_"We've gathered a Biologist, an Astrophysicist, and a Geologist to explain to you why Creationism is true. The Biologist is going to cover Astrophysics, the Geologist will handle your Biology questions, and naturally, the Astrophysicist is really a preacher who believes in the Firmament and thinks Biology is a Satanic plot to implement TeleTubbies in public Universities."_
"the Geologist will handle your biological questions". Two words: historical geology. I took a University level course in that in 1988. The title of the textbook: "Evolution of the Earth". Nearly a full semester of evolutionary theory!
Hi Dave, I am a reseacher in a field that is somewhat novel (started in 2009), liquid-liquid phase separation of proteins. It was discovered that certain proteins can spontaneously form membraneless organelles, usually in the presence of RNA. It has been a new evidence that supports how life could have started and evolved only in the presence of RNA and proteins. These organelles, similar to membrane-bound ones, provide unique environments that can concentrate dynamically biomolecules and enzymes in order to promote catalytic activity. And as you stated to argument with Tour "why would there be a need for all 20 amino acids in the early biogenesis?", in fact most proteins that form membraneless organelles are very simple and repetitive and often contain only a few amount of amino acids, the most common being glycines, which are the simplest amino acid. I am sure Tour knows about this field because it has been very much talked about, but must have ignored it because it does suit his premise.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains There is lot of good research, but this is a good review if you would like to check it out: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7434221/
@@JesusSavesSoulswe already have studies detailing the prebiotic emergence of polypeptides and RNA through natural processes, so those aren't anything new
I left him a snarky comment as well. These people are beyond annoying. He was whining about Dave using ad hominems. I stated he merely used some colorful words interspersed throughout his factual information as it's beyond annoying constantly having to correct liars.
It’s really scary that we have people thinking there is a “middle ground” when it comes to proven science vs mystical gods and magic. I’m not religious anymore but I grew up Christian and had no problem accepting science.
Because growing up you accepted science as your religion. You use certain science to try and fail to disprove God. But when the science proves God and that has even been peered reviewed you don’t accept and believe it but you call it SudoScience lol. It’s not that people who believe in God don’t accept science it’s just that we don’t accept your science that is all still theoretical.
@@SiQuemaCuhhA theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses.” Btw, science is not a religion buddy. You’re being delusional.
I am absolutely cackling that James Tour initially challenged Dave to a debate because of back and forth UA-cam videos and then used the fact that arguments from those videos were brought up during the debate to try to dunk on Dave's knowledge of chemistry. It's like breathing in all that chalk dust made him forget why they were there in the first place.
@@synthetic240 Oh gosh, yes --- you should see the "conditions" Tour had during "negotiations." I'm pretty sure Dave has a breakdown of what they agreed to in advance posted somewhere searchable. I remember him discussing them as it dragged on bc Tour kept being shady.
Tour definitely feels like someone cosplaying an actual academic... despite him being one. Without playacting the part of the stuffy professor who's always right because of his authority, he's got nothing. Like every apologist, he can't win unless his audience assumes his conclusion from the very start, and in his case the technique he's chosen to do it is by putting on a little morality play where he's the Serious Academic™ and Dave is the clueless outsider who can be easily dismissed because he doesn't have a fancy suit and a title... despite himself being completely unqualified to talk about organic chemistry and regularly pretending like he knows better than the actual organic chemist who did actual research in the field he hasn't touched in decades, as if having PhD next to his name magically turns his uninformed and sometimes entirely mendacious opinions into actual science.
That's absolutely true, but it's worse than that. At least here in the U.S., creationist _conspiracy-theorists_ (calling a spade a spade) have managed to convince most of the population (not _just_ believers) of a few lies: - Evolution is "just a theory" which, of course, means that it's only a guess and therefore can reasonably be dismissed - "Evolution" is a theory that (ostensibly) explains _everything_ about the origins of our Universe, planet, and (especially) all life; it's not just about the diversity of life. - Evolution is a controversial theory, no more valid than the "theories" posited by religious fundamentalists and conspiracy-theorist nutbars. The last one is the most important, and most insidious of their lies. Even many non-believers think that it's just one possible explanation with little to no evidence supporting it. This seriously worries me. This is what allows fundies to portray legitimate scientists as "extreme" in their "belief in evolution" with almost no pushback from the non-religious, non-scientists.
Nonsense. To Creationist apologists, that is correct, but the vast majority of Christians (such as myself) agree with much of scientific consensus. I know many Christians who have legitimate scientific degrees (Dr. Lloyd Drexel Vincent, Ph.D in nuclear physics and former President of Angelo State University comes to mind). Don't paint us all with that broad brush.
@@antiksur8883 as daryl said, creationist. do you even understand the bible? most creationist come from protestant ("most"), that doesnt have the tradition so as darryl said "creationist"
@Sutrisno Right. I think of it this way: A 7 year old little boy asks his Dad where the house they live in came from. (While Mom was pregnant with him, she and Dad bought the property and had the house built. ) Dad tells his son, "Mom and I put this house here." Later on, as he grows up, he learns how houses are built, and he realizes Mom and Dad didn't literally build this house themselves. So he eventually learns that when they bought the property, it was an empty lot. They then decided what kind if house they wanted, bought the materials, and hired a building company. It's still true that Mom and Dad made the house; it's not literally true that they built it themselves.
Tour: "Show me water sticking to a spinning ball! Show me, Dave! You can't do it, can you?! Come up here and show me how water sticks to a spinning ball!" Dave: "My paper shows how gravity works and how the experiment you're asking me to show you is not possible unless we have an earth sized ball to spin, and how we are not actually spinning at thousands of miles an hour like you claim (and why it is silly to say people should be being flung off the planet at such speeds)" Tour: Come up here and show me the water on the spinning ball!! You can't do it!! Gravity is just a theory! There is no consensus on gravity! You are CLUELESS!".
the ball doesn't even need to be the size of earth. size is actually counterproductive (if you ignore the space requirement for the object's mass); the larger the object's radius is, the more mass it has to have for a measurable gravitational effect. a basketball-sized sphere with a mass of a million metric tons would exert gravity on its surface at the same order of magnitude as earth (5m/s^2 according to my very rough estimate); make it a few million tons (to overcome earth's 9.81 m/s^2 that interferes with the experiment), and water would stick to it, even if you spin it at a similar angular velocity as earth(~1 rotation/day). fun fact: that basketball just requires a density of ~10^12 kg/m^3, and that's well within the range of the degenerate matter inside a neutron star. a sufficiently advanced type 3+ civilization could probably do this experiment at school :D
@@chezeus1672 technically, for an earth-mass it'd just need to be about =/< 10cm^3 from a neutron star's core. whatever antigravity technology needed to contain it would end up being the massive part
@@aidanmatthewgalea7761 you don't need an object with earth's mass, though, you need a similar result for m/r^2 (times a constant) as you get for earth. if i picked the densest known material (excluding black holes, as far as i understand, they contain a singularity with near-infinite density), i assumed the resulting object would become so small that adhesion alone can do the trick. so i arbitrarily chose a nice size for a classroom experiment, estimated the required density and then saw that a material like that is near the lower end of a neutron star's density spectrum. btw, containing the gravity wouldn't be much of a problem, distance^2 kinda does that for you if the object is small enough to weigh "only" about as much as an aircraft carrier. it's not entirely correct, but for simplification, i like to think of a neutron star as a single atom with lots and lots of neutrons, i.e. an isotope so unstable that its half-life would have to be measured in single planck-times. so the purpose of the unfathomable piece of high-tech machinery would have to be to prevent decay into much less dense atoms and therefore flooding the whole school with tons and tons of radioactive waste.
@@chezeus1672 Makes me wonder: if there was a ball the size of baseball but with a mass roughly equal to that of Earth, and it was spinning so fast that the linear velocity at its equator was equal to that of Earth it would probably have quite interesting effects...
@@juhanipolvi4729 some number crunching: m = 5.97219*10^24 kg v = ~40075000 m/89164.1s (earth circumference/1 sidereal day) =~450m/s rball=0.0365m rearth= 6371000m centrifugal force F=mω^2r ω= v/rball=12330 rad/s _Fc=m*5.55*10^6 N/kg_ G=6.674*10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 (constant) gball = GM/r^2 = 2.992 *10^17 m/s^2 _Fg = -m*2.992 *10^17 N/kg_ _Fg+Fc ~= Fg_ i did some very disgusting rounding, but either way, the centrifugal force remains just as negligible compared to the overwhelming gravity as it is on earth. maybe we get a different effect if we shrink earth to the size of a baseball while conserving its angular momentum? L= 4/5 Pi M f r^2 M*1sid_day*rearth^2 = M*fball*rball^2 fball= 1sid_day*rearth^2 /rball^2= 2.7* 10^18 rotations/s uh oh... that looks like relativistic territory cBall = 2Pi rBall v = f*cBall = 6,19 * 10^17 m/s >>> c newtonian mechanics break down once you approach speeds that aren't negligble compared to the speed of light (~3*10^8 m/s) anymore, and the correct math is pretty crazy and it's too much for me right now. suffice to say, it can't reach the speed of light as we're still working with a finite amount of energy. i assume we created some kind of pulsar that emits an FM radio signal... and since it's not a black hole (escape velocity < light speed), everything on its surface would get flung off into space at nearly the speed of light. and its surface, too.
The scientific method is pretty simple: -first, deny observations -second, make a prediction that your opponent is clueless -third, gather hype -fourth, yell hype -fifth, draw clueless on a chalkboard
Not sure how anyone could acknowledge that we're not clueless on OoL and then repeatedly ignore the fact that Tour is saying we are. This whole thing reeks of damage control from CC. Tour has based his entire identity around an outright false claim, so the apologetics-verse has to reframe and rehabilitate his image into something reasonable
Dave, your channel trailer should include the clip of you writing "NOT CLUELESS" on the board, since you dedicate your time to reducing the cluelessness of humanity. Plus, that was a f***ing hilarious moment. P.S. I loved when you co-hosted on The Line.
Tour: "DO YOU HAVE A REFERENCE ON THAT?? HAVE YOU ANY REFERENCES ON THESE CLAIMS??" Dave: "Yeah, I have a bunch of papers." Tour: "DAVE CAN'T READ PAPERS!! DAVE CAN'T ADDRESS THE PAPERS!!" Dave pulling up to the debate: "Ok, I brought a bunch of pape-" Tour in the debate: "NO YOU GOTTA DRAW IT ON THE BLACKBOARD!!! YOU GOTTA DRAW IT OUT OR IT DOESN'T COUNT!!!"
Cameron likes to present himself as reasonable and levelheaded, but he always comes across as dishonest to me, as he is more than willing to misrepresent what people are saying to bolster his arguments.
Cameron willfully misrepresents the arguments of his opponents. I can believe that a guy like Mike Winger is simply too deluded and ignorant to understand the arguments and doesn’t misrepresent them on purpose… he is simply too incompetent. But someone like Cam should be too smart to make such mistakes… and that makes it even worse.
A lot of these theists don't seem to understand Dave is not claiming to have done the research, so he couldn't write it out on a board, but he is presenting research done by others which has been peer reviewed. This subject is way too complicated to do a few drawing on a board for an hour, to even begin to get an understanding of the subject.
@@moon_wobble7782 To be fair, Dave won the debate despite Tour planting a bunch of his students and creationists, and planting a creationist mediator. By the end even tour's students were cheering for Dave
@@zeraphking1407 "Where did all of these elements come from initially?" - Wut? U haven't heard of physics? A Christian astronomer Henry Russel together with the danish astronomer Ejnar Hertzprung developed the theory of stellar evolution. Additionally, 2017 there was a neutron star merger that explains the abundance of elements above Ag (Silver) on our globe in the late heavy bombardment. That neutron star merger happened around 50 M years before the formation of the earth.
@@zeraphking1407but seriously, we don't know and neither do you. Proving abiogenesis will not disprove a god existing but it does lessen the gap that a god can hide in.
