James Tour destroys origin of life theory.

[Stargazer]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All of that entails the normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology of God as the Uncaused Cause and only Necessary Being, which creates endless paradoxes, which are the basis of Death of God theologies.  The Book of Mormon sees such a god as impossible.  A god cannot be a god under such absurd conditions.  It isn't that the universe is inimical to biogenesis, but that it requires a Designer, just as a watch requires a Watchmaker.  Abiogenesis is not possible, but advanced sentient beings ("godlike" in atheist parlance) can certainly engineer nearly anything based on advanced technology.  That is the Mormon ace-in-the-hole which comports with the real world, rather than with the fantasies of the theologians -- who are still stuck with the problem of evil (theodicy).

Well said!

[Stargazer]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This has happened before in studies of evolution where people held up things like irreducible complexity as an insurmountable obstacle and theory overtook that and explained it reasonably well.

Ummm, I once listened to an defense given by a presumably smart evolutionary biologist that purported to overcome irreducible complexity and it actually amounted to a "because I said so" explanation.  This was years ago, and I am pretty sure I could track it down and re-listen, but I doubt it would make any more sense now than it did then.  If I find the time, maybe I will give it another shot.

The thing is, in my mind at any rate, as an argument irreducible complexity is unnecessary anyway.  I know who created the universe and he surely didn't just wind it up and let it go its own way.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Ummm, I once listened to an defense given by a presumably smart evolutionary biologist that purported to overcome irreducible complexity and it actually amounted to a "because I said so" explanation.  This was years ago, and I am pretty sure I could track it down and re-listen, but I doubt it would make any more sense now than it did then.  If I find the time, maybe I will give it another shot.

The thing is, in my mind at any rate, as an argument irreducible complexity is unnecessary anyway.  I know who created the universe and he surely didn't just wind it up and let it go its own way.

And I once listened to a Creationist say something stupid. Okay, now that our anecdotes cancel each other out we are back to where we started. If you target the understanding of the biggest idiot on the opposing side you can always imagine you won.

And I agree with you that God created the universe but bad arguments are not going to make it more true and hopefully they will not convert people because bad arguments should not be successful.

Then again, we are in a post-fact reality so who knows?

[longview]

8 hours ago, cinepro said:

I haven't really kept up to speed on this, so can you explain what you mean by "current narrative"?  What is this "narrative" that one must support or otherwise risk punishment, and who are the scientists that are doing the punishing (what are their names)? 

Can you provide an example of a scientist that didn't toe the line and got punished?

The most obvious narrative is the gender studies departments at many left-leaning universities.  We see hapless people being excoriated for using the wrong pronoun.  Leftist elites control the politically correct expressions (which sometimes do change by the minute).  They abuse the science (psychology, biology, etc) to put out their "version" of the "truth".  On the other hand they don't believe there is such a thing as "truth" (everything is relative).  Look at what happened to the president of Harvard:

"Bowing to faculty demands, Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers on Thursday released a transcript of his controversial remarks on women and science. He did so while releasing yet another apology for those remarks and as the head of the Harvard Corporation released a statement backing Summers.Feb 18, 2005 (he was forced to resign after a 5 year tenure)."

There are powerful interests in maintaining the "narratives" for global warming hysteria and for the field of evolution.  There is a tremendous chilling effect on students, professors, other academics and professionals.  The following is a sampling from around the web:

Fri Dec 18, 2015
Last year, undergraduate Sandra Korn initiated a furor when she authored an article for the Harvard Crimson newspaper arguing that academic freedom should be discarded in favor of social justice. Citing the example of Richard Herrnstein’s research on racial differences in intelligence, Korn posed the question:  “if our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of ‘academic freedom’”?

https://archives.frontpagemag.com/fpm/intellectual-dishonesty-walter-williams/
The culture of corruption sweeping academia -- and beyond.   Tue Jun 2, 2015
"Many academics know that to call any science settled is nonsense. But their leftist political sentiments and lack of academic integrity prevent them from criticizing public officials and the media for misleading a gullible public about global warming."

