I absolutely loved this discussion, thank you. My nephew who is a clever boy, and on the autism spectrum, is in 10th grade here in Australia, studying chemistry, physics, maths, Bible studies (he loves the Lord), and he's doing design, English, and plays football very well for his team. He's always had artistic talents too. I'm going to send him the link to this discussion via my brother (his Dad), as I know it'll capture his attention, and he'll have the benefit of a video tutorial of a sort, with an outstanding mentor (Dr Tour) in science. Good mentors are precious in life. He'll also enjoy hearing how you came to know Jesus. God bless and strengthen you Dr Tour, and Sean McDowell too.
If there weren't theological implications to this stuff, they wouldn't be so militant in their belief in materialism. There's an entire atheistic worldview underpinning all of this.
my incessant point too - well said. Darwin stems directly from the materialist Greek philosopher Democritus, although he got his version from the Latin author Lucretius
@@Vernon-Chitlen Eh, no. Jesus forgave all sins so your slate can be wiped clean and you can forget about the bad stuff you have done. I have to live with the bad stuff I have done, try to fix what I can.Nah, Jesus is the easy way out, no personal responsibility.
1.the amino acids made in an enantiomer pure form so that the polymers can be made from them (never ever just happens in nature without enzymes (all those little magic nanobots) and DNA to direct it). Then you have to polymerize them (to call it a huge leap is such an understatement). It doesn’t happen without the nanobots inside the cell. 2.make the carbohydrates (which is very complex). Then polymerize them (even harder). When done randomly, because there are so many possible ways for it to happen, it just becomes a big mess very quickly. Again you need the enzymes which are very complex and they don’t just happen without DNA and the nanobots to put them together. 3. The nucleotides (DNA and RNA) made of a sugar and a nucleobase and put a phosphate on the other side, and polymerize that with good control. Randomly in nature, it simply never happens the way we need it unless you live in a fantasy world. 4. The lipids have to assemble into the lipid bi-layer. And these lipid bi-layers actually have complex sugars built into them for communication purposes and complex proteins inside them and traversing them to let stuff come in and go out, and to keep other things in or to keep them out as needed. The thoughts of this happening in an unguided fashion is laughable. 5.the ancient coding language that has been passed down for countless generations in the DNA which we have decoded. This is the information problem. I think they could quit doing SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence). This is proof of intelligent life itself. And since there wasn’t any intelligent life on earth yet, I guess we should call it exterrestrial intelligence. That is the very kind of thing SETI is looking for, but it was found with instruments more akin to microscopes instead of telescopes. But so far we’ve been unable to tell from looking at it where this information that was coded as if it were a computer came from or by whom. I believe this coding is more amazing than what they are expecting to discover from space. 6.put all of these intricate things together (in William Paley’s old pocket watch found while crossing the heath analogy, well that pocket watch is sooo simplistic in comparison to these things). 7.There haven’t been enough billions of years since the Big Bang for the number of molecular interactions that would need to take place for unguided molecules to come together and form this accidentally. The time since then is so many trillions of times too short for that to have had even close to a reasonable chance to happen. So if you look at this purely from a scientific point of view as an educated person, you must think ‘what fairy tail are you living in to think that it is even close to a reasonable proposition to think that this could have just happened undirected’. If you are going to look at it with a realistic scientific point of view you need to think in your mind “what is more likely. What is the most reasonable explanation of how this came to be?” Someone with intelligence made this happen? Or Just some undirected happenstance of molecules just came together and formed this AMAZING masterpiece called a living cell? Don’t forget that molecules just don’t care about coming together to form life. They simply couldn’t care less. They have no motivation to do it. Only an EXTREME amount of faith against all odds and all reason would cause one to say it was just undirected molecules coming together and forming this amazing complex intricately built delicate thing called a living cell. That is faith not science. Statements based on faith is not what science is supposed to be. That is what is known as religious belief… faith, not logic based reason, pretending to be science. While disdaining others for having religious belief, many people have adopted a religious belief of their own without realizing that they have become religious, because they are calling it science. This has become their own god of the gaps which they hold on to with even more fervor than the God of the gaps they are pointing to and laughing at. They have to press forward with more faith in their god because they have to go against stronger reason and greater odds against realistic chances than the older religions do.
It's great to see Christians like you actually paying attention and learning this. Most of the Christians I'm around won't give the time to learning this. I don't mind if there are non tax supported groups searching for extraterrestrial life. It may be the case that God created elsewhere millions of years ago in the past who developed the technology to send signals exposing their existence. If that was the case it's sad we couldn't communicate with them since the signal travel time would be a barrier.
very well said, I have heard the objection from biologists (evolution believing) that they do not take what he says seriously because he knows so little biology, (they being typically bad chemists - biologists often are). He will talk about the 'first cell' and show a eukaryote yeast cell, etc. Jim Tour says so much that is right but spoils his case by violently under-estimating the complexity of even the most primitive unicellular lifeform. As did the physicist Fred Hoyle, updated and extended the Paley's watch scenario by cleverly pointing out that that tornados do make jumbo jets by tearing through junk yards - entropy goes in the opposite direction. But the correct level of comparison is a tornado creating a small town as a going concern, not just a single airplane sitting waiting to fueled and flown.
Phenomenal comment. Great detail and clarity. If you don't mind, could you kindly state your education or work experience that gave you this level of understanding towards this topic?
@@asiffarouk7838 He scoured creationist websites to find as much pseudoscience as he could. None of it is correct, as scientific papers demonstrate, and all he can revert to in the end is a fallacy of incredulity and ignorance on current scientific achievement. JT, nor any other creationist nitwit, has ever demonstrated any assembly of biolmolecules to be impossible. Claiming the chances are remote, doesn't change the fact that (1) nevertheless we are here and (2) unlikely doesn't equate to impossible.
Been following this material for a while now. As a trained organic chemist (phd in enantioselective transitjon metal catalysis), it really seems like we don't even know what questions to ask about how life might have began. I say that because we cannot yet define what makes something alive. If we cannot truly define life, then we cannot begin making progress toward making life. Having said this, i do think it is possible to take steps toward making life, but impossible to know if those steps actually will lead toward life or not until we define life (aside from what life does according to biology). Thank you, Jim, for doing all of these videos.
Dr Tour has in my opinion made the biggest contribution to the origin of life debate that the most humble of lay persons can confront any atheist with. He has my greatest respect. As a scientist Dr Tour suggests “there may be a point in the distant future that mankind will be able to create life and that God would be magnanimous about accepting that”. I hope I have not misquoted you on that Dr Tour? I am afraid with respect that I have to disagree with you from a theological perspective and your Christian beliefs. In John 14. Jesus say’s “I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life”. These are three absolute attributes of Jesus. The only way to know God is to know Jesus, He is the “truth that sets us free”, In Him is life underived, unborrowed. “In Him is life” John 1:4. A careful study of the Bible reveals that God alone is immortal, and His creatures only have ‘conditional’ immortality. If this is true no creature human or otherwise will ever be able to create life. If I am not mistaken Dr. Tour has alluded to this by suggesting that scientists given a cell with all it’s parts that has just died has a missing ingredient that cannot be recreated. A fascinating subject I hope Dr Tour can give us an insight to this.
Living organisms might not be a definitive definition of Life. However, consciousness is a characteristic of Life. And, humans being self aware is a higher level of conscious Life. Unfortunately though... the source and origin of Consciousness, like Life, is a mystery to secular materialistic -scientists.
We do understand alot of the steps from geochemistry to biochemistry. What looks complex in biology is really complexity in the eye of the beholder if you like because ultimately it seems that everything stems from reactions of hydrogen cyanide and a few related compounds. So what I find exciting is how a few simple compounds can give rise to things that are outwardly complex but as I said, if they’re actually inherently favoured to form from hydrogen cyanide then perhaps they shouldn’t be viewed as complex. Origin of life research is not a breakthrough science where suddenly we will have synthesised life in the lab. Origin of life science, just as many disciplines in biology, has this tendency to be incremental, and that's fine, there's no deadline to science. In general terms we’d like to understand how to take building blocks, make them into bigger structures and have those bigger structures then act synergistically to produce higher order behaviour and how that works and how that’s fueled by chemical energy is a very interesting question. Some of those incremental steps we solved and provided evidence for in support, but we do recognise there's still a long way ahead. Defining life is notoriously difficult and imo quite meaningless. Between what is living and what is not, is a grey zone. At some point we clearly see it is living, but below that line it is vague. E.g. Cronin’s self-replicating salt crystals, they are neither alive but nor are they completely “dead”-they do something. E.g. viruses (?). Is respiration (metabolism) a requirement? Then what with some bacteria that can shut down their respiration completely in extreme atmosphere, but when blown over thousands of miles with the wind back to the surface, start respirating again? Maybe it is more comprehensible when drawing a chart with Y (aliveness) and X (time). Some are engaged in biology down research, some in geochemistry up and others prefer a more holistic approach, a synergistic model where all 4 components formed together and somehow assembled. So imo, demonstrating these incremental steps and linking them together to explain the assembly process (autocatalytic sets with feedback loop) doesn't really require a definition of "life".
Srch: Evolution 2.0 AI & Origin of Life Challenge- $10million, share of patent rights, obvious Nobel Prize etc; Posted July 2019. Unclaimed yet by basically describing how information emerged from the elements
Dr. Tour has written, I think, over 700 pier reviewed papers on synthetic organic chemistry topics, But only 5 “articles” (not peer reviewed) that critique origin of life. He may be 100% correct in everything he says, but your intro made it sound like he has authored more origin of life pier reviewed papers than the top 10 origin of life researchers combined. This little detail will matter when talking to others and referencing him, don’t miss accredit him or they will immediately dismiss anything you say. Thanks you for having him on!
I think you mean “dismiss” not “dictums.” I spotted that one too, but it was SMcD who said it, not JT. He didn't correct it, but that was because it was interview format and he was probably not paying attention to the flannel about his achievements. This is, after all, a pre-introductory level popularisation of a highly complex subject, not a way-beyond-doctoral-level discussion of technicalities.
@@MrAgonizomai yes thanks, corrected. Commenting by phone is often a disaster for me. The comment is directed only at Sean McDowell, it’s his channel and his introduction, not James. Thank you.
At 43:30 the question of A.I. enters the conversation. I've asked an A.I. where did life originate and it responded that it originated in a primordial soup. I believe Dr. Tour when he says that anyone who believes that is "stupid". The moral of the A.I. story is that "Artificial Intelligence" isn't intelligent but is really "artificial stupidity" (based on its answer to the origin of life question 🙂
The language models only apply information that has been amassed by people. The current pursuit for general A.I. will be interesting if it produces anything. Only then will it be forced to apply the counter-arguments.
Just goes to prove that they think this theory is a fact and the only option. One of Tour's arguments is this is what's being taught in textbooks. AI should have at least mentioned all of the possibilities.
Well, it just proves what Dr Tour said about the hype train and scientific community pushing "theories" that have no evidence out to the public aka being dishonest.
I am so thankful for Dr. Tour and his willingness to call out the glaring problems with origins of life research. I am an organic synthetic chemists. I understand how incredibly difficult it is to create the molecules needed for life to exist. It cannot "just happen" without incredible intervention at each stage of the synthetic process. OOL researchers are truly clueless about how this happens.
It will be good to take formal action to correct the errors in the origin of life teaching contents in science textbooks in as many countries as possible.
@@aue82a the "pointing out the nonsense" is the Fiction of Abiogenesis. The nonsensical Belief that Life is inherent in mechanistic ⚛️ atoms and lifeless molecules. Time to revise and upgrade your philosophy of Life.
@@aue82acould you please name one such instance in such a manner that said assertion could be debatable? I mean, if I declare you to be a complete failure of a human being, you would be right to question whether said assertion reposes on anything debatable or is a gross overstatement on my part?
@@TaxEvasi0n How does that explain wholly different sets of fossils of various sizes in different layers? Have you really thought about it and learned, or did you just dial in to videos that defend creationism?
@@LeonSemiPro Good question, I've wondered this myself. I can't say I'm versed in this particular side, but there are logical ways under a flood model to account for this. I do need to go back and truly understand it all, but Creation Ministries International has the greatest coverage of this in my opinion under a flood model. The world was utterly destroyed and rearranged under Noahs boat in the floods. We're talking about land masses being divided and split. We find many of the same fossils along the coast lines of countries and their respective counterparts where they used to join. The water came up from under the surface of the ground too, it didn't just rain. There would have been many extreme local floods depositing soil etc, and then more water later shifting more soil etc. If it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, and the ground opened up spouting water, is it all going to flood immediately? Or perhaps in various chaotic stages as the water finds it's resting ground and keeps building up? How are there rock layers that are actually bent? Dry rock can't do that smoothly, but moist layers can and will when they are disturbed by surrounding land masses moving. I think perhaps you need to look in to it more before you knock other people.
@@TaxEvasi0n Dude, the different rock layers have wholly different sets of life of varying sizes in them. This is consistent around the world. There is no chaos. The evidence is clear. Life was different at different points in time and that life was progressively more developed from the bottom to the top layers REGARDLESS of size.
