What makes the problem even worse is the step into chemical reactions requiring energy to overcome the hurdle of joining single units (monomers) together to make larger multi unit sequences (polymers). The ridiculous claim that life could have started thru RNAs and the example given is a self-replicating RNA found in a bacterium (sorry forgotten where the claim was from). Although this occurs, it piggy backs off of a network of other proteins and molecular structures needed to make the energy required for the self-replication to occur, otherwise without that energy the chemical bonds would not form. I think the example investigated required GTP (guanine tri-phosphate) for the energy transfer to occur (GTP doesn't form naturally), which from what I recall requires a parasitic salvaging of energy from ATP to convert GDP (guanine di-phosphate) to GTP, which in turn requires ATPase (ATP doesn't occur naturally), the little motor that is also explained by CMI. It's incredible how evolutionists use snippets of info with an air of authority in their statement as if just them saying it overcomes the unsurmountable hurdles that stop the whole line of thinking dead in its tracks.
@@valentin1808 I'm sorry but I've got to laugh at your sheer ignorance. A lightning bolt would charcoal everything. It's too much energy. In chemistry things are measured in mols for a reason. 1 mol = 6.022 x 10^23 (Avogadro's number) individual molecules/atoms. The third phosphate carries most of the energy at 30.5kJ/mole. This is a lot if a mole is considered but each individual reaction is a miniscule fraction of that. The energy (or electropotential) is enough to drive each chemical reaction just right but not enough to blow the whole lot apart so that atoms don't shoot electrons out of their respective shells out to a distance where they become free electrons, maintaining the integrity of the bond just made/broken. For a lightning bolt to be useful trillions upon trillions of chemical reactions ready to go off would be needed to take up the energy. There is a reason that when a lightning strike hits something it is pulverized. Only some things survive and that's because the energy has been dispersed leaving the thing intact. Real life is not a Frankenstein movie, no matter how much the proponents of this mechanism try to indulge it. As I said in my previous comment just saying it is so doesn't make it so.
@@DiosBaramin There are plenty of sources of energy other than a lightening bolt, Dios, I think it might be you showing your lack of understanding of things. Early life almost certainly used chemical synthesis as a source of energy,
@@mchooksisThere will come a day, when YOU as well...will KNOW the Lord. And when that happens...these words will be whispered in your ears...and you will know the Lord exists. I assure you...that day is coming.
@@TearDownThisWall "Correct, as opposed to the woke secular atheist "university" scientists that are owned by the DEI establishment." You sound angry... are you sure you're saved by grace. I observe no grace.
@@rizdekd3912 Not angry at all, in fact filled with joy and gratitude every day. Grace is unearned or undeserved love. Are you sure you know the definition of grace?
@@chrism.1131 Simple arithmetic, along with simple tossing dice, is a better predictor. One star with 8 planets has one known to harbor life. Multiply that by the number of stars out there and you get a good estimate of possible planets with life on them. Maybe only one in six stars (the dice) will have the occupied planet.
Scientific method requires evidence. There is zero evidence of life on other planets. The Drake equation is based on speculation, not science. @@stevepierce6467
@@technicianbis5250-ig1zd Of course it is speculation! Everything we predict about what we cannot see is speculation. But it is speculation based on the fact of our existence and extrapolating from that - if we exist, then there is a high probability that others exist too.
@@jkorling “ this guy” has has a long list of credentials. A PhD in Science Agriculture, published papers in many scientific journals and heaps more. Check out his credentials. Life arising from non life is pretty dead among top scientists and only believed by true believer skeptics.
@@martinkent333 "I typed Moses" The Egyptians did not keep records of their failures, it's likely any reference to Moses or the exodus was erased by pharoahs men on his orders. There is some evidence of Joseph's existence though. A mansion found in the delta, grain silos, and the great pyramid of keops. I have a belief the great pyramid was built for Joseph who's body was removed and reburied in the Holy land, hence why there was no mummy found (he is risen), the lack of hyroglyphs, the narrow path to the king's chamber or the wide path to the pit, there is so much that this pyramid quotes from the Bible giving us a picture of Christ. In Isaiah ch 19:19 God tells us of an altar and monument dedicated to God in Egypt. "In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. 20: It will be a sign and witness to the LORD" I think the great pyramid and Sphinx are these monuments.
A "few" friends? One doesn't forget when a friend becomes delusional and manic. Would you mind putting a hard number on the number of your friends from University with PhDs that eventually became delusional and manic.
Regarding the idea that the answer could be that life came from outer space; why do some scientists think that moving the location of the start of life, somehow makes the probability of it starting through natural undirected processes any more viable.
@@No-xw3jl You said : *incredible for such a load of rubbish* If this is rubbish imagine what abiogenesis is???!!! God calls it excrement and those who believe in it fools.
Beyond entropy and how the universe and life began, Professor Jim Tour at Rice University in Houston is the person that has thrown a stone in the proverbial pond of how things all began, at least for me! Professor Tour has more than 55 patents and is a synthetic chemist and his description of a simple cell simply beggar's belief and in one lecture my whole conception of life changed forever. First, you need lipids which form the membranes of the cell, then carbohydrates or sugars, then nucleic acids RNA and DNA and then you need Amino acids, 19 of one category and 1 of another. The carbohydrates on the outer membrane are more complex than the RNA and DNA combined. The outer membrane has 10 to the 78 billion possible combinations and only one will work. That is 10 with 78 billion zeros after it! Boys and girls, there is no way the simple cell came together in a prebiotic pond in my opinion, and even if all the components came together in exactly the right temperature and arrangement, what puts the spark of life in it; what makes it come alive?
"Getting a protein is a bit like having the whole solar system full of blind people each with a Rubik's Cube and they all arrive at the solution at the same." ~ Dr. Don Batten, Biologist [PhD]/career in experimental biology.
exactly, Darwinian evolution = an endless series of very lucky events, and always in the right order ... PS: I am a mechanical engineer with decent background in IT. From what I could understand, Darwinian evolution is a trial-error process. And only the best design is selected. I have a silly question: Where are all the errors ? Darwinists claim, that there are around 10,000,000 species on Earth today. (and, allegedly, this is only 2-3% of what is left, all the other extinct). So let's say, each species features 1000 parts working together in a concert for a purpose. A simple math: 10,000,000 species x 1000 parts = 10,000,000,000 working parts. How many design errors did Darwinists find ? 5 ? or 10 ? Like I said, I as an engineer, I see 10,000,000 species perfectly working for its purpose, no design flaws, no design errors, so I am asking again, where is the trial-error process ? WHERE ARE ALL THE DESIGN ERRORS ??????
@@martinjan2334 I've asked the same question many times here to evolutionists. Never get an answer. We should've found loads of mutant fossils, as well as seeing plenty of the creatures badly mutated today. But all we've ever seen is complete and high functioning creatures
right. All fossils ever found - fully working creatures, no design flaws. I would expect, to find millions of fossils with lots of design errors/flaws. I debated lots of evolutionists, and I was told, that the reason why we don't see fossils with design errors is because these type of fossils are rare, because there are only few because the design errors made them extinct, hence you can't find them, because they gone extinct very fast - because of those design errors ... Actually, I as an engineer, would expect exactly the opposite. That the majority of fossils will feature design flaws. Unless you believe, that the best design was achieved at the first attempt. But when you look at fossil record, it looks like the fully working design was ALWAYS achieved at the first attempt... @@k3630
as to "Evolution sounds like the most astounding sequence of extraordinary good fortune time after time." let me add to this... What most lay people don't know, is, that according to Darwinists/Evolutionists, in some cases, this astounding sequence of extraordinary lucky events happened in parallel (at the same evolutionary moment ) ... Not to mention, that many of these extraordinary lucky events happened repeatedly, many times, for example -- a placenta should have evolved 100+ times repeatedly (independently) in evolutionary unrelated species ... Believing this, requires lots of faith :))) @@k3630
James Tour believes in evolution and millions of years. James Tour rejects any notion that researchers are coming to understand how life began and he believes God must have started life but after that, evolution took over. James Tour flat-out rejects Genesis 1 - 11. James Tour believes in a snow-globe god - a god who created the universe and gave it a good shake and who now just sits back and watches it go.
@@rubiks6 Tour consistently says he can not know, as a scientist, how God did it. Tour, as a Christian, consistently says he believes God created the universe and life. Tour does not believe in Darwinian Evolution because no one has seen it happen.
@@wefinishthisnow3883Dictionary defines life as: the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. Yes viruses are alive.
@@fadya3901 God is life. ”Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.“ John 14:6 ESV
I have been praising God throughout this message. Hebrew says "let us be thankful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken and offer to God appropriate worship in reverence and awe for our God is a consuming fire".
"Offer to god appropriate worship for our god is a consuming fire"??? Wonder what the victims of the Valencia apartment complex fire (or any disastrous fire) were thinking in their final seconds....Praise be to god?
@@sbgtrading So, the inevitable conclusion is that since I am alive, god loves me, but he did not love the victims of that fire, or the many other fires, shipwrecks, car accidents, plagues, mass school shootings etc. That is one helluva screwed-up god you believe in. As for me, I'm good, thank you. No crimes, few moral failures, and I pay for my own, since I am a responsible adult. I am not lost and do not need saving. Your god tale scratches where I have no itch.
So if the inner workings of life were simple, but outwardly life did everything life currently does, that would lead you to believe life arose naturally?
@@sanjosemike3137"Perhaps. But it is a moot point, since life is unimaginably complex, both macro and micro." it's a thought experiment to get you to reconsider WHY you think life was designed and created. Not WHETHER you think it was designed, but why. Since you were unwilling to consider it, that means you understand that complexity isn't the reason you think life was designed. Because simple but functional life would be more likely to have been designed than unimaginably complex life that...because of it's complexity is fraught with problems from genetic mutations, deformity, cellular defects...all because God chose to make it vulnerable to sin. And...if you are like most theists, you DO believe in simple life that is functional...eg life in the supernatural like angles, demons and devils. Do you think THOSE somehow arose and developed naturally? No? That proves it's not complexity that convinces you that life was designed. ' I'm just trying to help you broaden your views. Besides, you DO (likely) believe in life that isn't complex at all, right? So do you think THAT life somehow developed on its own or was it designed too?
@@Braden-York Yes it is important to distinguish between complex vs what Darwin said. He didn't use the phrase irreducibly complex. This is apparently what he wrote. "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." So until we find that something that could not have developed naturally using successive slight modifications, natural evolution is still viable. So, we're in luck.
The more humanity learns about the extent of a Creator, the more likely it is that we will begin to offer Him the praise and honor, glory and majesty that belong to His loving kindness, if we learn humility through obedience.
@@IFYOUWANTITGOGETIT You're judging God? You must be higher up than God then? So why haven't you fixed the world's problems?? God did make a perfect world but we turned out backs on him and creation began to break down. God offered us a way out through the blood of Jesus Christ but if you don't follow Christ then you are lost. God has promised he will send Jesus back to repair the Earth and us but those who don't believe will be removed as it's their lack of faith that is causing the decline.
The other thing these scientists won’t admit is that the fact that they have to set up such specific circumstances and change those circumstances for each step of this process does more to prove that it DOES take an intelligent mind to put all this together.
Yup they are effectively demonstrating intelligent design is necessary to create...while denying a Creator from the beginning. Their lack of self awareness speaks to the fact they have eyes but cannot see.
Many atheists seem to think that denying God makes Him go away. It only puts off the inevitable. They will meet Him. They had better hope that they changed their mind before they do.
@@captaingaza2389 l, who was deeply atheistic, God revealed Himself to. He did this in ways that I cannot deny. Ways that even my highly analytical and skeptical mind can never deny or even question.
All other "religions" are about how good we should be and what we need to do to "earn" Heaven and avoid hell. And based on those belief systems, we can't even know if we're going to Heaven until Judgment Day. Jesus (who IS God) came to this earth in human form and then went to hell to pay the price we deserve to pay. And ALL He asks is that we believe in HIM. It's so simple! And it makes our relationship with Him, and with others, so much easier. In other words: I don't do good deeds to earn Heaven. I try to do good because I love Jesus and I simply want to please Him. If I was doing good works just to avoid hell, then it isn't really good works; because the good deeds would not be based on my love for God (who IS Jesus) and others; but rather my own selfish desire to avoid hell. That isn't the way Jesus wants us to live. There is NO other belief system in the world that espouses a Risen Savior! And there is even lots of Historical evidence backing up the claim that He rose from the dead.
I know all about this subject, and this man nails it exactly correctly. What he's saying is really indisputable, but a lot of people don't want to hear it. Like Jesus often said "Let him who has ears to hear....."
THAT is SO true (when you said "a lot of people don't want to hear it")... I was just saying in another post how poorly made so many peoples' arguments are when they DON'T actually read / analyze the "opposite view's" literature. With regard to his persuasive argument against the primordial soup idea, I was most intrigued by his mention of the chirality issue. I know what chirality is but I do want to research that chirality issue more, since I’m not very familiar with it, but yes that point he made was very intriguing.
@@sathvamp1 My favorite detail is saying that complex things like proteins cannot get that way naturally without a designer/creator god. Over time, increased complexity is easy. Things did not start out as complex as they are now; as the Righteous Brothers sang, "Time can do so much." Just look at human creations. Our dwellings started out extremely simple and as we learned new techniques they evolved into much more complex structures. Eyes were not always as they are today. Early "eyes" were very primitive and simple things that just barely sensed light. They evolved into the many types of eyes we find today. Virtually any argument by a creationist is disputable.
@@stevepierce6467 Ah ok yup I've heard that one before. I was somewhat impressed with the chirality issue though-- while I know a lot of biology, I keep forgetting about that aspect. I don't understand it as well as a physicist would... but I do find it interesting how all of Earth's one type of molecule is "left handed" (when you'd guess half would also be right handed, but they're not)... not sure if you looked into that aspect (?)
I forgot to add that one comment at the end of the article by Jim M. AU November 28, 2013 "This ORIGIN of LIFE article should most definitely be published in a booklet form for bulk give-aways! No-one who reads it could possibly deny GOD's amazingness without willfully overdosing on self-deception." I was just wondering if you have done this? I would love to have something like that. Thank you.
Oh good grief. Would someone PLEEEASE define what god is, and how he came to be before banging on about how amazing he is, how powerful he is, how omniscient he is etc. All this means nothing until you can demonstrate the real existence of the thing these adjectives apply to.
@@mchooksis You explain first how inanimate chemicals can come to life, and how could the first cell have originated, and please no prebiotic soup fallacy. How do we get something from nothing, no cosmic fluctuations and no multiverse theories, when I mean nothing I mean not anything.
