Dr Meyer has many many talents but perhaps the one that amazes me the most is his ability to interject and clarify a point at the exact right moment. I don't think Steven gets nearly enough credit for his extraordinarily high level ability to articulate complex ideas in a graspable way
Dave made a complete fool of himself. He followed his "hero" Lee Cronin right over the cliff of wishful thinking. Another win for James Tour and Stephen Meyer.
Thank you two for all that you do! You two have motivated me to actually go out and read the scientific literature for myself. For all of you God fearing Christians out there! Don’t just take their word for it (although I can attest that what they are saying is true). Be diligent and study. You will find time and time again that it will draw you nearer to God! I read a handful of papers on the evolution and origins of ATP synthase. They say things like “it is conceivable” that it happened as we say it happened. In other words, IMAGINE that it happened that way. Use your 🌈imagination🌈 this is the so-called “science” that professor Dave is claiming is “proof” of billions of years of evolution. It is a religion, folks. And if you were sharing the gospel with any other religion, you need to be studied up on what they believe and what is the basis for that belief! Love you all! God bless you all in Jesus name!
@gerardmoloney433 You're not wrong about darwin. If he knew what we currently do about cellular function, As well as the destitute nature of the fossil record, I believe he would abandon his theory. He said as much in his book. I'm not sure if this was the place to bring up the bible, but at least you got that much, right.
*_'Nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists.'_* --- John C. Lennox, Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, internationally renowned speaker and author.
I believe he was responding to a statement that Steven Hawking had said, " Because there is a law such as gravity , the universe can and will create itself from nothing." I really enjoyed the debate between Professor Lennox and Richard Dawkins.
Yes, the sheer idiocy of believing what Lee Cronin believes!😂😂😂 I saw that debate years ago... and silly LEE LIED and said they had figured it out! 😂😂😂A few years away he said!😂😂😂 THese "origin of life" naturalists are such FRAUDS! The fact that DNA CODE CAN'T SELF-CREATE AND SELF-ASSEMBLE INTO CELLS ACCIDENTALLY in TRILLIONS UPON TRILLIONS UPON TRILLIONS UPON TRILLIONS of imaginary universes...let alone a TINY LITTLE EARTH...is LAUGHABLE!!!😂😂😂 The sheer DISHONESTY of saying it "CAN" is far worse than an idiot claiming that pigs can fly!😂😂😂 It is a JOKE!
@@martinjan2334it is the unreasonable desire to reject a Holy God that will judge them for their sin. They all know that God created everything but they have hope in their unrepentant state in the delusion of evolution.
Dear doctors, I can’t thank you enough for your contributions to this debate. I hope and pray that all the scientists really stop self deceiving and embrace the TRUTH. Praying for both of you. May the LORD bless you with more wisdom and eloquence. Glory to Jesus!
Dr James Tour you speak with passion that can only come from the mouth of one standing on Truth. Please post more video demonstration it's easier for us to grasp and then teach others .
*_“When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”_* (Charles Darwin, 1800’s Evolution Theorist, in his letter to G. Bentham May 22, 1863)
The NASA definition for life on Earth is……. . Life is a self sustaining chemical system, capable of darwinian evolution . . This is NASA , the people responsible for man on the moon , Hubble and James Webb telescopes , the people who only employ the world’s best biologists, astronomers, chemists, etc….. Probably the world’s most reputable organisations . . So ask yourself a question, who is more likely correct, NASA or bias social media Christians . . To prove anything beyond reasonable doubt, you must provide a mechanism, Tour, Michael Behe, Stephen Myers all fail dismally, to provide a mechanism for their pseudoscience . Which is why intelligent design, will always fail
I have been keeping up with all of this. Stephen, I saw you on Rogan. It was good and this information is getting more and more traction. Thank you and Dr. Tour for your continuing work and passion.
*_“I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”_* (Charles Darwin, 1800’s Evolution Theorist, in a Letter to Asa Gray June 18, 1857)
It's so crazy how I learned so much from Meyers and Tour. This journey of 13 years started with Lane Craig and Kent Hovid and then on to tour and a few more and talking to actual atheist scientists personally. People it is facts that your God designed all of this. We are taught so much morality and religion it amazes me how intelligent god actually is. It's mind blowing that our creator took so much time to design everything. Our God knew we would know him much better through science. I respect and love our creator so much for designing life and giving us consciousness. People we may not have consciousness forever but enjoy every second of it.
I did love the discussion on how amino acids could not link up in the so called primordial soup of life. At least not link up in chains longer than two or three. That implies the the ocean could not be the so called location where life began. That also seriously threatens the entire idea about some life beginning in the ocean and climbing onto the land areas millions of years later. Truly eye opening for the lay man when discussing organic chemistry in general.
Question: In business, there are "Truth in Advertising" directives to prevent fraud when companies try to sell their products and services to the public for profit. Can you start an official commission for "Truth in Science" directives to prevent fraud when scientists try to sell their hypotheses to the public for funding and profit?
The one thing I learned about Tour and Dave debate is the more and more time you give tour to talk he will literally and completely destroy the materialistic argument by himself. I looked at every second of his 9 plus hour lecture. Tour is a nail in the ass to atheism to the point it's laughable. I couldn't imagine a debater going point for point with him and actually 10 chemist moderating as a referee. Forcing the opposition to directly respond to what Tour says. A guy like Dave uses smoke screens and attacks to confuse his base. Tour will intellectually destroy your origin if life research down step by step. I love Stephen Meyers as well. His mind is extremely sharp and he brings out the best in James Tour because he knows how to direct him to talking about what is relevant for his listeners to not miss things. These two are like the NBA dream team of the science world. Credit to Meyers for putting this together. I personally always fact check everything a scientist says regardless of him or her being atheist or creationist.
This is a good exercise for James Tour, as he tends to go from being very vague to too technical. For example, when discussing the problem caused by having many different sugars react with aminos to create non-biological polymers, he will say it is a 'mess,' 'junk,' or 'garbage.' It would be better to say something like, "2% of the sugars generated by the formose reaction are useful for life, so if they all link together equally, the odds that one will get the appropriate ribose backbone in a proto-DNA via the sugar specificity alone, is on the order of 1e-170." One can compare this to a number representing the probabilistic resources of the universe (eg, 1e-100), and make it clear what garbage means in this context: not just implausible, but impossible, requiring something like an infinite multiverse. On the other side, he will mention 'enantiomers' or 'alpha-peptide bonds' without any explanation, which prevents 90%+ of his audience from following his argument. Lastly, James has to learn to calm down, as getting too excited makes him sound deranged or highly insecure about his knowledge. These are all rectifiable problems, but they need to be addressed. I hope he sticks with it, because he has a very specialized set of knowledge that few in the debate have.
love this. i am not scientist per se but i am a classically educated composer. Information in composing music is building from the cell like fragments - therefore i believe that there is no chance to make life out of random chance. music is less complicated than a cell.
