A Response to the Debates with Dr. James Tour

[@williambillycraig1057]

Tour pointed to gaps in our knowledge, the links missing from nonlife to life; this was his claim anyway. Tour diagramed amino acids on his blackboard. He said these amino acids had to couple; he then asked Farina to show how they couple to form an amino peptide. Instead of showing how by writing it out, Farina pointed to papers, believing that they proved his point. My takeaway was that he lacked the understanding of the science behind what he believed to be true. This was the point of Tour's argument; Farina could write "not clueless" on the board, but he could not use one of the papers he cited to demonstrate this to be true. He could not even state why he would not or could not use one of the articles to write it out on the board. Farina's lack of ability to, at minimum, explain why he could not illustrate what he claimed to believe, combined with his inflated ego and hostility toward those who are not 100% on his side, showed his intellectual shallowness and bitterness. He could have used the time to build bridges with those who did not understand his view. Instead, he burned bridges and spat on those he saw as lower than himself. This came out when these men were asked to say something positive about the other. Though he disagreed with him, Tour praised Farina for his intelligence, abilities, and family; Farina used this time to defame and demean Tour. As far as I can see, Tour won by default.

[@Sparrow-hawk-666]

Well, amino acids have been shown to form peptides under abiotic aqueous conditions: In situ observation of peptide bond formation at the water-air interface Elizabeth C. Griffith and Veronica Vaida PNAS August 27, 2012 109 (39) 15697-15701 Perhaps wee Jimmy should learn how to read science papers.

[@Sparrow-hawk-666]

Thank you for illustrating what ignorance of chemistry and biology can do to a mind. Dave Farina isn't even a practising scientist but he out-argued that idiot Tour, who clearly was way out of his depth. The best Tour could do, besides scribbling on the chalk board, was wave the chalk manically under poor Dave's nose while screaming his denial of science. Tour is a belligerent arse.

[@GeDePeU]

I would like to correct what you said: he is not actually pointing to gaps in knowledge. The chemistry laws are well known! He is pointing that the laws of chemistry would not work in prebiotic conditions. Until now they didn't work well enough even in pristine laboratories. The point is that if you can't do it in a lab, to presume it would happen by chance is ridiculous. He keeps asking "tell me how" not because there is a gap in knowledge but because what we know does not reasonably allow for life to star by chance and this is leaving everybody speechless in terms of scientific explanations.

[@Reclaimer77]

@@williambillycraig1057 Can you show me a single time in the history of mankind where once we figured out some gap in our knowledge we actually found it was God causing it?? Anything?? It's not that this is the only hill you guys want to die on. It's just literally the only hill left where your feet can find any purchase. Mountains of research papers that show James Tour wrong, and you guys want to talk about scribbling on chalk like it's preschool. Wow...

[@GeDePeU]

@@Reclaimer77 Have you watched James Tour's video series debunking Farina's opinion on those papers (using actual scientific arguments instead of titles)? You sound like a Dave Farina cultist who did not but is really convinced a KZbinr knows better than a synthetic chemistry scientist who is in top 20 in the world, in this field, judging by the h-index. I would be happy to hear Lee Cronin's scientific arguments about what James Tour has to say but the guy has nothing scientifically relevant to say that would contradict him. I get that you are trying to defend a position dear to you but as I corrected the guy: it is not about gaps in knowledge, it is about actual knowledge we have which does not support the expectations about life starting by chance.

[@Billb9I3]

Right. He asked chemistry and Lee Cronin jumps to assembly theory, which was later analyzed and said was trash by another scientist in Dr Tours show. Then the other scientists talk philosophy and ignore the question.

[@GeDePeU]

That was such a bad debate! Cronin suggested that Tour is a Christian therefore is of no use to give scientific arguments from chemistry. Then he said "I'm a materialist" and no one noticed. Then the other guys talked philosophy and no science questions were asked. I shuddered seeing the level at which the discussion was taking place. Also the restrictions imposed on Tour's speech were insane, insulting and biased.

[@glenngruber4483]

Yes Dr. Tour was not getting chemistry answers back, which leaves the impression that Dr Tour is asking questions that prove he is right.

