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: 9569
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 6:06 pm
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


OK, not a peer reviewed journal. It says so right in the publication. Next?
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
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9569
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 6:25 pm
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
Ok, that’s a private letter and an article in Evolution News, which is an anti-evolution.

Next?
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
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9569
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by Res Ipsa »

So, MG, what this fellow appears to be doing is apologetics rather than science. Slick YouTube series for the believer crowd. Letters, take, pieces in magazines. Where is the peer reviewed paper. You even talk about him like he’s Dan Peterson or Steve Smoot, doing battle against the critics.

On the other hand, if he’s doing science, he’s published peer reviewed papers in reputable journals Proving his claim. And they would be getting tremendous response in the scientific literature because of the dramatic and extreme nature of the claims. So far you’ve shown me an essay, a letter, and a puff piece in an anti-evolution publication.

The volume of alarm bells is deafening.
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.
Marcus
God
Posts: 5037
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by Marcus »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 6:25 pm
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....
How did you become aware of that journal? Are you aware that the journal itself specifies:
....Inference is not a peer-reviewed journal.
So strike one against your response to RI's comment. But it gets worse. The journal itself has bigger problems:
"A Science Journal Funded by Peter Thiel Is Running Articles Dismissing Climate Change and Evolution"

...I went to Inference’s website. It looked like a real science publication... But as I clicked around, I began to think that Inference wasn’t what it appeared to be.

...Several articles on the site argued against the theory of evolution, for example, and at least one dismissed the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming. Later, through tax documents and interviews, I would learn that all of Inference‘s funding came from a surprising source: Peter Thiel.

...Not all of Inference‘s articles are junk science... But whatever Inference’s actual intentions, one thing is clear: The inclusion of demonstrably pseudoscientific writing alongside the work of highly regarded researchers puts the two on equal footing—a false equivalence that gives creationism and climate denial an air of legitimacy that is not only unwarranted, but misleading to readers.

...one of the [editorial staff] behind Inference was David Berlinski, an outspoken critic of mainstream evolutionary biology. Berlinski is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based nonprofit that promotes the creationist belief of intelligent design. He has claimed, for example, that evolution is both scientifically inaccurate and logically flawed.

...the biggest concern, said Walthrop... is the juxtaposition of pseudoscience and science under a single title. “It lends a lot of credibility [to junk science],” she said, “in a really disingenuous and false way.”

https://www.motherjones.com/environment ... evolution/
Strike two. A journal that includes pseudo- and junk science.

Your second reference is from a site that states this
The articles published at Evolution News are copyright by Discovery Institute
Discovery institute???? Strike three.

Next time you just Google looking for stuff, check the background of what you post. This is yet another example of what happens when you cherry-pick what you think supports your arguments.
Marcus
God
Posts: 5037
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by Marcus »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:23 pm
So, MG, what this fellow appears to be doing is apologetics rather than science. Slick YouTube series for the believer crowd. Letters, take, pieces in magazines. Where is the peer reviewed paper. You even talk about him like he’s Dan Peterson or Steve Smoot, doing battle against the critics.

On the other hand, if he’s doing science, he’s published peer reviewed papers in reputable journals Proving his claim. And they would be getting tremendous response in the scientific literature because of the dramatic and extreme nature of the claims. So far you’ve shown me an essay, a letter, and a puff piece in an anti-evolution publication.

The volume of alarm bells is deafening.
The alarm bells are justified. I just posted what I found out about mg's source.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9569
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by Res Ipsa »

Marcus wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:29 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:23 pm
So, MG, what this fellow appears to be doing is apologetics rather than science. Slick YouTube series for the believer crowd. Letters, take, pieces in magazines. Where is the peer reviewed paper. You even talk about him like he’s Dan Peterson or Steve Smoot, doing battle against the critics.

On the other hand, if he’s doing science, he’s published peer reviewed papers in reputable journals Proving his claim. And they would be getting tremendous response in the scientific literature because of the dramatic and extreme nature of the claims. So far you’ve shown me an essay, a letter, and a puff piece in an anti-evolution publication.

