Smoke & Mirrors: Tour and Meyer Assess Origin of Life Experiments (Ep. 3)

[@goddello1]

These discussions are really profound and give me hope that truth will always prevail no matter how well the lie has been packaged and how long it's been peddled. The devil and his willing servants know nothing more than to cheat and manipulate the truth. God bless Dr. Tour!

[@1RedneckCajun]

Dr. Meyer does an excellent job of bridging Dr. Tour's technical explanations into an explanation that the layman can understand. My thanks to both of you gentlemen.

[@MrGreeneyes77]

Very well said!!

[@KenJackson_US]

I appreciate the need for the role that Dr. Meyer is playing here, but it's frustrating to hear the constant interruptions.

[@SojournerDidimus]

Yes, came here to say that. Tour sometimes loses himself in his enthusiasm. He is a great scientist, can do great explanation, but many a person can't keep up with the "academic velocity" so to say. Meyer does a great job in slowing down the pace on the right places. Thanks to both you men for this amazing work!

[@evanrasyid9183]

"Chemicals don't move toward life, they have never been shown to move toward life". I love this video, from Indonesia ❤❤🇮🇩

[@JustT725]

I am really happy these two have joined together with this video. I really like both of these guys, I am about 50 pages into Signature in the cell, and I have already read most of Darwin’s doubt.

[@hrvad]

Years ago I felt that we had plateaued out, and I wished that some great scientific change would happen that might upend everything. You're my best bet, James. Thank you.

[@dantheman909]

Love Stephen and James! Always insightful and heartwarming to hear them talk about science from a unique view point.

[@John777Revelation]

*_"Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also."_* (John 15:20)

[@ekladka]

he SUCCEEDED in getting every slide wrong 😂

[@demcdoug]

These guys are a great team. Meyers is particularly good at drawing out the "so what" from Tour"s observations.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

PS odd that they don't debate other christians who disagree with them.

[@allenjohnson7824]

@@HarryNicNicholas They are mentioning nothing of scripture on Christianity. This was a scientific discussion. I’m curious why you brought that into the equation.

[@mikeb1596]

​@@allenjohnson7824because it's the only way he can attempt to try and discredit them

[@KenJackson_US]

You dump out a big box of letters and say, "My book is in there!" Excellent analogy!

[@JacobStar91041]

I agree, it summarized so much of this conversation so well!

[@nathantrudgill5057]

I'm an agnostic, but Stephen always provides thought provoking ideas

[@DonswatchingtheTube]

Love the part around 38:30 where he says "My book is in there..." It reminds me of the late British comic Eric Morecambe who joked, "I'm playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order".

[@normahopkin3393]

Nailed it perfectly.👍🎈🎈

[@alexs.5107]

These two are just a delight to watch!! The so called scientists have miserably failed to bully them.

[@zenpig4084]

I only had 3 semesters of Organic chemistry but IMO you are spot on. Well done

[@innocence8319]

Meyer and James! Great gift from our living God❤❤. What a wonderful combination

[@grahamwood1941]

A conversation between Stephen, James and Prof. Nick Lane would be fascinating.

[@cd1857]

Thank God we have men like these in the world today...the Galileos of our time

[@HarryNicNicholas]

why? what have they done cos i'm not seeing any new medicines or new fossils, or new oil deposits or new gold mines, what exactly have they achieved?

[@mikeb1596]

​@@HarryNicNicholasit's obvious you're in here arguing just for the sake of arguing while offering absolutely zero insight

[@TheG7thcapo]

First!!!!!! Thanks for posting these kinds of videos!!!! Big fan of Dr Tour and Meyer

[@theGentlemanCaller73]

I appreciate these conversations. Dr. Meyer, are you able to interview other chemists? Dr. Tour is great and I enjoy hearing from him, but I want to hear from other chemists who can support his claims. I think it would be beneficial (to me at least) to hear from people besides the James Tours and Lee Cronins of the world.

[@Greenie-43x]

Change Tan was just interviewed on the Bread of Life channel 🌞

[@Roescoe]

@@Greenie-43x Hah something is wrong with that channel they're obsessed with preaching lies about sexual immorality. I can't trust anything they do.

[@asd35918]

He can’t, because almost no trained scientists agree with Tour. They would see that Tour is denying plausible scenarios of abiogenesis without reason.

[@daviddub]

​@asd35918 plausible scenarios alone are not scientifically supported. They may constitute hypotheses, but hypotheses that are untested or are unsupported by the experiments are not science. Also, 'plausibility' is relative to the current state of science. Given that none of these "plausible scenarios" have been supported by the experiments, how much currency is there in saying they're plausible?

