The thread just keeps on giving. Fungii are plants indeed. I laughed my ass off.

I hope this thread never stops. Everena gets dumber by the post with hilarious results.

(November 28, 2018 at 5:45 am)IWNKYAAIMI Wrote:

(November 27, 2018 at 3:12 pm)Everena Wrote: No and our souls always have been and always will be and there is no problem with that either.

Just typing shit (sometimes in bold) and then walking off doesn't help.. Show me some evidence for the existence of a soul for example.

(November 26, 2018 at 1:38 pm)Everena Wrote: Food exists by the same process we exist? What process is it that created food and all conscious life on this planet?

You know the answer to this already, stop deflecting away from providing me with any evidence for an eternal creator.

Quote: Sorry, there is an intelligent creator. DNA+food+consciousness= God

DNA+food+consciousness+Everena= God

She's basing her belief of souls on Penrose which though quasi based on the concept of Quantum activity in the brain etc . Far from demonstrates the existence of a soul

Here second point really is just assertions

(November 28, 2018 at 6:46 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote: The thread just keeps on giving. Fungii are plants indeed. I laughed my ass off.

I hope this thread never stops. Everena gets dumber by the post with hilarious results.

Actually her supposed argument is that fungi are close enough that she permits herself the right to place them in the same category despite the fervent insistence by actual scientists that they not be classified as such and further supports this by means of "their lack of conscientiousness"

(November 28, 2018 at 1:13 am)Everena Wrote:

(November 27, 2018 at 2:35 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: Facts and truth can be scary but you shouldn't avoid it. hint hint.

(November 27, 2018 at 2:28 pm)CDF47 Wrote: You should be taking your own hints because God exists.

Hey CDF47. Here is another great article from a world famous chemist 
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-...evolution/

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution

Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars, nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. [/color]


On Professor Tour’s Website, there’s a very revealing article on evolution and creation, in which Tour bluntly states that he does not understand how macroevolution could have happened, from a chemical standpoint (all bold emphases below are mine – VJT):

… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.

Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?

…I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? … Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.

Apparently, if I'm reading Tour's statement correctly, he doesn't understand that evolution does not include abiogenesis.

(November 28, 2018 at 6:47 am)Amarok Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 5:45 am)IWNKYAAIMI Wrote: Just typing shit (sometimes in bold) and then walking off doesn't help.. Show me some evidence for the existence of a soul for example.


You know the answer to this already, stop deflecting away from providing me with any evidence for an eternal creator.


DNA+food+consciousness+Everena= God

She's basing her belief of souls on Penrose which though quasi based on the concept of Quantum activity in the brain etc . Far from demonstrates the existence of a soul

Here second point really is just assertions

Yeah, I read about Penrose and Hameroff's research. Interesting indeed, but also contentious.

There's apparently a whole train of them. Convinced yet?

(November 28, 2018 at 8:41 am)IWNKYAAIMI Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 6:47 am)Amarok Wrote: She's basing her belief of souls on Penrose which though quasi based on the concept of Quantum activity in the brain etc . Far from demonstrates the existence of a soul

Here second point really is just assertions

Yeah, I read about Penrose and Hameroff's research. Interesting indeed, but also contentious.

Not just contentious. but heavily criticized by his colleagues

---

(November 28, 2018 at 8:31 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 1:13 am)Everena Wrote: Hey CDF47. Here is another great article from a world famous chemist 
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-...evolution/

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution

Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars, nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. [/color]


On Professor Tour’s Website, there’s a very revealing article on evolution and creation, in which Tour bluntly states that he does not understand how macroevolution could have happened, from a chemical standpoint (all bold emphases below are mine – VJT):

… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.

Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?

…I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? … Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.

Apparently, if I'm reading Tour's statement correctly, he doesn't understand that evolution does not include abiogenesis.

Also once again he admits he isn't an expert so trotting him out as an authority is just sad .

---

(November 28, 2018 at 8:41 am)IWNKYAAIMI Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 6:47 am)Amarok Wrote: She's basing her belief of souls on Penrose which though quasi based on the concept of Quantum activity in the brain etc . Far from demonstrates the existence of a soul

Here second point really is just assertions

Yeah, I read about Penrose and Hameroff's research. Interesting indeed, but also contentious.