The volume of alarm bells is deafening.
The alarm bells are justified. I just posted what I found out about mg's source.
Excellent sleuthing, Marcus. I tip my cap to you. I’m not a fan of the phrase “liars for Jesus.” But if any organization has earned that description, it’s the Discovery Institute. That organization is as dishonest as the day is long. In a city that hosts amazing amounts of scientific and medical research, the Discovery Institute has become an ugly embarrassment. It is pure Christian propaganda that tries to appear to be doing science.

I can’t wait for MG to MGsplain about how smart and qualified their scientists are. :lol:
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 7:11 pm
MG 2.0 wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 6:06 pm


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.”



Regards,
MG
OK, not a peer reviewed journal. It says so right in the publication. Next?
Tour’s current views on peer review:
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.

https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/ ... -creation/
Starting at about the eight minute mark in the following presentation Tour talks science, not religion. This video pretty much wraps everything into a tidy package.

https://youtu.be/zU7Lww-sBPg

Res Ipsa, I realize that you are set in your ways as an agnostic/atheist. And it appears as though you are fully invested in this worldview. My purpose on this thread is to present, for those interested, that the evidence for abiogenesis is non existent. Even after 70 years. Life’s origins are as much a mystery now as they were then.

I would invite other readers and lurkers to explore the links and information I’ve provided and make your own determinations as to he merits of Tour’s presentations without undo influence from those on the board that have reason to counter everything he has to say. That reason being, I would guess, that they are fully invested as atheists and/or agnosticism and are not even seriously looking at evidence that distorts their preferred worldview.

What are your own preferred theories, that have merit, for abiogenesis?

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 »

Marcus wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:28 pm
Next time you just Google looking for stuff, check the background of what you post. This is yet another example of what happens when you cherry-pick what you think supports your arguments.
I did check the sources. The thing is, I’m not as dogmatically biased as you are in being open to views being expressed from ALL quarters.

My guess is that you have not taken any time with looking at Tour’s presentations even though his expertise is without blemish. Those that have taken issue with him have only skirted the edges of what he is saying because they don’t have the expertise to fully engage.

Unless, of course, you can an show a person of the same caliber as James Tour tearing him apart I have VERY little confidence in considering what you have to say of any real value. I’ve already posted his responses to his critics.

What are your preferred theories for abiogenesis?

Regards,
MG
User avatar
malkie
God
Posts: 1478
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:41 pm

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by malkie »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:43 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:11 pm


OK, not a peer reviewed journal. It says so right in the publication. Next?
Tour’s current views on peer review:
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.

https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/ ... -creation/
I cannot help but wonder if his current skepticism of peer review (which, as far as I know, is not claimed by anyone to be perfect) might be related to the fact that apologetics generally is not likely to get through a scholarly review.

In other words, peer review doesn't work for him, therefore it must be fatally flawed.

If it did give him a pass, and support his views on god and faith, and the need for salvation based on "miracles", I suspect that he would still be in favour of it.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details.
Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by honorentheos »

Physics Guy wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:46 pm
honorentheos wrote:
Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:13 am
For theism to be a viable explanation for the universe, it MUST describe a universe that is better explained by its own hypothetical conditions that differ from one that is simply emergent from prior conditions. God as first cause of an otherwise naturally evolving universe is no theism at all.
What does “simply emergent from prior conditions” mean?

As far as I know, “emergent” in this kind of context is a vague term. In expressions like, “consciousness emerges from neurology” or “thermodynamics emerges from mechanics,” I construe “emerges from” as “somehow comes out of”. Emergence in this sense isn’t any particular thing that anyone understands. When we say, “Humans evolved from small mammals,” we mean by “evolved” a certain class of processes of differential gene proliferation. When we say, “Consciousness emerges from brain chemistry,” in contrast, we don’t mean anything comparably specific by “emerges”. There probably is something comparably specific that we could mean, but we don’t currently know what it is. So “emergent” is just a vague placeholder term.
Hi Physics Guy,

I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. I've been out and about.