Speaking a biochemist who watched - or rather endured - the original debate, as well as debate analysis videos, I can honestly testify that Dave debated with remarkable patience and restraint against what was pretty much a fact-free hissy fit from Tour, henceforth referred to as Wee Jimmy for reasons anyone who watched the debate will understand. Wee Jimmy's attitude was to demand that he be shown step by step how you got from a pre-biotic mix of stuff to a fully living cell, and if it couldn't be presented as a single series of steps, then the whole enterprise is a hoax. My own suspicion is that Wee Jimmy is actually a biblical literalist and young earth creationist, only cannot admit it in public because it would embarrass Rice, his employers. They can't sack him because he's got tenure, but they could (and should) make his life very difficult to persuade him to take early retirement. I wouldn't take an organic chemistry class from the guy, let alone take his opinions about the feasibility of abiogenesis seriously. We're a long way from a full understanding, but Wee Jimmy's adamant and raucous denials that certain milestones have been reached is pure flannel. I wouldn't accept the time of day from a creationist without an independent check. They are natural born liars and dissemblers.
In fact Tour openly states that he thinks the Bible is completely true, for example in an interview he said: "I take every word in the Bible as true, it doesn’t mean I take everything literally." Unfortunately for him, this is transparent mental gymnastics. It's impossible for every word to be true if some of the claims and stories are not literal. That would obviously mean that some of the words are not true. He probably has some tortured definition of "true" that lets him feel comfortable with his claims, I suppose. But just like his tortured definition of "clueless", it gives the impression that he's a liar rather than some deep thinker.
@@violetfactorial6806 Yeah, I'm sure he dissembles with the best of them. I've never seen him personally state the earth is 6000yo, Eve made from Adam's rib, or that Noah and the Ark were real. My guess is he believes in all of it as literally true, but making that public would make his position on the Rice faculty almost untenable. He certainly makes no more sense than the average YEC.
@@Leszek.Rzepecki I can't recall who it was but someone did a review on James where he actually brought up the old lie about blood cells in dinosaur fossils. I think the person who did the video was a Christian scientist. James actually had the nerve to bring that old creationist lie and seemed to be proud to claim that it showed science is wrong about the age of the planet.
i could never be calm like this. if i debated a man who yelled "clueless" at me for 2 hours and then someone is like "yeah you were kinda rude to him" id lose my mind 14:30 like what? hes 'concerned' for dave? not the psycho yelling abt random shit?
I know!!! But it's almost like even all the Creationist Apologists expect Dave to be the calm, reasonable one because obviously, James Tour is insane, and what else can we expect? It's a weird little admission by all of them that it's their guy who can't be expected to be anything but an irrational toddler. Huh. Weird.
Same. These people get me so unreasonably angry with their scummy lying behavior. They know what they say and do are lies, and are wrong, but they do it anyways in the name of spreading their ancient death cult, even in the face of current scientific breakthroughs and discoveries.
I watched this video and when they said "Tour is the one wanting to talk about the science" made me click away. Clearly they are not scientists and just because Tour wrote something on the board they see him as "the one interested in the science", not understanding that all the science we are doing today builds on an established, proved and peer-reviewed body of work
...you are being just as disingenuous as Tour. You watched a video about a reaction to a debate and you refused further information based on your assumptions about it. You were probably right but it's just not very intellectually genuine to know what you're getting into and then just avoid it because it's exactly what you should have expected.
That kind of thing appeals to those who think the more you have of something the more truth it represents somehow. They gobble that up never considering someone might actually pile up thousands of lies.
@@beemixsy it's not "depressing" it's sad, those two words cannot be used interchangeably. depression is a mental illness that kills people, saying something is "depressing" is no different to saying your house is like a north korean labor camp because your mother yelled at you for not doing the dishes
@@ilikelongwords Be aware that people have an understanding of the actual condition as separate from the colloquial use of the adjective. That aside, mulling about the entrenched denial of these people is the actual cause of my current depressive episode.
@@terralexj9468 they can know the difference but that doesn't change anything. you either have depression or you don't, saying something is "depressing" is dumb regardless of wether the person knows the difference between it and the actual condition or not
I was watching the video, and one minute in, I was like what are they even talking about lol. Their personal beliefs get in the way of viewing matters objectively and for what they are. Viewing their analysis of the debate, you’d think professor dave was being unfair and biased, when it was the opposite
Cameron makes a relatively good effort to roleplay unbiased with his calm demeanour. Not only in this matter but overall what ever he's discussing. I'm not sure what he's trying to achieve with his larping because anyone with cursory knowledge about the subjects he's talking about can see right through his facade while his own flock and other apologists would vehemently agree with him irregardless of his demeanour.
Thanks for making this. I watched the Capturing Christianity video last night. I enjoyed Paul's explanations of some of the science. But cringed at how much they both seemed to bend over backwards to save face for Dr. Tour.
I enjoyed the scientific explanations from Paul too, especially since it was posted before Dave could post his first debate analysis. But there was clearly some bias towards tour especially from the capturing christianity guy. I wonder if He was just trying to be as partial as possible towards anything CC said, as to not offend him. But idk Other than that it seemed like they didn't know, or avoided all of the context around Tour's arguments in the past. Almost like they only watched the debate and nothing else
@@Mark-xw5yt Indeed. They seemed to treat Dr. Tour and Farina as equally *EXTREME*. Which seems unreasonable. As for their demeanor, you could say they were both uncordial: - Farina was rude to Dr. Tour & the audience. - Dr. Tour seemed fanatical, and ridiculous. As for their positions: - Farina represents this scientific field's consensus, a modest position: We have clues to how systems chemistry dynamics could lead to life. It is not "figured out", but we're always getting closer. - Dr. Tour however took the extreme position that We have no clue how life could have arisen at all, and that the field studying this is fraudulent. This is ridiculous. Dr. Tour was even shown to be undeniably wrong on his 5 point checklist. But they really tried to soften the way they said that. Quite biased.
Hey Professor Dave! I've practically watched all of your debunking videos, and they are amazing. Concise, straight to the point and undeniably effective at destroying pseudoscience. I live in Hong Kong, and many of the older generation of people here still have outdated beliefs which were shaped by ancient Chinese culture. There are many people online including UA-camrs, who target gullible people to watch their videos and buy their books, which are all pseudoscience. However, their audience don't realise it, as they use the usual tactics, including buzzwords, everyday "update" videos and misinterpreting science papers in order to fool their audience. I know that you will not have the time to unravel these frauds one by one, and you certainly don't know Cantonese, so could you please make a video containing some tips on how you do what you do: exposing these frauds? It would be incredible if you could share some of your methods to do research for pieces of important information online against them, and how you build up your arguments, as you're so very good at this. Thus, we may follow your footsteps and continue to clear up the misinformation online, in order to introduce real science to the public. Thank you for your hard work!
The best way to expose fraud is to communicate truth from a platform that people listen to. It's tough with China specifically because the government there is very particular with what truth people are allowed access to.
@@chrispysaidChinese people can browse the entire internet with a VPN, it's completely legal, so it won't be any harder for a Chinese person to debunk a hypothetical Chinese James Tour or whatever. Also Hong Kong isn't China lmao
That literally wasn't the reason why and the fact you posit such nonsense shows you either didn't watch the debate or didn't have the mental capacity to understand what was discussed.
@@reviewjimeu9513Tour literally complained during Dave’s second prompt that Farina didn’t write anything during Tour’s first. You’re obviously in denial or actively lying.
It's pretty telling that theists believe, "you can't have chemistry without an intelligent mind," when the truth is that you can't have an intelligent mind without chemistry. Minds don't exist on their own; they're a product of chemistry.
How does Paul Rimmer jump from "this might be a bigger problem than Prof Dave realizes" to "we are clueless"? Oh wait, he does the exact opposite. So shrug.
I got through 10 minutes of that video before turning it off. I was excited to see a real chemist defend the Christian side, but it was all hooey. I'm glad you are addressing it!
I was planning on saying something similar about Christian scientists defending some real science. And I'm glad Dave made this video about Cameron and Paul video.
1:25 One guy seriously pointed out "Farina chalkboard was blank". Are they really that amazed by James writing one chemical on a board? I wonder what they think James drawing that accomplished.
"Either because Dave Farina wasn't listening, he was just ready to jump in"......ACTUALLY....Dave was the ONLY one listening during the entire f'ing debate lol.
Paul's comment about how Tour gets "a little excited" gave me legitimate chills. "I'm sorry sweetie, daddy just gets a little excited sometimes. I'm sure he still loves you. Now let's go get you some ice for that."
@@witchwinn Could certainly be an overreaction, and I really hope my fear's unfounded, but Dave is not incorrect when he says that Tour shows the signs of being a true, literal narcissist. And this sort of behavior is unpleasantly common in that demographic. I mean it takes basically nothing for the man to start screaming, even in public or professional settings. There's no guarantee he'd turn violent, and I'm not saying he's hurt anyone, but the way he behaves, it would not be at all surprising. Tragic and heartbreaking, but unsurprising. And the way these people downplay the absolute fits he goes into, denying the observable reality of unchecked anger issues by referring to it as nothing more than excitement....Yeah, it is EXACTLY like how abuse victims behave. This sort of thing should not be normalized. But because Tour is on Team God, they feel a deep-seated need to make him out to be the good guy, which means reframing everything he does in positive terms, even something as extreme as this. I see this pattern everywhere in discussions on religion or adjacent topics. So given all of this, is it really so much of a reach to be reminded of battered wives, when they say a line so commonly heard among them, about a man who behaves so much like those who do the battering? Even if he isn't an abuser himself, this situation is more than close enough to readily bring that comparison to mind. Which in the end is all I'm saying it did: It brought it to mind.
The absolute weirdest thing James blew up about was the script. He's losing his mind because you were prepared? I don't know how you can keep your cool around someone that behaves like that. I wish I could be alive when religion finally becomes the same as Greek mythology and we can finally make some damn progress!
Nah you just feel comfortable being unrestricted doing what you've wished without bearing the consequences of an after life however the most ridiculous thing i came to see within these debates is people failing to see the purpose... i am muslim and definitely believe in God, it just doesn't make sense to me how far has science went through complexity searching for explanations yet fails to see the links, the way things go together, absolute beautifully orchestrated creations... nah this is not the argument of it has to be designed by a creator actually the exact opposite where are the flaws, the wrong things, the bugs within the universe if it was all a series of incremental probabilities getting us to the best outcome, if none then the system has ceased to evolve then? I don't know like these things all scientific debates and marvelous arguments prove to how futile it is running from a world with a creator, i don't understand why? I do understand however that there is a purpose whether you like it or not at all feel it sometimes too soon... so yeah that's something we ought to think about.
@@ych3455if i understood your text correctly you asked 2 things 1. Does nature and evolution do mistakes? 2. "Why are scientists running from a creator" 1. Yes nature makes mistakes there are a few million different animal species, and many of them die out without the help of humans. If nature or evolution would make mostales why does this happen? For example look at the Cheetah, yes it got speed but the price for it is, that theor brains overheat, so they have to rest after the kill, making them extremly volnurable to....idk all of afrika, like hyenas. (+ there are like 5 other deathflags) And thats why cheetahs are really close to dying out. Another example, of evolution mistakes is a species of crabs, the female chooses for the crab with the biggesz right claw. So the species evolved to have extrwmly big right claws, like up to 4 times vugger rhan their left claw. Wich makes them unusable, and useless, they cant use it to defend themselves, or attack anything or even to eat, it makes them a easier target for seagulls etc. So they are also probably soon gonna die out. A nature channel called "casual geography" or something did a video called something like "10 times nature did mistakes" i recomend it. 2. I would argue they dont, the job of Scientist is "to find stuff out" so saying "we where created from nothing by something" just isnt a specific or sufficient answer they found out the building blocks of live, called cells, now they need to find out how cells are created (with dna or rna in simpler life) so now they meed tk find out how rna is create. Thats just literally science, they do not care about religion or god or Believe, they just need to find out. If in the end they find out god brought the lava that made the heat that made lufe possible from another planet. Than they will accept that as a trth and dont care, because sience is neither a dictatorship nor a democracy the currently best evidence rules until a better on is there (and they are permanently searching fir different or new or better evidence for everything.
@@ych3455I hope you have gained critical thinking for Christmas. Probably not but that's my hope for you. Believing in these fairytales with zero evidence backing it up is unhealthy.
