Since you left a nice comment on my video responding to this I felt it fair to do the same here: Keep doing what you do, stay awesome, and I'm genuinely glad I had this video suggested to me, if not just because I learned a few new things but also because it acted as a reminder to me that there are a great many genuinely good people out there who may happen to be incredibly faithful -- that religion doesn't always, explicitly, cause the problems many of my kin feel it does. There are no absolutes... at least, not that this scale...
If Dave debunks him he would just end up repeating all the things he’s already said because this guy is saying the exact things Dave already debunked. Although if Dave did do it, I would definitely watch it 😂
Based on your comments around 3:00 it sounds like you aren't fully familiar with the back and forth with Dave on this topic. His content has always focused exclusively on debunking specifically creationists who lie about science. That has not changed at all throughout this entire, now years-long saga. I've watched just about every one of his videos on the subject and can point to a number of times where he very explicitly draws an undisputably clear distinction between the average believer which he has no problem whatsoever with and dishonest people who lie about science in an attempt to fool people into thinking their faith has more grounding in reason and scientific principles than it does.
@@sirprize8572 given what I've seen of his videos, he seems to define "creationist" as "anyone who believes in God, who disagrees with me on some point of science regardless of the extent of that disagreement". I could be wrong about that, though. Dave gives New Atheist vibes (which is consistent with the types of shows he goes on), but I hope that's a huge misunderstanding on my part.
@@barelyprotestant5365 i will say that as combative to the faith as he comes off as, it looks like this was more him trying to show that the Bible is not a science book that can be used to explain the natural phenomenon around us, and that trying to use it as such is a little silly. As I believe you said in the beginning, the book is more about philosophy than it is about mathematics, geology, and zoology.
@@barelyprotestant5365 He's said plenty of times there are fantastic scientists that believe in god. What he takes issue with is when they let their beliefs negatively affect their work, like James Tour.
@@barelyprotestant5365 I believe you have indeed hugely misunderstood. I highly recommend you watch the first video in this series, because he very, very explicitly defines exactly what he believes a creationist to be. He also specifies several different types of creationism, explains their belifes, and ranks them from most problematic to least problematic in terms of their opposition to scientific principles. Straight out the gate, he acknowledges the truth that many religious people are either not creationists at all, and thus not the subject of this series, or occupy the less problematic "tiers" of creationism. This debunk is largely targeted at the more radical creationists, particularly those that blatantly lie about science in support of their faith.
@@barelyprotestant5365 he doesn't care about the debate over religion, and has explicitly stated this. He is not saying the Bible isn't true because it calls bats birds. He is pointing out the hyper-literal position taken by creationists where every word is inerrant and authored by the omniscient creator is inconsistent with science.
@@barelyprotestant5365 I don't deny that. Ancient literature is quite fascinating. That being said, the nature of reality and the universe will always be far grander in scale and beauty.
I think the misunderstanding is this: Yes, classification is arbitrary, but ancestry is not. Genetics show a clear line of nested hierarchy, which is why bats are categorically and objectively not birds in any shape way or form. A God who understands his own creation would not box bats into the bird group, that is just extremely silly on all levels. Same with the whales being fish. The best you could do is to say that these parts in the Bible were not divine inspiration, just ancient people writing about stuff they didn't understand. But that would be really arbitrary wouldn't it? And by the way, about the rods and the cattle, just read the remaining 3 paragraphs. The implication is very clearly there. You have to be willfully ignorant to dismiss it.
@@sammartinez6325because thats vague. I could slap on some wings on a table and thats technically a winged thing. Also birds arent mammals and bats are so thats another reason.
Why should the mammalian classification prohibit things that are similar to be grouped together under a different classification system? As for the table thing the winged things category is understood, in this context, to be a group in which to classify certain animals.
James Tours lies about origin of life research and biochemistry, which is not his field. Dave knows basics about most topics and READS SCIENTIFIC PAPERS to learn about different topics, something which tours clearly doesn't do.
@@SheikhN-bible-syndrome That tour líes about the scientific papers and present himself as an expert when he clearly is not. Unlike farina, who had talk with the experts and they agree he understand the papers.
The big question is whether or not Moses received divine revelation from god when he wrote the Torah. If he did why did god get creation wrong? Earth wasnt one of the first created objects, sun, moon, and stars definitely werent created after the earth (4th day).
That Celtic Festival sounds so cool! I've been learning Irish (Gaeilge) for 2 years now! The celtic culture is so cool! Beannacht Dé ort! (God's blessing on you)
James Tour works in Synthetic Chemistry, which has nothing to do with abiogenesis or any of the other stuff he claims to be impossible. So no, he was never respected in that field.
