The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by Res Ipsa »

Oh my, has anyone alerted all these scientists that they should get new jobs because what they are studying has been PROVEN to be impossible? https://www.nasa.gov/content/books-on-t ... ce-of-life

If I had a dollar for every time a Christian scientist claimed that a natural process is impossible, only to be proven wrong, I’d be rich. I don’t care how many degrees and awards a scientist has, science isn’t done on you tube. Has this “proof” been published in a reputable, peer reviewed journal. If so, what’s the citation? I’ll check out both the paper and the post publication peer review.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
User avatar
Morley
God
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:17 pm
Location: detail from Alice Neel's 1980 self portrait

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by Morley »

MG 2.0:

Two points.

1) I was referring to the dripping condescension involved in "return and report." This was my main suggestion; one that seemingly passed right through you.

2) But almost as important: A few weeks ago you were presenting a so-called expert who, in service to Donald Trump, had punched a demonstrator in the back of the head and then run away. You complained that some of us didn't give your guy a chance by reading him or listening to him--because, to your thinking, despite his character, he had excellent things to say. Did you give Professor Dave's videos any chance at all? Did you view them last night? You want people to set aside their biases and look at your materials, but you're not willing to do the same. You want some of us to return and report. Where's the reciprocation?
¥akaSteelhead
Deacon
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:33 pm

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by ¥akaSteelhead »

Ah the old "xyz is statistically impossible so let me insert a god, who is orders of magnitude more statistically impossible as the solution" argument. Wrapped in a appeal to authority logical fallacy.

Whatever floats your boat MG. But you aren't helping your case.
User avatar
Morley
God
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:17 pm
Location: detail from Alice Neel's 1980 self portrait

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by Morley »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:16 pm

My guess is that you’ve never heard of or listened to James Tour. And asking me to simply regurgitate what he’s presenting? Give me a break. Watch it and see whether or not you can fully assimilate everything he says.
You're unwilling to summarize what your own fellow is saying, yet you want to assign others to do so.
User avatar
Rivendale
God
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:21 pm

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by Rivendale »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:01 am
Oh my, has anyone alerted all these scientists that they should get new jobs because what they are studying has been PROVEN to be impossible? https://www.nasa.gov/content/books-on-t ... ce-of-life

If I had a dollar for every time a Christian scientist claimed that a natural process is impossible, only to be proven wrong, I’d be rich. I don’t care how many degrees and awards a scientist has, science isn’t done on you tube. Has this “proof” been published in a reputable, peer reviewed journal. If so, what’s the citation? I’ll check out both the paper and the post publication peer review.
My personal favorite? DNA synthesis of proteins. It is impossible for that to happen by chance.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by Res Ipsa »

Morley wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 1:39 pm
MG 2.0:

Two points.

1) I was referring to the dripping condescension involved in "return and report." This was my main suggestion; one that seemingly passed right through you.

2) But almost as important: A few weeks ago you were presenting a so-called expert who, in service to Donald Trump, had punched a demonstrator in the back of the head and then run away. You complained that some of us didn't give your guy a chance by reading him or listening to him--because, to your thinking, despite his character, he had excellent things to say. Did you give Professor Dave's videos any chance at all? Did you view them last night? You want people to set aside their biases and look at your materials, but you're not willing to do the same. You want some of us to return and report. Where's the reciprocation?
MG’s tactics do not involve reciprocation. Or consistency. He’s only all about credentials and expertise when it’sa fringe scientist he agrees with. It’s all result oriented cherry picking. The last “proven impossible” claim from the Discovery institute was “irreducible complexity,” which turned out to be nonsense. The one before that was the exact same “impossible in the available time” argument, only aimed at evolution. Except doing some actual science, like experiments and stuff, showed the argument to be wrong.

But, like I said, if there is anything at all to his claims, he’ll have published them in a reputable, peer reviewed journal and there will be post publication peer review on the form of papers that respond to his paper.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by MG 2.0 »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:01 am
Oh my, has anyone alerted all these scientists that they should get new jobs because what they are studying has been PROVEN to be impossible? https://www.nasa.gov/content/books-on-t ... ce-of-life
In this article James Tour takes on the current OOL research.

https://inference-review.com/article/time-out

The whole premise of this article is:

“An alphabet soup is not a precursor to a poem.”
James Tour:

I have discussed these issues with OOL researchers, and I am amazed that they fail to appreciate the magnitude of the problem in building molecules. They see little difficulty in accepting a chemical synthesis where a desired product is mixed with a large array of closely related yet undesired compounds. They seem unaware that separations would be enormously complex, and subsequent reactions unavailing. In a 2018 article for Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, Edward Steele et al. concede the following.