Here's a quote from Full Metal Alchemist Edward: Water: 35 l. Carbon: 20 kg. Ammonia: 4 l. Lime: 1.5 kg. Phosphorus: 800 g. Salt: 250 g. Saltpeter: 100 g. Sulfur: 80 g. Fluorine 7.5 g. Iron 5 g. Silicon 3 g. and trace amounts of 15 other elements.Rose: What’s that?Edward: It’s all the ingredients of the average adult human body down to the last speck of protein in your eyelashes. And even though science has given us the entire physical breakdown, there’s never been a successful attempt at bring a human to life… There’s still something missing… Something scientists haven’t been able to find in centuries of research… So what makes you think that hack job priest with his parlor tricks is going to be able to? And in case you’re wondering… All those ingredients can be bought on a child’s allowance. Humans can be built on the cheap. There’s no magic to it.Rose: WELL IF THERE’S NO MAGIC THEN YOU BRING SOMEONE BACK TO LIFE!Edward: It’s just a matter of time Rose. Science will find a way. Science is the answer to everything. If I were you… I’d drop the scriptures… And pick up an alchemy book… We’re the closest thing to gods there are…Rose: You’re not a god. You’re nothing close to it.Edward: And neither is the sun. It’s just a mass of hydrogen. Get close to it, like Cornello claims… And all you’ll do is burn up…Alphonse: Great, Ed. Put your total cynicism on someone else…
I wish Dr. Jason Lisle and Dr. James Tour would give a Christian perspective on the origins of life from a Macro, and Micro perspective that would be amazing just to see both of them speaking together.
@@onedirection2301 so, how would a person believe that life came from another planet or a star? Can space be bent or magnified to look larger than it is, how big is macro? Can our Universe be a speck on a grander scale? I believe scientifically we are still cave men.
The statement at 3m 45s on *_Peer Review_* remains a scathing indictment of the process. Science did not always use "Peer Review." In fact, when Albert Einstein first encountered it in the 1930s, he simply *_Refused to Participate!_* Science is NOT done by committee or "consensus." But tyranny over science sure can be driven by the highly political "peer review." 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
Didn't know that about Einstein, though it makes perfect sense. He presented revolutionary controversial ideas. It's unlikely many peers would have signed on to agree with him. I've also heard that his 1905 special relativity paper had zero reference attributions.
@@KenJackson_US Not surprised. Einstein did not win a Nobel Prize in Physics for either General or Special Relativity. His prize was for something else entirely. Yet, Relativity was the far more impactful breakthrough. It's almost like he burst onto a world full of kindergartners as the only adult in the room. For him, peer review was nonsense. Peers can review AFTER publication. It's not like peer review prevents mistakes from being made; plenty of those. But peer review fulfills the needs of the Globalist-Leftists who need Darkness in order to wield greater control.
There are three things that make absolutely no sense in a materialistic paradigm: (1) The fact anything exists at all (2) The fact life exists (3) The fact consciousness exists (more appropriately, a soul, because that is what consciousness truly is, which is why materialism will never understand consciousness unless it defines it in a very reduced form via only external observations, since materialists do not consider looking inwards to oneself to be a valid form of evidence)
@@surfsnow1371 there is evidence for it; it is internal. Or do you think your thoughts and memories are magically physical? Such a stupid position; your brain matter merely correlates to the non-physical existence that is 'you.' It seems the word soul confused you; you can use 'consciousness' instead if you prefer
@@pyropulseIXXI There is zero evidence of a soul..I thought we both just agreed to that? If "you cannot prove a soul exists externally" how do you know it exists?
I love this series of clear analysis. My ideas are that humans were genetically engineered by ET scientists whose powers were so great that they were held in awe. Also, they had to be obeyed. They were truly the creators, (not of life but of the spread of life on earth). I believe that this ("No other gods before me") was the "God" of the bible who churches talk about in obsequious piety. Prime Creator is the origin of all consciousness and (not male), and way beyond our understanding; the giving of life and the being of life. I think that Darwinists are unable to separate the Spiritual from churchism. They lack this skill at analysis because they are bigoted and prejudiced. I appreciate your visitation from a loving presence as I had similar. The problem was whether I would be a hypocrite in partaking a spiritual activity - healing group - in one church rather than another. This caused me great anxiety. While thus distressed, I felt a loving presence at the foot of my bed, soothing me and assuring me that I was making a mountain out of a molehill. I thought it was Jesus. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. I am sure you were not committing any sins as a youth in learning about women and sexuality.
If they create life, imagine how many more problems they will discover, and how many more variables it will take. Lee Cronin on the Lex podcast said there appears to be something outside the cell helping. If that is the only way they can make life actually work and self replicate, that would basically confirm intelligent design from a Creator.
That's a very strong point I never thought of. Which one is harder, to revive thee dead or create new life from scratch. If you cannot revive an existing life, why do you think you can create a new one.
I tend to believe the smartest people do not have the level of brain power to figure out how to create life. Not that it can't be done, it just beyond our comprehension capabilities. The apostle Paul made an interesting comment when he wrote about how the resurrection changes our perception. 1 Corinthians 13:12
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life! Everything that came to be came through Him and nothing that came to be came to be without Him. Jesus created life for Him. How He did it isn’t explained in scripture. That’s an actual scientific question that might or might not be conceivable. What I do know is that humans were made from the dust of the earth and have the image of God and God breathed into man. The only part that sounds feasible is the dust of the earth. Good luck with the God parts! God bless everyone!
The word used was plaster, not dust. The Greek proves it unquestionably. Look it up for yourself. "aphar". Leviticus has a verse with both words (dust and plaster) also proving the word was plaster not dust.
//1:43 "I maintain that we are still very far from understanding how life could have come about on this planet.. From a scientivid perspective. ... There are still many unknown. ... "// I think most working within the field of abiogenesis research would agree with that statement. But I doubt that they would say:- "We are clueless" or "WE ARE CLUELESS" Rather they would point you to various working models they have and the research being done in attempting to show that aspects of those models are viable. For example, on the issue of chirality, they have recently announced another potential candidate:- Science News Item - 1. "Breakthrough’ could explain why life molecules are left- or right-handed" Papers - 1. "Chirality-Induced Magnetization of Magnetite by an RNA Precursor" 2. "The central dogma of biological homochirality: How does chiral information propagate in a prebiotic network?" 3. "Origin of biological homochirality by crystallization of an RNA precursor on a magnetic surface" ^^ So on important issues like these, people are not clueless. They do have ideas and experimental support backing them. And they keep on improving their models. Just think where we were back in 1953 when the Urey-Miller experiment was first done. That was a mere 70 years ago. For comparison, we have been experimenting with gravity for hundreds of years and it remains very much a mystery in many ways. We have been experimenting with turbulence for hundreds of years and still don't know how it originates. Yet in both of those fields, it would be a brave person to insist that we are totally clueless. And by way of comparison, how close are we to scientifically explaining how God created life, assuming the he did of course?
Assuming God exists and created the world, he spoke it into existence, whatever that means. For us humans trying to understand almighty and eternal God scientifically is delusional.
@@christophlindinger2267 //... he spoke it into existence, whatever that means. For us humans trying to understand almighty and eternal God scientifically is delusional.// So he could have allowed natural processes to take their course, and that would still have come under the term "spoken it into existence"?
We have a clue because we made it in lab with controller variables that are not prebiotic relevant How to do these using a prebiotic relevant means? None! Therefore . . . . Clueless
@@anlockcharacter1104 //... that are not prebiotic relevant// Are you absolutely sure about that? I ask because that's the whole aim of such research. To use molecules that they think would have been relevant on a prebiotic earth. //... with controller variables ...// That is how experiments are done, no matter what the field of science is. They try to control variarbiles to see what happens. To see if they can find out, or learn something. //How to do these using a prebiotic relevant means?// I don't understand what you are saying here. //None! Therefore . . . . Clueless// See above.
You say [I think most working within the field of abiogenesis research would agree with that statement. But I doubt that they would say:- "We are clueless" or "WE ARE CLUELESS"] and I would agree with you. However, the simple admission that they are clueless would be embarrassing to them and and would immediately limit any funds that they would have access to. To make such admissions in any field stops funding and affects their reputations in the community. So they will NOT admit what is actually true. It is a simple funding fact today that those providing funding for research want results to support their funding of research. Over a century ago, scientists of that time either had sponsors or were independently wealthy to support the research they wanted to do. This is not the case today and so truthfulness is not a requirement for research.
Psalm 36:9. “For with you (God - the Creator) is the fountain (or source) of life….” There is no other source or originator of life. It is uniquely an attribute of the Creator. Ipso facto, try as humans may they will never be able to successfully imitate or reproduce what the Creator singularly possesses and reserves for himself - the ability to create and impart that most precious gift - life!
The Biblical text is the most thoroughly scrutinised and comprehensively reviewed document in history - by people across the spectrum of human experience including those of science. About one thousand years after the text in Psalm (36:9) was written, one such reviewer (a sharp legal mind) noted the fact that…“All scripture is inspired of God…” (the Creator) a view which was then included in the biblical record and today is endorsed by millions of earnest students of the text! (2 Timothy 3:16).
Try "rebooting" a cell; you can be sure you have all the parts necessary for the process to work. If you can't simply restart it, how can you ever hope to create one?
It is quite amazing how mere mortal man cannot accept the Divine creating life. God will have His Judgment to the unrepentant and naysayers in the end.
Calm down - how about a happy message - with positive effects. If one - has something powerful and useful - to share with all - why not use welcoming and gentle message ? The Beloved - is precisely such - and this other idea - of the Divine as (whatever) - will never bear fruit - within me heart or mind. Fare thee well.
I'd like to look at the original research you refer to, Dr. Tour. Are there any 'special' or even 'seminal' papers that would dispute scientific explanations for the origins of life? Or, conversely, is it just the case that there is no definitive support for origin of life? Please let me know your thoughts. Bless you for your work.
Hi Edward. I think Crick published on the panspermia origin of life on Earth (because he had concluded that terrestrial abiogenesis was too improbable). [I'm not saying I agree with them, but that's why people have considered panspermia.] Good reading to you. Cheers.
th-cam.com/video/xIHMnD2FDeY/w-d-xo.html Atheist/Medal of Freedom recipient for mapping the human genome, Craig Venter & Nobel laureates in biology Sydney Altman & Leland Hartwell ALL say it is "impossible" that humans will EVER know life's origin. Richard Dawkins sits mute as his sine qua non is destroyed by ACTUAL, recognized biologists/chemists.
We have to be careful of our choice of words more than ever Words are being misused manipulated and redefined When asked if it would shake his faith if scientists " created" life in a lab , I would have asked them what they meant by create . It would not surprise me that they could use the matter and design to recreate/ make life in a lab But do not confuse that with creating. Further , we are created in His image and given a mind with which to worship Him. It is His good pleasure to allow us to seek these things out
If you are talking about scientific investigation, this should be [worldview neutral] as we are investigating the natural universe. However, our conclusions that we come to based on that investigation will always be predicated on the worldview that we hold. The conclusions are our interpretation of the data we collect. The problems that arise essentially involve what presuppositions we take as our basis while interpreting that the data we collect. We can use an example here of the [big bang] models. The first presupposition that was used was that red-shift in the collected observation meant that the particular object was moving away from us. As a first approximation that can be considered reasonable. However, that view or presupposition has to be reexamined when we observe intergalactic objects which have both connected parts which have significantly different red-shifts. Halten Arp collected many different anomalous data points about specific intergalactic objects which didn't accord with this presupposition (as well as other presuppositions). We see this non-examination of presuppositions occurring in many different areas and when specific scientists collect data that shows up anomalies in the consensus presupposition base, they often get shouted down. Instead of reexamining those presuppositions (as all good scientists should do), most professional scientists just double down against that data. In fact, we have got to the point where any questioning of the prevailing theories is often ridiculed and dismissed. Different hypotheses are discouraged. We should be open to different interpretations of the data and open to challenging all the basic assumptions that we use, especially today, where atheism is the basic underpinned presupposition being used in universities today. This closes off an enormous number of ideas which could be far more capable of providing a better explanation of what we actually see in the universe around us.
@hillstrong715 Well, the conversation is about the origin of life. There is no scientific evidence for life coming from non-life. So, in reality what they're doing with such investigation is they're appealing to empirical evidence but then extrapolating beyond that into the domain of Philosophy. And as soon as you're extrapolating beyond the limitations of what science can verify like that, the extrapolations will be entirely contingent upon the philosophical worldviews (systems of presuppositions) the person interpreting it starts with. This is a major issue that causes a lot of intellectual errors where people don't comprehend the distinction I just explained. And what this lack of awareness about the boundaries between science and philosophy leads to is: People will think they're doing science when in reality it's philosophy and they will then interpret it all through a Naturalistic worldview (and excludr all other worldviews) without justifying doing so. And here's where that gets REALLY bad: The Naturalistic worldview is provably false within philosophy. In fact, the Naturalistic worldview necessarily entails science wouldn't even be possible in the first place (same with intelligibility, rational thought, intelligibility, and more). The Christian worldview is provably the only true worldview... and this is proved with a reductio ad absurdum proof on all non-Christian worldviews. It's the only worldview entailing knowledge, rational thought, intelligibility, science are possible in the first place, and therefore the only correct worldview to extrapolate with in such scenarios.
James doesn't only say that he doesn't know scientifically how life formed. He also proves that it's almost impossible that life can form without an intelligence guiding it. - God of the gaps argument has left the chat.