It does not matter how many doctorates you have, bad profesionals exist and if you lie for your faith, you should be called out, misinformation is never good
You begin by dishonestly poisoning the well. Prof Dave has not called James Tour out for his scientific work or his faith. Instead he's taking exception to Tour denial of an entire field of science; abiogenesis. This is a field where Tour has no background or published research whatsoever. Farina cites peer reviewed papers and interviews experts in the field. You don't need a doctorate to do that; it's just science communication. If the definition of "unhinged" or "crazy" is citing peer reviewed literature - when I assume you believe in people rising from the dead, turning water into wine and implausible things like that - then I don't know what to say to you. Hats off to you though for not contesting the science. Your claim that atheists do not have a mature understanding of philosophy is a little trite and silly. "Atheists" are a massive proportion of the human population. "Atheists" as a whole do not have a mature understanding of computer science, literature, pre-historic art or any other field you care to mention; no group at large does. On the other hand there is plenty of epistemology and ethics covering atheism and many people have a well though through framework. Kant and the analytic-synthetic distinction / Russel and his teapot / Popper and falsifiability. The list is long and this is all well covered ground. The idea that there is some special sophisticated philosophy about an invisible being who has strong positions on your sex life and a fixation with Iron Age goat herders is a little far fetched. It is possible to waste one's life studying absurdities, Newton and his alchemy for example. *Calling bats birds is okay because Linnaean taxonomy is 18th century.* The only similarity between bats and birds is that they fly. Classifying them together is absurd unless bird just means "an animal that flies". In which case a wasp is a bird and a chicken isn't. There is no way to classify a bat as a bird and not end up with absurdity. Or "winged" then a beatle and a flying squirrel is a bird. This classification is not arbitrary, birds were once dinosaurs, bats mammalian. Bones are different, structure is different, skin is different. The book was written by uneducated backward people who didn't know bats and birds aren't the same. But that's fine, I'm sure there are atheists that don't know the difference either. Ok, I've written enough.
No, Dave didn’t attack James because he “denied a certain field of science.” Entire fields of science have been denied before: phrenology, eugenics, social darwinism, etc. Dave’s objection-and you can watch the very first video he put out on “articulating the agenda of James Tour”-is that James is motivated to deny this specific field because of his religious faith. It is very disingenuous because Dave is simply incapable of having a substantive debate with James on the issues, see the debate at Rice University. And even as James continued to remain charitable, Dave remained an incorrigible asshat who doesn’t actually know what he’s talking about.
@@j.athanasius9832 There is fact here and there is argument. The fact is that Tour denied an entire field of science; he couldn't have been clearer about that. The argument is over Tour's motivation. Tour is on the record explicitly saying his faith trumps evidence so Farina's conclusion is reasonable when he can evidence it with Tour's own words. But sure, nobody can really speak to Tour's motivation with certainty for rubbishing well founded science. In the end the question of motivation doesn't matter, if Tour felt the science was wrong then he could have published a paper laying out the obvious flaws and evidencing them. That's the route to fame and glory in science, not sniping on RUclips. Tour chose not to publish because he has nothing. Certainly nothing that will ever pass peer review. As for "remain charitable", Tour yelled like a maniac during the debate. He has impeached the character of respected scientists. It also seems that he acted in a predatory fashion against a dying man and co-opted his funeral. If this is true, Tour is not on the moral high ground.
@@j.athanasius9832 James remained charitable... I want you too go watch that debate again and tell me who was screaming. Dave points out that James has NOTHING backing him up besides his faith, and that is exactly what he takes issue with. He denies an entire peer-reviewed field with hundreds of pieces of data and evidence backing it up by basically saying "nuh uh cuz you cant do it in a lab" as if we don't know anything about stars, or how mountains form because we can't see them in a laboratory setting. James' objections are nothing more than unscientific conjecture by someone completely unrelated to the field of systems chemistry and abiogenesis.
@@j.athanasius9832 as mentioned by others - the idea that Tour was 'charitable' during his ranting performance is simply incredible. Tour made assertions that were empty - but you don't know that because you're not a biologist or bio chemist and you have biases that lead you to believe Tour is the honest good faith actor and Dave is the dishonest atheist who 'just wants to deny God'.
I love how you started the video by poisoning the well and continued with admiting you have no expertise in the field so you were going to evaluate the topic anyway.
Wow nice bro you found one thing logically contradictory thing in the video from a philosophical perspective on the question of categorization. That's not the main goal of the video though. Pointing out one "mistake" that has no baring on the argument Dave is presenting in a 50 minute video is equivalent to a reporter getting the date wrong of some story they are writing about.
With the Bats thing, you don’t even need to go down the “Biological classification” route. After all they’ll just use that to double-down on their claims of scientific illiteracy. Instead just point out that the Hebrew term “‘oph ” is a generic term for flying creatures (including birds and bats) and call them out on their inability to understand basic semantic functions
@@blackoutninja I basically did that by pointing out that the term more literally translated to "winged" (or something like that; I can't remember now).
@@barelyprotestant5365 really? That's the thing you're responding to? What are you intending? To pounce at the perfect moment with some tidbit of Aristotle? Linnaeus didn't spring his classification system out of nothing. All he did was give a scientific systematic approach to taxonomy. As I said, no-one was surprised to be told that bats and birds were not closely related. But thanks for affirming my suspicion that intellectual honesty isn't anything you regard as important. I made a comment highlighting what you got wrong about Tour, and the problem of your scripture having God not know what a bat is - but you pick out something you think cannot be proven and claim victory. Apologism fails on an intellectual and moral level.