https://archives.frontpagemag.com/fpm/global-warming-religion-walter-williams/
And questioning it makes one a sinner.   Tue Jan 19, 2010
"A few years back, Dr. Heidi Cullen, the Weather Channel’s climatologist, advocated that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) strip their seal of approval from any TV weatherman expressing skepticism about the predictions of manmade global warming. Scott Pelley, CBS News “60 Minutes” correspondent, compared skeptics of global warming to “Holocaust deniers.” Former Vice President Al Gore called skeptics “global warming deniers.” But it gets worse. On one of her shows, Dr. Cullen featured columnist Dave Roberts, who, in his Sept. 19, 2006, online publication, said, “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.”
As a result, many climatologists have been intimidated into silence. That means the public is not informed about counter-alarmists facts such as: Over long periods of time, there is absolutely no close relationship between C02 levels and temperature. Humans contribute approximately 3.4 percent of annual C02 levels compared to 96.6 percent by nature. There was an explosion of life forms 550 million years ago (Cambrian Period) when CO2 levels were 18 times higher than today. During the Jurassic Period, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, CO2 levels were as much as nine times higher than today. Contrary to what educators are brainwashing our children with, polar bear numbers increased dramatically from around 5,000 in 1950 to as many as 25,000 today, higher than any time in the 20th century."

https://archives.frontpagemag.com/fpm/another-global-warming-dissenter-stands-rich-trzupek/
The abandonment of the scientific method drives a Nobel laureate to act.   Mon Sep 19, 2011
"Professor Giaever, like many scientists (yours truly included) cannot abide the way that global warming alarmists continually try to stifle the legitimate debate that is central to the scientific process. Without that kind of healthy skepticism, research like AQUA and the CERN studies would not happen. Organizations like APS and ACS are supposed to stand for the scientific method, rigorously and strictly applied in all instances. The fact that they have chosen instead to walk the path of political correctness is deeply disturbing. Ivar Giaever is the latest respected scientist to express disgust with the subversion of the process that occurs in the name of global warming orthodoxy, but he will not be the last."

[The Nehor]

34 minutes ago, longview said:

The most obvious narrative is the gender studies departments at many left-leaning universities.  We see hapless people being excoriated for using the wrong pronoun.  Leftist elites control the politically correct expressions (which sometimes do change by the minute).  They abuse the science (psychology, biology, etc) to put out their "version" of the "truth".  On the other hand they don't believe there is such a thing as "truth" (everything is relative).  Look at what happened to the president of Harvard:

"Bowing to faculty demands, Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers on Thursday released a transcript of his controversial remarks on women and science. He did so while releasing yet another apology for those remarks and as the head of the Harvard Corporation released a statement backing Summers.Feb 18, 2005 (he was forced to resign after a 5 year tenure)."

There are powerful interests in maintaining the "narratives" for global warming hysteria and for the field of evolution.  There is a tremendous chilling effect on students, professors, other academics and professionals.  The following is a sampling from around the web:

Fri Dec 18, 2015
Last year, undergraduate Sandra Korn initiated a furor when she authored an article for the Harvard Crimson newspaper arguing that academic freedom should be discarded in favor of social justice. Citing the example of Richard Herrnstein’s research on racial differences in intelligence, Korn posed the question:  “if our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of ‘academic freedom’”?

https://archives.frontpagemag.com/fpm/intellectual-dishonesty-walter-williams/
The culture of corruption sweeping academia -- and beyond.   Tue Jun 2, 2015
"Many academics know that to call any science settled is nonsense. But their leftist political sentiments and lack of academic integrity prevent them from criticizing public officials and the media for misleading a gullible public about global warming."

