I bought this book, along with a stack of others, a couple years ago, but haven’t read it yet. Seeing an interview with the author motivates me to get it out and read it. :) Nice interview.
Miller and Uri were totally hands on, tweaking their experiment every step of the way. All they proved is that chemistry experiments can produce some amino acids when the experiments are designed and performed by an intelligent designer. They had to remove the sludge before the products could be broken down by the medium, because that's what would happen if they left it alone. If anyone suggests abiogenisis, just say, "Show me. " Prove it. Make life.
as to "hands on" OoL-experiments ... a quote from a mainstream paper (published in NATURE, 2018) (it is easy to google it) Prof. Clemens Richert ( organic chemist, Universität Stuttgart, Germany ) "Experimentalists in the field of prebiotic chemistry strive to re-enact what may have happened when life arose from inanimate material. How often human intervention was needed to obtain a specific result in their studies is worth reporting. … I feel is it reasonable to report the number of manual interventions during an assay explicitly. This number can be quite high, as in the case of enzyme-free replication from activated nucleotides reported by us, where washing and deprotection steps were necessary to be able to measure the level of misincorporation of nucleotides mass spectrometrically5. It can also be high for multistep syntheses, mimicking entire biochemical pathways6,7. Understandably so, as self-organizing biochemical cycles are difficult to demonstrate experimentally8. Usually, one tries to keep the number of steps in the single digit range. When it becomes unavoidable to intervene as experimentalist, just state the number of discontinuities in the experimental conditions or human interventions! "
If you cannot be hands on, you cannot run experiments, so that is a very stupid thing to say. If you expect that we could duplicate the entire abiogenesis process, then of course you are right: there is zero chance of doing that. First because it took a billion years; second, because we will never know the exact composition of the primordial soup. All we can do is develop hypotheses and try to get a glimpse into some of the processes which may have happened. By doing this, we will learn some great new scientific concepts. How is this not a great area of research?
@@galileog8945 For me, it would be enough, if you people can assemble a working / self-replicating cell from scratch ... For me it would be enough. You don't have to show us (Creationists) how it self-assembled in a chemical soup ... I would be satisfied, if you take any chemicals you want, any tools you want, any laboratory you want, as many chemists/biologists as you want, just show me that you can assemble a working cell from scratch ... As a bonus, you people will get not one, but many Nobel prizes for such an achievement. So far, you people haven't won a single Nobel prize for the origin-of-life research. Not once. Never ... Where are all the breakthroughs in OoL-research I hear all the time, every other day? No Nobel prize in 70 years (since Miller-Urey expriment).... NEVER ...
Harold Urey: "All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life’s complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."
Romans 1:18-22 describes atheists, naturalists. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who SUPPRESS THE TRUTH in unrighteousness (19) because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (20) For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, (21) because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (22) Professing to be wise, they became fools
@@kathleennorton2228 No, it is probable because theism is metaphysically impossible. And just incase, here's an argument that clearly shows why. P1: Life is Empirically Observed as Dynamic. P2: Empirical Verification Supports a First Instance of Change. P3: An Infinite Regress of Events is Metaphysically Impossible. Justification: If an infinite regress of events were true, experiencing any change would be impossible, as an infinite number of events in the past would need to have passed for any change to occur. This challenges the coherence of an infinite regress in explaining the existence of dynamic phenomena. P4: Anything that Exists Prior to Change is Static. P5: The Initial State of Existence Cannot Qualify as Life. P6. It follows necessarily that life must come from non-life! Try your best and defeat this argument!
@@CMVMic function is applied and arbitrary to that which a designer assigns and integrates into a working system that they again designed. In other words you need an actualizer to assign function otherwise you dont have such a thing.
It is a great confirming time to be a creationist and a believer. It is in fact the atheist who has a blind faith, not us. All of the creation screams Jesus is Lord. We need to pray for atheists because there will be no excuse at the judgment seat of Christ. He wishes none would perish (Eze 33:11).
@@CMVMic - _"Matter always existed."_ What is your basis for that presumption? -------------------------- The language of your second point makes no sense. You might want to check word meanings.
