4 children by as many different men treated as liberation
J) 1 man can have 2, 3, 4 children by as many different women without being responsible for any treated as liberation
K) drug abuses now considered lifestyle choices
L) darwinoatheists totally oblivious to the 120mill deaths caused directly via darwinoatheism in the past 100 years by Zedong/Stalin/Pot
M) darwinoatheists totally silent on the clear detrimental impact of capitalist/political/asset stealing wars (Gulf wars/Vietnam/Korea/Ukraine) to name but a few
N) darwinoatheists completely silent on the detrimental impact of capitalist processed foods and their links to poor health and impact on local farming
Suffice I could go on adding other negative impacts on humanity that you give clear tacit support for
13) if you ask a darwinoatheist if deception/lies/rape/cannibalism in the animal kingdom are wrong, they say no, yet why is it wrong for homo erectus to practice these things?
14) ask a darwinoatheist if incest is wrong, they say yes but cannot rationalise their response with darwinoatheism
Suffice I could go on, but the point is, you damn well need objective theistic moral values because without them you’re f*cking clueless.
Every breathing moment of your pointless, free will devoid existence you live a life by stealing the morality from Christianity because you a bare faced coward who is too mentally/emotionally/intellectually pusillanimous to live your life by the very world view you claim to accept as reality.
Without theism you wouldn’t even know what a woman is!
Even Scooby Do was not this confused
You can say that about anything.@MithrasTheElder
@@thunderous-one Sweetums, where did your magical god come from? Without science, you wouldn't know how to turn a computer on to spill bilge on the internet.
@@thunderous-one
1)how do you know that?
2)how do you know that?
3)how do you know that?
4)periodic table is a human attempt at formalizing the properties of elements. light ones like Hydrogen/Helium formed during the big bang, the heavier ones are formed in the stars.
5)life came from non-life. It is true for both naturalistic and religious models. If i remember correctly christian God made us from dust or dirt something like that.
6)no transitional fossils? Really? And you are talking about homo erectus in 13 point. So homo erectus is what? And who were Homo heidelbergensis, Homo ergaster, Homo habilis,Homo rudolfensis?How about Tiktaalik?
7) Thats the first time i hear darwinoatheist term. Some atheists think they have. How do theists think they have the free will if they were created by all knowing God, which meant he foresaw the sins and stuff and allowed that to happen?
8)Some atheists think they have a purpouse in life, its just not dictated by God for them.
9) Some atheist think that religion CLAIMS that moral code omes from God. Have you Heard about The game theory, or maybe the evolution of altruism?
10)the value is a vague definition. I would say that it depends on the level of disability. You still can be fertile, socially functioning with high cognitive abilities yet disabled, so still valuable to society. More valuable than elephant because elephant cant produce offspring with human, cant contribute to society by intellectual work, which is more valuable than physical.
11) some of atheist dont think that life is precious, but if group of people start practise hunting humans for meat or other self-destructive behavior they die out so do their phylosophy and lifestyle, so selection favors those who see life as something valuable
12) A lot of claims about all the atheists without realisation that they also can be different and have different phylosophies while not believing in God. I am not gonna adress all of them, sorry i am too lazy, pick some if you insist. There were many horrible things made in the name of God, like you know the phrase:'"Gott mit uns" and the conext it was used in?
13) cannibalism can lead to hunting its own species, not good for surviving especially for highly social creatures that rely for one another. Rape can cause physical damage + if woman gets pregnant and her husband doesnt know about this, then he will raise a child with different genes, and those who allow it are not favourited by selection because they are worse at spreading their own genes ( you spend recoures on children of others you are less likely to spend enough on your own if you have one)
14) the incest is more likely to produce the infertile and weak offspring, against the selection, in complete compatibility with darwinism
So tell me how did ancient empires formed even before your God sent the moral rules for living. Big groups of people were somehow capable of not shreading each other in pieces before the Christ, so maybe ethics arises naturally?
Sorry for my bad english, its my second language/
Would you be interested in debating atheists on Standing For Truth youtube debate forum?
What would be the point? The problem is not religious, is scientific. The chemical processes proposed for abiogenesis do not seem to be able to produce the expected results. This does not change regardless one is an atheist or a believer.
@@GeDePeU This request is for James, but if you want to establish a debate on SFT, you can go there and request one with any criteria you would like.
As for the point, there are a lot of atheist "scientists" who debate age of earth, evolution, existence of God, etc. there.
They are usually parrots and make claims like "no scientist..." I would love to see them debate the likes of James Tour with his credentials and knowledge.
@@BlessedLaymanNC I believe you are missing the point: if you debate as atheist vs Christian on any subject the discussion will devolve to "You believe in sky daddy stupid!". I had a lot of talks myself with atheists and generally, in the end it comes to that.
He should debate other scientists, not atheists.
@@GeDePeU Debate on the "Standing For Lies" creationist channel. 🤣🤣😂😂😄😄 Good one!
@@GeDePeU you don't understand.
NASA doesn't debate the Flat Earth clowns either. This is just Tour doing his usual grandstanding for his Fundy creationist fanbois. If Tour wanted an actual debate he'd do it in the professional science literature the way honest scientists do.
You know, it's perfectly fair to say that we still don't have a robust theory of abiogenesis. It's reasonable to critique particular experiments and hypotheses and point out their limitations. But of course, no scientist has ever claimed they'd demonstrated how it happened, only that various hypothetic intermediate reactions will occur naturally without a designer making them work.
If Tour were an honest man, rather than a creationist busy trying to appear scientific, he'd admit he has no evidence against abiogenesis, and that it's a perfectly reasonable scientific question to ask how life could begin naturally. But he can't even bring himself to do that.
@MithrasTheElder When you already bragged you can make life in the lab in the next five years and the deadline expired ten years ago is a little bit hard to admit you actually have no clue how to put all the molecules together, if you have the skill to make them.
All you guys have is ad hominem and zero scientific arguments.
If James Tour would be a clown I would agree with you but he is one of the top 20 synthetic chemists in the world. If the top 20 rocket scientist in the world would say there is a problem with the spaceship we are sending to Mars and NASA would ignore him because he is "unworthy" I would pull the plug on NASA instantly and probably fire the management there.
If the top 20 synthetic chemist in the world is telling you your origin of life chemistry is crap and does not produce the results you claim and you ignore him, I will not think he is a clown but instead that you are a liar.
@@GeDePeU Sweetums, I never "bragged you can make life in the lab in the next five years" so that's just another creo lie to pile on the heap of lies creationists believe are true. Do any of you lot actually READ your silly bible? There are rules about lying, even to or about non-believers.
@MithrasTheElder Oh ... by "you" you understood "YOU personally". We were talking about scientist in general in this thread. I was hinting at Lee Cronin who bragged about making life in the lab and ... obviously failed.
Thank you for your encouragement in my Bible studies! I am really slacking!
Nonetheless I fell pretty safe on the lying matter! 🤣
I'd also ask Mr. Tour how old he thinks the earth is. Does he take the book of Genesis as literal history, or allegory? His religious take on abiogenesis makes questions like that relevant.
No it does not. Weather the current proposed mechanisms for abiogenesis work or not have nothing to do with James Tour's take on religion. He is not making a scientific case for God but a scientific case against bad science. If any scientist could prove him wrong they would do it. They can't.
@@GeDePeU Abiogenesis isn't bad science. How is it "bad science" to look for a natural explanation for the origin of life? We discovered the explanation for the origin of its diversity, evolution, after all. Only fools like Tour pretend that magic is needed for the beginning of life.
@MithrasTheElder He is not claiming magic. He claims science: bad science from a very biased and corrupt scientific field! I do not have a problem with you looking for a scientific explanation to confirm you presuppositions (even if you do not offer the same courtesy to those that do not share your ideas). Feel free to do it. Just stop making scientific claims that are obviously not making sense. Claiming you can get life in a dirty pool of water under a rock is not a scientific claim but a religious one because it requires faith instead of knowledge.
@@GeDePeU How is abiogenesis bad science? If you had any scientific education at all, which clearly you lack, you might have a point to make, but so far all I see is a kneejerk defence of your fellow-creo, Tour, who knows no biochemistry either. I could give both of you some lectures on the subject.
Sounds like you're pleading time of the gaps. But time works against current theories of abiogenesis. There isn't enough time in a billion universes to form even one simple enzyme, and then you just have one, and it breaks down long before the next one can form at random.
Mr Tour's opinion about abiogenesis is just an opinion, a layman's opinion, as he does no research in the field. As a chemist, he may be an informed layman, but he's not involved in the field, because he thinks the field isn't real. And worse, his biblical prejudices compel him to turn a blind eye to the evidence supporting abiogenesis, and simply deny that it's significant.
