The Science & Faith Podcast - James Tour & William Dembski: Information Theory

[@johnward5102]

Deeply encouraging stuff, and a privilege to listen to your conversation. True science is not dead! Stay with it Dr. Dembski, we need you. And you of course, Dr. Tour. Fighting for truth was never going to be easy.

[@moses777exodus]

*_"Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome."_* Dr. Lee Spetner ( American physicist who is a PhD and MD from MIT and Washington University)

[@GreatBehoover]

and...NEVER have 2 Chromosomes been observed to be able to combine to form a new species. We CAN'T make happen...using the best scientists the world...what silly evolutionists BELIEVE "happened" accidentally! 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄😳😱

[@mcmanustony]

This is just a stupid slogan. you couldn't define "information" here with a gun to your head.

[@GreatBehoover]

WHAT A WIMP! HE DELETED HIS POST AND RAN AWAY DEFEATED!!!🤣🤣🤣🤣 The idiocy on naturalism is INDEFENSIBLE. When will you silly BELIEVERS learn???🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@rebanelson607]

@@mcmanustony So, please tell us the true definition for the kind of information being discussed here and that your seem to know. But there won't be any gun to your head.

[@rebanelson607]

@@GreatBehoover Maybe he preferred to take the high road and avoid dealing with someone who is angry and insulting. Some things just aren't worth the effort.

[@PaulRossOnline]

I will watch this today. The purely naturalistic interpretive model of reality is the worst that has ever been provided. It's man's juvenile attempt at an answer when he doesn't even understand the question. God speed, dear brother. Thank you for your commitment. It does not go unnoticed.

[@mcmanustony]

This is incoherent babble.

[@moses777exodus]

*_"It is only at the semantic level that we really have meaningful information; thus, we may establish the following theorem: Theorem 14: Any entity, to be accepted as information, must entail semantics; it must be meaningful. Semantics is an essential aspect of information because the meaning is the only invariant property. The statistical and syntactical properties can be altered appreciably when information is represented in another language (e.g., translated into Chinese), but the meaning does not change. Meanings always represent mental concepts; therefore, we have: Theorem 15: When its progress along the chain of transmission events is traced backward, every piece of information leads to a mental source, the mind of the sender."_* Dr. Werner Gitt (Former Head of the Department of Information Technology at Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Germany)

[@moses777exodus]

*_”For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”_* (Source: Bible, Romans 1:20)

[@averagejoe8839]

This is such a primafacia bedrock fact of the reality in Which we find ourselves in! But science goes in a totally opposite direction and. Claims blind random luck is the. Causal agent for all things observed.?? The only logical conclusion one can glean from such a stance is athiestic dogma! The observed facts of this reality dictates information such as found in genes and computer code can only manifest from intelligence. Yet contrary to all logic academia insists blind random luck is the supreme causal agent !?

[@nil1473]

Thank u sir...dear god ,please bless all...prayers for everybody...

[@stinksterrekerinski4450]

@@midlander4 I have a degree and agree with Nil even and especially after much study and years of practicing conventional medicine.

[@wesleycolemanmusic]

Love Love Love these. As I have said before, Tour, you are the REAL science guy! Thanks for your podcast, I pray it is leading many to faith.

[@mcmanustony]

What does science have to do with faith?

[@wesleycolemanmusic]

@@mcmanustony It would be more apt to ask a question in return; do you know what faith is?

[@mcmanustony]

@@wesleycolemanmusic Sure, it's belief in the absence of evidence. It has no place in science.

[@wesleycolemanmusic]

@@mcmanustony That is far off-base, but I totally understand the confusion. The word faith in Hebrew "emunah" is best defined as firmness, steadfastness, fidelity. As Hebrew 11 says, faith is the "confidence in things hoped for and the assurance in things unseen." I'll let the Bible speak for itself, the author goes on describing it. "3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command,(D) so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. 4 By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended(E) as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings.(F) And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead.(G) 5 By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.”[a](H) For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. 6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him(I) must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. 7 By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen,(J) in holy fear built an ark(K) to save his family.(L) By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith.(M) 8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance,(N) obeyed and went,(O) even though he did not know where he was going. 9 By faith he made his home in the promised land(P) like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents,(Q) as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise.(R) 10 For he was looking forward to the city(S) with foundations,(T) whose architect and builder is God.(U) 11 And by faith even Sarah, who was past childbearing age,(V) was enabled to bear children(W) because she[b] considered him faithful(X) who had made the promise. 12 And so from this one man, and he as good as dead,(Y) came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.(Z) 13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised;(AA) they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance,(AB) admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth.(AC) 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return.(AD) 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country-a heavenly one.(AE) Therefore God is not ashamed(AF) to be called their God,(AG) for he has prepared a city(AH) for them. 17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice.(AI) He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[c](AJ) 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead,(AK) and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death. 20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau in regard to their future.(AL) 21 By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of Joseph’s sons,(AM) and worshiped as he leaned on the top of his staff. 22 By faith Joseph, when his end was near, spoke about the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and gave instructions concerning the burial of his bones.(AN) 23 By faith Moses’ parents hid him for three months after he was born,(AO) because they saw he was no ordinary child, and they were not afraid of the king’s edict.(AP) 24 By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter.(AQ) 25 He chose to be mistreated(AR) along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He regarded disgrace(AS) for the sake of Christ(AT) as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward.(AU) 27 By faith he left Egypt,(AV) not fearing the king’s anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible. 28 By faith he kept the Passover and the application of blood, so that the destroyer(AW) of the firstborn would not touch the firstborn of Israel.(AX) 29 By faith the people passed through the Red Sea as on dry land; but when the Egyptians tried to do so, they were drowned.(AY) 30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell, after the army had marched around them for seven days.(AZ) 31 By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.[d](BA) 32 And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon,(BB) Barak,(BC) Samson(BD) and Jephthah,(BE) about David(BF) and Samuel(BG) and the prophets, 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms,(BH) administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions,(BI) 34 quenched the fury of the flames,(BJ) and escaped the edge of the sword;(BK) whose weakness was turned to strength;(BL) and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies.(BM) 35 Women received back their dead, raised to life again.(BN) There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection. 36 Some faced jeers and flogging,(BO) and even chains and imprisonment.(BP) 37 They were put to death by stoning;[e](BQ) they were sawed in two; they were killed by the sword.(BR) They went about in sheepskins and goatskins,(BS) destitute, persecuted and mistreated- 38 the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, living in caves(BT) and in holes in the ground. 39 These were all commended(BU) for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised,(BV) 40 since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us(BW) would they be made perfect.(BX)"

[@wesleycolemanmusic]

@@mcmanustony A. Hebrews 11:5 Gen. 5:24 B. Hebrews 11:11 Or By faith Abraham, even though he was too old to have children-and Sarah herself was not able to conceive-was enabled to become a father because he believed. C. Hebrews 11:18 Gen. 21:12 D. Hebrews 11:31 Or unbelieving E. Hebrews 11:37 Some early manuscripts stoning; they were put to the test; Cross references Hebrews 11:1 : S Heb 3:6 Hebrews 11:1 : S 2Co 4:18 Hebrews 11:2 : ver 4, 39 Hebrews 11:3 : Ge 1; Jn 1:3; Heb 1:2; 2Pe 3:5 Hebrews 11:4 : ver 2, 39 Hebrews 11:4 : Ge 4:4; 1Jn 3:12 Hebrews 11:4 : Heb 12:24 Hebrews 11:5 : Ge 5:21-24 Hebrews 11:6 : Heb 7:19 Hebrews 11:7 : S ver 1 Hebrews 11:7 : Ge 6:13-22 Hebrews 11:7 : 1Pe 3:20 Hebrews 11:7 : Ge 6:9; Eze 14:14, 20; S Ro 9:30 Hebrews 11:8 : Ge 12:7 Hebrews 11:8 : Ge 12:1-4; Ac 7:2-4 Hebrews 11:9 : Ac 7:5 Hebrews 11:9 : Ge 12:8; 18:1, 9 Hebrews 11:9 : Heb 6:17 Hebrews 11:10 : Heb 12:22; 13:14 Hebrews 11:10 : Rev 21:2, 14 Hebrews 11:10 : ver 16 Hebrews 11:11 : Ge 17:17-19; 18:11-14 Hebrews 11:11 : Ge 21:2 Hebrews 11:11 : S 1Co 1:9 Hebrews 11:12 : Ro 4:19 Hebrews 11:12 : Ge 22:17 Hebrews 11:13 : ver 39 Hebrews 11:13 : S Mt 13:17 Hebrews 11:13 : Ge 23:4; Lev 25:23; Php 3:20; 1Pe 1:17; 2:11 Hebrews 11:15 : Ge 24:6-8 Hebrews 11:16 : 2Ti 4:18 Hebrews 11:16 : Mk 8:38 Hebrews 11:16 : Ge 26:24; 28:13; Ex 3:6, 15 Hebrews 11:16 : ver 10; Heb 13:14 Hebrews 11:17 : Ge 22:1-10; Jas 2:21 Hebrews 11:18 : Ge 21:12; Ro 9:7 Hebrews 11:19 : Ro 4:21; S Jn 5:21 Hebrews 11:20 : Ge 27:27-29, 39, 40 Hebrews 11:21 : Ge 48:1, 8-22 Hebrews 11:22 : Ge 50:24, 25; Ex 13:19; Jos 24:32 Hebrews 11:23 : Ex 2:2 Hebrews 11:23 : Ex 1:16, 22 Hebrews 11:24 : Ex 2:10, 11 Hebrews 11:25 : ver 37 Hebrews 11:26 : Heb 13:13 Hebrews 11:26 : Lk 14:33 Hebrews 11:26 : Heb 10:35 Hebrews 11:27 : Ex 12:50, 51 Hebrews 11:28 : 1Co 10:10 Hebrews 11:28 : Ex 12:21-23 Hebrews 11:29 : Ex 14:21-31 Hebrews 11:30 : Jos 6:12-20 Hebrews 11:31 : Jos 2:1, 9-14; 6:22-25; Jas 2:25 Hebrews 11:32 : Jdg 6-8 Hebrews 11:32 : Jdg 4-5 Hebrews 11:32 : Jdg 13-16 Hebrews 11:32 : Jdg 11-12 Hebrews 11:32 : 1Sa 16:1, 13 Hebrews 11:32 : 1Sa 1:20 Hebrews 11:33 : 2Sa 8:1-3 Hebrews 11:33 : Da 6:22 Hebrews 11:34 : Da 3:19-27 Hebrews 11:34 : Ex 18:4 Hebrews 11:34 : 2Ki 20:7 Hebrews 11:34 : Jdg 15:8 Hebrews 11:35 : 1Ki 17:22, 23; 2Ki 4:36, 37 Hebrews 11:36 : Jer 20:2; 37:15 Hebrews 11:36 : Ge 39:20 Hebrews 11:37 : 2Ch 24:21 Hebrews 11:37 : 1Ki 19:10; Jer 26:23 Hebrews 11:37 : 2Ki 1:8 Hebrews 11:38 : 1Ki 18:4; 19:9 Hebrews 11:39 : ver 2, 4 Hebrews 11:39 : ver 13; Heb 10:36 Hebrews 11:40 : Rev 6:11 Hebrews 11:40 : S Heb 2:10

[@niwreyentihw1496]

This channel deserves millions.

[@moses777exodus]

In nature as well as in science, there are currently no examples where one life form will convert to a different life form (i.e. different body plan) by change in the DNA.

[@Goliad_Respector]

Crazy timing! As a former actuary, I always tell ppl that you have to understand combinatorial mathematics and probability to understand many of the flaws in Darwinian evolution. Natural Materialists, to me, cannot or have not answered the questions posed by the information in DNA. Or more simply, there is matter and energy, but information is understood. This is exactly what I’ve been looking for, thank you.

[@jasonpowell7622]

@@HoneybunMegapack apply some emergent complexity.

[@freddan6fly]

Apparently you neither understands mathematics or biology.

