# Looking at issues raised by Tour

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [May 5, 2019, 9:40pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072 "2019-05-05T21:40:35Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac91a4/32.png) [@Jim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jim)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 6:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/62 "2019-05-07T18:05:45Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> The lack of anyone being able to build a heavier-than-air flying machine. People had been trying for thousands of years to build such a machine, and no one had.

Are you aware of any type of investigation he put forth to come to his conclusion other than, it’s never been done before?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 6:08pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/63 "2019-05-07T18:08:01Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> That’s precisely how it would be done. Are you suggesting that there is no evidence that would suggest that known natural causes of OoL are implausible?

No, I’m pointing out that you aren’t bothering with examining any evidence.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac91a4/32.png) [@Jim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jim)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 6:48pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/64 "2019-05-07T18:48:31Z")

</div>

> [@Timothy\_Horton](#):
>
> OK then, let’s see your direct or indirect empirical evidence for supernatural meddling in the physical world. You claimed to know of “lots” of such evidence, remember?
> 
> Please keep the discussion to **positive evidence** for the supernatural please. The negative “we don’t know so we can assume the supernatural did it” isn’t positive empirical evidence.

To start off with, obviously there is no direct empirical evidence, as the supernatural, by definition is inaccessible to direct empirical investigation. For indirect empirical evidence that can be used to infer the existence of a supernatural cause let me list some off the top of my head:

The existence of time, space, matter and energy itself.  
Life.  
DNA.  
Complexity of the cell.  
Complexity of nature.  
Constants and quantities of nature.  
That the physical world is intelligible.  
That the features of design are present in all biological structures.  
Human beings.  
Human physiology.  
The human brain.  
The earth.  
The solar system.  
The immensity of the universe.  
Light.  
Energy.

I think that should suffice for now. So basically, the argument is that based on these empirical evidences it can be inferred that a supernatural explanation would be a competing plausible explanation for the origin of these phenomena. That would be an abductive argument based on indirect empirical evidence. Now please correct me if I’m wrong, but that seems to me to be a valid argument based on reason and empirical evidence.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac91a4/32.png) [@Jim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jim)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 7:04pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/65 "2019-05-07T19:04:33Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> In the case of biology and origin of life, there are analogous observations.

I’m not so sure. With things we have experience with we can base our judgments on those experiences. We don’t have any experience with OoL to base our conclusions on. All we have is related scientific knowledge to base our conclusions on. Anything more than that is pretty much speculation.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac91a4/32.png) [@Jim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jim)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 7:07pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/66 "2019-05-07T19:07:49Z")

</div>

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> No, I’m pointing out that you aren’t bothering with examining any evidence.

I’m not sure I follow you. If I’m going by what I understand are problems that arise do to “scientific evidence,” how am I not examining any evidence?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 8:02pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/67 "2019-05-07T20:02:09Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> I’m not so sure. With things we have experience with we can base our judgments on those experiences. We don’t have any experience with OoL to base our conclusions on. All we have is related scientific knowledge to base our conclusions on. Anything more than that is pretty much speculation.

How would this apply to God creating life?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Timothy\_Horton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/timothy_horton/32/9410_2.png) [@Timothy\_Horton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Timothy_Horton)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 8:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/68 "2019-05-07T20:05:24Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> For indirect empirical evidence that can be used to infer the existence of a supernatural cause let me list some off the top of my head

Why do those infer a supernatural cause as opposed to a natural cause we don’t fully understand yet?

Your personal incredulity does not constitute empirical evidence, indirect or otherwise.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pevaquark](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/pevaquark/32/2324_2.png) [@pevaquark](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/pevaquark)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 8:21pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/69 "2019-05-07T20:21:50Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> I’m curious as to how you conclude "both of which cannot be defined in any way.

I’m curious as to how you or anyone can conclude that they can define exactly what supernatural entities could be acting and by what mechanisms such supernatural entities can act with cells or anything in the physical world.

> [@Jim](#):
>
> And I’m not clear what exactly you mean by “demonstrate such?” Are you saying that God cannot be demonstrated, or that His actions in the world cannot be demonstrated? Or maybe something else?

I’m saying that we have no conceivable way to test any hypothesis regarding the specific interactions of specific supernatural entities. For most things, we’ve collectively come to a greater understanding of the natural world and medicine by assuming that such beings don’t tinker with atoms or cells.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 11:39pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/70 "2019-05-07T23:39:16Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> If I’m going by what I understand are problems that arise do to “scientific evidence,” how am I not examining any evidence?

You’re not looking at the evidence. You’re basing your position on hearsay.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac91a4/32.png) [@Jim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jim)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 11:48pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/71 "2019-05-07T23:48:07Z")

</div>

> [@Timothy\_Horton](#):
>
> Why do those infer a supernatural cause as opposed to a natural cause we don’t fully understand yet?

As I understand it, there can be multiple competing explanations. What happens is they are all examined to see which is the simplest and has the best explanitory scope, and power. I could be wrong, but you don’t seem to understand how abductive reasoning works.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Timothy\_Horton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/timothy_horton/32/9410_2.png) [@Timothy\_Horton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Timothy_Horton)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 11:52pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/72 "2019-05-07T23:52:10Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> What happens is they are all examined to see which is the simplest and has the best explanitory scope, and power.

