Elucidating the Agenda of James Tour: A Defense of Abiogenesis
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 май 2024
- The origin of life! How did we get here? How did the first living organism come about? Can it have happened spontaneously? Isn't life way too complex for that to happen? It seems ridiculous, right? Well, no. Not if you understand biochemistry, which creationists do not. But every once in a while, a hero emerges from academia to champion the cause of the creationist, and lend some illusory credence to their views. In this case, that hero is James Tour, a synthetic organic chemist who insists that abiogenesis is impossible, and he should know better than anyone, because he's a chemist. I was made aware of Dr. Tour after a couple hundred people linked me to a video of his in an empty argument from authority, insisting that because a chemist confirms their religious bias, they must be right. But is Dr. Tour a bit biased himself? Let's find out precisely what his agenda is, shall we?
Update: James Tour responded to this single video with a dumpster fire of a 14-part series overflowing with stupidity and lies, which qualifies for the Dunning-Kruger Hall of Fame. Naturally I tore through it like tissue paper, so to watch me do that please check out my two-part response which exposes his fraudulence ten times more thoroughly than this video:
Part 1: • Response to James Tour...
Part 2: • Response to James Tour...
Watch my other debunks: bit.ly/ProfDaveDebunk
EMAIL► ProfessorDaveExplains@gmail.com
PATREON► / professordaveexplains
Check out "Is This Wi-Fi Organic?", my book on disarming pseudoscience!
Amazon: amzn.to/2HtNpVH
Bookshop: bit.ly/39cKADM
Barnes and Noble: bit.ly/3pUjmrn
Book Depository: bit.ly/3aOVDlT
James: _"We can't even make the building blocks!"_
James, space can do it and it doesn't even own an Erlenmeyer flask.
Coming back to this video, wow I forgot how Dave sounds when he's wearing kid gloves. His voice is so light, he's so generous...generously good faith, overly so in hindsight, etc.
Dave is a True Class Act. Makes watching his later "sassy" response videos to Tour even more satisfying.
Agreed!
Notice he never addresses Tour's real chemistry objections
Tour ends up winning by default in that he talks chemistry while Dave talks stories about what is possible or what could have been
@@jameshall5274 can you disprove anything dave said in a scientific manner? No? Then how does Tour win by default if he isnt even able do disprove daves arguments that are just "stories" as you claim. Should be easy enough no?
@@jameshall5274 Actually the papers that Dave quoted are talking chemistry and outline possible pathways for life, and then James lies about the papers. Aren't you interested in the truth?
coming from the debate (rewatching the whole james tour saga) and it is insane how much daves opinion on james shifted (rightfully so). Sadly the debate was not very productive. But very entertaining.
It's wild that once upon a time, you called Dr. Tour a "respected chemist". No doubt he's got credentials, but there's nothing respectable about his particularly unlettered antics during his "debate" with you, Prof. Dave. Any semblance of respect he once held is greatly dimished by his inability to have an intellectually honest discussion.
@@REAlREAction I guess you didn't see their debate
@@lostfan5054we all saw their debate. Tour is a doo doo head.
I once looked up his education and publications and was shocked by how much work he's done while getting stuff wrong in conversation with Dave.
Was* a respected chemist.
@@lostfan5054James tour speaking in the debate wasn’t intellectually honest
So abiogenesis is impossible but rising from the dead definitely happened?
Good point!
@@etsharp7 what do prebiotics have to do with zombie Jesus walking around eating brains?
Jokes aside, this actually makes sense from their perspective, as both the emergence of life and a dead resurrect are the result of divine will.
Of course, an old book written by many men said it! Lol
@@lucasrinaldi9909 Of course, when you ask them how divine will works, they won't give you an answer, which betrays that they'e just inventing a bigger mystery to "explain" the lesser mystery, accomplishing nothing.
45:33 - 45:44 "Those who think 'I don't know..therefore God' would do themselves a service by stopping at 'I don't know...' and learning to cope with uncertainty"
Absolutely beautiful. After watching your videos for a few years now and reading your book I have got to say your wit is absolutely fantastic.
ruclips.net/video/r4sP1E1Jd_Y/видео.html
@@vijgenboom2843 go away troll
@@Thomaas551
ruclips.net/video/noj4phMT9OE/видео.html
@@BillMorganChannel
Hi *Billy Jack,* did you have something to say?
@@BillMorganChannel
So you had nothing to say.
Why did you post it?
Haha the time when Dave still thinks highly of James Tour as someone who doesn't consciously peddle misinformation. And then James opened his mouth. The Pandora's box is unleashed
The saddest thing about abiogenesis is that it's a very underfunded and under focused research. Most of the biologists are rather busy in things like drug development, or disease research etc for practical reasons.
Yes, like many other interesting endeavours, underfunded because they’re ‘less practical’.
I hold the view that many of these ‘less practical’ studies are useful, it helps give a better understanding about everything we know, even if they’re less directly practical now, in the end I am sure they’ll become at least indirectly practical, if not entirely practical, do you know what I mean? I worry that I’m not getting my point across properly...
This is one thing that China does right in my opinion, I’m sure there are many other countries who also fund research into less orthodox areas but China came to mind.
@@ChattyCinnamon Someday ...
@@ChattyCinnamon well the truth is, fight diseases is something that saves lives, and topics like this, while very interesting, will always be there to come back and study when we ( humanity) have the time
@@agustinfranco0 Fighting disease makes money is a more important reason. Trust me I work in Biotech.
@@aniksamiurrahman6365 i study biology, and yeah, the money invested in such things is higher, but also the scientists turn to that because of the applications, and to save lives and make something important ( some probably do it for money too)
but there are still lots of scientists that truly love nature and its secrets
You're so unreasonably generous in your assumption that he's merely incompetent, rather than outright dishonest.
Don't worry, my response will be much more appropriately scathing.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Can't wait! When'll it be out?
Shooting for late next week. Following week latest.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Can't wait to see you ripping into some cons, comment section or videowise.
Has Benny been doing too much comment wise?
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Finally! Looking forward to see this, thank's for doing this!
His main argument kinda seems like a particle physicist looking at planets and going “well that doesn’t make any sense”
@@rocketsurgeon1746
What has synthetic chemistry to do with abiogenesis or evolution?
@@philaypeephilippotter6532 Hmmm what has evolution to do with abiogenesis?
@@canyonboy9
Nothing except that evolution couldn't happen if abiogenesis hadn't happened first.
What has synthetic chemistry to do with abiogenesis or evolution?
@@philaypeephilippotter6532 "Nothing except that evolution couldn't happen if abiogenesis hadn't happened first."
Yes that is true. Evolution came later. So the topic of evolution is really not relevant in explaining how that first cell came about.
"What has synthetic chemistry to do with abiogenesis or evolution?"
Well cells are tiny but extremely complex machines. Presumably the first cell was also extremely complex. And yet there it was ... how did it come about? It seems reasonable that a synthetic chemist who understands the difficulties of constructing the various chemicals that make up a cell has something to say about the difficulties of abiogenesis.
@@canyonboy9
Cells are organisms, not machines - don't you know that?
Actually it's extremely likely that the first cells were far from complex as they'd just been formed by abiogenesis.
If you prefer the machine analogy the first flying machines were vastly simpler than even a *Douglas DC-3.*
Why should a synthetic chemist know anything about abiogenesis? Why should he know vastly more than the scientists doing actual research in that field?
"Natural processes are not directed. If conditions are such that a process may occur, it occurs. The chemistry does not need to be directed. It can be completely random until a self-perpetuating pattern of matter emerges by chance." I love this idea, and it can be SO HARD to pass that idea on. I don't think the human mind likes the word "random".
@@markcredit6086 literally quoting the video
Nothing is truly random. If you roll a die the exact same way, with the same force, under the same conditions, it will turn up the same way.
We call things "random" just because we can't measure everything all at once. If we could, we would see nothing is random
@camwyn256 I'll admit, this made me think. It's true. If all variables are accounted for leading to any event, all perceived randomness would be eliminated. Randomness is a word we use to describe outcomes we can't predict. It isn't real. I agree. Evolution appears random because we can't possibly know every celestial domino that fell to lead to the mutation which changed the organism. That being said, I don't think a hand is needed to throw the dice. It could just as easily fall from the table given a breeze. Another analogy; if the breeze blows on the dandelion the exact same way under the exact same conditions, it will disperse its seeds in the exact same place. It didn't need a conscious being to blow it. So while I agree that nothing truly is random and everything in our universe (including this conversation) is mathematically a certainty, I don't think that a creator is nessisary for that certainty to occur. Thesist believe that thier God is the director of all variables. I believe that no such director is needed and I'm willing to use the word "random" when describing outcomes that only an omniscient director could definitely know. So yes, undirected chemistry can appear random (to all but an omniscient being, which I'd argue doesn't exist). I'll keep using the word "random" to describe the origin of life as a simultaneous admission to my lack of omniscience and as a way of describing something as undirected.
I left school 🏫 at 14 and thank you Dave I've learnt so much from you,you are a teacher I would of loved to of had I would of stayed in school just to learn from you thanks 👍
You can always go to school again :D
I hope you’re proud of the effort you’re putting into educating yourself. Most of the rest of us go to school because we have to, you’re advancing your education voluntarily.
@@justinwatson1510 exactly, that's super admirable
That's cool. Please be careful though in getting the education you need, it's pretty dangerous if you don't
hey man that’s really respectable keep it up!
I am truly proud to be the descendant of pond scum. And my Grade 3 teacher said I would never amount to anything. At least I'M still alive, Mrs. B!
Dr. Tour doesn't say that. Prof. Dave misrepresented it. Dr. Tour says that it is done with highly purified materials and highly controlled processes. He is simply claiming that it has not been explained how this could happen in a prebiotic world when there was only inorganic chemistry. Watch his video, he only talks science in it when discussing abiogenesis. Here is the link ruclips.net/video/r4sP1E1Jd_Y/видео.html&ab_channel=DiscoveryScience
@@curthoover6958 Actually when you watch this video you find he's trying to debunk abiogenesis by giving explanations as to why it is impossible and/or delusional to think it could happen, and Dave takes these points and explain why they are insufficient or incorrect.
But that's not the most important thing about it: Tour claims abiogenesis is impossible but does not provide an alternative for the formation of life, which is usually fine but not in this case, because in this case abiogenesis is literally the only possibility: if life didn't arise naturally, then where did it come from? You could say it existed since the formation of the unvierse and lived in space until it reached earth and developed there, but that is impossible because we know as a fact that the very early universe had no organic life because it had no organic molecules to begin with. So we're left with the idea of an intelligent creator intervening on the early earth and breaking laws of physics to make life appear there, which is explicitly discussed in this debunking video, and is also very likely what Tour is implicitly trying to push, given his very religious background.
@@curthoover6958 Actually, the whole video was a lot of misrepresentation by Prof Dave. Interesting that a person with a masters degree thinks he knows more than a practicing scientist with a number of degrees, hundreds of publications and citations, not mention all of the businesses were started because of his intellectual knowledge., as well as being a world renown scientist. Just goes to show the arrogance that Dave has.
Becca Name one point that Professor Dave misrepresented to give him an opportunity to correct it. I am confident that you will not be able to.
D...Did you kill her?
Jim's fixation on cells as they exist today might be a byproduct of being a creationist. After all, abiogenesis only makes sense if life can become more complex over time. If a little speck of crud that replicates itself can become more complex through multiple iterations, that's all you need. If it can't, though, you end up at the "tornado assembling a car" scenario.
The theistic blind spot filled with "goddunit" is covering most of science in James case.
When you think the world is 6000 years old, tornado-mediated assembly is your best option.
@@MelaninMagdalene What is this obsession creationists, flat Earthers and other conspiracy theorists have with needing to see things for yourself?If that were the case we would have no science and we'd still be using horses and carts and dying by the millions from polio, smallpox, TB and a dozen other illnesses.
