Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Does GOD exist?
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Arndur, firstly you are refering to abiogenisis not evolution. Secondly evolution never states things came from nothing, neither does abiogenisis. They are both dependent on a complex envioronment and non-liniear interactions.
the examples you use, of life, what is life? when is something living? not living? these questions are still debated as well. is a virus alive? a slime mold? a seed? For conciousness, the same questions are being asked, is a dog concious? what about a monkey? what about a human with severe autism? or a 2 month old baby? a Turing machine?
by holding your closed definition of life and conciousness as knowns and absolutes, and not as ambiguous complex systems with shades of grey, you see a world with dicontinuities of black and white. that there is no paths between points, just isolated points. this allows for a belief in supernatural intervention to jump one state to another. Black can never be white inless a god makes it so, but put dark grey on a pale grey background and it will look black, put it on a darker grey background and it will look white. [squares A and B are the same shade of grey, thier evironment affects them]
you acuse evolution of being illogical only because your basic definintions of what you think evolution talks about are not what evolution talks about at all. Your interpretation starts with a faith in absolutes. You look around and think there 'must' be first causes. I look around and go, "damn there is a lot of complex stuff around interacting in a very, very complex way. it would be pridefull of me to say what 'must' have happened, when i can't even undertand what 'is' happening." By giving in to a belief in the supernatural i think people are being negligent, as through the exploration of the complexity of the world we can work out things and then we can help each other by developing technologies.
quoted to help Arndur
This link explains everything.
doodoodoodoodoo.ytmnd.com/
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Arndur, firstly you are refering to abiogenisis not evolution. Secondly evolution never states things came from nothing, neither does abiogenisis. They are both dependent on a complex envioronment and non-liniear interactions.
the examples you use, of life, what is life? when is something living? not living? these questions are still debated as well. is a virus alive? a slime mold? a seed? For conciousness, the same questions are being asked, is a dog concious? what about a monkey? what about a human with severe autism? or a 2 month old baby? a Turing machine?
by holding your closed definition of life and conciousness as knowns and absolutes, and not as ambiguous complex systems with shades of grey, you see a world with dicontinuities of black and white. that there is no paths between points, just isolated points. this allows for a belief in supernatural intervention to jump one state to another. Black can never be white inless a god makes it so, but put dark grey on a pale grey background and it will look black, put it on a darker grey background and it will look white. [squares A and B are the same shade of grey, thier evironment affects them]
you acuse evolution of being illogical only because your basic definintions of what you think evolution talks about are not what evolution talks about at all. Your interpretation starts with a faith in absolutes. You look around and think there 'must' be first causes. I look around and go, "damn there is a lot of complex stuff around interacting in a very, very complex way. it would be pridefull of me to say what 'must' have happened, when i can't even undertand what 'is' happening." By giving in to a belief in the supernatural i think people are being negligent, as through the exploration of the complexity of the world we can work out things and then we can help each other by developing technologies.
quoted to help Arndur
I dont need help to read post.
Giving in to a belief? Becuase i dont think that this universe which we live in that is so complex could have gotten here by chance? Evolutuon had to start somewhere either by ID(anything but a God) or by chance. Pretty sure that a theory needs to have a orgins espicaly with something like evolution. So do you think that a rock is alive? The dirt we walk on? No. Life seems to be pretty clear. It needs to carry out functions of life. Rocks dont do this Viruses do. A seed is alive it carrys out the basic functions of life. Life as defined by webster is this
c: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/life
A rock cant do all that, dirt cant. They are not alive. That is a pretty clear defention and works well. Its intersting the things that you asked are they alive all follow this model. It seems from the why you post that you would have already know that degention for life.
consciousness
1 a: the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself b: the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact c: awareness; especially : concern for some social or political cause
Again all the things you asked expect for turing machine fit. A plant is self aware they dont just sit there when things are happening though they are at a very low level of consciousness. A very advance computer AI would fit here but a ID gave it consciousness it did not just happen.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
Many people today have a mainstream view of where we came from, if there is or isnt a God. And people on both sides are equally as dumb. They have a narrow view of theory and rely on others to think for themselves. People today and throughout history, have an inability to think for themselves. If you cant look at ALL the evidence, and make your own conclusion based on logic and experience, your eyes are shut.
No matter how much you think you understand reality, the less you actually do. If a monk can set himself on fire and not move a muscle, you have to think. I'm not saying one religion or another is right, but they do use a basic medium they base their truth on. Even the deepest of sciences, quantum physics shows us that anything is possible.
