Shocking claim to Macro-evolution!

[Revoltingest]

I don't mean you. There are some people (outside this forum) that tries to smear him. Read the letter to his colleagues.

I've already read too much. (I have a low tolerance for
reading, especially if there are big words.) In your own
words, what does he claim about evolution or abiogenesis?
(So far, I've only seen skepticism. Can't disagree with that.)

 

[tosca1]

And he was shown to be wrong.

Do you need me to use all sorts of green ink to make you understand that? If anything he was the one that made falsehoods.

Why don't you post them? I already asked you to post what you have.
I can't take your word for it - sorry.

Unless you post something to support your claim - I'll treat that as just your personal opinion. I don't debate personal opinions.

In a debate or serious discussion - you're supposed to be able to back up your claim when challenged. We'll continue when you do as requested.

 

[Subduction Zone]

READ the articles given. I've already provided the source - I can't spoon-feed.

He posed questions challenging claims!

Tell me which ones you disagree with, and come up with a source that refutes it.

You don't seem to understand how this works. You can't expect others to read or even watch the garbage that you post. What you need to do is to quote from your sources and link them. By the way, Tour knows how real science is done. It is done through the world of peer review. None of Tour's claims went through peer review, that makes them of no more value than the unsupported claims by any other scientists and of far less value than of those that can support their claims with peer reviewed articles from well respected professional journals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why don't you post them? I already asked you to post what you jhve.
I can't take your word for it - sorry.

Unless you post something to support your claim - I'll treat that as just your personal opinion. I don't debate personal opinions.

In a debate or serious discussion - you're supposed to be able to back up your claim when challenged. We'll continue when you do.

No need. All you did was to post a video and a paper that was not peer reviewed. By your standards I refuted your claims. Now if you make specific claims about what Tour said, quote him and link the source, then I would have to work a little harder. Until you do that Tour was shown to be a liar.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You're not getting the point. It's not really about abiogenesis and evolution.

It's more about the falsehoods and pseudo-science that's being given to the public that he's challenging!

He's challenging those claims!

Seeing as how there is general confusion in this thread about that...

Perhaps now would be a good time for you to get specific and mention explicitly, and unambigously, what "falsehoods and pseudo-science" you are talking about. Specificly.

 

[ChristineM]

Silent about his claims!
He practically challenged his colleagues with several questions!

If the questions were challenging rather than irrelevant perhaps he would get a better response.

If he wont use the scientific method (is he to scared of failure and consequent reduction in book sales) what is his point in claiming to challenge science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why don't you post them? I already asked you to post what you have.
I can't take your word for it - sorry.

Unless you post something to support your claim - I'll treat that as just your personal opinion. I don't debate personal opinions.

In a debate or serious discussion - you're supposed to be able to back up your claim when challenged. We'll continue when you do as requested.

I did the same thing that you did. You did not support your claims except for to post links to a video and a bogus article. My video explained how Tour lied. Now if you make specific claims based upon your sources then I will have to up my game a little bit. Until then by your own standards I refuted you.

 

[tosca1]

Seeing as how there is general confusion in this thread about that...

Perhaps now would be a good time for you to get specific and mention explicitly, and unambigously, what "falsehoods and pseudo-science" you are talking about. Specificly.

Read the articles I gave you. The first two.

 

[tosca1]

I did the same thing that you did. You did not support your claims except for to post links to a video and a bogus article. My video explained how Tour lied. Now if you make specific claims based upon your sources then I will have to up my game a little bit. Until then by your own standards I refuted you.

And I showed you.....Szostack retracted! He admitted to his mistake!

Nobel Laureate Retracts Own Paper in 'Definitely Embarrassing' Science Fail

In 2009, Harvard University physiologist Jack Szostak, Ph.D., won the Nobel Prize for his groundbreaking work studying the telomeres on our DNA. The prolific researcher continued his work on the human genetic code, publishing a groundbreaking Nature Chemistry paper in 2016 elucidating how life first began on Earth. However, as recent events reveal, even Nobel laureates make humiliating mistakes.

On November 23, Szostak and the co-authors of the Nature Chemistry paper requested that it be retracted after discovering that attempts to replicate the study failed.

In the original paper, Szostak and his team attempted to recreate the conditions of early Earth, working under the hypothesis that RNA, a type of nucleic acid, developed before DNA. Without DNA or enzymes, though, RNA would need to copy itself somehow. In the retracted paper, Szostak and his colleagues concluded that a type of peptide — a short chain of amino acids — could copy RNA, which may have helped give rise to early life on Earth. It turns out this was not the case.

Nobel Winner Retracts Own Paper in 'Definitely Embarrassing' Fail | Inverse



If you've got nothing new to say - we'll call it bye-bye for now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Read the articles I gave you. The first two.

That is not the way that it works. Make a claim, then support it by quoting from the article or video that you supplied. Until then my video, which I did not refer to but am ready to at any time, refutes your claims by your standards.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Read my post #102.

Sure, no problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And I showed you.....Szostack retracted!

No, I explained your mistake to you. He made a mistake in one article. Do you think that is the only article that he has published? He made a mistake and admitted it. You used a lying source. I showed that they lied, where is his admission of fault? Szostak publishes several articles a year and he made a mistake in one of them. That is not a problem in the world of the sciences. As long as one owns up to one's errors people move on.

 

[tosca1]

No, I explained your mistake to you. He made a mistake in one article. Do you think that is the only article that he has published? He made a mistake and admitted it. You used a lying source. I showed that they lied, where is his admission of fault? Szostak publishes several articles a year and he made a mistake in one of them. That is not a problem in the world of the sciences. As long as one owns up to one's errors people move on.

Ahhh....you didn't agree with my source. Too bad.

What makes you so sure your source isn't the one that's lying.....or, who got it all wrong?

Bye-bye for now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ahhh....you didn't agree with my source. Too bad.

What makes you so sure your source isn't the one that's lying.....or, who got it all wrong?

Bye-bye for now.

No, by your own standards I refuted them. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Sources are worthless if you cannot use them properly.

My source explains very carefully how and why Tour is lying. Too bad that you did not watch it. Even you should have been able to understand it. By asking you demonstrated that you did not watch my video. That is a hypocritical way to act. If you expect others to watch your videos then you need to watch those that are posted in response. Now you just freed anyone from watching your videos. You are shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[blü 2]

READ the articles given. I've already provided the source - I can't spoon-feed.

He posed questions challenging claims!

Tell me which ones you disagree with, and come up with a source that refutes it.

If you can't make your own case, if you have to send me off to a link to try to work out what you're talking about, if you want me to refute your link instead of you, then you misunderstand the way things are discussed on sites like this.

Choose the examples you wish to rely on and defend, and post them here, or have a nice day.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Read the articles I gave you. The first two.

Why?

Are you unable to simply summarize the main points?

 

[Windwalker]

how could there be any evolution without the origin?

Of course. But that has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. And even if I could be proven it was "supernatural", that does not change the fact of what we see in nature that the Theory of Evolution has credible, overwhelming evidences of that it happens.

Question for you. If God is the Creator, and Evolution is true, then does it not stand to reason that God creates through evolution? That God created evolution? Why then do you choose to deny that? Isn't that denying God? To me, the evidence of God is found in nature, and that would mean Evolution. Evolution is that Miracle of Creation.

"Even the invisible things of Him through creation are clearly seen and manifest, even His eternal power and Godhead", Romans 1:20 Evolution is nature, and God can, and is, seen through it, as Paul states all can do. Why don't you instead embrace it and celebrate it, instead of denying it for some reason?

 

[metis]

"Abiogenesis" is a hypothesis, one of a great many found within the ToE. Thus the ToE itself does not have to rely on that single hypothesis for its validity.

 

[exchemist]

"Abiogenesis" is a hypothesis, one of a great many found within the ToE. Thus the ToE itself does not have to rely on that single hypothesis for its validity.

Are you sure? My understanding has been that "abiogenesis" is simply a term for the process of life arising from non-life. That does not constitute a hypothesis, except insofar as it tacitly accepts the evidence that was once no life.

 

[metis]

Are you sure? My understanding has been that "abiogenesis" is simply a term for the process of life arising from non-life. That does not constitute a hypothesis, except insofar as it tacitly accepts the evidence that was once no life.

There is some evidence that points to all life possibly arising from a single source roughly around 4 billion or so years ago, but there's not enough evidence to conclude that this is correct or that it was the result of abiogenesis. This is what a "hypothesis" is, namely some evidence, minus convincing evidence to the contrary, but not enough to warrant moving up the ladder.