(April 21, 2019 at 7:44 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

---

(April 21, 2019 at 3:45 pm)madog Wrote: Yes  ..... But it is so infuriating that when we tell these two christians clutching at straws that Dr James Tour is not qualified on the subject they refuse to accept it 

This is a quote from Dr James Tour himself  .... I am sure the two christians will not even accept the word of the man himself 


From Dr James Tour ... quote:-

Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation. So please don’t ask me to be the speaker or debater at your event, and think carefully about asking me for an interview because I will probably not give you the profound quotations that you seek. You are of course free to quote me from what is written here, but do me the kindness of placing my statements in a fair context.

I'll repeat that last line ... quote:-

You are of course free to quote me from what is written here, but do me the kindness of placing my statements in a fair context.

So what did you just prove?

---

I showed a simple truth  .... Take any video from a person that uses a goatherders book to show the origins of life with a huge pinch of salt 

(April 21, 2019 at 9:02 pm)Succubus Wrote:

(April 21, 2019 at 7:44 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Well that's a nice welcoming message.

Every post by your detractors in this three pronged clusterfuck of a thread is a welcome message. They are standard issue replies to fundie trolls.

I see your presence in the usual fundie haunts is now zero, why is that?
Why do you so much enjoy the relentless battering you receive here. Is it masochism, self flagellation? Or pehaps did you some time ago realize the story of Christianity is utter bollocks and your mind is in turmoil and what you are doing here is a silent cry for help. A painless Celice.

Or are you (in my firsts estimation) a boring fundie cunt troll?

Please reply soonest.

His nonsensical replies give him a feeling of self-importance. I have no doubt that he actually fancies himself to be an intelligent person, which he clearly isn't. It's also obvious that he is enamored with the sound of his own voice; a rather sad case. Notice how he never comes up with any rational counterarguments, but replies with nothing more than denials and contradictions, all the while thinking that he's winning a debate. 

(April 22, 2019 at 2:16 am)madog Wrote:

(April 21, 2019 at 7:44 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

---

So what did you just prove?

---

I showed a simple truth  .... Take any video from a person that uses a goatherders book to show the origins of life with a huge pinch of salt 

It's interesting they choose him

1. As far as I know he's done no direct research into abiogenisis so even if he has credentials he hasn't done any formal work in that subject 

2. It doesn't matter if his work is commercially successful that means on the current subject 

3. If abiogenesis were so refuted one wonders why the consensus still favors it over ID (funny how he appeals to the consensus when convenient)

4. If  abiogenesis were so refuted one wonders why most of his contemporaries  still pursue it  

5. Do I need to point out he's highly religious and thus has a personnel stake and that he's shown sympathy for ID .

(April 22, 2019 at 6:30 am)Amarok Wrote: 5. Do I need to point out he's highly religious and thus has a personnel stake and that he's shown sympathy for ID .

No, the guy is a dishonest and cowardly creationist .... His video and his long introduction trying to link his credentials to the subject of creation and then just making arguements against evolution shows his dishonesty  .... Those in the field don't need to spend ten minutes trying to link their authority to the issue they are discussing  .... but if you look at his own statement prior (see my last post), he admits he is a 'Layman' as regards the subject.

As regards where his true bias lays, he was one of the few genuine scientists that signed the 'Discovery Institute’s "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" (2001)'

The reason I call him cowardly is he decietfully produced this video to offer arguements against evolultion, though purposefully made no actual claims as regards creationism and specifically distanced himself from God/christianity and ID  ..... 

This guy wants to arm creationists without putting his money where is mouth is  .... Selling his garbage as a Layman, though decieving his followers that his credentials are relevant.

Basically he walks a very fine line .... gives enough for ignorant ID christians to think they have a credited champion to boost anjd add credibility to their fallacies, while not giving enough for scientists to pull him up on his bullshit 

(April 21, 2019 at 9:02 pm)Succubus Wrote:

(April 21, 2019 at 7:44 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Well that's a nice welcoming message.