@@barelyprotestant5365 you mean like your assertions? Except mine are based in rational understanding of the history of taxonomy, while yours are ad hoc and designed purely to undermine Dave's reasonable assertion. Let's not forget you just made assertions about James Tour that you haven't proven - because they're not true.
25:52 - Scientific systematization of species is not arbitrary. In fact, the most modern one takes into account phylogenetic connections between animals and groups of animals - that is, in layman's terms, how animals evolved from one another. I bring it up because you admitted you don't go against scientific understanding of evolution. If it is how life emerged as we know it today, the modern classification system is objectively correct and the only correct one (scientifically) (and btw Carl Linnaeus` one was very different and methods of categorization didn`t rely on these historical connections between animals as they were not known at that time). You brought up a lot about Scripture`s language, but you didn`t back it up, which surprises me. For example, you said that according to your recollections Hebrew word "bird" meant anything with the wings. Why not go through your linguistic literature and prove this claim ultimately? And also - what if your recollections will turn out to be wrong and actually in Ancient Hebrew there was a distinction between birds and non-birds in a modern sense? Will you admit that it makes the assumption of this part of Scripture being written by God seem unlikely? Anyway, I have seen down in the comments you feel good about the idea of prof. Dave responding to your video, it would have been great for sure, but without you soundly confirming your claims there would be no point in it. Also, you have said in your video that the goal of videos like Dave's one is "to hate God". However, your take sounds both radical and wrong to me, as someone who doesn't believe in God can't "hate" him. After all, your whole premise that "God talks to us depending on our level" allows to disregard any unscientific data that is present in the Bible. Making the whole discussion pointless
11:10, does the sun orbit the earth or does the earth orbit the sun, is disease caused by an imbalance of Humors/bad smells or is it caused by microbes. Is matter made of atoms or some combination of four elements. On all of these I almost guarantee you would agree that the “modern western” ideas are objectively correct(or more accurately closer to being objectively correct). You yourself mentioned the absurdity of flat earth, what is essentially an ancient conception of the earth and its shape. This isn’t a battle of worldviews, modern ideas and conceptions of the universe and material reality are objectively superior and I guarantee on almost every example you would agree. People of the past weren’t stupid for believing them, but anyone in the modern day who still does despite knowing better is. And the cognitive dissonance it takes to believe both things is quite astounding.
The bats thing - sure, I get that people back then classified animals differently. That's the point. We now understand that just because something flies doesn't mean it's a bird, something which the biblical God should have known seeing as he created everything. So why would he pass down faulty information to people? In reality it's fine to eat birds - we eat birds all the time. It's not fine to eat bats - they're disease ridden and not good for consumption. But according to the bible it's just as acceptable to eat a bat as it is to eat a chicken. We all get that man is flawed - we don't know everything, we get stuff wrong, sometimes we have an incomplete understanding of things etc. This should not apply to God, or the Bible if it is in fact the word of God. God is supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent and perfect and therefore the Bible should be perfect and flawless - unless of course it's not actually the word of God, in which case I have no idea where people are getting their ideas from about this God in the first place.
Sorry - say what you like about Dave's approach, but you need to get your facts straight. James Tour is not a prominent scientist within his field (which is chemistry - not biology or bio chemistry). In fact he has the dubious reputation within his field of being a plagiarist who takes credit for other people's research, and someone who makes extravagant claims about his own work that prove to be absolutely false. Tour IS a creationist. He is a proponent of Intelligent Design - which is creationist pseudo science. Yes, Tour often denies he is a creationist, but this is merely an attempt to fool people into believing he is 'just following the science'. The thing is, if you're not science literate - which you clearly aren't - it's not that easy to realise how dishonest Tour is. He does sound convincing, and his ability to string together a chemical reaction on a chalkboard is something that obviously impresses. The problem is that anyone can write a chemical formula on a board - it doesn't say anything about the claims being made. Just because Tour says that it proves something, doesn't make it true. But given you also apparently side with Matt Walsh (again, someone with no relevant credentials who deliberately edited his 'documentary' in order to misrepresent the ideas being talked about), I'm clearly not going to get through to you and you're just going to dismiss anything I say because you're already dogmatically driven. I'm betting that the very first thing you look at in this response is something you have hilariously misunderstood due to lack of knowledge.
wait - so you think God himself could differentiate various kinds of bird, mammal, fish and insect - but didn't have a classification system that was able to separate bats from birds? Sorry - but that's ridiculous. Firstly, it's pure nonsense to assert that before Linnaeus, nobody had a clue about the general relationship between different species. I mean the very book you'er defending here clearly has a basic understanding that insects are not like other living things. That fish are different to mammals. It's absurd to assert that because people before the 17th century didn't have Linnean classification that they couldn't differentiate between a bird and a bat. Secondly - we're not talking about man's attempt to classify living things are we. These words supposedly come from God. The idea that God was hamstrung by man's ignorance and just had to communicate in an equally ignorant way is weak sauce. Notice that God cannot even count the number of legs an insect has. Don't you find that odd? He tells people not to eat insects with four legs - but insects have 6 legs. Even if you include creature that could fall into the category of 'insect like' have more than 4 legs. So why is God acting like a superstitious granny?