[@nickferraro5775]

I sincerely appreciate this work done. It's nice to see a scientist who believes in God, and acknowledges there is clearly a mind behind the miracle of life. I'm not a Christian anymore but I'm very spiritual and have a basic understanding that none of this universe makes sense without a god behind it. Good work thanks again

[@John777Revelation]

48:00 Question: Does the "Peer-review" system need to be overhauled / replaced or some type of legitimate oversight implemented? It seems to have a lot of flaws that permit significant errors / fraud.

[@whatever930]

LOL check out the peer-reviewed study that shows that the peer-review is worthless. No joke it's real

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@whatever930 That study was exclusively about social science aka mostly not real science. And if we would implement real peer review for religious Apologists then all of them would lose their jobs.😂

[@vikingskuld]

​@@whatever930thank you I'll have to check that out. Far too much emphasis is put on the peer review process these days. Especially since it's been high jacked by morons with an agenda.

[@piratessalyx7871]

I love you both so much. So glad there are decent truthful scientists. The ones that try to grab glory are just narcissists. Please keep up the debates and lecture, both of you, I cant get enough. (A once inspired to be Biologist..lol)

[@chadwolf3840]

dave farina is almost cartoonish in how much confidence he exudes when he's just bs'ing through his teeth. intellectually he's just not in the same ballpark of people he criticizes, which shows how self aware he is.

[@michaelbabbitt3837]

If you have any inner bs meter, Dave Farina would move it to the extreme bs side. I grew up in the NYC area, and I cannot fathom how so many people can be blind to his antics.

[@OnTheRogersJourney]

He spends so much time insulting people and calling them liars that the actual meat of his content is rather sparse. It's the intellectual equivalent of listening to finger nails on a chalk board. "Like... just get to the point of contention and give your refutation already! Are you actively trying to alienate thinking people?!"

[@whatever930]

Well put and very accurate

[@АлександрВладимирович-б4щ]

Dave Farina is a notorious atheist and a troll. In the 21st century, being an atheist is already a diagnosis.

[@jacob.tudragens]

His followers are even worse than he is!😬

[@johnpriest5338]

I really enjoyed this episode.

[@garyavey1822]

Thankyou for your insightful explanations of origin of life .

[@zachreyhelmberger894]

A few years back, I watched a video that really cemented my faith in God's Word (Genesis to Revelation). It is called "A Rational Approach to the Divine Origin of Judaism". Although rabbinical Judaism (and other "isms" like Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism etc) may be based on something truly Divine and "NOT of the world" they have become "of the world" through their man-made laws , doctrines and traditions in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32. A better title would be "... Divine Origin of the Torah of YHVH". In any case, the final argument rabbi Kelemen used to prove the divine origin of the Torah is, "if something is 'natural' it will happen again. Since never, before or since, has anything even remotely close to the mass revelation of God to appx 3 million people who simultaneously and audibly heard God speak at Mt. Sinai has ever occurred again, then this event is NOT natural. It is supernatural! One could also apply this argument to the origin of species. If the creation of new species is 'natural' then it will happen again. But if there is no evidence for the creation of new species by evolution or by any other mechanism, then the creation of new species is NOT natural but supernatural.

[@raycicin1794]

😁 For 50+ years I’ve believed that life spontaneously began in a salt water quagmire of solutions & lightning strikes. What a pile of horse💩we’ve been taught. Thanks to Dr Tour for opening my eyes 😄✌🏼

[@ckimsey77]

The first question should be decent one so ill try: How do they know which cell to attack or not? Whats the selective mechanism, what changes on the surface of a cancer cell?? Is it anything to do with the pertruding carbohydrate strings , if you will, on the cell surface? Life chemistry is fascinating and so interesting i wish i was back in R&D...So glad you guys are discussing this hugely misunderstood field due to all the hype and unbacked claims

[@ProactiveForce]

Dr. Meyer and Dr.Tour during this video correctly and consistently point out that undirected random chance using earth origin prebiotic chemical action or reaction could not lead to origin of life or any living cell with the four chemical building blocks necessary to create life or a living working cell. I would like to add: A living cell needs Metabolism, respiration, and reproduction to be successful. This includes the Leventhal 1.0 and Leventhal 2.0 probability problems for undirected random chance process to correctly fold protein successfully for a living working cell.

[@midnightwatchman1]

you guys are extremely charitable to Dave. I am not an expert in the field but I am able to follow Tours explanations when something goes over my head I go look it up. I did go through Dr. Tour's more "boring series" and I took notes. Full disclosure I did do chemistry and biochemistry up to first-year college. Since Dave is supposed to be presenting this material pretty regularly I am not going to give him the excuse that he is being fooled by the experts he is an intelligent guy, he follows an argument and sees the paradox. he wants to be fooled and trap in this cult of scientism

[@lark8356]

Grace and Peace to you. Would you like to be included in our Theology Group chat on a different platform for further discussion? The group an assortment of people with various theological beliefs and backgrounds. What we all have in common is a desire to discuss the bible, religion and Christianity. It's a good opportunity to witness to non-believers and fellowship with believers.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

well you keep on believing them, we have enough dimbos on our team thanks.

