@@bretttheroux8040 He is talking about decomposition and he leaves out that new stuff is generated all the time. He is implying that there is one chance and one chance only. Time is the "enemy" as he said. That is a lie and he knows it. Only thing here is, why? Why does he do it? What is his intention? The beginning of life is not clear as of now. We don't know and it is okay to say so. That we don't know means that there is NO explanation that could be tested. I know that religious people see a "oh it could be god" but the evidence for that is even less compelling. My opinion about this is: Religion is sooo much more than disregarding science. Religion should not care about the first cell and biology and evolution at all that stuff. It does not really matter, does it? Why fight about the beginning of life? Even if we could explain the beginning of life with chemistry only, so what? Does that disprove god? No, you can't disprove god. Does it prove god? No. If you can't show how life started with chemistry does that prove god? No, not at all. The whole discussion it pointless. There is no knowledge to find here.
@@hecticnarcoleptic3160 If you are right, tell me at least one reason. If you can't do that, you're just a poor liar being fooled by the lie you made up.
Tour talks over the heads of the church goers so they can feel smart listening to him. But he uses technical language meant only for communication between professionals in the field. So nobody's understanding anything. They're all just glad to have somebody who sounds smart saying the things they believe.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. thank you for sharing!
Wow basically I just accepted Darwinian evolution re Dawkins. More or less atheist. Dr Tour in his talks is the first person who has made me seriously question it..
The only reason Tour participates in this crusade against evolution and abiogenesis is his adherence to this atavistic mytology aka christianity. Ever so called “alternative” to natural causes for the life we see today relies on the existence and interference of some ill-defined metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science. In other words….the don’t qualify as real. Your so called “alternative” are a fantasy based on a fallaciouse assumtion, nothing more. Tour is a liar.
@@derhafi What he has said is that science and religious belief are entirely separate and one cannot be used to reinforce the other. I am not religious so that is enough for me. What I did not realise was the enormous gaps in our knowledge which the evolutionary explanations skate over.
@@tincoffin Take the "gaps" Tour isd talking about and look up some actual evolutionary biologist and see what they have to say about them. Tour is exaggerating, making things up, misrepresenting the work of others and so on...all in service of his atvistic belief. Sure we don't know everything about it.....but Tour is not the one who give you an actual map of what we know and what we do not know...let alone an explantion. This man believes every word in the Bible. and admittingly, for him: "faith and belief go beyond scientific evidence "
@@derhafi I am just sceptical . I think he has put forward a good case whatever he believes. . This desire to frame it in religious terms is a very American response and not one shared by the rest of the english-speaking world.
@@billbogg3857 "I think he has put forward a good case whatever he believes" Really...every point he raises in his 13 part rant about Abiogenesis, falls demonstrably in one of the three following categories: - A misrepresentation by quote mining, confirmed by the researchers who got treated in this dishonest manner by Tour -Irrelevant to the subject -A blunt lie. You can see his rant point by point dismantled here: ruclips.net/video/ghJGnMwRHCs/видео.html During this 2.5 hours absolutely every single talking point of his are deconstructed in a strictly scientific context and the attached links to the papers that confirm each and every point Farina makes. "This desire to frame it in religious terms is a very American response" This is the response one gets when he lies about science in order to propell his religiouse delusions. I'm not from the "english-speaking world"
We are often told that the world is a delicate balance, crafted with precision by a loving and intelligent creator. Yet, what we observe is a chaotic, unforgiving, and often arbitrary reality that aligns with the randomness of evolution. Why the existence of childhood cancer, parasitic organisms that thrive on suffering, or natural disasters that indiscriminately destroy lives? These are not the hallmarks of a compassionate designer but the erratic outcomes of an unguided evolutionary process. To attribute such phenomena to divine will is to make a mockery of the very concept of love and justice. It's akin to praising the symmetry of a shattered mirror or the melody of a cacophonous noise. This grim reality demands not blind faith but a critical examination of the world as it truly is, not as we wish it to be. The search for purpose and meaning must start from an honest acknowledgement of the chaos and cruelty inherent in our existence, not from the comforting but empty promises of divine benevolence. If we were to consider the universe as the handiwork of a divine programmer, then we must admit that the code is riddled with bugs, inefficiencies, and outright failures. Why so much empty space, redundant information, or senseless suffering? What about the countless extinction events, genetic diseases, and a chaotic cosmos that seems anything but intelligently designed? The user experience, if we may call it that, ranges from inexplicable beauty to unimaginable horror. Such an erratic programmer would be laughed out of any development team for their incompetence and lack of vision. Is this really the mastermind we're expected to worship?
@@shuabshungne8043 it is a quote from the bible.... it expresses a truth that is mentioned hundreds of times in the old and new testament... In plain words.. God says over and over... i am telling the truth, my word is the truth.... and if you don't agree with me... you are wrong.
@@suburbanrapper ... "and if you don't agree with me you are wrong (and I'm, gonna force you or kill you" - this is exactly the reason why Christians and Muslims of the Abrahamic religions have killed so many humans and have destroyed many cultures. White people and their corporators are extremely ignorant and arrogant.
A person does Not need to have a Phd (or even an undergraduate degree) to question the validity of the Abiogenesis Hypothesis, or any hypothesis. As long as people have an understanding of basic scientific principles, common sense, and open mindedness to seek the truth, they can come to a more accurate conclusion for themselves. Basic Science 101: Wikipedia 2021, *_“A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the SCIENTIFIC METHOD requires that one can TEST IT … Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is NOT the same as a scientific theory.”_* Hypothesis is also referred to as a Hypothetical or Educated GUESS. Wikipedia 2021, *_"In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process ARE STILL UNKNOWN, the prevailing scientific HYPOTHESIS is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event [i.e. spontaneous generation]... There are several principles and HYPOTHESES for how abiogenesis COULD HAVE occurred."_* One of the reasons that abiogensis is merely a "hypothesis" and has not advanced to the status of being a "scientific theory", is that abiogenesis hypotheses still lack the experimental data required by the scientific method. Abiogenesis Hypothesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times.