The very idea that you need to see something for yourself for it to be real or true is nonsense, please stop it, it seems downright trite and immature.
@@MelaninMagdalene "The height of science is making it easier to kill and control people"
Have you any kind of evidence to back up that statement? Science in the last 100~150 years has prevented far, far more deaths than it has caused, particularly in the medical field.
Control people? How? Why?
@@MelaninMagdalene "I couldn’t care less."
Seems about right for the apathetic ones.
My mother once said to me that I can "gain a lot of knowledge observing stupid people" and sure enough, if not for my curiosity on those creationists, I never would have learned how soap works.
Oh and also abiogenesis, I think...
@@user-bx3tl3yc2u
Your point isn't valid. They were Christians and while they assigned the grand scheme of nature to God, they never allowed it to color their view of the available evidence nor let ascewed their findings in an attempt to justify an preconceived conclusion. They weren't stupid and didn't believe in an young 6k earth. The stupid 6k idea and young earth creationism originates as late as the 1800s.
Being an creationist doesn't make you stupid, willingly missrepresentating evidence and science to support it does.
@@user-bx3tl3yc2u im pretty sure back then there was no freedom of religion in most places.
@@user-bx3tl3yc2u
Also, unless they're YEC's just say "deeply religious people" because creationist has a specific meaning. Particularly in how it's used nowadays.
@@user-bx3tl3yc2u
I'll post my latest reply again. It was removed due to a link or atleast hidden for awhile.
These heavily religious people(Though mostly YECs) that make the claim that they would reject modern science if brought to the modern day, are merely missrepresenting people they want to be on their side but actually wouldn't be.
I'll use one of their favorites to missrepresent, attributing his scientific prowess to his belief in God.
Johannes Schreck.
Schreck studied medicine starting 1590 at the Albert Ludwigs University of Freiburg, the University of Altdorf. After graduating, he is also known to have worked as an assistant to the mathematician François Viète in Paris in around 1600. After Viète's death in 1603 he moved to the University of Padua, where he was a student of Galileo Galilei, but studied medicine.
Schreck had an exceptional facility with languages; he spoke German, Italian, Portuguese, French and English. Like most educated men of his time, he wrote his letters in Latin. He also mastered Ancient Greek, Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic. Later in his life, he learned Chinese.
He became a highly respected medic and was affiliated to the Accademia dei Lincei in Rome, which he joined on 3 May 1611, few days after Galileo Galilei. Together with two other German-speaking members of the Accademia,
Giovanni Faber and Theophilus Müller, he worked on the encyclopaedia of botany _Rerum medicarum Novae Hispaniae Thesaurus_ which had been begun decades before by Francisco Hernández de Toledo and purchased, incomplete, by Federico Cesi.
This work did not occupy him for long however, as he decided to join the Jesuit order, taking his vows on 1 November 1611. Galileo described his decision as " _Una gran perdita_ " - "a big loss".
So clearly his religiousity had nothing to do with his scientific and medical work. It was a Late decision which had no reported impact on his thinking or work.
@@user-bx3tl3yc2u
Your ignorance on abiogenesis and what you call the first spark of life and what you define as the first movement of life seems offly intentional for someone who intends to come off as one willing to argue in good faith.
Why is this man yelling at me through his entire documentary
That's what preachers and charlatans do... Some kind of fetish.
It's because they're so used to appealing to emotions, just like preachers on pulpits.
@@cthulwho602 Dave once said you can tell when he knows nothing about a topic hid voice gets louder and more agressive.
Overcompensation.
Don't ever listen to SW radio lol.
Tour is one of the people who made religion a total, red-flagged no-go for me (apostate now). He made arguments even I could see as a layman were preposterous and manically biased.
So I have to thank him for the heads up.
Manically is right. Tour is one neurotic individual.
And he's a full professor at Rice University which is a really big thing because that's simular to Yale or Harvard in school listing of reputation and credentials. He hasn't lost his job because Rice is private and should never Plat football against Texas ,Texas A&M ,Texas Christian Univ., and Houston..its just a mismatch..love all those schools.Tour should be held to a higher standard.
I have a religious family, but I've always stuck with science throughout my entire life.
@@planetearth2249 Me too.
After I learned how we can derive validated personal understanding from the use of evidence.
@@Gr-Ra5 Indeed, indeed
I once had a teacher who used to say "the only way to perform real science while simultaneously being personally religious is to leave your bible at the lab's door when you enter, and the whitecoat at it when you get out".
Unfortunally humans aren't quite able to separate their personal lives from work.
That's why we invented the scientific method which is a clever way to bypass all the human factor in the search of truth.
(Which works wonderfully, if you don't manipulate the method to fit your expectations... which is sadly what many "scientists" do)
Thoes scientist you mentioned at the end are not true scientists they are hacks hiding behind the title of scientist.
Unless you created a extremely dangerous virus, than its a good time to pray 😂
And leave your brain at the door when you buy into Darwin's failed model of gradualism.
@@kelseycurtis1546 it called evolution
@@kelseycurtis1546 hey you left your brain in your mother's womb
A scientist who puts scripture above emperical evidence ceases to be a scientist.
I think you meant _empirical evidence_ - then you're spot on.
Is this a Star Wars reference or simply misspelled -imperial- *empirical*?
@Justin Clark *grammar , as the spelling was correct lol
@@queerios9925
Actually it's _empirical,_ not _emperical!_
@@Summitic
You're late on parade, *Dave* took that apart months ago.
"...borders on Hovindian" alone deserves a like. Brilliant presentation
@Eric McTague No
@Eric McTague James Tour is a liar.
@Eric Allen It's amazing how commenters in a youtube video have already easily debunked Tour's idiocy. Tour is either so stupid he doesn't even know what biochemistry is...or he's a bloviating grifter who relies on the ignorance and laziness of his audience to be able to either baffle them with big words but no evidence and substance, or bore them to death. Either way he knows how to milk sheep.
@@jaclo3112 Anyone can milk a sheep or a snake. But trying to milk an Atheist is a horse of a different color altogether ya-know.
@@jerrylong6238 Atheists’ babies are pretty good at it.
Wait a sec, did he say "We can't even make the basic building blocks." Haven't we already discovered complex amino acids in space by trailing a comet with a gel filled capture medium? If you can show they exist off earth doesn't that mean the process does happen naturally? More than that, what does this have to do with faith, if you have to prove that god did anything in a way you understand, that is not faith. I say thank you Dave, I honestly would not have had the chops to see through this guy from a scientific perspective.
Not only that, we have found some simple amino acids and other organic molecules in INTERSTELLAR GAS CLOUDS using spectroscopy
@@user-bx3tl3yc2u there's no such thing as "simple vs complex amino acids." Simple proteins are ones that only contain amino acids, and complex proteins are ones that contain other acid groups. A protein made exclusively of aminos would be simple by definition, so saying "simple amino acid" is like "male man" or "wet water." And this information is all available with one Google search, so just saying some chemistry words and acting like other people are less educated than you wouldn't work even if you were making sense.
Meteorites have arrved on earth containing L- and R- handed amino acids. So they didnt come from Earth originally
Dave is misinterpreting what Dr. James said. Those amino acids that are on the comet could be still created by some being or God. There is same probability that those would form on Earth as on some other planet. Question is were they all spontaneously assembled or affected by outer force ( whatever you want to call it). Dave is often angry about other theories that he misses to understand what other people say, and that is why parts of his explanations are wrong. He explains in video that there is small chance of simple molecules form, and then by some mechanism, they arrange, then by some mechanism they form even more complex structure like RNA, then by some process.... He never looks at entire process from beginning to end and see what are combine chances and cumulative chance. James said that he will give scientists all starting molecules and they just need to assemble working cell (refine process). It is accelerated evolution, but he claims that noone can do it.
I don't say that either of 2 is wrong, but their theories are lacking.
@@Deadly_Laser But you don't know how they were created- spontaneously or something else. If we send lab synthesized molecule on "a rocket", and someone observes that there are complex molecules in universe, what it says about creation of those molecules? Nothing. Unless there is cookbook on how they are created.
Both Dave and James are lacking evidence or theory is not complete...
going back to this video, its even more obvious how tour is the one who started being agressive first. the amount of respect dave gives him in this video is higher than he ever deserved
edit: and its pretty strange that multiple real Ool researchers who currently do all this amazing work are coming up on dave's channel emphaticly agreeing with him, explaining their research and straight up disagreeing with jimmy. oh yeah thats because james slanders them and threatens to 'expose' everyone of those researchers if they dare explaining their work on dave's channel
Yup, not a shred of insults or anything
@@davidbutler1857 ikr? in this video "dr.tour would never use this argument" (because of how dumb it is) "he is a respected chemist" and fast forward to now "you dont even know that basaltic glass contains magnesium, thats what a selfangrasing loser you are" or at the end of series "ill have those papers you misunderstood and ill mop the floor with you" lol this is why i love dave
I find Dr tour more credible than Dave.
@@semosancus5506 why?
@@erneststyczen7071I haven't fully caught up on the big throw down between the 2, but on the surface Dr. Tour is a widely cited scientific author. I'm not completely an appeal-to-authority kind of guy, but you have to at least give him props that many other people respect his opinion since they cited him. I'll keep watching the videos and see what all transpired.
“ They go out there pontificating as if they know and that’s the problem” Jebus Christ they really can’t self reflect at all can they?!
Of course they can't, they can't even think beyond their self-absorption.
"intelligence can't make these molecules, therefore intelligence must have made these molecules"
brilliant
@Mark Metternich you have no clue what an ad hominem is. If you actually watched the video you would know why your scientist is arguing in bad faith.
@Mark Metternich that...that's not an ad hominem attack. Not even close.
On a side note, look up Dave's video on misusing logical fallacies. Skip to the "ad hominem" part and get educated.
@@thekwjiboo it's frustratingly common to misuse these fallacies, particularly the ad hominem one. Interested to see what response we get.
@@GameTimeWhy we're not going to get a response. His only avenue was whining about non-existent ad hominems so now that we've taken that away he's got less than nothing.
I get why creationists and genesis apologists have an issue with the hypothesis of abiogenesis but it totally escapes me why evolution is a problem. Evolution is an obvious explanation of the diversity of species we observe today.
because the people that wrote the bible did not know what we know today, and accredited all that exists to their god, or atleast made stories of what might have happened.
Creationists for some reason have to take all these stories literal, when I don't think they were ever meant to be taken literal
@@XraynPR Apologists don’t need apologists. You have totally missed my point. I am not referring to people of the past not having the current understanding of things but that creationists of today are wilfully ignoring said understanding.
Because the fact that we share an ancestor with monkeys makes them feel insignificant. They are pitifully small-minded.
Because YECs can't fit Noah's ark into the genomic tree of life. And it means man wasn't created specifically from the beginning as a superior favoured race.
Evolution makes the myth of Noah's ark a nightmare for creationists to get right. Since it claims that Noah brought 2 of every "kind" of animal on the ark, the problem arises when you realize that there are several million species that exist in the world today, and creationists can never provide a strict definition of the word "kind" specifically for that reason. Also, if they were to decrease the amount of kinds on the ark to a few thousand, we would have to believe that dozens of daily speciation events occurred in 4000 years to create the millions of modern species.
Although, even disregarding Noah's ark, creationists always make ridiculous strawmen involving evolution, because they seem to think it says that a fruit can give birth to a fish, which would be ridiculous. But nobody actually says this other than the creationists themselves. I suppose it is a result of their poisonous arrogance causing them to refute the fact that we share a common ancestor with monkeys and by extension, all animals. Believe it or not, big shot, you and a plant are eukaryotes.
Another thing creationists do is refer to every scientific field that disagrees with their narrative as evolution, such as the big bang and abiogenesis, so at times they don't even talk about evolution despite referring to it by that name. I'd say the Hovinds do this a lot.
