Dave Farina: team atheism's LVP? V

 “Professor Dave” and the Art of Projection

Robert Schedinger 

We have all heard about the psychological mechanism of projection, whereby someone who harbors insecurities about aspects of their personality or character will often accuse others of exhibiting their own perceived failures. For example, a person insecure about their own intellectual abilities might develop a penchant for accusing others of being stupid or ill-informed. Projection, it turns out, is the perfect lens through which to focus the criticisms of ID leveled by its strongly atheistic opponents.

One of the common accusations made against ID revolves around ID’s perceived religious foundations. Since ID is just pseudoscience, the criticism goes, it must really be an attempt to push a religious agenda under the banner of science. ID opponents are viewed as engaging in a religious crusade to proselytize unsuspecting students in science classrooms. 

Been There, Done That

Anyone with even a passing familiarity with ID literature will recognize how grossly distorted this characterization is. But it is a powerful distortion and one I used to fall prey to myself. I distinctly remember in the late 1990s when a woman in the church I was attending tried to introduce me to Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box. Thinking that this woman was a bit of a religious zealot, I simply dismissed her book recommendation, assuming it would be scientifically worthless. Imagine my shock when more than 15 years later, I decided to actually read the book and discovered just how misinformed I was about ID arguments. ID is a scientifically substantive theory that can stand on its own on the basis of empirical evidence. And it is this scientifically substantive foundation that sends its opponents into a tizzy, leading to the art of projection.

            If there is anyone pushing an ideological agenda in the guise of science it is Richard Dawkins. Knowing that he cannot really dispel ID on the basis of evidence, and insecure about the evidentiary basis of his own beloved atheistic Darwinism, Dawkins is forced to project his own insecurities onto his perceived opponents by accusing them of being the ones with an ideological axe to grind. The more Dawkins rails at the supposed religious zealotry of ID proponents, however, the more he reveals the depths of his own anti-religious zealotry. Similar kinds of projection occur in the work of other high-profile atheistic evolutionists like Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Jerry Coyne.Which brings me to “Professor Dave” Farina. Nowhere has this dynamic of psychological projection been on greater display than in the recent “debate” held at Rice University between Farina and Dr. James Tour about the state of origin-of-life research. Of course, calling this a debate would be like calling a stick-figure drawing the Mona Lisa. Dr. Tour, to be sure, came to debate the issues. Farina most certainly did not. 

Outrageous Personal Attacks 

Even after Tour, the host, treated his guest, Farina, with respect, even presenting him with a gift at the start of the debate, Farina launched into outrageous personal attacks, repeatedly accusing Tour of being a liar, a fraud, and totally ignorant of the basics of organic chemistry. At one point, his ridicule became so profound that he accused the audience of being “f***ing stupid” for taking Tour’s work seriously. While Tour continually tried to focus the debate on the complexities of theories of abiogenesis, Farina remained rude, smug, self-assured, and outrageously condescending to the eminent scientist standing nearby. In short, Farina’s performance was a classic case of projection, a case of projection on steroids.

Tour may be deeply religious, but his criticisms of abiogenesis are fundamentally grounded in empirical science. The difficulties of conceiving how life could have emerged from non-life without some level of intelligent direction are so serious, however, that they obviously threaten Farina’s militantly atheistic worldview. Unwilling to admit this, he instead projects his own insecurities onto Tour. When he makes the outrageous accusation that a scientist of Tour’s stature is ignorant of the basics of organic chemistry, Farina reveals how insecure his own knowledge of organic chemistry really is. And when Farina accuses Tour of being a fraud, all he does is highlight his own status (or lack of it) in trying to pass himself off as an expert on abiogenesis.

Tough to Watch, but Worth It 

The Tour-Farina “debate” was tough to watch, and many times I considered turning it off. But like someone at the scene of an accident, I could not turn away, and so I subjected myself to the entire two hours. But I am glad I did. For if I ever get asked to write a chapter on projection for a psychology textbook, Dave Farina’s outrageously disrespectful performance will be exhibit A. 

Dave Farina: team atheism's LVP? IV

 Professor Dave in his “Debate” with James Tour Showcases the Art of Citation Bluffing

Brian Miller 

YouTube personality Dave Farina (aka Professor Dave) "debated" James Tour last Friday about researchers’ progress in unraveling the mystery of life’s origin. The exchange proceeded as I anticipated. Farina immediately sought to hijack the debate, turning it from an honest discussion about science to something more akin to a World Wrestling exhibition match. 

After spewing insults and other invectives, Farina primarily engaged in a less than honorable debating technique known as citation bluffing — supposedly proving a point by citing technical literature but misrepresenting its content. When Farina addressed the science, he rifled through a long series of technical articles, but he greatly exaggerated the relevance of the studies to what could have occurred on the early earth. 

Amino Acids and Polypeptides

A central topic of the debate was the plausibility of amino acids linking (aka polymerization) in water into long chains (aka polypeptides) that could serve the role of proteins in modern cells. Tour explained the implausibility of such a scenario due to amino acid side chains interfering with the growth of the main polypeptide chain. Farina countered by listing several technical articles that he claimed proved the opposite, but the data in those very papers showed that several of the side-chain versions indeed cannot be accommodated. 

Farina also neglected to disclose that all the studies he cited either used chemically altered amino acids, unnatural environments, or specialized molecules to facilitate the linking. Comparable conditions could never have occurred on the ancient Earth. The titles of the articles appeared to support Farina’s claims, but the actual details of the experiments demonstrated the opposite. Tour in his videos has explained why, as I summarized in previous articles (here, here, here).

Tour is hardly alone in recognizing the challenge of forming polypeptides in water. The journal Nature published an article, “The Water Paradox and the Origins of Life,” that stated the problem as follows:

life’s cornerstone molecules break down in water. This is because proteins, and nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA, are vulnerable at their joints. Proteins are made of chains of amino acids, and nucleic acids are chains of nucleotides. If the chains are placed in water, it attacks the links and eventually breaks them. In carbon chemistry, “water is an enemy to be excluded as rigorously as possible”, wrote the late biochemist Robert Shapiro in his totemic 1986 book Origins, which critiqued the primordial ocean hypothesis.

Proposed solutions to this challenge require physical processes that dehydrate pools of water, allowing amino acids to join, but even then, the side-chain interference remains. Polypeptides with the proper bonds could never have existed in non-trace quantities. Another problem is that the required intensity of heat or other sources of energy destroy biologically relevant molecules such as RNA and sugars, so any progress toward life would be immediately lost. Tour explained these issues in his video that critiqued Lee Cronin’s Research . 