During a 2015 televised panel discussion, Dr. Richard Dawkins (One of the World's Top Darwinian Evolutionary Scientists) admitted, *_“The Origin of Life is something we don’t know anything about. And we want to know something about it. And I would love to know how life actually got started.”_* (Source: Real Time with Bill Maher, Overtime, October 2, 2015, HBO)
Abiogenesis Hypothesis may be seen as a modern derivative of the Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis (i.e. life arising from non-living matter), one of the main differences being the supposed timeframes of each experimentally unproven process. Generally, the Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis speculated that living organisms “spontaneously” (i.e. within a relatively short period of time) emerged from non-living matter. And, Abiogenesis hypothesizes that undirected random natural processes caused molecules to form into biological life by random chance over the span of millions / billions of years. Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis was believed to be ‘fact’ for almost 2000 years, until it was scientifically disproved by experiments from such scientists as Louis Pasteur in the 1800's. From Wikipedia 2021, "In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process ARE STILL UNKNOWN, the prevailing scientific HYPOTHESIS is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event ... There are several principles and HYPOTHESES for how abiogenesis COULD HAVE occurred." If abiogenesis (and macro-evolution) was a real natural process, nothing should be preventing the abiogenesis (and macro-evolution) of completely novel species, at some stage of formation, from still happening today. However, to date, abiogenesis (and macro-evolution) has NOT been observed in nature. Only biogenesis (and micro-evolution) has been observed in nature. One of the reasons that abiogensis is merely a "hypothesis" and has not advanced to the status of being a "scientific theory", is that abiogenesis hypotheses still lack the experimental data required by the scientific method. Abiogenesis Hypothesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times.
*_“When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”_* (Charles Darwin, 1800’s Evolution Theorist, in his letter to G. Bentham May 22, 1863)
The thing: We don't know. Science does not explain it and no human on earth knows. The problem is: Religious people hear "oh it was god in the end". And that is wrong too. It is misleading them. So YES, we do not know. We don't even know if a higher being was involved. We have no hint at all that a god was involved.
See Professor Dave's _Response to James Tour Parts 1 and 2_ in which real scientists and Nobel Laureates working in Origin of Life studies respond to James Tour.
@@jeremynolan852 You seem to be Tours dream audience, scientifically illiterate and drenched in confirmation bias. Tour is a demonstrably liar beyond every doubt.
PENDAGO replied: "He is a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Materials Science and Nanoengineering, and Professor of Computer Science at Rice University in Houston, Texas. How can he not be a real scientist?"
Is that why he's debunked so hard that Christians laugh at him? Is your persectuion-fetish that you Christians famously have acting-up again or what? is Christianity now EVEN persecuted BY CHRISTIANITY????
DNA code can be equated to a type of computer language. DNA code is more complex than regular computer language in that it is not binary (based on 0 and 1). It is quaternary (based on A T C G). And, as with every known language in existence, confirmed through scientific experiment and observation, is the product of only one thing ... mind/ consciouness /intelligence. ... _"The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an INFORMATION SCIENCE. Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science: its DIGITAL nature and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. DNA has two types of DIGITAL INFORMATION - the genes that ENCODE proteins, which are the MOLECULAR MACHINES of life, and the GENE REGULATORY NETWORKS that specify the behaviour of the genes."_ (Source: Nature Journal, Nature com) _"Language: ALL DIGITAL communications require a formal language, which in this context consists of all the information that the sender and receiver of the digital communication must both possess, in advance, in order for the communication to be successful."_ (Wikipedia: Digital Data) *”The instructions in a gene that tell the cell how to make a specific protein. A, C, G, and T are the "letters" of the DNA code; they stand for the chemicals adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T), respectively, that make up the nucleotide bases of DNA. Each gene's code combines the four chemicals in various ways to spell out three-letter "words" that specify which amino acid is needed at every step in making a protein.”* ( “Genetic Code - National Human Genome Research Institute” Genome . gov) *_”Genetic code is the term we use for the way that the four bases of DNA--the A, C, G, and Ts--are strung together in a way that the cellular machinery, the ribosome, can read them and turn them into a protein. In the genetic code, each three nucleotides in a row count as a triplet and code for a single amino acid. So each sequence of three codes for an amino acid. And proteins are made up of sometimes hundreds of amino acids. So the code that would make one protein could have hundreds, sometimes even thousands, of triplets contained in it.”_* (Lawrence C. Brody, Ph.D., Genome dot gov) Modern scientific discoveries in Genetics (i.e. biology) have shown that functional / coded / digital Information (i.e. DNA code) is at the core of ALL Biological Systems. Without functional / coded / digital information, there is NO biology. The only known source (i.e. cause) in the universe that has been Observed in nature to be capable of producing functional / coded / digital information, such as that found even in the most primitive biological systems, is mind / consciousness / intelligence.
There are currently no known examples, in nature or science, where one life form will convert to a different life form (i.e. different body plan) by change in the DNA. Current understanding in the field of genetics seems to indicate that varying body plans (for example, the difference between an octopus and praying mantis) do not reside within the DNA. Genes within the DNA of a particular organism code for the different proteins required to build and allow that particular organism to function.
