James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained - Science Uprising Expert Interview 

Please help us read between your lines?

Exactly

This is exactly why ID claims don’t stand up to scrutiny. Amazement is just that, it’s not evidence.

Me

Me

+1

Me too

Naw but I'll go that way next😁 preciate that

FAX

lol 😂 true

Hilarious 😂😂😂

Funny red herring 😂

Most importantly when it comes to who Jesus is. John 14:6....Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Agree. And in this instance, the illusion of knowledge that something is impossible simply because it is not understood.

Yes, Tour's ignorance of evolution is profound.

This is just argument by analogy, and when the analogy fails, so does the argument.

Exactly, "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made..." Psalm 139:14

I do this out of love but James Tour is a Christian that has met Christ. You can view his testimony here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QNGLZvtRoiU.html Christ died on the Cross for your sins and on the third day rose from the dead and appeared to many people; this was to conquer death. It is also regarded as a historical fact by academic historians that Jesus died on the cross regardless of their religious beliefs.

Agree that the the wonders of the universe boggle the human mind and it may be beyond our intellectual capacity to unravel its mysteries, but that in no way mean that the existence of a god (or gods) is the explanation, unless “god” is simply a placeholder for “how this all works is beyond our human understanding”. We are more intelligent than a bumble bee and even a monkey, but that doesn’t mean that we have the intelligence required to understand everything. Perhaps asking a human to understand and explain the origins of life is like asking a monkey to explain how a combustion engine works. There is a physical explanation for how a combustion engine works even though that monkey doesn’t have the ability to comprehend it.

​@@T_Man-mm9sz so u believe in panspermia

@@T_Man-mm9sz The combustion engine was designed by human intelligence so you're kinda digging your own grave here

And that the "random chance" argument is rubbish

@@dogbiskits only for brainwashed people

A physician or physicist?

YET SOMEWHERE WILL BLAST HIIM AND START CALLING HIM NAMES WITHOUT ANY PROOF THAT HE IS IN ERROR.

It sounds more like medieval

He's a fraud!

"We need to make this viral!" As in COVID-19 viral? Pass "thanks" on to god for creating Covid for us, would ya? Because if Evolution didn't do it, then certainly god did, right!

Hi Sabyis. Is there any scientific evidence that life originated outside of the action of physical laws? [On the other hand, amino acids form stably out in space, and occasionally reach Earth as meteorites. And some nuclei acids form in simple Urey type plasma experiments. Gold has apparently shown that a huge variety of cyclic hydrocarbons form deep in the Earth, and can thermodynamically migrate to the surface.] I see that Tour understands that abiogenesis is a tough field these days, but what would you say are compelling reasons to believe that biology, which so apparently operates via physical laws, started in some fashion beyond physical laws?

@@SystemsMedicine The video you are commenting on addresses your point. Tour, in the video, explains why natural amino acids are not even close to explaining actual life. For one, they are never homochiral. For two, even if they were homochiral they wouldn't even be close to life. An amino acid is just a monomer of a protein. Even if we GIVE you ALL the different proteins ALL AT ONCE when you need them to self assemble majestically, you still have many missing parts such as lipids, carbohydrates (sugars) and many other complex macromolecules that don't just spontaneously poof into existence. Your argument is no different from saying that since lightning strikes sand and creates glass, that my phone was somehow created purely by natural means because it contains glass. Of course natural processes will create certain chemicals, but that doesn't mean it explains how all these different chemicals came together in a designed structure to execute complex tasks and work together very similarly to our own engineering.

Dawkins is incredibly arrogant too

Why do you even assume anything about it? If one do, one can just assume it to be inevitable instead. Notice, complex processes does not imply complex rules - rather the opposite is true. Also notice, simple rules underlying complex processes can be, and most often is, very hard to discover.

You are like someone who wins the lottery, and says "I can't think how this could have happened by sheer, unconscious accident. There are so many people it could have been, how could it turn out to be _me?"_

@@ColonelFredPuntridge Totally flawed analogy that completely ignores the point about entropy and strawmans it right into the ignorant misunderstanding of probability that you hoped it was. For your example to reflect the person's actual point, you would have to have won the lottery without ever buying a ticket.

