"Professor Dave" Farina Mocks Audience. Dr James Tour Tells People to Think for Themselves
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 тра 2023
- If you would like to support us in creating more content across our different media platforms, we would greatly appreciate any support you can give. Visit jesusandscience.org/#Support to learn more.
God bless.
~
jesusandscience.org
Dr Tour's Personal Website - jmtour.com
Twitter - / drjamestour
Facebook - / drjamestour
LinkedIn - / drjamestour
Instagram - / drjamestour
Snapchat - / drjamestour
WeChat - @drjamestour - Наука та технологія
See the full debate here: ua-cam.com/users/livepxEWXGSIpAI?feature=share
Why do you lie about science to defend your religion? You’ve said you would throw out evidence agains your god so it’s not like you aren’t doing that.
Time you dEsTroy Dean Loren Williams, Dr. UA-cam, or should I say Rumpelstilzchen 😉
@@pianoraves wanna explain what you mean by that?
@@SnapdragonAtheistnah, sadly the fraud James here keeps deleting my comment
@@pianoraves Sounds pretty discovery institute of him 🤣
Dave Farina never misses an opportunity to embarrass himself.
"I'd rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned." - Richard Feynman
Gold
That’s presuming that all theists think it can’t be questioned. People have questioned the existence of god for ever. Even within the scientific community there are plenty of people with the access to same resources and data about the universe and come to a conclusion that their is a god, or there is some form of a god. Einstein believed in a concept of a god, so did newton. A 2009 study shows that, 41% of scientist didn’t believe in god. 33% believed in god, and 18% believe in a higher power. You’re not smarter then the next guy because don’t believe that there are no sufficient evidence of a god.
@@phantasticmrphasma9874Jesus is set to return
@@washedinhisblood.3906 said every generation ever 🤣 subordinate natured minions need religion to escape the fact that they are apathetic prey, and love to be told that they, the meek, will get more than they are prepared to fight for. Religion is a lie created by wolves to control sheep, and every different flock of sheep believes that their religion is the CORRECT ONE and all the other religions are false.. funny that, how each group believes equally. It proves that somebody can believe something 100%, even if its actually false. When you realise that that is possible, you have to understand that it’s possible for you too to be wrong.. but of course, the cognitive dissonance of beta brains will never accept that they are wrong
@@washedinhisblood.3906 ''Jesus is set to return''
Is that an answer that can't be questioned?
Tour screaming and yelling like a baby will always be funny 😂
This comments thinking that tour humiliated Dave shows their ignorance
@@NamesCarlyup
MR. FARINA!! HERE! YOU DON’T HAVE ANYTHING!! HERE!! GO! GO! GO!
"I won the debate, it's in the papers I can't explain"
😂😂😂
Yall Farina fans are degenerate clowns
This man has the emotional capacity of a 10 year old.
Edit: I'm obviously talking about Dave.
Not really though. Dave openly stated he was going to be there to mock Tour.
@@bobjone8039 What you said doesn't say what you hope it says.
@@juansuarez705 what I’m saying is that you are acting surprised he came there to mock him.
@@juansuarez705 also, I agree with Dave on the science. I don’t condone his behavior at some points.
@@bobjone8039Read "return of the GOD hypothesis" and try to refute it champ!
Yeah incorrectly accusing your opponent of lying and then insulting the audience is an automatic loss of a debate, this guy needs to get lost
Farina presented emails that backed his claims of Tour lying. Accusations with evidence are quite proper in a debate.
The person here who is lost is Tour, he is absorbed by a juvenile fantasy (referring to his conversion story).
@patldennis
He waa talking about debate.
Origin of life discussions are philosophical and theological, never scientific.
If the two are having a debate in those terms, then the rules of debate are about as high an ideal as they can hope to reach.
Right or wrong is a moralistic or legalistic concept, which fall into thoelogy, which means ony the Judeo-Christian position _can_ be right anyway.
@@joshuakarr-BibleMan You are being sarcastic with your last statement, right?
If not then we can start a debate about whether the Judeo-Christian position can be right. That is separate from whether it is the only position that can be right and yet a third debate can be had as to whether we can determine either of those.
So it doesnt matter what evidence he showed, or any paper hes shown, because he said mean things? And he wasnt lying, James IS a liar.
@@lehelmagyari1210 yeah that’s not “mean things” back to jay dyer please
He is so immature
Dave is a clown
Both of them?
@Davy Anthonissen wut ?
@@justaway6901 no just Dave
@@truthmatters6719 I assume you are deaf
People that defend this insanely delusional scammer are insane😭
Farina behaves like stereotypical all-knowing 15 y.o. kid which actually reinforces stereotype.
He does, but he doesn't really know. He only reads it and then makes claims over and above what those authors have said. That's why he refused to engage with the details of the papers. He basically asked, "Do you think they are all wrong. Instead, he should have found the clinical points and explained them. That's what he was asked to do.
@@DonswatchingtheTube Yes, you are exactly right. Dave is just like Larry, they think they're smarter than all the scientists that studied biology in a specific field. As Dave proved here, it may know some surface talking points, just enough to argue like a child and call people liars. But the child can not debate details, as Dr Tour slammed it to the ground multiple times.
Farina even rocked up in his YT costume.🐒
Dumb Dave, a narcissist, self confessed school drop out and half assed musician who once admitted he self appointed professor title and has no formal qualifications.
Tour's the real loser here.😆
@@DonswatchingtheTube He did explain them. If you wanted him to explain the technical aspects of science at this level, you should probably just take some 16 week biology courses… because that’s about how long it takes to understand .1% of this information.
@@spitfire3311 He really didn't. It's up to him to explain what he presented. He basically superficially pointed to a paper and gave no explanation. As I understand it, he wanted the topic to be 'Are scientist clueless on the origin of life' as opposed to 'Have scientist created life?' The second is a none starter.
I feel like if you give someone the facts and logic they can come up with their own conclusions
Facts are meaningless they can be used to prove anything.
Homer j Simpson
Exactly right
Good thing Dave gives facts and logic, but the question was directed at James
Tell me, what were the facts and logic?
@@erregete honestly I don’t know this guy’s work but I agree with his stances on this topic
Dr. Tour, you make a clear delineation between science, which may or may not, give us “satisfactory” answers and our preferences in belief systems and not to confuse the two of them. 👍 I enjoy your clarity! Connie in NC
He's a hack that panders to people who do not have to knowledge to understand certain topics.
Ironically this is all about his ego, he can't accept that he's not a foremost scientist in this arena.
@@t.yop9 explain
Well, the audience kept heckling him, so it’s understandable that he would mock them. And it’s hypocritical to criticize Dave for making ad hominem attacks, but then criticize him based on his behavior and debate performance rather than his arguments.
Professing to be wise he became a fool.
Dr Tour is professing to be wise. He brags about the number of papers he has published.
Dave Farina explains things to people, he doesn't claim to be the originator of the content.
@@histreeonics7770 you're missing all the actual implementation of said papers he is doing through his companies... Bragging would be much different lol
@@jean-lucbattista2492 I actually find financial success to be a valid metric of the validity of a theory. Good enough to make lots of money implies that it is pretty close to what reality may be.
The particular video I am referencing is where he states that number of papers is not a good metric for the correctness of a theorist's work, but then uses his number of publications as a reason that we should trust his authority. Disagreeing with yourself undercuts any authority you might have (unless you are a Jewish scholar where it is a requirement ;).
@@histreeonics7770 at the very least it shows that you have done homework in the field. I don't see James demanding blind trust anywhere. Quite the contrary
@@histreeonics7770He doesn’t “brag” about the number of papers he’s published. He’s saying that to show his credibility as a scientist. He is also not professing to be wise, he is demonstrating that he is knowledgeable.
When they start in with the ad hominem attacks, you know that they know they’ve been beaten.
That's not an ad hominem. 🤦♂️
Stop trying to sound clever.
@@johnrap7203 Definition of ad hominem: "Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument."
That's literally exactly what happened in the video. Might wanna know what those 'clever' words mean before you try to call someone out who does.
@@ramseycattn5941 From Cambridge Dictionary:
ad hominem -
(of a criticism, etc.) directed against a person, rather than against what that person says.
An accusation of someone lying, and giving reason for that accusation, as in this case, is directly related to what is said. It may be somewhat harsh, but it is not an ad hominem.
ad hominem fallacy:
This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.
Dave was attacking both Dr Tour's position, and his argument.
"irrelevantly" is also a key word in this informal fallacy definition.
Dave made an argument that Dr Tour is lying about the science, and part of the argument was that the reason he lied was because he needed to protect his religious beliefs. The reason for the accusation of lying is totally relevant.
