Sunday, August 23, 2015
Saturday, July 25, 2015
A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands Darwinian Evolution
original article here : uncommondescent.com
[Editor: BTW, "Macroevolution" read as "Darwinian Evolution"]
[Editor: BTW, "Macroevolution" read as "Darwinian Evolution"]
Professor
James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is
famous for his work on nanocars (pictured above, courtesy of
Wikipedia), nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors
in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and
environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a
Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of
Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has
authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on
36 patents. Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design
theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took
the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”,
which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random
mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.
Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be
encouraged.”
On Professor Tour’s Website, there’s a very revealing article on evolution and creation, in which Tour bluntly states that he does not understand how macroevolution could have happened, from a chemical standpoint (all bold emphases below are mine – VJT):
On Professor Tour’s Website, there’s a very revealing article on evolution and creation, in which Tour bluntly states that he does not understand how macroevolution could have happened, from a chemical standpoint (all bold emphases below are mine – VJT):
Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?
…I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? … Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Darwinian evolution is not a science. Let's do the math.
Darwinian evolution is not a science. Lets do the math.
The scientific method is used every day in forensic science to determine whether an event in a crime scene was an accident or by design and intention. Mathematical probability is a scientific argument and is frequently used in determining many issues of scientific inquiry.
The scientific method cannot be used to prove events which occurred outside of human observation. No one observed the origin of the universe by either chance or design, but scientific evidence via mathematical probability can be used to support either a chance or design origins for the universe.
If you went to an uninhabited planet and discovered only one thing, a cliff carved with images of persons similar to what we find on Mt. Rushmore, you cannot use the scientific method to prove that these images came about by design or by chance processes of erosion.
Mathematicians have said that any event with odds of 10 to the 50th power or over is impossible even within the entire time frame of the supposed billions of years popularly assigned for the age of the universe.
Watch this video to see the math just doesn't work.
The scientific method is used every day in forensic science to determine whether an event in a crime scene was an accident or by design and intention. Mathematical probability is a scientific argument and is frequently used in determining many issues of scientific inquiry.
The scientific method cannot be used to prove events which occurred outside of human observation. No one observed the origin of the universe by either chance or design, but scientific evidence via mathematical probability can be used to support either a chance or design origins for the universe.
If you went to an uninhabited planet and discovered only one thing, a cliff carved with images of persons similar to what we find on Mt. Rushmore, you cannot use the scientific method to prove that these images came about by design or by chance processes of erosion.
Mathematicians have said that any event with odds of 10 to the 50th power or over is impossible even within the entire time frame of the supposed billions of years popularly assigned for the age of the universe.
Watch this video to see the math just doesn't work.
Saturday, June 6, 2015
THE MOZART MYTH--- Talent is Overrated
“Wolfgang’s
first four piano concertos, composed when he was eleven, actually
contain no original music by him. He put them together out of works by
other composers. He wrote his next three works of this type, today not
classified as piano concertos, at age sixteen; these also contain no
original music but instead are arrangements of works by Johann Christian
Bach, with whom Wolfgang had studied in London...
Mozart’s first work regarded today as a masterpiece, with its status confirmed by the number of recordings available, is his Piano Concerto No. 9, composed when he was twenty-one. That’s certainly an early age, but we must remember that by then Wolfgang had been through eighteen years of extremely hard, expert training.”
~ Geoff Colvin from Talent is Overrated
Wolfgang Mozart was born a genius, right? Just kinda fell out of the womb and started composing crazy great stuff, right?
Might want to re-think that one.
First, consider the fact that Mozart’s dad, Leopold, was a famous composer who LITERALLY wrote the book on how to teach children music. He’d been practicing for years with Wolfgang’s older sister and got to work with little Wolfgang around the time most little doods are getting potty trained.
Long story a little shorter, when you look at his career, you’ll see that, as Colvin points out above, Mozart put in EIGHTEEN years (!!!) of remarkably diligent training before he created something truly extraordinary.
As Carol Dweck (the Stanford researcher and leading authority on motivation and achievement) asks in her great book Mindset (see Notes): “Is it ability of mindset? Was it Mozart’s musical ability or the fact that he worked till his hands were deformed? Was it Darwin’s scientific ability or the fact that he collected specimens non-stop from early childhood?”
Talent is overrated. Long live hard work! :)
R
Mozart’s first work regarded today as a masterpiece, with its status confirmed by the number of recordings available, is his Piano Concerto No. 9, composed when he was twenty-one. That’s certainly an early age, but we must remember that by then Wolfgang had been through eighteen years of extremely hard, expert training.”
~ Geoff Colvin from Talent is Overrated
Wolfgang Mozart was born a genius, right? Just kinda fell out of the womb and started composing crazy great stuff, right?
Might want to re-think that one.
First, consider the fact that Mozart’s dad, Leopold, was a famous composer who LITERALLY wrote the book on how to teach children music. He’d been practicing for years with Wolfgang’s older sister and got to work with little Wolfgang around the time most little doods are getting potty trained.
Long story a little shorter, when you look at his career, you’ll see that, as Colvin points out above, Mozart put in EIGHTEEN years (!!!) of remarkably diligent training before he created something truly extraordinary.
As Carol Dweck (the Stanford researcher and leading authority on motivation and achievement) asks in her great book Mindset (see Notes): “Is it ability of mindset? Was it Mozart’s musical ability or the fact that he worked till his hands were deformed? Was it Darwin’s scientific ability or the fact that he collected specimens non-stop from early childhood?”
Talent is overrated. Long live hard work! :)
R
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)