He didn’t show any chemistry are you deaf? Raising your voice doesn’t automatically make what your saying wrong. It was out of frustration especially since all Dave did the entire debate was insult him and read from titles of papers that had no relevance to the debate.
@@TyrellWellickEcorp "didn't show any chemistry" what does that even mean without context? Getting frustrated and yelling in a debate is infantile behaviour. So by not giving us context the only thing this video has shown is him acting childish.
@@fecomate2542 I agree he should’ve toned it down a bit but all Dave was doing was reading from the titles of peer reviewed literature which anybody can do and wasn’t answering questions.
@@fecomate2542 Raising your voice aint infantile. What’s infantile is Dave’s whole opening statement which was a pure ad hom fest and insulting tour and audience the entire time
@@TyrellWellickEcorp again. I have not seen the debate, just this clip, however the way this was edited makes it seem like this was a "power move". In reality it's just an old man yelling, interrupting the other debater while saying nothing substantial. I know nothing of the debate, he may or may not be correct, but this behaviour *is* infantile. No two ways about that.
@@Theo_Skeptomai to be clear, the debate is “are we are clueless on origins of life?” The papers that “professor Dave” brings are on trial. The point was to dissect the papers and prove whether or not they were overstating their findings.
The only evidence you have for the existence of your god is the unverifiable Bible, which is a series of folk tales. If you’re going to believe those folk tales then Homer’s Odyssey provides definitive evidence that Poseidon and Zeus exist.
The worst part is that James SHOULDN'T be a layperson. I get that he's a synthetic chemist, and this was about molecular (in)organic chemistry, specifically abiogenetic work; but James should be up-to-date with the literature considering he's always saying "the literature doesn't exist" or "it's wrong" etc. This debate could be summarized by James' opening line, "I don't know how to debate." *All quotations in this comment are my summarizations. They are not direct quotes.*
Dave's rebuttal video was great. He showed "the chemistry" tour was asking for. It wouldve taken him an hour to draw the chemical pathways for some of the proposed mechanisms. Tour new it was a stunt. Essentially a strawman
When a chemist asks you to write an equation and you read an abstract of an article then somethings wrong with you. The least he could do is shout at you 😂😂😂
@ABDVL01 If a contractor asked me to prove I could build a house by building a house in front of him, is it unreasonable for me to point at a house I already built instead of building a new one?
That was such an embarassing display by Tour. It's unbelievable that this dude managed to convince enough people that he is capable of teaching at universities.
The most sad thing about it is that (I just got lot’s of TH-cam shorts from Tour’s channel) people actuelly support him (him as in Tour), and hate on Dave, saying that he isn’t a doctor denying his teaching abilities and because he doesn’t know if Free Will is he doesn’t know anything. I personally think it’s scary people can support Tour, but I of course came to the debate from Dave’s video so I am not objective in identifying who actuelly won, but I am quite sure in Dave’s abilities to succeed that if Tour’s
@@paxonline7503I think James deletes comments, his channel is insane there’s no way that many robots support him and you can’t find a single comment saying he’s wrong. I see comments on Dave’s channel all the time talking shit about him or saying he’s wrong, why aren’t there any on James channel? That guy knows how to keep his cult in check
He's probably super frustrated because Dave is a troll, and won't break out the facts of the matter. Instead, he relies on his "successful" website, etc, to prove he's smart. Ok, so you're smart. But, are you versed on THIS subject enough to have an actual debate? Didn't think so. Does that excuse Tour's screeching? No, no it does not. But, I'd be frustrated too, trying to debate that guy.
@@mitsulang I could say the same thing about James, is HE versed enough to comment on this subject? Obviously not. And yes, Dave did pull up “the facts of the matter” multiple times from all different kinds of research papers published by a variety of reputable scientists. Instead of going over them and saying why they are wrong or right, James tour says “nuh uh you said that already in a video” and throws a temper tantrum like a child.
"Show me a complicated set of chemistry on a board that isn't large enough and waste all your response time drawing your reactions on the board even though you can just as well pull up actual scientific literature." Anyone who thinks Dave should have used the board is fooling themselves.
As a scientist in the field trying to prove it, he should be able to write down the formula so that another scientist can read it.. 😂. All he literally had to do is write down the formula. Lol
@@easybandzofficial6456 Dave isn't a scientist, he is a science communicator. And the relevant information was all in the papers. There wasn't any reason to write anything on the board.
@@clemensbock7434 how can you say there wasn’t any reason when he was directly being challenged to do so and could’ve easily won the debate by doing so.. lmao.. “not a scientist, he’s a science communicator” lmao.. that’s even more proof that he’s in over his head coz dr James tour IS a scientist.. lol a science communicator!😂 Dr tour clearly explained why those papers were irrelevant and offered him to show and prove, to which Dave failed miserably
@@easybandzofficial6456Maybe it's because of the strict time limits to get your points across to begin with, and the fact that wasting your time to write something that has ALREADY BEEN PREPARED TO SHOW is redundant and a waste of everyone's time. Let me ask you this: if you have a quote you want to reference when you write a paper, do you use the copy and paste function on your computer, or do you painstakingly type every word down without fail? If the former, then surely that means you aren't actually capable of typing it, since you declined to do so and chose to do the more efficient action instead. Do you see how dishonest and illogical that sounds?
@@starwarriorterra8373 it’s not redundant because it’s not in any of those papers he was citing neither 😂. And further more it’s not a waste of time as if he was able to articulate any of the formula on the board for everyone to see he won have won the whole debate.. lol. This is science, you are supposed to show and prove. You can’t just act like you’re smarter than everyone, you have to be able to show proof of your claims especially when challenged to do so.
Tour: Prove that this chemistry is possible! Dave: Here is a paper in which they did this chemistry. Tour: You and everyone has no idea how to do this chemistry. And the religious audience laps it up. It's astounding. Read the papers, the methodology is right there.
@@phillyphakename1255lol I am part of the religious audience. I enjoy seeing liars like Tour being exposed. Even as a Christian it is easy to see who is in the right.
@@lauramann8275 screaming to everyone that the chemistry of bio genesis can only lead to one being clueless isn’t much of any argument. He obviously believes God is the special sauce that made it happen so he should quit being a coward and just say it and own it.
@@Silly46337 it's called abiogenesis and you don't understand how complex the chemistry is. Tour never mentions God when discussing the chemistry. Ever. Watch the debate or watch any of Tours videos.
@@lauramann8275 according to him, the complexity is a moot point because it leaves one clueless. Him not mentioning God is my point. He thinks life couldn’t have occurred naturally which is fine but also useless. Everyone knows he thinks God is how it all happened so why is he such a coward by refusing to admit its his actual theory of origin?
You do not have to have a PhD or be a Christian to understand that Tour failed on a more basic level than chemistry with how he conducted himself in this debate. The hysterics and the dishonesty are spectacular. And since someone is going to ask, the entire 'write something on the board' shtick was dishonest. Not only was it dishonest, but Tour also managed to get some of his own details wrong which makes it even better. A PhD chemist who draws inaccurate chemistry diagrams is extra-special. This should not be construed as the totality of his dishonesty. Professor Dave has done a detailed breakdown of that on his channel which is there and waiting for honest folks to assess.
@@purelyrandom1230 look at all of daves videos, he provides tons of evidence. Even if he didnt, theres tons of evidence for evolution you can look at yourself, but you wanna stay blind for your religion.
If the title of this short was “james shouts and doesn’t let Dave speak” I would’ve believe that was the intent of the short. Yelling and more yelling doesn’t prove a point yet you think that sells it.
The title of the debate should have been "How to insult a chemist that knows what he's talking about without discussing the chemistry because you weren't prepared."
To be fair, all Dave did the whole debate was hurl ad hominems. At least Tour actually DID Science. The best Dave could do was read the titles off of peer reviewed articles without actually discussing their substance.
@@GhostBearCommander a lot of what you call ad hominem was being brutally honest. If you look at all of Dave’s yt responses to tours critiques, you can see why Dave would call him a liar. I agree that Dave should not have been this brutal and should’ve just stuck with stuff that is easy for people to understand without context. It was weird that dave doesn’t know some of the context of the paper but the fact that these papers have been peer reviewed by top scientists shows the credibility of the paper. Dave is not a OOL researcher so whatever he says without any backing would’ve been discarded for not being credible. He shows that OOL researchers aren’t clueless. It would’ve been better if he did know the substance of the paper but without knowing the substance, no one can actually confirm whether the paper is actually true or false. The fact that they are peer reviewed gives us a pretty good understanding that too scientists within the field have fact checked and approved these papers. Tour have not and probably will never get an article published. He would rather talk to scientifically illiterate laypeople then actual OOL researchers as shown by his answer to the Q&A portion of the debate.
@@hellooutsiders6865He simply ignores the existence of scientific literature of the very thing he was debating, the origin of life. Not once did he even ACTUALLY address any of the scientific literature Dave presented, not once! The only times he even mentioned it was to straw-man it or blatantly lie about it and then continue Gish Galloping.
Did you just call a world class scientist a random priest? Lol. The whole debate was whether or not the papers were overstating their findings. So you can’t use the topic sentences of the papers to prove the papers. Tour already knew the science didn’t match the titles.
"It was pure entertainment." - this sums it up very much and at the same time it REVEALS the rotten core of THE MAJORITY following such topics. Clickbait and brownie points is all that matters to 99% of the cultists of scientism.
@@ACuriousChild “…the cultists of scientism?” You speak as if you think, and let me reiterate the word THINK, the progress of science is some kind of religion. You think you’re special? That you, with what is most likely a limited amount of education, know more than the people like Professor Dave, cosmologists, astrologists, geologists and other people who do this work for a living? I was entertained by what I saw. Someone who knows more than the other guy who thinks yelling over his opponent makes him somehow correct, and making him look bad. That’s what was entertaining. I’m not going to get into it with you. I just had to point out your ignorance. I’m going to abide by something the late, great Mark Twain said, “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” Albert Einstein said something just as good, “Arguing with a fool is like trying to teach a fish how to climb a tree.” It is entertaining watching liars get their comeuppance, like flerfs do when their pseudoscience is flattened like a cockroach. The mythical land of Flattardia is going down in flames. You’re not special, and science isn’t a religion. Good day to you.
I watched this entire debate from start to finish. The crazy loud guy definitely did NOT win. I believe in God. But that’s irrelevant here. Ferina destroyed this guy.
@ sincereflowers3218: Why do you want to know why I believe in God? Are you sincerely asking me, or are you just trying to troll and bait me? You DO know that my believe in God was not the overall point of my comment, correct? You do know that my point was that James Tour was over emotional and not making a good showing of himself, correct? You KNOW that was my point. So why then would you randomly question my personal belief, a personal belief that I was simply using as a frame of reference and not pushing on anyone? What are you trying to accomplish with your question?
@@JD-bb2ue Ah but see there's more evidence for every single thing you mentioned than there is evidence for ANY God. It really is that simple for most people but theists will forever lag behind.
@@sincereflowers3218 OP showed integrity and you just had to go "not good enough." Tell me, is being right worth further entrenching people in their beliefs by acting like a tool or can you simply not help yourself?
Tour really embarrassed himself. Not sure what any of this has to do with atheism but Dave has a good grasp of the biochemistry which helps explain how life came into being through natural processes.
Tour’s chemistry expertise is more specialized, so he doesn’t allow other scientists to get away with saying stuff without specifics, especially in that discipline. Farina was also kinda smarmy, so I think there was a lot of tension building up.
Honestly I have no idea if any of the papers Dave presented were credible or not. What ticks me off is James glossing over all of them in a fraction of a second and deducting that they are ALL irrelevant. I think this was really dishonest and honestly indefendable actions. I hope people on his side realise that. If he truly believed theyw ere irrelevant, he shouldve dissected them one by one instead of bunching them all together, without reading a single one might I add, and say all of them are irrelevant. He had the chance to embarrass Dave and immediatly dismiss the entire point of the debate but he didnt... probably because he wasnt capable of refuting those papers, no offense.