The “World’s Most Notorious Atheist” and Icon Champion Advocate for Atheism for over 50 years, Antony Flew, finally concluded, *_“I now believe there is a God...I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.”_*
During an interview with Ben Stein, when asked about the origin of life (OoL), Dr. Richard Dawkins admitted that *_"we don't know [how life on earth started]."_* (Source: 'Expelled' DocuFilm, Dr. Richard Dawkins, One of World’s Top Darwinian Evolutionary Scientists, 2008).
for starters, god of the gaps needs not to be connected to christian god (or any god), it is a figure of speech implicating that if we do not have any good scientific explanation, there is always some supernatural one, so not necessarily a theological one. although what has to be said, originally nietzsche meant christian god to be the god of the gaps, but it became lexicalised in a more general meaning. obviously, even well-educated and established scientists do misunderstand pre-biotic and early biotic evolution; they are so obsessed with the current appearance and mechanism of cells. origin of life does not require the first living thing to be any similar to current cells, it has to fulfil certain criteria to be living (self-replication, homeostasis and suchs), but the means could be different (and they could evolve ;). not being able to make an artificial life today does not mean we cannot understand basically the thing. maxwell had in 1860' no clue about electromagnetic radiation, photons or electrons and still, he was able to describe classic electromagnetism. and oh, gods below, a try to shock viewers with extra large numbers... and he definitely does not understand the argument of what it means "enough time for abiogenesis to happen". james tour might be an excellent chemist in his field, but he shows the symptoms of so-called "fachidiocy" (sounds invective but no offence meant), not being able to see the bigger picture beyond his expertise. and it is sad listening to him as he embarrasses himself by being so self-indulged in his misunderstanding of the stuff. i feel sorry for him.
I think the orthodoxy in the "natural and undirected origins" denominations would say that "deep time" is still the hero. Rather than having some of these building block molecules sitting around in the same puddle for eons, ready all the while for other building block molecules to show up at random, they'd say that the big lottery was won by rolling the dice 100 trillion times or some such, and then having everything come together all at once by chance. "Long odds?" they'll say, "No problem; roll the proverbial dice enough times and the unlikely becomes likely, even inevitable." That's the argument, and the mind, even the very logical mind, which swims in the ignorance of the ever-repeated lie, inoculated against the Scriptures by a whole program of deception and distraction lasting for millennia, and steeped in a theatrical, cinematic narrative that's captured the imagination since early childhood, will believe it in practically every case. We "know" these things, we can feel them, we're familiar with them, there are generations of story-telling behind them, we learned them in school, they "make sense" from a certain point of view that is extremely attractive, exciting and even inspiring! And here you you are trying to tear down the beautiful and exciting narrative. You mean old meanie, you! Heretic! Either way, I don't think you'll ever be able to convince the true believers in the secular, or what I call the Star Trek/2001 A Space Odyssey, religion. It's too deeply engrained in the narratives of world culture. People "know it", and to chalenge what they already "know" is impossible without what I'll call "intelligent intervention" (intervention by the supreme power).
I've observed that when I point out a problem with microbe-to-man evolution or abiogenesis, some who have faith in evolution will try to make something fit into the words I've used so they can claim a victory for evolution. It's clear they're less concerned with what actually happened than they are with a semantic victory. Frustrating.
Here rebut this with your genesis bullshit: Sorry but all religions are falsifiable, All you have to do is apply evolution to the problem and it does not take long to trace all religions back wards, right back to agricultural practices. Falsifiable is a word to me used bye those to lazy to to do the research. Here`s some of mine: The oldest living civilization on earth has no middle eastern gods or resurrection, My people the Aboriginal people of Australia have 65,000 years and nothing in our recorded history of ludicrous child abuse claims like yours. Can you tell me where your child raping genocidal god claim was 65,000 years ago cause the earliest reference to any religious belief i can find is about 42,000 years ago. Islam = 620 BC Quran/koran= 1101 AD = Author = Hamid Al-Ghazali Hadith =Author Muhammad al-Bukhari, 9th century christianity= 1,400 to maybe 1,600 years . Judaeo beliefs dated 3,000 years. Zoroastrianism= 4,000 years at most. Sumer was first settled by humans from 4500 to 4000 B.C. Australian Aboriginals. 35,000 years ago= discovered radiation sickness and erected a warning sign for radiation sickness. White christian euro trash = discovered radiation sickness 1946. 7,000 -14,000 years ago , Aboriginals watched and recorded the formation of the Great Barrier Reef . 40,000 years ago = mongo man buried , dug up bye white British racist cunts and taken back to England , he has only been recently returned buy those who desecrated his burial site. In 1788 when white genocidal christians landed in Australia, They where horrified that woman in Aboriginal society had equal standing with men, they where included in all civil matters including law, These white christians then started killing whole Aboriginal communities, Men woman children new born`s because my people refused to deny the rights of woman who had had those rights for over 65,000 years. Come back with a moral answer to that one.
I've observed that ecery time I ask you if you can demonstrate a correaltion between reality and this ill-defined metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science....the very thing your position relies on. You start a semantic tap dance insted of presenting something that would add credibility to your hopeless position.
@@derhafi: _"... this ill-defined metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, ..."_ Are you talking about God? *Rob:* _"... have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ..."_ You confess that you know the Lord God is _"not subject to ... physics"_ and yet you still gripe that the known laws of physics can't capture his interactions in an experiment. You're approaching this backwards. You're not thinking like a scientist because your brain is bereft of scientific thought. That's why I rarely bother even responding to you. Since, as you agree, we CAN'T use science to test for God, we can only use science to test for an alternative. It turns out that ALL of science has failed to turn up any alternative to our existence. People desperately hang onto microbe-to-man evolution by faith because they can't bear the reality of being accountable to God. But they're hanging on out of emotion, not science.