Hiya Dave! I know you'll read this so I'll just put this out there as a fan: will we get a origin of life video at some point? I'm talking about a regular video without Tour/apologists. A video going over some of the incredibly fascinating chemistry and ideas that origin of life researchers have would be amazing. Obviously this is easier said then done and I don't want to be one of those demanding fans but learning about origin of life research in these videos has been amazing. I had no idea the field has come this far and the way the chemistry works to produce early enzymes, protocells, RNA etc. is so interesting. Hope you have a good day Dave! Keep fighting the good fight
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Are you planning any more content about the new age woo or quantum mysticism? That stuff is hilarious and disturbingly popular. I think however that the OoL stuff is far more valuable educationally. Thanks for all of your work
"Paul is in the middle"... So, Paul is a sellout scientist. It is beyond me how someone can truly understand science and still hold a creationist viewpoint. Money is the only thing that comes to mind. Dishonesty is everywhere, even in the scientific community.
Not even to criticise their beliefs, but out of curiosity about how they don't see them as mutually exlusive. Is it just lying for clout or have they actually done enough mental gymnastics to actually think that?
Embarrassing right away. "first life" and "last common ancestor" are so trivially and dramatically different that you don't need to know any science to know that. You just have to know English.
@@nzsl368 once he made a post to memory of his recently passed away patron. He called him good friend, said condolences to his family, and in THE SAME POST he asked viewers for money for HIS channel because now he lost big source of income and CC is in danger. He also was making posts about channel being at operational loss asking for more support, his conversion to catholic looked fishy, topics he covers (exorcisms, miracles, demons and other bs like this) are made because they bring most views (no one watches philosophical stuff), he stirs up drama (at least used to) with other creator because it sells good
Dave is extreme on the idea that the earth is round. David Weiss is extreme that the earth is flat. Let’s bring in a baby who has no clue the shape of the earth to be a middle man
Cameron is an apologist. He makes his money trying to make non-theism appear absurd, and to make Christian theism appear the only rational option. Being truly open-minded on the origin of life is not conducive to his goals as an apologist. There are too many implied conflicts between a natural origin of life and how most Christians view scripture. It's why attacking evolution and the origin of life or misrepresenting these sciences are intrinsic to all apologetics.
Another gem! All the debunks and deconstructions from Prof. Dave are amazingly concise and to the point! Thanks once again for your services for the community!
Thanks for making this video, I also watched their analysis and thought I was going crazy when they started talking about LUCA out of nowhere even though it's basically irrelevant to the discussion that you were having
It is sooo telling that at the end of Cameron's video he says that Rimmer and Tour should get together for a stream and Rimmer says immediately that that may be not a great idea because things are very hot right now. Even with Cameron's and Rimmer's lukewarm acceptation of origin of life research and all the passes that they gave Tour, Tour would absolutely loose it in the stream and begin to act as a screaming chimp and Rimmer knows it. He knows that we are not clueless and Dave had it right, but he won't tell that to Tour's face.
"So this is totally plausible, that actually the exact thing that Jim Tour wrote out could work with this kind of chemistry." It's funny how they frame all of this, compared to what they're actually saying. I guess even Tour's best defenders won't join him in his "CLUELESS" ravings.
bertuzzi talks such nonsense, i'm surprised he hasn't noticed himself. and f he does one more exorcism video i shall scream, even while medicated. those demon possession videos need removing.
I watched that video. The fun is that Paul Rimmer was a trojan source. Rimmer agreed with you, but when pressed by Dishonest Camerun, agreed with science denial.
Already at the start, Cameron is two sides-ing a thing that doesn't have two sides. Refute the research/papers or embrace the science. We can't be both clueless and not clueless about the origin's of life. How do these people not understand it takes more time, on orders of magnitude, to debunk bad claims than it takes to make them? Obviously writing out complicated origin of life chemistry on a black board is frivolous especially since that's not Dave's expertise. "Psychologically there's a lot going on with Dave." Is this going to be the start of the 'reverse psychoanalysis' that James was claiming? This feels like it's taking a turn for TV drama. (Also the joke that psychologically there isn't a lot going on upstairs for James :^)
When I saw the video they published I knew they were gonna embarrass themselves After watching it I knew professor Dave would help them out And here we are
Good question. You have to weigh up wars being a catalyst for scientific advancement against the Dark Ages and persecution of scientists by religions. Thankfully we've found new reasons for advancement and religion is largely redundant. I hope the final nail in the coffin of theism happens in my lifetime, but I'm not holding my breath for the New Age of Enlightenment.
Freaking PLEASE, Cameron... Prof. Dave is "extreme" cuz he counters extremists like Flat Earthers and Anti-Vaxxers. Countering extremists doesn't make one extreme. Maybe he meant Dave is "extreme" cuz he prefers Mountain Dew.
These creationists think you should gone full Matt Damon from Good Will Hunting on the chalkboard... funny enough, I remember watching a video where an actual mathematician analyzed that film and discussed how ridiculous the scenes with math actually were. That's all it really is, entertainment value.
For every religious person, there comes a point where you have to be willing to hold your feet to the fire and do some squirming, at the points you know are a problem. After years of squirming you can then break free.
You are doing the Lord's work, Proffy Dave. The boundless intellectual dishonestly I constantly see from fundies on science, archeology and history is staggering and it continuously illustrates to me that they are 100% untrustworthy. Honestly, it show that they are bad people because I consider liars to be bad people.
I’m a Conservative Christian (not a creationist though) and I really enjoy your content Dave. I read comments from people accusing you of being an asshole but you’re never rude or insult people until they do it to you first. You seem like a very reasonable person to me.
@@wet-read I believe God created the universe and the laws of physics. So I don’t believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago Edit: I guess I should have been more clear, I’m not a “young earth” creationist.
@@wet-readThis is the problem with American evangelical Christianity. Young earthers have become the face of our religion and it’s gotten so bad that it’s making our faith appear that you can’t accept science and still hold to your faith. I’m a theistic evolutionist but I don’t deny the existence of Adam and Eve, the Fall of Man, the flood of Noah, etc. The events that happen in Genesis 1-11 can be classified as “mytho history”. Real historical events that have been exaggerated over time. Those chapters were also meant to polemicize pagan mythologies. I’m sure you’ve heard that the flood of Noah plagiarized the Epic of Gilgamesh but this is a huge misconception. Most scholars will tell you that they’re both telling the same story but from different perspectives, not that one store stole the ideas of another story. In Babylonian mythology, the flood was brought onto mankind because the gods grew tired of them. But in Noah’s flood, the flood was brought onto mankind because they became evil and God wanted to save Noah because him and his family were the only good people left on earth. Of course, when these events happened there wasn’t an actual worldwide flood. However, a large portion of humanity was localized in the Middle East, particularly the Persian gulf region around 13,000 years ago. So in that sense, the world was flooded because that area was where most people were living at that time.
@@randomango2789 There was no Adam and Eve, Fall, or Great Flood. I have heard one radical thinker liken humankind's adoption of agriculture to the Fall, and seen it said or vaguely alluded to elsewhere as well. It can work great as a metaphor for certain events or circumstances.
So, three weeks ago, Cameron made a community post about putting together this debate review, and he joked that he would have to watch the debate a couple of times in full. Someone replied and told Cameron he could avoid his due diligence by using "the Dave method" i.e. read the title, ignore the rest. After reading that, Cameron must have been struck by the the thought of his ministry's mission-"exposing the intellectual side of Christian belief"-because he created another community post that was just a screenshot of the reply and two cry-laughing emoji. Three days after that post went up, Cameron streamed his debate review where he learned from Dr. Rimmer that Dave accurately represented some, if not all, of the papers in the debate. It should be pretty clear that the reply to his previous post was just regurgitating a talking point that Dr. Tour used to dodge tough questions. I wonder if Cameron regrets promoting it.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains😂 No surprise there. I haven't seen an honest apologist yet. I just like pointing out to them that their god is clearly fictional and based on Canaanite mythology using scholarship as below. According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms "divorced" them. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts. His pantheon in Ugarit is called the *Elohim,* literally the plural of El. Interestingly, the Biblical god is also referred to numerous times as Elohim. "When El was young, he came across two beautiful Goddesses washing their clothes in the Sea. They were Athirat (Asherah) and the Goddess Rahmaya, and, after buttering them up by cooking a meal for them, he asked them to choose between being his daughters or wives. They choose the latter and became the mothers of the Gods Shachar "Dawn" and Shalim "Dusk"." *"First, a god named El predates the arrival of the Israelites into Syria-Palestine.* Biblical usage shows El was not just a generic noun, but often a proper name for Israel’s God (e.g., Gen 33:20: “El, the God of Israel”)." "I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the sons of El. It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the sons of El, plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, solely according to the number of the sons of El. *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting."* *"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.* (Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian) *"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"* (A second response to Michael Heiser) *"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."* *"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10 - TheTorah.com"* (Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), *which appears to be a later addition,* Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)* *"Ugarit - New World Encyclopedia"* (Ugaritic religion centered on the chief god, Ilu or El, whose titles included "Father of mankind" and "Creator of the creation." The Court of El was referred to as the (plural) 'lhm or ***Elohim,*** a word ***later used by the biblical writers to describe the Hebrew deity*** and translated into English as "God," in the singular. El, which was ***also the name of the God of Abraham,*** was described as an aged deity with white hair, seated on a throne.) *"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"* (Mark Smith is a Catholic) *"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III | theyellowdart"* *"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"* (Daniel McClellan is a Mormon) *"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"* (Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)") *"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."* (Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh) *"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."* *"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"* *"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."* *"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"* (In addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh, it also appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort) *"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"* (Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion") *"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"* (For a good summary of all of the above articles) Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 27:40 minutes onwards. Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on. Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40. Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"* (By a former theist) Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
@@redchild1690Ah yes, the same old "atheists hate god" schtick. Also, you're most certainly losing that $100, given how Dave actually cares about science and does *not* whine. Besides, even if there was a god who gives one life, it does *not* follow that it deserved to be adored or revered at all. Sorry, pal, but your insults are damn empty.
15:59 "He is denying the legitimacy of research he doesn't like" To be honest most aged professors do this. Happens more so in academia than one would like to admit.
There is a lot of ego that accumulates along the career of a chaired professor. Those that remain childlike, open minded and curious are the true scientists. James is an extreme case but I've seen several like him. Only that their agenda is not religion, but their scientific worldview.
@@Archiekunst I have never seen this. Our campus has professors from mathematics, computer science, physics and chemistry and I have never seen or heard of a professor that does this at all. Where did you see these professors and what research did they deny?
@RanEncounter Most of the times it is opinion battles. My own boss used to go berserk if I mentioned some other profs. He used to suggest their math was wrong. He technically was probably right but I saw a lot of ego. Other profs too.
Something I have leraned in my life is that "who shouts is by default wrong" This is debatable, yet leaves the question why anyone thinks shouting is a good way to bring forward an argument. Therefore watching the record of the debate, perhaps with sound turned off and just watch the agitation seems to make it clear who "won" the argument. My PhD is in envoronmental science, so my chemistry knowledge is very limited. I do, however, think that even as a supervisor you should not discourage peoples interest into going down what you consider a rabbit hole, as it could lead to some very exiting discoveries. In fact as a supervisor I would encourage leaving the trodden path and go down the rabbit hole. If it turns out to be leading nowhere you leraned making a mistake and this a valuable experience in itself worth doing.
“If the facts are against you, argue the [science]. If the [science] is against you, argue the facts. If the [science] and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell” ― Carl Sandburg
I've seen scientists who will not speak outside of their field of expertise without consulting those who are in that field, and I've seen scientists speak outside of their field as though they were qualified to do so. I've seen science communicators who don't have expertise in various fields they communicate about with heavy reliance on experts in the fields they do present. I'm finding more and more evidence that James is of the second sort. Dave is of the third. And Daves been able to find those of the first type critique James when he tries to step into their field. As long as Dave keeps openly showing his sources and deferring to experts, I'm going to be swayed by his offerings. People calling Dave arrogant and condescending toward Tour don't seem to think Tour had any part to play in eliciting that behavior. Kinda like saying people who don't like Trump have "Trump Derangement Syndrome." Yeah, it's a sickness the person has, and not a response to a sick bastard. Dave, you must go out and get a vaccine for your TDS. ^.=.~
Believing in God shouldn't make you denial with what science found... meaning you are denial what God create, which is insane if you said u believe God 👹
There is no 'middle'. There is true and there is not true. This reminds me of the type of people who want 'balance' in the media. They don't want objectivity. They want 'balance'.
