@Tim Webb Neither does the theist know ;)

Tim Webb “Beyond all possibility of doubt”. People like you scare the crap out of me.

Tim Webb Ha...it’s not only what I need, but what you need to know. You draw battle lines when you have no ability to negotiate. You will lose by the way.

@Tim Webb _"We are not theists"_ So, you don't believe supposed "Jesus" is/was a supposed "god" in the flesh. Got it. _"so we certainly do know,"_ Because a book said so. AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Too funny.

@Tim Webb Was that supposed to mean something?

Troy Mason - Brilliant!

gregormann7 lol. Its very annoying talking to people like that because they literally go in circles and just generalize everything.

Well put!

that this man is one of the leading scientists in his field scares me. The dude needs to take a introductory course in philosophy.

Ciência e Filosofia exactly

I couldn't agree more.

😂😂😂He destroys his own arguments

Yes, that it's not as massive as Tour's.

@Martyr4JesusTheChrist WTF? That makes Tour gullible, not humble, dipshit.

I great preacher once said I never met a humble man that claimed to be humble.

@@shaunphelan9760 Did that same preacher also tell you a guy came back from a few days dead and you need to believe that idiocy or you'll burn in a supposed place called "hell"?

@Martyr4JesusTheChrist Oh no!!! The invisible magician believer was mean to me! What will I ever do? lol Get a grip, dipstick. _"But hey, we should trust you over Tour right?"_ Depends on the subject. Regarding the topic of this video, I trust Cronin far more than the gullible moron that's out of his field and thinks an invisible magician abracadabra'd life into existence.

He always says 3-5 years. A decade ago, he claimed 3-5 years. He keeps kicking the can down the road. He keeps getting funded.

says a guy using the internet

Yes its evolution of the gaps now.

If you had asked someone in the Bronze Age how thunder originate, he would not have known it. Now we know. Back then you needed a magician to explain this phenomenon, but today this explanation is only ridiculous.

@Anthony Maurice controlled to replicate early earth condition, you left out vital information, typical.

​@Anthony Maurice That is completely irrelevant, because it happened. If there is no creator, then it must have happened in spite of the low probability. If a creator helped out we would still need to prove there was a creator at that time that was capable to do something that supposedly can't happen naturally. As far as I know there is no formula that calculates the probability for that.

@Anthony Maurice No, it wouldn't. It would only show that we can replicate things that happen naturally. You must remain in total delusion, it's all you can do.

Dawkins will never debate a true scientist. He prefers preaching to clueless fans.

dawkins is a loser. i have watched him and he is an asshole who insults everyone and never answers even simple questions

When you get the big fish swimming through your patch the suckers all tend to follow and cling on. What a stupid comment. Richard Dawkins is pretty much on the same page as Dr Tour. I doubt you understand a word either of them say.

Déjà Siku Your presentation of evidence as to your qualification in the subject matter in question has been duly noted.

@@GayorgVonTrapp " I doubt you understand a word either of them say." Do you always insult the people you are interacting with? Is it really necessary? Or is it some mechanism you use to shore up or hide your lack of confidence in your subject knowledge? Either way it is totally unbecoming and simply a way to indicate that you need more practise expressing your point of view without rancor.

No he isn’t. He’s simply a lying religious zealot whose fanaticism infects every aspect of his dealings with other scientists

@@mcmanustony What a fanatical statement you made. I guess atheist also don't believe in irony.

@@arnoldvezbon6131 your inability to engage with the facts I posted without bigoted nonsense is duly noted. Why can’t you handle it being pointed out the fact that Tour is a relentless and incorrigible liar?

@@arnoldvezbon6131 "What a fanatical statement you made." Wtf?

@@lieshtmeiser5542 yes atheist are fanatical quite often. Verry angry and unpleasant.

No he didn't. He rejects ID.....along with virtually every scientist on earth.

Yes, it certainly sounded like it.

@@kfgabriele9852 no, it didn't. Try LISTENING.

@@mcmanustony An all caps word?! Such an objective critique definitely means I’m wrong about Cronin explaining that information, especially complex information generated by an intelligent mind, is the hallmark of life. 🙄

@@kfgabriele9852 He rejects the pseudo science of ID. This is an objective fact. You are wrong.

Linus Loth 100%correct

Lol good point, however, it would still raise the probability of abiogenesis occurring and it would mean that once again, supernatural explanations are not necessary.

@@He.knows.nothing You cannot replicate a historical event. That is why you will never prove abiogenesis beyond any doubt. Your arbitrary and imaginary probability signifies nothing. If a theist says, God created through natural means, a naturalist has nothing to answer except his personal feelings. In this case some/every natural effect had a supernatural cause which renders the natural/supernatural divide void.

@@linusloth4145 you're right, even if abiogenesis is proven to be possible it does not prove that abiogenesis is how life arose here specifically. But if we have an explanation that comports to the laws of physics and chemistry, why would you not favor that in opposition to an explanation that directly defies the laws of physics and nature?? We don't have to be certain for us to favor theories that actually comport to our reality. This is why we still study multiverse and strung theory even though they are presently just as unfalsifiable as an argument for an infinite and external deity.

That's a silly argument. Humans can design experiments to simulate the conditions of the natural world. Scientists can already create synthetic life - the point of Lee's research is to investigate _how life could have arisen_ in an early earth.

He leaves and ditches all parameters of life, he turns away from "old" definitions of life and he even doubts if consciousness is a real thing. Such reductionism reminds me of going back to the cave or to the land of unicorns.

🤭

The invincible dud. Lee has had success creating and delivering life in his lavatory. He found it crawling around on the poop he brewed in his lab.

@@ghenadi75 Lee's a blatant hypocrite if he thinks denying there's design in life, and, or machinery in living cellular organisms is coherent. There is no question where all biological evidence points to. And it isn't demonstrable self-assembly.

I think that means when hes found a chemical reaction thats sophisticate enough, he can say "this is life, no one can argue because they have ni definitiin of life...... So basically like the words men and women today, he will redefine Life.

Not so insane if you consider "life" as diluted somewhere amongst the unbroken continuum between inorganic chemicals and complex life bound together by energy. The boundaries between life and non life are being seen as more and more blurred, there is no separation. Some aspects of non life share elements that we recognise in living things, and some elements of living things are present in non living. It is only Humans that give life and non life separate identities. It is the same as saying "elephants don't exist. An Elephant is simply an animal that is part and parcel of the whole spectrum of life. It is only humans that give it the name "elephant", and we do this simply so that we have a way to classify it in our minds, and give it an individual identity in order to fit it in to our human made classification of mammals. In reality of course elephants cannot be separated from the continuum, they are part and parcel of the whole, All living and non living things are including Humans. If life and non life are a continuum , how can anyone say where life becomes a separate identity from non life? Perhaps it is more insane to say they are separate things.

