Interesting video about evolution and origins.

[Revoltingest]

What's a scientific argument?

Fundamentally, it's falsifiable in the material world.
This means it can be tested experimentally, & either
confirmed or disproven. (It's never found "true".)

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think he was aiming that at YECers who deny evolution and who have their own science which says that evolution and an old age earth are false.

I was referring to the argument you have repeatedly made, even though it's not the argument atheists are making.

OK



Evolution used to be used to deny the validity of the Bible and so the Bible God and that God, to a Christian, is the only true God.

It did? By whom?


All of the Christians I know accept evolution.

Yes.

 

[Valjean]

But you use evolution to deny the Bible and hence deny the one true God.

No! We believe in evolution, but generally ignore the Bible. It's not a scientific work, and says nothing about the subject.
It's you religious who jumped on the ToE as anti Biblical. The whole controversy is of your making.

The Bible is its own harshest critic, no extra tools needed.

Maybe you don't understand that to a Christian the God of the Bible is the one true God and that people, including yourself, do use evolution to deny His existence.

I use evolution to explain changes in organisms over the years. If I wanted to criticize the Bible I'd use its factual errors, edits, and contradictions to do so.

Also I feel that Sy Garte is to an extent, aiming what he said at Christians who may deny evolution, and so he says to stop arguing about evolution. That it is origins that are important when it comes to the existence of a creator God.

You've moved the goalpost. You've given up on biology-based apologetics and have now turned to theoretical physics.
Do you even know what physicists understand or say about creation?

Dawkins just recognizes that nature looks designed afaik, but denies that it is real design, just the appearance of design.

When you understand the natural mechanisms beneath the order, you realize that intentional design and manipulation is a special pleading.

 

[Valjean]

I think he was aiming that at YECers who deny evolution and who have their own science which says that evolution and an old age earth are false.

What science do YECers have? All I've heard from them is nitpicking at the real science underlying old Earth geology and biology.

Evolution used to be used to deny the validity of the Bible and so the Bible God and that God, to a Christian, is the only true God.

When? By whom?
Isn't it the other way round, with Christians using the Bible to deny the validity of the ToE?

I have heard some behind the scenes comments from abiogenesis researchers by James Tour, and they seem pesemistic about the search for an abiogenesis pathway.

What steps do you think remain to be discovered in chemical abiogenesis?

 

[Valjean]

I asked: "Have you read about the research into chemical biogenesis?"

I have heard some behind the scenes comments from abiogenesis researchers by James Tour, and they seem pesemistic about the search for an abiogenesis pathway.

So, no.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are a number of mechanisms for repair and each would need to have evolved fully working or there would be no advantage.
But maybe you are right.

That is quite incorrect. Repair mechanisms would have evolved from structures that did another job. They do not have to work "perfectly" from the get go. They only have to work better than what existed before. I can speculate if you wish, but an expert in the field could probably explain it to you much better than I ever could. You don't have to ask here. Just try to ask Google proper questions such as "how did cell repair mechanisms evolve". And viola! here is the top response that I got:

Evolutionary Origins of DNA Repair Pathways: Role of Oxygen Catastrophe in the Emergence of DNA Glycosylases - PMC

It was proposed that the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) evolved under high temperatures in an oxygen-free environment, similar to those found in deep-sea vents and on volcanic slopes. Therefore, spontaneous DNA decay, such as base loss and ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

If anyone is wondering I was feeling a bit musical.

 

[exchemist]

I have heard some behind the scenes comments from abiogenesis researchers by James Tour, and they seem pesemistic about the search for an abiogenesis pathway.

James Tour is far from an authority on abiogenesis. I had this to say when the subject of Tour previously came up:

He's a synthetic organic chemist, who self-identifies as a Messianic Jew. He is not a biochemist. He has done no work on abiogenesis research. His ideas about abiogenesis are phoney and designed to impress creationists (i.e. people who don't know much science), who assume he knows what he is talking about. There was a long thread 4 years ago about Tour, posted by some idiot who has now left the forum:

Shocking claim to Macro-evolution!