Every post by your detractors in this three pronged clusterfuck of a thread is a welcome message. They are standard issue replies to fundie trolls.

I see your presence in the usual fundie haunts is now zero, why is that?
Why do you so much enjoy the relentless battering you receive here. Is it masochism, self flagellation? Or pehaps did you some time ago realize the story of Christianity is utter bollocks and your mind is in turmoil and what you are doing here is a silent cry for help. A painless Celice.

Or are you (in my firsts estimation) a boring fundie cunt troll?

Please reply soonest.

I ignore the BS tactic of insults the best I can.  It is just a tactic to keep people from posting opposing opinions.

---

(April 21, 2019 at 10:18 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: CDF47
The rain falls on the just and the un-just alike.

---

Love means never having to say you’re sorry

That is not what love means and that is not Biblical.

---

(April 21, 2019 at 10:20 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(April 21, 2019 at 7:44 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

---

I think I know enough of your opinions to know I totally and whole-heartedly disagree with them.

I strongly doubt that you know enough about anything to disagree in any other way, but...again, I'm not interested in that silly shit.  

Can you provide attribution for this whole-hearted but empty headed statement, or not?

I've read enough in 1300 pages to know I disagree with most of what you say.  You do not believe in a Creator for some reason.  I disagree with this totally.

---

(April 22, 2019 at 1:15 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Yabut, "god" made the trees, too.  Ipso facto the information in the trees came from a mind, like all information, just not your mind.  It's the same ridiculous circle as before with design.

Show a person some undesigned thing, they swear it's also godesigned.  Show a person a designed thing that didn't come from any mind, they swear that the thing that did the designing came from a mind, and that that mind in turn came from a god.  All of this is obvious, ofc.  It's pointless to treat these beliefs as some sort of postulate that the holder will rationally adopt or abandon, because they simply aren't.  They have a history as part of a social movement, but beyond that, nada.  

Case in point...from the beginning of this thread (and any other "design" thread) a person can adopt a very accepting stance towards the putative claim.  That there is some design to life.  Sure, okay, we can take that and see that it's compatible, at least in principle, with the facts of biology.  We even understand the set of laws and circumstances that produced it - but this won't be acceptable to a creationist, that's not what they're talking about.  They don't think things were "designed" any more than they think "information" comes from minds.  Natural designs and information have nothing to do with what they're trying to express.  They think the answer to every question, and obviously so, is tinker goddidit.  

That's it, that's all.  The rest is fluff and filler.  LOL, a thousand pages of filler.  There's no example of design or information that they haven't already decided somehow ultimately comes from tinkergod, because their belief that all things ultimately come from the tinker god is the only thing informing these assertions - none of which...despite constant protestations to the contrary, are actually informing their belief in the tinkergod.

You still have not come remotely close to explaining the information bearing properties of DNA. All you do is go back to this example of things which are not all three components of complex and specified and functional.

---

(April 22, 2019 at 5:57 am)Gwaithmir Wrote:

(April 21, 2019 at 9:02 pm)Succubus Wrote: Every post by your detractors in this three pronged clusterfuck of a thread is a welcome message. They are standard issue replies to fundie trolls.

I see your presence in the usual fundie haunts is now zero, why is that?
Why do you so much enjoy the relentless battering you receive here. Is it masochism, self flagellation? Or pehaps did you some time ago realize the story of Christianity is utter bollocks and your mind is in turmoil and what you are doing here is a silent cry for help. A painless Celice.

Or are you (in my firsts estimation) a boring fundie cunt troll?

Please reply soonest.

His nonsensical replies give him a feeling of self-importance. I have no doubt that he actually fancies himself to be an intelligent person, which he clearly isn't. It's also obvious that he is enamored with the sound of his own voice; a rather sad case. Notice how he never comes up with any rational counterarguments, but replies with nothing more than denials and contradictions, all the while thinking that he's winning a debate. 

