tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post1312834894485540779..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: More Inconvenient Truths with James TourUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger267125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44641370084613656432016-04-13T11:11:01.398-07:002016-04-13T11:11:01.398-07:00Dave
"The cell he describes is a modern cell...Dave<br /><br />"The cell he describes is a modern cell, alive today. That means it's the product of three or four billion years of evolution. During all that time, it's ancestors had to keep up with every other organism in their environment, reproducing at least as fast as the others, protecting themselves from the others and in many cases, hunting down and eating the others. Every change it made added to its complexity. It and its modern contemporaries would find the First Living Thing to be a small and very insignificant lunch, hardly worth eating."<br /><br />Ahh, evolutionary story telling at its finest. Just got to love it. <br /><br />Perhaps you would would like to provide some demonstrable evidence to support your story, because this is actually nothing more than a stream of assertions. Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51085951721608072842016-04-13T10:51:17.913-07:002016-04-13T10:51:17.913-07:00Dave is referring to the first simple self-replica...<i>Dave is referring to the first simple self-replicators.</i><br /><br />The imagined simple self-replicators?<br /><br /><i>If their self-replicating ability is non-functional then they die </i><br /><br />They were never alive so they cannot dieJoe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-92068029499890863182016-04-13T10:30:18.204-07:002016-04-13T10:30:18.204-07:00Looks like the Load More java script broke on this...Looks like the Load More java script broke on this thread.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44051213175340652742016-04-13T10:16:39.715-07:002016-04-13T10:16:39.715-07:00Evotard:
the first simple self-replicators
There...Evotard:<br /><br /><i>the first simple self-replicators</i><br /><br />There are no such thing as a simple self-replicator. Von Neumann proved this a long time ago. Get an education, moron.<br /><br />The combinatorial explosion that results from all the variables used in a self-replicator is so huge, you would need a computer the size of quintillions of universes running for quintillions of years and you still not be able to search through it. Random variations would destroy any order that forms. The likelihood of a self-replicator emerging by chance from dirt is exactly ZERO.<br /><br />Superstitious fool.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6605743827199749002016-04-13T10:07:31.435-07:002016-04-13T10:07:31.435-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80669442742387380562016-04-13T09:59:59.133-07:002016-04-13T09:59:59.133-07:00ghostrider,
"Oh come on. "A little bit ...ghostrider,<br /><br />"Oh come on. "A little bit south of Saskatoon" was featured in the Paul Newman hockey movie Slapshot. It's the background music for the scene when the Charlestown Chiefs are on a road trip in their bus and they moon the other team's fans. :)"<br /><br />I have seen Slapshot, once and a long time ago, and I am one who usually checks into the soundtrack. I guess I would simply have to say I missed the bus on that one. Slapshot shows up on the movie channels regularly, I'll have to watch it again. Actually, not too long ago I went to a fundraising hockey game featuring the 'Hanson Brothers'. It was quite entertaining if you understand hockey culture.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36770393945643685412016-04-13T09:52:39.119-07:002016-04-13T09:52:39.119-07:00He never says that the FLT was an ultra complex fu...He never says that the FLT was an ultra complex fully modern cell. However he does say that he will not consider entities for which there isn't any evidence for. And there isn't any evidence for a more simple cell.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48542770081844878762016-04-13T09:49:16.036-07:002016-04-13T09:49:16.036-07:00Nic
Dave,
"Because "non-functional&quo...<i>Nic<br /><br />Dave,<br /><br />"Because "non-functional" equals "dead"."<br /><br />Sorry, wrong. Non-functioning means just that, non-functioning. It means without function, it does not mean 'dead'. Your kidneys can be non-functioning, but that does not mean the tissue is dead</i><br /><br />Dave is referring to the first simple self-replicators. If their self-replicating ability is non-functional then they die without leaving copies and that lineage is dead.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51884597694245674972016-04-13T09:44:47.579-07:002016-04-13T09:44:47.579-07:00Nic
Dave,
"His actual assertion was that th...<i>Nic<br /><br />Dave,<br /><br />"His actual assertion was that the First Living Thing was an ultra complex fully modern cell such as the one he shows in the cutaway model at the beginning of his lecture. This is complete nonsense."<br /><br />Nice assertion. Now demonstrate your claim.</i><br /><br />It's in the video Nic. The first minute or so.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85776722405779177662016-04-13T09:40:06.079-07:002016-04-13T09:40:06.079-07:00Nic
