New thread on Religion and Politics, to avoid going off topic

I could not disagree with that statement more. I started in research, and have worked in Engineering in advanced technology for many years. I don't know the context in which that statement was made...maybe it was even made in irony, or as a joke. But I consider it to be one.

Edit add: Christ, I know who that guy is. I.....had a book he wrote. I doubt he was joking. He had a professional life full of controversy, for sure.

. Originally Posted by rooster

I will take a look at that Ducbutter, I only had time to watch a few minutes this afternoon. It's probably organic chemistry. I actually took that class, organic chemistry for chemistry and chemical engineering students and was damn good at it. I could figure out a way to synthesize anything they threw at us.

For me it's harder to envision going from chemicals in a primeval sea to a unicellular creature than it is going from that creature to a human. Based on the fossil record and sedimentation rates, evolution has occurred over billion of years. But was it divinely inspired?
Originally Posted by Tiny

You're correct, Tour is an organic chemist.
The following video covers the issue you raise.

I offer you the work of Dr. James Tour of Rice University, Professor of Synthetic Inorganic(I think) Chemistry. He's challenged the entire organic chemistry field for years to produce even the most basic of cells by some sort of natural prebiotic process and no one has been able to that I'm aware of. Like with everyone, you can find Tour's detractors, but I've seen no one able to take up his challenge.


Tour's specialty might be synthetic organic chem.
I'll have another link for Vita you might be interested in. See below. Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Hi Ducbutter, I've watched all of the second James Tour video, which I didn't get much out of, and am about 20 or 30 minutes into this one, which is interesting, even though I'm not up to speed on the chemistry. It's interesting enough that I'll undoubtedly finish the video.

Tour is no charlatan, like the breast doctor and physicist who claimed they proved with statistics that the COVID spike protein must have arisen through engineering. Tour has some very legitimate criticisms that origin of life scientists can't address based on what they know now.

Repeating myself, I think it's easier to explain how you go from a unicellular creature to a human than it is to go from chemicals to the first creature. But still that's quite a jump isn't it, from something like an amoeba to a human or dolphin.

Most geologists know a good bit about paleontology and sedimentology. The fossil record, radiometric dating, and sedimentation rates provide very strong evidence for evolution. As such, you'll find very few geologists who don't believe that evolution occurred over billions of years, or at least hundreds of millions. My guess is under 2%. But a large percentage of American geologists, probably a majority in Texas, are Christians. Many surely view evolution as confirmation of a divine presence.

I think that people have been debating the existence of god or divinity since human beings started using their brains for more than just survival.

What bothers me is not the existence of a divine being or a divine order but rather the thought that human beings are so arrogant as to believe that they are the only ones that matter in the universe. Or that their particular religion is the only one that matters.

Combine that arrogant religious belief with politics and you get a toxic combination.

I offer you the work of Dr. James Tour of Rice University.... Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Even in 14 billion plus years there isn't enough time to run the necessary number of experiments, per these three.

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

I offer the trite, old adage that lack of evidence is not proof of a negative (which is also an argument against atheism, come to think of it). And there is an overwhelming amount of physical evidence that proves Darwin was at least very close to right.

I would offer the works of Richard Dawkins....
. Originally Posted by rooster

Quite familiar with Dawkins. He has no answer for these guys.
Watch the video. You certainly didn't watch a 57 minute video in 55 minutes.
Dawkins has no answer for Tour either.
Faith is one problem you'll find hard to escape. Even in science.
"Modern science is based on the principle: ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest." Terrance McKenna Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Okay, you’ve got to help me out here. First, please understand that I have no desire whatsoever to insult you or attack you. But I need you to distill all of these things down for me in the following two ways:

1) Please summarize these posts for us, especially the James Tour stuff. Because the most relevant part of your responses to me so far has been “You certainly didn’t watch…” That is 100 percent true. I don’t know you, I don’t know him. I’m not going to spend all of that time trying to guess what your actual point is here. And...to be frank (and again, I don’t want to insult you...or him), I find his language around “faith” to be tiresome. I’ve already expressed my thoughts on that elsewhere. So… please...summarize for me what his main point(s) is/are. Give me your interpretation.

