Comments by "Harry \x22Nic\x22 Nicholas" (@HarryNicNicholas) on "Dave Farina vs. James Tour Debate (Are We Clueless About the Origin of Life?)" video.

it's hard to moderate if they are either christian or atheist, cos obviously you have to constantly chip in and say "god doesn't exist so the atheist is right" or "god of course exists, so the christian is right" but i have to say this guy ought to have at least been conversant with the latest research in order to either support or deny the accusations BOTH sides were making. the proof of the pudding for is is tour will NEVER take this to court, despite being called a fraud in front witnesses over and over.
4
@sakatagintoki4164 i'm really out of my depth on this subject, most things go in one ear and out of the other with me, and this stuff barely makes it to the lobe, but what i take away from tour is that on the one hand we have natural explanations for some parts of the process, that we understand and can use in say medical research, but then, poof, suddenly we need god to explain the parts that no one understands because it would take bzillions of years to happen upon them by chance. this "fine tuning argument" really supports naturalism cos what religists are saying is god uses the MOST UNLIKELY ways to achieve the desired outcome. if god wants life it will be a CERTAINTY not something that needs careful guidance and can easily go wrong, or not happen at all. and one or the other please, saying nature is fine here but we need god over there is just saying "we have no idea how this bit works = god" which is argument from ignorance entirely.
2
@timothyvenable3336 tour is a fraud, he's got all the time in the world to take dave to court for calling him a fraud to his face in front of witnesses. why won't it go to court? cos EVERYONE including tour, knows he is a fraud. i'm really out of my depth on this subject, most things go in one ear and out of the other with me, and this stuff barely makes it to the lobe, but what i take away from tour is that on the one hand we have natural explanations for some parts of the process, that we understand and can use in say medical research, but then, poof, suddenly we need god to explain the parts that no one understands because it would take bzillions of years to happen upon them by chance. this "fine tuning argument" really supports naturalism cos what religists are saying is god uses the MOST UNLIKELY ways to achieve the desired outcome. if god wants life it will be a CERTAINTY not something that needs careful guidance and can easily go wrong, or not happen at all. and one or the other please, saying nature is fine here but we need god over there is just saying "we have no idea how this bit works = god" which is argument from ignorance entirely.
1
yoiks. mr tour will enjoy litigation after this i'm sure. well, when i say "sure" i mean i'm not sure at all. he might enjoy it if he had grounds.
1
when tour talks about these really big numbers he's actually saying that god appears to have picked a method least likely to achieve his end result, god's odds should be 1:1 not bzillions to one. this is an argument that actually supports naturalism, under naturalism, no matter what the likeliehood is, there is always a chance, under god life ought to be inevitable, not chance.
1
i'm really out of my depth on this subject, most things go in one ear and out of the other with me, and this stuff barely makes it to the lobe, but what i take away from tour is that on the one hand we have natural explanations for some parts of the process, that we understand and can use in say medical research, but then, poof, suddenly we need god to explain the parts that no one understands because it would take bzillions of years to happen upon them by chance. this "fine tuning argument" really supports naturalism cos what religists are saying is god uses the MOST UNLIKELY ways to achieve the desired outcome. if god wants life it will be a CERTAINTY not something that needs careful guidance and can easily go wrong, or not happen at all. and one or the other please, saying nature is fine here but we need god over there is just saying "we have no idea how this bit works = god" which is argument from ignorance entirely.
1