Self-Replicating RNA

A second topic addressed was research into self-replicating RNA, an essential component of the RNA world hypothesis. Tour pointed out that anytime chemical methods are used, the RNA nucleotides, RNA’s building blocks, hook up in the wrong way, and chains also include unnatural branching. Further, he stated that investigators have only been able to create RNA molecules that could copy a small percentage of themselves. Farina again responded by quickly displaying several research papers whose titles suggested that Tour was mistaken, and again Farina’s portrayal of the studies was false. 

The experiments only succeeded in Linking RNA strands together or Copying a small portion of themselves. In all cases of polymerization, the wrong linkages and branching ensued. The true replication was performed by complex molecules borrowed from modern cells under carefully orchestrated experimental conditions. Therefore, none of the studies had any relevance to what could have occurred in nature, as Tour detailed in previous Videos. 

During the discussion about RNA, Farina made his most outlandish accusation. He claimed that Tour did not properly interpret a graph of 13C NMR Spectra of the products from one of Steven Benner’s experiments related to the formation of ribose, a sugar used in nucleotides. Farina’s assertion was the equivalent of claiming that the head of a radiology department could not properly interpret an x-ray. 

The motivation for this desperate attempt to discredit Tour was obvious. Tour exposed how the reaction Benner used to generate ribose also generated many other molecules. The ribose could never have separated from the other molecules to drive the production of nucleotides in non-trace quantities. Consequently, RNA molecules sufficiently long to self-replicate could never have existed. 

The research would have no relevance to life’s origin even in the ideal scenario where only the four nucleotides formed in high concentrations. The smallest RNA that could possibly self-replicate is around 200 amino acids. The challenge is that the number of possible nucleotide sequences that long is over 10120, and the percentage of sequences that could perform self-replication must be miniscule. Benner

acknowledged in his article “Paradoxes in the Origin of Life” that sufficient RNA could never have formed for even one to have the correct information to self-replicate. The RNA world hypothesis is a nonstarter.

Lesson from the Debate

The debate offered an important lesson about the state of origin-of-life research. Tour’s critique of the field is so devastating that the only way to challenge his arguments is to misrepresent the technical literature and to engage in tactics founded on misdirection and disinformation. The post-debate comments on YouTube revealed that some who initially supported Farina recognized that his arguments and monologues were full of sound and fury but contained little substance. 

The primordial soup is past its sell by date?

 James Tour: Primordial Soup Bluffing Goes Right to the Top

Evolution News 

A classic episode of ID the Future features another installment in James Tour’s hard-hitting and evidence-based YouTube Series on abiogenesis. Here, Dr. Tour, a world-leading synthetic organic chemist at Rice University, describes the early Earth primordial soup concept for the origin of first life (OOL) and shows why it’s simplistic, bogus, and doesn’t represent the current science on the issue. He also reviews survey data showing just how misinformed the public is about how far scientists have gotten in creating life in the lab. One critic of Tour protested that the simplistic primordial soup story might be found in highly simplified textbooks for sixth graders but isn’t peddled at higher levels. Tour provides video Evidence to the contrary. Download the podcast or listen to it here.

The ostriches four kneecaps vs. Darwinism

 Kneecaps: “Ultimately, there might not be a simple pattern”

Cornelius G Hunter 

Why do ostriches have four, rather than two, kneecaps? A new Study has found several possible biomechanical advantages. Perhaps they allow the ostrich to straighten its leg more quickly, helping the animal to run quickly. Perhaps the lower kneecap protects the joined tendons crossing the front of the knee. One reason that does not help to explain the ostriches four kneecaps is evolution. That is because this unique design is not predicted, and makes no sense, on the theory. As one Article admits: “Bizarrely, many of the ostrich’s closest relatives don’t have kneecaps at all.” Similarities across the species were a strong argument for evolution, but in fact biology is full of unique designs, particular to one or a few species. Such one-off, “lineage specific,” designs are “bizarre” for evolutionists. So while there are design reasons for the ostriches four kneecaps, on the ordinary view of the evolution of each being, we can only say that so it is.

Not losing sight of the truth in the fog of war.

 A War of Words? How to Tell Who Won the Tour-Farina Debate

Casey Luskin 

A few years ago, just as I was finishing writing my PhD thesis, I received an email from an Internet questioner with the subject “War of Words.” This person expressed concerns that there is so much back and forth between experts in the debate over the origin and evolution of life and intelligent design, that it can sometimes be difficult for a non-expert to determine who is right. I can sympathize with this: Even though I have multiple science degrees, took many undergraduate and graduate courses in evolution, and have closely followed the science for years, it’s still a challenge to keep up with everything. What’s a non-expert to do?

Last Friday we witnessed a debate on the origin of life (OOL) between two widely followed voices on the topic: Rice University chemistry Professor James Tour, and YouTube science educator Dave Farina, aka “Professor Dave.” This debate, which took place on the Rice University campus, was at times turbulent, but it provides an apt example of how to answer my “War of Words” Internet questioner.

“No Viable Model”

The topic of the debate was: “Are We Clueless About the Origin of Life?” Discovery Institute did not organize this debate and I was not a big fan of this framing because it would be much harder to prove a high standard, that OOL researchers are “clueless,” than it would be to prove some lesser — but still entirely reasonable — claim like “There is no viable model for the origin of life.” Nonetheless, Tour faithfully stuck to the debate topic, and he made a strong scientific case against the natural chemical origin of life. 

Dave Farina represented the standard view that unguided natural chemical processes could have produced the first life on earth. Unfortunately, however, Farina decided to focus on a very different debate topic. His topic was essentially — no exaggeration — Is James Tour a liar and a fraud? — and that is precisely what he asserted over and over again throughout the night. Farina’s venom and personal attacks and insults against Tour knew almost no boundaries. It was a spectacle, and I was shocked that the moderator allowed it to proceed. But Farina’s focus on personal attacks and his repeated refusals to answer Tour’s reasonable scientific challenges made it clear to many viewers that Tour had the better argument. 

