Audie
Veteran Member
Dragon tiger phoenixoh oh oh I love cats.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Dragon tiger phoenixoh oh oh I love cats.
Funny how you creos always identify yourJames Tour, a prominent chemist, publicly expresses skepticism regarding the idea that species directly evolve into entirely new species, often arguing that the complexity of life and the mechanisms of evolution are not fully understood, particularly when it comes to the origin of life, and that the scientific evidence does not definitively support the idea of large-scale evolutionary leaps between distinct species.
There is over 1,000 Scientists that signed a paper..
So. He's a chemist, not a biologist and being skeptical tells us about him and nothing about the science. Scientists are a skeptical group requiring evidence and reason to convince them. Being an expert in one science does not make an expert in all science. Odd that a prominent biologist of comparable expertise hasn't been found to promote Tour's message.James Tour, a prominent chemist, publicly expresses skepticism regarding the idea that species directly evolve into entirely new species,
I don't know that anyone is arguing that any science is fully understood. They wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But we do have a massive body of knowledge and evidence on the subject and it all points to species evolving. Funny that the rejection of science is always based on some random opinion or ideology and never against the evidence.often arguing that the complexity of life and the mechanisms of evolution are not fully understood,
That is a different subject from evolution. In my experience, and I think that of many others that are more informed, creation supporters often wrongly conflate origins and evolution. Oddly, Tour, as a chemist, could hold a better position in a rational discussion of origins.particularly when it comes to the origin of life,
But the evidence does support speciation and evolution. That is the problem that has gotten ideologists so in a funk.and that the scientific evidence does not definitively support the idea of large-scale evolutionary leaps between distinct species.
That's old news. The list was compiled in 2001. There are millions of scientists in the US alone. If it were only a million, that list would represent only 0.1% of them. Not whelming, let alone overwhelming. And again, being skeptical of a theory is not evidence invalidating the theory. Scientists are supposed to be skeptical. It doesn't really say anything but that a group of scientists are skeptical and have doubts. And of that before scratching the surface of the chicanery employed to get people on that list.There is over 1,000 Scientists that signed a paper..
Or tricked into signing the list. Interesting how those that claim the moral high ground must soil themselves to hang on to it.That’s humbug, but more to the point,
not one of them has one fact contrary to
ToE.
So those few scientist's who actually do
reject evolution are simply dishonest. Like
tobacco scientists.
Oh, I believe in evolution just not your brand of evolution.
Your brand of evolution requires life to begin to exist from non-life.
Without exception.Interesting how those that claim the moral high ground must soil themselves to hang on to it.
Science starts with an assumption and works it's way from there.Science starts with theory..
|
That is one hypothesis within the ToE, thus it is not accepted as a gimmee by us.
It starts with observations and questions leading to hypotheses to test and goes from there.Science starts with an assumption and works it's way from there.
Where does it come from now? Do you have reason to conclude it wasn't the same source before? Or is it just to argue from ignorance and draw the conclusions you came in with?My question if life started to exist on earth as you posit where did the carbon and nitrogen come from?
I have "enjoyed" this sort of thing for far too long. I've seen too much more than my share of sand and holes and ostriches.Enjoy,
An earlier generation of stars that had gone supernova in the past.Science starts with an assumption and works it's way from there.
My question if life started to exist on earth as you posit where did the carbon and nitrogen come from?
Enjoy,
And what really do you have? In a discussion of facts, where are yours?Then what else you got? Share with us some magnificent discovery!!!!
Enjoy,
How about you?And what really do you have? In a discussion of facts, where are yours?
Do pleasure yourself with that.
Then what else you got? Share with us some magnificent discovery!!!!
Enjoy,
God did it is no more of an explanation than saying that Norm did it. You have no god to demonstrate nor any mechanism for it to do anything if it did exist.The "explanation" that those who believe what the Bible says about creation is yes, that God created the heavens and the earth and caused life to be on the earth.