To see with one's own eyes, to feel and judge without succumbing to the suggestive power of the fashion of the day, to be able to express what one has seen and felt in a trim sentence or even in a cunningly wrought word- is that not glorious? It is not a proper subject for congratulation? (Albert Einstein, 1934)
The most important part of reading is reading between the lines.
Arndur, firstly you are refering to abiogenisis not evolution. Secondly evolution never states things came from nothing, neither does abiogenisis. They are both dependent on a complex envioronment and non-liniear interactions.
the examples you use, of life, what is life? when is something living? not living? these questions are still debated as well. is a virus alive? a slime mold? a seed? For conciousness, the same questions are being asked, is a dog concious? what about a monkey? what about a human with severe autism? or a 2 month old baby? a Turing machine?
by holding your closed definition of life and conciousness as knowns and absolutes, and not as ambiguous complex systems with shades of grey, you see a world with dicontinuities of black and white. that there is no paths between points, just isolated points. this allows for a belief in supernatural intervention to jump one state to another. Black can never be white inless a god makes it so, but put dark grey on a pale grey background and it will look black, put it on a darker grey background and it will look white. [squares A and B are the same shade of grey, thier evironment affects them]
you acuse evolution of being illogical only because your basic definintions of what you think evolution talks about are not what evolution talks about at all. Your interpretation starts with a faith in absolutes. You look around and think there 'must' be first causes. I look around and go, "damn there is a lot of complex stuff around interacting in a very, very complex way. it would be pridefull of me to say what 'must' have happened, when i can't even undertand what 'is' happening." By giving in to a belief in the supernatural i think people are being negligent, as through the exploration of the complexity of the world we can work out things and then we can help each other by developing technologies.
quoted to help Arndur
I dont need help to read post.
Giving in to a belief? Becuase i dont think that this universe which we live in that is so complex could have gotten here by chance? Evolutuon had to start somewhere either by ID(anything but a God) or by chance. Pretty sure that a theory needs to have a orgins espicaly with something like evolution. So do you think that a rock is alive? The dirt we walk on? No. Life seems to be pretty clear. It needs to carry out functions of life. Rocks dont do this Viruses do. A seed is alive it carrys out the basic functions of life. Life as defined by webster is this
c: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/life
A rock cant do all that, dirt cant. They are not alive. That is a pretty clear defention and works well. Its intersting the things that you asked are they alive all follow this model. It seems from the why you post that you would have already know that degention for life.
consciousness
1 a: the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself b: the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact c: awareness; especially : concern for some social or political cause
Again all the things you asked expect for turing machine fit. A plant is self aware they dont just sit there when things are happening though they are at a very low level of consciousness. A very advance computer AI would fit here but a ID gave it consciousness it did not just happen.
A Creator from nothing? How can you get a Creator from nothing? How can something as complex as a Creator happen by chance? Unless the creator was created by another creator, who was created by another creator, and then another creator, and another and another and another... Pfft. I'll stick with not knowing instead of randomly hoping.
- LC
Evolution never says that there was nothing. It states that in observing the complexity itself we can see that change occurs in organisms over time and that the changes that are beneficial in reference to its environment are selected for. it never says there was nothing.
I will deal with consciousness first. so you do see shades of gray there. a plant is at a lower level than people for example. so what is the lowest level of consciousness, when do you change from gray to white? is a plant really conscious of its environment or is it simply responding to stimuli.
rocks/minerals also respond to stimuli. the process of crystallisation is a clear one. how a mineral crystalizes is dependant on the environmental conditions at the time. rapid cooling gives small crystals slow cooling gives large crystals. Adding a specific nucleating surface can change the polymorph of the crystal so formed. this is seen a lot in biological systems, take a sea shell for example. calcium carbonate is a very brittle material. It also has many polymorphs, a sea shell is quite robust, it doesn't powder easily. A sea shell is made up of multiple crystaline blocks of calcium carbonate laminated together with an organic substrate makeing the shell very strong and robust. Each of those little crystaline blocks of calcium carbonate assembes very precisely due to the way the mineral crystalises in the presence of the organic substrate. it responds to its environment.
the corollary is also true, you can order organic molecules against a regular crystalline surface. so if you take a random mixture of organic cjemicals and wash them against a rocks surface, you get ordered assembly of the highly affinative chemicals against that surface. not random, a simple potential well or sink. the energy of cost of binding to the surface is less than the energy cost of being surrounded by water.
then throw in micellular self assembly, molecular bilayer self assemblies and you start being able to have ordered arangements of chemicals inside bubbles.
these are simple experiments that you do yourself. it assembles without your desighn, it is simply a property of the matter itself, some soapy watter and a rock. now for a thought experiment, take the suface area of the earth, and let the experiment run for billions of years and see what diversity of chemical assemblies have formed. now is it possible that even one of those uncountable assemblies have the ability to template the formation of more of itself? to then produce more of itself? mayby with a few changes allong the way the environment it expands through varies?