As a former Christian (or at least former creationist) it was lies, misconceptions, and misinformation by men like Dr. Tour that kept me indoctrinated. It is my genuine hope that videos like this might create a tiny spark of skepticism for any currently indoctrinated creationists, to get them to ask questions instead of assuming they have the answers. For me it was a number of factors that came together from different angles that eventually broke down my programming; philosophy made me ask questions about the problem of evil; science led me to ask questions about the natural world; it was psychology that made me question my biases. Like that primordial soup so long ago, like a chain reaction these elements came together and formed something better: a functional, rational mindset. The rest was history.
Well done Daniel, that's a challenging journey to take, you've displayed great courage and perseverence! 🙂
Super proudayoo for deindoctrinating yourself!! I also escaped faith & its a really difficult journey♥︎xoxo
@C E - This is the standard 'No True Scotsman Fallacy and every religion/cult has a version of it as a way to further entrench loyalty. It's a self-selection bias used to brainwash the vulnerable, 'you're either with us or against us' statement that disallows any questioning of the narrative. Nobody dares to speak out for fear of being ostracized/ousted and if they do leave it is claimed that they were never really a true believer. Note that literally any cult/ideology could make the same claim no matter how crazy their beliefs are. Not a good system if you want to discover the truth.
@@ce4885 Oh no, I very much was a dyed in the wool born again Bible-believing Christian who was saved by the blood of Christ. I had an intensely personal relationship with Jesus, I prayed every single day, I was baptized, I even evangelized to others to help them find God. I was, in short, very much a Christian.
The argument that I was never a Christian is one I know well, I was taught it in church to use against people who had different beliefs than me. Besides being a logical fallacy, it is a mechanism to keep you from questioning your own indoctrination. Like I said in my first post, you are assuming you have answers instead of asking questions. That is called bias and it will only ever serve to keep you stuck where you are now instead of letting you grow as a human being.
Daniel
On the topic of the video have you seen tour’s nine hours video response?
If not you should before calling him a liar!
About your words about your personal relation with Jesus , what happened?
Is Jesus no longer a person?
Did he disappointed you?
I clicked this video randomly since it popped up, and didn't check anything until after Dave said Jim is "a respectable chemist." That was the first and only hint I needed to know that this is well before Jim made a fool of himself replying to Dave's content.
Thank you very much for that explanation of abiogenesis.
I'm a christian (of the full on "bible is the divinely inspired word of God" variety) to whom the "God of the gaps"-argument has stopped making sense quiet a while ago.
For, among others, the reasons cited in this video.
But abiogenesis was, to me, a genuine gap in terms of my knownledge about science.
Particularly because this topic is hardly ever dealt with in science communication.
Now that gap is, at least in the broadest sense, covered.
Even though I actually understood only half of the chemistry at best.
Check out my more recent two part response to James, it goes into ten times more depth than this.
@@joshtheflatearthjedi222 How about they watch both?
Try reading both The Language of God by Francis Crick along with The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.
@@joshtheflatearthjedi222 Sounds like a biased response, "Josh the Flat Earth Jedi". Your name indicates a similar bias.
A non-biased approach would take in both at equal measure.
@@joshtheflatearthjedi222 Lololol!
So interesting now to go back and see where the whole saga started.
I understood several words in your presentation!
Keep growing! We need more smart and aware people and less stupid and ignorant ones!
✅
Keep growing. You really never stop learning. Dave is a professor they talk this way if they used simpler words you may understand but it would be twice as long.
Dr Tour is out of his field .period ! Jack Szostak is an abiogenesis researcher
Nice
I love rewatching this series while I work on some art - I am no scientist, but I still feel like I am learning a lot from what Dave explains during those debunks. You are doing a good thing, Dave, and keep going ! People need to be more educated, and you're one of the few I never get tired of listening to.
I do the same thing while Im cooking
A billion years from now a rock hurtling through space hits a random planet, landing in an alien ocean. A tardigrade slowly wakes up and thinks: "Is this where I went to sleep?"
Wakes up with messy hair "huh i must of slept funny. i think im seein' shit"
‘Underneath our clothes, we are naked’ . Thanks, Sam the muppet eagle
Sam is one of my favorite muppets
That's from Hemlock Stones and the Giant Rat of Sumatra by the Firesign Theatre. 'Anyone here want contact VD?'
I have a degree in environemntal science and have pretty extensively studied the origin of life and I truly appreciate how you can comprehensively describe the science in a mechanistic and fairly easily understandable way, as well as incorporating other factors like psychological and societal aspects that also cooberate your points to support debunking of his arguments. Seriously well done, you are one of my favorite RUclips channels and I still learn things from your channel after finishing my university education!
All that supposed education and you still can’t spell corroborated right. Money well spent!
@@vadimirborborov3787
Wow, a spelling *_NAZI!_*
I thought they were nearly -extintc- -etxinct- -etcixnt- extinct - there, I got it right at last.
@@vadimirborborov3787 do you have sufficient evidence to conclude that the OP can't spell corroborate? I often mistype or misspell words and then notice this myself and correct it. This means that even though I made the error that I inherently know how to spell the word. Have you ruled this out?
Let's assume you actually do have sufficient evidence to make this conclusion and are correct, actually let's just assume you're correct regardless of evidence. Now what? If the OP has a general issue with spelling, perhaps due to dyslexia, then I think that attaining a degree is even more impressive and not to be written off as a waste of money.
How about your education? I hope you didn't have much of one if you come out with stupid comments like this.
@@ROFT Nice word puke there! Didn’t read any of it, good job wasting your time!
@@vadimirborborov3787
I enjoyed *remember old fashioned trousers?'s* post.
If he's compares Miller-Urey to the advances in technology, yet as far as I'm aware we didn't start off with advanced technology with no explanation where it came from, so this is an unreasonable and irrelevant point. Red herring.
Decades ago I read a Scientific American article about the chirality of organic molecules that could be caused by the atomic structure of inorganic minerals of the early Earth. I set that aside for other things and assumed too much. Abiogenesis is fascinating, to say the least!
Check out my more recent response to James, the end of the first video talks about homochirality in significant depth.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains I have. These have been fun. Learning the technical vocabulary has been the best part. (:-) And you do use "very big words"! The "Flat Earther" videos are hilarious! I love their voices.
I had a friend who worked for NPR and mentioned that she "had to put on her radio voice". The Earthers tried.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains
you should look into the clay mineral montmorillonite. It has been shown to catalyze the polymerization of RNA in aqueous solution from nucleotide monomers, and the formation of membranes from lipids
@@tomroyca Indeed, that's precisely what I reference in this video, admittedly vaguely, and then more specifically with actual publications in my response to James.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains thanks! I'll definitely watch that video.
Loved your annihilation of the FE Dave 💙
This is how I found your channel. Bits of that "debate" are circulating on Tiktok. FE is very vibrant over there
6:00 I don’t think we should underestimate a sixth grader’s capability to learn!
Great video! ^^
I am very confused by Tour's arguments so far. Humans don't currently know how to do something, therefor this something never occurred? Huh? I feel like I'm missing something, but it doesn't seem like I am. Very odd.
It's such a common creationist argument. That's what bothers me about him. He uses more creationist-originated arguments than he does actual scientific ones. He has clearly spent more time reading cheap Discovery Institute tactics and books than he has the very literature he is trying to debunk.
You're not missing anything. It's an extremely poor appeal to incredulity and an anti-intellectualism approach to the production of knowledge.
What you are missing is that that isn't Tour's argument at all. His argument is that the current explanations of abiogenesis don't add up, not that abiogenesis couldn't have happened. Tour even states that he thinks we will figure it out eventually.
@@TylerSoutham When he says "we will figure it out eventually", he means "eventually people accept God did it as an answer". He has said before that he belives in pretty straight forward interpretation of Genesis, and is part of DI, so it is pretty easy thing to conclude. Yes, he does not directly state this being his stance on abiogenesis, but he clearly doesn't need to, if you look at his comment section. Everyone there seems to be picking up what he is putting down, and praise how he defends God in these videos replying to Dave.
Just to be clear, Tour says on his website that he "has doubts" about evolution, because he cannot bend genesis enough to fit evolution into it. Yet evolution is a theory, meaning it has much much more evidence behind it than any hypothesis about abiogenesis. It is easy to conclude, he will "have doubts" about abiogenesis too, even if it reached level of theory, as long as he sees it to be in conflict with his faith. Any statement open to interpretation is made so he doesn't need to state that out loud in this exchange, as that really reflects poorly on his motives.
Mind you, I am not saying Tour is dishonest because he is religious or anything like that. There are many religious scientists, that do great things while believing in God. However, Tour actively denies science because of his faith, and in these videos fails to own up to that fact, while dog whistling to his religious audience. He knows what he is doing isn't good science.
"Humans don't currently know how to do something, therefor this something never occurred? Huh? I feel like I'm missing something"
Its to do with claims being made, or beliefs being held.
It is similar to the FDA requiring that no claim being made unless its backed up with clinical evidence.
There can be a socalled 'consensus' in science for example, but that is no basis to make firm claims.
The end section on the present state of abiogenesis was not only fascinating but also intensely exciting! Thank you for bolting it on Dave. Much appreciated!
As a religious person, I have to say that science deniers are an embarrassment to theists who have an IQ above room temperature.
It's frustrating that any time I try to explain undeniable _facts_ such as evolution, the big bang, and that Earth is 4.543 billion years old, to a science denier, people incorrectly assume I must be an atheist. Even atheists high-five my atheism that isn't there.
So I appreciate your note near the beginning. This is why I just don't get religiously motivated science denial. If one needs to deny reality to support their beliefs, they are in effect saying that their beliefs are not reality. Truth cannot be inconsistent with itself.
@Gordon Barnes Thanks. I am going to use the last two sentences of your comment. SO MUCH to use them for!
Well said, bro
I'm a religious person as well (Jehovah's Witness). I believe life was created by God, but I'm not saying science is fake...... Because it's just not. Both of my parents *are* scientists, so I know for sure science isn't fake
When you call the people who actually believe in what you think is the word of god stupid:
@@legendarytomatobird2816 then you don't believe in science then
I find it strange how he claims that all of this could not have possibly happened because we are unable to cook it up in a lab......except arnt we arguing nature doing this over the course of millions of years?
Yes.
Consider that we also have not managed sustained fusion in a lab, ergo the sun and all stars must be fake or something.
@@advorak8529 very good point.
28:47: "You're as clueless as I am". WRONG.
I might have no idea, but my mind is open to learn. His mind is predisposed to refuse to understand in any conceivable way, as this would threaten his belief.He is DETERMINED to stay clueless
This bible literalism forces people to set out ANY logical thinking as soon as it gets near their belief. It forces them to terminate curiosity there.
"Goddidit" is a phrase that terminates curiosity.
Indeed.
An increasing number of people are beginning to think that childhood religious indoctrination is child abuse. When your amygdala and other parts of the lmbic system are trained to fear God and Hell, before you're rational, it is hard to overcome these fears and biases.
@@granthurlburt4062
Indeed so.
@@granthurlburt4062 This young age is a delicate age, so much is fixated when you do not even think it is possible.
Just an anecdote:
I was screaming about 14 hours/day when I was born. My mother was desperate and called up my aunt.
My aunt said "I have raised 5 kids, come over, another one doesn't matter".
When she looked at us two, she told my mother "you just make him nervous, you stay away from him, I look after him. When he screams, I will check if he dies, and if not, he shall scream".
It took me about two weeks to find out screaming does not change anything, no one comes.
What occurs to me is that I get along very well all on my own, that I smile a little at people that are obviously unhappy when no one is around paying attention to them.
I could imagine that this is what happened to me at these first weeks.
It somewhat a blessing - and a curse.
I learned a new definition of atheism: "he who has no use for the existence of a God is truly an atheist".
I never prayed, felt the need to appeal to a higher power. Hmmm....
DarkMatter2525 had an interesting idea (on his DarkAntics channel):
Christians claim that it is your Free Will to reject or accept God.