Emergence as I'm using it has two parts. The first is in the context where the resulting properties of a system or thing are the results of self-organizing processes such as entropy and thermodynamics. Prior conditions inform subsequent conditions as seen from our position in time, and vice verse, subsequent conditions predict prior conditions when time flows in reverse. The second is more akin to your comment about consciousness where those properties that emerge within systems are not reduceable to the prior parts. For example, physics -> chemistry -> biology -> psychology. I went and looked up Sean Carrol because I recalled being introduced to the idea from him and found this quote:

“When many parts come together to make a whole, in this view, not only should we be on the lookout for new knowledge in the form of better ways to describe the system, but we should contemplate new behaviour."

“Everyone working on the problem [of high-temperature superconductors] believe that such materials are made out of ordinary atoms, obeying ordinary microscopic rules; knowing that has been of essentially zero help in guiding us toward an understanding of why high-temperature superconductivity happens at all.”

So certain aspects of emergence as simply acknowledging systems self organize according to natural law, anyone with even a middle school science education has some comprehension of how emergence works. But yeah, when it comes to the spooky bits of why we get life out of chemistry or consciousness out of biology, there is something magical about it. The universe is cool like that.

(Speaking of evolution: to clarify a possible misunderstanding, when honorentheos speaks of a “naturally evolving universe” he is not referring to Darwinian evolution in particular. Physicists say “evolving” to mean nothing but changing over time under the laws of nature, in whatever way that happens in the context being discussed. The Earth flying through space around the Sun is an example of time evolution; so is the absorption of light by a molecule in your retina. I’m not disagreeing with honorentheos here, just defining a jargon term that other readers might not know.)

Anyway, what about initial conditions? If a few photons had been tweaked a bit at the Big Bang, our entire solar system would never have existed. Sure, most likely some other form or sense of intelligent life would have existed instead, not here but somewhere. It remains true that the laws of nature as we know them literally cannot explain at all why our solar system exists instead of a different one, because that issue is decided by initial conditions, about which the laws say nothing at all. The laws of nature we know are all differential equations, and it is the basic nature of differential equations that they do not specify the starting point. They only tell us what will happen next, given the initial input data.

Something determined the actual initial conditions of everything in the universe. Whatever that is or was, its power to choose those initial conditions was in fact tantamount to a power to intervene in the universe in an ongoing way.
The issue I take with the above is in the word, "choose". As I've stated to MG, in order to demonstrate that this "choice" is not just an example of chaos theory-like delicate differences leading to broad diversity in outcomes, one has to show intention in the selection process. If we just point out that because humans resulted from the outcome, therefore the universe selected for humans we could share common ground because that's a benign metaphysical statement. We, as humans, being here observing the universe prove the universe selected for humans.

But applying modal thinking to this problem and asking what else one should consider in possible explanations for the origin of the universe suggests the selection process that resulted in humans wasn't directed at producing humans with intention. The incomprehensibly vast amounts of the universe hostile to human life, the blip of time our species will exist on the timeline of the existence of the universe, the obviously evolved inefficient nature of our biological form, and many, many others probes into comparing a theological explanation with a natural one for the origin of the universe confirm that our selection is not special but merely one of countless other selections that occurred as the universe evolves.
Lots of remarkable events are perfectly possible in principle, if only a lot of tiny particles were to come together just right at a certain place and time. The differential equations apply backwards in time as well as forward. So for any such a miraculous conspiracy of particles one can run the film backwards to the beginning of time and find an initial condition of the universe that would, billions of years later, produce that miraculous conspiracy—with the perfectly unerring certainty of a differential equation.

Furthermore, there would in most cases be no obvious sign, before that remarkable but predestined event finally occurred, that anything like it was going to occur. The series of perturbations in the Oort cloud that would eventually send a comet to hit the Earth would be undetectably remote and unremarkable in their implications until the event was underway. The twitch of a proton in one of my zillions of DNA strands would be completely unremarkable until after it had led to a tumor—or prevented one from forming. Yet that proton twitch would have been predestined, either way and with inevitable certainty, by the initial conditions of the universe all those billions of years ago.

Whatever it is or was that set the initial conditions of the universe, our lives are in its hands in every moment even now. Naturalism under the currently understood laws of nature is not an alternative to this feature of theism. It shares the same feature.
True.
Post Reply