Your 2 points are valid. But he could've went into the 1000 other illogical/impossible/scientifically wrong things in the Bible. God speaks to people where they are is a shitty argument as the entire power of the book is that it is the 'infallible word of God' and when the Genesis creation account gets things out of order combined with the fact that Adam and Eve could not have possibly existed, this means no original sin, means no need for Jesus = Christianity not true. Very simple. If this were not the case, we would not need the 'used car salesmen' (apologists) to exists because everyone would read the book and see the revealed truth.
denying god wrote the bible, based on category or whatever, is more accurate to say lack of knowledge then category error, since there are words in hebrew for speific birds but most time they got group up with birds, and the calender is purely based on the earth rotation, some christians just believe its humans inspired by god then words of god make the argument pointless for those ppl- i did skip through the video but that seems to be mostly the topic
"Creator of the universe": Writing the most important book ever using the language spoken only by a minor group of people. Didn't care enough to make proper translation to any other popular languages. Using fuzzy words that have different interpretations. Couldn't spend a bit more time on editing. Very ''special''.🙃
Your point that classification is ultimately arbitrary is asinine. Yes, one can technically make up any system but if you make the slightest concession that these systems were intended to mean 6 or be useful it's obvious they simply didnt know what they were talking about. And god, being their invention, doesn't know either.
It seems like you willfully misundertood the point, correct me if i’m wrong, but the point is that the bible is not a science book and you can’t use it that way
@@GastonRamis-i6s first we need to figure out what you're claiming: Are you claiming that Dave is only stating that the Scriptures are not a science book, or are you claiming that Dave is stating that the Scriptures are wrong?
@@barelyprotestant5365 it’s the same thing, the scriptures are wrong if you try to use them as scientific text. I am a christian and a biologist, and i understand that the scriptures help us to bring light on how people live and think in the past, you can not use them to learn about science, what do you think about that? About the bible?
@@GastonRamis-i6s I don't care if you're a Christian and a biologist. You're making a silly claim. A classification of bats as "winged things" is not evidence that the book is not of Divine origin or is "wrong on science". Again, that would be like saying because I made my bookshelf ordered a particular way I therefore do not know how to read.
Random-dude-with-a-bachelors-in-chemistry Dave doesn't strike me as humanist in any useful meaning of the word. He doesn't seem particularly fond of humanity as a whole, especially the parts that aren't Atheists.
Half of which are rants on abiogenesis in definitely not peer-reviewed blogposts, papers which he had no part in, yet was credited as an author. The reason he has so many papers is because he jumps from field to field when he realizes that he is not getting anywhere.
Since you left a nice comment on my video responding to this I felt it fair to do the same here:
Keep doing what you do, stay awesome, and I'm genuinely glad I had this video suggested to me, if not just because I learned a few new things but also because it acted as a reminder to me that there are a great many genuinely good people out there who may happen to be incredibly faithful -- that religion doesn't always, explicitly, cause the problems many of my kin feel it does.
There are no absolutes... at least, not that this scale...
Can't wait to see Dave debunk this
@Anti-World_Theory. that would be interesting.
@@barelyprotestant5365 and deservedly so
🤣🤣🤣🤣
If Dave debunks him he would just end up repeating all the things he’s already said because this guy is saying the exact things Dave already debunked. Although if Dave did do it, I would definitely watch it 😂
Good to see the vast majority of comments are calling out the silliness of this video
Thanks for demonstrating that some people literally cannot be taught. It clarifies a lot for me.
You needed him to demonstrate it? If everyone could be taught we wouldn't have flat earthers or religious people anymore.
@@rmelzhim6033 I don't think that's accurate. A lot of those people are simply uneducated and/or deeply misinformed. That's different.
Based on your comments around 3:00 it sounds like you aren't fully familiar with the back and forth with Dave on this topic. His content has always focused exclusively on debunking specifically creationists who lie about science. That has not changed at all throughout this entire, now years-long saga. I've watched just about every one of his videos on the subject and can point to a number of times where he very explicitly draws an undisputably clear distinction between the average believer which he has no problem whatsoever with and dishonest people who lie about science in an attempt to fool people into thinking their faith has more grounding in reason and scientific principles than it does.
@@sirprize8572 given what I've seen of his videos, he seems to define "creationist" as "anyone who believes in God, who disagrees with me on some point of science regardless of the extent of that disagreement". I could be wrong about that, though. Dave gives New Atheist vibes (which is consistent with the types of shows he goes on), but I hope that's a huge misunderstanding on my part.