"Neutrality bias" is a weird term, but it's a very real thing, and this is a great example of it. Treating this interaction as if each person here is on opposite ends of a spectrum and are therefore both equally valid or both deserve the same consideration, and the answer is somewhere in the middle between the two, is both flagrantly wrong and highly dangerous. It's like if you placed Mahatma Gandhi and Charles Manson in a debate and said "Well, one guy says you should never kill anyone and he's a fervent pacifist, and the other guy says it's fine to kill people and start a race war, so the correct position must be somewhere in between, where it's sorta okay to kill people for no reason."
If you go back to the first video on James Tour (Elucidating the agenda of James Tour) Dave is actually pretty charitable to James and even says "he is not a con man", but after James' first response Dave now refers to him as a liar and fraud.
Really puts into perspective what a nasty piece of work mr. Tour is. Literally took dave from "ok, this guy is kind of dishonest about the science" to "
35:55 “How do you get life from non life without an intelligent mind…the probability seems really low.” Then the next guy says he doesn’t believe we can. Are they not familiar with the arguments from incredulity? We haven’t known A LOT of stuff in science until recently and now we do. Even IF we never know the exact way in which life came about on Earth, it DOESN’T mean a magician did it. They have so many excuses for god not needing a maker but really, they’re saying that it’s super improbable that life came about on Earth naturally but they’ll believe that an undemonstrated sky wizard can come about on his own?!
Tour didn’t want to discuss anything. Just yelled like a toddler. Dave had the most substance to his debate, which was interrupted by a crying baby the whole time. Great analysis as usual, Dave. I’m not the smartest person in the room, but even I could understand that Tour was clueless.
Creationists deny the facts of reality it's that simple and it's all on purpose to keep their beliefs and narratives intact. I've seen Cameron on many occasions and debates and talks being completely deliberately dishonest with a host of fallacious reasoning and just typical garbage. But what else would you expect
Thanks for reviewing this response. I nave never seen a more dishonest “debate” than that presented by James Tour. As a scientist, I found it deplorable.
I love you responded to this facade of neutrality. I hope you find time to do the same sham that non-sequitur show decided to post. It appears the leading apologist for the term “agnostic” has a grudge against you, Dave.
I think both Bertuzzi and Rimmer did want to look into the science, as evidenced by Paul's sound scientific explanations, but they didn't expect the science to be so overwhelmingly on Dave's side, and so basically they got reduced to damage control.
Dave, thank you so much for what you do. I almost cried watching that "debate". Thank you fot calling out bullshit to its face. I find your work invaluable for humanity. Thank you ❤️🔥
The only difference between Tour and Rimmer is where they imagine the gap their God can be found in exists. Tour believes abiogenesis has a big enough gap. Conversely, after studying the issue, Rimmer seems to think that the abiogenesis gap isn't (or soon will not be) big enough for his god and resorts to pointing at abstract elements of reality and puking out an unfalsifiable: "Without God, mathematics, chemistry, and physics wouldn't be possible."
Dr. Paul Rimmer: "It got of the rails very quick." (2:59) - That was when Mr. Tour was getting loud drawing on the board and demanding answers to non-sequitur questions. Dear Professor Dave, please continue explaining science. - And Liars are what they are!
I want to start out by saying that you have truly educated me on so many topics related to science, and you do it in such an entertaining way. Saying that, I believe the debate with Dr. Tour was hard to watch at times. I'm not a chemist, so I understand very little in the details of what you guys were arguing, but it was fascinating to see the back and forth. I think you brought a great argument backed by facts and citations from well-known and respected people in the field of chemistry. I just think your anger and delivery got the best of you at times, and it was a bad look. I get being angry and loud with clowns that deserve no respect the way you did in the flat earth debate where you annihilated that idiot about basic scientific facts, but with Dr.Tour it was much more formal and I feel as though the way you went after him and the crowd at times, gives them ammo to attack you and your arguments in return. Kill them with kindness and facts and let them be the crazy, lunatics for the world to see. This is just my opinion, and it's just constructive criticism to better the optics aspect of your debate tactics. Outside of that, great job, and I really enjoy your content and work.
Being nice to creationists is basically falling into their trap. As I mentioned in a comment on another video, When both the science communicator and science fraud debate calmly, the flock goes "Wow what an awesome debate, both sides had great points, but I'm going to have go with the science fraud for the winner since I understand him the most!" When both the science communicator and the science fraud lose their tempers, the flock goes "This debate was a total crapshow, the science communicator clearly was acting in bad faith and lost the debate!" When the science communicator remains calm and the science fraud flips the hell out, the flock goes "Look at how passionate the science fraud is, he clearly won the debate over that virgin beta male of a science communicator!" When the science communicator flips the hell out and the science fraud remains calm, the flock goes "Look how evil and unhinged the science communicator is, clearly the science fraud is in the right!"
The chalkboard thing is generational, as much as anything -- my own career straddled the transition. The generations before mine used chalkboards, and later overhead projectors with acetate sheets and markers. One could use 35mm slides, but needed a photo lab and time. The generation after mine is used to having computers, PowerPoint images, etc., readily at hand. I haven't seen a formal chalk talk presentation in years.
It's not the medium, it's the content and the intend behind it. The chalkboard thing is a show for Tours audience....they have no idea that drawing anamino-acid is irrelevant here. He is going for the "Oh look something sciencey on the wall..." effect. It's the equivalent of dangeling shiny keys in front of a toddler for distraction. Worst thig about it, given Tours leftover bottom of the barrell audience...it worked for him.
Cameron is one of the most bad faith apologists I have ever seen. Every point that is shown to him to be true he forgets and makes the same "mistake" in another video. He agrees with people when they are in a conversation to get away from a point, but when the person making that point is not around, he goes back to his programming. He does not learn anything or want to learn anything that would make his views even slightly questionable.
Paul's comment around 36:00 that you need an "intelligent mind to have chemistry" is exactly the problem with god of the gaps being your underlying philosophy. For example, even if scientists could set up an impossible experiment -- allowing an analog solar system to form over a few billion years and then see that life evolved -- their rejection would still be "See!? That required a mind!" It's silly and brings nothing to the table, which is why honest criticisms get addressed and silly criticisms don't even appear on the radar of legitimate researchers. I don't think that Paul's underlying beliefs affect his work or analysis in any real way, but I do think it makes him so much more charitable to Tour than Tour deserves.
12:39 I have to question why Tour thinks it's not possible to form peptide chains in water. Even if the reaction was reversible, and the molecules constantly broke down and reformed, and that water concentration on one side pushes the reaction towards the monoamines, it does not prevent it. In any case, it is not reversible. The peptide bond formed is covalent, ie it would be chemical stable and will require something more reactive than water or the presence of a peptidase to break it.
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](/img/n.gif)
_"We've gathered a Biologist, an Astrophysicist, and a Geologist to explain to you why Creationism is true. The Biologist is going to cover Astrophysics, the Geologist will handle your Biology questions, and naturally, the Astrophysicist is really a preacher who believes in the Firmament and thinks Biology is a Satanic plot to implement TeleTubbies in public Universities."_
That would be even more hilarious if it wasn't true.
Pretty sure you just described the DI and AIG
lmao
"the Geologist will handle your biological questions". Two words: historical geology. I took a University level course in that in 1988. The title of the textbook: "Evolution of the Earth". Nearly a full semester of evolutionary theory!
@@darrylgonzalez5251 derp
Hi Dave, I am a reseacher in a field that is somewhat novel (started in 2009), liquid-liquid phase separation of proteins. It was discovered that certain proteins can spontaneously form membraneless organelles, usually in the presence of RNA. It has been a new evidence that supports how life could have started and evolved only in the presence of RNA and proteins. These organelles, similar to membrane-bound ones, provide unique environments that can concentrate dynamically biomolecules and enzymes in order to promote catalytic activity. And as you stated to argument with Tour "why would there be a need for all 20 amino acids in the early biogenesis?", in fact most proteins that form membraneless organelles are very simple and repetitive and often contain only a few amount of amino acids, the most common being glycines, which are the simplest amino acid. I am sure Tour knows about this field because it has been very much talked about, but must have ignored it because it does suit his premise.
I'd love to hear more!
@@ProfessorDaveExplains There is lot of good research, but this is a good review if you would like to check it out: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7434221/
@@JesusSavesSoulswe already have studies detailing the prebiotic emergence of polypeptides and RNA through natural processes, so those aren't anything new
@@ProfessorDaveExplainsi would love to see you cover this topic in a debate if you can/have any interest this seems like a pretty extensive topic
Could you explain more; this is quite interesting?
Cameron blocked me for pointing out his bias. Truly a man of character /s
Hahaha what else is expected
I left him a snarky comment as well. These people are beyond annoying. He was whining about Dave using ad hominems. I stated he merely used some colorful words interspersed throughout his factual information as it's beyond annoying constantly having to correct liars.
lol lovin the screenshots😂😂😂
My comment was not deleted, when I pointed out that Rimmer (red dwarf) was a trojan source.
Characters 😂😂😂
It’s really scary that we have people thinking there is a “middle ground” when it comes to proven science vs mystical gods and magic. I’m not religious anymore but I grew up Christian and had no problem accepting science.
Because growing up you accepted science as your religion. You use certain science to try and fail to disprove God. But when the science proves God and that has even been peered reviewed you don’t accept and believe it but you call it SudoScience lol. It’s not that people who believe in God don’t accept science it’s just that we don’t accept your science that is all still theoretical.
@@SiQuemaCuhhA theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses.” Btw, science is not a religion buddy. You’re being delusional.
@@snewp_e2139 guy really edited his comment and still failed to spell “pseudoscience” correctly
@@SiQuemaCuhhShow the science that proves God and it's peer reviewed
@@SiQuemaCuhh😂😂 Stop
Jimbo, the creationist golden boy, got his ass kicked, and now the creationists are coping harder than flat earthers.
tbf they do have to cope in more dimensions than the FEs
Cameron being openly dishonest?!? No way!! That has never happened before! What an unexpected turn of events!
/s
Yeah he's bad for it but he's still one of the better apologists
You just crushed my sarcasm detector. Gonna sue you.
@@GameTimeWhy I'm not even sure what you mean by that. Is that supposed to be a compliment? Being one of the best in lying and deceiving people?
@@faelheavymetal Stupid, how about Camerun being stupid? You forgot that.
I am absolutely cackling that James Tour initially challenged Dave to a debate because of back and forth UA-cam videos and then used the fact that arguments from those videos were brought up during the debate to try to dunk on Dave's knowledge of chemistry. It's like breathing in all that chalk dust made him forget why they were there in the first place.
Completely agreed. And didn't Dave provide him a list of the papers? What else would they be talking about?
@@synthetic240 Oh gosh, yes --- you should see the "conditions" Tour had during "negotiations." I'm pretty sure Dave has a breakdown of what they agreed to in advance posted somewhere searchable. I remember him discussing them as it dragged on bc Tour kept being shady.
@@picahudsoniaunflocked5426 dont forget Tours "1/3rd of the audience has to be my church buddies" condition
Tour definitely feels like someone cosplaying an actual academic... despite him being one. Without playacting the part of the stuffy professor who's always right because of his authority, he's got nothing. Like every apologist, he can't win unless his audience assumes his conclusion from the very start, and in his case the technique he's chosen to do it is by putting on a little morality play where he's the Serious Academic™ and Dave is the clueless outsider who can be easily dismissed because he doesn't have a fancy suit and a title... despite himself being completely unqualified to talk about organic chemistry and regularly pretending like he knows better than the actual organic chemist who did actual research in the field he hasn't touched in decades, as if having PhD next to his name magically turns his uninformed and sometimes entirely mendacious opinions into actual science.