Now, I'm a layman in the field as well, as is likely every contributor to this forum. But I do note that all the major biochemical precursors involved in life today are also found in outer space, on meteors and asteroids. The earth would have been amply seeded with these, even if no internal chemistry was generating them, which seems unlikely.
I also note that many of these precursors have been formed in artificial conditions simulating conditions on an early earth a few hundred million years after initial formation. Of course, we could be wrong about the age of the earth, but if so, we've likely under-estimated it than grossly over-estimated it. Mr. Tour needs to come clean on his view about the earth's actual antiquity.
The earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and life has existed on earth for approximately 4 billion years. It is possible that life currently exists on Mars and in the atmosphere of Venus, as well as on moons of the gas giants. Life arose through purely natural processes (abiogenesis) and “intelligent design” played no role whatever. James Tour is not yet aware of the precise mechanisms by which abiogenesis occurred, and has published an extensive critique of the field in video format.
He never brings God on the table when talking about science. You are lying. Because you lack scientific arguments all you do is ad hominem and strawman, trying to shift the discussion from a scientific perspective to a faith based talk so you could dismiss it.
There is no credible evidence for abiogenesis. If it were any evidence Lee Cronin as a leader in the field of abiogenesis would have presented it to James Tour but instead he did the same thing you do: ad hominem by claiming JT is a believer therefore ... scientific irrelevance. Then he proceeded stating he is a materialist therefore he believes this and that (about science and origin of life), not noticing the irony and hypocrisy of his position.
@@GeDePeU What is the name of Tour's organization pushing this "debate"? HINT: it starts with a "J" _esusAndScience.
@@GeDePeU The ONLY reason Tour has for opposing ALL research into abiogenesis is because he has a nutty belief that the book of Genesis IS a literal history of creation. He never discusses evolution because he knows that denying evolution would explode his scientific credibility on the one hand, but affirming it would annoy his fellow creos on the other. So he keeps mum about it.
@@littleacorn2244 What? Christians are forbidden to promote science? Do you hate Christians much?
The question I'd ask Mr. Tour is, if he has solid scientific evidence that disproves abiogenesis, why doesn't he publish it in a major scientific journal like _Nature_ or _Science?_ Why leave it for his personal sounding board where he can delete everyone who points out the fallacies?
The editors of those journals would never publish anything against their narrative and their religion.
Why don't they simply publish something that shows abiogenesis can be done in the lab ?
He has - but they won’t accept it
If you have evidence for abiogenesis or evolution why can’t you present it ?
@@bobdalton2062 Bob, science is self-correcting - had you ever studied any you would have known that. If a theory is wrong, it gets discarded, like the flat earth and creationism, two sides of the same dud coin! The Christian church almost strung Galileo up when he suggested that Copernicus was right - and even Copernicus had delayed publication till after his death.
Just because abiogenesis is still a research project rather than a well established theory like evolution doesn't magically mean it's impossible, it's just that it's a little hard to recreate all the probable conditions on an early earth in the lab, then wait around for a few hundred million years. We know of no hypothesis or principle that proves it's impossible, however much Mr. Tour screams and waves chalk around.
And even once we discover a feasible route for abiogenesis, you lot would simply deny it, just like flat earthers deny the earth is a globe moving around the sun. To folk like you and Mr Tour, religious doctrine is much more important than reality.
I fear that you are missing the point about Dr. Tour. Dr. Tour does not say that abiogenesis did not happen ... rather, he says that the claims made by Big Science that they have proven abiogenesis (or even show it to be likely) is based on junk science or faulty argumentation.
Now, to be fair, Dr. Tour believes that life was created by God and he holds that as a theological claim. A theological claim that is not refuted by science. But as a scientist, he is remaining neutral on first life because as a scientist, he can prove neither abiogenesis nor Special Creation.
(I use the word "proof" several times because of how we use it in these discussions. Rather, I mean evidence that is scientific or logic based argument.)
Dr. Tour has never claimed to have scientific evidence that disproves abiogenesis. Instead, his claim is that the mechanism by which abiogenesis occurred is not yet fully understood.