[@jasonpowell7622]

@@HoneybunMegapackEmergent complexity. Do you mean like a flock of atheist spontaneously gathering at a unorganized atheistic convention? Im am neither (Theist) or Christian.

[@jasonpowell7622]

@@HoneybunMegapack problem. H2o has no way to sense its environment and to counter balance entropy and thermal dynamics as in most if not all functioning cells.(via a series of mechanistic highly measured presets)Of course there is a limit of tolorence of environment inherent in biological systems or any system for that mater.

[@jasonpowell7622]

@@HoneybunMegapack ices organization for example is intolerant to a certain amount of heat. But ice (its self) has no way to regulate to stay organized for maintained succes as ice.

[@sentientflower7891]

Professor Dave has a two part series debating James Tour's 14 part series, approximately three hours today. Aside from playing to his audience in the form of making a lot of insults & accusations he doesn't make any new argument on behalf of abiogenesis. He also active edits the comments so as it remove any criticism, challenge or discussion contrary to his viewpoint.

[@KenJackson_US]

Professor Dave shadow banned me. I figured it out because even though I posted provocative comments where there was lively give and take, _only_ PD himself ever responded. (And he didn't acquit himself well at all.)

[@RoninTF2011]

Your commets are still there...so I guess you're lying

[@KenJackson_US]

Are there any responses to them, @@RoninTF2011? (I'll try to find them later.) Yours is the very first indication I've had that anybody but the arrogant professor himself could see them. Interesting that you, someone with faith in abiogenesis, jumps to the ad hominem instead of responding to the subject.

[@RoninTF2011]

@@KenJackson_US So are you that arrgant to think there would be more responses to your babbling? and the lack of is indications of banning?...hahahahahah

[@KenJackson_US]

I make _specific_ arguments from the molecules that can be understood and discussed, @@RoninTF2011, not the paper-flinging arguments that PD makes. The fact that no one responded might suggest PD doesn't attract a very intelligent crowd.

[@alreichle733]

We need to hear more Bill Dembski. Bravo to Dr. Tour for coaxing him to appear as a guest.

[@ProactiveForce]

Great information. Thanks! We need clarity and consistent arguments. Your time and work on this video is very important and appreciated!

[@Jayf1981]

Thank you, James, William is awesome! The Otherside can and do say anything (lie) to convince anyone who will listen, that their argument is reasonable and scientific. It's maddening!

[@mcmanustony]

How much of Jack Szostak's work have you read? How much of Lee Cronin's? Or is sitting on your arse falsely calling people "liars" as deep as your research goes?

[@Jayf1981]

@@mcmanustony Your side has lied so much that words on a page mean nothing! I'm not a scientist so I have to take scientists for their word. I will not be interpreting any data I don't understand. James Tour is trustworthy for many reasons, he's sacrificed and suffered for the Truth.

[@mcmanustony]

@@Jayf1981 Thanks for the sermon. I didn't actually request that. I asked how much of the work of two leading origin of life researchers you'd actually read. You avoided answering. So, I'll answer for you. It's NONE isn't it? Not a syllable.... Tour has suffered nothing. He's a tenured professor at Rice U in Texas. His reputation has suffered on account of his disgraceful antics slandering a fellow scientist but he is not a victim, not being persecuted, not under threat of losing his job etc. You are sitting on your sanctimonious duff labelling as "liars" people you could not identify with a gun to your head and about whom you know precisely nothing. What a despicable and repulsive way to conduct yourself. Shame on you.

[@Jayf1981]

@@mcmanustony Despicable? You are the one hurling unnecessary insults at me, I didn't single out anyone with my very accurate description of your side, and Dr. Tour has suffered for his faith in Jesus Christ so either you're ignorant or a liar, which is it?

[@mcmanustony]

@@Jayf1981 yes, despicable. You seem to feel entitled to hurl abuse at scientists you know precisely damn all about and are clutching your pearls in outrage that you are called out on your behaviour. " I didn't single out anyone with my very accurate description of your side, "- that's because you've not the faintest idea what the hell you're talking about and don't seem capable of having that fact slow you down. Your behaviour is disgusting. You can't name a single scientist involved but you'll sit on your sanctimonious rump screaming "liar" as if you have actual facts to back that up. Tour has suffered damn all. Stop posting stupid lies. You'll feel less dirty.

[@johnbean5094]

Wonderfully collaborative approach to empirical science by Dr Tour, involving other men and women of Science, and of sound faith. Very encouraging. Thank you Dr Tour.

[@LoveYourNeighbour.]

These collaborations are wonderful INDEED! "Iron sharpens iron" (Proverbs 27:17).

[@smoothvelvetsinger]

Dr. Tour is such a good man. A true inspiration to me❤️🙏

[@RG-ds7ob]

Thank you, Dr. Tour & Dr. Dembski!

[@freddan6fly]

You like being lied to?

[@mcmanustony]

@Kakashi Hatake The first lie would be that Dembski is an information theorist.

[@freddan6fly]

@Kakashi Hatake "God doesn't exist because I hate God"." - I have heard that stupid assessment 100:th of time. Do you hate the tooth fairy? Do you hate spiderman? Do you hate santa claus? Do you hate Bilbo? Do you hate the smurfs? Do you hate the easter bunny? (Maybe you do hate a lot of fictional characters, your moral compass is broken), but anyway, *no atheist hate god* this is because *atheists don't believe there is a god* . Get it? I can't hate fictional characters. And dembski has no education from a credible institute.

[@freddan6fly]

@Kakashi Hatake Nope. You clam the universe is a creation. This is anti-scientific nonsense. For this to make sense, you have to provide evidence for 1) The supernatural exists 2) A mind can exist without a physical brain 3) Something can exists outside of the universe 4) This something is a god 5) This god is your god 6) This god can affect the universe 7) This god did create the universe 8) This god did create life And more. This you can't because you have no education in any scientific field, and no knowledge of the universe. You are like a 6 years old kid who never used their brain.

[@freddan6fly]

@Kakashi Hatake Look in the mirror. It is you who don't understand reasoning. All you got is the two worst argument for god that exists 1) I have no education in any scientific field, therefore god 2) Gloat at the trees, therefore god. They are both arguments from personal incredulity. Theism is just organized brainwash and cant prove anything. Philosophy can't prove anything about this world. The closes philosophy comes is Kalam cosmological tap-dance. Zero persons in the world has become religious because of this bad argument. It is from 1200 C.E. and is obsolete by physics. But you lack education so you don't know that. You should not listen to apologetic since they all are lying all the time. I am an atheist. I have always been an atheist, since I first thought of the suggestion of a god. I was eight years old when I realized that the jesus story did not hold for scrutiny. Nothing in the bible conforms to reality. Religion is where questions were forbidden and answers were unquestionable, but still obvious lies. Atheism is rejection of your claim that a god exists. I reject this claim because your evidence is pathetically bad. Three of them have I mentioned in this post. There are two more I've heard. One was last week from a muslim I give you for free to use in future posts: "I don't know how an egg can become a chicken, but I have a Toyota, therefore god". Not much worse than your arguments. But it made me laugh out loud.

[@ShepherdsHook]

Still in my prayers, Dr Tour. Nice to see the gleam in your eyes.

[@ShepherdsHook]

@@midlander4 narsststic troll much?

[@mcmanustony]

@@ShepherdsHook no- he's correct. Tour has some very serious ethical issues and his fanatical religious zealotry are at the basis of them.

[@wesleycolemanmusic]

@@mcmanustony He's also evidently very gracious and patient towards his opposition.

[@mcmanustony]

@@wesleycolemanmusic How do you "graciously" scream "HEEEEZ A LIEYURRRRRRR" particularly when it's false? His behaviour towards scientists in the fields of Origin of Life and evolutionary science is utterly grotesque and will shame him for the rest of his career.

[@wesleycolemanmusic]

@@mcmanustony He's created an open platform for discussion and has not excluded you, though you repeatedly lie and defame others. If you're still here, I think that at least warrants patience. He has also made an open invitation to Dave with all expenses paid to have a discussion where ever and however Dave feels comfortable. That appears, to me, to be gracious. He has no ill-will towards Dave and has repeatedly publicly commended Dave's drive and mission for being a good resource for education. The single incident you referred to, again, was three years ago and Dr. Tour has made a public apology as well as a personal letter and phone call. Dr. Tour gets passionate very often, so I could understand why the caps lock may have seemed necessary to you. But he certainly didn't scream if you are familiar with his vocal patterns. That's a nitpick, I know. You write, "his behavior towards scientists in the fields of origin of life/evolutionary biology... ". However, I think this is a rather uncharitable characterization based on one interaction from, I believe, one or two years ago (I can't remember).

[@SomeChristianGuy.]

Dembski is the man. His stuff along with Robert J. Marks have been a eye opener for me over the years. Great interview choice Dr Tour.

[@mcmanustony]

Have you tried learning biology from biologists?

[@SomeChristianGuy.]

@@mcmanustony Have you tried learning philosophy from a philosopher?

[@mcmanustony]

@@SomeChristianGuy. I hope that sounded good in your head. It looks a bit embarrassing written down. . I studied philosophy at The University of Glasgow under Professor Eva Schaper- a renowned expert on both aesthetics and the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Back then there were two departments: Moral Philosophy under Professor Robert Downie and Eva's department of Logic, Metaphysics and Rhetoric. I studied aesthetics under Mary Haight, Descartes under J Scollen, logic under Pat Shaw (but as I was also studying mathematics the course was almost trivial) Wittgenstein under Dr Ephrahim Borowski, I took courses on Bertrand Russell, the philosophy of mind, questions of personal identity, the British empiricists, the philosophy of Gilbert Ryle, political philosophy under Professor Michael Lessnoff....... . That went well didn't it! . Dembski has contributed zip to our understanding of anything. Even his favourite toy- "complex specified information"- turned out to be un-defined nonsense. He is not an information theorist- despite his galactic ego: "I am the Isaac Newton of information theory" and his laughable "fourth law of thermodynamics" Tour is an expert on synthetic organic chemistry (look!! A creationist who actually IS an expert on something!)- which grants him no expertise on evolution, abiogenesis, dentistry, the meter of 10thC Khmer poetry, information theory, Beethoven's late string quartets etc. My suggestion was simple and ought not to be controversial: If you want to learn about a subject, try reading those who WORK IN IT.

[@SomeChristianGuy.]

@@mcmanustony Even better that you have such impressive accolades because it means youll understand me. Though it seems strange that you found it philosophically responsible to assume why I asked the question in your little narcissistic tirade, not to mention your other assumptions, do you know whether or not I have read biologists? Perhaps you should solicit the services of a psychologist. Also, are you a biologist? Is that how do you know a biologist is needed here? Or a mathematician or a synthetic chemist that you can discern that they have herein made such errors as to make soliciting a biologist necessary?... be careful when responding to this specific point cause youll be in danger of making my next case for me. You should know, Mr philosopher sir that pre biotic concerns are not biological concerns precisely because they are pre biotic. Do you know what pre biotic means or should I get a biologist to come explain it to us before I proceed?. Pre biotic, therefore I dont need biologists, but chemists, which Dr Tour is. Furthermore, when making quantitative analysis of anything, mathematicians happend to be useful, and you have that with Dembski. Then, since DNA is an information bearing system its useful to get people who know something about information theory, again, Dembski is qualified. So your insistence on recruiting biologists is basically pointless in this regard, especially since these men regularly consult biologists anyway in the course of their work.

[@mcmanustony]

@@SomeChristianGuy. "Mr philosopher sir".....grow up ffs. there was no narcissistic tirade. You made a sneering fool of yourself with a stupid post. I responded appropriately. Maybe take a seat and work on your manners. You didn't read my post very clearly. I ASKED if you'd tried learning from biologists since this is essentially a question of biology, biochemistry and molecular evolution. Neither of these people has any experience working in these fields. Tour is a respected academic (though one with serious ethical issues) in his field, Dembski is simply an egomaniacal joke. Dembski is not, despite your claim, an information theorist. He has contributed nothing whatsoever to the subject and has no influence on it. Tour's actual academic work, of zero interest to his army of drooling worshippers, has no bearing on the origin of life. Maybe if you'd spent more time reading the work of Jack Szostak, Irene Chen, Lee Cronin etc. and less time on here sneering at strangers you'd be a bit more convincing. Here's a list of Dembski's peer reviewed contributions to mathematics. . . . . . . . .in case you missed it, here's that list again . . . . . . . . There are many mathematicians who have contributed to this general area Dembski is not one of them.

[@surrenderdaily333]

If you don't believe in the physical resurrection, it's rather difficult on a theological level staying true to scripture and the theological implications if you try to call yourself a Christian. The resurrection is mandatory. Thank you so much, Dr. Tour, for all you've done and continue to do in the fields of science and faith.

[@wizardatmath]

That's so unfortunate. The word Mandatory really has no place in science. You can say the resurrection is necessary, but to do so you'd have to demonstrate that, without the resurrection, something else cannot be, when you know it is. Or must be, when you know it isn't. At this time, I have not heard an argument that says the resurrection is necessary.

[@khufu8699]

Thank you Bill for all your hard work.

[@LoveYourNeighbour.]

Yes, he's done a lot of hard work for the theory of intelligent design, in the past. And unfortunately ended up getting A LOT of attacks from both sides - from the secularists & the young earth creationists. I don't blame him for choosing to take a break from his earlier work (to maintain his sanity). He's ALREADY made a huge contribution, and his work is out there, for those interested in learning about this important subject. His brilliant works are still very popular on Amazon (to my knowledge).

[@msterious8537]

@@LoveYourNeighbour. There is no such thing as the *theory* of Intelligent Design. There isn't even a *testable hypothesis* of Intelligent Design. All ID has ever been is idle philosophical speculation and a ruse for trying to get the Christian religion sneaked back into public school science classes. Just ask any cdesignproponentist. 🙂

[@mcmanustony]

@@LoveYourNeighbour. He spent years whining his tits off about "persecution" and "denial of his academic freedom'- trans: "why won't real universities take me religious pseudo science seriously!" He now teaches Advanced Christological Jesusology at the College of Advanced Jesusological Christology. Ironically, given his previous posturing, he got the jesus gig only after signing away his academic freedom- which he did willingly and without hesitation. HUGE contribution; eg- his mathematically meaningless "definition" of "specified complexity" which impressed the rubes and was shown to be actually contradictory by an actual mathematician and information theorist and and actual biologist Such hard hard work.....

[@logic8673]

@@msterious8537 Alright go ahead and test for multi verse

Thanks 🙏🏻

[@moses777exodus]

Information Theory: Order (i.e. crystal structure) and Information (DNA/RNA) are NOT the same thing.

[@rebanelson607]

what is DNA if it is not information??

[@smoothvelvetsinger]

Dr. Tour glows, his smile tells me about what's inside of him🙏❤️

[@bepete3825]

Merry Christmas and Happyy New Year Dr. Tour and Family. I love your your teaching about faith and science.. I am, Paul from Indonesia.

[@clintgreive]

This is going to be an excellent interview - big fan of each of them!

[@jasonpowell7622]

And what fun we shall have,midlander my friend!

[@jasonpowell7622]

@@midlander4 see you in a couple days; cant wait for the rapier retorts!

[@clintgreive]

@@midlander4 you're lovely!

[@jasonpowell7622]

@@clintgreive and loving

[@rinzler9171]

@@midlander4 ad hominem instead of critical thought. Typical hedonist. Carry on.

[@moses777exodus]

A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." (*The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80.) The probability of a functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by undirected random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that undirected random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.) A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what many of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a purely arbitrary, subjective, materialistic ideology. Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic subjective ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millenia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by discoveries in Quantum Physics.

[@mcmanustony]

Have you been introduced to the concept of selection. That will reduce you tired Big Numbers very quickly.

[@moses777exodus]

Abiogenesis Hypothesis postulates that undirected random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment.

[@mcmanustony]

@J W This is just a slogan- not an empirical observation. It's also false.

[@mcmanustony]

@@moses777exodus Abiogenesis is a process not a hypothesis. The laws of chemistry are not random. Have you tried books?

[@moses777exodus]

Abiogenesis Hypothesis has been considered to be a modern derivative of the Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis (i.e. the common fundamental premise being life arising from non-living matter), one of the main differences being the supposed timeframes of each experimentally unproven process. Generally, the Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis speculated that living organisms spontaneously emerged from non-living matter. And, Abiogenesis hypothesizes that undirected random natural processes caused molecules to form into biological life by random chance over the span of millions/billions of years. (Note: Natural selection is not known to have any effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment.) Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis was believed to be ‘fact’ for almost 2000 years, until it was scientifically disproved by experiments from such scientists as Louis Pasteur in the 1800's. From Wikipedia 2021, "In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process ARE STILL UNKNOWN, the prevailing scientific HYPOTHESIS is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event [i.e. spontaneous generation]... There are several principles and HYPOTHESES for how abiogenesis COULD HAVE occurred." One of the reasons that abiogensis is merely a "hypothesis" and has not advanced to the status of being a "scientific theory", is that abiogenesis hypotheses still lack the experimental data required by the scientific method. Abiogenesis Hypothesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times.

[@surrenderdaily333]

Dr. Tour, I would very much like for you to get some of the scientists from ICR or AiG on your podcast to explain how the ages of things are determined and how they are so often wrong because it seems to me that the evolution faith requires millions and billions of years for it to work and if the earth isn't that old, that whole theory would be done and we could move on.

[@michaelcasile1036]

What is great about these guys is that they are so knowledgeable that they can simplify the concepts for us common folks (even engineers like me w/lots of science are scientific sparrows compared these scientific eagles). I see so many naturalists who have no real answers to the key questions ... and thus they come up with verbose answers that really say nothing.

[@michaelcasile1036]

@@derhafi ID simply suggest the everything coming from nothing is absurd, this new everything compressing into a singularity and then blowing up in a way that created perfect order is equally silly. And then abiogenesis is actually far more absurd than those. So if you look at nature and see the irreducible complexity and the impossibility of creation via natural process. ID makes a lot of sense

[@michaelcasile1036]

@@derhafi why don't you take me from the time when there was nothing right up through man and all of the amazing points including spontaneous generation Bigbang abiogenesis macro-evolution the development of Consciousness, cognition, morality, purpose, meaning, love. I'm sure you've got great answers for all of that and I'm here to be enlightened

Please release yet another series of videos correcting Dave Farina’s arrogant attempt to discredit your entire response series. That guy’s pride is sickening.

[@wesleycolemanmusic]

Especially since he dropped out of a masters degree for chemistry twice... Only has a generic bachelors and accused Dr. Tour of the dunning Kruger effect while repeatedly contradicting himself. Dr. Tour gave Dave an open invitation to a debate/discussion, all payed for by Tour, live and anywhere Dave wants. Call me skeptical, but I don't trust someone afraid of being accountable for what they say. (Invite is still open btw)

[@mcmanustony]

@@wesleycolemanmusic He also interviewed three professional scientists including Professor Lee Cronin at U Glasgow to explain how Tour distorted his work. Funny how it's got nothing to do with credentials except when it's got everything to do with credentials. Of the two dozen or so primary research papers in the peer reviewed literature Dave referenced and linked to, how many did you read? Which was the weakest? Where did they go wrong?

[@yassine3262]

@@wesleycolemanmusic adhominim fallacy Dave really nailed it that he left you nothing except logical fallacies

[@wesleycolemanmusic]

@@yassine3262 ad hominem -- two words. And no, no ad hominem fallacy was committed here. In order to be an ad hominem fallacy, one must make an insult or character attack as a premise of an argument. Such as, If Dave is less qualified than Dr. Tour, Dave is wrong. Dave is less qualified than Dr. Tour. Therefore, Dave is wrong. The logical fallacy would be premise one. Why don't you take a logic course sometime?

[@yassine3262]

@@wesleycolemanmusic oh, u r right, they are two words, and those two words are the title of an argumentative fallacy that describes in precision what you did here. and you resorted to it becuz Dave's response is flawless

[@sparkyy0007]

Information is the product of invention, which always requires forethought, no exceptions.

[@prabhuprakashjoseph8060]

I feel a most of information concerned with nature as a product of discovery.. like Gravity was always there, Newton gave the law of gravitational force in 1687.

[@sparkyy0007]

@@prabhuprakashjoseph8060 Did you simply press those letters on your keyboard, or think about what you were going to type first ?

[@prabhuprakashjoseph8060]

@@sparkyy0007 The same way how you did

[@sparkyy0007]

@@prabhuprakashjoseph8060 Exactly my point, you thoughts preceded typing, you didn't just randomly start typing. Information always requires forethought.

[@prabhuprakashjoseph8060]

@@sparkyy0007 you are right.. I am not messing with fore thoughts. Fore thoughts are must and it needs a thinker too. what I was talking was, about those laws which already existed and governed the nature. those information in the RNA that existed to create life.. those infromation, we just discovered and was not an invention. I BELIEVE the thinker who had those fore thoughts to create these information is GOD

[@johnmartin4152]

Mentioning Reichert´s paper was spot-on. The real lesson to learn from OoL research is that intelligent guidance is required to originate anything that would tend toward life. The religious fanatics and fantasists are not the ID proponents but ID opponents.

[@moses777exodus]

Abiogenesis Hypothesis postulates that undirected random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment.

[@mcmanustony]

" Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment."- this is demonstrably false. What do you get out of pontificating in utter ignorance about matters you are too lazy to actually study?

[@moses777exodus]

By definition, Natural selection is only observed in "living" biological systems. Individual atoms and molecules alone are not considered "living" systems. Therefore, natural selection is not a "material cause" for individual atoms and molecules to form to produce a biological system. Abiogenesis is dependent upon undirected random material natural process (i.e. random chance) as its "cause".

[@mcmanustony]

@@moses777exodus "By definition, Natural selection is only observed in "living" biological systems"- WRONG. selection has been observed acting on non- living molecules. You have been told this before. Why do you repeat slogans you know to be false.

[@sciencewolf7775]

@@HoneybunMegapack kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJeaY6JsfdKJhM0

[@sciencewolf7775]

@@mcmanustony DNA. Only on RNA and DNA

[@Polynuttery]

Great stuff. So good !!!

[@mcmanustony]

why?

[@mrreyes5004]

@@mcmanustony It's just his opinion, I don't see the need for him to explain this one thing. Chill out.

[@philaypeephilippotter6532]

@@mrreyes5004 It's a _comments_ section. Anyone can make any comment.

[@mcmanustony]

@@mrreyes5004 It's a public comment board. Take a seat.

[@darkeen42]

@@mcmanustony you're absolutely right decision public comments section so I don't see why you have a problem with asking why baseless Fabrications are great stuff

[@moses777exodus]

The concept of "Nothing" represented by the number "0" (zero) did not exist in the beginning. The number "0" (zero) is a relatively recent human innovation in mathematics. But, there has always been "1" (one). The fact that one (1) exists and can think about the concept of "nothing" (0) shows that there first exists one (1). Thus, nothing (0) does not truly exist alone: One (1) must first exist who can ponder (create) the concept of nothing (0). Mathematically, Absolute nothing "could be" expressed as 0 to the power of 0, which can equal 1. "Nothing" IS "Something"; because, it comes from "Something". Moreover, since Nothing (perceived) is not Nothing (actual), then it is possible for Something to come from Nothing (actual). Because, Something (1) is inherently pre-existing within Nothing (actual), hence, 0 to the power of 0 can equal 1. Simply put, One (1) exists before zero (0) can exist.

[@mcmanustony]

Sweet suffering Jesus..........you are a grown adult? Posting this incoherent drivel. Grow up....

[@realitystillexists]

Their point about the papers being ignored highlights what I have always said. The peer review is used as a filter. When ideas slip by the filter of the echo chamber, it's simply ignored!