Awesome! GOD bless you so much! Ignorance is the right word. Thank GOD for you, my brothers and sister in our LORD JESUS CHRIST. "PEACE BE TO THE BRETHREN, AND LOVE WITH FAITH, FROM GOD THE FATHER AND THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. GRACE BE WITH ALL THEM THAT LOVE OUR LORD JESUS CHRSIT IN SINCERITY. AMEN. " Ephesian 6:24 (so glad that I am not the one that has to explain these things. I would mess it up royally. So glad there is you. We all have our place. Thank you for taking yours!!
Even if a scientist could create life through something non-living, it would still require an intelligent mind behind, putting every thing in it's right place intentionally. Of course only God can give life.
@@kathleennorton2228 Yeah, but...IF they could,it destroys their own argument. They will essentially be saying: " It takes no intelligence to design life. But WE HAVE INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED LIFE! " It has become so desperate that it _____ is ____ utterly ___stupid.
By limiting science and origin of life research in particular to exploring natural causes is like limiting the study of history to how Germany and Japan won the second world war. It's going to be hard to figure out how that happened.
Thank you for inviting Dr. Stadler. I love the subject and study of Abiogenesis, Please take the time to practice your approach to the subject. Your glottal stops with "Ah" are distracting. .
I have listened to both camps on Evolution and Creation but when it comes to Biogenesis and Origins of life it seems to point towards intelligent design...God.
If there is only one book ( after the Bible ) you can afford to buy get Dr. Stadler's book ( co-authored by Change Laura Tan ) "The Stairway To Life". I use the material in the book all the time in my discussions with the atheists and am able to completely "disrobe" them. As a result the atheists " ( emperor ) have no clothes" takes on real meaning..
Great book to illustrate the incredible steps that cannot be materialistically explained. Have read it twice, along with Dr. Stephen C. Meyer's trilogy. 😊🎚
The introduction is a huge blunder. "If you believe that a single cell became you" - well, each of us used to be zygote. Yes, I understand it's out of context, and the context is biological evolution; but in the introduction, context is not yet established.
I recommend researching the term "mutator genome decay" and please read what the NIH, NCBI, PubMed and PNAS have said about that subject. It may change your opinion about evolution.
@@pigzcanfly444 I recommending using your brain to visualize these crazy evolutionary theories. Trust that you can see what is true and what is actually possible in reality. The ToE most certainly isn't. It is the hoax of the ages.
According to evolution, nature is not conscious, life was created by random chance, and is done so without intent or purpose. Then please explain to me why everything around us has a purpose and serves a purpose. Like how rain is created and how that rain waters the plants which helps the plants grow. Which also grows food, food that provides nutrients for the creatures that eat them. That’s just a small example.
No, everyhing around us does NOT have a purpose, and only serves whatever purpose we humans have devised for it. A river is just a bunch of water flowing from a higher spot to a lower one, with no purpose at all. "Purpose" is a human-created abstract concept based on human perceptions and needs.
Okay, apparently there has been a lot of reading of my posts! As I listen to these videos, I see a strand of most of my comments that have been made online regarding abiogenesis and evolution. Most of my terms have never been used by anyone else before because I originated them. I have never heard anyone say that: DNA CODE CAN'T SELF-CREATE and SELF-ASSEMBLE into cells ACCIDENTALLY... besides me. It is a term that ALL creationists need to be using accross the discussion. I APPLAUD you people for doing so. The IMAGINARY abiogenesis mythology has played out. When we watch Dr. James Tour intellectually toss around Lee Cronin and his buddies like a ragdoll... we know the naturalists have clearly lost. "No one has a clue" is aptly declared by Tour. No one can show us why they BELIEVE BY FAITH that DNA CODE SELF-CREATED and SELF-ASSEMBLED into cells ACCIDENTALLY. We only see the BREAKDOWN of DNA CODE outside of life... not the building of it. That is IMPOSSIBLE! Not improbable....IMPOSSIBLE in trillions upon trillions of imaginary universes....let alone one little earth. As a former atheist, this is my most embarrassing admission...that I once believed such unscientific nonsense.
