Interesting video about evolution and origins.

[SkepticThinker]

In science there is no good reason to insert God into the equation. But there is no good reason to take God out of the equation in the first place unless you say that only science can tell us what is real and when we talk theology we should really be talking science or it's all gobbledegook.

No. If you are positing that "Goddidit" you need to posit a good reason to ADD god(s) to the equation. You need to show that god(s) are necessary (and that they even exist in the first place as something we could posit as a cause of anything).

Sorry but as far as I can tell, your supposed evidence for gods and spirits that you are positing the existence of AND attributing all kinds of qualities to, is not based on sound reasoning or evidence. Prove me wrong without invoking faith.

So science took God out of the equation but you and I know that this does not mean that God does not exist and that God may be in any educated guesses that science has made about what happened in the past.

Science didn't take your god out of the equation any more than it took Zeus or invisible pixies out of the equation.

Science however cannot say yes or no to that because it does not know how to detect God. But I'm not really talking science, I'm including all the evidence and including God.

You don't either, apparently. You've posited no verifiable way to detect the god you believe in. At least, not anywhere in these threads you haven't.

Now you dismiss God as if He does not exist, and talk science as if science has all the answers when in fact it only has naturalistic educated guesses of what may have happened in the past, and it seems we have no reason to consider these things without evidence for them.

This was in response to, "If there is no evidence for such things, then we have no reason at all to consider them. That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

You need to show there is some reason to include gods and spirits into our understanding of the world. Then you have to show it's the specific gods and spirits that you believe in (but can't even seem to define).

You really, really need to understand this point."

Please explain how your above response addresses what I said.

And no, just because chemicals can react with one another, that is not evidence that they reacted in the ways science presumes they must have.

Huh?

I do show reasons, but they are not acceptable when you accept only science. So keep believing science's unverifiable educated guesses about the past and that is OK with me. I also believe much of that even though I know it cannot really be considered to be real science.

Your reasons, each and every time, boil down to your faith belief. Which I keep pointing out is not a reliable pathway to discerning fact from fiction because anything can be believed on faith.

Science doesn't use faith. It relies on evidence instead.

You can say that Thor or Apollo or Pixies are as evidenced as Jehovah and Jesus if you want, but we all know that's BS.

Is it? Then show me it's BS. You've got the same amount of evidence, as far as I can tell.

Listen to what people experience and have experienced and believe them.

Oh I believe people believe they have experienced supernatural things. The problem is, they can't demonstrate that's what actually happened. They can't demonstrate that their actually is a supernatural anything.

Let's say I listen to a Muslim tell me about their experience with Allah. And then I listen to a Hindu tell me about their experiences with Shiva and Krishna. Then I listen to you tell me about your experiences with undetectable spirits. I ask all of you for evidence. And you tell me that your experience is your evidence.

So how do we figure out who's got it right? How do we verify any of it?

You call the experiences of people "unevidenced faith claims".
You look at life with blinkers on.

You keep demonstrating over and over that is what you have. You're the one who keeps falling back on faith.

Spirits reveal themselves.

How????

Start believing the experiences of people instead of demanding repeatable performances from the spirits that science can test.

I've outlined the problem with this, above.

Why should we just believe anything anybody claims? That's not a good way of discerning fact from fiction, as far as I can tell.

Look at the prophecies and their fulfilments without saying "Maybe this was made up, so therefore it was made up".

I have. They are wholly unimpressive to me. Just about as good as Nostradamus' supposed prophecies.

Yes Christians use and promote science in general but also know it's limits. Many people look to science for spiritual truths which it cannot give.

These limitations are yours, not science's.

It is defective when it comes to detecting spirits and when it comes to giving verifiable answers to what happened in the past.

So are your religious beliefs, apparently. Because despite my repeated asking, you've yet to offer any evidence for spirits other than just your say-so.

BUT you have faith that it is the answer for all questions of reality.

