SUMMARY ANNOUNCEMENT // A Course on Abiogenesis by Dr. James Tour

Enjoy this sneak peek. Links to all episodes below!

Links in this Series | Addressing Abiogenesis & Common Misconceptions
======
------

If you found this helpful and a blessing to you or learned something new, please share and give this a like or thumbs up. And if you haven't already, please follow/like/subscribe, so you can stayed tuned in.

God bless you.

#Abiogenesis #JamesTour #OriginOfLife

~
WeChat - @drjamestour

[cphye]

Thank you, Dr. Tour! This Course on Abiogenesis is phenomenal! I thank God for your critique and affirmation for vindicating the Creator God and truths through your profound scientific knowledge! Glory to God and gratitude to God and you!

[onecowstampede]

This has been epic. Tour is throwing down a gauntlet that's 70 years past due.. And the content is just mind bending. We are truly fearfully and wonderfully made.

[salahelhaddad]

We've been thoroughly enjoying the series, thankful for that naïve video that sparked this wonderful series. The only bad thing about this series is that it's about to end .

May God guide you Dr tour, love from Egypt

[universalflamethrower]

This was like a Gran Tourismo, many thanks

[GrahameGould]

Yeah. I don't think "enjoying" is a strong enough word. They have been AWESOME!!! This series has made me a massive fan of yours!

[zgobermn]

This material will certainly be of great use to many and for a long time! Thanks Doc T!

[sentientflower]

The entire series has been excellent, fascinating and informative. Should anyone qualified to provide a response do so, I would hope that they would dedicate the same level of detail in their argument.

[lorenzorossi]

Awesome series! I'm so curious to know if any synthetic chemists have challenged your opinions. Any at all?

[corneliusteslaru]

Heeey, nice choice for the background music!

[mosesexodus]

During a 2015 televised panel discussion, Dr. Richard Dawkins (One of the World's Top Darwinian Evolutionary Scientists) admitted, “The Origin of Life is something we don't know anything about. And we want to know something about it. And I would love to know how life actually got started.” (Source: Real Time with Bill Maher, Overtime, October 2, 2015, HBO)

[RedefineLiving]

This will give the evos a little more time to solve abiogenesis 😆😆

[Josdamale]

The natural process that organises the biochemical building blocks of life into a living single cell must be relatively quick, because a cell cannot evolve for millions of years from a state of non-living gradually over various micro-degrees of living until it is fully living.

Either there is a living cell or there is not. That change from non-living to living happens in a moment. What is that natural process?

Furthermore, going from a single cell organism to an organism with two cells is a brief process of one generation, where a single cell organism reproduces as a two cell organism.

Either there is one cell there, or there are two cells there. There cannot be a process of millions of years where a single cell starts growing small appendages that eventually turn into a second cell.

What is the process that allows a single cell organism to reproduce as a two cell organism that then goes on to reproduce as two cell organisms?

Having mastered that process of a single cell organism starting to reproduce as a two cell organism, can the same process make a two cell organism into a three cell organism? Can that same process keep on going until what point?

Where is all that information coming from?

These two processes above should be quick, as either there is a living cell or there isn't, and either there is a two cell organism or there is still a single cell organism.

Finally, if these processes have been discovered by scientists working over decades at OOL research, then surely there should be technology that derives from this knowledge of these natural processes?

It seems one should be able to construct a living complex organism from non-living chemicals such as from biological waste or decaying cells.

Impressive achievement, Dr Frankenstein!

Where is the technology that can produce a living single cell organism from non-living chemicals, and where is the technology for a single cell organism to reproduce as two cell organisms, and so forth?

If there is no technology derived from these natural processes, then clearly these processes either have no practical applications or knowledge of them is still at the conceptual level rather than being a science.

Review the problem:

What process suddenly makes a living cell from non-living chemicals?

What process suddenly makes a single cell organism reproduce and generate a two cell organism?

Where is the technology based on the scientific knowledge of these well understood natural processes?

[Btw_visit_____todacarne-com]

Thanks Ryan Hardin. Keep it up. Great production.

[mosesexodus]

Basic Science 101:

Wikipedia 2021, “A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the SCIENTIFC 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 are often referred to as a Hypothetical or Educated GUESS.

Wikipedia 2021, "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 HYPOTHESES 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.

[mosesexodus]

Abiogenesis Hypothesis has been considered to be a modern derivative of the Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis (i.e. the common fundamental premise being that life arose from non-living matter from purely undirected natural processes), one of the main differences being the supposed time frames of each experimentally unproven process. Generally, the Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis speculated that living organisms spontaneously emerged from non-living matter. And, Abiogenesis hypothesizes that undirected random natural processes caused molecules to form into biological life by random chance over the span of millions/billions of years. (Note: Natural selection is not known to have any effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment.) Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis was believed to be ‘fact’ for almost 2000 years, until it was scientifically disproved by experiments from such scientists as Louis Pasteur in the 1800's. From Wikipedia 2021, "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 HYPOTHESES 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.

[isusjebogisaija-]

YESHUA IS MESSIAH ❤️ (Isaiah 53) ! Fig tree generation (ISRAEL 1948) !

[judgementiscoming]

Dr Tour deserves something for this. This is amazing

[freddanfly]

"Lying about a field of science I don't know squat about" - there I fixed the title for ya.

[renkikon]

I just found your! Please do live video. Have some questions to ask. 👍🙏

[mosesexodus]

A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of a functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119, 000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79, 000, 000, 000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by undirected random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that undirected random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34, 000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42, 000, 000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30, 000, 000, 000, 000 cells in the human body.)


A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a purely arbitrary, subjective materialistic ideology.

Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic subjective ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millenia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by discoveries in Quantum Physics.)