Strength and science. Dr. Tour is not likely to give up for at least 2 reasons. 1. He knows his stuff. 2. He knows that God is on his side. I am here on the sidelines cheering for him.
I would love to see a complete Fossil record showing every stage of change of ANY creature. And it should look a lot like the progression of a Tadpole to a Frog. Tadpole, Tadpole with 2 legs, Tadpole with 4 legs shorter tail on and on. But they don't have ANY fossil showing these gradual changes of ANY creature.
"Just about every organism has genes which are unique to it, as many as 20% of the genes in each organism are unique. In other words, that haven't been derived from some other genes in another organism. And this is a recent finding of modern science, and it's a fundamental problem for the idea that evolution explains the diversity of life" Don Batten, Plant biologist.
Btw, I love his lack of patience sometimes to explain stuff that is basic on his level! Maybe it is not good for lay people like me to understand things, but I love it!
Professor Dave’s debate performance with James was the worst I’ve ever seen in my life. To name call and use the word stupid like 100 times instead of responding to James’ arguments shows how mentally deficient Dave actually is. I respect that you guys actually try to engage with him, despite his lack of seriousness and clear intellectual deficiencies. I’m sorry, but a Cal State Fullerton degree is nothing to brag about and that’s all Prof Dave has - intellectually he’s just not in the same ballpark of either you. I watched a few of his videos, his argumentations always consist of the same unintelligent methods, specifically 1. Motives of people he’s critiquing makes their scientific points moot, 2. Name calling on top of the “motive” arguments, 3. Using overly simple analogies speaking to “disprove and debunk” people. One thing I do respect about Dave is how he speaks with such confidence (sociopathic confidence) as if his analogies are way better than any based chemical argument that he’s trying to disprove.
If you think Dave's way of arguing and promoting his position while denegrating an opposing position (or the person expressing it) is evidence for his 'mental deficiencies', then you've missed the real reason why Dave is using these techniques and the amount of intelligence, in the form of cunning, and knowledge of effective propaganda techniques is required to pull it of as well as he's doing now, with the amount of influence he has on his rather large flock (another indication of his succes as a propagandist, requiring a great deal of cunning and knowledge, and the ability to tickle the ears of his audience as described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4). Propaganda, it works! Especially if you present it under the marketingbanner "Science". Dawkins, Hawking, Krauss, Venter, Cronin and all the others may be slightly more subtle when they use the same techniques, but their behaviour in essence is no different. You can get an overview of these techniques from the article called "The Manipulation of Information" published by _Awake!_ magazine. A summary of the techniques discussed there: lies, making generalizations, name-calling, playing on the emotions (and that's a big one, especially the appeals to pride and reverse appeals to pride that play on our fear of seeming stupid, so that's 2 emotions) and slogans&symbols.
We should have people of this calibre in climate science too. It would clear the air much quicker than all that scientists that agree on climate change.
Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. John Christy. I also like Tony Heller who exposes how the scientific community commits fraud through the falsification of the temperature record.
A person does Not need to have a Phd (or even an undergraduate degree) to question the validity of the Abiogenesis Hypothesis, or any hypothesis. As long as people have an understanding of basic scientific principles, common sense, and open mindedness to seek the truth, they can come to a more accurate conclusion for themselves. Basic Science 101: Wikipedia: *_“A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the Scientific Method requires that one can Test It … Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is Not the same as a scientific theory.”_* Hypothesis is also referred to as a Hypothetical or Educated Guess. Wikipedia: *_"In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process Are Still Unknown, the prevailing scientific Hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event ... There are several principles and Hypothesis for how abiogenesis Could Have occurred."_* One of the reasons that abiogensis is merely a "hypothesis" and has not advanced to the status of being a "scientific theory", is that abiogenesis hypotheses still lack the experimental data required by the scientific method. Abiogenesis Hypothesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times.
Can you test the idea that "the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event" when all the evidence is clearly pointing to the fact that it _was_ a single event of creation/engineering (and the logic of inductive reasoning, or common sense, demands it, or leads to that conclusion)? Otherwise, that's not a "scientific hypothesis" either according to their own (wikipedia's) description concerning testability. In which case, they are contradicting themselves as usual.
If there are so many issues with these studies, why does it appear as though a new model is not being explored? It sounds as though, due to the chemical issues being discussed, the pre-biotic soup model has been dispelled. What other options are being pursued aside from an intelligently designed origin?
The fact that DNA / genes (biological coded information) exists at all shows that a Consciousness-'Intelligence-Mind' is involved in the initial introduction and subsequent propagation of living systems. Un-directed random material natural processes have never been observed in nature or experimentally demonstrated to be capable of producing Functional / Coded / Digital information such as that required for biological systems, even at the most primitive levels of biological life.
Thank you gentlemen. It's videos like these that help with the effort of distinguishing the practical science from the creative storytelling that the populous is taught. I was once told the two great battlefields surround the books of God's word and the books of God's works (the creation). It has the mark of that great enemy on it, asking two questions "did God really say? did God really do?". Blessings in Mashiach Yeshua.
Good on both of you for shining the TRUTH and giving us the facts of origin of creating a cell from scratch which that is GODS expertise. You both are blest with genius minds ,keep it up
I watched Episode 3 first. But most of this seems to be discussed in Episode 3. I am not sure why the same material is repeated. Maybe I am forgetting much of the discussion but most of what I remember being discussed in Episode 3 is being discussed again. I know much is added but not that much.
What would you replace it with? It's not the science ("peer-review" studies) that is the problem. The problem is luck of scientific and human integrity i.e. corrupt, buyable human nature that will manipulate everything to fit the findings with their predetermined (desired) conclusions, or stay silent and go with the flow even when they find errors - because of their titles and positions. To entrust it with the AI is even worst, because it's programable and it's harder to trace the names that are behind it.
@John777Revelation "Question: Does the "Peer-review" system need to be overhauled or replaced?" I would say certainly Overhauled. The problem (IMO) is the Materialist Assumption. Now 100-150 years ago this might have been a valid assumption, based on what was know through science. Today.....Not so much. "It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science. It is only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence." Allan Sandage
When majority of scientist are naturalists then they will exclude all other views, this is what happened, they will not consider anything that goes beyond materialistic view. In other words science as it stands today have been hijacked by people with same worldview and they push it as if backed up by science, however science AS A METHOD OF UNDERSTANDING LIFE around us has no issue to consider any idea and test it. So the fact that they will not consider and allow other people with different world views do science and shutting them down and boo when they submit it for pee-review simply means they are focused on promoting their world view and discard anything else. Because they use it as a weapon. When some one submits they reject it and then they say "you have failed peer-review" of course it failed because people are biased to anything that goes against their world view and would SYSTIMATICLY put it down. Hypocrisy.