[@Sparrow-hawk-666]

Tour isn't right. He's mistaken at best, and outright lying at worst. It's perfectly ok to question hypotheses about abiogenesis. It's not ok to pretend that life was created by magic, as Tour evidently believes.

[@ReasoningThroughTheBible]

I’ve seen his key work online. So far all he’s done is ask chemistry questions without getting chemistry answers.

[@Sparrow-hawk-666]

@@ReasoningThroughTheBible He's an infatuated Christian like, who loves to believe in magic. You can delete my posts all you like, you can't prove your silly religion. So delete this by all means. You haven't the wit to argue against it.

[@ReasoningThroughTheBible]

Must be a new tactic that skeptics and atheists claim their posts get deleted. It's a sign of insecurity in their weak arguments, so they feign posts are deleted presumably for fellow skeptics and atheists reading their old, tired, and quite boring insults. 😂😂😂

[@GregoryHolden-k5c]

@@ReasoningThroughTheBible Heyyyyyy, now! Watch it. Why are you being so truthful? 😂

[@shadowlazers]

Calling someone a liar who is a proven liar is not an ad hominem attack

[@GeDePeU]

Do you have a scientific paper or court decision proving some lie? What are you talking about? Of course that calling someone a liar or other names is "ad hominem"! Besides, when someone says something and instead of dealing with the argument you are questioning the reasons of the person (like his religious views), that is a logical fallacy. Lets see what wiki has to say about this: "Appeal to motive is a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer. It can be considered as a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive

[@coveux8335]

It's still irrelevant to the discussion. They were talking chemistry. Dave clearly did not understand the papers he was citing so much that Dr. Tour kept explaining them to him instead and why they were not answers to his (Dr. Tour) questions. For example, Dr. Tour challenged Dave how 2 amino acids can "couple" to form a dipeptide. Dave could not demonstrate it and instead cites the Ghadiri paper which involves a sulfur compound made separately in dicholormethane using HOBt which is a coupling agent which, in turn, itself would require intervention to exist in a prebiotic world. That begs the question of Dr. Tour.

[@Reclaimer77]

​@@GeDePeUIt's called Kitsmiller vs Dover and yes, it proved Intelligent Design is based on a lie.

[@Reclaimer77]

​@@coveux8335"Peptide bonds form between the carboxyl group of amino acid 1 and amino group of amino acid 2. Water is removed as a byproduct. The resulting peptide bond is a C-N covalent bond that now links the two amino acids together to form a dipeptide." You guys act like this stuff is so mind- blowingly hard or incomprehensible. Drawing this on a chalkboard doesn't change the facts! Citing primary research is how scientists are supposed to settle disputes. James Tour is supposed to be a scientist. But he's ideologically apposed to accepting any research that offends his god complex.

[@GeDePeU]

@@Reclaimer77 Concerning Kitsmiller vs Dover, you should know that science is not settled in a courtroom! Only the issue weather creationism will be thought in schools or not was decided there. As far as scientific theories go, they change all the time. Also, the most important fact, James Tour arguments are not supporting creationism, he is just poking holes in the current OOL hype. Stop red-herring us and stop building straw men.

[@GeDePeU]

Yes, I have technical background too, I am accustomed to reading scientific papers and can confirm Farina's complete lack of scientific ... skill. Only someone with no idea how scientific communication actually works can think that Farina made any other point besides that he is rude and unskilled. Seeing some of the negative comments against Tour here and the "arguments" I can tell those people are simply functional illiterate, meaning that they are capable to read something but the mening of what they read (or hear) escapes them. They cannot identify the relevant parts. One single observation: to be precise, dr. Tour did not spoke about evolution, but Origin Of Life (OOL) research. He actually said that evolution is not his field and he cannot have a discussion on this subject. Same thing about philosophical questions ... He is a chemist and wishes to discuss chemistry only. A shame that te bunch contradicting him have no clue how to respond to him.

