Relax. No need to go all unstable.
-
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!
- Thread starter tosca1
- Start date
Relax. Don't go all unstable and confuse views made outside of this thread with this topic. Lol.
Where did I make that claim in this thread? Cite.
Don't put words in my mouth. Stick to this thread! You don't go digging outside a topic for something irrelevant when you're.....stumped.
Now you are an authority on science. When did that happen?
exchemist
Veteran Member
This response proves you have no idea what I am talking about. Tour uttered three specific lies in his lecture, which I have listed and described.
Even if Szostak were convicted of fraud and clapped in jail, they would still be lies.
You just gotta laugh.
School yard repetition? Well now I know the quality of the individual I am dealing with.Relax. Don't go all unstable and confuse views made outside of this thread with this topic. Lol.
Where did I make that claim in this thread? Cite.
Don't put words in my mouth. Stick to this thread! You don't go digging outside a topic for something irrelevant when you're.....stumped.
The links are part of the OP and other posts you have made.
Get a grip dude. I actually never said any specific person made the claim. It was implied by the provided resources.
Lol. It's your source that could be......lying.
It's highly likely, after all Szostak himself was forced to retract a falsehood he published!
If there's anyone caught giving falsehoods (and embarrssingly admitted to it).....it's Szostak! He's been caught in a lie!
ON RECORD!
So, there!
It is hilarious. Typical. But still hilarious.
exchemist
Veteran Member
My source is a video of Tour actually giving the lecture. The molecular diagrams on his screen are something I can see for myself and what he says about them I can hear for myself.
Now, do you think glyceraldehyde can be described as a simple sugar or not? Give your reasons.
Why should I take your "refutation" as a bonafide refutation?
Just because you say you're a scientist? No offense intended - but that's not good enough.
Yes, indeed....we are in an online forum. You don't know anything about me, and I don't know anything about you.
James Tour is a world-reknown chemist. He has a reputation at stake....... therefore, that works in his favor, credibility-wise.
If he'd made some serious mistakes or had told lies about any of his claims, what more with his challenging tone - don't you think scientists (evolutionists) wouldn't be making a big hay of it? We'd surely see them plastered everywhere!
A lot of them must've an ax to grind against him! It would be a big scandal in the science community!
You can be sure of it - it'll be in every science website!
It will be just like the way Richard Dawkins was mocked for refusing to debate William Lane Craig and defend his book, "The God Delusion!"
Last edited:
I was thinking the same thing. Why is he limiting himself, when there is a spectrum of color and font size to really express his expertise on this subject?By the way, why not use a bigger variety of colours and font sizes? I'm sure that would add persuasiveness and stature to your arguments.
James Tour had openly stated that he's not a proponent of intelligent design.
https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/
It's a speaking engagement, I assume? A venue is a venue.
It has nothing to do with expertise.
We all know that sensible folks don't go for the eye-candy or distractions!
We go for the substance, right? Unless, we're like children that get easily distracted....well, that could be a problem for some.
It's only just for practicality......and, signature....or, personal style.
I use a certain color for quotes from other sources, to easily distinguish them from quoted posts in the forum.
There's also a specific color that I use for quoted Bible verses.
I use enlarged font sizes for emphasis.
I find that a lot of people i debate with seem to overlook or ignore certain key points in a post.
I give it the benefit of the doubt that they just simply missed them.
Boy, you haven't yet seen my great fondness for smileys and emojis - that's my trademark too, in other forums. But that's another story.
Anyway.....
Are we nitpicking, and being so petty....already?
I suppose it only follows personal attacks (upon which I've already been subjected to).
Mind you, that's understandable - in fact, that's standard tactics in forums, and expected from certain groups.
Last edited:
I cannot wait. I'll make popcorn.I use a certain color for quotes from other sources, to easily distinguish them from quoted posts in the forum. There's also a specific color that I use for quoted Bible verses.
I use enlarged font sizes for emphasis.
Boy, you haven't yet seen my great fondness for smileys and emojis - that's my trademark too, in other forums.
Anyway.....
Are we nitpicking, and being so petty....already?
I suppose it only follows personal attacks (upon which I've already been subjected to).
Mind you, that's understandable - in fact, that's standard tactics in forums, and expected from certain groups.
It is expected from certain groups. The same group that thinks someone's personal opinion trumps science.
So far, I have seen nothing that demonstrates anything significant about abiogenesis or evolution coming from your colorful writing.
Hey, if you can't see them - what more can I say?
At least, I'm glad you find my writing....colourful.
The reason they cannot be seen is obvious. They are not there.Hey, if you can't see them - what more can I say?
At least, I'm glad you find my writing....colourful.
gnostic
The Lost One
You have stated that he is challenging scientists on the matters of evolution and abiogenesis being “falsehoods”.
And yet, he has associated himself with organizations that lies - “falsehoods” as youth it, using media and legal pressures as propaganda to support Intelligent Design.
Why isn’t Tour refuting Intelligent Design? Why would Tour even sign up “A Scientific Descent From Darwinism”, from organisation (Discovery Institute) that have nothing to do with science?
Yes, I have already read that quote about he is not of a proponent for ID, but that’s not my real reason for my reply to you. My real reasons why he would even link himself to the Discovery Institute in the first place.
The Discovery Institute is a place where no prominent scientists and engineers should associated with, considering the propaganda they printed out annually, not unless these scientists and engineers are fundamental creationists.
To sign up anything relating to the Discovery Institute, is to put themselves in bed with the lies and misinformation that Discovery Institute advocates have put out.
Sorry, tosca1, but if you have really being paying attention to what Tour been saying in his videos, you would notice that he has been using the same tactics as all ID proponents have used, in the last 2 decades, blaming the theory of evolution for not knowing how life form in the first place.
As others have already out to you and to nPeace, evolution and abiogenesis are two different fields.
Even if you were able I debunk Abiogenesis today, that wouldn’t debunk Evolution too, because Evolution is about biodiversity, not how life from inorganic materials.
Tour is using the same argument as creationists and ID advocates and apologists have used over the years, the same tactics. And that tell me he isn’t a competent biochemist, just like Michael Behe.
But Tour isn’t really a biologist, since his main area of expertise is in nanotechnology.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You do realize that that is a lying source, don't you? And one more time, Szostak wrote a paper where he made a mistake. He realized that and asked that it be retracted. Tour openly lied about Szostak and gave a fake apology. His lies are still on the internet.
One must believe that one's God is very weak if one must lie for him. You really ought to think about that.I
And remember, your posts tell us that you do not understand the sciences at all. You are in no position to judge others.
But if you want to we can go over the lies of Tour one at a time until you understand how he lied.