Abiogenesis and evolution: James Tour

@kellyjay said
Evidence in a trial is presented by both sides and it is discussed, the prosecution or defense do not get to say that simply is not evidence ignore it without discussion which is what you are attempting to do. If you have some information that you can provide bring it, or discuss why you reject what has been said.

Well, all I can do here is repeat the fact that natural processes are not evidence of anything aside from natural processes. To use your trial analogy, people are not found guilty because someone else believes them to be guilty.

@indonesia-phil said
Well, all I can do here is repeat the fact that natural processes are not evidence of anything aside from natural processes. To use your trial analogy, people are not found guilty because someone else believes them to be guilty.

Actually natural processes are evidence why would you say otherwise? If they are setup in ways that demonstrate that they serve purposes that would defy odds they clearly are evidence. The difference between a top down system is foresight used to overcome complex issues and maintenance problems, while a bottom up has not only no foresight it has no understanding at all, totally oblivious to all success or failure. It is so obvious only the willfully blind would miss it when we see what has been accomplished in the natural world.

You do not provide what you demand of others, which are the reasons that justify your meta-narrative.

I don't go on the religion forum as i am not religious,but maybe this song has some relevance to the argument that is going on between faith and science,particularly the last verse.My intention is not to offend, just put a different point of view
The Romans were the masters
When Jesus walked the land
In Judea and in Galilee
They ruled with an iron hand
The poor were sick with hunger
And the rich were clothed in splendour
And the rebels, whipped and crucified
Hung rotting as a warning
And Jesus knew the answer -
"Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's"
Said, "Love your enemies"
But Judas was a Zealot and he
Wanted to be free
"Resist", he said, "the Romans' tyranny"
Now Jesus was a conjuror,
Miracles were his game
He fed the hungry thousands
And they glorified his name
He cured the lame and leper
He calmed the wind and the weather
And the wretched flocked to touch him
So their troubles would be taken
And Jesus knew the answer -
"All you who labour, all you who suffer
Only believe in me"
But Judas sought a world where no-one
Starved or begged for bread
"The poor are always with us", Jesus said
Chorus
So stand up, stand up for Judas
And the cause that Judas served
It was Jesus who betrayed the poor with his word
Now Jesus sowed division
Where none had been before
Not the slave against the master
But the poor against the poor
Caused son to rise up against father
And brother to fight against brother
For "He that is not with me
Is against me" was his teaching
Said Jesus, "I am the answer
You unbelievers shall burn forever
Shall die in your sins"
"Not sheep or goats" said Judas but
"Together we may dare
Shake off the chains of tyranny we share"

Jesus stood upon the mountain
With a distance in his eyes
"I am the Way, the Life" he cried
"The Light that never dies
So renounce all earthly treasures
And pray to your heavenly father"
And he pacified the hopeless
With the hope of life eternal
Said Jesus, "I am the answer
And you who hunger only remember
Your reward's in heaven"
So Jesus preached the other world
But Judas wanted this
And he betrayed his master with a kiss
By sword and gun and crucifix
Christ's gospel has been spread
And two thousand cruel years have shown
The way that Jesus led
The heretics burned and tortured
And the butchering bloody Crusaders
The bombs and rockets sanctified
That rain down death from heaven
They followed Jesus, they knew the answer
All unbelievers must be believers
Or else be broken
"So place no trust in saviours"
Judas said, "for everyone
Must be to his or her own self a sun"

@venda said
I don't go on the religion forum as i am not religious,but maybe this song has some relevance to the argument that is going on between faith and science,particularly the last verse.My intention is not to offend, just put a different point of view
The Romans were the masters
When Jesus walked the land
In Judea and in Galilee
They ruled with an iron hand
The poor were sick w ...[text shortened]... n
"So place no trust in saviours"
Judas said, "for everyone
Must be to his or her own self a sun"

Science forum and Spiritual forum are for the two types of topics, I can see how you may have been confused since many people have to bring up religion when the science under discussion aligns with religion beliefs, they find that unacceptable.

@kellyjay said
Actually natural processes are evidence why would you say otherwise? If they are setup in ways that demonstrate that they serve purposes that would defy odds they clearly are evidence. The difference between a top down system is foresight used to overcome complex issues and maintenance problems, while a bottom up has not only no foresight it has no understanding at all, to ...[text shortened]... ou do not provide what you demand of others, which are the reasons that justify your meta-narrative.

As my post made clear to anyone who read it without their own agenda, I said that natural processes are evidence of natural processes. Neither you or anyone else has the ability to calculate the 'odds' of that which nature can do. As I have said before, you and your pseudo scientist look at nature and say 'Oh yes, my god must have done that.' which is nothing but a huge leap of faith, and only the 'willfully blind' would think otherwise.