https://archives.frontpagemag.com/fpm/global-warming-religion-walter-williams/
And questioning it makes one a sinner.   Tue Jan 19, 2010
"A few years back, Dr. Heidi Cullen, the Weather Channel’s climatologist, advocated that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) strip their seal of approval from any TV weatherman expressing skepticism about the predictions of manmade global warming. Scott Pelley, CBS News “60 Minutes” correspondent, compared skeptics of global warming to “Holocaust deniers.” Former Vice President Al Gore called skeptics “global warming deniers.” But it gets worse. On one of her shows, Dr. Cullen featured columnist Dave Roberts, who, in his Sept. 19, 2006, online publication, said, “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.”
As a result, many climatologists have been intimidated into silence. That means the public is not informed about counter-alarmists facts such as: Over long periods of time, there is absolutely no close relationship between C02 levels and temperature. Humans contribute approximately 3.4 percent of annual C02 levels compared to 96.6 percent by nature. There was an explosion of life forms 550 million years ago (Cambrian Period) when CO2 levels were 18 times higher than today. During the Jurassic Period, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, CO2 levels were as much as nine times higher than today. Contrary to what educators are brainwashing our children with, polar bear numbers increased dramatically from around 5,000 in 1950 to as many as 25,000 today, higher than any time in the 20th century."

https://archives.frontpagemag.com/fpm/another-global-warming-dissenter-stands-rich-trzupek/
The abandonment of the scientific method drives a Nobel laureate to act.   Mon Sep 19, 2011
"Professor Giaever, like many scientists (yours truly included) cannot abide the way that global warming alarmists continually try to stifle the legitimate debate that is central to the scientific process. Without that kind of healthy skepticism, research like AQUA and the CERN studies would not happen. Organizations like APS and ACS are supposed to stand for the scientific method, rigorously and strictly applied in all instances. The fact that they have chosen instead to walk the path of political correctness is deeply disturbing. Ivar Giaever is the latest respected scientist to express disgust with the subversion of the process that occurs in the name of global warming orthodoxy, but he will not be the last."

Wow, three articles from the same biased source, none of which relate at all to the field we were discussing.

I think I have been checkmated. No wait, I have one last card to play:

 

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And I once listened to a Creationist say something stupid. Okay, now that our anecdotes cancel each other out we are back to where we started. If you target the understanding of the biggest idiot on the opposing side you can always imagine you won.

I didn't say he said anything stupid. I just said that his argument didn't seem to support his position, and it seemed more like a "because I said so" it must be QED.  There's a lot of creationist arguments that don't seem to support their positions, either.

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And I agree with you that God created the universe but bad arguments are not going to make it more true and hopefully they will not convert people because bad arguments should not be successful.

Then again, we are in a post-fact reality so who knows?

Not trying to make bad arguments, or present them as stunning proofs.  God has managed to stay well within the curtain in all that he has done.  The only thing science can do is discover the facts -- the motivations and intents of the Creator are not discoverable via empirical scientific means.  

For all I know we are in an elaborate simulation.  It needn't be real.

[Stargazer]

59 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Wow, three articles from the same biased source, none of which relate at all to the field we were discussing.

I think I have been checkmated. No wait, I have one last card to play:

 

So, you're saying that there is no such thing as political correctness that is suppressing free expression?  

[The Nehor]

27 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

So, you're saying that there is no such thing as political correctness that is suppressing free expression?  

No, I am saying there is no vast scientific conspiracy.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 9/12/2019 at 9:04 PM, longview said:

Dr. Tour has a very strong background in many areas of hard science.  The more we learn about the complexity of the cell, the more lame the current "narrative" becomes.  He knows there are academics who will punish any professional who do not toe the line in supporting the politically correct "narrative".

 

16 hours ago, cinepro said:

I haven't really kept up to speed on this, so can you explain what you mean by "current narrative"?  What is this "narrative" that one must support or otherwise risk punishment, and who are the scientists that are doing the punishing (what are their names)? 

Can you provide an example of a scientist that didn't toe the line and got punished?

 

7 hours ago, longview said:

The most obvious narrative is the gender studies departments at many left-leaning universities.  We see hapless people being excoriated for using the wrong pronoun.  Leftist elites control the politically correct expressions (which sometimes do change by the minute).  They abuse the science (psychology, biology, etc) to put out their "version" of the "truth".  On the other hand they don't believe there is such a thing as "truth" (everything is relative).  Look at what happened to the president of Harvard:

"Bowing to faculty demands, Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers on Thursday released a transcript of his controversial remarks on women and science. He did so while releasing yet another apology for those remarks and as the head of the Harvard Corporation released a statement backing Summers.Feb 18, 2005 (he was forced to resign after a 5 year tenure)."

