Response to “Capturing Christianity” James Tour Debate Analysis 

That would be even more hilarious if it wasn't true.

Pretty sure you just described the DI and AIG

lmao

"the Geologist will handle your biological questions". Two words: historical geology. I took a University level course in that in 1988. The title of the textbook: "Evolution of the Earth". Nearly a full semester of evolutionary theory!

@@darrylgonzalez5251 derp

I'd love to hear more!

@@ProfessorDaveExplains There is lot of good research, but this is a good review if you would like to check it out: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7434221/

@@JesusSavesSoulswe already have studies detailing the prebiotic emergence of polypeptides and RNA through natural processes, so those aren't anything new

@@ProfessorDaveExplainsi would love to see you cover this topic in a debate if you can/have any interest this seems like a pretty extensive topic

Hahaha what else is expected

I left him a snarky comment as well. These people are beyond annoying. He was whining about Dave using ad hominems. I stated he merely used some colorful words interspersed throughout his factual information as it's beyond annoying constantly having to correct liars.

lol lovin the screenshots😂😂😂

My comment was not deleted, when I pointed out that Rimmer (red dwarf) was a trojan source.

Characters 😂😂😂

the ball doesn't even need to be the size of earth. size is actually counterproductive (if you ignore the space requirement for the object's mass); the larger the object's radius is, the more mass it has to have for a measurable gravitational effect. a basketball-sized sphere with a mass of a million metric tons would exert gravity on its surface at the same order of magnitude as earth (5m/s^2 according to my very rough estimate); make it a few million tons (to overcome earth's 9.81 m/s^2 that interferes with the experiment), and water would stick to it, even if you spin it at a similar angular velocity as earth(~1 rotation/day). fun fact: that basketball just requires a density of ~10^12 kg/m^3, and that's well within the range of the degenerate matter inside a neutron star. a sufficiently advanced type 3+ civilization could probably do this experiment at school :D

@@chezeus1672 technically, for an earth-mass it'd just need to be about =/< 10cm^3 from a neutron star's core. whatever antigravity technology needed to contain it would end up being the massive part

@@aidanmatthewgalea7761 you don't need an object with earth's mass, though, you need a similar result for m/r^2 (times a constant) as you get for earth. if i picked the densest known material (excluding black holes, as far as i understand, they contain a singularity with near-infinite density), i assumed the resulting object would become so small that adhesion alone can do the trick. so i arbitrarily chose a nice size for a classroom experiment, estimated the required density and then saw that a material like that is near the lower end of a neutron star's density spectrum. btw, containing the gravity wouldn't be much of a problem, distance^2 kinda does that for you if the object is small enough to weigh "only" about as much as an aircraft carrier. it's not entirely correct, but for simplification, i like to think of a neutron star as a single atom with lots and lots of neutrons, i.e. an isotope so unstable that its half-life would have to be measured in single planck-times. so the purpose of the unfathomable piece of high-tech machinery would have to be to prevent decay into much less dense atoms and therefore flooding the whole school with tons and tons of radioactive waste.

@@chezeus1672 Makes me wonder: if there was a ball the size of baseball but with a mass roughly equal to that of Earth, and it was spinning so fast that the linear velocity at its equator was equal to that of Earth it would probably have quite interesting effects...

@@juhanipolvi4729 some number crunching: m = 5.97219*10^24 kg v = ~40075000 m/89164.1s (earth circumference/1 sidereal day) =~450m/s rball=0.0365m rearth= 6371000m centrifugal force F=mω^2r ω= v/rball=12330 rad/s _Fc=m*5.55*10^6 N/kg_ G=6.674*10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 (constant) gball = GM/r^2 = 2.992 *10^17 m/s^2 _Fg = -m*2.992 *10^17 N/kg_ _Fg+Fc ~= Fg_ i did some very disgusting rounding, but either way, the centrifugal force remains just as negligible compared to the overwhelming gravity as it is on earth. maybe we get a different effect if we shrink earth to the size of a baseball while conserving its angular momentum? L= 4/5 Pi M f r^2 M*1sid_day*rearth^2 = M*fball*rball^2 fball= 1sid_day*rearth^2 /rball^2= 2.7* 10^18 rotations/s uh oh... that looks like relativistic territory cBall = 2Pi rBall v = f*cBall = 6,19 * 10^17 m/s >>> c newtonian mechanics break down once you approach speeds that aren't negligble compared to the speed of light (~3*10^8 m/s) anymore, and the correct math is pretty crazy and it's too much for me right now. suffice to say, it can't reach the speed of light as we're still working with a finite amount of energy. i assume we created some kind of pulsar that emits an FM radio signal... and since it's not a black hole (escape velocity < light speed), everything on its surface would get flung off into space at nearly the speed of light. and its surface, too.