Now, you are going to want to bring up the word "motivations" (from your rather colloquial definition from "Yourdictionary"), however that was not the subject of Dave's argument, it was the lying. He did not 'attack' the motivation, he 'attacked' Dr Tour's veracity.
And, yes, I DO know the meaning of "ad hominem", it is Latin translated as "to the person".
As usual, when someone hears the word lying, or liar, it is very common to go straight to "ad hominem". And so often invalid. One should be very careful about invoking fallacies, that in itself is a very poor argument, and is never very relevant to the actual argument underway.
@@ramseycattn5941 Oh, and the second part of you original comment.
"...you know they know that they've been beaten."
Dave came to this debate to expose, to his gullible sycophants and followers, Dr Tours lies, misrepresentations, misunderstandings, his true motivations, and his unhinged logic and character.
In my opinion, he certainly achieved that. The end result, for the hard core theists, will be a minimal if any impact.
However for those who have not had their logic and critical thinking replaced with blind faith, there may be some benefit.
Scanning through the comments on this page, I don't see much in the way of either logic or critical thinking.
🤷♂️
@@johnrap7203 I see that you spent a few minutes researching what it meant. That's a good start. The 'colloquial' definition was given to give you a layman's understanding. This is UA-cam, not a doctoral dissertation. Your response is a good attempt, but wrong. Dave was attacking Dr. Tour's motivations for coming to the conclusions that he did. That's pretty evident. Your attempt at dissecting that was really splitting hairs and unconvincing; it was less like someone trying to correct an egregious error and more like someone who was trying to do semantic gymnastics to salvage his argument and ego. It was an ad hominem attack. Get over it.
Dave...what are you doing Dave....😂
Pointing out the lies tour tells over and over again.
Is that you Dave?🤣🤣🤣
@@leomachado7676 get some glasses, might help you see the blatant dishonesty 🤷♂️
@@beanbean3535 I’m sure you are more qualified than Dr. Tour.🤣🤣🤣
@@leomachado7676 anyone could lie
"The fool has said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalm 14:1).
'nuff said!
Thank you Dr.James Tour, for being truthful.
“The OoL community is a dozen people” yeah right, what a clueless audience
James Tour is an idiot. I had second hand embarrassment when Tour did a speech at Harvard
I’ve heard of a saying. It goes: “When the debate is lost, slander is the tool of the loser.” And Dave opened his presentation with slander from the very start. The man is a fool.
Eh he didn't prove anything here and Dave did
@@Omachronic8326 What did Dave prove, specifically?
Even though this was supposed to be a debate, did you notice how this encounter wasn't about pitting two competing explanation for the origin of life?! They were only debating one idea, the only viable one that can be discussed.
@@gladishilton1943 the only viable option is intelligent design by the Christian God. Do you hate that?
@@jarrettesselman8144 No, I just feel pity for the poor person who is so intellectual deficient that they can actually believe such an absurd idea as Creationism.
As Dr. Banson says they will come at you with arrogance and sarcasm
Do you maybe mean Greg Bahnsen, the philosopher?
Not a Dr, if so.
@@Aspect_044
“Bhansen”
“PhD”
“Doctor”
Yes Bhansen is a doctor of philosophy. This is a no brainer he has a PhD Lol!! Furthermore, the irony is that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or “philosophical naturalism” is not actually a scientific position in the sense of methodological naturalism (science).
This strictly reductive, causally closed, effectively complete, atheistic, nihilistic system it’s actually a philosophical position. The clue is in the word “philosophical” naturalism!!
Equally the Ph in PhD stands for philosophy. It literally means Doctor of philosophy whether it’s a PhD in the hard sciences, the soft sciences or humanities etc.
Furthermore, despite appearances, the “natural sciences” offers no certainty. Decades of progress in the philosophy of science have led us to accept that our prevailing scientific understanding is a limited time offer, valid only until a new observation or experiment proves that it’s not.
Equally, it is impossible even to formulate a scientific theory without philosophical presuppositions, that is without metaphysical presuppositions and transcendental categories such as Truth and value, absolutes and universals, immaterial, invariant conceptual realities such as the prescriptive laws of logic!!
The fact is that it turns out to be impossible even to formulate a scientific theory without metaphysics, without first assuming some things we can’t actually prove, such as the existence of an objective reality, conscious agents and freewill, that is rationality itself, the prescriptive laws of logic, absolutes and universals, inductive reasoning, identity over time, empiricism the myth of the given, the ultimate axiological etc!!
Ever since the philosophers David Hume and G. E. Moore identified the "Is-Ought problem" between descriptive statements (the way something "is") and prescriptive statements (the way something "ought to be"), most scientists have conceded the high ground of determining metaphysics, such as values, morals, the prescriptive laws of logic, conscious agents and freewill, that is rationality itself and and ethics to philosophers, agreeing that science can only describe the way things are, what (is) but never tell us how things (ought) to be.
“Science progresses one funeral at a time” (Max Planck)
You can not get an (ought) out of an (is)” (David Hume).
I rest my case!!
@@johnrap7203 Do you know what PhD stands for? Philosophy Doctorate. You sound uneducated
@@johnrap7203 You cant do science without philosophy, Scientists were called "Natural Philosophers" before changing to "scientist"
@@Rev-di1vl That's not actually correct.
Many, and most, aspects of science can certainly be done without philosophy.
It is conceded that science may have been developed from philosophy, but philosophy has been left far behind when it comes to the natural world, and indeed the universe.
I'm reminded of thoughts by Stephen Hawking. Here's a quote summary:
Philosophy is dead,’ Stephen Hawking once declared, because it ‘has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics.’ It is scientists, not philosophers, who are now ‘the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge’.
While the opening is rather harshly sarcastic, the sentiment is clear. And I agree with that sentiment.
I once sarcastically made the comment, "3 philosophers at lunch will argue endlessly about how many of them are at the table."
A great reply was given, "Define table."
(Regretably, I do not recall whom to give credit.)
This is a great example of where philosophy has stagnated, and rather ineffectively tags along with the hard sciences, or tries to keep relevant.
While philosophers sat around discussing, and ever arguing about, the natural world, some of them got on with the job of actually investigating, measuring, testing, experimenting, modeling, calculating, recording results, analysing results, etc. They became the scientists, and mankind has benefited more than ever before.
Philosophers may be lurking about the fringes, but the sciences are where true understanding is being accomplished.
Philosophers will talk about a problem, or a question.
Scientists, and engineers, get on with solving them.
So, in harsh summary, there are talkers and then there are doers.
Tour spent 2 hours yelling his point but y'all think he has decorum? Tour argues like a toddler, he thinks if he shouts his points louder it makes them more valid.
" BUT IT'S WHAT YOU THINK." OMG!!!🙄😮💨
Gee Dave how old are you 5?
He is 5 1/2
Yikes. I assume you are deaf
James literally spent the majority of the debate throwing a tantrum
@@SnapdragonAtheist
And Dave acted like a 5 year old.
Grown ups usually get mad when a problem child is in the room.
@@SnapdragonAtheist he is stating facts . . . . while Dave went there just to insult James and the audiences . . . .
Dave is one of the rudest people that is supposed to be intelligent.
For calling him out? lol
@@dark666razor for being a fraud 😅
@@anlockcharacter1104 Thats what he is.
@@dark666razor ye Dave is a fraud
He remotely resembles anything intelligent. He's a Professor Google type. No respect!
that was actually the best scientific answer a person could give.
💀
💀
💀💀💀
We have no idea how life started and no way to account for ourselves. God exists in the hearts of men.
Yea Dave is an outstanding role model for his young children.... That's definitely how you want to show your children that that is how we debate and try to have an exchange of ideas
Dave is a victim of arguing with a religious fool.
As the saying goes; "Never argue with a stupid Apologist, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience!"
Yet your god is a better role model?
Your god?
Exodus 21 7-8
“7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.”
@@SnapdragonAtheist come back when you have an argument of substance and weight rather than cherry picked verses that you won't even accept the premise and full context. You clearly have no sense of history and are a man who has become a slave to his passions and appetites and lost all semblance of deeper understandings. I'd suggest reading some Plato and Aristotle
@@SnapdragonAtheistMisunderstanding the Bible isnt an argument against it.
Dave got massacred in this debate if you wanna even call it that. He was like a 4 year old trapped in an adult body.
James got massacred in this debate if you wanna even call it that. He was like a 4 year old trapped in an adult body.
