The atheistic pretension that reason comes from non-reason [ dead matter ] is at least as much "irrational nonsense" as the assumption of a rational origin of the world is highly reasonable and plausible. 😅😅😅

​@@marie-jeanne_decourroux What a irrational thing to think and say... Just look at nature, a lot of it is irrational and non thinking.

​@@marie-jeanne_decourrouxYou did not give any reason for your claim

@@marie-jeanne_decourroux What was Adam made out of according to the bible? Oh... dead matter--- dirt! LOL Religious people are amazing at shooting down their own religions claims.

@@marie-jeanne_decourroux You have just crashed everything that have base in irrational religion.

they sound like Douglas Adams books...... Blasphemous rubbish, i believe in Terry pratchett

I also recommend: Worship me or I will torture you for eternity, by Jezuz. And, Gad, is busy right now... can we help?, by Religion. 😅

@@josmith9662 Lol 😂

"Liberated from Religion" ? Is the author really so stupid to think that there is a human being without "religion" ? The dumbest of all religions and worldviews, whether theistic or atheistic, is the one that thinks it isn't one. Everyone lives with their own personal dogmas: axiomatic (unprovable) assumptions, e.g. with legal conventions, moral principles, metaphysical judgments, aesthetic standards, etc. etc. Whether you like it or not, everyone has their dogmas, and Chesterton is right when he points out that anyone who wants to abolish one is already in the process of replacing it with another (usually his own). Only very few things that a person or a society relies on or has to agree upon - from the state constitution over civil laws to forms and rules of coexistence - can be derived empirically or justified scientifically. Almost everything is based on culturally determined norms, conventions, civil obligations, and legal rights (which in western countries are mostly of Christian origin). In particular, the atheistic pretension to be without metaphysical prejudices is as nonsensical as the assumption of a rational origin of the world is reasonable. Chesterton says it with his usual brilliance: "Religion [ in the most general sense of the personal worldview ] is exactly the thing which cannot be left out - because it includes everything. The most absent-minded person cannot well pack his Gladstone-bag and leave out the bag. We have a general view of existence, whether we like it or not; it alters or, to speak more accurately, it creates and involves everything we say or do, whether we like it or not. If we regard the Cosmos as a dream, we regard the Fiscal Question as a dream. If we regard the Cosmos as a joke, we regard St. Paul's Cathedral as a joke. If everything is bad, then we must believe (if it be possible) that beer is bad; if everything be good, we are forced to the rather fantastic conclusion that scientific philanthropy is good. Every man in the street must hold a metaphysical system, and hold it firmly. The possibility is that he may have held it so firmly and so long as to have forgotten all about its existence." And don't forget: The number of victims of all atheistic "isms" of the 20th century (Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, National Socialism, Pol Pot's and other Kim Jong xxx's) by far exceeds that of all "holy wars" of all times. As Viktor Orbán said: "The most evil things in modern history were carried out by people who hated Christianity."

You are a very confused person. If I have my own beliefs, this is not a religion. Religion is a set of beliefs that is considered absolute truth for all Humanity and is imposed on others (Christians, for example, spent centuries persecuting and killing Jews and other Christians who believed differently. Catholics and Protestants killed each other). PS: Atheism killed ZERO people, since Atheism is not a religion: it does not teach anything. Thus, it does not command to do anything.@@etienne_laforet

well said

Dawkins is one of the few human beings alive in our time who actually feels like a normal, intelligent person when I hear him speak or read the pages of his books. Sensible, rational, and eloquent. A mind worth engaging with. The vast majority of discourse online is so insultingly child-like, it's rather depressing. That's why I started reading books like Dawkins'. They're a sort of intellectual oasis.

@@UnchainedEruption well said

There is only one hope in this life and it most certainly isn't dawkins . Its Jesus Christ

@@michaelmarshall9132 we dont even know he existed - and living a life of a deathcult martyr is for you poor sheep and muslims and jews. you all worship pain and suffering. We know Dawkins is real and interested in the Truth. your religions are 2000 year old myths for crippled minds that know less about reality than any modern 5 year old. youve wasted your entire life believing lies - disgusting lies too.