So what? He's a creationist. Of course he makes an incredulity argument. He has to if he wants to defend his faith-based beliefs. It's not like we don't understand such people's agenda, methods, and ethics, which are antithetical to scientific biologists.James Tour, a prominent chemist, publicly expresses skepticism regarding the idea that species directly evolve into entirely new species
It looks like you don't know what the theory of evolution is or says. Evolution allows for prior creationism.Your brand of evolution requires life to begin to exist from non-life.
What do you suppose are the ingredients living cells use to make more living cells? Lifeless atoms and molecules. Life is being assembled from nonliving ingredients.Do you actually believe non-life can produce life? If so, show me the evidence.
You believe in the assumption that life began to exist on earth as you believe it did.My brand?
That's not a brand , that's science.
And that question is a misconception.
I can just reverse it to inorganic and organic.
Just how deep would the ocean have been 4 billion years ago?Those who want to re-make life are not worth of reading.
The chemistry happens under certain conditions , which is in deep water.
The pressure in deep water is at least 250x greater then at sea level.
My time is limited. Biologists and others in that field of evolution have limited time also. I place my trust in God, not those touting the theory of evolution as it currently stands. Please try to understand if you will. Thank you. If you believe everything evolutionists say about how life started and continued, best to you. But it no longer makes sense to me. Bye again.God did it is no more of an explanation than saying that Norm did it. You have no god to demonstrate nor any mechanism for it to do anything if it did exist.
So what? He's a creationist. Of course he makes an incredulity argument. He has to if he wants to defend his faith-based beliefs. It's not like we don't understand such people's agenda, methods, and ethics, which are antithetical to scientific biologists.
It looks like you don't know what the theory of evolution is or says. Evolution allows for prior creationism.
What do you suppose are the ingredients living cells use to make more living cells? Lifeless atoms and molecules. Life is being assembled from nonliving ingredients.
You might not realize it, but as a creationist, you already believe that the first life didn't come from previous life. Some creationists would call their god alive, but don't believe that it derived from prior life. And for those who don't consider disembodied mind life, then the life it is believed to have created is life that didn't come from prior life.
Your education is your responsibility. You'll need to do something like what the people you are asking to teach you have done. You'll need to begin with courses in chemistry including organic chemistry and biochemistry. Then you'll need some biology. You'll need to understand what a cell is and what metabolism is. You'll need to learn about nucleic acids, proteins, carbohydrates and lipids and their constituents.
I recommend a university education in biology.
If that's not accessible to you because of time, distance, or economic constraints, you might try an online course in abiogenesis. I searched and the only thing I found was from creationist James Tour. I would avoid such sources, but you might benefit from his series. Remember, though, that he is looking for reasons why abiogenesis didn't occur, and good science doesn't have such an agenda. The ID people demonstrated that for us. Their agenda was not to discover the truth whatever than might be, but to prove that their god exits, and they went down the rabbit hole of faux irreducible complexity. But you might learn some science from Tour even if his thinking is tendentious and his agenda pseudoscientific. Here's first in a series of videos. I didn't watch it except to sample a few seconds. It's a bit technical, but at 14:45, he went full Hoyle of junkyard 747 fame on us comparing cells to cars (screen shot below), which confirmed my suspicion that he's peddling creationism and not science:
View attachment 98761
Jack Szostak is a prominent and reliable name in abiogenesis research. Here are a few videos form him, but this isn't really entry level material and looking at it might discourage you.
This video is more digestible for an entry level viewer, but also less technical, and this is a technical topic:
Alternatively, get yourself a lay discussion or textbook on the subject, but you probably will need a chemistry background of some sort to understand a textbook
View attachment 98755
You probably aren't really interested in making such an effort, which is fine - most creationists asking for evidence on these threads don't actually look at it - but you're not going to learn this material without it.
