Dave Farina vs. James Tour Debate (Are We Clueless About the Origin of Life?)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 พ.ค. 2023
- After two years of thoroughly exposing James on his lies regarding origin of life research, I finally got the chance to confront him live about the subject. As everyone could have predicted, James had no interest in a good faith discussion about this topic, opting instead for shouting maniacally for the entire exchange, with some intermittent pageantry on the chalkboard. Apart from all of his past lies that I confronted him on, triggering a gold-medal winning gish gallop that did not relent until the final Q&A, below are linked some papers that prove he was lying during the debate when denying aspects of the research I was presenting. All in all it was an utterly embarrassing debacle that to James would serve only one purpose, to perpetuate the illusion that he has any clue what he's talking about and keep his science illiterate brainwashed flock on his side. Enjoy watching James squirm and crap his pants for two hours!
James thinks no one has demonstrated RNA formation on montmorillonite clay. He's a lying idiot:
www.nature.com/articles/381059a0
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12458...
www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/4/3/318
www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/8/3857
www.sciencedirect.com/science...
James thinks no one has ever produced a fully self-replicating ribozyme. He's a lying idiot:
www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073...
www.cell.com/action/showPdf?p...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
www.nature.com/articles/s4146...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Watch all of my content humiliating James: bit.ly/ProfDaveTour
Watch my other debunks/debates/discussions: bit.ly/ProfDaveDebunk
EMAIL► ProfessorDaveExplains@gmail.com
PATREON► / professordaveexplains
Check out "Is This Wi-Fi Organic?", my book on disarming pseudoscience!
Amazon: amzn.to/2HtNpVH
Bookshop: bit.ly/39cKADM
Barnes and Noble: bit.ly/3pUjmrn
Book Depository: bit.ly/3aOVDlT
I love how life has evolved so much that living organisms can argue over whether or not evolution exists
@@SavioursWon still true
Damn I never thought if it like that, whack ain´t it?
we are the universe contemplating itself
I was called to share the Gospel with Muslims in Paris. The Muslims who accepted to pray with me, all saw the Christ, had visions...Who can come after the Christ, but the Antichrist? It’s Islam+ Communism. The apostate West will soon burn like Sodom and Gomorrah ( nuclear bombings? ). You are just a fool.
Well, Dave and Torr are not of common ancestry, Torr stems from the clade of Analcephalia
This is exactly how I imagined an online discussion would be performed offline.
No it is NOT like an online discussion. Show me you proof. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY! You're CLUELESS!
and i thought *political* debates were blood sports...
I really loved the guy presenting all the evidence of his claims AND counterclaims, the same as I love when helpful people do it online. Thanks Dave Farina! Very helpful.
The yelling was definitely familiar
😂
"MISTER FARINA! YOU DIDN'T MAKE THIS RNA *WHILE YOU WERE DOING A BACKFLIP*. IT'S OVER, YOU'RE CLUELESS"
For some reason, I read this as “Mr Barelli”
Dave is the embodiment of “your boos mean nothing to me I’ve seen what makes you cheer” in this debate.
Can we all just acknowledge how terrible the debate moderator was at moderating this debate?
Yes it was
I am going to say part of the problem with debates is that if you don't find common ground and a set of common facts then the debate is meaningless to be honest.
I think there was only two real concessions made the first was that Tour accepted the peptides development in water was a thing & the other is that we can be never sure how life developed but we have a number of paths ways which are plausible.
The point is that we are not clueless nor do we have all the answers and it is the grey area that needs to be explored objectively but this debate did not do that as they were still arguing over the basic facts
The moderator, despite claiming he would only chime in if something said was "chemically" incorrect, chose to comment on aspects pertaining to biology. Crucially, on the meaning of "functional RNA", the moderator not only claimed that the term necessarily must have a ROLE (not just a function) like that of MODERN cells (e.g. mRNA, tRNA, rRNA), but he also was fundamentally NOT correct when he claimed this because simple base-pairing (an intrinsic function of nucleotides) is also a compeletely legitimate FUNCTION of RNAs and serves fundamental functions in cells even today. Therefore, in his ignorance about basic biology, the moderator also mislead the audience in a way that biased them against one of the debate participants.
@@davidwilliams3397
I agree. One of Tour's main strategies throughout was to avoid conceding even simple and undisputed aspects of the literature because, as we all know, 99% of people watching the debate, regardless of where you stand on the topic, will not look at nor understand the evidence in the literature. As such, rhetorical strategies will nearly always win over more of the public, since it often ends up being that they will side with whoever can most convincingly suggest they are an expert.
Simply put, science is debated in the literature by professionals who understand the methods and applications of the field, not in the public where those things don't matter.
101 of whst moderator should do:
1. Don't let one guy scream for the entire debate over the other person.
2. Don't let the audience keep interrupting the debate
3. Be non-biased and ask questions to BOTH participants when something needs to be clarified.
This debate becoming a dumpster fire is 100% on the moderator. This guy should never be in charge of a debate again.
This is the most emotional chemistry lesson I’ve ever had
"Draw the wrong molecule, prove supernatural magic exists!" LOL Tour is a 🤡clown of desperate lies created by his bibliolatry and false religion.
And it’s glorious
@@johnnkurunziza5012 Yeah, James was avoiding all the chemistry.
@johnnkurunziza5012 You appear to have missed the part where members of the audience enthusiastically admitted they used Dave’s videos to Tours’ classes. Also, Tours expertise is in SYNTHETIC chemistry. And if you think specialization doesn’t matter, you’ll have no problem going to your gastroenterologist for heart surgery…
@@johnnkurunziza5012 as Dave explained, origin of life research involves multiple fields, not just chemistry. And Dave had research papers ready for every single prompt James brought up. There are so many peer-reviewed scientific studies about fully self-replicating and functioning RNA, something James adamantly refuses to concede even though the data is there at his fingertips. I’m sure he’s a smart chemist in many ways but he is blinded by his faith and “feels” that the origin of life could not have been the direct result of abiogenesis because he believes Yahweh to be the true origin of life
Learning that a large cohort of the audience was literally Tours church group makes this even more of an embarrassment for him and should be highlighted. Dave you’re the man.
Happy to see there were students that didn't automatically believe the guy with the loudest voice
they didn't believe him yelling as that's all he did.
The loudest is always right lol
no actually, I clipped something (you can see the latest video I posted) and you might change your mind. James do have a point
1:20:0 can help you to see how Dave was coping a bit
Yeah but the one who insults the most 🐷
"I'm treating him the same way i would treat any student"
*Yells aggressively*
Guess I'm glad I didn't go to Rice.
Imagine your teacher just yelling and screaming because your research didn't align with his ideas on reality.
Fr
That’s just how he talks, on any stage or lecture🤨
doesn't make it any better though does it?@@flugencealtemon3288
If my kid had to learn in a situation like that I would be kicking myself for not researching potential unis very well
I love how a random Electric Universe believer suddenly wanted in on the action and that BOTH Dave and James were like, "What the hell is this guy even saying?".
I haven't got to that part yet. So excited. It's funny though that Mr creationist is all "nah you crazy" to electric universe.
Probably came to troll, science EU nonsense got destroyed by dave
timestamp?
The guy was desperate to have a champion for the EU, coz none of their so called scientist that push it would want to confront Prof. Dave, Thornhill was exposed by Dave and probably going to hide from him forever
@@pacevy3798 I'm going to teach you a trick to do that. Find the "show the transcript" option (on the browser version it is within the three dots) and then look for the word "electric".
As a Christian man who grew up thinking science was created to destroy the faith in God, I'm glad I found your channel. Your videos helped me have a better understanding of how science explains our world and universe.
that sounds like a nightmare. unfortunately, it is not much better in a traditional Hindu house either. almost as though religion and science can never truly co-exist because one is systematically debunking all the claims made by the other as it is being researched. if only bible-thumpers and such would concede that their scripture has no place in science.