If you don’t believe me, consider some comments on the YouTube chat posted by viewers who are apparently self-described as atheists, agnostics, and/or former supporters of Farina:

“Am I the only non-religious person that finds Tour much more convincing than Dave? This debate made me further convinced. The problem with Dave is that strangely, as an educator, he in no way tried to educate James Tour, but only attack him and slander him, he has zero class, and from a psychology standpoint, seems like he did nothing but dodge and deflect, which would suggest he doesn’t have a deep understanding of the subject, but merely a surface level one, a true scientist wants people to understand the truth, and would carefully address Tours questions concisely and on a deeper level.”

“I’m an atheist, however, Farina’s smug and snide attacks on Tour throughout this debate, disgusted me. I may disagree with Tour’s mission, however, no one can ignore his considerable contribution to science.”

“I’m agnostic, but hearing Dr. Farina’s statements, grounded on insulting and sarcasm sincerely show more how clueless he or his community are…usually when you use sarcasm it is because you have [little] to say. I say this as an academic myself (other field though) when I see colleagues use sarcasm is because they don’t know how to ground their statements.”

“I’m [an] atheist and this was embarrassing to watch. Dave claiming that James doesn’t know how to read papers, while…citing barely anything beyond the titles of a bunch of papers. I think that disrespecting the audience and claiming to know what they do and don’t know was the worst move of the entire debate. It shows that he’s arguing emotionally.”

“I’ve been floating around this conflict, viewing from the outside. Dave’s videos helped me in middle-high school. Dave poisoned the well, then used insults and rhetoric as the substance of his ‘argument’. This was disappointing, I was hoping he would bring something of value. Dr. Tour won this one.”

You Don’t Need a PhD

So even though my “War of Words” questioner worried that you need to be an expert to sort through these issues, I’m going argue here that you don’t need a PhD in science and unlimited time to read the literature to quickly see who has the better argument.

You may not be an expert in chemistry like James Tour with a lifelong career trying to synthesize molecules in the laboratory. You may not have published hundreds of peer-reviewed chemistry papers like Tour. You may not even have taken any college-level science courses. But you can watch the debate and learn a lot about who has the upper hand on the OOL question. If you want to know who has the better argument, examining the rhetorical styles of different “sides” of a debate can speak volumes.

Over three subsequent posts, I’m going to elaborate on three reasons that we can see that Tour won, based upon a rhetorical analysis of the debate (plus a little science):

Tour focused on science, Farina focused on character assassination.

Tour posed reasonable scientific challenges which Farina refused to answer

Farina relied heavily upon playground tactics, appeals to authority, and citation bluffing.

We’ll tackle the first reason in the next post. But first a viewer’s warning.

Not for the Faint of Heart

As the debate wore on, at times both participants got quite intense; if you don’t like raised voices, don’t watch this debate. Frankly, as Farina spewed more and more venom against Tour, at times he (Tour) became animated, and even took a few shots at Farina’s chemistry knowledge. Tour’s words about Farina weren’t remotely comparable in intensity or number to Farina’s personal attacks on Tour. In my next post you will read a sampling of just some of those personal attacks. So if you are bothered by Tour’s irritation, ask yourself: Could you withstand such hatred and not get a little hot under the collar? James Tour is a great man…but like the rest of us, he is after all just a man. 

Regardless, it’s undeniable that this debate got a bit ugly and it reminded me why sometimes I don’t like debates. I do wonder if it was wise to give a platform to a person like Farina who was so thoroughly and unabashedly dedicated to making the night about assassinating James Tour’s character rather than investigating the science. Perhaps the moderator was given instructions to keep the debate going no matter how much nastiness and personal venom Farina threw at Tour. I really don’t know. But this is the kind of thing, unfortunately, that needlessly turns some people away from otherwise serious scientific conversations and dialogues over important questions about origins and science / faith issues. 

One Other Thing Is Clear

Farina is a skilled at quickly throwing out lots of arguments of varying quality and then using passive-aggressive maneuvers aimed at provocation. If you are the type of person who is susceptible to theatrics, intimidation, mockery, and character assassination, you might think Farina won. But once you climb out of Farina’s world of venom, invectives, mockery, and rapid-fire citation bluffs, you realize there isn’t much there. On substance, James Tour won the debate handily. Despite a few lapses here and there as the night wore on, overall he focused strongly on the science and made loads of good arguments that Farina did not address. That’s simply a fact.

But even if you didn’t know much about the science, you can easily tell who came armed with facts, knowledge, and a passion for seeking out the truth, and who came with a simple goal to destroy his opponent, at all costs. I’ll be back tomorrow.

You win some you lose some ; even Titans

When the body dials 911?

Dave Farina: team atheism's LVP? III

 “Well, Everyone Has to Have a Birthday” — How Professor Dave Botches Probability

William A Dembski 

This past Friday (May 19, 2023), Rice University professor James Tour “debated” (I use that word advisedly) YouTube personality and influencer David Farina (known as “Professor Dave”). The question up for discussion was “Are we clueless about the origin of life?” Tour took the position that the origin of life is a completely unsolved problem. Farina took the position that research in the origin of life is making good progress. Tour focused on the chemistry. Farina focused on discrediting Tour, calling him a liar and even a pathological liar over and over again. He also called Tour and his supporters clueless. (Does it take a pathological liar to falsely call someone a pathological liar? How clueless does one have to be to falsely call someone clueless?)

Farina’s antics got so wearisome that I could not watch the entirety of the debate. Indeed, I would not call it a debate. On the one hand, there was Tour trying to engage in substantive questions about prebiotic chemistry. And there was Farina, attacking him personally, both as someone completely unqualified to address the origin of life and as someone so biased by his religious beliefs as not to be trustworthy on scientific issues (Tour is unreserved in affirming his Christian belief). 

Citing Article Titles

The only science, such as it can be called, that I saw from Farina during the exchange was citing titles of origin-of-life articles that he claimed redressed the problems Tour was raising. But these seemed to be just arguments by irrelevant reference that fittingly complemented his arguments ad hominem. Farina gave no evidence that he understood the articles he was citing. It was as though origin-of-life researchers hostile to Tour had simply provided Farina with ammunition for the exchange.

My opinions are what they are, so form your own conclusions. Here is the exchange (“debate”). If you are able to watch the whole of it, give yourself brownie points for endurance. 

<iframe width="460" height="259" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pxEWXGSIpAI" title="Dr. James Tour vs Dave Farina | Are we clueless about the origin of life? #abiogenesis" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Farina’s performance in the exchange didn’t surprise me. It was consistent with what you see on his YouTube channel when he is promoting atheism, though I would say that in this case it was especially extreme. Was his scalding behavior intended to score points with his atheist supporters? Was it to boost his number of YouTube followers? I wonder how his performance would be interpreted by the unwashed middle, i.e., those who have no particular stake in the origin-of-life controversy. He was arrogant and cocky. I have to think that this didn’t help him with those outside his circle. But who’s to say in this age of social media where sensibilities get so warped. 