@@aahhhhhhhhhhhhh If you want to see Tour dissecting quite a few of these papers, you'd have to watch some of his abiogenesis series because he does just that. Here's the issue. If you walked someone through even one paper, it would take way longer than a presenters time. If Tour had to go through a paper he's not seen before, it would take even longer. One of Tour's major arguments against these OOL papers is that taking them at face value and reading their titles, abstracts and articles covering it gets you nowhere because they hype up their work too much. I get the criticism that Tour was too loud and obnoxious, well Farina was being just as obtuse and facetious in the opposite direction. They probably should have agreed on more specific things beforehand to debate on, but it just leaves you with this mess.
idk what the point of this short is Is it an anti-Tour or anti-Dave short? From the profile picture of the uploader and the title of the short, I can conclude that the video is supposed to show how Professor Dave is wrong. But the actual content of the video is James Tour shouting and acting like a 5 year old who lost a game of find and seek. So...I guess it's a short that wants to get more viewers by saying that Dave is wrong, but then show these viewers that actually James Tour is a psycho?
@@lauramann8275yea bullshit. James sees a paper that contradicts his claim and says “nuh uh” without explaining why. Not to mention James has a phd in chemistry and didn’t even draw his chemistry right. Sad to see this poor old man suffer this mental illness
@@Hesoyam31 science can lead people to believe god doesn’t exist, but it’s not evidence for an Absence of god. Most science does however debunk the Old Testament but that has more to do with organized religion and scripture than an actual god. Also, how does anything James said debunk origin of life, or prove we’re clueless? Do you just take his word because he’s a chemist? Or do you actually understand any of what he said and the chemistry he presented. Because if you did know anything about chemistry, biology and origin of life research, you’d know everything that came out of James mouth was either bullshit or irrelevant. The sad part is, James knows all this. So no, you’re not as Clueless as him, in fact you’re even more clueless. He understands the chemistry and the research, yet chooses to lie about it. You and all of his followers on the other hand, don’t understand a thing about origin of life research, nor can you comprehend any of the science that it entails.
you obviously either didn't watch the debate, or were too stupid to grasp what happened during the debate. Either way, wipe the spittle off your shirt and try again. @@Hesoyam31
I can't imagine the sort of simpleton who found Tours performance convincing. He flatly refused to consider any of the hundreds of peer-reviewed papers Dave brought up and, instead, stormed around on stage, screaming and demanding irrelevant chalkboard diagrams.
@@shassett79 tour wanted to debate the papers findings. Dave only knew how to point at topic sentences. The only simpletons are those that were convinced by Dave.
Yes I would totally believe a man who throwing a temper tantrum like a little child who's screaming for their juice over a man who just explained actual chemistry in your face. Amazing.
At least he (Dr. Tour) was not cussing and insulting unlike Dave. Dr. Tour was stressing his point loudly because Dave was not really answering anything. He was just reading headlines. Even kids can do that.
@@coveux8335 He (Dave) wasn't just reading "headlines" though. He was clearly trying to have a reasonable conservation with Dr. Tour, who constantly kept using vocal superiority via his emotional deniability of evidence given by Dave (which he refuted to discuss over), which I would say is more insulting in a debate than the former. Honestly it would seem reasonable to state that Dave was trying to be respectful, but simply saw and understood that Dr. Tour would not deliver. Heck even a grad student during their Q and A questioned this over his relationship with Dave being analogous of how he treated his students, and couldn't respond appropriately by falsely praising Dave to lower to damage. And Dave was answering , but Dr. Tours kept rebuking the flow of the conservation by shifting the primary subject they were discussing, such as when Dave wanted to discuss how systematic chemistry is considered in a prebiotic environment, then Dr. Tour rambles on about amino acids, a simple concept that even a high schooler could understand. Dr. Tours failed to respect his opponent, his perspective, his evidence, and general value in the scientific community. There were even times he said Dave could not do chemistry overall, he relies too much on his TH-cam channel for his knowledge (which is not true, he's had a bachelor's degree and more for over a decade), and that he has no empirical ability of understanding the very debate they were doing. That's insulting and outright disrespectful. I would not study under a man who does not respect or at least tolerate another person dedicated to a academic concept tangent to their own, or so claim. ( Due note I'm not shilling for Dave, I am just reporting on what I observed during the debate.)
@@mbownight215 Dave does a fine job on his channel. He's more familiar with the work than I am. If you're going to trust me more than Dave, I'll just tell you to trust Dave. Does that make it more reasonable to you now?
@@easybandzofficial6456 If I asked you what the debate was about, would you say to provide the formula to make life? If that's what you went in with, I can see why you think Tour won. What was the claim of the Atheist in this?
LOL...every single item that christian boy claimed wasnt or couldnt or hasnt, or whatever, Dave produced paper after paper after paper addressing ALL of the nonsense christian dude was spewing. This was NOT a debate is was an example of the christian just not letting anything penetrate the absolute fiction of religion.
Read the papers. Tour is right. The the titles are bombastic but the content fails to deliver. Dave is actually making Tour's point for him; Tour claims the public is grossly misled by the titles of science papers because they don't understand the data inside. Dave reads the titles, can't explain or demonstrate the science, and then believes the titles are accurate representations of the experiments in the papers. The only reason Dave doesn't know how daft he looks is Dunning Kruger effect.
Dont know there are unexplained things in this World. Well you ignore people who do know more about .See Exorcism: World leading Psychiatric Authority speaks out " with Richard Gallagher, which IS a scientist. By the way Farina DOESNT bringt any life relevant paper in this debate,I can explane the chemistry about ,why.
The Nachash as described in Genesis is best translated as the shining one, though it can also be translated as a serpent. We know that it wasn't a snake because snakes don't talk, and Eve wasn't surprised. Further, the talking donkey? If you actually understood that that story which is thousands of years old is telling you that God allowed an animal to somehow verbalize its internal thoughts maybe you would be less disingenuous. It's thoughts were it was scared and worried and that it loves its owner and didn't understand why it was being hurt. In other words thousands of years ago there's a story that tells us that animals have internal lives that include fear and love and that they can understand things and not understand things. It's actually overwhelmingly beautiful if you understand both the age of the story and what it's telling you that God is letting everybody know through this story that animals should be treated with a certain level of dignity. By the way atheism doesn't equal animals should be treated in any way.
@@gemguy6812 Nor by scientific evidence there is somthing more the we ever could explane. People refuse to see what shockt their understanding. That is not rational: Pam Reynold NDE. Video. Exorcism: World leading Psychiatric Authority speaks out. Levitation iis real.Demons are real. Seculars dont know how to deal with. Religion can more,Secular can less.Periond.
@@GuitarTunings33in genesis it also says that there’s a dome over the earth with little lights poked into it. The only other place we see this argument is in the flat earth community. Are you going to stoop to that level? Seriously?
Asking someone to explain the entire complexity of how a cell functions using line structures is like asking someone to explain how an engine works using tic tac toe. If any of you on here thinks that Tour is the reasonable one here; then please go take 5 semesters worth of chemistry and then come back to this. Your mind will be blown.
Not a Professor Dave made a first class ass of himself by choosing the debate topic and then not backing up the topic he chose. Tour isn't a great debater but his content mopped the floor with Dave the dunce.
@@patinthechat6452 Your boy Dave failed twice to get his masters in chemistry. Dr.Tour is in the top ten chemists in the world. Dave just recited from some papers. I just love idiocy in the morning.
Lol your labeling him a phony is not accomplishing anything. Listen to his myriad lectures about origin of life. James knows more than probably anybody.
Atheists/Critical Thinkers *aren't the ones making the claims* my friend. They merely don't see the *evidence* behind your *'positive' religious claims and assertions regarding a "creator".*
Saw the entire debate, dave wiped the floor with him and gave papers and everything.. i feel sad for every single one of his student because thats a big red flag when they look for work in science
Dave brought papers that Tour hadn't read and apparently Dave himself didn't either. Just because it says something in the title of a paper doesn't mean that what's in the paper, thats why you have to read it. They use relay synthesis in their experiments. They need to do hands off science but it doesn't work. The chemistry doesn't work.
@@davonbenson4361 official papers published in real science magazines .. not my fault your head is still up your ass looking at your God 😂.. he destroyed him with real papers and science
The interesting thing about that debate was when Tour demonstrated a clue to when it comes to the origin of life, but his claim is that we are clueless. He refuted his own claim by drawing on a chalk board.
@@lauramann8275 Knowing there is a missing piece is in itself a clue. He can break down the things that are necessary for making up polypeptides, then he knew that there needed to be something to couple amino acids together. He's not clueless so why did he make the claim that "we are clueless"? He isn't.
@@jaypacic knowing something is missing is not a clue if you don't know what that something is. Watch the debate. Dr. Tour explains everything in his opening statement.
Dave had the scheme on his computer. In a vid factchecking James he showed the scheme that James expected him to write. It would have taken like 10 minutes
"Show me the evidence" Dave shows the evidence and then this man just shouts at him and everyone claps😂😂😂😂if the debate was about being the loudest then I guess this man won but when it comes to facts professor Dave👏👏👏👏
James Tour went in to the debate with the intention of screaming "Show me the evidence" and then refusing to accept the evidence when it was presented to him. Prof Dave went into the debate with the main intention of accusing Tour of being a liar at any opportunity. On balance, I'd say that Dave won - mainly because Tour lies all the time (He's a member of the Discovery Institute FFS). The Moderator was utterly useless. I don't think this discussion met the definition of "debate" whatsoever.
@@lauramann8275 Did you watch the "debate"? Dave repeatedly showed him peer-reviewed papers that demonstrated everything Tour said was wrong, and then Tour lied that he'd read and understood them. He simply denied that they said what they said. In his very first question, Dave challenged Tour to respond to lies that he has repeatedly told and Tour utterly failed to defend them. In the end though, my point is that neither of these men went into the debate with the honest intention of debating the origin of life. The whole discussion was shambolic.
@@MrMarcusIndia yes I watched it. Dave presented papers, but he didn't discuss the chemistry in them. He didn't explain anything and he didn't prove anything. At one point he just mentions a title of a paper, which was hilarious. His entire motivation was to call Tour a liar publicly in front of Tour's peers. The debate wasn't about Tour. They agreed on a lot of things before the debate (back and forth emails Tour posted, you can read them) they agreed on a certain amount of papers and Dave showed a lot of papers that weren't agreed upon and Tour hadn't read. Dave gish galloped him and called him a liar which set Tour off. It was a complete dibocle but no Dave never explained the chemistry because he couldn't and the scientists use relay synthesis in their experiments which is what Tour's whole point is.
@@lauramann8275 Yes, Dave's entire motivation was to call Tour a liar publicly in front of Tour's peers and demonstrate exactly how much Tour lies about what their papers and their authors say, which is what my OP said. Tour lies diabolically about this stuff in his videos, in which none of his sycophants challenge him, and it was thoroughly entertaining to see how rattled (or "set off") he got as soon as someone pointed out the way he lies. So, as I said, I would argue that Dave won in terms of what he wanted to get out of the "debate". Tour was certainly unable to prove that no ground has been made in terms of determining origin of life - and was forced to concede this on a few points - as it was made abundantly clear that he did not in fact know much about the science that has been done in this area. Frankly, I have no sympathy for Tour. He may be solid and well-regarded in his own areas of expertise but he represents lying, pseudo-scientific frauds like the Discovery Institute on matters in which he has very limited expertise and this gives them unwarranted credence. It's hilarious to watch how angry he gets when he's called out on this.
@@MrMarcusIndia Tour knows what the chemistry can and cannot do. The scientists doing these experiments are using relay synthesis which would not happen in a probiotic earth. What exactly is Tour lying about?
I guarantee that none of the people had any idea what was being said by either of these men. They just thought “Guy on my side talking loud! Guy on my side must be winning!”
Ah yes, completely leave out the fact that Professor Dave was showing peer-reviewed paper after peer-reviewed paper disproving James’ main points. Only leave in the parts of James yelling and showing us “how smart he is” by drawing up molecules on a chalkboard. Only smart people who know what they are talking about know how to draw molecules, so he MUST be right.
He read them already. He’s trying to tell you that the papers are overstating their findings. The science within the papers do not match the headers. That’s the point.
@@Programm4r"Everyone else is stupid and I'm super duper smart! Just ask me! I could get in the game and play but it's so much fun yelling from the stands about how bad the players are and how good I am at what they are doing."-NarcissistJamesTour
My favorite part about this is the misrepresentation of the debate. How they seem to edit perfectly to fit their god…doesn’t matter. You can edit as much as you want. GOD HAS YET TO SHOW UP IN REAL TIME
This debate has nothing to do with God. A bunch of weirdos from a cult of atheists keep insisting Tour is arguing for God but that's them projecting their own presuppositions. Tour never brings God or miracles or any of that nonsense into the debate with Dave. The God thing is a Stawman logical fallacy but just pile that on with the rest of Dave's logical fallacies: appeal to authority, slippery slope, post hoc ergo propter hoc, and of course Dave's favorite ad hominem.