​@@cameroncameron2826 Why lie? Atheist are the ones fighting for equality and freedom of speech and inclusion. It's theist who deny equality and shut down other opinions. It's theist trying to control how we live what we say and the medical care we need. We only want the religious to question their own myths and leaders that push them. You didn't know it was a scam because it's not. The scam is what makes you so dishonest. Your religion!

Lenox Lewis ?

@stevefromsaskatoon830 lmao

@@stevefromsaskatoon830no lol he debated some Christian guy

I’m grateful for the very same thing lol . Also I’m grateful for weed cause it’s making the speech even more mind blowing than it already is to me 🤣

@@kennypowers1945 I hear you loud & clear brother! . . . (And, come to think of it; If _ever_ there were the *_remotest_* possibility for the existence of a 'heavenly daddy', I'd say that weed _definitely_ would be one of the first things 'He'd' succeeded in making - that would *perfectly* fit the bill - *''intelligent'' design!* 😜👌)

Could be a few other planets. But likely not many out of the trillions of possible planets

Carl Sagan said that. I agree that it is a very valid argument.

True, however in British English the word has extended useage. It can refer to any data represented as a series of numbers... I guess dna can essentially be viewed in this way. It is also pretty simple to convert it to typical 0 1 format when analysing it or storing the information. I guess it is developing terminology but I have heard it described like this previously.

@@sensis3235 I gathered that yea and also taking into account his experience with computer programming, he probably views it from that angle. Personally I’d probably refer to DNA as quaternary, in the same way that I’d call it conserved instead of high fidelity. Of course, he’s speaking to the public here and not people with science backgrounds.

@@mervinprone yeah he is speaking for general public, I still enjoyed that you called out the technicality. 😂 Edit: rabbitwholed.. I have looked into it now and it does seem that the word digital is used to describe DNA more than just in public speaking and for a couple decades.. the abstracts refer to a gene coding for a protein being one form of digital information or a gene being regulated as another form. I cant access these full articles but assume this is more of a gene switch on or off, or codes one particular protein or doesn't, so digital is not referring to the nucleotides or the actual sequence.

It's digital but not binary. Digital refers to the fact that at each position in the DNA molecule there are exactly four possibilities. It can never be 3.5 or 1.2 which could only be if it was an analog value. That's all there is to it.

There is a backstory in SF author Ursula Leguin's works, of a Hainish universe, the Hain being an ancient race of aliens who, hundreds of thousands of years ago, 'seeded' (populated) many planets in the universe, including Earth. This resulted in in subsequent parallel evolutions, and explains why the alien races she writes about are similar in appearance (one head, 2 eyes, two arms, 2 legs, upright, etc.)

Humans are not bacteria.

No I don’t think that’s how it works. Panspermia would be for example a fungi spore, being the foundation of other life forms to evolve from it. It is certainly not a human like life form. When life begins it takes whatever form necessary for survival. It took many millions of years for human life forms to evolve on earth.

Scientists have found RNA on meteorites. I wonder if that would qualify for panspermia or not. RNA is one of the pieces of DNA.

Read Dawkins' landmark book "The Selfish Gene." It elaborates, or extend the subject of evolution by natural selection to posit that the level at which evolution operates is, as the title indicates, the gene, as opposed to the individual organism, a tribe, a species, etc. That if we start from the basis of genetic material that self-replicates, and all life are really just machines or vehicles of the replicators, we can explain the evolution of life.

@@cameroncameron2826 you obviously never read that book.

As far as I know, all the nucleotide bases needed to build RNA have been found on meteorites but I haven't heard that RNA itself has been found (unlike proteins such as *hemolithin)* - however we know that such nucleotides will *self-assemble* on catalytic templates such as Montmorillonite Clay and even volcanic glass. Polymerizatinio doesn't seem to be a problem. Some recent research *"Evolutionary transition from a single RNA replicator to a multiple replicator network"_ shows that such an assembly could be at the start of life. Lee Cronin has found that Auto-Catalytic Sets based on Molybdenum salts can arise in the right conditions.

Excellent question, I have always wondered about this too. May be it does start, but it becomes extinct. Or may be the initial ingredient or spark is what’s very rare…. Improbable.

By making a lot of guesses. Why 1600?