@@ColonelFredPuntridge Win the lottery with these odds? Well you are certainly optimistic. Dr. Gerlald Schroeder, MIT Top 5 Scientific Myths popularly accepted as fact: Myth #5. “Very occasionally monkeys hammering away at typewriters will type out one of Shakespeare’s sonnets.” Not true, not in this universe. But it is a popular assumption that the monkeys can do it, a wrong assumption that randomness can produce meaningful stable complexity. But let’s look at the numbers to see why the monkeys will always fail. I’ll take the only sonnet I know, sonnet number 18, “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day …” All sonnets are 14 lines, all about the same length. This sonnet has approximately 488 letters (neglect spaces). With a typewriter or keyboard having 26 letters, the number of possible combinations is 26 to the exponential power of 488 or approximately ten to the power of 690. That is a one with 690 zeros after it. Convert the entire 10 to the 56 grams of the universe (forget working with the monkeys) into computer chips each weighing a billionth of a gram and have each chip type out a billion sonnet trials a second (or 488 billion operations per second) since the beginning of time, ten to the 18th seconds ago. The number of trials will be approximately ten to power of 92, a huge number but minuscule when compared with the 10 to power 690 possible combinations of the letters. We are off by a factor of ten to power of 600. The laws of probability confirm that the universe would have reached its heat death before getting one sonnet. We will never get a sonnet by random trials, and the most basic molecules of life are far more complex than the most intricate sonnet. As reported in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, when the world’s most influential atheist philosopher, Antony Flew, read this analysis of complexity and several analyses related to the complexity of life brought in my third book, The Hidden Face of God, and Roy Varghese’s excellent book, The Wonder of the World, he abandoned his errant belief in a Godless world and publically apologized for leading so many persons astray for the decades that his atheistic thoughts held sway.

@@Papa-dopoulos Even better, whole lottery made itself

@@RozkminToeven better, a lottery with 10 to the 90th chance of winning.

The whole ID claim is biased to divine intervention. It’s not science. Nuff said.

By God

Agree. There is no shame in simply saying that “we don’t know” or “we humans simply aren’t intelligent enough to sort all this out”.

He's a fraud

When i try to give feedback, i look for a way to email them direct. He probably will never see you comment on you tube.

Point me to this “proof”. If proof existed, then faith wouldn’t be required.

JamesB well said

You mean like it was originally?

There is no sane individual, good or evil, who wants his own scientists to lie to him about their discoveries. This is so because knowledge is power. In our world, it is the secretive wealthy who pull the strings of the political puppets they own, it is the secretive wealthy who control what info, what truth and what lies get published by the journalistic enterprises which they own. It's not science, rather, it is we, whose knowledge about science is gained only via the distorting lens of the media, who are "abused and manipulated for political purposes"!

Almost

True, especially when they can claim to be challenged by anyone in their field..

I started listening to him a couple of years ago, and have been continually promoting him SINCE! More people need to be aware of him, and show their SUPPORT, for courageous & open-minded men like him, who refuse to march lockstep to the Materialist / Naturalist world-view. And instead chose to follow the evidence, WHEREVER it leads - even if it points toward a designing intelligence!

But a computer is making life, ONLY ON EARTH.

What is the evidence that a god created life?

@@cnault3244 usually when it comes to their personal believe, prove is not required.

@@cnault3244 the evidence is in the Quran. Read it & u will know that God exists & he is the creator of everything that exists

@@whatsnew2138 what evidence is in the quran, the quran us a claim by a dude not evidence

I agree 🙌🏽🔥🔥🔥❤️❤️❤️

Frank Harrod The words

Nice way of putting it. I wouldn't have thought if putting it that way.

That just goes to show how smart you are yourself. Fascinating mate

He is not stupid, he is just saying what nobody knows. People think science know everything this guy is spelling it out that they don't.

It's called humility and seems to be a rare attribute among those in the "scientific community."

the guy actually spent the whole video saying "we don't know", how does he got any answer lol

😂😂

@@disdat1497 You can't listen or what ? He is saying to you we will never know what about to creat ?! He is saying to you there is unlimit creater and a stupid threay like Darwin's not explain no thing.