That “real professor” that only publishes papers to Christian apologist websites and never gets peer reviewed by actual scientists? And the few times his work is peer reviewed it’s laughed at for being blatantly wrong? That professor? The guy who’s only degree is from a Christian college in synthetic chemistry yet claims to know more than everyone else who studies abiogeneses and biochemistry? How come James tour claims we’re clueless about the origin of life, yet 10s of thousands of scientists working on the subject everyday beg to differ? Could it be James is the clueless one? Do you believe that the stories in the Bible should be taught as actual, true facts of history? Do you think our kids should learn that god created the earth in 6 days and that Adam and Eve were the first humans and that Noah’s ark and the flood all really happened? Instead of the actual SCIENCE and HISTORY that’s taught today? Because the discovery institute wants desperately for creationism to be taught in schools, and if you believe any of that shit, and you believe that it should be taught in school too, than you’re a horrible person.
@@Practicalinvestmentshe doesn't publish papers. That's right. But he also doesn't claim to have new insights that completely contradict everything the scientists, who actually study these fields say. I don't need a degree in physics to teach that a ball drops down when I let go of it instead of going sideways. But if a person comes in, claiming that balls actually fall sideways, they better have some really good evidence to support that claim.
@@lelonmusk4836read up on Dr Andrew Wakefield. Peer reviewed research papers. All lies. Why would OOL researchers overstate their findings? Because it’s government funded and their jobs rely heavily on their discoveries. 60 years of research and they still can’t answer the question.
@@lelonmusk4836read up on Dr Andrew Wakefield. Peer reviewed research and it was all lies. Why would OOL researchers overstate their findings? Because their jobs are funded and rely heavily on discoveries, so they fluff it up because people like professor Dave can’t read it anyways lol.
I note that you have edited together clips of the debate, OUT OF CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER! Hmm...My disingenuous meter, and my veracity gauge, are both nearing peak measurement values.
I personally believe Tour had a bad showing but to edit clips together like this is just disingenuous. I've seen online people edit things together to make it look like they owned the other person when they were objectively wrong.
No where because he got fired for being dumb as 💩 and not teaching chemistry properly And he doesn’t have any credentials because he failed all his chemistry classes and majors BOTH times.. Farina is a loser.
@@Practicalinvestments1. Source for all these claims? 2. He doesn't need credentials to read out a peer reviewed paper. He has degrees, he does research. His research accurately reflects, what happens in the reported fields of science, so where is the problem?
Lol...the difference is one side says their beliefs are "scientific" and forced onto us in schools as truths while the other side isnt allowed to be. saying you are still waiting on proof of proving god exist is missing the point entirely. Believe what you want but evolution is NOT a fact or based on science. Observing so called micro evolution isnt proof of evolution.. word play from scientist that most dont understand. Evolution is not science but a religion.
Buy a thousand sets of the 20 specific amino acids proteins are made of from Carolina Biological (they are sourced from existing plant and animal proteins) The chirality problem will be eliminated. Hand them to Dave or Forrest Valkai and tell them they can combine them in any way they want. No matter what they do, they will not assemble into a single protein. The energy to make the peptide bonds will not exist plus chemistry doesn't have the properties to arrange them in the sequences required. The individual amino acids are like 20 letters that spell protein words that define their function and the ability to fold into their particular 3D shape to perform that function.
Wow someone that actually knows biology and chemistry! And look!, he too like myself thinks farina is a big headed arrogant 💩head. Farina knows nothing but just pretends he does, and I find it hilarious that the people in the comments who have never majored in chemistry are saying ‘dave is always right and tour is an idiot’ And all the people who ACTUALLY know or study chemistry rightly call dave a narcissistic idiot. I guess dave appeals to the lowest common denominator 🤣 Anyone who’s pro dave that reads this reply will probably be too low iq to even comprehend what I’ve said 😂💀
"I'M GOING AFTER THE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT READ THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE!" - James Tour That's you dumdums... Farina had to school a professor. He brought dozens of scientific papers... Tour brought a stick of chalk and a bad attitude.
You have massive Dunning Kruger effect. Bringing papers to a debate is an appeal to authority logical fallacy. Bringing chalk and being ready to demonstrate your points on a blackboard is debate. You too have massive Dunning Kruger effect.
My God, what a series of ridiculous statements welded together... 1). The Dunning Kruger effect, as commonly understood is the only fallacy here, and the original experiment was never designed to show what people think it did. 2). It's not an appeal to authority... Farina's citing the actual research, NOT claiming "so-and-so said a thing about X and therefore X is true" (curiously Tour DOES do this, but all his quote mines are fallacious) 3). who the hell told you you couldn't bring notes to a debate, and who told you those notes couldn't be academic papers from relevant fields? On a subject this fucking COMPLEX, what kind of jackass turns up with nothing but a few disingenuous quote mines waving a stick of chalk like a crazy person? Don't both with that last one... it was entirely rhetorical... Tour was aiming at an audience whose education, and therefore their notions of what education entails, peaked back when good ol' teach used to write the A,B,C's out on Mr. Blackboard... y'know, the dumdums? At least I now know what tack creationist jackasses are being spoon-fed to explain away Tour's disastrous (and frankly downright bizarre) performance from your so obviously regurgitated garbage, so I suppose I ought to thank you... Thanks, dumdum.
Actually no... I have more to say, because although it's a nonsense, I do obviously know what you meant by the Dunning Kruger reference, and you chose to engage me, with nothing but shit in your hands... I did study palaeoanthropology modules at uni (also philosophy, which is how I know you did not)... I've also read Darwin and Dawkins, Cambell/Reese and Futuyma (amongst others)... I actually know a fair bit about evolution and biology, which is to say next to nothing... but if you think I think that makes me any more an expert on origin of life research than the next guy, you're trippin'... BUT I AM smart enough to recognise that writing out an existing piece of biochemistry and saying "solve that, mate!" isn't a real question... what was Farina supposed to do? Rub a piece of it out and rewrite it? FFS, Tour might have well as drawn a frog on the board and said "answer that"... THAT is why I said dumdums, dumdum... not because I know shit about abiogenesis, but because I'm bright enough to recognise an obvious piece of theatre, aimed at a particularly ignorant mindset. Can I stretch that to a mic drop moment? Ah, what the heck... "Klunk!"
Atheism is not the lack of a belief. It is the belief that man’s existence has a godless, natural explanation. Atheistic religions exist. And atheists have churches. Try again.
I never got much into the origin of life material . As a former atheist that came back to Christianity there are many other areas of science that I could easily debunk professor Dave on , especially quantum physics and things like near death experiences . I was very disappointed with James tour bling because he should have wiped the floor with professor Dave , but because he lost his cool . I should show Him how it’s done . In fact I think I will . How about a question for the atheists ;) Most major theistic religions claim we have a soul and an afterlife . Tell Me atheists where does science currently lean towards when it comes to the existence of the soul and the afterlife . I bet all my fellow theists here that not one atheist will deal with it
Science doesn't make any claim about a soul and afterlife. However, many atheistic scientists follow the principle of "a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." So, they usually don't accept the idea of a soul and afterlife. Me, I don't believe in either, but I don't hold any objective stance on gods, souls, or an afterlife. You're free to believe what you want, I just don't see a reason to.
@@SuperSiege ok let’s see what the top scientists as far as research into this area say about where science is leaning towards . Dr Sam Parnia is the top guy here , and the NDE community supports him in this research even though he’s an agnostic and a materialist . He also changed his mind on this . He also has the largest peer received study on this question called the aware study . goop.com/wellness/spirituality/when-is-death-irreversible-a-resuscitation-m-d-explains-why-its-evolving/ What the evidence suggests is that the soul, the self, the psyche, whatever you want to call it, does not become annihilated, even though the brain has shut down. This suggests that part of what makes us who we are-a part that is very real-is not produced by the brain. Instead, the brain is acting like a mediator. Like anything that has been undiscovered, because we can’t touch and feel it, we choose to ignore it. The reality, though, is that human thought exists, we communicate through thoughts-so it is a real phenomena. The source of consciousness is undiscovered in the same way that electromagnetic waves have been around for millions of years, but it’s only been recently that we created a device to record them and show them to other people. So in short, we haven’t got the tools yet, or a machine that’s accurate enough to pick up your thoughts and show them to me. In the next couple of decades, I believe it will be discovered that we continue to exist after death, and that consciousness is in fact an independent entity. So what was it that you said about science having no position on the soul and afterlife ? Dr Parnia was also interviewed on National Geographic about this
@secretshadow1262I still cannot believe people like you exist. You are claiming science says God doesn’t exist? Ok show me the science then? Should be easy if you say God doesn’t exist you should be able to show me scientific evidence that proves that right? Lol I already know you won’t answer that in good faith, which proves to me that a lot of atheists are just hypocrites.
If that's a genuine question, then let me answer it: science doesn't lean towards the existence of a soul or an afterlife because no sufficient evidence for it has been found yet.
@@lelonmusk4836 cool lelon then please explain near death experiences to us ;) I hope you have studied the NDE scientific literature cause if your not your gonna look foolish really fast wink wink ;)
Tour wasn't there to argue from the bible he even stated that in his opening statement he was there to show science doesn't know and Dave sure as hell didn't know
@@ItsCarlnotCarla He wasn't there to argue from the bible. He was there in support of the bible. And the bible can't have any life coming from nature. It's why he wants the origin of life research to be ended. And that's not science. Dave brought the research references. Tour dismissed them. You either trust Tour, or you check the references. The debate was of whether science is clueless on origin of life. Not on whether Dave memorized everything. And "clueless" was the only condition Tour would agree to. You heard Daves opening. He knew he wasn't going to satisfy Tour or the condition because "clueless" is not measurable. Tour knew he wasn't going to satisfy Dave. This was purely performance for Tour aimed at his acolytes and to save face for the DI. The DI doesn't care about what real science says. They only care about what followers believe. And Tour didn't disappoint. That was some real evangelizing there. The one posting this video edited it to shut Dave up. That was telling. Better to watch the original. This was just hilarious editing.
Alot of comments saying this debate was about athiest vs thiest. It was a debate about origins of life and proving it with chemistry. One guy kept reading research paper headings and the other guy was using his brain and writing down the chemical equations and giving the other guy the opportunity to correct him in real time on the black board but kept refusing. James was getting frustrated at Dave because all Dave could do was read out research title headings but wouldn't step forward to explain any of these papers. Dave proved he could read, but no proof he can do chemistry in that debate.
It’s almost like the papers have all of the chemistry in them already hence making it pointless to draw them on the board. If James actually have a crap he would consider the schematics already drawn for him by the researchers.
@jorbjorbensen5259 if it was that easy he could have taken 5 seconds out of the debate and written out the equations, then it would have been a slam dunk, but he didn't.
@@dansmith9724 equations? What equations? are you talking about? Even then, would writing the schemes that are already in the papers on a board make the peer reviewed research any more or less true?
@@dansmith9724 did you read the question in posed? Does writing the peer reviewed research already written in the paper on a board make the science educators argument any more or less valid? Also, the schemes that James aren’t anything special, college undergrads learn how to do that stuff. Not to mention, James misnamed the first one. He wrote the symbol for aspartic acid but later called it asparagine. This claim that James knows more about chemistry is ridiculous. This is astonishing considering James was a fairly accomplished chemist back in the day. The chemicals drawn make no reference to anything in the debate apart from tricking all of his fans who don’t know anything about origin of life research into thinking that James knows what he is talking about. With all due respect. Have you actually seen the entire debate and not the cherry picked damage control?
Because over the last year or two, Dave has exposed Tour variously as a liar, a hack, a conflater, someone who misunderstands other chemists/biologists work, and a disingenuous fool who is unhinged at the level and volume of his errors.
