I conclude evolution is guided (page 32)

Landy

Therefore this conversation is doomed to failure.

And we're finally there.

Praise the Lord

:)

Viviane

This is all the more reason why a coin toss is a good example.

It's a good example because it doesn't work in real like even remotely like your comment? Seriously, do you know what "example" means?

Cofty, I don't know why you can't understand what Kate is saying. Unless you registered for (but didn't complete) a chemistry course, how could you possibly understand? We're to believe that you can read words on your own? Here - let me break it down for you:

Me.

Things about me.

Me me me.

Here everyone, look at me.

And Jesus.

But mostly me.

And in conclusion, I'd just like to say God. And me. Sitting in a tree.

But that's enough about me ... what do you think of me?

Say nice things or else you are a hater.

MEEEEEEEE !!!

konceptual99

You have misunderstood my position because you haven’t told me why the coin toss simplification is a narrow minded, inexplicable reason to have the opinion that guided evolution is more probable than unguided evolution. Saying I am bonkers for believing in God is kind of prejudicial. Don’t you think it’s a bit hypocritical to call people narrow minded on this thread, if I have already apologised for calling cofty narrow minded?
Do you think all people that believe in God are bonkers? Do you know any believers that are not bonkers?
Personally I think Dawkins is bonkers.

Hi Kate,

I think you need to re-read my post. I make no comment on the coin toss as (a) I needed to digest it and (b) I was trying to distil things back down to the nub of your position. Having read your post several times along with the comments made by others all I can see is that coin toss example does not really correlate to what science (Soai's experiment and further research) demonstrates happens. If I understand the chemistry then the results of the autocatalysis is repeatable. It's not the same as randomly throwing a coin and it landing heads up in the patterns you illustrate.

Regardless, my point was that even after presenting the coin toss example you were not prepared to say "this is evidence that God is guiding this". You still maintain a position that the l/h nature of the molecules is simply "more probably" guided by God than the result of purely naturalistic processes. Not only that you then put the definition of "God" into some woolly cloud of it being "Sam's God".

Soai's research showed there is a naturalistic answer to the question of l/h bias. On that basis a reasonable position to take could be:

"This evidence shows there is no requirement for external influence by a third party (e.g. a deity) to produce the l/h bias."

This is very open minded. You could add:

"This evidence supports all the other evidence that has been gathered over the years that the natural world around us is the result of the interaction of matter and energy in harmony with the laws of physics, chemistry and biology known to humans."

This again is open in the sense it does not support or deny the existence of a deity, just accepts that there is no need for a deity to come along and make things happen.

If you want to believe in God then the above statements do not conflict with that.

What you do, however, is then add:

"Regardless of the research supporting purely naturalistic means to explain l/h bias and that this evidence is in harmony with the overwhelming majority of research out there I believe the l/h bias is, on balance, more probably guided by a deity."

Sadly this is not even your original position. From the OP your position was "I believe the l/h bias is, on balance, more probably guided by a deity" with zero explanation of where you came to that conclusion.

When pushed to explain why, we entered a spiral of obfuscation where you kept referring back to the OP.

When pushed by Cofty for you opinion on Soai's research you eventually seemed to accept it but even now you present an example in the coin toss that seems to me to be comparing apples and oranges.

You are not prepared to stand by your statements as presenting evidence for a deity. Rather you just attempt to deflect questioning by essentially saying "I can't explain what a deity is, at what level it operates, what it's purposes might be. It's just something in my head that I think must be there."

It's not about proving or disproving God. It's not about dis-respecting beliefs. Nowhere have I said anything about this and the existence of God. All it is about is the intellectual process one goes through to come to conclusions about life and our place in it. Right now, in spite of the science demonstrating a solution to the question, your only conclusion is "God dunnit" with no logical reason for that conclusion.

I am not saying your belief in a God is bonkers. I am saying that your position and conclusion is bonkers as there is zero logic to it. You could maintain an open mind on the reason for l/h bias without compromising your belief in a deity. This would maintain some credibility in your reasoning ability.

The only way I can try and understand why you maintain the position is that somewhere along the line you've been convinced that the l/h bias is an open and shut case for the involvement of a deity without considering evidence like Soai's research and now cannot accept that this subject is actually yet another solved puzzle (c.f. flagellum) even though there is a middle ground position that means you make no conclusion other than a simple acceptance of the science.

To that end it is narrow-minded and you are doing yourself an intellectual injustice.

KateWild

Simon,

Thanks for letting me post on your forum. I appreciate that in spite of the fact you feel I am an attention seeker you are very kind in allowing the privilege of free speech here, and being allowed to express my views. You're a kind and caring leader.

It's my pleasure to follow you Simon.

KateWild

Cofty,

Clearly you're chemistry is correct and mine is incorrect. I stand corrected by the authority of science on this forum. I am sorry about all the errors I have made you are right. I am now an Atheist, thank you for converting me.

K99,

You're right, I am being narrow minded. I clearly see why it's not okay for me to call cofty narrow minded, but it's okay to call me narrow. I was being rude and you were being helpful. Now that I am an Atheist I will be more open minded like you. Thank you for helping Cofty to convert me. The penny has dropped and my eyes are opened.

Viv, I know now what example means thank you.

How can I help to convert others to Atheism?

konceptual99

K99,
You're right, I am being narrow minded. Noe that I am an Atheist I will be more open minded like you. Thank you for helping Cofty to convert me. The penny has dropped and my eyes are opened.

Please don't let your sarcasm get in front of your assumptions Kate. I don't think I've ever said I am an atheist.

What I have said is that when I woke up and started reading the real science behind things like the theory of evolution I found that there is research and evidence that debunks the God of the Gaps pretty much every time.

On top of this the "logic" I used to buy into about the reason for suffering, the question of universal sovereignty, the timeline and reason for going from Genesis to Revelation etc. was all just bollocks.

Therefore my faith in the power and existence of God was completely wiped out. I see nothing in the world around us that demonstrates the influence of God. I don't think I've ever stated however that I am an atheist. That's your assumption.

The most frustrating thing is that time and time again there are arguments raised by firm believers that could be presented in a secular way with a clear beginning/middle/end that could leave the question open. What happens...

...every...

...single...

...fecking...

...time...

....is that it ends up as a "god dunnit" and/or the believer flounces off in a cloud of faux annoyance their views are not being respected.

This frustration is why this thread started and so far it's proved the point over and over again.

I don't care if you believe in God. I do care that when you, as someone with formal scientific training, present an argument that might leave an open question end up reverting to the stereotype when you could be so more compelling.

OrphanCrow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfwN0X8YnWo

OrphanCrow

Kate: How can I help to convert others to Atheism?

Don't say anything at all

Atheism does not require conversion

It requires rational thought

Simon

How can I help to convert others to Atheism?

I think you are already doing a stellar job. Every time a theist attempts to explain god and resorts to distorting facts and misleading statements to try and turn it into evidence for their belief, they make any rational reader realize that religious people are incapable of logical reasoning and are often thoroughly dishonest (at least with themselves but often also with others).

The atheist coalition for world domination thanks you for your contribution.

I conclude evolution is guided

Share this