Why Life Couldn’t Have Evolved from Non-Living Chemicals

[@GhostBearCommander]

When I first selected the Medical Lab field as my major, they told me science in college would coax God out of me and replace Him with reason. Today, I work as a Medical Laboratory Technician. They succeeded at teaching me reason on a much deeper level. There was just one problem with their prediction: Teaching me how to better use reason actually brought me closer to God. There are some days where a single look under a microscope becomes just as much of a worship experience to me as sitting in church.

[@rodneyspence7441]

Yes, when one considers the staggering complexity of just a single celled organism like a bacterium it’s hard to believe the right chemicals for life just self-assembled into a living organism in a primordial puddle. And not only that, that genetic mutations occurred that added extra information to the DNA to provide the blueprint for more complex organisms. Remember that in Darwin’s day they thought a living cell was not much more than a simple glob of protoplasm. And Darwin’s unbelief was triggered by the loss of his daughter Annie. Like it says in Romans 1:20 I think that God’s fingerprints are all around us. We just have to see them through humble eyes. Thanks!

[@thejake267]

When taking anatomy and physiology classes, I also knew there was no way God didn’t exist and create all of it. It’s so complex and works so perfectly, it’s insane. To think that all this came about from random chances is ridiculous

[@rodneyspence7441]

@@GhostBearCommander Most people reject God because of the death and suffering they see in the world. And it's a valid point. If God is indeed omnipotent then by definition nothing can happen outside His permissive will. And so you look at something like the holocaust where millions of people - including women and children - were murdered in gas chambers and ask why didn't God stop it. Why didn't He cause Hitler to be stillborn? The Bible's answer is that we live on cursed ground and that death and suffering entered into the world as a result of man's rebellion (i.e. sin) towards God when Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate from the forbidden tree. As a result the entire creation is fallen and all humans are born with the sin nature. Much of the death and suffering in this world is the result of sinful choices by humans. But God has also provided the plan of redemption by taking on human flesh in the Person of Christ and paying the penalty for our sin by shedding His blood and dying on the cross. But from an evolutionist standpoint, I would look at it and say who cares if millions died? If we're all just accidental byproducts of Darwinian evolution destined for nothingness, everyone and everything is ultimately meaningless - including the entire universe. If we're all just soul-less computers made of meat and there is no life after death and therefore no final accountability, what does it matter if I live a life like Hitler or Mother Teresa? Actually, considering there are limited natural resources, I should be happy when people die since it reduces the competition for those natural resources and also reduces the CO2 emissions. But I don't believe that. The evolutionist has no moral ground to stand on to discern between right and wrong and between good and evil. Everything is based on human opinions- humans who are just animals themselves. I believe God has endowed us with souls that are eternal and indestructible and that He is far more concerned with the destiny of our souls than our physical temporary bodies. Jesus makes this statement in Matthew 10:28: "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell." God wants to save our souls - not the "meat clothes" we wear to survive on this planet.

[@rodneyspence7441]

@@thejake267 And what's also incredible is that all the instructions for building and maintaining the human body is contained in the DNA of the nucleus of every cell in the body (except for a few types of cell like red blood cells). Yes - some assembly is required!!:))

[@SM-2gmnl]

Yes! I agree. I’m someone who likes to reason also. I actually think God wants us to reason with the things we don’t understand. I don’t understand why Humans exclude God.

[@michaelszczys8316]

They like to say that with enough TIME anything is possible. Myself i have to think that no matter how much ' time ' you have, a lot of things are NEVER going to happen. Even a trillion years of perfect conditions.

[@stevedoetsch]

Deep time is the evolutionist's "god of the gaps". What they cannot prove with science they just attribute to deep time, aka, magic.

[@michaelszczys8316]

Sounds like he's describing a super ultra rare occasion of some form of life starting and then it has 10 different things to make it almost immediately stop.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

They like to say that but unfortunately for them, we don't have millions of years to live for them to prove their point. So, to believe them requires a great deal of faith. 😊

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

​@@stevedoetsch amen

[@1969cmp]

...exactly, I've told materialistic evolutionist that very thing, 'you need trillions of years to get it done', but for time incorporates entropy so it all falls apart anyway.

[@moonshiner5412]

My favorite comment is that creationists don't have enough imagination. As a software engineer, DNA amazes me. I know many different software languages. I had to write an operating system for university. I know how difficult that was so to believe DNA and RNA just simply appeared takes a lot of faith. I find it easier to believe in an intelligent, all powerful Creator spoke the creation into existence. This was a great lecture and explained things so that anyone can understand what is being said.

[@markaurelius61]

That seems so obvious to me, after decades of software development, that I wonder how my colleagues insist that nature cobbled the cell together. I think the reality of is doesn't hit them for some reason.

[@cosmictreason2242]

@@moonshiner5412 i don't know programming but i know multiple languages and have a 146 iq so maybe that's why i got to the same opinion as you guys

[@nickbarton3191]

I'm also an engineer, I've been developing complex software systems for more than 40 years. We know from experience how difficult it is to create a system with few defects,, yet we are expected to believe that life systems came about by random reactions and mutations. Maybe an infinite number of monkeys could create the works of Shakespeare in short time, yet there hasn't been enough time, even if we believe 4 billion years of the earth's existence, to create by chance anything meaningful. Also the infinite number of monkeys do not exist.

[@nickbarton3191]

@@FlandiddlyandersFRS No ! I do not deny that complex systems cannot be developed by chance, but the probability defied reason. So let's invent another improbable theory, that there are multiple parallel universes. Ah yes, that solves the problem. This is not reasonable science, both theories cannot be verified (more correctly falsified). Quoting Latin doesn't help your case. Doing the science might, except that you can't.

[@timothyyoung4463]

​@@nickbarton3191😂well said sir

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

Information has no mass, is non material and invisible. We know it exists only by it's influence on matter and energy. Unlike matter and energy it can be eternal and is: The Word. John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. (2) He was in the beginning with God (3) All things were made through Him and without Him nothing was made that was made

[@Alec_Cox]

Isaiah 9: 6-7 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

[@CynHicks]

Yes! Spirit is information. Like information embedded at frequency and received by a crystal that is tuned to it. Don't think this is newage garbage. Radio recievers were initially crystals, the same kind that emit electricity when struck. Quartz. Something about our physical selves (maybe DNA?) is tuned with our information. It's as if we recieve and transmit. That information "travels" forever until it's received again... new bodies... maybe? Spirit moves through all matter. God exists outside and inside of this reality all at once. I like to think of The Holy Spirit as the information that flows everything, from The Father, like code being executed. Jesus is the manifestation within this reality, like us, but He is "tuned" to recieve The Holy Spirit. This analogy works for me though I know I didn't explain it very well. To summarize my thinking it's like God is The Father (the source), The Holy Spirit (the information coming from The Father, and Jesus is the vessel that is perfectly tuned to The Father's information who interacts with reality in physical form, as we do.

[@asliketheson]

Amen and amen

[@asliketheson]

Chuck missler

[@GreatBehoover]

It's the one thing that debunks materialism. Information. 1. The universe CAN'T SELF-CREATE and SELF-ASSEMBLE ACCIDENTALLY for no reason with no energy and no matter available. 2. DNA CODE CAN'T SELF-CREATE AND SELF-ASSEMBLE INTO CELLS ACCIDENTALLY. 3. Two Chromosomes CAN'T COMBINE ACCIDENTALLY to form new species. 4. Novel proteins never ACCIDENTALLY "emerge" to form new species. The above tenets of naturalism and materialism and atheism all rely on the natural selection fairy 🧚‍♀️... the personification of nature...to cause the matter and energy to appear and then be manipulated ACCIDENTALLY into useable functional information. When will we start calling out the materialists for their ACCIDENT OF THE GAPS FALLACY? The above 4 FAITH TENANTS of naturalism have no basis in logic or reason or unassumed observational scientific evidence. It's nothing but the display of pure emotional neediness for a Godless universe. The idea that the universe exploded from nothing is complete nonsense. A singularity is FAITH BASED. It has an unexplained SOURCE and is inserted as the ACCIDENTAL CAUSAL POWER. Just like the natural selection fairy everywhere else. I am so glad I embrace reality now instead of naturalism. The entirety of Isaiah is OVERWHELMING PROOF that Jesus was known and described HUNDREDS of years prior to His appearance. All unassumed observational historical evidence points to His Lordship and Deity. He healed me MIRACULOUSLY of 30 years of chronic back pain and a torn shoulder and sneezing fits...INSTANTLY over two years ago. I was literally cleaning the bottom of my toilet on my knees, listening to a book on miracles by Dr Craig Keener, and praising Jesus for His awesome power still displayed today as promised in John 14. Thank you God for the wisdom you gave me. Thank you for the healings. Thank you for a new life. Thank you for forgiveness and a real relationship. Thank you for your love and patience with me. You are TRULY AWESOME!!!

[@vikingskuld]

Great video and very informative for most people who are not chemist's. He did a really good job explaining all the problems with abiogenesis.

[@Locutus.Borg.]

In every point in agreement with the points raised by Dr James Tour to refute the nonsense of abiogenesis. Both Dr Tour and Dr Sarfati use facts and science to prove their point, in place of the empty atheist rhetoric of Dave Farina and other proponents of the abiogenesis fantasy that is based in science fiction instead of scientific fact.

[@vikingskuld]

@@Locutus.Borg. great way to put it. Well written reply.

[@ptortland]

First, a problem with the Miller Yurey experiment is that the amino acids created were in a racemic mixture, an equal amount of left- and right-handed molecules. Yet 19 of the 20 amino acids used in the body exist exclusively in the L- form. How did prebiotic earth know to choose just the L form? He addresses this starting at the 23:18 mark. Second, buying purified forms of the substance you created amid all of the other junk, and using it to carry your experiment forward, is known as "relay synthesis." In essence it's cheating. At the very least it clearly demonstrates profound intelligent intervention in the entire process. Prebiotic earth didn't have the ability to order purified reagents from Sigma Aldrich!

[@tonymaurice4157]

Abiogenesis fantasy

[@BobCalNor]

the right-handed molecules out competed the left-handed molecules

[@jono64a]

@@BobCalNor But proteins in all living creatures are almost exclusively left-handed.

