James Tour: The Origin of Life Is Still A Mystery

James Tour, a renowned synthetic organic chemist, criticizes the current understanding of the origin of life. He argues that the complexity of life cannot be explained by simple chemical reactions or the idea of life evolving from a “primordial soup”. He also dismisses the idea of life originating from outer space, stating that the chemicals from space are not biologically oriented. Tour emphasizes that life’s complexity is often underestimated and that current theories are oversimplified and misleading.
Cells are incredibly complex, more so than a city’s infrastructure. They require four basic classes of chemicals to function: proteins, carbohydrates, nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), and lipids. However, we don’t know how to create these chemicals or their building blocks using what would have been available on prebiotic Earth. Even if we had all the necessary components, we still wouldn’t know how to assemble them into a functioning cell, highlighting the amazing interconnectedness and complexity of life at a cellular level.
The text discusses the complexity of cells and the challenges in understanding their formation and evolution. It highlights the difficulty in creating homochiral compounds and the improbability of certain molecular interactions occurring naturally. The author also criticizes the presentation of theories as facts in scientific education, particularly regarding the origin of life and evolution. Lastly, the author expresses his faith in Jesus Christ and the Bible, asserting that no scientific fact contradicts the Bible.
The speaker, Dr. James Tour, invites anyone struggling with their faith due to scientific theories to discuss with him. He emphasizes that his faith and science do not conflict, and he criticizes theories presented as facts without evidence. He encourages believers not to let scientific proclamations shake their faith and invites non-believers to learn about his faith in Jesus Christ. He also offers to share his faith through one-on-one Zoom calls and his YouTube channel.

But don’t just teach it as fact when it’s not fact. And get a bunch of people believing that we can come out of a primordial soup when we have no evidence for that. No evidence whatsoever. So just tell them we’re clueless on the origin of life scientifically. Origin of life clueless. We don’t know those who are believers in Jesus Christ. I don’t want you to be shaken in your faith by proclamations in the sciences. Don’t be shaken, don’t be shaken at all. On origin of life, on evolution. There is nothing in the Bible that has been contradicted by a scientific fact.

Nothing. My name is James Tour and you’re watching End Time Productions. My name is James Tour. I’m a synthetic organic chemist. I’ve been working in the field of organic chemistry for many decades. I’ve been a professor of organic chemistry for almost 30 years now. I published over 700 papers in the area of synthetic chemistry. And some people view me as being one of the top producing chemists in the world alive today. So that would sort of make me able to speak about this Now. People would say, what do you know about origin of life? Well, I’ve studied it, I’ve looked at it, I’ve written several articles on critiquing origin of life.

But origin of life is pre biology. Origin of life is before life forms. So before you have that first cell, that’s when biochemistry takes over. But before that it’s just pure chemistry. There is no biochemistry. This is an area that synthetic chemists are the best able to critique and analyze. And that’s what I am, a synthetic chemist. We work with molecules all day. You get a feel for what molecules can and cannot do and then you start critiquing it. And so that’s what I’ve been doing is critiquing some of the areas of origin of life. Because I felt that there was so much that was talked about that was overblown and hyped and just simply not true.

And people were believing many things that weren’t true. So the world is just thoroughly confused on this thing. And it’s taught wrongly. Not just in middle schools, not just in high schools, but even in the universities and surely by the media. So they’re just, they’re just flat out wrong. They will take some chemicals that they actually buy, so they’ll buy some DNA and some RNA and they’ll put it in a vesicle, which is a self assembly of a lipid bilayer, and they’ll Say that this is a protocell, this is something akin to a cell that given enough time would evolve into something that is a cell.

And I say that’s utter nonsense. It never would, it will never do that. And any synthetic chemist that looked at this would see that that would never ever happen. And so it is very much like thinking that you can just buy turkey broth and add in some, you know, sliced turkey meat and some feathers and warm it up and thinking that a turkey is going to come out. We know that that’s ridiculous. The chemist looks at these protocell experiments exactly the same way. It’s ridiculous. Life is not going to start that way. There’s much too much complexity.

It would be like taking a car and just taking the chassis of a car and we’ll give it the doors and the windows and everything and then just shoving all the parts of the car into that and thinking that that car is going to start running. It won’t. The parts have to go together in a certain way. And these things don’t just happen over time. And the parts would decompose long before anything ever got functioning. Origin of life research, you don’t start with the chemicals that you can buy from a chemical company. You have to start with very simple chemicals.

