The funny thing with Dr Tour’s work is that NOONE in any scientific field has dared to challenge him in anything he has affirmed regarding the sillines of abiogenesis and the whole Darwinian myth. I love Dr Tour for his courage and knowledge, more importantly for his love for Jesus.
Why would you want to waste your time challenging James Tour about his opinions?! What good would that do? What truth would come out of a debate over opinions? To me it seems opinion are irrelevant and research that establishes facts, is what's required. For instance: If James Tour want to theorize that "God did it!" can he verify that god actually exists? This would seem like a necessary prerequisite before James Tour's theory could be considered seriously.
@@gladishilton1943 The fact you are here proves GOD exists! Unless YOU can prove that you are here through a different means other than GOD or you can prove you don't exist! LOL
@@gladishilton1943 Dr Tour isn’t interested in opinions and, only marginally intelligent people (such as yourself obviously) would put the “God did it” clause into his lecture (when he never once said it). I guess atheists like you, just never get tired of being wrong.
@@inconnu4961 "The fact that you are here proves God" - Rubbish! That is just an empty assertion. Unless YOU can prove god exists you can't give him the credit for creating Life. So, how are you going to do that - prove your god exists? People have been searching for over 2000 years for proof of your god, and like proof for every other god, they're still completely empty handed. Ha, Ha!
@@patrickian8843 James Tour never discusses his theory that "God did it!" because scientifically he cannot even make a start to verify anything about it. His theory is a fairy tale.
@@H0neyBear We are all the same "I am". And the proposition "I am"/"I exist" is logically always true. Therefore we are eternal. The fact that we are eternal and we are all the same "I am", it means we are all one and the same God.
@@dannylad1600 I had a discussion with an atheist that was really deep into science and “science”. The first thing he told me is “the moon isn’t a planet” and I was like damn 😂 He is speaking facts. Even the title is facts and I don’t need to hear evidence to know it
"I was just minding my own business...not anymore". They poked the wrong bear. This man knows that life has no chance of forming on its own out in a puddle somewhere. He also knows that nobody can prove that it can, not even close. They only have the "belief" that it can happen. Exposing their lies to the public is awesome. They just don't like the truth being revealed that they haven't a clue.
@@7solovelol, and first there was nothing and then there was space, planets, laws of physics, elements, helium and hydrogen, etc. Nature is your magical daddy that has no limits.
@@chiph1841 for 700,000,000 years this planet was dead. Now it isn’t. That transition is something that’s being investigated. Tour does not make the claim you attribute to him- certainly not if there’s an actual scientist in the room. You accuse dozens of scientists I doubt you could name of lying. Shame on you
@@rikardotsamsiyu professor Dave can’t even explain chloroquine resistance in the organism that causes malaria . How about you pm professor Dave and set up a dialogue between professor tour and professor Dave I bet you that professor Dave will Never accept doing this ;)
@@tdzenda you don’t know about those because even professor Dave’s fellow chemists won’t touch his videos because they are full of errors . Professor Dave needs to be a student in professor tours classroom so James tour can teach him how to do actual chemistry 😂
@@rikardotsamsiyu rikard how about you explain one simple question from even me . Tell me rikard how does neo Darwinian evolution explain chloroquine resistance in the organism that causes malaria . Neither you nor professor Dave can answer this because even the atheist Darwinist evolutionary biologists who are more knowledgeable then the non PhD professor Dave Farina can answer this Coke on rikard , you started this by your response. The problem with people like you is that you can only look at one side of the debate and you completely ignore the other side . And then when someone like me has researched the other sides responses you are completely clueless like a deer in the head lights . It’s people like you that caused me to doubt my own atheism and eventually brought me back to belief in God Thank you so much rikard Big hug for you for everything you’ve done in my life 😂
“YOU DON’T HAVE RIBOSE” 😂 Someone should make Meme or T-shirt out of that statement. Dr James Tour is correct, the scientific community nowadays is more interested in finding funding than real scientific discoveries. It’s a shame.
Start here; Springsteen G, Joyce GF. 2004 "Selective derivatization and sequestration of ribose from a prebiotic mix" J Am Chem Soc. 2004 Aug 11;126(31):9578-83 Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A. 2004 "Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose" Science January 9; 303: 196 (in Brevia) Banfalvi, G., 2006. Why ribose was selected as the sugar component of nucleic acids. DNA and cell biology, 25(3), pp.189-196. Vázquez-Mayagoitia Á, Horton SR, Sumpter BG, Šponer J, Šponer JE, Fuentes-Cabrera M. 2011 "On the stabilization of ribose by silicate minerals" Astrobiology. 2011 Mar;11(2):115-21.
Dr Tour has openly stated that he doesn't believe RNA could have formed prebiotically. He calls it "a bunch of nonsense". We now know that not only was it possible to form prebiotically, but even that it could form in rocks... friggin' ROCKS (like borate). He doesn't want to accept this, because it means he would have to modify his understanding of the subject, which violates his religion. The irony of the whole thing is that he could simply accept the idea that some have that his god created the world this way, but he instead chooses to reject reality. It's really quite disheartening, ngl, because if I wanted to know something about nanocars, Dr Tour is probably one of the first people I'd go to on the subject. And no, he is NOT correct that science nowadays is more interested in finding funding than real scientific discoveries... that's just a way of connecting emotionally with the suggestible layperson. If you were actually a scientist operating inside of the scientific community, you'd know this... but you're not, and are thus just repeating this point as an argument from authority.
@@visancosmin8991 I've seen you comment this same comment around a few places. And you are an intelligent person, I'll give you that. But you are neither God, and nor am I. God is a Person that you are ignoring, or claiming His title incorrectly. I advise humbleness, not the arrogance to state "I am God." It is a short step off that particular pier.
@@nathanielalderson9111 You don't understand what God is. You put no effort into obtaining that understanding. You just mindlessly adopted the memes that you found around in your culture.
I studied biology, organic chemistry and engineering so reading science papers while not easy is doable for me if interesting. People at the University where my astronomy club sometimes has talks were all really excited some amino acid carbohydrates were discovered on Ruygu, a CI chondrite asteroid that was sampled and returned to Earth by the Japanese Hayabusa 2 probe mission. Without going into details a few science journals went a little overboard, but to show the difference in how science and the media work in Japan it was kept pretty low key instead of giant headlines of the "they've found proof of life on a meteor" we get from our own credulous science media/pop media that people eat up. Yes I used meteor wrong on purpose.
Experiments to produce the building blocks of life always begin with unnaturally pure, concentrated reagents. These are purchased from laboratory supply shops and produced through sophisticated, intelligently designed processes. And From pre-existing donor cells Dr.Tour 🏆
@Gary Hurd We can give chemists in optimal lab environments every life friendly Ingredient and it still doesn't self assemble into anything close to a "primitive cell" The atheist community has nothing but hope and wishful thinking for the Abiogenesis fantasy!
i consider myself atheist. but im certainly not dismissive of factual data that someone presents as he’s doing. doesnt suddenly mean a god exists. either way, i never realized how flawed this model was. really good information to have.
According to expert professor Dave, if you leave milk,sugar, and coffee powder in a room, after millions of years, one can have piping hot Cappuccino coffee to drink. Tour is arguing that even to get the basic ingredients- milk, sugar and coffee powder- a lengthy process is involved. That cannot be explained by random activity. But conceding this for argument sake, in the course of millions of years milk, sugar and coffee powder will get decomposed . That makes the chances of a piping hot Cappuccino coffee impossible. Time is a negative factor against abiogenesis. To understand the above realities, one need not have 150 plus IQ. Commonsense without prejudice is enough.
@@reasonablespeculation3893 Well, the same charge can be brought against me by Tour's fans too! " According to...." Check up a good dictionary to know what it means. Either you're a native speaker of English or one for whom English is a second or third language. In case you are the former , I pity you. In case you're the latter, learn a little more of the language to understand what I have conveyed.
@Arulsammy Mankondar Dictionary definition of According (adverb): As stated by or in. As clearly shown by the dictionary definition you accused Professor Dave of saying something he didn't. It wasn't a simile or a metaphor. It was a bold faced lie.
Over the last 8 years I've been looking into both sides and continuing to improve my grasp of understanding it all. Because I didn't really have much going on in life & I enjoyed the hunt for truth. I learned how to argue from both sides & pick apart everything I say with a shift on perspective. The point I'm getting at here is that It all comes down to both positions being a matter of faith & perspective. I spent a lot of time thinking about what I should believe & the answer It came down to was as simple as realising, only one side offered me hope. Where as the other side would have me believe and hope in nothing. At some point over this last year it would seem I have become a Christian again and I may even be going back to church tomorrow with a friend for the first time in over 25 years. Have you ever seen the optical illusion of the spinning ballerina? So many people can only see it spinning one way, either to the left or to the right, but some people can also shift their perspective & control what direction they see it spinning. That's what all of this is. An optical illusion that's fun and interesting to look at & learn about, but ultimately a distraction that's meant to keep you distracted from God. None of it means anything without finding faith & hope through Him. Only took me about 40 years to figure it out.
That, is the what we need to center in on, Samuel. This will help center the goal for us. "10 My goal is to know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship... Philippians 3 Satan does not want us to know God. He knows that " But we all, with uncovered face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image, from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord." 2 Corinthians 3 Seek to know Him more.
I would suggest anyone with even a High School degree filled with chemistry , biology and physics would understand how ludicrous origin of life coming from 'nothing' to advanced life forms is laughable.
I think this is Dr Tour's clearest, most cohesive presentation to date. The shenanigans of the OoL in no small part have lead to the current distrust of science and scientists who claim - we know, we have the answer, and are found wanting. Blaming the media for megaphoning such hype as science fact, further destroys their credibility.
There are no "shenanigans" in abiogenesis research, only morons in the media who have about as much scientific understanding as a head of cabbage who like to make up bullshit for sensationalism. This has NOTHING to do with the scientists themselves. The only scientists who think they have all the answers are the ones who try to promote completely idiotic claims about things they have no clue about, such as Pierre-Marie Robitaille thinking he's an astrophysicist, literally everyone at the Discovery Institute thinking they know the first thing about ANY science at all, and yeah, even Dr Tour thinking he knows about abiogenesis, when he's proven repeatedly that he knows nothing on the subject and apparently likes it that way. The lies he tells are so transparent to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the field that it's frankly embarrassing. He needs to knock it off, as he is literally part of the problem with anti-science bias. But... all these lies sit well with people who don't care about reality but just want to hear stories that confirm their biases, so it's a pretty profitable venture for him... and so many fall for it, just like they fall for the delusions of absolute muppets like Matt Powell and Ray Comfort.
@@TheTykus The issue is that Tour doesn't want anyone going into OoL research so he actively discourages them by spinning this web of lies and misrepresentations to make it seem like nonsense. Smart people, however, can see through his foolishness. I can't think of any reason outside of his faith why he would want to do this, but I guess his faith is reason enough... which is ironic, considering honesty is supposed to be a hallmark of his faith in the first place, and here he is, lying like a rug. The preservation of his faith clearly means more to him than the principles of his faith. It's rather disheartening to see.
Davey Forina is a certified Fraud holding yourself up as a so-called "Professor" when you only have a bachelor's degree and couldn't bother to get an education... You couldn't ties Dr. Tour's shoe-laces. /Repudiate pretenders like Davey Forina
@@spalding1968 how much OoL research have you read? Sutherland and Powner’s abiotic synthesis of activated pyrimidine: how does that fit in with the wee slogan? You can have an opinion that salmon sashimi is better than grilled salmon. You can’t have an opinion that salmon live in trees and eat pencils.
@@mcmanustony don’t argue with me . Argue with Tour . Like you did when he gave an open challenge to OOL scientists to answer his 5 part challenge and you publicly proved him wrong ….oh wait ….🤨
@@desiderata8811 The part I find the most funny is the thumbnail... "You've been deceived!" Brainwashing 101. The easiest way to deceive people is to tell them that they've already been deceived... so they are nice and receptive to your brand of deceit. It's shockingly effective, but to those of us who can see through this façade, it's just obnoxious.
There is no problem with legitimate scientific inquiry of any kind. The problem is with scientists that grossly exaggerate their findings and progress. We need more people like Dr Tour in more areas of science.
@@JessicaSunlight ..or what you have been indoctrinated into believing what is true. How many papers has Dr. Tour submitted for peer review to the scientific community?
@@casparuskruger4807 Tour is well published in synthetic chemistry. His obsessive falsehoods about abiogenesis stem from his youthful conversion experience. This is how he maintains the notion that there is a scientific basis for religion.
I have listened to several of Dr. James Tour's videos on this topic, and I believe that the Lord is using this man mightily! God bless you Dr. Tour, you are a treasure.
Yes, you're correct. But, Dr. Tour refuses to publish papers in peer reviewed journals, or engage in debate with the extremely vast number of scientists who oppose his views. He only publishes books funded by Apologetic Institutions, so he is basically a cheering section of ONE, in the scientific world. He's only confortable to con lay people, who do not have enough scientific knowledge to disagree with him.
@@vincentc.mercandetti9917 or he is very aware of how unethical they and their financiers are along with the controlled media, corrupt governments, and the money powers that have taken over the medical field, the banks, the research institutions etc. A persona has to be retarded if you are oblivious to the immense corruption that has spread its slimy fingers into everything mainstream.
@@vincentc.mercandetti9917 Vincent sounds like your from the religion of atheism . I’m a itty of 1 how about we dialogue on science and I show how science is leaning in the direction of 2 huge assertions made in the Bible . Are you secure enough in your religion of atheism to have a science based discussion with me ? Topic : soul and the afterlife Second of all dr tour wouldn’t be able to get any of this stuff that he talked about passed through peer reviewed because we are currently living in a paradigm of methodological materialism and they would never pass papers in this part of hard science such as chemistry that goes against their sacred paradigm Ps : I’m a former atheist who came back to Christianity through science logic and reason . Ready for a dialogue Wink wink
@@angelbrother1238 Atheism is not a religion, so you're off to a bad start. What are your two science based assertions? I can use the laugh. And you're not gay (are you?), why are you winking at me?
@@vincentc.mercandetti9917 oh and Vince T can you please bring 5 more atheists with you onto this thread :( This won’t be fair Typical atheist mind . I should know , I used to be an atheist until this amazing miracle happened to me making it impossible for me to stay an atheist anymore after 4 years of atheism WaTch this folks ;)
I have never been so intrigued while feeling so stupid at the same time. I love to listen to you teach. Your enthusiasm is captivating. As I listen to your words I am only more and more enthralled by the glory of our God, and His immense power.
The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them.
@@stevepaige7557 I reference the Gospel itself John 21:24 "This is the disciple[whom Jesus loved/ Lazarus] which testifieth of these things, AND WROTE THESE THINGS: and we[Apostles] know that his testimony is true." John 11:5 Now Jesus LOVED Martha, and her sister, and LAZARUS John 11:3 Therefore his sisters sent unto him{Jesus], saying, Lord, behold, HE[Lazarus] WHOM THOU LOVEST is sick.. John11:36 Then said the Jews, Behold how he[Jesus] LOVED him[Lazarus]!
Personally I believe in Creation and I believe in Intelligent Design. Now, regardless of my personal position and belief. I have to say, this Professor had me laughing on so many levels! This is one of the few videos on the origins of life and organic chemistry that I've seen that is actually both educational and entertaining to say the least.
Creation AND intelligent design…? Isn’t the later basically a Deist approach (ie a-Bliblical), whereas as Biiblical Creation requires acceptance of Young Earth - ie what orthodox Christianity subscribed to until the Lyell-Darwin heresy took root, which rapidly led to eugenics and the worst forms of racism. By their fruit… etc!
@@brokula1312 how he points out the half truths to the research papers designed to keep the grant money coming while pretending they have made great advances.
> Intelligent Design Intelligent Design doesn't exist. It's just a shallow and deceitful attempt to runaround the goalposts that prevent religious bunk from being taught in schools. Intelligent Design is just creationism renamed. Creationism is bunk. It tells us nothing, we're not made wiser by such claims, we learn nothing from it.
Thank you Dr. Tour for your unyielding faith in God and truth. When they come after you instead of your work, it speaks volumes...👊👊 Lawrence krauss - “We are fearfully and wonderfully made by nothing” Richard Dawkins - “ We are Fearfully and wonderfully made by Alliens” OOL researcher - “ We are Fearfully and wonderfully made by billion year old Soup” King David - “ We are Fearfully and wonderfully made by God”
I am now in my early 60's and the time of my undergraduate years is long past. I still very much have an interest in many different areas of scientific investigation. What disturbs me most about today is that so many of those who teach in the higher education environments have fallen into the trap of having the students only focus on the current consensus or popularly held views (theories and models) in the various scientific fields as if those theories and models were the "truth". In fact, a discussion that I had with one such university educator (nuclear physics) showed me that students looking at alternative theories and models were to be discouraged from their investigations. It saddened me that such an attitude was shown, but I have found that this attitude is much more common than I ever expected. My undergraduate studies were in electrical engineering and computer science and we were always encouraged to remember that all of the theories and models we used were only applicable within certain quite narrow situations. Change those basic conditions and those theories and models would fail. It was only in later years that I came across George Box's statement of "all models are wrong, but some are useful" and at that point realised that this was the fundamental position that we were being taught. I have extended that saying as "all of our theories and models are wrong, but can be useful in various places". Interestingly, I did come across a set of physics writings in which the author actually described his work as being useful for calculation but do not expect reality to match that model.
1956...it was a different planet for my parents. Today, kids are portrayed as a burden...no worth, pain in the ass, etc. Its very sad to see my grandchildrens situation. United we once stood, a proud people, divided we have fallen, flush with our own shames. By design. Evil deceiving evil, as it is written. Ps. Love the "all models are wrong too"! My 9th grade shop teacher used to say it all the time (:
@@visancosmin8991 Oh, Visan, I understand that life is a gift from God, but as Dr. Tour mentioned, when a living thing ceases to live, what is it that was lost? The life force isn't physical, something that we can replace. Even Dr. Tour, brilliant as he is, doesn't know what life IS, or how to create it. I'm in awe of God's majesty!
@@warrenpope749 What is lost is consciousness. That's why a chemical solution to the origin of life is impossible. Those chemicals didn't come together by the laws of chemistry, they were brought together by consciousness. That's why they fail to replicate life in laboratory, because they only mess with chemicals, but they cannot invoke consciousness to enter those chemicals to organize them.
Super interesting and informative. I've watched all your videos in the two seasons. Subsequently unsubscribed from "the other guy" after the insight I got from your lectures. I am a simple guy with more questions than answers and life is way too complex to be answered in the foolish manner some text books want us to believe. Thanks for making the effort to bring clarity. We need more voices like yours.
we're living in the age of scientism bud, spacetime isn't fundamental to physics, quantum mechanics isn't fundamental to reality. nothing can explain consciousness...... and 'scientists' still think the grand canyon wasn't formed by lightning lol it's like the pseudoscientists and scientists switched places once government and corporate interests got to strong in science.
Sorry to hear that you've been decieved by James. He's a lying scammer that thoroughly misrepresents origin of life research. I recommend you do some independent research on the topic instead of listening to this idiot.
GreatUncleBuck I can't say I've had the... _"""""pleasure"""""_ of having subbed to Tour, but it feels like I'm in the opposite boat. Care to elaborate on how these "lectures" carry more insight than Dave's educational content? If you're not a trained chemist, these videos claims shouldn't be important nor insightful, as it's terribly difficult to follow much of the important bits or the papers without at least _a _*_basic_* understanding of chemistry (More than what *I* got from two semesters of Chemistry and the vaguely baseline level playlist on Dave's channel).
@@ivoryas1696I would like it to be dumbed down into Laypeople terms personally. It looks a lot like an in house debate. My grade 12 chemistry class doesn't help me here. From what he said at the beginning, to paraphrase "molecules don't move toward life unless acted on by organic material". This sounds to me like something else I heard about Electricity. Electricity is chaotic unless utilized by something that can harness and direct it, like a toaster oven. Similarly, it sounds like he's saying molecules are mindless and only do what you need them to do when directed by information. The prebiotic molecule had no such direction, so they would constantly fall apart after accidently assembling themselves....this is granting they could actually form by accident.
@@Lambdamale. Electricity isn't "chaotic", that doesn't really make sense as a way of describing it. Magnetic fields and lightning and electromagnetic phenomena all existed and functioned just fine well before we figured out how to make interesting things that use electromagnetism. We just used the properties of charged molecules to do cool things, those properties existed regardless of how we used them. Molecules are mindless, but they are not directionless. Matter has combinatorial properties, which means that completely independent of any human interaction at all, chemistry happens and matter interacts and combines in various ways, "directed" by the laws of physics. The "direction" of a prebiotic molecule, is that if conditions are such that some chemical reaction can occur, it occurs. That's all chemistry is. When humans do chemistry, we aren't imbuing the matter with some "essence" or "substance" that we call information, we're just creating the conditions that allow for a particular chemical reaction to happen. If the same conditions were created naturally somewhere else, the same chemistry would occur whether or not a human was there to facilitate it. Information also isn't a "thing" in the normal sense. It's a thing insofar as it's a concept that we have in our brains, but "information" is just a word we use to describe a pattern or sequence of things. The matter *is* the information. Molecules exist, and they exist in a specific geometry and composition of atoms, and that specific geometry and those specific atoms allow for chemical reactions with other specific molecules to happen. In the case of DNA, the strands aren't imbued with some particular material "information" that lets them work. DNA strands are a pattern of base pairs, that RNA reads and then acts on based on the pattern. That's it.
Funny. I think he is a wonderful public speaker. You are obviously a poor listener. Guys like you probably consider the empty, stammering fool Barack Maobama to be a great orator.
So, what specifically did he say that is not accurate? A time stamp of his inaccuracy would be helpful. I am relatively new to the topic, but a my background in chemical engr have led me to question the same issues that Dr tour is questioning. Just exploring alternatives.
Thank you for posting this great lecture. I'm very glad there's people of good faith out there that understand all of this and can benefit from Dr James ample scientific knowledge and wisdom.
When it comes to his field of expertise, we can learn much. After all, he's pretty much the main figurehead when it comes to nanocars. I can't think of anymore more qualified to speak on the subject. However....... when it comes to abiogenesis, he is absolutely ignorant as hell and likes it that way, as do his followers. You can't learn a damn thing about abiogenesis from him.
@@MarilynMonRover - Gee, he's not an expert on what some other people (right now) imagine might have happened . . So, I guess that proves he's not God ; )
@@Olasnah what do you know about abiogenesis and the reactions needed to create the monomers and macromolecules necessary for the smallest unit of life? Do you even know how they work? So be quiet! 😂
Yep, he is transparent alright, if you look closely at his connection to Discovery Institute, signing of anti-Darwin petition and all the half truths and outright lies he stoops to. PhD Liar for Jesus.
@@thomasjane4167 James Tour depends on the ignorance of his audience. That is advanced by their wish to be deceived. 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. They are a bit dated, but are readable for people without much background study. Since you have had a good background, First year college; Introduction to Chemistry, Second year; Organic Chemistry and at least one biochem or genetics course see; 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-scientists. I doubt it. Nick Lane 2015 "The Vital Question" W. W. Norton & Company
That's NOT the simplest cell. That's the simplest cell they could come up with at the time. The simplest cell does not need DNA. This is a case of them trying to reverse the process and do it backwards only not all processes are bidirectional so at some point you hit a wall doing it like this. Doing it from the bottom up some initial RNA can do it, typically in a chemical soup consisting of nothing fancy, things all around in the solar system, some water, ammonia, co2, etc, not much else other than some trace elements, causing a catalytic cascade which is self perpetuating chemical reaction liable to make more of the said catalyst in the first place. Models of early life and abiogenesis aren't orderly processes. They're incredible messy. The first cells have a very high defect rate and are incredibly approximate. Early cell walls pull in the material needed and reproduction is achieved by basically swelling up and bursting, free floating again but that's how the early components started to begin with. What people also discount is the small scale this occurs on. Chemical life is tiny. It is like having a trillion times more Earths for these processes to occur across. There's also a semantic issue here. That's the simplest cell because of their definition of a cell as what we see today which is post the evolution of cells into a highly viable cell which we see today. When I played the rest what I just heard said wasn't smart. That's an abuse of language and you've undermined yourself with that.
@@stevepaige7557 If you look at experiments on RNA then you'll see that it has some chemical activity and the shortest sequences for catalysing some self replication are very little. As for arguments about it breaking down too quickly, they seem to all be based on the simple assumption that if it breaks down very quickly then that's too fast for anything else to happen. Well, it breaks down quickly from our perspective because at that level things in general happen quickly to the point that it's not actually happening quickly, certainly not immediately. A huge risk was taken with the mRNA vaccines because of this. Most people, even scientists working with RNA fall into these traps. There's a risk of recombination with other RNA pathogens, albeit it a small one but scientists ignored it under the notion that RNA breaks down too quickly for anything to happen, only if that were true it would break down too quickly to get into the cell and then end up creating spike proteins, the antigen to trigger the immune system. I like half of what this guy is doing, scientists deserve to be talked to like this a lot of the time as they are arrogant lying pricks most of the time. However, he is also sometimes undermining himself and over doing it. Some of his religious angle is incorrect and he should be angry at scientists for saying they're better but he's not entirely better either. On top of this there are processes that can stablise RNA. When we consider optimal candidates for abiogenesis, the primordial soup idea is a dumbed down story for kids just like stories in genesis that should not be interpreted as literal but instead giving a simplified explanation to people. If you do believe in God, do you think he would instead make a good for everyone that's a trillion pages long having to explain everything when if we weren't meant to figure things out for ourselves we would have been created filled with all this knowledge that is routinely discovered instead. The soup concept isn't entirely invalid though. Soups does also naturally occur on Earth. It's part of the water cycle. Stuff gets dissolved. When water evaporates it can get quite concentrated. In such cases with enough diversity of elements, compounds, chemicals and some processes driving chemical assembly RNA would have the opportunity to interact with that and bind with other stuff. Today people ignore RNA is often protected wrapped around or hugging a little protein or something like that. The mass duplication, reproduction and redundancy strategy alone is a work around for lack of persistence. Most of this is actually just quite basic science. The main reason abiogenesis has to be figured out piecemeal, including figuring out something plausible as to how it happened on Earth is because we don't have a giant petridish the size of the planet or something like that nor much data on what the planet was like back then which was radically different. I've done some work in areas related to this. Advances are being made instead in some areas in mathematics and simulations on computer. There are still enormous gaps but there's nothing in science that says this couldn't happen. The question is how. This process is no different to any other. We might find one way to make something or how something can be made but it's inefficient. Over time we improve and make it more inefficient. This is constantly being done in science and the trajectory is one in which we should land well with in the required parameters for being efficient enough to explain abiogenesis on early Earth.
@@watchman2001 That's quite a difficult request though I would suggest for some example of something analogous that you look at the evolution of computing. It's not all the same but when it comes to DNA and what purpose that provides it's extremely similar to a hard drive. RNA is usually what is actually processed equivalent to RAM in some respects while DNA is a persistent storage extension that's largely inert beyond that purpose. There is a semantics issue in respect to the meaning of cell. The definition you use may artificially exclude simpler forms, by definition. However, even in that case there are simpler kinds of cells in terms of self contained units where they might instead of having their own walls and being mobile exist in a porous substrate as effective cells. This is a little like the microbial equivalent of hermit crabs or cave men. Cells today are well developed and often quite bulky with a lot of extras you don't strictly need. If we go back to the evolution of computers there were always hardware extensions and often still are such as graphics cards. You can strip down much of that and just have a simply CPU with not much more. The CPU can usually do everything the graphics card can or do enough but just not as quickly. If you pull out bits and pieces of some old computers you could often take out quite a lot before they no longer work at all. This is still often fairly applicable today. Similarly, if you look at modern cells today you can often strip things down to an absolute minimum. However, you're still working with what you have. You're not necessarily changing anything. You might still be leaving in the equivalent of a CPU that is highly advanced, you're not simplifying that. Those are stabilized parts of a stabilized system where as life prior was sure to be increasingly more unstable the further you go back. You can conceive or various less stable and complete systems with the problem being you don't know which one it would be with that approach compared to stripping down what we actually have. Essentially, the stripping down method is like going back as far as possible in the historical record. When it comes to prehistory you reach a barrier where you can't rewind further back, it's at the beginning of the tape since records began. The footage prior is lost. The modern cell has a structure consisting of a container, usually inside a kind of little bag. Little balloons. Earlier cells could have taken other forms including those that are more of a solid structure. There were likely many different forms of cell or unit until things settled on the arrangement we see today. Earlier cells are likely to have been much more incoherent, that is, less self contained and probably quite often in a sense naked within their medium. Insisting on a cell being defined by major components seen today is a misunderstanding of evolution that is somewhat common. Today a computer might be defined by a set of components which might include a case. Computers don't often strictly need that. Just the term cell causes frustration here as it often implies the need for a case.
Nobody has shown a method to make the homochiral versions of lipids, amino acids, nucleotides or carbohydrates in a prebiotically relevant manner. Chemists purchase chemicals in high purity and yield from chemical companies. Chemists Arrange those chemicals in a specific order under a set of carefully controlled devised conditions Using designed sequencing machines and templates.
Nobody has shown a method to make the homochiral versions of lipids, amino acids, nucleotides or carbohydrates in a prebiotically relevant manner. Chemists purchase chemicals in high purity and yield from chemical companies, Which Extract them from pre-existing biological sources. Chemists Arrange those chemicals in a specific order under a set of carefully controlled devised conditions Using Designed pipettes, designed synthesizer machines, Activating agents, templates. Etc
Just because scientists cannot produce life in the laboratory, does not mean that life did not come into being over millions or billions of years. All life on earth is proof that it did. We just do not know the exact method yet.
@@djo-dji6018 - all prophets are false as far as I can tell. But science doesn’t commit that error because science doesn’t proceed as a result of prophesy.
It is a law of life, that the ones with money and power always win. Except when you succeed in waking the public up to the malevolence inflicted upon them by the power holders. Because the public is always the most powerful of all. And I thank the creator, that in this day and age, the public can be so easily reached by means like youtube, and that the competent and honest truth-seekers have been given such a fighting hand. The truth will out!
You are an amazing and passionate man Dr. Tour! I pray for you and that your message of the truth about the origin of life and your "unspoken" truth about God is heard and realized by everyone who hears it. God bless you!
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Your arguments are hilarious! I have NEVER seen intelligence design nor create ANYTHING. It’s always been biological hands that do it so, even if your arguments weren’t just arguments from ignorance/incredulity, the conclusion would have to be that a MATERIAL being with intelligence caused abiogenesis, not just intelligence by itself. Can you cite even ONE example of mere THOUGHT producing code? Has a factory ever been THOUGHT into existence or was it done by MATERIAL HANDS? Can you cite ANYTHING material that we’d BOTH agree was created by merely thinking?
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you want to say intelligence was required, you have to say a material body is required.
@@AsixA6 We know by NDEs that disembodied minds can exist. There are many science papers confirming this. We do not know of nonintelligent mechanisms being able to instantiate code, instructional information, hardware, information transmission systems, integrated complex machine, assembly lines, and self-replicating factories. This is an argument of knowledge, not ignorance. The ignorance is all yours.
Nobody has shown a method to make the homochiral versions of lipids, amino acids, nucleotides or carbohydrates in a prebiotically relevant manner. Chemists purchase chemicals in high purity and yield from chemical companies. Chemists Arrange those chemicals in a specific order under a set of carefully controlled devised conditions Using designed sequencing machines and templates.
@@tonymaurice4157 : OK. but we do know a great deal about how biology functions naturally and we got to the information you described through scientific research. As we look back to earlier end earlier processes; at what point do you say "Stop! Supernatural intervention happened right there." how do you test for that? So even if it is supernatural, we'd have to do the same research to know how and when. That would win a Nobel Prize for sure. If you don't care or it doesn't matter then there is no point making scientific arguments. Science is about learning what we don't know, not making excuses for not looking.
@LR Vogt More hope and wishful thinking and no environment has ever demonstrated abiogenesis! Proto-cells are not life-like, the requisite ribosomes mRNA, enzymes and reagents were purchased from a chemical company or extracted from a pre-existing living system. Then added to the medium and permitted to diffuse into the manmade capsules.
@@tonymaurice4157 : No one has demonstrated supernatural intervention even exists or is even possible but you just really want to believe it so you do. Everything known has been learned from actual data using chemistry and physics. You wouldn't know what ribosomes mRNA, enzymes and reagents are without those scientists.
@LR Vogt It takes intelligent chemists to produce very limited chains of genetic information and they have to extract and copy it from pre-existing biological sources using designed equipment and templates... It's never forming just "Naturally" Keep believing in your chemical fantasy that has never had any evidence! World of denial and wishful thinking👍
@@DraceAI 50+ cited papers proving Tour’s claims invalid, cherry picked and all to build his little strawman. Farina ain’t the one apologising to Nobel laureates for blatant misrepresentation. Do you think if Tour had even one valid point, the whole scientific community would be backpedaling like crazy? It’s business as usual if you hadn’t realised.
@@KelliAnnWinkler that’s right, he has his masters in chemistry, he has taught chemistry. Tour really has no better qualifications, he specialises in nano technology and graphene development. Difference between the two is one uses real science backed up by peer reviewed papers (and puts them in the description so you can check his work) and the other quote mines papers because he knows his congregations won’t check. Farina did check the presentations made by Tour and used the aforementioned papers to prove Tour very much wrong.
Dr. Tour, oh how I appreciate you and your love for our Lord Jesus Christ. All my life, i had a heart for Israel and His people especially those whom I went to high school with. I still evangelize to them daily because it is our duty to testify always. If isn't done, He will make it fully known during the tribulations.
@@cosminvisan520 show you the evidence that you are contingent? You should have no problem deducting that you are the product of something else that derived you. Show you the evidence for Christianity? I can point you to several inter and extrabiblical sources that hint to the veracity of the scriptures and to the life that Jesus lived, His death by crucifixion and resurrection which were all prophesied hundreds of years prior. I can even show you how the gospel was actually found to be within the phonetic meaning of each of the first 10 patriarchs in the book of genesis when you write them out in order. It really just depends on your willingness to delve into the information.
Fascinating presentation. Thank you. So clearly we don’t know how life commenced. Assuming a ‘God of the gaps’ is the answer in still unacceptable. The inability to discover this is no evidence for a God. Indeed, there is no evidence for a God.
@@tomyossarian7681 There is one particular God, that claims that He is outside Time and Space, that He created Time, Space and the Universe with all the planets and stars and all the Laws that govern it all. He created the Earth and designed all the life forms and encoded all the information for life in a 4 base code known as DNA Humans write a binary code and they screw that one up too. Design demands a designer, Laws a lawgiver, and coding an Inteligent being that wrote that code. It's clear that all this points to the one God that claims to have done it all, and His name is Jesus Christ.
Amazing how much the subject of origins of life has in common with germ theory versus terrain theory. My respect for consensus science continues to decline. I admire scientists like James Tour who are not afraid to challenge the theories that I was educated to believe.
When your ultimate goal is the almighty dollar it’s not that hard to be willfully blind. The problem is that there will be a day of reckoning. Thank you Dr Tour for being that light on a hill. Maranatha.
42:58 TODO list for fabricating a cell... What a nice video giving the viewer such a wide overview. I have yet to see your other longer videos, but I am so looking forward to! Just stumbled randomly upon your channel on this video and instantly subscribed. Top notch content, thank you.
- The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them.
Thank you Dr James Tour. You show what a scientist actually does. And I can also see why fakes need to fake it to get the respect without the brilliance and thoroughness and the diligence. May CreatorGod continue to use you in your science and in your character of integrity and commitment and creativity. Respect.
When we flip a coin we have two possible outcomes, heads or tails. In this problem, we want to calculate the probability of getting all heads every time we flip a coin. We can use this exercise to test our credulity factor. How many heads in a row are we willing to accept as a chance occurrence? At what point would we suspect an illusion or some form of magic (trickery)? The objective of using probabilities is to demonstrate the probability or chance of getting a certain result. On average, how many times and how often will we need to flip the coin to achieve 100 heads in a row? Over 300 million times a second for over one quadrillion years! The chances of getting all heads 100 times in a row is similar to the chance of getting 100 left-handed amino acids to form a biological protein. Proteins range in size from about 50 to over 30,000 amino acids. To get a small protein of 100 left-handed amino acids from an equal mixture of left- and right-handed amino acids, the probability would then be 1030 or 1 followed by 30 zeros (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). How believable (credulity factor) is it that this could happen by random chance? Also, consider that this has never been observed! Chance protein formation has always been accepted as a matter of faith by evolutionists. But wait, there is more! This number, 1030, only measures the possibility of getting all left-handed amino acids. It does not say anything about their order. In our example, we have a chain of 100 amino acids. Each position can be occupied by any 1 of 20 different amino acids common to living things, and these must be in a specific order to form a functional protein. What is the probability that the correct amino acid will be placed in position number 1 of the chain? It will be 1/20. What is the probability that the first two positions will be correct? This can be calculated by multiplying the two probabilities together (1/20 x 1/20 = 1/202). Therefore, the probability of getting all 100 amino acids in the correct position would be 1/20 multiplied by itself 100 times or 1/20100 (this equates to 1/10130). This is 1 followed by 130 zeros! Large numbers can be hard to visualize or even comprehend. To put this in picture format we can use a smaller number 1021 (1 followed by 21 zeros). If we were to take 1021 silver dollars and lay them on the face of the earth; they would cover the entire land surface to a depth of 120 feet. Are there upper limits for which we can logically expect an event will not occur by random chance? The mathematician Emile Borel proposed 1/1050 as a universal probability bound. This means that any specified event beyond this value would be improbable and could not be attributed to chance. As we can see, the probability of getting a single small protein (1/10130) far exceeds this limit. Even if the protein can interchange amino acids at various positions (such as in the case of the protein cytochrome a), the resulting probability still exceeds the limit of 1/1050. So far we have only looked at the probability of getting a single small protein by random chance. What are the chances of getting all the proteins necessary for life? No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning . . . there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (1020)2000 = 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.
What a great response! And the molecules, made of atoms with nuclei, protons, electrons, etc., that make up acids, lipids, proteins. . . . must be correctly arranged FIRST! And the scientific community at large want us to accept abiogenesis and evolution as facts? PSHAW!
Tour cuts through the bull with precision, just by using their own work is enough but he goes deeper just to show in no way shape or form are they even remotely close to the origin of life.
We love you Dr.Tour!!!!! Glory to God for putting people like yourself in education to show us truth that leads to understanding!!! Thank you good and noble sir, you rock.
The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them.
@@termination9353 Interestingly, the RE Legion of man as presented has caused more strife and death in this realm than almost any other source of mind control imposed on that which is life=life. Too many love “believing” in shit outside of their state conscious awareness. It is astounding that people believe all this stuff that has zero evidence in our living experience and all based on fantasies of his story and NOT the Mystery= My Story = Mastery that is the you you have come to KNOW. All truth is found within. Trust in the you that you are; that which is life. Thx. D
@@rtanidean4931 "“believing” in shit outside of their state conscious awareness." - But I don't believe "shit" outside my conscious awareness. Awakening people to "shit" outside of their awareness is what I'm doing here. I don't see how anything you just said can help me in that endeavor. I didn't come here asking you where truth is to be found. I came here TELLING you where truth is to be found. I use my own mind and teach people to use theirs. Not like you who merely parrot the "mystery = my story = mastery" conceptual summersault gibberish you learned that was dreamed up in someone else's mind.
@@termination9353 Wow. You took my comment completely out of context! I was absolutely agreeing with you and then I added my own bit of experience. There was no critical view in what you commented initially or my response to freely comment. No judgments, just expansion of view. There’s no mandate presented to anyone. Humbly suggest all to trust what you claim to know, or not, no matter to me. Take care all.
What a presentation!! Dr Tour is a force beyond normal .... Love his lectures! One of the greatest scientific minds on the planet ...and a great man of God ..blessing to you Dr Tour from Nottingham, England!!
Even if you want to to believe there was supernatural agency involved; how do you suggest scientists go about learning these processes and mechanisms that created life? The only data is natural and the only tools are chemistry and physics. I have not seen Mr Tour inject god into any of HIS scientific papers because that would be unscientific and irrational.
@YYY MMM We are waiting for your published paper where you can prove everything he said is baseless and rubbish, your comments mean absolutely nothing unless you prove him wrong . BTW can you please show us how many articles you have written at least and your patents you've registered ®️?
My favorite quote: "I just spent a 40 year career doing this and we're further away [from finding the answers] than when I began." Who's going to fund that???
Gravitational Theory took about 2500 years. good thing they didn't just give up, because the answers didn't manifest themselves upon demand, as you would have people do with regards to the origin of life. low hanging fruit isn't always the better option, but it is the easiest and requires the least amount of work or thought.
@mp4.alliedmastercomputer He sensationalizes a non-issue. This is my point. He uses this argument to sneak in a god of the gaps argument, over and over in his interviews and speeches. If you haven't seen him do it, then you don't know James Tour. If you wanna see him do it, just watch critique videos of him, the one that Dave F. does covering the dinner round table he did with his peers is pretty comprehensive.
@@manamanathegreat I see thank you. I haven’t seen much of him so I’ll check out the critiques of his position. He did specifically deny / address said claims with statements like he believes we will eventually understand it. As well as giving a suggestion on how we should approach said problem differently in the future to make better progress.
@@PersistentDissenter exactly! Like, this isn’t science, this is shutting science down that doesn’t agree with his worldview. Be religious, nobody cares. Stop pretending it’s science though. He says I’m not gonna bring god into this, then litterally argues that god made the universe while shutting down genuine knowledge. Watch the round table where he has to talk to REAL scientists. Bro can’t teach his doctrine to anyone with even a fundamental understanding of biology pr chemistry. This isn’t science, it’s apologetics.
@@MessianicDiscipling dogma, meaning the science that hundreds of thousands of people research and agree on based on their observations but you don’t understand?
@@cosminvisan520 - Looks like you’ve got dozens of comments here. Is it your field? This is a comment section. I’m making comments. So are you. But to my original point - if Tour is so confident about his conclusions regarding OoL, why doesn’t he publish them in a peer reviewed journal?
What a wonderful, entertaining and eye-opening lecture! OoL is not alone in masquerading "marketing" as science... I'm afraid so many scientists are more into marketing their teams for funding than actually doing honest research. Dr Tour's passion for actual honest science is such a relief!
@@allenanderson5297 Experiments to produce the building blocks of life always begin with unnaturally pure, concentrated reagents. These are purchased from laboratory supply shops and produced through sophisticated, intelligently designed processes
So I’m betting you just blindly believe everything he says. This individual has never published works worth a dot. Being peer reviewed is the way in which any paper has ever become anything. Consensus among peers is what gives published work worth.
There's a lot of accusations that James is lying, yet at every turn i see him pointing out what appear to be legitimate problems with the methodology of origin of life researchers.
Thank you so much Dr James. I took biochem in 2020 as part of my medical course and ever since then I have this itch about chirality and spontaneous life formation, as in, it's just too much coincidence. Your class shed light on so many other problems I just disregarded in my academic years before converting to Catholicism. Keep doing what you do, I'll share with as many people as I possibly can.
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus Has it been done yet? if it COULD be done dont you think someone outside of Hollywood would have done it by now? He is not a science-denier just because he wont share your BS with you! Wow, for being SO smart you people do engage in constant Ad hominems, dont you! Asking challenging questions to people who have a strong motive to lie and the propensity to do it is NOT denying science!
One way to heaven, few find it Many ways to hell, and most go through them "My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing." - James 1:2-4 "The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good." - Psalm 14:1
🔯🔯🔯🔯🔯🔯🔯 GREAT Teaching to the WORLD Dr.Tour 📣📣📣-🌍🌍🌍- as I GET OLDER i Like to LEARN and it seems the BEST thing to Learn is the God of Israel described in the Bible and Jesus YESHUA in hebrew who Died for our Sins that we have EverLasting Life== PRAISE the LORD 🌹🌹🌹🕎🕎🕎🕎🕎🕎🕎
You've opened my eyes to a whole new conundrum regarding the complexities of our universe. If it isn't from intelligent design of Creator than how is it even possible? So glad I found your channel.
Yes, truth and integrity are so vital in this day of dishonesty and tripe. Someone please let me know when Dr Tour displays even a shred of either honesty or integrity when it comes to abiogenesis research.
@@Amanda-if1wn The first fifteen seconds of he video is the first demonstrable example of him being full of nonsense, talking shit about a field he doesn't understand. It just gets worse from there. Fifteen seconds. Unbelievable.
@WDFT He starts out with a completely idiotic misrepresentation of abiogenesis by stating that something slithers out of the primordial soup. *LITERALLY NO ONE IN THE FIELD THINKS THIS.* This blatant lie is told within the first fifteen seconds of the video. It is absolutely astounding that more people don't call him out for his bullshit.
So strange question, isn't lying to mass groups of people to get them to believe something false the devil's domain? Cause science and religion don't mix well ( cite history about that one with an objective mind ) so on one hand lying. And now the gaining of knowledge another thing that is also deemed of the devil yes? After all the whole fruit of knowledge being tempted by the devil was a big bit in that story, and so now I am confused isn't lying evil or is it only evil when it's not believed or is it just not a problem anymore? That said isn't spreading wrong information lying to the masses and going against God's will? If I remember my theology wasn't Jesus a teacher among the things and teaching someone lies would be quite nasty to pretend to be a teacher and teach people wrong. What would the Nazarene say to you what excuse would you lay bare on his floor what lie would you try for a excuse to the one who knows is nothing more than spitting on there face. But in the end it's not I who faces your immoral eternal punishment that is for your lord to decide is it not?
Dave, this man is a chemist, probably one of the leading in his field as well as he works in the field, in the lab, doing synthesis...he knows this stuff better than nearly anyone else on the planet. Ive watched at least 20 of his lectures (apart from this topic) and he's 100% solid on his facts, completely honest if he doesnt know (which maybe happened once...), he's brilliant and an inspiration to any chemist; maybe if you truly watched and listened you'd learn something. How do I know he's so on point? Because im also a chemist. Im not on his level, but ive a MS in chemical engineering with a minor in biochemistry and polymers (and probably an IQ of several people blindly following you put together), and ive worked in R&D for years. How much lab synthesis or chemistry based new technology have you developed Dave? How dare you call me a mindless, uneducated sheep...Id give my life's savings to debate you and show you how mindless I am, but I know you dont debate anyone who actually knows what theyre talking about. Ive watched your vids and love some of them, but these are garbage; full of unscientific wishful thinking. I sound agrivated because i am. You obviously are completely clueless about this level of chemistry personally, just posting slides you find online, only skimming the surface of a world you know nothing about and spreading misinformation and straight up untrue statements as if they were proven well known things. Just regurgitating the ridiculously untrue hype in this area to millions who dont know better; the same way origin of life researchers has to you and sadly all of you bite hook and sinker. The real problem though is your attitude as if your an untouchable genius and how you rudely insult and attack people presenting truth about evidense against this fairy tale of yours. Thats not conduct of an intellectual, but a spoiled child with his fingers in his ears humming loudly ignoring the truth someone is trying to tell them. Saying it happened is easy, SHOW ME HOW!!! Respond to my comment under your pinned one with so many responces, i ask one simple question. Maybe you shouldve stuck to debunking flat earthers, those were funny to watch. Im afraid youre in over your head here my man, very much so.
Whoa! Here, we see what Dr Tour deals with. This author is exposed by his vitriol, his blind devotion to what Dr Tour eloquently demonstrates in this presentation. The fear this author makes clear is deep. He must deny. Sad..very.
Is this reply meant for 'Professor Dave Explains'? You'd better reply to his pinned comment, then. I'm neither religious or a chemist, I don't know Professor Dave or Doctor James, I was just baited by the video title, I have many interests, and after watching the whole thing, I found the arguments contained here very credible. This looks like a good example of what Daniel Schmactenberger discusses in the War on Sensemaking, that is, how our information ecology is fundamentally broken.
Excellent presentation. Those who say "just follow the science" apparently don .t see that sophistry often passes as science, especially where funding and being part of the in-crowd of the "scientific" community is concerned.
And yet, you fail to notice lies and misrepresentations, together with complete lack of knowledge in biology, by your "champion", who btw, has been debunked by prof Dave and to whom he will respond "when he finds the time". Are you really THAT dumb - to buy into such fraud?
@@derhafi Could you send me the link to this rebuttal; ad hominem isn’t making your case stronger. Also is it the same video that James is referring to or is it something else?
@@derhafi “Yes faith, and belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist.” Yes this is ad hominem. James did not state such a thing, nor was it implied. The man is a professor of chemistry, and he appears to question his own beliefs by looking at the evidence. Your little insert there is an assumption; he certainly comes off as a reasonable individual, I doubt that he has refused to question a single thing in the Bible. The video he posted appears to say otherwise. Could you please provide me with a rebuttal to this.
@@derhafi I get that he wrote some of that. However, you’re not 100% sure that he came to this conclusion before his research. Please re-read what I wrote. Lol
if amino acids can be formed in a lab, then they can be formed in nature, when you consider that RNA is simply a strand of protein then all you need is to put these organic molecules together and mix them together long enough , ribosomal RNA > mRNA > DNA> cell wall > other organelles, life started by the formation of the smallest active proteins and everything aggregated around it for sustainability and continuation, reproduction can only be made by a organism that wants to self maintain and continue , its just self awareness and expression did help us understand the world but it also makes us refuse to accept that we are just an on going chemical reaction that has been going on for billions of years.
If it is so simple then do it! 1) The GRC founded in 1982, has stated that all possibilities have been exhausted for the first cell to have formed here on Earth naturally! Thus, directed panspermia is what remains. But, we'll keep looking. - pffft! 2) Dr. Donna Blackmond stated that, "we have made no progress in the last 50+ years in discovering the origin of life. In fact, we are farther away!" 3) Dr. Stuart Kauffman of the Santa Fe Institute stated that, “we need a new physics to discover the Origins of Life." 4) Dr. Lee Cronin stated in 2011 that he could create life in the lab in a few minutes. This is October 2022! Dr. Cronin LIED! He has not produced life in over 11 years! - He said minutes? - pffft! But, keep giving him grant money! - Bwahahaha! 5) Dr. Leslie Orgel stated, "it would be a miracle if a strand of RNA ever appeared on the early Earth." That would not be "abiogenesis", now would it?!!!!! I am positive the above listed are far more knowledgeable than some RUclips troll!
Dr. Tour actually strengthened my faith and started me on a journey toward wanting to read the Bible. Now I want to understand the Word better as well as the science.
You definitely should read the Bible, and find your own justification for slavery, murdering children, rape, inequality etc. And think how all that fits with democracy, human rights, including freedom of speech and other pretty concepts alien to religions.
@@tomyossarian7681 aliens to religion? ...ah ! You mean Atheist dictators, like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong -un.! Not a nice "pretty concept" ..for "aliens to religion" .
If you want to learn the Bible then go look up Robert Breaker for verse by verse studies. I highly recommend his series about "End-Times" and "The Seven Mysteries of the Bible" then you know the core doctrines. I also recommend Michael Pearl, Charles Lawson, Gene Kim and Spencer Smith (watch his 3 part series "The Third Adam"). This will also explain to you all religions/the occult etc. and how Roman-Catholocism (NWO) is not Christianity !!! Gene Kim has an excellent teaching about "History of Bible Believers" which teaches you all history from Rome to the Dark-Ages, reformation, and counter-reformarion up to today.
@@tomyossarian7681 have you even read the Bible? God didn't tell people to do those things. How else does democracy, human rights, including freedom of speech fit into our society?
I'm halfway through, and already I have the distinct impression that your argument boils down to a single, totally uncontested observation: the experimental conditions of OOL research are a poor, if not totally irrelevant proxy to the conditions in which autocatalytic processes would've emerged in early earth. Not a single OOL researcher would dispute what you're claiming from that viewpoint. This argument is a total non-sequitur, it goes nowhere because it misses the point entirely. Statistically, one single laboratory or experiment could never hope to create the conditions for successful abiogenesis. The level of complexity and statistical improbability that you describe at length is well understood. The point, however, is that the Earth is a laboratory running a near infinite set of experiments at a constant rate, under a functionally infinite number of conditions. Just because you can't conceive of one of those experiments leading to something useful for life, or for an as yet unexplained intermediate chemical process developing to catalyse the requisite chain of events for life, does not mean they didn't happen. It doesn't mean they did, but heck its a better theory than 'God did it'. God did it is not a theory. Nothing wrong with believing that, but just recognise how you're not actually solving problems or adding any scientific value through these tirades.
You sound like a guy who is grasping at straws. Dr Tour has stated his case clearly and yet comments like yours (which this video seems to have triggered) seem desperately trying to use a evolution of the gaps argument. "Infinite experiments" really so can you cite an example from these infinite experiments where the components for origin of life have been demonstrated to have occurred naturally on a 4 billion year old Earth?
@@mannyfabin1850 "... does not mean they didn't happen. It doesn't mean they did, but heck it's a better theory than 'God did it'. God did it is not a theory." There's a difference between filling a gap with a falsifiable theory and an unfalsifiable one. The ceaseless self-organisation, evolution, and maintenance of life using readily available components on Earth gives us a strong indication that lower level processes of self organisation are likely, and theories extending this view are completely consistent with our understanding of physics, chemistry and biology. Are the conditions for self organisation of chemical systems hard to create in a lab? Yes! As they should be. Complex, self organising phenomena are extremely difficult to reproduce, particularly when the precise conditions for the phenomena are not well understood. Again, lacking knowledge in this regard is not a problem in itself, it's the reason we do science. The point is the Dr Tour is arguing with a strawman. No OoL researcher is claiming access to a 'final' theory, noone is claiming to know exactly how and under what conditions abiogenesis occurred. We've got many falsifiable theories that pose predictions that can be tested. Tell me, what theory is Dr Tour proposing, what predictions does it make, and how can they be tested? If you don't know then you might understand why Dr Tour adds zero value to the discussion.
@@slackster999 which can limit what can happen... under specific conditions. Of which there are a vast, I would say functionally infinite number. Maybe you have a better way of describing a gargantuan range of possibilities; functionally infinite is fine by me.
Mr tour, excellent this is what we need criticism faulty ideas that are just not conclusive and exposure to the truth.. You are a great man people will be reading your stuff long after you're gone remember you will go down in history for the things you're doing
Tour's argument is based on presenting his audience an unsound argument. Not A therefore B. Two problems with that. 1. He can't prove "not A" but only that A is difficult. 2. He can't show any evidence at all for B.
Your belief is suspended because of your politics. You know it. You are an atheist because you are a Marxist. It is as simple as that. There have been 100 billion humans who have believed in God and they did not do so without evidence. You don’t have evidence and other people do. It’s because of what is inside of your mind, your politics. Marxists can never see God. They have their eye on other peoples money.
@@tomyossarian7681 And another blind-faith-believer who has neither evidence nor argument but who didn't actually listen to the lecture weighs in! Thanks for the drive-by, buddy! [smh]
@@tomyossarian7681 Admittedly, I’m so very happy that, unlike you, I use my brain to think where as you obviously use your grey matter as a counterweight for your butt.
@@patrickian8843 Here is some food for thought: https : // youtu.be / Jf72o6HmVNk You want to continue to support a fraud like Tour, np, but now you know he is a fraud and you are accountable too.