@globalcoupledances 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Folks here we have Mr. CIRCULAR REASONING attempting to claim that DNA POLYMERASE was available when NO CELL EXISTED!!!!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Hilarious! What a comically unintelligent answer! And THIS is what I'm talking about folks...the silly naturalists have FAITH in the IMPOSSIBLE! It never strikes them as ILLOGICAL that the impossible can happen with their MYTHOLOGY!😉
Everone look at what this silly fellow said about DNA POLYMERASE starting DNA CODE before DNA CODE existed! This is my response: globalcoupledances 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Folks here we have Mr. CIRCULAR REASONING attempting to claim that DNA POLYMERASE was available when NO CELL EXISTED!!!!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Hilarious! What a comically unintelligent answer! And THIS is what I'm talking about folks...the silly naturalists have FAITH in the IMPOSSIBLE! It never strikes them as ILLOGICAL that the impossible can happen with their MYTHOLOGY!😉
@@globalcoupledances No silly! 164th of all mutations do not turn into DNA code or any "code"!😂😂😂😂 Feel free to show your peer-reviewed paper of this fake fact!😂😂😂😂
@@globalcoupledances Yes, of course that is correct. The first law of thermodynamics deals with the interconversion of heat and work in adiabatic systems, so nothing to do with the Einstein equation.
@@CMVMicThe existence of existence is the most amazing thing possible. Science simply cannot explain it. God is I AM that I AM. He is The Self Existing One. Pure consciousness. Pure energy. Pure, perfect organization.
@@kathleennorton2228 Existence is a brute fact, science explains the behaviour of the Universe. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. God doesnt exist. Consciousness is simply the totality of cognitive events. Energy is physical and there is no perfect organization. Perfection is subjective. Whatever happens, happens necessarily and couldnt have happened any other way.
@@CMVMichow many brute facts are you willing to allow in your axioms before you realize that Occams Razor would remove your worldview from the list of possible true realities?
@@pigzcanfly444 Existence is my only brute fact. What other brute facts are you suggesting? Occam's razor removes my worldview? No, it is metaphysical impossibility that removes yours.
Is it a surprise that we believe physical processes follow physical laws? Do you have any examples in science where that is not the case? It would be surprising if scientists, when they cannot explain something, invoked miracles instead of doing research.
@@galileog8945 Oh , how I do wish that you atheists would just stop with the bull____ ! YOU already embrace miracles.You simply don't admit it. Our single celled, organismic predecessors appeared out of nowhere,no intent,no design or no cognizance? Or perhaps our single celled ancestors have always existed? How is either option NOT a miracle? Then , over millions of years, those one celled organisms evolved into ALL LIFEFORMS? You have lost your mind. And you talk about physical laws. How in hell do you have laws___ any laws , without a lawmaker? Oh , the physical laws JUST exist for the sake of evolution and atheism, just like those magic amoebas! Then oxygen,the universe, gravity, primordial soup ____just for YOUR amoebas? Cut the crap. If you are going to embrace the supernatural,at least assign a mind to it. Theists' supernaturality at least has a mind behind it. . YOU maintain this position:"The universe popped into existence out of nothing or it MUST HAVE always existed for the sake of evolution and atheism." Man, tell me how is any of that natural? You can't. Because it is supernatural. Checkmate. Just cut that bull____! And say,"I will accept any option over there being a creator... even OTHER miracles... ANY miracles.
I have always been far less than convinced by the ridiculousness of their theories on the spontaneous generation of life, which truly requires a soul of some kind in every creature I have ever studied. How could they possibly explain where the soul comes from? Humans have a soul and a spirit which are inseparable. Try to explain that from dead chemistry!
IF we think we are Christians, and IF we think that the 'foolishness of preaching' blocks us from reaching the "Greeks' (ie, intellectuals, anyone with a certification of wisdom next to their signature (PhD), then we are ashamed or worse, think we can reason with the unreasonable. Prayer, fasting, a life of the spirit make the silly publications of our time well, ..silly. Finally, in the world of St. Paul, he saw the great kingdoms and magnificent works of the world, AND the temple all dustify! What remains? The Gospel? Duh... ...it pleased God, by the foolishness of our preaching, to save them that believe. For both the Jews require signs, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness: But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
I'll demonstrate what we descend from in my video 'Begining of understanding ' In short I claim transmutation by electrical process of genetically superior creatures (seraphim) by electrical process (Lorentz Force in a magnetic field) It's consistent with science and Scripture I hope you'll consider watching Jesus is The Cornerstone
Seriously people, who cares if some random fool declares they don't believe in abiogenesis. The profound and irrefutable truth of this is, no one can prove abiogenesis didn't occur (and given evolution has been proved, no one ever will. But, more importantly, the chances of proving the existence of a creator is infinitely smaller than proving abiogensis can't happen so the concept of a creator is absurd in comparison with abiogenesis. Let's discuss the conundrum of 7,000 years of thousands of gods and none remotely proved (or ever will be) as compared with a claim of a creator. Has any theist stopped any research into abiogenesis? No, because theist theories are so unsustainable they are considered by the scientific community as a joke suitable only fer the deluded. As said, evolution has been proved by observation, laboratory experimentation, ERV markers in DNA, a fossil record that cannot be explained any other way and scriptures that simply don't accept what is actually observed. Evolution as understood today will still be understood using the same information when children ask their parents: "What was a god?" And yes, whilst liars on theist sites claim "it can't happen" there are actually sustainable theories demonstrating how it can happen (but they don't exist for the deluded only people in the real world).
