i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
Landy,
I understand the point you are making and the article cofty has posted is a scientific advance that is evidence for my theory.
But if the opposite existed I would change my view.
How about you Landy, could you apply that to yourself? Cofty is providing scientific research that shows the process of evolution at an amino acid level was probably a guided process.
Have you read it and do you accept it?
Kate xx
i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
Landy,
Scientific advancement calls it autocatysts in nature and catalysts in the lab.
This is all evidence of a guided process for me....perhaps not for everyone...but it is satisfactory.
Kate xx
i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
Today, chemists regularly make catalysts that will steer a reaction towards products in one particular left or right form. Known as asymmetric reactions
Cofty, codedlogic. This passage comes from the article and is totally supporting my point.
To steer a reaction is exactly the same as to guide. Don't even try to convince me otherwise.
Kate xx
i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
Codedlogic,
My post to cofty 5 mins ago answers you exact questions.
It's about needing to use catalysts that makes it guided.
Kate xx
i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
Landy,
Thanks for being honest. But scientific advancement is sure of the process. We are just free to conclude our own ideas from this advancement, about what is more probable.
Kate xx
i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
Cofty scientists most definitely do guide the process.....I pasted a quote from the paper a few posts ago.
To form a homochiral solution in the lab catalysts are required and extreme pressure and temperatures that are different to earth's natural temperatures and pressures are required.
I disagree, there is no way you are going to convince me that the scientists conducting all these experiments do not guide the process of homochirality. A racemic mixture is what results from no guidance by scientists.
Kate xx
i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
Codedlogic,
You're nearly there. But not quite.
Enantionmers form a racemic mixture in the lab, but form a homochiral solution in nature.
In the lab scientists have to catalyse the experiment to form the homochiral solution. They guide the process.
Hence I conclude it's more probable that the process in nature had to be guided too
Kate xx
i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
Cofty I respect that you have done all the research into independent studies, but I think they demonstrate the process was guided.
I understand why you draw the opposite conclusion to me, but I disagree.
Good for you for talking chirality with me though. I am impressed with your consideration of the facts and your understanding of chemistry.
I love you cofty
Kate xx
i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
Landy,
I don't ascribe things I don't understand to God at all.
If you read carefully all of Cofty's and my exchanges you will see I am ascribing my knowledge to the probability evolution must have been guided at the point of amino acids.
Why are you convinced the formation of amino acids was an unguided process?
Kate xx
i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
Codedlogic,
The study of homochirality in nature and racemic mixtures in the lab drew me to the conclusion it's more probable that a creator guided this process than it proceeding with no guidance.
But I have already said this in the thread on my first post Codedlogic.
Do you really want to know how I draw my conclusions?
Have you read the paper Cofty posted?
Kate xx
