tour is talking about abiogenesis. not evolution.

Please elucidate, you made a big statement, it should be followed by serious proof.

@@SystemOfStrategy I refer you to my analysis of 2018 posted on the internet by NZ Astrobiology, 80 references “ Fantasia on the Origin of Life by Barask Paras”. In 2021 this has evolved into “ From Chemistry to Life on Earth” with 288 references. Google the first one if you like. The second one is book length and in much greater detail and not available to all.

@@baraskparas Unable to find it. I would however comment on your statement in regards to the difficulties of proving what happened a long time ago. There are much more than difficulties and Neo Darwinism is very much a belief system. Dawkins Blind Watchmaker is a contradiction. The statement actually makes the case for both Intelligence and Design as a Watchmaker is both intelligent and designs watches. Something randomness is not capable of. Dawkins states quite clearly, that the results, "overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design" perhaps one should be a bit less dismissive of the possibility.

@@SystemOfStrategy I looked you up on the internet so I won’t contradict. I just looked up “ fantasia on the origin of life by barask paras “ and I found it okay. I don’t care for analogies, the origin of life is a difficult scenario requiring great thought in chemistry and biochemistry.

Was Paul blinded indeed?

I was once under the effect of acid and so was a friend of mine. We saw the same hallucination twice in one night. It is possible to experience that. I believe Paul had a real encounter with Christ.

Michael seems very sincere, and intelligent. But it’s propaganda. He uses the rhetorical technique of propagandists throughout history. Trying to posit an irrational thought as logical by creating false categories. He does this with his fantastical classifications of objective visions versus subjective visions. Both are the same thing, a hallucination. Neither has an actual, tangible, measurable physical representation. Neither exist in space or time. He just wants to create a category so he can call the ones he chooses to believe “objective” and the try to convey reality to them. He can’t handle the truth, and so talks in pseudo historical psychological terminology that he creates and then tries to convince us that it correlates to a reality independent of anyone. There is nothing in history or psychology called an “objective vision.” Same rhetorical trick as the intelligent design propagandists. The resurrection is an article of faith. If he can’t own it as such, then he has none.

I love James' rebuttal "and you're not giving me anything scientific" ! LOL

Blah Blah Blah - The science is obviously way above your 'openmind'. You have incredulity toward the notion that there is something beyond your own nose.

PicoKit I have a first class Honours in biochemistry. Of course I don’t have to lie for Jesus because he never came to my bedroom unlike Tour.

@@myopenmind527 Sure - then why do you attack Tour's character instead of the facts he is promoting. It seems he has evidence and you just have a weak ideology.

PicoKit he didn’t state any facts just his personal incredulity at abiogenesis being remotely possible yet here we are living in a worlds were nasa recruits the best Astro-biologists, geologists, and microbiologists to try to develop experiments which might detect life in other planets. If Tour was remotely credible just think of the trillions of dollars that they could have saved. Simply put his opinions lie far outside those of mainstream scientist who work in this field. The same forces that shaped life on this planet are the same forces and same geochemistry that we might find on earth like planets else where in the Goldilocks zone of solar systems elsewhere both within and outside our galaxy.

@@myopenmind527 You are a closed mind. "he didn’t state any facts" - blah blah blah. You obviously learnt nothing in your 'honors'. Tell me some facts - oh, you have none, and don't even know what they look like. You live in an imaginary world. Start doing real chemistry.

Why is are those items necessary criteria for you?

Let's take it that the claims didnt happen(the flood for example although there are debates on whether the Bible describes a local or global flood). The only truly important claim in the Bible is the birth, life, teachings, death and resurrection of my Lord Jesus Christ

@@CedanyTheAlaskan You may take the claims in Genesis as phony, but this is not correct. Scripture does not describe the flood as local and in this you are thinking wrongly. The events described in Genesis are the foundational events for the necessity of Christ's salvation. Scripture states many salient claims, but both the Old and New Testament state clearly that Christ is the most important claim. Without these other truths you have no basis for you belief. Atheists will debate any and all biblical claims as the belief system will never let a divine foot in the door. Please rethink your position.

@@TheMickeymental The bible is just a shitty book written by people with little to no knowledge of nature, with whole junks of it copied from already established myth. Please rethink your position.

@@CedanyTheAlaskan (there are debates on whether the Bible describes a local or global flood) There is no debate the scriptures are clear. Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. Gen 10:32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood. Luk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. Luk 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 2Pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 2Pe 3:5 They purposely ignore the fact that long ago God gave a command, and the heavens and earth were created. The earth was formed out of water and by water, 2Pe 3:6 and it was also by water, the water of the flood, that the old world was destroyed. 2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth that now exist are being preserved by the same command of God, in order to be destroyed by fire. They are being kept for the day when godless people will be judged and destroyed. and every thing that is in the earth shall die. Doesn't sound like anything local to me.

