Are we close to discovering the Origin Of Life? James Tour vs Lee Cronin
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 окт 2024
- Nanotechnology Prof James (Jim) Tour & Glasgow biology Prof Lee Cronin debate contemporary Origins of Life research and whether Lee’s lab is on the way to discovering it.
Get the weekly Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchri...
Subscribe to the Unbelievable? newsletter to receive the free e-book ‘In Conversation With...’ www.premier.or...
Support the show and receive all the video sessions from Unbelievable? USA 2019 resources.prem...
I would love to see / hear Jim Tour debate with Richard Dawkins, but I think Dawkins would avoid that at all costs.
Dawkins will never debate a true scientist. He prefers preaching to clueless fans.
dawkins is a loser. i have watched him and he is an asshole who insults everyone and never answers even simple questions
When you get the big fish swimming through your patch the suckers all tend to follow and cling on. What a stupid comment. Richard Dawkins is pretty much on the same page as Dr Tour. I doubt you understand a word either of them say.
Déjà Siku Your presentation of evidence as to your qualification in the subject matter in question has been duly noted.
@@GayorgVonTrapp " I doubt you understand a word either of them say." Do you always insult the people you are interacting with? Is it really necessary? Or is it some mechanism you use to shore up or hide your lack of confidence in your subject knowledge? Either way it is totally unbecoming and simply a way to indicate that you need more practise expressing your point of view without rancor.
I’m not convinced with Lee’s argument. Not even close proving the origin of life. All speculations and no proof.
This is what its like talking to lee
“How did life arise?” Lee - We dont know what life is”
“Well lets use biology’s definition of life”
Lee- We dont even know what biology is.
“Then how do we talk about anything without knowing what anything is?”
Lee-You really cant talk about anything because when you do and use a scientific definition then your creating a narrative”
“ So where do we go from here?”
Lee- Lets talk about my narrative”
Troy Mason - Brilliant!
gregormann7 lol. Its very annoying talking to people like that because they literally go in circles and just generalize everything.
Well put!
that this man is one of the leading scientists in his field scares me. The dude needs to take a introductory course in philosophy.
Ciência e Filosofia exactly
At 26 mins Lee Cronin says you can't have information without life. Does he understand that he is proving the requirement for a creator and disproving his own standpoint of life happening spontaneously? Living beings, even the most basic living cell, contains information, which could only come from life... This is a spectacular own goal IMO
Lee - "I am perhaps more humble than Jim". Tells you everything you need to know about Lee's massive ego.
Yes, that it's not as massive as Tour's.
@Martyr4JesusTheChrist WTF? That makes Tour gullible, not humble, dipshit.
I great preacher once said I never met a humble man that claimed to be humble.
@@shaunphelan9760 Did that same preacher also tell you a guy came back from a few days dead and you need to believe that idiocy or you'll burn in a supposed place called "hell"?
@Martyr4JesusTheChrist Oh no!!! The invisible magician believer was mean to me! What will I ever do? lol Get a grip, dipstick.
_"But hey, we should trust you over Tour right?"_
Depends on the subject. Regarding the topic of this video, I trust Cronin far more than the gullible moron that's out of his field and thinks an invisible magician abracadabra'd life into existence.
Lee is forced to redefine life so that it's creation can be claimed. How often atheists do this.
@Apostate James had the current definition of what life is. All he says is how far are we from creating the cell
@Apostate No he didn't.. It was Lee Cronin that stated Life started out simple. So stop projecting that claim on James Tour. As All James Tour did was make Lee Cronin define what he means by life. That is why Lee Cronin had to back peddle on his previous claims. That he had made.
As Lee Cronin is trying to redefine the word Life. As not one sane person can produce Organic Living cells from Non Organic Chemicals. It's been tried for the last 80 years.
Why Lee Cronin should be ashamed for peddling that shit. As he even admitted. He used Processed Chemicals. That have been produced void of any contaminates or impurities. Which does not even exist in the Universe.
Why I will be watching any claims he makes from now on. As that shit gets printed in papers. Then the lay person has no clue what it means. They just "Believe them" As they are "Scientist" Which pisses me off. It gives Science a bad name. When they get caught. As Deception is the worst of all Scientific Sins. Why we peer review their claims. So others can reproduce it. To see if they are lying..
@Apostate Why don't you ask for a chance to debate and correct him? Oh. Right. I forgot you're one of the comment section scholars who couldn't make sense of Young Goodman Brown yet here you are correcting a world class scientist. You're funny.
@Apostate See, you're funny. Thanks for the laugh!
@@MasterChief-sl9ro People pay good money for stories and comfort care , that's where it starts , nothing else matters ,science is purely incidental.
“If I find information, then I know that a living thing put it there” Is Lee arguing for intelligent design now?
Thats what I heard...
I picked up on that also. The paper with writing proves a life. The creator's medium is the pages of life in every living cell, DNA.
@AnarchoRepublican I would say that intelligent design in relation to life is a pretty bad argument for God but I would say that all the complex rules and laws that allow for enormous amounts of complexity in this universe
or any other universe are pretty decent.
@@rickhuntling7338 Your "creator" has been busy copying bad designs and DNA errors with a vengeance (but only in the same nested hierarchy we expect from descent with modification.
@@ExtantFrodo2 the curse of sin caused HIM to make the monifications in a perfect design. The chance for life out of chaos is 10 to the 184th power. You haven't the time, matter nor the events in the visable universe for it to happen, LOL. Logic, statistics and science is in my corner not yours.
This debate should've started with definitions of what is life and what is information in a biological context.
I couldn't agree more.
That would require James to actually know what he is talking about...
Yep...when Lee said, "We don't really know what life is..." his argument was dead in the water. Then he said, "I haven't made life in the lab, but I will." What? You'll make life in your lab, but YOU DON"T KNOW WHAT LIFE IS. You cannot put forth an argument about origin of life if you cannot even define what life is.
so we use quantum theory all the time but we don't 'know' what it is. We use heat engines and other energy systems ruled by thermo-dynamics but we don't 'know' what that is. What will you do if Lee Cronin is successful, even if he doesn't 'know' what life is ...
@@stegemme Yes, I agree that, for example, we can't say exactly what energy or gravity is, yet there are characteristics that define these things. But he claims that he WILL make life in his lab. Without some kind of criteria, some parameters or description of life, the whole enterprise is ludicrous. What WILL he make?
GodCan and how will he know what he made ( if he makes anything of substance )is in fact life ?
@@SpanishwithNeena but there is some criteria. Smolin makes his statement about not knowing in the sense of there not being a consensus for the level he is working at. Remember that he has made some proposals which have been accepted by NASA for their exploratory program. He will make something, others will decide if it's life
@@stegemme One can at least begin with a definition of what life is? Absent a definition, if even tentative, you have no hypothesis round which to build your experimentation. So it would seem.
The issue is really clear: High school chem/bio says prebiotic soup, energy, time = life. However, as Tour pointed out, those connections don't exist. We need reasons to believe that the sum of those things equal life
Please Complete All Fields and just what is the (let me get your quote exactly right here)...”best empirical falsifiable evidence for OOL” because Dr. Tour is not claiming God here?? He’s actually said we have “no clue” how abiogenesis happened and therefore void of any empirical falsifiable evidence. I’ve watched Dr. Tour’s presentations and even in this video he says he doesn’t argue for God or ID because there’s no mechanism to test it. So give us the best piece of evidence that’s empirical and falsifiable for abiogenesis. My guess is that Dr. Tour’s already addressed the best evidence either in video or in writing.
Please Complete All Fields just going to address the first paragraph for now. I believe Dr. Tour has addressed Miller-Urey and it’s errors so it’s not that empirical after all. So if that’s the best we have then that’s way short of absolute evidence. This is why Dr. Tour discusses this exact experiment in every one of his presentations. Maybe you should try to listen to some of them since he’s one of the most accomplished synthetic organic chemists on the planet. Yes OOL is an active field with many hypotheses but a hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of LIMITED evidence as a starting point for further investigation. It’s an idea and nothing more. Notice the use of the words (may, possibly, potential, could, probably) when reading most of the “settled science” literature.
Please Complete All Fields Tour has already destroyed miller-urey. I suggest you read up on Dr Tour as he has brilliantly laid out the case of how there is zero evidence for the origin of life by natural processes. The traditional elementary story of a primordial pond, chemical reactions, and billions of years creating life is as silly as the tooth fairy and santa claus. Aliens is a better and more plausible theory at this point than this bubbling broth children’s story of prebiotic soup.
Juno Donat good, glad we agree. Because your belief is magical. No, it is not more plausible that somehow it started out simple, and somehow it became complex. “Somehow” and “nature nudged” along the process are not scientific. Produce an actual scientific theory, which no know has done. So believing that somehow it all happened by fantastic chance is magic and ludicrous
Juno Donat ID is NOT a form of creationism. Both are very different. Creationism takes the Bible as the ultimate authority while ID does not. ID is purely scientific in nature arriving to the conclusion that there must be an intelligent supernatural being. Creationism does not come from a scientific background, though science and the Bible widely overlap and agree. You can claim all you want that we have seen the development of the basic building blocks, but no we havent. DR James Tour talks about this very thing. I am much more inclined to believe a world renowned synthetic organic chemist than some guy on a youtube chat room. Especially when Tour actively invites other chemists to critique his work and his claims. I have yet to see or hear ANYONE refute him. Nice try tho
"Science doesn't form opinions, scientists do".
It seems quite obvious that Lee has an agenda doing his research, which goes beyond just showing a mechanism of how life emerges.
@AffiliateProWhat do you mean exactly?
Seems like Lee has a narrative to push lol!
He does have an agenda, it is called science. We have made a lot of progress that way and none by throwing up our hands and invoking magic.
@@roqsteady5290 Obviously, I meant beyond science.
As you said, scientific method is an extremely useful tool for discovering the mechanics of our reality, but it can't even tackle the question why those mechanics even exist.
@@miroslawturski Invoking gods doesn't answer why questions either, because you are always left with the question of why such a thing even exists (charitably assuming it did). Why questions may be ultimately unanswerable (why is there something rather than nothing?). That is why science is concerned with how questions, which are the only kind of questions we can sensibly address.
What an incredible and respectful conversation between two highly talented scientist.
This is the kind of conversations and teamwork we need to see in the community in order to be productive and to make real progress.
Glad to see the air cleared and an open/honest conversation had.
Thank you both, and the host as well
Cronin says he's not sure that life exists. Then wants me to listen to him explain not where it came from but where it didn't come from.🤔
Yes. He is certain that there is no god. It seems to me that the concepts he defends so circuitously have no foundation by his own admission.
@@philipmcclure6273 and god hypothesis is supported by existence of so many gods. there atheists :D
If that’s what you got out of what he said you’re in way over your head. He said we have evidence for the origin of life, but we don’t know exactly how the chemicals interacted to form it. Then he went on to explain from where the chemicals originated and subsequently evolved. When you have proof of concept you don’t need 100% of the information to make certain inferences.
