Not really. Most of his papers have bene exposed by former colleagues as fraudulent. He contributed nothing to them but used his authority to force them to include him.

@@K4inan sadly for you the only fraud and liar is you. But its typical of the fanatic atheists crawling around like the cockroaches you are to try to demean a great man who has won numerous peer awards for his work. I have no issue with atheism but I hate hate liars........ liar liar liar. You are a fraud and a liar.

@@K4inan liar liar liar liar liar liar liar liar liar liar liar liar liar liar luar liar liar liar liar liar liar liar liar liar liar liar liar

@@fiachramaccana280 how do you know he is a fraud and a liar? Are you able to step outside ur echo chamber and listen to the numerous former colleagues of James tour who have accused him of dishonesty and fraudulence?

@@jamesb2497 I am familiar with fraudsters and liars. You want to make a claim show some evidence. Names dates papers reports police reports criminal charges university investigations.... bring it. He claimed that most of James Tour's papers were fraudulent. That is a defamation and makes him a fraudster and a liar. If he doesnt like what I accuse him of he can take me to court

No one takes him seriously because of his demonstrably false claims about abiogenisis and whatnot

@@zoranite5120 Yet no one corrects him even when he says that he will forever be silent on the topic if they can even answer one of 5 essential questions related to abiogenesis as judged by 3 independent experts in the field? Seems like the one time they should not ignore him is the time he put his entire fate in your hands, put his neck on the chopping block and handed you a sword. You're on some strong copium, my friend, if you truly believe what you are saying.

@@truthmatters7573 Do you see biologists going after Kent Hovin's anti-evolution baloney, or high-profile astrophysicists, planetary scientists, and cosmologists along the likes of like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, or Lawrence Krauss openly going out there debating and debunking all the dumb flat-earth KZfaq channels out there? No. Why? Is it because they can't debunk them, or is it because those type of engagements are beneath them and not worth their time, since Kent and the flat earthers will only deny they were ever debunked and continue to push their junk science anyway? And why should anyone entertain Tour's 60 day challenges anyway on KZfaq? Why should they be obligated to comply with his deadline, and more importantly, what kind of reputable scientist does anything like that anyway? It comes across as grandstanding and pageantry to pander to his followers more than anything. If he's a scientist worth his salt, then he should get his criticisms submitted for peer-review in scientific journals, just as a proper scientist should. Robert Shapiro successfully did just that 20 years ago with his own critiques, so why not Tour? Is it because Shapiro had valid criticisms in respect to OOL research and Tour doesn't? Besides, Tour's first 3 challenges have been answered by the very research papers he claims don't do what they say they do. He just makes up post-hoc responses to suggest the papers aren't prebiotically irrelevant or makes up arbitrary complaints about things like 2/3/5 prime hydroxyl problems, sidechain reactions, etc. when research papers show that none of those complaints are a problem. His 4th challenge "specified information" is a fictional term made-up term by William Dembski from the Discovery Institute and is question-begging as it tries to smuggle a designer into the premises with the word "specified." The 5th challenge to assemble a cell is a strawman, as the focus of the OOL field is to research and map out possible prebiotic pathways life could have taken from organic and inorganic matter, not to put together a living cell from parts like one does with an erector set. Abiogenesis doesn't work that way, nor does evolution, so his question is a non-starter, and he knows it. He's a grifter that lies for Jesus just like the Discovery Institute that financially backs him. Answers in Genesis is right up there with, it as well. That's all there is to it.

@@truthmatters7573we do, many people and many times have. He refuses to put any of this into his channel, or talk without some form of superiority because it wouldn’t grab your attention if you saw him getting laughed at by a bunch of doctors with phd’s in this field

Because it is a cult.

Yes, a malignant narcissist has that effect.

Let's just pretend we can call it the pretend theory.

​@@Bomtombadi1 You're mad for no reason. You think science answers everything 😂

@@raphaelfeneje486 where did you get that from my comment toward Tour? What part of “Tour is a malignant narcissist,” means, “science answers everything”? Tour and Meyer are both liars for Jesus

It wasn’t an “accident”, it was an amalgamation of positively charged and negatively charged proteins and rna that led to a primitive atom with zero intervention. There were no deadly forces because the earth didn’t have a predator (because there wasn’t any other living organisms). However even if there were, we have single cell organisms right now that can survive thousands of degrees positive and hundreds negative. It isn’t a hard thing to grasp that the first organisms may have formed under either conditions. You will just cover your ears and say lalala to this information though.

Reproductive ability? This isn’t a human we are talking about, and the organism would have been almost entirely genetically identical to its predecessor. This process is called miosis, and happens to your sex cells everyday.

@@grojunge2449 …you’re talking about an eye problem, miosis. I glibly described mitosis in sentence 4 +5, and then boldly skipped all the rest of the steps in between because I expected people would use their imagination to believe the impossible.

😂 This is probably the best comment yet, definitely enjoying it! Although, one side seems to be sticking to the rules and maintaining focus on the argument, whilst the other side seems more preoccupied with attacking character and smear campaigns. Poor form. Man up Farina . He reminds me of Joffrey from Game of Thrones.

@@Melkor3001 This is better than Hollywood. LOL. 🍿🎥. I’m rooting for Dr. Tour. I want to see him vindicated. Lol

First, this is NOT an intellectual boxing match. Why? Lee Cronin never address those points Tour put forth during the Harvard debate, instead he side step advance Assembly Theory like it is legit! For most people including myself I said to myself....hmmm Lee may be right. Glad James clarify by giving him and challenging him on that !!!

@@ericquek673 It’s a figure of speech. I’m tired of the general public, specially kids, quoting evolution theories as if they’re physical laws, and I’m glad to see Dr. Tour challenging academic dishonesty…you must be fun at parties. lol

@@sloth6247 did u actually say you are glad to see tour challenging dishonesty, he has been nothing but dishonest himself lol

Ok you asserted that, now demonstrate it.

@@jkorling ASSEMBLY= ASSEMBLER!

@toosiyabrandt8676 So you're going to just appeal to Ray Comfort level apologetics? Every building has a builder, every painting has a painter? Is that the best you can come up with?

@@jkorling That’s the only LOGICAL conclusion! Check out Shroud of Turin scientific research over the last fifty years!

@toosiyabrandt8676 No one who knows anything about valid and sound arguments takes Ray Comfort apologetics even remotely seriously. Come back when you actually have a good argument. Are you going to also tell me they found Noah's Ark and Jesus' blood with it having half of human DNA too?

We did this in 1950, we did this with rna in 2007, we did this in 2012 and made a functioning single cell organism.

@@grojunge2449 You're a victim of propaganda, misinformation. Firstly, look at the Miller Urey experiment, apparatus. Does that look like a simulation of a warm little pond, primordial soup? Representing an early earth? From 1952-2020 they never detected more than 12 of the 20 specific amino acids. Not more than 23 out of the 500 kinds of amino acids and didn't solve the Chirality problem.

@@grojunge2449 Miller Urey and all the variations of these type of experiments, never produced all 20 of the specific amino acids that proteins are made of. Zero proteins. Never came close to solving the Chirality problem. You're "Making" RNA and ignoring the foresight and influence of the scientists required, is evidence of God, the creator. And making a cell? Go back and read the description of how Craig Venter and others "made" a synthetic cell. They replaced only the DNA in existing bacteria cells. Leaving the metabolic functions undisturbed, completely intact.

@@grojunge2449 Miller Urey type experiments from 1952-2020 never produced more than 14 of the 20 specific amino acids proteins are made of. And never solved the Chirality problem

@@grojunge2449 Scientists "made" RNA? Does that mean a warm little pond could? The simplest cell requires 473 genes just to exist. Coding for the replication of the 16.8 billion amino acids arranged in 42 million proteins averaging 400 each.

The God of the gap is a lazy and ridiculous argument that only appeals to Jesus Freaks.

Which BS by the scientific establishment are u referring to?

​@@jamesb2497 All this nonsense about being close to solving the problem of how life arose and the nonsense about being able to create life in the lab.

Oh please. Tour is dishonest and he has been sidelined by the scientific community.

​@@andrewdouglas1963 Do some research on your own. Your supernatural explanations for the origin of life don't work.

Oh he can be debated all right, but so can flat-earthers. Both can be soundly refuted and called out for their dishonesty many times over, but Tour and flat-earthers just pretend they weren't refuted and just continue to be dishonest with their pseudoscience anyways.

Oh it's possible all right to debate him, but debating him is like debating a flat-earther. When presented with evidence that refutes or answers his "complaints" he either hand waves them away by making up arbitrary counter-complaints, shifts the goalposts, and misrepresents or shows that he's barely even read the research papers about the field, and just pretends that his challenges haven't been addressed and recycles the same talking points over and over again like a broken record, again, just like flat-earthers do.

To be fair, it is absolutely possible to debate this subject, which is what the two professors are doing, and it's great. The point is that BOTH sides are operating on faith, but only one side admits it. That looks to me what Dr Tour is trying to do: open people's eyes so they stop saying abiogenesis via natural causes is FACT because naturalism is not even close to proving it. So both sides are operating on FAITH.