@@jessebryant9233 well this is the typical response of a drive by snipe; all emotion with usually some profanity injected, and with zero substance .. which underlies the point that Tour makes in the 1st place, which of course ironically, is over the head of the drive by shooter
Bro I love you, seriously Doc, our Heavenly Father has truly blessed you with an iridescent brilliance that no man can eclipse, a magnitude that only God can overshadow, truly he's using you to shatter the enemy's illusions, thank you for this incredible presentation, I highly appreciate your efforts and incredible insights, again thank you Dr.Tour
Lucifer/Satan‘s timeline If you are going the full understanding of the meat and the milk, digest the full chapters. 🥰😇 and 🙏🏾🙏🏻pray attention 🙏🙏🏽 Jeremiah 5:22 Authorized (King James) Version 22 fear ye not me? saith the Lord: will ye not tremble at my presence, which have placed the sand for the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it: and though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it? You really need to look at the timeline of Lucifer‘s fall, and when Satan was kicked out of the Fathers mansion/heaven. Now Satan was in the garden of Eden Genesis 1. And Satan was also asked where he has been. Satan’s reply was going to and throw from the earth. Job 2:2 Authorized (King James) Version 2 And the Lord said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. So Lucifer had all ready lost his position and became Satan and then Satan was removed from heaven’s, and confined to the earth. Revelation 12:8 Authorized (King James) Version 8 and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. The earth already had been convicted because it was dark in Genesis 1:2. and Job 38:30 says that the face of the deep is frozen. Job 38:10-11 Authorized (King James) Version 10 and brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors, 11 and said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed? This would be proven by science with water in space in total darkness would be frozen. Genesis 1:2 Authorized (King James) Version 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. The light entered the darkness and the darkness knew it not John 1:1-5 Authorized (King James) Version 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. Also a prison for that, that was thrown/world out of the Father‘s presence. Psalm 104:9 Authorized (King James) Version 9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth. This is acknowledged by the water being dark and the spirit of God being outside looking in keeping it at bay. And then Psalms describes about water boundaries. Job 38 Jesus asked Job, how can you understand about the creation. And Jude talked about the evil before the earth ever was. Jonathan knows nothing about scripture except for deception. And if you ignore this fact then you are a part of it Gene. And then Jonathan could wish you Godspeed. But then if you understand what I am saying, you understand what Jonathan is doing and the CIA RUclipsrs are participating in as one mind. The bee hive. The only way you’re going to defeat him, is with scripture from the King James 1611 with apocrypha, And dedication to Jesus and his salvation. Read the full chapters 👀👂🏿👂 Proverbs 8:19-36 Authorized (King James) Version 19 My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my revenue than choice silver. 20 I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment: 21 that I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures. 22 The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: 26 while as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: 28 when he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 29 when he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: 30 then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; 31 rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men. 32 Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways. 33 Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not. 34 Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors. 35 For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord. 36 But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death. Thank You Jesus 🙏🏽🙏🏻🥰😇🙏🏾🙏
Lucifer/Satan‘s timeline Jeremiah 5:22 Authorized (King James) Version 22 fear ye not me? saith the Lord: will ye not tremble at my presence, which have placed the sand for the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it: and though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it? You really need to look at the timeline of Lucifer‘s fall, and when Satan was kicked out of the Fathers mansion/heaven. Now Satan was in the garden of Eden. And Satan was also asked where he has been. Satan’s reply was going to and throw from the earth. So Lucifer had all ready lost his position and became Satan and then Satan was removed from heaven’s, and confined to the earth Proverbs 8:29 Authorized (King James) Version 29 when he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: The earth already had been convicted because it was dark in Genesis 1:2. and Job 38:30 says that the face of the deep is frozen. Job 38:10-11 Authorized (King James) Version 10 and brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors, 11 and said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed? This would be proven by science with water in space in total darkness would be frozen Genesis 1:2. The light entered the darkness and the darkness knew it not John 1. Also a prison for that, that was thrown/world out of the Father‘s presence. Psalm 104:9 Authorized (King James) Version 9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth. This is acknowledged by the water being dark and the spirit of God being outside looking in keeping it at bay. And then Psalms describes about water boundaries. Job 38 Jesus asked Job, how can you understand about the creation. And Jude talked about the evil before the earth ever was. Jonathan knows nothing about scripture except for deception. And if you ignore this fact then you are a part of it Gene. And then Jonathan could wish you Godspeed. But then if you understand what I am saying, you understand what Jonathan is doing and the CIA RUclipsrs are participating in as one mind. The bee hive. The only way you’re going to defeat him, is with scripture from the King James 1611 with apocrypha, And dedication to Jesus and his salvation.
And arguing for the position, or even proving, we don't have an answer to the origin of life yet does what exactly....? Nothing. People were trying to figure out Gravitational Theory for 1100 years. People were trying to figure out Evolutionary Theory since 1748.....so, it seems rather silly to expect an answer on demand (or even a few decades), and if it isn't provided to our biased satisfaction, just make an answer up or accept a claim that is less likely and appeals to greater unanswered questions. Why are some people soo impatient and unwilling to let the science work it out? Not yet having a demonstration of abiogenesis doesn't in any way advance ID as a plausible alternative to the origin of life question, nor does it undermine Evolutionary Theory. No matter how much you wish it to. Besides, let's face it, you could discover and publish the answer to how it happened and theists would stilll deny it. You could show them how it works, they'd still deny it. The information could be easily accessible to everyone and be accepted through peer review and even established as a Scientific Theory and they'd still deny it. We already know this, because soo many still deny Evolutionary Theory. For theists, if the science doesn't contradict the dogma, then they accept it, but if it challenges or shows the dogma is wrong, the apologists get to work on their used car pitches and start their pseudoscientific arguments against it. You have to fix people's broken thinking, not show them the evidence..... you have to make them want to hold a coherent position, not a feel good position that doesn't require critical thinking. You have to get them to embrace intellectual integrity over ego, fear, ignorance and pride. You have to get them to want to know the facts, not assume the truth as they were told to believe it.
Thank you, Dr Tour. Since stumbling across your videos, I have been avidly going through everything you have produced. Not finished, by a long chalk, as I am in awe of, and extremely grateful for, your prolific and clearly presented output. As a follower of Christ, I can see you are truly a good and faithful servant. God bless all your endeavours, especially helpful to those of us who are challenged in the Maths/Sciences disciplines. You help me to see God's hand at work in His creation so much more vividly. Thank you.
No, they can't. But they seem to believe that if you attack science enough, magic will be the only other alternative. What they don't seem to realize is that even if abiogenesis is completely falsified today and evolution disproved tomorrow, it still won't demonstrate their claims of supernatural intervention by anything, let alone by their favorite god. Just because X = 0 that doesn't mean Y=1. Now, if you are a creationist reading this, please think about this question; When, in the entire history of the world, has there ever been a phenomenon that was better explained by magical intervention than by natural processes? I can't think of any. I doubt the origin of life will be the exception.
This was the 1st I've heard of this controversy but it really does speak to a larger problem with so much of "science" nowadays. The last question at this presentation really hit the mark. So much of what passes for science is just a bunch of people protecting their careers and really nothing more.. And the worst part is the press runs with it and the public at large eats it up. I truly commend Dr. Tour and just hope that more people like him start to come out and poke holes in the research of so many charlatans out there.
@@matthiasmartin1975 well, Dr. Tour is still doing good by trying to get the word out because I and basically the entire public at large have absolutely no idea that's the case and the OoL people keep getting press furthering their lies.
I'm an electrical engineer with some basics in chemistry. I'm currently reading a school textbook about the biology of the cell. Modern cells are quite complex, but it's commonly thought that primordial cells were much simpler. Here's my take on problems with synthesis: "Molecules that compose living systems almost always show homochirality" Yes, it's true for modern life. What about primordial cells? Was that necessary? "When building molecular systems, constant redesigns are needed which take the synthesis back to step 1. It is often impossible to remove a moiety once it has been added to a molecule. If homochirality was not necessary, this argument is moot. "The synthetic reactions do not know how to stop their current course of progression ..." Maybe there's no need to, if a natural process produces continual synthetic reactions. Unless there's a show stopper somewhere. "A prebiotic system does not have the ability to easily purify the structures." Is it really needed? "Reagent addition-order is essential." Not always. His cake example is a bit far fetched. "The parameters of temperature ... have to be carefully controlled in order to build complex molecular structures." I suppose such "controled" environments may happen in nature where the parameters may be within range of favorable conditions. As an example, scientists have found a natural nuclear reactor. "The characterization at each step is essential for the chemist ..." Not necessary for natural processes. "The mass transfer problem will be the killer of all routes." I suppose ocean currents and convection currents may provide some transport mecanisms. "Nature keeps no laboratory notebook so it cannot go back for more material." Maybe not necessary if molecules are produced continually by some natural process. While scientists can't explain how life appeared, it happened in some way. Even Tour would be fine with a naturalistic explanation. "Are we close to discovering the Origin Of Life? James Tour vs Lee Cronin" ruclips.net/video/3DHvNRK452c/видео.html At 1:16:00 Tour would accept a naturalistic explanation about the origin of life, it wouldn't upset his faith. At 1:17:43 "I'm fine with naturalistic explanation"
If we found a watch on mars nobody would ever be so dumb as to suggest it formed accidentally unguided by an intelligent mind but simply came together over millions of years because each part formed independently and winds, sand and water flow brought each part together to one location and eventually assembling itself. But claim DNA/RNA and the cellular replication process it guides is accidental. The watch is many orders of magnitude less complex than life on this planet.
I've been watching a few of these videos recently and it's extremely interesting to hear getting into the core details. However, not once do I recall you claiming that any of these processes are impossible, only improbable. Is there any proof that it's actually impossible, not improbable, for these events to occur naturally? I know there's mention of compounds used in these models that are man-made, however I've seen others mention how there are natural counterparts that can perform the same functionality.
Jeck... Why is it if we see a carving in a tree that says jack loves suzie, no one thinks it was millions of years of rain and wind but, shrink all of New YorK city onto the tip of a pin and suddenly its possible though improbable that it created itself???? You may think its improbable but possible to ride your bike to Jupiter, but it does not mean your being rational even in the slightest.
@@atyt11 Because of the numbers. The chances of the phrase "Jack Loves Suzie" appearing on a tree is more complex than just "Jack Loves" for example, and we can continue that pattern to figure out how likely it could occur. We can do the same thing with shrinking down NYC. It all boils down to math, and not impossibility. You can make the argument that it's extremely unlikely, but not impossible. And without making it impossible, we might be the one in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or whatever it is realities where the circumstances to create life were in the right places at the right time. For truth to be present in this matter, it needs to be a matter of impossibility. Until then, we're just tossing around ideas.
@@_jeck_ None of this is personal, just my opinion. If 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1 chance was all it takes that would be easy. very easy compared to the 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 for part #1 of 1000's and 1000's of different parts. And most importantly, Jack loves Suzie is not as much of an issue for the carving, its understanding that its information, its language, it's intellect. And.... the New York city on the pin tip is information on a level we can not even begin to comprehend let alone make irrational claims that it came about by accident in a billion year old soup.
@@atyt11 I agree that's it's so unlikely at those numbers that it's "almost" impossible. However, in a multi-verse with an infinite number of parallel universes that are slightly different than another, suddenly this probability becomes meaningless, and all that matters is if it's possible or not (true or false). And following modern physics, the multi-verse theory seems to be one of the most popular, if not the most popular among leading theoretical physicists.
The funny thing with Dr Tour’s work is that NOONE in any scientific field has dared to challenge him in anything he has affirmed regarding the sillines of abiogenesis and the whole Darwinian myth. I love Dr Tour for his courage and knowledge, more importantly for his love for Jesus.
Why would you want to waste your time challenging James Tour about his opinions?! What good would that do? What truth would come out of a debate over opinions?
To me it seems opinion are irrelevant and research that establishes facts, is what's required.
For instance: If James Tour want to theorize that "God did it!" can he verify that god actually exists? This would seem like a necessary prerequisite before James Tour's theory could be considered seriously.
@@gladishilton1943 The fact you are here proves GOD exists! Unless YOU can prove that you are here through a different means other than GOD or you can prove you don't exist! LOL
@@gladishilton1943 Dr Tour isn’t interested in opinions and, only marginally intelligent people (such as yourself obviously) would put the “God did it” clause into his lecture (when he never once said it). I guess atheists like you, just never get tired of being wrong.
@@inconnu4961 "The fact that you are here proves God" - Rubbish! That is just an empty assertion. Unless YOU can prove god exists you can't give him the credit for creating Life. So, how are you going to do that - prove your god exists?
People have been searching for over 2000 years for proof of your god, and like proof for every other god, they're still completely empty handed.
Ha, Ha!
@@patrickian8843 James Tour never discusses his theory that "God did it!" because scientifically he cannot even make a start to verify anything about it. His theory is a fairy tale.
Given the high complexity of chemistry I find it so amazing how biological organisms can function so well for so long.
God is great
I am God.
@@H0neyBear I am God.
@@H0neyBear are you serious?, look around you!
@@H0neyBear You dont see any of those. All that you ever see is your own consciousness. And consciousness is God knowing itself.
@@H0neyBear We are all the same "I am". And the proposition "I am"/"I exist" is logically always true. Therefore we are eternal. The fact that we are eternal and we are all the same "I am", it means we are all one and the same God.
I knew this was going to be epic the moment he said, "I am locked and loaded." He did not disappoint. Tour de force.
Nah he was talking rubbish
@@dannylad1600 I had a discussion with an atheist that was really deep into science and “science”. The first thing he told me is “the moon isn’t a planet” and I was like damn 😂
He is speaking facts. Even the title is facts and I don’t need to hear evidence to know it
... Tour de force; excellent.
James has that toughness; we're gonna need him in this crazy post enlightenment civilisation of ours.
Kind regards Kim
@@dannylad1600 brainwashed much?
@@thomaspaul5989 that doesnt make any sense.
"I was just minding my own business...not anymore". They poked the wrong bear. This man knows that life has no chance of forming on its own out in a puddle somewhere. He also knows that nobody can prove that it can, not even close. They only have the "belief" that it can happen. Exposing their lies to the public is awesome. They just don't like the truth being revealed that they haven't a clue.
Well let's see... first there wasn't life, and then there was life. So obviously life came from non-life. What's your problem with this?
@@7solovelol, and first there was nothing and then there was space, planets, laws of physics, elements, helium and hydrogen, etc. Nature is your magical daddy that has no limits.
@@7solove not if a living, eternal being created the life that we see. In that case life did not come from non life, it came from life.
@@chiph1841 for 700,000,000 years this planet was dead. Now it isn’t. That transition is something that’s being investigated. Tour does not make the claim you attribute to him- certainly not if there’s an actual scientist in the room.
You accuse dozens of scientists I doubt you could name of lying.
Shame on you
@@waynerenee3809 can you prove it ?
"You've got to read the paper; you can't just read the title. These people can't be trusted." I agree with that assessment.
Do you also agree with all the lies James has put out which have continuously been exposed by Professor Dave? 😂😆
@@rikardotsamsiyu I don't know about those.
@@rikardotsamsiyu professor Dave can’t even explain chloroquine resistance in the organism that causes malaria .
How about you pm professor Dave and set up a dialogue between professor tour and professor Dave
I bet you that professor Dave will
Never accept doing this ;)
@@tdzenda you don’t know about those because even professor Dave’s fellow chemists won’t touch his videos because they are full of errors . Professor Dave needs to be a student in professor tours classroom so James tour can teach him how to do actual chemistry 😂
@@rikardotsamsiyu rikard how about you explain one simple question from even me .
Tell me rikard how does neo Darwinian evolution explain chloroquine resistance in the organism that causes malaria .
Neither you nor professor Dave can answer this because even the atheist Darwinist evolutionary biologists who are more knowledgeable then the non PhD professor Dave Farina can answer this
Coke on rikard , you started this by your response. The problem with people like you is that you can only look at one side of the debate and you completely ignore the other side .
And then when someone like me has researched the other sides responses you are completely clueless like a deer in the head lights .
It’s people like you that caused me to doubt my own atheism and eventually brought me back to belief in God
Thank you so much rikard
Big hug for you for everything you’ve done in my life 😂
“YOU DON’T HAVE RIBOSE”
😂 Someone should make Meme or T-shirt out of that statement. Dr James Tour is correct, the scientific community nowadays is more interested in finding funding than real scientific discoveries. It’s a shame.
Start here;
Springsteen G, Joyce GF.
2004 "Selective derivatization and sequestration of ribose from a prebiotic mix"
J Am Chem Soc. 2004 Aug 11;126(31):9578-83
Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.
2004 "Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose" Science January 9; 303: 196 (in Brevia)
Banfalvi, G., 2006. Why ribose was selected as the sugar component of nucleic acids. DNA and cell biology, 25(3), pp.189-196.
Vázquez-Mayagoitia Á, Horton SR, Sumpter BG, Šponer J, Šponer JE, Fuentes-Cabrera M.
2011 "On the stabilization of ribose by silicate minerals" Astrobiology. 2011 Mar;11(2):115-21.
Let's take up a fund for billboards.
Not even close Professor Dave has debunked all of Tour’s claims look up his videos on RUclips.
Dr Tour has openly stated that he doesn't believe RNA could have formed prebiotically. He calls it "a bunch of nonsense". We now know that not only was it possible to form prebiotically, but even that it could form in rocks... friggin' ROCKS (like borate). He doesn't want to accept this, because it means he would have to modify his understanding of the subject, which violates his religion. The irony of the whole thing is that he could simply accept the idea that some have that his god created the world this way, but he instead chooses to reject reality. It's really quite disheartening, ngl, because if I wanted to know something about nanocars, Dr Tour is probably one of the first people I'd go to on the subject. And no, he is NOT correct that science nowadays is more interested in finding funding than real scientific discoveries... that's just a way of connecting emotionally with the suggestible layperson. If you were actually a scientist operating inside of the scientific community, you'd know this... but you're not, and are thus just repeating this point as an argument from authority.
A shame and a SHAM
I have promoted Dr James Tour since the first time I heard him. He is a brilliant man of God. He needs to be heard by all.
I am God.
@@visancosmin8991
Make a Ribosome.
Better yet, come back from the dead.
Then I might believe and listen to you.
@@nathanielalderson9111 You are also God. We are all one and the same God/"I am" dreaming infinite dreams.
@@visancosmin8991 I've seen you comment this same comment around a few places. And you are an intelligent person, I'll give you that.
But you are neither God, and nor am I.
God is a Person that you are ignoring, or claiming His title incorrectly.
I advise humbleness, not the arrogance to state "I am God." It is a short step off that particular pier.
@@nathanielalderson9111 You don't understand what God is. You put no effort into obtaining that understanding. You just mindlessly adopted the memes that you found around in your culture.
I studied biology, organic chemistry and engineering so reading science papers while not easy is doable for me if interesting.
People at the University where my astronomy club sometimes has talks were all really excited some amino acid carbohydrates were discovered on Ruygu, a CI chondrite asteroid that was sampled and returned to Earth by the Japanese Hayabusa 2 probe mission.