I have no faith. That is your department.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

there is no good reason to take God out of the equation in the first place unless you say that only science can tell us what is real

Yes, only reason properly applied to the evidence of the senses can tell us what's out there and what its predictable behaviors are, and gods were never a part of science. They didn't need to be removed any more than vampires or leprechauns had to be removed. None of those entities is needed to explain anything.

So science took God out of the equation but you and I know that this does not mean that God does not exist and that God may be in any educated guesses that science has made about what happened in the past.

Gods are found nowhere in any educated guesses.

Nor can one say that a god exists if it doesn't manifest in reality, since to exist is to manifest in our reality along with everything else that exists, all interacting with one another in space through time. To talk about something that does none of those things as if it were as real as things such as the sun or an acorn that can do that is to render the word meaningless. Nobody need rule gods out disregard the concept. Au contraire. One needs to find a job for a god to do to have a reason to consider the concept.

Science however cannot say yes or no to that because it does not know how to detect God

Science's subject is reality. Whatever can be said to be undetectable can be ignored for just that reason. Why give a second thought to something described as making no discernible impact on anything?

just because chemicals can react with one another, that is not evidence that they reacted in the ways science presumes they must have.

It's not? Of course it is. One cannot stop chemicals from reacting when it is possible however they found one another.

You can say that Thor or Apollo or Pixies are as evidenced as Jehovah and Jesus if you want, but we all know that's BS.

There is weak evidence that somebody was the model for the character described in the Gospels, but regarding the rest, Jehovah has exactly the same ontological status and supporting evidence as all other putative gods and spirits - none.

Start believing the experiences of people instead of demanding repeatable performances from the spirits that science can test.

She asked for a method to detect spirits and that was your answer. That's an exceptionally unreliable way to decide what is true about the world, and the shortest path to accumulating wrong ideas.

Many people look to science for spiritual truths which it cannot give.

There is no such thing as spiritual truth. All that people have are hunches, feeling, and intuitions, and none of those rise to the level of truth even if correct. To be called that, what is being called truth needs to be demonstrated empirically.

 

[Brian2]

Interesting.
so how do you verify that any of it was "GodDidIt"?

I don't and atheists can't verify what many of them say that science knows.

I understand your stance of "I do not understand, there fore god."
It has been around for a lot longer than you or me.

That's not my stance.

Are you just looking for someone to say that it is possible a god was involved?
If so, why god?
Why more specifically your chosen favorite god?
Why not, say, invisible pink and purple fairies?

You can say who/whatever you want, but my bet is that you can't see that the science cannot be verified, so you will keep saying that your beliefs are better than my religious beliefs.

 

[Brian2]

Nonsense. Given that there is overwhelming evidence for evolution in general, one would be a moron not to make the default assumption that it is going to apply to these features too.

At least you can see that it is a default assumption.

The question for the evolution denier has to be: "Why should these, uniquely, be an exception?" If the only answer is, "We have not yet found a pathway by which it could have happened.", that would apply to any currently open question in science.

So the evolution denier is arguing that science can't ever answer questions that remain open today. So lets' shut down science research.

Maybe the evolution denier is doing that, but all I'm doing is pointing out that much of this type of science is not built on a solid foundation, in that it is not verifiable.
But science can and does whatever it will. My post is not to science but to skeptic/atheists and their ideas of what this science is,,,,,,,,,,,,, or that it (evolution) cannot teach us the same sort of things even if it did not all happen as scientific theory says.

 

[Brian2]

Fair point.

However, to look at Christianity with a cold eye, the first thing you see is emblems of the crucifixion, some with a tortured Jesus and some without.

So I wonder why he didn't ask what I've asked here from time to time in vain ─ why, given an omnipotent God, was any death, let alone one which involved prolonged cruelty, necessary to achieve whatever it was that was supposed to be achieved? Whatever it was, why couldn't that God achieve it with one snap of those omnipotent fingers?