[@judgementiscoming8016]

Didn't get notification. Better late than never. 👍

[@garywalker447]

Bullshit is still bullshit.

[@mcmanustony]

In this case never would have been better.

[@judgementiscoming8016]

@@mcmanustony Dr Tour is brave and amazing

[@mcmanustony]

@@judgementiscoming8016 Brave? How brave do you have to be to scream hysterical lies and abuse at a fellow scientist to an audience of scientifically ignorant Southern Baptists? Tour is a trainwreck- with some very serious ethical issues.

[@judgementiscoming8016]

@@mcmanustony It's called science. They don't take it easy on each other when you're wrong. Why are you so emotional about scientific process?

[@moses777exodus]

DNA code is like computer language. And, as with every known language in existence, confirmed through scientific experiment and observation, is the product of only one thing ... mind/ consciouness /intelligence.

[@moses777exodus]

@@settledown444 DNA is more complex than regular computer language in that it is not binary (based on 0 and 1). It is quaternary (based on A T C G). The coded information is capable of producing similar functions. In fact, Coded DNA language can be converted to regular computer language.

[@moses777exodus]

@@settledown444 If "There are no symbolic abstract representations anywhere like there are in computer code", then how do scientists convert DNA code into computer code and vice versa.

[@moses777exodus]

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” (Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, One of world's top companies of computer programmers.)

[@moses777exodus]

@@settledown444 If they were merely an analogy, they would not be capable of translation from one to another and still be functional / maintain meaning.

[@moses777exodus]

"The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal." Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden, 1995, p17.

[@moses777exodus]

The fact remains that abiogenesis has not met the requirements of the scientific method "process" and is therefore still considered a "hypothesis" by the scientific community. Biogenesis has already passed the process of the scientific method countless times. Abiogenesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times. Pseudoscience is “a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.” By definition, Abiogenesis is classified as “Pseudoscience”.

[@mcmanustony]

"By definition, Abiogenesis is classified as “Pseudoscience”."- you are a liar.

[@iactuallydontknowwhatimtal4569]

@@mcmanustony Ironically, that's what Tour did that you're so butthurt about (then apologized in 2019). Calling someone a liar when they were giving an honest perspective. Can you say "hypocrite" much?

[@mcmanustony]

@@iactuallydontknowwhatimtal4569 It is not an honest perspective, it's a lie.

[@iactuallydontknowwhatimtal4569]

@@mcmanustony Whether or not something is true or false doesn't change the sincerity or honesty of the perspective. Therefore, one can be just as dull as you and still be perfectly honest about what they believe. I believe you're wrong, not that you're lying.

[@iactuallydontknowwhatimtal4569]

@@mcmanustony Lying indicates motive. That's why Tour apologized.

[@Tanengtiong]

Have been shouting "The Heavenly Logos is the Information", not just an information theory, in social media and game worlds quite some time already. Were not the Incarnated Word, we wouldn't have known our Heavenly Father loves us so much. He also is the Grammar and salvational time-space crosses that are supporting the existence of the universe.

[@gerardmoloney9979]

So those who argue against Dr Dembski are also DENYING the mathematical EVIDENCE SUPPORTING HIS POSITION and also TELLING GOD WHAT HE SHOULD HAVE CREATED! THEY MUST HAVE INFORMATION ENOUGH TO SPELL OUT VERY CLEARLY HOW LIFE IS CREATED AND HOW EVERY THING IS SO FINELY TUNED IN THE UNIVERSE. CAN DR TOUR PLEASE GET ONE OF THESE PEOPLE ON TO EXPLAIN ALL THEY KNOW AND PUT AN END TO ALL THE ARGUING? I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT.

[@iactuallydontknowwhatimtal4569]

I AGREE

[@mcmanustony]

Your caps lock seems to be stuck......up your arse, next to your brain. Dembski had a crack at a mathematical definition of his favourite toy "complex specified information"- it looked the part, lots of greek letters and equations....sadly it turned out to be utter nonsense when actually examined by an actual mathematician who actually works in actual information theory. keep whistling....

[@gerardmoloney9979]

@@mcmanustony you seem VERY INTELLIGENT, MAYBE DR TOUR COULD GET YOU TO EXPLAIN EVERYTHING. ARE YOU THREATENED BY CAPITAL LETTERS? ARE THEY TOO FRIGHTENING BECAUSE THEY ARE VERY CLEAR SO THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT WHAT IS BEING WRITTEN. YOU MAYBE PLACING FAR TOO MUCH ATTENTION TO THE SIZE OF THE LETTERS AND not enough to what is meant by them. Have another read and don't be afraid of the size of the letters, they won't hurt you, but you SHOULD BE AFRAID OF THE MEANING because there are VERY SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES, if you don't open your mind to TRUTH. GOD BLESS AND ENLIGHTEN YOU. MARANATHA

[@mcmanustony]

@@gerardmoloney9979 I could explain that Dembski is lying when he says he's an information theorist. I could explain Shallit and Elsberry's peer reviewed paper eviscerating Dembski's attempt to push "mathematics" into creationism. His "mathematical evidence" turns out to be.....nothing, a contradiction, the equivalent of "pick a negative number between 1 and 2". I could explain that three of the four classes of molecule needed for life to start can and have been synthesised easily. The fourth can also be done. I could explain that his party piece (THIS can't be done in my pristine lab) is a useless analogy. I could explain that chanting "THIS is supposed to have happened under a ROCK??" every 5 minutes makes him look like a grotesque and dishonest fool grasping at strawmen. I could advise him that prattling about subjects you've not studied is not a good look. Why is it that his drooling sycophants can recite his CV in their sleep, embellished to the point where he is The Greatest Synthetic Organic Chemist in history...and yet you'd have a search on your hands to find this clown talking about the thing he actually DOES: synthetic organic chemistry? I could advise him that deliberately misrepresenting the research he does bother to read makes him look dishonest. I could offer the thought that that is because he is deeply and fundamentally dishonest. Spare me the preaching. I heard it as a child, rejected it as morbid nonsense as a teen and have no need of it 4 decades later. You have no interest in science of any kind. You are a fan of Tour for one reason. He shares your religious fanaticism. Try to broaden your outlook and engage with some actual science......

[@gerardmoloney9979]

@@mcmanustony actual SCIENCE discoveries in the recent past. 1. The universe had a beginning.2. the universe is EXPANDING. 3. There are fixed laws of physics. 4. There are MOUNTAINS VALLEYS SPRINGS AND PATHWAYS UNDER THE SEA. 5. Blood is the life force of all living flesh. 6. Space time THEOREMS, only devised in the last 30 years and there are 30 of them, state that ANY UNIVERSE LIKE OURS MUST HAVE A CAUSAL AGENT. 7. SCIENTISTS have said that EVERYTHING that exists came from NOTHING!!! Now I could go on and on but I think it is reasonable to say that this sample of "SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES" not CREATED by SCIENCE or SCIENTISTS but DISCOVERED by SCIENTISTS shows that the Bible is 100% CORRECT. The Bible stated these TRUTHS thousands of years ago. The SCIENTIFIC method is from the Bible! Did you know that? Now to correct the SCIENTISTS that everything came from NOTHING; the Bible is more ACCURATE. It States VERY CLEARLY, that everything that is DETECTABLE (energy MATTER SPACE AND TIME) is made from that which is UNDETECTABLE! Do now see how accurate the Bible is? It is also the ONLY BOOK EVER WRITTEN THAT STATED THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO THAT THE CREATOR IS OUTSIDE OF ENERGY MATTER SPACE AND TIME. He created energy MATTER SPACE AND TIME so THEREFORE all other gods are false. Only the CREATOR GOD of the Bible has been PROVEN by SCIENTISTS to be the ONE TRUE GOD. NOW DO YOU BELIEVE IN SCIENCE? I DO. DO YOU BELIEVE IN JESUS? I DO. DO YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY I BELIEVE IN JESUS? BECAUSE THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECISED THE BIRTH LIFE MINISTRY DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE NEW TESTAMENT FULFILLED ALL THOSE PROPHECIES EXACTLY AS PROPHECISED. AMAZING TRUTH. ONLY GOD KNOWS THE END FROM THE BEGINNING. JESUS IS RETURNING VERY SOON. ALL THE END OF END TIMES PROPHECIES ARE HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. READ THE BIBLE FOR YOURSELF AND LET THE BIBLE INTERPRET THE BIBLE AS IT DOES. MARANATHA

[@moses777exodus]

_“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”_ Max Plank (the Father of Quantum Physics) ... It is curious how Max Plank's conclusions were so revolutionary in the field of science / physics (i.e. the immaterial (non-material) reality of nature and "the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind" as the ultimate force behind the fabric of reality). Yet, when microbiologists. biologists, geneticists, biochemists, other scientists, etc. come to the same conclusion (i.e. Intelligence/consciousness/mind is an integral and fundamental force behind the initial introduction and subsequent propagation of biological systems), they are rebuffed as being "unscientific".

[@mcmanustony]

If they posit the existence of something immaterial that they cannot demonstrate, detect, measure, influence....etc. then they are being unscientific. Do you have hobbies other than quote mining in public?

[@moses777exodus]

During a 2015 televised panel discussion, Dr. Richard Dawkins (One of the World's Top Darwinian Evolutionary Scientists) admitted, “The Origin of Life is something we don't know anything about. And we want to know something about it. And I would love to know how life actually got started.” (Source: Real Time with Bill Maher, Overtime, October 2, 2015, HBO)

[@cps_Zen_Run]

Yes, the default is to admit one doesn’t know, rather that puppet what one wants or hopes to be true.

[@jasonpowell7622]

@@midlander4 midlander; there you are! where have you been my friend!

[@jasonpowell7622]

@@midlander4 im glad that you can recognize that abiogenesis chemist are just as clueless as Dawkins. I am neither (Theists) nor Christian; but you are learning midlander;you are learning.

[@philaypeephilippotter6532]

@@jasonpowell7622 They have many _clues_ actually. They have many more clues that *Tour* admits. Just look it up. Try just one abiogenesis researcher that *James Tour* deliberately misrepresented, *Lee Cronin.* There are quite a few others that *Dave* interviewed.

[@jasonpowell7622]

@@philaypeephilippotter6532 you know phil,i got really excited to see that you had posted here, and just as soon as i had started to read your post i had hoped that you would mention Lee Cronin. He is exactly the 1rst person i just started researching in reference to abiogenesis proponents.

[@ForeverBleedinGreen]

Personally, even if they did create life in a test tube, it would only serve to further substantiate the previously known fact that it takes an intelligent agency to create life - thus, strengthening our position (while diminishing their's, since it would shine a global light on the subject, and that fact).

[@deanfloyd8931]

Our modern day high priests of scientism can't all God on the table as a possibility. Their religion will not allow it. "Professing themselves wise, they became fools".

[@garywalker447]

No Dean, believing there is a god that created everything is a fairy tale for fools. Science is NOT a religion.

[@RoninTF2011]

Why should one believe in something, for which there is no rationale evidence?

[@garywalker447]

@@RoninTF2011 Science does have the evidence. Religions demand you have faith in what they say because they do not have evidence.

[@deanfloyd8931]

Look into the eyes of all those you hold dear and convience yourself they are only products of chance.

[@garywalker447]

@@deanfloyd8931 Nope. I do not take orders from creatard fools and my son already knows that his genetics flow from his mother and I. We also raised him to be a rational thinker, not to believe in obsolete fairy tales from a barbaric culture.

[@titusax]

This reminds me of the problem Tour pointed out with abiogenesis, they can make these building blocks in a lab, but there is no selector, you make what you want with a bunch of junk you don’t want, and no way to select it without biology.

[@lorddonk9806]

Except youre wrong

[@titusax]

@@lorddonk9806 just saying someone is wrong doesn’t make it true. If you have “good science” to prove otherwise, by all mean do so, pseudo science not acceptable, neither is “bro-science”, Joe Biden responses will be ignored, e.g. “Cmon man!”