In songs by The Guess Who, Johnny Cash and y...<i>Nic<br /><br /> In songs by The Guess Who, Johnny Cash and your reference to Sonny James, of which I was not aware.</i><br /><br />Oh come on. "A little bit south of Saskatoon" was featured in the Paul Newman hockey movie Slapshot. It's the background music for the scene when the Charlestown Chiefs are on a road trip in their bus and they moon the other team's fans. :)Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39225710779460104982016-04-13T09:15:54.949-07:002016-04-13T09:15:54.949-07:00ghostrider, just so I understand. You mischaracter...ghostrider, just so I understand. You mischaracterize the argument and when I explain how you answer with "yer stupid".<br /><br />I'd reckon that as a concession that you have no answer other than "poo-flinging". Is that because you can't grasp what i'm talking about or because you have no real answer to my question. such as how does evolution help a synthetic chemist "do" science? <br /><br />so 'splain it to me. How is it that evolutionary theory is essential to science?<br /><br />ohandy1https://www.blogger.com/profile/07374693723371788011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31265156857892192192016-04-13T08:38:02.436-07:002016-04-13T08:38:02.436-07:00ghostrider,
"Our understanding of common des...ghostrider,<br /><br />"Our understanding of common descent is why we can test new medication on non-human species."<br /><br />Common descent does not even enter the picture in this scenario. Testing on non-human species is carried out solely based on genetic commonalities, nothing more is involved. How and why those commonalities exist is not part of the process. Those who believe in creation approach this type of research in the same manner as do evolutionists, as their respective presuppositions on origins have virtually nothing to do with what is happening before their eyes.<br /><br />Francis Crick made the following comment;<br /><br />"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much."<br /><br />As you know Crick was an avowed evolutionist, but he was honest enough to realize its shortcomings vis a vis research.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61151690389923603672016-04-13T08:21:39.322-07:002016-04-13T08:21:39.322-07:00William,
"Saskatoon. Where you can watch you...William,<br /><br />"Saskatoon. Where you can watch your dog run away from home for days."<br /><br />That would be more to the south. Actually in the far south of the province is one of the highest points in Canada east of the Rockies, Cypress Hills at 4,800 feet above sea level.<br />Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20256423059667121992016-04-13T08:04:26.654-07:002016-04-13T08:04:26.654-07:00ghostrider,
"A little bit south of Saskatoon...ghostrider,<br /><br />"A little bit south of Saskatoon? :)"<br /><br />Sorry, my friend, I did it again. I saw this post and replied to William. I beg your forgiveness. :)<br /><br />As I said to William, I live a little north of Saskatoon, but within runnin' distance.<br /><br />It's actually quite amusing how often Saskatoon seems to turn up in popular culture. In songs by The Guess Who, Johnny Cash and your reference to Sonny James, of which I was not aware. It has popped up in movies like A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court where Bing Crosby uses Saskatoon, Saskatchewan as a magical incantation. There is even a restaurant, in North Carolina I believe, called Saskatoon.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88231116070015395262016-04-13T07:48:07.461-07:002016-04-13T07:48:07.461-07:00Because he wastes an hour and a half proving that ...<i>Because he wastes an hour and a half proving that a modern complex cell couldn't have been the FLT and nobody who actually knows jack about OOL disagrees with him! </i><br /><br />There isn't any evidence for a more simple cell. That you keep ignoring that fact says quite a bit about you.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28230366232308101722016-04-13T07:45:52.059-07:002016-04-13T07:45:52.059-07:00Who is qualified and what are their qualifications...Who is qualified and what are their qualifications?Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14607266142254275772016-04-13T07:43:46.094-07:002016-04-13T07:43:46.094-07:00Dave,
"His actual assertion was that the Fir...Dave,<br /><br />"His actual assertion was that the First Living Thing was an ultra complex fully modern cell such as the one he shows in the cutaway model at the beginning of his lecture. This is complete nonsense."<br /><br />Nice assertion. Now demonstrate your claim.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22984541544929128692016-04-13T07:34:09.194-07:002016-04-13T07:34:09.194-07:00ghostrider,
"They're the only credible s...ghostrider,<br /><br />"They're the only credible source."<br /><br />In who's view, yours? So, contrary opinions written by equally qualified scientists in relevant, comparable fields are completely without credibility?<br /><br />"That's merely your personal incredulity, not any sort of scientifically established fact."<br /><br />Like I said before, the argument that life could arise spontaneously by overcoming the hurdles pointed out by Dr. Tour is incredulous on its own. As such, an incredulous response is justified.<br /><br />Nic:"Developing such an organism is unbelievably difficult for intelligent beings, it would be beyond comprehension to believe a mindless process could accomplish such a thing."<br /><br />ghostrider: "Reality isn't affected by your inability to comprehend it."<br /><br />And reality is not created by your desire to have it be so.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38527436643179590812016-04-13T07:31:20.265-07:002016-04-13T07:31:20.265-07:00WS:
The adults are talking.