@@JesusSavesSouls Of course he knew what they said.
To Christian apologists, presenting scientific consensus is "extreme".
That's absolutely true, but it's worse than that. At least here in the U.S., creationist _conspiracy-theorists_ (calling a spade a spade) have managed to convince most of the population (not _just_ believers) of a few lies:
- Evolution is "just a theory" which, of course, means that it's only a guess and therefore can reasonably be dismissed
- "Evolution" is a theory that (ostensibly) explains _everything_ about the origins of our Universe, planet, and (especially) all life; it's not just about the diversity of life.
- Evolution is a controversial theory, no more valid than the "theories" posited by religious fundamentalists and conspiracy-theorist nutbars.
The last one is the most important, and most insidious of their lies. Even many non-believers think that it's just one possible explanation with little to no evidence supporting it. This seriously worries me. This is what allows fundies to portray legitimate scientists as "extreme" in their "belief in evolution" with almost no pushback from the non-religious, non-scientists.
Nonsense. To Creationist apologists, that is correct, but the vast majority of Christians (such as myself) agree with much of scientific consensus. I know many Christians who have legitimate scientific degrees (Dr. Lloyd Drexel Vincent, Ph.D in nuclear physics and former President of Angelo State University comes to mind). Don't paint us all with that broad brush.
@@darrylgonzalez5251 Then it's good that he clearly specified Christian apologists, right?
@@antiksur8883 as daryl said, creationist. do you even understand the bible? most creationist come from protestant ("most"), that doesnt have the tradition so as darryl said "creationist"
@Sutrisno Right. I think of it this way:
A 7 year old little boy asks his Dad where the house they live in came from. (While Mom was pregnant with him, she and Dad bought the property and had the house built. ) Dad tells his son, "Mom and I put this house here." Later on, as he grows up, he learns how houses are built, and he realizes Mom and Dad didn't literally build this house themselves. So he eventually learns that when they bought the property, it was an empty lot. They then decided what kind if house they wanted, bought the materials, and hired a building company. It's still true that Mom and Dad made the house; it's not literally true that they built it themselves.
Tour: "Show me water sticking to a spinning ball! Show me, Dave! You can't do it, can you?! Come up here and show me how water sticks to a spinning ball!"
Dave: "My paper shows how gravity works and how the experiment you're asking me to show you is not possible unless we have an earth sized ball to spin, and how we are not actually spinning at thousands of miles an hour like you claim (and why it is silly to say people should be being flung off the planet at such speeds)"
Tour: Come up here and show me the water on the spinning ball!! You can't do it!! Gravity is just a theory! There is no consensus on gravity! You are CLUELESS!".
the ball doesn't even need to be the size of earth. size is actually counterproductive (if you ignore the space requirement for the object's mass); the larger the object's radius is, the more mass it has to have for a measurable gravitational effect.
a basketball-sized sphere with a mass of a million metric tons would exert gravity on its surface at the same order of magnitude as earth (5m/s^2 according to my very rough estimate); make it a few million tons (to overcome earth's 9.81 m/s^2 that interferes with the experiment), and water would stick to it, even if you spin it at a similar angular velocity as earth(~1 rotation/day).
fun fact: that basketball just requires a density of ~10^12 kg/m^3, and that's well within the range of the degenerate matter inside a neutron star. a sufficiently advanced type 3+ civilization could probably do this experiment at school :D
@@chezeus1672 technically, for an earth-mass it'd just need to be about =/< 10cm^3 from a neutron star's core. whatever antigravity technology needed to contain it would end up being the massive part
@@aidanmatthewgalea7761 you don't need an object with earth's mass, though, you need a similar result for m/r^2 (times a constant) as you get for earth.
if i picked the densest known material (excluding black holes, as far as i understand, they contain a singularity with near-infinite density), i assumed the resulting object would become so small that adhesion alone can do the trick.
so i arbitrarily chose a nice size for a classroom experiment, estimated the required density and then saw that a material like that is near the lower end of a neutron star's density spectrum.
btw, containing the gravity wouldn't be much of a problem, distance^2 kinda does that for you if the object is small enough to weigh "only" about as much as an aircraft carrier.
it's not entirely correct, but for simplification, i like to think of a neutron star as a single atom with lots and lots of neutrons, i.e. an isotope so unstable that its half-life would have to be measured in single planck-times.
so the purpose of the unfathomable piece of high-tech machinery would have to be to prevent decay into much less dense atoms and therefore flooding the whole school with tons and tons of radioactive waste.
@@chezeus1672 Makes me wonder: if there was a ball the size of baseball but with a mass roughly equal to that of Earth, and it was spinning so fast that the linear velocity at its equator was equal to that of Earth it would probably have quite interesting effects...
@@juhanipolvi4729 some number crunching:
m = 5.97219*10^24 kg
v = ~40075000 m/89164.1s (earth circumference/1 sidereal day) =~450m/s
rball=0.0365m
rearth= 6371000m
centrifugal force F=mω^2r
ω= v/rball=12330 rad/s
_Fc=m*5.55*10^6 N/kg_
G=6.674*10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 (constant)
gball = GM/r^2 = 2.992 *10^17 m/s^2
_Fg = -m*2.992 *10^17 N/kg_
_Fg+Fc ~= Fg_
i did some very disgusting rounding, but either way, the centrifugal force remains just as negligible compared to the overwhelming gravity as it is on earth.
maybe we get a different effect if we shrink earth to the size of a baseball while conserving its angular momentum?
L= 4/5 Pi M f r^2
M*1sid_day*rearth^2 = M*fball*rball^2
fball= 1sid_day*rearth^2 /rball^2= 2.7* 10^18 rotations/s
uh oh... that looks like relativistic territory
cBall = 2Pi rBall
v = f*cBall = 6,19 * 10^17 m/s >>> c
newtonian mechanics break down once you approach speeds that aren't negligble compared to the speed of light (~3*10^8 m/s) anymore, and the correct math is pretty crazy and it's too much for me right now. suffice to say, it can't reach the speed of light as we're still working with a finite amount of energy.
i assume we created some kind of pulsar that emits an FM radio signal... and since it's not a black hole (escape velocity < light speed), everything on its surface would get flung off into space at nearly the speed of light. and its surface, too.
The scientific method is pretty simple:
-first, deny observations
-second, make a prediction that your opponent is clueless
-third, gather hype
-fourth, yell hype
-fifth, draw clueless on a chalkboard
6 discourage people to think for themselves
thanks for the massive laugh
7. God did it 🎉
Dave was extreme...ly good at pointing out James Tour's lies. And Tour was just extreme in impersonating a lunatic.
Impersonating???
@@stephentaylor356 Yes it was a bit of irony from my part
YOU GOT A SOURCE ON THAT!?!
@@ericsbuds
James:
chalk:
@@ericsbuds SHOW US YOU WON'T DO IT YOU WON'T DO IT!!!
Not sure how anyone could acknowledge that we're not clueless on OoL and then repeatedly ignore the fact that Tour is saying we are.
This whole thing reeks of damage control from CC. Tour has based his entire identity around an outright false claim, so the apologetics-verse has to reframe and rehabilitate his image into something reasonable
Dave, your channel trailer should include the clip of you writing "NOT CLUELESS" on the board, since you dedicate your time to reducing the cluelessness of humanity.
Plus, that was a f***ing hilarious moment.
P.S. I loved when you co-hosted on The Line.
Me too on the hosting on The Line. Loved it and hope he’ll be back soon.
Tour: "DO YOU HAVE A REFERENCE ON THAT?? HAVE YOU ANY REFERENCES ON THESE CLAIMS??"
Dave: "Yeah, I have a bunch of papers."
Tour: "DAVE CAN'T READ PAPERS!! DAVE CAN'T ADDRESS THE PAPERS!!"
Dave pulling up to the debate: "Ok, I brought a bunch of pape-"
Tour in the debate: "NO YOU GOTTA DRAW IT ON THE BLACKBOARD!!! YOU GOTTA DRAW IT OUT OR IT DOESN'T COUNT!!!"
Surpriced Tour did not bang his head on the table like a borderliner in a psychosis. because the rest of his behaviour was that.
@@kamion53,
"If I write Not Clueless on the board, do I get points?"
@@kamion53 I gotta ask if you actually know what BPD is
@@JaceDeanLove oops, it's NPD
Narcissisist Personality Disorder
Cameron likes to present himself as reasonable and levelheaded, but he always comes across as dishonest to me, as he is more than willing to misrepresent what people are saying to bolster his arguments.
Just search up "extraordinary roman Catholic claims require extraordinary evidence" to see Cameron very expertly contradict himself
Cameron willfully misrepresents the arguments of his opponents.
I can believe that a guy like Mike Winger is simply too deluded and ignorant to understand the arguments and doesn’t misrepresent them on purpose… he is simply too incompetent.
But someone like Cam should be too smart to make such mistakes… and that makes it even worse.
Yep!
He has a shifty vibe to him, like he is always trying to phrase things the right way.
@@ramigilneas9274 Yes. Mike Winger argues like a child sometimes. It's so weird.
Who knew presenting and defending scientific data and consensus was considered "extreme" 🤣 You did good, Dave.
A lot of these theists don't seem to understand Dave is not claiming to have done the research, so he couldn't write it out on a board, but he is presenting research done by others which has been peer reviewed.
This subject is way too complicated to do a few drawing on a board for an hour, to even begin to get an understanding of the subject.
Debating science in front of an audience who are not schooled in the science that’s being debated is a waste of time.
Calling people names isn't winning a debate.
well it's not untrue that selective outrage is protected selectively..🤔
@@moon_wobble7782 To be fair, Dave won the debate despite Tour planting a bunch of his students and creationists, and planting a creationist mediator. By the end even tour's students were cheering for Dave
For them any person who defends science and takes science serious and debunks the lies they believe, is an extreme.
Also any person defending reality is an extremist.
Where did all of these elements come from initially?
@@zeraphking1407 "Where did all of these elements come from initially?" - Wut? U haven't heard of physics? A Christian astronomer Henry Russel together with the danish astronomer Ejnar Hertzprung developed the theory of stellar evolution. Additionally, 2017 there was a neutron star merger that explains the abundance of elements above Ag (Silver) on our globe in the late heavy bombardment. That neutron star merger happened around 50 M years before the formation of the earth.
@@zeraphking1407your butt.
@@zeraphking1407but seriously, we don't know and neither do you. Proving abiogenesis will not disprove a god existing but it does lessen the gap that a god can hide in.
Speaking a biochemist who watched - or rather endured - the original debate, as well as debate analysis videos, I can honestly testify that Dave debated with remarkable patience and restraint against what was pretty much a fact-free hissy fit from Tour, henceforth referred to as Wee Jimmy for reasons anyone who watched the debate will understand. Wee Jimmy's attitude was to demand that he be shown step by step how you got from a pre-biotic mix of stuff to a fully living cell, and if it couldn't be presented as a single series of steps, then the whole enterprise is a hoax.
My own suspicion is that Wee Jimmy is actually a biblical literalist and young earth creationist, only cannot admit it in public because it would embarrass Rice, his employers. They can't sack him because he's got tenure, but they could (and should) make his life very difficult to persuade him to take early retirement. I wouldn't take an organic chemistry class from the guy, let alone take his opinions about the feasibility of abiogenesis seriously. We're a long way from a full understanding, but Wee Jimmy's adamant and raucous denials that certain milestones have been reached is pure flannel. I wouldn't accept the time of day from a creationist without an independent check. They are natural born liars and dissemblers.
Very adroit summation. 👍
"Wee Jimmy" 😂
In fact Tour openly states that he thinks the Bible is completely true, for example in an interview he said: "I take every word in the Bible as true, it doesn’t mean I take everything literally."
Unfortunately for him, this is transparent mental gymnastics. It's impossible for every word to be true if some of the claims and stories are not literal. That would obviously mean that some of the words are not true. He probably has some tortured definition of "true" that lets him feel comfortable with his claims, I suppose. But just like his tortured definition of "clueless", it gives the impression that he's a liar rather than some deep thinker.
Nice.