If looking at reality and thinking can destroy such faith, i think God must be in on the conspiracy
@@shreyvaradi have seen no thing that convinces me that hindu tradition is against science? 😂 lmao , the current feet that science is on today is due to the fact that theists with a belief in a higher power or intellect is the first mover of all , is the first causer of all , cause if you logically conclude every effect has a cause hence there must be the first cause and that first cause must itself be caused , Making it Brahman or The uncaused Causer 😂 . You are a bull shitter if you say that In the hindu tradition science cant coexist . I cant bet a 20$ that you haven’t even read a single book yourself 😂 you have most likely watched some bullshitters video from youtube 😂 . You really didnt crosschecked 😂 . Second , Science and religion can never coexist? 😭🤣 it has always exited like that 😭🤣 the literal basis of why science was started is cause people had an urge to understand the universe and this creation of god . The literal Hindus made many maths discoveries like Decimal , 0 and stuff being loyal to their dharma 😂 the problem arose from todays egoistic atheists and ignorants . We have always been religious and Scientific 😂
@@shreyvarad i have seen no thing that convinces me that hindu tradition is against science? 😂 lmao , the current feet that science is on today is due to the fact that theists with a belief in a higher power or intellect is the first mover of all , is the first causer of all , cause if you logically conclude every effect has a cause hence there must be the first cause and that first cause must itself be caused , Making it Brahman or The uncaused Causer 😂 . You are a bull shitter if you say that In the hindu tradition science cant coexist . I cant bet a 20$ that you haven’t even read a single book yourself 😂 you have most likely watched some bullshitters video from youtube 😂 . You really didnt crosschecked 😂 . Second , Science and religion can never coexist? 😭🤣 it has always exited like that 😭🤣 the literal basis of why science was started is cause people had an urge to understand the universe and this creation of god . The literal Hindus made many maths discoveries like Decimal , 0 and stuff being loyal to their dharma 😂 the problem arose from todays egoistic atheists and ignorants . We have always been religious and Scientific 😂
It’s extremely embarrassing for Rice university that this man is a member of their faculty. Makes me question the rigors of all their education.
Facts
It blows me away that high ranking staff of universities and college usually have one odd belief that is straight up false or not scientifically viable. I’ve seen some professors that are flat earthers. You shouldn’t be teaching anyone anything if you believe that and some other theories.
Once helped man get to the moon, now provides riches to a man like James tour
He might be a very good chemist or other. If peoples personal beliefs would invalidate them to contribute to society with any ability great or small, we would be in severe trouble.
@@kodez79 the problem is that his personal beliefs are making him look like a really bad scientist
James Tour debate tactics:
(1) Draw some chemistry mechanism on the blackboard that nobody asked for and doesn't explain anything
(2) Point the chalk at Dave and scream at him to do something with it, whatever that is
(3) When Dave shows recent scientific literature disproving you, just scream that he didn't do something with your blackboard diagram
(4) Write "clueless" beside each of your pre-written topics like you were going to do anyway, no matter what Dave said
(5) Did I forget screaming? Make sure to tack on the screaming.
You're welcome!
This is immaculate.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Thanks Dave, really enjoyed the debate! Also gotta love the Aron Ra cameo
@@keithman3277 Don't forget Grayson (Channel: Based Theory) as well. He has his debate review up on the net by now.
@@freddan6fly I think Grayson was on with Mark Reid, dapper dino, and beamsy (I forget if it was beamsy or someone else) on Mark's channel for a debate review, if you didn't see it
@@Chemasaurus T.Y. Yes I saw that one. On Grayson's channel he explains his question, and why the answer and assumption by James Tour was irrelevant. He also did that on Mark's channel but then I did not grasp it because he was too brief (for my high school chemistry (lack of) knowledge).
"I define clueless as.... Hold on, I need to log back in." Literal lol moment.
At first, I low-key thought he was doing a bit, as if to explain cluelessness performatively or something, but then it just...didn't go anywhere.
I’d call that a boomer moment but also goes on to say “my opponents favorite scholar was quoted saying, “origin of life science is a scam”.
OMG. At the start I was expecting a polite civil debate and then Dave just rips right into him. Love it. Great job.
He knew his opponent would act similarly so he cut the small talk
That was I'm expecting too, but I realized that this is James' home so the custom to treat guests well is on James.
Speaks more of his character on top of his knowledge, glad Dave took the risk.
Everything he said to James is absolutely deserving and appropriate response.
Especially when its proven that James don't understand what references are before demonstrating what people should treat him to be.
I totally support Dave's approach, and I encourage more of it. Because the ones trying to educate people on how things really work, the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, how to formulate and also how to detect a sound argument, and so on, have been too polite for too long. Meanwhile the opposition, the science deniers, the grifters, proponents of pseudoscientific pseudointellectual BS have been celebrating their own stupidity while mocking and downright disrespecting those who have dedicated their lives to genuine work, those who've actually contributed something useful, something of value to society, be it in the form of new discoveries in medicine, or in technology etc.
“MR. FARINA!!!” Has now become iconic. Loved this debate.
that shout lives in my mind rent free
timestamp?
@@orange33340 57:44
“I said I’d speak to you as I would any graduate student!!”
I feel really bad for his graduate students…
Screaming, hopping mad, insulting, I prof - you barely know some terminology, I’m gonna learn you, …
There only were no fisticuffs because there were cameras rolling.
If he had had integrity, he’d treat Dave like a fellow academic/scholar/on the same level, not “how cute, little man” downwards.
I wonder what % of his students are called clueless in his class?
@@Fairburne69 I'm assuming anyone who makes it to graduate level actually knows the fundamental underlying concepts and isn't totally clueless like Tour is.
@@Fairburne69 Most of them...
I believe he meant it as
If you said this to me, I'd treat you like that.
This is an abominably moderated debate. Tour shouted over Dave through the entire debate without listening at all, because it’s on his home turf, with a supportive audience.
Guess who picked the moderator?
Creationists will never debate on neutral ground as they know they will be exposed for the frauds they are.
Some people were criticizing Dave for being "rude to the audience" as if they weren't heckling him the whole time. It's insane how many angles the creationists have that aren't addressing the actual research.
@@michaelclark7706 This debate is only the tip of the iceberg. Dave has at least half a dozen other videos where he exposes Tour. To be honest, I'd say you're a bit out of the loop if you're only watching this one debate.
@@michaelclark7706 I know what you mean and I must say that I was surprised at Dave’s lack of response to the problem James Tour poses. Honestly, I don’t understand enough about the science to know who is right either. But I suspect James Tour is trapping Dave in an area where he is superior in academic knowledge in a debate setting of his choosing and with a moderator who appears anything except impartial.
Dave’s response is a reasonable one. There is a stack of peer reviewed academic papers in every area James Tour talks about and says there is none. I’m suspicious about the claim by James Tour that this question must be answered to assert the validity of the spontaneous emergence of life. Partly because of his religious beliefs but also because of the many researchers still out there writing paper after paper on the subject. But I accept I’m still yet to see definitive proof one way or the other.
I cannot express how much I respect you as a person, as a debater, and as a teacher. Thank you.
This debate was a disgrace. Tour deflected and dismissed every question, answer, and had an audience of clueless students to cheer him on because he shouted louder. I am incredibly impressed that Dave managed to remain civilised when faced with this raving lunatic spouting nonsense for two hours
Those weren’t students they were his idiot church pals he bussed in to stack the audience. All the students were cheering for me.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Thanks for clarifying. Doesn't surprise me at all tbh.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Is that why every time he refuted you, you jumped to the next slide and said "what about this, what about this" lol
@@nokhchi1079 aww! Refuted me when, dipshit? Be specific.
@@nokhchi1079look a creationist 🫵🏼😂
them standing in front of "NOT CLUELESS" and "clueless" is like a renaissance painting
Pottery indeed
lol it is poetic
i honestly admire James's ability to shout for 2 hours straight, my voice would be really strained
It’s the practise he has. As we all heard he clearly also screams idiocy at his students. He has strong vocal cords from constant use……
Your average death metal vocalist is much more impressive imo.
@@PaulTheSkeptic s'truth but totally different ballpark. Death metal or Death!!!!
@@wayfa13 I suppose. It's still more impressive to me. Or anyone doing vocals for long periods of time for that matter. It's a hard job. People think being a rock star is all parties, drugs and groupies but it's genuinely a difficult job. Not just touring but being creative under a deadline. Writing. Recording. Practicing. Not that I'm a rock star but I plan to start gigging very soon.
Sorry. I do that. You start me up you can hardly stop me. Lol.
Imagine a tag team with Forrest Valkai! Oo oo ooo and a live debate with Kent Hovind!
I love that there's already an immediate disparity in the amount of effort allotted to creating the slideshow title cards for the debate.
The students with no idea what James is talking about cheering because he's louder 🤦🏾♀️
They're not students, they're his idiot church pals he bussed in to stack the audience.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains It appears that this debate still haunts you. Soften your heart and be kind to others. The debate was about the chemistry, not your ego. And what's wrong with church. You don't believe in God regardless of His blessings in your life? You sought Him out and did not find Him? Reach out to Dr. Tour if you don't know where to start, he studies the literature.
@@fave1201 No, I think back on humiliating James right to his dumb lying face very fondly. Seems like you're too much of a little bitch to accept reality though, huh? Your god isn't real and your heroes are lying frauds. Cry about it, dipshit.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains God, it's so refreshing to see someone who actually smacks the shit out of these Church people. They get FAR too much respect and deference as they spew their idiotic fantasy crap.
@@ProfessorDaveExplainsdave gives zero fucks 😂😂😂😂
At the end of the day, Dave wrote “not clueless” bigger and that means he won the debate
James hadn't thought of that one, costed him the entire argument
But but but, the smart molecule man said smart molecule things. So smart molecule man must be right…..
@@AB-80X Nope, _NOT CLUELESS_ see, now I've just won this debate with you.
@@TheByron130
But smart magic molecule man said…..😳
@@AB-80X You sound like an imbecile. Grow up.
This is actually very emotional for me to watch. My dad was a young earth creationist pastor who used intimidation and manipulation to force us to agree with him on everything. Watching James yell when his reputation gets challenged snaps me back to the emotional landscape of my childhood. Thank you for doing away with the formalities and niceties that these men don't deserve. It's very grounding to see what happens when reality is forced into these people's worlds.
I have similar experiences too
My community growing up was about as bad
It was refreshing to see someone speak truth to “power” (what little power Tour has) and strip away the usual niceties of formal debate as you said while still remaining civil and not just spitting ad hominem statements but backing up each and every claim with hard proof.
I’m also sorry you had to go through that, it’s a shame. But you certainly, and I mean certainly my friend, are not alone.
I’m sorry to hear that your father was abusive regarding his beliefs. Clearly he was triggered when questioned or challenged. It is a sign of weakness when you can’t calmly and clearly state your beliefs and accept challenges. It may be a moral weakness or a weakness of the beliefs themselves (I.e., beliefs that can’t be held up to scrutiny). Hearing Tour yell and interrupt and badger and repeat himself, dominate the conversation, never stop to really listen…..it’s all too much. I don’t follow the chemistry, but just by watching his actions, he has lost. He wants to take his beliefs and beat them into your brain. No thank you. I hope you recovered from you father’s actions.
This is very common. I don't know if it's more or less comforting to know that you're definitely not the only one.
why didn't the moderator intervene when james was talking over him and yelling.
He was hand picked by James and in his pocket.
What bothered me was James saying it’s his time to talk during the dialogue part
@@ProfessorDaveExplains clearly a biased judge. You still destroyed him none the less.
@@TheXermish james knows dave would have destroyed him if he wasn't yelling over him.
@@ProfessorDaveExplainsI've learnt alot from you Dave,Tour and his cronies are so gullible and fuckin indoctrinated,love it Dave from Ireland 🇮🇪
I can barely understand any of these concepts but I see how he keeps twisting different aspects in ways that sound like they matter but don't, but people like me don't know. good on you for point him out on it.
James: *logs into his computer successfully
Audience: *Claps
Cry more 😭
@benji89917 what are you on about, they just wrote down exactly what happened. There isn't a single amount of emotion in their comment
@@brentontreloar419 he wrote that with sinister intent *implying that the majority of the audience were biased in favor of Dr Tour and were in a sense, rooting for him
@@benji89917 "sinister intent"? thats not exactly how id describe it.
honestly they were blindly on his side lmao
As someone with almost no Chemistry knowledge this was still hella entertaining 🍿
I’m curious what you walked away with from this debate. Care to share?
@@moonandstars1677 I have no chemistry knowledge and I can still tell that James is doing his absolute best to scream over Dave's points, shift goalposts, and ignore evidence he's presented with
@@moonandstars1677 I do, my major is in biochem, but I’m only an undergrad. He basically is going against everything what I learned in college. Im actually a theist as in I do believe in a god, but I think there is merit in doing origin of life research, and as a scientist in training I believe in the principle of “non overlapping magisteria” meaning that religion and science are separate domains. Basically I disagree with Dr. Tours.
I have no knowledge of chemistry (yay, Xtian homeschooling), I'm trying to teach myself the basics, and I have a feeling I'm in for a headache...got a soda and snack also 🍿
As a biochemist, I don't understand most of Tours points.
He wrote the word "clueless" on the chalk board as a rebuttal to what Dave said. And the audience clapped. We're in for rough times ahead.
Way I see it, they were laughing at Tour for being demonstrably childish and a poor debater.
And yeah, he had his church cohort to cheer up for him, but that's about it. He basically ridiculed himself all the way through.
“You cannot address the research because you don’t want it to be true, and we all know why.” Shit gave me chills man.
yeeesssss
@@Kasey14311 I love this guy.
They call him “Tour” cuz his goalpost has traveled the world 😂
haha that's a pretty good one
Better yet, the goalpost moved so fast that it no longer exists in our universe! Except James's.
whoever thinks this debate is about chemistry is CLUELESS. this debate is clearly about MACBOOK VS THINKPAD
Exactly.
I like blackboard more
@@user-do2rq3oh4u 🗿
Macbook vs finger in mud
@@midgebowers2 thinkpad vs toaster
I love that Professor Dave never pretended to know everything or told lies, just showed the flaws in James Tour "arguments" (sometimes in a not very friendly way) and handed the papers where he got the information, To be honest his videos make me feel like studying more and never saying anything publicly unless I have reference.
I love how James made fun of you for writing a script but like, why wouldn’t you write a script? You made sure that you could convey your points in the amount of time you were allowed. It’s professional. Doing this is your profession. The fact he’d even say this shows just how much he feels like he’s lost.
Fr. Who is he to criticize someone else's debate strategy when in his opening statement he said "I've never been in a debate"
James is grasping for any straws to avoid talking science and discredit Dave. But that alone doesn't explain the rage. James had pretended he responded to Dave's points on youtube, but when Dave brings them up live, James has no response, revealing yet again that James lied, this time about correcting Dave. I think that's why he was furious Dave read ""directly"" from his videos.
This debate is what is commonly referred to as a "dumpster fire"
yeah, not a great look for either interlocutor. allowing James to whine and yell while remaining precise would have been a better approach for Dave
@@jay_344 maybe, but I think it would've allowed tour's strategy of removing as much talking time from dave as possible
Dave has admitted before that he can't stand people lying and misrepresenting thousands of other people's work. It makes him angry.
Agree, neither participant really took the high road
I couldn't parse much out that related directly to the topic they were debating, both of them focusing on what the other has previously said online, they both failed to make a fresh case on the topic that I could connect with, without watching hours of TH-cam videos to find out who's previous claims were false.
Dave: Shows indisputable peer-reviewed research
James: "YOU'RE LOST!"
@@michaelkwiatkowski8596 Why yes. That's why James isn't even trying to submit his evidence to have the papers removed. Even James knows there's nothing wrong with the peer reviewed papers anymore than there is with his peer reviewed papers.
It feels disgusting to ask, but what exactly is the mix of Tours income? How much of his money is from his university job and how much as side income trough aig etc?
@@ChJuHu93 aig? tell me more.
@@bashful228 "Answers in Genesis" one of the more prominent propaganda organisations of young earth creationism. Used here as an example of those organisations in general.
The way how in James' opening speech, just as he's saying repeatedly "show me the data" and Dave is just standing there with that smile that says "Oh I have the data right here, it's about to end your whole career..."
Hilarious how that was half his opening statement (with the other half just being a empty spiel in an appeal to pathos from his students), and then when shown the mountains of relevant data he keepts just screaming that its not valid unless dave uses all of his time to write it down with chalk💀💀
The fact that he wasn’t taking any notes and just calmly watching James do his intro told me that I was about to witness an absolutely brutal murder
"He claims i dont know chemistry when his own students use my organic chemistry videos to pass his classes" followed by roaring applause, was the hardest thing ive ever seen
“I have a theory. People talk loud when they want to sound smart, right?”
~ Squidward J. Q. Tentacles~
Patrick: Proceed.
Didn't work for Tour.
And Dave was that Calm, isn't it!
Dang Dave really just committed verbal murder in his opening statement and not let up. Woke up, chose violence, and absolutely destroyed.
He didn’t come to debate. That ultimately was his undoing.
@@billbissenas2973 "He didn’t come to debate."
Do you believe that James Tour did?
His lack of answer to one of the questions at the end, but, instead, launching into his usual spiel (when an answer wouldn't have compromised his position) shows clearly what kind of dishonest propagandist he is.
One _cannot_ properly debate with a creationist because they're all too dishonest.
pineapplepenumbra Dave didn't answer any of James tours questions, nor did he stand up to the challenge when James asked Dave to draw the molecules. All Dave did was cite his biased aourced, which James tour demolished all of them. James answers all the questions presented, but Dave dodges and throws insults. Maybe watch the debate and not listen to your own biases.
