Dawkins: This Is The Only Scenario for Intelligent Design. McDowell and Tour discuss Origin of Life.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 лип 2023
- A clip from Sean McDowell and Dr James Tour discussing life's origins.
See the full conversation here: • What are the Scientifi...
-----
If you would like to support us in creating more content across our different media platforms, we would greatly appreciate any support you can give. Visit jesusandscience.org/#Support to learn more.
God bless.
~
jesusandscience.org
Dr Tour's Personal Website - jmtour.com
Twitter - / drjamestour
Facebook - / drjamestour
LinkedIn - / drjamestour
Instagram - / drjamestour
Snapchat - / drjamestour
WeChat - @drjamestour - Наука та технологія
Some have mistakenly interpreted our message to imply that Richard Dawkins believes aliens created life. If we consider the scenario where intelligent design is a fact, he actually leans towards the idea that aliens provide a more plausible explanation for life compared to a spiritual being.
Please take note of the disclaimer in the video which states, "Richard Dawkins is not a supporter of intelligent design."
- Producer
@gerardmoloney433*😂😂😂That's a good one!*
He doesn’t understand it now but when he leaves earth he will fully understand
bc panspermia IS a more plausible scenario than some divine being lol
It's 'were', Dr.
Do you think your idiocy may explain your beliefs?
Also, Dawkins only said panspermia, he never mentioned aliens, you did.
@gerardmoloney433By definition of your beliefs Dawkins is made by god whether he believes it or not.
Also, by the same token, your idiocy is an insult to God.
Richard "anything but God" Dawkins
Precisely
Well actually Occhams razor may be on Dawkins side:
1 Life poses an incredible paradox.
For one thing you're right that cells are wonders almost litterally breaking known physics.
But! Also It's undeniable that organisms build from these incredible wonders are full of blunders that no designer would make! It's not just humans! Anatomy of all animals have marks of opportunistic Blind Sculptor which can't know in advance future of carrying plenty vestigial unnecessarily, often harmfull baggage beings.
(Some modest sources for you to begin to Open your eyes to the other side of the Paradox just as profound as Origin of Life)
ua-cam.com/video/WSSmJLb468k/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/xTJVzx_P8Rg/v-deo.html
Ok now after seeing this don't you really see that Life being outbreak from Alien lab is already more parsimonious and uncontradicted by biological evidence that naive assumptions that Life should either be subjected to mechanistic Materialism or be created by supreme Being.
Richard Dawkins may be poor orator when it comes to debating philosophers, also his embracement of Multiverse to counter apologets Fine Tuning arguments is rather inelegant and erroneus. But when it comes to Genetics and Evolutionary Biology... Richard Dawkins is an Emperor of It! With unrivalled insight!
WHICH GOD?
@@blackkman1324 Marduk I suppose😅
@@jimmyjasi- Occam’s razor is on Creationists side. God did it. Simple answer.
Thats cheating. It just moves the issue farther away and back in time. It evades the issue.
Long, long ago in a place far, far away. Yes, that sounds like a fairy tale to me.
@@maxxpro4 Perfect response
Now. After disproving BOTH mechanistic Materialism and "Inteligent design" of humans and animals by supreme God...
Is there another empirically sound not evoking any Creator (Jahwe, Shiva or Alien biolab worker)?
Yes. I don't like it much but we cannot exclude Buddhist Idealism as a solution to this Paradox.
ua-cam.com/users/shortsYk7_kwnW6Rc?feature=share
Advocated by many prominent Quantum Physicists and some controversial philophers like Bernardo Kastrup
ua-cam.com/video/eSoRiIq8HVE/v-deo.html
I say I prefer to believe in Richard Dawkins version (Alien lab outbreak and unitentionall planting of cells on Earth) but lets see what non-materialistic Atheism (Buddhist Idealism) solves that Theism does not:
1 It solves Paradox of Life looking both designed and non-designed (being "magical" on microlevel, and design and purpose less, opportunistic only on macrolevel) Which I described.
2 If you believe in One God then You must say that he's responcible for Creating Evil. "Adams Sin" doesn't explain anything because long before humans began sinning there were Four Grand and utterly PITYLESS Mass Extinctions!
So this not so clever designer was apparently from time to time killing his own meticulously designed children!
3 If you believe that Universe came to be because of external Creator You then have to explain where did this External Creator came from!
Now Buddhist Idealism solves all these contradictions and gets rid of Creator. Buddhist philosophers have more than twothousand years old tradition of profound philosophical arguments for why Universe could not have any first moment of Creation but is likely Cyclic even if today Big Bang may look like beginning of everything!( View shared by Sky Darmos whom I linked)
That's not my preffered world view but I'm open to such possibility as well as to some version of Panspermia. From reasons above I find any even agnostic as to nature of God Theism offensivelly stupid and contradicted by every empirical observation and logic!
Even Nobel Prize Laurette Physicist Anton Zeilinger shares that opinion!
ua-cam.com/users/shortskIugxi-fTWs?feature=share
Well actually Occhams razor may be on Dawkins side:
1 Life poses an incredible paradox.
For one thing you're right that cells are wonders almost litterally breaking known physics.
But! Also It's undeniable that organisms build from these incredible wonders are full of blunders that no designer would make! It's not just humans! Anatomy of all animals have marks of opportunistic Blind Sculptor which can't know in advance future of carrying plenty vestigial unnecessarily, often harmfull baggage beings.
(Some modest sources for you to begin to Open your eyes to the other side of the Paradox just as profound as Origin of Life)
ua-cam.com/video/WSSmJLb468k/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/xTJVzx_P8Rg/v-deo.html
Ok now after seeing this don't you really see that Life being outbreak from Alien lab is already more parsimonious and uncontradicted by biological evidence that naive assumptions that Life should either be subjected to mechanistic Materialism or be created by supreme Being.
