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
Rivendale
God
Posts: 1168
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:21 pm

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by Rivendale »

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/
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.
And you want to add another level of mystery to abiogenesis by proposing a creator.
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by honorentheos »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Thu Nov 25, 2021 8:34 pm
By the way, in response to “intent” having to be shown before believing that Fine Tuning holds any water in as far as intelligence being at play, that’s just an easy way out from having to really look at all the evidence and seeing it for what it is. Reverse engineering can be done on a complex system, but that doesn’t explain how it got there. Especially when trying to explain the intricate coordination between individual systems and the greater whole to end up with something that works as it does.
MG, the irony here is the last two sentences of your comment demonstrate why demonstrating intention is needed to differentiate theological explanations for the universe from one defined by natural law alone.

Fine tuning is not an argument for proving God so much as an observation that the universe could have turned out differently given what science can tell us about it, and many of those alternatives would not have been conducive to human life. Reverse engineering the fact we exist back to the Big Bang and declaring our being here requires that some intelligence did it then demands that you show the intention of the intelligence. Your and my existence doesn't accomplish this. The universe selected for black holes and a slow, cold death a google years from now, too.

Intention is what differentiates theology from naturalism. It's fundamental to your position. So, you know, it's on you to demonstrate it.
After watching this presentation return and report.

https://youtu.be/r4sP1E1Jd_Y

There will be some here that won’t give James Tour much of a look since he is a ‘believer’, but be that as it may, you can’t say much against his accomplishments and credentials. It’s worth the time to follow some of his other presentations on YouTube.
Regards,
MG
Watched it. Then watched more, and it can be summed up in these bullets:

His credentials aren't relevant to his arguments. He makes synthetic nanotech "machines" in a lab, claims he doesn't understand how evolution works, declares "selection" doesn't happen without outside guidance while using catalysts in chemistry in his own professional work, demands those working on origins of life produce a fully evolved cell with DNA and all or they have to admit defeat right now and give up the field to God, and otherwise is viewed as a quack by the science community outside of his area of expertise - which origin of life is not.

So, yeah. My report: your video sucks and you should research those opposed to your sources so you can articulate the opposing argument before posting or quit the field because you aren't sincere.

Go spend time with your grandkids and quit trying to prove god by not looking at all the science but only the bits that quiet your doubts.
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 »

honorentheos wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 8:50 pm
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.
And it’s remained “spooky” even after seventy years of trying to replicate prebiotic conditions morphing into life. It takes as much or more faith to believe in ‘spooky magic’ as it does to believe in a creator God.

The fact that someone like James Tour chooses God really shouldn’t come as much of a surprise to anyone looking at the facts.

Regards,
MG
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8981
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 9:11 pm
honorentheos wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 8:50 pm
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.
And it’s remained “spooky” even after seventy years of trying to replicate prebiotic conditions morphing into life. It takes as much or more faith to believe in ‘spooky magic’ as it does to believe in a creator God.

The fact that someone like James Tour chooses God really shouldn’t come as much of a surprise to anyone looking at the facts.

Regards,
MG
And? George Hotz is a genius software engineer and entrepreneur who’s made the rounds on the intelligentsia podcast circuit who sees advanced coders behind the design and machinations of life and reality. So who’s right? Goddidit or codersdidit? Regardless, I always find the goddidit faction is insincere when complaining about how scientists haven’t figured everything out in the last 70 years, therefore goddidit. -_- The only miraculous thing here is just how tiny and clever your god is because he loves him some gaps, and those gaps are getting pretty small.

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by honorentheos »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 9:11 pm
honorentheos wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 8:50 pm
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.
And it’s remained “spooky” even after seventy years of trying to replicate prebiotic conditions morphing into life. It takes as much or more faith to believe in ‘spooky magic’ as it does to believe in a creator God.

The fact that someone like James Tour chooses God really shouldn’t come as much of a surprise to anyone looking at the facts.

Regards,
MG
James Tour doesn't understand the science he is attacking, but relies on the appeal to authority fallacy to dupe dopes like you. His field is as outside that of the work on origins of life as is a physicist's is to his own.

He denies selection occurs in natural systems even as he uses that very property in his own work. He disputes evolution exists to his congregation (He is a preacher, by the way) while in one video I watched he acknowledged that the fossil record showed there was a period of time where simple chemistry existed on primordial earth, there was a burst of bombardment activity fully explainable by naturalism, and then an explosion of simple organisms in the context of geological time. He confirms that is the evidence. His contention in every direct confrontation I've watched is that those working on the problem must produce a cell with DNA out of non-lab conditions or else they have failed to prove anything at all and are misleading the public. That's insanely ignorant and only an ignoramus can't see that.

