Dr James Tour Faith and Science at August Apologetics
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 сер 2018
- Dr. James Tour speaks on Faith and Science at August Apologetics, hosted by West U Baptist and Crosspoint Church.
JAMES M. TOUR, Ph.D.
www.jmtour.com/
T. T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry
Professor of Computer Science
Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering
Rice University
Smalley-Curl Institute and the NanoCarbon Center
James Tour is the man!!!!!
Tour is a liar.
no he's not. he's more a joke.
Amen. I am inspired. I pray for you. I'm south korean christian.
DAVID YANG love you brother
BEST TEACHING EVER ! Bless Your Smart, Beautiful Soul ! Thank You !
Thank you and may God continue to greatly bless you Dr Tour
It is very unfortunate that many of our university professors teach what to think instead of how to think critically. Dr. Tour is a breath of fresh air in a stale system.
It's BS used to confuse people with jargon so he can promote his belief in miracles. See his talk on the resurrection. It totally rejects scientific analysis. He claims the story is true because it says it's true.
@@lrvogt1257 And so what??
@@exwhyz9367 : Because that is what's known in the real world as bullshit. It's disingenuous and it's hypocritical. It's a con artist's misdirection and it's really bad science for people who don't know any better and just want their beliefs rationalized for them.
@@kamahmah: It's not on me to prove such things aren't so. It's on you to prove they are. As Carl Sagan used to say "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Old tales told long after events are not proofs, they are fables; and there are few stories in the Bible that have not been lifted from earlier cultures. A claim in a book can't be proof of itself. Everyone is free to believe what they like but there is no actual evidence for the supernatural.
@@kamahmah : I'm not making any claims for the existence of the supernatural. You are. I have nothing to back up. My criteria is verification through the scientific method. Old tales may have some facts but the supernatural elements have no factual basis and a book can't be proof of itself. NYC is real but that doesn't make Spiderman is a real superhero. One doesn't generally prove a negative. We accept the natural world as explained by science and such extraordinary claims as a resurrection requires it's own proof. There is no scientific reason to accept things beyond the natural world or the laws of science. Like Bertrand Russell's invisible teapot orbiting the sun; it could be there but until someone proves it's a fact there is no reason to take it seriously.
James...you are my hero! I was an atheist and evolutionist but trusted in Christ to save me (1995). God immediately showed me how foolish I was in my atheist and naturalism...and I'm encouraged beyond words to continue to be informed about proper science. You and I have so much in common...God bless you!
I’ve been a Christian my whole life, but I have a few questions. I’m somewhat Agnostic now. If God created the tree of evil, while being omniscient, why did he create it in the first place? If he’s omnipotent, then why doesn’t he just get rid of evil? It doesn’t make sense to me. Secondly, if everything that begins to exist has a cause, according to the law of thermodynamics, where did God come from? He must have had to have came from somewhere. It’s impossible for him to just “exist” out of nowhere with nothing formed.
@@reticals6395 Thanks for your questions! Getting rid of evil is in the works...it's a process that brings the max amount of good to the max number of people...so patience! God loves people and everything is working out for the good of those who love him and are called according to his purpose.
About the origin of God...you mention the law of thermodynamics..what most people ask about is the law of causality. That law derives from things we observe here in the universe. Effects have a cause that is greater (more sophisticated) than the effect. So what is the "cause" of God? In summary, the law of causality is based on observations of phenomena in this physical world...objects that are subject to the laws of thermodynamics. But what about non-physical objects that are outside of this time/space/matter? What type of limits are on those beings and phenomena? We really do not know the answer to that question. We have no experience with the laws that govern that realm...so it would be a mistake to apply our physical laws to it.
Something else to think about is what is your alternative theory? If a super-complex God didn't exist prior to the material universe...then what did? The most reasonable suggestion would be that you believe ultimate simplicity existed. (The opposite of super-complexity). So if that's the case, then how do you explain the compelxities of the current day (organization of matter and energy and information)? How did we get such amazing life/energy/order from ultimate simplicity?
@@reticals6395 Perhaps God did not create creation with the ability to fully understand creation. Therefore, we must learn (most likely the purpose of the temporary physical realm) to trust in God's mercy and grace to appreciate eternity with Him.
@@reticals6395 Here your answer or could have it. But you need physical blood of Yeshua/God while he was here on earth and examined it. Because in it is the source of all life. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things were created through Him, and apart from Him not one thing was created that has been created. Life was in Him, and that life was the light of men. That light shines in the darkness, yet the darkness did not overcome it.