[@davidbell2547]

I've been calling it 'sciencetology'

[@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n]

Meyer!!!! xDDD hahaha loved ur podcast with Rogan... you crack me up man

[@tsubologist]

Keep it up bro Tour and bro Meyer. You two are doing your job well. Exposing the lies and explaining the truth in the most reasonable scientific way. Those over the top scientists confident enough to blind us humans about our true origin. We are created in the image of God and worthy to be heirs of His kingdom just by believing the way the truth and the life. To God be all the glory! In Jesus mighty name. Love you guys. ❤️🙏🇵🇭

[@mmcc3506]

Bardzo dziekuje za material Thank you Dr Dr

[@johnwarner3968]

Always an entertaining, enlightening, informative, intelligent, and purposeful conversation. Thank you!🙏

[@timffoster]

I have no idea what they're talking about, but listening to Tour's debate with Farina was like nails on a chalkboard. It was clear that Faraina was in over his head, and the ad hominems really got boring after the 10th round. But the fact that Meyer and Tour can kick this around strongly suggests that Farina wasn't just rude - he was outclassed.

[@AN1KETOS]

DRJamesTour congratulations for your work at abiogenesis… I would like to speculate to the amazing question “when a cell dies what are we losing”… there are many videos in youtube for users to watch with cells dying… at first look it seems that first we losing low entropy and after that we losing consciousness… (because these cells had signs of awareness to navigate)… I am not a scientist is just what I see from a first look at the videos… good luck DRTour with the Farinas of the world…

[@peters972]

What a great question: “when a cell dies, what are we losing”. Fantastic question.

[@vahppus9958]

@@peters972 … Like, when the snow smelt, where does all the white go?…

[@kablammy7]

at about 52:50 - Lee and Oswald . Where's Harvey ?

[@the101connection]

Great shows and great books. We are launching our new online radio in Perth Western Australia and would love to promote and re-stream these shows, with your permission. Regards Michael 101 Media Group

[@JohnGrillo-r6n]

Dr. Tour uses the two words "cell division" and two additional words shown "binary fission" noted in the video. Is this indicative or interchangeable with mitosis in biology "cell division"?

[@JoseMarquez-le2qu]

Excellent video. I have red "The Return of the God Hypothesis", took me a year because I would investigate science as I went with the reading. I watched a few of Dr. Tour's videos and the chemistry is not easy to follow not having a chemistry background. But will be watching the video he refers to as to more down for us not into the synthetic chemistry fields. Thanks God someone with brains and the know how is taking this issues from a scientific point. Praise be to the Lord.

[@kablammy7]

Do the math - Consider the number of changes that must take place for a single cell to develop into a human - then multiply that by the mean number of failures that must present before the successful change occurs . You will find a number that is so large that 100 billion years is not enough time for all of them to have occurred .

[@KenJackson_US]

Only _"100 billion years"??_ I calculate you couldn't evolve one new small protein in less than a trillion trillion trillion years under ideal circumstances. I hadn't thought of your angle before though.

[@captaingaza2389]

You were once a single cell that evolved into a human Not sure why you find that so hard to accept

[@captaingaza2389]

@@galileog8945 We’ll just call him the Amoeba

[@kurtniebling2741]

Where can I go to find the scientific papers that James has written in response?

[@Katharina643]