[@mwarren400]

As a laymen, I totally agree with you and the speaker. I was expecting "chemistry answers" to "chemistry questions" and it was quite obvious that Farina was deflecting. Thank you for your response. If a mindless early earth could create life, it should be childs-play for today's chemists.

[@Reclaimer77]

​@@mwarren400What answers did Tour give though? It's a god of the gaps argument. HE didn't show how god did it either! So what answers?? A mystery therfore God - that's not an answer. It's not even intelligent. It's just dumb.

[@ReasoningThroughTheBible]

As opposed to "A mystery therefore time" - Time of the gaps argument not an answer either, in fact time is THE enemy of OOL. Takes a lot of faith to believe time of the gaps. Noting the complexities of our bodies and pondering an intelligent designer, is not a dumb exercise. Burying one's head in the sand, ignoring the obvious and repeating 'we all appeared over eons of time' given the scientific knowledge that has been gained in just the last 50 years is true ignorance. Another suggested video in our series is "Nature's Layers of Systems Conundrum" kzbin.info/www/bejne/fJ2wgo2ufJhopbcsi=DGguaGCjH1VOUYUt Watch it if you dare!

[@Reclaimer77]

@@ReasoningThroughTheBible "Time of the gaps". I thought it was really weird when I heard James Tour say this. After all I'm told he's a scientist. But no scientist talks this way. Because they know deep time is a fact. Then I learned he's a young earth Creationist so it makes perfect sense: he's a moron. Guy it's time to face facts. Don't you think it's kind of a coincidence that all the people who have issues with OOL and Evolution happen to be fundamentalist wackos who think the universe is 6k years old?? Just... Come on. Sorry the Bible just isn't true. You guys lie about science. NOTHING you believe is grounded in facts. James Tour is just William Lane Craig with a chemistry background.

[@Reclaimer77]

@@mwarren400 "I believe scientists will solve this problem. And when they do they will be figuring out how god did it." James Tour said this at Harvard. Which proves he's presupposing no matter WHAT, that god and only God is responsible for life. No matter what OOL researchers discover he's made up his mind. Validating everything Dave Farina said about him. Scientists do NOT think this way. He outed himself badly. He's a died in the wool Creationist.

[@shadowlazers]

The other side gave answers on those papers to the question the doctor at he just didn't feel he should take the time to draw it out when the answers were in these papers and it seems pretty unnecessary the answers were there toward didn't want to look at it he wanted to write them down he did all the drawing on the board to show how smart he is the other side could have done that it's pretty introductory chemistry

[@ReasoningThroughTheBible]

Keep telling yourself this. 🙄

[@GeDePeU]

That is not how scientific arguments are treated!

[@shadowlazers]

Why aren't you giving us examples at the Harvard of these questions the other scientists couldn't answer for them give us give us an example because he was thoroughly embarrassed

[@GeDePeU]

How was James Tour embarrassed?

[@Reclaimer77]

​@@GeDePeUSeriously? He went on and on about God. He admitted he'd a Creationist. And the most damning thing is he admitted even if scientists met his challenge and created a cell and figured everything out "They would only be figuring out how god did it." I meant that's game over for him as far as him being regarded as a serious scientist. I don't even like the guy and I was embarrassed for him. He looked like a clueless child at Harvard and had no answer for anything. His lack of understanding in the OOL field is shocking considering how much he talks about it.

[@GeDePeU]

@@Reclaimer77 Well ... if you manage to create life in a lab using complicated techniques and advanced equipment then the proof is obviously that life can be CREATED, not that is just happened by chance. So ......

[@Reclaimer77]

@@GeDePeU If life can be created by mankind in a lab I would say that totally rules out the need for an omnipotent all-powerful supernatural zombie Jewish carpenter. If it's so simple that we can figure it out, then obviously we're just reverse engineering what nature did. I mean come on you guys can't have this both ways. It's soooooo super duper complex only your personal sky daddy could do it right? Or not?