Does the book examine his views on that question ─ the boldly proclaimed suffering through scourging, taunting and crucifixion itself, not to mention the ritual drinking of blood and eating of human flesh of the eucharist? Did he think all that was a wonderful idea or didn't those issues occur to him?

You'd have to read the book.
But for a believer the truth is the truth even if we have questions about it.

 

[Brian2]

Irreducible Complexity has been shown to be flat out wrong in its claims, not only in the sciences but also in the courts.

It has been shown to be not a legitimate science. That is what the court was deciding surely.

Now correct me if I am wrong, for I may well be, but is not Irreducible Design nothing more than a continuation of the already shown to be flat out wrong Irreducible Complexity?

I think you mean that Irreducible Complexity is part of Intelligent design.
And I suppose it is, and both are not seen as legitimate sciences, but that does not mean they are wrong in what they say. It means that the conclusions cannot be tested and verified.

 

[exchemist]

At least you can see that it is a default assumption.



Maybe the evolution denier is doing that, but all I'm doing is pointing out that much of this type of science is not built on a solid foundation, in that it is not verifiable.
But science can and does whatever it will. My post is not to science but to skeptic/atheists and their ideas of what this science is,,,,,,,,,,,,, or that it (evolution) cannot teach us the same sort of things even if it did not all happen as scientific theory says.

Well of course it's a default assumption! Methodological naturalism is the default assumption built into the scientific method. All science employs it and always has. It is fundamental to doing science of any kind. Evolution (and abiogenesis research) is thus built on the identical foundation to the whole of the rest of science. And, as I say, there is abundant evidence, from everything we have learned about the natural world since the Renaissance, this approach works.

As for the term "verifiable", this is a poor choice of word to apply to science. In science you do not verify theories. As famously Popper pointed out, you can prove a theory wrong by finding observations that contradict it, but you can never prove it right. The most you can do is find more and more observations that fit the theory. But you can never logically exclude the possibility that some future observation may not fit. So if by "verifiable" you mean proof, forget it. No theory is provable. If on the other hand by "verifiable" you just mean there are plenty of observations that fit the theory, then evolution has been "verified" many times over.

But I welcome the apparent shift in your ground here. If your argument now is not with the science but with those who think the science shows there is no God, then I agree it does no such thing. But this is hardly news. There have always been, are, and always will be, plenty of scientists and scientifically educated people who are followers of religions. Religions are essentially guides to help people live their lives, in the Christian case inspired by the life and teaching of Christ. The scriptures are not rival science textbooks. There is no need to take the words of the Genesis stories as literal in order to understand their meaning for humanity.

 

[wellwisher]

No. If you are positing that "Goddidit" you need to posit a good reason to ADD god(s) to the equation. You need to show that god(s) are necessary (and that they even exist in the first place as something we could posit as a cause of anything).

Sorry but as far as I can tell, your supposed evidence for gods and spirits that you are positing the existence of AND attributing all kinds of qualities to, is not based on sound reasoning or evidence. Prove me wrong without invoking faith.

Science didn't take your god out of the equation any more than it took Zeus or invisible pixies out of the equation.

You don't either, apparently. You've posited no verifiable way to detect the god you believe in. At least, not anywhere in these threads you haven't.


This was in response to, "If there is no evidence for such things, then we have no reason at all to consider them. That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

You need to show there is some reason to include gods and spirits into our understanding of the world. Then you have to show it's the specific gods and spirits that you believe in (but can't even seem to define).

You really, really need to understand this point."

Please explain how your above response addresses what I said.

Huh?

Your reasons, each and every time, boil down to your faith belief. Which I keep pointing out is not a reliable pathway to discerning fact from fiction because anything can be believed on faith.

Science doesn't use faith. It relies on evidence instead.

Is it? Then show me it's BS. You've got the same amount of evidence, as far as I can tell.