[@劉炎-p9z]

@@ptortland The earth didn't know, and he didn't make choice. Why do theists see change and they immediately think of 'choice' and agency? Just think of the opposite, if an 'R form' tiger ate an 'L-form' deer, what do you think would happen?

[@ptortland]

@@BobCalNor To clarify, all amino acids in the body are L form (except glycine which doesn’t display handedness), and the sugars are R form. But to your statement, on what basis would one form “out compete” the other? Molecules are not goal directed. Prebiotic earth and the blind interactions of chemistry would have no compelling reason to choose one form over the other in an equal (racemic) mixture of both.

[@ThomasDillon-z6u]

If you were a gambler in Vegas and you kept rolling the dice and winning consistently, the laws of probability are so against you you would be suspected of somehow manipulating the dice. The age of the universe would be insufficient for life to arise spontaneously from inanimate matter. There is an intelligent purpose behind everything in the universe. Now science is talking about intelligent design.

[@nosuchthing8]

That's citcular reasoning. You assume what you should prove.

[@globalcoupledances]

Intelligent design is *not* science. It is pseudo-science

[@劉炎-p9z]

Fun fact: rolling any other random, non-consistently winning dots has the same probability as the winning streak ones. Just like a royal flush of spades is 1 in 2. 5 million but it is equally probable as any other random hand. 10 royal flush of spades in a row is equally probable as any random 10 hands. 'law of probability', if that is ever a thing, doesn't assign special value to a certain combination, we do. You Simply don't understand how probability works.

[@raytsang250]

You tried to approach the debate from a mathematical perspective but you failed to give a mathematical proof that the age of universe is insufficient for life to form by chance.

[@raytsang250]

Seems that your concept of probability is wrong. If something can really happen, it doesn't matter how long the time frame is. If you can find your soulmate in 10 years, you can surely find it in 1 day.

[@coryallen6818]

I am currently learning chemistry to become and organic chemist and this kind of information to me is just absolutely crippling to the idea of life coming by the means suggested by evolution. The biggest thing is the hydrophobic needs of amino acids to do what they need to. Things would need to pop into crazy different parameters for each part of the RXN. Anyways love this kind of information it really helps me continue to think critically and not just accept something because it’s “popular” is science.

[@spatrk6634]

keep studying

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

The technical papers in Answers Research Journal on biochemistry would be very interesting to you, as well as the book Starway to Life.

[@mafarmerga]

Apparently you are not aware of the work of Jack Szostak. Maybe you should take some time to do so.

[@esrefcelikcelik8789]

Science says nothing about the origin of life. Every idiot claims his Science proves his theory.

[@mafarmerga]

@@esrefcelikcelik8789 Science says a LOT about abiogenesis. We now know that virtually all the precursor molecules needed for life are common throughout the universe.

[@marcj3682]

Easiest way to debunk darwin's insanity. Math

[@globalcoupledances]

The Math is simple: 1/64 of all mutations creates a new protein coding gene. YEC Robert Carter and Don Batten claim that humans have 100 mutations per generation

[@GreatBehoover]

Yes...and being a coder helps. When you realize that one little glitch shuts it all down, only then do you understand tha5 TRILLIONS UPON TRILLIONS of PROGRAMMED interactions can't simply be accidentally wrought. DNA CODE CAN'T SELF-CREATE and SELF-ASSEMBLE into cells ACCIDENTALLY. It is madness to believe it can... unpacked by any UNASSUMED OBSERVATIONAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. DNA CODE is the MOST SOPHISTICATED and COMPLEX and VOLUMINOUS CODE ever assembled. It is 2x4 3-dimensional Hypercomplex PROGRAMMED CODE that is BILLIONS of lines long and the most brilliant humans still CAN'T UNDERSTAND! DNA CODE literally ended the silliness of naturalism. It is taking a long time for the stubborn God haters to catch up.

[@valdezfam]

Would that be the same math that the church used to explain geocentrism and how our planet is only ~6,000 years old, which both have been debunked? 🤔

[@GreatBehoover]

​@@valdezfam Are you implying the geocentric model is a Christian mythology? Are you also implying that radiometric dating is accurate in field testing?

[@mbrum3230]

So you have proved darwin to be sane? Nice job.

[@franciscop1431]

I've enjoyed this interview a lot. Thank you.

[@thejake267]

One thing I’ve still never understood is the existence of this primordial soup. How did it get there? Where did protons and electrons come from? Doesn’t make any sense without a creator

[@GregoryHolden-k5c]

The British pronounce it as "EVILUTION". Perhaps they are correct!

[@nielsqbc4]

@@FlandiddlyandersFRS even if there was a soup, the soup would have to be as big as the Milky Way filled with amino acids to have enough chance to form a protein, let alone a cell.

[@globalcoupledances]

@nielsqbc4 - proteins are not essential. Only RNA is needed

[@moestietabarnak]

@@nielsqbc4 you have no clue, so you can't even start to evaluate what is needed ! And to take your ignorant remark and and destroy it with your own argument, the UNIVERSE is greater than the Milky Way. and there is trillions over trillions of chemical reaction per second just on earth... If what needed happened in another galaxy, then we'd called that galaxy 'home' .. And then there 'panspermia'...

[@seblutzer]

​@@globalcoupledances you’re mistaken. RNA (ribozymes) can only catalyze the formation of proteins from homochiral and purified amino acids in a solution. However, RNA is limited in its ability to perform most protein functions. Without proteins, even the most simple functional membranes cannot form, nor can ribosomes or any other organelles. RNA is not life, no matter how catalystic it is.

[@302MrG]

I would ask them, "If we still haven't even come close to putting a cell together using all our intelligence, then how did Nature do it without any intelligence behind it?" And, no, do not bring up deep time. This fails as more of the same does NOT give you different. It is surprising how stubborn they are.

[@teks-kj1nj]

What a dim argument. Nature doesn't require us to understand it and human understanding is not the benchmark for things to be possible. And by what benchmark do you rate human intelligence ? - we only have other humans to compare and most humans are thick as planks. We are not as smart as you credit us. Nature could make electricity before humans knew what it was. Nature did lots of things before we understood them and still does. In fact, this is the origin of where 'God' came from. Our shitty ability to understand anything caused us to posit silly answers, like 'imaginary being (god) did it' Every time we found the actual answer to 'god did it', the answer was never god. eg. Thunder, lighting, volcanos, tsunamis etc. were all acts of god ...., real answer when humans worked it out is always a natural process.

[@billyjacobs190]

Time and millions of attempts.

[@teks-kj1nj]

Why do you assume that something is impossible unless humans can do it? Flawed logic right there.

[@alantasman8273]

@@billyjacobs190 There has been a thirty year study on cultured bacteria representing hundreds of thousands of generations of bacteria growth ....the findings from this study....bacteria remain bacteria. LOL ...Who'd of thought. PS... The last I heard, the original scientist was going to retire with that life accomplishment was looking for someone new to grow bacteria for another thirty or more years...to carrying on his experiment.

[@watchful1168]

I just love Dr Sarfati!

[@MrJarredification]

As a Christian, i don't have enough faith to believe in Evolution.

[@globalcoupledances]

Faith is not necessary. Only IQ above average needed

[@christopheespic]

If you don't have enough faith (sic) to believe in the theory of evolution, I wonder how you can be a Christian 🙄🙄.

[@globalcoupledances]

@edgein8632 - "creation of new body parts" not necessary. "no mechanism to accomplish this" Yes, there is. Can you explain the essential difference between humans and chimps?

[@globalcoupledances]

@edgein8632 - Mechanisms? What about gastrulation? Proto- vs Deuterostomes? After that Hox-genes take it over. Homeoboxes only control for more or less growth

[@kev3d]

As a Christian, you don't believe in paying your own debts and accept a human sacrifice instead.

[@josephalison12]

Question: Why do we have eyes? Answer: to be able to see! No it's a wrong answer...we have eyes primarily because there are things to see and there is light. So how did the primitive being knew there was light out there and there are things to see? Question: why to have ears? Answer: so we can hear! No, wrong answer...we have ears primarily because there are sounds out there and there is air to transport them. So how did this primitive being knew there were sounds and air to transport them? Question: why do we nose? Answer: so we can smell! No, wrong answer, we have noses primarily because there are odours out there and air to transport them! So how did that primitive being knew there were odours and air to transport them! Same applies to taste, touch etc. It takes a tremendous amount of "faith" to be an atheist.

[@FeltWarrior]

Incorrect. The answer to the "why do we have these things" is because they are traits that gave an advantage to survival over other species without those traits. That's it. No divine purpose needed.

[@toosiyabrandt8676]

Hi Well put! In other words the infrastructure was fine tuned for us to exist in it! Praise YHWH!

[@arifsaleem5467]

​@@toosiyabrandt8676 😂😂😂

[@TheBibabibab]

Why did primitive beings need to "know" there was light. What does that have to do with how eyes developed?

[@josephalison12]

@@TheBibabibab Because it is not the eyes which see , instead it is the brain which does....so the question to you is how did the eyes "develop" and "connect" with the brain 🧠 so the brain (which is in complete darkness) sees the external world (in color please) using the eyes which are of such a complexity and minute détail! If this is not an intelligent design, then I don't know what intelligent design means to atheistic people.

[@tahuyachris]

"First off, I want to say the best selling creation book is the Bible." Amen!!!!

[@SherryJo777]

@@tahuyachris Amen!

[@lnielse1]

I would not call the Bible a reliable source of information. For example Doesn't it say that the sun rotates around the Earth?

[@tahuyachris]

@@lnielse1 you are wrong! You need to look at context.

[@lnielse1]

@@tahuyachris Kindly point me to the proper passage(s) so I may see the "proper context". Also, show me where slavery is condemned and not accepted...

[@moestietabarnak]

the bible explain NOTHING, just 'magic'

[@demetrioskasabalis5536]

Dr Jonathan Sarfati! What a great narrator! I love the humbleness with which he delves into the depths of his field. Although, i may not share his unconditional belief in the Bible, I have to admit he is a true scientist, both in terms of his depth of knowledge and in terms of understanding the functional and philosophical implications of the science he so well posses in deciphering the miracle of life! Truly impressed. Thank you Dr. Sarfati!

[@daverobson3084]

The " humbleness " of saying " I know better than the people that work in the actual field".

[@waywardsonsgamerclan]

Primordial soup was also pre oxygenation so the ocean wasn't exactly what we know as water either.

[@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n]

Perfect presentation very information packed and useful

[@l.m.892]

Thank you guys for the chemistry class! May God bless and keep you. May He cause His face to smile upon you.

[@drchristopherjsernaque]

Great video!!! God bless CMI!!!

[@ZelosPhotizo]

[Gen 1:2 AMP] 2 The earth was formless and void or a waste and emptiness, and darkness was upon the face of the deep [primeval ocean that covered the unformed earth]. The Spirit of God was moving (hovering, brooding) over the face of the waters.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

Amen 🙏🙏🙏

[@asliketheson]

Love the amp bro !

[@mchooksis]

A meaningless statement unless you define what is the "Spirit of god" and can explain where it came from

[@asliketheson]

@@mchooksis Lol read the bible , get a clue !

[@asliketheson]

@@mchooksis Where do you think the Spirit Of God came from genius

[@johnosborne7637]

You can learn so much from Dr. James Tour. He is very credible.

[@garyk1334]

😂 Hilarious , see Professor Dave

[@thejake267]

Dave is a smart guy, but is way out of his league when it comes to all of this. Tour destroyed him in their debate and his piss poor responses showed what Tour has been saying. If Tour was wrong about what he is saying, it should be easy to dispute him

[@garyk1334]

@@thejake267 Whatever you have to tell yourself to maintain the delusion , go ahead

[@timothyyoung4463]

​@@garyk1334sort of speaks for itself.... Unless you are in denial

[@garyk1334]

@@timothyyoung4463 I prefer reality to flights of fancy how about you ?

[@TickedOffPriest]

We truly have an amazing Designer.

[@TickedOffPriest]

@@FlandiddlyandersFRSDo you have any specific objections to this content?

[@lnielse1]

@@TickedOffPriest Who designed the designer?

[@TickedOffPriest]

@@lnielse1 We believe on faith that He eternally existed.

[@lnielse1]

@@TickedOffPriest many people of different religions believe on faith that their deity exists. Since they all can't exist, does that mean that faith is not a reliable means of reaching the truth?

[@TickedOffPriest]

@@lnielse1 Or does it not mean that one may be right. Besides, something tells me that you re saying this despite your amazing faith. You believe on faith that you share an ancestor with a pine tree.

[@raytsang250]

That's a matter of probability. As long as such a coincidence has a non-zero probability, we cannot rule out the possibility of forming life by chance. It's irrational to say it's impossible just because you think the chance is very low.

[@dnaturalblues]

Was walking along the beach and found a watch...can one conclude that the watch was made exclusively from chance (no creator)? Was walking along a beach and found a piece of a watch... Was walking along the beach and found myself, aware that I am walking along the beach...

[@alantasman8273]

Was walking along the beach and saw the waves and wondered who created the moon bringing in the tide to aerated the water to give air to the fish and the planet.

[@juerbert1]

Thank You, Dr.Jonathan Sarfati !😅

[@beestoe993]

Those who fancy themselves to have a monopoly on intellect are the greatest intelligence deniers. Such irony.

[@Oskyosky2009]

Does that go for religious thought as well?

[@billybobby5247]

@@Oskyosky2009 which religion has a monopoly on thought?

[@Oskyosky2009]

@@billybobby5247 Abrahamic religions maybe.

[@rizdekd3912]

That's statement works both and ALL ways. What do you mean, specifically?

[@bluemamba5317]

Your comment means nothing, 100% useless

[@vizvizvizvizviz]

Regardless of my own conclusions, I find this guy to be a very good communicator - he’s extremely clear and keeps a good arc of storyline. Interviewer is excellent too.

[@vizvizvizvizviz]

@@cheesecrackers3928 Yes that’s exactly what I said. Regardless of my own views on the topic, I find him to be a good communicator who can hold the thread of a storyline.

[@l.m.892]

@@vizvizvizvizviz "who can hold the thread of a storyline." Translation: he maintains coherence as opposed to incoherence.

[@0607guy]

James Tour, Stephen Meyers, Michael Behe, Frank Turek, Jason Lisle, John Lennox, William Lane Craig.

[@JimWilliams-s8z]

All origin of life theories are akin to a Neanderthal witnessing a bic lighters flame and deducing it flopped into functionality by a random lightning strike to a mud filled ditch then creating a cult of absurdity to attempt to replicate the process.

[@lnielse1]

SMH

[@JimWilliams-s8z]

@FlandiddlyandersFRS hit a nerve Neanderthal?

[@lnielse1]

@@JimWilliams-s8z Your entire analogy is a typical false equivalency that has been debunked over and over. Do a little more research before posting this crap...

[@JimWilliams-s8z]

@larrynielsen8789 well we would like to see you try and debunk it! ! So far all you have done is whine. All I simply said was facts. Athiest look at a cell and claim mindless non intent swirled it into existence / created it. My analogy of the Neanderthal mentality of Athiests is perfecty logical !

[@lnielse1]

@@JimWilliams-s8z Never mind. Go back to sleep

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

Watching now, CMI 🙏🙏🙏 thank you for what you do! ✝️🕊️

[@hwd7]

Was watching Dawkins Channel on one of his talks on Climbing Mt Improbable. It was embarrassing listening to him say that with enough "luck" an eye or stick insect can form, etc. . "...So it is easy to open a gradualistic combination lock and I call this "smearing out the luck". Because we do not have to get our luck all in one ridiculously large dollop. Instead we can get our luck in dribs and drabs. Each drib being allowed to come before the next drab and we go on to wait for the next bit of luck. It cumulates...." -- Richard Dawkin I cant believe people think that lady luck evolution is science!

[@OlegLankin]

A combination lock with the same number of characters as the DNA code for a molecule of hemoglobin (1,600 nucleotides), using 4 possible characters, would have 1.98 x 10^963 different possibilities. How many years would it take to get lucky against those odds? Well, even if every bacteria on Earth was focused on cracking that one code, with a reproduction rate of once every 12 minutes, it would take a number of years that is well over five hundred digits long. To get just one molecule right. Simple math.

[@hwd7]

@@OlegLankin Those odds are insane , yet Dawkins plays make believe as if time in his fairytale can make the impossible probable. Thank you for sharing those stat's with me.

[@OlegLankin]

@@hwd7 my pleasure. A little math brings evolution back to reality.

[@littlesoul8282]

Well, that still doesn't prove the existence of any god.

[@hwd7]

@@littlesoul8282 It does destroy the atheist god, evolution.

[@MadEnglishTV]

“Sugars are something you put in your tea or coffee” That’s the only line I understood 🤣

[@MarcelinhoTheRock]

Really incredible, thanks CMI, thanks Dr. Sarfati. Sadly there's no books by him in Brasil.

[@MatthewPeeters-l7i]

Google tells me that Portuguese is the language spoken in Brazil. CMI has almost 100 articles that have been translated into Portuguese, some of which have been written by Jonathan Sarfati. You can find them here: creation.com/portuguese

[@MarcelinhoTheRock]

@@MatthewPeeters-l7i i know, but his books aren't translated to portuguese.

[@jessejohnson9647]

Probability of life arising from natural processes: virtually zero. Probably of life arising by design: 1 - 0 = 1 i.e. 100% probably life was created by a designer.

[@jameslowry1]

From what I understand of both biology and mathematics life coming from dead non living chemicals a term known as abiogenesis is impossible yet despite this all these atheist evolutionists continue to teach it that know more about biology and mathematics than I do and of course throwing a lot of time at it will not solve your problem how life came to be in the first place

[@jonathandutra4831]

Something cannot come from nothing it's impossible. No matter how many times they try to add 0+0+0+0+ or 0x0x0x0x it will always equal = 0 What they attempt to do is redefine what "Nothing" means or redefine "0"

[@brunobastos5533]

how is impossible

[@brunobastos5533]

@@jonathandutra4831 you the ones saying that never science told you that

[@jameslowry1]

NO I am saying that what I understand of biology and mathematics which I freely is not everything that I can neither see or understand how anything you can call living can come from dead non living chemicals not to mention the fact it has never been observed and anything you can call living requires information like DNA for example and DNA or any other kind of generic information requires intelligence it can't come from matter and energy alone no matter how much time you allow it

[@brunobastos5533]

@@jameslowry1 dna and stuff do not need a intelligence and yes it can came from energy and matter , so do virus and prions , you using what others told you (i guess Kent Hovind or answers in genisis) make it true , how do you explain all minerals and crystals that formed naturally and all the complex organics found in nature

[@sirajihussein9242]

How i wish one would tag Mr "professor Dave explains"

[@Locutus.Borg.]

He is only in it for clicks. Dave doesn't understand the science. By his own admission on his own video, he admitted to *failing to get his master's degree in synthetic organic chemistry after two separate attempts at two different universities.* He knows he misappropriated the title of _"Professor"_ an honour he never earned.

[@globalcoupledances]

@Locutus.Borg. - Watching Dave's playlists shows that he knows much about science.

[@alantasman8273]

@@globalcoupledances Dave is click bait...only the gullible listen to him.

[@urbanguard]

His whole UV story is dead in the water, since there are organisms living today, like Paramacrobiotus BLR, which are resistant to UV and temperatures between -150˚C and +200˚C. Millions of years give room for better adaptation, not more destruction.

[@intentionally-blank]

Add another bzillion just to make ... sure.

[@urbanguard]

@@intentionally-blank How old do you think the earth is, pray tell?

[@intentionally-blank]

@@urbanguard The lineages documented in scripture put the creation event at 4005 B.C. on the Roman calendar. We also can know other significant dates such as the beginning and end of the flood through the scriptural details. Is that your question? Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? - Job 38:2-7 KJV

[@urbanguard]

@@intentionally-blank There are trees alive today that are older than that. Keep guessing, I guess, but you won't find the answers in any scripture. The bible is not a science book, it's mythology. There is a difference. Ever heard of radiometric dating or varves? They are real.

[@intentionally-blank]

​@@urbanguard But I didn't guess. These lineages are more accurate than your own. There's always something like what you mention for the godless to hang on to, until they are shown to be inaccurate. Piltdown Man. A truth you can't ignore is that you will die. And possibly before you have imagined. These scriptures you mock tell of what happens when you exit this realm in this state. If you truly believed your own creed you wouldn't be here because according to you, nothing ultimately matters. You have nor offer any hope. Your religion teaches that you will be reduced to your atoms and go on to create another universe or simply become part of bacteria. Maybe you're eagerly awaiting that. It might even seem poetic and eternal. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ (Yeshua the Messiah), having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. - Hebrews 9:27-28 ESV For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. - John 3:17-20 ESV

[@jijilr]

Fine evolution theory is wrong. Now, let's pick creation theory... But which one...?

[@Alec_Cox]

Colossians 1: 12-20 In Him (Jesus Christ) ALL THINGS CONSIST. We can only breathe because of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He is the Creator God, who came in flesh to save us and give us everlasting life; as it was for Adam and Eve before the fall in Genesis 3.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

Hallelujah! 🙌🙌🙌

[@aue82a]

"He is the Creator God, who came in flesh to save us and give us everlasting life" It has not worked, has it?

[@kongchan437]

​@@aue82ai know it has, by my leap of faith in Jesus Christ. Evidence will be seen after death, and that wont be too late for true Christians.

[@aue82a]

@@kongchan437 when you depart your mortal coils , you will not even have enough time to utter" Oh shit, That's it, " there is nothing. all that is left is other's memory, of you. The best advice is not not promote scary fairy tales, especially to the vulnerable, like children.

[@kongchan437]

@@aue82a that will be the final "tunnel"...final trip, where every one of us will have to go through..at around 8 or 9 .i watched the ambulance workers carrying away the deceased old lady across from my tiny cramped low income single unit apartment and since then many nights laying on bed thinking about what will happen when my mother will die and then my turn....kids do have questions on life and death , there is no avoiding this very real natural unavoidable event. Now i know there is Jesus, He is the only one who can walk with me thru my very end that nobody else can, and beyond

[@Emoboyjohnny]

All living things are made up of non-living basic chemistry even cells 💀

[@MatthewPeeters-l7i]

What's the chemical matter/cell difference between a living and dead human (before decomposition) What I'm asking is, what is the chemicals that make a bunch of cells come alive as a human being?

[@globalcoupledances]

@user-sy4ov7tb3q - Lincoln TA, Joyce GF (February 2009). "Self-sustained replication of an RNA enzyme". Science. 323 (5918): 1229-1232. After that evolution takes over

[@Braun09tv]

Are you sure? What if dead matter is modulated with high frequency information that can turn it into an assembly that becomes life?

[@globalcoupledances]

@Braun09tv - enzymes build DNA from monomers: DNA-polymerase, Telomerase, Reverse-Transcriptase

[@Locutus.Borg.]

_"All living things are made up of non-living basic chemistry even cells"_ and in turn they are made up of atoms. So what is your point?

[@Trini84818]

Evolution is NOT about how life started.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@Trini84818 And? The discussion here was about abiogenesis. Evolution is tied at the hip to abiogenesis for 99% of those who believe in common ancestry of all living organisms. So spare us the pedantry.

[@GregoryHolden-k5c]

It is an obvious poor attempt at evading a problem when evolutionists say, "Evolution is NOT about how life started ." I've heard that so often that it has become mantric! It's a pointless deflection tactic because I'm not aware of anyone claiming that abiogenesis is about evolution. The problem for evolution is , abiogenesis NEEDED TO HAPPEN, since without life, there would have been NOTHING TO EVOLVE! Thus the fact of the matter is, evolutionists HAVE to distance themselves from abiogenesis because THEY KNOW THAT IT IS A PROBLEM! You all do have an absolute astounding tenacity, though. That would be a compliment. But perhaps being tenacious isn't enough...To further simply: A foundation is NEEDED before a building is constructed. Similarly, life HAD TO EXIST BEFORE evolution could have a (construction) start. So claims that evolution has nothing to do with how life started ____that is the equivalent of saying that A BUILDING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A FOUNDATION.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@GregoryHolden-k5c Armchair science high school and college students come on here and spew their evolution talking points, the pedantic claim that "abiogenesis is not evolution" is the most pathetic one of all, I agree. The twin hypotheses are joined at the hip..

[@globalcoupledances]

Darwin never mentioned abiogenesis. He wrote: _Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed_

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@globalcoupledances Darwin has left the chat. The video is about abiogenesis. Neo-Darwinian theory is tied to abiogenesis at the hip. I doubt that 1% of scientists who espouse the phylogenetic tree of life paradigm do NOT believe in abiogenesis. Spare us the pedantic nonsense about abiogenesis not being evolution..

[@wolfmand9641]

If life came from nonlife, why have we never seen or replicated such? 🤔

[@laceystinson]

If life came from non-life, why is there still non-life? Gotcha, atheists!

[@duarteleonardo8352]

How many people you think asked the same when Galileo said that the Earth revolved around the sun. How is it that you actually see the Sun going around the Earth?🤔

[@philipbrooks7640]

If you look at the building blocks of life, it's all "non-living" chemicals. These chemicals act based on rules.

[@rizdekd3912]

And the same rules that determine their behavior and interactions IN living organisms determine their interaction everywhere they exist. IOW they do not adopt special properties just because they are a part of a living organism.

[@jono64a]

Yes, and these rules preclude them from forming a living organism all by themselves.

[@jimhughes1070]

Yes... Yes they do.... 90 years on and billions of dollars spent... They're still trying to figure them out 🤣... But they have discovered many things!... DNA and RNA aren't the only controllers/regulators...

[@jimhughes1070]

​@@rizdekd3912 That's an interesting theory... Stated like it was a fact... Without proof... However,we do know that if you 'pop' a living cell suspended in a perfect solution... It doesn't "rebuild" itself... Even though every ingredient necessary for the 'scattered' cell to reassemble into a 'living' cell is present and in immediate vicinity... It never happens 😭

[@rizdekd3912]

@@jimhughes1070 "That's an interesting theory... Stated like it was a fact... " Here is what I wrote. read it carefully: "And the same rules that determine their behavior and interactions IN living organisms determine their interaction everywhere they exist. IOW they do not adopt special properties just because they are a part of a living organism." You question that assumption. Are you suggesting the likelihood and even necessity that in order for life to work, the actual properties of individual particles would have to change? EG nitrogen that is found in protein molecules is made up of 7 protons, 8 neutrons and 7 electrons. In nature, protons have certain behaviors/properties as do neutrons and electrons. Do you think God miraculously makes nitrogen protons behave differently AFTER it becomes part of a protein molecule than it did before? The same would go for ALL matter/energy IN a living organism vs when it is NOT part of a living organism. When would God 'transform' that nitrogen atom BACK to its natural state as it was ejected/excreted from a life form? That would mean God first of all have miraculously gave each nitrogen certain fixed properties when he created them to begin with. THEN, at some point as bacteria created nitrogen compound or as those compounds were fixed by plants into protein, God would have to miraculously CHANGE how each of those works...change how its protons, electrons and neutrons behave while it is IN the life form. But then, oddly enough, he would have to change it BACK to how it behaved before it was fixed SO THAT it could be fixed again by some other bacteria/plant combination to be used again by life forms. I think you need to revisit your ideas of how chemistry. Why wouldn't God just design all of matter and energy to work the same way IN life as outside of life?

[@decrepitworld3634]

I'm a chemist and a teacher now. There is a difference between a simulated environment vs a controlled environment. A simulation is supposed to mimic possible natural behaviors, Miller Urey's experiment setup is a highly controlled experiment - in other words it is a well designed experiment - if anything, this experiment shows how much involvement of an omniscient designer to have created the correct amino acids that eventually formed the strings of protein. It further supports the case for a creator.

[@Tinesthia]

The purpose of a controlled environment, is to simulate an environment outside of your current one. Miller Urey was literally meant to simulate possible early Earth conditions as they were known to be at the time.

[@richardhuddleston7086]

It's billions of years and happens very few times there's trillions of planets guy

[@Locutus.Borg.]

@@Tinesthia Yet, they chose a reducing atmospheric model over an oxidising one (which was actually the case). They chose an atmosphere that would have given their experiment the best chance for success over one that would have been toxic to the formation of organic molecules. They also rigged the results by using industrial grade and purified compounds which are NOT representative of those occurring in a natural environment, and removed the junk (it mostly produced a melanoid and enzyme tar which DESTROYS amino acids) which would have caused their experiment to fail. The famed Urey-Miller experiment got the conditions of the Earth's early atmosphere wrong. It turns out that the gases they used (a reactive mixture of methane and ammonia) did not exist in large amounts on early Earth. Scientists now believe the primeval atmosphere contained an inert mix of carbon dioxide and nitrogen-a change that made a world of difference. When Miller repeated the experiment using the correct combo in 1983, the brown broth failed to materialise. This experiment was conducted in heavily controlled conditions with pure chemical components and in a small, confined environment to guarantee a reaction. It has nothing to do with mimicking the conditions of a primordial prebiotic Earth. This experiment was a failure. _"It never produced any life, and was based on incorrect assertions about the ancient atmosphere, which was obviously oxidising. In addition to producing an equal amount of left and right-handed amino acids which are poison to each other, it mostly produced a melanoid and enzyme tar which DESTROYS amino acids. Every experiment since then using the correct atmosphere has also failed."_ _"The experiment assumed an atmosphere of methane and ammonia. Gases that could not have been present in large amounts because the ammonia would be decomposed by ultraviolet light and methane should be found stuck to ancient sedimentary clays but is not. Miller also left out oxygen because he _*_knew_*_ that oxygen would destroy the very molecules he was trying to produce. But as deep as we dig we find oxidised rocks, suggesting an oxygen rich atmosphere. The Earth did NOT have a reducing atmosphere, an atmosphere of methane, ammonia and hydrogen... the Earth never had such an atmosphere... Now, that [oxygen] would absolutely preclude any evolution of life."_

[@laceystinson]

​@@Locutus.Borg.Oxygen in rocks does not imply oxygen in the atmosphere. The reactivity of oxygen is why it got tied up in rocks on the early Earth, leaving little oxygen to speak of in the atmosphere. It's why Mars is red. Its oxygen is tied up in its rocks, not its atmosphere. The Miller-Urey experiment was never intended to produce life, as it implies in your quote. The experiment was the first of its kind, a proof of concept, so to speak. It shows how we can devise experiments to test various possible "soups" of organic materia, and see what happens when an electric charge is applied to it. Most experiments attempt to simplify the number of variables being tested, making them manageable and thus "controlled." Knowledge is gained even if the experiment doesn't show what was hoped for. In science, therefore, failures have a silver lining of success via the knowledge gained. That's invaluable. There are quite a few ways life could have developed on earth. Most of the amino acids, phosphorus and other organics--assumed to be needed for life to develop--are still arriving on Earth (and the other planets and moons of our solar system) via meteors, asteroids and comets. That makes the M-U experiment a moot point. Yet, the experiment stands as a shining example of how fertile minds don't merely guess (or buy into someone else's uninformed guess), they observe a problem with outstanding questions, form hypotheses based on the best available evidence, and then devise methods to test those hypotheses.Examples such as M-U are gold to any graduate student worth their salt.