@@sakatagintoki4164 "Dave didn't answer any of James tours questions,
He had _already_ answered most of them, but like the typical creationist, JT just repeats the same questions over and over, regardless of the responses.
"nor did he stand up to the challenge when James asked Dave to draw the molecules"
Why should he? JT's drawings don't prove anything.
"All Dave did was cite his biased aourced,"
So peer reviewed scientific research papers are _all_ "biased sources" are they?
"which James tour demolished all of them."
You appear to be delusional.
"Maybe watch the debate and not listen to your own biases"
You've got a serious case of Psychological Projection going on there.
@@sakatagintoki4164 he presented research from experts in the field and James (not an expert in the field) ignores all the evidence.
I feel that Tour is doing the same thing in organic chemistry that the apologetics have done for ages in evolutionary biology. We had all these fossil showing evolution - but because 3 steps were missing - It MUST be GOD DID IT! Then we discover two of the "missing links" - but one is still missing - It MUST be GOD DID IT!
Tour is picking on specific polymerizations and chemical reactions that exist today as a result of chemical reactions in modern cells. Despite a whole bunch of other very similar chemical reactions being replicated in the lab, he is cherry picking ones that have not yet been replicated and saying It MUST be GOD DID IT!
I do not know enough microbiology/organic chemistry to say whether these reactions are vital to producing life, or if they could form by some unknown purely chemical process, or whether a self replicating molecule could form without these reactions and then grow in complexity such that it starts synthesizing these molecules.
But, like the Apologists insisting on fossils for every generation from the first trilobites to Homo Sapiens before they will concede evolution, I suspect Dr Tour and his followers will refuse to accept that life can form by itself until we manage to replicate 5 million years of time on the entire planet into a few days in a lab, and go from base elements and manage to form a modern cell.
"I am not trying to reach origin of life researchers. I am trying to reach the masses."
James Tour on why he doesn't publish his "research" in actual peer reviewed journals instead of on the discovery institute.
This is all you need as a takeaway here.
Truly. Getting critiques peer reviewed in legit journals is LITERALLY HOW YOU LEGITIMIZE YOURSELF TO THE MASSES.
@@Spokalimannah talking loud and appealing to people's emotions is how you do it, unfortunately.
Mr Tour, your hissy-fit debating skills are not likely to appeal to anyone who doesn't already agree with your particular POV...what do you suppose you're accomplishing here?
Thanks, I couldn't watch it anymore.
@@kurtyoung5788 So, do you believe life started in dirty water?
That took guts. Thank you for doing this, Dave. A few years ago I was watching your science/math tutorials. Last week I finished my student teaching, and I will be a licensed high school physics/chemistry teacher very shortly. You helped me make that happen. Don't stop.
Www😢zg
I would never want to teach high school kids. I hope you're thoroughly prepared for what's to come. High schoolers are the absolute worst.
Teach AP. You won’t work with complete morons who couldn’t care less about the subject matter. Regardless, I wish you well, sir.
@@maxgeorge1463 or just letting him teach whatever subjects he likes to teach! i would certainly appreciate a good teacher who is passionate about their lectures. their passion about the topics they talk about is contagious! 😄
Good luck with your teaching job!
This debate had the worst moderator😂😂 man this guy was only making noise😂😂
I thought the moderator left 😆. This 'debate' was a clusterfruck
@@Spaceoctopus1776 I know right😂😂 give it up for Dave man, he had the patience of a saint. 😂😂
James Tour hand picked him to be the moderator as stated at the start, of course the moderator didnt stop Tour from screaming his head off every time Dave tried to speak😭
I didn't understand any of the chemistry stuff but it was a good listen and makes me want to learn more.
That was a rollercoaster of madness. Can’t believe I watched 2 hours of chemistry debate and stayed locked in.
Nye-Ham debate on Crack
Who won?
@@l.lawliet2222 the audience… maybe
If it wasn’t for mr Kovers 12th grade chem I’d be totally lost.
Thanks kover
I was on several rollercoasters two days ago
17:59 Dave’s opening statement. Holy shit. That opening statement was savage.
27:20 James’ first question, in which he draws an amino acid coupling reaction on the board and asks Dave to draw the prebiotic reaction that would do it.
21:19 James’ first outburst and yelling. He demands Dave draw it on the board. Dave shows the exact mechanism on the paper, then James says he wants the side chain reactions. Dave shows another paper, James begins screaming that it’s not prebiotic. James continues to shift goal posts when Dave shows him multiple papers. Dave shows him exactly the paper that does exactly what he’s asking, James pretends it’s a different paper and refuses to acknowledge he’s wrong.
34:08 the moderator essentially makes an excuse for Tour not knowing the NMR spectrum, then just doesn’t respond when Dave corrects him.
34:55 Dave confronts James on his more common lies, including the primordial soup mischaracterization, the lie about how big the field is, and James’ lie about Bruce.
James immediately dodges the question and then tried to go back to the first prompt and starts screaming about how the primordial soup model is stupid. He then tries to run out the clock by screaming about everything and not answering the questions.
40:08 Dave says an apology is in order for the lies he told about Bruce. He gets some applause but unsurprisingly some of the audience literally says he’s not lying as there is proof of his lies directly in front of their faces.
40:45 James admits he called Jack and liar but then says Jack told him that if he joined OoL research, then the whole issue of abiogenesis would be solved.
42:10 James’ second question: he draws an entire nucleotide on the board and then yells for Dave to show how CHEMISTRY about how dimers of RNA can couple prebiotically.
Dave tries to answer the question, and James attempts to Gish gallop over the Dave’s entire time allotted for answering. He then yells “it’s over!” repeatedly.
Dave presents the research repeatedly, and James tried to ignore it, but when pressed, he addresses it by shifting the goalposts.
James accuses Dave of using a paper he hasn’t used in his videos. James then writes “clueless” on the board again and yells “it’s over” while calling Dave his graduate student.
The moderator then tries to apologize for Tour by saying that prebiotic RNA has to perform as modern RNA in order to “count.”
51:38 Dave’s second question: what is James’ response to dozens of papers showing peptide formation in water, including accounting for side chain reactions?
James then accuses Dave of the gish gallop, something he literally did for every prompt so far. He then yells at Dave for interrupting despite him attempting to prevent Dave from talking at all when answering his question.
Dave asks him to address his claim that peptide formation is impossible, and he refused to answer and continues to scream.
James then screams that there are no side chains accounted for, claiming that negates the whole thing. He then accuses all OoL researchers of essentially committing fraud.
57:46 James becomes unhinged and then screams at the top of his lungs for Dave to draw “something” on the board. Dave then calls him out for the Gish gallop and some of his supporters then again apologizes for James.
1:00:20 James’ third question: James draws again on the board and demands Dave draw a disaccharide formation. He then cites the waiting time problem and then shouts at the top of his lungs and writes clueless on the board before he’s even done asking the question.
He then attempts to Gish gallop Dave and screams over him despite previously asking Dave to not do the same thing.
Dave then presents an extremely simple explanation, and James then yells at him and then stalls while he pulls up a modern enzyme and claims that you don’t have the time in the universe to randomly build a modern enzyme. He then refuses to answer whether a more primitive enzyme could have done the same process and then Gish gallops with the waiting time problem and complains about experimental methods.
1:09:12 Dave’s third question: asks James about homochirality. He again presents a whole bunch of research.
James then accuses Dave of reading from his TH-cam script. He then attempts to mischaracterize the research and then attempts to run out the clock by making as many comments as possible without stopping, mostly about the headings and subheadings in the paper.
James literally does not stop talking for nearly the entire two minutes, completely ignoring every question and comment until he runs out the clock and starts yelling about it not being able to be done. He does stop briefly at which point Dave points out his mistakes, which he then ignored and continues to speak.
1:16:48 The moderator again attempts to cover for James by saying chemical nomenclature changes all the time, then dismisses Dave’s comments pointing that out.
1:17:58 James’ fourth question: James yells at the top of his lungs that Lee Cronin is calling OoL research a scam. He then yells at Dave to “take the chalk” and write on the board how information came about. James then claims nucleotides don’t contain information.
Dave calls James out for lying about OoL researchers calling their own research bullshit, citing an obviously facetious tweet as proof.
1:23:46 Dave’s fourth question: Dave points out James’ strawman of demanding we built a cell or abiogenesis is not real, then shows a bunch of research proving him wrong about RNA and self-replication.
James then spends the first part of his answer talking about how Dave is reading a script. He then ignores the question and starts talking about something else and continues speaking without stopping despite Dave trying to redirect.
James then calls Joyce a fraud and then completely denies that the paper doesn’t say what it literally says.
James asks repeatedly how much was self-replicated, completely ignoring that the paper literally says fully self replicating.