@@jeromeunder1421 Mark REid?? lol
@@jeromeunder1421 well no he didn't, he might've exxagerated clueless to mean not being even close, but atleast he had the science to back up what he said, dave was a constant embaressment
@@jeromeunder1421 ah I see what you did there. So are the rest of Dave’s Fandom like this? Lol
Hell yeah. He was pointing, screaming and yelling at the top of his lungs. Tour really got under Dave's skin
The issue I have with Atheists is that often they assume being an atheist is somehow a neutral position and everyone else is biased, but that's ridiculous; someone's atheism can and will affect how they interpret the evidence and this can be shown in that MOST atheists will say that even if God was real they would not believe in Him, which shows that it is far more personal than they will admit.
Oh; but, they will.
@@NateWilliams190prove god
@@harriettubman7316
Prove no God.
@@NateWilliams190 the burden of proof is kinda on you👍
@harriettubman7316
I don't think so. Besides, there's nothing anyone can say or show you which would shake your faith on your religion.
The most ironic thing is, is that it’s the complete opposite, in-fact just recently a well respected public intellectual claimed that religions are false because we know the origins of life essentially!!!
Tour: 'here is the science'
Dave: 'you lie'
Cope davee, cope
Sorry, I fail to understand what "Science" you think James Tour has presented, and what significance it holds.
@@gladishilton1943 you do fail to understand. At least you admit it
@@JordanRobertKirk Yep, now all that remains is for you Einsteins to explain yourselves and we'll be able to confirm where things are at.
@@gladishilton1943 Jacob might mean "here is the science" as in to say: "This is our current knowledge of science as it pertains to origin of life", and that Dave Farina has to show otherwise that we do have the chemistry that proves We have replicated the process that leads to life.
I'm not knowledgeable enough to critique Dave Farina or James Tour on these issues, but I'm just giving a possible interpretation of Jacob's post.
@@Bi0Dr01d The debate was not about whether Abiogenesis has been proven - this is not the case, no one is pretending otherwise.
The debate was about whether science is clueless as to how the process could have occurred naturally.
James Tour outline 5 critical areas for the OoL process, claiming there are barriers preventing the process from proceeding naturally - for example the required chemistry occurring in water. Dave presented studies in which the type of chemistry James identified, was observed occurring in aqueous solutions.
These studies are enough to indicate that James Tour's sweeping claims are wrong - there are circumstance under which the types of chemistry required, can occurs.
And this is the entire point - there are so many ingredients, so many environments, so much time and so many sequence of events that need to be considered (or dismissed) that it is absurd for anyone to claim Abiogenesis is impossible.
But here is James Tour doing just that - why - because he has a religious agenda.
I just lack a belief in evolution. The burden of proof is not on me lolz. Let’s play their own game at them.
Your god?
Exodus 21 7-8
“7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.”
@@SnapdragonAtheist That all you got? These objections have been answered ad nauseam. Midwit atheism is seriously annoying.
Edit: fixed autocorrect fail.
You don’t realise that science doesn’t care if you believe in it. Now if you want to actually become a respected scientist you have to be smart enough to realise evolution is a great theory
@@meraldlag4336 No it's not. It defies every mathematical probability that can be worked out. If evolution were true, it should at least be mathematically plausible when the probabilities are worked out and it's anything but. And this because there is no known mechanism in nature that produces the results that are claimed for evolution. This is atheism's Noah's Flood problem. And you all continue to deny, deny, deny with a religious fervor I don't see in most Christians. Sorry bud, but I'm taking "things that didn't happen" for 500, Alex.
@@meraldlag4336Do you believe evolution is true? What evidence points to a common ancestor of humans and chimps? What is a good reason to believe that
I’m not a scientist but I did design computer systems for 35 years. God/Jesus is real. Atheism is illogical. I have researched and studied the existence of God for 37 years. There is ample historical and empirical evidence that the earth and cosmos are not billions of years old. Atheists believe that “nothing” exploded and created this vast amazing complex fine tuned universe. And that a bolt of lightning struck a primordial slime rock and DNA (infinitely more complex than any database known to man) was created. And many of them believe there are more than 2 genders. Laughable. There are hundreds of people, places, events and predictions in the Bible. For thousands of years people have been trying to disprove anything in the Bible is in error. None have succeeded. Every time someone digs a new hole in Israel these Bible facts are verified. God can’t be proven “scientifically” because he is outside of time, space and matter. He created them. Atheists are willfully blind.
Your god?
Exodus 21 7-8
“7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.”
@SnapdragonAtheist , this is the thing about bible. Its so minstranslated and updated. Even King James changed the word Tyrant just because he doesnt to get revolt or rebel against.
@@SnapdragonAtheist its called dowry still paid to date in many societies.....
@@raptordarwish887 and yet people follow this version of the Bible by heart. If you’re going to say that the real god is so much different than the one in the book, then by following the book any, you can’t possibly be following that god
@@mlafi7 it’s called selling your daughter into slavery 💀💀. You ever make your daughter a sex slave?
I heard Farina isn't even a professor? He doesn't even have the credentials. Yet the Farina simps give him all the clout.
He's not a professor. He quit school to make UA-cam videos. He's a con man. And I'm an atheist.
No, he was a professor and has degrees in the subject, but clearly a ten second google search was too hard for you
@@SnapdragonAtheist Wrong He was never a professor. He quit school to make UA-cam videos. He was only a substitute teacher at a college for a bit. He doesn't have his PhD in anything.
@@SnapdragonAtheist He even made his own video admitting he's not really a Professor. Why do you need your lover to be a professor so bad. Does it hurt to know how gullible you are?
@@jjevans1693 but he has a masters in science education, you really think he doesn’t know what he’s talking about? Also, wow. Use Google for 5 seconds. He was a professor
David got owned in this debate.
God bless you Dr.tour.
Anyone can own a monkey.
Not according to people who know the fallacies behind Tour's posturing.
I get that someone who hasn't already reviewed the papers Farina showed can say that he didn't respond to Tour's histrionics over Lysine and Arginine coupling (and Tour got the name of Arginine wrong) but I wish Farina had pointed out that we don't know enough to state that all 20 DNA coded amino acids are actually necessary for life. There are pairs which can be substituted fairly freely for each other with minimal effect on the proteins produced. That makes it reasonable to investigate just how needed both members of each pair are.
Tour is also basing much of his objections based on life as it is at present, despite their being significant variation in important molecules across the variety of living organisms. To proclaim that only the particular variants today can work is unsupported by any evidence.
Tour is being blinded by his religious needs, by his emotional need for his religion to be true. That keeps him from seeing that he is imposing unnecessary conditions on the formation of life.
Farina did provide answers to how some of the 5 steps of Tour have viable/plausible backing, any one of which is sufficient to show that we are not clueless about abiogenesis, we just do not have a complete picture of it. Nature took millions of years and a lab as big as a planet to get a system that had enough positive feedback (autocatalysis) to grow indefinitely, dozens of humans with reactors the size of a gallon of milk are going to take many decades to get there, perhaps even centuries unless we make it a priority rather than one of hundreds of avenues of research. The only reason we have as much research as we do is the hope that medical breakthroughs will come from it.
@@histreeonics7770 JT is qualified in his field. Farina rocked up in his YT costume. Either doesn't own a suit or he's just a disrespectful POS🐒
FACT: Dumb Dave, a narcissist, self confessed school drop out and half assed musician who once admitted he self appointed professor title and has no formal qualifications. Tour's time was the real loser here, but you sound like an even bigger assbackward upside down spinning treeape with your nonsensical presuppositions, but given enough time "millions and billions" you'll work it out or evolve your straw man BS, you in fact can't prove anything.🤡
@@histreeonics7770 Not according to people who know the fallacies behind Tour's posturing.
There are those who can read it and saw Dave's fallacious strategy . . . . like the woman who asked the question . . . . it is true . . . Dave didn't present a paper with carboxylated and deaminized side chains
I get that someone who hasn't already reviewed the papers Farina showed can say that he didn't respond to Tour's histrionics over Lysine and Arginine coupling (and Tour got the name of Arginine wrong) but I wish Farina had pointed out that we don't know enough to state that all 20 DNA coded amino acids are actually necessary for life.
If that sampling is enough . . . . then can we make a functional protein with these samplings only??????
There are pairs which can be substituted fairly freely for each other with minimal effect on the proteins produced. That makes it reasonable to investigate just how needed both members of each pair are.
Is there a functional protein or an enzyme that is only based on Arginine and Lysine . . . .? None!
Tour is also basing much of his objections based on life as it is at present, despite their being significant variation in important molecules across the variety of living organisms.