It is possible but highly improbable. In all the billions of years on earth it doesn't seem to have occurred.

Whoosh@@Zigmeister67

Happy to hear he makes you feel threatened.

Why? What has he said to pain you so? He has explicitly made it clear that he would use the preferred names and pronouns of trans individuals, what more could one ask for?

@@Vasilefs_Terranorum wow. Just wow.

​@@robinhood20253trans people should have their own country and leave everyone else alone. All LGBTQ agendas and politics are a generational gateway to pedophilia. Pretty soon it will be LGBTQP+. Leave the kids alone when it comes to ANYTHING trans

Professor Proves Scientists cannot explain the Origin of Life Dr James Tour one of the World’s top chemists challenged ten of the world’s leading origin of life researchers to produce evidence for their theories. He wanted the evolutionary scientists to put up evidence or shut up and stop misleading the general public. Evolutionists are always claiming they are getting warmer to explaining how life evolved from a primordial complex soup of chemicals. This primordial soup is an invention of man and there is no evidence that this ever existed in the actual earth’s geology, this only exists in the imagination of evolutionist’s hearts and minds. These top evolutionists have refused to debate Dr Tour face to face on the 25th August 2023. Dr Tour issued a daring warning on his you tube channel. He promised to admit he was wrong, and he would take down all his anti-evolution material on his channel and stop making videos about chemical evolution, on one condition: that any one of the ten leading origin of life researchers-all chemists with intimate knowledge of the chemistry of life-would answer one of five questions about how life overcame hurdles that had to be surmounted before a living cell could appear. Dr Tour took himself out of the judging and allowed three of his opponents to judge for them-selves on whether they had succeeded. He wrote to each one of them personally giving them 60 days in which they could respond and by the deadline of the 24th October, not one of the ten had dared to take up his challenge. My comment: Life evolving from chemicals in relation to “fine tuning” that has to be precise and is extremely complex is impossible and so this theory, chemicals to the first living cell carries no scientific justification. There is design in DNA and RNA for those who want to see it, line upon line of digital code. Yet, chemicals to living cells, is the line pumped continually in schools, colleges and universities. This is committing academic murder! Tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough and people will eventually believe it. Darwin’s evolutionary fairytale depends upon chemical evolution in order to get life started. Dr Tour has authored 680 scientific publications and holds 120 patents. In 2014 Thomson Reuters named him one of “The world’s most influential scientific minds” and he won the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Centenary Prize for innovations in material chemistry and is also a fellow of the American Association of Advancement of science. Dr Tour is a committed Christian believer and he stands in awe of God because of what he has done through creation. He states my faith has increased through scientific research, end of quote. The truth in relation to science can lead you to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus said to Nicodemas who was about the third richest man in Jerusalem at that time, you must be born again of water and the spirit or you cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Nicodemas replied, how can a man be born when he is old, can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born? Jesus knew the thoughts of his heart and replied, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe, if I shall tell you of heavenly things?” That is my point we are only scratching the surface when it comes to the wonder of God’s creation. Jesus didn’t lie to us, he told us the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Jesus loves you and he wants you to repent of your sins by saying the sinner’s prayer. Lord Jesus I have broken your loving commandments, but I repent of my sins and turn away from them, please come into my heart and life and forgive me, give me your peace and reassurance. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life [John 3:16].

Wow! Your grandad was Hamlet?😮

@@sirbarringtonwomblembe4098 No. But he used to enjoy Hamlet cigar. Perhaps that’s where he got his inspiration. 🙂

Life probably does exist, but much like the anaerobic bacteria, it's not exactly a form of life we would consider intelligent or capable of interacting with. Hardly the "little green men" of cinema.

I would but I'm allergic to nuts.

Nonsense statement to make.

Hope is impossible to remove but dogma seems to be impossible to remove. How did you get the idea that anybody wants to remove hope?

@@johnrangi4830 because when someone reject anything spiritual, which is supernatural, then my close relatives who have died are only body and are gone forever. For me there is no hope in that idea. What does dogma have anything to do with it?