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution . Evolution unlike abiogenesis is widely accepted and explains life coherently but has no comment on the origin of life. This scientist himself believes in evolution

That's exactly the answer, most of the scientists say they do know, and teach like science what is just a hypothesis (in many areas)

Pasteur's beef-broth experiment lasted how long - a few weeks? And how much volume was in it?

Welcome to reality, the best theory is the one that match all evidence, and that's what abiogenesis is.

Yes... Lost jobs, careers, even lost lives

Yes, the book Slaughter of the Dissidents details how anyone in academia questions 'evolution' are attacked, lose tenure, jobs, funding.

You're kidding, right? Creationism is the most lucrative of the ideology-for-profit industries!

No. Someone lying about science should be kept well away from children trying to learn science! Keep the creationists in church where they can't infect others

Except his entire argument is we don’t know therefore god. It’s just another iteration of the god of the gaps fallacy. It will be interesting to go back and look at this video many years from now when scientists have discovered more about abiogenesis.

@@raito1239they’ll likely discover that they’re getting further away from understanding it.

WHY, DAWKINS say that he is wrong, with no proof, just by him a doodiehead

@@bretloomis8881 The Dawkins' Law = "evolution didit" ...🙄

Dawkins refuses to accept that the facts when correctly interpreted contradict his version of the evolution of man story. So a debate with him is waste of time. Besides, he's been dismantled many times already in public debates with creationist scientists.

​@@jounisuninen 😂😂😂

Manda James Tour enfrentar o Nick Lane ou o Jack Szostak 😎, vai levar uma grande surra

👍👍👍

Not only makes more sense! It is the sanity itself!!

It's the only way..

So basically "science involves too much thinking so god" 🤣🤣🤣

23 minutes of just saying "life is complex, yo! And I'm smarter than my critics!"

It's really cutting-edge INDEED! I'm sure you'll enjoy this quote Mukarram: "All of us have to choose the presuppositions with which we start. There are not many options - essentially, just two. Either human intelligence ultimately owes its origin to mindless matter or there is a Creator. It is strange that some people claim that it is their intelligence that leads them to prefer the first over the second" (John Lennox).

Ground breaking? What ground did he break? He is just preaching his evidence-free opinion based on creationism. This is as far from ground breaking as one can get. IF he did some actual experiment that backed his hypothesis that might be interesting - but he didn't. He didn't do any of value and none of it was new. Ground breaking? I don't think you understand the term.

I heard nothing that pointed to the existence of a creator, only to the limited intellect of humans to solve the mysteries of the universe. And there is no pridefulness here, as I am of course one of the aforementioned humans with limited intellect and the inability to understand how everything works.

When you need to lie to make your point you made your point. Please cite an example of mainstream science stating it knows all it needs to know about the origin of life. I will wait right here for your citation.

No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him Jesus in John 6:44.

He does, he will accuse Christians of using a "God of the gaps fallacy" . It's atheists' favorite argument against theists. I call it the "assumption of god of the gaps fallacy fallacy": accusing Christians who poke genuine holes in weak scientific theory of using the God of the gaps fallacy.

As Dr. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, he has not tried to find an answer. Even Dr. Tour exposed the stupidity of your comment in the beginning of this video.

Our Islamic countries' education system are really in dire need of improvement

One of my closest friends has her PhD in biochemistry; my mom in chemistry. Both agree that only God can be the Creator, not Mother Nature.

Send this video to them

So, Frankenstein's monster? Right, just produce Frankenstein's monster and one might have a credible argument for a naturalistic origin of life.

Isn't the point of 'life' not to try to understand it but just to experience it?

"The mystery is beyond us and requires the divine touch" is a dogma. There are many hundreds of proper scientists looking for the answers to the question: "What are the origins of life?" It's been less than 100 years since we have had the tools needed to explore this meaningfully. I think probably in my own lifetime the scientific community will have the answer.

yes, and this destroys completely darwin evolution theory and those atheists who do not believe in God ( Allah ) existence 😁👍

الملحدين العرب : المسلمين دافعين له

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته اخ مصطفى😅

بارك الله عزّ وجلّ فيكم، وثبّتكم على دين الإسلام العظيم، وزادكم تقوى وخشية وإيمانًا وعلمًا نافعًا. آمين.

@@ashahadalmuthaab793 Oh yes, in your obsession to destroy science and technology, you end up destroying civilisation itself and returning us to the dark age.