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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbkgj5j91he.
this is as close as it gets to the other side....
Brandnew,
Looking good
Kate xx x
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.
SBF,
Good point that's something to think about
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 am not trying to convince you to change your ideas. But you have disagreed without supporting your point with any scientific evidence I am wrong.
I don't want to be wrong any longer than is necessary, but with the scientific evidence I have its more probable to me there is a creator.
Thank you for your participation though
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 point is a scientific point and to be more specific the evidence that chemistry supports.
They way you ask multiple questions in one go suggests to me you're not really interested in my perspective. But I will answer as much as I can as I am on my phone right now.
I assesd the probability of an intelligent being guiding evolution by my study of chemistry. Cofty understands my points clearly and made an effort to research the chemistry and scientific studies himself and has drawn his own conclusion. I respect this very much. I suggest you read my responses to him and the articles he posted to get answers to your questions if you really want to understand my point of view.
Lol God could be an alien I haven't ruled that out. But alien just refers to not belonging or unknown.
I hope you have all the answers you need from all my posts thus far.
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.
Lol Cofty belittling my theory with rainbows and Jesus comments.....if you have to resort to this it weakens your ideas.
We just have a difference of opinion and it's good for lurkers to see
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.
Now, using simple organic molecules, the Imperial researchers have demonstrated that an amino acid itself can amplify the concentration of one particular chiral form of reaction product. Importantly, the experiment works in similar conditions to those expected around pre-biotic life and displays all the signs to suggest it may be a model for how biological homochirality evolved
This statement actually reinforces my theory that it was not natural it was engineered by the scientists. It just shows there had to be certain conditions to achieve homochirality. It could have been 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.
Coded logic, I don't believe you are really interested in racemic mixtures verses homochiral mixtures and the formation of enantionmers in nature. But this type of chemistry is something you can't just Google. But if I am wrong we can start from the beginning xx
Cofty none of these articles convince me there is no creator. I am posting for the benefit of lurkers who are looking for answers, and for them to know we all leave with differing beliefs and ideas. I respect why you are atheist and I also respect others who believe in God.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbkgj5j91he.
this is as close as it gets to the other side....
I call spam on this.......it a 98 min long promotional video for a book.....but have only watched a few minutes.
Kate xx