Without going into details a few science journals went a little overboard, but to show the difference in how science and the media work in Japan it was kept pretty low key instead of giant headlines of the "they've found proof of life on a meteor" we get from our own credulous science media/pop media that people eat up. Yes I used meteor wrong on purpose.
B.s.
Experiments to produce the building blocks of life always begin with unnaturally pure, concentrated reagents. These are purchased from laboratory supply shops and produced through sophisticated, intelligently designed processes. And From pre-existing donor cells
Dr.Tour 🏆
I did not see any "they've found proof of life on a meteor" articles. Were these in newspapers?
@Gary Hurd We can give chemists in optimal lab environments every life friendly Ingredient and it still doesn't self assemble into anything close to a "primitive cell"
The atheist community has nothing but hope and wishful thinking for the Abiogenesis fantasy!
@@GaryHurd science journals. if you look to newspapers for your science education you won't learn much at all. much of that will be wrong also.
i consider myself atheist. but im certainly not dismissive of factual data that someone presents as he’s doing. doesnt suddenly mean a god exists. either way, i never realized how flawed this model was. really good information to have.
According to expert professor Dave, if you leave milk,sugar, and coffee powder in a room, after millions of years, one can have piping hot Cappuccino coffee to drink.
Tour is arguing that even to get the basic ingredients- milk, sugar and coffee powder- a lengthy process is involved. That cannot be explained by random activity. But conceding this for argument sake, in the course of millions of years milk, sugar and coffee powder will get decomposed . That makes the chances of a piping hot
Cappuccino coffee impossible. Time is a negative factor against abiogenesis.
To understand the above realities, one need not have 150 plus IQ. Commonsense without prejudice is enough.
it's dishonest to attribute something to Prof Dave, that he never said.
It's called lying
@@reasonablespeculation3893
Well, the same charge can be brought against me by Tour's fans too!
" According to...." Check up a good dictionary to know what it means.
Either you're a native speaker of English or one for whom English is a second or third language. In case you are the former , I pity you. In case you're the latter, learn a little more of the language to understand what I have conveyed.
@@arulsammymankondar30 "learn a little more of the language to understand what I am conveyed"
what does this mean?
@@iaindcosta
Typo error. Since corrected. Thank you.
@Arulsammy Mankondar
Dictionary definition of According (adverb): As stated by or in.
As clearly shown by the dictionary definition you accused Professor Dave of saying something he didn't. It wasn't a simile or a metaphor. It was a bold faced lie.
Over the last 8 years I've been looking into both sides and continuing to improve my grasp of understanding it all. Because I didn't really have much going on in life & I enjoyed the hunt for truth. I learned how to argue from both sides & pick apart everything I say with a shift on perspective. The point I'm getting at here is that It all comes down to both positions being a matter of faith & perspective. I spent a lot of time thinking about what I should believe & the answer It came down to was as simple as realising, only one side offered me hope. Where as the other side would have me believe and hope in nothing. At some point over this last year it would seem I have become a Christian again and I may even be going back to church tomorrow with a friend for the first time in over 25 years. Have you ever seen the optical illusion of the spinning ballerina? So many people can only see it spinning one way, either to the left or to the right, but some people can also shift their perspective & control what direction they see it spinning. That's what all of this is. An optical illusion that's fun and interesting to look at & learn about, but ultimately a distraction that's meant to keep you distracted from God. None of it means anything without finding faith & hope through Him. Only took me about 40 years to figure it out.
What a load of ass gravy.
So you choose hope above truth?
That, is the what we need to center in on, Samuel. This will help center the goal for us. "10 My goal is to know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship... Philippians 3
Satan does not want us to know God. He knows that "
But we all, with uncovered face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image, from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord." 2 Corinthians 3
Seek to know Him more.
@@fukpoeslaw3613 No, he chose the side that offers (assumptions + hope) instead of the side that offers (assumptions + childish insults) 🤡
You will be in our prayers, fellow Christian, stand tall in Christ though the heavens fall. Stand tall.
I would suggest anyone with even a High School degree filled with chemistry , biology and physics would understand how ludicrous origin of life coming from 'nothing' to advanced life forms is laughable.
I didn’t even learn physics, or go to college. I was done with HS by Junior year😅
What do you propose as an alternative?
@@gab1172 are you bragging about being uneducated?
I think this is Dr Tour's clearest, most cohesive presentation to date. The shenanigans of the OoL in no small part have lead to the current distrust of science and scientists who claim - we know, we have the answer, and are found wanting. Blaming the media for megaphoning such hype as science fact, further destroys their credibility.
There are no "shenanigans" in abiogenesis research, only morons in the media who have about as much scientific understanding as a head of cabbage who like to make up bullshit for sensationalism. This has NOTHING to do with the scientists themselves. The only scientists who think they have all the answers are the ones who try to promote completely idiotic claims about things they have no clue about, such as Pierre-Marie Robitaille thinking he's an astrophysicist, literally everyone at the Discovery Institute thinking they know the first thing about ANY science at all, and yeah, even Dr Tour thinking he knows about abiogenesis, when he's proven repeatedly that he knows nothing on the subject and apparently likes it that way. The lies he tells are so transparent to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the field that it's frankly embarrassing. He needs to knock it off, as he is literally part of the problem with anti-science bias. But... all these lies sit well with people who don't care about reality but just want to hear stories that confirm their biases, so it's a pretty profitable venture for him... and so many fall for it, just like they fall for the delusions of absolute muppets like Matt Powell and Ray Comfort.
100% agreed and the problem is they don’t seem to care if the public trusts them or not which is even more disturbing
@@angelbrother1238 Science is not public opinion. It doesn't give a fuck whether you approve or not.
@@MarilynMonRover I’d say definitionally that would be true. In reality and practice, not so much.
@@TheTykus The issue is that Tour doesn't want anyone going into OoL research so he actively discourages them by spinning this web of lies and misrepresentations to make it seem like nonsense. Smart people, however, can see through his foolishness. I can't think of any reason outside of his faith why he would want to do this, but I guess his faith is reason enough... which is ironic, considering honesty is supposed to be a hallmark of his faith in the first place, and here he is, lying like a rug. The preservation of his faith clearly means more to him than the principles of his faith. It's rather disheartening to see.
Good one.
Expose all of these cheaters.
Best of luck
Proud of you Dr. Tour. Fighting the good fight. To God be the Glory! Amen 🕎✝️
EXPLAIN WHAT HE MEANS IN SCIENTIFIC TERMS THEN DUMB IT DOWN FOR THE AUDIENCE THEN. LAUGHING STOCK
Why is lying about the current state of scientific literature to mislead his followers the good fight? I thought lying was a sin
@@Ab_Def_ For born-again christians it's OK to lie if it's in a 'good cause'.
Davey Forina is a certified Fraud holding yourself up as a so-called "Professor" when you only have a bachelor's degree and couldn't bother to get an education... You couldn't ties Dr. Tour's shoe-laces.
/Repudiate pretenders like Davey Forina
Misinformation...
Reminds me of "We don't need farms. We buy our meat from the supermarket."
That is the most succinct summary of the flaws in OOL research today 👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿
@@spalding1968 no it isn't. It's pig ignorant nonsense.
@@mcmanustony listen you can have an opinion and I can have an opinion . That’s all there is to it .
@@spalding1968 how much OoL research have you read?
Sutherland and Powner’s abiotic synthesis of activated pyrimidine: how does that fit in with the wee slogan?
You can have an opinion that salmon sashimi is better than grilled salmon.
You can’t have an opinion that salmon live in trees and eat pencils.
@@mcmanustony don’t argue with me . Argue with Tour .
Like you did when he gave an open challenge to OOL scientists to answer his 5 part challenge and you publicly proved him wrong ….oh wait ….🤨
Amazing as always DR. Tour. Keep calling out the lies and speaking the scientific truth!
That's funny.
Please let me know when he starts speaking truth about abiogenesis because as of right now, nothing but lies pour out of his mouth on the subject.
An extremist evangelic… speaking the truth…😂😂
@@desiderata8811 The part I find the most funny is the thumbnail... "You've been deceived!" Brainwashing 101. The easiest way to deceive people is to tell them that they've already been deceived... so they are nice and receptive to your brand of deceit. It's shockingly effective, but to those of us who can see through this façade, it's just obnoxious.
He thinks we got here by magic.
There is no problem with legitimate scientific inquiry of any kind. The problem is with scientists that grossly exaggerate their findings and progress. We need more people like Dr Tour in more areas of science.
I actually think he needs to break it down for us peasants. As a layperson I relate more with analogies than hard data.
Good stuff! Never get tired of listening to Dr Tour.
Right!
@@JessicaSunlight ..or what you have been indoctrinated into believing what is true. How many papers has Dr. Tour submitted for peer review to the scientific community?
@@casparuskruger4807
Tour is well published in synthetic chemistry. His obsessive falsehoods about abiogenesis stem from his youthful conversion experience. This is how he maintains the notion that there is a scientific basis for religion.
@@GaryHurd -- And exactly what conclusion has science settled on that explains abiogenesis?
@@GaryHurd And what is the truthhood about abiogenesis ?
I have listened to several of Dr. James Tour's videos on this topic, and I believe that the Lord is using this man mightily! God bless you Dr. Tour, you are a treasure.
Excellent work. It deserves a wide distribution and much discussion.
Yes, you're correct.
But, Dr. Tour refuses to publish papers in peer reviewed journals, or engage in debate with the extremely vast number of scientists who oppose his views.
He only publishes books funded by Apologetic Institutions, so he is basically a cheering section of ONE, in the scientific world.
He's only confortable to con lay people, who do not have enough scientific knowledge to disagree with him.
@@vincentc.mercandetti9917 or he is very aware of how unethical they and their financiers are along with the controlled media, corrupt governments, and the money powers that have taken over the medical field, the banks, the research institutions etc. A persona has to be retarded if you are oblivious to the immense corruption that has spread its slimy fingers into everything mainstream.
@@vincentc.mercandetti9917 Vincent sounds like your from the religion of atheism .
I’m a itty of 1 how about we dialogue on science and I show how science is leaning in the direction of 2 huge assertions made in the Bible .
Are you secure enough in your religion of atheism to have a science based discussion with me ?
Topic : soul and the afterlife
Second of all dr tour wouldn’t be able to get any of this stuff that he talked about passed through peer reviewed because we are currently living in a paradigm of methodological materialism and they would never pass papers in this part of hard science such as chemistry that goes against their sacred paradigm
Ps : I’m a former atheist who came back to Christianity through science logic and reason .
Ready for a dialogue
Wink wink
@@angelbrother1238 Atheism is not a religion, so you're off to a bad start.
What are your two science based assertions?
I can use the laugh.
And you're not gay (are you?), why are you winking at me?
@@vincentc.mercandetti9917 oh and Vince T can you please bring 5 more atheists with you onto this thread :(
This won’t be fair
Typical atheist mind . I should know , I used to be an atheist until this amazing miracle happened to me making it impossible for me to stay an atheist anymore after 4 years of atheism
WaTch this folks ;)
I have never been so intrigued while feeling so stupid at the same time. I love to listen to you teach. Your enthusiasm is captivating. As I listen to your words I am only more and more enthralled by the glory of our God, and His immense power.
Feelings of stupidity are direct result of religious dogma. Try spirituality instead.
@@candui-7 Your “spirituality” is an empty bucket.
The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them.
It’s a blatant joke that the first way to brainwash someone is to tell them they are being brainwashed.
Same as this tool presenting lies to you.
@@stevepaige7557 I reference the Gospel itself
John 21:24 "This is the disciple[whom Jesus loved/ Lazarus] which testifieth of these things, AND WROTE THESE THINGS: and we[Apostles] know that his testimony is true."
John 11:5
Now Jesus LOVED Martha, and her sister, and LAZARUS
John 11:3
Therefore his sisters sent unto him{Jesus], saying, Lord, behold, HE[Lazarus] WHOM THOU LOVEST is sick..
John11:36 Then said the Jews, Behold how he[Jesus] LOVED him[Lazarus]!
Personally I believe in Creation and I believe in Intelligent Design. Now, regardless of my personal position and belief. I have to say, this Professor had me laughing on so many levels! This is one of the few videos on the origins of life and organic chemistry that I've seen that is actually both educational and entertaining to say the least.
Creation AND intelligent design…?
Isn’t the later basically a Deist approach (ie a-Bliblical), whereas as Biiblical Creation requires acceptance of Young Earth - ie what orthodox Christianity subscribed to until the Lyell-Darwin heresy took root, which rapidly led to eugenics and the worst forms of racism. By their fruit… etc!
He had you laughing about what exactly? What is so laughable, we have to know.
@@brokula1312 how he points out the half truths to the research papers designed to keep the grant money coming while pretending they have made great advances.
@@brokula1312 He's a schizophrenic, they'll laugh at anything.
> Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design doesn't exist. It's just a shallow and deceitful attempt to runaround the goalposts that prevent religious bunk from being taught in schools.
Intelligent Design is just creationism renamed. Creationism is bunk. It tells us nothing, we're not made wiser by such claims, we learn nothing from it.
Thank you Dr. Tour for your unyielding faith in God and truth. When they come after you instead of your work, it speaks volumes...👊👊
Lawrence krauss - “We are fearfully and wonderfully made by nothing”
Richard Dawkins - “ We are Fearfully and wonderfully made by Alliens”
OOL researcher - “ We are Fearfully and wonderfully made by billion year old Soup”
King David - “ We are Fearfully and wonderfully made by God”
I am now in my early 60's and the time of my undergraduate years is long past. I still very much have an interest in many different areas of scientific investigation. What disturbs me most about today is that so many of those who teach in the higher education environments have fallen into the trap of having the students only focus on the current consensus or popularly held views (theories and models) in the various scientific fields as if those theories and models were the "truth". In fact, a discussion that I had with one such university educator (nuclear physics) showed me that students looking at alternative theories and models were to be discouraged from their investigations. It saddened me that such an attitude was shown, but I have found that this attitude is much more common than I ever expected.
My undergraduate studies were in electrical engineering and computer science and we were always encouraged to remember that all of the theories and models we used were only applicable within certain quite narrow situations. Change those basic conditions and those theories and models would fail. It was only in later years that I came across George Box's statement of "all models are wrong, but some are useful" and at that point realised that this was the fundamental position that we were being taught. I have extended that saying as "all of our theories and models are wrong, but can be useful in various places". Interestingly, I did come across a set of physics writings in which the author actually described his work as being useful for calculation but do not expect reality to match that model.
1956...it was a different planet for my parents. Today, kids are portrayed as a burden...no worth, pain in the ass, etc. Its very sad to see my grandchildrens situation.
United we once stood, a proud people, divided we have fallen, flush with our own shames. By design. Evil deceiving evil, as it is written.
Ps. Love the "all models are wrong too"! My 9th grade shop teacher used to say it all the time (:
Consciousness is all there is.
@@visancosmin8991 wait tll you have kids. Kinda makes you look beyond your own belly button.
@@dannymccarty344 What ?
@@visancosmin8991 consciousness, dude.! More to life than just you.
It's humbling to know that even in this day and age, we don't know what life IS.
Life is consciousness, is God knowing itself, what else ?
@@visancosmin8991 Oh, Visan, I understand that life is a gift from God, but as Dr. Tour mentioned, when a living thing ceases to live, what is it that was lost? The life force isn't physical, something that we can replace. Even Dr. Tour, brilliant as he is, doesn't know what life IS, or how to create it. I'm in awe of God's majesty!
@@warrenpope749 What is lost is consciousness. That's why a chemical solution to the origin of life is impossible. Those chemicals didn't come together by the laws of chemistry, they were brought together by consciousness. That's why they fail to replicate life in laboratory, because they only mess with chemicals, but they cannot invoke consciousness to enter those chemicals to organize them.
@@warrenpope749 Consciousness is lost.
@@cosminvisan520 Consciousness is lost every time we fall asleep.
Super interesting and informative. I've watched all your videos in the two seasons. Subsequently unsubscribed from "the other guy" after the insight I got from your lectures. I am a simple guy with more questions than answers and life is way too complex to be answered in the foolish manner some text books want us to believe. Thanks for making the effort to bring clarity. We need more voices like yours.
we're living in the age of scientism bud, spacetime isn't fundamental to physics, quantum mechanics isn't fundamental to reality. nothing can explain consciousness...... and 'scientists' still think the grand canyon wasn't formed by lightning lol it's like the pseudoscientists and scientists switched places once government and corporate interests got to strong in science.
Sorry to hear that you've been decieved by James. He's a lying scammer that thoroughly misrepresents origin of life research. I recommend you do some independent research on the topic instead of listening to this idiot.
GreatUncleBuck
I can't say I've had the... _"""""pleasure"""""_ of having subbed to Tour, but it feels like I'm in the opposite boat. Care to elaborate on how these "lectures" carry more insight than Dave's educational content? If you're not a trained chemist, these videos claims shouldn't be important nor insightful, as it's terribly difficult to follow much of the important bits or the papers without at least _a _*_basic_* understanding of chemistry (More than what *I* got from two semesters of Chemistry and the vaguely baseline level playlist on Dave's channel).
@@ivoryas1696I would like it to be dumbed down into Laypeople terms personally. It looks a lot like an in house debate. My grade 12 chemistry class doesn't help me here.
From what he said at the beginning, to paraphrase "molecules don't move toward life unless acted on by organic material". This sounds to me like something else I heard about Electricity. Electricity is chaotic unless utilized by something that can harness and direct it, like a toaster oven. Similarly, it sounds like he's saying molecules are mindless and only do what you need them to do when directed by information. The prebiotic molecule had no such direction, so they would constantly fall apart after accidently assembling themselves....this is granting they could actually form by accident.
@@Lambdamale. Electricity isn't "chaotic", that doesn't really make sense as a way of describing it. Magnetic fields and lightning and electromagnetic phenomena all existed and functioned just fine well before we figured out how to make interesting things that use electromagnetism. We just used the properties of charged molecules to do cool things, those properties existed regardless of how we used them.
Molecules are mindless, but they are not directionless. Matter has combinatorial properties, which means that completely independent of any human interaction at all, chemistry happens and matter interacts and combines in various ways, "directed" by the laws of physics. The "direction" of a prebiotic molecule, is that if conditions are such that some chemical reaction can occur, it occurs. That's all chemistry is. When humans do chemistry, we aren't imbuing the matter with some "essence" or "substance" that we call information, we're just creating the conditions that allow for a particular chemical reaction to happen. If the same conditions were created naturally somewhere else, the same chemistry would occur whether or not a human was there to facilitate it.
Information also isn't a "thing" in the normal sense. It's a thing insofar as it's a concept that we have in our brains, but "information" is just a word we use to describe a pattern or sequence of things. The matter *is* the information. Molecules exist, and they exist in a specific geometry and composition of atoms, and that specific geometry and those specific atoms allow for chemical reactions with other specific molecules to happen. In the case of DNA, the strands aren't imbued with some particular material "information" that lets them work. DNA strands are a pattern of base pairs, that RNA reads and then acts on based on the pattern. That's it.