[@titusax]

@@HoneybunMegapack and your example of this in prebiotic conditions?

[@titusax]

@@HoneybunMegapack Autocatalysis is a function, so the example has to be something in a certain environment producing a certain result, “earth” and “meteorites” are locations, but not specific about environment. Please be specific with “what” was “observed” in what “specific” environment” and the “result”.

[@titusax]

@@HoneybunMegapack details matter, and when you follow the science you understand that. I am not a chemist, I appreciate what Tour did by actually going to the experiments, taking into account all the steps that were taken, and reviewing the “actual” results. So, take a bowl of water, add your primordial soup chemicals, zap it with some electricity and you should see the beginnings of life right? Right???? It isn’t simple, it isn’t proven, it can’t even be done in a lab step by step without the benefit of biologic aids, and even then “life” can’t be created, in the most simple form! Theory isn’t fact, no matter who states the Theory, you are wrong sir, you just can’t admit it.

[@moses777exodus]

Regarding the timeline of creation stated in Genesis 1 of the Bible, many people think that creation occurred within a 7 "earth-day" period. However, if one reads the actual text of the Bible carefully, it is very clear that the “days” mentioned in Genesis 1 are not referring to the assumed 24-hour earth- days with which we are all accustomed. Because, what is a “day” on earth? Isn’t a "earth-day” the single revolution of the earth around its axis? (By the way, science has shown that the rotation of the earth has not been constant over earth's history. Additionally, every celestial body has a different length for its "day".) According to the Bible, the Earth was not "formed" until the 3rd day of creation. Prior to the 3rd day of creation, the earth was "without form and void". So, how could an "unformed" earth have rotated about its non-existent axis during the first two days of creation to provide a measure of time? Clearly, God was using a different measure of time for a “day” during the “seven days of creation”. In other words, God was not using an “earth-day” as a unit measure of time during creation. To think that God would use an "earth-based time clock" to measure the creation of the universe is akin to the out-dated geocentric belief that the universe revolves around the earth. Even though God is everywhere at all times, God did not have to be "on" earth [Obviously, since the earth had not even been formed until the third "day" of creation.] and therefore not limited by an earthly time frame, when He created the heavens and the earth. (By the way, when was the clock invented? When was the unit measure of time for a second, a minute, an hour, a 24-hour day established? These are all relatively new innovations. So, how could they have measured time at the moment of creation.) God is beyond heaven, earth ... and time. Lord-Jesus-Christ com

[@designed84]

Dr. Tour, so glad you did this interview with Dr. Dembski! After using many of the arguments advanced by him, I can attest personally to the extreme handwaving I encounter. I have attempted constructive dialogue repeatedly on your friend Dr. Swamidass' website Peaceful Science, but with disappointing results (personal attacks, etc.).

[@iactuallydontknowwhatimtal4569]

Yep, it's all emotional and no science.

[@moses777exodus]

During an interview with Ben Stein, when asked about the origin of life (OoL), Dr. Richard Dawkins admitted that *_"we don't know [how life on earth started]."_* (Source: 'Expelled' DocuFilm, Dr. Richard Dawkins, One of World’s Top Darwinian Evolutionary Scientists, 2008).

[@freddan6fly]

Cherry picking to the point of lying. We don't know exactly how it happened, but we know that it happened. To say goddidit is a fallacy from personal incredulity.

[@mcmanustony]

an interview that Stein lied to Dawkins in order to obtain. Why is it surprising that Dawkins should state an elementary fact? Why do creationists lie so often?

[@jasonpowell7622]

@@mcmanustony im glad you just didn't say something like; Dawkins was lied to to get a interview; and just leave that statement hanging in mid air.

[@mcmanustony]

@@jasonpowell7622 I said what I said. Feel free to answer.

[@mirziyodm]

@@freddan6fly How do we know it happened, if it doesn't happen now (neither during observable human history) and we don't have any valid mechanism (even theoretically) of it? I don't see a logic here.

[@moses777exodus]

The only known source (i.e. cause) in the universe that has been Observed in nature to be capable of producing functional / coded / digital information, such as that found even in the most primitive biological systems, is mind / consciousness / intelligence.

[@freddan6fly]

No.

[@jasonpowell7622]

@@freddan6fly The forwarded statement found in Moses exodus's post,may not be complete; but it is not without merit. Why do you demure? Im neither(Theist) or Christian.

[@freddan6fly]

@@jasonpowell7622 Lying fits you well. Lyingforjesus™. Saying you are not a youngearthcreationist but agreeing with arguments from youngearthcreationists makes you a youngearthcreationist. And he have no evidence for his claim. We know that for instance the four fundamental forces can create information, for instance LGM1.

[@jasonpowell7622]

I made a mistake and accidentally posted the word argument instead of statement. I have corrected that mistake.

[@jasonpowell7622]

With in the confines of this post, You have not proven that you can tell the difference between a lie and a mistake.

[@user-xs2qq7kv9w]

Having multiple masters degrees ands PhD doesn’t mean a person is incapable of lying . In fact having such credentials would make them a much better and more convincing liar.

[@mcmanustony]

@@JM-jj3eg Have you tried books? Ask your doctor if reading books might be right for you.....

[@nachoman3141]

@@mcmanustony I understand you've have an enormous scale of time to think of your "comeback", but could you further elaborate?

[@mcmanustony]

@@nachoman3141 I responded to a commenter claiming that he doesn't "believe" evolution-whatever that means: a bit like saying "I don't believe gravity". I suspect, and would bet my house that Manny is in the same situation as Tour regarding evolution. He is on record saying "I don't understand it"- and for once I believe him. There are dozens of wonderful books written by evolutionary biologists explaining the theory for a non specialist audience- books by Jerry Coyne, Neil Shubin, Ken Miller, Nick Lane, Carl Zimmer, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, Sean Carroll....and many more. My suggestion was simply to read a few .....

[@nachoman3141]

@@mcmanustony it's not a matter of belief, nor faith. It's a Matter of validity and empirical data. Which evolution falls short of, but since you're referring to this other individual. I thought it would be more beneficial for your statement to further elaborate on it.

[@mcmanustony]

@@nachoman3141 There are 250,000 papers in the primary research literature of biology, biochemistry, genetics, mathematics, paleontology, bio-physics, comparative anatomy, ethology, zoology, botany, mycology etc. detailing the theory. How many have you read?

[@Jayf1981]

You can believe who or what you'd like! I believe life is far too complex to have begun by chance or to have evolved in a way consistent with what's taught in our schools. If you have evidence for either, I'm sure everyone would love to see it!

[@darkeen42]

It didn't begin complex. Learn about it before you think you know. Not from someone trying to deny it

[@Jayf1981]

@@darkeen42 It did begin complex, if it's so simple maybe you can make some and start the process of evolution over from scratch. It is simple right? if it happened by accident certainly you can make it happen again.

[@darkeen42]

@@Jayf1981 give me millions and millions of years than Tire planets worth of molecules bouncing around yeah. And looking to help RNA reproduces it's not as complicated as people trying to convince you it's impossible claim

[@darkeen42]

@@Jayf1981 how about you show me God her explain where God came from or how he created the universal what was around before. You're believing a childish fantasy because you hate not knowing.

[@darkeen42]

@@Jayf1981 not knowing is far better than believing absolute deplorable lies

[@terriekraybill9724]

I had a discussion with an atheist about the Dawkins "evolution" applet. I couldn't get him to understand that if you pre-know that the computer is searching for "methinks it is like a weasel", then you've already frontloaded all the information that you get in the end and there is nothing created. I'm sure he was smart enough to get it, but his bias wouldn't let him.

[@JesseSudich]

It's a good time to get back in the game, Billy Boy

[@iactuallydontknowwhatimtal4569]

Lol

[@mcmanustony]

what game?

[@JesseSudich]

@@mcmanustony the game of advocating for the obvious.

[@mcmanustony]

@@JesseSudich Oh! The obvious- like pretending to be an information theorist? The obvious like pretending ID is science? The game is up. After years of whining his tits off about "academic freedom"- meaning "why won't real universities take my religious pseudo science seriously" Dembski is now at The College of Advanced Jesusological Christology where he teaches Advanced Christological Jesusology.....to get the gig he had to sign away his academic freedom which he did in a heartbeat. Poor Billy Boy....

[@JesseSudich]

@@mcmanustony why are you so certain that science and intelligent design are mutually exclusive? Because of your own dogmatic assumptions about the nature of the universe?

[@jamessgian7691]

Hsjodu uh hdbbcbbd The gibberish above was randomly created by my fingers sliding over letters on my phone. There is information here, but it is of a certain kind: statistics. You can state facts about it. “There are three h’s” for example. Statistics is the lowest form of information. If you had letter magnets and threw them at your refrigerator, you could come up with the line above. hat shelf jump a This is not simply statistics because there are arranged words. They are not arranged in a manner corresponding to recognized language parameters for a sentence (syntactics), but we recognize them as words. They are not random in themselves, but only in their order. This is cosentics. One level up from statistics. If certain letters stuck to your fridge when you threw them, you might get one or more of these words out of your throwing. Not likely, but possible. My dog ate my homework. Now we’ve reached semantics, within rules of syntax. Not only do we have recognized words, but a recognized meaning in the arrangement of the words. By random chance throws and blindly picking the letter magnets out of a hat, you would never get semantics, but even if you miraculously did, you wouldn’t have meant to get semantics. Please take out the trash. Now we have a request. This is pragmatics. We are asking for a task to be completed. Now, it may not happen, as many a parent or wife will tell you. If your magnet letters start asking you to do requests when you randomly throw them at your refrigerator, please let a local psychiatrist or exorcist know. Now, when you use pragmatics, making a request, and you have an expectation that the request will be understood and replied to with either words or actions, that is called apobetics. Not alphabetics. That’s Big Bird. Apobetics. Request and reply information. If you purposefully wrote out “Please take out the trash” on the refrigerator and came back later to find it now said, “Took out the trash” you’d know your Apobetics has served its function. It is clear that inside of cells, there is not just statistics and cosentics, which you might expect from a random process. There is semantics and pragmatics and especially Apobetics. Within all of the trillions of cells in your body all the time this level of information is going on. Now, for Darwinian evolution to be correct, only statistical and possibly cosentic information can be going on in biology, as there is no source for information other than random mutation and natural selection. So Darwinian evolution is false. There must be some other teleological source for the information processing system occurring in cells, and in every cell since the first life. For these reasons, among others, even leading atheist philosophers, like Thomas Nagel, have admitted that, “The materialist, neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false”. 150 years of delusion should be over, but the influence of Darwin, and the rejection out of hand that the science could possibly require more than nature and chance, keeps us still believing in Darwin’s error. Nature has given us a pragmatic request: stop believing in that nonsense. But the Apobetics on our part- of hearing and replying with understanding- seems to have been short-circuited. Now, as supposedly smart and honest people continue to deny these things, it can make rational people who know ID is true string together the characters below that appear random even as they are designed: $@!&%!

[@sladisciples]

Very astute and eloquently presented. Refreshing.TY

[@joeschmoe1794]

_Excellent_ post. Thank you!

[@andressitorus1865]

best summary i have ever read🙏👌

[@Mellownius]

Hope you have a microphone and hope you just dropped it 🤩🤩🔥🔥 “For thou hast possessed my reins: Thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: Marvellous are thy works; And that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, When I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; And in thy book all my members were written, Which in continuance were fashioned, When as yet there was none of them.” ‭‭Psalm‬ ‭ DNA

[@randyhughens5138]

What Samandmckenziedoes said; Drop the mic...

[@moses777exodus]

There are currently no known examples, in nature or science, where one life form will convert to a different life form (i.e. different body plan) by change in the DNA. Current understanding in the field of genetics seems to indicate that varying body plans (for example, the difference between an octopus and praying mantis) do not reside within the DNA. Genes within the DNA of a particular organism code for the different proteins required to build and allow that particular organism to function but has not been shown to determine that particular organism's primary biological architectural body plan. Therefore, no amount of random mutation of DNA will produce a new organism with a different body plan from the original.