1:29:42 Dave writes NOT CLUELESS really big on the board to a huge applause.
1:30:30 the moderator then steps in the save James from being further embarrassed by demonstrating how he was lying outright about a paper on the screen.
1:31:57 Q1: did the literature Dave cited included examples of unprotected reactions? James then interrupts his answer despite the moderator saying there would be no dialogue. The person asking the question then denies that Dave showed the paper he showed, and he then shows the paper again.
1:33:37 Q2: what is James’ scientific hypothesis on OoL, how is it not god of the gaps? James then rants about how we didn’t know we would be able to go to the moon at some point. He then shouts that the researchers will die before we figure it out. Someone yells for him to give a hypothesis, and he shouts he doesn’t know.
1:35:05 Dave points out how the above is the god of the gaps.
1:35:30 Q3: what is one thing they admire about each other’s career? James says he’s never called him stupid, but clueless. He then says he admires his educational content, his musicianship, and his family life. Dave says he admires the tenacity James has for his lies.
James then screams about how Dave doesn’t know chemistry because he writes a script.
1:38:18 Q4: Can James justify at least one of his assertions, particularly why is he assuming all the amino acids were present at the OoL? James says we have no idea and quotes the waiting time problem. Someone in the audience calls him out on that, and he starts shouting and the moderator cuts off the question.
1:40:28 Q5 what is Dave’s feeling on James’ Gish gallop, to which literally all James’ followers proceed to do the same thing to the question.
1:41:00 Q6 what is an experiment that Tour would approve of to measure the amount of RNA self replicated? Tour says it’s never been done, then says it wouldn’t matter if it has. Dave responds by saying the first fully self replicating ribozyme was done in 2002, and James literally just says “not true.”
1:42:32 Q7 does James Tour treat his graduate students like shit like he treats Dave? James basically says yes but claims that’s education and says our generation has a problem, screaming the entire time. Dave asks if he’d say any of the things he’s said to him to his grad students, and James doesn’t answer.
1:43:53 Q8 does Dave think people can think rationally without divinity? The questioner presupposes that God exists, Dave tries to explain that we have no evidence for that, and the moderator cuts him off.
1:45:27 Q9 does Dave believe in free will? He says he doesn’t know but thinks he does. He does know that an omnipotent and omniscient God existing precludes free will.
1:46:18 Q10 does Dave admit Bruce said his paper was not done in water, and Dave says yes because it wasn’t prebiotically relevant
1:47:17 Aron Ra makes a cameo! He asks James that since we are here, doesn’t it mean abiogenesis happened? James essentially concedes that point.
1:48:46 Q12 why is it so unlikely to James that early RNA could be functional despite more 2’-5’ linkages? James as of today we don’t have essentially purely 3’-5’ RNA, and even if we did it wouldn’t matter. He then complains about half-life and then misunderstands how half-lives work in peptides and tries to Gish gallop. Dave then points out how he’s wrong with more research. The moderator tried to cut him off, but James continues to Gish gallop.
1:51:26 Q13 does James denounce the thinking that criticism of OoL research is evidence for God? James dodges the question and says people can think whatever they want, but then he says he can’t say God poofed things into existence. Dave points out that he absolutely believes that.
Nice reflex from Dave to not read it to avoid destabilization. That's what Tour was going for, and also for his speech before offering the gift. "Something that we are sure you don't have" I was so ready for an insult like "common sense", I think Tour did this to immediately start ridiculing Dave.
If anyone needed more proof that the debate format is NOT built to seek truth, and is ONLY built to reaffirm biases in a flashy way, here it is. Most of that audience likely left feeling nothing had changed at all. Some of them even probably thought Dave was being unreasonable from the start.
@@magicrectangleEnthe only people who think that are Tours acolytes.
But yes, debates are honestly not a good format for conveying information.
Woot, thanks. Nothing says “I’m winning the debate” like keeping those goalposts on the move.
@@magicrectangleEnt This is why we write things up. This is why we publish. So that we can get what others have said, reference it, and then say politely and professionally, how James' understanding in this field is comparable to Kent Hovind and the big bang theory. Also, Dave is 100% right that the only people who had any chance of understanding that literature, were those debating and, I guess, the authority on chemistry, who was just wrong. Honestly, anybody who paid to be taught them, do yourself a favour. Throw that certificate out and get your money back. I am 100%, not a chemist. I didn't even complete the chemistry A-level. But that doesn't mean you cant know what is right and what isn't, as dave showed, being the least educated and the most correct.
Did this happen on a Wednesday night? Cuz I feel like there was a Youth Group in the audience.
For sure
I really and truly appreciate how you knocked this guy down a peg, and continue to do so when needed. I hate it when people demand constant cordial behavior when being "the bigger person" doesn't put people in their place. Also love how James jumps from acting as if he respects science to spouting bullshit and lies.
This entire debate:
Dave: *Brings up a valid point supported by numerous studies and papers*
James: "Nuh uh"
more like "nooooo look at my drawings!!!"
@@K4inan correction: " *NOOOOOOO LOOK AT MY DRAWINGS AND GET OUTA HERE I AM LOUD!* "
show me the papers!!!!!!
heres the papers
nuh uh
@@checkmatedino9543
*GO GO GO!*
When your "yuh huh" is supported by the scientific community, it trumps 1000 "nuh uh"s by a guy who openly admits his ideas wouldn't survive peer review.
"I am going after the people that don't read the scientific literature"
-James Tour
I can't believe he admits that.
He said the quiet part out loud
_It hurt itself in its confusion!_
To be fair, not everyone is going to be able to read/easily understand the literature. Someone's gotta teach em.
Now do DeGrasse Tyson.
Without the clown nose.
@@randomuser6306 Tyson is explaining actual science...
1:29:43 James had actually been writing "CLUELESS" above his head the entire time and Dave writes not clueless behind himself omg its like poetry
I was trying to find the start of the debate and accidentally found him spending 3 minutes trying to define clueless
Sooo this is crazy people. I posted a comment on this debate, just on the version that was uploaded from James Tour’s TH-cam channel.
The comment looked like this(directly copied from the original one I posted):
“Reading peoples comments saying that Tour won, and their arguments for it, actually baffles me…
All you do is call Dave mean, saying he uses ad hominem attacks against James, when in reality he is just calling him a liar, which James indeed is.
In fact, James is the one who has made fun of Dave for things like the music videos he is in, so saying that Dave is the one to get personal by calling James a liar, is pretty silly.
Like c’mon, James even called one of the amino acids that he drew himself, the wrong thing.
At 27:40 he writes down the formula for aspartic acid (also labeled as Asp or D, which he also rightfully does), and then at 29:35 he proceeds to call it “asparagine” which first of all, is labeled as Asn N, and not Asp D. Further more, the formula he drew had 7 hyrdogen atoms, 1 nitrogen atom and 4 oxygen atoms which correlates with aspartic acid. Asparagine however, which he clearly calls it, has 8 hydrogen atoms, 2 nitrogen atoms and 3 oxygen atoms. The only thing the 2 amino acids has in common, is that they both have the same number of carbon atoms, that being 4.
And before you Tour supporters attack me, you can google this fact in less that 1 minute, to see for yourself. There is no way to deny his error.
I don’t know if he called it the wrong thing because he forgot, or if he had any reason to lie about the name, either way it is not valid.
You don’t have to like Dave, but the documents he is showing, are valid. And excuse him for not having a research paper ready for any possible specific question that James has the authority to ask. Not to mention that James most of the time just totally avoided the questions that Dave asked him, and rather tried to change the subject.
In the end, a man that can’t even call the things that he writes down himself the right thing, is not someone who knows his stuff probably, and therefor can’t be trusted in that field of science.”
And, after a few hours of posting it, I actually got curious if there was a possibility that the comment could have been deleted. So I checked if I could see the comment with one of my other accounts. And well, I couldn’t see it. But I didn’t wanna believe it, so I tried posting the same comment, just on my other account. And when I checked again on my other account after another few hours, it was also gone.
Then I tried posting a comment that said “James destroyed Dave”. And when I checked after another few hours if that one was also gone, well you guessed it. It was still there.
To think that this man, or this man’s moderators has deleted my comments, blows my mind. How pathetic can you be, if you can’t accept solid criticism.
Of course they deleted it. How can it be an echo chamber if they don’t insulate their sheep from facts?
@@ProfessorDaveExplainsDid you keep the gift presented at the beginning of the debate?
It's probably cuz the comment was down voted. I think TH-cam auto hides mass downvoted comments.
But that's a good point. And a perfect demonstration why expected, during a debate, to draw out long chemistry that would take like 10 minutes to complete is ridiculous. It's showboating and meant to intimidate
I know James is a liar because of what he did with that one scientist, but I think this was a mistake. An ego driven overstep meant to show how ignorant Dave is and capitalize on the ignorance and bloodlust of the audience
I post challenging, honest, questioning things (never rude or ad hominem) all the time and many of my comments are removed by the creators, or, more often, shadow banned by YT.
Most people don’t like to be challenged or critiqued, and most creators only want positive comments.
@@hsmd4533 Yup plenty of comments in this videos section have been deleted
Rule one: shout
Rule two: encourage your audience to expect chalky scribbles in response to your challenges.
Rule three: expect that nobody spots that your interlocutor has put up a mountain of peer reviewed references while you have none.
Rule Four accuse said peer reviewed research of all being fraud without directly stating the word fraud so as to not get sued for defamatory remarks but still give the impression everything my opponent cites is horse shit.
Rule five still fail miserably to convince anyone that Ool research is completely clueless.
Rule six: Stop your intelocutor from expanding in any of his peer review references to later on accuse him of gish gallop.
Rule 7: Say I challenge my students the same way I challenge my opponents' criticism. See Rule #1 and #6.
Rule 8: Write Clueless 5 times. If interlocutor writes "Not clueless," write scam.
Rule 9: When in doubt, refer to rule #1
Thought I would come and watch this for the third time
Why? Tour is insufferable.
@@magnetiktrax I study linguistics. He is a great case study on language of conspiracy hahaha
@@luki1894 fair enough, but I'm struggling to get through this a single time. Tour's "linguistics" is about as advanced as putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "nanananananana" at the top of your voice.
@@magnetiktrax yeah it certainly seems that way. Tho interestingly the tactics of language gets quite a lot more complex in persuasion, out grouping and stuff. Just infuriating isn’t it
Did they purposefully not introduce Dave with his academic background to make him seem less credible?
Most likely tbh, considering the audience (according to Dave) is his “church pals”
the moderator was hand-picked by the discovery institute, so probably
Once Dave wrote "Not clueless" on his blackboard, the two of them finally stood under the right label. This makes for a nice miniature for a video
Nah Tours board should have also said liar for Christ.
I got a good chuckle out of this. All that stupid clueless stuff bit him in the ass at the end
When Dave wrote not clueless Dr James came across highly animated shouting how Dave’s argument comes down to writing one word. Despite the fact that was done to mock how Dr James was doing exactly that throughout the debate.
Dave’s aggressive approach from the beginning such as calling Dr James a Liar interlaced within presenting the evidence from papers made me cringe. However it was a classic poke a badger with a stick tactic that worked on Dr James. He began to forget about holding a measured response and retreated into dismiss,Deny,Deflect.
Used the tactic of that showpiece of writing Clueless to close down each segment as if he’s made some conclusive win. I was disappointed with his lack of presenting something from his side of the argument.
@@erykmozejko3329 I do agree it could have been done better, but I have my doubts shouting and telling it like it is wasn't the only real available option Dave had left. Maybe could have been a bit nicer, but idk. I think Dave certainly did better in this debate though, as James has many of the tells of someone that doesn't really understand what he is saying about this subject. I'm not saying he knows absolutely nothing of course, but he doesn't appear objective to me.
I went over to James video and told him I was moving a soccer field to the other end of town, and asked if he might help me move the goal posts because he seems so incredible good at that.
I watched the entire debate and I felt that even though Tour asked for a debate about the data, he immediately began with emotional appeals. Tour's answer to the audience question: Why has he never published his criticisms under peer review, gives up his game completely.
That's why he started with the whole thing at the beginning. To dispute science, and to say he doesn't appeal to god of the gaps, while do that the whole time.
He won't because even he knows it would never pass.
For those playing at home, Dr. Tour HAS published complaints about this subject. Once again, you see a non-argument argument; an appeal to consensus rather than science. Dr. Tour has done two whole series on youtube where he painstakingly goes through all of what Dave has presented. Has Dave published anything in peer-reviewed publications? Has he published even a tenth of what Dr. Tour has in scientific journals? If he has, why would he resort to using other people's papers? Why not do some science right there?
I was called to share the Gospel with Muslims in Paris. The Muslims who accepted to pray with me, all saw the Christ, had visions.....You are a fool! Even me, I can not talk about my experience with the official Church. I have to do it ANOTHER way, outside the official Church, otherwise the Gospel will never be shared to the Muslims. Since the West has apostasied, you will soon burn like Sodom and Gomorrah ( the nuclear bombings?).
@@billmcdonald180 It seems that he has only a bachelor degree?! And failed many times for masters?! ( better checked one more time).
Learning Chemistry with Professor Dave prepping for the DAT and just stumbled on this gem. Rock on Professor Dave 😎🤙
I just watching debates like these,
this should happen more and more!!
I’m not gonna lie this wasn’t a debate but a person giving scientific evidence, and then someone asking for evidence, and then yelling at him instead of reading that evidence.
This sucks also considering (according to Dave) James Tour brought people from his church who haven’t a clue about anything…
Never have I been so entertained by a subject I know so little about. This was wonderful
I find these "debates" kind of cringe - you know it's not going to go anywhere, and from the little I saw I wondered if there was a moderator as opposed to someone just keeping time.
@@Cheepchipsable the moderator wasn’t there to moderate the debate so they kept on-topic, he moderated so there wouldn’t be any fun in the debate.
Same
Is that a James Tour quote?
@@Cheepchipsable the first exchange after the shit slinging. I thought these guys sounded like too reputable scientist debating passionately but then it was a bit hectic
It’s unbelievable audacity of James openly admitting that he chooses not to publish peer reviewed papers and instead reaching out to all the people in on the social media. And not only that, he said to all the people that do not understand scientific papers. It’s approximately equal to telling your children that it is safe to play with matches at home and don’t listen to someone telling you otherwise. I’m just out of words to describe how despicable the man is.
James is just doing the same thing conspiracy theorists do on a regular basis, disseminate misinformation to the masses to sow doubt of academic and scientific institutions.
He's a narcissist.
The fun part is that he was trying to use the creationist talking point of "i dont talk with the scientist because they would refuse to believe me, [optional: insert here clues about a secret conspirancy]", but tour is so bad at handling criticism he fumbled the ball and said exactly what he was thinking instead of what he was trying to say.
Interesting perspective.
I think he’s doing a service to the world by making science publicly available instead of keeping it hidden and only available for people who can access university classes or libraries. Many people can’t - more people can go on TH-cam.
Also, not all articles submitted get published. What a journal publishes depends on what the journal wants to focus on for the next issues - and that is determined by considering how the journal can stay competitive - so by business and economics, by profits and consumerism. Academic articles are businesses. They don’t just publish anything, they also don’t even read everything submitted.
Now that you know how they work maybe you’ll understand his choice better :)
Update- also, as far as I know james isn’t a researcher, he’s an educator. Researchers publish papers when they find new information to share within the discipline. So, james wouldn’t ever have anything to publish. He is taking what is published and sharing it to teach people about science.
@@AJ-wy6zm Interesting theory, if only tour has said that, or at least presented any article he had submitted for peer review, regardless of publication, then you would have a point.
The fun part is that with this logic, any article published by the DI fails also with that reasoning.
50:36 Never found where this clip came from; I'm so glad I found it from randomly watching a debate 💀
Which series provide the necessary prerequisites to sorta understand what's going on?
General chemistry, organic chemistry, biochemistry
Dave quoting a peer-reviewed, academic journal- “Fully self-replicating.”
James- “NOOOOOOO. I DON’T BELIEVE IT.”
Well, that about sums it up.
I would recommend this edit:
Dave quoting peer reviewed academic journal-
@@CaptPeon or "dave saying literally anything that counters james's point"
Always skeptical about anyone who shouts aggressively in order to be right
Especially i this context.
I was about to say: One thing I've learned in my studies of psychology, the human condition, and many mental states of mind and illnesses, is that one should always be wary of someone who screams over other people. Oftentimes, those who scream the loudest are desperate to not only silence the voices of others, but to seem larger than they are, like a bear rearing up to intimidate, rather than a human in a conversation. These individuals have the most to hide, and make it a point to scream over others, so their lies cannot be dragged out to the surface. A correct man explains facts rationally. A liar screams to drown out the facts of a correct man.
@inkblooded1058 or some people just kept talking over you and they weren't hearing your point and you got tired of reexplaining......but like depends
@@ashsharp1985Yes. Many times.
@@ashsharp1985 1. There he's not in a debate where he is talking to someone else.
2. It's a one way communication where he's in his right to talk as he likes and you're are in your full right to not listen to him.