This objection of yours is like the "proto of the gaps" . . . . "you cannot compare a present cell to early life cells" . . . . . do you have a sample of a simple enzyme for example . . . . a very simple enzyme that can function or out function the enzymes that we have today? A protein or a carbohydrate can be formed using enzymes . . . . with many enzymes working together with particular series of steps . . . is there a proof of that SUPER but SIMPLE ANCIENT ENZYME? Evolutionists just burst it out of their mind that there was a more simpler this or that . . . . but where is it?
To proclaim that only the particular variants today can work is unsupported by any evidence.
Then give us a functioning protein with only Lysine and Arginine. Or provide us that super enzyme . . . .
Tour is being blinded by his religious needs, by his emotional need for his religion to be true. That keeps him from seeing that he is imposing unnecessary conditions on the formation of life.
William Bains - Origin of Life as a whole is unconvincing, generating results in Toy Domain that cannot be scaled to any real life scenario (Atheist)
Donna Blackmond - The origin of life research is like hiking to a mountain that increases its height over and over (I don't know her religious belief but since Dave used him therefore she is with the secular side - she agreed with Tour's moving goal issue)
Lee Cronin - Origin of Life research is a scam . . . .and there are many layers to that scam (that there are extrapolations in this field . . . so scientists hyping their works in OOL is real as Tour had said - also he is an atheist)
Tour's objection is not about his religion in which Dave and his followers (you) accused him. Tour is a top chemist in the world . . . . and he saw as you always used the histrionics of this field . . . . even atheists that view this field with a neutral goggles see what Tour is seeing!
Farina did provide answers to how some of the 5 steps of Tour have viable/plausible backing, any one of which is sufficient to show that we are not clueless about abiogenesis, we just do not have a complete picture of it.
He didn't . . . .
a. polypeptides - no he didn't . . . . that work used amino nitriles . . . . Dave said Tour is pertaining to a different study . . . . I read both and yes both used amino nitriles
b. polynucleotides - no he didn't . . . . . the polymerization of functional nucleotides for life should have 3' 5'. Powner and Szostak work not about the polymerization of 3'5' with 2'5' . . . . they have a functioning 3'5' RNA and injected with 2'5' - it works for 10% but started to disintegrate when added more. So its not about the polymerization also the clay formation doesn't give us a 10% or less 2'5' but 30-70% . . . . therefore it will not work.
c. polysaccharides - this is where Dave accused Tour of unable to read an NMR spectrum. So much of a stretch from someone who failed his MA twice. In Dave's papers they formed a very small amount of desired type of carbohydrate . . . . .and the NMR showed a lot of junked being produced. Tour insisted that this is an error because they need to purify it with a pristine condition which is prebiotic irrelevant. This is where Dave slide away from the scientific to the philosophical (although is used more philosophical approach through out the debate rather than being scientific). What was Dave's reply? You purify it because you need to characterize it because your a chemist but nature do not. Is this man really know what he is talking about? Of course it is necessary to purify it not because of the characterization legalities but because if will be disintegrated, deformed, decayed due to the presence of the impurities . . . .
Nature took millions of years and a lab as big as a planet to get a system that had enough positive feedback (autocatalysis) to grow indefinitely, dozens of humans with reactors the size of a gallon of milk are going to take many decades to get there, perhaps even centuries unless we make it a priority rather than one of hundreds of avenues of research.
Are you there? Can I borrow your time machine? This is not proven! This is the problem of OOLR according to William Bains an atheist, their methodologies are not prebiotic relevant. Now your telling me we will get there if we will make it a priority? This is already a million worth field . . . . that is why these OOL researchers will just hide Tour's papers! But now they cannot hide anymore. Just face Tour first before scamming the world of million-trillions of dollars.
The only reason we have as much research as we do is the hope that medical breakthroughs will come from it.
Some . . . but not all . . . . some people just wanted to prove there is no God. For example you always point out that Tour has a religious biased about this now I destroyed that notion of yours by giving secular or even atheist chemists that have objections within this field. From the question of this boy in this video, you can clearly see the psychology of an atheist. They are controlling and authoritarian. They wanted to control the masses like what dictators do. If you did not get Tour's reply I will explain it to you. Tour is not proving God by disproving OOL. No! He believes in God, either miraculous or naturalistic origin of life his belief in God will not change. So his belief is not the issue but the technicalities presented by OOL researchers, are these results prebiotically relevant. On the other hand atheist has an agenda. They always go with the notion that its all natural, therefore there is no God.
I saw every minute of this debate. If you were Dr. Tour, and had to tolerate insults for 2 hours, without Dave showing any chemistry, you'd be yelling too.
Descriptions are not insults…
@jasonwesten1200 Insults are Insults, disguised as descriptions. You're so stupid, bless your heart.
he showed he just didn't want to draw with chalk on a board
@@ti3 Nice try.
@@eltonron1558nice try for what
The reactions were in the slides, why not disprove them?
This was embarrassing for Dave. He came across purely as a mouthpiece for other people's ideas.
It really was a debate between a self-proclaimed YT 'professor' and an actual Professor.
Not really, the actual professor was shown to be talking crap, cause he has a creationist agenda.
He was constantly shouting as that's his only way to make it look like his winning the argument.
"Other people's ideas" which translates into actual scientific research. Dave Farina presents the actual science, James Tour does not.
@@colinjava8447interesting how many shill account types and cadences are on this video. Someone cares a whole lot that the creationist narrative gets suppressed.
"Just because we dont have an explaination.......".. Answers to life do not rest in the explainations that scientists give.
What?
@@SnapdragonAtheist So called 'experts' can be wrong and they have been wrong.
@@Stranzua the thing is that in science when someone is wrong it gets corrected. When we learn something new we build on what we learn. To say that we are clueless on the origin of life is insane though.
@@SnapdragonAtheist Is science used for evil purposes?
@@Stranzua what are you talking about?
Dave, you dun goofed. You dun goofed. The man can only read paper titles.
No lol. Tour should have, and claimed he did read them before the debate. He’s simply referring to the information Tour should know. Do you people think chemistry only occurs when someone draws it on a chalk board?
@@spitfire3311He did read the papers, Farina brought in papers that were not agreed prior. Read the uncut email thread it's publicly available. Dr. Tour does address a good chunk while the constant Gish galloping & ad hominin attacks Farina barraged. Tour's challenge was simple, Farina being a 'chemistry' teacher could've easily solved it after all the reading he did. Probably even earn the first noble prize in years for OoL research too. ;)
@@DolioFoilio He did “solve” it. It’s been solved. He explained it. Just because you and your buddy Tour don’t get it doesn’t make it wrong. Sorry!
@@spitfire3311 Sure, whatever makes you sleep at night. Cheers! 🤣🙏🏾
@@DolioFoilio No no no. You’re the one who has to lie in order to “sleep at night” lol I’m not the one that has to convince myself that objective facts are false. You people are so dumb it’s unreal.
Funny, for all the accusations of "lying", I have yet to see Dave provide a single, solitary example of Dr. Tour's lies. Not one
I suggest you open both your eyes, take your fingers out of your ears, and stop chanting "lalalalslalalala".
Watch and listen to some of the hours of the exposure of Dr Tour by Dave and others.
Then, with your mouth not busy, lalala'ing, you can stop talking out your *as.
@@johnrap7203 Ive watched hours and hours and hours of it. Dr. Tour has humiliated Dave so thoroughly that only Dave's galactic-level narcissism and cluelessness allow him to show his face in public. But cultists will be cultists. Facts, evidence, and the scientific method are so foreign to you that it's like trying to teach calculus to a squirrel.
@@mattrondeau7466 You are clueless about my familiarity of "facts, evidence, and the scientific method".
Your hours of watching was only Dr Tour's rambling videos, wasn't it?
Dr Tour clearly posts, "scripture over evidence."
That is his primary focus, his base motivation, and reasoning.
He varies between loose with the facts to outright falsehoods, lies, misrepresentations, errors, and misunderstandings.
And just where has Dr Tour presented his application of the scientific methods to either his Christianity, or towards a falsification of abiogenesis?
No verifiable, testable, falsifiable experimentation or examination of creation. No credible evidence of creation. And certainly no scientific method is appliable to the assertions of creation.
Your one-eyed, biased, gullible sycophancy is showing.
@@johnrap7203Talk about liars. Dr Tour has never said that. You are (like Dave) a liar. You are clearly a cultist clown. The projection here is rich. You have still presented not a single, solitary example of Dr. Tour lying. Because you can't. Because he doesn't. Not that you could determine that because you have zero understanding (like Dave) of the subject matter. You sound like a sad, angry, bitter, little weirdo, just like Dave.
@John Rap provide examples of said falsehoods and misrepresentations please.