John 1:1-5 HCSB
@@reticals6395 - We have no need of God is we have no sin. But ALL of us need His forgiveness. He wants us to love Him and belong to Him for eternity. He took our punishment for our sin to show His love. When see how much we have disappointed Him, our conscience hurts, and then we ask His forgiveness. The evil of people's hatred and scorn, the pain of separation from His Father, the pain of crucifixion and His going into Hell, shows the love only He could withstand. God give us a decision to follow Him or not. The only way love can work is to make our own decision.
Dr. Tour, you are a truly amazing man love God and science. I am a Christian have been asked deeper questions in life and God. As I follow you and your testimony I am amazed. Keep doing what you are doing. No human being claimed to be smarter than our Creator. Scientists only go after God's creation to claim that they are so smart, but you prove it. Thanks.
Wow what a witness! God bless you
This message James Tour and other scientists who advocate the same sort of message needs to be given in every science curriculum and every school across the country and across the world and every Christian Church of every denomination across the country and across the world. Then discuss and criticize it like what he says So many scientists don't do this. They run away from it or mock the hypothesis like so many here do.
This is fantastic.
Thank you Mr. Tour
The Scientist who keeps his faith with our Lord Jesus Christ.
I needed to hear this today, thank you my heavenly father for directing me to this video. God bless Dr. Tour a true brother in Christ
Tour's arguments are a disingenuous misuse of science for very unscientific purposes.
I’m a Muslim and do agree with all what he said. God bless him and shows him the true path
Beware of Islam my friend. It's a modification of Christianity. You've been told that the Bible has been corrupted, but you haven't been told when it has been corrupted or how because it hasn't been corrupted. I read the Bible a few years ago and it changed my life. Then I read the Qur'an. I don't know who wrote the Qur'an, but it does not come from God. It contradicts the Bible. The Bible actually warns against listening to false gospels other than the true gospel. Islam is that false gospel that the Bible was warning us about.
@@yougetagoldstar go to David Wood's channel Acts 17 Apologetics to learn about Islam. Your comment is incorrect.
A man with big titles(triple professorship) and achievements yet so humble. God bless you Dr James Tour.
The hard truth is most professors who do not accept Yeshua/God. Make their own religion through their scientific jargon because they know that most people will not understand fields they study and will not question their position or assign authority on the subject but just accept the false claims of unbelieving teachers as facts. Scary world out there all liars will have their part in the lake of fire. Repent and Ask God to show you the way. God bless Dr. James Tour.
Well done Sir
A Very interesting. I will post this to my Facebook if you don't mind. Thanks for posting this.
Tour is always interesting to listen to. Darwinian evolution proponents usually stay clear of him because he isn't afraid to call them bluff and expose the absurdity of their theories at the necessary molecular level. It's so frustrating because most secular scientists don't want a serious discussion about the problem with the current accepted theory, or issue with a method of scientific investigation that forbids an intelligent design notion for things they openly admit APPEARS designed! Instead, a leap in logic is required theorize how complex body structures (and even the incredibly sophisticated genitic code for crying out loud!) can come into existence by natural laws - as if laws of nature can write complex programing language. This is a method of reasoning contrary to everything we have ever tested or observed! As long as that the public(thanks to bias media/organizations) is under the delusion that these "wise men" have been bestowed some otherwise unattainable mesure of intellect, they'll continue to roll around in tax-payers'/grant money while they teach our kids how to approach science... not for the purpose of advancing it, but rather, how to keep an establishment intact.
_Darwinian evolution proponents usually stay clear of him_
They really don't. But the real issue is that James Tour is not an expert on this subject. I don't know why you'd choose to listen to him talk about the subject of origins of life or macro-evolution in biology instead of the scientists who lead the field.
_It's so frustrating because most secular scientists don't want a serious discussion about the problem with the current accepted theory, or issue with a method of scientific investigation that forbids an intelligent design notion for things they openly admit APPEARS designed!_
Intelligent design is not scientific - it doesn't make any predicitons about how inherited characterisitcs are distributed among organisms, so it's a non-starter. Darwinian evolution does make predicitons - and gets them right. Notable examples would be the distribution of ERV sequences found at specific locations in the great ape genomes.
_and even the incredibly sophisticated genitic code for crying out loud!_
The genetic code is not sophisticated. It's an assignment of 64 codons to 20 amino acids (and sometimes a stop) - that's all. If you think there is something sophisticated about this, then you can't be helped. If you think the genetic code is more than this, then you got the wrong end of the stick. What's more, there's good evidence that the genetic code evolved from a more primitive form based on two codon sequences (and fewer codons).
_as if laws of nature can write complex programing language_
Why not?
_This is a method of reasoning contrary to everything we have ever tested or observed!_
It's not, the reasoning was based on testing and observation. You have this completely backwards.
_they'll continue to roll around in tax-payers'/grant money while they teach our kids how to approach science_
Why shouldn't scientists teach science? What a bizzare notion.
_not for the purpose of advancing it, but rather, how to keep an establishment intact._
This is tin-foil hat territory.
There's no such thing as a secular science......only science and pseudoscience. By it's very definition science can only be used to explain the natural world. If something in natural seems complex, it doesn't mean humans will never understand it. Our understanding of the universe is growing exponentially. Just over 100 years ago, people thought it impossible to fly.
@@teddansonLA x isnt science, therefore it is false. Is this your argument?
@@ArgothaWizardWars no. Intelligent design is not scientific, and so should not be part of a discussion about science.
@borrowed tomb _You should watch Nova video entitled Lifeless Rock_
Why? It would be better for me to ask professional biologists, since they work in the building next to mine. In fact, I have asked them already, and they all agree evolution is the best (indeed only) scientific explanation of biodiversity.
_Rocks possess magic " tricks"_
Says no biologist on earth. Why put stupid words in people's mouths?
_That's the only explanation you will ever, ever, get from an evolution scientist._
I've never heard a single professional scientist say such a stupid thing.
_This is offered as the only proof that life was created by rocks from a magic " trick"_
Don't use the word proof where it should be. If there were proof, there would be no question. But science doesn't use proof, ever, so your claim is moot.
_No scientific properties of rocks is given as something we can replicate in the lab to produce life_
What are you on about? All life is chemisty, though very complicated chemistry. The only scientific way to approach the problem of the origin of life is to do experiments - not invent Gods that can do it instead of nature. We already know for a fact humans evolved, so we know for a fact the biblical account cannot be taken literally.
_Maybe you are afraid that Intelligent Design might threaten your belief in the magical properties of rocks to create life!_
Intelligent design can't threaten beliefs, because beliefs can deny anything, as you are demonstrating.
_If you had an actual explanation outside of magic "trick", you could replicate it in a lab, obviously_
That's not obvious, or true. The proposed explanations of the origin of life are much more complicated and time consuming than present experiments can hope to test at this point. So instead, we study much smaller processes that would be necessary in the bigger scheme - some succeed, some fail. What you are claiming is that the biggest problem in biology can be easily solved - that's just a naive claim.
_People should have a purely intellectual response to ID_
ID is not science, so the only intellectual approach would be to exclude it from scientific discussion.
Wisdom is justified by her children
i got curious on the rat that got its cervial vertebra cut into two and can walk again . .
Wisdom is justified by her
I love Jim Tour. I can't get enough of his lectures. He is brilliant, sincere, and captivating.
Personally, I prefer to fight abiogensis rather than evolution. Partly because evolution is at least partly true, and it may be more than partly true. God could use evolution if he wanted to - he is God.
But I primarily avoid it, mostly because nobody will listen. Even though Jim is making great points, it seems to be the wrong mountain to fight and die on. Perhaps Planck is right - after a generation of scientists die, maybe we can discuss this more openly. Today we just can't. People have been brainwashed into "evolution is fact.," so discussion on the subject is verboten. It took Jay Gould a lifetime of work to get a few people to see that the fossil record supports punc-eq not Darwin, and still few accept Gould.
But showing that the Origin of Life is impossible, to me, is a slam-dunk argument. I'd prefer to focus on that evidence, rather than argue against evolution. It's an easier mountain to scale, in my opinion.
Information is not reducible to a material basis.
Material process cannot generate information.
If this ever worked without an intelligent input, tech companies would be using evolution to improve their designs.
Scientific apologetics is the explanation of how scientific laws can be broken
I agree on the strength of abiogenesis, but Evolution theory is equally open to our attack. In my efforts, I lead people to clarity on empiricals and theoreticals...and now the biased "story" from evolutionists is assumed fact. They are uncovered as imposters and religionists. But no doubt, if we promote abiogenesis, they are attacked at the weak point of their naturalistic philosophy. They LOVE their naturalism...and it's such a weak and miserable thing that they love. They may come to tears when you show them that naturalism is a failure.
@@sbgtrading Science by definition can only study the natural world. It's crackpots like creationists who think their world view has a scientific element to it.
@@Master13346 So that begs the question...what is the limits of the natural world? Where am I not permitted to go? If I have a logical explanation for a phenomena, it means we have something to study and learn about...I don't see a signpost that says "STAY WITHIN THE LINES"...or "DO NOT THINK ABOUT THIS".
Truth has set me free from this discriminatory christ
Tour seems not to have heard of evo devo and this is probably why he thinks regulatory divergence of non-RNA and protein coding regions isn't consistent with common ancestry. Chimps, nematodes, humans and fruit flies share a lot of genes inherited through a series of common ancestors but As Eric Clapton said, "It's in the way that you use it.."
The way this guy goes on about scientific consensus being interpreted as “facts” by laypeople is really neither here nor there. Scientists know now, just as they always have, that our knowledge and understanding of the natural world changes over time. It’s hard to believe he’s actually a scientist the way he’s carrying on.
It's called religious fervor
This information scares them to death...
Like all the DNA, soft tissue, blood cell etc. that has been found inside of fossils that are supposed to be 10’s and 100’s of millions of years old....
Tommy, your gross and deliberate misunderstanding of science only proves that you are willing to lie to defend your favorite delusion.
'Theory' is a shorter word for make-believe.
I often wonder about the difference between Scientific Theories, which to be fair are rather robust, and Mathematical Theorems - which are irrefutable. It tends to be only mathematicians that appreciate the difference.
But you are wrong in thinking that a `Theory` is the same as make believe.
@@dogwithwigwamz.7320
But we are right in calling "evolutionary theory" make believe.
"Big bang theory" is make believe also .....we have no clue if it was a small bang or a big bang or no bang at all. ....no clue , we are clueless . its all make believe theory.
back ground radiation and red light shift do not tell us a big bang even occured . God could create the universe in total silence . noisy bangs is just conjecture and make believe to suit the petty minds of scientific pretenders.
Hi, Ian. I was merely making an observation between some Scientific Theories and Scientific Theories in General and Mathematical Theorems in particular.
You`ll struggle to find a discrepancy between derivatives of velocity and acceleration and jerk, for example.
To be sure that I mean no insult to you, Google " Derivatives of Acceleration." Its merely the second derivative of velocity. Think on it as a `jerk` as when one stars a car with Kangaroo Juice.
These are Laws of Physics so long as they are Mathematical Theorems.
Take care and God bless you pal.
A scientific theory is the best explanation of how something happens based on the most current extensive observation, testing, and verification. It is the highest standard. Faith is belief in that for which there is no evidence. AKA make believe.
@@ianworcester4640 Amazing how you can convince yourself that magic is real and facts aren't
Science also refutes miracles but Tour believes them when it suits him. This is just sophistry.
What do YOU believe in? That should be your question. One day you will stand before a living God and give an account of YOUR life, not Dr. Tour's life. What will you tell God to enter His heaven? Please believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
@@phoenixrise3126 : I don't care what you believe. It's no skin off my nose. My objection to Tour remains. He can't demand scientific rigor and then ignore it totally as it suits him and have either be taken seriously.
@@lrvogt1257 First of all, you WILL care what I believe one day, either in this life, or the next. As far as Tour is concerned, you haven't even shown what rigor he has ignored. Your objection to Tour is that he is right and you hate that because it challenges your world view, which is wrong.
Phoenix Rise I mean whatever you chose to believe is of no concern to me. We are all free to believe as we chose. Tour has shown no scientific evidence for his supernatural beliefs because there are none and there never have been. That’s why religion is based on faith and not scientific rigor. If there were any everyone would know it.
@@lrvogt1257 Truth is truth period. Tour is speaking truth and if you still believe in the origin of life currently put forth by evolutionists, then YOU are the one following a blind religion by faith, not me.
Well James, deep common ancestry is indeed a fact since its consequences are observable. otherwise you and a goldfish wouldn't be vertebrates.
...........................................J A M E S T O U R.......................................UA-cam ............................... Rejoice again I say R E J O I C E
Tour is full of shit.
ua-cam.com/video/SixyZ7DkSjA/v-deo.html
Seven minutes in and this professor has done nothing but attack straw men. For example “chemicals have never been shown to evolve toward life”. NO ONE is saying they do. We _think_ it must have happened ONCE. But we don’t know exactly how. I hope this gets better...
