I was called to share the Gospel with Muslims in Paris. The Muslims who accepted to pray with me, all saw the Christ, had visions...Who can come after the Christ, but the Antichrist? It’s Islam+ Communism. The apostate West will soon burn like Sodom and Gomorrah ( nuclear bombings? ). You are just a fool.
I really loved the guy presenting all the evidence of his claims AND counterclaims, the same as I love when helpful people do it online. Thanks Dave Farina! Very helpful.
Hi Dave, I remember being aware of this debate from James Tour's channel. After this debate, James started releasing shorts of this debates which portrayed you as an arrogant, opinionated, and condescending science enthusiast while James was portrayed as the humble one with the apt insights who defeated you. When I came to your channel to watch the full debate, I saw that things were different. James was shouting and interrupting you a lot, and I wondered how a debater could be so pugnacious and ill-mannered. 😂 I have since binge watched your channel, and I am a big fan. Thanks for you persistence in spreading light to the world.
@UWfalcin Yeah. James Tour made sure to release a particular short where he and Mr. Farina were asked what they admired in each other's scientific career. James appeared to sound nice and complimentary while Mr. Farina said, "I admired his persistence in sticking to a script of lies." James's fans in the comment misconstrued this as James being gracious and friendly, and they misconstrued Mr. Farina's response as him being mean and hardened at heart. You know? Lacking character. Looking back, I appreciate Mr. Farina for standing on business. A lie is a lie, and it must be called out... same as the liar. Truth is the highest moral standard.
@@shehabgamal8640 I cant speak for Dave, but Id hazard a guess from his statements on ad hominems that Dave didnt want to stoop to the same tactics James uses regularly and used in that debate, as at that point he's resigning himself to arguing from an equal footing which otherwise wouldnt be the case. He doesnt need to rip him apart for anything unrelated to the debate, which for James is to say they are clueless on OoL and for Dave is to prove James is lying, which is why calling him a liar is topically relevant for him to do compared to mocking his debate form
@johnnkurunziza5012 You appear to have missed the part where members of the audience enthusiastically admitted they used Dave’s videos to Tours’ classes. Also, Tours expertise is in SYNTHETIC chemistry. And if you think specialization doesn’t matter, you’ll have no problem going to your gastroenterologist for heart surgery…
@@johnnkurunziza5012 as Dave explained, origin of life research involves multiple fields, not just chemistry. And Dave had research papers ready for every single prompt James brought up. There are so many peer-reviewed scientific studies about fully self-replicating and functioning RNA, something James adamantly refuses to concede even though the data is there at his fingertips. I’m sure he’s a smart chemist in many ways but he is blinded by his faith and “feels” that the origin of life could not have been the direct result of abiogenesis because he believes Yahweh to be the true origin of life
Thanks Dave, the work you do in challenging these theocratic Discovery Institute charlatans head on is much appreciated. It was especially ballsy to conduct this debate on Jame’s home turf to a room full of his faithful sycophants.
"He claims i dont know chemistry when his own students use my organic chemistry videos to pass his classes" followed by roaring applause, was the hardest thing ive ever seen
@@weinerblut6869 ? He has a bachelor's in chemistry and a masters degree in science education. What credentials do you think are required to teach undergrad material like organic chemistry?? Lol
Moderators did a terrible job. I’m baffled how rare it is in fact in almost every debate I’ve seen how woefully useless moderation is. Like you’re not hosts. You’re referees and your job is to force concessions and ground out claims. They simply didn’t do that here and as such it wasn’t a debate
Way I see it, they were laughing at Tour for being demonstrably childish and a poor debater. And yeah, he had his church cohort to cheer up for him, but that's about it. He basically ridiculed himself all the way through.
@@lisalisaknits1314 This is the problem with Theists. Instead of allowing the scientific process to discover unknowns, they utilize the God of the Gap theory to explain what science has yet to answer. It's a lazy, redundant method of inserting God to facilitate their belief in mythology. It's not an answer, it's a special plea.
I am going to say part of the problem with debates is that if you don't find common ground and a set of common facts then the debate is meaningless to be honest. I think there was only two real concessions made the first was that Tour accepted the peptides development in water was a thing & the other is that we can be never sure how life developed but we have a number of paths ways which are plausible. The point is that we are not clueless nor do we have all the answers and it is the grey area that needs to be explored objectively but this debate did not do that as they were still arguing over the basic facts
The moderator, despite claiming he would only chime in if something said was "chemically" incorrect, chose to comment on aspects pertaining to biology. Crucially, on the meaning of "functional RNA", the moderator not only claimed that the term necessarily must have a ROLE (not just a function) like that of MODERN cells (e.g. mRNA, tRNA, rRNA), but he also was fundamentally NOT correct when he claimed this because simple base-pairing (an intrinsic function of nucleotides) is also a compeletely legitimate FUNCTION of RNAs and serves fundamental functions in cells even today. Therefore, in his ignorance about basic biology, the moderator also mislead the audience in a way that biased them against one of the debate participants.
@@davidwilliams3397 I agree. One of Tour's main strategies throughout was to avoid conceding even simple and undisputed aspects of the literature because, as we all know, 99% of people watching the debate, regardless of where you stand on the topic, will not look at nor understand the evidence in the literature. As such, rhetorical strategies will nearly always win over more of the public, since it often ends up being that they will side with whoever can most convincingly suggest they are an expert. Simply put, science is debated in the literature by professionals who understand the methods and applications of the field, not in the public where those things don't matter.
101 of whst moderator should do: 1. Don't let one guy scream for the entire debate over the other person. 2. Don't let the audience keep interrupting the debate 3. Be non-biased and ask questions to BOTH participants when something needs to be clarified. This debate becoming a dumpster fire is 100% on the moderator. This guy should never be in charge of a debate again.
@@moonandstars1677 I have no chemistry knowledge and I can still tell that James is doing his absolute best to scream over Dave's points, shift goalposts, and ignore evidence he's presented with
@@moonandstars1677 I do, my major is in biochem, but I’m only an undergrad. He basically is going against everything what I learned in college. Im actually a theist as in I do believe in a god, but I think there is merit in doing origin of life research, and as a scientist in training I believe in the principle of “non overlapping magisteria” meaning that religion and science are separate domains. Basically I disagree with Dr. Tours.
I have no knowledge of chemistry (yay, Xtian homeschooling), I'm trying to teach myself the basics, and I have a feeling I'm in for a headache...got a soda and snack also 🍿
I was thinking exactly this about 40 minutes in, watching people in a university actually buy in to James, and to think that Dave somehow is at a loss here, is a serious disservice to the future of our species and the planet as a whole.
Learning that a large cohort of the audience was literally Tours church group makes this even more of an embarrassment for him and should be highlighted. Dave you’re the man.
why does Farina have to use cuss words? why does he have to call Tour names? why is he saying " you are pulling this out of your a**"? why is he hurling F bombs at the audience ......easy answer ...he lost.
@@mrluke13 Because his opponent is a bumbling child who has spent his life trying to debase and defame professionals for his own gain? James Tour is a deplorable and profoundly ignorant man, he deserved all the ridicule and hostility Dave gives him. He IS pulling what he says out of his ass, and he's a FUCKING idiot. Using this kind of language does not make anyone less correct, in my opinion, it only serves to accentuate the point being made.
Hi Dave, I’m a mathematician who is trying to brush up on other domains of human knowledge. Coming from math where you can actually prove things and one can’t just “argue” in bad faith about papers in a field, it’s amazing to see how people like Tour are even allowed to be academics. If one of my colleagues said something ridiculous like “We are CLUELESS about the insolvability of the quintic” or some other topic just outside the knowledge domain of most non-math people, they would be ridiculed and damage their career. Not exactly analogous to science since nothing is “proven” in science but the point still essentially stands.
Screaming, hopping mad, insulting, I prof - you barely know some terminology, I’m gonna learn you, … There only were no fisticuffs because there were cameras rolling. If he had had integrity, he’d treat Dave like a fellow academic/scholar/on the same level, not “how cute, little man” downwards.
@@Fairburne69 I'm assuming anyone who makes it to graduate level actually knows the fundamental underlying concepts and isn't totally clueless like Tour is.
This is actually very emotional for me to watch. My dad was a young earth creationist pastor who used intimidation and manipulation to force us to agree with him on everything. Watching James yell when his reputation gets challenged snaps me back to the emotional landscape of my childhood. Thank you for doing away with the formalities and niceties that these men don't deserve. It's very grounding to see what happens when reality is forced into these people's worlds.
It was refreshing to see someone speak truth to “power” (what little power Tour has) and strip away the usual niceties of formal debate as you said while still remaining civil and not just spitting ad hominem statements but backing up each and every claim with hard proof. I’m also sorry you had to go through that, it’s a shame. But you certainly, and I mean certainly my friend, are not alone.
I’m sorry to hear that your father was abusive regarding his beliefs. Clearly he was triggered when questioned or challenged. It is a sign of weakness when you can’t calmly and clearly state your beliefs and accept challenges. It may be a moral weakness or a weakness of the beliefs themselves (I.e., beliefs that can’t be held up to scrutiny). Hearing Tour yell and interrupt and badger and repeat himself, dominate the conversation, never stop to really listen…..it’s all too much. I don’t follow the chemistry, but just by watching his actions, he has lost. He wants to take his beliefs and beat them into your brain. No thank you. I hope you recovered from you father’s actions.
I find these "debates" kind of cringe - you know it's not going to go anywhere, and from the little I saw I wondered if there was a moderator as opposed to someone just keeping time.
@@Cheepchipsable the first exchange after the shit slinging. I thought these guys sounded like too reputable scientist debating passionately but then it was a bit hectic
I have a sister-in-law like Tour. She is very radically conservative. In a discussion (that she likes to turn into arguments), the faster and LOUDER she talks, she becomes more and more right in her eyes and that should convince us, all the while gesturing wildly,. (Someone could lose an eye!) ---------- *Poor Dave, being exposed to someone like this. I have to, but he volunteered!*
@@wayfa13 I suppose. It's still more impressive to me. Or anyone doing vocals for long periods of time for that matter. It's a hard job. People think being a rock star is all parties, drugs and groupies but it's genuinely a difficult job. Not just touring but being creative under a deadline. Writing. Recording. Practicing. Not that I'm a rock star but I plan to start gigging very soon. Sorry. I do that. You start me up you can hardly stop me. Lol.
That took guts. Thank you for doing this, Dave. A few years ago I was watching your science/math tutorials. Last week I finished my student teaching, and I will be a licensed high school physics/chemistry teacher very shortly. You helped me make that happen. Don't stop.
@@maxgeorge1463 or just letting him teach whatever subjects he likes to teach! i would certainly appreciate a good teacher who is passionate about their lectures. their passion about the topics they talk about is contagious! 😄
I know I'm late on this. But isn't Dr. Tours argument of the specific molecule akin to saying "Mathematicians haven't solved the Reimann Hypothesis, therefore Mathematicians are clueless?"
This is an abominably moderated debate. Tour shouted over Dave through the entire debate without listening at all, because it’s on his home turf, with a supportive audience.
Some people were criticizing Dave for being "rude to the audience" as if they weren't heckling him the whole time. It's insane how many angles the creationists have that aren't addressing the actual research.
@@michaelclark7706 This debate is only the tip of the iceberg. Dave has at least half a dozen other videos where he exposes Tour. To be honest, I'd say you're a bit out of the loop if you're only watching this one debate.
@@michaelclark7706 I know what you mean and I must say that I was surprised at Dave’s lack of response to the problem James Tour poses. Honestly, I don’t understand enough about the science to know who is right either. But I suspect James Tour is trapping Dave in an area where he is superior in academic knowledge in a debate setting of his choosing and with a moderator who appears anything except impartial. Dave’s response is a reasonable one. There is a stack of peer reviewed academic papers in every area James Tour talks about and says there is none. I’m suspicious about the claim by James Tour that this question must be answered to assert the validity of the spontaneous emergence of life. Partly because of his religious beliefs but also because of the many researchers still out there writing paper after paper on the subject. But I accept I’m still yet to see definitive proof one way or the other.
As a Christian man who grew up thinking science was created to destroy the faith in God, I'm glad I found your channel. Your videos helped me have a better understanding of how science explains our world and universe.
that sounds like a nightmare. unfortunately, it is not much better in a traditional Hindu house either. almost as though religion and science can never truly co-exist because one is systematically debunking all the claims made by the other as it is being researched. if only bible-thumpers and such would concede that their scripture has no place in science.
@@shreyvaradi have seen no thing that convinces me that hindu tradition is against science? 😂 lmao , the current feet that science is on today is due to the fact that theists with a belief in a higher power or intellect is the first mover of all , is the first causer of all , cause if you logically conclude every effect has a cause hence there must be the first cause and that first cause must itself be caused , Making it Brahman or The uncaused Causer 😂 . You are a bull shitter if you say that In the hindu tradition science cant coexist . I cant bet a 20$ that you haven’t even read a single book yourself 😂 you have most likely watched some bullshitters video from youtube 😂 . You really didnt crosschecked 😂 . Second , Science and religion can never coexist? 😭🤣 it has always exited like that 😭🤣 the literal basis of why science was started is cause people had an urge to understand the universe and this creation of god . The literal Hindus made many maths discoveries like Decimal , 0 and stuff being loyal to their dharma 😂 the problem arose from todays egoistic atheists and ignorants . We have always been religious and Scientific 😂
@@shreyvarad i have seen no thing that convinces me that hindu tradition is against science? 😂 lmao , the current feet that science is on today is due to the fact that theists with a belief in a higher power or intellect is the first mover of all , is the first causer of all , cause if you logically conclude every effect has a cause hence there must be the first cause and that first cause must itself be caused , Making it Brahman or The uncaused Causer 😂 . You are a bull shitter if you say that In the hindu tradition science cant coexist . I cant bet a 20$ that you haven’t even read a single book yourself 😂 you have most likely watched some bullshitters video from youtube 😂 . You really didnt crosschecked 😂 . Second , Science and religion can never coexist? 😭🤣 it has always exited like that 😭🤣 the literal basis of why science was started is cause people had an urge to understand the universe and this creation of god . The literal Hindus made many maths discoveries like Decimal , 0 and stuff being loyal to their dharma 😂 the problem arose from todays egoistic atheists and ignorants . We have always been religious and Scientific 😂
The thing is no matter how much scientific evidence we have there can never be 100% prove that we are not some side project of some grater intelligence who created us, some people would call that (god).