@@lauramann8275 No, he's trying to scream over him so Dave doesn't get a chance to argue back. Watch the entire debate for context, he's constantly screaming and making non-sensical points to impress the audience
@@xyzedits1 I've watched it a couple times now. The structure of the debate is what Dave wanted. He planned it that way. They both talked over each other. Tour is trying to explain why the chemistry doesn't work and Dave isn't listening. He thinks a title of a paper is proof against Tour but he doesn't understand the paper. 🤣
Tour can't show any pertinent chemistry to back up his claim. He would have to demonstrate that the chemistry can't work, and he didn't. To the extent that he put chemistry on the blackboard, it's simply demonstrating that there are open questions in this field of research. He's claiming that becasue these open questions exist, we don't have any clue about the whole field. It's an obvious fallacy. Or he's trying to pass off a tortured definition of "clueless" - but retreating to semantics is the second best way to show me that he's wrong. It doesn't look good for him either way. In fact the chemistry could potentially work, and we have a whole host of examples of reactions that do work. The ones we can't figure out yet are open questions, as is the case in every field of research. It's normal to not have all the answers. Also his assertion about the probability of abiogenesis is completely faulty, it's based on unfounded assumptions about what is actually required for life (he's baselessly assuming that we need the whole picture right from the beginning, essentially). It's also a very naive application of the probabilities, because the mechanism isn't purported to be raw random chance, so shouting about the raw probability is a red herring. See how he dodges this exact accusation which was presented to him directly in the Q&A portion. He has no defense of his assumption, because there is none. It's that simple. I think all the shouting and faulty assumptions are because he gets paid by the DI to attempt to legitimize creationism as science. In other words, dishonesty.
Destroyed him ha ha ha you're just like James Tour, you won't except it because you have too much going for your world view. You'll never beleive it no matter how much evidence you receive.
@@robkesik6382 parina cannot possibly justify how it's possible for chemicals to act accordingly through evolution. There's no way to explain it, you can only assume...hence the theory of evolution.
@@vanessac0382 that's not what a theory means in science. It's not a guess. Additionally, just because the starting point is not completely filled in, does not mean the rest is not valid. Get your Jesus crap out of here...
Dave: here is the scientific literature about the chemistry James: *screams and yells at him to write it down on a chalkboard, even though Dave can just show the slide on his computer, because he doesn’t want to waste 10 minutes writing on a chalkboard and berating his opponent by constantly yelling and writing “clueless” over and over*
Yes, right?! 😁👍👍 I rewatched so I could go back to the full debate for some actual context for my arguments here, and noted that the poster has edited together clips, out of chronological order, and further very,very cherrypicked at that!
@@johnrap7203 Funnily enough the audience was selected by James so they're basically his flock of sheep, it's why they were constantly booing everything Dave said and cheering for James.
That's a true scientist frustrated by someone who claims to debate a scientific question but can't articulate the scientific details of his position. Dave is neither a professor nor a scientist. He's a youtuber who panders to his fanbase.
He is a scientist who has a degree in chemistry and taught chemistry in a university. Frustration does not give you the right to lose your composure. Dave didn’t yell once and only does if he is being interrupted and being spoken over by Tour. Dave kept his composure the entire time while tour kept yelling at him.
@@gamersmash7023 a scientist? Any proof of that assertion? A degree in chemistry does not make one a scientist. From what I can remember he taught high school chem. Again, does not qualify as a scientist. He's not even an actual professor now, yet calls himself professor. And 'composure'? Well yes, he came ready and composed to throw those childish and vomit inducing ad hominem against his interlocutor who's a TRUE scientist who can make his scientific case. Contra Dave who simply puts his faith in the writers he is agreeing with. Pretty pathetic display of incompetence.
@@gamersmash7023 Dave taught HS chemistry without a degree as a teachers aid! And he was fired! He never taught in university, where did you get that 🤣. He's not a scientist 🤦 holy cow 🙄
Sure, maybe Tour could have responded better here. Watch the entire debate before you decide who was right, though. PLUS, how do you know you would have responded better in this high-pressure situation? Tour is still a human, after all. Have you EVER been in this situation? After watching the debate 100%?
@@lauramann8275 axcoeding to his bio he tough undergraduate students. Im assuming that was ij the USA. Unless he was just a teaching assistant, that would make him a professor.
@@robkesik6382 he taught high school chemistry as a student aid without a degree. If he did something else after that, I'm not aware of it. Regardless he talks about giving himself the name Professor Dave in one of his videos.
Random dude: “show me the chemistry.” Dave: “okay here’s the chem-“ Random dude: “GO! GO! GO! GO! YOU GUYS SEE HOW HES TALKING RIGHT NOW THAT MEANS HE DOESNT KNOW WHAT HES TALKING ABOUT IF HE KNEW CHEMISTRY HE WOULD BEAM THE KNOWLEDGE INTO OUR HEADS INSTEAD OF TALKING!!!”
I do not have words, lol. This is just pathetic on so many scales. Not only was Tour an absolute clown, but this was chopped up to make him look GOOD. Like, that's how bad this is for him that THIS is the best they could do. Even worse, somehow people watch this and think Tour did anything of value lol. Farina could have just made a power point presentation and sipped a lemonade and it would have gone exactly as bad for Jimbo. Get a grip man, this is just pathetic.
@davonbenson4361 and those aren't the only chemical compounds in existence. There's no point in writing anything with chalkb the schemes are in the literature
He adressed it by showing him actual scientific papers. Drawing it on the board would have taken ages and Dave obviously doesn't have the process memorised, so it's just a dishonest challenge from Tour. It would be like going "You have 2 minutes to draw the periodic table on this chalkboard. Can't do it? I guess we're clueless about chemistry then."
It's hilarious that even subjected to this amount of disingenuous editing, this still makes Tour look like a raving lunatic. It is so adorable that someone edited this, genuinely labouring under the impression it would look favourable for theism.
Reminder of the flat Earth debate that tried to go against Dave and again he explains it but you guys refuse to listen and simply say no you can't look at two plus two equals four and just say no that makes no sense science must be peer-reviewed and the evidence that Dave shows is peer-reviewed science that can be proven all tour had was theatrics and deceptive double talk he proved nothing and if you're impressed because of a chalkboard you are not supposed to be watching this go back to fourth grade biology and EMOTION doesn't belong in debate. Hence one man screaming the other one is composed and concise
If you noticed tour stays on the same point because it's all he has and if it doesn't make sense to him he throws it away again this is anti-science this man is too enthralled with his archaic beliefs than to accept the honest science behind the origins of Life which we are NOT clueless
Ah I understand now. The louder you yell the more correct you are.
He didn’t show any chemistry are you deaf? Raising your voice doesn’t automatically make what your saying wrong. It was out of frustration especially since all Dave did the entire debate was insult him and read from titles of papers that had no relevance to the debate.
@@TyrellWellickEcorp "didn't show any chemistry" what does that even mean without context? Getting frustrated and yelling in a debate is infantile behaviour. So by not giving us context the only thing this video has shown is him acting childish.
@@fecomate2542 I agree he should’ve toned it down a bit but all Dave was doing was reading from the titles of peer reviewed literature which anybody can do and wasn’t answering questions.
@@fecomate2542 Raising your voice aint infantile. What’s infantile is Dave’s whole opening statement which was a pure ad hom fest and insulting tour and audience the entire time
@@TyrellWellickEcorp again. I have not seen the debate, just this clip, however the way this was edited makes it seem like this was a "power move". In reality it's just an old man yelling, interrupting the other debater while saying nothing substantial. I know nothing of the debate, he may or may not be correct, but this behaviour *is* infantile. No two ways about that.
“If you can’t win by reason, win by volume”
That's the moto of his debate
@@Gamovoid17What was being debated? I am lost.
@@Theo_Skeptomai they were debating about orign of life research, I am a cs college major I really can't understand most of the stuff said here .
@@Gamovoid17 Thanks for the explanation.
@@Theo_Skeptomai to be clear, the debate is “are we are clueless on origins of life?” The papers that “professor Dave” brings are on trial. The point was to dissect the papers and prove whether or not they were overstating their findings.
Lay people: "SHOW US THE EVIDENCE!"
Science communicator: *Shows evidence*
Lay people: "WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?"
The only evidence you have for the existence of your god is the unverifiable Bible, which is a series of folk tales. If you’re going to believe those folk tales then Homer’s Odyssey provides definitive evidence that Poseidon and Zeus exist.
The worst part is that James SHOULDN'T be a layperson. I get that he's a synthetic chemist, and this was about molecular (in)organic chemistry, specifically abiogenetic work; but James should be up-to-date with the literature considering he's always saying "the literature doesn't exist" or "it's wrong" etc. This debate could be summarized by James' opening line, "I don't know how to debate."
*All quotations in this comment are my summarizations. They are not direct quotes.*
Dave's rebuttal video was great. He showed "the chemistry" tour was asking for. It wouldve taken him an hour to draw the chemical pathways for some of the proposed mechanisms. Tour new it was a stunt. Essentially a strawman
When a chemist asks you to write an equation and you read an abstract of an article then somethings wrong with you. The least he could do is shout at you 😂😂😂
@ABDVL01 If a contractor asked me to prove I could build a house by building a house in front of him, is it unreasonable for me to point at a house I already built instead of building a new one?
That was such an embarassing display by Tour. It's unbelievable that this dude managed to convince enough people that he is capable of teaching at universities.
The most sad thing about it is that (I just got lot’s of TH-cam shorts from Tour’s channel) people actuelly support him (him as in Tour), and hate on Dave, saying that he isn’t a doctor denying his teaching abilities and because he doesn’t know if Free Will is he doesn’t know anything.
I personally think it’s scary people can support Tour, but I of course came to the debate from Dave’s video so I am not objective in identifying who actuelly won, but I am quite sure in Dave’s abilities to succeed that if Tour’s
@@paxonline7503I think James deletes comments, his channel is insane there’s no way that many robots support him and you can’t find a single comment saying he’s wrong. I see comments on Dave’s channel all the time talking shit about him or saying he’s wrong, why aren’t there any on James channel? That guy knows how to keep his cult in check
He wiped the floor up with the you tube clown
He's probably super frustrated because Dave is a troll, and won't break out the facts of the matter. Instead, he relies on his "successful" website, etc, to prove he's smart. Ok, so you're smart. But, are you versed on THIS subject enough to have an actual debate? Didn't think so. Does that excuse Tour's screeching? No, no it does not. But, I'd be frustrated too, trying to debate that guy.
@@mitsulang I could say the same thing about James, is HE versed enough to comment on this subject? Obviously not. And yes, Dave did pull up “the facts of the matter” multiple times from all different kinds of research papers published by a variety of reputable scientists. Instead of going over them and saying why they are wrong or right, James tour says “nuh uh you said that already in a video” and throws a temper tantrum like a child.
"Show me a complicated set of chemistry on a board that isn't large enough and waste all your response time drawing your reactions on the board even though you can just as well pull up actual scientific literature." Anyone who thinks Dave should have used the board is fooling themselves.
As a scientist in the field trying to prove it, he should be able to write down the formula so that another scientist can read it.. 😂. All he literally had to do is write down the formula. Lol
@@easybandzofficial6456 Dave isn't a scientist, he is a science communicator. And the relevant information was all in the papers. There wasn't any reason to write anything on the board.
@@clemensbock7434 how can you say there wasn’t any reason when he was directly being challenged to do so and could’ve easily won the debate by doing so.. lmao.. “not a scientist, he’s a science communicator” lmao.. that’s even more proof that he’s in over his head coz dr James tour IS a scientist.. lol a science communicator!😂
Dr tour clearly explained why those papers were irrelevant and offered him to show and prove, to which Dave failed miserably
@@easybandzofficial6456Maybe it's because of the strict time limits to get your points across to begin with, and the fact that wasting your time to write something that has ALREADY BEEN PREPARED TO SHOW is redundant and a waste of everyone's time.
Let me ask you this: if you have a quote you want to reference when you write a paper, do you use the copy and paste function on your computer, or do you painstakingly type every word down without fail? If the former, then surely that means you aren't actually capable of typing it, since you declined to do so and chose to do the more efficient action instead. Do you see how dishonest and illogical that sounds?
@@starwarriorterra8373 it’s not redundant because it’s not in any of those papers he was citing neither 😂. And further more it’s not a waste of time as if he was able to articulate any of the formula on the board for everyone to see he won have won the whole debate.. lol. This is science, you are supposed to show and prove. You can’t just act like you’re smarter than everyone, you have to be able to show proof of your claims especially when challenged to do so.