Nitrogen, methane sulfate, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen cyanide. Very few researchers will start from those. Now for those who do start from those, you get very simple things. But those simple compounds have always been shown to be racemic, meaning that you get the left handed and the right handed version of it. And that’s not what biologically oriented molecules. People will say, some people will say, well the chemicals came here from outer space. Well that just begs the question, that just defers the question to some of the where did it form before that? We’re talking about origin of first life.

And even with that, the chemicals that come from space are predominantly racemic themselves. So they’re not of what appears to us to be of any biological origin. We, when you have the two handedness of chemicals, they’re not there. So they deal generally with achiral materials, I’m sorry, racemic materials. Things that you have both left handed or right handed, that’s the things that they will make. And we haven’t improved at all since Miller Urey when they had that experiment where they put a high voltage and some of these basic chemicals around it and they got some amino acids, but those amino acids were all a, were all racemic.

And plus getting those hooked together. We’ve never figured out how to get those hooked together. And lots of the amino acids have active side chains that would have to be protected before you can put these things together. To put these things together, you got to. You got to use. Use aqueous conditions because there was no oil around. Remember, oil is believed to be a product of biology, which hasn’t started yet, so you only have methane. And people will say, well, fatty acids form spontaneously. That’s a bunch of garbage. Molecules don’t just form spontaneously like that. Show me how a fatty acid.

Show me the mechanism of a spontaneous, spontaneous formation. It’s not known. It’s not known. And that’s why, you know, people will start with the fatty acid as if that was just sitting around. So you have to start there, and then they don’t. And then they’ll buy the chemicals. So they buy the chemist and say, well, somebody made this in a prebiotically relevant way. And so I’m just buying it to ease my getting it. No, you’ve now bought it in homochiral form, number one. Number two, you’ve bought it very clean. Theirs was a little blip. They got that mixed in with 20 or 30 other products.

But they’ll say, well, somehow early Earth figured that out. Tell me, how would an early Earth figure that out? You yourself couldn’t even use that compound, it’s so impure. But you, you will just put upon an early Earth to do that. And you won’t even try to lift that with your little finger, because you can’t. And so they’ll make protocells, they’ll make a lipid bilayer, okay? You get a lipid bilayer and they’ll fill it up with stuff and they’ll say, look, chemistry can take place. You put the things in there to do some chemistry. It’s not life.

Or they’ll take a lipid bilayer and they will buy DNA. They will buy rna, they’ll buy RNA and they’ll buy the enzymes and they’ll put in there the reagents for protein synthesis. Well, protein synthesis will take place if you buy RNA and you buy amino acids in homochiral form and you put those things together. Yes, you can start getting protein synthesis. That happens in a test tube. You bought all of the reagents to do this, so now you put in a lipid bilayer. That’s not life. That’s just protein synthesis. That’s nowhere near life. That’s not making any life.

People will say, well, if you have rna, it can start duplicating itself. Well, that’s that’s, that’s a real stretch too, because they’ve taken RNAs and they only duplicate about 7 or 8% of themselves. They don’t duplicate the whole, whole thing. And whatever they duplicate, the error rate is generally quite high, well over 1%, which is high when you’re talking about what’s needed for a duplication rate. When you don’t have, and especially when you don’t have any selectors to pull those things out. There are no selectors in a prebiotic earth. And then, and then those RNAs that have been made were too short to duplicate themselves.

So all of this is a bunch of fictitious nonsense. And we’re talking about the best people in the world working with RNA that has been specifically designed to try to duplicate itself. And they’ll prime it, meaning they’ll set the thing up to try to duplicate themselves. And it can only duplicate about 10%. So this whole idea, that of this RNA world hypothesis that all you needed was a little bit of RNA and the whole thing got going, that is a bunch of nonsense. A cell is exceedingly complex. And the target that we’re going after in a cell, it’s much more complex than it used to be because we’re understanding more of the complexity of the cell.

So what happens is, if you fly over New York City in a jet at 30,000ft and you look down, you might see a few buildings and you might see a few checkerboard sort of pattern where the roads. But you have no idea of the complexity until you get down and you start walking around in that city and you see all the complexities going on, and then you get in some of the tunnels underneath the city and go down one of those manpipes and see what’s under there and all the infrastructure and what’s needed in the electrical, in the sewage, in the water systems to keep this city running.