Your talks are from a dumbass who is dumb like you considering RNA as the beginning of life. You are both a waste of life. Tour already showed how stupid this approach is as did others. You are both too stupid to have missed that. You RNA joke is impossible but your dumb asses ignore all that. Tour brings out the stupidity of RNA hopes. inference-review.com/article/two-experiments-in-abiogenesis Others show the stupidity of it too. www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm NO evidence of any RNA beginnings. evolutionnews.org/2018/01/about-that-rna-world-hypothesis/ They never tell you dumbasses, the RNA approach is impossible. uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/rna-the-origin-of-life-and-the-gullibility-of-the-science-media/ wasdarwinwrong.com/korthof98.htm creation.com/cairns-smith-detailed-criticisms-of-the-rna-world-hypothesis evolutionnews.org/2018/05/more-on-alien-octopi-new-paper-admits-failure-of-evolution-to-explain-life/

2fast2block you don’t know that you’ve just cited from the supporters of the pseudoscience of intelligent design and creationist propaganda? You are as bat shit crazy as those that follow the church of Scientology. I don’t debate with idiots or those that blindly follow cults and pseudoscience. Bye 👋

@@2fast2block This guy is an evangelical Christian (a messianic Jew) that thinks Jesus once appeared to him in his bedroom. Sure he is a chemist but he values his religious beliefs above science. He should be judged by the company he keeps, the ID creationists at the discovery institute. He’s no expert on abiogenesis and by his own admission he doesn’t understand evolution.

Also, you didn't mention from your knowledge where Tour was wrong. No specifics at all. Rather lazy and stupid of you.

Hello Open Mind, Tour is an organic chemist. You should check out his credentials. You are welcome to look him up at Rice University and tell him you have resources that have now answered his questions. I am sure he would tell you none of your links deal with what he is talking about. But go ahead and email him.

spongefreddie my first sentence is a statement of #fact. Tour is a synthetic organic chemist. Eg graphene (C60) is an organic molecule that Tour would be very familiar with. It isn’t found in biological systems. Tour isn’t an expert in biochemistry. Organic chemistry is quite distinct from Biochemistry.

Biochemistry doesn't make molecules. It studies them. Organic synthetic chemistry makes molecules. And the origin of life is the research of creation of molecules that form the building blocks of life. So organic synthesis is better suited to understanding the origin of life. Your comment is little more than an appeal to authority, as if biochemistry is so vastly different from organic synthetic chemistry that one form of chemist couldn't understand how the other does their research or tests.

robert marshall he’s no expert on abiogenesis.

@@myopenmind527 Actually he is. You're just dismissing him for reasons other than the science.

The gap is between your ears, not with God. Maybe if you stopped wanking off to your god of nothing and orgasming that it still did something you'd learn something. Right now you enjoy being a complete dumbass. Oh, it shows even while you pretend to be some sort of intellectual. You are clearly NOT. You're a dumbass wanker. The atheist/agnostic god. I HATE your god, the god of nothing. Your god claims to have given us the universe, fine-tuning of the universe for life, life from non-life, information for life before and after it began, the laws of nature, etc, etc, when we know that your god of nothing can do nothing. Your god of nothing has nothing to offer and its followers only offer nothing of evidence for their god of nothing. That makes them nothing of importance but the followers of the god of nothing are so delusional that they think they do have something to offer to defend their god of nothing. The true God beats the crap out of the atheist/agnostic god of nothing. It's the atheistic/agnostic types that supply the greatest comedy. They think the universe came about by natural means. There's NO science for it and ALL the science we know proves that creation had to be supernatural and done by a supernatural creator, but...., not to atheists/agnostics. Isn't that funny?! You can't do it because you devoted your life to the god of nothing and love being a dumbass. ----Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.----- Then the extreme order we have in our universe that defies all physics, but....., not to atheists/agnostics. It's just happened by mere chances even though we prove it can't happen by chance. Funny! www.inplainsite.org/html/anthropic_principles.html kgov.com/fine-tuning-of-the-universe And life? Well, it just came from non-life. It's so absurd it's even hard to type that, but....., atheists/agnostics claim to believe it happened somehow by natural means. Again, funny! Many have brought up such issues how funny it is, including James Tour. kzbin.info/www/bejne/sIaafaqtYth1hsk kzbin.info/www/bejne/qGXWgWR7Zq-Xlbs kzbin.info/www/bejne/j57NnaWta6yggbc kzbin.info/www/bejne/gmGQmZqJn9Oio6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/a3K7nKWZZ7SGqZY Then, what this life did after it started by mere chance can't happen by science, but....., atheists/agnostics believe it did. Funny! Life takes information to form and proceed on. But to atheists/agnostics, chaos through time gave us information. Although it's even hard to write such a ridiculous statement, they believe it. All one can do is laugh at such stupidity. kzbin.info/www/bejne/l3KQd5akgdh5Z8k kzbin.info/www/bejne/bZScgZSQr9ike8k creation.com/laws-of-information-1 creation.com/laws-of-information-2 Only fools don't believe God was involved. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc I've kept this very basic and brief. I can provide much deeper, yet there's no need to since each point proves there is no explanation for such things to have happened naturally. This IS evidence against such things happening naturally. Lame excuses of why it can still have happened naturally with no science to support it are just that, lame excuses. There's a ton more. If you want a laugh, see what atheists/agnostics believe.

I've watched all his lectures, and when he does them his disclaimer is We will be talking about this we will remove God, and panspermia from the discussion.....

Your claim is an excuse not an answer. I don't do links.

@@2fast2block Oh man, I'm disappointed I never got a notification for this reply and didn't see it until just now. Thanks for the laugh!

@@TheMickeymental It's just an observation of how apologetics has worked over the centuries. Any gap in our knowledge tends to be used as a means to prove the necessity of a god in order to "explain" how something occurred. That's what the God of the Gaps is referring to, and is more formally known as an argument from ignorance. The long term trend, of course, has been that these gaps are eventually filled as our knowledge of the universe grows. I'm interested in learning about the universe, and inserting God to explain those gaps stifles scientific inquiry.