This is just more discussion for me.  The debate was won with the first post in this thread in the OP, LOL.

---

(April 22, 2019 at 7:06 am)madog Wrote:

(April 22, 2019 at 6:30 am)Amarok Wrote: 5. Do I need to point out he's highly religious and thus has a personnel stake and that he's shown sympathy for ID .

No, the guy is a dishonest and cowardly creationist .... His video and his long introduction trying to link his credentials to the subject of creation and then just making arguements against evolution shows his dishonesty  .... Those in the field don't need to spend ten minutes trying to link their authority to the issue they are discussing  .... but if you look at his own statement prior (see my last post), he admits he is a 'Layman' as regards the subject.

As regards where his true bias lays, he was one of the few genuine scientists that signed the 'Discovery Institute’s "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" (2001)'

The reason I call him cowardly is he decietfully produced this video to offer arguements against evolultion, though purposefully made no actual claims as regards creationism and specifically distanced himself from God/christianity and ID  ..... 

This guy wants to arm creationists without putting his money where is mouth is  .... Selling his garbage as a Layman, though decieving his followers that his credentials are relevant.

Basically he walks a very fine line .... gives enough for ignorant ID christians to think they have a credited champion to boost anjd add credibility to their fallacies, while not giving enough for scientists to pull him up on his bullshit 

He opposes the scientific establishment which is wrong at times throughout history.  He makes a really solid case for design.

This new poster conveniently forgot to use the required adjectives "specified" and "complex" as modifiers for his use of the word "information".

(April 22, 2019 at 11:07 am)CDF47 Wrote:

---

(April 21, 2019 at 10:20 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: I strongly doubt that you know enough about anything to disagree in any other way, but...again, I'm not interested in that silly shit.  

Can you provide attribution for this whole-hearted but empty headed statement, or not?

I've read enough in 1300 pages to know I disagree with most of what you say.  You do not believe in a Creator for some reason.  I disagree with this totally.

OFC you do, but you don't disagree with this on the basis of anything in evidence anymore than you believe it on the basis of the same.  You have beliefs...and that's okay....but it's a generally good practice to understand your own beliefs...what they are, and what they're not.   For the very last time, can you provide some source attribution for the claim that information only comes from minds, or is it just another silly thing you believe but can't place?

Quote:

(April 22, 2019 at 1:15 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Yabut, "god" made the trees, too.  Ipso facto the information in the trees came from a mind, like all information, just not your mind.  It's the same ridiculous circle as before with design.

Show a person some undesigned thing, they swear it's also godesigned.  Show a person a designed thing that didn't come from any mind, they swear that the thing that did the designing came from a mind, and that that mind in turn came from a god.  All of this is obvious, ofc.  It's pointless to treat these beliefs as some sort of postulate that the holder will rationally adopt or abandon, because they simply aren't.  They have a history as part of a social movement, but beyond that, nada.  

Case in point...from the beginning of this thread (and any other "design" thread) a person can adopt a very accepting stance towards the putative claim.  That there is some design to life.  Sure, okay, we can take that and see that it's compatible, at least in principle, with the facts of biology.  We even understand the set of laws and circumstances that produced it - but this won't be acceptable to a creationist, that's not what they're talking about.  They don't think things were "designed" any more than they think "information" comes from minds.  Natural designs and information have nothing to do with what they're trying to express.  They think the answer to every question, and obviously so, is tinker goddidit.  

That's it, that's all.  The rest is fluff and filler.  LOL, a thousand pages of filler.  There's no example of design or information that they haven't already decided somehow ultimately comes from tinkergod, because their belief that all things ultimately come from the tinker god is the only thing informing these assertions - none of which...despite constant protestations to the contrary, are actually informing their belief in the tinkergod.

You still have not come remotely close to explaining the information bearing properties of DNA. All you do is go back to this example of things which are not all three components of complex and specified and functional.

