But the statements themselves are not about Tour. “Empty claims” is about the claims and is up for debate. “Propaganda” video seems a fairly accurate metaphor of the medium, but not about Tour.
In context the invitation was for Tour to clarify his points and make them in a legitimate venue, designed for colleagues to engage. That is precisely the opposite of an ad hominem, as it indicates that Tour himself is welcome to present his case, but to do so in a more respectable venue.
Now one could make the inference that Tour is not trustworthy. That wasnt the claim here, and no one is saying that his character is reason enough to dismiss his argument.
OK. Point taken. I do contend thought that at least those phrases were unnecessary and only detracted from the actual point, which I concede was valid. However, I do not agree with the dismissal of the evidence presented by Tour and that just because it’s not presented in the usual fashion that it’s unwarranted to dismiss evidence from a related field of study from a renowned expert in the field without giving any substantial reason for it. If what he’s saying is invalid then it should be explained why. If not, I would say it’s justifiable, at least as a layperson, to base claims on that evidence until it is refuted.
Tour is just a propagandist, and no one should trust anything he says for this reason.
That is an ad hominem. That is not what you quoted.
Also, ad hominems like this are not necessarily wrong, but they really should be carefully and substantially justified. In this case, as statement about Tour like this, I think would an overreach.
Oh, maybe I’m not seeing the same way. The way I see it the evidence from what Tour presented would undermine the case that was presented to support a natural cause as an explanation. Just because there’s evidence to suggest a possibility that amino acids seem to be from abiotic processes the further back we go in time doesn’t account at all for how those abiotic processes can account for the multiple issues raised by Tour. I would say based on Tour’s evidence that undermines the possibility that @Rumraket’s inference is correct.
Tour didn’t present any evidence. Tour made a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions many if not most of which have already been rebutted by other posters here.
Do you have anything to add besides your argument from authority (“Tour said it and he’s famous!”) or your own personal incredulity?
But it doesn’t, actually. The only thing that Tour’s purported facts can establish is that we don’t know how these compounds first originated, it doesn’t follow from that, that they couldn’t. From our mere ignorance nothing follows. For Tour’s case to hold some logical force he would have to show that a very large fraction of all possible options have been tested, or that he has calculated/simulated the outcomes of a large fraction of all possible chemistries under all possible physical circumstances.
But neither is actually the case. Tour’s case is analogous to looking for a particular rock on the continent of Africa, searching the bathroom floor of a particular apartment in Cairo, and then concluding the rock probably isn’t in Africa. It’s absolutely absurd.
I want you to start separate threads for different topics. And to do so without asking for permission or being reminded. Just start new topics as new topics.