Just a thought but can you explain when the agency of life begins from non sentient matter.

@@BiigTitties No, it is impossible to define the moment "When" There is nothing special about sentiency. Its evolution , again just like life itself is on a continuum, closely toed to the evolution of different sense organs and consciousness, so the origins are blurred. it is not an important characteristic of living things. It is important to Humans , of course, because we have a well developed self-consciousness, but I am not so sure sentiency is of particular importance to a Hydra or amoeba.

If you consider that life consists of a bunch of molecules (ie not life) the line gets blurry, and it is not unreasonable to argue that if “life” as a term is meaningless if we can find a whole spectrum of phenomena with similar characteristics. Also it becomes hard to draw the line - where does “just molecules” end and “life” begin? If this distinction is arbitrary, the whole term “life” becomes arbitrary as well.

@@chrisdistant9040 Exactly, well said. And this is why the origin of life is a natural progression from non life.

Yes, more proven nails in the coffin of evolution.

@@46oranges Sanford is a fraud. And his paper has been debunked by scientists actually doing the work.

Thats what I heard...

I picked up on that also. The paper with writing proves a life. The creator's medium is the pages of life in every living cell, DNA.

@AnarchoRepublican I would say that intelligent design in relation to life is a pretty bad argument for God but I would say that all the complex rules and laws that allow for enormous amounts of complexity in this universe or any other universe are pretty decent.

@@rickhuntling7338 Your "creator" has been busy copying bad designs and DNA errors with a vengeance (but only in the same nested hierarchy we expect from descent with modification.

@@ExtantFrodo2 the curse of sin caused HIM to make the monifications in a perfect design. The chance for life out of chaos is 10 to the 184th power. You haven't the time, matter nor the events in the visable universe for it to happen, LOL. Logic, statistics and science is in my corner not yours.

"Lee: I'm not interested in narratives, and here's my narrative." - I missed the narrative section that you say Lee gave. Please give us the TC for that. Try 39:25...

Edit 88 hello again . What would be easier is if you can point to any part of this KZfaq discussion where lee points to evidence that he can demonstrate shows how life came from or even might have come from through natural processes . My take on lees entire discourse was a search for a law or set of laws to show how this could come about but I did not see any evidence to support his narrative . If I missed it please point to it . The salt illustration he talked about is clearly not evidence of how life came about . It’s an example of increased complexity with some story telling . Complexity itself is not life . Tour made the point that he could drop some olive oil in a mixture and get a reaction . The mixture is now undoubtedly more complex however it is not life . The chemical reaction might look like it’s moving similar to life but it is not life . The equations he said he had almost completed are not evidence of how life might have come about . It’s still a theory . Not evidence . Evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Please point to the evidence that Lee produced in this hour plus long discussion about the origin of life ( of which he is the expert ) that you think he provided .

Edit 88 if lee can’t explain the evidence upon which he believes he can show how life may have evolved in an hour plus discussion, with another scientist begging him to do so , then I very much doubt he has actual evidence . Tour said show me the evidence and the mechanism . Lee said that at the Big Bang we had simple molecules and then during a period of bombardment , we saw more complex chemicals and then after a few million years we have simple life . I listened carefully as Tour did and did not hear the evidence or the mechanism. I heard story telling and narrative . If I missed it or you heard it in the presentation please point to it . I doubt reading his 300 plus peer reviewed papers will help much and no one has the time to do it . To sum up , I heard not a single shred of evidence to demonstrate that natural forces /laws alone can produce life .

@@spalding1968 Well said

Are you being deliberately disingenuous @Pro Baller? Cronin clearly said he couldn't "prove" the origin of life on Earth, and that no-one could, 42:25. He says he may understand how life can emerge. There is a massive difference.

Please Complete All Fields and just what is the (let me get your quote exactly right here)...”best empirical falsifiable evidence for OOL” because Dr. Tour is not claiming God here?? He’s actually said we have “no clue” how abiogenesis happened and therefore void of any empirical falsifiable evidence. I’ve watched Dr. Tour’s presentations and even in this video he says he doesn’t argue for God or ID because there’s no mechanism to test it. So give us the best piece of evidence that’s empirical and falsifiable for abiogenesis. My guess is that Dr. Tour’s already addressed the best evidence either in video or in writing.

Please Complete All Fields just going to address the first paragraph for now. I believe Dr. Tour has addressed Miller-Urey and it’s errors so it’s not that empirical after all. So if that’s the best we have then that’s way short of absolute evidence. This is why Dr. Tour discusses this exact experiment in every one of his presentations. Maybe you should try to listen to some of them since he’s one of the most accomplished synthetic organic chemists on the planet. Yes OOL is an active field with many hypotheses but a hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of LIMITED evidence as a starting point for further investigation. It’s an idea and nothing more. Notice the use of the words (may, possibly, potential, could, probably) when reading most of the “settled science” literature.

Please Complete All Fields Tour has already destroyed miller-urey. I suggest you read up on Dr Tour as he has brilliantly laid out the case of how there is zero evidence for the origin of life by natural processes. The traditional elementary story of a primordial pond, chemical reactions, and billions of years creating life is as silly as the tooth fairy and santa claus. Aliens is a better and more plausible theory at this point than this bubbling broth children’s story of prebiotic soup.

Juno Donat good, glad we agree. Because your belief is magical. No, it is not more plausible that somehow it started out simple, and somehow it became complex. “Somehow” and “nature nudged” along the process are not scientific. Produce an actual scientific theory, which no know has done. So believing that somehow it all happened by fantastic chance is magic and ludicrous

Juno Donat ID is NOT a form of creationism. Both are very different. Creationism takes the Bible as the ultimate authority while ID does not. ID is purely scientific in nature arriving to the conclusion that there must be an intelligent supernatural being. Creationism does not come from a scientific background, though science and the Bible widely overlap and agree. You can claim all you want that we have seen the development of the basic building blocks, but no we havent. DR James Tour talks about this very thing. I am much more inclined to believe a world renowned synthetic organic chemist than some guy on a youtube chat room. Especially when Tour actively invites other chemists to critique his work and his claims. I have yet to see or hear ANYONE refute him. Nice try tho

A living cell is the product of 4.3 billion years of evolution. Cells at the emergence of life were not as complex. Tour routinely shows the complexity of a eukaryotic cell and screams that it couldn’t have emerged without his god. The first cells were not eukaryotic. Tour is a malignant lying fanatic. You have been fooled

Can you specifically identify some of the scientists “pretending”? Can you cite some of the peer reviewed research you thing has been “hyped”? Spoiler alert: I think you’re full of shit and haven’t a fucking clue what you’re talking about.

