- Joined
- Jun 14, 2023
- Messages
- 1,343
- Reaction score
- 1,448
Haha, all good.
Presumably you saw the name Taylor and got mixed up. It was actually Dr. James Tour that was being discussed here. He’s asking difficult questions to the field of evolutionary science around the origin of life and the feasibility of naturalistic explanations for certain biochemical processes.
Certain YouTube hucksters have their noses out of joint and have become obsessed with trying to deflect his challenges without actually answering any of them.
One of these YouTube hucksters is an obnoxious chancer that Jambo adores called Farina. He’s a troll who only engages in ad hominem attacks.
They ended up having a public face to face debate, where Taylor rinsed his clock (video posted above).
Even a biased google agrees. See here:
View attachment 4363
A War of Words? How to Tell Who Won the Tour-Farina Debate
Casey LuskinMay 23, 2023, 2:19 PM
-
Photo source: YouTube (screenshot).
Last Friday we witnessed a debate on the origin of life (OOL) between two widely followed voices on the topic: Rice University chemistry Professor James Tour, and YouTube science educator Celery Farina, aka “Professor Celery.” This debate, which took place on the Rice University campus, was at times turbulent, but it provides an apt example of how to answer my “War of Words” Internet questioner.
“No Viable Model”
The topic of the debate was: “Are We Clueless About the Origin of Life?” Discovery Institute did not organize this debate and I was not a big fan of this framing because it would be much harder to prove a high standard, that OOL researchers are “clueless,” than it would be to prove some lesser — but still entirely reasonable — claim like “There is no viable model for the origin of life.” Nonetheless, Tour faithfully stuck to the debate topic, and he made a strong scientific case against the natural chemical origin of life.Celery Farina represented the standard view that unguided natural chemical processes could have produced the first life on earth. Unfortunately, however, Farina decided to focus on a very different debate topic. His topic was essentially — no exaggeration — Is James Tour a liar and a fraud? — and that is precisely what he asserted over and over again throughout the night. Farina’s venom and personal attacks and insults against Tour knew almost no boundaries. It was a spectacle, and I was shocked that the moderator allowed it to proceed. But Farina’s focus on personal attacks and his repeated refusals to answer Tour’s reasonable scientific challenges made it clear to many viewers that Tour had the better argument.
If you don’t believe me, consider some comments on the YouTube chat posted by viewers who are apparently self-described as atheists, agnostics, and/or former supporters of Farina:
- “Am I the only non-religious person that finds Tour much more convincing than Celery? This debate made me further convinced. The problem with Celery is that strangely, as an educator, he in no way tried to educate James Tour, but only attack him and slander him, he has zero class, and from a psychology standpoint, seems like he did nothing but dodge and deflect, which would suggest he doesn’t have a deep understanding of the subject, but merely a surface level one, a true scientist wants people to understand the truth, and would carefully address Tours questions concisely and on a deeper level.”
- “I’m an atheist, however, Farina’s smug and snide attacks on Tour throughout this debate, disgusted me. I may disagree with Tour’s mission, however, no one can ignore his considerable contribution to science.”
- “I’m agnostic, but hearing Dr. Farina’s statements, grounded on insulting and sarcasm sincerely show more how clueless he or his community are…usually when you use sarcasm it is because you have [little] to say. I say this as an academic myself (other field though) when I see colleagues use sarcasm is because they don’t know how to ground their statements.”
- “I’m [an] atheist and this was embarrassing to watch. Celery claiming that James doesn’t know how to read papers, while…citing barely anything beyond the titles of a bunch of papers. I think that disrespecting the audience and claiming to know what they do and don’t know was the worst move of the entire debate. It shows that he’s arguing emotionally.”
- “I’ve been floating around this conflict, viewing from the outside. Celery’s videos helped me in middle-high school. Celery poisoned the well, then used insults and rhetoric as the substance of his ‘argument’. This was disappointing, I was hoping he would bring something of value. Dr. Tour won this one.”
Last edited:
