@goodshorts sound like you’d agree with me that science isn’t common sense, nor is it something we can understand “with our eyes”. To reply to something “Dr” tour states, we absolutely CAN evaluate long-term effects of meds, it just takes awhile. Just because data isn’t accumulated in my lifetime doesn’t mean it can’t be synthesized/analyzed by me. Btw I work in biological fields, not chemistry. I like to stay within my lane, unlike other “scientists” 🙄
@jelly221, science isn’t simply 'common sense.' It’s a rigorous process of testing and repeating experiments to uncover physical truths. Interestingly, some scientists claim that abiogenesis is a testable, repeatable theory, but this is inherently contradictory. It's essential for people to apply discernment and critically evaluate claims, rather than blindly follow those promoting atheistic ideologies. Also, I noticed you referred to Dr. Tour as 'Dr.' Would you mind explaining why you chose to emphasize his title in that way?
@@jockyoung4491it’s funny when an atheist talks about information. Information proves we were created. No natural process can explain information in DNA.
Trusting that the scientist who gathered and interpreted the data and published his conclusion is faith in the scientists, honor, logic and impartiality. Sorry but even scientists are biased. Unless you’ve tested the verify the experiment and check the reasoning and logic for yourself to see if you will have the same results in your findings as the ones in published science paper, you put your faith in that scientist’s interpretation of the data.
@@victorvolobuev507 Yes. But to reject evolution you would have to believe that virtually all biologists are dishonest or stupid. Having known hundreds of them myself, I can assure you that is not the case. Plus I have studied evolution for 40 years and read thousands of scientific papers. I would rather believe 150 years of biology research than an old book we don't even know who wrote.
I don't know how many times it needs to be said; the bible was not written as a science book, its the chronicle of what God wants us to know about himself, ourselves, his purpose and plan for for man
But the Bible is perhaps the most accurate HISTORY book! So far, other than a few insignificant minor copyists' errors, NOTHING in the Bible has been proven untrue.
Do you mean the idol of some antiquity cults, which persists in the New Testament and the churches? Or in reverse: you may crucify the truth, but it will resurrect the third day…
@@jwonderfulsuccess Look at the evidence. When people actively reject Jesus they start floating away from their anchor to reality. He's the kingpin. The centerpiece of history. In practice, we will make medical decisions based on evolution theory that cause more harm. Make decisions based on false information and you might get really bad results... results like social darwinism, the holocaust, and eugenics.
John 18: 37 "....To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."
["To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth"] Of course, just because someone says they are telling the truth doesn't mean they are.
Oh come on Louise. You are quoting something from documents that were written over 1500 years ago by people who, by today's standards were totally ignorant of all that we know today. They therefore had to make things up to explain everything the saw or experienced around them, without any hard facts to back them up. They had absolutely no idea for the explanations of reality. Why on earth do you believe THEM,and not the world and universe as we know it today?
@@mchooksisWhat you said is all conjecture. No truth in it. They new of the stars and there motions in it. They built pyramids and structures we cannot duplicate today. Look at how modernity has destroyed the environment. Life was surely harder but it was in tune with nature, as God intended.
Whenever the media says “trust the science”, one must remember that science says nothing - scientists do. So then, the question becomes “which scientists?” And what worldview does the scientist(s) subscribe to that shapes their beliefs?
You trust science for 99.9% of the things you encounter in your everyday life. Food, clean water, transportation, medicine, computers, etc. Then suddenly when it comes to evolutionary biology science is all wrong? Do you have any idea how hypocritical that makes you look?
@@littleacorn2244 Your first sentence shows you have learned nothing. None of the things you mentioned can be trusted in any sense of the word, especially if you have been reading the news on a daily basis. This video has nothing to do with evolution. It has everything to do with origin of life. No scientist has ever observed the creation of a cell, from scratch, either in nature or in the laboratory. You can buy all the chemicals you need to create a cell, but still--nothing created.
@@littleacorn2244 Do you have any idea about the kind of "science" you're talking about? Everything you mentioned is a form of "operational science", a kind of science that can be observed, tested, and allowed for people to have based on safety experiments. Evolution is not" operational science", it is "historical science", and historical science is not testable or observable like how operational science is, because we don't have "millions of years" to observe. Big difference. I suggest you watch a presentation or two from Answers in Genesis or Creation Ministries International, the Bible gives the correct history of the earth through a young-age timeframe, Evolution does not; in fact, it's pseudohistory.
Yes. Correct. However, you conflated 2 points. 1- Trust. And 2- authority of science. Science papers arrive at conclusions after a process. There could be many papers and many views on each paper. The interpreters of scientific studies make claims. We are free to accept, believe, view skeptically or reject. We mainly don’t each have time or ability to review the claims or the scientific literature. We mostly rely on the claims as credible. We do this by degree. Trust, reliance on, confidence in, belief or faith. These are all synonymous terms - with some nuance. Most of human knowledge is based on information external to our individual observation or experience. Humans need to do this. In the main, it works.
4:20 As I once explained to someone who had doubts about this, God didn't explain how he did it because you and most people wouldn't and couldn't understand. The important thing is that people need to understand that God loves us, because he created us.
Yes, and I doubt that our languages are adequate to explain what really happened. Considering that all our high order language builds on simple models, which may not be true to reality, we barely have any understanding at all. God says He will give His children a new tongue and a new name in the hereafter. THEN, maybe we can hear His explanation of how He did it all.
@@adrianthom2073read it again, you got the context all wrong. It's quite simple really but you will believe it more if you see it yourself rather than being told! God bless...
@@flyingtime5501 what context did I get wrong? Genesis 6:6-7 (NAB) 6 the Lord regretted making human beings on the earth, and his heart was grieved. 7 So the Lord said: I will wipe out from the earth the human beings I have created, and not only the human beings, but also the animals and the crawling things and the birds of the air, for I regret that I made them. What part did I take out of context? Still think that is love?
So if the target getting father away for a natural origin of life does that mean it could only mean that it’s getting closer to a design origin of life?
Thank you Dr. Tour, for explaining that the Bible is the fountain of truth. For a while there I had the mistaken belief earth orbits the sun, and that rainbows are created based on refraction of light in raindrops.
I am sure you can find people on your doorstep who need help. Not just money, but time, a kind word, or a favour, it is a good place to start. Jesus never had the internet or a phone, but he never ran out of people to help, think why that was.
Carl Segan who in my opinion is one of the best scientists on the origin of life told us to question the science and not just take everything at face value
Prof. Tour does not "question" science, he denies science. My reading recommendations on the origin of life for people without college chemistry, are; Hazen, RM 2005 "Gen-e-sis" Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press Deamer, David W. 2011 “First Life: Discovering the Connections between Stars, Cells, and How Life Began” University of California Press. The above are a bit dated, but are readable for people without much background study. Deamer, David W. 2019 "Assembling Life: How can life begin on Earth and other habitable planets?" Oxford University Press. Hazen, RM 2019 "Symphony in C: Carbon and the Evolution of (Almost) Everything" Norton and Co. Note: Bob Hazen thinks his 2019 book can be read by non-science students. I doubt it.
If you want to find truth, you don't start with a conclusion and then search for "facts" that support your conclusion. You start with facts, and then draw a conclusion, always to be challenged by additional facts.
@@benjiedrollinger990 True. Believers start with the presupposition that their beliefs are unalterably true and everything that contradicts their predetermined beliefs must be wrong or false. Scientists start with a presupposition that if evidence cannot be demonstrated by objective, verifiable, repeatable tests and observations, it cannot be relied upon to make scientific conclusions. My belief is that the latter approach is more likely to find truth.
Love you James, you are an honest soul. There are some things that you may have wrong theologicaly but you are humble enough to admit that you may be wrong. May God give you discernment. Your science is sound.
"you are an honest soul. " Lying about science to his flock is "honest" and pretending that he knows better than thousands of scientists know their filed is "humble" ?
Not so honest. He has used science all his life as the foundation of his career, and yet denies it and its methods and conclusions when it comes down to his beliefs. Science and religion are two completely separate things. You cannot use them in the same argument with any validity. It is like saying oranges and lemons are not citrus fruis because tomatoes are berries.
science is actually very limited by waht can be proven with the scientific method. Now people will take this objective data in all sorts of subjective ways
@@gorequillnachovidal Correct. The genetic variation is (more or less) random. But natural slection by definition is not. That is why it requires both to make evolution work.
That is just total nonsense. The amount of knowledge yielded about our world, our universe by science is astounding. Your second sentence doesn't make sense on the face of it, again it's nonsense.
“I don’t believe any science. But I can assess the data”. What do you do after assessing the data? You form views or opinions. These are beliefs. Rejection or acceptance. These are beliefs. You believe by degree. A little to alot. It is on a spectrum. Evidence is also on a spectrum. Quality, quantity and credibility of evidence. Little or alot. Belief is justifiable? By degree.
@MutsPub no proof,but it is possible,it doesn't contradict any physics,chemistry we know... And the building blocks are even found in space... And the alternative is magic? Ok,unless someone has a better alternative,I'll go with abiogenesis...
@@KrisMaertens We do not know the origins of the universe. With instrumentation, we can see back to t = 1x10 -43. There is no known chemical mechanism for the first cell. There are no complex "building blocks" found in space, only some of the simple amino acids, at parts per billion in solution and thus irrelevant. Supernatural just means it is not testable, yet. That is not magic. By your definition, abiogenesis is magic. It violates both physics and chemistry. There are better alternatives. You will not change your world view.
@@MutsPub 'complex' amino acids? I said building blocks,and amino acids are found in space,the murchinson meteorite is a good example full of amino acids,tryptophan is found in space,... Abiogenesis does not contradict physics,chemistry,or biology,it is based on it! Us not knowing how doesn't mean it is impossible. Give me a reasonable alternative...
@adrianthom2073 The Word of God is The one given to Moses, then to His prophets, then The God, himself, came to The World preach His Word, and, at last, The apostles. We know that because this was prophetized and acomplished in the first century.
@ but you don’t know that it’s the word of god. You are just asserting it is because it is written in the Bible. Using the Bible to prove the claims of the Bible is circular reasoning. What evidence do you have that Moses existed
Dr. James, The fastest way to headshot "theories" is to look for violations of simple physics. For example, the Big bang theory violates the laws of conservation and energy and mass, as well as all 3 laws of thermal dynamics. Or you don't get something from nothing.
Be careful with that. there is a limit to the extent we have tested those laws. Whenever we see a violation of conservation of energy, we just add a new form of energy. So we don't have conservation of heat, because it can be transformed into work. We don't have conservation of light because it can be transformed to motion or heat, or even sound. For a conservation law to be universal we have to observe the whole universe. The best you can say is using the assumption of the three laws of thermodynamics you can argue on equal footing with the established principles of physics, but they could prove to be wrong.
@@FlowDeFlowDrainage Yes you are correct, Newton's theory of gravity was considered to be "settled science" by consensus prior to Einstein coming along. It may turn out to be that Einstein was also wrong, but until then "settled science" is really just the best guess by consensus.
The more I learn about science, the more I am stunned by how little we actually know about things we generally have assumed to be understood. No wonder there is a growing sentiment that these "settled science" theories are in fact retarding the progress of science.
Not quite, The fine tuning of the laws (26 constants) allows the universe to exist but not forever... Even in his time, Einstein and the scientific community rejected the postulate because the religious implications of the theory. You'll be surprised to learn how the BigBang aligns perfectly with the account of God's creation.
@@GazGuitarz Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. Newton was brilliant, and his work still guides our rockets and probes today. He was correct within the scope of his theories. Einstein made many predictions based on his theories and our understanding of the universe. Since then, scientists have rigorously tested those theories through real-world experiments, and they have consistently been validated. While no scientific theory is ever beyond question, Einstein's contributions remain foundational, and science is never just a "best guess." The scientific method is precise, verifiable, and self-correcting, making it the best way for us to understand our world. The exponential gains in our knowledge and capabilities since adopting the scientific method are astounding. In science, nothing is sacred, though some theories stand the test of time. In contrast, religion often makes proclamations that cannot be questioned. As Richard P. Feynman said, "I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned."