Dr. Tour definitely gets fired up and he's even admitted this on multiple occasions that it can lead him to state things out of line, which any person can grant because he's human. However, did he _imply_ that any scientists think this? I listened very carefully to the segment you're referencing - he doesn't state that any scientists think this. Be careful not to put words in his mouth, lest you also commit a strawman. Remember his audience here is probably comprised of some laypeople, so he's laying the foundation and simply explaining that molecules aren't built with this propensity. It's a simple expounding of the fact that this has to be acknowledged when addressing origin of life. "We don't know exactly how" - what people don't know is precisely what he explains in the proceeding steps - all of which are verified by other synthetic organic chemists. Nothing he states on OoL is factually incorrect. All the described processes for it to happen are bang on.
@@winterlogical I suppose it’s ambiguous at best and a blatant misrepresentation at worst. It may be true that he doesn’t say explicitly that scientists think this but that was certainly the implication to my mind. The only words I put in his mouth were the ones in quotation marks. Did he not say those words? Be careful not to put words in my mouth - did I say he said explicitly that scientists think this? Haha
You’re right about how fired up he gets. I think we can fault him for that. He clearly has a significant bias in my view, despite purporting to be a calm, rational scientist merely following the evidence.
I think you’re also correct that his audience is mostly laypeople, which unfortunately is why I think he’s not as careful about misrepresenting the OoL community. I’ve seen him debate an OoL scientist and he’s a lot more measured and a lot more careful and even seems to be a lot less fanatical and more open to the possibilities of abiogenesis (if I remember it correctly - it was a while ago I watched it).
Other than that, I agree he knows his stuff. He’s no Deepak Chopra that’s for sure.
deus ex carbonem
Dr J. is the adult version of a child playing with legos - only children dont get convinced by their own lego creations, that there must be a lego-god behind it.
You never speak about women coming to Christ and certainly never talk about women preaching the gospel of Christ to others. Can you comment about this?
lol.
Slime plus time
doesn't work, like he said..
Good grief, get punctuated equilibrium right.
Good grief, fossilized soft tissue isn't inconsistent with a 65 million year ago extinction event for non avian dinosaurs.
“Junk DNA was a fact”. Ok I’m struggling to believe this guy is genuine and impartial now. He’s either grossly misinformed or grossly disingenuous. Sad.
He seems not to have made the connection btwn "junk" (a better term is the "genomic junk drawer") and ORFan genes.
His questions about body plans reveal he has not heard of the field evo devo.
His complaint about an alleged lack of evolutionary mechanisms seems to me to mean if people can't show him a chemical mechanism it's just. story-telling.
The big bang theory is not about the beginning of the universe. It says there was a state change.
@@patldennis quite right. The fact that he gets the implications of the Big Bang wrong is pretty poor for a chemistry professor. I’m not even a professional scientist and I know that. You don’t need a degree in physics to understand the limitations of the Big Bang theory.
Sometimes he sounds like a highly intelligent synthetic chemist, other times he just sounds like a stock standard apologist. It’s an unusual mix.
He not funny. This video no dafty like other video. other video better. Make me happy because he silly. My village not watch this because no joy of heart and light of thought. No funny. Why he not let his daft out? Better when show daftiness.
Hatchet job on abiogenesis. From someone who believes in myths and legends of the Bible. False analogies, false information. Nanoscientist, nanobrain and mean spirit as well. Let those who pursue a science based theory of life free as the USA constitution says.
What, in this video and particularly pertaining to origin of life, is scientifically inaccurate and "misinformation" as you claim? He thoroughly explained all the things that need to happen in order for life to form from a mindless molecular process, from the four molecules to the formation of proteins and cell structures etc. Other synthetic organic chemists have heard his presentations and have not corrected him - they have verified the processes which he describes. He is also extremely careful not to appeal to God in any of these things precisely because people such as yourself would not listen. It doesn't mean abiogenesis will never be solved but there are extreme obstacles and astronomical mathematical probabilities to overcome in order to assent to the mindless formation of these molecules to life.
@@winterlogical If you had studied biochemistry across the 3 domains of life you would see that there are alternative chemical substrates, alternative chemical pathways, reverse pathways to every reaction and a great abundance in Nature all which came together with inorganic and organic catalysts to make life inevitable rather than possible . The fake stats and math was defeated in the real world by polymer templating , quintillions of protocells and some proteinoid /ribozyme catalysts. You should call yourself bullshit logical instead.
Poor rat
Abiogenesis is an embarrassment, and has no empirical proof! James tour exposes it well!
@@5tonyvvvv Abiogenesis is a necessity given what we know about stellar and planetary formation and the current amount of life we are surrounded by. It's not a question of if, but how?