James Tour - A distinguished and most civil gentleman and reputable scientist, I have never even met you in person however after distant observation (videos) I am confident in having made this determination.
Yikes. I guess you haven't seen what his peers think of him then, his very well educated and accomplished peers, nor did you hear the stories from his classmates back in university, who make it very clear how he got his name onto published papers that he hardly helped with. Just yikes.😬 I won't argue with you, but I will strongly encourage you to look at videos debunking this man.
@@fohrum4757 They don’t want to hear about these truths. This is not his field, he has no support for his views on a topic that is not his focus of research and his terrible reputation within his actual field of study regarding academic dishonesty.
@@fohrum4757 you didn't even understand that video. I have seen a lot of "expose" videos, the truth is usually not told in such videos, the truth is always more nuanced. People have a problem with what Tour does? Yes, especially atheist scientists. And if a remarkable scientist who has previously shared his religious views, is it inconceivable that his faith got firmer in his last moments? Well, none of us know the exact truth, but the fact that you deduce that it must be true, it credulous.
No, science, real science, only deals with the natural world, not the supernatural. In all of recorded human history no explanation for an observed phenomenon has gone from a natural explanation to a supernatural one. Literally millions of observed phenomenon have gone from a supernatural explanation to a natural one. I'm going to bet that trend continues.
Witnessing the incredible intellectual synergy between James Tour and Stephen Meyer is truly a landmark moment for scientific inquiry and philosophical exploration. Their collaborative efforts challenge the status quo and pave the way for groundbreaking advancements in understanding life's origins. Together, they exemplify how bridging their unique perspectives can catalyse a deeper, more nuanced dialogue that is essential for the true progress of OoL science. Bravo and thank you gentlemen, may the God bless you both.
@@Obeytheroadrulessuch a poor comment.... I haven't even watched the video yet and I know how fallacious your comment is..... By all means, place the time stamp from the video where this "God of the gaps" appears.
@@timothyyoung4463 1. there is no verifiable evidence at all for a God of any kind. 2. right throughout history, nothing has ever had a supernatural explanation, no question has ever had a supernatural answer, no experiment has ever had a supernatural result . These two preachers are trying to invoke a supernatural phenomena. GOD OF THE GAPS . 3. to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt, you need to provide a mechanism, both these preachers never provide a mechanism for anything God has created. GOD OF THE GAPS …..
@@Obeytheroadrules The Mirror Image Problem: Many vital biomolecules exist in two mirror-image forms (enantiomers). Think of them as left and right hands. Without this uniformity, proteins and DNA wouldn't fold into their functional shapes, pointing to the need for a selection process outside of known chemistry. Life uses specific bonds to create complex molecules: peptide bonds for proteins, phosphodiester bonds for DNA. Life isn't just about having the right materials; it's about intricate information encoded within them. For this to happen without existing cells, we need a process that arranges amino acids and nucleotides (A, T, C, G) in precise sequences within DNA. Life's Energy Control: A fundamental hallmark of living organisms is their ability to harness energy and use it in precise, controlled ways to perform essential functions like building molecules, transporting nutrients, and replicating, posing a major hurdle for how life could have arisen by unguided processes. Life's Interdependence: The inner workings of a cell are an intricate network of interconnected systems that seem impossible to have evolved piecemeal and require planning. The Protective Barrier: Cell membranes are fundamental for life. They define the boundary of a cell, controlling what enters and exits. Forming such complex, selectively permeable structures without existing biological machinery is difficult to explain. Polymerization vs. Degradation: Polymerization, the process of linking smaller units (monomers) into larger chains (polymers), is essential for creating the biomolecules that form the basis of life. However, natural environments are typically filled with processes that promote degradation, the breaking down of complex molecules. Life's Precision: Living systems replicate and translate genetic information with extraordinary precision. In a prebiotic world, without the error-correcting machinery of modern cells, mistakes would quickly degrade any potential for life to maintain itself. DNA's Translator: The genetic code is the 'dictionary' that cells use to translate information stored in DNA (triplets of nucleotides called codons) into specific amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. This complex 'language' appears arbitrary, with nothing in chemistry dictating those assignments. This makes its origin by chance hard to explain. The interconnected nature of these challenges, and their multiplied improbability, suggests that the most reasonable explanation for the origin of life may lie in the actions of an intelligent designer.
I bought Stephen Meyer's book when it first came out and I underlined lots. That was long ago. I am happy to see that two of my favorite people were able to connect. Enjoyed the conversation . Thank you!
Steve - Great answer to the question about Catholics, Protestants, and those in the Eastern Orthodox branch! Your position is what I aspire to. Thanks for being such a winsome reflection of Jesus' commitment to truth in love.
As a graduate level physics and chemistry educated person. I am overwhelmed by the possibilities of new science understanding coming from a design approach to all of the sciences. So much work to be done, almost like starting at the beginning.
@@chikaokolo4929 Well, where else can it come from? The fossil record has a start in the geological column, there was no life before it, there was after it began. Can you show me the magic tricks your god did to get it started? Well of course you can't, because you lot just make stuff up.
@@Sparrow-hawk-666 Can you show us the magic tricks that your god abiogenesis did to get it started? Of course you can't. Something that I find interesting is, when you look at ancient religions, they deified NATURE, how are you doing anything different with your abiogenesis fairy tale? You are essentially saying the same thing as the ancients, "nature" did it all, nature is YOUR god of the gaps. You worship gaia. The Earth is your, "mother," and time is your father, chronos. You adhere to ancient pagan entities and don't even realize it.
Science has been progressing for thousands of years. We don't need to force in religious beliefs and pseudoscientific drivel to make the Science more valid.
From minute 2 - 5 Stephen Meyer gives the most accurate explanation I've heard on what's happening among true Believers in Christ. Love it when we get to hear these brilliant conversations betwen James Tour and Stephen Meyer 🎉
Always a sublime pleasure listening to you two sharing ideas and rational deductions regarding the huge problem of Abiogenesis through merely undirected, pre-biotic chemistry. I'm fortunate enough to have read all of Mr. Meyers' published works, and would be delighted to read any published works from Mr. Tour. Thank you guys so much for all that you have done in recent videos and appearances to advance the layman's understanding of physical life and intelligent, rational explorations of all the specified complexity necessary behind all forms of life, from the simplest organisms to the more complex. Please do more videos together if possible and thank you kindly for your penetrating insight and dual analysis of modern scientific pitfalls regarding origin of life research. God Bless you both very much !!!