Excerpts from a very long, eye-opener of an article by James Tour. I have spoken at length with biologists, philosophers of science, mathematicians and geneticists in order to better understand evolution. Some were gracious in helping me to appreciate their positions based upon the data. Others...

www.religiousforums.com

It's a long read but, in the course of it, I watched a video of Tour giving a talk to Baptist theologians (yes, they do exist!) and identified three specific lies in what he said. Of course these Baptists all believed it. Why wouldn't they? He's a chemist, after all.

He has no theory. All he has to say is that he doesn't believe abiogenesis can have occurred naturally because he, personally, can't see how a human chemist, working in a lab, to human timescales, could synthesise a living biochemical system. And that's it!

Both Tour and Garte are exploiting their status as scientists to give the impression to people like you that they are authorities. Neither of them is. Tour is a synthetic chemist. Garte works in medicine, though he has a biochemistry PhD. If you want to be honest with yourself, you need to stop just cherry-picking the views of people with an axe to grind who don't work in the field of abiogenesis.

By the way, I must say I have never understood why some people feel it is so crucial to maintain that life began as a result of a supernatural intervention from the Almighty. Once you have accepted the science of evolution, the formation of the solar system etc., why does it matter, from a religious point of view, what the mechanism was for the origin of life? You already accept that God can work through nature rather than by interfering with it. So why is the origin of life a special case? What's the reason for all the angst?

 

[Brian2]

But it's not a goal. The process is blind.

That is what is claimed.

And here's where he abandoned the search for explanation and fell back on a childlike faith in magic and an invisible magician.

He seemed to be using his knowledge of genetics to say there is no mechanism

I'm all for awe, but inventing a facile, Goddidit! "explanation" is an abdication of the search for explanation.
Again, noöne's talking about finding "all the answers." You're constructing a straw man.

The thing about science is that if scientists don't draw a line in the sand for whatever reason, then science is not going to tell us that it is time to stop searching.
In this case the reason could be that it is a futile search to find the origins of life when all it can ever be is educated guesses. The reason might be that wanting nature to provide the laboratory conditions that science demands is silly, and then to change those conditions for us at another stage of the process is beyond silly.

I slogged through his whole presentation, and commented on it. I believe my observations were correct.
Ad homs would get us nowhere. We point out a clear failure to meet the burden of proof. The creationist error is not in who they are, but in their failure to meet their burden or demonstrate a God.

Since the video was not about providing proof in a scientific way then you missed the point.
However trying to show where science points is a reasonable thing to do.
What you have to realise is that belief in God is a faith and God is not ammenable to scientific testing so wanting that sort of testing is not sensible and seems to show faith in the scientific method.

 

[Brian2]

No, people just want him to drop his pseudoscience claims.

And every case of "apologetics" that I have seen is just Lying For Jesus. And yes, I do agree that it looks as if he was doing that. Why you seem to think that is praiseworthy is beyond my understanding

Did you even read what you were replying to?

 

[Brian2]

It would not have been needed back then. Evolution works on "good enough". Once a possible life form arose (and it does appear to be through a process of chemical evolution from my understanding) it would have worked on "good enough". That is how evolution has always worked.

At the beginning there was no competition for resources. So any offspring that could self reproduce was "Good enough". It was not until live got well enough established that various organisms would have been competing with each other that accuracy mattered. And we have had 3.8 billions of years of evolution to develop reliability since then.

Are you making a scientific hypothesis and providing your evidence or are you just making claims and stating your reasonable case from there?
I would say you are doing the latter.
Is that pseudoscience or lies or both, for the sake of denying that a God might exist?
You know that you weren't constructing a pseudo scientific hypothesis or lying I suppose, but you are very eager to accuse others of lying and wanting to promote a pseudoscience.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you even read what you were replying to?

Yes, but it seems that you do not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you making a scientific hypothesis and providing your evidence or are you just making claims and stating your reasonable case from there?
I would say you are doing the latter.

No, I am merely stating how evolution works so that a layman can understand it. Do you need sources? I can provide them.

Is that pseudoscience or lies or both, for the sake of denying that a God might exist?
You know that you weren't constructing a pseudo scientific hypothesis or lying I suppose, but you are very eager to accuse others of lying and wanting to promote a pseudoscience.

