I conclude evolution is guided (page 30)

konceptual99

I don't really remember you. Have we spoken before?

I don't think we have. I just enjoyed your comment to Perry and how much it brought back all those times you've shown no sufferance for that type of foolish nonsense in the past.

I've just got in from a long day Kate and trying to digest your comments. Maybe I need to sleep on them as right now all I seem to be getting is a message that you now accept that there is empirical evidence to support a purely naturalistic solution to the question of why there is this l/h bias in nature yet still attribute this bias to a supernatural entity. You are also not prepared to offer this l/h bias as evidence for the existence of a supernatural entity.

It seems to me that at some point you read or were otherwise persuaded that the l/h bias was evidence for God and simply cannot give up this desire to think there is a greater consciousness out there. To be fair you're not the first person to do so - the WTS even offered up another chemist on the boredcasting (mis-spelling deliberate) recently saying the same thing. Like others, you can't even maintain an open mind that makes no conclusion. You seem to have to maintain a belief yet you cannot explain, reason or justify this belief. It's so nebulous, so woolly and abstract that you are even prepared to suggest that it's an entity of your own definition.

Please correct me if I've misunderstood your position. If not, then it has to be the most bonkers position I have heard in a long time.

KateWild

Cofty, just noticed your post. I will read it properly tomorrow or Saturday, and answer your question.

KateWild

K99, I saw you're when you got home, Thanks, I will respond tomorrow.

Also I have been having a few problems posting my computer has gone funny. I will try a different device if this doesn't work

Viviane

Explain succinctly why a coin toss explanation is wrong.

Because no coin toss is influenced by previous tosses nor influences future tosses. In autocatalysis, the initial toss completely determines the outcome. There are no more tosses, it's all physics and chemistry happening according to well known rules.

KateWild

Okay I can see responding to Cofty's challenge was not the end of the thread. I am very busy living my life right now, so I will respond to.....

K99, Cofty, and Viv, In a couple of weeks. Kids in the UK have broken up from school for the summer and my friend needs my help packing and unpacking, he is moving next weekend. Plus I have a job and hobbies now, and go on the odd date too.

Feel free to add to their posts and I will respond to you too.

OzGirl

Hi Kate

My schedule will have changed by the time a couple of weeks comes around and I will be more busy.

Have read through the whole 30 pages of this thread. I'm hoping to have all main points from both sides of the argument so I can go away and look through them. If I've got all of the main points, then I know that I'm looking at a balanced debate.

I've given a lot of presentations so I know how to work from an outline. Cofty gave an outline on page 23. I was wondering if you would be able to take a few minutes of your time to post an outline of your main points, please.

Is the coin toss illustration the outline of your main points? Are there any more main points to come or do I already have the lot?

KateWild

OzGirl,

Thank you for your request. It was very pleasant and polite. I will make time on Wednesday to respond to your request.

Its early now here in the UK. But I saw your post and wanted you to know when I am free to reply properly.

Simon

Maybe instead of posting that you are going to respond ... you actually respond.

snare&racket

The only reason I commented on this thread, is the danger that a new member, a new lurker came and saw that post title and without the means to fact check it was misled.

Kate this is VERY dangerous.

I am 10years into medical training and I do not have the authority to make scientific conclusions, never mind a world changing conclusion that there is a deity driving evolution! You do not have anywhere near the education to state that. That aside, nobody does because there is NO evidence or reason to state it.

The danger of taking the lead Kate, is that some may follow. That's why scientists dedicate their life to maybe one theory they have, because if they misled science they would waste their life. You can't do half a chemistry course and then make the biggest conclusion in chemistry EVER made and post it on a religious forum as if you are an authority. It's not right.

We are pals Kate, this isn't personal. But let's be frank. You are out of your depth scientifically and you really don't have sufficient training, education or knowledge to discuss this or make these conclusions, decisions.

Let's be honest. You believe in God and you want to find a reason to believe. That's the truth and that's ok. But it puts your opening post and title thread in a very different perspective and let's be honest, you haven't found that reason to believe here in chemistry. Doesn't mean you won't. Had you, people would follow you to belief and also you would have just proven a deity with science.. Kate you'd be famous with a Nobel prize. So let's gently drift back down to reality, to facts and science.

You believe, you have faith, as assured expectation of things 'hoped' for. This can't be mixed with science unles you have hard facts. You can't fill in the inevitable gaps in human knowledge with....a Judeo-Christian deity, which what a coincidence.... Is your deity.

Kate, you left a high control group where a bunch of uneducated men made conclusions on the bible, on world history, on the very mind of a god they decided existed..... They have the blood and years of every human that followed them at their feet.

This is why people get angry at threads such as this. You still haven't realised the seriousness of your provocative title and the consequences of just one person ....just one visitor....assuming you had the authority to say what you said! You don't.

Maybe you should have started by admitting you do not have any significant qualifications in chemistry (you have admitted you didn't complete your course, of the 15+ people I know that did part of a degree, none claim any expertise or connection to that speciality..... Science is so detailed now....a degree is just an introduction to a science nowadays. I guarantee your Starbucks barista has a degree in chemistry! Mine did and my taxi driver had a degree in physics! He ran his own lab at one point!)

Then maybe made clear it was your religious belief alone.

If you believe in a god because of outdated chemistry questions long ago answered and proven, then can we assume that your belief in God is now gone? That evolution is not guided? We await your post.......

Until then, look again at what you have claimed when someone asked you..... Next time admit exactly what qualifications you have buddy X

"I conclude evolution is guided"

Your qualifications are way above mine so I'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.

I conclude evolution is guided

Share this