There are powerful interests in maintaining the "narratives" for global warming hysteria and for the field of evolution.  There is a tremendous chilling effect on students, professors, other academics and professionals.  The following is a sampling from around the web:

Fri Dec 18, 2015
Last year, undergraduate Sandra Korn initiated a furor when she authored an article for the Harvard Crimson newspaper arguing that academic freedom should be discarded in favor of social justice. Citing the example of Richard Herrnstein’s research on racial differences in intelligence, Korn posed the question:  “if our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of ‘academic freedom’”?

https://archives.frontpagemag.com/fpm/intellectual-dishonesty-walter-williams/
The culture of corruption sweeping academia -- and beyond.   Tue Jun 2, 2015
"Many academics know that to call any science settled is nonsense. But their leftist political sentiments and lack of academic integrity prevent them from criticizing public officials and the media for misleading a gullible public about global warming."

https://archives.frontpagemag.com/fpm/global-warming-religion-walter-williams/
And questioning it makes one a sinner.   Tue Jan 19, 2010
"A few years back, Dr. Heidi Cullen, the Weather Channel’s climatologist, advocated that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) strip their seal of approval from any TV weatherman expressing skepticism about the predictions of manmade global warming. Scott Pelley, CBS News “60 Minutes” correspondent, compared skeptics of global warming to “Holocaust deniers.” Former Vice President Al Gore called skeptics “global warming deniers.” But it gets worse. On one of her shows, Dr. Cullen featured columnist Dave Roberts, who, in his Sept. 19, 2006, online publication, said, “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.”
As a result, many climatologists have been intimidated into silence. That means the public is not informed about counter-alarmists facts such as: Over long periods of time, there is absolutely no close relationship between C02 levels and temperature. Humans contribute approximately 3.4 percent of annual C02 levels compared to 96.6 percent by nature. There was an explosion of life forms 550 million years ago (Cambrian Period) when CO2 levels were 18 times higher than today. During the Jurassic Period, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, CO2 levels were as much as nine times higher than today. Contrary to what educators are brainwashing our children with, polar bear numbers increased dramatically from around 5,000 in 1950 to as many as 25,000 today, higher than any time in the 20th century."

https://archives.frontpagemag.com/fpm/another-global-warming-dissenter-stands-rich-trzupek/
The abandonment of the scientific method drives a Nobel laureate to act.   Mon Sep 19, 2011
"Professor Giaever, like many scientists (yours truly included) cannot abide the way that global warming alarmists continually try to stifle the legitimate debate that is central to the scientific process. Without that kind of healthy skepticism, research like AQUA and the CERN studies would not happen. Organizations like APS and ACS are supposed to stand for the scientific method, rigorously and strictly applied in all instances. The fact that they have chosen instead to walk the path of political correctness is deeply disturbing. Ivar Giaever is the latest respected scientist to express disgust with the subversion of the process that occurs in the name of global warming orthodoxy, but he will not be the last."

So just to be clear, Dr.Tour uses the complexity of the cell to show how lame the current PC narrative is around gender pronouns!? Truly, his intellect  reigns supreme. I’m a bit confused though because I thought the OP was on origin of life questions. 

Can I recommend some light reading so you can stop embarrassing yourself:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

”There is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life.”

[longview]

26 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So just to be clear, Dr.Tour uses the complexity of the cell to show how lame the current PC narrative is around gender pronouns!? Truly, his intellect  reigns supreme. I’m a bit confused though because I thought the OP was on origin of life questions. 

Can I recommend some light reading so you can stop embarrassing yourself:

You misread my posts.  I was providing THREE different areas in which the "narrative" is contrived and controlled by the "social engineering agitators" or the "hysterics in the social justice movement".  They are prominent in "gender studies", global warming hysteria and evolution but there more "narratives" being promulgated in other subjects that are deceptively presented, sometimes involving the abuse of science.