I don't agree that Dave is a victim. He is simply a blind man choosing to follow another and so still FULLY accountable. We are all WARNED to make sure our eye is good.
*_"Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations."_* (Source: Wikipedia) By definition, natural selection does not take effect until after the first replicating living organism has already come into existence. Natural selection, as a material natural mechanism, has not been observed in nature or experimentally demonstrated to have any effect on individual atoms and molecules in a per-biotic environment causing them to form into a DNA or RNA molecule and cannot, therefore, be used to explain the origin of the genetic code. *_"The most popular proposal for the first self-replicating molecule is RNA - where life was first based upon RNA carrying both genetic information (akin to modern DNA) and performing catalytic functions (akin to modern enyzmes), in what is termed the RNA world [Hypothesis]."_* (Source: Evolution News) *_“A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the Scientific Method requires that one can Test It … Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is Not the same as a scientific theory.”_* *Hypothesis is also referred to as a Hypothetical or Educated Guess.* (Source: Wikipedia) *_"In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process Are Still Unknown, the prevailing scientific Hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event [i.e. spontaneous generation]... There are several principles and Hypothesis for how abiogenesis Could Have occurred."_* (Source: Wikipedia) *_"The RNA world is a hypothetical stage in the evolutionary history of life on Earth, in which self-replicating RNA molecules proliferated before the evolution of DNA and proteins. The term also refers to the hypothesis that posits the existence of this stage."_* (Source: Wikipedia) One of the reasons that abiogensis and RNA World are merely "hypotheses" and have not advanced to the status of being a "scientific theories", is that abiogenesis and RNA World hypotheses still lack the experimental data required by the scientific method. Abiogenesis and RNA World Hypothesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times.
I've looked at the Miller-Urey experiment as well. About 95% of what was produced was a sticky tar that would gum up any further reactions. (The amino acids formed wouldn't be bio- available.) About 2% was amino acids. Some used by life and others not. But they didn't come up in equal amounts. Miller only spotted a few and the rest were found later because they were in such small amounts. Over 50% of the amino acid produced was glycine. Then alanine both left and right handed versions. Then another version of alanine not used by life. Most of the rest appeared as fractions of a percent of the yield. (Both left and right handed versions.) Which is why they weren't seen initially. The yields are in inverse proportion to the complexity of the molecule and the energy needed to produce it. And... that reaction is no longer thought to be relevant to early earth.
Miller had to immediately isolate the amino acid molecules in a "cold trap" so that they would not be immediately contaminated by the environment. destroyed by the environment.in which shop did the prebiotic soil bought this trap
Dave Farina is not a victim here. He is purposely malevolent and slanderous, and needs to be held to account. I understand Tour and Meyer want to take the high road and try to not get embroiled in the name calling. But neither can we ignore the mean-spirited and deceptive audacity of Farina, let alone dub him victim.
I respect the scientific method and peer review process. Will this critique be subject to peer review and published via the same methods as the original work? UA-cam is valuable for non experts like me, but it seems like the real value would be to have to go through the rigor of the peer review process.
I'm approaching these issues from the point of view of a genetic algorithm programmer and am interested in how evolution works. That is, I assume and hope and expect that evolution works, and am not generally interested in ID. Nevertheless, I find that your conversations are very illuminating and address issues better than many 'pro-evolution' folk, who seem to gloss over a lot of important points and caveats, presumably according to various biases.
Great series. Also for learning the basics of the building blocks and the massive requirements on them to produce anything at all pre-biotically! Thank you but also little Dave for having inadvertently initiated this series.
Dave Farina doesn't understand these subjects well, but he puts all of his faith in scientists. His religion is scientism, and he defends it ruthlessly. You can just tell by the venom he spews that this is a whole heck of a lot more than just some scientific theory for him. His entire worldview is on the line.
“We are going to take them out” “In the intellectual sense?” “Ya “ 😮😂 I’m excited The(the Lord’s) fantastic 4 -Dr John Lennox -Dr William Lane Craig -Dr Stephen Meyer -Dr James Tour vs The misinformation and stagnation in science Get your 🍿 ready 🙏
Even if the Marangoni effect applies in some way to cell division, I doubt Dr Cronin has addressed the issue of scale i.e. has he shown the Marangoni effect at the scale of a cell, typically 100 MICRONS? As far as I recall free-energy is highly dependent on the material and drop size and I'd be surprised if lipids show this effect on the micron scale, but happy to stand corrected.
If only more biologists would openly admit their doubts about the creative power of mutation natural selection mechanism. Are they afraid of getting blacklisted?
Mainstream atheist evolutionist scientists (shorthand classification I am making) are themselves trying to find a new paradigm since the old paradigm of natural selection/random mutation is inadequate to explain the narrative of the phylogenetic tree of life theory from single-called organisms. They are inventing something called Third Way Evolution. The project is doomed because the fossil record does not support any evolutionary theory that connects all modern fauna to linked ancestors.
🌼The scientific process is all about testing hypotheses and discarding those that are not supported by evidence. This is how we have learned so much about the world around us. However, there are some people who are so attached to their worldview that they refuse to accept evidence that contradicts it. Take the flat Earthers, for example. They believe that the Earth is a flat disc, despite the overwhelming evidence that it is a sphere. They have been presented with gazillions of data that shows the Earth is a globe, but they refuse to believe it. Instead, they go on wild goose chases, trying to find "evidence" that supports their view. This is not how science works. Science is about following the evidence, wherever it leads ( even if it means mrPumking Created this universe). If you have a hypothesis, you test it. If the evidence does not support your hypothesis, you discard it. You don't just keep trying to find evidence that supports your view, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary. The flat Earthers are not doing science. They are doing confirmation bias. They are starting with their conclusion and then trying to find evidence to support it. This is not how you learn about the world. This is how you stay ignorant. Materialists are doing exactly the same, they start with the conclusion and then they are looking to support it via scientific experimentations, discarding any experimental results that confront their view. The scientific process is a powerful tool for learning about the world. It is a process that has helped us to make incredible progress in our understanding of the universe. However, it only works if we are willing to follow the evidence, wherever it leads. If we are not, we will never learn anything new. It was valid to explore idea "it happened via natural process" but as it stands now gazillion of experimental data shows us that this is not how it happened and it completely discards idea of natural process. So from a scientific perspective it was a valid experiment to test their idea of natural process starting life but it clearly shows their idea is false, so from a scientific perspective its not a fail, its a success and they should have discarded this idea and move on, this of course they unwilling to do due to not be willing to change their thinking accordingly to their own discovery that tells them - idea of natural process is a false idea. This simply means their world view is out of touch with reality and this they will not admit.