Consciousness is absolutely physical. We have several other terms for it, like self-awareness or as mbrum says, brain activity. It is not a process of outside ideas being transmitted to us. It is, as they say, all in your head. Cut off oxygen from the critical mix of chemicals and it disappears.
@@exclusive_148 The brain is indeed physical, and everything which comes from the brain is physical, unless the voices you hear are being transmitted by space lasers to the chips implanted by Fauci. Your thoughts, your awareness of these thoughts, your awareness of yourself having thoughts, all these are the physical results of measurable brain activity. Most living beings are conscious to one degree or another, and we humans are just one step further, very self-conscious.
When you apply odds to something happening no matter how impossible it seems you basically concede that there is a chance of said thing happening, so the analogy he gave of the blind people solving the rubiks cube did happen even though the odds are incomprehensible.
For those who love science, knowing it is inseparable from mathematics (and vice versa) try using them whilst maintaining your unbelief. Numbers don’t lie. Probability, cause and effect, thermodynamics, etc. argue for irrefutable proofs. All of creation declare his majesty.
@@davidhouseman4328 They purposefully demonstrate the physics we observe, assist with our sciences, etc. - which exist because of creation and creation, because of God.
@@davidhouseman4328 Math is simply a means of recording, expressing, understanding portions of God's creation that we observe. The laws of physics, for example, are a result of his creation and with math, we can appreciate how things function and the relationship(s) with other aspects of his creation. Does that help, David?
@@davidhouseman4328 I understand David. When you have built everything in your life on the basis of atheism, REAL data for the existence of God is deeply troubling. I’ve been “there”. I understand. If it makes you feel any better, I think the same “problem” is also happening to Sam Harris. Sam has been acting very peculiar. Even his closest friends are worried about him. There should be counseling offered to ex-atheists who have been “devastated” by the scientific evidence for God. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA) Retired surgeon
IF God created mathematics, can he change mathematics such that a value of two ie the claim that there are two of something, can actually become a value of 3? IOW can God make 2 things be three things without creating an additional one? Or is mathematics something that even God can't change suggesting mathematics is fundamental even to God?
Such an amazing talk and scientifically supported A clear demonstration of existence of superior force Why don’t we got that before ? Thank you so much for this. I guess that deep down every human being knows it now we have to deal with it
I've read that, in the 1950's a group of Scientists estimated the "Chances" of basic organic molecules to "self-assemble" was so rare, that the most optimistic Estimates would exceed the "age of the universe" by a factor of 100x all the way up to 100,000 times!!!
That is like saying that the chances of grains of sand "self-assembling" into buildings are nil. But sand and more sand mixed with other stuff becomes cement and when poured, it can become skyscrapers etc.
Amazing what just 70-100 years of science discoveries can produce. In my lifetime we discovered DNA (early 50s), and barely 25 years before I was born they finally discovered definitively that our Galaxy is not the entire universe (1923). Science keeps on searching, religion stops dead and petrified. Now we have a much clearer understanding of chemistry and physics and how the building blocks of life could assemble, but not thanks to any effort on the part of religious fanatics.
This all makes 100% sense. The question now is how did life come into existence? Form bacteria, fungus,plants, chlorophyll, bugs, snakes, cows and us? How about some intelligent debate about this. To say, Oh, God did it, is childish, and God is not childish. He is the supreme intellectual that created universe. Time to shift gears and stop bagging naturalism.
Thanks for sharing this magnificent video ! ...Our complex Life did not come by chance. Random processes do not create the terribly complex design. So the foundation of life including every simple cell is Evidence of active intelligent design (first cause)..
The greatest discovery of modern science is that life could not have arisen on its own but could only have been designed and created by a super intelligence. At the same time we have learned the universe itself- space, time, matter and energy- is comprised of elements so exquisitely fine tuned that they as well can only have been designed by a super intelligent being. Who in this case is eternal, with neither beginning nor end, and metaphysical, existing beyond space, time, matter and energy. In short, science has discovered God.
First of all, modern science has NEVER made the discovery that life could not have arisen on its own but could only have been designed and created by a super intelligence. Please show me the paper on this great discovery. Only creationists say this and they can put forward no evidence to back up their claim. Secondly "At the same time we have learned the universe itself- space, time, matter and energy- is comprised of elements so exquisitely fine tuned that they as well can only have been designed by a super intelligent being." Again, science has NEVER shown this to be true. Please back up your scientific claim.
An even greater discovery would be to find how it is possible for citizens of an advanced and educated society to be able to constantly misrepresent the findings of science.
Creationism is amazing... It's like a buffet. Accept the science you like but if any science goes against book of mythology, it's naughty and then you invoke god of the gaps!
The big problem is that it’s that spontaneous occurrence of life. Even so called simple life is utterly impossible and improbable. It’s the height of hubris to think otherwise.
@@numbersix9477 The video's purpose is to explain the impossibility of life occuring spontaneously. The science approved of by universities says life somehow occured some millions of years ago or something. I disagreed with the science view.
@@locker1325 I'm still a little shy about trusting your judgement. Hence, I'm inclined to listen to the 99% of career geneticists who disagree with you. I'm inclined to listen to the 98% of career geologists who disagree with you. I'm inclined to listen to the 99% of career cosmologists who disagree with you. I'm inclined to listen to the 99% of career primatologists who disagree with you. Please explain to me why I should listen to you instead of to all of them.
Dear Dr. Don Batten, thank you for the wonderful presentation. I often use the analogy that abiogenesis is like throwing straws into the air and expecting a fully programmed, self-powered, self-replicating factory to land in front of you. No matter how many years or decades you spend throwing the straw, it will never land as an automated factory because it simply can't.
I'm not religious and I'm not an atheist, I just don't know. This man speaks beautifully about his science and understanding. Dawkin should not be allowed in the same room.
@@houmm08 Mmmmm! I don't believe in something that's not there so, logically, I believe in it to allow it not to be there. Is that what you are saying? I believe in nothing until it is proven, I think that's called science. In other words I don't believe in the gods of religions but I don't know that there isn't one.
@@55north17I have had to endure more science at an undergraduate and graduate level - organic, biochem, etc. I have no clue how anyone of a sufficient intelligence (which I’m sure you have) can, at this point, not recognize the engineering of a greater kind that has spun this all into being.
@@jkorling This will sound strange but I think you require far more “proof” for the existence of God than you require for the belief that science will either determine these oddities (like the statistical oddities)or that a scientific answer is there even if we never discover what it is. I imagine that it would seem obvious that you’d allow for more uncertainty when it comes to science than what many believe to be an imaginary being. However, I would guess that the vast majority of people who side with the existence of God but enter these scientific debates did not reach their faith through much, if any scientific reasoning. If you focus only on science in an attempt to “see” God, you’ve missed a vast amount of what points to a great mind behind all of this. The reason I say that is that if your coming into these discussions, like I do, having already recognized that the real mysteries don’t lie in the outrageous odds of fine-tuning or the causal factors for the Bi Bang. They exist in our ability to recognize beauty, to feel true love and compassion for others and often those we don’t even know, to have the capability to consider and contemplate, to imagine and hope, to sacrifice, and to carry a conscience that almost literally, at times, stops us from doing wrong or pushes us to do right. To attribute those intangible gifts to genetic mutation and natural selection doesn’t add up to me. Many of our attributes as humans don’t seem to provide an evolutionary advantages and might actually be a disadvantage. You bring those to the table and the scientific arrows that might point to a god get much brighter.
To add to what he says about chirality, there is no chirality in solution. It only appears when the molecules crystallize out. Since life is water-based there would have to be endless cycles of crystallizing and redissolving on top of which a lipid coat woulf have to be entrained with the crystals to preseve the stereochemistry,
Thanks brother and sister. We talked about this at L'Abri Sydney when the Intelligence Design battle started. The evidence for intelligence is overwhelming.
I am an engineer. Could some natural science graduate (e.g. biologist) explain to me, or at least give me some speculation, hypothesis or whatever you guys called it, how on earth can you make an exact 1:1 copy of something without engineering ... (in particularly, the cell division. As far as I know, the cell division even in the simplest bacteria is a highly orchestrated process with lots of checkpoints, proofreading/repair systems - to make sure, that there is a 1: 1 copy after cell division.) So please, biologists or whoever, give me some speculation on how this can be done without engineering ... PS: and one more silly question ... how you guys, natural science graduates imagine, that something can replicate / live, for 2-3 billions of years without engineering. What level of faith is required to believe these things. Thanks. -an engineer.
and who are you? What's is your education ? Are you a biologist ? I was looking for a biologist ... PS: By the way, I don't quite understand why should I reach out to James Tour. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but Dr. Tour doesn't seem to believe that this can be done without engineering... So why should I ask him ? I don't get it ... @@hrvad
Thank you for sharing the underlining issue. "Getting rid of God" what you have demonstrated is just how far some will go to refuse to recognize their Maker ...
@@wefinishthisnow3883 It may be news to you-but it has been my experience. MY EXPERIENCE in engaging folks who embrace a naturalistic view. In fact, someone the other day was calling me a "fool" for not knowing what he claimed was "common knowledge". But I was not claiming that any "reputable" atheists (as if there are any) make the claim. No, they just like to claim that we are "close" to creating it-even though that is also a lie.
His alleged probabilistical proof of the impossibility or life (protein) emerging without intelligent design is flawed. A coin has a 1 in 2 chance of fliiping heads. That doesnt mean you have to flip it twice before it can flip heads. Similarly, there being a 1 in 10^195 chance of something happening (even assuming that's a correct assumption) doesnt mean you need 10^195 "events" before it will happen. All it needed for the simplest pre-cursor to a living thing to emerge, was for the ingredients to happen to come together once in a particular way over the span of billions of years, over the span of a universe containing billions of galaxies containing even more planets and moons. That is not impossible, doesn't require an outside deity to direct the process, can easily happen by chance. Everything else then is a question of further complexity and development, again over billions of years, again depending on a mixture of chance and randomness and context, and involving billions of changes that let nowhere and essentially disappeared because they failed to be carried over to the next generations. Again not needing a direct deity. The fact living things developed the way they have was not a given. The process hasn't ended and who knows how living things will end up. Reasoning that "the way living things are NOW is really complicated and how they are NOW would have been impossible to just throw randomly together out of nowhere" betrays a fundamental misunderstanding. You can't reason back from where we are now to say "this is too perfect/complex to have just come about from nowhere". Where we are now isnt optiimized, didnt come suddenly from nowhere, are they are still constantly changing.
"The Creator did it all." - So far it is the only theory that's not been scientifically proven impossible. The only known alternative (abiogenesis) is empirically proven impossible, while also being against the laws of physics.
Not random physical processes. Physics and chemistry will probably eventually show that life MUST arise on planets like Earth because of the sources of energy and ability of proteins to form more and more complicated structures, including self replicating ones under very specific circumstances.
Nonsense. A small 100 amino acid protein has 20^100 possible configurations and only one works forth specific job. There are only 10^70 atoms in the universe? It’s impossible for any unguided process to find the correct configurations. Sit down, U don’t understand science.
@edwardj3070. I don't mean to offend you in regards to what I'm about to say ... But I laughed out loud at what you wrote ____particularly this:"LIFE MUST HAVE..." Buddy, don't you even see that the entire theory of evolution is based on MUST HAVES? For example, you mentioned earth,physics,and chemistry. Earth MUST HAVE formed for evolution's sake! The laws of physics? They MUST HAVE come about for evolution's sake! Chemicals that make chemistry possible? They MUST HAVE existed ___for evolution's sake! When you invoke that many MUST HAVES, I know that you realize science is no longer a part of such thinking. What that view really says is this: You don't care that you MUST use MUST HAVES,so long as you don't have to admit to some supernatural causality! My guy ,too many MUST HAVES already put you right in the thick of supernaturality regardless! If you want to assert that I'm wrong, please respond with all the natural ways through which chemicals just happened to be present for evolution? Please respond with all the natural ways through which the laws of physics just somehow happened? Please explain how the first single -celled organisms MUST HAVE just come about for the sake of evolution? Or how it has always naturally existed? Please explain how the water for our so-called primordial, single -celled predecessors naturalistically always existed? Oxygen? Please explain how that arose naturally? My list is extensive so there is no point. But maybe must have is a great solve-all for any person that desires such an obvious evasion of any real and believable answer!!
@@GregoryHolden-k5c I wrote "MUST" not "MUST HAVE",... and, "probably". We don't know anything unless there is good evidence. There never has, and never will be evidence of your postulated supernatural intervention in the physical world.
Actually, virtual particles spontaneously appear and disappear in vacuums all the time. These particles are real and are the widely-accepted explanation for the Casimir effect, which was observed in 1997 with a direct experiment by Steven K. Lamoreaux that quantitatively measured the Casimir force to within 5% of the value predicted by the theory.
@@wefinishthisnow3883 The current theory is that particles appear and disappear. That has not been observed. If this theoretical belief is true, it still does not mean that molecules can pop into existence from nothing. If the idea you mention is true, then scientists must deal with the reality that magic exists.
@@wefinishthisnow3883Yet they still contend these “ghost” particles came from something. And that’s not even the biggest problem with you using virtual particles to jump into the origin of life debate. This has also never been observed physically. Right now it’s a model to explain a Phenomena. Someone has claimed to have imaged an atom. Not verified yet. Still haven’t imaged this phenomena you are speaking of.
If given an entire cell. Everything in its place that is needed. They cant make it live. If given a living cell and it dies, they don't know what was lost or how to get it back.
@@knockoutrat4065 scientists know a vast amount more on evolution than abiogenesis. And I’m sure they could explain how Earth’s water came to be. Can you explain how the most complex being ever, inside and outside the universe, came to be?
As a non scientis listening to this and other biologists like James Tour its easyto understand why life just didn't either spontaneously occur or could come about by the accidental jiggling about of chemicals no matter how old the earth or universe is , but the chance of an intelligent force , god or otherwise is a real possibility to me even if its non religious .