Romans 11 Brother! 33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! 34 "Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?" 35 "Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them?"[3] 36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.
Thank you, Dr. Tour, for your teaching (showing us) on what it's supposed to look like with humility and gentleness of spirit. So many, myself included, want to be dogmatic and stubborn on things that we know nothing about, but are just very opinionated. There's a quote from a scientist from some time back, but I can't remember it exactly, or his name, I'll have to look it up, but it says that compared to the total surmisable knowledge in the universe, what we know about any subject is such a small fraction that the odds are against us knowing much about anything at all. Or put another way, the more you realize you don't know, the smarter you are, because you realize how ignorant you actually are. And that is something that is humbling.
Really appreciate your videos Dr, the work you are doing for the Lord is awe inspiring and bound to leave the believer and sceptic in wonder at the glory of God.
@DavidvanVeen-v4p The purpose of your post is to what? Sow doubt with a statement backed by a question? If you have a doubt, try to actually outline what it is exactly you mean by lies. Not just tarnish the whole video with a broad statement that means nothing.
"If you have a doubt, try to actually outline what it is exactly you mean by lies" When he is not misrepresenting the work of researchers in this field, comes up with some irrelevancies or is bluntly lying about science, he seems to spend most of his time vaguely insinuating, with plausible deniability of course, that life can’t originate per natural means. For anyone who wonders what’s his position will be, should we ever outlay all the chemical processes leading up to life in a exhaustively detailed manner, well…then he will continue to give credit to the God he happens to believe in, in his words quote: “Wow !This is how you (God) did it”. There is nothing that could change this man’s mind. A mind that contains zero scientific integrity and favours, by his own admission “faith” over scientific evidence.
@DavidvanVeen-v4p Tell me exactly where he is lying. Stop accusing him with no evidence, all your accusations are vague, you quote me but don't quote him. How do you expect someone to defend themselves or even begin to debate you if you don't even have a point to debate. He is a Doctor.. You kind of only get that title if you do.. You know.. Science.
Dr. Tour said that questions are welcome in his comment section. So how come when I ask questions, without even accusing Jim of anything, why do I get labeled as a troll, hater, or someone who’s using “ad hominem” or “appeal to authority”?
Because you’re not subscribing to the ONE TRUE AUTHORITY, the absolutely infallible divinely inspired word of GOD. 😂 (100% sarcasm if you can’t tell, which we know James can’t since he insists that Lee was literally calling OOL research a scam)
@@jelly221 I know. I'm wondering how is Jim going to answer my question without looking like a blatant hypocrite. But he has to answer my question since not doing so also makes him look like a hypocrite. Considering he literally said questions are welcome.
@ If Dr. Tour is so confident that his statements on origin of life are factual, why doesn’t he publish his critiques on origin of life research in reputable peer-reviewed journals like Nature or Angewandte Chemie? It’s not like you can’t publish critiques in these journals. I read 2 critiques published in Angewandte Chemie and Nature about how a compound made by Stephen Liddle’s group may not exhibit aromaticity. Why CAN you publish critiques on those topics but not origin of life if, like Jim said, they’re both basically synthetic chemistry? Critiques: [{Th(C8H8)Cl2}3]2− is stable but not aromatic, Bonding in a Crystalline Tri‐Thorium Cluster: Not σ‐Aromatic But Still Unique
( ｡ﾟДﾟ｡) This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it. Pigments have different rules than light. It took them thousands of years to get all the pigments they have now.
Great. "Follow the money" when assessing credibility. But there is a corollary: "Follow the biases". Approaching scientifically produced data and theories with a bibllical perspective is a biased activity, just as powerful a bias as money -- maybe more so. It is well agreed that the scientific endeavor is the best tool we have to weed out bias (and other sources of error) when seaking truth.
The only thing that requires unquestioning submission is religion. Science depends on being questioned, but by legitimate inquiry, not flippant nonsense.
Dr. Tour said he wants to talk to the people who don’t read scientific literature in his debate with Dave Farina. How does he plan to do that if he won’t interact with them? He said he’ll only debate people with Ph.Ds. But do you really think the average person will understand what terms like powder x-ray diffraction, diffuse reflectance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, and SQUID magnetometry are? Terms I’m pretty sure people with Ph.Ds know enough about to use them in a manner besides explaining to others what they are? I mean, at some point, you’ll have to dumb down what these terms mean so much, you don’t even need a Ph.D to explain what they are. Also, isn’t it a bit presumptuous to say every person who doesn’t have a Ph.D doesn’t know chemistry based on 1 interaction? Do you really need a Ph.D to commentate on stuff without even providing any new information? For example, I may not have a Ph.D in mathematics but I do know that 1*1 doesn’t equal 2.
@@MutsPub Different species have different gene DNA sequences. That is evolution happening in plain sight. ("Plain" since Hermann J. Muller, 1918 "Genetic Variability, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors", Genetics, Vol 3, No 5: 422-499, Sept 1918. (The real source for “irreducible complexity, only it was the argument for evolution).
@@GaryHurd "Different species have different gene DNA sequences." Is that supposed to be astute? Tell us what the TKTL1 gene is and why is it so important.
The first thing Tour states is "if it contrary to the word of god it is not true." Right of the bat he shows his dogmatic and predetermined mindset and bias, which renders his conclusions suspect. If something is contrary to the bible is not true then something that is contrary to the bible must be false. If something contrary to the bible is false then evidence showing something contrary to the bible must be false and disregarded. With that kind of mindset, no wonder he says the things he does.
This is Tour in a nutshell. Many scientists use their credentials to appeal to authority, lending false credibility to question established scientific truths or exploit gaps in our knowledge to serve their personal beliefs. In his case, he identifies as a Messianic Jew. You won't find other scientists agreeing with him-not because of an anti-religious stance, but because there is no valid challenge to the data. Any serious scientific conclusion undergoes peer review. If someone can disprove it, they will, using the proper protocols. This is how science works.
That is exactly why Dr. Tour States what he does, as he should. God gave us 2 books, the book of nature and the book of Scripture. - Belgic confession article 2.
@@MutsPub Prove it with the same scientific rigor that Dr. Tour applies to abiogenesis study. Dr. Tour, like most apologists, applies a huge double standard. He criticizes scientific study demanding strict scientific proof. But then his alternative explanation is based on magic from an ancient book written by ignorant zealots.
@@iriemon1796 Why do I have to prove anything to you? You apply that same rigor to the Scriptures and find out for yourself. It's not my job. It's your choice.
@@MutsPub ["Why do I have to prove anything to you?"] You don't have to prove anything. You made a statement addressing my post; I explained why I disagreed with it. If you cannot backup your position, we shall leave it for what it's worth. If you don't want people commenting on your statements, don't post them publicly. If I apply the same rigor to the scriptures, the scriptures fail completely. Test 1, evidence of a supernatural is not repeated or verifiable. The scriptures are full of supernatural events. Fail.
Follow the money alright! How much money are the Christian apologists getting for their "ministry"? There's a lot of money in religion, and these guys know it.
2LoT says local processes can locally decrease entropy (i.e become more ordered) as long as the overall system entropy still increases. Life can evolve and produce increased complexity because it has a huge energy source (the sun) powering the endothermic chemical reactions used by life. The sun increases its entropy by a miniscule amount to balance the decrease in entropy caused by evolution.
@ and the sun is source of energy for the earth. And this source of energy will be depleted in about 5 billion years. Thermodynamics is well understood. Our Universe will eventually reach heat death. And
Thank you so much for this amazing video! I need some advice: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). How can I transfer them to Binance?
:-( Consciousness is the particle and wave double slit experiment. The cones and rods of your eyes preserve the particle and wave duality so your vision don't look like a flat screen television. It's supposed to be a violation of physics but it is the only exception in the whole universe.
“Dr” Tour- you are one of the people that my Christian upbringing tried to use to convince me that evolution & current science were/are frauds. You, yourself, have single-handedly done the most to convince me that they were wrong and the scientific theory at large is correct. I hope you can someday look in a mirror and see what the rest of us see- a man desperately searching to find meaning & relevance in this world. Might I suggest a therapist? You haven’t gotten far with your current regimen.
Wow. Talk about thick. Have you studied biochemistry? There is zero chance that a single biological protein formed ab initio in a soupy sea or hydrothermal vent. You missed the entire boat.,
@@cmjack777 You are correct. And science has never demonstreted that it is not possible. But people are free to guess anything they want to about abiogenesis. Just don't try to project that onto biological evolution, which we have plenty of evidence for.
On its own terms, I don't see how a materialist world-view can sustain, let alone produce modern science. In fact, modern science relies on the borrowed capital of a Christian world view which sees the cosmos as underpinned by person-ness (of God) in meaningful relationship (the Trinity) making by Word, the creation. This tells us that the cosmos has propositional content, is characterized by rational causality (not the mad impossible causality of pagans) and, by God's making us in his image, available for our investigation as its custodians or stewards to 'govern' it. This then gives us confidence that we can reliably examine the cosmos and develop propositional explication of the knowledge we discover. We take the universe as 'designed' and so expect it to contain rationally available relationships and phenomena that we can convert to knowledge. We know there is something here to know.
Nah. You’re wrong. Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean that science can’t (eventually) explain it. The cool thing about science is that even if one person can’t explain it, they can leave their work to other scientists. We are slowly but surely figuring out exactly what makes the universe tick, and spoiler alert, it’s not a giant sky-man 😅
@@jelly221 False. God cannot be falsified, He never will be falsified. Matter and energy do not self-create. The fact is that the more science reveals, the less we know. It's an ever-receding target because every answer only creates numerous more questions. If quantum physics hasn't shown that, nothing will..
@@jelly221 synthetic organic chemist, Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry from Syracuse University, Ph. D. in synthetic organic & organometallic chemistry from Purdue University, & postdoctoral training in organic chemistry
Trust the science has lost all credibility. We need first to trust the scientists. Scientists with an a priori commitment to materialism cannot be trusted on origins. Scientists with a financial or political commitment can't be trusted with medicine.
@@sliglusamelius8578 He is doing more than that. He is purposely encouraging distrust in science because he has a Biblical agenda that conflicts with it. Of course science has limits, but they are not where creationists want them to be
@ The Bible conflicts with nothing. You have a prior prejudice claiming that. Many of the giants of the scientific revolution were committed Christians, why do you suppose that would be? And who do you think you are compared to them??
@@sliglusamelius8578 Whether they were Christians or not is irrelevant. They followed the evidence when they did science. Faith has no place in science. Science is also not dependent on what any scientist said hundreds of years ago. Science is an ongoing process.
God didn't give us the details about how he created everything because we wouldn't understand it. He is the creator. Trying to explain it to his creation is going to take a lot of time. Just follow my commandments and everything will be OK. Some of his creations can't even do something that simple.
lol XD i 've said specifically about darwinism, it's like a box that was made 200 years ago and keeps getting more info packed into it. They "truss" the box with everything possible to hold it together, but eventually it will give, and the truth hidden in the box will come to light
@@jelly221 this from someone who believes that molecules could eventually produce a system of _encoded information_ bearing instructions to produce nanomachinery, all through a *blind, random, unguided, piecemeal process* XD lol not very scientific of a worldview, but at least you believe in supernatural miracles =) p.s. don't embrace death. it's a punishment
Forget belief, just look at the facts: Examine the biochemistry of the cell [ which is like a city with its own transport system etc] and the genetics and ask the question-Could the various living creatures have come about by small random chemical changes over time-whatever the amount of time, simply as a result of chemical changes? what is a chemical change anyway? What is a chemical effect anyway? Ask the question: Could a collection of chemicals come together to form "life" however you would describe it, before life did not exist? What is the difference between something that is not alive and something that is alive? Ask also what consciousness is? What is free will? What is different personality? Do these come about by random chemical changes? Think about it-we are sentient beings that can think and reason and learn and build houses and planes and cars and write and use language and put a man on the moon etc. Do you think that this came about by random chemical changes-really? What is your understanding of the nature of reality that you believe that you live in and what is possible and what is not possible? In other words ask what the implications of your belief are in practical terms and ask if it is rational to believe that this could come about by random chemical changes?