It’s like that with a cell. The more you probe into a cell, the more you see the complexity. It is so complex. It is not just a bunch of protoplasm any more than you could take just bricks and sticks and mortar and dump them on Manhattan island and think that that will somehow assemble a cell city. It’s not going to happen that way. And that’s exactly what it is with a cell. And a cell is more complex than a city. The degree of connectedness and interconnectedness in a cell is huge. The numbers are just utterly staggering, even for the non covalent.

The non covalent, that means the non carbon carbon bonds, just the electrostatic interactions, just the forces between the molecules and the order that needed for those forces. And that’s why if you take a cell and you were to dehydrate it and even remove, removing the structural water units, you could never rehydrate it and get that cell working again. Because once you’ve taken out that water that sits in there, that hydrogen bonds, it causes all these things to be in the right arrangement, it will never reassemble. You can’t have a cell operating without its four basic classes of chemicals.

You got to have proteins, you have to have the polysaccharides or the carbohydrates. And then you’ve got to have the nucleic acids, the DNA and rna, and then you’ve got to have the lipids which make the membranes around things. And some people think, oh, well, the lipids are easy to form. Those are just. No, they’re not easy to form. We’ve never even seen, seen a cell operating with just a random assembly of racemic, meaning not homochiral lipids. We’ve never seen that before. Some people have suggested you could just take any old fatty acid and make a bilayer membrane and that would function as a cell.

No, there’s recent work that shows that those could never maintain the proton gradients. So you have to have all those four classes of chemicals. Not only do we not know how to make those four classes of chemicals using a prebiotically relevant route. By that I mean using a root that would have been available on a prebiotic Earth using the compounds and the chemicals available on prebiotic Earth using just those compounds available on prebiotic Earth. We don’t know how to make those four classes of compounds. But it’s harder than that. We don’t even know how to make the building blocks of those building blocks.

So in other words, to make a polysaccharide, you have to have, you have to have the, the monosaccharides, you have to have the monomeric sugars. We don’t know how to make monomeric sugars in homochiral form using prebiotic. What would have been available on prebiotic Earth? We don’t know how to make the, the, the nucleic acids. So, so the nucleotides that are needed for the nucleic acids, because there you have to have the sugar, you have to have the sugar moiety, and those have never been made in homochiral form. Even the lipids. For the lipids, you have to be able to have a glycerol moiety.

Which itself is not chiral, but the two hydroxymethyl groups, those are what are called enantiotopic. So as soon as you select one of them, then it becomes a chiral molecule. We don’t know how that was done with lipids. To make those in homochiral form and the amino acids, we’ve only been able to make racemic amino acids using what might have been available on prebiotic Earth. You have to have the homochiral amino acids, number one. Number two, we don’t know how to get those to hook together in water in an aqueous environment, because those are dehydration reactions.

So I know I’ve just discussed a bunch of chemistry and people are going to go to sleep. But what’s happening here is that not only do we not know how to make the building blocks for a cell, but we don’t know how to make the building blocks of the building blocks in any prebiotically relevant manner. And then on top of that, let me just throw this out. Even if I gave anyone, I don’t care who it is, anyone, the DNA, all the DNA that they wanted, all the RNA that they wanted in homochiral form, where I extracted that from a living system, and the lipids that they wanted, and gave them all the sugars that they wanted hooked together as they would like, even if I gave that to them, they wouldn’t know how to disassemble that into a living cell.

And if anybody, anybody argues with this, they say, well, why hasn’t anybody done that? Why hasn’t anybody done that? There is a Nobel Prize just for doing that. Even if you just bought all those reagents and assembled them in your modern laboratory into a working cell, you’d get a Nobel Prize. Why doesn’t anybody do it? Because we don’t know how to do it. Because the interconnectedness that goes into that package of a cell is utterly amazing. Just putting them in there is putting in there the turkey meat and the broth and just warming it up. That doesn’t do anything.

The turkey doesn’t come out of that. That’s the problem. Life is really utterly amazing and it’s not easy even to define. But in any case, I digress that organisms care about life. They want to try to stay alive. Molecules are not alive. Molecules have never been shown to move toward life. People will say, well, what about the lipid bilayer? That’s a self assembly, a thermodynamic self assembly, that is. But the lipid bilayer that you get Just by making a normal vesicle is not like the lipid bilayer that you have either in a cell or, or even more complex than a bacterium.