@@KenJackson_US "You confess that you know the Lord God is "not subject to ... physics"" I do no such thing..that is what apoliogetics claim that God. " It turns out that ALL of science has failed to turn up any alternative to our existence." That is a) not true and b) not different from saying...we don't know yet therfore God...There is no credible alternative to natural causes in regards to the ool...according to the available evidence the natural world is all there is. All so called alternatives are fictional...the have no demonstrable correaltion with reality. The only thing peole desperately hang on to is this ancient mytology. Now kenny...can cou demonstrate a correwealtion between any God and reality? If not, Gods stay where they are, in the same cathegory as magical unicorns and goblins , fictional charakters.
@@derhafi: _"not different from saying... we don't know yet therefore God..."_ That's the mythology speaking. But in fact we DO know. For example, we know proteins are chains of specific amino acids, most longer than 100, some longer than 1000. The nature of proteins alone rules out the possibility that life evolved from a microbe. You can ONLY believe in microbe-to-man evolution by faith. Shake your pompoms, cheerleader Robby!
4:33 "We have no idea" So....it is not "Are Scientiest Clueless About The Origin Of Life?" It is "Are Humans Clueless About The Origin Of Life?" And the answer is YES, we don't know. What a question on a channel called "Jews for Jesus". We just don't know how life started. It is still open to investigation and debate. We don't know and it is okay to say so. But this includes "we are not sure a god did it" too. Could be, could be not, has to be shown. The discussion goes in the very wrong direction for me. It is a "science does not explain therefor god". But it should be "science does not explain and nobody does therefor we have to find out." Sure you can argue about how much you already know. No problem. But you can not assume knowledge by claiming that someone can not explain.
James Tour is one of the few world-renowned top-class scientists in the field of nanotechnology. He never claimed that God created single cells. Since 1953, scientists have been working to explain the origin of life through experiments, but no new progress has been made so far. The results achieved in other fields of science over the past 70 years have been staggering. However, in the field of study of the origin of life, it remains almost the same. This is not a problem that can be solved with "investigation" and "debate". One thing he means is, don't waste your time to prove the claim that life was created spontaneously by chemical evolution.
@@edenrosest I find it very strange that a scientist tells another "no no don't look any further, you will not find anything". Let them "waste their time". And they will do so either way. You don't have to tell people what stuff to look at. Science is time consuming. Most people will find close to nothing but some get something new. We want to build our knowledge for all mankind. Tour has already shown that he has some misunderstanding. Like "there are so many possible protein combinations, this is impossible". He seems to be very weak at math. He does not understand it or he is misleading on purpose. Either way, he does not have to spend any time on the topic himself. He has all the right to say as he likes but other people have all the right to say "go, bother someone else". I don't see his goal at all. What is his motivation? Saving money? Even if all the scientists on the topic are wrong they will find something. They might not answer the questions they are asking but they will answer other questions on the way. That is perfectly fine. We should never ever stop on searching for answers. Curiosity is one of our strength. Money and resources is a thing, yes. But we should not stop all search only because a guy with bad math skills says so. My get on this is that they will figure out how chemical evolution kicked of. They will figure out how life started. And I really don't know what the problem for religious people is here. The bible (for example) is not meant to be taken literally. It's not like "oh wow we found how life started that means god does not exist". No. But religious people are so much defending their god of the gaps that they don't see their god or their religion anymore. This is so sad. And of course "Tour has no religious motivation". Ya ya ya, what a honest guy he is. Jesus would be very proud. I bet. What a glorious guy. I wish there where more people like him. Leading so many people to knowledge and prosperity. WHAT A GUY. Wants all the best for all of us. Yes, Jesus IS proud of him.
Those that will be judged first: Rabbis Priests, Pastors, Governments Doctors Scientists Parents Its because they all try and play god and form things and people into monsters, into little copies of themselves
Pretty clueless on everything. The THEORY of evolution. The big bang THEORY..... it's all speculation. God created the universe. To me that's far more logical than a science that can't be explained.
Grace and Peace to you. I would be delighted to discuss this on Telegram with you and anyone else who reads this comment. You can find the Telegram link in the About section of my RUclips page. I'd post the Telegram link here, but RUclips would remove my post. I look forward to speaking with you. God bless you.
![BRASIL vs. PERÚ [4-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tbyOJKXfQnI/mqdefault.jpg)
James Tour is brilliant
Brilliant liar.
@@hecticnarcoleptic3160 What did he lie about? (Not a scientist, let alone a chemist, so this almost all goes over my head 😅)
@@bretttheroux8040 He is talking about decomposition and he leaves out that new stuff is generated all the time.
He is implying that there is one chance and one chance only. Time is the "enemy" as he said. That is a lie and he knows it. Only thing here is, why? Why does he do it? What is his intention?
The beginning of life is not clear as of now. We don't know and it is okay to say so.
That we don't know means that there is NO explanation that could be tested. I know that religious people see a "oh it could be god" but the evidence for that is even less compelling.
My opinion about this is: Religion is sooo much more than disregarding science. Religion should not care about the first cell and biology and evolution at all that stuff. It does not really matter, does it? Why fight about the beginning of life? Even if we could explain the beginning of life with chemistry only, so what? Does that disprove god? No, you can't disprove god. Does it prove god? No.
If you can't show how life started with chemistry does that prove god? No, not at all.
The whole discussion it pointless. There is no knowledge to find here.
@@hecticnarcoleptic3160 If you are right, tell me at least one reason. If you can't do that, you're just a poor liar being fooled by the lie you made up.