During the horrifically catastrophical flood and from other impacts upon on the earth I wonder how much debris was cast off into outer space? How many of those asteroids with earth type compounds were actually part of the earth in the first place?
Ive asked that same question myself. All of the craters on the moon clearly come from the earth specifically from the flood when the fountains of the great deep burst forth.
Sorry evolutionists: the simplest known form of life is a perfect example of irreducible complexity. No random occurrence could possibly bring all the things necessary together at once for life to just “happen.”
The Bible says nothing about the origin of life. From the standpoint of Genesis 1 each type of life is individually created by God and therefore not genetically related. The Bible says nothing about cells or molecules or DNA.
Wish you would start with God. He is the living God, creating physical life from clay & breath in Eden - spiritual life by the Holy Spirit and Jesus' breath in the new covenant, new creation, His work regenerates lost sheep. Repent, turn to Him, trust Him to save. Men suppress truth in unrighteusness, pride, sin & walk in darkness Jer 13:15-16.
In order to be a rational thinking atheist, one must be able to explain how abiogenesis happened??? No, that is a non-sequitur. We dont need to be able to explain how things happen to know that it happened.
Life came from God, the original source of life, the ultimate life form, the first form of life and the last form of life, the beginning of life and the end of life.
@@horridhenry9920 God told me that. God do not come from anywhere, before God created space, time and matter, there was no space, no time, no matter, only God. God is Eternal. There is no beginning of God, and no end of God. God do not come from anywhere, but everywhere came from God, for God created "everywhere".
@@binhanh296 They said the same thing about the universe. God does not speak to me. People who claim he speaks to them are told contradictory things; that’s why we have so many religions and denominations within religions. They cannot all be true, but they can all be false .
I bought this book, along with a stack of others, a couple years ago, but haven’t read it yet. Seeing an interview with the author motivates me to get it out and read it. :) Nice interview.
You wasted your money.
I have learned so much from Jeff . The man is smart… I’m glad I found this channel. Look forward to more studies.
Have you read his book about Chimps and Humans? It’s a great read. :)
Then look up Doctor JamesTour Rice university
Miller and Uri were totally hands on, tweaking their experiment every step of the way. All they proved is that chemistry experiments can produce some amino acids when the experiments are designed and performed by an intelligent designer. They had to remove the sludge before the products could be broken down by the medium, because that's what would happen if they left it alone. If anyone suggests abiogenisis, just say, "Show me. " Prove it. Make life.
as to "hands on" OoL-experiments ...
a quote from a mainstream paper (published in NATURE, 2018) (it is easy to google it)
Prof. Clemens Richert ( organic chemist, Universität Stuttgart, Germany )
"Experimentalists in the field of prebiotic chemistry strive to re-enact what may have happened when life arose from inanimate material. How often human intervention was needed to obtain a specific result in their studies is worth reporting.
… I feel is it reasonable to report the number of manual interventions during an assay explicitly. This number can be quite high, as in the case of enzyme-free replication from activated nucleotides reported by us, where washing and deprotection steps were necessary to be able to measure the level of misincorporation of nucleotides mass spectrometrically5. It can also be high for multistep syntheses, mimicking entire biochemical pathways6,7. Understandably so, as self-organizing biochemical cycles are difficult to demonstrate experimentally8. Usually, one tries to keep the number of steps in the single digit range. When it becomes unavoidable to intervene as experimentalist, just state the number of discontinuities in the experimental conditions or human interventions! "
If you cannot be hands on, you cannot run experiments, so that is a very stupid thing to say. If you expect that we could duplicate the entire abiogenesis process, then of course you are right: there is zero chance of doing that. First because it took a billion years; second, because we will never know the exact composition of the primordial soup. All we can do is develop hypotheses and try to get a glimpse into some of the processes which may have happened. By doing this, we will learn some great new scientific concepts. How is this not a great area of research?
@@galileog8945 For me, it would be enough, if you people can assemble a working / self-replicating cell from scratch ...
For me it would be enough. You don't have to show us (Creationists) how it self-assembled in a chemical soup ...
I would be satisfied, if you take any chemicals you want, any tools you want, any laboratory you want, as many chemists/biologists as you want, just show me that you can assemble a working cell from scratch ...
As a bonus, you people will get not one, but many Nobel prizes for such an achievement.
So far, you people haven't won a single Nobel prize for the origin-of-life research. Not once. Never ...
Where are all the breakthroughs in OoL-research I hear all the time, every other day? No Nobel prize in 70 years (since Miller-Urey expriment).... NEVER ...
Harold Urey:
"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life’s complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."
Romans 1:18-22 describes atheists, naturalists. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who SUPPRESS THE TRUTH in unrighteousness (19) because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (20) For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, (21) because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (22) Professing to be wise, they became fools
No, Romans relates to the cults in pagans temples where drunk orgies were part of it, to replace the sacrificed children given to the God Moloch.
People who cannot believe in the Resurrection can believe that something that was never alive can become alive without Intelligent Design.
The distinction between life and non-life is simply function. With enough change, there can be different patterns of behaviour
@@CMVMicYou currently have a distinct inability to fathom the utter improbability to which you refer.
@@kathleennorton2228 No, it is probable because theism is metaphysically impossible.
And just incase, here's an argument that clearly shows why.
P1: Life is Empirically Observed as Dynamic.
P2: Empirical Verification Supports a First Instance of Change.
P3: An Infinite Regress of Events is Metaphysically Impossible.
Justification: If an infinite regress of events were true, experiencing any change would be impossible, as an infinite number of events in the past would need to have passed for any change to occur. This challenges the coherence of an infinite regress in explaining the existence of dynamic phenomena.
P4: Anything that Exists Prior to Change is Static.
P5: The Initial State of Existence Cannot Qualify as Life.
P6. It follows necessarily that life must come from non-life!
Try your best and defeat this argument!
@@CMVMic function is applied and arbitrary to that which a designer assigns and integrates into a working system that they again designed. In other words you need an actualizer to assign function otherwise you dont have such a thing.
@@pigzcanfly444 No, you just need humans to assign function. We assign functions to behaviour. There is no God.
another great topic
It is a great confirming time to be a creationist and a believer. It is in fact the atheist who has a blind faith, not us. All of the creation screams Jesus is Lord. We need to pray for atheists because there will be no excuse at the judgment seat of Christ. He wishes none would perish (Eze 33:11).
I wish to thank you for sharing this information with me . Amen
Two impossibilities that "rational" atheists can never answer with science; 1. Nothing made all of the matter in the Universe. 2. Non-life made life.
All atheists are irrational.
Also, that thoughtless processes could produce minds.
1. Matter always existed. 2 Biogenesis is metaphysically impossible.
@@CMVMic - _"Matter always existed."_
What is your basis for that presumption?
--------------------------
The language of your second point makes no sense. You might want to check word meanings.
@@CMVMic That's a lie. You are a liar.
Sorry, you guys are still struggling with the sound system. Trey has a good bit of reverb.
Awesome! GOD bless you so much! Ignorance is the right word. Thank GOD for you, my brothers and sister in our LORD JESUS CHRIST. "PEACE BE TO THE BRETHREN, AND LOVE WITH FAITH, FROM GOD THE FATHER AND THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. GRACE BE WITH ALL THEM THAT LOVE OUR LORD JESUS CHRSIT IN SINCERITY. AMEN. " Ephesian 6:24 (so glad that I am not the one that has to explain these things. I would mess it up royally. So glad there is you. We all have our place. Thank you for taking yours!!
Even if a scientist could create life through something non-living, it would still require an intelligent mind behind, putting every thing in it's right place intentionally.
Of course only God can give life.
And they never could. It's way beyond the finite mind of man.
@@kathleennorton2228 Yeah, but...IF they could,it destroys their own argument. They will essentially be saying: " It takes no intelligence to design life. But WE HAVE INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED LIFE! " It has become so desperate that it _____ is ____ utterly ___stupid.
And you know this...how?
