54 Replies to “Reality Check Courtesy of James Tour

  1. 1
    Mapou says:

    All Darwinists and materialists are either certifiably insane, habitual liars or just plain gutless.

    Or all of the above.

    The most devastating weapon against materialism and Darwinism is the old enemy of pseudoscientific BS everywhere. It’s called the Combinatorial Explosion. It kills all that Darwinist and materialist nonsense dead before they are even born.

  2. 2
    kairosfocus says:

    This is of course the talk behind the no 1 hit count post here at UD: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....evolution/

  3. 3
    PeterJ says:

    I wonder if it is still the case that no one has bothered to take up his offer and explain evolution to him over lunch? Did Nick Matzke not offer to go?

  4. 4
    Dr JDD says:

    This is the beauty and the irony:

    One of the top synthetic chemists in the world says DNA code is not “just chemistry” yet constantly we here from the materialists here how it’s all “just chemistry” it’s quite easy to know where the truth lies.

  5. 5
    Axel says:

    Just seen a hilarious quip by Robin Williams which reminds me of the Neo-Darwinists. I can imagine them musing aloud, pondering: ‘Reality… what a concept !’ Then my coda: ‘Nah. too unrealistic…’

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    “I build molecules for a living, I can’t begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.”
    James Tour – one of the leading nano-tech engineers in the world – Strobel, Lee (2000), The Case For Faith, p. 111

    Here is a more recent lecture:

    Does Science Make Faith Obsolete? James Tour – video – March 9, 2015 (talk given February 18, 2015 – 30:20 minute mark – he publicly asks Darwinists to explain macro-evolution to him)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CB3ZmLatcUI#t=1827

    Also in the preceding video, although he does not mention Matzke by name, he alludes to the Matzke incident.

    As to ‘they just stare at me’

    Florida Gators Fan Spooky Stare – Full Video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBOgCU457b0

  7. 7
    Dionisio says:

    PeterJ @3

    I wonder if it is still the case that no one has bothered to take up his offer and explain evolution to him over lunch? Did Nick Matzke not offer to go?

    Although unqualified to clean Dr. Tour’s office, anyone (role B) could make this kind of offer:
    Persons A and B get together for lunch.
    Person A explains Darwinian macroevolution.
    Peron B asks questions about anything in the explanation that is not well understood.
    If person A runs out of time before person B runs out of questions, then person A pays the lunch.
    It doesn’t take Dr. Tour’s knowledge to play the role of Person B, does it?
    However, why not make the explanation public online?

  8. 8
    Dionisio says:

    bornagain77 @6

    Florida Gators Fan Spooky Stare – Full Video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBOgCU457b0

    That fan was looking at the game, but his mind was comparing what he had read in some science textbooks with what he had heard at this presentation in his school:

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/Km0FGgbx42I

  9. 9
    PeterJ says:

    Thanks BA,

    So I think we can safely say that no one, from any evolutionary/atheistic organisation has been willing to accommodate his request.

    Therefore, as Dionisio has pointed out; why don’t some of UC’s resident evolutionists/materialists have a crack at it?

    Can’t be that hard surely.

  10. 10
    Mung says:

    Surely Nick Matzke will be along shortly to proclaim how deluded we all are. After all, he thought about having lunch with Tour.

  11. 11
    franklin says:

    However, why not make the explanation public online?

    funny you should ask that question. when Nick Matzke offered to meet with James tour he made one simple request that the meeting be recorded. At that point James Tour scurried away and refused to meet with Nick. Hilarious!

  12. 12
    franklin says:

    After all, he thought about having lunch with Tour.

    You and I (as well as others) understand very well that Nick’s offer to meet with him provided the meeting were recorded (to protect both parties) triggered a rapid retreat by Tour……..wonder why he is so afraid of a recorded meeting?

  13. 13
    PeterJ says:

    That’s very interesting Franklin.

    If you click onto the link provided by BA above in 6 (Does science make faith obsolete?), you will see and hear James mention the acceptance to the invitation to explain evolution to him, presumably by Nick Matzke, of which a year later he is still waiting. He then goes on to say that (whoever it was) that had agreed to meet with him, but still hasn’t shown up, sent him some ‘information on evolution’, which in James view still didn’t answer his question.

    There you have his version of events, made very public, and part of an organised talk. So perhaps you could therefore link to the evidence which clearly shows that ‘James Tour scurried away and refused to meet with Nick?’

    Thanks

  14. 14
    Dionisio says:

    PeterJ @13

    In the hypothetical scenario proposed @7, I would like to invite anyone and their cousins to play role A while I play role B. Publicly, on written, right here, in this discussion forum.
    As it was said @7, it doesn’t take Dr. Tour’s credentials for anyone to play role B in this case.
    Again, A pays lunch if s/he runs out of time (or answers) before B runs out of clarifying questions. Basically A must satisfactorily answer all valid questions (only related to A’s explanation) that B could ask.
    Very simple straightforward conditions.
    Anything wrong with the proposed conditions?
    Are they fair to all parties?
    Is there anyone out there that would accept this challenge?
    BTW, in this case B has no scientific credentials whatsoever, no scientific/academic degrees, very limited knowledge of the subject.
    B just have questions. That’s all.
    A must provide the answers.
    A doesn’t have to explain how things happened, but how would A have done it.