But that idea is flawed.
Obviously for some people there were events that were persuasive for them.
But everyone is different, so for each individual something else is persuasive.
God would know what is persuasive for any of us and could "provide" the respective evidence.
And you cannot reject God when you have no reason to believe he exists.
So in order for you to be able to use your Free Will to reject or accept God, it is paramount that you know he exists.
It is so to speak God's duty to give everybody the same chance.
DarkMatter2525 is hilarious, vicious - and VERY thoughful.
Exactly.
Hi Professor Dave, I have a doctorate in chemical engineering with an emphasis in the biotechnology area. I have never seen any published literature where the problems with homochirality without any human intervention has been solved. For example in 1995, at the conference in Los Angeles on the origin of homochirality (Science Vol. 267, March 3, 1995) William Bonner (PhD Organic Chemistry from Stanford) states in this paper, "There's a huge intellectual gap between the origin of homochirality and the origin of life--a huge gap. Bonner said that he spent 25 years looking for a mechanism and never found any. I had no idea that issue has been solved. Could you send some publications that verify that this issue has been solved with some plausible recipe that involves no intelligence involved. I would be excited to see a published paper where this issue has been solved. I would greatly appreciate it, if I have missed that publication. Please send a link in a return comment.
Yeah, a lot has happened in the past 26 years, my friend. Look up the work of Donna Blackmond, which James pretends doesn’t exist. Or just wait for my response video, because I’ll be personally interviewing her. James is going to wish he kept his mouth shut, he’s about to get exposed ten times worse than this video.
In the interest of science many will be waiting for your response so we will know where we're at in abiogenesis.
Me too
Sooooo you can't disprove what he's saying? Why make this video without having all the necessary evidence to support your claim? You keep bagging his ability yet don't really show anything to disprove what dr tour is saying also have you argued dr tour face to face and post that? Or are you not of that calibre?
Not about OOL, kiddo. He's really clueless about it, and is also a liar. Sorry. No, he would never debate me. He prefers to lie into his webcam to get praise from morons like you. He's a charlatan. Deal with it.
Hi Professor Dave,
I only discovered your channel, and your explanations of science and math topics are excellent! Your explanation of the origin of life here, from 36:30 on, is one of the most concise and complete I've come across. I think that segment would serve well as a standalone video!
If you want some really bonkers odds, one of the random dates Prof Dave picked is my actual birthday
For any group of 23 people, the probability that two of them share a birthday is 50%... so I'm not surprised 😁
@@TheMonk72 That doesn’t sound right at all. How is that possible?
@@ivyrose779 I know, right? It's called the Birthday Problem. Or the Birthday Paradox, but only by people who think Paradox sounds cool even though they don't seem to know what it means.
@@TheMonk72There are three types of paradox
Falsidical - Sound wrong and are wrong, but there is a "proof" for them that can be quite convincing. Zeno's paradox is a good example.
Veridcal - Sound wrong but are right, no matter how weird they may sound at first. Monty Hall problem is a good example.
Antinomy - What most people think of when they hear the word "paradox". Things like "this sentence is false", or the grandfather paradox.
Similar to irony, which also has three types but only one is colloquially known.
(The Birthday Paradox is veridical by the way)
Your initial thoughts on James aged worse than Elon Musk's reputation.
Ahhh...Nooo... Flashbacks to Organic Chem and Bio Chem. 😖
Fun fact: Your channel is one of two that saved my rear end in Organic chem and Biochem. Thank you for the helpful videos and all the work you do.
Great video as usual, when I watch science videos i tend to go towards computer science & astrophysics so this felt way more of an uncertain territory than what I'm used to. The homochirality in abiogenesis was new to me, I'll watch the other two videos to get a better grap of it.
"I don't understand evolution"
Okay then how can you say for sure that instantaneous creation makes more sense???
The _creationists_ are sure that _creation_ by some supernatural entity is the only alternative to evolution. Therefore they consider that evolution must be false. That they don't understand it is wilful, they -won't- don't even try.
I love your work. Please keep debunking these people.
Debunking the debunker. Dr. Rob Sadler, not Dr. James Tour shows how untruthful, a liar, Dave the "Professor" is at presenting how abiogenesis happened:
ruclips.net/video/T6UrulLO-ok/видео.html
Dr. Tour has the potential to become a smart guy (in my book). Kent Hovind, on the other hand, has no chance. Ever.
@@SirLukedatgoat Kent Hovind and smart guy are two things which should never be used together
@@thatoneguy5043 Yeah, you're right. I'm calling it my bad on that one.
When I was a kid we were taught Bible stories, but for the most part they were taught as either parables/myths/cautionary tales. The exception was the life of Jesus, which was taught as pretty much historical fact. My favourite Jesus story was how when he was very young and was found debating with the scribes and Pharisees in the temple. What I came away with from that was that God wanted His followers to think for themselves and not just to listen to "authority" figures. For me, the idea of a God who doesn't want us to think is stupid, and so are all those people who try to tell me to just read the Bible (usually the Old Testament) and believe it. That wasn't how Jesus did it, and I don't believe it's how God wants the rest of us to do it.
the authors of these books, the Jewish people, do not take them literally. that should tell you something about them.
That's exactly how I think of the Bible too :)) nice
This exactly.
Very interesting point at the end, there, Professor Dave. You said that folks who say, "I don't know ... therefore God" should just leave it at "I don't know" and develop a coping mechanism. Having grown up in the Bible Belt of central Texas, I'm here to tell you, people turn to religion as a coping mechanism - for lots of things. Their belief in a God IS their coping mechanism. Almost by definition, blind belief in anything is a coping mechanism for some type of ignorance or other. The problem with religion is that once it serves as a coping mechanism for one's particular ignorance, it then draws you in to a lot of other strange and inexplicable beliefs (e.g., flat Earth, creationism, coming back from the dead, parting entire seas with the wave of a staff, walking on water, water spontaneously turning into wine, etc.). This was an excellent compendium on abiogenesis, Professor Dave. I can't imagine how long it took you to put it together, but the hard work is most definitely appreciated.
I'm sure Dave is aware that this IS their coping mechanism, but it is not a useful one, it holds them back, does not leave any space to advance their set of mind... he probably suggests getting a DIFFERENT coping mechanism that does not have the flaws of presumed "inerrancy" and thus freezing out all curiosity and evidence if it contradicts the assumptions.
Also it's even worse than "I don't know, therefore god" ... it is closer to "I do not WANT to know and i will never accept the knowledge as valid, so i can keep my "therefore god", thank you very much"
@@greatminds1017, yes it is all by chance. It's just that we're here on the other end of several billion years worth of Mother Nature rolling the dice and it seems like some "specific design." It isn't. Also, you're quite right. As a professional engineer, I look at a design today and think, "that obviously didn't just appear randomly; lots of engineering, mathematics, physics, and art went into that." And that's precisely what Mother Nature is: full of engineering, mathematics, physics and art. It didn't take a God, it took a lot time and a lot of failed results to finally get a good thing going.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom scientific materialism is _methodological,_ *not* philosophical. Assuming your conclusions in your premise is circular and thus, fallacious. Following the evidence where it leads doesn't inevitably take anyone to an intelligent designer unless you are assuming that in the beginning, and that is leading the evidence where you want it to go.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom, impressive word salad. Eliminative induction? Do you mean "deductive reasoning?" While I agree that there are many beautiful things in the universe that seem to have come from some kind of design, there are many, many ugly, imperfect things - cancer, viruses, diseases, mutations, syndromes, etc. This is how evolution works over billions of years. Finally, comparing the origin of robots to the mechanism of natural selection is a real stretch. Maybe, once we've fully mastered true artificial intelligence, this would be a valid point. Right now, though, it's baseless evidence for the kind of "intelligent design" you're defending.
@@zemorph42, precisely. Very well said.
11 years ago I was in the process of going from agnostic/atheist to Orthodox Christian. The Metropolitan came to our mission to answer questions as best he could, from the catechumens - noobs, basically, to the Orthodox Church.
When I asked him about evolution, creationism, the big bang, SCIENCE, and how the Orthodox Church stood on these issues, he said-
The Orthodox Church has no issue with science, evolution, astrophysics or any natural phenomena under study or explained by science. The much more likely scenario, opposed to creationism - which is NOT a common tenet of the Orthodox faith - meaning that Orthodoxy does not adhere to sola scriptura or the literal translation of scripture, is that God created the universe with specific properties, such as the natural laws like gravity and the standard model, so that the universe could function in the way so that life could emerge over millions or billions of years.
That blew my mind.
If James would just say that, there'd be no problem.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Agreed.
Most religious people think that way (at least the people I do know). The literal religious zealots are a minority.
@@zeendaniels5809 They're a minority, but in some parts of the United states, locally known as the Bible Belt which stretches across most of the Southern States from Texas to Georgia, aren't necessarily less smart, or less aware. They've just been taught a certain thing, and once a person has been taught a thing and that thing becomes a belief, well.
From my experience, it is nigh on impossible to change someone's belief, no matter how obviously and demonstrably wrong that belief is. I used to be that way too, regarding religion. I took great pleasure in trolling online Christian forums and just tearing them to shreds with science, until I realized that in behaving that way, I wasn't actually doing any good, or changing anyone's mind.
I was doing it simply out of the selfish pleasure of watching these Christians squirm as I brought up question after question, commonly in a very sarcastic and demeaning manner, demanding explanations like, for example:
If it rained for 40 days, hard enough to cover the entire Earth, the rain would have to be falling with such force that it would pulverize any ship floating on the ocean, including modern aircraft carriers.
That was one of my favorite things to say. Nobody had an answer to that, except to point out that some of the water sprang up from the ground. But the Bible explicitly states that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, and that's some pretty established text.
I can't even begin to communicate my surprise after being dragged into an Eastern Orthodox Christian Church of the Russian flavor, by my then girlfriend back in 2010.
At first I did it just for her, but there was something about that church. The music, the incense, and the candlelight - no electric lights - and the oil lamps providing the only illumination throughout the entire sanctuary. It was a bewildering assault upon the senses.
The incense was so thick, I could barely stand to be in there. Everything was sung or chanted. There wasn't a preacher who just stood at a podium and talked for 45 minutes. The only time that happened was during The Divine Liturgy on Sunday mornings, when the priest would present a short homily no longer than 10 or 15 minutes.
Otherwise, every vigil, every vespers service, every matins service, every baptism, every liturgy, every single service was music, all the way through. Music!
Like I said, the only exception was Sunday mornings during the Divine Liturgy, when the priest would give a very short homily. Otherwise, it was music, music, and only music, with some chanting in sing song.
And that's what hooked me. The music. Russian Orthodox hymns are composed by many of the Russian greats - like Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky, Rachmaninoff, Kedrov, Bortniansky, Khachaturian, Mussorgsky, Kalinnikov, Rimsky-Korsakov, Prokofiev, Balakirev, Ippolitov-Ivanov, and the list goes on and on and on.
After recognizing the beauty of the music, I asked to join the choir and was immediately blown away by the absolute wealth of hymns which were composed by prominent Russian composers of the Romantic period, many of whom I was quite familiar!
After a month of attending this particular Russian Orthodox church, I was in the process of doing a complete 180 as far as my attitude toward religion went. Having discovered the Orthodox Christian church, I felt like I had, merely by chance, stumbled upon the real Christian church.
Not the catholics, not the lutherans, not the presbyterians, not the episcopalians, not the Methodists not the baptists, not the non denominationals, not the unitarians, not the Church of christ - none of the churches with which I was accustomed to growing up in the Bible Belt came even close to what was becoming clear to me as the authentic, the real, the 2000 year old Christian experience. It had been here the whole time. And it wasn't those dirty filthy catholics, it was the Eastern Orthodox church.
There aren't many of these kinds of churches in the United States, although every major city hosts at least one or two. But Americans much prefer their very easy Protestant churches, or their strict scripture based Catholic churches.