I don't think "life can form": rather, God keeps forming it. He maintains everything in existence, every single particle, every millisecond, every micron of space, every infinitesimal amount of energy in the whole universe.
That “gap” applies to naturalism/atheists also. The point you are missing is Dr. Tour knows and can demonstrate the chemistry required for life isn’t possible in a prebiotic, warm little pond or whatever. Richard Dawkin’s book and premise: Climbing Mt Improbable is as silly, very, very much more, then his climbing Mt. Everest in his underwear.
Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for his views. Thirty years later, Galileo Galilei narrowly escaped this fate. In 2023 we are not far away from these practices. if you don't live up to the official narrative, you will be crucified.
So brother, some things will always be as it is written; 'beyond tracing out' ...His ways are above ours as high as the heavens are above the Earth! Saying we can make life someday is borderline mocking his great knowledge and power... How much knowledge humans have gives an edge above all other creation but with that knowledge we can tell all creation, YOU DONT KNOW THE HALF OF IT...Glory to God in the highest!!
@@rl7012 : go check the rebuttal by Professor Dave after their debate ( here on youtube), and you will see that i'm not so ' cowardly general slanding ' as you claim. The slandering comes from Dr. Tour, who claims that the ' origins of life ' research is a scam and they are clueless while it is none of both at all. He even advocates for scientists to stay away from the research and stop funding it. Personally, i find that very dishonest, certainly now that substantial progress is made in the research.
Hahaha. You'd think that he'd stay away from this topic after Dave Farina took him to task in so many videos and made a fool of him in live debate. Let me lay out Tour's "arguments"... *first pick some very specific reaction, claim that no one can do it, then claim that since no one can do that very specific reaction in a very specific way that no one can possibly know anything about abiogenesis.* This is akin to saying that a person who has never seen the letter "Q" cannot know anything about Japanese. *Point to some reaction done in a lab, whine about a specific compound used in the lab work, shout about how it wasn't in the prebiotic earth or that it needed an earlier step to create it, etc, then claim that no one can possibly know about abiogenesis because of that.* Ignore that most of the chemicals he shouts about are used specifically to alter the environment of the reaction to be like prebiotic conditions, like removing oxygen or setting up to look at a very specific reaction. *Look at an experiment examining a specific reaction, shout about some of the precursors being made in a lab today, claim that means that it renders the experiment irrelevant to abiogenesis.* Like saying that you can't put together a car without mining and smelting the steel yourself first. *Quote mine and lie about what some scientist said somewhere sometime.* ...because taking things out of context and making up statements proves things in science. If that fails, just shout "clueless" as loud as you can while covering your eyes and plugging your ears so that you can never see the experiments and studies that prove you wrong.
Interesting [straw man] analysis on your part. You make claim after claim and provide NO concrete examples of what you say. If you think Dave Farina is some sort of [expert] to be able to debunk James Tour's criticisms, you know even less of any area of science than Dave Farina does and he has shown himself to be quite ignorant.
@@timeshark8727 Oh, I have seen some of Dave Farina's videos and I was appalled at the inaccuracy of them. He was making declarations of fact when all he had was approximation and possible theory. He couldn't even get the theory correct. I know that he claims to have had an university education, but either he hasn't remembered any of it or he missed critical days of it. I find many of the youtube science educators pretty abysmal. There are a number that do well like Veritasium (not that I agree with all that Derek presents, but at least he is thorough - though that might be because he has an engineering background) and a number of others. I find the mathematics educators, particular the more advanced mathematics oriented ones, very good. Though for clarity in mathematics, both Mathologer and 3blue1brown are excellent. As for James Tour, I can excuse his speaking as the information presented is quite interesting. Though I do disagree with various things from James Tour. I think there are things that a scientist can say that James won't say. But then that is the nature of looking at the universe through different eyes. Dave on the other hand is just an arrogant tantrum throwing little kid (though that is probably insulting tantrum throwing little kids). He doesn't show any maturity and if challenged appears to devolve into ad hominem attacks of his opponents. Mind you, that sort of attitude is prevalent in particular fields and by particular people. Having disagreements is quite normal in scientific investigation. What has happened though is that dogma has become the rule (again) and instead of robust discussion, people like Dave Farina just devolve into ridiculing anybody who holds a different view. It is one of the reasons for which the consequences are that we see a decided lack of advancement in the various fields of scientific investigation. I now find myself having time to do various research because I am no longer constrained by IP contractual issues or for that matter any reputational issues that require that I toe the line. It is quite rewarding to no longer have those kinds of concerns.
@hillstrong715 lol, it's amazing how backwards much of your post was. It's fine, but the only one who can remove your blinders and bias is you. I guess some people, like you, just prefer to create fantasies rather than facing reality.
Dear James.... I just wanted to mention that you've been a God Send regarding creation science. Please keep up the great work of critiquing the science necessary to create life. We're praying for you 🙏
This is just classic God of the Gaps. You can see how desperate Christians are to cling to this and not have science explain the origin of life. This is just a rinse and repeat of all the other things the religious said science couldn’t explain.
@@jwonderfulsuccess Or maybe Sam knows that earliest known life on Earth is about 3.7 billion years ago, and yet vertebrates only started to appear between 500 to 600 million years ago. Does that sound like intelligent design to you?
A lot of people have missed labelled Christian belief on the Roman Catholic, Jewish and others. But they will not use the terms that are given in the King James, 1611 authorize Bible with Apocrypha.
Modern Quantum Physics has shown that reality is based on probability: A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of just one (1) functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by un-directed random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.) Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability/potentiality to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness. A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased, incomplete ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by observation of the universe and discoveries in Quantum Physics.)
To me this math is the most convincing evidence that ID makes more sense than anything else. Do you have links to those studies? I was a math major and I’d love to see how they came up with those numbers. I saw Prof Dave’s rebuttal to these numbers in his “debunking Steven Meyers” video, which did his side no favors as his argumentation (if you could sift past the personal insults) was no more advanced than a reasonably intelligent 6th grade kid could come up with. Thanks in advance.
You, sir, are a gentleman as well as being a scholar. I appreciate your kindness and consideration while totally dismantling that needy little twirp 'Professor' Dave.
Lol…Dave sounds smart if you can’t pass a GED test after flunking out of high school, but anyone with half a brain can see how circular and half witted all his arguments are.
In science, if you prove a theory wrong, you get a Noble prize. It happened in science before. Make a paper proving that. Give it to the scientific community and win that prize. Also, what theology has to do with science? The scientific community does not bring religion in scientific discussions
Dr. Tour explains the problem of creating life from non-living molecules, or OoL (Origins of Life), in a very simple manner by saying that trying to do so (creating life) is tantamount to chasing an object going faster than you'll ever be able to go. I do disagree with what he thinks about human being's ever being able to understand how life is formed, though. This is because I can think as both a scientist, and a layperson, since I am both, giving me an advantage. This thought to me implies that God is willing to give us this knowledge, which is something I can't ever see happening, since it's bad enough that we know what we already know about how to end ot...
Like you said Shawn, unless man can create life from absolutely NOTHING, then he/she can claim the credit. Otherwise, life creation requires intelligence and absolute power to make it happen. At the end of the day, God did all these things from his power.
I disagree with Dr. Tour on one point: That an infinite number of universes could yield life or a computer spontaneously. Certain processes have required thresholds. If those thresholds are not reached, then the process cannot proceed. Perhaps the simplest example of this is combustion of a fuel in air. If the temperature always remains low, then you will never get combustion no matter how many universes you have. Organized assembly of building blocks requires a certain type of threshold which is *_never_* met through random combinations, just as a persisting volume of vacuum persisting in front of your face is also impossible using natural, random processes. I can't imagine a silicon-based computer ever self-assembling. For the longest time I thought that there may be some "intelligence" built into the elemental building blocks which is biased toward life, but now this seems wrong, based on what Dr. Tour said about the "muddiness" of the prebiotic soup. To clean up this muddiness would require something like Maxwell's hypothetical "demon." 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯 Added: On another conversation (Dr. Tour with a wonderful Muslim fellow), he used the metaphor of finding a watch in the desert. No one is going to think that the watch is a natural crystal. And in the Bible, I seem to remember somewhere that it says that nature will show God's signature or handiwork. This begs the question: If God created life on this planet, would He have had any reason to create life on any other planet in the entire universe? In other words, *_is the universe Empty?_* If so, then humanity colonizing other worlds will have to do extensive terraforming, because there will likely be very little free oxygen in the atmospheres of those planets.
God is the origin of life, of the universe, of earth, of everything. It's so complex, yet so easy to believe. Our limited intelligence cannot phathom creation, because God is more all powerful and super Intelligent than we are. We cannot doubt God as the author of the origin of life, we can just "investigate" what God created and see His wondrous work on earth. We will never reach that point that we can create like God created, out of nothing. We use what He created, the material, so we cannot take any credit for anything. He created the material and created out of that material. That's creation.
So 'he' created everything? What did 'he' create - quarks? Hydrogen atoms? Microbes? Humans? At which points does 'he' step in and do something? Did 'he' create labradoodles?
After working with one chapter of Quran i.e Chapter of Tariq, for the last 36 yrs. I was able to decode the mystery. Origin of human beings is DNA which had been subjected to mutation. Regarding other life forms it is not known.
Hello James.... I just came across a statement that you made @10:32 you state that "no where in the bible does it say that God is unique in the creation of life," or something very similar to this. I'm very surprised that you'd say this as the Scriptures has something to say about this subject. As you may know, God says that He's "The" Creator. He never says that He's "A" creator. He also indicates that He's the owner of everything. Ecclesiastes 12:1 Remember now *_thy_* Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them; Isaiah 40:28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, *_the_* Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding. Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than *_the_* Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. And finally, God declares that He made everything, while speaking the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:11.... Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD *_made_* heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. The only thing that man creates is "trouble," and the only thing that man made is "another human being" in the form of an infant. And the only reason we can procreate is because we were "given" this gift by God. I pray that you'll take these Scriptures and this comment into account. God bless. 🙏
What’s so funny is that “directed panspermia” is effectively dawkins admitting there’s a god. It really doesn’t matter how you classify it, but if someone directed it, it’s almost definitionally god.
There is a higher truth than Christianity, Dr Tour, which does not negate Christian faith but places it in context with other faiths that serve more or less the same noble goals. I'd welcome sharing a dialogue with you and perhaps persuade you to become an Omnist Christian
Makes zero sense. When did thought become speech? My cat sees a mouse and is right on it. He doesn't eat it, yet brings it inside the house so he can play with it. Then the mouse hides and my cat forgets about it. After a while he seems to become interested in his mouse/toy so he goes looking for it. Again, there's thinking involved, but I can assure you my cat doesn't speak. So, what you're saying makes less sense than my cat catching a mouse to play with it.
7/6/2023 Although I like the mighty jim, he's still human. He makes mistakes and has slowly admitted to some of them. There are times when he says things backwards and in an incomplete way. His brian gets ahead of his mouth and sometimes we the listeners have to pay the price. He did say around last November/ December, 9 months ago( In the 2022 video: Dr Tour EXSPOSES the false science behind origin of life research )that he would address the Dave Farina 2 part clueless video material, later...(script time stamp approx 4:27-4:53)and some where he also said something like that he had a series coming out that would address the 50 papers that dave offerd up; in Dave's 2 part clueless series(against James 13 part abiogenesis series) from a couple of years back. James made it sound like it was all coming out this year-2023. Im still waiting for him to clarify what he meant by all this.
JamesTour: (2023 video released 6 months ago,The Religion of Prebiotic Soup- Lee Cronin Part 01 time stamp 2:32-3:00)"Ive got a series for you comming up here; this is in rebuttal to Dave Farina's two-part series on abiogenesis....so this first series is going to just go after the experts and then show how Dave Farina was wrong...but then we'll have a second series after this series that will go after every other part of Dave Farina's videos....
I'm not a Christian, but even if you're completely wrong on your theism, it's probably a good thing that you're challenging these institutions and forcing these scientists to justify their own beliefs. Academia is overdue for its "protestant reformation", and Martin Luther didn't have to be 100% correct about everything to have made a positive impact in his field. You highlighted the problem with "building a car from [modern] car parts". Perhaps we should instead try starting with the "simplest possible steam engine", and making the simplest possible mutating replicator. Creationists have a point with this facet of "irreducible complexity" (trying to remove parts of the human eye and have it still function), but there are also less complex eyes to choose from. But we should also have other people working on the opposite approach - using large building blocks and working their way backwards to smaller and smaller ones. Chemical synthesis of DNA is already a thing. We should probably do these experiments under biosafe conditions in case we accidentally make a pathogen. This is especially true for the first approach, since it would likely lead to extremely exotic lifeforms with unpredictable properties. If and when we finally do it, making life in the lab would be just one step in explaining how life got here. Panspermia (i.e. intact lifeforms arriving on meteorites) doesn't explain how life first formed. Even if the organic compounds arrived on meteorites (which there is evidence for), that doesn't explain the origin of the compounds themselves.