@@mcmanustony "A living cell is the product of 4.3 billion years of evolution." this claim is not substantiated by any science. "Tour routinely shows the complexity of a eukaryotic cell and screams that it couldn’t have emerged without his god." You are misquoting him here. he says that the most basic cell needs DNA and this has not been shown to be created by any means that science can explain. "Tour is a malignant lying fanatic." You are the malignant fanatic like most rabid atheists. "You have been fooled" No you have.

​@@mcmanustony we know exactly how complex the first cells were. not as complex as today but theyre still complex. Complex enough that science cannot create one. I do believe Cronin gave up trying. He has said ool science is a scam and there are many layers to the scam.

@@lauramann8275 you know how complex the first cell was? EXACTLY?? How the hell did you find that out? It’s been puzzling leading scientists for generations. Nature with all the forces available took about 700,000,000 years and you are bleating that science hasn’t accomplished it in one one millionth of that time….good grief…

NICOLAS S BROWN - and so he must. He needs those tax dollars.

@Paul Morgan yes and that was lee trying to prove that in order for life to exist it must be created and he is doing it in his lab.

@@stevensu8837 "This man is proving intelligent design by recreating a murky pool during the precambrian", ah yes this little flat earther argument. I guess gravity doesn't exist because people are involved in its measurement. This argument is ridiculous, what he is doing is recreating past conditions on the planet, which according to you means life was "created" as a product of the natural laws of the universe, or in quick short words life occurs naturally in this universe without the need for a magic man in the sky.

@Trolltician Im sorry do you think lee is creating a new law of physics or do you think he is measuring how the current laws of physics work on a chemical solution analogous to that on the early earth? - Prove that lee created a new physical law or shut up.

@Trolltician The analogy involving a car would be "do you think a pile of carparts with strong magnets that only attach to the part they are supposed to would pull together if you jostle them." You have no idea what you are talking about. - Tour openly admits he doesn't have any disagreements with evolution, and he is not a researcher into the origin of life so his opinions on the matter are equally irrelevant.

Yes. He is certain that there is no god. It seems to me that the concepts he defends so circuitously have no foundation by his own admission.

@@philipmcclure6273 and god hypothesis is supported by existence of so many gods. there atheists :D

If that’s what you got out of what he said you’re in way over your head. He said we have evidence for the origin of life, but we don’t know exactly how the chemicals interacted to form it. Then he went on to explain from where the chemicals originated and subsequently evolved. When you have proof of concept you don’t need 100% of the information to make certain inferences.

@@kingwillie206 no. Lol. I can create a concept then use the evidence to support the concept. It is called circular reasoning. Having evidence for a concept is really easy for any concept

@@andrewthomas4636 - What type of evidence exactly? I am referring to scientific evidence.

Jep. Cronin is also a bit too euphorical I think.

Comedy. Can’t wait to see how wrong he is in 10 years!

This is the root of wokism… this is why a Supreme Court judge who is a woman has no idea what a woman is. Think about this. Supreme Court judge - not kidding here. A judge who does not know how to define their own gender by definition is not qualified to judge anything as her basis of who she is is beyond her.

Wow Lee’s defense after stating he does not know how first life began is other field’s of science with just our current understanding which can change and has in the past. We know it happened because we trust these scientist in other fields of study. This is how we know ours is correct. /facepalm. I wished Lee could hear himself.

🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂💀🤦‍♂️

Cronin would then be speaking outside of his expertise. Take his opinion on that with a grain of salt.

@@briansheely3474 You don't know where James's view came from at all. When I studied about all the stuff that a cell does, it convinced me, that there is intelligent outside of the brain. Just because people are believers of God, does not mean that you could no ever change their views. The reason that most people believe in a ' bigger ' intelligence is that no one can prove otherwise. Even a cell is more complicated than anyone ever imagined. Learning about how complicated a cell is, is enough to strengthen peoples' believes and many start to believe even stronger in something bigger than man's intelligent.

I think most atheistic scientists will at some point in their life start understanding that conciousness cant possibly be real because the only solution to their dilemma is that conciousness is not real.

@@Bledoston Except that's obviously not true. Some might claim that "it" doesn't exist, but others will claim that while it exists, it isn't what we experience it to be. It really depends on what is meant by "consciousness". That doesn't seem to be any less accurate than the claim it was zapped into existence by a magical being and rests upon a supernatural essence called a "soul"

You have the burden of proof. Show to me that consciousness is real and I will believe you.@@briansheely3474

The definition of life in academia will be an endless debate. Inevitably it has to unify humankind, the animal kingdom, plant kingdom, and bacterial kingdom etc. To define life would be a cause of catastrophe for moral cultural dogma. The cultural dogma--> social darwinism The vector of this problem is, is life important? Creationist would conclude yes, pro-life etc. Soc. Darwinism *could* conclude maybe not, life is random chemical synthesis became life and needs to be artificially selected.

That's a very interesting joke !

@@sharkbite436 read the previous comment you indoctrinated fool ! There is a joke in the comment . Have you taken off your pampers yet ??

@@Summitic sorry I thought you were replying to me. No need for such rude behavior. It was a funny joke.

Lee Cronin is simply too weak in the field of evolutionary biology to get on the offensive in a debate. In fact, everybody is too weak. Evolutionary biology has come a long way, but still has too many holes to fill before being ready for criticism. It's always easier to be a skeptic. Even with only shallow understanding of the topic, a skeptic can destroy many life time researchers - because science is hard. Any science is hard to redeem up against a rigorous theory of science. To stand up against criticism it is not enough that to have a lot of stand alone published papers of research that points in the direction that life can happen spontaneously. You need a model. Not necessarily a complete one, but broad enough to cover the most problematic aspects of getting from synthetic chemistry to biologic chemistry. This is specially hard in evolutionary biology because the processes may need million years. The only tool to speed up the processes is to idealize natural processes in a lab. It's a tall order to find controlled processes to get from million years down to days which probably is the challenge if you're going to produce a working model in a life time. Even when we finally are able to do this, we will not beat a man of faith. Faith allows him to resort to god even when god is not needed by this simple argument (not a valid one, but faith isn't limited by logic) "god may not be needed in all evolutionary biology, but certainly the one we're living in because this is special". You can never beat a man allowed to lapse to the laziness of faith. It's odd that a man of faith finds it necessary to fight science. Even on the day we've got a complete oversight of our reality and can explain everything by natural processes - even how nothingness can produce _somethingness_ still faith can live well. This is how lazy and pathetic faith is - it's the lowest standard of them all. It does demand nothing of itself. If you can say you believe, faith wins. The point of science isn't to beat faith, but to make life better (pun well intended).

so we use quantum theory all the time but we don't 'know' what it is. We use heat engines and other energy systems ruled by thermo-dynamics but we don't 'know' what that is. What will you do if Lee Cronin is successful, even if he doesn't 'know' what life is ...