[@sypherd.3771]

The “simpler cell” argument is actually worse than they stated here, because what you still need to have is THE EXACT simpler cell that leads to THIS current level of complexity. It goes back to Dembski’s “search for the search” argument. They’re essentially saying, ok well maybe that outcome is too implausible, but what about this other outcome that leads to that outcome? Again, no new information is gained because this outcome is still present at the input of the system.

[@denisdaly1708]

There is no compelling evidence for the resurrection. Where is it? Because some wrote that it was so, is not evidence.

[@theodoremartin6153]

Tha great and courageous Professor Tour is living proof that science is going to climb a huge mountain of knowledge , and when scientists get to the top , they are going to find a bunch of theologians there , waiting for them.

[@theodoremartin6153]

@@midlander4 ????.......Friend.......Tour is showing the science crowd an absolute VOLCANO of information that routinely defies the laws of probability to degrees that literally is beyond comprehension. You , being part of that crowd , have been brainwashed to think you will somehow be cheated if you pursue that avenue of curiosity. Friend , you being a young man intent on experiencing life to the fullest have been deceived into throwing away the greatest adventure a man can have . When My wife and I (no children , on purpose after 10 years of marriage) decided to cancel our subscription to National Geographic , and hit the road to see what life was really all about . We were Libtards from Massachusetts. I being the kind of guy to militantly support abortion and routinely trashed the Christians . We actually ended up in a sweat lodge on an indian reservation in South Dakota . THAT was a blast! To make a long story short ,I am challenging you ,man to man , to take the "piss and vinegar" part of your young mans natural desire to challenge authority , and challenge Jesus Christ to show you what you are going to miss . Give the finger to the crowd that says you arent allowed to even contemplate that " airy fairy invisible friends in the sky" type of thought , and see what happens . I guarantee , if you pursue the truth with the same commitment you pursue money YOU WILL BE ABSOLUTELY BLOWN AWAY.......like Tour . And you will be able to withstand unbelievable odds .......Just like Tour. Good luck friend.

[@jasonpowell7622]

@@midlander4 your responses have become dull lately midlander. Come on midlander ;get with the program. I know you can do better!

[@philaypeephilippotter6532]

@@jasonpowell7622 *_When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser_* *Socrates*

[@solideogloria5553]

52:28 the best argument againt ours is "evil designs“ ？ well, at least we have made some progress(atheism to theism). now we can talk about that evil thing, what do you mean by evil?

[@Jayf1981]

Newton clearly asserted his belief both in God the Creator and in the Bible as God’s Word, writing, “I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.” Newton used his religious views as a springboard to understanding natural laws, showing that science and faith in the historically accurate Word of God are not diametric opposites, but rather-when properly understood-are complementary and corroborate one another.

[@mcmanustony]

pssst- you're supposed to be pretending it's all about the science- didn't you get the memo?

[@garywalker447]

Newton made huge advances for science, optics, laws of motion, calculus and more, but he also believed in Alchemy, so just because it came from the pen of Newton, does not mean it is truth.

[@Jayf1981]

@@garywalker447 He studied it, he didn't "Believe" in it!

[@philaypeephilippotter6532]

@@Jayf1981 Really?

[@Jayf1981]

@@philaypeephilippotter6532 what?

[@moses777exodus]

QUESTION: Is there any known existing undirected random natural material process that has been shown to be capable of producing functional / coded / digital information as that required for the most primitive biological life?

[@spatrk6634]

depends on how you define life.

[@jasonpowell7622]

@@spatrk6634 Moses. Fundamental fanatic has giving no reference peer reviewed paper work to qualify his response.He has disqualified himself;and his answers when it comes to scientific rhetoric.

[@spatrk6634]

@@jasonpowell7622 hello jason, nice seeing you again. i hope you will catch time to watch dave's newest video and the second part that he will release today. it debunks dr.tour again and this time its much harder then before with lot more refrence papers and he even interviews actual scientists who study abiogenesis and who watched dr. tour's gross strawman missinterpretation of what abiogenesis is and how it works. tour is realy pathetic, he would've been lot better if he didnt respond at all after first debunk. cheers.

[@jasonpowell7622]

@@spatrk6634 Do you get paid to drum up business for a failed academic like farina? If you do I hope its more than the barkers get paid at the local fair; barking for the bearded lady and the dog faced boy.

[@jasonpowell7622]

@@spatrk6634 you said to paraphrase: 'he (dave farina) interviewed actual scientists who study abiogenesis and how it works.' Really?

[@Testequip]

Science and faith are two separate entities. Faith is based on belief without evidence.

[@judgementiscoming8016]

Evolution, big bang and abiogenesis are faith based.

[@Testequip]

@@judgementiscoming8016 Oh boy... Herewith some food for thought. Why is it you refuse to accept the fundamental laws of physics, science and engineering yet have no trouble accepting medical technology to repair your broken leg, trust your home and other buildings designed by architects, trust your vehicle engineered by mechanical engineers, yet you have issues with other areas of science. That is a text book example of hypocrisy and confirmation biasing.

[@judgementiscoming8016]

@@Testequip Deception is not all lies. It's cleverly mixing truth and lies to make it all look like the truth. - my own quote.

[@Testequip]

@@judgementiscoming8016 "deception is not all lies..." I'm afraid you have fallen for your own deception. There is a difference between faith based beliefs and objective scientific evidence. Faith is belief without evidence.

[@judgementiscoming8016]

@@Testequip Faith doesn't profess to be objective. It's a journey to the truth. On the other hand, evolution, big bang and abiogenesis are presented as objective, yet they fail on every level. Hence highly developed deception.

[@krisjones4051]

Im curious to see the next response to Professor Dave

[@freddan6fly]

It has already come. He totally destroys James Liar Tour. My guess is that James have to change career from scientist to lying apologetic.

[@krisjones4051]

@@freddan6fly I said "response _to_ Dave." Change your name to freddan6flyilliterate.

[@jasonpowell7622]

@@krisjones4051 check out freddan6fly trying his best to argue in 3 of the Moses exodus OP sections about DNA and biology. They are found right here in the amongst the Dembski interview posting sections but you might have to dig a little through some of them to get to his parts.

[@krisjones4051]

@@jasonpowell7622 Lol I'll check it out. Have you seen Dave's 2 part response?

[@jasonpowell7622]

@@krisjones4051 This is one of the ones that I am referencing: Moses exodus Modern scientific discoverys in Genetics (in biology) have shown that functional coded information( i.e. DNA code) is at the core of All biological systems. Without funtional /coded information there is no biology.

[@John777Revelation]

*_“It may seem bizarre, but, in my opinion, science offers a surer path to God than religion.”_* -Physicist Paul Davies, the winner of the 2001 Kelvin Medal issued by the Institute of Physics and the winner of the 2002 Faraday Prize issued by the Royal Society (among other awards), as cited in his book God and the New Physics. Davies adheres to no standard religious creed.

[@rocketsurgeon1746]

The thumbs down must be prof Dave :)

[@iactuallydontknowwhatimtal4569]

Gold

[@anantav51]

why would you like this kind of videos? Dr. Tour is a liar kzbin.info/www/bejne/nZmteKGDrLd7edU

[@rocketsurgeon1746]

@@anantav51 why do you call him a liar?

[@anantav51]

@@rocketsurgeon1746 because he lied about a lot of things. Watch the video I sent

[@iactuallydontknowwhatimtal4569]

@@anantav51 Dr. Dave lied about more things in less than 5 mins of that video! 🤣 But, I'll examine it further tomorrow when I have the stamina for BSers.

[@johnnythelowery]

My questions is alot simpler: Why does any DNA code for anything?

[@cps_Zen_Run]

It allows for replication. Likely precursor was RNA, then over time, to the double stranded DNA.

[@jasonpowell7622]

@@cps_Zen_Run how likely(mathematics probability vs possibility) and against what historical verifiable map?

[@KenJackson_US]

Are you saying you actually have faith that life popped out of nonlife, @@cps_Zen_Run?

[@moses777exodus]

DNA code is like computer language. And, as with every known language in existence, confirmed through scientific experiment and observation, is the product of only one thing ... mind/ consciouness /intelligence.

[@cps_Zen_Run]

@@KenJackson_US , faith and beliefs are not the pathway to truth. Follow the evidence.

[@johnbrinsmead3316]

Funny when I did maths as an undergrad the law of total probablity stated that the probability of anything occuring was between 1 and 0, but feel free to create new laws if you think it will support your position.

[@Melkor3001]

It is. But probabilities can be expressed in different ways for the sake of simplicity or context, correct?

[@kevinharper9190]

Where 0 represents no probability and 1 = 100%. But you knew that, didn’t you?

[@johnbrinsmead3316]

@@kevinharper9190 it's one of a few things I remember

[@moses777exodus]

"The concept of "Nothing" represented by the number "0" (zero) did not exist in the beginning. The number "0" (zero) is a relatively recent human innovation in mathematics. But, there has always been "1" (one). The fact that one (1) exists and can think about the concept of "nothing" (0) shows that there first exists one (1). Thus, nothing (0) does not truly exist alone: One (1) must first exist who can ponder (create) the concept of nothing (0). Mathematically, Absolute nothing "could be" expressed as 0 to the power of 0, which can equal 1. "Nothing" IS "Something"; because, it comes from "Something". Moreover, since Nothing (perceived) is not Nothing (actual), then it is possible for Something to come from Nothing (actual). Because, Something (1) is inherently pre-existing within Nothing (actual), hence, 0 to the power of 0 can equal 1. Simply put, One (1) exists before zero (0) can exist."

[@freddan6fly]

@@moses777exodus Your understanding of math is abysmal.

[@surrenderdaily333]

Mathematical trickery and man's foolishness to think he can simulate chance with his mind, huh? Great video, both of you!!!

[@heroldable]

Very, very good! And in time; these days they are cancelling Newton in akademia. They are crazy.

[@garywalker447]

Bullshit. Nobody is cancelling Newton. Nobody with a brain denies that his understanding of math, light and motion are fundamental to our view of the universe. All other physics builds on his foundation.

[@moses777exodus]

“The question of whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the Universe has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed.” -Charles Darwin, the founder of evolutionary biology, as cited in his book Descent of Man.

[@mcmanustony]

So what? Did they provide any evidence of this creator? That has been answered in the negative.

[@cps_Zen_Run]

Please provide any credible evidence, then go collect your Nobel prize.

[@mcmanustony]

@@cps_Zen_Run There is none for a creator. It's Nobel by the way....

[@mcmanustony]

@@cps_Zen_Run Is there a Nobel in Godology? Would be kinda funny......

[@cps_Zen_Run]

@@mcmanustony , thanks for pointing out my spelling error.

[@DaveWillmore]

I am so ignorant on all of this but you explain it in a way that I can at least get a base understanding of what you are talking about. Thank you both.

[@anantav51]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/nZmteKGDrLd7edU

[@DaveWillmore]

@@anantav51 I saw that and thought it to have a very weak set of arguments.

[@anantav51]

@@DaveWillmore what are they?

[@DaveWillmore]

@@anantav51 Dr. Tour's response video series does a much better job of refuting his logic than I ever could, but his primary argument is that Tour is a Christian which disqualifies him from doing science. That really put a pall on that speaker's ability to discuss the issues at hand.

[@shoogeveen]

@@DaveWillmore "his primary argument is that Tour is a Christian which disqualifies him from doing science" That is not at all the primary argument of Dave Farina's videos. The primary argument is that Dr Tour is wrong about and/or misrepresenting a lot of research regarding abiogenesis research. This argument is supported by a boatload of references to research. A possible explanation for being wrong and/or misrepresenting is the fact that Dr Tour's area of expertise is extremely focused on synthetic organic chemistry, while abiogenetics research is an interdisciplinary study. Another possible explanation is that Tour is a theist and they tend to disregard facts (verifiable aspects of reality) if they contradict their faith.