@@RM-lu1kx ok but if someone reject spiritual it doesn't necessarily mean hope is lost. I realise it can be difficult to understand or accept somebody else's personal position, but that is not necessarily removing hope. I realise you might feel that way because you probably miss your relatives but that doesn't mean you have to give up hope. Maybe your relatives were hoping you would have a good life. I know that is what I hope for my kids, I don't want to have to see them suffer and I hope you believe the same for your family and friends.

@@johnrangi4830 Of course i can say, i hope you are okay, i hope you enjoy yourself, i hope you live long, i hope you are rich, beautiful , healthy and prosperous. If i were a good person i should have that hope for you and everybody else. But still there is no ultimate hope. So actually i have to have hope for you that after this short life, your supernatural soul, the unique person in your body, does not disappear but lives on in true happiness. Those who teach secular ideas take away that ultimate hope. That is painfull.

"a creator or only dead matter"? What utter bullshit... this is called a false dichotomy!

Professor Proves Scientists cannot explain the Origin of Life Dr James Tour one of the World’s top chemists challenged ten of the world’s leading origin of life researchers to produce evidence for their theories. He wanted the evolutionary scientists to put up evidence or shut up and stop misleading the general public. Evolutionists are always claiming they are getting warmer to explaining how life evolved from a primordial complex soup of chemicals. This primordial soup is an invention of man and there is no evidence that this ever existed in the actual earth’s geology, this only exists in the imagination of evolutionist’s hearts and minds. These top evolutionists have refused to debate Dr Tour face to face on the 25th August 2023. Dr Tour issued a daring warning on his you tube channel. He promised to admit he was wrong, and he would take down all his anti-evolution material on his channel and stop making videos about chemical evolution, on one condition: that any one of the ten leading origin of life researchers-all chemists with intimate knowledge of the chemistry of life-would answer one of five questions about how life overcame hurdles that had to be surmounted before a living cell could appear. Dr Tour took himself out of the judging and allowed three of his opponents to judge for them-selves on whether they had succeeded. He wrote to each one of them personally giving them 60 days in which they could respond and by the deadline of the 24th October, not one of the ten had dared to take up his challenge. My comment: Life evolving from chemicals in relation to “fine tuning” that has to be precise and is extremely complex is impossible and so this theory, chemicals to the first living cell carries no scientific justification. There is design in DNA and RNA for those who want to see it, line upon line of digital code. Yet, chemicals to living cells, is the line pumped continually in schools, colleges and universities. This is committing academic murder! Tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough and people will eventually believe it. Darwin’s evolutionary fairy tale depends upon chemical evolution in order to get life started. Dr Tour has authored 680 scientific publications and holds 120 patents. In 2014 Thomson Reuters named him one of “The world’s most influential scientific minds” and he won the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Centenary Prize for innovations in material chemistry and is also a fellow of the American Association of Advancement of science. Dr Tour is a committed Christian believer and he stands in awe of God because of what he has done through creation. He states my faith has increased through scientific research, end of quote. The truth in relation to science can lead you to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus said to Nicodemas who was about the third richest man in Jerusalem at that time, you must be born again of water and the spirit or you cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Nicodemas replied, how can a man be born when he is old, can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born? Jesus knew the thoughts of his heart and replied, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe, if I shall tell you of heavenly things?” That is my point we are only scratching the surface when it comes to the wonder of God’s creation. Jesus didn’t lie to us, he told us the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Jesus loves you and he wants you to repent of your sins by saying the sinner’s prayer. Lord Jesus I have broken your loving commandments, but I repent of my sins and turn away from them, please come into my heart and life and forgive me, give me your peace and reassurance. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life [John 3:16].

