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
Why I'm not agnostic
by Coded Logic 84 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
slimboyfat
Correspondence theory of truth is one theory. If you want to make a case for it okay, but just assuming it won't do. Using a dictionary? Really? So a dictionary can be read as supporting correspondence theory, so what?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_theory_of_truth
-
Landy
Kate
The point I'm trying to make is that science is not stationary - there may come a time when new theories make more sense to you and you can accept them as valid.
If that happens will you accept it and what effect will that have on your deism?
-
KateWild
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
-
Landy
It's a guided process in a lab - who knows what the conditions were back then.
I tend to try to be evidence driven without trying to fill in the gaps to match any preconceptions I may or may not have.
I have an open mind and can admit that it's possible that it was guided at the beginning. I think that solution raises a lot more questions than it answers though.
With that in mind I tend to fall on the side of a spontaneous initiation of life. Ok, it might be improbable but so is winning the lottery, yet someone wins it every week.
-
MarkofCane
I think I'm somewhat frightened to admit for sure, 'there is no god'! Even though my post suggest that I don't believe.
I kind of agree with David Jay on this point, We have not moved past the view that we need to be right and that we need to have the truth once again. We EX-JWs, are the last people who should be declaring we have the right answers after coming out of a mind controlling Cult.Going on my third year now fully awake, I know this for sure that the watchtower is a false enterprise, there is no God chosen organization and there is no Armageddon coming. Trying to unravel all the mysteries of the universe is above my pay scale and doesn't really change my outcome in life. My allegiance to a deity doesn't affect the outcome of a dispute about universal sovereignty. We are insignificant ant's living in a ant farm, observed," don't know."
I do like reading the debates, they can be interesting. I just don't want to lead anyone in my direction in case I'm wrong again. Lesson learned.... Peace
MC
-
Coded Logic
SBF,
Truth is not a theory. It's a label we apply to claims that meet a specific criteria.
And words don't have intrinsic meanings. They have usages. A word means whatever two or more people agree it means. And the way I'm using the word is how just about every single English speaking person on this planet uses the word.
But no matter, if you mean something OTHER than "claims that match reality" then please explain what you mean by "truth" and why it's relevant to our discussion.
-
Coded Logic
KateWild,
I think the problem is you're only acknowledging the part of the paper that discusses how scientist in the past have achieved the process and you're ignoring the parts that show it can be part of a natural process. The paper specifically shows how an organic system - without the need of an outside catalyst - can form a homochiral solution. It can happen without outside interference. Thus, in specific circumstances, an "intelligence" is not required.
Just because something can be done by intelligent beings - doesn't mean all examples of that thing are therefore the product of intelligent beings. For example, sometimes intelligent beings sculpt rocks into things that look like elephants:
And sometimes blind forces of nature will sculpt rock formations into things that resemble elephants without any outside help.
No intelligence required.
-
KateWild
Codedlogic,
You are wrong about what the article shows. It does not state the organic molecule forming a homochiral solution without a catalyst. You misunderstood it as you are seeing only what you want to see to prove your own confirmation bias.
Now unless you're also a chemical analyst which I doubt, this paper shows clearly what I already know about the formation of amino acids in nature.
The article is clear about asymmetric reactions. All unguided attempts will always form a racemic mixture in the lab. That is a fact. It's science. It's chemistry. It's why the mistake of thalidomide happened and scientists have learned from their mistakes. This is one if the pharmaceuticals the article is referring to.
Your elephant pictures are great but you're changing the subject. I don't think you have read the article properly or understood all the chemistry in it.
Kate xx
-
slimboyfat
Truth is not a theory. It's a label we apply to claims that meet a specific criteria.
I don't think anyone says truth itself is a theory, but that there are different theories about what truth is and how to arrive at it.
And words don't have intrinsic meanings. They have usages. A word means whatever two or more people agree it means.
I agree with this. I would go further and say that since our world is constructed through language that the meaning of the world itself is an agreed upon construct.
And the way I'm using the word is how just about every single English speaking person on this planet uses the word.
Yeah but philosophy insists on a more precise use of language than eveyday speech. It's perfectly true to say that people use the word truth everyday and understand what they mean by it.
But no matter, if you mean something OTHER than "claims that match reality" then please explain what you mean by "truth" and why it's relevant to our discussion.
I find the pragmatic view of Rorty the most useful. Generally he would say we don't need to define truth because we know how to use the word and that is good enough, an eminently pragmatic position. But if we have to give a working definition of truth then it's something like: truth is what a community of people agree is true for a particular common purpose. Or as Wittgenstein said, we can tell if something works within a particular language game or not. Context is everything.
I've posted this video before but if you haven't seen it I think Rorty on truth and enquiry is just spot on.
