Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Evolutionists do not understand OOL

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Evolutionists do not understand OOL

    .
    "Evolutionists do not understand OOL" is a headline statement not from me (although I have often said the same), it is a statement from Dr. James Tour - recognized as one of the 50 most influential scientists in the world today and author of over 500 research papers in the last 30 years.

    In this article: http://christiannews.net/2014/10/13/...rigin-of-life/ Tour says several things that caught my eye. Here they are with a brief comment from me:

    "Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science-with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners," Tour stated. "I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public-because it's a scary thing, if you say what I just said-I say, 'Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?'"

    The answer he inevitably receives, Tour explained, is: "no."

    "Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go, 'Uh-uh. Nope.'" Tour said. "And if they're afraid to say 'yes,' they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can't sincerely do it."


    Those statements from Tour don't surprise me in the least. It agrees with other material that I've posted here on TWeb. There is FEAR within the "scientific" community - FEAR that if they spoke freely about what the evidence and logic indicates they'd be ousted as "pseudoscientists" ... they'd lose their grant money and possibly even their jobs.

    At the Cornell Symposium back in 2011 we were at a dinner and one of the prominent participants used that same word - FEAR - to describe why many scientists including himself did not speak out. It's disgusting and shameful! Thank you, Evolutionists!


    "From what I can see, microevolution is a fact; we see it all around us regarding small changes within a species, and biologists demonstrate this procedure in their labs on a daily basis. Hence, there is no argument regarding microevolution," he wrote in a blog post. "The core of the debate for me, therefore, is the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution."

    Here again Tour says something that I have stated often here on TWeb. In my words: there is evolution (observable, testable science) and then there is Evolution (non-observable, non-testable extrapolation based on a BELIEF that something occurred).

    Sadly and tragically (certainly where Evolution is concerned), in today's "science" we often find that extrapolation has replaced observation. The rock-solid foundation of true science has been substituted with beliefs based on a religious ideology (Materialism). So say I, Jorge.


    "If evolution cannot account for life's existence, then how did life originate? Tour says the most reasonable answer is simple. "I believe fundamentally that God created us all," he told the Houston Chronicle."

    As a good, true scientist, Tour simply follows the evidence to its logical conclusion.

    Read 'em and weep, children.

    Jorge

  • #2
    This guy seems to be confusing macroevolution with abiogenesis (I assume he is talking about abiogenesis, if he is citing synthetic chemists as authorities, rather than biologists). Do we know how life started? No. We have some idea how it may well have happened, but it is tentative. Such is the nature of the beast. So when Tours is sat in the back rooms with these unnamed scientists, of course they say no, they do not know how abiogenesis happened.

    Then he slips to macro evolution.

    "From what I can see, microevolution is a fact; we see it all around us regarding small changes within a species, and biologists demonstrate this procedure in their labs on a daily basis. Hence, there is no argument regarding microevolution," he wrote in a blog post. "The core of the debate for me, therefore, is the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution."

    So here we have a guy who is apparently a world expert in organic chemistry, talking authoritatively about biological evolution. And yet the guy knows nothing about it!

    How do I know he is ignorant of the subject? He freely admits it in the cited article:

    I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you,” he says in the video. “Is it okay for me to say, ‘I don’t understand this’? Is that all right? I know that there’s a lot of people out there that don’t understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don’t understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual.

    Has this guy tried talking to biologists about the evidence for macro evolution? He works at a university with plenty of them. Perhaps he needs to sit with some of these guys to understand what the overwhelming evidence for macro evolution is. Perhaps he needs to keep his mouth shut about the subject until he does understand it.
    My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
      This guy seems to be confusing macroevolution with abiogenesis (I assume he is talking about abiogenesis, if he is citing synthetic chemists as authorities, rather than biologists). Do we know how life started? No. We have some idea how it may well have happened, but it is tentative. Such is the nature of the beast. So when Tours is sat in the back rooms with these unnamed scientists, of course they say no, they do not know how abiogenesis happened.

      Then he slips to macro evolution.

      "From what I can see, microevolution is a fact; we see it all around us regarding small changes within a species, and biologists demonstrate this procedure in their labs on a daily basis. Hence, there is no argument regarding microevolution," he wrote in a blog post. "The core of the debate for me, therefore, is the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution."