For the life of me I can't understand how scientists are the most atheists. They see and know these miraculous things firsthand. Things that the average person doesn't even think about. Yet they are adamant atheist. Is it really as simple as, they know and they are just scared? But you would think at least one of them would come out and just say that
Isaac Newton found God in Nature and saw science as a bridge between the human and the divine mind. For Newton to adore Nature, to study it scientifically, was a devotional act. Newton on the Solar System: "Though these bodies may indeed continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws. Thus, this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." - General Scholium to the Principia The most important founders of modern science believed in God: Nicolaus Copernicus (a monk), Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Joseph Priestley, James Clerk Maxwell, Gregor Mendel (the founder of genetics and abbot of a monastery), Lord Kelvin and Albert Einstein. Plus, many of the pioneers of quantum physics: Werner Heisenberg, Max Plank, Erwin Schrödinger, James Jeans, Louis de Broglie, Wolfgang Pauli and Arthur Eddington. And today's scientists - the astrophysicist Paul Davies, Simon Conway Morris (Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology at Cambridge), Alasdair Coles (Professor of Neuro-immunology at Cambridge), John Polkinghorne (who was Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge), Russell Stannard, Freeman Dyson … and Francis Collins, who led the team of 2,400 international scientists on the Human Genome Project and was an atheist until the age of 27, when he became a Christian. Natural sciences started to decline only when Charles Darwin presented his evolution theory in 1859, without understanding anything of genetics or thermodynamics or information science. Over 60% of all Nobel Laureates in Science believe in God (1900-1999). It seems that the more ignorant a person is, the more he is inclined towards atheism.
This is not true. Only the scientists promoted by media, there are millions of intelligent people that already know that the current origin of life theories are lies. A larger question is - why?
Actually, real scientists do come forward...but are often chastened and chastised by their peers for recognizing the supernatural implications of their findings. They are often dismissed from their jobs or not granted tenure. Watch the movie "Expelled"...for just a sliver of the what is happening in academia to those following the science where it leads them and getting punished for coming to the conclusion there had to be a designer. I know personally a microbiologist denied tenure for suggesting that there had to be a designer.
What I realised when told that proteins are made of a specific sequence of amino acids , that have to be left handed, and that there are 20 amino acids was that would preclude random selection, which would mean that Darwinism or evolution was a lie.
@@stevepierce6467 it is not about proving or believing anything. It is a question to which, "I don't know" might be the perfect answer. Believe whatever you want but do you really know?
i never undstand this. do creationists think that God just materialized life out of nothing? just poofed everything into existence? and that looking at natural laws is pointless because God did not use them?
Just think, if all the scientists were as honest as he is, instead of falling in line to get money, awards, and position, we wouldn’t be teaching nonsense to our children in schools across the world today.
People confuse building the flesh with building life. The most astonishing thing about the origins of life is that what physical chemical could cause material flesh to be self propelling and self-sustaining. To act in ways that are not 100% predictable.
In all of human history no explanation for an observed phenomenon has gone from a natural explanation to a supernatural one. Literally millions of observed phenomenon have gone from a supernatural explanation to a natural one. Im going to bet that trend continues.
The problem with your claim is that is it too broad to test scientifically, so it just becomes rhetoric. But it sounds very much like you are describing a kind of spiritual entropy which is something that can be tested and is proven to be true.
@@gamerpip493 it's not a claim, it's a demonstrably true statment. I'm not attempting to make a prediction, nor am I making a claim. I'm stating a fact that is absolutely irrefutable. It's like stating acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 meters per second. I'm not attempting to explain what causes gravity, just stating a well known fact.
Just because a phenomenon has a natural explanation does not mean it’s supernatural explanation is made redundant. Events can have various explanations. You are implying a false dichotomy. Water boiling in a kettle can have a physics based explanation and other logical explanations. 1.) Electric energy is converted to heat energy and conducted into the water where it is kinetic energy etc. 2.) I want to make a cup of tea.
@m0x910 There is no supernatural explanation to how water boules. At one point, it was thought to be magic, but now we know it's not. That's how all human experiences since the dawn of time have gone.
65 million years ago the dinosaurs were wiped out leaving only small mammals like rats . Did all the mammals alive since then evolve from the rats or were there still life crawling out of the chemical soup?
To be fair, we've really only just started looking in the past few years with the James Webb Space Telescope, the Perseverance Rover on Mars. The Dragonfly mission to Titan may reveal further clues as well. And we've already seen biosignatures on the planet K2-18b and desert 'varnish' on Mars which are nothing conclusive, but do warrant further investigation over the coming decades.
@@davidhouseman4328 So small as to be impossible given the age of the universe. Trillions of trillions of trillions of years are needed for even a single protein to form by chance.
@@davidhouseman4328 It is possible that it is infinite. But most physicists prefer not to deal with infinities in their math. The Wheeler-DeWitt equation requires that boundaries be set in order to “posit” a universe that “looks like ours.” The problems with atheism are that most the math requires infinities. It gets to the point that Fine-Tuning is a wall that needs to be jumped at every turn in the road. If I would “recommend” you continue with your atheism, I’d stick with refutations of the Bible and evil and suffering. The science is getting to be a REAL PROBLEM for atheists. For example, Sam Harris is now spending most of his time attacking heinous religious beliefs. That is a fertile ground, for sure. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
"Which doesn't add up for it being made in some sort of a chemical soup".. is like saying I don't believe it so it can't be true. If life didn't start by itself... then there was a creator... and guess what.... then we still have the same problem.... How did he/they get into existence?
Every point on the surface of the planet, throughout the volume of the lakes and oceans, and volumes of dust were and are like tiny little science experiments, questing for a combination that survives and procreates. Combine that with millions of years, that makes the probability of creation of life incalculable. The one thing we know for certain is that somehow life was created.
Great information in this. To bad professors dave will never see this, he might actually learn something. Then he wouldnt have to act luke he knows what he is talking about. Lol thank you foe the video
@@globalcoupledances perhaps if your talking about basic chemistry. If your looking into abiogenesis or evolution definitely not. Dave tells a lot of lies and half truths with exaggerated news as the norm. As much as I have seen him twist the facts I couldn't trust him to tell me the sky is blue.
@@globalcoupledances have you actually looked into those mutations? I'll bet you haven't. I had some ignorant guy tell me one day how that this broken gene can help you be immune to aids I'd you have a copy from each parent and that's a form of evolution. I had to explain to him there is no mechanism for an organism to gain new never before seen information. You can get broken genes or copies of existing genes that do something different. That's not evolution at all. That wouldn't take a fish to a lizard. Also in 99% of those cases it makes the organism less fit. That same mutation to make you immune to aids lessons your OVERALL LIFE SPAN, MAKES YOU MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO CANCER, THE FLU AND OTHER ILLNESSES. THE problem is gullible people believe the crap about evolution. When they are told only a good point never the truth. Fuur flies have been around a long time. We done everything we can to mutate them to get faster evolution. All we ever got is fruit flies and DEAD FRUIT FLIES. Never any real form of evolution. So go look up what I told you and actually LEARN SOMETHING FOR ONCE STOP BUYING INTO THE LIES
I don't believe it was random but to be fair you have to say that with a "little" luck you always have a chance that something random will happen in a first try, no matter how small the chance is. So saying it's impossible is not technically correct. On the other hand I've always wondered if a real randomness even exist. I don't believe so...
James Tour has said in many videos "As a scientist I can never say they we will not be able to create life." He also says that as research learns more and more the challenge of creating life is not getting closer but receding from view... life is ever more complex as knowledge expands. For being such a undeniable genius and professes Christian he cannot see the violent contradictions. He tells of a protein in a simple yeast cell that has 1 x 10 to 79,000,000,000 separate steps in the assembly and all have to be correct. That is a crazy big number so big such that one can say with certainty that life cannot self assemble.the universe has supposedly 1 x 10 to 90 elemental particles. Tour is hard stuck in a paradigm trap. He is unwilling to break from his academy and speak conclusively. Sure he will get fully ostracized but the Truth is ALWAYS COSTLY and is unwilling to speak. Grrrr.
Tour signed that thing by scientists saying something along the lines of that they doubted mutations could account for evolution. I read the last paragraph on his intro page, and I get the impression he doesn't accept evolution but he won't definitively say so because he hasn't done a thorough study of the subject.
You can "believe in evolution" just fine if you accept that it doesn't answer the question "Where does life come from and how?" It answers a whole bunch of other important questions.
Maybe life started with the most extreme event in our universe where all “ingredients” for life were contained and through the mass amount of energy and whatever else extreme processes were produced, somehow caused a fusion of sorts that led to the development of life. The seeds of life could then have been distributed throughout the universe by various means. For extraordinary events to occur we might need extraordinary circumstances. Or maybe the intensity of singularities caused a similar event. Also, the way you describe the dna being unraveled, makes me think of life being vary similar to machines and that we are like biological computer systems.
So you're ascribing intelligence to a purely naturalistic event or events...????!!! How come it's all so beautifully amenable to our human LOGIC ( an abstract entity requiring intelligence )????
Sad how people can hear a video like this and still hold to the idea that life will create itself. Man will believe in anything rather than believe in God.
Romans 1:18-20 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godliness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made so that men are without excuse.
I have neither belief nor faith. My world view is entirely evidence-based. Nobody has ever produced any falsifiable evidence to support the existence claim of any god, let alone the God of the Bible.
Calling something that very obviously must have happened "impossible" is an intellectually courageous (stupid) thing to do. Calling anything impossible is subject to retraction when it happens before your eyes. You have got to have some strong evidence to back it up, because as I said, the evidence that it did happen is, amongst other things, writing this post. "It looks improbable" or "I calculate it as improbable" doesn't cut it, as the universe we find ourselves in looks more improbable, the more we discover about it. And before we go there, making it the subject of a devine hand, for which we have no evidence, makes it MORE not less improbable.
Just a couple of impossible things. So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. - Hebrews 6:17-18 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God. And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. - Hebrews 11:5-6 As for evidence, you're overlooking this: The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. - Psalm 19:1
@@intentionally-blankVery interesting, but it failed to address the issue I raised. Calling something impossible that we know happened, I.e. the transition from non-life to life is wrong. There must have been a transition from non-living chemicals to living organisms. The point of dispute is HOW it happened. You can't rule out one possible explanation by calling it impossible. It has zero explanatory depth.
@@psychologicalprojectionist "We know happened"? Where are the witnesses to this event? Where are the un/'guided' experiments to reproduce such a transition? A bias against the supernatural is what we are witnessing here. Examining the evidence one can come to a different very different understanding of DNA itself: /watch?v=Y3K-2i3nOyM
Laugh now, wail after your physical life is over. Unless you repent and put your trust in what Jesus did on the cross to pay for our sins - so that we don't have to. Jesus is the way, the truth and the LIFE ( now there's a Word!! ).
@@kevinrtres Ah, that inimitable "christian love," so full of threats of dire punishment. Yet so far, not a single human has ever seen that there is a life after death. I prefer a more realistic and gentler way of thinking; after I die, my physical part returns to the earth to provide sustenance for new life. My human part lives on in all the people I ever interacted with. That is real comfort and solace (and no threats!!).
Because they have better things to do than to monitor and respond within 24 hours to every single channel on youtube that uploads false/misleading science?
@@wefinishthisnow3883The truth is not science. They are telling the truth in the video. The truth is irrefutable. You are free to live in denial however.
We are composed of atoms arranged into molecules that are arranged into larger systems. It is obvious that if we are in fact alive the ingredients that make us are also alive. Chemistry is biology.
@@wefinishthisnow3883 I recall it was Darwin's friend Lyell who declared that science must get rid of Moses. But Darwin had Lyell as his greatest inspirer so their thoughts were much the same. Richard Dawkins' words are revealing: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Here he inadvertently admitted that atheism was never based on intellect or science. Atheists of course became happy when they finally could refer to something that at least LOOKED scientific, albeit being just the ignorant Darwin's pseudo scientific ideas. Here we see no scientific approach from Dawkins. Based on his statement, atheists have been atheists and would be atheists with or without Darwin. Scientific evidence is neither wanted nor needed.
That is not true. Darwin describes in his autobiography how his process went from being a believer to being a non-believer (atheist) due to his travels studying wildlife
Its all a understanding and defining words. Life started naturally/evolution or by creative design is all the same. Both ideas have a plan, a structure, a progression, controlled set of rules to create life. Who caused or designed the "evolution/natural way" for life to emerge? Or who or what created life? Evolutionarily/Naturally life emerged or by creative intention both have a structure, a design, a set of rules, laws which govern the creation of life. Either way does not explain life. There is something which transends evolution and creation. Evolution and creation are the polarization of something human kind can not explain.
@@klouis1886 1.) Machines are defined as an apparatus using mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task. ATP synthase is a molecular machine. 2.) Every instance of a machine is first conceptualised in intelligent mind(s), then designed by a mind(s), then created by intelligent mind(s). 4.) There is no observable natural phenomenon that can produce a machine. 3.) Therefore ATP synthase is the product of intelligent mind(s).
@@klouis1886 1.) Machines are defined as an apparatus using mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task. 2.) Every instance of a machine is first conceptualised in intelligent mind(s), then designed by intelligent mind(s), then created by intelligent mind(s). 3.) There is no observable natural phenomenon that can produce machines. 4.) ATP synthase is a molecular machine. 5.) Therefore ATP synthase is the product of intelligent mind(s) not natural phenomena.
The probabilities are a big problem. If I were to be as generous as possible to the naturalistic explanation I think we had to invent another problem to that theory, namely that the universe we live in is somehow infused with a higher order purpose of things that cause physical events to act in a non-random way. But that again leads to God, as that is where telos is. The current theory is file mechanistic and refuses to talk about telos. Perhaps with effort, new instruments and new math we might even as human be able to detect this - like if we could observe a gazillion chemical events directly and record them, and then do the math on it. Fractals strike me as interesting here, because they're so simple mathematically, but visualizations of them can literally produce a tree, a broccoli or a fern from the same equation depending on the seed numbers you put into them.
Oh great - we don’t know the answer yet therefore god. Seen this before… Earthquake? God! Lightning? God! The Sun? God! Plagues? God! These didn’t stand up and neither will this approach. This is just preaching to the converted already and convinces nobody else.