Thank you so much for these discussions. They are so important for taking one back to have a closer look what scripture teaches on the origin of life. In fact, Genesis not alone teaches that life didn't start from a chemical soup, but also that all life has been designed to progress and flourish progressively. Molecules don't care about life and it takes two of the same sort to create the same kind. Even in the case of 🐔🐓 I call this "Intelligent design". Kudos to Dr. Tour and Dr. Steve Meyer The following are just a few thoughts. Is the story in the book of Genesis reliable? The extinction of the dinosaurs is more important than many realise because all lifeforms we know now can only have come after their extinction. This is a crucial time in the history of our planet. Evidence suggests an asteroid impact was the main culprit which caused the extinction of all the dinosaurs on earth.Volcanic eruptions that caused large-scale climate change may also have been involved. The facts remain; it caused the earth to be in chaos. All the lifeforms we know now, came into existence after the extinction of the dinosaur 🦕 This is the exact timeframe of God's intervention. Genesis 1: 2 tells of the earth being in chaos. Again, it states the facts. It doesn't go into great detail. Please note, the earth is already in existence Gen 1:1 including all the planets and the sun, although "obscured". This reconstruction of our planet also affirms the seasons and the days of the week. 👇 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. >> God is proclaiming himself to be the creator. There are no details mentioned. Just the creation as a fact ... 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. >> God knew that the earth wasn't suitable for life and subsequently he prepared the earth for human habitation. No timeline ... 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. >> The universe is already in existence. (see verse one) Life on earth cannot exist without the sun, which had been obscured. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. >> The moon. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. >> Is it possible for God to do so! I think so, as everything had already been in place. 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. >> Atmosphere, oxygen ect. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. >> Clouds and weather 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. >> We all know what heaven is, when we look up and see the birds flying around in it. 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. >> the oceans were gathered into one place, I guess the moon came in handy. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. God made the earth inhabitable and livable for all lifeforms we know now. First God set in motion food for the animals he brought about subsequently. We can read this in Gen 1:20-25 The story carries on with Adam and Eve being placed within a "special garden" called Eden, because they need not have died, which indicates that time had been no issue to them until the fall. Again we don't know how long they have been in this bubble, not affected by time, (even if speaking metaphorically) but we do know the timeframe after the fall, after they had to leave that garden, about 6000 years ago. What we know for sure is that humans have been made overlords of this world, which no-one can deny. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

[@paulgarrett4474]

What experiments are you two doing to demonstrate biblical creation?

[@captaingaza2389]

What a great question Answer None

[@vahppus9958]

I don’t know what they are doing, so I just comment what I would refer to. Genesis 1:1 informs that the universe had a start, a beginning. As I understand it, this is in line with science. The bible also informs that life on earth came from life, since it came from the Creator. Also this is in line with observed scientific experience, since what we know about life is that life comes from life. And not only that, but same kind of life - as a flower never gives birth to a crocodile. -Yes, I know that evolutionists claim that life came from non-living matter, but that claim is only «proved» by refering to the idea they have about the topic - and by doing so are walking in circle, «proving» an idea by pointing to that same idea. As I see it, that is an logical error. I’ve seen a lot of the videoes about James Tour, also the debate with him and Mr. Dave Farina. I think professor Tour got a bit entusiastic, but I understand why. About Mr. Farina, I always get a bit curious when people come with insults instead of being able to answer questions given. Being rude is not an replacement for logic. For me, such behaviour is an alarm signal. I can’t speak for Mr. Farina or others with same ideas and behaviour, but I myself don’t get convinved about any topic by being bullied. For those who already haven’t heard about Dr., Dr., Dr. A.E Wilder-Smith, look up some of his lectures, also to be found at youtube. For example «Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith - Evolution vs. Creation». (His talk begins at 04:13 in the clip) Another thing, from another point of view. As I see it, James Tour and others are right about the idea that life here on earth comes from life, from a creator. (And yes, I know very well that professor Tour does not involve religion in his scientific lectures.) But as I see it, if they spent a bit more time and energy on getting accurate knowledge about the bible, they would observe that Jehovah’s witnesses are in fact the true christians. JV also has a ton of info on the subject creation/evolution, and I myself enjoy it very much. But don’t take my word for it - make informed decisions for yourself by taking a look at their website, jw. org. Be amezed, in about any language you prefer, in now more than one thousand languages! (1081; by far world record) - And so, back to you. I return the question by asking you - what scientific experiments are you doing to demonstrate that the universe did not have a beginning and that life does not need to come from life? In case you can’t answer, that indicates that you agree with the bible since the bible says the universe had a beginning, and that life here on earth came from life. Take your time, and good luck! :)

[@Im_No_Expert_72]

Blessings to you both from among the Orthodox ☦🙏

[@FrankPCarpi]

I was wondering why those molecules spin when near infrared lights are shining on them.

[@davidstricklin3267]

Love these two professors. I hope James Tour will comment on “breaking news” that magnetite and other sources of magnetic fields can create “near 100%” homochiral sugars. Well and good if so, but this is a major talking point that James Tour talks about. I wonder how much human intervention was necessary (if true). Also, would the same magnetic fields cause dextro sugars and levo amino acids?

[@norbertjendruschj9121]

The apparent problem in Dr. Tours and Dr. Meyers stance is that in in principle they say: Today we can see no viable way for biogenesis to occur so no one else has to look any further.

[@vahppus9958]

About looking. In case there was nothing before the universe came to be. At what would you then be looking? If you put a handfull of nothing in front of you, how long time do you think is needed before the nothingness turn to be something? If there was nothing before the universe, howcome it’s not still nothing? You mention the idea of not looking any further when not having seen evidence for what is believed. If I return the thought and ask you - are there any reason related to plain logic that hinders you to do just that, to look further - and investigate the possibilities that life comes from life? After all, what we know about life during the entire world history is that life comes from life. Maybe a new thought, but may it be that sometimes things are quite easy? Like, if you find a spoon on the pavement, you might not know who made it, but you know for sure that it was made. But was it made by something, or was it made by someone? Follow the logic :)

[@norbertjendruschj9121]

@@vahppus9958 I see no logic in your answer, only another set of presumptions. PS: Better read "compelling logic" instead of logic.

