I know you enjoy the forum banter and I have a few minutes now so I will attempt to oblige.
Susan Doris Wrote:
> Well, if you have a spare half-hour or something,Quote
I gave up arguing with you years ago.
> why not have a go at saying why!! Actually, I've
> never thought of discussion here as argument, but
> always as discussion. Views firmly expressed, but
> that's what makes a discussion interesting.
> Arguing is trying to win. I've never been
> interested in winning or losing, it's the
> discussion that counts every time.
Corp: The comment was not made to put you down or diminish your input in any way.
The reason is simply obvious in that you hold a very fixed view of things on this subject. That is your right and I do not expect it to change. However, you had (via the video), a very good chance to challenge your own position by considering carefully and thoroughly what the scientist (James Tour) had to say on his specialist, science only, matter.
As for losing and winning. I think your comment to be a little disingenuous . I will believe you because I like you. ;-)
So , in this case YOU LOSE! ( I will try to explain why in brief later at bottom)
> thank you. I have googled him and wikipedia,Quote
I watched the video and the scientist is
> James M Tour, Rice University USA
> amongst the list of headings, has 'dissent from
> darwin' which I linked on. A paragraph or two is
> enough to show that he has been linked with
> attempts to discredit the TofE in favour of
> Intelligent Design. Need I say more? I will,
> however read more about him later. But his
> aggressive rant on that video places him outside
> the solid foundation and support for the tofE.
Corp: The video of James Tour which Cloister posted ( there is actually a longer better or clearer one available) is about abiogenesis, not TofE . It is what had to, required to, have happened first, before Evolution.
He obviously has issues with Evolution I wont bother listening to his further rants.
Regardless of his religious crap, he is super qualified to discuss abiogenesis and presents a solid, indisputable case.
> As is always the case, it does not matter how manyQuote
His website introduces his massive long
> list of achievements etc apparently voted in the
> top 50 most influential scientists in the world.
> achievements one has had, that does not make a woo
> digression, speech or fringe book right or valid.
Corp: As above he was talking strictly science, in his field as a world leading expert in that field.
> He can be as clear as he wants to be, but it won'tQuote
His is pretty clear that random chance is
> not enough. It needs mindboggling compounding
> hugely improbable coincidences and a plan.
> stand up to the scrutiny required.Unless
> hisopinion is backed up by experimentation etc it
> remains an opinion only with 'unknown' as the
> inevitable label given to the speculations
Corp: His actual experimentation in synthetic chemistry and nanotechnology is way beyond astounding!
He was not talking opinion. He was stating fact as far as humans are currently able to understand it and emphasising (without actually stating it this way) that discovery of the basis for abiogenesis, is absolutely unlikely to be discovered in the foreseeable future existence of human kind. It is much too big of a problem.
> well, I do actually know that!!Quote
What you have called "unknown" is what a
> lot of others call "God".
Corp: Then every time someone on this forum says "God" you replace it with "unknown" and you will both be in absolute agreement! Until they start preaching about their "personal epistemology" and what they think, or have been told , that "unknown" says, or does, or dictates.
> That sentence doesn't make enough clear sense forQuote
What you reject, is the human mythology and
> pretence about knowing the "unknown", which is
> called "religion".
> me to respond to.
Corp: I was meaning you reject, and are entitled to reject, religion! It is a human invention to fill the unknown gap and control people.
> Why did you inflict that on me then?!Quote
PS Gee he (scientist) is a raving ranter
> who is difficult to listen too though!
> We end this exchange here then on a point of
Corp: I mean just because he is a religious nutter (almost a requirement for funding and political correctness in USA) does not mean we ought not listen to something scientific, which he knows lots about, is a world leader in, and that makes absolute indisputable sense.
What is the cross over point between "chemicals" and "life" ? No one knows and it cannot happen by random chance and lots of billions of years of time. It requires sophisticated planning and management of so many variables scientists can't even begin to think of how! Edit to add: His emphasis was that simple scientific attempts at experimentation, have not even come remotely close to even building the most basic requirements for "life" with compound improbability MUCH MUCH greater than the number of estimated atoms in the universe !
Something was in charge of organising the beginning of it.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 28-Aug-19 04:20 by Corpuscles.