The tip of the ice berg

[Astrid]

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.

" evolution has never made sense to me"

Of course.

Here is the whole creoposition in brief:

Argument from ignorance
Argument from incredulity
Personally chosen religious beliefs.

But

They have not so much as one datum point to
employ.

 

[Astrid]

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?

The specific issues, oddly, were not mentioned.

 

[BPPLEE]

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.

Are you an evolutionary biologist?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Are you an evolutionary biologist?

No, more an amateur historian.

Doesn't mean what I am saying is incorrect.

 

[BPPLEE]

No, more an amateur historian.

Doesn't mean what I am saying is incorrect.

Oh. It seemed like you were saying only an evolutionary biologist could have a valid argument for or against evolution

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Oh. It seemed like you were saying only an evolutionary biologist could have a valid argument for or against evolution

When it's being discussed on such a level as the famed 'Dissent from Darwinism', it definitely does.
A nanotechnology specialist has no more valid claims against the factualness of evolution than a nuclear physicist or a mathematician.
Would you ask a professional baker on how to fix your car over a professional mechanic?

The entire list is nothing more than an argument from authority. The Wikipedia article on it even breaks down the problems with the list of 'dissenters'.

 

[Astrid]

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.

If you care tovcompete on that sorry level you
could trot out an endless succession of quotes from christians
with advanced degrees who fully support the ToE

 

[ottawak]

Oh. It seemed like you were saying only an evolutionary biologist could have a valid argument for or against evolution

Anyone can have a valid argument, but an argument from authority can only be credibly made by an expert in the field and even then such an argument must be validated.

 

[Astrid]

Oh. It seemed like you were saying only an evolutionary biologist could have a valid argument for or against evolution

Only a person citing actual dara.
Try it some time

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you care tovcompete on that sorry level you
could trot out an endless succession of quotes from christians
with advanced degrees who fully support the ToE

BioLogos, started by Francis Collins, a noted physician- geneticist and a member of the Human Genome Project. Avowed and out and out Christian.

 

[BPPLEE]

Anyone can have a valid argument, but an argument from authority can only be credibly made by an expert in the field and even then such an argument must be validated.

I wonder how many people on this forum are experts in the field

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I wonder how many people on this forum are experts in the field

There have been a few PhD level biologists that have taken part on these threads. Their names escape me, however.

 

[ottawak]

I wonder how many people on this forum are experts in the field

Actually there are several. But there is nothing about forming a working understanding of the theory which requires one be an expert in the field. Any layman of ordinary intelligence with a basic education in math and the sciences shoud be able to grasp the fundamental principles.

 

[BPPLEE]

Actually there are several. But there is nothing about forming a working understanding of the theory which requires one be an expert in the field. Any layman of ordinary intelligence with a basic education in math and the sciences shoud be able to grasp the fundamental principles.

Someone can grasp the fundamental principles and still disagree.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Someone can grasp the fundamental principles and still disagree.

Of course they can. No-one said otherwise. It's when you try and argue it, that's when you need a bit more than a fundamental understanding and need to actively and actually defend your position.

 

[Astrid]

I wonder how many people on this forum are experts in the field

Non experts can cite data.
Creationists should try it.
Though they wont like how it turns out.

 

[Astrid]

Someone can grasp the fundamental principles and still disagree.

Can, and do!

See my fav...Dr K Wise. PhD paleontology

" ....even if all the data in the universe turns
against yec, i will still be yec as that is ehat the
bible seems to say"

The q is not, "can you disagree" but, can one do so with
integrity?

 

[Astrid]

I wonder how many people on this forum are experts in the field

None of the creationists

 

[BPPLEE]

Of course they can. No-one said otherwise. It's when you try and argue it, that's when you need a bit more than a fundamental understanding and need to actively and actually defend your position.

I'm not trying to argue it.I just said some of the theory is hard for me to accept or believe and elements are being presented as facts that are part of the theory. I have actually learned a lot from these discussions aside from what some do. Most people make informed intelligent arguments

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm not trying to argue it.I just said some of the theory is hard for me to accept or believe and elements are being presented as facts that are part of the theory. I have actually learned a lot from these discussions aside from what some do. Most people make informed intelligent arguments

Which bits do you struggle with?