You're literally just thanking him for lying to you lol. But you'll never ever have the guts to watch videos showing how much of a fraud he is because he's a god believer like yourself, so you leave it at that. 🤷 I'll take cognitive dissonance for $800 please Alex.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 those people are constantly crying about being oppressed, the lashing out when they see the world turning away from their stupid Bronze Age mythology. Of course the origin of life is naturalistic. Just like EVERYTHING that was once explained by superstitious crap that ended up being natural. 'but this is different!! " No theists. It's not.
You were asked what your end game is and answered well. I would simply add that Jesus declared what His purpose in coming was: John 18: Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” Doesn’t that describe very well what you are doing? You are arguing against falsehood in science and testifying to what you know to be true! Thank You for that!!
What "falsehoods in science" has Tour argued against? I never noticed any. What he was arguing against was the straw men he'd made of abiogenesis and evolution, and not the actual sciences. He's the fraud in this field. For all I know his religious faith may be sincere, but his dedication to science certainly isn't.
Happy eclipse day to all American pagans! And if the Christians here let us know whether they've been raptured, or ruptured, whichever comes first, all the better! 🌑🌒🌓🌔🌕🌖🌗🌘🌙
How confident are you that God does not exist? Are you able to confidently play with hell fire both figuratively and literally that there isn't an afterlife, and confident that the Christian afterlife isn't true? Confident that Jesus never existed, or is not God?
@@somethinsomethin7216 I don't know what caused the universe to exist. I'm pretty damn sure it wasn't a god of the Christian, Buddhist, Muslim or Hindu sort. If something is not only complex enough to make a universe, but sentient enough to have intentions and purposes, do you seriously think it has human feelings and characteristics, and cares who does what on this tiny speck of dust in a remote and uninteresting corner of the cosmos? Get over yourself, you're nothing like a god!
@@Sparrow-hawk-666 if you don't know, and know it's not an Abrahamic God or whatever, that's a contradiction no? Either it means you know more than everyone else to know there isn't a God, or you are confident but acting on faith that there isn't a God
@@somethinsomethin7216 No dear, I'm pointing out that if you can't know that a god exists, or what sort of god it is, then it's a waste of time making scheiss up the way religions do. You can dabble in scheiss if you like, dear, I grew out of it 50 years ago. Your capitalisation of "God" gives your prejudices away.
@@Sparrow-hawk-666 likewise your lack of capitalism of 'god' gives away your biases. You don't have a superior stance on this. Anyway, I don't know what brought you here, maybe it's a bad experience of sorts with Christians you have known. If so I am sorry, there are bad apples as well as decent ones, but don't let that get in the way of knowing God. I have, and it's brought me a deeper peace and fulfilment.
Thank you for the video. I have one suggestion. We Christians should focus on making the point that Einstein made: the harmony of the universe REVEALS a superior mind. It is what we know about this universe what lead us to God. This knowledge does the heavy lifting. This knowledge is the evidence. What we do not know matters less.
What "harmony of the universe" are you referring to? The harmony that generates wars and epidemics on earth? That's very harmonious, if wars and epidemics are the sorts of stuff you admire. I have a suggestion: Christians should just stop making stuff up. It adds nothing to their already dismal reputation.
“I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” Albert Einstein 1954
I think I finally understand Dr Tour's approach after watching almost every video of his, he is trying to understand the mechanics God used naturally to create life. Most people stop at God created, he needs to understand how that physically happened down to a molecular level. It should be said Dr tour of the gaps instead of God of the gaps because he is wanting to find the answer to the unexplained and not settling for hype.
"he is trying to understand the mechanics God used naturally to create life. " e is lying about science in order to install an imaginary deity as the creator of life.
During my bachelor in biochemistry, I often wondered about the "waiting time problem" without realizing that there was a name for it. Some of my professors in genetics had stressed to the class that the vast majority of mutations (>99.99%) would be either neutral or harmful to the organism, *NOT* beneficial. This genuinely made me wonder how random mutation could account for all the species and biodiversity that we encounter. I could make sense of rapid evolution in bacteria that are having multiple life cycles per week, but animals with a life cycle of a year or more evolving into totally new species by random mutation alone? It seemed implausible since >99% of the time, one generational cycle results in no adaptive change to the organism. It would seem that the Earth would need to have existed for a few trillion years to arrive at all the animal and plant species we see simply via random mutation and subsequent selection. But the reality of the fossil record is that multicellular life has only existed for the last 400 million years.
I heard Meyer tell a congregation once that he believes in Jesus Christ. I only wish he’d state that more often than constantly referring to the Father as an Intelligent Designer.
@@JiraiyaSama86 I think it would be degrading for him to do it. But I wouldn't want him stopped from talking to them if he so desired it (as revolting as the idea is).
Thank you very much Dr James Tour and Stephen Meyer. Your stand against the lies and assumptions of beginning of life theory and evolutionary theory are bringing publicity and awareness to the truth.
Does Jim intend on suing Professor Dave, Kevin Ausman, and Andrew Barron for defamation or emotional distress? I’m gonna keep commenting this until Jim actually does it or he explains why he won’t do it.
@@codonmatrix4510 I'm not asking, let alone threatening anyone. I'm just saying if Jim feels like these people are spewing lies to ruin his reputation, why doesn't he sue them for defamation?
Questions: Regarding Assembly (Theory) Hypothesis, is it possible to determine the Assembly Index (AI) of Polypeptides, Polysaccharides, Polynucleotides, etc? If so, what would be the AI for these bio-molecules? And what would assembly theory conclude about the intelligent origins of these molecules?
