The ancestral cells.
Where has that been observed?
The creation of ancestral cells wasn’t observed by anyone alive today. So it’s a matter of inference how they came to be.
So you think you should teach bad classes because there are already people teaching bad classes?
2 Likes
Then why do you require abiogenesis to be observed, but not the supernatural creation of cells?
4 Likes
No, I’m just questioning your claim universities provide a critical eye. I provided empirical support to the contrary.
Because I don’t represent miracles as a scientific theory that is directly accessible by science. Abiogenesis and evolutionary theory posture as if they’re operational theories (like electromagnetism and gravity), but they’re not, they’re faith beliefs.
Would you agree that the science department at Stanford University is going to be much more critical of what is taught in their classes compared to the Social Sciences department at Evergreen University?
2 Likes
The first phase of the rollout will be mostly just text based articles and lessons with some videos. No quizzes or tests at first. I will organize them by highlighting works or ideas that are commendable, even if I disagree.
Here will be one of the featured essays to study in the Religion and Philosophy of the Buffet to represent some of the viewpoints of Christians on the origins matter:
1 Like
I should hope so! 
But what’s wrong with presenting James Tour’s criticism of Abiogenesis research? He’s earned the right to have a say.
How about Joe Deweese or Change Tan in their specialties? They may or may not be right, but seriously, someone like Joe is qualified to act as a peer-reviewer of evolutionary claims in his field of enzymology. Yet, I doubt an evolutionary journal would be welcoming of his views!
Another fine example of a creationist treating “inference” as synonymous with “wild guess” rather than as the backbone of all science.
I’d like to express my appreciation for all who responded.
By my estimate there are 10 viewpoints opposing to mine, and question directed at me. This ratio is very difficult to manage, and I’ve missed a few questions.
Dr. Harshman has suggested a few things such as the accounting of YEC: pro-con, which I think would be valuable since I have said YEC theory has serious problems and I feel a responsibility to collect scholarly analyses of theoretical and evidential problems with YEC theory.
I will have to pause a bit on this thread as I try to cobble together a 1.0 website with some material on it. It will eventually have the YEC:pro-con accounting.
Thanks again to everyone.
1 Like
So when have you observed an electron yourself, @stcordova? What is the physical basis of the electromagnetic force, and how have you observed it for yourself?
As for me, I have a faith belief in electromagnetism. I also have a faith belief that gravity has operated the same way in every location and every point in time in the history of our universe. I have a faith belief that gravity and electromagnetism will continue to act everywhere in the universe in the future, just as they do now.
I cannot prove any of this. It is a faith enterprise.
3 Likes
I agree it’s all faith. There are varying degrees at the amount of evidence that supports that faith. IMO electromagnetism has better supporting evidence then universal common descent and abiogenesis.
No, I haven’t. Just because the current mechanism for attaching amino-acids to tRNA involves a protein doesn’t mean it can’t be done with an RNA molecule insteda.
First, abiogenesis does not necessarily require proteins. In an RNA-world scenario, there is no amino-acid heterochirality issue because amino-acids are unnecessary.
Second, you weren’t talking about abiogenesis, you were talking about extant protein production. That’s not the same thing. You are avoiding admitting you were wrong about heterochirality being an issue for assembly of modern proteins by changing the subject. It’s dishonest shirking of responsibility like yours that leads to nothing you say being worth listening to because you never change your claims or admit when you’re proven wrong.
1 Like
That’s true. It’s one of the reasons we like to split threads, to manage that onslaught. Mind if we do that a little to help you out.
1 Like
Until this is demonstrated it is just speculation. Or per the prior conversation faith based solely on speculation.
Thank you for the kind offer, but then I’ll be having 10 opposing viewpoint directed at me specifically from numerous threads.
On the other hand, it is helpful to interact with opposing viewpoints and that they be at least made accessible in my online class.
There are two mechanisms I envision to do this. The first is that when I release course material on the web, there should be a mechanism for respected scholars, even of hostile viewpoints, to register their views to the learning modules at the course website. I haven’t worked out the mechanics of this yet. I’m conferring with web developers on how best to accomplish this.
Second, I’m happy to link to PeacefulScience or anywhere else that has a scholarly discussion of the learning modules. I’m happy to do this since some scholars might not want to be on the course website at all.
So with respect to thread splitting of this thread, since my purpose was to introduce my project and give an overview of what will be covered, but not in all the gory details, I will save future discussions of specific topics along the lines of the individual course modules.
What I might do is create an outline of the buffet items that will be visible on the Course website first.
2 Likes
In other words, Sal will not be discussing any of this here.
1 Like
Naturally. You wouldn’t want your students to know enough to reject your misrepresentations.
3 Likes
Dr. Harshman, if to level the playing field such that I’m not outnumbered 10 to one in this place, I’m happy to engage you in an online audio/video conversation publicly visible to the class,.
Same goes for anyone willing to present themselves under their own name.
This 10 against 1 swarm isn’t exactly conducive to orderly, scholarly discussion where jabs and irrelevancies (like a chess game) get thrown on the table, or aa-tRNA-synthases get thrown in a discussion about abiogenesis. Some I’m willing to go 1 vs. 1, or even 2 vs. 1, but not 10 vs. 1 before the students.
The mechanics of hosting this can be worked out, but I think equal time is fair, and the participants talk about what is on their mind. The only moderation would be to enforce things like time limits for audio visual exchanges.
If Dr. Harshman wants to have a conversation in front of the students and make me defend my ideas, that’s fine. Let’s just have it in an orderly fashion.
I’m even willing to do that for a several opposing scholars, on a variety of learning modules. But 10-vs-1 free-for-alls such as in this thread just won’t work.
1 Like
ID can be discussed fairly in a religion or philosophy department. But you don’t want it discussed fairly, you want it discussed one-sidedly and uncritically.
3 Likes