Because growing up you accepted science as your religion. You use certain science to try and fail to disprove God. But when the science proves God and that has even been peered reviewed you don’t accept and believe it but you call it SudoScience lol. It’s not that people who believe in God don’t accept science it’s just that we don’t accept your science that is all still theoretical.

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@SiQuemaCuhhA theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses.” Btw, science is not a religion buddy. You’re being delusional.

@@snewp_e2139 guy really edited his comment and still failed to spell “pseudoscience” correctly

They also think there is a middle ground on things like vaccines and medicine. It is terrifying.

​@@SiQuemaCuhhShow the science that proves God and it's peer reviewed

/s

Yeah he's bad for it but he's still one of the better apologists

You just crushed my sarcasm detector. Gonna sue you.

@@GameTimeWhy I'm not even sure what you mean by that. Is that supposed to be a compliment? Being one of the best in lying and deceiving people?

@@faelheavymetal Stupid, how about Camerun being stupid? You forgot that.

Completely agreed. And didn't Dave provide him a list of the papers? What else would they be talking about?

@@synthetic240 Oh gosh, yes --- you should see the "conditions" Tour had during "negotiations." I'm pretty sure Dave has a breakdown of what they agreed to in advance posted somewhere searchable. I remember him discussing them as it dragged on bc Tour kept being shady.

​@@picahudsoniaunflocked5426 dont forget Tours "1/3rd of the audience has to be my church buddies" condition

Tour definitely feels like someone cosplaying an actual academic... despite him being one. Without playacting the part of the stuffy professor who's always right because of his authority, he's got nothing. Like every apologist, he can't win unless his audience assumes his conclusion from the very start, and in his case the technique he's chosen to do it is by putting on a little morality play where he's the Serious Academic™ and Dave is the clueless outsider who can be easily dismissed because he doesn't have a fancy suit and a title... despite himself being completely unqualified to talk about organic chemistry and regularly pretending like he knows better than the actual organic chemist who did actual research in the field he hasn't touched in decades, as if having PhD next to his name magically turns his uninformed and sometimes entirely mendacious opinions into actual science.

@@JesusSavesSouls Of course he knew what they said.

tbf they do have to cope in more dimensions than the FEs

@@picahudsoniaunflocked5426 one more dimension to pizza earth is just another way to say infinity since its a non-realized value to our favorite 2Ds. So its mathemagically (I know what I said) proven that Creationists have to cope more.

Impersonating???

@@stephentaylor356 Yes it was a bit of irony from my part

YOU GOT A SOURCE ON THAT!?!

​@@ericsbuds James: chalk:

@@ericsbuds SHOW US YOU WON'T DO IT YOU WON'T DO IT!!!

Surpriced Tour did not bang his head on the table like a borderliner in a psychosis. because the rest of his behaviour was that.

@@kamion53, "If I write Not Clueless on the board, do I get points?"

​@@kamion53 I gotta ask if you actually know what BPD is

@@JaceDeanLove oops, it's NPD Narcissisist Personality Disorder

That's absolutely true, but it's worse than that. At least here in the U.S., creationist _conspiracy-theorists_ (calling a spade a spade) have managed to convince most of the population (not _just_ believers) of a few lies: - Evolution is "just a theory" which, of course, means that it's only a guess and therefore can reasonably be dismissed - "Evolution" is a theory that (ostensibly) explains _everything_ about the origins of our Universe, planet, and (especially) all life; it's not just about the diversity of life. - Evolution is a controversial theory, no more valid than the "theories" posited by religious fundamentalists and conspiracy-theorist nutbars. The last one is the most important, and most insidious of their lies. Even many non-believers think that it's just one possible explanation with little to no evidence supporting it. This seriously worries me. This is what allows fundies to portray legitimate scientists as "extreme" in their "belief in evolution" with almost no pushback from the non-religious, non-scientists.

Nonsense. To Creationist apologists, that is correct, but the vast majority of Christians (such as myself) agree with much of scientific consensus. I know many Christians who have legitimate scientific degrees (Dr. Lloyd Drexel Vincent, Ph.D in nuclear physics and former President of Angelo State University comes to mind). Don't paint us all with that broad brush.

