The tip of the ice berg

[Astrid]

It's not a question of faith but about finding the science convincing. And, of course, for theists their faith is directed elsewhere.

You also equivocating " faith"" too?

 

[Aussie Pete]

James Tour did not "reject evolution." He's an IDist who signed the Dissent From Darwinism statement.

“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.”

He didn't reject evolution, he rejected a naturalistic evolution.

You know what... I will give you that one.

So why is it that the fossil record and the genetic evidence of the massive similarities between chimpanzees and humans can't count as proof to you of common descent?

I've just been been told that there is no such thing as scientific proof. Since that is so, I am happy to assert that the objections to evolution, for example, Lizard Explosion Heard Around the World – CEH are just as valid as evolutionist claims. I'm also reluctant to take seriously the musings of someone who believes that they are 99% ape. When a monkey asks me if his keeper is his brother, I'll be more inclined to listen.

James M Tour Group » Evolution/Creation

If you read it carefully, Professor Tour is skeptical to the point where he was dragged into court over his point of view. This is a brief extract:

"I used to believe that my outward confession of skepticism regarding evolution was also of little consequence to my career as a scientist. Specifically, in the past, I wrote that my standing as a scientist was “based primarily upon my scholarly peer-reviewed publications.” Thirty years ago, that was the case. I no longer believe that, however. Ever since the time of the legal case referenced above, I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions—which is a further testament to the disheartening collateral damage resulting from lawsuits. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the Dissent statement regarding the examination of Darwinian Theory. I never thought that science would have evolved like this."

 

[ruthiesea]

Not all the biologists over the last 200 years accept evolution. No, I don't say that evolutionists are stupid. I do say that they are wedded to a theory and unwilling to accept anything that contradicts it. Flat earthers are not stupid either. But they also are unwilling accept anything that disproves their convictions.

I am curious as to what disproves evolution. Please give an example.

There is no reason whatsoever for scientists to continue to use a false theory. That goes against what science is all about. So, if evolution has been disproven, as you claim, scientists would immediately abandon it. It serves no purpose to continue to use the theory for further scientific inquiry.

 

[ottawak]

You also equivocating " faith"" too?

No. Faith is belief without evidence, "the substance of things hoped for, the eviddence of things not seen."

 

[ottawak]

I've just been been told that there is no such thing as scientific proof. Since that is so, I am happy to assert that the objections to evolution, for example, Lizard Explosion Heard Around the World – CEH are just as valid as evolutionist claims. I'm also reluctant to take seriously the musings of someone who believes that they are 99% ape. When a monkey asks me if his keeper is his brother, I'll be more inclined to listen.

James M Tour Group » Evolution/Creation

If you read it carefully, Professor Tour is skeptical to the point where he was dragged into court over his point of view. This is a brief extract:

"I used to believe that my outward confession of skepticism regarding evolution was also of little consequence to my career as a scientist. Specifically, in the past, I wrote that my standing as a scientist was “based primarily upon my scholarly peer-reviewed publications.” Thirty years ago, that was the case. I no longer believe that, however. Ever since the time of the legal case referenced above, I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions—which is a further testament to the disheartening collateral damage resulting from lawsuits. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the Dissent statement regarding the examination of Darwinian Theory. I never thought that science would have evolved like this."

If course there is the little matter of being openly allied with a group of radical Calvinists who want to erect a totalitaran theocracy.

But where do you get the idea that Proof is the only method of validating a proposition?

 

[Astrid]

I've just been been told that there is no such thing as scientific proof. Since that is so, I am happy to assert that the objections to evolution, for example, Lizard Explosion Heard Around the World – CEH are just as valid as evolutionist claims. I'm also reluctant to take seriously the musings of someone who believes that they are 99% ape. When a monkey asks me if his keeper is his brother, I'll be more inclined to listen.

James M Tour Group » Evolution/Creation

If you read it carefully, Professor Tour is skeptical to the point where he was dragged into court over his point of view. This is a brief extract:

"I used to believe that my outward confession of skepticism regarding evolution was also of little consequence to my career as a scientist. Specifically, in the past, I wrote that my standing as a scientist was “based primarily upon my scholarly peer-reviewed publications.” Thirty years ago, that was the case. I no longer believe that, however. Ever since the time of the legal case referenced above, I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions—which is a further testament to the disheartening collateral damage resulting from lawsuits. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the Dissent statement regarding the examination of Darwinian Theory. I never thought that science would have evolved like this."