3. When he's in a debate with others he doesn't shout as aggressively as Tour does.
Is there a Reader's Digest or Greatest Hits version of this? My time is precious.
Dave, I am only through your opening statement and already you are a hero. The amount of work, preparation, and dedication it took to do this is admirable.
It's funny how Tour states "I'm here defining CLUELESS", and then procedes to demonstrate what clueless really means by his actions 🤣
It's very similar to people who say they are smart. Smart people know that they don't have to say that they are smart, they just do things that show they're smart. Stupid people Always have to tell people they are smart.
The difference between cluelessness and wisdom is this: Wisdom is genuine, and doesn't disguise itself. Cluelessness attempts to masquerade as wisdom. And only wisdom attempts to encourage others to be wise.
Tour: Show me proof of point 1!
Dave: Here are 10 papers with proof of point 1.
Tour: So there is NO evidence for point 1, CLUELESS!
Repeat for each talking point.
yeah, except on points where he can't do this, in which case he'll literally divert the topic into talking about one of the points where he can, in a way that 100% violates the rules of the debate
You forgot, "DO, IT IN WATER!!"
"I'm not trying to convince origin of life researchers, I'm trying to reach the masses (that never read the primary literature)" Thats telling.
Almost straight up admitting he's lying about science to laypeople
"You need peptides"
"We made peptides"
"No you didn't! You need RNA"
"We made RNA"
"No you didn't!"
He sound so incredibly stupid.
James text should be written in CAPS
If James Tour had been one of my chemistry professors in college, I would have switched my major to theater.
No need, he seems competent with acting.
It would have less drama for sure.
well to be fair if you were going to this university it prob wouldn't matter you'd jsut be in debt and have a degree that would get you laughed out of anywhere of repute.
And you wouldn't even have to change the class or "teacher".
To be fair you were probably born for theatre
The one thing people overlook about this debate is that Dave wasn't there to play nice; he was there to expose a charlatan, and for that, he succeeded.
Fighting the good fight against willful stupidity probably drains his patience faster than anything. I will say though, Dave had some remarks that were directed towards the audience which from the way it was phrased seemed to imply that he thought nobody there was capable of understanding what he and James were arguing. I'm sure they were directed at tours fan boys, but idk it felt kinda off.
Dave dirtied his diaper up there. There's his chemistry.
@@robertmontoya8915
Why, because Dave wouldn't participate in James' little makeshift chemistry lesson on the chalkboard? It's perplexing how you Tour-botherers keep bringing that up as if it's the only thing you have left at your disposal. I implore that you familiarize yourself with James' grift and the falsehoods he's committed in reverence of his archaic ideology.
@Chlorophyll Absolutely! William Lane Craig is a Master of making his god sound plausible, and this carries huge weight with believers. However, when the spell is broken, the sheer implausibility of the enterprise becomes painfully obvious. That is there a huge difference between sufficient and necessary. Craig’s skill, if one can call it that, is to obfuscate and make sufficient appear to be necessary.
The philosophically literate will recognise, in the case of the Kalam, the bait and switch tactic he uses. Namely, a logically valid argument, is supported by abductive reasoning. Subtle but effective to all but the most astute at detecting such clever tactics.
You fail to understand that he wasn't able to play nice because he lost all corners of the debate. So the last resort was to act foul and call James tour a liar and other words. That's not exposing a charlatan, that's exposing yourself from a lack of self control. He provided nothing to the discussion, and only cited sources he didn't even understand. James tour ran this guy over, and turned Dave red as a tomato, and all he could do was insult him. Bravo.
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. Sorry you had to go through that Dave. It was hard to watch. You did a grand job despite your opponent and we really appreciate your efforts. Scary how some educational institutes operate. Lovely to see RA!! Also... lol at the mediators wig!
Pretty crazy for a scientific debate that an opposing party would have a problem with you being prepped with a script and a bunch of journal articles.
I think the disconnect is that they see debate as person versus person, when it's really the origin of life research community (via Dave) versus James. It's not about ideas to them, it's about the people expressing it, which is silly. Dave was merely prepared to express what the science had to say in regard to James' personal objections.
@@CrashingThunder Yea. Dave doesn't claim any personal knowledge of the field just an understanding of the concensus of experts in the field. Tour claims personal expertise in a field he is only tangentially connected to as though he should get to decide what research is working or not.
That's routed in the fact apologists only care about "winning" the debate and don't care about evidence or what's actually true.
@@zippydebrain nah i disagree. James tour just proved dave farina had no idea what he was reading about in the articles. For every chemical equation dr james brought firward, mr dave brought up articles that could not solve the equation or was not related to the equation at all. Thats why dave refused to go to the board to show us what he had leart from the articles he learned
@@ckay_real2765 That’s quite a bold claim, could you elaborate?
Tour’s final objection to Dave in his first question was that no papers on peptide formation ever showed a reaction involving certain amino acids. He specifically says “never carboxylated, never the aminated!”.
However, in the paper that Dave presented, as he pointed out, peptide ligation occurring at ph7 was identified that tolerated all proteinogenic side chains. That would include side chains containing a carboxylic acid group. Could you please explain why you find this to be a non satisfactory answer, especially since Tour had no objection to it?
Goodness how far he's fallen.
I had a fair amount of respect for Tour in the past. I've even previously taken to reading over some of his work with graphene (along with other projects) over the years. Nothing truly groundbreaking, but he had a fair talent for information organization and creating great research briefs.
Compare that to now, where he somehow still managed to get eviscerated in a debate format / setting of his choosing, with a sympathetic moderation team and a crowd of his people. I'm not even mad at the guy anymore- I just feel shame. I'm embarrassed for him and anyone who believes him without scrutinizing what he says
I'm ashamed for him- it is almost painful that he is throwing so much away for blind loyalty to fringe religious dogma. His flagrant mischaracterizations and blatant lies deserve nothing more than harsh rebuke and shame- he insults all of academia with his lies *_and_* he insults the religion he's attempting to prop up by reducing this argument to "telling lies and hoping the congregation doesn't check." If you follow him, you should feel insulted too.
And this is all because he can't handle another one of those perceived "gaps" being filled by academia? I hope Tour gets out of this line of work and gets some perspective, I'm really rooting for the guy.
potato salad
Remember, if you can't make it in the real world, you can always start spouting nonsense to the chronically-credulous.
Great comment. The man is an embarrassment. He pretends scientist have no clue on any of his questions, and screams at Dave when he is showing they have more than a clue, he moves the goal post. If some peer reviewed research is not satisfactory to him why not rebuke it with his own, isn't he supposed to be a scientist himself. Screaming at Dave won't falsify that research or make it less valid, even if it doesn't meet his own "scientist standards".
One definition of intelligence is...The ability to change your point of view in the face of empirical data....
@@knowme4iam326 A lesson that Tour here knows but willingly abandons. Truly unfortunate
God I wish I was smart enough to fully understand this debate. It seems so interesting and entertaining
8:30 - 8:50 props to whoever edited this debate, this particular sequence especially. It has that same 'akward reactions' vibe that some cringe comedies and anti-humour shows cultivate so carefully.
"If I write not clueless, does that win?"
Best quote I've ever heard
and guess what? he did
And he did win too, at least to any rational person@@mogenoof
@@williamc7927Tour won hands down!
@@roslynaubrey7766 you're joking right?
Can you make some points in the video that makes you think Tour won? @@roslynaubrey7766
How to convince your audience in a debate in five easy steps
1. Make sure that your audience is science illiterate and wants to believe that what you're saying is right
2. Try to occasionally appear humble and honourable (you only need a few brief instances of that, your audience will focus on them and ignore any other moment where you act like a jackass)
3. Draw molecules on a blackboard (labeling them properly is optional, this step is necessary to make you look smart in front of your audience, it will remind them of their chemistry teacher)
4. Yell louder than your opponent is talking (this is vital because it will make you look like you are winning)
5. Lie (your audience shouldn't notice it because they don't know what you are talking about, it also makes it easier for you to seem correct)
It's great debating "low educated" audiences, isn't it? Your list of 5 things is a hoot, and prob correct. I just started to watch & already I feel a little sad for the prof on the right at least he has some manners and humility (so far) Prof Dave, I love you but I'm afraid you're gonna squash this poor bastard like a bug. Go to it! and may the best man win!
How to worship James Tour if you are one of his science illiterate followers:
1. Laugh, make noises, boo when you hear "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" from Dave because he clearly doesn't know something (we don't know exactly what but that doesn't matter).
2. Criticize Dave for any irrelevant crap you can think of, like him reading a script.
3. Applaud when James writes something on the board and shouts because he clearly has a point.
That guy was a dip shit.