@@barelyprotestant5365 i will say that as combative to the faith as he comes off as, it looks like this was more him trying to show that the Bible is not a science book that can be used to explain the natural phenomenon around us, and that trying to use it as such is a little silly. As I believe you said in the beginning, the book is more about philosophy than it is about mathematics, geology, and zoology.
@@barelyprotestant5365 He's said plenty of times there are fantastic scientists that believe in god. What he takes issue with is when they let their beliefs negatively affect their work, like James Tour.
@@barelyprotestant5365 I believe you have indeed hugely misunderstood. I highly recommend you watch the first video in this series, because he very, very explicitly defines exactly what he believes a creationist to be. He also specifies several different types of creationism, explains their belifes, and ranks them from most problematic to least problematic in terms of their opposition to scientific principles.
Straight out the gate, he acknowledges the truth that many religious people are either not creationists at all, and thus not the subject of this series, or occupy the less problematic "tiers" of creationism. This debunk is largely targeted at the more radical creationists, particularly those that blatantly lie about science in support of their faith.
@@barelyprotestant5365 he doesn't care about the debate over religion, and has explicitly stated this.
He is not saying the Bible isn't true because it calls bats birds. He is pointing out the hyper-literal position taken by creationists where every word is inerrant and authored by the omniscient creator is inconsistent with science.
The stories made up by humans in the late bronze age will never be as interesting as the nature of the actual universe
@@xXMACEMANXx I dunno: the Epic of Gilgamesh is pretty freaking interesting. Personally, I like both history and science.
@@barelyprotestant5365 I don't deny that. Ancient literature is quite fascinating.
That being said, the nature of reality and the universe will always be far grander in scale and beauty.
@@xXMACEMANXx true but you read vagabond yet us humans are cooking lowkey✊😔
@@barelyprotestant5365 Gilgamesh predates the Noahs ark story over 1,000 years.
@@barelyprotestant5365 these books are neither
I think the misunderstanding is this: Yes, classification is arbitrary, but ancestry is not. Genetics show a clear line of nested hierarchy, which is why bats are categorically and objectively not birds in any shape way or form. A God who understands his own creation would not box bats into the bird group, that is just extremely silly on all levels. Same with the whales being fish. The best you could do is to say that these parts in the Bible were not divine inspiration, just ancient people writing about stuff they didn't understand. But that would be really arbitrary wouldn't it? And by the way, about the rods and the cattle, just read the remaining 3 paragraphs. The implication is very clearly there. You have to be willfully ignorant to dismiss it.
Did you watch the video?
@@sammartinez6325 What gives you the impression I didn't?
Why shouldn’t birds and bats be classified as winged things?
@@sammartinez6325because thats vague. I could slap on some wings on a table and thats technically a winged thing. Also birds arent mammals and bats are so thats another reason.
Why should the mammalian classification prohibit things that are similar to be grouped together under a different classification system?
As for the table thing the winged things category is understood, in this context, to be a group in which to classify certain animals.
James Tours lies about origin of life research and biochemistry, which is not his field. Dave knows basics about most topics and READS SCIENTIFIC PAPERS to learn about different topics, something which tours clearly doesn't do.
Funny so does Dave what's your point
@@SheikhN-bible-syndrome That tour líes about the scientific papers and present himself as an expert when he clearly is not. Unlike farina, who had talk with the experts and they agree he understand the papers.
The big question is whether or not Moses received divine revelation from god
when he wrote the Torah. If he did why did god get creation wrong? Earth wasnt one of the first created objects, sun, moon, and stars definitely werent created after the earth (4th day).
in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth. how were there days before sun?
Almost certainly Moses didn't write the Torah.
Sadly we know moses never existed, so this big question is just irrelevant.
That Celtic Festival sounds so cool! I've been learning Irish (Gaeilge) for 2 years now! The celtic culture is so cool! Beannacht Dé ort! (God's blessing on you)
Dave does get too emotional. He would do better to not do that.
But James Tour does LIE.
Dave lies too , it's just not obvious and requires you to have a little brain and knolage in order to spot the embracing lies
James Tour works in Synthetic Chemistry, which has nothing to do with abiogenesis or any of the other stuff he claims to be impossible. So no, he was never respected in that field.
So explain abiogenesis to James Tour. Dave sure couldn't.
It does not matter how many doctorates you have, bad profesionals exist and if you lie for your faith, you should be called out, misinformation is never good
"These are arbitrary classifications. THERE HE LITERALLY ADMITTED IT!"
Well yeah, seems like you both agree on that. What about his argument though?
You begin by dishonestly poisoning the well. Prof Dave has not called James Tour out for his scientific work or his faith. Instead he's taking exception to Tour denial of an entire field of science; abiogenesis. This is a field where Tour has no background or published research whatsoever. Farina cites peer reviewed papers and interviews experts in the field. You don't need a doctorate to do that; it's just science communication.
If the definition of "unhinged" or "crazy" is citing peer reviewed literature - when I assume you believe in people rising from the dead, turning water into wine and implausible things like that - then I don't know what to say to you.
