You mean the guy who is not an expert in evolutionary science who says that all the evolutionary science experts are wrong?
3 Likes
So no then you can’t offer any objective evidence for either claim at all, quelle surprise.
- How (as you claimed) does the human genome evidence any deity?
- If as you claim, there is scientific evidence for a deity, why is atheism higher among scientists?
Stop using dishonest rhetoric, and answer the questions please.
Being used as an argument from authority fallacy by another demonstrated liar on here, @WhoAreYou, who reels off lie after lie, and refuses to answer questions with any integrity. She now just drops in every week or so to troll.
2 Likes
"Tour has written articles for the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank that promotes the pseudoscience of intelligent design.
Tour has also signed the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, a statement issued by the Discovery Institute disputing the scientific consensus on evolution. Tour rejects the label of intelligent design proponent. He has separately debated American YouTuber Dave Farina, and British chemist Leroy Cronin on humanity’s closeness to discovering the origin of life, with Tour arguing humanity is clueless with regards to the origin of life, contrary to researchers in the field."
I am still waiting to hear why this in any way evidenced @WhoAreYou’s claim that:
- There is scientific evidence for a deity.
- That the human genome is evidence for a deity.
a) Or for her to answer honestly why, if this were true, atheism is almost universal among elite biologists? All she has are ludicrous and of course unevidenced conspiracy theories. - Why atheism is far higher among scientists and especially elite scientists, if there is scientific evidence for a deity as she claimed.
She is peddling lies, and doing so dishonestly as well, and now her occasional drive by’s are looking like a creepy recruitment drive from some barking mad cult, which isn’t that surprising really.
2 Likes
Removed Removed Removed
Oh look who’s back …
First, I notice that you continue to avoid even acknowledging the existence of @Sheldon’s questions, let alone post something remotely resembling an attempt at an answer thereto. Indeed, once again, we see you operate in familiar creationist mode - hide for a time in the hope that we forget your output, then come back with a reboot as if none of your canards have ever been subject to scrutiny. A process made all the more fatuous by the fact that the forum provides us with a searchable permanent record of your output.
Second, this latest distraction of yours, to try and pretend that your evasion on a grand scale hasn’t already been noted by the regulars here, fails dismally not only on that ground, but on the ground that Tour is a well-known professional liar for creationism, one who has been a part of the equally mendacious Duplicity Institute for some time. His repeated farcical assertions to the effect that chemists are “clueless” about the origin of life, is rendered utterly null and void by the 100,000 plus peer reviewed scientific papers published in the prebiotic chemistry literature.
Worse still, he duplicitously misrepresents prebiotic chemistry, via the device of trying to conflate it with synthetic chemistry, a discipline that involves research into entirely different classes of chemical reaction.
Indeed, one of the facts I learned from studying actual peer reviewed scientific papers from the prebiotic chemistry literature, is that the researchers in that field have alighted upon novel chemical reactions, of a sort that a synthetic chemist would never suspect existed, and would therefore never look for. The work of John D. Sutherland is particularly apposite here, as is the work of various researchers who have alighted upon photochemical methods of synthesising key molecules in simulated interstellar conditions.
Oh, and before you post some duplicitous ex recto apologetic fabrication consisting of a quote mine of the use of the word “simulated” above, scientists know what conditions exist in interstellar gas clouds, and can replicate those conditions in a laboratory apparatus. You have heard of such tools as vacuum pumps, haven’t you? Or refrigeration?
Furthermore, scientists have a vast and detailed catalogue of spectroscopic data, informing us which molecules are present in those clouds, and the cometary ices esident therein, and can therefore replicate those cometary ices for their experiments. Not only have experiments in this vein yielded glycine and tryptophan, but a more recent paper I was introduced to also documents successful synthesis via ultraviolet photolysis of pyrimidine and purine nucleobases.
Don’t even think of playing duplicitous apologetics with my post, it will not end well for you.
Moving on …
Given his documented track record of lying on several key topics, including lying about the work of other scientists, I suspect more of the same will be found lurking in his assertions on the subject.
Well whoop de doo, you expect the American National Academy of Sciences, to accept as a member an individual who openly and publicly rejects scientific findings enjoying vast quantities of evidential support? An individual who peddles manifest lies about the research of other sicentists, and who embraces both pseudoscientific nonsense and the peddling of mendacious apologetic fabrications?
Do you really think an organisation with a reputation for rigour to protect, would damage that reputation by admitting a known quack and charlatan into their ranks? You really must live in a delusional fantasy world if you think this is going to happen.
Meanwhile, referencing this article covering a “debate” Tour took part in, he asserted the following:
That one made me laugh, given that I’m aware of scientific papers documenting the very syntheses he asserted do not exist, some of those papers dating back as far as the 1960s.
In addition, scientists have now moved on to experiments with synthetic model protocells, some of whose papers I’ve covered here in the past. Indeed, it’s been known for decades that phospholipids will self-assemble spontaneously into micelles, bilayer sheets and liposomes, simply by shaking the container. That knowledge has been used to develop synthetic model protocells, and furthermore, it has been demonstrated experimentally in the laboratory, that liposomes formed in this manner can encapsulate RNA molecules, and facilitate the beginnings of selective nutrient filtering to the internal contents. Among the papers relevant to this topic are the paper by Chen et al in 2005, and, wait for it, a paper paper by Montal & Mueller dating back to 1972, along with a paper by Yanagawa and Egami dating back to 1977. More recently, Jack Szostak was a co-author of papers on this topic in 2004, 2005 and 2009. Even my incomplete survey of the literature alighted upon over a dozen papers on this topic, detonating a nuclear depth charge under Tour’s assertions.