The article on lizards is in a publication as
blatantly partisan as Russian news about ukraine.

That you read and are gulled by such says volumes.

Likewise that youd think this guy whose opinions
you quote so extensively have any bearing whatsoever on the
validity of ToE.

We do of course understand why its on and on with
irrelevancies, side issues and fake news from
creosites.

Bottom line still is- nobody on planet earth has one
scrap of data contrary to ToE.

 

[Astrid]

No. Faith is belief without evidence, "the substance of things hoped for, the eviddence of things not seen."

Just checking

 

[Aussie Pete]

If course there is the little matter of being openly allied with a group of radical Calvinists who want to erect a totalitaran theocracy.

But where do you get the idea that Proof is the only method of validating a proposition?

I can't even "prove" that you exist. Maybe you are a cat walking across a keyboard, just somehow hitting keys that make proper words. I infer from the fact that the characters on the screen are actual words, that you are in fact a person. I likewise infer from the wonders of the natural realm that a Person created those wonders. I think evolution is as likely as the cat on the keyboard scenario.

I have no idea what your reference to radical Calvinists means. Are you referring to me? Jim Tour? Anti evolutionists generally?

 

[Astrid]

I am curious as to what disproves evolution. Please give an example.

There is no reason whatsoever for scientists to continue to use a false theory. That goes against what science is all about. So, if evolution has been disproven, as you claim, scientists would immediately abandon it. It serves no purpose to continue to use the theory for further scientific inquiry.

Every thread involves that question but they
have no answer.
If the disproof existed it would have been the
scientific discovery of the century, maybe of
all time.
We would have even heard about it.

 

[Aussie Pete]

The article on lizards is in a publication as
blatantly partisan as Russian news about ukraine.

That you read and are gulled by such says volumes.

Likewise that youd think this guy whose opinions
you quote so extensively have any bearing whatsoever on the
validity of ToE.

We do of course understand why its on and on with
irrelevancies, side issues and fake news from
creosites.

Bottom line still is- nobody on planet earth has one
scrap of data contrary to ToE.

No one on this planet can satisfactorily explain how evolution works. I'm a technician. I know something about systems. I reject the fundamental "just so happened" principle that evolution relies on. Just simple closed loop temperature control, as in a mammalian blood system, is extraordinarily difficult to achieve with great precision. Modern developments have made it easier. For such a control system to evolve is impossible. For a cold blooded reptile to become a warm blooded mammal? It's absurd.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Every thread involves that question but they
have no answer.
If the disproof existed it would have been the
scientific discovery of the century, maybe of
all time.
We would have even heard about it.

Not when scientists are taken to court for stating publicly that they disagree with evolution. Not when scientists who refuse to conform are ostracised by the rest of the scientific community. Many people in Stalinist Russia disagreed with communism. They kept their mouths shut because it likely would cost them their lives.

Someone with personal experience had this to say:

"I used to believe that my outward confession of skepticism regarding evolution was also of little consequence to my career as a scientist. Specifically, in the past, I wrote that my standing as a scientist was “based primarily upon my scholarly peer-reviewed publications.” Thirty years ago, that was the case. I no longer believe that, however. Ever since the time of the legal case referenced above, I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions—which is a further testament to the disheartening collateral damage resulting from lawsuits. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the Dissent statement regarding the examination of Darwinian Theory. I never thought that science would have evolved like this."

Professor James Tour.

Professor Tour has 750 research publications, over 130 granted patents and over 100 pending patents. He has an h-index = 161 with total citations over 120,000. In 2021, he won the Oesper Award from the American Chemical Society which is awarded to “outstanding chemists for lifetime significant accomplishments in the field of chemistry with long-lasting impact on the chemical sciences.” In 2020, he became a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry and in the same year was awarded the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Centenary Prize for innovations in materials chemistry with applications in medicine and nanotechnology. Based on the impact of his published work, in 2019 Tour was ranked in the top 0.004% of the 7 million scientists who have published at least 5 papers in their careers. He was inducted into the National Academy of Inventors in 2015. Tour was named among “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today” by TheBestSchools.org in 2019; listed in “The World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds” by Thomson Reuters ScienceWatch.com in 2014; and recipient of the Trotter Prize in “Information, Complexity and Inference” in 2014; etc. etc.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not when scientists are taken to court for stating publicly that they disagree with evolution. Not when scientists who refuse to conform are ostracised by the rest of the scientific community. Many people in Stalinist Russia disagreed with communism. They kept their mouths shut because it likely would cost them their lives.