The things you mention are part the proces of good and evil. God defines what is good and what is not good (evil) not humans. Below I give you the model the bible describes about good vs evil. The starting point is genesis 1.31. God has created everything and saw it was “very good”. This is including human beings. So there once was a time when humans were very good according to God. But what is very good about humans? Genesis 2.25 “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. “ Genesis 3.7 “And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.” So we can make a model (see below) out of this information: very good: Everything is taken for granted by/taken care of for humans - Humans are naked but are not aware of this. (- Humans have all ways food growing on trees.) (- Animals and humans are vegetarian) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- fallen world Good: Not being aware of your nakedness, but there is always deterioration. - - - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- evil: Things are not taken for granted - Humans are naked and are aware of this. - Humans don't have food, must make their own food- Animals are dangerous for humans etc. It is a diagram in the shape of the letter Z. Everything above the upper line is the very good world. Every thing is taken for granted for human beings. They don't have to do things themselves, take effort, to have it good: food is supplied by trees, being warm is normal, there is no lust for nakedness because humans are unaware of their nakedness. In leviticus it is clear that nakedness is the private part of a human being. Everything below the upper line is the fallen world. Just below the upper line it is "Good". People are not aware of their nakedness, but there is always deterioration of the things made. Everything below the lowest line is the oposite of “very good”. So not very good, or biblically; “evil”. People are aware of their nakedness. So being aware of your nakedness is called evil. This is because people want to know the difference between good and evil. The oblique line is the “They have to take effort to have it good” process or you might say: figure it out yourself! Have it cold? Shave a sheep, clean the wool, spin, weave, tailor. Bring the process to Asia, add: Built ocean container ships, 1.000.000 crude oil barrels for one way there, dig Suez canal for Europe, built harbors, roads for trucks to bring the clothing to the shops. Now every independent woman can say she bought here own jacket with her own money. Built a house, bake stones, cut timber, dig for copper for electric wires, dig iron for nails, screws, central heating, process glass windows somehow, take a loan, work 30 years to pay it off: aaah nice warm and cozy. But if you cannot pay the gas bill you might have it cold in the winter (downfall). Want food?, clear the field, plant crops, keep birds away from picking seed, harvest, keep harvest safe from animals, grind the grain, built oven, chop wood, now how to make fie, knead dough, bake bread. As a man, seeing a nice woman leads to sexual thoughts. You feel an erection. Biblically this is the moment you notice your nakedness, which is not good. So to have it good (not feeling your nakedness), you must take effort. You cannot do this by covering your body with clothing but by “strengthening your mind”.Today people would say: meditate. As a start, look the other way is the most easy way to do. Jesus says “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” So you cannot look at your own wife with lust which makes perfect sense. Lust is “noticing your nakedness”, which is not good. Think about the Lords Prayer: “Do not lead us in temptation and deliver us from evil.” Cuddling and spooning is fine of course. In what God thinks is very good, grown ups will only have sex when they want to make a baby, so Catholic priests having sex with young boys is absurd according to what God thinks is very good. Other things you can explain with this diagram: Why does God not show himself? Very good is when God walks with Adam and Eve and talks with them. So the opposite of this is: God does not walk with humans on earth. He doesn't show himself so we have to look for him (take effort): read and study, comprehend the bible, develop counter arguments against atheists, and other religions etc. Why have children cancer, why the plague? Good is: not to die. To live forever. The opposite, evil, is: to die. So we have to take effort not to die. We have to develop medicines (from nature or otherwise), we have to make (healthy) food ourselves or we get sick or starve to death, we have to make clothing against the cold so we won't freeze. (Just say: Jesus I repent, I am a sinner, I will turn my back to my sinful life, and then you will live for ever after you die). Homosexuality. Very Good is when a “Man leaves his father and mother and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. So the opposite, evil, of this is: A man does not attaches himself to his wife and be one flesh, but he cleaves to something else: Not his own wife, a man, an animal. So he has to take effort not to do so. Pay attention, according to the model a heterosexual man cannot look with lust at a woman, so a homosexual cannot look with lust at a man. It is the same thing: noticing of your nakedness, which is not very good. He might start a relation with a lesbian woman. So they have sex to make a baby without lust, which is very good according to God.
The only ones guilty of the argument from ignorance fallacy is the so called scientists/atheists. They claim ignorance on exactly how life began yet insist “natural processes”, “billions of years” and “chance” are responsible. They invoke 3 gods to fill the gaping void in their knowledge: Chemistry, Time and Luck. In contrast the Christian argues from what we know is true: 1.) DNA is semiotic information. 2.) Every instance of semiotic information existing is always the result of an intellect, no exceptions exist. 3.) There is no known natural phenomenon or mechanism that could compose semiotic information (that is to imbue meaning into a specifically complex sequence) 4.) DNA is therefore the product of an intellect. 5.) The discovery of DNA and its semiotic nature is irrefutable proof of the existence of at least one supreme intellect before life began (as we know it) on earth.
For an animal to even entertain the idea of a higher power proves that higher power, IMO. That higher power is revealed in the only Word that holds together under scrutiny. Thank You, Lord Jesus.
Does this guy actually know what he is talking about? Does he KNOW that complex life only began a mere 600 million years ago after 3 and a half BILLION years of simple single celled life. So did god create single celled life, and then wait a few billion years before snapping his fingers and multicellular life began. Why would he do that? To start talking about eyes, bones and skin etc, is completely ignoring nearly 4 Billion years of earth's history and the evolution of life.
@@frankieRandle8779 He has a PhD in plant science. He did NOT study abiogenesis or evolution. He speaks on these subjects not through in depth knowledge of the science of abiogenesis, but because he thinks he HAS to discredit it in order to confirm his faith that things can happen through magic rather than through scientific principles. He cannot supply any robust evidence for the beliefs he postulates. His work on tropical fruits is backed up by solid evidence in his research. he is unable to do this with abiogenesis because he has done no research on it. It is no good quoting his PhD because when he talks about abiogenesis he is talking from a creationist perspective, and creationism is demonstrably not scientific, so he cannot equate it to the science of abiogenesis. When he talks about his plant research he is talking from a Science standpoint, so his work can be taken with more respect. "I’d listen to what he’s talking about.".....on the basis of the above, WHY? Why don't you listen to me, I am a zoologist, with a background in cell biology.
@@junacebedo888 "Did you witness how life began millions of years ago?" That is a ridiculous retort. You do not need to witness something to know it how happened, you can work it out by putting the clues together. Do the jurors on a murder trial witness the murder? Or do they look at the evidence left by the murder to establish how it happened? Once there was no life on this planet, then there was simple life for billions of years, then there was complex life for 500 million years or so. All this has left lots of evidence for us to research and work out the process of how it all happened. The bible creation story however is the least likely explanation simply because there has never been ANY evidence for a god that is said to have magically just willed it all into existence. In fact this god only made an appearance a few thousand years ago in the middle East, despite the fact that have been thousands of gods before that that people believed in, ALL of which have left no evidence for their existence. And you cannot say that the fact that the earth universe and life exists is the evidence. No it is not, because there are other hypotheses to explain these things. Some have left evidence, others no evidence and the god hypothesis is the least likely of them all
Perfect explanation. As a human being I am proud of this professor. Now, I understand. We are not here in the world by chance, but we are here for understanding what the good is, what the bad is. I believe after passing away that means after leaving this body here in the world we, our soul will go some other dimensions as we deserve as human being. That’s that makes me happy.
I am glad that you truth-proofed your statement with "I believe..." Otherwise it is utter unsupported wishful thinking, especially where you claim that "we deserve..." going to some other place after we die.
Darwin didn't have much to say about biogenesis. He merely speculated that it was a random event. He would not necessarily reject the probability discussion here. None of this is inconsistent with evolution, which happens after biogenesis.
If they didn't make the overwhelming possibility of bio-friendly complex ingredients form in mega complex bio structures with functional capability... without a designer... that doesn't even consider the essense of life, what life is, and how it would come to visit and synergistically work with those in an alliance for some arbitrary temporary period. One minute it's potentially life supporting while the next minute it's not. Same ingredients. What is life, consciousness, intelligence, and instinct?
If there is a designer natural question who designed the designer?.. If designer has existed or designed himself then you have not explained anything. You have just created a new step
You didn't mention the meta information in DNA. The information required to assemble proteins into useful machines. You can't say all the information needed to build a skyscraper is to know how to smelt steel and concrete....
A Protean comes together via random processes = incredibly unlikely. Maybe that's why science doesn't pursue this as a cause for the beginning of life. We know that inorganic chemical reactions can generate complexity (the examples are legion). It is possible that a (relatively simple) molecule, in an environment or complex inorganic molecules could become self-catalytic (i.e. tends to aid the creation of more of itself). With replication, and the known fact that reactions aren't perfect, we have "natural selection". All the other parts that we call life, are just natural additions to improving this replication.
The kind of complexity that inorganic chemical reactions can create is irrelevant to the origin of life, because it's an entirely different kind of complexity that life requires. Life requires specified complexity----the kind of complexity that makes an intelligible paragraph out of a jumble of letters, or could build a functional machine out of a pile of junk. That requires FORESIGHT and INTELLIGENCE.
![[DRIP] ‘Love, Maybe’ PREVIEW](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U7hwHp95m1k/mqdefault.jpg)
What makes the problem even worse is the step into chemical reactions requiring energy to overcome the hurdle of joining single units (monomers) together to make larger multi unit sequences (polymers).
The ridiculous claim that life could have started thru RNAs and the example given is a self-replicating RNA found in a bacterium (sorry forgotten where the claim was from). Although this occurs, it piggy backs off of a network of other proteins and molecular structures needed to make the energy required for the self-replication to occur, otherwise without that energy the chemical bonds would not form. I think the example investigated required GTP (guanine tri-phosphate) for the energy transfer to occur (GTP doesn't form naturally), which from what I recall requires a parasitic salvaging of energy from ATP to convert GDP (guanine di-phosphate) to GTP, which in turn requires ATPase (ATP doesn't occur naturally), the little motor that is also explained by CMI.
It's incredible how evolutionists use snippets of info with an air of authority in their statement as if just them saying it overcomes the unsurmountable hurdles that stop the whole line of thinking dead in its tracks.
The energy comes from a lightning bolt just like in Frankenstein.
@@valentin1808 I'm sorry but I've got to laugh at your sheer ignorance. A lightning bolt would charcoal everything. It's too much energy. In chemistry things are measured in mols for a reason. 1 mol = 6.022 x 10^23 (Avogadro's number) individual molecules/atoms. The third phosphate carries most of the energy at 30.5kJ/mole. This is a lot if a mole is considered but each individual reaction is a miniscule fraction of that. The energy (or electropotential) is enough to drive each chemical reaction just right but not enough to blow the whole lot apart so that atoms don't shoot electrons out of their respective shells out to a distance where they become free electrons, maintaining the integrity of the bond just made/broken. For a lightning bolt to be useful trillions upon trillions of chemical reactions ready to go off would be needed to take up the energy. There is a reason that when a lightning strike hits something it is pulverized. Only some things survive and that's because the energy has been dispersed leaving the thing intact. Real life is not a Frankenstein movie, no matter how much the proponents of this mechanism try to indulge it. As I said in my previous comment just saying it is so doesn't make it so.
Evolutionists are blocking the progress of scientific investigation. Dawkins will go into history alongside leeches and blood letting.
@@DiosBaramin There are plenty of sources of energy other than a lightening bolt, Dios, I think it might be you showing your lack of understanding of things. Early life almost certainly used chemical synthesis as a source of energy,
@@mchooksisThere will come a day, when YOU as well...will KNOW the Lord. And when that happens...these words will be whispered in your ears...and you will know the Lord exists. I assure you...that day is coming.
Don, a real scientist and a true believer in Christ... And sis Jess too... God bless you and thank you Lord for using them so well
Correct, as opposed to the woke secular atheist "university" scientists that are owned by the DEI establishment.
@@TearDownThisWall "Correct, as opposed to the woke secular atheist "university" scientists that are owned by the DEI establishment."
You sound angry... are you sure you're saved by grace. I observe no grace.
@@rizdekd3912 Not angry at all, in fact filled with joy and gratitude every day.
Grace is unearned or undeserved love. Are you sure you know the definition of grace?
Hi again brethren, is this interview available somewhere in spanish?
Yes ... your Christ would be so proud of their lies.
Not just left handed but also the specific bonds between the amino acids as well as the sugars.
The Drake equation is rubbish.
@@chrism.1131 Simple arithmetic, along with simple tossing dice, is a better predictor. One star with 8 planets has one known to harbor life. Multiply that by the number of stars out there and you get a good estimate of possible planets with life on them. Maybe only one in six stars (the dice) will have the occupied planet.
Scientific method requires evidence. There is zero evidence of life on other planets. The Drake equation is based on speculation, not science. @@stevepierce6467
@@stevepierce6467
That's speculation though, you're basing that assumption on probability not facts.
@@technicianbis5250-ig1zd Of course it is speculation! Everything we predict about what we cannot see is speculation. But it is speculation based on the fact of our existence and extrapolating from that - if we exist, then there is a high probability that others exist too.
I love the table conversation, a great way to get your i information across.
I TYPED MOSES ONLINE AND FOUND ZERO EVIDENCE FOR EXODUS AND MOSES. WHAT UP?
@@jkorling Listening to amateurs worked during the Pandemic. Why are you still listening to armchair experts, Dude?
@@jkorling “ this guy” has has a long list of credentials. A PhD in Science Agriculture, published papers in many scientific journals and heaps more. Check out his credentials. Life arising from non life is pretty dead among top scientists and only believed by true believer skeptics.
@@martinkent333
"I typed Moses"
The Egyptians did not keep records of their failures, it's likely any reference to Moses or the exodus was erased by pharoahs men on his orders. There is some evidence of Joseph's existence though. A mansion found in the delta, grain silos, and the great pyramid of keops. I have a belief the great pyramid was built for Joseph who's body was removed and reburied in the Holy land, hence why there was no mummy found (he is risen), the lack of hyroglyphs, the narrow path to the king's chamber or the wide path to the pit, there is so much that this pyramid quotes from the Bible giving us a picture of Christ.
In Isaiah ch 19:19 God tells us of an altar and monument dedicated to God in Egypt.
"In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. 20: It will be a sign and witness to the LORD"
I think the great pyramid and Sphinx are these monuments.
I've had a few friends from University with PhDs that became delusional and manic in later life. It's really sad to see
A "few" friends? One doesn't forget when a friend becomes delusional and manic. Would you mind putting a hard number on the number of your friends from University with PhDs that eventually became delusional and manic.
That happens when you get older...have fought God's attempts to save you all your life and you realize you are headed to a very real hell.
Awesome video and thank you for the link to the article that explains it in such a way that is easy and accurate for understanding.
Great stuff. I miss Dr. Sarfati. Where's he been?
That's what I wondered as well, there are no recent videos from Dr Sarfati.
He's around. 🙂 You’ll be seeing more of our US scientists/speakers in due course. Watch this space.
@@creationministriesintl awesome thank you.. I was starting to worry 🙂
Regarding the idea that the answer could be that life came from outer space; why do some scientists think that moving the location of the start of life, somehow makes the probability of it starting through natural undirected processes any more viable.
Yeh, it just moves the problem, doesn't really answer the origin question.
It's almost as bad as asserting a magic sky daddy did it.