Regarding the intelligent design question, let's imagine that the way we end up doing it would have never happened in nature. That would not make it the only possible way for creating life, just the only one we've found so far. Again, we should be aiming for smaller and smaller interventions each time. The rule will always be that life can only arise from something more complex than itself. But this could just be the universe. After all, the universe must be more complex than any life that arises within it, because it contains all life, plus everything that isn't life. It's also not clear in what sense it's "easier" for intelligent beings (i.e. a human or greater level of intelligence) to assemble life. We don't have the technology to "design" a supercell thunderstorm, but the atmosphere assembles these complex structures every day. Thus, we can observe the formation of dense pockets of complexity without sudden divine actions like the ones described in human holy texts. However, it does seem that you need more of a "sweet spot" to get things started when it comes to more complex processes. Supercells, are, after all, the rarest type of thunderstorm. Origin-of-life reactions may just be exceedingly rare. Lastly, you say we'll one day understand how it could've come about. Do you expect that the answer will point to an intelligent designer?
It seems apparent you’re obsessed with the question of an “intelligent designer”, when this scientist is simply asking others to show how it was done. He doesn’t mention a creator in the challanges he offers, he keeps his personal belief system completely out of it. But yet scientists always want to belittle him on that by bringing it into these challenges and lectures he’s offered.
There was lead and by the means of occult knowledge it was turned to gold, to shining gold! And then again, at the shores at lake Geneva, Dr. Frankenstein turned the switch and it became alive, alive, stitched together from already abiotic body parts! (Lightning strikes ion the rainy night)
The Bible doesn't imply that evolution can't be true, and science confirms that evolution can't be true without God's intervention. No matter how you look at the scientific evidence, theology, or philosophy, God is always necessary for the origin of life.
It's an interesting problem, that of how to get protein molecules to fold correctly. This has been one of the problems noted in those who had the poison shots, and it's related to the problem of the protein clots found generally at autopsy. I had one dose of AstraZeneca and I've experienced two incidents of a change in gene expression namely 1) that my long straight blonde hair has started to curl like soft corkscrews from the roots, but only in the majority of my scalp (not all of it), and 2) my pale skin that sunburns easily and never tans has started to tan and doesn't burn. I'm still quite brown and it's the middle of winter here in Melbourne Australia. The gene expression changes only became apparent in October 2022, sixteen months after the poison shot. I haven't met anyone or heard from anyone who has a similar experience, so far.
The effect you are seeing may or may not be caused by those compulsory shots that Dan "Sith Lord Emperor Palpatine" Andrews ordered for all and sundry to have. Long before this I have seen such changes occur due to various environmental and age related changes. One interesting thing is that none of the various shots have had enough time to be able to determine what longer term effects will show up. We do not know what the long term effects of the various versions of the covid-19 virus will be and if if you have had multiple version (including the Kraken variety of Christmas 2022), we will just have to wait to see the longer term effects.
The universe is BIG. I cannot imagine God only made us and I also find no reason God has to tell us. We are in isolation to a large extent. The theoretical early inflation of the universe was creation as the universe as we know it vie Webb was simply spread out like a cloak.
We can compare amino acids to bricks. A pile of bricks left alone for millions of years have nothing to do with a 6 star luxury hotel in dubai. To create some bricks and then claim you had started building a 6 star luxury hotel is not just deception or a scam, its outright insane....
@annieoaktree6774 Time is your God. You add in Time to any whacky theory and that makes it true for you. Turn a bacteria into an elephant. Add in time. Turn non life into life, add in Time. Time of the Gaps is the atheist cop out and answer to everything. Time is your magic answer to everything you have no answer for. You atheists need to engage your brains more.
@@sciencerules8525 Are you not bright enough to realise that although time may be evolutions best friend, it is chemistry's worse enemy. Time DOES NOT HELP ABIOGENESIS. Chemicals degrade. They react. They oxidise. Time works against abiogenesis. And there is zero evidence to say time turns a bacteria into an Orca or anything else. it is all in the story. The story appeals. The fossil record utterly refutes Darwins ridiculous fairy tale. But you just add in your magic unscientific unprovable magic ingredient of time to make your fairy tale come true. Time is not a magic machine. Yet you think it is since you believe that you share an ancestor with a turnip.
@@sciencerules8525 'The facts are the Earth is approx. 4.54 billion years old and life has been on it evolving for at least the last 3.8 billion years.' They are not 'facts'. That is only scientific estimations. Secular scientific estimations are not facts. They are only estimations and the way science estimates deep time is known to be very inaccurate.
It's clear that the deeper you go at the micro level the more complex and irreducible things get. You don't have to be a biologist to know this. If you don't have irreducible order or BEING you can't even begin to do science. Even a child understands this. This is the old good argument from the irreducible order around us. Jesus is kIng "seek and you will find.....and do everything in love"--The Holy Bible
أَوَلَمۡ يَرَ ٱلۡإِنسَٰنُ أَنَّا خَلَقۡنَٰهُ مِن نُّطۡفَةٖ فَإِذَا هُوَ خَصِيمٞ مُّبِينٞ (77) Does man not consider that We created him from a [mere] sperm-drop - then at once he is a clear adversary? وَضَرَبَ لَنَا مَثَلٗا وَنَسِيَ خَلۡقَهُۥۖ قَالَ مَن يُحۡيِ ٱلۡعِظَٰمَ وَهِيَ رَمِيمٞ (78) And he presents for Us an example and forgets his [own] creation. He says, "Who will give life to bones while they are disintegrated? قُلۡ يُحۡيِيهَا ٱلَّذِيٓ أَنشَأَهَآ أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٖۖ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ خَلۡقٍ عَلِيمٌ (79) Say, "He will give them life who produced them the first time; and He is, of all creation, Knowing." ٱلَّذِي جَعَلَ لَكُم مِّنَ ٱلشَّجَرِ ٱلۡأَخۡضَرِ نَارٗا فَإِذَآ أَنتُم مِّنۡهُ تُوقِدُونَ (80) [It is] He who made for you from the green tree, fire, and then from it you ignite أَوَلَيۡسَ ٱلَّذِي خَلَقَ ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَٱلۡأَرۡضَ بِقَٰدِرٍ عَلَىٰٓ أَن يَخۡلُقَ مِثۡلَهُمۚ بَلَىٰ وَهُوَ ٱلۡخَلَّٰقُ ٱلۡعَلِيمُ (81) Is not He who created the heavens and the earth Able to create the likes of them? Yes, [it is so]; and He is the Knowing Creator إِنَّمَآ أَمۡرُهُۥٓ إِذَآ أَرَادَ شَيۡـًٔا أَن يَقُولَ لَهُۥ كُن فَيَكُونُ (82) His command is only when He intends a thing that He says to it, "Be," and it is فَسُبۡحَٰنَ ٱلَّذِي بِيَدِهِۦ مَلَكُوتُ كُلِّ شَيۡءٖ وَإِلَيۡهِ تُرۡجَعُونَ (83) So exalted is He in whose hand is the realm of all things, and to Him you will be returned
a little over 6000 years ago God created the the heavens and the earth. that is the only explanation that exists. the biblical numbers can not be "evangelastically" stretched much beyond this.
The big question is… did we really go to the moon? How much fuel did we use? Was aluminium landing vessel good enough? What type of obsticels did we have when transmisdion of radio communication from moon? What frequenzy was used? There is so little really hard science to see or read that, when a project is done scientifically we should be able to test it and do it again… but no… nothing, and still in 2023 we are talking about mars. Some where long tima ago sndceven further away. We can not use the moon because of all the everyday telescope.
The physical universe is a (real) fabrication of contracted time and distance in our perception where we are because of the gravity of the matter that was formed. Moving matter through time and space also has the same effect, at least in one dimension. Light travel for the photon through this fabrication is instant. (It takes no time to travel no distance no matter the time or distance.) Everything is local in quantum physics. We don't exist at the speed of light. We are local because we exist in the fabrication of limited measurable time and distance. We exist in slow motion and we see light in slow motion with the collapse of the wave function but it doesn't mean that light is in slow motion. There is no time or distance at the speed of light. Gravity drops off exponentially the farther away it is from the mass of a galaxy. That means that technically time runs exponentially faster and distance is expanded exponentially the farther away it is from the mass of the galaxy. This is observed with superluminal motion being seven times the speed of light according to our projected measures of time and distance. The reality is that the measures of time and distance are not the same as ours the farther away it is from the mass of the galaxy. This is a confirmation that it is the mass of matter that slows down time and distance for us with the collapse of the wave function. It is also the reason we are able to see distant starlight within several thousand years since time speeds up exponentially and distance is expanded exponentially the farther away from the mass of the galaxy it is in our line of sight. Not only does time pass by much faster through the lagrange areas between galaxies, the distance is actually much less exponentially throughout the areas in our lines of sight between galaxies. This eliminates any need for imaginary inflatons or dark matter particles. Redshift is due to the expanded distance between galaxies and the faster movements of the outer spiral arms and such are due to the faster rates of time and less actual distances. The vacuum of space is linked to black holes that are growing in size regardless of the amount of matter they absorb since they absorb blocks of time and distance (frames of reference).
At 9:08, I love Dr. Tour and he is light years ahead of me in scientific knowledge! However, I respectfully disagree that we will ever be able to create life in the lab. The reason that I disagree is that God breathed into man and animals, the breath of life. While we might eventually be able to assemble the components of biological entities, but for them to come alive would require that God breathe that breath of life into them.
// "God breathed into man and the animals" // I think deep down in your heart you really know that man *'IS'* an animal. Look we live & die just like animals then when we do die the same thing that happens to animals happens to us. We breath the same air as them, we have no advantage over the animals anything else is just vanity dear.
I absolutely loved this discussion, thank you.
My nephew who is a clever boy, and on the autism spectrum, is in 10th grade here in Australia, studying chemistry, physics, maths, Bible studies (he loves the Lord), and he's doing design, English, and plays football very well for his team.
He's always had artistic talents too.
I'm going to send him the link to this discussion via my brother (his Dad), as I know it'll capture his attention, and he'll have the benefit of a video tutorial of a sort, with an outstanding mentor (Dr Tour) in science.
Good mentors are precious in life.
He'll also enjoy hearing how you came to know Jesus.
God bless and strengthen you Dr Tour, and Sean McDowell too.
If there weren't theological implications to this stuff, they wouldn't be so militant in their belief in materialism. There's an entire atheistic worldview underpinning all of this.
Atheists do not have a world view. Atheism is just not being convinced by any of the god stories we have heard
Your comment is spot on!!! 😀It's so true!
my incessant point too - well said. Darwin stems directly from the materialist Greek philosopher Democritus, although he got his version from the Latin author Lucretius
Darwin set his believers free to sin, Jesus set His believers free from sin.
@@Vernon-Chitlen Eh, no. Jesus forgave all sins so your slate can be wiped clean and you can forget about the bad stuff you have done. I have to live with the bad stuff I have done, try to fix what I can.Nah, Jesus is the easy way out, no personal responsibility.
1.the amino acids made in an enantiomer pure form so that the polymers can be made from them (never ever just happens in nature without enzymes (all those little magic nanobots) and DNA to direct it). Then you have to polymerize them (to call it a huge leap is such an understatement). It doesn’t happen without the nanobots inside the cell.
2.make the carbohydrates (which is very complex). Then polymerize them (even harder). When done randomly, because there are so many possible ways for it to happen, it just becomes a big mess very quickly. Again you need the enzymes which are very complex and they don’t just happen without DNA and the nanobots to put them together.
3. The nucleotides (DNA and RNA) made of a sugar and a nucleobase and put a phosphate on the other side, and polymerize that with good control. Randomly in nature, it simply never happens the way we need it unless you live in a fantasy world.
4. The lipids have to assemble into the lipid bi-layer. And these lipid bi-layers actually have complex sugars built into them for communication purposes and complex proteins inside them and traversing them to let stuff come in and go out, and to keep other things in or to keep them out as needed. The thoughts of this happening in an unguided fashion is laughable.
5.the ancient coding language that has been passed down for countless generations in the DNA which we have decoded. This is the information problem. I think they could quit doing SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence). This is proof of intelligent life itself. And since there wasn’t any intelligent life on earth yet, I guess we should call it exterrestrial intelligence. That is the very kind of thing SETI is looking for, but it was found with instruments more akin to microscopes instead of telescopes. But so far we’ve been unable to tell from looking at it where this information that was coded as if it were a computer came from or by whom. I believe this coding is more amazing than what they are expecting to discover from space.
6.put all of these intricate things together (in William Paley’s old pocket watch found while crossing the heath analogy, well that pocket watch is sooo simplistic in comparison to these things).
7.There haven’t been enough billions of years since the Big Bang for the number of molecular interactions that would need to take place for unguided molecules to come together and form this accidentally. The time since then is so many trillions of times too short for that to have had even close to a reasonable chance to happen.
So if you look at this purely from a scientific point of view as an educated person, you must think ‘what fairy tail are you living in to think that it is even close to a reasonable proposition to think that this could have just happened undirected’.
If you are going to look at it with a realistic scientific point of view you need to think in your mind “what is more likely. What is the most reasonable explanation of how this came to be?” Someone with intelligence made this happen? Or Just some undirected happenstance of molecules just came together and formed this AMAZING masterpiece called a living cell? Don’t forget that molecules just don’t care about coming together to form life. They simply couldn’t care less. They have no motivation to do it.
Only an EXTREME amount of faith against all odds and all reason would cause one to say it was just undirected molecules coming together and forming this amazing complex intricately built delicate thing called a living cell. That is faith not science. Statements based on faith is not what science is supposed to be. That is what is known as religious belief… faith, not logic based reason, pretending to be science.
