A cure for cancer?

[Hans Blaster]

ou should check out his CV sometime, for example

Professor Tour has over 785 research publications, over 130 granted patents and over 100 pending patents. He has an h-index = 170 with total citations over 133,000. 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.” Tour became a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry in 2020 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; and was the Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Hebrew University, June, 2014. He was named “Scientist of the Year” by R&D Magazine, 2013.

How does that compare to your CV?

His is quite weak. No papers in physics, I've got many. He's not going to get a job in physics. I also don't have any funding from the Discovery Institute on mine, so I count that as a win for me.

 

[stevil]

At least you are consistent. "Godless and without morals" is exactly what evolution leads to. I do not believe evolution. If evolution is correct, I have no say in that. I am a product of the process. For evolutionists to criticise those who reject evolution makes as much sense as complaining that grass is green.

Evolution is about the fact of passing on genetics to offspring. It has nothing to do with beliefs in gods or morals.

For people who accept the plethora and abundance of evidence from many disparate fields of science all confirming evolution, to criticise those that reject the ToE it makes as much sense as criticising people who reject the Theory of gravity or criticising people who reject atoms or reject a spherical earth or reject a 5 billion year old earth or reject a 14 billion year old universe in favour of one that is 6,00 to 10,000 years old.

 

[stevil]

You would be surprised how many scientists reject evolution as a theory. Many don't say so openly because it puts their careers at risk.

And rightly so.

If they reject TOE they should point to the evidence that they consider disproves TOE

Evolution is just a theory. It is not proven.

I can tell that you don't do science. I'm not attacking you as a person. Most people don't do science.
But your statement above does not come from a person that understands science.

I can give you as many reasons to disbelieve as others say is evidence for evolution.

You can't proved evidence based reasons to reject TOE.
TOE has not as yet been empirically disproven.
If you are able to do so, then publish a paper, your will probably receive a Nobel prize, and your name will go down in history.

Your statement is absurd. How do you imagine that people get to be professors?

People can be professors in many different fields. Being a professor doesn't make you an expert in everything,

What makes you think that he denies gravity or atoms?

I never said he does. I'm now starting to worry about your comprehension abilities.

Don't bring religion into it. It's not a matter of religion, it is a matter of truth.

People that don't accept TOE are typically religious and reject science for religious beliefs as for them and their beliefs, the two are incompatible, so they stick to their religious beliefs and reject solid science.
I don't mind a scientist being religious. I don't care. But a scientist rejecting TOE is inexcusable, unless they have written a peer reviewed, accepted scientific paper on this which has not been credibly refuted.

Either evolution is true or it is not. My take is that the evidence for is underwhelming and far outweighed by evidence against.

There is no evidence against it.
The evidence for it is vast and incredibly strong

Professor Tour has over 785 research publications, over 130 granted patents and over 100 pending patents. He has an h-index = 170 with total citations over 133,000. 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.” Tour became a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry in 2020 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; and was the Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Hebrew University, June, 2014. He was named “Scientist of the Year” by R&D Magazine, 2013.

Sounds impressive.
As long as he sticks to chemestry, he is fine. When he ventures into biology, he is weaker than a first year undergrad.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Evolution is about the fact of passing on genetics to offspring. It has nothing to do with beliefs in gods or morals.

For people who accept the plethora and abundance of evidence from many disparate fields of science all confirming evolution, to criticise those that reject the ToE it makes as much sense as criticising people who reject the Theory of gravity or criticising people who reject atoms or reject a spherical earth or reject a 5 billion year old earth or reject a 14 billion year old universe in favour of one that is 6,00 to 10,000 years old.

Says you. Are you a scientist? What works have you published? What are your qualifications? Some of the most intelligent people on the planet reject evolution, including Sir Fred Hoyle who said this about evolution:

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." I happen to agree with that point of view.

Sir Fred's steady state theory of the universe has been rejected. However, the "Big Bang" (Fred Hoyle's phrase) is also being questioned. From the continual new discoveries that arise, I conclude that science knows almost nothing about the universe except that it exists.

Evolution is not the passing of genetics to offspring. It is the passing of altered and non malicious genes to offspring. That is extremely difficult as mutant genes are destroyed by the organism's defence mechanism. No only that, the genetic change has to be something that transforms the organism to something new.

Mammals supposedly evolved from reptiles. Really? Warm blooded creatures with an inbuilt temperature control system come from cold blooded creatures that instinctively seek out external warmth? How can incremental change achieve that? Do you know how hard good temperature control is to achieve? I do, I used to sell such systems. Not only this, the gene has to be passed on safely to another generation. Then another mutation has to take place and the near impossible process continue. Repeat this for every supposedly evolved organism and I come to one conclusion. Evolution is impossible. I believed this years before I became a Christian. As far as I know, Fred Hoyle was not a Christian. He postulated that life came from outer space. That begs the question as to where that life came from.