I did not associate Dr. Tours with the gender issues nor did he himself mention anything about gender controversy.  But his video does acknowledge the chilling effect and ostracizing on free speech that happens in academia.  It is so strange how Nehor is in DEEP denial about the unconstitutional suppression of academic expressions.  But yesterday I was astonished to read in another thread (that is currently active) of a dialogue between Nehor and Smac that surprisingly reveals Nehor's sympathy and admiration for the antics of Antifa thugs.  It just may be Nehor is a closet social justice agitator?

Do you acknowledge there are undue constraints on the rights of students to have freedom to explore conservative thoughts? 

[CA Steve]

In other news, Tour has recently announced he will destroy the theory of gravity. His followers are rushing to buy lead weights for their shoes.

[CA Steve]

On 9/13/2019 at 12:35 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Hawking had no scientific basis for that claim.  Pure fairy tale speculation

Here is the problem as I see it, from my uninformed view. The conditions that existed before the big bang are not describable using our physical brains and comparable to anything in our current physical universe. In other words, at best we can label it "nothing" because it does not fit into any other description we are capable of understanding or against which we can compare it. And, yes, I understand that allows for rampant speculation. I suspect that Hawking's speculation in this matter might be based on just a bit more scientific understanding than us normal folk.

Maybe a better way of putting it would be that the universe came from something we are incapable of understanding into something we can describe.

Edited September 14, 2019 by CA Steve

[longview]

3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

In other news, Tour has recently announced he will destroy the theory of gravity. His followers are rushing to buy lead weights for their shoes.

A ridiculous baseless pointless slander on a very accomplished nanotechnological expert (and deeply immersed in many fields of science).  Do you relish dishing out ad hominem attacks on people that do not cater to your politically correct narrative?  Are you a double of Nehor?  

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Here is the problem as I see it, from my uninformed view. The conditions that existed before the big bang are not describable using our physical brains and comparable to anything in our current physical universe. In other words, at best we can label it "nothing" because it does not fit into any other description we are capable of understanding or against which we can compare it. And, yes, I understand that allows for rampant speculation. I suspect that Hawking's speculation in this matter might be based on just a bit more scientific understanding than us normal folk.

Maybe a better way of putting it would be that the universe came from something we are incapable of understanding into something we can describe.

It's more a matter of saying there is no "there" there.    The prepositional phrase "before the big bang" is meaningless, because like division by zero, it is undefined.  There were no conditions because it didn't exist.  There wasn't even any emptiness.

Your last sentence does kind of work in this context, but even there, the "something" the universe came from is undefined.

From this Hawking and his fellow-travelers like to say that the universe came into being spontaneously from nothing.  But mathematically, even this is meaningless.  And must, ironically, be taken on faith.  So don't ever think theoretical physicists are non-religious.  They may be atheists (if they are), but they definitely have a religious faith, because what they believe in -- at least from the point of view of the origin of the universe -- is non-falsifiable, regardless of the depth of their convictions about it.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, longview said:

You misread my posts.  I was providing THREE different areas in which the "narrative" is contrived and controlled by the "social engineering agitators" or the "hysterics in the social justice movement".  They are prominent in "gender studies", global warming hysteria and evolution but there more "narratives" being promulgated in other subjects that are deceptively presented, sometimes involving the abuse of science.

Here is what you said:

Quote

Dr. Tour has a very strong background in many areas of hard science.  The more we learn about the complexity of the cell, the more lame the current "narrative" becomes.  He knows there are academics who will punish any professional who do not toe the line in supporting the politically correct "narrative".

You used the words "the narrative" and "the politically correct narrative" one after the other. Are you saying the first refers to the study of abiogenesis, but the second use refers to evolution (a completely different field of study - that you conflate them shows your ignorance), global warming, and gender studies? That is one HUGE non-sequitur. 