People will say, I speak about eukaryotic cells like human cells, and those are really complex. You ought to be speaking about a bacterium. Okay, you want to talk about a bacterium. Those have even more complex bilayers. Those have more complex cell walls. Not just a cell membrane. They usually have a peptidoglycan layer. So it’s a peptide covered with sugars. Molecules don’t move toward license. So this whole thing of chemical evolution is a misnomer. They don’t move toward life. Now a chemist, a chemist can put those together in a certain way, but that’s a biological entity like a human being working on them.

But by themselves, chemicals do not move toward life. They don’t move toward the ordering of life. They never have been known to do that. They never have done that by anything that we can see. So molecules don’t know to move toward life. They don’t have a brain, they don’t know where they’re going. They don’t move toward life. That’s like saying if you pour sand on the floor in your office, sand that given enough time, those will self assemble into a silicon computer chip, because sand is made out of silicon. And so those are going to self.

No, sand doesn’t move toward silicon chips. It just doesn’t. It sits on the beach forever. Molecules do the same thing. They just sit there. They don’t move toward life. So in 1952, I don’t think Miller and Urey claimed that they had created life, but everybody thought they saw that experiment, which is a great experiment. I mean, I don’t mean to knock the experiment, to be able to put this voltage across a bunch of chemicals and you get amino acids, which are stable structures, and you got a lot of amino, different types of amino acids out of that reaction.

But that was a great experiment and we still continue to do the same thing. We take chemicals, we make a barrage of stereo scrambled compounds. That means the racemic materials, things that are racemic, things that are mixtures, and those continue, those aren’t useful for anything. Just like Miller, Urey’s compounds weren’t used for anything. Now people will say, oh, these can self purify by crystallization. Only a few of them can self purify by crystallization. The vast majority do not. Some of the ones that do can have others crystallizing on their surface, but the yields are exceedingly low.

Much less than 1%. And the EEs, the enantiomeric excesses, the degree of homochirality in that is very, very low, being totally unuseful. And I know this very well because I’ve gone through the papers in utter detail showing this. And so what’s happening is people are still making these barrage of racemic materials. Now, if they buy their compounds, they will show a little experiment where they say that, okay, we could have done this and we could have gotten the assembly of certain compounds from this, but that never would have allowed us to do this chemistry. They showed that, for example, they make a lipid.

They make a lipid using chemistry that they say might have been available on prebiotic Earth only when you bought the building blocks to do that. And so now you got that lipid. So you get this phosphate group, this lipid, with this ethanolamine group on there. Now what, now what are you going to do with this? Because a lipid bilayer is very different. A lipid bilayer now has to have the inner and the outer membrane being different. Nobody has ever done that. So we’re still trying to make little compounds. The only way we have homochirality on these things is if we buy it.

And people will say, no, these things can happen on chiral surfaces, on rocks. Show me the. Show me the EEs, the enantiomeric excesses on those chiral surfaces. Show me the references for that. Show me how that would have happened on a prebiotic Earth. Show me the references for that. It’s very difficult. We haven’t moved. We’re nowhere closer to a cell than we were in 1952. And in fact, we’re further away for the very reasons that I talked about before, because the complexity of the cell we thought was this complex. But now in the last 70 years, we know it’s much, much more complex.

So the goalpost has moved much further away from us. See that, that’s the thing. How do they address their inadequacy to make homochiral compounds? They just said we can’t, and they bypass that. How do, how do they address the mass transfer problem? Meaning that if you’re moving down a synthesis and something is getting good and now you run out of starting material, how do you bring through more? They don’t address this. Some people will claim, oh, just more is constantly being made, constantly being made. That means all the other ones are constantly being made too. And you get some, say you get some beginnings of a codon in a DNA and then that thing decomposes.

You think you get the same arrangement that you had before, so you get the same amino acid sequence that just happens to form. Do you think you get the same amino acid sequence? Again, not when you’re. Not. When it’s 10 to the 40th or 10 to the 50th, one in 10 to the 50th chance that you’re going to get it. That’s a one with 50 zeros after it. That is essentially infinitely impossible. Once you get it to numbers like that, even if you’re talking about a 4, 4.2 billion years for the Earth, or 3.8 billion years since the Earth cooled, when you could start having chemistry take place, that would be way, way too little time for this to be able to happen.