Hats off to you though for not contesting the science.
Your claim that atheists do not have a mature understanding of philosophy is a little trite and silly. "Atheists" are a massive proportion of the human population. "Atheists" as a whole do not have a mature understanding of computer science, literature, pre-historic art or any other field you care to mention; no group at large does. On the other hand there is plenty of epistemology and ethics covering atheism and many people have a well though through framework. Kant and the analytic-synthetic distinction / Russel and his teapot / Popper and falsifiability. The list is long and this is all well covered ground. The idea that there is some special sophisticated philosophy about an invisible being who has strong positions on your sex life and a fixation with Iron Age goat herders is a little far fetched. It is possible to waste one's life studying absurdities, Newton and his alchemy for example.
*Calling bats birds is okay because Linnaean taxonomy is 18th century.*
The only similarity between bats and birds is that they fly. Classifying them together is absurd unless bird just means "an animal that flies". In which case a wasp is a bird and a chicken isn't. There is no way to classify a bat as a bird and not end up with absurdity. Or "winged" then a beatle and a flying squirrel is a bird. This classification is not arbitrary, birds were once dinosaurs, bats mammalian. Bones are different, structure is different, skin is different. The book was written by uneducated backward people who didn't know bats and birds aren't the same. But that's fine, I'm sure there are atheists that don't know the difference either.
Ok, I've written enough.
No, Dave didn’t attack James because he “denied a certain field of science.” Entire fields of science have been denied before: phrenology, eugenics, social darwinism, etc. Dave’s objection-and you can watch the very first video he put out on “articulating the agenda of James Tour”-is that James is motivated to deny this specific field because of his religious faith. It is very disingenuous because Dave is simply incapable of having a substantive debate with James on the issues, see the debate at Rice University. And even as James continued to remain charitable, Dave remained an incorrigible asshat who doesn’t actually know what he’s talking about.
@@j.athanasius9832 There is fact here and there is argument.
The fact is that Tour denied an entire field of science; he couldn't have been clearer about that.
The argument is over Tour's motivation. Tour is on the record explicitly saying his faith trumps evidence so Farina's conclusion is reasonable when he can evidence it with Tour's own words. But sure, nobody can really speak to Tour's motivation with certainty for rubbishing well founded science.
In the end the question of motivation doesn't matter, if Tour felt the science was wrong then he could have published a paper laying out the obvious flaws and evidencing them. That's the route to fame and glory in science, not sniping on RUclips. Tour chose not to publish because he has nothing. Certainly nothing that will ever pass peer review.
As for "remain charitable", Tour yelled like a maniac during the debate. He has impeached the character of respected scientists. It also seems that he acted in a predatory fashion against a dying man and co-opted his funeral. If this is true, Tour is not on the moral high ground.
@@j.athanasius9832james remained charitable? "CLUELESS"
@@j.athanasius9832 James remained charitable... I want you too go watch that debate again and tell me who was screaming. Dave points out that James has NOTHING backing him up besides his faith, and that is exactly what he takes issue with. He denies an entire peer-reviewed field with hundreds of pieces of data and evidence backing it up by basically saying "nuh uh cuz you cant do it in a lab" as if we don't know anything about stars, or how mountains form because we can't see them in a laboratory setting. James' objections are nothing more than unscientific conjecture by someone completely unrelated to the field of systems chemistry and abiogenesis.
@@j.athanasius9832
as mentioned by others - the idea that Tour was 'charitable' during his ranting performance is simply incredible.
Tour made assertions that were empty - but you don't know that because you're not a biologist or bio chemist and you have biases that lead you to believe Tour is the honest good faith actor and Dave is the dishonest atheist who 'just wants to deny God'.
I love how you started the video by poisoning the well and continued with admiting you have no expertise in the field so you were going to evaluate the topic anyway.
Wow nice bro you found one thing logically contradictory thing in the video from a philosophical perspective on the question of categorization. That's not the main goal of the video though. Pointing out one "mistake" that has no baring on the argument Dave is presenting in a 50 minute video is equivalent to a reporter getting the date wrong of some story they are writing about.
With the Bats thing, you don’t even need to go down the “Biological classification” route. After all they’ll just use that to double-down on their claims of scientific illiteracy. Instead just point out that the Hebrew term “‘oph ” is a generic term for flying creatures (including birds and bats) and call them out on their inability to understand basic semantic functions
@@blackoutninja I basically did that by pointing out that the term more literally translated to "winged" (or something like that; I can't remember now).
@@barelyprotestant5365 yeah my bad I commented without watching the whole video
Bloviation alert ‼️
literally no-one was surprised when Linnaeus announced that bats were not birds, or that 'flying things' wasn't a real category.
@@bengreen171 Citation for your claims?
@@barelyprotestant5365
really? That's the thing you're responding to?
What are you intending? To pounce at the perfect moment with some tidbit of Aristotle?