[@averagejoe8839]

So if i understand this you are basically stating in order to adhere to the dogma of materialism one must in fact have a deep faith in blind random lucks ability to outperform the human intellect. In other words has blind random luck ever produced (in this reality) complexity approachin that of a childs rubber band airplane? If the emperical fact is NO then how much faith would one require to believe BRL could produce a living cell which by level of complexity comparison renders musks starship a chils toy.? Great video DrTour !!!

[@averagejoe8839]

@@derhafi sorry bro. Blind random luck has never been observed to produce complexity approaching that of a childs rubber band airplane much less a iphone,mars rover or musks starship which compared to a living cell are mongaloid stone tools . This is just emperical fact when dealing with reality but of course the human mind is not bound by the observed facts and can come up with any nonsensical postulation. Case in point.; random luck actually is more beneficial than the combined intellect of the human race. Delutional nonsensical ramblings from a dogma driven faith such as found in the athiest/materialist religion. Thanks for the reply!

[@averagejoe8839]

@@derhafi rob no matter how many times you avoid the fact science relies on random luck it still will remain the "elephant in the room". If you postulate swirling matter could randomly coalesce into the most complex system in the known universe and render mans intellectual triumphs by comparison feeble then you cannot logically deny random pointless luck is more advantageous than intelligence thusly reducing all things seen to a pointless crap shoot. Now if you claim raw matter has an intrinsic natural ability to outperform the human intellect than thats is just the same argument for random luck. odds,why,how,pointlessness, still ends up with intelligence as the only logical explanation for the manifestation of this raw matters astounding inherent abilitiites which defy the witnessed emperical fact that blind random luck has never produced coherent funtional information and levels of complexity such as needed in self replicating systems. All the hi tech labratories and towering intellects blowing through billions in grants has never come close to showing a pathway for such an occurence yet faith can overcome logic and one could still believe intelligence could not be the causal manifestation of this reality! Have at it but understand billions are not buying your rendition. Thanks for the reply.

[@moses777exodus]

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

[@ifollowtheantichristandthe9218]

What are the "invisible things" you are talking about?

[@GottfriedLeibnizYT]

Creationists thinking they are talking science .. isn't that precious

[@RoninTF2011]

Yeah, its soooo cute

[@mrreyes5004]

Atheists think they are talking science... isn't that precious? Lol, get off your high horse kiddo, I swear you staunch atheists and fundamentalist theists are more alike than you care to admit XD Nope, there is evidence for God, although perhaps more like the Deist concept of God than the usually-known Abrahamic one (visit the r/deism subreddit for more details on that), it is still God nonetheless. Even renowned staunch atheists like Antony Flew (FYI Flew was indeed stubbornly atheistic, nobody with an ounce of knowledge of the man can deny him that - not only did he spend much of his life challenging and debating against the existence of God in debates, he even wrote papers arguing that the entire _concept_ of God is meaningless, so any claims along the lines of "well clearly he wasn't a skeptic" are inherently false) have been convinced, not by paranormal experiences or ancient texts, but just empirical evidence and logical arguments... and yes, they do exist. Flew jotted down his journey and the arguments that convinced him in his memoir "There Is A God: How The World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind", which you and anyone can thoroughly read through for free right here -> archive.org/details/There.Is.A.God/page/n4/mode/1up In the meantime, grow up and get off your high horse - I'm not saying that to be a jerk (although I'm sure you think otherwise), belittling theists like a playground bully the way you are gets you nowhere, and really is just proof of your own immaturity, and thus makes it clear you don't know all the facts. As I said, the link above is to a clearly-explained list of histories and arguments that convinced a man who also thought he knew enough of what there was to know that he in fact was actually wrong, and unless you're too lazy or bigoted, I hope you happy reading. I hope you grow from this point in time just as I did when I started learning the intricacies of atheism, theism and deism, and bye-bye.

[@philaypeephilippotter6532]

@@mrreyes5004 What has *Flew's* opinion to do with *Tour* lying?

[@RoninTF2011]

@@mrreyes5004 " and thus makes it clear you don't know all the facts." I don't claim to know all the facts...I just know enought of the facts to know the abrahamic sky daddy mythos is a load of horse manure

[@john-giovannicorda3456]

_//"Creationists . . . talking science".//_ Then please feel free to join in with your own ideas. Isn't that what this is all about?

[@nickfragedakis9958]

It sounds like the opposing side wants to use the "science of the gaps" argument.

[@philaypeephilippotter6532]

What _opposing side?_

[@ymiladi100]

Dr Tour I'm a Muslim. We all believe in Jesus as a messenger of God and if someone say I don't believe in Jesus he is not a Muslim anymore. And we love all prophets as well as we adore our prophet, Muhammad. We believe in the bible. Here are some verses about it in the Quran: 3: 2-6 Allah: There is no god but He, the Alive, the All-Sustaining. He has revealed to you the Book with the truth, confirming what has been before it, and has sent down the Laws (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) earlier to give guidance to mankind, and has sent down the distinction (between right and wrong). Surely, those who have rejected the verses of Allah, for them there is severe punishment. Allah is Mighty, the Lord of Retribution. Surely, Allah is such that nothing is hidden from Him, neither in the earth nor in the sky. He is the One Who shapes you in the wombs as He likes. There is no god but He, the Mighty, the Wise. You have found God through the holy scriptures and true science. If you read the Quran you will see many similarities between the bible and the quran and many scientific facts have been mentioned in Quran. I'm sure that you will understand that it is the truth. you can't reject it. in each verse it's really clear that these words are God's words, no one else. I just suggest you to read the quran and If you have read it before, read it again and again. Don't trust on what the media says about Islam they're telling the lie. Quran is a great guidance and mercy from God for humankind. it heal our soul and give us wisdom as God said about it: 17: 82 We send down the Quran as healing and mercy to those who believe; and it adds nothing to the unjust but loss. 11: 120 We narrate to you all such stories from the events of the messengers as We strengthen your heart therewith. And in these (stories) there has come to you the truth, a good counsel and a reminder to those who believe. 42: 52,53 So We have revealed a spirit (the Quran) to you [Prophet] by Our command: you knew neither the Scripture nor the faith, but We made it (the Quran) a light, guiding with it whoever We will of Our servants. You give guidance to the straight path, the path of God, to whom belongs all that is in the heavens and earth: truly everything will return to God. We don't believe that Juses was son of God. Because it's impossible. God is one. How can he have a son while he doesn't have a wife?! He doesn't need them. he just creates everything that he wants. "He begot no one nor was He begotten. No one is comparable to him " In Quran there are many verses about Jesus such as: 3: 45,46 The angels said, ‘Mary, God gives you news of a Word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, who will be held in honour in this world and the next, who will be one of those brought near to God. He will speak to people in his infancyand in his adulthood. He will be one of the righteous.’

[@ifollowtheantichristandthe9218]

James, you should make response to the Dave's response to you series on abiogenesis.

[@philaypeephilippotter6532]

He daren't.

[@patricialammersfeld5322]

WOW! "Being able to understand all this?" Mr. D. How about writing a children's book.... (a book for older children). Folk like me would buy it.....for our own understanding as well as being able to teach our children! ......OK....Mr. Tour... I also would gladly purchase any books you might write on the children's level. I'll even suggest a title for one. THE WONDERS OF THE CELL.

[@stinksterrekerinski4450]

Is that a tanning bed? UV is not good for your DNA.

[@gnpgnp5281]

The answer to all seeking is simple. Here's the finalization of all: God is Love. Love is Life. People who know Jesus know He is the embodiment of God's love. People who will receive into themselves Jesus's Spirit, receive into themselves Love. God's Love is all that ultimately...is. Jehovah God said, "I am." Jesus is the Prince of Peace - Jehovah's ambassador to bridge man to Himself. Seek for to find true love, and you will find what you truly seek.

[@tatotick8513]

Thanks for being an example to show that even PhD holders can fall for nonsense like the Bible.

[@lloydolayvar1641]

Even some Nobel Prize winners believe in the Bible.

[@anthonypolonkay2681]

Gotta love how when highly accomplished people dont agree with them, the appeal to authority goes out the window.

[@abdelw]

How can such clever and amazing people be following a doctrine such as the trinity?

[@masada2828]

I do agree with you. It sounds like you have searched out the doctrine for yourself and found the trod the matter.

[@abdelw]

@@masada2828 It's so much simpler to just believe in one God and that sent messagers to us. Islam appears to be the way. Plain and simple.

[@mrgyani]

@@abdelw unicorn god is the only one true God.. Islam claims its Allah, so its clearly false.

[@abdelw]

@@mrgyani Haha... There's a mathematical code in the Quran that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that this book cannot be anything but divine. Do your homework before before it's too late for you.

[@abdelw]

@@derhafi See you on judgement day. Pffff.

[@miltonwetherbee5489]

Regarding the birthday argument: one of the things I've pointed out with that argument is it's dealing with a single event, which means the repeatability of that event via randomness is unlikely. Basically, "big deal you grabbed 12 people that have such and such birthdays and the likely hood of that is get slim. Now, go and grab 12 more people and see if you get that same combination." Also, it should be noted that 365^12 is an approximation probability of any particular birthday. The exact probability is dependant on the number people for each birthday as well as the concentration of birthdays. What I mean is, there are more people born Feb 28th than there are people born Feb 29. There also may be more people born during certain months compared to other months, for example maybe October is the month with the most babies born and June is the month with the least (I'm making this up for demonstrating purposes only). If that's the case, there's a greater chance of October birthdays being randomly chosen. As for concentration being a factor, if your sample is coming from California as opposed to New York, while October birthdays may be more common nation wide, maybe in California June is more common. This would mean that if your sample is coming from California, your more likely to get people with June birthdays. These two factors are difficult to figure out, but when you know them and use them to calculate the real probability of something, you tend to find that outs even less likely than you thought. Something unique about specified information is that it is repeated way more frequently than what you would get from random selection. Lastly, the birthday example doesn't represent functional information. Any group of 12 birthdays you choose doesn't do anything more than any other group of 12 birthdays you could have chosen.

[@jasonpowell7622]

Thank you for sharing that. The birthday scenario in drave farinas video seemed to lack a couple fundamental points to it. There wasn't any necessitated Consequence, or functionality to the analogy that i could pick up on. No necessitated repeatable Target pattern that needed to be met to gain functionablity. Like you said ( to paraphrase) especially repeated necessitated succes if not met then failure.

[@miltonwetherbee5489]

@@jasonpowell7622 yeah, I tried addressing that in the comments on Dave's video, but it seems as though he blocked me from the comments.

[@jasonpowell7622]

@@miltonwetherbee5489 it doesnt seem that dave wants an honest engagement and why not when he or who ever controls that little posting icon can have total control over the commits found at the elucidation vidoe comments section. Dave and his buddies get to play God.

[@fyrerayne8882]

how do scientists figure out how the machinery of a cell works? equipment, methods etc..

[@freddan6fly]

By first having an education, and then study the subject for several years.

[@ramptonarsecandle]

Prof Dave has just ripped you a new one, you may want to pop over and collect it.

[@philaypeephilippotter6532]

@@Alex-fy7df You really ought to find out what the word _professor_ means. And in any case academic _professors_ can be asses, mine was. *Dave* ain't.

[@philaypeephilippotter6532]

@@Alex-fy7df So you can't be bothered to find out what the word means. How sad.

[@philaypeephilippotter6532]

@@Alex-fy7df So you still can't be bothered to find out what the word means. How very sad. *_Sharp as a bowling ball_* *_Foghorn Leghorn_*

[@philaypeephilippotter6532]

@@Alex-fy7df Now why are you so frightened to look up the word in a dictionary or thesaurus? It doesn't necessarily mean that a _professor_ has to have a degree. A _professor_ professes which, in this context, means to teach. You'll find it in most on-line *English* dictionaries. I am condescending because you refuse to do something as simple as typing _professor definition_ into a search engine but you're happy to type _davefarinamasters2_ into one. Incidentally *Dave* has an *MA* in *Science Education.* You could have learnt this by typing _dave farina qualification_ into a search engine. Don't worry about the link problem, it's down to YT who refuse to fix it.