Richard Dawkins may be poor orator when it comes to debating philosophers, also his embracement of Multiverse to counter apologets Fine Tuning arguments is rather inelegant and erroneus. But when it comes to Genetics and Evolutionary Biology... Richard Dawkins is an Emperor of It! With unrivalled insight!
@@jimmyjasi- do you know how the list of atavisms changed from the times of Darwin to our days? Cut by 90 percent or more. What reason do you have to claim that the rest of "bad design" will not follow?
Dawkins didn't say life came from space. I think someone asked a specific question and he answered that it was possible
This is precisely the case. The clip used in this video is him explaining that Ben Stein lied to him (Dawkins), and then edited his interview to intentionally mislead an audience. They’ve done exactly the same thing here, it’s literally the very next thing Dawkins said in the clip they cut short here.
@@matthewjackson1517 So same old, same old
@@kenbattor6350nope it isn't. Dawkins has stated multiple times he seriously can't explain the origin of life...in his own book 😅
@@matthewjackson1517false
@@skeletorlikespotatoes7846 But that is different from saying life came from space. And we have a good framework for explaining the origin of lifr
Strong Mr. Tour...LORD bless you..
The odor of carnivore poop is also strong.
Dr. Tour has a bad habit of lying baldly and boldly, and that is sufficient reason to doubt everything he says that isn't backed by a peer reviewed paper.
Why is it that creationist culture honors those who lie the most egregiously? I know they see it is a sign of courage to make up gross lies and present them as truth, but I struggle to understand that other than a learned survival behavior at the knees of a cruel parent.
@@histreeonics7770
Can you please give us some examples of the lies you accuse Dr Tour of telling?
No? That's what I thought.
And peer reviewed papers are wrong at times as well as Dr Tour showed clearly on a paper by Steve Benner where he claims to make ribosome in a prebioticaly relevant "hands off" method.
This paper was peer reviewed but Dr Tour showed a chemical process in the paper which was very much hands on and therefore not prebioticaly relevant.
Did the peer reviewers miss this, or ignore it?
Dr Tour also shows another paper by Lee Cronin who claims a possible prebioticaly relevant route to life in an experiment by heating and cooling a mixture of chemicals simulating the day / night cycles.
The problem is he heats the chemicals to almost 130 degrees C for 15 hours!
That's above sterilisation temperature That would kill anything trying to live.
These people are trying to keep themselves in a job and relevant when all they are making is junk.
I have watched pretty much every video Dr Tour has made regarding abiogenesis research.
I found no fault with his criticism.
He explains things very clearly and shows the relevant papers and chemistry to back up his criticism.
People who criticise Dr Tour generally either don't watch his videos, or are heavily biased against him and cannot back up their criticism of Dr Tour except for ad homin attacks.
@@histreeonics7770*I think it's enough to know that Tour has already destroyed other's papers about incomplete and incongruent theories about this subject.*
@@principleswise9749 List which ones have been withdrawn from journals. Until you do I think it is fair to say that he has not destroyed any papers.
All theories are incomplete, some more than others.
"Incongruent" is a vague term, incongruent with what? Incongruent with a religious text is irrelevant.
I have heard him say "not prebiotically relevant" but he doesn't provide details of what the prebiotic environment was, and denies the validity of most of the well proven geology that is used to make guesses at that.
@@histreeonics7770earth is an open, closed or isolated system by law
Pick one & lose the debate against creationism
Peer review it
Praying that Richard Dawkins comes to know Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Saviour and that he doesn't continue to squander his deluded life pandering to the desires of a wilfully-ignorant godless world. Thank you Dr James Tour for standing strong in your convictions, you reflect the Lamp of Glory of the King.
Tell me another one. Cells coming to the earth and surviving a 3000°F re-entry, along with a ground impact shattering the meteor. To God be the Glory!
Here's another one, then.
An invisible entity poofed the universe into existence, from nothing.
When a meteoroid enters the atmosphere, it is actually the air in front of the meteor that is heated, by friction, and a thin layer of the forward outer material, to a high temperature.
A majority of the material of the meteoroid is not heated to a substantial degree above its initial temperature.
Cells within the material are very likely to be intact. We drop big blobs of squishy cells into the atmosphere all the time. Astronauts, they are called.
Impact would effect cells within the meteor much more, but it is quite plausible that cells could survive intact.
Not all the material of a meteoroid is is destroyed or even damaged.
The processes of a meteoroid becoming a meteorite is very well understood by scientists.
Your god is merely imaginative speculation, and there is absolutely no knowledge of the magical process of how he created life.
Your misunderstanding, ignorance, poor critical thinking, and gullibility are on full display with your comment.
Of course not, that sounds ridiculous. A magic man in the clouds did it,no further questions.🤦
The core of even a fairly small meteor is still at the chill of space. That 3000'F entry is that hot as the heat has not had time to spread to the interior. Think 'Baked Alaska' not lava oozing out of a volcano.
You don't grasp your god is even more ludicrous
It really is hilarious when theists use words like, "your god", "religion", "faith", etc, when insulting atheists.
The irony is, you fools are using your own silly aspects and tenets as insults and slurs to us, and you don't even realise what you are saying about yourselves.
😂🤣😂🤣
Reduced to the barest words : Dawkins is against one God creating life in this planet. He is okay with many gods creating life elsewhere in the universe and bringing it to this planet.
But Ockham's razor operates against him.
Im no fan of dawkins, but I think you may have misunderstood what he was saying, or perhaps not heard the conversation he was having.