While disdaining others for having religious belief, many people have adopted a religious belief of their own without realizing that they have become religious, because they are calling it science. This has become their own god of the gaps which they hold on to with even more fervor than the God of the gaps they are pointing to and laughing at. They have to press forward with more faith in their god because they have to go against stronger reason and greater odds against realistic chances than the older religions do.
It's great to see Christians like you actually paying attention and learning this. Most of the Christians I'm around won't give the time to learning this.
I don't mind if there are non tax supported groups searching for extraterrestrial life. It may be the case that God created elsewhere millions of years ago in the past who developed the technology to send signals exposing their existence. If that was the case it's sad we couldn't communicate with them since the signal travel time would be a barrier.
very well said, I have heard the objection from biologists (evolution believing) that they do not take what he says seriously because he knows so little biology, (they being typically bad chemists - biologists often are). He will talk about the 'first cell' and show a eukaryote yeast cell, etc. Jim Tour says so much that is right but spoils his case by violently under-estimating the complexity of even the most primitive unicellular lifeform. As did the physicist Fred Hoyle, updated and extended the Paley's watch scenario by cleverly pointing out that that tornados do make jumbo jets by tearing through junk yards - entropy goes in the opposite direction. But the correct level of comparison is a tornado creating a small town as a going concern, not just a single airplane sitting waiting to fueled and flown.
Phenomenal comment. Great detail and clarity. If you don't mind, could you kindly state your education or work experience that gave you this level of understanding towards this topic?
@@asiffarouk7838 He scoured creationist websites to find as much pseudoscience as he could.
None of it is correct, as scientific papers demonstrate, and all he can revert to in the end is a fallacy of incredulity and ignorance on current scientific achievement.
JT, nor any other creationist nitwit, has ever demonstrated any assembly of biolmolecules to be impossible. Claiming the chances are remote, doesn't change the fact that (1) nevertheless we are here and (2) unlikely doesn't equate to impossible.
@@MyMy-tv7fd violently under-estimating? how does one violently under estimate?
God bless Dr Tour. His zealousness for God has impacted my life tremendously
Heb3.4 "Of course every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God. "
Amen!! 😀
@@jeanettepretorius589 darwin
He constructed lies and errors @@surfsnow1371
Been following this material for a while now. As a trained organic chemist (phd in enantioselective transitjon metal catalysis), it really seems like we don't even know what questions to ask about how life might have began.
I say that because we cannot yet define what makes something alive. If we cannot truly define life, then we cannot begin making progress toward making life.
Having said this, i do think it is possible to take steps toward making life, but impossible to know if those steps actually will lead toward life or not until we define life (aside from what life does according to biology).
Thank you, Jim, for doing all of these videos.
Our Creator left instructions. The Bible ,Dead sea scrolls and most importantly the Torrah.
If you know what questions to ask, you have half the solution.
Dr Tour has in my opinion made the biggest contribution to the origin of life debate that the most humble of lay persons can confront any atheist with. He has my greatest respect.
As a scientist Dr Tour suggests “there may be a point in the distant future that mankind will be able to create life and that God would be magnanimous about accepting that”. I hope I have not misquoted you on that Dr Tour? I am afraid with respect that I have to disagree with you from a theological perspective and your Christian beliefs. In John 14. Jesus say’s “I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life”. These are three absolute attributes of Jesus. The only way to know God is to know Jesus, He is the “truth that sets us free”, In Him is life underived, unborrowed. “In Him is life” John 1:4. A careful study of the Bible reveals that God alone is immortal, and His creatures only have ‘conditional’ immortality. If this is true no creature human or otherwise will ever be able to create life. If I am not mistaken Dr. Tour has alluded to this by suggesting that scientists given a cell with all it’s parts that has just died has a missing ingredient that cannot be recreated.
A fascinating subject I hope Dr Tour can give us an insight to this.
Living organisms might not be a definitive definition of Life.
However, consciousness is a characteristic of Life. And, humans being self aware is a higher level of conscious Life.
Unfortunately though... the source and origin of Consciousness, like Life, is a mystery to secular materialistic -scientists.
We do understand alot of the steps from geochemistry to biochemistry.
What looks complex in biology is really complexity in the eye of the beholder if you like because ultimately it seems that everything stems from reactions of hydrogen cyanide and a few related compounds. So what I find exciting is how a few simple compounds can give rise to things that are outwardly complex but as I said, if they’re actually inherently favoured to form from hydrogen cyanide then perhaps they shouldn’t be viewed as complex.
Origin of life research is not a breakthrough science where suddenly we will have synthesised life in the lab. Origin of life science, just as many disciplines in biology, has this tendency to be incremental, and that's fine, there's no deadline to science.
In general terms we’d like to understand how to take building blocks, make them into bigger structures and have those bigger structures then act synergistically to produce higher order behaviour and how that works and how that’s fueled by chemical energy is a very interesting question. Some of those incremental steps we solved and provided evidence for in support, but we do recognise there's still a long way ahead.
Defining life is notoriously difficult and imo quite meaningless.
Between what is living and what is not, is a grey zone. At some point we clearly see it is living, but below that line it is vague. E.g. Cronin’s self-replicating salt crystals, they are neither alive but nor are they completely “dead”-they do something. E.g. viruses (?).
Is respiration (metabolism) a requirement? Then what with some bacteria that can shut down their respiration completely in extreme atmosphere, but when blown over thousands of miles with the wind back to the surface, start respirating again?
Maybe it is more comprehensible when drawing a chart with Y (aliveness) and X (time). Some are engaged in biology down research, some in geochemistry up and others prefer a more holistic approach, a synergistic model where all 4 components formed together and somehow assembled.
So imo, demonstrating these incremental steps and linking them together to explain the assembly process (autocatalytic sets with feedback loop) doesn't really require a definition of "life".
How does a cell know how to program itself to replicate itself?
How did you know to schtuupp your wife?
we dont know> and they dont wanna answer or ask that. they avoid rationality when it comes to that. but easily dismiss it as nature just does it.
@@kevinkelly2162 i dont know what that word means but assuming it. they learn it from other people
Srch: Evolution 2.0 AI & Origin of Life Challenge- $10million, share of patent rights, obvious Nobel Prize etc; Posted July 2019. Unclaimed yet by basically describing how information emerged from the elements
Simple... Magic Pixie Dust... And they believe it...
Go figure...
Thank you for you faith, your testimony and your intellect. God bless you
My two favorite speakers on TH-cam!
Dr. Tour- thank you for continuing to talk about the experience of Jesus. Its been very helpful for me.
Dr. Tour has written, I think, over 700 pier reviewed papers on synthetic organic chemistry topics, But only 5 “articles” (not peer reviewed) that critique origin of life.
He may be 100% correct in everything he says, but your intro made it sound like he has authored more origin of life pier reviewed papers than the top 10 origin of life researchers combined. This little detail will matter when talking to others and referencing him, don’t miss accredit him or they will immediately dismiss anything you say.
Thanks you for having him on!
That's a very good point. They tend to seek any little thing in order to discredit him and others talking about these issues.
Peer, not pier. A reference for the future.
I think you mean “dismiss” not “dictums.” I spotted that one too, but it was SMcD who said it, not JT. He didn't correct it, but that was because it was interview format and he was probably not paying attention to the flannel about his achievements. This is, after all, a pre-introductory level popularisation of a highly complex subject, not a way-beyond-doctoral-level discussion of technicalities.
@@MrAgonizomai yes thanks, corrected. Commenting by phone is often a disaster for me. The comment is directed only at Sean McDowell, it’s his channel and his introduction, not James. Thank you.
@@MountainFisher Haha! Sorry, I think 40 years of sailing and more years of poor spelling may have combined on that one! Thanks!
Amen! Science confirms biblical creation! Observable science.
At 43:30 the question of A.I. enters the conversation. I've asked an A.I. where did life originate and it responded that it originated in a primordial soup. I believe Dr. Tour when he says that anyone who believes that is "stupid". The moral of the A.I. story is that "Artificial Intelligence" isn't intelligent but is really "artificial stupidity" (based on its answer to the origin of life question 🙂
The language models only apply information that has been amassed by people. The current pursuit for general A.I. will be interesting if it produces anything. Only then will it be forced to apply the counter-arguments.
Just goes to prove that they think this theory is a fact and the only option. One of Tour's arguments is this is what's being taught in textbooks. AI should have at least mentioned all of the possibilities.
It goes to show that "AI" is strictly a manifestation of programmed inputs
Well, it just proves what Dr Tour said about the hype train and scientific community pushing "theories" that have no evidence out to the public aka being dishonest.
Mighty God bless you everyone in the name of our Lord Jesus Savior.
I am so thankful for Dr. Tour and his willingness to call out the glaring problems with origins of life research. I am an organic synthetic chemists. I understand how incredibly difficult it is to create the molecules needed for life to exist. It cannot "just happen" without incredible intervention at each stage of the synthetic process. OOL researchers are truly clueless about how this happens.
Greatest defender of science with simple education
It will be good to take formal action to correct the errors in the origin of life teaching contents in science textbooks in as many countries as possible.
I agree, the lies of origin of life naturally and evolution is just not logical or good science. Nothing can create itself from nothing.
whilst simultaneously pointing out the the nonsense encapsulated between the covers of the "holy' bible
@@aue82a that's the best you have?
@@aue82a the "pointing out the nonsense" is the Fiction of Abiogenesis.
The nonsensical Belief that Life is inherent in mechanistic ⚛️ atoms and lifeless molecules.
Time to revise and upgrade your philosophy of Life.
@@aue82acould you please name one such instance in such a manner that said assertion could be debatable? I mean, if I declare you to be a complete failure of a human being, you would be right to question whether said assertion reposes on anything debatable or is a gross overstatement on my part?
It is just SUPER ! Thank you James Tour for your excellent presentation!
Does Dr Tour have an explanation for the fossil record that shows that life was wholy different at different points of time?
Mass death event; the flood of Noah.
@@TaxEvasi0n How does that explain wholly different sets of fossils of various sizes in different layers? Have you really thought about it and learned, or did you just dial in to videos that defend creationism?
@@LeonSemiPro Good question, I've wondered this myself. I can't say I'm versed in this particular side, but there are logical ways under a flood model to account for this. I do need to go back and truly understand it all, but Creation Ministries International has the greatest coverage of this in my opinion under a flood model.
The world was utterly destroyed and rearranged under Noahs boat in the floods. We're talking about land masses being divided and split. We find many of the same fossils along the coast lines of countries and their respective counterparts where they used to join.
The water came up from under the surface of the ground too, it didn't just rain. There would have been many extreme local floods depositing soil etc, and then more water later shifting more soil etc.
If it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, and the ground opened up spouting water, is it all going to flood immediately? Or perhaps in various chaotic stages as the water finds it's resting ground and keeps building up?
How are there rock layers that are actually bent? Dry rock can't do that smoothly, but moist layers can and will when they are disturbed by surrounding land masses moving.
I think perhaps you need to look in to it more before you knock other people.
@@TaxEvasi0n Dude, the different rock layers have wholly different sets of life of varying sizes in them. This is consistent around the world. There is no chaos. The evidence is clear. Life was different at different points in time and that life was progressively more developed from the bottom to the top layers REGARDLESS of size.
This guy makes. Drag racing cars out of molecules, and wins.
Every time!
Thank you.
Here's a quote from Full Metal Alchemist
Edward: Water: 35 l. Carbon: 20 kg. Ammonia: 4 l. Lime: 1.5 kg. Phosphorus: 800 g. Salt: 250 g. Saltpeter: 100 g. Sulfur: 80 g. Fluorine 7.5 g. Iron 5 g. Silicon 3 g. and trace amounts of 15 other elements.Rose: What’s that?Edward: It’s all the ingredients of the average adult human body down to the last speck of protein in your eyelashes. And even though science has given us the entire physical breakdown, there’s never been a successful attempt at bring a human to life… There’s still something missing… Something scientists haven’t been able to find in centuries of research… So what makes you think that hack job priest with his parlor tricks is going to be able to? And in case you’re wondering… All those ingredients can be bought on a child’s allowance. Humans can be built on the cheap. There’s no magic to it.Rose: WELL IF THERE’S NO MAGIC THEN YOU BRING SOMEONE BACK TO LIFE!Edward: It’s just a matter of time Rose. Science will find a way. Science is the answer to everything. If I were you… I’d drop the scriptures… And pick up an alchemy book… We’re the closest thing to gods there are…Rose: You’re not a god. You’re nothing close to it.Edward: And neither is the sun. It’s just a mass of hydrogen. Get close to it, like Cornello claims… And all you’ll do is burn up…Alphonse: Great, Ed. Put your total cynicism on someone else…
I wish Dr. Jason Lisle and Dr. James Tour would give a Christian perspective on the origins of life from a Macro, and Micro perspective that would be amazing just to see both of them speaking together.
Once you get to the "macro" you're way past Origin of Life.
@@onedirection2301 so, how would a person believe that life came from another planet or a star? Can space be bent or magnified to look larger than it is, how big is macro? Can our Universe be a speck on a grander scale? I believe scientifically we are still cave men.
Very interesting and informative discussion. Great to hear from a scientist of Doctor Tour's experience.
The statement at 3m 45s on *_Peer Review_* remains a scathing indictment of the process. Science did not always use "Peer Review." In fact, when Albert Einstein first encountered it in the 1930s, he simply *_Refused to Participate!_* Science is NOT done by committee or "consensus." But tyranny over science sure can be driven by the highly political "peer review."
