Interesting video about evolution and origins.

[Subduction Zone]

So you think that being able to produce biological chemicals in laboratory conditions verifies that they could be produced in nature?
Or do you think that a scientific suggestion of how a part of nature might have evolved is verification that it evolved?

You are not accurately describing scientific experiments or their goals. You know this. I have seen you do better in the past.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If years on the forums has not disproven my beliefs what can?

Many of your beliefs have been "disproven". You just don't acknowledge when that happens.

Being excessively literal in one's interpretation of almost any holy book is self refuting. For Christianity that is the road to YECism and Flat Earth beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whether it is science or not is not the issue. The issue is whether what Irreducible Design has been shown to be wrong in what it claims or whether it has just been shown not to be part of acceptable science.

Once again, when Behe first came up with Irreducible Complexity he did so in a manner that was scientific, that was reputable. And it was refuted. Quite easily. After that he redefined it in such a way that it was no longer testable. That makes it not science.


Since it is not science your claims of Irreducible Complexity are rightfully ignored as being no different from Flat Earth claims. Creationists are jealous quite often of the prestige that science has earned. But there is a risk to putting one's claims into a scientific form. It can be refuted. That is the risk one has to take to be a scientist

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't need to do anything,,,,,,,,,,,, especially not to repeat myself over and over.

Your inability to understand is not my problem.

 

[Valjean]

You deny the evidence that there is for spirits and God. Isn't that confirmation bias?

You are just denying that there is evidence for God when there is. What we do with that evidence is another thing, but the evidence is there.
You just reject evidence when evidence exists.

So far, you haven't pointed to any evidence that isn't imaginary. What objective evidence do you have?

.No science won't consider D because science does not have evidence for D that it can use in science, so science just plods on presuming it is correct that A,B and C explain a phenomenon,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, even if it is unverifiable that this is the case.

If we seriously considered D wouldn't we also have to consider all the hundreds of other unevidenced "possibilities" by the same token -- constructor mice, elves, Brahma, FSM, &al?

Creation myth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Science knows that certain things can be used in science as evidence and can be verified and falsified and so leaves out God.
It is atheists who are the ones who claim that evidence for God does not exist because it cannot be used by science. So atheists are the stupid ones, not logicians or scientists necessarily.

No, atheists defer belief in God for the same reason science does -- no objective evidence. Scientific utility has nothing to do with it.

Atheism doesn't necessarily claim God doesn't exist, some atheists do, but it's not a definitive feature of atheism.
Atheists and reasonable people withhold or defer belief in everything there is no objective evidence or need for, this generally includes all kinds of gods and other mythical beings, worlds and events.

How would I do that? All I am doing is pointing out that there IS evidence for a God in the Bible and history and nature and experiences of people,,,,,,,,,,,, and that what God in the Bible tells us that He did has NOT been shown to have happened naturally and never will be,,,,,,,,,,, it is unverifiable, just as the existence of God is unverifiable.

There is as much evidence for God in the Bible as there is for Hobbits in Lord of the Rings. They're both just books, written by people. It's amazing how often believers cite the Bible in conversation with rational unbelievers, apparently thinking rational interlocutors will accept its claims as authoritative.

How is there evidence for God in history, unless you including mythology? What historically verifiable events necessitate God/magic?

God in nature? Nature is complex, making it a fertile field for personal incredulity in those ignorant of its mechanisms or awed by its intricacy. Neither is evidence of magic.

Experience? We've gone over this. Anyone can claim empirically unverifiable experiences, and these are myriad. What makes a god claim more likely than any other subjective experience?

You are the one who denies there is evidence for God and maybe that is the reason you probably have so much faith that nature could do the things that need an intelligence to do.

Perhaps I'm unimaginative, but I can think of no other alternatives, once unverifiable subjective experience and tradition are off the board.

They become more likely guesses.

???? -- How so? Isn't the whole methodology of science designed to eliminate guesswork?

Even if the science is spot on in how it would have had to have happened if it happened naturally, it cannot be said that the science could have happened naturally and it cannot be said that it did not happen another way.
So I change the highlighted word to make it make sense.

I don't think I follow. Under what circumstances does it become rational to believe in something that lacks objective evidence of existence?
You speak of another way -- what other way, the supernatural? Without evidence this exists, why should it be considered a reasonable alternative by any rational person?