By limiting science and origin of life research in particular to exploring natural causes is like limiting the study of history to how Germany and Japan won the second world war. It's going to be hard to figure out how that happened.
Even if they could creat life i a lab, it would only confirm intelligent design. 😂
Yeah, and if nature did it spontaneously, the evolutionists are no smarter than dirt. They live on a river in Egypt, De-Nile.
Non-sequitur.
No, it would only prove that life could be created in a lab.
@@stevepierce6467 by an intelligent designer
@@b-m605 Yeah, someone named Dr. Philomena McDougal, or Dr, Henry Vitello or Dr. Susan Apfelbaum. Or some other serious researcher.
Thank you for inviting Dr. Stadler. I love the subject and study of Abiogenesis,
Please take the time to practice your approach to the subject. Your glottal stops with "Ah" are distracting. .
I have listened to both camps on Evolution and Creation but when it comes to Biogenesis and Origins of life it seems to point towards intelligent design...God.
If there is only one book ( after the Bible ) you can afford to buy get Dr. Stadler's book ( co-authored by Change Laura Tan ) "The Stairway To Life". I use the material in the book all the time in my discussions with the atheists and am able to completely "disrobe" them. As a result the atheists " ( emperor ) have no clothes" takes on real meaning..
You must be debating a lot of really dumb atheists...if Stadler's nonsense is enough to do the trick.
Great book to illustrate the incredible steps that cannot be materialistically explained. Have read it twice, along with Dr. Stephen C. Meyer's trilogy. 😊🎚
They must be incredibly inept atheists if they can be "disrobed" by someone as dumb as Rob Stadler or Stephen Meyer.
The more complex it becomes to create life the more it proves it requires higher intelligence
It is not overly complex. All we lack is specific knowledge of exactly what the conditions were on earth when life began.
The introduction is a huge blunder. "If you believe that a single cell became you" - well, each of us used to be zygote. Yes, I understand it's out of context, and the context is biological evolution; but in the introduction, context is not yet established.
Nearly everything having to do with evolution is ambiguous, including the name itself. This facilitates maintaining the lie.
@@rubiks6 It is actually a form of brainwashing. It allows the adherents to each fill in their own blanks and make it as they wish.
I recommend researching the term "mutator genome decay" and please read what the NIH, NCBI, PubMed and PNAS have said about that subject. It may change your opinion about evolution.
@@pigzcanfly444 I recommending using your brain to visualize these crazy evolutionary theories. Trust that you can see what is true and what is actually possible in reality. The ToE most certainly isn't. It is the hoax of the ages.
04:55 very interesting!!! 😊🙏
According to evolution, nature is not conscious, life was created by random chance, and is done so without intent or purpose. Then please explain to me why everything around us has a purpose and serves a purpose. Like how rain is created and how that rain waters the plants which helps the plants grow. Which also grows food, food that provides nutrients for the creatures that eat them. That’s just a small example.
No, everyhing around us does NOT have a purpose, and only serves whatever purpose we humans have devised for it. A river is just a bunch of water flowing from a higher spot to a lower one, with no purpose at all. "Purpose" is a human-created abstract concept based on human perceptions and needs.
Okay, apparently there has been a lot of reading of my posts! As I listen to these videos, I see a strand of most of my comments that have been made online regarding abiogenesis and evolution. Most of my terms have never been used by anyone else before because I originated them.
I have never heard anyone say that:
DNA CODE CAN'T SELF-CREATE and SELF-ASSEMBLE into cells ACCIDENTALLY...
besides me.
It is a term that ALL creationists need to be using accross the discussion. I APPLAUD you people for doing so.
The IMAGINARY abiogenesis mythology has played out. When we watch Dr. James Tour intellectually toss around Lee Cronin and his buddies like a ragdoll... we know the naturalists have clearly lost. "No one has a clue" is aptly declared by Tour.
No one can show us why they BELIEVE BY FAITH that DNA CODE SELF-CREATED and SELF-ASSEMBLED into cells ACCIDENTALLY. We only see the BREAKDOWN of DNA CODE outside of life... not the building of it. That is IMPOSSIBLE! Not improbable....IMPOSSIBLE in trillions upon trillions of imaginary universes....let alone one little earth. As a former atheist, this is my most embarrassing admission...that I once believed such unscientific nonsense.
As I responded elsewhere: DNA doesn't make itself. It is made by the enzyme DNA-polymerase. And 1/64 of mutations turns non-code into code
@globalcoupledances
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Folks here we have Mr. CIRCULAR REASONING attempting to claim that DNA POLYMERASE was available when NO CELL EXISTED!!!!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Hilarious!
What a comically unintelligent answer!
And THIS is what I'm talking about folks...the silly naturalists have FAITH in the IMPOSSIBLE! It never strikes them as ILLOGICAL that the impossible can happen with their MYTHOLOGY!😉
Everone look at what this silly fellow said about DNA POLYMERASE starting DNA CODE before DNA CODE existed! This is my response:
globalcoupledances
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Folks here we have Mr. CIRCULAR REASONING attempting to claim that DNA POLYMERASE was available when NO CELL EXISTED!!!!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Hilarious!
What a comically unintelligent answer!
And THIS is what I'm talking about folks...the silly naturalists have FAITH in the IMPOSSIBLE! It never strikes them as ILLOGICAL that the impossible can happen with their MYTHOLOGY!😉
@@GreatBehoover No. DNA polymerase only multiplies DNA. Without DNA that polymerase has no function
@@globalcoupledances
No silly! 164th of all mutations do not turn into DNA code or any "code"!😂😂😂😂
Feel free to show your peer-reviewed paper of this fake fact!😂😂😂😂
On a fb comments section I've seen someone say that matter has always existed.
To be precise mass energy equivalence. That is the First Law of Thermodynamics
@@globalcoupledancesNo, look up thermodynamics and you will see that the first law is not what you think.
@@galileog8945 The point is that mass don't have to be constant
@@globalcoupledances Yes, of course that is correct. The first law of thermodynamics deals with the interconversion of heat and work in adiabatic systems, so nothing to do with the Einstein equation.
Explain the whole universe and why ❤
The existence of the Universe is a brute fact
@@CMVMicThe existence of existence is the most amazing thing possible. Science simply cannot explain it.
God is I AM that I AM. He is The Self Existing One. Pure consciousness. Pure energy. Pure, perfect organization.
@@kathleennorton2228 Existence is a brute fact, science explains the behaviour of the Universe. It is descriptive, not prescriptive.
God doesnt exist. Consciousness is simply the totality of cognitive events. Energy is physical and there is no perfect organization. Perfection is subjective. Whatever happens, happens necessarily and couldnt have happened any other way.
@@CMVMichow many brute facts are you willing to allow in your axioms before you realize that Occams Razor would remove your worldview from the list of possible true realities?
@@pigzcanfly444 Existence is my only brute fact. What other brute facts are you suggesting? Occam's razor removes my worldview? No, it is metaphysical impossibility that removes yours.
with dna and such I am surprised that anyone would consider it possible, for life to come by random chances...
@philipbuckley759 Maybe we should not even be surprised. Probably,we should feel sympathy!
Is it a surprise that we believe physical processes follow physical laws? Do you have any examples in science where that is not the case? It would be surprising if scientists, when they cannot explain something, invoked miracles instead of doing research.
@@galileog8945 Oh , how I do wish that you atheists would just stop with the bull____ ! YOU already embrace miracles.You simply don't admit it. Our single celled, organismic predecessors appeared out of nowhere,no intent,no design or no cognizance? Or perhaps our single celled ancestors have always existed? How is either option NOT a miracle? Then , over millions of years, those one celled organisms evolved into ALL LIFEFORMS? You have lost your mind. And you talk about physical laws. How in hell do you have laws___ any laws , without a lawmaker? Oh , the physical laws JUST exist for the sake of evolution and atheism, just like those magic amoebas! Then oxygen,the universe, gravity, primordial soup ____just for YOUR amoebas? Cut the crap. If you are going to embrace the supernatural,at least assign a mind to it. Theists' supernaturality at least has a mind behind it. . YOU maintain this position:"The universe popped into existence out of nothing or it MUST HAVE always existed for the sake of evolution and atheism." Man, tell me how is any of that natural? You can't. Because it is supernatural. Checkmate. Just cut that bull____! And say,"I will accept any option over there being a creator... even OTHER miracles... ANY miracles.
I have always been far less than convinced by the ridiculousness of their theories on the spontaneous generation of life, which truly requires a soul of some kind in every creature I have ever studied. How could they possibly explain where the soul comes from? Humans have a soul and a spirit which are inseparable. Try to explain that from dead chemistry!