That would be your work to do, not mine.  There's no requirement that anyone else be able to answer any question you have, and no ones failure to answer whatever question you might have lends any credence or support to your god beliefs.

That's just not how any of this works, lol.

That said, the failure of the ID movement to flesh out any of those terms and claims is what lead ID proponents to grudgingly accept and openly state that their assertion wasn't empirical in the first place.   Let's ignore this for a moment, though, to explore why none of this matters...not even to you.  Suppose we try to be as generous as possible to this claim?  DNA, and even more broadly, "life", is complex, specified, and functional.  Our current understanding of evolutionary biology necessitates just such a state of affairs.  It's equally plausible that there could have been simpler, unspecied, and less or non functional bits of life and dna.....but in any situation where these two representatives of generous hypothetical sets find themselves in competition, selection strongly favors the relatively complex, specialized, and more functional subject.  

So there you are, a way to generously assess this claim and put it in the context of known facts.  Notice that a tinkergod is entirely absent?  Will this satisfy you, is a natural complexity, specificity, and functionality acceptable?  Or are you instead not referring to anything like that?

-and all of this, every single word, has already been explained to you multiple times by multiple posters throughout these many pages. This ceased to be any sort of disagreement of fact over 1k pages ago. You have beliefs...and that's okay, but you should understand what they are, and what they aren't. You think a tinkergod made everything, but it isn't on account of any complexity, specificity, or functionality that you think so. It's something you read in a magic book, that you can't explain, and that you don't seem to be able to source otherwise and elsewhere. It's as trivially easy to respond to this faith based claim as it was on the first page, and in an impressive demonstration of just how inept this "argument" for tinkergod really is, it can be rejected by simply agreeing with every portion of the claim. Yes, DNA and even life itself is all of those things, and facts in evidence handily explain how this came to be so - none of those facts in evidence are god facts, and no god tinkering is required to yield this state of affairs.

You will, ofc, continue to believe and assert that all things are...somehow..finely pushed, including these explicitly mundane facts of biology, but that's all that this is or ever was. The droning reassertion of your magic book based faith.

Quote: I ignore the BS tactic of insults the best I can.  It is just a tactic to keep people from posting opposing opinions.

Or it's not a tactic but a justified response to your bullshit

---

Quote:This is just more discussion for me.  The debate was won with the first post in this thread in the OP, LOL.

You can continue to repeat that falsehood it remains false

---

Quote:He opposes the scientific establishment which is wrong at times throughout history.  He makes a really solid case for design.

He's a crank motivated by ideological convictions and in this case the "establishment " is right . And for every time the "establishment" has been wrong it's detractors have been even more wrong . But funny do you apply the  "establishment" to biblical studies ? Or is the establishment only wrong when it disagrees with you ? And he has made no case .

---

Quote: You still have not come remotely close to explaining the information bearing properties of DNA. All you do is go back to this example of things which are not all three components of complex and specified and functional.

Argument from ignorance and his examples are valid

---

Quote:  You do not believe in a Creator for some reason.  I disagree with this totally.

Because there is zero evidence and you disagree because you know your wrong

---

(April 22, 2019 at 12:27 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(April 22, 2019 at 11:07 am)CDF47 Wrote:

---

I've read enough in 1300 pages to know I disagree with most of what you say.  You do not believe in a Creator for some reason.  I disagree with this totally.

OFC you do, but you don't disagree with this on the basis of anything in evidence anymore than you believe it on the basis of the same.  You have beliefs...and that's okay....but it's a generally good practice to understand your own beliefs...what they are, and what they're not.   For the very last time, can you provide some source attribution for the claim that information only comes from minds, or is it just another silly thing you believe but can't place?  

Quote:You still have not come remotely close to explaining the information bearing properties of DNA. All you do is go back to this example of things which are not all three components of complex and specified and functional.

That would be your work to do, not mine.  There's no requirement that anyone else be able to answer any question you have, and no ones failure to answer whatever question you might have lends any credence or support to your god beliefs.