Thank you for the great encouragement and information. Question, if Isaac Newton made such great strides in science by seeking to discover Gods laws of nature, then wouldn’t it, according to science itself, be imperative for scientists to conduct science with the same objective in mind? I think Dr Meyers point about this is that it’s possible that there might have been much greater strides made in science if this had been done by others.
The entire history of science has been a process of removing religion from our understanding of nature. Religion is an obstacle to understanding natural law, which is why neither Meyer, nor Tour have the foggiest idea about biology, evolution and abiogenesis. All they know about those subjects is that their bible is against them.
It’s like giving someone the task to make a computer from absolute scratch, and they just buy the pre assembled parts and slap it together to just build it, and saying “job done”… and that’s just using an explanation of something that’s entirely possible but showing how the actual task was not taken to account. Buying pre assembled parts for a construction project of anything shows the inability to actually perform the task of creating something from beginning to end in the literal sense.
Great discussion. Whenever I have interactions with the 'There is no God' crowd, I usually point them towards you two and some others. They always demand HARD evidence, and I suspect it is because they will not trust their lack of cognitive reasoning.
Given enough time and scientific research, many evolutionists will understand that there is a creator and He gave us a record of His existence. Through His image, the ability to comprehend that.
Stephen, do go on the Lex show. Contact him… anyone will have you once they know what/who you are. [Also, consider going as a “good cop - bad cop” duo, if you wish Cheers.]
Kevin Ausman, a former Rice student, and Andrew Barron, a Rice professor of chemistry, have accused you of plagiarizing research, hijacking colleagues’ funerals, claiming authorship on a paper you didn’t write, hyping you own research, and hypocrisy for criticizing OoL researchers for fraud and hype. Do you plan on suing them for defamation and/or emotional distress?
@user-dy3uhYou must be a kid. It would cost tens of thousands of dollars to bring a suit…..if he wins the person he is suing doesn’t have enough money to pay the legal fees. Grow up
If I created a crater by dropping a 10 ton iron ball from a crane, would that mean the craters on the moon were also created by an intelligent mind with a crane?
I'm interested in this subjects as a bible believer who studied engineering. Its disturbing that the knowledge of science is presented as reason to quit being a bible believer, for me its the opposite.
Did I just hear a [self-proclaimed] scientist state "these are purely theories ... and alot of it is based on hype" - And then, "this a theory, this is what we speculate upon" ...??? Really, scientific theories are just speculation? Oh dear JT, didn't you learn what a theory in science means?
You're right. However, if both are considered theories, wouldn't it be fair to teach young children in schools about both? Saying, "We don't know exactly how it happened, kids-it could have happened by chance from a prebiotic soup, or it could have been the result of planned design and execution by a higher intelligence."
@@Sparrow-hawk-666 "So you support teaching kids that magic is real? Isn't that a bit... misleading?" That is the problem of atheism... where almost everything happens "magically" as a brute fact (without explanation) or as infinite coincidences that you have to believe by blind faith... nothing more "magical" than that!
An obedient acceptance from upbringing needs to become a mature faith. In my case bible stories from sunday school etc stayed with me. When I saw the birth of my son and his development I started to believe in miracles. I Studied evolutionary theory prophesy etc wanting to know the truth.I asked God if you are there please reveal yourself to me. He did.
@@Robert-ct6bc I was indoctrinated by atheism from my early school days, TV, evolutionary dogma in newspapers all media. That is what the world tells us.constantly non stop day by day.
When given the task to build anything in life from scratch, and you have to use pre assembled parts, it automatically interferes with the given task just to reach the end result. Ignoring the main goal of the given task
@@Sparrow-hawk-666 you seem to have poor reading comprehension skills, I’ve stated that in another comment… Have you seen a universe created? What is black matter? Even in the absence of the universe that is still something. Time is still there, otherwise nothing would be able to take place. God is not affected by space, time, or matter and is clearly stated in scripture hundreds of years ago before science was involved. The reason god doesn’t show exactly clear evidence is because it requires faith, otherwise you don’t truly believe. Science and mathematics of probability show that all of your scientific theories actually need a cascading effect of billions of types of miracles to take place over time one after another in order to create the intricacies we see in life today. It goes against all scientific probability. Mathematics can clearly show this as well. To act as if you need to have the knowledge of God clearly shows your arrogance here, something Lucifer was trying to do, act at the same level as
@@haze__9075 Ah, the natural Christian reaction. When you can't answer a question because it goes beyond your education, mock it. Jesus must be proud of you. Now, the atheist's natural reaction, when asked a question we can't answer, is to reply simply: "I don't know, let me see what I can do to find out." That's in marked contrast to theists, who just spin tall tales about magical sky-daddies who poof stuff into existence out of nothing while not raising themselves from the dead, and mock the research needed to answer the question. The probability of life arising from non-life just isn't calculable, because we don't know how it happened - yet. Making up huge numbers and pointing at all the imaginary zeros in them and pretending the odds you've just invented are impossible is an exercise in complete futility. The reason is, we know life occurred at least once here on earth, and there are probably billions of earth-like planets in our galaxy alone. So the odds against it aren't what you and biologically illiterate folk like Mr Tour like to pretend they are. All the logic and reason is on our side, son. All the immature responses are on yours. And the hissy fits are all Wee Jimmy Tour's - you should check out his farcically histrionic performance when he "discussed" abiogenesis with Dave Farina. He's deathly afraid his naïve biblical literalism will be scientifically disproved one day.