I don't care how much chemistry equipment they use or how complicated the process they use. Let's see them do it, go ahead, make a cell. They are nowhere close to making the simplest cell from prebiotic chemicals. --> Nowhere close!
So, would you rather set up an experiment that makes you wait a billion years for it to bear fruit? Researching abiogenesis requires shortcuts because nobody right now can live a billion years. Even a hundred years is still too long.
5 years ago, Dave made a video called "The Origin of Life on Earth" which is about how abiogenesis created life on Earth. If talking about Dave is to increase science literacy or debunking psuedoscience, why didn't you make a video about Dave 5 years ago? Why wait until Dave made videos about you specifically?
He answered that. JP wasn't fully engaged in the topic and remained focused on his research group. It was Dave who attacked and maligned him that drew his full attention. It became personal, then a matter of principle.
@@jon__doe First of all, who is JP? Second of all, the fact that Dave's been making videos about abiogenesis for some time before this debacle started and James said he's doing this to help educate people like Dave, it really feels like the only reason James is doing this is because he got his feelings hurt by 1 random dude on the Internet.
James Tour was just minding his own business when dave attacked him first, then james tour kicked his arse in retaliation. Do some research, this is how it all started. Di ck head dave attacked james tour first.
@@redearth8256not true at all. Maybe you don't consider all of the PhD scientists in the various creation ministries as holding valid degrees? Dr Randy Guliuzza is a medical doctor as well as a PhD engineer.
I'm having a hard time comprehending why they bother talking about Dave Farina at all. He's not a researcher or even a professor. Talking about Dave is like talking about Destin Sandlin or Hank Green.
This debate should be as hushed as one would talk in Notre Dame cathedral in that it is so beyond our grasp of things that there is no place at all for name calling or raised voices and accusations. Why do I say this? I am an armchair synthetic chemist thanks to Jim Tour in that I have listened to the complexity of a simple yeast cell from one of Jim's videocasts. Listen to this: the lipids or the outer membrane of a simple yeast cell---and please check Dr Tour's research---has 10 to the 78 billion possible combinations and only one will work! The carbohydrates on the outside of the cell, on the membrane are more complex than the DNA and the RNA combined! All of the elements of a cell, the amino acids, the proteins, the nucleotides etcetera have to come together at exactly the right time or it will not function, because a carbohydrate can caramelize and will need to have another one made. All of the elements of a simple cell must come together at the exact right moment for it to function. That alone is mind-boggling, but throw this in the stew: What if all of the elements come together at the right moment and at the right time, that still does not explain how the cell becomes 'alive'. Boys and girls, what Jim Tour has done for the world is to show us that even the simplest cell is so complex and has to be made at exactly the right time but even if it does, what is the mechanism that brings it to life? We have to realize that life has all of these components, humans are made of a trillion cells. But all of those cells need to be alive and there is nothing anyone is ever going to show us on how that spark of life makes a cell becomes alive.
I wish these videos could reach much more of the masses. Scientists are just humans and nothing more, they have ego, pesonal and religious goals wich influences their work. These darwinists should let science speak freely not speak for science.
It's funny that one of these conversations in the past led to awake a powerful monster that was dormant, tranquil in his lab doing his things, Dr James Tour. This monster is on the loose now and is hungry for scientists to challenge him in this regard.🤣
Dr Meyer has many many talents but perhaps the one that amazes me the most is his ability to interject and clarify a point at the exact right moment. I don't think Steven gets nearly enough credit for his extraordinarily high level ability to articulate complex ideas in a graspable way
Dave made a complete fool of himself. He followed his "hero" Lee Cronin right over the cliff of wishful thinking. Another win for James Tour and Stephen Meyer.
This conversation is my SuperBowl
I, too, enjoy mental sports more than I enjoy physical sports.
@@HolyHolyHoly777
Souper salad, sir?
Thank you two for all that you do! You two have motivated me to actually go out and read the scientific literature for myself. For all of you God fearing Christians out there! Don’t just take their word for it (although I can attest that what they are saying is true). Be diligent and study. You will find time and time again that it will draw you nearer to God!
I read a handful of papers on the evolution and origins of ATP synthase. They say things like “it is conceivable” that it happened as we say it happened. In other words, IMAGINE that it happened that way. Use your 🌈imagination🌈 this is the so-called “science” that professor Dave is claiming is “proof” of billions of years of evolution. It is a religion, folks. And if you were sharing the gospel with any other religion, you need to be studied up on what they believe and what is the basis for that belief! Love you all! God bless you all in Jesus name!
There are probably a couple dozen people whom I consider to be heroes, treasures to humanity. These two are among the giants.
I prefer Darwin.
@gerardmoloney433
You're not wrong about darwin. If he knew what we currently do about cellular function, As well as the destitute nature of the fossil record, I believe he would abandon his theory.
He said as much in his book.
I'm not sure if this was the place to bring up the bible, but at least you got that much, right.
I like Meyer's calm approach. I like Tour too, but I think he has trouble controlling his passion - but he is brilliant!
I think Dr Tour is so passionate about honesty and truth that he gets riled up by the charlatans. I really enjoy listening to him.
At the end of the day "what you like" has no bearing on anything.
I believe he's so passionate obviously because he is that knowledgeable. And he also knows the other side isn't being intellectually honest.
@@off6848 If you want to influence people you need not only the correct facts but also a demeanor that maintains openness.
@@bobthrasher8226
The good thing is Tour isn't the only voice we have on our side in this debate.
*_'Nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists.'_* --- John C. Lennox, Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, internationally renowned speaker and author.
I believe he was responding to a statement that Steven Hawking had said, " Because there is a law such as gravity , the universe can and will create itself from nothing." I really enjoyed the debate between Professor Lennox and Richard Dawkins.
Yeah, don't trust the OOL "experts" and dump the dumb prebiotic soup lore they still cling to! F.. that!
the question is, why all these well educated people talking nonsense. Do they really have some agenda? Or are these people so afraid to speak out ?
Yes, the sheer idiocy of believing what Lee Cronin believes!😂😂😂 I saw that debate years ago... and silly LEE LIED and said they had figured it out! 😂😂😂A few years away he said!😂😂😂
THese "origin of life" naturalists are such FRAUDS!
The fact that DNA CODE CAN'T SELF-CREATE AND SELF-ASSEMBLE INTO CELLS ACCIDENTALLY in TRILLIONS UPON TRILLIONS UPON TRILLIONS UPON TRILLIONS of imaginary universes...let alone a TINY LITTLE EARTH...is LAUGHABLE!!!😂😂😂
The sheer DISHONESTY of saying it "CAN" is far worse than an idiot claiming that pigs can fly!😂😂😂 It is a JOKE!