Oh I believe people believe they have experienced supernatural things. The problem is, they can't demonstrate that's what actually happened. They can't demonstrate that their actually is a supernatural anything.

Let's say I listen to a Muslim tell me about their experience with Allah. And then I listen to a Hindu tell me about their experiences with Shiva and Krishna. Then I listen to you tell me about your experiences with undetectable spirits. I ask all of you for evidence. And you tell me that your experience is your evidence.

So how do we figure out who's got it right? How do we verify any of it?

You keep demonstrating over and over that is what you have. You're the one who keeps falling back on faith.

How????

I've outlined the problem with this, above.

Why should we just believe anything anybody claims? That's not a good way of discerning fact from fiction, as far as I can tell.

I have. They are wholly unimpressive to me. Just about as good as Nostradamus' supposed prophecies.

These limitations are yours, not science's.

So are your religious beliefs, apparently. Because despite my repeated asking, you've yet to offer any evidence for spirits other than just your say-so.

I have no faith. That is your department.

Much of science still relies of the god of luck and chance that we call probability and statistics. Poof! there was the first replicator, all without any logic of origin or any hard proof. Lady Luck is all we need, allowing the first replicator to appear like magic so evolution has a starting point. Can the current theory do that without the goddess Lady Luck? Lack of rational analysis leading and/or proof of the first replicator, causes science to return to faith in luck. Why is that not stricken, since it is faith based? Why the dual standard?

The main difference between the atheists goddess Lady Luck and the theist God, is the latter God plans and then executes, instead of depending on the whims of the gods of good luck and bad luck; risk, to make something happen. I have been told by science I have risk via many things, all without targeted reason for me, which never seem to appear. I resist bowing to their gods.

Could the life sciences work without any connection to lady luck goddess math and science? As a home experiment, remove all the black box faith and conjuring, and what is left will be real tangible science. What is left will appear very disjointed, since lady luck is the bridge between all the dissociated parts that do not fit, without poof! Theist do the same, but they do not pretend with a math oracle smoke screen of hidden wires.

Lady luck math and science is useful for man made things, but not natural things like life. It is fine in a factory of widgets to impove quality control or in gambling casinos to set the odds for slot machines. It also useful to man made things like marketeers and politicians whose job is to manipulate public opinion for fun and profit. It has no place in natural science, unless the goal is to game the system with lady luck fantasy.

I challenge the life sciences to throw out Lady Luck and see what will happen without this godlike Swiss army knife prosthesis. I did it years ago and it becomes more difficult, but eventually you can get past the age of superstition and reach the age of reason.

The solution came back to water and the water and oil effect, which you can demonstrate at home. Water is a timeless bookend. It is the terminal product of one of the most energetic reactions in nature; oxygen and hydrogen flame. Water has not changed since the early universe. Its hydrogen bonding nature, does not mix well with the polar bonding of organics. Hydrogen bonding is so much more stable, so water will exclude the organics. Their interaction causes surface tension, resulting in water and oil separating, with some surface tension; energy, still remaining at all residual water and organic interfaces.

If we apply the second law, in a mixture of phase separated water and organics; organic surfaces, any change will have to occur on the organic surfaces. This is why the organics of life are so diverse yet water remains the same. This has nothing to do with lady luck. It is intrinsic in the design of water. Water is not magic but has many built in feature that may look magic if the world of Lady Luck.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Much of science still relies of the god of luck and chance that we call probability and statistics. Poof! there was the first replicator, all without any logic of origin or any hard proof. Lady Luck is all we need, allowing the first replicator to appear like magic so evolution has a starting point. Can the current theory do that without the goddess Lady Luck? Lack of rational analysis leading and/or proof of the first replicator, causes science to return to faith in luck. Why is that not stricken, since it is faith based? Why the dual standard?

The main difference between the atheists goddess Lady Luck and the theist God, is the latter God plans and then executes, instead of depending on the whims of the gods of good luck and bad luck; risk, to make something happen. I have been told by science I have risk via many things, all without targeted reason for me, which never seem to appear. I resist bowing to their gods.