@@darrylgonzalez5251 Then it's good that he clearly specified Christian apologists, right?

@@antiksur8883 as daryl said, creationist. do you even understand the bible? most creationist come from protestant ("most"), that doesnt have the tradition so as darryl said "creationist"

​@Sutrisno Right. I think of it this way: A 7 year old little boy asks his Dad where the house they live in came from. (While Mom was pregnant with him, she and Dad bought the property and had the house built. ) Dad tells his son, "Mom and I put this house here." Later on, as he grows up, he learns how houses are built, and he realizes Mom and Dad didn't literally build this house themselves. So he eventually learns that when they bought the property, it was an empty lot. They then decided what kind if house they wanted, bought the materials, and hired a building company. It's still true that Mom and Dad made the house; it's not literally true that they built it themselves.

6 discourage people to think for themselves

thanks for the massive laugh

7. God did it 🎉

I liked that Paul tried to explain the science.

I enjoyed the scientific explanations from Paul too, especially since it was posted before Dave could post his first debate analysis. But there was clearly some bias towards tour especially from the capturing christianity guy. I wonder if He was just trying to be as partial as possible towards anything CC said, as to not offend him. But idk Other than that it seemed like they didn't know, or avoided all of the context around Tour's arguments in the past. Almost like they only watched the debate and nothing else

@@Mark-xw5yt Indeed. They seemed to treat Dr. Tour and Farina as equally *EXTREME*. Which seems unreasonable. As for their demeanor, you could say they were both uncordial: - Farina was rude to Dr. Tour & the audience. - Dr. Tour seemed fanatical, and ridiculous. As for their positions: - Farina represents this scientific field's consensus, a modest position: We have clues to how systems chemistry dynamics could lead to life. It is not "figured out", but we're always getting closer. - Dr. Tour however took the extreme position that We have no clue how life could have arisen at all, and that the field studying this is fraudulent. This is ridiculous. Dr. Tour was even shown to be undeniably wrong on his 5 point checklist. But they really tried to soften the way they said that. Quite biased.

A lot of these theists don't seem to understand Dave is not claiming to have done the research, so he couldn't write it out on a board, but he is presenting research done by others which has been peer reviewed. This subject is way too complicated to do a few drawing on a board for an hour, to even begin to get an understanding of the subject.

Debating science in front of an audience who are not schooled in the science that’s being debated is a waste of time.

Calling people names isn't winning a debate.

well it's not untrue that selective outrage is protected selectively..🤔

@@moon_wobble7782 To be fair, Dave won the debate despite Tour planting a bunch of his students and creationists, and planting a creationist mediator. By the end even tour's students were cheering for Dave

Just search up "extraordinary roman Catholic claims require extraordinary evidence" to see Cameron very expertly contradict himself

Cameron willfully misrepresents the arguments of his opponents. I can believe that a guy like Mike Winger is simply too deluded and ignorant to understand the arguments and doesn’t misrepresent them on purpose… he is simply too incompetent. But someone like Cam should be too smart to make such mistakes… and that makes it even worse.

Yep!

He has a shifty vibe to him, like he is always trying to phrase things the right way.

​​@@ramigilneas9274 Yes. Mike Winger argues like a child sometimes. It's so weird.

That kind of thing appeals to those who think the more you have of something the more truth it represents somehow. They gobble that up never considering someone might actually pile up thousands of lies.

"That scientist didn't use every last instrument in the lab! He's a fraud!" 😂😂😂😂

​@@beemixsy it's not "depressing" it's sad, those two words cannot be used interchangeably. depression is a mental illness that kills people, saying something is "depressing" is no different to saying your house is like a north korean labor camp because your mother yelled at you for not doing the dishes

​@@ilikelongwords Be aware that people have an understanding of the actual condition as separate from the colloquial use of the adjective. That aside, mulling about the entrenched denial of these people is the actual cause of my current depressive episode.

@@terralexj9468 they can know the difference but that doesn't change anything. you either have depression or you don't, saying something is "depressing" is dumb regardless of wether the person knows the difference between it and the actual condition or not

Very adroit summation. 👍 "Wee Jimmy" 😂

In fact Tour openly states that he thinks the Bible is completely true, for example in an interview he said: "I take every word in the Bible as true, it doesn’t mean I take everything literally." Unfortunately for him, this is transparent mental gymnastics. It's impossible for every word to be true if some of the claims and stories are not literal. That would obviously mean that some of the words are not true. He probably has some tortured definition of "true" that lets him feel comfortable with his claims, I suppose. But just like his tortured definition of "clueless", it gives the impression that he's a liar rather than some deep thinker.

Nice.

@@violetfactorial6806 Yeah, I'm sure he dissembles with the best of them. I've never seen him personally state the earth is 6000yo, Eve made from Adam's rib, or that Noah and the Ark were real. My guess is he believes in all of it as literally true, but making that public would make his position on the Rice faculty almost untenable. He certainly makes no more sense than the average YEC.

​@@Leszek.Rzepecki I can't recall who it was but someone did a review on James where he actually brought up the old lie about blood cells in dinosaur fossils. I think the person who did the video was a Christian scientist. James actually had the nerve to bring that old creationist lie and seemed to be proud to claim that it showed science is wrong about the age of the planet.

I was watching the video, and one minute in, I was like what are they even talking about lol. Their personal beliefs get in the way of viewing matters objectively and for what they are. Viewing their analysis of the debate, you’d think professor dave was being unfair and biased, when it was the opposite

It’s just like conservatives not liking guns. Or trump.

Being biased is not the problem. Refusing to correct your views when proven wrong is. Almost all apologists suffer from it.

Cameron makes a relatively good effort to roleplay unbiased with his calm demeanour. Not only in this matter but overall what ever he's discussing. I'm not sure what he's trying to achieve with his larping because anyone with cursory knowledge about the subjects he's talking about can see right through his facade while his own flock and other apologists would vehemently agree with him irregardless of his demeanour.

Nice gotcha. Will boost your ego a bit.

Also any person defending reality is an extremist.

Where did all of these elements come from initially?

@@zeraphking1407 "Where did all of these elements come from initially?" - Wut? U haven't heard of physics? A Christian astronomer Henry Russel together with the danish astronomer Ejnar Hertzprung developed the theory of stellar evolution. Additionally, 2017 there was a neutron star merger that explains the abundance of elements above Ag (Silver) on our globe in the late heavy bombardment. That neutron star merger happened around 50 M years before the formation of the earth.

​@@zeraphking1407your butt.

​@@zeraphking1407but seriously, we don't know and neither do you. Proving abiogenesis will not disprove a god existing but it does lessen the gap that a god can hide in.

The best way to expose fraud is to communicate truth from a platform that people listen to. It's tough with China specifically because the government there is very particular with what truth people are allowed access to.

In the meantime you can comment on such videos stating they are deceptive and possibly harmful if recommending homeopathic cures etc.

@@chrispysaid Nothing to do with their government, it's the language and culture barrier that's the problem.

​@@chrispysaidChinese people can browse the entire internet with a VPN, it's completely legal, so it won't be any harder for a Chinese person to debunk a hypothetical Chinese James Tour or whatever. Also Hong Kong isn't China lmao

Best of luck. 👍

I was planning on saying something similar about Christian scientists defending some real science. And I'm glad Dave made this video about Cameron and Paul video.

@@johnpeace1149 Dawkins calls those "scientists" a disgrace to humanity.

I know!!! But it's almost like even all the Creationist Apologists expect Dave to be the calm, reasonable one because obviously, James Tour is insane, and what else can we expect? It's a weird little admission by all of them that it's their guy who can't be expected to be anything but an irrational toddler. Huh. Weird.

they fell for his tactics

@@cuddlecakes7153 yeah, exactly

Dr Paul Rimmer is a scientist. You can look up all his papers in Astrochemistry.

if he actually wanted to talk and debate he would listen and allow others to speak

...you are being just as disingenuous as Tour. You watched a video about a reaction to a debate and you refused further information based on your assumptions about it. You were probably right but it's just not very intellectually genuine to know what you're getting into and then just avoid it because it's exactly what you should have expected.

Likely a whole series

@@ProfessorDaveExplains Are you planning any more content about the new age woo or quantum mysticism? That stuff is hilarious and disturbingly popular. I think however that the OoL stuff is far more valuable educationally. Thanks for all of your work

Same, it’s too cringe. I’d rather watch these follow ups.

I also apologize, I could not stand to watch past the first dozen minutes.

I got about 2/3 of the way through.

it was hilarious watching James meltdown😊

I skipped the debate, knowing in advance it would drive me to hard liquor.