Dave definitely won this debate. The topic was "Are we clueless?" and Dave brought the research that shows we are not
Exactly. Anybody here who says otherwise is delusional. What Dave said here is 100% correct and not an ad hominem, because Tour HAS to lie about the science to defend what he is ideologically tied down to.
Correct.
false, none of the research shows we know how life originated. In fact, we can't even define what makes something "alive". If we can't define the goal in origin of life, then how can we know we are making progress toward that end? Answer: we can't. None of the papers that Dave brought up (title or abstract only) have demonstrated how life came about. And we don't know if the "clues" they provide even direct us toward origin of life.
@@mattprater8828 Stop the research! A guy in some youtube comment section just DEBUNKED decades of science!
@@mattprater8828 Your entire paragraph proves how scientists are honest about their limits and don't make grandiose claims. The fact that no paper claims to have demonstrated how life came about but rather speaks in terms of plausibility is a good sign of humility and honesty when it comes to accuracy representing what we know scientifically about the field. Compare that to some other "sources of knowledge" like religion...infallible god claiming omniscience writes a bunch of things that must be taken as fact. But they were logically/scientifically proven incorrect countless times? Hmm, it's almost as if our knowledge evolves as time goes on and we figure out better and more accurate ways of approaching the truth.
So as a scientist - cant prove God exists.
In his private life he believes in God just by faith.
Cant people get this? Like that fool that everyone is booing...
Are you seriously going to deny that the reason James blatantly denies science isn’t based in religion? Are you seriously this ignorant?
@@D38755 Tell who what to say? Again, just because we have no proof of something, does not mean it does not exist.
When that speaker Boeing with his thumbs down he showed me how immature he was to mock the other man
Because it’s not just that. He lies and misrepresents to try and argue against science
Everyone has "faith". This is a fallacy that modern athiests don't realize. Everyone has a belief system and a Worldview that leads their thinking and their actions.
The challenge to Modern Athiests is the problem of origin of morals and ethics. Modern Scientific Materialism and Humanist beliefs and Worldviews is they lack foundations for a number of very critical concepts. You can't even explain NUMBERS and basic Math concepts when you begin with a Humanist and Materialist Worldview!
James is an AWESOME fellow...
No he is not.
@@jeromeunder1421 yes he is.
@@jeromeunder1421 if you think Dave is . . . . Well I think no logical explanation will work on you
@@anlockcharacter1104 Dave calls out James for lying and he’s not?
@@SnapdragonAtheist of course . . . . the papers are HYPE . . . they are prebiotic irrelevant . . . .
NOW I WANT YOU TO ANSWER ME WHY DAVE IS CORRECT . . . .THROUGH THE DATA of THOSE PAPERS
David Farina made himself look foolish. His performance is difficult to watch.
Did you notice how agressive James was in his opening statement? Already an angry and disrespectful man. You might say he doesnt owe someone with a PhD any respect but that would only show thag you are of low moral character as you believe that people of lower status shouldn't be given basic respect.
Respect is not given, it must be earned. Also, I've seen that fool's other videos, he's a joke.@@jeromeunder1421
@@jeromeunder1421 Six months later no one supports your statement, outside of the thumbs up you'll give yourself after reading this.
You really must take a minute and a step back and ask yourself, "Am I wrong about my perceptions when I get emotionally triggered?" Then, reply "Yes."
@@-Fluxorif you say the earth is round to a group of flat earthers and get no one agreeing with you, that makes you “wrong” then hmm?
@meraldlag4336 what a bad analogy.
Shalom shalom 🙏🏽
Tour literally said that he's not here to promote an alternative explanation, but prove that the best explanation we have is as proposterous as a non-believer believing in God. Because it's literally in odds that numbers cannot do justice.
He's saying what we have is far from close nor did it even get close for the past 40 years. And this stereotype we came from a primordial soup is so ridiculously unlikely, that you'd rather believe in a magical being.
That's how stupid the theory is. It's far from an explanation.
In fact, it's so undetailed, you can explain the concept to a child. That's as far as we've come with the primordial soup.
Arrogant atheist
Arrogant theist.
Only one is making stuff up, the other is presenting confirmed data.
@@histreeonics7770 Arrogant comment.
@@PJ-ts7uz I have watched a number of Tour's videos and he does make up a lot of stuff as well as presenting a bunch of actual stuff that a person with some knowledge of chemistry knows is irrelevant to OoL research. The latter isn't 'made up', but presenting it as pertinent is a fabrication.
Dave Farina backs his statements with the work of many scientists.
@@histreeonics7770 Farina here is mocking and Tour IS a scientist. Farina is a loud, arrogant undergrad well out of his league.
@@histreeonics7770 Farina is a BA. not even a BS. His undergrad degree isn't very science-heavy. Tour is a PhD and a professor in multiple fields. You are fooling yourself and suffer crippling confirmation bias.
Dave is pretty hateful and takes any chance he can to mock and belittle people. I commented on one of his videos one time and he replied to me at least 3 times trying to argue with me and he was very rude.
@@patldennis thanks little dave
Probably because he doesn't suffer fools gladly.
@@johnrap7203 My comment was specifically to bring attention to how rude Dave is. Far from a fool.
Probably because you were directly attacking Dave in his own comment section, or at the very least, being biased, instead of contributing anything to any conversation related to his video.
Did you even watch the video to make a Comment about? Or did you just go there to comment so as to just “poke with a stick”, and see how Dave will react?
Dave can be very rude to biased comments because many “Flat Earth” and “Discovery Institute” people have been rude and disrespectful to him. So he has little tolerance for people like that, if they have no honest questions about the topics he discussed in his videos. Dave’s response to rude comments and biased people is the same as what he gets from them.
But the way one behaves when talking to drones on the internet does not mean they behave the same in public when directly speaking to people. This is the same with Tour, he doesn’t behave like a crazy shouting lunatic screaming “GO GO GO GO!” When he’s in an interview with people, or talking in the middle of a meeting. He only gets unhinged in response videos to Dave, or during this debate, as you would have seen if you watched this debate and observed Tour’s behavior without bias or favoritism. 🤷🏻♀️
but he is a professor!!!!
He's a devout christian man. I doubt if he lies. That would be counterproductive to his core values and deep convictions.
I don’t know any of these people but the old guy is 100% correct. Don’t tell people what to think especially religion. The more you do the more suspicious of it you become (and with good reason)
I wish they still showed the dislike button numbers
That’s a plug-in for that.
@@geoffreybrockmeier3765 where can I get that? 🤣
With regards to Farina, somewhere close to 8 billion is my guess
What scientific evidence is he lying about?
None Dave just got tilted in this debate he did this a lot throughout the whole video. It gets worse than this.
He ignores any scientific paper that does not agree with him and essentially declared anyone who found evidence or did research showing the viability of abiogenesis a fraud.
@@jeromeunder1421 James showed the science behind all his claims meanwhile Dave continued to completely walk past everything James was demonstrating to only bring up an entirely different case and worse part of it all he couldn’t even demonstrate anything he was saying to James or the audience all he kept saying was how many irrelevant papers he had.
@@jeromeunder1421 essentially this is what they argued
James: To make a ham and cheese sandwich you need two slices of bread also both Ham and cheese.
Dave: yeah but we can just go to the store where they already got them pre made.
James: where talking about ASSEMBLY Dave.
Dave: well we don’t need it because the store already has them premade.
@@chuganoga1908 That may be the most inaccurate analogy I have ever seen. Do you pay your taxes? There is no way someone as gullible as you is a functioning member of society.
It's funny how atheist accuse religious people of forcing their religion on people when they merely state a belief. This atheist is literally trying to force this guy.
Force him to stop, “going after the masses” the reason he goes after the masses is because he can’t convince people who know what they’re talking about. And I’ve heard more Christian’s complain about lgbtq topics being forced than atheists forcing religion
What are you even saying? If your religion contradicts data, its wrong. Thats all there is to it.
@Plant hub What I'm saying is you guys are hypocrites concerning who's trying to force beliefs upon others. Try and keep up, Junior. I'm not speaking on provable things, just those things requiring opinions or beliefs.
@@reystacy7778atheism doesn’t have a belief. That atheist is advocating science while the creationist refuses to use science and lies.
@@stevencorey7623 That's a stupid argument usually used by teenagers who don't understand the way words are used. Try something better than ignorance.
Projection Lord Dave
?
Even tho ur daddy tour screamed the entire debate 😂Haha
I feel sorry for that poor Farina kid. We all really need to pray for him, he is leading people straight to death.
I told him that myself, and he called me a mental case for believing in God. Such a jerk.