Someone with personal experience had this to say:

"I used to believe that my outward confession of skepticism regarding evolution was also of little consequence to my career as a scientist. Specifically, in the past, I wrote that my standing as a scientist was “based primarily upon my scholarly peer-reviewed publications.” Thirty years ago, that was the case. I no longer believe that, however. Ever since the time of the legal case referenced above, I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions—which is a further testament to the disheartening collateral damage resulting from lawsuits. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the Dissent statement regarding the examination of Darwinian Theory. I never thought that science would have evolved like this."

Professor James Tour.

Professor Tour has 750 research publications, over 130 granted patents and over 100 pending patents. He has an h-index = 161 with total citations over 120,000. In 2021, he won the Oesper Award from the American Chemical Society which is awarded to “outstanding chemists for lifetime significant accomplishments in the field of chemistry with long-lasting impact on the chemical sciences.” In 2020, he became a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry and in the same year was awarded the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Centenary Prize for innovations in materials chemistry with applications in medicine and nanotechnology. Based on the impact of his published work, in 2019 Tour was ranked in the top 0.004% of the 7 million scientists who have published at least 5 papers in their careers. He was inducted into the National Academy of Inventors in 2015. Tour was named among “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today” by TheBestSchools.org in 2019; listed in “The World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds” by Thomson Reuters ScienceWatch.com in 2014; and recipient of the Trotter Prize in “Information, Complexity and Inference” in 2014; etc. etc.

What legal case? You cut out the part where James Tour talks about this case and you mention nothing about it.

James Tour is a specialist in nanotechnology. He's no more qualified to talk about evolution being wrong than you are. Yes, you can both SAY it's wrong, but since evolutionary biology is neither of your fields, your words about it mean squat.

 

[Aussie Pete]

The article on lizards is in a publication as
blatantly partisan as Russian news about ukraine.

That you read and are gulled by such says volumes.

Likewise that youd think this guy whose opinions
you quote so extensively have any bearing whatsoever on the
validity of ToE.

We do of course understand why its on and on with
irrelevancies, side issues and fake news from
creosites.

Bottom line still is- nobody on planet earth has one
scrap of data contrary to ToE.

I have all the data that I need and more. That you won't accept my conclusions does not make you right. Of course the article is partisan. What do you expect? You want everyone to bow down at the altar of evolution and worship? If any group is partisan, it is evolutionists. I don't know what they fear. If you are right, time will tell. If you are wrong, what's the big deal? Or is it that you fear that God is real and one day you will have to give an account of your life to Him?

 

[ottawak]

I have all the data that I need and more. That you won't accept my conclusions does not make you right. Of course the article is partisan. What do you expect? You want everyone to bow down at the altar of evolution and worship? If any group is partisan, it is evolutionists. I don't know what they fear. If you are right, time will tell. If you are wrong, what's the big deal? Or is it that you fear that God is real and one day you will have to give an account of your life to Him?

That is the most offensive argument a creationist can make. It is not really an argument, but a scurrilous accusation, and especially egregious when directed against a person whose idea of god you know nothing about. Nobody supports the theory of evolution because they are afraid of your God. Atheists don't care about your god at all and theists know better than to be afraid of God because they accept the theory of evolution.

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[Astrid]

No one on this planet can satisfactorily explain how evolution works. I'm a technician. I know something about systems. I reject the fundamental "just so happened" principle that evolution relies on. Just simple closed loop temperature control, as in a mammalian blood system, is extraordinarily difficult to achieve with great precision. Modern developments have made it easier. For such a control system to evolve is impossible. For a cold blooded reptile to become a warm blooded mammal? It's absurd.

Of course nobody can explain to to the personal
standards of your chosen satisfaction, esp as
your source of " info" is cartoons from a creosite.

 

[Aussie Pete]

What legal case? You cut out the part where James Tour talks about this case and you mention nothing about it.