Bacteria have souls?
IF we think we are Christians, and IF we think that the 'foolishness of preaching' blocks us from reaching the "Greeks' (ie, intellectuals, anyone with a certification of wisdom next to their signature (PhD), then we are ashamed or worse, think we can reason with the unreasonable. Prayer, fasting, a life of the spirit make the silly publications of our time well, ..silly. Finally, in the world of St. Paul, he saw the great kingdoms and magnificent works of the world, AND the temple all dustify! What remains? The Gospel? Duh...
...it pleased God, by the foolishness of our preaching, to save them that believe. For both the Jews require signs, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness: But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
And of course they never can answer where that original spark of life came from.
Because there is no such thing as "the spark of life".
The Law of Biogenesis precludes abiogenesis and verifies God.
Biogenesis is false.
It will always involve human intelligence so how could that ever solve their problem
I'll demonstrate what we descend from in my video 'Begining of understanding '
In short I claim transmutation by electrical process of genetically superior creatures (seraphim) by electrical process (Lorentz Force in a magnetic field)
It's consistent with science and Scripture
I hope you'll consider watching
Jesus is The Cornerstone
Seriously people, who cares if some random fool declares they don't believe in abiogenesis. The profound and irrefutable truth of this is, no one can prove abiogenesis didn't occur (and given evolution has been proved, no one ever will. But, more importantly, the chances of proving the existence of a creator is infinitely smaller than proving abiogensis can't happen so the concept of a creator is absurd in comparison with abiogenesis.
Let's discuss the conundrum of 7,000 years of thousands of gods and none remotely proved (or ever will be) as compared with a claim of a creator.
Has any theist stopped any research into abiogenesis? No, because theist theories are so unsustainable they are considered by the scientific community as a joke suitable only fer the deluded.
As said, evolution has been proved by observation, laboratory experimentation, ERV markers in DNA, a fossil record that cannot be explained any other way and scriptures that simply don't accept what is actually observed. Evolution as understood today will still be understood using the same information when children ask their parents: "What was a god?"
And yes, whilst liars on theist sites claim "it can't happen" there are actually sustainable theories demonstrating how it can happen (but they don't exist for the deluded only people in the real world).
During the horrifically catastrophical flood and from other impacts upon on the earth I wonder how much debris was cast off into outer space? How many of those asteroids with earth type compounds were actually part of the earth in the first place?
Ive asked that same question myself. All of the craters on the moon clearly come from the earth specifically from the flood when the fountains of the great deep burst forth.
Very easy: there was never a great flood. This is a physical impossibility. it is just a myth recycled from countless sacred books.
Follow the money , give me enough money and time and I will!!!!!
Sorry evolutionists: the simplest known form of life is a perfect example of irreducible complexity. No random occurrence could possibly bring all the things necessary together at once for life to just “happen.”
The Bible says nothing about the origin of life. From the standpoint of Genesis 1 each type of life is individually created by God and therefore not genetically related. The Bible says nothing about cells or molecules or DNA.
👍🙏❤️🦕
you would literally need a human to form from the dust of the earth.
Wish you would start with God. He is the living God, creating physical life from clay & breath in Eden - spiritual life by the Holy Spirit and Jesus' breath in the new covenant, new creation, His work regenerates lost sheep. Repent, turn to Him, trust Him to save. Men suppress truth in unrighteusness, pride, sin & walk in darkness Jer 13:15-16.
Romans chapter one, verse 28.
In order to be a rational thinking atheist, one must be able to explain how abiogenesis happened??? No, that is a non-sequitur. We dont need to be able to explain how things happen to know that it happened.
According to creationists life did come from none life.
Life came from God, the original source of life, the ultimate life form, the first form of life and the last form of life, the beginning of life and the end of life.
@@binhanh296 Who told you that? Where did God come from?
@@horridhenry9920 God told me that. God do not come from anywhere, before God created space, time and matter, there was no space, no time, no matter, only God. God is Eternal. There is no beginning of God, and no end of God. God do not come from anywhere, but everywhere came from God, for God created "everywhere".
@@binhanh296 They said the same thing about the universe.
God does not speak to me. People who claim he speaks to them are told contradictory things; that’s why we have so many religions and denominations within religions. They cannot all be true, but they can all be false .
@@horridhenry9920 so the universe is eternal then?! Can you prove it?!