 

Quote

I did not associate Dr. Tours with the gender issues nor did he himself mention anything about gender controversy.  But his video does acknowledge the chilling effect and ostracizing on free speech that happens in academia.  It is so strange how Nehor is in DEEP denial about the unconstitutional suppression of academic expressions.  But yesterday I was astonished to read in another thread (that is currently active) of a dialogue between Nehor and Smac that surprisingly reveals Nehor's sympathy and admiration for the antics of Antifa thugs.  It just may be Nehor is a closet social justice agitator?

Do you acknowledge there are undue constraints on the rights of students to have freedom to explore conservative thoughts? 

In the same way that the left has weaponized words like racist, sexist, and homophobe, the right has weaponized problems around academic freedom. Are both problems in America? Yes, but not nearly to the extent that each side claims.

 

As an aside, I listened to the entire video on my morning walk. The entire video is simply a farce. The first ten minutes were Dr Tour saying, "I'm really smart and a legit scientist." This seems to be the case. The next 50 minutes are him shouting some variation of, "We don't know how life began on this planet," while pretending that scientists claim otherwise.  I defy you to show me a scientist who claims to "know" how life began on this planet. We don't know! Guess what science is 100% okay with that. Science is the religion of saying, we don't know how that works, but we are going to try and find out. In fact the more we figure out, the more we realize that there is to know. That's science.

There are things that science has figured out though, and common descent is one of those (since you keep touching on evolution). The evidence in favor of common descent is so large at this point in time, a God-level conspiracy is the only legitimate counter theory (that is God faked the evidence to make it look like common descent is true when it is not). As Dr. Tour points out, science updates its beliefs all the time, and this is true, but you and he fundamentally misunderstand how this works. When the theory of general relativity replaced Newtonian physics, the physics and truth of Newtonian physics didn't disappear. All the equations are still used and in fact are still taught to this day. Instead relativity enhanced our understanding at the edges. Evolutionary theory is constantly tweaked, updated and our understanding is continually enhanced, but nothing will overturn the fact of common descent. To believe otherwise with the state of evidence that exists today is the same as claiming your hand doesn't exist when you are staring at it in front of your face (i.e. a son of perdition level event to use Mormon level terms). So "scientists" that deny evolution are ostracized and rightly so.

Edited September 14, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[longview]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You used the words "the narrative" and "the politically correct narrative" one after the other. Are you saying the first refers to the study of abiogenesis, but the second use refers to evolution (a completely different field of study - that you conflate them shows your ignorance), global warming, and gender studies? That is one HUGE non-sequitur.

As you should understand by now I have presented three different narratives as examples in response to cinepro.  If you were thinking of the 3 examples, you would say "a narrative".  "The narrative" of course would refer to the one about evolution (in general).  I have already stated my conviction that abiogenesis and evolutionary biology cannot be separated and most certainly NOT mutually exclusive.  I have argued that primitive RNAs must undergo various conditions and evolutionary steps.  My contention is that the laboratory should try setting up any kind of apparatuses and material combinations (if necessary focus on very narrow steps and byproducts) to explore how abiogenesis might have developed (there are conceptually many thousands of paths/tracks it could have followed).

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

In the same way that the left has weaponized words like racist, sexist, and homophobe, the right has weaponized problems around academic freedom. Are both problems in America? Yes, but not nearly to the extent that each side claims.

How can concerns about academic inquiry and freedom of expressions and unhindered exchange of ideas be weaponized?  Why should it?  Don't you think EVERYONE should desire openness in academic pursuits?

On the other hand, I agree the left has unquestionably used attack words and labels for the purpose of destroying their opposition (hyper ad hominem attacks).  They do it because they are unyielding to logic and reason so they resort to warfare against the "deplorables" (i.e. traditionalist, defenders of the basic unit or the family, patriotism, conservative, etc).  In order to do those things, they have to control the "narrative" which many in the Dominant Media aid and support.  This is why they must constrict academic openness so that their agendas can be pushed more stealthily.  Witness what happened in Berkeley when conservative student groups would invite prominent speakers to lecture on campus but Antifa thugs will loudly and persistently try to drown out the lecture or they will engage in violent acts against people trying to gain entrance to the lecture hall.  All this while the campus police have been instructed to stand by and allow the obscenity to go on unchecked (this is also happening in many other colleges and universities).