2) Tell us YOUR thoughts on this, specifically. I can’t see where you come down for sure on any particular side. And maybe you don’t. But when you keep posting this kind of thing, it is reasonable to assume that you are promoting a point of view. Make it clear. Please. THEN we can actually talk.

You're correct, Tour is an organic chemist.
The following video covers the issue you raise.

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

This video is particularly frustrating. I can’t see where it “covers the issue” that Tiny raises at all. It just seems to be Tour's response to a critic who sounds like they have used bad science to refute his arguments. I can’t get through it.

But I did spend just a few minutes looking for other stuff about Tour. His faith is admirable. And I have been very careful to NOT criticize anyone who has faith. But I don't want to hear him pontificating about his. And there is a lot of that.

So...please. Tell us. What is this guy saying? Why are you posting it? Are you a person of faith? Do you agree or disagree with some of the points here?

I truly welcome your response.

One last thing….the Pete Holmes video….what’s the point? I didn’t find it original or relevant in any way, really. And...sorry for the redundancy...I don’t want to insult you. But posting it almost seems a smarmy, denigrating response to some of the things said in the thread. Is it? Or do I need to lighten TF up? Even if I do….I thought it was pretty lame, sorry. It's a bit pretentious in its criticism, and criticizing people who don't have faith is just as hypocritical as criticizing those who do...

(I recognize the strong possiblity that your reason for posting Holmes went over my head...but I think that is my "ask" of you here....tell us what you think in your words, not someone else's)

.

Sorry, and I don't mean to offend, but I really don't have the time. It's a deep subject matter and, due to an injury long ago I haven't the typing skills necessary to put it down in print in any kind of reasonable fashion, timewise.
I added the videos because they challenge the typical Darwinian models involving the idea of life originating in some sort of prebiotic "soup", as well as the validity of alleged mechanisms for evolutionary change once life emerged from said soup. And despite the Christian leanings of Tour and Meyer, they are not promoting a deist position so much as one of intelligent design. At least in Meyer's case. Sorry, but it would probably take me longer to type out an insufficient summary of their ideas than for you to just watch the video. I'm nobody's biologic or spiritual guru. But thanks for a civilized response and offer for me to expound.

Sure, NP. I'm good with that.

I like this statement especially:

"I'm nobody's biologic or spiritual guru."

That couldn't be a better attitude. I need to follow it also.

.

1) Please summarize these posts for us, especially the James Tour stuff. Because the most relevant part of your responses to me so far has been “You certainly didn’t watch…” That is 100 percent true. I don’t know you, I don’t know him. I’m not going to spend all of that time trying to guess what your actual point is here. And...to be frank (and again, I don’t want to insult you...or him), I find his language around “faith” to be tiresome. I’ve already expressed my thoughts on that elsewhere. So… please...summarize for me what his main point(s) is/are. Give me your interpretation. Originally Posted by rooster

Rooster, FYI, Ducbutter and I were combatants in the eccie COVID Wars of 2021 and 2022. We were on different sides, although we weren't as far apart as the other participants in the debate. And from that, I can tell you Ducbutter knows his stuff. He probably knows more about evolutionary biology than anyone on the site. He may just end up being right about a couple of our disagreements, about the wisdom of the COVID vaccine for younger men and the origins of the virus. The fat lady hasn't sung yet though.

I was fascinated by this subject, the origin of life, in my teens and early twenties, and have revisited it because of posts in this thread. I've watched a couple of additional videos and scanned a couple of papers, in addition to looking at Ducbutter's links. I don't have much time today but will be back to give my half baked take on the questions you asked Ducbutter.

The people mentioned in this thread, Dawkins, Tour, and Meyer, do have agendas. They're not just looking at or working on the science. Dawkins wants to convert you to atheism and Tour and Meyer to Christianity. I have to respect Tour and Meyer more in that respect. Rightly or wrongly, they believe they're working to save your immortal soul.

My takeaway is that your statement earlier in your thread, something to the effect that you're an agnostic instead of an atheist because we don't know shit, makes a lot of sense.