There’s something called interactomes. That’s that non covalent interaction between, between the molecules. These numbers have been calculated not by me, but by biophysicists. Just the interactomes in a simple cell like a yeast cell. Just the protein, protein. So we’re not talking about protein carbohydrate or carbohydrate DNA, just protein protein interactions. The non covalent interactions that have to have ordering for life is 10 to the 79 billion power. That is a one with 79 billion zeros after it. That is way more than all the elemental particles in the universe. If you were to add up all the elemental particles in the universe and you say, well, by elemental particles, do you mean atoms? I could mean that.

I don’t care if you want to just say it’s not just atoms, it’s all the protons, neutrons and electrons. Because the difference between an atom and the number of protons, neutrons and electrons is only a factor of say 100 or 200. We’re talking one in. We’re talking 10 to the 79 billion. The number of elemental particles in the universe is 10 to the 90. A one with 90 zeros. This is a one with 79 billion zeros after it. This is a crazy, crazy big number. This is a crazy big number. If you have a 10 to the 23.

If you had one mole of paper, six times 10 to the 23rd sheets of paper, which is the same number of water molecules that you swallow in one swallow of water. If you had six times 10 to the 23rd sheets of paper, that stack of paper stacked up would reach from the Earth to the sun not just once, but 400 million times. Remember, the number of elemental particles in the Universe is not 6 to the 23rd power, but 6 to the 90th power. The numbers that I’m talking about for ordering of an interactome are 10 to the 79 billion power.

You see, these are crazy big numbers. And that’s why all the time in the universe, you’re presumed 14.8 billion years or 13.8, 14 billion years. That’s way, way too little for this thing to have happened. Yeah, I think it’s taught as facts because most people don’t know the difference between a fact and a theory. Most people don’t know the difference. And so these things are talked about as facts. They hear some scientists talking about this and they think, wow, he or she really knows what they’re talking about. But they don’t. They just don’t. There’s so much that they don’t know in this area.

And I think most school teachers, I’m not coming against them, they just don’t know. This is even taught as fact with, with professors. And it’s not just origin of life. It moves right on into things of evolution of a complex system. I’m not talking about simple little things that you can do in a lab all the time. I’m talking about evolution of complex changes. These are spoken about as fact all the time. I will hear biology professors say it is a fact. And I’m saying, well, what exactly is a fact that evolution occurs? When you talk about small changes in a test tube or in a bacterium? Yeah, for sure.

But have you ever seen evolution of a complex system where one system becomes another? People say, oh, that’s ridiculous. Why is that ridiculous? You have to have that over and over again. If you’re going to have evolution from single cells moving on upward to complex organisms, you’re going, you have to have that all the time. Have you ever shown a mechanism by which that happens? And they get very angry with me, but I’m just asking them for the data. I’m just asking them for the data. Something very simple they ought to just provide, but they can’t provide it because it’s not there.

All I’m saying is that right now, on a lot of these matters, we are utterly clueless, Utterly clueless. We just don’t have the answers. And what I say too, is that, is that, you know, because I’m a believer in Jesus Christ and I strongly believe in him now, when I speak about the science, when I speak about science, I don’t have to bring Jesus or the Bible into this at all. I’m just letting everything I’ve said to you, this point is just letting Science, critique the science. But if I’m allowed to put on my other hat for an instant instance and say there is nothing in the Bible that has been contradicted by a scientific fact.

Nothing, nothing in the Bible has been contradicted by a scientific fact. There are lots of theories out there and theories change all the time. Theories and science change all the time. And they change in recent history as well. So if you were a Scientist Prior to 1959, there’s a good chance that you believed in the steady state hypothesis that the universe has always been here. But then in the early 60s, due to cosmic microwave background radiation being recorded, we found out that the Big Bang, which had been, which had been really pushed, really talked about in the early, early 20th century, really was, wasn’t until the 1960s that it was embraced where the universe had a definite beginning.

So we know from the Bible the universe has not always existed. It had a definite beginning. That was then. Then science morphed into what the Bible in fact teaches. The Bible stands. The scientific theories are changing all the time. You know that. That’s why having faith doesn’t bother me. And I believe every word in true. Does that mean I take every word literally? No, some things. Jesus even reproved his disciples for taking some things literally. They were on the boat and he said, he started talking about the leaven of the Pharisees and they started arguing with one another who forgot the bread.