consider that the backbone of DNA is actually a phosphate scaffold, phosphate is a mineral, or a rock.
rocks are a part of all of the life cycles that we know. no, they arn't alive, but without them there is no life.
living is not separable from the non-living as it is dependent on it. Also if you are willing to see that the living goes from being very complex to being less complex until you have things as small as plasmids and viruses which are self reproducing, but don't metabolize and are not alive (see below). to me there is clearly evidence of gradual change observable from the living to the nonliving, shades of gray. This is where your faith overcomes your reason as you say the following piece of rhetoric "So do you think that a rock is alive? The dirt we walk on? No. Life seems to be pretty clear." it is not clear at all, the evolutionists know this and it is part of the model. You just persist in faithfully holding up your straw man "evolution says stuff comes from nowhere" when it is clear that we can observe today that there is variations in the living down to the non-living, that there is continous progression of natural systems observable and that there is no visible discontinuity that requires divine intervention. (well there are a number of holes in the models but thats where the fun discoveries are and if you give in to faith you miss out on all the fun)
from wiki
Viruses
The majority of biologists consider viruses to be non-living because they lack a cellular structure and cannot metabolize by themselves, requiring a host cell to replicate and synthesise new products. A minority of scientists hold that because viruses do have genetic material they can be considered organisms.
Evolution never says that there was nothing. It states that in observing the complexity itself we can see that change occurs in organisms over time and that the changes that are beneficial in reference to its environment are selected for. it never says there was nothing.
I will deal with consciousness first. so you do see shades of gray there. a plant is at a lower level than people for example. so what is the lowest level of consciousness, when do you change from gray to white? is a plant really conscious of its environment or is it simply responding to stimuli.
rocks/minerals also respond to stimuli. the process of crystallisation is a clear one. how a mineral crystalizes is dependant on the environmental conditions at the time. rapid cooling gives small crystals slow cooling gives large crystals. Adding a specific nucleating surface can change the polymorph of the crystal so formed. this is seen a lot in biological systems, take a sea shell for example. calcium carbonate is a very brittle material. It also has many polymorphs, a sea shell is quite robust, it doesn't powder easily. A sea shell is made up of multiple crystaline blocks of calcium carbonate laminated together with an organic substrate makeing the shell very strong and robust. Each of those little crystaline blocks of calcium carbonate assembes very precisely due to the way the mineral crystalises in the presence of the organic substrate. it responds to its environment.
the corollary is also true, you can order organic molecules against a regular crystalline surface. so if you take a random mixture of organic cjemicals and wash them against a rocks surface, you get ordered assembly of the highly affinative chemicals against that surface. not random, a simple potential well or sink. the energy of cost of binding to the surface is less than the energy cost of being surrounded by water.
then throw in micellular self assembly, molecular bilayer self assemblies and you start being able to have ordered arangements of chemicals inside bubbles.
these are simple experiments that you do yourself. it assembles without your desighn, it is simply a property of the matter itself, some soapy watter and a rock. now for a thought experiment, take the suface area of the earth, and let the experiment run for billions of years and see what diversity of chemical assemblies have formed. now is it possible that even one of those uncountable assemblies have the ability to template the formation of more of itself? to then produce more of itself? mayby with a few changes allong the way the environment it expands through varies?
consider that the backbone of DNA is actually a phosphate scaffold, phosphate is a mineral, or a rock.
rocks are a part of all of the life cycles that we know. no, they arn't alive, but without them there is no life.
living is not separable from the non-living as it is dependent on it. Also if you are willing to see that the living goes from being very complex to being less complex until you have things as small as plasmids and viruses which are self reproducing, but don't metabolize and are not alive (see below). to me there is clearly evidence of gradual change observable from the living to the nonliving, shades of gray. This is where your faith overcomes your reason as you say the following piece of rhetoric "So do you think that a rock is alive? The dirt we walk on? No. Life seems to be pretty clear." it is not clear at all, the evolutionists know this and it is part of the model. You just persist in faithfully holding up your straw man "evolution says stuff comes from nowhere" when it is clear that we can observe today that there is variations in the living down to the non-living, that there is continous progression of natural systems observable and that there is no visible discontinuity that requires divine intervention. (well there are a number of holes in the models but thats where the fun discoveries are and if you give in to faith you miss out on all the fun)
from wiki
Viruses
The majority of biologists consider viruses to be non-living because they lack a cellular structure and cannot metabolize by themselves, requiring a host cell to replicate and synthesise new products. A minority of scientists hold that because viruses do have genetic material they can be considered organisms.