His are quack arguments meant for folks like you, not science. And honestly, I think you're a moron for pushing it.
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 »

honorentheos wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 9:04 pm
MG 2.0 wrote:
Thu Nov 25, 2021 8:34 pm
By the way, in response to “intent” having to be shown before believing that Fine Tuning holds any water in as far as intelligence being at play, that’s just an easy way out from having to really look at all the evidence and seeing it for what it is. Reverse engineering can be done on a complex system, but that doesn’t explain how it got there. Especially when trying to explain the intricate coordination between individual systems and the greater whole to end up with something that works as it does.
MG, the irony here is the last two sentences of your comment demonstrate why demonstrating intention is needed to differentiate theological explanations for the universe from one defined by natural law alone.

Fine tuning is not an argument for proving God so much as an observation that the universe could have turned out differently given what science can tell us about it, and many of those alternatives would not have been conducive to human life. Reverse engineering the fact we exist back to the Big Bang and declaring our being here requires that some intelligence did it then demands that you show the intention of the intelligence. Your and my existence doesn't accomplish this. The universe selected for black holes and a slow, cold death a google years from now, too.

Intention is what differentiates theology from naturalism. It's fundamental to your position. So, you know, it's on you to demonstrate it.
After watching this presentation return and report.

https://youtu.be/r4sP1E1Jd_Y

There will be some here that won’t give James Tour much of a look since he is a ‘believer’, but be that as it may, you can’t say much against his accomplishments and credentials. It’s worth the time to follow some of his other presentations on YouTube.
Regards,
MG
Watched it. Then watched more, and it can be summed up in these bullets:

His credentials aren't relevant to his arguments. He makes synthetic nanotech "machines" in a lab, claims he doesn't understand how evolution works, declares "selection" doesn't happen without outside guidance while using catalysts in chemistry in his own professional work, demands those working on origins of life produce a fully evolved cell with DNA and all or they have to admit defeat right now and give up the field to God, and otherwise is viewed as a quack by the science community outside of his area of expertise - which origin of life is not.

So, yeah. My report: your video sucks and you should research those opposed to your sources so you can articulate the opposing argument before posting or quit the field because you aren't sincere.

Go spend time with your grandkids and quit trying to prove god by not looking at all the science but only the bits that quiet your doubts.
I might say the same to you. Go play with your kids. All you come up with is “This video sucks.” As though you have anywhere near the expertise to say that with any authority.

I’ve asked a question of two others, I’ll ask you the same question:

What is your theory of abiogenesis? In some sort of comprehensive detail.

Besides defaulting to spooky magic. 😉

We haven’t heard from Marcus and Morley yet, unless I’ve missed it.

I’ll check back in at a later time. Going to a family dinner and play with the grandkids. 🙂

Regards,
MG
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by honorentheos »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 9:11 pm
honorentheos wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 8:50 pm
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.
And it’s remained “spooky” even after seventy years of trying to replicate prebiotic conditions morphing into life. It takes as much or more faith to believe in ‘spooky magic’ as it does to believe in a creator God.

The fact that someone like James Tour chooses God really shouldn’t come as much of a surprise to anyone looking at the facts.

Regards,
MG
Also, you are obligated to demonstrate intention or else you are just arguing for naturalism while being a parasite on it. I know that's beyond you, but it is none the less your burden.
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by honorentheos »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 9:22 pm
honorentheos wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 9:04 pm

MG, the irony here is the last two sentences of your comment demonstrate why demonstrating intention is needed to differentiate theological explanations for the universe from one defined by natural law alone.

Fine tuning is not an argument for proving God so much as an observation that the universe could have turned out differently given what science can tell us about it, and many of those alternatives would not have been conducive to human life. Reverse engineering the fact we exist back to the Big Bang and declaring our being here requires that some intelligence did it then demands that you show the intention of the intelligence. Your and my existence doesn't accomplish this. The universe selected for black holes and a slow, cold death a google years from now, too.

Intention is what differentiates theology from naturalism. It's fundamental to your position. So, you know, it's on you to demonstrate it.


Watched it. Then watched more, and it can be summed up in these bullets:

His credentials aren't relevant to his arguments. He makes synthetic nanotech "machines" in a lab, claims he doesn't understand how evolution works, declares "selection" doesn't happen without outside guidance while using catalysts in chemistry in his own professional work, demands those working on origins of life produce a fully evolved cell with DNA and all or they have to admit defeat right now and give up the field to God, and otherwise is viewed as a quack by the science community outside of his area of expertise - which origin of life is not.

So, yeah. My report: your video sucks and you should research those opposed to your sources so you can articulate the opposing argument before posting or quit the field because you aren't sincere.

Go spend time with your grandkids and quit trying to prove god by not looking at all the science but only the bits that quiet your doubts.
I might say the same to you. Go play with your kids. All you come up with is “This video sucks.” As though you have anywhere near the expertise to say that with any authority.

I’ve asked a question of two others, I’ll ask you the same question:

What is your theory of abiogenesis? In some sort of comprehensive detail.

Besides defaulting to spooky magic. 😉

We haven’t heard from Marcus and Morley yet, unless I’ve missed it.

I’ll check back in at a later time. Going to a family dinner and play with the grandkids. 🙂

Regards,
MG
MG, this is God of the gaps argument, not an actual point.

