Doesn't matter to faith.
Creationism vs. evolution: Whose God is making America richer?
- Thread starter Banjo
- Start date
Top Chemist: “They Just Stare at Me”
“Because it’s a Scary Thing”
.... James Tour, who in 2009 was ranked one of the top 10 chemists in the world, explained that evolutionists do not understand how evolution could have created life. What’s worse, Tour explains that there is a lack of clarity about this scientific fact. In public, evolutionists insist evolution is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt. But in private, they admit there is no such scientific knowledge:
“Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science—with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners,” Tour stated. “I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public—because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said—I say, ‘Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?’”
The answer he inevitably receives, Tour explained, is: “no.”
“Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go, ‘Uh-uh. Nope.’” Tour said. “And if they’re afraid to say ‘yes,’ they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.”
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/10/top-chemist-they-just-stare-at-me.html
“Because it’s a Scary Thing”
.... James Tour, who in 2009 was ranked one of the top 10 chemists in the world, explained that evolutionists do not understand how evolution could have created life. What’s worse, Tour explains that there is a lack of clarity about this scientific fact. In public, evolutionists insist evolution is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt. But in private, they admit there is no such scientific knowledge:
“Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science—with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners,” Tour stated. “I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public—because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said—I say, ‘Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?’”
The answer he inevitably receives, Tour explained, is: “no.”
“Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go, ‘Uh-uh. Nope.’” Tour said. “And if they’re afraid to say ‘yes,’ they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.”
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/10/top-chemist-they-just-stare-at-me.html
True. But it can matter a great deal to those who are depending on the prayers and the promises.
I don't think people of faith "depend" on answers to prayers the same way a person of science depends on cause and effect.
This thread is rapidly approaching the alert threshold when stu will appear to take his customary place opposite Jem and the two will then argue pointlessly until the end of the world on a topic neither can either prove or disprove.
Every day with a thread having words like "God" or "religion" or "faith" in the title on the front page of P+R increases the chance of a stu appearance by approximately 5%.
Every day with a thread having words like "God" or "religion" or "faith" in the title on the front page of P+R increases the chance of a stu appearance by approximately 5%.
yeah... the difference is that stu and fc create their own bullshit... while we point to real science like fhl just did.
why the hell do those trolls reject science?
its obvious to anyone who does a search... we don't have a complete plausible pathway from non life to life.
its should not be a debate and you and others to link to science and tell the trolls to shut up.
perhaps you enjoy it?
why the hell do those trolls reject science?
its obvious to anyone who does a search... we don't have a complete plausible pathway from non life to life.
its should not be a debate and you and others to link to science and tell the trolls to shut up.
perhaps you enjoy it?
It seems that some of them do, but since the evidence is only anecdotal, there's not much food for discussion. Except of course for opinion. And we don't have nearly enough of that down here.
"Philosophers of science well understand that everything from enticements (prestige, publishing, etc.) to threats (tenure, funding, etc.) influence scientists and science, but perhaps no one has said it better than Dr. Bruce Charlton:
Although the classical ideal is that scientific theories are evaluated by a careful teasing-out of their internal logic and external implications, and checking whether these deductions and predictions are in-line-with old and new observations; the fact that so many vague, dumb or incoherent scientific theories are apparently believed by so many scientists for so many years is suggestive that this ideal does not necessarily reflect real world practice. In the real world it looks more like mostscientists are quite willing to pursue wrong ideas for so long as they are rewarded with a better chance of achieving more grants, publications and status. The classic account has it that bogus theories should readily be demolished by sceptical (or jealous) competitor scientists. However, in practice even the most conclusive ‘hatchet jobs’ may fail to kill, or even weaken, phoney hypotheses when they are backed-up with sufficient economic muscle in the form of lavish and sustained funding. And when a branch of science based on phoney theories serves a useful but non-scientific purpose, it may be kept-going indefinitely by continuous transfusions of cash from those whose interests it serves. If this happens, real science expires and a ‘zombie science’ evolves. Zombie science is science that is dead but will not lie down. It keeps twitching and lumbering around so that (from a distance, and with your eyes half-closed) zombie science looks much like the real thing. But in fact the zombie has no life of its own; it is animated and moved only by the incessant pumping of funds. If zombie science is not scientifically-useable – what is its function? In a nutshell, zombie science is supported because it is useful propaganda to be deployed in arenas such as political rhetoric, public administration, management, public relations, marketing and the mass media generally. It persuades, it constructs taboos, it buttresses some kind of rhetorical attempt to shape mass opinion. Indeed, zombie science often comes across in the mass media as being more plausible than real science; and it is precisely the superficial face-plausibility which is the sole and sufficient purpose of zombie science."
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/09/science-has-all-kinds-of-non-scientific.html
Although the classical ideal is that scientific theories are evaluated by a careful teasing-out of their internal logic and external implications, and checking whether these deductions and predictions are in-line-with old and new observations; the fact that so many vague, dumb or incoherent scientific theories are apparently believed by so many scientists for so many years is suggestive that this ideal does not necessarily reflect real world practice. In the real world it looks more like mostscientists are quite willing to pursue wrong ideas for so long as they are rewarded with a better chance of achieving more grants, publications and status. The classic account has it that bogus theories should readily be demolished by sceptical (or jealous) competitor scientists. However, in practice even the most conclusive ‘hatchet jobs’ may fail to kill, or even weaken, phoney hypotheses when they are backed-up with sufficient economic muscle in the form of lavish and sustained funding. And when a branch of science based on phoney theories serves a useful but non-scientific purpose, it may be kept-going indefinitely by continuous transfusions of cash from those whose interests it serves. If this happens, real science expires and a ‘zombie science’ evolves. Zombie science is science that is dead but will not lie down. It keeps twitching and lumbering around so that (from a distance, and with your eyes half-closed) zombie science looks much like the real thing. But in fact the zombie has no life of its own; it is animated and moved only by the incessant pumping of funds. If zombie science is not scientifically-useable – what is its function? In a nutshell, zombie science is supported because it is useful propaganda to be deployed in arenas such as political rhetoric, public administration, management, public relations, marketing and the mass media generally. It persuades, it constructs taboos, it buttresses some kind of rhetorical attempt to shape mass opinion. Indeed, zombie science often comes across in the mass media as being more plausible than real science; and it is precisely the superficial face-plausibility which is the sole and sufficient purpose of zombie science."
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/09/science-has-all-kinds-of-non-scientific.html
OMG !!! They don't know the exact pathway for chemistry to become life !! Stop the presses!
As far as evolution, evolution did not create life, it only acted on it after it started. So some dumb born again Christian chemists looking for how evolution started life is barking up the wrong tree.
Evolution however is not even close to being in doubt. It's as true as any other fact. Except that God is real. That is not a fact.