You're presuming that what science says about something is in the purview of science.
You're presuming that God cannot have done it because you say there is no evidence for God.
You never seem to realise that if science says things happened in the past, it cannot be verified and in that way it is not real science.

What does science study that's not within its purview? Science does not research that for which there is no evidence to evaluate. How could it?
"Goddidit" is not a mechanism, it's magic; it's an assertion of magical agency. Science studies mechanism. Magic cannot be tested. It's not falsifiable.

I presume 'it' was done by some mechanism or cause-and-effect. I don't presume magic. I think this is reasonable.
If science says something happened, and it cannot be verified, how is it science? This sounds more like folklore or religion.

Science is a dumb tool with big feet and tromps all over theology flowers because it does not know any better and is blind.
Scientists keep travelling where science leads and tromp all over the same flowers in their quest for knowledge within the rules of science.
So science can only use material evidence and so can claim that life is chemical based when that is no more than where the naturalistic scientific evidence leads and which ignores God.
But here is where the thinkers and philosophers and theologians step in and say,,,,,,,,,"You can't do that, it's BS"

Sorry, but this is nonsense. It's an emotional rant.

Current areas of study are pushing against the area that God said He did. So what do you expect.
Why do you say that origin is a real, evidence phenomenon.
How can any conclusions of science in this area be seen as legitimate science when all it can be is educated guesses? How is it even possible that I need to explain this?

Please stop with this "educated guess" nonsense. Science is not religion. It's an investigative modality specifically engineered to eliminate guesswork.
Yes, you need to explain this.

So? Theology is not there to give us scientific knowledge and science is not there to give us theological knowledge.

What is the methodology of theological research?

Science is being rational and logical given the bounderies it can work within.
It is not rational and logical if it claims to have knowledge of everything in the past when all it has is educated guesses about what MUST have happened given only natural processes.

Science does not claim knowledge of what there is no evidence of, that would be religion. Please stop conflating the two.
Science stays in its lane. It makes no religious claims. It ignores religion.
Religion, on the other hand, makes all sorts of factual and historical claims it has no evidence of. When I point this out, the faithful claim science is trespassing --

 

[Valjean]

We can examine the evidence to see if it falls apart when attacked,,,,,,,,,,, and there are plenty of attacks on the existence of God and on the Bible and Jesus.

There are refutations of the claims. If the claims are shown to be insubstantial, that leaves the things claimed flapping in the wind.

But really I suppose we know it is real evidence and not just a product of our own imagination the same way someone might know that chemicals could form naturally into life forms,,,,,,,,,,, through faith,,,,,,,,,, because there is no verification for that, just as there is no verification for many things that science might claim about what happened in the past.

Yet there is much observable evidence, and no alternative mechanism.

 

[Valjean]

That video seems to be a presumption that if part of the flagellum motor can be used for something, that means that the whole idea of Irreducible Complexity has been debunked. This thinking seems to have come from the notion that evolution is true so the flagellum must have evolved from other functioning things.

No, it comes from the notion that if the irreducible is shown to be reducible, calling it irreducible no longer makes sense.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

So you don't mind if Newton and others believed in God and Jesus, it's his science that is important. But believing in God and Jesus these days, and that God has put understandable order into His creation means that an organisation is biased.

Again……
You really need to improve on your reading comprehension.
I explained to you;

I accept what Newton and other scientists have demonstrated, which has subsequently been objectively repeatedly tested and objectively confirmed to be valid.
Not because “Newton said” it.

I do not suffer from an “appeal to authority”
as you have demonstrated with your appeal to assuming what Tour and Garte is “noteworthy” because they “say” so.

I don’t go by what somebody “says”, but rather whether what they say is falsifiable, objectively demonstrable, tested and objectively shown to be valid…… the “god of the gaps” fails all of these tests.
You must ask yourself; why do you appeal to what Tour and Garte “say” while ignoring what the consensus of scientific method and data demonstrates?

Again you need to read carefully…….all the words;
In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin. In 1999, historian Stephen D. Snobelen wrote, "Isaac Newton was a heretic.
(Isaac Newton - Wikipedia)

From the same link as above:
In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christas God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin. In 1999, historian Stephen D. Snobelen wrote, "Isaac Newton was a heretic. But ... he never made a public declaration of his private faith—which the orthodox would have deemed extremely radical. He hid his faith so well that scholars are still unraveling his personal beliefs."

