Abiogenesis and evolution: James Tour

@kellyjay said
Insults aside there is a binary choice here, it was either a mindless process directing everything or not. If not then we are left with what?

No.

No, just no.

You don't even understand the fundamentals.

The only thing you understand is the fundamentalist.

@kellyjay said
I put forward a simple question

Don't lie.

@kellyjay said
I am asking a simple question

Don't lie.

@kellyjay said
I am asking a simple question that is foundational to how all life is viewed in every respect. The answer touches a broad spectrum from biology, philosophy, religion, and host of other disciplines shaping our cultures, because it doesn’t just fit one area of life should clue you in on how important the answer is. Ignoring it or shunning the possibilities doesn’t remove the ...[text shortened]... life? If you think so why? What evidence leads you there, if you got nothing, then why believe it?

You may be asking a simple question, but it does not have a simple answer.

Yes, I believe that a mindless process accounts for

1. the origin of simple life forms;

2. the emergence of complex life forms later;

3. the emergence of minds.

why: because there is no evidence of supernatural causality in any natural process, and it is not a testable hypothesis to switch off supernatural causality and then switch it on again to see whether all the same phenomena occur. The evidence is multifaceted, but includes biochemistry, fossils (leading from simple to complex life forms), and zoology (how speciation occurs). Nothing in any of that is clear evidence of a transcendental mind or plan operating in addition to the natural laws investigated by science.

@shallow-blue said
No.

No, just no.

You don't even understand the fundamentals.

The only thing you understand is the fundamentalist.

You have an answer of you just going to sit down and say no as if that was is an answer?

@moonbus said
You may be asking a simple question, but it does not have a simple answer.

Yes, I believe that a mindless process accounts for

1. the origin of simple life forms;

2. the emergence of complex life forms later;

3. the emergence of minds.

why: because there is no evidence of supernatural causality in any natural process, and it is not a testable hypothesis to swi ...[text shortened]... of a transcendental mind or plan operating in addition to the natural laws investigated by science.

So explain how it was done since you believe in it. Simply saying you don't believe in the supernatural is not an explanation as to why you accept mindlessness, that isn't a positive reason for saying mindlessness did it, it is only an acknowledgment of your beliefs about supernatural causes. You have positive reasons for accepting mindlessness, right?

@moonbus said
You may be asking a simple question, but it does not have a simple answer.

Yes, I believe that a mindless process accounts for

1. the origin of simple life forms;

2. the emergence of complex life forms later;

3. the emergence of minds.

why: because there is no evidence of supernatural causality in any natural process, and it is not a testable hypothesis to swi ...[text shortened]... of a transcendental mind or plan operating in addition to the natural laws investigated by science.

You must believe in miracles or do you have a natural cause for life simple or otherwise forming? You jump from the miracle of life starting to the ongoing miracles of life-altering itself over time into new things. You got the mechanism for these things you can point to right, the beginning of life and how life once starts changing, does so without getting damaged? And THEN another miracle is the emergence of the mind, you spout off these things like they are just truths that should be accepted without doubt, what blind faith you have there moonbus.

@shallow-blue said
Don't lie.

Binary questions are very simple, you think they are not, yes or no, it is or it isn't? Reasons for each answer follow, if you cannot give a positive reason for your beliefs then that becomes problematic. It is odd that those that say yes to mindlessness do so not because there is something that strikes them the evidence that suggests it is true, but because they simply dislike the other answer so they go with mindlessness.

@kellyjay said
So explain how it was done since you believe in it. Simply saying you don't believe in the supernatural is not an explanation as to why you accept mindlessness, that isn't a positive reason for saying mindlessness did it, it is only an acknowledgment of your beliefs about supernatural causes. You have positive reasons for accepting mindlessness, right?

I gave my answer already, in detail. It’s chemistry. Life is chemistry. Life is an emergent property of chemical reactions. Google that: “emergent property.” Fire, for example, is an emergent property; it has characteristics which wood and sulphur and phosphorous do not have. But there is nothing supernatural about a flame. There is no Transcendental Mind which makes a match burn.

Consciousness is to the human body what fire is to a match: put the right chemicals together, add friction, and something remarkable happens. It is wholly natural, there is nothing supernatural about it.

@kellyjay said
You must believe in miracles or do you have a natural cause for life simple or otherwise forming? You jump from the miracle of life starting to the ongoing miracles of life-altering itself over time into new things. You got the mechanism for these things you can point to right, the beginning of life and how life once starts changing, does so without getting damaged? And TH ...[text shortened]... they are just truths that should be accepted without doubt, what blind faith you have there moonbus.

He does not believe life alters over time to new things. He believes God created all the life forms we see today and that Noah put them into a boat when the flood came. All except the dinosaurs. And the unicorns. Dinosaurs and unicorns didn’t show up on the appointed day, so they didn’t make it onto the ark.

@moonbus said
I gave my answer already, in detail. It’s chemistry. Life is chemistry. Life is an emergent property of chemical reactions. Google that: “emergent property.” Fire, for example, is an emergent property; it has characteristics which wood and sulphur and phosphorous do not have. But there is nothing supernatural about a flame. There is no Transcendental Mind which makes a match ...[text shortened]... ion, and something remarkable happens. It is wholly natural, there is nothing supernatural about it.

No, you gave a story at a very high level of what you think occurred, the details you were lacking as most of your complaints, everywhere, leaving miracles the only answer as if there it was all magically done without a magician doing the work. A flame doesn't have parts whose arrangement is without any need and necessity associated with how they were arranged yet due to the arrangement form and activities occur. You stick your head in the sand and pretend that if I say these things are just like code in how it behaves I'm somehow in error just for the comparison's sake alone. Come up with a natural cause, show the work, and don't just say it happen, as if that alone was all that is required.

@kellyjay said Come up with a natural cause, show the work, and don't just say it happen, as if that alone was all that is required.

Did you read the pubmed article I’ve sent you several times?

@kellyjay said
You must believe in miracles or do you have a natural cause for life simple or otherwise forming? You jump from the miracle of life starting to the ongoing miracles of life-altering itself over time into new things. You got the mechanism for these things you can point to right, the beginning of life and how life once starts changing, does so without getting damaged? And TH ...[text shortened]... they are just truths that should be accepted without doubt, what blind faith you have there moonbus.

Aside from your pretend scientist, you are the only person in this discussion who believes in miracles.

@indonesia-phil said
Aside from your pretend scientist, you are the only person in this discussion who believes in miracles.

You should look up Dr Tour’s papers and patents then compare to your own. It will be obvious who the pretender is comparing his accomplishments to yours.

@shallow-blue said
No.

No, just no.

You don't even understand the fundamentals.

The only thing you understand is the fundamentalist.

Have you ever bothered to look at some of the odds of some of these things occurring, to see what random chance through a mindless uncaring process would be up against to do what is proposed?