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
Didn't know that about Einstein, though it makes perfect sense. He presented revolutionary controversial ideas. It's unlikely many peers would have signed on to agree with him. I've also heard that his 1905 special relativity paper had zero reference attributions.
@@KenJackson_US Not surprised. Einstein did not win a Nobel Prize in Physics for either General or Special Relativity. His prize was for something else entirely. Yet, Relativity was the far more impactful breakthrough.
It's almost like he burst onto a world full of kindergartners as the only adult in the room.
For him, peer review was nonsense. Peers can review AFTER publication. It's not like peer review prevents mistakes from being made; plenty of those. But peer review fulfills the needs of the Globalist-Leftists who need Darkness in order to wield greater control.
Hello Dr Tour. What is The Ninth Commandment, and does it apply to you? Best Wishes, DOC
There are three things that make absolutely no sense in a materialistic paradigm:
(1) The fact anything exists at all
(2) The fact life exists
(3) The fact consciousness exists (more appropriately, a soul, because that is what consciousness truly is, which is why materialism will never understand consciousness unless it defines it in a very reduced form via only external observations, since materialists do not consider looking inwards to oneself to be a valid form of evidence)
lol...Can you show ANY evidence of a soul?
@@surfsnow1371 I literally said you cannot prove a soul exists externally; you clearly aren't conscious, though
@@pyropulseIXXI Well I'm glad we can agree that there is zero evidence of a soul or anything supernatural...good chat!
@@surfsnow1371 there is evidence for it; it is internal. Or do you think your thoughts and memories are magically physical?
Such a stupid position; your brain matter merely correlates to the non-physical existence that is 'you.'
It seems the word soul confused you; you can use 'consciousness' instead if you prefer
@@pyropulseIXXI There is zero evidence of a soul..I thought we both just agreed to that? If "you cannot prove a soul exists externally" how do you know it exists?
I love this series of clear analysis. My ideas are that humans were genetically engineered by ET scientists whose powers were so great that they were held in awe. Also, they had to be obeyed. They were truly the creators, (not of life but of the spread of life on earth).
I believe that this ("No other gods before me") was the "God" of the bible who churches talk about in obsequious piety.
Prime Creator is the origin of all consciousness and (not male), and way beyond our understanding; the giving of life and the being of life.
I think that Darwinists are unable to separate the Spiritual from churchism. They lack this skill at analysis because they are bigoted and prejudiced.
I appreciate your visitation from a loving presence as I had similar. The problem was whether I would be a hypocrite in partaking a spiritual activity - healing group - in one church rather than another. This caused me great anxiety. While thus distressed, I felt a loving presence at the foot of my bed, soothing me and assuring me that I was making a mountain out of a molehill. I thought it was Jesus. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.
I am sure you were not committing any sins as a youth in learning about women and sexuality.
If it ever happens, we should rejoice that it takes an intelligent mind to create life.
Not really, your parents are evidence that it doesn’t take intelligence to create life.
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus that's a truth claim....the onus is on the buffoon. Now prove it!
If they create life, imagine how many more problems they will discover, and how many more variables it will take.
Lee Cronin on the Lex podcast said there appears to be something outside the cell helping. If that is the only way they can make life actually work and self replicate, that would basically confirm intelligent design from a Creator.
We have all of the components that have been put together yet the body dies. When someone dies, what exactly have we lost?
I never thought about this Thank you.
That's a very strong point I never thought of. Which one is harder, to revive thee dead or create new life from scratch. If you cannot revive an existing life, why do you think you can create a new one.
I tend to believe the smartest people do not have the level of brain power to figure out how to create life. Not that it can't be done, it just beyond our comprehension capabilities. The apostle Paul made an interesting comment when he wrote about how the resurrection changes our perception. 1 Corinthians 13:12
That's because we do not possess the breath of life that God breathed into Adam. It was that spark of life that continues to this day
"Time of the gaps" thats a great quote!
First life in its most basic form was speech
Start with the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" If you don't know, how would you know the origin of life?
That's the exact problem with the origin of life scientist.
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life! Everything that came to be came through Him and nothing that came to be came to be without Him. Jesus created life for Him. How He did it isn’t explained in scripture. That’s an actual scientific question that might or might not be conceivable. What I do know is that humans were made from the dust of the earth and have the image of God and God breathed into man. The only part that sounds feasible is the dust of the earth. Good luck with the God parts! God bless everyone!
You should read the Enuma Elish. If you aren't into reading Bart Ehrman has a course on it. You will find all of Genesis and more in it.
Why read that if it’s just a rip off of
Genesis??
The word used was plaster, not dust. The Greek proves it unquestionably. Look it up for yourself. "aphar". Leviticus has a verse with both words (dust and plaster) also proving the word was plaster not dust.
@@ludwigkirchner08 what is plaster of the earth?
@@danpaulisbitski Actually it is older.
//1:43 "I maintain that we are still very far from understanding how life could have come about on this planet.. From a scientivid perspective. ... There are still many unknown. ... "//
I think most working within the field of abiogenesis research would agree with that statement. But I doubt that they would say:-
"We are clueless" or
"WE ARE CLUELESS"
Rather they would point you to various working models they have and the research being done in attempting to show that aspects of those models are viable. For example, on the issue of chirality, they have recently announced another potential candidate:-
Science News Item -
1. "Breakthrough’ could explain why life molecules are left- or right-handed"
Papers -
1. "Chirality-Induced Magnetization of Magnetite by an RNA Precursor"
2. "The central dogma of biological homochirality: How does chiral information propagate in a prebiotic network?"
3. "Origin of biological homochirality by crystallization of an RNA precursor on a magnetic surface"
^^ So on important issues like these, people are not clueless. They do have ideas and experimental support backing them. And they keep on improving their models. Just think where we were back in 1953 when the Urey-Miller experiment was first done. That was a mere 70 years ago. For comparison, we have been experimenting with gravity for hundreds of years and it remains very much a mystery in many ways. We have been experimenting with turbulence for hundreds of years and still don't know how it originates. Yet in both of those fields, it would be a brave person to insist that we are totally clueless.
And by way of comparison, how close are we to scientifically explaining how God created life, assuming the he did of course?
Assuming God exists and created the world, he spoke it into existence, whatever that means. For us humans trying to understand almighty and eternal God scientifically is delusional.
@@christophlindinger2267
//... he spoke it into existence, whatever that means. For us humans trying to understand almighty and eternal God scientifically is delusional.//
So he could have allowed natural processes to take their course, and that would still have come under the term "spoken it into existence"?
We have a clue because we made it in lab with controller variables that are not prebiotic relevant
How to do these using a prebiotic relevant means? None! Therefore . . . . Clueless
@@anlockcharacter1104
//... that are not prebiotic relevant//
Are you absolutely sure about that? I ask because that's the whole aim of such research. To use molecules that they think would have been relevant on a prebiotic earth.
//... with controller variables ...//
That is how experiments are done, no matter what the field of science is. They try to control variarbiles to see what happens. To see if they can find out, or learn something.
//How to do these using a prebiotic relevant means?//
I don't understand what you are saying here.
//None! Therefore . . . . Clueless//
See above.
You say [I think most working within the field of abiogenesis research would agree with that statement. But I doubt that they would say:- "We are clueless" or "WE ARE CLUELESS"] and I would agree with you. However, the simple admission that they are clueless would be embarrassing to them and and would immediately limit any funds that they would have access to.
To make such admissions in any field stops funding and affects their reputations in the community. So they will NOT admit what is actually true. It is a simple funding fact today that those providing funding for research want results to support their funding of research.
Over a century ago, scientists of that time either had sponsors or were independently wealthy to support the research they wanted to do. This is not the case today and so truthfulness is not a requirement for research.
is this not a reupload of the old episode? You should state original date it was made.
@@BmoreGrrrrl I know, Would be nice if they would put this information on this episode. Had to go to find the original just to be sure.
Psalm 36:9. “For with you (God - the Creator) is the fountain (or source) of life….” There is no other source or originator of life. It is uniquely an attribute of the Creator. Ipso facto, try as humans may they will never be able to successfully imitate or reproduce what the Creator singularly possesses and reserves for himself - the ability to create and impart that most precious gift - life!
And this millenia old text is of course THE reliable source, evidentiated over time by honest research and scrutiny???
The Biblical text is the most thoroughly scrutinised and comprehensively reviewed document in history - by people across the spectrum of human experience including those of science. About one thousand years after the text in Psalm (36:9) was written, one such reviewer (a sharp legal mind) noted the fact that…“All scripture is inspired of God…” (the Creator) a view which was then included in the biblical record and today is endorsed by millions of earnest students of the text! (2 Timothy 3:16).
Try "rebooting" a cell; you can be sure you have all the parts necessary for the process to work. If you can't simply restart it, how can you ever hope to create one?
It is quite amazing how mere mortal man cannot accept the Divine creating life. God will have His Judgment to the unrepentant and naysayers in the end.
Calm down - how about a happy message - with positive effects.
If one - has something powerful and useful - to share with all - why not use welcoming and gentle message ?
The Beloved - is precisely such - and this other idea - of the Divine as (whatever) - will never bear fruit - within me heart or mind.
Fare thee well.
I'd like to look at the original research you refer to, Dr. Tour. Are there any 'special' or even 'seminal' papers that would dispute scientific explanations for the origins of life? Or, conversely, is it just the case that there is no definitive support for origin of life? Please let me know your thoughts. Bless you for your work.
Hi Edward. I think Crick published on the panspermia origin of life on Earth (because he had concluded that terrestrial abiogenesis was too improbable). [I'm not saying I agree with them, but that's why people have considered panspermia.] Good reading to you. Cheers.
th-cam.com/video/xIHMnD2FDeY/w-d-xo.html
Atheist/Medal of Freedom recipient for mapping the human genome, Craig Venter & Nobel laureates in biology Sydney Altman & Leland Hartwell ALL say it is "impossible" that humans will EVER know life's origin.
Richard Dawkins sits mute as his sine qua non is destroyed by ACTUAL, recognized biologists/chemists.
The alien that created life has a name....Yahweh.
Jehovah
@@morganclare4704 Silly, Jehovah is an English pronouncement of The Hebrew word YHWH
@@morganclare4704 Allah
I am that I am.
@@antongomez4336 no, the God of the Bible is the Creator of the universe and life.
We have to be careful of our choice of words more than ever
Words are being misused manipulated and redefined
When asked if it would shake his faith if scientists " created" life in a lab , I would have asked them what they meant by create .
It would not surprise me that they could use the matter and design to recreate/ make life in a lab
But do not confuse that with creating.
Further , we are created in His image and given a mind with which to worship Him.
It is His good pleasure to allow us to seek these things out
5:11 Sean McDowell says "it's supposed to be worldview neutral."
*There is no such thing*
If you are talking about scientific investigation, this should be [worldview neutral] as we are investigating the natural universe. However, our conclusions that we come to based on that investigation will always be predicated on the worldview that we hold. The conclusions are our interpretation of the data we collect.
The problems that arise essentially involve what presuppositions we take as our basis while interpreting that the data we collect.
We can use an example here of the [big bang] models. The first presupposition that was used was that red-shift in the collected observation meant that the particular object was moving away from us. As a first approximation that can be considered reasonable. However, that view or presupposition has to be reexamined when we observe intergalactic objects which have both connected parts which have significantly different red-shifts. Halten Arp collected many different anomalous data points about specific intergalactic objects which didn't accord with this presupposition (as well as other presuppositions).
We see this non-examination of presuppositions occurring in many different areas and when specific scientists collect data that shows up anomalies in the consensus presupposition base, they often get shouted down.
Instead of reexamining those presuppositions (as all good scientists should do), most professional scientists just double down against that data.
In fact, we have got to the point where any questioning of the prevailing theories is often ridiculed and dismissed. Different hypotheses are discouraged.
We should be open to different interpretations of the data and open to challenging all the basic assumptions that we use, especially today, where atheism is the basic underpinned presupposition being used in universities today. This closes off an enormous number of ideas which could be far more capable of providing a better explanation of what we actually see in the universe around us.
@hillstrong715 Well, the conversation is about the origin of life. There is no scientific evidence for life coming from non-life.
So, in reality what they're doing with such investigation is they're appealing to empirical evidence but then extrapolating beyond that into the domain of Philosophy. And as soon as you're extrapolating beyond the limitations of what science can verify like that, the extrapolations will be entirely contingent upon the philosophical worldviews (systems of presuppositions) the person interpreting it starts with.
This is a major issue that causes a lot of intellectual errors where people don't comprehend the distinction I just explained.
And what this lack of awareness about the boundaries between science and philosophy leads to is:
People will think they're doing science when in reality it's philosophy and they will then interpret it all through a Naturalistic worldview (and excludr all other worldviews) without justifying doing so.
And here's where that gets REALLY bad:
The Naturalistic worldview is provably false within philosophy. In fact, the Naturalistic worldview necessarily entails science wouldn't even be possible in the first place (same with intelligibility, rational thought, intelligibility, and more).
The Christian worldview is provably the only true worldview... and this is proved with a reductio ad absurdum proof on all non-Christian worldviews. It's the only worldview entailing knowledge, rational thought, intelligibility, science are possible in the first place, and therefore the only correct worldview to extrapolate with in such scenarios.