Professor Proves Scientists cannot explain the Origin of Life Dr James Tour one of the World’s top chemists challenged ten of the world’s leading origin of life researchers to produce evidence for their theories. He wanted the evolutionary scientists to put up evidence or shut up and stop misleading the general public. Evolutionists are always claiming they are getting warmer to explaining how life evolved from a primordial complex soup of chemicals. This primordial soup is an invention of man and there is no evidence that this ever existed in the actual earth’s geology, this only exists in the imagination of evolutionist’s hearts and minds. These top evolutionists have refused to debate Dr Tour face to face on the 25th August 2023. Dr Tour issued a daring warning on his you tube channel. He promised to admit he was wrong, and he would take down all his anti-evolution material on his channel and stop making videos about chemical evolution, on one condition: that any one of the ten leading origin of life researchers-all chemists with intimate knowledge of the chemistry of life-would answer one of five questions about how life overcame hurdles that had to be surmounted before a living cell could appear. Dr Tour took himself out of the judging and allowed three of his opponents to judge for them-selves on whether they had succeeded. He wrote to each one of them personally giving them 60 days in which they could respond and by the deadline of the 24th October, not one of the ten had dared to take up his challenge. My comment: Life evolving from chemicals in relation to “fine tuning” that has to be precise and is extremely complex is impossible and so this theory, chemicals to the first living cell carries no scientific justification. There is design in DNA and RNA for those who want to see it, line upon line of digital code. Yet, chemicals to living cells, is the line pumped continually in schools, colleges and universities. This is committing academic murder! Tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough and people will eventually believe it. Darwin’s evolutionary fairytale depends upon chemical evolution in order to get life started. Dr Tour has authored 680 scientific publications and holds 120 patents. In 2014 Thomson Reuters named him one of “The world’s most influential scientific minds” and he won the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Centenary Prize for innovations in material chemistry and is also a fellow of the American Association of Advancement of science. Dr Tour is a committed Christian believer and he stands in awe of God because of what he has done through creation. He states my faith has increased through scientific research, end of quote. The truth in relation to science can lead you to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus said to Nicodemas who was about the third richest man in Jerusalem at that time, you must be born again of water and the spirit or you cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Nicodemas replied, how can a man be born when he is old, can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born? Jesus knew the thoughts of his heart and replied, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe, if I shall tell you of heavenly things?” That is my point we are only scratching the surface when it comes to the wonder of God’s creation. Jesus didn’t lie to us, he told us the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Jesus loves you and he wants you to repent of your sins by saying the sinner’s prayer. Lord Jesus I have broken your loving commandments, but I repent of my sins and turn away from them, please come into my heart and life and forgive me, give me your peace and reassurance. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life [John 3:16].

Are you not “religiously active”? E.g. in the sense that Wolfgang Pauli meant when he said: “Yes, our friend Jason has a religion. And the creed of his religion is: 'There is no God and Jason is his prophet.'" 😅😅😅

Only 'Improbable'.

Why? Not all life is bad, only humans do harm here.

@@jameswright... Suppose that depends on what might be considered harm by the earth itself. The earth might quite like our modifications, especially compared to those irritating microbes that turned it purple

You mean "intelligent" life?

@@stormriderkaos life is never intelligent. . that's a cosmic joke.

Imagine a planet full of Dogs ans little puppys. that would be so awesome!

Really? You want a cookie 🍪

Do you have cookies?@@DreiSkins101

@@judymiles7186 @dreiskins101 i'd also like cookies

@@jaskbi 🍪

If it’s made by intelligent design, I want a cookie too

There's no evidence for design... Quite the opposite!

don't be absurd, you just like to feel important... accept that you are not.

Complete b.s! Only Christianity well religion shuts down free speech and equality. No one in the west has banned pray. Why lie?

About human ibtelligence, it is created by the biology of our body, lets say, tge vrain. Therefore language is a perceotion of the real that has to be codefied, for matter is not information, it is just the manifestation of itself. But our ibteligence, at least our reason depends on cognition, for intelligence is the discernment of what makes sense, abd this is pure math, meaning, logics, but so commited to truth under the perspectiv of validation, that it stablishes the limits of the cognition itself with a rule, which we know as Roussea's paradoxo, that is the signature of logos, meaning it provided the reasoning proceedure for stablish concrete cognition, which results in knowledge, or understandment with an gift of reliace, like, look wgat hapowbs when we create a logical paradoxo, um cant stablish validation, but logics have provided, you are inmune to lies. If you follow the rules it will work 10o% of times, no exception, therefore, its a law of phisics, at least in the exclusivity of this fidelity, because the paradox is not illogical or irracional, it only stablish an uthical imlerative: logics wont provide logos' truth, only intelectual truth, meaning the conclusion is correct but if you started by making a mistake, no assistance to correct it will be provided. This isnot Logos, logos is what reality is and reality is always true. The duality that iniciates information could provide parts whose some are less then the whole.