He was answering a very specific question- what scenario can you imagine that would entail life on earth being designed. The fact that he finds that implausible didnt matter. It was a hypothetical.
Its fun to use our imagination and think up hypothetical situations, I'm sure you understand. Although I'm not sure why its so popular to pretend he was serious, maybe the same reason its fun to imagine hypotheticals? Idk 🤷♂️
@@trybunt
Whether Dawkins meant to be serious, hypothetical or funny is irrelevant. There is a section of academia which attributes the origin of life outside earth. I have read such a claim in Gray's Anatomy, which is the standard text book for the students of Medicine and Surgery, some three decades back. I am unsure whether such a claim is made in the current edition.
@@arulsammymankondar30 seems kind of relevant if we are talking about what he thinks. You were making a comment about what he is ok with, and speaking about his reasoning, how he should apply Occam's razor.. what's the point of any of that if we aren't even speaking about him, we are speaking about some other hypothetical group of academics that you imagine attributing the origin of life outside of earth?
I'm pretty confused how a person's thoughts cannot be relevant to a conversation about what that person thinks. That makes no sense to me.
@@trybunt I agree. Richard was provocated by interviewer who then cornered him. That's indeed cheap piece of theist propaganda. But the Paradox is valid. I already wrote
@@trybunt
I fail to understand why you are confused.
My first post was made on the basis of the exclusive information in the clipping. Only you brought in extraneous details about the presumptive mood in which Dawkins had made the remarks. I responded saying that such extraneous information is irrelevant insofar as my comment was concerned.
Since you had brought in additional information, I added that the idea of life originating outside planet earth has the approval of a section of the academia and have given details.
The point I want to make is Dawkins claims in this video is taken seriously and considered correct by a section of the
academia.
Yeah, any explanation other than God. That's Dawkins way of thinking, or, actually, non thinking. His pride gets in the way of rationality.
if you see it. its like they are told to avoid any and all explanations if it involves a creator. now we are at the doors of multiverse and other sorts of silly stuff
It is also interesting that folks like Dawkins think alien life exists on other planets and there is ZERO proof of alien life at all. Yet he says it must have been. It is sad he claims this is science and even worse proven via the scientific method. Ben Stein made a documentary/movie "Expelled, No Intelligence allowed" he interviewed Richard Dawkins and you can hear Dawkins say it directly.
Francis Crick (double helix guy) popularized panspermia (no Christian G_d) so dick-ins here is thinking some other's thoughts. Hubris, he truly presents this as his own "whats the best scenario I can think of for intelligent life on this planet..." thought as if it's revelation from his pseudo science. Sodomites will and do go to extended lengths to protect "strange flesh"...
Roman's 1-21
@@darinb.3273 I like the information argument for God. I ask, "Have you ever seen information come from non-information?" Their answer is always. "No." Then I ask, "Have you ever heard of anyone else claiming to have seen information come from non-information?" They always say, "No." Then I ask, "Where did the most information dense thing in the Universe come from, that is, DNA?" If they're an atheist, they'll reply.... with a stare. Then you've got them.
@@prayerpatroller I take a similar approach. The angle of the Big Universe Burp Theory, Abiogenesis and the theory of evolution. I share the definitions of science, scientific method, theory, empirical and then provide a word definition break down of the words in those definitions.
Science MUST be observed as conducting research.
No one observed any of what secular scientists claim.
The ones I have dialog with usually don't reply again.
I bust up the world views they've been deceived with. Perhaps that's why they don't reply. Anyway my hope is that they think more about who they are believing and putting their faith in.
Just the fact that asteroids have demonstrably been shown to contain amino acids, is an indicator, an actual tangible clue, towards a credible possibility.
And, that is is literally more evidence than the entire bible can provide, towards an explanation.
The amino acids in asteroids are not homochairal. So I'm sorry but that's a dead end and it's zero evidence that life can arise naturally.
They are no more useful than the amino acids made by Stanley millar and Harold Urey.
The purity of every sample we've analyzed is absolute garbage - no self-respecting chemist when pressed on the issue would actually have any salient theory on how on Earth (literally) you could chuck some amino acids covered in space poop into the Earth and still somehow achieve the thousands of complex linkages and other reaction steps, all while somehow not degrading in the meantime, all while apparently suffering zero effects from the drastic changes in atmosphere and on and on and on lol.
I do agree with you that even this dribble is a better scientific explanation than what the Bible provides though. Know why? Because the Bible doesn't provide one haha.
Is it though? Who should know our origin, the people that lived way in the past or us? I love science but it doesn't answer everything. Where did life come from? What even makes a person alive? How's there male and female in species?
An alien did intentionally drop life here on Earth, He even prepared Earth in advance to accept life, He even went as far as creating this whole universe to create all the elements in the sufficient abundance to enrich Earth for that purpose. He also says that when he is done with it, He will create another universe with a different set of physics.
There is no means by which what you state here can be established.
Can you ask it to return and clean up the mess it left behind please?
@@histreeonics7770 Yes there is. A group of 180 all PhD. scientist called "Reasons To Believe"headed by Astrophysicist/Astronomer dr. Hugh Ross have developed a scientific Biblical creation model that is testable, falsifiable and predictive of future scientific advance just like every scientific model must. if you decide to look them up be sure to bring you best science hat because they are not a hallelujah joint, or a praise the lord club, its about 95% science, 5% Jesus stuff.
@@stephenmason5682 So sorry, its your mess, He left it here 4.56 billion years ago in excellent condition, you messed it up in less than 100,000 years.
@@SamytheGreek do you deny involvement?