(*´･ω･) Natural selection is the character flaw in evil that is integrity is more important than life otherwise evolution is tragic circumstances with nothing intelligent happening. Almost everyone survive until they reproduce. Nothing is getting selected except for the character flaw in evil. I found a replacement for the character flaw in evil that I liked but God makes me forget things that will cause me trouble.
in the days of the Natural Philosophy Scientists, Monks in the Catholic religion led the way in investigating The Details. and They found nothing that that truly contradicted The Bible.
@iriemon1796 trust but verify! Is that the standard of scientists? They are thrives and perverts so science should be too. Thanks for confirming that science is no better! That was my point!
@iriemon1796 it's funny how people don't trust things they don't understand! Faith=Trust=Confidence It's fear that you trust! Fear is an animal instinct in us that we must overcome 💪 🙏 Trust the truth! My faith is in truth! Love conquers fear because love seeks to know the enemy intimately! When you know the dangerous parts you can avoid them!
He created the components of the elements by verbal command. Once He put them together to make the elements, making everything else elementary. He made Adam from the elements.
@ you will find no prophecies in the Bible, just vague claims that any event in history can be used as fulfilling prophecy. The Bible is a book of fables, legends, myths and fairytales. With many of the stories plagiarized from older stories. The Bible is no more special than any other work of fiction. It plays an important part in Christianity, but that is it.
@@sliglusamelius8578 : What's the difference between a "Christian miracle" and a Jewish or Muslim miracle? It's the same god, so why would the miracles be different?
@@worldgonemad5866 You are claiming "bias" on the part of Dr. James Tour PhD. How many times have you studied the Bible verse by verse, cover to cover? That is the data. You claim that Dr. Tour is wrong with no supporting evidence. That is bias, on your part.
@@worldgonemad5866 What specific data have you studied? Your claim that "James is wrong" without supporting evidence is irrelevant and biased. Your PhD is in which discipline?
The universe is supernatural. It was created from another dimension, a spiritual dimension called heaven. God said, "Let there be light," and there was light, in every wavelength of the spectrum. Some we can see with our eyes, some we can only detect with specific instruments, and some we may have not even yet discovered. Atoms are light. Light is the energy that powers the creation. All matter is made of atoms. All matter is light. But matter itself is not alive. Life is also supernatural. The spark of life is spirit. And that Spirit is God. Without spirit, they will never produce life in a laboratory. They are missing the main ingredient. Even if they could produce life in a laboratory, with already existing ingredients, it would still be intelligent design. Our bodies need a few things to sustain life; food, water, air. We can live a little while if we get those things. But without clothing and shelter, the elements will kill us pretty soon. Even if we maintain all of these things, death is just around the corner. Physical life is fleeting. None of these things can give us eternal life. Jesus is the bread of life that came down from heaven. He is the only way to eternal life, and that is the truth. How do I know? I know it by faith. Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Faith is not wishful thinking. It is just like instinct or intuition. I'm sure you believe in those things. Some things you just know, without knowing how you know. Faith is more like instinct. Instinct is a built-in or programmed knowledge. Faith is a gift from God. Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Faith comes from God. You can't “work it up”. It is not the "power of positive thinking". But you can ask for it. Even if you don't believe in God, He sees you and hears you. You can ask Him in prayer, “God, if You exist, show me the truth.” If you sincerely want to know, He will know, and He will answer that prayer. If you are not sincere, He will know, but He may still answer that prayer, or He may not.
@@iriemon1796 Every thing is proof. That everything exists instead of nothing, proves that every thing that exists in nature came from something outside of nature, super nature or supernatural. Every thing in this natural world had a beginning. "In the beginning, God created." Everything that exists in this natural world is an image or like kind of things from that super natural. Because everything in this natural world is light, it could be turned on just like flipping a switch, or just by speaking it into existence. "Let there be", and there it was. You may reject all of the proof that you see around you, you may reject the proof you see when you look in the mirror, but it is proof nevertheless.
(ヽ´ω`) We need to popularize the idea of getting God married. Getting God married is a good use of someone's time. You are supposed to make the environment intelligent so no God is needed. We fixed the video and audio for the best experience possible. Cameras are supernatural and all of them captured 3D that not a gimmick. The audio loud don't make violence so has depth. Nobody has to buy anything for it to work.
Dr. James Tour, you are a treasure to the Body of Messiah. Please, please keep producing this great work for the glory of God! We need a record of good Christian scientists dismantling the lies of evolution for our generation and future ones.
@@therick363 Gravity is a law, not really a theory. Einstein's theory of general relativity is used to explain gravity, so perhaps you could call that a theory of gravity for a layman, but it's a bit more than just gravity. Evolution is a lie in that there is no justification for the assumptions being made beyond a commitment to materialism. To claim that life originated by some natural process of abiogenesis is supported only by that commitment. To claim that life then went on to evolve into the whole of biodiversity is likewise supported ONLY by that commitment. The theory is no confirmed by empirical evidence, rather by the exclusion of any and all competing hypotheses. You know this is true, I think we've gone over this in the past. You pretend to have never learned this.
@ sigh. I see you didn’t bother to answer the questions I posted. Do you know the difference between a law and theory? Because based off what you said I have to ask. I also see you have right to the condescending and cherry picking based off what you said. Now then. Would you like to have an honest conversation about the things you said and the topics? Yes or no? I am asking especially based on your past paragraph which is completely false about me.
@@therick363 I only have honest conversations. I thought my grasp of scientific theories and laws were implied in my answer. I'll be clear, yes I do know the difference. I understand the term colloquially and as scientific jargon. As for condescending, I meet you where you are. You took that very tone so I simply adopted it for myself. I believe we are on equal footing here. Perhaps there is another "therick" out there. Would be an incredible coincidence. I've yet to be properly refuted on the a priori commitment to materialism claim.
@ okay then. Let’s have an honest conversation. I would like that. Please share the difference between a scientific law and theory. I ask because you said gravity is a law but not a theory? Sorry mate but it’s both. _evolution is a lie that has no justification_ I’m sorry but you said you only have honest conversations? Evolution IS a scientific theory because of the scientific evidence which justifies it being a theory. You added abiogenesis and materialism into the conversation-why? You said the theory is not confirmed by evidence? Then why is it a scientific theory?
Why do you say, 'Now we understand the way God DID this', rather than saying 'This is the way God DOES this'. Next time you start your car, remember you don't need the starter to keep the engine running! Scientist don't have access to the starter! So keep analyzing the engine, you will never find out about the starter.
As a corollary, When you shut off the engine, all you need to do is stop the laws that keep the process going, turn the key off, no spark! When the world ends, all He will need to do is shut off gravity, weak force, electro-magnetic force, the strong force or any combination He wants and the elements will 'melt' with fervent heat. Poof! Who told you God has to 'obey' the laws of nature!
@@jelly221 Perhaps auto-mobile would be a better term than car when referring to humans. Right now I'm ready for an overhaul! I think I'll call Jesus my heavenly Melchizedek. Reminds me of a guy from the Brook Cherith!
Biblical text contradictions = do not trust. This logic could apply to most of life experience. Trust is something by degree. Little or alot. Not zero or completely.
@@antbrown9066sooo what we just trust it bc it’s old? Or bc it has more subscribers on RUclips? Or wait, I know. Because it says itself that it’s the word of god!!!!! Amazing, I am convinced.
@@mattk6719 Here are some: Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel? God did (2 Samuel 24: 1) And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1) And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. How many fighting men in Israel were reported by Joab? • Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9) • And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men. • One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5) And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.
It may well be that the Old Testament promotes critical thinking as prerequisite for szientific thinking, but the New Testament with its late antique belief in miracles is probably rather counterproductive.
@@ShabadSadana , “The writers of the Bible were illuminated more or less, some more than others. On the question of salvation. On other questions they were as wise or as ignorant as their generation. Hence it is utterly unimportant that errors of historic or scientific fact should be found in the Bible, especially if errors relate to events that were not directly observed by those who wrote about them.” - Georges Lemaitre “Should a priest reject relativity because it contains no authoritative exposition on the doctrine of the Trinity? Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes . . . The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible. If the theory of relativity had also been necessary for salvation, it would have been revealed to Saint Paul or to Moses.” - Georges Lemaitre
James' groundbreaking scientific breakthroughs and numerous laurels he has obtained in the area of science belie your claim that the scientific community doesn't take him serious.
Dr. Tours has created many startup companies funded by industry..investors do not invest money in companies started by scientists not preeminent in their field of study.
@iriemon1796 you still haven't answered my original question. Do you trust political science? 🤔 if you thought the question was vague, then you could have given a general answer. But instead, you chose to be a dishonest troll. Political science is what is being used by the media. Their rhetoric is designed to dismiss opposition to a political process. So, if it's politically beneficial to promote the sale of drugs and the users are uninformed, then it's easy to make the false claim about the drug benefits. Political science has many tactics at disposal to promote a political agenda. Many tactics can be dishonest and crude but effective. The word "political hack" comes to mind. In the end, the truth comes out, and what seems expedient at first may have the opposite effect, causing the political agenda to fail. I trust the curropted political tactics used will cause the user to rot in prison and be removed from the political science bag of tricks.
While it is true that God could create life it is quite literally, absolutely and incontrovertibly impossible for God to resurrect the dead, including most especially Jesus. Resurrection is one of those things that God cannot do.
@danielwilliams7161 that's where you are mistaken and the Bible clearly in error. Didn't you notice that the Bible's resurrection narratives clearly indicate that the Apostles saw a ghost or a vision rather than a resurrected body? Human bodies, for example, don't travel through locked doors.
So, Elohim can bring into existence all matter, space, time, and energy. He can Create man from the dust of the Earth and breathe life into his nostrils. But there is no way He can revive a dead person?
Inane creationist claim no.2854: Any intelligently designed experiment done by a human in a science lab to test a natural phenomenon is evidence for Intelligent Design of the phenomenon. 😄😄😄
@@littleacorn2244 Has science observed life being formed by natural processes? No. Yes, the experiment is an example of intelligent design. When an experiment demonstrates what can also be observed, it's still intelligent design, yet it is verified by observation of what actually occurs.
A short fact note. Stanley Miller listened to a 1951 lecture by Harold C. Urey. Prof. Urey was reviewing then current data on the atmospheres of the outer planets in our solar system. He speculated that the big oxygen load here on Earth was due to life, and the outer plantes might be like the Earth's prior to the origin of life. Stanley approached Prof. Urey with a proposed experiment. His idea was to simulate this primitive atmosphere, and see if complex molecules would form spontaneously. They did. This was published. Miller, Stanley L., 1953 “A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions” Science vol. 117:528-529 A good review on the many variations used to avoid any "intelligent design" accusations is; Stanley L. Miller & H. James Cleaves 2007 "Prebiotic Chemistry on the Primitive Earth" Systems Biology, Volume I: Genomics. Oxford University Press 2007
James Tour isn't a debater, he tried that. He's a scientist and as such he asks questions and is qualified to evaluate the answers. So far, none of the answers have made sense so he says as much.
@iriemon1796 Faith is the only way to know anything. If a person of science discovered the ultimate truth, they would not even know because it's not what they are searching for. If a person of faith accepted ultimate truth existed, they would put faith in it and know how to deliver it.
