by KateWild 532 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Cofty I am posting my response to your challenge, Soai saying he solved the puzzle is not relevant to the challenge you assigned me.
My challenge was to explain something you had written in simpler language and show how it refuted the significance of Soai's experiment. If you now accept that Saoi solved the puzzle of homochirality then there is no need.
If you don't, then there is probably nothing more to be said.
Perry,
Ok I couldn't resist, I took a peak. You have proved something on this thread though. Not all University researchers are credible. That's why they are peer reviewed. If you're going to post a quote with extreme views you need to provide the peer reviewed paper it came from. Like cofty did.
Plus Soai views are not extreme, he said he solved the puzzle not "The idea of creation rests on pure belief" No credible peer reviewed paper would say that in my opinion, but if anyone can find one great.
Perry's list has been assembled by one Joel Hebron Hendon and has been making the rounds on the internet since a few years now. What's Mr. Hendon's expertise?
"Joel Hendon is retired from secular work and spends much of his time now in study of the Bible and various religions. He writes religious and conservative political articles for five online publications." - See his profile
Oh ok, so he surely is an expert on the subject. He is behind the hebronics.org website. In there, at the beginning of the said list of quotes we find this statement:
"These quotes are garnered and assembled by Joel Hendon. They are freely available and found throughout the internet. We make no claim as to the accuracy of these quotes or the authenticity. They are presented as found, showing the source, where available." - See for yourself
Glad to know you can copy and paste from such an authoritative source, Perry.
Eden
Let me just throw in an example just to show how dishonest these quotes from "evolutionists" are.
One of the quotes found in the hebronics.org website is this one:
"One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator." (Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer, Anthropology, Sydney University. Quadrant, p. 44)"
Wow! A quote by a scientist that even includes the reference to the work where it was published. Must be legit, right? Well, it was abundantly quoted in the creationist website Answers in Genesis. (The same people behind the new Noah's Ark attraction).
Well ...someone took the effort to actually go and read the context of that quote. Here's what the author originally wrote.
"One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator from yet another area of material phenomena, and not because it has been paradigmatic in establishing the canons of research in the life sciences and the earth sciences."
"Dr Walker's essay To Have Evolved or To Have Not? That is the Question, from which AiG selectively quotes, is of no assistance to the YEC cause or their argument in this case. The essay does not condemn Darwinism per se but merely questions how those scientists Dr Walker claims pay lip service to Darwin's Theory can use it to explain the emergence of human culture. Nor does Dr Walker support creationism which he refers to as "scientifically bankrupt" and "sterile bible [sic] bashing". The main point of discussion in his essay is the emergence of Man as a moral and spiritual being and he believes that neither biology nor the Bible can explain this. He discusses the proposition that any attempt to explain the emergence of human culture within evolutionary theory is wrong and the key to discovering when and how this occurred lies in the period somewhere between 20,000 and 5,000 years ago when written records began to be used."
Beware of those pesky 'quotes from evolutionist scientists in favor of creationism' because, as evidence shows, they are generally manipulated in dishonest ways to mean something they don't mean to.
Eden
Thanks Eden for explaining in detail why Perry's quotes are not credible. This is probably why my credulity was unbalanced yesterday, and I needed something very specific. People like Perry cause problems for people looking for credible information.
Can someone start a thread please. Perhaps you Eden if you are available. Discussing the best ways to check the credibility of we have read or heard. I would really like a thread like that.
Cofty, still working on the challenge nearly complete.
KateWild - Can someone start a thread please. Perhaps you Eden if you are available. Discussing the best ways to check the credibility of we have read or heard. I would really like a thread like that.
I'm not qualified enough to start such a thread, KateW. Someone else with better scientific background than me would do a much better job.
Eden
That's where this thread started. Kate was responding to my comments elsewhere that (a) I was frustrated at the way every conversation where a deity was introduced to explain some or all of the naturalistic processes we see around us ended with the believer obfuscated straight forward arguments with any number of logical fallacies and diversionary tactics (in that case accusing Cofty of bullying) and (b) how I thought Kate, as someone with a formal scientific background, should be a perfect person to demonstrate how the scientific method supports her conclusions that a deity is involved.
We now end up here. 28 pages into a thread where the lack of adherence to logic, reason and fairly basic science is yet another glowing example of cause of my original frustration. It's yet another case that proves the point.
I really hope that Kate's response to Cofty, after 28 pages, will be the well thought out and logical argument that gives a solid reason as to why l/h bias supports the influence of a creator and cannot be down to naturalistic causes. In other words - the post that should have been presented right as post 1 on this whole damn thread.
K99 your link didn't work so I have posted it too I hope mine works.
I am nearly finished. But I am sure it will still be an anti climax for you. But lets see. I know it's taken 14 pages (on my device) But I have actually enjoyed doing all the chemistry. I am having fun. I am off today so it will about another hour or two, but I need a lunch break too, and the odd post on other threads lol.
I am hoping it will be way above my secondary school level of chemistry and I will be unable to understand the detail Kate!
The link thing is odd. Neither of ours work. Let's try this - readers will just have to go to page 8 (or 4) depending on their post per page settings.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5727195389493248/seeking-support-where-can-christian-go
Don't know if this will be of any interest Kate but it's a work that references Soai's 1995 work and is publicly available. It's beyond me TBH but looks fun!
http://jsystchem.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/1759-2208-1-8