Could the life sciences work without any connection to lady luck goddess math and science? As a home experiment, remove all the black box faith and conjuring, and what is left will be real tangible science. What is left will appear very disjointed, since lady luck is the bridge between all the dissociated parts that do not fit, without poof! Theist do the same, but they do not pretend with a math oracle smoke screen of hidden wires.

Lady luck math and science is useful for man made things, but not natural things like life. It is fine in a factory of widgets to impove quality control or in gambling casinos to set the odds for slot machines. It also useful to man made things like marketeers and politicians whose job is to manipulate public opinion for fun and profit. It has no place in natural science, unless the goal is to game the system with lady luck fantasy.

I challenge the life sciences to throw out Lady Luck and see what will happen without this godlike Swiss army knife prosthesis. I did it years ago and it becomes more difficult, but eventually you can get past the age of superstition and reach the age of reason.

The solution came back to water and the water and oil effect, which you can demonstrate at home. Water is a timeless bookend. It is the terminal product of one of the most energetic reactions in nature; oxygen and hydrogen flame. Water has not changed since the early universe. Its hydrogen bonding nature, does not mix well with the polar bonding of organics. Hydrogen bonding is so much more stable, so water will exclude the organics. Their interaction causes surface tension, resulting in water and oil separating, with some surface tension; energy, still remaining at all residual water and organic interfaces.

If we apply the second law, in a mixture of phase separated water and organics; organic surfaces, any change will have to occur on the organic surfaces. This is why the organics of life are so diverse yet water remains the same. This has nothing to do with lady luck. It is intrinsic in the design of water. Water is not magic but has many built in feature that may look magic if the world of Lady Luck.

Your knowledge of abiogenesis is at least fifty years out of date.

 

[Colt]

I have found hour long interviews he has given in which he explains why he changed from atheism to theism and Christianity. I have not listened to them but here is a quote about him in an ad for his book "The Work of His Hands" A scientist's journey from atheism to Faith.

"Raised in a militant atheist family, Sy Garte fell in love with the factual world of science. He became a respected research biochemist with an anti-theistic worldview to bolster his work--and he had no intention of seeking a God he didn't believe in. That is, until the very science he loved led him to question the validity of an atheistic worldview.
His journey to answer the questions that confronted him drew him into becoming a fully committed Christian, determined to show others the truth: modern science doesn't contradict God at all but instead supports Christianity."

He does point out that the scientific method does not tie the origins of life to naturalism. So in that respect it is not fair to expect it to tie anything to God.
But he is a scientist and speaks of science and where it is at in finding answers for the origins of life, and the possible answers. In that respect he is not a false authority, but is an authority.
He does believe in evolution it seems but also says that evolution is not the origins of life anyway and that evolution can fit in with the Biblical Genesis.
He explains things in a simple way which means that even I can understand what he is on about.

For me it's always been obvious that the earth is quite old, that life evolved AND "God" is the cause of it all. I would say that Sy Garte was raised in the Atheist religion but left that religion when he realized that the theory that life invented itself is untenable! But to be fair those of us in religion need to concede that we are at the mercy of revelation concerning the seeding of evolutionary worlds, the origins of life and the universe.

* God, Gods and associated celestials, angels etc are all invisible, they operate in secret outside of our range of vision AND they mostly live somewhere else! Human accounts by holy men are all that we of inexplicable faith have!

 

[Brian2]

If we seriously considered D wouldn't we also have to consider all the hundreds of other unevidenced "possibilities" by the same token -- constructor mice, elves, Brahma, FSM, &al?

Science does not have to consider D or any other so called unevidenced possibility (but the Bible God is evidenced).
Science is just flawed like that and cannot consider creation in any verifiable way.

No, atheists defer belief in God for the same reason science does -- no objective evidence. Scientific utility has nothing to do with it.

