Reality Check Courtesy of James Tour

_{Cornelius Hunter

October 2, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

They just stare at me. See more

Comments

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!franklin_{October 10, 2015
October
10
Oct
10
10
2015
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

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.PeterJ_{October 10, 2015
October
10
Oct
10
10
2015
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

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.RalphDavidWestfall_{October 9, 2015
October
10
Oct
9
09
2015
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

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)?es58_{October 6, 2015
October
10
Oct
6
06
2015
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

BA77 @18 Interesting comments + links Thanks.Dionisio_{October 6, 2015
October
10
Oct
6
06
2015
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

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): https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/a-third-way-of-evolution/#comment-582154Dionisio_{October 6, 2015
October
10
Oct
6
06
2015
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT}

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/database/evolutionary_just_so_stories.html "Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination" Dr. Michael Behe - 29:24 mark of following video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=s6XAXjiyRfM#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.org/post/107965814309/rewriting-biology-without-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. https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/jon-wells-on-pop-science-boilerplate/
bornagain77_{October 5, 2015
October
10
Oct
5
05
2015
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

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.PeterJ_{October 5, 2015
October
10
Oct
5
05
2015
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT}

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.Dionisio_{October 4, 2015
October
10
Oct
4
04
2015
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

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 :)PeterJ_{October 4, 2015
October
10
Oct
4
04
2015
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

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.Dionisio_{October 3, 2015
October
10
Oct
3
03
2015
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

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?' ThanksPeterJ_{October 3, 2015
October
10
Oct
3
03
2015
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

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?franklin_{October 3, 2015
October
10
Oct
3
03
2015
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

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!franklin_{October 3, 2015
October
10
Oct
3
03
2015
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

Surely Nick Matzke will be along shortly to proclaim how deluded we all are. After all, he thought about having lunch with Tour.Mung_{October 3, 2015
October
10
Oct
3
03
2015
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

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.PeterJ_{October 3, 2015
October
10
Oct
3
03
2015
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

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/Km0FGgbx42IDionisio_{October 3, 2015
October
10
Oct
3
03
2015
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

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?Dionisio_{October 3, 2015
October
10
Oct
3
03
2015
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

“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
bornagain77_{October 3, 2015
October
10
Oct
3
03
2015
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

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...'Axel_{October 3, 2015
October
10
Oct
3
03
2015
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

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.Dr JDD_{October 3, 2015
October
10
Oct
3
03
2015
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

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?PeterJ_{October 3, 2015
October
10
Oct
3
03
2015
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT}

This is of course the talk behind the no 1 hit count post here at UD: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/kairosfocus_{October 3, 2015
October
10
Oct
3
03
2015
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT}

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.Mapou_{October 2, 2015
October
10
Oct
2
02
2015
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply