Can Science Explain the Origin of Life? Revolutionary Video Debunks Materialist Theories
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In a video published Monday, the Discovery Institute set out to disprove materialist theories to explain the origin of life in purely materialistic, orderless terms. Materialism claims that matter is all there is, and many scientists believe this, but it is an assumption they bring to science, rather than a finding of science. The video is the fifth in a series entitled "Science Uprising" that seeks to unmask the claims of materialists which masquerade as scientific but are often more ideological and not backed up by the most accurate research.
The video opens with a quote from Stephen Hawking: "The life we have on earth must have spontaneously generated itself."
The host, wearing a mask similar to the V for Vendetta -style masks worn by the hacker group Anonymous, is more skeptical. "Did life really spontaneously generate itself from chemicals? Has science shown this?" he asks.
He interviews James Tour, an American synthetic organic chemist and professor of chemistry, nonoengineering, and computer science at Rice University. Tour attacks the computer-generated origin of life models purporting to show the origin of the first cell.
"All of these little pictures of molecules coming together to form the first cell are fallacious, are ridiculous," he says. "The origin of life community has not been honest. They will write in their very papers, they will see some small phenomenon and extrapolate what this means in the context of origin of life. And then they will work with the press and the press will extrapolate it all the more, and you get many many people deceived, thinking that life has been all but made. All of this is a lie."
The video discusses two main purported "breakthroughs" in origin of life science.
The first involves Craig Venter, who created the first synthetic cell in 2010. A headline in The Telegraph read, " Scientist Craig Venter creates life for first time in laboratory sparking debate about 'playing god.' "
"We haven’t created life, nowhere close!" Tour responds. "What they did is: they took a cell; they took the genome out of that cell; they manufactured a genome that’s similar to it; and they put it in. That is akin to taking an engine out of a Ford and putting it into a Buick and then saying, 'Look I created automobiles!'"
"No, you just took one piece — and not even the engine, it’s just the computer control box — you took out of one car and put it in another car, that’s what it was like. But the design of the computer control box you got from other cells," the synthetic organic chemist explains.
Another materialistic approach to origin of life involves " protocells ." If the basic building blocks of cells, or the ancestor of the first cell, could be constructed by chance, the theory goes, then there need be no intelligent explanation for the origin of life.
"Protocells are a bunch of nonsense," Tour claims. "That is like a prototurkey. I take 20 pounds of sliced turkey meat from a delicatessen. I throw that into a pot. I add in some turkey broth. I warm that up and I throw in some feathers, and I say that's a prototurkey. Yeah, there’s no order to it, but you know if you wait long enough, a turkey will come gobbling out."
"That sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it?" the synthetic organic chemist asks. "That’s precisely what origin of life researchers have done when they make a protocell."
Materialist theory claims that with enough time and enough chance, life could arise out of non-life. This violates the basic rules of organic chemistry, Tour argues.
"Time is actually the enemy. You let these chemicals that have been made sit around. They show the degradation in a period of weeks. Weeks is the twinkling of an eye when it comes to pre-biotic timescales," he says. "The chemicals decompose. So to think that the molecules could be made and sit there waiting for other molecules to come in, it doesn’t happen. Organic chemistry doesn’t work that way."
At a loss to explain the origin of life on Earth, some materialistic scientists claim that life must have originated in outer space and was then carried to Earth somehow.
"Whether you want to have it originate from Earth for from some other planet, you have to have the origin of life," Tour explains. "You have to have the origin of that first cell. How does that happen? We have no idea."
The video's Anonymous-style narrator explains that the problem of naturalistic explanations for the origin of life is "becoming harder all the time, not easier," thanks to the complexity of a cell. To understand this complexity, he interviews Douglas Axe, visiting professor of microbiology at Biola University and founder of the Biologic Institute.
"To get an idea of the complexity of a living cell, think of a factory with thousands of pieces of machinery all working together to do some coordinated task," Axe begins. "A cell is actually far more complicated than that factory because factories don’t maintain themselves, people have to maintain factories. And factories certainly don’t make new factories, whereas with a living cell, all the parts that wear out are automatically remanufactured within the cell. Not only that, the cell is manufacturing a new cell as well. Human-made factories don’t even come close."
In order to achieve this kind of complexity, life requires "some very detailed instructions," encoded in DNA and RNA.
"If you have a string of nucleic acids like DNA or RNA has, you have to have a precise sequence, because that translates to what proteins are needed to build the organism. That’s called the information code," Tour explains. Chemistry cannot explain the origin of such a code, he says.
"We don’t have a tool to assess that within chemistry."
Last but not least, the video's narrator interviews Stephen Meyer, a former geophysicist, Ph.D. in the philosophy of science, and director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. His bestselling books include Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design .
"Is there anything we know of that does have the causal power, the ability to generate new information, and therefore could explain the origin of the first cell?" Meyer asks. "I think there is. And that’s the idea of intelligent design."
The video defines intelligent design as "the theory that certain features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process."
Meyer says he supports this theory "because what we know from our experience is that intelligent agents can produce information and indeed do produce information in a digital or typographic form — the kind of information that we find in the DNA molecule — functional digital information."
"Whenever we see information, and we trace it back to its source, whether we find it in a section of software code, for a paragraph in a book, or in a hieroglyphic inscription, we always find that a mind played a role in generating that information," he says.
The Anonymous-style narrator concludes with a final shot against naturalistic origin of life science.
"Don’t be fooled by the hype: Materialists are further from explaining the origin of life than ever before. Yet they still refuse to consider the only observable source known to create information code, an intelligent designing mind," he says.
"We are not materialists. We see the human soul. We experience love. We live with purpose. We fight for justice. We are the quiet majority, and we will be quiet no longer," the narrator says in an Anonymous-style closing.
The Discovery Institute is releasing one new episode of "Science Uprising" every week. Previous episodes covered materialism , the mind , DNA , and the fine tuning of the universe.
Tags
Who is online
92 visitors
“Last but not least, the video's narrator interviews Stephen Meyer, a former geophysicist, Ph.D. in the philosophy of science, and director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. His bestselling books include Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design.
"Is there anything we know of that does have the causal power, the ability to generate new information, and therefore could explain the origin of the first cell?" Meyer asks. "I think there is. And that’s the idea of intelligent design."
The video defines intelligent design as "the theory that certain features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process."
Meyer says he supports this theory "because what we know from our experience is that intelligent agents can produce information and indeed do produce information in a digital or typographic form — the kind of information that we find in the DNA molecule — functional digital information."
"Whenever we see information, and we trace it back to its source, whether we find it in a section of software code, for a paragraph in a book, or in a hieroglyphic inscription, we always find that a mind played a role in generating that information," he says.
The Anonymous-style narrator concludes with a final shot against naturalistic origin of life science.
"Don’t be fooled by the hype: Materialists are further from explaining the origin of life than ever before. Yet they still refuse to consider the only observable source known to create information code, an intelligent designing mind," he says.
"We are not materialists. We see the human soul. We experience love. We live with purpose. We fight for justice. We are the quiet majority, and we will be quiet no longer,"”
Can Science Explain the Origin of Life?
Theoretically, yes it can to a point.
Origin of life - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Theoretically? To a point?
You giggle that science honestly does not pretend to have all the answers to all the questions.
But then you claim to KNOW the origin of life. Because someone told you that God did it yet has not provided a shred of evidence in support of that grand claim (or even in support of the existence of the agent who ostensibly achieved the feat).
Do these boys not understand that life forms consist of molecules which, in turn, are nothing more than atoms? Life is composed of matter. We are 'just' matter. Science has found nothing but matter in lifeforms. If the DI has found life to be composed of something other than matter than write the paper and submit it to the greater scientific community. Be famous. (The DI is pathetic.)