      So here we have a guy who is apparently a world expert in organic chemistry, talking authoritatively about biological evolution. And yet the guy knows nothing about it!

      How do I know he is ignorant of the subject? He freely admits it in the cited article:

      I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you,” he says in the video. “Is it okay for me to say, ‘I don’t understand this’? Is that all right? I know that there’s a lot of people out there that don’t understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don’t understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual.

      Has this guy tried talking to biologists about the evidence for macro evolution? He works at a university with plenty of them. Perhaps he needs to sit with some of these guys to understand what the overwhelming evidence for macro evolution is. Perhaps he needs to keep his mouth shut about the subject until he does understand it.
      He's actually offered to buy lunch for someone who will come and explain it to him.

      Source: Dr. James Tour

      Some are disconcerted or even angered that I signed a statement back in 2001 along with over 700 other scientists: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”¯ Do not the texts written by the two authors above underscore what I signed, namely, “Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged”¯? And these “oldest problems in evolutionary biology”¯ lead me and many others to our being “skeptical.”¯ It is not a matter of politics. I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? Furthermore, when I, a non-conformist, ask proponents for clarification, they get flustered in public and confessional in private wherein they sheepishly confess that they really don’t understand either. Well, that is all I am saying: I do not understand. But I am saying it publicly as opposed to privately. Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me. Lunch will be my treat. Until then, I will maintain that no chemist understands, hence we are collectively bewildered. And I have not even addressed origin of first life issues. For me, that is even more scientifically mysterious than evolution. Darwin never addressed origin of life, and I can see why he did not; he was far too smart for that. Present day scientists that expose their thoughts on this become ever so timid when they talk with me privately. I simply can not understand the source of their confidence when addressing their positions publicly.

      © Copyright Original Source



      Source.

      It doesn't look like he's not trying to understand things.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
        This guy seems to be confusing macroevolution with abiogenesis (I assume he is talking about abiogenesis, if he is citing synthetic chemists as authorities, rather than biologists). Do we know how life started? No. We have some idea how it may well have happened, but it is tentative. Such is the nature of the beast. So when Tours is sat in the back rooms with these unnamed scientists, of course they say no, they do not know how abiogenesis happened.

        Then he slips to macro evolution.

        "From what I can see, microevolution is a fact; we see it all around us regarding small changes within a species, and biologists demonstrate this procedure in their labs on a daily basis. Hence, there is no argument regarding microevolution," he wrote in a blog post. "The core of the debate for me, therefore, is the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution."

        So here we have a guy who is apparently a world expert in organic chemistry, talking authoritatively about biological evolution. And yet the guy knows nothing about it!

        How do I know he is ignorant of the subject? He freely admits it in the cited article:

        I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you,” he says in the video. “Is it okay for me to say, ‘I don’t understand this’? Is that all right? I know that there’s a lot of people out there that don’t understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don’t understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual.

        Has this guy tried talking to biologists about the evidence for macro evolution? He works at a university with plenty of them. Perhaps he needs to sit with some of these guys to understand what the overwhelming evidence for macro evolution is. Perhaps he needs to keep his mouth shut about the subject until he does understand it.
        I think he understand the issue quite well, thank you.

        As do I (the rabidly-prejudiced opinions of certain TWebbers notwithstanding).

        The trivially-simple fact that most people seem unwilling to confess is that there cannot be any "Evolution" until genetic material (or some semblance thereof) can be passed from the parent generation to the daughter generation. And for that to happen you must solve the OOL problem starting from ONLY basic chemicals.

        That is the issue that Dr. Tour is highlighting here using his expertise and experience (including rubbing elbows with Medal of Science winners and Nobel laureates). Now, if you can refute his point -- not just based on your personal incredulity and Materialistic beliefs -- then please do so.

        Jorge

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
          He's actually offered to buy lunch for someone who will come and explain it to him.