Ironic that this is posted on a religious channel. This is a better demonstration of creationists being nutty con artists
Tour: Prove that this chemistry is possible!
Dave: Here is a paper in which they did this chemistry.
Tour: You and everyone has no idea how to do this chemistry.
And the religious audience laps it up. It's astounding. Read the papers, the methodology is right there.
@@phillyphakename1255lol I am part of the religious audience. I enjoy seeing liars like Tour being exposed. Even as a Christian it is easy to see who is in the right.
@@PhillipMoore-td5yiyou are literally amazing
That's not a scientific argument
@@crabb9966 it’s not meant to be, not everything that’s logical is scientific. The fact you don’t understand this is crazy to me
The big take away is the little known fact that yelling increases your truth by 20%.
And ad hominem attacks make titles of papers relevant to the chemistry in question.
@@lauramann8275 screaming to everyone that the chemistry of bio genesis can only lead to one being clueless isn’t much of any argument. He obviously believes God is the special sauce that made it happen so he should quit being a coward and just say it and own it.
@@Silly46337 it's called abiogenesis and you don't understand how complex the chemistry is.
Tour never mentions God when discussing the chemistry. Ever. Watch the debate or watch any of Tours videos.
@@lauramann8275 according to him, the complexity is a moot point because it leaves one clueless. Him not mentioning God is my point. He thinks life couldn’t have occurred naturally which is fine but also useless. Everyone knows he thinks God is how it all happened so why is he such a coward by refusing to admit its his actual theory of origin?
@@Silly46337 because he's a scientist. A scientist can't say something is not possible if it hasn't been tested to prove it so.
You do not have to have a PhD or be a Christian to understand that Tour failed on a more basic level than chemistry with how he conducted himself in this debate. The hysterics and the dishonesty are spectacular.
And since someone is going to ask, the entire 'write something on the board' shtick was dishonest. Not only was it dishonest, but Tour also managed to get some of his own details wrong which makes it even better. A PhD chemist who draws inaccurate chemistry diagrams is extra-special. This should not be construed as the totality of his dishonesty. Professor Dave has done a detailed breakdown of that on his channel which is there and waiting for honest folks to assess.
As a christian
Someone buy him a science kit for kids lol
As far as I know he didn't wrote a diagram wrong but called wrong one of the components he wrote on that blackboard.
Religion and science shouldnt mix. Screaming doesnt make you right.
If they don't mix then the religion can't be true lol
It is interwoven
The creator of the universe is the greatest scientist of our existence
Not providing evidence much more doesn't make you right lol
@@purelyrandom1230 look at all of daves videos, he provides tons of evidence. Even if he didnt, theres tons of evidence for evolution you can look at yourself, but you wanna stay blind for your religion.
@@RafaelFernando117 no he isnt. What has he done for anyone except commit genocide and send people to enternal hellfire for not believing in him.
If the title of this short was “james shouts and doesn’t let Dave speak” I would’ve believe that was the intent of the short. Yelling and more yelling doesn’t prove a point yet you think that sells it.
The title of the debate should have been "How to insult a chemist that knows what he's talking about without discussing the chemistry because you weren't prepared."
He chose not to speak by not picking up the chalk piece...Do all the talking on the black board
To be fair, all Dave did the whole debate was hurl ad hominems.
At least Tour actually DID Science. The best Dave could do was read the titles off of peer reviewed articles without actually discussing their substance.
@@GhostBearCommander a lot of what you call ad hominem was being brutally honest. If you look at all of Dave’s yt responses to tours critiques, you can see why Dave would call him a liar. I agree that Dave should not have been this brutal and should’ve just stuck with stuff that is easy for people to understand without context.
It was weird that dave doesn’t know some of the context of the paper but the fact that these papers have been peer reviewed by top scientists shows the credibility of the paper. Dave is not a OOL researcher so whatever he says without any backing would’ve been discarded for not being credible. He shows that OOL researchers aren’t clueless. It would’ve been better if he did know the substance of the paper but without knowing the substance, no one can actually confirm whether the paper is actually true or false. The fact that they are peer reviewed gives us a pretty good understanding that too scientists within the field have fact checked and approved these papers. Tour have not and probably will never get an article published. He would rather talk to scientifically illiterate laypeople then actual OOL researchers as shown by his answer to the Q&A portion of the debate.
@@miguelbinha not picking up chalk = clueless? Dave asks what he wants to write on the board and Tour doesn’t answer it and assumes he can’t do it.
Dave: Shows evidence
Random priest: WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE
Random priest lol More like 30 year professor.
@@hellooutsiders6865he is however not a professor for evolutionary biology, so in this debate his credentials are nonexistent
@@hellooutsiders6865He simply ignores the existence of scientific literature of the very thing he was debating, the origin of life. Not once did he even ACTUALLY address any of the scientific literature Dave presented, not once! The only times he even mentioned it was to straw-man it or blatantly lie about it and then continue Gish Galloping.
Did you just call a world class scientist a random priest? Lol. The whole debate was whether or not the papers were overstating their findings. So you can’t use the topic sentences of the papers to prove the papers. Tour already knew the science didn’t match the titles.
@@Programm4r No, Tour just lies about it, and you've fallen for his con.
I watched the whole debate and Professor Dave did to James Tour what he does to flat earthers, he drubbed him. It was pure entertainment.
Where is it? Id like to watch
"It was pure entertainment." - this sums it up very much and at the same time it REVEALS the rotten core of THE MAJORITY following such topics. Clickbait and brownie points is all that matters to 99% of the cultists of scientism.
@@ACuriousChild “…the cultists of scientism?” You speak as if you think, and let me reiterate the word THINK, the progress of science is some kind of religion. You think you’re special? That you, with what is most likely a limited amount of education, know more than the people like Professor Dave, cosmologists, astrologists, geologists and other people who do this work for a living? I was entertained by what I saw. Someone who knows more than the other guy who thinks yelling over his opponent makes him somehow correct, and making him look bad. That’s what was entertaining. I’m not going to get into it with you. I just had to point out your ignorance. I’m going to abide by something the late, great Mark Twain said, “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” Albert Einstein said something just as good, “Arguing with a fool is like trying to teach a fish how to climb a tree.” It is entertaining watching liars get their comeuppance, like flerfs do when their pseudoscience is flattened like a cockroach. The mythical land of Flattardia is going down in flames. You’re not special, and science isn’t a religion. Good day to you.
Dave acts like a 12 year old and gave ad hominem attacks the entire debate. Lol The guy's a douche.
@@ACuriousChildcultists of scientism?? give me a break lmfao. You know you’re in deep to your own cult when you call scientists a cult
I watched this entire debate from start to finish. The crazy loud guy definitely did NOT win. I believe in God. But that’s irrelevant here. Ferina destroyed this guy.
Why do you believe in God? 🤔 it’s such an odd thing to believe in.
@ sincereflowers3218:
Why do you want to know why I believe in God? Are you sincerely asking me, or are you just trying to troll and bait me? You DO know that my believe in God was not the overall point of my comment, correct? You do know that my point was that James Tour was over emotional and not making a good showing of himself, correct? You KNOW that was my point. So why then would you randomly question my personal belief, a personal belief that I was simply using as a frame of reference and not pushing on anyone? What are you trying to accomplish with your question?
@@adskw1935 Jeez you seem really high strung and sensitive. Ignore my comment.
@@JD-bb2ue Ah but see there's more evidence for every single thing you mentioned than there is evidence for ANY God. It really is that simple for most people but theists will forever lag behind.
@@sincereflowers3218 OP showed integrity and you just had to go "not good enough." Tell me, is being right worth further entrenching people in their beliefs by acting like a tool or can you simply not help yourself?
Tour really embarrassed himself.
Not sure what any of this has to do with atheism but Dave has a good grasp of the biochemistry which helps explain how life came into being through natural processes.
You have to adress the science he can't do that so he's only waisting time. We want science not stories
Tour’s chemistry expertise is more specialized, so he doesn’t allow other scientists to get away with saying stuff without specifics, especially in that discipline.
Farina was also kinda smarmy, so I think there was a lot of tension building up.
@@brizzoke that’s a joke!!
Tour is way out of his comfort zone. If you don’t know anything about biochemistry then you wouldn’t know that.
Honestly I have no idea if any of the papers Dave presented were credible or not. What ticks me off is James glossing over all of them in a fraction of a second and deducting that they are ALL irrelevant. I think this was really dishonest and honestly indefendable actions. I hope people on his side realise that. If he truly believed theyw ere irrelevant, he shouldve dissected them one by one instead of bunching them all together, without reading a single one might I add, and say all of them are irrelevant. He had the chance to embarrass Dave and immediatly dismiss the entire point of the debate but he didnt... probably because he wasnt capable of refuting those papers, no offense.
@@aahhhhhhhhhhhhh If you want to see Tour dissecting quite a few of these papers, you'd have to watch some of his abiogenesis series because he does just that.
Here's the issue. If you walked someone through even one paper, it would take way longer than a presenters time. If Tour had to go through a paper he's not seen before, it would take even longer.
One of Tour's major arguments against these OOL papers is that taking them at face value and reading their titles, abstracts and articles covering it gets you nowhere because they hype up their work too much.
I get the criticism that Tour was too loud and obnoxious, well Farina was being just as obtuse and facetious in the opposite direction. They probably should have agreed on more specific things beforehand to debate on, but it just leaves you with this mess.
I can tell Tour was right because he yelled more. He who yells most is always right.
idk what the point of this short is
Is it an anti-Tour or anti-Dave short?
From the profile picture of the uploader and the title of the short, I can conclude that the video is supposed to show how Professor Dave is wrong.
But the actual content of the video is James Tour shouting and acting like a 5 year old who lost a game of find and seek.
So...I guess it's a short that wants to get more viewers by saying that Dave is wrong, but then show these viewers that actually James Tour is a psycho?
Whoever thinks James Tour did a good job in any aspect of that debate is just as clueless as James Tour is.
He proved Dave clueless, that's for sure. 😂
@@lauramann8275yea bullshit. James sees a paper that contradicts his claim and says “nuh uh” without explaining why. Not to mention James has a phd in chemistry and didn’t even draw his chemistry right. Sad to see this poor old man suffer this mental illness
@@lauramann8275tour is like s monkey screaming and shitting all over the place, he cant prove anything
@@Hesoyam31 science can lead people to believe god doesn’t exist, but it’s not evidence for an Absence of god. Most science does however debunk the Old Testament but that has more to do with organized religion and scripture than an actual god. Also, how does anything James said debunk origin of life, or prove we’re clueless? Do you just take his word because he’s a chemist? Or do you actually understand any of what he said and the chemistry he presented. Because if you did know anything about chemistry, biology and origin of life research, you’d know everything that came out of James mouth was either bullshit or irrelevant. The sad part is, James knows all this. So no, you’re not as Clueless as him, in fact you’re even more clueless. He understands the chemistry and the research, yet chooses to lie about it. You and all of his followers on the other hand, don’t understand a thing about origin of life research, nor can you comprehend any of the science that it entails.
you obviously either didn't watch the debate, or were too stupid to grasp what happened during the debate. Either way, wipe the spittle off your shirt and try again. @@Hesoyam31
I can't imagine the sort of simpleton who found Tours performance convincing. He flatly refused to consider any of the hundreds of peer-reviewed papers Dave brought up and, instead, stormed around on stage, screaming and demanding irrelevant chalkboard diagrams.
Yeah, but the papers proved that in theory the right chemical components can produce life.
It’s a government funded research. With 60 years of peer reviewed papers, they still can’t answer the question. Why? Because their clueless.
Well, have we created life or did we just create a Frankenstein cell from an already living cell?
@@shassett79 tour wanted to debate the papers findings. Dave only knew how to point at topic sentences. The only simpletons are those that were convinced by Dave.
@@Programm4r Laughably wrong, of course. Also, this was from *nearly a year ago!* What are you doing with your life?
Yes I would totally believe a man who throwing a temper tantrum like a little child who's screaming for their juice over a man who just explained actual chemistry in your face. Amazing.
At least he (Dr. Tour) was not cussing and insulting unlike Dave. Dr. Tour was stressing his point loudly because Dave was not really answering anything. He was just reading headlines. Even kids can do that.