[@asd35918]

The topic is abiogenesis, not the origin of the universe or physics.

[@mikeb1596]

No they didn't say that at all, that's just a weak strawman. They are saying the conclusions being drawn about origins are haphazard and just plain wrong based on the experiments and how chemistry works

[@John777Revelation]

Regarding OOL research, virtually everything that the OOL scientists appear to be doing is Intelligent Design; then claiming Methodological Naturalism.

[@georgethomas9263]

It will be good to take formal action to correct the errors in origin of life teaching contents in science textbooks in as many countries as possible. The numerous dead end paradoxes and the unknowns should be detailed

[@asg32000]

LOL @ the "Cronin's Own" 😹😹😹

[@georgethomas9263]

I am, on my part moving forward to take formal action to correct the "origin of life" teaching contents in science textbooks. It will be good if others take a similar action. I am available to be of help in documentation for the move in other countries.

[@georgethomas9263]

The focus is to make the changes in the teaching contents in science textbooks. Every country will have an educational authority who decides the contents. First formal communication - if no change then legal action could be the route.

[@Aurealeus]

@@georgethomas9263 Absurd!

[@justaguy328]

It doesn't seem that origin of life is even a question that can be studied scientifically. Any experimentation at all introduces intelligence into the equation, so how could an experiment conducted by scientists in a lab prove that life can come about by unguided processes. It seems that the very attempt of scientists to create life would at most lend credence to intelligent design. This seems to be a philosophical question, because even if you can work out the processes that life needs, you couldn't then conclude that it's unguided, because your experiments were themselves guiding the process. I think the reason there is such sloppy science in origin of life is because they have already arrived at the conclusion that life arise by unguided processes and are trying to shoehorn that in to make it work. There's no way there would be this level of sloppiness if they were actually being challenged. But everybody in those journals already believe this is the only way so they don't see how ridiculous they sound.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@galileog8945 science would be quite happy with supernatural explanations, just provide one.

[@asd35918]

All the researchers are trying to do is identify plausible pathways by which life could have developed. Once they do that, you of course will be free to continue to believe in the supernatural, but it would be scientifically superfluous and, as always, would have no evidence to support it.

[@RichardBehiel]

On the particular topic of having to produce homochiral material, isn’t that a high bar? Can’t one imagine homochirality emerging as a result of natural selection *after* the first cells were around? I’m extremely uneducated when it comes to molecular biology, so my question might be really dumb. Apologies in advance.

[@charlesbruneski9670]

No, it's a good question. One of the issues is that right and left handed molecules have their connection points twisted into different positions. This means, in part, that when you try to copy a long chain, and you put a wrong handed molecule in, it twists the wrong way, and it stops the chain from copying any further because the two chains no longer align. Like having a pair of train tracks that are only useful if they stay the same distance apart, but you randomly select the curvature rather than matching them. The rails start to go different directions, and the train derails.

[@peters972]

I’d love to see *Szostak* and *Tour* discuss this. Jack would soon explain that abiogenesists have made no such claims as Dave suggests.

[@Craig144_1]

Awesome! 👍

[@fpxpGetReal]

I am just blown by the comment of 3million rotations per second . Wow 🤩 Did I hear right?

[@floydfanboy2948]

Great interview! Thank you so much!

[@ianlee5812]

I still don’t understand why they’re focusing so much on Dave. He’s just a KZbinr. His channel doesn’t even have the most subscribers even if we’re limiting ourselves to just educational channels.

[@markb3786]

Because he is easy. They would never have this discussion with actual scientists.

[@ianlee5812]

@@markb3786 You have a point. Perhaps to engage with real scientists, someone needs to write critiques in journals like Nature, Cell, or Science.

[@Aurealeus]

@@markb3786 B I N G O !!

[@vahppus9958]

@@markb3786 Just curious. By «actual» scientists, do you refer to people that claim the popular philosofical idea that non living matter transform itself to living matter like a cell, all by itself, even thought no one have ever shown by scientific methode that it happens - and that people that mention that this philosofical idea never have been proved in real life by scientific metode logically must be labelled unscientific people?

[@vahppus9958]

I have followed the debate, and my impression is not that he is focusing on Mr. Dave Farina. He is focusing not on the person but on what the person have said. Topic, not person. On the other hand, my impression is that Mr. Farina is focusing a lot on person, on professor James Tour as person (in a rather negative, labeling way). My thought about it? If having a strong case, why harass the opponent? On the other hand, if having a weak case, some people tend to label other in a negative way, for all I know with intention of hiding the weak case.