Not believing evolution likewise has nothing to do with God or morals. I do accept that Christians are more likely to reject evolution, however, many Christians have swallowed the evolutionary myth. One reason is that it is presented as fact by educators. I was also required to make the assumption that evolution was true at school. Oddly enough, it was the pro evolution people on Christian forums who made me think through my objections more clearly. So I thank those people. They've provided good motivation!

 

[Aussie Pete]

His is quite weak. No papers in physics, I've got many. He's not going to get a job in physics. I also don't have any funding from the Discovery Institute on mine, so I count that as a win for me.

He is a chemist, not a physicist. When it comes to OOL and evolution, chemistry beats physics hands down. He has started many businesses, licenced a good deal of research and has many patents. I doubt that he is looking for any more work than he has on hand. I don't know of anyone busier than he is. Keep looking for ways to criticise one of the more influential scientists in the world today. I'd score you zero on this one.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Says you. Are you a scientist?

I am.

What works have you published?

Link to CV: [Redacted]

What are your qualifications?

I have a PhD in physics and a couple decades of experience.

Some of the most intelligent people on the planet reject evolution, including Sir Fred Hoyle who said this about evolution:

Fred Hoyle is dead.

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." I happen to agree with that point of view.

A fallacious argument. It betrays a basic failure to understand the basic properties of inheritance, reassortment, selection, and generation of novel genetics. Jumbo jets are not born to parents with inherited characteristics. They are built by humans on order from airlines. The 747 didn't evolve.

Sir Fred's steady state theory of the universe has been rejected.

It was wrong. That's why we reject things in science.

However, the "Big Bang" (Fred Hoyle's phrase) is also being questioned.

Hoyle named it the "Big Bang" to mock it. Thanks to his disdain people end up asking incorrect questions about what it "banged" into.

From the continual new discoveries that arise, I conclude that science knows almost nothing about the universe except that it exists.

At least we're not going to dive into the nonsense of solipsism. We know plenty. We know the base composition of baryonic matter in the Universe. We know the approximate age. We know the Universe is expanding.

Evolution is not the passing of genetics to offspring. It is the passing of altered and non malicious genes to offspring.

Genetic variants either help an organism prosper in the environment, suffer, or are neutral. There is no "malice" as there is no intent. Just random generation of new variants in genetic material and various selection processes.

That is extremely difficult as mutant genes are destroyed by the organism's defence mechanism.

Death? Sterility? Failure to reproduce? That's how species lose "negative" gene variants. There is no biological mechanism like a sort of immune system to sort out the bad genes, just non-propagation.

No only that, the genetic change has to be something that transforms the organism to something new.

No. Evolution is not so limited.

Mammals supposedly evolved from reptiles. Really?

Yes, really.

Warm blooded creatures with an inbuilt temperature control system come from cold blooded creatures that instinctively seek out external warmth?

I also seek out external warmth.

How can incremental change achieve that?

You could try to find out. From my cursory look this is still a question being worked on as in our lineage it seems to have taken place about 200 million years ago.

Do you know how hard good temperature control is to achieve? I do, I used to sell such systems.

You sold biological thermal regulation systems?

Not only this, the gene has to be passed on safely to another generation. Then another mutation has to take place and the near impossible process continue. Repeat this for every supposedly evolved organism and I come to one conclusion.

It seems like you need to review the basic material a bit.

Evolution is impossible.

It's been observed directly. It's about as impossible as a hurricane striking North Carolina.

I believed this years before I became a Christian. As far as I know, Fred Hoyle was not a Christian.

He was an atheist as I recall. Like some mid-20th century non-Christians, he found the BB theory to be a bit "creationist". This shows the problem of allowing your religious or philosophical positions to influence your positions on science.

He postulated that life came from outer space. That begs the question as to where that life came from.

That is unlikely, but it doesn't change the fact that once life was on Earth (from space, native abiogenesis, or divinely generated) it evolved and diversified on Earth.

Not believing evolution likewise has nothing to do with God or morals.

As does accepting evolution and its evidence. Morals and belief are unconnected to the scientific findings.

I do accept that Christians are more likely to reject evolution, however, many Christians have swallowed the evolutionary myth.

Evolution is not a story, it is a scientific result.

One reason is that it is presented as fact by educators. I was also required to make the assumption that evolution was true at school.

So they tried to educate you. Those horrible people!

Oddly enough, it was the pro evolution people on Christian forums who made me think through my objections more clearly. So I thank those people. They've provided good motivation!

And the arguments and links shown to me on this site made me anti-religion.

 

[Pommer]

Says you. Are you a scientist? What works have you published? What are your qualifications? Some of the most intelligent people on the planet reject evolution, including Sir Fred Hoyle who said this about evolution:

We’re just here on this back channel of the Internet; real, actual experts (there are posters here who I trust for their competent input* on “their topic”), are rather rare, having better things to do than argue over the interwebs with strangers (instead of with their friends).