@@violetfactorial6806 Yeah, I'm sure he dissembles with the best of them. I've never seen him personally state the earth is 6000yo, Eve made from Adam's rib, or that Noah and the Ark were real. My guess is he believes in all of it as literally true, but making that public would make his position on the Rice faculty almost untenable. He certainly makes no more sense than the average YEC.
@@Leszek.Rzepecki I can't recall who it was but someone did a review on James where he actually brought up the old lie about blood cells in dinosaur fossils. I think the person who did the video was a Christian scientist. James actually had the nerve to bring that old creationist lie and seemed to be proud to claim that it showed science is wrong about the age of the planet.
i could never be calm like this. if i debated a man who yelled "clueless" at me for 2 hours and then someone is like "yeah you were kinda rude to him" id lose my mind
14:30 like what? hes 'concerned' for dave? not the psycho yelling abt random shit?
I know!!! But it's almost like even all the Creationist Apologists expect Dave to be the calm, reasonable one because obviously, James Tour is insane, and what else can we expect?
It's a weird little admission by all of them that it's their guy who can't be expected to be anything but an irrational toddler. Huh. Weird.
Same. These people get me so unreasonably angry with their scummy lying behavior. They know what they say and do are lies, and are wrong, but they do it anyways in the name of spreading their ancient death cult, even in the face of current scientific breakthroughs and discoveries.
I watched this video and when they said "Tour is the one wanting to talk about the science" made me click away. Clearly they are not scientists and just because Tour wrote something on the board they see him as "the one interested in the science", not understanding that all the science we are doing today builds on an established, proved and peer-reviewed body of work
they fell for his tactics
@@cuddlecakes7153 yeah, exactly
Dr Paul Rimmer is a scientist. You can look up all his papers in Astrochemistry.
if he actually wanted to talk and debate he would listen and allow others to speak
...you are being just as disingenuous as Tour. You watched a video about a reaction to a debate and you refused further information based on your assumptions about it.
You were probably right but it's just not very intellectually genuine to know what you're getting into and then just avoid it because it's exactly what you should have expected.
"note that the Farina chalkboard was blank" holy shit - James' trick actually worked 😂😂😂
That kind of thing appeals to those who think the more you have of something the more truth it represents somehow. They gobble that up never considering someone might actually pile up thousands of lies.
"That scientist didn't use every last instrument in the lab! He's a fraud!"
😂😂😂😂
@@beemixsy it's not "depressing" it's sad, those two words cannot be used interchangeably. depression is a mental illness that kills people, saying something is "depressing" is no different to saying your house is like a north korean labor camp because your mother yelled at you for not doing the dishes
@@ilikelongwords Be aware that people have an understanding of the actual condition as separate from the colloquial use of the adjective.
That aside, mulling about the entrenched denial of these people is the actual cause of my current depressive episode.
@@terralexj9468 they can know the difference but that doesn't change anything. you either have depression or you don't, saying something is "depressing" is dumb regardless of wether the person knows the difference between it and the actual condition or not
Expecting Christian apologists to be unbiased is just LOL
I was watching the video, and one minute in, I was like what are they even talking about lol. Their personal beliefs get in the way of viewing matters objectively and for what they are. Viewing their analysis of the debate, you’d think professor dave was being unfair and biased, when it was the opposite
It’s just like conservatives not liking guns. Or trump.
Being biased is not the problem. Refusing to correct your views when proven wrong is. Almost all apologists suffer from it.
Cameron makes a relatively good effort to roleplay unbiased with his calm demeanour. Not only in this matter but overall what ever he's discussing.
I'm not sure what he's trying to achieve with his larping because anyone with cursory knowledge about the subjects he's talking about can see right through his facade while his own flock and other apologists would vehemently agree with him irregardless of his demeanour.
Nice gotcha. Will boost your ego a bit.
Thanks for making this.
I watched the Capturing Christianity video last night.
I enjoyed Paul's explanations of some of the science. But cringed at how much they both seemed to bend over backwards to save face for Dr. Tour.
I liked that Paul tried to explain the science.
I enjoyed the scientific explanations from Paul too, especially since it was posted before Dave could post his first debate analysis. But there was clearly some bias towards tour especially from the capturing christianity guy. I wonder if He was just trying to be as partial as possible towards anything CC said, as to not offend him. But idk
Other than that it seemed like they didn't know, or avoided all of the context around Tour's arguments in the past. Almost like they only watched the debate and nothing else
@@Mark-xw5yt Indeed.
They seemed to treat Dr. Tour and Farina as equally *EXTREME*. Which seems unreasonable.
As for their demeanor, you could say they were both uncordial:
- Farina was rude to Dr. Tour & the audience.
- Dr. Tour seemed fanatical, and ridiculous.
As for their positions:
- Farina represents this scientific field's consensus, a modest position: We have clues to how systems chemistry dynamics could lead to life. It is not "figured out", but we're always getting closer.
- Dr. Tour however took the extreme position that We have no clue how life could have arisen at all, and that the field studying this is fraudulent. This is ridiculous.
Dr. Tour was even shown to be undeniably wrong on his 5 point checklist. But they really tried to soften the way they said that. Quite biased.
Hey Professor Dave! I've practically watched all of your debunking videos, and they are amazing. Concise, straight to the point and undeniably effective at destroying pseudoscience. I live in Hong Kong, and many of the older generation of people here still have outdated beliefs which were shaped by ancient Chinese culture. There are many people online including UA-camrs, who target gullible people to watch their videos and buy their books, which are all pseudoscience. However, their audience don't realise it, as they use the usual tactics, including buzzwords, everyday "update" videos and misinterpreting science papers in order to fool their audience. I know that you will not have the time to unravel these frauds one by one, and you certainly don't know Cantonese, so could you please make a video containing some tips on how you do what you do: exposing these frauds? It would be incredible if you could share some of your methods to do research for pieces of important information online against them, and how you build up your arguments, as you're so very good at this. Thus, we may follow your footsteps and continue to clear up the misinformation online, in order to introduce real science to the public. Thank you for your hard work!
The best way to expose fraud is to communicate truth from a platform that people listen to. It's tough with China specifically because the government there is very particular with what truth people are allowed access to.
In the meantime you can comment on such videos stating they are deceptive and possibly harmful if recommending homeopathic cures etc.
@@chrispysaid Nothing to do with their government, it's the language and culture barrier that's the problem.
@@chrispysaidChinese people can browse the entire internet with a VPN, it's completely legal, so it won't be any harder for a Chinese person to debunk a hypothetical Chinese James Tour or whatever. Also Hong Kong isn't China lmao
Best of luck. 👍
Tour's insistence that you weren't correct because you wouldn't draw on his board was hysterical 😂
That literally wasn't the reason why and the fact you posit such nonsense shows you either didn't watch the debate or didn't have the mental capacity to understand what was discussed.
@@reviewjimeu9513Tour literally complained during Dave’s second prompt that Farina didn’t write anything during Tour’s first. You’re obviously in denial or actively lying.
It's pretty telling that theists believe, "you can't have chemistry without an intelligent mind," when the truth is that you can't have an intelligent mind without chemistry. Minds don't exist on their own; they're a product of chemistry.
How does Paul Rimmer jump from "this might be a bigger problem than Prof Dave realizes" to "we are clueless"?
Oh wait, he does the exact opposite. So shrug.
GodDunIt.
I got through 10 minutes of that video before turning it off. I was excited to see a real chemist defend the Christian side, but it was all hooey. I'm glad you are addressing it!
I was planning on saying something similar about Christian scientists defending some real science. And I'm glad Dave made this video about Cameron and Paul video.
@@johnpeace1149 Dawkins calls those "scientists" a disgrace to humanity.
1:25 One guy seriously pointed out "Farina chalkboard was blank". Are they really that amazed by James writing one chemical on a board? I wonder what they think James drawing that accomplished.
"Either because Dave Farina wasn't listening, he was just ready to jump in"......ACTUALLY....Dave was the ONLY one listening during the entire f'ing debate lol.
Paul's comment about how Tour gets "a little excited" gave me legitimate chills. "I'm sorry sweetie, daddy just gets a little excited sometimes. I'm sure he still loves you. Now let's go get you some ice for that."
This is some legitimately disturbing projection on your part. How much long is your arm span for that reach?
@@witchwinn Could certainly be an overreaction, and I really hope my fear's unfounded, but Dave is not incorrect when he says that Tour shows the signs of being a true, literal narcissist. And this sort of behavior is unpleasantly common in that demographic. I mean it takes basically nothing for the man to start screaming, even in public or professional settings. There's no guarantee he'd turn violent, and I'm not saying he's hurt anyone, but the way he behaves, it would not be at all surprising. Tragic and heartbreaking, but unsurprising.
And the way these people downplay the absolute fits he goes into, denying the observable reality of unchecked anger issues by referring to it as nothing more than excitement....Yeah, it is EXACTLY like how abuse victims behave. This sort of thing should not be normalized. But because Tour is on Team God, they feel a deep-seated need to make him out to be the good guy, which means reframing everything he does in positive terms, even something as extreme as this. I see this pattern everywhere in discussions on religion or adjacent topics.
So given all of this, is it really so much of a reach to be reminded of battered wives, when they say a line so commonly heard among them, about a man who behaves so much like those who do the battering? Even if he isn't an abuser himself, this situation is more than close enough to readily bring that comparison to mind. Which in the end is all I'm saying it did: It brought it to mind.
The absolute weirdest thing James blew up about was the script. He's losing his mind because you were prepared? I don't know how you can keep your cool around someone that behaves like that.
I wish I could be alive when religion finally becomes the same as Greek mythology and we can finally make some damn progress!
Nah you just feel comfortable being unrestricted doing what you've wished without bearing the consequences of an after life however the most ridiculous thing i came to see within these debates is people failing to see the purpose... i am muslim and definitely believe in God, it just doesn't make sense to me how far has science went through complexity searching for explanations yet fails to see the links, the way things go together, absolute beautifully orchestrated creations... nah this is not the argument of it has to be designed by a creator actually the exact opposite where are the flaws, the wrong things, the bugs within the universe if it was all a series of incremental probabilities getting us to the best outcome, if none then the system has ceased to evolve then?
I don't know like these things all scientific debates and marvelous arguments prove to how futile it is running from a world with a creator, i don't understand why? I do understand however that there is a purpose whether you like it or not at all feel it sometimes too soon... so yeah that's something we ought to think about.
@@ych3455if i understood your text correctly you asked 2 things
1. Does nature and evolution do mistakes?
2. "Why are scientists running from a creator"
1. Yes nature makes mistakes there are a few million different animal species, and many of them die out without the help of humans. If nature or evolution would make mostales why does this happen?
For example look at the Cheetah, yes it got speed but the price for it is, that theor brains overheat, so they have to rest after the kill, making them extremly volnurable to....idk all of afrika, like hyenas.
(+ there are like 5 other deathflags)
And thats why cheetahs are really close to dying out.
Another example, of evolution mistakes is a species of crabs, the female chooses for the crab with the biggesz right claw. So the species evolved to have extrwmly big right claws, like up to 4 times vugger rhan their left claw. Wich makes them unusable, and useless, they cant use it to defend themselves, or attack anything or even to eat, it makes them a easier target for seagulls etc.
So they are also probably soon gonna die out.
A nature channel called "casual geography" or something did a video called something like "10 times nature did mistakes" i recomend it.
2. I would argue they dont, the job of Scientist is "to find stuff out" so saying "we where created from nothing by something" just isnt a specific or sufficient answer they found out the building blocks of live, called cells, now they need to find out how cells are created (with dna or rna in simpler life) so now they meed tk find out how rna is create.
Thats just literally science, they do not care about religion or god or Believe, they just need to find out.
If in the end they find out god brought the lava that made the heat that made lufe possible from another planet. Than they will accept that as a trth and dont care, because sience is neither a dictatorship nor a democracy the currently best evidence rules until a better on is there (and they are permanently searching fir different or new or better evidence for everything.
@@ych3455The theist calls the non-believer a disingenuous liar... what a surprise.
@@ych3455I hope you have gained critical thinking for Christmas. Probably not but that's my hope for you. Believing in these fairytales with zero evidence backing it up is unhealthy.