Linnaeus didn't spring his classification system out of nothing. All he did was give a scientific systematic approach to taxonomy. As I said, no-one was surprised to be told that bats and birds were not closely related.
But thanks for affirming my suspicion that intellectual honesty isn't anything you regard as important. I made a comment highlighting what you got wrong about Tour, and the problem of your scripture having God not know what a bat is - but you pick out something you think cannot be proven and claim victory.
Apologism fails on an intellectual and moral level.
@@barelyprotestant5365
isn't it odd how you don't need to provide citations for yours?
@@bengreen171 I'm asking you to cite your claims for a reason. You admit that they're assertions?
@@barelyprotestant5365
you mean like your assertions?
Except mine are based in rational understanding of the history of taxonomy, while yours are ad hoc and designed purely to undermine Dave's reasonable assertion.
Let's not forget you just made assertions about James Tour that you haven't proven - because they're not true.
25:52 - Scientific systematization of species is not arbitrary. In fact, the most modern one takes into account phylogenetic connections between animals and groups of animals - that is, in layman's terms, how animals evolved from one another. I bring it up because you admitted you don't go against scientific understanding of evolution. If it is how life emerged as we know it today, the modern classification system is objectively correct and the only correct one (scientifically) (and btw Carl Linnaeus` one was very different and methods of categorization didn`t rely on these historical connections between animals as they were not known at that time).
You brought up a lot about Scripture`s language, but you didn`t back it up, which surprises me. For example, you said that according to your recollections Hebrew word "bird" meant anything with the wings. Why not go through your linguistic literature and prove this claim ultimately? And also - what if your recollections will turn out to be wrong and actually in Ancient Hebrew there was a distinction between birds and non-birds in a modern sense? Will you admit that it makes the assumption of this part of Scripture being written by God seem unlikely?
Anyway, I have seen down in the comments you feel good about the idea of prof. Dave responding to your video, it would have been great for sure, but without you soundly confirming your claims there would be no point in it.
Also, you have said in your video that the goal of videos like Dave's one is "to hate God". However, your take sounds both radical and wrong to me, as someone who doesn't believe in God can't "hate" him.
After all, your whole premise that "God talks to us depending on our level" allows to disregard any unscientific data that is present in the Bible. Making the whole discussion pointless
11:10, does the sun orbit the earth or does the earth orbit the sun, is disease caused by an imbalance of Humors/bad smells or is it caused by microbes. Is matter made of atoms or some combination of four elements. On all of these I almost guarantee you would agree that the “modern western” ideas are objectively correct(or more accurately closer to being objectively correct). You yourself mentioned the absurdity of flat earth, what is essentially an ancient conception of the earth and its shape. This isn’t a battle of worldviews, modern ideas and conceptions of the universe and material reality are objectively superior and I guarantee on almost every example you would agree. People of the past weren’t stupid for believing them, but anyone in the modern day who still does despite knowing better is. And the cognitive dissonance it takes to believe both things is quite astounding.
Agree + Forrest Valkai = better.
dragonfly's and butterflies fly, are they birds?
The bats thing - sure, I get that people back then classified animals differently. That's the point. We now understand that just because something flies doesn't mean it's a bird, something which the biblical God should have known seeing as he created everything. So why would he pass down faulty information to people? In reality it's fine to eat birds - we eat birds all the time. It's not fine to eat bats - they're disease ridden and not good for consumption. But according to the bible it's just as acceptable to eat a bat as it is to eat a chicken. We all get that man is flawed - we don't know everything, we get stuff wrong, sometimes we have an incomplete understanding of things etc. This should not apply to God, or the Bible if it is in fact the word of God. God is supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent and perfect and therefore the Bible should be perfect and flawless - unless of course it's not actually the word of God, in which case I have no idea where people are getting their ideas from about this God in the first place.
Sorry - say what you like about Dave's approach, but you need to get your facts straight.
James Tour is not a prominent scientist within his field (which is chemistry - not biology or bio chemistry). In fact he has the dubious reputation within his field of being a plagiarist who takes credit for other people's research, and someone who makes extravagant claims about his own work that prove to be absolutely false.
Tour IS a creationist. He is a proponent of Intelligent Design - which is creationist pseudo science. Yes, Tour often denies he is a creationist, but this is merely an attempt to fool people into believing he is 'just following the science'.
The thing is, if you're not science literate - which you clearly aren't - it's not that easy to realise how dishonest Tour is. He does sound convincing, and his ability to string together a chemical reaction on a chalkboard is something that obviously impresses. The problem is that anyone can write a chemical formula on a board - it doesn't say anything about the claims being made. Just because Tour says that it proves something, doesn't make it true.
But given you also apparently side with Matt Walsh (again, someone with no relevant credentials who deliberately edited his 'documentary' in order to misrepresent the ideas being talked about), I'm clearly not going to get through to you and you're just going to dismiss anything I say because you're already dogmatically driven.
I'm betting that the very first thing you look at in this response is something you have hilariously misunderstood due to lack of knowledge.
wait - so you think God himself could differentiate various kinds of bird, mammal, fish and insect - but didn't have a classification system that was able to separate bats from birds?