Dr Tour is my favorite person on Earth.
James doesn't only say that he doesn't know scientifically how life formed. He also proves that it's almost impossible that life can form without an intelligence guiding it. - God of the gaps argument has left the chat.
*_God Bless_*
I don't think "life can form": rather, God keeps forming it. He maintains everything in existence, every single particle, every millisecond, every micron of space, every infinitesimal amount of energy in the whole universe.
That “gap” applies to naturalism/atheists also. The point you are missing is Dr. Tour knows and can demonstrate the chemistry required for life isn’t possible in a prebiotic, warm little pond or whatever. Richard Dawkin’s book and premise: Climbing Mt Improbable is as silly, very, very much more, then his climbing Mt. Everest in his underwear.
Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for his views. Thirty years later, Galileo Galilei narrowly escaped this fate. In 2023 we are not far away from these practices. if you don't live up to the official narrative, you will be crucified.
True
I would say, gee, looks like you need a creator to make life...
So brother, some things will always be as it is written; 'beyond tracing out' ...His ways are above ours as high as the heavens are above the Earth! Saying we can make life someday is borderline mocking his great knowledge and power... How much knowledge humans have gives an edge above all other creation but with that knowledge we can tell all creation, YOU DONT KNOW THE HALF OF IT...Glory to God in the highest!!
And what about all the unknowns regarding event s below the molecular level AND out to the edge of the universe.
It’s very hard in your case to play the argument and not the person, since you’ve been caught lying on several occasions now, mr. Tour.
For example? A specific example please instead of cowardly general slander.
@@rl7012 : go check the rebuttal by Professor Dave after their debate ( here on youtube), and you will see that i'm not so ' cowardly general slanding ' as you claim.
The slandering comes from Dr. Tour, who claims that the ' origins of life ' research is a scam and they are clueless while it is none of both at all. He even advocates for scientists to stay away from the research and stop funding it. Personally, i find that very dishonest, certainly now that substantial progress is made in the research.
Please give examples. Don't slap and run.
@@TaxEvasi0n : this dates from 10 months ago. You will find a bunch of debunking vid's on youtube by now.
@@janbuyck1 Okay I'll check em out.
Research scientists working in an area for 10-30yrs, claiming this and that, fear the shame of admitting they’ve been wrong all along.
The laws of physics indicate a law giver.
No they don’t
...and certainly not one that interacts with us and requires praying to.
10:45 the Bible does say that god said that nothing would be out of our reach if god didn’t intervene.
Hahaha. You'd think that he'd stay away from this topic after Dave Farina took him to task in so many videos and made a fool of him in live debate.
Let me lay out Tour's "arguments"...
*first pick some very specific reaction, claim that no one can do it, then claim that since no one can do that very specific reaction in a very specific way that no one can possibly know anything about abiogenesis.*
This is akin to saying that a person who has never seen the letter "Q" cannot know anything about Japanese.
*Point to some reaction done in a lab, whine about a specific compound used in the lab work, shout about how it wasn't in the prebiotic earth or that it needed an earlier step to create it, etc, then claim that no one can possibly know about abiogenesis because of that.*
Ignore that most of the chemicals he shouts about are used specifically to alter the environment of the reaction to be like prebiotic conditions, like removing oxygen or setting up to look at a very specific reaction.
*Look at an experiment examining a specific reaction, shout about some of the precursors being made in a lab today, claim that means that it renders the experiment irrelevant to abiogenesis.*
Like saying that you can't put together a car without mining and smelting the steel yourself first.
*Quote mine and lie about what some scientist said somewhere sometime.*
...because taking things out of context and making up statements proves things in science.
If that fails, just shout "clueless" as loud as you can while covering your eyes and plugging your ears so that you can never see the experiments and studies that prove you wrong.
Interesting [straw man] analysis on your part. You make claim after claim and provide NO concrete examples of what you say. If you think Dave Farina is some sort of [expert] to be able to debunk James Tour's criticisms, you know even less of any area of science than Dave Farina does and he has shown himself to be quite ignorant.
@@hillstrong715 hm... so I guess you haven't seen Tour speak or seen any of Dave's videos then? Or the recent debate they had.
@@timeshark8727 Oh, I have seen some of Dave Farina's videos and I was appalled at the inaccuracy of them. He was making declarations of fact when all he had was approximation and possible theory. He couldn't even get the theory correct. I know that he claims to have had an university education, but either he hasn't remembered any of it or he missed critical days of it.
I find many of the youtube science educators pretty abysmal. There are a number that do well like Veritasium (not that I agree with all that Derek presents, but at least he is thorough - though that might be because he has an engineering background) and a number of others. I find the mathematics educators, particular the more advanced mathematics oriented ones, very good. Though for clarity in mathematics, both Mathologer and 3blue1brown are excellent.
As for James Tour, I can excuse his speaking as the information presented is quite interesting. Though I do disagree with various things from James Tour. I think there are things that a scientist can say that James won't say. But then that is the nature of looking at the universe through different eyes.
Dave on the other hand is just an arrogant tantrum throwing little kid (though that is probably insulting tantrum throwing little kids). He doesn't show any maturity and if challenged appears to devolve into ad hominem attacks of his opponents. Mind you, that sort of attitude is prevalent in particular fields and by particular people.
Having disagreements is quite normal in scientific investigation. What has happened though is that dogma has become the rule (again) and instead of robust discussion, people like Dave Farina just devolve into ridiculing anybody who holds a different view.
It is one of the reasons for which the consequences are that we see a decided lack of advancement in the various fields of scientific investigation.
I now find myself having time to do various research because I am no longer constrained by IP contractual issues or for that matter any reputational issues that require that I toe the line. It is quite rewarding to no longer have those kinds of concerns.
@hillstrong715 lol, it's amazing how backwards much of your post was. It's fine, but the only one who can remove your blinders and bias is you.
I guess some people, like you, just prefer to create fantasies rather than facing reality.
Dear James.... I just wanted to mention that you've been a God Send regarding creation science. Please keep up the great work of critiquing the science necessary to create life. We're praying for you 🙏
This is just classic God of the Gaps. You can see how desperate Christians are to cling to this and not have science explain the origin of life. This is just a rinse and repeat of all the other things the religious said science couldn’t explain.
Hey Sam do you gather all the facts and do your own thinking?
@@jwonderfulsuccess Or maybe Sam knows that earliest known life on Earth is about 3.7 billion years ago, and yet vertebrates only started to appear between 500 to 600 million years ago. Does that sound like intelligent design to you?
Are these claims facts or theories?
@@jwonderfulsuccess These are facts, if you do a bit of research
Lol hardly. These are all theories my friend
A lot of people have missed labelled Christian belief on the Roman Catholic, Jewish and others. But they will not use the terms that are given in the King James, 1611 authorize Bible with Apocrypha.
Modern Quantum Physics has shown that reality is based on probability:
A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of just one (1) functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by un-directed random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.)
Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability/potentiality to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness.
A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased, incomplete ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by observation of the universe and discoveries in Quantum Physics.)
To me this math is the most convincing evidence that ID makes more sense than anything else. Do you have links to those studies? I was a math major and I’d love to see how they came up with those numbers. I saw Prof Dave’s rebuttal to these numbers in his “debunking Steven Meyers” video, which did his side no favors as his argumentation (if you could sift past the personal insults) was no more advanced than a reasonably intelligent 6th grade kid could come up with. Thanks in advance.
You, sir, are a gentleman as well as being a scholar. I appreciate your kindness and consideration while totally dismantling that needy little twirp 'Professor' Dave.
Dr James Tour❤
Professor Dave completely destroyed James Tour's assertions...
that Dave is bright.
Lol…Dave sounds smart if you can’t pass a GED test after flunking out of high school, but anyone with half a brain can see how circular and half witted all his arguments are.
In science, if you prove a theory wrong, you get a Noble prize. It happened in science before. Make a paper proving that. Give it to the scientific community and win that prize.
Also, what theology has to do with science? The scientific community does not bring religion in scientific discussions
Anyone without faith may think thy can live their life without consequences.
This leads to nihilism and narcissism. Commonly treated with antidepressants.
Dr. Tour explains the problem of creating life from non-living molecules, or OoL (Origins of Life), in a very simple manner by saying that trying to do so (creating life) is tantamount to chasing an object going faster than you'll ever be able to go.
I do disagree with what he thinks about human being's ever being able to understand how life is formed, though. This is because I can think as both a scientist, and a layperson, since I am both, giving me an advantage.
This thought to me implies that God is willing to give us this knowledge, which is something I can't ever see happening, since it's bad enough that we know what we already know about how to end ot...
Like you said Shawn, unless man can create life from absolutely NOTHING, then he/she can claim the credit. Otherwise, life creation requires intelligence and absolute power to make it happen. At the end of the day, God did all these things from his power.
I disagree with Dr. Tour on one point: That an infinite number of universes could yield life or a computer spontaneously. Certain processes have required thresholds. If those thresholds are not reached, then the process cannot proceed. Perhaps the simplest example of this is combustion of a fuel in air. If the temperature always remains low, then you will never get combustion no matter how many universes you have. Organized assembly of building blocks requires a certain type of threshold which is *_never_* met through random combinations, just as a persisting volume of vacuum persisting in front of your face is also impossible using natural, random processes. I can't imagine a silicon-based computer ever self-assembling. For the longest time I thought that there may be some "intelligence" built into the elemental building blocks which is biased toward life, but now this seems wrong, based on what Dr. Tour said about the "muddiness" of the prebiotic soup. To clean up this muddiness would require something like Maxwell's hypothetical "demon."
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
Added:
On another conversation (Dr. Tour with a wonderful Muslim fellow), he used the metaphor of finding a watch in the desert. No one is going to think that the watch is a natural crystal. And in the Bible, I seem to remember somewhere that it says that nature will show God's signature or handiwork. This begs the question: If God created life on this planet, would He have had any reason to create life on any other planet in the entire universe? In other words, *_is the universe Empty?_* If so, then humanity colonizing other worlds will have to do extensive terraforming, because there will likely be very little free oxygen in the atmospheres of those planets.
God is the origin of life, of the universe, of earth, of everything. It's so complex, yet so easy to believe. Our limited intelligence cannot phathom creation, because God is more all powerful and super Intelligent than we are. We cannot doubt God as the author of the origin of life, we can just "investigate" what God created and see His wondrous work on earth. We will never reach that point that we can create like God created, out of nothing. We use what He created, the material, so we cannot take any credit for anything. He created the material and created out of that material. That's creation.
So 'he' created everything?
What did 'he' create - quarks? Hydrogen atoms? Microbes? Humans?
At which points does 'he' step in and do something?
Did 'he' create labradoodles?
After working with one chapter of Quran i.e Chapter of Tariq, for the last 36 yrs. I was able to decode the mystery. Origin of human beings is DNA which had been subjected to mutation. Regarding other life forms it is not known.
Science and unbelieving scientists should eat humble pie and accept the reality of God. This universe and everything in it is God's creation.
So, scientists should stop doing science and join your cult.....
riiiiiiiiight.......
atheism = materialism = BLIND FAITH, BLIND BELIEF
If information is required to create the first cell, then a mind is required to give that information.
Not so.
Hello James.... I just came across a statement that you made @10:32 you state that "no where in the bible does it say that God is unique in the creation of life," or something very similar to this. I'm very surprised that you'd say this as the Scriptures has something to say about this subject. As you may know, God says that He's "The" Creator. He never says that He's "A" creator. He also indicates that He's the owner of everything.
Ecclesiastes 12:1 Remember now *_thy_* Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them;
Isaiah 40:28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, *_the_* Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.
Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than *_the_* Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
And finally, God declares that He made everything, while speaking the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:11....
Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD *_made_* heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
The only thing that man creates is "trouble," and the only thing that man made is "another human being" in the form of an infant. And the only reason we can procreate is because we were "given" this gift by God. I pray that you'll take these Scriptures and this comment into account. God bless. 🙏
You need a spirit to create life
What does Dr, Tour think about Rupert Sheldrake's theories on Morphic Resonance????
What’s so funny is that “directed panspermia” is effectively dawkins admitting there’s a god. It really doesn’t matter how you classify it, but if someone directed it, it’s almost definitionally god.
There is a higher truth than Christianity, Dr Tour, which does not negate Christian faith but places it in context with other faiths that serve more or less the same noble goals. I'd welcome sharing a dialogue with you and perhaps persuade you to become an Omnist Christian
Hopefully y’all can begin to acknowledge when thought (immaterial ) became speech (resonance ) nothing became physicaly something ..
Well a thought isn't nothing obviously
Something from God is something, not nothing.
@@igotstoknow2 🤔of course before the creation of the heavens and the earth there was … nothing except God ?
@@justaguy328 it’s immaterial
Makes zero sense. When did thought become speech? My cat sees a mouse and is right on it. He doesn't eat it, yet brings it inside the house so he can play with it. Then the mouse hides and my cat forgets about it. After a while he seems to become interested in his mouse/toy so he goes looking for it. Again, there's thinking involved, but I can assure you my cat doesn't speak. So, what you're saying makes less sense than my cat catching a mouse to play with it.
Still waiting on Jim's videos "exposing" JW Suggs, Dave Deamer, Loren D Williams, James Attwater, Kepa Ruiz-Mirazo, and Gerald Joyce. He promised.