@@kingwillie206 no. Lol.
I can create a concept then use the evidence to support the concept. It is called circular reasoning.
Having evidence for a concept is really easy for any concept
@@andrewthomas4636 - What type of evidence exactly? I am referring to scientific evidence.
Lee is a insulting saying Tour is “ jealous “ and dogging his nano tech.
Doug G ,, I noticed that also., he also said the working machines in cells aren’t machines, then 2 sentences later , describes the enter workings of cells as magnificent machines in his closing statements. Or something to this point.
Make life with supercomputers and bringing all the ingredients to the lab whats the excuse life is everywhere not
@@MicDread i have an experience talking with athiests This is always how they talk , Wrong projections , they think life is just a chemical reaction , and they are so exellent on playing with words
Roger Joyce Lee was referring to Jim’s “nano-machines” that he creates in his lab, which they use to drill into cells. He is saying that these nanomachines are not really ‘machines’ per se.
@@npm1811 but they're still machines per se
Jim: Show me how.
Cronin: We don't know yet, but I'm sure we'll get there some day.
Talk about God of the GAPS.
Yes its evolution of the gaps now.
If you had asked someone in the Bronze Age how thunder originate, he would not have known it. Now we know. Back then you needed a magician to explain this phenomenon, but today this explanation is only ridiculous.
@Anthony Maurice controlled to replicate early earth condition, you left out vital information, typical.
@Anthony Maurice That is completely irrelevant, because it happened.
If there is no creator, then it must have happened in spite of the low probability.
If a creator helped out we would still need to prove there was a creator at that time that was capable to do something that supposedly can't happen naturally.
As far as I know there is no formula that calculates the probability for that.
@Anthony Maurice No, it wouldn't. It would only show that we can replicate things that happen naturally.
You must remain in total delusion, it's all you can do.
Everything can be explained by science!😂😂😂😂😂😂😂another 6,000 years and this guy will get it right I can't wait to heart it😂😂😂
says a guy using the internet
Lee stop talking about nonsense and just guve the evidence man
There is zero evidence for a creator. One does not solve a mystery by appealing to a even bigger mystery, in this case in the form of a magical being.
@@derhafi God is a spirit, not a magician.
@@lawrence1318 And How did you reach this concludion...Alo I did not say Magician, i said "magical being"
@@derhafi A spirit is not a magical being. A spirit is a being. You are a being because you are a spirit. You happen to live in a body, but your actual person is a spirit which lives in a body. So you are a being. Contrasting, an animal does not have a spirit and therefore is not a being.
@@lawrence1318 There is no demnstrable correlation between "spirits" and reality. Humann minds, as well as animals, are chemical and fundamentally physical reactions. There is nothing supernatural about us, or anything else for that matter.
It may be that Lee Cornin suffers from post-modernism where the meaning of words become relative to the current thought in his head, but changes before he draws another breath. His mulit-answers are a maze, like many postmoderns do, he hides within, while spouting "evidence" as if they are proofs. I hope our academies recover in due time... Keep going Dr. Tour! Keep defining terms...
If Lee Cronin succeeded one day, all that he would prove is that intelligent design works ;)
Linus Loth 100%correct
Lol good point, however, it would still raise the probability of abiogenesis occurring and it would mean that once again, supernatural explanations are not necessary.
@@He.knows.nothing You cannot replicate a historical event. That is why you will never prove abiogenesis beyond any doubt. Your arbitrary and imaginary probability signifies nothing. If a theist says, God created through natural means, a naturalist has nothing to answer except his personal feelings. In this case some/every natural effect had a supernatural cause which renders the natural/supernatural divide void.
@@linusloth4145 you're right, even if abiogenesis is proven to be possible it does not prove that abiogenesis is how life arose here specifically. But if we have an explanation that comports to the laws of physics and chemistry, why would you not favor that in opposition to an explanation that directly defies the laws of physics and nature?? We don't have to be certain for us to favor theories that actually comport to our reality. This is why we still study multiverse and strung theory even though they are presently just as unfalsifiable as an argument for an infinite and external deity.
That's a silly argument.
Humans can design experiments to simulate the conditions of the natural world. Scientists can already create synthetic life - the point of Lee's research is to investigate _how life could have arisen_ in an early earth.
Lee stated around 25 min into the video that "we don't know what life is". Yet around 27 min into the video he stated that he will make life in his lab in about 5 year. Tour relied on the common 5 or so characteristics of life (requirement for energy, self replication, information and being able to store and pass this info to the offspring, etc.). In the absence of a common definition of what life is how can we debate the "Origin of Life?"
He always says 3-5 years. A decade ago, he claimed 3-5 years. He keeps kicking the can down the road. He keeps getting funded.
Well... here we are 4 years late, and I'm reading his papers, and there is no sign of life in the next year...
24:53
“If someone brings to me a piece of paper with words on it, that says to me there is life somewhere”
DNA is information, it’s code. Shouldnt that be your indicator that there is a creative mind behind it?!
@ Michael Gonzales
Superb.
My exact thought
@Juno Donat think that thru.
now try again
@Juno Donat try harder..
@Juno Donat prefer not to cast pearls before swine
Cronin: "That information on the paper is as much alive as you are."
"We don't actually know what life is."
This is a variety of pseudo post-modern obscurantism that I find quite repellent. It reminds me of the old joke, "How does a mathematician put a lion into a cage? He climbs into the cage and redefines the inside as the outside and the outside as the inside."
The definition of life in academia will be an endless debate. Inevitably it has to unify humankind, the animal kingdom, plant kingdom, and bacterial kingdom etc. To define life would be a cause of catastrophe for moral cultural dogma.
The cultural dogma--> social darwinism
The vector of this problem is, is life important?
Creationist would conclude yes, pro-life etc.
Soc. Darwinism *could* conclude maybe not, life is random chemical synthesis became life and needs to be artificially selected.
That's a very interesting joke !
@@sharkbite436 read the previous comment you indoctrinated fool ! There is a joke in the comment . Have you taken off your pampers yet ??
@@Summitic sorry I thought you were replying to me. No need for such rude behavior. It was a funny joke.
Lee Cronin is simply too weak in the field of evolutionary biology to get on the offensive in a debate. In fact, everybody is too weak. Evolutionary biology has come a long way, but still has too many holes to fill before being ready for criticism. It's always easier to be a skeptic. Even with only shallow understanding of the topic, a skeptic can destroy many life time researchers - because science is hard. Any science is hard to redeem up against a rigorous theory of science. To stand up against criticism it is not enough that to have a lot of stand alone published papers of research that points in the direction that life can happen spontaneously. You need a model. Not necessarily a complete one, but broad enough to cover the most problematic aspects of getting from synthetic chemistry to biologic chemistry. This is specially hard in evolutionary biology because the processes may need million years. The only tool to speed up the processes is to idealize natural processes in a lab. It's a tall order to find controlled processes to get from million years down to days which probably is the challenge if you're going to produce a working model in a life time. Even when we finally are able to do this, we will not beat a man of faith. Faith allows him to resort to god even when god is not needed by this simple argument (not a valid one, but faith isn't limited by logic) "god may not be needed in all evolutionary biology, but certainly the one we're living in because this is special". You can never beat a man allowed to lapse to the laziness of faith. It's odd that a man of faith finds it necessary to fight science. Even on the day we've got a complete oversight of our reality and can explain everything by natural processes - even how nothingness can produce _somethingness_ still faith can live well. This is how lazy and pathetic faith is - it's the lowest standard of them all. It does demand nothing of itself. If you can say you believe, faith wins. The point of science isn't to beat faith, but to make life better (pun well intended).
Jim: Show me the evidence.
Lee: I'm not interested in narratives, and here's my narrative.
"Lee: I'm not interested in narratives, and here's my narrative." - I missed the narrative section that you say Lee gave. Please give us the TC for that. Try 39:25...
Edit 88 hello again . What would be easier is if you can point to any part of this RUclips discussion where lee points to evidence that he can demonstrate shows how life came from or even might have come from through natural processes . My take on lees entire discourse was a search for a law or set of laws to show how this could come about but I did not see any evidence to support his narrative . If I missed it please point to it . The salt illustration he talked about is clearly not evidence of how life came about . It’s an example of increased complexity with some story telling . Complexity itself is not life . Tour made the point that he could drop some olive oil in a mixture and get a reaction . The mixture is now undoubtedly more complex however it is not life .
The chemical reaction might look like it’s moving similar to life but it is not life .
The equations he said he had almost completed are not evidence of how life might have come about . It’s still a theory . Not evidence .
Evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Please point to the evidence that Lee produced in this hour plus long discussion about the origin of life ( of which he is the expert ) that you think he provided .
Edit 88 if lee can’t explain the evidence upon which he believes he can show how life may have evolved in an hour plus discussion, with another scientist begging him to do so , then I very much doubt he has actual evidence .
Tour said show me the evidence and the mechanism . Lee said that at the Big Bang we had simple molecules and then during a period of bombardment , we saw more complex chemicals and then after a few million years we have simple life . I listened carefully as Tour did and did not hear the evidence or the mechanism. I heard story telling and narrative . If I missed it or you heard it in the presentation please point to it . I doubt reading his 300 plus peer reviewed papers will help much and no one has the time to do it . To sum up , I heard not a single shred of evidence to demonstrate that natural forces /laws alone can produce life .
@@spalding1968 Well said
Are you being deliberately disingenuous @Pro Baller? Cronin clearly said he couldn't "prove" the origin of life on Earth, and that no-one could, 42:25. He says he may understand how life can emerge. There is a massive difference.
Dr. James Tour is really fascinating.
No he isn’t. He’s simply a lying religious zealot whose fanaticism infects every aspect of his dealings with other scientists
@@mcmanustony What a fanatical statement you made. I guess atheist also don't believe in irony.
@@arnoldvezbon6131 your inability to engage with the facts I posted without bigoted nonsense is duly noted.
Why can’t you handle it being pointed out the fact that Tour is a relentless and incorrigible liar?
@@arnoldvezbon6131 "What a fanatical statement you made."
Wtf?
@@lieshtmeiser5542 yes atheist are fanatical quite often. Verry angry and unpleasant.
(1:11:27) Cronin - "I don't think consciousness exists."
Wow. If you deny enough things it becomes easy to deny God. Mr. Cronin - I'm not sure if you exist.
@Donald Nadeau - There are many who have the same opinion as you.
@Donald Nadeau Can you prove that? I'm pretty sure there is more science in God creating the world than evolution. Explain how everything evolved in a short period of time, yet we see no evolutionary changes today.
That is the most insane thing ive ever heard said.
Yeah rubics; Lee is'n willing to see the whole picture.