          Source: Dr. James Tour

          Some are disconcerted or even angered that I signed a statement back in 2001 along with over 700 other scientists: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”¯ Do not the texts written by the two authors above underscore what I signed, namely, “Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged”¯? And these “oldest problems in evolutionary biology”¯ lead me and many others to our being “skeptical.”¯ It is not a matter of politics. I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? Furthermore, when I, a non-conformist, ask proponents for clarification, they get flustered in public and confessional in private wherein they sheepishly confess that they really don’t understand either. Well, that is all I am saying: I do not understand. But I am saying it publicly as opposed to privately. Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me. Lunch will be my treat. Until then, I will maintain that no chemist understands, hence we are collectively bewildered. And I have not even addressed origin of first life issues. For me, that is even more scientifically mysterious than evolution. Darwin never addressed origin of life, and I can see why he did not; he was far too smart for that. Present day scientists that expose their thoughts on this become ever so timid when they talk with me privately. I simply can not understand the source of their confidence when addressing their positions publicly.

          © Copyright Original Source



          Source.

          It doesn't look like he's not trying to understand things.
          The Evo-Faithful run from the OOL problem as if they were running from a carrier of the Bubonic Plague that had also contracted AIDS and Ebola. OOL is one of the 'Waterloos' of Materialism. Other than arm-waving and just-so stories they have NOTHING. Even hard science doesn't support abiogenesis.

          What essentially all of them do is shelf the OOL problem, pretend it doesn't exist, and then blissfully continue with their lives while promoting their pseudo-scientific beliefs. The howler is that they claim to be founded exclusively on "science and logic". Not even Hollywood could do better.

          Jorge

          Comment


          • #6
            I'd buy lunch for anyone who could explain the Appalachian cyclothems being formed in a one year Fludde.

            Are you up for the challenge, Jor?

            K54

            Comment


            • #7
              Oh, and I do agree that the conflation of OOL with biological evolution is indication of gross ignorance and/or intentional obfuscation to keep the uninformed in the fold.

              I'm more and more convinced that YEC is a sick heretical cult.

              Moderators, ban me if you will. At this point in my life I'm interested in truth not cultic musings of ignorami like the Jor-Meister,

              K54

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                I think he understand the issue quite well, thank you.
                You mean he agrees with you about it.
                As do I (the rabidly-prejudiced opinions of certain TWebbers notwithstanding).
                You mean you agree with him about it.
                The trivially-simple fact that most people seem unwilling to confess is that there cannot be any "Evolution" until genetic material (or some semblance thereof) can be passed from the parent generation to the daughter generation. And for that to happen you must solve the OOL problem starting from ONLY basic chemicals.
                We all know that. The fact that science has yet to determine how that happened does not mean evolution never happened. It means we still have things to learn. It is disturbing that a scientist things a lack of knowledge can be evidence for something (but business as usual for a creationist, of course).
                My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                  Oh, and I do agree that the conflation of OOL with biological evolution is indication of gross ignorance and/or intentional obfuscation to keep the uninformed in the fold.

                  I'm more and more convinced that YEC is a sick heretical cult.

                  K54
                  "The Evo-Faithful run from the OOL problem as if they were running from
                  a carrier of the Bubonic Plague that had also contracted AIDS and Ebola."


                  I'm so sorry to hear of your Bubonic Plague, AIDS and Ebola.

                  Jorge

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                    You mean he agrees with you about it.

                    You mean you agree with him about it.

                    We all know that. The fact that science has yet to determine how that happened does not mean evolution never happened. It means we still have things to learn. It is disturbing that a scientist things a lack of knowledge can be evidence for something (but business as usual for a creationist, of course).
                    The FAITH of you people never ceases to impress me. I'm jealous!

                    Perhaps some day, when I grow up, my faith can be as great as yours.

                    The thing that sticks in my craw is how you people insist ad nauseum
                    that you are based on "pure science and logic" when the fact of the
                    matter is that you have the religious faith of a Bali Snake-God Worshiper.

                    Jorge

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      .
                      "Evolutionists do not understand OOL" is a headline statement not from me (although I have often said the same), it is a statement from Dr. James Tour - recognized as one of the 50 most influential scientists in the world today and author of over 500 research papers in the last 30 years.

                      ...

                      As a good, true scientist, Tour simply follows the evidence to its logical conclusion.

                      Read 'em and weep, children.

                      Jorge
                      I've met Jim Tour and am very impressed by him. He is a kind, sincere, humble person who was raised Jewish before he became a Christian.

                      Tour is an old-earth creationist, similar to Hugh Ross, not a YEC like Jorge. So in other contexts, Jorge would be calling him a "compromiser" and questioning his spirituality. But as Jorge says, "Tour simply follows the evidence to its logical conclusion"--and the evidence leads to OEC.