The fact is “creationism”/ ID needs for the Bible to be a literal History-of-creation therefore the universe was created just like it says. The “evidence” doesn’t enter into it, (unless it “supports” C/ID).

When this wave of Fundamentalism has passed it’ll be another 80 before it begins again.

*verifiable, at least

 

[Hans Blaster]

He is a chemist, not a physicist.

Which is why I'd never hire him.

When it comes to OOL and evolution, chemistry beats physics hands down.

He and I have exactly the same amount of experience in OOL research -- none. Sure, he can draw an amino acid from memory, but that doesn't mean he has the in depth knowledge to properly critique OOL work. From what seen (including what you posted) from his production record, his position on the paper in the OP, etc., Tour is in the lab manager phase of his career. You don't write 1000+ publications and patents all by yourself, not to mention doing the work of planning and conducting the experiments and doing the data analysis. He's got a whole team he is supervising. Nothing wrong with that, just don't think he personally wrote 700 papers on his own.

He has started many businesses, licenced a good deal of research and has many patents.

I have zero of these. I didn't get into science to make money.

I doubt that he is looking for any more work than he has on hand. I don't know of anyone busier than he is.

There is probably a single mom with three kids working a blue collar job at Rice or in his parish that works harder than he does as she doesn't have a whole team to help her out, but this is not a contest, nor is it relevant.

Keep looking for ways to criticise one of the more influential scientists in the world today.

He's so influential I'd never heard of him before he came up in these OOL debate on fora like this one. His work has exactly zero impact on anything even close to mine.

I'd score you zero on this one.

I've yet to see any evidence or claims that you have even a scintilla of what would be needed to "score" me.

 

[stevil]

Some of the most intelligent people on the planet reject evolution, including Sir Fred Hoyle who said this about evolution:

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." I happen to agree with that point of view.

That saying is very silly and shows that Hoyle either didn't understand what Evolution is, or was willing to mischaracterise it.
As we know, evolution isn't random. There is a very strong non random driver called Natural Selection, and this natural selection isn't utilised in a tornado.

Other nonsense spouted by Fred
Hoyle promoted the hypothesis that the first life on Earth began in space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution on Earth is influenced by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets.

There is no evidence at all of viruses being present on any comets and no evidence of life coming to earth from space. There is actually no evidence of life in space other than what we find on Earth.

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe advanced several instances where they say outbreaks of illnesses on Earth are of extraterrestrial origins, including the 1918 flu pandemic, and certain outbreaks of polio and mad cow disease. For the 1918 flu pandemic, they hypothesized that cometary dust brought the virus to Earth simultaneously at multiple locations—a view almost universally dismissed by experts on this pandemic. In 1982, Hoyle presented Evolution from Space for the Royal Institution's Omni Lecture. After considering what he thought of as a very remote possibility of Earth-based abiogenesis he concluded:
If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of...

Hoyle is quite the imaginative character and doesn't seem to need evidence to support his ideas.

Evolution is not the passing of genetics to offspring. It is the passing of altered and non malicious genes to offspring.

Nope. Most of the time genetics are passed without any mistakes.
When mistakes do happen, most of the time those mistakes are non beneficial, some are harmful. some are beneficial.

That is extremely difficult as mutant genes are destroyed by the organism's defence mechanism. No only that, the genetic change has to be something that transforms the organism to something new.

Nope, the mistakes are subtle, they do not transform the organism into something new. All offspring are of the same species as their parents.

Mammals supposedly evolved from reptiles. Really? Warm blooded creatures with an inbuilt temperature control system come from cold blooded creatures that instinctively seek out external warmth? How can incremental change achieve that?

This is the very first time I've heard this argument. It is however, an argument from incredulity and it stretches the impact of a single "mistake" it also assumes you had a cold blooded animal that gave birth to a warm blooded animal, rather than a process over many many generations.

Evolution is impossible.

Write a paper on it, It might just make you famous, depending on how robust it is.

As far as I know, Fred Hoyle was not a Christian. He postulated that life came from outer space. That begs the question as to where that life came from.

Yes, that is one of the many problems with Hoyle's idea. There is no evidence in support of Hoyle's idea but hey...

Not believing evolution likewise has nothing to do with God or morals. I do accept that Christians are more likely to reject evolution, however, many Christians have swallowed the evolutionary myth. One reason is that it is presented as fact by educators. I was also required to make the assumption that evolution was true at school. Oddly enough, it was the pro evolution people on Christian forums who made me think through my objections more clearly. So I thank those people. They've provided good motivation!

OK, From what I read in your posts, I don't think you have a very good understanding of what evolution is.

 

[Water and Fire]

But not disease, though. That's totally on satan.

Source?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Source?

It was sarcasm.

(Welcome to the boards.)

 

[Nithavela]

Source?

Welcome to christianforums. We have coined a law for this sort of misunderstanding.

Poe's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org