by KateWild 532 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Because you will always twist existing facts (and ignore others) to reach your desired conclusion. Which pretty much makes a mockery of your (royal your) whole reasoning process. landy
yet the side you support does this all the time, but I would not call this being dishonest as there may be ambiguities, nuances and complexities that each side can latch onto to strengthen their case.
Even if it could be demonstrated that an intelligent being hypothetically started life and somehow proactively steered the process by which life evolved in its earliest stages... why would that entity merit anything else other than our curiosity? I fail to see why such entity would merit our devotion, worship or service.
In 1853 George Crum invented the potato chip. Since those days, potato chips have evolved in variety, size, flavor and production and marketing scales. Does that make Mr. Crum the Potato Chip God thence after?
Eden
I just want to echo these sentiments as they are exactly mine...I too have no agenda...I'm genuinely interested in how a person comes to the conclusion that evolution is guided simply because I do not come to that conclusion but I always try and understand the other side.
I thought KateWild might have been up for explaining how she has arrived at that conclusion but apparently not...very strange then to create the thread if you are not going to discuss it but I'm happy to leave it and her and wish her well.
I'm sure I can get the info I seek from elsewhere.
Sorry Kate I've been out and not had a chance to respond earlier. This is your thread and if you believe you have answered and explained everything to a sufficient level then it would be churlish to continue to make request ofyou for more information.
The only thing I will repeat is that I did not engage with you on this thread with some kind of predetermined atheist agenda. I have no interest in proving you right or wrong. I really am interested in your opinion and thinking process. I certainly have no billy big bollocks desire to assert my opinion above yours.
I will not be phoning you to discuss it, not because I am not genuine, but firstly the discussion was happening here and, secondly, I am a married man trying to fade therefore making surreptitious phone calls to ladies my wife does not know is not high on my agenda of risks to take. You might have phone conversations with others, like cantleave, but that's under very different circumstances for you both.
Please don't mistake any of this for some kind of lack of genuine interest. I've read everything you have shared over the years on this site and know how tough things have been as well as seen how you have powered through so much. I do find you obtuse sometimes but you have my utmost respect for what you have achieved to escape the clutches of the WTS and I am glad we remain online buddies.
All the best - k99
Thanks guys for all your responses. Nice to have some cheerleaders. I will answer cofty first and then reply to as many of you a possible.
Did you ever read the paper I linked for you months ago? - cofty
Yes and I responded every time you have posted a link to it, but you must have missed my posts
Autocatalysis makes it inevitable that if there is the slightest difference in the balance of chiral products then you will get 999 heads out of a thousand. No guidance required.- cofty
The chemistry is correct, but you have drawn your conclusion based limited chemistry, In amino acids, alanine for example the slight difference in balance is always in the l-enantiomer e.g
So autocatalysis always occurs one way in Alanine. However in racemic mixtures such as thelidomide, even though there is a slight imbalance autcatalysis does not occur. And both the enantiomers are formed. e.g.
Since the 70's I am sure chemists found ways to isolate the mutagenic d-enantiomer probably with autocatalysis. So Soai highly likely was not the first to discover autocatalysis in 1995.
Other racemic copounds exist such as methanol, ketamine, camphor and tartaric acid. All of which do not have a refractive index of zero all the time. Refractive index is a way to measure chirality using a polorimeter, the l-enantiomers and d-enantiomers rotate in different directions. And when racemic mixtures are measured they are usually slightly positive or negative, but no autocatalysis occurs. So the probability that autocatalysis in alanine to always form the l-enantiomer is guided is high for me.
Do you understand the implications of autocatalysis and how it results in exponential growth? - Cofty
Yes. Do you understand not all enantiomeric compounds are homochiral and racemic mixtures also have slight differences in balance of the stereo ismoers?
This so-called problem was solved by Kenso Soai in 1995. Why have you totally ignored his work in this thread? - Cofty
I have referred to it in other threads and you didn't see my responses. You often say people have ignored you or not responded when in fact you just missed their posts. Only you, me and cantleave on this forum have read it. You're using it to confirm your bias, I am using it to confirm my bias, and cantleave doesn't think it's proof of anything and he is still an atheist.
By the way, if anyone on this thread want to read it post a request for a link and me or cofty will supply it.
cofty, did Soai specifically write his paper to solve the problem of the existence of a creator, or did he write the paper because he wanted to explain how homochirality and chiral compounds are formed and are different?
I will not be phoning you to discuss it, not because I am not genuine, but firstly the discussion was happening here and, secondly, I am a married man trying to fade therefore making surreptitious phone calls to ladies my wife does not know is not high on my agenda of risks to take. You might have phone conversations with others, like cantleave, but that's under very different circumstances for you both. - K99
That's totally understandable. In fact I have just a debate with cantleave this morning on the phone. Thanks for showing a genuine interest, I am enjoying this thread.
I couldn't be anymore specific. - Giles
No you couldn't. If you want to you could do a bit of learning about the details in the OP and then formulate a specific question for me to challenge me or prove me wrong.
But it doesn't matter, cofty has made a specific point to challenge my conclusions and to try and prove me wrong. He is pretty straight forward about wanting to provide proof. I don't have a problem with that.
How do we tell the difference between good old fashioned natural selection and guided natural selection? And wouldn't we need a mechanism to distinguish between the two before we could conclude our evolution was guided? - coded logic
Why do we need to tell the difference? What we need to draw any conclusions is satisfying evidence. What satisfies one person, does not satisfy another.
Kate, IMO the main thing is that you except evolution. If your not ready to give up God that's cool. - Scary
Thanks for your post, and your acceptance of my beliefs and conclusions.
God guides evolution. It is true. He doesn't use that immense power to stop the molestation of children. He is useless- Silentbuddah
Yes I agree and he's a bastard arsehole too.