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, longview said:

  I have already stated my conviction that abiogenesis and evolutionary biology cannot be separated and most certainly NOT mutually exclusive. 

I hate to break it to you but science couldn’t care less what your conviction is.  The two are non-overlapping. 

Quote

How can concerns about academic inquiry and freedom of expressions and unhindered exchange of ideas be weaponized?  Why should it?  Don't you think EVERYONE should desire openness in academic pursuits?

How can concerns about racial and sexual discrimination be weaponized? Why should it? Don’t you think EVERYONE should desire racial equality? 

Do you see how that works?

 

Edited September 14, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Here is the problem as I see it, from my uninformed view. The conditions that existed before the big bang are not describable using our physical brains and comparable to anything in our current physical universe. In other words, at best we can label it "nothing" because it does not fit into any other description we are capable of understanding or against which we can compare it. And, yes, I understand that allows for rampant speculation. I suspect that Hawking's speculation in this matter might be based on just a bit more scientific understanding than us normal folk.

Maybe a better way of putting it would be that the universe came from something we are incapable of understanding into something we can describe.

I agree.  There is plenty of room for speculation, and the best scientists are all over the map on what existed before the Big Bang.  Anyone can say anything about it and not be proved wrong.  That is not the same as stating a fact.

[CA Steve]

24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is not the same as stating a fact.

But that is the whole point Robert, facts, as we understand them, things like time, space, even the very laws of physics that seem so immutable to us, don't really apply before the big bang. Maybe Hawkings is just playing at a cosmic routine of the old Abbot & Costello bit "Who's on First." Maybe the word 'nothing' has a bit of a different meaning to him, as in "nothing we would understand". I don't know (third base.)

[Robert F. Smith]

31 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

But that is the whole point Robert, facts, as we understand them, things like time, space, even the very laws of physics that seem so immutable to us, don't really apply before the big bang. ........................

That was my point, Steve -- or at least what I was trying to say.  

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Maybe a better way of putting it would be that the universe came from something we are incapable of understanding into something we can describe.

Yes exactly

 All things were made by the Word; and without the Word was not any thing made that was made.

 See also my siggy

I think you have said it more simply than Rorty but that is exactly what he is saying here:

 

Quote

 

To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations.

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."

Edited September 14, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes exactly

 All things were made by the Word; and without the Word was not any thing made that was made.

 See also my siggy

I think you have said it more simply than Rorty but that is exactly what he is saying here:

 

And there are two ways of dealing with the origins of life, neither of which can be proven scientifically.

1- God made us so that we could conform to the natural laws of this planet OR

2- We evolved so that we could conform to the natural laws of this planet

So all the talk about being "perfect fits" for Earth or Earth being "perfect fits" for us becomes irrelevant because neither position can be proven through evidence, only theories of "how it could have been"

[longview]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

3 hours ago, longview said:

  I have already stated my conviction that abiogenesis and evolutionary biology cannot be separated and most certainly NOT mutually exclusive. 

I hate to break it to you but science couldn’t care less what your conviction is.  The two are non-overlapping. 

Where is the seam between abiogenesis and biological evolution?  No identifiable point.  Only the murky primordial soup developing into great diversity of viruses, bacterias and emerging multi-celled entities.  Incremental steps in the formation of primitive RNAs are just as necessary as the incremental steps in later life forms.

I hate to break it to you but science couldn’t care less if you believe there is no connection between the two.

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

How can concerns about academic inquiry and freedom of expressions and unhindered exchange of ideas be weaponized?  Why should it?  Don't you think EVERYONE should desire openness in academic pursuits?

How can concerns about racial and sexual discrimination be weaponized? Why should it? Don’t you think EVERYONE should desire racial equality? 

Do you see how that works?

You are making false equivalences and you KNOW it.  There is NO weaponizing for wanting colleges and universities to be a better experience for ALL students.  Both sides desire it.