To pose a strawman that chemicals are just sitting around waiting for something to happen is absurdly dumb. Chemicals do indeed decompose and new chemicals form to replenish the supply. This strawman, if taken seriously, would mean that all chemicals have degraded and nothing exists on the planet. Chemicals are constantly replenished; there is no 'waiting around'. (Faith shuts down critical thinking.)
This is such propaganda. Here the author is referring to the panspermia hypothesis. It is, per science, simply an hypothesis. It is a reasonable possibility. But panspermia does not explain the origin of life. The area of science dealing with that question is abiogenesis. Science unabashedly reports that the origin of life is (currently) unknown. This seed pretends that science has declared that it knows how life started. That is just flat out false (and Discovery Institute knows it).
Discovery Institute as with AiG are dishonestly spreading nonsense to be consumed by gullible people. And they both claim that they have the answer … it is written in an ancient errant book full of contradictions and with a dubious history of authorship.
AiG and Discovery Institute are exactly right about origins. They are open minded and consider alternatives as opposed to the closed minded bigots who self label as pro science consensus and try to silence all scientific inquiry outside of their militant dogma.
How can they be when they have no valid or credible scientific evidence?
As long as god and/or religion is in the mix, right?
Your ad hom attack aside, science isn't based on consensus. It is based on evidence. And if it's outside of established science or the scientific method, it lacks the same level of validity or credibility as science determines or establishes. You're basically trying to say belief or dogma is just as good (if not better) than actual sound science or scientific methods and principles.
Brilliant rebuttal.
I think you forgot the >sarc< tag.
No, they simply spread stupidity, like a disease.
The truth is always brilliant. Thanks!
They are also a key part of the base that provide us with a strong national defense, gun rights, pro life, good judges, energy independence, fewer regulations, lower taxes, etc. This part of our base also combines with national defense and economic conservatives to make all the above possible. While you may disagree with the religious wing of our coalition, little to none would have been possible since 1980 without them. And yes I was an economic and national defense Republican when I joined in 1978.
I see sarcasm is lost on you.
Sarcasm is all you have...
I addressed your seed @3. Pee Wee Herman style rebuttals illustrate that you have no real rebuttal to offer.
My question is why this does not give you pause? You must realize there are problems in your position so why not contemplate the problems (honestly) and see if you are mistaken in some of your presuppositions? Accepting without question the clear bullshit of this seed perpetuates a gross misunderstanding of science. Break free of the religious-driven twisting of science and you will find a fascinating reality. You could operate like Dr. Francis Collins (and Biologos.org) and find the majesty of God (as in possible creator entity) through honest understanding of science and its explanations of reality. This is profoundly better than following the utter bullshit of organizations like AiG and DI.
And you cleary have nothing at all!
The secularists here reject biologos as well.
I have the creation museum, Answers in Genesis, Discovery Institute, Creation Research Institute and many other reliable science groups to rely on and bring evidence here from even if by a for now still uncensored 3rd party.
Good grief.
How can one be wrong at almost every turn? Amazing.
Biologos.org is a creationist website that stays as true to science as one can expect (and still remain creationist). They occasionally (in my opinion) take some liberties with interpretation but for the very most part their scientific explanations are sound and accurate.
Review their materials on evolution and learn how off base your sources are with regards to actual science.
This is why some of us raise these challenges online. Unfortunately you are not the only person who buys the bullshit of these pseudo-science religious organizations. Biologos.org (and to a lesser degree Reasons to Believe) are also religious organizations but they do not try to twist the science to match their beliefs.
Why not investigate biologos (and Reasons to Believe) rather than soak your brain with the nonsense from your list of science-distorting, religious-agenda organizations posing as scientific organizations?
After all, if you have organizations that are founded on the belief that the Earth and the Universe are less than 10,000 years old what could possibly drive you to think they are teaching you science?
You have religiously biased, non scientifically credible, valid, or accepted sources! Try again!