Our FAITH in God is a GIFT from God.
Cambridge astronomy professor Sir Fred Hoyle (not a Christian) wrote, “Now imagine 10⁵⁰ blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.”[5]
Richard Dawkins DOESN'T appeal to directed panspermia... it was a hypothetical answer to a (dishonest) question from a creationist (who Dawkins thought was a serious interviewer) if he had any scenario where life on Earth was intelligently designed.
The Bible lays it out perfectly. God is my creator
Anything but a loving, just God, at all costs, because we don't accept sin, yet we are free to judge morality without God... that's their illogical puny mindset.
No divine bring would keep itself hidden. Period
Agreed. Jesus is proof of that.
@@andrewdouglas1963 what??
if jesus exists, why would he only reveal himself to ancient jews and not modern people?
@@CJFashi
People who believe in Jesus would say he has revealed himself through the Bible.
@@andrewdouglas1963 people who believe in superman will tell you DC comics revealed him to them.
Weird, when I was a teenager, 40 years ago, I stopped believing in evolution thanks to a clever Philosophy teacher but got into books by a German called Erich Von Daniken who claimed life came from extraterrestrials. At the time, no sensible person adhered to his views! As for me, I became a Christian, and knew then the answer to where life came from. In the beginning, God...
The worst you can justifiably say is that Dawkins didn't address the question very accurately: panspermia may have brought life to earth but where and how was that life originally created? Fair enough.
But his is a very rational position as we know foreign objects from space hit the earth regularly (according to NASA, 50,000 meteorites have been found on earth) and they sometimes bring interesting materials with them: it is perfectly rational to hypothesise that life began as a result of a meteorite hit causing a unique reaction or bringing a new material or substance (or both).
You know, it does sound attractive on the surface, but I would invite you to watch Dr. Tour on this point because he very effectively dismantles panspermia.
The problem is that, no matter what's on those meteors, every sample we've analyzed shows crap purity rates - a ton of adulteration that would not allow for any reactions whatsoever in the abiogenesis scenario.
Essentially, it's just an exotic-sounding rephrasing of the original problem with the prebiotic Earth. No matter how rare or exotic your starting materials are, because of the super complex linkages required between proteins, carbohydrates, and so forth, it simply won't assemble itself without direction. It's like throwing the ingredients of a sandwich 20 feet up in the air and expecting it to land on the ground as a perfectly made sandwich.
@@Papa-dopoulos It's just a hypothesis, an idea, a possible explanation. We don't yet understand how the first spark of life occured, but that's no reason to give up on rationality and suggest magic, as Tour does.
I don't ever remember Tour suggesting magic. Like, at any point. In fact, he explicitly states in an interview that he believes we will one day find the answer to origin of life in a purely scientific context. He's more on the side of OoL researchers than they think - whatever "magic" is their own insertion. He's saying what they have now is crap, and they're putting words in his mouth. It's really disingenuous @@joelonsdale
And, yet, James Tour, why don't you believe the narrative God gave us in Genesis 1? Why do you believe in billions of years and in Darwinian evolution?
You believe in God and Jesus Christ. That's great. The demons also believe and tremble. Believe God's Word, not Man's word. You've allowed the other scientists to delude you.
Amen. "Trust in the LORD with all your heart, do not depend on your own understanding..."
James Tour does NOT believe in evolution; in fact, he was one of many scientists that signed a petition against it back in 2000.
@@Programm4r
I think he doesn't believe in Macroevolution, that we came from a single organism. But there's evidence for evolution on the micro level.
@@Programm4r - No. James Tour signed a petition which said the evidence was inconclusive and warranted _further research._ I've listened to Dr. Tour discuss the petition.
Here is a quote from the petition:
_"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."_
That is *_not_* a solid rejection of Darwinian evolution.
In discussions, it becomes clear that Dr. Tour clearly still believes in billions of years. The genealogies and historical references of the Bible clearly limit all of history to under 7,000 years. There is no reasonable reconciliation between these two lengths of time. Dr. Tour rejects the record given to us by God through Moses.
@@stewartpink3117 - Dr. Tour believes in billions of years and that galaxies and stars formed before the Earth was formed. That narrative wholly conflicts with the narrative given by God through Moses in Genesis. If a person believes galaxies and stars formed before the Earth, that person has rejected the biblical narrative.
HALLELUJAH, AMEN. PRAISE ALMIGHTY GOD FOREVER AND EVER, AMEN. THANK YOU DR. JAMES TOUR FOR SHARING THE TRUTH OF ALMIGHTY GOD,
in the beginning there was all consuming darkness and then a voice said "we are in darkness" and another voice said "who are you? what are we?" to which another voice said "follow me, and we will create something of our own image, for it's the only way i know to express what must be known..... it's that big.".
and so they did..... and it turned out to be greater than any ONE expected.
You're misrepresenting Dawkins. At least you showed what he actually said afterwards so it was strange. Unless you really feel like a lot of others feel strongly about panspermia. He said that directed panspermia is the best hypothesis he can think of to explain Intelligent Design. Funny he entertained Intelligent Design at all. He like the rest of the planet has never seen evidence there is an intelligent design at all.
That misrepresents what Dawkins said. He was asked what would be the best chance for Intelligent Design, and he expressed that in all the universe there is a better chance of aliens dropping off life than a magical invisible sky fairy. Not that he believed it.
Lmfao you guys can believe aliens but not God,
Even though you seen none
Also even aliens did drop us here it doesn't solve the problem,
It creates even bigger paradox, who created those aliens?
Why does the Bible say the earth was 6,000 years old ? How do they explain neanderthal man and dinosaur ? If you don't know the answers , don't just insert" God "into the equation , it makes you look foolish !