  15. 15
    PeterJ says:

    Dionisio,

    James Tour has been waiting between 8 & 10 years for some one to take up his offer and explain Darwinian macro-evolution to him, so best not hold your breath 🙂

  16. 16
    Dionisio says:

    PeterJ @

    James Tour has been waiting between 8 & 10 years for some one to take up his offer and explain Darwinian macro-evolution to him, so best not hold your breath 🙂

    Thank you. I see your point and will keep your suggestion in mind. 🙂

    But Dr Tour’s impressive academic/scientific credentials could scare some potential candidates to play role A. On the other hand, my visible ignorance could encourage potential candidates to try explaining that thing to me.
    After all, what could an ignorant ask them that they would not know already?
    See, the more light scientific research sheds on the elaborate cellular and molecular choreographies orchestrated within the biological systems, the more outstanding questions get answered, new questions are raised, the complexity turns more complex, the evo-devo’s task turns more difficult.
    The more we know about those complex information-processing systems, the harder it turns for the evo-devo folks to present an acceptable explanation.
    But some highly self-confident folks on the other side of this debate might overlook that important issue, until they wake up to the uncomfortable realization that they have been wrong all the time.
    If they want to see a sneak preview of the kind of questions I could ask them, they may look into the threads “third way to evolution” or “mystery at the heart of life” in this website, where I have posted a few comments on research papers.

  17. 17
    PeterJ says:

    Dionisio,

    I think that’s a fair challenge. I’d be very interested to see that exchange. However, I very much doubt that anyone here, even amongst UC’s resident evolutionists, will step up to the plate.

    All they need to do is explain Darwinian macro-evolution of even a molecule, answer any questions that are not understood.

    Won’t happen though. Shame really.

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    PeterJ as to

    Won’t happen though. Shame really.

    Well, it has been my experience that Darwinists will give you sophisticated sounding ‘just so stories’ out the yin yang, but that they never will honestly address the gross experimental shortcomings of their preferred theory.

    This ‘smoke and mirrors’ approach of Darwinists to make it seem their theory is ‘scientific’ may work well on freshmen college students, but for a scientist of Dr. Tour’s caliber, or even for someone who just has a rudimentary grasp of the math and actual experimental evidence at hand, this sleight of hand from Darwinists, (i.e. of them pretending their just so stories amount to valid scientific explanations for how a biological systems in question came about), their pseudo-scientific shell game gets very old very quickly.

    EVOLUTIONARY JUST-SO STORIES
    Excerpt: ,,,The term “just-so story” was popularized by Rudyard Kipling’s 1902 book by that title which contained fictional stories for children. Kipling says the camel got his hump as a punishment for refusing to work, the leopard’s spots were painted on him by an Ethiopian, and the kangaroo got its powerful hind legs after being chased all day by a dingo.
    Kipling’s just-so stories are as scientific as the Darwinian accounts of how the amoeba became a man.
    Lacking real scientific evidence for their theory, evolutionists have used the just-so story to great effect. Backed by impressive scientific credentials, the Darwinian just-so story has the aura of respectability.
    Biologist Michael Behe observes:
    “Some evolutionary biologists–like Richard Dawkins–have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish” (Darwin’s Black Box).,,,
    http://www.wayoflife.org/datab.....ories.html

    “Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination”
    Dr. Michael Behe – 29:24 mark of following video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....fM#t=1762s

    “Much of the vast neo-Darwinian literature is distressingly uncritical. The possibility that anything is seriously amiss with Darwin’s account of evolution is hardly considered. … The methodological skepticism that characterizes most areas of scientific discourse seems strikingly absent when Darwinism is the topic.”
    Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini

    “In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.”
    Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

    At the 7:00 minute mark of this following video, Dr. Behe gives an example of how positive evidence is falsely attributed to evolution by using the word ‘evolution’ as a narrative gloss in peer-reviewed literature:

    Michael Behe – Life Reeks Of Design – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdh-YcNYThY

    Rewriting Biology Without Spin By Ann Gauger – Jan. 12, 2014
    Excerpt: It’s a funny thing—scientific papers often have evolutionary language layered on top of the data like icing on a cake. In most papers, the icing (evolutionary language) sits atop and separate from the cake (the actual experimental data). Even in papers where the evolutionary language is mixed in with the data like chocolate and vanilla in a marble cake, I can still tell one from the other.
    I have noticed that this dichotomy creates a kind of double vision. I know what the data underlying evolutionary arguments are. By setting aside the premise that evolution is true, I can read what’s on the page and at the same time see how that paper would read if neutral, fact-based language were substituted for evolutionary language.
    Let me give you an example.,,,
    http://www.biologicinstitute.o.....thout-spin

    Jonathan Wells on pop science boilerplate – April 20, 2015
    Excerpt: Based on my reading of thousands of Peer-Reviewed Articles in the professional literature, I’ve distilled (the) template for writing scientific articles that deal with evolution:
    1. (Presuppose that) Darwinian evolution is a fact.
    2. We used [technique(s)] to study [feature(s)] in [name of species], and we unexpectedly found [results inconsistent with Darwinian evolution].
    3. We propose [clever speculations], which might explain why the results appear to conflict with evolutionary theory.
    4. We conclude that Darwinian evolution is a fact.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ilerplate/

  19. 19
    Dionisio says:

    PeterJ @17

    Exactly! Well stated. Thank you.

    BTW, in the below link you may find a sneak preview (@963-970 in another thread) of what’s going on, which explains why it doesn’t take such a highly respected scientist with the academic credentials of Dr. Tour in order to punch holes in the “evo-devo” daydreaming fantasyland. Any ignorant like me can do it too. 🙂

    Here’s briefly (and quickly) commenting on a leading-edge/cutting-edge, top of the line “evo-devo” summary paper published recently (actually, can’t get much more recent than that, although by today it’s probably outdated on some issues):

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-582154

  20. 20
    Dionisio says:

    BA77 @18

    Interesting comments + links

    Thanks.

  21. 21
    es58 says:

    so, over there I see the following:

    ghostrider:
    quote:
    Evolution doesn’t depend on the origin of life. Evolution is the process that happens after you have imperfect self replicators competing for limited resources. Origin of life research is abiogenesis, a different topic altogether.