7/6/2023 Although I like the mighty jim, he's still human. He makes mistakes and has slowly admitted to some of them. There are times when he says things backwards and in an incomplete way. His brian gets ahead of his mouth and sometimes we the listeners have to pay the price. He did say around last November/ December, 9 months ago( In the 2022 video: Dr Tour EXSPOSES the false science behind origin of life research )that he would address the Dave Farina 2 part clueless video material, later...(script time stamp approx 4:27-4:53)and some where he also said something like that he had a series coming out that would address the 50 papers that dave offerd up; in Dave's 2 part clueless series(against James 13 part abiogenesis series) from a couple of years back. James made it sound like it was all coming out this year-2023. Im still waiting for him to clarify what he meant by all this.
@@jasonpowell7622 For someone who calls him "the mighty jim", you seem unusually smart and critical of him.
JamesTour: (2023 video released 6 months ago,The Religion of Prebiotic Soup- Lee Cronin Part 01 time stamp 2:32-3:00)"Ive got a series for you comming up here; this is in rebuttal to Dave Farina's two-part series on abiogenesis....so this first series is going to just go after the experts and then show how Dave Farina was wrong...but then we'll have a second series after this series that will go after every other part of Dave Farina's videos....
I'm not a Christian, but even if you're completely wrong on your theism, it's probably a good thing that you're challenging these institutions and forcing these scientists to justify their own beliefs. Academia is overdue for its "protestant reformation", and Martin Luther didn't have to be 100% correct about everything to have made a positive impact in his field.
You highlighted the problem with "building a car from [modern] car parts". Perhaps we should instead try starting with the "simplest possible steam engine", and making the simplest possible mutating replicator. Creationists have a point with this facet of "irreducible complexity" (trying to remove parts of the human eye and have it still function), but there are also less complex eyes to choose from.
But we should also have other people working on the opposite approach - using large building blocks and working their way backwards to smaller and smaller ones. Chemical synthesis of DNA is already a thing.
We should probably do these experiments under biosafe conditions in case we accidentally make a pathogen. This is especially true for the first approach, since it would likely lead to extremely exotic lifeforms with unpredictable properties.
If and when we finally do it, making life in the lab would be just one step in explaining how life got here. Panspermia (i.e. intact lifeforms arriving on meteorites) doesn't explain how life first formed. Even if the organic compounds arrived on meteorites (which there is evidence for), that doesn't explain the origin of the compounds themselves.
Regarding the intelligent design question, let's imagine that the way we end up doing it would have never happened in nature. That would not make it the only possible way for creating life, just the only one we've found so far. Again, we should be aiming for smaller and smaller interventions each time. The rule will always be that life can only arise from something more complex than itself. But this could just be the universe. After all, the universe must be more complex than any life that arises within it, because it contains all life, plus everything that isn't life.
It's also not clear in what sense it's "easier" for intelligent beings (i.e. a human or greater level of intelligence) to assemble life. We don't have the technology to "design" a supercell thunderstorm, but the atmosphere assembles these complex structures every day. Thus, we can observe the formation of dense pockets of complexity without sudden divine actions like the ones described in human holy texts.
However, it does seem that you need more of a "sweet spot" to get things started when it comes to more complex processes. Supercells, are, after all, the rarest type of thunderstorm. Origin-of-life reactions may just be exceedingly rare.
Lastly, you say we'll one day understand how it could've come about. Do you expect that the answer will point to an intelligent designer?
It seems apparent you’re obsessed with the question of an “intelligent designer”, when this scientist is simply asking others to show how it was done. He doesn’t mention a creator in the challanges he offers, he keeps his personal belief system completely out of it. But yet scientists always want to belittle him on that by bringing it into these challenges and lectures he’s offered.
There was lead and by the means of occult knowledge it was turned to gold, to shining gold!
And then again, at the shores at lake Geneva, Dr. Frankenstein turned the switch and it became alive, alive, stitched together from already abiotic body parts! (Lightning strikes ion the rainy night)
The Bible doesn't imply that evolution can't be true, and science confirms that evolution can't be true without God's intervention. No matter how you look at the scientific evidence, theology, or philosophy, God is always necessary for the origin of life.
It's an interesting problem, that of how to get protein molecules to fold correctly.
This has been one of the problems noted in those who had the poison shots, and it's related to the problem of the protein clots found generally at autopsy.
I had one dose of AstraZeneca and I've experienced two incidents of a change in gene expression namely
1) that my long straight blonde hair has started to curl like soft corkscrews from the roots, but only in the majority of my scalp (not all of it), and
2) my pale skin that sunburns easily and never tans has started to tan and doesn't burn. I'm still quite brown and it's the middle of winter here in Melbourne Australia.
The gene expression changes only became apparent in October 2022, sixteen months after the poison shot.
I haven't met anyone or heard from anyone who has a similar experience, so far.
The effect you are seeing may or may not be caused by those compulsory shots that Dan "Sith Lord Emperor Palpatine" Andrews ordered for all and sundry to have. Long before this I have seen such changes occur due to various environmental and age related changes. One interesting thing is that none of the various shots have had enough time to be able to determine what longer term effects will show up.
We do not know what the long term effects of the various versions of the covid-19 virus will be and if if you have had multiple version (including the Kraken variety of Christmas 2022), we will just have to wait to see the longer term effects.
Wonder what your hair would be like if you were "fully boosted" as they call it.
The universe is BIG. I cannot imagine God only made us and I also find no reason God has to tell us. We are in isolation to a large extent. The theoretical early inflation of the universe was creation as the universe as we know it vie Webb was simply spread out like a cloak.
We can compare amino acids to bricks. A pile of bricks left alone for millions of years have nothing to do with a 6 star luxury hotel in dubai. To create some bricks and then claim you had started building a 6 star luxury hotel is not just deception or a scam, its outright insane....
It’s more akin to a lie, than it is to misunderstanding.
You're not very good at this.
Tour is nuts.
Feel free to elaborate instead of making pointless claims.
If life was able to begin without intelligence, why is it so hard for human intelligence to do it?
@annieoaktree6774 Time of the gaps.
@annieoaktree6774 Time is your God. You add in Time to any whacky theory and that makes it true for you. Turn a bacteria into an elephant. Add in time. Turn non life into life, add in Time. Time of the Gaps is the atheist cop out and answer to everything. Time is your magic answer to everything you have no answer for. You atheists need to engage your brains more.
@@sciencerules8525 Are you not bright enough to realise that although time may be evolutions best friend, it is chemistry's worse enemy. Time DOES NOT HELP ABIOGENESIS. Chemicals degrade. They react. They oxidise. Time works against abiogenesis.
And there is zero evidence to say time turns a bacteria into an Orca or anything else. it is all in the story. The story appeals. The fossil record utterly refutes Darwins ridiculous fairy tale. But you just add in your magic unscientific unprovable magic ingredient of time to make your fairy tale come true.
Time is not a magic machine. Yet you think it is since you believe that you share an ancestor with a turnip.
@@sciencerules8525 'The facts are the Earth is approx. 4.54 billion years old and life has been on it evolving for at least the last 3.8 billion years.'
They are not 'facts'. That is only scientific estimations. Secular scientific estimations are not facts. They are only estimations and the way science estimates deep time is known to be very inaccurate.
@@sciencerules8525 You are deluded by your religion of scientism.
It's clear that the deeper you go at the micro level the more complex and irreducible things get. You don't have to be a biologist to know this. If you don't have irreducible order or BEING you can't even begin to do science. Even a child understands this. This is the old good argument from the irreducible order around us.
Jesus is kIng
"seek and you will find.....and do everything in love"--The Holy Bible
أَوَلَمۡ يَرَ ٱلۡإِنسَٰنُ أَنَّا خَلَقۡنَٰهُ مِن نُّطۡفَةٖ فَإِذَا هُوَ خَصِيمٞ مُّبِينٞ
(77) Does man not consider that We created him from a [mere] sperm-drop - then at once he is a clear adversary?
وَضَرَبَ لَنَا مَثَلٗا وَنَسِيَ خَلۡقَهُۥۖ قَالَ مَن يُحۡيِ ٱلۡعِظَٰمَ وَهِيَ رَمِيمٞ
(78) And he presents for Us an example and forgets his [own] creation. He says, "Who will give life to bones while they are disintegrated?
قُلۡ يُحۡيِيهَا ٱلَّذِيٓ أَنشَأَهَآ أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٖۖ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ خَلۡقٍ عَلِيمٌ
(79) Say, "He will give them life who produced them the first time; and He is, of all creation, Knowing."
ٱلَّذِي جَعَلَ لَكُم مِّنَ ٱلشَّجَرِ ٱلۡأَخۡضَرِ نَارٗا فَإِذَآ أَنتُم مِّنۡهُ تُوقِدُونَ
(80) [It is] He who made for you from the green tree, fire, and then from it you ignite
أَوَلَيۡسَ ٱلَّذِي خَلَقَ ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَٱلۡأَرۡضَ بِقَٰدِرٍ عَلَىٰٓ أَن يَخۡلُقَ مِثۡلَهُمۚ بَلَىٰ وَهُوَ ٱلۡخَلَّٰقُ ٱلۡعَلِيمُ
(81) Is not He who created the heavens and the earth Able to create the likes of them? Yes, [it is so]; and He is the Knowing Creator
إِنَّمَآ أَمۡرُهُۥٓ إِذَآ أَرَادَ شَيۡـًٔا أَن يَقُولَ لَهُۥ كُن فَيَكُونُ
(82) His command is only when He intends a thing that He says to it, "Be," and it is
فَسُبۡحَٰنَ ٱلَّذِي بِيَدِهِۦ مَلَكُوتُ كُلِّ شَيۡءٖ وَإِلَيۡهِ تُرۡجَعُونَ
(83) So exalted is He in whose hand is the realm of all things, and to Him you will be returned
Has the latest findings on handedness had an impact on this view yet?
How could anyone copy Genesis 2:7 to create life?
if life came from somewhere else where and how did that life come from
a little over 6000 years ago God created the the heavens and the earth.
that is the only explanation that exists.
the biblical numbers can not be "evangelastically" stretched much beyond this.
There are trees older than that!
That must have been quite a shock to the people that had been living here for tens of thousands of years.
I don't think the universe is about 6000 years old. I think the days in genesis are not the kind of days we are use to.
@@jwonderfulsuccess I don't think the Earth is 6,000 years old either so that to me means Genesis is just wrong or at least not literally true.
The big question is… did we really go to the moon?
How much fuel did we use?
Was aluminium landing vessel good enough?
What type of obsticels did we have when transmisdion of radio communication from moon? What frequenzy was used?
There is so little really hard science to see or read that, when a project is done scientifically we should be able to test it and do it again… but no… nothing, and still in 2023 we are talking about mars. Some where long tima ago sndceven further away. We can not use the moon because of all the everyday telescope.
Mom and Dad has already created life-YOU.
Hen and rooster has already created life,
Queen ant and male ant has created colonies of life.
The physical universe is a (real) fabrication of contracted time and distance in our perception where we are because of the gravity of the matter that was formed. Moving matter through time and space also has the same effect, at least in one dimension. Light travel for the photon through this fabrication is instant. (It takes no time to travel no distance no matter the time or distance.) Everything is local in quantum physics. We don't exist at the speed of light. We are local because we exist in the fabrication of limited measurable time and distance. We exist in slow motion and we see light in slow motion with the collapse of the wave function but it doesn't mean that light is in slow motion. There is no time or distance at the speed of light.
Gravity drops off exponentially the farther away it is from the mass of a galaxy. That means that technically time runs exponentially faster and distance is expanded exponentially the farther away it is from the mass of the galaxy. This is observed with superluminal motion being seven times the speed of light according to our projected measures of time and distance. The reality is that the measures of time and distance are not the same as ours the farther away it is from the mass of the galaxy. This is a confirmation that it is the mass of matter that slows down time and distance for us with the collapse of the wave function. It is also the reason we are able to see distant starlight within several thousand years since time speeds up exponentially and distance is expanded exponentially the farther away from the mass of the galaxy it is in our line of sight. Not only does time pass by much faster through the lagrange areas between galaxies, the distance is actually much less exponentially throughout the areas in our lines of sight between galaxies. This eliminates any need for imaginary inflatons or dark matter particles. Redshift is due to the expanded distance between galaxies and the faster movements of the outer spiral arms and such are due to the faster rates of time and less actual distances. The vacuum of space is linked to black holes that are growing in size regardless of the amount of matter they absorb since they absorb blocks of time and distance (frames of reference).
nice
At 9:08, I love Dr. Tour and he is light years ahead of me in scientific knowledge!
However, I respectfully disagree that we will ever be able to create life in the lab. The reason that I disagree is that God breathed into man and animals, the breath of life.
While we might eventually be able to assemble the components of biological entities, but for them to come alive would require that God breathe that breath of life into them.
Do you believe that life begins at conception with regards the abortion debate ??
// "God breathed into man and the animals" //
I think deep down in your heart you really know that man *'IS'* an animal. Look we live & die just like animals then when we do die the same thing that happens to animals happens to us. We breath the same air as them, we have no advantage over the animals anything else is just vanity dear.
@@trumpbellend6717 you "think" wrong then.
@@Bildad1976 With regards WHAT dear ?
He has a beaker mug!
Verse that says that all things were made by him and through him? Therefore, no, WE will not be able to create life.