The transformation of an ensemble of appropriately chosen biological monomers (e.g. amino acids, nucleotides) into a primitive living cell capable of further evolution appears to require overcoming an information hurdle [emphasis added] of superastronomical proportions, an event that could not have happened within the time frame of the Earth except, we believe, as a miracle. All laboratory experiments attempting to simulate such an event have so far led to dismal failure.28
“At this stage of our scientific understanding,” they write, “we need to place on hold the issue of life’s actual biochemical origins [emphasis added]—where, when and how may be too difficult to solve on the current evidence.”29 All is not lost. If life on earth did not arise on earth, “t would thus seem reasonable,” Steele et al. remark, “to go to the biggest available ‘venue’ in relation to space and time. A cosmological origin of life thus appears plausible and overwhelmingly likely.”30 Why chemical reactions that are unlikely on the earth should prove likely somewhere else, Steele et al. do not say.


Regards,
MG
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by MG 2.0 »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:18 pm

But, like I said, if there is anything at all to his claims, he’ll have published them in a reputable, peer reviewed journal and there will be post publication peer review on the form of papers that respond to his paper.
Tour’s response to some of his critics who accuse him of “lying for Jesus”.

https://www.jmtour.com/wp-content/uploa ... rticle.pdf

From that response to those that would like to simplify the jump from inorganic to living material:

I think it displays to the world a simplicity that is unfounded, and it gives the reader a sense that we are much closer to finding a solution to life’s origin than we really are. Indeed, I specifically said in the talk that one day we might figure out the chemistry for origin of life (OOL), but that day is far from today. We are nowhere close. Szostak feels we are not far from cracking this problem. I differ strongly, and I think the synthetic chemist can be the most skeptical because we know what molecules do and do not do in an abiological environment.
More responses to his critics:

https://evolutionnews.org/2019/05/profe ... for-jesus/

Regards,
MG
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by MG 2.0 »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:18 pm

MG’s tactics do not involve reciprocation. Or consistency. He’s only all about credentials and expertise when it’sa fringe scientist he agrees with. It’s all result oriented cherry picking.
Fringe being those qualified scientists that don’t tow the “party line”?

Regards,
MG
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by Res Ipsa »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 6:27 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:18 pm

MG’s tactics do not involve reciprocation. Or consistency. He’s only all about credentials and expertise when it’sa fringe scientist he agrees with. It’s all result oriented cherry picking.
Fringe being those qualified scientists that don’t tow the “party line”?

Regards,
MG
Ah yes, the excuse of all cranks and crackpots everywhere. It has nothing to do with “toeing the line.” Every crank and wacko claims to be Galileo. A minuscule percentage.

Before you start in with the “how dare you” stick, give some serious thought to science works. Brilliant scientists can also gloom onto crackpot theories. Lynn Margulis: brilliant discovery in microbiology. Total crackpot on AIDS. Freeman Dyson: brilliant physicist. Looney Toon on climate change.

Look, I’m not picking on the you’ve decided must be right. Your guy sets off multiple alarm bells that say: treat with extra skepticism:

First, brand new discoveries have a poor track record of holding up over time;

Second, a claim that some hypothesized natural process has been “proven” to be “impossible” carries a ridiculously high burden of proof. When was the last time you saw a peer reviewed scientific paper that made a similar claim about anything.

Third, Scientists motivated by their religious beliefs to prove that man, specifically, could not possibly be the result of natural process have a perfect track record of failure. There are still people who know better proudly claiming that abiogenesis is impossible because it violates Newton’s second law. There same so wrong it’s idiotic argument was made about evolution.

Science isn’t done with slick you tube videos aimed at religious believers. It’s done by publishing papers and persuading others in the field that your claim is supported by valid evidence. It’s done by subjecting your work to the scrutiny of your peers. And it’s done by presenting a testable hypothesis and then testing it.

Given that there are numerous hypothesis on how abiogenesis happened, is your guy’s theory even testable?
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
Post Reply