To Command an Audience

Tour admitted at the start of the exchange that this was his first debate. I’ve seen him give talks on not just the origin of life but also his own research, and he is able to command an audience, not only with his knowledge but also with his stature. I myself have debated atheists, such as Michael Shermer and Michael Ruse, but those debates were always respectful. To have your interlocutor, like Farina, hurling insult after insult at you has to be disconcerting. And it shifts the focus from the substance of what should be discussed to the credibility of the participants. Should Tour have attacked Farina for his limited chemistry background, which includes only a bachelor’s in chemistry and a master’s not in chemistry per se but in chemistry and science education? Tour is a Nobel laureate caliber chemist. 

Should Tour really have had to endure the constant jibes of Farina? Farina was at Rice at Tour’s invitation, so Tour’s natural inclination would have been to play the gracious host. He even started the exchange with a gift to Farina. But still, Farina should have been reined in. I suspect Tour was unprepared for the vitriol he encountered. I lay some of the responsibility for Farina’s continued shameless display on the moderator. Early on, the moderator should have told Farina that the audience by now had gotten the point that Farina thought Tour was a “pathological liar,” and that he should confine himself to the question that was the topic of the debate. The moderator should also have put an end to the constant interruptions of Tour by Farina.

Information and Probability

Two years ago I was interviewed by Tour for his YouTube channel about my work on information and probability. What prompted Tour to interview me was some probability arguments by Farina against him. Here’s my interview with Tour:

<iframe width="460" height="259" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YAVHYhiVbyY" title="The Science &amp; Faith Podcast - James Tour &amp; William Dembski: Information Theory" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

At the 31-minute mark, Farina makes a probability argument dismissive of small probabilities in design inferences. When I reject Farina’s discussions of origin-of-life chemistry, it’s as an informed layperson and yet as a non-expert. But when I see how Farina botches his discussion of probability, a field in which I am expert, it suggests to me that either he is confused or he is so committed to his atheist agenda that he will bend any argument to serve that agenda. Farina seems obsessed with Tour, having posted nine YouTube videos against Tour.

At the 31-minute mark, Farina offers the following analogy to argue against inferring design on the basis of small probabilities:

Let’s say 10 people are having a get-together, and they are curious as to what everyone’s birthday is. They go down the line. One person says June 13th, another says November 21st, and so forth. Each of them have a 1 in 365 chance of having that particular birthday. So, what is the probability that those 10 people in that room would have those 10 birthdays? Well, it’s 1 in 365 to the 10th power, or 1 in 4.2 times 10 to the 25, which is 42 trillion trillion. The odds are unthinkable, and yet there they are sitting in that room. So how can this be? Well, everyone has to have a birthday.

But Farina here misses the key second component of design inferences: they do not just require improbability but also specification (namely, conformity to an independently given pattern). Farina’s pattern of birthdays is completely unspecified. Imagine, instead, that each of these ten people had reported that their birthday is January 1. Such a coincidence would be independently given in virtue of its short description, such as “everyone has the same birthday” or “everyone was born New Year’s Day.” It would therefore constitute a specification. By combining small probability and specification, this coincidence would therefore have called for an explanation other than chance. It would not, in that case, be enough to say, as Farina did, “Well, everyone has to have a birthday.”

Farina exudes confidence in the absence of deep knowledge and understanding. In fact, his expertise is quite limited. But he’s a quick study at getting down “industry” talking points. And he can marshal titles, abstracts, and authors associated with research articles to suggest that whatever he wants to assert has in fact been established or is on the verge of being established. But as a YouTube influencer, his main incentive is to play to the gallery. And as an apologist for atheism, his interest is not in advancing science but in using a warped materialistic conception of science as a club to beat religion and religious believers. 

I’ll be interested to see what the aftermath of this exchange will be. As of yesterday it had 11,000+ comments on its YouTube video. So it hit a nerve.

Dave Farina: team atheism's LVP? II

 Where’s the Chemistry? On the Origin of Life, James Tour Exposes Professor Dave as “Clueless”

Casey Luskin 

Last week, renowned Rice University chemistry professor James Tour debated popular YouTuber Dave Farina, aka “Professor Dave,” on the origin of life. The debate took place on the Rice campus in Houston, Texas, in Tour’s own lecture hall, and was Streamed live over the Internet. Unlike Dr. Tour, Farina isn’t a real professor. I suppose in today’s manner of speaking, we could say that he identifies as one, while lacking a PhD, a faculty position, or as it seems now, anything like the needed chemistry expertise to explain how life arose. 

One Thing Seems Clear

The topic of the debate was: “Are We Clueless About the Origin of Life?” After watching it, one thing seems clear: Professor Dave, like the origin-of-life field itself, is certainly “clueless” about any reasonable level of chemical detail about how the origin of life might have occurred.

The mic drop moments of the evening came after the opening statements when each debater was given the opportunity to ask his opponent questions. Tour focused on the science. The challenge he posed to Farina was simple: If Farina really thinks the origin of life has been explained, come to the blackboard and show the audience the chemistry that can produce, under realistic prebiotic conditions, five key elements of biology. Those are polypeptides, polynucleotides, polysaccharides, specified information, and a functional cell. 

In each case, Farina declined. 

Tour listed those five key elements of biology on the blackboard. At the end of each, after Farina had refused to come to the blackboard to explain the chemistry to the audience, Tour wrote “Clueless” next to the item. In another context this might have seemed harsh, but given that the agreed-upon question of the night was whether origin-of-life researchers are “clueless” about how life arose, it seemed entirely fair. 

A Scientist Comments

While Tour focused on the chemistry, Dave Farina spent most of the evening directing personal attacks against Dr. Tour, calling him a “liar” over and over again as well as many other invectives. We’ll discuss this distasteful aspect of the debate further in a subsequent post. A friend of mine who is a scientist watched the event and had this to say: 

I went into the debate knowing very little about Dave. I had no feel for his level of competence in chemistry or OOL issues. (I know Jim Tour, so I know he’s an expert chemist.) I was open to Dave being a self-taught expert on the issues, willing to push back on Jim’s dismissals with clear evidence.