To bad, so sad. It is what a lot of Americans believe and no one can dent our view point or prevent our free expression of those viewpoints on origins, creation, the flood, Angels, or global warming hoaxes or man made climate change fraud.
You do realize that Biologos is banned here? Here’s a sample of how bigoted their MBFC rating system is: “Overall, we rate Hello Christian as a strong conspiracy-pseudoscience website based on literal interpretation of the bible.”(M. Huitsing 9/4/2017). So according to those biased hate filled bigots there, all us Christians who are literalist Bible believers are strong into conspiracy pseudoscience.
By the definition above I am proudly pro conspiracy and proudly advocate for pseudoscience.
That is the epitome of willful ignorance and the the lack of intellectual integrity. It's also a argumentum ad populum fallacy. You seem to think that because you or a lot of people believe something, that automatically makes it factual or true by default. Sorry to disappoint, but belief does not equal fact.
We all already knew that. It is quite obvious. It's not something I'd be proud of. More like embarrassed.
I’m proud to figuratively Mock to their faces those who would use those terms to content control and limit the expression of my views and beliefs. It is a badge of honor to me the contempt that you and all secularists hold for people and groups and sites that have the same views and beliefs that I do.
TiG was right to compare your arguments to Pee Wee Herman's.
No one will get to Heaven based on their knowledge of the facts they presume themselves to have. Knowledge without faith is dead.
Personal attacks and sweeping generalizations are the domain of the secular progressive left.
Banned on NT? I have seeded from Biologos. On what grounds would it be banned? I do not believe you.
Your comments make an extraordinarily strong case that you believe the pseudoscience from organizations such as AiG and DI.
I looked up Biologos (my recommendation) on MBFC. They are solid with the only down rating based on the fact that they attribute evolution as the hand of God (as I noted).
But then I looked up Answers in Genesis (your buddies) and they are rated Quackery pseudoscience (the worst possible rating regarding pseudoscience).
Next I looked up Discovery Institute (your buddies) and they are rated Strong pseudoscience (the next worst rating regarding pseudoscience).
Same with the Institute for Creation Research : Strong pseudoscience (your buddies).
Your organizations are appropriately rated as nutcases by MBFC. Not reliable, nutcases.
MBFC, based on this sampling, seems spot on.
Says the guy who just used a sweeping generalization in response. Oh, the irony.
You noticed that too, eh?
You mean like the so called knowledge or facts you presume to have?
Faith is the antithesis to knowledge.
Except your views and beliefs are not being limited or controlled. Only challenged and dismissed as the BS they are!
It's not contempt. But rather humor, with a sprinkle of pity.
That's an insult to Pee Wee Herman.
They are listed as a conspiracy pseudoscience site which would automatically make them banned here and one of the secular moderators would lock it the instant another secularist flagged it.
Yes, AiG, DI, ICR, et. al. are indeed pseudoscience sites. They are crap. They are out to misrepresent science to protect their religious agendas. They do a disservice to society. They sucker the naïve who, in turn, repeat the nonsense to the equally gullible.
These sites should be challenged and their positions shown as the nonsense that they are:
( worse, there is much more )
Go to biologos.org and learn real science from Christians who do not distort science to fit their religious beliefs but rather interpret their religious beliefs given the findings of modern science.
That would be accurate. The claims such sites make are erroneous, intentionally biased, and demonstrably false! Only those with similar agenda and biases would buy into them. It's pure intellectual dishonesty.
So typical of the pro science consensus side. Only their opinions allowed and all others are to be silenced. And you wonder why people like me have a near complete contempt for all that you and censors like you believe in and stand for. We will not be silent about who and what we believe no matter what is said and done to silence our point of view. We will simply find other means to express our selves and our opinions and beliefs until all conservative Christian sites are labeled pseudoscience conspiracy.
You say "pro-science" like that's a bad thing. I would hope people are "pro-science." That means they think rationally and intelligently, using evidence and the scientific method, rather than thinking emotionally or not at all.
No one is silencing you, so spare me your paranoid conspiracy nonsense! Opinions are just that, opinions. They mean very little without supporting evidence. But if you attempt to pass off mere opinion (or belief) as fact or "truth," then be prepared to be called out on that and proven wrong or disingenuous!
I couldn't care less. All that tells me is you have nothing of substance outside of opinion. Some of us prefer actual established scientific fact!
As I said before, your views and beliefs are not being limited or controlled. Only challenged and dismissed as the BS they are! If you expect to be taken seriously or have any credibility, then start by providing evidence to support your claims. Otherwise, you will be deservedly dismissed.
What's stopping you now? Oh right, NOTHING! Express all you want. But be prepared to be called out for your BS! Just because you express a belief or opinion does not make it exempt from scrutiny, challenge, or ridicule.
I thought they already were. They certainly offer nothing but dogmatic and biased BS, especially where scientific matters is concerned!
Given that, I would suggest you devote less energy to emotions (like contempt) and more to trying to objectively understand science. Less emotion, more critical thinking.
The fact that you are dealing with challenges (albeit poorly) is proof that you are not being silenced.
My guess is that your feelings are a result of your abysmal failure to defend the claims you make.
Wait TiG, that would mean one is "pro-science," right? And apparently, XX doesn't like that.
Perhaps he thinks he should not be challenged at all?
But for some reason, it's our we don't consider such "alternative" viewpoints or beliefs.
It is curious that he declares himself anti-science by inference. I would say that his inference is ironically correct based on the comments to date. Anyone who runs about declaring biochemical evolution pseudoscience fits the bill of someone who is anti-science in my book.
How someone can be anti-science in 2019 with nearly endless demonstrations of working advanced engineering that is all, by definition, based on science is rather amazing, eh? But if one can believe that human beings have been around for only 6,000 years I suppose one can believe pretty much anything.
Exactly. He says science like it's a bad word.
I agree.
Especially when they try to push the idea of a religious basis to such things as fact without the slightest supporting evidence. But they reject actual established and accepted science and scientific principles, in favor of dogma or personal biases/opinions. It's not only anti-science, it's intellectual dishonesty at its finest.
I guess some people just cannot go outside their emotional comfort zones and accept reality.
Indeed. Indoctrination, delusions, or willful ignorance can be quite powerful I suppose.
I think you just expressed the essence of the problem. The primary reason religions exist today: they bring comfort. IMO.
Of course they do. Religion is an emotional comfort mechanism. And some people get so emotionally attached or controlled, they lose the ability to think rationally or critically.
Well ever since MBFC made a bunch of my favorite sites off limits here by using those terms I’ve determined to get those view points exponential multiples of the attention I gave them before MBFC became a censorship tool against my religious, origins, and climate change viewpoints. Just like I do the same for my beliefs censored because of the terrorist inspiring hate group SPLC and their labeling of social conservative and evangelical Christian organizations. Long live the Family Research Council, Alliance Defending Freedom, Liberty Council, Concerned women for America, CIS, FAIR, etc. I’m grateful for other conservative sites openly giving their platforms for us and our leaders to get the message out upon.
In my view this means you have decided to go all in on willful ignorance and are deliberately increasing the distribution of nonsense to encourage others to believe said nonsense.
The more you pollute public discourse with nonsense the more you will be challenged. And, in result, the more you will see challenges to which you have no rebuttal other than anemic platitudes such as: 'I stand behind every word'.
Simply stated: making claims that are challenged and to which you cannot rebut just illustrates that said claims are bullshit.
Deliberately spreading BS claims and misinformation, especially to the ignorant and gullible, is downright criminal IMO.
It certainly does net harm to society. Ignorance is bad enough, but misinformation indoctrinated into young minds is repugnant.
Absolutely. What's especially repugnant is when people take pride in spreading their ignorance and/or misinformation. It's downright despicable.
We understand that secularists one day intend to make the spreading of the saving Good News Gospel of Jesus Christ to those who don’t know Him a criminal act.
Such paranoid delusions.
Then they are mixing politics and religion. A very dangerous combo.
That is just nuts. There are loads of religious people who still believe in evolution and science. They just don't believe in your version and that is what upsets you.
Truer words were never spoken!
Check out what you said in 3.1.47 which is the basis for my comment.
That secularists and progressive believers don’t believe what I do and call themselves pro science consensus is not what upsets me. It is their closed minded bigotry against those who believe and express different beliefs and try to silence our expression on origins, creation, the global flood, the existence of Angels with terms like conspiracy, questionable, pseudoscience and the like. They do so out of a spirit of intolerance, fear, and hate.
Faith in the existence of God and the literal belief in His Word can not be refuted.
It's still nothing more than mere belief, and that's it. What is refuted are the claims based on that belief.
You can express whatever you want. That doesn't mean what you express is logical or empirically supported, nor does it have to be accepted. It's not that anyone is against you. It's that some simply do not accept your dogmatic BS and such claims, especially when you offer nothing to support it other than belief.
No, it's called refuting your brand of BS!
Yes, I know what I said. And it's spot on too. You also offer nothing top refute anything I said. If anything, you only support my statements and you probably don't even realize it, which is quite laughable, but not surprising.
I said what I meant and meant what I said and stand by what I said and double down on the exact way I expressed my beliefs your personal opinions to the contrary notwithstanding. I didn’t label or lump together any political group or lump anyone but so called pro science consensus types whom I have utter contempt for.
You keep saying this. What do you mean by 'pro science consensus types' and why do you have utter contempt for them?
Because your language is vague and you never make an argument to clarify, your comments read as though you are anti-science and hold hatred for all those who find science to be the best method for explaining our reality to date.
If so, you need to do some rethinking of your positions.
Go to MBFC and read their description of pro science consensus and how that is applied in other places as they brag openly and then you will understand the depths of what I said. By their standard I am pseudoscience-conspiracy and proudly so as that’s how they rate Christians who believe in the Bible literally.
You have contempt for the organizations on this list??:
How does one manage to come to the conclusion that the above are organizations worthy of contempt??
I have some news for you. Half of that bible (the OT) was never meant to be read literally. Jews know this. That is why there is an additional book called the Talmud. It is legal discussions on what the OT said. Jesus was a Jew. He knew this. So you taking the bible literally flies in the face of what he believed.
It also flies in the face of logic and established science
My issue is not with any of those organizations or publications but with those who do the ratings and those who use the ratings to limit the expression of those who disagree on a given matter.
deleted [SP]
I'm proud to be logical and rational. Not emotional or delusional to the point my brain falls out of my head.
No one is limiting your expression. Only challenging it. There is a difference. Your expressions are not free from challenge, scrutiny, or ridicule, especially when they are quite outrageous and lack any empirical backing whatsoever.
So you are just pissed that Answers In Genesis, et. al. is seen as a quack-pot organization when it comes to science and hold those rating meanies in contempt?
Rating AiG as quackery looks to be quite objective and not just personal bias of the raters. It is easy enough to make an utterly damning case that AiG uses pseudoscience to preserve YEC beliefs.
Vulcans in Star Trek are human allies and key founders of the federation. The point is that logic alone is not enough. Everything is complementary. We need all of faith, hope, logic, emotion, knowledge and wisdom. Concentrating on one or two to the exclusion of all other is not productive.
And silencing the direct expression of their viewpoints as well as Biologos and others here accomplishes exactly what for you?
Where do I silence viewpoints? I challenge them.
Biologos.org, for the most part, credibly presents science.
But in general, I am in favor of not allowing AiG, et. al. to teach as science their utter nonsense (the 'scientific' portions) to the next generation.