@teks-kj1nj Anyone writing so disrespectfully is making clear the video was simply over their head. That's just sad
Yeah, they pull every antic conceivable to deny that it came about by intelligent design.
@@elhilo1972 Every time I see my doctor, I am brutally reminded that if it was by a designer, he graduated at the bottom of his class.
@@stevepierce6467 Yeah, like, everyone knows that a design not working as it optimally should = no designer at all. Perfect logic.
Imagine a video like this having only 35,000 views. Probably the best video I've watched this year. I hope to see more of this man.
🤣
It just shows you how many people have fallen for the big lie. Darwin's evolution = No Creator = No God = No Salvation = Nihilism
@@No-xw3jlso you don’t believe in science?
@@richardschneider294 Science??
@@No-xw3jl You said : *incredible for such a load of rubbish*
If this is rubbish imagine what abiogenesis is???!!! God calls it excrement and those who believe in it fools.
Beyond entropy and how the universe and life began, Professor Jim Tour at Rice University in Houston is the person that has thrown a stone in the proverbial pond of how things all began, at least for me! Professor Tour has more than 55 patents and is a synthetic chemist and his description of a simple cell simply beggar's belief and in one lecture my whole conception of life changed forever. First, you need lipids which form the membranes of the cell, then carbohydrates or sugars, then nucleic acids RNA and DNA and then you need Amino acids, 19 of one category and 1 of another. The carbohydrates on the outer membrane are more complex than the RNA and DNA combined. The outer membrane has 10 to the 78 billion possible combinations and only one will work. That is 10 with 78 billion zeros after it! Boys and girls, there is no way the simple cell came together in a prebiotic pond in my opinion, and even if all the components came together in exactly the right temperature and arrangement, what puts the spark of life in it; what makes it come alive?
Praise His Holy Name 🙌🏻
Dr Tour, When I first saw his videos I couldn't get enough. He is so good. I just wish I could remember all this. Excellent video.
Great summary!
If you’re suggesting it was a god it wasn’t the one you like are bias of. That is a fact.
@@IFYOUWANTITGOGETITExplain better please. No understand your comment!
Evolution sounds like the most astounding sequence of extraordinary good fortune time after time. Almost miraculously
"Getting a protein is a bit like having the whole solar system full of blind people each with a Rubik's Cube and they all arrive at the solution at the same." ~ Dr. Don Batten, Biologist [PhD]/career in experimental biology.
exactly, Darwinian evolution = an endless series of very lucky events, and always in the right order ...
PS: I am a mechanical engineer with decent background in IT.
From what I could understand, Darwinian evolution is a trial-error process. And only the best design is selected.
I have a silly question:
Where are all the errors ? Darwinists claim, that there are around 10,000,000 species on Earth today. (and, allegedly, this is only 2-3% of what is left, all the other extinct).
So let's say, each species features 1000 parts working together in a concert for a purpose.
A simple math: 10,000,000 species x 1000 parts = 10,000,000,000 working parts. How many design errors did Darwinists find ? 5 ? or 10 ?
Like I said, I as an engineer, I see 10,000,000 species perfectly working for its purpose, no design flaws, no design errors, so I am asking again,
where is the trial-error process ?
WHERE ARE ALL THE DESIGN ERRORS ??????
@@martinjan2334 I've asked the same question many times here to evolutionists. Never get an answer. We should've found loads of mutant fossils, as well as seeing plenty of the creatures badly mutated today. But all we've ever seen is complete and high functioning creatures
right. All fossils ever found - fully working creatures, no design flaws. I would expect, to find millions of fossils with lots of design errors/flaws.
I debated lots of evolutionists, and I was told, that the reason why we don't see fossils with design errors is because these type of fossils are rare, because there are only few because the design errors made them extinct, hence you can't find them, because they gone extinct very fast - because of those design errors ...
Actually, I as an engineer, would expect exactly the opposite. That the majority of fossils will feature design flaws. Unless you believe, that the best design was achieved at the first attempt. But when you look at fossil record, it looks like the fully working design was ALWAYS achieved at the first attempt...
@@k3630
as to "Evolution sounds like the most astounding sequence of extraordinary good fortune time after time."
let me add to this...
What most lay people don't know, is, that according to Darwinists/Evolutionists, in some cases, this astounding sequence of extraordinary lucky events happened in parallel (at the same evolutionary moment ) ...
Not to mention, that many of these extraordinary lucky events happened repeatedly, many times, for example -- a placenta should have evolved 100+ times repeatedly (independently) in evolutionary unrelated species ...
Believing this, requires lots of faith :)))
@@k3630
Thanks for this fantastic video 😊❤
Very informative, very scientific and logical. God bless you.
He explains it very well. Been listening to James Tour too, and he's challenged the orthodoxy as well.
James Tour believes in evolution and millions of years. James Tour rejects any notion that researchers are coming to understand how life began and he believes God must have started life but after that, evolution took over. James Tour flat-out rejects Genesis 1 - 11.
James Tour believes in a snow-globe god - a god who created the universe and gave it a good shake and who now just sits back and watches it go.
@@rubiks6 Tour consistently says he can not know, as a scientist, how God did it.
Tour, as a Christian, consistently says he believes God created the universe and life.
Tour does not believe in Darwinian Evolution because no one has seen it happen.
@@rubiks6 Interesting - where did you get this from?
@@kevinrtres- Listening to James Tour.
Don't forget Stephen Meyer
Life only comes from life.
We can't even define what life is. Is a virus alive?
@@wefinishthisnow3883Dictionary defines life as: the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
Yes viruses are alive.
Yes but what about the very first life, then?
@@fadya3901 God is life.
”Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.“
John 14:6 ESV
@@m0x910 I am not your rolling wheels, I am the highway. Audioslave.
I enjoyed this information answers a lot of my questions and and others that have thrown at me . Thanks keep up the good work in speeding the word!
I have been praising God throughout this message. Hebrew says "let us be thankful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken and offer to God appropriate worship in reverence and awe for our God is a consuming fire".
"Offer to god appropriate worship for our god is a consuming fire"??? Wonder what the victims of the Valencia apartment complex fire (or any disastrous fire) were thinking in their final seconds....Praise be to god?
@@stevepierce6467God loves you and is willing to pay for your many crimes and moral failures. Jesus can save you and purify you.
@@sbgtrading So, the inevitable conclusion is that since I am alive, god loves me, but he did not love the victims of that fire, or the many other fires, shipwrecks, car accidents, plagues, mass school shootings etc. That is one helluva screwed-up god you believe in. As for me, I'm good, thank you. No crimes, few moral failures, and I pay for my own, since I am a responsible adult. I am not lost and do not need saving. Your god tale scratches where I have no itch.
@@stevepierce6467 I wish you all the best in your journey...be well!
Darwin said himself that if the cell ever proved to be complex his theory was trash
So if the inner workings of life were simple, but outwardly life did everything life currently does, that would lead you to believe life arose naturally?
@@rizdekd3912Perhaps. But it is a moot point, since life is unimaginably complex, both macro and micro.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
@@sanjosemike3137"Perhaps. But it is a moot point, since life is unimaginably complex, both macro and micro."
it's a thought experiment to get you to reconsider WHY you think life was designed and created. Not WHETHER you think it was designed, but why. Since you were unwilling to consider it, that means you understand that complexity isn't the reason you think life was designed. Because simple but functional life would be more likely to have been designed than unimaginably complex life that...because of it's complexity is fraught with problems from genetic mutations, deformity, cellular defects...all because God chose to make it vulnerable to sin. And...if you are like most theists, you DO believe in simple life that is functional...eg life in the supernatural like angles, demons and devils. Do you think THOSE somehow arose and developed naturally? No? That proves it's not complexity that convinces you that life was designed. '
I'm just trying to help you broaden your views.
Besides, you DO (likely) believe in life that isn't complex at all, right? So do you think THAT life somehow developed on its own or was it designed too?
"irreducibly" complex.
@@Braden-York Yes it is important to distinguish between complex vs what Darwin said. He didn't use the phrase irreducibly complex. This is apparently what he wrote. "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
So until we find that something that could not have developed naturally using successive slight modifications, natural evolution is still viable. So, we're in luck.
The more humanity learns about the extent of a Creator, the more likely it is that we will begin to offer Him the praise and honor, glory and majesty that belong to His loving kindness, if we learn humility through obedience.
Why would a creator need praise? Considering the amount of suffering he sits by and idly watches?
@@IFYOUWANTITGOGETIT
You're judging God? You must be higher up than God then? So why haven't you fixed the world's problems?? God did make a perfect world but we turned out backs on him and creation began to break down. God offered us a way out through the blood of Jesus Christ but if you don't follow Christ then you are lost. God has promised he will send Jesus back to repair the Earth and us but those who don't believe will be removed as it's their lack of faith that is causing the decline.
@@technicianbis5250-ig1zd
He asked two simple questions and, instead of answering either, you criticized him and gave a mini sermon.
Excellent work in this video !! Praise God our Creator.
Very Good......well done. 😇
The other thing these scientists won’t admit is that the fact that they have to set up such specific circumstances and change those circumstances for each step of this process does more to prove that it DOES take an intelligent mind to put all this together.
Yup they are effectively demonstrating intelligent design is necessary to create...while denying a Creator from the beginning. Their lack of self awareness speaks to the fact they have eyes but cannot see.
You will admit that it took a REALLY intelligent mind to put God together, will you not?
Many atheists seem to think that denying God makes Him go away.
It only puts off the inevitable. They will meet Him. They had better hope that they changed their mind before they do.
@@captaingaza2389 l, who was deeply atheistic, God revealed Himself to. He did this in ways that I cannot deny. Ways that even my highly analytical and skeptical mind can never deny or even question.
All other "religions" are about how good we should be and what we need to do to "earn" Heaven and avoid hell. And based on those belief systems, we can't even know if we're going to Heaven until Judgment Day.
Jesus (who IS God) came to this earth in human form and then went to hell to pay the price we deserve to pay. And ALL He asks is that we believe in HIM. It's so simple! And it makes our relationship with Him, and with others, so much easier.
In other words: I don't do good deeds to earn Heaven. I try to do good because I love Jesus and I simply want to please Him. If I was doing good works just to avoid hell, then it isn't really good works; because the good deeds would not be based on my love for God (who IS Jesus) and others; but rather my own selfish desire to avoid hell. That isn't the way Jesus wants us to live.
There is NO other belief system in the world that espouses a Risen Savior! And there is even lots of Historical evidence backing up the claim that He rose from the dead.
I know all about this subject, and this man nails it exactly correctly. What he's saying is really indisputable, but a lot of people don't want to hear it. Like Jesus often said "Let him who has ears to hear....."
THAT is SO true (when you said "a lot of people don't want to hear it")... I was just saying in another post how poorly made so many peoples' arguments are when they DON'T actually read / analyze the "opposite view's" literature. With regard to his persuasive argument against the primordial soup idea, I was most intrigued by his mention of the chirality issue. I know what chirality is but I do want to research that chirality issue more, since I’m not very familiar with it, but yes that point he made was very intriguing.
What do you mean, indisputable? I dispute it!
@@stevepierce6467 Ok, would you like to pick out your favorite detail and explain why? :)
@@sathvamp1 My favorite detail is saying that complex things like proteins cannot get that way naturally without a designer/creator god. Over time, increased complexity is easy. Things did not start out as complex as they are now; as the Righteous Brothers sang, "Time can do so much." Just look at human creations. Our dwellings started out extremely simple and as we learned new techniques they evolved into much more complex structures. Eyes were not always as they are today. Early "eyes" were very primitive and simple things that just barely sensed light. They evolved into the many types of eyes we find today. Virtually any argument by a creationist is disputable.
@@stevepierce6467 Ah ok yup I've heard that one before. I was somewhat impressed with the chirality issue though-- while I know a lot of biology, I keep forgetting about that aspect. I don't understand it as well as a physicist would... but I do find it interesting how all of Earth's one type of molecule is "left handed" (when you'd guess half would also be right handed, but they're not)... not sure if you looked into that aspect (?)
I forgot to add that one comment at the end of the article by Jim M. AU November 28, 2013
"This ORIGIN of LIFE article should most definitely be published in a booklet form for bulk give-aways!
No-one who reads it could possibly deny GOD's amazingness without willfully overdosing on self-deception." I was just wondering if you have done this? I would love to have something like that. Thank you.
Oh good grief. Would someone PLEEEASE define what god is, and how he came to be before banging on about how amazing he is, how powerful he is, how omniscient he is etc. All this means nothing until you can demonstrate the real existence of the thing these adjectives apply to.
@@mchooksis You explain first how inanimate chemicals can come to life, and how could the first cell have originated, and please no prebiotic soup fallacy. How do we get something from nothing, no cosmic fluctuations and no multiverse theories, when I mean nothing I mean not anything.
and then imagine adding consciousness into the mix - something not physical
Lol. I called brain activity. Smh.
@@mbrum3230 Speculation is never a fact of the unknown.
Consciousness is absolutely physical. We have several other terms for it, like self-awareness or as mbrum says, brain activity. It is not a process of outside ideas being transmitted to us. It is, as they say, all in your head. Cut off oxygen from the critical mix of chemicals and it disappears.
@@stevepierce6467 How is consciousness physical? Whats the distinction between the brain and consciousness? The brain is physical
@@exclusive_148 The brain is indeed physical, and everything which comes from the brain is physical, unless the voices you hear are being transmitted by space lasers to the chips implanted by Fauci. Your thoughts, your awareness of these thoughts, your awareness of yourself having thoughts, all these are the physical results of measurable brain activity. Most living beings are conscious to one degree or another, and we humans are just one step further, very self-conscious.
When you apply odds to something happening no matter how impossible it seems you basically concede that there is a chance of said thing happening, so the analogy he gave of the blind people solving the rubiks cube did happen even though the odds are incomprehensible.
For those who love science, knowing it is inseparable from mathematics (and vice versa) try using them whilst maintaining your unbelief.
Numbers don’t lie. Probability, cause and effect, thermodynamics, etc. argue for irrefutable proofs.
All of creation declare his majesty.
@@davidhouseman4328 They purposefully demonstrate the physics we observe, assist with our sciences, etc. - which exist because of creation and creation, because of God.
@@davidhouseman4328 Math is simply a means of recording, expressing, understanding portions of God's creation that we observe. The laws of physics, for example, are a result of his creation and with math, we can appreciate how things function and the relationship(s) with other aspects of his creation. Does that help, David?
@@davidhouseman4328Cause and effect, probability, etc. provide a very clear understanding that creation is neither accidental nor random.