I couldn't parse much out that related directly to the topic they were debating, both of them focusing on what the other has previously said online, they both failed to make a fresh case on the topic that I could connect with, without watching hours of RUclips videos to find out who's previous claims were false.
I literally cannot keep listening to Tour's yapping. The incessant interruption, shouting, and repetition of arguments you already answered is gonna make me punch drywall.
I was about to say: One thing I've learned in my studies of psychology, the human condition, and many mental states of mind and illnesses, is that one should always be wary of someone who screams over other people. Oftentimes, those who scream the loudest are desperate to not only silence the voices of others, but to seem larger than they are, like a bear rearing up to intimidate, rather than a human in a conversation. These individuals have the most to hide, and make it a point to scream over others, so their lies cannot be dragged out to the surface. A correct man explains facts rationally. A liar screams to drown out the facts of a correct man.
@@ashsharp1985 1. There he's not in a debate where he is talking to someone else. 2. It's a one way communication where he's in his right to talk as he likes and you're are in your full right to not listen to him. 3. When he's in a debate with others he doesn't shout as aggressively as Tour does.
@@thevastblack Tbh if I were debating with someone who talked over me during my time, kept yelling at me, gave no proof, “disproved” my proof with “nuh Uh”, and kept telling me to “use the chalk”, I’d probably get heated as well.
@@danpozzi3307 That's a tactic, not the end goal. The goal is to dismantle the other side's argument and show why they are incorrect with irrifutable clear evidence. But that's impossible with someone like Tour who won't accept anything Dave says. That's why I said I don't blame Dave for losing his cool from time to time. Tour knew ahead of time he would just dismiss everything, and his loyal followers were there to back him up. It was a lose/lose in the auditorium for Dave but those of us watching on YT know who really won.
James Tour debate tactics: (1) Draw some chemistry mechanism on the blackboard that nobody asked for and doesn't explain anything (2) Point the chalk at Dave and scream at him to do something with it, whatever that is (3) When Dave shows recent scientific literature disproving you, just scream that he didn't do something with your blackboard diagram (4) Write "clueless" beside each of your pre-written topics like you were going to do anyway, no matter what Dave said (5) Did I forget screaming? Make sure to tack on the screaming. You're welcome!
@@freddan6fly I think Grayson was on with Mark Reid, dapper dino, and beamsy (I forget if it was beamsy or someone else) on Mark's channel for a debate review, if you didn't see it
@@Chemasaurus T.Y. Yes I saw that one. On Grayson's channel he explains his question, and why the answer and assumption by James Tour was irrelevant. He also did that on Mark's channel but then I did not grasp it because he was too brief (for my high school chemistry (lack of) knowledge).
@@brentontreloar419 he wrote that with sinister intent *implying that the majority of the audience were biased in favor of Dr Tour and were in a sense, rooting for him
Sooo this is crazy people. I posted a comment on this debate, just on the version that was uploaded from James Tour’s RUclips channel. The comment looked like this(directly copied from the original one I posted): “Reading peoples comments saying that Tour won, and their arguments for it, actually baffles me… All you do is call Dave mean, saying he uses ad hominem attacks against James, when in reality he is just calling him a liar, which James indeed is. In fact, James is the one who has made fun of Dave for things like the music videos he is in, so saying that Dave is the one to get personal by calling James a liar, is pretty silly. Like c’mon, James even called one of the amino acids that he drew himself, the wrong thing. At 27:40 he writes down the formula for aspartic acid (also labeled as Asp or D, which he also rightfully does), and then at 29:35 he proceeds to call it “asparagine” which first of all, is labeled as Asn N, and not Asp D. Further more, the formula he drew had 7 hyrdogen atoms, 1 nitrogen atom and 4 oxygen atoms which correlates with aspartic acid. Asparagine however, which he clearly calls it, has 8 hydrogen atoms, 2 nitrogen atoms and 3 oxygen atoms. The only thing the 2 amino acids has in common, is that they both have the same number of carbon atoms, that being 4. And before you Tour supporters attack me, you can google this fact in less that 1 minute, to see for yourself. There is no way to deny his error. I don’t know if he called it the wrong thing because he forgot, or if he had any reason to lie about the name, either way it is not valid. You don’t have to like Dave, but the documents he is showing, are valid. And excuse him for not having a research paper ready for any possible specific question that James has the authority to ask. Not to mention that James most of the time just totally avoided the questions that Dave asked him, and rather tried to change the subject. In the end, a man that can’t even call the things that he writes down himself the right thing, is not someone who knows his stuff probably, and therefor can’t be trusted in that field of science.” And, after a few hours of posting it, I actually got curious if there was a possibility that the comment could have been deleted. So I checked if I could see the comment with one of my other accounts. And well, I couldn’t see it. But I didn’t wanna believe it, so I tried posting the same comment, just on my other account. And when I checked again on my other account after another few hours, it was also gone. Then I tried posting a comment that said “James destroyed Dave”. And when I checked after another few hours if that one was also gone, well you guessed it. It was still there. To think that this man, or this man’s moderators has deleted my comments, blows my mind. How pathetic can you be, if you can’t accept solid criticism.
It's probably cuz the comment was down voted. I think RUclips auto hides mass downvoted comments. But that's a good point. And a perfect demonstration why expected, during a debate, to draw out long chemistry that would take like 10 minutes to complete is ridiculous. It's showboating and meant to intimidate I know James is a liar because of what he did with that one scientist, but I think this was a mistake. An ego driven overstep meant to show how ignorant Dave is and capitalize on the ignorance and bloodlust of the audience
I post challenging, honest, questioning things (never rude or ad hominem) all the time and many of my comments are removed by the creators, or, more often, shadow banned by YT. Most people don’t like to be challenged or critiqued, and most creators only want positive comments.
**You don’t have to like Dave, but the documents he is showing, are valid.** This is the entire debate. Actionable, physical, provable, demonstrable proof. "Things acts this way when exposed to thing. Here is the proof." "Tested in my own environment, saw same thing. Indeed proof." That's how science works. That's literally it. If you ignore that and submit your own 'proof', then it must be tested and tested again until it can be repeated every time. If you can't do that, then you're not practicing science.
I love how a random Electric Universe believer suddenly wanted in on the action and that BOTH Dave and James were like, "What the hell is this guy even saying?".
The guy was desperate to have a champion for the EU, coz none of their so called scientist that push it would want to confront Prof. Dave, Thornhill was exposed by Dave and probably going to hide from him forever
@@pacevy3798 I'm going to teach you a trick to do that. Find the "show the transcript" option (on the browser version it is within the three dots) and then look for the word "electric".
Loved the laughing box tour brings to his speeches. Being the loudest person in the room doesn't make you right, it makes you unhinged. Tours theatrics are literally just pandering. This debate was great to behold, well worth the wait!
I know right! He reminds me of Hovind, but with an actual "degree". This James guy knows just enough to show how much of what he's saying he actually understands. And the Biased host is not cool. If I was professor dave I would not Have been able to go that whole debate without pointing that out.
I think the disconnect is that they see debate as person versus person, when it's really the origin of life research community (via Dave) versus James. It's not about ideas to them, it's about the people expressing it, which is silly. Dave was merely prepared to express what the science had to say in regard to James' personal objections.
@@CrashingThunder Yea. Dave doesn't claim any personal knowledge of the field just an understanding of the concensus of experts in the field. Tour claims personal expertise in a field he is only tangentially connected to as though he should get to decide what research is working or not.
@@zippydebrain nah i disagree. James tour just proved dave farina had no idea what he was reading about in the articles. For every chemical equation dr james brought firward, mr dave brought up articles that could not solve the equation or was not related to the equation at all. Thats why dave refused to go to the board to show us what he had leart from the articles he learned
@@ckay_real2765 That’s quite a bold claim, could you elaborate? Tour’s final objection to Dave in his first question was that no papers on peptide formation ever showed a reaction involving certain amino acids. He specifically says “never carboxylated, never the aminated!”. However, in the paper that Dave presented, as he pointed out, peptide ligation occurring at ph7 was identified that tolerated all proteinogenic side chains. That would include side chains containing a carboxylic acid group. Could you please explain why you find this to be a non satisfactory answer, especially since Tour had no objection to it?
When Dave wrote not clueless Dr James came across highly animated shouting how Dave’s argument comes down to writing one word. Despite the fact that was done to mock how Dr James was doing exactly that throughout the debate. Dave’s aggressive approach from the beginning such as calling Dr James a Liar interlaced within presenting the evidence from papers made me cringe. However it was a classic poke a badger with a stick tactic that worked on Dr James. He began to forget about holding a measured response and retreated into dismiss,Deny,Deflect. Used the tactic of that showpiece of writing Clueless to close down each segment as if he’s made some conclusive win. I was disappointed with his lack of presenting something from his side of the argument.
@@erykmozejko3329 I do agree it could have been done better, but I have my doubts shouting and telling it like it is wasn't the only real available option Dave had left. Maybe could have been a bit nicer, but idk. I think Dave certainly did better in this debate though, as James has many of the tells of someone that doesn't really understand what he is saying about this subject. I'm not saying he knows absolutely nothing of course, but he doesn't appear objective to me.
I went over to James video and told him I was moving a soccer field to the other end of town, and asked if he might help me move the goal posts because he seems so incredible good at that.
"I am not trying to reach origin of life researchers. I am trying to reach the masses." James Tour on why he doesn't publish his "research" in actual peer reviewed journals instead of on the discovery institute. This is all you need as a takeaway here.
Mr Tour, your hissy-fit debating skills are not likely to appeal to anyone who doesn't already agree with your particular POV...what do you suppose you're accomplishing here?
“I said ‘give me your number’, he gave me his number, I called him, we spoke about this...... he said to me, ‘Jim, if you would join us in this Origin of Life research, we would get this thing solved’. We had a very good conversation! You totally made that up, [......] no one made me apologize to him! I offered him my apology and he accepted it!” “But you continue to call his work ‘utterly ridiculous’.” “It is utterly ridiculous” Each time I go back to this debate thinking I already know what the stupidest part was I get surprised with exchanges like these. Truly a masterpiece.
“Still, look, Szostak’s paper on linkage heterogeneity...... still, still recognition and catalytic function......” “OK, SO, there we go, I asked him to come up here and show me the chemistry, just like I would do with a graduate student (???), I said show me the chemistry, he did not!! *writes clueless on board* “ Amazing. But at least this chaos finally prompted the moderator to intervene, and...... play defense for Tour? (48:52)
Rule one: shout Rule two: encourage your audience to expect chalky scribbles in response to your challenges. Rule three: expect that nobody spots that your interlocutor has put up a mountain of peer reviewed references while you have none.
Rule Four accuse said peer reviewed research of all being fraud without directly stating the word fraud so as to not get sued for defamatory remarks but still give the impression everything my opponent cites is horse shit. Rule five still fail miserably to convince anyone that Ool research is completely clueless.
The one thing people overlook about this debate is that Dave wasn't there to play nice; he was there to expose a charlatan, and for that, he succeeded.
Fighting the good fight against willful stupidity probably drains his patience faster than anything. I will say though, Dave had some remarks that were directed towards the audience which from the way it was phrased seemed to imply that he thought nobody there was capable of understanding what he and James were arguing. I'm sure they were directed at tours fan boys, but idk it felt kinda off.
@@robertmontoya8915 Why, because Dave wouldn't participate in James' little makeshift chemistry lesson on the chalkboard? It's perplexing how you Tour-botherers keep bringing that up as if it's the only thing you have left at your disposal. I implore that you familiarize yourself with James' grift and the falsehoods he's committed in reverence of his archaic ideology.
@Chlorophyll Absolutely! William Lane Craig is a Master of making his god sound plausible, and this carries huge weight with believers. However, when the spell is broken, the sheer implausibility of the enterprise becomes painfully obvious. That is there a huge difference between sufficient and necessary. Craig’s skill, if one can call it that, is to obfuscate and make sufficient appear to be necessary. The philosophically literate will recognise, in the case of the Kalam, the bait and switch tactic he uses. Namely, a logically valid argument, is supported by abductive reasoning. Subtle but effective to all but the most astute at detecting such clever tactics.
You fail to understand that he wasn't able to play nice because he lost all corners of the debate. So the last resort was to act foul and call James tour a liar and other words. That's not exposing a charlatan, that's exposing yourself from a lack of self control. He provided nothing to the discussion, and only cited sources he didn't even understand. James tour ran this guy over, and turned Dave red as a tomato, and all he could do was insult him. Bravo.
When your "yuh huh" is supported by the scientific community, it trumps 1000 "nuh uh"s by a guy who openly admits his ideas wouldn't survive peer review.
@@michaelkwiatkowski8596 Why yes. That's why James isn't even trying to submit his evidence to have the papers removed. Even James knows there's nothing wrong with the peer reviewed papers anymore than there is with his peer reviewed papers.
It feels disgusting to ask, but what exactly is the mix of Tours income? How much of his money is from his university job and how much as side income trough aig etc?
@@bashful228 "Answers in Genesis" one of the more prominent propaganda organisations of young earth creationism. Used here as an example of those organisations in general.
Bravo. Have a nice meal and a couple drinks on me, Dave. You earned it! Nicely done on this debate, given who you had to deal with. Intellectually dishonest "intellectuals" are the worst. You're doing important work here and with your channel. I'm a scientist and professor of neurosciences at UCSD School of Medicine. If you'd ever like to confer on any brain-related topics or just bullshit over coffee, let me know. Cheers!
According to Buddhism, life is an output of the moment of mind called Citta. It is a measurement (Mano/mind) of the beauty (Citta). The mind moment arise, exist, and dissolve within 3 smaller moments (Khana). And the mind continues a series of mind moments (Citta-Viti) within the lifetime of a smallest matter zone called Rupa-Kalapa. The mind emerges from matter, feelings, perception/identification, emotions/thoughts, and knowledge/awareness. The mind can use the body and blood to contiue its observation, and its becoming (Bhavanga) process selects or makes a suitable body for it to continue its process, using its causes (Karma).