Race relations has greatly improved since Jim Crow era.  Americans overwhelmingly demonstrated their goodwill in hoping that Obama's election would lead to even greater unity.  Virulent racists have been pretty much relegated to the fringe.  Both sides desire it.

It is only when the left is unable to prevail in debates that they resort to name calling, charging racism and homophobia and what have you.  Even when the argument has nothing to do with race relations the left still lays the racist charge.  They think they can prevail stopping the debates in this manner.  This is where the weaponizing occurs.  And you KNOW it.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 minutes ago, longview said:

Where is the seam between abiogenesis and biological evolution?  No identifiable point.  Only the murky primordial soup developing into great diversity of viruses, bacterias and emerging multi-celled entities.  Incremental steps in the formation of primitive RNAs are just as necessary as the incremental steps in later life forms.

I hate to break it to you but science couldn’t care less if you believe there is no connection between the two.

9 minutes ago, longview said:

You are making false equivalences and you KNOW it.  There is NO weaponizing for wanting colleges and universities to be a better experience for ALL students.  Both sides desire it.

Race relations has greatly improved since Jim Crow era.  Americans overwhelmingly demonstrated their goodwill in hoping that Obama's election would lead to even greater unity.  Virulent racists have been pretty much relegated to the fringe.  Both sides desire it.

It is only when the left is unable to prevail in debates that they resort to name calling, charging racism and homophobia and what have you.  Even when the argument has nothing to do with race relations the left still lays the racist charge.  They think they can prevail stopping the debates in this manner.  This is where the weaponizing occurs.  And you KNOW it.

How true.  See https://youtu.be/9euZXgyYixs .

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Where is the seam between abiogenesis and biological evolution?  No identifiable point.  Only the murky primordial soup developing into great diversity of viruses, bacterias and emerging multi-celled entities.  Incremental steps in the formation of primitive RNAs are just as necessary as the incremental steps in later life forms.

Evolution says nothing about the origin of life. It's agnostic on the issue. God creating the first simple organism is compatible with evolutionary theory. Life hitching a ride on a asteroid is compatible. The Star Trek NG theory of an advanced race of aliens visiting and kicking off life is compatible. Evolution doesn't know how it began. It doesn't care.

Quote

You are making false equivalences and you KNOW it.  There is NO weaponizing for wanting colleges and universities to be a better experience for ALL students.  Both sides desire it.

Race relations has greatly improved since Jim Crow era.  Americans overwhelmingly demonstrated their goodwill in hoping that Obama's election would lead to even greater unity.  Virulent racists have been pretty much relegated to the fringe.  Both sides desire it.

It is only when the left is unable to prevail in debates that they resort to name calling, charging racism and homophobia and what have you.  Even when the argument has nothing to do with race relations the left still lays the racist charge.  They think they can prevail stopping the debates in this manner.  This is where the weaponizing occurs.  And you KNOW it.

No one wants to be racist and no one wants to be against free speech or against fairness. Let's try this again using concrete examples. On racism. Racism exists, but there is an element on the left that might label anyone who is for any type of border between countries as a racist. The people doing this are attempting to get their way by using charged language. 

On the flip side, we have academic inquiry and freedom of speech. The curtailing of freedom of speech and academic inquiry exists, but there is an element on the right that uses the guise of academic inquiry and freedom of speech to get their way by using charged language. You are a case in point. Evolution vs traditional creationism is settled science. The same way as round vs flat earth. The same as Aristotelian vs Newtonian view of motion. Does a college campus or high school need to teach Aristotelian motion to promote academic inquiry and freedom of speech? That would be absurd. Just as absurd would be hiring a biology teacher that doesn't teach evolution. You would have us turn a blind eye to truth and science by arguing that some ideal of freedom of expression is being curtailed here. This idea is just as absurd as labeling someone racist solely based on their preference for strong borders. 

That said, a campus refusing to hire Dr. Tour to teach nanotechnology based on his religious views on creation would be a mistake and a loss in my opinion. 

Edited September 15, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding