Episode 12.2/13: Cell Construction & Assembly Problem // A Course on Abiogenesis by Dr. James Tour

[@tookymax]

Thank you Jesus for this man. He has become one of your greatest warriors. This goes beyond any ficticious super hero that Hollywood has ever thought of. Keep up your great work and please protect and bless Dr. Tour. Amen

[@allenl8322]

Amen!

[@charlesbennett9146]

Excellent presentation, and series. Thank you, Professor, for bringing such a insightful and thought-provoking series to this audience. I am deeply grateful for your work on this and many other projects.

[@concernedcivilcitizen8780]

Wow! What an exposition of Abiogenesis explained exhaustively! I have learn so much from this series, even though at time it was like hearing Mandarin being spoken. I slowly began to learn the terms, enough so, that in time, I could follow these lectures well. Thanks Dr. Tour. I am a big fan!

[@Elohim_Gadol]

God Bless you Brother 🙏 You doing excellent work for the Millennium Kingdom!!! Saving many youth from evolution idolatry.

[@sanderossi8013]

The whole series, but this video in particular, is literaly a diamond found on youtube. Just amazing. I’ve watched this video three times now. And the third time I understood why even if you have all parts of a dead simple life form in a petri dish, you’ll never get it back to life because of: the interactome. I envision the interactome to be like a running engine compared to a pile of engine parts.

[@richardbristol452]

Having watched this entire series-several of the installments more than once-I can say the there is simply nothing else like it anywhere. Bravo, Dr. Tour, on an incredible achievement! I don’t even care about ‘professor’ what’s his name any longer. At this point, he’s irrelevant.

[@lloydolayvar1641]

Enjoyed the series much and learned a few things. I plan to watch the whole series again and again. Thanks so much Dr. Tour.

[@alistairmcmillan7984]

Dear Professor Tour, thank you for your labor of love in proving that life could not possibly be a result (as the dishonest scientists mislead lay people to believe) of time, chance and matter. Actually, anyone who just thinks about it a little could easily reach that conclusion, but you as a scientist have attempted to elucidate the details of the molecular mechanisms of the simplest cells, PROVING that life could ONLY have been created. This is why your detractors turn to insulting and demeaning you, because they have no SCIENCE to disprove what you say. Thank you again and God bless you.

[@johanfick3932]

Absolutely fantastic series of videos Dr. Tour!! Wow!! Your efforts in putting it together, to ask all these important questions and challenge all the assumptions is so appreciated!!

[@markoconnell804]

Love these videos I do. While I am not learning how to do the chemistry I am learning what the definitions mean when people use these terms. I am learning how wonderfully made an actual living cell is. I am learning what the different chemist do in steps to attempt to make targeted molecules. I am learning the problems of molecule degradation. I am learning about stereogenic centers and how more of them greatly complicates the chemistry and more.

[@Sensorium19]

Thank you for producing this series, Dr. Tour. I feel that you have very much improved my understanding of the essential chemistry of life. Likewise you have re-enforced my commitment to following the details and doing the legwork before making conclusions.

[@esmirhodzic981]

Mr.Tour is the BOSS, a great man. I just dont have enough great words to describe this man.

[@esmirhodzic981]

@@settledown444 may god have mercy upon you and lead you on a straight path...

[@spalding1968]

Tremendous stuff Dr Tour . I understand that “ professor Dave “ is in the act of composing a response to these series of videos from Dr Tour . This is exactly what should happen . The back and forth should sift out the science so that everyone benefits from the interaction . This was never meant to be a “beat down “ on “professor Dave” . Although so far it has turned out to be one ....

[@marks.8823]

A Sincere Congratulations, Dr. Tour!! WELL DONE !!

[@tarastorinson6014]

That was really a big job. Thank You, Dr Tour, for your efforts to bring some light to this topic.

[@minimum20mins]

Can we get Dave to say some more stupid stuff so we can have another series ? Thank you Dr Tour for your hard work and time. Jesus Christ is Lord.

[@Draezeth]

He's working on a rebuttal. I very much hope Dr. Tour will respond to that too.

[@sombodysdad]

@@Draezeth Too funny. The "rebuttal" will be "Dr. Tour is a poo-poo head"

[@charlesannor9334]

Don't kill me with laughter 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@Programm4r]

@@Draezeth Lol, Dave doesn't have a life. Tour isn't going to go back and forth endlessly with Dave. The challenge is on the table!

[@Draezeth]

@@Programm4r Dave came out with his response now. I don't agree with everything he says, but if it does one thing, it's that it really clarifies his point. I was solidly in Dr. Tour's camp after watching his series, but Dave made some very solid points, to where I can't say that anymore. I still agree with Tour's conclusion- life couldn't arise spontaneously- but I think his arguments are flawed. Give Dave's video a watch with an open mind.

[@GerryStilton]

Dr. Tour, you can be such a great apologist purely from the scientific angle, what a great refute of those "genius" minds! And thank you for sharing the videos. May God be praised and honored.

[@michaelthompson8548]

Hey Dr Tour, I hope you take a bit of time for yourself - sounds like your throat's needing a rest. Take care, keep safe - the world needs to hear this truth!

[@patrickedgington5827]

Thankyou for the work you have done in presenting this series of videos Dr. Tour and I hope some of those who make videos will benefit from your efforts. I was often aware of your frustration throughout and wanted to say Yashua has not been taken by surprise. These are spoken of in scripture. Even God is unable to reach them and so has turned them over to their own ends. So, while you try and for the sake of us all I am glad you have; I think we must have reasonable expectations. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves

[@terrytaerum7087]

I find the exposition by Dr. James Tour on abiogenesis to be insightful but I skip over the parts of the videos where Dr. Tour reviews what his detractors have to say about James Tour. I found Dr. Tour's lectures on chiral induced spin selectivity to be particularly interesting and his insights on sugars/carbohydrates in living organisms has made me realize there is more to "life" than DNA and polypeptides. This is not to suggest that an abiogenesis route won't be found but it's apparent we are presently very much in the dark.

[@thedaintyprincejbr3176]

At this point it is just like beating a dead corpus, completly unnecessary....... but i love it 😂.

[@godexists2177]

The number of scientific papers in this series is amazing. All these years I had no idea. 😁

[@godexists2177]

@@settledown444 Tim you always stop replying when it comes to specifics.

[@thedaintyprincejbr3176]

@@godexists2177 that is Dave himself undercover and that is his style... He just likes to use red herring arguments and then run away.

[@thedaintyprincejbr3176]

@@settledown444 why should he write anything about the topic when he can follow their chemistry and its interpretation supports his claim. It gives even more credit to his critique because you can't say his prejudice affected his results. And he doesn't say they are clueless in their chemistry... they are clueless about Ool and they hype their results so does the media.

[@godexists2177]

@@thedaintyprincejbr3176 That's really sad if it's true.

[@roberttormey4312]

I just wish I had the popcorn concession for Dr. Tours talks.

[@KenJackson_US]

Maybe you could help us out there, @@TheKrautKontrol. How did Dr.Tour embarrass himself?

[@KenJackson_US]

Wow, @@TheKrautKontrol! You're *extremely* arrogant to suggest that _you_ know chemistry better than Dr.Tour. Do you even have a chemistry degree? *Karl:* _"... conflating the chemistry is done in the lab with how it happens in nature, ..."_ It sounds like you *totally* missed the point. _He_ is the one who is sounding the alarm that OoL researchers are reporting the work *they* did *in their labs* as if it's _any_ indication of pre-biotic earth. Over and over he reads published professional OoL research papers to us. In their own words, they admit they're using pristine pure chemicals and procedures that are *totally* different than the early earth but they're reporting what they did as if it's progress in understanding what happened on the early earth. *Karl:* _"... generally trying to make the science fit the belief."_ Step back and try to get rid of your bias. He's clearly trying to *clarify* what the OoL crowd is reporting and how extremely unhelpful (and maybe dishonest) it is.

[@KenJackson_US]

@@TheKrautKontrol: _"If science can prove tomorrow that there was no spontaneous origin of live, ..."_ Did you think that was his goal? One step at a time. He was just illustrating the chemistry that OoL researchers are conducting and explaining to us average folk why it's so problematic. He's in a position to have a much greater understanding of what they're reporting than you or I ever will. Yes, he is clarifying. No, he's not _"dishonest"._ But you're kind of dishonest to call him dishonest for clarifying the problems with OoL research.

[@KenJackson_US]

@@TheKrautKontrol: _"I merely pointed out how little of a bias I have."_ Oh my. Well it didn't work. You've convinced me that you *WANT* life to have popped out of non-life so bad that you're willing to look past shoddy chemistry and write dismissively of anyone who illuminates that shoddiness.

[@KenJackson_US]

@@TheKrautKontrol: _"For one, life did not "pop out of non-life" by any stretch of the imagination, ..."_ You got that right! You probably haven't given much thought about how you think it happened either. How do you get the information, including the ability to reproduce, the membrane and the capability to use energy all at once? It can't start "evolving" until you have all three, all at once. In the mean time, the condensation reaction doesn't tend to form in water. So where did the initial proteins come from? But then once you had some proteins, who encoded them in DNA (or RNA) so they could reproduce?

[@Mr_J_Brown]

It’s over, it’s over!! thank you Dr Tour

[@Josdamale]

This is a quote from an article by Education Week dated March 06, 2019 on the credentials of Dave Farina: "Farina, who taught in high school and undergraduate classrooms for 10 years before turning into a KZbinr, received a bachelor’s degree in chemistry from Minnesota’s Carleton College and a master’s in chemistry and science education at California State University. His career included a full-time position teaching chemistry, biology, and physics at a private school in Hollywood, and substitute teaching in the San Francisco Bay Area, before transitioning to lecturing at a trade university." However, this is not accurate. This is another example of media hype. Dave actually never finished the Master's program, though he made two attempts. According to Dave, on his first attempt, he dropped out to play music in a band, and on his second attempt, he lost his job teaching undergraduate chemistry at SCUHS, and could not continue his Masters. Therefore, his highest academic credentials are a Bachelor degree in chemistry from Carleton college, and he taught an undergraduate course for about 4 semesters (approximately 2 years) at a private college called the Southern California University of Health Sciences, which offers two year degrees. One should note, however, that Dave does claim on his website that he is currently pursuing a Masters degree in education. Nevertheless, Dave would not be qualified to lecture undergraduate level chemistry without a Masters degree in chemistry.

[@Joh2n]

Personally I think all you need is high school chemistry to conclude soup to cell is preposterous.

[@Draezeth]

I wish Dave well. Pursuing a Master's, myself, and I can't imagine that failing twice can be easy. I'm happy for him that he's making a living on KZbin in spite of these bumps along the road. I wish he was more critical of his own views, and generally that he was a nicer person, but I pray that God may bless him.

[@ForeverBleedinGreen]

Eff Farina! He's nothing but a shill and a liar!

[@RG-ds7ob]

Thank you so much Dr. Tour for doing this.

[@Bussjar]

A week ago , Dave said he will interview Donna blackmond. Last pisode 11 Tour referenced Donna, Dave is in big trouble. He will need an army.

[@barthutto5869]

Dave has nowhere to turn. Dave owes Tour, including Dave's own KZbin community, an apology for misreading not only Tour, but for misrepresenting the science. If Dave can overcome this psychological hurdle and publicly and visibly admit his wrongs, he will gain respect. Until then, he has no respect.

[@godexists2177]

Dave needs to write his own paper to defend himself. Lol

[@Melkor3001]

I have a sneaky feeling Tour held back completing the whole series to gauge objections he could address in his recently filmed final few episodes. I might be wrong but this Donna Blackmond thing seems like too much of a coincidence. Either way, it's a stroke of terrible timing from little Davey boy or a stroke of genius on Tour's part.

[@barthutto5869]

@@Melkor3001 I'd go with both "a stroke of genius" from the Tour camp and "a failed attempt at straw grasping" from Communicator Dave.

[@corneliusteslaru9450]

@@barthutto5869 careful there with the word "genius", referring both to the origin of the word and overpraising a human being instead of our Lord Yeshua! Otherwise, I'd agree with both points. It also is likely Donna found out that Dave's bottom is kind of burning and he's trying to save it by dragging into the story a bigger name than his own. But not much of a point guessing anyway. For what we know- our Lord GOD has outplayed the enemy of human kind once again via using His vessel to do a needed job.

[@CarlMCole]

I'm getting an education in synthetic chemistry just from watching these videos ! Nice.

[@SnakePlissken1]

I Love you Jim! A Noble Prize awaits you! Your smarter than a prebiotic earth! No Dave is a Dope! GOD can do it! GOD is Great!!!

[@canyonboy9]

Scanning through the comments I see ad hominim attacks but little attack on the content ... Thanks Dr Tour for all this explanation and analysis concerning abiogenesis. My conclusion is that of course there is a reason for life coming from non life but the naturalistic explanations are not viable.

[@rh45sth62]

Agreed, all the atheists have (and cling to) are nothing more than unprovable suppositions, 'dressed up' in eloquent language and scientific terminology. Dr Tour is exposing this in minute detail.

[@moses777exodus]

A person does Not need to have a Phd (or even an undergraduate degree) to question the validity of the Abiogenesis Hypothesis, or any hypothesis. As long as people have an understanding of basic scientific principles, common sense, and open mindedness to seek the truth, they can come to a more accurate conclusion for themselves. Basic Science 101: Wikipedia 2021, “A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the SCIENTIFIC METHOD requires that one can TEST IT … Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is NOT the same as a scientific theory.” Hypothesis is also referred to as a Hypothetical or Educated GUESS. Wikipedia 2021, "In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process ARE STILL UNKNOWN, the prevailing scientific HYPOTHESIS is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event [i.e. spontaneous generation]... There are several principles and HYPOTHESES for how abiogenesis COULD HAVE occurred." One of the reasons that abiogensis is merely a "hypothesis" and has not advanced to the status of being a "scientific theory", is that abiogenesis hypotheses still lack the experimental data required by the scientific method. Abiogenesis Hypothesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times.

[@rh45sth62]

@@Leszek.Rzepecki A miracle is a supernatural event, if we could explain it, then it wouldn't be a much of a miracle would it ? We do know that Jesus performed many miracles and sometimes these events were witnessed by thousands of people (e.g the feeding of the 5000). The accounts given in the 4 gospels are based on eye witness testimony by people who either saw these miracles, or were directly involved. Of course eye witness testimony is routinely used in courts of law as 'evidence'. Luke, a doctor, and who wrote the 3rd Gospel as well as the book of Acts, actually investigated the accounts recorded in the first 2 gospels to see they did in fact happen. Jesus performed such miracles to glorify God the Father, as undeniable evidence of his devine nature, and out of love and compassion for the afflicted such as the blind and the lepers. His miracles also fulfilled prophecy. We therefore cannot claim that God has never shown himself to us, and he actually told the world in advance in the old testament, that he would appear among us in the person of Jesus Christ. Even the enemies of Jesus acknowledged he performed these miracles, they just didn't want to accept the power to do these things came from God. Instead they essentially accused him of witchcraft. No, we can't explain how these miracles occurred, just as Isaac Newton couldnt fully explain gravity - we just know that God, who created the Universe and authored life, is quite capable of suspending his own laws of nature as and when he sees fit to allow or perform a miracle.

[@rh45sth62]

@@Leszek.Rzepecki I used to think that too, for the first 27 years of my life.

[@rh45sth62]

@@Leszek.Rzepecki Well, as a former atheist, all I can say my friend is, keep an open mind. "For everyone that asks, receives; and he that seeks, finds; and to him that knocks, it shall be opened" (Matthew 7.8)

[@asleepnolongerengland]

I wish I had a chemistry teacher like you back in school, Im starting to wish I had pursued chemistry knowing all I know now, and you make it so very interesting thank you.

[@rays1man892]

I love the challenge you gave chemists to get "the prize". That demonstrates abiogenesis chemists have not only failed to make progress, but the need has accelerated with knowledge of the integrated cellular systems even with the building blocks present. And it still doesn't take away from the lack of progress on getting the building blocks together in one place.

[@msterious8537]

Lots of Creationists have made bogus "challenges" to science as a rhetorical ploy. Dr. Tour's silly grandstanding is no different. It's certainly his right to make a fool of himself in such a fashion. It's everyone in science's right to laugh at his religious antics then ignore him.

[@adagietto2523]

Superb series, I'll certainly be watching many of these videos over again.

[@gualbertojardim6758]

Just for this video series on the origin of life,by Dr. James Tour I would recommend the NOBEL prize. James Tour is winning on fighting a big lie that has misled science and cientists and ultimately its setting back all different fields of the origin of live research.

[@Draezeth]

I don't disagree, but I kind of wish we would stop throwing around "Nobel Prize" so casually.

[@gualbertojardim6758]

@@Draezeth well,James Tour is having a lot work to wipe out a world wide big lie. He can do it because he's a world authority on Chemistry and molecular synthetic. He nows what is thrue and what is not in this chemistry world. He's helping the world to see light on this matters. Hes the only one as I'm aware who's rederectioning science and cientists to a thrue path by exposing all the lies. He's of capital importance.

[@6thgen002]

Dr. Tour dropping the mic 🎤 like a boss

[@moses777exodus]

The honorable thing for Prof Dave to do would be to admit his error and offer Dr. Tour a sincere and true apology.

[@BibleResearchTools]

Tim H, you wrote, "The honorable thing for Tour to do is stop lying about and misrepresenting OOL research because it contradicts his religious beliefs and apologize to everyone for being so disingenuous." Tim, no offense, but you must the the dumbest person on the planet. You make "professor" Dave look intelligent, which, until you showed up, was an impossible task. Dan

[@Thisismetman]

@@settledown444 Tim H is Fake Professor Dave or one of his friends. Dave is to afraid to comment himself, what a noob!

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

@@settledown444 Cite 3 Lies he has told, with sources.

[@BibleResearchTools]

Tim H, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools Nah, if you want to see the dumbest person on the planet go look in a mirror." Did you think that up all by yourself, Tim? Dan

[@reality4330]

Atheists don’t have the necessary morality to do what you suggest

[@moses777exodus]

A person does Not need to have a Phd (or even an undergraduate degree) to question the validity of the Abiogenesis Hypothesis, or any hypothesis. As long as a person has an understanding of basic scientific principles, common sense, and open mindedness to seek the truth, they can come to a more accurate conclusion for themselves. Basic Science 101: Wikipedia 2021, “A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the SCIENTIFC METHOD requires that one can TEST IT … Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is NOT the same as a scientific theory.” Hypothesis is also referred to as a Hypothetical or Educated GUESS. Wikipedia 2021, "In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process ARE STILL UNKNOWN, the prevailing scientific HYPOTHESIS is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event [i.e. spontaneous generation]... There are several principles and HYPOTHESES for how abiogenesis COULD HAVE occurred." One of the reasons that abiogensis is merely a "hypothesis" and has not advanced to the status of being a "scientific theory", is that abiogenesis hypotheses still lack the experimental data required by the scientific method. Abiogenesis Hypothesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times.

[@reality4330]

Hypothesis for evolutionism also has been proven ZERO ( 0 ) times !!!!!! Odd that you only showed bias against truth which shows your atheism worldview

[@cephasbethlehem5687]

So does evolution. I can’t see why a theory is considered founded when the literal definition of the world means it’s still an assumption. I mean that’s why there are scientific theories and scientific laws. Anyway thank you for the info

[@bolapromatoqueejogodecampe8718]

@@reality4330 Moses Exodus is not an atheist. Read his other posts.

[@gathuckle2661]

This is a serious subject that I do take seriously, but every time the person in the cited video puts his foot in his mouth I laugh out loud. That life appeared spontaneously is a very funny idea. Also, impossible as Dr. Tour has so forcefully pointed out. The code of life did not and could not have written itself.

[@tookymax]

God bless Dr. Tour

[@markoconnell804]

About the code, I have shared with a friend of mine. I have stated it this way, “ stupid atoms can’t write code.”

[@jeremybeavon4476]

@@markoconnell804 Intelligent humans aren't that flash hot at writing code either. :)

[@moses777exodus]

Science is suppose to be a “Search for the Truth”. Unfortunately, in today’s society, as with virtually all other fields of human endeavor, “Science” has been corrupted by profit, politics, and ideological agenda where misinformation and disinformation proliferate.

[@johnknight3529]

@@Leszek.Rzepecki ~ It's weird how faith in the great god of bit by bit bestows such mind reading capabilities on you faithful one's. It's almost like magic ; )

[@davidh6513]

I recommend when watching these videos that when Dr. Your repeatedly uses words you don't know, hit the pause button and go google and read and learn new things. I did that with "monoacyl lipids" just now. If you watch this nine hour series in only nine hours you will miss a lot of benefits.

[@mikerodgers7482]

Thanks Dr. Tour!

[@allenl8322]

I wish you were my Chemistry Professor!!! I would be a lot more confident discussing origin of life with evolutionists. I never imagined it was even more difficult than I thought. I love chemistry before but I wish I had got my undergrad in it now. Thank you Dr James!

[@moses777exodus]

A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of a functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. Based on just these two cellular components, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that random chance did not form the cell. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80.)

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

To quote Dr. Michael G Strauss "The Technical Term For This is Not Gonna Happen."

[@BibleResearchTools]

Tim H, you wrote, "Good thing no one in science says or thinks those things happened by random chance then." I do agree that no one in science believes life began by random chance. Only an evolutionist would believe such nonsense. Dan

[@moses777exodus]

@@settledown444 Abiogenesis Hypothesis postulates that undirected random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment.

[@alexandrepereira3902]

Tku for this excellent work… God bless and those you love

[@moses777exodus]

The fact remains that abiogenesis has not met the requirements of the scientific method "process" and is therefore still considered a "hypothesis" by the scientific community. Biogenesis has already passed the process of the scientific method countless times. Abiogenesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times. Pseudoscience is “a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.” By definition, Abiogenesis is classified as “Pseudoscience”.

[@ciarannagle1]

Every chemist and biologist should watch this. It’s breathtaking in its pace and depth and shows how lazy and collusive the rest of the scientific establishment has become.

[@MikeLisanke]

Dr. Tour, I haven't heard you mention the volumetric problem. I know from biochemistry courses at NCSU that a protein Works as an enzyme by limiting the number of waters (solvent) at the active site to stabilize the Transition State. I suspect that even if you allow all the unavailable biotic polymers and moleculers not available prebiotic and put them all in a Too Big test tube that the simple fact they are not in the correct spatial volume and perhap shape (proximity of organelles matters I've been told to folding et. al). That the machine which is a cell would Not spring to life... so these "scientist" have many more problems to resolve I believe! Best regards, Mike

[@richshoemaker4495]

These were all great! Thank you. Soooo helpful!

[@gerardmoloney9979]

It's hard to believe that someone gave a thumbs down to this video. Was that you Dave? Whoever it was, I'm intrigued to hear why you did it. Are you the potential Nobel WINNER 🏆. Or are you hiding UNDER a ROCK SOMEWHERE LOOKING for a life for yourself. It's time you got one!

[@truincanada]

I find myself laughing joyably out loud watching Dr. Tour knowing how ABSOLUTELY FUTILE any suggested arguments proposing that the facts on the origin of life being evolutionary Darwinism. It's better than any Comedy Club episode or complete season of the greatest comedians. Dr. Tour has the armor of God ON. Beautiful man of God. Like a bug hitting a car windshield at 120mph. It's called the Farina instantaneous decomposition to the 10 to the power of 129 affect.

[@douglaslightening545]

Thank you Dr. Tour

[@minimum20mins]

They do say you can't argue with stupid, but I think Dr James Tour has made a fine effort.

[@freightshayker]

This is why fractal images facinated me when I first saw them in math class. As James says: The closer scientists look, the more they see. This is why eternal future will not be boring. Because God doesn't just know some things or a lot of things. Rather Lord Jesus Who is God knows everything. And Father Jesus wants to share His knowlege with those who will humble themselves and be born again of water and Spirit. Go to a man of God who knows the difference between titles baptism and baptism in the name of Lord Jesus Christ

[@randomchannelname24]

Jesus is not the Father while yet being one.