@@smlanka4u According to the ancient art of Flatulogical Buddhism, farting is an intricate manifestation of the mind's journey through the realms of bodily acoustics. Just as the mind arises, exists, and dissolves within fleeting moments, so too do our toots emerge, linger, and fade away in a symphony of olfactory delight. The delicate dance of gases within our digestive cosmos mirrors the continuous series of pungent eruptions that punctuate our human experience. And just as the mind selects a suitable body to continue its observation, so too does the fart select the perfect moment to announce its presence, using its own karma and the undulating waves of stomach gases. It's truly a spiritual odyssey that transcends the limits of mere bodily functions.
Tour: Show me proof of point 1! Dave: Here are 10 papers with proof of point 1. Tour: So there is NO evidence for point 1, CLUELESS! Repeat for each talking point.
yeah, except on points where he can't do this, in which case he'll literally divert the topic into talking about one of the points where he can, in a way that 100% violates the rules of the debate
Dave never did provide evidence of what Tour was after. There are variations of it, but not precisely it. Key to it all was when Dave says that it did happen with "pre-biotic plausible" compounds available. That is a pretty significant admission as it implies it happened only after chemists set the table, which amusingly enough, IS clear evidence that yes, with intelligent input, these compounds can form? Tour rejected it outright but it may have been better to point out the only time it happens is with input from an outside intelligence. Also, why isn't life constantly springing forth, with an endless parade of new life coming into existence? Did it only happen one time?
@@IndianaJeff The simple answer to 'why don't we constantly see new life', is that once life forms it changes the environment making it very difficult for an alternative form of life to get a foot hold.
@@IndianaJeffthe point is that tour was after specific reactions that he selected by worming around the research Dave had. That doesn't demonstrate that we are clueless, that demonstrates that Tour cherry picks.
@@billbissenas2973 "He didn’t come to debate." Do you believe that James Tour did? His lack of answer to one of the questions at the end, but, instead, launching into his usual spiel (when an answer wouldn't have compromised his position) shows clearly what kind of dishonest propagandist he is. One _cannot_ properly debate with a creationist because they're all too dishonest.
pineapplepenumbra Dave didn't answer any of James tours questions, nor did he stand up to the challenge when James asked Dave to draw the molecules. All Dave did was cite his biased aourced, which James tour demolished all of them. James answers all the questions presented, but Dave dodges and throws insults. Maybe watch the debate and not listen to your own biases.
@@sakatagintoki4164 "Dave didn't answer any of James tours questions, He had _already_ answered most of them, but like the typical creationist, JT just repeats the same questions over and over, regardless of the responses. "nor did he stand up to the challenge when James asked Dave to draw the molecules" Why should he? JT's drawings don't prove anything. "All Dave did was cite his biased aourced," So peer reviewed scientific research papers are _all_ "biased sources" are they? "which James tour demolished all of them." You appear to be delusional. "Maybe watch the debate and not listen to your own biases" You've got a serious case of Psychological Projection going on there.
I'm only 22 minutes in, during the James opening statement I was like okay he's almost making sense here (for someone who doesn't really understand the big words he was throwing around that well haha), but I had a sense of what was coming... as soon as he stopped and challenged Dave so confidently I was like... I have a feeling you're about to get totally flamed man :D And then, it's been only less than 5 minutes of Dave's opening argument and he ALREADY DESTROYED THIS MAN :D Can't wait for the rest of the debate haha Thanks for doing this and posting this, man!
I watched the entire debate and I felt that even though Tour asked for a debate about the data, he immediately began with emotional appeals. Tour's answer to the audience question: Why has he never published his criticisms under peer review, gives up his game completely.
That's why he started with the whole thing at the beginning. To dispute science, and to say he doesn't appeal to god of the gaps, while do that the whole time.
For those playing at home, Dr. Tour HAS published complaints about this subject. Once again, you see a non-argument argument; an appeal to consensus rather than science. Dr. Tour has done two whole series on youtube where he painstakingly goes through all of what Dave has presented. Has Dave published anything in peer-reviewed publications? Has he published even a tenth of what Dr. Tour has in scientific journals? If he has, why would he resort to using other people's papers? Why not do some science right there?
I was called to share the Gospel with Muslims in Paris. The Muslims who accepted to pray with me, all saw the Christ, had visions.....You are a fool! Even me, I can not talk about my experience with the official Church. I have to do it ANOTHER way, outside the official Church, otherwise the Gospel will never be shared to the Muslims. Since the West has apostasied, you will soon burn like Sodom and Gomorrah ( the nuclear bombings?).
@@TheCompositeKing The half of the audience that vocally cheered for Tour only did so after Dave’s extremely aggressive conduct, and especially after he cussed them out and told them they didn’t know what was being discussed. That’s Dave’s own doing. (By the way, I was there in person.) The moderator spoke for, what, 5 minutes total? He really should have been more active to maintain debate order. The little fact checks had potential, but ultimately he should have pushed Dave and Tour to argue more systematically on the scientific data.
@@coltfathwell6185 Congratulations on not knowing what slander means. I guess? Being ignorant is not really an accomplishment. Explain to me this, if you have the courage (and I know you don't): Since Tour spouts nonsense and is wrong about almost everything, how is a scientific debate possible? If someone told you that every tree on Earth is made of styrofoam, is there a debate to be had with that person?
Not entirely sure, but I think you would like to point out that this was an unfair environment? I disagree. The moderator said very little and seemed to be on topic, and it was Dave's mistake to interact in this fashion with the hecklers in the first place. Also, the audience seemed to be mostly on his side.
@@matOpera well when your oppositions only response to your statement is "uh nuh " and when dave starts answering back the crowd starts booing. A civil audience should never boo at either of the parties debating . you also forgot to mention how tour was constantly shouting and cutting dave off. its clear that you're not neutral rather you lean towards tour and you're nitpicking and those were not insults rather proof that he is a conman.
Goodness how far he's fallen. I had a fair amount of respect for Tour in the past. I've even previously taken to reading over some of his work with graphene (along with other projects) over the years. Nothing truly groundbreaking, but he had a fair talent for information organization and creating great research briefs. Compare that to now, where he somehow still managed to get eviscerated in a debate format / setting of his choosing, with a sympathetic moderation team and a crowd of his people. I'm not even mad at the guy anymore- I just feel shame. I'm embarrassed for him and anyone who believes him without scrutinizing what he says I'm ashamed for him- it is almost painful that he is throwing so much away for blind loyalty to fringe religious dogma. His flagrant mischaracterizations and blatant lies deserve nothing more than harsh rebuke and shame- he insults all of academia with his lies *_and_* he insults the religion he's attempting to prop up by reducing this argument to "telling lies and hoping the congregation doesn't check." If you follow him, you should feel insulted too. And this is all because he can't handle another one of those perceived "gaps" being filled by academia? I hope Tour gets out of this line of work and gets some perspective, I'm really rooting for the guy.
Great comment. The man is an embarrassment. He pretends scientist have no clue on any of his questions, and screams at Dave when he is showing they have more than a clue, he moves the goal post. If some peer reviewed research is not satisfactory to him why not rebuke it with his own, isn't he supposed to be a scientist himself. Screaming at Dave won't falsify that research or make it less valid, even if it doesn't meet his own "scientist standards".
How to convince your audience in a debate in five easy steps 1. Make sure that your audience is science illiterate and wants to believe that what you're saying is right 2. Try to occasionally appear humble and honourable (you only need a few brief instances of that, your audience will focus on them and ignore any other moment where you act like a jackass) 3. Draw molecules on a blackboard (labeling them properly is optional, this step is necessary to make you look smart in front of your audience, it will remind them of their chemistry teacher) 4. Yell louder than your opponent is talking (this is vital because it will make you look like you are winning) 5. Lie (your audience shouldn't notice it because they don't know what you are talking about, it also makes it easier for you to seem correct)
It's great debating "low educated" audiences, isn't it? Your list of 5 things is a hoot, and prob correct. I just started to watch & already I feel a little sad for the prof on the right at least he has some manners and humility (so far) Prof Dave, I love you but I'm afraid you're gonna squash this poor bastard like a bug. Go to it! and may the best man win!
How to worship James Tour if you are one of his science illiterate followers: 1. Laugh, make noises, boo when you hear "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" from Dave because he clearly doesn't know something (we don't know exactly what but that doesn't matter). 2. Criticize Dave for any irrelevant crap you can think of, like him reading a script. 3. Applaud when James writes something on the board and shouts because he clearly has a point.
That guy was a dip shit. I'm agnostic, I do have reservations about life. The way life evolves seems to follow a VERY distinct pattern. Almost intelligently so. Single cells to organisms, single people to tribes. All following the same path. Starts as one groups up and specializes and becomes more complex. I think we are creating a world sized organism. And when AI goes live bam. We now have a single planet life. Or "the beast" next step? Spread. This either just follows a pattern cause of physics rules. Or it's being guided. You can't ignore what we see though like this zealot. Though the idea of something bigger that we don't understand isn't off the table IMO. I don't know why more people who feel there is a god don't follow this line of thinking. You can't ignore evolution.
It’s unbelievable audacity of James openly admitting that he chooses not to publish peer reviewed papers and instead reaching out to all the people in on the social media. And not only that, he said to all the people that do not understand scientific papers. It’s approximately equal to telling your children that it is safe to play with matches at home and don’t listen to someone telling you otherwise. I’m just out of words to describe how despicable the man is.
James is just doing the same thing conspiracy theorists do on a regular basis, disseminate misinformation to the masses to sow doubt of academic and scientific institutions.
The fun part is that he was trying to use the creationist talking point of "i dont talk with the scientist because they would refuse to believe me, [optional: insert here clues about a secret conspirancy]", but tour is so bad at handling criticism he fumbled the ball and said exactly what he was thinking instead of what he was trying to say.
Interesting perspective. I think he’s doing a service to the world by making science publicly available instead of keeping it hidden and only available for people who can access university classes or libraries. Many people can’t - more people can go on RUclips. Also, not all articles submitted get published. What a journal publishes depends on what the journal wants to focus on for the next issues - and that is determined by considering how the journal can stay competitive - so by business and economics, by profits and consumerism. Academic articles are businesses. They don’t just publish anything, they also don’t even read everything submitted. Now that you know how they work maybe you’ll understand his choice better :) Update- also, as far as I know james isn’t a researcher, he’s an educator. Researchers publish papers when they find new information to share within the discipline. So, james wouldn’t ever have anything to publish. He is taking what is published and sharing it to teach people about science.
@@AJ-wy6zm Interesting theory, if only tour has said that, or at least presented any article he had submitted for peer review, regardless of publication, then you would have a point. The fun part is that with this logic, any article published by the DI fails also with that reasoning.
It's surprisingly effective with narcissists. They take that they are more intelligent than you as a given so they are immediately flustered when you demonstrate their lies are obvious to you.
It's rare that I'll comment on any RUclips video... but Tour should be embarrassed by his behavior. Screaming is the fastest way to lose any credibility you may have when you're supposed to be in a debate, and if he truly does treat his students the way he treated Dave, the administration should seriously reconsider his employment.
Absolutely unhinged. No doubt the university is embarrassed but I bet Tour thinks he totally wrecked Dave in this "debate". Because he screamed super loud and spent like 10 mins drawing on the chalkboard.
Dr Tour in my opinion was a bit inpatient, opposite from what the bible teaches: that we must be apt to teach, patient, etc.. but i understand his frustration in trying to present his facts against fallacy.
@@Liketreeswalking556 you made it seem one sided, that only Dave was using insults. In case you missed it, near the end Dave showed itemized insulting remarks Tour used throughout the debate
You called him a liar several times and he never denied it. He yelled and screamed like a vulnerable narcissist does when they try to gaslight reality. His flying monkeys responded accordingly
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Hi Dave, I've found the links to all the papers about RNA and Ribozymes in the description. However, I wasn't able to find the papers dealing with peptide bond formation and prebiotic peptide synthesis you showed during the debate. Did you share the list somewhere here on RUclips?
@Dr Jim Tour what's funny ro me is how many time "you all" bring up the Bible. Dr Tour didn't bring it up, everyone else did. This was a very poor debate but clearly dave went straight for the personal attacks. Day one debating class will teach you when you do this your clearly losing the debate.
@@reallifeoperatorspcopssnip1825 real funny how we arent allowed to bring up the bible which is what tour believes in which is full of fantasy and mythology.. but tour wants to call experts in their field clueless... lol why dont you want people mentioning the bible... Is it because you know its full of fantasy and mythology?
It's very similar to people who say they are smart. Smart people know that they don't have to say that they are smart, they just do things that show they're smart. Stupid people Always have to tell people they are smart.
The difference between cluelessness and wisdom is this: Wisdom is genuine, and doesn't disguise itself. Cluelessness attempts to masquerade as wisdom. And only wisdom attempts to encourage others to be wise.
@@emmaearhart I would encourage you to reevaluate your support for Hasan. He’s a thieving, irrational, populist, hypocritical, and downright evil human being.
Okay, something I don't get. This debate was held on the university's ground, with, I'm guessing, plenty of scientists attending. Yet everyone is cheering for James, who's just yelling and avoiding the science presented to him. Did the entire room just get filled with creationism proponents or something? Mad respect to you Dave for doing this, it couldn't have been easy to stand there among all those idiots.
I was there and can confirm Dave’s assessment. The crowd was mostly 1) grad students interested in the debate, and 2) members of Tour’s church. I chatted with an audience member before the debate who’s a member of Tour’s church and said she was just there to see him because she loves listening to him speak. She readily acknowledged she doesn’t understand the chemistry at all.
You could tell from the get go that the room was filled with Jim's people. I thought the qa session was good though seemed like there where some that could see the gish gallop.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains of course the scientist needed his *church* to show up to weigh in on this science debate to applaud his science. What a reasonable thing for someone to do, and not at all just further proof that he's not at all interested in the scientific presentation of this debate at all and only cares about its perceived impact on his fragile little faith. What a great man of science James Tour is.
@@iliyanovslounge James had been writing Clueless on the blackboard behind him, while Dave wrote not clueless on the blackboard behind him. Essentially the comment was saying that the blackboards were showing who was actually clueless: James was clueless while Dave is not clueless
James' whole shtick this debate was to ask for a very specific reaction and then cry foul that Dave doesn't immediately have a paper for that specific reaction, while James ignores the dozens of other papers that show comparable reactions or that show his objections are non-factors. Anyone who bothers to look up the research while watching this debate will find that James has no legs to stand on.