I love listening to Dr. Tour
I love his enthusiasm
He's not a very good public speaker and that "enthusiasm" sounds more like a "hissy fit"
Funny. I think he is a wonderful public speaker. You are obviously a poor listener. Guys like you probably consider the empty, stammering fool Barack Maobama to be a great orator.
Being “enthusiastic” doesn’t mean that what he’s saying is accurate. Which he isn’t.
So, what specifically did he say that is not accurate? A time stamp of his inaccuracy would be helpful. I am relatively new to the topic, but a my background in chemical engr have led me to question the same issues that Dr tour is questioning. Just exploring alternatives.
@@wade5941 You will receive either a niggling or silent response from this dude. He is a hater and propagandist, in all likelihood.
Your a Tour Ď force. Keeping science real. Well done. Hope to see you someday.
Tour de farce more like
Thank you for posting this great lecture. I'm very glad there's people of good faith out there that understand all of this and can benefit from Dr James ample scientific knowledge and wisdom.
When it comes to his field of expertise, we can learn much. After all, he's pretty much the main figurehead when it comes to nanocars. I can't think of anymore more qualified to speak on the subject. However....... when it comes to abiogenesis, he is absolutely ignorant as hell and likes it that way, as do his followers. You can't learn a damn thing about abiogenesis from him.
@@MarilynMonRover - Gee, he's not an expert on what some other people (right now) imagine might have happened . .
So, I guess that proves he's not God ; )
@@johnknight3529 Of course he's not God. I'm God.
@@MarilynMonRover - Take a number ; )
@@MarilynMonRover
No I’m Spartacus.
I've seen several of your videos, and I think this is the best. From a retired synthetic Organic Chemist (pharmaceutical industry).
Fantastic. Another chemist who doesn’t know anything about abiogenesis chiming in. You got us
@Olasnah and what are you, professor? God bless you!
@@Olasnah what do you know about abiogenesis and the reactions needed to create the monomers and macromolecules necessary for the smallest unit of life? Do you even know how they work? So be quiet! 😂
I've been learning a lot from you Dr. Tour, and God bless you for being "straight up", I appreciate your transparency.
Yep, he is transparent alright, if you look closely at his connection to Discovery Institute, signing of anti-Darwin petition and all the half truths and outright lies he stoops to. PhD Liar for Jesus.
What in particular have you learned?
@@GaryHurd
How about your abiogenesis fairytale for one.
@@thomasjane4167
James Tour depends on the ignorance of his audience. That is advanced by their wish to be deceived.
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.
They are a bit dated, but are readable for people without much background study.
Since you have had a good background, First year college; Introduction to Chemistry, Second year; Organic Chemistry and at least one biochem or genetics course see;
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-scientists. I doubt it.
Nick Lane 2015 "The Vital Question" W. W. Norton & Company
@@GaryHurd
Your opinion is noted. And that's all it is...dismissed.
That's NOT the simplest cell. That's the simplest cell they could come up with at the time. The simplest cell does not need DNA. This is a case of them trying to reverse the process and do it backwards only not all processes are bidirectional so at some point you hit a wall doing it like this. Doing it from the bottom up some initial RNA can do it, typically in a chemical soup consisting of nothing fancy, things all around in the solar system, some water, ammonia, co2, etc, not much else other than some trace elements, causing a catalytic cascade which is self perpetuating chemical reaction liable to make more of the said catalyst in the first place. Models of early life and abiogenesis aren't orderly processes. They're incredible messy. The first cells have a very high defect rate and are incredibly approximate. Early cell walls pull in the material needed and reproduction is achieved by basically swelling up and bursting, free floating again but that's how the early components started to begin with. What people also discount is the small scale this occurs on. Chemical life is tiny. It is like having a trillion times more Earths for these processes to occur across. There's also a semantic issue here. That's the simplest cell because of their definition of a cell as what we see today which is post the evolution of cells into a highly viable cell which we see today. When I played the rest what I just heard said wasn't smart. That's an abuse of language and you've undermined yourself with that.
@@stevepaige7557 If you look at experiments on RNA then you'll see that it has some chemical activity and the shortest sequences for catalysing some self replication are very little. As for arguments about it breaking down too quickly, they seem to all be based on the simple assumption that if it breaks down very quickly then that's too fast for anything else to happen. Well, it breaks down quickly from our perspective because at that level things in general happen quickly to the point that it's not actually happening quickly, certainly not immediately. A huge risk was taken with the mRNA vaccines because of this. Most people, even scientists working with RNA fall into these traps. There's a risk of recombination with other RNA pathogens, albeit it a small one but scientists ignored it under the notion that RNA breaks down too quickly for anything to happen, only if that were true it would break down too quickly to get into the cell and then end up creating spike proteins, the antigen to trigger the immune system. I like half of what this guy is doing, scientists deserve to be talked to like this a lot of the time as they are arrogant lying pricks most of the time. However, he is also sometimes undermining himself and over doing it. Some of his religious angle is incorrect and he should be angry at scientists for saying they're better but he's not entirely better either. On top of this there are processes that can stablise RNA. When we consider optimal candidates for abiogenesis, the primordial soup idea is a dumbed down story for kids just like stories in genesis that should not be interpreted as literal but instead giving a simplified explanation to people. If you do believe in God, do you think he would instead make a good for everyone that's a trillion pages long having to explain everything when if we weren't meant to figure things out for ourselves we would have been created filled with all this knowledge that is routinely discovered instead. The soup concept isn't entirely invalid though. Soups does also naturally occur on Earth. It's part of the water cycle. Stuff gets dissolved. When water evaporates it can get quite concentrated. In such cases with enough diversity of elements, compounds, chemicals and some processes driving chemical assembly RNA would have the opportunity to interact with that and bind with other stuff. Today people ignore RNA is often protected wrapped around or hugging a little protein or something like that. The mass duplication, reproduction and redundancy strategy alone is a work around for lack of persistence. Most of this is actually just quite basic science. The main reason abiogenesis has to be figured out piecemeal, including figuring out something plausible as to how it happened on Earth is because we don't have a giant petridish the size of the planet or something like that nor much data on what the planet was like back then which was radically different. I've done some work in areas related to this. Advances are being made instead in some areas in mathematics and simulations on computer. There are still enormous gaps but there's nothing in science that says this couldn't happen. The question is how. This process is no different to any other. We might find one way to make something or how something can be made but it's inefficient. Over time we improve and make it more inefficient. This is constantly being done in science and the trajectory is one in which we should land well with in the required parameters for being efficient enough to explain abiogenesis on early Earth.
Show me ...
@@watchman2001 That's quite a difficult request though I would suggest for some example of something analogous that you look at the evolution of computing.
It's not all the same but when it comes to DNA and what purpose that provides it's extremely similar to a hard drive.
RNA is usually what is actually processed equivalent to RAM in some respects while DNA is a persistent storage extension that's largely inert beyond that purpose.
There is a semantics issue in respect to the meaning of cell. The definition you use may artificially exclude simpler forms, by definition.
However, even in that case there are simpler kinds of cells in terms of self contained units where they might instead of having their own walls and being mobile exist in a porous substrate as effective cells. This is a little like the microbial equivalent of hermit crabs or cave men.
Cells today are well developed and often quite bulky with a lot of extras you don't strictly need. If we go back to the evolution of computers there were always hardware extensions and often still are such as graphics cards.
You can strip down much of that and just have a simply CPU with not much more. The CPU can usually do everything the graphics card can or do enough but just not as quickly. If you pull out bits and pieces of some old computers you could often take out quite a lot before they no longer work at all. This is still often fairly applicable today.
Similarly, if you look at modern cells today you can often strip things down to an absolute minimum. However, you're still working with what you have. You're not necessarily changing anything.
You might still be leaving in the equivalent of a CPU that is highly advanced, you're not simplifying that.
Those are stabilized parts of a stabilized system where as life prior was sure to be increasingly more unstable the further you go back.
You can conceive or various less stable and complete systems with the problem being you don't know which one it would be with that approach compared to stripping down what we actually have. Essentially, the stripping down method is like going back as far as possible in the historical record. When it comes to prehistory you reach a barrier where you can't rewind further back, it's at the beginning of the tape since records began. The footage prior is lost.
The modern cell has a structure consisting of a container, usually inside a kind of little bag. Little balloons. Earlier cells could have taken other forms including those that are more of a solid structure.
There were likely many different forms of cell or unit until things settled on the arrangement we see today. Earlier cells are likely to have been much more incoherent, that is, less self contained and probably quite often in a sense naked within their medium.
Insisting on a cell being defined by major components seen today is a misunderstanding of evolution that is somewhat common.
Today a computer might be defined by a set of components which might include a case. Computers don't often strictly need that. Just the term cell causes frustration here as it often implies the need for a case.
I love this! As a Rice alum.... I am very proud of Dr. Tour!
Nobody has shown a method to make the homochiral versions of lipids, amino acids, nucleotides or carbohydrates in a prebiotically relevant manner.
Chemists purchase chemicals in high purity and yield from chemical companies. Chemists Arrange those chemicals in a specific order under a set of carefully controlled devised conditions Using designed sequencing machines and templates.
@@galileog8945 In biology, 19 of the 20 natural amino acids are homochiral ,..he is quite right.
@@galileog8945 He speaks of homochiral amino acids at 52.45 , clearly printed ...
Nobody has shown a method to make the homochiral versions of lipids, amino acids, nucleotides or carbohydrates in a prebiotically relevant manner.
Chemists purchase chemicals in high purity and yield from chemical companies, Which Extract them from pre-existing biological sources. Chemists Arrange those chemicals in a specific order under a set of carefully controlled devised conditions Using Designed pipettes, designed synthesizer machines, Activating agents, templates. Etc
@@tonymaurice4157
Why are you repeating yourself?
Just because scientists cannot produce life in the laboratory, does not mean that life did not come into being over millions or billions of years. All life on earth is proof that it did. We just do not know the exact method yet.
Sorry, but no. Did you observe the millions of years? As usual the science science science unbelievers don’t understand the scientific method.
@@cynic150 Life being here is not proof of how life got here. You are making a baseless assumption.
Good for Dr. Tour in exposing the false prophets in our midst.
Science has no prophets.
@@hammalammadingdong6244 They are all false prophets.
@@djo-dji6018 - all prophets are false as far as I can tell.
But science doesn’t commit that error because science doesn’t proceed as a result of prophesy.
@@hammalammadingdong6244 Science is full of prophets, but they all are fake prophets, of course.
@@stevepaige7557 - I don't think you understand what science is or what prophesy is.
It is a law of life, that the ones with money and power always win. Except when you succeed in waking the public up to the malevolence inflicted upon them by the power holders. Because the public is always the most powerful of all. And I thank the creator, that in this day and age, the public can be so easily reached by means like youtube, and that the competent and honest truth-seekers have been given such a fighting hand. The truth will out!
You are an amazing and passionate man Dr. Tour! I pray for you and that your message of the truth about the origin of life and your "unspoken" truth about God is heard and realized by everyone who hears it. God bless you!
😅
Love TOUR’s energy, keep at it and don’t cut any slack here, keep exposing and bringing these FRAUDS to the LIGHT
Your streams are missed, Rebekah.
Jimmy IS the fraud, Rebekah. I agree with Otangelo, bring your streams back, they were comedy gold.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Your arguments are hilarious! I have NEVER seen intelligence design nor create ANYTHING. It’s always been biological hands that do it so, even if your arguments weren’t just arguments from ignorance/incredulity, the conclusion would have to be that a MATERIAL being with intelligence caused abiogenesis, not just intelligence by itself.
Can you cite even ONE example of mere THOUGHT producing code? Has a factory ever been THOUGHT into existence or was it done by MATERIAL HANDS? Can you cite ANYTHING material that we’d BOTH agree was created by merely thinking?
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you want to say intelligence was required, you have to say a material body is required.
@@AsixA6 We know by NDEs that disembodied minds can exist. There are many science papers confirming this. We do not know of nonintelligent mechanisms being able to instantiate code, instructional information, hardware, information transmission systems, integrated complex machine, assembly lines, and self-replicating factories. This is an argument of knowledge, not ignorance. The ignorance is all yours.
As a biologist I admire you!!!!!!
Nobody has shown a method to make the homochiral versions of lipids, amino acids, nucleotides or carbohydrates in a prebiotically relevant manner.
Chemists purchase chemicals in high purity and yield from chemical companies. Chemists Arrange those chemicals in a specific order under a set of carefully controlled devised conditions Using designed sequencing machines and templates.
@@tonymaurice4157 : OK. but we do know a great deal about how biology functions naturally and we got to the information you described through scientific research. As we look back to earlier end earlier processes; at what point do you say "Stop! Supernatural intervention happened right there." how do you test for that? So even if it is supernatural, we'd have to do the same research to know how and when. That would win a Nobel Prize for sure. If you don't care or it doesn't matter then there is no point making scientific arguments. Science is about learning what we don't know, not making excuses for not looking.
@LR Vogt More hope and wishful thinking and no environment has ever demonstrated abiogenesis!
Proto-cells are not life-like, the requisite ribosomes mRNA, enzymes and reagents were purchased from a chemical company or extracted from a pre-existing living system. Then added to the medium and permitted to diffuse into the manmade capsules.
@@tonymaurice4157 : No one has demonstrated supernatural intervention even exists or is even possible but you just really want to believe it so you do.
Everything known has been learned from actual data using chemistry and physics. You wouldn't know what ribosomes mRNA, enzymes and reagents are without those scientists.
@LR Vogt It takes intelligent chemists to produce very limited chains of genetic information and they have to extract and copy it from pre-existing biological sources using designed equipment and templates... It's never forming just "Naturally"
Keep believing in your chemical fantasy that has never had any evidence! World of denial and wishful thinking👍
This is what integrity is all about. It is so welcome, even in science. Consensus science is not. Thanks Dr Tour. God bless.
Integrity? After being torn apart with real evidence by professor Dave. You have to be kidding
@@gtbriggs6614 lmao real evidence? apparently you dont know what logical fallacies are lol
@@DraceAI 50+ cited papers proving Tour’s claims invalid, cherry picked and all to build his little strawman. Farina ain’t the one apologising to Nobel laureates for blatant misrepresentation.
Do you think if Tour had even one valid point, the whole scientific community would be backpedaling like crazy? It’s business as usual if you hadn’t realised.
@@gtbriggs6614 Did you know Dave is NOT a professor.
@@KelliAnnWinkler that’s right, he has his masters in chemistry, he has taught chemistry. Tour really has no better qualifications, he specialises in nano technology and graphene development.
Difference between the two is one uses real science backed up by peer reviewed papers (and puts them in the description so you can check his work) and the other quote mines papers because he knows his congregations won’t check. Farina did check the presentations made by Tour and used the aforementioned papers to prove Tour very much wrong.
Get em’ Tour
BRAVO, Dr. Tour! I salute you for your expertise and your bravery! Keep up the good work!!
James:
Says *big words* with *confidence loudly.*
His congregation:
*Nods their heads with approval.*
That was absolutely amazing! Thank you so much! 🙏
you better pray that Tour ever will find the thruth and stops deceiving people.
Thank God for Dr. James Tour!
Dr. Tour, oh how I appreciate you and your love for our Lord Jesus Christ. All my life, i had a heart for Israel and His people especially those whom I went to high school with. I still evangelize to them daily because it is our duty to testify always. If isn't done, He will make it fully known during the tribulations.
Jesus is just a story.
@@stevepaige7557 Prove Jesus existed!
@@visancosmin8991 Jesus is the most historically written about figure even from his enemies. You're not being objective in your assessment about Him.
@@pigzcanfly444 Show me the evidence.
@@cosminvisan520 show you the evidence that you are contingent? You should have no problem deducting that you are the product of something else that derived you. Show you the evidence for Christianity? I can point you to several inter and extrabiblical sources that hint to the veracity of the scriptures and to the life that Jesus lived, His death by crucifixion and resurrection which were all prophesied hundreds of years prior. I can even show you how the gospel was actually found to be within the phonetic meaning of each of the first 10 patriarchs in the book of genesis when you write them out in order. It really just depends on your willingness to delve into the information.
Fascinating presentation. Thank you. So clearly we don’t know how life commenced. Assuming a ‘God of the gaps’ is the answer in still unacceptable. The inability to discover this is no evidence for a God. Indeed, there is no evidence for a God.
Yeah someone better intelligence than us can fix all the issues he raised.
My hero brother! Thank you for telling it like it is and God Bless You!
"I have written 5 papers. People simply ignore them. That's why I go to the masses. "
Fantastic! Powerful!... This man - (because of the God-inspired focus of his life) - is a FORCE to be reckoned with in the scientific community!
Yeah, if anything, the point at which he focuses on god is the end of science.
@@tomyossarian7681 Anytime somebody is so closed minded that they are not willing to look at all possibilities, is the end of science.
@@ferratilis Sure - so I recon you can demonstrate that a "god" is a possible explanation. Please go ahead and do so.
@@tomyossarian7681
There is one particular God, that claims that He is outside Time and Space, that He created Time, Space and the Universe with all the planets and stars and all the Laws that govern it all.
He created the Earth and designed all the life forms and encoded all the information for life in a 4 base code known as DNA
Humans write a binary code and they screw that one up too.
Design demands a designer, Laws a lawgiver, and coding an Inteligent being that wrote that code.
It's clear that all this points to the one God that claims to have done it all, and His name is Jesus Christ.
Amazing how much the subject of origins of life has in common with germ theory versus terrain theory. My respect for consensus science continues to decline. I admire scientists like James Tour who are not afraid to challenge the theories that I was educated to believe.
When your ultimate goal is the almighty dollar it’s not that hard to be willfully blind. The problem is that there will be a day of reckoning.
Thank you Dr Tour for being that light on a hill. Maranatha.
42:58 TODO list for fabricating a cell... What a nice video giving the viewer such a wide overview. I have yet to see your other longer videos, but I am so looking forward to! Just stumbled randomly upon your channel on this video and instantly subscribed. Top notch content, thank you.
"Top notch" 🤣
- The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them.
@@termination9353 Sir, this is a Wendy's.
Did nature spontaneously fabricate a modern cell out of nowhere? No, it didn't. This "to-do list" is utter bullshit.
Thank you Dr James Tour. You show what a scientist actually does. And I can also see why fakes need to fake it to get the respect without the brilliance and thoroughness and the diligence. May CreatorGod continue to use you in your science and in your character of integrity and commitment and creativity. Respect.
I am God.
Yay real science! Yay ancient goat herder superstition! Pick one please.
He thinks we got here by magic.