Is glad Nurgles is in school and NOT ME! as to viruses. Viruses in some cases have more genetic makeup than any other organism. I am the latter. I view a virus as a organism.
Is glad Nurgles is in school and NOT ME! as to viruses. Viruses in some cases have more genetic makeup than any other organism. I am the latter. I view a virus as a organism.
sorry what? the largest virus has the code for over one hundred proteins where the human genome can yield 2 orders of magnitude more.
more from wiki.
Virus Genome size
Genome size in terms of the weight of nucleotides varies between species. The smallest genomes code for only four proteins and weigh about 106 Daltons, the largest weigh about 108 Daltons and code for over one hundred proteins.[21]
The human genome contains an estimated 20,000–25,000 protein-coding genes
also the definition of living organism i was refering to is simply "an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism"
Let me rephrase my comment, instead of makeup I should have used the word diversity. My apologies.
Evolution never says that there was nothing. It states that in observing the complexity itself we can see that change occurs in organisms over time and that the changes that are beneficial in reference to its environment are selected for. it never says there was nothing.
I will deal with consciousness first. so you do see shades of gray there. a plant is at a lower level than people for example. so what is the lowest level of consciousness, when do you change from gray to white? is a plant really conscious of its environment or is it simply responding to stimuli.
rocks/minerals also respond to stimuli. the process of crystallisation is a clear one. how a mineral crystalizes is dependant on the environmental conditions at the time. rapid cooling gives small crystals slow cooling gives large crystals. Adding a specific nucleating surface can change the polymorph of the crystal so formed. this is seen a lot in biological systems, take a sea shell for example. calcium carbonate is a very brittle material. It also has many polymorphs, a sea shell is quite robust, it doesn't powder easily. A sea shell is made up of multiple crystaline blocks of calcium carbonate laminated together with an organic substrate makeing the shell very strong and robust. Each of those little crystaline blocks of calcium carbonate assembes very precisely due to the way the mineral crystalises in the presence of the organic substrate. it responds to its environment.
the corollary is also true, you can order organic molecules against a regular crystalline surface. so if you take a random mixture of organic cjemicals and wash them against a rocks surface, you get ordered assembly of the highly affinative chemicals against that surface. not random, a simple potential well or sink. the energy of cost of binding to the surface is less than the energy cost of being surrounded by water.
then throw in micellular self assembly, molecular bilayer self assemblies and you start being able to have ordered arangements of chemicals inside bubbles.
these are simple experiments that you do yourself. it assembles without your desighn, it is simply a property of the matter itself, some soapy watter and a rock. now for a thought experiment, take the suface area of the earth, and let the experiment run for billions of years and see what diversity of chemical assemblies have formed. now is it possible that even one of those uncountable assemblies have the ability to template the formation of more of itself? to then produce more of itself? mayby with a few changes allong the way the environment it expands through varies?
consider that the backbone of DNA is actually a phosphate scaffold, phosphate is a mineral, or a rock.
rocks are a part of all of the life cycles that we know. no, they arn't alive, but without them there is no life.
living is not separable from the non-living as it is dependent on it. Also if you are willing to see that the living goes from being very complex to being less complex until you have things as small as plasmids and viruses which are self reproducing, but don't metabolize and are not alive (see below). to me there is clearly evidence of gradual change observable from the living to the nonliving, shades of gray. This is where your faith overcomes your reason as you say the following piece of rhetoric "So do you think that a rock is alive? The dirt we walk on? No. Life seems to be pretty clear." it is not clear at all, the evolutionists know this and it is part of the model. You just persist in faithfully holding up your straw man "evolution says stuff comes from nowhere" when it is clear that we can observe today that there is variations in the living down to the non-living, that there is continous progression of natural systems observable and that there is no visible discontinuity that requires divine intervention. (well there are a number of holes in the models but thats where the fun discoveries are and if you give in to faith you miss out on all the fun)
from wiki
Viruses
The majority of biologists consider viruses to be non-living because they lack a cellular structure and cannot metabolize by themselves, requiring a host cell to replicate and synthesise new products. A minority of scientists hold that because viruses do have genetic material they can be considered organisms.
Ok so a rock carries out 1 of the 5 functions but not all 5. Also my something from nothing refers to the fact that matter or energy cant not be created nor destoryed. Which would mean that something such as a omniphent ID. Also just like you cant view the supernatural you cant view evolution. It has never been wittnessed and the Cambrian Explosion helps to go aginst evolution since they seem to come from no evolutanory history. Also if you discount Virsues and plasmids since they dont perform all 5 functions then you cant call them life.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
This argument will go on forever.