Tour's fans love to complain he isn't motivated by religion yet in the *very video* we get fully half the sections pushing his religious views
- Academic Journey: How Faith Shaped His Career
- Faith in Research: Integrating Beliefs and Science
- Faith in Action: Sharing the Gospel at University
- Complexity of Life: Why Spontaneous Life Fails
- Personal Faith: How God Shapes His Worldview
- Academic Witness: Encouraging Christian Scholars
Even his organization is called "JesusAndScience". Then you fools sit there with a straight face and claim Tour's attacks on OOL and evolution aren't motivated by his creationist beliefs. 🙄
@BillG8718
His Science isn't. When he s talking about OOL and the science behind it, he doesn't talk about his faith.
@@stevenwiederholt7000 He *pretends* it isn't about his creationist beliefs just like the DI lies about ID-creationism when pushing it even now. It doesn't fool anyone in the science community, only his ignorant followers who love being fooled.
@@BillG8718
Wrong. When he talks about OOL its strictly The Science.
@@stevenwiederholt7000 I see you're one more gullible sap who loves being fooled by Tour too. The biggest tell is Tour still refuses to submit any of his garbage critiques for professional peer-review. His excuse is the standard big lie "the Evil Atheist Conspiracy censors all creationist work!" 😅
Well Billy. I'll pray especially for your soul. Because anyone who truly follows the creator of the universe believes in his word. His word is truth. Jesus died for the sins of ALL of those who receive him by faith... I'll pray that you receive his grace and mercy. Godly sorrow worketh repentance. It's the gift of eternal life in Jesus Christ! God says. I WILL take your heart of stone and I WILL give you a heart of flesh. One that will follow me... I was so wrong for so much of my life. Now I'm filled with joy and peace and HOPE. Nothing but Jesus can give you true hope. That you will love not your life unto death. He's better than anything. Everything is trash when weighed on the scales of life. He alone gives this. A new life,a new spirit. Born of water and spirit.
james u lost the last of ur credebility when u were liike ´bible say earth 6000 years old science say world older so i belive bible BUT i cant VET that´ haHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
He lost no credibility
Carbon 14 literally debunks every evolution myth ever created along with helium
All evidence for a young and created earth
If you can’t be bothered to learn to cook stop trying to lecture chefs
@@Unique_Monk *_Carbon 14 literally debunks every evolution myth ever created along with helium_* - While I realise that creos aren't the best and brightest amongst us, could you enlighten us merely scientifically educated folk exactly how He or C-14 debunk anything at all?
C-14 is constantly formed when a negatively charged cosmic ray particle strikes a N-14 proton in the stratosphere and converts it into a neutron, thus changing it as an element. C-14 then decays back to N-14 by emitting a beta particle (electron) with a half-life of 5700±30 years. This limits the practical dating capability for C-14 to about 50,000 years, though other longer-lived nuclides (such as K-Ar dating) can be used for measurements up to billions of years. The oldest living trees include a bristlecone pine in California which has been dated to ~5,000 years old (and tree ring comparisons with older stumps and trunks extend that to about 12,000 years), and a Swedish spruce which is about 10,000 years old. Bishop Ussher who calculated the age of the earth based on bible mythology and declared it was created on Oct 23, 4004 BC, must be spinning in his grave by now.
Helium is generated in stars by nuclear fusion of hydrogen, and indeed all higher elements are made in stars and their supernovas. So in a sense, we are made of star-stuff. Bit hard to squeeze all that into a 6000 year time span. You couldn't even squeeze plate tectonics into that, as we'd have the plates screaming around the earth at the speed of slow freight trains, generating enough heat to melt the entire crust in the process.
Have you ever considered completing your high school education? Because all that is high school stuff. You don't even need a degree to know stuff like this.
I never heard James Tour saying such a thing. I think you are a liar and you should ... "like" ... prove what you say.
@@Unique_Monk James Tour did not say that buddy. You took the bait. Also, you should not claim a young Earth when clearly it is old. Being old is not contrary to the Biblical story. The Genesis is not a scientific account but a colloquial account of who is responsible for us being here. The stuff you say about Carbon 14 makes no sense.
@
Go listen to him
James, you have magic thinking 🙄, what happens to you? That ideas full of miracles, magic eternal omnipotent deities that create, protect and save is unreal, absurd and not cientific.
🤦
Please stop saying all this as a scientist, you are spreading misinformation 🫵🧑⚕️.
🏃
Make a science point to rebut his science points or else sit down.
Issac Newton was even worse, Issac Newton thank's Jesus Christ for everything.