Dr. Tour said that questions are welcome in his comment section. So how come when I ask questions, without even accusing Jim of anything, why do I get labeled as a troll, hater, or someone who’s using “ad hominem” or “appeal to authority”?
@@crusader333ad Flat Earthers ask NASA to answer their silly "gotcha' questions too. Tour is a nobody in OOL research and his creationist antics make him a laughingstock.
Dr. Tour said he wants to talk to the people who don’t read scientific literature in his debate with Dave Farina. How does he plan to do that if he won’t interact with them? He said he’ll only debate people with Ph.Ds. But do you really think the average person will understand what terms like powder x-ray diffraction, diffuse reflectance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, and SQUID magnetometry are? Terms I’m pretty sure people with Ph.Ds know enough about to use them in a manner besides explaining to others what they are? I mean, at some point, you’ll have to dumb down what these terms mean so much, you don’t even need a Ph.D to explain what they are. Also, isn’t it a bit presumptuous to say every person who doesn’t have a Ph.D doesn’t know chemistry based on 1 interaction? Do you really need a Ph.D to commentate on stuff without even providing any new information? For example, I may not have a Ph.D in mathematics but I do know that 1*1 doesn’t equal 2
Dr. Tour said he wants to talk to the people who don’t read scientific literature in his debate with Dave Farina. How does he plan to do that if he won’t interact with them? He said he’ll only debate people with Ph.Ds. But do you really think the average person will understand what terms like powder x-ray diffraction, diffuse reflectance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, and SQUID magnetometry are? Terms I’m pretty sure people with Ph.Ds know enough about to use them in a manner besides explaining to others what they are? I mean, at some point, you’ll have to dumb down what these terms mean so much, you don’t even need a Ph.D to explain what they are. Also, isn’t it a bit presumptuous to say every person who doesn’t have a Ph.D doesn’t know chemistry based on 1 interaction? Do you really need a Ph.D to commentate on stuff without even providing any new information? For example, I may not have a Ph.D in mathematics but I do know that 1*1 doesn’t equal 2
Dr. Tour said he wants to talk to the people who don’t read scientific literature in his debate with Dave Farina. How does he plan to do that if he won’t interact with them? He said he’ll only debate people with Ph.Ds. But do you really think the average person will understand what terms like powder x-ray diffraction, diffuse reflectance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, and SQUID magnetometry are? Terms I’m pretty sure people with Ph.Ds know enough about to use them in a manner besides explaining to others what they are? I mean, at some point, you’ll have to dumb down what these terms mean so much, you don’t even need a Ph.D to explain what they are. Also, isn’t it a bit presumptuous to say every person who doesn’t have a Ph.D doesn’t know chemistry based on 1 interaction? Do you really need a Ph.D to commentate on stuff without even providing any new information? For example, I may not have a Ph.D in mathematics but I do know that 1*1 doesn’t equal 2
Dr. Tour said he wants to talk to the people who don’t read scientific literature in his debate with Dave Farina. How does he plan to do that if he won’t interact with them? He said he’ll only debate people with Ph.Ds. But do you really think the average person will understand what terms like powder x-ray diffraction, diffuse reflectance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, and SQUID magnetometry are? Terms I’m pretty sure people with Ph.Ds know enough about to use them in a manner besides explaining to others what they are? I mean, at some point, you’ll have to dumb down what these terms mean so much, you don’t even need a Ph.D to explain what they are. Also, isn’t it a bit presumptuous to say every person who doesn’t have a Ph.D doesn’t know chemistry based on 1 interaction? Do you really need a Ph.D to commentate on stuff without even providing any new information? For example, I may not have a Ph.D in mathematics but I do know that 1*1 doesn’t equal 2
Dr. Tour said he wants to talk to the people who don’t read scientific literature in his debate with Dave Farina. How does he plan to do that if he won’t interact with them? He said he’ll only debate people with Ph.Ds. But do you really think the average person will understand what terms like powder x-ray diffraction, diffuse reflectance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, and SQUID magnetometry are? Terms I’m pretty sure people with Ph.Ds know enough about to use them in a manner besides explaining to others what they are? I mean, at some point, you’ll have to dumb down what these terms mean so much, you don’t even need a Ph.D to explain what they are. Also, isn’t it a bit presumptuous to say every person who doesn’t have a Ph.D doesn’t know chemistry based on 1 interaction? Do you really need a Ph.D to commentate on stuff without even providing any new information? For example, I may not have a Ph.D in mathematics but I do know that 1*1 doesn’t equal 2
Dr. Tour said he wants to talk to the people who don’t read scientific literature in his debate with Dave Farina. How does he plan to do that if he won’t interact with them? He said he’ll only debate people with Ph.Ds. But do you really think the average person will understand what terms like powder x-ray diffraction, diffuse reflectance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, and SQUID magnetometry are? Terms I’m pretty sure people with Ph.Ds know enough about to use them in a manner besides explaining to others what they are? I mean, at some point, you’ll have to dumb down what these terms mean so much, you don’t even need a Ph.D to explain what they are. Also, isn’t it a bit presumptuous to say every person who doesn’t have a Ph.D doesn’t know chemistry based on 1 interaction? Do you really need a Ph.D to commentate on stuff without even providing any new information? For example, I may not have a Ph.D in mathematics but I do know that 1*1 doesn’t equal 2
Dr. Tour said he wants to talk to the people who don’t read scientific literature in his debate with Dave Farina. How does he plan to do that if he won’t interact with them? He said he’ll only debate people with Ph.Ds. But do you really think the average person will understand what terms like powder x-ray diffraction, diffuse reflectance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, and SQUID magnetometry are? Terms I’m pretty sure people with Ph.Ds know enough about to use them in a manner besides explaining to others what they are? I mean, at some point, you’ll have to dumb down what these terms mean so much, you don’t even need a Ph.D to explain what they are. Also, isn’t it a bit presumptuous to say every person who doesn’t have a Ph.D doesn’t know chemistry based on 1 interaction? Do you really need a Ph.D to commentate on stuff without even providing any new information? For example, I may not have a Ph.D in mathematics but I do know that 1*1 doesn’t equal 2
@@ianlee5812 lol. He debated Farina, whom you apparently raised right in your rant, who does not have a PhD. Farina was awful, he yells and insults and trolls, and has no PhD and doesn't understand the science. You know math well enough, what are the sequence odds of a single biological protein forming randomly the proper sequence of amino acids for it to be a functional protein if it is 150 amino acids long? Single point mutations cause many human diseases, so the sequence really matters. What are the mathematical odds? 150 amino acids in sequence....
@@sliglusamelius8578 LOL @ your revisionist history. It was Tour who screamed and stomped around the stage like a petulant child. Farina made Tour look like a raving creationist fool. Or more precisely, Tour showed himself to be a raving creationist fool.
@@sliglusamelius8578 *what are the sequence odds of a single biological protein forming randomly* Ridiculous non-sequitur because no one in science says or thinks 150AA proteins formed randomly.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
"Great and Marvelous are they works, Lord God almighty, Just and true are your ways oh Lord, for you are the King of Saints"
"Trust the science" really means "trust me bro". Science is good, liars are not.
@@goodshorts and don’t trust your lying eyes
@goodshorts sound like you’d agree with me that science isn’t common sense, nor is it something we can understand “with our eyes”. To reply to something “Dr” tour states, we absolutely CAN evaluate long-term effects of meds, it just takes awhile. Just because data isn’t accumulated in my lifetime doesn’t mean it can’t be synthesized/analyzed by me. Btw I work in biological fields, not chemistry. I like to stay within my lane, unlike other “scientists” 🙄
@jelly221, science isn’t simply 'common sense.' It’s a rigorous process of testing and repeating experiments to uncover physical truths. Interestingly, some scientists claim that abiogenesis is a testable, repeatable theory, but this is inherently contradictory. It's essential for people to apply discernment and critically evaluate claims, rather than blindly follow those promoting atheistic ideologies.
Also, I noticed you referred to Dr. Tour as 'Dr.' Would you mind explaining why you chose to emphasize his title in that way?
@@jelly221 I don't think he would agree with you.
@@goodshorts trust the science means: I am right because I said so. See my straw man 😁.
I see the more you understand the building blocks of life, the more you are filled with wonder on what we don't know"!!
"The science" is a moving target.
It is supposed to be. Unlike religion, science allows us to consider new information being discovered.
@@jockyoung4491it’s funny when an atheist talks about information.
Information proves we were created. No natural process can explain information in DNA.
@@jockyoung4491
🤣🤪🤣 Silly falsehood of Richard DAWKINS 😈
Trusting that the scientist who gathered and interpreted the data and published his conclusion is faith in the scientists, honor, logic and impartiality.
Sorry but even scientists are biased.
Unless you’ve tested the verify the experiment and check the reasoning and logic for yourself to see if you will have the same results in your findings as the ones in published science paper, you put your faith in that scientist’s interpretation of the data.
@@victorvolobuev507
Yes. But to reject evolution you would have to believe that virtually all biologists are dishonest or stupid. Having known hundreds of them myself, I can assure you that is not the case. Plus I have studied evolution for 40 years and read thousands of scientific papers. I would rather believe 150 years of biology research than an old book we don't even know who wrote.
I don't know how many times it needs to be said; the bible was not written as a science book, its the chronicle of what God wants us to know about himself, ourselves, his purpose and plan for for man
But the Bible is perhaps the most accurate HISTORY book! So far, other than a few insignificant minor copyists' errors, NOTHING in the Bible has been proven untrue.
So are you saying God goes against science? Cuz that would sound pretty dumb.
When does non living matter assemble itself into living matter? Where is that science?
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, it is the glory of a king to seek out a matter. -Proverbs.
@@julesverne2509
Proverbs 25:2
Jesus is the truth
Do you mean the idol of some antiquity cults, which persists in the New Testament and the churches?
Or in reverse: you may crucify the truth, but it will resurrect the third day…
I'm a christian by faith, believe and action. But I would ask you, "how do you know 'Jesus is the truth'?
😂😂😂
@@jwonderfulsuccess Look at the evidence. When people actively reject Jesus they start floating away from their anchor to reality. He's the kingpin. The centerpiece of history.
In practice, we will make medical decisions based on evolution theory that cause more harm. Make decisions based on false information and you might get really bad results... results like social darwinism, the holocaust, and eugenics.
@jwonderfulsuccess u should know that😂😂
John 18: 37 "....To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."
["To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth"]
Of course, just because someone says they are telling the truth doesn't mean they are.
Oh come on Louise. You are quoting something from documents that were written over 1500 years ago by people who, by today's standards were totally ignorant of all that we know today. They therefore had to make things up to explain everything the saw or experienced around them, without any hard facts to back them up. They had absolutely no idea for the explanations of reality. Why on earth do you believe THEM,and not the world and universe as we know it today?
@@iriemon1796 At the very least, it speaks of the need for Truth, both then and now. They had him killed merely for what he said !
@@iriemon1796Read the Gospel, Jesus proved who he was.
@@mchooksisWhat you said is all conjecture. No truth in it.
They new of the stars and there motions in it. They built pyramids and structures we cannot duplicate today.
Look at how modernity has destroyed the environment. Life was surely harder but it was in tune with nature, as God intended.
Whenever the media says “trust the science”, one must remember that science says nothing - scientists do. So then, the question becomes “which scientists?” And what worldview does the scientist(s) subscribe to that shapes their beliefs?
You trust science for 99.9% of the things you encounter in your everyday life. Food, clean water, transportation, medicine, computers, etc. Then suddenly when it comes to evolutionary biology science is all wrong? Do you have any idea how hypocritical that makes you look?
@@littleacorn2244 Your first sentence shows you have learned nothing. None of the things you mentioned can be trusted in any sense of the word, especially if you have been reading the news on a daily basis. This video has nothing to do with evolution. It has everything to do with origin of life. No scientist has ever observed the creation of a cell, from scratch, either in nature or in the laboratory. You can buy all the chemicals you need to create a cell, but still--nothing created.
