I conclude evolution is guided (page 19)

cofty

cofty if this is the case then why are you bringing ontology into the mix. - Ruby

I'm not. Please stop making things up.

Soai was not making conclusions about ontology for example was he?

Of course not.

cofty

Inventing supernatural beings is the exact opposite of using Occam's Razor.

Coded Logic

No Ruby456, a God of the Gaps fallacy is not a "teleological argument". It's an ad hoc presupposition. Not even remotely the same thing.

One seeks to explain things by a perceived function. The other starts with a conclusion and applies it to an unknown.

Ruby, you also seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Occam's Razor. "Simplest" doesn't mean the least complicated option nor the option with the fewest steps. Rather, it means the option that requires the fewest assumptions.

Ruby456

No Ruby456, a God of the Gaps fallacy is not a "teleological argument". It's an ad hoc presupposition. Not even remotely the same thing.
One seeks to explain things by a perceived function. The other starts with a conclusion and applies it to an unknown. codedlogic

lol coded logic - i was putting occam's razor in everyday language.

and where did I say god of the gaps is a teleological argument? i said intellgent design is teleological and god of the gaps is used in that argument but that here it is logically fallacious.

Ruby456

the problem as I see it is that intelligent design is a problem in the US. Kate has already said she thinks intelligent design is rubbish - or words to that effect

Giles Gray

KateWild-"Do you remember the poster Viv? Looks like we have a new one lol xx"

Piffle! I am far more courteous. But then again, who says I'm not Viv...??

KateWild-" Thanks Ruby, but this isn't good enough for Giles"

As it was inadequate, no it wasn't.

KateWild-" I apologise for falsely accusing K99 and Notsure of trying to prove me wrong. I shouldn't have accused them. Sorry K99 and Notsure."

Well good for you Kate. I mean that sincerely. I'm impressed. Jolly difficult for someone so feisty.

Thank you for a very interesting thread. Enjoy your weekend.

KateWild

Science is founded on a commitment to "Methodological Naturalism". This means that supernatural answers are off-limits. - cofty

This has nothing to do with any bias or personal beliefs of individual scientists. Even christians who are scientists begin with the working assumption that there are unguided, naturalistic causes for the phenomena they investigate. That is what it means to do science as opposed to theology.-cofty

Oh is this true? Really? Are all chemists ethical? Do Pharmaceutical and Industrial chemical companies recruit chemists to develop new products to make money? Have chemists, pharmaceutical and industrial chemical every lied about their results to sell products? As far as research and development in chemistry it's mainly about making new patented product to make money.

I am by no means a chemist, I am a chemical analyst. I analysed finished products. I have not done any research or developed any products, but I have worked in companies where my colleagues were chemists. Their research and development was not founded on "methodological naturalism" and when learning chemistry this phrase doesn't enter in any credible text book.

Credible chemists write papers that are impartial as far as god and atheism is concerned. Their conclusions are about which is the best and most efficient ways to synthesise products for their company. Christian and Atheist scientists who preach are not credible but bias. Dawkins and Krauss are just as bias as the creationist scientists trying to prove God exists. They wrote books called the God delusion and A universe from nothing. These are not peer reviewed science papers. They are the opinions of men. If you want to follow them then do, but know they are bias just like the creationist scientists.

As soon as a scientist does what Kate has done in this thread they cease to do science. It amounts to anintellectually lazy surrender to superstition. Further progress becomes impossible. Even Isaac Newton compromised on methodological naturalism when he was unable to work out why all planets revolve on the same plane around the sun and declared that god-did-it. -cofty

What did I do that was lazy? Can you be specific please. If drawing conclusions based on the facts is lazy or wrong then explain to me succinctly why this is please. I am not declaring god did it, I am applying Occam's Razor.

From the time it was first discovered that some molecules were either "left handed" or "right handed", and that all the amino acids in living things were only of one sort, it has been a matter of considerable mystery why this should be so. - Cofty

Thalidomide caused serious birth defects and chemists worked hard to find out why and then tried to develop a safer synthesised organic homochiral product. It had nothing to do with God or Atheism. It was about preventing mutations.

In 1995 Kenso Soai was able to solve the mystery. He showed that the situation where all the molecules are of just one sort is exactly what happens under natural conditions.-cofty

It has never been about solving the mystery. Saoi has never used that term. You are twisting the facts again to suit your conclusion. Just because you repeat it multiple times it doesn't make it true.

I will post a thread on it in my Evolution is a Fact" series later but here is a very brief summary of the facts. - Cofty

That will not twist the facts because you are not bias and just have a position.

The key to Soai's discovery was the fact that the process that produces the molecules in question are "autocatalytic". -cofty

Twisting facts again. The key to Saoi's discovery was that chemists can now synthesise homochiral organic products more efficiently using autocatayisis in the lab.

I am going to comment on the rest of your post later when I am free. Look out for it Cofty xx

notsurewheretogo

I apologise for falsely accusing K99 and Notsure of trying to prove me wrong. I shouldn't have accused them. Sorry K99 and Notsure

I've stayed out of this thread recently because it has become a farce, I was genuinely interested in the process and mechanics of a person who concludes that evolution is true but is also "guided"...I was interested in how they arrived at that conclusion...nothing more nothing less...

But it became clear from Kate she thought myself and K99 had some form of agenda, we didn't...we just were asking questions since we come from a different viewpoint and in all things in my life I always try and see it from the other side.

I stayed off this thread after getting a PM from Kate that had some absurd assumptions about me...I reread Kate's introduction on here and read her background and I am happy to just leave it...I appreciate the apology though.

Thing is if Kate posts threads like this one she will get challenged, and she may even get people with an agenda posting because if you are going to post something on these forums and not back it up or post why you feel something leads you to a conclusion yet you do not state what that process was you are going to get challenged, and rightly so.

If Kate feels myself or K99 were hassling her or trying to prove her wrong, we were not but expect that others will if posts like these continue.

Cofty's posts on evolution are how it is done...he posts his conclusions by posting the evidence behind them, others who disagree with Cofty can then see his reasoning and just how he arrives at his conclusion and then offer a counter viewpoint again with evidence backing up their point.

That is discussion, showing the paths of both sides of the argument and how they arrive at conclusions...I don't see much of that going on here and it is what I asked for which led to some wild assumptions.

It is good to remember why we are here...whilst we all may now have differing viewpoints the one thing we all have in common is we escaped a cult that is really hard to realize is not the truth...this now leads on different paths but coming off that path is a heck of an achievement...lets keep that in mind and be polite to one another.

slimboyfat

Don't know about the molecules. But convergence seems to show there is a deep structure to evolution and a purpose behind it.

I conclude evolution is guided

Share this