@kellyjay said
Science forum and Spiritual forum are for the two types of topics, I can see how you may have been confused since many people have to bring up religion when the science under discussion aligns with religion beliefs, they find that unacceptable.

It was only you who 'brought up religion', as you well know, and the 'science under discussion' doesn't 'align' with any religious belief whatsoever, unless you make it so with your religious beliefs. You can imagine that anything is the result of divine intervention, but there is no scientific justification for any of it.

Let's play fairy tales for a moment and pretend that everything was made by a god; I asked you several pages ago in this forum to tell us all by what scientific method James Tour has concluded that it was the Christian god who created everything, as opposed to any other god or gods.

You avoided answering this question, as you have avoided addressing or answering any and all difficult questions regarding your religion, so I ask the question again. Unless you can answer the question, the whole 'scientific basis' for the conclusions of your 'respected scientist' means absolutely nothing, it's blind faith and nothing more.

I don't expect you to provide any answer, since I know and everyone here knows that there is no answer, other than that there was and is no scientific method, therefore there is no scientist; my reason for posting these questions has become to demonstrate how Christianity has no means by which to validate itself in any scientific context, and you never let me down.

@indonesia-phil said
As my post made clear to anyone who read it without their own agenda, I said that natural processes are evidence of natural processes. Neither you or anyone else has the ability to calculate the 'odds' of that which nature can do. As I have said before, you and your pseudo scientist look at nature and say 'Oh yes, my god must have done that.' which is nothing but a huge leap of faith, and only the 'willfully blind' would think otherwise.

All a natural process is, is something we expect to see because it always is occurring, something out of the norm would not be considered natural. If people rose from the dead all of the time, it would be thought of as natural. That does not explain the complex specificity of the highly integrated features we see in life starting through what we normally see without something directing things.

@indonesia-phil said
It was only you who 'brought up religion', as you well know, and the 'science under discussion' doesn't 'align' with any religious belief whatsoever, unless you make it so with your religious beliefs. You can imagine that anything is the result of divine intervention, but there is no scientific justification for any of it.

Let's play fairy tales for a moment and pre ...[text shortened]... anity has no means by which to validate itself in any scientific context, and you never let me down.

James Tour is a Christian, but the science pieces of his presentation didn't address that, had you watched it you would have known. The design we see in life only points to a designer, the specific designer it does not address.

@kellyjay said
Science forum and Spiritual forum are for the two types of topics, I can see how you may have been confused since many people have to bring up religion when the science under discussion aligns with religion beliefs, they find that unacceptable.

I'm not confused my friend.I just wanted to present a different perspective.I accept my post was probably inappropriate on the science forum.However,the song does show one aspect of how religious fervour has influenced mankind over the ages and been used as a controlling mechanism to justify violence among other things.

@venda said
I'm not confused my friend.I just wanted to present a different perspective.I accept my post was probably inappropriate on the science forum.However,the song does show one aspect of how religious fervour has influenced mankind over the ages and been used as a controlling mechanism to justify violence among other things.

I didn't address the post itself only the location of it.

@kellyjay said
James Tour is a Christian, but the science pieces of his presentation didn't address that, had you watched it you would have known. The design we see in life only points to a designer, the specific designer it does not address.

It doesn't matter though, does it, which particular faith in the supernatural any given 'scientist' has, since this is arbitrary in any case. The fact of their believing in the supernatural at all takes that which they say outside the sphere of science. As has been pointed out to you many times in this forum, you only see 'design' in anything if you are trying to crowbar your religious beliefs into the world around you.

Anyway this will be my last post here for a while, I'm leaving Indonesian waters tomorrow for Vietnam for a couple of weeks, so other things will take precedence. I think the Vietnamese are mostly Buddhist, but are quite tolerant in the religious sense. Wherever I travel in the world I see manifestations of humankind's hope and desire for something bigger and better than and beyond this world, which is understandable, and often beautiful, and a little more tolerance of and respect for the beliefs of others would be no bad thing in my opinion.

Religion searches for meaning, science searches for cold, calculated facts, and is a different manifestation of our need and desire to understand the world around us. Religion asks 'why', science asks 'how', and these are two very different questions, and the two should leave each other very much alone. You believe in your god, others believe in their gods, science believes in nothing; faith and science, they are not the same thing, and any scientist should know and understand this.

@indonesia-phil said
It doesn't matter though, does it, which particular faith in the supernatural any given 'scientist' has, since this is arbitrary in any case. The fact of their believing in the supernatural at all takes that which they say outside the sphere of science. As has been pointed out to you many times in this forum, you only see 'design' in anything if you are trying to crowb ...[text shortened]... faith and science, they are not the same thing, and any scientist should know and understand this.

You cannot explain the universe without something NOT natural by anyone's definition.