Not to mention that Tour stipulated limiting the papers allowed in the debate and was presented with them before, so he knew what to ask that wouldn't be in the papers. He did not go in there to argue in good faith.
@@irwinshung809 And yet he still found it necessary to yell over Dave, cut him off as much as possible to keep him from coming up with answers anyway. Tour is morally and intellectually bankrupt.
Professor Dave debated Tour, the biased moderator and the biased audience at the same time! This is a brave move, and he has won my respect for doing his best to expose liars.
Huge respect for exposing liars who want to close a whole scientific field because it shakes the foundations of their dishonest business (aka religion).
it's such an incredible difference, the "discussion" Dave has with Tour vs the few times when Dave talks to the Moderator Guy. Moderator Guy is calm and factual, asks specific questions in a calm tone and lets Dave answer, and then Tour immidiately starts screaming again.
well to be fair if you were going to this university it prob wouldn't matter you'd jsut be in debt and have a degree that would get you laughed out of anywhere of repute.
It blows me away that high ranking staff of universities and college usually have one odd belief that is straight up false or not scientifically viable. I’ve seen some professors that are flat earthers. You shouldn’t be teaching anyone anything if you believe that and some other theories.
He might be a very good chemist or other. If peoples personal beliefs would invalidate them to contribute to society with any ability great or small, we would be in severe trouble.
The whole "DRAW IT ON THE BOARD" thing is clearly a strategy to convince the audience that writing on the chalkboard is the only way to prove anything within this topic. I see right through this BS debate tactic.
It's a total performance to highlight traditionalism. This wasn't meant for you, mate. This was for the people from his church. They love this stuff. For them, it's a dunk. Yeah, they're that stupid.
It appeals to the people that not only don't read peer-reviewed papers but couldn't even if they tried. To them, all subjects in science can be explained in summary by diagrams or small sentences. But, it takes so little time to think about the tactic to see that it has no right answer. There is nothing that Dave could have written on the board in 5 minutes that would have satisfied Tour. Like was he supposed to handwrite a summary of the papers that show those things are possible?
@@MeltedBrain777 You know how debate "cards" work? You come pre-prepared with slides or papers pre-loaded so you don't have to write on chalkboards. It saves time.
I watched this on Tour's YT channel. I read some of the comments. There was way too much negativity toward the scientific community. Let's counter that, shall we? Thank you to all the scientists and engineers who have made our modern comforts possible. Thank you to all of the science communicators who love educating the public. A big thank you to Dave for being a part of the science communicator landscape. Carl Sagan's A Demon Haunted World inspired me to seek educators. Now, my YT and podcast worlds are filled with Bill Bye, NDT, Dave, Forrest, and so many others who love sharing the wonders of the natural world. Next time, you may want to gift a signed copy of a book called - Is this Wi-Fi Organic?
The people that support James tour we will never ever in 10 billion years change their minds. One of the only ways we can help with the negative science problem is to somehow not allow these people to be indoctrinated as kids 95% of them once indoctrinated will never go back
James: "doing a backflip is impossible. Nobody has ever proved it to be possible. Only god could ever possibly do a backflip" Dave: "all these people can do a backflip. Here is the peer reviewed evidence" James: " write it on the board! Do a specific straddled quadruple twist backflip from standing right now! create the enzyme necessary for a backflip - the one that i have randomly specified. Do in a lab what took billions of years of natural selection. You can't! It's impossible! Always will be! lalalalala" Audience: hears James's passionate shouting and surrenders to their heard instincts by clapping 👏
I'm a little late, and the debate was pretty much a dumpster fire, but seeing Aron Ra come out of nowhere to ask a question was an unexpected crossover delight.
I was listening to this in the background while playing a game, and I tab back in going "what the fuck... That voice sounds familiar..." And boom! There he is.
I love how Tour frequently uses the word "magically" to devalue certain aspects of abiogenesis - while obviously forgetting, that his creationist explanation for the origin of life is nothing but magic.
@@a_plastic_bag Because James is a conman. He is a crony of an organization whose whole goal is to tarnish a whole field of research for their own beliefs, and for money.
Everything about the Christian religion is magic. How did "Jesus" walk on water? Magic! How did he heal the wounds of the sick? Magic! How did he recover from losing liters of blood and asphyxiating? Magic! The fact that all Christians believe this stuff and that nobody thinks to call them morons is astonishing.
@danielpintard7382 There are plenty of Christians who don't believe the creation account. Tour is a die-hard Creationist. I have to disagree with Genesis being comparable to abiogenesis as explained by the origin of life researchers. I mean no offense, but that's conjecture.
Gained so much respect for Prof. Dave from this. Not only is he getting me through UCLA's Ochem classes with his videos, but he's also not afraid to speak the truth!! mad respect
@@flavioa2252 I've thought that about all of your comments. Just replace the words "you" with "I", "yourself" with "myself", and "upload" with "comment", then read it to yourself a few times.
I love how life has evolved so much that living organisms can argue over whether or not evolution exists
@@SavioursWon still true
Damn I never thought if it like that, whack ain´t it?
we are the universe contemplating itself
I was called to share the Gospel with Muslims in Paris. The Muslims who accepted to pray with me, all saw the Christ, had visions...Who can come after the Christ, but the Antichrist? It’s Islam+ Communism. The apostate West will soon burn like Sodom and Gomorrah ( nuclear bombings? ). You are just a fool.
Well, Dave and Torr are not of common ancestry, Torr stems from the clade of Analcephalia
This is exactly how I imagined an online discussion would be performed offline.
No it is NOT like an online discussion. Show me you proof. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY! You're CLUELESS!
and i thought *political* debates were blood sports...
I really loved the guy presenting all the evidence of his claims AND counterclaims, the same as I love when helpful people do it online. Thanks Dave Farina! Very helpful.
The yelling was definitely familiar
😂
Hi Dave, I remember being aware of this debate from James Tour's channel.
After this debate, James started releasing shorts of this debates which portrayed you as an arrogant, opinionated, and condescending science enthusiast while James was portrayed as the humble one with the apt insights who defeated you.
When I came to your channel to watch the full debate, I saw that things were different. James was shouting and interrupting you a lot, and I wondered how a debater could be so pugnacious and ill-mannered. 😂
I have since binge watched your channel, and I am a big fan. Thanks for you persistence in spreading light to the world.
That’s amazing lol. What a shift
@UWfalcin
Yeah. James Tour made sure to release a particular short where he and Mr. Farina were asked what they admired in each other's scientific career.
James appeared to sound nice and complimentary while Mr. Farina said, "I admired his persistence in sticking to a script of lies." James's fans in the comment misconstrued this as James being gracious and friendly, and they misconstrued Mr. Farina's response as him being mean and hardened at heart. You know? Lacking character.
Looking back, I appreciate Mr. Farina for standing on business. A lie is a lie, and it must be called out... same as the liar. Truth is the highest moral standard.
Pugnacious ... what a brilliant word that fits so perfectly. I must learn to use it in the future, thank you 😁
It's always weird when one person shows up for a debate and the other for the platform.
Yeah James is always just spewing his apologist script of lies no matter what the situation.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains You're a goddamn fax machine with how much you tell con men the facts.
That Right There. You can feel the home turf advantage insincerity oozing. I thought Tour had a "no scripts" thing.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains why didn't you tell him that?
@@shehabgamal8640 I cant speak for Dave, but Id hazard a guess from his statements on ad hominems that Dave didnt want to stoop to the same tactics James uses regularly and used in that debate, as at that point he's resigning himself to arguing from an equal footing which otherwise wouldnt be the case.
He doesnt need to rip him apart for anything unrelated to the debate, which for James is to say they are clueless on OoL and for Dave is to prove James is lying, which is why calling him a liar is topically relevant for him to do compared to mocking his debate form
This is the most emotional chemistry lesson I’ve ever had
"Draw the wrong molecule, prove supernatural magic exists!" LOL Tour is a 🤡clown of desperate lies created by his bibliolatry and false religion.
And it’s glorious
@@johnnkurunziza5012 Yeah, James was avoiding all the chemistry.
@johnnkurunziza5012 You appear to have missed the part where members of the audience enthusiastically admitted they used Dave’s videos to Tours’ classes. Also, Tours expertise is in SYNTHETIC chemistry. And if you think specialization doesn’t matter, you’ll have no problem going to your gastroenterologist for heart surgery…
@@johnnkurunziza5012 as Dave explained, origin of life research involves multiple fields, not just chemistry. And Dave had research papers ready for every single prompt James brought up. There are so many peer-reviewed scientific studies about fully self-replicating and functioning RNA, something James adamantly refuses to concede even though the data is there at his fingertips. I’m sure he’s a smart chemist in many ways but he is blinded by his faith and “feels” that the origin of life could not have been the direct result of abiogenesis because he believes Yahweh to be the true origin of life
Thanks Dave, the work you do in challenging these theocratic Discovery Institute charlatans head on is much appreciated. It was especially ballsy to conduct this debate on Jame’s home turf to a room full of his faithful sycophants.
hopefully this gets more recognition so we get less of this religious propaganda around
Amen!
Truth
How do you give monies like that? I want to contribute too. Dave going after these frauds is like policing we the citizens need to fund ourselves.
@@brandona7472 Maybe you have to join the channel in addition to just subscribing? I'm not sure.
"He claims i dont know chemistry when his own students use my organic chemistry videos to pass his classes" followed by roaring applause, was the hardest thing ive ever seen
Loved it. Definite own...
Yeah, monsterous dunk!
@@Sommervilllewhats the timestamp
@@shysmy19 1:36:53
@@weinerblut6869 ? He has a bachelor's in chemistry and a masters degree in science education.
What credentials do you think are required to teach undergrad material like organic chemistry?? Lol
This is not a debate. Whoever speaks lowder gets to speak. The organizers did a horrible job.
Moderators did a terrible job. I’m baffled how rare it is in fact in almost every debate I’ve seen how woefully useless moderation is.
Like you’re not hosts. You’re referees and your job is to force concessions and ground out claims. They simply didn’t do that here and as such it wasn’t a debate
Probably hard for him to moderat his idol 😂
them standing in front of "NOT CLUELESS" and "clueless" is like a renaissance painting
lol it is poetic
I felt the same thing, perfect snapshot of the two hours
😂😂😂
He wrote the word "clueless" on the chalk board as a rebuttal to what Dave said. And the audience clapped. We're in for rough times ahead.
Way I see it, they were laughing at Tour for being demonstrably childish and a poor debater.
And yeah, he had his church cohort to cheer up for him, but that's about it. He basically ridiculed himself all the way through.
@@lisalisaknits1314 This is the problem with Theists. Instead of allowing the scientific process to discover unknowns, they utilize the God of the Gap theory to explain what science has yet to answer. It's a lazy, redundant method of inserting God to facilitate their belief in mythology. It's not an answer, it's a special plea.
I thought the same thing....
@@tylerdellinger7791you thought you had something there huh
The audience was mostly tours “following” from my understanding
Can we all just acknowledge how terrible the debate moderator was at moderating this debate?
Yes it was
I am going to say part of the problem with debates is that if you don't find common ground and a set of common facts then the debate is meaningless to be honest.
I think there was only two real concessions made the first was that Tour accepted the peptides development in water was a thing & the other is that we can be never sure how life developed but we have a number of paths ways which are plausible.
The point is that we are not clueless nor do we have all the answers and it is the grey area that needs to be explored objectively but this debate did not do that as they were still arguing over the basic facts
The moderator, despite claiming he would only chime in if something said was "chemically" incorrect, chose to comment on aspects pertaining to biology. Crucially, on the meaning of "functional RNA", the moderator not only claimed that the term necessarily must have a ROLE (not just a function) like that of MODERN cells (e.g. mRNA, tRNA, rRNA), but he also was fundamentally NOT correct when he claimed this because simple base-pairing (an intrinsic function of nucleotides) is also a compeletely legitimate FUNCTION of RNAs and serves fundamental functions in cells even today. Therefore, in his ignorance about basic biology, the moderator also mislead the audience in a way that biased them against one of the debate participants.
@@davidwilliams3397
I agree. One of Tour's main strategies throughout was to avoid conceding even simple and undisputed aspects of the literature because, as we all know, 99% of people watching the debate, regardless of where you stand on the topic, will not look at nor understand the evidence in the literature. As such, rhetorical strategies will nearly always win over more of the public, since it often ends up being that they will side with whoever can most convincingly suggest they are an expert.
Simply put, science is debated in the literature by professionals who understand the methods and applications of the field, not in the public where those things don't matter.
101 of whst moderator should do:
1. Don't let one guy scream for the entire debate over the other person.
2. Don't let the audience keep interrupting the debate
3. Be non-biased and ask questions to BOTH participants when something needs to be clarified.
This debate becoming a dumpster fire is 100% on the moderator. This guy should never be in charge of a debate again.
The real debate is whether or not the moderator is wearing a toupee.
There’s no debate to be had on that subject.
oh you mean that justin bieber hair with the hair line right above his eyebrows? 🤣👌
Toupee or not toupee, that is the question.
Ha ha ha 😂
I think it’s just a comb over from his amazing stash.
As someone with almost no Chemistry knowledge this was still hella entertaining 🍿
I’m curious what you walked away with from this debate. Care to share?
@@moonandstars1677 I have no chemistry knowledge and I can still tell that James is doing his absolute best to scream over Dave's points, shift goalposts, and ignore evidence he's presented with
@@moonandstars1677 I do, my major is in biochem, but I’m only an undergrad. He basically is going against everything what I learned in college. Im actually a theist as in I do believe in a god, but I think there is merit in doing origin of life research, and as a scientist in training I believe in the principle of “non overlapping magisteria” meaning that religion and science are separate domains. Basically I disagree with Dr. Tours.
I have no knowledge of chemistry (yay, Xtian homeschooling), I'm trying to teach myself the basics, and I have a feeling I'm in for a headache...got a soda and snack also 🍿
As a biochemist, I don't understand most of Tours points.
Dave is the embodiment of “your boos mean nothing to me I’ve seen what makes you cheer” in this debate.
Couldn’t have described this debate better 😂
Well, they basically started cheering every time one of them shouted.
I was thinking exactly this about 40 minutes in, watching people in a university actually buy in to James, and to think that Dave somehow is at a loss here, is a serious disservice to the future of our species and the planet as a whole.