Once again with the projection. Why are you so opposed to reality? No, pseudoscience is what you have been pushing. Evolution says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of a God. It only refutes incorrect claims, such as that the Earth is flat, or that at one time there were only two people. Or that there was a magical flood. Now if your God beliefs cannot deal with those corrections that tells us more about the strength of your faith rather than the existence or nonexistence of a deity.

 

[Brian2]

If a scientist has a personal religious affiliation or not is inmaterial…… so long as that religious affiliation remains personal and doesn’t attempt to incorporate it into the scientific work they do.
If they are unable to compartmentalize their religious beliefs from their scientific work, they run a high risk of biasing and thereby discrediting their work.

So one minute you are saying that Sy Garte obviously has cognitive bias and now you are saying that he may not. Make up your mind.
For a start do you think that he was wearing his science hat or religious belief hat in the video and if you say science, then it was probably not biased.
If you say religious belief hat then realise that he was not doing a scientific analysis on the video but was giving his opinion (at a talk about apologetics) on some aspects of science and what they might mean in relation to a God.
Do you think that anyone who believes God created everything and is giving their personal views on science, is therefore cognitively biased and/or lying and wrong?
Do you hold the same view about atheists who are doing the same thing. eg Dawkins?

As for “atheist/skeptic scientists”:
Scientists generally require skepticism, if they are to be effective, since science relies on demonstrable, repeatable, testable evidence in order further its base of knowledge.
A main goal of the scientific method is to weed out bias and self deception.
Ever hear of a double blind study?

You should know that I was talking about someone who is skeptical of God's existence.

As for the atheist part….
explain to me what bias you perceive might be generated by a lack of belief in something that hasn’t demonstrated any evidence to validate it.

OK so you are of the belief that atheists are never cognitively biased about God's existence, only believers in God are cognitively biased.
I presume you do not think that denying that there is evidence for the Bible God is cognitively biase,,,,,,,,,,,,, on a grand scale. (such bias has existed in the past on certain issues and still does today)

 

[Brian2]

Yes as you admit, it is a religious organization.
As far as discrediting them…..they did it themselves in the scientific world.
However within the religious realm, you apear to credit them nonetheless.

Which organisation are you referring to?

We both agree that actual science doesn’t align itself with any particular religious viewpoint.
We also agree there are scientists that have wide variety of religious faiths.

I never said anything about them lying about the science for any reason, much less their religious viewpoint….. so please try to refrain from trying to strawman or misconstrue my point.

You listed Sye Garte’s bona fides as including his association with the ASA.
I said the ASA is a religious organization and pointed out their obvious biases.
The video posted in the OP was Garte at a christian apologist convention.

To see how that can effect the credibility of the science that any member that professes that they “believe that in creating and preserving the universe God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, the basis of scientific investigation”, see my post #118

So you think that ASA is biased because it gives a view of the science as seen from the pov of science that allows for the existence of God.
I would say that their view is relevant also and not to be dismissed just because of their religious affiliations.
To dismiss the organisation would be to dismiss individual scientists in the organisation and to also dismiss what they say without giving it consideration.
Scientific methodology does not allow spirits because they have not been demonstrated to exist. However this could just be because they are spirits and science cannot test or examine spirits. The truth is that because of this and that God and spirits cannot be falsified, they are not a question for science and do have evidence outside the realm of science.
Do you think that science plodding on and coming up with potential answers that cross over into theology and deny it, is bias on the part of science, which is blind to the unfalsifiable evidence for God, and so has to end up suggesting wrong naturalistic answers even if a God exists?

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK so you are of the belief that atheists are never cognitively biased about God's existence, only believers in God are cognitively biased.
I presume you do not think that denying that there is evidence for the Bible God is cognitively biase,,,,,,,,,,,,, on a grand scale. (such bias has existed in the past on certain issues and still does today)

We are all biased at times. But I doubt if you have evidence for the Bible. You may not understand the concept of evidence. What would you say is clear evidence for the Bible God? You claimed that to deny it is bias. It must be pretty impressive.

 

[Brian2]

Not sure where you are getting this……another strawman or misconstruing of actual points?

Science is a method of gaining knowledge about the way things work by eliminating biases and seeking objective, demonstrable, repeatable, testable evidence to support hypothesis that explain it.
God doesn’t factor into it since there has never been any evidence of one that meets that criteria, and everything that has been discovered about how things work has never been in need of one.