    If the Great Kazoo blinked life into existence 3.5 billion years ago that wouldn’t affect all the evidence for the evolution which has occurred since then one iota
    end quote:

    So, Szostak at Harvard has a “model” for origin of life where you get a self replicator, but little or no DNA or any genetic material. That would seem to leave virtually everything, including the origin of DNA in the evolution camp. How far is that from them having to answer virtually everything they claim has “nothing to do with evolution” (I.e.: nearly every aspect of origin of life that is a challenge for them to explain)?

  22. 22

    I’ve seen comments on pro-evolution blogs about James Tour dodging a meeting with Matzke, such as franklin’s at #11 and #12 above. But I haven’t found anything from Matzke himself.

    It doesn’t speak well of Matzke if he allows anonymous innuendoes like this to persist and be repeated elsewhere, rather than either confirming or repudiating them.

  23. 23
    PeterJ says:

    RalphDavidwestfall,

    “It doesn’t speak well of Matzke if he allows anonymous innuendoes like this to persist and be repeated elsewhere, rather than either confirming or repudiating them.”

    I asked Franklin to provide evidence that James Tour dodged a meeting, but as yet I’m still waiting.

    I would take the claim with a rather big pinch of salt.

  24. 24
    franklin says:

    Ralph and peter you both should really educate yourself on the subject at hand before making ridiculous insinuations. the entire exchange is recorded within the forums archives one only need use the search function.

    You will find Nick’s comments and request of having the meeting recorded and you will also find Tour’s refusal to have the meeting recorded. You search should also lead you to many many words offered up by Dr. Torley to rationalize Tour’s refusal to have the meeting recorded.

    I’m surprised (not really) that not one of the UD regulars has pointed you in the right direction. Many posting here made comments in those very threads they probably are embarrassed that the public challenge by Tour was so easily exposed as being disingenuous with the mere mention of making a recording. I found it hilarious!

    Seek and yes shall find!

  25. 25
    PeterJ says:

    Hi Franklin,

    I am well aware of the exchange that took place here on UC. If my memory serves me well, I think UC even offered to pay Nicks costs to go and have lunch with James Tour, given that they could record the meeting and post the exchange here on UC.

    The problem with your claim, and that of every other evolutionist who site it, is that James Tour never refused to meet with anyone, he just didn’t want a meeting that involved any form of recording or publicity.

    If you watch the clip linked to by BA77 @ 6, you will hear James quite publicly stating that ‘no one has yet taken him up on his request’, he even mentions the incident with Nick Matzke, and says that he is still waiting.

    Therefore, can you provide something which shows that James Tour is in fact lying?

    Thanks

  26. 26
    PeterJ says:

    Just noticed that I have been typing ‘UC’ instead of UD. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.

    Hey Franklin, as an afterthought, why don’t you use the video of James Tour (@6) making his very public declaration that ‘no one from the atheist society, or any evolutionary scientist’ has yet bothered to take him up on his invitation to explain macro-evolution.

    Think about it Franklin. With the information you can provide you could publicly expose one of the worlds most famous Chemists as a liar.

    I know I shouldn’t encourage such behaviour, but a lie of this magnitude can not be ignored.

    The floor is all yours Franklin.

  27. 27
    franklin says:

    The problem with your claim, and that of every other evolutionist who site it, is that James Tour never refused to meet with anyone, he just didn’t want a meeting that involved any form of recording or publicity.

    huh? of course he refused ti meet with Nick simply because Nick insisted that the meeting be recorded. Your own words confirm this.

    If you watch the clip linked to by BA77 @ 6, you will hear James quite publicly stating that ‘no one has yet taken him up on his request’, he even mentions the incident with Nick Matzke, and says that he is still waiting.

    Well, Peter, there is tour’s lie laid out in your own words. Someone, Nick Matzke, agreed to meet with him with the sole condition that the meeting be recorded…..something that would protect both parties and be a useful teaching tool in the future. One can only wonder why he (Tour) makes public challenges then balks when someone actually takes him up on his offer because of a simple recording. Absolutely hilarious!

    Hey Franklin, as an afterthought, why don’t you use the video of James Tour (@6) making his very public declaration that ‘no one from the atheist society, or any evolutionary scientist’ has yet bothered to take him up on his invitation to explain macro-evolution.

    Think about it Franklin. With the information you can provide you could publicly expose one of the worlds most famous Chemists as a liar.

    No need for me to expose him as a liar when you have done such an excellent job of documenting his lie right in this thread. Good job!

    Tour makes public declarations/challenges gets taken up on the offer and refuses to meet because the contents of the meeting might become public. How much more disengenuous can a person get?

  28. 28
    PeterJ says:

    He does say in the video that Nick was kind enough to send him one or two links to various pieces of information, but none of it was of any help to him.

    James Tour speaks publicly (video link @6), some 5 months ago, stating his position ‘no one has come’.

    You make the claim that he refused to meet under Nicks terms (recorded meeting), yet the only argument you can make is from the dialogue created here on a public forum, the kind of meeting he wasn’t interested in having.

    You just keep believing whatever you like Franklin. (I too am beginning to find this rather hilarious 🙂 )

    Let me perhaps reword this a little. James Tour gave a very public invitation to meet for lunch and discuss in private macro-evolution, his terms. No one, so far, has agreed to it. UD offered to pay Nicks costs to go have that meeting, UD laid down terms of its own (recorded meeting). James Tours terms were not met. No meeting under those terms took place. James is still waiting for someone to meet with him under original terms.

    Not too difficult to understand really.

  29. 29
    franklin says:

    You make the claim that he refused to meet under Nicks terms (recorded meeting),

    A claim you’ve agreed was true.

    James Tour speaks publicly (video link @6), some 5 months ago, stating his position ‘no one has come’.

    I’ll take your word for that but did he leave out the part where Nick accepted to meet him privately provided they recorded the meeting but he wanted no part of that. why would anyone attempt to meet with him given his poor behavior?

    Have you seen the claims he makes about all the famous scientists (even Nobel winners) he spoke with and when asked for some names provided a list of dead folks so the story can’t be checked. Also no mention of which Nobel winners he is making claims about. Funny that.

    finally….

    yet the only argument you can make is from the dialogue created here on a public forum

    Of course this is the place where the exchange took place most reasonable people would think that the primary source documentation would be the best place to draw on facts for the discussion.

    Nick Matzke made the request for a recording. The UD acolytes thought that was a great idea, however, Nick was the prime over for the recording. IIRC his reasoning was that if he was going to make the effort to meet with Tour he wanted it recorded so a accurate document/recording would be available. that was too scary for James Tour so he balked.

    No one in their right mind would meet with him unless the meeting were recorded……otherwise all you have for your efforts is a he said s/he said situation. Lots of room there for misrepresentation on anyones part with no documentation of a meeting addressing very public challenges. Heads i win tails you lose is the game he is playing.

  30. 30
    bornagain77 says:

    Franklin asks, “How much more disengenuous can a person get?” in regards to Dr. Tour. I find that to be a very humorous question.
    Particularly in a matter relating directly to Nick Matzke.

    Nick Matzke simply is the poster child for the sleeze ball dishonesty that has become characteristic of hard core neo-Darwinists.

    In fact, the prime example I use of dishonest literature bluffing tactics by hard-core neo-Darwinists is Nick Matzke’s dishonest attempt to refute Behe’s claim that molecular machines cannot be had in a gradual step by step Darwinian manner:

    Calling Nick Matzke’s literature bluff on molecular machines – DonaldM UD blogger – April 2013
    Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along.
    Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard.
    Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-453291

    Moreover, this was far from the only time that Nick Matzke has been found being purposely dishonest in regards to the scientific evidence at hand.

    Nick Matzke tried the same sorts of dishonest ‘literature bluffing’ tactics at the Dover trial, which he was instrumental in gathering evidence for:

    Nicholas J. Matzke served an instrumental role in NCSE’s preparation for the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial.
    – per wiki

    The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information – Casey Luskin – March 2010
    http://www.discovery.org/a/14251

    In fact, at the Dover trial, a theatrical and fraudulent ‘literature dump’ was orchestrated by Matzke, and the lawyers, in the courtroom that purported to show overwhelming evidence for how the immune system evolved by unguided Darwinian processes.
    Yet, when the literature from that theatrical ‘literature dump’ was carefully gone through, by an expert in immunology, it was found that none of the literature actually supported any of the claims of the Darwinists, but were merely comparative studies that had nothing at all to do with the evolution of the systems.

    “A Masterful Feat of Courtroom Deception”: Immunologist Donald Ewert on the Dover Trial – audio
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....1_03-08_00

    To say such tactics orchestrated by Matzke and company are the work of sleeze balls is an understatement as to how despicable the deed actually is since it pertains directly to lying about scientific evidence. (which is the worse possible ‘sin’ in science)

    More recently, Nick Matzke tried the same sleeze ball tactic of literature bluffing against Stephen Meyer’s book ‘Darwin’s Doubt’. David Berlinski, with characteristic wit, exposed Matzke’s shameless dishonesty here:

    A Graduate Student (Nick Matzke) Writes – David Berlinski July 9, 2013
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74221.html

    A One-Man Clade – David Berlinski – July 18, 2013
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74601.html

    Hopeless Matzke -David Berlinski & Tyler Hampton August 18, 2013
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....75631.html

    As you can see from Matzke’s long history of dishonest literature bluffs (bluffs which were widely applauded by rank and file neo-Darwinists by the way), Matzke, and his present defenders, are hyprocrites of the first order when it comes to ever questioning any other person’s integrity, especially when it comes to matters of scientific evidence.

    And I will certainly take Dr. Tour’s word over Matzke’s word any day!

  31. 31
    PeterJ says:

    it’s almost 5am where I am, after a long day at work, perhaps I could do better at trying to put my points across.

    However, it really all boils down to this;

    UD posted a video of James Tour, in which he claimed not to understand macro-evolution commenting that he would buy lunch for anyone who would go and meet with him in private and explain it to him, and he would of course ask any questions about the process that he didn’t understand. Nick commented on the post, UD challenged him to go, but UD wanted to record it, Nick eventually agreed to go, but James refused the offer due to the terms that UD were stipulating. I don’t know who’s idea it was, but it certainly wasn’t something that James was comfortable with, perhaps he was more wary of UD than anything else, who knows, but I’m fairly sure that Nick knew it would be a no goer from the start, a safe call to make so to speak.

    Regardless of the ins and outs of this debacle, the issue, as far as James Tour is concerned, still remains the same, and the deal is still very much on the table for any one who would like to take a crack at it. James will meet with whoever for lunch, anyone at all. But no one will (See video @6).

    I wonder why Nick Matzke doesn’t take this opportunity to call James out on his lies?

    As I said previously Franklin, the floor is now yours.

    Good night 🙂

  32. 32
    franklin says:

    Peter you should get some rest and then reread the pertinent threads so you can refresh your memory as to the facts of the case. You don’t have much correct about the exchange. for example: UD never offered to pay the way but a couple of individuals who participate on this forum did offer up some cash; also UD stipulated nothing about the whole proposed event but Nick did insist that the meeting be recorded otherwise it would be a waste of his time. That kind of scrutiny was not palpable to James Tour.

    However, as soon as Nick agreed to meet with Tour with the stipulation the meeting be recorded he bailed.

    Imagine a world famous chemist making public challenges about something that mystifies him yet once someone steps up to plate to meet his challenge he backs out because the meeting would be recorded.
    what a joke.

    I wonder why Nick Matzke doesn’t take this opportunity to call James out on his lies?I wonder why Nick Matzke doesn’t take this opportunity to call James out on his lies?

    Why would he bother given everyone already knows the history and most wonder why would he refuse to meet because the meeting could be preserved for posterity….but then again ‘they’ realize why he refused to meet Nick. It is really pretty simple.

  33. 33
    Dionisio says:

    PeterJ

    You were right on your early prediction: no one has responded to the invitation @19:

    in the below link you may find a sneak preview (@963-970 in another thread) of what’s going on, which explains why it doesn’t take such a highly respected scientist with the academic credentials of Dr. Tour in order to punch holes in the “evo-devo” daydreaming fantasyland. Any ignorant like me can do it too. 🙂

    Here’s briefly (and quickly) commenting on a leading-edge/cutting-edge, top of the line “evo-devo” summary paper published recently (actually, can’t get much more recent than that, although by today it’s probably outdated on some issues):

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-582154

    Instead, they keep speculating/gossiping about Dr. Tour’s and his interlocutors’ comments and actions. People feel attracted to keep track of the famous and ignore the nobodies like me. Oh, well. 🙁

    My beloved mother-in-law likes to buy trashy gossiping magazines in a kiosk near our home, and watches several TV novellas filled with intrigues and nonsense, just for the sake of empty entertainment, to kill the time. Really sad. 🙁

    Again, can anyone be kind enough to lower themselves to my level and explain the above link?
    BTW, it can be recorded. I have no problem with that. Actually, I would prefer it recorded, so I can go back to it and learn from that given explanation at anytime later. 🙂

    Hey, as an incentive bonus, I could provide other examples that require explanation. There are many out there. Some have been referenced in the two threads mentioned before.

    Ok, you’re right, I should lower my expectations, no one will respond. 🙁

  34. 34
    bornagain77 says:

    franklin, instead of you being a flaming hypocrite and ignoring Matzke’s long history of dishonesty towards the scientific evidence at hand, so as to focus solely on Dr. Tour’s supposed unforgivable transgression of not wanting the meeting to be made a public spectacle, why don’t you just cite Matzke’s previous work where he tried to address the main question for ‘macro-evolution’ posed by Intelligent Design proponents. The same question that has been asked of neo-Darwinists for years and years by Intelligent Design proponents. Namely, please answer the ‘simple’ question of ‘where did the information come from?’ that is necessary for macro-evolution to feasibly occur.

    Information Enigma – 21 minute video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g
    Information drives the development of life. But what is the source of that information? Could it have been produced by an unguided Darwinian process? Or did it require intelligent design? The Information Enigma is a fascinating 21-minute documentary that probes the mystery of biological information, the challenge it poses to orthodox Darwinian theory, and the reason it points to intelligent design. The video features molecular biologist Douglas Axe and Stephen Meyer, author of the books Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt.

    Matzke’s most recent attempt, i.e. literature bluff, to try to explain where the information came from necessary to explain macro-evolution was addressed and found severely wanting here:

    Hopeless Matzke -David Berlinski & Tyler Hampton August 18, 2013
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....75631.html

  35. 35
    PeterJ says:

    Against my better judgement I decided to take a little time and try to find out exactly was said in the post, that Franklin is adamant James Tour is seen to be bailing on a challenge from Nick Matzke, to the invitation to go and explain macro-evolution to him over lunch. And as it turns out, regardless of how much sleep I lacked, I wasn’t too far out with my recollection of events.

    Before I begin lets first remind ourselves what James Tour said;

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....evolution/

    ‘I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? … Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.’

    The first instance where the invitation to meet with him for lunch and discuss macro-evolution is then @65, where Groovamos states;

    ‘And I make the offer: I will buy a ticket for Nick to Houston and will buy a night at a hotel on a weekend. I live in Houston and would like to attend the meeting, and assume Nick will record the meeting.’

    Now this is all well and good. It’s perhaps not what James Tour had in mind. But on the face of it seems reasonable enough to the masses at UD. BA77 @66 shows his interest in the idea;

    ‘Wow, this could get very interesting! ,,, If the lunch ever does come together I hope, for the sake of all us who would love to see it, that it is recorded.,,, What do you think Nick?’

    Groovamos then adds @67 with a revised offer;

    ‘I make the offer contingent on my requested attendance. I will remain silent throughout, but would have some questions upon concluding the meeting.’

    Nick posts a number of comments to various questions, then @71 he simply replies with;

    ‘fine by me’.

    Now, as I mentioned in an earlier post UD decide to jump all over this. They would very much like in on the action. And in all honesty, who could blame them? So, we find vjtorley weighing in @94 with;

    ‘Hi Nick, I’ve notified Professor James Tour of your offer to explain macroevolution to him, in person. I’ve also invited him to respond in person on this thread, if he so wishes. Alternatively, he may choose to get back to me. I would advise you to prepare yourself, because I don’t think he’s going to turn down your offer.’

    We then hear from Nick @97, who poses a number of questions he would like to ask James Tour;

    ‘If professor Tour does see fit to grace us with his presence, I’d like to ask him how many seminars and courses he has attended at Rice University’s Department of Ecology and Evolution, and how many of those faculty he has closely interacted with to investigate his allegedly burning scientific questions about macroevolution.’

    Now this all seems well and good so far. vjtorley has, I assume, sent James Tour an email, informing him of the discussion going on at UD and the offer that has been made. We then don’t hear anything more on the subject from anyone, until @111 where vjtorley informs us of developments with James Tour;

    ‘Hi groovamos, I emailed Professor Tour about four hours ago and I also mentioned your offer, and I invited him to contributed to this thread if he wishes to do so. I’ll keep you posted if I hear from him.’

    That seems to be the last we hear about it. UD is awaiting a reply from James Tour on the offer that was put forward by Groovamos. Until Franklin rears his head @286 stating;

    ‘In this light perhaps VJT or BA77 could contact Dr. Tour and ask him to provide his understanding of the chemical basis for the changes we observe in fish……’

    From what I can see James Tour does not make an appearance at UD. He does not even reply to UD.

    So, that just leaves me to ask Franklin; where we can find a reference to James Tour ‘rejecting Nicks offer’ or ‘bailing’ on it, as you seem to believe?

    Perhaps you could link me to a statement either from James Tour, or Nick Matzke, which backs up the claim.

    You see almost a year later we find James Tour giving a talk at a university, where he publicly declares that no one has yet taken him up on his offer of lunch. The atheist society supposedly made noises about it, crying out for someone to go and see him ‘but no one came’. He then mentions what I believe may be the Nick Matzke debacle, and again he says that he is ‘still waiting’, he says that he was emailed links to various articles ‘but none of those answered his questions’

    So, there we have it. Public declaration by one of the worlds most famous chemists. Or a story by Franklin, which appears to lack any weight what so ever?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CB3ZmLatcUI#t=1827

    I have wasted enough of my time on this, so unless Franklin can site any actual references from either party (Nick or James), as to James refusal to meet, I’m done.

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    After commenting on the failure of ANY atheists to ever respond to his request for lunch for 8 or 10 years since he first issued the invitation, Dr Tour comments:

    “One graduate student from Berkeley, (i.e. Matzke), said that he would come if he had a ticket so somebody said “I’ll buy you the ticket”, but then he said, “Well, I’m not going to go because Tour doesn’t want it recorded.” The reason I didn’t want it recorded is because I did not want one-ups-man-ship.
    I said ‘I’ll buy you lunch, just explain it to me’.
    And then the guy said he he would send me some articles on evolution of a complex system from a molecular perspective and I am still waiting. That’s over one year ago he was suppose to send them to me. They don’t exist.”
    – James Tour – 35:22 minute mark of the video
    https://youtu.be/CB3ZmLatcUI?t=2122

    And to reiterate, Dr. Tour actually builds some of the most sophisticated, man-made, molecular machines in the world and thus has a thorough grasp of just how extremely difficult that job actually is from the molecular perspective, whereas Nick Matzke, umm well Nick Matzke, basically just lies, (i.e. literature bluffs), about how undirected material processes can easily produce molecular machines which far outclass, in terms of engineering parameters, any machine that has ever been built by man.

    Dr. Tour is hardly alone in his observation that the papers ‘don’t exist’

    “The argument that random variation and Darwinian gradualism may not be adequate to explain complex biological systems is hardly new […} in fact, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject — evolution — with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses works in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity.”
    Prof. James Shapiro – “In the Details…What?” National Review, 19 September 1996, pp. 64.
    http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.ed.....Review.pdf

    The following expert doesn’t even hide his very unscientific preconceived philosophical bias against intelligent design,,,

    ‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity,,,

    Yet at the same time the same expert readily admits that neo-Darwinism has ZERO evidence for the chance and necessity of material processes producing any cellular system whatsoever,,,

    ,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’
    Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205.
    *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA

    And yet, despite rejecting Intelligent Design as a ‘matter of principle’, in 2014 Franklin Harold admits that something ‘may still be missing’ in regards to Darwinian explanations:

    “we may still be missing some essential insight”
    Franklin Harold – 2014

    PNAS Paper Admits Understanding the Origin of Cellular Features Is a “Glaring Gap” in Evolutionary Biology – Casey Luskin – December 10, 2014
    Excerpt: In 2001, biochemist Franklin Harold wrote in an Oxford University Press monograph that “there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” Last month, a new paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Evolutionary cell biology: Two origins, one objective,” admitted much the same thing.,,,
    ,,,”a full mechanistic understanding of evolutionary processes will never be achieved without an elucidation of how cellular features become established and modified.”
    Though they don’t put it quite as bluntly as Franklin Harold, this paper’s message is no less potent: modern evolutionary biology lacks explanations for the origin of molecular machines.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91901.html

    Michael Behe has already had to deal with Matzke’s literature bluffs previously

    Finally, a Detailed, Stepwise Proposal for a Major Evolutionary Change? – Michael Behe – March 10, 2015
    Excerpt: I would say its (Nick Matzke’s 2004 proposal for the evolution of the flagellum) chief problem is that it’s terminally fuzzy, bases most of its speculation on sequence comparisons, and glides over difficulties that would have to be dealt with in nature.,,, That’s one reason I wrote The Edge of Evolution — to say that we no longer have to rely on our imaginations, that we have good evidence to show what Darwinian processes are capable of doing. When we look to see what they do when we are watching, we never see the sorts of progressive building of coherent systems that Darwinists imagine. Rather, we see tinkering around the edges with preexisting systems or degradation of complex systems to gain short-term advantage.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....94271.html

  37. 37
    PeterJ says:

    Just to clarify;

    I watched the video clip again, and James words about the Nick Matzke debacle are that a student from Berkley was to meet with him but they wanted to record it. James wasn’t interested in this type of spectacle as in his words he ‘wasn’t interested in one-upmanship’. Therefore Nick wouldn’t go. So, it was really Nick who refused the invitation offered by James. James rightly refused the terms laid down by Groovamos and UD.

    He then goes on to say that Nick therefore promised to send him some information on macro-evolution that would answer his questions; but a year later he is ‘still waiting’.

    I suppose Franklin will argue that there must be something wrong with James understanding before he refused to partake in such a spectacle, but he makes his reasons quite clear. He doesn’t want to sit and score points against someone. And I consider that to be to his credit. After all, as he says in the clip above, none of the worlds leading chemists understand the macro-evolution of a complex system.

    Franklin is welcome to believe whatever he likes, but the challenge remains.

    Now Franklin why don’t you accept Dionisio’s challenge and take on the part of Nick Matzke?

    Should be child’s play to someone of your calibre 🙂

  38. 38
    franklin says:

    Peter in your haste of trying to refresh your memory on the sequence of events you’ve missed a few key points.

    In your post 35 on this thread you’ve forgotten to include Nick Matzke response (in your linked thread) where at comment #29 Nick states:

    VJT: “But if you really think he’s ignorant of the facts, why don’t you take up his offer of a free lunch?

    Nick Matzke : I’d love to, if someone pays my airfare, and if it will be recorded.

    so there you have it Nick Matzke accepts the offer and requests the meeting be recorded as a condition of his participation. James Tour balks at this and refuses to meet.

    Imagine a world-famous chemist making very very public challenges backing away from someone who agrees to meet his challenge because he doesn’t want anything to exist which would document the content/context of what would be said at the meeting.Peter you can believe whatever you want but the facts I’ve presented are correct and true. James Tour, world-famous chemist, scurries away from a lowly (then) graduate student because the event would be recorded. Hilarious in the pathetic sort of way!

    Peter you state

    He then goes on to say that Nick therefore promised to send him some information on macro-evolution that would answer his questions; but a year later he is ‘still waiting’.

    where earlier (#13) you make this statement

    He then goes on to say that (whoever it was) that had agreed to meet with him, but still hasn’t shown up, sent him some ‘information on evolution’, which in James view still didn’t answer his question.

    Was the material sent of not? If the material was set what was James Tour’s basis for stating that it did not answer his question?

    It appears much like James Tour’s presentation of a list of scientists he claims to have talked too….unfortunately all on the list are dead so it is going to be impossible to vet Tour’s claims…..which is just what he wants…..no scrutiny to the veracity of his claims just public spectacles of repeating his challenge.

  39. 39
    franklin says:

    Peter another fact you’ve missed represented is that in you linked thread mung (@36) is the first person to offer cash ($500) to facilitate the meeting.

  40. 40
    PeterJ says:

    Franklin,

    There are indeed a number of other comments that I didn’t quote. However the point I wanted to highlight remains unchanged, which is; very quickly it turned from a private invitation by James Tour to a UD spectacle.

  41. 41
    Mung says:

    From what I can see James Tour does not make an appearance at UD. He does not even reply to UD.

    Precisely. franklin is making up his own narrative of events.

  42. 42
    franklin says:

    Precisely. franklin is making up his own narrative of events.

    perhaps mung will provide us an ‘accurate’ narrative of events. Feel free to point out any instance in which I have misrepresented the sequence of events.

    There are indeed a number of other comments that I didn’t quote.

    All of which were necessary to provide an accurate representation of the events. Of course mung realizes that Tour communicated via vjtorey. Does mung think vjt provided an inaccurate rendering of his communications with Tour? I don’t.

    very quickly it turned from a private invitation by James Tour to a UD spectacle.

    Tour could have declined to have grovemas sit in on the meeting and simply have met with Nick. He refused because of the requirement that the private meeting be recorded. So we are left with a YEC world-famous chemist making very very public challenges then balking once someone accepted the challenge for the sole reason that the meeting would have to be recorded. Neither Nick or Tour would have been under any obligation to provide UD with the recording but the record of events would exist and that is the reason Tour folded so quickly.

  43. 43
    bornagain77 says:

    John Lennox at Rice University: Christianity Gave Us Science – Sept. 28, 2015
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSq4KLjMSlI

    Haven’t watched it yet, but rumor has it that this is one of John Lennox’s best lectures yet.

  44. 44
    PeterJ says:

    Okay, I’ll have one last stab at this and then I’m done.

    As you have quoted the first mention of a meeting is by vjt. Nick accepts. As long as his fare is paid, and it can be recorded. In steps Groovamos who offers to pay the fare, and put him up in a hotel, as long as he can get in on it too. Nick thinks this is fine. vjt then chips in by contacting James about the offer, adding that he could set up his own personal thread on UD. vjt, Nick and Groovamos await his reply. None comes.

    A year later James is conducting a talk at a university. He recites his previous request, for someone to meet with him for lunch and discuss macro-evolution. James explains that after 8-10 years no one has come. He then talks about the offer from Nick Matzke, but didn’t agree with the terms of Nick and UD, so repeats the original offer, student or not, ‘I’ll buy you lunch, just explain it to me’. Nick refuses.

    Franklin seems to consider James as having ‘bailed out’ of the discussion. Perhaps fearing that he would be exposed, or something.

    Perhaps James had been put off by all the attention he was receiving from a blog (UD), the self invitation of a third party to join the discussion, the offer to hold a discussion on his own thread, a recording being made by a student of Berkley etc. Is it not possible that James was simply put off by such suggestions that he again simply brought things back down to earth with a very humble invitation to lunch?

    Franklin seems to think his actions were unreasonable. I happen to think that James should be commended for agreeing to meet with a student over lunch and discuss this with him. He’s a very busy man. He is also not stupid. And when you see on this blog, and ones like it, the likes of Franklin and how they conduct their discussions, it is hardly surprising that someone like James Tour would give the whole thing a wide berth.

    I’m inclined to believe his statement concerning the meeting; mainly because he has no reason to lie, but more so; because this other account of events is merely the surmising’s of a man who would like nothing more than to ridicule someone who is skeptical of evolution.

    It’s a no brainer really.

    End of.