Sure, here are 4 more examples contrasting contradictory formulations from classical frameworks with their potential non-contradictory counterparts using infinitesimal/monadological perspectives: 5) The Continuum Hypothesis in Set Theory Contradictory: Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms CH: There are no sets whose cardinality is strictly between that of the integers and the real numbers. However, CH is logically independent of ZFC, and leads to paradoxes like the Banach-Tarski paradox of measure. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Non-standard Analysis Cardinality(*R) = Cardinality(R) + 1 *R contains infinitesimal and infinite elements Treating the real continuum *R as derived from ordered infinitesimal monadic extensions resolves CH by assigning a higher cardinality, avoiding paradoxes. 6) Paradoxes of Spacetime Singularities Contradictory: General Relativity Gμν = 8πTμν Solutions contain spacetime singularities where geometric description breaks down. The presence of singularities where physics becomes transcendentally ill-defined represents a fatal flaw. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Combinatorial Algebraic Quantum Gravity ds2 = Σx,y Γxy dxdy (metric from monadic charge relations) Gμν = f(Γxy, mx, qx, ...) (monadic gravitational dynamics) Representing spacetime/gravity algebraically from relations Γxy among discrete quantized monadic charges/masses avoids singular infinities entirely. 7) The Liar's Paradox in Logic Contradictory: "This statement is false." If true, it is false. If false, it is true. This simple self-referential statement leads to a paradox that undermines classical bivalent logic. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Pluriverse-Valued Realizability Logic ⌈A⌉ = {Vn(A) | n∈N} (truth value as monadic realization projections) A ↔ B ⇐⇒ ⌈A⌉ = ⌈B⌉ (equivalence between realization pluriverses) Representing statements as pluriverses of realizability projections Vn(A) across monads, rather than binary truth values, avoids self-referential paradoxes. 8 ) The Black Hole Information Paradox Contradictory: Classical Black Hole Models As matter crosses the event horizon, information about its initial state is irretrievably lost to external observers. This seems to violate unitarity and entropy increase principles of quantum theory. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Monadic Black Hole Complementarity |Ψ>exterior = Σn cn |Un>horizon |Ψ>interior = Σn cn |Vn>trans-pit Treating the exterior/interior as distinct monadic realizations |Un>, |Vn> of the same superposition allows information to be holographically distributed across all perspectives. In each case, the classical theory is either outright paradoxical or produces unphysical pathological solutions due to flawed assumptions like: - Primacy of infinitely precise continua over discrete elements - strictly separable geometric manifold description - bivalent logic and binary truth values - Requiring information destruction from external perspective The non-contradictory infinitesimal/monadological approaches resolve these issues by: - Treating continua as derived from ordered monadic pluralities - Representing geometric observables algebraically from relational pluralities - Using pluriverse-valued realizability projections rather than binary truth - Allowing for holographic information distribution across perspectives By systematically avoiding over-idealized separability axioms in favor of integrated pluralistic relational accounts, these new frameworks have the potential to resolve paradoxes plaguing our current best theories from first principles. The vision is an entirely coherent, non-contradictory mathematics and physics founded on the primordial pluralities inherent to subjective conscious experience. Reality is modeled as perfectly cohesive patterns across infinite intersecting perspectives, rather than vexing self-undermining singularities.
@@moroniholm87 The Big Bang theory was not an explosion! It was not of "atomic proportions" because atoms hadn't been formed at that stage. Learn a little about the topic you're trying to write about! Hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen are all essential for life and there is strong evidence that 19 of the elements are essential to all living things, and another 17 are essential to some taxonomic groups. So, not just carbon. Carbon is an element. Graphite is an allotrope of carbon. This means that graphite is made entirely of carbon arranged in a particular way. You can also arrange carbon atoms into other allotropes like diamond and fullerenes. In biology carbon atoms are bonded with other elements so carbon would be more common, not graphite.
Faithful Catholics/orthodox and evangelicals have much in common. I’m Catholic because it’s apostolic, one , holy, inspired and historical. The Body and Blood theology of Catholics and orthodox go Back to the apostles.
@@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n -. Are you aware that the eighth commandment condemns lying. Hopefully, you’re just ignorant of the truth and less culpable. And here’s a quick history lesson for you: the Catholic Church wrote , preserved , defended and died for the Bible 1517 years before protestant ism began in the 16th century. In fact, Protestantism had nothing to do with the Bible whatsoever. Nothing. The only contribution that protestants have made to the Bible is to distort it and twist it and thereby wreaking condemnation on themselves for distorting the word of God. Martin Luther deleted seven books from the Bible and added the word “alone“ to Romans 3:28 to support the protestant heresy. King Henry VIII started his own Protestant church after murdering scores of Catholics just so he could commit adultery. The KKK , a Protestant offshoot, murdered Catholics and others as well. Protestant Lutheran, Nazi Germany, murdered 25 million or more. Oh and “mystery Babylon” theology is a heresy popularized by Protestant Dave hunt a man who even most Protestants think was nuts. Apparently he suckered you in.
@@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n - Protestants are not bible believers but deniers. They rejected 7 books of scripture starting with Luther. Luther himself was a wretch. Protestant nazis did quite a bit of damage.
@@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n - when you get serious, I’ll be happy to debate you. You’re following Dave Hunts “mystery Babylon” crap theory. He has no respect even among prottys.
Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 contradict. You will have to reconcile that before asserting papacy as an authority in the church. Jesus is the Cornerstone and His "rock" that the church is built upon is the gospel.
I would not be surprised tif those two demonstrable liars would claim that they can in fact estimate the IQ if some undetectable God.....I lack this power. I can however, estimate your IQ just by the fact that you ask this question.
Hi Dr.Tour and Mr. Meyer I just wanted to know what do you think about gene drive technology and do you believe we, meaning humans, should play around with such technologies that are potentially dangerous? Same goes for CRISPR...
@@aleksandarklipic4770 See what you people do? I mean...for the life of me I don't get it. Millions and millions of people are suffering right now in horrible pain. Millions more have died due to stupid genetic mistakes. But you believe there's a sky-daddy up above who made everyone "perfect in his image", so any time scientists try and improve our lives here you come with your pitchforks. Like that utterly stupid George Bush stem-cell ban that set us back decades. CRISPR and GDT have not only the potential to save lives, but it could very well save our own extinction one day. These two won't utter one word about these things because it only proves their "intelligent design" bullshit is a fraud. And that life is NOT perfect digital computer code. But a goddamned mess. They would also have to admit in evolution because where the hell exactly did we GET all these genes that can turn on or off suddenly and cause all these problems? Oh yeah, common descent.
