Matthew Powner- Advanced research on the Origin of life. How credible is he? (page 3)

KateWild

I must be one of those with a strong predisposition to believe in a Creator.-snowbird

I am not sure of this theory, but believers are found in all walks of life. No matter how much they investigate the still hold to their beliefs. Einstien is a good example. Although he did not believe in the God of the bible he adamantly said he was not an Atheist. So he did reach some conclusions that were not exactly in line with all of Judaism. He also went to a Catholic school and did not agree with those teachings. He still clung to the fact he was a religious man.

Einstiens beliefs are somewhat ambiguous though, I have read a lot about him and come to the conclusion he is telling us to mind our own business.

Kate xx

KateWild

Why probably and why evidence? Connect the dots from premise to conclusion...-Viv

I am not entirely sure I understand exactly what you mean? Is it possible that my conclusions are evidence for me alone, instead of proof for others?

Kate xx

KateWild

do your homework first. I have done mine and will quote impeccable sources if you really are too lazy to do your own research-phizzy

Well goodmorning to you too Phizzy.

That's bait if ever there was some. I have read a lot of scientific material. If you're going to quote the famous fundie micro-biologist Dawkins, then do so. I have already explained why I don't find him credible. Besides I am not sure that he actually uses science to prove God doesn't exist anyway. But if not give me some quotes that science proves God does not exist.

What is proof and evidence to one person, it not to another.

Kate xx

KateWild

The problem is in getting believers to define their god.-cofty

Whilst I agree that everyone defines Gods in a unique way, good point, I fail to see why it is a problem. If we are not harming anyone or pushing our beliefs on others why is defining the God we believe in really matter?

You are right in that particular Gods can be disproven. By reading the bible properly, and praying fervently, I came to the conclusion the God of the bible and the God that is the hearer and answerer of prayers does not exist.

By studying chemistry I have come to the conclusion a Creator does exist.

Kate xx

KateWild

This process provides a mechanism by which a small initial imbalance in chirality can become overwhelming.-cofty

I understand why you believe as you do cofty, but it's my perspective that we simply know how God did it. By understanding this chemistry it helps conclude to a greater degree the existence of a Creator. The point that he is indifferent to human suffering is something that I have come to terms with.

Kate xx

KateWild

How does Powner's research prove or disprove God? Even if he finds the origin of life, he would only be telling believers how God did it? Not that God did not Create life. Kate xx

OneEyedJoe

No it is not, this old canard is often repeated on here, give it a rest fellers, the job has been done.

I'm not saying that it's impossible to prove that the god of the bible (or the god of islam or whatever particular god) doesn't exist. I think there's clear evidence that there's no god that's really interested in us. However, it is impossible to disprove the existence of a god-like being that just doesn't give an eff about us and doesn't want to be found. Though, I suppose you get to a point where it'd be difficult to describe that entity as being god. It's really all in semantics. And from a practical perspective, I don't see it ever happening (at least not in my lifetime) that we can disprove the existence of god in a way that will convince the majority of the populace, but that's not so much a limitation of the evidence as it is evidence that people hold fast to clearly false ideas.

Just to be clear I'm an athiest, just saying that one must be open to all ideas until they're proven wrong. Entertaining an idea, though, is not the same as accepting it. In this case, I see no advantage to accepting the idea of god, but there does seem to be some downside, therefore I remain an athiest until there's good reason not to be.

As for the ever-so popular idea that if scientists re-create the initial formation of life, they're just showing how god did it - I don't see that as a valid argument. This becomes apparent (at least to me) once it's put into a different context. There was once a time when all natural phenomenon was explained as being an act of god. Imagine a man from that time observing lightning strike one of his friends, and deciding based on this event that god is evil. A scientist begins to study lightning, and demonstrates to this person that lightning can be re-created by creating a sufficiently high charge of static electricity. The man says, "you've merely shown how god killed my friend!" The scientist then goes to perform more tests and determines that in a storm extremely strong charges build up in clouds, even going so far as to demonstrate how this build up of energy occurs naturally. The man says "Yes, but the winds created the weather pattern that created the storm. You've done nothing more than show how god did it!" The scientist then demonstrates that the winds are created by complex interactions between the rotation of the earth, the energy imparted by the sun, etc. all of which are demonstrably natural phenomena requiring no intervention to trigger. The man says, "yes, but god placed the earth here with everything set up just so that my friend would die! You've merely shown how god did it!" At what point does it end? This just becomes the "god of the gaps" where a believer insists that god is hiding in every dark shadow, but when a light is shined on it, it's just another natural phenomenon.

Phizzy

What you have described very well above in the first part of your post, Joe, is the typical "retreat of a believer", I am glad you have shown how they operate.

When you prove that their god does not exist, Bible god or some other god of their imagination etc, they then retreat to the realm of a dis-interested Supreme Being who "we cannot possibly know".

That might just be intellectually acceptable, to consider that there may be a 0.0000000000000000000000000001% chance such a being exists, and if so, so what ? it/she/he can not interest me or affect me. There is a larger chance that Pink Unicorns with Purple Spots exist.

The problem comes from the believer advancing again quickly from this position to tell me quite a lot about this being that we cannot know, that this being created the universe, and probably this believer knows the being is Love and has Omniscience and is Omnipotent.

If I let them rattle on some more they will probably tell me what this being requires of me !

The believer will still remain a believer whatever we say, see Kate above, simply because they hold on to their belief/s because of what got them attached to them in the first place, not evidence and reason, but emotion.

prologos

one eyed joe: thank you, and that is why the motr research is done, the more it becomes apparent how much work it took to produce that bolt of lightning, and we are still working backward trying to RE-CREATE, understand the most fundamental and also macro workings.

where and how Thor got that hammer.

Viviane

Light refraction is very interesting but it's physics not chemistry, and I know less about that.

As has ben shown, chemistry IS physics. As a chemist, it is suprising you didn't know that and initially denied it.

Specifically how did he demonstrate this? The term "bucket chemistry" is not used in peer reviewed papers mister. But I will play

You have yet to demonstrate any connection between your premise and conclusion.

I am not entirely sure I understand exactly what you mean? Is it possible that my conclusions are evidence for me alone, instead of proof for others?

It's quite possible, but you are publicly making the claim. Hence, it is entirely reasonable to question and comment upon it.

Matthew Powner- Advanced research on the Origin of life. How credible is he?

Share this