1. 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!

Featured Shocking claim to Macro-evolution!

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by tosca1, May 13, 2019.

  1. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    3,068
    Ratings:
    +2,178
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Look, the guy has no science to offer. He has made no observations of nature about this and has no testable theory or hypothesis.

    All he does is state he thinks that for human beings to synthesise life (implicitly using human methods and on a human timescale) is unimaginably difficult. So he is, for this reason, personally incredulous that life can have arisen naturally. This is the Argument from Personal Incredulity. It is not a scientific argument. Basically it amounts to this "I think it is all too difficult, therefore God did it." What kind of an argument is that? It's the same argument as mediaeval people used to explain things like thunder, or disease. "We don't understand it so it must be an act of God."

    The way science approaches the origin of life is like this. We know once there was no life and now there is. So it arose, by some process. Now, the scientific method employs methodological naturalism. In other words, what science does is to seek explanations of nature in terms of nature. So science sets about considering what sorts of natural processes might have been able to give rise to the various molecules, chemical reaction schemes and structures that we find in living things.

    And it is a hard problem, one of the hardest and most interesting in the whole of modern science. But we do have some testable hypotheses for bits and pieces of this gigantic jigsaw puzzle and we get more every year.

    What science will never do, and I mean never, is to throw its hands up and say we can't solve this, ergo it must be a miracle worked by God. That is just not scientific.
     
    • Winner Winner x 4
  2. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    21,509
    Ratings:
    +11,803
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I was curious if you understood that why they do is not assumption. Your claim indicated that you thought that it was.

    By the way, you should realize that arguing about abiogenesis is in essence conceding the evolution debate. Evolution does not rely on a specific first source of life. That means that moving the goal posts to a something that does not matter to the evolution debate is in effect acknowledging that it is a fact.

    Evolution occurred once life was here. It does not matter whether life was the product of abiogenesis, aliens seeding the Earth, or even a God making the first cell. For some odd reason many creationist think that abiogenesis is a weak point of evolution when it has no bearing on the problem at all.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    21,509
    Ratings:
    +11,803
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Thanks, I did answer this for you to, but let me try to so again with a little more depth.

    But as I pointed out if you want to claim that there were assumptions the burden of proof is upon you. Assumptions of that sort simply are not allowed in the sciences. In fact when scientists say "assuming that . . . " they are referring to an idea that has already been well established. One of the rules of the sciences is that one does not have to reinvent the wheel in every argument.

    Also if you want to claim that something is not possible you once again put the burden of proof upon yourself. You would have to prove that abiogensis is not possible and no scientist appears to even have any scientific evidence for that claim.

    As to the supernatural there is no reliable evidence for it either. Unanswered questions are never evidence for the supernatural. In fact the supernatural is poorly defined so that it is all but untestable.

    As I pointed out earlier you may be accusing others of your wrong doings. I see assumptions by you, statements made that you cannot support. I do not see assumptions made by scientists.
     
  4. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,499
    Ratings:
    +980
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    How is it that you guys seem to get that from Tour, and I don't?
    Could it be you don't really listen to him?
    All the lectures I listened to from Tour, were clearly explained, and they were nowhere near how you described.
    They were more like this... "You don't understand head nor tail how your teory works, nor how it's supposed to work. You can't even explain it without sweeping all the problems under the rug. After you do that, it's even more of a problem explaining it."
     
  5. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,499
    Ratings:
    +980
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Haven't I already been through this?


    It is assumed that this will happen, or has happened. Is it not?
    No, the fossil record, and DNA evidence is just interpreted to support the presumption.
     
  6. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,499
    Ratings:
    +980
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    You don't need to remind me. I already have mentioned your rootless propped up tree.
    Sorry. Got to go.
     
  7. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Suffrin' Succotash
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    23,947
    Ratings:
    +7,145
    Religion:
    Liberal Christian almost quaker
    Your only real argument is paranoid insistence that scientists are puppets. We've already said, repeatedly, evolution stands on its own and was not and never has been founded on abiogenesis. Its based on facts and cannot speak to abiogenesis, which is how I can see this chemists statements don't apply as they have been put forward in the OP.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    7,982
    Ratings:
    +3,586
    Um, no. The fossil record and DNA literally make absolutely no sense without the explanatory framework of common descent. The facts provide the basis for the model, not the other way around. The fact that the idea was intuited beforehand did not bias the facts - they came up in favour of that particular idea. Without common descent, the fossil record and DNA would be utterly inexplicable.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  9. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    21,509
    Ratings:
    +11,803
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Because he openly lies in his presentation. If you watch the video that I linked it becomes clear.
     
  10. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    21,509
    Ratings:
    +11,803
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Please, this is not a proper response. It is far from honest since you cannot support any of your claims. You are trying to push a dishonest argument when you move the goalposts. I will continue to remind you that you have already tacitly agreed that evolution is a fact.
     
  11. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    21,509
    Ratings:
    +11,803
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Your link does not work nor can you demonstrate any assumptions. You do need to start your other thread since it appears That you do not understand the scientific method.
     
  12. John53

    John53 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2017
    Messages:
    429
    Ratings:
    +441
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Love how they won't believe the vast majority of scientists but if they find one they claim agrees with them then they think his/her word becomes gospel.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  13. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,069
    Ratings:
    +2,384
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    Forgive me if I misunderstand your purpose in posting this, but it seems to be a criticism of the theory of evolution because it's not perfectly understood.

    If that's wrong I'd be grateful for your correction.

    If it's right, then please understand that there are no absolutes in science. Nothing is perfectly understood in science ─ or as Brian Cox remarked, a rule of physics is an informed statement about physics that hasn't been disproven.

    The whole adventure of science is addressing what we don't know, trying this, as well as re-trying that, checking that what we thought we knew is indeed the case (as far as we can tell).

    So Mr Tour's remarks are hardly Shock Horror! headlines ─ rather, steps in the education of Mr Tour.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    1,057
    Ratings:
    +709
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Sure, there is a beginning of the chain of some sorts.

    However, not knowing what the first piece of the chain looks like, doesn't stop your from studying the chain.
    It doesn't matter what the first piece is. The chain remains the same, wheter the first piece is a golden plate or crude rock.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    1,057
    Ratings:
    +709
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Evolution happens due to how life works, not due to how life originated.

    How it originated might provide explanation for why it works the way it does though.
    But NO MATTER how it originated, it still works the way it does.

    Finding out that it originated in way X instead of way Y, will not change the nature of life as we observe it nore how it works.

    Evolution happens, wheter life was created by your god of choice, planted here by alien engineers or orginated as a result of some natural chemical reaction.
     
  16. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    3,068
    Ratings:
    +2,178
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    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.
     
  17. tosca1

    tosca1 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2019
    Messages:
    226
    Ratings:
    +42
    He has already published several books!

    What I find "mystical" about his claim is that......the science community seems to be very, very silent about this!

    Like I've given above, he also wrote an open letter to his colleagues, basically challenging them to refute him!
     
  18. tosca1

    tosca1 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2019
    Messages:
    226
    Ratings:
    +42
    That's your opinion.....and, it's irrelevant!

    Tour is challenging his colleagues to refute his claim.
    He's taking on the science community!
    That's the point!
     
  19. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    21,509
    Ratings:
    +11,803
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Did you watch the video that I linked? It not only refutes him, it shows how he lied about the work of another scientist.
     
  20. tosca1

    tosca1 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2019
    Messages:
    226
    Ratings:
    +42
    You should read the first two or three posts I gave above.
     
Loading...