@@coveux8335 He (Dave) wasn't just reading "headlines" though. He was clearly trying to have a reasonable conservation with Dr. Tour, who constantly kept using vocal superiority via his emotional deniability of evidence given by Dave (which he refuted to discuss over), which I would say is more insulting in a debate than the former. Honestly it would seem reasonable to state that Dave was trying to be respectful, but simply saw and understood that Dr. Tour would not deliver. Heck even a grad student during their Q and A questioned this over his relationship with Dave being analogous of how he treated his students, and couldn't respond appropriately by falsely praising Dave to lower to damage. And Dave was answering , but Dr. Tours kept rebuking the flow of the conservation by shifting the primary subject they were discussing, such as when Dave wanted to discuss how systematic chemistry is considered in a prebiotic environment, then Dr. Tour rambles on about amino acids, a simple concept that even a high schooler could understand. Dr. Tours failed to respect his opponent, his perspective, his evidence, and general value in the scientific community. There were even times he said Dave could not do chemistry overall, he relies too much on his TH-cam channel for his knowledge (which is not true, he's had a bachelor's degree and more for over a decade), and that he has no empirical ability of understanding the very debate they were doing. That's insulting and outright disrespectful. I would not study under a man who does not respect or at least tolerate another person dedicated to a academic concept tangent to their own, or so claim. ( Due note I'm not shilling for Dave, I am just reporting on what I observed during the debate.)
@@creeperkinght1144 okay, so tell me the chemistry that proof life will come from dead matter?
This is hilarious. Volume equals superior argument. Love the way this cuts any responses from Dave. That's actually what I'd expect.
You can do the chemistry for him then
@@mbownight215 Dave does a fine job on his channel. He's more familiar with the work than I am. If you're going to trust me more than Dave, I'll just tell you to trust Dave. Does that make it more reasonable to you now?
So are you claiming he’s got the formula to make life?
@@easybandzofficial6456 If I asked you what the debate was about, would you say to provide the formula to make life? If that's what you went in with, I can see why you think Tour won. What was the claim of the Atheist in this?
@@RichardRoy2 I just asked you a simple question.. lmao what’s going on here. Just answer the question
LOL...every single item that christian boy claimed wasnt or couldnt or hasnt, or whatever, Dave produced paper after paper after paper addressing ALL of the nonsense christian dude was spewing. This was NOT a debate is was an example of the christian just not letting anything penetrate the absolute fiction of religion.
Read the papers. Tour is right. The the titles are bombastic but the content fails to deliver. Dave is actually making Tour's point for him; Tour claims the public is grossly misled by the titles of science papers because they don't understand the data inside. Dave reads the titles, can't explain or demonstrate the science, and then believes the titles are accurate representations of the experiments in the papers. The only reason Dave doesn't know how daft he looks is Dunning Kruger effect.
Dave read from a script. Dr.Tour is in the top ten chemists in the world. Your boy Dave failed twice to get his masters in chemistry. Try again, boy.
@Mike Michelson
BWAHAHAHA...yes
@Mike Michelson
Tell me something, what is Dave's PhD in again?
@@thomasjane4167 yea but Tour also does not have a phd in origin of life so what’s your point?
I like this “throw a tantrum” style of debating from Tour. Might give it a try myself sometime!
Draw a talking snake and donkey and I’ll be convinced😂
Dont know there are unexplained things in this World. Well you ignore people who do know more about .See Exorcism: World leading Psychiatric Authority speaks out " with Richard Gallagher, which IS a scientist.
By the way Farina DOESNT bringt any life relevant paper in this debate,I can explane the chemistry about ,why.
The Nachash as described in Genesis is best translated as the shining one, though it can also be translated as a serpent. We know that it wasn't a snake because snakes don't talk, and Eve wasn't surprised. Further, the talking donkey? If you actually understood that that story which is thousands of years old is telling you that God allowed an animal to somehow verbalize its internal thoughts maybe you would be less disingenuous. It's thoughts were it was scared and worried and that it loves its owner and didn't understand why it was being hurt. In other words thousands of years ago there's a story that tells us that animals have internal lives that include fear and love and that they can understand things and not understand things. It's actually overwhelmingly beautiful if you understand both the age of the story and what it's telling you that God is letting everybody know through this story that animals should be treated with a certain level of dignity. By the way atheism doesn't equal animals should be treated in any way.
No you wouldn’t be convinced by a talking snake or a talking donkey.
@@gemguy6812 Nor by scientific evidence there is somthing more the we ever could explane. People refuse to see what shockt their understanding. That is not rational: Pam Reynold NDE. Video.
Exorcism: World leading Psychiatric Authority speaks out.
Levitation iis real.Demons are real. Seculars dont know how to deal with.
Religion can more,Secular can less.Periond.
@@GuitarTunings33in genesis it also says that there’s a dome over the earth with little lights poked into it. The only other place we see this argument is in the flat earth community. Are you going to stoop to that level? Seriously?
Asking someone to explain the entire complexity of how a cell functions using line structures is like asking someone to explain how an engine works using tic tac toe.
If any of you on here thinks that Tour is the reasonable one here; then please go take 5 semesters worth of chemistry and then come back to this. Your mind will be blown.
This is what we call damage control. Professor Dave set off a nuke in that room
Not a Professor Dave made a first class ass of himself by choosing the debate topic and then not backing up the topic he chose. Tour isn't a great debater but his content mopped the floor with Dave the dunce.
@@taylorjeremy71 I love sarcasm in the morning! Thanks I needed a good chuckle.
@@patinthechat6452
Your boy Dave failed twice to get his masters in chemistry. Dr.Tour is in the top ten chemists in the world. Dave just recited from some papers. I just love idiocy in the morning.
@@thomasjane4167 more comedy with my coffee, love it.
@@patinthechat6452
Yes, I'm enjoying the clown show you provide. Thank you.
Yikes someone actually posted this thinking it was in Tour’s favor? 😂😂😂
What did this clip have to do with atheism? I'm lost.
I like how tightly cropped that video was... James is a phony
Please demonstrates its.
@@aiseavakameilalo5063 self evident . Open your eyes
@@chrislake3081 how is it self-evident?
@@jostnamane3951 when you open your eyes , it's self evident . That's the second time with the same comment , let's see if you can grasp it this time
Lol your labeling him a phony is not accomplishing anything. Listen to his myriad lectures about origin of life. James knows more than probably anybody.
Atheists/Critical Thinkers *aren't the ones making the claims* my friend.
They merely don't see the *evidence* behind your *'positive' religious claims and assertions regarding a "creator".*
Likewise, we don’t see the evidence behind their ‘positive’ religious claims and assertions regarding no creator.
Saw the entire debate, dave wiped the floor with him and gave papers and everything.. i feel sad for every single one of his student because thats a big red flag when they look for work in science
Dave brought papers that Tour hadn't read and apparently Dave himself didn't either. Just because it says something in the title of a paper doesn't mean that what's in the paper, thats why you have to read it. They use relay synthesis in their experiments. They need to do hands off science but it doesn't work. The chemistry doesn't work.
@@lauramann8275 pray to your god because dave burried him together with tour :') ..
@@john_wick_catcher26 That's funny considering Dave couldn't demonstrate the chemistry. Dave made a fool of himself 🤣
@@john_wick_catcher26. What’s up with your immature insults? All Dave did was read from a paper.
@@davonbenson4361 official papers published in real science magazines .. not my fault your head is still up your ass looking at your God 😂.. he destroyed him with real papers and science
The interesting thing about that debate was when Tour demonstrated a clue to when it comes to the origin of life, but his claim is that we are clueless. He refuted his own claim by drawing on a chalk board.
How did Tour demonstrate a clue? The chemistry on the board was incomplete in all 3 instances. That was his point.
@@lauramann8275 Knowing there needs to be something for the joining of those amino acids is a clue in itself.
@@jaypacic knowing how it would couple would be a clue. That's just one of many pieces.
@@lauramann8275 Knowing there is a missing piece is in itself a clue. He can break down the things that are necessary for making up polypeptides, then he knew that there needed to be something to couple amino acids together. He's not clueless so why did he make the claim that "we are clueless"? He isn't.
@@jaypacic knowing something is missing is not a clue if you don't know what that something is. Watch the debate. Dr. Tour explains everything in his opening statement.
Dave Farinas lack of argument was embarrassing
Dave had the scheme on his computer. In a vid factchecking James he showed the scheme that James expected him to write. It would have taken like 10 minutes
James Tour is so dishonest. This was so embarrassing for him.
"Show me the evidence" Dave shows the evidence and then this man just shouts at him and everyone claps😂😂😂😂if the debate was about being the loudest then I guess this man won but when it comes to facts professor Dave👏👏👏👏
Therefore, God gave birth to God then killed God to save us from God. Ha! Checkmate atheist! 🤣
Shouting is tactic used by people who know they are wrong
James Tour went in to the debate with the intention of screaming "Show me the evidence" and then refusing to accept the evidence when it was presented to him.
Prof Dave went into the debate with the main intention of accusing Tour of being a liar at any opportunity.
On balance, I'd say that Dave won - mainly because Tour lies all the time (He's a member of the Discovery Institute FFS).
The Moderator was utterly useless. I don't think this discussion met the definition of "debate" whatsoever.
What evidence did Dave show and what did Tour lie about?
@@lauramann8275
Did you watch the "debate"?
Dave repeatedly showed him peer-reviewed papers that demonstrated everything Tour said was wrong, and then Tour lied that he'd read and understood them. He simply denied that they said what they said.
In his very first question, Dave challenged Tour to respond to lies that he has repeatedly told and Tour utterly failed to defend them.
In the end though, my point is that neither of these men went into the debate with the honest intention of debating the origin of life. The whole discussion was shambolic.
@@MrMarcusIndia yes I watched it. Dave presented papers, but he didn't discuss the chemistry in them. He didn't explain anything and he didn't prove anything. At one point he just mentions a title of a paper, which was hilarious. His entire motivation was to call Tour a liar publicly in front of Tour's peers. The debate wasn't about Tour. They agreed on a lot of things before the debate (back and forth emails Tour posted, you can read them) they agreed on a certain amount of papers and Dave showed a lot of papers that weren't agreed upon and Tour hadn't read. Dave gish galloped him and called him a liar which set Tour off. It was a complete dibocle but no Dave never explained the chemistry because he couldn't and the scientists use relay synthesis in their experiments which is what Tour's whole point is.
@@lauramann8275
Yes, Dave's entire motivation was to call Tour a liar publicly in front of Tour's peers and demonstrate exactly how much Tour lies about what their papers and their authors say, which is what my OP said.
Tour lies diabolically about this stuff in his videos, in which none of his sycophants challenge him, and it was thoroughly entertaining to see how rattled (or "set off") he got as soon as someone pointed out the way he lies.
So, as I said, I would argue that Dave won in terms of what he wanted to get out of the "debate". Tour was certainly unable to prove that no ground has been made in terms of determining origin of life - and was forced to concede this on a few points - as it was made abundantly clear that he did not in fact know much about the science that has been done in this area.
Frankly, I have no sympathy for Tour. He may be solid and well-regarded in his own areas of expertise but he represents lying, pseudo-scientific frauds like the Discovery Institute on matters in which he has very limited expertise and this gives them unwarranted credence. It's hilarious to watch how angry he gets when he's called out on this.
@@MrMarcusIndia Tour knows what the chemistry can and cannot do. The scientists doing these experiments are using relay synthesis which would not happen in a probiotic earth. What exactly is Tour lying about?
I guarantee that none of the people had any idea what was being said by either of these men. They just thought “Guy on my side talking loud! Guy on my side must be winning!”
If anyone watching this atteneding classes taught by discount Mel Brooks here, get yourself a refund.
Ah yes, completely leave out the fact that Professor Dave was showing peer-reviewed paper after peer-reviewed paper disproving James’ main points. Only leave in the parts of James yelling and showing us “how smart he is” by drawing up molecules on a chalkboard. Only smart people who know what they are talking about know how to draw molecules, so he MUST be right.
He did, in the stack of papers Tour refuses to read. Why anyone thinks drawing on a blackboard is some how a win here is beyond me.
He read them already. He’s trying to tell you that the papers are overstating their findings. The science within the papers do not match the headers. That’s the point.
