betsy

It may be grandstanding in your book..... .........but it sure is being quite frank about what is being falsely peddled for a fact. That's called, exposing disinformation, Impact! Whistle-blowing. What more, when the ignorant public (who relies on the supposed credibility and expertise of scientists), are being fooled! Look at you. Anyone says "it's peer-reviewed"........and you automatically lap it all up! To you, the truth has to be "peer-reviewed" to be the truth. You don't even know about the corruption that's been plaguing peer-reviews! Tour has reached a stature in his career when he isn't intimidated anymore by anyone! He can state an opinion, or a fact without having to fear for his career! https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/ Go with Scott, Impact. You both look for someone to refute Tour.

So what! "The "term "peer-review" isn't a magic term that translates to guaranteed credibility anymore! https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science You can help Scott find someone to refute Tour. Maybe, the two of you working together will get you to find one! Evolutionists like you, should pressure Richard Dawkins to respond and debate with Tour! He's too quiet about this. Maybe.....it'll be like The God Delusion all over again.

I already told you why I believe him. You haven't been reading. Find someone to refute him.

Find someone to refute Tour, Scott.

Hello? Did you read the whole thing? Find someone to refute Tour, Scott.

Go get yourself an authority on the subject, Scott. Find your champion. You and I "discussing" science would be like two toddlers arguing about the economy.

Btw..... James Tour wasn't content to issue the challenge just in his blog, you know. He wrote an open letter to his colleagues. It was published on Inference. Here's an excerpt: http://inference-review.com/article/an-open-letter-to-my-colleagues That's a powerful statement!

What's bias got to do with pointing to a source like James Tour? Either you can refute him, or not! Why should we leave out the authority that knows about it? You gotta be kidding, right? What's the point of two ignorant like you and I, discussing something we both don't fully understand? What is this? A game of pretend? We'll bs each other? Uh-uh. Count me out. I don't have the time to waste on such childish and pointless exercise. I give you an authority on the subject (James Tour) - go find yourself an authority to refute him! get back to me when you've found one..........if you can find anyone.

Because there is no evidence! It's all suppositions and gross extrapolations! Btw, since you keep bringing up the religious - let's be clear about something here: Unlike atheists.........Christians can follow where the evidence leads. If you think evolution will negate Christianity - you're wrong.

I should be the one asking you the question: if you're not a scientist yourself what reason do you personally have that justifies NOT BELIEVING what they say? I do have reasons to believe James Tour. Why? Because he's PUBLICLY thrown the gauntlet at the whole science community to explain to him about macro evolution! He practically challenged everyone! https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/ If James Tour is wrong, if he's not confident in what he stated - why would he risk his reputation to challenge the WHOLE SCIENCE COMMUNITY? If James Tour is wrong, and if he hasn't a valid point - why isn't anyone rising up to that challenge? Why hasn't anyone come forward to correct him?

Even if ALL OF THEM ARE EVANGELISTS - so what? If their concerns are valid, that's what count! You're saying you'll reject something valid just because the findings come from a group that you're opposed to? See? Your bias is worn on your sleeves.

Why the New Tork Times? Why don't you go directly to the source - to James Tour's blog! Here...... JAMES TOUR https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/

And???? What about it? What are you saying?

Read the links that I gave here! The one from Berkley and the one from Tour.

[/quote] How do you define species, Scott.

Here, from a university.......the difference between the two in a nutshell: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01 Speaking for myself - as a religious - I believe in micro evolution. But, not macro. There is no evidence for macro-evolution. Nada. Not a single one!

Will it just be limited to sexual harassment? Elizabeth May's been accused, and is being probed, for allegedly bullying. https://globalnews.ca/news/3993162/green-party-elizabeth-may-bullying-investigation/ "Nasty," can take on many forms.

Awaiting those notices with bated breath too, by the sound of it. If you find the topic so interesting that you feel like you want to respond..........why bother reporting it? I mean, look at you. You reported....and yet you're gnawing at the bit to know whether you can now respond, or not. Oh boy! Your reaction to it is just so.........weird. Surely, just like you, others might find it interesting too. I suggest to just leave it be, and respond to the post to your heart's content. What's so bad about a cross-post anyway? It's true what Charles asked. What's the worst that can happen? It's not like as if you'll be struck down by lightning if you make the mistake of responding.....just go ahead and enjoy the topic. If this is an example how you go about , it seems you're making your life too absurdly complicated. You're making such a ruckus out of something so trivial. For nothing. Why be a party-pooper...........even to your own enjoyment? Really, Michael.......