Cave-man James Tour used to scream about how humans will never light a fire, because only Og the Sky Frog could do that.
Hiya Dave! I know you'll read this so I'll just put this out there as a fan:
will we get a origin of life video at some point? I'm talking about a regular video without Tour/apologists. A video going over some of the incredibly fascinating chemistry and ideas that origin of life researchers have would be amazing.
Obviously this is easier said then done and I don't want to be one of those demanding fans but learning about origin of life research in these videos has been amazing. I had no idea the field has come this far and the way the chemistry works to produce early enzymes, protocells, RNA etc. is so interesting.
Hope you have a good day Dave! Keep fighting the good fight
Likely a whole series
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Are you planning any more content about the new age woo or quantum mysticism? That stuff is hilarious and disturbingly popular. I think however that the OoL stuff is far more valuable educationally. Thanks for all of your work
"Paul is in the middle"... So, Paul is a sellout scientist. It is beyond me how someone can truly understand science and still hold a creationist viewpoint. Money is the only thing that comes to mind. Dishonesty is everywhere, even in the scientific community.
Fortunately, the commandment against "bearing false witness" only applies under oath in a court of law.
He isn't a creationist. He accepts evolution but thinks God started everything in the beginning like Ken Miller and Francis Collins.
Not even to criticise their beliefs, but out of curiosity about how they don't see them as mutually exlusive. Is it just lying for clout or have they actually done enough mental gymnastics to actually think that?
Thank you Christian universities...
Embarrassing right away. "first life" and "last common ancestor" are so trivially and dramatically different that you don't need to know any science to know that. You just have to know English.
So glad you are doing a video on cameron, he is one if the most dishonest apologists I’ve ever encountered
Yeah, if I had to point at someone who does it mainly for money, he is the first target
give one example?
@@nzsl368 You just had one presented in this video
@@nzsl368 once he made a post to memory of his recently passed away patron. He called him good friend, said condolences to his family, and in THE SAME POST he asked viewers for money for HIS channel because now he lost big source of income and CC is in danger. He also was making posts about channel being at operational loss asking for more support, his conversion to catholic looked fishy, topics he covers (exorcisms, miracles, demons and other bs like this) are made because they bring most views (no one watches philosophical stuff), he stirs up drama (at least used to) with other creator because it sells good
@@nzsl368did you watch this video?
Dave is extreme on the idea that the earth is round. David Weiss is extreme that the earth is flat. Let’s bring in a baby who has no clue the shape of the earth to be a middle man
We all know it's a velociraptor
wrong, the baby in this scenario is actually unbiased, Cameron is not
Thanks for all you do Prof! I couldn’t stomach watching the entire debate, but I get the idea from the round ups!
Same, it’s too cringe. I’d rather watch these follow ups.
I also apologize, I could not stand to watch past the first dozen minutes.
I got about 2/3 of the way through.
it was hilarious watching James meltdown😊
I skipped the debate, knowing in advance it would drive me to hard liquor.
Cameron is an apologist. He makes his money trying to make non-theism appear absurd, and to make Christian theism appear the only rational option. Being truly open-minded on the origin of life is not conducive to his goals as an apologist. There are too many implied conflicts between a natural origin of life and how most Christians view scripture. It's why attacking evolution and the origin of life or misrepresenting these sciences are intrinsic to all apologetics.
James Tour: "Even if they could, they couldn't..."
But here's a thing: has JT ever wondered about the origins of Chalk?
Another gem!
All the debunks and deconstructions from Prof. Dave are amazingly concise and to the point!
Thanks once again for your services for the community!
Thanks for making this video, I also watched their analysis and thought I was going crazy when they started talking about LUCA out of nowhere even though it's basically irrelevant to the discussion that you were having
Really glad you addressed this very video! Please don’t take your foot off these DI folk’s necks.
I wish people stopped asking as if there is a middle ground to every issue. No, sometimes one side is right and the other is wrong.
Cameron is so far gone the James Web Telescope can't see him. He's a total joke.
It is sooo telling that at the end of Cameron's video he says that Rimmer and Tour should get together for a stream and Rimmer says immediately that that may be not a great idea because things are very hot right now. Even with Cameron's and Rimmer's lukewarm acceptation of origin of life research and all the passes that they gave Tour, Tour would absolutely loose it in the stream and begin to act as a screaming chimp and Rimmer knows it. He knows that we are not clueless and Dave had it right, but he won't tell that to Tour's face.
"So this is totally plausible, that actually the exact thing that Jim Tour wrote out could work with this kind of chemistry."
It's funny how they frame all of this, compared to what they're actually saying. I guess even Tour's best defenders won't join him in his "CLUELESS" ravings.
Tour was just yelling and not letting dave speak and address his BS he was spewing, and if you do that you already lost.
bertuzzi talks such nonsense, i'm surprised he hasn't noticed himself. and f he does one more exorcism video i shall scream, even while medicated. those demon possession videos need removing.
I watched that video. The fun is that Paul Rimmer was a trojan source. Rimmer agreed with you, but when pressed by Dishonest Camerun, agreed with science denial.
Is Paul Rimmer somehow related to Arnold Rimmer from Red Dwarf, you know: Rimmer the hologram?
@@kamion53 Yes, they are siblings. Arnold is the brave and honest one of them.
Already at the start, Cameron is two sides-ing a thing that doesn't have two sides. Refute the research/papers or embrace the science. We can't be both clueless and not clueless about the origin's of life.
How do these people not understand it takes more time, on orders of magnitude, to debunk bad claims than it takes to make them? Obviously writing out complicated origin of life chemistry on a black board is frivolous especially since that's not Dave's expertise.
"Psychologically there's a lot going on with Dave." Is this going to be the start of the 'reverse psychoanalysis' that James was claiming? This feels like it's taking a turn for TV drama. (Also the joke that psychologically there isn't a lot going on upstairs for James :^)
When I saw the video they published I knew they were gonna embarrass themselves
After watching it I knew professor Dave would help them out
And here we are
An analysis of another analysis!
Haven’t watched it yet but I know you’ll do a great job!
I wonder how advanced we would be as a species if the idea of a god was never created.
Good question. You have to weigh up wars being a catalyst for scientific advancement against the Dark Ages and persecution of scientists by religions. Thankfully we've found new reasons for advancement and religion is largely redundant. I hope the final nail in the coffin of theism happens in my lifetime, but I'm not holding my breath for the New Age of Enlightenment.
@@avaggdu1 watch a video called "Christianity's war against science debunked"
Stone age
@avaggdu1There are several billion religious people in the world today
Alot of religious organizations funded scientific institutions my guy..
Just because you know science doesnt mean you know politics.
Never a bad day when Dave uploads another creation propaganda debunk
Cameron is trying to convince the world that exorcisms actually happen smh
The "moderator" still remains the most shocking aspect of this entire exchange.
Freaking PLEASE, Cameron... Prof. Dave is "extreme" cuz he counters extremists like Flat Earthers and Anti-Vaxxers. Countering extremists doesn't make one extreme.
Maybe he meant Dave is "extreme" cuz he prefers Mountain Dew.
These creationists think you should gone full Matt Damon from Good Will Hunting on the chalkboard... funny enough, I remember watching a video where an actual mathematician analyzed that film and discussed how ridiculous the scenes with math actually were. That's all it really is, entertainment value.
For every religious person, there comes a point where you have to be willing to hold your feet to the fire and do some squirming, at the points you know are a problem. After years of squirming you can then break free.
You are doing the Lord's work, Proffy Dave. The boundless intellectual dishonestly I constantly see from fundies on science, archeology and history is staggering and it continuously illustrates to me that they are 100% untrustworthy. Honestly, it show that they are bad people because I consider liars to be bad people.
I don't. I think they have cognitive dissonance and are brainwashed. I blame their beliefs, not them (at least in general)
I agree. Liars are bad people.
I honestly think we need to have a debate about "Is Christianity Clueless about the Origin of Life?" my god(s), religion is so dangerous!
I’m a Conservative Christian (not a creationist though) and I really enjoy your content Dave. I read comments from people accusing you of being an asshole but you’re never rude or insult people until they do it to you first. You seem like a very reasonable person to me.
Um, what? How can you be a Christian and not be a creationist?
@@wet-read I believe God created the universe and the laws of physics. So I don’t believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago
Edit: I guess I should have been more clear, I’m not a “young earth” creationist.
@@wet-readthey hold a position called” Theistic evolution”. They still have no evidence for their magic imaginary friend
@@wet-readThis is the problem with American evangelical Christianity. Young earthers have become the face of our religion and it’s gotten so bad that it’s making our faith appear that you can’t accept science and still hold to your faith.
I’m a theistic evolutionist but I don’t deny the existence of Adam and Eve, the Fall of Man, the flood of Noah, etc.
The events that happen in Genesis 1-11 can be classified as “mytho history”. Real historical events that have been exaggerated over time. Those chapters were also meant to polemicize pagan mythologies. I’m sure you’ve heard that the flood of Noah plagiarized the Epic of Gilgamesh but this is a huge misconception. Most scholars will tell you that they’re both telling the same story but from different perspectives, not that one store stole the ideas of another story. In Babylonian mythology, the flood was brought onto mankind because the gods grew tired of them. But in Noah’s flood, the flood was brought onto mankind because they became evil and God wanted to save Noah because him and his family were the only good people left on earth. Of course, when these events happened there wasn’t an actual worldwide flood. However, a large portion of humanity was localized in the Middle East, particularly the Persian gulf region around 13,000 years ago. So in that sense, the world was flooded because that area was where most people were living at that time.
@@randomango2789
There was no Adam and Eve, Fall, or Great Flood. I have heard one radical thinker liken humankind's adoption of agriculture to the Fall, and seen it said or vaguely alluded to elsewhere as well. It can work great as a metaphor for certain events or circumstances.
Thank goodness Dave is responding to this video. I wanted him to do this.
I have left a comment the same day this was published. I called him as biased for asking for molecules of modern cells like ATP.
So, three weeks ago, Cameron made a community post about putting together this debate review, and he joked that he would have to watch the debate a couple of times in full. Someone replied and told Cameron he could avoid his due diligence by using "the Dave method" i.e. read the title, ignore the rest. After reading that, Cameron must have been struck by the the thought of his ministry's mission-"exposing the intellectual side of Christian belief"-because he created another community post that was just a screenshot of the reply and two cry-laughing emoji.
Three days after that post went up, Cameron streamed his debate review where he learned from Dr. Rimmer that Dave accurately represented some, if not all, of the papers in the debate. It should be pretty clear that the reply to his previous post was just regurgitating a talking point that Dr. Tour used to dodge tough questions. I wonder if Cameron regrets promoting it.
I have no little to no doubts he doesn't regret it lol
Omg. Dave. You absolute genius. This debate is the greatest content farm I've ever seen. What a move.
"I don't think you can get chemistry without an intelligent mind."
What a vacuous, lazy philosophy.
It's too bad Cameron didn't invite you on too Dave with his guest. It shows he's scared of having to confront these things honestly.
I sent him this and told him to have me on his show with Paul present to discuss all this. $100 says he doesn't have the balls.
I'd take that bet. 😂 Love ya Dave!
Update: they both refused. Spineless cowards.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains😂 No surprise there. I haven't seen an honest apologist yet. I just like pointing out to them that their god is clearly fictional and based on Canaanite mythology using scholarship as below.
According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms "divorced" them. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts. His pantheon in Ugarit is called the *Elohim,* literally the plural of El. Interestingly, the Biblical god is also referred to numerous times as Elohim.
"When El was young, he came across two beautiful Goddesses washing their clothes in the Sea. They were Athirat (Asherah) and the Goddess Rahmaya, and, after buttering them up by cooking a meal for them, he asked them to choose between being his daughters or wives. They choose the latter and became the mothers of the Gods Shachar "Dawn" and Shalim "Dusk"."
*"First, a god named El predates the arrival of the Israelites into Syria-Palestine.* Biblical usage shows El was not just a generic noun, but often a proper name for Israel’s God (e.g., Gen 33:20: “El, the God of Israel”)."