And lrofessor, it is indeed that rare. Did we ever work on the possibility that we had two independent origins of life on our planet? Did the same origin happebed at least twice. Or does everything comes from one single event that, just consider, was perhaps only not as rare as it would have being fragile to not be sistained by its own replication. Specially if, which I doubt, the conditions to produce this sparkle was the so extreme like to destroy it once it was alive. What is more fragile than life?

Please expand.

@@L.Ron_Dow willfully ignoring the obvious, makes him a fool!

​@@LudJudWhat is he ignoring that, to you, is obvious - and *why* is it obvious?

@@L.Ron_Dow the presence of God

​@@LudJud​@davidluzgin5055 What, exactly, makes that 'obvious'? To me, the state of this planet is exactly what you would expect if there is no such entity. Everybody and their dog comes up with a siIIy story to explain what they don't understand and then fight over it. Nine million children die before their fifth birthday through natural disasters. It's obvious to me there is no ultra-powerful being looking after us.

Where's your evidence. I don't want words I want video, RADAR and so on.

@@Apistevist Rofl, the reason i concluded it to be true is based on my model from witness testimony, video and so on. The variables in the cases I've looked at are pointing in such a way that there is no reasonable alternative explanation, without getting into some absurdly unlikely conspiracy territory. One of the greatest pieces of direct video evidence I've seen is the Las Vegas backyard footage. I'd say I'm about 98% sure in my claim that they are indeed already here.

Witness testimony isn't evidence and most people even if being honest don't know what they're looking at then jump to conclusions. So your position is baseless and irrational.@@treetoon_

Prove it?

Iiar! Atheism isn't a religion, it's a lack of, it's a rejection of faith. And atheist have no leaders!

​@@cameroncameron2826 It doesn't matter how many times you copy and paste your lie it's still a lie!

​@@cameroncameron2826 Bull! Literally every word you say is a lie! Richard like all secular humanists want free speech and equality for all regardless of religion denomination male female black white gay straight. It's religion that bans equality and free speech. Your just a plain liar! Pray has never been banned but religion has banned many things. Your just butt hurt your lie can't shut people down anymore.

Professor Proves Scientists cannot explain the Origin of Life Dr James Tour one of the World’s top chemists challenged ten of the world’s leading origin of life researchers to produce evidence for their theories. He wanted the evolutionary scientists to put up evidence or shut up and stop misleading the general public. Evolutionists are always claiming they are getting warmer to explaining how life evolved from a primordial complex soup of chemicals. This primordial soup is an invention of man and there is no evidence that this ever existed in the actual earth’s geology, this only exists in the imagination of evolutionist’s hearts and minds. These top evolutionists have refused to debate Dr Tour face to face on the 25th August 2023. Dr Tour issued a daring warning on his you tube channel. He promised to admit he was wrong, and he would take down all his anti-evolution material on his channel and stop making videos about chemical evolution, on one condition: that any one of the ten leading origin of life researchers-all chemists with intimate knowledge of the chemistry of life-would answer one of five questions about how life overcame hurdles that had to be surmounted before a living cell could appear. Dr Tour took himself out of the judging and allowed three of his opponents to judge for them-selves on whether they had succeeded. He wrote to each one of them personally giving them 60 days in which they could respond and by the deadline of the 24th October, not one of the ten had dared to take up his challenge. My comment: Life evolving from chemicals in relation to “fine tuning” that has to be precise and is extremely complex is impossible and so this theory, chemicals to the first living cell carries no scientific justification. There is design in DNA and RNA for those who want to see it, line upon line of digital code. Yet, chemicals to living cells, is the line pumped continually in schools, colleges and universities. This is committing academic murder! Tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough and people will eventually believe it. Darwin’s evolutionary fairy tale depends upon chemical evolution in order to get life started. Dr Tour has authored 680 scientific publications and holds 120 patents. In 2014 Thomson Reuters named him one of “The world’s most influential scientific minds” and he won the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Centenary Prize for innovations in material chemistry and is also a fellow of the American Association of Advancement of science. Dr Tour is a committed Christian believer and he stands in awe of God because of what he has done through creation. He states my faith has increased through scientific research, end of quote. The truth in relation to science can lead you to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus said to Nicodemas who was about the third richest man in Jerusalem at that time, you must be born again of water and the spirit or you cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Nicodemas replied, how can a man be born when he is old, can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born? Jesus knew the thoughts of his heart and replied, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe, if I shall tell you of heavenly things?” That is my point we are only scratching the surface when it comes to the wonder of God’s creation. Jesus didn’t lie to us, he told us the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Jesus loves you and he wants you to repent of your sins by saying the sinner’s prayer. Lord Jesus I have broken your loving commandments, but I repent of my sins and turn away from them, please come into my heart and life and forgive me, give me your peace and reassurance. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life [John 3:16].