That's just not how any of this works, lol.

That said, the failure of the ID movement to flesh out any of those terms and claims is what lead ID proponents to grudgingly accept and openly state that their assertion wasn't empirical in the first place.   Let's ignore this for a moment, though, to explore why none of this matters...not even to you.  Suppose we try to be as generous as possible to this claim?  DNA, and even more broadly, "life", is complex, specified, and functional.  Our current understanding of evolutionary biology necessitates just such a state of affairs.  It's equally plausible that there could have been simpler, unspecied, and less or non functional bits of life and dna.....but in any situation where these two representatives of generous hypothetical sets find themselves in competition, selection strongly favors the relatively complex, specialized, and more functional subject.  

So there you are, a way to generously assess this claim and put it in the context of known facts.  Notice that a tinkergod is entirely absent?  Will this satisfy you, is a natural complexity, specificity, and functionality acceptable?  Or are you instead not referring to anything like that?

-and all of this, every single word, has already been explained to you multiple times by multiple posters throughout these many pages.  This ceased to be any sort of disagreement of fact over 1k pages ago.  You have beliefs...and that's okay, but you should understand what they are, and what they aren't.  You think a tinkergod made everything, but it isn't on account of any complexity, specificity, or functionality that you think so.  It's something you read in a magic book, that you can't explain, and that you don't seem to be able to source otherwise and elsewhere.  It's as trivially easy to respond to this faith based claim as it was on the first page, and in an impressive demonstration of just how inept this "argument" for tinkergod really is, it can be rejected by simply agreeing with every portion of the claim.  Yes, DNA and even life itself is all of those things, and facts in evidence handily explain how this came to be so - none of those facts in evidence are god facts, and no god tinkering is required to yield this state of affairs.

You will, ofc, continue to believe and assert that all things are...somehow..finely pushed, including these explicitly mundane facts of biology, but that's all that this is or ever was.  The droning reassertion of your magic book based faith.

Funny we have to "explain" IDiot made terms and when we don't play by their made up  rules they get fussy

(April 22, 2019 at 11:07 am)CDF47 Wrote:

---

(April 22, 2019 at 7:06 am)madog Wrote: No, the guy is a dishonest and cowardly creationist .... His video and his long introduction trying to link his credentials to the subject of creation and then just making arguements against evolution shows his dishonesty  .... Those in the field don't need to spend ten minutes trying to link their authority to the issue they are discussing  .... but if you look at his own statement prior (see my last post), he admits he is a 'Layman' as regards the subject.

As regards where his true bias lays, he was one of the few genuine scientists that signed the 'Discovery Institute’s "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" (2001)'

The reason I call him cowardly is he decietfully produced this video to offer arguements against evolultion, though purposefully made no actual claims as regards creationism and specifically distanced himself from God/christianity and ID  ..... 

This guy wants to arm creationists without putting his money where is mouth is  .... Selling his garbage as a Layman, though decieving his followers that his credentials are relevant.

Basically he walks a very fine line .... gives enough for ignorant ID christians to think they have a credited champion to boost anjd add credibility to their fallacies, while not giving enough for scientists to pull him up on his bullshit 

He makes a really solid case for design.

You do realise being dishonest is against your chosen path .... christianity?

Please list just one claim Dr Tour makes, in the video GG supplied, that makes, or even attempts to make a case for Design .....

If you are not lying it should be easy for you to list the time in the video that shows you are telling the truth .....

(April 22, 2019 at 1:45 pm)madog Wrote:

(April 22, 2019 at 11:07 am)CDF47 Wrote:

---

He makes a really solid case for design.

You do realise being dishonest is against your chosen path .... christianity?

Please list just one claim Dr Tour makes, in the video GG supplied, that makes, or even attempts to make a case for Design .....

If you are not lying it should be easy for you to list the time in the video that shows you are telling the truth .....

He may well just pull a GG and insist you watch the video and not actual defend any of the points in it .