@@martinjan2334it is the unreasonable desire to reject a Holy God that will judge them for their sin.
They all know that God created everything but they have hope in their unrepentant state in the delusion of evolution.
Dear doctors, I can’t thank you enough for your contributions to this debate. I hope and pray that all the scientists really stop self deceiving and embrace the TRUTH. Praying for both of you. May the LORD bless you with more wisdom and eloquence. Glory to Jesus!
these guys aren't proving jesus, they're proving intelligent design. big difference.
Two of the most trusted voices in science today! Thank you!!
Thanks to you both for this fascinating discussion. And an extra thanks to Dr. Meyer for keeping this at least near the level that I could follow!
So thankful for such clear-sightedness among the scientific community (who tend to intimidate us non-academics)
Dr James Tour you speak with passion that can only come from the mouth of one standing on Truth. Please post more video demonstration it's easier for us to grasp and then teach others .
So true.
God bless you both! This is solid gold! Thank you for standing up and sharing your wisdom and expertise and speaking the truth!
Truth = anything that suits for the itchy ears of believers
@@MammanSahti
That's completely the wrong definition of truth.
Did you make it up yourself?
@@MammanSahtiYou want to offer your rebuttal to their claims?
@@MammanSahti lol, that will be the definition of woke atheist.
@@MammanSahtiis there something specific you want to critique about this video?
*_“When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”_* (Charles Darwin, 1800’s Evolution Theorist, in his letter to G. Bentham May 22, 1863)
The NASA definition for life on Earth is…….
.
Life is a self sustaining chemical system, capable of darwinian evolution .
.
This is NASA , the people responsible for man on the moon , Hubble and James Webb telescopes , the people who only employ the world’s best biologists, astronomers, chemists, etc…..
Probably the world’s most reputable organisations .
.
So ask yourself a question, who is more likely correct, NASA or bias social media Christians .
.
To prove anything beyond reasonable doubt, you must provide a mechanism, Tour, Michael Behe, Stephen Myers all fail dismally, to provide a mechanism for their pseudoscience . Which is why intelligent design, will always fail
I have been keeping up with all of this. Stephen, I saw you on Rogan. It was good and this information is getting more and more traction. Thank you and Dr. Tour for your continuing work and passion.
Im testing to see why my comments are not being shown from earlier.
@@jasonpowell7622depends on how many times you have been red flagged saying something positive about Jesus.
"Investigator Interference" by scientists at the highest levels of academia is not merely "cheating", but, instead, could be considered Fraud.
THIS IS SO INCREADIBLY INTERESTING!!!! I COULD LISTEN FOR HOURS!!!
*_“I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”_* (Charles Darwin, 1800’s Evolution Theorist, in a Letter to Asa Gray June 18, 1857)
Dr. James Tour knows what he is talking about.
Been about ten years or so ... keep up the good fight.
The truth will win.
It's so crazy how I learned so much from Meyers and Tour. This journey of 13 years started with Lane Craig and Kent Hovid and then on to tour and a few more and talking to actual atheist scientists personally. People it is facts that your God designed all of this. We are taught so much morality and religion it amazes me how intelligent god actually is. It's mind blowing that our creator took so much time to design everything. Our God knew we would know him much better through science. I respect and love our creator so much for designing life and giving us consciousness. People we may not have consciousness forever but enjoy every second of it.
I did love the discussion on how amino acids could not link up in the so called primordial soup of life. At least not link up in chains longer than two or three. That implies the the ocean could not be the so called location where life began. That also seriously threatens the entire idea about some life beginning in the ocean and climbing onto the land areas millions of years later. Truly eye opening for the lay man when discussing organic chemistry in general.
This is a great program. Thanks to both of you.
if man ever makes life in a lab just proves it takes an intelligent mind to do it by intelligent design .
Thank you Dr. Meyer for slowing Dr. Tour's roll enough to have him explain terms that we unsciencist can better follow his comments.
Question: In business, there are "Truth in Advertising" directives to prevent fraud when companies try to sell their products and services to the public for profit. Can you start an official commission for "Truth in Science" directives to prevent fraud when scientists try to sell their hypotheses to the public for funding and profit?
Some people started this before and persecuted Galileo for going against the consensus.
This information is absolutely necessary.
The one thing I learned about Tour and Dave debate is the more and more time you give tour to talk he will literally and completely destroy the materialistic argument by himself. I looked at every second of his 9 plus hour lecture. Tour is a nail in the ass to atheism to the point it's laughable. I couldn't imagine a debater going point for point with him and actually 10 chemist moderating as a referee. Forcing the opposition to directly respond to what Tour says. A guy like Dave uses smoke screens and attacks to confuse his base. Tour will intellectually destroy your origin if life research down step by step. I love Stephen Meyers as well. His mind is extremely sharp and he brings out the best in James Tour because he knows how to direct him to talking about what is relevant for his listeners to not miss things. These two are like the NBA dream team of the science world. Credit to Meyers for putting this together. I personally always fact check everything a scientist says regardless of him or her being atheist or creationist.
This is a good exercise for James Tour, as he tends to go from being very vague to too technical. For example, when discussing the problem caused by having many different sugars react with aminos to create non-biological polymers, he will say it is a 'mess,' 'junk,' or 'garbage.' It would be better to say something like, "2% of the sugars generated by the formose reaction are useful for life, so if they all link together equally, the odds that one will get the appropriate ribose backbone in a proto-DNA via the sugar specificity alone, is on the order of 1e-170." One can compare this to a number representing the probabilistic resources of the universe (eg, 1e-100), and make it clear what garbage means in this context: not just implausible, but impossible, requiring something like an infinite multiverse. On the other side, he will mention 'enantiomers' or 'alpha-peptide bonds' without any explanation, which prevents 90%+ of his audience from following his argument. Lastly, James has to learn to calm down, as getting too excited makes him sound deranged or highly insecure about his knowledge. These are all rectifiable problems, but they need to be addressed. I hope he sticks with it, because he has a very specialized set of knowledge that few in the debate have.
love this. i am not scientist per se but i am a classically educated composer. Information in composing music is building from the cell like fragments - therefore i believe that there is no chance to make life out of random chance. music is less complicated than a cell.
Strength and science.
Dr. Tour is not likely to give up for at least 2 reasons.
1. He knows his stuff.
2. He knows that God is on his side.
I am here on the sidelines cheering for him.
Mark my words: We're gonna discover that life was spoken into existence. That's all.
