Abiogenesis and evolution: James Tour

@vivify said
Except that's a common creationist/IDist tactic to use such logic. Like when they ask "what are chances the human eye could randomly evolve?", they are using that very flawed logic. Evolution could result in an infinite amount of possible outcomes; that doesn't mean just getting to one of those possibilities is "improbable" like creationists claim.

[quote]The scenario of ...[text shortened]... ationist like yourself is better off trying to some other unscientific gimmick to push your beliefs.

I don't have uphill battles in what I believe, I'm not the one trying to make what I believe fit the data that is you. The uphill battle that you have is that you don't have an explanation for all of the things we find and the more we know the father away we are from understanding how it could have occurred with an uncaring, mindless process.

I cannot argue against a programmed code directing life's processes in accomplishing anything it was coded to do. The discussion would change, but there would still be a discussion.

@kellyjay said
I'm not the one trying to make what I believe fit the data that is you.

You're trying to make science compatible with an ancient book written by men who sacrificed goats.

@vivify said
You're trying to make science compatible with an ancient book written by men who sacrificed goats.

You are trying to make your make-believe stats facts.

@kellyjay said
You are trying to make your make-believe stats facts.

You believe a man named Balaam had a conservation with a talking donkey.

@vivify said
You believe a man named Balaam had a conservation with a talking donkey.

As I have pointed out numerous times you want to talk about spiritual things take it to the Spiritual forum, I'll be glad to cover anything you like. In the meantime, in the science forum, the expectation is that the arguments should be made using science, logic, and the like. If this is all you got, bring in something purely religious because you have no answers that fit in the realm of science and logic. Just know that weakens any high ground you think you have in proving your point if you cannot actually make one.

@kellyjay said
As I have pointed out numerous times you want to talk about spiritual things take it to the Spiritual forum,

On this thread I asked you if rainbows were designed. Your answer: "Have you read the story of Noah?"

Try taking your own advise.

@vivify said
On this thread I asked you if rainbows were designed. Your answer: "Have you read the story of Noah?"

Try taking your own advise.

Advising himself is just what he should not do; he gets out of his depth doing that.

@kellyjay said
As I have pointed out numerous times you want to talk about spiritual things take it to the Spiritual forum, I'll be glad to cover anything you like. In the meantime, in the science forum, the expectation is that the arguments should be made using science, logic, and the like. If this is all you got, bring in something purely religious because you have no answers that fit ...[text shortened]... at weakens any high ground you think you have in proving your point if you cannot actually make one.

You have not provided one single piece of verifiable evidence of the operation of transcendental causality in any naturally occurring process. You merely repeat that there must be a supernatural mind but without providing any testable hypothesis how to verify it. If you want to be taken seriously at the Science Forum, provide a link to some reputable peer-reviewed scientific research which shows evidence of supernatural causality in a naturally occurring process. Not speculation because you or someone else can’t imagine how non-existent informational instructions got there. Hard evidence of the Hand of God making cells divide. Hard evidence of the Hand of God making chromosomes move around. Without hard evidence, you’re just engaged in theological speculation, not science.


Let us know when Dr. Tour patents a God Detector.

@vivify said
On this thread I asked you if rainbows were designed. Your answer: "Have you read the story of Noah?"

Try taking your own advise.

Touche, you are correct, sorry my bad.

@moonbus said
You have not provided one single piece of verifiable evidence of the operation of transcendental causality in any naturally occurring process. You merely repeat that there must be a supernatural mind but without providing any testable hypothesis how to verify it. If you want to be taken seriously at the Science Forum, provide a link to some reputable peer-reviewed scientific ...[text shortened]... ged in theological speculation, not science.


Let us know when Dr. Tour patents a God Detector.

For one who cannot see what is right in front of them even when explained like error checking taking place in life, or start-stop mechanisms having you say nothing verifiable isn't much of a complaint. The fact you continually bring up spiritual events here instead of logic or science only shows your real complaints are not with science or logic otherwise you pull those out and show the errors in my thinking or answer my questions. You are a very condescending and insulting individual.

@kellyjay said
For one who cannot see what is right in front of them even when explained like error checking taking place in life, or start-stop mechanisms having you say nothing verifiable isn't much of a complaint. The fact you continually bring up spiritual events here instead of logic or science only shows your real complaints are not with science or logic otherwise you pull those out ...[text shortened]... rrors in my thinking or answer my questions. You are a very condescending and insulting individual.

Several posters here, with the patience of saints, have explained to you how scientific explanations of life and evolution work. Yet you are dogmatically impregnable to both reason and evidence; you don't understand how science works; you project things which aren't there. For example, there is no error checking in nature; it's an illusion you think you are seeing, but it's not really there. Like a rainbow: we project something beautific and romantic into it, but really it's nothing but raindrops and light. You do this with the whole of nature, projecting a Beautific Mind into it, but under every blade of grass, some creature is dismembering and devouring some other one alive.

@moonbus said
Several posters here, with the patience of saints, have explained to you how scientific explanations of life and evolution work. Yet you are dogmatically impregnable to both reason and evidence; you don't understand how science works; you project things which aren't there. For example, there is no error checking in nature; it's an illusion you think you are seeing, but ...[text shortened]... t, but under every blade of grass, some creature is dismembering and devouring some other one alive.

That is all fine and good, except not once have I asked how science works, what I have been asking for are the reasons using science that a mindless, uncaring, indifferent process could generate the complicated systems we see in life. You and others have routinely given me spiritual reasons that should be addressed in the Spiritual forum, what you have repeatedly failed to do it with science, with logic to produce a single reason for how the repeatability in life is achieved, how life fixes issues with mechanisms that start when needed and stop when they are not. You have issues with grasping the specificity of repeating functionally complex systems working in concert as if they could do that without directing instructions, you must think it is magic or something, and your ability to grasp the start-stop mechanisms that keep life going by feedback loops calling for and executing error checking is also magic.

@kellyjay said
That is all fine and good, except not once have I asked how science works, what I have been asking for are the reasons using science that a mindless, uncaring, indifferent process could generate the complicated systems we see in life. You and others have routinely given me spiritual reasons that should be addressed in the Spiritual forum, what you have repeatedly failed to ...[text shortened]... nisms that keep life going by feedback loops calling for and executing error checking is also magic.

"Start-stop mechanism" is an anthropomorphism, a projection, it's not really there in nature. "Working in concert" is an anthropomorphism, a projection, it's not really there in nature. There are no errors in nature, therefore no error checking. The reality is: a chemical reaction occurs, or some other chemical reaction occurs, and then some other, or a repeat of a previous, one occurs. Starts and stops are totally arbitrary human interpretations of what is, in reality, continuous flux.

Do you understand what an organic molecule is? You and I are made of them; it's what we are physically speaking (and that is the only thing about us that science is concerned with). Do you understand what is significant about the fact that the Webb telescope has detected them in deep space? It means they are not highly improbable. It means that no occult influence needs to be assumed to account for them.

Dive linked to an article which elegantly explains how complexity arises and how it stabilizes. I suggest you read it.

There are no "feedback loops" -- that's another anthropomorphism, a human metaphor which gives us a picture of what we think is going on, but it's not what is really going on. Projecting feedback loops into nature is a case of overthinking. What is really going on is that some chemical reaction, call it A, causes another chemical reaction, call it B, and B in turn causes A and perhaps even causes A to increase in duration or intensity. This is not a "feedback loop" or "error checking" or "working in concert"-- it's just two chemical reactions which happen to co-cause each other.

What there is in nature, is symbiosis. For example plants 'breathe out' what we breathe in, and v.v. I suggest you find out about symbiosis. It's one of the key factors driving evolution of species.



PS "driving" is a figure of speech. There's no Driver.

@kellyjay said
That is all fine and good, except not once have I asked how science works,

That is correct: you have assumed, wrongly, how science works, and used your mistaken assumption to "prove" that nature must be anthromorphosised and therefore, nature is impossible, not just without God, but without your specific, blinkered, American idea of God, and therefore, that the world is only 6000 years old.

Wrongly.

Wrongly not only scientifically, but much more damningly, wrongly theologically. That you misunderstand science is one thing. Science can do without you; nobody will confuse your opinion for science. That, in applying your misunderstanding, you insult God by turning him into a mere tap of molecules, is much worse, because other, equally misinformed Americans might believe your wrong opinion of God. You parrot the Prince of Lies; this does not damage science, because he doesn't care about science, but it does damage honest theology, because he cares about leading people astray from that. You are doing that Prince's work for him. Stop doing that.

@shallow-blue said
That is correct: you have assumed, wrongly, how science works, and used your mistaken assumption to "prove" that nature must be anthromorphosised and therefore, nature is impossible, not just without God, but without your specific, blinkered, American idea of God, and therefore, that the world is only 6000 years old.

Wrongly.

Wrongly not only scienti ...[text shortened]... es about leading people astray from that. You are doing that Prince's work for him. Stop doing that.

What do you think testing is done for if not to give validation to our theories and hypothesis?

We have to look at events that of a singular event by looking at the evidence we find where the event took place. Can what we see at that location explain all the evidence that we find in that place?

On going processes we can examine if what is proposed is adequate.

You have issues with that?