Let not the dark clouds trouble you brother, keep running the race. Christ be with you @@TiredOldSparky
@@TiredOldSparky I agree that Farina is a jerk. That does not affect the reality that he is correct and Tour is making stuff up.
It is massively rude as well as arrogant to state that he is leading people straight to death. @Tom Shearhouse above should not be surprised that he received rudeness in return for such an accusation.
@@histreeonics7770 really? If he is right we just feed worms, if Christ is raised, then his words are true. So, you may want to reconsider what you do with Christ. The consequences just may be more than worm food.
'Professor Dave' would make an excellent lightning conductor
You got owned completely, and having your church group in the audience is just embarrassing
Tour is infinitely brighter and a towering scientist among the very best.
Tour is not a towering scientist.
I did not hear of him until I encountered him in apologist videos. He may be a leader in a very narrow field of exploration. I worked for most of 30 years making scientific equipment used for industrial chemistry, and talk shop with my daughter who has a PhD in organic chemistry.
I have listened to Tour criticize OoL researchers for using approaches that are too unlike nature to mimic it. That is a valid criticism. He then indulges in fallacious reasoning by stating that nature itself cannot produce abiogenesis using the techniques he just claimed could not do it, IE human lab techniques which are nothing like how chemistry takes place outside of human control.
He may be intelligent but he is self blind, he doesn't see how his criticisms of others applies equally well to him. Prof. Dave has made videos juxtaposing Tour's conflicting statements.
@@histreeonics7770 almost there. Nature is very much different than the lab experiments so far therefore we are still clueless. Worse, the more we discover, the bigger our knowledge gap looks.
@@histreeonics7770no. You are simply an atheist apologist.
@@jean-lucbattista2492 thats not how learning works
@@jeromeunder1421you can learn all sort of things... When you show it to work and it's repeatable, then you actually know something.
I watched that "debate." Ya gotta hand it to Dave, he didn't want to go ANYWHERE near that chalk board because he isn't able to formulate the missing data. Instead, Dave opted to read other people's work in the field, and misrepresent their work on top of that.
He didn’t go to a meaningless chalk board because it had nothing to do with what we know on the origin of life. Dave brought other research filled with evidence that tour denies
No he didn’t… The fact that you think this shows you have zero knowledge of chemistry and biology.
@@planthub9252 the fact that you took tour’s side shows that you have no idea how peer review works. If he had any legitimate criticisms he would be allowed to publish them in these journals.
@@planthub9252 Nice one, now you sound like Dave..."AAAaaaa you have have a different opinion than me, that makes you stupid Aaaaaa!!!" Really? That's a kind of a retarded reply from someone so shmaaat like you are, isn't it?
@@planthub9252 I'm not even sure what you're trying to say, you seem almost bipolar in that comment. "No he didn't " what you idiot
Understanding how things were and are created is just more evidence to me of how great the Lord truly is.
Something like it’s your time to speak or whatever. I know nothing about this but your character during the debate said it all lol, I remember acting like that as a kid :).
Thank you for pointing this out!
@@timothyvenable3336 we ain’t friends, I’m trying to roast James 💀
@@whenurefree hey I agree James is an idiot lol he has no business debating, he only attacks peoples beliefs and doesn’t give an argument. It’s really annoying. I honestly can’t stand the guy
Keep up the good work James
Dave fails!
Abiogenesis fails!
Why do you think that?
@Sean Bean Nobody has shown a method to make the homochiral versions of lipids, amino acids, nucleotides or carbohydrates in a prebiotically relevant manner. Lab Environments are highly manipulated!
Chemists purchase chemicals in high purity and yield from chemical companies, Which Extract them from pre-existing biological sources. Chemists Arrange those chemicals in a specific order under a set of carefully controlled devised conditions Using Designed pipettes, designed synthesizer machines, Activating agents, templates. Etc
Your god?
Exodus 21 7-8
“7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.”
@Sean Bean You have no moral code and no basis to judge anything.
And where is the mountains of evidence and examples of abiogenesis?
Oh that's right you have, Nothing!
@@tonymaurice4157 except all of the research that Dave put forward. You know why James doesn’t publish papers? It’s because he fills them with lies
So wait, they call an intelligent being creating some thing magically poofing but they’re explanation for it as a random collision with no orchestration from an intelligent being that understand science better than we ever will smh how can you be so blinded?
That’s not what he’s saying here at all. He’s saying that just because we don’t understand the mechanisms by which life originated doesn’t mean we can then jump to the conclusion that life must have been created through the agency of an intelligent deity. That’s just not how science works. Science requires evidence in order to put forward a valid hypothesis or theory. He’s not saying that an intelligent deity didn’t create life, he’s saying that there is currently not enough strong evidence to support the hypothesis that an intelligent deity created life.
But even if strong evidence was discovered which supported the hypothesis that an intelligent deity did indeed create life on this planet that still wouldn’t be evidence that said deity was the God of the Bible.
Your god?
Exodus 21 7-8
“7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.”
@@SnapdragonAtheistdispenstialism.
Old testament was for survival, New testament was for thriving.
@@harrisonshields7084that argument can literally be 100% flipped on Dave.
There's currently no scientific evidence or instance of how or how to create life prebiotic.
This debate wasn't about god it was about daves position.
Gods interference will be eventually be either supported or debunked with quantum mechanics. Not biology or chemistry. So your on the wrong ground to be refuting the god hypothesis in the first place.
@@finlaymcdiarmid5832 so your all powerful god was just incapable before the New Testament 🤣🤣🤣 the mind games you have to play to say that is insane
How is Dave Fabrina a professor? Did he go to online school? Lol😂 🤦🏽♂️
But James Tour has said that different theories of the origin of life does not necessarily undermine his faith. James said that it might go against *certain interpretations* within his faith, but would not actually cause his faith to change. Since his faith would still remain intact regardless of what the origin of life is, then it would seem that Dave Farina doesn't actually know for certain that his assessment of James is true, and even if James Tour does have a commitment to his faith, because these various theories only result in different interpretation of his faith, then James Tour having a commitment to his faith isn't necessarily relevant even if true.
Then you have to question why James Tour produces so many videos (including a 9 part / 9hr extravaganza) in which he pushes this false narrative that Abiogenesis is impossible.....
Yes, I know there are moment when he says he can't say that one day the mystery of Abiogenesis will not be solved, but he then rolls back this admission with hysterical wailing "It's Over!! It's Over!! [for Abiogenesis]"
Everyone knows that Abiogenesis is not currently a verified Theory.
No one pretends otherwise, even though sensible people right expect the theory is right.
If the theory remains unproven, why do you think James Tour spends sooooooooooo much time trying to convince people it can never be proven correct?!
Before you answer, bare in mind that James Tour is associated with the Discovery Institute - the proponents of Intelligent Design a.k.a Creationism.
@@gladishilton1943 There is an alternative reason why he would post so many videos, not because his faith gives him a bias against these theories (per se) because his faith would remain intact anyway, but rather, it is to oppose the biases of those who prefer to believe this, which means that James Tour's faith may not be relevant even if he does have a bias, but alternative biases that would want to hold on to these views would have biases that would be relevant.
What also explains the data is that his arguments is what James Tour genuinely holds as being closer to the facts then the alternatives, and it may be also due to the biases of people to attempt to discredit him by utilizing his religious faith as a means of achieving that goal, and that may speak toward the biases of people who evaluate him rather than he himself.
I also have never seen him say that "abiogenesis" can never be proven correct, but rather, we do not get have enough knowledge to affirm it. It is perhaps a bias to interpret James Tour this way, and that would mean that James Tour's critics might be doing the same thing they're accusing him of doing.
@@Bi0Dr01d Sorry but I found your last post unclear and hard to follow so I'll say this about bias:
Abiogenesis is not officially verified. Science does not pretend to be able to explain how Life started in Nature.
Therefore, no one needs to 'disprove' Abiogenesis. Since it's a theory that is not verified, it is technically the same as being false.
Researcher are of course, studying the field hoping to solve the puzzle of how life got started in Nature and thus finally verify the Theory. If this day arrives then we will have enough confidence to regard the Theory as true.
In these circumstances there is clearly no purpose or need for James Tour to comment on the theory - everyone regards it as technically false and it will stay that way until something is discovered..
But James Tour insists on running these false commentaries that Abiogenesis cannot happen. Why?
Well, clearly if you have a religious agenda and want to recruit new believers, being quiet about the theory that can render your god redundant does nothing to convince people to start believing.
So, James Tour goes on presenting his dishonest videos.
If James Tour was honest, he would do what reputable scientist do : if you have a theory to explain something, you do research and gather evidence to verify your theory.