@@aleksandarklipic4770 They wont touch those topics with a 10 foot pole because they blow away Creationism and Intelligent Design. James Tour especially wont because the only reason we have all these dormant genes that only cause issues when they accidentally express themselves? Yeah, that's because of Evolution. A topic he hates and understands even less.
دکتر جان محاسبه سن فسیل ها و استخوان ها دقیقا به کدوم روش انجام میشه من نمیدونم کربنی ،یا روش های دیگر چون کاملا اشتباه دارند محاسبه میکنند و اشتباهشون باید در حدی باشه که خودشون هم خجالت بکشند 👍 ❤❤🙏🙏🙏🙏
Humans created god, a metaphorical construct for a higher authority (the laws of the universe) and a human collective conscience. We mirror this god in our actions. That we perceive this god as a person, an intelligent mind, is anthropomorphism (similar to animism), an illusion that humans have always used to make the incomprehensible easier to understand. We arose from "the dust of the ground" (as the bible says, and abiogenesis research assumes), and for this to happen it only required the laws of the universe (god) and lots of time. Despite those who scoff like Tour and Meyer, we will continue to use science to seek the truth.
@@jinnantonix4570whoa easy there smart guy.... when you say "we", perhaps you ment to say you and some others whom are spiritually lost. But many prayers for you friend.
@@MarkPatmos ask yourself the question: "where do the laws of the universe come from?". Then when you answer it, ask yourself whether or not you had "invented a supernatural creator to explain it".
@@jinnantonix4570laws always require a lawgiver. Much like a video game designer sets the parameters for the laws of physics within his game and operation and characteristics of the matter within his game as well as a distinct temporal space the analogy is a 1:1 comparison regardless of your opinion on the matter. To say otherwise is ad hoc question begging nonsense.
@@michaelbabbitt3837 have you stopped to think that one chemist who has no experience in the biological field at all, who specializes in nano technology, and a guy who has been pushing creationism in schools openly, may have a motivation to misrepresent current science? Does that compute? Neither of these men have published work in the fields they criticize, they are certainly capable of going to the labs and doing the research that they say is correct. Odd that they don’t. They just so happen to be deeply Christian, I’m sure just like you. Do you see this coming together? Have you read the literature on the topics they discussed? Tour hand waves away an entire field of science. That’s actually peer reviewed and is published, his critiques are not included, he is not even qualified. A word of advice if anyone no matter who it is tells you something is impossible because the math is some astronomical number something so unimaginable that there must be some kind of divine intervention, they are saying absolutely nothing. You can’t create a model and make a probability statement or argument for origin of life or origin of the universe. It’s not something people do with any confidence. But I feel like most people even slightly interested in this science knows this. Stephen Meyer said that Darwinian Evolution can’t account for the amount of mutations there are in animals we see today. That is very true. He fails to mention Darwinian evolution is from the mid 1800’s and is strictly natural selection. But we know of and observe at least 4 other types of evolution, and factors we couldn’t possibly account for. But a person like you eats this up like a starving dog. This is not science, it is a veil this religious frauds use to justify their beliefs, and peddle biblical scripture in place of actual science. Call me delusional but I don’t think you have started to think about anything these people have said. Tour is a salesman in regards to OOL and biology.
Must the western churches be reconstructed? Elohim is plural: Gods. Translated to singular. All over the World is the believe that the Gods came down from the Heavens (sky) down to Earth. It can no longer be dismissed that the Gods MAY have been alians.
I thought the finding that so called junk DNA is not junk but relevant useful genetic material. This directly refutes the materialist viewpoint that DNA would be mostly junk because blind chance would not create a high value DNA chain as much would be randomly generated. On the other side the the Designed theory predicted that over time the DNA would prove to be highly designed and not a matter of chance. The win in this issue is for the Design camp and crushes the Materialistic prediction.
Wrong, buddy. Most of the DNA is made of non-coding regions. While some of these regions play important roles in regulation and controlling gene expression, most of them serve no purpose whatsoever. That disproves the pseudoscientific idea of intelligent design. Prove that a god exists in order for us to consider the possibility of supernatural explanations.
@@sentientflower7891 The materialist (since the time of Darwin) changes viewpoints faster than a human changes underwear. I have reviewed all of their theories since Darwin's original hypothesis crapped out. The Neo-Darwinists recycle the same ideas only coming at the same problem from a different angle or re-packaging the the same ideas in a different composition makeup. All the while they do this they do not admit to the public that the original Darwinist ideas failed (Natural Selection has been known and used by humans for thousands of years prior to Darwin). They keep the same tired literature in all of the textbooks from grade school to undergraduate college courses like it is a proven theory with no need to explain it or show that it has changed.
I wasn't even a Jew and then I found out that I am directly descended from Israel in the tribe of Dan. Yes, the long lost tribe of Dan. I might not even qualify as being an Israelite anymore. The OT scholars gave up on us and even the NT scholars gave up on us.
Science doesn't "get better" by pointing to the problems ... it gets better by engaging with it and doing your own research into it. Ranting "they don't know this or that" or "they can't prove that ..." isn't helpful, its irrelevant and simply silly. Just like a guy ranting for his lazy chair that his wife is taking 'forever' to cook dinner. Guess what, get up from your lazy chair and help ...