And Jesus said, look, I’m not talking about bread, I’m talking about leaven of the Pharisees. So they took him literally and, and, and he reproved them for it. There are things that in the Bible we are told to take literally, that are clear to take literally, like the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. I mean, that is a literal, physical resurrection. There are other things that we have to understand because very often you can speak through analogy, you can speak through images quite vividly. And that’s what the Bible often does. And trying to discern some of those, sometimes it’s not easy.

But I believe that every word in the Bible is true. So I love the word of God. I love it and it is true. And I love Jesus Christ more than anything in the world. Anything. I love him and he’s coming again and he lives in my heart and Jesus lives forever and ever. There is nothing in science that contradicts anything in the Bible. That’s why it has never shaken my faith. I am glad to help those who are getting shaken in their faith because of the sciences. I’m glad to talk with them and make that clear.

And I for those. And if I could put this out there, if there is anyone, if there’s anyone who is not a believer in Jesus Christ, not a believer in his resurrection, I do not mind having a one on one zoom call with you. You send me an email to Tourice Edu. I will meet with you really quickly. Usually that same day, if possible. If not, certainly within that same couple of days. I will meet with you and let me share my faith with you. What was it that drew me to Jesus Christ? What was it that turned me to him? To believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I will do that anytime. I’d love to do that. And I know you got a lot of listeners out there and I just want to get that word out there. I will love to do that. And if you want to see more of what I have, you know, you go to my Dr. James tour, which is a new YouTube channel that I have Dr. James tour on YouTube. There’s, there’s a link to my YouTube channel right down in the description box. So you could go there and you can see some videos that I put out. But again, I just want to talk about my faith and my science.

And they don’t conflict with one another. They really don’t conflict. We have the Bible. It is true so much in science that our facts are true. But it’s when we get into the theories, we have to take them as theories. Okay? That’s a, that’s a theory, that’s a working hypothesis. And if the points don’t measure up with it, it has to be working, then we can start to get rid of that. Now you want to refine your hypothesis further. Okay. But don’t just hold on to something and then teach it as fact when it’s not fact and get a bunch of people believing that we can come out of a primordial soup when we have no evidence for that, no evidence whatsoever.

So just tell them we’re clueless on the origin of life, scientifically. Origin of life, clueless. We don’t know those who are believers in Jesus Christ. I don’t want you to be shaken in your faith by proclamations in the sciences. Don’t be shaken. Don’t be shaken at all. On origin of life, on evolution. Many people drift away from the faith when they start studying this in college because you get some pontificating professor up there who’s smug and acts as if they know everything and they don’t. They literally don’t. If they know so much why don’t they come and talk to me about this? Why don’t they come and contest with me? Because they can’t.

Because I have the data. Don’t let it shake your faith. You know, in the Old Testament, God said, you know, false prophets are going to come to you. He says, don’t trust them. I do this to test you to see if you really love me. Don’t drift away from him. Don’t drift away from him. Based on this, if you’re an unbeliever, if you don’t know Jesus, I welcome you. I mean, the message of the gospel is, come, come to me, all ye who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Come and learn from me, for I’m gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

Come to Jesus. This is the message of the gospel. I will share with you. If you do not know Jesus, this is not an invitation to all the believers in Jesus who are out there. If you don’t know Jesus and you’re disrupted and you think that you could never believe in him because of these things, and the sciences are in. Let me just share my faith with you. What is it that drew me to faith in Jesus Christ? Give me. Give me 45 minutes with you on a zoom call, and you just send me an email to tour at Rice and I will do it.

And you say you really take your time to do that. I really take my time because it means more to me than anything else in the world. As Paul said, I will gladly spend and be expended for your souls. I will gladly spend and be expended for your souls. I will gladly give my time to see people come to Jesus. Because in my world, that’s the only thing that’s going to last. That’s the only thing that will outlast me and last for eternity, is bringing people with me into the kingdom of God. I’ll gladly do that.

And so the takeaway message, as you said, as you asked me, is that I don’t want you to be disrupted in your faith. And I don’t want you. I don’t want it to keep you from faith in Jesus Christ, who’s risen from the dead, the Son of God who rose from the dead. Jesus is the best. He is the kindest. He is so good to us, so kind in every way. If there’s anything good, anything righteous, anything holy, it is all embodied in the goodness of Jesus Christ. Come to him this day. Oh, come to him, I pray.

Sam.
[tr:tra].