“The papers are true because the papers say so” -FakeProfessorDave
@@Programm4r"Everyone else is stupid and I'm super duper smart! Just ask me! I could get in the game and play but it's so much fun yelling from the stands about how bad the players are and how good I am at what they are doing."-NarcissistJamesTour
@@Kruppes_Mule Dave is the narcissist. Dude thinks he knows every topic.
@@Programm4rOh the irony.
My favorite part about this is the misrepresentation of the debate. How they seem to edit perfectly to fit their god…doesn’t matter. You can edit as much as you want. GOD HAS YET TO SHOW UP IN REAL TIME
This debate has nothing to do with God. A bunch of weirdos from a cult of atheists keep insisting Tour is arguing for God but that's them projecting their own presuppositions. Tour never brings God or miracles or any of that nonsense into the debate with Dave. The God thing is a Stawman logical fallacy but just pile that on with the rest of Dave's logical fallacies: appeal to authority, slippery slope, post hoc ergo propter hoc, and of course Dave's favorite ad hominem.
Idk if yall watched this debate, but it’s overwhelming obvious who didn’t get a single thing wrong… and it’s not the guy who’s yelling.
The real Professor won that debate the fake one is the liar.
That “real professor” that only publishes papers to Christian apologist websites and never gets peer reviewed by actual scientists? And the few times his work is peer reviewed it’s laughed at for being blatantly wrong? That professor? The guy who’s only degree is from a Christian college in synthetic chemistry yet claims to know more than everyone else who studies abiogeneses and biochemistry? How come James tour claims we’re clueless about the origin of life, yet 10s of thousands of scientists working on the subject everyday beg to differ? Could it be James is the clueless one? Do you believe that the stories in the Bible should be taught as actual, true facts of history? Do you think our kids should learn that god created the earth in 6 days and that Adam and Eve were the first humans and that Noah’s ark and the flood all really happened? Instead of the actual SCIENCE and HISTORY that’s taught today? Because the discovery institute wants desperately for creationism to be taught in schools, and if you believe any of that shit, and you believe that it should be taught in school too, than you’re a horrible person.
@@MycorruptedmindAnd that fake professor soyboy doesn’t publish any papers AT ALL so whats your point?
@@Practicalinvestmentshe doesn't publish papers. That's right. But he also doesn't claim to have new insights that completely contradict everything the scientists, who actually study these fields say.
I don't need a degree in physics to teach that a ball drops down when I let go of it instead of going sideways. But if a person comes in, claiming that balls actually fall sideways, they better have some really good evidence to support that claim.
@@lelonmusk4836read up on Dr Andrew Wakefield. Peer reviewed research papers. All lies. Why would OOL researchers overstate their findings? Because it’s government funded and their jobs rely heavily on their discoveries. 60 years of research and they still can’t answer the question.
@@lelonmusk4836read up on Dr Andrew Wakefield. Peer reviewed research and it was all lies. Why would OOL researchers overstate their findings? Because their jobs are funded and rely heavily on discoveries, so they fluff it up because people like professor Dave can’t read it anyways lol.
Farina’s clearly the winner just watch why moderates asked James stop drawing and stick with science 😂😂😂😂
Farina won.
agree
Won the ad hominem contest yes
Tour the crybaby lost@@blazor4033
...big time.
😃😉👍🖖
@@blazor4033 James Tour used constant ad-hominem attacks in his content so IDK whatcha mean lmao
@@blazor4033talk loudly means youre right?
I note that you have edited together clips of the debate, OUT OF CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER!
Hmm...My disingenuous meter, and my veracity gauge, are both nearing peak measurement values.
I personally believe Tour had a bad showing but to edit clips together like this is just disingenuous. I've seen online people edit things together to make it look like they owned the other person when they were objectively wrong.
Watch the full video with context for the real picture.
It's pretty clear watching this short here that shows how wrong tour is
Where does professor farina teach and what are his academic credentials??
Please list ….
No where because he got fired for being dumb as 💩 and not teaching chemistry properly
And he doesn’t have any credentials because he failed all his chemistry classes and majors BOTH times.. Farina is a loser.
@@Practicalinvestments1. Source for all these claims?
2. He doesn't need credentials to read out a peer reviewed paper. He has degrees, he does research. His research accurately reflects, what happens in the reported fields of science, so where is the problem?
Jesus Tour is insane.
So I learned about DARVO recently. James is on the first two of that, Denying and Attacking.
Still waiting for Dr. Tour to demonstrate the supernatural.
Cesar how about me and you have a dialogue on God , the soul and the afterlife ;)
As a former atheist it’s my duty to educate the ignorant ;)
@@angelbrother1238 OK, let's do it.
That’s a butt hurt reply.
@@liamnicholls7106 Let me know when someone, anyone, demonstrates the supernatural.
Lol...the difference is one side says their beliefs are "scientific" and forced onto us in schools as truths while the other side isnt allowed to be. saying you are still waiting on proof of proving god exist is missing the point entirely. Believe what you want but evolution is NOT a fact or based on science. Observing so called micro evolution isnt proof of evolution.. word play from scientist that most dont understand. Evolution is not science but a religion.
Buy a thousand sets of the 20 specific amino acids proteins are made of from Carolina Biological (they are sourced from existing plant and animal proteins) The chirality problem will be eliminated. Hand them to Dave or Forrest Valkai and tell them they can combine them in any way they want. No matter what they do, they will not assemble into a single protein. The energy to make the peptide bonds will not exist plus chemistry doesn't have the properties to arrange them in the sequences required. The individual amino acids are like 20 letters that spell protein words that define their function and the ability to fold into their particular 3D shape to perform that function.
Wow someone that actually knows biology and chemistry! And look!, he too like myself thinks farina is a big headed arrogant 💩head.
Farina knows nothing but just pretends he does, and I find it hilarious that the people in the comments who have never majored in chemistry are saying ‘dave is always right and tour is an idiot’
And all the people who ACTUALLY know or study chemistry rightly call dave a narcissistic idiot.
I guess dave appeals to the lowest common denominator 🤣
Anyone who’s pro dave that reads this reply will probably be too low iq to even comprehend what I’ve said 😂💀
Old monkey yell loudly, like Boomers 🎉
As loud as he was, you still couldn’t understand what he was saying.
"I'M GOING AFTER THE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT READ THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE!" - James Tour
That's you dumdums... Farina had to school a professor. He brought dozens of scientific papers... Tour brought a stick of chalk and a bad attitude.
You have massive Dunning Kruger effect. Bringing papers to a debate is an appeal to authority logical fallacy. Bringing chalk and being ready to demonstrate your points on a blackboard is debate. You too have massive Dunning Kruger effect.
My God, what a series of ridiculous statements welded together... 1). The Dunning Kruger effect, as commonly understood is the only fallacy here, and the original experiment was never designed to show what people think it did. 2). It's not an appeal to authority... Farina's citing the actual research, NOT claiming "so-and-so said a thing about X and therefore X is true" (curiously Tour DOES do this, but all his quote mines are fallacious) 3). who the hell told you you couldn't bring notes to a debate, and who told you those notes couldn't be academic papers from relevant fields? On a subject this fucking COMPLEX, what kind of jackass turns up with nothing but a few disingenuous quote mines waving a stick of chalk like a crazy person?
Don't both with that last one... it was entirely rhetorical... Tour was aiming at an audience whose education, and therefore their notions of what education entails, peaked back when good ol' teach used to write the A,B,C's out on Mr. Blackboard... y'know, the dumdums?
At least I now know what tack creationist jackasses are being spoon-fed to explain away Tour's disastrous (and frankly downright bizarre) performance from your so obviously regurgitated garbage, so I suppose I ought to thank you...
Thanks, dumdum.
Actually no... I have more to say, because although it's a nonsense, I do obviously know what you meant by the Dunning Kruger reference, and you chose to engage me, with nothing but shit in your hands...
I did study palaeoanthropology modules at uni (also philosophy, which is how I know you did not)... I've also read Darwin and Dawkins, Cambell/Reese and Futuyma (amongst others)... I actually know a fair bit about evolution and biology, which is to say next to nothing... but if you think I think that makes me any more an expert on origin of life research than the next guy, you're trippin'...
BUT I AM smart enough to recognise that writing out an existing piece of biochemistry and saying "solve that, mate!" isn't a real question... what was Farina supposed to do? Rub a piece of it out and rewrite it? FFS, Tour might have well as drawn a frog on the board and said "answer that"...
THAT is why I said dumdums, dumdum... not because I know shit about abiogenesis, but because I'm bright enough to recognise an obvious piece of theatre, aimed at a particularly ignorant mindset.
Can I stretch that to a mic drop moment? Ah, what the heck...
"Klunk!"
a lack of belief is not a claim
I am claiming I don't believe. Hence by counterexample, the given statement is disproven. QED
Atheism is not the lack of a belief. It is the belief that man’s existence has a godless, natural explanation. Atheistic religions exist. And atheists have churches. Try again.
There is no chemistry between them.
I never got much into the origin of life material .
As a former atheist that came back to Christianity there are many other areas of science that I could easily debunk professor Dave on , especially quantum physics and things like near death experiences .
I was very disappointed with James tour bling because he should have wiped the floor with professor Dave , but because he lost his cool .
I should show
Him how it’s done . In fact I think I will .
How about a question for the atheists ;)
Most major theistic religions claim we have a soul and an afterlife .
Tell
Me atheists where does science currently lean towards when it comes to the existence of the soul and the afterlife .
I bet all my fellow theists here that not one atheist will deal with it
Science doesn't make any claim about a soul and afterlife.
However, many atheistic scientists follow the principle of "a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." So, they usually don't accept the idea of a soul and afterlife.
Me, I don't believe in either, but I don't hold any objective stance on gods, souls, or an afterlife. You're free to believe what you want, I just don't see a reason to.
@@SuperSiege ok let’s see what the top scientists as far as research into this area say about where science is leaning towards .
Dr Sam Parnia is the top guy here , and the NDE community supports him in this research even though he’s an agnostic and a materialist . He also changed his mind on this . He also has the largest peer received study on this question called the aware study .
goop.com/wellness/spirituality/when-is-death-irreversible-a-resuscitation-m-d-explains-why-its-evolving/
What the evidence suggests is that the soul, the self, the psyche, whatever you want to call it, does not become annihilated, even though the brain has shut down. This suggests that part of what makes us who we are-a part that is very real-is not produced by the brain. Instead, the brain is acting like a mediator. Like anything that has been undiscovered, because we can’t touch and feel it, we choose to ignore it. The reality, though, is that human thought exists, we communicate through thoughts-so it is a real phenomena. The source of consciousness is undiscovered in the same way that electromagnetic waves have been around for millions of years, but it’s only been recently that we created a device to record them and show them to other people.
So in short, we haven’t got the tools yet, or a machine that’s accurate enough to pick up your thoughts and show them to me. In the next couple of decades, I believe it will be discovered that we continue to exist after death, and that consciousness is in fact an independent entity.
So what was it that you said about science having no position on the soul and afterlife ?
Dr Parnia was also interviewed on National Geographic about this
@secretshadow1262I still cannot believe people like you exist.
You are claiming science says God doesn’t exist?
Ok show me the science then? Should be easy if you say God doesn’t exist you should be able to show me scientific evidence that proves that right?
Lol I already know you won’t answer that in good faith, which proves to me that a lot of atheists are just hypocrites.
If that's a genuine question, then let me answer it: science doesn't lean towards the existence of a soul or an afterlife because no sufficient evidence for it has been found yet.
@@lelonmusk4836 cool lelon then please explain near death experiences to us ;)
I hope you have studied the NDE scientific literature cause if your not your gonna look foolish really fast wink wink ;)
Yelling like a little child
What claims? Theists not understanding the burden of proof? Shocker.
Tour wasn't there to argue from the bible he even stated that in his opening statement he was there to show science doesn't know and Dave sure as hell didn't know
@@ItsCarlnotCarla Where did I mention the Bible?
@@ItsCarlnotCarla He wasn't there to argue from the bible. He was there in support of the bible. And the bible can't have any life coming from nature. It's why he wants the origin of life research to be ended. And that's not science. Dave brought the research references. Tour dismissed them. You either trust Tour, or you check the references.
