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.
If you won't engage in debate with people then how can you be 'proven wrong'? It's the perfect defence when you fear you are wrong. If you don't give anything away you can't be challenged. - Giles
I have engaged in debate, and have made my point clear. I don't mind if I am wrong. Wrong about what exactly? I have actually been very clear that I don't think I am right, I just have drawn my own conclusions. What do you challenge Giles?
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.
So you refuse to debate the details of your conclusions with other people because you have an aversion to being publically 'proven wrong'? - Giles
First of all, if anyone has proof that a creator does or doesn't exist I would love to see it. Secondly I haven't refused to debate at all. I have just pointed out an agenda. If K99 had identified as atheist and was trying to prove me wrong I would have still had a debate with him.
I publicly express my opinion and views regularly, and I have not been proven wrong.
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.
Ruby,
Thanks for your post. Glad you can see my perspective and it's clear for you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There is an agenda from both of you. You are both trying to prove I can't explain my position. But I have and neither of you will accept it.
I have been here for over three years and I know the difference between genuine interest and proving a point.
If you sincerely want to converse more about my conclusions then ring me. I will pm you both with my number.
I expect neither of you will as you're both out to try and prove me wrong not show a genuine interest.
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.
Notsure and K99,
You have both got an agenda. You are both biased with views of your own. You both don't believe in a creator. That's fine.
The problem with both of you is that you both think you are right and your agenda is to prove that on this thread.
I have explained my conclusion in the OP. I am satisfied that I have. Carry on telling me that I haven't if you like it's your perogative. But it's getting repetitve and neither of you seem to be able to accept this.
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.
K99,
I disagree with you. I have explained my conclusion. But if you feel I haven't that's your opinion.
I keep saying you're not interested because you're questions are the same and repetitive. You're not asking anything new. If you are interested in enatiomers then learn about them.
You're just going round in circles because you have got something to prove and I haven't.
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.
All I ask is what makes you "conclude" that evolution is guided...its ok if you don't want to respond...I was just interested in how you arrived at that conclusion...or arrived as to why it is more probable...no big deal...I can see we won't get answer from you on this so happy to leave it. - Notsure
I have explained my conclusions in my OP. You are clearly not interested at how I arrived at my conclusion. The evidence is that you linked on the thread bias science. Science does not prove or disprove God and neither dies my OP, but that's what your link is trying to do.