You are an idiot. And as I noted above, James Tour isn't actually an informed scientist in the field he is attacking while also being a christian preacher. His arguments are laughable when you actually listen to them. He doesn't understand how evolution works and basically denies it to his congregation, doesn't understand selection as a process apparently or lies, and is making the most idiotic strawman demand for proof imaginable, He is legit no different than Ceeboo demanding someone show a whale evolve "poof" from a raccoon or evolution is a lie.

It can't be overstated what a moron you are for pushing this quack "science".
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 »

honorentheos wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 9:20 pm

James Tour doesn't understand the science he is attacking…
I would call BS on that.

Who are YOU? Some guy on the internet without any verified qualification/standing to say stuff? Maybe.

Who knows? Nothing against you personally. I’m sure you’re a nice guy. And smart for all that matters.

Ok, off to eat and play.

Carry on.

Regards,
MG
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, stop with the set in your ways nonsense. You have no high ground there. I am much less set my stance toward the existence of God than you will ever be.

Cutting through nonsense. When a qualified scientist rejects peer review out of hand, it’s because he’s peddling BS and he knows it. He may have been an outstanding scientist in the past, or may still be in some areas, but on this topic, he’s a crank. That puts him in some excellent company, but it doesn’t mean he’s right.

Taking the word of a scientist who refuses to publish is the equivalent of trusting a con man with your wallet. I’m quite surprised, because I thought you were more savvy than that. What he’s doing is not science: it’s anti-science. So, rather than actually valuing science, you just cherry pick scientists, whether they are actually doing science, depending on whether what they say conforms to your pre-determined religious beliefs. Science is just another apparatus upon which you perform your mental gymnastics. If it doesn’t support your belief in God, under the bus it goes.

I got a real chuckle out of the big deal you made out of 70 years. 70 years is nothing. Your notion that science should have figured out everything there is to figure out in that period of time is hilarious.

You remind me of the old joke about gaps in the fossil record. An evolution denialist makes a huge issue about a gap in the fossil record. He claims the gap shows that evolution is impossible. He claims that science has had more than enough time to find a fossil of that transitional species that should fill in that gap. Finally, the fossil that fills the gap is found. A scientist asks the denier “now are you convinced?” The denier replies, “No. You’ve just proven me right. “Now there are TWO gaps,”

Look how long it took to piece together the history of evolution. And it took the ability to sequence entire genomes to put together how the organisms we see today are related and developed over time. I mean it’s pretty amazing.

Maybe 10 years ago, I heard PZ Meyers give a lecture on the evolution of the eye. In particular, it was the story of how the completely different eyes we find in humans and cephalopods developed. And he showed the evidence of when the structures that would become both eyes were present in the same organism and how human eyes still contained the structures as cephalopod eyes and the other way around. They had just been restructured to function as parts of the actual eyes we find today. Two completely different kinds of eye, each containing the remnants of the other kind of eye, all traceable back To the organism that was their source.

It was one of the most beautiful stories I’d ever heard. God did it was a pale and weak comparison.

And if we went back in time 50 years, you’d be quoting me scientists who claimed it was impossible for the eye to have evolved without God. Thankfully, there were scientists who were unwilling to accept the claim of impossibility. Otherwise, we’d never have the beautiful story of the eye, and thousands of equally beautiful stories.

Unlike evolution, whatever specific process or processes occurred between “not life” and “life” there is no equivalent of a fossil record. The genome may be helpful at providing clues, but it certainly isn’t the evidence that it is for evolution.

That simply makes figuring out that “gap” in the history of life a much tougher problem than figuring out history after the gap. That’s the nature of evidence. Sometimes you have enough to reach strong conclusions. Sometimes weak conclusions. Sometimes a range of possible conclusions. And sometimes there is simply not enough evidence to reach any conclusion at all. At least, not today. Them’s the breaks.

Underlying your entire argument is the assumption that you are somehow entitled to know, right now, an accurate detailed history from the beginning of the universe to right now. Why do you think you are entitled to that? Where does that come from? Why are you entitled to know right now? You know more of that history than billions of fellow humans who have lived and died. Why weren’t they entitled to the information you demand? Who gave you the right to say: hey science! Time’s up!! Any detail you can’t explain right now is evidence that my specific God did it using magic (or, more politely, supernatural powers).

The God of the gaps argument has always been a fallacy and it always will be a fallacy. Claiming something is impossible when you don’t even know what it is or how it was supposed to happen is a golden ticket to be wrong.

I’m not a chemist or a microbiologist. I don’t have a “theory” about what happened during whatever the gap happens to be as of now. Hell, I don’t know where the actual gap starts and ends. I am hyperskeptical of your claim that nothing new has been learned in the last 70 years. Are all those books in the link I posted filled with old mimeographed pages from the 50s?

Nobody owes me answers to anything, especially right now. For me to demand them would be extraordinarily arrogant. I’ve come to grips with the fact that I will never know the answers to questions that I’d really, really, really like the answers to. Like Darwin never knew about DNA. Or Newton never knew about relativity. Such is the plight of being a sentient chunk of carbon. All in all, it’s not a bad plight.
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