@@codymulac4292 If it makes you feel better it turns out that a lot of people in that hall were from Tour's church group - not future academics.
@@codymulac4292 These weren't "people at the university" but a brainless church group that James had brought to applaud him.
Learning that a large cohort of the audience was literally Tours church group makes this even more of an embarrassment for him and should be highlighted. Dave you’re the man.
why does Farina have to use cuss words? why does he have to call Tour names? why is he saying " you are pulling this out of your a**"? why is he hurling F bombs at the audience ......easy answer ...he lost.
@@mrluke13your insane if you think Dave lost
@@mrluke13 Because his opponent is a bumbling child who has spent his life trying to debase and defame professionals for his own gain? James Tour is a deplorable and profoundly ignorant man, he deserved all the ridicule and hostility Dave gives him. He IS pulling what he says out of his ass, and he's a FUCKING idiot. Using this kind of language does not make anyone less correct, in my opinion, it only serves to accentuate the point being made.
@@mrluke13 Are you slow?
@@mrluke13 give ur buddy tour a handy, you both deserve it.
Hi Dave, I’m a mathematician who is trying to brush up on other domains of human knowledge. Coming from math where you can actually prove things and one can’t just “argue” in bad faith about papers in a field, it’s amazing to see how people like Tour are even allowed to be academics. If one of my colleagues said something ridiculous like “We are CLUELESS about the insolvability of the quintic” or some other topic just outside the knowledge domain of most non-math people, they would be ridiculed and damage their career.
Not exactly analogous to science since nothing is “proven” in science but the point still essentially stands.
“I said I’d speak to you as I would any graduate student!!”
I feel really bad for his graduate students…
Screaming, hopping mad, insulting, I prof - you barely know some terminology, I’m gonna learn you, …
There only were no fisticuffs because there were cameras rolling.
If he had had integrity, he’d treat Dave like a fellow academic/scholar/on the same level, not “how cute, little man” downwards.
I wonder what % of his students are called clueless in his class?
@@Fairburne69 I'm assuming anyone who makes it to graduate level actually knows the fundamental underlying concepts and isn't totally clueless like Tour is.
@@Fairburne69 Most of them...
I believe he meant it as
If you said this to me, I'd treat you like that.
This is actually very emotional for me to watch. My dad was a young earth creationist pastor who used intimidation and manipulation to force us to agree with him on everything. Watching James yell when his reputation gets challenged snaps me back to the emotional landscape of my childhood. Thank you for doing away with the formalities and niceties that these men don't deserve. It's very grounding to see what happens when reality is forced into these people's worlds.
I have similar experiences too
My community growing up was about as bad
It was refreshing to see someone speak truth to “power” (what little power Tour has) and strip away the usual niceties of formal debate as you said while still remaining civil and not just spitting ad hominem statements but backing up each and every claim with hard proof.
I’m also sorry you had to go through that, it’s a shame. But you certainly, and I mean certainly my friend, are not alone.
I’m sorry to hear that your father was abusive regarding his beliefs. Clearly he was triggered when questioned or challenged. It is a sign of weakness when you can’t calmly and clearly state your beliefs and accept challenges. It may be a moral weakness or a weakness of the beliefs themselves (I.e., beliefs that can’t be held up to scrutiny). Hearing Tour yell and interrupt and badger and repeat himself, dominate the conversation, never stop to really listen…..it’s all too much. I don’t follow the chemistry, but just by watching his actions, he has lost. He wants to take his beliefs and beat them into your brain. No thank you. I hope you recovered from you father’s actions.
This is very common. I don't know if it's more or less comforting to know that you're definitely not the only one.
Never have I been so entertained by a subject I know so little about. This was wonderful
I find these "debates" kind of cringe - you know it's not going to go anywhere, and from the little I saw I wondered if there was a moderator as opposed to someone just keeping time.
@@Cheepchipsable the moderator wasn’t there to moderate the debate so they kept on-topic, he moderated so there wouldn’t be any fun in the debate.
Same
Is that a James Tour quote?
@@Cheepchipsable the first exchange after the shit slinging. I thought these guys sounded like too reputable scientist debating passionately but then it was a bit hectic
I have a sister-in-law like Tour. She is very radically conservative. In a discussion (that she likes to turn into arguments), the faster and LOUDER she talks, she becomes more and more right in her eyes and that should convince us, all the while gesturing wildly,. (Someone could lose an eye!)
----------
*Poor Dave, being exposed to someone like this. I have to, but he volunteered!*
That was a rollercoaster of madness. Can’t believe I watched 2 hours of chemistry debate and stayed locked in.
Nye-Ham debate on Crack
Who won?
@@l.lawliet2222 the audience… maybe
If it wasn’t for mr Kovers 12th grade chem I’d be totally lost.
Thanks kover
I was on several rollercoasters two days ago
i honestly admire James's ability to shout for 2 hours straight, my voice would be really strained
It’s the practise he has. As we all heard he clearly also screams idiocy at his students. He has strong vocal cords from constant use……
Your average death metal vocalist is much more impressive imo.
@@PaulTheSkeptic s'truth but totally different ballpark. Death metal or Death!!!!
@@wayfa13 I suppose. It's still more impressive to me. Or anyone doing vocals for long periods of time for that matter. It's a hard job. People think being a rock star is all parties, drugs and groupies but it's genuinely a difficult job. Not just touring but being creative under a deadline. Writing. Recording. Practicing. Not that I'm a rock star but I plan to start gigging very soon.
Sorry. I do that. You start me up you can hardly stop me. Lol.
Imagine a tag team with Forrest Valkai! Oo oo ooo and a live debate with Kent Hovind!
That took guts. Thank you for doing this, Dave. A few years ago I was watching your science/math tutorials. Last week I finished my student teaching, and I will be a licensed high school physics/chemistry teacher very shortly. You helped me make that happen. Don't stop.
Www😢zg
I would never want to teach high school kids. I hope you're thoroughly prepared for what's to come. High schoolers are the absolute worst.
Teach AP. You won’t work with complete morons who couldn’t care less about the subject matter. Regardless, I wish you well, sir.
@@maxgeorge1463 or just letting him teach whatever subjects he likes to teach! i would certainly appreciate a good teacher who is passionate about their lectures. their passion about the topics they talk about is contagious! 😄
Good luck with your teaching job!
I know I'm late on this. But isn't Dr. Tours argument of the specific molecule akin to saying "Mathematicians haven't solved the Reimann Hypothesis, therefore Mathematicians are clueless?"
This is an abominably moderated debate. Tour shouted over Dave through the entire debate without listening at all, because it’s on his home turf, with a supportive audience.
Guess who picked the moderator?
Creationists will never debate on neutral ground as they know they will be exposed for the frauds they are.
Some people were criticizing Dave for being "rude to the audience" as if they weren't heckling him the whole time. It's insane how many angles the creationists have that aren't addressing the actual research.
@@michaelclark7706 This debate is only the tip of the iceberg. Dave has at least half a dozen other videos where he exposes Tour. To be honest, I'd say you're a bit out of the loop if you're only watching this one debate.
@@michaelclark7706 I know what you mean and I must say that I was surprised at Dave’s lack of response to the problem James Tour poses. Honestly, I don’t understand enough about the science to know who is right either. But I suspect James Tour is trapping Dave in an area where he is superior in academic knowledge in a debate setting of his choosing and with a moderator who appears anything except impartial.
Dave’s response is a reasonable one. There is a stack of peer reviewed academic papers in every area James Tour talks about and says there is none. I’m suspicious about the claim by James Tour that this question must be answered to assert the validity of the spontaneous emergence of life. Partly because of his religious beliefs but also because of the many researchers still out there writing paper after paper on the subject. But I accept I’m still yet to see definitive proof one way or the other.
As a Christian man who grew up thinking science was created to destroy the faith in God, I'm glad I found your channel. Your videos helped me have a better understanding of how science explains our world and universe.
that sounds like a nightmare. unfortunately, it is not much better in a traditional Hindu house either. almost as though religion and science can never truly co-exist because one is systematically debunking all the claims made by the other as it is being researched. if only bible-thumpers and such would concede that their scripture has no place in science.
If looking at reality and thinking can destroy such faith, i think God must be in on the conspiracy
@@shreyvaradi have seen no thing that convinces me that hindu tradition is against science? 😂 lmao , the current feet that science is on today is due to the fact that theists with a belief in a higher power or intellect is the first mover of all , is the first causer of all , cause if you logically conclude every effect has a cause hence there must be the first cause and that first cause must itself be caused , Making it Brahman or The uncaused Causer 😂 . You are a bull shitter if you say that In the hindu tradition science cant coexist . I cant bet a 20$ that you haven’t even read a single book yourself 😂 you have most likely watched some bullshitters video from youtube 😂 . You really didnt crosschecked 😂 . Second , Science and religion can never coexist? 😭🤣 it has always exited like that 😭🤣 the literal basis of why science was started is cause people had an urge to understand the universe and this creation of god . The literal Hindus made many maths discoveries like Decimal , 0 and stuff being loyal to their dharma 😂 the problem arose from todays egoistic atheists and ignorants . We have always been religious and Scientific 😂
@@shreyvarad i have seen no thing that convinces me that hindu tradition is against science? 😂 lmao , the current feet that science is on today is due to the fact that theists with a belief in a higher power or intellect is the first mover of all , is the first causer of all , cause if you logically conclude every effect has a cause hence there must be the first cause and that first cause must itself be caused , Making it Brahman or The uncaused Causer 😂 . You are a bull shitter if you say that In the hindu tradition science cant coexist . I cant bet a 20$ that you haven’t even read a single book yourself 😂 you have most likely watched some bullshitters video from youtube 😂 . You really didnt crosschecked 😂 . Second , Science and religion can never coexist? 😭🤣 it has always exited like that 😭🤣 the literal basis of why science was started is cause people had an urge to understand the universe and this creation of god . The literal Hindus made many maths discoveries like Decimal , 0 and stuff being loyal to their dharma 😂 the problem arose from todays egoistic atheists and ignorants . We have always been religious and Scientific 😂
The thing is no matter how much scientific evidence we have there can never be 100% prove that we are not some side project of some grater intelligence who created us, some people would call that (god).
This debate is what is commonly referred to as a "dumpster fire"
yeah, not a great look for either interlocutor. allowing James to whine and yell while remaining precise would have been a better approach for Dave
@@jay_344 maybe, but I think it would've allowed tour's strategy of removing as much talking time from dave as possible
Dave has admitted before that he can't stand people lying and misrepresenting thousands of other people's work. It makes him angry.
Agree, neither participant really took the high road
I couldn't parse much out that related directly to the topic they were debating, both of them focusing on what the other has previously said online, they both failed to make a fresh case on the topic that I could connect with, without watching hours of RUclips videos to find out who's previous claims were false.
I literally cannot keep listening to Tour's yapping. The incessant interruption, shouting, and repetition of arguments you already answered is gonna make me punch drywall.
Poor baby
Why was he invited to Harvard?
Always skeptical about anyone who shouts aggressively in order to be right
Especially i this context.
I was about to say: One thing I've learned in my studies of psychology, the human condition, and many mental states of mind and illnesses, is that one should always be wary of someone who screams over other people. Oftentimes, those who scream the loudest are desperate to not only silence the voices of others, but to seem larger than they are, like a bear rearing up to intimidate, rather than a human in a conversation. These individuals have the most to hide, and make it a point to scream over others, so their lies cannot be dragged out to the surface. A correct man explains facts rationally. A liar screams to drown out the facts of a correct man.
@inkblooded1058 or some people just kept talking over you and they weren't hearing your point and you got tired of reexplaining......but like depends
@@ashsharp1985Yes. Many times.
@@ashsharp1985 1. There he's not in a debate where he is talking to someone else.
2. It's a one way communication where he's in his right to talk as he likes and you're are in your full right to not listen to him.
3. When he's in a debate with others he doesn't shout as aggressively as Tour does.
At the end of the day, Dave wrote “not clueless” bigger and that means he won the debate
James hadn't thought of that one, costed him the entire argument
But but but, the smart molecule man said smart molecule things. So smart molecule man must be right…..
@@AB-80X Nope, _NOT CLUELESS_ see, now I've just won this debate with you.
@@TheByron130
But smart magic molecule man said…..😳
@@AB-80X You sound like an imbecile. Grow up.
Dave speaking in such a calm voice while James is yelling give this debate such a comedic effect
Dave did get kinda heated at times, but holy hell I have no idea how he didn't tear down the chalkboard after 10 minutes of listening to Tour.
@@thevastblack Tbh if I were debating with someone who talked over me during my time, kept yelling at me, gave no proof, “disproved” my proof with “nuh Uh”, and kept telling me to “use the chalk”, I’d probably get heated as well.
@@danpozzi3307 That's a tactic, not the end goal. The goal is to dismantle the other side's argument and show why they are incorrect with irrifutable clear evidence. But that's impossible with someone like Tour who won't accept anything Dave says. That's why I said I don't blame Dave for losing his cool from time to time. Tour knew ahead of time he would just dismiss everything, and his loyal followers were there to back him up. It was a lose/lose in the auditorium for Dave but those of us watching on YT know who really won.
@@thevastblack didnt win the battle but definitely won the war.
Dave came out the gate by repeatedly rhetorically bitch slapping him and it was incredible lol
8:09 he says “I am here defining clueless.” And then fails to use a computer for a minute. Good on him for that level of honesty right out the gate
James Tour debate tactics:
(1) Draw some chemistry mechanism on the blackboard that nobody asked for and doesn't explain anything
(2) Point the chalk at Dave and scream at him to do something with it, whatever that is
(3) When Dave shows recent scientific literature disproving you, just scream that he didn't do something with your blackboard diagram
(4) Write "clueless" beside each of your pre-written topics like you were going to do anyway, no matter what Dave said
(5) Did I forget screaming? Make sure to tack on the screaming.
You're welcome!
This is immaculate.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Thanks Dave, really enjoyed the debate! Also gotta love the Aron Ra cameo
@@keithman3277 Don't forget Grayson (Channel: Based Theory) as well. He has his debate review up on the net by now.
@@freddan6fly I think Grayson was on with Mark Reid, dapper dino, and beamsy (I forget if it was beamsy or someone else) on Mark's channel for a debate review, if you didn't see it
@@Chemasaurus T.Y. Yes I saw that one. On Grayson's channel he explains his question, and why the answer and assumption by James Tour was irrelevant. He also did that on Mark's channel but then I did not grasp it because he was too brief (for my high school chemistry (lack of) knowledge).