I would love to see a complete
Fossil record showing every stage of change of ANY creature. And it should look a lot like the progression of a Tadpole to a Frog. Tadpole, Tadpole with 2 legs, Tadpole with 4 legs shorter tail on and on. But they don't have ANY fossil showing these gradual changes of ANY creature.
"Just about every organism has genes which are unique to it, as many as 20% of the genes in each organism are unique.
In other words, that haven't been derived from some other genes in another organism.
And this is a recent finding of modern science, and it's a fundamental problem for the idea that evolution explains the diversity of life"
Don Batten, Plant biologist.
Name a better duo.. I’ll wait 😂❤
I wonder how many different processes would have to occur for cell formation. It sounds not only extremely complex, but extremely difficult.
Dr Tour is so great! He knows his stuff and does not loses time avoiding the right words to describe the frauds! Great scientist, great man!
Btw, I love his lack of patience sometimes to explain stuff that is basic on his level! Maybe it is not good for lay people like me to understand things, but I love it!
Professor Dave’s debate performance with James was the worst I’ve ever seen in my life. To name call and use the word stupid like 100 times instead of responding to James’ arguments shows how mentally deficient Dave actually is.
I respect that you guys actually try to engage with him, despite his lack of seriousness and clear intellectual deficiencies. I’m sorry, but a Cal State Fullerton degree is nothing to brag about and that’s all Prof Dave has - intellectually he’s just not in the same ballpark of either you. I watched a few of his videos, his argumentations always consist of the same unintelligent methods, specifically 1. Motives of people he’s critiquing makes their scientific points moot, 2. Name calling on top of the “motive” arguments, 3. Using overly simple analogies speaking to “disprove and debunk” people. One thing I do respect about Dave is how he speaks with such confidence (sociopathic confidence) as if his analogies are way better than any based chemical argument that he’s trying to disprove.
If you think Dave's way of arguing and promoting his position while denegrating an opposing position (or the person expressing it) is evidence for his 'mental deficiencies', then you've missed the real reason why Dave is using these techniques and the amount of intelligence, in the form of cunning, and knowledge of effective propaganda techniques is required to pull it of as well as he's doing now, with the amount of influence he has on his rather large flock (another indication of his succes as a propagandist, requiring a great deal of cunning and knowledge, and the ability to tickle the ears of his audience as described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4). Propaganda, it works! Especially if you present it under the marketingbanner "Science". Dawkins, Hawking, Krauss, Venter, Cronin and all the others may be slightly more subtle when they use the same techniques, but their behaviour in essence is no different. You can get an overview of these techniques from the article called "The Manipulation of Information" published by _Awake!_ magazine.
A summary of the techniques discussed there: lies, making generalizations, name-calling, playing on the emotions (and that's a big one, especially the appeals to pride and reverse appeals to pride that play on our fear of seeming stupid, so that's 2 emotions) and slogans&symbols.
But saying an entire branch of science is clueless is something you think is OK?
Sociopathic confidence! Love it!!!!! 😂
Love you both
We should have people of this calibre in climate science too. It would clear the air much quicker than all that scientists that agree on climate change.
Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. John Christy. I also like Tony Heller who exposes how the scientific community commits fraud through the falsification of the temperature record.
A person does Not need to have a Phd (or even an undergraduate degree) to question the validity of the Abiogenesis Hypothesis, or any hypothesis. As long as people have an understanding of basic scientific principles, common sense, and open mindedness to seek the truth, they can come to a more accurate conclusion for themselves.
Basic Science 101:
Wikipedia: *_“A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the Scientific Method requires that one can Test It … Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is Not the same as a scientific theory.”_* Hypothesis is also referred to as a Hypothetical or Educated Guess.
Wikipedia: *_"In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process Are Still Unknown, the prevailing scientific Hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event ... There are several principles and Hypothesis for how abiogenesis Could Have occurred."_*
One of the reasons that abiogensis is merely a "hypothesis" and has not advanced to the status of being a "scientific theory", is that abiogenesis hypotheses still lack the experimental data required by the scientific method. Abiogenesis Hypothesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times.
Can you test the idea that "the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event" when all the evidence is clearly pointing to the fact that it _was_ a single event of creation/engineering (and the logic of inductive reasoning, or common sense, demands it, or leads to that conclusion)? Otherwise, that's not a "scientific hypothesis" either according to their own (wikipedia's) description concerning testability. In which case, they are contradicting themselves as usual.
We need both of you two as Guests on the JBP podcast. Love and admiration from Italy
If there are so many issues with these studies, why does it appear as though a new model is not being explored? It sounds as though, due to the chemical issues being discussed, the pre-biotic soup model has been dispelled. What other options are being pursued aside from an intelligently designed origin?
The fact that DNA / genes (biological coded information) exists at all shows that a Consciousness-'Intelligence-Mind' is involved in the initial introduction and subsequent propagation of living systems. Un-directed random material natural processes have never been observed in nature or experimentally demonstrated to be capable of producing Functional / Coded / Digital information such as that required for biological systems, even at the most primitive levels of biological life.
Two brilliant men . love em both , HEROES .
Thank you gentlemen. It's videos like these that help with the effort of distinguishing the practical science from the creative storytelling that the populous is taught. I was once told the two great battlefields surround the books of God's word and the books of God's works (the creation). It has the mark of that great enemy on it, asking two questions "did God really say? did God really do?".
Blessings in Mashiach Yeshua.
Good on both of you for shining the TRUTH and giving us the facts of origin of creating a cell from scratch which that is GODS expertise. You both are blest with genius minds ,keep it up
Great podcast!
Dr. Tour obviously know his stuff. No doubt. Even for someone like me with no chemistry background it is clear.
Simply amazing to listen to the details that most of us cannot comprehend. Ty for speaking truth!
You guys ROCK!
Love it I love it get down to the nitty-gritty this is real talk
I watched Episode 3 first. But most of this seems to be discussed in Episode 3. I am not sure why the same material is repeated. Maybe I am forgetting much of the discussion but most of what I remember being discussed in Episode 3 is being discussed again. I know much is added but not that much.
High Quality analysis!!
I like how Stephen is so polite and Jim is so honest 🤣
Awesome! Thank you both! 🙏🙏🙏
Question: Does the "Peer-review" system need to be overhauled or replaced? It seems to have a lot of flaws that permit significant errors / fraud.
Peer review is probably all about confirmation bias of the most popular hypothesis anyway.
What would you replace it with?
It's not the science ("peer-review" studies) that is the problem.
The problem is luck of scientific and human integrity i.e. corrupt, buyable human nature that will manipulate everything to fit the findings with their predetermined (desired) conclusions, or stay silent and go with the flow even when they find errors - because of their titles and positions.
To entrust it with the AI is even worst, because it's programable and it's harder to trace the names that are behind it.
It’s cause any conclusion that is friendly to theism is being thrown out immediately no matter how sensible it is.