So Newton didn’t “believe in Jesus” as you say.
This is why I asked you concerning his religious views, which he studied in depth……
Do you accept what “Newton said”?

Newton’s view on religion has no bearing on the work he did concerning gravity, optics, mechanics, laws of motion, or mathematics, including his invention of calculus; all of which I accept because they are objectively demonstrable, testable and verifiable.

He was also wrong in many instances…..
and I don’t accept “what he said” in those instances because they are not objectively demonstrable and have failed to be verified when tested.

The same is true of any scientist of any or no faith.
Their view on religion has no bearing if the objective demonstrability of the work has been tested and verified.

Thus it is very disingenuous to conflate the work of Newton with the ASA which as you have admitted is a religious organization…..
are you suggesting that a religious apology organization is not biased?

 

[Dao Hao Now]

So your answer to:

Here and now is your opportunity to present where this has objectively been demonstrated.
Please show me.
Remember it’s not about what anyone “says” but what can be objectively demonstrated.
Please share it with us!

Your best response is:

We all know the game already. "Show me objective demonstration or God has not had any effect on anything in the world".
So to you God is a thing that can be manipulated and tested and made to demonstrate certain things.
But that is an irrational ask and is no more than a game that atheists play.

A pretty pathetic dodge.
I’ll give you another opportunity.
Show me objective evidence of a “spirit/s” and/or “god/s” have had a demonstrable effect on anything in

 

[Brian2]

The origins of life, are you asking about that? Or the fact that people are alive? Both can be answered by the sciences. Though there still are questions about abiogenesis many of the problems have been solved. Not all of them. But enough to reasonably state that at least one full explanation is within reach.

But you ignore what one of the top 25 synthetic chemists say about how far abiogenesis is really away from it's objective.
You confirmation bias runs through everything you say.

When you drop the false claim of "educated guesses" then you might be able to make a point. But as soon as you use that refute phrase you take yourself out of the discussion.

OK so you think that the educated guesses have been verified. How?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But you ignore what one of the top 25 synthetic chemists say about how far abiogenesis is really away from it's objective.
You confirmation bias runs through everything you say.

A synthetic chemist that repeatedly has demonstrated that he does not understand the science behind abiogenesis. He appears to be willfully ignorant at times, and for someone in his position that is a form of lying. You really should watch the false personal attacks. This is not "confirmation bias". You do not even appear to understand the term

OK so you think that the educated guesses have been verified. How?

Once again by being repeatedly tested and confirmed.

 

[Brian2]

This was in response to, "You have to show that there is a reason to insert god(s) into the equation in the first place!
And let's face facts here, you're not just talking about some obscure god concept, you are specifically talking about the very specific god you believe in."

It appears you didn't read it.

Also, I've pointed out to you umpteen times that nobody is presuming God doesn't exist. So I have no idea why you're saying this yet again. Especially in light of what I've just said to you, above.

In science there is no good reason to insert God into the equation. But there is no good reason to take God out of the equation in the first place unless you say that only science can tell us what is real and when we talk theology we should really be talking science or it's all gobbledegook.
So science took God out of the equation but you and I know that this does not mean that God does not exist and that God may be in any educated guesses that science has made about what happened in the past. Science however cannot say yes or no to that because it does not know how to detect God. But I'm not really talking science, I'm including all the evidence and including God.

If there is no evidence for such things, then we have no reason at all to consider them. That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

You need to show there is some reason to include gods and spirits into our understanding of the world. Then you have to show it's the specific gods and spirits that you believe in (but can't even seem to define).

You really, really need to understand this point.

Now you dismiss God as if He does not exist, and talk science as if science has all the answers when in fact it only has naturalistic educated guesses of what may have happened in the past, and it seems we have no reason to consider these things without evidence for them.
And no, just because chemicals can react with one another, that is not evidence that they reacted in the ways science presumes they must have.

Show us there is some reason to consider your god(s) and spirits in the first place, and we'll do it. Simple. 'Til then, I have no more reason to believe in those than I do to believe in Thor or Apollo or invisible universe-creating pixies.

I do show reasons, but they are not acceptable when you accept only science. So keep believing science's unverifiable educated guesses about the past and that is OK with me. I also believe much of that even though I know it cannot really be considered to be real science.
You can say that Thor or Apollo or Pixies are as evidenced as Jehovah and Jesus if you want, but we all know that's BS.

Then give us a methodology with which we can do so. Otherwise, you're just making stuff up and asserting it's true.

Listen to what people experience and have experienced and believe them.

How does my view of reality suffer, exactly, by not accepting unevidenced faith claims?

You call the experiences of people "unevidenced faith claims".
You look at life with blinkers on.

Excuse me? You've repeatedly claimed that spirits are undetectable. When you've (repeatedly) been asked HOW DO WE DETECT SPIRITS? you've had nothing to offer but more empty assertions.

Spirits reveal themselves.

Where and how? I have repeatedly asked you how we can detect spirits. Many, many times.

Start believing the experiences of people instead of demanding repeatable performances from the spirits that science can test.

Where? What? Why? This was in response to, "the Bible is the claim(s), not the evidence."

History is full of evidence of thousands of other gods too. How did you determine yours is the real one?

Look at the prophecies and their fulfilments without saying "Maybe this was made up, so therefore it was made up".

This was in response to, "No they don't. Just those interested in being reasonable and rational, and believing in as many true things as possible while not believing in as many false things as possible."

Pardon me, but it seems the method by which we limit our world to a "small house" is to lean on some ancient texts filled with fantastical claims, written by people who had a very limited understanding of the mechanisms of the world around them. It seems to me the "large house" view would include gathering data from the most reliable tool we've come up with to date for discerning fact from fiction - the scientific method.

Yes Christians use and promote science in general but also know it's limits. Many people look to science for spiritual truths which it cannot give.

Science is the most reliable tool we have in helping us discern fact from fiction when it comes to the world around us. It's the methodology that has given us all verifiable knowledge we currently hold about the world around us. To call it defective is absolutely laughable. Especially in comparison with faith.

It is defective when it comes to detecting spirits and when it comes to giving verifiable answers to what happened in the past. BUT you have faith that it is the answer for all questions of reality.

 

[Brian2]

James Tour is an expert in his field, which is synthetic organic chemistry. He is NOT an expert in biochemistry, still less in the chemistry of abiogenesis. He has nothing to say on the subject of abiogenesis beyond reciting some personal prejudices. When it comes to that, he is talking out of his arse. If you insist on treating him as an expert, you are deluding yourself.

James Tour knows what it means to synthesise chemicals and knows how painstaking it can be in a laboratory, and knows when abiogenesists are claiming far more than they should be claiming about what they have found.
He speaks to abiogenecists and they tell him they are nowhere near what is claimed to the general public.
He want them to stop deceiving the public about it and says the deception from scientists is what makes people sceptical of science.

 

[Brian2]

But if the evidence cannot be used (verified externally, examined, shared, how do you know it is evidence? How does a person know it is real evidence and not just a product of their own imagination?

What, you go around wondering if you are living in a fantasy and if your experiences are actually happening?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What, you go around wondering if you are living in a fantasy and if your experiences are actually happening?

I don't understand the comment. You claim evidence that cannot be examined, so how can it be evidence?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What, you go around wondering if you are living in a fantasy and if your experiences are actually happening?

A person that thinks they are Napoleon can be convinced they are Napoleon. Would you believe they are Napoleon based on the evidence of Napoleon that is widely available.

That person believes his experiences happened and are happening. His evidence cannot be shared.

So, he must be Napoleon in the 21st Century by the standard you are promoting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

James Tour knows what it means to synthesise chemicals and knows how painstaking it can be in a laboratory, and knows when abiogenesists are claiming far more than they should be claiming about what they have found.
He speaks to abiogenecists and they tell him they are nowhere near what is claimed to the general public.
He want them to stop deceiving the public about it and says the deception from scientists is what makes people sceptical of science.

He knows how to work in the laboratory. He does not have any experience working in nature. He has been totally refuted by the experts in that field. He tried to bully "Professor Dave" in their debate, but Dave was not having it. Tour tried a stupid trick, he demanded that Dave write out all of the chemical reactions needed. That drawing of pictures would have taken far longer than the ten minutes that he had to respond so he just laughed at tour and held up the paper that had that information in it. Tour knew that. But Tour had limited the number of articles that he could be forced to discuss. He could have done so voluntarily, but he knew that it was in that paper too. All that Dave could do was to say that it was in the paper and Tour could not even deny that.

You cannot believe what Tour says about other scientists. Long before Professor Dave was involved he was caught lying about Jack Szostak. He is far beyond Tour's level. And he did end up giving a rather mealy mouthed apology where he did not openly admit to all of his lies. I could provide you with some videos about that and probably some articles.

Tour went nuts in one of his talks because Szostak agreed to do a laymen's level paper for Nature magazine on the current status of abiogenesis. An article for lay people is not as formal as a peer reviewed article. Tour first lied about it being in the "primary literature". It was not. It was an article for lay people and was not peer reviewed. It was just a quick summary without all of the endless and sometimes boring details of a peer reviewed article. Second Tour falsely claimed that certain chemicals in illustrations were not sugars and other molecules of life. But again, they were. Szostak instead of using the more complex specific sugars gave the general forms. He did not have to be spot on accurate because again, this was an article for lay people summarizing multiple articles that were peer reviewed.

And Tour should have known that. He had to have known that. Any scientist that writes peer reviewed articles can easily tell the difference between an article written for peer review and one written for lay people.

 

[YoursTrue]

Again……
You really need to improve on your reading comprehension.
I explained to you;


Again you need to read carefully…….all the words;
In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin. In 1999, historian Stephen D. Snobelen wrote, "Isaac Newton was a heretic.
(Isaac Newton - Wikipedia)

From the same link as above:
In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christas God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin. In 1999, historian Stephen D. Snobelen wrote, "Isaac Newton was a heretic. But ... he never made a public declaration of his private faith—which the orthodox would have deemed extremely radical. He hid his faith so well that scholars are still unraveling his personal beliefs."

So Newton didn’t “believe in Jesus” as you say.
This is why I asked you concerning his religious views, which he studied in depth……
Do you accept what “Newton said”?

Newton’s view on religion has no bearing on the work he did concerning gravity, optics, mechanics, laws of motion, or mathematics, including his invention of calculus; all of which I accept because they are objectively demonstrable, testable and verifiable.

He was also wrong in many instances…..
and I don’t accept “what he said” in those instances because they are not objectively demonstrable and have failed to be verified when tested.

The same is true of any scientist of any or no faith.
Their view on religion has no bearing if the objective demonstrability of the work has been tested and verified.

Thus it is very disingenuous to conflate the work of Newton with the ASA which as you have admitted is a religious organization…..
are you suggesting that a religious apology organization is not biased?

While it certainly seems apparently true that Newton was rightfully afraid of persecution by the prevailing church leaders at the time, he did not apparently believe in the Trinity, a big thing with the church. etc. So then the question comes up again, what do those calling themselves Christian here believe about Jesus? Was he as it is written in the Bible? Is he equal to the other two parts of the trinity? Said to be one God? Or was he just a good man maybe that was persecuted by the religious leaders. Was he born of a virgin? What do those calling themselves Christians here in particular believe? Along with that is the awfjul persecution of William Tyndale, the Bible translator who suffered death because he dared translate the Bible. So Newton was reasonably afraid of being persecuted and kept his view more or less down, not to publicize them.

 

[YoursTrue]

James Tour knows what it means to synthesise chemicals and knows how painstaking it can be in a laboratory, and knows when abiogenesists are claiming far more than they should be claiming about what they have found.
He speaks to abiogenecists and they tell him they are nowhere near what is claimed to the general public.
He want them to stop deceiving the public about it and says the deception from scientists is what makes people sceptical of science.

It seems apparent to me that even though some here proclaim they are Christian, they in essence deny what the Bible says, and any scientist that will uphold what the Bible says regarding creation is held to be prejudiced, dumb, stupid, whatever...(negative) accusation can be summoned up.

 

[Brian2]

It seems apparent to me that even though some here proclaim they are Christian, they in essence deny what the Bible says, and any scientist that will uphold what the Bible says regarding creation is held to be prejudiced, dumb, stupid, whatever...(negative) accusation can be summoned up.

Yes that happens. James Tour has been denied entry to, I think it is the American National Science Academy, because he speaks out.
But at the same time, different Christians draw the line in different places when it comes to origins and evolution etc and Christians should not be divided over such issues really.