My, my......aren't you so confused. You're the one who's making outrageous claims about the Big Bang! Read this again....slowly......and weep. https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html You're comparing the Big bang - a scientific theory that's supported by science - with religious belief???? Why should I take science as the "authority" on the supernatural?? Hello? Do you know the difference between natural and supernatural? Physical and metaphysical? I seriously doubt that you do..... https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html See? Everything went over your head......or, you're truly on DEAF-CON mode. You're not making any sense.

I never said that you can't give an opinion. However, in your issue about the Big Bang......you can't expect your opinion to be taken seriously for discussion without any supporting sources. Albert Einstein had considered Steady State theory too, but he quickly abandoned it. Here's something about the Steady State theory, the reason why it's been abandoned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory So......your opinion above is all rambling! Furthermore, your opinion is prompted by your bias against religion and God. Your statement said so. That's the only reason why you can't accept the Big Bang. For "authority" regarding science's stance on the Big Bang - I have to go with what's stated in the faq of NASA. The Big Bang is deemed valid by the science community. Unless there is any revision to their statement, imo.....that faq still stands.

??????? That, only shows, you're not getting the rational argument given in this thread. Really.

Caroline Mulroney?

IRRELEVANT! There are many theories being given. That's nothing new. As far as I know, according to NASA's faq section (the space agency) - the Big Bang is still it! The FAQ section is for the public - things are explained in "layman's terms." The section on the Big Bang faq wasn't in answer to a religious query - so, there you go. You're dead wrong! That's one thing about some atheists, you know - they don't want anything that smells like, or gives a hint to the possibility of a God. You said it yourself - the reason you reject the Big Bang! You said... See? If anything does support even just a MINIMAL deistic interpretation (like the Big Bang)......alarms go off! Blinders automatically come down.....atheists like you get into DEAF-CON mode! That's why I keep saying.......atheists are forced to be close-minded. They cannot afford to accept the POSSIBILITY of God's existence, even if science says it so. They cannot afford to be open-minded. That's the reason why when push comes to shove.....they can't give any rational rebuttals. The mouthy, new atheists in forums are all simply loud bravado, and hot air! We're not all scientists here, you know. I highly doubt you are. That's one more thing with some atheists - they all think they are scientists! I think some actually believe their own make-believe! They seem to be lost in another world.....that they think their opinion - without anything to support it - is worth anything in a discussion such as this issue. Like as if a sensible person on planet earth can't see through all the bs! That's another thing! They don't usually give their sources voluntarily. You gotta pry it out of them, too! If they do give their sources, I'd found that it pays off for me to read what they quoted from. It usually backfires on them. I've used atheists' given sources against them in a lot of my discussions over the years. Whatever dubious so-called "scientific" sources you're mining from......it lacks credibility.... if it goes against the NAS and NASA. Until NASA changes their FAQ story about the Big Bang - I'll take their word when it comes to that, thank you. I say read the NAS statement, and try to understand it. Lol: if you tell me you're God....I'll not only deny you.....I'll also say you need psychiatric help! That, only shows, you're not getting the rational argument given in this thread. It's simply sailing over your head. Kindly do your homework, and read all my posts, starting with the OP. ***Hint: corroborating evidence(s). To be fair, I'll have to treat you like Impact - since you both seem to have come from the same mould. I'm not shooting the breeze here with anyone.....I'll be ignoring your posts until you've got something worth responding to.

You haven't been reading, or you're simply disregarding what was given. Sounds like you're simply repeating a mantra (more so to convince yourself). I'm not going to bother trying to discuss with what seems to have turned into a brickwall. That usually happens with some atheists when faced with the NAS fact about its stance on Theistic Evolution, you know. Blinders automatically come down. They get into........ ........... DEAF-con mode. I'll be ignoring your posts until you've got something that's worth responding to.