In his opening volley, Dave made it clear that he wasn’t there to discuss chemistry, he was there to attack Jim. This is less than persuasive, since even if Jim was a donkey, there are prebiotic chemistry questions that need to be answered. It doesn’t matter who’s asking them. (It didn’t help that they were at Jim’s home campus, and Dave is calling him a fraud to his colleagues who know he’s not a fraud from direct experience.)

The turning point in the debate in Jim’s favor was when he wrote, in chalk, the precursor substances and the derived substance schemata. He then called Dave’s bluff: if we are not clueless on how this was made chemically, write the equations. “But mountains of peer-reviewed literature explain it…” Dave suggested. OK, then open those papers, find the equations, and write them here. Dave couldn’t.

It became clear to an outsider like myself that (1) the pathways and equations weren’t actually known, and (2) if they were known and actually in the papers, Dave couldn’t understand them. Or else he would have simply written down the relevant reaction equations.

A good portion of the audience seemed to realize this, too, and began to turn against Dave, prompting him at points to lash out at them. (Pro tip: In a debate, if you ever get to the point where you’re attacking your own audience, you’ve lost.) But I’m biased, so I checked the YouTube comments to see if my perceptions were widespread. I saw more than a few comments from atheists and those on Dave’s side saying he embarrassed them in the debate. Dave literally had nothing but personal attacks and pointing to words in paper titles and abstracts. Jim had actual chemistry. The comments section showed that even Dave’s own crowd saw this as a loss.

A Lost Opportunity

Indeed, Farina made many assertions about various scientific papers — and we’ll be discussing those soon. But Tour gave Farina a clear opportunity: If the paper explains how key aspects of life arose, then write on the board the chemical reaction equations that show how it happened. Farina would not even take the chalk. He couldn’t do it. If he could, he certainly would have done so.

At end of the debate, Farina finally took the chalk and wrote something on the blackboard. It was two words: “NOT CLUELESS.” It was intended as cheekiness, but it only served to highlight the fact that Farina was unable to explain details of the chemistry behind the origin of life. More importantly, it didn’t answer Tour’s request for a scientific explanation. Farina could not answer a single challenge from Tour. 

Professor Dave’s inability to provide the chemistry to back up his claims calls to mind the famous Wendy’s ad from the 1980s, where an elderly woman keeps asking: “Where’s the beef?” One might likewise ask Dave Farina: Where’s the chemistry? For that, don’t look to Professor Dave.

It was a turbulent evening, but that was the main takeaway from the debate. We’ll offer more analysis in subsequent posts.

<iframe width="460" height="259" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pxEWXGSIpAI" title="Dr. James Tour vs Dave Farina | Are we clueless about the origin of life? #abiogenesis" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Dave Farina: team atheism's LVP?

 Atheists Review Professor Dave’s Debate Performance

David Klinghoffer 

As someone who purports to educate others about science, Dave Farina has strengths and weaknesses. With 2.48 million subscribers on YouTube, Mr. Farina of “Professor Dave Explains” has a style that many find gratifying. As Professor James Tour said in their debate on the origin of life, Professor Dave has “tremendous reading skills” — he can read from a script, on YouTube or in a debate, with fluency and confidence. What Farina apparently can’t do, as Tour also noted, is “speak chemistry” on his own, when challenged and not using a script as a crutch. It also seems he can’t write chemical formulas, relevant to abiogenesis, on a blackboard with ease. Weak professional training may have something to do with his reliance on mindless sneering and insults. That’s my take.

          

“Do Better Next Time, Dave”

Of those who enjoy Farina’s style of juvenile personal abuse, I guess that most are atheists — by which I mean no disrespect to thoughtful atheists or agnostics! So I was curious what atheists made of his performance against Dr. Tour. In the comments section below the debate on YouTube, we find:

Keith Williams: “I’m an atheist, however, Farina’s smug and snide attacks on Tour throughout this debate, disgusted me. I may disagree with Tour’s mission, however, no one can ignore his considerable contribution to science.”

Artha Peterson: “I wonder why an actual abiogenesist won’t debate him [meaning, Tour]? That’s a serious question. Someone who actually can do the chemistry, unlike Dave. That would be the way to silence Tour on that topic forever. And yes, I am an atheist and yes I believe in abiogenesis.”

Lars Cade: “I’m an atheist and am already quite aware of the many ways in which Tour ignores or misrepresents data in his futile attacks on abiogenesis research, but he did far better in this debate than Farina. He laid out his definitions and stuck to the data and the topic. Because this is a very technical field, that’s all he needed to ‘win’ the debate. Do better next time, Dave.”

CaseAgainstFaith1: “Hi. I’m an atheist and I attended in person. Now I have not the slightest clue about the relevance of many things brought up during the debate. Like I have no clue about the 2,5 vs 3,5. I can say that Dave’s constantly calling Dr. Tour a liar and also insulting the audience was not helpful. Dr. Tour’s screaming wasn’t helpful either. But if I had to pick a winner I am afraid I would give it to Dr. Tour.”

thatwmckid: “I’m an atheist and I actually agree with James Tour.”

Wood: the once and future king of construction materials?

Scams as WMD. II

Artificial intelligence is the mother of actual incoherence?

 Breaking Google Bard

William A Dembski

I’ve finally started playing around with Google Bard. With self-referential sentences, it seems even more at sea than ChatGPT. Here is an exchange from May 18:

Me: Consider the following six sentences: This is the first sentence. Ignore this sentence. Why are these sentences being written down? The second sentence has exactly three words. The fifth sentence has at least twenty words. This, along with the preceding five sentences, have fewer than twenty times twenty words. Which of these last six sentences has a truth value and which are true?

Bard: The last six sentences have the following truth values:

The second sentence has exactly three words. (False)

The fifth sentence has at least twenty words. (True)

This, along with the preceding five sentences, have fewer than twenty times twenty words. (False)

The second sentence is false because it has 5 words, not 3. The fifth sentence is true because it has 22 words. The sixth sentence is false because the first five sentences have a total of 36 words, which is more than 20 times 20, which is 400.

Here is a table of the truth values of the last six sentences:

Sentence =Truth value

The second sentence has exactly three words.= False

The fifth sentence has at least twenty words. =True

This, along with the preceding five sentences, have fewer than twenty times twenty words. =False

Assessing Bard’s Confusion

To say that Bard is confused here would be generous. Here are the six sentences:

This is the first sentence.