That literally wasn't the reason why and the fact you posit such nonsense shows you either didn't watch the debate or didn't have the mental capacity to understand what was discussed.

@@reviewjimeu9513Tour literally complained during Dave’s second prompt that Farina didn’t write anything during Tour’s first. You’re obviously in denial or actively lying.

Dave seems to be more well rounded in education than Wee Jimmy, who specialized in a very specific area so much that he can't seem to grasp closely-related concepts.

We all know it's a velociraptor

wrong, the baby in this scenario is actually unbiased, Cameron is not

Me too on the hosting on The Line. Loved it and hope he’ll be back soon.

Um, what? How can you be a Christian and not be a creationist?

@@wet-read I believe God created the universe and the laws of physics. So I don’t believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago Edit: I guess I should have been more clear, I’m not a “young earth” creationist.

@@wet-readthey hold a position called” Theistic evolution”. They still have no evidence for their magic imaginary friend

@@wet-readThis is the problem with American evangelical Christianity. Young earthers have become the face of our religion and it’s gotten so bad that it’s making our faith appear that you can’t accept science and still hold to your faith. I’m a theistic evolutionist but I don’t deny the existence of Adam and Eve, the Fall of Man, the flood of Noah, etc. The events that happen in Genesis 1-11 can be classified as “mytho history”. Real historical events that have been exaggerated over time. Those chapters were also meant to polemicize pagan mythologies. I’m sure you’ve heard that the flood of Noah plagiarized the Epic of Gilgamesh but this is a huge misconception. Most scholars will tell you that they’re both telling the same story but from different perspectives, not that one store stole the ideas of another story. In Babylonian mythology, the flood was brought onto mankind because the gods grew tired of them. But in Noah’s flood, the flood was brought onto mankind because they became evil and God wanted to save Noah because him and his family were the only good people left on earth. Of course, when these events happened there wasn’t an actual worldwide flood. However, a large portion of humanity was localized in the Middle East, particularly the Persian gulf region around 13,000 years ago. So in that sense, the world was flooded because that area was where most people were living at that time.

@@randomango2789 There was no Adam and Eve, Fall, or Great Flood. I have heard one radical thinker liken humankind's adoption of agriculture to the Fall, and seen it said or vaguely alluded to elsewhere as well. It can work great as a metaphor for certain events or circumstances.

Yeah, if I had to point at someone who does it mainly for money, he is the first target

give one example?

@@nzsl368 You just had one presented in this video

@@nzsl368 once he made a post to memory of his recently passed away patron. He called him good friend, said condolences to his family, and in THE SAME POST he asked viewers for money for HIS channel because now he lost big source of income and CC is in danger. He also was making posts about channel being at operational loss asking for more support, his conversion to catholic looked fishy, topics he covers (exorcisms, miracles, demons and other bs like this) are made because they bring most views (no one watches philosophical stuff), he stirs up drama (at least used to) with other creator because it sells good

​@@nzsl368did you watch this video?

GodDunIt.

Nah you just feel comfortable being unrestricted doing what you've wished without bearing the consequences of an after life however the most ridiculous thing i came to see within these debates is people failing to see the purpose... i am muslim and definitely believe in God, it just doesn't make sense to me how far has science went through complexity searching for explanations yet fails to see the links, the way things go together, absolute beautifully orchestrated creations... nah this is not the argument of it has to be designed by a creator actually the exact opposite where are the flaws, the wrong things, the bugs within the universe if it was all a series of incremental probabilities getting us to the best outcome, if none then the system has ceased to evolve then? I don't know like these things all scientific debates and marvelous arguments prove to how futile it is running from a world with a creator, i don't understand why? I do understand however that there is a purpose whether you like it or not at all feel it sometimes too soon... so yeah that's something we ought to think about.

