Posts by KateWild

113

Matthew Powner- Advanced research on the Origin of life. How credible is he?

by KateWild in

i have come to the conclusion that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of god.

however the scientific evidence available is compelling enough for me to believe that a creator is responsible for life on earth.. i have read much about powner and understand the work he is doing.

i am interested in your views as to his credibility.

KateWild

If someone creates life in a lab, then goes on to show how the processes he used to create life occur naturally with no intelligent influence, given an environment that one would likely have found on earth 3.5 billion years ago, would that be sufficient to you to disprove that a god created life? -OneEyedJoe

Good question, I would like to hope so. But the question is what is superior intelligence? In chemistry I see it in electrons, enantiomers and in the formation of RNA. Cofty seems to believe that Soai has proved reactions occur naturally with no intelligent influence, if you have read the links and agree with cofty then try me and see if it's sufficient for me.

Kate xx

113

Matthew Powner- Advanced research on the Origin of life. How credible is he?

by KateWild in

i have come to the conclusion that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of god.

however the scientific evidence available is compelling enough for me to believe that a creator is responsible for life on earth.. i have read much about powner and understand the work he is doing.

i am interested in your views as to his credibility.

KateWild

You have yet to demonstrate any connection between your premise and conclusion-Viv

Rubbish. You quote mined the post. I am having a conversation with cofty about Soai's paper, I feel your clouding the point, cofty can see why I conclude the way I do so drawing a conclusion is not the point. Your statement does not answer my question to cofty. If you want to join in then say something relevant about Soai's work. Or tell us why you came to your conclusions.

Its bucket chemistry as Saoi demonstrated.-cofty

Specifically how did he demonstrate this? The term "bucket chemistry" is not used in peer reviewed papers mister. But I will play. Kate xx

113

Matthew Powner- Advanced research on the Origin of life. How credible is he?

by KateWild in

i have come to the conclusion that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of god.

however the scientific evidence available is compelling enough for me to believe that a creator is responsible for life on earth.. i have read much about powner and understand the work he is doing.

i am interested in your views as to his credibility.

KateWild

As has ben shown, chemistry IS physics. As a chemist, it is suprising you didn't know that and initially denied it.-Viv

I feel this is another example of your intellectual intimidation. Your missing the point, I specialised in chemistry rather than biology or physics so I know more about chemistry than any of the other sciences. Chemistry is also divided into futher subjects such as

Organic chemistry

Physical chemistry

Inorganic chemistry

Chemometrics

You said you want me to leave you alone, if you wish me to leave you alone then you have the choice to ignore my posts, if you attack me I will defend myself. What exactly are your motives?

113

Matthew Powner- Advanced research on the Origin of life. How credible is he?

by KateWild in

i have come to the conclusion that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of god.

however the scientific evidence available is compelling enough for me to believe that a creator is responsible for life on earth.. i have read much about powner and understand the work he is doing.

i am interested in your views as to his credibility.

KateWild

You make a good point prologs. Kate xx

113

Matthew Powner- Advanced research on the Origin of life. How credible is he?

by KateWild in

i have come to the conclusion that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of god.

however the scientific evidence available is compelling enough for me to believe that a creator is responsible for life on earth.. i have read much about powner and understand the work he is doing.

i am interested in your views as to his credibility.

KateWild

And there will always be someone pointing to any lack of understanding and saying "that's where god resides."- OneEyedJoe

LOL hahaha the "God of the Gaps" debate. I am not filling in the gaps as such, if Powner dicovers how to create life, he will simply discover how God did it. I am not saying if we don't know it must be God. God separates light, we know how rainbows are made now, it doesn't mean God doesn't make them.

I see you point about demanding proof. I have no rigid requirements, as I have already stated I have come to the conclusion that science can niether prove or disprove God. Phizzy disagrees but gave no examples.

Come on phizzy bring it on, I am open minded I promise.

Kate xx

113

Matthew Powner- Advanced research on the Origin of life. How credible is he?

by KateWild in

i have come to the conclusion that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of god.

however the scientific evidence available is compelling enough for me to believe that a creator is responsible for life on earth.. i have read much about powner and understand the work he is doing.

i am interested in your views as to his credibility.

KateWild

OneEyedJoe,

I like your lightening point. Sadly I don't believe God punishes or rewards us, he is indifferent to our suffering, so the illustration is lost on me. However the water cycle is interesting and is more evidence that god is the Creator. When I look at the hydrogen bonding in water, clouds and rain, the desalination process I see how God makes water. The hydrogen bonding in water is unique and in no other non-aqueous molecule is hydrgen bonding found.

As you can see in the diagram even though the valencies of oxygen and hydrogen are zero because the are bonded to make a water molecule, there is still positive and negative attractions between molecules. It's amazing.

Kate xx

113

Matthew Powner- Advanced research on the Origin of life. How credible is he?

by KateWild in

i have come to the conclusion that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of god.

however the scientific evidence available is compelling enough for me to believe that a creator is responsible for life on earth.. i have read much about powner and understand the work he is doing.

i am interested in your views as to his credibility.

KateWild

The believer will still remain a believer whatever we say, see Kate above, simply because they hold on to their belief/s because of what got them attached to them in the first place, not evidence and reason, but emotion.-phizzy

Hhahahaha you are the baiter mister. I am open to discovery, I am not rigid in my beliefs. If science can prove me wrong then I am searching for that proof. In as far as Powner's research of the origin of life is concerned he does not prove there is no God.

But you have said phizzy, that science does prove there is no God. Show me some and I will change my belief, I don't want to be wrong any longer than I need to be.

Kate xx

113

Matthew Powner- Advanced research on the Origin of life. How credible is he?

by KateWild in

i have come to the conclusion that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of god.

however the scientific evidence available is compelling enough for me to believe that a creator is responsible for life on earth.. i have read much about powner and understand the work he is doing.

i am interested in your views as to his credibility.

KateWild

How does Powner's research prove or disprove God? Even if he finds the origin of life, he would only be telling believers how God did it? Not that God did not Create life. Kate xx

113

Matthew Powner- Advanced research on the Origin of life. How credible is he?

by KateWild in

i have come to the conclusion that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of god.

however the scientific evidence available is compelling enough for me to believe that a creator is responsible for life on earth.. i have read much about powner and understand the work he is doing.

i am interested in your views as to his credibility.

KateWild

This process provides a mechanism by which a small initial imbalance in chirality can become overwhelming.-cofty

I understand why you believe as you do cofty, but it's my perspective that we simply know how God did it. By understanding this chemistry it helps conclude to a greater degree the existence of a Creator. The point that he is indifferent to human suffering is something that I have come to terms with.

Kate xx

113

Matthew Powner- Advanced research on the Origin of life. How credible is he?

by KateWild in

i have come to the conclusion that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of god.

however the scientific evidence available is compelling enough for me to believe that a creator is responsible for life on earth.. i have read much about powner and understand the work he is doing.

i am interested in your views as to his credibility.

KateWild

The problem is in getting believers to define their god.-cofty

Whilst I agree that everyone defines Gods in a unique way, good point, I fail to see why it is a problem. If we are not harming anyone or pushing our beliefs on others why is defining the God we believe in really matter?

You are right in that particular Gods can be disproven. By reading the bible properly, and praying fervently, I came to the conclusion the God of the bible and the God that is the hearer and answerer of prayers does not exist.

By studying chemistry I have come to the conclusion a Creator does exist.

Kate xx