[@Tinesthia]

@@Locutus.Borg. The experiment was never intended to produce life. It was a success by every by every conceivable measure. It was one of the first attempts, and did produce over 20 of the known building blocks of life. Followed by dozens and now hundreds of reproductions of the test with many variations performed on the possible early earth atmospheric conditions. The whole point of a controlled experiment is to provide a control and rule out other variables that would falsify the test.

[@tonymaurice4157]

Abiogenesis fantasy.. cant even happen in optimal lab environments with all kinds of designed equipment

[@tonymaurice4157]

@@alexojideagu ok. Prove abiogenesis using purely natural processes and no designed machinery

[@tonymaurice4157]

@@alexojideagu prove that life can come from non-life through purely natural processes, no designed Machinery can be used

[@tonymaurice4157]

@@alexojideagu that's wishful thinking and you don't have a shred of evidence for any of that

[@alantasman8273]

Its worse than that....they can't even take a newly dead cell, complete with all it need components and bring that back to life. They can't even adequately define what life is.

[@PhrozenV]

Evolution is not a theory about how life came to be. It is a very testable and sound theory on how life came to be diverse.

[@masada2828]

So, how did life come to be?

[@PhrozenV]

@@masada2828 Good question, but it has nothing to do with evolution.

[@masada2828]

@@PhrozenV - a chimpanzee cannot change into a human, it can only be what it is, a chimpanzee, its genetically impossible.

[@mikelim1698]

I tried ordering that primordial soup in a local restaurant, the waiter said they stopped serving that because of too much complaints from customers seeing something squirming on the soup.

[@BryceGarling]

Ironically they say things are propaganda and lies yet believe consciousness came before matter

[@michalp79]

Please invite someone who deals with abiogenesis and ask him/her about this issue.

[@clintsawyer7702]

Do you have an actual argument to even one point he made?

[@sliglusamelius8578]

Nobody has ever seen a single biomolecule form abiotically, ever. Never. This man "deals with" abiogenesis because he knows advanced chemistry, and since nobody actually has seen abiogenesis, there are no better experts to interview.

[@michalp79]

​@@clintsawyer7702 Not at all - I'm not a scientist. That's why I suggested inviting an expert in this field

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@FlandiddlyandersFRS That's funny, nobody has created any biological molecules ab initio in abiotic environments, yet you call it self-evident and don't know any real chemistry. Cute. You do know about the sequence problem of amino acids for proteins? And the homochiral problem? Why don't you create a living cell in your lab and show us how it's done?

[@nielsqbc4]

@@sliglusamelius8578 Professor James Tour who works with cells points out how they are not possible to form out of luck. There is a billion dollar industry busy with forming new cells, even with all components together and the smarted people on the project they are not able to produce a cell from the building blocks. And they have been trying to create cells for decades now.

[@Ratciclefan]

"Evolution is fake because I refuse to learn what evolution actually is"

[@jono64a]

No, we learn more about evolution than the evolutionists want us to know.

[@beefsupreme4671]

Evolution is false because it is physically impossible. You are literally claiming random chance can create an assembly language.

[@Cedartreetechnologies]

Said the person with a manga avatar. I know enough chemistry to keep up with the discussion and understand its implications. It probably helps to be a high IQ engineer.

[@beefsupreme4671]

@@Ratciclefan evolution is fake because it assumes that random chance can create an assembly language

[@Locutus.Borg.]

So what is it? What actual facts do you know personally? I'll bet once you find out how much you actually don't know, you won't be making these vacuous, facile comments.

[@seasquawker]

There is an idea that often gets used to support evolution, but actually, if it gets played out in its fullest, it really supports creationism. It's called uniformitarianism. The idea that everything that is, has always been, although maybe just changing to different forms. Often expressed simply as, "the present is the key to the past." This gets used to support the physical universe and changes which can occur in it... but if we take the idea to its fullest extent, then wouldn't that mean that not only are matter and energy constants of the universe, but then also life? ... and even at that, intelligent life?

[@Rowgun254]

@@seasquawker how does that support creationism?

[@seasquawker]

What part doesn't make sense?

[@Rowgun254]

@@seasquawker You are saying that "The idea that everything that is, has always been, although maybe just changing to different forms". That doesn't support creationism. That is evolution

[@seasquawker]

Things can change and be directed to change too. It doesn't just have to be spontaneous. According to the Bible, we will not always be physical beings made out of the dust of the earth, but be changed into spiritual beings. 1st Corinthians 15:46, Job 14:14-15. In some other form and probably in some other dimension. 1st John 3:2-3.

[@Rowgun254]

@@seasquawker what are spiritual beings made of?

[@Scalpaxos]

If you go by supernatural explanations that can be slapped on anything then you have no ground to dismiss evolution for a technical reason whatever it might be because you already believe in something that doesn't need to comply to natural biological processes, therefore anything is possible in that context even if evolution is proven to be impossible, because the gods can do evolution and sustain it even if it's impossible, on the other hand if you restrict your demonstration to observable natural phenomenons and mechanisms then evolution is the best explanation so far for the diversity of life especially versus multi-generational incestuous inbreeding starting from one couple which is very unlikely since such a lineage is doomed to disappear due to consanguinity, the extinction of the Habsburg royal family is a prime example of that.

[@alwaysfourfun1671]

Great conversation!

[@Gadfly247]

I just don't have enough blind faith to believe in evolution and atheism.

[@globalcoupledances]

Evolution doesn't need faith. Only needed is higher than average IQ

[@wurzelbert84wucher5]

@@globalcoupledances Good joke :D

[@kev3d]

And yet you believe zombies rose from the dead. You're going to have to explain how that doesn't violate the laws of physics.

[@Locutus.Borg.]

@@kev3d I'm pretty sure that life and death are governed by the laws of biology, not physics. Still, it is a pretty simplistic argument in any case, which utterly ignores the claim made that Jesus WAS God incarnate. Suspend your disbelief for just a moment and imagine that this is true. It should then be possible to accept (even though we cannot comprehend how it is possible) that God who created the universe and stands outside of time and space would not be subject to the laws of the universe that He created. He would stand outside of these laws and hold power and dominion over them, right? You argue from the point of view that it has already been proven that this position is false. It has not! So where is your evidence to the contrary?

[@conspiracy1914]

@@kev3d I am not a christian but following the logic of an all powerful being that created living out of non life how hard is it for "god" to break what you consider normal laws. should be with in reason of a divine being to do what we would call miracles.

[@daboffey]

A good book on the impossibility of abiogenesis is "The Stairway to Life" by Change Laura Tan and Rob Stadler.

[@jono64a]

CMI stocks this.

[@daboffey]

@@FlandiddlyandersFRS How do you make that out? Is that not just begging the question?

[@daboffey]

@@FlandiddlyandersFRS As I said, that's begging the question. It is assuming evolution to prove evolution.

[@daboffey]

@@FlandiddlyandersFRS The only reason that scientists want to separate abiogenesis from evolution is due to the difficulty of abiogenesis. Let us get this straight, without abiogenesis, there is no evolution. The real question is whether life originated by abiogenesis or by special creation. You need to address this this question and not just assume abiogenesis. Simple.

[@daboffey]

@@FlandiddlyandersFRS You need to show that, not just assume it.

[@baraskparas9559]

A mountain of evidence in support of abiogenesis exists. A new book published by Austin Macauley Publishers titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth outlines abiogenesis in great detail with a solution to the evolution of the genetic code and the ribosome as well as the cell in general using 290 references, 50 illustrations and several information tables with a proposed molecular natural selection formula with a worked example for ATP. Sure we weren't there to see it with our own eyes and equipment but many crimes are solved with just forensic and circumstantial evidence for the same reason.

[@jono64a]

All those claims fail real chemistry.

[@baraskparas9559]

@@jono64a The real chemistry is outlined in the book. It requires some significant biochemistry knowledge.

[@jono64a]

@@baraskparas9559 So you should have no trouble refuting the chemical evidence in the video.

[@alantasman8273]

So when will the Nobel Prize be awarded for creating life from non-living matter...or is it just more posturing and hyperbole? I thought so.

[@l.m.892]

You guys have great content. Keep up the good work.

[@Eliilizz108]

If life started from base compounds wouldn't it still be happening today.

[@rianasteyn616]

@billycutiep Good Question there!!

[@rizdekd3912]

How would we know if it isn't happening today since we don't know exactly what it would have looked like? First, we don't know the precise conditions where such delicate chemical reactions could have been supported so we don't know what microniches to look in and we don't know what to look for...ie which specific molecules to look for. Second, IF it happens, the long chained molecules that may form that might have been the precursors to more complex life would be immediately out competed by more advance life forms. Third, why wouldn't God...if God created life, not be continuously creating new life? Only ideology and not science would preclude that possibility. Unless one is a young earth creationist and believes God created each life form all at once fully formed and developed, there was/is, perhaps, a process that even God followed and perhaps still follows to keep his creation full of life.

[@tomthumb3880]

​@rizdekd3912 God, in fact, did create everything fully mature

[@rizdekd3912]

@@tomthumb3880 So you're dictating to God how he had to do things?

[@rizdekd3912]

@@tomthumb3880 quote please that says that and that can’t be interpreted another way

[@Reg_The_Galah]

Good talk, the old evolution got no leg to stand on anymore

[@DavidSmith-xz4zz]

@Reg_The_Galah Now if they would take it out of our school system. They are poisoning our children's minds.

[@Reg_The_Galah]

@@DavidSmith-xz4zz the school system as a whole is poisoning our children minds.

[@Oskyosky2009]

Good thing it’s still true!