Dishonest editing. What Dawkins actually said is that intelligent design is "directed" panspermia but you edited the video to make it look like he said that panspermia was his position. I understand why some people accuse Tour of lying.
It solves the question of life on earth. Plain and simple.
It’s also what cultures from around the world wrote of before religion.
I knew (from studying the bible) things about Dawkins before Dawkins did. I knee him better than he knew himself.
Decades ago i watched him having a conversation with Christopher Hitchens, and two other atheist, although I can't remember who they were.
Richard said "i mean if the bible told us something we couldn't possibly have known i guess then I'd believe it."
Hitchens said "you mean like how the universe had a beginning."
Dawkins said "well that was a 50/50 cance but i suppose if God wrote something in the stars like Richard dawkins there IS a God then i would believe it."
And i immediately said to myself "No you wouldn't you're lying to yourself. You would make up some excuse like you would tell yourself that you are hallucinating or you'd reason that we live in just one of an almost infinite number of universes so it was bound to hapen by pure chance sooner or later."
Since then Richard has flat out admitted that he does not think anything could ever convince him of God's existence. He says that even if undeniable proof was given to him he would just think that he is hallucinating.
It's very telling that i knew this about him before he did. And God knows him even better.
This is a cynical hit piece by Tour: he edited the clip and added narration to make it seem like Dawkins was claiming that life on earth came from space. While this a possible hypothesis, it is by no means a leading hypothesis among biologists and not either by Dawkins. Having witnessed some of Tour's other chicanery, this is par for the course and not a surprise that he would do this.
You took this out of context. You know this. He mentioned "panspermia" as a hypothetical, but not what he actually believes. It's part of his conversation with Sam Harris.
The common argument questions the presence of imperfections in a design created by an intelligent designer. When we examine this from the perspective of the biblical God, it’s believed that humans were initially designed to be flawless and immortal. However, it’s said that their disobedience introduced imperfections that have been passed down through generations.
When considering other living organisms, it’s important to note that they were not necessarily designed to be eternal from the outset. The perception of imperfections or inconsistencies in nature can often be attributed to various factors, including our own mismanagement of the planet and its ecosystems, which has led to unintended consequences.
If aliens showed up with objective moral claims, critics would change their tune about life’s origins
Especially if they intended to enforce them and punish the offenders.
That would he cool. Its a fun hypothetical. But they think that money is objectively evil or something because it encourages greed. They tell us we've been wrong about heaps of stuff, blinded by our own egotistical view of reality.
Ive always imagined that aliens would think we are far too confidently wrong to be worth speaking with, to be honest. Imagine looking down at us, all arguing about which of us truly know the mind of God.
@@prayerpatrollerThe same can be said about God of Abraham who not only didn't care about Five(Prior to humans who started their own Holocaust) Huge Hecatombs of his own creatures (Permian alone has anihilated 90 percent!) Of Life on Earth! God did nothing!
Even if we believe in the special place of humans on tree of Life (denyed by empirical evidence) God did allow for Shoah of his own "Chosen Nation"!
1 Where are scientifically confirmed miracles (other than Abiogenesis that could be outbreak from Alien biolab)
2 Is such hypothetical God who's either so bloodthirsty or so indignant to his own creation really worth of worship?!
The emergent of life is from a process called abiogenesis. Organic material coming up inorganic material. In principle, organic life are made of atoms but have extremely complex bonds between them. This makes it extremely difficult to replicate artificially in a lab. People have already successful created RNA and simple organic compounds from scratch by spontaneously pumping energy in a reducing atmosphere, but not anything more complex
This guy completely misunderstands the panspermia argument. I almost feel embarrassed for him.
Dr Tour, while methodological naturalism remains such a useful tool, it makes sense for scientists to rely on it. Maybe one day it fails, but it doesn't look like origin of life research has reached a dead end yet.
Methodological naturalism isn't science, it's just atheist philosophy.
@@sparkyy0007 Naturalism is not exclusively an atheist philosophy. A naturalist can say, 'I don't know how God does X. If I assume He uses natural means to do it, what would that look like? And does the evidence support God doing it in this way?"
@@rationalreview5178
Methodological naturalism is not only an atheist philosophy, it is not science as it is logically inconsistent.
1) Naturalistic science makes the claim everything is reducible to matter and energy.
2) But by P1, making that claim, it also must claim God doesn't exist.... a monumental claim indeed.
3) But naturalistic science admits, it can say nothing on the topic of God.
Therefore naturalism by it's own admission is logically inconsistent.
Historically, Christian philosophy (the mother of modern science) was the search for the best explanation of what is observed, and most everything follows the standard physical laws. Only recently has the definition of "science" been restricted to pure materialism, matter and energy. As I have shown, the philosophy of naturalism is not only inconsistent in it's claims, but an atheistic philosophy under the false cloak of science.
@@sparkyy0007 Naturalistic science can assume that everything can be boiled down to natural processes as a pragmatic choice. It is perfectly okay to say, "I can't observe or test God so I will just assume that natural processes are at play. If that methodology doesn't work, then I will try something else."
When my car breaks down, it could be that I am being punished for my sin, but I go to the mechanic first because I know historically that it is likely to help. If no mechanic can see a problem, then I might start to consider supernatural forces.
@@rationalreview5178
"Naturalistic science can assume that everything can be boiled down to natural processes as a pragmatic choice."
Yes I know, that's why it's atheist science, not real science.
Historically, Christian philosophy (the mother of modern science) was the search for the best explanation of what is observed, and most everything follows the standard physical laws. Only recently has the definition of "science" been restricted to pure materialism, matter and energy. As I have shown, the philosophy of naturalism is not only inconsistent in it's claims, but an atheistic philosophy under the false cloak of science.