The debate was of whether science is clueless on origin of life. Not on whether Dave memorized everything. And "clueless" was the only condition Tour would agree to. You heard Daves opening. He knew he wasn't going to satisfy Tour or the condition because "clueless" is not measurable. Tour knew he wasn't going to satisfy Dave. This was purely performance for Tour aimed at his acolytes and to save face for the DI. The DI doesn't care about what real science says. They only care about what followers believe. And Tour didn't disappoint. That was some real evangelizing there. The one posting this video edited it to shut Dave up. That was telling. Better to watch the original. This was just hilarious editing.
@@paulcooper1223 look at the crime rate of Abu Dhabi compared to London.
@@rudysmith1552 So go live in Abu Dhabi.
No it isnt.
I don’t get how people can be watch that debate and say “wow James really had Dave on the ropes there.” Jim got clowned on
im glad people in the comments know better than to believe this short riddled with cuts and unsupported claims
Alot of comments saying this debate was about athiest vs thiest. It was a debate about origins of life and proving it with chemistry. One guy kept reading research paper headings and the other guy was using his brain and writing down the chemical equations and giving the other guy the opportunity to correct him in real time on the black board but kept refusing. James was getting frustrated at Dave because all Dave could do was read out research title headings but wouldn't step forward to explain any of these papers. Dave proved he could read, but no proof he can do chemistry in that debate.
It’s almost like the papers have all of the chemistry in them already hence making it pointless to draw them on the board. If James actually have a crap he would consider the schematics already drawn for him by the researchers.
@jorbjorbensen5259 if it was that easy he could have taken 5 seconds out of the debate and written out the equations, then it would have been a slam dunk, but he didn't.
@@dansmith9724 equations? What equations? are you talking about? Even then, would writing the schemes that are already in the papers on a board make the peer reviewed research any more or less true?
@jorbjorbensen5259 instead of just reading research titles, he could have written it out showing he understands it but.....
@@dansmith9724 did you read the question in posed? Does writing the peer reviewed research already written in the paper on a board make the science educators argument any more or less valid? Also, the schemes that James aren’t anything special, college undergrads learn how to do that stuff. Not to mention, James misnamed the first one. He wrote the symbol for aspartic acid but later called it asparagine. This claim that James knows more about chemistry is ridiculous. This is astonishing considering James was a fairly accomplished chemist back in the day. The chemicals drawn make no reference to anything in the debate apart from tricking all of his fans who don’t know anything about origin of life research into thinking that James knows what he is talking about. With all due respect. Have you actually seen the entire debate and not the cherry picked damage control?
Why's he yelling
He's frustrated bc Dave is not listening.
He's pandering to his ignorant audience, who haven't a clue what he is writing on the board.
Because over the last year or two, Dave has exposed Tour variously as a liar, a hack, a conflater, someone who misunderstands other chemists/biologists work, and a disingenuous fool who is unhinged at the level and volume of his errors.
@@lauramann8275 No, he's trying to scream over him so Dave doesn't get a chance to argue back. Watch the entire debate for context, he's constantly screaming and making non-sensical points to impress the audience
@@xyzedits1 I've watched it a couple times now. The structure of the debate is what Dave wanted. He planned it that way. They both talked over each other. Tour is trying to explain why the chemistry doesn't work and Dave isn't listening. He thinks a title of a paper is proof against Tour but he doesn't understand the paper. 🤣
Standard!
Mined and out of context qoute/clips.
maybe listening instead of screaming like a 5 year old helps when you want an answer
What is the claim of an atheist? "I don't believe you"? Is that the claim? How would a theist disprove that claim?
I liked the part where he restricts his God from being able to crate natural mechanisms by which a cell can form.
You’re already assuming evolution is true. It’s incoherent with how everyone lives their lives
What I said had nothing to do with evolution.
What does this even mean 😂
@@robtbo you’re implying it, unless I genuinely misinterpreted what you said
Well duh, obviously a god who wanted life to appear would make a universe and the natural laws such that life wouldn't actually appear. Sheesh.
Tour can't show any pertinent chemistry to back up his claim. He would have to demonstrate that the chemistry can't work, and he didn't. To the extent that he put chemistry on the blackboard, it's simply demonstrating that there are open questions in this field of research. He's claiming that becasue these open questions exist, we don't have any clue about the whole field. It's an obvious fallacy. Or he's trying to pass off a tortured definition of "clueless" - but retreating to semantics is the second best way to show me that he's wrong. It doesn't look good for him either way.
In fact the chemistry could potentially work, and we have a whole host of examples of reactions that do work. The ones we can't figure out yet are open questions, as is the case in every field of research.
It's normal to not have all the answers.
Also his assertion about the probability of abiogenesis is completely faulty, it's based on unfounded assumptions about what is actually required for life (he's baselessly assuming that we need the whole picture right from the beginning, essentially). It's also a very naive application of the probabilities, because the mechanism isn't purported to be raw random chance, so shouting about the raw probability is a red herring. See how he dodges this exact accusation which was presented to him directly in the Q&A portion. He has no defense of his assumption, because there is none. It's that simple.
I think all the shouting and faulty assumptions are because he gets paid by the DI to attempt to legitimize creationism as science. In other words, dishonesty.
Cave man preacher
If we can create a molecule We can too be created. Heres proof: Metabolism is like Evolution.
Didn't understand other than "show me chemistry"....
Dave didn’t understand either. You’re not alone.
Just watched that debate. All Farina did was hurl insults and read headlines of papers. He had no legitimate arguments.
papers are arguments, that's how science works
@@Jacob-ge1py this.
not only that, Dave wasn't hurling insults. James is a liar and conman. Those things are true. Like it or not.
Dr Tour destroyed him🤣
What world donyounlive on!? Tour is a yelling lunatic.
Destroyed him ha ha ha you're just like James Tour, you won't except it because you have too much going for your world view. You'll never beleive it no matter how much evidence you receive.
he really didn't, he exposed himself.... bigly
@@robkesik6382 parina cannot possibly justify how it's possible for chemicals to act accordingly through evolution. There's no way to explain it, you can only assume...hence the theory of evolution.
@@vanessac0382 that's not what a theory means in science. It's not a guess. Additionally, just because the starting point is not completely filled in, does not mean the rest is not valid. Get your Jesus crap out of here...
Dave: here is the scientific literature about the chemistry
James: *screams and yells at him to write it down on a chalkboard, even though Dave can just show the slide on his computer, because he doesn’t want to waste 10 minutes writing on a chalkboard and berating his opponent by constantly yelling and writing “clueless” over and over*
Professor Dave is so much smarter than that guy All that yelling about nothing it's crazy THAT GUY WAS SO CRAZY
Dave got humiliated like he deserved
He didnt get humbled at all tf.
Because a Boomer thinks shouting wins arguments 😂🎉
Why did he get humiliated? When did that happen and how? I presume your answer will solely include scientific facts which counteract Dave's arguments.
a shining exemplar of an ignoramus
Liam you are a failure
nice editing... dear oh dear
Yes, right?! 😁👍👍
I rewatched so I could go back to the full debate for some actual context for my arguments here, and noted that the poster has edited together clips, out of chronological order, and further very,very cherrypicked at that!
@@johnrap7203 Funnily enough the audience was selected by James so they're basically his flock of sheep, it's why they were constantly booing everything Dave said and cheering for James.
That's a true scientist frustrated by someone who claims to debate a scientific question but can't articulate the scientific details of his position. Dave is neither a professor nor a scientist. He's a youtuber who panders to his fanbase.
He is a scientist who has a degree in chemistry and taught chemistry in a university.
Frustration does not give you the right to lose your composure. Dave didn’t yell once and only does if he is being interrupted and being spoken over by Tour. Dave kept his composure the entire time while tour kept yelling at him.
@@gamersmash7023 Tour yells but Dave insults. Which is worse?
@@Matthias53787 bingo!
@@gamersmash7023 a scientist? Any proof of that assertion? A degree in chemistry does not make one a scientist. From what I can remember he taught high school chem. Again, does not qualify as a scientist. He's not even an actual professor now, yet calls himself professor. And 'composure'? Well yes, he came ready and composed to throw those childish and vomit inducing ad hominem against his interlocutor who's a TRUE scientist who can make his scientific case. Contra Dave who simply puts his faith in the writers he is agreeing with. Pretty pathetic display of incompetence.
@@gamersmash7023 Dave taught HS chemistry without a degree as a teachers aid! And he was fired! He never taught in university, where did you get that 🤣. He's not a scientist 🤦 holy cow 🙄
Creationists don't have any evidence to prove anything they claim
Sure, maybe Tour could have responded better here.
Watch the entire debate before you decide who was right, though.
PLUS, how do you know you would have responded better in this high-pressure situation? Tour is still a human, after all. Have you EVER been in this situation? After watching the debate 100%?
If I was in a high pressure debate I wouldnt embarrass myself by screaming and yelling
How parina became a professor that cannot do chemical reaction writing. Make believe n pretending to be chemistry professor.
He's not a professor, he's a TH-camr. He gave himself the name Professor Dave 😂
Why do you think he cant do chemistry. I hope your not baseing on the yelling and screaming that turdnugget was doing?
@@lauramann8275 axcoeding to his bio he tough undergraduate students. Im assuming that was ij the USA. Unless he was just a teaching assistant, that would make him a professor.
@@robkesik6382 he taught high school chemistry as a student aid without a degree. If he did something else after that, I'm not aware of it. Regardless he talks about giving himself the name Professor Dave in one of his videos.
@@lauramann8275 irregardless of professor Dave, discount Mel Brooks is going against what the majority of peer reviewed papers on the subject suggest.
Random dude: “show me the chemistry.”
Dave: “okay here’s the chem-“
Random dude: “GO! GO! GO! GO! YOU GUYS SEE HOW HES TALKING RIGHT NOW THAT MEANS HE DOESNT KNOW WHAT HES TALKING ABOUT IF HE KNEW CHEMISTRY HE WOULD BEAM THE KNOWLEDGE INTO OUR HEADS INSTEAD OF TALKING!!!”
I do not have words, lol. This is just pathetic on so many scales. Not only was Tour an absolute clown, but this was chopped up to make him look GOOD. Like, that's how bad this is for him that THIS is the best they could do.
Even worse, somehow people watch this and think Tour did anything of value lol. Farina could have just made a power point presentation and sipped a lemonade and it would have gone exactly as bad for Jimbo.
Get a grip man, this is just pathetic.
Religious propaganda is corny
Tour making a fool of himself
For you'll saying Tour is only shouting... Did you see Dave adressing the science on the board? Nope..
The topic is are we clueless on the origin of life not "who can can draw chemistry structures better on the board"
@@lilcuku3256. Lol, biological organisms contains chemical compounds that Tour displayed on the board.
@davonbenson4361 and those aren't the only chemical compounds in existence. There's no point in writing anything with chalkb the schemes are in the literature
He adressed it by showing him actual scientific papers. Drawing it on the board would have taken ages and Dave obviously doesn't have the process memorised, so it's just a dishonest challenge from Tour. It would be like going "You have 2 minutes to draw the periodic table on this chalkboard. Can't do it? I guess we're clueless about chemistry then."
Tour got owned!
How about you watch the whole debate?
Professor Dave shat all over james lol
Imagine uploading this in the belief that it showed a win for Tour 😂😂
It's hilarious that even subjected to this amount of disingenuous editing, this still makes Tour look like a raving lunatic.
It is so adorable that someone edited this, genuinely labouring under the impression it would look favourable for theism.
This is how Dave treats everyone on his youtube comment section who disagree with his view so this is funny
Exactly!
Coming from a religious channel, this backfired spectacularly
How so? None of you dave fans have actually refuted Tour.
A bunch of backlash from
Atheists; therefore, backfire. Logic.
Reminder of the flat Earth debate that tried to go against Dave and again he explains it but you guys refuse to listen and simply say no you can't look at two plus two equals four and just say no that makes no sense science must be peer-reviewed and the evidence that Dave shows is peer-reviewed science that can be proven all tour had was theatrics and deceptive double talk he proved nothing and if you're impressed because of a chalkboard you are not supposed to be watching this go back to fourth grade biology and EMOTION doesn't belong in debate. Hence one man screaming the other one is composed and concise
Debating science with people who literally believe in magic takes a certain sort of expertise that Dave has perfected. 💙
That's kind of exactly the same problem that Christians have 😂 that's why we should all be agnostic
If you noticed tour stays on the same point because it's all he has and if it doesn't make sense to him he throws it away again this is anti-science this man is too enthralled with his archaic beliefs than to accept the honest science behind the origins of Life which we are NOT clueless