​@@ych3455if i understood your text correctly you asked 2 things 1. Does nature and evolution do mistakes? 2. "Why are scientists running from a creator" 1. Yes nature makes mistakes there are a few million different animal species, and many of them die out without the help of humans. If nature or evolution would make mostales why does this happen? For example look at the Cheetah, yes it got speed but the price for it is, that theor brains overheat, so they have to rest after the kill, making them extremly volnurable to....idk all of afrika, like hyenas. (+ there are like 5 other deathflags) And thats why cheetahs are really close to dying out. Another example, of evolution mistakes is a species of crabs, the female chooses for the crab with the biggesz right claw. So the species evolved to have extrwmly big right claws, like up to 4 times vugger rhan their left claw. Wich makes them unusable, and useless, they cant use it to defend themselves, or attack anything or even to eat, it makes them a easier target for seagulls etc. So they are also probably soon gonna die out. A nature channel called "casual geography" or something did a video called something like "10 times nature did mistakes" i recomend it. 2. I would argue they dont, the job of Scientist is "to find stuff out" so saying "we where created from nothing by something" just isnt a specific or sufficient answer they found out the building blocks of live, called cells, now they need to find out how cells are created (with dna or rna in simpler life) so now they meed tk find out how rna is create. Thats just literally science, they do not care about religion or god or Believe, they just need to find out. If in the end they find out god brought the lava that made the heat that made lufe possible from another planet. Than they will accept that as a trth and dont care, because sience is neither a dictatorship nor a democracy the currently best evidence rules until a better on is there (and they are permanently searching fir different or new or better evidence for everything.

​@@ych3455The theist calls the non-believer a disingenuous liar... what a surprise.

​@@ych3455I hope you have gained critical thinking for Christmas. Probably not but that's my hope for you. Believing in these fairytales with zero evidence backing it up is unhealthy.

I don't. I think they have cognitive dissonance and are brainwashed. I blame their beliefs, not them (at least in general)

I agree. Liars are bad people.

Yeah they were way off the mark. Unacceptable.

​@@ProfessorDaveExplains you have a troll running around ur comments, should be easy to find, his should be the comment with the most replies 🤔

Hosting and then biasing is not very honest.

Well Dave would have been accused of cherry picking then, so he went essentially from beginning to end of their video. I mean I get what you mean opening reveal and then the path to that revealed admission, however Dave doesn't need our editorial help he's got this.

@@KoRntech True.

Fortunately, the commandment against "bearing false witness" only applies under oath in a court of law.

I don’t think it’s entirely money. I think some people are just unable to objectively view their own positions. Faith makes it extremely difficult to do that. When your entire worldview and identity is wrapped up in something, which for Christians and specifically Creationists it is, being able to say hey this isn’t falsifiable or hey this doesn’t jibe with science so I should think twice about this is very difficult.

He isn't a creationist. He accepts evolution but thinks God started everything in the beginning like Ken Miller and Francis Collins.

easier said than done.

Being nice to creationists is basically falling into their trap. As I mentioned in a comment on another video, When both the science communicator and science fraud debate calmly, the flock goes "Wow what an awesome debate, both sides had great points, but I'm going to have go with the science fraud for the winner since I understand him the most!" When both the science communicator and the science fraud lose their tempers, the flock goes "This debate was a total crapshow, the science communicator clearly was acting in bad faith and lost the debate!" When the science communicator remains calm and the science fraud flips the hell out, the flock goes "Look at how passionate the science fraud is, he clearly won the debate over that virgin beta male of a science communicator!" When the science communicator flips the hell out and the science fraud remains calm, the flock goes "Look how evil and unhinged the science communicator is, clearly the science fraud is in the right!"

Is Paul Rimmer somehow related to Arnold Rimmer from Red Dwarf, you know: Rimmer the hologram?

@@kamion53 Yes, they are siblings. Arnold is the brave and honest one of them.

Good question. You have to weigh up wars being a catalyst for scientific advancement against the Dark Ages and persecution of scientists by religions. Thankfully we've found new reasons for advancement and religion is largely redundant. I hope the final nail in the coffin of theism happens in my lifetime, but I'm not holding my breath for the New Age of Enlightenment.

I wonder how advanced our species would be if we haven't changed to the other extreme from one extreme rather than escape such diseased thinking.

He has definitely contributed more to science than you. Don't worry about it

Now we're getting apologist apologists. 🙄

​@@warclipsnowI would forgive his prickishness if he actually had. 🧐

As merely a teacher math and physics I found it deplorable too.

Yeah Steve is a douchebag, he tried to "correct" me on Twitter and I dunked on him, so now he hates me and supports anyone I debunk. Total loser.