James Tour knows Science, and he know how science works, but he does not follow the rules laid out for putting forward your alternative theory. he refuses to present evidence for his alternative theory on how life got started.
This is dishonest.
Think about it, when Einstein came up with his new theory for gravity (General relativity) did he spend all his time trying to disprove Newton? Or did he spend his time develop his theory so that evidence could be gathered to prove or disprove his theory?
Einstein knew that if he was right, proving Newton wrong would have been an automatic consequence.
@@gladishilton1943 It's not really relevant to say no one needs to disprove Abiogenesis, because that was not the purpose of the debate. The purpose of the debate was to question whether or not we had sufficient knowledge concerning the origins of life.
James Tour has gone through claims of people in related fields who have stated their success in the lab, and James Tour is stating that their claims are misleading, and the public who hears these claims are also misled by them, and that explains his involvement.
The intent of his argument seems to merely state our current level of knowledge, not to say that a given theory "cannot be true", and this would therefore be a misrepresentation of his position. If he's pointing towards some sort of "facts against a theory", that does not necessarily equate to the conclusion "Therefore the theory is false", but rather, "Therefore, we do not have as much knowledge as some people may claim or imply".
If a person has a (religiously) anti-religious agenda or purpose, this also can explain the criticisms against James Tour, and these may be the sources that influences people who have decided to criticize him. What you're saying is not necessarily conclusive, but if you're trying to insist or drive the conclusion anyway, then it could potentially point to an agenda.
I know you don't want to communicate it that way, which is why it would make sense not to be so pushy toward your conclusion which isn't necessarily conclusive.
He posts those videos because no one else will - and he thinks people deserve to know that what the scientific community pushes out there constantly is not true- cuz the common person does believe in the from the theory that life just suddenly spontaneously arrived no questions asked and it is often depicted with a lake of goo and then like some slug coming out of it, it's almost comical how they reach this stuff and he's trying to expose how monumentally far away we are from understanding origin of life
notice how they need to discredit anyone who believes in GOD..just because you won't join their mind cult...power to the free thinking Scientists who won't bow to the cult
No. There is no evidence for the existence of a god or gods, so until there is evidence, a supernatural cause is not considered.
No, science doesn’t care about what people believe. When people lie and misrepresent, then they need to be confronted
Your lack of evidence and weak arguments discredit you.
@@WolfA4scientists speak and act outside their authority when they delve into debates for or agsinst religion and atheist scientists are just as guilty of this as anyone. An honest athiest scientist would just present evidence and say: "this is what we have found thus far, our opinion of it certainly may change in the future, no scientist should be so arrogant as to suggest these findings disprove God in any way, if that's what you believe that's what you believe." It's quite clear atheist scientists (like this dave guy) have an atheist bent to their profession and it is sad to see because it discredits their authority on so many levels.
You realize every religion is a cult. Like by exact definition. Science isnt as its literally studying things. Literally just studying things
Keep doing what what you are doing doc. The more that other guy acts like that, the more people will see. Thank you.
I bet that manchild were a bully in High school, he acts like it.
Dave is a child. Not even a professor 😂
But he was though
@seanbean5880 no, he is not nor has he ever been a true professor. He has a masters, but not a doctorate.
dave ... like a child...haha undistingiushed
Mr. Farina acts like a two year old. But what is more intriguing is the question by the young man sounds staged as if Farina knew it was coming. Listen to it a few times and give me a 👍 if you agree.
Dave was harassed multiple times by the crowd, it is understandable as a spectator.
First we see an angry speaker, then we see another speaker making a jab at the angry speaker, and then booing back at the audience. LOL
Dave Farina is in actuality the "Liar" and as he called a righteous man one, he has sinned by giving false witness. He is in desperate need of saving.
Farina backed up his claims of Tour lying.
Tour admitted one of them but softened the significance by saying that he had apologized to the person whose work he lied about.
Telling ugly truths about a hero of yours is something you should learn to step back and evaluate rather than indulging in "Tu Quoque" especially when the other isn't actually doing what the first did.
@@histreeonics7770 nonsense
@@whatever930 Uh, he itemizes some of the lies and presents emails from the people involved to back him up.
You can say nonsense but the people lied about confirm the lie.
@@histreeonics7770 about what did he lie?
So because James is Christian and "righetous" he is now completely infallible and Dave is going to burn because he called him out. Wow you people are brainwashed, do you even hear yourself?
I can say it. God created the universe and life. Science says it too.
Your god?
Exodus 21 7-8
“7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.”
Science doesn’t say that
@@SnapdragonAtheist Do you believe in the conservation of mass and energy?
@@SnapdragonAtheist yes my God and you clearly have no idea what that says.
@@SnapdragonAtheist you do realize that that is saying to not sell you daughter into servitude. Do you have a problem with that?????
“Magically Happen”. God or no god, isn’t the first living cell that sprung out of nothing or a combination of nothings something that “magically happened” and just as hard to believe as God?
How is it hard to believe in God if a large portion of the population do it? Is it that you're smarter than those who do believe, or is it that you don't want to believe He exist? That's a mirror question. But, to your specific question. You gave two options on what to believe, as if there is actually a... choice. Funny how that works.
The greatest trick the devil has played on the world is convincing people that him and God don't exist. He can careless if you don't believe in him. He just doesn't want you to believe in God. The playground for him to do that is your mind. and he's more intelligent than the most intelligent human on Earth. Laughable right? well, like I said, ask yourself, "Do I want God to exist?". It'll expose your heart... I'm not above you morally my friend. I still have my battles. If you really knew the God I worship, you'd see why some Christians believe. It's amazing how people love and fear their parents (as children), but not understand how someone can love and fear God.
@@monwellchassion923 large populations of people believe things that make no sense all the time. Look throughout history to find mini examples of this. You do realize everything you are saying is from your religion is coming from another human, and not any divine realization?
@@monwellchassion923 Christianity was historically important, and for a lot of medieval history the church held a lot of power over the population giving lords divine right to rule, however this doesn’t make it true or you smart for believing in a book full of immoral teachings, and contradicting events. Hate to break it to you but the Christian god is mockable at best.
@@monwellchassion923 Your god?
Exodus 21 7-8
“7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.”
What he said is true! You lie about science because you believe that the universe was literally poofed into existence. Your criticism is not scientific because if it was, then you would try to convince scientists that your criticisms were valid. Lay people cannot "think for themselves" about complex scientific topics. Being a doctor, you should know at least that much.
Farina couldn't have projected harder enough. He confirmed why Einstein said atheists can't be scientists.
So much wrong in one short comment!
"...harder enough" 🤦♂️
That "quote" does not appear to exist. I think you made it up, or you have misrepresented something actually said and paraphrased it wrong.
Here is an actual quote of his:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
@@johnrap7203 because only atheists and pagans invent personal made up gods. Einstein agreed with Spinoza that Jesus was God.
"To Him the ordinances of God leading men to salvation were revealed directly without words or visions, so that God manifested Himself to the Apostles through the mind of Christ as He formerly did to Moses through the supernatural voice. In this sense the voice of Christ, like the voice which Moses heard, may be called the voice of God, and it may be said that the wisdom of God (i.e. wisdom more than human) took upon itself in Christ human nature, and that Christ was the way of salvation."
- Baruch Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, 1670, p. 12
Einstein didn't have a "blind religion without science" like atheists do. It's why it's "absurd" for atheists to pretend to be scientists he published.
"Religion and science go together. As I've said before, science without religion is useless and religion without science is blind. They are interdependent and have a common goal-the search for truth. ... And it is equally absurd when scientists say that there is no God. The real scientist has faith, which does not mean that he must subscribe to a creed."
- Albert Einstein, Third conversation (1948): William Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man (1983), p. 94
Atheism is a logical fallacy appeal to ignorance cult religion. Confirmed by how frauds like Farina are strictly forbidden to comprehend science as demonstrated. And how fanatical atheist religious extremists like yourself are always forced to regurgitate the same stupid atheist religious apologetics fraud and quote mining like you did.
@@johnrap7203 Einstein was a Bible believing Christian who told Hermanns "I agree wholeheartedly, the Bible is the greatest book ever written. From beginning to end it makes man aware of his conscience. But the masses don't care for conscience." And went on complaining about atheists like Hitler burning churches and people. He said people like you who called him a non-theist pissed him off.
"My religion is based on Moses: Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. And for me God is the First Cause. David and the prophets knew that there could be no love without justice or justice without love. I don't need any other religious trappings."
- Albert Einstein, Third conversation (1948): William Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man (1983), p. 108
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."
- Albert Einstein, statement to German anti-Nazi diplomat and author Prince Hubertus zu Lowenstein in 1941, as quoted in his book Towards the Further Shore : An Autobiography (1968)
Atheists pissed Einstein off. Atheists are just religious fanatics according to scientists.