@@allenanderson5297 We actually did got here by magic. How else you appear out of nothing ?
@@cosminvisan520 through quantum fluctuations
When we flip a coin we have two possible outcomes, heads or tails. In this problem, we want to calculate the probability of getting all heads every time we flip a coin. We can use this exercise to test our credulity factor. How many heads in a row are we willing to accept as a chance occurrence? At what point would we suspect an illusion or some form of magic (trickery)?
The objective of using probabilities is to demonstrate the probability or chance of getting a certain result. On average, how many times and how often will we need to flip the coin to achieve 100 heads in a row? Over 300 million times a second for over one quadrillion years!
The chances of getting all heads 100 times in a row is similar to the chance of getting 100 left-handed amino acids to form a biological protein. Proteins range in size from about 50 to over 30,000 amino acids. To get a small protein of 100 left-handed amino acids from an equal mixture of left- and right-handed amino acids, the probability would then be 1030 or 1 followed by 30 zeros (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). How believable (credulity factor) is it that this could happen by random chance? Also, consider that this has never been observed! Chance protein formation has always been accepted as a matter of faith by evolutionists.
But wait, there is more! This number, 1030, only measures the possibility of getting all left-handed amino acids. It does not say anything about their order. In our example, we have a chain of 100 amino acids. Each position can be occupied by any 1 of 20 different amino acids common to living things, and these must be in a specific order to form a functional protein. What is the probability that the correct amino acid will be placed in position number 1 of the chain? It will be 1/20. What is the probability that the first two positions will be correct? This can be calculated by multiplying the two probabilities together (1/20 x 1/20 = 1/202). Therefore, the probability of getting all 100 amino acids in the correct position would be 1/20 multiplied by itself 100 times or 1/20100 (this equates to 1/10130). This is 1 followed by 130 zeros!
Large numbers can be hard to visualize or even comprehend. To put this in picture format we can use a smaller number 1021 (1 followed by 21 zeros). If we were to take 1021 silver dollars and lay them on the face of the earth; they would cover the entire land surface to a depth of 120 feet.
Are there upper limits for which we can logically expect an event will not occur by random chance? The mathematician Emile Borel proposed 1/1050 as a universal probability bound. This means that any specified event beyond this value would be improbable and could not be attributed to chance.
As we can see, the probability of getting a single small protein (1/10130) far exceeds this limit. Even if the protein can interchange amino acids at various positions (such as in the case of the protein cytochrome a), the resulting probability still exceeds the limit of 1/1050. So far we have only looked at the probability of getting a single small protein by random chance. What are the chances of getting all the proteins necessary for life?
No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning . . . there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (1020)2000 = 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.
What a great response! And the molecules, made of atoms with nuclei, protons, electrons, etc., that make up acids, lipids, proteins. . . . must be correctly arranged FIRST! And the scientific community at large want us to accept abiogenesis and evolution as facts? PSHAW!
May God keep you protected in these days as you battle. " you were made for a time such as these"
I am God.
@@visancosmin8991 Do you know my name then?
Great talk! Very informative. Thanks again!! :)
Tour cuts through the bull with precision, just by using their own work is enough but he goes deeper just to show in no way shape or form are they even remotely close to the origin of life.
There was no origin of life. Consciousness is eternal.
@@visancosmin8991 So, by your logic, we humans have existed before eternity itself? Man your logic falls apart.
We love you Dr.Tour!!!!! Glory to God for putting people like yourself in education to show us truth that leads to understanding!!! Thank you good and noble sir, you rock.
The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them.
@@termination9353 Interestingly, the RE Legion of man as presented has caused more strife and death in this realm than almost any other source of mind control imposed on that which is life=life.
Too many love “believing” in shit outside of their state conscious awareness.
It is astounding that people believe all this stuff that has zero evidence in our living experience and all based on fantasies of his story and NOT the Mystery= My Story = Mastery that is the you you have come to KNOW.
All truth is found within. Trust in the you that you are; that which is life. Thx. D
@@rtanidean4931 "“believing” in shit outside of their state conscious awareness." - But I don't believe "shit" outside my conscious awareness. Awakening people to "shit" outside of their awareness is what I'm doing here. I don't see how anything you just said can help me in that endeavor. I didn't come here asking you where truth is to be found. I came here TELLING you where truth is to be found. I use my own mind and teach people to use theirs. Not like you who merely parrot the "mystery = my story = mastery" conceptual summersault gibberish you learned that was dreamed up in someone else's mind.
@@termination9353 Wow. You took my comment completely out of context! I was absolutely agreeing with you and then I added my own bit of experience. There was no critical view in what you commented initially or my response to freely comment. No judgments, just expansion of view. There’s no mandate presented to anyone. Humbly suggest all to trust what you claim to know, or not, no matter to me. Take care all.
@kara bool
But god never “comes in “ creationists just make claims that he did it when they don’t have a scrap of evidence that any deity exists .
What a presentation!! Dr Tour is a force beyond normal .... Love his lectures! One of the greatest scientific minds on the planet ...and a great man of God ..blessing to you Dr Tour from Nottingham, England!!
Even if you want to to believe there was supernatural agency involved; how do you suggest scientists go about learning these processes and mechanisms that created life? The only data is natural and the only tools are chemistry and physics. I have not seen Mr Tour inject god into any of HIS scientific papers because that would be unscientific and irrational.
@YYY MMM I take it you believe in the pre-biotic pond scum argument?
@YYY MMM We are waiting for your published paper where you can prove everything he said is baseless and rubbish, your comments mean absolutely nothing unless you prove him wrong . BTW can you please show us how many articles you have written at least and your patents you've registered ®️?
@@believerbyknowledge Does he not have to prove it right first?
@@macmac1022 either way , I hear not a solid scientific argument from YYY MMMM to back his opinion.
My favorite quote: "I just spent a 40 year career doing this and we're further away [from finding the answers] than when I began." Who's going to fund that???
Gravitational Theory took about 2500 years.
good thing they didn't just give up, because the answers didn't manifest themselves upon demand, as you would have people do with regards to the origin of life.
low hanging fruit isn't always the better option, but it is the easiest and requires the least amount of work or thought.
@@manamanathegreat I'd appreciate it if you could give the timestamp in the video where this was stated.
@mp4.alliedmastercomputer He sensationalizes a non-issue. This is my point.
He uses this argument to sneak in a god of the gaps argument, over and over in his interviews and speeches.
If you haven't seen him do it, then you don't know James Tour. If you wanna see him do it, just watch critique videos of him,
the one that Dave F. does covering the dinner round table he did with his peers is pretty comprehensive.
@@manamanathegreat I see thank you. I haven’t seen much of him so I’ll check out the critiques of his position. He did specifically deny / address said claims with statements like he believes we will eventually understand it. As well as giving a suggestion on how we should approach said problem differently in the future to make better progress.
It is deeply saddening that most of these people don't know beyond a 3rd grade level of science or biology.
You have no models. No predictions.
@@PersistentDissenter exactly! Like, this isn’t science, this is shutting science down that doesn’t agree with his worldview. Be religious, nobody cares. Stop pretending it’s science though. He says I’m not gonna bring god into this, then litterally argues that god made the universe while shutting down genuine knowledge. Watch the round table where he has to talk to REAL scientists. Bro can’t teach his doctrine to anyone with even a fundamental understanding of biology pr chemistry. This isn’t science, it’s apologetics.
Who are "these people"? Those carefully questioning scientific dogma?
@@MessianicDiscipling dogma, meaning the science that hundreds of thousands of people research and agree on based on their observations but you don’t understand?
Cool. When are you planning on publishing your OoL research in a peer-reviewed journal?
How about you ?
@@cosminvisan520 - It's not my field. Is it yours?
@@hammalammadingdong6244 Then if it is not your field, why do you comment about it ?
@@cosminvisan520 - Looks like you’ve got dozens of comments here. Is it your field?
This is a comment section. I’m making comments. So are you.
But to my original point - if Tour is so confident about his conclusions regarding OoL, why doesn’t he publish them in a peer reviewed journal?
How many peer-reviewed papers how you actually read on this matter? Zero, right?
Greatest quote at 46:26, "Would you say this to his face ... I already have." Boom! No one is left standing.
I first saw Dr tour on "one for Israel" RUclips channel. Amazing testimony of God's grace.
What a wonderful, entertaining and eye-opening lecture! OoL is not alone in masquerading "marketing" as science... I'm afraid so many scientists are more into marketing their teams for funding than actually doing honest research. Dr Tour's passion for actual honest science is such a relief!
It's all about money And boyhood fantasies.
Has he figured out how we got here by a magic spell?
@TheAllBlue why would you say that?
@@allenanderson5297 Experiments to produce the building blocks of life always begin with unnaturally pure, concentrated reagents. These are purchased from laboratory supply shops and produced through sophisticated, intelligently designed processes
So I’m betting you just blindly believe everything he says. This individual has never published works worth a dot. Being peer reviewed is the way in which any paper has ever become anything. Consensus among peers is what gives published work worth.
There's a lot of accusations that James is lying, yet at every turn i see him pointing out what appear to be legitimate problems with the methodology of origin of life researchers.
Thank you so much Dr James. I took biochem in 2020 as part of my medical course and ever since then I have this itch about chirality and spontaneous life formation, as in, it's just too much coincidence. Your class shed light on so many other problems I just disregarded in my academic years before converting to Catholicism. Keep doing what you do, I'll share with as many people as I possibly can.
Hard to depict evolution as "spontaneous" when it took billions of years to make us.
@@PaulDormody Back than environment was specially assisted to build what we see today ,complexity is a small issue if you have the capabilities ...
@@rovidius2006 the problem is that science hasn’t even come close to showing it has the capabilities to do it
The odds don’t support it
@@angelbrother1238 says who?
You? The science denier? 🤣 the irony
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus Has it been done yet? if it COULD be done dont you think someone outside of Hollywood would have done it by now? He is not a science-denier just because he wont share your BS with you! Wow, for being SO smart you people do engage in constant Ad hominems, dont you! Asking challenging questions to people who have a strong motive to lie and the propensity to do it is NOT denying science!
Please don’t let the secularists make you leave God out of the argument. God bless you and your work! 🙏🏼✝️ 🧪 🧬
I am God.
@@visancosmin8991
Thanks for the reply. I don’t get too many chances to talk with you directly. How did you create the universe? Thanks 🙏🏼
@@shipwright6122 You are also God. We are all one and the same God/"I am" dreaming infinite dreams.
@@visancosmin8991
I am definitely not God. Thank God. 🙏🏼 I thought I was for many years. Didn’t work out so good
@@shipwright6122 You dont understand what God is.
One way to heaven, few find it
Many ways to hell, and most go through them
"My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing." - James 1:2-4
"The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good." - Psalm 14:1
This is a real man with integrity! God bless him.
@@derhafi integrity is having a strong ethical principle, like being honest.
Dear Professor Tour - GOD is using powerfully in bold and fearless manner … to our LORD YESHUA be the praise forevermore ✌️✝️
I am God.
If I become a millionaire, I must make sure everyone hears of your work
🔯🔯🔯🔯🔯🔯🔯 GREAT Teaching to the WORLD Dr.Tour 📣📣📣-🌍🌍🌍- as I GET OLDER i Like to LEARN and it seems the BEST thing to Learn is the God of Israel described in the Bible and Jesus YESHUA in hebrew who Died for our Sins that we have EverLasting Life== PRAISE the LORD 🌹🌹🌹🕎🕎🕎🕎🕎🕎🕎
You've opened my eyes to a whole new conundrum regarding the complexities of our universe. If it isn't from intelligent design of Creator than how is it even possible? So glad I found your channel.
Arguments from ignorance are logically invalid.
@@hammalammadingdong6244 you calling yourself out?
@@ronniebuchanan6575 how would that work, since I’m not making an argument?
"Arguments from ignorance are logically invalid." That is an argument dummy.@@hammalammadingdong6244
Thank God the truth is being revealed!
Excellent! Thanks for all you do. Truth and integrity is so refreshing.
Yes, truth and integrity are so vital in this day of dishonesty and tripe. Someone please let me know when Dr Tour displays even a shred of either honesty or integrity when it comes to abiogenesis research.
@@MarilynMonRover What exactly did he say that was not true?
@@Amanda-if1wn The first fifteen seconds of he video is the first demonstrable example of him being full of nonsense, talking shit about a field he doesn't understand. It just gets worse from there. Fifteen seconds. Unbelievable.
@WDFT He starts out with a completely idiotic misrepresentation of abiogenesis by stating that something slithers out of the primordial soup. *LITERALLY NO ONE IN THE FIELD THINKS THIS.* This blatant lie is told within the first fifteen seconds of the video. It is absolutely astounding that more people don't call him out for his bullshit.
@@MarilynMonRover in other words Marilyn can’t even comprehend what he said 😂
So strange question, isn't lying to mass groups of people to get them to believe something false the devil's domain? Cause science and religion don't mix well ( cite history about that one with an objective mind ) so on one hand lying. And now the gaining of knowledge another thing that is also deemed of the devil yes? After all the whole fruit of knowledge being tempted by the devil was a big bit in that story, and so now I am confused isn't lying evil or is it only evil when it's not believed or is it just not a problem anymore? That said isn't spreading wrong information lying to the masses and going against God's will? If I remember my theology wasn't Jesus a teacher among the things and teaching someone lies would be quite nasty to pretend to be a teacher and teach people wrong. What would the Nazarene say to you what excuse would you lay bare on his floor what lie would you try for a excuse to the one who knows is nothing more than spitting on there face. But in the end it's not I who faces your immoral eternal punishment that is for your lord to decide is it not?
Brilliant, comprehensive and crystal clear. Hats off.
Dave, this man is a chemist, probably one of the leading in his field as well as he works in the field, in the lab, doing synthesis...he knows this stuff better than nearly anyone else on the planet. Ive watched at least 20 of his lectures (apart from this topic) and he's 100% solid on his facts, completely honest if he doesnt know (which maybe happened once...), he's brilliant and an inspiration to any chemist; maybe if you truly watched and listened you'd learn something.
How do I know he's so on point? Because im also a chemist. Im not on his level, but ive a MS in chemical engineering with a minor in biochemistry and polymers (and probably an IQ of several people blindly following you put together), and ive worked in R&D for years. How much lab synthesis or chemistry based new technology have you developed Dave? How dare you call me a mindless, uneducated sheep...Id give my life's savings to debate you and show you how mindless I am, but I know you dont debate anyone who actually knows what theyre talking about. Ive watched your vids and love some of them, but these are garbage; full of unscientific wishful thinking.
I sound agrivated because i am. You obviously are completely clueless about this level of chemistry personally, just posting slides you find online, only skimming the surface of a world you know nothing about and spreading misinformation and straight up untrue statements as if they were proven well known things. Just regurgitating the ridiculously untrue hype in this area to millions who dont know better; the same way origin of life researchers has to you and sadly all of you bite hook and sinker. The real problem though is your attitude as if your an untouchable genius and how you rudely insult and attack people presenting truth about evidense against this fairy tale of yours. Thats not conduct of an intellectual, but a spoiled child with his fingers in his ears humming loudly ignoring the truth someone is trying to tell them.
Saying it happened is easy, SHOW ME HOW!!! Respond to my comment under your pinned one with so many responces, i ask one simple question. Maybe you shouldve stuck to debunking flat earthers, those were funny to watch. Im afraid youre in over your head here my man, very much so.
he was equally fallacious against the flat earthers... dave clearly suffers from NPD, he just wants to find an outlet for his dissorder...
Whoa! Here, we see what Dr Tour deals with. This author is exposed by his vitriol, his blind devotion to what Dr Tour eloquently demonstrates in this presentation. The fear this author makes clear is deep. He must deny. Sad..very.
Is this reply meant for 'Professor Dave Explains'? You'd better reply to his pinned comment, then.
I'm neither religious or a chemist, I don't know Professor Dave or Doctor James, I was just baited by the video title, I have many interests, and after watching the whole thing, I found the arguments contained here very credible.
This looks like a good example of what Daniel Schmactenberger discusses in the War on Sensemaking, that is, how our information ecology is fundamentally broken.
Excellent presentation. Those who say "just follow the science" apparently don .t see that sophistry often passes as science, especially where funding and being part of the in-crowd of the "scientific" community is concerned.
As opposed to believing a man from the dead 2000 years ago…
And yet, you fail to notice lies and misrepresentations, together with complete lack of knowledge in biology, by your "champion", who btw, has been debunked by prof Dave and to whom he will respond "when he finds the time".
Are you really THAT dumb - to buy into such fraud?
@@derhafi Could you send me the link to this rebuttal; ad hominem isn’t making your case stronger. Also is it the same video that James is referring to or is it something else?
@@derhafi “Yes faith, and belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist.”
Yes this is ad hominem. James did not state such a thing, nor was it implied. The man is a professor of chemistry, and he appears to question his own beliefs by looking at the evidence. Your little insert there is an assumption; he certainly comes off as a reasonable individual, I doubt that he has refused to question a single thing in the Bible. The video he posted appears to say otherwise. Could you please provide me with a rebuttal to this.
@@derhafi I get that he wrote some of that. However, you’re not 100% sure that he came to this conclusion before his research. Please re-read what I wrote. Lol
if amino acids can be formed in a lab, then they can be formed in nature, when you consider that RNA is simply a strand of protein then all you need is to put these organic molecules together and mix them together long enough , ribosomal RNA > mRNA > DNA> cell wall > other organelles, life started by the formation of the smallest active proteins and everything aggregated around it for sustainability and continuation, reproduction can only be made by a organism that wants to self maintain and continue , its just self awareness and expression did help us understand the world but it also makes us refuse to accept that we are just an on going chemical reaction that has been going on for billions of years.
RNA is sequence of NUCLEOTIDES. Proteins are a sequence of AMINO ACIDS. You clearly don't have a clue.
If it is so simple then do it!
1) The GRC founded in 1982, has stated that all possibilities have been exhausted for the first cell to have formed here on Earth naturally!
Thus, directed panspermia is what remains. But, we'll keep looking. - pffft!
2) Dr. Donna Blackmond stated that, "we have made no progress in the last 50+ years in discovering the origin of life. In fact, we are farther away!"
3) Dr. Stuart Kauffman of the Santa Fe Institute stated that, “we need a new physics to discover the Origins of Life."
4) Dr. Lee Cronin stated in 2011 that he could create life in the lab in a few minutes.
This is October 2022!
Dr. Cronin LIED!
He has not produced life in over 11 years! - He said minutes? - pffft!
But, keep giving him grant money! - Bwahahaha!
5) Dr. Leslie Orgel stated, "it would be a miracle if a strand of RNA ever appeared on the early Earth." That would not be "abiogenesis", now would it?!!!!!
I am positive the above listed are far more knowledgeable than some RUclips troll!