@@stegemme Yes, I agree that, for example, we can't say exactly what energy or gravity is, yet there are characteristics that define these things. But he claims that he WILL make life in his lab. Without some kind of criteria, some parameters or description of life, the whole enterprise is ludicrous. What WILL he make?

GodCan and how will he know what he made ( if he makes anything of substance )is in fact life ?

@@SpanishwithNeena but there is some criteria. Smolin makes his statement about not knowing in the sense of there not being a consensus for the level he is working at. Remember that he has made some proposals which have been accepted by NASA for their exploratory program. He will make something, others will decide if it's life

@@stegemme One can at least begin with a definition of what life is? Absent a definition, if even tentative, you have no hypothesis round which to build your experimentation. So it would seem.

If he makes life - then he is the creator! Which proves there was a guided progression by a “mind” required for life to spawn.

See that’s the thing scientists are playing God they need to play God for there claims to be true

He will never make life from a non life, even if he lives a million years, - period

life from non-life is like resurrecting the dead

Who cares anyway - according to Tour, if Cronin is proven right in 500 years, it would not have affected Tours faith. So, what is the point of this conversation, and why do all the Tour fanboys congregate around an issue they find profound but to Tour is trivial and ultimately meaningless?

Aren jamir true delusionist. Sickening to be honest friend

First a Jew, then a Christian...I call that Religious hustler.

@@Raydensheraj Nonsense...making claims without evidence...this man gives his story about his change by giving his Life to the Prophecied Risen Messiah Jesus...

@@kennym3492 Nonsense...

@@kennym3492 Dr. James Tour is in the Top 50 scientists in the world...so stop with the nonsense

How could it have begun naturally when you see direction + organization and information that used at microscopic level or even and chimerical elements to construct any thing? There is no random spontaneous without purpose creation... Of course they have not found - because it doesn't exist... The more we know about how smallest things in universe behave the more complex it becomes, so much complex that human mind cannot fathom it. You either acknowledging this or you are still trying to fit universe and how it works into your mental box - and for many people this dream box of how they wish universe is to be "natural unguided unintelligent random" Well... Universe NEVER will work how wish it to be. Its pure fantasy that one day some one will find out magic way universe to be "natural" when at chemical level and even sub atomic level it already behaves otherwise... Basically its the same with flat earthers - I see the evidence but nop I'm gonna still look for flat earth evidence and in this case for natural selection, some magical random process and so on and on insanity goes on... Materialism as a ideology is dead. But Im always enjoying see people come up with the "next" evidence and year after year its been debunked by science itself.

That's an euphemism, they aren't only saying a-biogenesis is a fact, they are saying that they know how it will happen and soon reproduce it in a lab.

@@JessicaSunlight how is supernatural an explanation of any kind?

@@uninspired3583 Supernatural is simply lack of knowledge of natural. Look in the past and see how many things were considered supernatural - today its natural and known.

Perhaps you should be asking why Christians are so willing to delude themselves into thinking that they know? It’s pretty pointless to have a scientific debate with Christians which is why most scientists won’t waste their time with this guy

How did you conclude that "hell" exists?

How do you conclude it doesn't exist?

@@drummersagainstitk With hell, it is the same as it is with all other supposingly supernatural things...I have no reason to believe they do exists due to the lack of evidence that would sustain the claim that they do. Basically, I don't believe in hell for the same reasons you don't believe in elves, goblins and unicorns. They have no demonstrable correaltion with reality whatsoever. NOw that I answered your question: How did you conclude that "hell" exists?

@@derhafi Hell exists right here on Earth right now in temporal reality. Those like you who don't believe it are the ones who created it, defend it and then deny it. Move on Gen Z

@@drummersagainstitk "Hell exists right here on Earth right now in temporal reality" Does it have an adress...can you point me to it....Sorry but just because you believe it, does not make it true. Hell, like goblins, only exists in the mind of those who believe in it.

@AffiliateProWhat do you mean exactly?

Seems like Lee has a narrative to push lol!

He does have an agenda, it is called science. We have made a lot of progress that way and none by throwing up our hands and invoking magic.

@@roqsteady5290 Obviously, I meant beyond science. As you said, scientific method is an extremely useful tool for discovering the mechanics of our reality, but it can't even tackle the question why those mechanics even exist.

@@miroslawturski Invoking gods doesn't answer why questions either, because you are always left with the question of why such a thing even exists (charitably assuming it did). Why questions may be ultimately unanswerable (why is there something rather than nothing?). That is why science is concerned with how questions, which are the only kind of questions we can sensibly address.

Tour: "I dont understand evolution, therefore god did it."

@@TVCorpRPG Towards the end he didn’t even want to discuss evolution.

@@SeriesofClu He said in one speech those exact words "I dont understand evolution, is it ok?" And he proceeded to call himself a creationist in an interview he had, its as clear as day, hes a walking god of the gaps.

@@TVCorpRPG And you think life created itself?

@@inchristalone25 Yes, for sure, we know a lot of stuff about life originating from inorganic stuff, we dont need to put god in that gap now, catch up to the 21 century my friend. I can link you to a bunch of videos in this topic.

This debate was actually retarded. It was basically an intelligent man telling a boy that he didn't know what he was talking about, and the boy disagreed but then went on to explain that the reason why the old man was wrong is because he (the boy) had no idea what he was talking about. Lee is studying the origin of life but cannot define life. Do you understand what that means? It means he is literally studying something he hasn't defined.

@@adifferentangle7064 well that's your take. To each his own. I loved it and that's my take. And if your take is that Lee is stupid then that's your take. I study physics and I understand that sometimes studying that which we cannot define also makes sense, that is where breakthroughs happens. I don't hold a PhD in synthetic Chemistry so I cannot judge who is what because I am no expert in that field. I'm just here listening to experts having a civil discourse and trying to learn something.

@@bungkiukissinquinker7563 It's not that he's stupid so much as everyone around him has allowed him to study something that hasn't been defined. Which is at best post-modern, at worst disingenuous, and regardless it is simply not scientific. When you study your physics, before you even start you have to define the parameters of what it is you are studying. How this man got funding is beyond me.

@@adifferentangle7064 I believe I understand what you're trying to get at. It would have been nice if it was still the holiday season so that we could go back and forth but I guess I heard you perspective loud and clear. Have a blessed time ahead.

@ Michael Gonzales Superb.

My exact thought

@Juno Donat think that thru. now try again

@Juno Donat try harder..

@Juno Donat prefer not to cast pearls before swine

James Tour didn't criticize anything, he just moved the goal post over and over to protect the bible.

@@YellowBrother That is the most ridiculous statement!! Dr James Tour is renown scientist who is asking some very important questions in the field of Origin of Life!! Any scientist worth his weight in gold would ask those questions as they are foundational questions to the problem we are trying to solve!!! At no stage did Dr James Tour even mention anything about the bible that is directly related to this discussion!!

@@someone6162 bullshit. Tour is a scam artist and a sham. He keeps moving thr goalpost to protect his bullshit belief system.

@@someone6162 James the idiot is asking questions, and refusing the mountains of research. He won't even read the answers to his questions which is overwhelming proof that A. He's an idiot shilling for the bible, and B. He is in absolute terms wrong and won't admit it. Religion is a scam.

@@YellowBrothercry more

@Trolltician I would assume so

@Trolltician Why didn't you like it? The atheist didn't come off well -- he blandly said he doesn't know what "life" is, as is typical of atheist responses to scientific questions that avoid God; "I don't know."

@Trolltician I guess I want really expecting a debate as they are both scientists at the top of their fields. To me it was an exploration of a fascinating and important topic from 2 perspectives, and they seemed to be able to both learn a bit from each other. That's why I thought it was productive.

@@20july1944 Cronin came off great. Tour looked like a fool for misunderstanding what Cronin was arguing.

@@AsixA6 No, Cronin admitted he doesn't even know what he's aiming at since he doesn't know what "life" is.

@Apostate James had the current definition of what life is. All he says is how far are we from creating the cell

@Apostate No he didn't.. It was Lee Cronin that stated Life started out simple. So stop projecting that claim on James Tour. As All James Tour did was make Lee Cronin define what he means by life. That is why Lee Cronin had to back peddle on his previous claims. That he had made. As Lee Cronin is trying to redefine the word Life. As not one sane person can produce Organic Living cells from Non Organic Chemicals. It's been tried for the last 80 years. Why Lee Cronin should be ashamed for peddling that shit. As he even admitted. He used Processed Chemicals. That have been produced void of any contaminates or impurities. Which does not even exist in the Universe. Why I will be watching any claims he makes from now on. As that shit gets printed in papers. Then the lay person has no clue what it means. They just "Believe them" As they are "Scientist" Which pisses me off. It gives Science a bad name. When they get caught. As Deception is the worst of all Scientific Sins. Why we peer review their claims. So others can reproduce it. To see if they are lying..

@Apostate Why don't you ask for a chance to debate and correct him? Oh. Right. I forgot you're one of the comment section scholars who couldn't make sense of Young Goodman Brown yet here you are correcting a world class scientist. You're funny.

@Apostate See, you're funny. Thanks for the laugh!

@@MasterChief-sl9ro People pay good money for stories and comfort care , that's where it starts , nothing else matters ,science is purely incidental.

Tour is a liar with no scientific integrety.

@@derhafi Dude is one of the greatest chemists ever. Are you kidding XD. He's just fantastic at pointing out the hypocrisy of modern science.

@@derhafi And your better and understand more then he does huh? He loves debates please invite him to debate you.

Oop! Fixed it for ya! _"Lee is like a patient adult talking to a recalcitrant four year old."_

@@AsixA6 Lee is deceptively trying to convince everyone of his Logical Fallacy of Division to equate the parts 'non-life' with the whole 'life'. Even saying the parts of life are also life is a lie. He is trying to change the goal using a Fallacy of Division and re-definition. However the evidence we get in the real world through science is what exists as life from observable things and then we define it. Lee is saying 'this thing I create in my lab is going to be life' when he can't even prove it is a part of the recognized scientific view of life. He is making up a story and then trying to convince everyone 'this little bit of life over hear' is actually life itself. That's a Fallacy of Division, where Lee says this little part of life is equal to the whole characteristic of life.

Lee Cronin seems to be totally oblivious to the fact he is working on creating a cell through intelligent input which is contrary to the concept of the spontaneous origin of life.

@@PicoGirl False. That's not what Lee is stating so, you're committing a strawman fallacy. Do you understand that you are completely made up of non-living parts? There is not a single atom in your entire body that is alive. _"Lee says this little part of life is equal to the whole characteristic of life."_ False. Try listening to what he's saying rather than what you want him to have said.

@@wallyjude3 You seem totally oblivious to the fact that we're just trying to figure out how non-living matter can become alive. You claim magic is required. Rational people don't.

Yeah in a dream world we would get to see more debates but after the pour performance of the Brit and how Jim made the Brit grab his own ankles pretty much the second half of the debate the less we will see atheists want to debate knowing they will get shredded

Absolutely wonderful. There were a few tensions and I understand why, but they kept it together. I am also in awe of Justin's ability to summarise and ask pertinent questions and to keep the conversation going. I'm so grateful to all 3 men for doing this

I don't agree with you. The more I listened to the Brit the more I watched holes poked in his alleged intellect which grew into chasms by the end. He seemed juvenile by the time that this ended

@@shots-shots-shotseverybody2707 He lost me early, then said 'I haven't created life in my lab yet, I will'. Oh my.

@@shots-shots-shotseverybody2707 This "alleged intellect" is a distinguished Professor of Chemistry at one of the most prestigious universities in the world. And you are......???

​@@mcmanustony​It's evident how he completely ignores anything that is not consistent with his religious beliefs. His method is biased and unscientific, especially when he talks about origin of life research.

@Donald Nadeau - There are many who have the same opinion as you.

​@Donald Nadeau Can you prove that? I'm pretty sure there is more science in God creating the world than evolution. Explain how everything evolved in a short period of time, yet we see no evolutionary changes today.

That is the most insane thing ive ever heard said.

Yeah rubics; Lee is'n willing to see the whole picture.

@Martyr4JesusTheChrist I don't think consciousness exists

James Tour dropping pseudoscientific nonsense.

jwkivy anything Did you mean to say something? Try again.

Rosita So, you’re illiterate. Got it.

jwkivy Still nothing? Got it.

Rosita still illiterate? Still got it

Intelligent life evolving out in the universe elsewhere does not mean that life visited earth and created us...

I had to pause the video to process what he had said. I’ve heard John Lennox make that point over and over. I was hoping Dr. Tour would point it out.

