by KateWild 532 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
K99,
The problem with people who want to prove a point online is that they like to hide behind anonymity and don't care about the people their talking to.
When you first enquired I knew you weren't genuine, the place to discuss conclusions is somewhere that suits everyone. Cantleave and I talk on the phone about this we have different conclusions and remain friends.
Your problem is that you're not genuine about your interest. Perhaps you think you are but you're not.
KateWild. If you don't think opinions should be challenged then maybe a discussion forum just isn't for you, you're probably looking for a church where you can voice your viewpoint with the confidence that all those around you will nod and mutter "yeah, me too!!". It sounds like you just want some people to preach to.
No one can convince you of anything - people can express their own opinions, including their opinion of your beliefs or how you chose to interpret the evidence.
BTW: Please don't add signatures to all your posts.
KateWild -
I also cannot see how you have arrived at your conclusion based on your first post. All I can see is a statement about chirality in nature, then a statement about chirality in the lab, then an explanation what certain words mean and then finally you say you conclude that chirality has to be guided therefore God.
At best I would describe your OP as a good example of the non sequitur fallacy for these reasons:
Life is, in
essence, energy exchange. At the molecular level energy is exchanged
chemically and this energy always falls down the easiest path. Chemical
energy can be of differing values and molecules favour certain
chemical energy values. Molecules that are chiral do not like the
same chemical energy values or to put it another way chemical energy of certain
values will favour a specific handedness. That one version of a
chiral molecule is favoured over another is to be expected rather than
unexpected.
Unless the
lab is careful enough to maintain the correct variants of energy levels
available, like in a cell, then of course you would expect the results in a lab
to differ from in a cell...
Catalysts
catalyse, that is what they do. In other words, they make it easier for
energy exchange to happen. If one catalyst makes it easier for a certain
handedness to flourish again this is not unexpected based on the
previous sentence! Or to put it another way, you would need 2
different catalysts for CHIRAL molecules to flourish equally, 1 for each
hand...
Just because a catalyst favours the energy requirements of a specific handedness of chiral molecule does not then mean that it is guiding it to an objective. That is you putting a human face onto an unguided process; also known as anthropomorphism.
Therefore I can conclude, based on the above, that you have not arrived at your conclusion logically and those people who are also saying that are not being combative but are, like me, confused by your position.
kate I think I understand what you saying. For me you are talking about how nature obeys patterns which self organise and this is most apparent in chemistry and biology rather than in physics. i would not make the step to belief in God that you have made but nevertheless I understand why. The most intriguing and fascinating thing is that we intuitively know many of these self organising patterns and expect to find them and in putting a name to such order and disorder we God made it. for example the verse that says hidden in him are all the wisdom etc etc
I would not dismiss the ancients as stupid ignorant people
oops now i cannot edit my post above to rectify mistakes
in the last sentence read - we say God made it.
don't be put off by the naysayers
KateWild. If you don't think opinions should be challenged then maybe a discussion forum just isn't for you, you're probably looking for a church where you can voice your viewpoint with the confidence that all those around you will nod and mutter "yeah, me too!!" - Simon
Lol yes very funny. I don't think I would enjoy everyone agreeing with me. I do think that it's okay to challenge people's opinions, I like a challenge. If people don't think I have explained my position that's okay too.
KateWild-"It can also be proof that you're trying to prove me wrong, and I don't play those games."
KateWild-"I expect neither of you will as you're both out to try and prove me wrong not show a genuine interest."
So you refuse to debate the details of your conclusions with other people because you have an aversion to being publically 'proven wrong'?
Life is, in essence, energy exchange. At the molecular level energy is exchanged chemically and this energy always falls down the easiest path. Chemical energy can be of differing values and molecules favour certain chemical energy values. Molecules that are chiral do not like the same chemical energy values or to put it another way chemical energy of certain values will favour a specific handedness. That one version of a chiral molecule is favoured over another is to be expected rather than unexpected. - whatshallicallmyself
This does not make sense chemically. I am talking about homochirality in living things in nature and racemic solutions in non living chemicals and other objects. Do you mean that homochirality is expected over racemic mixtures?
I don't expect either. I see the evidence of both, if that's what you're referring to.
Ruby,
Thanks for your post. Glad you can see my perspective and it's clear for you.
I think homochirality is a millstone around the neck of abiogenesis. I think the first proteins couldn't arise from a primordial soup with only racemic ingredients. - RedPill
How much time have you spent investigating this so-called problem? Did you know it was solved years ago? Guess what? It turned out not to be magic!
I have explained it to Kate at least three or four times but she just keeps singing lalalalalala....
I'm busy right now but I will explain it later.