[@zynark777]

What are your views on the work of Dr Peter Gariaev in the field of genetics?

[@Bushpig22]

I am a skeptic at heart and a current non-believer that is trying desperately to believe. Can anybody please tell me how to ignore my current biases when listening to videos like these?

[@ZahraLowzley]

Hello. I am also a non-believer, not due to skepticism but rather that the cognitive faculty of belief cannot be identified , this places me at odds with both sides, but I study non-axiomatic differentiation, covered by no field so I can perhaps answer your question. You cannot ignore biases, nor should you, I can assure you that "critical thinking" is a habituated declaration which cannot be satisfied methodologically , infact the declaration alone often rationalised methodological ineptitude. I have spent my life attempting to wrestle with biases, I fail every single day. I'm sorry there is no solution to your question but it is best to be honest with you . I am not a scientist not mathematician, my field doesn't exist but is the cognitive disposition of non-lexical thinkers . I am a music teacher because music utilises the innate differentiation mechanisms which don't require knowledge. I have biases but I am in society I may be the only tribally unaffiliated person , not by choice but because I don't even use this language for analysis as it is methodologically unusable due to the manner of its cognitive acquisition and neural recall/ expedience. I hope your question was sincere but often they are not . I don't see an issue with any of the issues covered in the video as I don't draw the line at life as a consequence of the differential impotence of that state . My field gives you nothing from something, thus my lone residence within its domain . I will say though that no there is no evolution.v.creator inconsistencies, both or neither can operate in the environment, even given the vague descriptions of each. Scientists assume I'm religious, religious people assume the inverse , I am an appropriate proof (in the mathematical sense) that this is not sincere debate but rather tribalistic . I can only speak to "information" but not the historic faculty gain , but there is no sincere call to answer any question for which the answer is exceptionally underwhelming and does not furnish the listener with advantage . The left/right hand issue is the only aspect which is inherent to the rudimentary conditions although it is not a spatial component but the result is an abstraction. I literally know nothing, I don't need to , my brain differentiates in an archaic manner which predates the theories of mind which disassociate the faculty for most . I'm sorry, being a skeptic doesn't furnish you with analytical prerequisites, the only avenue beyond tribalism is to start with non-axiomatic differentiation, no language, no numeracy , you can already do it, as a function of you existence. I can create a blueprint of perceptual rudiments , there is no sincere desire to explain away that which brings importance to the role of being here . Atoms are limited, in a crude way , you are a permutation generator . My advice, do what you enjoy, you won't enjoy base protocol analysis, and it will not serve you in life. Good luck.

[@vahppus9958]

No problem. «Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen.» - Hebrews 11:1. Greek and latin words used here are some you maybe recognise: Hypostasis/ substantia; argumentum; pragmaton. Long story short. From a biblical point of view, if to believe something, if to have faith in something, you must have good reason to conclude that it is logical. Therefore, be open minded and follow the evidence to where it leads :)

[@bobthrasher8226]

Dr Tour is too charitable to Dave. I highly doubt Dave is a "victim." Having said that, I think Meyer and Tour probably want to avoid possible legal complications for speculating about Dave's motives which is probably wise.

[@cbcbcchurch3970]

Speculating motives is what Dave is good at:)

[@bobthrasher8226]

@@cbcbcchurch3970 Dave goes beyond speculation. In theory he could be sued for libel.

[@WNYXeb777]

Excellent!

[@Francoisdp82]

Note that this inverview must be a couple of months old.

[@peterfryer6915]

Dave is just the modern Bill Nye with less credentials. Fortunately for Dave, social media is far more effective than the tools Nye had to advance their agenda. I watched the "debate" between Dr. Tour and Dave and I was actually grossed out by Dave's conduct. Extremely immature and unprofessional. It's disheartening to see the influence he has on younger people. Anyhow, this video is a breath of fresh air and I very much appreciate the content you're sharing. The truth is important.

[@patticarey9016]

Cool looking fossil type thing behind Dr. Meyer. What is it?

[@markb3786]

something that is only 800 years old

[@WhosMolly]

You guys are great! How about a episode with the title "Money In Junk Science". I think you might get closer to the truth.

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

Great video! God is a logical necessity. Atheism is a logical fallacy.

[@emmanueljohnson5934]

7:08 chemicals doesn’t move to life

[@HarryNicNicholas]

"life can't come from non life" so atoms are alive now are they?

[@nojuice457]

old meyer likes a good analogy.

[@kablammy7]

what is the story of that large fossil behind and to the right of Stephen ? i imagine that he used it, in his classes, when lecturing .