James Tour is a specialist in nanotechnology. He's no more qualified to talk about evolution being wrong than you are. Yes, you can both SAY it's wrong, but since evolutionary biology is neither of your fields, your words about it mean squat.

A standard and pathetic response from the pro evolution camp. Professor Tour is one of the most intelligent people on earth. He is well able to understand more than one subject. He's chair of several departments at Rice University. He is fundamentally a synthetic organic chemist, also a bio chemist, also involved in nanomachinery research, graphene and several other fields. You seriously imagine that evolutionary theory is beyond his comprehension? How many research papers have you published? How many patents awarded? How many businesses have licensed your designs? Me neither. However, I can read and I can hear. I have looked at both evolution and the arguments against. I am not stupid. Evolution has never made sense to me. The more I find out, the less plausible it becomes.

 

[Astrid]

Not when scientists are taken to court for stating publicly that they disagree with evolution. Not when scientists who refuse to conform are ostracised by the rest of the scientific community. Many people in Stalinist Russia disagreed with communism. They kept their mouths shut because it likely would cost them their lives.

Someone with personal experience had this to say:

"I used to believe that my outward confession of skepticism regarding evolution was also of little consequence to my career as a scientist. Specifically, in the past, I wrote that my standing as a scientist was “based primarily upon my scholarly peer-reviewed publications.” Thirty years ago, that was the case. I no longer believe that, however. Ever since the time of the legal case referenced above, I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions—which is a further testament to the disheartening collateral damage resulting from lawsuits. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the Dissent statement regarding the examination of Darwinian Theory. I never thought that science would have evolved like this."

Professor James Tour.

Professor Tour has 750 research publications, over 130 granted patents and over 100 pending patents. He has an h-index = 161 with total citations over 120,000. In 2021, he won the Oesper Award from the American Chemical Society which is awarded to “outstanding chemists for lifetime significant accomplishments in the field of chemistry with long-lasting impact on the chemical sciences.” In 2020, he became a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry and in the same year was awarded the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Centenary Prize for innovations in materials chemistry with applications in medicine and nanotechnology. Based on the impact of his published work, in 2019 Tour was ranked in the top 0.004% of the 7 million scientists who have published at least 5 papers in their careers. He was inducted into the National Academy of Inventors in 2015. Tour was named among “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today” by TheBestSchools.org in 2019; listed in “The World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds” by Thomson Reuters ScienceWatch.com in 2014; and recipient of the Trotter Prize in “Information, Complexity and Inference” in 2014; etc. etc.

I doubt very much that he was - or could have been-
taken to court for the reason you stated.

A history of gross misrepresentations and
outright falsehoods contributes to this doubt.

In thecevent, its still totally irrelevant to challenging the
validity of ToE.

For that, data is needed. None has ever bern presented.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

A standard and pathetic response from the pro evolution camp. Professor Tour is one of the most intelligent people on earth. He is well able to understand more than one subject. He's chair of several departments at Rice University. He is fundamentally a synthetic organic chemist, also a bio chemist, also involved in nanomachinery research, graphene and several other fields. You seriously imagine that evolutionary theory is beyond his comprehension? How many research papers have you published? How many patents awarded? How many businesses have licensed your designs? Me neither. However, I can read and I can hear. I have looked at both evolution and the arguments against. I am not stupid. Evolution has never made sense to me. The more I find out, the less plausible it becomes.

Argument from authority, nothing more. So he's, to you, one of the most intelligent men on the planet. That doesn't mean squat about the theory of evolution unless he actually talks ABOUT the theory of evolution. And just saying it's wrong, doesn't mean that it is wrong.

Your make the same argument over and over again, that you don't understand anything about evolution, ergo, it must be false to you. Your entire argument is an argument from incredulity, which is THE single most worthless argument that can be made.

Unless James Tour actually releases a paper showing that evolution is false as a theory, then he and you have no leg to stand on.

Also: still not a single shred of evidence for you saying that James Tour was brought to court over not accepting evolution.

 

[ottawak]

People like to fluff up their side of any legal issue.

Totally irrelevant to validity of ToE

Still, I would like to have a link to the case. Plenty of people speak out against the theory of evolution without being hauled into court. What was distinctive about the Tour case?