Response to “Capturing Christianity” James Tour Debate Analysis

"We've gathered a Biologist, an Astrophysicist, and a Geologist to explain to you why Creationism is true. The Biologist is going to cover Astrophysics, the Geologist will handle your Biology questions, and naturally, the Astrophysicist is really a preacher who believes in the Firmament and thinks Biology is a Satanic plot to implement TeleTubbies in public Universities."

Hi Dave, I am a reseacher in a field that is somewhat novel (started in 2009), liquid-liquid phase separation of proteins. It was discovered that certain proteins can spontaneously form membraneless organelles, usually in the presence of RNA. It has been a new evidence that supports how life could have started and evolved only in the presence of RNA and proteins. These organelles, similar to membrane-bound ones, provide unique environments that can concentrate dynamically biomolecules and enzymes in order to promote catalytic activity. And as you stated to argument with Tour "why would there be a need for all 20 amino acids in the early biogenesis?", in fact most proteins that form membraneless organelles are very simple and repetitive and often contain only a few amount of amino acids, the most common being glycines, which are the simplest amino acid. I am sure Tour knows about this field because it has been very much talked about, but must have ignored it because it does suit his premise.

Cameron blocked me for pointing out his bias. Truly a man of character /s

Cameron being openly dishonest?!? No way!! That has never happened before! What an unexpected turn of events!

It’s really scary that we have people thinking there is a “middle ground” when it comes to proven science vs mystical gods and magic. I’m not religious anymore but I grew up Christian and had no problem accepting science.

Tour: "Show me water sticking to a spinning ball! Show me, Dave! You can't do it, can you?! Come up here and show me how water sticks to a spinning ball!" Dave: "My paper shows how gravity works and how the experiment you're asking me to show you is not possible unless we have an earth sized ball to spin, and how we are not actually spinning at thousands of miles an hour like you claim (and why it is silly to say people should be being flung off the planet at such speeds)" Tour: Come up here and show me the water on the spinning ball!! You can't do it!! Gravity is just a theory! There is no consensus on gravity! You are CLUELESS!".

Jimbo, the creationist golden boy, got his ass kicked, and now the creationists are coping harder than flat earthers.

I am absolutely cackling that James Tour initially challenged Dave to a debate because of back and forth YouTube videos and then used the fact that arguments from those videos were brought up during the debate to try to dunk on Dave's knowledge of chemistry. It's like breathing in all that chalk dust made him forget why they were there in the first place.

To Christian apologists, presenting scientific consensus is "extreme".

"note that the Farina chalkboard was blank" holy shit - James' trick actually worked 😂😂😂

Tour: "DO YOU HAVE A REFERENCE ON THAT?? HAVE YOU ANY REFERENCES ON THESE CLAIMS??" Dave: "Yeah, I have a bunch of papers." Tour: "DAVE CAN'T READ PAPERS!! DAVE CAN'T ADDRESS THE PAPERS!!" Dave pulling up to the debate: "Ok, I brought a bunch of pape-" Tour in the debate: "NO YOU GOTTA DRAW IT ON THE BLACKBOARD!!! YOU GOTTA DRAW IT OUT OR IT DOESN'T COUNT!!!"

Dave was extreme...ly good at pointing out James Tour's lies. And Tour was just extreme in impersonating a lunatic.

Who knew presenting and defending scientific data and consensus was considered "extreme" 🤣 You did good, Dave.

Expecting Christian apologists to be unbiased is just LOL

The scientific method is pretty simple: —first, deny observations —second, make a prediction that your opponent is clueless —third, gather hype —fourth, yell hype —fifth, draw clueless on a chalkboard

For them any person who defends science and takes science serious and debunks the lies they believe, is an extreme.

Cameron likes to present himself as reasonable and levelheaded, but he always comes across as dishonest to me, as he is more than willing to misrepresent what people are saying to bolster his arguments.

Paul's comment about how Tour gets "a little excited" gave me legitimate chills. "I'm sorry sweetie, daddy just gets a little excited sometimes. I'm sure he still loves you. Now let's go get you some ice for that."

Thanks for making this. I watched the Capturing Christianity video last night. I enjoyed Paul's explanations of some of the science. But cringed at how much they both seemed to bend over backwards to save face for Dr. Tour.

Speaking a biochemist who watched - or rather endured - the original debate, as well as debate analysis videos, I can honestly testify that Dave debated with remarkable patience and restraint against what was pretty much a fact-free hissy fit from Tour, henceforth referred to as Wee Jimmy for reasons anyone who watched the debate will understand. Wee Jimmy's attitude was to demand that he be shown step by step how you got from a pre-biotic mix of stuff to a fully living cell, and if it couldn't be presented as a single series of steps, then the whole enterprise is a hoax. My own suspicion is that Wee Jimmy is actually a biblical literalist and young earth creationist, only cannot admit it in public because it would embarrass Rice, his employers. They can't sack him because he's got tenure, but they could (and should) make his life very difficult to persuade him to take early retirement. I wouldn't take an organic chemistry class from the guy, let alone take his opinions about the feasibility of abiogenesis seriously. We're a long way from a full understanding, but Wee Jimmy's adamant and raucous denials that certain milestones have been reached is pure flannel. I wouldn't accept the time of day from a creationist without an independent check. They are natural born liars and dissemblers.