[@wendypratt6837]

The part that blows my mind is that the origin of life "experts" will go to such lengths to come up with anything rather than concede that there is a Creator!🙄

[@captaingaza2389]

Because a creator is not a valid explanation. It in fact explains absolutely nothing

[@vahppus9958]

@@captaingaza2389Am I right if I assume you don’t belive in cause and effect?

[@faithbyprophecy]

I'm not a scientist, or anything near that. But isn't oil a product of something organic? How can he use oil as a basis for organic, carbon-based life?

[@ramigilneas9274]

That’s like watching Richard Carrier and Robert Price talking about how unlikely it is that Jesus existed at all.

[@bobwilli2]

Great stuff. Minor matter: Stephen or someone could show Dr. Tour a better way to tie his necktie. 🙄😀

[@growingtruedisciples]

43:19 - 43:29 😂😂😂

[@HallucinatingHell]

37:55 they are spitting facts here. Just imagine I give you the frame/unibody for your car, and threw every single part you need to complete the car inside it. Ok, now go build it like the factory does.

[@tonymaurice4157]

Clever chemists Using pure chemicals, designed equipment and highly manipulated processes Does not help abiogenesis and early earth environments.

[@Roescoe]

their job should be building as many different early earth environments as possible. course the theory is silly so it won't work, but that approach would at least be honest

[@tonymaurice4157]

@Roescoe They never produce the correct purity and yields... And everything else they buy from chemical companies... They always cheat in origin of life experiments.

[@rushnande3731]

Dr Meyer do not interrupt Dr Tour let him explain his points to the end please.

[@pappaflammyboi5799]

Just because scientists can't or haven't replicated yet something in Nature, doesn't mean that evolution wasn't the means by which life arose, nor does it mean by some perverse logic, some unknown powerful being was the progenitor. At best, you must admit you just don't know. Full stop.

[@vahppus9958]

Just to see things in the most broad way. In your view, what made the universe, and from what? I have heard atheistic evolutionists say that before the universe came to be, there was nothing. If so, why is there still not nothing? In case you reason that something caused the universe to be. In your view, are there any logical reason to conclude that there was someting rather than someone that caused the universe to be?

[@dawidczerniak5177]

Notprofessor Dave is wrong about EVERYTHING! 😉

[@Gandoff2000]

Fascinating!

[@midlander4]

It's bollocks

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

They've moved evolution into all fields of study just like chemistry . Its a goto word gap filler im not even sure what it means anymore.

[@scottm4042]

It should be called a "religion", for all the faith it requires.

[@Amor-Fati.]

James Tour presents a great argument for the God of O.T. id love to hear his studies of fungi

[@nojuice457]

someone going to inform the University of Glasgow that they cant get a refund?

[@manamanathegreat]

What an ironic title

[@Wonderboywonderings]

Petition to stop using the term "prebiotic" and use either "abiotic" or "non-biotic," or unplug simply "inorganic." Using "prebiotic" subtly suggests that it inherently can/will eventually become "biotic," but it can't and doesn't. It is a biased term that inherently cedes ground in the debate without firing a shot.

[@nil1473]

👌👌👌

[@eveningprimrose3088]

You have developed a panacea? I fear for your safety, Dr. Tour.

[@piratessalyx7871]

I am sure Dr Tour can hold his own!!!!! 💪

[@strawman6085]

Dave Farina - proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[@JohnGrillo-r6n]

Dr. Meyer is indeed a brilliant scientist, and in his narration as a proponent of Intelligent Design on his "Praeger University" KZbin videos, I share his support for an Intelligent Designer of the Universe and Life. His logic, analysis, and reasoning in his arguments for a Creator, and NOT random forces or chance, supports the law of mathematical probability that God is a Mastermind Mathematician, and The Great First Cause, is to me very convincing and/or persuasive; but I'm puzzled as to why he frequently uses the word "hypothesis" in his arguments for the existence of God. Can he go so far as to say that God's existence is a scientific "fact," or the expression even more appropriate Scientific or Universal law; thus giving credence to a TRANSCENDENT/IMMANENT CREATOR. I reject Darwinian evolution as an explanation to explain the origin of life. Darwin's monumental work on the "Origin of Species by Natural Selection" published in 1859, doesn't answer the question who was the progenitor that energized life processes? Life cannot come from inanimate matter. Animacy begets animacy, and NOT inanimate matter begets animate matter.