Do you, for example, think it would be a good idea if flat Earthers were able to organize like that and teach countless millions of our next generation that the Earth is flat and that NASA, et. al. are engaged in a worldwide conspiracy to get us all to think our planet is spherical?
I am familiar with Star Trek lore.
Speak for yourself. Logic is the beginning of wisdom. It is also the best means to discover and understand the universe around us and to increase our knowledge. If you want to reference Star trek, then you should also see that religion is largely abandoned or diminished, which helped humanity to advance as much as it did, both technologically and socially.
Concentrating on emotion, which includes faith, hope, ect., to the exclusion of logic (or warping it) and reasoning is also counterproductive, not to mention illogical, irrational, and delusional.
Nothing is being silenced. Only challenged. There is a difference.
You do tend to bring it out in most of us here.
Wally? Is that really you?
Really? What would happen if I seeded an article here from a site rated conspiracy pseudoscience? One of the secular pro science moderators would lock it on sight.
Not most. Mostly in those who are both secular and progressive.
The views portrayed in the seed would be challenged.
I seeded a video from AiG four months ago: What Really Happened To The Dinosaurs ?
AiG is scientific quackery. I seeded the video to expose AiG. Nobody locked the article and we had a decent discussion.
More like it would be challenged and exposed as BS, then summarily dismissed. Of course, seeding pseudoscience conspiracy sources (and presenting it as fact or "truth") only spreads lies and misinformation, which in turn possibly reflects the character of the individual seeding it
Now this is one of the funniest articles I've ever seen. Thanks for the laughs, HA/XX/C4Petc,etc,etc.
Who?
Another materialistic approach to origin of life involves "protocells." If the basic building blocks of cells, or the ancestor of the first cell, could be constructed by chance, the theory goes, then there need be no intelligent explanation for the origin of life.
"Protocells are a bunch of nonsense," Tour claims. "That is like a prototurkey. I take 20 pounds of sliced turkey meat from a delicatessen. I throw that into a pot. I add in some turkey broth. I warm that up and I throw in some feathers, and I say that's a prototurkey. Yeah, there’s no order to it, but you know if you wait long enough, a turkey will come gobbling out."
"That sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it?" the synthetic organic chemist asks. "That’s precisely what origin of life researchers have done when they make a protocell."
Materialist theory claims that with enough time and enough chance, life could arise out of non-life. This violates the basic rules of organic chemistry, Tour argues.
"Time is actually the enemy. You let these chemicals that have been made sit around. They show the degradation in a period of weeks. Weeks is the twinkling of an eye when it comes to pre-biotic timescales," he says. "The chemicals decompose. So to think that the molecules could be made and sit there waiting for other molecules to come in, it doesn’t happen. Organic chemistry doesn’t work that way."
At a loss to explain the origin of life on Earth, some materialistic scientists claim that life must have originated in outer space and was then carried to Earth somehow.
"Whether you want to have it originate from Earth for from some other planet, you have to have the origin of life," Tour explains. "You have to have the origin of that first cell. How does that happen? We have no idea."
The video's Anonymous-style narrator explains that the problem of naturalistic explanations for the origin of life is "becoming harder all the time, not easier," thanks to the complexity of a cell. To understand this complexity, he interviews Douglas Axe, visiting professor of microbiology at Biola University and founder of the Biologic Institute. https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/can-science-explain-the-origin-of-life-revolutionary-video-debunks-materialist-theories/
Rebutted @3 with a note at the end:
Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis are the go to sources regarding both earth at the beginning and human origins. I can’t recommend them highly enough along with the Creation museum.
ROTFLMAO, you just made me snort up my coffee with laughter
Honestly it's getting harder to take anything you say seriously (and I've never taken much that you say seriously before).
I did not respond to his post because I am confident XX writes nonsense like that to get others to comment on his articles (and thus bump up their priority on the home page).
It’s high time that people on the secular left side stop ascribing less than honorable motivations to people simply because we have an honest disagreement about virtually everything. That contributes nothing to civility in dialog here.