Panspermia through a meteor just pushes the problem back to add even more incredibly implausible scenarios. It just makes the problem worse.
Who opened up the gateway to reality that we all share consciousness in ?
You are so dishonest. How about showing the context that Dawkins said this in?
This unwillingness to accept the possibility of intelligent design also gave rise to the alternate universe theory. Sometimes it just doesn't have to be that complicated. They should forget about the ifs and if-nots and focus, just as a project, HOW the Designer went about it.
“'Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.' Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence, but simply on a priori metaphysical prejudice? Was it devised not to get in facts, but to keep out God?..."
-- C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory
Islam is the key, atheist refuse the idea that a man is the creator of the universe, Christian refuse the idea that life came from nothing, Islam tell you that life come from a creator neither begets nor is born and there is nothing equivalent to him and Jesus was one of the messengers he sent to humanity, God sent to him revelation and aided him with miracles (like raise the death with God’s permission)
There are all kinds of theories about the origin of life I think I had one when I was really drunk one night too bad I can't remember because I think it was pretty good.
That reasoning just moves the question to another planet and answers nothing.
The hypothesis of aliens seeding life on earth doesn’t necessarily just move the problem back to a different planet. That would only be the case if the alien life was carbon based cellular life like ours. There is always the possibility that their life could be constructed radically different to ours.
The divine argument is silly..
Because: you could say a God created everything but after that you can't say anything. You don't know anything about this god. You don't know if it cares about you. You don't know if it even cares about the universe. You can't say anything and if you do, it's 100% pure conjecture.
This is why the divine argument is silly..
It is interesting they won’t concede to a God theory. I asked JP Moreland that question once and the answer while maybe being oversimplified was this verse from Jesus himself “and this is the judgement, Light has come into the world but men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil”. No one likes to be told that what they’re doing is wrong and the science world has such a unique way of defending themselves from accepting the facts in front of their faces. I believe their unrepentant hearts will suffer greater judgement as God has given them all the tools to see Him clearly
We are life existing on this planet. It's not a stretch to imagine life existing on other planets. You don't have to invoke divine intervention to explain life on earth. Imagine believing in intelligent design and discovering an abnormal mass of cells growing in your brain destroying tissue. Actually, that one pans out.
He is NOT suggesting this IS the case, but that it is the ONLY way he could imagine life on earth could be 'intelligently designed'.
Sulphur colloid was widely present on Earth. Sulphur colloid molecules were bombarded with hydrogen atoms (protons) and carbon atoms at very high temperatures (methylation).
The spin movements of protons differed in the regions where diamagnetic elements such as silver and magnesium were concentrated. In these different magnetic fields, methylated and magnetically differentiated sulphur colloid molecules came together.
The change in their composition caused the phospholipid-like structures to hold on to these areas.
These differences resulted in the formation of the first living cells on Earth.
you buried your opposition with that last comment slam dunk
That postulate is more in keeping with the transferability of life and not the origin of life in the universe.
Theists: explaining the mystery of life by assuming an even bigger mystery in the form of a divine creator.....
Which they feel no need to explain, and that begs the question of why they need an explanation for a smaller mystery in the first place.
One must come to terms of the scale at which life is possible
I demonstrate in my video 'Begining of understanding '
God must be from out of this World ❤
But why do we assume that life had a beginning? Maybe the body dies, but not life, it just transitions from body to body
I call it the anything but God hypothesis. When atheists are cornered by obvious evidence of intelligent design, they will grab absolutely any ridiculous hypothesis as long as it lets them run away from the obvious conclusion of an intelligent creator
Dawkins is being taken out of context. You’ve cherry picked a small segment of an interview without showing the question he was asked prior.
Wow, talk about finding clips, and showing them without context. Dawkins talks about exactly this issue with the "life on Earth originating from a different planet" hypothesis. It doesn't solve the issue of beginning of life, it just postulates it. Seriously every time I see a video like this I wonder, is the uploader just cognitively limited to actually understand what is being said, or he is purposely deceptive and knows he is lying?
Watch the Tour debate with Dave.
Tour is being demolished. His credibility is completely gone.
Well, actually both were rather miserable. Dave waving headlines of newspapers without explaining what was actually written, and Tour just ahouting Clueless!!! Worst debate I have ever seen
@@DartNoobo It was terrible. I agree.
Never has there been a worse debater than Tour.
Those were not articles by the way, they were actual research papers (that Tour did not want his audience to hear). That’s why Tour was shouting all the way.
@@absquereligione5409 well, if it's pleasing for you to think this way, I won't judge. However, Dave did not present in any appropriate way, so the fault is partly on him.
Tour's arguments are solid in his videos. Maybe you should check them out. As for Dave I did not watch his videos, because I am allergic to condescending contemptous attitudes. Or is Dave not like that on his channel? Would you recommend?
@@DartNoobo I'm sure you are also allergic to facts.
@@absquereligione5409 so he is condescending and contemptous? Must be because he has no facts to back up his claims. So he has to retreat to underhanded tactics.
Bible says we will inhabit galaxies like tents to dwell in. Also says there was no time... hence the variables.
There is An Eternal Everlasting Almighty God; Who loves His own created humanity.
Nothing like a good quote mine. Come on guys get some new material.
In my brain, alien life makes more sense than the stories in the bible
I try to believe in god but it doesn’t make sense
Prefect example of not listening to what Richard Dawkins was actually saying… then having a crack at him for what you (misleadingly) think he said…. Do better
What a deceitful response.
