• 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!

Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
tosca1 said:
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!
Click to expand...
Wrong, Szostak made an error. It was not a lie. And unlike Tour, he acknowledged his error. Tour gave a fake apology that was simply another lie. His video is still up on the internet. He lied in that video several times. Or are you claiming that he didn't? The only way he could not have lied is if he forgot all of the chemistry that he kearned. In other words he is either an idiot or a liar, either way his work is worthless.
 
nPeace

nPeace

Veteran Member
exchemist said:
But what is this "theory" that he claims science doesn't understand the workings of? Does he mean evolution, or abiogenesis?

If he means abiogenesis, then he is wrong to suggest there even is a theory of that. There isn't.

If he means evolution then he is wrong to suggest you need to understand any of the chemistry in order for the theory to be valid.

If you can clarify which of the two he means, we can take the discussion further.
Click to expand...
The lectures were on evolution.
It's not about understanding chemistry. How can you say something works a particular way when you don't understand how it works?, is the problem.
You are just making assumptions. It is impossible for you to explain it in reality.

@exchemist by the way, it's not that the thing actually works, and you are seeing it work, but not understanding how it works. You are making an assumption that it works, and making assumptions on how it will work.
 
Last edited:
nPeace

nPeace

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
This is incorrect. There is no presumption. The evidence supports only the theory of evolution. We will have to go over the concept of scientific evidence, but that should be clear once we do so.
Click to expand...
I'm back earlier than I presumed. There was another process running, which was slowing the computer. I stopped that, so it's a little better.
So where were we?
You were to explain what you meant here.
Also, you asked me to prove that they make assumptions. Unbelievable that you would ask this. It's tiring to me, but I will do it one more time. Not today, as my browser is still taking a year to load a page.
Perhaps tomorrow, and I will recreate that thread the same time.
 
nPeace

nPeace

Veteran Member
@Subduction Zone I'll watch that video now, so don't think I have left the planet, if you don't hear me in a while. ;)

Edit
Hmmm. @Subduction Zone I can't get the video watched. It's seems everything on my computer has slowed to a crawl. I'll have to see if things are better tomorrow... or later. :(
 
Last edited:
sayak83

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
tosca1 said:
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!"
Click to expand...
Seriously?? Let me enlighten you to the fact that 99.99% of scientists and evolutionary biologists do not care at all about what Intelligence Design advocates are doing or saying....just as 99.999% of geologists and NASA scientists do not care at all about what is being said by the flat earth society in their talks and meetings.

Richard Dawkins and a few (very very few) other scientists who mostly work as science popularizers and educators are exceptions. And anyways, his God Delusion book is his own personal opinion, which he is free to express...but it is not a scientific work in any sense of the term. All scientific books (not popular science ones) have to be published by Academic Press publications (University Press or Springer/Elsevier etc.), where the claims of the books have to go through a thorough peer review before being accepted. A sample of the process is shown here for Elsevier book publications,

Book Authors

You will need to include the following in your proposal:

  • Title
  • Author(s) and/or editor(s) – Please include the names and background of the author(s) or the editor(s) and, if known, intended contributor(s). A brief curriculum vitae for each author/editor is welcome.
  • Aims and scope/background and purpose – This section is the heart of the proposal and should give us a good sense of the purpose and scope of your project. You should take time to be as detailed as possible when writing this part of your proposal. Some of the questions to answer include: Why is this project needed? What will it cover? What will be the level of depth? What is special about the style and approach? What is special about the writers and editors?
  • Your intended audience and its needs – Tailoring content and features from the outset to address the needs of a particular audience will help to make it a success.
  • What problem does this product solve? – Clearly explain how this content will help readers. How will they use the content in their work? At what point in the researcher workflow does this help them to solve a problem? What problems will this help them to solve?
  • Competing resources – If competition to your proposed book exists, responding to the strengths and weaknesses of that competition in what you include will help us to position the book clearly for our reviewers and customers.
  • Table of contents – The table of contents should include part or section titles, chapter titles, appendices and anything else that is part of the manuscript. List the chapters in the sequence in which they will appear.
  • Sample chapter – Be prepared to produce a sample chapter (or part of a chapter), if asked, to show the level, approach and style of writing of the book.
  • Qualified reviewers – Include the names and email addresses of at least three qualified reviewers in your field. Be prepared to rework your outline at a later stage in the light of feedback you may get from us and from our reviewers.
  • Clarity and discoverability – Help our reviewers to understand your planned content — and later in the process, potential readers to discover your content - by choosing a working book title, keywords and chapter titles that clearly describe the material you are covering using the most relevant terms.
Unless and until somebody has actually published their claims in such an academic book or scientific journal, no scientist will take notice or care.

Examples of books on evolutionary biology that are academic in nature and goes through this thorough review process are given below,
Primate evolution
Primate Adaptation and Evolution - 3rd Edition

Plant evolution
The Evolution of Plant Physiology - 1st Edition

Fish Evolution
Biology and Evolution of the Mexican Cavefish - 1st Edition

Fossil Plant Evolution
Paleobotany - 2nd Edition

Human Evolution
Human Evolutionary Biology edited by Michael P. Muehlenbein

etc.