The "Science is settled" merely means that it is the best guess by consensus. .. so it is not at all "settled"
@@littleacorn2244 Do you have any idea about the kind of "science" you're talking about? Everything you mentioned is a form of "operational science", a kind of science that can be observed, tested, and allowed for people to have based on safety experiments. Evolution is not" operational science", it is "historical science", and historical science is not testable or observable like how operational science is, because we don't have "millions of years" to observe. Big difference.
I suggest you watch a presentation or two from Answers in Genesis or Creation Ministries International, the Bible gives the correct history of the earth through a young-age timeframe, Evolution does not; in fact, it's pseudohistory.
Yes. Correct. However, you conflated 2 points. 1- Trust. And 2- authority of science. Science papers arrive at conclusions after a process. There could be many papers and many views on each paper. The interpreters of scientific studies make claims. We are free to accept, believe, view skeptically or reject. We mainly don’t each have time or ability to review the claims or the scientific literature. We mostly rely on the claims as credible. We do this by degree. Trust, reliance on, confidence in, belief or faith. These are all synonymous terms - with some nuance. Most of human knowledge is based on information external to our individual observation or experience. Humans need to do this. In the main, it works.
4:20 As I once explained to someone who had doubts about this, God didn't explain how he did it because you and most people wouldn't and couldn't understand. The important thing is that people need to understand that God loves us, because he created us.
Yes, and I doubt that our languages are adequate to explain what really happened. Considering that all our high order language builds on simple models, which may not be true to reality, we barely have any understanding at all. God says He will give His children a new tongue and a new name in the hereafter. THEN, maybe we can hear His explanation of how He did it all.
@@suggesttwo according to the Bible, God regretted making us and drowned the entire world. Killing all life except those on the Ark.
Is that love?
Convenient for you & your friends that just don’t understand science
@@adrianthom2073read it again, you got the context all wrong. It's quite simple really but you will believe it more if you see it yourself rather than being told! God bless...
@@flyingtime5501 what context did I get wrong?
Genesis 6:6-7 (NAB)
6 the Lord regretted making human beings on the earth, and his heart was grieved.
7 So the Lord said: I will wipe out from the earth the human beings I have created, and not only the human beings, but also the animals and the crawling things and the birds of the air, for I regret that I made them.
What part did I take out of context?
Still think that is love?
So if the target getting father away for a natural origin of life does that mean it could only mean that it’s getting closer to a design origin of life?
The science that we have is the science of the gaps in the ignorance of humans. Thank you
Thank you Dr. Tour, for explaining that the Bible is the fountain of truth. For a while there I had the mistaken belief earth orbits the sun, and that rainbows are created based on refraction of light in raindrops.
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction." Proverbs 1:7
James, God is using you for a great work. The erosion of the opposition's arguments is evident.
As it nears the end of the year I wish that Dr. Tour provide a recommendation list for donations. I have already donated to JesusandScience.
I am sure you can find people on your doorstep who need help. Not just money, but time, a kind word, or a favour, it is a good place to start. Jesus never had the internet or a phone, but he never ran out of people to help, think why that was.
Carl Segan who in my opinion is one of the best scientists on the origin of life told us to question the science and not just take everything at face value
Prof. Tour does not "question" science, he denies science.
My reading recommendations on the origin of life for people without college chemistry, are;
Hazen, RM 2005 "Gen-e-sis" Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press
Deamer, David W. 2011 “First Life: Discovering the Connections between Stars, Cells, and How Life Began” University of California Press.
The above are a bit dated, but are readable for people without much background study.
Deamer, David W. 2019 "Assembling Life: How can life begin on Earth and other habitable planets?" Oxford University Press.
Hazen, RM 2019 "Symphony in C: Carbon and the Evolution of (Almost) Everything" Norton and Co.
Note: Bob Hazen thinks his 2019 book can be read by non-science students. I doubt it.
If you want to find truth, you don't start with a conclusion and then search for "facts" that support your conclusion. You start with facts, and then draw a conclusion, always to be challenged by additional facts.
Yes that’s how it’s supposed to go
Everyone starts with a presupposition.
@@benjiedrollinger990 True. Believers start with the presupposition that their beliefs are unalterably true and everything that contradicts their predetermined beliefs must be wrong or false. Scientists start with a presupposition that if evidence cannot be demonstrated by objective, verifiable, repeatable tests and observations, it cannot be relied upon to make scientific conclusions.
My belief is that the latter approach is more likely to find truth.
Love you James, you are an honest soul. There are some things that you may have wrong theologicaly but you are humble enough to admit that you may be wrong. May God give you discernment. Your science is sound.
"you are an honest soul. "
Lying about science to his flock is "honest" and pretending that he knows better than thousands of scientists know their filed is "humble" ?
Not so honest. He has used science all his life as the foundation of his career, and yet denies it and its methods and conclusions when it comes down to his beliefs. Science and religion are two completely separate things. You cannot use them in the same argument with any validity. It is like saying oranges and lemons are not citrus fruis because tomatoes are berries.
The spirit hovered over the waters
Professor Kastup and Professor Sheldrake are wonderful lecturers. Together as a duo awesome. Dr Tour is amazing and knowledgeable and Brave
science is actually very limited by waht can be proven with the scientific method. Now people will take this objective data in all sorts of subjective ways
Brilliantly said!
It is limited to what we have evidence for, yes. But fortunately that includes biological evolution.
@@jockyoung4491 which the catholic church fully supports. But also it seems like evolution is not random but the variations are
@@gorequillnachovidal
Correct. The genetic variation is (more or less) random. But natural slection by definition is not. That is why it requires both to make evolution work.
That is just total nonsense. The amount of knowledge yielded about our world, our universe by science is astounding. Your second sentence doesn't make sense on the face of it, again it's nonsense.
“I don’t believe any science. But I can assess the data”. What do you do after assessing the data? You form views or opinions. These are beliefs. Rejection or acceptance. These are beliefs. You believe by degree. A little to alot. It is on a spectrum. Evidence is also on a spectrum. Quality, quantity and credibility of evidence. Little or alot. Belief is justifiable? By degree.
Time is the enemy of what isn't the truth. reason and information is the basis for truth.
1.05 so basicly you are believing in resurrection,and other miracles,but not in something that is physically possible like abiogenesis?
That is the point.
There is no "proof" of abiogenesis.
@MutsPub no proof,but it is possible,it doesn't contradict any physics,chemistry we know... And the building blocks are even found in space...
And the alternative is magic? Ok,unless someone has a better alternative,I'll go with abiogenesis...
@@KrisMaertens We do not know the origins of the universe. With instrumentation, we can see back to t = 1x10 -43. There is no known chemical mechanism for the first cell. There are no complex "building blocks" found in space, only some of the simple amino acids, at parts per billion in solution and thus irrelevant. Supernatural just means it is not testable, yet. That is not magic. By your definition, abiogenesis is magic. It violates both physics and chemistry.
There are better alternatives.
You will not change your world view.
@@KrisMaertens Tell us the complex amino acids that have been found in space. Abiogenesis contradicts chemistry, physics, and biology. That is magic.
@@MutsPub 'complex' amino acids? I said building blocks,and amino acids are found in space,the murchinson meteorite is a good example full of amino acids,tryptophan is found in space,...
Abiogenesis does not contradict physics,chemistry,or biology,it is based on it! Us not knowing how doesn't mean it is impossible.
Give me a reasonable alternative...
Trust The Word of God
Why?
@adrianthom2073 why not?
@@MarcelinhoTheRock where do we find the word of God and how do you determine this source is the word of God?
@adrianthom2073 The Word of God is The one given to Moses, then to His prophets, then The God, himself, came to The World preach His Word, and, at last, The apostles. We know that because this was prophetized and acomplished in the first century.
@ but you don’t know that it’s the word of god. You are just asserting it is because it is written in the Bible.
Using the Bible to prove the claims of the Bible is circular reasoning.
What evidence do you have that Moses existed
Dr. James,
The fastest way to headshot "theories" is to look for violations of simple physics.
For example, the Big bang theory violates the laws of conservation and energy and mass, as well as all 3 laws of thermal dynamics.
Or you don't get something from nothing.
Be careful with that. there is a limit to the extent we have tested those laws. Whenever we see a violation of conservation of energy, we just add a new form of energy. So we don't have conservation of heat, because it can be transformed into work. We don't have conservation of light because it can be transformed to motion or heat, or even sound.
For a conservation law to be universal we have to observe the whole universe.
The best you can say is using the assumption of the three laws of thermodynamics you can argue on equal footing with the established principles of physics, but they could prove to be wrong.
@@FlowDeFlowDrainage Yes you are correct, Newton's theory of gravity was considered to be "settled science" by consensus prior to Einstein coming along. It may turn out to be that Einstein was also wrong, but until then "settled science" is really just the best guess by consensus.
The more I learn about science, the more I am stunned by how little we actually know about things we generally have assumed to be understood. No wonder there is a growing sentiment that these "settled science" theories are in fact retarding the progress of science.
Not quite, The fine tuning of the laws (26 constants) allows the universe to exist but not forever...
Even in his time, Einstein and the scientific community rejected the postulate because the religious implications of the theory.
You'll be surprised to learn how the BigBang aligns perfectly with the account of God's creation.
@@GazGuitarz Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. Newton was brilliant, and his work still guides our rockets and probes today. He was correct within the scope of his theories. Einstein made many predictions based on his theories and our understanding of the universe. Since then, scientists have rigorously tested those theories through real-world experiments, and they have consistently been validated. While no scientific theory is ever beyond question, Einstein's contributions remain foundational, and science is never just a "best guess."
The scientific method is precise, verifiable, and self-correcting, making it the best way for us to understand our world. The exponential gains in our knowledge and capabilities since adopting the scientific method are astounding. In science, nothing is sacred, though some theories stand the test of time. In contrast, religion often makes proclamations that cannot be questioned. As Richard P. Feynman said, "I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned."
Thank you Dr. Tour!
Romans 11 Brother! 33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! 34 "Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?" 35 "Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them?"[3] 36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.
Thank you, Dr. Tour, for your teaching (showing us) on what it's supposed to look like with humility and gentleness of spirit. So many, myself included, want to be dogmatic and stubborn on things that we know nothing about, but are just very opinionated. There's a quote from a scientist from some time back, but I can't remember it exactly, or his name, I'll have to look it up, but it says that compared to the total surmisable knowledge in the universe, what we know about any subject is such a small fraction that the odds are against us knowing much about anything at all. Or put another way, the more you realize you don't know, the smarter you are, because you realize how ignorant you actually are. And that is something that is humbling.
Really appreciate your videos Dr, the work you are doing for the Lord is awe inspiring and bound to leave the believer and sceptic in wonder at the glory of God.
He is lying about science for the Lord.....Were there not some rules, supposingly from your Lord himself, regarding lies?
@DavidvanVeen-v4p The purpose of your post is to what? Sow doubt with a statement backed by a question?
If you have a doubt, try to actually outline what it is exactly you mean by lies. Not just tarnish the whole video with a broad statement that means nothing.
@@jakecolless5152 "The purpose of your post is to what?" To warn you from a massive fraud.
"If you have a doubt, try to actually outline what it is exactly you mean by lies"
When he is not misrepresenting the work of researchers in this field, comes up with some irrelevancies or is bluntly lying about science, he seems to spend most of his time vaguely insinuating, with plausible deniability of course, that life can’t originate per natural means.
For anyone who wonders what’s his position will be, should we ever outlay all the chemical processes leading up to life in a exhaustively detailed manner, well…then he will continue to give credit to the God he happens to believe in, in his words quote: “Wow !This is how you (God) did it”. There is nothing that could change this man’s mind. A mind that contains zero scientific integrity and favours, by his own admission “faith” over scientific evidence.