@John777Revelation
"Question: Does the "Peer-review" system need to be overhauled or replaced?"
I would say certainly Overhauled. The problem (IMO) is the Materialist Assumption. Now 100-150 years ago this might have been a valid assumption, based on what was know through science. Today.....Not so much.
"It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science. It is only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence."
Allan Sandage
When majority of scientist are naturalists then they will exclude all other views, this is what happened, they will not consider anything that goes beyond materialistic view. In other words science as it stands today have been hijacked by people with same worldview and they push it as if backed up by science, however science AS A METHOD OF UNDERSTANDING LIFE around us has no issue to consider any idea and test it. So the fact that they will not consider and allow other people with different world views do science and shutting them down and boo when they submit it for pee-review simply means they are focused on promoting their world view and discard anything else.
Because they use it as a weapon. When some one submits they reject it and then they say "you have failed peer-review" of course it failed because people are biased to anything that goes against their world view and would SYSTIMATICLY put it down. Hypocrisy.
I will follow this exchange of scientific punches with great interest….
I don't agree that Dave is a victim. He is simply a blind man choosing to follow another and so still FULLY accountable. We are all WARNED to make sure our eye is good.
*_"Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations."_* (Source: Wikipedia)
By definition, natural selection does not take effect until after the first replicating living organism has already come into existence. Natural selection, as a material natural mechanism, has not been observed in nature or experimentally demonstrated to have any effect on individual atoms and molecules in a per-biotic environment causing them to form into a DNA or RNA molecule and cannot, therefore, be used to explain the origin of the genetic code.
*_"The most popular proposal for the first self-replicating molecule is RNA - where life was first based upon RNA carrying both genetic information (akin to modern DNA) and performing catalytic functions (akin to modern enyzmes), in what is termed the RNA world [Hypothesis]."_* (Source: Evolution News)
*_“A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the Scientific Method requires that one can Test It … Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is Not the same as a scientific theory.”_* *Hypothesis is also referred to as a Hypothetical or Educated Guess.* (Source: Wikipedia)
*_"In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process Are Still Unknown, the prevailing scientific Hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event [i.e. spontaneous generation]... There are several principles and Hypothesis for how abiogenesis Could Have occurred."_* (Source: Wikipedia)
*_"The RNA world is a hypothetical stage in the evolutionary history of life on Earth, in which self-replicating RNA molecules proliferated before the evolution of DNA and proteins. The term also refers to the hypothesis that posits the existence of this stage."_* (Source: Wikipedia)
One of the reasons that abiogensis and RNA World are merely "hypotheses" and have not advanced to the status of being a "scientific theories", is that abiogenesis and RNA World hypotheses still lack the experimental data required by the scientific method. Abiogenesis and RNA World Hypothesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times.
Two freaken Rockstars! I absolutely love you guys( not in a psycho stalker kind of love but in Christian older brotherly love).
Phenomenally done. 👏👏👏
Just heard this on the ID channel.
I've looked at the Miller-Urey experiment as well.
About 95% of what was produced was a sticky tar that would gum up any further reactions. (The amino acids formed wouldn't be bio- available.) About 2% was amino acids. Some used by life and others not. But they didn't come up in equal amounts. Miller only spotted a few and the rest were found later because they were in such small amounts. Over 50% of the amino acid produced was glycine. Then alanine both left and right handed versions. Then another version of alanine not used by life. Most of the rest appeared as fractions of a percent of the yield. (Both left and right handed versions.) Which is why they weren't seen initially. The yields are in inverse proportion to the complexity of the molecule and the energy needed to produce it.
And... that reaction is no longer thought to be relevant to early earth.
Miller had to immediately isolate the amino acid molecules in a "cold trap" so that they would not be immediately contaminated by the environment.
destroyed by the environment.in which shop did the
prebiotic soil bought this trap
The complexity of DNA encryption makes an intelligent designer of life conceivable.
Inevitable.
Dave Farina is not a victim here. He is purposely malevolent and slanderous, and needs to be held to account.
I understand Tour and Meyer want to take the high road and try to not get embroiled in the name calling. But neither can we ignore the mean-spirited and deceptive audacity of Farina, let alone dub him victim.
Please upload the Joe Rogan podcast on your channel, Dr. Meyer. It's not available in some countries.
Thank you. Answer to prayer.
Can you link this video to the debate?
I respect the scientific method and peer review process. Will this critique be subject to peer review and published via the same methods as the original work?
UA-cam is valuable for non experts like me, but it seems like the real value would be to have to go through the rigor of the peer review process.
Looking forward to what the future will bring about this. :)
What a great video discussion!!!
So much good info.. in a way that's not too hard to understand. Thanks to these experts! 👨🏻🎓👨🏻🎓👨🏻💼👨🏻💼
Great video!
I'm approaching these issues from the point of view of a genetic algorithm programmer and am interested in how evolution works. That is, I assume and hope and expect that evolution works, and am not generally interested in ID.
Nevertheless, I find that your conversations are very illuminating and address issues better than many 'pro-evolution' folk, who seem to gloss over a lot of important points and caveats, presumably according to various biases.
What is the molecule by molecule process to create life in the primordial soup, according to the abiogenesis?
There is none! No process is known, and what we do know is that there are “a priori” reasons to doubt it.
@@sliglusamelius8578 exactly
Great series. Also for learning the basics of the building blocks and the massive requirements on them to produce anything at all pre-biotically! Thank you but also little Dave for having inadvertently initiated this series.
Dave Farina doesn't understand these subjects well, but he puts all of his faith in scientists. His religion is scientism, and he defends it ruthlessly. You can just tell by the venom he spews that this is a whole heck of a lot more than just some scientific theory for him. His entire worldview is on the line.
True. But he defends his religion by shouting "liar, liar pants on fire!"
No. He used science properly as opposed to pure negation via self-ascribed authority.
@@galileog8945 I see tons of religion in him. Like provably and demonstrably so.
@@MichaelSmith420fu Well it would be weird for him to do the latter since he doesn't have that kind of authority.
“We are going to take them out”
“In the intellectual sense?”
“Ya “
😮😂 I’m excited
The(the Lord’s) fantastic 4
-Dr John Lennox
-Dr William Lane Craig
-Dr Stephen Meyer
-Dr James Tour
vs
The misinformation and stagnation in science
Get your 🍿 ready 🙏
please explain why endosymbiosis is a terrible hypothesis ❤
Great content .. please dr Meyer continue.. so clarifying .. Scientology ops...
Fantastic.
Even if the Marangoni effect applies in some way to cell division, I doubt Dr Cronin has addressed the issue of scale i.e. has he shown the Marangoni effect at the scale of a cell, typically 100 MICRONS? As far as I recall free-energy is highly dependent on the material and drop size and I'd be surprised if lipids show this effect on the micron scale, but happy to stand corrected.