[@GeDePeU]

@@Reclaimer77 Well, actually it's Catch-22 for OOL researchers: on the one hand we know it is not simple because if it was simple or easy they would have created life until now with all the fancy equipment they have but they did not; on the other hand if life requires many special conditions and expensive lab equipment in order to appear, then it could not happen by chance. In order for chance to be the cause for the apparition of life it cannot be simple or easy because then we would see life appearing from inert matter all the time and we would not be having this discussion, but it cannot be that complex so it would require expensive laboratory equipment because there were no labs before life existed. Unless God made life using something that is unavailable to us, it should not be impossible for humans to create life too, in theory. By no means life in a lab would be an argument for not requiring an agent. On the contrary! I do not think in terms of "super duper complex" or "personal sky daddy". Please do not project your prejudices on me.

[@shadowlazers]

If the answer to the question was in the papers provided why bother writing on the chalkboard especially if it's going to take 10 minutes

[@GeDePeU]

Because unlike a KZbin video or a Power Point presentation a debate (especially one on scientific problems) requires communication and exchange of information and thoughts. If Dave Farina wanted a presentation he should have limited himself to that, not entered a debate. James Tour commented on the papers presented by Farina showing the problems with the data or hyped interpretations of the data and Farina was unable to prove the contrary by any scientific means. He kept repeating like a broken record: "But the title of the paper is .....". This is not the way you prove your ideas in science!

[@chrispaige8880]

Farina had no idea what he was talking about - he was just guessing based on his faulty understanding of the papers he quoted.

[@Reclaimer77]

​@@GeDePeUWhat did Tour show scientifically?? He didn't show how god made those molecules. He didn't prove they could NOT have come about naturally either. He didn't prove a damn thing. He shouted like a crazy person and demanded Farina draw with chalk. It was a shameful stunt that had zero relevance. Only theists say he won anything. And what theists say don't count for crap when it comes to science.

[@Belmondo_RH]

@@chrispaige8880 That's the story Tour tells..it's his version of damage control and given your commend, it works. That. however does not make it true. The papers presented clearly and unabigously outline Tours fraudolence. Cope!

[@markoshun]

Consider the trap question, “Do you still beat your wife?”. Is it dishonest or evading to not answer that question? In the debate with Professor Dave, Dr Tour seemed to think he should win the debate simply because Dave doesn’t do white-boarding formulations. Dave seemed quite prepared and was discussing the issues using references and research that Tour couldn’t answer. Tour’s tirade around the white board issue seemed to me evidence he had set a trap and just got frustrated when it didn’t work. It was hilarious, btw.

[@sentientflower7891]

Dave Farina didn't do any chemistry because he doesn't know any chemistry.

[@markoshun]

@@sentientflower7891 Not sure what you mean by ‘doesn’t know chemistry’. That was clearly false from the debate. But it’s probably enough just to say, neither does Tour.

[@sentientflower7891]

@@markoshun Dr. James Tour is an actual professional chemist and Dave Farina isn't. Dave Farina's audience is too uneducated to know the difference.

[@MrXatcloud]

@@markoshun Then show the chemistry to refute Tour's arguments.

[@markoshun]

@@MrXatcloud Why? Many others have and you didn’t accept them..

[@Sparrow-hawk-666]

It's a pity religion is just one, long lie.

[@ReasoningThroughTheBible]

This video isn't about religion, you should watch it before commenting. 😉

[@Sparrow-hawk-666]

@@ReasoningThroughTheBible Give me a break. You and Mr Tour are all about religion - you demand we take it seriously, when you have no evidence for your beliefs.

[@ReasoningThroughTheBible]

And you're apparently all about trolling other people's channel, commenting on content you don't watch, then claiming your comments get deleted. So, none of your comments are taken seriously. However, your commenting does help push the video out to others, so thanks! This will be our last comment with you as we'll move on to meaningful interactions. Take care!

[@Leszek.Rzepecki]

@@ReasoningThroughTheBible I love your use of the royal "we". That's the problem with CHristian apologists, they all think they know better than everyone else. So I'll eff off, sweetums, and let you wallow in your insufferable arrogance and self-pity.

[@ReasoningThroughTheBible]

There are two of us on this channel, so the terms 'us' and 'we' are used appropriately. What are your thoughts on the actual video? Or do you just comment on comments of a video without watching? 🙄