Ah, so it’s reasonable to believe people who are trustworthy and well-informed? You were saying recently that that is just “hear-say”. And how do you know my exact motives? People here do say that, and it’s very odd for a materialist, to say like they have some sort of supernatural ability. Like an atheist saying “I know there are no gods!” You know this, exactly, how? You have looked everywhere God might be, if he existed, everywhere, and all at once, and haven’t found him? That’s a claim of virtual omniscience, and omnipresence. You really should be worshipped, you supernatural being, you.
Then we have yet another instance where someone illustrates my claim, where you point to some unreasoning cause for my statements, I subscribe to what I want to be true, and therefore reject what I say. People do recognize this principle! Even people who say they don’t do this.
But that’s not a refutation, either. It’s what’s known as an ad hominem.
Do you mean his 747 analogy with the tornado? That wasn’t what I quoted, it was a quote about physics, and then a mention of chemistry and biology. There was no analogy there.
Ad hominem alert! Also another claim of supernatural knowledge of my motives.
All right, here’s one:
“Which is just plain silly. Here’s an example of real OOL research:
Isoprenoids enhance the stability of fatty acid membranes at the emergence of life potentially leading to an early lipid divide - PMC ” (John Mercer)
Here is my reply: “What is silly is the claim that hydrothermal vents are a good place for life to emerge! ‘Alkaline hydrothermal vents are among the most plausible environments for the emergence of life’. Not so. Here is video where Ed Pelzer talks with James Tour about this subject, Pelzer is a retired deep-sea researcher who knows about this area.” The discussion continued, and I said further: “One basic problem is that complex molecules go to pieces in the kind of temperatures found in hydrothermal vents.”
Here’s another:
“The authors Tour cites state that, based on their rhetorical question (as it were), “the cell does not organize by random collisions of its interacting constituents”. In other words, the number Tour cites is not a realistic estimate that is based on the known properties of proteins, or of the interaction networks we see in living cells.” (Art Hunt)
And my response was this: “Certainly, but that’s all we’ve got in OOL, when the first interactome is needed, you have random collisions. You don’t start with an interactome from a living cell.”
Then there is this:
I’ll stop there, I expect I could find more, maybe even in just the James Tour thread…
Well, I also gave a quote from Dawkins, when I first made this point, to illustrate Chesterton’s point, Dawkins says there is just “blind, pitiless indifference”, that is all. But strange to say, he starts out his argument by painting a picture of terrible animal suffering, such as creatures being eaten alive, I expect to do, among maybe other things, to arouse (why?) pity. So “blind, pitiless indifference” leaves out the very thing he starts with, in pity for suffering. It leaves out a lot more! Like healthy relationships, he’s married, apparently for no reason that any marriage counselor would accept. And he trusts his wife, he says, yet his summary of the cosmos somehow leaves this out. “The thing has shrunk”…
All right, have you worked at Cambridge, or at a comparable institution? Have you published a paper that has had such scrutiny and held up for 20 years? You may likely claim it has been refuted, in this thread, and I’m going to ask you “where?” Please give me a link that has gone unaddressed, to which there has been no good answer.
Actually, I do listen when people tell me an ion pump isn’t an ion channel. Or that Basilosaurus didn’t have a melon organ. Some people here do know a lot of biology. But they do appear quite undiscerning, as in saying, well, I haven’t respected a speck of the learning of those who disagree with me.
Ad hominem alert! Supernatural motive detector alert! Boop, boop boop…