@@ukfan1230 James Tour is dishonest, ID is pseudoscience the fact that Christians are clinging to this is pathetic.

@@AvNotasian , so are you able to give reasons to your claim or are you merely spouting you're own dogma?

@@allenrhoades8482 Yes, but its unlikely you will understand and it would take a long time to type out. The short story is there is no valid alternative, but in addition dr Tours counter argument in context is he is saying "well bob didn't do it" regarding a boiled kettle when no one saw how it boiled but we saw it unboiled 5 minutes before. But because he says bob didn't do it there are a bunch of fools concluding that pixies must have done it, there is no rational reason to conclude this, but Tours stokes this belief by employing an argument from ignorance, the fact that he does this is why I say he is dishonest. He is trying to cut a tiny tiny hole in science to make room for his god. - The fact that ID is pseudoscience has been demonstrated in a court of law, but if you want a general reason its because the definition of pseudoscience applies under poppers demarcation criterion. - I highly doubt you will find this sufficient, which is part of the problem here there is no rational reason to think ID is science in the first place, so people who believe it is science are not doing so for a rational reason which makes it very hard to explain why its not science. But think about what science does, it attempts to explain the unknown, not find something that is currently unexplained and pretend thats evidence for something that there is no reason to believe even exists. - But perhaps you can explain why you think that mainstream science is "dogma" while people who are paid by a religious organisation with the stated goal to undermine the publics understanding of the scientific consensus for purely dogmatic reasons have any credibility.

thus conceding that naturalism has NO answer (since they dont even have a working definition) for the origin of life. Which, by the way, is the PRESUPPOSITION to even BEGIN a conversation of Natural Selection.

every biologist crys, shits, then bursts into flames.

"I believe things with no good evidence, I have faith in an invisible being"-Rational people?

@@TheseNuts2 I believe that all things, all the known and unknown universe, came out of nothing. Abracadabra…poof! Err bang! Yeah ok. This is more rational? Sounds like…you believe in magic.

@@ppac300 Published source please? You are talking about your god creating clay and making people out of it? Projecting your insecurity about a fairy tale you believe?

Bingo!

@John Carboni Um, atheism is the antithesis of brainwashing.

@John Carboni Umm, I hate to tell you this but we are born faith-free. Atheism is the null proposition. It's actually a terrible term because it presupposes that there is a god that requires proving. People only believe in A god because they were taught that. Religion's glue is faith. Faith is the belief in something that can't be proven. Therefore atheism is not a fantasy in the same way zero is not a fantasy. I would think 2000 year old parables qualifies better as a fantasy. As far as Pascal's wager is concerned, I've made my bet. I'm happy.

John Carboni which designer was that? Allah? Brahman? Jesus?

John Carboni well then since it seems you think of yourself as “wise and very knowledgeable” can you please elaborate on how you know? Or......maybe......you don’t know?

Doug G ,, I noticed that also., he also said the working machines in cells aren’t machines, then 2 sentences later , describes the enter workings of cells as magnificent machines in his closing statements. Or something to this point.

Make life with supercomputers and bringing all the ingredients to the lab whats the excuse life is everywhere not

@@MicDread i have an experience talking with athiests This is always how they talk , Wrong projections , they think life is just a chemical reaction , and they are so exellent on playing with words

Roger Joyce Lee was referring to Jim’s “nano-machines” that he creates in his lab, which they use to drill into cells. He is saying that these nanomachines are not really ‘machines’ per se.

@@npm1811 but they're still machines per se

So, what is consciousness?

Maybe because the primordial soup is something we have evidence for: chemical elements + water. Next step we have evidence for is a fossilized cell (or waste material from a cell). So tell me, why would I conclude (however temporarily) anything else, based on those 2 points, except that through (yet) unknown processes (of which we have some evidence - heavy bombardment, early Earth conditions) emerged life? Any evidence to the contrary, or for a creator or 42 or Invisible Pink Unicorn?

"...primordial soup. It was in a text book as something I should learn as a truth. " Thats the problem. The deceptive fraudulence of it. They should simply tell the truth about what the state of research is.

I don't know what you always have with your textbooks. Yes, in schools a lot of teaching is done using books alone most of the time. It is a money issue. But I bet that even you used chemicals to conduct experiments in school, right? By the time you've gone to university you'll have seen that it comes from a textbook and the next step is to try it out yourself in the laboratory. There is no such thing as “this is the truth, here it is, you have to believe it.” It is very fundamental that you don't believe anything and check it yourself in the laboratory. And maybe we'll get there soon? Maybe, just maybe, students will read about it and then go into the lab and create test-tube life from simple chemistry and prove that this life is capable of evolving.

This is my first time following an "Unbelievable" podcast. I was very impressed by the host.

He really does do an excellent job!

He was also saying that information was there before life, that life was created by information, then turns it around

Actually, information speaks of a CREATOR. Consider computer code. Then .. consider DNA. What is DNA other than 'code'.

as if origin of life research is eating up that much money let them do their work and maybe just maybe society will get more out of it like understanding caner or what not. You can only find stuff if you search for it.

@@VirtuelleWeltenMitKhan So how much closer is this guy today than when the video was aired to curing cancer or creating life in his laboratory?

@@hispls Is google scholar down? And even if he wouldn't be any closer, what then? Even if humanity's research yielded nothing, what then? One cannot simply stop research because they believe there is no benefit. To know that, one must first research. Unfortunately, research cannot guarantee results. It's not about definitely achieving Goal X; research cannot guarantee that. Be glad that people are researching things that don't interest you at all. You may not benefit from one specific research, but in the grand scheme, you do benefit.

I caught that, too. LOL

Lee said something to the sort, If I found a paragraph written on paper that is proof that an intelligent life wrote it. What a major fail on his part not to realize that DNA is called the book of life. DNA is not just a paragraph it is filled with billions of bits of information, which are the instructions to build our bodies. How could Lee not conclude it takes intelligent life to place the data into DNA when he admitted just a paragraph written on paper is proof of intelligent life?

Veritas vos liberabit no body hand created our world.

@@markweise6142 The "information" of DNA is just 4 chemicals. No intelligence required.

@@kennym3492 Right, it was created without hands. You do know how voice command works here in our modern technology right? Well, we're still expanding in knowledge (as it is written, knowledge shall be increased) exponentially and therefore we're learning more about how things work and how we can do things with less work (great intelligence being at the helm of it all). Now imagine(this imagining is only a fraction of what evolutionists must imagine if they were to ponder about on what they have to imagine) a GREATER INTELLIGENCE knowing how everything works and simply uses WORD to bring forth all things! It's not about "magic" it's about INTELLIGENCE. Now to maybe some humans in the third world could see our modern technology as magic, speaking a word to cause light to appear or clapping your hands to cause light to appear(both activations are by SOUND-WORD). They don't know about the intelligence that went into the device so they may call it magic but once we explain it to them, it's still awesome but it's been demystified. This means Genesis 1 is very possible and it makes all the sense in the world above anything else. A Creator creating all things fully mature, with age and ready to be used. So much more can be said but I digress.

Where's the evidence god exists ?

@@lewis72 Creation, intelligence.

@@brokula1312 What creation ? What intelligence ?

@@lewis72 You are a creation and intelligence. I see you so I conclude that your maker exists. I just cannot see that it came from nothing. I think that whenever I see any form of a design. From simple man made, like a hammer, house or a processor to Grand Designer Made - the universe.

@@brokula1312 " I see you so I conclude that your maker exists. I just cannot see that it came from nothing." - Argument from incredulity. Science isn't on your side.

You wrote a comment so you must exist. Are you not a conscious being? Are you denying your own existence?

@@Spectre-wd9dl It would be hard to determine that if we are just a clump of chemicals and dirt that natural forces randomly assembled into a biological entity.

@@MrLaughingcorpse , isnt that what the god of the gaps did in genesis?. . or was it just magic?

@@filthymcnasty7783 It was much more than that. He created life and consciousness as well. Clumps of chemicals assembled by nature wouldn't have life nor consciousness. No magic involved.

@@MrLaughingcorpse i cant help that you think MAGIC is real. . . if u ever get sum good evidence for your fairy, get back to me. u are selling an invisible house and i'm not buying it.

Ignorant modern myths of the atheist fundies in full display above. Ironic, since it was the Christian Creationists who pioneered nearly all the fields of modern science including biology (later hijacked and inverted by the atheists) precisely because they were seeking to know the mind of the Creator through His creation. Nothing new, true Christianity has always had to contend with man made myths, idols and imitators.

@@AllOtherNamesUsed Now THAT is one insane comment !

OrthoChristos the Christian expects the atheist to fully demonstrate and understand the exact method that created life, it might never be fully understood. Saying a god or a magical creator made life happen is rather childish.

@@rodneysettle8106 is We come from a random, purpusless, unguided and unintelligent process a more mature idea Sir?

David Olivares yes, believing in a god or creator that doesn’t care to demonstrate to its most intelligent animals: ie. humans, that it exists unequivocally, so we know our purpose is silly and somewhat childish. You may completely disagree and that’s fine.

nois

And the works of Proust in ten leather-bound volumes…

add some tabasco and you can get a version of Shakespeare that Shakespeare himself didn't even write.

He's a typical arrogant atheist. They're all the same.

@@chomnansaedan4788 Turns out, Shakespeare didn’t write much of what is attributed to him. Shakespeare bought a lot of it from Thomas North. Look up North of Shakespeare by Dennis McCarthy. The evidence is excellent.

@@belfastholidaybreaks8414 where does he say anything about his lack of belief in a god? You are a typical foul minded bigot.

I agree, I've been wondering that too!

Which variables to you mean?

@daniel letterman lmao. Sadly, sounds like an argument that an atheist might make.

Try to avoid arguments based on equivocations, it is a plague of the internet.

@Crazy Jesse Of course a star in not intelligent but the parameters involved for that stars existence via the laws of physics or the fine tuning of the heavens via the big bang which is a first cause problem or DESIGN can also applies to the first cell as a first cause problem. None of this is an accident. Photosynthesis is a designed process, system that can converts sun-lite into energy. No one would say that solar panels came about by accident. And a gradual process for life also is not possible since nothing that is partially made can exist no mater what level it is at. There is no halfway point or any point for photosynthesis, just like there is no halfway point for a cell, also at any point in the cells coming into existence, would not work unless it is in a completed form. Life coming out of a pool of chemicals of mud and ooze is absolutely ludicrous in saying life started by this process . You can not have chemicals coming together and produce life unless all of the chemical reactions needed for life to exist are separated to its individual chemical formula. This is so obvious. Therefore life would never come about by a pool of mud and ooze since the reactions would become played out or used up all at once. The most complex thing know to mankind, (THE HUMAN BRAIN) , could not have come from a pool of ooze or chemicals. That would be impossible. Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible

@Martyr4JesusTheChrist Thank you Marty4JesusThe Christ. Just so you know, I am a worshiper of Jesus Christ's father, ====Jehovah====== god , the most high god. Psalms 83:18 King James version 1611

@Martyr4JesusTheChrist I don't vote. It does not belong to man to even direct his steps. Jeremiah 10:23 Also Daniel 2:44 Shows god will set up his kingdom that will put an end to all the existing kingdoms here on earth. Revelation 19:15====Jesus will strike the nations with a sword. Matthew 6:10 let your kingdom come here on earth.

Holy shit that leap is crazy, yes he does want know what life is but the fact that something was written down is just as much evidence of life as anything else. It's not that complicated to understand.

So if the writings on the paper proves to him there is a life behind it , why doesn’t the complexity of nature prove there is a creator behind that too ?

@@sandiknits4174 and then a creator behind that creator and another creator behind that one. that's no use, at least we know the universe exists. abiogenesis is just the most likely option, weird as it may look to someone who is used to believing in a Creator.

I felt bad for him being distorted on his thinking about reality and consciousness. Those were bad signs about how lost he is.

@@fukpoeslaw3613 If the creator exists outside of the time, space and matter it created, it may not need a cause. Meaning the creator is eternal. No beginning, no end. The idea of life coming form non-life and then going from simple to complex, simply by natural, unintelligent, unguided processes is not scientific in the least.

Yeah that is the Research about. 2015 is not today anymore.

@@Angelmou okay so what is the updated consensus on the origin of life from 2015 to now ?

@@learnwithjaredandmaria The consensus at the moment is that Thymine-DNA lipid bubbles (actual cellular life) long before complicated cells existed are a variation of Uracil-DNA ribocytes. Because the DNA replication unit in cellular lifeforms - the ribosome - is actually in its heartpiece and core just a RNA fragment of self-replicating RNA caught in a fat bubble. There are various RNA self replicating acids (Ribozymes) discovered over the years long after new version of Spiegelman's monster were researched. The origin of lipid containment and RNA enlongation is where the research papers were about with testing enlongation in lab but also in the wild like in acid lakes with extremophile environment. Some tests suggest that cells are just the cold adapted variations, because the usual temperature of life precursors may have been 70°C / 158°F - 170°C / 330°F , others suggest that pores either in smokers or iron rich earth boosted the forming of different sized bubbles with primitive fatbubble metabolism without the enwrapped and caught selfreplicating acids.

So you love pseudoscience and confirmation bias *OK, that says a lot about the current state of the world, pure decadency*

And you are do not understand science because Jame is liar .

It is now time to introduce basic bio-chemistry in all schools. Why? It is the key to advance medicine, rid nonsense ideas such as Lee espoused. What is life??? what is Dna information? All life is protein. This we know. Every cell is protein, even their membranes. This we know. To make a protein there are 4 fundamentals, DNA, 3 RNAs (or 4) and ribosomes. and energy producing ATP synthase. Any missing, no protein, no life. They all must be present. THIS IS NOT JUST "NARRATIVES". This is basic micro biology. I imagine his fellow OOL colleages would be cringing.

Psm 36:9 "With YOU is the source of life" , No amount of obfuscation can escape it.

@@ralphgoreham3516, I concur. How we define life is important in our education systems. There wouldn't be as much confusion, if all children were taught the basic building blocks, and how they interact. I love History, and Science wasn't my best subject. From History, I can attest that as our Science has gotten better, our understanding of the Universe has improved. We will never know everything, yet pursuing knowledge, and building upon our ancestors is how humans have survived. Certainly, bad ideas deserve ridicule.

@@ralphgoreham3516, how do you know that the Elohim are the source of life?

@@rustlingbushes7678 You should know "Elohim", God (is singular, not plural). Always has singular pronouns, verbs and adjectives. Other forms are El and Eloha. All equal God. Elohim per se is plural to convey excellence and majesty. Why do I agree with the psalmist.? I would need many pages in this forum to add to my first comment above. Here are a few more impossibilities for evo. It is now agreed there are 15 million life forms on the planet and even we accept it is 540 million years since the cambrian period when multicellular creatures exploded on to the scene, (about 26) how many beneficial mutations would be needed to build all 15 million in that time. Despite the many scientific assuming/ protesting that goes on, NONE have been found that ADD TO DNA info.. I mean we have 3 billion base pairs of E.T C.and G, CODED info. The blue whale is 100 yards long, the elephants trunk has no bones . The point, You would need trillions of years, not millions of years. (I leave out bacteria that is claimed to be 3 and a half billion years old and BTW why did evo take 3 billion years to go multicelled.? Our DNA has 5 repair mechanisns!. What copying errors came up with such to get rid of copying errors ? ?? Neo Darwinism has not been discarded as Dennis Noble and many others since Lyn Margelus thought it should be. But it will stay because there is nothing else materialistic to account for the structure of cells, skin, tissues, ligaments, tendons, bones, blood, brains, etc in those 15 million types of life. The ID community deserve real credit for their work, honesty and courage in the face of "scientific" opposition. So "Dapper" perhaps you should look at some Utube videos such as "how are proteins Made?, How does ATP work"? and "Work horses of the cell". If you do, ask yourself in all honesty, could blind chance, Father Time and copying errors construct such ? Untill I studied basic bio Chemistry i thought it possible. Now I say it is IMPOSSIBLE. ok?

What a stupid, ignorant comment. NO ONE in the OoL field claims to have solved the problem of life's origin and NO ONE needs the lying fanatic James Tour to "make" them do anything. Tour's legacy will not be his actual work, in which his drooling supporters have ZERO interest- his legacy will be those supporters: his claque of braying, science hating morons.

@@mcmanustony aparently you haven't noticed the apathy around you. ....they present the subject as open and shut. And in the process, they diminish the true value of the treasure that is life. A gift from GOD, to all.

@@andreaurelius45 you are a liar. You couldn’t name a single scientist making any such claim. Try not to tell such stupid lies- you’ll feel less dirty.

@@andreaurelius45 Still waiting....WHO exactly makes the claim you claim they make? Who is "they"? You haven't a fucking clue, do you? You are just parroting that lying clown you drool over. You know as much about OoL as you do the contents of my fridge. A perfect example of Tour's cult. Ignorant, lying cheerleaders for The Great One. I don't suppose it ever occurred to you to actually open a book on this subject? Written, not by a lying hysterical fanatic, but by an actual scientist who actually does actual work in this field? Shame on you. Do better.

I think he mean't "see the effects."

@Crazy Jesse A simple definition was given by James in the early stages of the debate.

@Crazy Jesse Start with oxygen exchange, but just to illustrate how mixed up people are CJ, JC is the way, the truth and the life.

Bulls eye! Dodgy Lee ! he he he

Yep

@Martyr4JesusTheChrist YOU are an example of "life from non-life". There is not a single atom nor molecule in your entire body that is alive, yet, you are alive.

Nonsense! Chemical reactions in various conditions create things that never previously existed every second of every day.

Indeed, great faith. A bit ironic.

Does lightning ‘make itself’? We understand how lightning is made, but would you call that process ‘making itself’? How about the sun? We understand how that was formed as well. So, did the sun ‘make itself’?

@@AsixA6 no, nothing creates itself. Pretty basic.

@@dannymccarty344 Then in the same way lightning doesn’t ’make itself’, Lee is not saying that natural abiogenesis is life ‘making itself’.

You mean the DNA? Started out with RNA or even simpler. Random stuff got together and the surviving stuff persisted and got more and further. You can find more of that on chemical evolution and done the path biological evolution of cells.

well stated and thank you! Wait until you discover (if you haven't already) about the our true cosmology that the "leaders" are hiding from the children. Please consider taking a look at my channel for the evidence. Thank you for your time and consideration.

He doesn't know if life exists? He knows that information can only be produced from life? He's super confident he's going to figure out how life got started in the lab 😕

That's why philosophy and things like ontology is really important. He'll probably end up re-inventing the energizer bunny, with like a battery, but made from real fur, and give it a few more bells and whistles, and claim he created life. I think categorical logic and ontology is so important these days, with shifting definitions of everything. You also have people in the AI community who claim they'll "create life"... the kind with things like circuits and batteries, and a cpu. They don't seem to understand the difference between life, and something that is good at mimicking life.

None of us really knows what anything is, yet we can still use it, build it, eat it, etc. Your argument is moot.

Well you have to see where he is coming from and where others come from. "Life" is overburdened with emotion and meaning. But if you take a rational look at life it is just a consequence of natural processes. Just because humans made it mystical and raised it up in the air cause they are alive and want to be up there does not mean that this view is realistic.

​@@VirtuelleWeltenMitKhan "If you take a rational look at life, it is just a consequence of natural processes." Since you've come to a conclusion that it's a natural process, can you explain how you "rationally" came to that conclusion?

​​@@VirtuelleWeltenMitKhan Maybe Cronin can learn a thing or two from you, genius?