I'm agnostic, I do have reservations about life. The way life evolves seems to follow a VERY distinct pattern. Almost intelligently so.
Single cells to organisms, single people to tribes. All following the same path. Starts as one groups up and specializes and becomes more complex.
I think we are creating a world sized organism. And when AI goes live bam.
We now have a single planet life. Or "the beast" next step? Spread.
This either just follows a pattern cause of physics rules. Or it's being guided.
You can't ignore what we see though like this zealot. Though the idea of something bigger that we don't understand isn't off the table IMO.
I don't know why more people who feel there is a god don't follow this line of thinking. You can't ignore evolution.
Wouldn't be a TH-cam comment section without someone writing what we all watched. Thanks.
You meet the scientifically illiterate part.
I'm glad I found this channel. I absolutely hate bullies, and you took this one on without mercy. I'm not keen on the topic, but you made it look exciting to learn.
I have no idea what you guys are talking about but this is better than Netflix drama for sure
I named my character in a legacy game of Ticket to Ride "Mr. Farina" in honour of this debate and the way that phrase was memorably shouted.
Dave speaking in such a calm voice while James is yelling give this debate such a comedic effect
Dave did get kinda heated at times, but holy hell I have no idea how he didn't tear down the chalkboard after 10 minutes of listening to Tour.
@@TheVastBlack Tbh if I were debating with someone who talked over me during my time, kept yelling at me, gave no proof, “disproved” my proof with “nuh Uh”, and kept telling me to “use the chalk”, I’d probably get heated as well.
@@danpozzi3307 That's a tactic, not the end goal. The goal is to dismantle the other side's argument and show why they are incorrect with irrifutable clear evidence. But that's impossible with someone like Tour who won't accept anything Dave says. That's why I said I don't blame Dave for losing his cool from time to time. Tour knew ahead of time he would just dismiss everything, and his loyal followers were there to back him up. It was a lose/lose in the auditorium for Dave but those of us watching on YT know who really won.
@@TheVastBlack didnt win the battle but definitely won the war.
Dave came out the gate by repeatedly rhetorically bitch slapping him and it was incredible lol
Props to the person asking Dave why Tour keeps yelling over the top of him
He should have asked Tour.
@@Cheepchipsable
Its a bit difficult to ask an overemotional child why they're crying. You usually ask the adults about that.
I’d like to see you stay calm after 2 hours of nonstop personal insults lol.
@@Liketreeswalking556 you made it seem one sided, that only Dave was using insults. In case you missed it, near the end Dave showed itemized insulting remarks Tour used throughout the debate
@Liketreeswalking556 Tour came out swinging in his TH-cam videos to begin with
The way Dave tried to hide his smile is way too hilarious 🤣😂🤣 Good job, well done ✅
I can imagine that a deeply religious person would not want definitive proof that life could have started on its own, it would single handedly destroy the idea of a creator.
James' whole shtick this debate was to ask for a very specific reaction and then cry foul that Dave doesn't immediately have a paper for that specific reaction, while James ignores the dozens of other papers that show comparable reactions or that show his objections are non-factors. Anyone who bothers to look up the research while watching this debate will find that James has no legs to stand on.
Not to mention that Tour stipulated limiting the papers allowed in the debate and was presented with them before, so he knew what to ask that wouldn't be in the papers. He did not go in there to argue in good faith.
@@irwinshung809 Absolutely right!!!!💯
@@irwinshung809
And yet he still found it necessary to yell over Dave, cut him off as much as possible to keep him from coming up with answers anyway. Tour is morally and intellectually bankrupt.
@@ParaSpite It was ugly to be sure. Ugh
lol "show me show me where in this 30 page paper that it says this exact same thing. See he cant do it"
I love when Dave tells people they're a straight up liar to their face.
It's surprisingly effective with narcissists.
They take that they are more intelligent than you as a given so they are immediately flustered when you demonstrate their lies are obvious to you.
I love the evidence part even more, Dave Farina is great! Very helpful.
The word liar is criminally underused in the US today.
@@Windbend3r so what was your point here?
@@Windbend3r You could make a religion out of that.
I love how the audience just hypes both, no matter if they're wrong or right
Thank you so much for what you do, Dave. It's refreshing beyond measure to see someone just tear into these idiots without coddling them. It's true that some of those who are too far lost can't be reached, but many still can, and I believe it's our job to try and fight misinfo like this as much as we can.
“I said ‘give me your number’, he gave me his number, I called him, we spoke about this...... he said to me, ‘Jim, if you would join us in this Origin of Life research, we would get this thing solved’. We had a very good conversation! You totally made that up, [......] no one made me apologize to him! I offered him my apology and he accepted it!”
“But you continue to call his work ‘utterly ridiculous’.”
“It is utterly ridiculous”
Each time I go back to this debate thinking I already know what the stupidest part was I get surprised with exchanges like these. Truly a masterpiece.
“Still, look, Szostak’s paper on linkage heterogeneity...... still, still recognition and catalytic function......”
“OK, SO, there we go, I asked him to come up here and show me the chemistry, just like I would do with a graduate student (???), I said show me the chemistry, he did not!! *writes clueless on board* “
Amazing. But at least this chaos finally prompted the moderator to intervene, and...... play defense for Tour? (48:52)
"It's over" - Tour
*origin of life research continues as if Tour never existed*
Ok
@@maxgeorge1463 Ok indeed! 😂
I found the article "Protocells: At the Interface of Life and Non-Life" by Ma and Feng.
The article states this:
"The main problem is associated with growth. Cellular growth requires a coupled growth of the core (for an RNA-based protocell, the RNA molecules enclosed within) and membrane (composed of amphiphilic molecules)."
I asked ChatGPT to put this in terms a layman could understand, and it came back with this:
"In the context of creating functional protocells, one of the main challenges scientists face is enabling the protocell to grow. When we talk about growth in the context of protocells, it means that both the inner part of the protocell (which could be RNA molecules in the case of an RNA-based protocell) and the outer membrane of the protocell need to increase in size or complexity over time.
Imagine a simple analogy: Picture a bubble filled with some ingredients. For this bubble to grow, both the stuff inside the bubble (let's say it's some grains of rice) and the bubble's outer surface need to expand simultaneously. If only the inside grows but the bubble's surface stays the same, it won't be able to contain the expanding contents. Similarly, if the bubble's surface grows, but there's nothing inside, it won't fulfill the purpose of containing anything.
In the case of protocells, the challenge is ensuring that as the RNA molecules or other contents inside the protocell replicate or increase in complexity, the membrane surrounding them also grows or changes in a coordinated manner. This coordination is essential to maintain the integrity and functionality of the protocell as it evolves over time.
However, achieving this coupled growth of both the core (RNA or other molecules) and the membrane (composed of amphiphilic molecules) is challenging and remains a significant hurdle in the development of functional protocells in the laboratory. Addressing this challenge is crucial for advancing our understanding of the origins of life and the transition from non-living to living systems."
Is this a correct understanding of the issue mentioned in the article? Further, is this the main critical issue facing origin of life researchers, as in is this the reason we have not yet been able to produce a functional protocell in a lab?
This debate was wild.. every time dave debates hes met with incoherant rants and no one lets him actually explaing the tuing they are asking him too...
Dave I have to know were you expecting to have to debate Tour, the moderator, and the audience all at the same time?
The moderator was almost entirely passive, and half the audience was vocally pro-Dave
@@DanLyndon The half of the audience that vocally cheered for Tour only did so after Dave’s extremely aggressive conduct, and especially after he cussed them out and told them they didn’t know what was being discussed. That’s Dave’s own doing. (By the way, I was there in person.)
The moderator spoke for, what, 5 minutes total? He really should have been more active to maintain debate order. The little fact checks had potential, but ultimately he should have pushed Dave and Tour to argue more systematically on the scientific data.
@@coltfathwell6185 Congratulations on not knowing what slander means. I guess? Being ignorant is not really an accomplishment. Explain to me this, if you have the courage (and I know you don't): Since Tour spouts nonsense and is wrong about almost everything, how is a scientific debate possible? If someone told you that every tree on Earth is made of styrofoam, is there a debate to be had with that person?
Not entirely sure, but I think you would like to point out that this was an unfair environment? I disagree. The moderator said very little and seemed to be on topic, and it was Dave's mistake to interact in this fashion with the hecklers in the first place. Also, the audience seemed to be mostly on his side.
@@matOpera well when your oppositions only response to your statement is "uh nuh " and when dave starts answering back the crowd starts booing. A civil audience should never boo at either of the parties debating . you also forgot to mention how tour was constantly shouting and cutting dave off. its clear that you're not neutral rather you lean towards tour and you're nitpicking and those were not insults rather proof that he is a conman.