Tour talks over the heads of the church goers so they can feel smart listening to him. But he uses technical language meant only for communication between professionals in the field. So nobody's understanding anything. They're all just glad to have somebody who sounds smart saying the things they believe.
I live this conversation. Praise the Lord ! Thank you both for all you do and for sharing.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
thank you for sharing!
= Debunked
Sorry, but the Bible got debunked
Missquote. The "heaven" and the earth is proper. It is singular in the beginning. The atmosphere was created later when God divided the light.
Totally blows my mind! BIG
Amazing! Best interview ever!
God is so great beyond my imagination. Yet some people are playing god.
Like developing chemo to fight cancer?
Oh yes, what evil people.
Wow basically I just accepted Darwinian evolution re Dawkins. More or less atheist. Dr Tour in his talks is the first person who has made me seriously question it..
The only reason Tour participates in this crusade against evolution and abiogenesis is his adherence to this atavistic mytology aka christianity.
Ever so called “alternative” to natural causes for the life we see today relies on the existence and interference of some ill-defined metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science. In other words….the don’t qualify as real. Your so called “alternative” are a fantasy based on a fallaciouse assumtion, nothing more.
Tour is a liar.
@@derhafi What he has said is that science and religious belief are entirely separate and one cannot be used to reinforce the other. I am not religious so that is enough for me. What I did not realise was the enormous gaps in our knowledge which the evolutionary explanations skate over.
@@tincoffin Take the "gaps" Tour isd talking about and look up some actual evolutionary biologist and see what they have to say about them. Tour is exaggerating, making things up, misrepresenting the work of others and so on...all in service of his atvistic belief.
Sure we don't know everything about it.....but Tour is not the one who give you an actual map of what we know and what we do not know...let alone an explantion.
This man believes every word in the Bible. and admittingly, for him: "faith and belief go beyond scientific evidence "
@@derhafi I am just sceptical . I think he has put forward a good case whatever he believes. . This desire to frame it in religious terms is a very American response and not one shared by the rest of the english-speaking world.
@@billbogg3857 "I think he has put forward a good case whatever he believes" Really...every point he raises in his 13 part rant about Abiogenesis, falls demonstrably in one of the three following categories:
- A misrepresentation by quote mining, confirmed by the researchers who got treated in this dishonest manner by Tour
-Irrelevant to the subject
-A blunt lie. You can see his rant point by point dismantled here: ruclips.net/video/ghJGnMwRHCs/видео.html During this 2.5 hours absolutely every single talking point of his are deconstructed in a strictly scientific context and the attached links to the papers that confirm each and every point Farina makes.
"This desire to frame it in religious terms is a very American response" This is the response one gets when he lies about science in order to propell his religiouse delusions. I'm not from the "english-speaking world"
We are often told that the world is a delicate balance, crafted with precision by a loving and intelligent creator. Yet, what we observe is a chaotic, unforgiving, and often arbitrary reality that aligns with the randomness of evolution. Why the existence of childhood cancer, parasitic organisms that thrive on suffering, or natural disasters that indiscriminately destroy lives? These are not the hallmarks of a compassionate designer but the erratic outcomes of an unguided evolutionary process. To attribute such phenomena to divine will is to make a mockery of the very concept of love and justice. It's akin to praising the symmetry of a shattered mirror or the melody of a cacophonous noise. This grim reality demands not blind faith but a critical examination of the world as it truly is, not as we wish it to be. The search for purpose and meaning must start from an honest acknowledgement of the chaos and cruelty inherent in our existence, not from the comforting but empty promises of divine benevolence.
If we were to consider the universe as the handiwork of a divine programmer, then we must admit that the code is riddled with bugs, inefficiencies, and outright failures. Why so much empty space, redundant information, or senseless suffering? What about the countless extinction events, genetic diseases, and a chaotic cosmos that seems anything but intelligently designed? The user experience, if we may call it that, ranges from inexplicable beauty to unimaginable horror. Such an erratic programmer would be laughed out of any development team for their incompetence and lack of vision. Is this really the mastermind we're expected to worship?
let God be true and every man a liar... God Bless this man of God!!!
"let God be true and every man a liar" wow, is this your prayer?
@@shuabshungne8043 it is a quote from the bible.... it expresses a truth that is mentioned hundreds of times in the old and new testament... In plain words.. God says over and over... i am telling the truth, my word is the truth.... and if you don't agree with me... you are wrong.
every knee will eventually bow and every tongue confess.... eventually.. that jesus christ is Lord. God will not deny himself.
@@suburbanrapper ... "and if you don't agree with me you are wrong (and I'm, gonna force you or kill you" - this is exactly the reason why Christians and Muslims of the Abrahamic religions have killed so many humans and have destroyed many cultures. White people and their corporators are extremely ignorant and arrogant.
@@suburbanrapper Who is Jesus?
Never mind, nobody cares!
A person does Not need to have a Phd (or even an undergraduate degree) to question the validity of the Abiogenesis Hypothesis, or any hypothesis. As long as people have an understanding of basic scientific principles, common sense, and open mindedness to seek the truth, they can come to a more accurate conclusion for themselves.
Basic Science 101:
Wikipedia 2021, *_“A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the SCIENTIFIC METHOD requires that one can TEST IT … Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is NOT the same as a scientific theory.”_* Hypothesis is also referred to as a Hypothetical or Educated GUESS.
Wikipedia 2021, *_"In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process ARE STILL UNKNOWN, the prevailing scientific HYPOTHESIS is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event [i.e. spontaneous generation]... There are several principles and HYPOTHESES for how abiogenesis COULD HAVE occurred."_*
One of the reasons that abiogensis is merely a "hypothesis" and has not advanced to the status of being a "scientific theory", is that abiogenesis hypotheses still lack the experimental data required by the scientific method. Abiogenesis Hypothesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times.
During a 2015 televised panel discussion, Dr. Richard Dawkins (One of the World's Top Darwinian Evolutionary Scientists) admitted, *_“The Origin of Life is something we don’t know anything about. And we want to know something about it. And I would love to know how life actually got started.”_* (Source: Real Time with Bill Maher, Overtime, October 2, 2015, HBO)
Abiogenesis Hypothesis may be seen as a modern derivative of the Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis (i.e. life arising from non-living matter), one of the main differences being the supposed timeframes of each experimentally unproven process. Generally, the Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis speculated that living organisms “spontaneously” (i.e. within a relatively short period of time) emerged from non-living matter. And, Abiogenesis hypothesizes that undirected random natural processes caused molecules to form into biological life by random chance over the span of millions / billions of years. Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis was believed to be ‘fact’ for almost 2000 years, until it was scientifically disproved by experiments from such scientists as Louis Pasteur in the 1800's. From Wikipedia 2021, "In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process ARE STILL UNKNOWN, the prevailing scientific HYPOTHESIS is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event ... There are several principles and HYPOTHESES for how abiogenesis COULD HAVE occurred." If abiogenesis (and macro-evolution) was a real natural process, nothing should be preventing the abiogenesis (and macro-evolution) of completely novel species, at some stage of formation, from still happening today. However, to date, abiogenesis (and macro-evolution) has NOT been observed in nature. Only biogenesis (and micro-evolution) has been observed in nature. One of the reasons that abiogensis is merely a "hypothesis" and has not advanced to the status of being a "scientific theory", is that abiogenesis hypotheses still lack the experimental data required by the scientific method. Abiogenesis Hypothesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times.
*_“When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”_* (Charles Darwin, 1800’s Evolution Theorist, in his letter to G. Bentham May 22, 1863)
Ur source is wikipedia lol
The thing: We don't know.
Science does not explain it and no human on earth knows.
The problem is: Religious people hear "oh it was god in the end". And that is wrong too.
It is misleading them.
So YES, we do not know. We don't even know if a higher being was involved. We have no hint at all that a god was involved.
See Professor Dave's _Response to James Tour Parts 1 and 2_ in which real scientists and Nobel Laureates working in Origin of Life studies respond to James Tour.
You're going to hell.
See James tour 13 series debunking fake professor Dave.
@@jeremynolan852 Exactly! Who in their right mind thinks anything the fake professor Dave says is true?
@@jeremynolan852 You seem to be Tours dream audience, scientifically illiterate and drenched in confirmation bias. Tour is a demonstrably liar beyond every doubt.
PENDAGO replied: "He is a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Materials Science and Nanoengineering, and Professor of Computer Science at Rice University in Houston, Texas. How can he not be a real scientist?"
I was wondering what happened to your other teachers? I miss them.
Dr; Tour u the best
Is that why he's debunked so hard that Christians laugh at him?
Is your persectuion-fetish that you Christians famously have
acting-up again or what? is Christianity now EVEN persecuted
BY CHRISTIANITY????
DNA code can be equated to a type of computer language. DNA code is more complex than regular computer language in that it is not binary (based on 0 and 1). It is quaternary (based on A T C G). And, as with every known language in existence, confirmed through scientific experiment and observation, is the product of only one thing ... mind/ consciouness /intelligence. ...
_"The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an INFORMATION SCIENCE. Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science: its DIGITAL nature and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. DNA has two types of DIGITAL INFORMATION - the genes that ENCODE proteins, which are the MOLECULAR MACHINES of life, and the GENE REGULATORY NETWORKS that specify the behaviour of the genes."_ (Source: Nature Journal, Nature com)
_"Language: ALL DIGITAL communications require a formal language, which in this context consists of all the information that the sender and receiver of the digital communication must both possess, in advance, in order for the communication to be successful."_ (Wikipedia: Digital Data)
*”The instructions in a gene that tell the cell how to make a specific protein. A, C, G, and T are the "letters" of the DNA code; they stand for the chemicals adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T), respectively, that make up the nucleotide bases of DNA. Each gene's code combines the four chemicals in various ways to spell out three-letter "words" that specify which amino acid is needed at every step in making a protein.”* ( “Genetic Code - National Human Genome Research Institute” Genome . gov)
*_”Genetic code is the term we use for the way that the four bases of DNA--the A, C, G, and Ts--are strung together in a way that the cellular machinery, the ribosome, can read them and turn them into a protein. In the genetic code, each three nucleotides in a row count as a triplet and code for a single amino acid. So each sequence of three codes for an amino acid. And proteins are made up of sometimes hundreds of amino acids. So the code that would make one protein could have hundreds, sometimes even thousands, of triplets contained in it.”_* (Lawrence C. Brody, Ph.D., Genome dot gov)
Modern scientific discoveries in Genetics (i.e. biology) have shown that functional / coded / digital Information (i.e. DNA code) is at the core of ALL Biological Systems. Without functional / coded / digital information, there is NO biology. The only known source (i.e. cause) in the universe that has been Observed in nature to be capable of producing functional / coded / digital information, such as that found even in the most primitive biological systems, is mind / consciousness / intelligence.
There are currently no known examples, in nature or science, where one life form will convert to a different life form (i.e. different body plan) by change in the DNA. Current understanding in the field of genetics seems to indicate that varying body plans (for example, the difference between an octopus and praying mantis) do not reside within the DNA. Genes within the DNA of a particular organism code for the different proteins required to build and allow that particular organism to function.
The “World’s Most Notorious Atheist” and Icon Champion Advocate for Atheism for over 50 years, Antony Flew, finally concluded, *_“I now believe there is a God...I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.”_*
During an interview with Ben Stein, when asked about the origin of life (OoL), Dr. Richard Dawkins admitted that *_"we don't know [how life on earth started]."_* (Source: 'Expelled' DocuFilm, Dr. Richard Dawkins, One of World’s Top Darwinian Evolutionary Scientists, 2008).
@@moses777exodus
The bible has been corrupted
DNA is not computer code and should not be compared with computer code. If you do so you are misleading yourself.
for starters, god of the gaps needs not to be connected to christian god (or any god), it is a figure of speech implicating that if we do not have any good scientific explanation, there is always some supernatural one, so not necessarily a theological one. although what has to be said, originally nietzsche meant christian god to be the god of the gaps, but it became lexicalised in a more general meaning. obviously, even well-educated and established scientists do misunderstand pre-biotic and early biotic evolution; they are so obsessed with the current appearance and mechanism of cells. origin of life does not require the first living thing to be any similar to current cells, it has to fulfil certain criteria to be living (self-replication, homeostasis and suchs), but the means could be different (and they could evolve ;). not being able to make an artificial life today does not mean we cannot understand basically the thing. maxwell had in 1860' no clue about electromagnetic radiation, photons or electrons and still, he was able to describe classic electromagnetism. and oh, gods below, a try to shock viewers with extra large numbers... and he definitely does not understand the argument of what it means "enough time for abiogenesis to happen". james tour might be an excellent chemist in his field, but he shows the symptoms of so-called "fachidiocy" (sounds invective but no offence meant), not being able to see the bigger picture beyond his expertise. and it is sad listening to him as he embarrasses himself by being so self-indulged in his misunderstanding of the stuff. i feel sorry for him.
I think the orthodoxy in the "natural and undirected origins" denominations would say that "deep time" is still the hero. Rather than having some of these building block molecules sitting around in the same puddle for eons, ready all the while for other building block molecules to show up at random, they'd say that the big lottery was won by rolling the dice 100 trillion times or some such, and then having everything come together all at once by chance. "Long odds?" they'll say, "No problem; roll the proverbial dice enough times and the unlikely becomes likely, even inevitable." That's the argument, and the mind, even the very logical mind, which swims in the ignorance of the ever-repeated lie, inoculated against the Scriptures by a whole program of deception and distraction lasting for millennia, and steeped in a theatrical, cinematic narrative that's captured the imagination since early childhood, will believe it in practically every case. We "know" these things, we can feel them, we're familiar with them, there are generations of story-telling behind them, we learned them in school, they "make sense" from a certain point of view that is extremely attractive, exciting and even inspiring! And here you you are trying to tear down the beautiful and exciting narrative. You mean old meanie, you! Heretic!
Either way, I don't think you'll ever be able to convince the true believers in the secular, or what I call the Star Trek/2001 A Space Odyssey, religion. It's too deeply engrained in the narratives of world culture. People "know it", and to chalenge what they already "know" is impossible without what I'll call "intelligent intervention" (intervention by the supreme power).
Was not puddles, life rose from thermal vents( that`s the latest science ) , do some research other than dribbling from a book full of bullshit.
I've observed that when I point out a problem with microbe-to-man evolution or abiogenesis, some who have faith in evolution will try to make something fit into the words I've used so they can claim a victory for evolution. It's clear they're less concerned with what actually happened than they are with a semantic victory. Frustrating.
Here rebut this with your genesis bullshit:
Sorry but all religions are falsifiable, All you have to do is apply evolution to the problem and it does not take long to trace all religions back wards, right back to agricultural practices.
Falsifiable is a word to me used bye those to lazy to to do the research.
Here`s some of mine:
The oldest living civilization on earth has no middle eastern gods or resurrection,
My people the Aboriginal people of Australia have 65,000 years and nothing in our recorded history of ludicrous child abuse claims like yours.
Can you tell me where your child raping genocidal god claim was 65,000 years ago cause the earliest reference to any religious belief i can find is about 42,000 years ago.
Islam = 620 BC
Quran/koran= 1101 AD = Author = Hamid Al-Ghazali
Hadith =Author Muhammad al-Bukhari, 9th century
christianity= 1,400 to maybe 1,600 years .
Judaeo beliefs dated 3,000 years.
Zoroastrianism= 4,000 years at most.
Sumer was first settled by humans from 4500 to 4000 B.C.
Australian Aboriginals.
35,000 years ago= discovered radiation sickness and erected a warning sign for radiation sickness.
White christian euro trash = discovered radiation sickness 1946.
7,000 -14,000 years ago , Aboriginals watched and recorded the formation of the Great Barrier Reef .
40,000 years ago = mongo man buried , dug up bye white British racist cunts and taken back to England , he has only been recently returned buy those who desecrated his burial site.
In 1788 when white genocidal christians landed in Australia, They where horrified that woman in Aboriginal society had equal standing with men, they where included in all civil matters including law, These white christians then started killing whole Aboriginal communities, Men woman children new born`s because my people refused to deny the rights of woman who had had those rights for over 65,000 years.
Come back with a moral answer to that one.
I've observed that ecery time I ask you if you can demonstrate a correaltion between reality and this ill-defined metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science....the very thing your position relies on. You start a semantic tap dance insted of presenting something that would add credibility to your hopeless position.
@@derhafi: _"... this ill-defined metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, ..."_
Are you talking about God?
*Rob:* _"... have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ..."_
You confess that you know the Lord God is _"not subject to ... physics"_ and yet you still gripe that the known laws of physics can't capture his interactions in an experiment.
You're approaching this backwards. You're not thinking like a scientist because your brain is bereft of scientific thought. That's why I rarely bother even responding to you.