[@GreatBehoover]

@@Oskyosky2009 This FRAUD LIED and said that evolution has the math to back it...and then CAN'T PRODUCE that math that he REALLY REALLY BELIEVES to exist!🤣🤣🤣🤣 When I demanded that he reveal this best kept secret of naturalism...he tells me to "calm down"!!! Hilarious!🤣🤣🤣🤣 Liars lie!

[@w12ath040211]

The guy in this "good talk" is lying to you. Firstly he's not a bio chemist, big difference between chemist and bio chemist. Secondly the Miller Yuri experiment was done in the 50's, and it had nothing to do with a "soup". The experiment was testing to see if in the early earths ATMOSPHERE, organic molecules could form from non-organic molecules using electric sparks, simulating lightning, methane, water, hydrogen and ammonia. And it showed that they could. And the fact that he didn't criticize it were real flaws exist in the experiment (evidently the early atmosphere wasn't rich in these chemicals) shows that he doesn't really know anything about it.

[@jonathandutra4831]

Something cannot come from nothing its impossible. 0+0+0+0+0+ will always =0

[@adenosinetriphosphate4965]

That is a straw man argument. The first living organism did not come from nothing, it came from the chemicals which combined jnto it.

[@jonathandutra4831]

@adenosinetriphosphate4965 The problem with your argument is your presupposing "Something" to begin with. "The chemicals" is a something not a nothing and we know that the universe is not infinite. Your argument is flawed & Evolution has been debunked a long time ago.

[@jonathandutra4831]

@@adenosinetriphosphate4965 -Your argument presupposes "Something" as a Chemical. A chemical is something not nothing. Evolution is magic 🎩 ✨️ once understood.

[@adenosinetriphosphate4965]

@@jonathandutra4831 these chemicals did not come from nothing. Keep acting like god isnt “magic🪄”

[@jonathandutra4831]

@@adenosinetriphosphate4965 Then where did they come from ? Not sure why your deflecting. You made a claim and now you need to explain it so all the experts can hear your magical theory. We're waiting..........

[@galenstevenson918]

Very good

[@melindaxbc5605]

Wonderful video with excellent information. I am learning so much and deprogramming my brain in the process. Win win! Many thanks.

[@servantgirl2054]

The Angel said, "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; The whole earth is full of His glory!" Isaiah 6:3

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

Scripture gives us the foundation for life. Darwinism gives us the foundation for Pokemon.

[@binhanh296]

🤣🤣🤣 Digimon, too, but those are things I like, cause it's anime 😁😁😁

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

@@FlandiddlyandersFRS why? Genesis doesn't say men poofed into existence from mud or that women are made from dead bones. Straw man much? Please accept documented history and receive Jesus.

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

@@FlandiddlyandersFRS yes documented history that archeologists actually use as primary source material in the Middle East today. Since archeology is a field that deals with both science and history that means people who reject scripture fit the category of documented history deniers and science deniers. Please accept documented history and observable science; declare Jesus as your Lord, believe in your heart that God raised him from death and you will be saved (Romans 10:9).

[@cosmictreason2242]

@@FlandiddlyandersFRS Genesis doesn't say that's the normative process. It explicitly says that was a one time event...

[@cosmictreason2242]

@@FlandiddlyandersFRS one doesn't justify a correction, it's the one being corrected who needs to justify why his original statement does not need correction

[@AdLockhorst-bf8pz]

06:45 Earth is not a closed system; the light from the Sun means that there is plenty of energy available for *WHATEVER.* Time is therefore not a limiting factor either. Water "the universal solvent" is ... not a problem; some scientists consider the possibility that ICE could be a great environment for (the chemical building blocks of life) to develop in. Temperature affects chemistry 🤷 changes reactivity. So the temperature range matters for a huge number of reasons.

[@usapatriot444]

Sigh...You completely ignore that energy MINUS an intelligent way to control it is destructive. Whether you have an open or closed system, energy works the same way all the time. Show me where energy without intelligent control has ever produced information.

[@jono64a]

A _closed_ system allows exchange of energy not matter. An _isolated_ system has no exchange of either matter or energy. An _open_ system allows both matter and energy to exchange. Dissolution is a _physical_ change; hydrolysis is a _chemical_ change. The latter is the issue that refutes chemical evolution.

[@AdLockhorst-bf8pz]

@@jono64a predictable answer for you; E = m c² An oversimplification, to be sure, but not wrong. I mean, ice floats in water - due to density - and obviously a huge amount of energy versus a tiny mass has a sort of density effect. The full formula takes that into account. Still, the point is that there in a very real sense is no difference between matter and energy.

[@pearhams2]

Evolutionists try to describe their theory with child's play tautologies when reality is beyond any simple explanation in just beginning to understand. And it only gets more and more complex the more they delve. They're seeking out an explanation against the best explanation. They do not allow themselves to be wrong in any direction toward an intelligent creation. They're objectivity is conditional to their desires.

[@jameswright...]

You do realise the majority of Christians accept evolution 😂 Evolution doesn't disprove god 😂

[@sbgtrading]

​@@jameswright...Evolution doesn't disprove God, but it still isn't the best explanation for biodiversity. The best explanation for complex, information rich systems is intelligent design.

[@jameswright...]

@@sbgtrading Evolution is the best and only explanation because it's proven beyond doubt. Intelligent design is creationism and complete gibberish puesdoscience.

[@sbgtrading]

@@FlandiddlyandersFRS Yes, Evolution is regarded as a scientific fact...too bad it's never been observed to produce the results that we see today. So it's a theoretical explanation, at best. But remember, even if it was demonstrable...even if we could use natural selection and other natural pressures to "mold" an amoeba into a frog or an oak tree, that doesn't mean that we then know how frogs or oak trees came to be in history. If Evolution could be demonstrated, it's no assurance that we have the actual historical explanation for any biological diversity.

[@sbgtrading]

@@jameswright... Evolution is the best naturalistic explanation...but it's not been demonstrated. We have not seen simple natural selective pressures produce any of the level of biodiversity which it claims to explain.

[@mk71b]

0:31 Also, the *_idea/scenario_* of a "primordial soup" that materialists have *_conceived/believed_* rides on matter and energy, so to speak. This also confirms along these lines that we are in a *_spiritual battle._*

[@RobertA-oi6hw]

Amen! We know that life cannot come from non life. There had to be a Life Giver and that Creator is our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

[@BOBANDVEG]

God is all. The energy, the mass. Energy can not be created nor destroyed, ergo...God has always been

[@littlesoul8282]

That's your assumptions because you cannot think of any other way for everything to happen. But that doesn't make a god any more true. We still don't have any evidence for the existence of a god. It's all guesswork and make belief.

[@leon123s]

Show me prof of a talking burning bush and a talking snake.

[@RobertA-oi6hw]

@@leon123s they are supernatural events. God did them as he so choosed.

[@RobertA-oi6hw]

@@littlesoul8282 that's your assumption because you don't want God to exist. Maybe you don't have any evidence of God but I have plenty enough for me to choose to follow Him.

[@satch500]

As soon as I hear someone say 'evolutionist' my brain switches off. He's a chemist. Not a biological anthropologist (like I am). Creationists latch onto anyone with a qualification who is a creationist and think that authorises them to talk about anything in science. Hint: it doesn't. Evolution by natural selection happened and is happening. If you don't like, don't talk about it. The facts aren't on your side.

[@daveblock]

Evolution we see happens by mutations that degrade existing genes. Nothing new is ever created. I suggest getting an education before commenting.

[@kraftmorrison]

Abiogenesis = BLIND FAITH

[@mchooksis]

Abiogenesis = BLIND FAITH That is a ridiculous comment. We know that when the earth was created there was no life, and now there is life. So somewhere along the line, abiogenesis happened. If you want to believe a god did it then that's your choice. But it doesn't mean abiogenesis is blind faith. It is fact. It happened, get over it

[@bluemamba5317]

Christianity = BLIND FAITH

[@Akatosh-r4c]

​@@mchooksis well, if you believe life really came from nothing why don't you just go back to nothing. If you catch my meaning. Why bother walking, eating and breathing. Is it not just a waste of time for you?

[@mgossett34]

No, sir Aleutian doesn’t describe how life began. It talks about how species changed afterlife began.

[@compositioncompilation]

Father literally means life giver. Running..we cannot hide.

[@Dayron669]

@@compositioncompilation You DO know the meaning came before the name. Right? If I'm to understand you, you are saying "Well, look at this, we call him Father and that means he creates things." Well. Yeah. That's....the reason for the name. I don't even think you understand how little you're saying.

[@ruben5145]

chemistry doesn't take you very far, the bible says that God made man from the dust of the earth, so far chemistry has its limits, but to give life to this you need the spiritual side, how would you make a computer but without Windows os🎉

[@ohzone6464]

Dead in the water.

[@georgegrubbs2966]

Amazing how these people do not know science and make big proclamations about it.

[@IsabelMadeira-f3i]

Beautifully explained!! The common usual problem for a good life on Earth is "small-mindnes",i.e. the lack of inherent capacitu to grasp reality as it really is and INSTEAD try to force a sibjective self-made"reality"( = virtual, not really real) in order to make an illusion of reality. This ia the unfortunate malaise that plagues the minds of atheists, they cherry-pick, assemble virtual-stories because of their inherent incapacity to grasg, to SEE real reality ( regardeless of being able to read, write, hold a PhD or have a human given notable prize, e.g.nobel-p.)as St.Paul said. Atheists mind sets needs an UPGRADE so they can SEE + GRASP real reality without fear for not being able to control their own persons, their lives, the others and life in general. The use of reason , rationalism, is NOT enough if the argument is twisted, flawed, incorrect due to a false premise, a BLOCKAGE, A BARRIER (= the inehrent incpacity to SEE). This is a barrier built in their minds independent from their freewill. Evil blocks the light/truth from coming through and FORCES them to wrongly believe in their cherry-picking flawed at origin argument, that is what evil does. However, atheists or agnostics, can COME OUT (be healed, delivered) from such "small mindness"malaise caused by evil, by instead DEEPLY WISH that "goodness is the core of life, and there is no need to be afraid for NOT controlling anything in life, merely because goodness is around". May GOD❤ BLESS all atheists, agnostics, with loads of His very LOVING LIGHT, so that CLARITY will always warm their hearts and minds!!

[@dyvel]

So he just explained that Kerkut that all life evolved from a single-cell organism, which came (not evolved) from non-living matter. That's exactly the opposite of what he was arguing dor.

[@gregchapman6897]

This seems to be the classic god of the gap argument. If science cannot currently explain completely how something has occurred, it is attributed to God. Thunder and lightning were supposed to be caused by Thor. But now we know better. The fact that science cannot prove something within a month, a year, or even a century, does not mean that it could not have happened over the course of billions of years.

[@Ram-nt1ly]

Evolution … 🤣

[@Jim-o4t]

Great information, however am I the only one seeing a single man talking to his past self?

[@MatthewPeeters-l7i]

Explain?

[@Reg_The_Galah]

@@MatthewPeeters-l7iguess they look similar

[@defenderofTheWord]

@@MatthewPeeters-l7ithey are saying that the guy on the left looks like an older version of the guy on the right

[@mrcashteaches]

LOL, good point

[@asliketheson]

Haha cute but irrelevant

[@jamesstrawn6087]

The book analogy should go to the thoughts behind the words. In a novel, an entire world is engineered by the author. The amount of time needed to fabricate it by random chance is an absurd question next to the far better explanation at hand. A computer program is similar. It is not mere keystrokes but the designed structure those keystrokes represent. So we are speaking of highly purposeful and directed "information." However, life is even more than this. A dead cell can have the same parts as a live one.

[@etyrnal]

isn't there also some chicken & the egg argument possible for whether life preceded the amino acids and they are a byproduct of living things dying or being killed, or whether meaningful amino acids would have formed in enough quantity, quality, organization/arrangement, to have create an environment necessary to jumpstart a process that was goin g to require not only the initial aminos, but a steady supply of quantity, quality, etrc?

[@karkha2]

Just like we finally realized Thor didn't cause lightning and demons seemed to whither away, the more we learned germ theory, we will find out more and more about how abiogenesis works as time goes on. Then, you guys will move the goalposts again.

[@ethanlamoureux5306]

Unfortunately for evolution, abiogenesis doesn't work, regardless of time.

[@karkha2]

@ethanlamoureux5306 every day more and more evidence is being gathered to show that it's highly plausible. It's a lot more plausible than a giant space ghost.

[@MatthewPeeters-l7i]

so... science of the gaps? We don't know how this could work but it must have occurred and our proof is that TIME will tell us how in the future! Actually, the chance of a simple cell forming from non living chemicals is worse than 1 in 10^57,800. I'd hardly call that plausible.

[@karkha2]

@user-sy4ov7tb3q what an incredibly ridiculous statement. You're basically stating that before any scientific discovery is made, people are perfectly okay to make that kind of statement even though the discovery to prove them wrong was probably just around the corner. Unbelievable.

[@ethanlamoureux5306]

@@karkha2 No, actually it’s not plausible *at all* because life is so complicated that it cannot happen by random chance. And why do you think the concept of a higher being as creator is implausible? We live in a world where everything complex is either man-made or natural, so why should it be hard to believe that a complex object was created and didn’t just happen by accident? I don’t see any complex objects happening by accident.

[@jaredwoodhouse1263]

God doesn't exist. So creation didn't happen. There, now you're caught up. You're welcome.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@jaredwoodhouse1263 That's the level of intellectual discourse that your side is capable of, it's sad.

[@jaredwoodhouse1263]

@sliglusamelius8578 Evolution is proven. The science backs it up. To claim Adam and Eve existed is to deny all the evidence and data we have. All for a story from a book. Sure you can claim "my side" doesn't have good conversation tactics, but it's like saying the earth is a globe. Somehow saying truth is not intellectual

[@9ine0hs8nt]

Can you prove that God doesn’t exist?

[@jaredwoodhouse1263]

@9ine0hs8nt I use the same proof we have to prove elves, pixies, leprechauns, ogres, trolls, unicorns, Odin, Shiva, and all other supernatural entities don't exist. Your god doesn't get a special pass just because you personally were fooled into believing it exists. We use the same scrutiny equally against all claims.

[@jaredwoodhouse1263]

@@sliglusamelius8578 You can't believe in creation and feel you have the high ground on intellectual discourse. Evolution disproves the creation narrative. If you were truly intelligent, you'd know evolution is true. You can still believe your god exists. Many theists accept evolution. But to deny evolution means you deny critical thinking

[@Peter_Trevor]

As someone who is genuinely curious, I watched until the 12 minute mark. The stupidity is real, the double talk is astounding. The comments section is even worse!

[@sandiec6063]

yours is the worst

[@Peter_Trevor]

@@sandiec6063 it really is, isn’t it?

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@Peter_Trevor You have nothing. Your education is at most a college degree in journalism.

[@mmaimmortals]

You don’t sound genuinely curious. You sound convinced of your own opinion. Do you have an example of this alleged stupidity or the alleged double talk?

[@Peter_Trevor]

@@sliglusamelius8578 I didn’t claim to have everything! So where did that comment come from? Like I said, “the comment section is even worse”. Regarding my education, you’ve over estimated me. I didn’t even come close to finishing High School, but I struggle to see how that has any bearing. I’m the Atheist trying to keep an open mind, whilst attempting to discover the truth. Can you say the same, and genuinely mean it?

[@urbanguard]

"Scientists can't possibly know this, because they weren't there, but I know this because it says so in this book written by peasants". This is the same tripe you get from most wannabe experts, claiming to know stuff they have no expertise in, yet dismissing people who do, desperately clinging to a 2000yr old book of magic. Classic.

[@timothyvenable3336]

Except the argument is that God wrote the book. You can think that’s nonsense, but get the argument right. Otherwise you look foolish

[@urbanguard]

@ God didn’t write anything. The Bible is written by human scribes who were told the stories a hundred years after they were supposed to have happened. Anything you want to share with us from a hundred years ago? Maybe write it on a piece of divine parchment that’ll rot away in a couple of years stuffed in a jar hidden in a cave. Get your facts straight.

[@rizdekd3912]

But if we define chemistry as a rudimentary form of life, then life did not arise from non life, it arose from a precursor of life..

[@dartskihutch4033]

Right, which is statistically inpossible based on the various elements aligned in this video.

[@dartskihutch4033]

@@FlandiddlyandersFRS sure, improbable to the degree that it's illogical to assume it occured the way it's presented to have.

[@dartskihutch4033]

@@FlandiddlyandersFRS if that's the standard we're using, you cant disprove Jesus's resurrection after he died on a cross right? Nothing is impossible, just improbable, so the only truth is what you believe happened, correct?

[@rizdekd3912]

@@dartskihutch4033 Those statistics assume chemistry works by random chance. First chemistry doesn't behave randomly. If it did, life itself would not work. And second, if chemistry is life, then life already existed.

[@dartskihutch4033]

@@rizdekd3912 how about you watch the video and it will explain all of your assertions.

[@peterroberts4509]

Ok, so God made man out of clay and then breathed over him. Marvellous. You've won me over. Leaves science for dead.

[@adenosinetriphosphate4965]

Seriously it’s actually saddening to see this comment section

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@adenosinetriphosphate4965 What sad is the magic want of time applied to your fake chemistry of abiogenesis, a field that has nothing of significance to show for its efforts.

[@theslugboiii5969]

don't forget that an all powerful god was so shit at creating life that he had to kill every human apart from 8 people and start again about 4000 years ago.

[@scarab36319ify]

There is so much wrong in this. I don't understand why you can't be honest about evolution. If your viewers knew anything you would be harming their faith but I guess you rely on them being ignorant. Sad that to succeed you must lie.

[@sonnyeastham]

But...but...but...evolution is safe & effective 😮

[@sonnyeastham]

Darwinian Evolution defies the 2nd Law of Themodynamics

[@BeefT-Sq]

" Reason is the only means by which man can achieve knowledge of reality." -Ayn Rand-

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

You people do not understand the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution does not posit how life came into existence. It merely describes how the genetic makeup of a group of organisms change over time and these genetic changes affect the characteristics and traits of the organisms. After enough traits and characteristics change we call them a different species from their ancestor and from other species that have branched off from that ancestor. We have literally made a new species ourselves. Lions and tigers are two different species of large cat. We have successfully mated them to produce a new species called the liger. It is different than both of its parents and can have viable offspring. God was not seen anywhere in this process.

[@nielsqbc4]

You do not understand evolution yourself. At least not the macro evolution that is needed to form a new species. You posit the liger as a new species and therefore as a proof of the macro evolution need to form all life on earth. Whilst the liger is still a cat like creature, and able to produce offspring with both tigers and lions. What you need is a clear lineage to show as a proof of macro evolution creating new species, going from cells to a fish to a lizard to an ape to a human according to their evolutionist faith. And there is no proof of that as the agnostic David Gerlernter points out. David also points out that the chance of life starting in the universe by chance is impossible; to form proteins from amino acids and functioning cells is impossible. A billion dollar industry with intelligent people has been trying to create cells for decades. They would have been able to make a car in that timeframe, yet you do not claim a car would have been formed from luck or would have been created without intelligence. A human eye is far more complex than a car.

[@nielsqbc4]

What you need is a new species with new information to have for example wings, as the ancestor would not have wings nor the information in its DNA. And by the way, God has created the cat species in the beginning and having two cat species mate again is not a proof of evolution. Mating a dog with a wolf is not proof of evolution. Even though it looks different from its parents.

[@globalcoupledances]

@nielsqbc4 - wings don't need new information. Only regulation of DNA-polymerase needed

[@mmaimmortals]

You grant yourself that first life from which ns proceeded was single cell organisms. If first life was not single cell then your “theory” is useless. Furthermore, the offspring can not be a different species than it’s parent. To say otherwise is to just create definitions of words to give an artificial appearance of support to the “theory”.

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

@@mmaimmortals The theory of evolution does not posit how life came to being. Therefore it has absolutely no bearing at all on whether or not a creator god exists. Obviously, life began on earth at some point, so that is, in fact, a given. It could have been a god. It could have been some sort of chemical reaction on earth. It could have been brought here on some extraterrestial's spacecraft. It could have been some sort of extremophobe bacteria that was brought here when a comet crashed into earth. There are numerous possibilities we humans have not even deigned to consider yet. How life originated has absolutely no bearing at all on the theory of evolution. Your unsupported assertion that the first life had to be single celled is incorrect and absurd. Right now, there are millions of different viruses on this planet that do not have cells. However, they exhibit many of the properties we consider as "life." Once inside a cell, they take over that cell's nucleus and use it to replicate itself. Sometimes viruses become a permanent part of an organism's genetics. So are viruses alive? Well, we do not really know. It is a topic for debate. As for your claim about species just being a word... well yes and no. Is a giraffe a different species than a panda bear? Yes. Is a lion a different species than a tiger? Yes. The fact of the matter is that speciation is a subjective and arbitrary classification made by human beings to communicate knowledge of the attributes and characteristics of various organisms. It is quite easy to determine that two organisms are different species when there are vast differences between them. It is a different story when the organisms have numerous similarities. The fact of the matter is that there is no clearly defined set of parameters that can be used to determine when two similar organisms are different enough to be considered separate species as the possible differences between various organisms are legion, while the differences themselves are often subtle and/or not blatantly apparent.

[@garyk1334]

It's hilarious how cerrain theists get all butthurt about one of the greatest discoveries of all time .

[@sbgtrading]

They've discovered nothing, evolution is a hypothesis, not a discovery.

[@timothykeith1367]

What discovery are you referring to ?

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@garyk1334 Name the discovery and give the details, Thanks.

[@globalcoupledances]

@sliglusamelius8578 - just read Darwin's book. Wikipedia _Reactions to On the Origin of Species_ is also interesting

[@Nakatoa0taku]

We have tons of experiments that beg to differ

[@georgedimakopoulos3581]

Life came from Chemicals. Believe it...

[@alantasman8273]

Yup and God made those chemicals as well ...He took the dust of the Earth and created man breathing life into him and man became a living soul. God then took the rib of that man know as Adam and made Eve the mother of all. Mitochondrial Eve has already been proven.

[@Shamsi419]

Primordial soup is obviously BS

[@GregoryHolden-k5c]

I'm sure that it would taste horrible! 😂

[@Shamsi419]

@@FlandiddlyandersFRS yes , like he said there’s no evidence of it and the chemistry required doesn’t work in water.

[@Shamsi419]

@@FlandiddlyandersFRS How can I prove there’s no evidence? If there’s no evidence there’s nothing to prove.

[@kev3d]

@@Shamsi419 There's life, and it's made up of cells and DNA and, more importantly, organic chemicals. The same organic chemicals we discover through these kinds of experiments. Far more complex than the "dust" from which man was born according to Genesis. If Genesis is true humans, or males at least, should be composed of Aluminum, Iron, Silicon, and so on. We know from chemistry that Carbon is about 0.02% of soil. Yet humans are approximately 18% carbon. If we are made from dust, you are going to have to explain that discrepancy.

[@Locutus.Borg.]

@@GregoryHolden-k5c And lifeless! 🤣

[@laceystinson]

The first 3 minutes contains several misrepresentation of evolution. In the first 8 seconds, the man states that information is not contained in matter and energy, but that information rides on top of them. Right away he is dismissing how science uses the word information and replacing it with his own special definition. His us of the word comes primarily from how humans communicate with each other: an intelligent agent encodes meaning into symbols which are transmitted to another intelligent agent who uses what amounts to a lookup table to decode the symbols, and then interprets the conveyed meaning. This doesn't happen in DNA. There is no intelligent agent ordering nucleotides to encode preconceived meaning. There is no intelligent agent at the receiving end consciously decoding the nucleotide orderings to interpret a meaning from them. Nucleotides self-assemble in the presence of other chemistry, and they self-mutate essentially by random chance. This is just chemistry doing what chemistry does. Chemistry is essentially a mechanical process. No minds are required for it to occur. Either a particular amino acid is mechanically forced to bond into a string of amino acids, or it isn't, resulting in a different string of amino acids. Amino acid strings are not units of meaning, they are just strings of amino acids. They may or may not have chemical/mechanical properties which affect other molecules in their contained environment. While some of the same words are used in science as in other forms of knowledge, such as the analysis of languages used by intelligent beings, they don't mean the same things. The man is not talking science, he is corrupting science by misinforming the scientifically uninformed. What else did he say? He said the first cell could not have evolved because it requires at least 2 single-celled life forms to compete with each other for natural selection to take place. This is a misunderstanding of both natural selection and abiogenesis. Natural selection occurs within a species due to the environment that species is in. Even if there were just one single-celled life form, its the environment that matters, not necessarily other life forms. The enviroment may or may not contain predators or prey. An environment has properties, such as chemistry, heat, climate cycles, geological shifts, volcanoes, meteor impacts, supernova radiation, etc. Any of these can impose a natural selection process on a single-celled life form, or on members of a species. Regarding the first cell, no reputable scientist assumes all pre-life chemistry was devoted to producing just one living cell from which all subsequent life was derived. Abiogenetic processes were likely taking place all over the Earth where conditions were right (currently, tide pools look like a promising candidate). The precursors to life would have been voluminous and relatively widespread after so many millions of years of chemistry. It's believed that cell-like lipid structures probably existed first which permitted the containment of various chmical processes within them where complex chemistry could build up without being broken down if they were free-floating. Someting like life could have, and probably did, develop many times, only to die out, only to develop again because the chemistry and conditions were still there from which to build. Strands of RNA can self-assemble, and even catalyze themselves in reproduction. Short segments of free RNA were probably bountiful and freely traded among longer strands. Functional reproducing cells could have occurred simultaneously which contained reproducting RNA signatures, or some other self-replicating molecule. These would have essentially been different forms of life. The Earth ended up with just one, however, which, given the environmental conditions, would have out competed the other self-replicating molecules. Under different planetary conditions, it may have been some other form of self-replicating molecule that was best adapted. That's the firwt 3 minutes. Should I watch the rest?

[@globalcoupledances]

"2 single-celled life forms" indeed LUCA split into first bacteria and first archaea. No competition needed

[@stellarspacetraveler]

That was a nice regurgitation of what the standard textbooks teach, but the problem is it doesn't work in real life environments. The most esteemed, atheist biochemists who are involved in OOL research admit they have no clue how life could have formed on planet Earth. And that is why they have now resorted to looking toward Asteroids as the possible answer. The real problem for atheist scientists is this: they can literally purchase all the components needed for a cell--in their purest left-handed or right-handed forms--and yet they have no clue how to assemble even the simplest of cells.

[@globalcoupledances]

@stellarspacetraveler - It took hundreds of millions of years, not 6 days

[@stellarspacetraveler]

@@globalcoupledances It might have, but that doesn't change the fact that atheist scientist don't know how to create even the simplest of cells even though they can buy all the ingredients in their purest form, and they have access to the most advanced gene engineering equipment available in the laboratories. And there are thousands of those scientists who have been trying to do that for 70 years. But, you claim, nature did it all by itself. LOL.

[@laceystinson]

​@@stellarspacetraveler Regurgitation? Have you ever read a standard science book and understood it? It's standard because it's vetted, with science journal citations. What's known within all of the physical sciences began with hypotheses derived from observations of the real world. When those hypotheses are tested, some of them make it into robust theories, such as germ theory, quantum mechanics, or evolution. Hypotheses also result from laboratory experiments, independent of initial observations made in nature. Later on, those lab-observed processes may be observed in nature, or may become viable candidates for explaining some as-yet unexplained phenomenon observed in nature. Regarding biochemists having no clue regarding how life began (though I would agree James Tour has no clue), you couldn't be further from the truth. It's not the case that we started looking at meteorites only recently because of not having successful advances in abiogenetic research. We were looking at meteorites long before the science of abiogenesis became a science -- you see, astrophysicists have long been interested in the chemistry that occurs in the universe, and under what conditions it occurs. Progress is being made nearly every day regarding how RNA can self-assemble and act as its own catalyst in producing copies of itself. Abiogenesis is a complex and difficult subject. Good luck understanding it if you ever decide you want to know what we know about it. What's wrong with buying the materials you will be using in your experiments? You buy gas for your car, don't you? No one expects you to refine your own hand-drilled oil to make your own gasoline. Regarding your last sentence, the simplest cell we know about occurs naturally as lipid spheroids in clays. These are almost certainly a precursor to life since they are capable of trapping molecules within that can then react to form more complex molecules. The cells can protect those molecules from destructive environmental forces. Several theories show how chemical evolution can take place within these cells whereby natural selection leads to a large abundance of the longer lasting chemical constructions and processes. On this point, you could theoretically trace your lipid cell membranes all the way back to before the appearance of self-reproducing RNA. Your cell membranes are directly linked back to those original clays, before life as we know it began. It could be argued that you are a chimera, having 2 independent hereditary pathways: One traces back to the first RNA; the other independently traces back to the first cell membranes.

[@madmax2976]

As a hopeful agnostic, I like the idea of there being some purpose and intention behind the reality we observe. But I can't help but be dismayed at the bone-headed incompetence that is required to confuse abiogenesis (origin of life) with the theory of evolution (development of life). These are two VASTLY different scientific endeavors that any good junior high science student wouldn't conflate and the fact that these guys do so anyway just undermines any scientific credibility they might have otherwise had. The General theory of evolution is in no danger of being repudiated whatsoever - and no, poo-pooing about it on social media platforms doesn't count and never will. If it were to be refuted, it would be done by discovering new data, running new experiments, and making new predictions. In other words, it would be done in the lab, it would be done by making new discoveries and it would be done by publishing scientific papers which would be reviewed by experts in the appropriate fields and which would need to stand up to intense scrutiny. These guys aren't submitting any papers. They aren't submitting their findings for peer review. They're not even trying. The same goes for their ideas regarding abiogenesis; throwing your hands up and declaring "It's just too complicated, we don't understand it, it could never happen" is NOT a scientific approach to anything.

[@pronewbofficial]

I am a Christian, and I agree with you. I recommend you watch "This Video DESTROYS All of the Latest 'Proof' of Evolution" by Answers in Genesis. I would link the video, but KZbin likes to hide comments that have links. It's an obviously biased source of information, and obviously an over-the-top title, but I like how he goes through some pieces of evidence one by one. I remember being taught a few of them in high school. The channel has many videos that have a well-researched and logically sound (and often valid) approach.

[@mmaimmortals]

mad max Your complaint is irrational. GToE requires that life start with a single cell organism. From that starting point, NS is supposed to take over to get us to today. The point of this discussion and the general association of abiogenesis to evolution is to demonstrate that life DID NOT start out as a single cell. It could not have because that is not chemically possible. If life did not start as a single cell then the entire GToE is useless.