Atheism doesn't necessarily claim God doesn't exist, some atheists do, but it's not a definitive feature of atheism.
Atheists and reasonable people withhold or defer belief in everything there is no objective evidence or need for, this generally includes all kinds of gods and other mythical beings, worlds and events.

Science is just a tool, it is what people do that is important.
I could defer belief in scientific conclusions that cannot be verified. I have a creator God who prophesies true prophecies and promises things that He delivers, so why should I think that any science which comes up with unverified conclusions that are educated guesses might be correct about those things when those conclusions are used to deny the existence of the prophecy creator God of the Bible, or to claim that this God is not needed because science knows,,,,,,,,,,, according to atheists.

There is as much evidence for God in the Bible as there is for Hobbits in Lord of the Rings. They're both just books, written by people. It's amazing how often believers cite the Bible in conversation with rational unbelievers, apparently thinking rational interlocutors will accept its claims as authoritative.

And the Bible is not true because?............ Because someone has attacked it's veracity with opinions that are no more than opinions.
And these opinions hold sway over many people who think that the holders of the opinions are rational thinkers, and so the Bible and the Bible God, in the eyes of those many, has no more evidence than Hobbits in Lord of the Rings.

How is there evidence for God in history, unless you including mythology? What historically verifiable events necessitate God/magic?

"Necessitate?" You want necessitate for God in history and dismiss faith when you believe in stuff that is not scientifically verifiable.

God in nature? Nature is complex, making it a fertile field for personal incredulity in those ignorant of its mechanisms or awed by its intricacy. Neither is evidence of magic.

Yes of course skeptics and atheists are superior beings and know more than the ignorant and probably superstitious.
And so called scientist why believes in a God has suspended his reason when it comes to that belief.

Experience? We've gone over this. Anyone can claim empirically unverifiable experiences, and these are myriad. What makes a god claim more likely than any other subjective experience?

Most theists seem to be able to work it out and we aren't that bright.

???? -- How so? Isn't the whole methodology of science designed to eliminate guesswork?

If God is not found by science it is not a guess, in science, to have mechanisms which don't mention God.
But that is in science where God has to be found first.
In reality however those hypothesised mechanisms are guesses.
The methodology did not work.

I don't think I follow. Under what circumstances does it become rational to believe in something that lacks objective evidence of existence?
You speak of another way -- what other way, the supernatural? Without evidence this exists, why should it be considered a reasonable alternative by any rational person?

Well yes, we all know the alternative and that is unacceptable to rational people, so naturalism is the only possibility.

What does science study that's not within its purview? Science does not research that for which there is no evidence to evaluate. How could it?
"Goddidit" is not a mechanism, it's magic; it's an assertion of magical agency. Science studies mechanism. Magic cannot be tested. It's not falsifiable.

So in science God is ignored until proven, and rational people know that only scientific conclusions are acceptable.

I presume 'it' was done by some mechanism or cause-and-effect. I don't presume magic. I think this is reasonable.
If science says something happened, and it cannot be verified, how is it science? This sounds more like folklore or religion.

Hmmm, maybe you're right.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. It's an emotional rant.

It's an emotional rant but is not nonsense.

Please stop with this "educated guess" nonsense. Science is not religion. It's an investigative modality specifically engineered to eliminate guesswork.
Yes, you need to explain this.

If there are no alternatives then the best educated guess is good until a better one comes along or it is shown to be wrong and we are back to the educated guess drawing board.

Science does not claim knowledge of what there is no evidence of, that would be religion. Please stop conflating the two.
Science stays in its lane. It makes no religious claims. It ignores religion.
Religion, on the other hand, makes all sorts of factual and historical claims it has no evidence of. When I point this out, the faithful claim science is trespassing --

Religion knows that it's claims are faith based even if it is a well reasoned faith.
If science can illuminate my faith, great.
Science cannot be stopped from trespassing even if much of it is just opinion.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That's not my stance.