Just type into google '16 emergency flights proving flat earth' and read the pdf with real data from 16 real flight routes and compares the globe map with the flat map as we see on the UN logo because I thought the same as you untill I saw actual evidence but now Im not so sure?​@@jkorling

How so?

Making Tour the ant he's eating in this scenario.

It's so funny how pissed off this makes you atheists. They can't help but come here and attack people. I've yet to meet one that actually discuss the science at hand. They all just attack Tour as a person which is the white flag.

@@Scaldaver What has Cronin produced to refute Dr Tour?

@@sammyking9407 Cronin doesn't have to refute Tour, as Tour: 1) Makes no cogent points about OoL, to the point that he can't describe the state of the field properly. 2) Demands a level of proof that not only is not expected of any other field, but also isn't the topic of research for the things Cronin studies. Especially when he demands immediate explanations for cutting-edge reearch which is being studied now: it's like saying we're entirely clueless about all of particle physics because of dark matter. 3) Has established himself as a bad faith actor funded by an anti-science establishment. Man has had things explained to him countless times, but offhandedly dismisses things without justification and clearly doesn't make the effort to do work himself. Professionals like Cronin shouldn't delay their actual research to deal with quacks like this. Ultimately, demanding anyone refutes that which Tour says is like demanding a leading astrophysicist to engage with a flat-earther. It's an entirely fruitless endeavour.

I seriously doubt u know what any of the arguments are just blindly follow papa tour

The theory where someone pulls the strings is also the string theory...

Because they have developed a deep psychological need for those beliefs.

why can't you fool understand that this has nothing to do with religion? This is about something were taught in school as fact but lack any basic substance to back it up. If you're for science and the truth then you should demand answers from OOL scientists as well.

He did not bring God into this. You did.

@@duydatyds Keep saying this has nothing to do with religion... you might end up believing it.

​@@duydatyds you were taught the details of theories about the origin of life in middle school? Even that seems ok unless your teachers implied it was settled science.

Intelligent Design/Creationism fairy tale.

@@jkorling ok produce Life! using purely natural processes without designed equipment.

@@tonymaurice4157 Tell us how life poofed into existence by a designer without committing the appeal to aesthetics, argument from ignorance/god of the gaps fallacies (I can't possibly understand how life formed, therefore a designer), and also without evoking already-debunked terminologies like "specified information/specified complexity" or the argument from analogy fallacy "we design computer code, therefore code in DNA is also designed."

@jkorling You tell us how it all poofed into existence, And how life formed!

@@tonymaurice4157 See that's exactly the point and it underlies your (with all due respect) complete lack of understanding about the subject and instead rely on the likes of Dr. Tour who misrepresents and even lies about it, probably because it's a realm of science that causes problems with his theistic worldview. Abiogenesis, unlike creationists, don't say that it all poofed into existence. If you actually knew anything about it then you wouldn't have even said that in the first place. Why don't you actually do a deep dive into it and actually learn what it's about instead of just blindly following Tour or use him as a confirmation bias?

Let Cronin support his contention that only life can generate molecular structures with an ma of 15. That would be a good starting point, since apparently that's a major point of contention relative to his "theory".

So make a cell or SHUFU...... We have been waiting 100 years

He understands it he need too lie for religion

@@Jim-mn7yqactually that’s disproven in this paper: “Molecular assembly indices of mineral heteropolyanions: some abiotic molecules are as complex as large biomolecules” In this paper they were able to find indices up to 21 from non-living matter.

@@kevinpetermann2075 blah blah blah I am a thicko ....blah blah blah Make a cell spontaneously or SHUFU... You guys had 100 years....more than

We’ve made cells in the lab, we know the processes of how to make a cell. It isn’t a wave of the wand. It’s a chemical process that could be done by a 3rd grader if given the ingredients and instructions. Saying something was god is a good way to be a conscientious objector of the truth, however slavery and crusades are not very good things. Those things are backed up by your book.

Weird how this debunking only happened in your head. Or Prof Dave's.

Closer than what Dr. Tour pretends is not...

@@jkorlingcloser to what ?

@Shamsi419 Tour's claims that we're clueless on the origins of life are greatly exaggerated. He's no authority on the subject to be sure, since he doesn't even work in that field for starters, plus he doesn't seem to understand systems chemistry nor evolution since he's never directly addressed the former in any of his critiques and admitted to the latter, both of which are pretty important to have an understanding of amongst a great many other things if you're going to try to talk authoritatively on the subject. Being a synthetic chemist who builds cute little nanocars like he does doesn't mean one is qualified on abiogenesis.

@@jkorling He’s promised to take everything down on origins of life if other experts in that field just answer five simple questions on his website. Or create a cell . It’s simple . Put up or shut up.

@Shamsi419 Yes, I'm well aware of his 5 challenges. The first 3, polypeptides, polynucleotides, and polysaccharides have already been addressed in research papers that he already knows exist and has been explained and pointed out to him but he acts like they haven't, the 4th one, "specified information", is made-up Intelligent Design pseudoscience jargon, and the 5th one about creating a living cell from scratch is a strawman because it's not the primary objective to origins of life research. This challenge of his is all a bunch of pageantry and grandstanding to pander to his scientifically unaware majority of followers, and with his history of unprofessionally mocking and misrepresenting some of the head researchers like Lee Cronin and Jack Szostak and their work, they now just chose not to engage with him anymore. If Tour really wants to have his critiques formally addressed, then as a scientist he should do it how scientists should: submit it to peer review. Another scientist called Robert Shapiro did just that on some aspects of origins of life research and did so successfully a number of years ago, so there's no reason for Tour not to do the same if his arguments have any validity.

Sadly it only got you 😂

We don’t from thin air, read a scientific article on the matter and you can learn a bit.

We can create a cell, and he just doesn’t accept it. Every time we do, he just adds a new hurtle that will eventually be overcome.

True, but until they can it also means that 1. science doesn't know how to create life, and 2. how life was originally started - which will also not be proved even if a cell can be created under highly developed and regulated lab conditions. And that's Dr Tour's point, I think, any religious person gets sick of non- or anti-religious people waving off faith in God like a fairy tale, when scientists seem to have the same sort of faith in time and environment. You have to choose your faith, but religion is a valid choice, it cannot be excluded by science.

@@grojunge2449 No, we can't. At least, we haven't yet. See replies by @Vernon-Chitlen to your similar comment above.

No need to mock. That search, also by scientists of faith, has brought about wonderful gains in all sorts of fields of study. I guess medicine is the biggest beneficiary.

"I am going after the people that do not read the scientific literature" - Dr. James Tour He knows his audience.

@@vejeke yep. He’s just preaching

Published? KZfaq is as public as it gets. Just closing your eyes as hard as you can won't save your precious empty hypothesis of abiogenesis

@@DartNoobo hahaha do you think publishing content on you tube is an acceptable refutation is the scientific community Lolol.

@@josephprettner6696 as long as scientific community has nothing to say in refutation - yes, it is as good. Gatekeeping not gonna help you. Truth ain't going nowhere

Are you holding your breath ? Not to be recommended, I’m afraid.

Nope

@@albertarthurparsnips5141 i wish his allies held breath for it, since they all agree they are so close.

Owned by stale memes? Or his ongoing grudge?

Watch Dr Tour's rebuttal series. It's not a one way debate and there was no destruction.

@@posttenebras2812 Does he act rational in that or yell like a maniac and lie again? Does he have any other scientists not from the DI back up his claims? Or does he tread the same misrepresentions of OOL research like usual Hint... I know the answer The guy is a joke. Only people who respect him are creationists who want just like what he says, not because of his credibility. Kinda like how Trumpers worship Trump, despite mounds of evidence he is a fraud

Why do you bring God into this? Bit where do you came from? From mud? Please explain everything from sperm to egg cell on micro biology and cell level. Also please provide proof of the evolution theory.

@@Esico6 Because that's really what all this is about. It's about a person who developed a psychological need in the belief of an invisible being with magical powers and sees how science is his main enemy, since it unveils a truth he personally cannot accept. It happened with demonic possessions, with the movement of the Earth in relation to the Sun, with the age of the Earth and the universe, with dinosaurs, with the origin of species, with the discovery of genetics and DNA, and in the last few decades with the origin of life. That's why he doesn't want any research to be done into OOL research.

@@Esico6 Because that's really what all this is about. It's about a person who developed a psychological need in the belief of an invisible being with magical powers and sees how science is his main enemy. That's why he doesn't want any research to be done into OOL research.

@@Esico6 Because that's really what this is all about: developing a psychological need to believe in an invisible being with magical powers, and witnessing how science repeats what it has done in the past with the movement of the Earth, its age, the origin of species, and so on.

Do you have a link to Dr Tour bringing God into the equation when talking about his scientific work regarding his critic of ool research and how life began?

Abiogenesis fantasy land

Fair enough, but it depends on culture. In Germany I noticed it's expected that you present your title(s) in email signatures, events, etc.

You obviously have not been keeping up on the research into origins of life research since then.