Here is an attempt to debunk the foundational theories of Newton and Einstein from the perspective of the infinitesimal monadological framework: Newton's Classical Mechanics 1) The basic ontology of precise point masses and particles is incoherent from the start. By treating matter as extensionless geometric points rather than irreducible pluralistic perspectival origins (monads), the theory cannot represent real physical entities in a non-contradictory way. 2) Newton's notion of absolute space and time as a fixed inertial stage is undermined. Space and time lack autonomy as background entities - they must be derived from the web of infinitesimal relational monadic perspectives and correlations. 3) The instantaneous action-at-a-distance for gravity/forces is inconsistent. All interactions must be mediated by discrete particularities propagating across adjacent monadic perspectives to avoid non-locality paradoxes. 4) The deterministic laws of motion are over-idealized. Indeterminism arises inevitably from the need to sum over infinitesimal realizability potentials in the monadic probability statevector. 5) The geometric infinities in the point-mass potentials cannot be properly regulated, indicating a failure of classical limits and continuum idealization. In essence, Newton's mechanics rests on reifying abstract mathematical fictions - precise points, absolute background spaces/times, strict determinism. Monadological pluralism rejects such contradictory infinities in favor of finitary discreteness from first principles. Einstein's General Relativity 1) General covariance and background independence are overstated given the persisting role of an inertial reference frame, indicating unresolved geometric idealization. 2) The manifold premises of treating spacetime as a differentiable 4D continuum are ungrounded given the ontological primacy of discrete perspectives. 3) Representing gravity as curvature tensions the representation to its singularity breakdown points where the theory fatally fails. 4) Relativity cannot be fundamentally unified with quantum theories given the reliance on incompatible spacetime idealizations. 5) The theory excludes the primacy of subjective conscious observations, instead reifying an abstracted unobserved "block universe." While impressively extending Newton's geometric systemization, Einstein remained bound by over-idealized continuum geometric axioms inherited from classical math. True general invariance and background independence require overthrowing these in favor of intrinsically discrete, pluralistic, observation-grounded foundations. Both theories imposed precise Euclidean 3D geometric fictions persisting from ancient Greek abstractions - Platonic ideals reified as physical reality rather than subjectively-constructed mathematical fictions. The infinitesimal monadological framework grants revolutionary primacy to discrete pluralistic perspectives, the source of continuous geometric observables derived as holistic stationary resonances. Only such a reconceptualization escapes geometry's self-contradictions. By grounding reality in finitary discreteness and irreducible subjective pluralisms, consistent with the metaphysical facts of first-person conscious experience, the entire Archimedean/Euclidean/Newtonian geometric edifice undergoes a Kuhnian revolutionary overthrow. Paradox-free plurisitic physics demands such an audacious "Fin de Siecle" monadological rebirth. While immensely fruitful, Newton and Einstein's theories ultimately succumbed to self-undermining geometric infinities and exclusions of subjective observers - overly reifying sanitized mathematical abstractions as detached "transcendent" ontological characterizations. The infinitesimal monadological framework restores physics to firmer foundations by refusing to segregate the symbolic from the experiential.
Very cleanly said. Unfortunately i don't think that the majority of the intended audience is going to be able to fully comprehend what you're saying. May I ask if you have any hypothetical ideas or teleology about how/where consciousness really fits in?
Your objections based on 300 year old essays written by Liebniz are wrong. I won't delve into my Physics or Math(Hons) degrees to argue against your points - that can be left to any second year student.
It would be really interesting if one or both of you, maybe together, could somehow have a conversation with Elon Musk. He’s genuinely seeking the truth. Rogan and Lex Friedman both know him well and could arrange it.
‘Didn’t even know you were looking for a Messiah’ what? What do the Jews believe? The Old Testament is full of the promise of a Messiah. He was promised from Eden!
I know Dr. Tour, Myer are working on the science, but I would like to ask them to reach out to others to take on the history. You've all kinds of channels re-dating the Old T, saying it wasn't written by the authors it claims, claiming it stole from other religions, and so on.
And the misrepresentation continues ... The hydrothermal vents are indeed under water, Meyer, but the pores are shielded from the water in the sense that they regulate the inflow so a dry-wet cycle occurs in which polymerase is possible. That has been demonstrated already by Nick Lane et al.
Mutation does not create new or better features. Adaptation, some call it microevolution, only comes by natural selection of beneficial characteristics from the existing gene pool. Adaptation can only select the most beneficial of what already exists, it can not create new features. Adaptation can only select from inherited characteristics from the parents. This creates natural taxonomic boundaries and does not allow for Darwinian evolution, one type of creature turning into another type of creature. Evolutionists falsely teach that beneficial selections from the gene pool are mutations. They claim a beneficial change in the genome was a mutation when in fact it was a beneficial selection from the inherited gene pool.
Where can I find its peer-reviewed scientific study published in an accredited academic journal that states in its conclusion that "adaptation can only select the most beneficial of what already exists, it can not create new features"? Please provide a citation for such a study.
You're correct. The adaptation process is also driven by epigenetics, allowing an organism's body to quickly up-regulate or down-regulate its genes. This enables phenotypic adaptation to a changing environment. Occasionally, this modified regulation can be passed to the next generation. However, it's important to note that this is not a genetic mechanism; the genes themselves do not change, but rather, it's the regulation of these genes that is altered.
@@robitibor777 you are correct. I am old and I forgot the term "Epigenetics." My mum knew and explained to me, 65 years ago, the mechanism of adaptation. So much nonsense and so many lies have been spread over the years by evolutionists that I believe the public has been misled. I believe evolution is part of the great lie which deceives even the elect.
Has Jim talked about what he thinks of his critics? Are they evil, amoral sociopaths who want to ruin his professional and personal reputation for no reason? Are they honest, educated people who genuinely want him to improve as a better person? What does Jim think of his critics and why does he think that way?
Dr Tour is just saying what is written throughout the literature. All he does is cite science… they criticize him, because he exposes their agenda laden motives. Others because he exposed their Dunning Kruger guru, Pwof Dave as a bit of a high convoluting dunce, who wafted pieces of scientific literature around without actually properly reading them, at all.
@@stephanosjacobus7717 So this infinite mind did nothing for eternity until finally about 13.8 billion years ago decided to create a universe. Then did nothing for another 13.78 billion years and decided, I'll put some humans on that remote rock over there. Then wait another 198,000 years and send my son down to die to make things better for those humans.
@mirandahotspring4019 Wow. Stop with your assumptions, and maybe we can discuss these topics. 1. Who said He did nothing before he created us??? This is strange to me. Have you ever heard of Angeles and The Kingdom of God? Obviously, something was going on there. Just because we didn't see our distant ancestors, that doesn't mean they didn't do anything or exist. 2. You say "about 13.8 billion years"... sure. Who told you this? Men who write books? If The God who mad man made them fully formed in the beginning, wouldn't it be safe and easy to guess, that He also made the earth fully formed? It actually tells us in The Bible that the earth was without form before God formed it. If He formed it in one day and it was fully formed, it would have the appearance of age, just like the man, plants, and animals. It would be silly to put life on the earth before it was formed. I'm not sure what men and what books you put your faith in, but I would hope that you understand that man and woman were created before babaies... That's the only logical conclusion. I hope this helps, and if not, I'll do my best to respond again.