It sounds like you are pointing to the idea that there is no God, even though you deny it.
Science finding out how things work is one thing.
Science telling us how the universe and life came into existence is beyond science telling us how things work, and you don't know that God was not needed for those things.
But of course science is never going to say that God is needed because science cannot test for God and so cannot find God.
Science does not say that God is not needed to keep things working, that is something that comes from the mouth of atheists.
Atheists (or many atheists at least) seem to have convinced themselves that only verifiable and falsifiable evidence is evidence and so have eliminated the Bible as evidence for a start and anything else that cannot be proven one way or the other.

Please explain what is a “spirit” and demonstrate how you know God to be one.

I don't know what a spirit is but it is not part of the material universe.
I know that God is a spirit because I believe the Bible and because anything that is part of the universe and controlled by the universe is not God.

If God has an effect in the universe, then that effect should be objectively detectable.
Please show where that has been done using objective evidence.

God has had an effect on the lives of billions of people and that can be seen. The only problem is that it is not proveable that God did it.
Are you trying to tell me that belief in God is a faith and that you only believe what can be objectively shown to be true?

Nor should it:
for atheists, theists, or any rational person who cares whether what they believe can be trusted to be accurate/true.

OK so you reject faith that has evidence that is not verifiable.

Atheists that I am aware of aren’t “wanting to discredit theology” (it tends to discredit itself) but rather asking for verifiable objective evidence that the god/s that any given theology is based on actually exists.
The fact that theists can’t provide that, is a problem for theists….not for atheists.

So atheists aren't wanting to discredit theology so they come to a religious forum to do what?
You see theists already know that what they believe is not verifiable and we can tell atheists that and have, and they know. So what is the real reason atheists are on this forum?

Please explain to me then, why theists (such as yourself) vainly try to do so.

I don't try to prove God's existence by science, but try to show that the idea that God is not needed and has been shown not to be needed is rubbish,,,,, and the idea that science can say how the universe and life came to be is rubbish,,,,,,,,, and other things also no doubt.
It's usually a case of trying to show that anti God ideas are rubbish, but is not a case of trying to prove God by science.

I gave it 5 to 10 minutes;
I didn’t waste my time going through the whole thing to drag out the ever so tired god of the gaps argument from a religious apologist (who happens to have a degree in science) at a christian apologist convention attempt to insinuate that because he has a degree in science that it somehow lends credence to the aforementioned god of the gaps presentation.
I’m sorry it’s just not impressive to anyone not sharing your apparent confirmation bias or faith and manages to look at the world rationally.

What he did say is something that atheists do, squeeze science into any gap in scientific knowledge, thus making a science of the gaps. And he did not need to be a Professor to see that. I have been saying it for years.
Nobody these days is into the false God of the gaps argument except atheists, who think that every time a natural mechanism is found, that eliminates the need for God even more. But that is not a rational way to look at the world really.
And it's fine that Garte's arguments aren't impressive to you or anyone else. We are all entitled to our ideas but it is good to keep science neutral and not just saying what the atheists want it to say,,,,,,,,,,, that God is being eliminated and shown to not be needed.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

So one minute you are saying that Sy Garte obviously has cognitive bias and now you are saying that he may not. Make up your mind.

You obviously have an enormous lack of reading comprehension.

Sigh……..Do try to keep up!

Once again:

You listed Sye Garte’s bona fides as including his association with the ASA.
I said the ASA is a religious organization and pointed out their obvious biases.
The video posted in the OP was Garte at a christian apologist convention.

Read very carefully…..all the words……
Who am I saying has a cognitive bias?
My original posting about the ASA being a religious organization with obvious biases was
post #58

True….. you did attempt to conflate the two when you asked in post #102:

Which part of what you wrote about Sy Garte and the organisation he belongs to, makes cognitive bias obvious?

To which I answered in post #118:

Did you fail to read the ASA’s Statement of Faith?……..
or do you not understand cognitive bias?
In this case predominantly confirmation bias.

Try reading the Statement of Faith (particularly #3).
Now look up confirmation bias…..

Again, read very carefully……all the words……
Who am I talking about here?

I then gave you a link to an explanation of
confirmation bias (which you suffer from in spades!)
You conceded that the ASA is a religious organization in post #112:

But yes it is a religious organisation which does science and if it's science, or it's insights on science are true, accept them and if not then reject them.

Unfortunately you suffered from the misconception that they are also an organization that “does science”, which is absolutely false.

I had eluded to this fact in post #62, which you apparently couldn’t pick up on the nuance.

It is very obvious that it is (as quoted in post #58)
“a religious organization”, not a “scientific” organization despite the fact that some of it’s members are scientists or people in
science-related disciplines.

To help illuminate this for you…an analogy…..
Imagine a baking club called the “Scientist Bakers Affiliation” (SBA) whose members are scientists and people in related fields;
When they get together to bake……
they’re baking, not “doing science”.

From the link about the ASA posted before in post #58:
Scientists who were Christians and had concerns about the quality of Christian evangelism on the subject of religion and science formed the ASA in 1941.
(American Scientific Affiliation - Wikipedia)

Again, read very carefully……all the words……
Nothing about “doing science”….
All about “Christian evangelism”.

As for Sye Garte:
I am not familiar with Sye Garte’s scientific work so I am not in a position to comment about his work within his field of science.
That being said……considering his affiliation with the ASA and as I explained in post #118:

If a scientist has a personal religious affiliation or not is inmaterial…… so long as that religious affiliation remains personal and doesn’t attempt to incorporate it into the scientific work they do.
If they are unable to compartmentalize their religious beliefs from their scientific work, they run a high risk of biasing and thereby discrediting their work.

If he is able to compartmentalize his religious beliefs from his scientific work he may be able to perform meaningful scientific work.
If he is not able to compartmentalize his religious beliefs from his scientific work he runs a high risk of biases and thereby discrediting his work.

This may well be too nuanced for you…..
but try to notice the difference between
“is able to” and “is not able to”.

A quick perusal of his peer reviewed work (this is work which as been subjected to scientific scrutiny) seems to predominantly focus on cancers and carcinogens……..
Nothing remotely associated with abiogenesis.
If I missed it please point it out to me.
It is plausible that he is able to compartmentalize his religious beliefs within his actual field of work.

As both you and I have pointed out, the video which you linked was him speaking at a Christian apologist convention and that he wasn’t “doing science”, but rather performing in the role of a Christian apologist.
The fact he began his spiel with:
“How many here have a PhDs in biochemistry?…
Great so I can say anything I want.”
Along with the title “BioChemist Argues God Exists…”
Indicates that he (as have you) is purporting to bring his science training and experience to bear in an attempt to impress the gullible as to be speaking with authority on the subject.
Unfortunately, he is not applying any scientific training to his “argument”.

Now (hopefully after careful reading) show me where I need to “make up my mind”.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

You should know that I was talking about someone who is skeptical of God's existence.

I was pointing out what you and apparently
Sye Garte are mystified about:

He begins with wondering why more biologists are atheists than other disciplines

Most current biologists are atheists (89%) but that can't explain it because atheists have no confirmation bias.

To wit I explained:

Scientists generally require skepticism, if they are to be effective, since science relies on demonstrable, repeatable, testable evidence in order further its base of knowledge.
A main goal of the scientific method is to weed out bias and self deception.

After ignoring my request for a description of the bias you perceive atheists are harboring;

explain to me what bias you perceive might be generated by a lack of belief in something that hasn’t demonstrated any evidence to validate it.

Which you have yet to answer…..

You retort with

OK so you are of the belief that atheists are never cognitively biased about God's existence, only believers in God are cognitively biased.

Along with;

I presume you do not think that denying that there is evidence for the Bible God is cognitively biase

Perhaps if you show me the evidence?
I’m an atheist because nobody has yet produced
objective, demonstrable, repeatable, testable evidence.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

46 minutes and no summary?

 

[Brian2]

What we do know is that there is no need for anything but a blind, automatic mechanism, so "God did it" is evidence-free wishful thinking.

No you don't know that there is no need for anything but a blind, automatic mechanism. Is that idea wishful thinking? I hope not, it would be a depressing wish.

Yet another baseless assertion.

The question is probably whether the watchmaker was or was not blind.