That was in response to "I understand your stance of "I do not understand, therefore god." Those aren't your words, but that is how you are understood. You write things like, "much of this type of science is not built on a solid foundation, in that it is not verifiable," "you believe in stuff that is not scientifically verifiable." and "atheists can't verify what many of them say that science know."

You don't seem to understand that those words only apply to people who haven't learned the science or how to evaluate evidence properly. Nothing is verifiable to such a person because he is unprepared to look at an evidenced argument, understand it, and change his position if it is compelling. YOU don't understand. Nothing can be verified to YOU. But that's not the case for others.

"Necessitate?" You want necessitate for God in history and dismiss faith

Yes. Those are his rules and mine as well. There needs to be a reason to postulate that a god exists, meaning that either that god needs to present itself, or do something that the blind laws of nature couldn't do without it.

Suppose you come home and find everything just as you left it. Will you postulate that a burglar has been there? Suppose a piece of paper under an open window is not on the floor? Will you now postulate a home invasion had occurred?

How about if the TV you left off is now on and there are dirty dishes that weren't there before? Only now will you begin to think in terms of an intelligence intervening. Why? Because only now have you discovered something that requires more than the blind forces of nature to account for. Science is the same. You keep wanting to say that there was or is a god involved in the ways of nature, but we have no findings that require a god to account for. None.

 

[Brian2]

No, it comes from the notion that if the irreducible is shown to be reducible, calling it irreducible no longer makes sense.

Where is it shown that the flagellum motor can work after bits have been removed?

 

[Brian2]

The same is true of any scientist of any or no faith.
Their view on religion has no bearing if the objective demonstrability of the work has been tested and verified.

Thus it is very disingenuous to conflate the work of Newton with the ASA which as you have admitted is a religious organization…..
are you suggesting that a religious apology organization is not biased?

Am I suggesting that a religious abology organization is not biased?
Hmmm, I suppose that would depend on what they said, don't you think.
Or do you just see any religious abology organization as biased?
After all you seem to want to say that ASA is biased simply because of it's religious views and that it is an apologist organisation.

 

[Brian2]

Once again by being repeatedly tested and confirmed.

How does showing over and over again that certain things can occur, verify that they did occur in a certain circumstance millions of years ago?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where is it shown that the flagellum motor can work after bits have been removed?

You are missing an important point. It worked, but not as a flagellum motor. Do you know what an emergent process is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How does showing over and over again that certain chemical reaction can occur, verify that they did occur in a certain circumstance millions of years ago?

Really? You can't even ask a proper question? Of course you can't because then you would know that you are wrong.

 

[Brian2]

I don't understand the comment. You claim evidence that cannot be examined, so how can it be evidence?

Just as your personal experiences can serve as evidence for you so they can serve as evidence for anyone, even if they cannot be examined by science.

 

[Brian2]

A person that thinks they are Napoleon can be convinced they are Napoleon. Would you believe they are Napoleon based on the evidence of Napoleon that is widely available.

That person believes his experiences happened and are happening. His evidence cannot be shared.

So, he must be Napoleon in the 21st Century by the standard you are promoting.

I didn't say that person must be Napoleon, but I do say that the person's personal experiences are evidence for the person.

 

[Brian2]

He knows how to work in the laboratory. He does not have any experience working in nature.

He knows what is needed to synthesize chemicals and that the conditions need to controlled and that a supply of ingredients need to exist on hand and that if one chemical in the equation manages to synthesize it will decay in nature before other needed chemicals can come along to complete the synthesization.

You cannot believe what Tour says about other scientists. Long before Professor Dave was involved he was caught lying about Jack Szostak. He is far beyond Tour's level. And he did end up giving a rather mealy mouthed apology where he did not openly admit to all of his lies. I could provide you with some videos about that and probably some articles.

Your and Professor Dave's ad hominen attacks don't answer his arguments.