Shortly after when the condensed matter singularity event occurred is where most of the conversation has to, and has taken place; because the organic molecules are the chemists best reference. Were the conditions before condensed matter relevant to the impossible pre-biotic polymerizations for the building block of the building blocks to take place? Steven saying that life has a "designing intelligence" as opposed to "undirected chemical processes", always remarks about the "digital code" in the DNA and how that we always come to a mind and not a "material process" when considering biological origins. In my opinion, if "intelligence", "life", "a cell", and "consciousness" are all equivalent; and using that for a basis for your theory makes it unfalsifiable. If the universe is always looking for a way to transfer energy, matter, and most likely information from one point to another in the most efficient way possible, then it would need something like all of the organisms in the ecology to be performing their biotic processes, and probably have a way to stabilize its conditions so life can do its thing.
8:20. Did Tour say that a scientific theory is speculation? He is a scientist and so he KNOWS that a scientific theory is a model that is as close as science ever gets to a fact. Hype has nothing to do with scientific theories, they stand fully on their merit based on evidence.
He’s saying to highlight what we speculate upon in a given theory and the problems associated with it. Throughout the history of science, theories come and go, that’s how we advance. Highlighting the flaws and speculations in any given theory in the very textbooks can only encourage and whet the appetites of students to pursue this further and lead to greater engagement and advancement in science.
@@Drifter4ever You: "No, he doesn't say that. Go somewhere else instead of misrepresenting things." JT at 8:20: "This is a theory, this is what we speculate upon ..." Quite clear that JT is wilfully conflating scientific theory with hypotheses (or speculations). And that is remarkable, even downright disturbing for someone who claims to be a scientist.
We're not attacking belief in god, nonsensical though it is without evidence. We're attacking Christian Nationalists who dream of imposing their daft religion on everyone else..
Tour is clearly misrepresenting assembly theory. It predicts how organisms come together in patterns based on factors like environmental conditions, resource availability, and species interactions. It is NOT about making a simple cell in a lab. Tour knows this, his disingenuous misrepresentation of Cronin's model is deliberate. Yes, as Meyer says, this is very annoying.
No, Tour is being quite clever, he is arguing against the OoL AT idol Cronin put forth at Harvard. He is shooting down Cronin’s ridiculous deception. AT really doesn’t tell us anything about OoL, it’s just a complexity recognition tool using old math.
@@Melkor3001 no, Tour (and you) are both wrong. Cronin's assembly theory, is a new perspective on the origins of life, particularly focusing on abiogenesis. The Cronin Assembly Theory posits that complex organic molecules, which are essential for life, formed through a series of self-assembly processes driven by simple chemical reactions similar to populations of living creatures. The theory suggests that the complexity observed in biological systems emerged from the self-assembly of simpler chemical building blocks. These building blocks were generated through various abiotic processes, such as reactions involving atmospheric gases, volcanic activity, and mineral surfaces. The theory underscores the significance of dynamic environments, particularly hydrothermal vents, in providing the necessary conditions for chemical reactions to occur. These environments offer a combination of heat, pressure, and mineral catalysts that could promote the synthesis and assembly of organic molecules. It aligns with the field of systems chemistry, which explores how complex chemical systems can exhibit emergent patterns, properties and behaviors. Cronin's approach emphasizes the study of chemical networks and their potential to evolve towards greater complexity, eventually leading to the emergence of life-like properties. Cronin and his research team have conducted experimental studies to test the feasibility of their proposed mechanisms for prebiotic chemistry by simulating early Earth conditions and observing the formation of complex molecules and structures. The Cronin Assembly Theory provides a framework for understanding how simple chemical processes led to the emergence of life's chemical precursors and eventually complex biological systems. However AT does not (as Tour disingenuously claims) provide a guide to building a living cell in a lab.
@@Sparrow-hawk-666 yes, it is falsifiable. Assembly theory proposes certain mechanisms for the emergence of complexity in chemical systems, so experiments could observe whether those mechanisms actually occur under relevant conditions. If the observed results consistently fail to align with the predictions of the theory, it could indicate that the theory does not accurately describe the phenomenon it seeks to explain. If Tour really wanted to destroy AT, he could design and run such an experiment. Instead he talks nonsense on RU-vid.
@@jinnantonix4570 Well, I must admit, I'm a bit hazy on assembly theory. I'm no creationist, religion leaves me stone cold, but do you have specific predictions made by assembly theory that can be tested? I'm on Lee Cronin's side of the general debate, but not too clear on his specifics.
Well, it's worse. Evolution meets high standards of scientific evidence, much higher than the current evidence for abiogenesis. Tour merely makes sure he never learns any of it.
Tour , always so quick to tell us what he assumes can’t happen, but fails again to tell us what can when is Tour and Meyers going to provide a mechanism for the blab that comes out of their mouth
I'd strongly advise Messrs. Tour and Meyer to avoid pontificating on scientific topics they are clearly unqualified to address - namely anything in biology or biochemistry. Meyer is a theologian, and Tour is an organic chemist who specialised in lab syntheses. Tour's academic record is impressive, but doesn't qualify him in any other science, and he's admitted he can't understand evolution. He thinks that because he needed to use intelligence to devise his chemical constructs, all chemistry needs an intelligent designer. It doesn't get more naïve than that. Anyone who can't understand evolution, and has only the haziest notion of abiogenesis, isn't entitled to make magisterial pronouncements about them.
@@codonmatrix4510 The only thing that could fix your problem is an education, but I doubt you're capable of benefitting from one, since creos avoid education like the plague.