**POOF! MAGIC!** is so vague it has no explanatory scope or power. It explains nothing since there is literally nothing which it couldn’t incorporate. You claimed to have **scientific** evidence which you obviously don’t.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac91a4/32.png) [@Jim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jim)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 11:57pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/73 "2019-05-07T23:57:49Z")

</div>

> [@pevaquark](#):
>
> I’m curious as to how you or anyone can conclude that they can define exactly what supernatural entities could be acting and by what mechanisms such supernatural entities can act with cells or anything in the physical world.

There’s a difference between defined in any way, and defined exactly. It’s a little hard to know how to answer if you change the original question. I think it’s not too difficult using logic to come up with some defining properties of what a supernatural cause would need to possess. To know exactly would be a different proposition.

> [@pevaquark](#):
>
> I’m saying that we have no conceivable way to test any hypothesis regarding the specific interactions of specific supernatural entities. For most things, we’ve collectively come to a greater understanding of the natural world and medicine by assuming that such beings don’t tinker with atoms or cells.

OK. I have no problem with that. But I’ve never intentionally implied that that was not the case. But I’ve lost the original train of thought from which these comments originated so you’ll have to forgive me and either get me back on track, or maybe this is a good place to stop?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac91a4/32.png) [@Jim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jim)\
**Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 12:01am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/74 "2019-05-08T00:01:40Z")

</div>

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> You’re not looking at the evidence. You’re basing your position on hearsay.

Not in this case. Tour made some pretty good points about how chemistry works that would be quite monumental obstructions for known natural causes to account for OoL. If anyone has refuted them I’m not aware of it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jordan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jordan/32/756_2.png) [@Jordan](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jordan)\
**Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 12:05am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/75 "2019-05-08T00:05:20Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> Tour made some pretty good points about how chemistry works that would be quite monumental obstructions for known natural causes to account for OoL.

I’ve watched the whole Tour presentation once, but could you maybe specifically enumerate the “pretty good points”. I’m not a biochemist, but I would like to look at these in more depth.

P.S. I’m not doing this with the intention of refuting them. I don’t care either way, I just want to understand the issues more.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac91a4/32.png) [@Jim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jim)\
**Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 12:06am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/76 "2019-05-08T00:06:19Z")

</div>

> [@Timothy\_Horton](#):
>
> You claimed to have **scientific** evidence which you obviously don’t.

Sorry, but I won’t be engaging you any further until you explain to me in a civil and understandable fashion why my position is invalid. Thanks. 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Timothy\_Horton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/timothy_horton/32/9410_2.png) [@Timothy\_Horton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Timothy_Horton)\
**Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 12:08am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/77 "2019-05-08T00:08:42Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> Sorry, but I won’t be engaging you any further until you explain to me in a civil and understandable fashion why my position is invalid.

It’s not invalid _per se_ for you to believe in magic. It’s just not supported by even a tiny bit of scientific evidence either direct or indirect.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac91a4/32.png) [@Jim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jim)\
**Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 12:15am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/78 "2019-05-08T00:15:32Z")

</div>

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> I’ve watched the whole Tour presentation once, but could you maybe specifically enumerate the “pretty good points”. I’m not a biochemist, but I would like to look at these in more depth.
> 
> P.S. I’m not doing this with the intention of refuting them. I don’t care either way, I just want to understand the issues more.

Here’s a rough breakdown of the main points.  
14:15 - 21:27 synthesis problem  
27:00 Enzymes or complex DNA synthesizers not existing to hook up nucleotides  
19:50 mass transfer problem-killer  
28:24 Homogeneity not a protocell – the assembly problem  
29:43 - 33:56 Complex cellular membrane  
33:58 – 36:43 Interactomes  
Proto-turkeys? 36:44 –  
Origin of Information 37:26 - Nucleic Acids hooked together  
I’m no chemist either, but if what he says is factual, which I’m assuming since this is what he does all the time that it is, there are several problems that would arise in a prebiotic situation that would make for pretty insurmountable circumstances for life to arise. One that stood out to me was the fact that there wouldn’t be any enzymes or DNA synthesizers for amino acids to hook up into proteins. Since both are made of protein it’s kind of hard to see how it would work.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 12:17am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/80 "2019-05-08T00:17:10Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> Not in this case.

Yes, you’re admitting to it.

> [@Jim](#):
>
> Tour made some pretty good points about how chemistry works that would be quite monumental obstructions for known natural causes to account for OoL.

What Tour says is not evidence. It’s hearsay.

> [@Jim](#):
>
> If anyone has refuted them I’m not aware of it.

How convenient for you! Have you looked at any OoL research papers yet?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 12:18am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/81 "2019-05-08T00:18:02Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> Sorry, but I won’t be engaging you any further until you explain to me in a civil and understandable fashion why my position is invalid.

It’s invalid and pseudoscientific because it is based on hearsay, not evidence.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 9:31am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/82 "2019-05-08T09:31:34Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> > [@Roy](#):
> >
> > It would have been quicker and easier to refer to some of the evidence and ask whether it was acceptable. That you didn’t suggests you don’t have any.
> 
> > [@pevaquark](#):
> >
> > Did you actually give him any?
> 
> Maybe it wasn’t clear what I was doing. But it seemed like it was obvious enough. To avoid talking past each other, it’s customary, at least it seems to me that it is, that an understanding of how terms are being used is needed. So depending on how @Timothy_Horton is defining “related scientific evidence” will determine how I proceed with my reply. Does that make sense?

It makes perfect sense and it’s perfectly clear what you are doing.

You have no scientific evidence of supernatural entities meddling in the physical world, and are stalling and goal-post shifting rather than admit it.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072.md?page=3)