@@davidhouseman4328 I understand David. When you have built everything in your life on the basis of atheism, REAL data for the existence of God is deeply troubling.
I’ve been “there”. I understand. If it makes you feel any better, I think the same “problem” is also happening to Sam Harris.
Sam has been acting very peculiar. Even his closest friends are worried about him.
There should be counseling offered to ex-atheists who have been “devastated” by the scientific evidence for God.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
Retired surgeon
IF God created mathematics, can he change mathematics such that a value of two ie the claim that there are two of something, can actually become a value of 3? IOW can God make 2 things be three things without creating an additional one? Or is mathematics something that even God can't change suggesting mathematics is fundamental even to God?
Such an amazing talk and scientifically supported A clear demonstration of existence of superior force Why don’t we got that before ? Thank you so much for this. I guess that deep down every human being knows it now we have to deal with it
I've read that, in the 1950's a group of Scientists estimated the "Chances" of basic organic molecules to "self-assemble" was so rare, that the most optimistic Estimates would exceed the "age of the universe" by a factor of 100x all the way up to 100,000 times!!!
You don't what you don't know. That is the only way to stop looking.
That is like saying that the chances of grains of sand "self-assembling" into buildings are nil. But sand and more sand mixed with other stuff becomes cement and when poured, it can become skyscrapers etc.
Amazing what just 70-100 years of science discoveries can produce. In my lifetime we discovered DNA (early 50s), and barely 25 years before I was born they finally discovered definitively that our Galaxy is not the entire universe (1923). Science keeps on searching, religion stops dead and petrified. Now we have a much clearer understanding of chemistry and physics and how the building blocks of life could assemble, but not thanks to any effort on the part of religious fanatics.
@@stevepierce6467 Sand becomes a skyscraper only through the actions of an intelligent designer.
@@stevepierce6467😅😅😅
Really appreciate these interviews. I thank God for the intelligence and the heart of this man.
This all makes 100% sense. The question now is how did life come into existence? Form bacteria, fungus,plants, chlorophyll, bugs, snakes, cows and us? How about some intelligent debate about this. To say, Oh, God did it, is childish, and God is not childish. He is the supreme intellectual that created universe. Time to shift gears and stop bagging naturalism.
The morel. It all came from the morel.
bagging naturalism?
Thanks for sharing this magnificent video ! ...Our complex Life did not come by chance. Random processes do not create the terribly complex design. So the foundation of life including every simple cell is Evidence of active intelligent design (first cause)..
Our complex life came about by chance. My assertion is every bit as valid and likely as yours.
The greatest discovery of modern science is that life could not have arisen on its own but could only have been designed and created by a super intelligence. At the same time we have learned the universe itself- space, time, matter and energy- is comprised of elements so exquisitely fine tuned that they as well can only have been designed by a super intelligent being. Who in this case is eternal, with neither beginning nor end, and metaphysical, existing beyond space, time, matter and energy. In short, science has discovered God.
First of all, modern science has NEVER made the discovery that life could not have arisen on its own but could only have been designed and created by a super intelligence. Please show me the paper on this great discovery. Only creationists say this and they can put forward no evidence to back up their claim.
Secondly "At the same time we have learned the universe itself- space, time, matter and energy- is comprised of elements so exquisitely fine tuned that they as well can only have been designed by a super intelligent being." Again, science has NEVER shown this to be true. Please back up your scientific claim.
Exactly right, sir.
An even greater discovery would be to find how it is possible for citizens of an advanced and educated society to be able to constantly misrepresent the findings of science.
so, something more complex than life itself, which btw can't form naturally but the thing that makes life did form naturally?
No. God is eternal. He is existence.
Idiocracy is real, thanks for proving that
Ricocheted right away from your brain as it should. Thanks for not adding anything to the conversation!
@@joelab.c Not adding anything new to the conversation would be "THE BIBLE CUZ BIBLE SAYS." 21:29
Creationism is amazing... It's like a buffet. Accept the science you like but if any science goes against book of mythology, it's naughty and then you invoke god of the gaps!
The big problem is that it’s that spontaneous occurrence of life. Even so called simple life is utterly impossible and improbable. It’s the height of hubris to think otherwise.
I don't think something can be both "utterly impossible and improbable" at the same time.
@@numbersix9477 You saw it here. Tell all your friends.
@@locker1325
What am I supposed to have seen here?
@@numbersix9477 The video's purpose is to explain the impossibility of life occuring spontaneously. The science approved of by universities says life somehow occured some millions of years ago or something. I disagreed with the science view.
@@locker1325
I'm still a little shy about trusting your judgement. Hence,
I'm inclined to listen to the 99% of career geneticists who disagree with you.
I'm inclined to listen to the 98% of career geologists who disagree with you.
I'm inclined to listen to the 99% of career cosmologists who disagree with you.
I'm inclined to listen to the 99% of career primatologists who disagree with you.
Please explain to me why I should listen to you instead of to all of them.
Great chat, and a new subscriber
Dear Dr. Don Batten, thank you for the wonderful presentation. I often use the analogy that abiogenesis is like throwing straws into the air and expecting a fully programmed, self-powered, self-replicating factory to land in front of you. No matter how many years or decades you spend throwing the straw, it will never land as an automated factory because it simply can't.
That needle in the straw is the divine spark of God creator the straw to begin with.
I'm not religious and I'm not an atheist, I just don't know. This man speaks beautifully about his science and understanding. Dawkin should not be allowed in the same room.
If you don't believe in a god you are atheist, like it or not. You may or may not also claim to be agnostic, but the two things aren't the same
@@houmm08 Mmmmm! I don't believe in something that's not there so, logically, I believe in it to allow it not to be there. Is that what you are saying? I believe in nothing until it is proven, I think that's called science. In other words I don't believe in the gods of religions but I don't know that there isn't one.
@@55north17I have had to endure more science at an undergraduate and graduate level - organic, biochem, etc. I have no clue how anyone of a sufficient intelligence (which I’m sure you have) can, at this point, not recognize the engineering of a greater kind that has spun this all into being.
Jesus said seek and you will find. Knock and the door will be opened to you.
@@jkorling This will sound strange but I think you require far more “proof” for the existence of God than you require for the belief that science will either determine these oddities (like the statistical oddities)or that a scientific answer is there even if we never discover what it is. I imagine that it would seem obvious that you’d allow for more uncertainty when it comes to science than what many believe to be an imaginary being. However, I would guess that the vast majority of people who side with the existence of God but enter these scientific debates did not reach their faith through much, if any scientific reasoning. If you focus only on science in an attempt to “see” God, you’ve missed a vast amount of what points to a great mind behind all of this. The reason I say that is that if your coming into these discussions, like I do, having already recognized that the real mysteries don’t lie in the outrageous odds of fine-tuning or the causal factors for the Bi Bang. They exist in our ability to recognize beauty, to feel true love and compassion for others and often those we don’t even know, to have the capability to consider and contemplate, to imagine and hope, to sacrifice, and to carry a conscience that almost literally, at times, stops us from doing wrong or pushes us to do right. To attribute those intangible gifts to genetic mutation and natural selection doesn’t add up to me. Many of our attributes as humans don’t seem to provide an evolutionary advantages and might actually be a disadvantage. You bring those to the table and the scientific arrows that might point to a god get much brighter.
To add to what he says about chirality, there is no chirality in solution. It only appears when the molecules crystallize out. Since life is water-based there would have to be endless cycles of crystallizing and redissolving on top of which a lipid coat woulf have to be entrained with the crystals to preseve the stereochemistry,
Thank you for painting a clear picture of the origin of life!
But he didn’t do that did he! Surely you’re not so stupid just to suggest that he did such a thing?! He did quite the opposite.
@@terencefield3204 do you understand sarcasm? At the cost of blaspheming, Jesus!
Oh come off it, try being obvious, I am far too stupid to get subtlety@@sca8217
@@sca8217 no, I’m too bloody thick. Evolution is to blame.u
Thanks brother and sister. We talked about this at L'Abri Sydney when the Intelligence Design battle started. The evidence for intelligence is overwhelming.
I am an engineer.
Could some natural science graduate (e.g. biologist) explain to me, or at least give me some speculation, hypothesis or whatever you guys called it,
how on earth can you make an exact 1:1 copy of something without engineering ... (in particularly, the cell division. As far as I know, the cell division even in the simplest bacteria is a highly orchestrated process with lots of checkpoints, proofreading/repair systems - to make sure, that there is a 1: 1 copy after cell division.)
So please, biologists or whoever, give me some speculation on how this can be done without engineering ...
PS: and one more silly question ... how you guys, natural science graduates imagine, that something can replicate / live, for 2-3 billions of years without engineering. What level of faith is required to believe these things.
Thanks.
-an engineer.
I can't answer any of that, but maybe James Tour could help you with some of that. Maybe reach out to him.
and who are you? What's is your education ? Are you a biologist ? I was looking for a biologist ...
PS: By the way, I don't quite understand why should I reach out to James Tour.
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but Dr. Tour doesn't seem to believe that this can be done without engineering... So why should I ask him ? I don't get it ...
@@hrvad
Yes. From an engineering/manufacturing perspective, it just doesn't make sense.
energetic
what ? @@mchooksis
Thank you for sharing the underlining issue. "Getting rid of God" what you have demonstrated is just how far some will go to refuse to recognize their Maker ...
Why do so many who embrace a naturalistic view of the universe and life claim that we've already created life from non-life in the lab?
So many? This is news to me!
Can you please give one or two examples of a reputable individual (or organisation) who has made such a claim?
@@wefinishthisnow3883
It may be news to you-but it has been my experience. MY EXPERIENCE in engaging folks who embrace a naturalistic view. In fact, someone the other day was calling me a "fool" for not knowing what he claimed was "common knowledge". But I was not claiming that any "reputable" atheists (as if there are any) make the claim. No, they just like to claim that we are "close" to creating it-even though that is also a lie.
@@jessebryant9233what is a reputable atheist?
@@Andrew-pp2ql
Maybe you should ask Mr. Snowjob?
@@jessebryant9233 who is that?
Beautifully explained thank you John & Jess
God bless you CMI and thank you so much for what you do 🙏🙏🙏✝️ it truly is a blessing
His alleged probabilistical proof of the impossibility or life (protein) emerging without intelligent design is flawed. A coin has a 1 in 2 chance of fliiping heads. That doesnt mean you have to flip it twice before it can flip heads. Similarly, there being a 1 in 10^195 chance of something happening (even assuming that's a correct assumption) doesnt mean you need 10^195 "events" before it will happen. All it needed for the simplest pre-cursor to a living thing to emerge, was for the ingredients to happen to come together once in a particular way over the span of billions of years, over the span of a universe containing billions of galaxies containing even more planets and moons. That is not impossible, doesn't require an outside deity to direct the process, can easily happen by chance. Everything else then is a question of further complexity and development, again over billions of years, again depending on a mixture of chance and randomness and context, and involving billions of changes that let nowhere and essentially disappeared because they failed to be carried over to the next generations. Again not needing a direct deity. The fact living things developed the way they have was not a given. The process hasn't ended and who knows how living things will end up. Reasoning that "the way living things are NOW is really complicated and how they are NOW would have been impossible to just throw randomly together out of nowhere" betrays a fundamental misunderstanding. You can't reason back from where we are now to say "this is too perfect/complex to have just come about from nowhere". Where we are now isnt optiimized, didnt come suddenly from nowhere, are they are still constantly changing.
The video's reasoning is very logical. Time brings materia to ever simpler forms, not to more complex forms.
@@s.unosson
You're talking about the second law of creationist thermodynamics, aren't you?
@@numbersix9477 Never heard of "creationist thermodynamics". I am referring to an observable fact.
@@s.unosson "I am referring to an observable fact."
I'm sure you think you are.
There is no problem. The Creator did it all. 😊
"The Creator did it all." - So far it is the only theory that's not been scientifically proven impossible. The only known alternative (abiogenesis) is empirically proven impossible, while also being against the laws of physics.
Not random physical processes. Physics and chemistry will probably eventually show that life MUST arise on planets like Earth because of the sources of energy and ability of proteins to form more and more complicated structures, including self replicating ones under very specific circumstances.
Nonsense. A small 100 amino acid protein has 20^100 possible configurations and only one works forth specific job. There are only 10^70 atoms in the universe? It’s impossible for any unguided process to find the correct configurations. Sit down, U don’t understand science.
@edwardj3070. I don't mean to offend you in regards to what I'm about to say ... But I laughed out loud at what you wrote ____particularly this:"LIFE MUST HAVE..." Buddy, don't you even see that the entire theory of evolution is based on MUST HAVES? For example, you mentioned earth,physics,and chemistry. Earth MUST HAVE formed for evolution's sake! The laws of physics? They MUST HAVE come about for evolution's sake! Chemicals that make chemistry possible? They MUST HAVE existed ___for evolution's sake! When you invoke that many MUST HAVES, I know that you realize science is no longer a part of such thinking. What that view really says is this: You don't care that you MUST use MUST HAVES,so long as you don't have to admit to some supernatural causality! My guy ,too many MUST HAVES already put you right in the thick of supernaturality regardless! If you want to assert that I'm wrong, please respond with all the natural ways through which chemicals just happened to be present for evolution? Please respond with all the natural ways through which the laws of physics just somehow happened? Please explain how the first single -celled organisms MUST HAVE just come about for the sake of evolution? Or how it has always naturally existed? Please explain how the water for our so-called primordial, single -celled predecessors naturalistically always existed? Oxygen? Please explain how that arose naturally? My list is extensive so there is no point. But maybe must have is a great solve-all for any person that desires such an obvious evasion of any real and believable answer!!
@@GregoryHolden-k5c I wrote "MUST" not "MUST HAVE",... and, "probably". We don't know anything unless there is good evidence. There never has, and never will be evidence of your postulated supernatural intervention in the physical world.
That's like saying that books will spontaneously be written by natural processes because there's an energy source and letters can be strung together !
I think that water is essential
No such thing as "Spontaneous Generation."
Actually, virtual particles spontaneously appear and disappear in vacuums all the time.
These particles are real and are the widely-accepted explanation for the Casimir effect, which was observed in 1997 with a direct experiment by Steven K. Lamoreaux that quantitatively measured the Casimir force to within 5% of the value predicted by the theory.
😂😂😂
"Virtual" particles
😂😂😂😂😂
And he didn't even realize what he just said!🤣🤣🤣 can't stop laughing!🤣🤣🤣🤣
You made my day!
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@wefinishthisnow3883 You are confusing the comment. Spontaneous generation is a term related to the origin of life, not quantum mechanics.
@@wefinishthisnow3883 The current theory is that particles appear and disappear. That has not been observed. If this theoretical belief is true, it still does not mean that molecules can pop into existence from nothing. If the idea you mention is true, then scientists must deal with the reality that magic exists.
@@wefinishthisnow3883Yet they still contend these “ghost” particles came from something.
And that’s not even the biggest problem with you using virtual particles to jump into the origin of life debate.
This has also never been observed physically. Right now it’s a model to explain a Phenomena. Someone has claimed to have imaged an atom. Not verified yet. Still haven’t imaged this phenomena you are speaking of.
If given an entire cell. Everything in its place that is needed. They cant make it live. If given a living cell and it dies, they don't know what was lost or how to get it back.
Evolution cannot even explain how the Earth's water came to be.
Maybe you should look up the meaning of evolution.
@@markl8679Cheers, how about abiogenesis?
Of course not, that was studied and explained by the science called astronomy.
@@knockoutrat4065 scientists know a vast amount more on evolution than abiogenesis. And I’m sure they could explain how Earth’s water came to be. Can you explain how the most complex being ever, inside and outside the universe, came to be?
@@raulhernannavarro1903 Of course, astronomy postulates that earth's water came from outer space.
As a non scientis listening to this and other biologists like James Tour its easyto understand why life just didn't either spontaneously occur or could come about by the accidental jiggling about of chemicals no matter how old the earth or universe is , but the chance of an intelligent force , god or otherwise is a real possibility to me even if its non religious .
For the life of me I can't understand how scientists are the most atheists. They see and know these miraculous things firsthand. Things that the average person doesn't even think about. Yet they are adamant atheist. Is it really as simple as, they know and they are just scared? But you would think at least one of them would come out and just say that
I feel your pain. It's exactly what I think aboutscientist who outrightly reject the evidence despite deeper understanding than the rest of us.
Brainwashing and intimidation. Has been demonstrated many times already.
Isaac Newton found God in Nature and saw science as a bridge between the human and the divine mind. For Newton to adore Nature, to study it scientifically, was a devotional act.
Newton on the Solar System:
"Though these bodies may indeed continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws. Thus, this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
- General Scholium to the Principia
The most important founders of modern science believed in God: Nicolaus Copernicus (a monk), Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Joseph Priestley, James Clerk Maxwell, Gregor Mendel (the founder of genetics and abbot of a monastery), Lord Kelvin and Albert Einstein.
Plus, many of the pioneers of quantum physics: Werner Heisenberg, Max Plank, Erwin Schrödinger, James Jeans, Louis de Broglie, Wolfgang Pauli and Arthur Eddington.
And today's scientists - the astrophysicist Paul Davies, Simon Conway Morris (Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology at Cambridge), Alasdair Coles (Professor of Neuro-immunology at Cambridge), John Polkinghorne (who was Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge), Russell Stannard, Freeman Dyson … and Francis Collins, who led the team of 2,400 international scientists on the Human Genome Project and was an atheist until the age of 27, when he became a Christian.
Natural sciences started to decline only when Charles Darwin presented his evolution theory in 1859, without understanding anything of genetics or thermodynamics or information science. Over 60% of all Nobel Laureates in Science believe in God (1900-1999). It seems that the more ignorant a person is, the more he is inclined towards atheism.
This is not true. Only the scientists promoted by media, there are millions of intelligent people that already know that the current origin of life theories are lies. A larger question is - why?
Actually, real scientists do come forward...but are often chastened and chastised by their peers for recognizing the supernatural implications of their findings. They are often dismissed from their jobs or not granted tenure. Watch the movie "Expelled"...for just a sliver of the what is happening in academia to those following the science where it leads them and getting punished for coming to the conclusion there had to be a designer. I know personally a microbiologist denied tenure for suggesting that there had to be a designer.
What I realised when told that proteins are made of a specific sequence of amino acids , that have to be left handed, and that there are 20 amino acids was that would preclude random selection, which would mean that Darwinism or evolution was a lie.
What do Rocks dream about.... nothing and never will
This may sound crazy, but how do you know and could you ever prove it.
Aren't we made of the same stuff as rocks, water and every sort of mineral.?
I have a round lava rock on my patio that dreams of being top rock on a big volcano. Prove me wrong.
@@claudelebel49 The bible even says, earth to earth, dust to dust.
@@stevepierce6467 it is not about proving or believing anything. It is a question to which, "I don't know" might be the perfect answer. Believe whatever you want but do you really know?
i never undstand this.
do creationists think that God just materialized life out of nothing?
just poofed everything into existence?
and that looking at natural laws is pointless because God did not use them?
@@Mario_Sky_521 law of gravity creates stars and planets.
star systems and galaxies.
@@Mario_Sky_521 cope
@@Mario_Sky_521 you are trying to cope. Law of gravity creates
No monkey business Here,God bless you 🙏.
Just think, if all the scientists were as honest as he is, instead of falling in line to get money, awards, and position, we wouldn’t be teaching nonsense to our children in schools across the world today.
You don't know what you are talking about. Where is all this money? I want in on it!
Thank you guys. This information gives me strength in my faith.
How does this strengthen your faith? It has nothing to do with God
@@klouis1886 it has everything to do with God.
People confuse building the flesh with building life. The most astonishing thing about the origins of life is that what physical chemical could cause material flesh to be self propelling and self-sustaining. To act in ways that are not 100% predictable.
The thing is what you described is not what we actually see. He explains it in the video we'll.
In all of human history no explanation for an observed phenomenon has gone from a natural explanation to a supernatural one. Literally millions of observed phenomenon have gone from a supernatural explanation to a natural one.
Im going to bet that trend continues.
The problem with your claim is that is it too broad to test scientifically, so it just becomes rhetoric. But it sounds very much like you are describing a kind of spiritual entropy which is something that can be tested and is proven to be true.
@@gamerpip493 it's not a claim, it's a demonstrably true statment. I'm not attempting to make a prediction, nor am I making a claim. I'm stating a fact that is absolutely irrefutable.
It's like stating acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 meters per second. I'm not attempting to explain what causes gravity, just stating a well known fact.
@m0x910 faith healing is total bullshit.
Just because a phenomenon has a natural explanation does not mean it’s supernatural explanation is made redundant. Events can have various explanations. You are implying a false dichotomy.
Water boiling in a kettle can have a physics based explanation and other logical explanations.
1.) Electric energy is converted to heat energy and conducted into the water where it is kinetic energy etc.
2.) I want to make a cup of tea.
@m0x910 There is no supernatural explanation to how water boules. At one point, it was thought to be magic, but now we know it's not. That's how all human experiences since the dawn of time have gone.
65 million years ago the dinosaurs were wiped out leaving only small mammals like rats . Did all the mammals alive since then evolve from the rats or were there still life crawling out of the chemical soup?
Amazing! God bless you both!
I typed Moses online and found no proof of Exodus and Moses. What up?
Random chance can't bring the meaningful macromolecules needed for life. The probability is zero.
@@davidhouseman4328Smaller than the known occurrences in the Universe since the Big Bang.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
To be fair, we've really only just started looking in the past few years with the James Webb Space Telescope, the Perseverance Rover on Mars. The Dragonfly mission to Titan may reveal further clues as well.
And we've already seen biosignatures on the planet K2-18b and desert 'varnish' on Mars which are nothing conclusive, but do warrant further investigation over the coming decades.
@@davidhouseman4328 So small as to be impossible given the age of the universe. Trillions of trillions of trillions of years are needed for even a single protein to form by chance.
@@davidhouseman4328 It is possible that it is infinite. But most physicists prefer not to deal with infinities in their math.
The Wheeler-DeWitt equation requires that boundaries be set in order to “posit” a universe that “looks like ours.”
The problems with atheism are that most the math requires infinities.
It gets to the point that Fine-Tuning is a wall that needs to be jumped at every turn in the road.
If I would “recommend” you continue with your atheism, I’d stick with refutations of the Bible and evil and suffering. The science is getting to be a REAL PROBLEM for atheists.
For example, Sam Harris is now spending most of his time attacking heinous religious beliefs. That is a fertile ground, for sure.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
@@davidhouseman4328 Hilarious! You keep thinking 1 in 10 to the 195th power to get only a single protein makes chance a viable theory.
"Which doesn't add up for it being made in some sort of a chemical soup".. is like saying I don't believe it so it can't be true.
If life didn't start by itself... then there was a creator... and guess what.... then we still have the same problem.... How did he/they get into existence?
Not the same question.
Excellent expain. Now it is not only just the probability alone. There are a lot lot conditions more.
Every point on the surface of the planet, throughout the volume of the lakes and oceans, and volumes of dust were and are like tiny little science experiments, questing for a combination that survives and procreates. Combine that with millions of years, that makes the probability of creation of life incalculable. The one thing we know for certain is that somehow life was created.
God of the gaps
That was absolutely fascinating, thank you.
Great information in this. To bad professors dave will never see this, he might actually learn something. Then he wouldnt have to act luke he knows what he is talking about. Lol thank you foe the video
Waiting fie your reply
Professor Dave can teach you more than this CMI
@@globalcoupledances perhaps if your talking about basic chemistry. If your looking into abiogenesis or evolution definitely not. Dave tells a lot of lies and half truths with exaggerated news as the norm. As much as I have seen him twist the facts I couldn't trust him to tell me the sky is blue.
Only the first words here are already nonsense. 1/64 of all mutations creates a new protein coding gene
@@globalcoupledances have you actually looked into those mutations? I'll bet you haven't. I had some ignorant guy tell me one day how that this broken gene can help you be immune to aids I'd you have a copy from each parent and that's a form of evolution. I had to explain to him there is no mechanism for an organism to gain new never before seen information. You can get broken genes or copies of existing genes that do something different. That's not evolution at all. That wouldn't take a fish to a lizard. Also in 99% of those cases it makes the organism less fit. That same mutation to make you immune to aids lessons your OVERALL LIFE SPAN, MAKES YOU MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO CANCER, THE FLU AND OTHER ILLNESSES. THE problem is gullible people believe the crap about evolution. When they are told only a good point never the truth. Fuur flies have been around a long time. We done everything we can to mutate them to get faster evolution. All we ever got is fruit flies and DEAD FRUIT FLIES. Never any real form of evolution. So go look up what I told you and actually LEARN SOMETHING FOR ONCE STOP BUYING INTO THE LIES
I don't believe it was random but to be fair you have to say that with a "little" luck you always have a chance that something random will happen in a first try, no matter how small the chance is. So saying it's impossible is not technically correct. On the other hand I've always wondered if a real randomness even exist. I don't believe so...
Professor James Tour also does talks on the impossibility on the Origin Of Life, yet I think he still believes in evolution.
You think? I've never heard him say that.I thought he believed the Biblical Creation story.
@@CBALLEN
I think James Tour is agnostic on evolution but I could be wrong about that.
James Tour has said in many videos "As a scientist I can never say they we will not be able to create life." He also says that as research learns more and more the challenge of creating life is not getting closer but receding from view... life is ever more complex as knowledge expands.
For being such a undeniable genius and professes Christian he cannot see the violent contradictions. He tells of a protein in a simple yeast cell that has 1 x 10 to 79,000,000,000 separate steps in the assembly and all have to be correct. That is a crazy big number so big such that one can say with certainty that life cannot self assemble.the universe has supposedly 1 x 10 to 90 elemental particles.
Tour is hard stuck in a paradigm trap. He is unwilling to break from his academy and speak conclusively. Sure he will get fully ostracized but the Truth is ALWAYS COSTLY and is unwilling to speak.
Grrrr.
Tour signed that thing by scientists saying something along the lines of that they doubted mutations could account for evolution. I read the last paragraph on his intro page, and I get the impression he doesn't accept evolution but he won't definitively say so because he hasn't done a thorough study of the subject.
You can "believe in evolution" just fine if you accept that it doesn't answer the question "Where does life come from and how?"
It answers a whole bunch of other important questions.
Maybe life started with the most extreme event in our universe where all “ingredients” for life were contained and through the mass amount of energy and whatever else extreme processes were produced, somehow caused a fusion of sorts that led to the development of life. The seeds of life could then have been distributed throughout the universe by various means. For extraordinary events to occur we might need extraordinary circumstances. Or maybe the intensity of singularities caused a similar event. Also, the way you describe the dna being unraveled, makes me think of life being vary similar to machines and that we are like biological computer systems.
So you're ascribing intelligence to a purely naturalistic event or events...????!!! How come it's all so beautifully amenable to our human LOGIC ( an abstract entity requiring intelligence )????
@@kevinrtres just bouncing around ideas. What’s your take or do you just question and repeat?
Sad how people can hear a video like this and still hold to the idea that life will create itself. Man will believe in anything rather than believe in God.
Romans 1:18-20 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godliness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made so that men are without excuse.
Do you believe viruses are alive?
I have neither belief nor faith. My world view is entirely evidence-based. Nobody has ever produced any falsifiable evidence to support the existence claim of any god, let alone the God of the Bible.
@@michaelgalati871 God is a fiction. Everybody makes their own truth.
Calling something that very obviously must have happened "impossible" is an intellectually courageous (stupid) thing to do.
Calling anything impossible is subject to retraction when it happens before your eyes.
You have got to have some strong evidence to back it up, because as I said, the evidence that it did happen is, amongst other things, writing this post.
"It looks improbable" or "I calculate it as improbable" doesn't cut it, as the universe we find ourselves in looks more improbable, the more we discover about it.
And before we go there, making it the subject of a devine hand, for which we have no evidence, makes it MORE not less improbable.
Just a couple of impossible things.
So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. - Hebrews 6:17-18
By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God. And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. - Hebrews 11:5-6
As for evidence, you're overlooking this:
The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. - Psalm 19:1
@@intentionally-blankVery interesting, but it failed to address the issue I raised.
Calling something impossible that we know happened, I.e. the transition from non-life to life is wrong.
There must have been a transition from non-living chemicals to living organisms. The point of dispute is HOW it happened. You can't rule out one possible explanation by calling it impossible. It has zero explanatory depth.
@@psychologicalprojectionist "We know happened"? Where are the witnesses to this event? Where are the un/'guided' experiments to reproduce such a transition? A bias against the supernatural is what we are witnessing here. Examining the evidence one can come to a different very different understanding of DNA itself: /watch?v=Y3K-2i3nOyM
I gotta laugh. TH-cam put this video in my feed. A comedy channel I had not heard of before.
Nice work. Keep 'em coming.
A laugh a day.