[@freightshayker]

@@randomchannelname24 What does that mean? Because Lord Jesus is the Everlasting Father in Isaiah 9: v6 And there is no Savior next to Lord God in Isaiah 43: v11 And because Isaiah 44: v6 and Revelation 22: v13 both say God is the first and the last. That means there cannot be two different firsts and two different lasts. That's why Lord Jesus says in Revelation that He is Alpha and Omega. The Almighty. Meaning the flesh and blood was not Father God. Rather Father God the invisible Holy Spirit was inside that flesh and blood. And only the flesh and blood died on the cross. The soul nor His Spirit died on the cross. That's why Lord Jesus is Father Jesus. Be sure to ask me about the voice from Heaven during His water baptism and second and separate Spiritual baptism. Be sure to ask me about that if you think Lord Jesus received the Holy Spirit after His what? ... yeah after His water baptism. You see friend. When you deny John the Baptist as being sent ahead of Lord Jesus to start the ... get this ... the water baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And when you deny in Acts 19: v1 thru v7 ... that Paul who re-water baptized those twelve in Ephesus in the name of Lord Jesus ... yeah that Paul who newcomers like you say taught: one faith, one baptism. That Paul who was himself water baptized and went around teaching the true gospel message which is to repent and believe everything Lord Jesus said and did is truth. As in John 3: v5 an Mark 16: v16 ... repent and be born again of water and Spirit. Yeah, when you deny all that ... that's what it means to call upon the name of Lord Jesus ... yet deny the power thereof. Go to a man of God who knows the difference between titles baptism and baptism in the name of Lord Jesus Christ

[@randomchannelname24]

@@freightshayker who said “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” in Matthew 3:17?

[@freightshayker]

@@randomchannelname24 John 12 ... The people therefore that stood by and heard it, said that it thundered. Others said: An ... angel ... spake to Him. Jesus answered and said: This voice came not because of Me but for your sakes. Now is the judgment of this world. Now shall the prince of this world be cast out. Who was cast out from Heaven? ... Lucifer? ... you bet. The voice was there after the water baptism, and over the Mount of Transfiguration, and again over the feast at Jerusalem. Why do you "voice from Heaven" trinitarians always forget about John 12? John 5 ... And the Father Himself which hath sent Me hath borne witness of Me. Ye have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His shape. Why do you "voice from Heaven" trinitarians always forget about John 5? Lord Jesus says in John: He and His Father are one. If you've seen Me, you've seen the Father. Lord Jesus said: Before Abraham was, I am. And that goes hand in hand with Isaiah 43 and John 1 as well as the rest of the Holy Bible. You've been indoctrinated friend. You've been taught that God can know everything ... except ... know what is love apart from other persons. So show us the word "persons, personalities, personhoods, trinity, triune, tri-gods, etc" ... show us those words in 1 John 5: v7 an v8. You cannot, you insert words that are not in the text. Meaning I can just as easily insert the words "things, aspects, qualities" into those same verses. Lord Jesus is the second Adam. Meaning Adam was formed from the dust. Then God breathed His breath of life into Adam's nostrils. Meaning gave Adam a measure of the Holy Spirit. Then Adam became a living soul. According to Apostle John, Lord Jesus was given the Spirit without measure. He was born of water, blood and Spirit. Lord Jesus says: All authority in Heaven and earth has been given to Him. So Father God is not just a disembodied Spirit. Father God is inside that flesh and blood. That's why Father God is the hypostatic union of God and man. Immanuel. God with us. You will not remain a trinitarian and get into Heaven my friend. Sorry. Matthew 22 is explict about a believer who remains speechless because he is questioned by King Jesus as to why he's missing his wedding garment. That speechless friend is bound hand and foot, and cast into outer darkness. Go to a man of God who knows the difference between titles baptism and baptism in the name of Lord Jesus Christ

[@randomchannelname24]

@@freightshayker wow no answer, the darkness has not overcome the light. The truth can answer a simple question with coherence. Why did you write 100 lines to avoid one simple question about one verse from Matthew? You should listen to me as your god, since Jesus is the son and we have been made sons as well, according to your horrific logic.

[@Desireeleathergoods]

Thank you, you fought the good fight 🙏

[@markoconnell804]

So the known unknowns have grown much faster than the known knowns on what is needed in creating a single living cell.

[@moses777exodus]

Abiogenesis Hypothesis ‘may be’ seen as a modern derivative of the Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis (i.e. the common fundamental premise being life arising from non-living matter), one of the main differences being the supposed timeframes of each experimentally unproven process. Generally, the Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis speculated that living organisms spontaneously emerged from non-living matter through an undirected / unguided natural process. And, Abiogenesis hypothesizes that undirected random natural processes caused molecules to form into biological life by random chance over the span of billions of years. Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis was believed to be ‘fact’ for almost 2000 years, until it was scientifically disproved by experiments from such scientists as Louis Pasteur in the 1800's. From Wikipedia 2021, "In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process ARE STILL UNKNOWN, the prevailing scientific HYPOTHESIS is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event [i.e. spontaneous generation]... There are several principles and HYPOTHESES for how abiogenesis COULD HAVE occurred." One of the reasons that abiogensis is merely a "hypothesis" and has not advanced to the status of being a "scientific theory", is that abiogenesis hypotheses still lack the experimental data required by the scientific method. Abiogenesis Hypothesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times.

[@moses777exodus]

Abiogenesis Hypothesis postulates that undirected random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment.

[@MariaOliveira-pt6mq]

Thank you for another great video!!!

[@SnakePlissken1]

Home Run Jim (Awesome Video).

[@ronaldo101000]

The last 20 minutes were so inspiring thanks dr tour

[@msterious8537]

The last part where he advises science students to not take up OOL life studies because the problem is just too hard to solve is utterly despicable. Imagine Dr. Tour saying that to potential researchers for a cure for cancer or a cure for Alzheimer's. If Dr. Tour wants to be a coward and hide in the shadows throwing rocks that's his choice but to actively try to undermine scientific research is as repugnant and unprofessional as it gets. Dr. Tour should have his degrees rescinded and be kicked out of professional science for that horrific attack alone.

[@ronaldo101000]

@@msterious8537 you missed his point so entirely! I bet you don't agree with his scientific work etc?

[@ronaldo101000]

@@derhafi but you have it all figured out right? Rob Davis has all the answers.

[@michaelportaloo1981]

@@ronaldo101000 Rob hasn't worked out yet that methodical naturalism is based upon assumption and not fact. He thinks it's 'reality'.

[@john-giovannicorda3456]

@@derhafi Let's stop with the media saying "Oh isn't this wonderful" re: OOL findings that are based on half baked assumptions. Oh? You say take it up with the media? But it is overzealous scientists who leak out their "not quite" scientific "findings". What James Tour does is point out where the OOL science methodology "skips" over proper testing of derived samples when NEW MAN MADE SAMPLES (using specialized high tech equipment with painstaking care ) are then inserted into the testing. That is not exactly accurate for showing "Natural OOL" is it. But, like when bacteria (prokaryotes) are said to _"have evolved all the way over to man"_ , it is the only answer you have although it has never been shown to have happened.

[@sentientflower7891]

Excellent video and it is safe to say that no abiogenesis proponent will even attempt a refutation.

[@msterious8537]

There's no need to refute unsupported Creationist propaganda and heavily biased personal opinions. Dr. Tour is entitled to make these ranting screaming videos to give us his personals beliefs. Everyone else in science is entitled to ignore him.

[@sentientflower7891]

@@msterious8537 abiogenesis isn't science per se. Try again.

[@msterious8537]

@@sentientflower7891 Interesting that the world's top science journals like Nature, Science, Cell, etc. have published thousands of papers on the topic in the last 20+ years. I suppose since you're a Creationist you're blissfully unaware of the professional scientific literature. Creationist argument by reality denial is always so entertaining to watch. 🙂

[@sentientflower7891]

@@msterious8537 the subject of abiogenesis is still a matter of great controversy specifically because it is unsolved and unsolvable.

[@msterious8537]

@@sentientflower7891 Unsolved does not mean unsolvable. Most scientific advances were unsolved at one time - heavier than air flight, nuclear fusion, the cause of the bubonic plague, etc. Only the most craven of cowards throws up his hands and says "this problem is just TOO HARD so we should stop all scientific research on it".

[@rayvillers2688]

Dr. Tour I would hate to see what you would do to someone who you wasted to destroy. I love it and thanks.

[@lesspam6601]

In 2018, the journal published a review article entitled Cause of Cambrian Explosion - Terrestrial or Cosmic? authored by over 30 authors, including Edward J.Steele and Chandra Wickramasinghe, which argued in favour of panspermia as the origin of the Cambrian explosion, [9] and two articles arguing against that position by Keith Baverstock and Karin Mölling, both highly critical of the notion that life had originated elsewhere than on this planet.[10][11] The panspermia article gained widespread derisive press coverage,[12][13][14] and was described by Mark Carnall, a curator at the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, as "pseudoscience and nonsense".[15] - From wikipedia

[@judgementiscoming8016]

16:38 they know life is a miracle 🙏

[@philiphall4805]

its a shame there are not more like Dr Tour in say virology for instance , where are the voices stopping them going down ratholes where there is no useful work ?

[@sanidan2010]

Dr Tour. Have you ever been in contact with Dr. Jonathan Sarfati or Dr. Robert Carter? Would love to see you interview them sometime. Thanks for your testimony and for worshiping the Lord our God with your heart, soul, and mind.

[@sanidan2010]

@@settledown444 I asked Dr Tour and a disrespectful non scientific remark like yours doesn’t belong here. Dr Sarfati is a physical chemist and Dr Carter is a geneticist. To dismiss and use YEC as a slur are unbecoming.

[@sanidan2010]

@@settledown444 Is that a scientific statement or ideological. Anyway Dr Tour interviewed a colleague of Drs Sarfati and Carter, Dr John Sanford. Dr Sanford is inventor of the gene gun and shares views with other scientists who believe in the biblical account of creation. Much more, either view of origins stems from a worldview and is engaged with, at best forensic science. Scientists get their credibility from their practice of science, not from their worldview. The ones who let their worldview compromise their science risk disqualification. If you’ve read or listened to Sarfati, Sanford, and Carter you’d have to acknowledge their commitment to science and the integrity of their worldviews. Charles Lyell, a lawyer and amateur geologist who developed the geological timescale, is quoted as admitting an agenda to free science from Moses. Darwin, a geologist who dabbled in what rudimentary biological knowledge was available at his time, is known to have made grossly incorrect assumptions from his observations. He studied Lyell’s work. I encourage you to honestly and objectively research to abundant literature available to you. You can compare what you see at Creation.com to what you see at biologos or reasons to believe. From what I’ve seen, those who share views with Dr Collins or Dr Ross are the ones compromising both science and biblical truth on the origins issue. However, I’m not going to judge them as incompetent or scientifically disqualified.

[@charlesannor9334]

I love this challenge 🤩

[@MrWarwolf6]

“You’ve done a Mans work sir!”

[@judgementiscoming8016]

Unfortunately telling the truth is kicking against rocks in this damned world

[@Zaaxun]

Alot of people....that have an actual working intellect....already know Dr. Tours amazing knowledge. But if you really want your mind blown, go to his wikipedia page and read through his career achievements and awards. its utterly astounding. Mind boggling. Then you can fully realize his authority to say what he does. For dave and his atheists trolls, you can fully realize your complete incompetence.

[@msterious8537]

LOL! One last appeal to the Argument From Authority fallacy. Dr. Tour is SO SMART he has SO MANY ACCOMPLISHMENTS whatever he says MUST BE THE TRUTH!! 😎

[@Melkor3001]

@@msterious8537 Yet, if he had no qualifications you'd be the first to point it out🤭

[@bobgreatwell8279]

@@msterious8537 I'll put my last dollar down that you've never been the subject of an argument from authority have you son? Hm? Get back in your box and stop whining, sunshine.

[@vironpayne3405]

Ka-BOOOOM! Unfortunately, the Prof. Daves of the world live in the backwaters of real experimental peer reviewed science like Japanese soldiers on remote islands after WWII and the don't know that the Atomic bomb was dropped decades ago yeilding "Internation Peace Day" and VJ-Day. I started following this mess in the 1990s and I realized that since the 1960s the goal post were moving further away. I thank Prof. James Tour, A.E. Wilder-Smith, Hugh Ross, and others.

[@Josdamale]

I want to know why OOL researchers are making such an issue of how life arises from a pre-biotic sterile barren rock desert, when the planet earth is currently full of biochemicals in the soils and water systems. Why can't we see life arising from non-living nature that is saturated with biochemicals? Surely that should be happening throughout the history of the planet since life supposedly originated from the lifeless soup? Why is this process not on-going? Why is this process not greatly assisted by biochemicals everywhere? But that aside, if scientists cannot create life from non-living matter in a lab using all the chemicals and biochemicals in the periodic table at their disposal, then how can they imagine a pre-biotic earth or outer space could do this? These two issues strike me as obvious.

[@adolfocaceres5191]

Life is more of put things together, a dead body contains all the elements for live but something is missing (the spirit) that make thinks happen

[@Melkor3001]

To anyone in discussion with Dave on his own video, log out of your account and check if your replies are still there - he ghost blocks you! Your replies or comments will only appear to yourself but no one else. I'm seeing so many posts where he has 1 response and the final word, which is suspicious to say the least. I know because I've created multiple accounts to keep posting (9 in fact, yes I'm that sad) but he's blocked them all with his relentless echo chamber maintenance program and scientific cowardice.

[@corneliusteslaru9450]

Let me check, thx for the suggestion!

[@corneliusteslaru9450]

You're right, looks like I'm blocked also. I've posted your summary if you remember- nowhere to be seen if logged out.

[@Melkor3001]

Thought so. No one is aware of it. I remember thinking it strange that Dave was giving me the last word but no, my last word never appeared and think many others are getting censored too.

[@corneliusteslaru9450]

@@Melkor3001 Well, now we know thx to you and it is true- that makes a lot of sense about the last word. I thought he just backed off in the lack of counterarguments from the actual science brought in, but it turns out he just blocks users for no decent reason.

[@danielfromca]

And then he shamelessly turns around and calls Dr. Tour dishonest & a charlatan, while all the time it appears he's been silencing (respectful) opposing views. So much for his commitment to truth and scientific discourse, and what hypocrisy at his denouncing Dr. Tour of the same thing, it turns out, he himself is pretty guilty of.

[@mrbiyiha]

These video series changed my view on all the space documentaries I have been watching since childhood. In the documentaries, they claim they found hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and amino acid on some exotic planet, and therefore "voila" there is life. Dr. Tour says great, how do you assemble those to form information relevant for life. They are clueless.

[@theophilusmann7869]

New Nickname: Prof. James Tour De Force

[@saphiregem1275]

Who thought science would be so fun to listen to.

[@Melkor3001]

Professor Dave's inaccuracies so far: (The best of...) 1. Use of the word Biochemistry. Whilst biochemists do study OoL and some biochemicals did exist before life, there was no biochemistry occuring in prebiotic reactions, just plain dead chemistry. Hence the field - prebiotic chemistry and the meaning of the word abiogenesis (origin without biology/non-biological origin). It's a contradiction of terms. It was strictly chemistry. (Anyone who disagrees with this, show me the biochemistry occuring before life began.) 2. Entropy/Thermodynamics argument is an ignorant fallacy?? - a great decrease in entropy WITH a great increase in energy, needed for life, has never ever been observed in the universe without HELP (Dr Brian Miller PhD - expert in thermodynamics), it is a physical impossibility if unaided. Therefore, the examples of ice and soap, order arising (entropy decreasing) from a decrease in energy (driven by nature's preference for a lower energy equilibrium state) as a rebuttal for the argument based upon the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a straw man, it is missing half of the argument. (Anyone who dismisses Dr Miller because he believes in God, prove he is scientifically wrong...) 3. Hype is from the media, NOT the scientists?? - Completely false, Tour's whole video addresses this. Hype can be from the scientists themselves and in many cases the media do consult with them prior to publishing their work, hence they are culpable in this too. Dave has never published a peer reviewed paper so he would not know the intricate details of how this works. (See episode 3 for references) 4. Dave's homochirality assessment is riddled with errors - Tour analysed he actual paper and the SLIGHT excess of asparagine (said in the video) was actually greater than 99% asparagine, an important detail. The enantiomeric excess wasn't pure, for Phe it had a max of 22% of the remaining 1%, a terrible efficiency. The supernatant would've been practically racemic. The data for other amino acids reveals a broad spread of ee % for both D and L forms, leading the authors to conclude this is just as likely to produce a racemic aftermath as a result, not a homochiral one (from the conclusion of the actual paper). 5. Carbohydrates - Dave states in his video that polysaccharides are repeating units of the SAME monomer, this is utterly false! Many different monomers can make up polysaccharides. Also, use of the word TRICKY in their synthesis is a gross understatement worth mentioning, which Tour goes on to explain in some detail. 6. Any biomolecule is easy to synthesize?? A grossly ridiculous statement. They are hard to synthesize, especially in homochiral form even using ACTIVATE D building blocks taken from nature, side chain protection and removal.. which is common procedure. 7. Primordial soup belief and Honest Talking points - Dave states "to call [seeing a primordial soup of molecules, some lightening and then all of a sudden a cell is there, then maybe a lizard crawling onto land or something like that] a complete view of abiogenesis and evolution would be absurd, but absolutely no one proposes this." Dave states Tour is making a dishonest talking point here, however, Tour shows a video where Lee Cronin (OoL expert) said that Justin Brierley's GCSE [high school] education on his very thing - i.e. "A few lightening strikes and then 'poof!' a cell forms" - was 'not too bad at all". Dr Tour also showed a survey of 697 people, 80% of whom have college degrees, and of this group, ~73% believed scientists researching OoL have created simple life forms via mixing prebiotic chemicals. Therefore 1) it is indeed an honest talking point and 2) Dave's statement "absolutely no one proposes this" has evidence that highly suggests otherwise. (Thanks Bart) 8. Polymer regeneration fallacy. Dave proposed a constant equilibrium reaction to continuously regenerate proteins and RNA from their respective monomers and their even smaller building blocks to overcome Tour's point of molecular degradation over time. This has many catastrophic problems, here's just 3: 1) The equilibrium value would have to be 1 for the required formation/degredation balance. Most reactions do not work like this, it's a thermodynamic fallacy to presume so. The product with the lower energy state is favoured, tipping it's equilibrium one way or the other, not a nice perpetual regeneration. 2) Even ignoring this, many other reactions will occur, not just the desired polymerization. Without side chain protection, racemic, branched JUNK is inevitable. 3) Even ignoring 1 and 2, The polymer needs to be of meaningful sequence to be useful, otherwise it's JUNK! Regeneration of the SAME meaningful sequence is astronomically low - this is before self-replication, therefore anything of potential use would just degrade, likely never to be reproduced. 9. Proteins (could have, may, perhaps) possibly... formed in the ocean. Condensation reactions extremely ineffective in water, the equilibrium drives the reaction backwards, back to amino acids, any proteins break down or are blocked from forming due to the zwitterionic nature of amino acids. Homochirality is bereft of an explanation. 10. His misleading, illinformed slide showing ribonucleotides polymerizing over hot clay is TORN TO SHREDS by Dr Tour. It all looks so easy according to Dave. However.... 1) No prebiotic route to ribose for the starting materials. 2) The clay and the procedure is a prebiotic joke, neither would occur. (Centrifuge 3500rpm??) 3) HOT clay considering the instability of RNA above minus 80??? 4) Catastrophic polymerization problems - wrong linkages causing termination 5) Getting the thing off the clay is even unprebiotic. 11. Cell membranes (Dave "grabbing things out of the air and proclaiming it from the rooftops") Dave's postulated lipid monolayer for protocells is unfounded and is not demonstrated as viable ANYWHERE in the scientific literature and has never been shown to exist. The postulated lipid bilayers devoid of protein gateways or proton gradients would just act as a TOMB for anything inside that may have miraculously formed. Also, the complex non-symmetric bilayers necessary for life do not form spontaneously. 12. Lipids - The spontaneous origin of fatty acids from hydrothermal vents is highly disputed, more likely deriving from oil products of biological origin. Even if we give you the fatty acids.. Salad dressing won't suffice Dave! Lipids made from simple fatty acids are unable to maintain proton gradients essential for life - phospholipids must've been there from the beginning. See episode 10 for their implausible origin. 13. Homochirality1- Given the terrible ee% excess in Dave's example, to stand any chance of leading to homochirality, it would need an exemplary prebiotically relevant autocatalytic reaction inducing enantiomeric amplification. One has never ever been discovered! The only known reaction to do this is the Soai reaction, however, this is - 1) Prebiotically irrelevant 2) Nowhere near efficient enough 3) Nowhere near persistent enough. (Donna Blackmond) How did proteins become homochiral when there's no prebiotically relevant route ever shown to make the amino acids in homochiral form, or to separate the enantiomers, or to polymerize them? 14. Homochirality2 - Dave claims homochirality could've arrived after life began... Baseless. Implausible. Unscientific. There is no evidence for claimed racemic mixtures (no homochirality) being usable in cells. They have never been shown to function based on the reaction specificities, yields and heat management that would be needed for cellular systems (see CISS in episode 11). Dave suggested this for lipids but VAST numbers of electron transfers take place in lipid bilayer membranes, so it's baseless to dismiss the need for lipid homochirality (see CISS). 15. Dave gets his abiogenesis information from Wikipedia (at best) but more than likely from the Sunday tabloids or his local gazette. When (if) referencing peer reviewed papers, his source material rarely ventures past the abstract of any given paper. If not study the entire paper, at least read it's conclusions which usually provide a more balanced assessment than the abstract. Come on Dave, do your homework!

[@rh45sth62]

What a fantastic summary !👏

[@Melkor3001]

@@rh45sth62 Ah thanks! There's more to come😂

[@MikeLisanke]

Dr Tour, 1st I

[@NormBaker.]

I see Dave sends his troll friends over here to badmouth Tour. To be expected.

[@bolapromatoqueejogodecampe9353]

Yep. So true. They come in with lots of blind faith in evolution, and zero evidence to back the claim that it occurred.

[@godexists2177]

@sydney king Why do people insult in intellectual debates? Just present the evidence and you win. Isn't it that simple?

[@NormBaker.]

@sydney king he sure has a lot of Utube accounts then

[@NormBaker.]

@sydney king No.. that implies then that life just starts from nothing. Nothing meaning a chemically sterile Abiogensis environment.

[@spatrk6634]

@sydney king sterile means free from bacteria. in case of abiogenisis it reffers to prebiotic enviroment. not "molecule contamination" you people are clueless about chemistry and science in general. you believe Tour because he confirms your bias. when in reality he is dishonest because he actualy knows better....

[@adelrhouati3261]

"O mankind, a parable has been set forth, so listen to it: indeed, those whom you call upon apart from Allah shall never create a fly, even if they were to band together for that purpose; and if a fly snatches anything from them, they cannot recover it from it. Weak are the pursuer and the pursued"

[@MutsPub]

allah? - Gesundheit?

[@muckerwood]

@@MutsPub One of many idols from history Satan uses to confuse those who might search for Jesus our Savior. "allah" is the current flavor of the month these days.

[@pesmergaserene7988]

I realized the severity of the relay synthesis objection. If someone explains how a pizza is made and make the dough, they must use it. If they switch the dough out and use store bought dough for the next step, it failed and doesn't count. This applies to all cooking processes and many other areas. I cannot think of a real life situation where I accept something like "relay synthesis" as valid. If what you made is not shown to create the final product, it doesn't count. Even if it only happens once, it doesn't count.

[@ProactiveForce]

Thank you !!!

[@SnakePlissken1]

When Dave says Jim is wrong & Jim knows this, implying Jim is Lying. Those are fighting words where I’m from! Name calling is the least I can do! 😊

[@terrytannatt2656]

Hi Snake. Any intelligent person knows, this includes you of course, that when one starts throwing names & ad hominem attacks around they either have no argument or have lost the argument. It probably works for Dave's dumbed down base.

[@Mk-tp2mz]

@@terrytannatt2656 yeah totally Agree and Dave is still promoting his site claiming that he is a Professor. Why wouldn't anyone expect otherwise than for him to be careless with the truth. Have asked him about this. No answer.

[@pythonsob5271]

I think DAVE is devoid of the definition of DATA and INFORMATION .

[@wade5941]

Dave not a bad guy, he just started believing that he actually knew more than Dr. Tour with the subject matter. He doesn't and never will. Dave does a really good job of explaining chemistry basics, but it ends there. He made the mistake of stepping out of his element and doesn't have enough sense to step back.

[@markoconnell804]

On a different video covering ool I posted the following. Did I ask all my questions the right way? How do you keep RNA from degrading in a 24 hour period for at use temperatures when you must keep it at -112* to keep it from degrading? As time passes for the RNA to function is reduced by its instability how is that time sensitive instability overcome in a prebiotic world? Or stated this way, given this time problem what time limited step process is required to bring it from a prebiotic world to a useful functioning RNA? How does a prebiotic world purify to get homochirality forms of the molecules? How does a protein fold up into its proper three dimensional structure in a prebiotic world when the possible ways of folding are near equal to the number of elementary particles in the universe? Since chiral induced spin selectivity makes purification processes power efficient and molecule by molecule selective what mechanism process produced this required structure in sequence to operate at the limits of what Physics says is possible? Where do the interactomes come from that are needed by the RNA and ribosomes within a cell? By what steps are they made and how many different kinds are needed for a first cell to operate? What mechanism is used to divide the cell of these interactomes so that when cell finishes replication all of the interactomes needed are still in each cell? What process is used to make sure both halves are viable? Then what mechanism chooses to flip the separation sequence on thereby pinching the cell into two cells? By what specific process did the functioning codons get made that are in the RNA? Video I posted it on kzbin.info/www/bejne/b5e2mWmrjNeBg6M

[@Melkor3001]

Good luck to anyone trying to answer all that🤣 Makes sense to me.

[@roberttormey4312]

Uexvellent questions but when I went to the link I see no replies posted there at all. What am I doing wrong?

[@markoconnell804]

@@roberttormey4312 you did nothing wrong. There are no replies yet.

[@sandraanderson3001]

Here is my very high level summary of materialism....not meant to be sarcastic as I used to be here. There was nothing Bang Then there was something Somewhere in this new something, a bunch of chemical reactions started and kept going A glob of stuff somehow formed that had the ability to replicate This glob was pretty good at replicating but not perfect so it had errors in replicating....the bad errors lost and good ones won a bunch of time (millions of years....maybe billions) went by and many copy errors occurred....maybe 10 to 50th power (I just made this number up) Then my grandchildren were born with: 40 trillions cells all working in concert with each other 60,000 miles of blood vessels 100 billion neurons 100 trillion brain connections `~ 300 Bones 26 Zettabytes of data....likely much more Amazing immune system and can heal wounds Incredible eyesight Incredible hearing Incredible comprehension Can sing, dance, laugh, cry, think,.....I could go on and on and on. All this was created while my daughter worked and watched TV and ate hamburgers and hot dogs. Every cell and function formed at exactly the right place and time. Easy.....no problem.....easy peazy

[@MutsPub]

That pretty much sums it up. - ha. Thanks. Made me chuckle!

[@sandraanderson3001]

@@derhafi I have no interest in growing up but I do like the comments below from Nobel Prize winning Physicist William Phillips: I see an orderly, beautiful universe in which nearly all physical phenomena can be understood from a few simple mathematical equations. I see a universe that, had it been constructed slightly differently, would never have given birth to stars and planets, let alone bacteria and people. And there is no good scientific reason for why the universe should not have been different. Many good scientists have concluded from these observations that an intelligent God must have chosen to create the universe with such beautiful, simple, and life-giving properties. Many other equally good scientists are nevertheless atheists. Both conclusions are positions of faith. . . . I find these arguments suggestive and supportive of belief in God, but not conclusive. I believe in God because I can feel God’s presence in my life, because I can see the evidence of God’s goodness in the world, because I believe in Love and because I believe that God is Love.

[@Melkor3001]

Nice posts Sandra👍👍

[@Melkor3001]

Have any Tour objectors got any scientific rebuttals to what he is saying?

[@msterious8537]

Dr. Tour hasn't presented any science that needs rebutting. He's offered his personal opinions OOL researchers are all "clueless" and OOL research is all "hype", opinions not shared by anyone in the scientific community. He's also made some rather unprofessional and frankly childish claims OOL research results are "cheating" because the work was done in a lab, by humans, using purchased materials. Sorry but Dr. Tour is the angry crank out swatting at the invisible pixies under the streetlight.

[@Melkor3001]

I won't argue with opinion Andy, you're entitled to your own. I'd only argue that Tour hasn't just offered his opinion, he's explicitly deciphered conjecture with science. His prebiotic objections are absolutely relevant considering the subject matter. A prebiotic setting is absolutely crutial and anything otherwise is irrelevant - OoL researchers even call each other out on the finer details of this.

[@msterious8537]

@@Melkor3001 Just as Dr. Tour is entitled to his opinions. Note Dr. Tour has not managed to convince a single other scientist anywhere of the correctness of his claims and he's been giving this same basic presentation for well over two years. That speaks volumes about the value of Dr. Tour's assessment of OOL research.

[@Melkor3001]

@@msterious8537 Unfounded, unfalsifiable drivel. Learn to think for yourself Andy lad.

[@Melkor3001]

@@derhafi Yes Rob, I think about the possible nature of a possible God often, whilst thinking for myself. If you've come for a religious or doctrinal discussion on the nature and whereabouts of a possible God, this is not the place nor am I inclined to waste my time discussing such matters with randoms on youtube and I'm certain you couldn't care less about my supernatural speculations, I don't have a firm foot in either camp. I don't worship the discovery institute, nor to I blindly gobble up everything I read and hear, I judge each case on it's own merits. Tour's opinions beyond the science are his own, mine differ. However, the science discussed in this series is rigorous and thought provoking (for myself) and I enjoy how he brings clarity to and maximizes the many fundamental chemical hurdles that are so often minimized or brushed under the carpet to the lay person and even in peer review. Having a scientific background in chemistry myself, I can follow most of what he's saying and I don't dispute the science.

[@moses777exodus]

Abiogenesis Hypothesis postulates that undirected random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment.

[@jasonphilpot7186]

Dr tour i follow your story closely and love your testimony and love of our lord Jesus christ!! This has nothing to do with the video I wasn't blessed with that kind of brain capacity, but I need my Christian brothers and sisters help very badly right now. January 25th I was in a car crash that broke my back, after emergency spine surgery and 9 days in hospital my fiance left me, I lost my income and am facing eviction and a $650,00

[@roberttormey4312]

Open a go fund me account

[@jasonphilpot7186]

I really enjoy watching this guy he's so smart and loves his messiah so much its fascinating how christ has been revealing himself to jewelry, Arab and gentiles alike. When James tour preaches its from the heart for sure I live it!!

[@jasonphilpot7186]

My phone auto corrected jews and put jewelry sorry

[@GoGreenHeating]

Thank you!

[@azmachinist2421]

It is obvious to me that GOD created biological life. I am pleased that you have taken this issue up. It's a very simple question: How do you make a rock come to life? Simple answer: GOD did it! And He wrote a paper about it called The Bible. I love what you are doing and hope you continue your ministry. Christians are having their faith strengthened by watching your videos. Jesus is Lord !!! FOREVER !!!

[@beejayca]

"Uh, he said it again,..." I can't stop laughing every time it gets to that part..;-)

[@MutsPub]

From RTB - Do naturalistic explanatory “gaps” get more or less numerous, bigger or smaller, more or less problematic as scientists learn more?

[@bolapromatoqueejogodecampe9353]

Some great darwinists in history: Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Marx, Castro, Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood), Lenin, Gramsci, all the members of the Frankfurt School.

[@beejayca]

...Satan...;-)

[@MountainFisher]

You forgot Trofim Lysenko, founder of Lysenkoism. Many claims of science is Lysenkoism.

[@gamer7916]

Stalin and Lenin banned Darwinian evolution from being taught in the USSR because natural selection, which is basically survival of the fittest, was thought to run contrary to the collectivist ideals of communism.

[@gamer7916]

@@MountainFisher Lysenko rejected Darwinian evolution in favor of Lamarckism, which claims that offsprings inherit traits the parents acquired in life, whereas Darwinian evolution which relies on natural selection claims the offsprings inherit traits based on Mendelian genetics, which Lysenko rejected.

[@BibleResearchTools]

gamer7916, you wrote, "Stalin and Lenin banned Darwinian evolution from being taught in the USSR because natural selection, which is basically survival of the fittest, was thought to run contrary to the collectivist ideals of communism." That is revisionist history. Stalin was a die-hard Darwinist. ================= gamer7916, you wrote, "Lysenko rejected Darwinian evolution in favor of Lamarckism, which claims that offsprings inherit traits the parents acquired in life, whereas Darwinian evolution which relies on natural selection claims the offsprings inherit traits based on Mendelian genetics, which Lysenko rejected." That is also revisionist history. Show us your sources, or admit you are parroting stupid atheist talking points. While you are looking them up, this is one of my sources quoting Lysenko's and the Soviet's support of Darwinism, and their rejection of Mendelian genetics, which they believed to be anti-Darwinian: _"At the beginning of the thirties, however, Lysenko as well as Prezent used methods of political demagoguery, which ensured them an advantage in the debate with opponents of vernalization. Very characteristic, for instance, was Lysenko’s speech at the Second All-Union Congress of Shock Collective Farmers in 1935, delivered in the presence of Stalin and all members of the government … It has now become entirely evident that the transformation of the debate on vernalization into a struggle with alleged class enemies was an attempt at intimidation and annihilation of scientific opponents that for many years blocked ascertainment of truth in this area. It may not be superfluous to note that, up to 1934, Lysenko's preparation in the theoretical problems of biology was very weak; therefore he easily fell under the strong influence of Prezent. Lysenko knew this himself. In the speech cited above, he said: "I often read Darwin, Timiryazev, Michurin. In this I was helped by my collaborator, Prezent. He showed me that the roots of the work I am doing lie [e.g., are founded] in Darwin. And I, comrades, must confess here straightforwardly in the presence of Iosif Vissarionovich [Stalin] that to my shame I have not studied Darwin properly." [Zhores A. Medvedev, "The Rise and Fall of T. D. Lysenko." Columbia University Press, 1969, pp.16, 17]_ _"In a speech at a meeting of collaborators and authors of the publishing house of agricultural literature, [Yakovlev] subjected to sharp, incompetent, and unfounded criticism Vavilov's theory of plant variation, the work of Vavilov's pupil, Pangalo, and the chromosome theory of heredity. All were pronounced reactionary and anti-Darwinian." [Ibid. p.49]_ Ignorant atheist. Dan

[@jerehaw]

Is there a hierarchy of naturally occurring chemical reactions that would shed some light on what is most likely to occur over time? In other words, if you start with a natural set of chemicals, what chemical products would be predicted after any given length of time? Would this, on average, be more or less favourable over all in light of the abiogenesis question?

[@purvissigns]

Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and BREATHED into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul Amazing!!!

[@DonswatchingtheTube]

When Michael Behe published Darwin's Black Box in 1996, he brought to prominence the questions of intelligent design. It wasn't an original thought, but it did stop a lot of the lazy reporting of how the theory of evolution was presented. The battleground shifted publically and it became impossible not to generally think from the arguments of complex systems. I realized from then that evolutionists haven't been able to undo the mind that sees design, they haven't been able to put the genie back in the bottle or close Pandora's Box. Dave's Ad hominem attacks are typical of how the argument has proceeded since 1996. What I like about these responses, is it requires Dave to respond with the same level of citations. It needs to be in a book.

[@DonswatchingtheTube]

@@settledown444 The problem remains the same, explain the complexity. In truth, the trial has continued long after that judge's conclusions. Reading the transcript of the trial, no real science was presented, and the attornies weren't capable of asking questions needed to demonstrate science.

[@DonswatchingtheTube]

@@settledown444 Evidence of what?

[@tiyuzafu5500]

Bravo!!!!!! Brains used result to this very conclusion. I am baffled by people telling creationists to use their brain. It is sorta comical!!!

[@chesterparsnip]

It's sorta funny you, a grown adult still believe in a fairy tale, nice one. Tell me exactly when your god started life?

[@moses777exodus]

In 2008 during an interview, when asked about the origin of life (OoL), Dr. Richard Dawkins stated that "we (i.e. the scientific community) don't know" how life on earth started. (Source: Dr. Richard Dawkins, One of World’s Leading Darwinian Evolutionary Scientist, 2008).

[@minimum20mins]

Wow, God is a serious Physicist / Chemist / Biologist / Mathematician. Not to mention Musician. And without him was not anything made that was made. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

[@rh45sth62]

That's right, and without him (God), under evolution, we have no 'intrinsic value'. We are just some random fluke, whose 'worth' is merely some sort of temporal, subjective self - promotion. Despite our numerous flaws & 'sinful nature' ( is it not evident here we we hurl insults at other), God values us so much that he died on a cross for us in the person of Jesus Christ, to redeem our very souls !

[@christurnbull2726]

The chemistry barriers are compelling in their own right but the killer obstacle to abiogenesis is still the origin of complex specified information (CSI) - the fact that any living organism is inherently a complex integrated information processing system makes abiogenesis look like a category mistake philosophically speaking...knock yourself out with the chemistry, but CSI is an artifact of mind period. Anyone trying to prove that mindless molecules can give rise to minds (and information processing systems with aperiodic recursive codes) has a lot more faith than I do.

[@christurnbull2726]

@@settledown444 "Meaningless gobbledygook" ...is that the best you can do?? ...CSI is not calculated FYI, you seem to be trying to conflate this with Shannon Info which is probability-centric and can be calculated but really refers to info carrying capacity, contra determining functional outcomes like CSI...if you deny the existence of CSI, you deny many aspects of reality that are best described in these terms (integrated information systems for example used in CAD/CAM)...you should really do a little philosophy of science rather than resorting to the usual ad hominem tactics of folks that can't frame a compelling argument.....your comment about science and its usage of CSI is nonsense, as it depends upon your definition of science which is an open question that has never been resolved (re the demarcation problem) - most 'people of science' these days regard the problem of the OOL as being almost synonymous with the problem origin of information (e.g. OOL researcher Bernd-Olaf Kuppers has stated, “the problem of the origin of life is clearlybasically equivalent to the problem of the origin of biological information” )... they don't mean Shannon Info - they mean info that accomplishes a specific functional purpose, which is basically how CSI is defined...your last phrase is absurd too...you're confusing the implications of evidence with the process of evidence analysis ...the reasoning involved is termed 'inference to the best explanation' which underlies many branches of science, including forensic science for example, as well as ID. Your likely hero Charles Darwin used this type of reasoning too...you wouldn't want to discredit old Charles now would you? Many great theories in physics also use the same reasoning structure, as they don't lend themselves to 'operational science' methods. Newton's theory of gravitation is a good example - involving 'action at a distance' without a mechanism...by your reasoning, Newton is unscientific...give me a break! Darwin would also be unscientific, as he uses identical reasoning to the ID movement! You need to stop confusing implications with processes.

[@christurnbull2726]

@@settledown444 Your apparent premise that 'design' is somehow a calculated function or has an attribute that can be calculated is philosophical nonsense...you're making a category error ...put simply, you're comparing the incomparable. So are you saying that inference to the best explanation is not a valid form of scientific reasoning...if so, you are going to deny many scientific theories.

[@christurnbull2726]

@@settledown444 Another angle is that design as a concept is regarded as an artifact of mind...no philosophy of mind that I know tries to describe matters of the mind in 'calculation centric' terms

[@christurnbull2726]

@@settledown444 The statement 'DNA does not have a purpose is a philosophical statement not a statement of science'...your rehashing Dawkins who is a lousy philosopher btw...you can get rid of purpose, your right it's not needed in the description of CSI (that was a turn of phrase)...CSI achieves a functional outcome...DNA achieves a functional outcome...DNA entails CSI..the inescapable fact is that complex codes that are independent of physics and chemistry that achieve functional outcomes are by IBE reasoning artifacts of mind....can you suggest another source of such information???

[@christurnbull2726]

@@settledown444 sorry Tim but you're really out of your depth here....the process of protein synthesis is NOT the sequence of nucleotides...this sequence is used in the process but it's not the process...these are two different things....there is no biologist in the world that maintains that the sequence of nucleotides in DNA can be attributed to any mechanism of physics or chemistry...(this would be an instant Nobel prize)...this is because there are no chemical bonds between the bases along the longitudinal axis in the helix, yet it is precisely along this axis that genetic info is stored. Also, the same kind of chemical bonds link the different nucleotide bases to the sugar phosphate backbone. There is not only an absence of different bonding affinities, there are no bonds at all between the critical info bearing bases in DNA. Bernd Olaf Kuppers also states that "the properties of nucleic acids indicate that all the combinatorially possible nucleotide patterns of a DNA are from a chemical point of view, equivalent."

[@MutsPub]

Thank you.

[@jasonpowell7622]

Thunderous one; please respond here. Thank you.