WhatshallIcallmyself

Joined

• started 1 topics
• posted 369 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by WhatshallIcallmyself

• 
  75

  I came here three years ago for support and to make friends

  by KateWild in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this site is such a great and valuable resource and simon is to be commended for running it for so long.

  when i first came i was in such a bad state and really needed support and friendship.

  so many posters commented on my threads and showed genuine care some are real life friends, some are facebook friends, some i talk to on the phone and some are forum friends.. i have just realised though that everyone online is not your friend.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "There are 160 + 71 reasons why I think you do use the like and dislike buttons"

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  
• 
  75

  I came here three years ago for support and to make friends

  by KateWild in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this site is such a great and valuable resource and simon is to be commended for running it for so long.

  when i first came i was in such a bad state and really needed support and friendship.

  so many posters commented on my threads and showed genuine care some are real life friends, some are facebook friends, some i talk to on the phone and some are forum friends.. i have just realised though that everyone online is not your friend.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "..So what if someone sees or believes different then why do you have to shove your beliefs down their throats." - rebelfighter

  Reality isn't the same as a belief though is it. When someone, like Kate, misrepresents someone's work in an effort to support a belief (just like the WT literature often does...), then responding and pointing out that error isn't shoving a belief down someone's throat.

  I'm used to seeing this level of victimhood and projection from new age feminists and other SJW's that seem to be popping up on the internet nowadays; it's a shame to see that it is permeating into this website now. The pigeon on a chess board analogy particularly set off my irony metre...

  Finally, forums such as these are open forums and you don't post topics without accepting that some responses will not be favourable. Perhaps this could be a good opportunity for character building for some.
  

  
  
  
• 
  532

  I conclude evolution is guided

  by KateWild in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.

  in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  " . .and you know what we call people who try and take short cuts and don’t want to do the necessary work?"

  Creationists?

  
  
• 
  532

  I conclude evolution is guided

  by KateWild in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.

  in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "This does not make sense chemically." - Kate

  What doesn't? What have stated that is wrong? I may have used simplistic language and analogies but that doesn't make me wrong!

  "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?"

  In the biosphere yes of course. Left and right handed molecules are not identical insofar that they do not make use of the same energy resources; they are as far as life is concerned, completely different. You cannot use one set or type of molecules in an environment with specific constraints and then use the results obtained from those observations to conclude anything about other molecules in other environments. In the context of your posts you are saying that scientists set up a system in the lab and looked at how specific chiral molecules behaved. From that you then state that this gives you reason to conclude that chirality that we see in the world indicates a guiding force controlling things in such a way that life uses the left hand variant.... Is that summary wrong?

  
  
  
• 
  532

  I conclude evolution is guided

  by KateWild in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.

  in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "evolution can be guided by memory so I don't agree with atheists who say evolution is unguided" - Ruby

  There is a difference between a natural process that seemingly "guides" something and a sentient being controlling everything around us (or even one or two small things). Generally, if a theist states that evolution is guided then they are referring to the latter. I would also question your use of the word memory. The term memory can be used to describe something that has no connection to the everyday meaning of the word. You may use it correctly but I am sure there are some readers who would misinterpret your point.

  
  
• 
  532

  I conclude evolution is guided

  by KateWild in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.

  in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "Instead of saying I believe in God of the gaps I apply Occam's Razor to explain that evolution is guided."

  So you are saying that guided evolution, that is a consciously guided evolutionary process, is a simpler explanation than non-guided evolutionary processes?

  How is that simpler? All you have done is add a multitude of unanswered questions without answering the initial question.

  Is this a serious thread or are you a Poe?
  
• 
  532

  I conclude evolution is guided

  by KateWild in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.

  in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  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.

  
  

  
  
• 
  31

  Brexit...

  by The Rebel in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the london stock exchange up, every share index up, the pound up against the dollar.

  where is the fire and brimstone?.

  the rebel..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "and immigration from EU countries is a benefit to the UK when viewed in the big picture..."
  

  What is this big picture?
  
• 
  80

  Islam is a religion of peace (2)

  by Coded Logic in

  1. social
  2. current

  in behalf of the horrific events of saturday night, i just wanted to take a moment to remind everyone that islam is a religion of peace.

  it doesn’t matter that the quran explicitly says that homosexuals should be stoned to death (7:84) - it’s still a religion of peace.

  and it doesn’t matter that the scriptures say that all gay men should be killed (sunan 1:152) - islam doesn’t in anyway condone violence.. it doesn’t matter that every mainstream imam calls homosexuality a sin "worse the adultery" - it’s not a religion of bigotry.. it doesn’t matter that 61% of muslims in the uk think gay acts should be made illegal - islam has nothing against the gay community.. it doesn’t matter that countries with sharia law actively persecute the lgbt community - islam is all about peace and love.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  When crimes, such as honour killings, go unreported to the secular authorities it is fairly obvious that official figures will not give an accurate representation of reality.
  
• 
  22

  String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

  by Tenacious in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  (cnsnews.com) -- dr. michio kaku [1], a theoretical physicist [2] at the city college of new york (cuny) and co-founder of string field theory [3], says theoretical particles known as “primitive semi-radius tachyons” are physical evidence that the universe was created by a higher intelligence.. after analyzing the behavior of these sub-atomic particles - which can move faster than the speed of light and have the ability to “unstick” space and matter – using technology created in 2005, kaku concluded [4] that the universe is a “matrix” governed by laws and principles that could only have been designed by an intelligent being.. “i have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence.

  believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore,” kaku said, according [5] to an article published in the geophilosophical association of anthropological and cultural studies.. “to me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”.

  “the final solution resolution could be that god is a mathematician,” kaku, author of the future of the mind: the scientific quest to understand, enhance, and empower the mind [6], said in a 2013 big think video [7]posted on youtube.. “the mind of god, we believe, is cosmic music, the music of strings resonating through 11-dimensional hyperspace.”.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "the existence of a grandly designed cosmos. a universe, life functioning as if on autopilot." - prologos

  Have you spoken to this designer? Of course you haven't. Therefore you have no basis to conclude this cosmos is designed. As others have often pointed out, not knowing something is not evidence of anything; other than not knowing something of course...