Even in 14 billion plus years there isn't enough time to run the necessary number of experiments, per these three.

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

I watched all of your first link Ducbutter. And all of the first half of the video quoted here, as well as the the second half where Meyer spoke. Interesting stuff, thanks for posting it.

On abiogenesis, Meyer seems a bit like Tour Lite. He doesn't understand the chemistry as well as Tour and chemists working in the origin of life field. I suspect this may be the reason, as you alluded to in a later post, that Meyer takes the intelligent design approach, while Tour basically is a bomb thrower who won't take a position on intelligent design. That's not a criticism btw, Rand Paul is a bomb thrower and also my favorite Senator.

I don't believe Meyer's narrative about evolution in the Cambrian makes a lot of sense. There wasn't much in the fossil record because Pre Cambrian organisms were soft bodied, and weren't well preserved. Also conditions were more amenable to life, for example higher temperatures caused by higher CO2 levels. Some of our fellow board members should think about that before they criticize the fossil fuels industry! If not for high CO2 levels and much higher temperatures, we might just be mollusks crawling around on the seafloor instead of humans walking upright! (Tiny climbs down from soapbox.)

If you have the chance, the paleontology exhibit in the science museum by Hermann Park in Houston is well worth a visit. You can see from the exhibits what I'm describing above, when the earth went from Pre Cambrian to Cambrian.

I watched all of your first link Ducbutter. And all of the first half of the video quoted here, as well as the the second half where Meyer spoke. Interesting stuff, thanks for posting it.

On abiogenesis, Meyer seems a bit like Tour Lite. He doesn't understand the chemistry as well as Tour and chemists working in the origin of life field. I suspect this may be the reason, as you alluded to in a later post, that Meyer takes the intelligent design approach, while Tour basically is a bomb thrower who won't take a position on intelligent design. That's not a criticism btw, Rand Paul is a bomb thrower and also my favorite Senator.

I don't believe Meyer's narrative about evolution in the Cambrian makes a lot of sense. There wasn't much in the fossil record because Pre Cambrian organisms were soft bodied, and weren't well preserved. Also conditions were more amenable to life, for example higher temperatures caused by higher CO2 levels. Some of our fellow board members should think about that before they criticize the fossil fuels industry! If not for high CO2 levels and much higher temperatures, we might just be mollusks crawling around on the seafloor instead of humans walking upright! (Tiny climbs down from soapbox.)

If you have the chance, the paleontology exhibit in the science museum by Hermann Park in Houston is well worth a visit. You can see from the exhibits what I'm describing above, when the earth went from Pre Cambrian to Cambrian. Originally Posted by Tiny

Tiny, glad you got some entertainment from the videos. I had a feeling you might. I agree with your take on Tour and Meyer. They definitely have agendas but I still find their arguments compelling. Gelernter and Berlinski don't share that agenda but do share the ideas and I appreciate that.
I agree too, that Meyer's idea around the pre-cambrian is not the strongest part of his argument. I saw your flattering comments in the post above and though it's mightily appreciated I must confess to being a 100% hack on the subject. I'm a retired roughneck/carpenter/motion picture grip so no formal training.
And thanks for the heads up about the museum.

Rooster, Tiny is one of the very few posters here who's comments are always worth reading. Agree with him or not you will always learn something worth knowing. Intelligent, open and fair minded.

Cheers.

Worth noting that I do have my own perspective on the issue stemming from a couple different flatline episodes during a months long hospital stay following a catastrophic mva 25 years ago. Plus an unrelated near fatal bout with sepsis 5-7 years ago.
Let's just say I have a hard time seeing myself ever believing in a purely materialist world.

Worth noting that I do have my own perspective on the issue stemming from a couple different flatline episodes during a months long hospital stay following a catastrophic mva 25 years ago. Plus an unrelated near fatal bout with sepsis 5-7 years ago.
Let's just say I have a hard time seeing myself ever believing in a purely materialist world. Originally Posted by Ducbutter

BTW, how's that for a run-on sentence? Sheesh!