@Martyr4JesusTheChrist I don't think consciousness exists
Every argument Lee Cronin puts forward is rooted in evasion - he has the artifice of a politician.
NICOLAS S BROWN - and so he must. He needs those tax dollars.
@Paul Morgan yes and that was lee trying to prove that in order for life to exist it must be created and he is doing it in his lab.
@@stevensu8837 "This man is proving intelligent design by recreating a murky pool during the precambrian", ah yes this little flat earther argument.
I guess gravity doesn't exist because people are involved in its measurement.
This argument is ridiculous, what he is doing is recreating past conditions on the planet, which according to you means life was "created" as a product of the natural laws of the universe, or in quick short words life occurs naturally in this universe without the need for a magic man in the sky.
@Trolltician Im sorry do you think lee is creating a new law of physics or do you think he is measuring how the current laws of physics work on a chemical solution analogous to that on the early earth?
-
Prove that lee created a new physical law or shut up.
@Trolltician The analogy involving a car would be "do you think a pile of carparts with strong magnets that only attach to the part they are supposed to would pull together if you jostle them."
You have no idea what you are talking about.
-
Tour openly admits he doesn't have any disagreements with evolution, and he is not a researcher into the origin of life so his opinions on the matter are equally irrelevant.
Lee says he doesn't know what life is, but he's confident he will someday create it in his lab!
He leaves and ditches all parameters of life, he turns away from "old" definitions of life and he even doubts if consciousness is a real thing. Such reductionism reminds me of going back to the cave or to the land of unicorns.
🤭
The invincible dud.
Lee has had success creating and delivering life in his lavatory. He found it crawling around on the poop he brewed in his lab.
@@ghenadi75 Lee's a blatant hypocrite if he thinks denying there's design in life, and, or machinery in living cellular organisms is coherent.
There is no question where all biological evidence points to.
And it isn't demonstrable self-assembly.
I think that means when hes found a chemical reaction thats sophisticate enough, he can say "this is life, no one can argue because they have ni definitiin of life...... So basically like the words men and women today, he will redefine Life.
"I don't know if life really exists". Wow. That's honest. No many people actually are able to express the implications of their world view so clearly. I respect that.
But it also is insane, of course.
Not so insane if you consider "life" as diluted somewhere amongst the unbroken continuum between inorganic chemicals and complex life bound together by energy. The boundaries between life and non life are being seen as more and more blurred, there is no separation. Some aspects of non life share elements that we recognise in living things, and some elements of living things are present in non living. It is only Humans that give life and non life separate identities.
It is the same as saying "elephants don't exist. An Elephant is simply an animal that is part and parcel of the whole spectrum of life. It is only humans that give it the name "elephant", and we do this simply so that we have a way to classify it in our minds, and give it an individual identity in order to fit it in to our human made classification of mammals. In reality of course elephants cannot be separated from the continuum, they are part and parcel of the whole, All living and non living things are including Humans.
If life and non life are a continuum , how can anyone say where life becomes a separate identity from non life? Perhaps it is more insane to say they are separate things.
Just a thought but can you explain when the agency of life begins from non sentient matter.
@@BiigTitties No, it is impossible to define the moment "When" There is nothing special about sentiency. Its evolution , again just like life itself is on a continuum, closely toed to the evolution of different sense organs and consciousness, so the origins are blurred. it is not an important characteristic of living things. It is important to Humans , of course, because we have a well developed self-consciousness, but I am not so sure sentiency is of particular importance to a Hydra or amoeba.
If you consider that life consists of a bunch of molecules (ie not life) the line gets blurry, and it is not unreasonable to argue that if “life” as a term is meaningless if we can find a whole spectrum of phenomena with similar characteristics. Also it becomes hard to draw the line - where does “just molecules” end and “life” begin? If this distinction is arbitrary, the whole term “life” becomes arbitrary as well.
@@chrisdistant9040 Exactly, well said. And this is why the origin of life is a natural progression from non life.
Oh my... "I don't even know if life really exists" That really struck me.
@Tim Webb Neither does the theist know ;)
Tim Webb “Beyond all possibility of doubt”. People like you scare the crap out of me.
Tim Webb Ha...it’s not only what I need, but what you need to know. You draw battle lines when you have no ability to negotiate. You will lose by the way.
@Tim Webb _"We are not theists"_
So, you don't believe supposed "Jesus" is/was a supposed "god" in the flesh. Got it.
_"so we certainly do know,"_
Because a book said so. AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Too funny.
@Tim Webb Was that supposed to mean something?
This channel is so good! Happy to see Dr Tour and Prof Cronin talking publicly!
Yeah in a dream world we would get to see more debates but after the pour performance of the Brit and how Jim made the Brit grab his own ankles pretty much the second half of the debate the less we will see atheists want to debate knowing they will get shredded
Minute 27, Lee says: "I haven't made life in my lab (yet), but I will. The argument will be: did that life come from me and where did I come from?"
They are starting to catch up life is so complex it has to be made.
If he makes life - then he is the creator! Which proves there was a guided progression by a “mind” required for life to spawn.
See that’s the thing scientists are playing God they need to play God for there claims to be true
He will never make life from a non life, even if he lives a million years, - period
life from non-life is like resurrecting the dead
Who cares anyway - according to Tour, if Cronin is proven right in 500 years, it would not have affected Tours faith. So, what is the point of this conversation, and why do all the Tour fanboys congregate around an issue they find profound but to Tour is trivial and ultimately meaningless?
Jim Tour makes them admit THEY DON'T KNOW....that's great. It takes the wind out of people who "Know Everything"
What a stupid, ignorant comment. NO ONE in the OoL field claims to have solved the problem of life's origin and NO ONE needs the lying fanatic James Tour to "make" them do anything.
Tour's legacy will not be his actual work, in which his drooling supporters have ZERO interest- his legacy will be those supporters: his claque of braying, science hating morons.
@@mcmanustony aparently you haven't noticed the apathy around you.
....they present the subject as open and shut. And in the process, they diminish the true value of the treasure that is life.
A gift from GOD, to all.
@@andreaurelius45 you are a liar. You couldn’t name a single scientist making any such claim.
Try not to tell such stupid lies- you’ll feel less dirty.
@@andreaurelius45 Still waiting....WHO exactly makes the claim you claim they make? Who is "they"?
You haven't a fucking clue, do you? You are just parroting that lying clown you drool over.
You know as much about OoL as you do the contents of my fridge.
A perfect example of Tour's cult. Ignorant, lying cheerleaders for The Great One.
I don't suppose it ever occurred to you to actually open a book on this subject? Written, not by a lying hysterical fanatic, but by an actual scientist who actually does actual work in this field?
Shame on you. Do better.
You’re retarded
Lee said “Not one nanomachine is made from the chemicals on up but always from the engineer on down”. Exactly! Information takes an outside intelligence that is what we call God.
😂😂😂He destroys his own arguments
James Tour is a joke and a fraud who got exposed time and time again. This is good data for people who should get the snip.
"We don't actually know what life is"
"That piece of paper with writings on it is as alive as you are"
Would somebody please provoide mr. Lee with a definition of a word "demagogy"? He can't answer a simple question without going to complete gibberish.
Holy shit that leap is crazy, yes he does want know what life is but the fact that something was written down is just as much evidence of life as anything else. It's not that complicated to understand.
So if the writings on the paper proves to him there is a life behind it , why doesn’t the complexity of nature prove there is a creator behind that too ?
@@sandiknits4174 and then a creator behind that creator and another creator behind that one. that's no use, at least we know the universe exists. abiogenesis is just the most likely option, weird as it may look to someone who is used to believing in a Creator.
I felt bad for him being distorted on his thinking about reality and consciousness. Those were bad signs about how lost he is.
@@fukpoeslaw3613 If the creator exists outside of the time, space and matter it created, it may not need a cause. Meaning the creator is eternal. No beginning, no end.
The idea of life coming form non-life and then going from simple to complex, simply by natural, unintelligent, unguided processes is not scientific in the least.
lol Lee warning James to be careful about building a narrative and then goes on to say 4,7 billion years old comets.
Love you, Dr. Tour!!!
Am I the only one who noticed that the same guy who said ID has no basis in science then went on to explicitly affirm one of its central positive claims by saying that if he finds a paper with information on it that is just evidence for him that there is (intelligent) life somewhere?
Intelligent life evolving out in the universe elsewhere does not mean that life visited earth and created us...
I had to pause the video to process what he had said. I’ve heard John Lennox make that point over and over. I was hoping Dr. Tour would point it out.
@@ukfan1230 James Tour is dishonest, ID is pseudoscience the fact that Christians are clinging to this is pathetic.
@@AvNotasian , so are you able to give reasons to your claim or are you merely spouting you're own dogma?
@@allenrhoades8482 Yes, but its unlikely you will understand and it would take a long time to type out.
The short story is there is no valid alternative, but in addition dr Tours counter argument in context is he is saying "well bob didn't do it" regarding a boiled kettle when no one saw how it boiled but we saw it unboiled 5 minutes before. But because he says bob didn't do it there are a bunch of fools concluding that pixies must have done it, there is no rational reason to conclude this, but Tours stokes this belief by employing an argument from ignorance, the fact that he does this is why I say he is dishonest. He is trying to cut a tiny tiny hole in science to make room for his god.
-
The fact that ID is pseudoscience has been demonstrated in a court of law, but if you want a general reason its because the definition of pseudoscience applies under poppers demarcation criterion.
-
I highly doubt you will find this sufficient, which is part of the problem here there is no rational reason to think ID is science in the first place, so people who believe it is science are not doing so for a rational reason which makes it very hard to explain why its not science.
But think about what science does, it attempts to explain the unknown, not find something that is currently unexplained and pretend thats evidence for something that there is no reason to believe even exists.
-
But perhaps you can explain why you think that mainstream science is "dogma" while people who are paid by a religious organisation with the stated goal to undermine the publics understanding of the scientific consensus for purely dogmatic reasons have any credibility.
Loved it. One of Unbelievable's best and most productive discussions I've seen.
@Trolltician I would assume so
@Trolltician Why didn't you like it?
The atheist didn't come off well -- he blandly said he doesn't know what "life" is, as is typical of atheist responses to scientific questions that avoid God; "I don't know."
@Trolltician I guess I want really expecting a debate as they are both scientists at the top of their fields. To me it was an exploration of a fascinating and important topic from 2 perspectives, and they seemed to be able to both learn a bit from each other. That's why I thought it was productive.
@@20july1944 Cronin came off great. Tour looked like a fool for misunderstanding what Cronin was arguing.
@@AsixA6 No, Cronin admitted he doesn't even know what he's aiming at since he doesn't know what "life" is.
Cronin : "We have no idea what the pathway to life was.'' Thank You Sir, Ciao.
Both men seem sincere, that’s refreshing.
This is not a debate. James is like a patient adult talking to a recalcitrant four year old.
Oop! Fixed it for ya!
_"Lee is like a patient adult talking to a recalcitrant four year old."_
@@AsixA6 Lee is deceptively trying to convince everyone of his Logical Fallacy of Division to equate the parts 'non-life' with the whole 'life'. Even saying the parts of life are also life is a lie. He is trying to change the goal using a Fallacy of Division and re-definition. However the evidence we get in the real world through science is what exists as life from observable things and then we define it. Lee is saying 'this thing I create in my lab is going to be life' when he can't even prove it is a part of the recognized scientific view of life. He is making up a story and then trying to convince everyone 'this little bit of life over hear' is actually life itself. That's a Fallacy of Division, where Lee says this little part of life is equal to the whole characteristic of life.
Lee Cronin seems to be totally oblivious to the fact he is working on creating a cell through intelligent input which is contrary to the concept of the spontaneous origin of life.
@@PicoGirl False. That's not what Lee is stating so, you're committing a strawman fallacy.
Do you understand that you are completely made up of non-living parts? There is not a single atom in your entire body that is alive.
_"Lee says this little part of life is equal to the whole characteristic of life."_
False. Try listening to what he's saying rather than what you want him to have said.
@@wallyjude3 You seem totally oblivious to the fact that we're just trying to figure out how non-living matter can become alive. You claim magic is required. Rational people don't.
Lee: I will soon create life in my lab 27:01. Lee (later). I don't even know if life exists 50:29. Whaaat??
nois
what the hell that Lee is talking about, I think he is flying in some other dimension, come back mate we miss you.
I think that calling Dr Tour a pessimist is not as accurate as calling him a realist. He wants to see something real in the science not just hope and pretending. He sees how complex a living cell is and knows we are nowhere close to it, and he just calls it as it is. He applauds someone involved in working on their passion. Great! Best wishes to you! Just don’t pretend that what has been accomplished is something more than what it really is. Also don’t let the press or some scientists hype it up to something that it really isn’t. Recognize progress for what it is, and what it is not.
A living cell is the product of 4.3 billion years of evolution. Cells at the emergence of life were not as complex. Tour routinely shows the complexity of a eukaryotic cell and screams that it couldn’t have emerged without his god.
The first cells were not eukaryotic.
Tour is a malignant lying fanatic.
You have been fooled
Can you specifically identify some of the scientists “pretending”?
Can you cite some of the peer reviewed research you thing has been “hyped”?
Spoiler alert: I think you’re full of shit and haven’t a fucking clue what you’re talking about.
@@mcmanustony "A living cell is the product of 4.3 billion years of evolution." this claim is not substantiated by any science.
"Tour routinely shows the complexity of a eukaryotic cell and screams that it couldn’t have emerged without his god." You are misquoting him here. he says that the most basic cell needs DNA and this has not been shown to be created by any means that science can explain.
"Tour is a malignant lying fanatic." You are the malignant fanatic like most rabid atheists.
"You have been fooled" No you have.
@@mcmanustony we know exactly how complex the first cells were. not as complex as today but theyre still complex. Complex enough that science cannot create one. I do believe Cronin gave up trying. He has said ool science is a scam and there are many layers to the scam.
@@lauramann8275 you know how complex the first cell was? EXACTLY?? How the hell did you find that out? It’s been puzzling leading scientists for generations.
Nature with all the forces available took about 700,000,000 years and you are bleating that science hasn’t accomplished it in one one millionth of that time….good grief…
Jim: "Lee sent me his paper.... There was nothing there. It was an autocatalytic reaction which has been around 100 years This has nothing to do with origin of life.."
Lee: "Jim is right. The reaction has been around 100 years....What we show is a catalytic set. The word 'set" is important.... I don't really care about the origin of life."
I see now the LEE, he is very brave. Because, if James shows that his research is really in the beginning stages, then the bureaucrats in the University that give the funding to LEE, if they see how far behind he really is, then he will lose his University Funding. That is why these guys have to defend their research, because they may lose funding. SO the scientists these days are really slaves to the money, the funding. So they have to sound convincing that they are getting some progress, otherwise they lose funding. I think people are missing here that there is a FINANCIAL DIMENSION to scientists working in universities.
The Proper answer to the GCSE question should have been..Well Its a Bit More Complicated Than That.
Astonishing hubris from Lee to assert that he's a mere five years or so from creating "life" even though he admits that he doesn't quite know what it is.
well stated and thank you! Wait until you discover (if you haven't already) about the our true cosmology that the "leaders" are hiding from the children. Please consider taking a look at my channel for the evidence. Thank you for your time and consideration.
He doesn't know if life exists? He knows that information can only be produced from life? He's super confident he's going to figure out how life got started in the lab 😕
That's why philosophy and things like ontology is really important. He'll probably end up re-inventing the energizer bunny, with like a battery, but made from real fur, and give it a few more bells and whistles, and claim he created life.
I think categorical logic and ontology is so important these days, with shifting definitions of everything. You also have people in the AI community who claim they'll "create life"... the kind with things like circuits and batteries, and a cpu. They don't seem to understand the difference between life, and something that is good at mimicking life.
None of us really knows what anything is, yet we can still use it, build it, eat it, etc. Your argument is moot.
Just by getting them together in your was already a BIG move! Congratulations for this great interview/debate.
When Lee was talking about evidence being based on asteroids for millions of years, surely the next question to Lee should've been "Who created the gases?" Nothing comes from nothing. John Lennox wouldve had fun talking to Lee.
“Bring your own gas” joke, made by JL once
A more honest question would be "Where did the gases come from?"
Then you aren't trying to squeeze into the question what the answer has to be (that a conscious being created them).
Asking a 'who' question doesn't mean there is a 'who' answer to be found, but you ask it trying to imply so. Fallaciously.
Analogy: Who created God?
You should quickly realize it's not a 'gotcha' question implying God was created. A valid answer is, 'nobody, being created by someone isn't it's true origin. Your question has a faulty assumption.'
Yup give the asteroid as the fall guy stepphen hawkins did the same saying gravity is everything no gravity came after matter and energy and space was created first
@Crazy Jesse Yes good methods, I like that, reconstructing it into a valid argument to explicitly expose the unjustified premise I was speaking of being snuck in, and then showing how it would be special pleading to not be consistent with that implied premise.
At 24+ minutes in Lee Cronin unintentionally (imho) admitted that an Intelligent Designer would be his own logical inference, due to the blueprinted complexity of even the simplest life, an essential component of information theory as applied to the Origins of Life discussion.
I caught that, too. LOL
Lee said something to the sort, If I found a paragraph written on paper that is proof that an intelligent life wrote it. What a major fail on his part not to realize that DNA is called the book of life. DNA is not just a paragraph it is filled with billions of bits of information, which are the instructions to build our bodies. How could Lee not conclude it takes intelligent life to place the data into DNA when he admitted just a paragraph written on paper is proof of intelligent life?
Veritas vos liberabit no body hand created our world.
@@markweise6142 The "information" of DNA is just 4 chemicals. No intelligence required.
@@kennym3492 Right, it was created without hands. You do know how voice command works here in our modern technology right? Well, we're still expanding in knowledge (as it is written, knowledge shall be increased) exponentially and therefore we're learning more about how things work and how we can do things with less work (great intelligence being at the helm of it all). Now imagine(this imagining is only a fraction of what evolutionists must imagine if they were to ponder about on what they have to imagine) a GREATER INTELLIGENCE knowing how everything works and simply uses WORD to bring forth all things! It's not about "magic" it's about INTELLIGENCE. Now to maybe some humans in the third world could see our modern technology as magic, speaking a word to cause light to appear or clapping your hands to cause light to appear(both activations are by SOUND-WORD). They don't know about the intelligence that went into the device so they may call it magic but once we explain it to them, it's still awesome but it's been demystified.
This means Genesis 1 is very possible and it makes all the sense in the world above anything else. A Creator creating all things fully mature, with age and ready to be used. So much more can be said but I digress.
This discussion makes me wonder just how much of our disagreements over science are due not to the facts of the research itself, but the way the parties present their conclusions and what they would like to imply. I don't want to say it's all about weltenschauung, but the implications and extrapolations we make from objective evidence are possibly far more important for humanity at large.
I agree, I've been wondering that too!
It was a very interesting conversation and its good that they seemed to resolve some issues. Then Lee made the off hand statement, "I don't think consciousness exists" and my mind went, "WTF? What just participated in this discussion if it wasn't a consciousness???" All I can think of is that he meant something by consciousness other than what we actually experience. Down another rabbit hole we go I guess.
Cronin would then be speaking outside of his expertise. Take his opinion on that with a grain of salt.
@@briansheely3474 You don't know where James's view came from at all. When I studied about all the stuff that a cell does, it convinced me, that there is intelligent outside of the brain. Just because people are believers of God, does not mean that you could no ever change their views. The reason that most people believe in a ' bigger ' intelligence is that no one can prove otherwise. Even a cell is more complicated than anyone ever imagined. Learning about how complicated a cell is, is enough to strengthen peoples' believes and many start to believe even stronger in something bigger than man's intelligent.
I think most atheistic scientists will at some point in their life start understanding that conciousness cant possibly be real because the only solution to their dilemma is that conciousness is not real.
@@Bledoston Except that's obviously not true. Some might claim that "it" doesn't exist, but others will claim that while it exists, it isn't what we experience it to be. It really depends on what is meant by "consciousness". That doesn't seem to be any less accurate than the claim it was zapped into existence by a magical being and rests upon a supernatural essence called a "soul"
You have the burden of proof. Show to me that consciousness is real and I will believe you.@@briansheely3474
"If I find information then I know it came from life." Later in same conversation. " I dont know if life even exists." Lee Cronin...
He was also saying that information was there before life, that life was created by information, then turns it around
Actually, information speaks of a CREATOR. Consider computer code. Then .. consider DNA. What is DNA other than 'code'.
It took one Christian, having called them out for their rhetoric, in order for anyone of them to acknowledge it. Well done
It just takes one.
To acknowledge what exactly? Media reporting of science is abysmal, it seems James Tour has more of a problem with that, which is fine. But angiogenesis and biology it self is not his field, what has he corrected?
@@sumo1203 angiogenesis? Blood vessels? Did you mean abiogenesis?
@@trentonshuke3563 yes
42:30 "What I care about is if I can create a life form in the lab now with minimal interaction with it ... " Every part of this statement describes intelligently designing a life form. That is completely incompatible with the Darwinian Theory of Evolution which posits "Undirected Random Mutations and Natural Selection" as the material process.
Yes, therefore their arguments are dead ends, as well as their experiments.
No. Darwinian evolution - random mutations and natural selection - is what happened AFTER the first life-form originated.
Evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life, that's abiogenesis.
Thanks to the host, remarkable performance, very professional.
Lee accuses Tour of creating a narrative then promptly builds his own followed by an assertion with absolutely no supporting evidence.
1) There are simple organic molecules on meteorites
2) There was simple chemistry on the early earth
3) There was energy on the early earth
4) There is evidence for the late heavy bombardment and all that stuff
5) Elemental molecules gain complextity when they are on a planet
Viola Life!
Excuse me but Tour's whole point is that we KNOW how molecules gain complexity through observing chemical pathways in the laboratory because we can actually add complexity to simple molecules today! We also know that the complex nature and fragility of these chemical pathways COULD NOT OCCUR in the warm little pond that Darwin dreamed up and that materialists love so much.
It sounds like Lee is assuming, like most materialists, that since there were elemental molecules early in the universe and there are complex molecules now the only acceptable explanation that fits the materialist world view is that they evolved through natural processes so therefore they evolved (gained complexity) through natural processes! There is actually not only absolutely no evidence of this but there is ample evidence against it. However it fits the materialist presupposition so it must be true.
There you go . . . using logic again . . .
At some point even God's will needs to turn into some material process. Most theists gloss over this and just say "God did it". Depending on your notion of when the big guy got involved with this whole shebang, you might even say that the God view concurs with the primordial soup.
@@pwharman
"even God's will needs to turn into some material process."
No it doesn't. You are simply imposing a materialist's viewpoint on God. God lives outside of time and space - of logical necessity because if He didn't, He could not BE God and be subject to the physical laws that HE CREATED.
God IS omnipotent, and absolutely HAS the power to create ab-initio, without any "help" from materialists. You can attempt to deny that as you wish, but what you imply defies logic.
@@philroe2363 I think you misunderstood me, or I mispoke. According to the bible, God created "the heavens and the Earth". If you are happy to stop there, and I believe Jim Tour is, then you must accept that life emerged and evolved naturally.
@@pwharman I am not quite certain I heard Dr. Tour say that he fully embraced evolution . . . nor did he say he rejected it either. From that perspective, one shouldn't draw conclusions as to what he believes or not.
James Tour,Man of wisdom & Knowledge.True Christian.👍
Aren jamir true delusionist. Sickening to be honest friend
First a Jew, then a Christian...I call that Religious hustler.
@@Raydensheraj
Nonsense...making claims without evidence...this man gives his story about his change by giving his Life to the Prophecied Risen Messiah Jesus...
@@kennym3492
Nonsense...
@@kennym3492
Dr. James Tour is in the Top 50 scientists in the world...so stop with the nonsense
Atheists - abiogenesis happened.
Tour - Show me how?
Atheists - (silence) ...to this day.
Cronin - we'll find out one day, have faith.
Where's the evidence god exists ?
@@lewis72 Creation, intelligence.
@@brokula1312
What creation ?
What intelligence ?
@@lewis72 You are a creation and intelligence. I see you so I conclude that your maker exists. I just cannot see that it came from nothing. I think that whenever I see any form of a design. From simple man made, like a hammer, house or a processor to Grand Designer Made - the universe.
@@brokula1312
" I see you so I conclude that your maker exists. I just cannot see that it came from nothing."
- Argument from incredulity.
Science isn't on your side.
Dr. Lee actually made a great case for intelligent design.
No he didn't. He rejects ID.....along with virtually every scientist on earth.
Yes, it certainly sounded like it.
@@kfgabriele9852 no, it didn't. Try LISTENING.
@@mcmanustony An all caps word?! Such an objective critique definitely means I’m wrong about Cronin explaining that information, especially complex information generated by an intelligent mind, is the hallmark of life. 🙄
@@kfgabriele9852 He rejects the pseudo science of ID. This is an objective fact. You are wrong.
It's all very easy: change the definition of life to what ever suits you.
Bingo!
@John Carboni Um, atheism is the antithesis of brainwashing.
@John Carboni Umm, I hate to tell you this but we are born faith-free. Atheism is the null proposition. It's actually a terrible term because it presupposes that there is a god that requires proving. People only believe in A god because they were taught that. Religion's glue is faith. Faith is the belief in something that can't be proven. Therefore atheism is not a fantasy in the same way zero is not a fantasy. I would think 2000 year old parables qualifies better as a fantasy. As far as Pascal's wager is concerned, I've made my bet. I'm happy.
John Carboni which designer was that? Allah? Brahman? Jesus?
John Carboni well then since it seems you think of yourself as “wise and very knowledgeable” can you please elaborate on how you know? Or......maybe......you don’t know?
the debate in two sentences:
Christian: Show me the evidence
Atheist: You are creating a narrative
Ignorant modern myths of the atheist fundies in full display above. Ironic, since it was the Christian Creationists who pioneered nearly all the fields of modern science including biology (later hijacked and inverted by the atheists) precisely because they were seeking to know the mind of the Creator through His creation. Nothing new, true Christianity has always had to contend with man made myths, idols and imitators.
@@AllOtherNamesUsed Now THAT is one insane comment !
OrthoChristos the Christian expects the atheist to fully demonstrate and understand the exact method that created life, it might never be fully understood. Saying a god or a magical creator made life happen is rather childish.
@@rodneysettle8106 is We come from a random, purpusless, unguided and unintelligent process a more mature idea Sir?
David Olivares yes, believing in a god or creator that doesn’t care to demonstrate to its most intelligent animals: ie. humans, that it exists unequivocally, so we know our purpose is silly and somewhat childish. You may completely disagree and that’s fine.
James Tour dropping scientific facts.
Lee Cronin: That's a narrative!
LOL
James Tour dropping pseudoscientific nonsense.
jwkivy anything Did you mean to say something? Try again.
Rosita So, you’re illiterate. Got it.
jwkivy Still nothing? Got it.
Rosita still illiterate? Still got it
Brilliant discussion! Thank you to Prem Unbelievable, Prof Lee Cronin and Prof James Tour!! This is how scientists should critique each others work to progress science and society!!!
James Tour didn't criticize anything, he just moved the goal post over and over to protect the bible.
@@YellowBrother That is the most ridiculous statement!! Dr James Tour is renown scientist who is asking some very important questions in the field of Origin of Life!! Any scientist worth his weight in gold would ask those questions as they are foundational questions to the problem we are trying to solve!!! At no stage did Dr James Tour even mention anything about the bible that is directly related to this discussion!!
@@someone6162 bullshit. Tour is a scam artist and a sham. He keeps moving thr goalpost to protect his bullshit belief system.
@@someone6162 James the idiot is asking questions, and refusing the mountains of research. He won't even read the answers to his questions which is overwhelming proof that A. He's an idiot shilling for the bible, and B. He is in absolute terms wrong and won't admit it. Religion is a scam.
@@YellowBrothercry more
Lee Cronin is so hell bent on proving there is no God, he can't be objective. Pretty funny to call him a true scientist.
@daniel letterman You managed to squirm the least intellectual answer so far.
Creating life in the lab will not disprove the existence of God.
No scientists are trying to prove that God doesn't exist. You are just being paranoid.
Yeah, that must be why he essentially said (at ~ 01:17:16) "...god could be the person who started the Big Bang" (referring to the Big Bang theory). Clearly trying to disprove god.
Just to be clear, I was being sarcastic.
a deranged atheist
@@chimpanzeethat3802 1. create it first 2. obvs many scientists are trying to prove no god
who is paranoid
The most fascinating part of this was Justin Brierly’s ability to manage a complicated and charged discussion that had the potential of leaving the rails.
This is my first time following an "Unbelievable" podcast. I was very impressed by the host.
He really does do an excellent job!
Lee Cronin: "I don't know if consciousness exists."
I just realised that there's no point of trying even to understand this fellow 🙃
You wrote a comment so you must exist. Are you not a conscious being? Are you denying your own existence?
@@Spectre-wd9dl It would be hard to determine that if we are just a clump of chemicals and dirt that natural forces randomly assembled into a biological entity.
@@MrLaughingcorpse , isnt that what the god of the gaps did in genesis?. . or was it just magic?
@@filthymcnasty7783 It was much more than that. He created life and consciousness as well. Clumps of chemicals assembled by nature wouldn't have life nor consciousness. No magic involved.
@@MrLaughingcorpse i cant help that you think MAGIC is real. . . if u ever get sum good evidence for your fairy, get back to me. u are selling an invisible house and i'm not buying it.
Cronin’s greatest quote:
“I don’t think consciousness exists.”
Jep. Cronin is also a bit too euphorical I think.
Comedy. Can’t wait to see how wrong he is in 10 years!
This is the root of wokism… this is why a Supreme Court judge who is a woman has no idea what a woman is. Think about this. Supreme Court judge - not kidding here. A judge who does not know how to define their own gender by definition is not qualified to judge anything as her basis of who she is is beyond her.
Wow Lee’s defense after stating he does not know how first life began is other field’s of science with just our current understanding which can change and has in the past. We know it happened because we trust these scientist in other fields of study. This is how we know ours is correct. /facepalm. I wished Lee could hear himself.
🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂💀🤦♂️
So, Lee has proven life has to be created. He said it himself.
@daniel letterman lmao. Sadly, sounds like an argument that an atheist might make.
Try to avoid arguments based on equivocations, it is a plague of the internet.
@Crazy Jesse Of course a star in not intelligent but the parameters involved for that stars existence via the laws of physics or the fine tuning of the heavens via the big bang which is a first cause problem or DESIGN can also applies to the first cell as a first cause problem. None of this is an accident. Photosynthesis is a designed process, system that can converts sun-lite into energy. No one would say that solar panels came about by accident. And a gradual process for life also is not possible since nothing that is partially made can exist no mater what level it is at. There is no halfway point or any point for photosynthesis, just like there is no halfway point for a cell, also at any point in the cells coming into existence, would not work unless it is in a completed form. Life coming out of a pool of chemicals of mud and ooze is absolutely ludicrous in saying life started by this process . You can not have chemicals coming together and produce life unless all of the chemical reactions needed for life to exist are separated to its individual chemical formula. This is so obvious. Therefore life would never come about by a pool of mud and ooze since the reactions would become played out or used up all at once. The most complex thing know to mankind, (THE HUMAN BRAIN) , could not have come from a pool of ooze or chemicals. That would be impossible. Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible
@Martyr4JesusTheChrist Thank you Marty4JesusThe Christ. Just so you know, I am a worshiper of Jesus Christ's father, ====Jehovah====== god , the most high god. Psalms 83:18 King James version 1611
@Martyr4JesusTheChrist I don't vote. It does not belong to man to even direct his steps. Jeremiah 10:23 Also Daniel 2:44 Shows god will set up his kingdom that will put an end to all the existing kingdoms here on earth. Revelation 19:15====Jesus will strike the nations with a sword. Matthew 6:10 let your kingdom come here on earth.
This Lee is rude and impolite and he's the master of nonsense.
Dr James is rational and polite.
and weak with his reasoning as well.
OMG you are showing your bias on your sleeve. Both were initially stressed that they were misunderstood. In the end Dr James understood Lee. Dr James was fearful that Lee was saying something like "its easy to make a racing car"... Eventually Dr James understood that lee was saying he was going to find the principle behind why round wheels work and would always naturally occur ... The remaining tension is only the difference in opinion of how quick we can get to racing cars from just proving we can make round wheels... Lee thinks there are engineering principles that make it a quicker step than we might think (evolution) but that was not the topic for debate. Dr James is not confident that round wheels leads eventually to racing cars. Both are respectable opinions. But kudos to Lee for taking a fresh approach when everyone else is just looking at racing cars and scratching their heads !
I was a bit disappointed that starting @ 1:18:45 Tour characterizes ID as an argument of the God of the gap. It seems to me that ID theory modestly posits that the more we learn of the complexities of life, for example, the more clearly our discoveries infer a designer.
@Dan C. I got that part in his explanation. But characterizing it as a God of the gap says, effectively, that ID is trying only to point out the current shortcomings in a narrowly naturalistic pursuit to discover the origin of life. But I don't believe that is at all what they are doing. They are saying firstly that the more science advances, the more Darwinism comes short. Secondly, the more science advances, the mire that it points to the reasonable conclusion of design. This isn't trying to fill a gap. It is pursuing the evidence. Filling the gap is indeed what Darwinism seems to be doing with its broad strokes trying to fill increasingly large gaps in their model of random selection through variation.
@@johnpatmos1722 Agreed
Hope you are released from the island soon my friend.
@@carljones8334 Ha! Yeah, sure enough! You're the first who got the name!
@@johnpatmos1722 A very famous name and a very famous island. Someone said you ought to grow up, so I referenced you to John the Elder.
@Lee Cronin: If you don't know what biology is why do we have to learn it in school? How do you teach something you don't know? Just asking...
Wow! Two guys that love what they do and are passionate about communicating their findings. I don't profess to understand a lot of what they're saying, but after hearing this discussion, I want to learn more. Thank you Justin.
heres what was said. "james your being mean. and your an idealog."
"james," show me any evidence at all....please"
@@johnnygonzales3267 Biggest straw man argument I’ve ever seen.
@@johnnygonzales3267Tour was presented with thousands of papers and research. He has read none of them because he HAS to Clucth pearls to defend the bible and young earth theory at all costs. James Tour is a pathetic excuse for a chemist.
@@johnnygonzales3267 you're*
@@MATT-qu7pl feel better now?
Oh wow!!! Jim Tour!!! Yay Justin👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Jim: Show me how please.
Lee @ 55:10: “That information, then becomes information.”
Jim hit the brakes because he wants to continue being a scientist rather than a mortician because he was about to bury this clown.
This might be a bit late. But as far as i understand from the cathalitic set you create information that is allowed to replicate itself. So in short information creating information.
You have the perfect voice for being a moderator.👍
Cronin is every bit, if not more so, wed to his own ideology that life DID arise from inorganic matter as Tour is to his that it (most likely) didn't. So it's disingenuous to accuse Tour of 'creating a narrative' when that's exactly what Cronin is doing.
By trying to claim that life is something other than a living cell, Cronin is just attempting to further his narrative. If he cedes the point that life begins at the cellular level it will much more difficult to justify his own presupposition. This is the kind of tactic politicians and lawyers use to obfuscate relatively simple issues. They weave together an alternative narrative which sounds plausible while simultaneously defaming the other person's narrative and where possible, impugning their intelligence.
We simply don't know how life began. Period. One can claim it arose by natural processes or that God did it, but that same person cannot explain how except by invoking other assertions such as, "By pure chance" or "By the power of his will." Non-theists can assert that life arose through purely chemical, naturalistic processes, but they have NO idea whatsoever how it happened. Theists can assert that some being spoke it into existence, but that, too, is just a claim.
This same sleight of hand thing happens in regard to evolution. More specifically, the 'neo-Darwinian synthesis' or 'modern synthesis' which says that Natural Selection acts on random mutations to preserve that which is beneficial for survival. We hear examples like how scientists use mutations in the flu virus to develop a vaccine against it the following year, and that is true. But then comes the HUGE leap of faith when we're told, "Add in a few hundred million years, and that's how all of the diversity of life on earth came to be."
What? Hold on there! You need to provide a list of ALL of the steps it would take to get from the first prokaryotic cell (abiogenisis) to human beings AND the amount of time each step would reasonably be expected to take via the modern synthesis of one small, incremental change at a time. It not only would require more time than the four billion or so years life has been on earth, it would require far more time than since the Big Bang.
That allows theists to chime in and say, "See! God really DID do it!" Um...no. That would have to be demonstrated. For that matter, so would the existence of such a being. Only then could that being be rationally invoked as the cause. But poking holes in the current paradigm doesn't prove that God did it. It only proves that their are serious problems with the paradigm which is why leading proponents of evolution met in London in 2014 at the Royal Society to discuss this growing problem. They want and need a new naturalistic explanation so that theists don't start saying, "Ha! You've been LYING to us since Darwin!" Again, not having the correct theory is NOT evidence of God.
For both sides, the only logical, reasonable answer (for now, anyway) is, "We don't know. Period." Everything else is just a claim. An assertion. And the plural of claims is NOT data.
In this 'debate', I give the win to Tour as he doesn't claim to know how life began and uses chemistry alone to back up his beliefs. Cronin desperately wants to defend the 'pre-biotic soup' narrative, and it's very sad to see him flailing around in order to make it work rather that admit he's just trying to take baby steps to solve the problem.
Okay. Hopefully, I've made everyone equally angry! If so, my work here is done as I have no dog in this fight. I just try and follow the evidence wherever it leads (or doesn't lead). I uh, I calls 'em like I sees 'em! :-)
Cal Peters I read many of the comments and did not write one myself because my thoughts had been well covered, other than I might give a little take on Lee’s claim to create life from a sandbox in 5 yrs. I might have had a shot at that ridiculousness.
However, I appreciated your cogent response and accurate summary. Of course , you are correct to say that with all of the steps that evolution would call for, 4 billion yrs is nowhere long enough. That is why Dawkins and Crick have begun to suppose life was seeded here from space. It is all nonsense in mans desperation to rid himself of God. I myself am a follower of Christ and a fan of true science. You would do well, Cal to Give The first book of Romans a good read. May God bless your endeavors
@Cal Peters What a well thought out response!
@@labrock20 Except that I've read the entire Bible five times and the New Testament an additional 15 times and memorized dozens of verses and even preached in church. So reading Romans--again--wouldn't add anything.
On that, the Bible is just another claim. One must provide proof, not only for the existence of God, but that the Bible is more than the words of human beings.
The Bible, in Exodus 21, tells Jews how to hold and treat slaves. Not just indentured servitude for fellow Jews but for the 'heathen' who become their property forever. They can be bought and sold and beaten as long as they don't die within a couple of days. That is immoral regardless of the time in which it occurred. God found time to condemn wearing mixed fabrics but couldn't say, "Thou shalt not own another human being." Really? And the New Testament does nothing to improve on that. (Philemon does not overturn biblical slavery.)
It is also scientifically inaccurate from Genesis 1 through the Flood. The Flood itself requires miracle after miracle to justify the initial miracle of the ark and gathering the animals. Also, we have civilizations older than the date of this alleged flood making it (the death of all living things save eight souls saved by water) impossible.
The age of the earth is around 4.6 billion years. That destroys the Garden of Eden story and man's fall from grace and therefore, the need for a savior. Without that, there's nothing left.
I could go into God's commands to kill every man, woman, child, and animal in numerous villages (or how in one case they save the women who have never been with man) but this is enough.
If you believe it, that's fine. I once did, too, but now I can see that I had bad reasons for doing so. There is no evidence whatsoever that the supernatural realm even exists, let alone that there's a being in it who transcends space and time. So until we can demonstrate such a realm exists and show how to investigate it, the only rational choice is to withhold belief until such proof arrives.
Personal stories and feelings aren't evidence, and they certainly aren't reasons to convince anyone else.
If you have actual proof in the form of evidence, not just claims and assertions, I'd love to hear it. Cheers!
The fact that GOD spoke it into existence is a supernatural event, it can't be explained with natural laws of physics. Me personally have witnessed the supernatural of GOD in the privacy of my home with my wife as witness. It is no longer just faith but is a fact the Alpha and Omega interacts within HIS creation. If you haven't experienced GOD personally does't negate the fact I have. We have in our bible "for the ones with eyes to see", you need to open yours. Romans 1 says the ccreation is sufficient for us to believe. In our age it is more abundantly clear with the multiplexity in the small. To remain in the rules of logic a superior mind caused it to happen. Nothing happens unless someone or something causes it to happen. It is illogical to believe nothingness made everything.
Yes, the fact they can't figure it out is a proof of a superior supernatural reason for everything. They will never have the mind of GOD.
@Cal Peters
Your not a believer in my creator aka Christian and if you had claimed to be one you were certainly a luke warm one at best. "You were never amongst us".
Proof is in the pudding, the FACT that most of the processes leading to a cell are greater than than 10 to the 184th power to have occured leadss even science considers a natural random chance for life impossible. James Turn is aware of the statistical impossiblity Lee is not or he purposely ignors the truth. Funding has that affect on people.
If it is impossible in the natural then the only alternative is the supernatural. As it is written HE did speak it into existence. A supernatural event can't be explained with the laws of physics in the natural. Lee stated the proof, if a paper was found with writing on it that would mean life. The writting is in 4 dimensions on the DNA code written on every cell that liveth. "I AM the truth and the life".
Don't fool yourself about Turn. He reads every WORD in his bible and believes every WORD read. This includes the 6 days of creation, the flood and "everything that is" was spoken into existence "in the begining.
Your atheist argument for no GOD is laughable. GOD didn't create slavery man did. The taking the spoil of women and children of a defeated nation is mercy of a merciful GOD. You not liking the way he did HIS job 3500 years ago doesn't erase GOD from existence. You think yourself wise and make youself a fool.
The young earth can be argued better then you can argue 4. 6 billion. Fairytales always begin with a long long time ago far far away. You just wish to believe the fairytales. Better men then you believed. Planck and Newtonas an example of two with a breath of fresh air in James Turn, a brilliant man and a devote believer.
Btw; Be thee warned, HE will spew you out of HIS mouth.
✝❤
An Origin of Life Researcher walks into a bar and says, 25:02 "The problem we have with life and the origin of life and definitions is that we don't actually know what life is - and that's a problem", Lee. Bartender - Time to get another job Lee!
Love the way he says that something will make itself. Yeah right, because if something doesn't exist it can't make itself. He's a man of great faith.
Nonsense! Chemical reactions in various conditions create things that never previously existed every second of every day.
Indeed, great faith. A bit ironic.
Does lightning ‘make itself’? We understand how lightning is made, but would you call that process ‘making itself’?
How about the sun? We understand how that was formed as well. So, did the sun ‘make itself’?
@@AsixA6 no, nothing creates itself. Pretty basic.
@@dannymccarty344 Then in the same way lightning doesn’t ’make itself’, Lee is not saying that natural abiogenesis is life ‘making itself’.
Why is anyone bringing Jim Tour into a debate on Abiogenesis when he is the most corrupt scientist (and least qualified scientist) on this topic. He is a creationist who resorts Jesus, no mater how much he denies it. This doesn’t take away from the fact that he is a very intelligent man, but he’s not someone to bring into a debate on this topic.
Cronin literally is saying that if he found a piece of paper with information on it he would know somewhere life must have existed to put the information on the paper . If that isn’t the most succinct definition of intelligent design , then I don’t know what is .
And better still , he still could not explain how that information got on the paper other than through some intelligent agency . Cronin debunked himself in one minute .
And why is Cronin dodging the standard understating of biological life ? It’s not just about replicating patterns or shapes . Cronin is describing “Shannon “ information and saying if he can detect this type of information it is the hallmark of life . But living organisms contain “specified functional “ information like dna which is in fact the hallmark of life . Cronin is trying to redefine life to win a prize whilst not creating life at all !!
Pro Baller The Watchmaker argument?!? seriously?
DNA...the Hallmark of life...with here and there some bad mutations that cause serious issues, thank you Jesus. Our doctors need Jobs for the babies born with horrible genetically caused diseases...
It's a "miracle".
@@Raydensheraj There is no example *anywhere* in the history of the universe where complex informational instructions comes from anything other than intelligence.
That's a fact of observation from what we all know and accept. One must give a more reasonable alternative to the fact of said information if you deny an intelligent source.
Otherwise you are being prejucially biased, eliminating other explanations on the basis of bias before even beginning to investigate. And any statement not addressing the fifth level of information known as apobetics in Life is pointless. Agreed? Good👍
Pro Baller
Cronin is creating a procedure for NASA that tests for life. This was the context for his "paper" comment that you took out of context. Also, there is no "General Theory" for what constitutes "Biological Life". Re watch from here (39:25) before you write dribble like "Cronin is trying to redefine life to win a prize whilst not creating life at all !!".
Edit 88 review from 23:38 tour gives a textbook definition of the characteristics of life . Tour makes the point that information itself is not life . And he gives the analogy of writing on paper . Neither paper or writing are alive .
Lee said that the information on the paper was as much alive as Tour . But then contradicts himself by saying essentially that the paper with writing in it was not itself alive according to tours definition but , it would be evidence of life . He then said if tour put the writing on the paper and if Lee found that piece of paper on another planet and he could discount it from background entropy then he would know this was evidence of life .
Question : how would Lee make that determination without first recognising that
1. what was on the paper was in fact writing
2. consisting of letters pertaining to some form of system like an alphabet ?
3. And not just letters of an alphabet but writing consisting of words ?
How does lee recognise this as “information “ that is different to the “information” his grain of sand experiment depicts . Because one is clearly evidence of life . The other is not .
I did not take his comment out of context and if I did then I apologise but the guy talks in so many riddles it’s almost impossible not to .
While thinking himself wise, Lee Cronin, makes himself out to be a fool.
I lost respect for lee. Just nonsense arguments. Jim isnt making a narrative. He is simply stating a fact that your article was full bs and asked for evidence. Then Lee admitted he dont know what he is talking about and still isnt sure if he ever will.
@Crazy Jesse sounds like you cant comprehend.
@Crazy Jesse thats what i said, you cant.
Well @Crazy Jesse , since you are "not naive," why don't you tell us all how life started on earth because Lee never did.
We'll just wait right here and listen intently . . . .
tbo i dont lost respect for lee because i didnt know him at all 😁
@Crazy Jesse LOL!!!! you have just demonstrated your asinine stupidity by refusing to answer to what you claim is true.
You should just go troll somewhere that people actually care about morons. People here care about real scientific information . . . not a blowhard puke like you.
At 1:04:30 Lee Cronin portrays his complex lab work, using various specified combinations of chemical and molecular structures, as "like a nursemaid..." that will hopefully someday put together just the right combination of molecular structures that will appear to exhibit some of the characteristics of a living organism.
Does anyone else wonder if he's actually oblivious to his own intelligent input?
At 1:11:30 he asserts that he 'doesn't think consciousness exists...' either, which for a scientist is a statement that doesn't just “shoot itself in the foot” ... it actually “shoots itself in the brain”. Someone with a minor in philosophy might want to explain this to Lee someday.
He is definitely hard to follow here but his remark about consciousness is not a new one. And he's not alone. The brain is always responding (thinking/emoting) to stimuli. Combined with our near real time non-linear access to "all" our memories, we experience something we consider to be more profound than some would say it is. Unfortunately he made his comment and quickly moved on. It definitely came off as ridiculous. So did a few other of his comments...
The point of this whole discussion for Jim was simply to show that the top scientist still don’t know how life could begin naturally, he is not saying that it couldn’t, only that it’s wrong to project as scientific that it did without the science to back it up, it’s still a mystery and until we unravel that mystery, let’s all not delude ourselves by thinking we know.
Well done Jim
How could it have begun naturally when you see direction + organization and information that used at microscopic level or even and chimerical elements to construct any thing? There is no random spontaneous without purpose creation... Of course they have not found - because it doesn't exist... The more we know about how smallest things in universe behave the more complex it becomes, so much complex that human mind cannot fathom it. You either acknowledging this or you are still trying to fit universe and how it works into your mental box - and for many people this dream box of how they wish universe is to be "natural unguided unintelligent random" Well... Universe NEVER will work how wish it to be. Its pure fantasy that one day some one will find out magic way universe to be "natural" when at chemical level and even sub atomic level it already behaves otherwise... Basically its the same with flat earthers - I see the evidence but nop I'm gonna still look for flat earth evidence and in this case for natural selection, some magical random process and so on and on insanity goes on... Materialism as a ideology is dead. But Im always enjoying see people come up with the "next" evidence and year after year its been debunked by science itself.
That's an euphemism, they aren't only saying a-biogenesis is a fact, they are saying that they know how it will happen and soon reproduce it in a lab.
@@JessicaSunlight how is supernatural an explanation of any kind?
@@uninspired3583 Supernatural is simply lack of knowledge of natural. Look in the past and see how many things were considered supernatural - today its natural and known.
Perhaps you should be asking why Christians are so willing to delude themselves into thinking that they know? It’s pretty pointless to have a scientific debate with Christians which is why most scientists won’t waste their time with this guy
I have not made life in my lab, but I will. Omy that was humble
Well you have to see where he is coming from and where others come from. "Life" is overburdened with emotion and meaning. But if you take a rational look at life it is just a consequence of natural processes. Just because humans made it mystical and raised it up in the air cause they are alive and want to be up there does not mean that this view is realistic.
@@VirtuelleWeltenMitKhan "If you take a rational look at life, it is just a consequence of natural processes." Since you've come to a conclusion that it's a natural process, can you explain how you "rationally" came to that conclusion?
@@VirtuelleWeltenMitKhan Maybe Cronin can learn a thing or two from you, genius?
As an Atheist, this is my favorite Christian channel. I really appreciate the thoughtful banter.
It is now time to introduce basic bio-chemistry in all schools. Why? It is the key to advance medicine, rid nonsense ideas such as Lee espoused. What is life??? what is Dna information? All life is protein. This we know. Every cell is protein, even their membranes. This we know. To make a protein there are 4 fundamentals, DNA, 3 RNAs (or 4) and ribosomes. and energy producing ATP synthase. Any missing, no protein, no life. They all must be present. THIS IS NOT JUST "NARRATIVES". This is basic micro biology. I imagine his fellow OOL colleages would be cringing.
Psm 36:9 "With YOU is the source of life" , No amount of obfuscation can escape it.
@@ralphgoreham3516, I concur. How we define life is important in our education systems. There wouldn't be as much confusion, if all children were taught the basic building blocks, and how they interact.
I love History, and Science wasn't my best subject. From History, I can attest that as our Science has gotten better, our understanding of the Universe has improved. We will never know everything, yet pursuing knowledge, and building upon our ancestors is how humans have survived.
Certainly, bad ideas deserve ridicule.
@@ralphgoreham3516, how do you know that the Elohim are the source of life?
@@rustlingbushes7678 You should know "Elohim", God (is singular, not plural). Always has singular pronouns, verbs and adjectives. Other forms are El and Eloha. All equal God. Elohim per se is plural to convey excellence and majesty. Why do I agree with the psalmist.? I would need many pages in this forum to add to my first comment above. Here are a few more impossibilities for evo. It is now agreed there are 15 million life forms on the planet and even we accept it is 540 million years since the cambrian period when multicellular creatures exploded on to the scene, (about 26) how many beneficial mutations would be needed to build all 15 million in that time. Despite the many scientific assuming/ protesting that goes on, NONE have been found that ADD TO DNA info.. I mean we have 3 billion base pairs of E.T C.and G, CODED info. The blue whale is 100 yards long, the elephants trunk has no bones . The point, You would need trillions of years, not millions of years. (I leave out bacteria that is claimed to be 3 and a half billion years old and BTW why did evo take 3 billion years to go multicelled.? Our DNA has 5 repair mechanisns!. What copying errors came up with such to get rid of copying errors ? ?? Neo Darwinism has not been discarded as Dennis Noble and many others since Lyn Margelus thought it should be. But it will stay because there is nothing else materialistic to account for the structure of cells, skin, tissues, ligaments, tendons, bones, blood, brains, etc in those 15 million types of life. The ID community deserve real credit for their work, honesty and courage in the face of "scientific" opposition. So "Dapper" perhaps you should look at some Utube videos such as "how are proteins Made?, How does ATP work"? and "Work horses of the cell". If you do, ask yourself in all honesty, could blind chance, Father Time and copying errors construct such ? Untill I studied basic bio Chemistry i thought it possible. Now I say it is IMPOSSIBLE. ok?
I'm still waiting for Cronin proofs...and is almost end of debate...😁
I love the fact that religious people are motivating others to push even further.
In a sense Tour is one little part of understanding the origins of life. Beautiful.
Just unbelievable how Lee contradicts himself.
@Alchemist An Origin of Life researcher walks into a pub and says "In fact I don't actually care what happened at the origin of life." Time to get another job! Lee's life is a contradiction.
@Alchemist Word for Word that is his comment.
@Alchemist 53:00 He finally accepted it's clueless that's why he is doing experiments. Compare this with what said from the beggining of debate...😂😂😂
@@PicoGirl And why did he say he "didnt care what happened at the origin of life"? Science infact doesnt care what the answer is. He is correct when saying this. Science follow the evidence where ever it leads, and science is unbiased, careless of what the conclusion is. Can you say the same about the religious?
Science: Trying to find the truth about the origin of life.
Religion: Hellbendt on discrediting and hoping for science to fail.
Allthough i dont mind, scrutiny towards scientific work. Its allways good to be sceptic. But the religious are allways trying to find fill in the blanks with the god they so desperatelly are trying to prove.
Science works opposite of this. Science doesnt have a conclusion set before they look at the evidence. The conclusion comes at the end of the work, not before the work is done like religions do. "God did it, and here is the evidence" vs "Lets see where the evidence leads us"
But when your poor arguments dont work, i guess you are left with attacking someones character, claim contradictions when you fail to back your poor claims up, and making childish jokes, not actually adressing anything, or even understanding the debate at all.
@Alchemist Says information does not have to be the product of life. Later states that if he found information in the form of a piece of paper on another planet, it could only be the result of life.
Contradiction.
How does he not know if life really exists?
Beats me too. Don't know where he gets his Salami from
What I come away with is: If I am allowed to redefine what life is, I will make it in my lab.
@Crazy Jesse A simple definition was given by James in the early stages of the debate.
@Crazy Jesse Start with oxygen exchange, but just to illustrate how mixed up people are CJ, JC is the way, the truth and the life.
Bulls eye!
Dodgy Lee ! he he he
Yep
@Martyr4JesusTheChrist YOU are an example of "life from non-life". There is not a single atom nor molecule in your entire body that is alive, yet, you are alive.
Noone has ever made carbohydrates, proteins, nucleic acids or lipids in a laboratory without purchasing the substrates first. If you if you do t have these four things you don't have life.
loved this. Jim Tour excellent. I don't usually listen to the entire debates on unbelievable but this was worthwhile. The arguments are not semantic James Tour and Lee Cronin have fundamental different arguments but both respectfully put their arguments forward.
Could you briefly summarize Tour's positive scientific argument for the origin of life?
Dr. Tour is spot on in pointing out something that's never mentioned by abiogenetic researchers in their synthesizing experiments... Purification. At various points chemical reactions must be halted through purification. Otherwise those chemical processes will continue until they've destroyed the very molecules that were targeted. There is no known natural mechanism for achieving this process nor has there been one even postulated.
"At various points chemical reactions must be halted through purification"
-- What about through there being less of one reactant than the other? Aren't you assuming a perfectly equal amount, so there's nothing left afterwards?
_ At various points chemical reactions must be halted through purification_
That's just so the chemistry cna be controlled and examined - this is a bizarre objection.
@@teddansonLA Nothing bizarre about it at all. That's Tour's whole point. In lab synthesis every reaction must be tightly controlled. There's a goal and a step-by-step process to achieve that goal. At every step the reaction must be halted before proceeding to the next step, otherwise the reaction will continue past the targeted molecule's viability, destroying it and the entire experiment. Prebiotic chemicals have no goals because they have no mind... only random reactions. Therefore, even if a viable molecule was happened upon by chance, without a mechanism to halt the reaction it would continue past the point of viability. Thus far no mechanism for halting and restarting this process has even been postulated. Do you get it now or is it still zooming past you too quickly to grasp? It's very telling that you had to have this spelled out for you.
@@allensmith342 _At every step the reaction must be halted before proceeding to the next step_
That's not true. That's a caricature.
_It's very telling that you had to have this spelled out for you_
Its more telling that what you spelled out is merely an objection to doing experiments.
_Prebiotic chemicals have no goals because they have no mind_
Life has no "goal" - it's just very complicated chemistry.
@@teddansonLA Whooooosh! Hear that, Teddy? That's the sound of simple logic whizzing past your left ear.... If you hurry you can catch it.
*"That's not true."*
Sorry to disillusion you but it's true.
*"Its more telling that what you spelled out is merely an objection to doing experiments."*
Huh?? WTF are you even talking about? No one is objecting to laboratory experiments. If it's ever possible to synthesize life at all it'll be done in a lab because the chances of it being a naturalistic occurrence are statistically impossible... Whooooosh!
*"Life has no "goal" - it's just very complicated chemistry."*
Congratulations, Einstein. That's precisely the point. Are you finally able to see it or is the fog still a bit too thick? Scientists have specific goals--random chemical reactions do not. Reread my previous comment. Keep rereading it. Ponder it. Meditate. Sleep on it. Pray over it. Enroll in a good high school-level organic chemistry class. With a little diligence and lots of luck you too, can achieve understanding.
I am amazed how so much effort is put into something, and that we don’t seem to be able to get a slight foothold of, with all these highly educated people working together over hundreds of years, just to prove the absurd notion that “somehow” it created itself on a barren rock from nothing, grew a brain and explored the universe.
But the fact that in the entire history of forever, nobody was able to demonstrate a correlation between the supernatural and reality, is not giving you a hint whatsoever?
@@derhafi link is there but you have to look harder. Of course, if you choose to close your eyes, it's hard to see
@@Alohasnackbar88 If it's there, just point me to it.... I can do that with literally all things I regard as real. You should ask yourself why you can't.
Just because a myth is appealing to you, does not mean it's real. I'm not closing my eyes before anything, I'm jut not making thi gs up.... Or like you, believe in thi gs somebody else made up.
I love how people who believe in evolution and the scientific view of origin of life are called crazy for believing life formed from chemical reactions. Yet, believing some supernatural being created the entire universe in 7 days and went on to have other people write a book about it is perfectly reasonable. How that makes sense to anyone is beyond comprehension.
@@derhafi "nobody was able to demonstrate a correlation between the supernatural and reality"
Eh?
Supernatural? What is that vampires and werewolves ?
Thank you Dr. Tour. A man will walk straight into hell with conviction than to bow his head.
How did you conclude that "hell" exists?
How do you conclude it doesn't exist?
@@drummersagainstitk With hell, it is the same as it is with all other supposingly supernatural things...I have no reason to believe they do exists due to the lack of evidence that would sustain the claim that they do.
Basically, I don't believe in hell for the same reasons you don't believe in elves, goblins and unicorns. They have no demonstrable correaltion with reality whatsoever.
NOw that I answered your question: How did you conclude that "hell" exists?
@@derhafi Hell exists right here on Earth right now in temporal reality. Those like you who don't believe it are the ones who created it, defend it and then deny it. Move on Gen Z
@@drummersagainstitk "Hell exists right here on Earth right now in temporal reality" Does it have an adress...can you point me to it....Sorry but just because you believe it, does not make it true.
Hell, like goblins, only exists in the mind of those who believe in it.
"I don't even know if life really exist.. " - Lee
Is this really a scientist?
it's a delusional propagandist imo.
It seems to me that Jim has a more rigorous devotion to stepwise understanding of processes, whereas Lee is more general. Lee believes that it is permissive to have narrative to interpolate between unknowns. In other words, you have a chain of events that are moving towards a larger goal and Lee is okay with the general narrative to help explain gaps. Tour seems to think that these gaps are too large to meaningfully be described by a narrative. The resolution, or height from which they like to discuss the facts is so different that it makes it difficult for them to meaningfully speak to each other. What I attribute this to is different personality types. Tour is focused on the particulars whereas Lee is focused on the principals. But I think Jim, understands the difficulty origin of life researchers face because of this focus.
Isn’t James Tour not even in the relevant fields - he also has a religious agenda/mind set which affects his opinion.
@@sumo1203 tour is very religious. His objection has nothing to do with his religious beliefs. At least not that I can tell. I don't think he has anything against a naturalistic explanation or evolution. I think he's upset by the fact that people are taking too large of steps without demonstrating how those steps occur. He understands the difficulty.
@@levipack3835 fair enough, but he’s speaking on a field in which he’s admittedly not an expert vs Lee who literally heads a lab doing origin of life research. I’m not saying he doesn’t raise valid points, but I do feel, and have seen evidence of, a few his misunderstandings/mischaracterizations (intentional or otherwise)
@@levipack3835 I would add, I think your description is correct - how James tends to be more stepwise. But perhaps he’s nitpicking over steps that are somewhat immaterial - like the first point about basic chemistry and molecules from a “primordial soup” to simple cells. Like, something happened - we see life emerging in the fossil record, and we know how planets accrete and the molecules/elements that could have been present. It’s not that big of narrative gap, especially speaking in laymen’s terms to a radio host - to make that connection. But James took him to task on it.
@@sumo1203 I agree. James seems wholly focused on very minute steps. Personally, I typically believe that narrative is better. We may not know every step, but an overall narrative process I feel is typically better to explaining things than getting caught up in the steps.
When we have a discussion about the origins of life where one person claims to be an atheist arguing from a purely scientific standpoint and the other person is a christian but uses the dialogue to engage in his scientific knowledge keeping his beliefs separate from the debate there can be a greater opportunity to get closer to the Truth. For me the most important reality is to accept the possibility of there being a spiritual dimension to the origin of life.. For me the powerful statement made by Jesus Christ; " I Am the Way, the Truth and THE LIFE answers the question about the origin of Life. Thank you and bless you Prof. James Jim Tour For I know that you Love The Lord. Bless you also Prof Lee Cronin for you are helping to bring out the truth of the origins of life by working within the limits of your scientific knowledge.
exactly.
It's funny how Jim was the only one who was asked about how his worldview--being a Christian--affects his work, and Lee wasn't asked how being an atheist affected his.
Because atheism (non belief) is not a faith, it is just blank, not believing.
@@kemicalhazard8770 You have to have incredible blind faith to believe that something came from nothing. A big bang - all from nothing. With no proof or demonstratable evidence of procesess. Repetition and reproducibility are required for something to be considered scientific. Evolution theory is not exempt. Even the atheistic philosopher Michael Ruse admits, “evolution is a form of religion” Both creationist and evolutionists have the same information just different interpretation of the same information presented. I love the civility of interactions between these two men.
@@Ebonygazelle Do all atheists believe that something came from nothing? No.
Stop assuming all atheists are identical.
@@kemicalhazard8770This is a popular view stemming from Antony Flew but it is patently false. Simply having a non-belief is agnosticism - literally 'without knowledge". If someone is a true atheist they take the positive position that there is no God - a view which is as open to scrutiny, and which affects how one engages the world, as much as any other.
That is not the real, actual definition atheism, but if you want to claim all atheists are what you would call "hard atheists" (actively claim there is no god) go ahead, but it's simply not true. The average atheist is simply not a beliver, while the average agnostic is not yet convinced of either position, but defined more rigorously as someone who does not think creator/god is knowable in the first place. I think you should learn the different forms of agnosticism/atheism before going "this is my definition and it's true of every single atheist in the world", overgeneralisation serves no one@@Freethinkingtheist77