Dawkins, in an equally deceptive video interview was NOT asked “how he thought life originated on earth”. He was limited to “if you had to pick ONLY amongst the various “Intelligently Designed” hypotheses, which one would you consider to be “most likely”.
He does not believe in directed panspermia. He believes that life evolved on earth thru “natural processes”.
Why do you allegedly “religious” people so routinely & reliably resort to deceitful practices?
It almost seems like truth is anathema to you.
“Richard Dawkins is not a proponent of intelligent design” It’s literally on the screen and a pinned comment. “What would be the best explanation…”
@@likeahouseonfire Dawkins is not a proponent of EITHER panspermia OR “intelligent design”. Tour extracted a snippet of a video from an equally-deceitful interview with Ben Stein (IIRC, related to Stein’s movie “expelled”) to imply that Dawkins IS a proponent of panspermia. As I stated above, Dawkins has been crystal clear that he believes that life on earth originated here (abiogenesis, thru natural processes) & evolved here.
In other words, Tour lied.
Someone else (a “producer”,? attempted at some point, to clean up Tour’s turd.
Does it not bother you that Tour lied?
@@tfk0527 "What's the best scenario I COULD THINK OF life on this planet being intelligently designed...that is directed panspermia." "Richard Dawkins is not a proponent of intelligent design" "They're open to aliens dropping life here but not an intelligent designer."
It's weird you take this video out of context while projecting it back...where is the untruth? Tour says he OPEN to it over God--that's it. You're bothered than in 60 seconds you don't get every single detail leading up to his statement?
@@likeahouseonfire I acknowledge that ONE of the two of us is misinterpreting the snippet of video that Tour chose to show. I have the disadvantage of having seen an extended interview with Dawkins (ie., an elaboration with Dawkins’ views) in which he talked about the dishonesty of Ben Stein’s interview. Surely you are aware of the fact that Dawkins has been a vocal opponent of Intelligent Design for many, many years. If he truly believed the stupidity of panspermia + ID, why then would he be such an opponent of ID, instead of offering just a minor twist to the theory? (eg., “God”? No, because I don’t believe god exists. But “Advanced intelligence aliens”? Maybe.)
@@tfk0527 Look, I will admit the summation I took away is that even IF ID were true it would be aliens and not God. I can see how the video could be unclear of what Dawkins’ positive position is. I have seen all the referenced media. I know Dawkins is an Evolutionary Biologist and against ID so I personally did not feel it was misleading but you may feel differently which is valid. We both agree positions should not be misrepresented. Have a good day.
Only a true believer can miss fake information, when they're fed some !
The fact that you used that clip from Dawkins (then threw in a post production disclaimer) shows how much of a willful joke your argument is. In the clip you used, he’s CLEARLY critiquing the idea. I think he even says that he believes the scientists who proposed it were joking. In an attempt to scam your audience, you cut and pasted it to hoodwink them. You’re blatantly attempting to trick your own people. I wonder why you feel the need to be so underhanded. Maybe it’s because you don’t even believe your claims 🤔
What is the difference between sufficiently advanced aliens and divine beings?
Thats the ULTIMATE in goalpost moving!
Been waiting for this one!
Dawkins is the biggest fool!
No way without intelligent designer.
If we can't question what we are and where we came from, than what are we?
if you look directly up you will see his point sailing over your head
What is the doctor's definition of a divine being.
A being that is far more intelligent & powerful than us.
How is this a dunk on dawkins? Hes saying this is the only scenario he could think of that would rationally explain intelligent design. I.e. a foreign intelligent species designing it and not a god. Hes not saying its likely, hes saying thats the only reasonable explanation of intelligent design
The hallmark of design is SIMPLICITY.
Yet, the most creationists can manage is to argue for "irreducible complexity", with each and every example debunked in court of all places, and by a Christian biologist of all people, during the Dover vs. Kitzmiller trial in 2005. That does not solve anything.
We would expect things that only limited creatures designed to be potentially complex, since it could be necessary to get the desired result. But for an unlimited creature, making mechanics complex doesn’t make any sense, like for the case of DNA replication. Humans, at least, only create complex technology due to being unable to do magic.
It was ALWAYS my argument: If aliens exist, where did they come from.
What you are saying also doesn't solve anything. Your made up favourite God is not the answer but just your made up story
The existence of aliens doesn't imply accountability. The existence of God does.
"They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen."
Greetings from India Dr.Tour.
They are open to that idea because their whole problem is NOT about if God created or could have created life. It's that they hate God and the idea of God holding them accountable for their actions or choices. Which Jesus made a way out for us through His self sacrifice because of His love for us and is free for us to have if we choose. They hate that too. I love it personally.
atheists arent atheists because we "hate god" its because we dont see any evidence for a god, and so we do not believe in a god or creator. no atheists believes in panspermia, dawkins was asked in what case could intelligent design be true, and panspermia is the only case where we could be intelligently designed.
Which god? Zeus?
Where did first life come from?
We are in the process of discovering that so why not be a scientist about it and do science instead of spoofing people with an agenda on behalf of those unwilling to do that?
This is such poor research. Dawkins was asked a question which he answered in the hypothetical as an academic not as a proponent. He knows that panspermia does not answer where life came from and never pretended that it does. When Dawkins was answering the question he didn't know that the interviewer was going to remove the context of the question to mischaracterise him.
You have to love how dishonest apologists will get with the cherry picking and cut and pasting of interviews but would be saying something if someone did it to them.
@@therick363Bro it literally says in the video "Dawkins does not support intelligent design" and Dawkins CLEARLY CLEARLY STATES that he's operating on an assumption of intelligent design and postulating the best explanation, in his view, for it. Not that he believes it. Are you actually not smart enough to pick up on this?
Dawkins does not believe in darwinian evolution anyway
@@LookinAround2 What does he believe in?
I don't understand how these people can deny a creator, yet can't create a cell in a lab
@@heavymetalnewsdesk cause those two things aren't at all indicative of the other?
@@thejabberwocky2819 well if it' not possible with our current technology then it's never going to be. If man can't create it in a lab environment then it's definitely not going to randomly happen by itself. If you can't understand that then you are a brainwashed ignorant fool
Well stated Dr.Tour !👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Fun fact.
Zero evidence that any of humanity's 3000+ gods exist.
Zero evidence for a guy named jesus having existed.
So, I chose science over supernatural hyperbole.
The soul theory is the best explanation of the origin of life !
The soul is the deadest concept in all of theology. The soul doesnt exist.
@@thejabberwocky2819 The next time you hit your head and see stars take the time to observe them closely! Welcome to your life energy that looks after you every millisecond!
@@Revolutionary-souls You don't see stars when you hit your head you absolute anti genius.
The soul doesn't exist. I can prove it.
If the soul exists, then why when Phineas gage had a railroad tie put through his brain, did his whole personality change? Shouldn't his soul have kept him the same person?
@@thejabberwocky2819 exactly my point every single person that has had a near death experience has a different relationship with their souls! They turn into different human beings mostly better creatures!
@@Revolutionary-souls Near death experiences are almost universally culture-driven and thus are BS. An NDE is just your brain malfunctioning and constructing experiences based on your prior knowledge and expectations.
There is no proof or evidence of a soul. Absolutely none
Dawkins isn't saying that that's how it happened, but if it was "designed" he believes that is more likely than the man in the sky that you believe in James
The intelligent design hypothesis simply doesnt ask how life began. It insists that god did, case closed, look no further. I respect most religiously faithful people, but not asking these questions with true intent to follow the facts is just lazy
Dawkins says anything but THE GOD WHO says stop sinning .
Prove that sin is real, Bible doesn’t count as that was written by men
@@CultOfMajora
🤣🤣🤣 You obviously don't know what the word sin means kid .
@@cecilspurlockjr.9421 right, that’s why your comment just proved it right there, right? Either prove it or quit talking
@CultOfMajora
Go away kid !! You're bothering me .
@@cecilspurlockjr.9421 it’s OK, I knew you couldn’t prove sin, if you could, you would’ve already done it by now, but yeah, keep on Bluffin there Georgie
Like I said, either prove it, or stop talking, or admit that you can’t prove it
Richard Dawkins never said he believes Pennsylvania is the way that I got here he just played with that idea once as a possibility
"The picture so often painted of Christians huddling together on an ever narrow strip of beach while the incoming tide of science mounts higher and higher corresponds to nothing in my own experience... The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears. Unless we can be sure that reality in the remotest nebula, or the remotest part, obeys the thought laws of the human scientist, here and now, in his laboratory--in other words, unless reason is an absolute-- all is in ruins.
Yet, those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is a flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based. The difficulty is to me a fatal one and the fact when you put it to many scientists, far from having an answer, they seem not even to understand what the difficulty is, assures me that I have not found a mare's nest but detected a radical disease in their whole mode of thought from the very beginning. The man who has once understood the situation is compelled henceforth to regard the scientific cosmology as being, in principle, a myth; though no doubt a great many true particulars have been worked into it...
'Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.' Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence, but simply on a priori metaphysical prejudice? Was it devised not to get in facts, but to keep out God?..."
-- C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory
It’s a problem of the heart and not the mind, people hate the idea of accountability.
Please read Srila Prabhupada's books. You would be pleasantly surprised by what is said
The design of the structure is the structure of the design, that does not mean that the design all of a sudden transforms in the material structure or living organism. I think that intelligent design puts the cart before the horse, or at least is redundant when you get a better grasp of the meaning of the words /design/ and /evolution/. Things happen in time and there has never been, nor there ever will be a time when there is no time. The half reply to the question: "why anything (instead of nothing) ?" is: "why not ?"
Some thoughts, not rebukes:
It is not clear whether time is unbounded in both directions or is like North and South for which there is no north of the north pole nor south of the south pole.
"Things happen in time" but things also "happen in space" and in fact a very well tested theory says that time and space are coupled to where you cannot treat time separate from space.
--
"Why anything rather than nothing" presumes that all things have a reason. What is more pertinent is why people ask that question.
@@histreeonics7770 Thanks for your pertinent comment, I especially agree with your last sentence. Of course I could have added that there is no place that is not in space, but evolution has more of a time connotation, even though it occurs in an environment.
@@gualmicol6845 Evolution is etymologically from the Latin particle *ex* and the verb *volvere* spin/roll. It is an unrolling is in a written scroll. It has a connotation of inevitability, which can be misconstrued as teleology.
@@histreeonics7770 Curiously even /volto/, which is another Italian word for face is closely etymologically related to /volvere/.
Edit: I wanted to add that /volto/ is more formal and respectful than /faccia/ which more obviously translates into English as face.
@@gualmicol6845 and then there is volte-face , French "about face" for us military (reenactor) guys.
What is Yhwh but an invisible alien that lives in unapproachable light before space an time and matter . They talk about aliens being multidimensional not here nor there but in between sounds like God to me 🤷♂️
Natural is far more plausible than magical. Is it not?
Dawkins saw the movie Prometheus and was like yep sounds good to me
From another planet??? What's wrong with this one??!! This planet, earth is far more rare and unique than anything we have found elsewhere. I agree, they are more open to life coming from some aliens, than admitting to a divine being.