"I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the sons of El. It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the sons of El, plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, solely according to the number of the sons of El. *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting."*
*"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.*
(Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian)
*"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"*
(A second response to Michael Heiser)
*"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."*
*"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10 - TheTorah.com"*
(Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), *which appears to be a later addition,* Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)*
*"Ugarit - New World Encyclopedia"*
(Ugaritic religion centered on the chief god, Ilu or El, whose titles included "Father of mankind" and "Creator of the creation." The Court of El was referred to as the (plural) 'lhm or ***Elohim,*** a word ***later used by the biblical writers to describe the Hebrew deity*** and translated into English as "God," in the singular.
El, which was ***also the name of the God of Abraham,*** was described as an aged deity with white hair, seated on a throne.)
*"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"*
(Mark Smith is a Catholic)
*"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III | theyellowdart"*
*"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"*
(Daniel McClellan is a Mormon)
*"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"*
(Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)")
*"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."*
(Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh)
*"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."*
*"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"*
(In addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh, it also appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort)
*"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"*
(Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion")
*"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"*
(For a good summary of all of the above articles)
Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 27:40 minutes onwards.
Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on.
Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40.
Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"*
(By a former theist)
Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
@@redchild1690Ah yes, the same old "atheists hate god" schtick. Also, you're most certainly losing that $100, given how Dave actually cares about science and does *not* whine. Besides, even if there was a god who gives one life, it does *not* follow that it deserved to be adored or revered at all.
Sorry, pal, but your insults are damn empty.
15:59 "He is denying the legitimacy of research he doesn't like" To be honest most aged professors do this. Happens more so in academia than one would like to admit.
Hmmm....I'm not so sure.
I am quite sure this is not the norm at all.
There is a lot of ego that accumulates along the career of a chaired professor. Those that remain childlike, open minded and curious are the true scientists. James is an extreme case but I've seen several like him. Only that their agenda is not religion, but their scientific worldview.
@@Archiekunst I have never seen this. Our campus has professors from mathematics, computer science, physics and chemistry and I have never seen or heard of a professor that does this at all.
Where did you see these professors and what research did they deny?
@RanEncounter Most of the times it is opinion battles. My own boss used to go berserk if I mentioned some other profs. He used to suggest their math was wrong. He technically was probably right but I saw a lot of ego. Other profs too.
I had that apologist video in my youtube recommend 😂. Algo wrong again.
Great job Dave
Same. I refused to watch it.
Something I have leraned in my life is that "who shouts is by default wrong" This is debatable, yet leaves the question why anyone thinks shouting is a good way to bring forward an argument. Therefore watching the record of the debate, perhaps with sound turned off and just watch the agitation seems to make it clear who "won" the argument. My PhD is in envoronmental science, so my chemistry knowledge is very limited. I do, however, think that even as a supervisor you should not discourage peoples interest into going down what you consider a rabbit hole, as it could lead to some very exiting discoveries. In fact as a supervisor I would encourage leaving the trodden path and go down the rabbit hole. If it turns out to be leading nowhere you leraned making a mistake and this a valuable experience in itself worth doing.
“If the facts are against you, argue the [science]. If the [science] is against you, argue the facts. If the [science] and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”
― Carl Sandburg
I've seen scientists who will not speak outside of their field of expertise without consulting those who are in that field, and I've seen scientists speak outside of their field as though they were qualified to do so. I've seen science communicators who don't have expertise in various fields they communicate about with heavy reliance on experts in the fields they do present. I'm finding more and more evidence that James is of the second sort. Dave is of the third. And Daves been able to find those of the first type critique James when he tries to step into their field. As long as Dave keeps openly showing his sources and deferring to experts, I'm going to be swayed by his offerings. People calling Dave arrogant and condescending toward Tour don't seem to think Tour had any part to play in eliciting that behavior. Kinda like saying people who don't like Trump have "Trump Derangement Syndrome." Yeah, it's a sickness the person has, and not a response to a sick bastard. Dave, you must go out and get a vaccine for your TDS. ^.=.~
Tour: 'DeFuNd OoL!!!!'
Capturing Christianity: 'Oh, see he's trying to get the field to the next level'
The opening shows Cameron not looking for truth, but just looking for "reassuring" my biases... by praising paul being "in the middle"...
Believing in God shouldn't make you denial with what science found... meaning you are denial what God create, which is insane if you said u believe God 👹
There is no 'middle'. There is true and there is not true. This reminds me of the type of people who want 'balance' in the media. They don't want objectivity. They want 'balance'.
"Neutrality bias" is a weird term, but it's a very real thing, and this is a great example of it. Treating this interaction as if each person here is on opposite ends of a spectrum and are therefore both equally valid or both deserve the same consideration, and the answer is somewhere in the middle between the two, is both flagrantly wrong and highly dangerous. It's like if you placed Mahatma Gandhi and Charles Manson in a debate and said "Well, one guy says you should never kill anyone and he's a fervent pacifist, and the other guy says it's fine to kill people and start a race war, so the correct position must be somewhere in between, where it's sorta okay to kill people for no reason."
If you go back to the first video on James Tour (Elucidating the agenda of James Tour) Dave is actually pretty charitable to James and even says "he is not a con man", but after James' first response Dave now refers to him as a liar and fraud.
Really puts into perspective what a nasty piece of work mr. Tour is. Literally took dave from "ok, this guy is kind of dishonest about the science" to "
35:55 “How do you get life from non life without an intelligent mind…the probability seems really low.” Then the next guy says he doesn’t believe we can. Are they not familiar with the arguments from incredulity? We haven’t known A LOT of stuff in science until recently and now we do. Even IF we never know the exact way in which life came about on Earth, it DOESN’T mean a magician did it. They have so many excuses for god not needing a maker but really, they’re saying that it’s super improbable that life came about on Earth naturally but they’ll believe that an undemonstrated sky wizard can come about on his own?!
Tour didn’t want to discuss anything. Just yelled like a toddler. Dave had the most substance to his debate, which was interrupted by a crying baby the whole time. Great analysis as usual, Dave. I’m not the smartest person in the room, but even I could understand that Tour was clueless.
"Tour just screamed at me to play with chalk"
Thanks Dave I spit out my drink.
Creationists deny the facts of reality it's that simple and it's all on purpose to keep their beliefs and narratives intact. I've seen Cameron on many occasions and debates and talks being completely deliberately dishonest with a host of fallacious reasoning and just typical garbage. But what else would you expect
Thank you for sticking with this, Dave!
Thanks for reviewing this response. I nave never seen a more dishonest “debate” than that presented by James Tour. As a scientist, I found it deplorable.
As merely a teacher math and physics I found it deplorable too.
The scientific consensus across multiple domains indicate that the Earth is round.
I love you responded to this facade of neutrality. I hope you find time to do the same sham that non-sequitur show decided to post. It appears the leading apologist for the term “agnostic” has a grudge against you, Dave.
Yeah Steve is a douchebag, he tried to "correct" me on Twitter and I dunked on him, so now he hates me and supports anyone I debunk. Total loser.
I think both Bertuzzi and Rimmer did want to look into the science, as evidenced by Paul's sound scientific explanations, but they didn't expect the science to be so overwhelmingly on Dave's side, and so basically they got reduced to damage control.
Cam does not give a shit about science. He’s an apologist.
If they only wanted to look into the science because they wanted it to agree with them, then they didn’t want to look into the science.
The dogs may bark but the science moves on.
Bertuzzi being biased and underhand, well I never. He's normally so honest and intellectual 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Missed opportunity... "Bertuzzi being biased and bent, because broadcasting believable biological blueprints breaks blessed beliefs."
Dave, thank you so much for what you do. I almost cried watching that "debate". Thank you fot calling out bullshit to its face. I find your work invaluable for humanity. Thank you ❤️🔥
The only difference between Tour and Rimmer is where they imagine the gap their God can be found in exists. Tour believes abiogenesis has a big enough gap.
Conversely, after studying the issue, Rimmer seems to think that the abiogenesis gap isn't (or soon will not be) big enough for his god and resorts to pointing at abstract elements of reality and puking out an unfalsifiable: "Without God, mathematics, chemistry, and physics wouldn't be possible."
I can't imagine how you have the patience to argue with these fanatics.
Hopefully, there are some viewers who know how to stay focused on the process.
What a fitting surname to be called up for an apologist channel 💀
Dr. Paul Rimmer: "It got of the rails very quick." (2:59) - That was when Mr. Tour was getting loud drawing on the board and demanding answers to non-sequitur questions.
Dear Professor Dave, please continue explaining science. - And Liars are what they are!
I want to start out by saying that you have truly educated me on so many topics related to science, and you do it in such an entertaining way. Saying that, I believe the debate with Dr. Tour was hard to watch at times.
I'm not a chemist, so I understand very little in the details of what you guys were arguing, but it was fascinating to see the back and forth. I think you brought a great argument backed by facts and citations from well-known and respected people in the field of chemistry. I just think your anger and delivery got the best of you at times, and it was a bad look.
I get being angry and loud with clowns that deserve no respect the way you did in the flat earth debate where you annihilated that idiot about basic scientific facts, but with Dr.Tour it was much more formal and I feel as though the way you went after him and the crowd at times, gives them ammo to attack you and your arguments in return.
Kill them with kindness and facts and let them be the crazy, lunatics for the world to see. This is just my opinion, and it's just constructive criticism to better the optics aspect of your debate tactics.
Outside of that, great job, and I really enjoy your content and work.
easier said than done.
Being nice to creationists is basically falling into their trap. As I mentioned in a comment on another video,
When both the science communicator and science fraud debate calmly, the flock goes "Wow what an awesome debate, both sides had great points, but I'm going to have go with the science fraud for the winner since I understand him the most!"
When both the science communicator and the science fraud lose their tempers, the flock goes "This debate was a total crapshow, the science communicator clearly was acting in bad faith and lost the debate!"
When the science communicator remains calm and the science fraud flips the hell out, the flock goes "Look at how passionate the science fraud is, he clearly won the debate over that virgin beta male of a science communicator!"
When the science communicator flips the hell out and the science fraud remains calm, the flock goes "Look how evil and unhinged the science communicator is, clearly the science fraud is in the right!"
The chalkboard thing is generational, as much as anything -- my own career straddled the transition. The generations before mine used chalkboards, and later overhead projectors with acetate sheets and markers. One could use 35mm slides, but needed a photo lab and time. The generation after mine is used to having computers, PowerPoint images, etc., readily at hand. I haven't seen a formal chalk talk presentation in years.
It's not the medium, it's the content and the intend behind it.
The chalkboard thing is a show for Tours audience....they have no idea that drawing anamino-acid is irrelevant here. He is going for the "Oh look something sciencey on the wall..." effect. It's the equivalent of dangeling shiny keys in front of a toddler for distraction.
Worst thig about it, given Tours leftover bottom of the barrell audience...it worked for him.
Do you think that they care about " the polypeptide formation"? No. All they do is looking for something for the given "God" answer
Cameron is one of the most bad faith apologists I have ever seen. Every point that is shown to him to be true he forgets and makes the same "mistake" in another video. He agrees with people when they are in a conversation to get away from a point, but when the person making that point is not around, he goes back to his programming. He does not learn anything or want to learn anything that would make his views even slightly questionable.
Paul's comment around 36:00 that you need an "intelligent mind to have chemistry" is exactly the problem with god of the gaps being your underlying philosophy. For example, even if scientists could set up an impossible experiment -- allowing an analog solar system to form over a few billion years and then see that life evolved -- their rejection would still be "See!? That required a mind!"
It's silly and brings nothing to the table, which is why honest criticisms get addressed and silly criticisms don't even appear on the radar of legitimate researchers.
I don't think that Paul's underlying beliefs affect his work or analysis in any real way, but I do think it makes him so much more charitable to Tour than Tour deserves.
12:39 I have to question why Tour thinks it's not possible to form peptide chains in water. Even if the reaction was reversible, and the molecules constantly broke down and reformed, and that water concentration on one side pushes the reaction towards the monoamines, it does not prevent it. In any case, it is not reversible. The peptide bond formed is covalent, ie it would be chemical stable and will require something more reactive than water or the presence of a peptidase to break it.