Such great info.
I do love these podcasts. It's due time to put these frauds on blast.
If only more biologists would openly admit their doubts about the creative power of mutation natural selection mechanism. Are they afraid of getting blacklisted?
Mainstream atheist evolutionist scientists (shorthand classification I am making) are themselves trying to find a new paradigm since the old paradigm of natural selection/random mutation is inadequate to explain the narrative of the phylogenetic tree of life theory from single-called organisms. They are inventing something called Third Way Evolution.
The project is doomed because the fossil record does not support any evolutionary theory that connects all modern fauna to linked ancestors.
Tour is a savage.
Good job avoiding personal attacks on your opponents. Wish they did the same with you.
This was such a better discussion than the one with Dave he just doesn't say anything even if he thinks hes saying something 😂
Abiogenesis failure!
And Buying pure chemicals and using designed equipment is not prebiotically relevant!
🌼The scientific process is all about testing hypotheses and discarding those that are not supported by evidence. This is how we have learned so much about the world around us. However, there are some people who are so attached to their worldview that they refuse to accept evidence that contradicts it.
Take the flat Earthers, for example. They believe that the Earth is a flat disc, despite the overwhelming evidence that it is a sphere. They have been presented with gazillions of data that shows the Earth is a globe, but they refuse to believe it. Instead, they go on wild goose chases, trying to find "evidence" that supports their view.
This is not how science works. Science is about following the evidence, wherever it leads ( even if it means mrPumking Created this universe). If you have a hypothesis, you test it. If the evidence does not support your hypothesis, you discard it. You don't just keep trying to find evidence that supports your view, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.
The flat Earthers are not doing science. They are doing confirmation bias. They are starting with their conclusion and then trying to find evidence to support it. This is not how you learn about the world. This is how you stay ignorant. Materialists are doing exactly the same, they start with the conclusion and then they are looking to support it via scientific experimentations, discarding any experimental results that confront their view.
The scientific process is a powerful tool for learning about the world. It is a process that has helped us to make incredible progress in our understanding of the universe. However, it only works if we are willing to follow the evidence, wherever it leads. If we are not, we will never learn anything new.
It was valid to explore idea "it happened via natural process" but as it stands now gazillion of experimental data shows us that this is not how it happened and it completely discards idea of natural process. So from a scientific perspective it was a valid experiment to test their idea of natural process starting life but it clearly shows their idea is false, so from a scientific perspective its not a fail, its a success and they should have discarded this idea and move on, this of course they unwilling to do due to not be willing to change their thinking accordingly to their own discovery that tells them - idea of natural process is a false idea. This simply means their world view is out of touch with reality and this they will not admit.
I don't care how much chemistry equipment they use or how complicated the process they use. Let's see them do it, go ahead, make a cell. They are nowhere close to making the simplest cell from prebiotic chemicals. --> Nowhere close!
So, would you rather set up an experiment that makes you wait a billion years for it to bear fruit? Researching abiogenesis requires shortcuts because nobody right now can live a billion years. Even a hundred years is still too long.
@@PraiseIAmThatIAm All rise!
👍
@@terryhogan2971 facts 💯
Imagine the first living cell like a salad bowl. We got some lettuce, croutons & some Cronin's Own all with the perfect chirality
Stephen, you are the reason I was absolutely certain the recent jab was: "Danger Will Robinson. Danger!"
5 years ago, Dave made a video called "The Origin of Life on Earth" which is about how abiogenesis created life on Earth.
If talking about Dave is to increase science literacy or debunking psuedoscience, why didn't you make a video about Dave 5 years ago? Why wait until Dave made videos about you specifically?
He answered that. JP wasn't fully engaged in the topic and remained focused on his research group. It was Dave who attacked and maligned him that drew his full attention. It became personal, then a matter of principle.
@@jon__doe First of all, who is JP?
Second of all, the fact that Dave's been making videos about abiogenesis for some time before this debacle started and James said he's doing this to help educate people like Dave, it really feels like the only reason James is doing this is because he got his feelings hurt by 1 random dude on the Internet.
James Tour was just minding his own business when dave attacked him first, then james tour kicked his arse in retaliation. Do some research, this is how it all started. Di ck head dave attacked james tour first.
Can't wait for other top scientists to join in on this.
If they ever will 😢
All the top scientists already agree with professor Dave
@@redearth8256 wich sciencist?
@@redearth8256not true at all. Maybe you don't consider all of the PhD scientists in the various creation ministries as holding valid degrees? Dr Randy Guliuzza is a medical doctor as well as a PhD engineer.
@@redearth8256 😂 with the junk on their flasks?
I'm having a hard time comprehending why they bother talking about Dave Farina at all. He's not a researcher or even a professor. Talking about Dave is like talking about Destin Sandlin or Hank Green.
I don't have enough faith to believe in origin of life science...
How did life begin?
This debate should be as hushed as one would talk in Notre Dame cathedral in that it is so beyond our grasp of things that there is no place at all for name calling or raised voices and accusations. Why do I say this? I am an armchair synthetic chemist thanks to Jim Tour in that I have listened to the complexity of a simple yeast cell from one of Jim's videocasts. Listen to this: the lipids or the outer membrane of a simple yeast cell---and please check Dr Tour's research---has 10 to the 78 billion possible combinations and only one will work! The carbohydrates on the outside of the cell, on the membrane are more complex than the DNA and the RNA combined! All of the elements of a cell, the amino acids, the proteins, the nucleotides etcetera have to come together at exactly the right time or it will not function, because a carbohydrate can caramelize and will need to have another one made. All of the elements of a simple cell must come together at the exact right moment for it to function. That alone is mind-boggling, but throw this in the stew: What if all of the elements come together at the right moment and at the right time, that still does not explain how the cell becomes 'alive'. Boys and girls, what Jim Tour has done for the world is to show us that even the simplest cell is so complex and has to be made at exactly the right time but even if it does, what is the mechanism that brings it to life? We have to realize that life has all of these components, humans are made of a trillion cells. But all of those cells need to be alive and there is nothing anyone is ever going to show us on how that spark of life makes a cell becomes alive.
If you ever find yourself arguing against a Messianic Jew with a Phd
RIP to you my friend it's over.
I wish these videos could reach much more of the masses. Scientists are just humans and nothing more, they have ego, pesonal and religious goals wich influences their work. These darwinists should let science speak freely not speak for science.
It's funny that one of these conversations in the past led to awake a powerful monster that was dormant, tranquil in his lab doing his things, Dr James Tour. This monster is on the loose now and is hungry for scientists to challenge him in this regard.🤣