by KateWild 532 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Just quickly before I have to go.
Kate please explain succinctly how your challenge is different in principle from the following...
Believer - Rainbows are amazing, therefore god
Rational person - Science has explained the physical laws that cause a rainbow. It is caused by the refraction of light. Different wavelengths of light diffract by different amounts.
Believer - Those laws are amazing, therefore god.
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.
RedPill: I think homochirality is a millstone around the neck of abiogenesis. I think the first proteins couldn't arise from a primordial soup with only racemic ingredients.
That the WT featured this argument in their last crapcast would be enough to send me running!
Kate,
When you say evolution is "guided" do you mean by natural and sexual selection? Or are you talking about something else?
KateWild-" I publicly express my opinion and views regularly, and I have not been proven wrong."
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.
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?
When you say evolution is "guided" do you mean by natural and sexual selection? Or are you talking about something else? - Coded logic
That's a good point. It could be natural selection or a creator using the method of natural selection. I would like to see if science produces some experimentation to answer this question with definitive results.
I have explained it to Kate at least three or four times but she just keeps singing lalalalalala..- cofty
You're explanation is flawed, you say things like it's not magic. But you haven't defined the difference between autocatalysis and catalysis as proof that it couldn't be guided process. I do understand why you think it happened by an unguided process and by chance, I just don't think it's probable because of the percentages of homochiral molecules in nature. It's the same probability as getting heads 99 times out of 100.
So therefore my conclusion is completely different from unfounded beliefs, my conclusion is based on scientific data.
Kate please explain succinctly how your challenge is different in principle from the following...
Believer - Rainbows are amazing, therefore god
Rational person - Science has explained the physical laws that cause a rainbow. It is caused by the refraction of light. Different wavelengths of light diffract by different amounts.
Believer - Those laws are amazing, therefore god.
I explained it above with the coin toss example. The way you suggest in your imaginary conversation that believer's are irrational is prejudicial. Some atheists are irrational too. People are not irrational just because of their religious beliefs some people are irrational because they are stubborn and conceited and feel the need to prove they are right all the time.
KateWild
I'm not claiming you're 'wrong'. I couldn't possibly know. I was just picking up on your refusal to engage K99 and notsurewheretogo because you feared they were trying to 'prove you wrong'.
To illustrate: I will take on your point and claim that I can 100% prove that a creator doesn't exist. Nothing. Zilch. There's naught there. But I'm not going to give you the details of why I believe that because I think you have an agenda and you are "out to prove me wrong".
Wouldn't that reaction be seen as a little transparent?
To illustrate: I will take on your point and claim that I can 100% prove that a creator doesn't exist. Nothing. Zilch. There's naught there. But I'm not going to give you the details of why I believe that because I think you have an agenda and you are "out to prove me wrong".
Wouldn't that reaction be seen as a little transparent? - Giles
Yes you're right. That's why I don't do that. I haven't done that in this thread. I clearly gave details about why we can draw different conclusions based on the same scientific evidence. I did not refuse to engage at all.