                      (Yes, Tour is a synthetic chemist, not a biologist. But he has spoken with numerous leading biologists. I'm sure that understands the difference between macro-evolution and abiogenesis.)
                      "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                        "The Evo-Faithful run from the OOL problem as if they were running from
                        a carrier of the Bubonic Plague that had also contracted AIDS and Ebola."


                        I'm so sorry to hear of your Bubonic Plague, AIDS and Ebola.

                        Jorge
                        Wow, that's a creative answer.

                        Apparently you don't understand the difference between opinions and science.

                        Here's a hint, "Science" is supposed to be what you and Werner "von Braun" are supposed to be doing.

                        BTW, do you know the difference between THAT God creates and HOW God creates?

                        I know what a Kindergarten answer is. Do you agree with that?

                        Gawd, "debating" you is more fun than a barrel of monkeys.

                        K54

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                          .
                          "Evolutionists do not understand OOL" is a headline statement not from me (although I have often said the same), it is a statement from Dr. James Tour...
                          That's a lie.

                          It is not a statement made by James Tour. It is the headline of an article written by Garrett Haley of Christian News.

                          That statement does not occur in any of the quotes on the page cited, or on the blog post referred to. Nor have I found it in the linked video.

                          Roy
                          Last edited by Roy; 10-15-2014, 03:02 PM.
                          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                          mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                          Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                          Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Jorge DO YOU EVER consider doing something else?
                            A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
                            George Bernard Shaw

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                              .
                              "Evolutionists do not understand OOL" is a headline statement not from me (although I have often said the same), it is a statement from Dr. James Tour - recognized as one of the 50 most influential scientists in the world today and author of over 500 research papers in the last 30 years.

                              In this article: http://christiannews.net/2014/10/13/...rigin-of-life/ Tour says several things that caught my eye. Here they are with a brief comment from me:

                              "Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science-with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners," Tour stated. "I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public-because it's a scary thing, if you say what I just said-I say, 'Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?'"

                              The answer he inevitably receives, Tour explained, is: "no."

                              "Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go, 'Uh-uh. Nope.'" Tour said. "And if they're afraid to say 'yes,' they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can't sincerely do it."


                              Those statements from Tour don't surprise me in the least. It agrees with other material that I've posted here on TWeb. There is FEAR within the "scientific" community - FEAR that if they spoke freely about what the evidence and logic indicates they'd be ousted as "pseudoscientists" ... they'd lose their grant money and possibly even their jobs.

                              At the Cornell Symposium back in 2011 we were at a dinner and one of the prominent participants used that same word - FEAR - to describe why many scientists including himself did not speak out. It's disgusting and shameful! Thank you, Evolutionists!


                              "From what I can see, microevolution is a fact; we see it all around us regarding small changes within a species, and biologists demonstrate this procedure in their labs on a daily basis. Hence, there is no argument regarding microevolution," he wrote in a blog post. "The core of the debate for me, therefore, is the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution."

                              Here again Tour says something that I have stated often here on TWeb. In my words: there is evolution (observable, testable science) and then there is Evolution (non-observable, non-testable extrapolation based on a BELIEF that something occurred).

                              Sadly and tragically (certainly where Evolution is concerned), in today's "science" we often find that extrapolation has replaced observation. The rock-solid foundation of true science has been substituted with beliefs based on a religious ideology (Materialism). So say I, Jorge.


                              "If evolution cannot account for life's existence, then how did life originate? Tour says the most reasonable answer is simple. "I believe fundamentally that God created us all," he told the Houston Chronicle."

                              As a good, true scientist, Tour simply follows the evidence to its logical conclusion.

                              Read 'em and weep, children.

                              Jorge
                              I've yet to read an article by any origin of life researcher in which the researcher claims to understand how life originated.

                              So this guy is not saying anything new.

                              You are simply ranting and being silly again Jorge, because you are too old to run away quickly.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-17-2020, 05:11 PM
                              7 responses
                              35 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-09-2020, 09:25 PM
                              0 responses
                              22 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 10-09-2020, 03:29 PM
                              6 responses
                              51 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-07-2020, 12:11 PM
                              0 responses
                              10 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Sherman, 10-06-2020, 03:31 PM
                              40 responses
                              237 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X