[@ednagentry5352]

It really behoves me that the scientists that are fighting Dr. Tour don’t want the truth to be known

[@DanSme1]

🏅🥇🏅🥇🏅🥇🏅

[@ryansperception]

Too many interruptions

[@SystemsMedicine]

Hi Stephen & James. Well, I’m not sure where to begin. It is definitely NOT necessary for ALL the biotically relevant amino acids to be present for abiogenesis, nor is it necessary that the exact modern cellular forms of bilipid layers be present. (Your insistence on these two conditions makes no sense; although the Urey experiments supposedly produced more kinds of amino acids than all the biotically current ones.) Also, as you well know, volcanic spring water, such as in Iceland, often occurs in high temperature pools, sometimes near snowy condition, meaning that a variety of temperatures and their gradients are at close proximity (not to mention deep sea thermal vents). As I’m sure you’re well aware, all the necessary nucleic acids for rna and dna have been found in meteorites. And of course, sugars have also been found in molecular clouds in space. While I personally disagree with the absolute necessity of James’s ‘must have’ list, don’t you find it curious that much of his list is even floating around in space (due to completely natural processes), as well as naturally occurring terrestrially? [You’d almost think that the necessary building blocks were quite available… because, apparently, they were.] The full elucidation of the highly complex processes awaits future scientists and AIs, but is such a scientific denouement really so very difficult for you to imagine?? Cheers.

[@tomgreene1843]

Doesn't Dawkins hold that evolution explains origin....

[@Aurealeus]

No, Dawkins holds that evolution explains how life evolves. Nobody knows how life originated, at least, not yet....

[@terrencesmith6080]

Expose these folks Dr James

[@TheCrawfojo]

After looking at the incredible intricacies of the individual cells and the body I wonder how anyone could come up with a theory other then an intelligent designer. This leads me to think of the verse 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. The lie being atheism .

[@Aurealeus]

How? Simple answer. Because biological science demonstrates otherwise. Additionally, claiming "atheism" is a "lie" is a fallacy. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a particular god or any gods. Atheism makes no claims. On the other hand, outside of the simple assertions according to what the bible claims, there is no incontrovertible evidence that can demonstrably prove the existence of a god. If you don't believe in any of the other mythical gods that people have believed in throughout history, then that make you atheist also in regards to those gods, similarly as it would with any believer in a faith that differs from yours that does not believe in your own particular favorite flavor of god. The only difference between your belief and the so-called "atheism" you allude to is that the non-believing atheist goes just one more god further in regards to their disbelief than you do. Therefore, it stands to reason that if not everybody believes in the same god, and since there is no extra-theistic evidence outside of any faiths' holy book that incontrovertibly corroborates that any god(s) does in fact exist, theism must be the lie.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

so you're another one saying "god chose a method to achieve life that was more likely to fail" life under a god should be 1:1 not bzillions to one against, you just made an argument for chance and naturalism, well done.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

atheism can't be lie, it just says "until you demonstrate god, i'll act like none exist" it's actually MORE HONEST than "i have a god but i'm not showing him to you" keep it up though, your kind of special dimwittedness makes more atheists. jesus wrote nothing. not even "my dad can beat up your dad" nothing was written about jesus, not even "saw jesus heal a leper today, amazing" until at least ten years after he was dead. no one has a clue what jesus said, did or thought and he spent 30 years telling folks god can cheat death, but the day he can demonstrate that "hey pilate, kill me again!" he vanished instead. christianity is based on one bloke having a hallucination he saw a dead bloke he NEVER MET?

[@HarryNicNicholas]

PS "i wonder" this is called "an argument from incredulity" all you're saying is not that you have some way to show god did it, but that you just don't understand how anything else could, it's basically telling everyone on youtube you're ignorant and don't think before you type.

[@captivedesk3168]

Tour does not work in origins of life research, how about asking someone that does work in that field? Oh no that's not the creationist game

[@hanstwilight3218]

@captivedesk. Lol. more like “origin Of Life” doest research Dr Tours work, how about asking someone who’s actually honest about they’re science!! oh yeah thats not the evolutionists game.

[@KenJackson_US]

Actually, Dr.Tour DOES work in origin of life research now. He's made himself an expert in it by devouring the literature and the supporting literature and explaining the shortcomings in the research.

[@vahppus9958]

Just curious. Are you commenting about a situation where a scientist is showing and explaining the big problems evolutionists have, and while doing it, not being able to debunk anything related to what he explains?

[@nathanrobbins7668]

Typical… when someone points out the issues and blatant lies within a theory, you resort to attacking the persons character rather than the science.. womp womp

[@nathanrobbins7668]

@kattykitters5310womp womp his science is still correct

[@Thesecondcomingpodcast]

Tour and Meyer both are borderline science-fiction KZbinrs. They have all the substance of a science professor from 1972.

[@vahppus9958]

Just a retorical question. If you yourself in 1972 claimed that the earth is round - would you in 2023 think that since it is many years since 1972, so therefore you are not longer so sure anymore?