It amazes and saddens me that King Henry the 8th was so fed up with the Catholic church and the Pope in particular, that he just rendered Christianity meaningless by creating his own church, the Church of England, because he wanted a divorce.
Now the Church of England is prevalent, and it was founded on the flimsiest of selfish excuses!
As far as the Protestant Reformation goes, it really saddens me that this had to happen because so many serfs and peasants were living under what basically amounted to a Catholic empire. What also pains me is that the Protestant Reformation could have been completely avoided had these dissatisfied people living under rule of the Catholic empire had simply looked east, where they would have discovered what they were looking for in the Orthodox church.
Instead, we have an unbroken line stretching back 2,000 years, which is the Orthodox church. And then around 1055, the Catholic Church split away from the Orthodox church, because the pope wanted all the power. And from there, the church of England and the unholy mess of Protestant churches resulted in that which we have today.
It's just a real shame. Especially since the Orthodox church is so open-minded about things. When's the last time you heard an orthodox priest in a sex scandal involving an altar boy? Now, I've looked this up and there have been some scandals, but comparing an orthodox scandal to a Catholic scandal is like comparing an ant hill to a mountain.
Also, people cite the Byzantine empire as being just as corrupt as the Roman Catholic empire. Well fellas, the Byzantine empire wasn't ruled by the Orthodox church. It was simply called the Byzantine empire because it was centered in Byzantium.
Officially, at the beginning there were seven patriarchs who had jurisdiction over seven different parts of the world. The Roman patriarch was considered first among equals, and the other six patriarchs respected the Roman patriarch as first among equals. Equals being the keyword here. First among equals.
But the patriarch of Rome wasn't satisfied with that. He declared himself of direct lineage to Peter, who is considered to be the first pope - which is just a fictitious lie invented to support the authenticity of the Pope, and so the Pope formed the Roman Catholic empire. He turned the church into a state.
In the east, in Byzantium, the church was a college of patriarchs. Not a state, ruled by a pope. Man, the Catholics really did fuck everything up.
Anyway, yeah, here we are living in 2021 and it's true, more and more people are open-minded about religion and accept the Old Testament as mostly myth and allegory. The New Testament is considered as authentic eyewitness testimony, recorded as written history.
Why should the New Testament be considered any less credible than other types of recorded history, such as the exploits of Alexander the great? Or Julius Caesar? Yeah, the four gospels which were written by four different people, and they differ from each other slightly. But isn't this to be expected? Very rarely is eyewitness testimony 100% credible. People who witness events are going to remember them in different ways, according to where they were, what they saw, how it made them feel... all among a myriad of other variables which will influence how they viewed things and remembered them as they went down.
Okay, I'm done. I don't know why I just went off on all that, that was quite a rant. I'm not trying to change anybody's mind here, I just felt that the truth needed to be told. Even if Christianity turned out to be a complete myth, there is some truth to Christianity according to recorded history. There's even truth regarding Jesus' tomb, and his body not being there even though it was guarded day and night by Roman centurions. Where did the body go? Why would the centurions secret away the body of Jesus somewhere? It was their job to guard it!
It simply makes a lot more sense to view the New Testament as recorded history, written down by the people who witnessed Jesus's life and death. That's all. It's not proof, it's just something that happened in the history of the human race that was written down and passed on from generation to generation and became this religion.
All I know is that the Orthodox Church is the real Church, that is, if there is a such thing as a real Christian church. I've been away for a while now, I'm lapsed. For about 5 years. So I'm not nearly as sure about my faith anymore, but I do remember the experience, and I remember thinking to myself, this is it. This is Christianity the way it was supposed to be. This is Christianity before the pope got his grubby hands all over it. This is Christianity before it was an empire. If Christianity is real, then this is it. If it's not real, then this is just as good as anything else, and even better.
I can't think of a better reason to experience anything. If it's beautiful, then that means something. That's also why I'm so interested in science and astronomy and math and everything that makes the universe so beautiful, from the merely visual, to the abstract, to the divine proportion, to chemistry, to life, which inexplicably defies entropy!
My god, I can only shake my head. And that math and music are so related, that just blows my mind! It's like the natural language of the universe is math of course, but it's also the natural language of music! What are the odds?
Later, folks.
@@kaxtorplose Interesting that experience of yours 👍🏼
I am a Christian. I believe God created life. Since I have no idea how He did it, (the Bible being no help there), I look to see what science says. I suppose I am somewhere between Old Earth and Theistic Evolution. Since I am not in any one camp of Creationists, I can accept what Science says about the possibilities of life. And since I believe God was involved, I don't consider my beliefs to be science. Surely we can work together, rather than waste time and energy bashing each other's ideas. I'm glad to have people like you, Professor Dave, who look at things dispassionately.
Why is it, that you believe that "God was involved" ?
If your idea is true. Then god set the universe in motion 14 billion years ago, and sat back. He put in motion the expansion of the singularity, set the four fundamental forces, formed the basic elements, and let this machine sit and work for 10 billion years. Before our planet, over hundreds of millions of years, pieced itself together. Then he waited 4 more billion years, our poet a molten wasteland, for the basic building blocks of life to form. He created the mechanics of evolution and sat and waited as they produce three eras of life. All millions of years log long (there is less time between now and the end of the Jurassic than the end of the Jurassic to the beginning of it) He then apparently watched a meteor hurtle through space toward our planet, and did nothing. Did he make it hit us? Or he just let it? Either way, it hit us, almost killing all of life. Life has to essentially begin over again. And that’s only five planet wide extinction events on record. He then sits back some more as evolution works. As lineages form, as families and species form and diversify. Till eventually, about 200,000 years ago, a particular species of Ape happened to evolve in Africa, and spread throughout the world.
According to you, god did all of this, created this universe with trillions of planets, all because he wanted this one. He created all of life, millions of species, he let these species evolve for hundreds of millions of years. All of them, just for us. We;ve been around for 0.000000000001% of the universes life, but it is all for us? How do you justify that? Your personal god only works if we’re the center, if the world and universe seems for us, we now know that it is most certainly not. The world was formed billions of years ago by a byproduct of chemical and physical reactions. There is no reason to suggest it was created, nor that it was created for us.
@@princeytron I don't know what is true. But as far as the origin of life, I don't see that it matters much, except as an intellectual exercise. Life IS, and that's enough for me. I like to see the scientific information, and when I do, I see order coming out of chaos. That's what I believe God does. You can believe differently if you want to. I'm good with that too.
@@scottwilcoxson2439 I didn’t ask what you believe. I asked how you justify it. You can praise science all you want, but your belief is fundamentally unscientific. Order from chaos? Why is god required for that?
@@princeytron Since I include God, my beliefs are fundamentally unscientific. And since I don't insist that other people believe it, it doesn't require justification. If you want an argument, look elsewhere. Good day.
Ten religious people with painful abscesses under a tooth went to their preacher and asked him to pray to end the pain. After six months they all end up in hospital very ill.
A hundred non religious people with painful tooth abscesses went to a dentist and asked for penicillin based antibiotics and a scientific cure six days later the non believers have forgotten about their tooth ache. A experiment that is carried out every day for the last 70 odd years. The result not one case that praying work in curing a abscess's. Even if there is a god what F==king use is he can't even cure tooth ache.
Oddly enough, not all religious people are completely detached from reality.
@@alexmcd378 just a lot
I used that subject as I have just been treat for an abscess.@@ohmaramusic
You should listen to 'Tim Minchin' - 'Thank you god' to learn what prayer can do.
"A hundred non religious people with painful tooth abscesses went to a dentist and asked for penicillin based antibiotics and a scientific cure six days later the non believers have forgotten about their tooth ache."
Well, unfortunately, one of those non-religious people had taken too much of Penny for her to work her magic, so he had to get hooked up with Clinda instead. That person is M-E-moi, and it suuuuucked.
So abiogenesis isn't true because chemists can't recreate it. But religion is true, even though theists can't raise the dead?
Zelda Morgan Instead of evolution you should use abiogenesis
@@federicobernardeschi6009 yes, you are probably correct, that's more precise. I will edit.
@Zelda Morgan
But if a theist can do that, I will be impressed. As for the chemists, their failure to recreate it demonstrates that it has not yet been proven to be true. What has been proposed thus far is plausible but not yet confirmed.
@@TerryProthero : That's what any scientist will tell you but Tour tries to equivocate the public perception of science with the actual science. And he posits an alternative that has near zero probability based on the total lack of data. "What else could it be?" is a completely unscientific God--of-the-gaps argument.
@@lrvogt1257
I don't have a problem with a true God of the gaps. One that stays out of the way of science. There some types of questions that science will likely never have an answer for. It's simply not equipped to deal with them. So if invoking a deity helps someone to sleep at night in spite of those uncertainties, they have my blessing. But when it comes to types of questions that science can give us a clear answer for, it is by far the most reliable method of seeking truth. This is why many major religions have stepped aside and let scientists deal with questions like the age of the earth and evolution. Because when people like Tour try to insert religion where it doesn't belong, they end up making fools of themselves.
I wanted to thank you for posting this video. It allows people to watch your side of the discussion and then view Dr Tours reply videos. You have aptly demonstrated the difference between rigorous, evidence based scientific exploration and faith based story telling. I hope it opens many people's eyes. Thank you
I agree, James spews faith-motivated anti-science tripe, and this video exposes him. I'm sure that many people will come to see that after viewing this video. Maybe you should try it.
Whoopsie, you have that a little backwards, since Jim's detractions are based on his faith in a magic sky wizard that spoke reality into existence. If you want to understand science, you should consult the people who actually understand and research this field. James isn't one of them. Ok champ?
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Faith and science were never in disagreement
@@achyuththouta6957 Lol Of COURSE they are! Faith is a belief in something for which you have no empirical, demonstrable evidence. That is literally the OPPOSITE of what science is. Definitionally and practically, faith and science are not only in disagreement, they are in direct opposition. One of them has doubled our life span, is responsible for every technological advancement we enjoy, etc. etc. Religious faith has given us wars and bigotry and ignorance and tribal hatreds. They ARE in disagreement and are fundamentally opposed.
Science: We need evidence and experimentation to show something to be real
Faith: it's real because i want it to be
I can see the disagreement
im a big video rewatcher and i’ve seen your debunks and responses hundreds of times… i dont understand any of the science but your videos are always so well written and concise!
My god(lol) I wish you were my high school science teacher. Thank you Dave!!!
@@trongducphan2372
Actually you're wrong - but don't let that stop you telling lies.
*_Quit while you're behind_*
*Dr Feelgood*
@@trongducphan2372 James Liar Tour can be debunked by secondary school biology. But then again you are totally uneducated, so how would you know. Besides he has a scientific education, and still lies about science for his stupid followers.
@@trongducphan2372 Yeah and Dave took him down nicely in a response today including proof that Tour is quote mining these other scientists. LOL. Praise the lord, or not? You must be a theist. Ad hominems only and not understanding science, parroting everything that Tour' says.
@@BillMorganChannel I call him (Tour) liar because his moral compass is broken and he lies to his uneducated followers. He has written papers in chemistry where it is clear that he understand thermodynamics. He also totally misunderstand and lies about thermodynamics in his pathetic videos "debunking" Origin Of Life research. Why is he lying? And he knows nothing of biology, why is he making videos of biology? If he had any science behind his assertions he would write peer reviewed papers. He don't write peer reviewed papers in biology. He makes lying videos instead.
@@BillMorganChannel Dr tour has many (around 700) peer reviewed papers mostly on graphene and similar. He is also a YEC, and as all apologist lying through his teeth. He is one of two YEC scientist I am aware of. Professor Dave Expain's have made a video where he talks about his own education, and professor is a title for a job that Professor Dave Explains don't have. He have a thorough scientific education though and is a science communicator that is fun to want and seldom wrong.
*Sapient Wisdom:* When a contradiction is found in a scientific theory it is hailed as enlightenment; when a contradiction is found in religious text it is labeled as hate speech.