"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source."
- Albert Einstein, Aug 7, 1941. Einstein Archive, reel 54-927, quoted in Jammer, p. 97
So, you think quoting a scientist justifies your deluded religious beliefs?
You want to shoehorn science into your late Bronze Age barbaric book's stories?
Well, you've had a couple thousand years, where's the evidence? 2000+ yrs of of hypothesis, surely you can come up with an experiment, which needs to be testable, repeatable, falsifiable, that would scientifically support the existence of a creator god.
The rational people of this world are waiting.
And what are you actually doing?
Spouting your self-justifications, uttering your mantras in order to bolster your confirmation biases.
Your blind faith is truly blinding you to the real world.
And, btw, you people really ought to stop saying Hitler was an atheist. That is just a lie! You really are the clueless ones.
@@johnrap7203 scientists require existence to function, existence does not require scientists to function. And yet you think religion is crazy? Youre crazy thinking scientists have all the answers
This dude got owned and he isn't 1/100th the intelligence and show of respect that Tour is - just cuz u can read the title of a paper doesn't mean u know how to read a paper - which is what he continued to do the entire time he was up there - "oh u mean how that's answered here in this headline where you just said they embellish their findings". Not once could he actually talk in the language of science or math or address one thing your said. His entire premise is "you believe in god therefore you're non scientific". Sorry but a real scientist looks at every possible explanation including the possibility of a God. Doesn't mean you stop looking for answers.
The possibility of a divine intervention is not something that can be detected by any means whatsoever and that is why it is not part of science. This is also statistically justified as there have been zero occurrences of events that could only be the work of supernatural beings.
Even Tour acknowledges that Dave Farina is quite intelligent. Farina also has 100's of videos you can inspect to determine for yourself whether he knows what he is talking about. Where I personally understand the topic I have found Farina always correct.
Farina presented only abstracts and a few views here but goes in depth on these papers in his long list of long videos.
Also Tour in other venues has stated that we should stop OoL research. His arguments for doing so are fallacious, he compares nature to how his lab does things and only demonstrates that his lab techniques are not going to reproduce the formation of life.
@@histreeonics7770 by reason only, you have to admit to a creator. Since we can create virtual beings, the odds that you are the real one are off. Therefore you are created.
@@jean-lucbattista2492 Reason/logic can only be used to compute the truth value of a statement from the truth value of other statements. To get an absolute value of truth for a statement you must use means outside of reason to establish the truth of those other statements.
I do not have to admit to a creator where the word 'creator' has the baggage of self awareness and sentience.
"Virtual beings" are not real, or you wouldn't call them 'virtual'.
Our ability to create virtual beings, IE create descriptions of entities with no physical existence, speaks nothing to whether or not I am created.
--
Early in my engineering career I had to debug electronics, I had to develop techniques for discovering which signals were take as 1 by some of the circuitry and zero by others. I am pretty good at this logic stuff :)
@@histreeonics7770 of couse reason has to start somewhere. Seems like you will fight any starting definition. Why define virtual beings by a mere description with no physical reality. Even then how do you know you don't live inside such a description?
@@jean-lucbattista2492 I am defining virtual beings so that we can have a discussion about them, basing my definition on the term 'virtual'. 'Virtual' is etymologically 'like true/truth' but using 'like' connotes that the thing labelled virtual is not actually true/truth. Truth and existence are often equated, an equality well worth discussing.
While I do not know that I am not some part of a simulation in an actual physical computer that stance is very similar to solipsism, a potentially true but utterly useless position.
Without the assumptions associated with the word 'materialism' we do not have a sufficiently rich set of given truths to be able to resolve the truth of any of the statements interesting to us.
I mean... Farina was right though xD
He didn't ask you to tell people what to believe or not believe, he asked you to denounce people using your criticisms of the origin of life as evidence for God. It should be pretty easy to do so since disproving abiogenesis isn't evidence for any of the opposing theories, it is merely disproving abiogenesis.
You don't want to tell people what to think but you think we should abandon research into the field. You don't want to tell people what to think but you said it's your job to stop students going down rabbit holes to lead to dead ends. You can't have it both ways.
Using an Ad Hominem fallacy is a sure sign of defeat.
Given the reaction of the room, I can see why he was desperate to use the life raft of his one perceived ally to make him brave enough to make it.
Weak.
No, not an ad hominem.
Do any of you deluded theists even know what "ad hominem fallacy" actually means?
Just once I'd like to see someone get it right.
@@johnrap7203 Who are you talking to? I'm no atheist and the man clearly resorted to calling James a liar rather than asserting instances that may prove him to be one. That's an attack of the person, not the issue, aka: Ad Hominem attack.
Stow the anger, it's blinding you.
@@BinaryJoeHave you…watched the actual debate. Dave beyond a doubt proves Tour is a liar on this subject, multiple times. If you want more, go watch the hours of lies of Tour that Dave exposes.
This is not an ad hominem attack because it IS Dave’s argument here; that Tour is ideologically tied to defending his faith, because that is what he believes, and so he has to lie about science to do so. Pointing this out is not an ad hominem attack.
James Tour wants the best of both worlds, he is absolutely spineless!
Oh look! It's third rate teaching assistant Dave Farina wining hearts and minds with his charming wit and compelling logic. 😅
Dave's counter to Dr. Tour's science is about as logical as if he were debating an actual bowl of Farina.
Second hand embarrassment for the "boo" guy. If I were his mum I'd slump in my seat and hide my face.
Proverbs 21:24
24 The proud and arrogant person-“Mocker” is his name- behaves with insolent fury.
Yeah, thats a good verse. It really applies to this debate, James was quite arrogant and furious.
Exodus 21 7-3
“7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.”
@@SnapdragonAtheistAd hominen, logical falacy and out of context attack.
Jesus fulfilled the law of moses thus we so not folow Jewish civil law. Get fu@d :)
I had my 8th grade Logic class listen to this debate. They counted over 10 types of fallacies made by Prof Dave within the 1st 2mins of his opening statement. They told me that he was hurting their ears and asked me to turn it off 😂
The guy had been waiting since he failed in science 😂
All of these arrogant atheists. Every tongue shall confess and every knee shall bow
Your god isn’t real
Your god?
Exodus 21 7-8
“7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.”
Am sorry for you Mr. Farina you were silly and like one teenager
I find your name funny because you clearly don’t care about the truth at all. Dave presented facts and data, his temperament is irrelevant. The truth hurts pal
Thank you we have time to know about these data's we he was not dare to respond when Mr. Tour asked him Mr. Data
Prof. Dave bringing back 2006 era cringe fedora atheism
Oof, you kept Dave calling out your god smuggling.
Dave is not a chemist. He reads abstracts of papers for his channel. And he has no class
Google really needs some love, why don’t you give it a try
I like how this one clip is meant to show Dave as the guy down talking everyone, but throughout the dabate he is constantly getting shouted at by Tour, harassed by the audience, and has to deal with Tour writing clueless for no reason and watching the whole audience cheer as if it was a victory against him.
100%, he only shows clips of Dave acting rude and none of the clips of him screaming like a child.
Please watch the entire debate and see Dave dismantle this Tour clown and his sky fairy "science". I do like how Tour promotes Gid magically "creating" literally every day but here saying "I cant make people believe God magically made it happen"
Professor Dave stomped the life out of you in that debate lol.
Farina's the one who can't disassociate his belief from the science.
Science doesn’t have beliefs…that’s what religions have…
His belief in what
He doesn’t have a belief moron. Your argument makes no sense
Dave was mocking then because of how insanely idiotic it is to think for a fraction of a second that Tour has any understanding of science.
This is where a level of intelligence is so vastly separate, that one group can't even comprehend how incredibly wrong they are. I'm by no means fluent in chemistry, a novice at best. But it's so obvious what Tour is doing, you don't even need to understand the science to see the show he's putting on. As soon as the debate started, he began playing a character in a movie where he's the only person that has everything figured out. 😂 Watched this man fall apart live in front of an audience lol.
you won't find many friends here. this is his cult channel. i was wondering why there were so many people defending this buffoon until i saw the name of the poster
There is a considerable amount of post-debate analysis particularly from the atheist community and it is remarkable that in all those hours of talking no one bothers to inform the audience regarding chemistry and biochemistry and why they are different. The level of knowledge exhibited in the comments are abhorrently depressingly low.
This is an observation regarding the atheist community. The theistic community has its own problems with scientific knowledge.
Hey. I love the guy mocking the audience. That was hilarious. 😅 Great put down of dumb audience.