The latter is why I'm becoming less and less interested in joining these discussions and debates. Answering the same questions over and over only to have my responses ignored and seeing the same questions raised again as if never answered. Where is the morality in taking on such tactics? Where are the Christian ethics being employed by those claiming Christianity, but only seeming to provide a lip service to it, when it is really their "version" that is being served by tactics that are supposed to be disowned by Christianity?God did it is no more of an explanation than saying that Norm did it. You have no god to demonstrate nor any mechanism for it to do anything if it did exist.
So what? He's a creationist. Of course he makes an incredulity argument. He has to if he wants to defend his faith-based beliefs. It's not like we don't understand such people's agenda, methods, and ethics, which are antithetical to scientific biologists.
It looks like you don't know what the theory of evolution is or says. Evolution allows for prior creationism.
What do you suppose are the ingredients living cells use to make more living cells? Lifeless atoms and molecules. Life is being assembled from nonliving ingredients.
You might not realize it, but as a creationist, you already believe that the first life didn't come from previous life. Some creationists would call their god alive, but don't believe that it derived from prior life. And for those who don't consider disembodied mind life, then the life it is believed to have created is life that didn't come from prior life.
Your education is your responsibility. You'll need to do something like what the people you are asking to teach you have done. You'll need to begin with courses in chemistry including organic chemistry and biochemistry. Then you'll need some biology. You'll need to understand what a cell is and what metabolism is. You'll need to learn about nucleic acids, proteins, carbohydrates and lipids and their constituents.
I recommend a university education in biology.
If that's not accessible to you because of time, distance, or economic constraints, you might try an online course in abiogenesis. I searched and the only thing I found was from creationist James Tour. I would avoid such sources, but you might benefit from his series. Remember, though, that he is looking for reasons why abiogenesis didn't occur, and good science doesn't have such an agenda. The ID people demonstrated that for us. Their agenda was not to discover the truth whatever than might be, but to prove that their god exits, and they went down the rabbit hole of faux irreducible complexity. But you might learn some science from Tour even if his thinking is tendentious and his agenda pseudoscientific. Here's first in a series of videos. I didn't watch it except to sample a few seconds. It's a bit technical, but at 14:45, he went full Hoyle of junkyard 747 fame on us comparing cells to cars (screen shot below), which confirmed my suspicion that he's peddling creationism and not science:
View attachment 98761
Jack Szostak is a prominent and reliable name in abiogenesis research. Here are a few videos form him, but this isn't really entry level material and looking at it might discourage you.
This video is more digestible for an entry level viewer, but also less technical, and this is a technical topic:
Alternatively, get yourself a lay discussion or textbook on the subject, but you probably will need a chemistry background of some sort to understand a textbook
View attachment 98755
You probably aren't really interested in making such an effort, which is fine - most creationists asking for evidence on these threads don't actually look at it - but you're not going to learn this material without it.
Yes the first life form on earth was formed from the dust of the ground.What do you suppose are the ingredients living cells use to make more living cells? Lifeless atoms and molecules. Life is being assembled from nonliving ingredients.
I take it your answer is to wave away all the evidence as if it doesn't exist and go with your personal interpretation of the Bible as the one true answer. Thanks for letting me know there is no point in further attempts at discussion with you. When no amount of evidence would convince you that your interpretation might be wrong, then there is no point in wasting the time trying.Yes the first life form on earth was formed from the dust of the ground.
But it was lacking one thing. The breath of life which had to be supplied from a living life form.
Honest, Metis, from what I have seen and learned, science is based on hypothesis. While many are assured that the theory of evolution as Darwin and his successors put it, fossils such as Tiktaalik do not confirm the theory of mutations, from fish, let's say, leading to humans and then of course, not to leave out saying humans are fish, as some declareYou have repeatedly shown you really don't care what the truth is or may be as you elevate hearsay theology over objective science. And to think that I believed the same as you do on this when in my mid-teens.