Since, as you agree, we CAN'T use science to test for God, we can only use science to test for an alternative. It turns out that ALL of science has failed to turn up any alternative to our existence.
People desperately hang onto microbe-to-man evolution by faith because they can't bear the reality of being accountable to God. But they're hanging on out of emotion, not science.
@@KenJackson_US "You confess that you know the Lord God is "not subject to ... physics"" I do no such thing..that is what apoliogetics claim that God.
" It turns out that ALL of science has failed to turn up any alternative to our existence." That is a) not true and b) not different from saying...we don't know yet therfore God...There is no credible alternative to natural causes in regards to the ool...according to the available evidence the natural world is all there is. All so called alternatives are fictional...the have no demonstrable correaltion with reality.
The only thing peole desperately hang on to is this ancient mytology.
Now kenny...can cou demonstrate a correwealtion between any God and reality? If not, Gods stay where they are, in the same cathegory as magical unicorns and goblins , fictional charakters.
@@derhafi: _"not different from saying... we don't know yet therefore God..."_
That's the mythology speaking. But in fact we DO know. For example, we know proteins are chains of specific amino acids, most longer than 100, some longer than 1000. The nature of proteins alone rules out the possibility that life evolved from a microbe. You can ONLY believe in microbe-to-man evolution by faith.
Shake your pompoms, cheerleader Robby!
🙏💖🙏💖🙏💖🙏💖🙏
The Wizard of Ooze (D Purina) isn't clueless, neither are his flying monkeys.
4:33
"We have no idea"
So....it is not "Are Scientiest Clueless About The Origin Of Life?"
It is "Are Humans Clueless About The Origin Of Life?"
And the answer is YES, we don't know.
What a question on a channel called "Jews for Jesus".
We just don't know how life started. It is still open to investigation and debate. We don't know and it is okay to say so. But this includes "we are not sure a god did it" too. Could be, could be not, has to be shown.
The discussion goes in the very wrong direction for me. It is a "science does not explain therefor god". But it should be "science does not explain and nobody does therefor we have to find out."
Sure you can argue about how much you already know. No problem. But you can not assume knowledge by claiming that someone can not explain.
James Tour is one of the few world-renowned top-class scientists in the field of nanotechnology.
He never claimed that God created single cells.
Since 1953, scientists have been working to explain the origin of life through experiments, but no new progress has been made so far.
The results achieved in other fields of science over the past 70 years have been staggering. However, in the field of study of the origin of life, it remains almost the same.
This is not a problem that can be solved with "investigation" and "debate".
One thing he means is, don't waste your time to prove the claim that life was created spontaneously by chemical evolution.
@@edenrosest
I find it very strange that a scientist tells another "no no don't look any further, you will not find anything".
Let them "waste their time". And they will do so either way. You don't have to tell people what stuff to look at.
Science is time consuming. Most people will find close to nothing but some get something new.
We want to build our knowledge for all mankind.
Tour has already shown that he has some misunderstanding. Like "there are so many possible protein combinations, this is impossible". He seems to be very weak at math.
He does not understand it or he is misleading on purpose.
Either way, he does not have to spend any time on the topic himself.
He has all the right to say as he likes but other people have all the right to say "go, bother someone else".
I don't see his goal at all. What is his motivation? Saving money? Even if all the scientists on the topic are wrong they will find something. They might not answer the questions they are asking but they will answer other questions on the way.
That is perfectly fine.
We should never ever stop on searching for answers. Curiosity is one of our strength. Money and resources is a thing, yes. But we should not stop all search only because a guy with bad math skills says so.
My get on this is that they will figure out how chemical evolution kicked of. They will figure out how life started.
And I really don't know what the problem for religious people is here. The bible (for example) is not meant to be taken
literally. It's not like "oh wow we found how life started that means god does not exist". No.
But religious people are so much defending their god of the gaps that they don't see their god or their religion anymore. This is so sad.
And of course "Tour has no religious motivation". Ya ya ya, what a honest guy he is. Jesus would be very proud. I bet.
What a glorious guy. I wish there where more people like him. Leading so many people to knowledge and prosperity.
WHAT A GUY. Wants all the best for all of us.
Yes, Jesus IS proud of him.
@@VirtuelleWeltenMitKhan until the Sun cools down.
Well said
Tldr; scientist don't know how life started so God must have done it.
That is what his clown script of lies, boils down to.
I bear witness that no god but Allah and Mohammed his slave and messenger
❤️❤️❤️
Isn't a jew for Jesus just a christian?
Jesus was a Jew. There was Christianity before there was New Testament.
Those that will be judged first:
Rabbis
Priests, Pastors, Governments
Doctors
Scientists
Parents
Its because they all try and play god and form things and people into monsters, into little copies of themselves
I'm judging you right now....
@@derhafi Good luck 🤣
I wonder if anyone has tried abiogenesis experiments the biblical way. Get some clean (lifeless) soup and speak to it. HMMNNNN......
Pretty clueless on everything. The THEORY of evolution. The big bang THEORY..... it's all speculation.
God created the universe. To me that's far more logical than a science that can't be explained.
Lies for Jesus.
Grace and Peace to you. I would be delighted to discuss this on Telegram with you and anyone else who reads this comment.
You can find the Telegram link in the About section of my RUclips page. I'd post the Telegram link here, but RUclips would remove my post. I look forward to speaking with you. God bless you.
@@lark8356 Nothing to discuss. Professor Dave debunked this charlatan thoroughly...
@@hecticnarcoleptic3160 Thank you for your consideration.
@@hecticnarcoleptic3160 lmao no he didn’t.
@@bretttheroux8040 Oh yes he did