James Tour, Creationist [Split from: Did comet impacts jump-start life on Earth?]

[beecee]

Is there an expert chemist/Biologist in the house?

Can someone detail the errors and/or nonsense in this blokes critique of Abiogenesis. He also has one supposedly refuting Evolution. His name is James Tour

Yes he certainly has his share of religious baggage, as he is a fanatical "Messianic Jew" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tour#Religion  What's one of them I hear someone ask?  here..."Messianic Judaism[a] is a modern syncretic[1]religious movement that combines Christianity—most importantly, the belief that Jesus is the Hebrew messiah—with elements of Judaism and Jewish tradition.[2][3][4][5] It emerged in the 1960s and 1970s."

The following is a video of his claims and dismissal of Abiogenesis.....Thanks in advance.....

It's about 15 minutes long.

The next one is 1.5 hrs long with obviously far more detail....if needed.

 

 

 

[Strange]

There was some previous discussion of this liar's(*) ideas here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/67884-what-are-the-odds-of-life-evolving-by-chance-alone/?page=13&tab=comments#comment-1034197 

I haven't checked to see how well it ended up...

 

(*) He is a creationist, which means he is dishonest by definition

[seriously disabled]

Evolution is an incomplete theory because there we still don't know whether natural selection was a guided process or not.

Just like general relativity, evolution is a theory that is incomplete because there are still many things we don't know.

https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-evolution-speculation/1324

 

Edited July 5, 2019 by seriously disabled

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, seriously disabled said:

we still don't know whether natural selection was a guided process or not.

Yes we do, not!!!

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, seriously disabled said:

Evolution is an incomplete theory because there we still don't know whether natural selection was a guided process or not.

Is there any evidence it is a guided process? No.

Is there anything extra that would be explained if it were a guided process? No.

So, is there any reason at all to think it is a guided process? No.

16 minutes ago, seriously disabled said:

Just like general relativity every scientific theory, evolution is a theory that is incomplete because there are still many things we don't know.

Is what you should have said.

Note that evolution is not a theory. It is a fact (like gravity). The theory is that evolution is explained by natural selection.

And why are you supporting your arguments by reference to a religious forum?

[beecee]

7 hours ago, Strange said:

(*) He is a creationist, which means he is dishonest by definition

Yeah 100% correct and highlighted by the fact that along with Abiogenenesis this clown also dismisses evolution. 

My motives for posting this btw was simply because I did not have the expertise to invalidate his silly claims myself. Apologies if it starts dragging any like clowns out of the closet. 

ps: Thanks for the link...

[swansont]

6 hours ago, seriously disabled said:

Evolution is an incomplete theory because there we still don't know whether natural selection was a guided process or not.

Just like general relativity, evolution is a theory that is incomplete because there are still many things we don't know.

https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-evolution-speculation/1324

 

!

Moderator Note

That was not the topic of the OP

 

[beecee]

8 hours ago, Strange said:

There was some previous discussion of this liar's(*) ideas here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/67884-what-are-the-odds-of-life-evolving-by-chance-alone/?page=13&tab=comments#comment-1034197 

I haven't checked to see how well it ended up...

 

(*) He is a creationist, which means he is dishonest by definition

This bloke Tour and his claims have been put as irrefutable facts elsewhere by a former participant here and arrogantly challenged anyone to refute. Your link [in which I see I took a limited part but had forgotten about [old age is the excuse! ] is invaluable and I hope no one objects me using some of the scientific reasoning and videos in refuting this former member elsewhere.

Thanks again!

Edited July 5, 2019 by beecee

[Sensei]

10 hours ago, beecee said:

It's about 15 minutes long.

I spent 15 minutes watching it. It looked fine at the first sigh. He complained that scientists don't know everything and there is missing bit (as always!) without trying to answer it. But second thought was that he showed organic compounds reactions from the book which required extreme cold temperatures like -50 C and hot like T > + 100 C couple times different conditions, as an example of "how could nature make this compound randomly when environment has much moderate temperatures".. Somebody from audience should tell him that these organic compounds are made in moderate living organism temperatures on daily basis at ~ 36-42 C.. They are simply made using different paths, less efficiently, with smaller yield, from different reactants, with different byproducts etc .. i.e. path that is showed by him in the book, is not the only one possible path, in which given organic compound can be created..