Like you, I am not a scientist, but I'd disagree on your statement that it requires faith to believe the hypothesis of any of the shown papers purely on the basis of the philosophy of science. The idea of science is that you preform an experiment that could provide relevant evidence for a problem. All of the authors of these papers are in fact doing the opposite of taking it on faith. They're attempting to experimentally show that it ISN'T just a baseless claim. And the idea that you can simply replicate millions of years of pre-biotic evolution and systems chemistry in a single experiment is laughable. That is why these scientists are breaking each potential step in the proposed process from non-life to life into manageable chunks and showing multiple pre-biotically plausible ways each step may have occurred. Hopefully, eventually, Scientists will have gotten to a point where they can present a coherent model of abiogenesis that can plausibly lay out the way life evolved on a pre-biotic earth. Even better, what i am taking away from Dave's videos, is that there may even be multiple plausible paths for it to have occurred.

Same. I refused to watch it.

It's funny because the creationists use the same argument in their comments "Dave was so rude and mean to mister tour! Anrybordy who murst inschult the oppornent is wrong and immature bah defauhlt" and act like Dave's tone was out of wack constantly, completely oblivious to Tour over there acting like an actual toddler

“If the facts are against you, argue the [science]. If the [science] is against you, argue the facts. If the [science] and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell” ― Carl Sandburg

Cam does not give a shit about science. He’s an apologist.

I sent him this and told him to have me on his show with Paul present to discuss all this. $100 says he doesn't have the balls.

I'd take that bet. 😂 Love ya Dave!

Update: they both refused. Spineless cowards.

​@@ProfessorDaveExplains😂 No surprise there. I haven't seen an honest apologist yet. I just like pointing out to them that their god is clearly fictional and based on Canaanite mythology using scholarship as below. According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms "divorced" them. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts. His pantheon in Ugarit is called the *Elohim,* literally the plural of El. Interestingly, the Biblical god is also referred to numerous times as Elohim. "When El was young, he came across two beautiful Goddesses washing their clothes in the Sea. They were Athirat (Asherah) and the Goddess Rahmaya, and, after buttering them up by cooking a meal for them, he asked them to choose between being his daughters or wives. They choose the latter and became the mothers of the Gods Shachar "Dawn" and Shalim "Dusk"." *"First, a god named El predates the arrival of the Israelites into Syria-Palestine.* Biblical usage shows El was not just a generic noun, but often a proper name for Israel’s God (e.g., Gen 33:20: “El, the God of Israel”)." "I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the sons of El. It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the sons of El, plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, solely according to the number of the sons of El. *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting."* *"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.* (Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian) *"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"* (A second response to Michael Heiser) *"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."* *"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10 - TheTorah.com"* (Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), *which appears to be a later addition,* Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)* *"Ugarit - New World Encyclopedia"* (Ugaritic religion centered on the chief god, Ilu or El, whose titles included "Father of mankind" and "Creator of the creation." The Court of El was referred to as the (plural) 'lhm or ***Elohim,*** a word ***later used by the biblical writers to describe the Hebrew deity*** and translated into English as "God," in the singular. El, which was ***also the name of the God of Abraham,*** was described as an aged deity with white hair, seated on a throne.) *"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"* (Mark Smith is a Catholic) *"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III | theyellowdart"* *"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"* (Daniel McClellan is a Mormon) *"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"* (Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)") *"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."* (Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh) *"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."* *"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"* *"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."* *"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"* (In addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh, it also appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort) *"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"* (Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion") *"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"* (For a good summary of all of the above articles) Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 27:40 minutes onwards. Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on. Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40. Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"* (By a former theist) Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.

​@@redchild1690Ah yes, the same old "atheists hate god" schtick. Also, you're most certainly losing that $100, given how Dave actually cares about science and does *not* whine. Besides, even if there was a god who gives one life, it does *not* follow that it deserved to be adored or revered at all. Sorry, pal, but your insults are damn empty.

Believing in God shouldn't make you denial with what science found... meaning you are denial what God create, which is insane if you said u believe God 👹

There is no 'middle'. There is true and there is not true. This reminds me of the type of people who want 'balance' in the media. They don't want objectivity. They want 'balance'.

Pretty much the same gang, aren't they?

@@Shadowman4710 it's like dumb and dumber, but yeah.

I have no little to no doubts he doesn't regret it lol

Really puts into perspective what a nasty piece of work mr. Tour is. Literally took dave from "ok, this guy is kind of dishonest about the science" to "

Missed opportunity... "Bertuzzi being biased and bent, because broadcasting believable biological blueprints breaks blessed beliefs."

I asked him to go on cams channel and discuss my response. He declined. So did cam. They’re cowards.

What can you possibly enjoy about watching that smugnorant fool?