Sparrow, these verses in the Book of Romans are specifically written about you. If you’d just read the Bible and allow the Holy Spirit to soften your heart, it’ll be the best thing which ever happens to you. - Romans 1:18-21 “18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”
@@65gtotrips Meyer is no scientist, he's a former historian and a propaganda shill for cresation at the so-called "Discoverey Institute". He has never published a scientific paper in his strange little life. His belief in Jesus Christ is no more "founded" than my belief in fairies - they both appeared in fictional books, and NOWHERE else.
You are right, the genetic code is much more complex and much more nuanced code: Analog Nature: On one level, the process of gene expression (from DNA to RNA to protein) involves discrete units (nucleotides and amino acids). However, the regulation of this process, the folding of proteins, and the interactions between proteins and other molecules in the cell can have a continuous, analog quality to them. Redundancy: The genetic code is redundant, meaning multiple codons can code for the same amino acid. This redundancy can help buffer against mutations. Context Sensitivity: The effect of a nucleotide sequence can be influenced by its surrounding context, such as the presence of regulatory sequences and the spatial structure of the DNA or RNA. In summary, it's most probably a truly marvellous product of an intelligent design.
@@robitibor777 That is not what I said. I just stated that the genetic code is not a digital code. It is a code indeed, carrying the genetic information, yet it is also a physical 'thing'. The nucleotides don't have 'numbers' on their back, so to speak. We attributed 'letters' to them, while they are just chemical components that form base pairs. What you describe, what happens in biological systems and their cells, is what is called structure and function in biology. And I do get that some view that as 'design' but it only means appearance of design. And it's not because something appears to be designed, that it is actually designed, let alone by some elusive supernatural entity based on millenia old writings from ignorant people. "it's most probably a truly marvellous product of an intelligent design" Sorry, but that is just a baseless assertion. Is that going to cover a semester of a university level course? What are you going to do when a student asks you to explain exactly HOW this intelligent designer did it? "We can't understand the ways of god, so just accept that he did it" ? What if one would ask the valid question of WHO is this designer, and HOW do you know this? What would be your response? "For the bible says so"? Compare that to the libraries filled with observations, experiment, scientific papers and findings that science has to offer. And those don't just state "believe us, we're right", they will present the evidence for all to verify themselves. They can retest whatever experiment done, evaluate whatever data and evidence is provided.
I still wonder what led the scientific community into this mess "get the data and explain it literally" as simple as that is they fail at it, souping up stories that lack meaning and scientific comprehension whatsoever.
James Tour is a liar! Now, I can't say for sure what is he lying about, or what is the proof, but i've seen some youtube headlines. They wouldn't lie or distort the truth, would they? No, they wouldn't. But Tour does. So don't listen to his lies, people!
@user-dy3uh no, I don't think so. If there was any proof, then it would be demonstrated to shut Jim down once and for all. Kronin had his chance at least twice and he blew it completely. Others don't have anything to say outside the comfort of their RU-vid channels. Prof Dave had his chance and blew it completely as well. Yeah, Tour acted like a child, and this is a blunder of cosmic proportions, because it let Dave to hide his cluelesness. And even if Jim was a despicable person every opponent want him to be, his arguments are still correct.
@@DartNoobo You're turning things around. It's JT who should first publish his scientific rebuttals in peer reviewed journals ... then the OoL community could respond. And JT shouldn't kid himself in believing that OoL scientists are even aware of his existence, let alone him being relevant to the field of study. "Others don't have anything to say outside the comfort of their RU-vid channels." Preposterous ... scientists don't communicate their science via RU-vid. They use the proper channels for that, scientific journals. If JT wants to engage with them, he should adress them via papers published in those journals. He doesn't, has never done ... which is telling ...
@@lizadowning4389 haha, yeah, there we go! Scientists don have to prove anything! Yeah, this is what you have to say, when there is no data to back up your claims. "Trust me bro, I know how to create life! No, I don't have to demonstrate that, you have to disprove my claim!" Ow, I used RU-vid channels as bait and you swallowed it hook and sinker! Sure, science doesn't communicate through YT, aside from hundreds of popular science hannels, ofc. So what, now you don't have to prove anything? "Read papers!" Ow, I have, and they are ar just hot air! "We have created one of dozens of required molecules. Probably. Spectrometer says so at least. No, we can't separate it from junk. But it's there, most likely, therefore prebiotic *molecule name* is proven! How does it help with self assembly of life? It doesn't, but we made the molecule, so James is a liar!!!"
@@DartNoobo Scientists don't "prove" anything, they find evidence for or against a hypothesis. When Wee Jimmie manages to find evidence that proves abiogenesis or evolution is wrong, then he should publish it in peer-reviewed journals. Till then, he's bloviating as hard as you.
So two people who have no standing in the field are telling you that the science is wrong. Where is their support in the actual scientific community? Where is the peer reviewed research that supports their claims? Doing YT content is not a substitute for doing actual research. Tour is NOT a researcher in any related field. What idiot thinks that doing the JR show is akin to publishing peer reviewed research?
@@sentientflower7891 I’m defending actual science as neither of these two is a respected researcher in any related field of study. Neither has produced any credible research on this topic and Tour has been accused of academic fraud by his colleagues. A charge he has not been able to refute nor has he bought any legal action against his accusers which is what you do if it’s slander or libel. He NEVER wants to be in a courtroom or in an actual scientific setting where he is forced to defend his position as it would be embarrassing for him. No instead he does social media nonsense because he knows most people don’t understand how scientific research is conducted.
I'll say one thing, the Discovery Institute must pay pretty damn well. He's not even pretending to be a scientist anymore. James Tour has gone full Kent Hovind. Stephen Myer? The "Science and Faith Podcast"? What little credibility you had is shattered.
@@sentientflower7891 When I heard James Tour go to Harvard and literally say if we did "figure out" abiogensis we would only be "figuring out how god did it"....I mean my jaw hit the floor. This isn't a scientist. And he just admitted in 4k Video that NO EVIDENCE would be sufficient. It's god all the way no matter what. The mother of anti-science presupposition thinking.
@@Reclaimer77 Abiogenesis as an idea doesn't allow figuring out. You didn't know that? Figuring out presumes the existence of a mind. In Abiogenesis only God could provide the figuring out.