[@philaypeephilippotter6532]

@J W Yes, we did. Did you watch *Dave's* two-part demolition of *Tour?*

[@les2997]

Intelligent design is a modest position theologically and philosophically. It attributes the complexity and diversity of life to intelligence, but does not identify that intelligence with the God of any religious faith or philosophical system. ---William A. Dembski

[@Alec_Cox]

@@briendoyle4680 Of course it is testable, you twit, ID predicts that there are answers that can only be answered by an intelligence far beyond the scope of the beginning of life itself. Evolution also proves this point because of the irreducible complexity of all parts having to be in tune with the other parts in order for life to exist... Including Glucose used by the cell... All energy for the cell is pure Glucose (C6O12H6) Carbon Oxygen, and Hydrogen all place in the correct compound and the correct order.. H6o12c6 is nothing.. 🤔

[@Mellownius]

🙄it’s by design 🤭

[@Alec_Cox]

@@briendoyle4680 You Do know that the Core Science fields were started by Young Earth Creation Yahweh believers right? Obviously, you just stepped off the slow bus. Galileo, Pasteur, Newton, Daniel Hale Lewis, Nikola Tesla, Nicolaus Copernicus, Carl Linnaeus, Mendel (genéticas), etc were all Christians and believed in A Young Earth. That Satanists, like you, have hijacked it.. Not surprised.

[@ronaldmorgan7632]

@@briendoyle4680 Proving yet again your ignorance. No one is making the claim that ID is science. ID is a theory. It is based upon probabilities in scientific research.

[@les2997]

@@briendoyle4680 Learn some science, maybe then you won't be making a complete fool of yourself in a public forum. All life is information based, and yet no experiment or computer simulation has shown that an unguided material process may create a code, evolve an IC (irreducibly complex) system or generate significant levels of biological information.

[@lightningmtaylor]

Professor Dave who doesnt do science made 2 videos trying to argue back agsinst you. Once again him amd his comment section cant disprove the science so they try and discredit you with "hes a religious nut". These people are such hypicritres, you put them to rest and they are supossed to be the science people. But their lack of data shows how much they really have nothing

[@garywalker447]

Nope. Professor Dave's videos destroy Tour in detail with detailed references. Tour is the hypocrite and you are a sycophant kissing his ass.

[@philaypeephilippotter6532]

Another one who's far too scared to watch *Dave's* videos. Every scientist he interviews or quotes can be checked - _every single one._ Every paper he quotes can be checked - _every single one._ *Tour* deliberately misquoted several scientists including *Lee Cronin,* the *Regius Chair of Chemistry* in the *School of Chemistry* at the *University of Glasgow. Tour* also misrepresented *Cronin* in an excerpt from a YT video he edited, cutting *Cronin* off literally mid-sentence.

[@philaypeephilippotter6532]

@Science Rules Could the answer to both questions possibly be...nothing? Yes, I'll stick with that answer.

[@garywalker447]

@@philaypeephilippotter6532 Yeah, I agree with Phil.

[@lightningmtaylor]

Im hearing a lack of data only angry people

[@paulm8885]

This is so interesting to me but why has my dog gone to sleep? Only GOD knows.

[@shaccooper]

Is he standing up the entire time 😂

[@LoveYourNeighbour.]

LOL I was sometimes distracted by that very same thought!

[@Atlas6355_]

Dude, James!!! Professor Dave just exposed your ignorance!!!wow!!! You should have not poke the hornets nest! ouch!!! that is going to live a mark!

[@jasonpowell7622]

Why?what will be the consequence for disturbing the hornets nest. Jim will live his life to expose the fluff science that abiogenesis chemistry is; and dave will go back to being obsessed with chasing a popularity contest. Thats fair.

[@Atlas6355_]

@@jasonpowell7622 and this is exactly why we have Dave! To avoid uneducated people like you to fall for this type of crap! James is talking out of his behind! If you are actually honest, and watch what Dave has to say, you will realized that James is nothing but a snake oil salesman! He’s got no other scientist to back him back, other than those 2 religious friends of his. His dishonesty has been exposed, please take the time to watch Dave’s video.

[@jasonpowell7622]

@@Atlas6355_ no offense but i watched daves 45min elucidation video and even took notes. I stoped and backed up and went foward a little bit more. On and on and on just like that.

[@jasonpowell7622]

@@Atlas6355_ daves opening was a classic propagandic poisoning the well Strategy in the 45min elucidation video just for starters. Dave wouldn't call james tour a liar in the elucidating video but in his comments section it was fair game for dave or at least who ever controls daves little icon to say without impunity what ever lie liar lies word he wanted to say that was said opposite of the video.This is Dave: "im not saying jim tour is a liar"(in this vidoe) but in the comments section is where the real fun begins.

[@jasonpowell7622]

To be fair;yes Tour got some;... some stuff wrong ;but Proving lies are a lot tougher then proving mistakes or misspeaking.

[@antoniomoyal]

Probability is the way we look at things without studying the cause behind. But the universe is causal. So God exists becsuse of causes, not of probabilities.

[@philaypeephilippotter6532]

So _god_ causes child cancer?

[@moses777exodus]

"For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." (Source: Bible, 1 Corinthians 1:21)

[@RoninTF2011]

And? why should anyone be interessted in the propagda book of a middle eastern doomsday cult??

[@garywalker447]

I read your bible as a teen and the garbage it contains steered me to be an atheist. Very little of the bible is true and none of what is good about the bible cannot be gained from other sources.

[@mg-ew2xf]

Sorry, slavery is against my morals.

[@moses777exodus]

Belief in a purely materialistic Darwinian Evolution leads one to believe, albeit falsely, that there is no Free Will. And if there is no Free Will, then there is no Right and Wrong and no Moral Law, which is completely contrary to everything that is practiced and observed in nature, humanity, and the cosmos regarding cause and effect. This line of reasoning is what led to the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc and is the hidden underlying ideology justifying and directing many countries' domestic and foreign policies to the present.

[@garywalker447]

@@moses777exodus Belief in a purely materialistic Darwinian Evolution leads one to believe, albeit falsely, that there is no Free Will. And if there is no Free Will, then there is no Right and Wrong and no Moral Law, which is completely contrary to everything that is practiced and observed in nature, humanity, and the cosmos regarding cause and effect. This line of reasoning is what led to the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc and is the hidden underlying ideology justifying and directing many countries' domestic and foreign policies to the present.

[@garywalker447]

Until creationists demonstrate their god creating life, Abiogenesis is the only game in town to explain the origin of life.

[@jasonpowell7622]

Maybe in another 150 or 300 years . Im neither Religious,Theist, or Christian.

[@lightningmtaylor]

The fact of the matter is abiogenisis hasnt been demonstrated because the model doesnt work. Information can only be created from an intellegent actor. Your religion is time and chance can create anything which hasnt been tested and proven in a lab either

[@garywalker447]

@@lightningmtaylor The fact of the matter is abiogenisis hasnt been demonstrated because the model doesnt work. Information can only be created from an intellegent actor. Your religion is time and chance can create anything which hasnt been tested and proven in a lab either

[@johnlove2954]

Until Abiogenisists demonstrate the pre-biotic soup creating life, Creationism is the only game in town to explain the origin of life.

[@garywalker447]

@@johnlove2954 No liar. Even without a full explanation for the process of Abiogenesis, there is still a huge body of evidence for this opposing the absolute NOTHING you have for evidence of your magical creation fairy tale. "God did it" is not an explanation, it is a lie.

[@sciencewolf7775]

This is so stupid I could make an entire video explaining the true origin of life.

[@freddan6fly]

What do you expect? Two creatards are lying for each other to confirm their view that "goddunit" no matter what the question is.

[@sciencewolf7775]

@@freddan6fly True

[@ramptonarsecandle]

William Dembski was originally slated to be an expert witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District lawsuit but shortly before he was to go into deposition he withdrew himself from the case. This was along with two other ID fellows: Stephen Meyer and John Campbell. Dembski's withdrawal is particularly noteworthy considering his obsession with having Darwinism on trial in a court of law, as evidenced by this quote from his blog, Uncommon Descent; “”I’m waiting for the day when the hearings are not voluntary but involve subpoenas in which evolutionists are deposed at length on their views. On that happy day, I can assure you they won’t come off looking well. He also went as far as developing a "vise strategy" and taking pictures of a Darwin doll in a vise as an analogy. Sadly it seems that Dembski's ability as a prognosticator is on a par with his ability to define CSI mathematically, as the Dover trial became a tour de force for evolution, with the conservative judge scathing in his criticism of the blatantly creationist ID side of the case. Following the defeat of intelligent design in the courtroom, Dembski produced an animation featuring Judge Jones. And fart noises. The best bit? He did the fart noises himself, apparently. Classy. From Rationalwiki

[@john-giovannicorda3456]

What part of this video do you claim to be inaccurate or scientifically wrong? Or are you just here the _ad hominem_ attack angle?

[@garywalker447]

@@john-giovannicorda3456 All of Intelligent Design Creationism is pseudoscience. No science is allowed to invoke a causal agent that has not been demonstrated through evidence. In more than 20 years the proponents of ID have not demonstrated anything that ID is in any way real. ID has NO scientific credibility, NO peer reviewed scientific literature and no body of evidence. ID is dead.

[@john-giovannicorda3456]

@@garywalker447 Yes, there is "hope" and "belief" that bacteria can actually be shown to evolve out of just remaining as . . . bacteria. But nothing to be seen yet. Where is the scientific credibility, peer reviewed scientific literature,body of evidence to show that bacteria can, *and have* , actually have done that? So far, that avenue is dead, and Richard Lenski's e.coli were of no help. ha ha ha

[@john-giovannicorda3456]

. . . better not to throw rocks when there are already holes in your own boat.

[@garywalker447]

@@john-giovannicorda3456 We did not evolve from bacteria. We are Eukaryotic, an entirely different cell structure. Your denial of science is typical of creatard fools. You are not convincing with your PRATTs.

[@IronSharpensIron127]

Salty characters below.

[@msterious8537]

Dr. Tour you should be ashamed of yourself, stooping to running personal attack ads on Dave Farina's YT channel. That's about as unprofessional and bush league as it gets. Why don't you just publish your OOL research critiques in the professional scientific literature? That's how professional scientists vet ideas.

[@AbombOO7]

I think it's hilarious and I now demand a cage match.

[@msterious8537]

@@hasanbey59 That is just not true. This started when Dr. Tour made an anti-OOL propaganda video for the DI last year. Science educator Dave Farina then made a counter-video pointing out all the mistakes are misrepresentations in Tour's DI video. Mr. Farina went out of his way to be polite to Dr. Tour and not disparage Tour's religious beliefs. Dr. Tour and the DI were so incensed anyone would oppose their nonsense they had Tour make a 14 part "series" which was nothing but slurs and insults directed at Mr. Farina along with repeating the first video's falsehoods. Tour even drew a "Dunning Kruger" graph and put Mr. Farina's picture on it, something about as childish and unprofessional as I've ever seen. From then on the gloves were off and Mr. Farina pulled no punches in his two part rebuttal showing Tour's multiple misrepresentations and outright lies. The rebuttal video included interviews with top OOL researchers and links to a dozen new (2021) published paper that Tour had ignored. Tour and the DI's response was to buy attack ads on Mr. Farina's YT channel with nothing but more personal insults, no mention of the science points raised at all. Tour has acted like a spoiled whiny brat through this whole thing. His Narcissistic Personality Disorder has been on full display with him name calling and ranting and screaming and into the camera at every opportunity.

[@lincolndunstan3057]

Do Brett Weinstein and Heather ever talk to these people?

[@skavihekkora5039]

Dembski. Polish. Catholic. Obviously.

[@isusjebogisaija96-75]

JESUS CHRIST ❤️ YESHUA ❤️ The LIVING GOD (Isaiah 9 : 6-7) !

[@cps_Zen_Run]

Harry Potter series is more readable... and more believable.