So, no. Scientists won't usually care about what other scientists say outside of the academic forums and publications especially designed and curated to disseminate scientific work and scientific ideas.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
nPeace said:
I'm back earlier than I presumed. There was another process running, which was slowing the computer. I stopped that, so it's a little better.
So where were we?
You were to explain what you meant here.
Also, you asked me to prove that they make assumptions. Unbelievable that you would ask this. It's tiring to me, but I will do it one more time. Not today, as my browser is still taking a year to load a page.
Perhaps tomorrow, and I will recreate that thread the same time.
Click to expand...

Creationists quite often conflate abiogenesis with evolution. For example Tour's spiel was largely about abiogenesis, at least that was where he was caught lying. The theory of evolution does not rely on natural abiogenesis. It only relies on an abiogenesis event and even creationists believe in that. Since abiogenesis is a separate topic from evolution it is dishonest to move the goalposts to abiogenesis. It is in effect conceding the evolution debate. Evolution works just fine if the first life on Earth arose naturally, or if it was seeded by aliens. Or even if it was poofed magically into existence by a god.

By the way, if you cannot prove that they are making assumptions then you have no business claiming that they did make assumptions. If you think it is tiring for you think how tiring to have this dishonest claim repeated endlessly by creationist that can never explain what these supposed assumptions are. In a debate it is never wise to make a statement that you cannot back up.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
nPeace said:
@Subduction Zone I'll watch that video now, so don't think I have left the planet, if you don't hear me in a while. ;)

Edit
Hmmm. @Subduction Zone I can't get the video watched. It's seems everything on my computer has slowed to a crawl. I'll have to see if things are better tomorrow... or later. :(
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear that. Are you talking about the video where Dr. Hurd refutes and shows how Dr. Tour was lying? It is quite interesting. If you need to go into details I will be glad to help you. But of course we need to go over one point at a time.
 
We Never Know

We Never Know

No Slack
Subduction Zone said:
Creationists quite often conflate abiogenesis with evolution. For example Tour's spiel was largely about abiogenesis, at least that was where he was caught lying. The theory of evolution does not rely on natural abiogenesis. It only relies on an abiogenesis event and even creationists believe in that. Since abiogenesis is a separate topic from evolution it is dishonest to move the goalposts to abiogenesis. It is in effect conceding the evolution debate. Evolution works just fine if the first life on Earth arose naturally, or if it was seeded by aliens. Or even if it was poofed magically into existence by a god.

By the way, if you cannot prove that they are making assumptions then you have no business claiming that they did make assumptions. If you think it is tiring for you think how tiring to have this dishonest claim repeated endlessly by creationist that can never explain what these supposed assumptions are. In a debate it is never wise to make a statement that you cannot back up.
Click to expand...

Evolution as we describe it is after life existed. In reality evolution started before life as chemicals had to evolve to become life. Agree or not, prelife had to evolve to become life.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
We Never Know said:
Evolution as we describe it is after life existed. In reality evolution started before life as chemicals had to evolve to become life. Agree or not, prelife had to evolve to become life.
Click to expand...
That is true, there almost certainly some form of selection and variation before evolution. In fact like most things in this science there is no hard line between life and not life. But one thing that so many forget is that the sciences solve what it can today and works on the harder problems tomorrow. Evolution is much easier to understand than abiogenesis. In fact we were not even close to being ready to understand it until this century. The more we learn about molecular biology the more we learn about how abiogenesis may have happened.

The approach of separating out abiogenesis is a practical one. And there is nothing wrong with that.
 
We Never Know

We Never Know

No Slack
Subduction Zone said:
That is true, there almost certainly some form of selection and variation before evolution. In fact like most things in this science there is no hard line between life and not life. But one thing that so many forget is that the sciences solve what it can today and works on the harder problems tomorrow. Evolution is much easier to understand than abiogenesis. In fact we were not even close to being ready to understand it until this century. The more we learn about molecular biology the more we learn about how abiogenesis may have happened.

The approach of separating out abiogenesis is a practical one. And there is nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...

What is before evolution being chemicals had to evolve to be life. It's all evolution
 
We Never Know

We Never Know

No Slack
Subduction Zone said:
Nope, abiogenesis. Perhaps when it is well understood you can call it "evolution" but at this time the correct answer is "We don't quite know yet".
Click to expand...
Are you claiming chemicals didn't evolve to become life? If not, is that not evolution?
Evolution isn't limited to living things. Many non-living things have evolved. Our sun has evolved as well as our stars. Every thing we have made has evolved, mountains evolve, etc.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
We Never Know said:
Are you claiming chemicals didn't evolve to become life? If not, is that not evolution?
Evolution isn't limited to living things. Many non-living things have evolved. Our sun has evolved as well as our stars. Every thing we have made has evolved, mountains evolve, etc.
Click to expand...
Sigh, you are not paying attention again. Why should I explain this all over to you? And relying on equivocation fallacies.
 
We Never Know

We Never Know

No Slack
Subduction Zone said:
Sigh, you are not paying attention again. Why should I explain this all over to you? And relying on equivocation fallacies.
Click to expand...

There was no life then there were chemicals, water, lightning, etc.
What happened between no life and life. Was it chemicals and all evolving or not? It doesn't get any plainer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top