Laugh now, wail after your physical life is over. Unless you repent and put your trust in what Jesus did on the cross to pay for our sins - so that we don't have to. Jesus is the way, the truth and the LIFE ( now there's a Word!! ).
@@kevinrtres Ah, that inimitable "christian love," so full of threats of dire punishment. Yet so far, not a single human has ever seen that there is a life after death. I prefer a more realistic and gentler way of thinking; after I die, my physical part returns to the earth to provide sustenance for new life. My human part lives on in all the people I ever interacted with. That is real comfort and solace (and no threats!!).
Unfortunately info like this is never heard in the public schools - and teachers would be reprimanded or fired if they did.
Not too many comments from atheists on this video. 😂
You can believe in an origin theory and God at the same time
Because they have better things to do than to monitor and respond within 24 hours to every single channel on youtube that uploads false/misleading science?
@@wefinishthisnow3883 😂
@@wefinishthisnow3883The truth is not science. They are telling the truth in the video. The truth is irrefutable. You are free to live in denial however.
@@wefinishthisnow3883 things like filling the evolution *GAP*?
We are composed of atoms arranged into molecules that are arranged into larger systems. It is obvious that if we are in fact alive the ingredients that make us are also alive. Chemistry is biology.
You might be right...but your definition of life is different than the generally accepted one.
Darwin was driven by his desire to get rid of God, so even today Darwin will still be Darwin, just as his disciples are.
You keep telling yourself that.
@@wefinishthisnow3883 I recall it was Darwin's friend Lyell who declared that science must get rid of Moses. But Darwin had Lyell as his greatest inspirer so their thoughts were much the same.
Richard Dawkins' words are revealing: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Here he inadvertently admitted that atheism was never based on intellect or science. Atheists of course became happy when they finally could refer to something that at least LOOKED scientific, albeit being just the ignorant Darwin's pseudo scientific ideas. Here we see no scientific approach from Dawkins. Based on his statement, atheists have been atheists and would be atheists with or without Darwin. Scientific evidence is neither wanted nor needed.
That is not true. Darwin describes in his autobiography how his process went from being a believer to being a non-believer (atheist) due to his travels studying wildlife
Its all a understanding and defining words. Life started naturally/evolution or by creative design is all the same. Both ideas have a plan, a structure, a progression, controlled set of rules to create life. Who caused or designed the "evolution/natural way" for life to emerge? Or who or what created life? Evolutionarily/Naturally life emerged or by creative intention both have a structure, a design, a set of rules, laws which govern the creation of life. Either way does not explain life. There is something which transends evolution and creation. Evolution and creation are the polarization of something human kind can not explain.
ATP motors should keep atheists up at night.
Why? It pro ves nothing
@@klouis1886 1.) Machines are defined as an apparatus using mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task. ATP synthase is a molecular machine.
2.) Every instance of a machine is first conceptualised in intelligent mind(s), then designed by a mind(s), then created by intelligent mind(s).
4.) There is no observable natural phenomenon that can produce a machine.
3.) Therefore ATP synthase is the product of intelligent mind(s).
@@klouis1886 1.) Machines are defined as an apparatus using mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task.
2.) Every instance of a machine is first conceptualised in intelligent mind(s), then designed by intelligent mind(s), then created by intelligent mind(s).
3.) There is no observable natural phenomenon that can produce machines.
4.) ATP synthase is a molecular machine.
5.) Therefore ATP synthase is the product of intelligent mind(s) not natural phenomena.
@@m0x910 Then why did that creator make flawed machines?
@@klouis1886 Flawed in what way exactly? Have you heard of the fall of all creation?
Merci from Montreal Canada
How does dispproving evolution prove there is a God?
It does not. It just proves the desperate and absurd lengths people are willing to go to deceive themselves into believing there is no God.
It proves there is intelligence behind life.
@@s.unosson How does it do that?
The probabilities are a big problem. If I were to be as generous as possible to the naturalistic explanation I think we had to invent another problem to that theory, namely that the universe we live in is somehow infused with a higher order purpose of things that cause physical events to act in a non-random way.
But that again leads to God, as that is where telos is. The current theory is file mechanistic and refuses to talk about telos.
Perhaps with effort, new instruments and new math we might even as human be able to detect this - like if we could observe a gazillion chemical events directly and record them, and then do the math on it. Fractals strike me as interesting here, because they're so simple mathematically, but visualizations of them can literally produce a tree, a broccoli or a fern from the same equation depending on the seed numbers you put into them.
Oh great - we don’t know the answer yet therefore god. Seen this before… Earthquake? God! Lightning? God! The Sun? God! Plagues? God! These didn’t stand up and neither will this approach. This is just preaching to the converted already and convinces nobody else.
You have also two Gods which explains everything: chance and a lot of time 😉
And btw it is the sheer unlikeness of math that life doesn't jump spontaneously. That is Logic.
The things you mention are part the proces of good and evil. God defines what is good and what is not good (evil) not humans. Below I give you the model the bible describes about good vs evil. The starting point is genesis 1.31. God has created everything and saw it was “very good”. This is including human beings. So there once was a time when humans were very good according to God. But what is very good about humans? Genesis 2.25 “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. “ Genesis 3.7 “And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.” So we can make a model (see below) out of this information:
very good: Everything is taken for granted by/taken care of for humans
- Humans are naked but are not aware of this.
(- Humans have all ways food growing on trees.)
(- Animals and humans are vegetarian)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fallen world
Good: Not being aware of your nakedness, but there is always deterioration.
-
-
-
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
evil: Things are not taken for granted - Humans are naked and are aware of this. - Humans don't have food, must make their own food- Animals are dangerous for humans etc.
It is a diagram in the shape of the letter Z. Everything above the upper line is the very good world. Every thing is taken for granted for human beings. They don't have to do things themselves, take effort, to have it good: food is supplied by trees, being warm is normal, there is no lust for nakedness because humans are unaware of their nakedness. In leviticus it is clear that nakedness is the private part of a human being. Everything below the upper line is the fallen world. Just below the upper line it is "Good". People are not aware of their nakedness, but there is always deterioration of the things made. Everything below the lowest line is the oposite of “very good”. So not very good, or biblically; “evil”. People are aware of their nakedness. So being aware of your nakedness is called evil. This is because people want to know the difference between good and evil. The oblique line is the “They have to take effort to have it good” process or you might say: figure it out yourself! Have it cold? Shave a sheep, clean the wool, spin, weave, tailor. Bring the process to Asia, add: Built ocean container ships, 1.000.000 crude oil barrels for one way there, dig Suez canal for Europe, built harbors, roads for trucks to bring the clothing to the shops. Now every independent woman can say she bought here own jacket with her own money. Built a house, bake stones, cut timber, dig for copper for electric wires, dig iron for nails, screws, central heating, process glass windows somehow, take a loan, work 30 years to pay it off: aaah nice warm and cozy. But if you cannot pay the gas bill you might have it cold in the winter (downfall). Want food?, clear the field, plant crops, keep birds away from picking seed, harvest, keep harvest safe from animals, grind the grain, built oven, chop wood, now how to make fie, knead dough, bake bread. As a man, seeing a nice woman leads to sexual thoughts. You feel an erection. Biblically this is the moment you notice your nakedness, which is not good. So to have it good (not feeling your nakedness), you must take effort. You cannot do this by covering your body with clothing but by “strengthening your mind”.Today people would say: meditate. As a start, look the other way is the most easy way to do. Jesus says “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” So you cannot look at your own wife with lust which makes perfect sense. Lust is “noticing your nakedness”, which is not good. Think about the Lords Prayer: “Do not lead us in temptation and deliver us from evil.” Cuddling and spooning is fine of course. In what God thinks is very good, grown ups will only have sex when they want to make a baby, so Catholic priests having sex with young boys is absurd according to what God thinks is very good.
Other things you can explain with this diagram:
Why does God not show himself? Very good is when God walks with Adam and Eve and talks with them. So the opposite of this is: God does not walk with humans on earth. He doesn't show himself so we have to look for him (take effort): read and study, comprehend the bible, develop counter arguments against atheists, and other religions etc.
Why have children cancer, why the plague? Good is: not to die. To live forever. The opposite, evil, is: to die. So we have to take effort not to die. We have to develop medicines (from nature or otherwise), we have to make (healthy) food ourselves or we get sick or starve to death, we have to make clothing against the cold so we won't freeze. (Just say: Jesus I repent, I am a sinner, I will turn my back to my sinful life, and then you will live for ever after you die).
Homosexuality. Very Good is when a “Man leaves his father and mother and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. So the opposite, evil, of this is: A man does not attaches himself to his wife and be one flesh, but he cleaves to something else: Not his own wife, a man, an animal. So he has to take effort not to do so. Pay attention, according to the model a heterosexual man cannot look with lust at a woman, so a homosexual cannot look with lust at a man. It is the same thing: noticing of your nakedness, which is not very good. He might start a relation with a lesbian woman. So they have sex to make a baby without lust, which is very good according to God.
Its because of what we do understand
The only ones guilty of the argument from ignorance fallacy is the so called scientists/atheists. They claim ignorance on exactly how life began yet insist “natural processes”, “billions of years” and “chance” are responsible. They invoke 3 gods to fill the gaping void in their knowledge: Chemistry, Time and Luck.
In contrast the Christian argues from what we know is true:
1.) DNA is semiotic information.
2.) Every instance of semiotic information existing is always the result of an intellect, no exceptions exist.
3.) There is no known natural phenomenon or mechanism that could compose semiotic information (that is to imbue meaning into a specifically complex sequence)
4.) DNA is therefore the product of an intellect.
5.) The discovery of DNA and its semiotic nature is irrefutable proof of the existence of at least one supreme intellect before life began (as we know it) on earth.
For an animal to even entertain the idea of a higher power proves that higher power, IMO. That higher power is revealed in the only Word that holds together under scrutiny. Thank You, Lord Jesus.
Does this guy actually know what he is talking about? Does he KNOW that complex life only began a mere 600 million years ago after 3 and a half BILLION years of simple single celled life. So did god create single celled life, and then wait a few billion years before snapping his fingers and multicellular life began. Why would he do that? To start talking about eyes, bones and skin etc, is completely ignoring nearly 4 Billion years of earth's history and the evolution of life.
He’s a phd biologist. I’d listen to what he’s talking about.
Yes.
Did you witness how life began millions of years ago?
@@junacebedo888 how could I be there to witness the beginnings of life on this planet? How? Listen to yourself……now ask a serious question
@@frankieRandle8779 He has a PhD in plant science. He did NOT study abiogenesis or evolution. He speaks on these subjects not through in depth knowledge of the science of abiogenesis, but because he thinks he HAS to discredit it in order to confirm his faith that things can happen through magic rather than through scientific principles. He cannot supply any robust evidence for the beliefs he postulates. His work on tropical fruits is backed up by solid evidence in his research. he is unable to do this with abiogenesis because he has done no research on it.
It is no good quoting his PhD because when he talks about abiogenesis he is talking from a creationist perspective, and creationism is demonstrably not scientific, so he cannot equate it to the science of abiogenesis. When he talks about his plant research he is talking from a Science standpoint, so his work can be taken with more respect.
"I’d listen to what he’s talking about.".....on the basis of the above, WHY?
Why don't you listen to me, I am a zoologist, with a background in cell biology.
@@junacebedo888 "Did you witness how life began millions of years ago?"
That is a ridiculous retort.
You do not need to witness something to know it how happened, you can work it out by putting the clues together.
Do the jurors on a murder trial witness the murder? Or do they look at the evidence left by the murder to establish how it happened?
Once there was no life on this planet, then there was simple life for billions of years, then there was complex life for 500 million years or so. All this has left lots of evidence for us to research and work out the process of how it all happened.
The bible creation story however is the least likely explanation simply because there has never been ANY evidence for a god that is said to have magically just willed it all into existence. In fact this god only made an appearance a few thousand years ago in the middle East, despite the fact that have been thousands of gods before that that people believed in, ALL of which have left no evidence for their existence.
And you cannot say that the fact that the earth universe and life exists is the evidence. No it is not, because there are other hypotheses to explain these things. Some have left evidence, others no evidence and the god hypothesis is the least likely of them all
Perfect explanation. As a human being I am proud of this professor. Now, I understand. We are not here in the world by chance, but we are here for understanding what the good is, what the bad is. I believe after passing away that means after leaving this body here in the world we, our soul will go some other dimensions as we deserve as human being. That’s that makes me happy.
I am glad that you truth-proofed your statement with "I believe..." Otherwise it is utter unsupported wishful thinking, especially where you claim that "we deserve..." going to some other place after we die.
Darwin didn't have much to say about biogenesis. He merely speculated that it was a random event. He would not necessarily reject the probability discussion here. None of this is inconsistent with evolution, which happens after biogenesis.
If they didn't make the overwhelming possibility of bio-friendly complex ingredients form in mega complex bio structures with functional capability... without a designer...
that doesn't even consider the essense of life, what life is, and how it would come to visit and synergistically work with those in an alliance for some arbitrary temporary period. One minute it's potentially life supporting while the next minute it's not. Same ingredients.
What is life, consciousness, intelligence, and instinct?
If there is a designer natural question who designed the designer?.. If designer has existed or designed himself then you have not explained anything. You have just created a new step
Great discussion! I highly recommend watching Dr. James Tour's videos on this subject.
You didn't mention the meta information in DNA. The information required to assemble proteins into useful machines. You can't say all the information needed to build a skyscraper is to know how to smelt steel and concrete....
A Protean comes together via random processes = incredibly unlikely.
Maybe that's why science doesn't pursue this as a cause for the beginning of life.
We know that inorganic chemical reactions can generate complexity (the examples are legion).
It is possible that a (relatively simple) molecule, in an environment or complex inorganic molecules could become self-catalytic (i.e. tends to aid the creation of more of itself).
With replication, and the known fact that reactions aren't perfect, we have "natural selection".
All the other parts that we call life, are just natural additions to improving this replication.
Nothing in your post is relevant…..proteins must form randomly at some point. They cannot.
You are really determined to believe in magic. I do approve of your enthusiasm.
@@stevemeisternomic 👈Science is not Steve’s thing.
The kind of complexity that inorganic chemical reactions can create is irrelevant to the origin of life, because it's an entirely different kind of complexity that life requires. Life requires specified complexity----the kind of complexity that makes an intelligible paragraph out of a jumble of letters, or could build a functional machine out of a pile of junk. That requires FORESIGHT and INTELLIGENCE.
Better a Protean protein than a dull protein set in its ways.
Thank you so much 💓