Ignore this sentence. 

Why are these sentences being written down? 

The second sentence has exactly three words. 

The fifth sentence has at least twenty words. 

This, along with the preceding five sentences, have fewer than twenty times twenty words. 

Of these, only 1, 4, 5, and 6 have a truth value, and of these only 1, 4, and 6 are true. Sentence 5 is clearly false — it says of itself that it has at least twenty words, which it clearly doesn’t. Sentence 6 is slightly ambiguous in that it might be interpreted as saying that no one of the six sentences here has twenty times twenty (or 400) words, or that taken together they don’t have that many words. In either case, however, the claim is true. 

In fact, Bard assigns exactly the wrong truth values to sentences 4, 5, and 6. Note that the second sentence, i.e., “Ignore this sentence,” is indeed three words long as asserted in sentence 4 even though the second sentence itself, as an imperative, has no truth value. Bard also misses that the very first sentence, in asserting that it is the first sentence, has a truth value and is in fact true. 

Bard’s explanations add to the confusion. It says of sentence 2, falsely, that it has five words. It asserts of the fifth sentence that it has 22 words (where it gets this number is unclear — it’s not a number readily associated with the sentence lengths of the previous sentences). 

It does accurately calculate that “twenty times twenty,” as stated in sentence 6, is 400, but then it asserts this sentence is false because the previous sentences together have 36 words. In fact, the combined word count of sentences 1 thru 5 is 30. 

Foundering on Self-Reference

This is not the first time that I’ve broken these AI language generative systems (see, for instance, a similar move that I made against ChatGPT). These systems founder on self-reference. The fundamental problem with these systems is Gödelian. Kurt Gödel showed that formal systems like this are unable to extract themselves from these systems. In other words, to talk coherently about these systems requires going outside them. 

Human intelligence, by contrast, has the quality of self-transcendence. That, by itself, would suggest that we are not formal systems. It also suggests we have a quality that these systems seem destined never to achieve.

"..nor the Son."

 Mark ch.13:32 NASB"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." 

Our Trinitarian (and Modalist) friends wave away the obvious problem this verse creates for their doctrine by claiming that Jesus was speaking from the Son's then human standpoint.

 But is this view in harmony with the context of the verse itself ,lets have a look.The verse begins 

"But of that day and hour no one knows.."  

Obviously meaning no human knows (BTW was Jesus merely saying that no human at that time knew or that no human has ever known and will ever know.), thus if Jesus was speaking purely in terms of the Son's then human existence surely this part of the verse would have covered that. 

BTW :some trinitarians claimed that Jesus reclaimed the human body that he was supposed to have sacrificed upon his resurrection,which would mean that he is still human which, according to them, must mean that he is still not omniscient.

Then to illustrate the utter futility of anyone on earth attempting to calculate the 'day or hour' he continues.

",not even the angels of heaven.."

(again did Jesus mean that no angel presently knows or that no angel has ever and will ever know?) ,now, having made it clear that heaven itself was in the dark re:the Father's determination in this matter does it make sense for Jesus to belabor Earth's ignorance? Certainly what no angel knows no human would.

Why then not allow the verse to interpret itself 

"nor the Son,But the Father ALONE."  

i.e not even this eldest sibling in Jehovah's family of servants has ever known or will ever know. 

Acts1,6,7NASB " So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” 7He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;"

Though his apostles were understandably curious about Jehovah's timing re:the Kingdom the resurrected (hence superhuman) Jesus indicated that the Father had chosen to keep the decision to himself.

 It does not seem that Jesus felt belittled by his Father's decision so it's odd that there are those who seem determined to take offense in his behalf.

 The bottom line then 

John ch.14:28 KJV "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. " 

PS. 0ne more thing,a good question deserving of a straight answer would be ,why does the Holy Spirit not know the day or the hour,better yet why is the Holy Spirit not even mentioned in this verse.I mean the verse (quite literally) mentions everyone else. 

James Tour on why we can't take origin of life research seriously

 James Tour: Reviewing the Challenges for Abiogenesis

Evolution News 

To coincide with chemist James Tour’s highly anticipated debate with YouTuber Dave Farina, we pulled this gem out of the archive for your listening pleasure! On this episode of ID the Future, distinguished synthetic organic chemist Dr. James Tour of Rice University takes us back to the basics of origin of life studies. What is abiogenesis? How does it differ from evolution? How is life defined? What are the characteristics of life? What challenges do researchers face in trying to create life from non-life? Along the way, Tour reviews the many grave problems of blindly evolving the first living cell from prebiotic materials. Download the podcast or listen to it here.

On 1914 :the beginning of the fall of Christendom?

Douglas MacArthur: a brief history.

The Cambrian explosion is a thing?

 FAQ: The Cambrian Explosion Is Real, and It Is a Problem for Evolution

 Casey Luskin 

An email correspondent who is friendly to intelligent design (ID) recently wrote us asking how to respond to common objections to ID arguments about the Cambrian explosion. He was engaged with an interlocutor was making all kinds of contradictory “throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” objections that were simply factually inaccurate and are belied by mainstream scientific experts.  

Stephen Meyer addressed these points in detail in Darwin's Doubt with thoroughly researched arguments well backed by the scientific literature. This made it very easy to defend his arguments, which we’ve done across numerous Articles here on Evolution News. The points made below by our friend’s interlocutor are simplistic and don’t reflect what leading Cambrian experts really think. But they are very common objections and so we compiled this FAQ to help address common misconceptions about the Cambrian explosion. 

Claim: “The Cambrian Explosion was not a geologically short event but really took millions of years. 

Response: “How ‘Sudden’ Was the Cambrian Explosion? Nick Matzke Misreads Stephen Meyer and the Paleontological Literature; New Yorker Recycles Misrepresentation”

Claim: “There was complex animal life before the Cambrian so it does not represent the origin of many types of animals.”

Steve Meyer addressed this topic extensively in Chapters 2, 3, and 4 of Darwin’s Doubt, and Figure 2.5 in his book is a thoroughly researched and conservatively argued take on exactly how many animal phyla predate the Cambrian period and how explosive the Cambrian explosion was. Bottom line? At best only three animal phyla arose in the Precambrian and some twenty arose in the Cambrian period. But given problems with many claims of Precambrian animal fossils — especially bilaterian animals — the Cambrian period is probably even more explosive than that. For detail see:

“Let’s Help ‘Professor Dave’ Understand the Precambrian”

“Was Kimberella a Precambrian Mollusk?”

“On the Cambrian Explosion, Keith Miller’s BioLogos White Paper Falls Short”

Claim: “The Cambrian explosion is an artifact of an imperfect fossil record because in the Cambrian there are more fossil deposits to allow for soft-bodied fossils to be preserved, but these don’t exist in the Precambrian.

As Graham Budd and Sören Jensen state, “The known [Precambrian/Cambrian] fossil record has not been misunderstood, and there are no convincing bilaterian candidates known from the fossil record until just before the beginning of the Cambrian (c. 543 Ma), even though there are plentiful sediments older than this that should reveal them.” Thus they conclude, “The expected Darwinian pattern of a deep fossil history of the bilaterians, potentially showing their gradual development, stretching hundreds of millions of years into the Precambrian, has singularly failed to materialize.”

Claim: “The Cambrian explosion is an artifact of the fossil record because climatic or oceanic chemical changes allowed for a geologically-speaking rapid diversification in life.”

First, we need to understand that lots of new genetic information was needed for the animals that arose in the Cambrian explosion. See: 

“Groundbreaking Paper Shows Thousands of New Genes Needed for the Origin of Animals”

“Scientific Paper Reaffirms New Genes Required for Cambrian Explosion”

“Did the Origin of Animals Require New Genes?”

Second, we need to understand that climatic/oceanic chemical changes don’t explain the origin of the information needed for Cambrian explosion. This is a very common argument and it doesn’t hold up — we’ve addressed it so many times it’s hard to find all the places! But here are a few: 

 “As an Explanation of the Cambrian Explosion, the Oxygen Theory Takes a Lethal Blow”

“Sick of the Oxygen Theory of the Cambrian Explosion? Here’s the Cancer Theory”

“So Explaining the Cambrian Explosion Is All About the Oxygen, Is It?”

“Cambrian Animals? Just Add Oxygen”

“ABC News Says ‘Darwin’s Dilemma May Be Solved’: What, Again?”

“Low Oxygen Suffocates Darwinian Explanations for the Cambrian Explosion“

“Explaining Life’s ‘Great Leap Forward’: Now It’s Nitrogen“

“Here’s a Bubble That’s Ready to Burst: Oxygen as an Explanation for the Cambrian Explosion“

“Jerry Coyne Notwithstanding, as an ‘Explanation’ for the Rise of Complex Animal Life, Oxygen Is Now Eliminated from the Running”

“To Create Cambrian Animals, Whack the Earth from Space“

“Teamwork: New York Times and Science Magazine Seek to Rebut Darwin’s Doubt”

“Did the Early Oceans Contain Oxygen?“

“Does Lots of Sediment in the Ocean Solve the ‘Mystery’ of the Cambrian Explosion?”

Claim: “The Cambrian explosion was not a real event and reflects a combination of many factors that make it appear as if animals appeared suddenly, but this really did not happen.”

This claim is not true and it is contradicted by many authorities on Cambrian paleontology and paleobiology:

“Erwin and Valentine’s The Cambrian Explosion Affirms Major Points in Darwin’s Doubt: The Cambrian Enigma Is ‘Unresolved’”

“Untangling “Professor Dave’s” Confusion about the Cambrian Explosion”

“Darwin Defenders Love Donald Prothero’s Ranting Review of Darwin’s Doubt“

I’ll close this little FAQ with a telling quote from Dutch biologist Martin Scheffer on the reality of the Cambrian explosion, from a Princeton University Press book:

The collapse of the Ediacaran fauna is followed by the spectacular radiation of novel life-forms known as the Cambrian explosion. All of the main body plans that we know now evolved in as little as about 10 million years. It might have been thought that this apparent explosion of diversity might be an artifact. For instance, it could be that earlier rocks were not as good for preserving fossils. However, very well preserved fossils do exist from earlier periods, and it is now generally accepted that the Cambrian explosion was real. 

MARTIN SCHEFFER, CRITICAL TRANSITIONS IN NATURE AND SOCIETY (PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2009), 169-170.

There are of course other possible objections to Meyer’s arguments regarding the Cambrian explosion and we’ve probably addressed those somewhere too. But these are by far the most common objections — I hope this little FAQ is helpful in responding to them!

The Flood recollection.

 On the deluge

A flood myth or a deluge myth is a myth in which a great flood, usually sent by a deity or deities, destroys civilization, often in an act of divine retribution. Parallels are often drawn between the flood waters of these myths and the primaeval waters which appear in certain creation myths, as the flood waters are described as a measure for the cleansing of humanity, in preparation for rebirth. Most flood myths also contain a culture hero, who "represents the human craving for life".[1]

The flood-myth motif occurs in many cultures, including the Mesopotamian flood stories, Native American in North America, the Genesis flood narrative, manvantara-sandhya in Hinduism, and Deucalion and Pyrrha in Greek mythology.

The main event? II

Micah 5:2 and the true origin of Israel's messiah

 Micah5:1 JPS"But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, Which art little to be among the thousands of Judah,

Out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel;

Whose goings forth(mozaah) are from of old, from ancient days.(Olam)"

Strong's:Feminine of mowtsa'; a family descent; also a sewer (marg.; compare tsow'ah) -- draught house; going forth.

Common theme going forth from the belly.

Compare:

Hebrews ch.1:10-12NIV"He also says,

"In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,

and the heavens are the work of your hands.

11They will perish, but you remain;

they will all wear out like a garment.

12You will roll them up like a robe;

lie a garment they will be changed.

But you remain the same,

and your years will never end.” 

Here our brother Paul quotes psalms102:25,26 and applies them to Jesus ,earlier on at verse 2 he had made the point that the Son was the one through whom JEHOVAH made the ages. Thus both JEHOVAH and his agent could be credited with the production of the physical world. Also both JEHOVAH and his subordinate would need to proceed physical world to logically be made responsible for its existence 

Hebrews ch.1:2NIV"but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. "

Thus the verse could apply to both the ultimate source of the power and wisdom manifest in the creation and the primary instrument of that source.

Note please that the creation in question is perishable ,thus we are not discussing anything spiritual, likely the ages in question refer to humanity or human civilization,

Compare:

Genesis ch.1:26JPS"And God said: ‘Let US make(Hebrew asah) man in OUR image, after OUR likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.’" 

Thus here is the living intelligent instrument through which JEHOVAH accomplished his work that is the only way this instrument could be said to bear God's image an expression that must always pertain to either a human or superhuman Son of God.