The Miracle in the Cell and the End of Evolution The complex structure of the living cell was unknown in Darwin's day and at the time ascribing life to "coincidences and natural conditions" was thought by evolutionists to be convincing enough. The technology of the 20th century has delved into the tiniest particles of life and has revealed that the cell is the most complex system mankind has ever confronted. Today we know that the cell contains power stations producing the energy to be used by the cell, factories manufacturing the enzymes and hormones essential for life, a databank where all the necessary information about all products to be produced is recorded, complex transportation systems and pipelines for carrying raw materials and products from one place to another, advanced laboratories and refineries for breaking down external raw materials into their useable parts, and specialized cell membrane proteins to control the incoming and outgoing materials. And these constitute only a small part of this incredibly complex system. W. H. Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist, acknowledges that "The most elementary type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man."105 A cell is so complex that even the high level of technology attained today cannot produce one. No effort to create an artificial cell has ever met with success. Indeed, all attempts to do so have been abandoned. The theory of evolution claims that this system-which mankind, with all the intelligence, knowledge and technology at its disposal, cannot succeed in reproducing-came into existence "by chance" under the conditions of the primordial earth. To give another example, the probability of forming of a cell by chance is about the same as that of producing a perfect copy of a book following an explosion in a printing-house. The English mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made a similar comparison in an interview published in Nature magazine on November 12, 1981. Although an evolutionist himself, Hoyle stated that the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein. This means that it is not possible for the cell to have come into being by coincidence, and therefore it must definitely have been "created". One of the basic reasons why the theory of evolution cannot explain how the cell came into existence is the "irreducible complexity" in it. A living cell maintains itself with the harmonious co-operation of many organelles. If only one of these organelles fails to function, the cell cannot remain alive. The cell does not have the chance to wait for unconscious mechanisms like natural selection or mutation to permit it to develop. Thus, the first cell on earth was necessarily a complete cell possessing all the required organelle and functions, and this definitely means that this cell had to have been created. There are three limitations or stumbling blocks to Darwinian Evolutionary Religion • There is no evidence that living matter can come from non-living matter • There are no transitional fossils and no intermediate living organisms between species • Irreducible complexity as in the single cell and living organisms are made of trillions of cells

of course, you are an expert on the matter of abiogenesis having read the bible and gone to church, rather than studied biology and been in a lab.

When you collect your noble prize for proving all of science wrong I'll start listening 😂 Abiogenisis is well understood even with the gaps in knowledge. We know chemicals under certain conditions form chemical biology leading to things like amino acids which rna forms itself from and self replicates, we know that rna makes dna. The rest follows to 110% confirmed evolution my fellow ape.

@@MrWeedWacky no, I read Charles Darwin's "warm little pond" and everything else since then, which isn't as difficult as it might seem since scientists avoid the abiogenesis subject and when they are compelled to mention it they are quick.

​@@sentientflower7891 tell me that you are clueless about evolution being different from abiogenesis without saying you are clueless about evolution being different from abiogenesis... Darwin, wrote about evolution... not abiogenesis... And reading books over a century old, does not constitute taking a degree and doing research in a lab...

@@MrWeedWacky Abiogenesis is not evolution by definition since Abiogenesis is the origin of life. Charles Darwin imagined that it happened in a "warm little pond" without explaining as to how it happened. In 2023 scientific thinking has advanced so little that Abiogenesis still wastes all its time arguing about location without providing any method.

you can not kill something if it never existed.

Gibberish.