@DavidvanVeen-v4p Tell me exactly where he is lying. Stop accusing him with no evidence, all your accusations are vague, you quote me but don't quote him. How do you expect someone to defend themselves or even begin to debate you if you don't even have a point to debate.
He is a Doctor.. You kind of only get that title if you do.. You know.. Science.
2:00 "be more skeptical about what's being presented as true"
So, why don't you guys start applying this to the Bible?
Special pleading, huh?
Dr. Tour said that questions are welcome in his comment section. So how come when I ask questions, without even accusing Jim of anything, why do I get labeled as a troll, hater, or someone who’s using “ad hominem” or “appeal to authority”?
Because you’re not subscribing to the ONE TRUE AUTHORITY, the absolutely infallible divinely inspired word of GOD. 😂 (100% sarcasm if you can’t tell, which we know James can’t since he insists that Lee was literally calling OOL research a scam)
@@jelly221 I know. I'm wondering how is Jim going to answer my question without looking like a blatant hypocrite. But he has to answer my question since not doing so also makes him look like a hypocrite. Considering he literally said questions are welcome.
@@ianlee5812
Nobody here knows your history. Did you do ad hominem? Then don't do that!
Now, ask your question......
@ If Dr. Tour is so confident that his statements on origin of life are factual, why doesn’t he publish his critiques on origin of life research in reputable peer-reviewed journals like Nature or Angewandte Chemie? It’s not like you can’t publish critiques in these journals. I read 2 critiques published in Angewandte Chemie and Nature about how a compound made by Stephen Liddle’s group may not exhibit aromaticity. Why CAN you publish critiques on those topics but not origin of life if, like Jim said, they’re both basically synthetic chemistry?
Critiques: [{Th(C8H8)Cl2}3]2− is stable but not aromatic, Bonding in a Crystalline Tri‐Thorium Cluster: Not σ‐Aromatic But Still Unique
What’s your question?
( ｡ﾟДﾟ｡) This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it. Pigments have different rules than light. It took them thousands of years to get all the pigments they have now.
Great. "Follow the money" when assessing credibility. But there is a corollary: "Follow the biases". Approaching scientifically produced data and theories with a bibllical perspective is a biased activity, just as powerful a bias as money -- maybe more so. It is well agreed that the scientific endeavor is the best tool we have to weed out bias (and other sources of error) when seaking truth.
So then what if there is an influence of both money and a strong naturalistic/atheistic bias?
@@mattk6719 No different from both a monetary and a Christian bias -- unlikely to get anywhere near the truth.
God bless Dr. Tour!
Awesome job explaining the Truth. Keep up the good job!
Thank you James. ❤
"Trust the Science": Translation - "Submit..."
I bend the knee to no one but my Lord alone.
I will trust the Lord, and DO the science.
The only thing that requires unquestioning submission is religion. Science depends on being questioned, but by legitimate inquiry, not flippant nonsense.
Dr. Tour said he wants to talk to the people who don’t read scientific literature in his debate with Dave Farina. How does he plan to do that if he won’t interact with them? He said he’ll only debate people with Ph.Ds. But do you really think the average person will understand what terms like powder x-ray diffraction, diffuse reflectance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, and SQUID magnetometry are? Terms I’m pretty sure people with Ph.Ds know enough about to use them in a manner besides explaining to others what they are? I mean, at some point, you’ll have to dumb down what these terms mean so much, you don’t even need a Ph.D to explain what they are.
Also, isn’t it a bit presumptuous to say every person who doesn’t have a Ph.D doesn’t know chemistry based on 1 interaction? Do you really need a Ph.D to commentate on stuff without even providing any new information? For example, I may not have a Ph.D in mathematics but I do know that 1*1 doesn’t equal 2.
Relegion is inventet by humans.
@@egon012 That is your belief. Thank you for sharing.
That is because humans were Created and are unique. No other animal has the TKTL1 gene.
@@MutsPub
Different species have different gene DNA sequences. That is evolution happening in plain sight. ("Plain" since Hermann J. Muller,
1918 "Genetic Variability, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors", Genetics, Vol 3, No 5: 422-499, Sept 1918.
(The real source for “irreducible complexity, only it was the argument for evolution).
@@GaryHurd "Different species have different gene DNA sequences." Is that supposed to be astute? Tell us what the TKTL1 gene is and why is it so important.
@@MutsPub
Have you heard about Google, or Wikipedia?
😆
Study Traditional Diets for Health: Weston Price,KETO etc.1 in a Million Got C 200 yrs ago..Just think o all the changes in that time
Thank God for you Dr. Tour! Some false truth is coming from the pulpit too… we are in the last days, stay vigilant brothers and sisters,
lol you’re being deceived. Remember Lucifer? You’re looking at him
Interesting that the 'I am the science' guy has already been pre-pardoned for crimes the he should be facing.
The first thing Tour states is "if it contrary to the word of god it is not true." Right of the bat he shows his dogmatic and predetermined mindset and bias, which renders his conclusions suspect. If something is contrary to the bible is not true then something that is contrary to the bible must be false. If something contrary to the bible is false then evidence showing something contrary to the bible must be false and disregarded. With that kind of mindset, no wonder he says the things he does.
This is Tour in a nutshell. Many scientists use their credentials to appeal to authority, lending false credibility to question established scientific truths or exploit gaps in our knowledge to serve their personal beliefs. In his case, he identifies as a Messianic Jew. You won't find other scientists agreeing with him-not because of an anti-religious stance, but because there is no valid challenge to the data. Any serious scientific conclusion undergoes peer review. If someone can disprove it, they will, using the proper protocols. This is how science works.
That is exactly why Dr. Tour States what he does, as he should.
God gave us 2 books, the book of nature and the book of Scripture.
- Belgic confession article 2.
@@MutsPub Prove it with the same scientific rigor that Dr. Tour applies to abiogenesis study. Dr. Tour, like most apologists, applies a huge double standard. He criticizes scientific study demanding strict scientific proof. But then his alternative explanation is based on magic from an ancient book written by ignorant zealots.
@@iriemon1796 Why do I have to prove anything to you? You apply that same rigor to the Scriptures and find out for yourself.
It's not my job. It's your choice.
@@MutsPub ["Why do I have to prove anything to you?"] You don't have to prove anything. You made a statement addressing my post; I explained why I disagreed with it. If you cannot backup your position, we shall leave it for what it's worth. If you don't want people commenting on your statements, don't post them publicly.
If I apply the same rigor to the scriptures, the scriptures fail completely. Test 1, evidence of a supernatural is not repeated or verifiable. The scriptures are full of supernatural events. Fail.
GR8 SHOW AS USUAL Dr Tour!! 👍 ❤
Follow the money alright! How much money are the Christian apologists getting for their "ministry"? There's a lot of money in religion, and these guys know it.
I love listening to Dr Tour. I had to take chemistry in my EE major.
Wow, you took chemistry. Good job!!!
Evolution 🧬: entropy, says things decay and devolve over time. 3:29
2LoT says local processes can locally decrease entropy (i.e become more ordered) as long as the overall system entropy still increases. Life can evolve and produce increased complexity because it has a huge energy source (the sun) powering the endothermic chemical reactions used by life. The sun increases its entropy by a miniscule amount to balance the decrease in entropy caused by evolution.
The earth is not a closed system.
@@adrianthom2073 You can keep pushing the energy elsewhere, but eventually you'll have to have a source.
@ and the sun is source of energy for the earth. And this source of energy will be depleted in about 5 billion years.
Thermodynamics is well understood. Our Universe will eventually reach heat death. And
Yes. However it may be the other way round. The observance of decay and devolution has been put into a framework and named entropy.
Love these discussions and I learn so much about 'why' I believe what I believe. Thank you Dr. Tour!
Thank you so much for this amazing video! I need some advice: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). How can I transfer them to Binance?
:-( Consciousness is the particle and wave double slit experiment. The cones and rods of your eyes preserve the particle and wave duality so your vision don't look like a flat screen television. It's supposed to be a violation of physics but it is the only exception in the whole universe.
“Dr” Tour- you are one of the people that my Christian upbringing tried to use to convince me that evolution & current science were/are frauds. You, yourself, have single-handedly done the most to convince me that they were wrong and the scientific theory at large is correct. I hope you can someday look in a mirror and see what the rest of us see- a man desperately searching to find meaning & relevance in this world. Might I suggest a therapist? You haven’t gotten far with your current regimen.
Wow. Talk about thick. Have you studied biochemistry? There is zero chance that a single biological protein formed ab initio in a soupy sea or hydrothermal vent. You missed the entire boat.,
Non-Life has never been show to take on life. Science has never demonstrated that as possible.
@@cmjack777 We have evidence that is what happened, not conclusive but still evidence. No one has ever demonstrated abiogenesis is impossible.
@@cmjack777 exactly. this was already disproven 200 years ago. athiests are just a little slow
@@cmjack777
You are correct. And science has never demonstreted that it is not possible. But people are free to guess anything they want to about abiogenesis. Just don't try to project that onto biological evolution, which we have plenty of evidence for.
Плохо что только 11000 просмотров 😢
We'll see how you don't trust science if you ever have to go to a hospital! 😅😅😅
Given the events of the past few years you might want to reconsider calling all medicine science, unless you mean science experiment.
Deductive reasoning leads to God. Darwinism leads to randomness. Abiogenesis leads to a dead end.
On its own terms, I don't see how a materialist world-view can sustain, let alone produce modern science. In fact, modern science relies on the borrowed capital of a Christian world view which sees the cosmos as underpinned by person-ness (of God) in meaningful relationship (the Trinity) making by Word, the creation. This tells us that the cosmos has propositional content, is characterized by rational causality (not the mad impossible causality of pagans) and, by God's making us in his image, available for our investigation as its custodians or stewards to 'govern' it.
This then gives us confidence that we can reliably examine the cosmos and develop propositional explication of the knowledge we discover. We take the universe as 'designed' and so expect it to contain rationally available relationships and phenomena that we can convert to knowledge. We know there is something here to know.
Nah. You’re wrong. Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean that science can’t (eventually) explain it. The cool thing about science is that even if one person can’t explain it, they can leave their work to other scientists. We are slowly but surely figuring out exactly what makes the universe tick, and spoiler alert, it’s not a giant sky-man 😅
Well said.
@@jelly221Did you deliberately miss the point, or was that an accident? Just not listening?
@@jelly221
False. God cannot be falsified, He never will be falsified. Matter and energy do not self-create. The fact is that the more science reveals, the less we know. It's an ever-receding target because every answer only creates numerous more questions. If quantum physics hasn't shown that, nothing will..
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
You must be one of Dr Tours flock… he’s not a scientist he’s a preacher
@@jelly221 synthetic organic chemist, Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry from Syracuse University, Ph. D. in synthetic organic & organometallic chemistry from Purdue University, & postdoctoral training in organic chemistry
"When faced with a glut of data, we become intellectually lazy." For the intellectually lazy ... magic anyone?
It is when people like James Tour encourage others to distrust science that he does a disservice to us all.
Trust the science has lost all credibility. We need first to trust the scientists.
Scientists with an a priori commitment to materialism cannot be trusted on origins. Scientists with a financial or political commitment can't be trusted with medicine.
@@jockyoung4491
No, he's warning us about the limits of the claims of "science".
@@sliglusamelius8578
He is doing more than that. He is purposely encouraging distrust in science because he has a Biblical agenda that conflicts with it. Of course science has limits, but they are not where creationists want them to be
@
The Bible conflicts with nothing. You have a prior prejudice claiming that. Many of the giants of the scientific revolution were committed Christians, why do you suppose that would be? And who do you think you are compared to them??
@@sliglusamelius8578
Whether they were Christians or not is irrelevant. They followed the evidence when they did science. Faith has no place in science. Science is also not dependent on what any scientist said hundreds of years ago. Science is an ongoing process.
Glitterature =. Literature with glitter
wonderful conttent!🤤
God didn't give us the details about how he created everything because we wouldn't understand it. He is the creator. Trying to explain it to his creation is going to take a lot of time. Just follow my commandments and everything will be OK. Some of his creations can't even do something that simple.
Truss the science, more likely.
lol XD
i 've said specifically about darwinism, it's like a box that was made 200 years ago and keeps getting more info packed into it. They "truss" the box with everything possible to hold it together, but eventually it will give, and the truth hidden in the box will come to light
@@chrismessier7094WOW! And it is coming together!! This is undoubtedly the smartest thing you’ve accidentally said in a comments section
@@jelly221 this from someone who believes that molecules could eventually produce a system of _encoded information_ bearing instructions to produce nanomachinery, all through a *blind, random, unguided, piecemeal process*
XD lol
not very scientific of a worldview, but at least you believe in supernatural miracles =)
p.s. don't embrace death. it's a punishment
Believe in science, yes. Believe in Secular science? Absolutely NO.
Oh yeah because we all forgot there are two separate models of science….. your homeschool is showing
@@jelly221There are many scientific models. What are you getting at?
@@jelly221 degrading others gets you no where in life.
Forget belief, just look at the facts: Examine the biochemistry of the cell [ which is like a city with its own transport system etc] and the genetics and ask the question-Could the various living creatures have come about by small random chemical changes over time-whatever the amount of time, simply as a result of chemical changes? what is a chemical change anyway? What is a chemical effect anyway?
Ask the question: Could a collection of chemicals come together to form "life" however you would describe it, before life did not exist? What is the difference between something that is not alive and something that is alive? Ask also what consciousness is? What is free will? What is different personality? Do these come about by random chemical changes? Think about it-we are sentient beings that can think and reason and learn and build houses and planes and cars and write and use language and put a man on the moon etc. Do you think that this came about by random chemical changes-really? What is your understanding of the nature of reality that you believe that you live in and what is possible and what is not possible?
In other words ask what the implications of your belief are in practical terms and ask if it is rational to believe that this could come about by random chemical changes?
(*´･ω･) Natural selection is the character flaw in evil that is integrity is more important than life otherwise evolution is tragic circumstances with nothing intelligent happening. Almost everyone survive until they reproduce. Nothing is getting selected except for the character flaw in evil. I found a replacement for the character flaw in evil that I liked but God makes me forget things that will cause me trouble.
in the days of the Natural Philosophy Scientists, Monks in the Catholic religion led the way in investigating The Details. and They found nothing that that truly contradicted The Bible.
Great addition, add more totally random BS here pls
I love it when Catholics conflate all of Christianity with Catholicism. 😒
Do you trust political science?
Do you trust religion?
@iriemon1796 trust but verify! Is that the standard of scientists? They are thrives and perverts so science should be too. Thanks for confirming that science is no better! That was my point!
@iriemon1796 I trust the truth. How about you!
@@constructivecritique5191 Sure. I just don't trust "faith" as a basis for determining what the truth is.
@iriemon1796 it's funny how people don't trust things they don't understand! Faith=Trust=Confidence
It's fear that you trust! Fear is an animal instinct in us that we must overcome 💪 🙏
Trust the truth!
My faith is in truth!
Love conquers fear because love seeks to know the enemy intimately! When you know the dangerous parts you can avoid them!
He created the components of the elements by verbal command. Once He put them together to make the elements, making everything else elementary. He made Adam from the elements.
James has clearly never read the Bible or he treats the entire bible as metaphor.
You will find hyperbole, metaphor, allegory, prophecy and history in the bible.
@ you will find no prophecies in the Bible, just vague claims that any event in history can be used as fulfilling prophecy.
The Bible is a book of fables, legends, myths and fairytales. With many of the stories plagiarized from older stories.
The Bible is no more special than any other work of fiction. It plays an important part in Christianity, but that is it.
"Trust Jesus" means "I'm psychotic."
THIS
Say what you want. I've seen Christian miracles and you probably never looked.
@@sliglusamelius8578 : What's the difference between a "Christian miracle" and a Jewish or Muslim miracle? It's the same god, so why would the miracles be different?
@@sliglusamelius8578Same
James' alternative definition for truth displays his bias.
You're lack of studying the data opposing your world view displays your bias.
@MutsPub I've looked at the data. James is wrong.
@@worldgonemad5866 You are claiming "bias" on the part of Dr. James Tour PhD. How many times have you studied the Bible verse by verse, cover to cover? That is the data. You claim that Dr. Tour is wrong with no supporting evidence. That is bias, on your part.
@@worldgonemad5866 What specific data have you studied? Your claim that "James is wrong" without supporting evidence is irrelevant and biased. Your PhD is in which discipline?
@MutsPub the bible is a series of claims about the universe. It is not evidence. And I've been reading v the bible for about 20 years
The universe is supernatural. It was created from another dimension, a spiritual dimension called heaven. God said, "Let there be light," and there was light, in every wavelength of the spectrum. Some we can see with our eyes, some we can only detect with specific instruments, and some we may have not even yet discovered. Atoms are light. Light is the energy that powers the creation. All matter is made of atoms. All matter is light. But matter itself is not alive. Life is also supernatural. The spark of life is spirit. And that Spirit is God. Without spirit, they will never produce life in a laboratory. They are missing the main ingredient. Even if they could produce life in a laboratory, with already existing ingredients, it would still be intelligent design.
Our bodies need a few things to sustain life; food, water, air. We can live a little while if we get those things. But without clothing and shelter, the elements will kill us pretty soon. Even if we maintain all of these things, death is just around the corner. Physical life is fleeting. None of these things can give us eternal life. Jesus is the bread of life that came down from heaven. He is the only way to eternal life, and that is the truth. How do I know? I know it by faith.
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Faith is not wishful thinking. It is just like instinct or intuition. I'm sure you believe in those things. Some things you just know, without knowing how you know. Faith is more like instinct. Instinct is a built-in or programmed knowledge. Faith is a gift from God.
Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Faith comes from God. You can't “work it up”. It is not the "power of positive thinking". But you can ask for it. Even if you don't believe in God, He sees you and hears you. You can ask Him in prayer, “God, if You exist, show me the truth.” If you sincerely want to know, He will know, and He will answer that prayer. If you are not sincere, He will know, but He may still answer that prayer, or He may not.
your Wisdom is very right and true. Keep it going.
😅 is genesis your primary source?? Good one, all the actually scientists are SHOOK
@@jelly221 Just plain truth that anybody could understand.
["The universe is supernatural. "]
Prove it.
@@iriemon1796 Every thing is proof. That everything exists instead of nothing, proves that every thing that exists in nature came from something outside of nature, super nature or supernatural. Every thing in this natural world had a beginning. "In the beginning, God created." Everything that exists in this natural world is an image or like kind of things from that super natural. Because everything in this natural world is light, it could be turned on just like flipping a switch, or just by speaking it into existence. "Let there be", and there it was. You may reject all of the proof that you see around you, you may reject the proof you see when you look in the mirror, but it is proof nevertheless.
(ヽ´ω`) We need to popularize the idea of getting God married. Getting God married is a good use of someone's time. You are supposed to make the environment intelligent so no God is needed. We fixed the video and audio for the best experience possible. Cameras are supernatural and all of them captured 3D that not a gimmick. The audio loud don't make violence so has depth. Nobody has to buy anything for it to work.
Dr. James Tour, you are a treasure to the Body of Messiah. Please, please keep producing this great work for the glory of God!
We need a record of good Christian scientists dismantling the lies of evolution for our generation and future ones.
What is a scientific theory?
Do you call plate tectonics and gravity lies?
Why don’t you show evolution is a lie….
@@therick363 Gravity is a law, not really a theory. Einstein's theory of general relativity is used to explain gravity, so perhaps you could call that a theory of gravity for a layman, but it's a bit more than just gravity.
Evolution is a lie in that there is no justification for the assumptions being made beyond a commitment to materialism. To claim that life originated by some natural process of abiogenesis is supported only by that commitment. To claim that life then went on to evolve into the whole of biodiversity is likewise supported ONLY by that commitment.
The theory is no confirmed by empirical evidence, rather by the exclusion of any and all competing hypotheses.
You know this is true, I think we've gone over this in the past. You pretend to have never learned this.
@ sigh. I see you didn’t bother to answer the questions I posted.
Do you know the difference between a law and theory? Because based off what you said I have to ask.
I also see you have right to the condescending and cherry picking based off what you said.
Now then. Would you like to have an honest conversation about the things you said and the topics? Yes or no? I am asking especially based on your past paragraph which is completely false about me.
@@therick363 I only have honest conversations. I thought my grasp of scientific theories and laws were implied in my answer. I'll be clear, yes I do know the difference. I understand the term colloquially and as scientific jargon.
As for condescending, I meet you where you are. You took that very tone so I simply adopted it for myself. I believe we are on equal footing here.
Perhaps there is another "therick" out there. Would be an incredible coincidence. I've yet to be properly refuted on the a priori commitment to materialism claim.
@ okay then. Let’s have an honest conversation. I would like that.
Please share the difference between a scientific law and theory. I ask because you said gravity is a law but not a theory? Sorry mate but it’s both.
_evolution is a lie that has no justification_
I’m sorry but you said you only have honest conversations? Evolution IS a scientific theory because of the scientific evidence which justifies it being a theory. You added abiogenesis and materialism into the conversation-why? You said the theory is not confirmed by evidence? Then why is it a scientific theory?
Why do you say, 'Now we understand the way God DID this', rather than saying 'This is the way God DOES this'. Next time you start your car, remember you don't need the starter to keep the engine running! Scientist don't have access to the starter! So keep analyzing the engine, you will never find out about the starter.
As a corollary, When you shut off the engine, all you need to do is stop the laws that keep the process going, turn the key off, no spark! When the world ends, all He will need to do is shut off gravity, weak force, electro-magnetic force, the strong force or any combination He wants and the elements will 'melt' with fervent heat. Poof! Who told you God has to 'obey' the laws of nature!
Yep, cuz humans are cars & God is our heavenly mechanic. Reminds me of a guy in Brooklyn…..
@@jelly221 Perhaps auto-mobile would be a better term than car when referring to humans. Right now I'm ready for an overhaul! I think I'll call Jesus my heavenly Melchizedek. Reminds me of a guy from the Brook Cherith!
You can't trust the bible, because it contains contradictions.
Biblical text contradictions = do not trust. This logic could apply to most of life experience. Trust is something by degree. Little or alot. Not zero or completely.
@@antbrown9066sooo what we just trust it bc it’s old? Or bc it has more subscribers on RUclips? Or wait, I know. Because it says itself that it’s the word of god!!!!! Amazing, I am convinced.
@@jelly221 your dialogue shows a somewhat disorganised thought process. Try another response with some degree of order.
What contradictions? Back up your claims? Spoiler: no contradictions.
@@mattk6719 Here are some:
Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?
God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)
And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
How many fighting men in Israel were reported by Joab?
• Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
• And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.
• One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)
And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.
Bible is most scientific book
Bible is a work of fiction.
Lol.
It may well be that the Old Testament promotes critical thinking as prerequisite for szientific thinking, but the New Testament with its late antique belief in miracles is probably rather counterproductive.
@@ShabadSadana Biblical creation was disproved in the 1800s.
@@ShabadSadana ,
“The writers of the Bible were illuminated more or less, some more than others. On the question of salvation. On other questions they were as wise or as ignorant as their generation.
Hence it is utterly unimportant that errors of historic or scientific fact should be found in the Bible, especially if errors relate to events that were not directly observed by those who wrote about them.”
- Georges Lemaitre
“Should a priest reject relativity because it contains no authoritative exposition on the doctrine of the Trinity? Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes . . . The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible. If the theory of relativity had also been necessary for salvation, it would have been revealed to Saint Paul or to Moses.” -
Georges Lemaitre
This is why the scientific community does not take James seriously when he claims the Bible is fact.
James' groundbreaking scientific breakthroughs and numerous laurels he has obtained in the area of science belie your claim that the scientific community doesn't take him serious.
Dr. Tours has created many startup companies funded by industry..investors do not invest money in companies started by scientists not preeminent in their field of study.
@@AdizaDawuni They don't take his creationist blithering on Origin of Life seriously, nor should they.
@@AdizaDawuni and these breakthroughs contradict the claims of the Bible and are based on reality not fantasy.
@@littleacorn2244 He doesn't mix the two.
@iriemon1796 you still haven't answered my original question. Do you trust political science? 🤔 if you thought the question was vague, then you could have given a general answer. But instead, you chose to be a dishonest troll.
Political science is what is being used by the media. Their rhetoric is designed to dismiss opposition to a political process. So, if it's politically beneficial to promote the sale of drugs and the users are uninformed, then it's easy to make the false claim about the drug benefits. Political science has many tactics at disposal to promote a political agenda. Many tactics can be dishonest and crude but effective. The word "political hack" comes to mind. In the end, the truth comes out, and what seems expedient at first may have the opposite effect, causing the political agenda to fail. I trust the curropted political tactics used will cause the user to rot in prison and be removed from the political science bag of tricks.
While it is true that God could create life it is quite literally, absolutely and incontrovertibly impossible for God to resurrect the dead, including most especially Jesus. Resurrection is one of those things that God cannot do.
Well he quite literally, absolutely and incontrovertibly did. Multiple times.
@danielwilliams7161 that's where you are mistaken and the Bible clearly in error. Didn't you notice that the Bible's resurrection narratives clearly indicate that the Apostles saw a ghost or a vision rather than a resurrected body? Human bodies, for example, don't travel through locked doors.
Well that's a weird thing to say.
So, Elohim can bring into existence all matter, space, time, and energy. He can Create man from the dust of the Earth and breathe life into his nostrils.
But there is no way He can revive a dead person?
@MutsPub he cannot.
Miller-Urey was an example of Intelligent Design, not abiogensis.
Inane creationist claim no.2854: Any intelligently designed experiment done by a human in a science lab to test a natural phenomenon is evidence for Intelligent Design of the phenomenon. 😄😄😄
How’s that?
@@littleacorn2244 Has science observed life being formed by natural processes? No. Yes, the experiment is an example of intelligent design. When an experiment demonstrates what can also be observed, it's still intelligent design, yet it is verified by observation of what actually occurs.
A short fact note. Stanley Miller listened to a 1951 lecture by Harold C. Urey.
Prof. Urey was reviewing then current data on the atmospheres of the outer planets in our solar system. He speculated that the big oxygen load here on Earth was due to life, and the outer plantes might be like the Earth's prior to the origin of life.
Stanley approached Prof. Urey with a proposed experiment. His idea was to simulate this primitive atmosphere, and see if complex molecules would form spontaneously.
They did.
This was published.
Miller, Stanley L.,
1953 “A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions” Science vol. 117:528-529
A good review on the many variations used to avoid any "intelligent design" accusations is;
Stanley L. Miller & H. James Cleaves
2007 "Prebiotic Chemistry on the Primitive Earth" Systems Biology, Volume I: Genomics. Oxford University Press 2007
@@robertlucke3100that’s not ID
i would really like to see Dr. James Tour debate Dr. Richard Dawkins. though i think Mr. Dawkins would decline an invitation.
James Tour isn't a debater, he tried that. He's a scientist and as such he asks questions and is qualified to evaluate the answers. So far, none of the answers have made sense so he says as much.
two clowns 😂 full of it. 🤦
Says the fool on the sidelines...
@@mattk6719 Like Tour is a fool on the sidelines of OOL research.
@@mattk6719 oh please lol
@iriemon1796 Faith is the only way to know anything. If a person of science discovered the ultimate truth, they would not even know because it's not what they are searching for. If a person of faith accepted ultimate truth existed, they would put faith in it and know how to deliver it.
The “ ultimate truth” is?
@@therick363 You will never know!
@ so you don’t have the answer. Got it.
@@therick363 Wrong again! You don't understand what words mean!
@@constructivecritique5191 sigh. Classic you. Pulling cheap dishonest lying tactics and dodging. You haven’t changed
Dr. Tour said that questions are welcome in his comment section. So how come when I ask questions, without even accusing Jim of anything, why do I get labeled as a troll, hater, or someone who’s using “ad hominem” or “appeal to authority”?
Those are standard creationist deflections to avoid discussing scientific points.
Modern cosmology is a religion. So is Darwinism. Both have no weight. Dr Tour has asked OOL researchers to answer simple questions. They can’t.
@@crusader333ad Flat Earthers ask NASA to answer their silly "gotcha' questions too. Tour is a nobody in OOL research and his creationist antics make him a laughingstock.
@@littleacorn2244 You don't have to tell me that.
Maybe because you posted the same comments 8 times?
Dr. Tour said he wants to talk to the people who don’t read scientific literature in his debate with Dave Farina. How does he plan to do that if he won’t interact with them? He said he’ll only debate people with Ph.Ds. But do you really think the average person will understand what terms like powder x-ray diffraction, diffuse reflectance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, and SQUID magnetometry are? Terms I’m pretty sure people with Ph.Ds know enough about to use them in a manner besides explaining to others what they are? I mean, at some point, you’ll have to dumb down what these terms mean so much, you don’t even need a Ph.D to explain what they are.
Also, isn’t it a bit presumptuous to say every person who doesn’t have a Ph.D doesn’t know chemistry based on 1 interaction? Do you really need a Ph.D to commentate on stuff without even providing any new information? For example, I may not have a Ph.D in mathematics but I do know that 1*1 doesn’t equal 2
BUT TERRY SAID 1*1=2 😂
Dr. Tour said he wants to talk to the people who don’t read scientific literature in his debate with Dave Farina. How does he plan to do that if he won’t interact with them? He said he’ll only debate people with Ph.Ds. But do you really think the average person will understand what terms like powder x-ray diffraction, diffuse reflectance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, and SQUID magnetometry are? Terms I’m pretty sure people with Ph.Ds know enough about to use them in a manner besides explaining to others what they are? I mean, at some point, you’ll have to dumb down what these terms mean so much, you don’t even need a Ph.D to explain what they are.
Also, isn’t it a bit presumptuous to say every person who doesn’t have a Ph.D doesn’t know chemistry based on 1 interaction? Do you really need a Ph.D to commentate on stuff without even providing any new information? For example, I may not have a Ph.D in mathematics but I do know that 1*1 doesn’t equal 2
Dr. Tour said he wants to talk to the people who don’t read scientific literature in his debate with Dave Farina. How does he plan to do that if he won’t interact with them? He said he’ll only debate people with Ph.Ds. But do you really think the average person will understand what terms like powder x-ray diffraction, diffuse reflectance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, and SQUID magnetometry are? Terms I’m pretty sure people with Ph.Ds know enough about to use them in a manner besides explaining to others what they are? I mean, at some point, you’ll have to dumb down what these terms mean so much, you don’t even need a Ph.D to explain what they are.
Also, isn’t it a bit presumptuous to say every person who doesn’t have a Ph.D doesn’t know chemistry based on 1 interaction? Do you really need a Ph.D to commentate on stuff without even providing any new information? For example, I may not have a Ph.D in mathematics but I do know that 1*1 doesn’t equal 2
Dr. Tour said he wants to talk to the people who don’t read scientific literature in his debate with Dave Farina. How does he plan to do that if he won’t interact with them? He said he’ll only debate people with Ph.Ds. But do you really think the average person will understand what terms like powder x-ray diffraction, diffuse reflectance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, and SQUID magnetometry are? Terms I’m pretty sure people with Ph.Ds know enough about to use them in a manner besides explaining to others what they are? I mean, at some point, you’ll have to dumb down what these terms mean so much, you don’t even need a Ph.D to explain what they are.
Also, isn’t it a bit presumptuous to say every person who doesn’t have a Ph.D doesn’t know chemistry based on 1 interaction? Do you really need a Ph.D to commentate on stuff without even providing any new information? For example, I may not have a Ph.D in mathematics but I do know that 1*1 doesn’t equal 2
Dr. Tour said he wants to talk to the people who don’t read scientific literature in his debate with Dave Farina. How does he plan to do that if he won’t interact with them? He said he’ll only debate people with Ph.Ds. But do you really think the average person will understand what terms like powder x-ray diffraction, diffuse reflectance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, and SQUID magnetometry are? Terms I’m pretty sure people with Ph.Ds know enough about to use them in a manner besides explaining to others what they are? I mean, at some point, you’ll have to dumb down what these terms mean so much, you don’t even need a Ph.D to explain what they are.
Also, isn’t it a bit presumptuous to say every person who doesn’t have a Ph.D doesn’t know chemistry based on 1 interaction? Do you really need a Ph.D to commentate on stuff without even providing any new information? For example, I may not have a Ph.D in mathematics but I do know that 1*1 doesn’t equal 2
Dr. Tour said he wants to talk to the people who don’t read scientific literature in his debate with Dave Farina. How does he plan to do that if he won’t interact with them? He said he’ll only debate people with Ph.Ds. But do you really think the average person will understand what terms like powder x-ray diffraction, diffuse reflectance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, and SQUID magnetometry are? Terms I’m pretty sure people with Ph.Ds know enough about to use them in a manner besides explaining to others what they are? I mean, at some point, you’ll have to dumb down what these terms mean so much, you don’t even need a Ph.D to explain what they are.
Also, isn’t it a bit presumptuous to say every person who doesn’t have a Ph.D doesn’t know chemistry based on 1 interaction? Do you really need a Ph.D to commentate on stuff without even providing any new information? For example, I may not have a Ph.D in mathematics but I do know that 1*1 doesn’t equal 2
Dr. Tour said he wants to talk to the people who don’t read scientific literature in his debate with Dave Farina. How does he plan to do that if he won’t interact with them? He said he’ll only debate people with Ph.Ds. But do you really think the average person will understand what terms like powder x-ray diffraction, diffuse reflectance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, and SQUID magnetometry are? Terms I’m pretty sure people with Ph.Ds know enough about to use them in a manner besides explaining to others what they are? I mean, at some point, you’ll have to dumb down what these terms mean so much, you don’t even need a Ph.D to explain what they are.
Also, isn’t it a bit presumptuous to say every person who doesn’t have a Ph.D doesn’t know chemistry based on 1 interaction? Do you really need a Ph.D to commentate on stuff without even providing any new information? For example, I may not have a Ph.D in mathematics but I do know that 1*1 doesn’t equal 2
You claim that you are not a troll, yet you post 10 copies of this post, and raise Dave Farina, the Troll Par Excellence?
@ how did I “raise” Dave? Did I say anything praising Dave in my comment? If so, prove it.
@@ianlee5812
lol. He debated Farina, whom you apparently raised right in your rant, who does not have a PhD. Farina was awful, he yells and insults and trolls, and has no PhD and doesn't understand the science. You know math well enough, what are the sequence odds of a single biological protein forming randomly the proper sequence of amino acids for it to be a functional protein if it is 150 amino acids long? Single point mutations cause many human diseases, so the sequence really matters. What are the mathematical odds? 150 amino acids in sequence....
@@sliglusamelius8578 LOL @ your revisionist history. It was Tour who screamed and stomped around the stage like a petulant child. Farina made Tour look like a raving creationist fool. Or more precisely, Tour showed himself to be a raving creationist fool.
@@sliglusamelius8578 *what are the sequence odds of a single biological protein forming randomly* Ridiculous non-sequitur because no one in science says or thinks 150AA proteins formed randomly.