  45. 45
    franklin says:

    peter you state this:

    Nick and Groovamos await his reply. None comes.

    that is not a true representation of the sequence of events. VJT notes that James Tour accepts Nick’s acceptance of his challenge and that he is also fine with groovamos attending as well….in fact Tour states he will also buy lunch for groovamos since only faculty may purchase food at the cafeteria he had in mind for lunch. He also got wind of the request for a record of the meeting which he refused. Nick restated his insitence that the meeting be recorded and stated his reasons for the need of a recording of the meeting…..then James Tour makes no response after that point. So we have the YEC world-famous chemist refusing to meet someone simply because the meeting would have to be recorded….a reasonable request given the very very public nature of his challenge.

    <blockquotebut didn’t agree with the terms of Nick and UD, so repeats the original offer, student or not, ‘I’ll buy you lunch, just explain it to me’. Nick refuses.

    Anyone accepting the challenge would (or should) insist that the meeting be recorded…..James Tour can’t handle that thought in the least for obvious reasons.

    James Tour may be a busy man do you think that Nick Matzke is also a busy man……as he (Nick) explains in his justification of having the meeting recorded. Busy or not it is James Tour’s challenge and he choked on it once someone stepped up to the plate and agreed to meet him. No one doubts he was afraid of having it recorded for posterity….he would have been stuck with an accurate representation of what transpired at the meeting. Fail on his part.

    I’m inclined to believe his statement concerning the meeting; mainly because he has no reason to lie, but more so; because this other account of events is merely the surmising’s of a man who would like nothing more than to ridicule someone who is skeptical of evolution.

    I believe he has ever reason to lie and it is obvious to me he is lying. The accounts of the event are archived in this forum and are available for all to read so not much surmising needed by anyone at all….unless of course you believe VJT did not convey his email correspondence with James Tour accurately. I don’t think that is the case at all since he took the trouble to quote Janes Tour from his emails. Any ridicule of James Tour is due to his own actions and justifiable deserved.

  46. 46
    Virgil Cain says:

    franklin- Nick Matzke cannot explain macroevolution on a molecular level. No one can. Nick would have to resort to many just-so stories trying to explain the origin of meiosis to form gametes. Dr Tour wants science, not stories.

  47. 47
    Mung says:

    franklin:

    perhaps mung will provide us an ‘accurate’ narrative of events.

    I’m not the one in search of a narrative. That would be you.

  48. 48
    Mung says:

    Nick Matzke cannot explain macroevolution on a molecular level. No one can. Nick would have to resort to many just-so stories trying to explain the origin of meiosis to form gametes.

    Rumour has it Nick was prepared to bring all the evidence with him and present it, which is why he wanted the meeting recorded. But when the meeting did not take place, the evidence suddenly disappeared.

  49. 49
    franklin says:

    mung

    Rumour has it Nick was prepared to bring all the evidence with him and present it, which is why he wanted the meeting recorded. But when the meeting did not take place, the evidence suddenly disappeared.

    some narrative you got going there, mung. Seems like you weren’t searching for one you already had one. LOL

    I did not ever think you would address the issue in any fashion whatsoever…..you did not disappoint.

    by the way how is that objective reality, vertebrates, and hemoglobin issue working out for you?

  50. 50
    Dionisio says:

    Virgil Cain @46

    Nick Matzke cannot explain macroevolution on a molecular level. No one can. Nick would have to resort to many just-so stories trying to explain the origin of meiosis to form gametes. Dr Tour wants science, not stories.

    Can that gentleman that you mentioned take the easier challenge posted @33?

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-582669

  51. 51
    Dionisio says:

    PeterJ @44

    Perhaps we still should try to invite that gentleman you mentioned to take the invitation posted @33?

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-582669

    Maybe your interlocutor can contact the expert to let him know about this opportunity to write his explanation here, publicly?

    BTW, the invitation @33 is open to anyone and their cousins.

    Thank you.

  52. 52
    Andre says:

    That is a brilliant idea give Nick a platform to present his evidence right here. Barry how about it?

  53. 53
    kairosfocus says:

    Andre

    There is a three years standing, open invitation for a pro darwinist essay that lays out the core evidence at feature article length, addressing OOL and body-plan level macro evo, with room for illustrations and vids as well as obviously the unlimited number of links an OP offers.

    This is the UD pro-darwinism essay challenge.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....challenge/

    As is typical, there have been many side tracks into attack ID and attack personalities as well as rubbish over how we would not allow a full free presentation, but to date there has not been any serious answer. (At an early stage I put Wiki to stand in for the empty chair and did some clips from comments, but still, no satisfactory answer. I insist on OOL as it is integral to the origins story, is often presented in HS and College intro level Evo courses or units, and because if origin of FSCO/I there where appeal to the magick of “natural selection” is not possible leads to design as best explanation, design must then sit at the table all the way to the tips of branches of the tree of life iconic model. And it is in fact seriously arguable that OOL is best explained on design.)

    Obviously, such an essay can be posted here and elsewhere, which will allow onlookers to see just why UD does not allow comment exchanges to deteriorate to YouTube levels.

    The truth is, there is no solid, vera causa standard molecular level (which includes accounting for molecular scale digitally coded info systems and NC machines) case for either OOL or body plan level macro evo that does not beg huge questions starting with the combinatorial challenge implicit in FSCO/I.

    KF

  54. 54
    Dionisio says:

    KF @53

    Glad that you clarified this situation. Thank you.

    The truth is, there is no solid, vera causa standard molecular level (which includes accounting for molecular scale digitally coded info systems and NC machines) case for either OOL or body plan level macro evo that does not beg huge questions starting with the combinatorial challenge implicit in FSCO/I.

    Well stated. Exactly.

    This is why it’s easy for anyone to challenge them on this.
    One of the huge questions their current evo-devo explanations provoke is:

    Where’s the beef?

    🙂

Leave a Reply