Love how most ppl come to just call this nutcase's BS
Not a bot, just ignorant. Thanks for playing, cupcake.
Love your work James Tour.
Dr. Tour actually strengthened my faith and started me on a journey toward wanting to read the Bible. Now I want to understand the Word better as well as the science.
You definitely should read the Bible, and find your own justification for slavery, murdering children, rape, inequality etc. And think how all that fits with democracy, human rights, including freedom of speech and other pretty concepts alien to religions.
@@tomyossarian7681 aliens to religion? ...ah ! You mean
Atheist dictators, like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Fidel Castro,
Hugo Chavez, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong -un.!
Not a nice "pretty concept" ..for "aliens to religion" .
@@paulgarduno2867 And even those abominable dictators couldn't declare slavery, rape and murder moral.. 🤭
If you want to learn the Bible then go look up Robert Breaker for verse by verse studies. I highly recommend his series about "End-Times" and "The Seven Mysteries of the Bible" then you know the core doctrines.
I also recommend Michael Pearl, Charles Lawson, Gene Kim and Spencer Smith (watch his 3 part series "The Third Adam"). This will also explain to you all religions/the occult etc. and how Roman-Catholocism (NWO) is not Christianity !!!
Gene Kim has an excellent teaching about "History of Bible Believers" which teaches you all history from Rome to the Dark-Ages, reformation, and counter-reformarion up to today.
@@tomyossarian7681 have you even read the Bible? God didn't tell people to do those things. How else does democracy, human rights, including freedom of speech fit into our society?
I'm halfway through, and already I have the distinct impression that your argument boils down to a single, totally uncontested observation: the experimental conditions of OOL research are a poor, if not totally irrelevant proxy to the conditions in which autocatalytic processes would've emerged in early earth. Not a single OOL researcher would dispute what you're claiming from that viewpoint. This argument is a total non-sequitur, it goes nowhere because it misses the point entirely.
Statistically, one single laboratory or experiment could never hope to create the conditions for successful abiogenesis. The level of complexity and statistical improbability that you describe at length is well understood. The point, however, is that the Earth is a laboratory running a near infinite set of experiments at a constant rate, under a functionally infinite number of conditions. Just because you can't conceive of one of those experiments leading to something useful for life, or for an as yet unexplained intermediate chemical process developing to catalyse the requisite chain of events for life, does not mean they didn't happen. It doesn't mean they did, but heck its a better theory than 'God did it'. God did it is not a theory. Nothing wrong with believing that, but just recognise how you're not actually solving problems or adding any scientific value through these tirades.
You sound like a guy who is grasping at straws. Dr Tour has stated his case clearly and yet comments like yours (which this video seems to have triggered) seem desperately trying to use a evolution of the gaps argument. "Infinite experiments" really so can you cite an example from these infinite experiments where the components for origin of life have been demonstrated to have occurred naturally on a 4 billion year old Earth?
Not functionally infinite, chemistry/matter behaves in very specific ways which limit what can happen.
@@mannyfabin1850 "... does not mean they didn't happen. It doesn't mean they did, but heck it's a better theory than 'God did it'. God did it is not a theory."
There's a difference between filling a gap with a falsifiable theory and an unfalsifiable one.
The ceaseless self-organisation, evolution, and maintenance of life using readily available components on Earth gives us a strong indication that lower level processes of self organisation are likely, and theories extending this view are completely consistent with our understanding of physics, chemistry and biology. Are the conditions for self organisation of chemical systems hard to create in a lab? Yes! As they should be. Complex, self organising phenomena are extremely difficult to reproduce, particularly when the precise conditions for the phenomena are not well understood. Again, lacking knowledge in this regard is not a problem in itself, it's the reason we do science.
The point is the Dr Tour is arguing with a strawman. No OoL researcher is claiming access to a 'final' theory, noone is claiming to know exactly how and under what conditions abiogenesis occurred. We've got many falsifiable theories that pose predictions that can be tested.
Tell me, what theory is Dr Tour proposing, what predictions does it make, and how can they be tested? If you don't know then you might understand why Dr Tour adds zero value to the discussion.
@@slackster999 which can limit what can happen... under specific conditions. Of which there are a vast, I would say functionally infinite number. Maybe you have a better way of describing a gargantuan range of possibilities; functionally infinite is fine by me.
We need to protect this man at all costs, he will expose the truth for the glory of God. Thank you, Dr. Tour, I pray for you and yours.
I am God.
@@cosminvisan520 If you were you wouldn't have had to type it......God is beyond keyboards
@@Theo6805 You are also God. We are all one and the same God/"I am" dreaming infinite dreams.
@@cosminvisan520 if I was God I wouldn't need saving. There is only one God, His name is Jesus.
God protects no need to worry about Dr Tour. Not so sure about Cosmin (-:
Mr tour, excellent this is what we need criticism faulty ideas that are just not conclusive and exposure to the truth..
You are a great man people will be reading your stuff long after you're gone remember you will go down in history for the things you're doing
Tour's argument is based on presenting his audience an unsound argument.
Not A therefore B. Two problems with that. 1. He can't prove "not A" but only that A is difficult. 2. He can't show any evidence at all for B.
Math is correct. You are a Marxist.
@@jarrettesselman8144 : Another irrational conclusion.
Your belief is suspended because of your politics. You know it. You are an atheist because you are a Marxist. It is as simple as that. There have been 100 billion humans who have believed in God and they did not do so without evidence. You don’t have evidence and other people do. It’s because of what is inside of your mind, your politics. Marxists can never see God. They have their eye on other peoples money.
@@jarrettesselman8144 you seem to be living under a number of false assumptions but that’s ok. Enjoy.
Please timestamp where he made the alleged 'not A therefore B' argument.
at 47:17 some interesting graphs of public opinion are shown. however there is no link between those and scientific research presented.
This was an awesome lecture! I actually didn't know any of this. Thank you!
Yeah, no one knew it, because it's bs. Now you know it's bs too, so you have no excuse.
@@tomyossarian7681
And another blind-faith-believer who has neither evidence nor argument but who didn't actually listen to the lecture weighs in! Thanks for the drive-by, buddy! [smh]
@@tomyossarian7681 Admittedly, I’m so very happy that, unlike you, I use my brain to think where as you obviously use your grey matter as a counterweight for your butt.
@@patrickian8843 Here is some food for thought:
https : // youtu.be / Jf72o6HmVNk
You want to continue to support a fraud like Tour, np, but now you know he is a fraud and you are accountable too.
@@jessebryant9233 well this is the typical response of a drive by snipe; all emotion with usually some profanity injected, and with zero substance .. which underlies the point that Tour makes in the 1st place, which of course ironically, is over the head of the drive by shooter
👌👌👌👌Thank you so much dr james tour sir for this amazing real scientific talk exposing the fake abiogenesis research❤️❤️🙏🙏
Tour offers no real science at all. He's a fraud
Bro I love you, seriously Doc, our Heavenly Father has truly blessed you with an iridescent brilliance that no man can eclipse, a magnitude that only God can overshadow, truly he's using you to shatter the enemy's illusions, thank you for this incredible presentation, I highly appreciate your efforts and incredible insights, again thank you Dr.Tour
I am God.
@@stevepaige7557 What ?
Lucifer/Satan‘s timeline
If you are going the full understanding of the meat and the milk, digest the full chapters. 🥰😇 and 🙏🏾🙏🏻pray attention 🙏🙏🏽
Jeremiah 5:22 Authorized (King James) Version 22 fear ye not me? saith the Lord: will ye not tremble at my presence, which have placed the sand for the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it: and though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it?
You really need to look at the timeline of Lucifer‘s fall, and when Satan was kicked out of the Fathers mansion/heaven. Now Satan was in the garden of Eden Genesis 1. And Satan was also asked where he has been. Satan’s reply was going to and throw from the earth.
Job 2:2 Authorized (King James) Version
2 And the Lord said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
So Lucifer had all ready lost his position and became Satan and then Satan was removed from heaven’s, and confined to the earth.
Revelation 12:8
Authorized (King James) Version
8 and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
The earth already had been convicted because it was dark in Genesis 1:2. and Job 38:30 says that the face of the deep is frozen.
Job 38:10-11 Authorized (King James) Version 10 and brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors, 11 and said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
This would be proven by science with water in space in total darkness would be frozen.
Genesis 1:2 Authorized (King James) Version
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
The light entered the darkness and the darkness knew it not John 1:1-5
Authorized (King James) Version
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Also a prison for that, that was thrown/world out of the Father‘s presence.
Psalm 104:9 Authorized (King James) Version 9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.
This is acknowledged by the water being dark and the spirit of God being outside looking in keeping it at bay. And then Psalms describes about water boundaries. Job 38 Jesus asked Job, how can you understand about the creation. And Jude talked about the evil before the earth ever was. Jonathan knows nothing about scripture except for deception. And if you ignore this fact then you are a part of it Gene. And then Jonathan could wish you Godspeed. But then if you understand what I am saying, you understand what Jonathan is doing and the CIA RUclipsrs are participating in as one mind. The bee hive. The only way you’re going to defeat him, is with scripture from the King James 1611 with apocrypha, And dedication to Jesus and his salvation.
Read the full chapters 👀👂🏿👂
Proverbs 8:19-36 Authorized (King James) Version 19 My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my revenue than choice silver. 20 I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment: 21 that I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures. 22 The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: 26 while as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: 28 when he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 29 when he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: 30 then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; 31 rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men. 32 Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways. 33 Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not. 34 Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors. 35 For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord. 36 But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.
Thank You Jesus 🙏🏽🙏🏻🥰😇🙏🏾🙏
He thinks we got here by magic.
Lucifer/Satan‘s timeline
Jeremiah 5:22 Authorized (King James) Version 22 fear ye not me? saith the Lord: will ye not tremble at my presence, which have placed the sand for the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it: and though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it?
You really need to look at the timeline of Lucifer‘s fall, and when Satan was kicked out of the Fathers mansion/heaven. Now Satan was in the garden of Eden. And Satan was also asked where he has been. Satan’s reply was going to and throw from the earth. So Lucifer had all ready lost his position and became Satan and then Satan was removed from heaven’s, and confined to the earth Proverbs 8:29 Authorized (King James) Version 29 when he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
The earth already had been convicted because it was dark in Genesis 1:2. and Job 38:30 says that the face of the deep is frozen.
Job 38:10-11 Authorized (King James) Version 10 and brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors, 11 and said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
This would be proven by science with water in space in total darkness would be frozen Genesis 1:2. The light entered the darkness and the darkness knew it not John 1. Also a prison for that, that was thrown/world out of the Father‘s presence.
Psalm 104:9 Authorized (King James) Version 9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth. This is acknowledged by the water being dark and the spirit of God being outside looking in keeping it at bay. And then Psalms describes about water boundaries. Job 38 Jesus asked Job, how can you understand about the creation. And Jude talked about the evil before the earth ever was. Jonathan knows nothing about scripture except for deception. And if you ignore this fact then you are a part of it Gene. And then Jonathan could wish you Godspeed. But then if you understand what I am saying, you understand what Jonathan is doing and the CIA RUclipsrs are participating in as one mind. The bee hive. The only way you’re going to defeat him, is with scripture from the King James 1611 with apocrypha, And dedication to Jesus and his salvation.
And arguing for the position, or even proving, we don't have an answer to the origin of life yet does what exactly....?
Nothing.
People were trying to figure out Gravitational Theory for 1100 years.
People were trying to figure out Evolutionary Theory since 1748.....so, it seems rather silly to expect an answer on demand (or even a few decades), and if it isn't provided to our biased satisfaction, just make an answer up or accept a claim that is less likely and appeals to greater unanswered questions.
Why are some people soo impatient and unwilling to let the science work it out?
Not yet having a demonstration of abiogenesis doesn't in any way advance ID as a plausible alternative to the origin of life question, nor does it undermine Evolutionary Theory.
No matter how much you wish it to.
Besides, let's face it, you could discover and publish the answer to how it happened and theists would stilll deny it.
You could show them how it works, they'd still deny it.
The information could be easily accessible to everyone and be accepted through peer review and even established as a Scientific Theory and they'd still deny it.
We already know this, because soo many still deny Evolutionary Theory.
For theists, if the science doesn't contradict the dogma, then they accept it, but if it challenges or shows the dogma is wrong, the apologists get to work on their used car pitches and start their pseudoscientific arguments against it.
You have to fix people's broken thinking, not show them the evidence.....
you have to make them want to hold a coherent position, not a feel good position that doesn't require critical thinking.
You have to get them to embrace intellectual integrity over ego, fear, ignorance and pride.
You have to get them to want to know the facts, not assume the truth as they were told to believe it.
Thank you, Dr Tour. Since stumbling across your videos, I have been avidly going through everything you have produced. Not finished, by a long chalk, as I am in awe of, and extremely grateful for, your prolific and clearly presented output. As a follower of Christ, I can see you are truly a good and faithful servant. God bless all your endeavours, especially helpful to those of us who are challenged in the Maths/Sciences disciplines. You help me to see God's hand at work in His creation so much more vividly. Thank you.
Can you tell us how everything got here through a magic spell?
No, they can't. But they seem to believe that if you attack science enough, magic will be the only other alternative.
What they don't seem to realize is that even if abiogenesis is completely falsified today and evolution disproved tomorrow, it still won't demonstrate their claims of supernatural intervention by anything, let alone by their favorite god.
Just because X = 0 that doesn't mean Y=1.
Now, if you are a creationist reading this, please think about this question; When, in the entire history of the world, has there ever been a phenomenon that was better explained by magical intervention than by natural processes? I can't think of any. I doubt the origin of life will be the exception.
@@hammalammadingdong6244 right
@@allenanderson5297 Telic processes are not magic
@@sombodysdad your sky daddy is magical
@@allenanderson5297 The fact that you can use the internet is magical.
This was the 1st I've heard of this controversy but it really does speak to a larger problem with so much of "science" nowadays. The last question at this presentation really hit the mark. So much of what passes for science is just a bunch of people protecting their careers and really nothing more.. And the worst part is the press runs with it and the public at large eats it up.
I truly commend Dr. Tour and just hope that more people like him start to come out and poke holes in the research of so many charlatans out there.
He's good, but this work had already been done in the 1970's by A. E. Wilder-Smith. Abiogenesis is a very dead horse, has been for decades.
@@matthiasmartin1975 well, Dr. Tour is still doing good by trying to get the word out because I and basically the entire public at large have absolutely no idea that's the case and the OoL people keep getting press furthering their lies.
@@ideletemyelf1585 I agree, this is an ongoing battle that still needs fighting. It's just the arguments that have been around for a long time now.
I'm an electrical engineer with some basics in chemistry. I'm currently reading a school textbook about the biology of the cell.
Modern cells are quite complex, but it's commonly thought that primordial cells were much simpler.
Here's my take on problems with synthesis:
"Molecules that compose living systems almost always show homochirality"
Yes, it's true for modern life. What about primordial cells? Was that necessary?
"When building molecular systems, constant redesigns are needed which take the synthesis back to step 1. It is often impossible to remove a moiety once it has been added to a molecule.
If homochirality was not necessary, this argument is moot.
"The synthetic reactions do not know how to stop their current course of progression ..."
Maybe there's no need to, if a natural process produces continual synthetic reactions.
Unless there's a show stopper somewhere.
"A prebiotic system does not have the ability to easily purify the structures."
Is it really needed?
"Reagent addition-order is essential."
Not always. His cake example is a bit far fetched.
"The parameters of temperature ... have to be carefully controlled in order to build complex molecular structures."
I suppose such "controled" environments may happen in nature where the parameters may be within range of favorable conditions. As an example, scientists have found a natural nuclear reactor.
"The characterization at each step is essential for the chemist ..."
Not necessary for natural processes.
"The mass transfer problem will be the killer of all routes."
I suppose ocean currents and convection currents may provide some transport mecanisms.
"Nature keeps no laboratory notebook so it cannot go back for more material."
Maybe not necessary if molecules are produced continually by some natural process.
While scientists can't explain how life appeared, it happened in some way. Even Tour would be fine with a naturalistic explanation.
"Are we close to discovering the Origin Of Life? James Tour vs Lee Cronin"
ruclips.net/video/3DHvNRK452c/видео.html
At 1:16:00 Tour would accept a naturalistic explanation about the origin of life, it wouldn't upset his faith.
At 1:17:43 "I'm fine with naturalistic explanation"
If we found a watch on mars nobody would ever be so dumb as to suggest it formed accidentally unguided by an intelligent mind but simply came together over millions of years because each part formed independently and winds, sand and water flow brought each part together to one location and eventually assembling itself.
But claim DNA/RNA and the cellular replication process it guides is accidental. The watch is many orders of magnitude less complex than life on this planet.
I've been watching a few of these videos recently and it's extremely interesting to hear getting into the core details. However, not once do I recall you claiming that any of these processes are impossible, only improbable. Is there any proof that it's actually impossible, not improbable, for these events to occur naturally? I know there's mention of compounds used in these models that are man-made, however I've seen others mention how there are natural counterparts that can perform the same functionality.
There isn't any evidence that nature can produce life. There isn't even any way to test the claim that nature can produce life.
Jeck... Why is it if we see a carving in a tree that says jack loves suzie, no one thinks it was millions of years of rain and wind but, shrink all of New YorK city onto the tip of a pin and suddenly its possible though improbable that it created itself????
You may think its improbable but possible to ride your bike to Jupiter,
but it does not mean your being rational even in the slightest.
@@atyt11 Because of the numbers. The chances of the phrase "Jack Loves Suzie" appearing on a tree is more complex than just "Jack Loves" for example, and we can continue that pattern to figure out how likely it could occur. We can do the same thing with shrinking down NYC. It all boils down to math, and not impossibility. You can make the argument that it's extremely unlikely, but not impossible. And without making it impossible, we might be the one in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or whatever it is realities where the circumstances to create life were in the right places at the right time.
For truth to be present in this matter, it needs to be a matter of impossibility. Until then, we're just tossing around ideas.
@@_jeck_ None of this is personal, just my opinion. If 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1 chance was all it takes that would be easy. very easy compared to the 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 for part #1 of 1000's and 1000's of different parts. And most importantly, Jack loves Suzie is not as much of an issue for the carving, its understanding that its information, its language, it's intellect. And.... the New York city on the pin tip is information on a level we can not even begin to comprehend let alone make irrational claims that it came about by accident in a billion year old soup.
@@atyt11 I agree that's it's so unlikely at those numbers that it's "almost" impossible. However, in a multi-verse with an infinite number of parallel universes that are slightly different than another, suddenly this probability becomes meaningless, and all that matters is if it's possible or not (true or false). And following modern physics, the multi-verse theory seems to be one of the most popular, if not the most popular among leading theoretical physicists.