Compare:

Hebrews ch.1:3"The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. "

Compare:

Proverbs ch.8:30JB" I was by his side, a master craftsman, delighting him day after day, ever at play in his presence,"

Compare:

Colossians ch.1:15-17"The Son is the IMAGE of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. "

John tried to tell Israel the true origins of the one walking among them 

John ch.1:30NIV"This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ "

Of course from an earthly standpoint Jesus does not precede John in any sense.And it does no good to make this preceding abstract because John would also have existed abstractly in JEHOVAH'S mind prior to his birth,and is also the product of a divine miracle. John's ministry also precedes Jesus' 

John continues:

John ch.1:31NIV"The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all."

Thus John showed why Jesus is greater than himself.

Jesus tried to tell Israel his true origin 

John ch.6:62NIV"Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit e and life."

If heaven refers to his being born again why would he need to return there ,heaven of course refers to no particular vector but the superhuman state he surrendered in order to become a sacrifice for our sins

Hebrews ch.2:9NIV"But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone."

One cannot return to where one has never been and one need not return to where one has never left ,the glory and honor then is a restoration of a previous superhuman glory.

John ch.17:5"And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I HAD with you before the world began."

Here our Lord prays for the restoration of his forfeited superhuman glory which forfeiture was necessary to meet the legal requirements of the atonement.

Hebrews ch 2:14NIV"Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil"

Hebrews ch.2:16NIV"For surely it is not angels (spirit beings)he helps, but Abraham’s descendants."

This cannot refer to the new creation because he never forfeited his place in the new creation thus there would be no need to plea for any such restoration.

John ch.3:13NIV"No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. "

Jesus is saying that he is unique among all men who ever lived for this reason , obviously Jesus never ceased being part of the new creation,thus this is a strike against the idea that"heaven" pertains to the new creation in this verse , once Jesus became part of JEHOVAH'S new creation he could not exit same without disqualifying himself as Savior.

As stated before heaven refers to his previous superhuman glory. He laid it aside to legally qualify as Savior and upon being born again he reclaimed it hence his prayer at John ch.17:5

John ch.8:23NIV"But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”"

Sin began in heaven, so the pall that was cast over JEHOVAH'S workmanship would extend into heaven ,thus it is fitting that the one that JEHOVAH would rate his first and foremost work in heaven and earth be tested so as to vindicate JEHOVAH'S Workmanship this vindication of JEHOVAH'S Godhood is the primary issue that must be settled.

536 c.e recorded history's worst year ever?

Our brother Paul against E.C.T

 Romans ch.7:1NKJV"Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law [a]has dominion over a man as long as he lives?" 

Of course if the real man never dies this would be a moot point,

Once a man is dead justice can make no further demands upon him. The presupposition then is that death is real,and that the real man does in fact die.

Romans ch.7:6NKJV"But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter."

Thus if Christ did not actually die ,which would be the case if we take reductive spiritualism as our premise because the physical body would then have nothing to do with ones identity,there is no atonement,also if his death did not completely satisfy divine justice ,which would be the case if we take E.C.T as our premise, there would be no atonement. So much for eternal conscious torment.

Substitutionary atonement v. The God-man hypothesis.

 1Corinthians ch.15:21KJV"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead."

It was a perfect man's (not a God-man's) rebellion that condemned us therefore it is a perfect man's (not God-man's) obedience that reconciles us to JEHOVAH

1Timothy1:17NIV"Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen." 

Matthew ch.20:28NIV"just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give(not lend) his life(Soul) as a ransom for many.”" 

Leviticus ch.17:11NIV"For the life(soul,Hebrew.nefesh) of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life(soul). c"

Only flesh and blood necessary for the sustaining of the SOUL of the victim can be offered acceptably on JEHOVAH'S altar for the expiation of sin. 

Thus to make our Lord the God-man is to cancel the legal basis of the substitutionary atonement. 

As the God- man his blood would possess no atoning value as it would be unnecessary for sustaining his soul. That is why he had to completely surrender his superhuman glory to qualify as a substitute. 

Hebrews ch.2:17NIV"For this reason he had to be made like them, k fully human in EVERY way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. " 

he were the God-man he would be INFINITELY unlike any man who has ever existed and thus would not qualify as a substitute for us.

Origin of Life science needs an intervention?

 ASCB Addresses Problem of False Science

Cornelius G Hunter 

The American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) task force on reproducibility in life science research has issued an undated white paper on scientific rigor. The problem is, as we discussed here and here, life science research has been found to lack reproducibility. John Ioannidis is a bit more blunt as he explains that “most published research findings are false,” and that “claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.” The ASCB white paper is no doubt a step in the right direction. It offers 13 recommendations to encourage more rigor in training, publishing, and standards. But the most important recommendation of all continues to be ignored.

Daniel Sarewitz has noted not only the problem of bias in scientific research but also the causes. Note his final thought in this quote:

All involved benefit from positive results, and from the appearance of progress. Scientists are rewarded both intellectually and professionally, science administrators are empowered and the public desire for a better world is answered. The lack of incentives to report negative results, replicate experiments or recognize inconsistencies, ambiguities and uncertainties is widely appreciated — but the necessary cultural change is incredibly difficult to achieve.

And so it is that science’s much touted self-correcting, feedback loop which ensures science converges on the truth (after all, that’s what Mr. Wells told us in seventh grade science class) is sometimes a little slow to act.

And if the ASCB is still needing to remind scientists to clean their beakers and use checklists, imagine the difficulty in achieving more fundamental change?

This brings us to the recommendation that ASCB did not make—the most important of all. And that is for science to free itself of the excessive metaphysics. Unfortunately, progress on that front is glacial. As Sarewitz notes, one reason bias persists, and is so harmful, is that in the moment it is not perceived as bias. Asking an evolutionist to stop with the metaphysics goes nowhere because it isn’t recognized as metaphysics. Deep philosophy is a part of their “science” as much as red meat is a part of hamburgers.

Even if the ASCB task force members wanted to address this fundamental problem, they wouldn’t for the backlash would be overwhelming and their professional reputations would be ruined.

So while the pipettes will be sterilized and results double checked to the third decimal point, ASCB will continue to publish junk science driven by the Epicurean mandate that the world must have arisen spontaneously. Unfortunately, the ASCB task force has missed the most important recommendation of all.

The sublime logistics of the human body vs. Darwinism.