Or that the one they like means that the other one doesn’t mean what it says.
@@ronaldmorgan7632 "...is found..." frequently happens in both pursuits; it is how science progresses and why religion stagnates.
*Sapient Wisdom* If science disappeared from human memory, we would soon be living in caves again. If theology disappeared from human memory, no one would notice.
when "a" contradiction??!!?!?!? here is a massive list of them infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html
A contradiction in religion ? Its not even one religion, and most of them are not compatible...
@S Gloobal "People in general no matter what you believe in are biased." False. One can *accept* a current situation, yet still believe things may change.
22:10, I think it was Neil deGrasse Tyson who said something I really liked when he was addressing some Bill O'Reilly nonsense about tides. The essence was something like "If that's how you want to play it, if you find God in the mysteries still obscured, then God, to you, is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance."
Also, why is this video making me recall quotes all over the place?
dskim24 dave put a curse on the video
Hehehehehehe
The ever-retreating Gap for the gods
@mwstar I have a mormon friend who accepts evolution and the whole lot. My 15 year old son and her talk about it all the time, as he points things out to her. Its rather fascinating. She is also quite liberal in comparison to her religion, even though she is in it pretty deep. So people like that do exist.
@mwstar Believing in God and being a scientist is not contradictory as you say, though people like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Eric Honvind and Sye Ten Bruggengate say it isn't possible though Kent says he has taught science for 15 years, though he doesn't seem to understand what it was he was teaching.
Dr. Tour spends the time on a 13 part video to list all the things "we" cannot do. Most scientists are really interested in finding solutions, would be listing all the things "we" can do and propose ways/methods to attack/solve the unknown. Those are the ones who deserve our respect.
we cannot create Stars either, because that is completely out of scale, so I wonder if Stars didn't form naturally in Tours mind either
@@XraynPR You know Tour believes a Goddunnit!
Just want to mention one thing. I watched through the painful video 6/13 of James Tour. I was baffled that he seems not to understand emergence. I thought about it and talked to one of my oldest friends who selected MSCE (Chemistry) when i went to MSEE(Electronics) in universe, since I know of emergence in physics and biology. His answer was "think of NaCl" with the explanation that emergence is the core of all of chemistry. Since I know you know more chemistry than me, I just want to confirm. You are the nicest well educed chemist I have found in this comment section.
@@freddan6fly My academic training and research is in bio-science [examination of the biological/chemical implication of sensory stimuli and quantum physics (wave mechanics)]. But thanks anyway.
@@MelaninMagdalene
I have no idea what you are talking about. My research is about emotional stimuli and their effect. It is a topic in bio-science. If you are interested you can read my dissertation (it is posted on line "Emotional response: From sensory attributes to packaging and back again"--- Nottingham University (2012) or more than 50 peer-reviewed published articles.
When discussing the probability argument I like to use a deck of cards as an example. Take a standard, shuffled 52 card deck. Deal out the cards. What's the probability you got that sequence? 1/52!, or 1.2E-68.
The probability argument states that you couldn't have gotten that sequence because it's so incredibly unlikely, yet the cards sit in front of you.
that argument isn't even that good beyond that, since there's a ton more factors in enabling the arisal of life than in simply shuffling cards. Some of those factors might just be biased towards enabling life (akin to lets say, having aces stuck together when dealing cards)
@@XraynPR : Since Mr Tour knows so much i wish he'd tell us at what point before the chemistry we understand did supernatural intervention occur? What was the process and show his data. It doesn't matter if there were an ID, we'd have to do exactly the same research to know what actually happened and when.
He keeps saying that we don't know how to do something. So what; 200 years ago we didn't know how to fly now we have people living in space. The fact that we don't know how to do something now has no bearing on what we will know in the future. It's called science!!!!!!!!
That pisses me off every time I hear "With all out technology advancements.. blah-blah.." ffs, bro, 30 years ago smartphone was a sci-fi dream, we barely had crappy laptops and TV's, cameras available to the public were using film, internet did not exist, you get the point.
Is that so hard to imagine what we will find out in a couple of centuries?
Mitvelkez Yes, Tour is employing what is called the argument from ignorance fallacy and can loosely be summarized “We don’t know... therefore we know...”
@Mitvelkez ......that sounds like an argument of the gaps. I see Atheists lose their minds when someone makes a "god of the gaps" argument, but they never hold themselves to the standards as they regularly make a science of the gaps argument.
- Science hasn't explained it.......yet - 🤷♂️🤦♂️
Tyler Folsom Motvelkez os not making a science of the gaps argument. His main statement is the 2nd to last sentence: “... has no bearing,” *not* “... so it must be science.”
The “... of the gaps” problem is basically a false dichotomy: you can’t explain, therefore my idea is right.
Please give one example of an atheist losing their mind at a perceived god of the gaps argument.
I've been saying stuff like that for years. Yeah, we don't know everything, that's kind of the point of science. We are learning constantly and technology is advancing.
"a college level text book will not look like this" idk bro I'm currently in the 2nd year of studying EnviroSci right now and I gotta admit id be as lost as abiogenesists without the little illustrations in the bottom left corner LMAO
*Environmental science for non majors...😅😅😅
Love how professor Dave slides past one of the most important parts "once self replication starts" where is our demonstration of that process lol
Molecules were mind bogglingly abundant how do we know this? Whatever processes there were were ongoing? It seems like your glossing over the most important parts. Where are examples of these processes in nature today.
@@formationbiz Nature today isn't nature back in the day.
The conditions present on earth 4 bya aren't present today, so there cant be examples of processes occurring in nature today that occurred 4 bya.
@@formationbiz "nature" on early Earth vs today= totally different arenas
Dang I didn’t know we did so much research to the origin of life. God, science is great
*Science god is great. There are artifacts from tribes of thousands of years ago doing rain dances for the Science god. Some historians project they wore beakers on their heads and test tubes over their fingers while dancing
ok in 24:30 he says that he knows who is going to hell, there seems to be some misconception amongst christians about who this is, for those who don't know what the bible says... all three reasons for hell are given in Matthew and Mark, they are as follows. 1, "He who hath no love in his heart, shall in no wise enter unto heaven." 2, He who hath not forgiveness for others, shall in no wise enter unto heaven." 3, "He who blasphemes the holy ghost, shall in no wise enter unto heaven"... blaspheme in this context does not mean saying gods name in vain. It is talking about those who speak about good things as if they are bad, and hold up bad things as good. Or simply, if a person out of the good of their heart, tries to share something with you, and you say to them that they are satan, or touched by satan etc.
Your god lives in a little box, and is powerless, because you have magnified yourself in his authority to admonish others. He is a god of ever decreasing margins and can not be what you claim. God did not plan all that has happened, he may have planned for it, but no one can attribute a serial killer to his plan. God is a god of free will, its right there in that book you are hitting people with. Your god is a god that you have to respond for because he lives in the space between sheets of dead cellulose that science gave you the ability to produce. Your god can not be real because he lives outside of you in a book, and you missed that the book was meant as a tool to unlock a higher mind. One that is open to possibility, wonderment, communion with everything you see. It was never meant to arm you in some cosmic war of good and evil so that you can single handedly win the day by smiting all the Daves out there. I want you to say this out loud, if you believe in god... "I believe the creator of the entire universe, needs me, to help him prove it." do this until you gain the first part of understanding. In the meantime learn everything you can from people like Dave, this is the first time in history, that these things were available for you and I to know, for the price of a phone or router. These people are sharing for free things they had to work hard for, pay real money for, and dedicate themselves to with real time. Appreciate this gift, what are you going to answer when you get to heaven and say "god where were you when I was asking how you did it?" and god answers "I sent Dave?!?"
This is a perfect example of the effects religious indoctrination can have on rational thought. This man, while undoubtedly brilliant, is betraying his and everyone's intellect but asserting magic as a viable answer for things we dont yet know.
Also, Dave, your videos are awesome. Thw way you lay out information is very straight foward and easy to understand for us lay people. Thank you for sharing
@S Gloobal "non living chemicals" Only that life is still non living chemicals like your body is right now when you are alive entirely made of "non living atoms". You just don't want to get that. ;-)
@S Gloobal i sincerely doubt it's as simple as that, read up
@S Gloobal Actually single cells can be brought back from dead if you define death as malfunction so they can be revived and reactivated again. Like mitochondria, but into inactive bacteria for years to be all of a sudden jumped back to be active - but this is sadly not possible for complicated organism as far as we know - there are some exceptions of immortal animals like www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1128732/Invasion-immortal-jellyfish-lives-ever.html instead of dying of old age they regress back to baby state and regrow old again - but those are exceptions.
@S Gloobal My goodness... you need to distinguish DECAYED and DIED I was referring to: www.quantamagazine.org/cell-death-anastasis-and-resurrection-20190708/ and
www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/pig-brains-partially-revived-what-it-means-for-medicine-death-ethics/
Cell Anastasis aka Resurrection of recently dead cells.
That is not "playing games" because lifeforms are bio machines where the components however usually fall apart QUICKLY.
You do not really understand what death is there. In humans death is the malfunction of vital organs like the heart stops beating, the lung stops breathing, the brain cells dry out and die by turning into dry glued together mold - your stomach does not produce slime anymore to avoid that the own stomach acid digest your own stomach from inside out - the bacteria living inside your gut start to eat your organs and the bacteria and mushroom spores on your skin start to eat you from outside in.
That is not "reversable" in the sense that the system broke apart unrestartable, because your body falls apart at a rapid speed.
We are staying alive by billions of active processes of all the machines you linked to me - if a person dies this whole machines turn into a chaotic wasteland faster than you can look.
You are also not aware that millions of invading forces attack you and me permanently - in the air bacteria, parasites etc. attack our skin all the time.
In fact cells like skin cells and hair cells die all the time you and me are both completely covered by dead skin cells.
Resurrection would be to maintain and or make the millions of machinery run again simultaneously - that is also the reason why christianity isn't true - you can't just restart a body 2 and a half day without having severe cell decay taking place.
@S Gloobal The human body is not "created" - it is born. You are not as you are today teleported into a chair or walked off a factory - you were born by your mother, she was born by her mother and so on and 375,000 generations ago the human ancestors looked less human - like the French poodle ancestors 50,000 generations ago looked way less poodle and more like wolves.
This was good, and pretty much meshed with the impression I formed of Tour when investigating his claims.
I'd add to the argument from odds concerning protein structure, that it's even worse for the creationist/ID argument. Although there are (currently) 20 main amino acids that comprise the primary sequence of proteins, they fall into essentially *four* functional categories of R-group: basic, acidic, hydrophillic and hydrophobic. So to get the initial approximation of function that you allude to, it's not a one in twenty chance of the right specific amino acid being in the right place in the sequence, but only a one on four of roughly the right kind of functionality of amino acid. For hydrophobic folding, it'd make no real difference if it was a leucine or isoleucine for example.
Further, it's pretty obvious from any analysis of protein families that you can get the same functional effect from a protein with loads of differences in primary sequence. Otherwise, a, let's say, beta-galactosidase enzyme would have to have exactly the same primary sequence in every living thing that could use lactose as a food source. But it doesn't. There are lots of difference beta-galactosidase structures, all perfectly capable of breaking down lactose into two galactose molecules (mine doesn't any more...).
Shit that's a good point, I should have mentioned that.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains 'S alright. I spent 13 years researching the physiological effects of different protein variants on muscle contraction. These things kind of leap out at me like a misplaced apostrophe.
I forgot myself yet another factor- proteins are modular. You only need to develop an ATP binding site, for example, the once, and that entire gene sequence can end up spliced into another sequence for a different protein. Nature doesnt need to develop the same functionality every time for every different protein.
@@fukpoeslaw3613 At physiological pH, yes. But that's a good point, you could strip amino acids down to two kinds - hydrophobic and hydrophilic, that would give the fundamental aspects of folding and membrane insertion.
@@simongiles9749 I already deleted my question (aren't their just 3? Basic, acidic and hydrophobic.) after I found my book about biochemistry and remembered the ones with -OH groups.
Thanks for responding anyways!
It's not okay that he doesn't understand evolution. If I can understand, a visual artist, then anyone can.
Lmao it is not okay?
and your mindset is non logical, ”if i can, anyone can”
@@heyhowareyou7777 No, it's not ok. Evolution is easy as fuck. If you don't understand it when taught by a proper teacher, then you're a moron.
@@heyhowareyou7777
It is not OK for *Tour* to pontificate about evolution without understanding it.
Dr. Tour strikes me as the ‘I’m afraid of death and will do anything to avoid it’ sort of Christian.
Which is funny because a key part of Christianity is resurrection. Before the Rapture entered our psyches, it was a core part of theology that one must die and be resurrected to aching life everlasting
Professor Dave
“He knows a lot about debunking myths”
PROFESSOR DAVE EXPLAINS
@John Carboni
A half-assed strawman, how about you come up with an actual argument? You clearly didn't watch the video. "Unprovable fantasy theories" sounds a lot like the Bible to me...
@John Carboni Got any more of MISTER Hovind's worn-out talking points that you can parrot?
@John Carboni What's the alternative to abiogenesis? A magic ghost did it?
@John Carboni I honestly didn't understand what you tried to say, nor why you changed subjects from abiogenesis to anthropogensis (which seems you don't understand by the only sentence you wrote).
What I understood is that you believe in intelligent desing (i.e. a god created everyting), and that it is something you assume I just can't understand, while not trying to explain anything at all (you didn't even bring up pseudo-science stuff like irreducible complexity or specified complexity).
I don't know if you don't understand how any mechanism works, therefore god, or if you do have a working mechanism to explain stuff, but are so arrogant in your "superior belief" that you don't even try explain.
@John Carboni Not true. Since you're the one making such a claim, you'd have to back that up with evidence.
Even it's own definiton states that a natural process can be a mechanism. Intelligent guidance is not needed at all...
I've been working with origin of life researchers the past 6 years and you did a wonderful job summarizing the field. I'm impressed how well you summarized this. That's why I support you on Patreon, brother!
Thanks, friend!
White Wolf What leads you to conclude that molecules possess knowledge in the first place? And what is intrinsically special about a wing in your question?
All anatomical parts of all living organisms have evolved over many millions of years and will doubtless continue to do so. Evolution is a process without an end.
It is good though that you are open to learning. What did you think about this video?
Wolfy, if you want to understand science, you have to learn science. I have many tutorials in chemistry, biochemistry, and biology that can help you do that, so that you never ask something so ridiculous ever again.
No, you know zero things about science. That's why you say "evolutionist", which is a fake word that a preacher taught you. Nature is not sentient. Mutations are random, and the resulting phenotypes propagate in a statistically significant way if they bestow the organism with a greater likelihood of survival and thus procreating. It's called natural selection. Since you don't know what any of those words mean, you can either learn basic biological principles, or just keep quiet.
White Wolf I recommend that you start with reading Charles Darwin. Read it with an open mind trying not to start with the assumption that there is a divine creator using a literal interpretation of the Old Testament. If you already firmly believe that your answer is contained in the pages of Genesis then your brain will not allow you to challenge those assumptions and you will never find answers to the questions that perplex you.
Good luck.
As a biochemist you have no idea how happy it makes me to see people standing for science and making it accessible to everybody. I would say you are doing god's work but that would be an understatement. Love the content!
Gods work seems to be 99% murdering people for mildly annoying him or just for no reason.
@@mwperk02 leaving out the fact he was the one who created them but k. his creation his rules
@@icrushchildrensdreams4556 I don't give a single shit if he created us. if he kills people for no reason he is a complete and utter asshole.
@@mwperk02 God has nothing to do with that. Whether you believe in a deity or not is irrelevant - it's an indisputable fact that the original religious texts of Christianity, Islam, etc. preach a message of universal love and harmony. The jihadists and Westborough Church, as well as the entire umbrella of Bible Literalism and religious pseudoscientists, are a disgrace to everyone who legitimately believes in a higher power. Don't mock all religion just because some people are dumbasses who reach use religion as an excuse for their own behavior.
@@eldigan2278 at no point do these religious texts preach universal love. These books were written by primitives thousands of years ago to justify their cruelty towards the tribes around them. There are clearly rules biased towards better treatment of Israelites above all others. God routinely bails them out of bad situations lets them genocide several other tribes. Condones rape and slavery. Furthermore both the Holy bible and the Quran tell followers to execute non believers who refuse to convert. Hardly a book of Universal peace and love.
I thought that your videos were the most entertaining part of your channel, but I've just started reading the most recent comments and your replies LMAO
Lol
These people love to obfuscate the most obvious thing: Life exists. Scientist don't "presupose" that life formed, they KNOW it did. They're just searching for the mechanism because "God did it" Never was, nor will ever be an answer.
@ Nice try but that's not a thing.
@FACE GALLON I think that could be the case but its more likely that my security blanket offers only false agency so I must work hard to maintain the necessary delusion . Everytime science gets stronger my job gets harder , I get more afraid and that in turn pisses me off enough to last out with the intent to silence and undermine science
@@john-giovannicorda3456 There is a lot of data between the preface and back cover you skipped over .
@@lawnmowerman716 Thats great, but no matter how small the odds, we know life did form. Scientists are looking for how that happens and maybe we will eventually find out that it was a god, but that hasn't been demonstrated yet.
Why does Tour never use his channel to talk about the science he does? He basically only talks about Religion, evolution and abiogenesis. The few outliers were things like his covid vaccine conspiracies debunk which I assume were only created to try to reduce the fire coming towards him.
When you're a hammer, the world is a nail. For this guy, since he's quite the devout Christian, it wouldn't matter what his discipline was, he would see God.
What is the value of your statement? Wouldn't that also apply in reverse?
I feel like I am a hammer and the entire world is screws.
If I counted correctly - Tour makes about 32 errors of fact or logic
Debunking Creationist Prof James Tour on Abiogenesis and Evolution .
1) "I am a layman on the subject (evolution vs creation). Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation." Repeatedly emphasises that he doesn’t understand evolution. Evangelical, Professor James Tour. (*1)
2) Having admitted his lack of credentials he says, "I simply can not accept it as unreservedly as many of my scientist colleagues do".
3) For a guy who admits that he is unqualified and not sufficiently informed, he makes a hell of a lot of related videos, and talks about it (claiming to debunk abiogenesis and evolution) a hell of a lot. (*2)
4) He repeatedly brings in religion to the debate - undermining his own credentials as a scientist. If the science is wrong he should be able to address that without any reference to his faith. (*1) , (*2)
5) Strawman argument that chemicals combined in a pond and creatures slithered out.
6) Doesn’t even know the plural of bacterium (its bacteria).
7) Claims that we don’t know how to make nucleic acids - we have machines that can do it.
8) Claims that we don’t know how to make proteins - we have machines that can do it.
9) Claims that we don’t know how to make lipids - these are easily synthesised.
10) Claims that we don’t know how to make carbohydrates - this is harder but we can do it (e.g. polysaccharides).
11) Claims that we don’t know how to synthesise biomolecules - meaning that tit doesn’t happen outside of a biological system (strawman logical fallacy).
12) Claims that we cant assemble a bacterium. Argument is irrelevant - we cant assemble a star , but that doesn’t mean we don’t understand how they form or evolve.
13) Claims that we cant assemble a bacterium from constituent parts. Argument is flawed (strawman) nature doesn’t do that either (I.e. evolution).
14) Claims that there is no information inherent in DNA, ignoring that DNA is of itself information.
15) Claims that if DNA were provided we wouldn’t know how to assemble a bacterium. As with stars - irrelevant. Nature does it using the genome - the fact the “we” cant doesn’t change what happens.
16) Insists that we cant create a cell as it exists today - circular argument ignoring evolution to claim that evolution cant be true.
17) Repeatedly describes the impossibility of all the components of eukaryotic cells combining in one go - strawman - this isn’t what science claims (the process took a billion years).
18) Repeatedly conflates abiogenesis with evolution, demanding that chemicals combine to produce EXISTING cells as observed today.
19) Makes claims about homochirality but ignores known mechanisms e.g. heterogenous catalysis or enantiometric reolution, and ignores that not all molecules needed to originate in chiral form..
20) Blames mainstream media reporting of science. Although true - it doesn’t change that the science is known. MSM is not the source of science - academic journals are - which ironically Tour himself has avoided.
21) Argues that long spans of time cause carbohydrates to degrade. Ignores that polymerisation isn’t a one off process but occurs all the time, therefore degradation is irrelevant.
22) Argues that long spans of time cause carbohydrates to degrade. Ignores self replication making degradation is irrelevant.
23) Uses Cannizzaro reactions to argue for degradation despite knowing that the reaction conditions don’t and didn’t apply.
24) Repeatedly references useless by products - ignoring that evolution itself wouldn’t have utilised them - because they were useless.
25) Makes bizarre claims about source of materials, stating that if the process had taken 0.5Bn years, it would have run out of materials. He equates a reaction flask in the laboratory with planetary oceans.
26) Complains that nature doesn’t have a lab notebook - ignoring that evolution is doing the work of the notebook.
27) Claims that we haven’t progressed much since Miller and Urey. This is false. Ignores numerous other experiments and Nobel prizes awarded in this field.
28) Uses religion to cloud his opinion about biology (where he admits he has no expertise) e.g. claiming that biologists are pulling away from Darwinian evolution. Other than a handful of fringe Christian apologists all biologists work within a Darwinian evolutionary framework.
29) Asks how evolution propagates - answers that are found in undergraduate textbooks, and shows his ignorance of genetics.
30) Posits strawman argument e.g why immune systems don’t evolve into digestive systems.
31) Repeatedly insists that science is clueless on these topics ignoring the vast number of doctoral theses, research papers and Nobel prizes.
32) Hasn’t published a single paper on abiogenesis or evolution for publication in a peer reviewed journal.
sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-chemist-who-doesnt-understand.html
ruclips.net/video/SixyZ7DkSjA/видео.html
Amazing amount of effort put into your comment...why?
@lieshtmeiser5542 i want people to be able to distinguish between "he made a typo" and "this is such a monumental clusterfuck of bullshit" !
Well done, I was always interested in knowing exactly the number of things he was *clueless* about
@@kemicalhazard8770 "Well done..."
Um, ok...
I thought they did a good job in summarising, hence the "well done"@@lieshtmeiser5542
I've heard creationist try to make both of these arguments:
1: If humans CAN'T replicate a natural phenomenon in the lab then an infinitely intelligent agent with greater capacity and capability than us must be responsible for it. Therefore, God created life!
2: If humans CAN replicate a natural phenomenon in the lab then that proves that intelligence was required to create it. Therefore, God created life!
Creationists are people who by default/dogma say what they want to believe incl. even denial of math like when the bible would say 2+2=5 they would not question it: ruclips.net/video/Ysecinv367w/видео.html
This is a clip from a creationist ark encounter DVD of the HBO series you get at the creationist theme park.
Ken Ham the very leader of the "creationist" theme park and AiG admitted at the Bill Nye debate:
ruclips.net/video/5X5liH-hM80/видео.html
That no evidence presented to him would *EVER* change his made up mind that the bible shall never taken into question as "true christian believer".
This is also true for any leading christian "debaters" and theologicans - They explain to you convoluted but usually in honesty:
ruclips.net/video/Q78ahkiMtFk/видео.html
Like there the rather well educated theologican William Lane Craig.
Explaining that his feelings must stay so strong that the mind must be "dense" enough as closed mindset, that not a single drop of reality and therfor doubt should sip into his brain.
No way to _Endangering the love for an image_ .
Threatening the very idea they have in their heads. So that nothing would endangering the certainty to be 100% absolute right.
This is how feelings shall defeat FACTS:
ruclips.net/video/5S823FczC0k/видео.html
Feeling good and be satisfied intrinsic (hedonistically) and therfor *IN LOVE* with an idea should be the foundation how you act without further doubt of your own satisfaction.
It is basically saying: "I'm God as decider what shall be the one and ONLY right way to feel and confuse that with an accurate way to understand the world."
The reason why they act that way is only psychological in nature.
They act that way like a psychiatry patient sees himself as Jesus, Julius Ceasar or Napoleon for psychological reasons, too.
If you feel you are Napoleon - it shall defeat reality itself.
@@michaelstevens3618 Yes, but since the process doesn't require a mind to guide it it's more likely that a mind had nothing to do with it.
@@Angelmou Thanks for the clips. Just goes to show that religion is just intellectual prison
@@michaelstevens3618 First of all, I think you're potentially proving my point because if we found out tomorrow that scientists made a breakthrough and created the first living cell from scratch then I'm quite certain you'd try to use that as evidence for God because a mind was responsible for the creation of that artificial cell therefore a mind must've been responsible for the creation of real cells.
Second of all, Just because we have technology doesn't necessarily mean that the technology that we currently have is going to be sufficient to replicate a natural phenomenon. Some natural phenomenon are just beyond anything humans can could ever hope to replicate at least for a very long time. For example, stars are created naturally without a mind but just because human's can't create an artificial star like the ones we see in the universe doesn't mean they don't occur naturally.
@@michaelstevens3618 No. Replicate granite. Replicate a thunderstorm. Replicate a galaxy. It might be possible to do as you state but the intelligent mind would have to know how it naturally happens first and sadly we are not quite there yet as far as abiogenesis goes. Pretty soon but not today. Once we do know how it may have happened we just might be able to replicate that process or at least many of the steps necessary.
2:18 - "First he [James Tour] is not a conman like most of the people I debunk. He's not deliberately peddling misinformation to make money on the internet, he's a respected chemist."
Big oof.
Yeah that was a bit generous of me
So informative. I'm learning a lot about the finer points of origin of life theory. I was definitely quick to judge, but now recognisie your frustration with some who unnesessarily belittle certain possibilities. Respect for all the effort you put into these vids.
This is so much nicer without him screaming over you at the top of his lungs. That was genuinely painful.
We've had computers for 80 years but we can't understand how life was formed billions of years ago so it must be god. Cool story.
That's all the creationists have and it is sad in deed.
Not only that. Its this specific god who prefers to talk to goatherders in some obscure mountains
@@seb_5969 probably enjoys watching the beastiality tag on r34
@@mwperk02 nothing wrong with that
@@Goodbutevilgenius as long as it dosent transition from fantasy into reality...then you've gone far enough that this furry will daft crusader armor and strike you down for being a degenerate.
I know I am late to the party, but you make very simple points for very difficult thoughts or ideas. The fear of death is neglected by most and effects everyone. Dwindling that fear has given me the opportunity to let truth in without resistance.❤️
The soap example is so beautiful 😍
"I can't build a giraffe in my lab, so only God could make life."
If man breeds a poodle with a labradore you get a labradodle...God didn't create that. REV MENDLESON many years ago was genetically modifying plants creating new strains God didn't create...soo evolutionary by meddling. So one day we'll make a giraffe in a lab..not practical but may be possible
@@lemmon-up4er So by your definition when a man and woman "get together" they create a new life that God had nothing to do with?
@@garricklittle314
Why should any deity be involved in material procreation?
@@garricklittle314 hell god doesnt seem to have anything to do with anything.
@@mwperk02 oopsie!
Dave, you are really good at explaining things in a clear manner. Thank you for the hard work of making the videos.
Just rewatched this to better remeber what started the shit show of a debate. - Dave was realy nice to Tour in this one, as he stated. But than Tour came upon him with all Christian love and willfull missunderstanding.
What I find amazing is that in the 21st C there are still people who believe that some mythical being created life by what can only be described as magic. Maybe if they spent some time investigating their religion they would see their error, but most will not look for fear of shattering the illusion that they have built their lives around.
In the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled the teaching of creationism as science in public schools to be unconstitutional, irrespective of how it may be purveyed in theological or religious instruction.
You think that's bad..Check out some flat Earth videos. And try to repeat to yourself, "this person is in the same species as me," as you watch.
@@That_Montage_Nerd I know, I've pretty given up on flerfs as their abject stupidity knows no bounds.
Having said that creationists are there or thereabouts in the stupidity stakes. Luckily it seems to be an American thing which I put down to the woeful education system which allows children to be indoctrinated by uncaring parents.
One day soon I hope mankind will rid the shackles that religion imposes.
Arguably, human beings need miths in order for society to exist. Spirituality is a fundamental need of human societies.
The USA supreme court is just as big of a mith as the Bible. Humans created it from nothing. So are nations, money, and all political regimes, for example. (Science, however, is not.)
So maybe we should quit Making fun of people for beliveing în religions "în the 21 c", and we should realise that miths are needed for society to function. 😁 Miths created civilization as we know it today, it is what diferentiate us from other living creatures.
However, I agree creaționism shouldn't be taught în schools as science, but rather as an alegory or a piece of literature. I didn't know this was happening în USA, it's not even happening in România that is, like, 200 years behind. Sure, they mention creation, but only during the religion class.
The schematic for the iPhone 12 was given to us by god. It's the only explanation.
How could we figure out how to put all those infinitely small parts together all by ourselves? It's impossible that we just happened on that design of phone, and there was no iPhone 1-11 because nothing can ever change into a different kind.
Obviously this is utter guano but it's along the same lines of the argument they're using to explain how life couldn't have started on earth.
The first computers were vastly less complicated but they still did eventually become insanely complex.
"The schematic for the iPhone 12 was given to us by god. It's the only explanation." Not only God, but the God I happen to believe in, predominantly due to the geography of my birthplace......makes an even more "compelling" "argument".
Man, it makes me so sad to see people like this. I am extremely religious, but I often face some prejudice when people think that I don’t accept science because of that. People like this give people a bad impression of religious people in general. Yes, I believe that God created the universe, yes I believe that God acts within higher laws that we are not yet aware of, and yes I believe that we can have a spiritual connection with God. I believe in Spiritual truth from the Bible, but it was also written and changed by men. It contains errors, personal bias, prejudiced opinions, and incorrect information while also containing parts of beautiful spiritual guidance from God (my personal belief). None of this does or should contradict science as we develop and discover it. In fact, the more we learn, the more I am in awe at the beauty and vastness of it all. Thanks for another great video Professor Dave! You really help me understand some concepts that have always eluded me and correct some of my misinformed ideas.
👏👏
A lot of this complex molecule stuff is because it's a modular process not just singular events. Creationists just can't comprehend that. Random repeats of sections of DNA can produce extra vertebrae and other things that change body form because the code is modular.
I think it's a crime that this video doesn't get more views. This is among the best videos ever submitted to RUclips. This should be shown in every science class, world-wide. There are 5 or 6 videos like this, and this is what a Uni science class looks like, kind of (it's almost all raw data and facts).
I'll try commenting and see if that makes it pop up in recommendations all the time again, like it used to for me back in the day.
@@rocketsurgeon1746
Actually he does this purely because he supports the _very religious and creationist_ *Discovery Institute.*
@@rocketsurgeon1746 "Try watching dr tour. He actually does this for a living and knows it" - I managed 25 seconds of James Liar Tour before the third lie came. He is getting paid to lie for idiots like yourself. A better post would be "Avoid watching dr tour. He actually lies for a living and knows it"
Professor Dave Explains
I have a question about the second law of thermodynamics and abiogenesis. As you covered, many theists posit the second law as a prohibitive problem for abiogenesis, however, to my mind, aren’t the implications of the law actually a DRIVER of the spontaneous arrival of organic compounds from inorganic ones?
If the universe is a closed system, and physics demands the diffusion of usable energy, it seems to me that living things, being more efficient diffusers of energy than inorganic things, are not only anticipated in a universe made of matter and energy, they are in-fact necessary consequents of a universe which contains matter and energy and seeks (in the non-anthropomorphic sense) to go from a high-energy state to disordered entropy.
Furthermore, it would seem to follow that the law even demands biological evolution because multi-cellular organisms are more efficient energy-users than their single-celled cousins, and complex life is even more efficient.
Do I misunderstand the consequences of the law and the potential that physics is actually driving chemistry and biology?
Yes, thermodynamics specifically prompts the self-organization of complex systems. I go into a lot more detail with this in my more recent two-part response to him, I believe it's in part 1. As you say it is specifically about dissipating gradients of free energy, in this case sunlight. Anyone who cites thermodynamics as prohibiting abiogenesis or evolution is a complete moron and just regurgitating apologist rhetoric.
Entropy is as much a creative force as it is a destructive one; even while being destructive, it is creative, clearing away the old to make way for something new. Entropy is the very engine of evolution.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains how do you proves the abiogenesis in lab?
@@kraftmorrison abiogenesis is about how life came into this world...not how life came into this lab...we can clone life and have access to every form of evolved life in a lab(you not included) evolution re evolved a previously extinct life form(do some research) and that happens in the wild and the forms of life that abiogenesis refers to no longer exists do to the fact evolution occurred and natural selection occurred removing it from the face of this earth...thus we only have the much more evolved single cell organisms to base our ideas and claims off of(think your brain but more enhanced)...the best we could do in a lab is slowly de evolve a single called organism amd still never come close to what was most likely how we all got here...however all the evidence is still in favor of dave...after all that's why tour ignores it and says it dosent exist.
Rewatching this playlist like its my favorite Netflix series. I understand shit-all after this video, but I like hearing the big words in hopes I can one day comprehend this through osmosis.
osmowhat? /jk
"The top 10 things all creationists say"
I'm just a kid and even I understand that there's no way something remebling today's cell couldn't have jumped up spontaniously from whatever the standard for one of those was back in the day
On the other hand, there’s nothing that we can find today that resembles the “standard for one of those was back in the day”. We don’t find those simple units or simple cells forming anywhere.. Why did nature stop doing what it did all of a sudden? I’d say Nature never did it on itself to begin with...
@@Mighty_Deeds That is just your assertion. And if you want to replace nature with something, then you should present evidence for that something. You can't? Colour me suprised...
@@przemog88 My assertion? What are the examples of primary cells and that formed out in the ocean? What are the observation we have for life spurring out of a cocktail of chemicals? Enlighten me, please.
@@Mighty_Deeds Yep, it's just your assertion. You assert that "we didn't yet observed" is the same as "it isn't happening". That's assertion whatever you want to call it that.Therest of your babbling clearly show that you don't even know how science works. Aren't you ashamed for projecting your own imagination as reality?
@@Mighty_Deeds Why are there no Triceratops anymore? Or trilobytes? Because they were outcompeted and went extinct. And the initial environment that these developed in have been changed by the presence of life and just natural changes that life adapted to.
Using how soap cleans your hands to prove that life could develop without a God was a pog move, Professor! 🧠 :P
You're wrong, it was an analogy. Understand.
@@justinalexander8845 I know what a goddamned analogy is, thank you very much, and that isn’t what the soap discussion even was. There’s a difference between correcting someone who’s wrong and being a jackass.
@@theaviator1152 good of your use of insults....best reaction from you i guess. Nm
@@justinalexander8845 you weird son
I love the fact that Christians hate abiogenesis. When it's exactly how the bible describes the creation of Adam.
@@marcellinehouabolet8273 What do you mean?
I am a biologist dating chemist....which means I know a bunch of both. Sometimes I am dumbfounded by the insolence of some chemists regarding biology. Most of them don't but some make it up for all of them.
No, not *Dave.*
@@hamsarris8341 Tessa was referring to Dr. Tour who lacks an education in biology yet claims to be an authority on it
@@MarkMetternichPhotographyLLC
Learn to read.