• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Shocking claim to Macro-evolution!

gnostic

The Lost One
He is a chemist, you know. He is among the top 10 chemists in the world!

You didn't know that he's a chemist?
So....you haven't even read the intro? Lol.
In other words, you know squat!
Therefore, I have legitimate reason to ignore you.


Bye.
Refresh your browser, and re-read my post.

I added some extra, or read the quote below:

Edit:

ps

Before you go and all-high-and-mighty, and say “That’s kind of response of an evolutionist”, I would tell you point-blank that I am not a biologist. I am speaking from experiences as an engineer, with a backgrounds in civil engineering and in computer science.

And as to Tour. He isn’t quantify to speak of biological evolution, so anything he has to say, are opinions. He may be a qualified as a chemist, but not all chemist are expert in the areas of biochemistry, especially in the areas of Abiogenesis. If he isn’t a biochemist, then he is merely expressing his opinions.

Chemistry is a large field, and not everyone are qualified in biochemistry.

And in biochemistry there are lot of sub-fields, so not every biochemists specialized in the area of Abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is a specialised field, Abiogenesis is not related to evolution.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member

gnostic

The Lost One
That Tour is affiliated with the Discovery Institute, mean he is also a supporter of the pseudoscience Intelligent Design, which means he is no better than Michael Behe, who wrote the make-believe pseudoscience Irreducible Complexity.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Lol. It's not a personal opinion! It's science.
Nope. What you've posted in one scientists personal opinion.

Do you know what "abiogenesis" is? Why do you ask?
Where's the connection? don't you get it?
You gotta have an origin for the rest of the chain!:)
But you don't need to know the origin in order to understand how something that is living diversifies over time. Abiogenesis and evolution are not necessarily connected - they are entirely distinct fields of study of very different processes.

This is like arguing that geology is dependent on big bang cosmology, because in order to understand geological formations you need to first understand the origin of all organic matter. It's nonsense.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
That Tour is affiliated with the Discovery Institute, mean he is also a supporter of the pseudoscience Intelligent Design, which means he is no better than Michael Behe, who wrote the make-believe pseudoscience Irreducible Complexity.
To be fair to Tour, his association with the DI is limited to his signing of their (patently dishonest and roundly discredited) Dissent from Darwinism statement. He has come out and denied being an advocate of intelligent design:

"I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label."
https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/


I would say he's more of an ID apologist than an ID advocate outright. He's more of an enabler.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member

exchemist

Veteran Member
Was he saying that?



It has to start somewhere, right?




Like, that!
OK let's take this slowly. I said the theory of evolution does not depend on any chemistry.

You replied suggesting that life had to start somehow. Which is obviously true, but so what?

All the theory of evolution requires is replication of inherited traits. It does not matter whether this is done by earth biochemistry or by some exotic and unknown chemistry on Jupiter's moon Titan, involving methane as a solvent and long chains of, ooh, I don't know, silicon atoms, say.

Any
biochemical system that reproduces by passing on characteristics from one generation to the next can evolve by natural selection.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Seriously? He is playing you, or anyone who
will respond.

Typical of people who dont know a darn thing
except how to cut n paste s gish from creosites,
no grasp of any subject matter.

It is nice to have a little quality around here.
Gish-enabling aint it.
If the tactic is Gish, I will slow down my rate of reply and stick to the main points I want to get across. ;)
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
"Posturing," doesn't work, folks. Your responses are dead give-aways.
Point is they asked him to read something, and that offended him.

He is a chemist, you know. He is among the top 10 chemists in the world!

You didn't know that he's a chemist?
So....you haven't even read the intro? Lol.
In other words, you know squat!
Therefore, I have legitimate reason to ignore you.


Bye.
Then reading ought to be very easy for him. How does he not know, and how could he not know that Evolution does not require abiogenesis. Its independent. People have always seen the similarities and the continuum of species but they didn't have an explanation for how changes might occur until Darwin discovered the Galapogos birds. Then he explained the mechanism of survival, and people began to realize he was right. After than much more evidence for evolution (not abiogenesis) appeared as more and more living species were catalogued as well as extinct ones. Lately DNA evidence is also compelling and tells the story of a family of animals that includes humans. It nevertheless is unrelated to abiogenesis. For all we know the first cells came from somewhere, and evolution doesn't say where. How does the Chemist not know? He does not know, because when he makes inquiries and is asked to read something he gets insulted. That is not a reasonable response to being given reading material, not when he is supposedly making an inquiry. I have explained the topic in a single paragraph. His ignorance is inexcusable and darkens his reputation. He has shat upon Science.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
To be fair to Tour, his association with the DI is limited to his signing of their (patently dishonest and roundly discredited) Dissent from Darwinism statement. He has come out and denied being an advocate of intelligent design:

"I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label."
https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/


I would say he's more of an ID apologist than an ID advocate outright. He's more of an enabler.
That's fair enough of him. But I am then shocked to see him apparently conflate abiogenesis and evolution. That looks dishonest, coming from an educated man like him. But perhaps he has been misrepresented in some way.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Lol. Think again.

That kind of responses from evolutionists....is what makes evolutionists look so pathetic!

You can't come up with any rational argument, can you?
But what are we supposed to argue against?

All we have is one synthetic chemist expressing personal incredulity about abiogenesis. How can we argue against personal incredulity? If he's incredulous, he's incredulous and entitled to his opinion, but he's not offering any science. He has no observations and he offers no testable theory or hypothesis.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
If the tactic is Gish, I will slow down my rate of reply and stick to the main points I want to get across. ;)

IF / when you pick one super simple and obvious one,
and stick to that, and continue to get denial of
the "two plus two is not four" sort, (as you will)
THEN will you see the light?
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
IF / when you pick one super simple and obvious one,
and stick to that, and continue to get denial of
the "two plus two is not four" sort, (as you will)
THEN will you see the light?
Me? I saw the light a few decades ago :p. It's this benighted bloke who's got a problem.
But'll play along for a bit until it's time to run through my music for tonight and make supper.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Me? I saw the light a few decades ago :p. It's this benighted bloke who's got a problem.
But'll play along for a bit until it's time to run through my music for tonight and make supper.

Well, for sure it is our gishmeister who needs to
see the light, but, that aint gonna happen.
 
Top