Then you should shut ...WS:<br /><i>The adults are talking.</i><br /><br />Then you should shut up and read what they post.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76988036266249427862016-04-13T07:29:32.726-07:002016-04-13T07:29:32.726-07:00Dave:
What do you think would happen if something ...Dave:<br /><i>What do you think would happen if something like the First Living Thing appeared today? </i><br /><br />I don't know, what would happen? Do tell.<br /><br /><i>Something whose only property was to slowly and painfully reproduce just a little bit faster than nature destroyed it? </i><br /><br />Doubt it but your position requires it.<br /><br />Look obviously you are just spewing shit that you have no idea how to support. Typical evolutionist thinks he can spew nonsense and tat nonsense is actual evidence.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29480852152220566612016-04-13T07:15:28.259-07:002016-04-13T07:15:28.259-07:00Dave,
"Because "non-functional" eq...Dave,<br /><br />"Because "non-functional" equals "dead"."<br /><br />Sorry, wrong. Non-functioning means just that, non-functioning. It means without function, it does not mean 'dead'. Your kidneys can be non-functioning, but that does not mean the tissue is dead.<br /><br />Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54726705399018732332016-04-13T00:14:01.686-07:002016-04-13T00:14:01.686-07:00DM:
One of the things I like about this website i...DM:<br /><br /><i>One of the things I like about this website is that Professor Hunter and most of the commenters seem to realize that religious beliefs hamper clear thinking. I agree.<br /><br />You might think about that Sunday morning.</i><br /><br />Says the dirt worshipper while conveniently forgetting that he worships dirt as the mother of life at the altar of atheism.<br /><br /><i>Louis' hyper-skepticism</i><br /><br />Says the dirt worshipper who wears his own hyper-skepticism on his sleeve.<br /><br />ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30703167469826311292016-04-12T23:43:09.437-07:002016-04-12T23:43:09.437-07:00William Spearshake, you took your explanation for ...William Spearshake, you took your explanation for how life avoids the combinatorial explosion right out of my mouth. Thanks for saving me a lot of time since it bounced right off Louis' hyper-skepticism. Dave Mullenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396248292343586723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32323123906647257772016-04-12T23:38:41.166-07:002016-04-12T23:38:41.166-07:00Nic: "As Dr. Tour pointed out, what would the...Nic: "As Dr. Tour pointed out, what would there be to guide this process to the next step? Why would it not simply keep producing non-functioning combinations? After all, such a process knows nothing of function or non-function."<br /><br />Because "non-functional" equals "dead". Dead organisms don't reproduce themselves so no new organisms with that combination are produced.<br /><br /><br /><br />Nic writes "If you really have an open mind on the subject have a look at what information the other side presents," on an ID website. <br /><br />The irony.<br />Dave Mullenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396248292343586723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47610879494270555882016-04-12T23:35:36.509-07:002016-04-12T23:35:36.509-07:00Kevin Frank, I'll remember your comment about ...Kevin Frank, I'll remember your comment about "fluff", "approval of the orthodox" and "grants and other funding" the next time I see a preacher step up to the pulpit in a multi-million dollar state of the art television studio/cathedral to mammon or, for that matter, go my friends local mini mega church with its state of the art felt lined auditorium with two bands, a choir, theater style seats, concert style lighting and a gift shop.<br /><br />How many scientists have private jets, multi-million (tax free) dollar "parsonages" and turn down six figure salaries because they make millions selling their books?<br /><br />How many clergy do you know who went through college, grad school and years of poverty stricken post doctoral work to get a seat on the ground floor of religion?<br /><br />The OOL intelligence goes into trying to figure out what the FLT might have been, what it was made of and how it was produced and try to simulate the world in a test tube and crest life in less than a million years.<br /><br />Kevin Frank quoting me quoting Tour:<br />'“It is a remarkable fact that no canonical [biblical] author has ever used nature to prove God."<br /><br />This is an absolute fact.'<br /><br />Unless you consider Paul a canonical author or Romans 1 18-20 to be canonical:<br /><br />18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.<br /><br />Dave Mullenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396248292343586723noreply@blogger.com