Sorry - but that's ridiculous.
Firstly, it's pure nonsense to assert that before Linnaeus, nobody had a clue about the general relationship between different species. I mean the very book you'er defending here clearly has a basic understanding that insects are not like other living things. That fish are different to mammals. It's absurd to assert that because people before the 17th century didn't have Linnean classification that they couldn't differentiate between a bird and a bat.
Secondly - we're not talking about man's attempt to classify living things are we. These words supposedly come from God. The idea that God was hamstrung by man's ignorance and just had to communicate in an equally ignorant way is weak sauce. Notice that God cannot even count the number of legs an insect has. Don't you find that odd? He tells people not to eat insects with four legs - but insects have 6 legs. Even if you include creature that could fall into the category of 'insect like' have more than 4 legs.
So why is God acting like a superstitious granny?
Don't forget tour wrote WRONG the chemical reaction in the chalckboard.
@@Julian0101
haha - yeah, definite proof that your argument is sound - writing in big letters on a chalkboard.
@@bengreen171 No, i mean the chemical reaction tour said himself to have written was NOT the one he actuaIIy wrote. As in he wrote the wrong equation.
@@Julian0101
ah yes - I remember now. Good call.
Thanks. Sorry about the concert…
Your 2 points are valid. But he could've went into the 1000 other illogical/impossible/scientifically wrong things in the Bible. God speaks to people where they are is a shitty argument as the entire power of the book is that it is the 'infallible word of God' and when the Genesis creation account gets things out of order combined with the fact that Adam and Eve could not have possibly existed, this means no original sin, means no need for Jesus = Christianity not true. Very simple.
If this were not the case, we would not need the 'used car salesmen' (apologists) to exists because everyone would read the book and see the revealed truth.
bro you are doing no fucking debunking entire video, come on. Make a good script for the video
denying god wrote the bible, based on category or whatever, is more accurate to say lack of knowledge then category error, since there are words in hebrew for speific birds but most time they got group up with birds, and the calender is purely based on the earth rotation, some christians just believe its humans inspired by god then words of god make the argument pointless for those ppl- i did skip through the video but that seems to be mostly the topic
"Creator of the universe":
Writing the most important book ever using the language spoken only by a minor group of people.
Didn't care enough to make proper translation to any other popular languages.
Using fuzzy words that have different interpretations.
Couldn't spend a bit more time on editing.
Very ''special''.🙃
@@woundedone fair enough i just think the protestant guy might of missed the point of what dave was likely trying to get at
Randomly calling spiders bugs in your random use of your word bug……
Your point that classification is ultimately arbitrary is asinine. Yes, one can technically make up any system but if you make the slightest concession that these systems were intended to mean 6 or be useful it's obvious they simply didnt know what they were talking about. And god, being their invention, doesn't know either.
you don't know the difference between a mammal and a fish? are you a 5 year old?
It seems like you willfully misundertood the point, correct me if i’m wrong, but the point is that the bible is not a science book and you can’t use it that way
If that were the only point, then the mockery and claims that the Scriptures can't be of Divine Origin wouldn't have been made.
@@barelyprotestant5365 So your problem is not that the book has wrong information on it, it’s that he claim it was not written by god?
@@GastonRamis-i6s first we need to figure out what you're claiming:
Are you claiming that Dave is only stating that the Scriptures are not a science book, or are you claiming that Dave is stating that the Scriptures are wrong?
@@barelyprotestant5365 it’s the same thing, the scriptures are wrong if you try to use them as scientific text.
I am a christian and a biologist, and i understand that the scriptures help us to bring light on how people live and think in the past, you can not use them to learn about science, what do you think about that? About the bible?
@@GastonRamis-i6s I don't care if you're a Christian and a biologist. You're making a silly claim. A classification of bats as "winged things" is not evidence that the book is not of Divine origin or is "wrong on science". Again, that would be like saying because I made my bookshelf ordered a particular way I therefore do not know how to read.
Humanism crept in and replaced classical liberalism while all of humanity was asleep.
I still have issues with classical liberalism, but modern humanism (as opposed to the classical understanding of that term) is far, far worse.
The West is consumerist, not humanist. There are no humans here, only consumers / corporate entities
Random-dude-with-a-bachelors-in-chemistry Dave doesn't strike me as humanist in any useful meaning of the word. He doesn't seem particularly fond of humanity as a whole, especially the parts that aren't Atheists.
@@innocentsmith6091 Humanism is a lot like BLM that way.
Lmfao this is pathetic
James Tour is credited as an author on more than 700 academic papers and studies. He’s one of the most prolific hard-science authors in the world.
Half of which are rants on abiogenesis in definitely not peer-reviewed blogposts, papers which he had no part in, yet was credited as an author. The reason he has so many papers is because he jumps from field to field when he realizes that he is not getting anywhere.
James Tour whom none of his peers take seriously and treat him like the fraud he is.