James: *logs into his computer successfully
Audience: *Claps
Cry more 😭
@benji89917 what are you on about, they just wrote down exactly what happened. There isn't a single amount of emotion in their comment
@@brentontreloar419 he wrote that with sinister intent *implying that the majority of the audience were biased in favor of Dr Tour and were in a sense, rooting for him
@@benji89917 "sinister intent"? thats not exactly how id describe it.
honestly they were blindly on his side lmao
Sooo this is crazy people. I posted a comment on this debate, just on the version that was uploaded from James Tour’s RUclips channel.
The comment looked like this(directly copied from the original one I posted):
“Reading peoples comments saying that Tour won, and their arguments for it, actually baffles me…
All you do is call Dave mean, saying he uses ad hominem attacks against James, when in reality he is just calling him a liar, which James indeed is.
In fact, James is the one who has made fun of Dave for things like the music videos he is in, so saying that Dave is the one to get personal by calling James a liar, is pretty silly.
Like c’mon, James even called one of the amino acids that he drew himself, the wrong thing.
At 27:40 he writes down the formula for aspartic acid (also labeled as Asp or D, which he also rightfully does), and then at 29:35 he proceeds to call it “asparagine” which first of all, is labeled as Asn N, and not Asp D. Further more, the formula he drew had 7 hyrdogen atoms, 1 nitrogen atom and 4 oxygen atoms which correlates with aspartic acid. Asparagine however, which he clearly calls it, has 8 hydrogen atoms, 2 nitrogen atoms and 3 oxygen atoms. The only thing the 2 amino acids has in common, is that they both have the same number of carbon atoms, that being 4.
And before you Tour supporters attack me, you can google this fact in less that 1 minute, to see for yourself. There is no way to deny his error.
I don’t know if he called it the wrong thing because he forgot, or if he had any reason to lie about the name, either way it is not valid.
You don’t have to like Dave, but the documents he is showing, are valid. And excuse him for not having a research paper ready for any possible specific question that James has the authority to ask. Not to mention that James most of the time just totally avoided the questions that Dave asked him, and rather tried to change the subject.
In the end, a man that can’t even call the things that he writes down himself the right thing, is not someone who knows his stuff probably, and therefor can’t be trusted in that field of science.”
And, after a few hours of posting it, I actually got curious if there was a possibility that the comment could have been deleted. So I checked if I could see the comment with one of my other accounts. And well, I couldn’t see it. But I didn’t wanna believe it, so I tried posting the same comment, just on my other account. And when I checked again on my other account after another few hours, it was also gone.
Then I tried posting a comment that said “James destroyed Dave”. And when I checked after another few hours if that one was also gone, well you guessed it. It was still there.
To think that this man, or this man’s moderators has deleted my comments, blows my mind. How pathetic can you be, if you can’t accept solid criticism.
Of course they deleted it. How can it be an echo chamber if they don’t insulate their sheep from facts?
@@ProfessorDaveExplainsDid you keep the gift presented at the beginning of the debate?
It's probably cuz the comment was down voted. I think RUclips auto hides mass downvoted comments.
But that's a good point. And a perfect demonstration why expected, during a debate, to draw out long chemistry that would take like 10 minutes to complete is ridiculous. It's showboating and meant to intimidate
I know James is a liar because of what he did with that one scientist, but I think this was a mistake. An ego driven overstep meant to show how ignorant Dave is and capitalize on the ignorance and bloodlust of the audience
I post challenging, honest, questioning things (never rude or ad hominem) all the time and many of my comments are removed by the creators, or, more often, shadow banned by YT.
Most people don’t like to be challenged or critiqued, and most creators only want positive comments.
**You don’t have to like Dave, but the documents he is showing, are valid.**
This is the entire debate. Actionable, physical, provable, demonstrable proof.
"Things acts this way when exposed to thing. Here is the proof."
"Tested in my own environment, saw same thing. Indeed proof."
That's how science works. That's literally it. If you ignore that and submit your own 'proof', then it must be tested and tested again until it can be repeated every time. If you can't do that, then you're not practicing science.
It's difficult for me to believe that Dr. Tour is an actual professor in a debate here. Screaming like a baby the entire time. 😂 Props Dave, props
"I'm treating him the same way i would treat any student"
*Yells aggressively*
Guess I'm glad I didn't go to Rice.
Imagine your teacher just yelling and screaming because your research didn't align with his ideas on reality.
Fr
That’s just how he talks, on any stage or lecture🤨
doesn't make it any better though does it?@@flugencealtemon3288
If my kid had to learn in a situation like that I would be kicking myself for not researching potential unis very well
Well, I'm not qualified to understand half of the science presented on this debate, but man it was very fun to watch it.
I love how a random Electric Universe believer suddenly wanted in on the action and that BOTH Dave and James were like, "What the hell is this guy even saying?".
I haven't got to that part yet. So excited. It's funny though that Mr creationist is all "nah you crazy" to electric universe.
Probably came to troll, science EU nonsense got destroyed by dave
timestamp?
The guy was desperate to have a champion for the EU, coz none of their so called scientist that push it would want to confront Prof. Dave, Thornhill was exposed by Dave and probably going to hide from him forever
@@pacevy3798 I'm going to teach you a trick to do that. Find the "show the transcript" option (on the browser version it is within the three dots) and then look for the word "electric".
This is not a fair debate. It feels more like a cult. How is Tour even a professor?!
'Tenure'
Loved the laughing box tour brings to his speeches. Being the loudest person in the room doesn't make you right, it makes you unhinged. Tours theatrics are literally just pandering. This debate was great to behold, well worth the wait!
I know right! He reminds me of Hovind, but with an actual "degree". This James guy knows just enough to show how much of what he's saying he actually understands. And the Biased host is not cool. If I was professor dave I would not Have been able to go that whole debate without pointing that out.
He reminds me of a cross between Hovind and Trump
I bet tour would NOT have the debate without his own moderator. There was probably a ton of bickering from tour before agreeing to do this debate.
Pretty crazy for a scientific debate that an opposing party would have a problem with you being prepped with a script and a bunch of journal articles.
I think the disconnect is that they see debate as person versus person, when it's really the origin of life research community (via Dave) versus James. It's not about ideas to them, it's about the people expressing it, which is silly. Dave was merely prepared to express what the science had to say in regard to James' personal objections.
@@CrashingThunder Yea. Dave doesn't claim any personal knowledge of the field just an understanding of the concensus of experts in the field. Tour claims personal expertise in a field he is only tangentially connected to as though he should get to decide what research is working or not.
That's routed in the fact apologists only care about "winning" the debate and don't care about evidence or what's actually true.
@@zippydebrain nah i disagree. James tour just proved dave farina had no idea what he was reading about in the articles. For every chemical equation dr james brought firward, mr dave brought up articles that could not solve the equation or was not related to the equation at all. Thats why dave refused to go to the board to show us what he had leart from the articles he learned
@@ckay_real2765 That’s quite a bold claim, could you elaborate?
Tour’s final objection to Dave in his first question was that no papers on peptide formation ever showed a reaction involving certain amino acids. He specifically says “never carboxylated, never the aminated!”.
However, in the paper that Dave presented, as he pointed out, peptide ligation occurring at ph7 was identified that tolerated all proteinogenic side chains. That would include side chains containing a carboxylic acid group. Could you please explain why you find this to be a non satisfactory answer, especially since Tour had no objection to it?
Once Dave wrote "Not clueless" on his blackboard, the two of them finally stood under the right label. This makes for a nice miniature for a video
Nah Tours board should have also said liar for Christ.
I got a good chuckle out of this. All that stupid clueless stuff bit him in the ass at the end
When Dave wrote not clueless Dr James came across highly animated shouting how Dave’s argument comes down to writing one word. Despite the fact that was done to mock how Dr James was doing exactly that throughout the debate.
Dave’s aggressive approach from the beginning such as calling Dr James a Liar interlaced within presenting the evidence from papers made me cringe. However it was a classic poke a badger with a stick tactic that worked on Dr James. He began to forget about holding a measured response and retreated into dismiss,Deny,Deflect.
Used the tactic of that showpiece of writing Clueless to close down each segment as if he’s made some conclusive win. I was disappointed with his lack of presenting something from his side of the argument.
@@erykmozejko3329 I do agree it could have been done better, but I have my doubts shouting and telling it like it is wasn't the only real available option Dave had left. Maybe could have been a bit nicer, but idk. I think Dave certainly did better in this debate though, as James has many of the tells of someone that doesn't really understand what he is saying about this subject. I'm not saying he knows absolutely nothing of course, but he doesn't appear objective to me.
I went over to James video and told him I was moving a soccer field to the other end of town, and asked if he might help me move the goal posts because he seems so incredible good at that.
"You're clueless!"
"You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."
"I am not trying to reach origin of life researchers. I am trying to reach the masses."
James Tour on why he doesn't publish his "research" in actual peer reviewed journals instead of on the discovery institute.
This is all you need as a takeaway here.
Truly. Getting critiques peer reviewed in legit journals is LITERALLY HOW YOU LEGITIMIZE YOURSELF TO THE MASSES.
@@Spokalimannah talking loud and appealing to people's emotions is how you do it, unfortunately.
Mr Tour, your hissy-fit debating skills are not likely to appeal to anyone who doesn't already agree with your particular POV...what do you suppose you're accomplishing here?
Thanks, I couldn't watch it anymore.
@@peterzinya1 no, I believe that Mr Tour is a horrible embassador for creationism foaming at the mouth like that. :p
I had already said so a couple days ago but I feel the need to say it again now that the debate is up on your channel. Nice job Dave.
“I said ‘give me your number’, he gave me his number, I called him, we spoke about this...... he said to me, ‘Jim, if you would join us in this Origin of Life research, we would get this thing solved’. We had a very good conversation! You totally made that up, [......] no one made me apologize to him! I offered him my apology and he accepted it!”
“But you continue to call his work ‘utterly ridiculous’.”
“It is utterly ridiculous”
Each time I go back to this debate thinking I already know what the stupidest part was I get surprised with exchanges like these. Truly a masterpiece.
“Still, look, Szostak’s paper on linkage heterogeneity...... still, still recognition and catalytic function......”
“OK, SO, there we go, I asked him to come up here and show me the chemistry, just like I would do with a graduate student (???), I said show me the chemistry, he did not!! *writes clueless on board* “
Amazing. But at least this chaos finally prompted the moderator to intervene, and...... play defense for Tour? (48:52)
I’m so happy I discovered you and this channel. I’ve needed some passionate logic back in my life… it’s hard out here. Thanks!
"If I write not clueless, does that win?"
Best quote I've ever heard
and guess what? he did
And he did win too, at least to any rational person@@mogenoof
@@williamc7927Tour won hands down!
@@roslynaubrey7766 you're joking right?
Can you make some points in the video that makes you think Tour won? @@roslynaubrey7766
Rule one: shout
Rule two: encourage your audience to expect chalky scribbles in response to your challenges.
Rule three: expect that nobody spots that your interlocutor has put up a mountain of peer reviewed references while you have none.
Rule Four accuse said peer reviewed research of all being fraud without directly stating the word fraud so as to not get sued for defamatory remarks but still give the impression everything my opponent cites is horse shit.
Rule five still fail miserably to convince anyone that Ool research is completely clueless.
Rule six: Stop your intelocutor from expanding in any of his peer review references to later on accuse him of gish gallop.
Rule 7: Say I challenge my students the same way I challenge my opponents' criticism. See Rule #1 and #6.
Rule 8: Write Clueless 5 times. If interlocutor writes "Not clueless," write scam.
Rule 9: When in doubt, refer to rule #1
The one thing people overlook about this debate is that Dave wasn't there to play nice; he was there to expose a charlatan, and for that, he succeeded.
Fighting the good fight against willful stupidity probably drains his patience faster than anything. I will say though, Dave had some remarks that were directed towards the audience which from the way it was phrased seemed to imply that he thought nobody there was capable of understanding what he and James were arguing. I'm sure they were directed at tours fan boys, but idk it felt kinda off.
Dave dirtied his diaper up there. There's his chemistry.
@@robertmontoya8915
Why, because Dave wouldn't participate in James' little makeshift chemistry lesson on the chalkboard? It's perplexing how you Tour-botherers keep bringing that up as if it's the only thing you have left at your disposal. I implore that you familiarize yourself with James' grift and the falsehoods he's committed in reverence of his archaic ideology.
@Chlorophyll Absolutely! William Lane Craig is a Master of making his god sound plausible, and this carries huge weight with believers. However, when the spell is broken, the sheer implausibility of the enterprise becomes painfully obvious. That is there a huge difference between sufficient and necessary. Craig’s skill, if one can call it that, is to obfuscate and make sufficient appear to be necessary.
The philosophically literate will recognise, in the case of the Kalam, the bait and switch tactic he uses. Namely, a logically valid argument, is supported by abductive reasoning. Subtle but effective to all but the most astute at detecting such clever tactics.
You fail to understand that he wasn't able to play nice because he lost all corners of the debate. So the last resort was to act foul and call James tour a liar and other words. That's not exposing a charlatan, that's exposing yourself from a lack of self control. He provided nothing to the discussion, and only cited sources he didn't even understand. James tour ran this guy over, and turned Dave red as a tomato, and all he could do was insult him. Bravo.
"911, I'd like to report a murder. Yes. Professor Dave cooked this man"
Yeah. in your dreams
This entire debate:
Dave: *Brings up a valid point supported by numerous studies and papers*
James: "Nuh uh"
more like "nooooo look at my drawings!!!"
@@K4inan correction: " *NOOOOOOO LOOK AT MY DRAWINGS AND GET OUTA HERE I AM LOUD!* "
show me the papers!!!!!!
heres the papers
nuh uh
@@checkmatedino9543
*GO GO GO!*
When your "yuh huh" is supported by the scientific community, it trumps 1000 "nuh uh"s by a guy who openly admits his ideas wouldn't survive peer review.
Dave: Shows indisputable peer-reviewed research
James: "YOU'RE LOST!"
@@michaelkwiatkowski8596 Why yes. That's why James isn't even trying to submit his evidence to have the papers removed. Even James knows there's nothing wrong with the peer reviewed papers anymore than there is with his peer reviewed papers.
It feels disgusting to ask, but what exactly is the mix of Tours income? How much of his money is from his university job and how much as side income trough aig etc?
@@ChJuHu93 aig? tell me more.
@@bashful228 "Answers in Genesis" one of the more prominent propaganda organisations of young earth creationism. Used here as an example of those organisations in general.
"clueless"
“I have a theory. People talk loud when they want to sound smart, right?”
~ Squidward J. Q. Tentacles~
Patrick: Proceed.
Didn't work for Tour.
And Dave was that Calm, isn't it!
In that case Both Tour and Dave weren't being smart?
Im Christian and i absolutely love your videos. Keep it up!
Bravo. Have a nice meal and a couple drinks on me, Dave. You earned it! Nicely done on this debate, given who you had to deal with. Intellectually dishonest "intellectuals" are the worst. You're doing important work here and with your channel. I'm a scientist and professor of neurosciences at UCSD School of Medicine. If you'd ever like to confer on any brain-related topics or just bullshit over coffee, let me know. Cheers!
Thanks for the generous support! Yes that would be great, perhaps we can arrange by email!
@@ProfessorDaveExplains You're most welcome. My pleasure. I'll send you an email. 👍🏻
According to Buddhism, life is an output of the moment of mind called Citta. It is a measurement (Mano/mind) of the beauty (Citta). The mind moment arise, exist, and dissolve within 3 smaller moments (Khana). And the mind continues a series of mind moments (Citta-Viti) within the lifetime of a smallest matter zone called Rupa-Kalapa. The mind emerges from matter, feelings, perception/identification, emotions/thoughts, and knowledge/awareness. The mind can use the body and blood to contiue its observation, and its becoming (Bhavanga) process selects or makes a suitable body for it to continue its process, using its causes (Karma).
@@smlanka4u According to the ancient art of Flatulogical Buddhism, farting is an intricate manifestation of the mind's journey through the realms of bodily acoustics. Just as the mind arises, exists, and dissolves within fleeting moments, so too do our toots emerge, linger, and fade away in a symphony of olfactory delight. The delicate dance of gases within our digestive cosmos mirrors the continuous series of pungent eruptions that punctuate our human experience. And just as the mind selects a suitable body to continue its observation, so too does the fart select the perfect moment to announce its presence, using its own karma and the undulating waves of stomach gases. It's truly a spiritual odyssey that transcends the limits of mere bodily functions.
@@smlanka4u amen
Tour: Show me proof of point 1!
Dave: Here are 10 papers with proof of point 1.
Tour: So there is NO evidence for point 1, CLUELESS!
Repeat for each talking point.
yeah, except on points where he can't do this, in which case he'll literally divert the topic into talking about one of the points where he can, in a way that 100% violates the rules of the debate
You forgot, "DO, IT IN WATER!!"
Dave never did provide evidence of what Tour was after. There are variations of it, but not precisely it. Key to it all was when Dave says that it did happen with "pre-biotic plausible" compounds available. That is a pretty significant admission as it implies it happened only after chemists set the table, which amusingly enough, IS clear evidence that yes, with intelligent input, these compounds can form? Tour rejected it outright but it may have been better to point out the only time it happens is with input from an outside intelligence. Also, why isn't life constantly springing forth, with an endless parade of new life coming into existence? Did it only happen one time?
@@IndianaJeff The simple answer to 'why don't we constantly see new life', is that once life forms it changes the environment making it very difficult for an alternative form of life to get a foot hold.
@@IndianaJeffthe point is that tour was after specific reactions that he selected by worming around the research Dave had. That doesn't demonstrate that we are clueless, that demonstrates that Tour cherry picks.
Dang Dave really just committed verbal murder in his opening statement and not let up. Woke up, chose violence, and absolutely destroyed.
He didn’t come to debate. That ultimately was his undoing.
@@billbissenas2973 "He didn’t come to debate."
Do you believe that James Tour did?
His lack of answer to one of the questions at the end, but, instead, launching into his usual spiel (when an answer wouldn't have compromised his position) shows clearly what kind of dishonest propagandist he is.
One _cannot_ properly debate with a creationist because they're all too dishonest.
pineapplepenumbra Dave didn't answer any of James tours questions, nor did he stand up to the challenge when James asked Dave to draw the molecules. All Dave did was cite his biased aourced, which James tour demolished all of them. James answers all the questions presented, but Dave dodges and throws insults. Maybe watch the debate and not listen to your own biases.
@@sakatagintoki4164 "Dave didn't answer any of James tours questions,
He had _already_ answered most of them, but like the typical creationist, JT just repeats the same questions over and over, regardless of the responses.
"nor did he stand up to the challenge when James asked Dave to draw the molecules"
Why should he? JT's drawings don't prove anything.
"All Dave did was cite his biased aourced,"
So peer reviewed scientific research papers are _all_ "biased sources" are they?
"which James tour demolished all of them."
You appear to be delusional.
"Maybe watch the debate and not listen to your own biases"
You've got a serious case of Psychological Projection going on there.
@@sakatagintoki4164 he presented research from experts in the field and James (not an expert in the field) ignores all the evidence.
I'm only 22 minutes in, during the James opening statement I was like okay he's almost making sense here (for someone who doesn't really understand the big words he was throwing around that well haha), but I had a sense of what was coming... as soon as he stopped and challenged Dave so confidently I was like... I have a feeling you're about to get totally flamed man :D And then, it's been only less than 5 minutes of Dave's opening argument and he ALREADY DESTROYED THIS MAN :D Can't wait for the rest of the debate haha Thanks for doing this and posting this, man!
I watched the entire debate and I felt that even though Tour asked for a debate about the data, he immediately began with emotional appeals. Tour's answer to the audience question: Why has he never published his criticisms under peer review, gives up his game completely.
That's why he started with the whole thing at the beginning. To dispute science, and to say he doesn't appeal to god of the gaps, while do that the whole time.
He won't because even he knows it would never pass.
For those playing at home, Dr. Tour HAS published complaints about this subject. Once again, you see a non-argument argument; an appeal to consensus rather than science. Dr. Tour has done two whole series on youtube where he painstakingly goes through all of what Dave has presented. Has Dave published anything in peer-reviewed publications? Has he published even a tenth of what Dr. Tour has in scientific journals? If he has, why would he resort to using other people's papers? Why not do some science right there?
I was called to share the Gospel with Muslims in Paris. The Muslims who accepted to pray with me, all saw the Christ, had visions.....You are a fool! Even me, I can not talk about my experience with the official Church. I have to do it ANOTHER way, outside the official Church, otherwise the Gospel will never be shared to the Muslims. Since the West has apostasied, you will soon burn like Sodom and Gomorrah ( the nuclear bombings?).
@@billmcdonald180 It seems that he has only a bachelor degree?! And failed many times for masters?! ( better checked one more time).
Dave I have to know were you expecting to have to debate Tour, the moderator, and the audience all at the same time?
The moderator was almost entirely passive, and half the audience was vocally pro-Dave
@@TheCompositeKing The half of the audience that vocally cheered for Tour only did so after Dave’s extremely aggressive conduct, and especially after he cussed them out and told them they didn’t know what was being discussed. That’s Dave’s own doing. (By the way, I was there in person.)
The moderator spoke for, what, 5 minutes total? He really should have been more active to maintain debate order. The little fact checks had potential, but ultimately he should have pushed Dave and Tour to argue more systematically on the scientific data.
@@coltfathwell6185 Congratulations on not knowing what slander means. I guess? Being ignorant is not really an accomplishment. Explain to me this, if you have the courage (and I know you don't): Since Tour spouts nonsense and is wrong about almost everything, how is a scientific debate possible? If someone told you that every tree on Earth is made of styrofoam, is there a debate to be had with that person?
Not entirely sure, but I think you would like to point out that this was an unfair environment? I disagree. The moderator said very little and seemed to be on topic, and it was Dave's mistake to interact in this fashion with the hecklers in the first place. Also, the audience seemed to be mostly on his side.
@@matOpera well when your oppositions only response to your statement is "uh nuh " and when dave starts answering back the crowd starts booing. A civil audience should never boo at either of the parties debating . you also forgot to mention how tour was constantly shouting and cutting dave off. its clear that you're not neutral rather you lean towards tour and you're nitpicking and those were not insults rather proof that he is a conman.
"It's over" - Tour
*origin of life research continues as if Tour never existed*
Ok
@@maxgeorge1463 Ok indeed! 😂
it's Joever!@@j.gairns
this is the most entertaining thing ever. i love how you handle every situation.
Goodness how far he's fallen.
I had a fair amount of respect for Tour in the past. I've even previously taken to reading over some of his work with graphene (along with other projects) over the years. Nothing truly groundbreaking, but he had a fair talent for information organization and creating great research briefs.
Compare that to now, where he somehow still managed to get eviscerated in a debate format / setting of his choosing, with a sympathetic moderation team and a crowd of his people. I'm not even mad at the guy anymore- I just feel shame. I'm embarrassed for him and anyone who believes him without scrutinizing what he says
I'm ashamed for him- it is almost painful that he is throwing so much away for blind loyalty to fringe religious dogma. His flagrant mischaracterizations and blatant lies deserve nothing more than harsh rebuke and shame- he insults all of academia with his lies *_and_* he insults the religion he's attempting to prop up by reducing this argument to "telling lies and hoping the congregation doesn't check." If you follow him, you should feel insulted too.
And this is all because he can't handle another one of those perceived "gaps" being filled by academia? I hope Tour gets out of this line of work and gets some perspective, I'm really rooting for the guy.
potato salad
Remember, if you can't make it in the real world, you can always start spouting nonsense to the chronically-credulous.
Great comment. The man is an embarrassment. He pretends scientist have no clue on any of his questions, and screams at Dave when he is showing they have more than a clue, he moves the goal post. If some peer reviewed research is not satisfactory to him why not rebuke it with his own, isn't he supposed to be a scientist himself. Screaming at Dave won't falsify that research or make it less valid, even if it doesn't meet his own "scientist standards".
One definition of intelligence is...The ability to change your point of view in the face of empirical data....
@@knowme4iam326 A lesson that Tour here knows but willingly abandons. Truly unfortunate
How to convince your audience in a debate in five easy steps
1. Make sure that your audience is science illiterate and wants to believe that what you're saying is right
2. Try to occasionally appear humble and honourable (you only need a few brief instances of that, your audience will focus on them and ignore any other moment where you act like a jackass)
3. Draw molecules on a blackboard (labeling them properly is optional, this step is necessary to make you look smart in front of your audience, it will remind them of their chemistry teacher)
4. Yell louder than your opponent is talking (this is vital because it will make you look like you are winning)
5. Lie (your audience shouldn't notice it because they don't know what you are talking about, it also makes it easier for you to seem correct)
It's great debating "low educated" audiences, isn't it? Your list of 5 things is a hoot, and prob correct. I just started to watch & already I feel a little sad for the prof on the right at least he has some manners and humility (so far) Prof Dave, I love you but I'm afraid you're gonna squash this poor bastard like a bug. Go to it! and may the best man win!
How to worship James Tour if you are one of his science illiterate followers:
1. Laugh, make noises, boo when you hear "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" from Dave because he clearly doesn't know something (we don't know exactly what but that doesn't matter).
2. Criticize Dave for any irrelevant crap you can think of, like him reading a script.
3. Applaud when James writes something on the board and shouts because he clearly has a point.
That guy was a dip shit.
I'm agnostic, I do have reservations about life. The way life evolves seems to follow a VERY distinct pattern. Almost intelligently so.
Single cells to organisms, single people to tribes. All following the same path. Starts as one groups up and specializes and becomes more complex.
I think we are creating a world sized organism. And when AI goes live bam.
We now have a single planet life. Or "the beast" next step? Spread.
This either just follows a pattern cause of physics rules. Or it's being guided.
You can't ignore what we see though like this zealot. Though the idea of something bigger that we don't understand isn't off the table IMO.
I don't know why more people who feel there is a god don't follow this line of thinking. You can't ignore evolution.
Wouldn't be a RUclips comment section without someone writing what we all watched. Thanks.
the ending breakdown was kinda funny tho
It’s unbelievable audacity of James openly admitting that he chooses not to publish peer reviewed papers and instead reaching out to all the people in on the social media. And not only that, he said to all the people that do not understand scientific papers. It’s approximately equal to telling your children that it is safe to play with matches at home and don’t listen to someone telling you otherwise. I’m just out of words to describe how despicable the man is.
James is just doing the same thing conspiracy theorists do on a regular basis, disseminate misinformation to the masses to sow doubt of academic and scientific institutions.
He's a narcissist.
The fun part is that he was trying to use the creationist talking point of "i dont talk with the scientist because they would refuse to believe me, [optional: insert here clues about a secret conspirancy]", but tour is so bad at handling criticism he fumbled the ball and said exactly what he was thinking instead of what he was trying to say.
Interesting perspective.
I think he’s doing a service to the world by making science publicly available instead of keeping it hidden and only available for people who can access university classes or libraries. Many people can’t - more people can go on RUclips.
Also, not all articles submitted get published. What a journal publishes depends on what the journal wants to focus on for the next issues - and that is determined by considering how the journal can stay competitive - so by business and economics, by profits and consumerism. Academic articles are businesses. They don’t just publish anything, they also don’t even read everything submitted.
Now that you know how they work maybe you’ll understand his choice better :)
Update- also, as far as I know james isn’t a researcher, he’s an educator. Researchers publish papers when they find new information to share within the discipline. So, james wouldn’t ever have anything to publish. He is taking what is published and sharing it to teach people about science.
@@AJ-wy6zm Interesting theory, if only tour has said that, or at least presented any article he had submitted for peer review, regardless of publication, then you would have a point.
The fun part is that with this logic, any article published by the DI fails also with that reasoning.
I have to say that i've not ever seen a live debate conducted in person by Professor Dave, hugely looking forward to this!
Dave quoting a peer-reviewed, academic journal- “Fully self-replicating.”
James- “NOOOOOOO. I DON’T BELIEVE IT.”
Well, that about sums it up.
I would recommend this edit:
Dave quoting peer reviewed academic journal-
@@CaptPeon or "dave saying literally anything that counters james's point"
I love when Dave tells people they're a straight up liar to their face.
It's surprisingly effective with narcissists.
They take that they are more intelligent than you as a given so they are immediately flustered when you demonstrate their lies are obvious to you.
I love the evidence part even more, Dave Farina is great! Very helpful.
The word liar is criminally underused in the US today.
@@Windbend3r so what was your point here?
@@Windbend3r You could make a religion out of that.
It's rare that I'll comment on any RUclips video... but Tour should be embarrassed by his behavior. Screaming is the fastest way to lose any credibility you may have when you're supposed to be in a debate, and if he truly does treat his students the way he treated Dave, the administration should seriously reconsider his employment.
Absolutely unhinged. No doubt the university is embarrassed but I bet Tour thinks he totally wrecked Dave in this "debate". Because he screamed super loud and spent like 10 mins drawing on the chalkboard.
@@mk71618 Maybe he brings in a lot of donations though his religious connections.
Dr Tour in my opinion was a bit inpatient, opposite from what the bible teaches: that we must be apt to teach, patient, etc.. but i understand his frustration in trying to present his facts against fallacy.
He may actually be breaking law under the supreme court's ruling stating it's unconstitutional if he's teaching this B/S.
@@stephenwipf5224 wtf do you mean "abstracts" 90% of his arguments were presenting peer-reviewed papers💀
Props to the person asking Dave why Tour keeps yelling over the top of him
He should have asked Tour.
@@Cheepchipsable
Its a bit difficult to ask an overemotional child why they're crying. You usually ask the adults about that.
I’d like to see you stay calm after 2 hours of nonstop personal insults lol.
@@Liketreeswalking556 you made it seem one sided, that only Dave was using insults. In case you missed it, near the end Dave showed itemized insulting remarks Tour used throughout the debate
@Liketreeswalking556 Tour came out swinging in his RUclips videos to begin with
You called him a liar several times and he never denied it. He yelled and screamed like a vulnerable narcissist does when they try to gaslight reality. His flying monkeys responded accordingly
I was with you but then you said gaslight.
@@Amajor10 this just in, words dont mean anything anymore because people I dont like online use them a lot. More at 11
@@Amajor10 But isn't that exactly what james did?
100% nailed it.
They call him “Tour” cuz his goalpost has traveled the world 😂
haha that's a pretty good one
Better yet, the goalpost moved so fast that it no longer exists in our universe! Except James's.
@@IloveRumania Bro I already found it in 12
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Hi Dave, I've found the links to all the papers about RNA and Ribozymes in the description. However, I wasn't able to find the papers dealing with peptide bond formation and prebiotic peptide synthesis you showed during the debate.
Did you share the list somewhere here on RUclips?
Hahaha
The moderation of this debate is a goddamn disaster.. James is just screaming and yelling uncontested
James seems to believe that shouting is a replacement for arguments.
Don't forget writing on a chalkboard.
CLUELESS too
Yeah like look at this paper is a better argument 🙄
@Dr Jim Tour what's funny ro me is how many time "you all" bring up the Bible. Dr Tour didn't bring it up, everyone else did. This was a very poor debate but clearly dave went straight for the personal attacks. Day one debating class will teach you when you do this your clearly losing the debate.
@@reallifeoperatorspcopssnip1825 real funny how we arent allowed to bring up the bible which is what tour believes in which is full of fantasy and mythology.. but tour wants to call experts in their field clueless... lol why dont you want people mentioning the bible... Is it because you know its full of fantasy and mythology?
I cannot express how much I respect you as a person, as a debater, and as a teacher. Thank you.
OK... In front of that man's school, on his turf... Handling them like an adult with facts...
@@loveisthekey7whatt?
It's funny how Tour states "I'm here defining CLUELESS", and then procedes to demonstrate what clueless really means by his actions 🤣
It's very similar to people who say they are smart. Smart people know that they don't have to say that they are smart, they just do things that show they're smart. Stupid people Always have to tell people they are smart.
The difference between cluelessness and wisdom is this: Wisdom is genuine, and doesn't disguise itself. Cluelessness attempts to masquerade as wisdom. And only wisdom attempts to encourage others to be wise.
This is the most unhinged thing I’ve ever seen. That old dude is insane
"MISTER FARINA! YOU DIDN'T MAKE THIS RNA *WHILE YOU WERE DOING A BACKFLIP*. IT'S OVER, YOU'RE CLUELESS"
For some reason, I read this as “Mr Barelli”
@@Brohemian_FapsodyI understood that reference
@@howlouthelodger Destiny was right by the way xd
@@Brohemian_FapsodyMR BONERCHELLI (hey fellow hasanabi heads)
@@emmaearhart I would encourage you to reevaluate your support for Hasan. He’s a thieving, irrational, populist, hypocritical, and downright evil human being.
Okay, something I don't get. This debate was held on the university's ground, with, I'm guessing, plenty of scientists attending. Yet everyone is cheering for James, who's just yelling and avoiding the science presented to him.
Did the entire room just get filled with creationism proponents or something?
Mad respect to you Dave for doing this, it couldn't have been easy to stand there among all those idiots.
He reserved like a third of the room for his church members. He was trying to stack the room with hecklers.
I was there and can confirm Dave’s assessment. The crowd was mostly 1) grad students interested in the debate, and 2) members of Tour’s church. I chatted with an audience member before the debate who’s a member of Tour’s church and said she was just there to see him because she loves listening to him speak. She readily acknowledged she doesn’t understand the chemistry at all.
You could tell from the get go that the room was filled with Jim's people. I thought the qa session was good though seemed like there where some that could see the gish gallop.
Great job BTW Dave, love your content
@@ProfessorDaveExplains of course the scientist needed his *church* to show up to weigh in on this science debate to applaud his science. What a reasonable thing for someone to do, and not at all just further proof that he's not at all interested in the scientific presentation of this debate at all and only cares about its perceived impact on his fragile little faith. What a great man of science James Tour is.
1:29:43 James had actually been writing "CLUELESS" above his head the entire time and Dave writes not clueless behind himself omg its like poetry
This comment is amazing
@@VegaTheLyra How? I don’t get it…
@@iliyanovslounge James had been writing Clueless on the blackboard behind him, while Dave wrote not clueless on the blackboard behind him. Essentially the comment was saying that the blackboards were showing who was actually clueless: James was clueless while Dave is not clueless
nearly at the end of this, I really want to hear Qs from the first two rows :))
That hyena in the crowd cluelessly laughing loudly at Dave whenever they thought Tour had a zinger was the lowest of them all
James' whole shtick this debate was to ask for a very specific reaction and then cry foul that Dave doesn't immediately have a paper for that specific reaction, while James ignores the dozens of other papers that show comparable reactions or that show his objections are non-factors. Anyone who bothers to look up the research while watching this debate will find that James has no legs to stand on.
Not to mention that Tour stipulated limiting the papers allowed in the debate and was presented with them before, so he knew what to ask that wouldn't be in the papers. He did not go in there to argue in good faith.
@@irwinshung809 Absolutely right!!!!💯
@@irwinshung809
And yet he still found it necessary to yell over Dave, cut him off as much as possible to keep him from coming up with answers anyway. Tour is morally and intellectually bankrupt.
@@ParaSpite It was ugly to be sure. Ugh
lol "show me show me where in this 30 page paper that it says this exact same thing. See he cant do it"
Happy to see there were students that didn't automatically believe the guy with the loudest voice
they didn't believe him yelling as that's all he did.
The loudest is always right lol
no actually, I clipped something (you can see the latest video I posted) and you might change your mind. James do have a point
1:20:0 can help you to see how Dave was coping a bit
Yeah but the one who insults the most 🐷
this was extremely entertaining LMAO. how you kept your composure for so long is admirable
Thank you for doing this important work
Professor Dave debated Tour, the biased moderator and the biased audience at the same time! This is a brave move, and he has won my respect for doing his best to expose liars.
I Don't know, it kinda seemed like Dave won the audience over toward the end.
Tour isn't really people's favorite at his university.
By the end of these two hours, the only people who think Tour won are definitely people who already agreed with him.
Huge respect for exposing liars who want to close a whole scientific field because it shakes the foundations of their dishonest business (aka religion).
@@alexnik1181 I think the business would be more accurately labeled apologetics.
it's such an incredible difference, the "discussion" Dave has with Tour vs the few times when Dave talks to the Moderator Guy. Moderator Guy is calm and factual, asks specific questions in a calm tone and lets Dave answer, and then Tour immidiately starts screaming again.
Which sadly means the moderate did a subpar job. Making sure both parties can present their case is one of few things they actively should do.
If James Tour had been one of my chemistry professors in college, I would have switched my major to theater.
No need, he seems competent with acting.
It would have less drama for sure.
well to be fair if you were going to this university it prob wouldn't matter you'd jsut be in debt and have a degree that would get you laughed out of anywhere of repute.
And you wouldn't even have to change the class or "teacher".
To be fair you were probably born for theatre
How nice of James to raise his voice to indicate when the crowd is supposed to hype him up, like a true preacher 🥰
It’s extremely embarrassing for Rice university that this man is a member of their faculty. Makes me question the rigors of all their education.
Facts
It blows me away that high ranking staff of universities and college usually have one odd belief that is straight up false or not scientifically viable. I’ve seen some professors that are flat earthers. You shouldn’t be teaching anyone anything if you believe that and some other theories.
Once helped man get to the moon, now provides riches to a man like James tour
He might be a very good chemist or other. If peoples personal beliefs would invalidate them to contribute to society with any ability great or small, we would be in severe trouble.
@@kodez79 the problem is that his personal beliefs are making him look like a really bad scientist
The whole "DRAW IT ON THE BOARD" thing is clearly a strategy to convince the audience that writing on the chalkboard is the only way to prove anything within this topic. I see right through this BS debate tactic.
It's a total performance to highlight traditionalism. This wasn't meant for you, mate. This was for the people from his church. They love this stuff. For them, it's a dunk. Yeah, they're that stupid.
It appeals to the people that not only don't read peer-reviewed papers but couldn't even if they tried. To them, all subjects in science can be explained in summary by diagrams or small sentences.
But, it takes so little time to think about the tactic to see that it has no right answer. There is nothing that Dave could have written on the board in 5 minutes that would have satisfied Tour. Like was he supposed to handwrite a summary of the papers that show those things are possible?
@@MeltedBrain777 You know how debate "cards" work? You come pre-prepared with slides or papers pre-loaded so you don't have to write on chalkboards. It saves time.
@@MeltedBrain777 Or it just means Dave didn't want to waste his limited time on pageantry.
He may be dumb enough to not understand that what he draws is a poor representation, not the thing itself.
I watched this on Tour's YT channel. I read some of the comments. There was way too much negativity toward the scientific community. Let's counter that, shall we? Thank you to all the scientists and engineers who have made our modern comforts possible. Thank you to all of the science communicators who love educating the public. A big thank you to Dave for being a part of the science communicator landscape. Carl Sagan's A Demon Haunted World inspired me to seek educators. Now, my YT and podcast worlds are filled with Bill Bye, NDT, Dave, Forrest, and so many others who love sharing the wonders of the natural world. Next time, you may want to gift a signed copy of a book called - Is this Wi-Fi Organic?
THANK YOU ALL SCIENTIST 😢😢 LOVE THOSE MFS ❤
it vasent negative a but a scientifc it is just dave had no .............................a but since
Wait...Tour actually posted this on his youtube channel? He's even more committed to his lies than I thought.
@@moeinsafari1196 wha?
The people that support James tour we will never ever in 10 billion years change their minds. One of the only ways we can help with the negative science problem is to somehow not allow these people to be indoctrinated as kids 95% of them once indoctrinated will never go back
James: "doing a backflip is impossible. Nobody has ever proved it to be possible. Only god could ever possibly do a backflip"
Dave: "all these people can do a backflip. Here is the peer reviewed evidence"
James: " write it on the board! Do a specific straddled quadruple twist backflip from standing right now! create the enzyme necessary for a backflip - the one that i have randomly specified. Do in a lab what took billions of years of natural selection. You can't! It's impossible! Always will be! lalalalala"
Audience: hears James's passionate shouting and surrenders to their heard instincts by clapping 👏
I'm a little late, and the debate was pretty much a dumpster fire, but seeing Aron Ra come out of nowhere to ask a question was an unexpected crossover delight.
That did come out of nowhere -at first I thought it was a tenured scientist on the faculty until the camera switched over.
that was freaking random, when I heard his voice I was very confused
damn, i got spoiled the crossover... awesome to see these guys in the same room tho lol
Aron BIG SHLONG Ra
I was listening to this in the background while playing a game, and I tab back in going "what the fuck... That voice sounds familiar..." And boom! There he is.
I like that behind Dave it says "NOT CLUELESS" and behind James it says "Clueless, Clueless!, Clueless, Clueless, Clueless, CLUELESS!"
That was poetic lol
I love how Tour frequently uses the word "magically" to devalue certain aspects of abiogenesis - while obviously forgetting, that his creationist explanation for the origin of life is nothing but magic.
PRECISELY! Thank you for pointing this out!
@@a_plastic_bag Because James is a conman. He is a crony of an organization whose whole goal is to tarnish a whole field of research for their own beliefs, and for money.
Everything about the Christian religion is magic. How did "Jesus" walk on water? Magic! How did he heal the wounds of the sick? Magic! How did he recover from losing liters of blood and asphyxiating? Magic! The fact that all Christians believe this stuff and that nobody thinks to call them morons is astonishing.
"Magically crystallize"
@danielpintard7382 There are plenty of Christians who don't believe the creation account. Tour is a die-hard Creationist.
I have to disagree with Genesis being comparable to abiogenesis as explained by the origin of life researchers. I mean no offense, but that's conjecture.
The guy shouting, 'Look! At! The! Data!' but refuses to engage with the papers Dave presents...
Gained so much respect for Prof. Dave from this. Not only is he getting me through UCLA's Ochem classes with his videos, but he's also not afraid to speak the truth!! mad respect
Go Bruins!
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Yay! 💛💙🐻
@@flavioa2252 Aww, the cutie pie brainwashed moron is in denial! How adorable!
@@flavioa2252 I've thought that about all of your comments. Just replace the words "you" with "I", "yourself" with "myself", and "upload" with "comment", then read it to yourself a few times.
@@elijahweaver7135 I humiliated your loser hero and you deserve nothing but mockery. Cry more you fucking tool.