From that article, we also learn this:
Again, a blatant and manifest falsehood. I’ve been aware of papers documenting yet again, the reactions Tour blithely asserted did not exist, including the manner in which carbonyl sulphide catalyses the formation of peptides with yields of up to 80% after just a few hours of experimental run time.
We also learn this:
Heh, I’ve been aware of peer reviewed scientific papers documenting ribozymes and aptazymes in action for over a decade. I’ve even cited those papers in my exposition on prebiotic chemistry here, one of which covers montmorillonite catalysis of RNA formation (including ribozymes and aptazymes) dating back to 1993. Gerald F. Joyce published a paper covering this topic in some detail back in 1996.
So, already I have a large body of evidence, in the form of those peer reviewed scientific papers, that Tour is lying about prebiotic chemistry. As a corollary, I would not trust him to tell me that two plus two equals four, without double checking with a properly accredited mathematician.
Oh, and finally, with respect to your evasion of Sheldon’s questions … are you going to admit once and for all, that your distractions and non sequiturs merely demonstrate that you have no genuine answers thereto, and that your assertions on the subject of a cartoon magic man being purportedly “necessary” for the world we see around us, are precisely that - blind assertions with zero evidential support?
5 Likes
Not only creationists do this, but also flat-earthers, antivaxers, advocates of homeopathy and other alternative “medicine”, conspiracy theorists, neonazis, biblical numerologists, general bible bashers, and in general people who tend to be overconfident in their self-evaluation of their performance in their chosen subject (i.e. those at the left of the Dunning-Kruger curve).
Illustration stolen from this hour-long video of a talk held by David Dunning himself (recommended).
By the way, Dunning sets the record straight regarding which illustration actually shows the Dunning-Kruger effect starting at 24:56. Spoiler: it is not this figure:
2 Likes
NB I never actually claimed any author had met him, it seems you don’t know what contemporary means.
However here is list of contemporaries who wrote accounts of his life, some of whom did know / meet him, they include Alexander’s campaign historian Callisthenes; Alexander’s generals Ptolemy and Nearchus; Aristobulus, a junior officer on the campaigns; and Onesicritus, Alexander’s chief helmsman.
- Please demonstrate some objective evidence for this claim.
- Please explain why atheism is higher among scientists in direct contradiction of 1, without resorting to unevidenced conspiracy theories, poisoning of the well fallacies, or appeal to authority fallacies citing creationists using pseudoscience.
Still waiting for @WhoAreYou to explain what “origin of life papers” are / mean?
Faith is just complete trust or confidence in someone or something, unlike religious faith which is defined as strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. So this is mendacious for a start, and you have been asked to provide examples of such claims, that means quoting atheists by the way, not just making up claims and assigning them generically to atheists.
1 Like
Babylonian astronomical diaries (volume 1) contains a contemporary record of Alexander’s death.
Also:
1 Like
There simply is far more evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great than there is for Jesus.
More importantly no one is making or believing any supernatural claims about Alexander the Great, so it is of course a false equivalence anyway.
3 Likes
Because science is a method that is used to determine if an answer given is in fact, correct.
Hi Randy, if you highlight text in any post, a quote icon appears, clicking on that icon will open a response with the quoted text, and the name of the poster, and a link icon of an arrow to the original post, and there you can click on the clipped text and see the full post. It makes following long debates and responses very easy.
FYI the icons are an upward facing arrow, this takes you to the original post, and left of that is an icon that will reveal the entire post as well if the quote is partial.
ah ok. Thanks Sheldon!
She’s gone very quiet, not that I have much hope she will ever answer with any real integrity.
Probably set the creationist reboot countdown timer to a larger than usual value, in the hope of exceeding our memories.
Doesn’t work, of course, with people who take notes and maintain their own independent records.
2 Likes
That’s up there with asking Stephen Hawking for advice on snowboarding.
3 Likes
Or perhaps pointing him to a YouTube video explaining the “science” behind hoverboards.
Science? Scientists don’t actually know how planes fly.
No One Can Explain Why Planes Stay in the Air
Do recent explanations solve the mysteries of aerodynamic lift?
By Ed Regis
February 1, 2020
AUTHOR
has written 10 science books, including Monsters: The Hindenburg Disaster and the Birth of Pathological Technology (Basic Books, 2015). He has also logged 1,000 hours flying time as a private pilot. Credit: Nick Higgins
IN BRIEF
- On a strictly mathematical level, engineers know how to design planes that will stay aloft. But equations don’t explain why aerodynamic lift occurs.
- There are two competing theories that illuminate the forces and factors of lift. Both are incomplete explanations.
- Aerodynamicists have recently tried to close the gaps in understanding. Still, no consensus exists.
In December 2003, to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the first flight of the Wright brothers, the New York Times ran a story entitled “Staying Aloft; What Does Keep Them Up There?” The point of the piece was a simple question: What keeps planes in the air? To answer it, the Times turned to John D. Anderson, Jr., curator of aerodynamics at the National Air and Space Museum and author of several textbooks in the field.
What Anderson said, however, is that there is actually no agreement on what generates the aerodynamic force known as lift. “There is no simple one-liner answer to this,” he told the Times. People give different answers to the question, some with “religious fervor.” More than 15 years after that pronouncement, there are still different accounts of what generates lift, each with its own substantial rank of zealous defenders.
And we are going to trust the damn scientists with hoverboards! Ha! The easy answer is God done it! Prayer sustains it! Every good theist is aware of this. When will the Atheists ever wake up?
1 Like
That is why it is a good thing that science isn’t in the explaining business; it is in the prediction business. Predictions can be tested with experiments; explanations are more subjective.
3 Likes
Oh! Like the Old Testament predicted the coming of Jesus?