From where i stand the evidence for his idea's don't seem much better then his objection to the alternatives and the idea that anything has been proven is simply an exaggeration.

---

(November 28, 2018 at 5:25 am)Gwaithmir Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 2:46 am)Everena Wrote: Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars, nanoelectronics, 
graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. 


It is his understanding of molecular chemistry. He is saying no one understands how macroevolution could possibly ever happen. NO ONE

"Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “No,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it."


I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?”

And this is from his website:

I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (sometimes called “ID”) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments and I find some of them intriguing, but I prefer to be free of that intelligent design label. As a modern-day scientist, I do not know how to prove intelligent design using my most sophisticated analytical tools— the canonical tools are, by their own admission, inadequate to answer the intelligent design question. I cannot lay the issue at the doorstep of a benevolent creator or even an impersonal intelligent designer. All I can presently say is that my chemical tools do not permit my assessment of intelligent design.

I have written a long article on the origin of life: http://inference-review.com/article/animadversions-of-a-synthetic-chemist. It is clear, chemists and biologists are clueless. I wrote, “Those who think scientists understand the issues of prebiotic chemistry are wholly misinformed. Nobody understands them. Maybe one day we will. But that day is far from today. It would be far more helpful (and hopeful) to expose students to the massive gaps in our understanding. They may find a firmer—and possibly a radically different—scientific theory. The basis upon which we as scientists are relying is so shaky that we must openly state the situation for what it is: it is a mystery.” Note that since the time of my submission of that commentary cited above, articles continue to be published on prebiotic chemistry, so I will link to my short critiques of a few of those newer articles so that the interested reader can get an ongoing synthetic chemist’s assessment of the proposals: .

I'll also point out 

1. The statement  highlighted are simply hearsay as one observer points out

Quote:You remember. Jimmy Tour says he has top secret conversations with other brilliant scientists, and they all whisper that they don’t understand the origin of life. We’re supposed to believe that it’s something they’re afraid to reveal in public. Let’s read on:

2. Abiogenisis is not evolution

Also i'll point out that even if he's not a IDiot he's definitely religious with a massive persecution complex and he's become a mouth piece for various creationist platforms .

Quote:What a comfort it must be to be pleasantly settled in one camp or the other, but I can not be so settled, and hence I have few tent-fellows. Based upon my faith in the Scriptures, I do believe (yes, faith and belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist) that God created the heavens and the earth and all that dwell therein, including a man named Adam and a woman named Eve. As for many of the details and the time-spans, I personally become less clear. Some may ask, What’s “less clear” about the text that reads, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth”? That is a fair question, and I wish I had an answer that would satisfy them. But I do not because I remain less clear.

I hope that’s satisfactory; I mean for me, a scientist and a Christian, to be unsure of a few things in both science and Christianity. The question is not fundamental to my salvation as a Christian which is based upon the finished work of Jesus Christ, my confession in him as Savior and my belief in his resurrection from the dead. And I used to think that my outward confession of skepticism regarding Darwinian Theory 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.” I no longer believe that, however.

In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this....

Hence, by my observation, the unfair treatment upon the skeptics of macroevolution has not come from the administration level. But my recent advice to my graduate students has been direct and revealing: If you disagree with Darwinian Theory, keep it to yourselves if you value your careers, unless, of course, you’re one of those champions for proclamation; I know that that fire exists in some, so be ready for lead-ridden limbs. But if the scientific community has taken these shots at senior faculty, it will not be comfortable for the young non-conformist. When the power-holders permit no contrary discussion, can a vibrant academy be maintained? Is there a University (unity in diversity)? For the United States, I pray that the scientific community and the National Academy in particular will investigate the disenfranchisement that is manifest upon some of their own, and thereby address the inequity.

NOVA Wonders: Can We Build a Brain?

The title is somewhat misleading. It's actually a good overview of modern AI, including explaining multiple models, and discussing risks and problems. Recommended.

@Everena:

We're still waiting for you to answer my question.

Indeed, Prof. James M. Tour was a signator to Discovery Institute's "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism," but has he ever had a scientific paper critical of modern evolutionary theory published in NATURE or any other legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journal?

He is, by the way, a synthetic organic chemist whose scientific field is in nanotechnology, not modern evolutionary theory.